It’s one of those stories that just won’t go away. Honestly, the saga of Donald Trump and the Central Park Five—now known as the Exonerated Five—is like a time capsule that keeps getting dug up every election cycle. Whether you’re a history buff or just trying to keep up with the latest debate stage barbs, understanding exactly what Trump said about the Central Park 5 is pretty essential because his stance hasn't really wavered in over 30 years.
Even with DNA evidence clearing the men and a serial rapist's confession, Trump has stuck to his guns. It's a fascinatng, albeit tense, look at his "tough on crime" brand and how it started long before he ever thought about the White House.
The 1989 Ad: "I Want to Hate These Muggers"
Back in April 1989, New York City was on edge. A 28-year-old investment banker named Trisha Meili had been brutally attacked and raped while jogging in Central Park. She was found near death. Within days, police arrested five teenagers: Antron McCray, Kevin Richardson, Yusef Salaam, Raymond Santana, and Korey Wise.
Donald Trump, then a 42-year-old real estate mogul, didn't wait for a trial. He spent $85,000—which was a ton of money back then—to take out full-page ads in four major New York newspapers, including The New York Times.
The headline was unmistakable: BRING BACK THE DEATH PENALTY. BRING BACK OUR POLICE!
In the body of the ad, Trump didn't mince words. He wrote: "I want to hate these muggers and murderers. They should be forced to suffer and, when they kill, they should be executed for their crimes. I am not looking to psychoanalyze or understand them, I am looking to punish them."
It was raw. It was angry. And it set the tone for the public's perception of the case before the boys even stepped into a courtroom. Interestingly, even though he called for their execution, the victim in this case didn't actually die, which is a detail he's stumbled over in more recent years.
✨ Don't miss: Why Every Tornado Warning MN Now Live Alert Demands Your Immediate Attention
The 2014 Settlement: A "Disgrace"
Fast forward to 2002. A man named Matias Reyes, who was already in prison for other rapes and a murder, confessed that he alone attacked the jogger. DNA evidence backed him up. The convictions of the five men were vacated. They had already served between six and 13 years in prison.
In 2014, New York City reached a $41 million settlement with the men. Most people saw it as a long-overdue act of justice. Trump? Not so much.
He penned an op-ed for the New York Daily News calling the settlement a "disgrace" and a "terrible mistake." He argued that "these young men do not exactly have the pasts of angels" and suggested the city shouldn't have paid out because of the "evidence" originally used to convict them. He essentially argued that the settlement was a political move by the Bill de Blasio administration rather than a legal necessity.
2016 and 2019: No Apologies
During his first run for president, the question of the Central Park Five came up again. CNN asked him about it in 2016. He doubled down.
"They admitted they were guilty," Trump told CNN. "The police doing the original investigation say they were guilty. The fact that that case was settled with so much evidence against them is outrageous."
Then came 2019. Ava DuVernay released the Netflix series When They See Us, which brought the case back into the global spotlight. When asked if he would apologize to the men—who had by then been exonerated for 17 years—he gave a response that became a major headline:
🔗 Read more: Brian Walshe Trial Date: What Really Happened with the Verdict
"Why do you bring that question up now? It’s an interesting time to bring it up. You have people on both sides of that. They admitted their guilt. If you look at Linda Fairstein and if you look at some of the prosecutors, they think that the city should never have settled that case."
The "both sides" phrasing felt like a callback to his comments after the Charlottesville protests, and it signaled to everyone that no apology was coming.
The 2024 Debate and the Defamation Lawsuit
The story took another sharp turn during the 2024 presidential debate against Kamala Harris. Harris brought up the 1989 ads to highlight what she called Trump's history of using race to divide people.
Trump’s response on stage was a mix of his old arguments. He claimed, "They pled guilty. And I said, well, if they pled guilty, they badly hurt a person, killed a person ultimately."
There were two factual problems there:
- They actually pleaded not guilty at trial, though they had given confessions that they later said were coerced through sleep deprivation and threats.
- Trisha Meili survived the attack.
Following those debate comments, the five men filed a defamation lawsuit against Trump in October 2024. They argued that his claims about them "killing" someone and "pleading guilty" cast them in a "harmful false light." This lawsuit is still a major point of contention and keeps the details of what Trump said about the Central Park 5 in the legal and political crosshairs.
💡 You might also like: How Old is CHRR? What People Get Wrong About the Ohio State Research Giant
The Reality of the Evidence
To be super clear about the facts:
- DNA: No DNA from any of the five boys was found at the scene.
- Confessions: The teenagers were interrogated for up to 30 hours without parents or lawyers present in some cases. They described details that didn't match the crime scene.
- Matias Reyes: His DNA was a 100% match. He provided a detailed account that only the actual attacker would know.
What This Tells Us About Trump's Approach
Trump’s consistency on this case is actually quite revealing about his broader worldview. He prizes "strength" and "law and order" above almost everything else. To him, admitting a mistake in a high-profile criminal case might look like weakness.
He also tends to trust the original instincts of the investigators—the "police doing the original investigation"—over later forensic evidence or even a confession from another party. It’s a perspective that prioritizes the initial narrative of a crime over subsequent legal exonerations.
Actionable Insights for the Curious
If you're trying to separate fact from political spin, here are a few things you can do to get the full picture:
- Read the 1989 Ad: It’s archived online. Reading the full text helps you understand the specific rhetoric used during the height of New York's crime wave.
- Watch the Ken Burns Documentary: While When They See Us is a dramatization, the 2012 documentary The Central Park Five by Ken Burns uses archival footage and direct interviews that provide a very clinical, fact-based look at the evidence.
- Check the Court Filings: If you want to see the basis of the current defamation suit, the legal filings are public record. They lay out exactly which words from the 2024 debate the men are suing over.
- Understand the "False Confession" Phenomenon: Research from the Innocence Project shows that about 25% of people later cleared by DNA evidence actually confessed or made incriminating statements. Understanding why kids might do this (pressure, exhaustion, fear) makes the Central Park case much easier to process.
Ultimately, the friction between Trump and the Exonerated Five isn't just about a 1989 crime. It’s about two very different views of the American justice system: one that believes the system is generally right the first time, and one that believes the system is capable of massive, life-altering errors that must be corrected.