$65,000,000 in Punitive Damage for Trump’s Defamation case! Why so much?

David Haislip • March 8, 2024

By Jeanilou G.T. Maschhoff, Esquire • 06 March, 2024

President Trump recently made the news regarding the large jury award against him in a civil lawsuit in the state of New York.  Whether you are pro or anti President Trump, everyone was taken aback by the $83.3 million verdict, especially considering $65 million of that was attributed to punitive damages.


Now before we discuss how the jury got to these numbers, we have to lay out the civil procedure and findings in the E. Jean Carroll v. Donald J. Trump cases. So, whether or not you and I agree with these findings, it does not matter. What matters is the findings of the jury and the jury instructions in this case. Understanding those items, will help us understand the verdict. We can debate whether the Court and the jury got things right or wrong later when these cases are appealed.President Trump recently made the news regarding the large jury award against him in a civil lawsuit in the state of New York. Whether you are pro or anti President Trump, everyone was taken aback by the $83.3 million verdict, especially considering $65 million of that was attributed to punitive damages. 


Here are the facts in these cases that we need to know before discussing the punitive damages:

  1. E. Jean Carroll v. Donald J. Trump is the name of two related civil lawsuits. Both are related to Jean Carroll’s accusation that President Trump sexually assaulted her in late 1995 or early 1996.
  2. Judge Lewis Kaplan presided over both cases. 
  3. Ms. Carroll filed the first lawsuit in 2019. (EJC vs DJT 1) She sued President Trump for defamation because of the manner in which he denied Ms. Carroll’s allegations.
  4. Ms. Carroll filed the second lawsuit in 2022. (EJC vs DJT 2) She renewed her defamation claim and added a claim of battery under the Adult Survivors Act in New York.
  5. EJC vs DJT 2 went to trial in May 2023. The verdict in that case found:
  6. President Trump was liable for sexual abuse and defamation against Ms. Carroll
  7. $5 Million judgment for damages to be paid by President Trump to Ms. Carroll
  8. EJC vs. DJT 1 went to trial in September 2023. Judge Kaplan issued a partial summary judgment for Ms. Carrol and found Trump was liable for defaming Ms. Carrol based upon the verdict in EJC vs DJT 2 that President Trump liable. 
  9. In January 2024, the jury deliberated and awarded Ms. Carrol the following awards:
  10. $7.3 in emotional damages, 
  11. $11 million in reputation-related damages, and 
  12. $65 million in punitive damages.


To be fair, I like you, have so many more questions about these cases after hearing the facts. But let’s stay focused and not let our political opinions or the media circus that is a President Trump trial, keep us from answering the question: How the heck did this jury decide on $65 million dollars in punitive damages?!? To figure this out we need to understand what are punitive damages. 


In a nutshell, punitive damages are a special type of compensation awarded in a personal injury case that is in addition to actual damages. In this case, the actual damages would be the emotional damages and reputation-related damages of Ms. Carrol. Punitive damages are levied to punish the guilty party for harmful and malicious actions and to serve as a warning to potential future actors to avoid similar action. Let’s look at a famous old case that all lawyers read about in law school to see punitive damages in action. 


Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Company was a personal injury tort case back in 1978. The lawsuit involved the safety of the design of the Ford Pinto automobile. To loosely summarize this case, Ford designed the Pinto with a gas tank in the rear of the car. Ford had reason to know that when the car sustained rear-end impact there was a chance the gas tank could ignite resulting in fire and death, which occurred with the Plaintiff’s family member. The Plaintiff established that Ford knew of this risk but decided to sell the car anyways because recalling and fixing this safety risk would be too costly. To punish Ford for this type of business practice, the jury awarded the Plaintiff $125 million in punitive damages in addition to their actual damages stemming from the death of the family member. 


But you may be asking, how do you establish that a guilty defendant is deserving of punitive damages? In the case of EJC vs. DJT 1, the state of New York issued New York Pattern Jury Instruction § 2:278 on punitive damages which defines when a defendant’s conduct is subject to punitive damages. It states: 


[a]n act is malicious when it is done deliberately with knowledge of the plaintiff's rights, and with the intent to interfere with those rights. An act is wanton and reckless when it demonstrates conscious indifference and utter disregard of its effect upon the health, safety and rights of others. 


Therefore, in order to award punitive damages in the EJC vs. DJT 1 case, the jury would have to find that President’s Trump’s defamation of Ms. Carrol was a malicious act or a wanton and reckless act with the intent or conscious indifference to harm the defendant. And that is exactly what the jury found. 


So it is clear that the jury found that President Trump should pay punitive damages, but again why so much?!? Well let’s look back what is the purpose of punitive damages. It is to punish the defendant and serve as a warning to potential future actors of the same conduct. In the case of Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Company, at that time Ford was one of the most well-known and powerful companies in the United States. So, the question becomes, how severe of a penalty must Ford pay to learn their lesson and prevent similar actions in the future? Now what if Ford had been a very small car company that was struggling to stay in business? We would still have the same question, how severe of a penalty must Ford pay to learn their lesson and prevent similar actions in the future? In each scenario you probably would have come to a different answer.


