This article is an opinion piece that reflects the author’s personal analysis of publicly available information and court rulings. It does not allege intent or misconduct beyond what is supported by the facts.
ABC News anchor George Stephanopoulos learned a hard lesson when his inaccurate comments about Donald Trump—repeatedly claiming he was “found liable for rape”—resulted in a $15 million settlement on December 14, 2024. The case isn’t just about legal accuracy; it underscores the dangers of partisan media sensationalism and the pressing need for journalistic accountability. For critics who dismiss Trump’s lawsuit as a “chilling effect” on journalism, the real concern lies with an anchor who misrepresented facts, mischaracterized a political figure’s legal case, and then tried to dodge responsibility.
Stephanopoulos’ Words Were Not “Close Enough”
Let’s be clear: In the E. Jean Carroll case, Trump was found liable for sexual abuse—not rape under New York law. This is not a pedantic distinction; it’s the difference between truth and falsehood. As an experienced journalist, Stephanopoulos had ample opportunity to clarify the specifics of the verdict. His prior interviews and ABC’s own headlines suggest he was aware of the verdict’s specifics. Yet, during his contentious interview with Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.) on March 10, 2024, Stephanopoulos claimed not once but twelve times that Trump had been “found liable for rape.” That’s not a slip of the tongue—it’s what I’d call deliberate misrepresentation (though, of course, that’s just my opinion).
Critics such as Jacob Sullum (writing for Reason on December 16, 2024) concede that Trump’s lawsuit was legitimate: “Stephanopoulos’ statements clearly deviated from the jury’s verdict.” Yet Sullum hedges by suggesting Trump’s legal claims are typically weaker, implying ABC could have fought harder. That defense rings hollow. This case wasn’t about Trump weaponizing defamation law; it was about holding a high-profile journalist accountable for repeating a falsehood.
Judge Cecilia Altonaga’s July ruling rejecting ABC’s motion to dismiss proved the lawsuit had merit. A reasonable jury, she wrote, could find Stephanopoulos’ words defamatory. As First Amendment attorney Floyd Abrams explained, Stephanopoulos’ repeated inaccuracy created a “genuine level of risk” for ABC—a risk that even Trump critics like Brian Stelter (CNN, December 16, 2024) acknowledged.
Media Accountability, Not a “Chilling Effect”
Stephanopoulos’ defenders claim ABC News’ settlement sets a dangerous precedent for media independence. MSNBC host Symone Sanders-Townsend went so far as to argue Stephanopoulos’ statements “seem to hold up” based on Judge Lewis Kaplan’s prior remarks. But this is revisionist nonsense. Judge Kaplan may have opined that Trump’s conduct met the common understanding of rape, but he explicitly noted it did not satisfy New York’s legal definition—a definition that matters when reporting on a civil verdict.
These distinctions are vital. The media’s job is to report facts, not interpret verdicts to fit a preferred narrative. The argument that ABC should have kept fighting the case ignores the underlying issue: Stephanopoulos failed his duty as a journalist.
Barbara McQuade, MSNBC’s legal analyst, argued that ABC had a “strong case” and lamented the settlement’s “chilling effect.” But this framing only protects legacy media from accountability. It is not “chilling” to expect journalists to report the truth; it is foundational to a free press. If ABC had gone to trial, the discovery process might have revealed internal communications demonstrating Stephanopoulos acted with reckless disregard for the truth—precisely what Trump needed to prove actual malice. As conservative commentator Erick Erickson bluntly put it on X, “No, a $15 million settlement is not the cost of doing business. It is avoiding discovery.”
Stephanopoulos’ Attack on Rep. Nancy Mace
Beyond legal inaccuracies, Stephanopoulos’ conduct during the interview with Rep. Mace was shameful. Mace, herself a victim of sexual abuse, was ambushed and pressured to explain her support for Trump. As a journalist, Stephanopoulos’ role was to ask fair questions, not to shame a survivor for her political views. It was an ugly and unnecessary moment that further eroded public trust in ABC News.
Mace stood her ground, calmly correcting Stephanopoulos and reminding him that Trump was found liable for sexual abuse, not rape. Yet Stephanopoulos ignored her and continued pummeling the same false point. The irony is glaring: Stephanopoulos, who repeatedly championed “believing survivors,” used Mace’s personal trauma as a political weapon.
