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 and his lawyers respond to Ivana Trump’s allegation at the time and afterward?
Executive summary
Reporting shows Ivana Trump’s 1989 divorce deposition included a passage she later described in public statements as made “in a moment of shock and anger,” after which she publicly softened or disavowed a literal criminal accusation; contemporaneous defenders of Donald Trump, including lawyers and aides, denied or dismissed the account as incorrect or as “lawyers' talk” [1] [2] [3]. Journalists and later accounts recount both the allegation in the deposition and Trump’s denials and defenses from allies such as Michael Cohen, but sources differ on how to characterize Ivana’s later statements and on whether the allegation was ever framed as a criminal charge [4] [5] [3].
1. The original allegation in the divorce deposition — a dramatic, private record made public
Ivana’s 1989 divorce deposition included language that a number of later accounts describe as her saying she was raped by Donald Trump; journalists have recited testimony that she described being held and forcibly penetrated, which appears in multiple retrospective pieces chronicling Trump’s alleged misconduct [4] [3]. Those details were reported in books and media pieces in the 1990s and resurfaced in later coverage, forming the basis for how the episode is remembered in timelines of allegations against Trump [3] [4].
2. Ivana’s public response at the time — disavowal and an apology for “inarticulate” words
When the allegations resurfaced publicly, Ivana issued a statement saying the reported comments were made during “a time of very high tension” and called the story “totally without merit,” adding that “in my moment of shock and anger, I made an inarticulate comment — which I do not believe — and which I apologize for entirely.” She described being “the best of friends” with her ex-husband and emphasized their shared children, framing her earlier words as not a literal criminal accusation [1].
3. How Trump’s lawyers and aides responded contemporaneously — denials and “incorrect” characterizations
Trump’s camp pushed back. Michael Cohen, identified in reporting as special counsel at the Trump Organization, told reporters the allegations were incorrect; other Trump lawyers historically denied similar misconduct allegations in press accounts about Trump more broadly [5] [6]. The pattern in media coverage is that Trump’s legal team and campaign called such stories fabricated or politically motivated when they circulated more widely [6] [5].
4. Later reporting and interpretation — some outlets state Ivana described forcible rape; others stress retraction
Long-form and investigative pieces (for example Rolling Stone and The Guardian timelines) recount Ivana’s deposition details in graphic terms and note she once used the word “rape” to describe an incident, while also recording that she later softened or retracted that framing when the matter went public or when a 1993 book prepared to publish the deposition material [4] [3]. This produces two competing emphases across outlets: the original descriptive language in the deposition, and Ivana’s subsequent public statements downplaying or apologizing for those words [4] [1].
5. Limitations, disputes, and what sources do not say
Available sources do not provide contemporaneous public legal filings charging Donald Trump criminally based on Ivana’s deposition; the reporting instead centers on divorce proceedings, a later book publication, and public statements [3] [1]. Sources also do not offer a single unified timeline of every private and public exchange among lawyers, and they present differing editorial decisions about how strongly to characterize the conduct [4] [3]. Where some sources describe forcible penetration in graphic terms, others foreground Ivana’s later retraction and portrayal of the comments as part of “lawyers’ talk” [4] [2].
6. Competing perspectives and possible motivations to shape the record
Ivana’s public retraction and apology can be read as an effort to protect family ties and reputation after a bitter divorce; newspapers and books that published the deposition material framed it as newsworthy and scandalous, while Trump allies—legal and public—moved quickly to deny or downplay the account [1] [5]. Different outlets’ choices about how to report the deposition reflect editorial judgment and, at times, the agendas of sources quoted or omitted; some pieces emphasize the deposition’s raw language, others emphasize Ivana’s later statements that she did not mean a literal criminal accusation [4] [2].
7. Bottom line for readers seeking clarity
The factual record in these sources is: [7] the deposition contains strong language that was later reported as Ivana alleging rape [4] [3]; [8] Ivana publicly softened or disavowed that characterization and apologized for her words, calling them the product of a tense moment and “lawyers' talk” [1] [2]; and [9] Trump’s representatives and aides publicly denied or called the allegations incorrect when they circulated, consistent with broader patterns in how his team handled other misconduct claims [5] [6].