What has E. Jean Carroll said publicly about receiving or using any funds from these judgments?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
E. Jean Carroll has publicly voiced both a desire to use any defamation award in ways that would irk Donald Trump and worry that she may never actually collect the $83.3 million judgment, telling interviewers she would spend the money “on something Trump hates” while her legal filings and statements flagged “very serious concerns” about Trump’s ability to pay [1] [2]. Her attorney, Roberta Kaplan, has expressed confidence that the judgment can be collected even if not immediately, framing enforcement as a matter of legal process rather than a settled payout [1] [3].
1. Carroll has said she’d use any award to “cause him pain” — publicly
Shortly after a jury awarded $83.3 million, Carroll told Good Morning America that if awarding her money would “cause him pain” she intended to give it to causes or uses that Trump would hate, a remark widely reported and quoted by The Guardian summarizing Carroll’s stated intent to spend the award in a way that would bother her opponent [1].
2. Carroll has publicly expressed real doubt about actually receiving funds
Beyond rhetoric about how she might spend a judgment, Carroll — through filings and public statements — has repeatedly signaled skepticism about the feasibility of collecting the full award, with her lawyers warning courts that recent developments raised “very serious concerns” about Trump’s cash position and the ease of collection [2]. That public concern was framed in filings emphasizing practical obstacles to enforcement even as the legal team pursued remedies.
3. Her lawyer has publicly balanced confidence in collection with realism
Roberta Kaplan, Carroll’s lead attorney, has publicly urged confidence in eventual collection, telling interviewers and issuing statements that Trump owns significant real estate that could be targeted to satisfy the judgment and that the legal team “will collect the judgment,” while acknowledging it might not be immediate [1] [3]. Kaplan’s messaging served both to reassure supporters and to signal ongoing enforcement efforts during appeals [3].
4. The public remarks sit against a backdrop of sustained litigation and appellate rulings
Carroll’s comments about the award and its collectability have been made while the case moved through appeals and related filings — including a large jury award and later appellate activity that affirmed the verdict — and reporting repeatedly notes the $83.3 million figure and the appeals court’s rulings upholding the judgment [3] [4] [5]. Those developments shaped both Carroll’s expressed hopes and her practical concerns about enforcement.
5. Opposing statements and political context complicate interpretation
Public statements about using or collecting the money have been met by predictable denials and political framing from Trump’s side, which has characterized the litigation as politically motivated; media coverage includes Trump spokespeople dismissing the case as a “travesty” while Carroll’s camp frames collection as a civil-rights and accountability matter [4] [6]. Reporters and advocates have noted that litigation strategy, political messaging, and appeals influence public statements from both sides [4].
6. What Carroll has not publicly claimed — and what reporting does not show
Available reporting cited here contains Carroll’s stated intentions and her lawyers’ assessments, but does not document that Carroll has received or disbursed any portion of the $83.3 million judgment; no source in this packet reports an actual payment to her or verified donations made from that award [2] [1] [3]. Reporting also does not provide granular accounting of collection efforts or confirm whether any specific assets have been seized, so it is not possible, based on these sources, to assert that Carroll has received or used funds from the judgment.
7. Bottom line: rhetoric, realism and open questions remain
Publicly, E. Jean Carroll has combined pointed rhetoric about spending any award in a way that would upset Donald Trump with pragmatic warnings — via her legal team — that collecting $83.3 million could be difficult, while her attorney has counseled confidence that the judgment can ultimately be enforced; independent confirmation of any actual receipt or use of the money is not present in the cited reporting [1] [2] [3].