Election-law expert says no other administration would consider criminal charges in Alaska Senate case; but with Trump's weaponized DOJ, anything can happen

(WOWK 13 News, Facebook)

We are just four days from the 2026 midterm elections, and a New York Times story about a "ballot stacking" scheme designed to boost the chances of Democrat Mary Peltola has roiled Alaska's U.S. Senate race. One of the nation's foremost authorities on election law is following the case and concludes that it shows all of the signs of packing a serious political punch. What about a legal punch, as in a criminal court case that could cast doubt on the midterm results? Rick Hasen, a law professor at UCLA who runs the Election Law Blog and is a frequent contributor at the site, does not see that happening -- partly because the U.S. Constitution places the administration of congressional elections in the hands of states, not the federal government. That should put a crimp in any plans the Trump Department of Justice (DOJ) might have to turn Alaska in favor of Republicans. 

What other thoughts does Hasen have about the Alaska controversy, which essentially boils down to possible voter confusion caused by having two "Dan Sullivans" on the ballot? Under the headline "The legal implications (or not) of The New York Times bombshell story alleging Democrats recruited the second "Dan Sullivan" to run in the Alaska U.S. Senate race," Hasen writes:

Today’s New York Times story, if true, strikes me as a political bombshell: despite public denials of a connection, people associated with Democratic U.S. Senate candidate in Alaska Mary Peltola and Democratic Party officials recruited the second “Dan Sullivan” to run against the incumbent Republican U.S. Senator from Alaska, Dan S. Sullivan. The hope would be to siphon votes away from Sen. Sullivan. (As a political play, I’m skeptical that this would work, given Alaska’s ranked choice voting approach would allow ranking both Dan Sullivans as 1 and 2, thereby not helping Peltola.)

But what, if any, are the legal implications of the story (if true)?

To begin with, I don’t think it has any bearing at all on the current litigation in which the U.S. Department of Justice seeks to delay certification of the race if Dan S. Sullivan narrowly loses on grounds of purported voter confusion. The lawsuit is not going anywhere for any number of reasons, but even assuming DOJ’s theory that it can sue to block certification, it is irrelevant as to why voters might face confusion over the two Dan Sullivans. (This has not stopped DOJ from now supporting DSCC intervention so that it can get discovery over a potential “conspiracy”). [Disclosure: I will soon be filing a motion to file an amicus brief on my own behalf supporting the State of Alaska in this case.]

Second, if there is any evidence that anyone lied under oath about the cooperation between Democrats and Dan J. Sullivan, that could be grounds for a perjury prosecution. So far I’m not aware of any such allegation in the case.

Third, this leaves the question whether this could be prosecuted as some kind of conspiracy against voters. To begin with, it is regular practice for people to support candidates for bad motives: Republicans boosting Greens and Democrats boosting Libertarians. It turns out that Elon Musk alone may have bankrolled left-leaning Cornel West’s quest to get on the 2024 presidential eiection ballot. The effort in Alaska is just an extreme version of that. From The Times’s story: “Ballot-stacking tactics are common in politics and generally considered legal — and have been employed by both parties in Alaska. But this operation, which has not been reported before, reveals the lengths to which Democrats went to seek advantage in a Senate race that could determine control of the chamber.”

That might not stop DOJ from trying to prosecute it. But I think such a claim would fail. As Shelby Wayment and I wrote before these revelations came to light: “In Alaska…President Trump and AG Blanche have said there could be a crime and we know there has been a federal criminal investigation; the closest we could come up with is this Wall Street Journal (WSJ) column alleging Dan J. Sullivan conspired with Democrats to deprive voters of their civil rights in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 241. The DOJ’s complaint does not state a claim of 18 U.S.C. § 241; instead the DOJ relies on a vague statement of purpose from the NVRA (52 U.S.C. § 20501(b)(3)). If DOJ tries to prosecute Dan J., his candidacy is likely protected by the First Amendment. (The case is easily distinguishable from Mackey, that the WSJ authors relied upon, which involved a lie about when, where or how people vote; Dan J. Sullivan, so far as we know, did not lie about his name or anything else).” 

