Editorial News Uncategorized

Trump: When the Weapon of Defamation Turns on Its Master

Jacques Pj Provost

2026-06-20 23:34:38

A Victim Who Refuses to Stay Silent

E. Jean Carroll, an American journalist and columnist, has accused Donald Trump of sexually assaulting her in the 1990s at a department store in Manhattan. Instead of responding with conventional legal action, Trump chose to launch a barrage of public attacks against her, calling her a liar, claiming she was “not his type,” and suggesting she was making up the story to sell books. These repeated statements, widely circulated in traditional media and on social media, constituted a systematic smear campaign against Carroll.

E. Jean Carroll’s response was relentless: she filed a defamation lawsuit, turning Trump’s attacks into legal evidence against him. The ensuing trial revealed the extent of the damage caused by the former president’s smear campaign. Carroll testified that she had received hundreds of death threats, lost her decades-long job at Elle magazine, and been shut out of the media outlets that had previously employed her. The jurors were particularly moved by this concrete demonstration of the real harm caused by Trump’s words.

There is something profoundly just about E. Jean Carroll’s victory. For far too long, women who dared to speak out against abuse by powerful men found themselves harassed and discredited by systems designed to protect the abusers. Carroll not only found the courage to speak out, but she also had the strength to fight for years against an opponent infinitely more powerful than she was. Her lawsuit is not just a personal victory; it’s a message to all those who think they can intimidate victims into silence. Words have consequences, and Trump is learning this lesson the hard way.

An Unprecedented Verdict

In January 2024, a New York jury ordered Donald Trump to pay $83.3 million to E. Jean Carroll for defamation. This exceptional amount included $65 million in punitive damages—a sum intended not only to compensate Carroll but, above all, to punish Trump and deter him from repeating his actions. The judges emphasized the “extraordinary and unprecedented” nature of the former president’s defamation campaign, which continued even during the trial, with Trump going so far as to declare that he would continue to defame Carroll “a thousand times.”

In September 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld this verdict, rejecting Trump’s appeal and noting that the degree of reprehensibility of his conduct was “remarkably high, perhaps unprecedented.” The judges’ ruling was particularly harsh: “Carroll was subjected to continuous and prolific harassment in the wake of these statements, including a multitude of death threats and other threats of physical harm.” This affirmation on appeal means that Trump has now exhausted his ordinary legal remedies and must face the financial reality of his conviction.

$83 million. That is the price to pay for years of insults and lies. Some will say that’s a lot of money; others, not enough. But what really matters is the symbolic significance of this ruling. It makes it clear that no one—not even the former president of the United States—has the right to destroy a person’s reputation and life without consequences. It’s a victory for decency and mutual respect. Trump may have thought that money would protect him, but today he’s discovering that even his colossal fortune has its limits.

Section 2: The Legal Strategy Against the Media

An All-Out Offensive

Paradoxically, even as Trump faces defamation lawsuits, he has launched his own wave of lawsuits against media outlets he considers hostile toward him. In September 2025, he filed a $15 billion lawsuit against The New York Times and four of its journalists, accusing them of damaging his business and personal reputation. This lawsuit is part of a broader strategy of legal harassment against major U.S. media outlets, including ABC, CBS, and The Wall Street Journal.

This legal offensive against the press represents a significant shift from Trump’s first presidency. Although he has always criticized the media, he did not, at that time, use the courts as systematically to silence them. The current lawsuits are accompanied by an aggressive use of the Trump administration’s regulatory power, which has blocked traditional media’s access to the White House and the Pentagon, and persuaded Congress to cut $1.1 billion in federal funding for public media over the next two years.

This is a tactic as old as authoritarianism itself: when criticism becomes too loud, one tries to silence it through legal means. Trump is not seeking justice; he is seeking silence. He wants to intimidate journalists so they no longer dare to criticize him, creating a climate of fear in newsrooms. This is a direct attack on press freedom, a fundamental pillar of any democracy. What is particularly worrying is that this strategy seems to be working: some media outlets are already beginning to self-censor out of fear of reprisals. That is exactly what Trump wants.

