It was always going to be a messy fight. You’ve got Donald Trump, a man who treats his image like a billion-dollar brand, and Bob Woodward, the journalist who’s been the "gold standard" of presidential reporting since Nixon. When the two clashed over 11-and-a-half hours of recorded audio, the legal world leaned in. But on July 18, 2025, U.S. District Judge Paul Gardephe basically ended the drama with an 81-page ruling.
The judge didn't just toss it out; he dismantled the logic behind it. Trump was seeking nearly $50 million in damages, claiming Woodward and Simon & Schuster "exploited" his voice for the 2022 audiobook, The Trump Tapes. The lawsuit alleged that while Trump agreed to be recorded for the book Rage, he never gave the green light for those raw recordings to be sold as a standalone product.
Honestly, it was a bold swing at copyright law. But the court wasn't buying it.
The Heart of the Ruling: Who Actually Owns Your Words?
This is where things get kinda technical but fascinating. In the world of copyright, "authorship" usually belongs to the person who "fixes" the work—meaning the person who pushes the record button or writes the words down. Trump’s team tried to argue that because the words came out of his mouth, he was at least a "joint author."
Judge Gardephe disagreed.
The judge pointed out that Trump’s own legal team accidentally tripped themselves up. In their initial filings, they explicitly stated that Trump "never sought to create a work of joint authorship." You can't really claim to be a co-author after you've already told the court you didn't intend to be one.
📖 Related: Trump New Gun Laws: What Most People Get Wrong
The court also applied a "gibberish test," though that’s not the official name. Gardephe noted that if you strip away Woodward’s questions and just look at Trump’s answers, the result is often "unintelligible" in a legal sense. They aren't independent works of art. They are part of a conversation. And in the Second Circuit, the person who initiates, structures, and records that conversation—Woodward—is the one who holds the cards.
Why the $50 Million Claim Vanished
Trump’s lawyers calculated that $50 million figure based on a guess: two million audiobook sales at $24.99 a pop. It was a massive number for a case built on what the judge called "implausible" theories.
Here is why the argument fell apart:
- Official Duties: The defense argued that since the interviews happened while Trump was President, the recordings were part of his official duties. Under Section 105 of the Copyright Act, works of the U.S. government can’t be copyrighted by individuals.
- The "For the Book" Limitation: Trump claimed he only said yes "for the book" (meaning Rage). But the judge found no written contract or "meeting of the minds" that restricted Woodward from using the audio in other formats.
- Fair Use and Journalism: Woodward’s team successfully argued that publishing the tapes was "classic news reporting" and served the public interest. Basically, the world had a right to hear the unfiltered context of the president's statements on COVID-19 and national security.
A Win for Journalists Everywhere?
If the judge had ruled the other way, it would have sent a massive shockwave through the media industry. Imagine if every person a reporter interviewed could suddenly sue for "copyright infringement" the moment they didn't like how the audio was used. It would be a nightmare.
The ruling clarifies that—at least in New York—if you sit down for an "on-the-record" interview and let the reporter record you, you aren't the owner of that recording. You’re the subject. There is a huge legal difference between the two.
👉 See also: Why Every Tornado Warning MN Now Live Alert Demands Your Immediate Attention
Woodward has interviewed ten presidents. None of the others ever tried to claim royalties or copyright over the tapes. That historical precedent weighed heavily on the case. The court essentially said that Trump was trying to "weaponize" copyright to control his public image, which isn't what the law is for.
What’s Next for the Case?
Technically, the judge didn't lock the door and throw away the key. He gave Trump’s team until August 18, 2025, to file a third amended complaint. However, Gardephe was pretty blunt about it, saying it was "unlikely" they could find a way to make a copyright claim stick.
Trump’s spokesperson, predictably, called the decision "biased" and "wrongful," claiming they were denied a proper hearing. It's a standard response we've seen in other cases, like the $16 million settlement Paramount Global (the former owner of Simon & Schuster) recently paid Trump over a different dispute regarding a 60 Minutes interview with Kamala Harris.
But this Woodward case is different. It’s about the fundamental mechanics of how news is made and who owns the history that’s captured on tape.
Actionable Insights for Content Creators and Public Figures
Whether you’re a YouTuber, a politician, or a business leader, this ruling offers some very real-world lessons:
✨ Don't miss: Brian Walshe Trial Date: What Really Happened with the Verdict
Get it in writing before the mic turns on. If you want to limit how an interview is used, a verbal "this is only for your book" probably won't hold up in court. You need a signed "Release Form" or "Recording Agreement" that specifies the scope of use (e.g., print only, no audio sales).
Understand "Fixation." The person recording the audio usually owns the copyright by default. If you want to own the tapes of your own interview, you should bring your own recorder and have the other party sign an "Assignment of Rights."
Copyright isn't for censorship. The courts are increasingly skeptical of using intellectual property law as a tool to suppress information that is clearly in the public interest. If it’s news, the "Fair Use" defense is a powerhouse.
The dismissal of this lawsuit reinforces a long-standing tradition in American journalism: once you speak on the record to a reporter, those words belong to the historical record, not your private portfolio.
To stay protected in your own media dealings, ensure you review all interview consent forms for "All-Media" or "In-Perpetuity" clauses, as these are the standard terms that allow publishers to repurpose audio into podcasts, audiobooks, or digital clips without further permission. If you are the one conducting the interview, always verbally confirm on the recording that the subject knows they are being recorded for a specific project and "any derivative works."