Have any of E. Jean Carroll's monetary judgments against Donald Trump been paid or collected as of December 2025?
Executive summary
As of the latest available reporting in these sources, E. Jean Carroll has two separate federal civil judgments against Donald Trump: a $5 million award for sexual abuse and defamation from the May 2023 jury trial (affirmed on appeal) and a later $83.3 million defamation award tied to repeated post‑trial statements (also affirmed on appeal) [1] [2] [3]. Available sources do not provide a definitive, up‑to‑date accounting that either judgment has been fully collected from Trump; some reports say Trump “previously paid [one judgment] into escrow” as part of litigation strategy, but the sources differ on which payment steps have been completed and whether full collection has occurred [4] [5].
1. Two judgments, two tracks — the basic legal facts
A federal jury in May 2023 found Trump liable for sexually abusing E. Jean Carroll and awarded her $5 million; that verdict was affirmed by the Second Circuit, which issued mandates and orders upholding the $5 million judgment [1] [6] [7]. Separately, a later jury awarded Carroll roughly $83.3 million for defamation tied to subsequent comments; that larger award was also repeatedly upheld by appellate panels, most recently in September 2025 in the reports cited here [2] [3] [8].
2. Collection vs. appeal — why a judgment isn’t the same as money in hand
Civil judgments can survive appeals but still remain unpaid while the losing party exhausts appellate remedies, posts bonds, or negotiates stays. Reporting shows Trump continued to challenge both judgments — seeking en banc review, Supreme Court review, and other remedies — which affects whether and how Carroll can execute on the awards [2] [9] [10]. The sources record appeals and Supreme Court petitions, indicating active litigation that can delay collection even after appellate affirmances [9] [10].
3. What reporters say about actual payments or escrow
Some outlets note that Trump “previously paid [a judgment] into escrow,” a detail reported in coverage of his Supreme Court filing; that phrasing implies a temporary deposit tied to litigation strategy rather than a publicized final satisfaction of the judgment [4]. The sources do not consistently identify which judgment was placed into escrow or confirm that escrow transfers satisfied Carroll’s entitlement — the accounts differ in emphasis and do not provide a clear, authoritative ledger showing full collection by Carroll [4] [5]. Therefore, available sources do not definitively confirm full payment or collection of either award.
4. Competing narratives in coverage and possible motivations
Pro‑Trump statements included in the reporting frame the suits as “witch hunts” and stress ongoing appeals, a rhetorical strategy to cast collection efforts as premature or politicized [7] [9]. Carroll’s team and sympathetic coverage emphasize appellate wins and characterization of the conduct as egregious, which strengthens her legal position to seek enforcement [3] [8]. The sources show both legal advocacy and political messaging at play; each side has incentives to portray the status of payments to their advantage [9] [4].
5. What’s missing from reporting — practical enforcement details
None of the supplied articles provide a public, audited record showing that Carroll has received the $5 million or the $83.3 million in full, nor do they detail any levy, asset seizure, or confirmed final satisfaction of the judgments in the public record excerpts provided here (available sources do not mention confirmed seizure or final payment). Details such as bond amounts posted, escrow receipts, garnishments, or enforcement filings in New York court dockets are not reported in these excerpts and would be required to verify collection (not found in current reporting).
6. How to verify collection if you need a definitive answer
To establish whether Carroll has actually received the money, check: (a) New York federal court docket entries for docketed satisfaction of judgment or execution notices; (b) official notices of levy or turnover filed in enforcement proceedings; or (c) statements from Carroll’s counsel confirming receipt and satisfaction. The current set of press reports documents appellate outcomes and litigation posture but does not supply the concrete enforcement filings or receipts that constitute proof of payment (available sources do not mention those enforcement filings) [6] [3].
Bottom line: reporting confirms two affirmed judgments — $5 million and $83.3 million — and ongoing appellate and Supreme Court activity, and it notes at least one reported escrow payment, but the supplied sources do not definitively establish that either judgment has been fully paid to or collected by E. Jean Carroll [1] [3] [4].