Donald Trump Faces Several Investigations. Here’s Where They Stand.

Former President Donald J. Trump is facing an indictment in Manhattan as well as a number of election-related investigations around the country.

In Manhattan, Mr. Trump has pleaded not guilty to 34 felony counts related to his role in what prosecutors described as a hush-money scheme to cover up a potential sex scandal in order to clear his path to the presidency in 2016.

In Washington, federal prosecutors working for Jack Smith, the special counsel for the Trump inquiries, have been focused on whether Mr. Trump obstructed the government’s efforts to retrieve a trove of classified documents he took from the White House.

Investigators now appear to be trying to determine whether Mr. Trump and some of his aides sought to interfere with the government’s attempt to obtain security-camera footage from Mar-a-Lago, his Florida estate, that could shed light on how those documents were stored and who had access to them.

Mr. Smith is also examining Mr. Trump’s efforts to reverse his defeat at the polls in 2020 and his role in the events that led to the storming of the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

And a Georgia prosecutor is in the final stages of an investigation into Mr. Trump’s attempts to reverse the election results in that state.

Here is where the notable inquiries involving the former president stand.

Manhattan Criminal Case

The Manhattan district attorney, Alvin L. Bragg, brought the case over Mr. Trump’s role in a hush-money payment to a porn star, Stormy Daniels, who was poised during the campaign to go public with her story of a sexual encounter with him.

Michael D. Cohen, Mr. Trump’s fixer at the time, paid Ms. Daniels $130,000 to keep quiet. Once he was sworn in as president, Mr. Trump reimbursed Mr. Cohen.

While paying hush money is not inherently criminal, Mr. Bragg accused Mr. Trump of falsifying records related to the payments and the reimbursement of Mr. Cohen, who is expected to serve as the prosecution’s star witness.

In court papers, prosecutors also cited the account of another woman, Karen McDougal, a former Playboy model. Ms. McDougal had tried to sell her story of an affair with Mr. Trump during the campaign and reached a $150,000 agreement with The National Enquirer.

Rather than publish her account, the tabloid suppressed it in cooperation with Mr. Trump and Mr. Cohen, prosecutors say. (Mr. Trump has denied having affairs with either Ms. Daniels or Ms. McDougal.)

The court papers also referred to a payment to a former Trump Tower doorman who claimed that Mr. Trump had fathered a child out of wedlock. The National Enquirer paid $30,000 for the rights to his story, although it eventually concluded that his claim was false.

Mr. Trump is running for president again, and the case is scheduled to go to trial in March, when the campaign will be in full swing.

Mr. Trump has referred to Mr. Bragg, who is Black and a Democrat, as a “racist” who is carrying out a politically motivated “witch hunt.” Before the indictment, he made threatening statements reminiscent of his posts in the days before the attack on the U.S. Capitol in 2021.

Hours after his arraignment, Mr. Trump delivered a meandering, rally-style speech at Mar-a-Lago during which he lashed out at Mr. Bragg and his wife as well as the judge overseeing the case, Juan M. Merchan, whom he called “Trump-hating.”

Recently, Mr. Trump’s lawyers have sought to move the case out of Justice Merchan’s courtroom, either to another New York State Supreme Court judge or out of state court entirely, to a federal judge.

Mr. Bragg’s investigation into Mr. Trump once appeared to be at a dead end. Under Mr. Bragg’s predecessor, Cyrus R. Vance Jr., the district attorney’s office had begun to present evidence to an earlier grand jury about Mr. Trump’s business practices, including whether he had fraudulently inflated the value of his real estate to secure favorable loans and other financial benefits. (Mr. Vance’s prosecutors were also investigating the hush money.)

In the early weeks of his tenure last year, Mr. Bragg developed concerns about the strength of that case. He decided to abandon the grand-jury presentation, prompting the resignations of the two senior prosecutors leading the investigation.

But last summer, Mr. Bragg’s prosecutors returned to the hush-money case, seeking to jump-start the inquiry.

The first visible sign of progress for Mr. Bragg came in January, when Mr. Cohen met with prosecutors at the district attorney’s Lower Manhattan office — the first such meeting in nearly a year. Mr. Cohen returned for several additional interviews with the prosecutors and testified before the grand jury.

