does a thesis statement have to be arguable

Developing a Thesis Statement

Many papers you write require developing a thesis statement. In this section you’ll learn what a thesis statement is and how to write one.

Keep in mind that not all papers require thesis statements . If in doubt, please consult your instructor for assistance.

What is a thesis statement?

A thesis statement . . .

• Makes an argumentative assertion about a topic; it states the conclusions that you have reached about your topic.
• Makes a promise to the reader about the scope, purpose, and direction of your paper.
• Is focused and specific enough to be “proven” within the boundaries of your paper.
• Is generally located near the end of the introduction ; sometimes, in a long paper, the thesis will be expressed in several sentences or in an entire paragraph.
• Identifies the relationships between the pieces of evidence that you are using to support your argument.

Not all papers require thesis statements! Ask your instructor if you’re in doubt whether you need one.

Identify a topic

Your topic is the subject about which you will write. Your assignment may suggest several ways of looking at a topic; or it may name a fairly general concept that you will explore or analyze in your paper.

Consider what your assignment asks you to do

Inform yourself about your topic, focus on one aspect of your topic, ask yourself whether your topic is worthy of your efforts, generate a topic from an assignment.

Below are some possible topics based on sample assignments.

Sample assignment 1

Analyze Spain’s neutrality in World War II.

Identified topic

Franco’s role in the diplomatic relationships between the Allies and the Axis

This topic avoids generalities such as “Spain” and “World War II,” addressing instead on Franco’s role (a specific aspect of “Spain”) and the diplomatic relations between the Allies and Axis (a specific aspect of World War II).

Sample assignment 2

Analyze one of Homer’s epic similes in the Iliad.

The relationship between the portrayal of warfare and the epic simile about Simoisius at 4.547-64.

This topic focuses on a single simile and relates it to a single aspect of the Iliad ( warfare being a major theme in that work).

Developing a Thesis Statement–Additional information

Your assignment may suggest several ways of looking at a topic, or it may name a fairly general concept that you will explore or analyze in your paper. You’ll want to read your assignment carefully, looking for key terms that you can use to focus your topic.

Sample assignment: Analyze Spain’s neutrality in World War II Key terms: analyze, Spain’s neutrality, World War II

After you’ve identified the key words in your topic, the next step is to read about them in several sources, or generate as much information as possible through an analysis of your topic. Obviously, the more material or knowledge you have, the more possibilities will be available for a strong argument. For the sample assignment above, you’ll want to look at books and articles on World War II in general, and Spain’s neutrality in particular.

As you consider your options, you must decide to focus on one aspect of your topic. This means that you cannot include everything you’ve learned about your topic, nor should you go off in several directions. If you end up covering too many different aspects of a topic, your paper will sprawl and be unconvincing in its argument, and it most likely will not fulfull the assignment requirements.

For the sample assignment above, both Spain’s neutrality and World War II are topics far too broad to explore in a paper. You may instead decide to focus on Franco’s role in the diplomatic relationships between the Allies and the Axis , which narrows down what aspects of Spain’s neutrality and World War II you want to discuss, as well as establishes a specific link between those two aspects.

Before you go too far, however, ask yourself whether your topic is worthy of your efforts. Try to avoid topics that already have too much written about them (i.e., “eating disorders and body image among adolescent women”) or that simply are not important (i.e. “why I like ice cream”). These topics may lead to a thesis that is either dry fact or a weird claim that cannot be supported. A good thesis falls somewhere between the two extremes. To arrive at this point, ask yourself what is new, interesting, contestable, or controversial about your topic.

As you work on your thesis, remember to keep the rest of your paper in mind at all times . Sometimes your thesis needs to evolve as you develop new insights, find new evidence, or take a different approach to your topic.

Derive a main point from topic

Once you have a topic, you will have to decide what the main point of your paper will be. This point, the “controlling idea,” becomes the core of your argument (thesis statement) and it is the unifying idea to which you will relate all your sub-theses. You can then turn this “controlling idea” into a purpose statement about what you intend to do in your paper.

Look for patterns in your evidence

Compose a purpose statement.

Consult the examples below for suggestions on how to look for patterns in your evidence and construct a purpose statement.

• Franco first tried to negotiate with the Axis
• Franco turned to the Allies when he couldn’t get some concessions that he wanted from the Axis

Possible conclusion:

Spain’s neutrality in WWII occurred for an entirely personal reason: Franco’s desire to preserve his own (and Spain’s) power.

Purpose statement

This paper will analyze Franco’s diplomacy during World War II to see how it contributed to Spain’s neutrality.

• The simile compares Simoisius to a tree, which is a peaceful, natural image.
• The tree in the simile is chopped down to make wheels for a chariot, which is an object used in warfare.

At first, the simile seems to take the reader away from the world of warfare, but we end up back in that world by the end.

This paper will analyze the way the simile about Simoisius at 4.547-64 moves in and out of the world of warfare.

Derive purpose statement from topic

To find out what your “controlling idea” is, you have to examine and evaluate your evidence . As you consider your evidence, you may notice patterns emerging, data repeated in more than one source, or facts that favor one view more than another. These patterns or data may then lead you to some conclusions about your topic and suggest that you can successfully argue for one idea better than another.

For instance, you might find out that Franco first tried to negotiate with the Axis, but when he couldn’t get some concessions that he wanted from them, he turned to the Allies. As you read more about Franco’s decisions, you may conclude that Spain’s neutrality in WWII occurred for an entirely personal reason: his desire to preserve his own (and Spain’s) power. Based on this conclusion, you can then write a trial thesis statement to help you decide what material belongs in your paper.

Sometimes you won’t be able to find a focus or identify your “spin” or specific argument immediately. Like some writers, you might begin with a purpose statement just to get yourself going. A purpose statement is one or more sentences that announce your topic and indicate the structure of the paper but do not state the conclusions you have drawn . Thus, you might begin with something like this:

• This paper will look at modern language to see if it reflects male dominance or female oppression.
• I plan to analyze anger and derision in offensive language to see if they represent a challenge of society’s authority.

At some point, you can turn a purpose statement into a thesis statement. As you think and write about your topic, you can restrict, clarify, and refine your argument, crafting your thesis statement to reflect your thinking.

As you work on your thesis, remember to keep the rest of your paper in mind at all times. Sometimes your thesis needs to evolve as you develop new insights, find new evidence, or take a different approach to your topic.

Compose a draft thesis statement

If you are writing a paper that will have an argumentative thesis and are having trouble getting started, the techniques in the table below may help you develop a temporary or “working” thesis statement.

Begin with a purpose statement that you will later turn into a thesis statement.

Assignment: Discuss the history of the Reform Party and explain its influence on the 1990 presidential and Congressional election.

Purpose Statement: This paper briefly sketches the history of the grassroots, conservative, Perot-led Reform Party and analyzes how it influenced the economic and social ideologies of the two mainstream parties.

Question-to-Assertion

If your assignment asks a specific question(s), turn the question(s) into an assertion and give reasons why it is true or reasons for your opinion.

Assignment : What do Aylmer and Rappaccini have to be proud of? Why aren’t they satisfied with these things? How does pride, as demonstrated in “The Birthmark” and “Rappaccini’s Daughter,” lead to unexpected problems?

Beginning thesis statement: Alymer and Rappaccinni are proud of their great knowledge; however, they are also very greedy and are driven to use their knowledge to alter some aspect of nature as a test of their ability. Evil results when they try to “play God.”

Write a sentence that summarizes the main idea of the essay you plan to write.

Main idea: The reason some toys succeed in the market is that they appeal to the consumers’ sense of the ridiculous and their basic desire to laugh at themselves.

Make a list of the ideas that you want to include; consider the ideas and try to group them.

• nature = peaceful
• war matériel = violent (competes with 1?)
• need for time and space to mourn the dead
• war is inescapable (competes with 3?)

Use a formula to arrive at a working thesis statement (you will revise this later).

• although most readers of _______ have argued that _______, closer examination shows that _______.
• _______ uses _______ and _____ to prove that ________.
• phenomenon x is a result of the combination of __________, __________, and _________.

What to keep in mind as you draft an initial thesis statement

Beginning statements obtained through the methods illustrated above can serve as a framework for planning or drafting your paper, but remember they’re not yet the specific, argumentative thesis you want for the final version of your paper. In fact, in its first stages, a thesis statement usually is ill-formed or rough and serves only as a planning tool.

As you write, you may discover evidence that does not fit your temporary or “working” thesis. Or you may reach deeper insights about your topic as you do more research, and you will find that your thesis statement has to be more complicated to match the evidence that you want to use.

You must be willing to reject or omit some evidence in order to keep your paper cohesive and your reader focused. Or you may have to revise your thesis to match the evidence and insights that you want to discuss. Read your draft carefully, noting the conclusions you have drawn and the major ideas which support or prove those conclusions. These will be the elements of your final thesis statement.

Sometimes you will not be able to identify these elements in your early drafts, but as you consider how your argument is developing and how your evidence supports your main idea, ask yourself, “ What is the main point that I want to prove/discuss? ” and “ How will I convince the reader that this is true? ” When you can answer these questions, then you can begin to refine the thesis statement.

Refine and polish the thesis statement

To get to your final thesis, you’ll need to refine your draft thesis so that it’s specific and arguable.

• Ask if your draft thesis addresses the assignment
• Question each part of your draft thesis
• Clarify vague phrases and assertions
• Investigate alternatives to your draft thesis

Consult the example below for suggestions on how to refine your draft thesis statement.

Sample Assignment

Choose an activity and define it as a symbol of American culture. Your essay should cause the reader to think critically about the society which produces and enjoys that activity.

• Ask The phenomenon of drive-in facilities is an interesting symbol of american culture, and these facilities demonstrate significant characteristics of our society.This statement does not fulfill the assignment because it does not require the reader to think critically about society.

Drive-ins are an interesting symbol of American culture because they represent Americans’ significant creativity and business ingenuity.

Among the types of drive-in facilities familiar during the twentieth century, drive-in movie theaters best represent American creativity, not merely because they were the forerunner of later drive-ins and drive-throughs, but because of their impact on our culture: they changed our relationship to the automobile, changed the way people experienced movies, and changed movie-going into a family activity.

While drive-in facilities such as those at fast-food establishments, banks, pharmacies, and dry cleaners symbolize America’s economic ingenuity, they also have affected our personal standards.

While drive-in facilities such as those at fast- food restaurants, banks, pharmacies, and dry cleaners symbolize (1) Americans’ business ingenuity, they also have contributed (2) to an increasing homogenization of our culture, (3) a willingness to depersonalize relationships with others, and (4) a tendency to sacrifice quality for convenience.

This statement is now specific and fulfills all parts of the assignment. This version, like any good thesis, is not self-evident; its points, 1-4, will have to be proven with evidence in the body of the paper. The numbers in this statement indicate the order in which the points will be presented. Depending on the length of the paper, there could be one paragraph for each numbered item or there could be blocks of paragraph for even pages for each one.

Complete the final thesis statement

The bottom line.

As you move through the process of crafting a thesis, you’ll need to remember four things:

• Context matters! Think about your course materials and lectures. Try to relate your thesis to the ideas your instructor is discussing.
• As you go through the process described in this section, always keep your assignment in mind . You will be more successful when your thesis (and paper) responds to the assignment than if it argues a semi-related idea.
• Your thesis statement should be precise, focused, and contestable ; it should predict the sub-theses or blocks of information that you will use to prove your argument.
• Make sure that you keep the rest of your paper in mind at all times. Change your thesis as your paper evolves, because you do not want your thesis to promise more than your paper actually delivers.

In the beginning, the thesis statement was a tool to help you sharpen your focus, limit material and establish the paper’s purpose. When your paper is finished, however, the thesis statement becomes a tool for your reader. It tells the reader what you have learned about your topic and what evidence led you to your conclusion. It keeps the reader on track–well able to understand and appreciate your argument.

Writing Process and Structure

This is an accordion element with a series of buttons that open and close related content panels.

Getting Started with Your Paper

Interpreting Writing Assignments from Your Courses

Generating Ideas for

Creating an Argument

Thesis vs. Purpose Statements

Architecture of Arguments

Working with Sources

Quoting and Paraphrasing Sources

Using Literary Quotations

Citing Sources in Your Paper

Drafting Your Paper

Generating Ideas for Your Paper

Introductions

Paragraphing

Developing Strategic Transitions

Conclusions

Revising Your Paper

Peer Reviews

Reverse Outlines

Revising an Argumentative Paper

Revision Strategies for Longer Projects

Finishing Your Paper

Twelve Common Errors: An Editing Checklist

How to Proofread your Paper

Writing Collaboratively

Collaborative and Group Writing

While Sandel argues that pursuing perfection through genetic engineering would decrease our sense of humility, he claims that the sense of solidarity we would lose is also important.

This thesis summarizes several points in Sandel’s argument, but it does not make a claim about how we should understand his argument. A reader who read Sandel’s argument would not also need to read an essay based on this descriptive thesis.  

Broad thesis (arguable, but difficult to support with evidence) 

Michael Sandel’s arguments about genetic engineering do not take into consideration all the relevant issues.

This is an arguable claim because it would be possible to argue against it by saying that Michael Sandel’s arguments do take all of the relevant issues into consideration. But the claim is too broad. Because the thesis does not specify which “issues” it is focused on—or why it matters if they are considered—readers won’t know what the rest of the essay will argue, and the writer won’t know what to focus on. If there is a particular issue that Sandel does not address, then a more specific version of the thesis would include that issue—hand an explanation of why it is important.  

Arguable thesis with analytical claim 

While Sandel argues persuasively that our instinct to “remake” (54) ourselves into something ever more perfect is a problem, his belief that we can always draw a line between what is medically necessary and what makes us simply “better than well” (51) is less convincing.

This is an arguable analytical claim. To argue for this claim, the essay writer will need to show how evidence from the article itself points to this interpretation. It’s also a reasonable scope for a thesis because it can be supported with evidence available in the text and is neither too broad nor too narrow.  

Arguable thesis with normative claim 

Given Sandel’s argument against genetic enhancement, we should not allow parents to decide on using Human Growth Hormone for their children.

This thesis tells us what we should do about a particular issue discussed in Sandel’s article, but it does not tell us how we should understand Sandel’s argument.  

Questions to ask about your thesis 

• Is the thesis truly arguable? Does it speak to a genuine dilemma in the source, or would most readers automatically agree with it?  
• Is the thesis too obvious? Again, would most or all readers agree with it without needing to see your argument?  
• Is the thesis complex enough to require a whole essay's worth of argument?  
• Is the thesis supportable with evidence from the text rather than with generalizations or outside research?  
• Would anyone want to read a paper in which this thesis was developed? That is, can you explain what this paper is adding to our understanding of a problem, question, or topic?
• picture_as_pdf Thesis

• school Campus Bookshelves
• menu_book Bookshelves
• perm_media Learning Objects
• login Login
• how_to_reg Request Instructor Account
• hub Instructor Commons

Margin Size

• Download Page (PDF)
• Download Full Book (PDF)
• Periodic Table
• Physics Constants
• Scientific Calculator
• Reference & Cite
• Tools expand_more
• Readability

selected template will load here

This action is not available.

9.4: Argumentative Thesis Statements

• Last updated
• Save as PDF
• Page ID 58379
• Lumen Learning

\( \newcommand{\vecs}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \)

\( \newcommand{\vecd}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash {#1}}} \)

\( \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)

( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\)

\( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\) \( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\)

\( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\) \( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\)

\( \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}\)

\( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)

\( \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\)

\( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\)

\( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\)

\( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\)

\( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\)

\( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\)

\( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\)

\( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \( \newcommand{\AA}{\unicode[.8,0]{x212B}}\)

\( \newcommand{\vectorA}[1]{\vec{#1}}      % arrow\)

\( \newcommand{\vectorAt}[1]{\vec{\text{#1}}}      % arrow\)

\( \newcommand{\vectorB}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \)

\( \newcommand{\vectorC}[1]{\textbf{#1}} \)

\( \newcommand{\vectorD}[1]{\overrightarrow{#1}} \)

\( \newcommand{\vectorDt}[1]{\overrightarrow{\text{#1}}} \)

\( \newcommand{\vectE}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash{\mathbf {#1}}}} \)

Learning Objective

• Recognize an argumentative thesis

A strong, argumentative thesis statement should take a stance about an issue. It should explain the basics of your argument and help your reader to know what to expect in your essay.

This video reviews the necessary components of a thesis statement and walks through some examples.

You can view the transcript for “Purdue OWL: Thesis Statements” here (opens in new window) .

Key Features of Argumentative Thesis Statements

Below are some of the key features of an argumentative thesis statement. An argumentative thesis is debatable, assertive, reasonable, evidence-based, and focused.

An argumentative thesis must make a claim about which reasonable people can disagree. Statements of fact or areas of general agreement cannot be argumentative theses because few people disagree about them. Let’s take a look at an example:

• BAD: Junk food is bad for your health.

This is not a debatable thesis. Most people would agree that junk food is bad for your health. A debatable thesis would be:

• GOOD: Because junk food is bad for your health, the size of sodas offered at fast-food restaurants should be regulated by the federal government.

Reasonable people could agree or disagree with the statement.

An argumentative thesis takes a position, asserting the writer’s stance. Questions, vague statements, or quotations from others are not argumentative theses because they do not assert the writer’s viewpoint. Let’s take a look at an example:

• BAD: Federal immigration law is a tough issue about which many people disagree.

This is not an arguable thesis because it does not assert a position.

• GOOD: Federal immigration enforcement law needs to be overhauled because it puts undue constraints on state and local police.

This is an argumentative thesis because it asserts a position that immigration enforcement law needs to be changed.

An argumentative thesis must make a claim that is logical and possible. Claims that are outrageous or impossible are not argumentative theses. Let’s take a look at an example:

• BAD: City council members are dishonest and should be thrown in jail.

This is not an argumentative thesis. City council members’ ineffectiveness is not a reason to send them to jail.

• GOOD: City council members should be term-limited to prevent one group or party from maintaining control indefinitely.

This is an arguable thesis because term limits are possible, and shared political control is a reasonable goal.

Evidence-Based

An argumentative thesis must be able to be supported by evidence. Claims that presuppose value systems, morals, or religious beliefs cannot be supported with evidence and therefore are not argumentative theses. Let’s take a look at an example:

• BAD: Individuals convicted of murder will go to hell when they die.

This is not an argumentative thesis because its support rests on religious beliefs or values rather than evidence.

• GOOD: Rehabilitation programs for individuals serving life sentences should be funded because these programs reduce violence within prisons.

This is an argumentative thesis because evidence such as case studies and statistics can be used to support it.

An argumentative thesis must be focused and narrow. A focused, narrow claim is clearer, more able to be supported with evidence, and more persuasive than a broad, general claim. Let’s take a look at an example:

• BAD: The federal government should overhaul the U.S. tax code.

This is not an effective argumentative thesis because it is too general (What part of the government? Which tax codes? What sections of those tax codes?) and would require an overwhelming amount of evidence to be fully supported.

• GOOD: The U.S. House of Representatives should vote to repeal the federal estate tax because the revenue generated by that tax is negligible.

This is an effective argumentative thesis because it identifies a specific actor and action and can be fully supported with evidence about the amount of revenue the estate tax generates.

In the practice exercises below, you will use this information from your reading to see if you can recognize and evaluate argumentative thesis statements. Keep in mind that a sound argumentative thesis should be debatable, assertive, reasonable, evidence-based, and focused.

https://assessments.lumenlearning.co...sessments/5173

https://assessments.lumenlearning.co...sessments/7008

Contributors and Attributions

• Argumentative Thesis Statements. Provided by : University of Mississippi. License : CC BY: Attribution
• Argumentative Thesis Activity. Provided by : Excelsior College. Located at : http://owl.excelsior.edu/argument-and-critical-thinking/argumentative-thesis/argumentative-thesis-activity/ . License : CC BY: Attribution
• Purdue OWL: Thesis Statements. Provided by : OWLPurdue. Located at : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKXkemYldmw . License : Other . License Terms : Standard YouTube License

• Walden University
• Faculty Portal

Writing a Paper: Thesis Statements

Basics of thesis statements.

The thesis statement is the brief articulation of your paper's central argument and purpose. You might hear it referred to as simply a "thesis." Every scholarly paper should have a thesis statement, and strong thesis statements are concise, specific, and arguable. Concise means the thesis is short: perhaps one or two sentences for a shorter paper. Specific means the thesis deals with a narrow and focused topic, appropriate to the paper's length. Arguable means that a scholar in your field could disagree (or perhaps already has!).

Strong thesis statements address specific intellectual questions, have clear positions, and use a structure that reflects the overall structure of the paper. Read on to learn more about constructing a strong thesis statement.

Being Specific

This thesis statement has no specific argument:

Needs Improvement: In this essay, I will examine two scholarly articles to find similarities and differences.

This statement is concise, but it is neither specific nor arguable—a reader might wonder, "Which scholarly articles? What is the topic of this paper? What field is the author writing in?" Additionally, the purpose of the paper—to "examine…to find similarities and differences" is not of a scholarly level. Identifying similarities and differences is a good first step, but strong academic argument goes further, analyzing what those similarities and differences might mean or imply.

Better: In this essay, I will argue that Bowler's (2003) autocratic management style, when coupled with Smith's (2007) theory of social cognition, can reduce the expenses associated with employee turnover.

The new revision here is still concise, as well as specific and arguable.  We can see that it is specific because the writer is mentioning (a) concrete ideas and (b) exact authors.  We can also gather the field (business) and the topic (management and employee turnover). The statement is arguable because the student goes beyond merely comparing; he or she draws conclusions from that comparison ("can reduce the expenses associated with employee turnover").

Making a Unique Argument

This thesis draft repeats the language of the writing prompt without making a unique argument:

Needs Improvement: The purpose of this essay is to monitor, assess, and evaluate an educational program for its strengths and weaknesses. Then, I will provide suggestions for improvement.

You can see here that the student has simply stated the paper's assignment, without articulating specifically how he or she will address it. The student can correct this error simply by phrasing the thesis statement as a specific answer to the assignment prompt.

Better: Through a series of student interviews, I found that Kennedy High School's antibullying program was ineffective. In order to address issues of conflict between students, I argue that Kennedy High School should embrace policies outlined by the California Department of Education (2010).

Words like "ineffective" and "argue" show here that the student has clearly thought through the assignment and analyzed the material; he or she is putting forth a specific and debatable position. The concrete information ("student interviews," "antibullying") further prepares the reader for the body of the paper and demonstrates how the student has addressed the assignment prompt without just restating that language.

Creating a Debate

This thesis statement includes only obvious fact or plot summary instead of argument:

Needs Improvement: Leadership is an important quality in nurse educators.

A good strategy to determine if your thesis statement is too broad (and therefore, not arguable) is to ask yourself, "Would a scholar in my field disagree with this point?" Here, we can see easily that no scholar is likely to argue that leadership is an unimportant quality in nurse educators.  The student needs to come up with a more arguable claim, and probably a narrower one; remember that a short paper needs a more focused topic than a dissertation.

Better: Roderick's (2009) theory of participatory leadership  is particularly appropriate to nurse educators working within the emergency medicine field, where students benefit most from collegial and kinesthetic learning.

Here, the student has identified a particular type of leadership ("participatory leadership"), narrowing the topic, and has made an arguable claim (this type of leadership is "appropriate" to a specific type of nurse educator). Conceivably, a scholar in the nursing field might disagree with this approach. The student's paper can now proceed, providing specific pieces of evidence to support the arguable central claim.

Choosing the Right Words

This thesis statement uses large or scholarly-sounding words that have no real substance:

Needs Improvement: Scholars should work to seize metacognitive outcomes by harnessing discipline-based networks to empower collaborative infrastructures.

There are many words in this sentence that may be buzzwords in the student's field or key terms taken from other texts, but together they do not communicate a clear, specific meaning. Sometimes students think scholarly writing means constructing complex sentences using special language, but actually it's usually a stronger choice to write clear, simple sentences. When in doubt, remember that your ideas should be complex, not your sentence structure.

Better: Ecologists should work to educate the U.S. public on conservation methods by making use of local and national green organizations to create a widespread communication plan.

Notice in the revision that the field is now clear (ecology), and the language has been made much more field-specific ("conservation methods," "green organizations"), so the reader is able to see concretely the ideas the student is communicating.

Leaving Room for Discussion

This thesis statement is not capable of development or advancement in the paper:

Needs Improvement: There are always alternatives to illegal drug use.

This sample thesis statement makes a claim, but it is not a claim that will sustain extended discussion. This claim is the type of claim that might be appropriate for the conclusion of a paper, but in the beginning of the paper, the student is left with nowhere to go. What further points can be made? If there are "always alternatives" to the problem the student is identifying, then why bother developing a paper around that claim? Ideally, a thesis statement should be complex enough to explore over the length of the entire paper.

Better: The most effective treatment plan for methamphetamine addiction may be a combination of pharmacological and cognitive therapy, as argued by Baker (2008), Smith (2009), and Xavier (2011).

In the revised thesis, you can see the student make a specific, debatable claim that has the potential to generate several pages' worth of discussion. When drafting a thesis statement, think about the questions your thesis statement will generate: What follow-up inquiries might a reader have? In the first example, there are almost no additional questions implied, but the revised example allows for a good deal more exploration.

Thesis Mad Libs

If you are having trouble getting started, try using the models below to generate a rough model of a thesis statement! These models are intended for drafting purposes only and should not appear in your final work.

• In this essay, I argue ____, using ______ to assert _____.
• While scholars have often argued ______, I argue______, because_______.
• Through an analysis of ______, I argue ______, which is important because_______.

Words to Avoid and to Embrace

When drafting your thesis statement, avoid words like explore, investigate, learn, compile, summarize , and explain to describe the main purpose of your paper. These words imply a paper that summarizes or "reports," rather than synthesizing and analyzing.

Instead of the terms above, try words like argue, critique, question , and interrogate . These more analytical words may help you begin strongly, by articulating a specific, critical, scholarly position.

Read Kayla's blog post for tips on taking a stand in a well-crafted thesis statement.

Related Resources

Didn't find what you need? Email us at [email protected] .

• Previous Page: Introductions
• Next Page: Conclusions
• Office of Student Disability Services

Walden Resources

Departments.

• Academic Residencies
• Academic Skills
• Career Planning and Development
• Customer Care Team
• Field Experience
• Military Services
• Student Success Advising
• Writing Skills

Centers and Offices

• Center for Social Change
• Office of Academic Support and Instructional Services
• Office of Degree Acceleration
• Office of Research and Doctoral Services
• Office of Student Affairs

Student Resources

• Doctoral Writing Assessment
• Form & Style Review
• Quick Answers
• ScholarWorks
• SKIL Courses and Workshops
• Walden Bookstore
• Walden Catalog & Student Handbook
• Student Safety/Title IX
• Legal & Consumer Information
• Website Terms and Conditions
• Cookie Policy
• Accessibility
• Accreditation
• State Authorization
• Net Price Calculator
• Contact Walden

Walden University is a member of Adtalem Global Education, Inc. www.adtalem.com Walden University is certified to operate by SCHEV © 2024 Walden University LLC. All rights reserved.

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

II. Getting Started

2.6 Writing Thesis Statements

Kathryn Crowther; Lauren Curtright; Nancy Gilbert; Barbara Hall; Tracienne Ravita; and Kirk Swenson

To be effective, all support in an essay must work together to convey a central point; otherwise, an essay can fall into the trap of being out of order and confusing. Just as a topic sentence focuses and unifies a single paragraph, the thesis statement focuses and unifies an entire essay. This statement is like a signpost that signals the essay’s destination; it tells the reader the point you want to make in your essay, while the essay itself supports that point.

Because writing is not a linear process, you may find that the best thesis statement develops near the end of your first draft. However, creating a draft or working thesis early in the writing project helps give the drafting process clear direction. You should form your thesis before you begin to organize an essay, but you may find that it needs revision as the essay develops.

A thesis is not just a topic, but rather the writer’s comment or interpretation of the question or subject. For whatever topic you select (for example, school uniforms, social networking), you must ask yourself, “What do I want to say about it?” Asking and then answering this question is vital to forming a thesis that is precise, forceful, and confident.

In the majority of essays, a thesis is one sentence long and appears toward the end of the introductory paragraph. It is specific and focuses on one to three points of a single idea—points that are able to be demonstrated in the body paragraphs. It forecasts the content of the essay and suggests how you will organize your information. Remember that a thesis statement does not summarize an issue but rather dissects it.

Working Thesis Statements

A strong thesis statement must have the following qualities:

• It must be arguable.  A thesis statement must state a point of view or judgment about a topic. An established fact is not considered arguable.
• It must be supportable.  The thesis statement must contain a point of view that can be supported with evidence (reasons, facts, examples).
• It must be specific. A thesis statement must be precise enough to allow for a coherent argument and remain focused on the topic.

Examples of Appropriate Thesis Statements

• Closing all American borders for a period of five years is one solution that will tackle illegal immigration.
• Compared to an absolute divorce, no-fault divorce is less expensive, promotes fairer settlements, and reflects a more realistic view of the causes for marital breakdown.
• Exposing children from an early age to the dangers of drug abuse is a sure method of preventing future drug addicts.
• In today’s crumbling job market, a high school diploma is not significant enough education to land a stable, lucrative job.
• The societal and personal struggles of Troy Maxson in the play Fences symbolize the challenges of black males who lived through segregation and integration in the United States.

