Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Fact check: What are the 34 felony charges against Trump and what is the evidence?
Executive summary
A consolidated reading of the available analyses shows that prosecutors have lodged 34 felony counts in the Georgia indictment and related filings alleging efforts to overturn the 2020 election, and separate reporting ties 34 counts of falsifying business records to a New York hush-money prosecution—these are distinct case tracks with different elements and evidence. The evidence publicly described so far includes indictment language, unsealed filings and newly disclosed materials in the federal case, while defense filings assert political motivation and a not-guilty plea; contemporaneous timelines show evolving disclosures between September and October 2025 and reporting that characterizes outcomes differently [1] [2] [3].
1. Why “34 counts” appears in multiple narratives — different cases, different laws
The number 34 appears in more than one context: one set of 34 counts is tied to falsifying business records in a case connected to a 2016 payment, and another set is reflected in the Georgia indictment alleging violations of state statutes including the RICO act and solicitation of violation of oath by a public officer. The analyses show that the New York-related judgment narrative frames 34 counts as business-records falsification culminating in a guilty verdict, while the Georgia materials list 34 counts related to post-2020 efforts to alter the election outcome; the filings and reporting date to September–October 2025 for the Georgia matter and to the January 2026 reporting claiming conviction in a business-records case [4] [1].
2. What the indictments and filings actually allege — a snapshot from the documents
Public summaries indicate the Georgia indictment enumerates counts under Georgia’s RICO statute, solicitation of violation of oath, and false statements and writings, with detailed allegations that defendants engaged in coordinated activities to change election results; these are described in the indictment text and press summaries released in September 2025. Separately, materials summarizing the New York case identify 34 counts of falsifying business records tied to payments and bookkeeping entries allegedly intended to conceal a 2016 hush-money payment. The available analyses stress that the statutory elements differ substantially between the RICO/solicitation claims and business-records counts [1].
3. The evidence prosecutors have cited so far — filings and unsealed materials
Prosecutors have relied on indictment language, unsealed filings, and newly disclosed evidence in federal election-interference proceedings to outline alleged conspiratorial steps and communications. The unsealed federal filings published in late September 2025 provide affidavits, emails, or summaries that prosecutors say link planning and execution to attempts to overturn 2020 results. The New York case materials, as reported, rely on transactional and accounting records and witness testimony to connect payments to falsified business entries. The analyses show that specific evidentiary exhibits were newly unsealed in September 2025 and cited in prosecutors’ briefs [3].
4. How the defense responds — not-guilty pleas and claims of political motive
Defense teams have consistently entered not-guilty pleas and publicly argued that the prosecutions are politically motivated. In the Georgia matter, Trump’s lawyers pleaded not guilty to the listed counts and framed the indictment as partisan; similar defense positions appear in descriptions of other cases. The analyses note that these arguments are presented in court filings contemporaneous with the unsealing of evidence and that the defendants contest the significance and interpretation of the disclosed materials, asserting lawful political activity or disputing the sufficiency of the evidence [2] [4].
5. Discrepancies in reporting and outcomes — why headlines diverge
Contemporaneous reports and later summaries sometimes conflate or misattribute the 34-count figure across separate prosecutions, producing divergent headlines about guilty verdicts versus pending indictments. One analysis characterizes a January 2026 report claiming a guilty verdict on 34 counts for falsifying business records, while other analyses from September–October 2025 describe indictments and unsealed evidence without trial conclusions. These timing differences and case separations explain conflicting public impressions and underscore the need to track each docket and filing by date [4] [1].
6. What’s missing from public summaries — evidentiary gaps and context to watch
Public analyses emphasize indictment allegations and newly unsealed materials but provide limited detail on witness testimony, full exhibits, or judicial findings on admissibility, making it difficult to fully assess the strength of proof beyond charged allegations. Key omissions include granular descriptions of emails, call logs, accounting entries, or testimonial corroboration that prosecutors may use at trial, and the materials released so far—while detailed—have not yet produced a complete evidentiary record in court rulings. Observers should follow upcoming filings, motions in limine, and trial transcripts for the fuller evidentiary picture [3] [1].
7. Bottom line for readers — separate cases, overlapping headlines, follow the documents
The analyses collectively show multiple legal tracks using the 34-count figure in different statutory contexts; the evidence cited so far ranges from indictment language to unsealed filings and transactional records, with defense teams uniformly denying criminality. To understand which counts apply and what the concrete evidence is, readers must track each case’s charging documents, exhibit lists and court rulings over time—particularly filings from September–October 2025 and the January 2026 reporting that reference verdicts or outcomes [1] [3] [4].