What did Katie Johnson’s attorneys publicly say about why the lawsuit was withdrawn in 2016?
Executive summary
Katie Johnson’s attorneys publicly attributed the 2016 withdrawal of her civil lawsuit to safety concerns, saying she had received threats and was too afraid to appear at a planned press conference, while another explanation offered in filings and statements pointed to hostile courtroom treatment and procedural roadblocks — and Johnson’s lawyers denied that she was paid to drop the case [1] [2] Trumpsexualmisconduct_allegations" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">[3].
1. Withdrawal tied to threats and fear for her safety
Plaintiff counsel said the immediate reason the case was dropped was that the woman using the pseudonym “Katie Johnson” had received threats and was fearful for her safety, a claim repeated by multiple outlets reporting the lawyers’ statements that she did not feel safe to attend a planned public event and that the lawsuit was therefore dismissed by her attorneys [1] [2] [4].
2. Attorneys pointed to a hostile judicial posture and legal limits
Johnson’s team also framed the decision as born of adverse legal circumstances, with reports quoting the plaintiff as saying she was “facing a judge who openly questions whether the kiss is worthy of a federal lawsuit” and that the court had signaled limits on how relevant past behavior would be treated, an account that suggests procedural and evidentiary skepticism from the bench contributed to the withdrawal [3].
3. Counsel publicly denied payment or settlement inducements
Her lawyers publicly rejected theories that the case was withdrawn because of a payoff, with statements asserting that Trump did not pay Johnson to drop the suit and that she “has secured the right to speak freely about her experience,” a rebuttal offered by defense of the plaintiff’s motives and intended to undercut narratives of a hush-money resolution [3].
4. Timing and procedural notes reported by media
The chronology reported by news outlets underscores the suddenness of the dismissal: initial suits were filed in mid‑2016, a version was refiled or repleaded later in the year, and the case was withdrawn just days before the 2016 presidential election — a timing that lawyers’ public comments tied primarily to safety concerns rather than adjudication on the merits [1] [5] [6].
5. Alternative explanations, disputes, and the fog around identity and promotion
Outside observers and later reporting raised alternative explanations and flagged possible manipulation by outside actors: reporting and fact‑checks have noted involvement by promoters and questioned the provenance and handling of the claims, and some journalists and commentators have suggested that the case’s promotion and subsequent silence may reflect a mix of genuine threat fears, strategic legal calculation, and third‑party agendas — while Johnson’s lawyers maintained the withdrawal was not the result of payment [3] [7] [4].
6. What the public statements do — and do not — prove
The lawyers’ public statements consistently emphasize threats and courtroom adversity as the proximate reasons for withdrawal and explicitly deny a payoff, but they do not, in those public remarks, supply documentary proof of the threats, nor do they provide a full evidentiary record resolved in court; contemporaneous reporting therefore records the lawyers’ account as the stated rationale while noting that the substantive allegations were never adjudicated [1] [2] [4].