Trump’s Defamation Settlement with ABC: A $15 Million Resolution

This legal dispute stemmed from a March 10, 2024 interview on ABC’s “This Week with George Stephanopoulos,” where the host questioned US Representative Nancy Mace about her endorsement of Donald Trump despite his legal troubles. During the interview, Stephanopoulos repeatedly stated that Trump had been “found liable for rape,” referencing the E. Jean Carroll case. This prompted Trump to file a defamation lawsuit against ABC, arguing that the jury found him liable for sexual abuse, not rape, a distinction based on New York penal law. ABC countered, arguing their statements were substantially true, claiming the jury’s finding of liability for digital penetration was tantamount to rape, a common understanding of the term. The core issue revolved around the legal nuances of “rape” under New York law versus its broader colloquial usage.

Chief Judge Cecilia Altonaga of the Southern District of Florida presided over the case. She addressed the “substantial truth” doctrine, noting that statements need not be perfectly accurate if their essence is true. However, she distinguished between reporting on the events themselves, where using “rape” as shorthand for sexual misconduct might be deemed substantially true, and reporting on a jury verdict, where the specific legal context becomes paramount. Prior cases cited by ABC involved contexts where legal definitions were less distinct or not a primary focus, unlike the Carroll case, where New York law specifically separates rape from other forms of sexual assault. Judge Altonaga emphasized that Stephanopoulos was reporting on a formal legal proceeding, not public opinion, necessitating a more precise use of legal terms.

A key factor in Judge Altonaga’s decision was the specific context of the interview. While acknowledging Judge Kaplan’s subsequent affirmation that the verdict effectively constituted rape in the common understanding, she highlighted the lack of such clarification within the Stephanopoulos interview itself. The judge observed that a reasonable viewer wouldn’t necessarily grasp the nuances presented by ABC in their legal arguments, especially given the repeated assertion that juries had found Trump liable for “rape” without explicitly mentioning Judge Kaplan’s interpretation. The brief display of a newspaper headline referencing Judge Kaplan’s findings was deemed insufficient to clarify the verdict’s complexities for the average viewer.

Judge Altonaga’s analysis considered the entire segment and concluded that a reasonable jury could find Stephanopoulos’s statements defamatory due to the potential for confusion and ambiguity. This did not guarantee a finding of defamation, as a jury might also consider other factors and aspects of the case. However, the possibility of a defamatory interpretation rendered dismissal of the lawsuit inappropriate. The judge’s decision underscored the importance of contextual accuracy when reporting on legal proceedings, especially when dealing with nuanced legal definitions that might differ from common usage.

Furthermore, Judge Altonaga rejected ABC’s defense based on the fair report privilege, which protects accurate reporting on official proceedings. She argued that while this privilege allows for some leeway in technical precision, it doesn’t shield reports that omit crucial context, potentially misleading the audience. In this case, omitting the jury’s specific findings and only briefly referencing Judge Kaplan’s later interpretation could be seen as presenting the proceedings in a misleading manner, hence rendering the fair report privilege inapplicable.

Ultimately, ABC settled the lawsuit with Trump for $15 million, plus $1 million in attorney fees, and an agreement to publish an editor’s note expressing regret over the statements. This outcome emphasizes the significant legal and reputational risks associated with imprecise reporting on complex legal matters, particularly in high-profile cases. The case also highlights the tension between journalistic shorthand, the need for accuracy, and the potential for defamation when reporting on sensitive legal proceedings. The settlement itself suggests an acknowledgment by ABC of the potential validity of Trump’s claims, further underscoring the importance of precision and context in legal reporting.