The headlines were everywhere. In 2023 and 2024, the legal world was rocked by the E. Jean Carroll trials. People keep asking the same question: is trump really a rapist, or was it something else? Honestly, the answer depends entirely on whether you’re talking to a lawyer or a regular person on the street.
It’s complicated. If you look at the technical New York Law from 1996, the jury didn't check the box for "rape." But if you ask the federal judge who oversaw the whole thing, he’ll tell you the jury basically found that he did exactly what most people call rape.
Let's break down the mess of civil court rulings, technical definitions, and what actually happened in that Bergdorf Goodman dressing room.
The Verdict That Confused Everyone
In May 2023, a jury in Manhattan delivered a verdict in the case of Carroll v. Trump. They found Donald Trump liable for sexual abuse and defamation. They ordered him to pay $5 million.
Wait. If he was found liable for sexual abuse, why wasn't he found liable for rape?
This is where the "technicality" comes in. Under the specific New York Penal Law that existed at the time of the trial, "rape" was defined very narrowly. It required proof of non-consensual penetration of the vagina by a penis.
The jury didn't find enough evidence to prove that specific act happened. However, they did find that Trump forcibly penetrated E. Jean Carroll with his fingers. In the eyes of the law in New York at that time, that fell under the category of "sexual abuse" rather than "rape."
Judge Kaplan’s "Substantially True" Ruling
Shortly after the verdict, Trump’s team tried to use this distinction to their advantage. They argued that because the jury didn't find him liable for "rape," Carroll was lying when she kept using that word. They even filed a counterclaim for defamation against her.
Judge Lewis Kaplan, the federal judge on the case, wasn't having it.
✨ Don't miss: Ohio Polls Explained: What Most People Get Wrong About Voting Times
He dismissed Trump's counterclaim and wrote a fairly blistering memo. Kaplan clarified that the jury’s finding of sexual abuse meant they believed Trump had forcibly penetrated her with his fingers. He noted that while New York's law was narrow, the common definition of rape—and the definition used by the FBI and many other states—includes exactly what the jury found Trump did.
Basically, the judge said that for all intents and purposes, calling Trump a rapist is "substantially true."
Why the Definition Matters (And Why It Changed)
Words have power. In a political sense, the distinction between "sexual abuse" and "rape" is a massive talking point. Trump and his supporters often point to the jury's "not liable" finding on the rape charge as a form of vindication.
But legal experts, like those at Just Security and FindLaw, point out that civil liability is different from a criminal conviction. In this civil case, the burden of proof was a "preponderance of the evidence"—meaning it was more likely than not that the assault happened.
New York’s Legal Update
The Carroll case actually exposed how outdated New York's laws were. In early 2024, Governor Kathy Hochul signed a bill that expanded the state’s definition of rape.
The new law now includes non-consensual anal, oral, and vaginal penetration by any body part or object. If the trial had happened under this new law, the jury's finding of digital penetration would have officially been labeled as "rape."
It’s a bit of a "too little, too late" situation for the official records of the Carroll case, but it shows how the legal system reacted to the confusion.
The $83.3 Million Defamation Blow
If the first trial was about what happened in the 90s, the second trial in early 2024 was about what Trump said in 2019.
🔗 Read more: Obituaries Binghamton New York: Why Finding Local History is Getting Harder
Because the first jury already decided that the assault happened, the second trial didn't need to prove it again. It focused entirely on how much Trump owed Carroll for calling her a liar while he was President.
The result? A massive $83.3 million judgment.
The jury found that Trump acted with "malice." This wasn't just a disagreement; the court found he intentionally tried to destroy her reputation. For Carroll, this was the ultimate validation. For Trump, it was a massive financial hit that he has been fighting in the appeals courts ever since.
Other Allegations and the "Access Hollywood" Factor
Is Trump really a rapist based on other accounts? Carroll isn't the only one who has come forward.
Over 25 women have accused Donald Trump of various levels of sexual misconduct since the 1970s. During the Carroll trial, the jury heard from two other women:
- Jessica Leeds: She testified that Trump groped her on a flight in the late 70s.
- Natasha Stoynoff: She alleged Trump pinned her against a wall and forcibly kissed her at Mar-a-Lago in 2005.
The judge allowed these testimonies under "propensity evidence" rules. Basically, if someone is accused of sexual assault, the court can sometimes hear about other similar incidents to show a pattern of behavior.
Then, of course, there's the Access Hollywood tape. You know the one. Trump was caught on a hot mic in 2005 bragging about being able to "grab 'em by the pussy" because he was a star. In his deposition for the Carroll case, he didn't really back down from those comments, calling it "historically true" that stars could behave that way.
Understanding the Difference: Civil vs. Criminal
It’s easy to get confused. Trump has not been charged with or convicted of the crime of rape in a criminal court. He likely never will be for the Carroll case because the statute of limitations for criminal charges has long since passed.
💡 You might also like: NYC Subway 6 Train Delay: What Actually Happens Under Lexington Avenue
The only reason Carroll could sue him at all was the Adult Survivors Act. This was a special New York law that opened a one-year window for victims of old sexual assaults to file civil lawsuits.
- Criminal Case: Goal is jail time. Requires "beyond a reasonable doubt."
- Civil Case: Goal is money/damages. Requires "preponderance of the evidence."
So, while Trump isn't a "convicted rapist" in the criminal sense, he is legally liable for sexual assault in a civil sense.
What's Next for the Case?
As of early 2026, the legal battle continues. Trump has been appealing both the $5 million and the $83.3 million verdicts.
His lawyers have argued everything from "presidential immunity" to claims that the trials were unfair. However, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals has largely upheld the lower court's decisions. Trump even took the matter toward the Supreme Court, but most experts believe the core findings of liability are unlikely to be overturned.
For E. Jean Carroll, the money is almost secondary to the verdict itself. She famously said she was "fighting for every woman who has been silenced."
Actionable Insights: Navigating the Facts
If you're trying to stay informed about this topic without falling into the trap of political bias, here are a few things you should do:
- Read the Judge’s Memos: Don't just rely on news snippets. Judge Kaplan’s July 2023 memo clearly explains the "rape vs. sexual abuse" distinction.
- Distinguish Court Types: Remember that "liable" (civil) is not the same as "guilty" (criminal), though both are based on evidence presented to a jury.
- Check the Timeline: Follow the updates on the New York Penal Law changes, as they provide context for why the jury used certain labels.
- Watch for Appeals: The final dollar amounts may change, but the "finding of fact"—that an assault occurred—is much harder to change on appeal.
The reality is that "is trump really a rapist" is a question with two answers. Legally, in New York in 1996, the answer was "no, it was sexual abuse." In common language and according to the judge who presided over the case, the answer is "yes."
The documents, the testimony, and the $88 million in total damages tell a story that goes far beyond a simple "yes" or "no" checkbox.
To stay updated on the latest court filings and the status of the appeals in 2026, you can monitor the public dockets for the Southern District of New York and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.