Regulations That Encourage Lawsuits

What makes Trump’s strategy particularly effective is that several major media outlets have chosen to settle these cases rather than fight them in court. ABC, through its parent company Disney, paid $16 million to settle a lawsuit over inaccurate statements made by George Stephanopoulos. Similarly, CBS, owned by Paramount Global, paid the same amount to settle a dispute over the editing of an interview with former Vice President Kamala Harris.

These settlements, though financially modest for media conglomerates of this size, send a dangerous message: they suggest that the media can be intimidated financially. Paramount Global settled the case while seeking regulatory approval for its sale to Skydance Media, which was immediately granted following the settlement. This timing has fueled speculation about a possible backroom deal between the Trump administration and major media companies.

$16 million. That’s what Disney and Paramount paid to buy peace. It’s a paltry sum for these companies, but the symbolism is frightening. By agreeing to pay, these companies implicitly admitted that Trump can make them pay the price for their editorial independence. It’s a reward for intimidation. Every dollar paid encourages Trump to continue his campaign of legal harassment. Media outlets that choose to fight back, such as The New York Times or The Wall Street Journal, deserve our respect. They are the ones defending press freedom, not those who prefer to pay to remain silent.

Section 3: Financial and Political Consequences

A Fortune Under Pressure

Donald Trump’s successive defamation judgments are beginning to take a heavy toll on his personal fortune. The $83.3 million owed to E. Jean Carroll is already a considerable sum, even for a man whose fortune is estimated at several billion dollars. Legal experts warn that further judgments could follow, particularly if Trump continues to use social media to attack his opponents despite court orders prohibiting such actions.

The problem is that these amounts are not merely theoretical: they can actually be collected. If Trump fails to pay, creditors can begin seizing his personal assets across the country, including by placing liens on his real estate properties. So far, Trump has avoided paying by posting bonds with the courts during the appeals process, but with the verdict upheld on appeal, this strategy cannot last indefinitely. His lawyers will soon have to either pay up or find a new legal solution to delay the inevitable.

There is something poetic about this situation. Trump built his career on the appearance of wealth—on golden towers and private jets—on the image of the invincible businessman. But today, that very wealth has become his Achilles’ heel. Every dollar he must pay for his insults is a blow to his ego, a brutal reminder that he is not untouchable. One wonders what will remain of the Trump empire once all creditors have been paid. The golden towers may well become golden only on paper. The justice system has begun patiently undoing what Trump built over decades of arrogance.

A Potential Political Cost

Although the financial penalties are heavy, the political cost for Trump could be even higher. Polls show that his constant attacks on the media and the judicial system have solidified his electoral base but have also alienated a significant portion of the moderate electorate. The perception of Trump as a man who believes he is above the law is becoming increasingly difficult to defend, even for his most loyal supporters.

Furthermore, the financial resources devoted to paying these fines are resources that cannot be used for his political campaign or his businesses. Political donations that traditionally served to fund election campaigns may have to be diverted to pay the damages, thereby weakening his ability to compete politically. Trump’s political opponents have, in fact, begun using these convictions as arguments to highlight his lack of judgment and his instability.

Therein lies the true irony: Trump used his fortune as a political tool, paying to influence elections and fund his campaigns. Today, it is that very fortune that is preventing him from running an effective campaign. Every million paid to E. Jean Carroll or other victims is one million less for political ads, rallies, and campaign organization. His political enemies didn’t need to destroy him: he did it himself, through his arrogance and lack of restraint. The justice system is doing the job that the Democrats have never managed to accomplish.

Section 4: Historical Legal Precedent

A Return to the Roosevelt Era

Donald Trump’s defamation lawsuits mark a return to an era of American politics that was thought to be long gone. According to the Washington Post, Theodore Roosevelt, who served as president from 1901 to 1909, was the last U.S. president to sue someone for defamation. In 1912, he filed a lawsuit against the publisher of a small weekly newspaper in Michigan that had accused him of being drunk on several occasions during his unsuccessful campaign for a third term.

