Donald Trump indictment: Former president pleads not guilty to 34 felony charges

Court documents lay out alleged 'unlawful scheme'

Donald Trump has been indicted on 34 counts of falsification of business records, making him the first former president in US history to face the prospect of a criminal trial.

These are felony charges, which denote serious crimes – ones that could include prison time if a maximum sentence was given.

The charges all arise from Trump’s alleged reimbursement over the course of 11 months of “Lawyer A” for a $130,000 payment to “Woman 2”, who was shopping a story about an alleged affair she had with Trump in the days before the 2016 presidential election.

Although not identified, the facts would indicate that Lawyer A is former president’s lawyer and fixer Michael Cohen, while Woman 2 is adult film star Stormy Daniels.

The indictment alleges that Trump falsified cheque records and ledger entries to make it appear that those payments were for “legal fees” and not reimbursements.

It also alleges that the total amount provided to Lawyer A was in excess of the amount he paid Woman 2 in order to compensate for income-tax payments.

The charge of business record falsification is typically a lesser crime – a misdemeanor – but in this case the district attorney’s office elevated the charges to a more serious felony level because, it said, Trump intended to cover up the felony federal campaign finance crime to which Lawyer A pleaded guilty in August 2018.

The indictment’s Statement of Facts provides further background information about what it called Trump’s “unlawful scheme” to prevent damaging information from being revealed about him in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

It provided two other instances of payments made on Trump’s behalf, by the National Enquirer tabloid newspaper to a doorman who alleged he knew of an illegitimate child Trump fathered and to Woman 1, who evidence suggests is Playboy model Karen McDougal.

“Ultimately,” the statement reads, “other participants in the scheme admitted that the payoffs were unlawful.”

Neither of these instances led to criminal charges against Trump, however.

The indictment is solely targeted toward the hush-money payment to Woman 2.

Time was right to bring the case - prosecutor

Defending his case against Trump, he reiterated several times that accurate business records were important, and "all the more important in Manhattan - the financial centre of the world".

He said that was why the Manhattan DA's office had a history of "vigorously enforcing white collar crime", which is how he also repeatedly characterised the allegations against Trump and Cohen.

Trump's charges were the "bread and butter" of the DA's office's work, Bragg added.

He insisted it was a "thorough and rigorous" investigation and pointed to his 24 years of experience. Defending the timing, he said the case was brought now because it was ready to be brought.

Trump and Cohen 'agreed catch and kill scheme'

Donald Trump, executives at American Media Inc (the company which owned tabloid newspaper the National Enquirer), Michael Cohen and others agreed to a "catch and kill" scheme in 2015, Bragg alleges.

He said it was a scheme to buy and supresses negative information to help Trump's chances of winning the election.

Trump and others made three payments to people who claimed to have negative information about him, Bragg alleges.

He says one of the people paid was Stormy Daniels.

A reminder that Donald Trump has pleaded not guilty to all the charges against him and has decried the case as political persecution by Democratic prosecutors.

Payments to Cohen were clearly illegal - Bragg

Bragg says the payments recorded by Donald Trump were clearly illegal.

He says:

Quote Message: He could not simply say that the payments were a reimbursment for Mr Cohen's payments to Stormy Daniels. To make that true statement would have been to admit a crime. So instead Mr Trump said he was paying Mr Cohen for fictitious legal services in 2017 to cover up actual crime committed the prior year."

He says in order to make sure Mr Cohen got all of his money back, they had a "final scheme" - to have Cohen declare the payments as income to tax authorities in New York.

Post update

More now from Bragg.

He says Trump claimed he was paying Michael Cohen for legal services in 2016.

"This simply was not true", Bragg says.

He goes on to say this was a false statement Trump made month after month in 2017.

"For nine straight months, the defendant held documents in his hand containing this key lie," he adds.

He said Trump signed cheques for Cohen over each of the nine months.

Bragg says Trump made these false statements to cover up crimes related to the 2016 election.