Pitfalls to Avoid

A thesis is weak when it is simply a declaration of your subject or a description of what you will discuss in your essay.

Weak Thesis Statement Example

My paper will explain why imagination is more important than knowledge.

A thesis is weak when it makes an unreasonable or outrageous claim or insults the opposing side.

Religious radicals across America are trying to legislate their Puritanical beliefs by banning required high school books.

A thesis is weak when it contains an obvious fact or something that no one can disagree with or provides a dead end.

Advertising companies use sex to sell their products.

A thesis is weak when the statement is too broad.

The life of Abraham Lincoln was long and challenging.

Ways to Revise Your Thesis

Your thesis statement begins as a working thesis statement, an indefinite statement that you make about your topic early in the writing process for the purpose of planning and guiding your writing. Working thesis statements often become stronger as you gather information and develop new ideas and reasons for those ideas. Revision helps you strengthen your thesis so that it matches what you have expressed in the body of the paper.

You can cut down on irrelevant aspects and revise your thesis by taking the following steps:

• Pinpoint and replace all non specific words, such as people, everything, society, or life, with more precise words in order to reduce any vagueness.

Pinpoint and Replace Example

Working thesis:  Young people have to work hard to succeed in life.

Revised thesis:  Recent college graduates must have discipline and persistence in order to find and maintain a stable job in which they can use, and be appreciated for, their talents.

Explanation:  The original includes too broad a range of people and does not define exactly what success entails. By replacing those general words like people and work hard , the writer can better focus their research and gain more direction in their writing. The revised thesis makes a more specific statement about success and what it means to work hard.

• Clarify ideas that need explanation by asking yourself questions that narrow your thesis.

Clarify Example

Working thesis:  The welfare system is a joke.

Revised thesis:  The welfare system keeps a socioeconomic class from gaining employment by alluring members of that class with unearned income, instead of programs to improve their education and skill sets.

Explanation:  A joke means many things to many people. Readers bring all sorts of backgrounds and perspectives to the reading process and would need clarification for a word so vague. This expression may also be too informal for the selected audience. By asking questions, the writer can devise a more precise and appropriate explanation for joke and more accurately defines their stance, which will better guide the writing of the essay.

• Replace any linking verbs with action verbs. Linking verbs are forms of the verb to be , a verb that simply states that a situation exists.

Replace with Action Verbs Example

Working thesis:  Kansas City school teachers are not paid enough.

Revised thesis:  The Kansas City legislature cannot afford to pay its educators, resulting in job cuts and resignations in a district that sorely needs highly qualified and dedicated teachers.

Explanation:  The linking verb in this working thesis statement is the word are . Linking verbs often make thesis statements weak because they do not express action. Rather, they connect words and phrases to the second half of the sentence. Readers might wonder, “Why are they not paid enough?” But this statement does not compel them to ask many more questions.

• Who is not paying the teachers enough?
• How much is considered “enough”?
• What is the problem?
• What are the results?
• Omit any general claims that are hard to support.

Omit General Claims Example

Working thesis:  Today’s teenage girls are too sexualized.

Revised thesis: Teenage girls who are captivated by the sexual images on the internet and social media are conditioned to believe that a woman’s worth depends on her sensuality, a feeling that harms their self-esteem and behavior.

Explanation:  It is true that some young women in today’s society are more sexualized than in the past, but that is not true for all girls. Many girls have strict parents, dress appropriately, and do not engage in sexual activity while in middle school and high school. The writer of this thesis should ask the following questions:

• Which teenage girls?
• What constitutes “too” sexualized?
• Why are they behaving that way?
• Where does this behavior show up?
• What are the repercussions?

Practice Activity

This section contains material from:

Crowther, Kathryn, Lauren Curtright, Nancy Gilbert, Barbara Hall, Tracienne Ravita, and Kirk Swenson. Successful College Composition . 2nd ed. Book 8. Georgia: English Open Textbooks, 2016. http://oer.galileo.usg.edu/english-textbooks/8 . Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License . Archival link: https://web.archive.org/web/20230711203012/https://oer.galileo.usg.edu/english-textbooks/8/

Relating to lines; a way of explaining information logically and/or sequentially; can refer to the chronological relaying of information.

A brief and concise statement or series of statements that outlines the main point(s) of a longer work. To summarize is to create a brief and concise statement or series of statements that outlines the main point(s) of a longer work.

To analyze closely or minutely; to scrutinize every aspect. Unlike the fields of biology, anatomy, or medicine, in rhetoric and writing, dissect does not refer to the cutting apart of a physical body but to the taking apart the body of an argument or idea piece by piece to understand it better.

A logical, rational, lucid, or understandable expression of an idea, concept, or notion; consistent and harmonious explanation.

Assertion or announcement of belief, understanding, or knowledge; a formal statement or proclamation.

Without a defined number or limit; unlimited, infinite, or undetermined.

An altered version of  a written work. Revising means to rewrite in order to improve and make corrections. Unlike editing, which involves minor changes, revisions include major and noticeable changes to a written work.

Not relevant; unimportant; beside the point; not relating to the matter at hand.

Attractive, tempting, or seductive; to have an appealing and charismatic quality.

To influence or convince; to produce a certain or specific result through the use of force.

2.6 Writing Thesis Statements Copyright © 2023 by Kathryn Crowther; Lauren Curtright; Nancy Gilbert; Barbara Hall; Tracienne Ravita; and Kirk Swenson is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Module: Academic Argument

Argumentative thesis statements, learning objective.

• Recognize an arguable thesis

Below are some of the key features of an argumentative thesis statement.

An argumentative thesis is . . .

An argumentative thesis must make a claim about which reasonable people can disagree. Statements of fact or areas of general agreement cannot be argumentative theses because few people disagree about them.

Junk food is bad for your health is not a debatable thesis. Most people would agree that junk food is bad for your health.

Because junk food is bad for your health, the size of sodas offered at fast-food restaurants should be regulated by the federal government is a debatable thesis.  Reasonable people could agree or disagree with the statement.

An argumentative thesis takes a position, asserting the writer’s stance. Questions, vague statements, or quotations from others are not argumentative theses because they do not assert the writer’s viewpoint.

Federal immigration law is a tough issue about which many people disagree is not an arguable thesis because it does not assert a position.

Federal immigration enforcement law needs to be overhauled because it puts undue constraints on state and local police is an argumentative thesis because it asserts a position that immigration enforcement law needs to be changed.

An argumentative thesis must make a claim that is logical and possible. Claims that are outrageous or impossible are not argumentative theses.

City council members stink and should be thrown in jail is not an argumentative thesis. City council members’ ineffectiveness is not a reason to send them to jail.

City council members should be term limited to prevent one group or party from maintaining control indefinitely is an arguable thesis because term limits are possible, and shared political control is a reasonable goal.

Evidence Based

An argumentative thesis must be able to be supported by evidence. Claims that presuppose value systems, morals, or religious beliefs cannot be supported with evidence and therefore are not argumentative theses.

Individuals convicted of murder will go to hell when they die is not an argumentative thesis because its support rests on religious beliefs or values rather than evidence.

Rehabilitation programs for individuals serving life sentences should be funded because these programs reduce violence within prisons is an argumentative thesis because evidence such as case studies and statistics can be used to support it.

An argumentative thesis must be focused and narrow. A focused, narrow claim is clearer, more able to be supported with evidence, and more persuasive than a broad, general claim.

The federal government should overhaul the U.S. tax code is not an effective argumentative thesis because it is too general (What part of the government? Which tax codes? What sections of those tax codes?) and would require an overwhelming amount of evidence to be fully supported.

The U.S. House of Representative should vote to repeal the federal estate tax because the revenue generated by that tax is negligible is an effective argumentative thesis because it identifies a specific actor and action and can be fully supported with evidence about the amount of revenue the estate tax generates.

• Argumentative Thesis Statements. Provided by : University of Mississippi. License : CC BY: Attribution

Reference management. Clean and simple.

How to write a thesis statement + examples

What is a thesis statement?

Is a thesis statement a question, how do you write a good thesis statement, how do i know if my thesis statement is good, examples of thesis statements, helpful resources on how to write a thesis statement, frequently asked questions about writing a thesis statement, related articles.

A thesis statement is the main argument of your paper or thesis.

The thesis statement is one of the most important elements of any piece of academic writing . It is a brief statement of your paper’s main argument. Essentially, you are stating what you will be writing about.

You can see your thesis statement as an answer to a question. While it also contains the question, it should really give an answer to the question with new information and not just restate or reiterate it.

Your thesis statement is part of your introduction. Learn more about how to write a good thesis introduction in our introduction guide .

A thesis statement is not a question. A statement must be arguable and provable through evidence and analysis. While your thesis might stem from a research question, it should be in the form of a statement.

Tip: A thesis statement is typically 1-2 sentences. For a longer project like a thesis, the statement may be several sentences or a paragraph.

A good thesis statement needs to do the following:

• Condense the main idea of your thesis into one or two sentences.
• Answer your project’s main research question.
• Clearly state your position in relation to the topic .
• Make an argument that requires support or evidence.

Once you have written down a thesis statement, check if it fulfills the following criteria:

• Your statement needs to be provable by evidence. As an argument, a thesis statement needs to be debatable.
• Your statement needs to be precise. Do not give away too much information in the thesis statement and do not load it with unnecessary information.
• Your statement cannot say that one solution is simply right or simply wrong as a matter of fact. You should draw upon verified facts to persuade the reader of your solution, but you cannot just declare something as right or wrong.

As previously mentioned, your thesis statement should answer a question.

If the question is:

What do you think the City of New York should do to reduce traffic congestion?

A good thesis statement restates the question and answers it:

In this paper, I will argue that the City of New York should focus on providing exclusive lanes for public transport and adaptive traffic signals to reduce traffic congestion by the year 2035.

Here is another example. If the question is:

How can we end poverty?

A good thesis statement should give more than one solution to the problem in question:

In this paper, I will argue that introducing universal basic income can help reduce poverty and positively impact the way we work.

• The Writing Center of the University of North Carolina has a list of questions to ask to see if your thesis is strong .

A thesis statement is part of the introduction of your paper. It is usually found in the first or second paragraph to let the reader know your research purpose from the beginning.

In general, a thesis statement should have one or two sentences. But the length really depends on the overall length of your project. Take a look at our guide about the length of thesis statements for more insight on this topic.

Here is a list of Thesis Statement Examples that will help you understand better how to write them.

Every good essay should include a thesis statement as part of its introduction, no matter the academic level. Of course, if you are a high school student you are not expected to have the same type of thesis as a PhD student.

Here is a great YouTube tutorial showing How To Write An Essay: Thesis Statements .

Purdue Online Writing Lab Purdue OWL® College of Liberal Arts

Tips and Examples for Writing Thesis Statements

Welcome to the Purdue OWL

This page is brought to you by the OWL at Purdue University. When printing this page, you must include the entire legal notice.

Copyright ©1995-2018 by The Writing Lab & The OWL at Purdue and Purdue University. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, reproduced, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without permission. Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our terms and conditions of fair use.

Tips for Writing Your Thesis Statement

1. Determine what kind of paper you are writing:

• An analytical paper breaks down an issue or an idea into its component parts, evaluates the issue or idea, and presents this breakdown and evaluation to the audience.
• An expository (explanatory) paper explains something to the audience.
• An argumentative paper makes a claim about a topic and justifies this claim with specific evidence. The claim could be an opinion, a policy proposal, an evaluation, a cause-and-effect statement, or an interpretation. The goal of the argumentative paper is to convince the audience that the claim is true based on the evidence provided.

If you are writing a text that does not fall under these three categories (e.g., a narrative), a thesis statement somewhere in the first paragraph could still be helpful to your reader.

2. Your thesis statement should be specific—it should cover only what you will discuss in your paper and should be supported with specific evidence.

3. The thesis statement usually appears at the end of the first paragraph of a paper.

4. Your topic may change as you write, so you may need to revise your thesis statement to reflect exactly what you have discussed in the paper.

Thesis Statement Examples

Example of an analytical thesis statement:

The paper that follows should:

• Explain the analysis of the college admission process
• Explain the challenge facing admissions counselors

Example of an expository (explanatory) thesis statement:

• Explain how students spend their time studying, attending class, and socializing with peers

Example of an argumentative thesis statement:

• Present an argument and give evidence to support the claim that students should pursue community projects before entering college

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

9.1 Developing a Strong, Clear Thesis Statement

Learning objectives.

• Develop a strong, clear thesis statement with the proper elements.
• Revise your thesis statement.

Have you ever known a person who was not very good at telling stories? You probably had trouble following his train of thought as he jumped around from point to point, either being too brief in places that needed further explanation or providing too many details on a meaningless element. Maybe he told the end of the story first, then moved to the beginning and later added details to the middle. His ideas were probably scattered, and the story did not flow very well. When the story was over, you probably had many questions.

Just as a personal anecdote can be a disorganized mess, an essay can fall into the same trap of being out of order and confusing. That is why writers need a thesis statement to provide a specific focus for their essay and to organize what they are about to discuss in the body.

Just like a topic sentence summarizes a single paragraph, the thesis statement summarizes an entire essay. It tells the reader the point you want to make in your essay, while the essay itself supports that point. It is like a signpost that signals the essay’s destination. You should form your thesis before you begin to organize an essay, but you may find that it needs revision as the essay develops.

Elements of a Thesis Statement

For every essay you write, you must focus on a central idea. This idea stems from a topic you have chosen or been assigned or from a question your teacher has asked. It is not enough merely to discuss a general topic or simply answer a question with a yes or no. You have to form a specific opinion, and then articulate that into a controlling idea —the main idea upon which you build your thesis.

Remember that a thesis is not the topic itself, but rather your interpretation of the question or subject. For whatever topic your professor gives you, you must ask yourself, “What do I want to say about it?” Asking and then answering this question is vital to forming a thesis that is precise, forceful and confident.

A thesis is one sentence long and appears toward the end of your introduction. It is specific and focuses on one to three points of a single idea—points that are able to be demonstrated in the body. It forecasts the content of the essay and suggests how you will organize your information. Remember that a thesis statement does not summarize an issue but rather dissects it.

A Strong Thesis Statement

A strong thesis statement contains the following qualities.

Specificity. A thesis statement must concentrate on a specific area of a general topic. As you may recall, the creation of a thesis statement begins when you choose a broad subject and then narrow down its parts until you pinpoint a specific aspect of that topic. For example, health care is a broad topic, but a proper thesis statement would focus on a specific area of that topic, such as options for individuals without health care coverage.

Precision. A strong thesis statement must be precise enough to allow for a coherent argument and to remain focused on the topic. If the specific topic is options for individuals without health care coverage, then your precise thesis statement must make an exact claim about it, such as that limited options exist for those who are uninsured by their employers. You must further pinpoint what you are going to discuss regarding these limited effects, such as whom they affect and what the cause is.

Ability to be argued. A thesis statement must present a relevant and specific argument. A factual statement often is not considered arguable. Be sure your thesis statement contains a point of view that can be supported with evidence.

Ability to be demonstrated. For any claim you make in your thesis, you must be able to provide reasons and examples for your opinion. You can rely on personal observations in order to do this, or you can consult outside sources to demonstrate that what you assert is valid. A worthy argument is backed by examples and details.

Forcefulness. A thesis statement that is forceful shows readers that you are, in fact, making an argument. The tone is assertive and takes a stance that others might oppose.

Confidence. In addition to using force in your thesis statement, you must also use confidence in your claim. Phrases such as I feel or I believe actually weaken the readers’ sense of your confidence because these phrases imply that you are the only person who feels the way you do. In other words, your stance has insufficient backing. Taking an authoritative stance on the matter persuades your readers to have faith in your argument and open their minds to what you have to say.

Even in a personal essay that allows the use of first person, your thesis should not contain phrases such as in my opinion or I believe . These statements reduce your credibility and weaken your argument. Your opinion is more convincing when you use a firm attitude.

On a separate sheet of paper, write a thesis statement for each of the following topics. Remember to make each statement specific, precise, demonstrable, forceful and confident.

• Texting while driving
• The legal drinking age in the United States
• Steroid use among professional athletes

Examples of Appropriate Thesis Statements

Each of the following thesis statements meets several of the following requirements:

• Specificity
• Ability to be argued
• Ability to be demonstrated
• Forcefulness
• The societal and personal struggles of Troy Maxon in the play Fences symbolize the challenge of black males who lived through segregation and integration in the United States.
• Closing all American borders for a period of five years is one solution that will tackle illegal immigration.
• Shakespeare’s use of dramatic irony in Romeo and Juliet spoils the outcome for the audience and weakens the plot.
• J. D. Salinger’s character in Catcher in the Rye , Holden Caulfield, is a confused rebel who voices his disgust with phonies, yet in an effort to protect himself, he acts like a phony on many occasions.
• Compared to an absolute divorce, no-fault divorce is less expensive, promotes fairer settlements, and reflects a more realistic view of the causes for marital breakdown.
• Exposing children from an early age to the dangers of drug abuse is a sure method of preventing future drug addicts.
• In today’s crumbling job market, a high school diploma is not significant enough education to land a stable, lucrative job.

You can find thesis statements in many places, such as in the news; in the opinions of friends, coworkers or teachers; and even in songs you hear on the radio. Become aware of thesis statements in everyday life by paying attention to people’s opinions and their reasons for those opinions. Pay attention to your own everyday thesis statements as well, as these can become material for future essays.

Now that you have read about the contents of a good thesis statement and have seen examples, take a look at the pitfalls to avoid when composing your own thesis:

A thesis is weak when it is simply a declaration of your subject or a description of what you will discuss in your essay.

Weak thesis statement: My paper will explain why imagination is more important than knowledge.

A thesis is weak when it makes an unreasonable or outrageous claim or insults the opposing side.

Weak thesis statement: Religious radicals across America are trying to legislate their Puritanical beliefs by banning required high school books.

A thesis is weak when it contains an obvious fact or something that no one can disagree with or provides a dead end.

Weak thesis statement: Advertising companies use sex to sell their products.

A thesis is weak when the statement is too broad.

Weak thesis statement: The life of Abraham Lincoln was long and challenging.

Read the following thesis statements. On a separate piece of paper, identify each as weak or strong. For those that are weak, list the reasons why. Then revise the weak statements so that they conform to the requirements of a strong thesis.

• The subject of this paper is my experience with ferrets as pets.
• The government must expand its funding for research on renewable energy resources in order to prepare for the impending end of oil.
• Edgar Allan Poe was a poet who lived in Baltimore during the nineteenth century.
• In this essay, I will give you lots of reasons why slot machines should not be legalized in Baltimore.
• Despite his promises during his campaign, President Kennedy took few executive measures to support civil rights legislation.
• Because many children’s toys have potential safety hazards that could lead to injury, it is clear that not all children’s toys are safe.
• My experience with young children has taught me that I want to be a disciplinary parent because I believe that a child without discipline can be a parent’s worst nightmare.

Writing at Work

Often in your career, you will need to ask your boss for something through an e-mail. Just as a thesis statement organizes an essay, it can also organize your e-mail request. While your e-mail will be shorter than an essay, using a thesis statement in your first paragraph quickly lets your boss know what you are asking for, why it is necessary, and what the benefits are. In short body paragraphs, you can provide the essential information needed to expand upon your request.

Thesis Statement Revision

Your thesis will probably change as you write, so you will need to modify it to reflect exactly what you have discussed in your essay. Remember from Chapter 8 “The Writing Process: How Do I Begin?” that your thesis statement begins as a working thesis statement , an indefinite statement that you make about your topic early in the writing process for the purpose of planning and guiding your writing.

Working thesis statements often become stronger as you gather information and form new opinions and reasons for those opinions. Revision helps you strengthen your thesis so that it matches what you have expressed in the body of the paper.

The best way to revise your thesis statement is to ask questions about it and then examine the answers to those questions. By challenging your own ideas and forming definite reasons for those ideas, you grow closer to a more precise point of view, which you can then incorporate into your thesis statement.

Ways to Revise Your Thesis

You can cut down on irrelevant aspects and revise your thesis by taking the following steps:

1. Pinpoint and replace all nonspecific words, such as people , everything , society , or life , with more precise words in order to reduce any vagueness.

Working thesis: Young people have to work hard to succeed in life.

Revised thesis: Recent college graduates must have discipline and persistence in order to find and maintain a stable job in which they can use and be appreciated for their talents.

The revised thesis makes a more specific statement about success and what it means to work hard. The original includes too broad a range of people and does not define exactly what success entails. By replacing those general words like people and work hard , the writer can better focus his or her research and gain more direction in his or her writing.

2. Clarify ideas that need explanation by asking yourself questions that narrow your thesis.

Working thesis: The welfare system is a joke.

Revised thesis: The welfare system keeps a socioeconomic class from gaining employment by alluring members of that class with unearned income, instead of programs to improve their education and skill sets.

A joke means many things to many people. Readers bring all sorts of backgrounds and perspectives to the reading process and would need clarification for a word so vague. This expression may also be too informal for the selected audience. By asking questions, the writer can devise a more precise and appropriate explanation for joke . The writer should ask himself or herself questions similar to the 5WH questions. (See Chapter 8 “The Writing Process: How Do I Begin?” for more information on the 5WH questions.) By incorporating the answers to these questions into a thesis statement, the writer more accurately defines his or her stance, which will better guide the writing of the essay.

3. Replace any linking verbs with action verbs. Linking verbs are forms of the verb to be , a verb that simply states that a situation exists.

Working thesis: Kansas City schoolteachers are not paid enough.

Revised thesis: The Kansas City legislature cannot afford to pay its educators, resulting in job cuts and resignations in a district that sorely needs highly qualified and dedicated teachers.

The linking verb in this working thesis statement is the word are . Linking verbs often make thesis statements weak because they do not express action. Rather, they connect words and phrases to the second half of the sentence. Readers might wonder, “Why are they not paid enough?” But this statement does not compel them to ask many more questions. The writer should ask himself or herself questions in order to replace the linking verb with an action verb, thus forming a stronger thesis statement, one that takes a more definitive stance on the issue:

• Who is not paying the teachers enough?
• What is considered “enough”?
• What is the problem?
• What are the results

4. Omit any general claims that are hard to support.

Working thesis: Today’s teenage girls are too sexualized.

Revised thesis: Teenage girls who are captivated by the sexual images on MTV are conditioned to believe that a woman’s worth depends on her sensuality, a feeling that harms their self-esteem and behavior.

It is true that some young women in today’s society are more sexualized than in the past, but that is not true for all girls. Many girls have strict parents, dress appropriately, and do not engage in sexual activity while in middle school and high school. The writer of this thesis should ask the following questions:

• Which teenage girls?
• What constitutes “too” sexualized?
• Why are they behaving that way?
• Where does this behavior show up?
• What are the repercussions?

In the first section of Chapter 8 “The Writing Process: How Do I Begin?” , you determined your purpose for writing and your audience. You then completed a freewriting exercise about an event you recently experienced and chose a general topic to write about. Using that general topic, you then narrowed it down by answering the 5WH questions. After you answered these questions, you chose one of the three methods of prewriting and gathered possible supporting points for your working thesis statement.

Now, on a separate sheet of paper, write down your working thesis statement. Identify any weaknesses in this sentence and revise the statement to reflect the elements of a strong thesis statement. Make sure it is specific, precise, arguable, demonstrable, forceful, and confident.

Collaboration

Please share with a classmate and compare your answers.

In your career you may have to write a project proposal that focuses on a particular problem in your company, such as reinforcing the tardiness policy. The proposal would aim to fix the problem; using a thesis statement would clearly state the boundaries of the problem and tell the goals of the project. After writing the proposal, you may find that the thesis needs revision to reflect exactly what is expressed in the body. Using the techniques from this chapter would apply to revising that thesis.

Key Takeaways

• Proper essays require a thesis statement to provide a specific focus and suggest how the essay will be organized.
• A thesis statement is your interpretation of the subject, not the topic itself.
• A strong thesis is specific, precise, forceful, confident, and is able to be demonstrated.
• A strong thesis challenges readers with a point of view that can be debated and can be supported with evidence.
• A weak thesis is simply a declaration of your topic or contains an obvious fact that cannot be argued.
• Depending on your topic, it may or may not be appropriate to use first person point of view.
• Revise your thesis by ensuring all words are specific, all ideas are exact, and all verbs express action.

Writing for Success Copyright © 2015 by University of Minnesota is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

What are your chances of acceptance?

Calculate for all schools, your chance of acceptance.

Your chancing factors

Extracurriculars.

How to Write a Strong Thesis Statement: 4 Steps + Examples

What’s Covered:

What is the purpose of a thesis statement, writing a good thesis statement: 4 steps, common pitfalls to avoid, where to get your essay edited for free.

When you set out to write an essay, there has to be some kind of point to it, right? Otherwise, your essay would just be a big jumble of word salad that makes absolutely no sense. An essay needs a central point that ties into everything else. That main point is called a thesis statement, and it’s the core of any essay or research paper.

You may hear about Master degree candidates writing a thesis, and that is an entire paper–not to be confused with the thesis statement, which is typically one sentence that contains your paper’s focus. 

Read on to learn more about thesis statements and how to write them. We’ve also included some solid examples for you to reference.

Typically the last sentence of your introductory paragraph, the thesis statement serves as the roadmap for your essay. When your reader gets to the thesis statement, they should have a clear outline of your main point, as well as the information you’ll be presenting in order to either prove or support your point. 

The thesis statement should not be confused for a topic sentence , which is the first sentence of every paragraph in your essay. If you need help writing topic sentences, numerous resources are available. Topic sentences should go along with your thesis statement, though.

Since the thesis statement is the most important sentence of your entire essay or paper, it’s imperative that you get this part right. Otherwise, your paper will not have a good flow and will seem disjointed. That’s why it’s vital not to rush through developing one. It’s a methodical process with steps that you need to follow in order to create the best thesis statement possible.

Step 1: Decide what kind of paper you’re writing

When you’re assigned an essay, there are several different types you may get. Argumentative essays are designed to get the reader to agree with you on a topic. Informative or expository essays present information to the reader. Analytical essays offer up a point and then expand on it by analyzing relevant information. Thesis statements can look and sound different based on the type of paper you’re writing. For example:

• Argumentative: The United States needs a viable third political party to decrease bipartisanship, increase options, and help reduce corruption in government.
• Informative: The Libertarian party has thrown off elections before by gaining enough support in states to get on the ballot and by taking away crucial votes from candidates.
• Analytical: An analysis of past presidential elections shows that while third party votes may have been the minority, they did affect the outcome of the elections in 2020, 2016, and beyond.

Step 2: Figure out what point you want to make

Once you know what type of paper you’re writing, you then need to figure out the point you want to make with your thesis statement, and subsequently, your paper. In other words, you need to decide to answer a question about something, such as:

• What impact did reality TV have on American society?
• How has the musical Hamilton affected perception of American history?
• Why do I want to major in [chosen major here]?

If you have an argumentative essay, then you will be writing about an opinion. To make it easier, you may want to choose an opinion that you feel passionate about so that you’re writing about something that interests you. For example, if you have an interest in preserving the environment, you may want to choose a topic that relates to that. 

If you’re writing your college essay and they ask why you want to attend that school, you may want to have a main point and back it up with information, something along the lines of:

“Attending Harvard University would benefit me both academically and professionally, as it would give me a strong knowledge base upon which to build my career, develop my network, and hopefully give me an advantage in my chosen field.”

Step 3: Determine what information you’ll use to back up your point

Once you have the point you want to make, you need to figure out how you plan to back it up throughout the rest of your essay. Without this information, it will be hard to either prove or argue the main point of your thesis statement. If you decide to write about the Hamilton example, you may decide to address any falsehoods that the writer put into the musical, such as:

“The musical Hamilton, while accurate in many ways, leaves out key parts of American history, presents a nationalist view of founding fathers, and downplays the racism of the times.”

Once you’ve written your initial working thesis statement, you’ll then need to get information to back that up. For example, the musical completely leaves out Benjamin Franklin, portrays the founding fathers in a nationalist way that is too complimentary, and shows Hamilton as a staunch abolitionist despite the fact that his family likely did own slaves. 

Step 4: Revise and refine your thesis statement before you start writing

Read through your thesis statement several times before you begin to compose your full essay. You need to make sure the statement is ironclad, since it is the foundation of the entire paper. Edit it or have a peer review it for you to make sure everything makes sense and that you feel like you can truly write a paper on the topic. Once you’ve done that, you can then begin writing your paper.

When writing a thesis statement, there are some common pitfalls you should avoid so that your paper can be as solid as possible. Make sure you always edit the thesis statement before you do anything else. You also want to ensure that the thesis statement is clear and concise. Don’t make your reader hunt for your point. Finally, put your thesis statement at the end of the first paragraph and have your introduction flow toward that statement. Your reader will expect to find your statement in its traditional spot.

If you’re having trouble getting started, or need some guidance on your essay, there are tools available that can help you. CollegeVine offers a free peer essay review tool where one of your peers can read through your essay and provide you with valuable feedback. Getting essay feedback from a peer can help you wow your instructor or college admissions officer with an impactful essay that effectively illustrates your point.

Related CollegeVine Blog Posts

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

II. Getting Started

2.5 Writing Thesis Statements

Kathryn Crowther; Lauren Curtright; Nancy Gilbert; Barbara Hall; Tracienne Ravita; and Kirk Swenson

To be effective, all support in an essay must work together to convey a central point; otherwise, an essay can fall into the trap of being out of order and confusing. Just as a topic sentence focuses and unifies a single paragraph, the thesis statement focuses and unifies an entire essay. This statement is like a signpost that signals the essay’s destination; it tells the reader the point you want to make in your essay, while the essay itself supports that point.

