Connect with us

News

Trump Has One Week To Pay $83.3 Million To E. Jean Carroll—And She’s Expressing ‘Very Serious Concerns’

Published

on

Trump Has One Week To Pay .3 Million To E. Jean Carroll—And She’s Expressing ‘Very Serious Concerns’

Topline

Former President Donald Trump’s scramble to cover millions in legal fines could start to come to a head next week, as the ex-president has only until next weekend to pay the $83.3 million verdict in E. Jean Carroll’s defamation lawsuit unless a court rules otherwise—and Carroll expressed “very serious concerns” Thursday about Trump’s ability to pay.

Key Facts

A jury ordered Trump to pay $83.3 million to Carroll for defamation—based on his attacks against the writer after she accused him of sexual assault—and the formal court judgment was entered on Feb. 8, meaning Trump’s payment is due by 30 days later on March 9.

Advertisement

Trump intends to appeal the judgment, but will still have to either pay the money into a court-controlled account or post an appeals bond guaranteeing his ability to pay.

The ex-president has asked the court to pause the judgment against him while he files post-trial motions in the case, or else allow Trump to post a “substantially reduced bond”—and while the court quickly rejected his request to immediately pause the judgment while it considers the motion, it still has to issue a lasting ruling.

Carroll’s attorneys argued in a court filing Thursday that Trump is asking the court to “simply trust that he’s very rich” and therefore doesn’t need to post a bond guaranteeing he’ll pay the money, while they have “very serious concerns about Trump’s cash position” and the “feasibility” of him paying what he owes.

Advertisement

Trump has separately been ordered to pay $454 million—and counting—in the civil fraud case against him and his company, and Carroll’s attorneys pointed to that judgment, the criminal cases against Trump and the ex-president’s lack of transparency around his finances as suggesting there “is absolutely no reason to believe that Trump has so much readily collectible cash on hand.”

The court has given Trump until 5 p.m. Saturday to respond to Carroll’s filing, and a ruling on whether Trump has to pay the judgment immediately could come soon after, as Trump has asked the court to rule by March 4.

Advertisement

Crucial Quote

Trump’s filing asking to pause the monetary judgment “simply asks the Court to ‘trust me’ and offers, in a case with an $83.3 million judgment against him, the court filing equivalent of a paper napkin; signed by the least trustworthy of borrowers,” Carroll’s attorneys wrote.

Chief Critic

Trump’s attorneys argued “there is no cognizable risk” of Trump not paying the judgment against him, noting Carroll has previously “concede[d] that President Trump’s resources suffice to satisfy the judgment.” “Having argued to the jury that President Trump has great financial resources, Plaintiff is in no position to contradict herself now and contend that she requires the protection of a bond during the brief period while post-trial motions are pending,” Trump’s lawyers claimed.

Forbes Valuation

Forbes estimates Trump’s net worth at $2.6 billion as of September. That includes just over $400 million in cash and liquid assets—enough to cover Carroll’s judgment alone, but not his total legal fines when combined with his judgment in the fraud case.

How Will Trump Pay?

It remains to be seen how Trump will cover the legal fines he owes—which total some $540 million and counting, between his fraud fine, the $83.3 million and a separate $5 million judgment from Carroll’s first trial against Trump, which has already been deposited into a court-controlled account. While Trump doesn’t have enough cash on hand to cover the costs, he does have several options, including borrowing against his assets, seeking help from wealthy friends or borrowing from financial institutions, which is now easier after a New York appeals court paused a penalty in his fraud judgment that barred Trump from seeking loans from New York-registered institutions. He could also put up some of his real estate assets for sale, his attorneys suggested in a filing in the fraud case. While the Carroll payment is coming due in a matter of days, the ex-president has a bit more time to put up the fraud ruling cash, as the New York Attorney General’s office, which brought the case, isn’t expected to start enforcing the judgment unless he hasn’t paid by March 25. Trump has similarly asked an appeals court to pause the judgment against him in that case—or post a $100 million bond—and while the court rejected his request on Wednesday to pause the monetary judgment while it considers the motion, it still has to issue a more lasting ruling.

Advertisement

Key Background

Carroll sued Trump in 2019 after she publicly accused him of sexual assault, alleging the then-president raped her in a Bergdorf Goodman dressing room in the 1990s. Trump attacked Carroll in response, denying her account and claiming she isn’t “my type,” leading the writer to sue him for defamation. Trump’s reaction to her allegations caused Carroll “emotional pain and suffering at the hands of the man who raped her, as well as injury to her reputation, honor and dignity,” she alleged in the lawsuit. The case got stalled in court for years as Trump tried to dismiss the charges, and Carroll brought a second lawsuit against the ex-president alleging defamation and sexual assault under New York’s Adult Survivors Act. That case ended up going to trial first, resulting in Trump being found liable for defamation and sexual assault, but not rape. Because Trump had already been found liable in the first trial—based on substantially similar comments to the 2019 lawsuit—the second Carroll trial was only to determine how much Trump had to pay in damages. The jury ruled in January that Trump had to pay $18.3 million in compensatory damages and $65 million in punitive damages, which are meant to dissuade Trump from further defaming Carroll.