In a post dated August 18, 2026, Hasen noted that the Alaska case raises a wide variety of possible legal issues -- includng free speech,  conspiracy, wire fraud, civil rights, and more. But ultimately, Hasen concludes, the case boils down to potentially prosecuting someone for having dishonest motives in running for office. Is that the kind of act the government can, or should, seek to criminalize? Hasen has serious doubts, and he writes:

Now we cannot be sure what Dan J.’s motivations are (see this NY Times report with lots of reasons but no ironclad evidence to think J. is actually running to help the Democrat). But let’s assume he’s running to help Peltola.

If Dan J. ultimately is charged with violating the Ku Klux Klan Act (18 U.S.C. s 241), which punishes a conspiracy to “injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State. . . in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States,” I think J. would have a very strong First Amendment defense (and likely for the wire fraud claims too, but I don’t know enough about what the basis for those charges might be). 

There have been cases involving lying to people about the mechanics of elections–when, where or how people vote–most recently and famously in the Douglas Mackey (Ricky Vaughn) case. Mackey was convicted of violating section 241 by tricking voters on Twitter into “voting by text” (not a thing) for Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election. I filed an amicus brief arguing that such a prosecution is consistent with the First Amendment, and my friend and colleague Eugene Volokh filed on the other side, pointing especially to the vagueness of the statute. (We both agree, though, that narrow laws aimed at lying about voting mechanics are likely constitutional). The Second Circuit held there was no conspiracy as required by section 241, reversing Mackey’s conviction, and it did not reach the First Amendment issue. 

But this is not a case about tricking someone about the mechanics of the election not to vote. Nor is it a case of impersonation: J. is really named “Daniel Sullivan.” It is not even a case about J. telling a campaign lie. (Volokh says the First Amendment should prevent the state from criminalizing such lies: “on balance it seems to me that the traditional approach of candidates pointing out their rivals’ lies, often supplemented by the media chiming in, is the least bad of a bad set of options”).

This is a case about someone running for office with impure motives who is lucky enough to have a name that could confuse some voters. The solution to this problem is counterspeech (as in: “Don’t vote for J.! Vote for the real Senator Daniel S. Sullivan”.)

I don’t see how the government could criminalize his running for office while  having impure motives. And if it could do so, then it could be a crime every time that the Republican Party backs a Green Party candidate, or Democrats support a MAGA candidate in a primary in the hopes that the candidate would be weaker against a Democrat in the general election. This stuff happens all the time.

It would be quite dangerous for the state to start criminally prosecuting people for their political beliefs and secret motives. Are we going to put people on trial and probe their political allegiances?

I expect that if J. is indicted, these First Amendment issues would loom quite large. Indeed, I would expect any other administration’s DOJ -- Democrat or Republican -- not to even consider charges in a case like this, given those free-speech issues. But the Trump DOJ has been weaponized against the president’s political opponents, and so we will have to watch what happens.

Mary Peltola, the Democrat who leads polling in Alaska Senate race, asks judge for quick dismissal of lawsuit where Trump seeks a remedy only if Republican loses

(KTVU Fox News, Facebook)

What newspaper yesterday ensured that it would win the 2016 award for Most Irrelevant Article of the Year? That "honor" goes to The New York Times, which long has been cited as the most respected daily news publication in the country. The paper, however, did nothing to burnish its reputation with a story dated 10/28/26 about the U.S. Senate race in Alaska. The Times undoubtedly maintains a lofty status in the journalism world, but readers have reason to question the paper's news judgment after it ran a piece suggesting "operatives" for Senate candidate Mary Peltola (D-AK) engaged in dubious (maybe even unlawful) behavior by spending months recruiting candidates to peel votes from Dan S. Sullivan, the Republican incumbent. The effort even produced an alternative Dan Sullivan -- Daniel J. Sullivan Jr., who resides in a small fishing village and has no experience in electoral politics -- in a seeming attempt to sow confusion among Alaska voters. 

All of this might sound sketchy, but even The Times acknowledges that it is perfectly legal -- perhaps even a time-honored tradition practiced by both parties, especially in the rough-and-tumble world of Alaska politics. You have to read to the eighth paragraph to learn there is nothing unlawful about the described behavior. (A well-known legal blog, whose contributing writers are law professors, law-school deans, or both, notes that the Peltola plot almost certainly was legal, and we will have more on that shortly.) Why did such a prestigious newspaper pursue a story about conduct that is common practice and is not illegal? Applying my tin-foil hat for a moment, I wonder if an "operative" from the right side of the political spectrum pitched the idea and maybe even pressured The Times to run with it.

