FACT-CHECK: $83 Million — The Carroll Verdict the Supreme Court Is Letting Rot

The Number That Sums It All Up

Eighty-three million dollars. $83,300,000, to be exact — that is what a federal New York jury ordered Donald Trump to pay columnist E. Jean Carroll in January 2024, having concluded that he had defamed her by denying that he had abused her in a Bergdorf Goodman department store fitting room in the 1990s. The breakdown: $7.3 million in compensatory damages for emotional losses, $11 million for reputational harm, and $65 million in punitive damages — a penalty imposed to signal that Trump's conduct was of extraordinary and perhaps unprecedented reprehensibility, in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals' own words.

This verdict adds to an initial judgment of $5 million handed down in May 2023, which concluded that Trump had sexually abused Carroll and defamed her via a Truth Social post in 2022. Two trials. Two independent juries. Two unanimous verdicts. A combined total of $88.3 million. And with interest accumulating since then, Trump now owes Carroll more than $100 million. Carroll has not received a single cent.

The Supreme Court as a Waiting Room

Since Trump filed his appeal before the U.S. Supreme Court in November 2025 — precisely on November 10, 2025 — the case has been spinning in an institutional silence that unsettles legal observers. The appeal was listed on the Court's private conference agenda, then withdrawn, rescheduled, withdrawn again. As of June 23, 2026, this pattern of institutional procrastination has repeated itself 15 times. The Court has provided no explanation. Its spokesperson did not respond to CNN's requests for comment. It is an explosive case that the nation's highest court is treating like a hot potato.

On June 2, 2026, Trump's attorneys sent an unusual letter to the Supreme Court, announcing their intent to file a second appeal — this time against the $83 million verdict — "within the following month." They also suggested that "the Court may wish to consider the petitions together." In plain terms: yet another reason to delay everything until at least the fall.

I am not a legal expert. But there are moments when the judicial machinery becomes so legible in its political effects that you do not need a law degree to understand what is happening. Here, it is clear: a woman won. Twice. And the state — through its Supreme Court that stays silent, through its Justice Department that is now investigating the victim — is actively working to ensure she never sees a cent.

Carroll I and Carroll II — Two Distinct Cases

It is crucial to distinguish the two proceedings, because confusion between them is at the heart of many false claims. Carroll I is the case born from a complaint filed in 2019, concerning allegedly defamatory statements Trump made in 2019 while he was president. This case, tried last, led to the verdict of $83.3 million rendered in January 2024. Carroll II is the case filed in 2022, taking advantage of a New York State law temporarily opening a window allowing sexual assault survivors to sue their abusers for historical incidents. This second case was tried first, in May 2023, resulting in the verdict of $5 million — the one Trump is currently contesting before the Supreme Court.

A common misconception is the belief that the $83 million concerns the sexual assault trial. It does not. The $83 million verdict concerns exclusively the campaign of repeated defamation — Trump's relentless public attacks on Carroll after she told her story. The sexual assault itself is at the heart of the $5 million verdict, in which the jury concluded Trump was liable for sexual abuse and defamation. Jurors specified, in the first trial, that the evidence did not support a finding of sexual assault with penetration in the strict criminal law sense, but that the acts committed did constitute sexual abuse under New York civil law.

The Timeline of Verdicts and Appeals

In May 2023: $5 million verdict in Carroll II. In January 2024: $83.3 million verdict in Carroll I. In December 2024: the Second Circuit unanimously affirms the $5 million verdict. In June 2025: the Second Circuit refuses en banc reconsideration of the $5 million verdict. In September 2025: the Second Circuit unanimously affirms the $83.3 million verdict, in a 70-page decision calling the damages "reasonable given the extraordinary and egregious facts." In November 2025: Trump files his Supreme Court appeal against the $5 million verdict. In April 2026: the Second Circuit refuses en banc reconsideration of the $83.3 million verdict. In June 2026: Trump's attorneys announce an imminent second Supreme Court appeal.

In total, three panels of federal judges, all unanimous, have affirmed both verdicts. Not a single appellate court has reversed anything. The Supreme Court, for its part, has still not decided whether it will even agree to hear the case.

