Which of Donald Trump’s other criminal cases were paused, dismissed, or appealed by the end of 2025, and why?
Executive summary
By the end of 2025, the slate of criminal prosecutions that shadowed Donald Trump had been substantially thinned: his Manhattan hush‑money conviction was appealed after a conviction and a January 2025 unconditional discharge, the two federal prosecutions tied to classified documents and the January 6 election‑obstruction matter were paused or dismissed following the Justice Department’s move not to pursue charges against a sitting president, and the Georgia RICO election‑interference case was dismissed after a series of pretrial rulings and prosecutorial disqualifications [1] [2] [3] [4].
1. The New York hush‑money conviction — convicted, sentenced to discharge, then appealed
The New York State case that produced a guilty verdict on 34 counts of falsifying business records concluded with a jury conviction in May 2024 and a judge’s January 10, 2025 unconditional discharge, yet the defendant filed an appeal later in 2025, preserving the matter for appellate review despite the discharge [1] [2] [5].
2. The federal classified‑documents and D.C. election‑obstruction prosecutions — paused or dismissed under DOJ policy
The two federal matters overseen by a special counsel were effectively put aside after Trump’s reelection when the Justice Department moved to dismiss the prosecutions without prejudice, invoking the longstanding Department policy that a sitting president should not be criminally prosecuted; judges accepted those filings late in 2024 and into early 2025, leaving the special counsel’s evidence memorialized in a report that nonetheless concluded—separately—that admissible evidence could support convictions [3] [4].
3. The Georgia RICO case — charges whittled down and ultimately dismissed amid prosecutorial problems
The Fulton County prosecution, originally charging Trump and others with state RICO and related offenses stemming from 2020, had multiple counts struck for specificity and constitutional defects and — after a contentious pretrial history that included a judge’s disqualification of the district attorney — the remaining case was dismissed in late 2025, a termination tied to court rulings and prosecutorial vulnerabilities outlined during pretrial proceedings [2] [1] [6] [4].
4. Why these outcomes occurred — law, procedure, and politics intersect
Three distinct mechanisms explain the pruning of cases: appellate preservation after trial (the New York appeal) follows ordinary criminal procedure even when sentencing results in noncustodial disposition [1] [2]; the federal stoppages flowed from an institutional DOJ policy and a tactical decision by the special counsel to move to dismiss once the defendant returned to the White House, which judges accepted even as the special counsel’s public report said evidence was sufficient for trial [3] [4]; and the Georgia matter unraveled largely because of pretrial judicial rulings and questions about the prosecutor’s conduct that led to disqualification and weakened the state’s posture [1] [6] [2].
5. The broader legal and political terrain — appeals, pardons, and institutional scrutiny
Even with dismissals and pauses, significant legal levers remained active: an appeal in the New York case keeps that conviction alive on paper and could produce reversals or remands; the special counsel’s report preserves an evidentiary record that future prosecutors could rely on if circumstances change; and scholars and outlets documented concerns about politicization, pardons, and Justice Department errors under the new administration, underscoring that legal resolution was tightly bound to political shifts as much as to law [2] [3] [7] [8].
6. What reporting does not yet establish
Available reporting details the procedural reasons for pauses and dismissals but does not supply a definitive timeline for appeals to be resolved or for whether dismissed federal charges will be refiled in the future if Trump leaves office; that uncertainty is reflected across the reporting and remains an open factual question beyond the scope of current sources [4] [3].