Have any federal or state indictments against Trump referenced payments involving minors?

1. The one payment-focused indictment: hush money to Stormy Daniels

The Manhattan grand jury’s March 2023 indictment and the ensuing New York trial centered on alleged payments to adult-film actress Stormy Daniels that prosecutors say were concealed via falsified business records; that case produced 34 counts and a conviction in May 2024, according to summaries of the prosecution ^{[1] [2]}.

2. Federal indictments focus on documents and January 6, not payments

The major federal indictments described in the reporting relate to classified documents (the Southern District of Florida case) and alleged attempts to overturn the 2020 election (the District of Columbia case). Those federal charging instruments, as covered in the available sources, do not allege payments to minors or even payments as a central factual predicate; they concern handling of classified records and conspiracies around the election ^{[2] [3]}.

3. Reporting and reference guides uniformly cite the Daniels payment as an adult hush‑money matter

Multiple overviews and timelines — including encyclopedic and press guides — frame the payment-related New York prosecution specifically as hush money to Stormy Daniels and treat that as an adult sexual‑encounter allegation; none of the summaries in the provided sources recharacterize that payment as involving a minor ^{[4] [5]}.

4. Sources that catalog Trump’s indictments do not list any charges about payments to minors

Aggregates of Trump’s criminal cases (Ballotpedia, CREW, TIME, Britannica entries cited here) list the New York falsified‑records/hush‑money case, the documents case, and the election‑interference case; those inventories do not include any indictment alleging payments involving minors in the portions of those reports provided ^{[2] [6] [4] [5]}.

5. Where the record is silent or ambiguous in provided reporting

If someone has asserted that any indictment against Trump referenced payments involving minors, that specific claim is not reflected in the documents and news summaries supplied here; available sources do not mention payments to minors in the indictments they summarize ^{[1] [7]}.

6. On possible sources of confusion and alternative viewpoints

Two factors could explain confusion: (a) the Daniels matter involved alleged payments tied to a sexual encounter but she is identified in reporting as an adult, so readers who hear “sexual payment” without hearing Daniels’ age might misinterpret the allegation; (b) very large and complex case lists and political rhetoric can produce conflation between separate matters (hush money vs. documents vs. election conduct). The materials cited present the hush‑money allegation consistently as involving an adult and treat other indictments as non‑payment criminal matters ^{[1] [2] [4]}.

7. Limitations and what the provided reporting does not show

These conclusions are limited to the set of sources you supplied. The sources here do not contain any indictment language alleging payments to minors; if such an allegation exists elsewhere, it is not found in current reporting provided to me. Do not interpret silence in these sources as proof that the question has been searched exhaustively beyond them — available sources do not mention payments involving minors in the indictments summarized above ^{[2] [1]}.

8. Bottom line for readers

Based on the supplied reporting, the only indictment among the high‑profile Trump cases that involves alleged payments is the New York case tied to Stormy Daniels (an adult), and the federal indictments reported focus on documents and election conduct rather than payments to minors ^{[1] [2]}.