What was Donald Trump's account of how he and Carroll entered the dressing room and how did it differ from her version?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
E. Jean Carroll testified that in the mid-1990s Donald Trump steered a friendly shopping encounter into a dressing-room attack at Bergdorf Goodman, saying he motioned her into a dressing room and she did not see anyone else there before he assaulted her [1] [2]. Trump has denied the rape allegation across filings and public statements and argued procedural errors in the civil trial that found him liable for sexual abuse and defamation; jurors found him liable for sexual abuse (not rape) in May 2023 and awarded $5 million, a verdict he is appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court [3] [4] [5].
1. Carroll’s account: a friendly encounter that ended in a dressing‑room attack
Carroll told the Manhattan jury that the meeting began as a congenial shopping interaction in Bergdorf Goodman’s lingerie section in the mid‑1990s when Trump picked out a bodysuit and directed her to try it on; she said he motioned her into a dressing room, she did not see anyone else nearby, and inside the door was shut before the assault began, after which she fled onto Fifth Avenue in shock [1] [2]. Carroll testified at length in the 2023 civil trial, describing an attack she said left her traumatized and that she later publicly disclosed in a 2019 New York magazine article [1] [5].
2. Trump’s account and formal denials: consistent rejection and procedural challenge
Trump has consistently denied Carroll’s allegation, calling the claim a “hoax” in public remarks and rejecting the substance of her story in filings challenging the verdict; his lawyers have framed the $5 million judgment as the product of judicial error and “indefensible evidentiary rulings” that, they say, improperly allowed inflammatory testimony from other accusers [6] [7]. In appellate briefs and his petition to the Supreme Court he has not conceded the conduct Carroll described and instead sought to overturn the liability finding on legal grounds [5] [4].
3. Where the narratives diverge most sharply
The core factual divergence is how each describes the dressing‑room moment: Carroll says Trump motioned her to a private dressing room, shut the door and assaulted her when nobody else was present; Trump’s public posture and legal filings deny the assault occurred and contend the verdict was tainted by trial rulings and inadmissible evidence rather than addressing detailed factual chronology in the same way Carroll did at trial [1] [7]. Available sources do not mention a separate, detailed alternative timeline from Trump that pins different movements in the store or the presence of other people at that exact moment—his challenge has centered on legal and evidentiary objections rather than narrating a competing in‑store sequence [5] [4].
4. What jurors found and what they did not
A federal jury in May 2023 found Trump liable for sexually abusing Carroll in a Bergdorf Goodman dressing room in the mid‑1990s and also found he defamed her when he called her allegation a “hoax”; jurors did not find him liable for rape under the criminal definition, and the civil finding carries a lower burden of proof (“more likely than not”) [3] [4]. The appellate court later affirmed the $5 million verdict, and Trump has appealed to the Supreme Court seeking reversal [2] [5].
5. Evidence and trial strategy: propensity testimony and the “Access Hollywood” tape
Trump’s appeal highlights his lawyers’ contention that Judge Lewis Kaplan erred by allowing testimony from two other women and by permitting Carroll’s team to use the “Access Hollywood” tape—items the defense argued prejudiced jurors by suggesting propensity rather than addressing the single incident at issue [5] [6]. The appeals panel rejected that argument in December 2024, and those rulings form the backbone of Trump’s petition to the Supreme Court [5] [6].
6. Limits of current reporting and open questions
Reporting in the supplied sources details Carroll’s on‑the‑stand description of how they entered the dressing room and the courtroom dispute over admissible evidence, but available sources do not provide a point‑by‑point counter‑narrative from Trump that offers a detailed alternative account of entering the dressing room or who else was present at the moment—his response in public and legal filings focuses on denying the assault and challenging procedural rulings rather than reconstructing the in‑store sequence in published reports [4] [5].
7. Why this matters beyond the two accounts
The contrast between Carroll’s detailed courtroom testimony about the dressing room and Trump’s denials plus procedural appeals shapes public understanding and legal consequences: the jury accepted Carroll’s version under civil standards and awarded damages, while Trump’s strategy has been to undermine the trial’s admissibility and process in higher courts [4] [7]. Readers should note that competing perspectives exist in the record—Carroll’s sworn testimony versus Trump’s denials and appellate arguments—and that much of the dispute now plays out as legal questions about evidence and trial procedure [1] [5].