However, the fundamental difference between Roosevelt’s and Trump’s approaches lies in their attitudes toward justice. During his trial, Roosevelt told the court: “I did not enter into this lawsuit for the money. I did not enter into it with a vindictive purpose. I have achieved my goal, and I am satisfied.” Roosevelt sought above all to restore his reputation and secure a public apology, not to ruin his opponent financially. This approach stands in stark contrast to Trump’s punitive strategy, which systematically seeks to inflict maximum financial damage.

More than a century ago, Theodore Roosevelt demonstrated how a president can defend his honor with dignity and respect for justice. Today, Trump is demonstrating exactly the opposite. He is turning the courts into political battlefields, using lawsuits as a weapon of intimidation rather than a means of justice. This is a betrayal of the spirit of the American judicial system, which is designed to protect the weak from the strong, not the other way around. Roosevelt must be turning in his grave at the sight of how his legacy is being used to justify practices that run counter to everything he believed in.

The Issue of Presidential Immunity

One of the most controversial legal arguments raised by Trump in his appeals concerns presidential immunity. His lawyers have argued that statements made during his presidency should be afforded special protection, contending that the Supreme Court expanded presidential immunity in a recent ruling. This argument represents a radical attempt to redefine the limits of presidential accountability, with potentially dangerous implications for American democracy.

The appellate judges unequivocally rejected this argument, emphasizing that presidential immunity does not protect private defamatory statements. In their ruling, they noted that “the degree of reprehensibility of Mr. Trump’s conduct was remarkably high, perhaps unprecedented,” making the application of presidential immunity all the more inappropriate. This rejection reinforces the principle that even presidents must be held accountable for their actions in court—a cornerstone of the rule of law.

The argument for presidential immunity is typical of Trump’s mindset: I am the president, so I can do whatever I want. This is the mentality of a tyrant, not a democrat. Fortunately, the judges had the courage to reject this nonsense. Presidential immunity exists to protect presidents when they act in the nation’s interest, not to give them a license to harass and intimidate. If Trump had succeeded in making this argument stick, he would have opened the door to an era of total impunity for presidents—a nightmare for American democracy. The judges who rejected this argument deserve our gratitude.

Section 5: The Impact on Victims of Defamation

An Encouraging Precedent for Victims

E. Jean Carroll’s victory and the other successful lawsuits against Trump send a powerful message to all victims of defamation: it is possible to fight and win against powerful adversaries. For years, victims of systematic smear campaigns have felt powerless in the face of adversaries with virtually unlimited financial and legal resources. The rulings against Trump demonstrate that justice can prevail even against the most powerful.

This precedent could encourage other victims to file lawsuits, particularly those who have been targeted by politicians, celebrities, or companies using similar defamation strategies. Lawyers specializing in defamation are already reporting an increase in consultation requests since the verdicts against Trump. This shift in attitude suggests that the fear of financial or legal retaliation is beginning to give way to the conviction that justice can indeed be served.

Finally, victims have hope. For too long, the rich and powerful have been able to destroy lives with their words without ever having to answer for their actions. E. Jean Carroll has broken this vicious cycle. Her victory is not just personal; it is collective. It tells every person who has been slandered, defamed, or destroyed by lies: you are not alone, and you can win. This may be the most important and positive outcome of this entire case. Justice is not just for those who can afford it; it is for everyone, including those who have been silenced by intimidation.

The Persistent Challenges for Victims

Despite this encouraging precedent, the challenges for victims of defamation remain considerable. Defamation lawsuits are lengthy, costly, and emotionally draining. E. Jean Carroll had to testify about traumatic experiences for years, face constant public attacks, and endure the intense media pressure that accompanies any trial involving a public figure. Most victims lack the resources needed to survive such an ordeal.