Remember, Michael Cohen is the former Trump lawyer who has admitted paying porn star Stormy Daniels $130,000 (£100,000) before the 2016 election in exchange for her silence on an alleged past sexual relationship with Trump, which he denies.

We will not normalise serious criminal conduct - Bragg

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg is speaking now.

Bragg says this case is about 34 false statements made to cover up other crimes.

"These are felony crimes in New York State no matter who you are. We can not and will not normalise serious criminal conduct," Bragg says.

He says Trump repeatedly made false statements on New York business records and caused others to make false statements.

He claimed he was paying Michael Cohen for legal services, Bragg says. He says plainly that "this was not true".

'The rule of law died in this country' - Trump attorney

Speaking to reporters outside the court, attorney Todd Blanche said the judge requested everyone involved in the case to not use language that would incite violence - not just Trump.

Joe Tacopina, another one of Trump's lawyers, said the unsealing of the indictment showed "that the rule of law died in this country".

"While everyone is not above the law, no one is below it either. And if this man's name was not Donald J Trump, there is no scenario we'd all be here today," he added.

They declined to comment on whether Trump was fingerprinted or had a mugshot taken when being processed.

In the courtroom: How it ended after 57 minutes

Donald Trump is now leaving New York but here's a bit more of what I saw in the courtroom earlier.

The judge brought proceedings to a close after nearly an hour. When it was over, Trump stood up and was immediately surrounded by his Secret Service detail.

The former president then spoke quietly to his lawyers, but he was inaudible to the press sitting a few rows behind him. Then he turned and walked down the centre aisle of the courtroom, and out of the the rear door he had first entered.

He said nothing to the press. His expression was serious.

Trump leaving New York

Donald Trump is on his private plane at New York's La Guardia airport on his way back to his home in Florida.

We are expecting him to speak at his Mar-a-Lago estate at 20:15 local time (01:15 BST).

In the courtroom: Trump's social media posts mentioned

At one point the judge reminded the former president- respectfully but also firmly - that if he or any defendant behaved in an unruly or disruptive manner, they might lose the right to be present at their trial.

At another point, as they were making their arguments, prosecutors mentioned that that the defendant - Donald Trump - "has made threatening posts on social media”.

They referenced social media posts from Trump including one that warned of potential "death and destruction" if he faced criminal charges.

The prosecution said they were of concern in these proceedings.

What to know about the charges

Here is more about what's in the 34-count indictment:

The court filing says the former president "with intent to defraud and intent to commit another crime and aid and conceal the commission thereof, made and caused a false entry in the business records of an enterprise"
The charges against Trump are all Class E felonies. That is the lowest category of felony offence in New York and carries a maximum prison sentence of four years per count
Falsifying business records is usually prosecuted as a misdemeanour
The Manhattan district attorney's office is escalating the charge by alleging the offence was committed in order to conceal or commit another crime
Trump has pleaded not guilty on all the charges

In the courtroom: Trump expressionless in sober hearing

Shortly after 14:30 local time, Donald Trump walked into the courtroom escorted by several secret service members. His face was expressionless and his steps were heavy and slow.

He sat in the front row for proceedings. It was short of fireworks, and was very official. There was no circus-like atmosphere.

The judge presided in a calm and even tone and never raised his voice. He spoke politely and calmly and firmly to Donald Trump, making sure the former president understood his rights.

Trump sat silently throughout almost the entire proceedings. He only spoke when he was required to, either by pleading not guilty or by answering to the judge when addressed directly.

Trump repeatedly falsified business records - prosecutor

As we just reported, the 34-count indictment of Donald Trump has been released by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg.

He accuses Trump of repeatedly falsifying business records to conceal crimes. Trump has pleaded not guilty on all charges.

Bragg said:

Quote Message: The People of the State of New York allege that Donald J. Trump repeatedly and fraudulently falsified New York business records to conceal crimes that hid damaging information from the voting public during the 2016 presidential election."

