Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
What role did NDAs and hush-money payments play in Trump-related settlements?
Executive summary
Non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) and hush‑money payments have been central to at least one high‑profile criminal case tied to Donald Trump: prosecutors alleged a $130,000 payment to Stormy Daniels intended to suppress damaging information before the 2016 election, and that reimbursement to Michael Cohen was disguised in records — the basis of the Manhattan hush‑money prosecution and conviction that Trump is seeking to overturn [1] [2] [3]. Courts and appeals panels continue to dispute whether aspects of that case belong in state or federal court and whether evidentiary questions about presidential acts should alter the record [4] [2].
1. How NDAs and hush payments became prosecutable conduct
Prosecutors in the New York hush‑money case framed the $130,000 payment as criminally significant not because the underlying nondisclosure itself was necessarily illegal, but because Trump allegedly caused false entries in business records to conceal reimbursements — a route from allegedly private agreements into criminal charges [1]. Reuters reported the government saying the conviction should be thrown out on grounds including improper evidence and preemption claims, showing the legal focus rests on how the payments were recorded and litigated, not solely on the existence of secrecy agreements [3].
2. The facts courts relied on at trial and in appeals
At trial, prosecutors introduced evidence about the timing and character of the payment and testimony touching on actions during Trump’s first White House term; defense teams have argued aspects of that evidence should be excluded under presidential‑act immunity. An appeals panel ordered a lower court to reconsider whether the case should be in federal rather than state court, specifically noting earlier rulings did not fully evaluate whether evidence admitted related to immunized official acts or whether such evidentiary immunity transformed the case’s character [4] [2].
3. Legal arguments for overturning the hush‑money conviction
The Justice Department and other defenders of certiorari have argued the conviction should be vacated because it relied on improper evidence and theories preempted by federal law; Reuters summarized the U.S. government asking that the New York conviction be tossed for those reasons [3]. Separately, Trump’s legal team claims presidential immunity should shield him — an argument grounded in whether evidence from his presidency improperly influenced a state jury [2].
4. What courts have actually done so far
A federal appeals panel in November 2025 gave new life to Trump’s bid by instructing reconsideration of whether the case belonged in federal court and whether immunized evidence issues were properly addressed — an outcome that does not itself overturn the conviction but requires additional judicial analysis [4] [2]. Independent reporting confirms ongoing procedural litigation rather than final substantive resolution [2].
5. Broader uses of NDAs and settlement money in the post‑2016 era
Beyond the Daniels matter, settlement payments and awards involving Trump span a variety of claims and defendants; reporting on settlements (e.g., universities, media companies) notes varied destinations for settlement funds and distinctions between suits against institutions and suits Trump brings personally — which affects who receives money and why [5]. MarketPlace explained that some settlements go to government remediations or programmatic spending, while others are personal payouts tied to suits where Trump is a private litigant [5].
6. Conflicting perspectives and institutional incentives
Prosecutors and appellate panels emphasize rule‑of‑law and accurate records; they treat deceptive bookkeeping around hush payments as the path from private secrecy to public criminality [1] [3]. Defense advocates and some federal actors argue those same facts implicate federal preemption and immunity doctrines when presidential acts or evidence from a presidency are involved — an argument that changes the balance of state prosecutorial authority [2] [4]. Market and institutional settlements introduce another dynamic: universities and media organizations may settle for pragmatic reasons unrelated to criminal law, and those payments can be structured to serve public or private ends [5].
7. What the current reporting does not say
Available sources do not provide a full catalogue of every NDA or hush‑money payment involving Trump beyond the Daniels matter and high‑level descriptions of other settlement funds; they do not document every destination of settlement dollars in each case nor do they settle disputed legal questions now pending before courts [1] [5] [2].
8. Bottom line for readers
The Stormy Daniels hush‑money episode shows how NDAs and secret payments can cross into criminal exposure when prosecutors allege fraudulent bookkeeping and attempts to conceal transactions — but appeals and federal‑state jurisdiction claims mean the legal status of that conviction remains contested in higher courts [1] [3] [2]. At the same time, separate civil settlements involving Trump follow different logics and destinations, underscoring that “settlement money” is not a monolith and should be examined case‑by‑case [5].