Furthermore, powerful defendants like Trump often have legal teams capable of delaying proceedings for years through complex procedural maneuvers. Even when victims ultimately win, the appeals process can drag on for years, prolonging their suffering and legal costs. For many, the financial and emotional cost of such a battle remains prohibitive, meaning that most defamation cases go unpunished.

E. Jean Carroll’s victory is magnificent, but it must not obscure the reality: for every victim who can fight back, there are thousands who cannot. The courts are a playground for the wealthy, and Trump’s conviction does nothing to solve this problem. We need reform of the legal system to make justice accessible to everyone, not just those who can afford to fight for years. E. Jean Carroll won, but how many others gave up because they lacked the resources? That is the question we should all be asking ourselves.

Section 6: The Role of the Media and Public Opinion

Greater Responsibility for Journalists

Trump’s convictions and his own legal offensive against the media place journalists in a particularly precarious position. On the one hand, the verdicts against Trump show that journalists who are victims of defamation can obtain justice. On the other hand, Trump’s lawsuits against the media create a climate of fear and self-censorship that directly threatens press freedom.

American newsrooms face a difficult dilemma: continue to cover Trump critically and risk costly lawsuits, or self-censor to avoid legal trouble. This dilemma is exacerbated by the fact that some media companies, such as Disney and Paramount, have already chosen to settle rather than fight, sending a mixed message about their commitment to independent journalism.

Journalism is in danger in America, and Trump is the catalyst. He is using the courts as a weapon of mass destruction against press freedom. Journalists who dare to criticize him risk not only their careers but also the financial survival of their companies. This is a situation we would expect to see in authoritarian regimes, not in the world’s largest democracy. Media companies that choose to pay to remain silent are complicit in this destruction of freedom of expression. We need courageous media, not media that cowers in the face of intimidation.

The Shift in Public Opinion

Paradoxically, Trump’s convictions seem to have little impact on his popular support. His electoral base continues to view him as a victim of a biased judicial system, turning each conviction into evidence of political persecution. This dynamic illustrates the extreme polarization of American society, where facts and judicial decisions are interpreted through ideological rather than objective lenses.

However, the impact on moderate public opinion could be different. Polls suggest that Trump’s constant attacks on the media and the judicial system are beginning to wear thin even among some independent voters. The relentless repetition of the same accusations of conspiracy and persecution eventually loses its effectiveness, creating a form of political fatigue that could affect his support in the long term.

American politics has become a battleground where reality itself is contested. Trump has succeeded in convincing his supporters that any criticism, any conviction, any court ruling against him is part of a conspiracy. It is a parallel worldview, disconnected from reality. What is terrifying is that this worldview has its own media, its own “facts,” its own reality. Convictions against Trump change nothing for his supporters. They even reinforce their conviction that he is being persecuted. How can a democracy function when a large portion of the population no longer believes in facts?

Section 7: Lessons to Be Learned from This Saga

The Limits of Aggressive Communication

The story of Donald Trump and his defamation lawsuits offers an important lesson on the limits of aggressive communication as a political strategy. Although this approach worked for a time to mobilize Trump’s electoral base and dominate the media cycle, it ultimately backfired on him in spectacular fashion. Words have legal consequences, and even the most powerful people cannot ignore defamation laws indefinitely.

This lesson applies not only to Trump, but to all politicians and public figures who employ similar communication strategies. Social media has created the illusion that one can say anything without consequences, but the courts regularly remind us that this illusion is false. Freedom of speech is not a limitless freedom, and victims of defamation have rights that must be respected.

For years, Trump has preached that anything goes in politics and communication. He has demonstrated how insults, lies, and defamation can be effective political tools. Today, he is paying the price for that lesson. Words have consequences, and no one is above the law. This is a lesson that other politicians, across the political spectrum, would do well to learn. Politics should not be a race to the lowest insult or the most vicious defamation. We can have passionate debates without tearing each other down. Trump has shown us the path to the abyss, and it is now up to us to return to a more dignified form of politics.