Further Reading

MORE FROM FORBESTrump Must Pay E. Jean Carroll $83 Million For Defamation, Jury Rules

MORE FROM FORBESHere Are Trump’s Most Valuable Properties
MORE FROM FORBESHere’s Why Trump Won’t Have To Sell Any Buildings To Come Up With $540 Million
MORE FROM FORBESHere’s Who Could Loan Trump $540 Million

News

Video: Man on Roof Faces Off with ICE Agents for Hours in Minnesota

Published

on

Video: Man on Roof Faces Off with ICE Agents for Hours in Minnesota

new video loaded: Man on Roof Faces Off with ICE Agents for Hours in Minnesota

transcript

transcript

Man on Roof Faces Off with ICE Agents for Hours in Minnesota

A man clung to a partially built roof for hours in frigid temperatures during a standoff with immigration agents in Chanhassen, Minn., a suburb of Minneapolis. The confrontation was part of the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown in the state to remove what it calls “vicious criminals.”

“What a [expletive] embarrassment.” “Look at this guy.” “What’s with all the fascists?” “The Lord is with you.” “Where’s the bad hombre? What did this guy do?” “He’s out here working to support his [expletive] family.” “Gestapo agents.” “Oh yeah, shake your head, tough guy.” “This is where you get the worst of the worst right here, hard-working builders.” “Crossing the border is not a crime. Coming illegally to the United States is not a crime, according to you.” “C’mon, get out of here.” “Take him to a different hospital.”

Advertisement
A man clung to a partially built roof for hours in frigid temperatures during a standoff with immigration agents in Chanhassen, Minn., a suburb of Minneapolis. The confrontation was part of the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown in the state to remove what it calls “vicious criminals.”

By Ernesto Londoño, Jackeline Luna and Daniel Fetherston

December 17, 2025

Continue Reading

News

Trump’s BBC lawsuit: A botched report, BritBox, and porn

Published

on

Trump’s BBC lawsuit: A botched report, BritBox, and porn

Journalists report outside BBC Broadcasting House in London. In a new lawsuit, President Trump is seeking $10 billion from the BBC for defamation.

Kirsty Wigglesworth/AP/AP


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Kirsty Wigglesworth/AP/AP

Not content with an apology and the resignation of two top BBC executives, President Trump filed a $10 billion defamation lawsuit Monday against the BBC in his continued strategy to take the press to court.

Beyond the legal attack on yet another media outlet, the litigation represents an audacious move against a national institution of a trusted ally. It hinges on an edit presented in a documentary of the president’s words on a fateful day. Oddly enough, it also hinges on the appeal of a niche streaming service to people in Florida, and the use of a technological innovation embraced by porn devotees.

A sloppy edit

At the heart of Trump’s case stands an episode of the BBC television documentary program Panorama that compresses comments Trump made to his supporters on Jan. 6, 2021, before they laid siege to the U.S. Capitol.

Advertisement

The episode seamlessly links Trump’s call for people to walk up to the Capitol with his exhortation nearly 55 minutes later: “And we fight, we fight like hell, and if you don’t fight like hell you don’t have a country anymore.”

Trump’s attorneys argue that the presentation gives viewers the impression that the president incited the violence that followed. They said his remarks had been doctored, not edited, and noted the omission of his statement that protesters would be “marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”

As NPR and other news organizations have documented, many defendants in the Jan. 6 attack on Congress said they believed they had been explicitly urged by Trump to block the certification of President-elect Joe Biden’s victory.

Trump’s lawsuit calls the documentary “a false, defamatory, deceptive, disparaging, inflammatory, and malicious depiction of President Trump.”

The lawsuit alleges that the depiction was “fabricated” and aired “in a brazen attempt to interfere in and influence the Election to President Trump’s detriment.”

Advertisement

While the BBC has not filed a formal response to the lawsuit, the public broadcaster has reiterated that it will defend itself in court.

A Nov. 13 letter to Trump’s legal team on behalf of the BBC from Charles Tobin, a leading U.S. First Amendment attorney, argued that the broadcaster has demonstrated contrition by apologizing, withdrawing the broadcast, and accepting the executives’ resignations.

Tobin also noted, on behalf of the BBC, that Trump had already been indicted by a grand jury on four criminal counts stemming from his efforts to overturn the 2020 election, including his conduct on Jan. 6, 2021, on the Capitol grounds.

The appeal of BritBox

For all the current consternation about the documentary, it didn’t get much attention at the time. The BBC aired the documentary twice on the eve of the 2024 elections — but never broadcast it directly in Florida.

That matters because the lawsuit was filed in Florida, where Trump alleges that the program was intended to discourage voters from voting for him.