The timeline speaks for itself and there is not much to add, except this: when people say that American institutions "still work," they forget to specify that functioning slowly — infinitely slowly, and precisely where the sitting president is the accused — can be another form of dysfunction.

A Record That Deserves Context

The figure of 15 reschedulings is real. It is confirmed by data from the official Supreme Court docket (case no. 25-573), by CNN's analysis published June 22, 2026, and by SCOTUSblog. The Supreme Court "reschedules" a case when it removes a petition from a scheduled conference to review it at a later one. This is not a rejection mechanism — it is institutionalized procrastination. According to CNN, only one other case this term has been rescheduled as often: a case involving an Ohio police officer who shot a fleeing suspect. Last year, a case concerning federal jurisdiction to try crimes on Native American lands was rescheduled 17 times before being ultimately denied.

The question this frequency raises is twofold. First, why? The Court never explains the management of its pending petitions, and the Carroll case is no exception. Constitutional experts, including Steve Vladeck of Georgetown Law School and CNN legal analyst, have offered several hypotheses: one or more justices could be drafting a dissent on the denial; the Court could be waiting for Trump's second appeal to be filed before considering them together; or some justices simply may not want to touch a politically explosive case during Trump's presidency. None of these hypotheses has been confirmed. What has been confirmed is the silence.

What the Official Docket Says

The Supreme Court docket for case 25-573 clearly shows the sequence of "Rescheduled" entries — the official term — accumulating since late January 2026, when all written briefs had been filed. The last entry before the date of this article shows yet another rescheduling on June 2, 2026, followed by another on June 8, 2026. The June 2 letter from Trump's attorneys was recorded on June 11, 2026. The Monday before the publication of CNN's June 22 article, the Court had again listed the case on the following Thursday's conference agenda.

In summary: the figure of 15 reschedulings is accurate. It is not an inflated or approximate number. What is subject to interpretation is the meaning of that figure. Is it a sign that the Court is hesitating to deny the appeal? Or that it is hesitating to accept it? Or simply that it is waiting to have both Carroll cases on the table before ruling? All of these readings are plausible. None has been verified.

Fifteen times. In a country that presents itself as the model for the rule of law, fifteen consecutive unexplained postponements in a case where a citizen won twice against the sitting president — this does not look like judicial caution. It looks like institutional cowardice dressed up as procedure.

What the Jury Actually Decided in January 2024

On January 26, 2024, after three hours of deliberation, the Carroll I trial jury rendered a verdict with surgical precision. The $7.3 million in compensatory damages covered Carroll's documented losses: the television column she lost after a 26-year career, cancelled media appearances, the professional destruction that followed Trump's repeated attacks. The $11 million covered reputational harm. The $65 million in punitive damages specifically penalized the duration, intensity, and premeditation of Trump's public attacks against Carroll — attacks that, according to the Second Circuit in its September 2025 decision, had intensified as the trial approached, Trump having declared two days after the trial began that he would continue to defame Carroll "a thousand times."

Trump also testified at this second trial — briefly, but he was present. The jury watched him. Heard him. And hit him with the maximum penalty that American civil law allows in this context. The Second Circuit, in its unanimous September 2025 decision, characterized these damages as "reasonable" and rejected Trump's argument that the $65 million in punitive damages was excessive, noting that the level of "reprehensibility" of Trump's conduct was potentially unprecedented in federal civil jurisprudence.

Presidential Immunity — The Rejected Argument

One of Trump's central arguments in his appeals is that his defamatory statements were made while he was president in office, and should therefore benefit from presidential immunity. The Supreme Court had, in 2024, considerably expanded the scope of this immunity in a ruling on official acts. Trump hoped this decision would serve as a shield in the Carroll case. The Second Circuit firmly rejected it, finding that attacks on Carroll did not constitute official acts of the presidency but personal statements by a man in conflict with a woman who was accusing him. The appeals court also noted that Trump had waived certain immunity arguments through procedural default.

A second argument from Trump concerned the Westfall Act, which would allow the federal government to substitute itself for Trump as defendant in Carroll I, theoretically rendering the case inadmissible since the federal government cannot be sued for defamation. The Second Circuit rejected this argument as well, noting that Trump had raised this request fifteen months after the judgment — far too late in the proceedings. It is precisely this argument that Trump intends to bring before the Supreme Court in his second appeal announced on June 2.

