Did Ivana Trump publicly accuse Donald Trump of rape or sexual assault?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Ivana Trump did say in a 1990 divorce deposition that she “referred to” an act by Donald Trump as “rape,” then later added she did not intend the word in a “literal or criminal sense” and at other times disavowed the allegation; reporting and book excerpts show the deposition language and subsequent clarifications [1] [2] [3]. Major news summaries and fact-checks treat Ivana’s statement as an allegation made under oath that she later walked back or contextualized [4] [3].
1. What Ivana actually said under oath
Court and book reporting reproduces language from Ivana Trump’s early-1990s divorce deposition in which she described a 1989 sexual incident, saying “As a woman, I felt violated…I referred to this as a ‘rape,’ but I do not want my words to be interpreted in a literal or criminal sense” — language cited in multiple accounts and included in the reporting and in Harry Hurt III’s book excerpts [1] [2] [5].
2. Media and fact-check framing: “accused” vs. “referred to”
News outlets and fact-checkers report the deposition phrase in slightly different tones: some say Ivana “accused” Trump of rape in a deposition (AP’s phrasing) while others note she characterized the word as figurative and later issued statements calling the stories “totally without merit,” producing a mixed record that both records the sworn words and the later clarification [4] [3] [2].
3. Context in the divorce record and subsequent statements
Reporting indicates the remark appeared in divorce papers and was publicized later by journalists and in Hurt’s biography; after publication Ivana’s clarifying statement was inserted into the book’s flyleaf or otherwise publicized, saying she did not mean “rape” in a criminal sense and that as a woman she “felt violated” — a formulation many outlets treat as a partial retraction or contextualization [2] [1] [5].
4. How journalists and historians interpret the inconsistency
Some writers (e.g., Harry Hurt III, and outlets that cite his reporting) argue Ivana’s later clarification may have been influenced by legal or settlement pressures; others simply report both the deposition wording and her subsequent disavowal without taking a definitive stance on motive. Sources note she later endorsed Trump politically and publicly characterized the stories as “totally without merit,” which some see as a recantation while others view it as a constrained clarification [2] [6] [3].
5. Why reporting varies and what that means for the claim “she accused him”
The factual core — that Ivana used the word “rape” in a sworn deposition and then said she did not mean it literally — is consistent across sources [1] [2]. Variations in headlines and summaries stem from choices by outlets to emphasize the deposition wording (presented as an allegation) or the subsequent statement (presented as a retraction or qualification) — both are documented [4] [3].
6. Broader coverage and competing narratives
Summaries of Trump’s sexual-misconduct allegations commonly list Ivana among women who at one point accused or described nonconsensual conduct, but they also flag that Ivana later walked back the literal meaning of “rape” in public clarifications; different outlets therefore present competing emphases depending on whether they foreground the sworn deposition or Ivana’s later note [1] [5] [3].
7. What the records do not show (limitations)
Available sources do not provide a contemporaneous, independent police report or criminal charge arising from Ivana’s deposition language; reporting centers on the deposition text, book excerpts, and Ivana’s later clarifications rather than any criminal investigation tied to that statement [2] [1].
8. Bottom line for readers
Factually: Ivana used the word “rape” in a divorce deposition and then stated she did not intend that word in a literal or criminal sense; outlets and fact-checkers record both elements, which is why some headlines say she “accused” him while others say she “walked back” or contextualized the phrase [1] [2] [4]. Readers should note that reporting divergences reflect real tension in the record between the deposition quote and Ivana’s subsequent public clarifications [3] [5].