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.
How did Donald Trump's campaign respond to the Katie Johnson lawsuit?
Executive summary
The Katie Johnson lawsuits alleging sexual assault involving Jeffrey Epstein and Donald Trump were filed, refiled, withdrawn or dismissed multiple times between 2016 and later years; the record shows the suits were dismissed or withdrawn and did not proceed to trial [1] [2] [3]. Reporting at the time and afterward records that the Trump campaign and White House spokespeople uniformly denied the claims or called them baseless, with at least one spokesperson labeling the complaint “absurd on its face” [4] [1].
1. How the campaign formally reacted: denials and dismissals
The Trump campaign and his allies consistently rejected the Johnson/Jane Doe allegations. News summaries state that Donald Trump, his campaign and the Trump White House insisted the stories were fabricated and politically motivated [1]. Wikipedia’s coverage notes that White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders called the lawsuit “absurd on its face,” reflecting an official, categorical denial from the administration’s communications team [4].
2. Public posture: portraying the suits as political or unverified
Major outlets that summarized the wave of accusations reported the campaign’s framing: the accusations were presented by Trump’s team as fabricated and politically driven. PBS NewsHour’s recap of multiple accusations against Trump says the campaign and White House “insisted all of the stories are fabricated and politically motivated,” showing a strategic communication posture that aimed to delegitimize the claims in the public eye [1].
3. Legal developments: filings, withdrawals and a judge’s dismissal
Court records and contemporaneous reporting show a complicated litigation history: a federal complaint filed in California in April 2016 (Katie Johnson v. Donald J. Trump) appears on court dockets, and other versions were filed and later withdrawn; a judge dismissed one version in May 2016 on technical grounds for failing to state valid federal claims [5] [2] [3]. PBS and other summaries note a June 2016 filing that was later dropped in November 2016, and a New York suit that was dismissed without detailed public explanation [1] [6].
4. Campaign silence in some moments; statements in others
While spokespeople issued strong denials, at least one account of a New York dismissal says neither the attorneys nor the Trump campaign responded to requests for comment about the voluntary dismissal [6]. That indicates a mix of active public repudiation (e.g., Sanders’s quoted line) and periods where the campaign did not provide comment to reporters on specific court actions [6] [4].
5. Questions about the lawsuits’ origins and credibility — and how that benefited the campaign’s messaging
Investigations and reporting into who helped organize or promote the Johnson filings — notably coverage of a figure named Norm Lubow (aka “Al Taylor”) who appears to have assisted in assembling and pushing the lawsuits — complicated the public narrative and provided ammunition to the campaign’s claim that the cases were unreliable or orchestrated [7]. The Guardian reported that an attorney who filed the suit said credibility questions about a promoter should not automatically discredit the allegations, but the association with an eccentric promoter fed the campaign’s dismissal strategy [7].
6. Media and fact‑checking context that shaped responses
Fact‑checking and follow‑up reporting — such as Snopes and other outlets — chronicled how the Johnson documents were circulated online, how the lawsuits were dismissed or withdrawn, and how the materials later resurfaced on social media. That reporting reinforced the practical outcome that the suits did not result in convictions or trials and influenced subsequent public and campaign narratives [8] [3].
7. What the available sources do not say
Available sources do not provide evidence in these documents that the Trump campaign paid Katie Johnson to withdraw her suit; in fact, some reporting states her attorneys said Trump did not pay her to withdraw and that she “has secured the right to speak freely” [4]. They also do not provide a full transcript of every private communication between Johnson’s lawyers and the campaign, nor do the cited sources show any trial determination on the core factual allegations, because the suits were dismissed or withdrawn before resolution in court [5] [2].
8. Bottom line for readers
Public records and reporting show the Trump campaign responded by denying the accusations, framing them as politically motivated or unreliable, and in some instances declining to comment on procedural dismissals; courts dismissed or the plaintiff withdrew the suits before trial [1] [4] [5]. Competing coverage about the origins and promotion of the lawsuits added credibility concerns that the campaign used to underpin its denials, while advocates for the plaintiff maintained attorneys who continued to assert her credibility [7] [6].