Fact check: What are the allegations about Donald Trump's secret child?

1. Summary of the results

The allegations about Donald Trump's secret child center around claims made by Dino Sajudin, a former Trump Tower doorman ^{[1] [2]}. Sajudin alleged that Trump had fathered a child with his former housekeeper ^[1].

American Media, Inc., the parent company of the National Enquirer, paid Sajudin $30,000 for this story ^{[1] [2]}. However, the story was never published, with the investigation allegedly stopped by the company's CEO David Pecker at Trump's behest ^[2].

Multiple credible news organizations investigated these claims. Both The Associated Press and The New Yorker conducted investigations but found no evidence to support the allegation ^[1]. The sources consistently conclude that there is little to no evidence supporting the claim of Trump having a secret child ^[2].

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The original question lacks several crucial contextual elements:

• The "catch and kill" practice: The $30,000 payment to Sajudin appears to be part of a broader pattern where American Media, Inc. would purchase potentially damaging stories about Trump to prevent their publication, not necessarily because they were true ^{[1] [2]}.
• Financial motivations: The doorman received significant compensation for an unverified claim, which raises questions about the reliability of the allegation itself ^{[1] [2]}.
• Media company relationships: David Pecker's relationship with Trump and his role in suppressing the story reveals how media companies can be used to protect powerful figures, regardless of the truth of the allegations ^[2].
• Investigative journalism standards: Major news organizations like The Associated Press and The New Yorker have rigorous fact-checking processes, and their inability to find supporting evidence is significant ^[1].

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question itself is relatively neutral, asking about "allegations" rather than presenting them as fact. However, the framing could potentially:

• Legitimize unsubstantiated claims by treating them as worthy of investigation when credible news organizations have already found no supporting evidence ^[1].
• Perpetuate conspiracy theories by giving continued attention to claims that have been thoroughly investigated and debunked by professional journalists ^{[1] [2]}.
• Ignore the financial incentives that may have motivated the original allegation, as Sajudin received $30,000 for an unverified story ^{[1] [2]}.

The question notably lacks context about the thorough debunking of these allegations by established news organizations, which is crucial information for understanding the credibility of the claims ^[1].