Quote Message: Manhattan is home to the country’s most significant business market. We cannot allow New York businesses to manipulate their records to cover up criminal conduct.

Quote Message: As the Statement of Facts describes, the trail of money and lies exposes a pattern that, the People allege, violates one of New York’s basic and fundamental business laws."

BreakingNo gag order placed on Trump

We're just now getting more details from our reporter who was in the courtroom.

The judge has not placed a gag order on Donald Trump but warned him that the issue would be revisited if the ex-president continued with his heated rhetoric about the case.

A gag order would have prohibited Trump, his attorneys, other parties and witnesses from speaking about the case publicly.

It usually happens when there's a risk that statements could be made that could incite violence or be viewed as threatening to prosecutors or witnesses.

Violating a gag order means you can be found to be in criminal contempt of court.

Read More Show Less

Share Email Link

UN's Top Court Declares Environmental Protection a Legal Obligation Under International Law

International Court of Justice rules that failure to act on climate change may breach legal duties and entitle affected nations to reparations

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued a unanimous advisory opinion stating that countries may be violating international law if they fail to take adequate measures to address climate change.

The ruling, delivered on July 24 at The Hague, declared that a "clean, healthy and sustainable environment" constitutes a human right under international law.

The opinion, supported by all fifteen ICJ judges, found that a state's inaction on climate protection could amount to an "internationally wrongful act" and that countries harmed by the effects of climate change may be entitled to reparations.

The court emphasized that nations have legal obligations to take measures to prevent environmental harm, including from greenhouse gas emissions caused by human activity.

The case was initiated by Vanuatu and supported by over one hundred and thirty countries, including major greenhouse gas emitters.

The ICJ was tasked with addressing two central questions: the legal responsibilities of states under international law to mitigate climate change and the legal consequences for harm caused by inaction or insufficient measures.

During the hearing, ICJ President Yuji Iwasawa described climate change as "an existential problem of planetary proportions." The court’s opinion further affirmed that international legal instruments, including the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Paris Agreement, oblige states to act in line with scientific consensus to limit global warming and environmental degradation.

The ruling builds upon a series of legal developments.

It follows earlier decisions by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and the European Court of Human Rights, which recognized the duty of states to protect populations from environmental harm.

In 2019, the Supreme Court of the Netherlands ruled that the government had a legal duty to safeguard its citizens from the effects of climate change.

Sea level rise and warming trends continue to affect low-lying nations.

Between 2013 and 2023, global sea levels rose by an average of 4.3 centimeters, with some Pacific regions experiencing higher increases.

Global temperatures have risen approximately 1.3 degrees Celsius since pre-industrial times due to the continued burning of fossil fuels.

The ICJ opinion may serve as a legal foundation for future actions in both international and domestic courts.

Climate advocates have indicated that the decision could be used to press for stronger climate action at upcoming diplomatic meetings, including the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP30) scheduled for later this year in Belém, Brazil.

The advisory opinion is non-binding but may influence future legal interpretations and treaty negotiations.

While welcomed by many nations and environmental organizations, the ruling drew opposition from several major oil and gas-producing countries.

The United States, under the current administration, reiterated its focus on national energy priorities and dismissed binding international mandates on emissions reductions.

The court acknowledged that international law alone cannot fully resolve the climate crisis but emphasized the role of collective human effort and scientific advancement in addressing the global challenge.

Read More Show Less

Share Email Link

Thailand recalls ambassador to Cambodia amid border tensions

Gulf Development Acquires Full Ownership of Pak Lay Hydropower Project in Laos

Thailand’s Gulf Development completes $128 million takeover of 770 MW run-of-the-river plant, securing long‑term electricity supply to Thai grid

SET-listed Gulf Development has acquired the remaining sixty‑percent shareholding in the Pak Lay Hydropower Project in Laos from Sinohydro for approximately one hundred and twenty‑eight million US dollars, bringing its ownership to one hundred percent .

