Has E. Jean Carroll ever publicly received any payment or settlement from Donald Trump after the judgments?

1. The judgments exist — but collection was stayed while appeals proceed

Federal juries and courts awarded Carroll multiple sums: a $5 million award in the first federal trial and an $83.3 million defamation award in a separate proceeding, creating combined multi‑million dollar judgments that courts and outlets have extensively reported ^{[5] [4] [6] [8]}. Those judgments did not translate into immediate transfers to Carroll, because defendants often can appeal, and appeals typically stay execution of judgments; legal scholars and reporting explained that Trump’s appeals meant he did not have to make immediate cash payments while the appellate process continued ^{[3] [9]}.

2. Trump posted bonds — a legal mechanism, not a payout to the plaintiff

Reporting documents that Trump posted bonds or caused funds to be set aside in court-controlled accounts to secure the judgments during appeals — a $91.6 million bond was reported to have been posted for at least one of the defamation verdicts and earlier filings noted smaller bond postings covering other awards — but those deposits are security measures to prevent collection during appeal rather than voluntary payments to Carroll herself ^{[1] [2]}. Multiple outlets explicitly say the bond filing keeps Carroll from collecting during the appeals process, and that interest accrues while appeals proceed ^{[2] [1] [3]}.

3. No credible reporting shows Carroll received a negotiated settlement or direct payment from Trump

Across the provided reporting — including wire services, legal docket summaries and press outlets — there is no documented instance of Trump and Carroll executing a settlement agreement or of Trump making a publicized direct payment to Carroll that resulted in her receiving funds; coverage instead focuses on jury awards, appellate rulings, and bond postings ^{[7] [4] [1] [10]}. Where settlements are reported in the wider orbit of the Carroll litigation, they involve third parties — for example, ABC News settling a related defamation matter with Trump for reported amounts — not a settlement payment from Trump to Carroll herself ^{[11] [8]}.

4. How sources frame “payment” — distinctions matter

Journalistic and legal sources distinguish between a defendant posting a bond or escrow to secure a judgment and a plaintiff receiving a cash settlement; Forbes and Reuters explicitly reported bond postings by Trump to cover judgments while appeals continue, and The Conversation noted that an appeal generally means money is not due until appeals conclude, underscoring that bond postings are procedural protections rather than substantive transfers to the plaintiff ^{[1] [2] [3]}. That distinction is central: a bond can look like money being set aside, but unless it is turned over after appeals fail or a settlement is reached and reported, the plaintiff has not “publicly received” that money.

5. Open question and reporting limits — what remains unsettled in public records

Public reporting included here does not show Carroll receiving payment, but it does show the judgments being secured and litigated through appeals; courts have affirmed some awards on appeal in at least one instance and appeals remain a focal point of subsequent coverage, meaning the practical question of whether Carroll will ultimately collect depends on appellate outcomes and any post‑judgment enforcement or settlement that public records would need to report ^{[7] [10] [9]}. If a future court order, enforcement action, or negotiated settlement resulting in payment to Carroll is reported, that would change the record, but the sources provided up through these accounts contain no such report of Carroll publicly receiving payment from Trump.