Listen to this story.Enjoy more audio and podcasts on iOS or Android.
Your browser does not support the <audio> element.
Manhattanites once rolled their eyes at Donald Trump. Then they came to revile him. Soon 12 will decide if he is a felon. Jury selection in his first criminal trial, expected to last up to eight weeks in a shabby courtroom, has sped along; prosecutors will set out their case in a matter of days. One prospective juror confessed that the weight of the task at hand had kept her up at night: “This is, like, a big deal in the grand scheme of things.”
Yes and no. Manhattan’s district attorney, Alvin Bragg, has brought the first criminal indictment against a former president, who also happens to be running again. But the felony charges are low-level and the details tawdry. The case is about sex, money and blackmail. Mr Trump’s former lawyer and fixer, who will testify against him, once described the conduct at issue as the “filth and muck of politics” and, less delicately, a “shit sandwich”.
The charges centre on Mr Trump’s efforts to buy the silence of Stephanie Clifford, a former porn star better known as Stormy Daniels, before the 2016 election. Prosecutors allege that the payment was made to protect his candidacy and thus amounted to an undeclared campaign expense. Mr Trump is accused of falsifying business records to hide the pay-off. He denies any such scheme.
Early in his first campaign Mr Trump met his lawyer, Michael Cohen, and his friend David Pecker, then the boss of a tabloid publishing company. Mr Pecker agreed to be Mr Trump’s “eyes and ears”—to look out for damaging stories and alert the campaign to them. When a former Trump Tower doorman tried to sell a bogus story to tabloids about how Mr Trump had fathered an illegitimate child, Mr Pecker warned team Trump, which directed him to buy exclusive rights to the story and bury it, a practice known as “catch and kill”. A similar deal was struck when Karen McDougal, a former Playboy model, emerged from the woodwork to allege an affair with Mr Trump starting in 2006.
About a month before the election Ms Daniels surfaced, shopping around her story about a sexual encounter with Mr Trump, also in 2006. The “Access Hollywood” tape, in which Mr Trump bragged about grabbing women’s genitals, had just appeared in the press and nearly sunk his candidacy. The campaign could ill-afford headlines about how he had slept with a porn star while his wife was nursing their newborn son. This time Mr Cohen paid Ms Clifford $130,000 from his own pocket.
To reimburse Mr Cohen, Mr Trump allegedly agreed to pay him in monthly instalments and mislabel them as legal expenses in the company’s accounts. Hence the 34 felonies alleged by Mr Bragg: 11 related to invoices, 12 to ledger entries and 11 to cheques. Normally these would be misdemeanours. To upgrade them, prosecutors must show that the records were falsified to commit or conceal another crime. They have suggested a few: that the hush money violated federal campaign-finance rules, and that tax wasn’t properly paid on the reimbursements.
A parade of witnesses should bolster the prosecutors’ case. Mr Cohen and Mr Pecker will testify to Mr Trump’s alleged involvement in the scheme. There is an ample paper trail, including cheques that Mr Trump personally signed, and a recording of him discussing the payment for Ms McDougal’s silence.
Mr Trump’s lawyers, for their part, will contend that there was nothing illegal about the hush money: that it was paid purely to protect his personal reputation and spare his wife embarrassment, not to influence the vote or skirt campaign-finance rules. John Edwards, a former Democratic candidate for president, successfully made that argument and was acquitted of breaking campaign-finance laws to hide an affair and a child out of wedlock during the 2008 election. But it will not help that Mr Cohen has admitted in court that it was a crime. In 2018 he pleaded guilty to making an undeclared campaign contribution (among other charges) and spent just over a year in prison.
Mr Trump’s principal strategy, then, will be to impugn Mr Cohen’s credibility and paint him as a fabulist. Indeed Mr Cohen has an impressive record of lying under oath and a well-documented animus towards his former boss, who reportedly relished treating him like garbage. If Mr Trump is convicted, sentencing will be decided by the judge, Juan Merchan. Jail time seems unlikely for a first-time, white-collar felon. There is no mandatory minimum sentence. Each count carries a maximum of four years in prison.
Would a conviction sway voters? That Mr Trump wanted his philandering kept quiet is neither surprising nor news; Americans are inured to his sex scandals by now. Compared with his other indictments this is small bore. Voters consider it the least serious of the four and a plurality thinks a guilty verdict will have no bearing on his political career, according to polling by YouGov. An acquittal would vindicate Mr Trump’s claim to be the victim of a political crusade by Mr Bragg, an elected district attorney who is a Democrat.
The indictment has come in for heavy criticism, even among lawyers on the left. There was doubt about whether state prosecutors could bring a case that rests on a federal campaign-finance violation, since that is the domain of federal prosecutors. Those questions might arise on appeal, but for now they are academic: judges have refused to toss the case out. Of the four indictments against Mr Trump, it may be the only one to produce a verdict before the election in November. The other, weightier charges, about alleged election interference and the mishandling of classified documents, are beset by delays. ■
Stay on top of American politics with The US in brief, our daily newsletter with fast analysis of the most important electoral stories, and Checks and Balance, a weekly note from our Lexington columnist that examines the state of American democracy and the issues that matter to voters.
Inflation barely budged in April as tariffs President Donald Trump implemented in the early part of the month had yet to show up in consumer prices, the Commerce Department reported Friday.
The personal consumption expenditures price index, the Federal Reserve’s key inflation measure, increased just 0.1% for the month, putting the annual inflation rate at 2.1%. The monthly reading was in line with the Dow Jones consensus forecast while the annual level was 0.1 percentage point lower.