Presidential immunity as a shield against allegations of assault in a fitting room in the 1990s — it takes nerve. I understand the legal strategy: test the limits of the doctrine, find the loophole, run out the clock. But when you see this argument applied to acts so personal, so far removed from any presidential function, you understand how fully this immunity doctrine can become a weapon of mass destruction for any ill-intentioned executive.

May 2023: The First Jury Rules

In May 2023, a Manhattan jury concluded that Trump was liable for sexual abuse against Carroll and had defamed her via a Truth Social post published in October 2022 in which he called her allegations a "complete con job" and a "Hoax." The jury awarded Carroll $5 million in compensatory and punitive damages. This first verdict responded to a lawsuit filed in 2022, after New York State had opened a temporary legislative window allowing sexual assault survivors to sue for otherwise time-barred claims.

It is important to note precisely what this jury decided and what it did not decide. The jurors concluded that Carroll had proven sexual abuse — a category that, under New York civil law, includes acts such as non-consensual touching, forced kissing, or digital penetration. The jurors specified that the evidence was insufficient to conclude that penetration occurred in the strict criminal law sense. But they did find that the acts committed constituted sexual abuse, and that Trump had subsequently defamed her by denying the reality of those acts. It is the appeal of this verdict that is currently pending before the Supreme Court since November 2025.

Trump's Arguments — and Their Treatment on Appeal

Trump contested the validity of evidence admitted during the first trial. His attorneys argued that Judge Lewis Kaplan — appointed by Democrat Bill Clinton — had erred in allowing the jury to hear testimonies from two other women accusing Trump of similar conduct, and in allowing the 2005 Access Hollywood recording to be played, in which Trump can be heard saying he can "kiss women" and "grab them by their genitals" without their consent because he is a celebrity. The Second Circuit affirmed these evidentiary rulings, citing Federal Rules 413 and 415, which authorize such evidence in cases involving sexual assault.

The appeals court further established that even if this evidence had been wrongly admitted — which it did not concede — the impact on the verdict would have been zero, given the "overall strength of Carroll's case." A formulation that says much about the judges' conviction. The three members of the Second Circuit panel that affirmed this verdict in December 2024 had all been appointed by Democratic presidents: Judge Maria Araújo Kahn, Judge Sarah A. L. Merriam, and Judge Denny Chin. Trump used this to seek a full hearing — before all judges of the circuit, including those appointed by Republican presidents. That request was denied by a majority of twelve judges in June 2025.

I am sometimes asked whether I think Trump is guilty. I always give the same answer: it is not my role to decide — it is the role of the jury. And two juries decided. Twice. What I can say as a columnist is that Trump's relentless procedural attacks, the Department of Justice's involvement in his personal defense, and the Supreme Court's silence together paint an institutional picture that should trouble every democrat — and every honest republican.

The November 10, 2025 Filing

The appeal Trump filed before the Supreme Court concerns the $5 million verdict (Carroll II). It was filed on November 10, 2025, after Trump had obtained a two-month extension in August 2025 — an extension granted by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who supervises emergency matters from the Second Circuit. The petition was formally entered in the Supreme Court docket under number 25-573, with a registration date of November 13, 2025.

In this petition, Trump's legal team argued it was "deeply harmful to the fabric of our Republic" for Trump, amid a historic presidency, to have to fight old and allegedly unfounded allegations. They also declared that "this mistreatment of a president cannot be tolerated." Carroll, for her part, asked the Court to deny the petition, arguing that even if Trump prevailed on evidentiary questions, it would not change the final result given the "strength of her case."

The Petition's Treatment — A Statistical Anomaly

All written briefs had been filed before the Supreme Court by late January 2026. That is when the postponements began. The February 20, 2026 conference was to examine the petition — but the day before, without explanation, the case was withdrawn. It was then rescheduled for the February 27 conference, then withdrawn again. And so on, fifteen times. According to data compiled by CNN, only one other case this term has reached such a frequency. Normally, the Court decides to accept or deny a petition after one or two conferences. Here, seven months after filing, no decision has been rendered.

