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.
Has Donald Trump paid any hush money to other sexual misconduct accusers?
Executive Summary
Donald Trump has paid money tied to at least one high-profile nondisclosure arrangement — the Stormy Daniels matter — and courts have found civil liability in a separate sexual misconduct-related case (E. Jean Carroll). Claims that he paid additional “hush money” to other sexual-misconduct accusers remain disputed: some lawyers and commentators have alleged multiple payoffs, while prosecutions and reporting have confirmed only specific payments or legal liabilities to date. The factual record establishes payments and legal findings in a few named cases, but does not definitively prove a broader pattern of undisclosed hush-money settlements to multiple other accusers. [1] [2] [3]
1. How one payment became the headline: the Stormy Daniels affair and verified transaction details
Reporting and legal filings show Donald Trump was connected to a payment involving adult film actor Stormy Daniels; that episode triggered criminal and civil scrutiny and entered the public record as a named, verified transaction tied to his 2016 campaign context. Sources summarize the Daniels matter as a discrete scandal with documentation and court attention, and it is the most concrete example cited when discussing alleged hush-money arrangements. The public record around Daniels includes media reporting and legal filings that treat that payment as established fact for the purposes of investigations and reporting. While the White House at the time denied sexual relations in some accounts, the transactional element tied to Daniels has been documented and widely reported as a central example in this topic [1].
2. Court-ordered penalty in a separate sex-related case: E. Jean Carroll and legal liability
A separate legal outcome that affects the hush-money conversation is the civil finding against Trump in the E. Jean Carroll matter, which resulted in a monetary judgment rather than a confidential settlement labeled as “hush money.” Reporting and fact-checks note a $5 million liability awarded to Carroll in May 2023; that judgment reflects a civil court’s finding of liability and damages, not a voluntary nondisclosure payment typical of campaign-era “hush-money” narratives. This court-ordered award demonstrates judicial finding of wrongdoing in at least one sexual-misconduct-related civil case, and it complicates any simple claim that no payments or legal consequences exist beyond the Daniels instance [2] [4].
3. Allegations of multiple additional payoffs: what accusers’ lawyers have claimed
Prominent attorneys who represented Stormy Daniels publicly asserted that Trump and associates arranged payments for more than one woman before the 2016 election; Michael Avenatti, for example, claimed Trump paid “three additional women” beyond Daniels and Karen McDougal. These assertions describe alleged conspiratorial coordination to silence women before the election and reference concerns about pregnancy as one motive. However, these claims by Avenatti and similar statements remain allegations and were not universally corroborated by independent judicial findings or convictions at the time of the reporting; they form part of an investigative narrative but stop short of establishing additional verified payments in the public record [3] [5].
4. Investigations, prosecutions and what they did or did not establish
Official investigations and criminal proceedings have focused on the Daniels-related payments, campaign-finance implications, and associated conduct; some reviews like New York prosecutors’ work have examined immunity questions and broader conduct, but public summaries indicate that the legal record conclusively documents only certain transactions and liabilities, not an exhaustive list of payoffs to multiple accusers. Media summaries and legal reporting caution that while allegations of additional hush payments circulated, available prosecutions or civil judgments confirmed only discrete transactions or findings. Thus, the legal-administrative record provides evidence in key instances but does not, on its face, validate every public claim of multiple hush-money payoffs [6] [2].
5. Big-picture synthesis: confirmed payments, credible allegations, and open questions
In sum, the confirmed elements are payments and legal findings tied to named matters such as Stormy Daniels and the E. Jean Carroll judgment; the credible but unproven dimension consists of lawyer statements and press claims alleging additional payoffs that have not been fully corroborated in court rulings or convictions. Fact-checking and reporting through 2025 show a mix of verified transactions and disputed assertions: some figures publicly alleged multiple hush payments, while prosecutors and courts so far have established only particular payments or liabilities. The record leaves open investigative and evidentiary gaps about the extent of any broader pattern, and distinguishing between documented legal outcomes and unproven allegations is essential when assessing claims about other alleged hush-money payments [1] [3] [2].