Because writing is not a linear process, you may find that the best thesis statement develops near the end of your first draft. However, creating a draft or working thesis early in the writing project helps give the drafting process clear direction. You should form your thesis before you begin to organize an essay, but you may find that it needs revision as the essay develops.

A thesis is not just a topic, but rather the writer’s comment or interpretation of the question or subject. For whatever topic you select (for example, school uniforms, social networking), you must ask yourself, “What do I want to say about it?” Asking and then answering this question is vital to forming a thesis that is precise, forceful, and confident.

In the majority of essays, a thesis is one sentence long and appears toward the end of the introductory paragraph. It is specific and focuses on one to three points of a single idea—points that are able to be demonstrated in the body paragraphs. It forecasts the content of the essay and suggests how you will organize your information. Remember that a thesis statement does not summarize an issue but rather dissects it.

Working Thesis Statements

A strong thesis statement must have the following qualities:

• It must be arguable.  A thesis statement must state a point of view or judgment about a topic. An established fact is not considered arguable.
• It must be supportable.  The thesis statement must contain a point of view that can be supported with evidence (reasons, facts, examples).
• It must be specific. A thesis statement must be precise enough to allow for a coherent argument and remain focused on the topic.

Examples of Appropriate Thesis Statements

• Closing all American borders for a period of five years is one solution that will tackle illegal immigration.
• Compared to an absolute divorce, no-fault divorce is less expensive, promotes fairer settlements, and reflects a more realistic view of the causes for marital breakdown.
• Exposing children from an early age to the dangers of drug abuse is a sure method of preventing future drug addicts.
• In today’s crumbling job market, a high school diploma is not significant enough education to land a stable, lucrative job.
• The societal and personal struggles of Troy Maxson in the play Fences symbolize the challenges of black males who lived through segregation and integration in the United States.

Pitfalls to Avoid

A thesis is weak when it is simply a declaration of your subject or a description of what you will discuss in your essay.

Weak Thesis Statement Example

My paper will explain why imagination is more important than knowledge.

A thesis is weak when it makes an unreasonable or outrageous claim or insults the opposing side.

Religious radicals across America are trying to legislate their Puritanical beliefs by banning required high school books.

A thesis is weak when it contains an obvious fact or something that no one can disagree with or provides a dead end.

Advertising companies use sex to sell their products.

A thesis is weak when the statement is too broad.

The life of Abraham Lincoln was long and challenging.

Ways to Revise Your Thesis

Your thesis statement begins as a working thesis statement, an indefinite statement that you make about your topic early in the writing process for the purpose of planning and guiding your writing. Working thesis statements often become stronger as you gather information and develop new ideas and reasons for those ideas. Revision helps you strengthen your thesis so that it matches what you have expressed in the body of the paper.

You can cut down on irrelevant aspects and revise your thesis by taking the following steps:

• Pinpoint and replace all non specific words, such as people, everything, society, or life, with more precise words in order to reduce any vagueness.

Pinpoint and Replace Example

Working thesis:  Young people have to work hard to succeed in life.

Revised thesis:  Recent college graduates must have discipline and persistence in order to find and maintain a stable job in which they can use, and be appreciated for, their talents.

Explanation:  The original includes too broad a range of people and does not define exactly what success entails. By replacing those general words like people and work hard , the writer can better focus their research and gain more direction in their writing. The revised thesis makes a more specific statement about success and what it means to work hard.

• Clarify ideas that need explanation by asking yourself questions that narrow your thesis.

Clarify Example

Working thesis:  The welfare system is a joke.

Revised thesis:  The welfare system keeps a socioeconomic class from gaining employment by alluring members of that class with unearned income, instead of programs to improve their education and skill sets.

Explanation:  A joke means many things to many people. Readers bring all sorts of backgrounds and perspectives to the reading process and would need clarification for a word so vague. This expression may also be too informal for the selected audience. By asking questions, the writer can devise a more precise and appropriate explanation for joke and more accurately defines their stance, which will better guide the writing of the essay.

• Replace any linking verbs with action verbs. Linking verbs are forms of the verb to be , a verb that simply states that a situation exists.

Replace with Action Verbs Example

Working thesis:  Kansas City school teachers are not paid enough.

Revised thesis:  The Kansas City legislature cannot afford to pay its educators, resulting in job cuts and resignations in a district that sorely needs highly qualified and dedicated teachers.

Explanation:  The linking verb in this working thesis statement is the word are . Linking verbs often make thesis statements weak because they do not express action. Rather, they connect words and phrases to the second half of the sentence. Readers might wonder, “Why are they not paid enough?” But this statement does not compel them to ask many more questions.

• Who is not paying the teachers enough?
• How much is considered “enough”?
• What is the problem?
• What are the results?
• Omit any general claims that are hard to support.

Omit General Claims Example

Working thesis:  Today’s teenage girls are too sexualized.

Revised thesis: Teenage girls who are captivated by the sexual images on the internet and social media are conditioned to believe that a woman’s worth depends on her sensuality, a feeling that harms their self-esteem and behavior.

Explanation:  It is true that some young women in today’s society are more sexualized than in the past, but that is not true for all girls. Many girls have strict parents, dress appropriately, and do not engage in sexual activity while in middle school and high school. The writer of this thesis should ask the following questions:

• Which teenage girls?
• What constitutes “too” sexualized?
• Why are they behaving that way?
• Where does this behavior show up?
• What are the repercussions?

This section contains material from:

Crowther, Kathryn, Lauren Curtright, Nancy Gilbert, Barbara Hall, Tracienne Ravita, and Kirk Swenson. Successful College Composition . 2nd ed. Book 8. Georgia: English Open Textbooks, 2016. http://oer.galileo.usg.edu/english-textbooks/8 . Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License .

Relating to lines; a way of explaining information logically and/or sequentially; can refer to the chronological relaying of information.

A brief and concise statement or series of statements that outlines the main point(s) of a longer work. To summarize is to create a brief and concise statement or series of statements that outlines the main point(s) of a longer work.

To analyze closely or minutely; to scrutinize every aspect. Unlike the fields of biology, anatomy, or medicine, in rhetoric and writing, dissect does not refer to the cutting apart of a physical body but to the taking apart the body of an argument or idea piece by piece to understand it better.

A logical, rational, lucid, or understandable expression of an idea, concept, or notion; consistent and harmonious explanation.

Assertion or announcement of belief, understanding, or knowledge; a formal statement or proclamation.

Without a defined number or limit; unlimited, infinite, or undetermined.

An altered version of  a written work. Revising means to rewrite in order to improve and make corrections. Unlike editing, which involves minor changes, revisions include major and noticeable changes to a written work.

Not relevant; unimportant; beside the point; not relating to the matter at hand.

Attractive, tempting, or seductive; to have an appealing and charismatic quality.

To influence or convince; to produce a certain or specific result through the use of force.

2.5 Writing Thesis Statements Copyright © 2022 by Kathryn Crowther; Lauren Curtright; Nancy Gilbert; Barbara Hall; Tracienne Ravita; and Kirk Swenson is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

12 Constructing the Thesis and Argument from the Ground Up

Amy Guptill; Liz Delf; Rob Drummond; and Kristy Kelly

Amy Guptill Adapted by Liz Delf, Rob Drummond, and Kristy Kelly

Moving beyond the five-paragraph theme.

As an instructor, I’ve noted that a number of new (and sometimes not-so-new) students are skilled wordsmiths and generally clear thinkers but are nevertheless stuck in a high school style of writing. They struggle to let go of certain assumptions about how an academic paper should be. Some students who have mastered that form, and enjoyed a lot of success from doing so, assume that college writing is simply more of the same. The skills that go into a very basic kind of essay—often called the five-paragraph theme —are indispensable. If you’re good at the five-paragraph theme, then you’re good at identifying a clearfl and consistent thesis, arranging cohesive paragraphs, organizing evidence for key points, and situating an argument within a broader context through the intro and conclusion.

In college you need to build on those essential skills. The five-paragraph theme, as such, is bland and formulaic; it doesn’t compel deep thinking. Your instructors are looking for a more ambitious and arguable thesis, a nuanced and compelling argument, and real-life evidence for all key points, all in an organically structured paper.

Figures 12.1 and 12.2 contrast the standard five-paragraph theme and the organic college paper. The five-paragraph theme (outlined in figure 12.1 ) is probably what you’re used to: the introductory paragraph starts broad and gradually narrows to a thesis, which readers expect to find at the very end of that paragraph. In this idealized format, the thesis invokes the magic number of three: three reasons why a statement is true. Each of those reasons is explained and justified in the three body paragraphs, and then the final paragraph restates the thesis before gradually getting broader. This format is easy for readers to follow, and it helps writers organize their points and the evidence that goes with them. That’s why you learned this format.

In contrast, figure 12.2 represents a paper on the same topic that has the more organic form expected in college. The first key difference is the thesis. Rather than simply positing a number of reasons to think that something is true, it puts forward an arguable statement: one with which a reasonable person might disagree. An arguable thesis gives the paper purpose. It surprises readers and draws them in. You hope your reader thinks, “Huh. Why would they come to that conclusion?” and then feels compelled to read on. The body paragraphs, then, build on one another to carry out this ambitious argument. In the classic five-paragraph theme ( figure 12.1 ), it hardly matters which of the three reasons you explain first or second. In the more organic structure ( figure 12.2 ), each paragraph specifically leads to the next.

The last key difference is seen in the conclusion. Because the organic essay is driven by an ambitious, nonobvious argument, the reader comes to the concluding section thinking, “OK, I’m convinced by the argument. What do you, author, make of it? Why does it matter?” The conclusion of an organically structured paper has a real job to do. It doesn’t just reiterate the thesis; it explains why the thesis matters.

The substantial time you spent mastering the five-paragraph form in figure 12.1 was time well spent; it’s hard to imagine anyone succeeding with the more organic form without the organizational skills and habits of mind inherent in the simpler form. (And it is worth noting that there are limited moments in college where the five-paragraph structure is still useful—in-class essay exams, for example.) But if you assume that you must adhere rigidly to the simpler form, you’re blunting your intellectual ambition. Your instructors will not be impressed by obvious theses, loosely related body paragraphs, and repetitive conclusions. They want you to undertake an ambitious independent analysis, one that will yield a thesis that is somewhat surprising and challenging to explain.

The Three-Story Thesis

From the ground up.

You have no doubt been drilled on the need for a thesis statement and its proper location at the end of the introduction. And you also know that all of the key points of the paper should clearly support the central driving thesis. Indeed, the whole model of the five-paragraph theme hinges on a clearly stated and consistent thesis. However, some students are surprised—and dismayed—when some of their early college papers are criticized for not having a good thesis. Their instructor might even claim that the paper doesn’t have a thesis when, in the author’s view, it clearly does. So what makes a good thesis in college?

• Version A: Linen served as a form of currency in the ancient Mediterranean world, connecting rival empires through circuits of trade.
• Version B: Linen served as a form of currency in the ancient Mediterranean world, connecting rival empires through circuits of trade. The economic role of linen raises important questions about how shifting environmental conditions can influence economic relationships and, by extension, political conflicts.

How do you produce a good, strong thesis? And how do you know when you’ve gotten there? Many instructors and writers embrace a metaphor based on this passage by Oliver Wendell Holmes Sr. (1809–1894). He compares a good thesis to a three-story building:

There are one-story intellects, two-story intellects, and three-story intellects with skylights. All fact collectors who have no aim beyond their facts are one-story men. Two-story men compare, reason, generalize using the labor of fact collectors as their own. Three-story men idealize, imagine, predict—their best illumination comes from above the skylight. (50)

In other words,

• One-story theses state inarguable facts. What’s the background?
• Two-story theses bring in an arguable (interpretive or analytical) point . What is your argument?
• Three-story theses nest that point within its larger, compelling implications . Why does it matter?

Thesis: that’s the word that pops at me whenever I write an essay. Seeing this word in the prompt scared me and made me think to myself, “Oh great, what are they really looking for?” or “How am I going to make a thesis for a college paper?” When rehearing that I would be focusing on theses again in a class, I said to myself, “Here we go again!” But after learning about the three-story thesis, I never had a problem with writing another thesis. In fact, I look forward to being asked on a paper to create a thesis.

Timothée Pizarro

writing student

The biggest benefit of the three-story metaphor is that it describes a process for building a thesis. To build the first story or level, you first have to get familiar with the complex, relevant facts surrounding the problem or question. You have to be able to describe the situation thoroughly and accurately. Then with that first story built, you can layer on the second story by formulating the insightful, arguable point that animates the analysis. That’s often the most effortful part: brainstorming, elaborating and comparing alternative ideas, finalizing your point. With that specified, you can frame up the third story by articulating why the point you make matters beyond its particular topic or case.

The concept of a three-story thesis framework was the most helpful piece of information I gained from the writing component of DCC 100. The first time I utilized it in a college paper, my professor included “good thesis” and “excellent introduction” in her notes and graded it significantly higher than my previous papers. You can expect similar results if you dig deeper to form three-story theses. More importantly, doing so will make the actual writing of your paper more straightforward as well. Arguing something specific makes the structure of your paper much easier to design.

Peter Farrell

For example, imagine you have been assigned a paper about the impact of online learning in higher education. You would first construct an account of the origins and multiple forms of online learning and assess research findings on its use and effectiveness. If you’ve done that well, you’ll probably come up with a well-considered opinion that wouldn’t be obvious to readers who haven’t looked at the issue in depth. Maybe you’ll want to argue that online learning is a threat to the academic community. Or perhaps you’ll want to make the case that online learning opens up pathways to college degrees that traditional campus-based learning does not.

In the course of developing your central, argumentative point, you’ll come to recognize its larger context; in this example, you may claim that online learning can serve to better integrate higher education with the rest of society, as online learners bring their educational and career experiences together. Here is an example:

The final thesis would be all three of these pieces together. These stories build on one another; they don’t replace the previous story. Here’s another example of a three-story thesis:

Here’s one more example:

A thesis statement that stops at the first story isn’t usually considered a thesis . A two-story thesis is usually considered competent, though some two-story theses are more intriguing and ambitious than others. A thoughtfully crafted and well-informed three-story thesis puts the author on a smooth path toward an excellent paper.

Three-Story Theses and the Organically Structured Argument

The three-story thesis is a beautiful thing. For one, it gives a paper authentic momentum. The first paragraph doesn’t just start with some broad, vague statement; every sentence is crucial for setting up the thesis. The body paragraphs build on one another, moving through each step of the logical chain. Each paragraph leads inevitably to the next, making the transitions from paragraph to paragraph feel wholly natural. The conclusion, instead of being a mirror-image paraphrase of the introduction, builds out the third story by explaining the broader implications of the argument. It offers new insight without departing from the flow of the analysis.

I should note here that a paper with this kind of momentum often reads like it was knocked out in one inspired sitting. But in reality, just like accomplished athletes, artists, and musicians, masterful writers make the difficult thing look easy. As writer Anne Lamott notes, reading a well-written piece feels like its author sat down and typed it out, “bounding along like huskies across the snow.” However, she continues,

This is just the fantasy of the uninitiated. I know some very great writers, writers you love who write beautifully and have made a great deal of money, and not one of them sits down routinely feeling wildly enthusiastic and confident. Not one of them writes elegant first drafts. All right, one of them does, but we do not like her very much. (21)

Experienced writers don’t figure out what they want to say and then write it. They write in order to figure out what they want to say.

Experienced writers develop theses in dialogue with the body of the essay. An initial characterization of the problem leads to a tentative thesis, and then drafting the body of the paper reveals thorny contradictions or critical areas of ambiguity, prompting the writer to revisit or expand the body of evidence and then refine the thesis based on that fresh look. The revised thesis may require that body paragraphs be reordered and reshaped to fit the emerging three-story thesis. Throughout the process, the thesis serves as an anchor point while the author wades through the morass of facts and ideas. The dialogue between thesis and body continues until the author is satisfied or the due date arrives, whatever comes first. It’s an effortful and sometimes tedious process.

Novice writers, in contrast, usually oversimplify the writing process. They formulate some first-impression thesis, produce a reasonably organized outline, and then flesh it out with text, never taking the time to reflect or truly revise their work. They assume that revision is a step backward when, in reality, it is a major step forward.

Everyone has a different way that they like to write. For instance, I like to pop my earbuds in, blast dubstep music, and write on a whiteboard. I like using the whiteboard because it is a lot easier to revise and edit while you write. After I finish writing a paragraph that I am completely satisfied with on the whiteboard, I sit in front of it with my laptop and just type it up.

Kaethe Leonard

Another benefit of the three-story thesis framework is that it demystifies what a “strong” argument is in academic culture . In an era of political polarization, many students may think that a strong argument is based on a simple, bold, combative statement that is promoted in the most forceful way possible. “Gun control is a travesty!” “Shakespeare is the best writer who ever lived!” When students are encouraged to consider contrasting perspectives in their papers, they fear that doing so will make their own thesis seem mushy and weak.

However, in academics a “strong” argument is comprehensive and nuanced, not simple and polemical. The purpose of the argument is to explain to readers why the author—through the course of his or her in-depth study—has arrived at a somewhat surprising point. On that basis, it has to consider plausible counterarguments and contradictory information. Academic argumentation exemplifies the popular adage about all writing: show, don’t tell. In crafting and carrying out the three-story thesis, you are showing your reader the work you have done.

The model of the organically structured paper and the three-story thesis framework explained here is the very foundation of the paper itself and the process that produces it. Your instructors assume that you have the self-motivation and organizational skills to pursue your analysis with both rigor and flexibility; that is, they envision you developing, testing, refining, and sometimes discarding your own ideas based on a clear-eyed and open-minded assessment of the evidence before you.

The original chapter, Constructing the Thesis and Argument—from the Ground Up by Amy Guptill, is from Writing in College: From Competence to Excellence

Discussion Questions

• What writing “rules” were you taught in the past? This might be about essay structure, style, or something else. Which of these rules seem to be true in college writing? Which ones are not true in college?
• In what contexts is the five-paragraph essay a useful structure? Why is it not helpful in other contexts—what’s the problem?
• Despite their appeal to patients, robotic pets should not be used widely, since they cause more problems than they solve.
• In recent years, robotic pets have been used in medical settings to help children and elderly patients feel emotionally supported and loved.
• Shifting affection to robotic pets rather than live animals suggests a major change in empathy and humanity and could have long-term costs that have not been fully considered.
• Television programming includes content that some find objectionable.
• The percentage of children and youth who are overweight or obese has risen in recent decades.
• First-year college students must learn how to independently manage their time.
• The things we surround ourselves with symbolize who we are.
• Find a scholarly article or book that is interesting to you. Focusing on the abstract and introduction, outline the first, second, and third stories of its thesis.
• Find an example of a five-paragraph theme (online essay mills, your own high school work), produce an alternative three-story thesis, and outline an organically structured paper to carry that thesis out.

Additional Resources

• The Writing Center at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill offers an excellent, readable rundown on the five-paragraph theme, why most college writing assignments want you to go beyond it, and those times when the simpler structure is actually a better choice.
• There are many useful websites that describe good thesis statements and provide examples. Those from the writing centers at Hamilton College  and Purdue University are especially helpful.

Works Cited

Holmes, Oliver Wendell. The Poet at the Breakfast-Table: His Talks with His Fellow-Boarders and the Reader. James R. Osgood, 1872.

Lamott, Anne. Bird by Bird: Some Instructions on Writing and Life. Pantheon, 1994.

Media Attributions

• 12.1 five-paragraph theme © Amy Guptill is licensed under a CC BY-NC-SA (Attribution NonCommercial ShareAlike) license
• 12.2 organic college paper © Amy Guptill is licensed under a CC BY-NC-SA (Attribution NonCommercial ShareAlike) license

Constructing the Thesis and Argument from the Ground Up Copyright © 2022 by Amy Guptill; Liz Delf; Rob Drummond; and Kristy Kelly is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

5.5 Connecting Thesis and Argument

Amy Guptill

As an instructor, I’ve noted that a number of new (and sometimes not-so-new) students are skilled wordsmiths and generally clear thinkers but are nevertheless stuck in a high-school style of writing. They struggle to let go of certain assumptions about how an academic paper should be. Some students who have mastered that form, and enjoyed a lot of success from doing so, assume that college writing is simply more of the same. The skills that go into a very basic kind of essay—often called the five-paragraph theme —are indispensable. If you’re good at the five-paragraph theme, then you’re good at identifying a clear and consistent thesis, arranging cohesive paragraphs, organizing evidence for key points, and situating an argument within a broader context through the intro and conclusion.

In college you need to build on those essential skills. The five-paragraph theme, as such, is bland and formulaic; it doesn’t compel deep thinking. Your professors are looking for a more ambitious and arguable thesis, a nuanced and compelling argument, and real-life evidence for all key points, all in an organically [1] structured paper.

Figures 3.1 and 3.2 contrast the standard five-paragraph theme and the organic college paper. The five-paragraph theme, outlined in Figure 3.1 is probably what you’re used to: the introductory paragraph starts broad and gradually narrows to a thesis, which readers expect to find at the very end of that paragraph. In this idealized format, the thesis invokes the magic number of three: three reasons why a statement is true. Each of those reasons is explained and justified in the three body paragraphs, and then the final paragraph restates the thesis before gradually getting broader. This format is easy for readers to follow, and it helps writers organize their points and the evidence that goes with them. That’s why you learned this format.

Figure 3.2, in contrast, represents a paper on the same topic that has the more organic form expected in college. The first key difference is the thesis. Rather than simply positing a number of reasons to think that something is true, it puts forward an arguable statement: one with which a reasonable person might disagree. An arguable thesis gives the paper purpose. It surprises readers and draws them in. You hope your reader thinks, “Huh. Why would they come to that conclusion?” and then feels compelled to read on. The body paragraphs, then, build on one another to carry out this ambitious argument. In the classic five-paragraph theme (Figure 3.1) it hardly matters which of the three reasons you explain first or second. In the more organic structure, (Figure 3.2) each paragraph specifically leads to the next.

The last key difference is seen in the conclusion. Because the organic essay is driven by an ambitious, non-obvious argument, the reader comes to the concluding section thinking, “OK, I’m convinced by the argument. What do you, author, make of it? Why does it matter?” The conclusion of an organically structured paper has a real job to do. It doesn’t just reiterate the thesis; it explains why the thesis matters.

The substantial time you spent mastering the five-paragraph form in Figure 3.1 was time well spent; it’s hard to imagine anyone succeeding with the more organic form without the organizational skills and habits of mind inherent in the simpler form. But if you assume that you must adhere rigidly to the simpler form, you’re blunting your intellectual ambition. Your professors will not be impressed by obvious theses, loosely related body paragraphs, and repetitive conclusions. They want you to undertake an ambitious independent analysis, one that will yield a thesis that is somewhat surprising and challenging to explain.

The Three-Story Thesis: From the Ground Up

You have no doubt been drilled on the need for a thesis statement and its proper location at the end of the introduction. And you also know that all of the key points of the paper should clearly support the central driving thesis. Indeed, the whole model of the five-paragraph theme hinges on a clearly stated and consistent thesis. However, some students are surprised—and dismayed—when some of their early college papers are criticized for not having a good thesis. Their professor might even claim that the paper doesn’t have a thesis when, in the author’s view, it clearly does. That’s because the thesis might NOT have the following which illustrates a more organic method of writing:

• A good thesis is non-obvious. High school teachers needed to make sure that you and all your classmates mastered the basic form of the academic essay. Thus, they were mostly concerned that you had a clear and consistent thesis, even if it was something obvious like “sustainability is important.” A thesis statement like that has a wide-enough scope to incorporate several supporting points and concurring evidence, enabling the writer to demonstrate his or her mastery of the five-paragraph form. Good enough! When they can, high school teachers nudge students to develop arguments that are less obvious and more engaging. College instructors, though, fully expect you to produce something more developed.
• A good thesis is arguable. In everyday life, “arguable” is often used as a synonym for “doubtful.” For a thesis, though, “arguable” means that it’s worth arguing and there is a certain level of probability involved: it’s something with which a reasonable person might disagree. This arguability criterion dovetails with the non-obvious one: it shows that the author has deeply explored a problem and arrived at an argument that legitimately needs 3, 5, 10, or 20 pages to explain and justify. In that way, a good thesis sets an ambitious agenda for a paper. A thesis like “sustainability is important” isn’t at all difficult to argue for, and the reader would have little intrinsic motivation to read the rest of the paper. However, an arguable thesis like “sustainability policies will inevitably fail if they do not incorporate social justice” brings up some healthy skepticism. Thus, the arguable thesis makes the reader want to keep reading.
• A good thesis is well specified. Some student writers fear that they’re giving away the game if they specify their thesis up front; they think that a purposefully vague thesis might be more intriguing to the reader. However, consider movie trailers: they always include the most exciting and poignant moments from the film to attract an audience. In academic papers, too, a well-specified thesis indicates that the author has thought rigorously about an issue and done thorough research, which makes the reader want to keep reading. Don’t just say that a particular policy is effective or fair; say what makes it so. If you want to argue that a particular claim is dubious or incomplete, say why in your thesis.
• A good thesis includes implications. Suppose your assignment is to write a paper about some aspect of the history of linen production and trade, a topic that may seem exceedingly arcane. And suppose you have constructed a well-supported and creative argument that linen was so widely traded in the ancient Mediterranean that it actually served as a kind of currency. [2] That’s a strong, insightful, arguable, well-specified thesis. But which of these thesis statements do you find more engaging?

Linen served as a form of currency in the ancient Mediterranean world, connecting rival empires through circuits of trade.

Linen served as a form of currency in the ancient Mediterranean world, connecting rival empires through circuits of trade. The economic role of linen raises important questions about how shifting environmental conditions can influence economic relationships and, by extension, political conflicts.

Putting your claims in their broader context makes them more interesting to your reader and more impressive to your professors who, after all, assign topics that they think have enduring significance. Finding that significance for yourself makes the most of both your paper and your learning.

How do you produce a good, strong thesis? And how do you know when you’ve gotten there? Many instructors and writers find useful a metaphor based on this passage by Oliver Wendell Holmes Sr.: [3]

There are one-story intellects, two-story intellects, and three-story intellects with skylights. All fact collectors who have no aim beyond their facts are one-story men. Two-story men compare, reason, generalize using the labor of fact collectors as their own. Three-story men idealize, imagine, predict—their best illumination comes from above the skylight.

One-story theses state inarguable facts. Two-story theses bring in an arguable (interpretive or analytical) point. Three-story theses nest that point within its larger, compelling implications. [4]

The biggest benefit of the three-story metaphor is that it describes a process for building a thesis. To build the first story, you first have to get familiar with the complex, relevant facts surrounding the problem or question. You have to be able to describe the situation thoroughly and accurately. Then, with that first story built, you can layer on the second story by formulating the insightful, arguable point that animates the analysis. That’s often the most effortful part: brainstorming, elaborating, and comparing alternative ideas, finalizing your point. With that specified, you can frame up the third story by articulating why the point you make matters beyond its particular topic or case.

For example, imagine you have been assigned a paper about the impact of online learning in higher education. You would first construct an account of the origins and multiple forms of online learning and assess research findings about its use and effectiveness. If you’ve done that well, you’ll probably come up with a well-considered opinion that wouldn’t be obvious to readers who haven’t looked at the issue in depth. Maybe you’ll want to argue that online learning is a threat to the academic community. Or perhaps you’ll want to make the case that online learning opens up pathways to college degrees that traditional campus-based learning does not. In the course of developing your central argumentative point, you’ll come to recognize its larger context; in this example, you may claim that online learning can serve to better integrate higher education with the rest of society, as online learners bring their educational and career experiences together. To outline this example:

• First story: Online learning is becoming more prevalent and takes many different forms.
• Second story: While most observers see it as a transformation of higher education, online learning is better thought of as an extension of higher education in that it reaches learners who aren’t disposed to participate in traditional campus-based education.
• Third story: Online learning appears to be a promising way to better integrate higher education with other institutions in society, as online learners integrate their educational experiences with the other realms of their life, promoting the freer flow of ideas between the academy and the rest of society.

Here’s another example of a three-story thesis: [5]

• First story: Edith Wharton did not consider herself a modernist writer, and she didn’t write like her modernist contemporaries.
• Second story: However, in her work we can see her grappling with both the questions and literary forms that fascinated modernist writers of her era. While not an avowed modernist, she did engage with modernist themes and questions.
• Third story: Thus, it is more revealing to think of modernism as a conversation rather than a category or practice.

Here’s one more example:

• First story: Scientists disagree about the likely impact in the U.S. of the light brown apple moth (LBAM) , an agricultural pest native to Australia.
• Second story: Research findings to date suggest that the decision to spray pheromones over the skies of several southern Californian counties to combat the LBAM was poorly thought out.
• Third story: Together, the scientific ambiguities and the controversial response strengthen the claim that industrial-style approaches to pest management are inherently unsustainable.

A thesis statement that stops at the first story isn’t usually considered a thesis. A two-story thesis is usually considered competent, though some two-story theses are more intriguing and ambitious than others. A thoughtfully crafted and well-informed three-story thesis puts the author on a smooth path toward an excellent paper.

The concept of a three-story thesis framework was the most helpful piece of information I gained from the writing component of our class. The first time I utilized it in a college paper, my professor included “good thesis” and “excellent introduction” in her notes and graded it significantly higher than my previous papers. You can expect similar results if you dig deeper to form three-story theses. More importantly, doing so will make the actual writing of your paper more straightforward as well. Arguing something specific makes the structure of your paper much easier to design.

