Trump Claims Michael Cohen Recanted Testimony in NY Cases; Cohen Clarifies He Felt Pressured but Stands by Truthful Account

President Donald Trump announced on Truth Social on September 4, 2026, that former attorney Michael Cohen had 'fully RECANTED' his testimony in the New York criminal hush money case prosecuted by Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg and the civil fraud case brought by Attorney General Letitia James. Trump described Cohen as the prosecution’s 'star witness' who was 'pressured' and 'coerced' into false statements, thanking him for coming forward and demanding the cases be dismissed as 'politically weaponized.'

Cohen’s January 16, 2026, Substack post forms the basis of the claim. In it, Cohen stated he 'felt pressured and coerced' by prosecutors from both offices to provide testimony aligning with their narrative against Trump, noting James’ 2018 campaign pledge to target Trump and similar dynamics in Bragg’s office. He emphasized that his comments did not defend Trump or relitigate facts but highlighted concerns about prosecutorial targeting.

Multiple outlets reported the development, including Trump’s post and the underlying Substack. However, Cohen has repeatedly clarified he has not recanted substantive testimony. In a February 2026 SiriusXM appearance with Dan Abrams, Cohen stated his testimony remained 'truthful and accurate,' framing his remarks solely as a personal feeling of pressure without implying falsehoods. The New York Times reported on September 6, 2026, that Cohen 'has not, in fact, recanted his testimony' and has 'not taken any of it back,' noting the distinction could protect against perjury risks.

The civil fraud judgment, which included a $364–454 million penalty later tossed by the New York Appellate Division on Eighth Amendment grounds, and the 34-count criminal conviction (currently under reconsideration) both relied heavily on Cohen. Trump’s reconciliation with Cohen, including recent interviews, has fueled the narrative, though legal experts note a mere feeling of pressure does not automatically invalidate prior sworn testimony or trigger automatic dismissal.

This episode underscores ongoing debates over prosecutorial discretion in high-profile cases, with Cohen’s statements providing a rare insider perspective on alleged narrative-fitting, even as he affirms the core accuracy of his evidence.