Fact check: What were the felony charges against Trump and what were the allegations?

1. How the New York 'Hush Money' Case Became 34 Felony Convictions — The Core Allegation That Moved a Jury

The New York prosecution charged Trump with 34 counts of falsifying business records in the first degree, alleging those records were altered to conceal a payment to adult film actor Stormy Daniels during the 2016 campaign. Coverage and court summaries report the payment at issue and say jurors found that records were falsified to hide the transaction, producing a unanimous conviction on all 34 counts ^[4]. The same reporting notes that those counts were framed not merely as bookkeeping errors but as part of a scheme to influence the election, tying ordinary business-record statutes to campaign-related conduct. This case is presented uniformly across sources as separate and distinct from the federal cases focused on classified documents and election interference, which matters for understanding legal strategy and jurisdictional boundaries ^{[1] [3]}.

2. The Federal Classified-Documents Allegations — Quantity, Criminal Theory, and Public Framing

Summaries of the federal classified-documents prosecution list 40 counts related to mishandling national security documents, combined with obstruction and other charges in some accounts, alleging that classified materials were improperly retained and that official processes were obstructed. The factual theme centers on alleged mishandling of sensitive government material and alleged efforts to impede federal inquiries. Reporting describes those counts as fundamentally different from falsified business-record charges because they implicate national security statutes and federal investigative authority, and thereby carry a distinct legal and public-policy weight ^{[2] [5]}. Sources emphasize that these federal counts are part of a larger mosaic of cases that prosecutors say implicates public safety and institutional norms rather than campaign finance mechanics ^[3].

3. Election Interference Cases — Federal Obstruction and State Racketeering Claims in Georgia

The election-related prosecutions are reported in two tracks: a federal case with counts alleging obstruction of an official proceeding tied to attempts to overturn the 2020 election, and a Georgia state indictment alleging racketeering and multiple state-law felonies connected to the scheme to overturn the 2020 result. Summaries enumerate these as four federal counts in some briefings and eight racketeering counts in Georgia, reflecting different statutory approaches. The federal indictment is framed around obstructive acts during a congressional proceeding, whereas the Georgia case uses a broader racketeering theory to allege a coordinated enterprise. Sources stress the legal divergence between federal obstruction statutes and Georgia’s racketeering law and note that the goal, as charged, was to disrupt or overturn the certified election result, a factual allegation central to both prosecutions ^{[2] [5]}.

4. Points of Agreement Across Sources — What All Summaries Repeat

All summaries converge on several points: ^[6] the New York conviction involves falsified business records tied to a Stormy Daniels payment; ^[7] federal charges include classified-document mishandling and obstruction-related counts; ^[8] Georgia’s case alleges a racketeering-related effort to overturn 2020. Multiple guides to the indictments and news summaries characterize the cases as distinct but overlapping in public attention and legal complexity. Sources also agree Trump pleaded not guilty in the non-New York cases at reported stages and that the New York verdict produced an unprecedented outcome in modern presidential politics, though they frame the consequences differently depending on legal context ^{[3] [9]}.

5. Divergent Emphases and Potential Agendas — How Coverage Frames Severity and Politics

Reporting differences reveal divergent emphases: some sources foreground the New York conviction as a discrete criminal finding about falsified records and campaign influence, while others situate all cases together as a sweeping legal jeopardy that includes national-security and democratic-process implications. This variation often maps to outlet framing and audience expectations: emphasizing the hush-money conviction spotlights business-record law and campaign finance implications, whereas stressing federal and Georgia counts highlights national security and electoral integrity. Readers should note these framing choices as reflecting editorial priorities; the underlying statutory allegations differ across cases, which can be used to amplify either procedural technicalities or systemic-threat narratives depending on the commentator ^{[1] [5] [3]}.

6. Legal Status and Practical Takeaways — What the Charges Mean Going Forward

The immediate legal fact is that the New York jury returned 34 guilty counts of falsifying business records, while other indictments remain active with varying counts alleging classified-document mishandling, obstruction, and racketeering. Analysts emphasize jurisdictional separation: state versus federal charges follow different procedural rules and penalties and can proceed independently. Coverage also notes practical political effects: convictions and indictments influence public debate and campaign dynamics, but their legal outcomes depend on appeals, pretrial rulings, and trial developments in distinct courts. The best synthesis of the sources is that each case rests on distinct factual allegations and statutory theories, so any broad characterization should specify which indictment or conviction is being described to avoid conflating separate legal claims ^{[3] [2]}.