What's all the fuss about? Let's start by taking a look at The Times article under the headline "Inside Democrats' secret effort to stack Alaska's ballot." The NY Times piece probably is blocked by a paywall. As an alternative, readers interested in checking out the entire article probably should click this link to the Seattle Times, which appears to be part of the New York paper's syndication service. We will present all the relevant information in a not-so-relevant story below, as Kellen Browning writes:

In the summer of 2025, a staffer for Mary Peltola, the Alaska Democrat who was eyeing a run for Senate, received unusual instructions from top campaign aides: Find as many people named Dan Sullivan in Alaska as you can.

The staffer complied, combing through voter records to produce a list of Dan Sullivans from across the state.

This was no random request. Dan S. Sullivan is the name of the state’s Republican senator. And if the Peltola campaign or its allies could track down and persuade another Dan Sullivan to run for Senate, the confusion could cost the senator crucial votes on the state’s unusual, four-person ballot.

The plan worked. This spring, a retired teacher from a tiny fishing village along the Alaska Panhandle, reachable only by air and sea, announced his candidacy for Senate. His name was Dan J. Sullivan. 

The Peltola campaign has repeatedly denied any involvement in his candidacy. But The Times has found, based on interviews and text messages, along with documents prepared for a potential lawsuit against the campaign, that not only did Ms. Peltola’s team work with people trying to recruit Mr. Sullivan to run for Senate, but the effort was much broader. The group worked to coax other would-be spoilers into the race, to dilute the incumbent’s support and help catapult the Democrat to victory. 

The mention of a "potential lawsuit against the campaign" provides a clue about how The Times article came to be published. (more on that in a moment) For now, we have this from Kellen Browning:

The endeavor, which was internally called the ballot composition project, involved secret trips to far-flung Alaskan communities and the appearance of a mysterious Midwestern operative, who traversed the state using a fake name and made his pitch to would-be candidates over beers at brew pubs.

It also involved the Peltola campaign’s lawyers, as well as senior aides at the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, which directs the party’s campaign strategy in Senate races across the country. From Washington to Anchorage, those advisers participated in regular conversations about the effort and even considered forming a new political party to draw conservatives onto the ballot.

Ballot-stacking tactics are common in politics and generally considered legal — and have been employed by both parties in Alaska. But this operation, which has not been reported before, reveals the lengths to which Democrats went to seek advantage in a Senate race that could determine control of the chamber.

With that, we get to the crux of the matter: The New York Times has invested considerable time and resources reporting on conduct that is both common and legal. Does that amount to a journalism case of "much ado about nothing"? That's how it looks from here. But that does not mean the story is complete. A report from Adam Klasfeld at All Rise News adds important context: In a post dated 10/26/26, Klasfeld writes under the headline "Dismiss Trump's 'lawless' attack on Alaska's election, judge asked; Senate candidate Mary Peltola's campaign seeks a ruling this week":

Alaskans shouldn’t have the Trump administration’s “lawless” attack on the U.S. Senate race hanging over their heads on Election Day, the race’s leading candidate wrote in a new court filing.

“The Court should not allow this lawsuit to hang like the Sword of Damocles over the ongoing election, lending false legitimacy to the President’s and the Attorney General’s ongoing efforts to spread false narratives about Alaska’s elections as voting continues and as results begin to be tabulated next week,” the campaign for Democratic candidate Mary Peltola wrote in a motion to expedite the case.

Peltola holds a narrow lead in polling averages, making her the favorite to become Alaska’s first Democratic U.S. senator in more than a decade.

The Trump administration’s lawsuit asked a federal judge to block the certification of Alaska’s results if Sen. Dan Sullivan, the Republican incumbent, loses. Peltola’s campaign, Alaskans for Mary, asked a judge to dismiss it “as soon as possible this week.” 

