Trump Lawsuit Against Bob Woodward Thrown Out, Federal Judge Dismisses $50 Million Copyright Case

Federal Judge Paul Gardephe has dismissed President Trump’s $49.98 million lawsuit against veteran journalist Bob Woodward, ending a high-profile legal battle over audiobook rights that captivated legal and media circles nationwide.

On July 18, 2025, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York delivered a decisive ruling that threw out Trump’s copyright infringement claims against Woodward, Simon & Schuster, and Paramount Global. The dismissal represents a significant legal victory for press freedom advocates and establishes important precedent regarding presidential interview rights.

Background: What Led to the Trump Lawsuit

The legal dispute originated from Woodward’s 19 interviews with Trump between December 2019 and August 2020, with approximately 20% of “Rage” derived from these interviews. The controversy intensified when Woodward released “The Trump Tapes” audiobook in October 2022, featuring the original interview recordings with commentary.

Trump filed the lawsuit in January 2023, claiming exclusive rights to the interview content. His legal team argued that the interviews were intended solely for the book “Rage,” not for separate audiobook publication.

Key Legal Claims in the Original Lawsuit

Trump’s lawsuit centered on three primary allegations:

Copyright Infringement: Trump claimed joint authorship of “The Trump Tapes” audiobook, arguing he deserved co-author recognition and royalty payments.

Breach of Agreement: The lawsuit alleged Woodward violated an understanding that interviews were exclusively for the book, not additional publications.

Monetary Damages: Trump sought $49.98 million in damages, calculated on projected sales of 2 million audiobooks at $24.99 each.

Why the Trump Lawsuit Was Thrown Out: Judge’s Key Findings

Lack of Joint Authorship

Judge Gardephe stated that Trump did not plausibly allege that he and Woodward intended to be joint authors of “The Trump Tapes,” noting that Simon & Schuster credited Trump as a “reader” while crediting Woodward as the author.

The court emphasized that merely answering questions does not establish co-authorship rights. Legal precedent requires clear evidence of collaborative creative intent, which Trump failed to demonstrate.

No Copyright Interest in Interview Responses

The judge ruled that Trump did not demonstrate he had a copyright interest in his stand-alone responses to Woodward’s questions. This finding aligns with established copyright law principles that protect journalistic interviews as the reporter’s creative work.

Federal Preemption of State Claims

Gardephe also stated that federal copyright law preempted Trump’s state-law-based claims, effectively eliminating alternative legal avenues for Trump’s case.

Presidential Interview Precedent

The defendants successfully argued that federal law barred Trump from copyrighting interviews conducted as part of his official duties, and that no president before him ever demanded royalties for publishing presidential interviews.

Legal Implications of the Lawsuit Dismissal

Press Freedom Protection

This dismissal strengthens protections for investigative journalism, particularly regarding presidential interviews. The ruling establishes that presidents cannot retroactively claim ownership over interviews conducted for news reporting purposes.

Copyright Precedent

The decision clarifies that interview subjects, even high-profile political figures, cannot automatically claim co-authorship or copyright ownership simply by participating in recorded interviews.

Presidential Accountability

The ruling reinforces the principle that presidential communications for news purposes remain within the public domain and cannot be commoditized through copyright claims.

What Happens Next: Trump’s Legal Options

Appeal Possibilities

Trump’s legal team has indicated they will challenge the dismissal, stating “In another biased action by a New York Court, this wrongful decision was issued without even affording President Trump the basic due process of a hearing. We will continue to ensure that those who commit wrongdoing against President Trump and all Americans are held accountable”.

Amendment Opportunity

Judge Gardephe gave Trump until August 18 to amend his complaint a third time, though legal experts consider successful amendment unlikely given the fundamental copyright law issues.

Appellate Process

If Trump pursues an appeal to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, the case could extend for additional months or years, though the strong legal foundation of the dismissal suggests limited prospects for reversal.

Impact on Related Legal Proceedings

This dismissal occurs amid several other Trump legal matters, including ongoing federal and state cases. The copyright precedent established here may influence how courts approach similar intellectual property claims involving political figures.

Publishing Industry Implications

The ruling provides crucial guidance for publishers, journalists, and authors regarding interview rights and copyright ownership, particularly for high-profile political interviews.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: Why was Trump’s lawsuit against Bob Woodward thrown out?

A: The federal judge found Trump failed to prove joint authorship of the audiobook, lacked copyright interest in his interview responses, and that federal copyright law preempted his state-law claims. Additionally, no president has previously claimed royalties from published interviews.

Q: How much money was Trump seeking in the lawsuit?

A: Trump sought $49.98 million in damages, calculated on projected sales of 2 million audiobooks at $24.99 each.

Q: Can Trump appeal this dismissal?

A: Yes, Trump can appeal to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. His legal team has indicated they plan to challenge the ruling, though legal experts view the prospects as limited given the copyright law precedents.

Q: What does this mean for presidential interviews?

A: The dismissal confirms that presidents cannot claim copyright ownership over interviews conducted for journalistic purposes, strengthening press freedom protections and maintaining presidential interview transparency.

Q: Were there other defendants besides Bob Woodward?

A: Yes, the lawsuit also named Simon & Schuster (Woodward’s publisher) and Paramount Global (former owner of Simon & Schuster) as defendants.

Q: What was “The Trump Tapes” audiobook?

A: Released in October 2022, “The Trump Tapes” featured original recordings from Woodward’s 19 interviews with Trump, along with Woodward’s commentary, derived from interviews conducted for his 2020 book “Rage.”

Q: Has Trump filed similar lawsuits before?

A: Trump has filed various lawsuits against media organizations and journalists, though this case was unique in its copyright infringement claims regarding presidential interviews.

Q: What happens to the $50 million Trump was seeking?

A: With the dismissal, Trump cannot recover the requested damages unless he successfully appeals the decision or amends his complaint to address the court’s concerns by August 18, 2025.

Key Takeaways for Legal Professionals

This dismissal establishes important precedents for media law, copyright protection, and presidential communications. Legal professionals should note the court’s emphasis on clear authorship intent and the strong protections for journalistic interviews under federal copyright law.

The ruling reinforces that participation in interviews, even by prominent political figures, does not automatically confer copyright ownership or co-authorship rights without explicit collaborative agreements and creative contribution evidence.

This article provides educational information about recent legal developments and should not be considered legal advice. For specific legal questions, consult with a qualified attorney.

Case Citation: Trump v Simon & Schuster Inc et al, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, No. 23-06883.