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.
Are rape allegations against trump true
Executive summary
A 2023 federal jury in New York found Donald Trump civilly liable for sexually abusing E. Jean Carroll and for defaming her, and awarded Carroll $5 million — but that same jury did not find him liable for “rape” as defined under New York penal law (which the court instructed narrowly) [1] [2]. Subsequent judicial rulings and appeals have complicated how the verdict is described: Judge Kaplan wrote that Carroll’s use of the word “rape” was “substantially true” in ordinary meaning, while Trump has appealed and asked the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn the $5 million verdict [2] [3].
1. What the jury actually decided — narrow legal findings, not a criminal conviction
In May 2023 a Manhattan federal jury concluded, by the lower civil standard “preponderance of the evidence,” that Trump sexually abused Carroll and defamed her and awarded $5 million; the jury specifically answered that he was not liable for “rape” under the narrow New York criminal statutory definition the judge gave them [1] [4]. This was a civil finding, not a criminal conviction; juries in civil cases apply a different burden of proof than criminal juries and cannot impose criminal penalties [1] [4].
2. How language, law and context produced divergent summaries
Legal definitions matter: the court instructed the jury that “rape” meant penile penetration as defined in a particular section of New York Penal Law; the jury’s rejection of that narrow statutory formulation does not mean the jury rejected that sexual misconduct occurred — the jury separately found sexual abuse/sexual assault under other civil batter/battery standards [4] [1]. Judge Lewis Kaplan later wrote that Carroll’s accusation of “rape” is “substantially true” when using the common, non‑technical meaning of the word, creating a judicial statement that differs from the jury’s statutory finding [2].
3. Evidence, witnesses and contested credibility at trial
Court records and reporting note the trial included testimony from Carroll and supporting witnesses and the defense’s emphatic denials; neither eyewitnesses nor contemporaneous police reports were presented, which the defense has emphasized in appeals [5] [6]. Carroll’s lawyers used other testimony and context — including Trump’s own public statements and the “Access Hollywood” tape as contextual evidence — while defense lawyers argued the accusations were fabricated and politically motivated [1] [7] [3].
4. Appeals, further rulings, and attempts to overturn the verdict
Trump’s legal team has repeatedly appealed. Federal appeals courts have at times upheld parts of the rulings and judgments (including an $83.3 million related defamation award in a separate proceeding), but Trump has continued to seek relief — most recently petitioning the U.S. Supreme Court to review and overturn the $5 million verdict and related rulings, arguing evidentiary error and improper admission of “propensity” testimony [3] [7] [8].
5. Broader pattern of allegations and public debate
Reporting and compilations document dozens of past allegations of sexual misconduct against Trump stretching decades; those allegations vary in nature, outcome and legal resolution, and some repeatedly denied by Trump while others led to civil suits or settlements [9] [10] [11]. Commentators and advocates interpret the Carroll verdict as legally significant — some saying it “branded” a former president as a sexual predator in civil law terms — while critics highlight the absence of criminal proceedings and emphasize differences between civil and criminal findings [11] [1].
6. What can and cannot be concluded from the available reporting
Available sources show a civil jury found Trump liable for sexual abuse and defamation related to Carroll’s account and did not find him liable for rape under the statute as instructed [1] [4]. Available sources do not mention a criminal conviction of rape, and they show ongoing appeals and differing judicial characterizations [2] [3]. Whether any single allegation against Trump is “true” in an absolute sense is contested in public discourse; in this instance the legal record supports a civil finding of sexual abuse and defamation while stopping short, under the jury instructions, of a statutory rape finding [1] [4].
7. How journalists and readers should approach this question going forward
Readers should distinguish civil versus criminal outcomes, pay attention to statutory definitions used in court instructions, and follow appellate decisions because legal characterizations can change on appeal [4] [3]. When sources disagree — for example between a jury’s statutory finding and a judge’s later statement about “substantial truth” in ordinary language — report both points and cite the specific rulings or verdicts rather than using shorthand labels that conflate legal and colloquial meanings [2] [1].
Sources cited above include reporting and court opinions summarizing the E. Jean Carroll case and the related appeals [1] [2] [4] [3] [7] [8] [5].