The Supreme Court, consistent with its usual practices under Chief Justice John Roberts, provided no explanation. A Court spokesperson did not respond to CNN's requests for comment. This is legally normal — the Court is never required to explain its handling of pending petitions. But the political context makes this silence particularly heavy: the Court, whose majority was appointed by Trump himself, is being asked to rule on an appeal by the sitting president against a woman who has accused him of sexual abuse.

I can understand that the Supreme Court finds itself in an uncomfortable position. Accepting the case means wading into a political quagmire. Denying it definitively confirms the verdicts against Trump, which will be presented as a betrayal by the American right. So it waits. Reschedules. Fifteen times. In a constitutional system where federal judges have lifetime appointments precisely to protect them from this kind of calculus, this behavior strikes me as unworthy of the institution.

An Unusual Document in Supreme Court Procedure

On June 2, 2026, Trump's attorneys sent a letter to the Supreme Court that most constitutional experts characterized as unusual. This letter, recorded in the docket on June 11, 2026, informed the Court that the Trump team intended to file a second appeal — this time against the $83.3 million verdict (Carroll I) — "within the following month." The attorneys also suggested that "the Court may wish to consider the petitions together," implying the Court should wait for the second petition before ruling on the first.

This strategy has a procedural logic: if the Court accepts both appeals and consolidates them, it can address them simultaneously in the fall of 2026. If it accepts only one, it risks creating an inconsistency in its jurisprudence. But for outside observers, this letter also has another reading: it provides the Court with a new reason to reschedule again and again, until the second appeal is formally filed, then until it is fully briefed.

Impact on the Calendar — Fall as the Minimum Horizon

Under standard Supreme Court procedures, the arrival of a second related appeal will quasi-mechanically push any decision on the first until the second is fully briefed. This process typically takes several months. This means the Supreme Court will likely not render any decision on both Carroll appeals before fall 2026 at the earliest, and potentially not until winter 2026–2027.

Meanwhile, Carroll still has not seen a single dollar. On May 12, 2026, the Second Circuit had agreed to stay enforcement of the $83.3 million judgment during the Supreme Court proceedings — on the condition that Trump increase his bond by $7.46 million to cover the additional interest that will accrue during the Supreme Court appeal period — estimated to last until October 2027. Carroll had not objected to this stay under these financial conditions. This bond brings the total secured amount to more than $91 million, according to a spokesperson for her attorney Roberta Kaplan.

A letter that, subtly, tells nine federal judges: "Wait for us, we're coming." And the Court waits. I do not claim to know what is happening in the corridors of the Supreme Court. But I note that this procedural dance always benefits the same side — the one that owes money.

The Perjury Investigation — Raw Facts

In late May 2026, CNN and the New York Times reported that the Department of Justice had opened a criminal investigation into E. Jean Carroll, focused on alleged perjury committed during her civil depositions. The investigation is reportedly being conducted by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Illinois, in Chicago, under the direction of Andrew Boutros. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche — who was Trump's personal attorney before being appointed to this position — recused himself from the Carroll matter.

The precise subject of the investigation: during a 2022 deposition, Carroll had stated she was receiving no outside funding for her lawsuits. It subsequently emerged that a nonprofit linked to billionaire Reid Hoffman, LinkedIn co-founder and major Democratic donor, had contributed to her legal costs. Her attorneys had informed the judge and Trump's team of this funding two weeks before the first trial opened. Judge Kaplan had at the time found no reason to doubt Carroll's credibility, noting she had simply forgotten this limited funding received in September 2020. In 2024, the Second Circuit confirmed this reading: Carroll was "simply not involved" in the question of her litigation funding.

An Investigation Already Rejected by Civil Courts

The argument the Justice Department is using as the basis for its criminal investigation is therefore precisely the argument the Second Circuit dismissed in the first verdict's appeal. A federal appellate court has already examined this question and concluded that Carroll did not lie. Opening a criminal investigation on the same factual basis looks less like a search for truth than a campaign of judicial harassment — that, at least, is the reading of many constitutional law experts, including those cited by The Independent and The Guardian in May and June 2026.

It is also notable that after CNN's initial revelations, prosecutor Boutros issued a public statement asserting that his office had "not opened — and had never opened — a criminal investigation into E. Jean Carroll." A denial that sowed confusion about the actual state of the investigation. Anonymous sources within the Justice Department, however, maintained that the investigation did exist. The Washington Times of June 9, 2026 confirmed that Boutros's office was examining the question of Hoffman's payment of fees.

