Which civil judgments or settlements involving Trump during or after his presidency were based on proven allegations?
Executive summary
Several civil judgments and settlements involving Donald Trump during and after his presidency are documented: a New York civil-fraud trial produced a roughly $454–$465 million monetary judgment that was finalized in Feb. 2024 and later reduced/overturned on appeal [1] [2]. A federal jury in 2023 found Trump liable for sexual abuse and defamation toward E. Jean Carroll and awarded a $5 million judgment that has been upheld on appeal and is the subject of a Supreme Court petition [3] [4]. Multiple other settlements and payouts to or from Trump — including large tech and media settlements in 2025 — are reported but their connection to “proven allegations” varies by case and remains contested in the record [5] [6] [7].
1. Proven in court: E. Jean Carroll civil verdict and subsequent appeals
A federal jury in May 2023 found Trump liable for sexually abusing E. Jean Carroll in the 1990s and for defaming her later; that trial produced a $5 million civil judgment that was upheld by a panel of the Second Circuit and is now the subject of a Supreme Court petition by Trump [3] [4]. Reporting notes the jury found him liable for sexual abuse and defamation and that appellate judges called the damages “fair and reasonable,” but Trump continues to litigate the verdict upward and downward [8] [3].
2. Civil fraud in New York: a large judgment, orders, and appellate reversal
New York Attorney General Letitia James won a civil fraud case that produced a roughly $454–$465 million judgment finalized in February 2024; that judgment flowed from findings that Trump misrepresented asset values to lenders and others [1] [9]. In August 2025 a New York state appeals court struck down the nearly half‑billion‑dollar penalty as unconstitutionally excessive while issuing a fractured opinion on underlying fraud findings and preserving some injunctive relief and business restrictions [2] [10] [9]. Legislative and political actors framed the appeals decision very differently in public statements [11].
3. Settlements after re-election: tech, media and universities — motive and substance vary
A wave of settlements after Trump’s return to the White House includes payments from Meta, YouTube/Google and media firms; examples cited include Meta’s $25 million, YouTube’s reported $24.5 million, and corporate settlements tied to defamation or account‑suspension suits [5] [12] [7]. Reporting and legal commentators note these payouts often settle litigation claims rather than adjudicate underlying allegations on the merits, and commentators question whether settlements reflect legal “proof” or pragmatic decisions by private parties [5] [7]. The White House fact sheet claims multi‑hundred‑million dollar settlements with universities; available reporting shows some universities negotiated settlements or agreements tied to federal funding and policy disputes, but those matters differ from civil‑liability judgments proving individual misconduct [6] [13].
4. What “based on proven allegations” means in this record
Court judgments following trials (not settlements) are the clearest signals that a judge or jury found allegations proven under civil standards. The Carroll jury verdict is such an instance [3]. The New York AG fraud case produced a final judgment in 2024 reflecting judicial findings, though appellate review later narrowed or overturned parts of the financial penalty and fragmented the record on which fraud findings command a clear majority [1] [10] [9]. By contrast, large settlements reported in 2025 (tech, media, universities) typically resolve disputes without trial findings of liability, so settlements alone do not equate to a court’s determination that underlying allegations were proven [5] [7].
5. Competing viewpoints and political framing
Supporters and Republican officials present appellate reductions or settlements as vindication and “lawfare” pushed by opponents; critics and plaintiffs’ lawyers describe upheld rulings and injunctive remedies as evidence that cases “have merit” and that courts found wrongdoing [11] [10] [7]. The New York appeals court’s fractured decision shows why both narratives can be advanced: the court rejected an excessive monetary penalty while leaving some business restraints intact and producing no single majority opinion on all fraud findings [10] [9].
6. Limitations, outstanding questions, and where reporting is thin
Available sources document the Carroll verdict and the New York AG judgment and appeal [3] [1] [10]. Sources discuss many 2025 settlements and White House statements claiming large university payouts, but detailed court records and independent reporting tying every claimed settlement to adjudicated proof are not provided in the materials here; therefore, available sources do not mention definitive court findings that prove misconduct for every settlement cited by the White House [6] [7]. For other widely circulated allegations (e.g., alleged child‑sex‑crime settlements), independent fact‑checks found no evidence and courts did not corroborate those claims [14].
Bottom line: the clearest civil finding against Trump in the provided reporting is the Carroll jury verdict (civil liability for sexual abuse and defamation) and the New York AG’s civil‑fraud rulings produced a large monetary judgment that has been significantly undercut on appeal; many post‑2024 settlements exist but settlements ordinarily do not equate to judicial findings that allegations were proven [3] [1] [10] [5].