US appeals court rejects Trump’s latest bid to delay paying E Jean Carroll $5.8m 13%

By Victoria Bekiempis0%

7/9/2026, 1:31:02 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 17 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Status Quo Bias, and Confirmation Bias, with Post Hoc (False Cause) as the most egregious example at 19.5% saturation with 111 hits. Analysis detected 664 faulty-reasoning hits from 569 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 29.1% and a BS Rank of 13% (19,248 of 21,886 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 87.90% of the article peer group.

Donald Trump attends a press conference at the Nato summit in Ankara, Turkey, on 8 July. 
Photograph: Jakub Porzycki/NurPhoto/Shutterstock 
US appeals court rejects Trump’s latest bid to delay paying E Jean Carroll $5.8m 
US president contested judge’s order to release money after Carroll’s 2023 sexual abuse and defamation trial against him 
A Manhattan federal appeals court late on Wednesday rejected Donald Trump ’s latest bid to delay the payment of more than $5m to E Jean Carroll following her successful 2023 sexual abuse and defamation trial against him. 
The US court of appeals for the second circuit made its decision hours after Trump filed paperwork fighting Manhattan federal court judge Lewis Kaplan’s order releasing this money  which has been held in a court-controlled account since June 2023. 
Trump denies all wrongdoing. 
Trump’s asked the second circuit, “on an emergency basis”, for an “immediate administrative stay” of Kaplan’s order. 
His request was “to preserve the status quo” while this court can weigh his upcoming request for a stay while the appeals process plays out, court papers said. 
With accrued interest, the total court-held amount is now about $5.8m. 
Trump filed paperwork indicating his appeal within an hour of Kaplan’s order. 
Kaplan’s order stated: “The Clerk is respectfully directed to disburse  the value of the principle Judgment, which amounts to $5,000,000.00… The Clerk is further respectfully directed to disburse  the value of the post-judgment interest.” 
US judge orders release of $5.8m Trump owes E Jean Carroll after court loss 
Several hours after ordering the release of these funds, Kaplan released a memorandum explaining his decision. 
“In the last analysis, defendant has been stalling this case for years,” Kaplan wrote. 
“A jury unanimously concluded that he sexually abused and defamed plaintiff and awarded her damages accordingly.” 
“The judgment on that verdict has been upheld on appeal. 
En banc rehearing has been denied. 
The Supreme Court has denied certiorari without dissent,” Kaplan said. 
“It’s time for him to ‘do equity’ and pay the judgment.” 
Kaplan’s mandate came in the wake of the US supreme court’s refusal on 29 June to hear Trump’s appeal of Carroll’s case. 
After the justices denied his request to hear his appeal, Carroll’s attorneys asked Kaplan to order the prompt release of these funds. 
skip past newsletter promotion 
after newsletter promotion 
“After four years of litigation across every level of the federal court system, it is time for this case to end,” Roberta Kaplan, the lead Carroll attorney, argued in court filings. 
“And under the Court’s Stipulation and Order, Carroll is now entitled to obtain payment of the money due under the judgment.” 
Trump had asked Kaplan not to order the release of these funds. 
The president said that he was asking the supreme court to reconsider hearing his appeal. 
About six weeks after Carroll’s win, both her and Trump’s legal team agreed that he could deposit $5m, as well as 11% interest, in a court-administered fund while his appeals played out. 
As part of that agreement, her lawyers said, the money was to be paid out upon definitive legal developments  including the supreme court rejecting Trump’s appeal. 
Trump’s team has claimed that Carroll’s representatives had engaged in an “incorrect reading” of this agreement, claiming it “does not permit collection while the rehearing petition remains unresolved”. 
Explore more on these topics 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 11.2%Victoria Bekiempis: 2.8%the Guardian: 3.7%Confirmation Bias11.2%This article: 0.0%Victoria Bekiempis: 1.4%the Guardian: 0.6%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 2.1%Victoria Bekiempis: 0.5%the Guardian: 3.1%Availability Heuristic2.1%This article: 0.0%Victoria Bekiempis: 0.0%the Guardian: 1.2%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Victoria Bekiempis: 0.0%the Guardian: 1.0%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Victoria Bekiempis: 0.0%the Guardian: 1.6%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 8.1%Victoria Bekiempis: 6.2%the Guardian: 6.1%Framing Effect8.1%This article: 2.5%Victoria Bekiempis: 0.6%the Guardian: 0.6%Loss Aversion2.5%This article: 16.0%Victoria Bekiempis: 4.0%the Guardian: 0.6%Status Quo Bias16.0%This article: 0.0%Victoria Bekiempis: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Victoria Bekiempis: 