Using the resources of the federal state to criminally investigate the woman who won two civil trials against you — while you are president — is exactly the kind of thing Trump accused Obama and Clinton of doing to him. The difference is that he is actually doing it. And for now, there is no check on power courageous enough to say so out loud.

"The $83 Million Is for the Assault" — FALSE

This is one of the most widespread misunderstandings. The $83.3 million is not tied to the allegations of physical assault. It exclusively penalizes the defamation campaign Trump waged for years against Carroll — his social media posts, his public statements, his repeated insults — after she told her story in her memoir in 2019. The January 2024 jury answered the following question: how much is the harm caused to Carroll by Trump's repeated public lies worth? Answer: $83.3 million.

It is the $5 million verdict that directly concerns the sexual abuse — but even there, it includes a defamation component, since Trump had defamed Carroll via a 2022 Truth Social post after the publication of her memoir. Both verdicts therefore interweave defamation and sexual conduct, but the distribution of amounts is clear: the massive $83 million verdict is for chronic and deliberate defamation, not for the physical assault.

"Carroll Never Proved There Was an Assault" — PARTIALLY MISLEADING

The statement that "nothing was proven" is technically inaccurate under U.S. civil law. Two separate juries concluded, under the civil standard of preponderance of the evidence, that Trump had sexually abused Carroll. This standard is different from the criminal standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt" — but it is not a weak standard. It means jurors found it more likely than not that the alleged acts occurred.

It is true that the first jury specified that the evidence was insufficient to conclude the most serious offense in strict criminal terms — in legal terms, that gravest category implies penile-vaginal penetration under the New York definition in force at the time. But jurors concluded that Trump committed sexual abuse, which includes non-consensual digital penetration. The Second Circuit, in its September 2025 decision on the $83 million verdict, also noted that the January 2024 jury had found Trump liable for "sexual abuse and forcible touching" as bases of civil liability.

I must be honest on this point: civil law and criminal law are two distinct universes, and I do not mix them. What I am saying is that two independent juries did their work. They heard the evidence, the witnesses, the cross-examinations. And they decided. I have no reason to believe that these twelve randomly selected Americans lied in their verdict.

Presidential Immunity as an Escape Strategy

In his various appeals, Trump has articulated two immunity theories. The first — immunity for official acts — applies to his 2019 statements made from the White House, which are the subject of Carroll I (the $83 million verdict). The Supreme Court had, in July 2024, considerably expanded presidential protection for official acts in a case unrelated to Carroll. Trump is attempting to benefit from this ruling. But the Second Circuit has ruled: denying having sexually abused a woman in a public statement is not an official act of the presidency. It is a personal act.

The second theory — the Westfall Act — would allow the Court to substitute the federal government for Trump as defendant in Carroll I. If the government were the defendant, the case would automatically be inadmissible since the U.S. government is immune from defamation suits. This is the mechanism Trump hopes to have validated by the Supreme Court in his second appeal announced June 2. The Second Circuit rejected this argument on the grounds that Trump raised it fifteen months after the judgment — far too late in the proceedings.

Why the Supreme Court Might Agree to Hear the Case

Not all of Trump's questions are without legal substance. The question of whether and how the presidential immunity doctrine applies to statements made from the White House on personal matters is an unresolved constitutional question. Similarly, the application of the Westfall Act in this context is a question the Supreme Court has never directly resolved. Four of nine justices are sufficient to grant a hearing. It is therefore not unlikely that the Court will accept the case — which does not mean Trump will win, but means the legal drama will continue.

Constitutional expert Steve Vladeck, in his comments for CNN, noted that the Court's behavior — rescheduling indefinitely rather than denying directly — suggests that at least some justices are interested in the questions Trump raises. A simple, immediate denial could have happened as early as February 2026. The fact that it has not, after 15 reschedulings, is itself a signal — however ambiguous.

I want to be honest here too: Trump has the right to plead immunity. That is a legitimate constitutional question in a rule-of-law state. What I find problematic is not that he raises these arguments — it is that he simultaneously uses state resources to harass the plaintiff, delay payment indefinitely, and turn judicial power against the person who won. That is no longer legal strategy. It is domination.

