motivated by a personal grievance, not official duty
In the long arc of accountability, the Justice Department's July 2023 reversal in the Carroll defamation case marks a rare moment when the machinery of government corrects its own course. What had once been a bipartisan legal shield — extended across two administrations — was quietly withdrawn after a federal appeals court clarified that personal grievance and official duty are not the same thing. For E. Jean Carroll, who had already won a $5 million jury verdict for sexual assault and defamation, the reversal meant the federal case would proceed toward trial, carrying with it the weight of a jury's prior judgment.
- The Justice Department's sudden withdrawal of Trump's legal defense stripped away a shield that had survived two administrations, leaving him personally exposed in a federal defamation trial.
- A D.C. appeals court's clarified standard — allowing courts to weigh personal history between accuser and accused — cracked open the Westfall Act's protective logic and made the government's prior position untenable.
- Trump's post-presidency statements about Carroll, nearly identical in tone to those made while in office, became evidence against him: the DOJ concluded his words served personal vendetta, not the public interest.
- With the federal trial set for January 2024 and a state jury's $5 million liability verdict already on the books, Trump entered the primary season facing compounding legal exposure on two fronts.
- Carroll, who alleged an assault in a Manhattan department store decades before Trump's presidency, now stands closer to a second reckoning — this time in federal court, without government lawyers standing between her and the man she accused.
In July 2023, the Justice Department abruptly withdrew its legal defense of Donald Trump in E. Jean Carroll's federal defamation lawsuit — a reversal that had been building quietly in the courts and arrived with significant consequences.
Carroll had already secured a landmark victory earlier that year, when a New York jury found Trump liable for sexual assault and defamation, awarding her $5 million in damages. She had alleged that Trump raped her in a Manhattan department store long before his presidency. Trump denied everything, calling the allegations a hoax and Carroll herself a 'whack job.' The jury disagreed.
The federal case turned on a different question: whether Trump's public statements about Carroll, made while he was president, constituted official conduct under the Westfall Act — a law shielding federal employees from personal liability for actions taken within the scope of their duties. Both the Trump and Biden administrations had argued yes, keeping the DOJ in the case as a potential substitute defendant. Had that argument prevailed, the lawsuit would likely have been dismissed.
But a D.C. appeals court clarified the standard for determining official conduct, opening the door for courts to examine the personal history between the parties and to weigh evidence that had emerged since the government's original decision. Applying that standard, the DOJ concluded that Trump's statements were driven by personal grievance, not presidential duty. His continued attacks on Carroll after leaving office — nearly identical to those made while in power — and the jury's finding of a pre-presidential assault pointed in the same direction.
With the DOJ's withdrawal, the federal defamation trial was set to proceed in January 2024, landing at the height of the presidential primary season. The legal ground beneath Trump had shifted, and Carroll's long pursuit of accountability moved one step closer to its next chapter.
The Justice Department abruptly reversed course in July 2023, withdrawing its legal defense of former President Donald Trump in a federal defamation lawsuit brought by writer E. Jean Carroll. The shift came after a federal appeals court in Washington clarified how the Westfall Act—a law that shields federal employees from personal liability for actions taken within the scope of their job—should be applied in practice.
Carroll had already won a significant victory in state court earlier that year when a New York jury found Trump liable for sexual assault and defamation, awarding her $5 million in damages. She alleged that Trump had raped her in a Manhattan department store decades before his presidency. Trump denied the allegations entirely, calling them a hoax and a conspiracy, and dismissing Carroll herself as a "whack job." But the state jury sided with her.
The federal case centered on statements Trump made about Carroll while serving as president. For years, both the Trump administration and the Biden administration had defended him in this lawsuit, arguing that his remarks to the media qualified as official presidential conduct and therefore fell under the Westfall Act's protective umbrella. If that argument had prevailed, the Justice Department would have substituted itself as the defendant, and the case would almost certainly have been dismissed.
But in a letter filed with the federal court on a Tuesday in mid-July, Brian M. Boynton, the principal deputy assistant attorney general, announced that the department had reconsidered. The D.C. Court of Appeals had not directly ruled on whether Trump's statements were made within the scope of his employment. Instead, it had clarified the legal standard for making that determination—a standard that allowed courts to examine "any history between the employee and the victim" and to weigh new evidence that had emerged since the government's original decision to defend Trump.
Applying this clarified standard, the Justice Department concluded that Trump's statements about Carroll were not motivated by a desire to serve the United States Government. The letter pointed to several factors: Trump had continued making statements about Carroll after leaving office, and these post-presidency remarks were substantially similar to what he had said while in office. A jury had already found that Trump had sexually assaulted Carroll long before he became president—a history that suggested his motivation was personal grievance, not official duty. The appeals court had also made clear that simply using official communication channels did not automatically make a statement official conduct.
The reversal dealt a serious blow to Trump's legal position. Without the Justice Department's substitution as defendant, the federal defamation case would proceed to trial. That trial was scheduled to begin in January 2024, placing it squarely in the opening months of the presidential primary season. The jury that had already found Trump liable for sexual assault and defamation in state court had set a precedent that would loom over the federal proceedings. The legal landscape had shifted decisively against him.
Citações Notáveis
The circumstantial evidence of Mr. Trump's subjective intent in making the allegedly defamatory statements does not support a determination in this case that he was sufficiently motivated by a desire to serve the United States Government.— Brian M. Boynton, principal deputy assistant attorney general, in letter to federal court
A Conversa do Hearth Outra perspectiva sobre a história
Why did the Justice Department change its mind? What actually shifted?
A federal appeals court clarified how to apply the Westfall Act—the law that protects federal employees from personal liability. The court didn't rule directly on Trump's case, but it set out a clearer test for what counts as "official conduct." That test allowed the DOJ to look at Trump's personal history with Carroll and his statements after he left office.
So the appeals court decision wasn't even about Trump?
Exactly. It was a separate case about the Westfall Act in general. But once the standard was clarified, the Justice Department applied it to Trump and realized his statements didn't fit the definition of official conduct.
What made them conclude it was personal, not official?
Several things. Trump kept attacking Carroll even after he left office—he couldn't have been serving the government then. The jury had already found he assaulted her decades before becoming president, which suggested a long-standing personal grievance. And the appeals court said that just using official channels doesn't make something official conduct.
What does this mean for Trump's defense?
It's devastating. If the DOJ had substituted itself as defendant, the case would have been dismissed. Now the case goes to trial in January with no immunity shield. And a jury has already found him liable for the same conduct.
Did the Trump administration or Biden administration make a mistake by defending him in the first place?
The Trump administration was following the law as it was understood then. The Biden administration continued the defense initially, probably out of institutional consistency. But once the appeals court clarified the standard, the legal ground shifted beneath them.