In a dramatic turn of events that has sent shockwaves through political and legal circles, the historic Georgia criminal case against President Donald Trump and more than a dozen of his allies for their efforts to overturn the 2020 election has come to an abrupt end. On November 26, 2025, Fulton Superior Judge Scott McAfee ordered the dismissal of the case in its entirety, following a motion by Pete Skandalakis, executive director of the Prosecuting Attorneys’ Council of Georgia. The decision marks the conclusion of the last outstanding criminal prosecution against Trump related to the aftermath of the 2020 presidential election.
The Georgia case, once considered the most sweeping and potentially consequential of the four criminal cases brought against Trump in 2023, began nearly five years ago. It was originally spearheaded by Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis, who launched an investigation into whether illegal attempts were made to influence Georgia’s 2020 election results. The probe was sparked in part by the now-infamous January 2, 2021, phone call in which Trump was recorded urging Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to “find” 11,780 votes—just enough to overturn his narrow defeat in the state.
Willis announced the indictment in August 2023 with considerable fanfare, charging Trump and 18 others, including former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani and former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, under Georgia’s anti-racketeering law. The indictment alleged a wide-ranging conspiracy to illegally overturn Joe Biden’s victory in Georgia and included accusations of submitting a false slate of Trump electors, accessing sensitive voting machine data, and pressuring state officials to interfere with the election outcome. Most defendants, including Trump, pleaded not guilty, while four accepted plea deals that remain binding to this day. Trump’s mug shot, taken at the Fulton County Jail, quickly became an enduring image of the case and the era.
The legal proceedings, however, soon became mired in controversy. In late 2024, attorneys for one of Trump’s co-defendants revealed that DA Willis had engaged in a romantic relationship with Nathan Wade, the special prosecutor she had appointed to lead the case. Although Willis acknowledged the relationship, she maintained it did not affect the integrity of the prosecution. Judge McAfee rebuked Willis for what he called a “tremendous lapse in judgment” but initially allowed her to remain on the case if Wade resigned—an option Wade exercised. Yet, the Georgia Court of Appeals later reversed this ruling, removing Willis and her office from the case entirely. The state Supreme Court declined to hear her appeal, leaving the case in limbo.
With Willis disqualified, the responsibility to appoint a new prosecutor fell to the Prosecuting Attorneys’ Council of Georgia. After several other prosecutors declined to take on the sprawling and resource-intensive case, Skandalakis, a nonpartisan official and former district attorney with experience in both Democratic and Republican circles, decided to assume the role himself in November 2025. “It’s important that someone makes a decision on this case,” Skandalakis remarked in a previous interview, emphasizing the need for closure for all involved parties and the public at large.
After reviewing the evidence, legal complexities, and the practical realities of bringing such a case to trial, Skandalakis concluded that dismissal was the only viable path forward. In his motion to dismiss, he wrote, “The criminal conduct alleged in the Atlanta Judicial Circuit’s prosecution was conceived in Washington, D.C., not the State of Georgia. The federal government is the appropriate venue for this prosecution, not the State of Georgia.” According to NPR, Skandalakis also questioned the strength of the racketeering charges at the heart of the indictment and noted that even if prosecutors prevailed on every issue, “bringing this case before a jury in 2029, 2030, or even 2031 would be nothing short of a remarkable feat.”
Skandalakis considered but ultimately rejected the idea of severing Trump from the case and prosecuting the remaining defendants separately, calling such an approach “illogical and unduly burdensome and costly.” He also acknowledged the deep political divisions surrounding the investigation and prosecution, stating, “This decision will not be universally popular.” He further revealed that his family had received threats after he took over the case, underscoring the intense scrutiny and public pressure associated with the proceedings. “The role of a prosecutor is not to satisfy public opinion or achieve universal approval; such a goal is both unattainable and irrelevant to the proper exercise of prosecutorial discretion. My assessment of this case has been guided solely by the evidence, the law, and the principles of justice,” he wrote, as reported by NPR.
The dismissal of the Georgia case comes on the heels of similar developments at the federal level. Former Justice Department special counsel Jack Smith had brought two federal cases against Trump—one related to efforts to overturn the 2020 election and another concerning the handling of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago. Both cases were dropped after Trump won the White House in 2024, with Smith citing longstanding Justice Department policy against indicting a sitting president. Meanwhile, Trump’s conviction in New York on felony charges related to hush money payments during the 2016 election resulted in an unconditional discharge, leaving the conviction intact but sparing him any punishment.
Trump wasted no time in celebrating the Georgia dismissal, proclaiming on social media, “LAW and JUSTICE have prevailed in the Great State of Georgia, as the corrupt Fani Willis Witch Hunt against me, and other Great American Patriots, has been DISMISSED in its entirety.” Steve Sadow, Trump’s lead attorney in Georgia, echoed this sentiment, stating, “The political persecution of President Trump by disqualified DA Fani Willis is finally over. This case should never have been brought. A fair and impartial prosecutor has put an end to this lawfare.”
Yet, not everyone agreed with Skandalakis’s decision. Legal experts, such as Georgia State University law professor Anthony Michael Kreis, lamented the missed opportunity for public accountability and transparency. “This was really an opportunity for justice and reconciliation and for a kind of truth-telling. And that has been squandered,” Kreis told NPR. He argued that state prosecutions play a crucial role in ensuring accountability in election cases, as state-level convictions are immune from presidential pardons. The collapse of the Georgia case, Kreis warned, could embolden future candidates to challenge election outcomes with impunity, revealing potential gaps in the criminal justice system’s ability to respond to such challenges.
With the end of the Georgia prosecution, it now appears extremely unlikely that Trump will ever face trial for his actions in the aftermath of the 2020 election. The saga, which once seemed poised to set historic legal precedents, instead closes with lingering questions about accountability, the resilience of democratic institutions, and the limits of the justice system when confronted with unprecedented political crises.
As the dust settles, the nation is left to reckon with the implications of a prosecution that began with a phone call and ended with a judicial order, leaving both supporters and critics of the former president searching for answers—and perhaps, for closure.
