What specific felony counts were included in the 34-count New York hush-money indictment against Donald Trump?

1. What the 34 counts specifically were — one charge, repeated

Journalistic reporting and summaries state that the indictment charged Trump with 34 felony counts of falsifying business records in the first degree; each count corresponded to an allegedly falsified business document or entry that prosecutors say concealed the $130,000 payment to adult film actor Stormy Daniels and related transactional entries and reimbursements ^{[1] [2]}. In short, the 34 counts are not 34 different types of crimes: they are 34 alleged instances of the same statutory offense — falsifying business records — each tied to a particular document or date ^[1].

2. Legal theory prosecutors used to make felonies out of business-records entries

Prosecutors in Manhattan argued those falsified business records were done with intent to commit other crimes — a necessary element under New York’s first‑degree falsifying-business-records statute — meaning the records were allegedly altered to conceal unlawful conduct relating to the hush‑money payment and its reimbursement (reporting summarizes the statutory framing) ^{[1] [3]}. Several outlets describe the core allegation: that Trump directed Michael Cohen to pay $130,000 to keep Daniels quiet in the run‑up to the 2016 election and then concealed that payment in business records ^{[4] [3]}.

3. How the counts were tied to dates and documents

Public summaries note that each count was linked to a specific business document with dates stretching from February through December 2017 (the indictment enumerated discrete entries and dates), meaning prosecutors identified particular checks, invoices, or internal entries as the subject of each count ^[1]. Reporting emphasizes the indictment mapped the felony counts to individual records rather than to a single undifferentiated concealment ^{[1] [2]}.

4. Consensus among major outlets — consistent labeling of the counts

Mainstream outlets — Reuters, The New York Times, BBC, Politico, CNN and others — uniformly describe the 34 convictions as counts for falsifying business records connected to the same hush‑money episode ^{[5] [2] [6] [7] [8]}. Summaries across these pieces use identical language: 34 counts of falsifying or falsifying business records to conceal the hush‑money payment ^{[5] [2] [6]}.

5. What these sources do not provide (limits of available reporting)

Available sources do not publish the full text of each of the individual 34-count entries in this set of search results; they summarize that each count corresponded to a document and list the date range but do not reproduce every document label or numbering verbatim in the excerpts provided here ^{[1] [2]}. If you need the exact line‑by‑line wording from the indictment (e.g., the precise document descriptions tied to counts 1–34), that detailed text is not in the current reporting excerpts ^[1].

6. Competing legal perspectives reported

Trump’s defense has argued the case should be dismissed or moved to federal court on presidential‑immunity and evidentiary grounds, contending certain evidence or theory was preempted by federal law and affected by immunity rulings — a position reflected in his appeals and filings ^{[9] [10]}. Conversely, prosecutors and trial judges have framed the conduct as private, unofficial acts outside the scope of presidential duties and tied to falsified business entries, a view repeatedly upheld in trial rulings and described in reporting ^{[2] [7]}. The Justice Department later urged tossing the conviction on separation‑of‑powers grounds in a related filing, arguing federal law barred jurors from considering whether Trump violated federal election law by concealing the payment — demonstrating another federal‑state legal friction point in the aftermath ^[3].

7. Why the distinction matters going forward

That the 34 counts are 34 instances of a single felony offense matters for appeals and remedies: appellate challenges can attack the underlying legal theory (whether entries were official acts, whether evidence was admissible, or whether federal immunity preempts state prosecution) without changing the simple factual labeling that the convictions are for falsifying business records ^{[9] [11]}. Appeals and transfer requests to federal court focus on whether evidentiary or immunity issues require the case to be reexamined, not on reclassifying the statutory charge itself ^{[11] [10]}.

If you want the exact language for each numbered count as filed in the indictment (the verbatim text describing counts 1–34 and the specific document descriptions and dates), those verbatim count entries are not printed in the provided excerpts; I can look for the full indictment text in additional sources if you’d like.