OPEN LETTER: Mr. Trump, finally pay Ms. Carroll

Why I am addressing you directly, Mr. President

Mr. Donald Trump, I am writing this open letter the day after a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court that, on June 29, 2026, definitively refused to review your appeal of the $5 million verdict awarded to E. Jean Carroll, according to Politico and the Los Angeles Times.

This decision, issued without comment and without a single recorded dissent among the nine justices, means you must now pay this sum, plus interest accrued since 2023, to a woman you continue to publicly call a liar despite two separate juries concluding otherwise.

Why I chose the open-letter format for this case

I chose the open letter format because this case deserves a direct address rather than a simple impersonal account: you have, on multiple occasions, personally attacked Ms. Carroll's credibility on your public platforms, and it seems only fair to answer you with the same directness.

This letter makes no claim to conventional journalistic neutrality: it fully embraces a critical point of view toward your persistent refusal, since 2019, to acknowledge the accountability that a complete justice system, from ordinary juries all the way to the Supreme Court, has nonetheless assigned to you unambiguously.

The most eloquent silence of this judicial term

You called this rejection "surprising" on your Truth Social platform, claiming you were sued by "a woman I never met," according to remarks reported by Axios. Yet documented photographs show you in her company at public events in the 1980s, a fact you had wrongly invoked to deny knowing her.

The unanimous silence of the Supreme Court, without a single dissent among its nine members, several of whom you appointed yourself, is in fact one of the most complete judicial rebukes you have suffered since returning to the White House.

What this rejection definitively confirms

As your opposing counsel Roberta Kaplan pointed out, this decision "definitively confirms, once and for all, the jury's unanimous verdict" that you sexually assaulted and defamed Ms. Carroll, according to remarks reported by Axios.

Mr. President, there is no longer, at this stage, any credible legal path allowing you to escape this financial and moral accountability toward a woman you have repeatedly and publicly humiliated for more than seven years.

Propensity evidence, your last technical recourse

Your legal team argued before the Supreme Court that federal judge Lewis Kaplan had erred in allowing the jury to hear testimony from other women alleging similar conduct, as well as the Access Hollywood recording, according to Bloomberg.

The 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals had already rejected this argument in December 2024, concluding that even without this contested evidence, the rest of the case presented by Ms. Carroll remained strong enough to support the original jury's verdict.

A technical argument, not a defense on the merits

Mr. President, I note that your legal strategy never truly challenged the facts themselves before a full jury, consistently preferring technical procedural arguments that, one by one, all failed before the successive courts that heard this case.

This approach, respectable on strictly legal grounds, changes nothing about the reality: no jury, no appellate court, no Supreme Court, has ever overturned the underlying finding that you assaulted and defamed Ms. Carroll.

A defense repeated to the point of exhaustion

You denounced an "injustice" and a political "weaponization" of the courts against you, according to remarks cited by Newsweek, rhetoric you have applied to nearly every civil or criminal proceeding against you for years, whether concerning your finances, classified documents, or personal conduct.

Mr. President, at some point, the accumulation of these systematic denunciations ends up producing the opposite of the intended effect: rather than convincing the public of your innocence, it reveals a stubborn refusal to accept any accountability, regardless of how solid the evidence presented is.

The jury was not a political tribunal

The civil jury that found against you in 2023 was made up neither of partisan prosecutors nor of judges appointed by your opponents: they were ordinary citizens of New York, selected through standard procedures, who reviewed the evidence presented and found you accountable through a civil verdict.

Calling this proceeding "lawfare" amounts to discrediting the popular jury system itself, a fundamental pillar of the American justice system that you yourself invoke in other contexts when it serves your political interests.

A legal battle far from over

I acknowledge, Mr. President, that your appeal of the second judgment, the $83.3 million awarded to Ms. Carroll in 2024 for aggravated defamation, remains active before the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, this time grounded in a presidential immunity argument, according to Newsweek.

In March 2026, that same court stayed payment of this sum pending the outcome of your appeal, on the condition that you post a $100 million bond, a financial requirement that shows how seriously the courts continue to treat this separate second case.

A legal distinction I respect, and nothing more

I readily acknowledge that the question of presidential immunity for statements made in the course of your official duties is a legitimately complex legal issue, distinct from the purely factual question settled in the first trial.

