Which alleged sexual‑misconduct claims against Donald Trump were resolved by private settlement and what public records exist about their terms?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Several women who have accused Donald Trump of sexual misconduct either settled civil claims or saw earlier allegations end with private arrangements, but public records about the monetary terms and nondisclosure details are patchy: Jill Harth’s 1997 action was withdrawn after a settlement described as undisclosed [1], Ivana Trump’s 1990 divorce settlement reportedly included a confidentiality component documented in contemporary reporting [2], and a number of other widely circulated claims have no verifiable public settlement records or were never pursued to a documented private settlement [3]. At the same time, at least one high‑profile allegation — E. Jean Carroll’s — was resolved through litigation and a public judgment rather than a confidential payout [4].
1. The settled suits documented in reporting: Jill Harth and Ivana Trump
Two of the most frequently cited examples of alleged private resolutions are Jill Harth’s 1997 lawsuit and the post‑divorce agreement with Ivana Trump: reporting summarizes that Harth filed claims alleging non‑consensual groping and sexual harassment and that her suit was withdrawn after what was described as a settlement for an undisclosed amount tied to a separate business dispute [1], while coverage of Ivana’s 1990 divorce states that after a settlement was reached an earlier rape allegation was softened and that she was, according to Lost Tycoon and The Guardian’s timeline, subject to restrictions on discussing her marriage as part of the agreement [2]. Both items are described in secondary reporting; the specific dollar figures and full text of nondisclosure terms are not publicly produced in the sources provided [1] [2].
2. Public court outcomes versus private payouts: E. Jean Carroll as a contrast
Not all significant accusations were handled by private settlement: E. Jean Carroll’s allegation proceeded through litigation and culminated in rulings and publicly reported damages rather than a sealed hush deal, and the case generated extensive court filings and appeals that are part of the public record [4]. Carroll’s litigation illustrates that some complainants pursued adjudication in court — producing accessible records and judgments — while other matters described in media accounts are summarized as settled without accompanying public court filings to disclose terms [4].
3. Claims with no clear public settlement record and online exaggeration
Several sensational claims circulating online—most notably memes asserting cumulative multimillion‑dollar payouts for child‑rape allegations—do not match the public record: fact‑checking found those narratives unproven and noted that many purported settlements lack corroborating court documents or credible contemporaneous evidence [3]. The Snopes review highlights that some lawsuits were dismissed or withdrawn and that assertions of a $35 million total in secret settlements rely on unverified chain‑of‑claims rather than documented public records [3].
4. What public records actually exist and what they show
Public court records and reporting confirm some procedural outcomes (lawsuits filed, suits withdrawn, trials and judgments), but the sources provided do not include comprehensive disclosure of settlement agreements or identical copies of nondisclosure agreements for the Harth or Ivana matters; the existence of settlements is reported, while monetary terms and full contractual text are described as “undisclosed” or reported via secondary accounts [1] [2]. By contrast, E. Jean Carroll’s case generated docketed filings and judgments that are part of the public legal record [4].
5. Competing narratives, denials and the incentive to conceal
Those who defend Trump have repeatedly asserted denial, and White House spokespeople historically framed many allegations as false, an official posture noted in contemporaneous press exchanges [1], while survivors and their lawyers argue that confidentiality and settlements are common outcomes in abuse claims — sometimes obscuring public knowledge of terms. Reporting and fact‑checking show both the political incentives to amplify or minimize settlements and the journalistic and legal limits when agreements are confidential or settlements go unrecorded in open court [1] [3].
6. Bottom line for researchers seeking terms
Publicly available sources confirm a small number of resolved matters (Harth; Ivana’s divorce settlement) but do not supply complete settlement amounts or full nondisclosure texts in the materials provided here [1] [2], while other allegations were litigated publicly (Carroll) or remain unproven in terms of secret payouts [4] [3]. To establish precise monetary terms or NDA language, researchers must locate original sealed settlement filings, contemporaneous court dockets or authenticated copies of agreements — items not present in the sourced reporting supplied for this review [1] [2] [3].