Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Katie johnson’s deposition about trump
Executive summary
The plaintiff using the pseudonym “Katie Johnson” filed a 2016 civil complaint alleging she was raped by Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein as a 13‑year‑old; that California case was dismissed the same year and similar anonymous claims appeared in later filings [1] [2]. Court dockets, archived complaint text, and multiple news outlets have made the filings public, but available sources do not show a public, on‑record deposition by “Katie Johnson” that quotes her giving sworn testimony in open court [3] [2].
1. The basic record: a dismissed 2016 civil suit and public complaint text
A woman identified in filings as “Katie Johnson” (also referred to as “Jane Doe” in some filings) filed a civil lawsuit in 2016 accusing Jeffrey Epstein and Donald Trump of sexual abuse dating to 1994 when she says she was 13; the complaint alleges repeated sexual assaults and names specific alleged acts [1] [2]. The Central District of California docket for Katie Johnson v. Donald J. Trump (case 5:16‑cv‑00797) shows the suit was filed and later dismissed in 2016, and the case record is indexed on CourtListener and similar archival sites [3] [4].
2. What the complaint contains and how it circulated
Full‑text versions of the complaint are available in public archives; those texts include graphic allegations and detailed narrative claims that the plaintiff says occurred at Epstein’s Manhattan residence and involved Trump [2]. Some websites reposted or excerpted the lawsuit text for readers (for example, DailyKos and Archive.org have versions of the filing) and news outlets summarized the basic allegations [5] [2].
3. Depositions and sworn testimony: what sources say and do not say
Many reports summarize depositions, declarations, or transcripts tied to the broader Epstein litigation, but the specific existence of a sworn deposition transcript of “Katie Johnson” made public is not documented in the sources you provided. Court dockets list filings and discovery referrals for the Johnson case but do not, in the cited entries, display a public deposition transcript for “Katie Johnson” [3]. Available sources do not mention a public, court‑filed deposition transcript in which Katie Johnson testifies under oath on the record [3] [2].
4. Media coverage and fact checks: consensus and caveats
News outlets and fact‑checking pieces (e.g., Newsweek, PBS, El País summaries) note the anonymous plaintiff and describe the filing history — that the California suit was filed and then dropped in 2016 — but they also emphasize the plaintiff used a pseudonym and that legal actions tied to Epstein have produced many documents and depositions across multiple cases [6] [7] [8]. Fact checks and reputable outlets reproduce the core claim that an anonymous plaintiff alleged rape involving Epstein and Trump, but they stop short of presenting an independently verified deposition transcript of “Katie Johnson” [6] [7].
5. Why the presence or absence of a deposition matters
A deposition is sworn testimony under oath; a public deposition transcript would be important evidence for journalists and researchers. The docket entries and archived complaint show civil allegations existed and were litigated briefly, but the sources provided do not establish that a deposition by the pseudonymous plaintiff was made publicly available, limiting what can be definitively reported about sworn testimony [3] [2]. Reporters have instead relied on filings, summaries, and discovery documents from related Epstein litigation [6] [8].
6. Conflicting narratives and disclaimers in reporting
Some local and national outlets recount the claims as part of the broader Trump‑Epstein story; others stress that the Johnson filing was anonymous and quickly dismissed, advising caution about drawing firm conclusions from a single, dismissed civil complaint [1] [7] [8]. Where sources disagree, the disagreement is primarily about emphasis — some stories foreground the seriousness of the allegation and archival availability of the text, others underline the lack of prosecution or public sworn deposition and the case’s dismissal [6] [1].
7. What’s missing from current reporting and next steps for verification
Available sources do not mention a publicly filed deposition transcript of “Katie Johnson” nor do they present criminal charges emerging from this specific filing [3] [2]. To verify whether a deposition exists, obtain the sealed/unsealed docket filings from the Central District of California for case 5:16‑cv‑00797, check official court transcript requests, or seek confirmation from the attorneys who represented “Katie Johnson” [3]. Archive copies of the complaint and secondary coverage are accessible and form the basis of current public knowledge [2] [5].