The Pak Lay facility, located on the Mekong River in Pak Lay district of Xayaburi province, is a run‑of‑the‑river hydropower plant with an installed capacity of seven hundred and seventy megawatts .

It is under development and slated to begin commercial operations in 2032 under a twenty‑nine‑year power purchase agreement to sell electricity exclusively to the Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand at an average tariff of approximately two point seven baht per kilowatt‑hour .

The project uses natural river flow without a large reservoir or water diversion, ensuring inflow equals outflow and the water volume of the Mekong remains unaffected .

The acquisition aligns with Gulf’s strategy to expand its renewable energy portfolio and support Thailand’s commitments to net‑zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 .

Gulf aims for forty percent of its total power capacity from renewables by 2035 and net‑zero scope one and two emissions by 2050 .

The transaction was executed through Gulf’s wholly‑owned subsidiary, Gulf Hydropower Holdings, and includes both equity and shareholder loans .

Gulf previously held a forty percent stake in Pak Lay Power Co via a joint venture with Sinohydro, which had held the remaining sixty percent .

The Pak Lay acquisition is part of Gulf’s broader investment programme, comprising a ninety‑billion‑baht budget from 2025 to 2029, of which up to eighty percent is earmarked for renewable energy development, including solar, wind, biomass, waste‑to‑energy, and hydropower projects, as well as digital infrastructure .

Read More Show Less

Share Email Link

New Landmine Blast Escalates Thailand–Cambodia Border Tensions

Five Thai soldiers injured, diplomatic ties downgraded and border crossings closed amid disputed mine incidents

Thai and Cambodian relations have further deteriorated following a landmine explosion on July 23, 2025, which injured five Thai soldiers—including one who lost his right leg—during a patrol near the Chong An Ma border crossing in Ubon Ratchathani province.

The incident occurred around 4:55 pm local time in a disputed border zone under Thai Second Army jurisdiction.

Four other soldiers suffered shock symptoms and concussive injuries and are receiving treatment at Nam Yuen Hospital .

In response to the explosion, the Thai government took several diplomatic and security measures.

All northeastern border crossings were closed.

Thailand recalled its ambassador from Phnom Penh and expelled Cambodia’s ambassador, accusing Cambodia of planting newly laid Russian-made PMN‑2 anti-personnel landmines—devices not used by the Thai military—and lodging a formal protest via its Foreign Ministry .

The Thai army activated its “Chakrapong Phuwanart” emergency plan, reinstated during the 2011 Preah Vihear temple crisis, involving both the 1st (Central Plains) and 2nd (Northeast) Army Regions .

This latest incident follows a previous landmine blast on July 16, when three soldiers stepped on PMN‑2 mines near Chong Bok in Nam Yuen district.

One lost a foot and two others were injured.

Thai bomb-disposal teams recovered further devices, raising concerns that hundreds may lie buried within Thai territory.

Military officials initially believed the landmines might be remnant from decades-old conflicts, but later investigations found them to be newly planted .

Cambodia has denied responsibility, stating that Thai personnel strayed from agreed patrol routes into its territory, where unexploded ordnance remains.

The Cambodian Mine Action and Victim Assistance Authority labelled Thai accusations “baseless” and expressed regret over the incident .

The Cambodian Ministry of National Defence echoed this position, attributing the explosion to an unauthorized Thai patrol incursion .

These mine incidents follow a broader escalation that began with a brief military skirmish on May 28, in which a Cambodian soldier was killed.

Since then, both countries have implemented border closures, trade restrictions, and media bans.

Cambodia has halted imports of Thai agricultural produce and broadcasts, while Thailand has limited crossing points and reinforced military presence in multiple provinces .

Domestic political reactions have intensified in both countries.

In Thailand, Acting Prime Minister Phumtham Wechayachai and the ruling Pheu Thai Party cite the blasts as grave threats to peace.

