WASHINGTON — A new rape allegation against President Donald Trump became public Monday in a House Judiciary Committee Democrats’ report accusing the Justice Department of shielding him from scrutiny. Beatrice Keul, a Swiss former pageant contestant, alleges Trump raped her at New York’s Plaza Hotel in November 1993. Although Keul previously accused Trump publicly of groping her, the report presents her allegation of rape for the first time.

Released Oct. 26, the 53-page Democratic staff report calls for an independent special counsel to investigate Trump, potential accomplices in Jeffrey Epstein’s sex trafficking operation and the government’s handling of evidence. It combines congressional interviews, FBI records, previously reported allegations and documents released from the Epstein investigations. The document represents the conclusions of the committee’s Democratic minority, rather than a bipartisan finding or judicial determination.

The White House rejected the allegations. In a statement to People, spokeswoman Lauren Bis said, “None of these allegations are true,” and characterized the report as a politically motivated attack. Trump has not been charged in connection with Keul’s allegation.

Keul’s new Trump rape allegation

Keul alleges that Trump raped her in a suite at New York’s Plaza Hotel during a November 1993 pageant. She was 24 and had traveled to the United States to participate in the American Dream Pageant. According to the report, committee staff developed her account through interviews over several weeks.

Keul told staff that Trump offered help obtaining a visa and admission to New York University. She said Epstein subsequently approached her at the event, identified himself as Trump’s best friend and offered travel and accommodations for a gathering in Florida. Later, she alleges, a representative escorted her upstairs to meet Trump, who assaulted her and pressured her to remain silent.

Her account places Epstein at the pageant event. It does not describe him witnessing the alleged rape inside the suite. That distinction matters when assessing precisely what her allegation establishes about the two men’s conduct.

The report presents the career and education offers as part of a broader pattern. As The New Republic reported, Democrats compare those promises with accounts of Epstein using educational opportunities to recruit and control women. Keul said Trump later contacted her in Switzerland and renewed his offers, which she declined.

Those asserted similarities form part of the Democrats’ argument for an investigation. They do not independently establish what happened inside the hotel room. Evidence confirming a meeting, a business relationship or a career offer supports different propositions from evidence establishing a sexual assault.

How the new rape allegation differs from earlier reporting

Keul had publicly accused Trump of groping her in October 2024 reporting. That account described her resisting and persuading him to stop. Monday’s report introduces a new allegation of rape concerning the same encounter.

The report acknowledges the distinction in a footnote, saying Keul previously chose to describe talking Trump down. HuffPost’s report, republished by BuzzFeed, notes that the committee published neither full interview transcripts nor an explanation for the changed account. The newly public rape accusation therefore adds a materially different claim to the earlier reporting.

That leaves questions about the interviews, supporting records and the circumstances of Keul’s disclosures. A responsible investigation would examine those questions alongside her allegation. Neither the seriousness of the accusation nor its inclusion in a congressional report resolves them.

Eleven women, several different kinds of evidence

According to the committee Democrats’ announcement, the report examines accounts involving 11 women. Five directly accuse Trump of rape or sexual assault in Epstein’s close company or presence. The other material includes accounts of introductions, alleged attempts to make women available to Trump and secondhand descriptions of relationships.

The five direct accusers identified are Keul, Stacey Williams, Jill Harth, a woman using the pseudonym Katie Johnson and another unidentified woman. The report also discusses Maria Farmer and two witnesses known as Jane and Kate. Those categories should not be collapsed into a claim that 11 women have newly accused Trump of rape.

Williams, a former Sports Illustrated model, publicly alleged in 2024 that Trump groped her at Trump Tower in 1993 while Epstein watched. NPR’s account of her allegation describes her saying the men continued talking and smiling during the encounter. Trump’s campaign denied her accusation and called it politically motivated.

Williams also described receiving a postcard from Trump afterward. Such correspondence can help establish contact between people, but it does not independently prove an assault. Her allegation predates Monday’s report by two years.

Harth’s allegations reach back further in the public record. As ABC News documented, she filed a 1997 lawsuit accusing Trump of groping and sexual harassment. She later withdrew it, saying that was a condition of resolving a separate financial dispute.

Trump denied touching Harth. She subsequently reaffirmed her allegations to ABC News. The withdrawn lawsuit did not produce a trial verdict establishing whether the alleged assaults occurred.

The older allegations involving minors

The woman identified as Katie Johnson alleged that Trump and Epstein sexually assaulted her in 1994, when she was 13. Her litigation became public during the 2016 presidential campaign. Courthouse News reported her voluntary dismissal of the New York case that November, after earlier filings and withdrawals.

Her attorneys did not explain the final dismissal in the filing. Attorney Lisa Bloom had previously said threats prompted the cancellation of a planned public appearance. Trump’s representatives denied the allegations, and the case ended without a trial determination of their truth.

A separate unidentified woman’s allegations became the subject of a records dispute this year. Reuters reported in March that DOJ released previously missing summaries of FBI interviews involving her accusations against Trump. The department said it had incorrectly classified the documents as duplicates; the White House denied the accusations, and Reuters could not independently verify them.

The committee likewise says it could not independently verify that woman’s allegation against Trump. Its announcement also distinguishes other encounters: Farmer described threatening behavior, while Jane and Kate described introductions or circumstances Democrats consider relevant to possible trafficking. These accounts raise different evidentiary questions from direct allegations of assault.

An FBI record establishes that investigators received or recorded information. It does not automatically establish the information’s accuracy. The relevant questions include what investigators checked, whether witnesses corroborated material details and what evidence supported any decision to continue or close an inquiry.

