Which states have brought criminal charges against Trump and what distinguishes each case?
Executive summary
Four jurisdictions brought criminal charges against Donald Trump in 2023–2025: New York (34 state counts of falsifying business records tied to hush‑money payments), Fulton County, Georgia (an initial 13‑count racketeering/election‑interference indictment), the U.S. Special Counsel in Washington, D.C. (federal charges tied to efforts to overturn the 2020 election), and the Southern District of Florida (federal Mar‑a‑Lago classified‑documents case) — together described as four separate criminal cases in multiple outlets [1] [2] [3]. The cases followed different statutory schemes, involved different alleged conduct, produced divergent outcomes (conviction and unconditional discharge in New York; dismissals, disqualifications and final Georgia drop), and raised competing claims about presidential immunity and prosecutorial conduct [4] [2] [5].
1. New York: Hush‑money, business records and the first conviction
New York’s case charged Trump with 34 counts of first‑degree falsifying business records tied to payments that prosecutors say were designed to conceal a payment to Stormy Daniels during the 2016 campaign; the trial ran April–May 2024 and led to conviction on all 34 counts, making him the first U.S. president convicted of a felony — though the judge later issued an unconditional discharge in January 2025, sparing him prison, fines or probation [4] [6] [7]. Reporting and court filings emphasize that the charges were state criminal counts under New York law focused on recordkeeping, not federal election statutes [4].
2. Georgia (Fulton County): Racketeering and election‑interference claims — then dismissal
Fulton County’s indictment originally alleged 13 counts and relied on Georgia’s sweeping anti‑racketeering statute to frame a broad conspiracy to overturn the 2020 result; the prosecution produced high‑profile moments — including a mug shot — and multiple guilty pleas from co‑defendants [5] [8]. The case was marked by prosecutorial controversy: Fulton DA Fani Willis was disqualified and litigation over her conduct and staffing dogged the proceedings; Judge Scott McAfee ultimately dismissed the indictment in November 2025 when a successor prosecutor moved to drop the charges [5] [8]. That sequence highlights how local prosecutorial conduct and conflicts can be dispositive even in politically charged matters [5].
3. Washington, D.C. (Special Counsel Jack Smith): Federal election‑subversion charges and immunity questions
One of the federal cases, brought by Special Counsel Jack Smith in the District of Columbia, charged Trump with conspiring to defraud the United States, corruptly obstructing an official proceeding, and related counts tied to efforts to overturn the 2020 election; this federal prosecution intersected with a Supreme Court immunity ruling that became central to filings and appeals [2] [7]. After the 2024 election and Trump’s return to office, federal appeals and Department of Justice personnel changes affected the posture of federal cases: some federal matters were dismissed by the Justice Department after January 2025, and the Supreme Court’s rules on presidential immunity shaped defense strategy and lower‑court rulings [2] [7].
4. Southern District of Florida: Classified‑documents prosecution at Mar‑a‑Lago
The Southern District of Florida indictment, unsealed in mid‑2023, accused Trump and co‑defendants of mishandling classified documents at his Mar‑a‑Lago estate and obstructing federal efforts to recover them; a superseding indictment added defendants and expanded allegations [2]. That federal case became enmeshed with broader questions about special‑counsel appointment, appeals, and the reach of DOJ authority; after Trump’s 2024 victory, courts addressed procedural issues including the special counsel’s appointment and funding, producing dismissals and related appeals before changes at the Justice Department [2].
5. How the cases differ in law, remedy and political effect
These prosecutions differed in legal predicates (state falsifying‑records statutes, Georgia racketeering law, federal statutes on election obstruction and classified‑information offenses), in remedies (New York conviction followed by unconditional discharge; Georgia dropped after prosecutorial disqualification; federal cases subject to dismissal or pause after election and DOJ shifts), and in institutional actors (state AG/prosecutor in New York and Georgia versus Special Counsel and U.S. attorneys federally) — differences that determined both litigation strategy and political consequences [4] [5] [2].
6. Competing narratives, procedural battles and limits of reporting
Sources show competing narratives: prosecutors framed the cases as rule‑of‑law accountability; defense teams invoked presidential immunity and prosecutorial misconduct claims; courts produced mixed outcomes reflecting those tensions [2] [9] [5]. Available sources do not mention some details often discussed publicly — for example, any new criminal filings after November 26, 2025 — and reporting underscores that procedures (disqualifications, appeals, DOJ policy on prosecuting a sitting president) were as determinative as the facts alleged [5] [2].
Limitations: this summary draws only on the supplied reporting and aggregated timelines; for particular counts, charging documents and appellate briefs, readers should consult original court dockets and the cited reporting for full legal text and chronology [4] [2].