When did Katie Johnson first go public with her allegations against Donald Trump (year and date)?

1. How the story first entered the public record — a court filing that mattered

The earliest verifiable public act by Katie Johnson was the filing of a federal lawsuit on April 26, 2016, in the case docketed as Katie Johnson v. Donald J. Trump, 5:16-cv-00797; the complaint was submitted under court procedures and thus became part of the public record, even as the plaintiff initially sought anonymity and in forma pauperis status ^[1]. That complaint alleged sexual abuse occurring in 1994 when the plaintiff said she was 13. A judge terminated the case on May 2, 2016, citing procedural deficiencies and denying in forma pauperis status, a legal outcome that limited immediate public hearings on the merits but did not erase the filing itself from public view ^{[1] [2]}. The April 26 filing is therefore the concrete timestamp researchers and journalists use to mark when Johnson’s claims first entered publicly accessible legal channels ^[1].

2. Public appearances were planned but inconsistent — the November 2016 episode

After the April court filing, media accounts show a planned public press conference in early November 2016 organized by representatives including Lisa Bloom; Katie Johnson was widely reported to have been scheduled to go public then but did not appear, citing threats against her life and safety ^[3]. That no-show became part of the record: multiple outlets reported that an in-person press unveiling was canceled and that lawyers later filed notices of dismissal or refiling tied to safety concerns and procedural strategy ^{[2] [3]}. The gap between the April filing and the planned November appearance created confusion in contemporaneous coverage about when Johnson “went public,” with some accounts treating the court complaint as the public step and others emphasizing the planned—ultimately aborted—media event ^{[3] [2]}.

3. Legal churn and later filings — refiling, dismissal, and challenges to credibility

Following the April 2016 complaint, the case saw quick legal churn: dismissal on technical grounds in May 2016, subsequent refilings in mid-2016 and press-linked legal maneuvers later in the year, and additional public assertions in some outlets and interviews afterward ^{[2] [4]}. Major reporting noted that the suit was dismissed for failing to state a civil rights claim and that refilings were attempted in different forums, reflecting both tactical legal choices and the difficulties of bringing decades-old abuse allegations into court ^{[1] [4]}. Independent journalists and commentators raised inconsistencies and questioned parts of Johnson’s narrative and the cast of intermediaries promoting it, while other outlets emphasized the seriousness of the allegations and the obstacles survivors face when seeking redress after many years ^{[3] [5]}.

4. Why different accounts give different “first public” dates — filings vs. media appearances

Confusion over the “first public” date stems from two different public acts: the formal legal filing on April 26, 2016, which placed allegations into the public court record, and the later, attempted public revelation via press conferences and interviews in late 2016 and beyond ^{[1] [3]}. Some secondary sources summarize the story by referencing when Johnson spoke to journalists or planned to appear with lawyers; other sources treat the initial federal complaint as the decisive public step. Both are public acts, but only one — the April 26 court filing — has an indisputable docketed timestamp; planned or uncompleted media events leave ambiguous public timestamps and are therefore less reliable for establishing the first public disclosure ^{[1] [2]}.

5. Bottom line and what to watch — the documentary record versus disputed narratives

The documentary, verifiable record identifies April 26, 2016, as the date the allegations first entered public legal channels through a filed complaint ^[1]. Subsequent public behavior, including a canceled November 2016 press appearance and later refilings and interviews, complicated the timeline and contributed to divergent accounts in media summaries and retrospectives ^{[3] [4]}. Readers should treat the April 26 filing as the firm public starting point while noting that public-facing testimony and media appearances, some of which did not occur or were delayed, shaped broader perception and spawned credibility disputes and legal dismissals that influenced how the story was covered ^{[2] [5]}.