After Mr. Bragg impaneled the grand jury in January, it heard testimony from Mr. Cohen as well as two former National Enquirer executives who had helped broker the hush-money deal. Ms. Daniels’s former lawyer also testified, as did two senior officials from Mr. Trump’s 2016 campaign, Hope Hicks and Kellyanne Conway. The grand jury also heard testimony from employees of Mr. Trump’s company, the Trump Organization.

In late 2022, Mr. Bragg’s prosecutors won a conviction of the Trump Organization when a jury found the business guilty of multiple felonies related to a long-running tax fraud scheme. The company’s veteran chief financial officer, Allen H. Weisselberg, pleaded guilty in the scheme and served time at the Rikers Island jail complex.

Classified Documents Inquiry

Mr. Smith, the special counsel appointed by the Justice Department to oversee its inquiries into the former president, is conducting a criminal investigation into Mr. Trump’s handling of sensitive government documents he took with him when he left office and whether he obstructed efforts to recover them.

For more than a year, Mr. Trump repeatedly resisted the federal government’s efforts, including a subpoena, to retrieve classified and sensitive material still in his possession, according to government documents.

In August, acting on a court-approved search warrant, the F.B.I. descended on his Mar-a-Lago residence and club in Palm Beach, Fla., and discovered about 100 documents bearing classification markings.

The warrant used to justify the search detailed three criminal laws: the Espionage Act, which criminalizes the unauthorized retention of national security secrets; an obstruction statute; and a ban on the willful and unlawful concealment, removal, mutilation, falsification or destruction of government documents.

The search was prompted by the discovery that Mr. Trump had kept classified material related to the use of “clandestine human sources,” according to a redacted version of the affidavit used to obtain the warrant. There was also “probable cause to believe that evidence of obstruction will be found” at Mr. Trump’s house, prosecutors wrote.

The Justice Department has suggested that the classified materials stored at Mr. Trump’s residence were most likely concealed and moved as the government sought to recover them. It also disclosed that it had obtained evidence that Mr. Trump’s representatives falsely claimed that all sensitive material had been returned.

In total, the government has recovered more than 300 documents with classified markings from Mr. Trump since he left office. They include a first batch that was returned in January 2022 to the National Archives, another set provided by Mr. Trump’s aides to the Justice Department last June, material that the F.B.I. seized in its search of Mar-a-Lago in August and a handful found in additional searches late last year.

The investigation drew renewed attention in March, when lawyers for Mr. Trump lost their fight to prevent investigators from acquiring documents related to the legal work on the former president’s behalf by M. Evan Corcoran. The Trump team asserted attorney-client privilege in its attempt to hold on to the documents, but first the Federal District Court in Washington and then an appellate court ordered Mr. Corcoran to comply with the investigators’ demand.

In her ruling on the issue, the district court judge, Beryl A. Howell, noted that prosecutors had made “a prima facie showing that the former president committed criminal violations,” according to people familiar with the decision.

It remains unclear whether Mr. Trump will be charged in the case, though Mr. Smith’s investigation appears to be in its final stages. New indications have emerged in recent weeks of the scale of the Justice Department inquiry.

Prosecutors obtained a recording of Mr. Trump from 2021 discussing a sensitive military document he kept after leaving the White House. In the recording, Mr. Trump suggested he knew the document was secret and had not declassified it, a person briefed on the matter said. The existence of the recording could undermine the former president’s repeated claim that he had already declassified the materials the government was seeking to recover.

Investigators have also been scrutinizing whether Mr. Trump and some of his aides sought to interfere with the government’s attempt to obtain security-camera footage from Mar-a-Lago that could shed light on how those documents were stored and who had access to them.

New York State Civil Inquiry

In a September lawsuit, the New York attorney general, Letitia James, accused Mr. Trump of lying to lenders and insurers by fraudulently overvaluing his assets by billions of dollars.

Ms. James is seeking to bar the Trumps, including Mr. Trump’s older sons, Donald Jr. and Eric, and his older daughter, Ivanka, from running a business in New York again.

She has already successfully requested that a judge appoint an independent monitor to oversee the Trump Organization’s use of its annual financial statements — in which, the attorney general says in her suit, the company overvalued its assets.

In January, a New York judge declined to dismiss the attorney general’s suit against Mr. Trump, increasing the likelihood that he would face a trial in the matter this fall.

Because Ms. James’s investigation is civil, she cannot file criminal charges. She could opt to pursue settlement negotiations in hopes of obtaining a swifter financial payout. But if she were to prevail at trial, a judge could impose steep financial penalties on Mr. Trump and restrict his business operations in New York.

