Lisa Bloom Accused of Offering Payments to Trump Accusers in 2016 Election
In a development that has resurfaced from 2017, evidence suggests that Lisa Bloom, a prominent women’s rights attorney and daughter of renowned lawyer Gloria Allred, was accused of arranging financial compensation for women who made or considered making sexual misconduct allegations against then-presidential candidate Donald Trump during the final months of the 2016 election. The allegations, first reported by The Hill on December 15, 2017, have sparked renewed debate as of September 5, 2025, with Republicans framing the payments as part of a politically motivated campaign to undermine Trump. The controversy raises questions about the ethics of incentivizing allegations, the integrity of the #MeToo movement, and the polarized political climate of the time.
The Allegations Against Bloom
According to The Hill, Bloom sought to secure payments from donors and tabloid media outlets for women who alleged sexual misconduct by Trump. Documents, emails, and text messages reviewed by the outlet detailed Bloom’s efforts, which included offering to sell accusers’ stories to television outlets for a commission, arranging for a donor to pay off one accuser’s mortgage, and attempting to secure a six-figure payment—up to $750,000—for another woman who ultimately declined to come forward. One notable exchange of texts between Bloom and a potential accuser suggested contact with political action committees supporting Hillary Clinton, hinting at political motivations.
The Hill reported that Bloom’s efforts intensified as the 2016 election neared, with one text to client Jill Harth, a former beauty contestant manager who accused Trump of sexual harassment in 1997, reading, “Wow Jill that would be amazing. 27 days until the election.” Harth, who later became a vocal Trump critic after her allegations resurfaced, received a small payment for licensing photos to media outlets and had her Queens apartment mortgage paid off by an unidentified donor, an amount under $30,000. Harth maintained that Bloom never pressured her to fabricate claims, emphasizing the veracity of her 1997 lawsuit against Trump for groping her at Mar-a-Lago.
Bloom’s Defense and Response
Bloom, who has represented high-profile clients like Harvey Weinstein’s accusers, defended her actions in a statement to The Hill, arguing that her goal was not to pressure women but to provide security and relocation support amid the “polarized and hostile” 2016 election atmosphere. She acknowledged that her standard contracts included a 33% commission for media deals, a common practice when she took cases pro bono or at reduced rates. “Donors reached out to my firm directly to help some of the women I represented,” Bloom said, denying any direct coordination with the Clinton campaign. She insisted that all allegations were thoroughly vetted, involving background checks, social media reviews, and corroboration with witnesses.
In a Twitter response on December 15, 2017, Bloom criticized The Hill’s reporter, John Solomon, for “weaponizing” stories to feed conservative outlets like Fox News. She emphasized that her clients, including Harth, stood by their allegations, stating, “Even this spurious article… includes this important fact: that the victims who came forward were telling the truth.” Harth echoed this, telling The Hill, “Nothing… affects the facts or the veracity of my 1997 federal complaint against Donald J. Trump for sexual harassment and assault.”
Political Backlash and Ethical Concerns
Republicans seized on the allegations, framing Bloom’s actions as a coordinated effort to smear Trump. Conservative commentator Bill O’Reilly, himself accused of sexual misconduct, claimed on December 15, 2017, to possess a tape of a lawyer offering a woman $200,000 to accuse Trump, though he did not release it. On X, users like @johncardillo accused Bloom of offering “bounties for baseless accusations,” while others labeled it a Democratic plot to influence the election. The controversy fueled skepticism about the #MeToo movement, with critics arguing that financial incentives could encourage false claims, undermining genuine victims.
Legal experts noted potential issues with Bloom’s approach. Offering payments, even for security, could be perceived as incentivizing allegations, raising ethical questions about attorney conduct. However, The Hill reported that both Harth and another accuser stressed Bloom never asked them to make false statements. The New York Times, on December 31, 2017, contextualized the issue, noting that both political sides offered money to exploit sexual misconduct claims, citing a $200,000 payment from a Democratic super PAC, American Bridge, to Bloom’s firm, which went undisclosed on tax returns.
Broader Implications
The accusations against Bloom highlight the complex interplay of politics, money, and sexual misconduct allegations during the 2016 election. The Access Hollywood tape, released in October 2016, where Trump boasted about grabbing women, prompted a wave of accusers, with at least 28 women alleging misconduct by 2025. Bloom represented four, two of whom—Harth and Lisa Boyne—went public. The financial arrangements, while legal, raised concerns about their impact on public trust in such allegations, especially in a polarized climate.
As of September 2025, the resurfacing of this controversy on platforms like X reflects ongoing partisan divides. Supporters of Trump argue it vindicates his claims of a “witch hunt,” while defenders of Bloom and her clients insist the allegations against Trump remain credible. The debate underscores the challenges of addressing sexual misconduct in politically charged contexts, with no easy resolution in sight.