Klasfeld provides two critical pieces of information here: (1) Trump has been asked numerous times if he will accept the outcomes of the midterm elections. His answer has been, "I will accept the results if the election is honest." Trump never seems to clarify what he means by that. But language in his Alaska lawsuit indicates he sees an honest election as one where the Republican candidate wins -- and a dishonest election is one where the Republican loses; (2) The Peltola campaign is asking a federal judge to dismiss Trump's complaint "as soon as possible this week," after allowing time for the filing of motions and responses on Tuesday and Wednesday. That means a decision could come at any moment, most likely today or tomorrow. We will be on alert, and we invite you to stay with us. (Note: A dismissal would be a significant win for Peltola, but it might not mean the case is over; I would not be surprised if Trump seeks an emergency appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court. That likely would be on the court's "shadow docket," so there is no telling how that might end up.) Let's check out more insights from Adam Klasfeld:

There are two Dan Sullivans running for the U.S. Senate in Alaska, and the state’s judiciary already has determined that both are qualified candidates.

Sen. Dan S. Sullivan, the GOP incumbent, has been in office since 2015, and he is sharing a ballot with Dan J. Sullivan, a former independent with conservative views who changed his affiliation to the Republican Party.

Alaska’s Director of Elections Carol Beecher, a longtime Republican, previously tried to disqualify the latter Sullivan and lost her effort up to Alaska’s Supreme Court, which found that both candidates were qualified to compete in the race under the state’s laws and constitution. 

But the state’s courts made clear that Alaska’s election administrators could address any confusion through the design of the ballots themselves. Alaska’s Division of Elections acted accordingly: Ballots received by voters show Dan S. Sullivan marked as the “Registered Republican” and the “Incumbent.” 

Donald Trump, and the agencies under his control, refused to accept the answer of the state’s judiciary over the state’s administration of elections.

Despite the crystal-clear ballot design, the lawsuit claims to combat “voter confusion.”

“DOJ does not allege any facts that would render this concern plausible rather than merely possible, particularly given a ballot design that identifies Senator Sullivan as the incumbent, lists Mr. Sullivan without any party affiliation, and uses both candidates’ middle initials, which are different,” Peltola’s campaign noted in its motion. 

After the filing of the lawsuit, Trump made clear to reporters: “I'm the one that said [file] it,” and the case is being led by attorneys on his former campaign payroll. 

The lawsuit was written by Stanley Woodward, the department’s third highest official whose firm was paid $1.4 million by Trump’s political action committees for representing Trump’s co-defendant and key witnesses in the classified-documents case.

Attorney General Todd Blanche, whose firm made more than $10 million from Trump’s PACs for his work as Trump’s criminal-defense attorney, didn’t deny that his former client told him to file it in an interview on Face the Nation.

“I will not talk about communications I have with the president," Blanche told host Margaret Brennan, avoiding her question on Sunday. 

The governing law in this case seems to be straightforward, clearly pointing in favor of the Peltola campaign -- at this point. But that does not mean the matter is without possible complications, Klasfeld reports:

The Trump administration sued the same election administrators in Alaska who initially challenged the candidacy of Dan J. Sullivan, creating the possibility that both parties would effectively serve the same interests.

That’s why several parties have sought to intervene in the litigation, including registered voters, civil society groups, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, and Alaskans for Mary, which is Peltola’s official campaign entity.

“DOJ filed this lawsuit in the midst of the ongoing general election, less than two weeks before election day, raising issues governed exclusively by state law that were definitively resolved by the Alaska Supreme Court months ago,” Alaskans for Mary wrote in its most recent motion. “DOJ seeks an unprecedented order precluding certification of the U.S. Senate election if the candidate the President favors loses narrowly.” 

Trump's successful effort to ensure the DOJ is populated with loyalists and sycophants, as opposed to the relatively competent and objective prosecutors who were present when he lost in 2020, probably will color the current case from beginning to end. Klasfeld writes:

After the 2020 presidential election, most attorneys from the Department of Justice refused to participate in Trump’s campaign of election subversion. Former DOJ employee Jeff Clark attempted to falsely announce that the Department was investigating allegedly “significant irregularities,” only to be rebuffed by higher-ups inside the agency. Clark’s participation in Trump’s attack on the election led disciplinary authorities to recommend his disbarment.

Now, the Justice Department is led by Trump’s former attorneys and allies.

The Civil Division chief Harmeet Dhillon, one of Trump’s 2020 campaign lawyers, filed lawsuits from coast to coast seeking to seize sensitive voter-roll information, only to suffer 27 consecutive defeats in the federal courts.

