Judge Sets Trump’s Sentencing in Hush Money Case for Jan. 10

In a historic ruling, Manhattan Judge Juan M. Merchan on Friday scheduled President-elect Donald Trump’s sentencing in his hush money case for January 10, just days before his return to the White House.

The judge indicated Trump would not face jail time, opting instead for an "unconditional discharge," where the conviction stands but does not result in imprisonment, fines, or probation.

Trump may attend the sentencing virtually if he chooses.

The case makes Trump the first president to take office with a felony conviction. Merchan rejected Trump’s legal team’s requests to dismiss the verdict, asserting that justice required bringing closure to the matter.

In his 18-page ruling, Merchan balanced Trump’s need to govern without hindrance against public expectations that “no one is above the law.”

He cited the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent ruling on presidential immunity but emphasized the importance of upholding a jury verdict.

Trump, convicted in May on 34 counts of falsifying business records, lashed out on Truth Social, calling the case an “illegitimate political attack” and a “rigged charade” orchestrated by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg. Trump also claimed the ruling, if allowed to stand, would mark “the end of the presidency as we know it.”

The charges stem from allegations that Trump concealed a $130,000 hush money payment made to adult film actress Stormy Daniels during his 2016 campaign to prevent her from publicizing claims of an affair.

Trump denies the affair and maintains his innocence, arguing the payments were legal and unrelated to the election. The case focused on how Trump reimbursed his former lawyer, Michael Cohen, for the payment, falsely classifying it as legal expenses.

Cohen, who testified during the trial, called Merchan’s sentencing decision “judicious and appropriate.” Trump, 78, initially faced a range of penalties, including fines, probation, or up to four years in prison.

His sentencing was postponed multiple times, first in July and later after his November 5 election victory, to allow the defense and prosecution to address the case’s implications for his presidency.

Trump’s lawyers argued that allowing the conviction to stand would create unconstitutional disruptions to his ability to lead the country.

They requested the case be dismissed, citing presidential immunity and the Supreme Court’s earlier ruling that presidents are broadly shielded from criminal prosecution. Prosecutors acknowledged Trump’s upcoming presidency warranted accommodation but insisted the conviction should remain.

In response, the defense proposed freezing the case during Trump’s term or guaranteeing a no-jail sentence.

Another suggestion involved formally closing the case while preserving both the conviction and the pending appeal, an approach sometimes used when criminal defendants die before their cases conclude. Merchan dismissed these arguments, stating that overturning the conviction would undermine the rule of law.

Trump’s case, tried in state court, is immune to federal pardons. His lawyers have signaled an intent to appeal the conviction once sentencing is finalized. They also sought to move the case to federal court to assert immunity, but federal judges repeatedly denied the motion.

This hush money case is the only one of Trump’s four criminal indictments to go to trial. The others have taken different paths: Special counsel Jack Smith dropped federal charges against Trump related to the 2020 election and classified documents, while Georgia’s election interference case stalled after an appeals court removed prosecutor Fani Willis.

Trump’s legal team argued that the dismissal of Smith’s federal cases justified dismissing the New York case, but Merchan rejected that reasoning, noting the hush money trial was at a "vastly different stage."

Trump’s conviction marks an unprecedented moment in U.S. history, as he prepares to take office on January 20 as the first president-elect with a felony record.

While Merchan sought to respect Trump’s ability to govern, his ruling underscores the importance of accountability and the principle that even the most powerful figures are subject to the law.