Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Have any accusations against Donald Trump been disproven or legally dismissed and which ones?
Executive summary
Several federal criminal cases brought against Donald Trump were dismissed in late 2024 after the Justice Department and a special counsel cited the long-standing policy that a sitting president cannot be prosecuted; those dismissals were entered without prejudice, meaning they could be revived later. Other rulings have rejected specific civil defenses or counterclaims — most notably a judge finding parts of E. Jean Carroll’s statement “substantially true” and dismissing Trump’s defamation counterclaim — while several state and federal matters remain active or resulted in other outcomes. [1] [2] [3] [4]
1. Why federal criminal counts were dropped — immunity on paper, consequences in practice
A series of federal criminal actions tied to the 2020 election and classified documents were dismissed after Special Counsel Jack Smith moved to drop indictments based on the Department of Justice’s policy that a sitting president should not be criminally prosecuted; judges agreed and entered dismissals that reflect that policy, not a finding of factual innocence. The filings and orders explicitly invoked presidential immunity and DOJ charging policy, placing legal effect on ongoing prosecutions while Trump occupied the presidency and producing immediate cessation of federal criminal proceedings against him as a candidate or president. Those dismissals prompted debate about precedent and accountability because they were rooted in prosecutorial policy rather than evidentiary rulings on the merits. [1] [2] [4]
2. “Dismissed” doesn’t equal “exonerated” — the technical legal posture matters
Courts in these instances entered dismissals without prejudice, which preserves the government’s ability to refile charges if the legal impediment (for example, the defendant’s presidential status) no longer applies. A without-prejudice dismissal stops the current prosecution but does not adjudicate the factual allegations; it does not amount to an acquittal or determination that the underlying accusations were false. Because the DOJ rationale was procedural — centered on immunity policy — the record in these federal matters remains intact enough that prosecutors could pursue charges again in the future under different legal circumstances. This distinction separates procedural dismissal from legal vindication. [2] [1]
3. Civil rulings and other dismissals: the E. Jean Carroll counterclaim decision
In a separate civil context, a judge dismissed Donald Trump’s counterclaim for defamation against writer E. Jean Carroll and characterized parts of Carroll’s allegation as “substantially true.” That ruling did not create a criminal conviction for sexual assault but signaled a judicial determination in a defamation counterclaim that aspects of Carroll’s account were factually supported enough under the law to defeat Trump’s pleading. This is an example where a court’s assessment touched the substantive truth of an allegation in a civil proceeding rather than relying on prosecutorial policy or immunity doctrines that drove the federal criminal dismissals. [3]
4. What remains unresolved — state cases, other federal matters, and ongoing litigation
Several prosecutions and civil matters against Trump were not swept up in those specific federal dismissals and remain at various stages: state-level prosecutions (notably in New York and Georgia), other federal civil and criminal filings, and pending appeals or sentencing proceedings in state courts. Some charges alleged wrongdoing on topics like hush-money payments and election conduct; those matters have produced indictments, trials, convictions or pending sentencing in state court in at least one instance, and distinct federal matters differ in legal posture. The landscape is therefore fragmented: dismissals tied to presidential immunity affected certain federal files, but multiple parallel proceedings continued or concluded on independent bases. [5] [6] [3]
5. Legal and political implications — accountability, precedent, and the path forward
The reliance on DOJ policy and immunity principles to dismiss federal criminal cases created criticism and concern about an “accountability vacuum” because prosecutorial discretion, rather than evidentiary failure, halted prosecutions. Legal commentators and officials highlighted that such dismissals could be temporary if cases are refiled after a president leaves office, while opponents said the combination of dismissals and immunity rulings reshapes enforcement window and deterrent effects. The practical consequence is that dismissed federal matters remain legally live in many respects, but enforcement timing and prosecutorial strategy will determine whether and how allegations are litigated later. [4]
6. Bottom line and what to watch next
In short, certain federal prosecutions were dismissed due to presidential-immunity reasoning and DOJ policy, which is procedural not exculpatory, while other judicial decisions, like the E. Jean Carroll counterclaim dismissal, reflect substantive findings in civil litigation. The proper read is that some accusations have been paused or procedurally set aside, a few civil defenses have been rejected, and multiple state and federal matters remain unresolved — any final determination of factual guilt or innocence depends on future filings, trials, appeals, or separate adjudications. Watch for refilings after any change in presidential status, ongoing state court outcomes, and appellate rulings that could redefine prosecutorial options. [1] [2] [3] [4]