Fact check: What evidence supports or refutes the claims of Donald Trump's secret child?

1. Summary of the results

The evidence overwhelmingly refutes the claims of Donald Trump having a secret child. Multiple credible investigations have found no substantive evidence to support this allegation.

The claim originated from Dino Sajudin, a former Trump Tower doorman, who alleged in the late 1980s that Trump may have fathered a child with a former employee ^{[1] [2] [3]}. However, comprehensive investigations by major news organizations have consistently debunked this story:

• The Associated Press and The New Yorker conducted thorough investigations in 2017 and 2018, finding little to no evidence supporting the claim ^[1]
• The New Yorker specifically found no evidence that Trump fathered a child, despite Sajudin passing a lie-detector test ^[3]
• The housekeeper at the center of the rumor explicitly denied it, calling the allegations "all fake" ^[1]

American Media, Inc. (A.M.I.), the parent company of the National Enquirer, paid Sajudin $30,000 to suppress his story but ultimately decided to stop investigating after being unable to verify the claims ^{[2] [3]}. This payment was part of the "catch and kill" practice that later became central to Trump's hush money trial.

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The original question lacks several crucial contextual elements:

• Timeline and legal context: The story resurfaced prominently during Trump's hush money trial in New York City, where it was presented as part of a broader pattern of suppressing potentially damaging stories ^[2]
• Media manipulation tactics: The case illustrates the National Enquirer's "catch and kill" strategy - purchasing potentially damaging stories about Trump and then burying them rather than publishing ^[3]
• Financial motivations: American Media, Inc. had clear financial incentives to maintain a positive relationship with Trump, as they were known to suppress negative stories about him while promoting positive coverage
• Investigative journalism standards: Multiple reputable news organizations invested significant resources in investigating these claims, demonstrating the thoroughness required to debunk unsubstantiated allegations

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question itself is relatively neutral, asking for evidence both supporting and refuting the claims. However, the framing could potentially:

• Legitimize unfounded allegations by treating them as worthy of equal consideration despite the lack of credible evidence
• Perpetuate conspiracy theories by continuing to give attention to thoroughly debunked claims
• Ignore the established journalistic consensus that has consistently found no evidence supporting these allegations

The question benefits from being answered factually, as it allows for the clear presentation of evidence-based conclusions rather than speculation. Those who might benefit from keeping such unsubstantiated rumors alive include political opponents seeking to damage Trump's reputation, though the lack of evidence makes this an ineffective strategy among credible news sources.