Fact check: What are the allegations against Donald Trump regarding tenant treatment in his buildings?

1. What plaintiffs say — A scheme to turn maintenance into profit and raise rents

Tenants and lawyers allege a sustained, company-wide practice in Trump-owned buildings of funneling appliances and maintenance through affiliated vendors at inflated prices, then treating those costs as capital improvements or billable services that permitted rent increases under New York regulations. Class-action filings claim these markups were systematic and intentional, with deposition testimony from Trump family associates cited as supporting evidence that administrators profited by negotiating wholesale prices and charging tenants higher amounts. The complaints describe this as a multi-decade pattern affecting tens of thousands of current and former tenants and frame it as fraudulent assessment of rents rather than isolated billing disputes ^{[4] [2]}.

2. What plaintiffs also allege — Harassment, utilities and removal tactics

Separate allegations—drawn from contemporaneous reporting and court filings—describe harassment and coercive tactics in buildings once owned by Trump, including claims that management cut off heat or hot water, imposed punitive rules, and engaged in behavior aimed at evicting or destabilizing rent-stabilized tenants to convert units to market-rate rentals. These are historical allegations most prominently reported about the 1980s era of Trump’s New York holdings and repeated in retrospective accounts and lawsuits alleging landlord misconduct; plaintiffs and reporters portray these as part of landlord strategies to pressure long-term, below-market tenants out of units ^{[3] [5]}.

3. Legal actions and the evidence plaintiffs highlight

Litigation has taken the form of class-action complaints and parallel civil cases. Plaintiffs point to deposition testimony from Trump family associates and internal documents obtained through discovery as “smoking gun” evidence that supports claims of price manipulation and coordinated pricing through affiliated vendors. Press releases from plaintiff firms and reporting note the scale of the suits—claims on behalf of tens of thousands of tenants—and emphasize documentary and testimonial evidence intended to show coordination and intent to profit from tenant-paid charges ^{[4] [2] [1]}.

4. Defenses, context, and alternate explanations offered by defendants and others

Defendants in these matters—members of the Trump family and associated property managers—have historically denied wrongdoing in public statements and litigation filings, framing disputes as business decisions, accounting interpretations, or isolated billing disagreements rather than systemic fraud. Independent reporting and legal documents show a contested factual record: plaintiffs assert coordinated deceptive practices; defendants argue compliance with applicable regulations or raise procedural defenses. Observers note that some claims rest on interpreting whether billed costs legitimately qualify as capital improvements under New York rent law, an area of complex statutory and administrative rules that can produce differing legal outcomes ^{[1] [2]}.

5. Where the record stands now and what remains unanswered

Since the initial class-action filings and depositions cited by tenants in 2020–2022, litigation has proceeded with discovery and legal briefing that may resolve liability questions, but public summaries indicate ongoing contestation rather than decisive final judgments in federally publicized accounts. Parallel historical accounts of tenant harassment amplify public concern but differ in era and specificity from the fraud/markup claims focused on billing practices. Key open questions include the legal determinations about whether specific charges constituted legitimate capital improvements, the extent to which internal communications prove intent to deceive, and whether remedies will be awarded at scale; recent reporting through 2022 and legal filings from 2020 remain central to the record ^{[1] [2]}.