What legal hurdles have prevented many accusers from filing lawsuits against Trump?

1. Statutes of limitations: the clock that closed on many claims

Criminal prosecution and civil suits are time‑limited, and for many alleged incidents decades old the legal window is simply closed; reporting on the E. Jean Carroll case made clear that criminal charges were impossible because the statute of limitations had long expired, which is why Carroll pursued civil claims instead ^[1], and commentators have repeatedly pointed to one‑ and two‑year windows in defamation and related media claims depending on jurisdiction as a practical barrier to bringing suit ^[2].

2. High legal standards for public‑figure defamation and reputational claims

When accusations intersect with media reports or denials, accusers seeking to sue for defamation confront the First Amendment‑shaped rule that public‑figure plaintiffs must prove “actual malice” — knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth — a standard experts say makes large damages awards difficult, as seen in analysis of Trump’s own defamation threats against outlets and the skepticism of legal scholars about such suits ^{[2] [3]}.

3. Evidence problems after long delays: memory, corroboration and admissibility

Decades‑old alleged conduct raises the usual evidentiary headaches — faded memories, lost documents, and fewer eyewitnesses — and courts are often hostile to stale claims; appellate fights over what testimony was admissible in the Carroll trial underscore how judges’ evidentiary rulings can determine whether allegations survive to juries, which in turn discourages some potential plaintiffs from filing ^{[5] [1]}.

4. Strategic and financial deterrence: countersuits, venue and “forum shopping”

Trump’s frequent use of litigation — suing media outlets, government agencies and others for large sums — creates a real chilling effect because accusers face the risk of counter‑litigation, high legal fees, and drawn‑out discovery fights; critics have accused parties in other Trump‑era disputes of forum shopping and of trying to manipulate choice of venue, a tactic that can raise costs and uncertainty for plaintiffs ^{[4] [3] [6]}.

5. Withdrawals, settlements and third‑party pressures that never surface in the record

Some accusations never reached court because cases were withdrawn, settled or never filed; chronicling of Trump‑era allegations shows a range of outcomes — lawsuits filed, dropped or settled — and reporting and compilation efforts (including media accounts and public case trackers) document that not every asserted claim becomes a filed civil action, although public sources do not always reveal the private reasons for decisions to abandon litigation ^{[7] [8]}.

6. Political context and institutional complications

The political prominence of the defendant complicates litigation: government actors, media organizations and courts all face heightened scrutiny and partisan claims about bias, and when plaintiffs or defendants assert political motivations courts and commentators note novel conflicts — for example, when the president sues federal agencies — that can affect litigation posture and public willingness to press suits ^{[6] [9]}.

7. What the reporting does not settle

Available sources document many of the structural legal hurdles — statutes of limitation, evidentiary burdens, defamation standards, and the chilling effect of counter‑litigation — but public reporting cannot fully reveal every accuser’s private calculus (cost, safety, legal advice, non‑litigious resolutions) and therefore cannot tell whether an unfiled suit reflects a legal bar or a personal decision; that uncertainty is apparent across media summaries and trackers ^{[7] [8]}.