Fact check: How many women has trump paid off

1. What the public record actually documents about hush money payments

The most concrete, contemporaneous documentation in reporting and court filings references two separate six‑figure disbursements tied to efforts to silence negative stories about Donald Trump during the 2016 campaign cycle: a $130,000 wire arranged by Michael Cohen to Stormy Daniels’ lawyer in October 2016 and a $150,000 purchase of rights to Karen McDougal’s story by the National Enquirer’s parent company, later described as a “catch‑and‑kill” maneuver ^{[1] [2]}. Investigations and charging documents from Manhattan prosecutors present these two transactions as the only fully documented instances of payments made with the apparent purpose of suppressing potentially damaging personal‑life stories prior to the election, and reporting traces reimbursements by Trump‑related accounts that raise the total linked disbursements to about $420,000 ^[1].

2. Why Michael Cohen’s plea and testimony matter to the count of payments

Michael Cohen’s guilty plea to campaign‑finance related charges and his testimony that he made a $130,000 payment at Donald Trump’s direction are central to how prosecutors have framed a criminal case alleging falsified business records and reimbursement schemes; Cohen’s statements are the primary direct testimonial link between the $130,000 transaction and Trump himself ^{[3] [1]}. Cohen’s plea and testimony therefore function as the connective tissue that converts a documented payment by Cohen into an alleged scheme involving Trump and Trump Organization bookkeeping, which prosecutors argued in court supports counts alleging criminality related to record‑keeping and reimbursement, rather than proving every alleged unreported payment beyond those documented.

3. How prosecutors and courts have treated the two transactions legally

Manhattan prosecutors charged Trump with multiple counts of falsifying business records connected to the reimbursement scheme around these hush payments, asserting that reimbursements and bookkeeping entries were used to hide the true purpose of the payments; the indictment and trial materials specifically focus on the Daniels and McDougal pathways as the factual core ^{[6] [1]}. Media summaries and trial analyses emphasize that the legal claims are built on the existence of the two six‑figure payments and the alleged reimbursements through Trump‑linked accounts, not on a broader tally of undisclosed payoffs to other individuals; thus the legal record centers on those two documented episodes ^{[6] [2]}.

4. What remains unproven or unconcluded in the public record

Beyond the two documented payments, no public court record or verified investigative reporting has established additional six‑figure payoff transactions by Trump in the same hush‑money category; assertions that he paid off other women are either unsubstantiated, relate to civil settlements of other kinds, or fall outside the 2016‑era hush‑money prosecutions ^{[1] [7]}. Some reporting and legal filings reference other civil settlements or allegations of misconduct (for example, defamation and sexual‑assault judgments such as the E. Jean Carroll case), but those are distinct remedies or judgments and do not equate to documented hush payments in the 2016 election context ^{[4] [5]}.

5. Recent developments and their limits on answering “how many”

U.S. appeals and civil rulings through September 2025, including the upholding of an $83.3 million judgment in the E. Jean Carroll matter, clarify liability and damages in some sexual‑assault and defamation disputes but do not provide additional verified instances of hush‑money payments paid to silence alleged sexual‑encounter stories before the 2016 election; they address different legal claims and remedies ^{[4] [5]}. Contemporary reporting through 2024 and 2025 continues to treat the Daniels and McDougal episodes as the only fully documented hush transactions tied to that campaign cycle while recognizing that other legal settlements or judgments exist in separate contexts ^{[2] [4]}.

6. How different sources frame the count and possible motivations

News organizations and prosecutors uniformly highlight the Daniels and McDougal payments as the concrete, provable instances of hush‑money activity in 2016, while defense statements and some political allies frame Cohen’s testimony and the payments as legally or politically motivated attacks; press summaries emphasize both the legal core and the contested nature of intent and legality ^{[3] [2]}. Readers should note evident agendas: prosecutorial materials focus on criminal counts and documentary trails, media outlets package those facts for public audiences, and defenders emphasize denials and the absence of additional proven payments, so source triangulation is essential to understanding what is documented versus alleged ^{[6] [3]}.

7. Bottom line: a precise answer for the question asked

Based on the consolidated public record through September 2025, the most defensible, evidence‑based answer is that Trump is linked in documentation and prosecutions to two known six‑figure hush‑money pathways — Daniels ($130,000) and McDougal ($150,000 via AMI) — with reimbursements and bookkeeping that investigators say push the related outlays to about $420,000; other settlements and judgments exist but are legally distinct and do not expand that documented count of hush‑money payments in the 2016 election context ^{[1] [4]}.