Former Miss Switzerland’s Rape Allegation Against Trump Revives Scrutiny of Epstein Connections
A newly released report by Democratic staff of the US House Judiciary Committee has brought renewed attention to a former Miss Switzerland contestant’s allegation that President Donald Trump raped her at a New York hotel in 1993. Beatrice Keul, a Swiss model who was 24 at the time, says the alleged assault left her bleeding and bruised. The White House has rejected the accusation, describing the report as politically motivated. The allegation has not been established in court, and Trump has not been charged in connection with Keul’s account.
The report examines allegations involving Trump and his past association with Jeffrey Epstein, the financier and convicted sex offender whose network of abuse and recruitment of young women and underage girls has prompted years of investigations and public scrutiny.
What Beatrice Keul Allegedly Told Investigators
According to the congressional report, Keul met Trump in November 1993 while attending the American Dream Pageant, a beauty competition associated with Trump. At the time, she was working as a model and in financial services in Switzerland.
Keul said she met Trump at a press luncheon at New York’s Plaza Hotel, which he owned at the time. According to her account, Trump offered to help her obtain a US visa and gain admission to New York University.
The report says Keul was later invited to meet Trump in a hotel suite. She alleges that he grabbed her from behind and raped her, tearing her dress and causing bleeding and bruising. She also alleges that he subsequently urged her to remain silent while repeating promises of assistance with her visa and education.
These details come from Keul’s account as summarised in the Democratic staff report. They should not be treated as independently proven findings or a judicial determination of what occurred.
Alleged Connection to Jeffrey Epstein
Keul’s account also refers to Epstein, whom she says she encountered at the same event. According to the report, Epstein approached her after her conversation with Trump and presented himself as a close associate of the future president.
Keul alleged that Epstein offered help similar to what Trump had discussed and invited her to a party at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago property in Florida.
The congressional report places these claims within a broader examination of how women may have been approached through social events, modelling opportunities and promises of professional advancement. It argues that the relationships and events described by witnesses deserve further investigation.
However, the presence of a person’s name in a congressional report, or an allegation involving that person, does not by itself prove criminal conduct. Each claim requires assessment against available evidence and the responses of those accused.
White House Rejects the Allegations
The White House has denied Keul’s accusation. Spokeswoman Lauren Bis rejected the claims in the report and described the release as a politically motivated effort to damage Trump.
Trump has repeatedly denied wrongdoing related to Epstein. No criminal charge has been announced against him over Keul’s allegation.
The competing accounts leave important questions unresolved. The congressional report presents allegations gathered by Democratic committee staff, while the White House disputes them. The allegations concerning Keul have not been established through a court judgment.
Why the Report Has Drawn Attention
The report arrives amid continuing political disputes over the disclosure of records related to Epstein and the handling of investigations into his associates. Democratic lawmakers have called for an independent investigation into allegations involving people connected to Epstein and have raised questions about how relevant evidence has been handled.
The document also discusses allegations made by other women against Trump and people in his wider circle. Those accounts are separate claims and must be evaluated individually; their inclusion in the same report does not establish that every allegation is true.
The case also highlights the difficulty of investigating alleged sexual violence reported decades after the events in question. Investigators may need to assess witness testimony, contemporaneous records, correspondence and other corroborating evidence, while accounting for the limitations of material that may no longer exist.
Earlier Public Allegations
Keul had previously spoken publicly about an alleged sexual encounter involving Trump in 1993. In 2024, she described an incident at the Plaza Hotel in which she alleged unwanted sexual contact. The latest congressional report presents a more serious allegation based on her account to committee staff.
The distinction matters: the newly reported rape allegation is not a court finding, and the earlier public account should not be treated as independent proof of the new claim. Trump’s representatives have denied allegations of sexual misconduct against him.
Trump has faced other legal proceedings involving sexual misconduct allegations. In a separate case brought by writer E. Jean Carroll, a civil jury in 2023 found Trump liable for sexual abuse and defamation. That case is legally distinct from Keul’s allegations and does not determine whether her account is accurate.
What Happens Next?
The immediate question is whether the allegations and the wider concerns raised in the congressional report will lead to further investigative steps. Democratic lawmakers have called for an independent inquiry, but the report itself does not establish criminal liability.
Any further assessment would depend on the evidence available, the response of relevant authorities and whether investigators pursue additional witness interviews or records. Political debate over Epstein-related documents is likely to continue, but allegations must remain clearly distinguished from verified findings.
For now, Keul’s account remains an allegation disputed by the White House. The report has renewed public attention on the matter, but it does not replace an independent investigation or a legal determination.
