What is the current status of the investigation into Donald Trump's alleged sexual assault at Bergdorf Goodman?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Was this fact-check helpful?
1. Summary of the results
The investigation into Donald Trump's alleged sexual assault at Bergdorf Goodman has concluded in the civil courts, with significant legal outcomes already established. A jury found Donald Trump liable for sexually abusing E. Jean Carroll in 1996 at the Bergdorf Goodman department store, awarding her $5 million in damages [1] [2] [3]. However, the jury specifically rejected Carroll's claim that she was raped, finding Trump responsible for a lesser degree of sexual abuse [2] [4].
The case has progressed through multiple phases of litigation. Following the initial $5 million verdict, there was a subsequent $83.3 million defamation judgment against Trump [1]. Both verdicts have been upheld by the appeals court, with the Second Circuit affirming the district court's awards and finding no reversible error in the evidentiary rulings [1] [5].
As of September 2025, the civil litigation is at its final appellate stage. Trump's legal team has repeatedly sought to overturn or delay these judgments, but these attempts have been consistently denied [1]. Trump continues to deny the allegations, claiming during recent federal appeals court hearings that he "never met E. Jean Carroll" and that she "fabricated" the sexual assault case [6]. His final legal recourse appears to be petitioning the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn the $5 million abuse and defamation verdict [1].
2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints
The original question frames this as an ongoing "investigation," but this characterization omits crucial context about the nature and current status of the legal proceedings. This was a civil case, not a criminal investigation - an important distinction that affects both the burden of proof and the types of remedies available [2] [3] [4].
The analyses reveal that E. Jean Carroll's case is part of a broader pattern of sexual misconduct allegations against Trump. Multiple sources indicate that Carroll is among numerous women who have accused Trump of sexual misconduct, including Jessica Leeds and Natasha Stoynoff [3] [7]. This broader context suggests the Bergdorf Goodman incident should be viewed within a larger pattern of alleged behavior rather than as an isolated incident.
Trump's consistent response strategy across all these allegations has been to "defend and deny," characterizing the accusations as lies designed to damage his political career and claiming they are part of a larger plot against him [3] [7]. This pattern of denial extends specifically to the Carroll case, where he has maintained his innocence throughout the legal proceedings.
The timing and political implications of these cases also provide important context. The sources indicate that Trump has framed these allegations as attempts to hurt his presidential campaigns [3], suggesting that the legal proceedings have been intertwined with his political activities and ambitions.
3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement
The original question contains a fundamental mischaracterization by referring to an ongoing "investigation" when the legal proceedings have actually concluded at the trial and appellate levels. The civil case has been definitively resolved with established liability and damages, making the term "investigation" misleading and potentially suggesting ongoing uncertainty where none exists legally.
The framing as an "alleged sexual assault" also understates the legal findings. While the jury did not find Trump liable for rape, they did find him liable for sexual abuse - meaning the "alleged" characterization is no longer accurate regarding the specific findings of sexual abuse [2] [3] [4]. The legal system has made a definitive determination on this matter through proper judicial processes.
Additionally, the question's focus solely on the "investigation" status omits the significant financial and legal consequences that have already been imposed. The combined judgments totaling over $88 million represent substantial legal accountability that has been upheld through multiple levels of judicial review [1]. This omission could mislead readers about the concrete legal outcomes that have already been established in this case.