Were there non-disclosure or confidentiality clauses included in Katie Johnson v. Trump and Epstein settlement?

1. What the record that is available actually shows — filings and dismissal

Court records and contemporary news reporting establish that an anonymous plaintiff using the pseudonym "Katie Johnson" filed civil claims in 2016 accusing Epstein and Trump of sexual assault when she was a minor; the suit was refiled and then dropped in November 2016, and the complaint and docket entries are preserved in public repositories ^{[2] [4] [3]}. Those sources document procedural activity — complaint, attempts to proceed in forma pauperis, and returned mail — but do not include a public, filed settlement agreement attached to the docket in the provided captures ^{[3] [4]}.

2. No publicly reported settlement or NDA appears in the cited materials

The sources you supplied (news summaries and the docket snapshots) repeatedly note the filing and later withdrawal of the case but do not show or quote any settlement documents or nondisclosure provisions linked to Katie Johnson’s suit ^{[1] [2] [3]}. Because a settlement or NDA would be a distinct, reportable court filing or leaked document, the absence of such material in these sources means available reporting does not mention an agreement containing confidentiality clauses ^{[4] [3]}.

3. How other reporting has treated similar Epstein‑era documents — useful context

When documents tied to Epstein prosecutions or civil suits have been released in other matters, outlets have reported and quoted explicit agreements or redactions where present; by contrast, multiple background pieces on the "Katie Johnson" matter treat it as a withdrawn anonymous civil action and emphasize that allegations never reached court adjudication ^{[2] [5]}. This contrast suggests that when a settlement exists and is public, major outlets typically flag confidentiality language — but in this instance the supplied coverage does not make that claim ^{[2] [5]}.

4. Reporting that suggests continued mystery and unanswered questions

Longer-form reporting and retrospectives emphasize that the Katie Johnson litigation disappeared from public view and that many details remain unresolved; some investigative pieces and commentators (including Michael Cohen‑related reporting) raise questions about efforts behind the scenes in 2016, but those pieces do not, in the material you provided, present a produced settlement document with NDA terms ^{[6] [7]}. Thus, the situation is portrayed as a "vanishing" case with unanswered procedural and factual questions ^{[7] [6]}.

5. Limitations of the available record and what that means for claims about NDAs

Because the supplied sources either summarize the allegation-and-dismissal timeline or reproduce court-docket listings without appended settlement paperwork, any definitive claim that a confidentiality clause existed would require citation to an actual settlement document, court filing, or authoritative reporting of such a document; the provided sources do not contain that ^{[4] [3] [2]}. Therefore, available sources do not mention a non‑disclosure or confidentiality clause in Katie Johnson v. Trump ^{[4] [3]}.

6. Competing narratives and why they persist

Advocates and commentators who treat the episode as part of a broader pattern around Epstein-era litigation point to secrecy in other cases and plea agreements as reason for suspicion; others note there is no public evidentiary record in this particular case because it was withdrawn and the plaintiff was anonymous ^{[5] [2]}. Both lines of reporting are present in the supplied material: one stresses wider concerns about sealed documents tied to Epstein, the other emphasizes the narrow fact that the Katie Johnson complaint was filed and later dropped without public settlement paperwork shown ^{[5] [2]}.

Conclusion — what you can and cannot say from these sources

From the items you provided, one can reliably say the anonymous "Katie Johnson" complaint was filed in 2016 and later withdrawn, and that the public docket snapshots and mainstream summaries in these sources do not show or describe a settlement containing an NDA ^{[2] [3] [4]}. If you seek confirmation that a confidentiality clause existed, that would require either a settlement filing, a leaked agreement, or definitive reporting citing such a document — none of which appears in the supplied sources ^{[4] [3] [2]}.