Separately, Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra is under an ethics probe over a leaked phone call in which she criticised the military—a controversy linked to the border dispute .

In Phnom Penh, Prime Minister Hun Manet announced the activation of a conscription law in 2026—dormant since its passage in 2006—citing rising tensions with Thailand and plans to augment Cambodia’s defence capabilities, including a proposed increase in defence spending from a national budget already allocating US $739 million to the military .

The law mandates 18 months of service for citizens aged 18–30 (voluntary for women), with indications that the training period may be extended to 24 months .

Despite continued calls from both governments for de-escalation and diplomatic engagement—including Cambodia’s intention to bring the matter before the International Court of Justice—neither country has fully disengaged.

Thai military authorities have signalled their intent to escalate the issue to the United Nations under the Ottawa Treaty, which prohibits the deployment of anti-personnel landmines .

The border remains a sensitive flashpoint, with both nations maintaining heightened military readiness and restricted patrol protocols.

The disputed zones near Ubon Ratchathani and Preah Vihear continue to feature contested geography, contested claims and the persistent threat of unexploded or newly emplaced ordnance.

Read More Show Less

Share Email Link

"Crazy Thing": OpenAI's Sam Altman Warns Of AI Voice Fraud Crisis In Banking

The Podcaster Who Accidentally Revealed He Earns Over $10 Million a Year

The popular host Joe Budden recently made headlines after accidentally sharing a screenshot that revealed he earns close to $900,000 per month—and later confirmed that his podcast network is on track to generate over $20 million in revenue by 2025. Budden represents a growing trend among independent audio creators who are trying to reduce their reliance on the industry’s major players—an industry that, according to new data, now generates $7.3 billion annually.

A Billion-Dollar Boom for Podcasts

According to a recent report from research firm Owl & Co, the global podcast industry brought in $7.3 billion last year—more than double most prior estimates. This surge reveals that podcasting, still a relatively young entertainment format, is bringing in far more money than many insiders had previously realized.

Advertising accounts for the bulk of these revenues, with the rest coming from paid subscriptions. These numbers do not include live events, such as the wildly popular British political podcast The Rest is Politics, which sold out London’s O2 Arena for a live taping.

Joe Budden’s Accidental Disclosure

In this booming market, one of the most surprising success stories is that of Joe Budden, a former rapper once dubbed “the Howard Stern of hip-hop.” Last month, Budden unintentionally posted a screenshot from Patreon—a subscription platform where fans can pay creators directly. The image showed over 30 million views in 30 days.

While the revenue figures were blacked out, internet sleuths edited the image and discovered that Budden had likely earned over $900,000 in that single month, backed by more than 154,000 active subscribers. The figures quickly made headlines. Budden’s latest Patreon update and podcast episode even referenced the leak with a title that cheekily reads “Blackout the Numbers.”

On Track for $20 Million+ in 2025

According to Ian Schwartzman, CEO of the Joe Budden Network, the platform is now averaging $1.04 million per month on Patreon. “We have around 70,000 paying subscribers, with subscription tiers ranging from $5 to $50 per month. Higher tiers offer access to more content, including exclusive spin-off shows,” Schwartzman told The New York Times.

Budden’s Patreon offers four subscription levels:

Homies ($5/month) – Ad-free episodes and bonus content.
Family ($10/month)
Friend of the Show ($25/month)
Part of the Show ($50/month) – Includes a chance to appear on-air and have your name in the credits.

These subscription revenues alone could exceed $12 million in 2025, making Budden one of the highest-earning creators on Patreon—a claim that a Patreon spokesperson has confirmed.

Advertising Still Adds Millions

But subscriptions aren’t Budden’s only income stream. Advertising also contributes millions in additional revenue, said Schwartzman. Notably, Budden’s team sells their own ads directly, instead of partnering with major networks like iHeart, Wondery, or SiriusXM, which often take a cut of ad revenues.

