Fact check: What is the status of the lawsuits filed against Donald Trump by women who accused him of sexual assault?

1. What the record actually says about the headline case — Carroll’s $83.3M win stands

A federal appeals court has upheld the civil jury verdict awarding E. Jean Carroll approximately $83.3 million for defamation tied to her 1996 sexual-assault allegation, rejecting Donald Trump’s presidential immunity defenses and finding the damages proportionate to his post‑accusation conduct. The Second Circuit characterized Trump’s repeated public attacks on Carroll as extraordinary and supported the jury’s punitive damages judgment, leaving the $83.3 million award intact as of the latest appeal decision reported in September 2025. This ruling makes Carroll’s case the sole major, surviving civil monetary judgment tied to such allegations ^{[1] [4] [5]}.

2. How the courts described Trump’s conduct and the damages imposed

Appellate rulings emphasized that Trump’s repeated social‑media and public attacks on Carroll were not ordinary defamation but remarkably high conduct that justified substantial punitive awards, and judges found the punitive damages within bounds of reasonableness based on the record presented at trial. The rulings repeatedly affirmed the civil jury’s factual findings and damage calculations, framing the punitive component as a response to continuing post‑accusation conduct rather than only the underlying assault allegation. Those affirmations curtailed immunity claims and preserved the monetary remedy against Trump ^{[4] [5]}.

3. What else was filed — and what happened to those other suits

Outside Carroll, the practical legal landscape is sparse: Summer Zervos brought a defamation suit in 2017 that proceeded through depositions and extensive discovery but was voluntarily withdrawn in November 2021, and several other claims — including Alva Johnson’s 2019 report and a 2016 “Jane Doe” under‑age rape allegation — were dismissed or abandoned, leaving no financial judgment in those matters. Wikipedia’s compiled legal timeline shows Carroll as the only case culminating in a sustained civil money judgment against Trump, with other filings failing to produce comparable judicial outcomes ^{[2] [6]}.

4. New public allegations have not translated into new lawsuits

Recent reporting documented new public accusations — for example, former model Stacey Williams’ allegation of groping in 1993 — but there is no corresponding civil or criminal filing reported; those allegations exist in the public record and media interviews but have not become active lawsuits. The Trump campaign has publicly rejected such accounts as fabricated in political contexts, illustrating how new claims often remain allegations without formal legal proceedings unless a plaintiff initiates a lawsuit and pursues discovery ^{[3] [7]}.

5. Why so many accusations but so few courtroom victories?

Advocates and court records show a persistent gap between the number of public accusations (reporting notes dozens of accusers) and the small number of filed, litigated cases that produce final judgments. Key reasons include high civil burdens of proof, evidentiary and statute‑of‑limitations challenges, the cost and invasiveness of discovery, and plaintiffs’ strategic choices about when to sue. The pattern is that public allegations frequently do not become enforceable legal rulings, leaving the Carroll verdict as the most consequential judicial development to date ^{[8] [9] [6]}.

6. What legal defenses have succeeded or failed — immunity and beyond

Appeals in Carroll’s case specifically tested presidential immunity claims; courts rejected broad immunity defenses for off‑duty alleged conduct and post‑accusation statements, preserving state‑law defamation remedies. Other defenses and procedural hurdles have led to dismissals or withdrawals in different matters, demonstrating that legal outcomes have depended heavily on procedural posture and factual record rather than a uniform legal shield. The appellate rulings on Carroll narrow the scope for immunity as a barrier to civil suits over private‑conduct allegations when the defendant’s later public statements are at issue ^{[1] [4]}.

7. Competing narratives and possible agendas in coverage and response

Media accounts and statements from involved parties display clear competing agendas: plaintiffs and supporting outlets highlight accountability and a rare civil judgment, while Trump’s campaign and allies label later allegations as politically motivated fabrications. Reporting on new allegations sometimes emerges close to campaign cycles, prompting skepticism about timing; nonetheless, the legal record is distinct from political rhetoric, and only those allegations pursued through civil or criminal processes can yield judicial findings ^{[3] [9]}.

8. Bottom line for readers tracking legal exposure vs. public accusations

The verified legal status is straightforward: one major, affirmed civil judgment exists (E. Jean Carroll, $83.3M), while numerous public accusations either never became lawsuits or were dismissed/withdrawn, and recent allegations reported in media have not produced new court filings. Observers should distinguish between media allegations and enforceable judicial outcomes, recognizing that legal liability requires procedural steps many accusers have not taken or could not maintain to a final judgment ^{[1] [2] [3]}.