You’ve probably heard about the legal battles involving Donald Trump—they’re basically a constant in the news cycle. But one specific fight just hit a major dead end in a Manhattan courtroom. It’s a case that sounds like something out of a law school exam: who actually owns the rights to a recorded conversation?
A federal judge has officially tossed out the $50 million legal challenge where Donald Trump claimed Bob Woodward and Simon & Schuster basically "stole" his voice. It sounds dramatic because, well, it is. The suit centered on The Trump Tapes, an audiobook released in 2022 that featured hours of raw interview footage between the former president and the legendary Watergate journalist.
Honestly, the whole thing boils down to a messy disagreement over what "on the record" really means in the digital age. Trump’s team argued the recordings were only meant for a specific book, Rage. Woodward and his publishers said, "Nope, it’s our reporting."
The court sided with the reporter.
Why the Judge Dismissed Trump's Lawsuit Over Bob Woodward Audiobook
U.S. District Judge Paul Gardephe didn't just give this a quick glance; he dropped an 81-page ruling that pretty much dismantled Trump’s arguments one by one. The core of the issue was copyright.
Trump’s lawyers tried to say he was a "joint author" of the interviews. They figured since he was the one talking, he should have a say in how those recordings were sold. But there’s a big legal hurdle there. To be a joint author, both people have to intend to be co-authors from the start.
Judge Gardephe pointed out a massive contradiction in Trump’s own legal filings. In one breath, Trump’s team argued he never intended to create a joint work, yet in the next, they claimed he should be treated as a co-author. You can't really have it both ways in a courtroom.
The judge basically said that since Woodward was the one who "fixed" the work—meaning he was the one who actually hit record and organized the interviews—the copyright belonged to him.
👉 See also: Ethics in the News: What Most People Get Wrong
The "Gibberish" Factor
One of the most interesting parts of the ruling was how the judge handled the idea of "separate" ownership. Trump’s team suggested that even if he wasn't a co-author of the whole thing, he should at least own his specific answers.
Judge Gardephe wasn't buying it. He actually included examples in his ruling of what Trump’s responses looked like when you stripped away Woodward’s questions. His verdict? It was "unintelligible gibberish."
The law views an interview as a unified dialogue. Without the questions to give them context, the answers don't really function as a standalone creative work. It’s sort of like trying to claim ownership of the flour in a cake after it’s already been baked into the batter.
The $50 Million Question
Trump was seeking nearly $50 million in damages. That number wasn't just pulled out of thin air; his legal team calculated it based on projected sales of 2 million audiobooks at $24.99 a pop.
They alleged "systematic usurpation, manipulation, and exploitation" of the audio. They claimed that when Trump agreed to sit down with Woodward for those 19 interviews between 2019 and 2020, he did so with the understanding that the audio was only for the purpose of writing the book Rage.
Woodward’s side of the story is different. He maintained that the interviews were "on the record" and that he never agreed to any such restrictions. In the world of high-stakes journalism, "on the record" usually means the reporter can use the material in any way they see fit to tell the story.
The "Government Work" Defense
There was also a pretty technical argument about whether a sitting president can even claim copyright on things they say while in office.
✨ Don't miss: When is the Next Hurricane Coming 2024: What Most People Get Wrong
The defendants (Woodward and Simon & Schuster) argued that the Copyright Act actually bars government officials from asserting copyright on works created as part of their official duties. Trump’s team countered that these interviews were done of his "own volition" and weren't part of his job as president.
While the judge focused heavily on the "joint authorship" and "fixation" issues, the underlying message was clear: no president before Trump had ever tried to claim they owned the copyright to their own interviews or demanded royalties for them.
What This Means for Journalists
This ruling is actually a pretty big deal for the future of journalism. If the court had sided with Trump, it could have set a precedent where anyone being interviewed—from a politician to a celebrity—could suddenly sue a reporter for releasing the raw tapes or using the interview in a format they didn't specifically approve.
Imagine if every time a journalist wanted to put a clip on YouTube or a podcast, they had to get a fresh copyright release from the person they interviewed years ago. It would be a nightmare.
- Fixed Expression: The person who records and structures the interview generally holds the copyright.
- Intent Matters: If you want to be a co-author, you have to agree to that before the work is created.
- Fair Use: Reporting on matters of public interest usually gives journalists a lot of leeway.
Is the Case Totally Dead?
Technically, the judge left the door open just a tiny crack. He gave Trump’s legal team until mid-August to file yet another amended complaint.
However, Gardephe was pretty blunt about their chances. He wrote that it "appears unlikely" they can actually prove a plausible copyright interest. It was a "dismissed without prejudice" situation, which is legal-speak for "try again if you want, but you're probably going to lose again."
Trump’s spokesperson didn't take the news quietly, calling it a "wrongful decision" issued without a hearing. But for now, the law of the land (at least in the Southern District of New York) says that Bob Woodward owns The Trump Tapes.
🔗 Read more: What Really Happened With Trump Revoking Mayorkas Secret Service Protection
Actionable Insights for Creators and Interviewees
If you find yourself on either side of a microphone, there are some very real lessons to take away from this saga. Whether you're a podcaster or someone being profiled for a story, don't leave things to "understandings."
If you are the interviewer:
Make sure your "on the record" agreements are clear. While Woodward won this round without a written contract, having a simple release form can save you years of litigation and millions in legal fees.
If you are being interviewed:
If you truly want to limit how your voice or image is used, you need that in writing before the record button is pressed. Once the audio is "fixed" by the reporter, the legal momentum shifts heavily in their favor.
Understand Copyright Basics:
Remember that copyright protects the expression of ideas, not the ideas themselves. Just because you said it doesn't mean you own the recording of you saying it.
This case might seem like just another headline, but it’s a foundational reminder of how intellectual property works in a world where everyone has a recorder in their pocket. For now, the "architect" of the interview—the one asking the questions and hit the "Save" button—remains the owner of the story.
To stay ahead of how these legal standards evolve, you should keep an eye on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, as any further challenge from the Trump team will likely head there next. If you're a content creator, reviewing your current guest release forms to ensure they explicitly cover "all media now known or hereafter devised" is a smart move to avoid your own version of this $50 million headache.