If you spend any time on social media or watching the news lately, you’ve probably seen the "R-word" tossed around regarding Donald Trump. It’s a heavy accusation. One that gets people fired up on both sides of the aisle. But why exactly are people calling Trump a rapist now, especially when his supporters point to the fact that he was never "convicted" of rape in a criminal court?
Honestly, the answer is a bit of a legal maze. It involves a high-profile civil trial, a very specific New York law, and a federal judge who didn’t mince words when the dust finally settled.
The E. Jean Carroll Verdict: Where it All Started
The core of the "why are people calling Trump a rapist" conversation stems from a civil lawsuit brought by writer E. Jean Carroll. Back in 2023, a jury in Manhattan looked at her claim that Trump attacked her in a Bergdorf Goodman dressing room in the mid-1990s.
After a nine-day trial, the jury came back with a verdict. They found Trump liable for sexual abuse and defamation. They ordered him to pay $5 million.
Wait. If the jury said "sexual abuse" and not "rape," why is the internet saying otherwise?
This is where the fine print matters. In New York, the legal definition of "rape" used to be incredibly narrow. For a long time, it specifically required "forcible vaginal penetration by a penis." If the penetration involved fingers or another object, New York law technically categorized it as "sexual abuse" or "sexual battery," not rape.
The jury in Carroll’s case found that Trump did indeed forcibly penetrate her, but they weren't convinced it was with his penis. Instead, they concluded he used his fingers. Under the strict, technical New York Penal Law at the time, that meant they couldn't check the box labeled "rape."
They checked the box for sexual abuse instead.
💡 You might also like: Obituaries Binghamton New York: Why Finding Local History is Getting Harder
Judge Kaplan's Clarification: "Substantially True"
Trump’s legal team immediately jumped on this distinction. They started telling everyone that the jury "rejected" the rape claim and that their client was "exonerated."
Judge Lewis Kaplan, who presided over the case, wasn't having it.
In a subsequent ruling, the judge essentially shut down that narrative. He clarified that just because the jury followed the narrow "New York Penal Law" definition doesn't mean the act itself wasn't rape in the way most of us understand it.
Kaplan wrote that the jury’s finding—that Trump forcibly penetrated Carroll with his fingers—actually fits the definition of rape in almost every other context. It fits the definition in many other states. It fits the definition used by the FBI. Most importantly, it fits the common dictionary definition.
"The finding that Ms. Carroll failed to prove that she was ‘raped’ within the meaning of the New York Penal Law does not mean that she failed to prove that Mr. Trump ‘raped’ her as many people commonly understand the word ‘rape,’" Kaplan stated in his court order.
Basically, the judge said that calling Trump a rapist is "substantially true" based on the evidence the jury accepted. This ruling is the primary reason why many major news outlets and legal experts feel comfortable using the term today.
Why the Distinction Matters in 2026
You might wonder why we're still splitting hairs over this years later. Well, the legal ripples didn't stop in 2023.
📖 Related: NYC Subway 6 Train Delay: What Actually Happens Under Lexington Avenue
The case actually led to a massive change in the law. In 2024, New York Governor Kathy Hochul signed a bill that expanded the state’s definition of rape. They literally updated the law because of the Carroll case. The "technicality" that Trump’s lawyers used to claim he wasn't a rapist no longer exists for future cases.
Now, New York law includes nonconsensual anal, oral, and vaginal penetration by any body part or object under the umbrella of rape.
For the public, the distinction between "sexual abuse" involving forced penetration and "rape" feels like a distinction without a difference. It’s a traumatic, violent act regardless of the legal label. But in the world of political spin, that label is a weapon.
Critics use the judge's "substantially true" comment to label him a rapist. Supporters use the jury's "sexual abuse" verdict to say he's being unfairly maligned.
More Than Just One Case
While the Carroll verdict is the "smoking gun" for those using the term, it's not the only allegation. Over 20 women have come forward with various stories of sexual misconduct against Trump over the decades.
- Jessica Leeds: Alleged he groped her on a flight in the 1980s.
- Kristin Anderson: Alleged he groped her in a nightclub in the 90s.
- Ivana Trump: His late first wife initially used the word "rape" in a sworn divorce deposition regarding an incident in 1989, though she later clarified she didn't mean it in a "literal or criminal sense."
Most of these allegations never made it to a courtroom. They were either outside the statute of limitations or lacked physical evidence. But the Carroll case was different. Because of the Adult Survivors Act, she was able to sue decades later. And unlike the other stories, this one was tested in front of a jury. They saw the evidence. They heard the witnesses. They saw the Access Hollywood tape where Trump bragged about grabbing women.
And they believed her.
👉 See also: No Kings Day 2025: What Most People Get Wrong
What Most People Get Wrong
One huge misconception is the difference between a civil trial and a criminal trial.
Trump was never charged with a crime for the Carroll incident. Why? Because the statute of limitations for criminal rape had long expired by the time she came forward. In a criminal trial, you have to prove guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt." That’s a very high bar.
In a civil trial—like the one Carroll won—the standard is "preponderance of the evidence." Basically, is it more likely than not that it happened?
The jury said yes.
When people say "he's not a rapist because he wasn't convicted," they are technically correct in a criminal sense. He hasn't spent a day in prison for it. But when people say "he is a rapist because a judge said it was substantially true," they are also legally grounded in the results of the civil system.
Actionable Insights: How to Navigate the Noise
When you hear people debating why are people calling Trump a rapist, it helps to keep these three facts in your back pocket:
- The Jury Finding: A jury of nine citizens unanimously found that Donald Trump forcibly sexually assaulted E. Jean Carroll.
- The Penal Law Flaw: He wasn't labeled a "rapist" by that jury only because New York's 1990s-era law required a specific body part for that specific label—a law that has since been changed.
- The Judicial Ruling: Federal Judge Lewis Kaplan explicitly stated that the "sexual abuse" the jury found Trump liable for is, in common parlance, rape.
If you’re looking to verify these claims yourself, you can look up the court transcripts for Carroll v. Trump. The details are public. It’s also worth reading Judge Kaplan’s July 2023 memorandum opinion, which explains the "substantially true" logic in dense, but very clear, legal prose.
Whether you view him through the lens of a "convicted" criminal or a "liable" civil defendant, the facts of what the jury decided remain the same. The debate isn't really about what happened in that dressing room anymore—the jury already answered that. The debate is now about which words we use to describe it.