Fact check: What are the specific charges against Trump in the Georgia election interference case?

1. What the indictments claim — a sweeping conspiracy to overturn the vote

The grand jury indictment returned in August 2023 accuses Trump and 18 co‑defendants of participating in a coordinated scheme to illegally overturn Georgia’s 2020 election results, alleging myriad acts aimed at changing the outcome. The indictment uses a conspiracy narrative to connect diverse conduct — from public statements and legal filings to private calls and pressure campaigns — into a single RICO‑style enterprise, portraying actions as part of a unified effort to subvert lawful certification ^{[1] [2]}. The framing elevates isolated acts into an overarching criminal plan, which is central to prosecutors’ strategy and to defenders’ critiques.

2. The principal legal theory — Georgia’s anti‑racketeering statute at center stage

Prosecutors applied Georgia’s racketeering law (RICO) to allege that the defendants constituted an enterprise that engaged in coordinated criminal activity to affect the election outcome, a choice that compresses varied misconduct into a racketeering predicate under state law. The use of RICO allows prosecutors to tie disparate actions — including purportedly fraudulent filings, false statements, and coordinated pressure on election officials — into a single criminal enterprise theory. The provided sources identify this as the indictment’s backbone but do not enumerate each statutory count that was filed under Georgia law ^{[2] [1]}.

3. Who’s charged and notable episodes cited in the indictment

The indictment named Trump and 18 allies, including high‑profile figures such as Mark Meadows and Rudy Giuliani, and highlights specific episodes like Trump’s phone call to Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger where he urged officials to “find” enough votes to change the result. The materials emphasize that prosecutors view these episodes as integral evidence of a broader plan rather than isolated incidents. The sources confirm the roster and several illustrative acts but stop short of listing every count tied to each individual defendant ^{[1] [2]}.

4. What the sources do and do not disclose about specific charges

Although reporting and available filings document the RICO framework and key alleged acts, the sources provided do not supply a complete, item‑by‑item catalogue of the Georgia statutory charges in the indictment. Coverage notes the overarching legal theory and some felony allegations, but the specific statutory labels, counts per defendant, and the exact language of each charge are not detailed in the supplied materials. As a result, a comprehensive tick‑list of every Georgia charge cannot be reconstructed solely from the cited items ^{[1] [3] [4]}.

5. How the Georgia case relates to parallel federal prosecutions

Separate federal prosecutions, led by Special Counsel Jack Smith, allege conspiracies to overturn the 2020 results and include felony counts in federal court; unsealed federal filings in October 2024 provided a deeper look at alleged conspiratorial conduct. The Georgia indictment overlaps factually with federal theories — both emphasize coordinated efforts to change results — but the sources indicate that the Georgia case rests on state RICO theory whereas federal filings pursue federal election and related charges, and the provided materials do not conflate the two as identical in charging structure ^{[3] [1]}.

6. Recent procedural developments that could reshape the prosecution

Subsequent reporting notes significant procedural shifts: the Georgia case’s management and prosecutorial posture have been subject to review, including moves to transfer or appoint alternate prosecutors and legal challenges to lead prosecutor Fani Willis. These developments raise the possibility that the case could be narrowed, retooled, or face different charging decisions as new prosecutors evaluate the indictment’s scope and legal sufficiency. The sources describe these procedural dynamics but do not assert final outcomes, only that they materially affect the case’s trajectory ^[4].

7. Competing narratives and what each side emphasizes

Prosecutors present a unified‑scheme narrative linking multiple acts into racketeering‑style criminality, while defense and some critics argue the charges overreach by aggregating protected political speech, litigation, and discrete interactions into a single criminal enterprise. The materials reflect these competing frames: reporting highlights prosecutors’ strategic choice of RICO and cited evidence such as the Raffensperger call, while coverage of procedural motions focuses on claims that the indictment may be vulnerable to dismissal or narrowing, signaling divergent legal and political aims behind each narrative ^{[2] [4]}.

8. Bottom line — clear allegations, incomplete public charge list

In sum, the provided sources establish that Georgia prosecutors indicted Trump and 18 allies in August 2023 under a RICO‑based theory alleging a coordinated scheme to overturn Georgia’s 2020 election, and they document key episodes relied upon by prosecutors; they do not, however, furnish a complete, clause‑by‑clause listing of every statutory charge in the Georgia indictment, leaving gaps for anyone seeking an exact, itemized accounting of counts and elements ^{[1] [2] [4]}. To obtain the full statutory list and charge language, consult the August 2023 indictment text or court docket directly.