Five years after Donald Trump tried to challenge the outcome of the 2020 presidential race, the final remaining criminal case tied to those efforts has been dismissed. With that decision, the president will not face any criminal trial over conduct prosecutors had previously described as backed by strong evidence.
With Georgia’s racketeering case now closed and federal election–interference charges abandoned on presidential immunity grounds, Trump no longer faces criminal liability for what prosecutors once framed as a sweeping attempt to remain in power despite his 2020 defeat.
Why It Matters
Following years of investigations and detailed allegations that Trump and his allies tried to overturn Georgia’s 2020 results, the collapse of the state racketeering case—combined with the federal decision not to proceed because of presidential immunity—means Trump will not stand trial over those actions.
The outcome highlights how procedural delays, political timing and constitutional protections ultimately shielded a sitting president from prosecution, intensifying debate over accountability and the limits of the legal system when the defendant occupies the Oval Office.
What To Know
How the Georgia Case Fell Apart
The Georgia prosecution, long viewed as the last active criminal case connected to the 2020 election, was terminated on November 26, 2025, when Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee ordered that the case be “dismissed in its entirety.”
That ruling followed state prosecutor Peter Skandalakis’s decision to discontinue the case after he assumed control earlier in the month.
“In my professional judgment, the citizens of Georgia are not served by pursuing this case in full for another five to ten years,” Skandalakis wrote in his filing requesting dismissal.
He argued that the case would have been “best pursued at the federal level,” but acknowledged that such a path was no longer available. Former Special Counsel Jack Smith had already abandoned his federal election–interference case after Trump’s reelection and the Supreme Court’s expansion of presidential immunity.
In his review, Skandalakis stressed the gravity of the conduct outlined in the indictment.
The effort led by Trump and his allies, he wrote, “quickly shifted from a legitimate legal effort into a campaign that ultimately culminated in an attack on the Capitol,” adding that the events were “conceived in Washington, D.C., not the State of Georgia.”
Even so, he concluded that continuing the prosecution was unrealistic, pointing to logistical hurdles, constitutional constraints, evidentiary issues, and limits on forcing a sitting president to appear in court.
Legal Setbacks and Structural Obstacles
Filed in August 2023, the Georgia indictment accused Trump and 18 co-defendants of conspiring to overturn Joe Biden’s victory in the state.
The case drew intense national scrutiny in part because of the recorded January 2021 call in which Trump urged Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to “find 11,780 votes.”
Ultimately, four defendants—including attorneys Sidney Powell and Kenneth Chesebro—pleaded guilty and agreed to provide truthful testimony in any future proceedings.
But the case was beset by structural complications.
The disqualification of Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis over an “appearance of impropriety” related to her relationship with a special prosecutor had already stalled the case and made its path forward less certain.
Skandalakis, a nonpartisan official appointed to find a replacement prosecutor, ended up taking the case himself only after he was unable to persuade anyone else to assume it.
He later concluded that continuing the prosecution would not “serve the interests of justice.”
Federal Limits and the End of the Road
The Georgia dismissal mirrors developments at the federal level.
In January 2025, Smith released a partially public report asserting that “the admissible evidence was sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction at trial,” and that Trump “would have been convicted…if he had not successfully been re-elected in 2024.”
Smith maintained that the Constitution’s bar on prosecuting a sitting president was the only reason the case could not go forward.
Trump forcefully rejected Smith’s conclusions, labeling the prosecutor “deranged” and dismissing the report as “fake,” as reported by the BBC. He also applauded the Georgia ruling, declaring that “LAW and JUSTICE have prevailed” and characterizing the prosecution as a “witch hunt.”
The shutdown of the Georgia prosecution eliminates one of the last remaining avenues for potential criminal accountability tied to the 2020 election.
Georgia State University law professor Anthony Michael Kreis argued that the case had represented “an opportunity for justice and reconciliation and a kind of truth-telling that has been squandered,” according to NPR Illinois.
With no outstanding indictments on the issue, and constitutional protections preventing federal prosecution while Trump remains in office, the dismissal effectively ends formal efforts to hold him criminally responsible for attempts to overturn the 2020 result.
Five years on, Trump is no longer facing criminal accountability for those events.
What People Are Saying
Reacting to the news that he will not be prosecuted, Trump called for Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis to face charges herself, saying: “Now she should be prosecuted. What Fani Willis did to innocent people, patriots that love our country… she should be put in jail. She’s a criminal.”
Defending his co-defendants and casting the prosecution as persecution, he added: “Those people have been so unfairly dragged into this… These are high-quality people who don’t even know why they were brought in.”
What Happens Next
With the Georgia case dismissed and federal charges blocked by presidential immunity, all criminal paths related to Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election have effectively closed. There is no remaining route for legal accountability on these specific allegations.
From here, the fallout shifts fully from the courtroom to the political sphere, leaving voters—as opposed to prosecutors—to determine any consequences.
The larger implications fall on the system itself, as lawmakers, legal experts and election officials confront the precedent that a president may avoid trial for alleged election subversion through a combination of procedural delays, constitutional protections and the timing of electoral victory.
