How do settlements in Trump’s sexual misconduct cases compare to settlements in similar high-profile cases?

1. The headline numbers: Crawford of awards and settlements

E. Jean Carroll secured jury awards totaling $88.3 million across two related suits against Trump for sexual assault and defamation, a single consolidated figure that has driven much of the public sense that Trump’s payouts are unusually large ^[1]. In a separate media-defamation matter, ABC News agreed to a settlement after a judge compelled depositions, with reporting indicating the settlement was about $15 million and that the settlement came earlier than is typical in such pretrial procedures ^[1]. Other claims have been resolved without public jury findings: Jill Harth’s 1997 claim ended when a parallel settlement was reached and she withdrew her suit, and Trump’s 1990 divorce settlement with Ivana included a confidentiality clause limiting her public discussion of the marriage and divorce ^{[4] [2]}.

2. Structural patterns: confidentiality, withdrawals and defamation sprawl

Trump’s cases display several features common in high-profile sexual-misconduct litigation: confidentiality provisions, strategic withdrawals, and intertwined defamation countersuits or claims by defendants, all of which shape public perception as much as the legal outcomes themselves; Ivana’s divorce settlement’s confidentiality clause is an early example, while Summer Zervos ultimately withdrew her defamation case after litigation developments ^{[2] [4]}. The Carroll litigation likewise encompassed not just a battery claim but repeated defamation allegations stemming from public statements by Trump, illustrating how reputational disputes become folded into sexual-assault litigation ^[1].

3. Legal specialities that made Trump’s outcomes distinct

Some of what produced the Carroll awards was statutory change: New York’s Adult Survivors Act temporarily revived time-barred claims, creating the procedural opening that allowed Carroll’s sexual-battery claim to be tried decades after the alleged incident ^[3]. In addition, the Department of Justice at one point argued Trump’s responses were made in an official capacity, seeking to invoke federal procedures — a maneuver Carroll’s counsel described as an unprecedented attempt to transfer private-liability questions into the government’s orbit ^[1].

4. How these settlements compare — what can and cannot be said from the available reporting

The reporting supplied documents that Trump has both paid large jury awards and settled or seen withdrawn claims, but it does not include a comprehensive, side-by-side dataset of settlements paid by other high-profile figures for sexual-misconduct claims, so definitive rankings by amount or frequency cannot be produced from these sources alone ^{[1] [4]}. What can be said is qualitative: Trump’s litigation is notable for large jury awards, publicized media settlements, and the mix of defamation and assault claims; many other high-profile cases historically feature confidentiality and nondisclosure agreements as well, but the current sources do not supply those comparative dollar figures ^{[2] [4]}.

5. Competing narratives and hidden agendas

Trump has uniformly denied the allegations and framed them as politically motivated or media-driven, a stance documented in reporting that also quotes his vow to sue accusers and outlets in 2016, which signals an aggressive counter-litigation posture that can deter or complicate claimant strategies ^[2]. Advocates and some legal observers argue that statutory changes and social movements have facilitated accountability years after alleged incidents, while critics point to confidentiality deals and withdrawals as evidence that settlements often avoid public adjudication — a tension visible across the Trump docket and acknowledged in the sources ^{[3] [1] [4]}.