Peter Farrell

Three-Story Theses and the Organically Structured Argument

The three-story thesis is a beautiful thing. For one, it gives a paper authentic momentum. The first paragraph doesn’t just start with some broad, vague statement; every sentence is crucial for setting up the thesis. The body paragraphs build on one another, moving through each step of the logical chain. Each paragraph leads inevitably to the next, making the transitions from paragraph to paragraph feel wholly natural. The conclusion, instead of being a mirror-image paraphrase of the introduction, builds out the third story by explaining the broader implications of the argument. It offers new insight without departing from the flow of the analysis.

I should note here that a paper with this kind of momentum often reads like it was knocked out in one inspired sitting. But in reality, just like accomplished athletes and artists, masterful writers make the difficult thing look easy. As writer Anne Lamott notes, reading a well-written piece feels like its author sat down and typed it out, “bounding along like huskies across the snow.” However, she continues,

This is just the fantasy of the uninitiated. I know some very great writers, writers you love who write beautifully and have made a great deal of money, and not one of them sits down routinely feeling wildly enthusiastic and confident. Not one of them writes elegant first drafts. All right, one of them does, but we do not like her very much. [6]

Experienced writers don’t figure out what they want to say and then write it. They write in order to figure out what they want to say.

Experienced writers develop theses in dialog with the body of the essay. An initial characterization of the problem leads to a tentative thesis, and then drafting the body of the paper reveals thorny contradictions or critical areas of ambiguity, prompting the writer to revisit or expand the body of evidence and then refine the thesis based on that fresh look. The revised thesis may require that body paragraphs be reordered and reshaped to fit the emerging three-story thesis. Throughout the process, the thesis serves as an anchor point while the author wades through the morass of facts and ideas. The dialogue between thesis and body continues until the author is satisfied or the due date arrives, whatever comes first. It’s an effortful and sometimes tedious process. Novice writers, in contrast, usually oversimplify the writing process. They formulate some first-impression thesis, produce a reasonably organized outline, and then flesh it out with text, never taking the time to reflect or truly revise their work. They assume that revision is a step backward when, in reality, it is a major step forward.

Everyone has a different way that they like to write. For instance, I like to pop my earbuds in, blast dubstep music, and write on a white board. I like using the white board because it is a lot easier to revise and edit while you write. After I finish writing a paragraph that I am completely satisfied with on the white board, I sit in front of it with my laptop and just type it up.

Kaethe Leonard

Another benefit of the three-story thesis framework is that it demystifies what a “strong” argument is in academic culture. In an era of political polarization, many students may think that a strong argument is based on a simple, bold, combative statement that is promoted in the most forceful way possible. “Gun control is a travesty!” “Toni Morrison is the best writer who ever lived!” When students are encouraged to consider contrasting perspectives in their papers, they fear that doing so will make their own thesis seem mushy and weak. However, in academics a “strong” argument is comprehensive and nuanced, not simple and polemical. The purpose of the argument is to explain to readers why the author—through the course of his or her in-depth study—has arrived at a somewhat surprising point. On that basis, it has to consider plausible counter-arguments and contradictory information. Academic argumentation exemplifies the popular adage about all writing: show, don’t tell. In crafting and carrying out the three-story thesis, you are showing your reader the work you have done.

The model of the organically structured paper and the three-story thesis framework explained here is the very foundation of the paper itself and the process that produces it. The subsequent chapters, focusing on sources, paragraphs, and sentence-level wordsmithing, all follow from the notion that you are writing to think and writing to learn as much as you are writing to communicate. Your professors assume that you have the self-motivation and organizational skills to pursue your analysis with both rigor and flexibility; that is, they envision you developing, testing, refining, and sometimes discarding your own ideas based on a clear-eyed and open-minded assessment of the evidence before you.

Additional Resources

• The Writing Center at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill offers an excellent, readable run-down on the five-paragraph theme, why most college writing assignments want you to go beyond it, and those times when the simpler structure is actually a better choice.
• There are many useful websites that describe good thesis statements and provide examples. Those from the writing centers at Hamilton College and Purdue University are especially helpful.
• Find a scholarly article or book that is interesting to you. Focusing on the abstract and introduction, outline the first, second, and third stories of its thesis.
• Television programming includes content that some find objectionable.
• The percent of children and youth who are overweight or obese has risen in recent decades.
• First-year college students must learn how to independently manage their time.
• The things we surround ourselves with symbolize who we are.
• Find an example of a five-paragraph theme (online essay mills, your own high school work), produce an alternative three-story thesis, and outline an organically structured paper to carry that thesis out.

• “Organic” here doesn’t mean “pesticide-free” or containing carbon; it means the paper grows and develops, sort of like a living thing. ↵
• For more, see Fabio Lopez-Lazaro “Linen.” In Encyclopedia of World Trade from Ancient Times to the Present . Armonk: M.E. Sharpe, 2005. ↵
• Oliver Wendell Holmes Sr., The Poet at the Breakfast Table (New York: Houghton & Mifflin, 1892). ↵
• The metaphor is extraordinarily useful even though the passage is annoying. Beyond the sexist language of the time, I don’t appreciate the condescension toward “fact-collectors.” which reflects a general modernist tendency to elevate the abstract and denigrate the concrete. In reality, data-collection is a creative and demanding craft, arguably more important than theorizing. ↵
• Drawn from Jennifer Haytock, Edith Wharton and the Conversations of Literary Modernism (New York: Palgrave-MacMillan, 2008). ↵ ↵
• Anne Lamott, Bird by Bird: Some Instructions on Writing and Life (New York: Pantheon, 1994), 21. ↵

Rhetoric Matters: A Guide to Success in the First Year Writing Class Copyright © 2022 by Amy Guptill is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

50 Argumentative Essay Thesis Statement Examples

A thesis statement in an argumentative essay needs to present a point of view . The biggest mistake you can make is to provide a thesis statement that doesn’t demonstrate what your argument will be. So, your thesis statement should set a clear argument, perspective, or position in relation to a debate. Check out the examples below.

Thesis Statements for Argumentative Essays

1. mandatory school uniforms.

For: “School uniforms should be mandatory as they promote equality and reduce distractions, fostering a better learning environment.”

Against: “Mandatory school uniforms infringe on students’ freedom of expression and fail to address the root causes of bullying and social stratification.”

Read More: School Uniform Pros and Cons

2. School Should Start Later

For: “Schools should start later in the morning to align with adolescents’ natural sleep cycles, resulting in improved mental health, increased academic performance, and better overall student well-being.”

Against: “Starting school later in the morning disrupts family routines, poses logistical challenges for after-school activities and transportation, and fails to prepare students for the traditional workday schedule.”

Read More: School Should Start Later Arguments | School Should Start Earlier Arguments

3. College Athletes Should be Paid

For: “College athletes should be compensated for their contributions to the multi-billion dollar collegiate sports industry, as their commitment and efforts generate significant revenue and marketing value for their institutions.”

Against: “Paying college athletes undermines the spirit of amateurism in collegiate sports, complicates the primary focus on education, and poses significant financial and regulatory challenges for universities.”

Read More: Why College Athletes Should be Paid

4. Homework should be Banned

For: “Excessive homework can lead to student burnout, reduce family time, and is not always effective in enhancing learning.”

Against: “Homework is essential for reinforcing learning, fostering independent study skills, and preparing students for academic challenges.”

Read More: 21 Reasons Homework Should be Banned

5. Nature is More Important than Nurture

For: “Genetic predispositions play a more critical role in shaping an individual than environmental factors, highlighting the importance of nature in personal development.”

Against: “Environmental factors and upbringing have a more significant impact on an individual’s development than genetic factors, emphasizing the role of nurture.”

Read More: Nature vs Nurture

6. The American Dream is Unattainable

For: “The American Dream is an outdated and unachievable concept for many, masked by systemic inequalities and economic barriers.”

Against: “The American Dream is still a relevant and attainable goal, symbolizing hope, opportunity, and hard work in a land of limitless potential.”

Read More: Examples of the American Dream

7. Social Media is Good for Society

For: “Social media is a vital tool for modern communication, fostering global connectivity and democratizing information dissemination.”

Against: “Social media platforms contribute to mental health issues, spread misinformation, and erode quality face-to-face interactions.”

Read More: Social Media Pros and Cons

8. Globalization has been Bad for Society

For: “Globalization leads to the exploitation of developing countries, loss of cultural identity, and increased income inequality.”

Against: “Globalization is beneficial, driving economic growth, cultural exchange, and technological advancement on a global scale.”

Read More: Globalization Pros and Cons

9. Urbanization has been Good for Society

For: “Urbanization is a positive force for economic development and cultural diversity, offering improved opportunities and lifestyles.”

Against: “Rapid urbanization leads to environmental degradation, overpopulation, and heightened social inequalities.”

Read More: Urbanization Examples

10. Immigration is Good for Society

For: “Immigration enriches the social and economic fabric of the host country, bringing diversity and innovation.”

Against: “Uncontrolled immigration can strain public resources, disrupt local job markets, and lead to cultural clashes.”

Read More: Immigration Pros and Cons

11. Cultural Identity must be Preserved

For: “Maintaining cultural identity is essential to preserve historical heritage and promote diversity in a globalized world.”

Against: “Excessive emphasis on cultural identity can lead to isolationism and hinder integration and mutual understanding in multicultural societies.”

Read More: Cultural Identity Examples

12. Technology is Essential for Social Progress

For: “The advancement of technology is crucial for societal progress, improving efficiency, healthcare, and global communication.”

Against: “Over-dependence on technology leads to privacy concerns, job displacement, and a disconnection from the natural world.”

13. Capitalism is the Best Economic System

For: “Capitalism drives innovation, economic growth, and personal freedom, outperforming socialist systems in efficiency and prosperity.”

Against: “Capitalism creates vast inequalities and exploits workers and the environment, necessitating a shift towards socialist principles for a fairer society.”

14. Socialism is the Best Economic System

For: “Socialism promotes social welfare and equality, ensuring basic needs are met for all citizens, unlike the inequalities perpetuated by capitalism.”

Against: “Socialism stifles individual initiative and economic growth, often leading to governmental overreach and inefficiency.”

Read More: Socialism Pros and Cons

15. Pseudoscience has no Value to Society

For: “Pseudoscience is harmful as it misleads people, often resulting in health risks and the rejection of scientifically proven facts.”

Against: “Pseudoscience, while not scientifically validated, can offer alternative perspectives and comfort to individuals where mainstream science has limitations.”

Read More: Pseudoscience Examples

16. Free Will is Real

For: “Individuals possess free will, enabling them to make autonomous choices that shape their lives and moral character, independent of genetic or environmental determinism.”

Against: “The concept of free will is an illusion, with human behavior being the result of genetic and environmental influences beyond personal control.”

Read More: Free Will Examples

17. Gender Roles are Outdated

For: “Rigid gender roles are outdated and limit individual freedom, perpetuating inequality and stereotyping.”

Against: “Traditional gender roles provide structure and clarity to societal functions and personal relationships.”

Read More: Gender Roles Examples

18. Work-Life Ballance is Essential for a Good Life

For: “Achieving a work-life balance is essential for mental health, productivity, and personal fulfillment.”

Against: “The pursuit of work-life balance can lead to decreased professional ambition and economic growth, particularly in highly competitive industries.”

Read More: Work-Life Balance Examples

19. Universal Healthcare

For: “Universal healthcare is a fundamental human right, ensuring equitable access to medical services for all individuals.”

Against: “Universal healthcare can be inefficient and costly, potentially leading to lower quality of care and longer wait times.”

Read More: Universal Healthcare Pros and Cons

20. Raising the Minimum Wage

For: “Raising the minimum wage is necessary to provide a living wage, reduce poverty, and stimulate economic growth.”

Against: “Increasing the minimum wage can lead to higher unemployment and negatively impact small businesses.”

Read More: Raising the Minimum Wage Pros and Cons

21. Charter Schools are Better than Public Schools

For: “Charter schools provide valuable alternatives to traditional public schools, often offering innovative educational approaches and higher standards.”

Against: “Charter schools can drain resources from public schools and lack the same level of accountability and inclusivity.”

Read More: Charter Schools vs Public Schools

22. The Internet has had a Net Positive Effect

For: “The internet is a transformative tool for education, communication, and business, making information more accessible than ever before.”

Against: “The internet can be a platform for misinformation, privacy breaches, and unhealthy social comparison, negatively impacting society.”

Read Also: Pros and Cons of the Internet

23. Affirmative Action is Fair and Just

For: “Affirmative action is necessary to correct historical injustices and promote diversity in education and the workplace.”

Against: “Affirmative action can lead to reverse discrimination and undermine meritocracy, potentially harming those it aims to help.”

Read More: Pros and Cons of Affirmative Action

24. Soft Skills are the Most Important Workforce Skills

For: “Soft skills like communication and empathy are crucial in the modern workforce, contributing to a collaborative and adaptable work environment.”

Against: “Overemphasis on soft skills can neglect technical proficiency and practical skills that are essential in many professional fields.”

Read More: Examples of Soft Skills

25. Freedom of the Press has gone Too Far

For: “Unregulated freedom of the press can lead to the spread of misinformation and biased reporting, influencing public opinion unfairly.”

Against: “Freedom of the press is essential for a democratic society, ensuring transparency and accountability in governance.”

Read More: Free Press Examples

Chris Drew (PhD)

Dr. Chris Drew is the founder of the Helpful Professor. He holds a PhD in education and has published over 20 articles in scholarly journals. He is the former editor of the Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education. [Image Descriptor: Photo of Chris]

• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ 44 Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs Examples
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ Bronfenbrenner's Ecological Systems Theory (Pros & Cons)
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ Social Exchange Theory: Definition and Examples
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ 10 Cognitive Dissonance Examples

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Historic Trump trial comes to a dramatic close, jury deliberations begin Wednesday: recap

Both sides completed their final arguments Tuesday in the historic first criminal case against a former president capping a dramatic six-week trial in which a parade of often high-profile witnesses laid out the evidence that Donald Trump allegedly covered up hush money payments to a porn star to hide another crime.

Jury deliberations will begin Wednesday after instructions from Judge Juan Merchan . The forthcoming verdict – a conviction on all or some of 34 counts of falsifying business records, an acquittal, or a deadlocked jury – could have a major impact on Trump’s campaign against President Joe Biden.

The six-week trial featured 22 witnesses from Trump’s company, campaign, a national tabloid and a porn star. The testimony featured tense moments such as defense lawyer Todd Blanche accusing Trump’s former personal lawyer, Michael Cohen , of lying on the standand former Trump spokesperson Hope Hicks breaking into tears.

Meanwhile, Merchan threatened to jail Trump if he continued to violate a gag order against talking about witnesses participating in the case. A flock of Republican surrogates showed up to support Trump, and one conspiracy theorist set himself on fire outside the courthouse.

Prosecution cites 'jaw-dropping' evidence against Trump that defense says 'cannot be trusted'

The courtroom drama featured dramatic clashes between lawyers and witnesses, the judge and Trump.

Prep for the polls: See who is running for president and compare where they stand on key issues in our Voter Guide

Cohen was a key witness testifying that he submitted invoices for “legal expenses” that Trump knew were to reimburse him for paying $130,000 to silence porn actress Stormy Daniels before the 2016 election. But Trump lawyer Todd Blanche accused Cohen of lying on the stand when he testified he notified Trump about the payment to Daniels. In closing arguments, Blanche called Cohen the “MVP of liars” and “the embodiment of reasonable doubt.”

Merchan scolded Blanche for an “outrageous” statement in closing arguments that the jury shouldn’t “send someone to prison” based on Cohen’s testimony.

Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford, described the alleged sexual encounter in enough detail that Merchan questioned why defense lawyers didn’t object more to block her testimony. She testified that she noticed gold nail clippers in Trump’s hotel room and he didn’t wear a condom during the encounter. Trump has repeatedly denied he had sex with Daniels and Blanche argued the payment “started out as an extortion” whether the allegation was true or not.

David Pecker, the former CEO of American Media Inc., which owned the National Enquirer, said he agreed in a meeting with Trump and Cohen in August 2015 to be the “eyes and ears” of Trump’s presidential campaign to buy negative stories about the candidate and never publish them.

Pecker acknowledged paying former Playboy model Karen McDougal $150,000 for her story and then refusing to pay for Daniels because Trump hadn’t reimbursed him. Cohen provided a recording , which prosecutor Joshua Steinglass called “jaw-dropping,” of Trump mentioning the $150,000 figure.

But Blanche raised questions about the credibility of the recording because it cuts off suddenly – Cohen said he got another call – and argued that a meeting to influence the campaign “made no sense.”

Trump paid Cohen for a retainer through invoices marked "legal expenses," so he committed no crime of falsifying business records, according to Blanche. "This is not a referendum on your views of President Trump," Blanche told jurors.

The jury will return Wednesday to receive instructions from Merchan and begin deliberations.

− Bart Jansen

Tuesday proceedings end

Judge Juan Merchan declared an end to the day's proceedings at about 8 p.m. EDT.

– Aysha Bagchi

Judge to give jury instructions in morning, proceedings to start slightly later

Judge Juan Merchan said he will give jurors their instructions on the law to apply in the case tomorrow morning. In light of today's proceedings running late, tomorrow's proceedings will start at 10 a.m. EDT, not the normal 9:30 a.m. EDT start time, Merchan said.

'In the name of justice': Prosecutor finishes closing argument

Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass has ended his closing argument. He thanked the jurors for their service and for consistently arriving to trial on time.

"I apologize for trading brevity for thoroughness," he said, in reference to his lengthy time summing up the case.

Steinglass argued former President Donald Trump shouldn't get special treatment in this case. "He's had his day in court," Steinglass said. "The law is the law, and it applies to everyone equally. There is no special standard for this defendant."

Steinglass added that Donald Trump can't shoot somebody "during rush hour and get away with it." The defense objected to that comment, and Judge Merchan sustained their objection. The prosecutor appeared to be referring to a boast Trump made early in the 2016 presidential campaign: "I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn't lose any voters, OK?"

"In the name of justice," Steinglass urged jurors, "I ask you to find the defendant guilty."

'Beating a dead horse' draws laughs as prosecutor's long closing continues

Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass used the phrase "beating a dead horse here" to describe his team's argument that Trump conspired to unlawfully interfere in the 2016 presidential election.

That drew some giggling from the courtroom. I saw at least one juror smiling.

'The false business records benefited one person and one person only'

Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass encouraged jurors to consider who stood to benefit from falsifying business records to cover up a hush money payment to Stormy Daniels .

The answer, Steinglass said, is Donald Trump .

"He was the one who stood to gain the most," Steinglass said. "He's the only one who'd care about creating the false business records to conceal the Daniels payoff."

"The false business records benefited one person and one person only – and that's the defendant," Steinglass added.

A fixer like Cohen would want credit for hush money deal: Steinglass

Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass said another reason to credit Michael Cohen's testimony of Trump's involvement comes down to the common-sense question of how a fixer acts.

A person playing that role for Trump might cover their tracks and avoid a paper trail, but that person also wants credit, Steinglass suggested. "They sure as heck want the principal to know."

Trump's alleged knowledge of prior hush money deals part of a pattern , Steinglass says

Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass reminded jurors of testimony from former tabloid publisher David Pecker that he updated Trump on two hush money agreements that took place before the Stormy Daniels deal was sealed. Pecker's company paid out money to a Trump Tower doorman and to former Playboy model Karen McDougal in the two deals. Michael Cohen was in communication with Pecker, but Cohen himself paid Daniels.

If you credit Pecker's testimony, Trump knew about those two earlier deals, Steinglass told the jury.

"So why would the defendant be kept in the dark about the Daniels NDA?" Steinglass asked, using an abbreviation for "non-disclosure agreement." 

"That defies common sense," he added.

Hope Hicks cried over her damning testimony: Steinglass

Former Trump aide Hope Hicks made headlines earlier in the trial when she broke down crying on the witness stand. On Tuesday, Steinglass argued Hicks lost her composure after realizing the impact of the damning testimony she'd given against her former boss.

Hicks was testifying about Trump's reaction to a post-2016 election story on the hush money payment to Stormy Daniels. Hicks said Trump asked for her thoughts on how a story before the election would have compared.

"I think Mr. Trump's opinion was it was better to be dealing with it now, and that it would have been bad to have that story come out before the election," Hicks testified .

More: Donald Trump trial Friday recap: Former Trump spokesperson Hope Hicks emotional on stand

That was at the end the prosecution's questions for Hicks, and she broke down slightly later, as Trump defense lawyer Emil Bove began asking her questions.

"She realized how much this testimony puts the nail in" the case, Steinglass said.

The prosecution has argued that Trump authorized a hush money payment to Stormy Daniels in order to better his 2016 election chances. That forms part of the prosecution's argument for charging Trump with felonies.

Trump, a frugal and meticulous boss, would know what his checks were for: Steinglass

Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass pointed to testimony that Trump is frugal and meticulous in his work and business life. For instance, former tabloid publisher and long-time Trump friend David Pecker testified that Trump was " very cautious" and "very frugal."

This, Steinglass suggested, is evidence Trump wouldn't have paid Cohen $420,000 – largely in checks he himself signed – without knowing the purpose.

Steinglass also pointed to Trump book excerpts in which the celebrity real estate developer characterized himself as careful about his finances. In one excerpt from "Trump: Think Like a Billionaire," he said: "I always sign my checks, so I know where my money's going."

Prosecutor challenges Trump team's claim that 2017 payments were for legal services

Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass ridiculed the argument from defense lawyer Todd Blanche earlier today that Donald Trump's 2017 monthly payments to Michael Cohen were for legal services, not to reimburse hush money. Blanche said Trump Organization records accurately represented the payments.

Why wasn't Cohen "paid a dime in 2018?" Steinglass asked jurors. Because Cohen wasn't being paid for legal work in either 2017 or 2018, Steinglass said.

Steinglass added that Cohen had spent more time being cross-examined at Trump's hush money trial than doing legal work for Trump in 2017, and said Cohen would have been making an hourly rate of $42,000 if the payments were for legal services.

"That'd be a pretty good hourly rate," Steinglass said with sarcasm.

Steinglass also said Cohen was making more money than any government job would ever pay. 

"And don't I know that," the Manhattan line prosecutor added, drawing at least a few chuckles from the courtroom .

More: Would cameras in the courtroom change Donald Trump's New York hush money trial?

Jurors see handwritten notes that allegedly point to a planned tax crime

Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass showed jurors a document dealing with Cohen's tranfer of $130,000 to Stormy Daniels' lawyer, Keith Davidson, in 2016.

The document has handwritten notes that ex-Trump Organization executive Jeffrey McConney testified belonged to Allen Weisselberg . Weisselberg was the long-time chief financial officer at the Trump Organization. He is currently in jail for committing perjury in Trump's New York civil fraud case.

The notes refer to "grossing" up $180,000 to $360,000. Prosecutors say two reimbursements to Cohen – one for the $130,000 hush money to Daniels and a second for $50,000 related to polling services – were doubled to account for taxes Cohen would have to pay. That, according to prosecutors, reflected a plan to commit tax fraud under New York law .

This seems aimed at showing Trump falsified business records in order to hide a plan to violate New York tax law. That's one of three crimes or potential crimes prosecutors say Trump was trying to cover up by falsifying records. To win a conviction, prosecutors have to show not just that Trump falsified records, but also that he was trying to conceal or commit another crime.

Here are the handwritten notes jurors just saw:

Trump executive's testimony used against former president

Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass is pointing to the testimony of former Trump Organization financial controller Jeffrey McConney as evidence Trump was reimbursing Michael Cohen with a series of 2017 payments that are at the heart of this business records case. Prosecutors say Trump falsified records to conceal that the payments were reimbursements to Cohen for hush money he paid to Stormy Daniels .

McConney testified he was told by former Trump Organization chief financial officer Allen Weisselberg that the payments were reimbursing Cohen.

Steinglass told jurors to think about who McConney is as they consider that testimony.

"He has no axe to grind," Steinglass said of McConney. "He has every incentive to help his former boss."

McConney nonetheless said he was told this was a reimbursement, Steinglass noted.

Prosecutor's argument shifts from hush money to alleged cover-up

After a short break in proceedings, prosecutor Joshua Steinglass has resumed his closing argument. He explained to the jury that he'd gone over Trump's alleged conspiracy to influence the election. But after the election, he continued, Trump also needed to keep people from knowing about the conspiracy.

Plus, Michael Cohen wanted his money back .

Steinglass is now showing jurors a transcript of Cohen's testimony that Trump approved a scheme to reimburse Cohen over 12 months while misrepresenting the payments as ongoing legal expenses.

Jurors paying attention as long day continues

Judge Juan Merchan excused jurors for a short break at 4:54 p.m. EDT. He then commented that jurors continued to appear attentive, even as proceedings have extended beyond the normal 4:30 p.m. EDT end time.

What the judge said is true. I haven't seen any jurors dozing off or appearing distracted, even as they have heard several hours of arguments from just two lawyers today.

Merchan indicated the jurors have made arrangements to stay late today, and that proceedings could go past 7 p.m. EDT.

'What have we done?': Prosecutor points to election reaction as evidence of Trump's guilt

Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass showed jurors a text exchange between Stormy Daniels' former lawyer, Keith Davidson, and former National Enquirer editor Dylan Howard . Davidson texted Howard after the 2016 presidential election results started to come in: "What have we done?"

Steinglass suggested Davidson's reaction to news of Trump's victory shows how players involved in the Trump-related hush money deals fully understood their importance to the election.

More: National Enquirer editor said Stormy Daniels' affair story was true: Texts shown to jury

'This is damning': Prosecutor says evidence shows Trump OK'd hush money

Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass is displaying text messages and call records that he says support Michael Cohen's testimony that Trump authorized the $130,000 hush money payment to Stormy Daniels.

Keith Davidson , the former lawyer for Daniels, testified that he believed Cohen didn't have the authority to spend money on his own, Steinglass noted. Even after Cohen told Davidson "I'll just do it myself," Davidson testified, he understood the money would be coming from Donald Trump or a related corporation.

Steinglass also showed a call record indicating Cohen called Trump 10 minutes after hearing that Daniels might be about to share her story with the Daily Mail. Cohen didn't reach him, but Melania Trump texted the next morning asking Cohen to call Trump on his cell phone.

Steinglass also showed jurors a record of a call that he said was half an hour before Cohen filled out the paperwork for the hush money wire transfer.

"This is damning," Steinglass said.

'Pandemonium': Prosecutor says Access Hollywood tape is key context for hush money

Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass is talking to jurors about the infamous Access Hollywood tape, in which Trump discussed kissing women without waiting and grabbing their genitals. The tape was published by The Washington Post on Oct. 7 of 2016 – about a month before the 2016 election.

Steinglass played a response video Trump posted in which he characterized his words on the tape as simply that – words. Steinglass also referred to Trump characterizing his words as "locker-room talk," reminding jurors that Cohen testified that phrase was a suggestion from Melania Trump .

"You gotta remember this race could not have been closer," Steinglass said. The tape and events that followed were capable of costing Trump the whole election, and he knew it, Steinglass said.

Steinglass then played jurors a video recording of Trump at a campaign event on Oct. 14, 2016. Trump talked about lies at the rally, saying if 5% or 10% of people think they're true, "we don't win."

"It caused pandemonium in the Trump campaign," Steinglass said of the tape.

At the same time that Trump was desperately trying to sell the distinction between words and actions, he was trying to muzzle a porn star who had a story to tell about a sexual encounter while Trump was married, Steinglass said.

"Stormy Daniels was a walking, talking reminder that the defendant was not only words," Steinglass said. "She would have totally undermined his strategy for spinning away the Access Hollywood tape."

The trial goes on, but Tuesday’s protesters are mostly done

Nearly all the demonstrators outside of the courthouse − both pro-Trump and anti-Trump − packed up shortly after 4 p.m. EDT.

They did not stick around for the end of final arguments.

“We’re going to Trump Tower − you coming?” yelled one member of the ex-president’s contingent.Throughout the day, maybe 150 demonstrators of all stripes drifted into and out of the one-block park across the street from the courthouse.

Things occasionally got tense, as adherents of Trump and Biden dropped F bombs on each other; there was also, reportedly, at least one punch thrown.

With each confrontation, however, two or more New York police officers quickly moved in to stop things from getting out of hand.

−David Jackson

Steinglass pushes back on evidence manipulation argument

Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass is pushing back on a suggestion from Trump lawyer Todd Blanche that evidence has been manipulated. Blanche targeted, in particular, an audio recording that Michael Cohen said he secretly made of a conversation he had with Trump where the two discussed hush money payments to former Playboy model Karen McDougal.

Blanche said there is "a lot of dispute" when it comes to the recording, and that the government hasn't shown it's reliable. The recording cuts off abruptly after Trump and Cohen discuss financing.

"Don't accept this invitation to muddy the waters," Steinglass said to jurors of Blanche's comments. Cohen would have no incentive to manipulate evidence because he had already pleaded guilty to campaign finance violations, Steinglass said.

Steinglass also said the recording "is nothing short of jaw-dropping," adding Trump talks about not paying with cash.

Here's a transcript of the recording prepared by the prosecution and shown earlier in the trial:

Trump slams Rep. Bob Good, a gag-order-get-around trial attendee, and endorses opponent

House Freedom Caucus chair Rep. Bob Good , R-Va., attended the hush money trial on May 16 and, along with several other Republican lawmakers, defended Trump against the judge's gag order .