Bonds and Accumulating Interest

Trump posted a bond to be able to appeal both verdicts without having to pay immediately. For the $83.3 million verdict, he had posted a bond covering that amount plus 10% — approximately $91 million at the time of the appeals decision. In May 2026, the Second Circuit agreed to stay enforcement of the judgment during the Supreme Court proceedings — on the condition that Trump increase his bond by $7.46 million to cover the additional interest that will accrue during the Supreme Court appeal period — estimated to last until October 2027.

Carroll had not objected to this stay under this financial condition. Her attorney Roberta Kaplan confirmed that this provision financially protects Carroll during the wait. But "protected" does not mean "paid": the money is in a bond, in the hands of a third party or the judicial system, not in Carroll's. And meanwhile, interest on a combined total of $88.3 million keeps accumulating. Trump now owes Carroll, with interest, more than $100 million.

Possible Scenarios

If the Supreme Court refuses to hear the appeals, the verdicts become final and Trump will have to pay. If the Court accepts one or both appeals, the saga continues at least until the end of Trump's current term in January 2029. If the Court accepts the appeals and rules in Trump's favor on immunity or the Westfall Act, the verdicts could be vacated or remanded for a new trial. This last scenario is the least likely according to most experts, but it cannot be ruled out for procedural questions such as the Westfall Act.

In any scenario, Carroll — who is now 82 years old — may have to wait additional years before the final outcome is known. And the Justice Department investigation, whatever its exact reality, adds a layer of uncertainty and additional stress to the situation of a woman who has won every judicial battle she has fought.

82 years old. Two jury victories. Zero dollars received. And now a criminal investigation behind her back. If this is not the definition of two-speed justice, I do not know what is. And I say this as an observer of the West, which claims to embody a model for the rest of the world. We should be ashamed.

The Department of Justice — Blanche's Recusal

The Department of Justice's involvement in Trump's defense in the Carroll case is multidimensional. On one hand, the DOJ intervened in the appellate proceedings to support Trump's position on the Westfall Act — that is, to argue that the federal government should substitute itself for Trump as defendant. This is an official position of the Trump administration, defended by government prosecutors in briefs filed before federal courts.

On the other hand, the DOJ has opened — or is in the process of opening — a criminal investigation into Carroll herself. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, Trump's former personal attorney in several cases, recused himself from the Carroll investigation because of this obvious conflict of interest. But the investigation was nonetheless directed to the Chicago office. The Independent cites several experts who believe this investigation is designed to "obstruct Carroll's victories" and "silence others" — potential victims who might consider suing powerful individuals.

The Westfall Act — An Offensive Mechanism

The Westfall Act is normally a mechanism protecting federal officials from personal liability for acts committed in the exercise of their official functions. Its application in the Carroll case represents a considerable extension of its scope: Trump is attempting to use it to immunize himself from personal acts committed while he was president. The Second Circuit rejected this, but the announcement of a second appeal means this question will be brought before the Supreme Court.

If the Supreme Court were to accept this theory, the implications would be considerable for any future president: it would become nearly impossible for an ordinary citizen to personally sue a sitting president for personal acts committed during the presidency, even years later. This is a constitutional issue that goes far beyond the Trump-Carroll case — which is one reason the Supreme Court might decide to take the case.

The Westfall Act transformed into a shield for a president defending himself against personal accusations — I am not a constitutional scholar, but I see the danger. If this theory succeeds, you have given every American president near-total immunity for their personal acts, so long as they took care to commit them from the Oval Office. This is not the America the Founding Fathers envisioned. It is something else.

A Test for American Institutions

The Carroll case has become, despite itself, a stress test for American institutions. The question posed is not only "did Trump abuse Carroll?" — two juries have answered that. The question is: are institutions capable of enforcing a civil verdict against the president of the United States? And if the answer is no, what are the consequences for the rule of law?

In the West I defend, the rule of law is a pillar, not an option. A president may contest verdicts through legal channels — that is his right. But simultaneously using state resources to block payment, criminally investigate the plaintiff, and indefinitely delay the Supreme Court proceeding — that is another matter. It is a test that American institutions are currently failing, not spectacularly, but silently, procedurally, conference by conference.

