A New York judge has set a March 25 start date for the criminal trial of former President Donald Trump over payments to the former adult film star Stormy Daniels, establishing a concrete timetable for what will be the first criminal proceeding involving the magnate while he runs a high-visibility campaign. The court date underscores the seriousness of the case and the sustained scrutiny Trump faces as he campaigns across the United States.
Trump has repeatedly framed the matter as a political vendetta in comments on social media and in statements upon arriving at the courthouse, insisting that no crime exists on the table and arguing that the process is a consequence of actions by the Biden administration. He has stressed that his opponents aim to influence the political landscape through legal actions rather than addressing policy concerns, and he has suggested that the impact on his campaign will be limited by his already strong standing in the polls, according to coverage by major U.S. outlets.
In the days leading up to the proceedings, Trump has publicly denounced what he calls attempts at electoral interference. Yet he has also indicated that any potential effects on his campaign are likely to be muted, given the substantial support he claims to enjoy in public opinion surveys. The statements were reported by major networks and reflected a strategy aimed at portraying the case as persecution rather than a matter of legal accountability.
Trump appeared in person on Thursday in Manhattan as the court proceeded with the session in which the judge, Juan Merchan, announced the plan to begin the trial on the scheduled date and to select a jury. The jury will be tasked with determining whether the former president committed crimes related to a series of payments to the actor shortly before the 2016 presidential election. The proceedings mark a pivotal moment as the legal process unfolds in a climate shaped by political divisions and intense media attention.
Specifically, the indictment includes more than thirty counts related to payments totaling roughly 130,000 euros. The objective was allegedly to keep Stormy Daniels from discussing a claimed extramarital relationship. Trump has consistently denied any wrongdoing and has entered a plea of not guilty on all counts, asserting that the money transfers were legal and properly documented at the corporate level through the firms controlled by his business empire.
The payments themselves, in isolation, are not described as illegal; what draws scrutiny is the method of execution. Prosecutors point to the involvement of Trump’s former lawyer Michael Cohen and argue that the disbursements were concealed through corporate accounts at a critical moment before the 2016 race, when Trump was vying against Hillary Clinton and had the momentum of a broad campaign operation behind him. The defense has emphasized that there was no improper intent in the arrangements and has challenged the implications of how the funds were used.
As the case moves forward, legal observers note that the outcome could hinge on questions of intent, record-keeping, and the precise pathways through which the payments were processed. The court has set a timetable designed to move the proceedings efficiently, with juror selection forming a key early phase. The broader political environment adds a layer of complexity to a process that seeks to determine whether any legal boundaries were crossed in the handling of the payments and related communications.
Throughout the series of developments, the parties have prepared for a trial that could be lengthy and highly public. The proceedings will unfold under intense media scrutiny as Trump and his supporters continue to present their arguments to a national audience. The case stands as a defining moment in the intersection of law, politics, and public discourse in the United States, with implications that extend beyond the courtroom to the broader conversation about accountability for those who hold high political offices.