What are the key allegations Katie Johnson makes in her court filings against Donald Trump?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Katie Johnson — a pseudonym used by an anonymous plaintiff — filed a federal complaint in April 2016 accusing Donald J. Trump and Jeffrey Epstein of repeatedly sexually assaulting and raping her beginning in 1994, when she alleges she was 13 years old, and seeking substantial damages; the case was quickly dismissed and later withdrawn amid questions about the pleading and the plaintiff’s anonymity [1] [2] [3]. Reporting and public records show the claim resurfaced intermittently as Epstein-related documents were released, but the original federal complaint did not survive initial screening and was not adjudicated on the merits [3] [1].
1. The central criminal allegation: rape at Epstein’s residence when she was 13
The filing — as described in contemporaneous reporting and summaries of the complaint — alleges that in 1994 the plaintiff was “forcibly raped” by both Jeffrey Epstein and Donald Trump at Epstein’s Manhattan apartment, and that the assaults occurred repeatedly over a period of weeks or months when she was an adolescent (described in reporting that summarizes the April 2016 complaint) [2] [1] [4]. The complaint framed the events as involving underage sex and sexual violence tied to Epstein’s social circle rather than as a single isolated incident [1].
2. Broader allegations: underage sex parties, trafficking context and pattern of abuse
Beyond the single-scene claim, the plaintiff’s papers portrayed the alleged conduct as part of a pattern of underage sex parties and trafficking-like activity connected to Epstein’s circle, alleging that the men took turns abusing her and that the incidents escalated in severity over time — assertions reporters reconstructed from the 2016 filing and related documents [1] [4]. Those characterizations linked the named defendants to a network of exploitative behavior that the plaintiff said included multiple encounters and settings [1].
3. Legal posture: federal filing, $100 million demand, swift dismissal
The anonymous plaintiff filed in federal court in Riverside, California, seeking roughly $100 million in damages and naming Trump and Epstein as defendants; the suit was filed in April 2016 and was dismissed by early May 2016 for failing to state a federal civil-rights claim under the statutes cited by the complaint, after which the case did not proceed to a merits trial [1] [3]. Court dockets and archival copies show the complaint was terminated without a decision on the factual allegations and that routine procedural documents (motions, notices) were filed before the court closed the case [3] [5].
4. Anonymity, identity questions, and safety concerns
The plaintiff used the pseudonym “Katie Johnson” in the filings and in public reporting, and her anonymity and whereabouts became a focal point: news outlets reported that the woman who filed under that name later withdrew the case and did not publicly press the matter, with her lawyers at the time saying she had received threats and was afraid to appear publicly [6] [1]. Subsequent reviews of Epstein-related materials released by others showed references to a California plaintiff that some interpreted as connected to the “Katie Johnson” filing, but public records about her identity and follow-up testimony remain limited [1].
5. Pushback, contested narratives, and how the record has been used
Representatives for Trump at the time described the allegations as “categorically untrue,” and the complaint’s rapid dismissal for pleading defects has been used by critics to cast doubt on the factual claims; conversely, advocates and some reporters point to Epstein-era documents and ancillary records that reference a California plaintiff as support for renewed scrutiny of the allegation [6] [1]. Public interest in the filing has routinely re-emerged when Epstein-related documents were unsealed, but the core federal complaint itself was never litigated to a fact-finding conclusion and thus remains legally unresolved in the public docket [3] [1].