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.
Fact check: How many women have publicly accused Donald Trump of misconduct or assault?
Executive Summary
At least 28 women have publicly accused Donald Trump of sexual misconduct or assault in reporting and legal filings compiled by multiple outlets; Trump has denied all allegations and contested legal findings [1] [2]. Reporting and legal outcomes vary: some allegations led to civil suits and defamation rulings, others remain public accusations without criminal charges, and counts cited in media pieces differ depending on scope and date [2] [3] [4]. This analysis compares the claims, legal developments, and reporting differences to show what is established, what remains disputed, and where updates are most likely to appear.
1. How many women are counted and why the number “28” appears in coverage
Multiple contemporary reports state that at least 28 women have accused Trump of sexual misconduct, ranging from allegations of rape to unwanted kissing and groping and other intrusive behavior [1] [2]. The figure is a tally used by several news outlets to capture the aggregate of publicly reported allegations across decades; the count depends on which incidents are included (for example, whether to include non-sexual misconduct claims, uncorroborated anonymous reports, or incidents summarized from decades-old accounts). Different outlets and legal documents adopt slightly different inclusion criteria, which explains why some summaries reference a specific number while others describe the list more generally [4].
2. What resulted in courtrooms and verdicts — the cases that changed the record
Some allegations produced legal outcomes that altered public record: E. Jean Carroll sued over a sexual-abuse claim and later won a defamation verdict against Trump that was upheld on appeal in at least one reported decision, reinforcing a legal finding related to her allegations [3]. Separately, reporting around alleged hush-money payments to Stormy Daniels led to criminal charges tied to falsified business records and related litigation; those prosecutions and appeals affect how allegations and motives are presented in the media [2]. These judicial and prosecutorial actions show that portions of the public allegations moved beyond mere reporting into contested legal determinations.
3. What Trump and his allies say — denials and legal strategy
Donald Trump has consistently denied all allegations of sexual misconduct and assault, framing them as politically motivated or false, and has appealed convictions or rulings where they occurred [1] [2]. His legal team challenged defamation claims and other civil actions, and public statements emphasized denials and counter-accusations. The denials and legal appeals are critical to understanding the evolving public record because they shape subsequent reporting, appeals, and the willingness of some outlets to update tallies as cases are adjudicated or settled [2] [3]. These denials are central to both the political narrative and the legal posture of the accused.
4. Variations across reports — why some sources avoid a fixed number
Some reputable coverage lists specific names while others describe the accusations more qualitatively, leading to variance in headline counts or refusal to publish a definitive number [4]. Differences arise from editorial standards about inclusion: whether to count only named, public plaintiffs; whether to include allegations reported decades after they allegedly occurred; and whether to include accounts tied to related investigations like those into associates such as Jeffrey Epstein. The presence of corroborating documents, criminal charges, and defamation rulings influences editorial choices and explains why counts diverge across outlets [4].
5. Reporting context and potential agendas that shape narratives
Coverage of the accusations intersects with political and legal stories — indictments, defamation suits, and reporting on associates — which creates opportunities for conflicting agendas across outlets and commentators [1] [4]. Some outlets emphasize the number to highlight an alleged pattern of behavior, while others focus on legal outcomes to question reliability or motive. All sources carry bias risks: advocacy or partisan media can inflate or downplay counts, while legal-focused reporting may prioritize court outcomes over public accusations. Understanding these incentives helps explain why the same underlying facts are framed in different ways [4].
6. What to watch next and how to interpret future updates
The count and public understanding will change as appeals, settlements, or new reports emerge; track primary court documents, appellate rulings, and contemporaneous reporting to see which allegations move from public claim to legal finding [2] [3]. Because different outlets use varying inclusion rules, the most reliable ongoing method is to consult compilations that list names and sources for each allegation and to note whether claims resulted in civil suits, criminal charges, or legal rulings. Expect updates in response to new filings, appeals, or investigative reporting, and treat single-source tallies with caution while prioritizing cross-checked lists and court records [1] [2].