Advertisement

Yet Tobin notes, Trump won Florida in 2024 by a “commanding 13-point margin, improving over his 2020 and 2016 performances in the state.”

Trump failed to make the case that Floridians were influenced by the documentary, Tobin wrote. He said the BBC did not broadcast the program in Florida through U.S. channels. (The BBC has distribution deals with PBS and NPR and their member stations for television and radio programs, respectively, but not to air Panorama.)

It was “geographically restricted” to U.K. viewers, Tobin wrote.

Hence the argument in Trump’s lawsuit that American viewers have other ways to watch it. The first is BritBox, a BBC streaming service that draws more on British mysteries set at seaside locales than BBC coverage of American politics.

Back in March, then-BBC Director General Tim Davie testified before the House of Commons that BritBox had more than 4 million subscribers in the U.S. (The BBC did not break down how many subscribers it has in Florida or how often Panorama documentaries are viewed by subscribers in the U.S. or the state, in response to questions posed by NPR for this story.)

Advertisement

“The Panorama Documentary was available to BritBox subscribers in Florida and was in fact viewed by these subscribers through BritBox and other means provided by the BBC,” Trump’s lawsuit states.

NPR searched for Panorama documentaries on the BritBox streaming service through the Amazon Prime platform, one of its primary distributors. The sole available episode dates from 2000. Trump does not mention podcasts. Panorama is streamed on BBC Sounds. Its episodes do not appear to be available in the U.S. on such mainstream podcast distributors in the U.S. such as Apple Podcasts, Spotify or Pocket Casts, according to a review by NPR.

Software that enables anonymous browsing – of porn

Another way Trump’s lawsuit suggests people in the U.S. could watch that particular episode of Panorama, if they were so inclined, is through a Virtual Private Network, or VPN.

Trump’s suit says millions of Florida citizens use VPNs to view content from foreign streamers that would otherwise be restricted. And the BBC iPlayer is among the most popular streaming services accessed by viewers using a VPN, Trump’s lawsuit asserts.

In response to questions from NPR, the BBC declined to break down figures for how many people in the U.S. access the BBC iPlayer through VPNs.

Advertisement

Demand for such software did shoot up in 2024 and early 2025. Yet, according to analysts — and even to materials cited by the president’s team in his own case — the reason appears to have less to do with foreign television shows and more to do with online pornography.

Under a new law, Florida began requiring age verification checks for visitors to pornographic websites, notes Paul Bischoff, editor of Comparitech, a site that reviews personal cybersecurity software.

“People use VPNs to get around those age verification and site blocks,” Bischoff says. “The reason is obvious.”

An article in the Tampa Free Press cited by Trump’s lawsuit to help propel the idea of a sharp growth of interest in the BBC actually undercuts the idea in its very first sentence – by focusing on that law.

“Demand for Virtual Private Networks (VPNs) has skyrocketed in Florida following the implementation of a new law requiring age verification for access to adult websites,” the first paragraph states. “This dramatic increase reflects a widespread effort by Floridians to bypass the restrictions and access adult content.”

Advertisement

Several legal observers anticipate possible settlement

Several First Amendment attorneys tell NPR they believe Trump’s lawsuit will result in a settlement of some kind, in part because there’s new precedent. In the past year, the parent companies of ABC News and CBS News have each paid $16 million to settle cases filed by Trump that many legal observers considered specious.

“The facts benefit Trump and defendants may be concerned about reputational harm,” says Carl Tobias, a professor of law at the University of Richmond who specializes in free speech issues. “The BBC also has admitted it could have done better and essentially apologized.”

Some of Trump’s previous lawsuits against the media have failed. He is currently also suing the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Des Moines Register and its former pollster, and the board of the Pulitzer Prize.

Continue Reading

News

Video: Prosecutors Charge Nick Reiner With Murdering His Parents

Published

on

Video: Prosecutors Charge Nick Reiner With Murdering His Parents

new video loaded: Prosecutors Charge Nick Reiner With Murdering His Parents

transcript

transcript

Prosecutors Charge Nick Reiner With Murdering His Parents

Los Angeles prosecutors charged Nick Reiner with two counts of first-degree murder in the deaths of his parents, the director Rob Reiner and Michele Singer Reiner.

Our office will be filing charges against Nick Reiner, who is accused of killing his parents, actor-director Rob Reiner and photographer-producer Michele Singer Reiner. These charges will be two counts of first-degree murder, with a special circumstance of multiple murders. He also faces a special allegation that he personally used a dangerous and deadly weapon, that being a knife. These charges carry a maximum sentence of life in prison without the possibility parole or the death penalty. No decision at this point has been made with respect to the death penalty.

Advertisement
Los Angeles prosecutors charged Nick Reiner with two counts of first-degree murder in the deaths of his parents, the director Rob Reiner and Michele Singer Reiner.

By Shawn Paik

December 16, 2025

Continue Reading

Trending