Other sexual misconduct lawsuits against Donald Trump

1. What people are actually claiming — a long list of allegations that matters

The assembled analyses consistently report that dozens of women have accused Donald Trump of sexual misconduct, with the number cited varying from at least 26 to at least 28 complainants in the summaries provided. These allegations range from non-consensual groping and harassment to claims of rape and other assaults, and the reporting emphasizes that the allegations extend back to the 1970s and continued into his public life and campaigns. The analyses note that Trump has repeatedly denied the claims, calling accusers liars and attributing the allegations to political motivation, while others describe contemporaneous patterns of lewd commentary and behavior that surfaced publicly in 2005 via a leaked tape ^{[1] [4] [5]}.

2. What courts and juries have decided — verdicts, damages, and appeals

The available materials document concrete legal outcomes in at least one high‑profile civil case: E. Jean Carroll won a jury verdict finding Trump liable for sexual abuse and defamation and was awarded multi‑million dollar damages, including an $83–$88.3 million figure in the reporting here, though Trump is actively appealing and seeking Supreme Court review of aspects of that judgment ^{[2] [6]}. The analyses also note that one jury rejected a rape claim while finding liability for sexual abuse in a 1996 incident, producing a $5 million award later affirmed in broader damage totals; these findings have spawned protracted appeals and efforts by Trump’s legal team to overturn or limit the judgments ^{[3] [2]}.

3. How many lawsuits versus allegations — distinguishing legal files from media reports

The materials draw a clear distinction between the number of public accusers and the subset that produced formal lawsuits or civil verdicts. While dozens of women have publicly accused Trump (the analyses cite figures in the mid‑20s to high‑20s), only some of those accusations have become or resulted in civil litigation with final judgments. The Carroll case is the most concretely adjudicated matter referenced, while other accusations remain allegations reported in media coverage or cited in background summaries of Trump’s personal and business legal affairs. This distinction underscores that public allegations and legal findings are overlapping but not identical categories ^{[1] [7] [4]}.

4. The defendant’s posture — denials, counterclaims, and legal strategy

Across the sources, Trump’s response is consistently described as categorical denial, branding accusers “liars” and framing the cases as politically motivated or part of a broader conspiracy. At the same time, his legal strategy includes appeals, motions to overturn verdicts, and asking the Supreme Court to intervene in the Carroll matter—moves that signal a long‑term plan to challenge civil findings through higher courts rather than settling or conceding liability. The analyses also mention statements and public comments that have reinforced the adversarial nature of these cases and complicated public perceptions ^{[5] [2] [8]}.

5. Media, politics and the wider context — why coverage matters

The summaries show media outlets and reference works treating these allegations as central to Trump’s broader legal and political story. Reporting highlights connections with other controversies—such as prior public revelations about behavior and related personnel controversies—and notes that allegations have factored into political debates over fitness for office and cabinet appointments. The analyses also indicate that coverage sometimes emphasizes the number of accusers to establish pattern, while critics warn of partisan motives in timing and emphasis; both pattern and skepticism appear in the record ^{[1] [9] [4]}.

6. What remains unresolved and what to watch next

Key unresolved elements include the final disposition of appeals (including the Supreme Court petition in the Carroll case) and the legal status of other reported claims that have not produced final judgments. The analyses signal ongoing litigation activity and potential future rulings that could change damage totals, legal liabilities, or precedential questions about official‑capacity statements and defamation, meaning the factual and legal picture can shift with each appellate decision. Observers should watch appellate dockets and published rulings for definitive changes to the legal landscape summarized here ^{[2] [6] [3]}.