But Mr. President, this technical distinction should not allow you to keep publicly minimizing the gravity of the original verdict, already confirmed beyond appeal by the nation's highest court.

A victim who had to fight for seven years

Ms. E. Jean Carroll, a former columnist for Elle magazine, made her allegations public back in 2019, immediately triggering your fierce denial, which then became the very foundation of her second defamation lawsuit, according to facts reported by the Los Angeles Times.

For seven years, Ms. Carroll had to publicly repeat her testimony, face your systematic challenges, and patiently wait for the American justice system, however slow, to eventually confirm what a first jury had already established in 2023.

What this fight represents for other victims

Mr. President, your persistent refusal to accept this verdict sends a discouraging message to any assault victim who might hesitate to sue a powerful figure, fearing precisely the kind of prolonged, publicized challenge you orchestrated against Ms. Carroll.

I believe, however, that Ms. Carroll's perseverance, despite this considerable adversity, ultimately sends an even stronger message: justice, however slow when facing power, can still lead to a formal acknowledgment of the facts.

A strengthened executive, a man held accountable

Mr. President, this personal defeat comes in the very same week that the Supreme Court handed you several major institutional victories, notably on your power to remove leaders of independent federal agencies in Trump v. Slaughter, according to CBS News.

This striking contrast illustrates an essential nuance I want to underscore: even a Supreme Court generally favorable to an expansive view of your constitutional powers refuses to shield you from the legal consequences of your strictly personal conduct.

The presidency does not erase the man

This distinction between your institutional powers and your individual accountability is, in my view, one of the most important democratic safeguards America has left, a reminder that the presidency, however powerful, never erases the personal accountability of the man who holds it.

Mr. President, I sincerely hope you will one day learn to distinguish between vigorously defending your legitimate constitutional prerogatives and stubbornly refusing to accept the consequences of your private conduct toward an American citizen.

Three years of proceedings that withstood every one of your challenges

Since the original verdict in 2023, your legal team has pursued every available avenue: an appeal to the 2nd Circuit, a request for en banc rehearing rejected in June 2025, then an appeal to the Supreme Court filed in November 2025, according to court documents cited by the Los Angeles Times.

Each of these stages confirmed, without exception, the strength of the original case presented by Ms. Carroll, a fact that should, Mr. President, prompt you to reconsider your strategy of perpetual denial rather than continuing to file appeals doomed to fail.

A system that held firm despite the pressure of power

What strikes me most in this judicial saga is the resilience of the American system in the face of pressure from the most powerful man in the country: no judge, at any stage, caved to the obvious political pressure surrounding this highly publicized case.

This institutional resilience, Mr. President, deserves to be recognized as one of the genuine strengths of American democracy, even when it produces results that are personally unfavorable to you.

A country still capable of holding you accountable

Mr. President, despite your many recent institutional victories, notably the expansion of your executive power over independent federal agencies, this case shows that an entire branch of the American justice system remains capable of holding you personally accountable for your actions.

This duality, between an executive branch growing ever more powerful institutionally and a man still subject to ordinary civil justice for his personal conduct, may be the last democratic bulwark against an excessive concentration of presidential power.

A message for the entire West

For the West, which claims to embody a model of governance built on individual accountability even for the most powerful, this case sends an encouraging signal in the face of authoritarian regimes like Vladimir Putin's in Russia, where no comparable judicial mechanism would ever exist against the head of state.

Mr. President, it is precisely this capacity to hold you accountable, despite your considerable power, that still distinguishes America from the authoritarian regimes we collectively oppose on the world stage.

Paying is not enough, acknowledging would be better

Mr. President, beyond the now-unavoidable legal obligation to pay this sum to Ms. Carroll, I invite you to consider a separate moral obligation: to stop publicly calling her a liar, when your country's entire justice system has definitively ruled in her favor.

This public acknowledgment, which I know is unlikely to come from you, would nonetheless constitute a minimal gesture of dignity toward a woman you have publicly humiliated for seven consecutive years on the most visible platforms in the country.

What history will remember about this case

Mr. President, history will likely remember this case not for its financial amount, relatively modest compared to your personal fortune, but for what it reveals about your persistent relationship with individual accountability in the face of accusations nonetheless confirmed by the entire American justice system.