The Ninth Circuit appears equally likely to dismiss the Trump Justice Department’s attempt to disqualify 20,000 ballots in California by claiming — without evidence — that they were sent to “likely” noncitizens. A three-judge panel dominated by Trump appointees suggested that they were unlikely to intervene.

In the lower court, the California ballot lawsuit is pending before U.S. District Judge David O. Carter, the first judge to have found that Trump likely committed federal crimes during his 2020 election subversion. In 2022, Judge Carter found that the crime-fraud exception overcame any privilege Trump may have had with now-disbarred attorney John Eastman.

“Dr. Eastman and President Trump launched a campaign to overturn a democratic election, an action unprecedented in American history,” Judge Carter wrote at the time. “Their campaign was not confined to the ivory tower—it was a coup in search of a legal theory. The plan spurred violent attacks on the seat of our nation’s government, led to the deaths of several law-enforcement officers, and deepened public distrust in our political process.” 

Political tension hangs over the Alaska case, along with the very real threat of violence that has come to mark U.S. campaigns and elections -- an ever-present reminder of an intensely divided electorate. Klasfeld writes:

In 2020, the blizzard of lawsuits by Trump and his allies failed in court, but they fueled more radical attacks on the election later, including the attempted intimidation of state administrators, the false elector scheme and the Jan. 6 insurrection.

When asked directly by CNN’s Dana Bash whether Trump’s lawsuits were setting the stage for more political violence by his supporters, Blanche laughed off the question. But the threat of violence is real.

The Brennan Center’s survey this year found that 14 percent of election officials reported receiving threats as of this past February. Trump has escalated his misinformation campaign since that time with the full backing of government attorneys under his control.

U.S. District Judge Sharon Louise Gleason, an Obama appointee, hasn’t yet indicated whether she will fast-track the case in time to potentially dismiss the Alaska litigation before Election Day.  

House Democrats' report is filled with examples of Trump DOJ unlawfully withholding or covering up information about the president's ties to Jeffrey Epstein

(CSR Journal, Facebook)

House Democrats' release of a report about Donald Trump's ties to notorious sex offender Jeffrey Epstein raises a host of questions for Americans to consider as they prepare to vote next Tuesday in midterm elections. But Popular Information (PI), an independent newsletter founded and primarily written and edited by well-known progressive journalist Judd Legum, reports that the Trump Department of Justice (DOJ) continues to hide a significant amount of information about the Trump-Epstein nexus. The Dems report is a step toward possible justice for Epstein victims and a sign that the American public might finally learn critical details about a shadowy relationship that likely has shaped Trump's public life since he entered electoral politics by launching a campaign for the 2000 presidential nomination with the Reform Party 

Perhaps the most telling line in the Democrats' report is this: The report alleges that “Trump has lied about the nature and extent of his relationship with Epstein dozens of times.” Trump's propensity to lie, and his appointment of two incompetent and compromised attorneys general (Pam Bondi and Todd Blanche) to lead the DOJ has ensured the public's knowledge of what went on between Trump and Epstein -- plus the nature of the abuse they allegedly inflicted on women and girls (some in the 13-16 age range, maybe younger) -- remains well short of complete.

Are we closer now to having the blindfolds removed from our eyes and perhaps seeking accountability for perpetrators who are alleged to have engaged in horrific acts of savagery, including rape, child sexual abuse, and maybe much more? The answer on both fronts appears to be yes. But Popular Information, under the headline "The rape allegations against Trump: what we know and what is still being hidden; a report from House Judiciary Committee Democrats contains new details about the Trump-Epstein relationship -- and an alleged cover-up," tells us we still have quite a ways to go. Rebecca Crosby and Noel Sims write:

On Monday, House Judiciary Committee Democrats released a new staff report about President Trump’s alleged relationship with convicted child sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. The report details allegations involving 11 women, including five of whom accuse “Trump of rape or sexual assault in Jeffrey Epstein’s close company or presence.”

The report is based on interviews conducted by Judiciary Committee staff, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) records, released documents, and survivor accounts. While the majority of the allegations included in the report were already public, it includes a new allegation that Trump raped a young model at a 1993 pageant.

