AP News53%

Judge orders E. Jean Carroll be paid $5.8 million from Trump case 7%

By Michael R. Sisak15% Larry Neumeister20%

7/8/2026, 5:30:40 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 10 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Appeal to Emotion, and Unattributed Quote, with Confirmation Bias as the most egregious example at 12.9% saturation with 90 hits. Analysis detected 426 faulty-reasoning hits from 696 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 23.5% and a BS Rank of 7% (19,728 of 21,168 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 93.20% of the article peer group.

Judge orders E. 
Jean Carroll be paid $5.8M in Trump sex abuse and defamation case; Trump appeals 
Writer E. 
Jean Carroll can collect $5.8 million held in escrow since a jury found that President Donald Trump sexually abused and defamed her, a federal judge ruled Wednesday. 
(AP Production: Marissa Duhaney) 
E. 
Jean Carroll arrives at Manhattan federal court, Jan. 17, 2024, in New York. 
(AP Photo/Eduardo Munoz Alvarez) 
MICHAEL R. 
SISAK and LARRY NEUMEISTER 
NEW YORK (AP)  The writer E. 
Jean Carroll can collect $5.8 million held in escrow since a jury found that President Donald Trump sexually abused and defamed her, a federal judge ruled Wednesday. 
Trump’s lawyers immediately appealed but were denied an emergency order to block the payment from being made. 
Trump deposited the money in an account shortly after a jury ruled against him in 2023. 
The U.S. 
Supreme Court recently let the civil verdict stand, clearing the way for Judge Lewis A. 
Kaplan to release the money. 
The initial $5 million award has grown with interest. 
The jury found Trump attacked Carroll in 1996 in the dressing room of a luxury Manhattan department store, and defamed her after she described it publicly in a 2019 memoir, during his first term as president. 
Trump called her allegations false and said  she’s not my type  in an interview. 
Trump’s lawyers said Wednesday they would continue to appeal and accused his political opponents of using the legal system against him. 
They argued in appellate papers that Kaplan’s decision shouldn’t be allowed to take effect because Trump has asked the Supreme Court to reconsider its decision. 
Late Wednesday, Judge Eunice C. 
Lee of the 2nd U.S. 
Circuit Court of Appeals rejected their request to stop the money from being transferred to Carroll. 
“It is time for this case to come to an end,” Carroll’s lawyers wrote in a filing with the appellate court. 
“Carroll has waited more than three years for a jury’s verdict to be paid,” they wrote. 
“She should not have to wait any longer.” 
The jury had reached its verdict  in a trial that Trump did not attend  after Carroll testified that their flirtatious and friendly chance encounter at the department store turned violent. 
Trump insisted he never knew Carroll , now 82, a former advice columnist. 
He accused her of trying to sell books at his expense and of having political motives. 
Carroll sued Trump after New York changed its laws to give sexual abuse survivors a fresh chance to sue over attacks that happened in the distant past. 
Trump “has been stalling this case for years,” Kaplan wrote in a memorandum detailing his decision. 
“It is time for him to ‘do equity’ and pay the judgment.” 
Trump is also appealing $83 million in defamation compensation granted to Carroll by a separate Manhattan jury after a 2024 trial where Trump briefly testified . 
At that trial, Kaplan required the jury to accept the findings of the previous jury and only determine how much money, if any, Trump owed Carroll for comments he made about her while he was president. 
Trump’s lawyers complained that the judge, in setting rules for the damages trial, had barred Trump and his defense team from telling the jury that the encounter with Carroll never happened. 
When the 2nd Circuit declined to let all of its judges rehear an appeal of the $83 million award, Circuit Judge Denny Chin wrote that Trump had said multiple times over many years that Carroll lied for political and financial gain and had suggested she was too unattractive for Trump to have sexually assaulted her. 
“As a result of Trump’s statements, Carroll was harassed and humiliated, subjected to death threats, and feared for her physical safety for years,” Chin said. 
“And Trump showed no remorse, continuing his attacks against Carroll during and after two federal trials, and even proclaiming two days into the Carroll I trial that he would continue to defame her ‘a thousand times.’” 
Sisak is an Associated Press reporter covering law enforcement, courts and prisons. 
