What was the original Stormy Daniels hush money agreement details?

1. Background: why the deal was struck and who was involved

Prosecutors and multiple news outlets say discussions to silence Daniels intensified after October 2016, when the Access Hollywood tape heightened the perceived political risk, prompting Michael Cohen to arrange a payment to prevent Daniels from going public about an alleged 2006 liaison with Trump ^{[3] [6]}. Cohen, acting as Trump’s personal attorney and “fix-it” man, paid Daniels $130,000 and later stated he made the payment before being reimbursed, a sequence that Trump acknowledged in public statements and filings ^{[3] [7]}.

2. The NDA and its language: pseudonyms, scope, and signature

The nondisclosure agreement Daniels signed used pseudonyms — “Peggy Peterson” for Daniels and “David Dennison” for Trump — and barred her from speaking publicly about the alleged encounter and related news stories, which Daniels later testified about in trial ^[6]. Multiple reputable fact-checks and reporting concur that Daniels received $130,000 specifically in exchange for that NDA, establishing the central quid pro quo at issue ^{[1] [2]}.

3. How the money moved: entities, timing, and reimbursement

The payment was made in October 2016 and was routed through a Delaware LLC, Essential Consultants, that Michael Cohen had formed shortly before the election, a detail widely reported and cited in subsequent complaints alleging the payment was timed to influence the 2016 race ^{[4] [3]}. Cohen initially told the public he paid Daniels out of his own pocket, but later court filings and reporting show Trump reimbursed Cohen over time, a reimbursement Trump has acknowledged, creating the factual trail that prosecutors targeted ^{[7] [8]}.

4. Legal framing and outcomes tied to the agreement

Prosecutors in New York treated the payment and the recordkeeping around reimbursements as part of an effort to conceal a campaign-related expenditure, arguing the $130,000 effectively functioned as an excessive in-kind contribution and that falsified business records were used to hide it, a theory that underpinned charges and a conviction for falsifying records ^{[5] [3]}. Michael Cohen later pleaded guilty to federal charges that included the Daniels payment among the matters cited, and his cooperation and tapes became evidence in subsequent probes ^{[1] [3]}.

5. Disputes, defenses, and gaps in public record

Defenses stressed that NDAs are common among wealthy and public figures and argued reimbursement and recordkeeping did not constitute criminal campaign finance violations, with Trump’s lawyers contesting the legal theory tying the payment to the campaign; those alternative legal arguments formed the basis of appeals and public defenses ^{[7] [5]}. Reporting and court records show what was paid, when, who signed, and how the payment was routed, but sources differ on intent — whether the payment was principally to influence the election or to protect personal reputation — and the coverage reflects that prosecutorial legal theory rather than a single uncontested fact ^{[1] [5]}.

6. Bottom line: what the original agreement actually contained

At its simplest, the original agreement was an NDA signed by Daniels in October 2016 that used pseudonyms and prevented her from publicly discussing an alleged 2006 sexual encounter, and it was backed by a $130,000 payment arranged by Michael Cohen and routed through a recently created LLC — facts corroborated across legal filings and mainstream reporting ^{[6] [1] [4]}. How those facts are interpreted legally—personal settlement versus unlawful campaign expenditure—remains contested in the courts and in appeals, and reporting reflects both the prosecution’s framing and the defendant’s counterarguments ^{[5] [7]}.