We're laws changed to make charges against Trump felonies
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
No, lawmakers did not rewrite statutes to retroactively make ordinary charges against Donald Trump into felonies; rather, prosecutors in New York relied on an existing provision of New York law that elevates falsifying business records to a felony when it is done to conceal or aid the commission of another crime, and they argued that theory in the Manhattan case [1] [2] [3]. That prosecutorial strategy — tying bookkeeping entries to a second underlying crime such as campaign-finance or tax offenses — was novel and contested, but it used established statutory language rather than a change in the law [1] [4].
1. Prosecutors used an existing felony enhancement, not a new law
New York law treats falsifying business records as a misdemeanor in many cases but elevates it to a felony when the falsification was intended to commit, aid, or conceal the commission of another crime; Manhattan prosecutors explicitly relied on that elevation in charging Trump with 34 felony counts [2] [3]. Reporting and legal analysis make clear the escalation came from the DA’s theory about an underlying crime — chiefly alleged election-law violations tied to the 2016 campaign, and alternatively tax-related theories — not from any legislative enactment passed to target one person [1] [4].
2. The path prosecutors chose was legally untested and controversial
Legal experts and commentators flagged that using an election-law concealing theory to convert falsified business records into felonies was an untested approach under New York law, prompting months of argument about whether the theory satisfied statutory and constitutional requirements and whether jurors needed to unanimously identify the same “second crime” being concealed [1] [4]. Federalist Society and other legal forums debated jury instructions and statutory interpretation after the verdict, underscoring the novelty and contested nature of the prosecution’s path [4].
3. The conviction reflected application, not alteration, of criminal statutes
Coverage of the May 30, 2024 verdict and subsequent reporting emphasize that the conviction made Trump the first former president convicted of felony counts under existing statutes — specifically Class E falsifying-business-records felonies in New York, each carrying potential prison exposure under established sentencing ranges [5] [2] [3]. News outlets and legal trackers cataloged the charges and trials as prosecutions under long-standing statutes rather than under laws written or amended after the fact to ensnare a particular defendant [6] [7].
4. Alternate views and political context — why the “law changed” narrative spread
Some political commentators and partisan outlets described the prosecutions as novel or unprecedented, which fed claims that rules had been altered; supporters of Trump argued the legal theories were improper or politically motivated, while supporters of the prosecution said the DA was applying statutes faithfully to alleged conduct that sought to influence an election [1] [8]. The record shows vigorous legal challenges were filed, including appeals and questions about trial rulings and sentencing discretion, contributing to public confusion about whether a legal change had occurred versus a novel prosecutorial theory being tested in court [4] [8].
5. Limits of the reporting and what remains unsettled
Contemporary reporting documents the statutory basis for the felony counts and the prosecution’s theories, but sources do not show any state or federal legislature having changed criminal statutes in response to the Trump cases to make previously non-felony conduct felonies retroactively; if readers want confirmation about every possible legislative action in all states after the trials, that is outside the scope of the available reporting [1] [2]. Appeals and legal scholarship continue to dissect whether jury instructions and the application of the “second crime” element complied with law and precedent — disputes that could affect how broadly prosecutors can use similar theories going forward [4].