Excluding food and energy, the core reading that tends to get even greater focus from Fed policymakers showed readings of 0.1% and 2.5%, against respective estimates of 0.1% and 2.6%.
Consumer spending, though, slowed sharply for the month, posting just a 0.2% increase, in line with the consensus but slower than the 0.7% rate in March. A more cautious consumer mood also was reflected in the personal savings rate, which jumped to 4.9%, up from 0.6 percentage point in March to the highest level in nearly a year.
Personal income surged 0.8%, a slight increase from the prior month but well ahead of the forecast for 0.3%.
Markets showed little reaction to the news, with stock futures continuing to point lower and Treasury yields mixed.
People shop at a grocery store in Brooklyn on May 13, 2025 in New York City.
Spencer Platt | Getty Images
Trump has been pushing the Fed to lower its key interest rate as inflation has continued to gravitate back to the central bank’s 2% target. However, policymakers have been hesitant to move as they await the longer-term impacts of the president’s trade policy.
On Thursday, Trump and Fed Chair Jerome Powell held their first face-to-face meeting since the president started his second term. However, a Fed statement indicated the future path of monetary policy was not discussed and stressed that decisions would be made free of political considerations.
Trump slapped across-the-board 10% duties on all U.S. imports, part of an effort to even out a trading landscape in which the U.S. ran a record $140.5 billion deficit in March. In addition to the general tariffs, Trump launched selective reciprocal tariffs much higher than the 10% general charge.
Since then, though, Trump has backed off the more severe tariffs in favor of a 90-day negotiating period with the affected countries. Earlier this week, an international court struck down the tariffs, saying Trump exceeded his authority and didn’t prove that national security was threatened by the trade issues.
Then in the latest installment of the drama, an appeals court allowed a White House effort for a temporary stay of the order from the U.S. Court of International Trade.
Economists worry that tariffs could spark another round of inflation, though the historical record shows that their impact is often minimal.
At their policy meeting earlier this month, Fed officials also expressed worry about potential tariff inflation, particularly at a time when concerns are rising about the labor market. Higher prices and slower economic growth can yield stagflation, a phenomenon the U.S. hasn’t seen since the early 1980s.
19 May 2025, Berlin: Apricots are sold at a greengrocer for 7.98 euros per kilogram. Grapes and papaya are also on offer.
Photo by Jens Kalaene/picture alliance via Getty Images
Germany’s annual inflation hit 2.1% in May approaching the European Central Bank’s 2% target but coming in slightly hotter than analyst estimates, preliminary data from statistics office Destatis showed Friday.
The print compares with a 2.2% reading in April and with a Reuters projection of 2%.
The print is harmonized across the euro zone for comparability.
So-called core inflation, which strips out more volatile food and energy prices, dipped slightly from April’s 2.8% to 2.9% in May. The closely watched services print meanwhile eased sharply, coming in at 3.4% compared to 3.9% in the previous month.
Energy prices fell markedly for the second month in a row, tumbling by 4.6% in May.
Germany’s consumer price index has been closing in on the European Central Bank’s 2% target over recent months, in a positive signal amid ongoing uncertainty about the economic outlook for Europe’s largest economy.
Domestic and global issues have mired expectations for Germany’s financial future.
One the one hand, U.S. President Donald Trump’s tariffs could damage economic growth, given Germany’s status as an export-reliant country, though the potential impact of such duties on inflation remains unclear. But frequent policy shifts and developments have been muddying the picture.
On the other hand, Germany’s newly minted government is starting to get to work and has made the economy a top priority. Questions linger about when and to what extent the new Berlin administration’s policy plans might be realized.
The ECB is set to make its next interest rate decision on June 5, with traders last pricing in an over 96% chance of a quarter point interest rate reduction, according to LSEG data. Back in April, the central bank had cut its deposit facility rate by 25 basis points to 2.25%.
This is a breaking news story, please check back for updates.
National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett speaks to reporters at the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S., April 14, 2025.
Kevin Lamarque | Reuters
A top economic advisor to President Donald Trump expressed confidence Thursday that court rulings throwing out aggressive tariffs will be overturned on appeal.
Kevin Hassett, director of the National Economic Council, said in an interview that he fully believes the administration’s efforts to use tariffs to ensure fair trade are perfectly legal and will resume soon.
“We’re right that America has been mishandled by other governments,” Hassett said during a Fox Business interview. “This trade negotiation season has been really, really effective for the American people.”
The comments follow a ruling from judges on the Court of International Trade who said Trump exceeded his authority on tariffs, which are aimed both at combating barriers against American goods abroad and stemming the flow of fentanyl across the U.S. border.
While the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has said that fentanyl is the primary driver in domestic overdose deaths, the judges ruled that related tariffs “fail because they do not deal with the threats set forth in those orders.”
Hassett bristled at the ruling and said the administration will continue its anti-fentanyl efforts.
“These activist judges are trying to slow down something right in the middle of really important negotiations,” he said. “The idea that the fentanyl crisis in America is not an emergency is so appalling to me that I am sure that when we appeal, this decision will be overturned.”
The administration has multiple options to get around the judges’ ruling, including other sections of trade laws it can utilize. However, Hassett said that’s not the plan at the moment.
“The fact is that there are measures that we can take with different numbers that we can start right now. There are different approaches that would take a couple of months to put these in place,” he said. “We’re not planning to pursue those right now, because we’re very very confident that this ruling is incorrect.”