What evidence exists about allegations that Donald Trump paid someone to take the SAT for him?
Executive summary
The allegation that Donald Trump paid someone to take the SAT for him originates with his niece Mary Trump’s 2020 book and audio recordings she provided to reporters; beyond her account and excerpts of family recordings, there is no publicly disclosed forensic or documentary proof that a proxy sat for Trump’s exam [1] [2]. University faculty and commentators called for investigation based on those materials, while the White House called the claim “absurd,” and the University of Pennsylvania declined to open a full probe absent new, verifiable evidence [3] [4] [2].
1. Origin story: Mary Trump’s allegation and recorded family remarks
The primary source for the claim is Mary Trump’s memoir, Too Much and Never Enough, in which she recounts family lore that Donald Trump paid a friend to take the SAT because his GPA was low; she also turned over hours of recorded interviews with family members — including excerpts in which former federal judge Maryanne Trump Barry is heard repeating the allegation — to news outlets, which is what reignited the story in 2020 [1] [2] [3].
2. The tangible evidence that has been publicly presented
What has been presented publicly is the memoir’s account and audio excerpts; multiple outlets reported the book’s assertion and the existence of roughly 15 hours of tapes Mary Trump recorded interviewing relatives for her book, which some academics say could constitute “new evidence” warranting review by Penn [1] [2]. Forbes and Poets&Quants summarized the recordings and professors’ requests for investigation, but those summaries describe testimonial and secondhand statements rather than concrete paper trails, test-score records, or admissions documentation released into the public domain [2] [3].
3. Institutional reactions and the call for investigation
After the allegation resurfaced, a group of Wharton ethics professors publicly asked the University of Pennsylvania to investigate whether Trump’s admission involved fraud; proponents argued the tapes and book material warranted inquiry because admissions integrity is a public trust [3]. University administrators, including then-provost Wendell Pritchett, initially said older records are difficult to verify and that the university would not pursue a retroactive probe without clear new evidence, signaling institutional reluctance to act on decades-old oral claims alone [2].
4. Denials, gaps, and the absence of corroboration
The White House immediately dismissed the allegation as “absurd” and “completely false,” and no independent contemporaneous evidence — such as admissions files released by the university, corroborating testimony from the alleged proxy, or certified test-score records showing irregularities — has been produced publicly to substantiate the claim [4] [5]. Reporting to date therefore rests on family testimony and recordings, which are important leads but not the kind of primary documentation universities or courts typically require to prove fraud.
5. Context, plausibility, and competing interpretations
Observers note both that college-admissions testing was more loosely proctored in the 1960s and that proxies have been used historically in testing scandals — making the allegation plausible in general terms — and that family disputes, memoir incentives, and political motives can shape recollection and emphasis, creating incentives to exaggerate or weaponize damaging anecdotes [6] [7]. Advocates for investigation argue that leaving such claims unexamined sets a bad precedent; defenders stress reputational harm from unproven accusations and point to the practical difficulties of proving or disproving events from more than half a century ago [7] [3].
6. Bottom line: what the evidence actually shows
Publicly available evidence consists of Mary Trump’s written allegation and audio excerpts of family members repeating the story; credible reporters and university faculty treated those materials as a basis to ask for inquiry, but no corroborating documentary proof or institutional finding has emerged that confirms Donald Trump paid someone to take the SAT for him, and Penn has declined to pursue a retroactive investigation without clearer new evidence [1] [2] [3]. Reporting limitations mean the question is still unresolved in the public record: the claim has serious witnesses behind it but lacks the independent documentary corroboration that would convert allegation into established fact.