Trump’s lawsuit, filed in early 2023, demanded $50 million in damages and claimed that the use of the recordings for a standalone audiobook went beyond the scope of what he had agreed to. According to the complaint, Trump believed his participation in the interviews did not extend to creating an entirely new commercial product.
However, U.S. District Judge Paul Gardephe ruled against Trump, stating that he had not plausibly alleged a copyright interest in the interviews. The court emphasized that Trump’s spoken responses during journalistic interviews do not make him a co-author of the final work. Gardephe also noted that the use of the interview recordings falls within fair use principles and that federal copyright law preempts the state-law claims made by the former president.
The judge’s opinion leaned heavily on well-established legal doctrine that limits the extent to which interviewees can claim ownership of their recorded speech—especially when given voluntarily for journalistic purposes. In essence, while Trump may have contributed content, the creative control, framing, and production of the work belonged entirely to Woodward.
Importantly, the case was dismissed “without prejudice,” meaning Trump is permitted to amend and refile the complaint by August 18. Legal experts suggest that any amended complaint would need to introduce new facts or legal theories to survive, though the judge’s ruling has already expressed skepticism about the viability of such efforts.
Simon & Schuster and Woodward hailed the decision as a win for freedom of the press and journalistic integrity. This ruling reaffirms the longstanding principle that journalists have the right to publish and distribute the information they gather in good faith.
