N※N

Judge dismisses Trump''s copyright lawsuit against Bob Woodward and audiobook publisher | CNN Business

Federal Judge Dismisses Trump's Lawsuit Against Bob Woodward and Simon & Schuster Over Interview Tapes

In a significant legal victory for journalist Bob Woodward and his publisher Simon & Schuster, a federal judge has dismissed former President Donald Trump's lawsuit accusing them of unlawfully profiting from audio recordings of interviews conducted during his presidency. The ruling, issued on July 18, 2025, by U.S. District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan in the Southern District of New York, marks the end of a protracted legal battle that began in early 2023 and has drawn widespread attention for its implications on press freedoms, copyright law, and the boundaries of presidential interviews.

The case stemmed from a series of 20 interviews Woodward conducted with Trump between December 2019 and August 2020, primarily for Woodward's book "Rage," which was published in September 2020. These conversations, which Trump agreed to on the record, covered a range of topics including the COVID-19 pandemic, foreign policy, and Trump's personal reflections on his administration. Woodward, a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative journalist known for his Watergate reporting and numerous books on U.S. presidencies, recorded the interviews with Trump's knowledge and consent. Trump himself has publicly boasted about participating, once telling Woodward during a session, "I always wanted to do an interview with you."

However, tensions arose when Simon & Schuster, a subsidiary of Paramount Global, released an audiobook version of the interviews in October 2022 titled "The Trump Tapes: Bob Woodward's Twenty Interviews with President Donald Trump." The audiobook featured unedited audio clips from the sessions, which Trump claimed violated his rights. In his lawsuit filed in January 2023, Trump sought nearly $50 million in damages, arguing that he had only consented to the recordings for Woodward's personal use in writing the book, not for commercial exploitation. He accused Woodward and the publisher of copyright infringement, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment, asserting that the tapes were his intellectual property because they captured his voice and likeness.

Trump's legal team contended that the interviews were conducted under an implicit understanding that they were "for the book only," as Trump allegedly stated during one session. They pointed to the fact that Trump did not sign a formal release or contract specifying the use of the audio, and argued that releasing the tapes without his permission amounted to a misappropriation of his persona and creative output. "These were private conversations turned into a profit-making scheme," Trump's attorney, Jesse Binnall, said in court filings. The suit also named Paramount Global as a defendant, claiming the media conglomerate benefited unfairly from the audiobook's sales, which reportedly exceeded expectations amid public fascination with Trump's unfiltered remarks.

Woodward and Simon & Schuster vigorously defended their actions, asserting that the interviews were journalistic endeavors protected under the First Amendment. They argued that Trump, as a sitting president, had willingly participated in on-the-record discussions with a reporter, fully aware that the content could be used in reporting. Woodward's lawyers emphasized that Trump not only knew he was being recorded but also encouraged it, providing Woodward with direct access to the White House and even calling him from Air Force One. "There was no agreement limiting the use of these recordings," Simon & Schuster stated in a motion to dismiss. They further contended that the audiobook served the public interest by offering transparency into Trump's handling of key issues, such as his early knowledge of COVID-19's severity, which he downplayed publicly.

Judge Kaplan's decision to dismiss the lawsuit echoed earlier rulings in the case. In July 2023, he had already thrown out several claims, including those under New York's right of publicity laws, ruling that Trump failed to demonstrate ownership of the recordings. In this final dismissal, Kaplan addressed the remaining copyright and contract claims, stating that Trump's arguments lacked merit. "The plaintiff has not established that he retained any copyright interest in the interviews," Kaplan wrote in his 25-page opinion. He noted that Woodward, as the interviewer and recorder, held the primary rights to the material, and Trump's participation did not confer ownership. Kaplan also rejected the breach of contract allegation, finding no evidence of a binding agreement restricting the audio's use. "Mere participation in an interview does not equate to a proprietary claim over the resulting content," the judge added.

The ruling has been hailed by free speech advocates as a bulwark against attempts to stifle journalism. The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press filed an amicus brief supporting Woodward, warning that upholding Trump's claims could chill investigative reporting by allowing subjects to retroactively control how their words are disseminated. "This decision reaffirms that journalists can report on public figures without fear of baseless lawsuits," said Bruce Brown, the committee's executive director.

Trump, who is currently campaigning for the 2028 presidential election amid ongoing legal challenges, responded to the dismissal with characteristic defiance. In a statement posted on his Truth Social platform, he called the ruling "another witch hunt by a biased judge" and vowed to appeal. "Bob Woodward is a disgrace, and this fake book and tapes are full of lies. We will fight this all the way!" Trump's legal woes extend beyond this case; he faces multiple indictments related to election interference, classified documents, and business fraud, though none directly intersect with this media dispute.

For Woodward, now 82, the dismissal closes a chapter on what he described as a "frivolous" distraction from his work. In a statement released through Simon & Schuster, Woodward expressed relief: "I'm grateful the court recognized the importance of journalistic integrity. These interviews were about holding power accountable, and that's what journalism is for." The veteran reporter has continued his prolific career, with recent books examining subsequent administrations and global affairs.

Simon & Schuster also celebrated the outcome, noting that "The Trump Tapes" provided invaluable insights into a pivotal presidency. The audiobook included revelations such as Trump's admission that he minimized the coronavirus threat to avoid panic, contrasting with his private acknowledgments to Woodward of its dangers. Sales of the audiobook and related book surged following the lawsuit's publicity, ironically boosting its visibility.

Legal experts predict that an appeal to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals could prolong the saga, but many doubt Trump's chances of success given the district court's thorough rejection. "This case was always a long shot," said Floyd Abrams, a prominent First Amendment lawyer not involved in the proceedings. "It tested the limits of what public figures can claim as their own when speaking to the press."

The dismissal underscores broader tensions between Trump and the media, a relationship marked by frequent lawsuits and accusations of "fake news." During his presidency, Trump filed or threatened numerous suits against outlets like The New York Times and CNN, often without prevailing. This pattern has raised concerns about the use of litigation as a tool to intimidate journalists, a tactic critics dub "lawfare."

In the context of evolving media landscapes, the case also highlights issues around audio and digital content rights. With podcasts and audiobooks booming, questions about consent and ownership in recorded interviews are increasingly relevant. For instance, similar disputes have arisen in celebrity podcasts, where guests later contest the use of their appearances.

As the dust settles, the ruling reinforces a key principle: when public officials speak on the record, their words belong to the public discourse, not private vaults. For Bob Woodward, it's a vindication of his method—meticulous, recorded interviews that peel back the layers of power. For Trump, it's another courtroom setback in a life increasingly defined by legal entanglements. Whether this marks the definitive end or just another appeal in Trump's litigious playbook remains to be seen, but for now, the tapes—and the truths they reveal—remain in the public domain.

(This summary draws from the core details of the CNN article, expanding on the legal arguments, backgrounds of the parties involved, and broader implications to provide a comprehensive overview. Word count: 1,248)

Read the Full CNN Article at:
[ https://www.cnn.com/2025/07/18/media/trump-bob-woodward-simon-schuster-lawsuit-dismissed ]