What are the specific felony charges against Donald Trump in New York as of 2025?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive Summary
The available analyses state that Donald Trump was charged in New York for directing a $130,000 payment to Stormy Daniels and that he was found guilty on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records tied to efforts to conceal that payment [1] [2]. One source is dated October 4, 2025 and the other January 1, 2026; both describe the same statutory theory — falsified corporate or business records to hide a campaign-related payment — while the later piece frames the verdict as historically unprecedented [1] [2]. The record below compares claims, timing, and framing across the two analyses and notes limitations of the available material.
1. How the two brief reports describe the criminal theory and charge — what they agree on and why it matters
Both analyses identify the same criminal theory: that payments tied to Stormy Daniels were disguised in business records and that those records were falsified to conceal the transaction. Each labels those falsifications as felony counts, and both state the number involved is 34 counts, tying them directly to efforts to hide a payment of $130,000 [1] [2]. That alignment matters because falsifying business records is the statutory vehicle prosecutors typically use to address financial concealment; the repetition of the same count total across independent analyses strengthens the internal consistency of the available record even while additional corroboration would be desirable [1] [2].
2. Dates and sequencing: a flag about timing and narrative framing
The two summaries carry different publication dates and thus different narrative weight: one is dated October 4, 2025 and states the indictment and later conviction tied to the hush-money payment, while the other is dated January 1, 2026 and emphasizes the conviction as a historic first for a U.S. president [1] [2]. The temporal gap matters because the later piece frames the legal outcome as a milestone; readers should note that the January 2026 framing presumes events that post‑date the October 16, 2025 cutoff for established facts in some contexts. The discrepancy in dates underscores the need to verify the exact timeline with primary court records or contemporaneous reporting.
3. The precise statutory label reported — what “falsifying business records” covers
Both items use the label “falsifying business records” rather than broader or different criminal counts, and both assign the label as felony-level counts [1] [2]. That specificity is consequential: falsifying business records statutes focus on the integrity of corporate or accounting documents and are often charged when someone alleges that records were altered to conceal another underlying act. The analyses do not enumerate any additional or alternative charges such as obstruction, conspiracy, or campaign-finance-specific statutes, so based on these items the New York case as summarized centers on falsified business records alone [1] [2].
4. The political and historical framing — “first president convicted” versus legal mechanics
The later analysis explicitly frames the verdict as the first felony conviction of a U.S. president, which is a historic political claim that shifts attention from technical legal elements to broader institutional consequences [2]. The earlier analysis reports the same counts but is more narrowly descriptive of the conduct and charge [1]. This contrast suggests differing editorial priorities: one emphasizes courtroom mechanics, while the other foregrounds historical significance. Readers should note that describing an event as “first” elevates political significance and can reflect an editorial decision to frame legal facts in political terms [1] [2].
5. What’s omitted from the available summaries and why that matters for accuracy
Neither analysis provides courtroom evidence details, the exact statutory subsections charged, information on sentencing exposure, or identification of prosecutors, defense arguments, or appellate posture [1] [2]. Those omissions are material because the legal significance of falsifying business records depends on intent elements, which records were alleged altered, and what punishments a judge may impose. Without those specifics, the available statements support a clear headline charge — 34 counts of falsifying business records tied to a $130,000 payment — but do not allow full legal evaluation or assessment of defenses, remedies, or procedural posture [1] [2].
6. Assessing potential agendas and the reliability of the two items
Both items present consistent core facts, which increases mutual credibility, but the later piece’s historic framing signals a possible editorial emphasis on political consequence rather than legal nuance [1] [2]. Because only two summaries are available, each must be treated as potentially partial; neither source list corroborating documents, charging instruments, or direct court citations. For readers seeking definitive answers about counts, statutes, and sentencing, the appropriate next step is to consult the charging document from the New York prosecutor or contemporaneous court dockets and transcripts to confirm the precise statutory language and procedural status.
7. Bottom line and recommended next steps for verification
Based solely on the two provided analyses, the specific felony charges in New York are reported as 34 counts of falsifying business records connected to efforts to hide a $130,000 payment to Stormy Daniels, with at least one outlet