A Template for Authoritarian Regimes

Trump's strategy in the Carroll case — using every available lever to delay, obstruct, and turn justice against the plaintiff — is precisely the operational playbook authoritarian regimes have always applied. Vladimir Putin has done it in Russia. Xi Jinping does it in China. Leaders of Iran and North Korea have institutionalized it. What is different is when this playbook is applied in the United States, within the formal framework of an independent judicial system that is supposed to resist it. The difference between a democracy and an authoritarian regime is not the absence of attempts to manipulate the law — it is the capacity of institutions to resist those attempts. That resistance is currently faltering.

I end this section by admitting a vulnerability: I do not know how all of this will end. I do not know whether the Supreme Court will find the courage to deny the appeals, or whether it will plunge into the immunity doctrine to avoid having to decide. What I know is that the whole world is watching. And what the United States does with this case will say something important about what remains of their democratic model.

The Facts, Nothing But the Facts

Let us recap the verified facts. E. Jean Carroll won two trials against Donald Trump before federal juries. The first, in May 2023, awarded her $5 million for sexual abuse and defamation. The second, in January 2024, awarded her $83.3 million for chronic defamation. Three federal judge panels have affirmed these verdicts. Trump's Supreme Court appeal, filed in November 2025, concerns the $5 million verdict. It has been rescheduled 15 times. The Court has provided no explanation. A letter from Trump's attorneys dated June 2, 2026 announces a second appeal against the $83 million verdict. Carroll has not yet received a single dollar. The DOJ is investigating her for alleged perjury. Trump owes her, with interest, more than $100 million.

These are the facts. Nothing more, nothing less. Each is corroborated by primary sources: the official Supreme Court docket, the published Second Circuit decisions, articles from CNN, AP News, The Guardian, and SCOTUSblog. None is invented.

What This Says About the State of American Democracy

The West needs a strong, consistent America that respects its own rules. Trump is — as I have always said — a necessary evil on certain fronts: his firmness toward China, Iran, Russia, toward nations that challenge the international rules-based order, can serve legitimate Western interests. But when this same Trump turns the institutions of the state against an 82-year-old woman who had the courage to tell what he did to her — and when institutions allow it — this is no longer a necessary evil. It is simply evil. American democracy will not survive the idea that the president stands above civil verdicts. That idea must be fought, named, and refused. That is the role of a free columnist.

By Maxime Marquette, columnist

Editorial stance

I am not a journalist but a columnist and analyst. My expertise lies in observing and analysing the geopolitical, economic and strategic dynamics that shape our world. My work is to take political strategies apart, to understand global economic movements, to put the decisions of international actors in context and to offer analytical perspectives on the changes that are redefining our societies.

I do not claim the cold objectivity of traditional journalism, which stops at reporting facts. I claim analytical clarity, rigorous interpretation and a deep understanding of the complex issues that concern us all. My role is to give meaning to the facts, to place them in their historical and strategic context, and to offer a critical reading of events.

Method and sources

This text keeps the basic distinction between verified facts and interpretive analysis. The rule never changes: a factual claim is published only when a verifiable source supports it, and the sources this article actually used are listed under Sources, never here.

Primary source families used by the publication, when the story has them: official statements from governments and international institutions, public statements by political leaders, reports from intergovernmental organisations, dispatches from recognised international news agencies.

Secondary source families: specialised publications, internationally recognised news media, analyses from established research institutions, reports from industry organisations.

When an article cites statistical, economic or geopolitical data, it comes from the institutions that produce it (intergovernmental organisations, central banks, national statistics offices), and the exact institution is named under Sources.

Nature of the analysis

The analyses, interpretations and perspectives in the analytical sections of this article are a critical, contextual synthesis based on the information available, the trends observed and the expert comments cited in the sources consulted.

My role is to interpret these facts, to set them in the context of today's geopolitical and economic dynamics, and to give them a coherent meaning within the larger story of the changes shaping our time. These analyses reflect expertise built through continuous observation of international affairs and an understanding of the strategic mechanisms that drive global actors.

This article describes a documented state of affairs on its publication date, not a prediction: later developments may shift its outlook. No update is promised in advance; when an article is corrected or completed, the change is dated in the text.