But on Tuesday morning, Trump endorsed Good's opponent, State Sen.  John McGuire , who also made a quiet appearance at the Manhattan courthouse the same day.

"Bob Good is BAD FOR VIRGINIA, AND BAD FOR THE USA," Trump posted on Truth Social.

Good had initially endorsed Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis in the 2024 primary, but eventually backed Trump when DeSantis dropped out of the race in January.

– Kinsey Crowley

Prosecutor defends public's right to know Stormy Daniels' story

Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass told jurors they might wonder why they should care if Trump had a sexual encounter with porn star Stormy Daniels in 2006.

Steinglass said that thought is understandable, but it's harder to say that the American people "don't have the right to decide for themselves whether they care or not."

Trump's alleged scheme to prevent negative stories from getting out ahead of the 2016 election "could very well be what got President Trump elected," Steinglass said.

This may be more of a moral argument from Steinglass than a legal one. Ultimately, Judge Juan Merchan will instruct jurors on the law around campaign finance violations. Then jurors will be tasked with deciding if Trump falsified records and, if so, whether he was trying to cover up unlawfully interfering in the 2016 election through the hush money to Daniels.

'We didn't pick him up at the witness store': Prosecutor on Michael Cohen

Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass blamed former President Donald Trump for the prosecution's use of Michael Cohen in the criminal hush money case.

"We didn't pick him up at the witness store," Steinglass said of Cohen. "The defendant chose Michael Cohen to be his fixer because he was willing to lie and cheat on Mr. Trump's behalf."

Trump chose Cohen "for the same qualities" that Trump's lawyers now say should cause the jurors to reject Cohen's testimony, Steinglass added.

Steinglass then showed jurors an excerpt from one of Trump's books in which Trump said: "I value loyalty above everything else."

When will the Trump trial end?

The Trump trial could end this week , depending on how long the jury takes to deliberate.

Closing arguments are scheduled to wrap up Tuesday. Judge Juan Merchan has asked the jury to come in Wednesday, even though the court is typically off that day, so he can hand the case over to them.

While there is technically no limit on how long the jury deliberations can take, experts say three days would be considered a long time.

– Kinsey Crowley 

Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass defends Michael Cohen's testimony

Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass is spending a lot of time defending the same witness Trump lawyer Todd Blanche spent a lot of time attacking today: Michael Cohen .

Steinglass spoke of an Oct. 24, 2016 phone call Blanche has said Cohen got caught lying about on the stand. Cohen said the call to Trump's bodyguard was to get Trump on the phone about the Stormy Daniels hush money deal. After Blanche showed text messages to the bodyguard indicated Cohen wanted to talk about harassing phone calls he was getting from a 14-year-old, Cohen said he believes he also spoke to Trump about the deal.

"Even if you're not convinced" that both things happened in that call, Steinglass told jurors, "a far less sinister explanation" is Cohen got the time of the call wrong.

"This was not the final go-ahead. That would come two days later on October 26th," Steinglass added.

Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass begins prosecution's closing argument

Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass has begun his closing argument. Steinglass indicated earlier today that this is likely to be lengthy: he estimated he needs 4-4.5 hours.

Judge instructs jurors to disregard Trump lawyer's 'prison' comment

Following the lunch break, Judge Juan Merchan instructed jurors to disregard the comment from Trump lawyer Todd Blanche about sending Trump "to prison" if they convict him. Merchan told the jurors they may not consider sentencing at all when they are deliberating in the case.

'Outrageous': Judge rebukes Trump defense lawyer for prison comment

After Trump lawyer Todd Blanche finished his closing and jurors were excused for lunch, prosecutor Joshua Steinglass asked Judge Merchan to give jurors a special instruction about the "ridiculous comment" Blanche made about sending Trump to prison. Merchan already sustained an objection from Steinglass when Blanche told jurors they "cannot send someone to prison" based on Michael Cohen's testimony.

Steinglass noted the charges in the case carry no minimum sentence, so jail or prison time might not happen even if Trump is convicted. It was a "blatant and wholly inappropriate effort" to create sympathy for Trump, Steinglass said.

Blanche said the judge is already slated to give a regular instruction on this point to jurors after the closing arguments are over.

"I'm gonna give a curative instruction," Merchan said. "Saying that was outrageous, Mr. Blanche," Merchan added.

"You know that making a comment like that is highly inappropriate," Merchan told Blanche. "It's hard for me to imagine how that was accidental in any way."

'Not a referendum on your views of President Trump': defense finishes closing

"This is not a referendum on your views of President Trump," defense lawyer Todd Blanche told jurors at the end of his closing argument.

Blanche said the trial is not about whom jurors voted for or plan to vote for. Instead, it's only about the evidence they heard in the courtroom, he said.

If jurors stick to that evidence, they will return an "easy" and "quick" not guilty verdict, he said.

'He's the human embodiment of reasonable doubt, literally': Trump lawyer on Cohen

In his tenth and final argument for reasonable doubt in the case, Trump lawyer Todd Blanche again attacked Michael Cohen as a liar.

"He's the human embodiment of reasonable doubt, literally," Blanche said. Cohen's financial wellbeing will depend on this case, Blanche added. "He is biased and motivated to tell you a story that's not true."

Cohen is the G.O.A.T. of liars, Blanche said, referencing an abbreviation for "greatest of all time."

"He has lied to every single branch of Congress. Both houses. The House and the Senate," Blanche said of Cohen. Cohen has lied to the Department of Justice, to federal judges, to state judges, and to his family, he added. "His words cannot be trusted."

After all those lies, Cohen came to the trial, "raised his right hand, and he lied to each of you," Blanche said.

"You cannot send someone to prison" based on Cohen's testimony, Blanche added. Judge Juan Merchan sustained an objection to that comment.

10 reasons why there is reasonable doubt: Trump lawyer

Trump lawyer Todd Blanche ended his closing argument by offering ten reasons for reasonable doubt in the case.

Blanche argued the evidence didn't show Trump was aware or responsible for invoices, vouchers, and checks that make up the 34 allegedly falsified records in the case.

Blanche also targeted allegations he expects the prosecution to make in its closing about Trump's intent. He said Trump had no intention to defraud, and no intention to commit or conceal another crime. Prosecutors have to prove both those elements of Trump's intent.

Blanche also said there was no illegal agreement to influence the 2016 election through a "catch-and-kill" scheme .

Blanche argued that Stormy Daniels' allegation of an affair with Trump was already public by 2016. Testimony at trial discussed the publication of a rumor about it as far back as 2011.

Blanche also said evidence in the case had been manipulated. He noted, for example, testimony of an Oct. 15, 2016 factory reset of Cohen's phone.

The tenth and final reason for reasonable doubt, Blanche said, is that Cohen – who testified to various aspects of the prosecution's case – is a liar.

'He's literally like an MVP of liars': Trump lawyer on Michael Cohen

Trump lawyer Todd Blanche accused the prosecution of being "perfectly willing" to have a witness commit perjury and lie to the jurors. Judge Juan Merchan sustained an objection to that accusation.

"He's literally like an MVP of liars," Blanche said as he continued to target Cohen.

"He lies to reporters, he lies to federal judges. In fact, he's also a thief. He literally stole," Blanche said, referencing Cohen's own admission to stealing from the Trump Organization by claiming a larger reimbursement than he was owed for a payment unrelated to the Daniels hush money deal.

Blanche then played an audio recording for jurors showing Cohen's animus toward Trump. Cohen described picturing Trump getting booked and finger printed on criminal charges, and having a mug shot taken. It "fills me with delight," Cohen said. Cohen also thanked the Manhattan District Attorney's Office, including its "fearless leader," Alvin Bragg.

'That was a lie, and he got caught red-handed': Trump lawyer on Cohen

Near the end of his closing argument, Trump lawyer Todd Blanche focused on the prosecution's star witness: Michael Cohen . Blanche told jurors they "only know from one source" what Trump knew in 2016 – Cohen. Prosecutors have alleged Trump knew about and authorized a October 2016 hush money payment to porn star Stormy Daniels.

Blanche elevated his voice as he attacked the former Trump lawyer and fixer, noting text messages indicating that a call from Cohen to Trump's bodyguard on Oct. 24, 2016 was to discuss harassing phone calls Cohen was getting. Cohen had earlier testified the call was to get Trump on the phone to provide an update on the Stormy Daniels hush money deal. After Blanche showed Cohen the text messages on cross-examination, Cohen said he believed the call was also about the deal.

"It was a lie!" Blanche exclaimed to jurors on Tuesday. "This was a lie about the charged conduct involving Ms. Daniels," he said.

"That was a lie, and he got caught red-handed," Blanche continued.

"That is per-jur-y," Blanche said, putting emphasis on each syllable in the last word.

Blanche distances Trump from Daniels hush money and election concerns

Trump lawyer Todd Blanche questioned prosecutors' suggestion that Trump would have paid hush money to Stormy Daniels because of the 2016 election, as well as their claim that Trump actually authorized the payment.

Blanche said no one wants their family to hear these sort of allegations.

Blanche also said the release of the Access Hollywood tape – in which Trump crudely described groping women's genitals – wasn't the "doomsday event" the prosecution made it out to be. "He never thought it was gonna cause him to lose the campaign. And indeed, it didn't," Blanche said. 

"Michael Cohen, however, had a different view," Blanche argued to jurors. He noted Cohen said the tape "was catastrophic."

These arguments from Blanche may have two aims:

• Encouraging jurors to believe Cohen acted alone, and
• Encouraging jurors to believe that, if they conclude Trump authorized the payment, it wasn't for the election, and therefore wasn't an unlawful campaign contribution.

Prosecutors have suggested the tape's release put pressure on the Trump campaign to not let any more stories get out that could hurt Trump's standing with women voters. That, according to prosecutors, was added incentive to quiet Stormy Daniels with a hush money payment.

'No evidence' but Cohen's words that Trump knew about 2016 hush money deal: defense lawyer

There is "no evidence," Trump lawyer Todd Blanche said, "except for Mr. Cohen's words that President Trump knew about that agreement in 2016."

Blanche was referencing the $130,000 hush money deal involving porn star Stormy Daniels.

Blanche pointed to a text exchange between Daniels' then-manager Gina Rodriguez and former National Enquirer editor Dylan Howard , in which Rodriguez asked if Howard was working "in favor" of Trump and Howard said he was not. Howard acknowledged in the text exchange that his CEO endorsed Trump.

'Nothing sinister': Blanche defends hush money practice

"There's nothing wrong with a non-disclosure agreement," Blanche told jurors. "There's nothing illegal, there's nothing sinister about it," he added.

Prosecutors in this case don't dispute that claim generally, but they say the hush money payment to Stormy Daniels is different because it allegedly violated federal campaign finance laws .

Judge rejects gag request in Trump’s classified documents case

The federal judge in former President Donald Trump's  classified documents case  rejected an urgent request from prosecutors to prohibit him from  commenting on FBI agents  who seized the records at Mar-a-Lago.

U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon found  Justice Department special counsel Jack Smith's request Friday lacked “professional courtesy" for not meeting with Trump’s team first to discuss the defense’s concerns.

Smith's team  had asked  Cannon  on Friday  to prohibit Trump from commenting  about law enforcement agents after Trump claimed the FBI “was authorized to shoot me” and agents were “locked &loaded ready to take me out” when they went to Mar-a-Lago.

Trump’s lawyers, who were preparing for final arguments in his New York hush money case, asked to meet Monday before prosecutors filed their motion. After being rejected, defense lawyers on Monday asked Cannon to hold prosecutors in contempt for the request. She rejected that request.

“This is bad-faith behavior, plain and simple,” Trump’s lawyers Todd Blanche, Emil Bove and Christopher Kise wrote.

– Bart Jansen

'This started out as an extortion': Blanche on Stormy Daniels

Blanche played for jurors a recording of a conversation between Michael Cohen and Keith Davidson , the lawyer who negotiated the hush money deal for Stormy Daniels. Davidson says during the recording that Daniels told him he "better settle this God damn story" because if Trump loses the election, "we lose all (expletive) leverage."

Daniels testified at trial that she never yelled at Davidson and, on the recording, it sounded to her like he is making a threat.

You can listen to the recording here:

Blanche suggested to jurors that Daniels has been cashing in on her allegations about Trump, noting she has a book.

"This started out as an extortion. There's no doubt about that. And it ended very well for Ms. Daniels, financially speaking," Blanche said.

'He was shocked': Defense's take on secret recording by Cohen of Trump

Trump lawyer Todd Blanche reminded jurors of a recording they heard during the trial, which Michael Cohen testified involved a discussion between him and Trump about a hush money deal with former Playboy model Karen McDougal .

Cohen testified that he secretly recorded Trump in order to reassure David Pecker, whose media company paid McDougal $150,000, that he would get his money back.

"There is a lot of dispute about that recording. A lot," Blanche told jurors Tuesday. He added that the government hasn't shown the recording is reliable.

Blanche played a portion of the recording that he said featured the voice of Rhona Graff , Trump's former executive assistant. He then told jurors the government didn't ask her a single question about the recording, even though she testified.

"The recording cuts off, as you know," Blanche said. He said there is "no doubt" the recording features discussion of David Pecker and his media company, but said there is "a lot of doubt" about whether it discussed McDougal.

When Trump asks about financing in the recording, "he has no idea" what Cohen is talking about, Blanche said. Cohen and Trump are "literally talking past each other about what is going on," he said.

"He was shocked," Blanche added, speaking about his client.

Biden and Trump campaigns conduct dueling news conferences

Another political first for the Trump hush money trial: Dueling news conferences by the presidential campaigns.First, the Biden team produced surrogates who denounced Trump to reporters stationed across the street from the courthouse.

“He wants to sow total chaos,” said Oscar-winning actor Robert De Niro. The Biden campaign said their news conference wasn’t about the hush money trial per se, but about Trump himself, particularly his role in the insurrection of Jan. 6, 2021 .

Other speakers included two Capitol police officers who were injured in the Jan. 6 riot, Michael Fanone and Harry Dunn.

“Those supporters were fueled by Trump’s lies,” Fanone said.

After watching the Biden proceedings from a distance, a trio of Trump aides took to the microphones to accuse the Biden people of political desperation over the trial.

“Why is Joe Biden now making this a campaign event?” said Trump senior adviser Jason Miller .

This was the first time that top Trump and Biden officials faced off in the same place at the same time, but it won’t be the last; there’s a June 27 debate coming up in Atlanta.

– David Jackson

'Makes no sense': Blanche attacks election conspiracy claim

Trump lawyer Todd Blanche told jurors he doesn't think they need to address whether Trump participated in a conspiracy to unlawfully influence the 2016 presidential election. That allegation from prosecutors has to do with why Trump has been charged with felony counts of falsifying records – but it's irrelevant to the charges if jurors conclude Trump never falsified records to begin with.

Still, Blanche challenged the suggestion that Trump engaged in an election-related conspiracy. He said "sophisticated people" like Trump and David Pecker – the former head of the National Enquirer's parent company – couldn't have believed they were able to influence the election through the publication's limited circulation when "millions and millions of people voted in the 2016 election."

The idea that an August 2015 meeting was going to influence the election "makes no sense," Blanche added. Pecker and Cohen both testified to having a meeting with Trump at Trump Tower that month to discuss how they could snap up potentially damaging stories to Trump's campaign and also publish negative stories about Trump's political opponents.

Actor Robert DeNiro calls Trump a ‘clown’ and ‘buffoon’ outside courthouse

Actor Robert DeNiro , flanked by former Capitol Police officers who defended the building on Jan. 6, 2021, called former President Donald Trump a “clown,” a “buffoon” and a “joke” outside the courthouse where Trump is on trial.

“He wants to sow total chaos,” said DeNiro, a surrogate for President Joe Biden who grew up in New York City. “He’ll use violence against anyone who stands in the way of his megalomania and greed. But it’s a coward’s violence.”

DeNiro noted Trump was found liable for sexual abuse and for misstating the value of his real estate. But DeNiro said over the shouts of hecklers and the honking of a car on the street outside the courthouse that Trump must be defeated or he would never leave the White House again.

“When Trump ran in 2016, it was like a joke, this buffoon running for president,” DeNiro said. “With Trump, we have a second chance and no one is laughing now. This is the time to stop him by voting him out once and for all.”

DeNiro was joined by Harry Dunn and Michael Fanone , two of the Capitol police officers who were injured defending the building when a mob of Trump supporters rioted and interrupted Congress certifying Biden’s 2020 win against Trump.

“These guys are the true heroes,” DeNiro said. “They stood and put their lives on the line for these lowlifes, for Trump.”

Blanche says Trump didn't have an intent to defraud

Trump lawyer Todd Blanche said he expects Judge Merchan to instruct jurors that, to find Trump guilty, they must conclude he falsified records and that he had an intent to defraud when he did so.

Blanche pointed to a 2018 tweet by Trump, in which Trump mentioned a retainer agreement with Cohen. A legal retainer is a compensation agreement that reserves a lawyer or pays for future services. Cohen submitted several invoices in 2017 – which form part of the allegedly falsified records in the case – referencing a retainer. Cohen testified no retainer actually existed.

Blanche said Trump wouldn't have posted that tweet if he had any intent to defraud.

Blanche says almost no evidence of planned tax crime

To find Trump guilty of the 34 felony counts in the case, the jurors must find not only that Trump falsified the 34 records, but also that he did so in order to commit or conceal another crime.

One of the theories the prosecution advanced about that purpose before trial was that the falsified records were covering up a plan to violate New York tax laws . The prosecution has also said there was a plan to violate New York election laws, and that the allegedly falsified records were hiding the violation of federal campaign finance laws through the hush money to Stormy Daniels.

The only evidence of a tax purpose for how payments to Cohen were recorded, according to Blanche, was former Trump Organization executive Allen Weisselberg saying the payments were grossed up. "Is there any other proof of that? Any other evidence? No, there's none," Blanche asked and answered.

'Case Turns On Cohen': Trump lawyer attacks Michael Cohen's credibility

Trump lawyer Todd Blanche displayed a portion of the transcript of Michael Cohen's testimony with a header above it titled: "Case Turns On Cohen."

The transcript excerpt featured Cohen saying he was in a meeting with Trump and former Trump Organization executive Allen Weisselberg , when Weisselberg allegedly said they would pay Cohen for the Stormy Daniels hush money, as well as for another expense and a bonus, over 12 months.

Cohen didn't even pretend to be part of that conversation, Blanche said – seeming to attack the lack of testimony from Cohen about what he himself said in the meeting. Blanche characterized it as weak evidence from the government about Trump's role in the alleged repayment scheme.

Blanche says lack of testimony from Trump sons Eric and Don Jr. is reason to acquit

Blanche argued that the lack of testimony from Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump – who are seated in the audience today – is a reason to acquit Trump. The two Trump sons were running Trump business operations during their father's presidency, and allegedly signed two checks that make up two of the 34 records that their father is allegedly responsible for falsifying.

"That is reasonable doubt," Blanche said.

The Trump defense team, like the prosecution, didn't call the two Trump sons to the stand, although it did call two other witnesses.

"We have no burden to do anything," Blanche said, emphasizing the prosecution chose to call Michael Cohen but not the sons.

Supreme Court rejects appeal from Stormy Daniels' former lawyer Michael Avenatti

Outside of the Manhattan courtroom today, the Supreme Court rejected an appeal from Stormy Daniels ' former lawyer Michael Avenatti .

The disgraced California lawyer represented Daniels in her 2018 lawsuits against Trump .

The Supreme Court denied the appeal of his 2020 conviction for an extortion scheme in which he tried to get up to $25 million from shoemaker Nike .

Avenatti is also serving sentences on two other convictions tied to stealing profits from Daniels' book, cheating clients out of millions of dollars, and failing to pay taxes.

– Kinsey Crowley &  Maureen Groppe

'That's a red flag': Blanche argues lack of evidence on vouchers

Trump lawyer Todd Blanche told jurors there is "no evidence" Trump knew anything about the Trump Organization's voucher system. "No evidence - not a single word," Blanche added.

This is a reference to a portion of the 34 records that Trump is allegedly responsible for falsifying. The vouchers were the digital entries in general ledgers at the Trump Organization that labeled payments to Michael Cohen as legal expenses.

Blanche said he doesn't know how the government is going to address the alleged lack of evidence, but told jurors to be skeptical if prosecutor Joshua Steinglass reads quotes from a decades-old Trump book. During the trial, the prosecution brought in two book publishers who read excerpts from Trump's books.

"You should be suspicious. That's a red flag," Blanche said.

'The bookings were accurate': Trump lawyer defends records

Trump lawyer Todd Blanche noted his client was in the White House at the time of the alleged records falsifications, arguing there wasn't evidence that Trump "had anything to do" with how payments to Michael Cohen were recorded on a ledger.

Cohen testified that Trump was in a meeting with him and former Trump Organization executive Allen Weisselberg about how to reimburse Cohen for the $130,000 hush money payment to Stormy Daniels. "He approved it," Cohen told jurors about Trump. According to prosecutors, the reimbursement payments were falsely recorded as 2017 legal expenses.

Blanche defended the accuracy of the records on Tuesday.

"The bookings were accurate and there was absolutely no intent to defraud," Blanche said.

'This case is about documents': Trump lawyer to jurors

Trump lawyer Todd Blanche noted to jurors that Trump doesn't face any charges for allegedly having a sexual encounter with porn star Stormy Daniels in 2006 – an allegation Trump denies.

"This case is about documents. It's a paper case," Blanche said. "This case is not about an encounter with Stormy Daniels 18 years ago," he added.

Still, Blanche took the time to dispute Daniels' story, saying Trump has "unequivocally and repeatedly" denied the alleged encounter happened.

Biden campaign to hold courthouse news conference

Another interested party is visiting the scene outside the Trump trial courthouse: The Joe Biden presidential campaign.

“The Biden-Harris campaign will hold a press conference with special guests outside of the Manhattan Criminal Courthouse,” said an e-mailed announcement.

Among the spectators awaiting the Biden campaign news conference: Officials with the Trump campaign, who said they will be responding afterward.

'President Trump is innocent': Trump lawyer attacks prosecution's case

"President Trump is innocent," defense lawyer Todd Blanche said early into his closing argument. "He did not commit any crimes," Blanche added. "The district attorney has not met their burden of proof – period."

Blanche told the jurors they "should want and expect more than the testimony of Michael Cohen," referring to Trump's former lawyer, who was the prosecution's star witness. Blanche also said the jurors should want more than the testimony of Deborah Tarasoff , a Trump Organization employee who testified about invoices and checks that are at the core of the 34 felony counts Trump faces.

Blanche also referenced Stormy Daniels without using her name – telling jurors they should want more than a woman saying something happened in 2006. Daniels said she and Trump had a sexual encounter that year, after meeting at a celebrity golf tournament.

Blanche also told jurors they should want more than the testimony of former Daniels lawyers Keith Davidson, who testified about her $130,000 hush money deal. Davidson was "just trying to extort money" from Trump ahead of the 2016 election, Blanche said.

The consequence of those defects in the prosecution's case, Blanche said, "is a not guilty verdict, period."

Trump proclaims innocence before attending closing arguments

Former President Donald Trump continued to profess his innocence before closing arguments in his New York hush money trial, arguing “there is no crime” and “hopefully it doesn’t work out for them.”

Trump is charged with falsifying business records to hide his reimbursement to former lawyer Michael Cohen for his $130,000 payment to silence porn actress Stormy Daniels, to prevent another salacious story before the 2016 election.

Trump, who didn’t testify in his own defense, argued to reporters outside the courtroom that there is nothing wrong with securing a nondisclosure agreement. Trump also argued any personal payment couldn’t have violated campaign finance law.

“It’s a very sad day,” Trump said. “This is a dark day for America.”

Low-key demonstrations outside the NYC courthouse

About 50-60 people shuttled into and out of the small park across from the courthouse as lawyers inside prepared their final arguments.

Most of the early witnesses were anti-Trump, but a contingent of more than 20 supporters showed up to support the former president as he traveled to the courthouse.

“We wanted to let him know that people in New York support him,” said a Trump flag-carrying man with a white beard and a red suit who identified himself as “Hungry Santa” (he produced a business card with that name).Other demonstrators made clear they did not support Trump.

Brad McCormick, 38, an educational consultant from Brigantine, N.J., hawked copies of a game book called “Trump Madness.” Readers are presented with outrageous quotes on a variety of topics, and asked if Trump really said those things (in many cases, the answer is yes).

McCormick also said he came to the courthouse out of a “sense of duty.”

“You’ve got to do something,” he said.

Tiffany Trump, Don Jr., Eric attend closing arguments

Three of former President Donald Trump’s children – Donald Jr., Eric and Tiffany – accompanied him to the closing arguments Tuesday in his New York hush money trial.

Trump’s daughter in law, Lara Trump, who is co-chair of the Republican National Committee, also attended.

A parade of SUVs delivered Trump’s entourage to the local courthouse on the sunny, 70-degree morning, a day after the Memorial Day holiday.

Trump lawyer begins by thanking jurors

Trump lawyer Todd Blanche began his closing argument by thanking the jurors, noting that they have consistently arrived on time for the trial.

Prosecution plans lengthy closing argument

Trump lawyer Todd Blanche estimated his side's closing argument will last about 2.5 hours. Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass said the length of his argument may change based on what comes up in the defense's argument, but gave an estimate of 4-4.5 hours.

Judge Merchan said those estimates mean arguments and instructions may not conclude by the normal end time of 4:30 p.m. EDT and he will check whether jurors are able to stay later.

Judge Merchan arrives in courtroom

Judge Juan Merchan entered the courtroom at 9:31 a.m. EDT. Merchan said he sent his proposed jury instructions to both trial teams on Thursday.

Trump arrives in courtroom

Former President Donald Trump arrived in the courtroom at 9:25 a.m. EDT. We are still waiting for the judge and jury.

Alvin Bragg in attendance for closing arguments

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg entered the courtroom at 9:24 a.m. EDT. Bragg has attended some previous days of trial. He is seated in the second row of benches behind the prosecution team.

Prosecution arrives for closing arguments

The prosecution team entered the courtroom at about 9:14 a.m. EDT. We are still waiting on Trump's trial team as well as the judge and the jury.

What time does the Trump trial start today?

Proceedings are scheduled to begin at 9:30 a.m. EDT.

What to expect in closing arguments

Closing arguments offer each side a chance to go over evidence from the trial and make arguments about the inferences and conclusions that may fairly be drawn from that evidence.

Prosecutors may point to checks with Trump's signatures, excerpts from Trump's books, and recordings introduced at trial in order to bolster the testimony of star witness Michael Cohen, who testified that Trump authorized him to pay Stormy Daniels hush money in 2016 and approved a plan to cover it up in 2017.

The defense is likely to attack the credibility of Cohen, including by highlighting that he previously pleaded guilty to lying to Congress. Trump's team may also point to the high burden of proof prosecutors face: prosecutors must prove each element of the charges beyond a reasonable doubt.

Who goes first in closing arguments?

Under New York law , the defense team gives its closing argument first, followed by the prosecution. After both sides have spoken to the jurors, Judge Juan Merchan will instruct them on the law to apply in the case.

Trump rails against trial, quotes scripture

Former President Donald Trump posted a series of messages Monday, on the eve of closing arguments in his New York hush money trial, railing against the case as election interference and quoting scripture.

Besides criticizing Judge Juan Merchan and Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, Trump questioned why the prosecution gets the final word before jury deliberations. Typically in summing up the evidence in a case, prosecutors make their statements, defense lawyers speak and prosecutors get a final rebuttal because they have the burden of proving their case.

“Big advantage, very unfair,” Trump said in an all-caps post on Truth Social.

Trump also quoted a passage from the book of John in the Bible about personal sacrifice. Trump and his supporters have described his four criminal cases as political persecution.

“Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends,” the post said.

Could Trump go to prison?

Each count against Trump carries a maximum penalty of four years in prison and no minimum amount of jail or prison time. If Trump is convicted on all counts, Merchan will be tasked with deciding on a sentence for each count, and also deciding whether the sentences will coincide with each other or be run one after the other. However, New York law caps sentences for Class E felonies such as those Trump is charged with  at 20 years .

Legal experts told USA TODAY it's possible Trump could get just probation, even if he were convicted on every count. Most predicted any incarceration sentence on each count would run simultaneously with the others, so Trump wouldn't be ordered to serve more than four years behind bars. Experts also said Trump would likely be free while his expected appeal ran its course.

What is Trump on trial for?

Trump faces 34 felony counts of falsifying business records in order to conceal or commit another crime. The records – including checks, vouchers, and invoices – all relate to payments to former Trump lawyer and fixer Michael Cohen in 2017. Prosecutors say the payments were reimbursing Cohen for $130,000 in hush money to porn star Stormy Daniels in 2016, but the records were falsified to make the payments look like 2017 legal expenses.

Prosecutors say Trump was covering up the violation of federal campaign finance laws through the hush money, which was handed over less than two weeks before the 2016 presidential election. They also say Trump was trying to hide a plan to violate New York tax and election laws.

Trump has pleaded not guilty, and Trump defense lawyer Todd Blanche has denied the payments were reimbursing the hush money.

Why does Trump's team say the case should be dismissed?

Judge Juan Merchan may issue a ruling today on Trump's request to toss out the entire case ahead of jury deliberations.