Ms. James’s investigators recently questioned Mr. Trump under oath, and a trial is scheduled for October.

Georgia Criminal Inquiry

Prosecutors in Georgia recently indicated that they would announce indictments in the first half of August in their investigation of Mr. Trump and some of his allies over their efforts to interfere with the results of the 2020 presidential election in the state.

Mr. Trump and his associates had numerous interactions with Georgia officials after the election, including a call in which he urged the secretary of state, Brad Raffensperger, to “find 11,780 votes,” the number he would have needed to overcome President Biden’s lead there.

Legal experts say that Mr. Trump and others appear to be at “substantial risk” of prosecution for violating a number Georgia statutes, including the state’s racketeering law.

A special grand jury was impaneled in May of last year in Fulton County, and it heard testimony from 75 witnesses behind closed doors over a series of months. The jurors produced a final report, but the most important elements of it — including recommendations on who should be indicted and on what charges — remain under seal.

But the forewoman, Emily Kohrs, has said that indictments were recommended against more than a dozen people, and she strongly hinted in an interview with The New York Times in February that Mr. Trump was included among those names. “You’re not going to be shocked,” she said. “It’s not rocket science.”

Mr. Trump has assailed the proceedings in Georgia, and his lawyers have referred to them as a “clown show.” In March, they filed a motion seeking to suppress any evidence or testimony derived from the special grand jury’s investigation. The motion also asks that the office of Fani T. Willis, the Fulton County district attorney and a Democrat, be disqualified from the case.

In a response in mid-May, Ms. Willis said that the Trump legal team had not met the “exacting standards” for having a prosecutor disqualified and had not backed up accusations about the investigative process with evidence. A number of legal scholars believe that the motion has little chance of derailing prosecutors’ work.

Ms. Willis will ultimately decide what charges to seek and then bring them before a regular grand jury. She recently indicated that she would do so during the first three weeks of August, telling local officials in a letter that most of her staff would work remotely during that period and asking judges in a downtown Atlanta courthouse not to schedule trials for part of that time.

Jan. 6 Inquiries

A House committee investigating the Jan. 6 assault on the Capitol spent a year and a half examining the role that Mr. Trump and his allies played in his efforts to hold on to power after his electoral defeat in November 2020.

In December, the committee issued an 845-page report concluding that Mr. Trump and some of his associates had devised “a multipart plan to overturn the 2020 presidential election” and disclosing in exhaustive detail the events that led to the attack on the Capitol.

The panel also accused Mr. Trump of inciting insurrection and conspiracy to defraud the United States, among other federal crimes, and referred him and some of his allies to the Justice Department for possible prosecution.

The referrals were largely symbolic, but they sent a powerful signal that a bipartisan committee of Congress believed the former president had committed crimes.

Mr. Smith’s office has been conducting its own investigation into Mr. Trump’s attempts to overturn the election, building on months of work by other federal prosecutors in Washington who have also filed charges against nearly 1,000 people who took part in the storming of the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

The special counsel’s office has focused its attention on a wide array of schemes that Mr. Trump and his allies used to try to stave off defeat, among them a plan to create false slates of pro-Trump electors in key swing states that were won by Mr. Biden. Prosecutors under Mr. Smith have also sought information about Mr. Trump’s main fund-raising operation after the election.

The special counsel’s office has recently won important legal battles in its inquiry as judges in Washington have issued rulings forcing top Trump administration officials like former Vice President Mike Pence and the former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows to testify in front of a grand jury.

It is unclear what charges, if any, might come from the federal investigation. But prosecutors continue to pursue a variety of angles. They recently subpoenaed staff members from the Trump White House who might have been involved in firing the cybersecurity official whose agency judged the 2020 election “the most secure in American history,” according to two people briefed on the matter.

Mr. Smith’s team has been asking witnesses about the events surrounding the firing of Christopher Krebs, who was the Trump administration’s top cybersecurity official during the 2020 election. Mr. Krebs’s assessment of the election’s security was at odds with Mr. Trump’s baseless assertions that it was a “fraud on the American public.”

Reporting was contributed by Jonah E. Bromwich, Rebecca Davis O’Brien, Michael Gold, Michael Rothfeld, Ed Shanahan, Richard Fausset and Ashley Wong.