The Settlement Was Justified
ABC News’ $15 million payout may seem extraordinary, but it reflects the severity of Stephanopoulos’ misconduct. It wasn’t Trump “winning” against the media; it was the media losing its credibility by refusing to correct its mistakes. That loss is entirely self-inflicted. As Abrams aptly noted, “For a person…held by a jury to have committed an act of sexual abuse to receive an amount of this magnitude…is disturbing.” But it is equally disturbing that a leading network anchor recklessly misled millions of viewers without consequence—until now.
Critics like Chris Lehmann of The Nation (writing on December 16, 2024) portray this settlement as Trump’s attack on the free press. Lehmann’s hyperbole, including comparisons to authoritarian regimes, is detached from reality. This case was not about censorship; it was about holding a journalist accountable for falsehoods. If the media wishes to avoid similar lawsuits, the solution is simple: stick to the facts.
Final Thoughts
George Stephanopoulos’ reckless mischaracterization of Trump’s civil verdict was indefensible. The $15 million settlement serves as a reminder that journalistic standards matter and that public figures—no matter how controversial—deserve fair and accurate reporting. Trump’s lawsuit was not an attack on the press; it was a defense of truth in an era of media bias and political agendas.
Legally, this case revolves around the principle of actual malice, a standard established in the landmark New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964) ruling. Under this precedent, a public figure like Trump must prove that defamatory statements were made “with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.” Stephanopoulos’ repeated claim—made twelve times despite having clear access to the jury’s precise verdict—constitutes more than a mistake; it meets the reckless disregard threshold outlined in Sullivan and its progeny (or so Trump’s lawyers would happily argue).
Furthermore, Stephanopoulos’ conduct can also be analyzed in light of Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts (1967), which extended the Sullivan standard to public figures. In Butts, the Court found actual malice when a publisher failed to verify questionable claims despite ample opportunity to do so. Here, Stephanopoulos had access to the trial records, prior ABC coverage, and legal analysis confirming the jury’s findings of sexual abuse—not rape. His repeated statements, despite access to accurate information, raise questions of negligence under the standards in Butts.
Adding weight to the legal argument is Judge Cecilia Altonaga’s ruling, where she determined that Stephanopoulos’ statements could reasonably be seen as defamatory and actionable under the actual malice standard. Her rejection of ABC’s motion to dismiss reflects a growing judicial intolerance for media recklessness when public figures are involved.
Finally, under Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. (1974), the Supreme Court reaffirmed that defamatory falsehoods about public figures are not protected by the First Amendment. Journalists are afforded leeway, but deliberate or reckless misrepresentation exceeds constitutional protections. Stephanopoulos’ repeated misstatement exemplifies such conduct, undermining both his credibility and the foundational principle of truthful reporting upon which the press’ First Amendment protections rest.
ABC News’ $15 million settlement signals an acknowledgment of legal vulnerability, particularly in discovery. A trial could have revealed internal communications that might support claims of actual malice, as required by the Sullivan standard—knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard—opening ABC News to further liability. As legal scholars have noted, avoiding this risk is often the driving factor behind settlements of this magnitude.
If media outlets like ABC News want to avoid future settlements, they must return to the basics: report accurately, own mistakes, and avoid weaponizing interviews to score partisan points. Stephanopoulos failed on all three counts, and the consequences were deserved.
Disclaimer: This article is an opinion piece that provides analysis, commentary, and educational insight on recent news topics, informed by reliable sources. It reflects my personal opinion and perspective. I am not a lawyer, and this article does not constitute legal advice or primary reporting. For the latest breaking news and official results, please refer to the news organizations cited above.
References and Further Reading
- Lindsay Kornick, “George Stephanopoulos doesn’t mention ABC News settlement with Trump’s defamation lawsuit on his Sunday show,” Fox News, December 15, 2024. Fox News (Retrieved: December 16, 2024).
- Jacob Sullum, “Given George Stephanopoulos’ Carelessness, ABC’s Defamation Settlement With Trump Seems Prudent,” Reason, December 16, 2024. Reason (Retrieved: December 16, 2024).
- Brian Stelter, “Why ABC News settled with Donald Trump for $15 million,” CNN, December 16, 2024. CNN (Retrieved: December 16, 2024).
- Ariel Zilber, “George Stephanopoulos’ comment that led ABC News to $15M lawsuit settlement with Trump ‘seems to hold up’: MSNBC host,” New York Post, December 16, 2024. New York Post (Retrieved: December 16, 2024).
- Chris Lehmann, “Trump’s Attack on the Free Press Is Just Getting Started,” The Nation, December 16, 2024. The Nation (Retrieved: December 16, 2024).