Trump lawyer Todd Blanche told Merchan that prosecutors haven't put on enough evidence for the case to go to the jury because the business records at issue weren't false. He said documents show Trump was paying Michael Cohen for ongoing legal services in 2017. Blanche also said the prosecution's case shouldn't be able to stand given Cohen's history of lying, including – according to the Trump defense lawyer – during this trial.

Watch CBS News

Trump trial hears closing arguments ahead of jury deliberations in "hush money" case

• https://www.cbsnews.com/live-updates/trump-trial-closing-arguments-today/ link copied

By Graham Kates , Katrina Kaufman , Shawna Mizelle, Olivia Rinaldi, Grace Kazarian

Updated on: May 28, 2024 / 7:24 PM EDT / CBS News

Jurors slogged through about eight hours of closing arguments in  Donald Trump's criminal trial  on Tuesday, with lawyers from both sides making their final cases before the jury begins deliberating whether Trump is guilty of 34 counts of falsifying of business records.

Trump's lead attorney Todd Blanche argued that Michael Cohen, the prosecution's key witness, was the "greatest liar of all time" and acted alone when he paid adult film star Stormy Daniels $130,000 in 2016 for her silence about an alleged sexual encounter with Trump. Blanche told jurors they could not find Trump guilty based on Cohen's testimony, and said there were plenty of other reasons to doubt prosecutors' narrative of the case.

Trump is accused of signing off on the scheme to falsify records to cover up the  "hush money" payment . Prosecutors say the plan was designed to subvert election law and keep the payment secret. They allege Trump falsely portrayed reimbursements for the $130,000 payment as monthly checks for Cohen's ongoing legal services, paid over the course of the first year of his presidency. Trump has pleaded not guilty, and his defense argued the checks and associated records were accurate.

Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass presented the closing arguments for the Manhattan District Attorney's Office. He defended Cohen's credibility and said his testimony lines up with a voluminous record of text messages, emails and call records shown at trial. He urged the jury to hold Trump accountable.

"The name of the game was concealment, and all roads lead inescapably to the man who benefited most, the defendant, a man named Donald J. Trump," Steinglass said.

Court will reconvene at 10 a.m. on Wednesday, when Justice Juan Merchan will deliver crucial instructions to the jury explaining the various legal issues they must sort through when reaching a verdict. That process is expected to take about an hour, at which point Trump's fate will be in the jury's hands.

Here's how Tuesday unfolded at the Trump trial:

Trump's entourage features several family members

Trump's criminal trial is now in its seventh week, and for the first time, one of his daughters is in attendance. Tiffany Trump is sitting alongside her husband Michael Boulos and two of her adult brothers, Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump, and Eric's wife Lara Trump.  

The courtroom gallery has occasionally included either of the brothers, though rarely both.

He has not had five members of his family in attendance at any of his recent trials, including two federal civil trials in which he was found liable for sexually abusing and defaming the writer E. Jean Carroll and his civil fraud trial, in which he and the sons were found liable for hundreds of millions in fraud.

After closing arguments, the jury will weigh whether to add to that list a first for any former president in U.S. history: criminal conviction.

• https://www.cbsnews.com/live-updates/trump-trial-closing-arguments-today/#post-update-949b65fe link copied

Merchan to jury: "You and you alone are the judges of the facts"

Before Trump's lawyers began their closing arguments, Justice Juan Merchan called the jury in and told them how the day would unfold. He said the defense will go first, as required under New York law. Prosecutors will follow with their closing arguments.

Merchan said the lawyers' recollection of testimony may differ from the jury's memory. He reminded the jurors that they are the "finders of fact" when it comes to rendering a verdict.

"You and you alone are the judges of the facts on this case," Merchan said, adding that he will explain to the jurors how they should apply the law.

• https://www.cbsnews.com/live-updates/trump-trial-closing-arguments-today/#post-update-56fa4066 link copied

Trump attorney opens closing argument, saying prosecutors have not met burden of proof

Blanche, Trump's lead defense attorney, is presenting the defense's closing argument. He began by thanking the jurors for their service and said the district attorney's office had not met the burden of proof required to find Trump guilty.

Blanche said the case was about accounting, not Trump's alleged encounter with Stormy Daniels. He said the business records were accurate and Trump had "absolutely" no intent to defraud.

"This case is about documents, it's a paper case. This case is not about an encounter with Stormy Daniels 18 years ago, an encounter that President Trump has unequivocally and  repeatedly denied ever occurred," Blanche said. 

He also argued that Cohen, the prosecution's star witness, should not be trusted, and that jurors should "want and expect more."

"He took an oath. He swore to tell the truth and he told you a number of things on that witness stand that were lies. Pure and simple," Blanche said.

• https://www.cbsnews.com/live-updates/trump-trial-closing-arguments-today/#post-update-d1230ea0 link copied

Blanche attacks Cohen's testimony, accusing him of lying

Blanche took aim at Cohen over his testimony about his status as Trump's personal attorney and the payments he received in 2017.

He showed the jury a portion of the trial transcript in which Cohen said he never had a retainer agreement with Trump. 

"That was a lie, and you cannot just minimize a lie and say it was a mistake. A lie is a lie, and this was a significant lie," Blanche argued. He claimed that Trump and Cohen had a "verbal" retainer agreement, and that the monthly $35,000 checks were paying Cohen for his legal services.

"For the first time in President Trump's life, he decided to pay me back triple. Doubled up the 130, he gave me 50k for some online poll that he decided he wasn't going to pay for over a year, by the way I stole a little bit on that," Blanche said, paraphrasing Cohen's testimony about the total amount of money he received over the course of 2017.

"The story that Mr. Cohen told you on that witness stand is not true," Blanche said. "There's a reason why in life, usually, the simplest answer is the right one."

Blanche argued that it "makes more sense" that the $35,000 payments were for Cohen's legal services. 

• https://www.cbsnews.com/live-updates/trump-trial-closing-arguments-today/#post-update-0d2deef0 link copied

Blanche says Cohen's explanation for $420,000 total is "absurd"

Trump's attorney also took aim at the prosecution's explanation for why Cohen received $420,000, when he only paid Daniels $130,000. 

On the stand, Cohen said the figure represented the $130,000 payment, plus $50,000 that Cohen owed a technology company that did work for Trump. That money was doubled to account for taxes, Cohen testified. He said the remaining $60,000 was meant to supplement his year-end bonus, which had been cut.

Blanche said the idea that Trump would pay Cohen $420,000 when he only owed him $130,000 was "absurd." He showed the jury the handwritten notes from Weisselberg on a bank statement that showed how the $420,000 was reached.

 "The document the people offered to prove it is full of lies," Blanche said.

• https://www.cbsnews.com/live-updates/trump-trial-closing-arguments-today/#post-update-1817b2f7 link copied

Blanche questions why prosecution didn't call Trump's sons as witnesses

With Trump's sons Eric and Don Jr. seated next to each other in the courtroom looking on, Blanche displayed an email from Allen Weisselberg to Jeff McConney, a former Trump Organization executive, about a check for Cohen: "Ok to pay as per agreement with Don and Eric." 

This is the first time his sons have attended the trial together, and only Don Jr.'s second time in the courtroom. Tiffany and Lara Trump also sat with them, the largest family contingent yet to show support for Trump at this trial.

"Guess who else you did not hear from in this trial? Don and Eric," said Blanche, questioning why the reimbursements to Cohen would need sign-off from the Trump sons, who were running the Trump Organization when their father moved to Washington. "Is there some allegation that they're a part of this scheme, that they're a part of this conspiracy? Not a tiny bit of evidence does that. That is reasonable doubt."

"The burden is always on the government," he continued. "They called Cohen. They did not call Don and Eric."

Blanche showed two checks on the screen, signed by Eric and Don Jr., and stated that Trump had nothing to do with either. 

The two sons watched Blanche, in their foreground, with the jury in their background view.

• https://www.cbsnews.com/live-updates/trump-trial-closing-arguments-today/#post-update-accd18ef link copied

Blanche turns to alleged "catch and kill" scheme and 2015 Trump Tower meeting

Trump's attorney turned to a 2015 meeting between Cohen, Trump and David Pecker, the CEO of the National Enquirer's parent company, American Media Inc. Pecker testified that he agreed to be Trump's "eyes and ears" during the campaign, on the lookout for negative stories.

Blanche pointed out that purchasing the rights to negative stories and declining to publish — "catch and kill" — was something the Enquirer had done "for decades," referencing Pecker's testimony that the outlet had done the same with stories about Tiger Woods, Mark Wahlberg, Arnold Schwartzenegger and others.

Blanche also said that there was "no in-depth discussion" about the alleged scheme at that 2015 meeting at Trump Tower, and that there was "no criminal conspiracy." 

"Remember also that a lot of the stories were just recycled and had already been published by other organizations," Blanche said, referencing stories the Enquirer published about Trump's rivals for the 2016 GOP presidential nomination. "The idea that the National Enquirer could corruptly influence an election … should hopefully make you shake your head."

• https://www.cbsnews.com/live-updates/trump-trial-closing-arguments-today/#post-update-7d77c658 link copied

Biden campaign holds press conference outside courthouse

The Biden campaign held a press conference outside of the courthouse Tuesday morning as closing arguments were underway.

Speakers included actor Robert De Niro and Harry Dunn, the former U.S. Capitol Police officer who testified to the House Select Committee about the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol.

De Niro called Trump a "loser" and said he will be a "tyrant" and a "dictator" if reelected. 

"This is the time to stop him by voting him out once and for all. We don't want to wake up after the election saying, 'What, again? Oh my God. What the hell have we done?'" he said.

The presser marks a bold move for President Biden and his campaign, who have generally shied away from highlighting Trump's felony trial. 

Mr. Biden did, however, take a jab at Trump as the pair publicly challenged each other to presidential debates two weeks ago. "I hear you're free on Wednesdays," Mr. Biden said, alluding to the day of the week when the trial usually takes a break. 

• https://www.cbsnews.com/live-updates/trump-trial-closing-arguments-today/#post-update-9dd0edc5 link copied

Blanche says Cohen made "hush money" payment without Trump's knowledge

Blanche said Cohen made the $130,000 payment to Daniels himself, without Trump's knowledge, because he wanted to take credit for protecting his boss.

"He made a decision to pay that $130,000 to Ms. Daniels. He didn't tell President Trump about it. He wanted to do it because he knew that he could get credit from President Trump at some later time," Blanche said. "Whether they won the election or lost the election, he would be able to get that credit."

Blanche reiterated that the jury can't trust Cohen's account of his conversations with Trump.

The comments came shortly after Trump's attorney also said two examples of the National Enquirer buying stories were not actually instances of "catch and kill." 

The first example was about false accusations that Trump had fathered a child with a housekeeper at Trump Tower. Pecker testified that the Enquirer declined to publish the story because it was untrue. The second was the story of Karen McDougal, a former Playboy model who also said she had sex with Trump. McDougal agreed to sign over the rights to her story for $150,000 from AMI, and the agreement included a commitment for McDougal to appear on magazine covers and write columns.

"What is clear from what you heard about Ms. MacDougal — this was not a catch and kill either," Blanche said. "She did not want her story published. She wanted a career. She wasn't interested in selling her story."

• https://www.cbsnews.com/live-updates/trump-trial-closing-arguments-today/#post-update-6a996b3f link copied

Blanche says Daniels and team were trying to "extort" Trump

Trump's attorney has repeatedly alluded to the fact that Daniels' claim of a sexual encounter with Trump dates back 18 years.

Blanche pointed out that the story was briefly published by, and then removed from, a gossip site in 2011. He said Daniels and her team only began the harried efforts to sell her story because they perceived Trump to be in a vulnerable position as the 2016 election approached.

"There were a group of people who wanted to take advantage of the election and ultimately extort President Trump," Blanche said.

As Blanche made this argument just a few feet away, Trump spun his chair to the right, leaning back and clasping his hands to watch. Trump nodded and smiled slightly as Blanche called the Daniels negotiation "extortion."

• https://www.cbsnews.com/live-updates/trump-trial-closing-arguments-today/#post-update-79acd5dd link copied

Blanche says "Access Hollywood" tape wasn't a "doomsday event" for Trump's campaign

Blanche laid out for jurors his narrative of the weeks before the 2016 election, when Cohen and Daniels' attorney were negotiating the $130,000 payment. He said that the release of the "Access Hollywood" tape on Oct. 7, 2016, provided the catalyst for Daniels to try to sell her story. On the recording from 2005, Trump can be heard saying he could "grab [women] by the p****" and "make them do anything."

The tape became a major flashpoint in the presidential campaign, but Blanche said Trump did not react in the way that prosecutors had said, trying to bolster his argument that Cohen acted without Trump's knowledge.

"The 'Access Hollywood' tape is being set up in this trial to be something that it is not. It is one of many stressful issues that came up during the 2016 campaign. It was not a doomsday event," Blanche said, noting that Trump addressed it in a video message and at the next presidential debate. "He never thought it was going to cause him to lose a campaign, and indeed it didn't."

Cohen, however, "had a different view," according to Blanche: "Michael Cohen told you that he realized it was catastrophic and he wanted to do something about it, and that's what he did with respect to Ms. Daniels."

• https://www.cbsnews.com/live-updates/trump-trial-closing-arguments-today/#post-update-9948881c link copied

Blanche calls Cohen "the MVP of liars"

Trump's attorney continued hammering home his point that Cohen's testimony is unreliable and the jury should reject it. He pointed to comments Cohen made on the stand about his interactions with attorney Robert Costello and a phone call in 2016, when Cohen said he informed Trump about the Daniels payment. Blanche challenged Cohen's version of events in both instances, claiming he was "caught red-handed" about the phone call.

"I don't know how many lies are enough lies to just reject Mr. Cohen's testimony," Blanche said. 

"Is there the same absolute proof of lies for every single thing that man told you? No, there is not," he acknowledged. "For that we have what's called an oath. We have an oath that every witness takes when they testify in front of you, the jury. And the oath matters. The oath matters to most. He lied."

Blanche said Cohen was "literally like the MVP of liars," pointing to his conviction for lying to Congress and his admission to lying under oath in a separate case.

• https://www.cbsnews.com/live-updates/trump-trial-closing-arguments-today/#post-update-ab242502 link copied

Blanche concludes by laying out reasons for reasonable doubt

Blanche ended his argument by summarizing his reasons why jurors could reasonably doubt prosecutors' narrative of the case, and thus find Trump not guilty:

• Cohen created the invoices related to the reimbursements. They're accurate, and there's no evidence that Trump knew about them.
• There's no evidence that Trump saw the vouchers associated with the payments.
• "There is absolutely no evidence of any intent to defraud," pointing to Trump's tweets and a submission to a government ethics office.
• "No intent to unlawfully influence the 2016 election," specifically in violation of a federal campaign finance law, and no evidence of an "illegal agreement" to influence the election.
• AMI would have published one of the "catch and kill" stories if it were true.
• Karen McDougal did not want her story published, and Stormy Daniels' story had already been made public in a gossip blog in 2011.
• Alleged "manipulation of evidence," casting doubt upon a recording of Trump and Cohen and the evidence gathered from Cohen's devices.
• "Michael Cohen, he's the human embodiment of reasonable doubt, literally."

The last point was Blanche's key point throughout his closing argument, and he used the opportunity to hammer it home.

"Michael Cohen is the GLOAT — he's literally the greatest liar of all time. He has lied to every single branch of Congress, both houses, the House and the Senate," Blanche said. "He has lied to federal, state judges, family, bankers, people he works with. His words cannot be trusted, and I'm going to end this summation the same way that I told you a few minutes ago, that you know you cannot rely on him."

Blanche ended by reminding jurors that the case "isn't a referendum on your views" of Trump.

"This is not a referendum on the ballot box, who you voted for in 2016 or 2020, who you plan to vote for in 2024. That's not what this is about. The verdict you are going to reach has to do with the evidence you heard here in this courtroom and nothing else," he said. "If you do that, if you focus just on the evidence you heard in this courtroom, this is a very, very quick and easy 'not guilty' verdict."

• https://www.cbsnews.com/live-updates/trump-trial-closing-arguments-today/#post-update-3d2ad369 link copied

Judge chides Blanche for "outrageous" comment about Trump going to prison

Toward the end of his closing statement, Blanche said: "You cannot send somebody to prison, you cannot convict somebody based upon the words of Michael Cohen." Prosecutors objected, and the objection was sustained.

Once the jury was excused for a lunch break, prosecutor Joshua Steinglass asked Merchan, the judge, to issue an instruction to the jury about sentencing, calling the comment a "blatant and wholly inappropriate effort to gain sympathy" for Trump.

Merchan agreed, saying the comment was "outrageous" and "highly inappropriate." He said he would issue a curative instruction to the jury.

When the court returned from lunch, Merchan instructed the jury to disregard Blanche's remark.

"A prison sentence is not required in this case, in the event of a guilty verdict," said Merchan.

• https://www.cbsnews.com/live-updates/trump-trial-closing-arguments-today/#post-update-0b04b29e link copied

Prosecution begins closing argument

Joshua Steinglass from the Manhattan District Attorney's Office got the ball rolling for the prosecution. He told the jury that prosecutors needed to prove three "basic things": that business records were falsified, that the scheme was meant to cover up a conspiracy to influence the election and that Trump knew about it.

He urged the jury to "focus on the facts" and draw logical inferences from the emails, texts and other documents presented during the trial.

• https://www.cbsnews.com/live-updates/trump-trial-closing-arguments-today/#post-update-d7709101 link copied

Steinglass cites "utterly damning testimony" from Trump allies

Saying they had "no reason to lie here" and still see Trump "as a friend and a mentor," Steinglass said the testimony of Trump's friends and former employees was "utterly damning."

He said Pecker's testimony confirmed a conspiracy to unlawfully influence the 2016 election. 

"You don't need Michael Cohen to prove that one bit," Steinglass said, adding soon after that Pecker "also eliminates the whole notion that this was just politics as usual."

Steinglass then said others who admire Trump offered "critical pieces of the puzzle that help identify the defendant's guilt."

Steinglass cited the testimonies of former White House aide Hope Hicks and Deborah Tarasoff, an accounts payable supervisor at the Trump Organization. 

• https://www.cbsnews.com/live-updates/trump-trial-closing-arguments-today/#post-update-7ea0ba96 link copied

Prosecutor defends Cohen from attacks that he lied about crucial phone call

Steinglass has spent much of the first half hour of his summation focused on the defense's attacks on Cohen's credibility. He acknowledged that Cohen had issues as a witness, but argued that should be a reflection on Trump, not the prosecution.

"We didn't choose Michael Cohen. We didn't pick him up at the witness store. The defendant chose Mr. Cohen, to be his fixer," Steinglass said.

In the years after Cohen fell out of Trump's grace, he became "understandably angry that he's the only one who has paid the price," for his role in the Daniels deal, Steinglass said.

"Cohen wants to see the defendant found guilty badly. Guess what? We agree with him," Steinglass said.

Steinglass noted that Cohen has lost business opportunities after his conviction, saying that's one of the reasons Cohen has turned to making money by criticizing Trump.

"I'm not asking you to forgive Michael Cohen, he made his bed. But you can't blame him for making money on the one thing he can, which is knowledge," Steinglass said. 

A major turning point in the defense's case was when it attacked Cohen's testimony that he spoke with Trump during a phone call to Trump's bodyguard, Keith Schiller, on Oct. 24, 2016.

The defense demonstrated that Cohen likely discussed with Schiller prank calls he had been receiving, and argued he was lying about having updated Trump about the Daniels payment in the same phone call.

"To them, that is the 'big lie,'" Steinglass said, a possible reference to a phrase that's used to describe Trump's false insistence that he won the 2020 election. "But that's not the only interpretation."

Steinglass then acted out a hypothetical call, showing that Cohen could have talked to Schiller about the prankster, asked to speak to Trump and updated him on the Daniels deal in under 50 seconds.

• https://www.cbsnews.com/live-updates/trump-trial-closing-arguments-today/#post-update-8d0df681 link copied

Steinglass defends Stormy Daniels' story

Daniels' testimony, in which she described having sex with Trump, was "uncomfortable," Steinglass said, and that was the point.

"That's the display the defendant didn't want the American voter to see. Stormy Daniels is the motive," Steinglass said. "He would not pay the $130,000, twice for taxes, if he had just taken a photo with someone on a golf course."

Trump has said he didn't have sex with Daniels, and maintained they merely met and conversed at a celebrity golf tournament in 2006.

"The defense has gone to great lengths to discredit Stormy Daniels. They've shamed her. Tried to say her story has changed over the years, which it hasn't," Steinglass said.

He pointed to Daniels' ability to recount minute details from the encounter — such as the contents of Trump's bathroom hygiene bag — as proof her story was legitimate. 

"Those are the kind of details that, I submit to you, they kind of ring true," Steinglass said.

• https://www.cbsnews.com/live-updates/trump-trial-closing-arguments-today/#post-update-4cc50300 link copied

"One of the most valuable contributions that anyone made to the campaign"

Steinglass revisited a 2015 Trump Tower meeting between Trump, Pecker and Cohen, in which the trio allegedly hatched the scheme to "catch and kill" stories about Trump.

The arrangement "turned out to be one of the most valuable contributions that anyone made to the campaign," Steinglass said.

The defense argued more than once that candidates frequently try to "influence" elections, merely by campaigning. Steinglass characterized their argument as, "It's called democracy."

"In reality, this Trump Tower meeting was the exact opposite. It was the subversion of democracy," Steinglass said. "The entire purpose of this meeting was to deny access of the truth to the American public. To defraud voters in a coordinated fashion."

"This may very well be what got Trump elected," Steinglass added, calling it "overt election fraud."

"It was an illegal corporate campaign contribution made by AMI to the campaign, and it was done in collusion with the campaign," Steinglass said.

• https://www.cbsnews.com/live-updates/trump-trial-closing-arguments-today/#post-update-def8b9fd link copied

Steinglass says Pecker's testimony showed Trump "actively participated" in "catch and kill" scheme

During the defense's closing argument, Blanche said Pecker, the former CEO of the National Enquirer's parent company, came across as a truthful witness who "does not lie."

Steinglass leaned into that portrayal during his closing. He pivoted to Pecker's testimony about the alleged "catch and kill" scheme, illustrating the importance of other evidence beyond what Cohen and Daniels said on the stand.

He repeatedly called up portions of the trial transcript in which Pecker said incriminating things about Trump.

For instance, he mentioned a description of a phone call Pecker had with Trump in 2016. Pecker said his secretary interrupted a meeting with major AMI investors to tell him Trump was on the phone.

Pecker said that during that call, "the defendant said he found out about the [McDougal] story from Cohen," according to Steinglass.

"This call proves that not only did the defendant know about it but that he actively participated," Steinglass said. 

Later, Steinglass noted that Pecker said he was told by Trump that Cohen would handle negotiations related to the McDougal matter, saying Trump "deputiz[ed] Mr. Cohen right in front of Mr. Pecker."

• https://www.cbsnews.com/live-updates/trump-trial-closing-arguments-today/#post-update-0b812438 link copied

A flurry of phone calls leading to a "damning" one

Steinglass led jurors through a lengthy flurry of communications between many of the key players in the case leading up to the Oct. 28, 2016, deal between Daniels and Trump.

Cohen to Pecker, Pecker to Davidson, Pecker to Cohen — many of them calling each other multiple times.

And then two that were "rare," according to Steinglass: phone calls between Cohen and Weisselberg.

Steinglass said their phone records show just six phone calls in the three years before the deal, two of which were in the final three days.

And then, on Oct. 26, a call with Trump, half an hour before Cohen began the paperwork for a transfer of funds to his newly created limited liability corporation that would soon send money to Daniels.

"I mean, this is damning," Steinglass said.

• https://www.cbsnews.com/live-updates/trump-trial-closing-arguments-today/#post-update-ef4e6faa link copied

Judge aims to finish closing arguments tonight as jurors say they can stay late

At the start of the day, Merchan said that the jury might need to stay late if closing arguments weren't finished by 4:30 p.m., when the court has typically adjourned for the day. He said he would ask the jurors if they had a scheduling conflict.

Just before 5 p.m., Merchan said the jurors were looking alert and had made arrangements to stay until 7 or 8 p.m. 

"I think right now we're going to try to finish it out tonight," he said.

• https://www.cbsnews.com/live-updates/trump-trial-closing-arguments-today/#post-update-ccbc4d40 link copied

Two handwritten notes are the case's "smoking guns," prosecution says

Steinglass pointed jurors to two key pieces of evidence: handwritten notes describing how Cohen would be paid after the Daniels deal. 

In the first set of notes, Weisselberg, the Trump Organization's chief financial officer, scrawled math on Cohen's bank statement showing the Daniels payment and breaking down how Cohen would be paid moving forward.

Jeffrey McConney, the Trump Organization's longtime former controller, testified that Weisselberg gave him that statement with his notes, and also discussed the arrangement with him just before Trump's inauguration.

McConney testified that Weisselberg threw a notepad toward him and told him to take notes.

"Allen said we had to get some money to Michael, reimburse Michael," McConney said.

On a second set, McConney recorded Weisselberg's math on a Trump-branded notepad, mirroring what Weisselberg had written on the statement: $420,000, paid out over 12 monthly installments of $35,000.

"Just pause for a moment to consider what this testimony means. [McConney] was a controller and a company employee for 34 years. He doesn't have an ax to grind," Steinglass said. "He knew this was a reimbursement because that is what he was told it was."

Steinglass then struck at a core defense theme, that Michael Cohen is the only actual witness to any alleged crimes.

"Mr. Blanche pretended that this was all coming from Michael, but this document, these two documents, these are Trump Organization documents. It came from them," Steinglass said.

"In other words, they are the smoking guns," Steinglass said.

• https://www.cbsnews.com/live-updates/trump-trial-closing-arguments-today/#post-update-13a7bac9 link copied

Steinglass recounts the small amount of legal work Cohen did for Trump in 2017

Cohen testified that he did about 10 hours of legal work for Trump in 2017, despite carrying the title "personal attorney to the president."

Steinglass elicited laughter when he compared Cohen's work for Trump that year to his time on the stand this month.

"Cohen spent more time being cross-examined in this trial than he spent doing legal work for Donald Trump in 2017," Steinglass said.

He said the paltry amount of work done for Trump is an indication that Cohen wasn't being paid for ongoing legal representation that year, but was instead being reimbursed, as the government claims.

"After everything Trump has said and done, do you think there's any chance, any chance, that Trump would have paid $42,000 an hour for legal work from Mr. Cohen?" Steinglass asked.

• https://www.cbsnews.com/live-updates/trump-trial-closing-arguments-today/#post-update-f588371c link copied

Trump's own words about his frugality used against him

Trump did not testify during this trial, so prosecutors for the second time highlighted the many times in Trump's books that he extolled the virtues of frugality and micromanaging, attempting to demonstrate that Trump knew why Cohen was getting $35,000 a month for a year.

"The cardinal sin for Mr. Trump is overpaying for anything," Steinglass said, not long after showing a page in "Trump: Think Like a Billionaire" when Trump and his ghost writer wrote, "Call it penny pinching if you want to; I call it financial smarts."

In another book, Trump warned, "Do not trust anyone," and, "Get the best people and don't trust them." Steinglass pointed to another excerpt where Trump wrote that he always signs his checks "so I know where my money's going."

"If he's checking the invoices from his decorator, you can bet he's checking the invoices of Michael Cohen," Steinglass said.

• https://www.cbsnews.com/live-updates/trump-trial-closing-arguments-today/#post-update-12e0733e link copied

Steinglass highlights the role of business records in the case and a "pressure campaign" against Cohen

Echoing a statement Bragg made after Trump was arraigned in this case on April 4, 2023, Steinglass told jurors that New York "is the business capital of the world," and "you have an obligation to keep proper records."

"In New York state, bottom line, you cannot lie in your business records," Steinglass said. "That is what this case is at its core: cheating."

He then pivoted to the effort to keep Cohen in line after the FBI raided his home and office in 2018.

"Like all fixers, Cohen knew where the bodies were buried and it was essential to keep him loyal," Steinglass said, before recounting evidence related to his communications with attorney Robert Costello.

The surprise defense witness had promised to be a "back channel" for Cohen to the White House, but Cohen testified that he believed Costello was a piece of a larger "pressure campaign" to keep him from "flipping."

• https://www.cbsnews.com/live-updates/trump-trial-closing-arguments-today/#post-update-90d3bbd4 link copied

Trump was "involved every step of the way," prosecution says

Steinglass, his voice hoarse as he reached the conclusion of what he called the "summation that never ends," pulled up a slide entitled, "Mr. Trump involved every step of the way." 

It led to a timeline showing many of the instances when testimony or exhibits showed Trump knew of the "catch and kill" and reimbursement schemes. 

The timeline stretched back to the August 2015 Trump Tower meeting between Pecker, Cohen and Trump and purported to show Trump's "direct involvement" in at least 20 key moments.

"It's just inconceivable that he would be so involved in buying these women's silence and then suddenly stick his head in the sand when it comes to Cohen's reimbursement," Steinglass said.

Steinglass focused on a series of calls between various key players on Oct. 8, 2016, discussing the Daniels allegations, leading to a call between Cohen and Trump.

"There is just no way — no way — that Cohen wouldn't have told Trump about that during that call," Steinglass said, his voice rising.

He pointed to a Oct. 26, 2016, phone call between Cohen and Trump, just before Cohen began the process of facilitating the wire transfer, saying that Trump again signed off on moving forward.

"Everything required Mr. Trump's sign-off. On top of that, I wanted my money back," Cohen testified.

