Fact check: Trump has bankrupted multiple casinos

1. Summary of the results

The statement about Trump's casino bankruptcies is factually accurate, but requires more specific context. Multiple sources confirm that Trump-owned businesses filed for bankruptcy multiple times, with most sources indicating six total bankruptcy filings ^{[1] [2]}, of which four to five were specifically related to casino and hotel properties ^{[3] [4]}. The major casino-related bankruptcies occurred in:

• 1991 (Trump Taj Mahal)
• 1992 (Plaza Hotel)
• 2004 (Trump Hotels and Casinos Resorts)
• 2009 (Trump Entertainment Resorts) ^[4]

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

Several important contextual elements are missing from the original statement:

• These were Chapter 11 bankruptcies, which allow for debt restructuring rather than complete shutdown ^[4]
• The bankruptcies involved significant financial restructuring, with Trump being required to give up 50% to 49% ownership stakes in his companies ^[5]
• The 2004 bankruptcy alone involved $1.8 billion in debt ^[3]
• These failures occurred during a specific period in Atlantic City's history and were partly influenced by economic downturns and increased competition ^[3]
• These were corporate bankruptcies, not personal bankruptcies ^[1]

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original statement's simplicity could lead to several misconceptions:

• It doesn't distinguish between personal and corporate bankruptcy, which is crucial context ^[1]
• It doesn't acknowledge that these bankruptcies were part of a strategic approach to managing corporate debt ^[5]
• The statement omits that these failures were partly due to the high-risk nature of the casino business during that specific period in Atlantic City ^[6]
• It doesn't mention the ethical implications, such as the class-action lawsuit filed by employees ^[3]

The interpretation of these events often depends on political perspective, with Trump's supporters potentially viewing them as strategic business decisions, while critics might see them as business failures. Both media outlets and political organizations on various sides benefit from emphasizing different aspects of this history to support their respective narratives.