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.
How did Howard Stern and the live audience react during Trump's comments about Ivanka in 2006?
Executive summary
Video and reporting show Donald Trump, Ivanka Trump and Donald Trump Jr. appeared on The Howard Stern Show in February 2006 for a bantering interview; during that segment Howard Stern asked Ivanka about past relationships and sexual matters and at one point a commentator on the show labeled someone a “sexual predator,” after which Trump appears to mouth or say “that’s true” while people in the studio laugh [1] [2]. Coverage differs on emphasis and interpretation—Snopes frames the clip as part of a lighthearted, joke-filled interview [1], while outlets republishing the clip highlight the resurfaced footage’s shock value amid later controversies [2] [3].
1. The moment in context: a jokey, promotional appearance
Trump, Ivanka and Donald Jr. were on Stern’s show on Feb. 27, 2006, to promote The Apprentice and the interview is described consistently as “filled with jokes and laughs,” with Stern pressing Ivanka about her dating life and past relationship with James “Bingo” Gubelmann [1] [2]. Snopes emphasizes that the segment aired as a broadly jocular exchange rather than a formal news interview [1].
2. What is visible and what reporters say Trump did
Video and reporting show that, during a line of questioning about dating and “sexual predators,” someone in the studio called attention to the topic and Robin Quivers said “You are one!” to Trump—after which Trump “appeared to mouth” or say “that’s true” and people in the room laugh; Stern repeats “It’s true” and Quivers laughs loudly [1] [2] [3]. Multiple outlets describe Trump’s reaction as laughter and light banter rather than a solemn admission [1] [2].
3. How observers have interpreted it — two competing readings
One interpretation treats the exchange as offhand joking in a shock-radio environment: Snopes notes the show’s tone and frames the clip as part of a humorous, laughter-filled segment that has been shared out of context [1]. The other interpretation, echoed by several outlets republishing the clip in later years, treats the same mouthing or remark as alarming when revisited amid broader allegations and controversies about Trump’s behavior, emphasizing how the visual of him saying “that’s true” looks to critics [2] [3]. Both readings are present in the supplied reporting [1] [2] [3].
4. The live audience and studio reaction: laughter, surprise, and minimal pushback
Reporting and the resurfaced clip describe laughter from Howard Stern, a loud laugh from Robin Quivers, and an off-mic “Oh my God” from an unidentified person immediately after the line—no sustained challenge or protest is documented in the sources; the interaction moved on as part of the program’s banter [1] [2] [3]. Available sources do not mention a broader studio confrontation, audience walkout, or formal rebuke at the time [1] [2].
5. Historical pattern and why the clip resurfaced
Several outlets and compilations cite the Stern appearances as part of a longer record of Trump making sexually charged comments about women, including Ivanka, across years of Stern interviews—examples include Trump calling Ivanka “voluptuous” (October 2006) and previously saying Stern could call her a “piece of ass” [4] [5] [6] [7]. That pattern is why the 2006 clip was widely reshared and framed as more serious when new controversies (for example, the Epstein-related reporting and leaked tapes) brought renewed scrutiny to Trump’s past remarks [2] [5].
6. Limitations and what the supplied reporting does not, or cannot, claim
The supplied sources document what the clip shows and how outlets framed it; they do not provide a verbatim, timestamped transcript proving an audible “that’s true” beyond descriptions that Trump “appeared to mouth” or “appeared to say” it [1] [2]. Available sources do not mention legal findings or contemporaneous complaints tied to that specific exchange in 2006 [1] [2]. If you are seeking a definitive, word-for-word confirmation, the present reporting relies on the video’s visual and audio cues and on news organizations’ summaries rather than a court transcript or an official statement from participants [1] [2].
7. Why this matters now — framing and agendas
Outlets that resurface such clips typically do so to illustrate broader narratives—either to contextualize a public figure’s pattern of conduct (e.g., CNN’s KFile and other retrospectives) or, alternately, to rebut claims that the footage is being misrepresented (e.g., fact-checking accounts). Snopes emphasizes context and how the show’s tone affects interpretation [1], while news outlets republishing the clip frame it as potentially incriminating or revelatory in light of later allegations [2] [3]. Be aware that both editorial goals—contextualizing versus amplifying—shape how the same footage is presented.
If you want, I can extract and time-stamp the exact sequence of audible lines as reported by Snopes and other outlets, or compile links to the original clips referenced in these stories for you to review directly [1] [2].