What portions of the $83.3 million and $5 million awards have been reduced, stayed, or paid following appeals and post-trial motions?

1. What the appeals courts did to the $83.3 million award

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit unanimously rejected Trump’s challenges to the $83.3 million defamation judgment and held that the district court “did not err” and that the jury’s awards were “fair and reasonable,” thereby upholding the full $83.3 million judgment ^{[1] [4]}. The appellate opinion sustained the trial’s breakdown of $18.3 million in compensatory damages and $65 million in punitive damages as supported by evidence of ongoing harassment and malice ^{[4] [5]}. The appeals court also rejected the presidential‑immunity defense Trump raised after the Supreme Court’s immunity decision, leaving the underlying judgment intact ^{[2] [6]}.

2. How collection of the $83.3 million has been stayed or secured

Although the appeals court affirmed the judgment, practical collection was paused while appeals and post‑trial motions continued: federal rules allow a defendant to post security or a bond to stay execution while appealing, and reporting shows Trump sought to use that mechanism rather than immediate cash payment ^{[7] [8]}. Press reports indicate Trump posted a bond of nearly $92 million to prevent Carroll from collecting while his appeal moved forward, demonstrating that the award was effectively stayed pending exhaustion of appeals because of that security arrangement ^{[9] [7]}. Legal commentary noted defendants often secure bonds instead of cash and that surety costs can be substantial, but the bond preserves the plaintiff’s ability to collect if the appeal fails ^{[3] [7]}.

3. What happened with the earlier $5 million award

A separate 2023 jury had awarded Carroll $5 million for sexual abuse and defamation; that verdict was also appealed by Trump and ultimately sustained by appellate review as reported ^{[2] [4]}. To comply with rules ensuring security during appeals, Trump previously deposited the equivalent of 111% of that judgment — approximately $5.5 million — into the court’s fund, a move widely reported as the mechanism used to prevent collection issues while appeals played out ^{[7] [3]}. That deposit functioned as an effective, court‑held payment securing the smaller award during the appellate process ^[3].

4. Payments actually made vs. amounts merely preserved by bond or deposit

As of the reporting, the $5 million judgment had been effectively secured by a court deposit of roughly $5.5 million ^{[7] [3]}, whereas the $83.3 million remained an affirmed judgment but was not removed from stay by full out‑of‑pocket payment — instead it was secured by a bond posted to pause collection while appeals continued ^{[9] [8]}. Reporting does not show a voluntary full cash payment of the $83.3 million into the court; instead, the bond and appeal process have been the practical tools used to hold the judgment in abeyance pending further legal steps ^{[7] [9]}.

5. Competing narratives and limits of available reporting

Carroll’s lawyers framed large damages as necessary to stop ongoing defamation and to punish repeated misconduct, and appellate rulings echoed that reasoning in upholding punitive awards ^{[10] [6]}. Trump’s team, by contrast, characterized the rulings as politicized and has pursued all post‑trial remedies, including appeals and motions for rehearing or Supreme Court review — strategies reported by multiple outlets and reflected in the use of bonds and appeals to delay collection ^{[10] [9]}. Reporting establishes the appellate affirmations and the security steps taken, but it does not show a final, unrestricted disbursement of the full $83.3 million to Carroll because appellate avenues and stays have been used to suspend immediate collection ^{[1] [7]}.