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.
What did Stormy Daniels (Stephanie Clifford) and Karen McDougal allege and how did hush-money matters evolve in 2016–2018?
Executive summary
Prosecutors say two separate 2016-era efforts sought to suppress allegations about former President Donald Trump: Michael Cohen paid Stormy Daniels $130,000 shortly before the election to keep her from going public about an alleged 2006 sexual encounter [1] [2], and American Media Inc. (AMI)/the National Enquirer bought the rights to Karen McDougal’s account for about $150,000 and then did not publish it (“catch and kill”) [1] [2] [3]. Reporting and court testimony from 2018–2024 tie those payments to broader efforts by Trump associates to shield the 2016 campaign from damaging stories, while Trump has denied the affairs and denying direct involvement in the Daniels payment [3] [4].
1. The allegations at the center: Daniels’ encounter and McDougal’s claimed affair
Stormy Daniels (Stephanie Clifford) has said she had a sexual encounter with Trump in 2006; prosecutors and reporting focus on a $130,000 payment arranged in 2016 to keep that allegation from becoming campaign news [1] [2]. Karen McDougal, a former Playboy model, claims a months‑long affair with Trump beginning in the mid‑2000s; AMI paid her roughly $150,000 for the rights to her story and never ran it, a move later described as “catch and kill” to bury the claim [1] [2] [3].
2. How the hush‑money transactions unfolded in 2016–2018
According to court filings, reporting and testimony, the Daniels payment was made by Michael Cohen in October 2016; Cohen later said Trump reimbursed him, an assertion Trump disputes [2] [4]. Separately, AMI purchased McDougal’s story in 2016, paying about $150,000 to keep it from being published just before the election [1] [3]. In 2018 reporting and subsequent legal actions, federal investigators and journalists traced communications and payments that linked Cohen, AMI’s executives, and Trump’s circle to efforts to suppress both stories [3] [5].
3. Legal aftermath and the campaign‑finance angle
Reporting from The Wall Street Journal and subsequent prosecutions raised the possibility that the payments functioned as in‑kind campaign expenditures because they were intended to influence the 2016 election by silencing damaging stories; Michael Cohen pleaded guilty in 2018 to charges tied to such payments [3] [6]. AMI later acknowledged the McDougal payment was coordinated “in concert” with Trump’s campaign and has faced regulatory scrutiny for that conduct [7].
4. Who did what — disputed lines of responsibility
Michael Cohen has said he acted at Trump’s direction in arranging the Daniels payment; prosecutors and some reporting say Trump was involved in “nearly every step” of arrangements with Daniels and McDougal [3] [2]. Trump and his lawyers have denied the affairs and have denied improper conduct regarding the payments; the public record contains competing versions of whether Trump personally authorized or directly funded the Daniels payout [3] [4].
5. Evidence, witness testimony, and media corroboration
Coverage relies on a mix of documented payments, text messages, corporate contracts and testimony — including excerpts shown at trial and reporting based on interviews and documents — tying Cohen, AMI and others to the transactions [5] [3]. Testimony in Manhattan criminal proceedings and other courts has introduced banking records and communications that prosecutors say show coordination to bury stories that could hurt the 2016 campaign [5] [6].
6. Differing legal strategies and prosecution choices
Prosecutors focused their criminal case in Manhattan on the Daniels payment but have used the McDougal matter to show a broader pattern of behavior; at times prosecutors declined to call McDougal herself as a witness, citing strategic considerations [1] [8]. Media outlets differ in emphasis: some foreground Cohen’s guilty plea and documentary evidence [3], others highlight AMI’s role in “catch and kill” and its links to Trump allies [7] [5].
7. What remains contested or not covered in these reports
Available sources document the payments, related testimony and the competing public statements, but they also record denials by Trump and limits to what individual sources can conclusively prove about direct instructions or funding sources [3] [4]. Specifics about any private conversations that were not produced in documents or testimony are not fully detailed in the cited reporting — available sources do not mention every private interaction alleged.
Context note: reporting from 2018 into 2024 stitched together transactional records, witness testimony and corporate acknowledgments to portray a coordinated effort to suppress election‑timed stories [3] [5]. Different outlets and witnesses emphasize different actors — Cohen as the intermediary, AMI as the corporate vehicle, and Trump’s role as disputed — so readers should weigh both documentary evidence presented in court and the denials from Trump’s side [3] [4].