Was all of Trump's felony charges dropped or dismissed

1. Federal cases: special counsel asked to drop and courts dismissed — why and how

Two high‑profile federal prosecutions led by Special Counsel Jack Smith — the classified‑documents case and the election‑obstruction case related to January 6 — were effectively ended when Smith asked courts to dismiss charges after Trump’s election, and judges approved dismissals without prejudice, a result tied both to longstanding DOJ practice about indicting a sitting president and to strategic decisions by the special counsel’s office following the election (Smith’s motion and court dismissals: ^[1]; context about DOJ policy and the president’s control over DOJ: ^[4]; dismissal of the election obstruction indictment by Judge Chutkan after Smith’s request: p1_s7).

2. Georgia: the final state election case was dropped by a successor prosecutor

What had been among the last remaining criminal threats to Trump — the Georgia racketeering and election‑interference prosecution — was dropped after a new prosecutor, who replaced Fani Willis, moved to dismiss the case; public reporting describes that filing and the resulting end of those charges as the final criminal case being dropped against the president (prosecutor Peter Skandalakis’s filing and PBS’s reporting on the dismissal: ^[2]; broader summaries that the Georgia dismissal completed the run of dropped or resolved cases: p1_s4).

3. Manhattan’s 34 felony counts: convicted, sentenced to an “unconditional discharge,” not simply dropped

By contrast, the Manhattan case that produced 34 felony convictions for falsifying business records is not a story of charges being dropped; reporting and court records show Trump was convicted on those counts and faced sentencing, with courts and commentators noting delays and legal maneuvers after his election — including that the conviction stood and sentencing produced an “unconditional discharge” in January according to multiple outlets and summaries (conviction and sentencing reporting: ^[3]; Time’s explanation of sentencing and its limits while he returned to office: ^[5]; fact‑checks noting the Manhattan charges were not dropped: ^[4]3). That distinction matters because state prosecutions are outside the president’s federal pardon power and remained the focal point for continued legal risk in the reporting.

4. Competing narratives, motives and limits of the record

Coverage from the International Bar Association, Forbes, Time, PBS, Ballotpedia and fact‑checkers shows two competing narratives: one emphasizing that Trump “no longer faces federal criminal charges” after dismissals and the other underscoring that state convictions or pending state matters were not negated simply by an election win (statement that he “no longer faces federal criminal charges”: ^[4]; Forbes and Reuters‑style coverage of Smith’s request and court actions: ^[1]; Ballotpedia and fact‑checks stressing Manhattan was not dropped: ^[6], ^[4]3). Implicit agendas are visible: Trump and allies framed dismissals as vindication and used the president’s authority over DOJ and promises to fire prosecutors as leverage (analysis of why federal cases would be dropped upon his return: ^[4]2), while prosecutors and defenders of the legal process emphasize that admissible evidence, in at least some federal reports, was judged by investigators to be sufficient to sustain convictions even if prosecutions were paused or dismissed for now (Smith’s office assessment in the special counsel report as summarized by court materials: p1_s7). Reporting limitations: the provided sources do not allow independent verification of every judicial rationale or internal DOJ deliberation, only the public filings and press reporting cited above.