In the case of EJC vs DJT 1, the jury faced the same question when determining the punitive damages award amount against President Trump. How severe of a penalty must President Trump pay to feel enough of a punishment so that he refrains from defaming people in the future? Whether you think it is fair or not, since President Trump is a billionaire, it is reasonable to determine that he would have to pay a drastically larger sum in punitive damages than most for it so serve as an actual deterrence. The jury opted for the sum of $65 million to be that magic number. It is safe to assume that most would consider that amount would deter even a billionaire from running the risk of committing defamation with malicious or wanton and reckless disregard in the future.




More News & Resources

January 17, 2026
WASHINGTON (AP) — Before President Donald Trump’s administration started dismantling the Education Department, the agency served as a powerful enforcer in cases of sexual violence at schools and universities. It brought the weight of the government against schools that mishandled sexual assault complaints involving students. That work is quickly fading away. The department’s Office for Civil Rights was gutted in Trump’s mass layoffs last year, leaving half as many lawyers to investigate complaints of discrimination based on race, sex or disability in schools. Those who remain face a backlog of more than 25,000 cases. Investigations have dwindled. Before the layoffs last March, the office opened dozens of sexual violence investigations a year. Since then, it’s opened fewer than 10 nationwide, according to internal data obtained by The Associated Press. Yet Trump’s Republican administration has doubled down on sexual discrimination cases of another kind. Trump officials have used Title IX, a 1972 gender equality law, against schools that make accommodations for transgender students and athletes. The Office for Civil Rights has opened nearly 50 such investigations since Trump took office a year ago. Even before the layoffs, critics said the office was understaffed and moved too slowly. Now, many firms that handle Title IX cases have stopped filing complaints, calling it a dead end. “It almost feels like you’re up against the void,” said Katie McKay, a lawyer at the New York firm C.A. Goldberg. “It feels like a big question mark right now,” she said. “How are we supposed to hold a school accountable once it has messed up?” An Education Department spokesperson said the office is working through its caseload, blaming President Joe Biden’s Democratic administration for leaving a backlog and rewriting Title IX rules to protect LGBTQ+ students. Trump officials rolled back those rules. “The Trump Administration has restored commonsense safeguards against sexual violence by returning sex-based separation in intimate facilities,” spokesperson Julie Hartman said. “OCR is and will continue to safeguard the dignity and safety of our nation’s students.” Students have few other places to turn The layoffs have slowed work at the Office for Civil Rights across the board, but it has an outsize impact on cases of sexual violence. Students who are mistreated by their schools — including victims and accused students alike — have few other venues to pursue justice. Many are now left with two options: File a lawsuit or walk away. One woman said she’s losing hope for a complaint she filed in 2024. She alleges her graduate school failed to follow its own policies when it suspended but didn’t expel another student found by the school to have sexually assaulted her. No one has contacted her about the complaint since 2024. The woman recently sued her school as a last resort. She said it feels like a David and Goliath mismatch. “They have all the power, because there is no large organization holding them accountable. It’s just me, just this one individual who’s filing this simple suit,” the woman said. The AP does not typically identify people who say they are victims of sexual assault unless they grant permission. The civil rights office is supposed to provide a free alternative to litigation. Anyone can file a complaint, which can trigger an investigation and sanctions for schools that violate federal law. In 2024, the agency received more than 1,000 complaints involving sexual violence or sexual harassment, according to an annual report. It’s unclear how many complaints have been filed more recently. Trump’s administration has not reported newer figures. In conversations with the AP, some staffers said cases are piling up so quickly they can’t track how many involve sexual violence. In December, the department acknowledged the civil rights backlog and announced dozens of downsized workers would be brought back to the office amid a legal challenge to their layoffs. The workers’ return offers some hope to those with pending civil rights complaints. Department officials have vowed to keep pushing for the layoffs. Historically, the feds have held schools and colleges accountable Before Trump was elected to his second term, the office had more than 300 pending investigations involving sexual assault, according to a public database. Most of those cases are believed to be sitting idle as investigators prioritize easier complaints, according to staffers who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of retribution. The details of past cases underscore the urgency of the work. In 2024, the office took action against a Pennsylvania school system after a girl with a disability told staff she had been sexually touched by a bus driver. She was put back on that driver’s bus later that afternoon, plus the next two days. The district was required to designate a Title IX coordinator for its schools, review previous complaints and consider compensation for the girl’s family. That year, the office demanded changes at a Montana school where a boy was pinned down by other students and assaulted after a wrestling practice. The students had been suspended for three days after school officials treated it as a case of hazing instead of sexual assault. In another case, the office sided with a University of Notre Dame student who had been expelled over accusations of sexual misconduct. The student said the college never told him precisely what he was accused of and refused to interview witnesses he put forward. Cases that get attention from the federal office are being handled under federal rules created during