What are the timelines and key details of each criminal or civil child sex abuse accusation against Donald Trump?
Executive summary
Reporting identifies a small set of allegations that specifically claim Donald Trump had sexual contact with underage girls — chiefly complaints tied to Jeffrey Epstein’s orbit from the mid-1990s and an anonymous “Jane Doe” civil filing — but those claims remain largely unprosecuted, variably documented, sometimes redacted or removed from public files, and in many instances uncorroborated [1] [2] [3].
1. The mid‑1990s allegations reported in court papers and filings
Several documents surfaced in litigation and court submissions alleging that Trump had sexual contact with a 13‑year‑old girl in the summer of 1994; those allegations appear in a civil filing (signed under oath) connected to litigation involving Jeffrey Epstein, with the plaintiff saying Trump had sexual contact with her at multiple parties in summer 1994 [1]. Independent summaries and legal commentary have treated that submission as a formal allegation; legal advocacy pieces first called attention to a related anonymous federal “Jane Doe” filing in 2016 that accused Trump of raping a 13‑year‑old in 1994, though that civil action did not produce a criminal indictment and was later dropped or remained unresolved in the public record [4] [1].
2. The “Katie Johnson” pseudonym and related claims tied to Epstein
Media reporting and compendia have chronicled at least one allegation published under a pseudonym — “Katie Johnson” — who said she was raped at 13 and connected her account to Epstein and, in filings, alleged contact involving Trump dating to 1994; these assertions emerged in litigation and reporting about Epstein’s network and are cited in summaries chronicling a series of allegations from the 1990s [2] [5]. Outlets that published or summarized the Epstein‑related dumps noted graphic, wide‑ranging claims that included allegations Trump was present at parties where underage girls were exploited, but those documents contained tips of varying provenance and credibility and were not equivalent to criminal convictions [5] [2].
3. Recent FBI/epstein‑file disclosures, removals and credibility questions
When the Department of Justice and news organizations released additional Epstein‑related materials in 2025–2026, internal FBI emails and tips mentioning alleged underage sex involving Trump were reported by multiple outlets; some items described an alleged forced oral‑sex incident “approximately 35 years ago” and an email to a child‑exploitation task force relaying a tip that a friend was forced to perform oral sex on Trump at age 13–14 [6] [7]. Several outlets also reported that certain child‑abuse allegations briefly appeared in the released files and were later removed or labeled uncorroborated, and the Department of Justice pushed back on the inclusion/credibility of those specific claims, leaving their evidentiary weight unclear [3] [5]. Media summaries emphasized that many of the newest tips were unverified, sometimes anonymous, and that investigators frequently failed to locate or contact complainants [5] [3].
4. Legal status, public record and what is not proven
Within the provided reporting, no criminal prosecution against Trump for child sexual abuse is documented; the allegations sit in civil filings, anonymous tips, or documentary leaks rather than in completed criminal cases [1] [7]. Reporting also shows that some claims were part of broader compilations of tips about Epstein’s network that varied widely in credibility and were sometimes excised from public releases, and that outlets have reported both the allegations and official denials or retractions tied to the releases [5] [3]. The available sources do not establish corroborated law‑enforcement outcomes — indictments, convictions, or civil judgments — specific to the child‑sex allegations in the public record as compiled here [1] [7].
5. Assessment, competing narratives and reporting limits
The corpus of allegations against Trump includes a small set that allege abuse of minors; defenders emphasize lack of corroboration and official disavowal of certain released tips while advocates and victims’ lawyers point to sworn declarations and contemporaneous references in Epstein‑case materials as reason to investigate further [1] [7] [3]. Reporting across the sources makes clear that some claims are serious and detailed, others anonymous and unverified, and that the public record is fragmented — journalists and prosecutors have encountered redactions, removed entries, and difficulties contacting alleged witnesses — so firm conclusions about criminal liability based solely on publicly released documents are not supported by the compiled reporting here [5] [3].