Fact check: What are the allegations against Donald Trump in the New York case?

1. A historic criminal charge rooted in alleged hush-money and false records — what's alleged and when it emerged

Manhattan prosecutors brought at least one felony charge against Donald Trump tied to hush-money payments and allegedly falsified business records, culminating in a formal arrest and arraignment schedule reported September 10, 2025. The reporting states this is the first time a former U.S. president has faced such criminal charges, framing the matter as both legally consequential and historically unprecedented. Coverage emphasized the procedural milestones — indictment, arrest, arraignment — without concluding guilt, and noted the factual core: prosecutors allege payments and record alterations connected to efforts to influence public perception ^{[1] [4]}.

2. The civil angle: fraud claims over inflated net worth and contested valuations

Separately, New York Attorney General Letitia James pursued a civil fraud suit accusing Trump of lying about his wealth by overstating asset values on financial statements used to obtain loans and favorable terms. The trial referenced in reporting beginning September 11, 2025 centers on whether valuations were materially false and whether corporate entities benefited. Judge Arthur Engoron had previously issued rulings supporting the AG’s view of fraud; the trial continued to explore accountant testimony and documentary evidence regarding valuations and intent, with the AG seeking penalties and corporate remedies ^{[3] [5]}.

3. Overlap and divergence: criminal falsifying records vs. civil fraud — how the cases relate

The criminal indictment focuses on falsifying records in connection with hush-money payments, while the civil suit alleges broader fraudulent valuations across multiple years. Reporting stresses they are legally distinct: criminal prosecutors pursue potential felonies tied to specific payments and record-keeping, whereas the AG’s civil case seeks monetary remedies and corporate accountability for alleged long-running misstatements. The two tracks can share overlapping factual claims — e.g., documents and valuations — but differ in legal standards, burdens of proof, and potential remedies ^{[1] [3] [2]}.

4. Corporate exposure: the Trump organization placed under criminal scrutiny as well

Manhattan prosecutors informed Trump’s company it could face criminal charges stemming from the broader investigation into business practices, signaling that liability may extend beyond the individual to corporate entities. Coverage on September 10, 2025 notes prosecutors assessing whether business records and corporate conduct meet criminal thresholds, which could produce indictments against the organization or executives. This development broadens the legal stakes from personal exposure to potential institutional consequences, and legal strategy for both defense and prosecution must account for corporate governance and record-keeping practices ^{[6] [1]}.

5. Competing narratives: denials, political framing, and attacks on prosecutors

Trump and allies characterized both criminal and civil actions as politically motivated, with public statements calling the civil trial a “scam” and GOP lawmakers attacking prosecutors; conversely, prosecutors and the AG framed their actions as enforcement of law irrespective of politics. Reporting from September 10–11, 2025 documents both the denials and the official prosecutorial posture, underscoring dueling narratives that can shape public perception and legal strategy. The media cited both claims, but the factual record in court — indictments, filings, rulings — remains the primary evidentiary source ^{[3] [2] [4]}.

6. Evidence spotlighted by reporters: accounts, documents, and judicial findings expected to matter

Coverage points to key evidentiary threads: accounting records and testimony from an accountant who prepared financial statements, corporate documents tied to payments, and judges’ prior rulings that shape trial boundaries. The civil trial anticipated testimony explaining valuation methods, while the criminal case relies on documentary evidence and potential witness accounts about payments and record alterations. These evidentiary elements are central to whether prosecutors meet the respective burdens of proof — beyond a reasonable doubt for criminal counts, and preponderance of evidence for civil fraud — and reporters emphasized documents and testimony as decisive ^{[5] [1]}.

7. What’s agreed, what’s disputed, and where reporting diverges

Across sources dated September 10–11, 2025, there is consensus that multiple legal actions are active in New York and that the allegations include hush-money-related falsified records and alleged fraudulent overstatement of net worth. Disputes center on characterization: some reporting highlighted historic criminality and procedural milestones, while other pieces foregrounded the civil fraud trial and judicial back-and-forth. Political framing by Trump and Republican critics contrasts with prosecutors’ enforcement narrative; all outlets referenced rulings, filings, and scheduled court appearances as factual anchors ^{[1] [2] [3]}.

8. Bottom line for readers tracking the New York matters

The New York allegations fall into two primary buckets: a criminal indictment involving alleged hush-money payments and falsified business records, and a civil fraud case alleging lengthy misstatements of net worth used to obtain business benefits. Both tracks intensified in reporting on September 10–11, 2025, involve documentary and testimonial evidence, and carry distinct legal standards and consequences. Observers should track court filings, judge rulings, and specific evidentiary disclosures to assess how allegations translate into legal outcomes amid pronounced political narratives ^{[1] [2] [3]}.