What records exist of Michael Parker or Kelly Feuer for whom settlements related to sexual assault were made by Trump or Epstein?
Executive summary
Extensive fact‑checking and investigative reporting find no public records tying the specific names Michael Parker or Kelly Feuer to verified out‑of‑court settlements paid by Donald Trump or Jeffrey Epstein for alleged sexual assaults; the two names appear largely in a viral meme and in secondary, unverified online claims [1] [2] [3]. Multiple mainstream fact‑checkers and news aggregators reported an inability to corroborate the asserted settlements and called the list of six named children unproven [1] [2] [4].
1. Viral list versus verifiable records: what the major fact‑checkers found
A widely circulated meme alleging that Trump paid multimillion‑dollar settlements to six minors — including “Michael Parker, 10” and “Kelly Feuer, 12” with specific dollar amounts and locations — has been investigated by fact‑checkers, which reported no corroborating court filings, payment records, or reliable contemporaneous reporting to support those specific settlement claims [1] [2]. Snopes examined versions of the list and identified some kernels of related litigation (such as lawsuits by a pseudonymous accuser) but concluded the detailed settlement claims in the meme lack supporting evidence [3]. PolitiFact similarly concluded it found no proof that Trump made the settlements described on the image [1].
2. Where the names show up: original sources and rumor sites
The precise names Michael Parker and Kelly Feuer appear in fringe blogs, rumor aggregators and long‑circulating “intel” posts that republished the six‑item list without providing primary documents; outlets such as The Intel Drop and Legal Schnauzer reproduced the list but did not supply verifiable court records or contemporaneous news citations corroborating the dollar amounts or payments [5] [6]. Other online articles and aggregations repeated the meme’s claims, which helped amplify them despite the absence of primary documentation [4] [7].
3. Related, documented litigation and what it does — and does not — prove
There are documented civil suits involving anonymous or pseudonymous plaintiffs who alleged sexual abuse involving Jeffrey Epstein and, in one set of filings, named Donald Trump; those suits (filed under pseudonyms such as “Katie Johnson” and later withdrawn or dismissed) are distinct from the specific six‑name meme and do not establish the specific settlements or victims named in the viral list [3] [4]. Fact‑checkers explicitly note that while some allegations against Epstein and some anonymous claims against Trump have been litigated, that body of litigation does not substantiate the meme’s precise roster, ages, locations, years, and settlement dollar amounts [3] [1].
4. Why the claims persist: incentives, circulation, and limits of public records
The list’s persistence owes much to social‑media virality, partisan incentives, and the reuse of unsourced lists by echo chambers; fact‑checking outlets trace the meme’s circulation and warn that repetition does not equal verification [1] [2]. Some alternative sites and blogs present the list as proven or cite unnamed “reputable” sources, but mainstream verifiers emphasize that these claims have not been backed by court dockets or payment records made public [6] [5]. It is also important to note that absence of publicly available records is not definitive proof that a private settlement never occurred, but the reporting reviewed found no documentary corroboration for the Michael Parker or Kelly Feuer items specifically [2] [1].
5. Bottom line and reporting limits
The best available, sourced reporting and fact‑checks conclude there is no credible, verifiable record that Donald Trump or Jeffrey Epstein paid settlements to individuals named Michael Parker or Kelly Feuer as described in the viral list; mainstream fact‑checkers and news aggregators found the claims unsubstantiated and traced the names largely to unverified online lists and rumor sites [1] [2] [4]. This analysis is limited to the cited reporting and public records examined by those outlets; where those sources say records do not exist or cannot be corroborated, that is what this report reflects rather than an absolute proof of non‑existence [3] [1].