Steinglass noted that Pecker testified that Trump personally thanked him for his help with the campaign after the election. Later, Steinglass noted, Trump expressed anger at Pecker for letting Karen McDougal out of her non-disclosure agreement.

He then highlighted the "smoking gun" notes tied to Trump's then right-hand man, Allen Weisselberg, and said Trump personally signed many of the checks to Cohen.

"Busy or not, Mr. Trump was not paying these prices for basically no work," Steinglass said, referring to Cohen's testimony that he did very little legal work for Trump in 2017.

"The false business records benefited one person, and one person only, and that's the defendant," Steinglass said.

• https://www.cbsnews.com/live-updates/trump-trial-closing-arguments-today/#post-update-5e0284ee link copied

Steinglass wraps prosecution's closing argument, urging jury to convict Trump

More than five hours into presenting the prosecution's closing argument, Steinglass began wrapping up. He said there was "no rational argument that Cohen's payment to Daniels would've been made if not for the election."

"The name of the game was concealment and all roads lead inescapably to the man who benefited most, the defendant, a man named Donald J. Trump," Steinglass said.

He thanked the jurors for their patience in "a frustrating case that has gone on for a while." He said he apologized for "trading brevity for thoroughness, but we only get one shot at this."

"He got his day in court. Donald Trump can't shoot someone in rush hour on Fifth Avenue and get away with it," Steinglass said, referring to Trump's famous remark that he could do nothing that would turn off his supporters. The defense team immediately voiced an objection, which Merchan sustained.

"Very soon it will be time to deliberate and to come back in here and say guilty, guilty to 34 counts," Steinglass concluded. "I ask you to find the defendant guilty."

• https://www.cbsnews.com/live-updates/trump-trial-closing-arguments-today/#post-update-0e055b9e link copied

Graham Kates is an investigative reporter covering criminal justice, privacy issues and information security for CBS News Digital. Contact Graham at [email protected] or [email protected]

Highlights: Closing arguments wrap in Trump hush money trial

Coverage on this live blog has ended. Follow the latest news here.

What to know about the hush money trial

• Prosecutors finished delivering their closing statements in the trial shortly before 8 p.m. Former President Donald Trump's lawyers presented their arguments this morning .
• Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass, who spoke for more than four hours, argued that Trump falsified business records to cover up what was essentially an illegal campaign contribution meant to help him get elected in 2016.
• Trump is charged with 34 counts of falsifying business records in connection with a hush money payment to adult film actor Stormy Daniels to buy her silence about an alleged affair with Trump. He has pleaded not guilty to the charges.
• Court adjourned for the day at 8 p.m. and will resume at 10 a.m., when the judge will give instructions to the jury before it begins deliberations.

Judge lays out timeline for the rest of the week

Gary Grumbach

Zoë Richards

Tomorrow's trial proceedings are expected to get underway at 10 a.m., instead of the regular 9:30 a.m., with Judge Juan Merchan saying he expects jury instructions to last about an hour.

After that, the case will be in the hands of the jury.

Merchan said tomorrow's proceedings will conclude at 4:30 p.m., but he left the door open for the rest of the week, noting that if proceedings are needed on Thursday and Friday, the timing will be determined by how deliberations are progressing.

Trump makes no comments after leaving courtroom

Katherine Koretski

Trump did not make any comments as he left the Manhattan courtroom after the prosecution delivered closing arguments that went until just before 8 p.m.

Trump, who has often spoken outside the courtroom, instead raised his fist as he left.

Closing arguments are done; court to resume at 10 a.m. tomorrow

Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass has finished his closing argument, which began shortly after 2 p.m.

Judge Juan Merchan told jurors they will start tomorrow at 10 a.m.

Merchan told jurors that jury instructions will take around an hour before deliberations begin. He said the plan is to go until 4:30 p.m. for the day.

Prosecutor gets fired up during end of closing argument

Phil Helsel

Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass began accelerating and emphasizing his delivery to jurors during closing arguments with minutes to go before an 8 p.m. deadline.

Steinglass reiterated to the jurors that it is a crime to willfully create inaccurate tax forms and that Trump’s intent to defraud in this case is clear. He argued that why else would Stormy Daniels be paid in what he described as an elaborate scheme, instead of all at once.

Steinglass argued that that and other steps show Trump wanted the issue to be kept quiet until after the election.

“The name of the game was concealment,” he said.

Defense objects to prosecutor's remarks about Trump and Fifth Avenue

Jillian Frankel

Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass urged the jury to hold Trump accountable, suggesting by way of analogy that he can’t shoot someone on Fifth Avenue during rush hour and get away with it.

Trump's defense team objected to the comment, which Judge Juan Merchan sustained.

Mixed level of visible engagement among jurors at this late hour

Laura Jarrett

At least one juror appears to be visibly engaged in prosecutor Joshua Steinglass’ presentation — offering an affirming smile.

Others, however, appear considerably less focused and can be seen twisting their hair and rubbing their faces.

The jury is approaching an 11-hour day at the courthouse.

Prosecutor talks about difference between reasonable doubt and certainty

Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass told the jury that it does not need to evaluate each piece of evidence alone and in a vacuum but as part of a whole that he argues proves Trump’s guilt.

“You will see that the people have proven this case beyond a reasonable doubt,” he said.

During his remarks, the defense objected. Judge Juan Merchan sustained the objection.

“I’ll instruct them on the law and the evidence,” Merchan said.

Prosecutor launches into rapid-fire recap of Trump’s involvement in Daniels and McDougal stories

Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass is recapping all of the evidence intended to show Trump’s direct involvement in the settlements with Karen McDougal and Stormy Daniels, beginning with an August 2015 Trump Tower meeting.

A screen the prosecution displayed during closing arguments read “Mr. Trump involved every step of the way” as Steinglass went through a timeline of events.

Joshua Steinglass passes 4-hour mark in his closing arguments

Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass has passed the four-hour mark since he began giving the prosecution’s closing argument in Trump’s trial.

Steinglass began giving the prosecution’s closing arguments at around 2:07 p.m., but there have been several breaks since then.

Today's trial proceedings to continue until 8 p.m., judge says

After he returned to the bench, Judge Juan Merchan indicated to the attorneys that the court will push forward until 8 p.m. but will need to wrap up after that.

That would make an 11-hour day for the jury.

Last recess of the day

Judge Juan Merchan announced at 6:52 p.m. what he said will be the last recess of the day.

It's expected to last just a few minutes.

Merchan earlier said that the plan was to go until at least 7 p.m. and “finish this out if we can.”

'A bold-faced lie': Prosecutor revisits Robert Costello's testimony

Given the hour, it was initially unclear why prosecutor Joshua Steinglass began revisiting the testimony of Robert Costello , a Trump ally and lawyer who has clashed with Michael Cohen.

But the prosecution's display of an email exchange between Costello and Cohen hinted that the DA's office aims to portray Trump’s attitude toward Cohen changing only after his former attorney's compliance was in doubt, not because of anything else Cohen did.

Recounting Costello's testimony, Steinglass argued that Costello's assertion that he was acting in Cohen’s best interest and that he didn’t care at all about the defendant’s interest "was a bold-faced lie.”

‘You guys good to go a little bit longer?’ prosecutor asks, as 7 p.m. draws near

Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass asked jurors, “You guys good to go a little bit longer?” and said “Alright!” after a bench meeting to discuss scheduling at around 6:30 p.m.

Judge Juan Merchan earlier today said the plan was to go until at least 7 p.m. and “finish this out if we can.”

Prosecutor refers to 'devastating' testimony by Hope Hicks

Given the largely chronological order of the prosecution's closing arguments, prosecutor Joshua Steinglass could be nearing the end of his remarks.

He discussed what he called Hope Hicks’ “devastating” testimony earlier in the trial, adding that she burst into tears because she realized the impact of what she had told the court.

Defense attorney Todd Blanche objected to that characterization, but Judge Juan Merchan allowed it.

Prosecutor argues Trump wanted to be 'involved in everything'

Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass mocked former Trump aide Madeleine Westerhout’s testimony in which she said Trump was often so busy that sometimes he absent-mindedly signed presidential proclamations.

Steinglass, who dismissed Westerhout's remarks as a narrative Trump’s team encouraged, said that overall she gave the opposite impression — that the former president remained very attentive to outlays of his personal expenses, and that his most frequent contacts included his former attorney Michael Cohen and a former top executive of his company, Allen Weisselberg. Westerhout's testimony also conveyed that Trump continued to be the sole signatory on his own accounts, even though he easily could have added other signatories, Steinglass argued.

Trump wanted to maintain control — and “he insists on signing his own checks," Steinglass said, adding that Trump boasted about his frugality and micromanagement in his books, which Steinglass read excerpts from.

Steinglass also rejected the defense's argument that Trump was too busy to be involved in certain financial transactions.

“He’s in charge of a company for 40 years. The defendant’s entire business philosophy was to be involved in everything,” Steinglass said.

Prosecutor: Cohen's time being cross-examined exceeded his legal work for Trump in 2017

Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass said that Michael Cohen did very few hours of legal work for Trump on 2017, and that “these payments had nothing to do with the retainer agreement and nothing to do with services rendered in 2017.”

“Cohen spent more time being cross-examined in this trial than he did doing legal work for Donald Trump in 2017,” Steinglass said. He also told the jury that none of the Trump invoices went through the Trump Organization’s legal department because they weren’t for legal services rendered.

Steinglass also commented on how Cohen was paid pretty well, and had the title of personal attorney for the president.

“He was making way more money than any government job would ever pay, and don’t I know that,” Steinglass joked.

Some jurors cracked smiles and small laughs when Steinglass joked about government salaries compared to what Cohen was making.

Prosecutor says ‘these documents are so damning that you almost have to laugh’ at defense's argument

Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass told the jury that “these documents are so damning that you almost have to laugh” at an argument presented by Trump’s defense.

Steinglass was referring to a comments by defense attorney Todd Blanche that the records were not false because, if they were false, they would have been destroyed.

Steinglass also argued that the 1099s forms on which Trump reported payments to Michael Cohen of $105,000 and $315,000 were another “unlawful means” through which the conspiracy was acted upon.

EXCLUSIVE: Elise Stefanik requests probe into Merchan's selection as judge

Rep. Elise Stefanik, R-N.Y., issued a complaint letter today to the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct and an inspector general for the New York State Unified Court System, requesting an investigation into Judge Juan Merchan’s selection to preside over Trump’s hush money case.

Stefanik pointed to Merchan’s role as presiding judge for a pair of other cases related to Trump and his allies, saying, “The probability of three specific criminal cases being assigned to the same justice is infinitesimally small.”

“One cannot help but suspect that the ‘random selection’ at work in the assignment of Acting Justice Merchan, a Democrat Party donor, to these cases involving prominent Republicans, is in fact not random at all,” Stefanik wrote. “The simple answer to why Acting Justice Merchan has been assigned to these cases would seem to be that whoever made the assignment intentionally selected Acting Justice Merchan to handle them to increase the chance that Donald Trump, the Trump Organization, and Steven Bannon would ultimately be convicted.”

The letter marks a continued effort by Trump allies to attack people involved with the case by filing complaints. The board overseeing the judges has made clear that Merchan didn’t need to recuse himself over issues that some of his critics have called a conflict of interest.

Trump posts on Truth Social during break in courtroom action

Vaughn Hillyard

During the court's roughly 20-minute break, Trump on his Truth Social platform disparaged the proceedings as "boring" and a " filibuster ."

Trump's Truth Social account has been active today with posts referring to his criminal trial and the closing arguments, which have continued as the prosecution continues its argument into this evening.

Judge says closing arguments to continue into the evening

Adam Edelman

Judge Juan Merchan announced a short courtroom break and said the plan is to go until at least 7 p.m. and "finish this out if we can."

“I was watching the jurors, they look pretty alert to me. I don’t think we’re losing anyone. So I think right now we’re going to try to finish this out if we can," he told the attorneys.

“Let’s see what we can do," Merchan continued, adding that they will revisit the timeline at 7 p.m.

Prosecutor argues Trump didn't sign confidentiality agreement for a reason

Kyla Guilfoil

Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass tried to turn one of defense attorney Todd Blanche’s better arguments on its head.

Steinglass said that Trump didn’t sign the agreement because that was the point: The agreement was no less enforceable without his signature.

The timing of the payment on Oct. 27, 2016, Steinglass argued, further showed that Trump's primary concern was not his family but the election.

Prosecutor seems to say for first time there were 2 calls between Cohen and Weisselberg in late October 2016

Rebecca Shabad is in Washington, D.C.

Joshua Steinglass mentioned that in the phone records they have, prosecutors saw six calls between Michael Cohen and Allen Weisselberg over three years, two of which were in late October 2016, right before the Stormy Daniels deal was reached.

This appears to be the first time the calls have been mentioned in the case.

Steinglass also emphasized that Trump and Cohen spoke twice on the morning of Oct. 26, 2016, right before Cohen went to First Republic to submit paperwork to open his new account and to send the wire transfer to Keith Davidson on Daniels’ behalf.

Prosecutor walks through Michael Cohen's bank papers

Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass is now going through the false claims and omissions in former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen’s paperwork to First Republic to open an account in the name of his new LLC.

Those forms could serve as the “unlawful means” through which the alleged conspiracy to promote Trump’s election was acted on.

Prosecutor: Stormy Daniels' testimony shows Trump was 'not just words'

Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass is going at Trump now, referring to Story Daniels' testimony to argue that Trump is "not just words."

"Stormy Daniels was a walking, talking reminder that Trump was not just words" at a time when Trump was trying to distinguish between his words and the actions of both Clintons, Steinglass said.

He also noted that Daniels' story got little to no traction until the day after the "Access Hollywood" tape became national news, with phone traffic exploding among Keith Davidson, Dylan Howard, Michael Cohen and Trump.

Prosecutor describes ramifications of the 'Access Hollywood' tape

After a brief break, prosecutor Joshua Steinglass resumed his closing argument by describing the "Access Hollywood" tape, which multiple witnesses during the trial described as catastrophic for Trump's 2016 campaign.

Steinglass said the tape eclipsed coverage of a Category 4 hurricane, according to Hope Hicks; debate prep at Trump Tower was disrupted as campaign leadership discussed how to respond; and elected Republicans raced to disavow Trump's comments on the tape, with some withdrawing their endorsements.

Trump aide Madeleine Westerhout testified that senior Republican National Committee officials were even discussing dropping Trump from the 2016 ticket, Steinglass said.

“The video was vulgar, to say the least," he added.

Prosecution's closing arguments are one-third of the way done

Asked by Judge Juan Merchan "how much longer" the prosecution's closing arguments would take, Joshua Steinglass replied that there was still a lot to get through.

"We’re about a third of the way through," he said.

The prosecution's closing arguments began today shortly before 2:15 p.m.

Prosecutor says Cohen-Trump call shows effort to influence 2016 election

Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass told the jurors that it's their decision what the tape between Michael Cohen and Trump from Sept. 6, 2016, said.

Steinglass said it showed Trump suggested paying in cash — whether it means no financing, lump sum, it doesn’t matter, he said. Steinglass said they were trying to take steps that would not get noticed.

“This tape unequivocally shows a presidential candidate actively engaging in a scheme to influence the election," Steinglass said.

Prosecutor defends Michael Cohen's phone records

Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass is making arguments to defend Michael Cohen's phone records after the defense questioned their integrity.

Steinglass said that Cohen had no idea the Manhattan district attorney's office would ask for phone records again in January of last year, and there would be no conceivable reason for him to delete evidence of a crime he’d already been convicted and served time for.

Prosecution using graphics to illustrate points during closing arguments

The graphics that the Manhattan district attorney's team is using during their summation are high-tech and modern.

In presenting them, prosecutors are isolating certain calls and using zoom functions to highlight them. The graphics offer a clean and accessible way for the attorneys to illustrate their points to the jury.

Prosecutor: Call between David Pecker and Trump makes it 'impossible' to claim Cohen acted independently

Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass discussed a call between David Pecker and Trump in which Pecker apprised him that Michael Cohen had told Trump about Karen McDougal coming forward.

"This call makes it impossible for the defense to claim that Cohen was acting on his own here," Steinglass said.

He said the transaction was an unlawful corporate contribution to the Trump campaign — and not only did Trump know about it, Steinglass said, but he participated as well.

Prosecutor details Karen McDougal catch-and-kill scheme

Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass is going through the Karen McDougal catch-and-kill scheme in minute detail — call by call, text by text and day by day.

Virtually no testimony is needed to illustrate the negotiations — and to the extent that testimony is used, it’s not from key witness and former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen. It's from David Pecker, former publisher of the National Enquirer.

Analysis: Steinglass pokes hole in defense's argument around National Enquirer

Steinglass makes a very good point about the Dino Sajuddin story and corresponding payment.

Sajuddin is the former Trump Tower doorman who claims Trump fathered a child out of wedlock, a claim the former president has denied.

Given that everyone believed Sajuddin's claim to be false, purchasing the story was not something David Pecker did because of his fiduciary duty to shareholders; there was no reason to do it other than to benefit the 2016 Trump campaign.

Steinglass calls 2015 meeting at Trump Tower a 'subversion of democracy'

Steinglass characterized a meeting at Trump Tower almost a decade ago as a “subversion of democracy.”

He said the entire purpose of the August 2015 meeting was to “pull the wool over [voters’] eyes” before they made their decisions.

He also pointed out that while NDAs are not unlawful, nor are contracts illegal, a contract to kill your wife is illegal, and therefore an NDA designed to prevent certain information from becoming public during a political campaign is also illegal.

Steinglass tells jurors to think of Cohen as a 'tour guide'

Daniel Arkin

Trump's lawyers repeatedly attempted to make Cohen's trustworthiness and motives a focal point of the trial — a strategy that Steinglass flat-out rejected in his summations. "This case is not about Michael Cohen," Steinglass told the jury. "This case is about Donald Trump."

Steinglass encouraged the jury to instead think of Cohen as a "tour guide" through the evidence introduced during the proceedings, including what the state has presented as falsified business records aimed at covering up an election law violation. Cohen, according to Steinglass, "provides context and color to the documents" — but he is not the trial's main character.

Steinglass begins touching on campaign finance violations

Steinglass is teasing the crux of the prosecution’s argument, saying, “Once money starts changing hands on behalf of the campaign, that’s election law — that’s federal election campaign finance violation.”

“We’ll get back to that,” he adds.

Prosecution argues there is a 'mountain of evidence' against Trump

Steinglass is fighting back against the defense's rhetoric that the only evidence in this case came from Michael Cohen's testimony.

The prosecutor told the jury that Judge Merchan will say Cohen is an accomplice because he participated in these crimes, but you cannot convict Trump on Cohen’s word alone — unless there is corroborating evidence.

Steinglass said that there is a mountain of evidence in the case, saying "it’s difficult to conceive of a case with more corroboration than this one.”

Steinglass looks to counter questions on details of Cohen's stories

Steinglass is now using an imaginary conversation to explain Cohen’s retelling of some of the stories or dates he’d recounted to the jury that Trump’s lawyers had questioned.

“These guys know each other well, they speak in code. A better explanation is that Cohen could have gotten the time and place of the call wrong. This is one date in many, he spoke to the defendant 20 times in the month of October,” Steinglass said.

“Let’s say you had dinner at a restaurant with an old friend and the friend says they were getting married. Later you find a receipt and think that was the night they told you they were getting married, but found out the friend was actually in California on that night. That does not mean that you are lying about the fact that you had dinner with the friend or about the fact that your friend told you they were getting married,” Steinglass said.

Steinglass: We didn't pick Cohen at the 'witness store'

Steinglass is forcefully pushing back on the Trump team's attempts to tarnish Cohen's character and motives, reminding the jury that the ex-fixer was once a valued member of the former president's inner circle: "We didn't choose Michael Cohen. We didn't pick him up at the witness store. Mr. Trump chose Mr. Cohen for the same qualities his attorneys now urge you to reject."

Cohen's top quality was loyalty to his former boss, Steinglass said. Cohen was "drawn to the defendant like a moth to a flame, and he wasn't the only one. David Pecker saw Mr. Trump as a mentor; Mr. Trump saw David Pecker as a useful tool."

On Trump attacks on Cohen: 'That is what some people might call chutzpah'

Steinglass is explaining that Cohen had lied at Trump’s direction and that Trump was now using those lies to harm Cohen’s credibility in the trial.

“The defense also tells you you should reject his testimony because he lied and took pleas in federal court. He has had some trouble accepting responsibility,” Steinglass said. “For bank fraud conviction and his tax law violation, he said he admitted to you that he did the things. He pleaded guilty.”

“He feels like he was treated unfairly and as a first offender he should have been able to pay a fine and back taxes and he believes the Trump Justice Department did him dirty. Whether that is true or not, he accepted responsibility and went to prison for it,” Steinglass added.

“You should consider all of this for his credibility” he continued. “The lies he told to Congress had to do with the Mueller investigation and the Russia probe, and what he lied about was the number of dealings the defendant had with Russia, and the only benefit was he stayed in the defendant’s good graces.”

“Those lies that he told are being used by the same defendant to undermine his credibility,” Steinglass said. 

“That is what some people might call chutzpah,” he added, using a Yiddish word meaning audacity.

Prosecution is careful to repeatedly call Trump 'the defendent'

There’s subtle but notable rhetorical move happening in this closing by the prosecution.

Steinglass is repeatedly referring to Trump as “the defendant” instead of “Mr. Trump” or “the former president.” This contrasts greatly from the defense's language, as Trump's lawyers almost always refer to him as "the president."

It will be important to watch for Steinglass to argue at some point that no one is above the law, even the former president of the United States -- something we’ve seen other state and federal prosecutors say about Trump over the last year.

Steinglass focuses on inconsistencies in defense argument

Steinglass zeroed in on an example of what the prosecution considers an inconsistency in the defense team's case. He told the jury that if the $420,000 payment for Cohen was for legal services, as the defense argued, Cohen could not have stolen $60,000 from the Trump Organization, as the defense also argued. It's either one or the other, the prosecutor argues — not both.

Steinglass: 'I'm not asking you to feel bad for Michael Cohen'

Steinglass is trying to reason with the jury, telling the jurors that they don't need to feel bad for Cohen, but they should understand where Cohen is coming from.

“I am not asking you to feel bad for Michael Cohen. He made his bed," Steinglass said.

“But you can hardly blame him that he’s making money for the one thing he has left," he added, referencing Cohen's knowledge of the inner workings of the Trump organization.

Steinglass admits that Daniels’ testimony was “messy” — but 'Stormy Daniels is the motive'

Steinglass is laying out how “the defense has gone to great lengths to shame Stormy Daniels, saying that she changed her story” but adds that “her false denials have been thoroughly discussed and explained.”

“She lived 2017 in pure silence, Michael Cohen came out and said sex never happened” and Daniels “felt compelled to set the record straight,” he said.

Steinglass said that “parts of her testimony” were “cringeworthy” and “uncomfortable.”

But details like “what the suite” at Harrah’s “looked like” and how the toiletry bag appeared “ring true.”

“They’re the kind of details you’d expect someone to remember,” Steinglass explained, adding that, “fortunately, she was not asked or did she volunteer specific details of the sexual act itself.”

“It certainly is true you don’t have to prove that sex took place — that is not an element of the crime, the defendant knew what happened and reinforces the incentive to buy her silence,” explained Steinglass.

“Her story is messy,” he said. “But that’s kind of the point. That’s the display the defendant didn’t want the American voter to see.”

“If her testimony were so irrelevant, why did they work so hard to discredit her?” he added. “In the simplest terms, Stormy Daniels is the motive.”

Steinglass undercuts defense argument that Trump was totally in the dark on Daniels payment

Steinglass displayed quotes from one of the state's exhibits: a phone call in which Cohen — well before he started cooperating with prosecutors — tells Davidson that Trump hates the fact that his team settled with Daniels.

The quotes undercut the defense team's insistence that Trump knew nothing about the hush money payments to Daniels.

Steinglass to jury: You don't need to believe Cohen to find there was a conspiracy

Steinglass defended the state's witnesses against the Trump team's accusations of lying, but he added that the jury does not necessarily need to believe every word of Cohen's testimony to find that there was a conspiracy to unlawfully influence the 2016 election.

"You don’t need Michael Cohen to prove that one bit," Steinglass said, referring to the state's accusation of a conspiracy.

He added that Hope Hicks, Rhona Graff, Madeleine Westerhout, Jeffrey McConney and Deborah Tarasoff were all witnesses who like Trump but confirmed Cohen's testimony.

Steinglass: 'You don't get to commit election fraud or falsify your business records'

Steinglass is appealing to the jury by explaining to them that it doesn't really matter why Trump broke the law, as long as they feel he did break the law. The argument appears to be a response to the claim by Blanche, during his own closing arguments, that Stormy Daniels had attempted to extort Trump.

"In the end it doesn’t really matter, because you don't get to commit election fraud or falsify your business records because you think you’ve been victimized," he said.

"In other words, extortion is not a defense for falsifying business records," he added.

"You've got to use your common sense, here," Steinglass continued. "Consider the utterly damning testimony of David Pecker."

Steinglass rebuts defense arguments about phone records

"The defense seems to be questioning our integrity,” Steinglass told the jury near the top of his summation.

But, he argued, it was the defense that didn't properly depict phone records.

The call summaries were made to help guide you, the prosecutor explained to the jury. The phone records are all in evidence and you can look through them at your leisure, he added.

It’s also an interesting accusation, Steinglass points out, given that the defense’s summary of calls between Cohen and Costello double-counts their calls. He also reminds them that not every phone call is accounted for in their phone records. Cohen had 11 phone numbers for Trump; they had records corresponding to two of them.

Prosecution kicks off closing arguments

The prosecution is now kicking off its closing arguments. Joshua Steinglass will give them.

Merchan told jury to disregard Blanche's 'prison' comment

Merchan, who chastised Blanche for imploring jurors not to send Trump to prison, told the jury that the lawyer's comment was "improper, and you must disregard it."

"If there is a verdict of guilty," the judge added, "it will be up to me to impose a sentence."

He went on to explain that a "prison sentence is not required in the event of a guilty verdict."

We are back

Merchan is at the bench. Trump is seated at the defense table.

Trump's family shows support outside the courthouse

Trump's sons Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump along with Eric's wife, Lara Trump, the co-chair of the Republican National Committee, slammed the proceedings in remarks to reporters outside the courthouse during the lunch break.

"Michael Cohen is the embodiment of reasonable doubt," Donald Jr. said. "This entire case hinges on someone who has quite literally lied to every single person and body he's ever been in front of in his life before."

Both he and Eric Trump echoed their father's often repeated characterization of the trial, calling it a "political witch hunt" and a "sham."

Eric went on to say that the district attorney's office is ignoring crimes across the city and using the trial to attack Trump.

"They're sitting there, they're laughing, they're giggling," Eric said. "This was their moment. This is how they embarrass Donald Trump."

Laura Trump added that the trial has been "banana republic-type stuff."

"This is a case about politics, pure and simple," she said.  

After walking away from the news conference, Donald Trump Jr. added that Democrats "talk about democracy but are laughing about it like it's a soundbite," and claimed they are “trying to scare anyone who has any kind of belief that doesn’t go 100% with what they believe.”

Merchan says he will give curative instructions after Blanche's 'prison' comment

Merchan appeared to chastise Blanche after the defense lawyer implored jurors not to send Trump to prison — an unlikely outcome in this case

"I think that statement was outrageous, Mr. Blanche," Merchan said after jurors were excused for their daily lunch break, later adding: "It's simply not allowed. Period. It’s hard for me to imagine how that was accidental in any way."

Merchan told the court that he plans to give jurors a curative instruction — in other words, general direction that is aimed at clearing up an erroneous statement.

Prosecutor slams Blanche's 'prison' comment

Joshua Steinglass, the prosecutor who is expected to deliver the state's closing arguments, blasted Blanche's comment to the jury about prison time as a "blatant and wholly inappropriate move" by the defense.

Steinglass asked Merchan to provide a curative instruction, a direction given by a judge to correct an erroneous statement.

Trump lawyer tells jurors that 'this isn't a referendum on your views of' Trump

Summer Concepcion

Toward the end of his closing arguments, Trump lawyer Todd Blanche told jurors that the verdict “isn’t a referendum on your views of” Trump, or “a referendum on the ballot box,” stressing the importance of basing their decision on evidence that emerged throughout the trial.

“If you focus just on the evidence you heard in this courtroom, this is a very very quick and easy not guilty verdict. Thank you,” he said.

‘You are gangsters!’: Robert De Niro clashes with Trump supporters in New York

Katherine Doyle

Amanda Terkel Politics Managing Editor

President Joe Biden’s campaign held a news conference outside the Manhattan courtroom where  Donald Trump is on trial  in his hush money case, with actor Robert De Niro and  two officers who defended the Capitol  from the Jan. 6 mob warning about the dangers of re-electing the former president.

“The Twin Towers fell just over here, just over there. This part of the city was like a ghost town, but we vowed we would not allow terrorists to change our way of life. ... I love this city. I don’t want to destroy it. Donald Trump wants to destroy not only the city, but the country, and eventually he can destroy the world,” De Niro said.

Afterward, on the way back to his car, De Niro mixed it up with some pro-Trump protesters, who yelled that he’s a “wannabe,” “paid sell-out” to the Democratic National Committee, “nobody” and a “little punk” whose “movies suck.”

“You’re not going to intimidate,” De Niro replied. “That’s what Trump does. ... We are going to fight back. We’re trying to be gentlemen in this world, the Democrats. You are gangsters. You are gangsters!”