0.0%the Guardian: 2.5%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 5.4%Victoria Bekiempis: 1.4%the Guardian: 2.1%Pessimism Bias5.4%This article: 16.9%Victoria Bekiempis: 4.8%the Guardian: 10.4%Negativity Bias16.9%This article: 5.6%Victoria Bekiempis: 1.4%the Guardian: 1.6%Self-Serving Bias5.6%This article: 0.0%Victoria Bekiempis: 0.0%the Guardian: 1.4%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Victoria Bekiempis: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Victoria Bekiempis: 0.0%the Guardian: 1.3%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Victoria Bekiempis: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.7%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Victoria Bekiempis: 0.0%the Guardian: 3.2%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Victoria Bekiempis: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.3%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Victoria Bekiempis: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 1.8%Victoria Bekiempis: 1.0%the Guardian: 1.2%Recency Bias1.8%This article: 0.0%Victoria Bekiempis: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Victoria Bekiempis: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Victoria Bekiempis: 0.6%the Guardian: 2.0%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Victoria Bekiempis: 1.2%the Guardian: 0.6%Straw Man0.0%This article: 9.3%Victoria Bekiempis: 2.3%the Guardian: 3.8%Appeal to Authority9.3%This article: 0.0%Victoria Bekiempis: 0.0%the Guardian: 1.7%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Victoria Bekiempis: 0.0%the Guardian: 1.1%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 3.7%Victoria Bekiempis: 0.9%the Guardian: 0.1%Circular Reasoning3.7%This article: 0.0%Victoria Bekiempis: 0.0%the Guardian: 6.3%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Victoria Bekiempis: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Victoria Bekiempis: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.7%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Victoria Bekiempis: 0.5%the Guardian: 5.6%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Victoria Bekiempis: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.9%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 19.5%Victoria Bekiempis: 4.9%the Guardian: 2.9%Post Hoc (False Cause)19.5%This article: 0.0%Victoria Bekiempis: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Victoria Bekiempis: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Victoria Bekiempis: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Victoria Bekiempis: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.4%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Victoria Bekiempis: 0.0%the Guardian: 3.1%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Victoria Bekiempis: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 1.8%Victoria Bekiempis: 0.4%the Guardian: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)1.8%This article: 0.0%Victoria Bekiempis: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Victoria Bekiempis: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Victoria Bekiempis: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Victoria Bekiempis: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Victoria Bekiempis: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 6.3%Victoria Bekiempis: 1.6%the Guardian: 1.6%Unattributed Quote6.3%This article: 2.5%Victoria Bekiempis: 0.8%the Guardian: 1.1%Quote-first Misdirection2.5%This article: 0.0%Victoria Bekiempis: 0.0%the Guardian: 10.4%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 1.9%Victoria Bekiempis: 0.5%the Guardian: 1.8%Indoctrination1.9%This article: 0.0%Victoria Bekiempis: 0.0%the Guardian: 3.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Victoria Bekiempis: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 2.1%Victoria Bekiempis: 0.5%the Guardian: 1.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…2.1%

569 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers36%attributed speech366writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 40 words • 0.0% coverageDonald Trump • 4 words • 0.0% coverageDonald Trump • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageLewis Kaplan • 36 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageLewis Kaplan • 14 words • 100.0% coverageLewis Kaplan • 16 words • 0.0% coverageLewis Kaplan • 10 words • 0.0% coverageLewis Kaplan • 6 words • 0.0% coverageLewis Kaplan • 10 words • 0.0% coverageLewis Kaplan • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 100.0% coverageRoberta Kaplan • 31 words • 0.0% coverageRoberta Kaplan • 21 words • 0.0% coverageDonald Trump • 12 words • 0.0% coverageDonald Trump • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Roberta Kaplan

100%flagged-word coverage
52 attributed words26% of attributed speech87% writer coverage
0%2.5%5.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -3.3 ptsWriter: 3.3%Roberta Kaplan: 0.0%0.0%

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.