What major investigations, indictments, or convictions involve Donald Trump and his associates?
Executive summary
Donald Trump and close associates have been the focus of multiple high‑profile criminal investigations, indictments and at least one conviction tied directly to Trump, spanning state and federal probes into election interference, classified documents, business practices and the Trump Organization’s financial dealings [1] [2] [3] [4]. These matters involve parallel teams of prosecutors, special counsels and state attorneys general, and have produced differing outcomes — from indictments to corporate convictions to a historic individual criminal conviction — while political developments have complicated their trajectories [5] [4] [6].
1. The New York “hush‑money” case: falsified business records and a conviction
The Manhattan investigation into payments to Stormy Daniels culminated in charges alleging falsification of business records tied to efforts to conceal an extramarital payment; that prosecution produced the first criminal conviction of a former U.S. president for falsifying business records, a case overseen by Judge Juan Merchan and reported as resulting in multiple felony counts [1] [6].
2. Classified documents at Mar‑a‑Lago: federal indictment and obstruction allegations
Federal prosecutors and a special grand jury investigated whether Trump removed classified documents from the White House to Mar‑a‑Lago and obstructed the FBI’s retrieval efforts; the probe led to an indictment that includes alleged efforts to conceal surveillance footage and requests to delete recordings, and has generated superseding charges over time [2] [7].
3. January 6 and federal election‑interference investigations led by Special Counsel Jack Smith
The Department of Justice opened a sweeping inquiry into efforts to overturn the 2020 election, expanding to include the fake‑electors scheme and January 6 events; Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed Jack Smith as special counsel to lead the related federal investigations into whether unlawful interference and obstruction occurred [8] [5].
4. Georgia racketeering probe into 2020 election efforts: state indictment risks
In Georgia, a state grand jury and prosecutors investigating attempts to subvert the 2020 result developed a racketeering case focused on a pattern of conduct by Trump and co‑defendants, with prosecutors asserting the need to prove coordinated, corrupt acts — a separate criminal track from federal charges that targets state‑law election offenses [1] [5].
5. Trump Organization and related business prosecutions: corporate convictions and civil findings
The Trump Organization has faced criminal and civil scrutiny for tax and financial practices; juries and prosecutors secured convictions against the company for tax fraud and off‑the‑books compensation schemes, and New York civil actions by the state attorney general produced findings of noncompliance with subpoenas and civil contempt rulings [4] [3].
6. Associates, referrals, pardons and the political fallout
Numerous Trump allies were referred, indicted or scrutinized by House and DOJ probes — including figures named in the Jan. 6 referrals — and the political use of pardons and administration decisions since Trump’s return to the presidency has reshaped which investigations proceed or stall, a dynamic noted by reporting on pardons and critics’ warnings that investigations may be curtailed [5] [9] [10] [6]. Reporting also shows efforts to use executive power to create new DOJ priorities and to reprioritize enforcement, a development that observers warn can blunt ongoing probes [11] [10].
7. What remains unsettled and why the record is fragmented
Court calendars, appeals, overlapping jurisdictions and the political status of Trump have left multiple cases in motion — indictments pending trial, special‑counsel investigations ongoing, corporate convictions already entered and civil disputes unresolved — and the interplay of state and federal venues plus executive actions explain why results vary across cases and why definitive outcomes remain incomplete in several matters [4] [6] [8].