Fact check: Did Donald Trump release his academic transcripts from the University of Pennsylvania?

1. What people are claiming — the core assertions that drove this reporting

Media and investigators have centered on two tightly related assertions: first, that Donald Trump never made his Penn/Wharton transcripts public; second, that he actively sought to prevent schools and testing agencies from disclosing his grades or SAT scores. News articles and fact checks document that Trump long boasted about his academic prowess without providing verifiable transcripts, and that his lawyers — notably Michael Cohen during the relevant period — threatened legal action against institutions that might release records. These claims are supported by contemporaneous reporting of attorney letters and by Cohen’s later testimony that Trump directed him to stop any disclosures, framing this as a deliberate effort to keep educational records private ^{[1] [2] [3]}. The pattern of boasting without documentation and threats to institutions is central to the allegation that transcripts were purposefully withheld.

2. Documentary evidence and witness testimony that show deliberate suppression

The clearest documentary and testimonial support comes from Michael Cohen’s public testimony and reporting that attorneys representing Trump warned schools and the College Board against releasing transcripts or test scores. Cohen testified before a House committee that Trump directed him to threaten his high school, colleges, and the College Board to prevent disclosure of grades or SAT results. News outlets contemporaneously reported letters and warnings sent to institutions, including Fordham and Penn, and Pennsylvania officials declined to confirm release of records, citing privacy. These contemporaneous reports and Cohen’s testimony together constitute direct evidence that there were active efforts to block release of academic records, not merely an absence of voluntary disclosure ^{[2] [3]}.

3. How universities and FERPA shaped what could be disclosed — the legal context

Universities and administrative staff consistently pointed to federal privacy rules and institutional policy when asked about Trump’s records. Penn officials told reporters they were prohibited from releasing grades without the student’s written authorization, and admissions staff who recalled interviews or records noted they could not lawfully disclose transcripts without consent. This legal framework — the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) — means that absent the student’s permission or a legal subpoena, schools typically will not publish transcripts. Reports documenting institutional responses therefore reflect both legal constraints and the practical effect of counsel’s warnings, which together explain why no official transcript disclosure occurred in public reporting ^{[4] [5]}.

4. Independent reporting and gaps — what journalists confirmed and what remains unknown

Investigative pieces and fact checks conclude that journalists and watchdogs found no public release of Trump’s Penn transcripts. Reporters interviewed admissions officers and reviewed correspondence indicating threats, but they could not compel publication of sealed academic files. Several outlets highlighted inconsistencies between Trump’s public claims about academic honors and the lack of documentary proof, while also noting the limits reporters faced under privacy rules. The journalism establishes absence of evidence of release, and it documents proactive steps to prevent disclosure; it does not, however, produce a publicly authenticated copy of transcripts showing grades or class ranks. That specific evidentiary gap is the primary unknown left by reporting ^{[5] [6]}.

5. The bottom line — conclusion, competing narratives, and what would change the record

The established record shows that Donald Trump did not release his University of Pennsylvania transcripts publicly and that his representatives threatened legal action to keep grades and test scores from being disclosed, according to contemporaneous reporting and Cohen’s testimony. Competing narratives from supporters emphasize privacy rights and legal protections, while critics stress the mismatch between public claims and documentary evidence; both perspectives are grounded in verifiable facts about privacy rules and the documented threats. The record would change only if a legally authorized transcript or authenticated copy were produced and published; absent that, the factual finding stands: no public release has been substantiated, and deliberate efforts to prevent disclosure are documented ^{[1] [2] [3] [6]}.