Fact check: What are the documented settlement amounts and terms (confidentiality, non-disclosure) in cases involving Trump or Trump Organization sexual misconduct claims?

1. Settlements and “hush money” that rewrote the headlines

The most widely documented payment at the center of criminal and civil scrutiny is the $130,000 paid in 2016 to Stephanie Clifford (Stormy Daniels) to suppress public discussion of an alleged 2006 encounter; that payment was made by Michael Cohen and later tied into prosecutions and business‑record charges ^{[1] [6]}. Reporting also attributes a roughly $150,000 payment connected to Karen McDougal, a former Playboy model, described as another effort to prevent pre‑election disclosure of alleged affairs. These payments became focal points for legal actions about campaign timing, reimbursement, and whether bookkeeping misstatements were used to conceal the transactions from regulators and the public ^{[2] [6]}. The $130,000 and $150,000 figures are the clearest monetary entries in the public record tied to alleged sexual misconduct and related silence efforts ^{[1] [2]}.

2. When confidentiality was explicit — and when it wasn’t

The Daniels payment is widely reported as part of a non‑disclosure arrangement intended to bar public discussion; legal challenges later questioned the agreement’s validity and enforceability, and the mechanics of payment and reimbursement became central to criminal and civil counts ^{[7] [1]}. By contrast, reporting on a 2016 confidential settlement involving Pete Hegseth shows a roughly $50,000 payout that did not include a nondisclosure agreement, with Hegseth’s attorney framing the payment as nuisance value to avoid potential blackmail rather than to impose silence ^{[3] [8]}. An ABC News settlement related to false reporting produced public remedies — $15 million to a presidential library, $1 million for legal fees, and an apology — and the docket shows no confidentiality clause, indicating the parties made resolution terms public rather than sealing them ^{[5] [9]}.

3. High‑stakes trials that replaced secrecy with verdicts

Not all high‑profile allegations ended in bargains. The E. Jean Carroll litigation did not resolve by settlement; juries found Donald Trump liable for sexual abuse and defamation in separate proceedings, yielding an initial $5 million award and later an $83.3 million verdict that included $65 million in punitive damages. Those outcomes were litigated, appealed, and secured through post‑judgment procedures including bonds; the public record therefore documents jury awards and appellate rulings rather than confidential payouts or NDAs in that matter ^[4]. The Carroll docket demonstrates that some alleged misconduct claims advanced through public adjudication to formal monetary judgments rather than negotiated secrecy ^[4].

4. Institutional NDAs: campaign and White House patterns

Separately from individual alleged misconduct settlements, the Trump campaign and White House have used non‑disclosure agreements widely, drawing litigation and policy scrutiny. A federal settlement invalidated 2016 campaign NDAs and required the campaign to pay about $450,000 to resolve claims, effectively freeing many staffers to speak publicly; academic scrutiny also documents broad and sometimes vague NDA practices in the Trump White House ^{[10] [11] [12]}. That institutional pattern matters because it shows a system of contractual silence that can intersect with—but is distinct from—individual alleged sexual‑misconduct payouts ^{[12] [10]}.

5. Reimbursements, legal tactics, and who actually paid

Reporting establishes that Michael Cohen paid the Daniels sum and was later reimbursed, placing the mechanics of payment and alleged reimbursement at the center of criminal charges and business‑record scrutiny ^[1]. The ABC News settlement, by contrast, involved neither hush‑money mechanics nor secrecy clauses but functioned as a public remediation for false reporting, including a substantial payment directed to a presidential library and a public apology ^{[5] [9]}. The Hegseth matter illustrates a category of lower‑profile confidential payouts that may be framed as nuisance settlements rather than formal NDAs, underscoring variation in who signs, who pays, and whether silence was contractually enforced ^{[3] [8]}.

6. What the public record still doesn’t show and why it matters

Available sources document several discrete monetary transactions and some public judgments, but they leave gaps: many alleged payouts either lack full public contracts or involve contested enforceability; some settlements are explicitly public and devoid of NDAs, while others were structured to prevent disclosure. The record shows a mix of explicit non‑disclosure use (Daniels), public resolutions (ABC), trial verdicts (Carroll), institutional NDA challenges ($450,000 campaign settlement), and an example of a payout reportedly without an NDA (Hegseth) ^{[1] [5] [4] [10] [3]}. These differences matter because they determine whether allegations remain hidden, litigated publicly, or become evidence in broader criminal or civil proceedings.