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.
Did trump say 14 was old enough to make up mind about sex
Executive summary
Reporting and archival clips show Donald Trump made remarks in the early 1990s that implied romantic interest in girls aged 10 and 14 — e.g., telling a 10‑year‑old “I’m going to be dating her in 10 years” and, per a Chicago Tribune wire report cited by multiple outlets, saying to two 14‑year‑olds, “Wow! Just think — in a couple of years I’ll be dating you” [1] [2]. Available sources do not show a direct quote from Trump phrasing the issue as “14 was old enough to make up [their] mind about sex”; other reports document his comments about a 14‑year‑old teacher‑student case in later interviews [3].
1. What the contemporaneous clips and wire reports actually record
A 1992 Entertainment Tonight segment captured Trump spotting a 10‑year‑old and saying “I’m going to be dating her in 10 years,” a clip that resurfaced in 2016 and was widely reported [1]. Separately, Chicago Tribune wire copy — carried and cited by outlets such as The Independent and Glamour — reported that when Trump was told two girls were 14 he said, “Wow! Just think — in a couple of years I’ll be dating you” [2] [4]. Those are the textual and audiovisual bases most outlets cite when describing his remarks to minors in the early 1990s [1] [2].
2. Where the specific claim you asked about comes from — and what the sources do not show
The precise phrasing you asked about — that Trump said “14 was old enough to make up [their] mind about sex” — is not found in the provided reporting. Sources document comments to or about underage girls and a later radio exchange about a 14‑year‑old student and her adult teacher, but none quote him saying that particular sentence (available sources do not mention this exact quote). For the 14‑year‑old teacher‑student story, recent fact‑checks and archive reporting recount an Imus radio exchange in which Trump discussed the Debra Lafave case, and Snopes summarizes how an online clip and paraphrases circulated alleging he spoke approvingly of the boy’s experience — though Snopes frames the resurfaced audio and paraphrases and inspects context [3].
3. Follow‑up context: how outlets treated and repeated the episodes
Major outlets and aggregators repeatedly carried the 1992 clips and Tribune wire copy in 2016 as part of a package of past remarks about girls and women; The Independent, The Guardian, Glamour and other outlets linked the Entertainment Tonight clip and the Chicago Tribune item and treated them as distinct examples of suggestive comments toward minors [1] [2] [4] [5]. Reporters noted Trump’s later apologies or defenses (e.g., “locker room banter”) in the 2016 campaign cycle while publishing the archival material [2].
4. Broader allegations and legal filings that feed public perception
Separately, multiple civil lawsuits and allegations over the years have alleged sexual misconduct by Trump — including claims involving underage plaintiffs and incidents tied to Jeffrey Epstein — and some were dismissed or later dropped; outlets such as Courthouse News Service and various news organizations catalogued these filings and their statuses [6] [7]. Reporting on those suits and on newly released Epstein‑era documents has kept attention on Trump’s past associations and statements [8] [9].
5. Why people conflate or amplify different items into stronger claims
Two dynamics explain how a specific-sounding line like “14 was old enough to make up [their] mind about sex” spreads: (a) multiple, related episodes — joking about dating 10‑ and 14‑year‑olds, and later commentaries about a 14‑year‑old teacher case — are conflated into a single synthesized quote; and (b) social‑media recirculation often paraphrases or amplifies the gist of archival audio rather than reproducing verbatim lines. Fact‑checkers like Snopes have documented how clips and paraphrases from different years have been reshared and reinterpreted [3].
6. How to evaluate similar claims going forward
When you see a precise, inflammatory quote attributed to a public figure from decades past, check whether outlets link to contemporaneous audio or verbatim wire copy; in this case, the audio and wire items support statements about dating a 10‑year‑old in ten years and telling two 14‑year‑olds he’d be dating them “in a couple of years,” but the exact formulation you asked about is not present in the sources provided [1] [2]. For legal or criminal allegations tied to underage victims, examine court dockets and reporting about dismissals or rulings — multiple lawsuits have been filed and some were dismissed, per available reporting [6] [10].
If you want, I can pull the exact Entertainment Tonight clip text and the Chicago Tribune archive item cited by The Independent and Glamour, or compile the Snopes analysis of the 2004/2006 radio exchanges about the Lafave case for closer comparison [1] [2] [3].