Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
What was the outcome of Donald Trump's 2022 lawsuit against The Washington Post?
Executive Summary
Donald Trump’s 2022 lawsuit against The Washington Post — targeting journalist Bob Woodward and the publisher over the release of recorded interview material used in the audiobook “The Trump Tapes” — was dismissed by a federal judge because Trump failed to establish copyright ownership or a co‑authorship claim in the on‑the‑record interview material; the court therefore found no valid copyright infringement claim to proceed [1] [2] [3]. Competing reporting and filings around the period show related media‑industry litigation by Trump and his affiliates has produced multiple dismissals and procedural rulings, and some sources conflate separate suits from different years; careful reading separates the 2022 Woodward suit dismissal from other cases and from larger defamation campaigns against The Washington Post and other outlets [4] [5].
1. How the court ended the “Trump Tapes” fight — clear legal grounds, decisive dismissal
A federal judge dismissed the 2022 action brought by Trump against Bob Woodward and his publisher after concluding that Trump had not shown he and Woodward were co‑authors of the interview recordings, nor that Trump retained a legally cognizable copyright interest in the transcribed or recorded, on‑the‑record answers that Woodward used in compiling the audiobook. The dismissal rested on copyright doctrine: interviews recorded and published in a book or audiobook ordinarily do not create a copyright interest for the interviewee absent express agreement or proof of joint authorship, and the court found Trump provided no such evidence. Multiple contemporaneous accounts and court summaries reflect this legal reasoning as the dispositive factor in tossing the claim [1] [2] [3].
2. Where reporting overlaps — different suits, different outcomes, common confusion
Coverage and later summaries sometimes conflate the Woodward suit with other, larger suits Trump or his allies have filed against The Washington Post and other outlets — including multi‑billion‑dollar defamation suits connected to election coverage or campaign‑era litigation. One legal summary notes a broader pattern of Trump‑related suits being dismissed for failure to meet defamation or procedural thresholds, and separate Law360 items discuss Washington Post‑related litigation threads where the paper sought dismissal or exit from massive claims [4] [5]. Those items illustrate why readers may mix the 2022 copyright dismissal with other, ongoing legal battles; the Woodward case was narrower and decided on copyright law, not defamation standards.
3. What the dismissal means for press rights and interview practices — narrow ruling, wider implications
The ruling in the Woodward matter affirmed the ordinary legal distinction between an author’s copyright and an interview subject’s statements delivered on the record; courts typically treat a reporter’s compilation, editing, and presentation as the journalist’s creative product unless a contract or joint‑authorship can be proven. The judge’s dismissal emphasizes that recorded interviews published in a book or audiobook generally vest copyright in the publisher/author absent a contract, and that high‑profile figures cannot automatically claim copyright in their own spoken responses without meeting legal tests. Media observers framed the decision as a win for publishers’ editorial control over compiled interview material, consistent with the court’s focus on ownership proof rather than First Amendment balancing [3] [1].
4. Contrasting viewpoints and possible agendas — plaintiff strategy versus media defense
Plaintiff filings by Trump sought to reframe the release of recorded material as a property theft, advancing a copyright theory rather than a defamation theory in this instance; that strategy put the case before a court that applies rigid ownership tests. The Post and Woodward defended on traditional copyright and authorship grounds, arguing editorial creation and lack of joint authorship. Legal coverage highlights an underlying strategic choice: bringing copyright claims can be a route to challenge reporting, but it requires proof of ownership that the court found absent. Observers on both sides may advance narratives — plaintiffs portraying the suit as protecting proprietary material, and media defendants framing such suits as anti‑press litigation tactics — so readers should note those competing agendas when interpreting coverage [2] [4].
5. Final take: settled legal result, but part of a larger litigation landscape
The immediate outcome is clear: the Woodward‑Washington Post copyright claim was dismissed for lack of demonstrable co‑authorship or copyright interest by Trump. That conclusion stands alongside other Trump‑era suits that either were dismissed or produced procedural rulings, underscoring a pattern of recurrent litigation between Trump (and related entities) and major news organizations that produces varied results depending on legal theory and evidentiary thresholds. Readers should treat the Woodward ruling as a specific copyright decision distinct from defamation or other claims in related Trump lawsuits; conflating them has led to reporting confusion, but the underlying legal principles and the court’s reasoning remain documented and consistent across accounts [1] [4] [3].