A Manhattan federal court jury is set to deliver a verdict in a civil matter involving former President Donald Trump and journalist E. Jean Carroll. The decision stems from Carroll’s accusation that Trump defamed her in statements made during and after their 1990s encounter, culminating in a damages award that totals 83.3 million dollars, approximately 76.7 million euros, to compensate for the harm she says was caused by the remarks. The damages package combines various components intended to address both direct financial losses and the emotional impact of the alleged statements.
Specifically, the award includes 18.3 million dollars in compensatory damages. Of this amount, 11 million is designated to fund efforts aimed at repairing Carroll’s reputation and public standing, while 7.3 million is awarded for non-economic harm linked to the emotional distress she asserts resulted from Trump’s comments. In addition, the jury awarded 65 million dollars in non-pecuniary damages to reflect the perceived harm beyond straightforward financial loss.
Judge Lewis Kaplan, who oversaw the trial, publicly commended the jurors for their service and careful consideration. He advised the panel, in a directive reported by major outlets, to keep the deliberations confidential and to refrain from discussing the case outside formal proceedings. The judge’s remarks underscored the seriousness with which the court treats jury deliberations and the need to protect the integrity of the process.
Earlier in May, the court indicated that Trump must pay up to five million dollars in damages to Carroll related to this ongoing dispute. Carroll had sought ten million dollars in damages in a separate phase of the litigation that followed. These figures reflect distinct rulings within the broader case, touching on different aspects of the plaintiff’s claims and the defendant’s conduct as alleged in the filings.
The legal saga began with Carroll filing a defamation and related claims in state court in 2019. The case has involved multiple legal theories and procedural steps as Trump, who has faced various legal challenges, denies the allegations. Carroll’s initial complaint characterized Trump’s remarks as insulting and defamatory; Trump, in response, publicly disputed the charges and offered his perspective on the relationship described in the account she published. The narrative around the dispute has continued to evolve as the court has addressed questions of admissibility, damages, and the appropriate scope of relief.
In Carroll’s book, she raises questions about power, consent, and media representation. The account has intersected with a broader public dialogue about accountability and credibility for high-profile figures. The environment surrounding the case reflects ongoing public interest in how defamation, personal conduct, and reputational harm are evaluated within the U.S. legal system. The matter also sits within the context of Trump’s broader legal challenges and political career, illustrating how civil actions can coincide with political ambitions and public controversy.
This hearing occurred at a time when Trump was pursuing renewed participation in national political life while facing multiple legal processes. In parallel, he has faced an indictment related to alleged arrangements with adult film actress Stormy Daniels and claims regarding payments intended to influence public discourse. The current proceedings underscore how a single civil suit can intersect with a wider spectrum of legal matters and media attention, shaping public understanding of accountability, legal remedies, and the responsibilities associated with public office and influence.