No evidence for conspiracy theory that Joe Biden is behind Donald Trump's New York charges

In the wake of his historic conviction, former President Donald Trump and his supporters have repeatedly pushed the narrative that the case against him was orchestrated by President Joe Biden.

Trump became the first former president convicted of a crime in May when a jury found him guilty of 34 felony charges of falsifying business records related to a $130,000 hush money payment to adult film actress Stormy Daniels ahead of the 2016 election.

Trump later claimed – without providing evidence – that his prosecution was “all done by Biden and his people." GOP Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene similarly called Trump “a prisoner of the Biden regime.” And Trump attorney Alina Habba characterized the hush money charges as "exactly a Biden show."

But there's no proof connecting Biden to the Trump prosecution, according to USA TODAY research and multiple legal experts.

“There is not a shred of evidence that Biden has anything to do with this prosecution,” said Allan Lichtman, a professor of history at American University.

Kimberly Wehle, a law professor at the University of Baltimore and a former assistant U.S. attorney in Washington, called the assertion from Trump “obviously, blatantly false.”

She added, "It’s designed to confuse the public into politicizing the rule of law."

More from the Fact-Check Team: How we pick and research claims | Email newsletter | Facebook page

More: After conviction, Trump questioned the New York statute of limitations. Here are the facts

‘He has no power to order Bragg to do anything’

The biggest logic gap in the Biden-as-puppetmaster theory is a simple matter of jurisdiction.

The case was brought by the state of New York, not the federal government. That means, under the Constitution, the Biden administration has no authority over the prosecution of Trump led by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg.

“He has no power to order Bragg to do anything,” Martin Redish, a professor of law and public policy at Northwestern University, told USA TODAY.

The same holds true for Trump’s case in Georgia, where the former president and others have pleaded not guilty to charges of trying to steal the 2020 election. An appeals court placed that case on hold while it reviews a ruling that allows Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis to remain on it.

“When you’re dealing with state prosecutions, it’s district attorneys elected by the voters of their jurisdiction,” Lichtman said. “That has nothing to do with the federal government.”

The idea of Biden interfering in Trump's prosecution is further weakened by the fact that the agency under his purview declined to file charges. The Justice Department had the authority to pursue a case against Trump over the hush money circumstances but chose not to do so.

Of course, if Biden or those in his sphere were coordinating with local prosecutors, those communications would not take place in public view. But it's important to note no one promoting the claim has provided any proof such a thing took place.

"I can't discount the theoretical possibility of some secret conspiracy, but I would like to see some evidence of that," Redish said. "And I've heard none to this point."

Some of the Biden conspiracy claims center on Matthew Colangelo, who was a top Justice Department official before joining the Manhattan DA's office in December 2022.

But that particular theory falls flat for several reasons. First, the investigation began in 2018, two years before Biden was elected president and four years before Colangelo's arrival. And second, Colangelo's resume – which includes experience working on issues relating to Trump and a stint working with Bragg in the New York attorney general's office – would seem on its own to make him a logical selection for this post.

Even a former Trump attorney called the claim of Biden's involvement “one of the most ridiculous things I’ve heard.”

“We know that’s not the case, and even Trump’s lawyers know that’s not the case,” Joe Tacopina, who left the former president’s legal team in January after representing him during his arraignment in the hush money trial, told MSNBC. USA TODAY reached out to him but did not immediately receive a response.

Attorney General Merrick Garland also blasted this line of thinking in testimony before the House Judiciary Committee on June 4, condemning "false claims that a jury verdict in a state trial, brought by a local district attorney, was somehow controlled by the Justice Department."

The separation of federal and state powers traces back to the nation’s infancy and was established in the Bill of Rights, Redish noted. The 10th Amendment defines federalism, spelling out that states have any powers not specifically assigned to the national government.

“This is a power reserved to the states,” Lichtman said. “President Biden or any other federal official has absolutely no authority over such a prosecution, and it would be grossly improper for Biden or a federal official to intervene.”

Fact check: Debunking misinformation about Donald Trump's conviction in hush money trial

That separation, Redish said, goes back to the Founding Fathers.

“They split our governments in two different ways: horizontally, and – in this instance, more importantly – vertically,” he said. “They split sovereign power so that it would be a speed bump to anyone trying to achieve tyranny.”

'Clear safeguards,' but no law keeping Biden from interfering in federal cases

In Trump's two federal cases, things are a bit different. The charges he faces cover the hoarding of hundreds of classified documents in Florida and a conspiracy to steal the 2020 election from Biden in Washington.

There is no law that prohibits a president from involving himself in a federal case, experts acknowledged. But they also said Biden has kept himself separate from the prosecution of Trump.

“There are very clear safeguards in place, and Biden has affirmed them,” Lichtman said.

Biden made a public vow not to speak to Garland about any specific case, saying in a June 2023 appearance on MSNBC that he “made a commitment that I would not in any way interfere with the Justice Department, who they prosecuted, if they prosecuted, how they proceeded.”

The department in November 2022 appointed Jack Smith the special counsel for the federal cases against Trump, and a key reason for that was to add a layer of separation between the investigation and the administration.

“When special counsels are appointed, it’s because the normal line of prosecutors, starting with the attorney general, may have an appearance of some interest,” Redish said. “They may not actually have the interest, but the appearance of fairness is more important than the actual fact.”

Garland, a federal judge for more than two decades and a longtime Justice Department attorney before that, was nominated in 2016 for a U.S. Supreme Court seat by Democratic former President Barack Obama. Smith, a career prosecutor who is not registered with either political party, led war crimes cases at The Hague before his appointment and has never been a political appointee.

“There’s been no evidence he’s done anything improper,” Lichtman said of Smith.

The theory that Biden is using the DOJ to serve his personal agenda also falls flat in light of two of its recent decisions. Not only did the agency decline to prosecute Trump for the New York hush money situation, it has now taken the president's son to trial. Hunter Biden faces felony gun charges in a trial that began days after the New York jury convicted Trump.

“Joe Biden hasn’t directed his Justice Department to halt those investigations, to withdraw that indictment," Wehle said. "That stands for itself as proof that Joe Biden is not manipulating a state – assuming that was even possible. … He’s not even using the levers of his own power to call off a prosecution of his own son.”

Thank you for supporting our journalism. You can subscribe to our print edition, ad-free app or e-newspaper here.

USA TODAY is a verified signatory of the International Fact-Checking Network, which requires a demonstrated commitment to nonpartisanship, fairness and transparency. Our fact-check work is supported in part by a grant from Meta.

This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Trump conviction tied to orders from Biden? No evidence of that