Why Democrats are challenging DOJ’s position

The dispute extends beyond individual accusations to the government’s explanation for declining additional investigations. In its July 2025 memorandum, DOJ and the FBI said their review found no incriminating client list, no credible evidence of blackmail involving prominent individuals and no evidence warranting investigation of uncharged third parties. The agencies also emphasized the sensitivity of victim information throughout the files.

Those are separate conclusions. The absence of a client list does not, by itself, resolve allegations against a particular individual. Likewise, determining whether an accusation warrants investigation differs from determining whether prosecutors possess enough admissible evidence to bring charges.

The FBI investigative guidelines cited by Democrats distinguish preliminary inquiries from full investigations. They permit preliminary investigations based on information or allegations indicating that qualifying criminal activity may have occurred. Investigations require supervisory approval and must satisfy the standards applicable to their scope.

Democrats argue that the available accounts justify further inquiry. Establishing that proposition would still leave prosecutors to assess jurisdiction, credibility, corroboration and applicable legal limits. A decision to investigate would not predetermine the outcome.

What the Maxwell interview shows

A central institutional allegation concerns Attorney General Todd Blanche, who served as deputy attorney general when he interviewed Maxwell in July 2025. Democrats accuse him of steering her away from discussing Jane, a survivor whose account they say implicated Trump. They characterize that conduct as possible obstruction intended to protect the president.

The Justice Department’s July 25 interview transcript confirms that Blanche interrupted discussions involving Jane. At one point, Maxwell began disputing the accuracy of Jane’s trial testimony. Blanche said he did not want to enter a “he said, she said” exchange.

Later, when Maxwell again brought up Jane, Blanche said, “Let’s not talk about individuals.” The surrounding discussion concerned Maxwell’s account of her conduct and her disagreement with witnesses’ testimony. That context is relevant to evaluating the interruptions.

The transcript documents what Blanche said. It does not, standing alone, establish why he redirected the conversation or whether he committed a crime. Democrats’ interpretation requires examination of the interview’s preparation, objectives and handling of relevant evidence.

What the disclosure law requires

Congress enacted the Epstein Files Transparency Act in November 2025. It required DOJ to publish covered unclassified records within 30 days, including investigative materials and internal communications about decisions to investigate or decline prosecution. Its scope extends beyond documents describing Epstein’s own conduct.

The law prohibits withholding records because of embarrassment, reputational harm or political sensitivity. It also allows specified protections, including for victims’ identifying information and child sexual abuse material. Certain narrowly tailored, temporary restrictions may protect active investigations.

That framework requires evaluating the reason for each disputed withholding. A redaction protecting a survivor’s identity serves a different purpose from concealing information to spare a public official embarrassment. The existence of redactions alone does not establish a cover-up, while the volume of released pages alone does not establish full compliance.

DOJ has defended its production. In its January announcement of nearly 3.5 million released pages, the department said withheld material included duplicates, privileged documents, legally exempt material and unrelated records. It also warned that the release contained public submissions that could be fabricated or false.

That warning underscores why publication and verification must remain distinct. A document’s appearance in a government database does not make every statement inside it an investigative finding. Conversely, an agency’s general warning about unreliable submissions does not answer questions about a particular witness or missing interview.

State and foreign investigations add another dispute

The struggle over evidence also affects investigators outside the federal government. As USA Herald previously reported, New Mexico sued DOJ in August over access to Epstein records, seeking material for its investigation involving Zorro Ranch. The lawsuit made access to federal evidence a separate legal dispute.

In an Oct. 21 letter to Blanche and DOJ’s international affairs director, Rep. Jamie Raskin challenged the department’s handling of requests from New Mexico and British authorities. He cited reports that British investigators seeking evidence involving former Ambassador Peter Mandelson had encountered federal resistance. Raskin requested records concerning decisions to deny or oppose assistance.

Public disclosure and evidence sharing with prosecutors are distinct processes. Investigators may need protected material that should never appear in an unrestricted public archive. Whether DOJ lawfully handled those requests requires examining the requests, its responses and the legal grounds it asserted.

What a special counsel could do

Democrats’ proposed remedy would require action within the Justice Department. Under the special counsel regulations, the attorney general, or an acting attorney general following recusal, makes the appointment. The rules contemplate a warranted criminal investigation involving a departmental conflict or extraordinary circumstances, where an outside appointment serves the public interest.

Congressional Democrats cannot make that appointment simply by releasing a report. The regulations also permit preliminary inquiry before an appointment decision and contemplate other ways to address conflicts. Whether those alternatives would adequately address this dispute remains part of the institutional question.

A special counsel would have substantial operational independence, but would remain subject to DOJ rules and policies. The attorney general retains defined oversight and removal powers. Calling for an independent investigation therefore does not eliminate questions about its scope, leadership or supervision.

Presidential immunity does not settle the allegations

Any federal prosecution of Trump while he remains president would encounter the Justice Department’s longstanding constitutional position. Its Office of Legal Counsel concluded in 2000 that indicting or criminally prosecuting a sitting president would undermine the executive branch’s constitutional functions. That position creates a significant barrier to prosecution during his term.

The issue differs from immunity for official presidential acts. In Trump v. United States, the Supreme Court recognized immunity for certain official conduct while stating that unofficial conduct receives no such protection. Alleged private sexual assaults decades before Trump’s presidency do not become official acts because he later entered office.

Neither principle determines whether any particular accusation is true or prosecutable. Those questions require evidence and analysis of the relevant offenses, jurisdiction and time limits. They also remain distinct from whether investigators should preserve records or examine the conduct of other people.

The report leaves Congress and DOJ confronting both the underlying allegations and the handling of potential evidence. Raskin’s earlier letter sets a Nov. 4 deadline for requested records about cooperation with other jurisdictions. His demand gives the dispute a concrete next step: an accounting of what investigators requested, what DOJ provided and why it withheld anything else.