Have any U.S. courts or prosecutors seized or frozen assets belonging to Donald Trump or his companies as of December 2025?

1. Civil judgments created the legal path for seizure, and New York filed enforcement actions

After Judge Arthur Engoron’s trial-level rulings in the New York business-fraud case, courts and the attorney general’s office entered judgments and filed paperwork in counties where Trump-owned properties sit, language that explicitly set in motion authority to seize or place liens on assets if required to satisfy the judgment ^[1]. New York Attorney General Letitia James publicly and procedurally signaled readiness to move to seize assets if appellate collateral requirements were not met, and her office registered judgments in Westchester County and New York City as part of enforcement preparations ^[1].

2. Appellate stays and bond requirements repeatedly blocked immediate seizure

Those enforcement efforts were checked by appellate intervention: in March 2024 the Appellate Division, First Department lowered the bond Trump was required to post and issued a stay that limited immediate enforcement of certain bans and seizures, giving Trump a narrow window to secure a bond rather than face immediate asset grabs ^[2]. The appeals court reduced a required bond from a much larger sum to $175 million on a stay condition, and reports at the time described the stay as halting the attorney general’s imminent seizure efforts ^[2].

3. Collateral postings and filings altered the practical risk of seizure

Facing the judgments, Trump and his team posted bond and other collateral at milestones during the appeals process, moves designed to forestall the seizure mechanism and preserve assets while litigation continued ^{[3] [1]}. News reporting documented both the attorney general’s calculation that collateral equal to more than 120% of the judgment would be required in some filings and Trump’s subsequent posting of bonds to meet appellate conditions, actions that materially reduced the immediate prospect of enforced asset takings ^{[1] [3]}.

4. The appeals outcome in August 2025 changed enforcement prospects

The trajectory shifted again when an appeals court in August 2025 affirmed liability but voided the penalty that had been imposed at trial, a decision that undercuts the prior monetary judgment that had motivated enforcement and potential seizures ^[3]. That appellate ruling — reported in the available sources — materially affects whether prosecutors or civil plaintiffs had a viable, enforceable money judgment to satisfy through asset seizures, and therefore it is central to whether any assets could lawfully have been seized or frozen thereafter ^[3].

5. What the available reporting does and does not show as of December 2025

The sources provided document judgments being entered, liens and enforcement filings placed by New York, stays by appellate courts that delayed enforcement, and bond postings by Trump’s side; they also report a significant August 2025 appellate decision voiding the penalty ^{[1] [2] [3]}. None of the supplied documents, however, show a completed, executed seizure or criminal-forfeiture-style freezing of Trump’s personal or corporate assets by a U.S. court or prosecutor that was carried out and finalized as of December 2025. Because reporting in these sources focuses on filings, stays, bonds and an appellate reversal of the penalty, the factual record here supports the conclusion that, while seizure was repeatedly threatened and prepared for, the provided reporting does not confirm that any final, enforced seizures or freezes had been completed by that date ^{[1] [2] [3]}.