From $500 a Week to Industry Powerhouse

Budden’s journey hasn’t always been lucrative. Back in 2017, when he co-hosted a show on the media platform Complex, Schwartzman recalls that they were struggling to break even. Budden himself has said he was surviving on a $500-per-week stipend at the time.

From 2018 to 2020, The Joe Budden Podcast had an exclusive licensing deal with Spotify, which paid under $2 million per year and didn’t include ad revenue or equity.

Leaving Spotify: A Strategic Reboot

After a tense split with Spotify, Budden and Schwartzman began shopping for new distribution deals. But negotiations often broke down over exclusivity clauses. In one case, a potential $44 million deal was rejected because it required removing all content from YouTube.

“As the money goes up, so do the demands,” said Schwartzman. “We wanted someone who saw our value and would let us stay in the game.”

In 2021, they found their fit in Patreon—no guaranteed check, but equity in the company and advisory roles for both Budden and Schwartzman. “Joe is in a league of his own,” said Patreon CEO Jack Conte. “Earning $1 million a month on Patreon is extremely rare.”

A New Model for Creator Power

Since hitting that revenue milestone in November, the Joe Budden Network hasn’t slowed down. Conte credits Patreon’s creator-first model, noting: “Artists today have more leverage and control than ever before in the history of the arts.”

Read More Show Less

Share Email Link

Trump Announces $550 Billion Japanese Investment and New Trade Agreements with Indonesia and the Philippines

The U.S. President disclosed new trade deals that include reduced tariffs and investment pledges from key Asian economies, with Japan committing $550 billion in U.S.-based projects

Former U.S. President Donald Trump has announced a series of new trade agreements with Japan, Indonesia, and the Philippines, detailing what he described as transformative developments for the American economy.

According to statements released on his social media platform, Japan has pledged to invest $550 billion in the United States, with 90% of profits reportedly expected to remain within the country.

The trade agreement with Japan includes significant tariff adjustments, with Japanese imports to the U.S. subject to duties ranging between 15% and 19%.

In return, the Japanese market will open further to U.S. goods, including automobiles, trucks, rice, and other agricultural products.

Trump stated that the investment deal would generate hundreds of thousands of jobs.

Following the announcement, Tokyo’s stock exchange experienced a 3.5% surge, marking the highest closing since July 2024.

Additionally, Japan's 10-year government bond yield rose by 9 basis points to 1.60%.

The agreement with Indonesia entails the removal of 99% of tariffs on American industrial, technological, and agricultural products entering the Indonesian market.

In contrast, Indonesian exports to the U.S. will be subject to a 19% import tariff.

The deal includes commitments by Indonesia to supply critical minerals to the United States and purchase American goods, including Boeing aircraft, agricultural exports, and energy products, in contracts valued in the tens of billions of dollars.

A similar framework has been established with the Philippines, where American products will be exported tariff-free, while Philippine goods entering the U.S. market will face a 19% tariff.

During a state visit by Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. to Washington, the two countries signed a trade agreement that also includes military cooperation initiatives.

These agreements come two weeks after Trump previously announced plans to impose higher tariffs on several Asian nations—32% on Indonesia, 30% on Japan, and 25% on the Philippines—due to the expiration of a moratorium on his proposed trade measures.

The recent negotiations have led to revised terms and apparent withdrawal from those earlier tariff levels.

Japanese and regional media outlets have prominently covered the announcement, with front pages in Tokyo highlighting the scale of the trade and investment commitments.

The agreements mark a shift in bilateral economic relations between the United States and several Asian partners, following extended negotiations involving trade liberalization and strategic collaboration.

Read More Show Less

Share Email Link

A Billion-Dollar Boom for Podcasts

Joe Budden’s Accidental Disclosure

On Track for $20 Million+ in 2025

Advertising Still Adds Millions

From $500 a Week to Industry Powerhouse

Leaving Spotify: A Strategic Reboot

A New Model for Creator Power

ASEANS

Share