Which accusations against Trump during his presidency were proven in court or by official investigations?
Executive summary
Several high‑profile accusations against Donald Trump tied to his presidency produced mixed legal outcomes: a New York jury convicted him in the 2024 "hush‑money" case on 34 counts of falsifying business records (trial April–May 2024) and that conviction later faced appellate review over presidential‑immunity issues [1] [2]. The special counsel’s election‑interference investigation concluded in a report saying evidence was sufficient to convict, but prosecutors dropped federal election obstruction indictments after Trump’s 2024 reelection and state-level efforts in Georgia were dismissed in November 2025 [3] [4] [5].
1. Hush‑money conviction: what was proved in court
A Manhattan jury found Trump guilty on 34 felony counts of first‑degree falsifying business records stemming from payments tied to alleged hush‑money to an adult‑film actor; the trial ran from April 15, 2024, to a guilty verdict on May 30, 2024 [1]. That criminal verdict is the clearest court determination of criminal culpability in the period under review—though subsequent procedural and appellate steps have complicated its immediate effects: the conviction later became the subject of an appeals court review that flagged immunity and venue issues [2]. Available sources do not mention the final outcome of that appeals process beyond the orders to review and reconsider [2].
2. Special counsel report on 2020 election efforts: investigators said evidence could convict
Jack Smith’s special‑counsel inquiry into attempts to overturn the 2020 election produced a January 2025 report asserting that "the admissible evidence was sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction at trial" and that, but for Trump’s reelection, a prosecution would have proceeded [3] [6]. That is an official investigative finding about the strength of evidence, not a criminal conviction; Smith nonetheless dropped federal charges when DOJ policy and Trump’s status as a sitting president precluded bringing a prosecution at that time [3] [6].
3. Georgia racketeering case: indictments, guilty pleas, then dismissal
A Fulton County grand jury indicted Trump and 18 others in August 2023 under Georgia’s racketeering statute for a scheme to overturn the state’s 2020 result; several co‑defendants later pleaded guilty [7]. But the case collapsed after prosecutorial disqualification issues and the practical barriers to trying a sitting president: in November 2025 the newly appointed Georgia prosecutor dropped all charges and the superior court judge dismissed the entire indictment [4] [7] [8]. That means the Georgia indictment produced guilty pleas by some co‑defendants but did not produce a conviction against Trump [7] [4].
4. Federal election obstruction indictment: evidence judged sufficient but charges shelved
Smith’s federal indictment in Washington, D.C., charged Trump with conspiracy to defraud the United States and obstruction related to January 6, 2021; courts and his own report concluded evidence would likely have sustained convictions [3]. Prosecutors formally moved to dismiss the federal case after Trump won re‑election, citing DOJ policy that generally declines to prosecute a sitting president; Judge Chutkan approved that dismissal and Smith released the report assessing sufficiency of evidence [3] [6]. Thus the federal process produced an investigative determination but no trial verdict [3].
5. What counts as “proven” — convictions versus investigative findings
Courts proved guilt by verdict only in the New York falsified‑records (hush‑money) case as reported [1]. Official investigators (the special counsel) concluded evidence was strong enough to convict on election‑interference charges, but that remained a prosecutorial finding, not a criminal conviction, because cases were dropped or dismissed for procedural and policy reasons [3] [6]. In Georgia, some co‑defendants pleaded guilty, but the indictment against Trump was dismissed and did not culminate in a conviction [7] [4].
6. Competing perspectives and limits of the public record
Prosecutors and investigators (Jack Smith; Fulton County grand jury) asserted strong evidence in multiple venues; defense teams and some courts emphasized immunity doctrines and procedural barriers that prevented trials while Trump was president [3] [5]. Sources note that Supreme Court rulings and DOJ policy materially affected whether charges could be tried, shifting outcomes away from factual disputes and toward legal doctrines and timing [5] [3]. Available sources do not mention other specific accusations beyond those covered above; any claim outside these reports is not found in current reporting.
7. Bottom line for the reader
A jury conviction exists for falsifying business records in the New York hush‑money case [1]; special‑counsel and grand‑jury investigations concluded there was sufficient evidence to charge or convict on election‑related schemes, but those cases were not resolved by guilty verdicts against Trump because prosecutors dropped charges or courts dismissed indictments amid immunity rulings and procedural obstacles [3] [4] [6]. Readers should distinguish between courtroom verdicts (a legal finding of guilt), prosecutor reports (an assessment of evidence), and dismissed or dropped cases (no conviction)—each appears in the sources cited above [1] [3] [4].