“The report concludes that, based on the available evidence and witness testimony, Trump and Paolo Zampolli—who until recently served as a senior Trump Administration official and diplomat—may have been co-conspirators in Jeffrey Epstein’s conspiracy to traffic and abuse young women in the 1990s,” a press release states. 

Why has it been difficult to get to the truth about a relationship that might have influenced many of Trump's actions on the world stage? House Dems are not shy about addressing that question. From the PI article:

The report alleges that “Trump has lied about the nature and extent of his relationship with Epstein dozens of times.” For example, Trump has claimed that he kicked Epstein out of his club at Mar-a-Lago. But according to the report, members of Congress reviewed a 2009 document that reveals that Trump “stated unequivocally that Epstein ‘was never asked to leave’ Mar-a-Lago.” The file is redacted in public documents. Trump has also denied ever being on Epstein’s plane, but files show that Trump is listed on the plane’s flight logs “at least eight different times” throughout the 1990s.

Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee are now asking for a new independent investigation. The report calls for an independent special counsel to be appointed to investigate potential co-conspirators.

Why is such a step necessary? House Dems make it clear that Trump ignores longstanding U.S. norms and rules that are supposed to keep a wall of independence between the White House and the DOJ, ensuring the president generally is not consulted regarding charging or non-charging decisions. To make the situation even more dicey, Trump has installed loyalists throughout the DOJ, who often act as his personal attorney rather than as objective prosecutors. Democrats, however, have vowed to launch new investigations on Trump-Epstein matters if they regain power after the midterm elections. Crosby and Sims write:

A press release argues that the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) “conflict of interest and obstruction make clear that Trump’s appointees cannot be trusted to pursue accountability.” The report alleges that the DOJ “actively obstructed the Epstein investigation into any co-conspirators, attempted to prevent the release of the Epstein files, and then released an incomplete and heavily redacted set to the public.”

The report also reveals that documents in the Epstein files allege that Attorney General Todd Blanche, who was deputy attorney general at the time, “likely knew about certain survivors’ claims against” Trump when he interviewed Epstein co-conspirator Ghislaine Maxwell in prison. According to a transcript, Blanche, on at least three occasions, “directed Maxwell not to discuss” an individual whose report to the FBI implicated Trump, but whose allegations were not yet public. The report alleges that by doing so, Blanche “may have engaged in criminal obstruction of justice.”

“The bottom line: there is more than sufficient evidence to launch a criminal investigation,” the report states.

“The women who survived Epstein deserve to be heard, Congress must have the complete files required by law, and an independent special counsel must investigate Epstein’s co-conspirators and DOJ’s cover-up and ensure that state and foreign prosecutors have the evidence they need to pursue justice,” Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee Jamie Raskin (D-MD) said.

The White House has denied the allegations laid out in the new report. “None of these allegations are true. This ‘report’ is nothing more than a desperate attempt by crazed Democrats to distract Americans from the surging Republican momentum driven by President Trump’s historic achievements,” a White House spokesperson told NBC News.

One of the most important developments this year came in February when NPR reported under the headline "Justice Department removed, withheld Epstein files related to Trump. From that report:

The Justice Department has withheld some Epstein files related to allegations that President Trump sexually abused a minor, an NPR investigation finds. It also removed some documents from the public database where accusations against Jeffrey Epstein also mention Trump.

Some files have not been made public despite a law mandating their release. These include what appear to be more than 50 pages of FBI interviews, as well as notes from conversations with a woman who accused Trump of sexual abuse decades ago when she was a minor.

NPR reviewed multiple sets of unique serial numbers appearing before and after the pages in question, stamped onto documents in the Epstein files database, FBI case records, emails and discovery document logs in the latest tranche of documents published at the end of January. NPR's investigation found dozens of pages that appear to be catalogued by the Justice Department but not shared publicly.

House Democrats' notion that the Trump DOJ cannot be trusted clearly is based in reality. New allegations against Trump, from a Swiss beauty-pageant contestant, receive front-and-center treatment in the House Dems' report. Crosby and Sims write at Popular Information:

The report reveals new allegations against Trump from Beatrice Keul, a former Swiss model who participated in the Donald J. Trump American Dream Pageant in 1993 at age 24. 

