Are there publicly available nondisclosure agreements from Ivana Trump’s 1990 divorce settlement and where can they be accessed?
Executive summary
Public reporting and court rulings from the early 1990s make clear that a confidentiality (gag) clause was part of Ivana and Donald Trump’s divorce arrangements and that Donald Trump successfully sought to enforce that clause in later litigation, but there is no widely published, unredacted copy of the full nondisclosure agreement from the 1990/1991 settlement available in the public domain; contemporary news coverage, court opinions and later legal summaries are the primary accessible sources for the clause’s existence and enforcement [1] [2] [3].
1. The basic fact: a confidentiality clause existed and was litigated
Multiple mainstream summaries and later legal analyses recount that Ivana was required to accept confidentiality terms as part of her divorce settlement with Donald Trump and that Donald sued to enforce that provision after she published material he said violated it, leading to appellate rulings that reinforced the gag clause’s enforceability (Wikipedia summaries and related entries; [1]; [4]; [1]0).
2. What is publicly available: reporting and court decisions, not a full NDA text
Investigative outlets and legal commentators have cited court records and described the confidentiality agreement in detail, and a 1992 appellate decision and contemporaneous reporting covering that decision are in the public record, but these sources are descriptions or excerpts rather than a posted, complete copy of the original settlement document itself; outlets such as Law & Crime and archival news wires reported seeing court records or summarized the agreement, and legal journals have used the dispute as an example in discussions of NDAs (Law & Crime reporting; [3]; UPI archival story on the appellate decision; [2]; NYU Journal commentary; p1_s5).
3. Why the full NDA isn’t widely published—sealed settlement and court process
Contemporary and retrospective accounts repeatedly note that the settlement terms were treated as confidential and that portions of the divorce records were sealed or otherwise protected, which explains why reporters and scholars rely on court opinions and secondary reporting rather than on a publicly posted contract text; archived biographies and encyclopedic entries also state the settlement “remains sealed” in court records or was treated as subject to confidentiality provisions (archived Wikipedia/legal summaries; [5]; p1_s1).
4. How to access the materials that are publicly reachable
To see official, public materials about the confidentiality dispute one should consult the appellate decision and contemporaneous press coverage: the 1992 appellate ruling reinstating the gag clause was reported by news services and is cited by later writers, and legal analyses (for example Law & Crime’s 2016 piece and scholarly overviews) quote from or summarize the court filings and decisions that are publicly available through court archives, news wire archives and legal databases (UPI archival coverage; [2]; [3]; p1_s5).
5. What remains uncertain or unavailable in the sources provided
None of the supplied sources include a scanned, unredacted copy of the original signed nondisclosure agreement or the full sealed settlement paperwork, and the reporting emphasizes that while courts described and enforced confidentiality provisions, the original settlement language is not broadly posted online in the public domain in the documents supplied here—if unsealed copies exist they would be obtainable only through court records requests or archival retrieval and the sources at hand do not document such an unsealing (archive notices and reporting stating settlement was sealed; [5]; p1_s1).
6. Alternative viewpoints and hidden agendas in the record
Contemporaneous tabloid and biographical reporting focused on dollar figures and sensational allegations and sometimes relied on rumors about payout amounts, while legal commentators emphasize the significance of the appellate enforcement for NDA law; those different emphases reflect agendas—sensational press coverage sought readership via gossip, whereas legal outlets treat the case as precedent about enforceability of confidentiality clauses—readers should note that third‑party tallies of payment sums and property allocations vary across tabloids and encyclopedic summaries (tabloid-style coverage and rumor summaries; [6]; mainstream reporting citing sums but with variance; [7]; p1_s2).