I end this letter hoping, without much conviction, that this now-closed judicial chapter will prompt more honest reflection on your past conduct, rather than a new wave of denunciations on social media.

Proof that no power is absolute

This legal case, Mr. President, offers a valuable lesson for all Western democracies facing leaders increasingly tempted by the concentration of power: no office, however powerful in the world, should offer total immunity from personal accountability.

This lesson extends well beyond your personal case and should inspire other democracies, notably those in Eastern Europe facing similar authoritarian temptations, to maintain robust judicial mechanisms capable of holding their own leaders accountable.

A useful precedent against rival regimes

Compared with China, Iran, Russia, and North Korea, which have no comparable judicial mechanism to hold their leaders accountable for personal conduct, this case is a tangible argument for the structural superiority of the Western democratic model.

Mr. President, I hope you will one day recognize the value of this precedent, even when it is personally unfavorable to you, as a demonstration of the strength, not the weakness, of the America you lead.

Pay promptly, without further challenges

Mr. President, I simply ask that you respect this final judicial decision by promptly paying Ms. Carroll the sum owed, plus accrued interest, without seeking new procedural avenues to further delay this now-unavoidable obligation.

According to ABC News, Ms. Carroll's attorney has in fact formally asked a federal judge to order this payment this very week, noting that "it's time for him to pay," a phrase that accurately sums up where this case now stands.

Stop the victimization rhetoric

Mr. President, I also ask that you stop calling this case a "fake case" or a political "weaponization" of the courts, rhetoric that not only insults Ms. Carroll personally but also discredits the entire American justice system that you, as head of the executive branch, are sworn to uphold.

This request, I know, will likely go unanswered in any satisfactory way, but it deserves to be stated clearly nonetheless, on behalf of every victim watching closely how this case concludes.

No direct statement addressed to the victim herself

Mr. President, since the Supreme Court's decision was announced on June 29, 2026, you have made numerous public statements on Truth Social and at various press events, but none has ever been directly addressed to Ms. Carroll herself, consistently choosing to talk about her rather than to her.

This rhetorical choice reveals, in my view, a calculated communication strategy: by always referring to your adversary in the third person before your supporters, you carefully avoid any direct confrontation that might further humanize the woman you keep publicly discrediting.

The contrast with your habit of directly answering your critics

It is striking, Mr. President, that you usually respond very directly and personally to anyone who criticizes you publicly, whether a journalist, a lawmaker, or a foreign leader, yet this combative reflex strangely disappears when it comes to Ms. Carroll.

This absence of direct confrontation with your accuser, oddly quiet compared to your usual rhetorical aggressiveness, may suggest, Mr. President, an implicit acknowledgment that this particular case does not lend itself to your favorite communication strategy.

The cautious silence of your own political camp

Mr. President, I notice that very few of your most loyal Republican allies have publicly come to your defense specifically on this Carroll case, preferring cautious silence over explicit support for your "fake case" rhetoric.

This silence from your own political camp, Mr. President, may be the most telling indicator of how strong the legal case against you truly is: even your most loyal supporters seem to recognize this is treacherous rhetorical ground.

What a genuine advisor would honestly tell you

An honest advisor, Mr. President, would likely tell you it is time to abandon the victimization rhetoric on this particular case, given that the full chain of unfavorable decisions, from the first jury all the way to the Supreme Court, makes this posture increasingly untenable politically.

I doubt, Mr. President, that you would receive or accept such advice, but I offer it here publicly nonetheless, in the name of a certain consistency your own political camp already seems to tacitly acknowledge through its cautious silence.

A judicial chapter closed, an accountability that remains

Mr. President, this open letter ends where your legal appeal stopped: before the unanimous silence of the U.S. Supreme Court, which has definitively confirmed your accountability toward Ms. E. Jean Carroll.

I write this final line with the conviction that this case, despite its judicial closure, will remain open in America's collective memory as a revealing test of your relationship to personal accountability in the face of a justice system that, this time, held firm.

A final invitation to reflect

Mr. President, I close by inviting you, without much conviction that you will accept it, to consider that acknowledging one's wrongs, even belatedly, is often a sign of strength rather than weakness, a lesson even the most considerable power should never let us forget.

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.