According to an interview she gave to committee staff, both Trump and Epstein introduced themselves to Keul when she arrived and promised to take care of things like her travel and education. Keul said Trump told her “I will take care of you” several times. So, when a Trump representative asked her to come to his room later in the day, she assumed he was following up on his promises to get her a visa and a New York University education. 

Instead, Keul alleges that Trump raped her in a “brutal” assault that left her bleeding and covered in bruises. She said she went through the rest of the pageant in a “daze” because her passport had been taken from her and she did not want to raise alarms. After the pageant, she got her passport back and returned to Switzerland. She declined to participate in another Trump-sponsored pageant a few weeks later, but Trump called her and repeated his offer to take care of her.

In 2024, Keul told a different version of this story to the Daily Mail. At the time, she said when she arrived in Trump’s room, he “jumped” on her and began “grabbing and touching” her, but that ultimately she was able to hold him off. “I’m very tall, that’s what helped me a lot,” Keul said to the Daily Mail. The report does not say why Keul changed her story. It also does not end with the Keul story, Popular Information reports:

The report also includes the stories of four other women who have accused Trump of sexual assault. 

Stacey Williams, a swimsuit model who dated Epstein in the early 1990s, has accused Trump of groping her when she and Epstein visited Trump’s office in 1993. According to CNN, three friends of Williams have separately confirmed that she told them about the incident, which Williams later described as “trophy hunting” for the two men. 

Jill Harth, who recruited young models for Trump’s pageants, filed a lawsuit against Trump in 1997 claiming that he had “forcibly kissed, fondled, and restrained” her at a Mar-a-Lago party in 1993 when she was 31. The lawsuit also claimed that the same year, Trump had demanded Harth provide him with access to an 18-year-old contestant “whom Trump referred to as a ‘sex object.’” Harth’s lawsuit was resolved as a part of a settlement by Trump in a separate contractual suit brought against him by Harth’s then-partner.  

A woman identified by the pseudonym “Katie Johnson” filed a lawsuit against Trump in 2016 accusing him of raping and sexually abusing her in 1994 at a party hosted by Epstein when she was 13 years old. According to DOJ documents, Johnson “was asked to strip down to her underwear and give a massage to Epstein” and “massage the penis of Epstein’s guest, Trump, with her hands.” Johnson later dropped the suit.  

In 2019, a woman described as Jane Doe 4 came to the FBI with claims that in 1983, when she was 13 or 14 years old, she “bit [Trump] while performing oral sex” and that he “hit [her] in the face after she laughed about biting [him].” 

Although Jane Doe 4’s claims have not been substantiated, the report alleges that the DOJ may be “still withholding a huge number of documents related to the allegations,” stating that the Charleston (S.C.) Post and Courier reported that it had reviewed FBI agents’ notes that contained new details about Jane Doe 4’s interview, but that those notes have been withheld by the DOJ for being “duplicative.” 

The House Dems' report is rife with information that points to the untrustworthy nature of the Trump DOJ. Crosby and Sims write:

In addition to these five women who claim to have been abused by Trump, the report also details the accounts of three Epstein survivors who believe that Trump participated in Epstein’s crimes.

Maria Farmer, a former assistant to Epstein who was abused by him, has said that on one occasion she went to meet Epstein in his office and Trump approached her there. But Epstein told Trump, “No, no. She’s not here for you,” before taking Trump to a different room. Farmer believed that there was a different young woman in that room waiting for Trump. She has said that she urged authorities to look into Trump decades ago. According to the report, Farmer’s “reports to FBI appear to be unlawfully omitted from the files released by DOJ pursuant to” the Epstein Files Transparency Act (EFTA).

DOJ documents released under the EFTA detail other concerning incidents involving Trump. In one case, Trump was accused of agreeing with Epstein that one of Epstein’s victims, who was 14 at the time, was a “good one.” In another instance, a Jane Doe described how she was introduced to Trump by Maxwell and felt she was being offered to him for sex. She recalled Maxwell saying “things like, ‘Oh I think he likes you. Aren’t you lucky. This is great.’” 

The report provides three additional examples of women who seemed to have connections to Trump and Epstein. The first woman, Lauren Petrella, has never made accusations against Trump herself, but Harth’s lawsuit claimed that he sexually assaulted her. The other two women, Jane Does 5 and 6, spent time with Trump and Epstein during the 1990s, but have not accused Trump of any wrongdoing.