Is trump fighting release of his DNA in a race case?

1. What the DNA dispute is about — the dress and “unidentified male DNA”

Carroll’s legal team asked the court to compel a DNA sample from Trump to compare with male DNA detected on a Donna Karan dress she says she wore during the incident; lab reports disclosed to her lawyers showed DNA from “four or more people, at least one of whom was male,” and names of those tested were redacted in the report ^{[1] [4] [2]}.

2. Carroll’s position: testing is “standard operating procedure”

Carroll’s counsel argued that modern advances make testing an accused person’s DNA a routine and relevant step when unidentified male DNA is present on key evidence; PBS and Reuters reported she asked for a simple cheek swab to run comparisons and said there was “no valid basis for him to object” ^{[1] [2]}.

3. Trump’s team: conditional offers and bargaining over documents

Reporting shows Trump’s lawyers at times offered DNA provision on conditions — for example, seeking missing pages of a lab report or tying the sample to narrow uses — portraying their offer as limited and, according to The New York Times, not intended to delay the case ^[5]. Bloomberg noted Carroll once signaled she could defer a DNA request to blunt timing arguments from Trump’s side ^[7].

4. Judges have intervened — late offers rejected as untimely

A federal judge in February 2023 rejected a conditional, last-minute offer from Trump to provide DNA, calling it a “delay tactic” and “patently untimely,” and ruled that no DNA evidence would be admitted at that upcoming trial because discovery had closed ^{[6] [3] [8]}. The judge said reopening DNA disputes close to trial would prejudice Carroll and change the trial’s nature ^[8].

5. Timeline and prior discovery deadlines

Court correspondence shows deadlines were set years earlier for Trump to produce DNA as part of discovery; some deadlines were paused or adjusted amid related appeals, but filings and notices in 2020 and later document repeated requests and scheduled dates for DNA production that Trump did not meet on the original schedule ^{[9] [1]}.

6. Conflicting narratives and courtroom strategy

There are competing interpretations in reporting: Carroll’s team frames DNA testing as routine and probative; Trump’s lawyers have framed conditional offers as limited or raised procedural objections, and judges have at times concluded timing and prejudice concerns warranted exclusion. The Washington Times and Law&Crime emphasized that Trump had years to comply and that a sudden offer appeared tactical ^{[8] [9]}, while The New York Times covered the conditional nature of his lawyers’ offer and their request for reciprocal production ^[5].

7. What the available reporting does not say

Available sources do not mention final, comprehensive public results from any DNA comparison between Trump and the unidentified male DNA noted in the dress report; they also do not provide full lab reports in the public record here, nor do they describe any court ruling based on a completed DNA match in this matter (not found in current reporting).

8. Why the dispute matters beyond one piece of evidence

For Carroll’s claims, a DNA match could have been materially probative about contact with the dress; for Trump, the dispute became part of broader litigation strategy about timing, discovery scope and appellate maneuvers. Judges’ emphasis on procedural fairness shows how courts balance evidentiary relevance against late-stage changes that could prejudice trial preparation ^{[3] [8]}.

Bottom line: multiple outlets document that Carroll sought Trump’s DNA and that Trump’s lawyers resisted or conditioned producing a sample; a judge once rejected a late offer as a delay tactic and barred DNA from that trial, and public reporting does not show a completed public DNA comparison between Trump and the dress samples ^{[1] [5] [3]}.