He is based in New York. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 12.9%Michael R. Sisak: 3.2%AP News: 2.0%Confirmation Bias12.9%This article: 0.0%Michael R. Sisak: 0.6%AP News: 0.8%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael R. Sisak: 2.4%AP News: 2.7%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael R. Sisak: 0.6%AP News: 0.7%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael R. Sisak: 0.0%AP News: 0.4%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael R. Sisak: 0.3%AP News: 1.6%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael R. Sisak: 4.9%AP News: 8.0%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 2.3%Michael R. Sisak: 0.6%AP News: 0.4%Loss Aversion2.3%This article: 0.0%Michael R. Sisak: 0.3%AP News: 0.5%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael R. Sisak: 0.1%AP News: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael R. Sisak: 0.5%AP News: 2.2%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael R. Sisak: 0.7%AP News: 2.1%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 11.1%Michael R. Sisak: 9.2%AP News: 9.6%Negativity Bias11.1%This article: 2.3%Michael R. Sisak: 2.8%AP News: 1.7%Self-Serving Bias2.3%This article: 0.0%Michael R. Sisak: 0.9%AP News: 0.8%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael R. Sisak: 0.2%AP News: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael R. Sisak: 0.1%AP News: 1.1%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael R. Sisak: 0.0%AP News: 0.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael R. Sisak: 0.5%AP News: 1.4%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael R. Sisak: 0.2%AP News: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael R. Sisak: 0.0%AP News: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael R. Sisak: 1.5%AP News: 1.3%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael R. Sisak: 0.5%AP News: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael R. Sisak: 0.0%AP News: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael R. Sisak: 1.1%AP News: 0.8%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael R. Sisak: 0.1%AP News: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 2.2%Michael R. Sisak: 1.7%AP News: 3.7%Appeal to Authority2.2%This article: 0.0%Michael R. Sisak: 1.1%AP News: 1.2%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael R. Sisak: 0.5%AP News: 0.8%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael R. Sisak: 0.2%AP News: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael R. Sisak: 1.5%AP News: 2.5%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael R. Sisak: 0.2%AP News: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael R. Sisak: 0.0%AP News: 0.3%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 8.0%Michael R. Sisak: 5.4%AP News: 4.7%Appeal to Emotion8.0%This article: 0.0%Michael R. Sisak: 0.4%AP News: 0.6%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 5.9%Michael R. Sisak: 1.6%AP News: 2.6%Post Hoc (False Cause)5.9%This article: 0.0%Michael R. Sisak: 0.1%AP News: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael R. Sisak: 0.7%AP News: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael R. Sisak: 0.0%AP News: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael R. Sisak: 0.0%AP News: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 4.6%Michael R. Sisak: 2.0%AP News: 1.2%Anecdotal4.6%This article: 0.0%Michael R. Sisak: 0.0%AP News: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael R. Sisak: 1.2%AP News: 1.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael R. Sisak: 0.0%AP News: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael R. Sisak: 0.1%AP News: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael R. Sisak: 0.0%AP News: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 4.5%Michael R. Sisak: 0.3%AP News: 0.1%Special Pleading4.5%This article: 0.0%Michael R. Sisak: 0.2%AP News: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 7.5%Michael R. Sisak: 1.3%AP News: 2.0%Unattributed Quote7.5%This article: 0.0%Michael R. Sisak: 1.4%AP News: 1.2%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael R. Sisak: 3.4%AP News: 3.1%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael R. Sisak: 0.3%AP News: 0.6%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael R. Sisak: 0.6%AP News: 0.8%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael R. Sisak: 0.6%AP News: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael R. Sisak: 0.2%AP News: 0.2%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

696 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers19%attributed speech562writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageCarroll’s lawyers • 21 words • 0.0% coverageCarroll’s lawyers • 16 words • 0.0% coverageCarroll’s lawyers • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageKaplan • 16 words • 0.0% coverageKaplan • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 55 words • 0.0% coverageChin • 25 words • 0.0% coverageChin • 36 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Chin

100%flagged-word coverage
61 attributed words46% of attributed speech38% writer coverage
0%30.0%60.0%Unattributed Quote+56.2 ptsWriter: 2.8%Chin: 59.0%59.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.