When Someone Tells You Who They Are: Trump and the Central Park Five

"Criminals must be told that their CIVIL LIBERTIES END WHEN AN ATTACK ON OUR SAFETY BEGINS!"

— Donald J. Trump, May 1989

If someone were to make a movie about the Trump presidency, I am not sure whether it would be a dark comedy or a horror film. Either way, the Central Park Five case would make a compelling prologue because it offered a glimpse of the political instincts he would carry into the White House decades later.

Tabloid stories provided fodder for Trump’s actions

Today, he spends hours watching FOX “News,” but the network did not exist in 1989. New York City, however, had no shortage of daily newspapers. The rape of a woman jogging in Central Park offered the press a ready-made narrative, playing on public fears at a time when crime rates were nearing record highs.

The media frenzy created an opening for Trump. He seized it, using his skills in marketing and branding to channel public fear into a high-profile political statement.

Trump has shown a willingness to cater to other people’s racism

Part of what made the Central Park jogger case so combustible was the racial dynamic: the victim was white, while the five teenagers accused of the crime were Black and Latino. For many, that racial contrast helped shape perceptions of guilt and created a political environment in which Trump’s message found a receptive audience.

Given the racial tensions surrounding the case and longstanding inequities in the justice system, a cautious person might have considered the consequences before weighing in. Trump instead threw kerosene on the fire.

Trump’s full-page advertisements calling for the restoration of the death penalty used a horrific crime to advance his public profile. He appealed to fear and anger, deepening divisions at a time when the city needed calm and restraint.

Trump’s actions helped fuel a climate of public vengeance before the facts had been fully established. The spectacle evoked the logic of a lynch mob: punishment demanded before justice had run its course.

Vengeance is not justice.

“It’s hatred, and I want society to hate ‘em.”

— Donald J. Trump, discussing the Central Park Five

A Disregard for the Rule of Law

As president, Trump has repeatedly challenged the legal and constitutional constraints imposed on the office. Whether this reflects a misunderstanding of the law or a belief that presidential power stands above it is a question historians may debate.

Trump placed his advertisements in New York’s newspapers less than two weeks after the attack, before the justice system had determined anyone’s guilt. That process would ultimately take years to resolve. What mattered to Trump’s argument was that the court of public opinion was already in session, and that verdict was the one he needed to immediately influence.

The attack in Central Park provided the fear and outrage Trump could harness to amplify his message. But the logic behind his call for the death penalty does not stand up to scrutiny. Under the then-existing constitutional law, rape of an adult was not punishable by death. Restoring New York’s death penalty would not, by itself, have made capital punishment available in the Central Park jogger case.

More troubling was the disregard for the due-process protections guaranteed by our Constitution. When Trump asked, “What has happened to…the fear of retribution by…the police?” he invoked a model of law enforcement centered on fear rather than the rule of law. Police investigate crimes and make arrests when legally justified; prosecutors bring charges, and courts determine guilt. Trump’s rhetoric evokes a Judge Dredd-style of law enforcement, but the police are not intended to be judge, jury, and executioner.

For decades, Trump has presented a harsher, more punitive past as something to restore in order to make America great again. In 1989, five Black and Latino teenagers became targets of his rhetoric. Today, immigrants, including some who are lawfully present, are frequent targets of his attacks.

While Trump has preached harshness as a solution for others, he has used his wealth and power to ensure that he secures the defenses he has sought to eliminate for others. Backed by a Supreme Court that has shown a willingness to expand presidential immunity, Trump has treated the presidency as if it gives him a get-out-of-jail-free card, allowing him to run roughshod over other people’s rights. When he says he can do anything as president, he claims a level of power that threatens accountability.

Facts Don’t Matter

The belief that politicians lie is widely accepted, but Trump took political falsehoods to another level. Previous candidates made promises they failed to keep; Trump repeatedly distorted reality to suit his needs. During his first term, The Washington Post Fact Checker documented 30,573 false or misleading claims.

Once a falsehood leaves Trump’s mouth, he doubles down rather than admitting he was wrong.

Misstate a hurricane's projected path? Take a Sharpie and change the predicted trajectory. Accidentally type a nonsense word into your Twitter feed? Claim it was on purpose and insist that “covfefe” actually means something. 

This behavior was on full display in the years following the ads he placed about the Central Park Five. Although their convictions were vacated in 2002 after DNA evidence corroborated the confession of the actual perpetrator, Trump has continued to maintain that they were guilty.

During a 2024 presidential debate against Kamala Harris, Trump falsely stated that the men had “pled guilty” and wrongly claimed they had “killed a person ultimately.” The men did not plead guilty, and the victim, Trisha Meili, survived the attack.

Trump has sued the BBC for $10 billion, claiming an edited version of his January 6th speech defamed him. Yet he continues to make false claims about the Central Park Five. He is quick to defend his own reputation, yet appears far less concerned about the reputational damage inflicted on people with far less power to defend themselves.

This is behavior more commonly associated with a schoolyard bully than with the office of the President of the United States.

Trump’s words did more than harm five men who have already paid dearly for their wrongful convictions. They also help forestall reform of a system that too often mistreats people like the Central Park Five. As with his heavy-handed response to protests following George Floyd’s murder, his refusal to acknowledge these problems allows him to dismiss the notion that there are people who suffer a lack of justice in what is supposed to be the justice system.

The irony of the case is that it offers a stark example of why the death penalty is so dangerous. Had the Central Park Five been sentenced to death, their exoneration might have come only after their executions.

Where would the justice have been in that?