Trump’s first term. Those rules were designed to bolster the rights of students accused of sexual misconduct. Lawyers who work with accused students see little improvement. Justin Dillon, a Washington lawyer, said some of his recent complaints have been opened for investigation. He tells clients not to hold their breath. Even before the layoffs, cases could drag on for years, he said. Others gave up on the office years ago. The LLF National Law Firm said it stopped filing complaints in 2021 in favor of suing schools directly. Lawyers at the firm said the office had become incapable of delivering timely outcomes, which was only worsened by the layoffs. Complaints can be resolved several ways. They can be dismissed if they don’t pass legal muster. Many go to mediation, akin to a settlement. Some end in voluntary agreements from schools, with plans to rectify past wrongs and prevent future ones. In 2024, under Biden, the office secured 23 voluntary agreements from schools and colleges in cases involving sexual violence, according to a public database. In 2018, during Trump’s first term, there were 58. Since Trump took office again last year, there have been none. The dismantling of the Office for Civil Rights comes as a blow to Laura Dunn, a civil rights lawyer who was influential in getting President Barack Obama’s Democratic administration to make campus sexual assault a priority. As the issue gained public attention, the office started fielding hundreds of complaints a year. “All the progress survivors have made by sharing their story is being lost,” said Dunn, who’s now a Democratic candidate for Congress in New York. “We are literally losing civil rights progress in the United States, and it’s pushing us back more than 50 years.” ___ The Associated Press’ education coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. The AP is solely responsible for all content. Find the AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.
By By: Joseph D. Lento September 8, 2025 September 12, 2025
Artificial intelligence continues to make big changes on school campuses at all levels nationwide. Students have already learned how helpful AI tools can be for studies. Yet students have also experienced a frightening wave of school academic misconduct charges alleging misuse of those AI tools. LLG National Law Group’s premier attorneys have rallied to the defense of students accused of AI misuse, defending and defeating school misconduct charges for students at all levels nationwide. But the latest wave of AI chatbot tools threatens to once again transform the school misconduct landscape. Call 833.536.8652 now to retain the LLG National Law Group’s highly qualified attorneys if you face artificial intelligence issues with your school. Student Use of AI Tools in School To this point, students have used ChatGPT and other general artificial intelligence tools, and similar tools designed more specifically for education, to aid their studies. Students have used general AI tools to propose paper topics, suggest paper organization, flag spelling and grammar errors, and suggest improvements in writing. Students have also used general AI tools to correct problem answers, explain subjects more thoroughly, and for similar traditional study purposes. These uses of AI have made studies more efficient and productive, speeding learning. Chat Bots as the Next Phase of School AI Tools Artificial intelligence chatbots, though, are further accelerating the pace of technological change in schools. Students are now able to use platforms like Schoolhub.ai to create their own individual AI-powered chatbot as a personal study assistant, tailored to their specific needs and school program. Getting ready for school once meant buying notebooks and pencils. It later meant buying a laptop computer or tablet. Today, preparing for school may mean creating and training your own chatbot as a personal study assistant. The Discipline Risk of Chat Bots Teachers, professors, departments, and schools have all been slow in developing and publishing policies on student use of AI tools. That delay led to a first wave of student academic misconduct charges for misusing readily available, greatly helpful, and widely used AI tools. Our attorneys have been busy turning back that first wave of AI misuse charges. The new AI-powered chatbots, though, don’t just write assigned papers or answer exam problems, as specifically prohibited by many school policies. The AI chatbots are instead active student study partners, more like a human tutor than a computer program or other digital tool. Schools need to quickly modify their AI policies to help students take due advantage of these powerful new learning tools, rather than to punish students for getting the help they need. Premier Student AI Misconduct Defense Available Retain the LLG National Law Group’s premier attorneys if you are a student facing AI misconduct charges in a school disciplinary proceeding. Our attorneys are ready to help you defend your AI chatbot use or other use of AI tools. We help hundreds of students nationwide defend and defeat student code of conduct charges of all kinds. Call 833.536.8652 now for the representation you need for your best possible student discipline outcome.
By By Joseph D. Lento, Esquire • 27 June, 2025 June 27, 2025
Harvard University’s regulatory issues with the current federal administration impact student rights and interests. Get our help.
By By Joseph D. Lento, Esquire • 26 June, 2025 June 27, 2025
The year 2025 brings more changes to the national Nurse Licensing Compact. Get our skilled attorney's help with license issues.
By David Haislip March 14, 2025
The expansion of nationwide licensure compacts impacts the ability of licensed professionals to gain and retain licenses. Get help.
By David Haislip December 5, 2024
By Terrell A. Ratliff, Esquire • 3 rd December, 2024
By David Haislip December 5, 2024
The Lento Law Group defends people accused of or charged with child abuse in Pennsylvania.
By David Haislip November 28, 2024
A 30-year-old woman in Oklahoma received a victim protection order (VPO) against her father after he beat her.
By David Haislip November 28, 2024
Bam Margera heads to rehab after a DUI arrest in Pennsylvania. Learn about DUI defense in Pennsylvania.
By David Haislip November 15, 2024
The House of Representatives has advanced an anti-hazing bill for Senate consideration that would increase hazing prevention.