The Importance of Victims’ Resilience

E. Jean Carroll’s victory highlights the crucial importance of victims’ resilience in the face of smear campaigns. Carroll had to endure years of public attacks, death threats, and attempts to destroy her career, but she refused to remain silent or be intimidated. Her resilience was ultimately rewarded, but it also serves as an inspiration to all victims fighting similar campaigns.

However, it is important to recognize that this resilience should not be necessary. Victims of defamation should not have to endure years of suffering to obtain justice. Legal and social systems must be strengthened to protect victims more quickly and effectively, rather than relying on their ability to survive years of abuse.

E. Jean Carroll is a heroine, a woman of extraordinary courage who refused to let herself be crushed by the Trump machine. But we shouldn’t need heroism to obtain justice. Victims shouldn’t have to be warriors to survive defamation. They should be able to rely on a legal system that protects them quickly and effectively. E. Jean Carroll’s courage is inspiring, but it is not a systemic solution. We must build a society where victims do not need to be extraordinary to obtain ordinary justice.

Conclusion: Justice always prevails in the end

A Moment of Truth

Donald Trump’s defamation lawsuits represent a moment of truth for American democracy. They raise fundamental questions about the limits of free speech, the accountability of public figures, and the legal system’s ability to protect citizens from the powerful. The answers to these questions will shape the future of American politics for years to come.

For Trump, these lawsuits mark the end of an era in which his words seemed to go unpunished. The successive convictions show that even the most powerful must answer for their actions in court. It is a brutal lesson in humility for a man who has spent his life believing he was above the rules that apply to others. His fortune may be diminished, his reputation tarnished, his legacy compromised.

The courts have spoken, and they have made it clear: no one is above the law. This is a principle that American democracy has upheld for centuries, and one that Trump has sought to undermine with his constant attacks on the justice system. He has lost, and that is a good thing for America. But this victory must not lull us into complacency. Trump has exposed the weaknesses in our system—the cracks through which authoritarianism can seep in. It is our responsibility to repair those cracks, to strengthen our institutions, and to protect our democracy from those who would seek to destroy it. Justice has prevailed this time, but the battle for democracy continues.

The Future of American Politics

The lessons learned from the Trump defamation saga will shape the future of American politics. Future politicians will have to think carefully before launching smear campaigns against their opponents. The media will have to strike a balance between their role as watchdogs of democracy and the need to protect themselves against abusive lawsuits. The public will have to learn to distinguish between legitimate criticism and destructive defamation.

For now, Trump continues to fight in the courts, using every available legal resource to delay the inevitable. But each new conviction reinforces the message that words have consequences. Justice may be slow—sometimes too slow—but it always prevails in the end. For Trump, who has spent his career circumventing the rules, this lesson is perhaps the most painful of all.

Tomorrow will be another day, with new battles, new crises, and new threats to our democracy. Trump may one day disappear from the political scene, but the problems he has exposed will remain. We must remain vigilant, committed, and determined to defend the values that make America a democracy. Justice has prevailed today, but it will only prevail if we continue to fight for it every day. That is our responsibility—each and every one of us. Trump has lost, but the battle for the soul of America continues.

Sources

Primary sources

BBC News – “Defamation defeat a double-edged sword for Trump” – January 27, 2024

PBS NewsHour – “Appeals court upholds E. Jean Carroll’s $83.3 million defamation judgment against Trump” – September 8, 2025

NPR – “Trump files $15 billion defamation lawsuit against ‘New York Times’” – September 16, 2025

Secondary sources

The Conversation – “Trump lawsuits seek to muzzle the media, posing a serious threat to a free press” – 2025

Al Jazeera – “Trump loses defamation liability appeal in E. Jean Carroll case” – December 30, 2024

NPR – “Trump’s BBC lawsuit: A botched report, BritBox, and porn” – December 17, 2025

This content was created with the help of AI.

Commentaires

0 0 votes

Article Rating