The headlines were everywhere. In 2023, a New York jury sat in a wood-paneled courtroom and decided that the 45th President of the United States was liable for sexual abuse. But if you scroll through social media or watch certain cable news clips, you’ll hear a very specific argument: "The jury said he didn't do it." Specifically, they didn't check the box for "rape" on the verdict form.
So, did Donald Trump rape E. Jean Carroll?
It depends on whether you’re talking to a dictionary or a New York criminal lawyer from the 1990s. Honestly, the answer is a bit of a legal "gotcha" that has fueled years of political shouting matches. To understand what actually happened in that Bergdorf Goodman dressing room, you have to look at the fine print of the law and a very blunt clarification from the judge who oversaw the case.
📖 Related: Is Pope Leo Homophobic? What Most People Get Wrong
The Verdict That Confused Everyone
In May 2023, the jury in the Carroll II case awarded E. Jean Carroll $5 million. They found Trump liable for defamation and sexual abuse. However, when it came to the specific legal definition of "rape" under New York’s penal code at the time, the jury didn't find enough evidence to meet that exact criteria.
Basically, New York law had a very narrow, some would say antiquated, definition. For an act to be called "rape" in that specific jurisdiction back then, it required proof of non-consensual penetration by a penis. The jury wasn't convinced that specific detail was proven. Instead, they found that Trump had "sexually abused" her.
Under the law, this meant they were certain he had forcibly penetrated her with his fingers.
Why the Label Matters
Trump’s legal team immediately jumped on this. They argued that because the jury didn't check the "rape" box, any claim that he raped her was a lie. They even tried to sue news organizations like ABC News for using the word.
But Judge Lewis Kaplan wasn't having it.
In a subsequent ruling, Kaplan clarified the situation in no uncertain terms. He wrote that the jury’s finding of sexual abuse meant they believed Trump had "raped" her in the way almost every person on the planet understands the word. He called Trump's attempt to minimize the verdict "frivolous."
The judge essentially said that while the technical New York penal code was picky about body parts, the act described and proven in court fits the common, everyday definition of rape.
A Pattern of Allegations
It isn't just about E. Jean Carroll. Over the decades, more than two dozen women have come forward with stories that range from unwanted touching to outright assault.
- Jessica Leeds: She testified that in the late 1970s, Trump grabbed her breasts and tried to put his hand up her skirt while they were on a flight to New York.
- Natasha Stoynoff: A former People magazine writer, she alleged that Trump pinned her against a wall at Mar-a-Lago in 2005 and forced his tongue down her throat while his pregnant wife, Melania, was in another room.
- Ivana Trump: During their 1990 divorce, Trump's first wife used the word "rape" to describe a violent sexual encounter. She later clarified that she didn't want it interpreted in a "literal or criminal sense," but the description of the event remained part of the public record for years.
The jury in the Carroll case actually got to hear from Leeds and Stoynoff. This is rare. Usually, a trial is strictly about one incident. But under Federal Rules of Evidence 413 and 415, the judge allowed their testimony to show a potential "modus operandi."
The logic? If he did it to them, it's more likely he did it to Carroll.
The "Access Hollywood" Factor
You probably remember the tape. "Grab 'em by the pussy."
For years, Trump dismissed this as "locker room talk." He said it was just bragging, not a confession. But during his deposition for the Carroll case, he doubled down. When asked about his comments that stars can do whatever they want to women, he said, "Historically, that’s true with stars."
He then added, "If you look over the last million years, I guess that’s been largely true. Not always, but largely true. Unfortunately or fortunately."
✨ Don't miss: Will Trump Bomb Iran? What Most People Get Wrong About the 2026 Crisis
That "fortunately" part? It didn't play well with the jury. It turned what his lawyers claimed was just "hot air" into something that sounded like a personal philosophy.
The Money and the Appeals
Legal battles don't end with a "guilty" or "liable" verdict. Not when you have the resources Donald Trump has. After the first $5 million verdict, Trump kept talking. He called Carroll a "whack job" on national television.
Carroll sued again.
This time, because the first jury had already decided the assault happened, the second trial was just about how much more money he owed for continuing to defame her. The result? A staggering $83.3 million.
Trump’s team has fought these numbers every step of the way. They’ve argued the awards are excessive and that the judge was biased. In late 2024 and throughout 2025, various appeals courts have largely upheld the findings. Even the U.S. Supreme Court has been asked to weigh in on the procedural aspects of the case.
What This Means for the Public Record
We live in a world of "alternative facts," but court records are harder to smudge.
Legally speaking, Donald Trump has not been convicted of a crime related to these allegations. Civil trials have a lower burden of proof—the "preponderance of evidence"—meaning it’s more likely than not that it happened. Criminal trials require "beyond a reasonable doubt."
However, a court of law has officially determined that he is a sexual abuser.
New York has since changed its laws. In 2024, Governor Kathy Hochul signed a bill expanding the legal definition of rape. It now includes non-consensual penetration with fingers or objects, specifically citing the Carroll case as the reason for the update.
🔗 Read more: Why Significant Events in 2014 Still Shape Our World Today
The "technicality" Trump used to defend himself essentially no longer exists in New York law.
How to Verify the Facts Yourself
If you're trying to cut through the noise, the best thing you can do is look at the source documents. Don't take a pundit's word for it.
- Read the Verdict Form: Look at the specific questions the jury answered in Carroll v. Trump. It clearly shows they found him liable for battery (sexual abuse).
- Examine Judge Kaplan’s Rulings: Specifically, the July 19, 2023, memorandum where he explains why "rape" is a factually accurate term for what happened.
- Check the Timeline: Note the dates of the various allegations. Many of these women didn't know each other and came forward decades apart, yet their stories share striking similarities in how the alleged assaults were carried out.
The question of whether Donald Trump raped E. Jean Carroll isn't just a political debate anymore. It’s a matter of judicial record that has shaped the very laws of the state of New York. While the "rape" box wasn't checked due to a 30-year-old legal definition, the court has made it clear that the act itself was proven to the satisfaction of a jury.
Understanding the distinction between a criminal conviction and civil liability is key to navigating this story. But understanding the judge's clarification is even more important for anyone looking for the truth behind the terminology.
The legal system has provided its answer, and now the public record reflects a reality that goes far beyond "locker room talk." Moving forward, you can keep an eye on the Supreme Court dockets to see if any of the final appeals manage to shift the narrative, though most legal experts agree the core findings of the jury are unlikely to be overturned.