What specific claims did Ivana Trump make about child custody and access to their children?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Ivana Trump accused Donald Trump of using the word “rape” to describe one incident in a 1989 sexual encounter, but she later said she did not intend the term in a literal, criminal sense; their 1990 divorce was granted on grounds of “cruel and inhuman” treatment and the settlement awarded Ivana custody of their three children (Donald Jr., Ivanka and Eric) with financial support and property provisions [1] [2] [3]. Available sources do not mention additional detailed custody claims by Ivana beyond standard reports that she was granted custody and child support as part of the divorce settlement [3] [4].
1. The headline claim: Ivana’s deposition used the word “rape”
In depositions and later interviews about the 1990 divorce Ivana is reported to have said she “felt violated” and used the word “rape” to describe a 1989 encounter; multiple reportage and biographies recount that phrasing but also record her clarifying remark that she did not want the word interpreted in a literal criminal sense [1] [2]. Sources present the statement as part of divorce litigation record and later retrospective accounts, not as an independently pursued criminal charge [2] [1].
2. How Ivana framed custody in public reporting
Contemporary reporting of the divorce says the settlement granted Ivana custody of the couple’s three children and included spousal and child support, a Connecticut home, and time at Mar-a-Lago — standard divorce- settlement provisions widely reported in profiles and People magazine’s retrospective [3]. Other outlets that summarize the divorce similarly list custody, financial payments and property allocations as the main contested items [5] [4].
3. What the sources say — and do not say — about access or later disputes
The available texts chronicle a high-profile, acrimonious breakup that centered on finances, property and the children, but they do not provide detailed claims by Ivana about denials of access, visitation fights, or later parental-access court battles beyond noting she obtained custody and support in the settlement [5] [3]. If you are seeking allegations that Donald Trump later blocked access or that Ivana sought specific visitation remedies, those specifics are not found in the cited reporting [3] [5].
4. Contradictions and context offered by multiple sources
Biographies and news accounts reproduce Ivana’s “rape” phrasing but also report her walk-back or qualification; some legal summaries and later defenders frame her words as part of a deposition that was later softened, while other coverage emphasizes the emotional severity she described — reflecting a tension between a literal criminal framing and a testimonial, civil-litigation context [2] [6] [1]. That pattern — initial strong language followed by clarification — appears across the sources provided [2] [1].
5. What the divorce ruling actually recorded
The divorce was granted in December 1990 on grounds listed as “cruel and inhuman” treatment by Donald Trump, and contemporary press accounts and legal summaries list custody, child support, spousal support and property transfer as the concrete outcomes of the settlement rather than criminal findings related to Ivana’s wording [1] [3]. Sources emphasize the civil nature of the proceedings rather than any criminal prosecution stemming from Ivana’s testimony [1].
6. Limitations, unanswered questions and how reporting may shape perception
Available sources do not include the full divorce transcript or sealed court filings here, so public summaries rely on excerpts, later interviews and secondary reporting; that creates room for variation in how Ivana’s words were reported and understood [6] [1]. Reporters and legal commentators have noted she later “walked back” the phrasing and even publicly supported Donald Trump in later years, which complicates efforts to treat the deposition language as an enduring legal accusation [6] [2].
7. Bottom line for readers
Ivana explicitly used the term “rape” in descriptions of one 1989 incident and said she “felt violated,” but she also clarified she did not intend a literal criminal interpretation; the divorce record that followed resulted in custody for Ivana and financial and property settlements, with the public record focusing on civil remedies rather than criminal findings [2] [1] [3]. If you need further detail — such as complete deposition text, sealed filings, or contemporaneous court exhibits — those documents are not included in the sources provided and would need to be obtained from court records or original reporting (not found in current reporting).