Trump wants to date his own daughter
Executive summary
Donald Trump has repeatedly made public remarks and private comments about his daughter Ivanka that many outlets characterize as flirtatious, lewd or disturbing, including the oft‑quoted line from a 2006 TV appearance, “If Ivanka weren’t my daughter, perhaps I’d be dating her,” which Trump’s spokesperson at the time said was “absolutely joking” [1] [2]. Multiple reporters and archives document a pattern of sexualized comments about Ivanka stretching across decades, but available reporting does not—and cannot—prove his inner intent beyond those recorded statements and contemporaneous accounts [3] [4].
1. The concrete record: repeated comments that read as flirtatious or sexual
On several occasions Trump publicly commented on Ivanka’s looks and made quips about dating her, most famously on The View in 2006 when he said, “If Ivanka weren’t my daughter, perhaps I’d be dating her,” a clip preserved in news archives and cited across contemporaneous reporting [1] [5]. Journalists and researchers have also documented his remarks on radio and in tapes—such as Howard Stern interviews and other recordings—where he discussed Ivanka’s physique in sexual terms and used language others found explicitly sexual [3] [6].
2. Corroboration and context: how fact‑checkers and spokespeople framed the remarks
Fact‑checking outlets and contemporaneous news coverage corroborate that the 2006 remark occurred and that a Trump representative immediately characterized it as a joke and “making fun of himself for his tendency to date younger women,” a defense repeated in later reviews of the clip [2] [7]. That context—audience laughter, Ivanka present and smiling in the 2006 appearance—frames the line as a quip, but does not erase other incidents where aides reported truly lewd commentary in private White House settings [8].
3. Private accounts and books: allegations of lewd talk inside the White House
Former aides and memoirists have claimed Trump made sexually explicit remarks about his daughter in private settings; Miles Taylor recounts in his book that White House staffers described conversations about Ivanka’s body that prompted rebukes from then–Chief of Staff John Kelly, presenting a depiction of repeated, workplace‑era sexual comments [8]. Those accounts expand the record beyond televised jokes to comportamento reportedly occurring in professional contexts, but they remain based on the testimony of former officials and their characterizations [8].
4. Pattern and interpretation: a broader history of crude talk about women
Investigations into hours of archived interviews and recordings—most notably CNN’s review of Howard Stern appearances and other audio—found a long record of crude, demeaning sexual commentary by Trump about women generally and about Ivanka specifically, including discussions of her body and sexualized descriptions that fueled public concern about his comments’ nature and frequency [3] [6].
5. What the record does and does not prove about desire
The published record shows repeated sexualized remarks and jokes about Ivanka by Trump and contemporaneous defenses that they were jocular or self‑mocking [1] [2]. Reporting and archives document words and witness accounts; they cannot directly read motives or establish a clinical or literal admission of incestuous desire—journalistic sources report statements and reactions but cannot prove internal intent beyond what Trump said or what others allege he said [5] [7].
6. Competing narratives and why the story matters
Supporters and spokespeople emphasize humor, self‑deprecation and a pattern of courting controversy for attention, while critics point to a sustained pattern of comments that normalize sexual objectification and create discomfort for observers and staff; sources like The Seattle Times, CNN and The Independent present both the examples and the context that fuels public unease [8] [3] [4]. The debate over whether he “wants” to date his daughter therefore hinges on interpreting a documented pattern of flirtatious or sexual remarks versus taking those remarks as literal admissions—a distinction that the reporting establishes but does not fully resolve [2] [8].