Read the full story here.

Blanche finishes summation

Blanche finished his summation at 12:49 p.m. ET, about three hours after he began the closing arguments.

Blanche refers to jail time

Blanche told the jurors: "You cannot send someone to prison based on the words of Michael Cohen."

It's worth noting that it's unlikely the former president will be sentenced to prison in this case.

Blanche says Michael Cohen is the 'GLOAT'

Blanche says that Michael Cohen is the "greatest liar of all time."

“Michael Cohen is the GLOAT. He’s literally the greatest liar of all time," Blanche said, a play on the sports term GOAT "greatest of all time. “He has lied to every single branch of Congress.”

He added, “He has lied to the Department of Justice.”

Blanche outlines 10 reasons why he believes jury should have reasonable doubt

Blanche presented jurors with a list:

• The invoices. Blanche argues Cohen created the invoices, Trump had no intent to defraud, and prosecutors did not present evidence that Trump knew about them.
• Valentine's Day 2017 vouchers. Blanche argues there is no proof Trump ever saw the vouchers.
• No evidence of intent to defraud.
• No evidence to commit or conceal a crime. "There is no falsification of business records, period," Blanche argued.
• No evidence Trump was involved in illegal agreement to influence election.
• AMI would have run Sajudin's story. Dino Sajudin is the former Trump Tower doorman who tried to sell a story about Trump fathering a child out of wedlock.
• McDougal did not want her story published .
• Daniels' story was already public .
• Alleged manipulation of evidence .
• Cohen is the "embodiment of reasonable doubt." "He lied to you repeatedly," Blanche said. "He is biased and motivated to tell you a story that is not true."

Blanche insists there was no felony because even if there was a conspiracy, it wasn't through 'unlawful means'

Blanche is insisting that there can be no felony falsification of business records because even if there was a conspiracy to influence the election, it was not carried out through any “unlawful means.”

To support his “no unlawful means” argument, Blanche said there is no proof Trump ever knew, for example, about certain paperwork Michael Cohen submitted to his bank or paperwork prepared to transfer Karen McDougal’s life rights from AMI to Trump.

Trump’s knowledge, however, is not required. All that matters legally is that a member of the conspiracy undertook those “unlawful means.”

Trump lawyer plays audio of Cohen screaming on his podcast

After playing audio of Cohen excitedly talking about the prospect of Trump being convicted, Trump lawyer Todd Blanche then played two excerpts of Cohen screaming on his podcast in a tone virtually unrecognizable to anyone who has encountered him only here.

This was more effective than most moments today.

Blanche says Michael Cohen is the 'MVP of liars'

Blanche said that Michael Cohen has lied to his family, including his wife and kids, his banker, the Federal Election Commission, reporters, Congress, prosecutors, business associates and bosses.

"He's literally like the MVP of liars," Blanche said.

Blanche raises his voice in accusing Cohen of lying

Blanche began shouting as he again accused Cohen of lying under oath. He reminded jurors that Cohen testified that he called Trump on Oct. 24, 2016, to provide an update on the Daniels situation, "It was a lie!" he said, pointing out that the call was actually to Trump's bodyguard, Keith Schiller.

"That was a lie and he got caught red-handed,” Blanche added.

Blanche accuses the prosecution of using Stormy Daniels to inflame jury

Over objections by prosecutor Joshua Steinglass, Blanche is accusing the prosecution of calling Stormy Daniels as a witness at trial, but not calling her as a grand jury witness.

Blanche is arguing it was intended to inflame the jury’s emotions and to embarrass the former president.

The jury didn't appear to react to that statement.

Trump lawyer portrays Trump as the victim of the infamous 'Access Hollywood' tape

Jonathan Allen

Blanche may be the first person to portray Trump as the victim of the “Access Hollywood” tape .

Though Blanche says it was not “so catastrophic” as to motivate Trump to break the law — more precisely, that there’s “no evidence” that it was — he says this of the release of the video Oct. 7, 2016: “This was an extremely personal event for President Trump. Nobody wants their family to be subjected to that sort of thing.”

(The video had Trump on a hot mic discussing getting away with assaulting women because he was famous.)

Blanche accuses Daniels of 'extortion,' and the prosecution stays mum (for now)

Blanche just said of Daniels’ nondisclosure agreement: “This started out as an extortion and it ended up very well for Ms. Daniels, there’s no doubt about that.”

The prosecution has not objected to Blanche’s repeated use of the word “extortion,” which suggests a crime was committed. That could be a strategic choice, because what they say in refuting that characterization during their own summation could be more memorable and powerful than a sustained objection.

Blanche claims that threats against Stormy Daniels never happened

Blanche said that Stormy Daniels decided to go public with her story supposedly because she was trying to protect herself from threats in a parking lot that she received five years earlier.

Blanche said, however, that there are recordings that show that's not true. He said Michael Avenatti, Gina Rodriguez and Daniels were lying about these threats.

“They never happened," Blanche said. “The recording makes clear that Ms. Daniels lied to you.”

Blanche has resumed his summation

The morning break is over and Trump's defense team is continuing with its closing arguments.

Blanche said he expects about 30 to 40 more minutes.

Trial takes a break

The trial took a quick break starting at 11:35 a.m.

Blanche questions why no one in Trump campaign addressed Stormy Daniels issue in April 2016

Blanche questions why no one in the campaign did anything about Stormy Daniels in April 2016 when her manager reached out about it.

But Blanche's point ignores the impact that the leak of the "Access Hollywood" tape in October 2016 had on the campaign. Trump's campaign was beleaguered by accusations of sexism as a result of the tape, so Daniels' claim may have had more of an impact.

Fight appears to break out between pro-Trump supporters outside the courthouse

Elizabeth Maline

A fight appears to have broken out between pro-Trump supporters in Columbus Park across the street from the courthouse.

New York City Police Department officers were seen hopping over the fence into the park to respond to the clash.

Blanche tries to impress upon jury that Cohen's recording of Trump call is unreliable

Blanche wants the jury to believe that Michael Cohen's recording of the call with Trump is unreliable because it cuts off early.

But more than that, Blanche is trying to tell the jury that the transcript of what they have is unreliable because while the recording discussed AMI and Pecker, there is doubt that they are talking about Karen McDougal, whose name is never mentioned, or any payment of $150,000, which cannot be heard on the tape.

Blanche says they were “talking past each other,” and that Cohen’s invocation of “financing” shocked Trump, who had no idea what was going on, and that Cohen’s interpretation of “cash” to mean actual bills is a fiction designed to make the conversation sound more sinister.

Trump team responds outside courthouse immediately following Biden campaign

Moments after the Biden campaign finished its remarks outside the courthouse, Trump campaign members went to the microphone to speak.

Jason Miller, a senior adviser to the campaign, called the Biden campaign's decision to have Robert De Niro — whom he called a "washed-up actor" — speak today as a way to "try to change the subject" from Biden's "falling" poll numbers.

Karoline Leavitt, a Trump campaign spokesperson, called the Biden team's conference "a full-blown confession that this trial is a witch hunt."

"This is a disgrace. President Trump has been locked up in that courtroom for six weeks," Leavitt said. "But guess what, the American people see through this witch hunt, this scam, and that's why President Trump continues to rise in the polls."

Leavitt added that Biden is "weak" and "pathetic" and is using "elitist, out-of-touch Hollywood actors like Robert De Niro who have no idea the real problems that people in this city and across this country are facing." 

Blanche accuses Cohen of lying about Pecker lunch. Pecker didn't dispute it, though.

Blanche is continuing his effort to convince jurors that Cohen is a shameless liar. "Remember when Cohen told you he had lunch with Pecker?" Blanche told the jury. "Pecker said he was really frustrated that he was not getting paid for the McDougal story. Ladies and gentlemen, that lunch did not happen. Cohen made it up."

However, Blanche and Trump's other lawyers never entered any evidence backing up that claim — and Pecker during his testimony did not dispute that the lunch happened.

Blanche appears to want to have it both ways regarding David Pecker

Blanche appears to want it both ways regarding Pecker.

On one hand, he has characterized David Pecker as a “truth teller” and someone who, because of Pecker's immunity deal with the Manhattan DA, had no incentive to lie.

But Blanche also tells the jury that Pecker’s explanation that if the story from Trump Tower doorman Dino Sajuddin had been true, he would have published it — but only after the election — is not entirely credible because such a major story would have been published immediately.

Blanche argues the effort to silence Karen McDougal wasn't a 'catch and kill'

Blanche argued that the effort to silence Karen McDougal "is not a catch and kill either" because she didn't want her story published.

Blanche said McDougal wanted to kick-start her career, be on the cover of magazines and write articles. He said it wasn't McDougal's intention to publish her story.

"She didn't want her story published," he said.

Former Capitol police officers campaign for Biden outside courthouse

Harry Dunn, a former Capitol Police officer, and Michael Fanone, a former D.C. Metropolitan Police officer, who defended the Capitol during the Jan. 6 attack, spoke in support of the Biden campaign outside of the courthouse today.

Fanone, who suffered a brain injury and a heart attack in the assault, recounted the attack adding that "if Jan. 6 didn't happen, we wouldn't be here right now, I'd still be at work."

Dunn went on to say that Trump is "the greatest threat to our democracy and to the safety of communities across the country today."

"Trump does whatever will get him votes and helps Donald Trump," he said.

Blanche mixes up details in 'catch and kill' cases

Reporting from Manhattan criminal court

Blanche has been walking through each of the stories that were caught and killed. But he is mixing up details. He mentioned, for example, that Karen McDougal’s business manager was Gina Rodriguez. But Rodriguez worked for Stormy Daniels, not McDougal.

Analysis: Blanche's assertions about the Enquirer don't really hold up to scrutiny

Blanche is arguing that the Enquirer’s reach was not wide enough to influence the election. But especially in today’s social media-fueled age, the idea that a story’s reach is limited to the publication’s own distribution is simply untrue. More significantly, however, the Enquirer’s influence here was in preventing certain stories from ever seeing the light of day.

Blanche pushes back on idea that the Enquirer could influence an election

Blanche, attempting to undercut one of the key planks of the prosecution's narrative, told the jury that it's absurd to believe that positive stories in the National Enquirer could affect the outcome of an American election.

"The idea that even sophisticated people like President Trump and David Pecker believed that positive stories in the National Enquirer could influence the 2016 election is preposterous," Blanche said, referring to the former publisher of the tabloid magazine. He went on to say that many of the articles published in the Enquirer were recycled from other outlets.

Pecker testified earlier in the trial that he purchased potentially damaging stories about Trump and then made sure they never saw the light of day — a practice known as "catch and kill." He also testified that his editorial team attempted to run more glowing stories about Trump in the lead-up to the 2016 election.

Robert De Niro condemns Trump in fiery remarks outside courthouse: 'He could destroy the world'

Actor Robert De Niro spoke to the press as a surrogate for the Biden campaign outside the courthouse, railing against Trump.

"I love this city. I don’t want to destroy it," De Niro, a native New Yorker, said.

"Donald Trump wants to destroy not only the city, but the country and eventually he could destroy the world," he continued.

De Niro, who has also appeared in ads for the Biden campaign, condemned Trump for the violence that occurred Jan. 6 at the Capitol, arguing that if Trump wins in November, "he will never leave."

At the end of De Niro's remarks, a Trump supporter in the crowd called the two former police officers standing with De Niro — both present at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021 — "traitors."

The actor engaged in a back-and-forth with the man in the crowd, defending the officers, Harry Dunn and Michael Fanone.

"They stood there. They didn’t have to," De Niro said. "They stood there and fought for us. They fought for you, buddy. You’re able to stand right here."

"They are the true heroes. I’m honored to be with these two heroes today," De Niro continued.

Blanche says every campaign is a 'conspiracy to promote a candidate'

Blanche said that the prosecution wants the jury to believe that the entire scheme was to promote Trump's successful candidacy in 2016.

“Even if you find that’s true, that’s still not enough. It doesn’t matter — as I said to you in the opening statement — it doesn’t matter if there was a conspiracy to win the election," Blanche said. “Every campaign is a conspiracy to promote a candidate.”

Blanche hammers on the question of Trump's intent to defraud

Blanche asked the jury: "Where is the intent to defraud on the part of President Trump?" He then showed a slide labeled "No Intent to Defraud."

The exact language of the charges against Trump in this case accuse the former president of breaking various laws with the "intent to defraud and intent to commit another crime and aid and conceal the commission thereof."

Biden campaign arrives with Robert De Niro outside courthouse

Biden campaign members have arrived outside the courthouse with actor Robert De Niro and Capitol Police Officer Harry Dunn, who was attacked in the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol.

Blanche again suggests Cohen was bitter

Blanche asked the jurors whether they "believe for a second that, after getting stiffed on his bonus in 2016, when he thought he worked so hard," Cohen would then "want to work for free" for Trump.

"Was that the man who testified," Blanche asked rhetorically, "or was that a lie?"

Cohen did indeed testify that he was upset after he did not receive a holiday season bonus after the 2016 presidential election, but he repeatedly rejected the defense team's suggestions that bitterness and vindictiveness drove him to cooperate with prosecutors.

Blanche then argued it was "absurd" that Trump would agree to pay Cohen $420,000 even though the former president owed him only $130,000.

Blanche suggests Trump, as president, was too busy to be part of 'scheme'

Blanche repeatedly refers to Trump being in the White House when the repayments were made. He was very busy, Blanche said. That he was somehow in on a “scheme” to conceal a repayment is “absurd,” he added

His argument also reminds the jury this is no normal defendant: It’s the former president of the United States.

It’s an interesting line to to walk: Trump is so careful about his finances that he would never overpay, but he was also so busy in the White House that he was sometimes careless and wouldn’t know what he was paying for.

Blanche says prosecutors asked jury to believe Michael Cohen

Trump lawyer Todd Blanche said, “What the people have done, what the government did for the last five weeks, at the end of the day, is ask you to believe the man who testified two weeks ago, Michael Cohen.”

Blanche rejects assertion that Trump had full knowledge

Blanche told jurors it was "a stretch" that Trump always "had full knowledge of what was happening" inside the Trump Organization and his other business enterprises.

"That is reasonable doubt, ladies and gentlemen," he said.

Trump lawyer says there's nothing 'sinister or criminal' about the word 'retainer'

Blanche commented on the fact that retainer was listed as the reason for the reimbursement checks from Trump to Cohen.

"There's nothing sinister or criminal about that word," Blanche said.

Blanche said it wasn't put there by Trump or Allen Weisselberg but by Trump Organization accounting employee Deb Tarasoff, who testified earlier in the trial.

What was missing from the chart put up on the screen

When Blanche put up a visual aid for the jurors showing invoices, vouchers and checks, the most glaringly noticeable line on any of the documents was the very familiar, thick-lettered signature of Donald Trump.

Blanche calls attention to the fact that Don Jr. and Eric Trump weren't called as witnesses

As Blanche is calling attention to the fact that Don Jr. and Eric Trump were not called as witnesses, they are sitting in the front row of the courtroom behind their dad.

“The burden is always on the government, they make decisions about who to call," Blanche said, adding, “They did not call Don or Eric.”

The jury did not look over at the Trump children.

Blanche tries to steer jury away from old Trump books

Blanche tells the jury to be wary if the prosecution starts reading from an old Trump book to help prove how involved the former president was in his company’s accounting system.

Those books were co-written by ghostwriters, Blanche says, implying the ghostwriters did the due diligence of figuring out the system in lieu of Trump’s personal knowledge.

Blanche tries to address toughest evidence before prosecution gets to it

Blanche is working hard to try to pre-empt certain arguments the jury is likely to hear from the prosecution after he sits down. Because he goes first and the prosecution will have the last word -- per New York law -- he can’t afford not to address the toughest evidence for his client. 

Blanche pushes back on hush money argument

Blanche appeared to suggest that Cohen received retainer payments not because of the hush money arrangement but because he was Trump's personal attorney.

"There’s a reason why in life usually the simplest answer is the right one, and that’s certainly the case here. That the story Mr. Cohen told you on that witness stand is not true.” 

Cohen was paid $35,000 a month by Trump to be his attorney, Blanche said.

Blanche planting the seeds of reasonable doubt

Blanche is doing two things simultaneously to plant seeds of reasonable doubt early in this closing argument — establish that the internal records at the heart of this case weren't falsified and that Michael Cohen is a liar.

Blanche argues Michael Cohen was working as Trump's personal lawyer

Trump attorney Todd Blanche argued that Michael Cohen was serving as Trump's personal attorney, which he said was not in dispute.

“He talked to every reporter that he could, pushing the fact that he was going to be the personal attorney to President Trump," Blanche said. “This was not a secret. Michael Cohen was President Trump’s personal attorney. Period.”

Biden's campaign set to hold press conference outside the courthouse

President Joe Biden's campaign is scheduled to hold a news conference outside the court this morning at 10:15 ET.

The news conference is set to include the campaign team and "special guests," although the news release didn't say who they would be.

Trump lawyer argues invoices were false and there was no intent to defraud

Trump lawyer Todd Blanche argued that the invoices weren't false and there was no intent to defraud — and that if the jurors are so convinced, they don't have to go further.

As a matter of law, Blanche is correct, but it is also the case that the requisite intent to defraud is defined as including the intent to commit or conceal another crime.

Put another way, if the jurors believe the documents are false, they do have to confront whether Trump intended to conceal the underlying alleged conspiracy.

Jury sees chart that won't be put into evidence

Blanche displayed a chart on the courtroom screen showing what it presented as various financial records, including Cohen's invoices (which were then turned into vouchers, and then turned into checks).

The chart will not be put into evidence, so the jury can't refer back to it — and the general public may never see it publicly produced.

Trump lawyer accuses Michael Cohen of lying for likely the first of many times today

It's 9:48 a.m. and Trump lawyer Todd Blanche just accused Michael Cohen of lying — the first of many times we're likely to hear that claim today.

Blanche: 'This is a paper case'

Blanche continues his sentiment that the testimony that the jury has heard thus far is not enough to convict Trump. Instead, Blanche argues the true evidence for this case lies in documents.

"This case is about documents, it’s a paper case," Blanche said.

Blanche went on to argue that the case is not about Stormy Daniels, but instead about the payments Trump made to Michael Cohen.

“Were those bookings done with an intent to defraud? That’s why you’re here. And the answer to that — to those questions is absolutely positively not," Blanche said.

"The bookings were accurate, and there was absolutely no intent to defraud. And beyond that, there was no conspiracy," he continued.

Blanche tries to undercut Cohen and Daniels testimony

Blanche tells the jury members that “they should want and expect more than the testimony of Michael Cohen. ... You should want and expect more than the word of a woman who claims something happened in 2006.”

He continues by saying they should want and expect more than the testimony of Keith Davidson, who was trying to extort Trump. Notably, the district attorney's office does not object to the characterization of what happened as attempted or actual extortion.

Trump lawyer reiterates to jury that his client is innocent

Trump attorney Todd Blanche told the jury that they, as a group of citizens, decide the facts and decide whether Trump is guilty or not guilty. He said he wanted to repeat what he told them five weeks ago.

“President Trump is innocent," Blanche said. "He did not commit any crimes, and the district attorney has not met their burden of proof. Period.”

Blanche starts his closing arguments

Trump's lawyer Todd Blanche began giving his closing arguments at about 9:40 a.m. ET. He said that he expects he'll need 2½ hours to deliver the end of the defense's case.

He briefly put up a PowerPoint presentation and then took it down.

Merchan to jurors: You are the judges of the facts

Merchan is giving jurors an overview of what they're going to hear today from lawyers on both sides of the case. He explained that the summations "provide each lawyer the opportunity to review the evidence and give you the conclusions that can be drawn."

"You are the finders of fact, and it is for you and for you alone to determine the facts from the evidence," the judge told the jury.

He reminded the jury that the "lawyers are not witnesses," adding that nothing they say in their summations constitutes "evidence."

"You and you alone are the judges of the facts in this case," Merchan said.

Judge tells prosecution and defense: Don't go into the law

Before the jury entered, Judge Merchan told both the prosecution and defense teams that they shouldn't explain the law to the jurors during summation.

"Please do not go into the law. Stay away from the law," he said. "That'll be my job. I'll take care of it."

District attorney staff members are watching from the overflow room

As proceedings begin today, more than eight secondary members of the prosecution team have come into the overflow room to watch the trial.

The members present appear to be senior leadership from the district attorney’s office, including First Assistant District Attorney Meg Reiss and former Executive Assistant District Attorney Peter Pope, who led the investigation of this case leading to the grand jury’s indictment.

The staff members are seated in the jury box in the overflow room -- an area we have not seen used before for seating.

How long will summations last?

Todd Blanche, Trump's lawyer, estimates he'll need around 2½ hours to deliver his closing argument. He goes first.

Joshua Steinglass, one of the prosecutors, says he'll need "somewhere in the vicinity of 4 to 4½ hours."

Trump says 'this is a dark day in America' before heading into courtroom for closing arguments

Shortly before heading into the courtroom for closing arguments, Trump repeated his claims that he was forced to attend courtroom proceedings in the hush money trial because of President Joe Biden, without providing evidence.

The presumptive Republican presidential nominee griped that the trial is “election hunting, election interfering” because it is an effort to go after Biden’s political opponent.

Trump again accused Judge Merchan of being “highly conflicted” and “corrupt” and read aloud quotes from legal analysts who support his assertions that the former president did not commit wrongdoing in the case.

Trump also complained about Merchan’s gag order that bars him from making disparaging comments against his family members and others involved in the case, saying that it’s an “unconstitutional thing” to impose on a presidential candidate.

“This is not a trial that should happen. It’s a very sad day. This is a dark day in America,” he said. “We have a rigged court case that should have never been brought, and it should have been brought in another jurisdiction.”

Jury instructions set in stone

Judge Merchan says that he provided the jury instructions to the defense and prosecution on Thursday afternoon and that neither side has commented on them. They are now final.

Merchan is on the stand and they're ready on go

The judge has taken his seat and proceedings are about to get underway.

The prosecution and defense in Trump’s criminal hush money trial will begin making their closing arguments to the jury today as the first criminal trial of a former president enters its final phase. NBC’s Laura Jarrett reports and Hallie Jackson provides analysis for "TODAY."

‘Phony’ checks and hush money payments: Breaking down Trump’s 34 charges in his New York criminal trial

JoElla Carman

Trump faces 34 felony counts in the New York hush money trial that is expected to potentially wrap up as early as this week.

Here's what to know about the charges.

Biden campaign preps for a Trump trial verdict: From the Politics Desk

Monica Alba

Natasha Korecki

Mike Memoli

President Joe Biden has largely steered clear of Trump’s legal woes. But with a verdict in the  hush money trial  coming as soon as this week, Biden’s campaign is exploring a shift to a new, more aggressive posture, according to two people familiar with the strategy. 

Regardless of the outcome, top Biden campaign officials plan to stress to voters that Trump will be on the ballot in the fall and that no potential court proceeding will change that fact.

A person familiar with the discussions summed it up this way: “Donald Trump’s legal troubles are not going to keep him out of the White House. Only one thing will do that: voting this November for Joe Biden.” 

Trump has departed for the courthouse

Brittany Kubicko

The former president has left Trump Tower for the courthouse downtown.

Rudy Giuliani's son argues with anti-Israel protester outside court

Former New York gubernatorial candidate Andrew Giuliani started a heated argument with a protester who was shouting antisemitic tropes outside the courthouse this morning.

Giuliani, a former Trump White House official and the son of former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, followed the demonstrator who was wearing a ski mask around a protest zone and yelled at the man about the Oct. 7 terrorist attack on Israel.

The protester carried a sign with numbers representing Gazans who have been killed in the ensuing conflict and voiced canards about Jews controlling the U.S. government and the entertainment industry.

Trump's guests in court today

Jake Traylor

Matt Korade

Several of Trump's children will be in court for closing arguments, including Donald Trump Jr., Eric Trump and his wife, Lara Trump, who is the co-chair of the Republican National Committee, as well as Tiffany Trump, the former president's only daughter with his ex-wife Marla Maples, and her husband, Michael Boulos.

Also in attendance will be Trump's longtime friend Steve Witkoff, a real-estate investor who testified as a defense expert in Trump’s Manhattan civil fraud trial , Will Scharf, a lawyer for Trump who is running for attorney general in Missouri against Republican incumbent Andrew Bailey, and Deroy Murdock, a contributing editor for National Review Online.

Trump lawyer says she has 'zero confidence' Judge Merchan will issue jury instructions 'in an appropriate manner'

Trump legal spokesperson Alina Habba on Sunday expressed concerns about jury instructions in the hush money trial against the former president and the jurors not being sequestered over the holiday weekend.

“Generally, as an attorney, as an American who understands the law and how to apply to laws to facts, there are no facts that support this alleged crime,” Habba said during an interview on Fox News “Sunday Morning Futures.” “We’re not even sure what the crime is. So it’s a books and records issue.”

Habba echoed Trump’s claims that Merchan is “severely conflicted” without evidence, noting the judge’s gag order that bars Trump from issuing disparaging comments on his family members and others involved in the case. Trump has repeatedly accused Merchan of being “conflicted,” often citing his daughter’s work at a digital fundraising and advertising firm that often collaborates with Democratic politicians.

“This judge is the judge that determines the jury instructions. The jury instructions are the road map for non-attorneys and jurors to follow the law,” she said. “It’s going to be critical, and frankly, at this point, I have zero confidence in the fact that this person, who should not be sitting on the bench right now, will do the right thing and give jury instructions that are in an appropriate manner without any persuasion towards the prosecution.”

Habba then raised concerns about jurors not being sequestered over the holiday weekend, arguing that they could be swayed by family and friends who have certain opinions.

“They should have been sequestered because, in my opinion, these jurors are handling something that is completely unprecedented and unwarranted in America, and for them to be able to be out and about on a holiday weekend with friends and families who have opinions, who are watching the news TVs on the background at the pool party — I have serious concerns,” she said.

Trump blasts Merchan and District Attorney Alvin Bragg in Truth Social posts over the weekend

Alexandra Marquez is based in Washington, D.C.

Isabelle Schmeler

In a series of social media posts over the holiday weekend, Trump attacked Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, who brought the charges in this case against him, attacked Judge Juan Merchan and said the case was about a "legal expense" and a "bookkeeping error."

"I have a great case, but with a rigged and conflicted judge," Trump said in one post, before adding in another one, "The City of New York’s D.A., Alvin Bragg, is trying to prosecute a Federal case, which cannot be done, and where there is NO CRIME."

One post blasted the case for blowing a "legal expense" out of proportion, saying, "Let’s put the President in jail for 150 years because a LEGAL EXPENSE to a lawyer was called, by a bookkeeper."

Another post yesterday accused Merchan, without evidence, of being a "corrupt and conflicted" judge and claimed that Bragg is backed by liberal billionaire megadonor George Soros, who has been a target of antisemitic conspiracy theories .

Trump’s lawyers are preparing for the final stretch of the former president’s hush money trial in New York. NBC News’ Gabe Gutierrez reports on Trump’s busy weekend ahead of closing arguments in court.

Closing arguments set to begin in Trump’s criminal trial

Dareh Gregorian

Closing arguments will begin today in the People of the State of New York v. Donald J. Trump , as the first criminal trial of a former president enters its final phase.

After the prosecution and the defense deliver their concluding arguments, the judge will give instructions to the jury. Then, the 12 ordinary New Yorkers who sit on the jury will begin deliberations on whether or not the former president is guilty of the charges against him.

After 20 days in a courtroom, here's what you missed in the Trump hush money trial

Ahead of this week's closing arguments, catch up on what you missed over the last few weeks of the first criminal trial of a former president.

In sometimes explosive testimony, former Trump "fixer" Michael Cohen said that he did call Trump a "Cheeto-dusted" villain but admitted to past lies and theft upon questioning by Trump's attorneys.

Despite promising to testify, Trump did not ultimately take the stand and pushed back on media reports that he fell asleep multiple times during the trial. On his Truth Social account, the former president claimed he was simply resting his “beautiful blue eyes” while listening “intensely” to the proceedings.

Highlights of closing arguments in Trump’s N.Y. trial

Prosecutors and defense attorneys in Donald Trump’s criminal trial made their final pitches to jurors, who soon must decide whether to convict the former president.

Prosecutors and defense attorneys in Donald Trump’s criminal trial in New York delivered closing arguments Tuesday, making their final pitches to jurors who will decide whether to convict the former president on 34 counts of falsifying business records to cover up a hush money payment to the adult-film actress Stormy Daniels.

Trump New York hush money case

Jury deliberations are expected Wednesday after the prosecution and defense finished their closing arguments in Donald Trump’s hush money trial Tuesday. Here are highlights from the closing arguments .

Key witnesses: Several key witnesses, including Michael Cohen and Stormy Daniels, have taken the stand. Here’s what Cohen said during his testimony . Read full transcripts from the trial .

Gag order: New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan has twice ruled that Trump violated his gag order , which prohibits him from commenting on jurors and witnesses in the case, among others. Here are all of the times Trump has violated the gag order .

The case: The investigation involves a $130,000 payment made to Daniels, an adult-film actress , during the 2016 presidential campaign. It’s one of many ongoing investigations involving Trump . Here are some of the key people in the case .

The charges: Trump is charged with 34 felony counts of falsifying business records. Falsifying business records is a felony in New York when there is an “intent to defraud” that includes an intent to “commit another crime or to aid or conceal” another crime. He has pleaded not guilty . Here’s what to know about the charges — and any potential sentence .