Last Updated on July 22, 2025 by ThePublic
Donald Trump, the former president and self-proclaimed master of the courtroom, has built a reputation as one of America’s most litigious figures, with over 4,000 lawsuits tied to his name across decades. From real estate disputes to defamation claims, Trump wields lawsuits like a cudgel, intimidating critics and shaping narratives. Yet, a curious pattern emerges: when the moment arrives to face sworn testimony under oath, Trump often retreats, dropping cases or settling to avoid the witness stand. The abrupt dismissal of his $500 million lawsuit against Michael Cohen in October 2023, just days before a scheduled deposition, offers a stark example of this tactic. This article explores Trump’s consistent fear of testifying under oath, the legal risks that drive his retreats, and how this pattern reveals a deeper strategy to maintain control while dodging accountability.
The Cohen Case: A High-Stakes Fold
In April 2023, Trump sued his former attorney and fixer, Michael Cohen, in a Florida federal court, seeking $500 million for alleged breaches of attorney-client privilege and unjust enrichment. The lawsuit stemmed from Cohen’s public disclosures, including his 2020 book Disloyal: A Memoir and congressional testimony, which detailed Trump’s involvement in schemes like the Stormy Daniels hush money payments. The claim was bold, but shaky, courts rarely award such sums for privilege violations, especially when the client (Trump) had already discussed the matters publicly. Legal experts saw the suit as a classic Trump move: a headline grabbing attempt to punish a turncoat and rally his base.
Yet, six months later, Trump voluntarily dropped the lawsuit, just before Cohen’s legal team was set to depose him under oath. The timing was telling. Depositions require sworn testimony, where lies can lead to perjury charges and answers can be used in other cases, such as Trump’s ongoing Manhattan criminal trial, where Cohen was a key witness. By abandoning the suit, Trump sidestepped a legal minefield, preserving his narrative without risking exposure under oath. This retreat was not an anomaly but part of a decades-long pattern.
A History of Dodging the Oath
Trump’s aversion to sworn testimony is well-documented across his legal history. While he relishes filing lawsuits, he consistently avoids situations where he must answer questions under penalty of perjury. This pattern is evident in several high-profile cases:
- Trump University Fraud Case (2016): Trump faced allegations of defrauding students through his for-profit education venture. As the case neared trial, with Trump scheduled to testify, he settled for $25 million just days before his court appearance. The settlement avoided a public grilling that could have damaged his presidential campaign.
- Trump Foundation Investigation (2019): The New York Attorney General sued Trump for misusing charitable funds through his Trump Foundation. Rather than testify in court, Trump agreed to pay $2 million in damages and dissolve the foundation, keeping his testimony off the record.
- New York Civil Fraud Case (2023): In the state’s investigation into the Trump Organization’s financial practices, Trump was deposed but invoked the Fifth Amendment over 400 times, refusing to answer questions. His 2016 campaign rhetoric, “The mob takes the Fifth. If you’re innocent, why are you taking the Fifth Amendment?”came back to haunt him, underscoring his reluctance to speak under oath.
These cases highlight a clear strategy: Trump uses litigation to attack or deflect, but when the process demands his sworn testimony, he settles, dismisses, or delays to avoid the stand.
Why the Fear of Testimony?
Sworn testimony is a unique legal beast, and for Trump, it’s a nightmare. His public persona thrives on hyperbole, contradictions, and narrative control, qualities that crumble under the scrutiny of a deposition or courtroom. Several factors explain his fear:
- Perjury Risk: Lying under oath is a felony, carrying prison time. Trump’s tendency to exaggerate or contradict himself, evident in his 2007 deposition where he admitted his net worth fluctuates “with attitudes and feelings, even my own feelings”—makes truthful testimony a legal tightrope. A single false statement could trigger new charges, especially with multiple ongoing criminal cases.
- Cross-Examination Traps: Skilled attorneys, like those representing Cohen, can exploit Trump’s public statements to trap him in inconsistencies. In the E. Jean Carroll defamation trial, Trump’s deposition included damaging remarks, such as his infamous “fortunately, or unfortunately” comment about celebrities groping women, which helped the jury find him liable. A deposition in the Cohen case could have similarly exposed him to questions about hush money, campaign finance violations, or Trump Organization practices.
- Spillover to Other Cases: Testimony in one case can be used in others. With Trump facing criminal indictments in Manhattan (hush money), federal cases (classified documents), and civil suits (fraud, defamation), any sworn statement could provide ammunition for prosecutors. Dropping the Cohen lawsuit ensured no new evidence would surface to bolster these cases.
- Loss of Narrative Control: Trump thrives on controlling the story through rallies, social media, and interviews. Under oath, he loses that power. Attorneys dictate the questions, and he must answer directly or risk contempt. This loss of control is anathema to a man who once boasted, “I have the best words.”
A Broader Legal Strategy
Trump’s retreats are not signs of weakness but calculated moves in a broader legal playbook. Lawsuits serve multiple purposes: intimidating opponents, generating media attention, and rallying supporters by casting Trump as a victim. The Cohen lawsuit, for instance, painted Cohen as a disloyal profiteer, reinforcing Trump’s narrative of betrayal. But when the legal process turns against him—when discovery demands documents or depositions loom, Trump cuts his losses. This tactic is evident in other dropped suits, like his 2022 defamation claim against CNN ($475 million) and unfiled threats against The New York Times over its 2018 tax investigation.
The Cohen case also had a political dimension. In late 2023, Trump was navigating a heated Republican primary for his 2024 campaign. A deposition could have reignited scrutiny of the Stormy Daniels scandal, alienating voters or fueling rivals. By dropping the suit, Trump avoided a media firestorm, preserving his campaign momentum.
The Cost of Avoidance
While Trump’s deposition-dodging strategy protects him short-term, it comes at a cost. Each retreat undermines his image as an unyielding fighter, a core part of his appeal. The Cohen lawsuit’s collapse, for instance, handed Cohen a public relations victory, reinforcing his credibility as a witness in Trump’s criminal trials. Moreover, constant settlements and dismissals drain financial resources—Trump has paid tens of millions in settlements over the years, and invite skepticism from courts, which are growing impatient with his delay tactics.
In 2025, as Trump faces mounting legal battles, his ability to dodge testimony may wane. Judges in his criminal cases, particularly the Manhattan hush money trial, have signaled less tolerance for delays. If forced to testify, Trump’s carefully curated narrative could unravel, exposing contradictions or evidence that prosecutors are eager to exploit.
Conclusion: A Game of Legal Chess
Donald Trump’s decision to drop the Michael Cohen lawsuit in 2023 was no aberration but a hallmark of his legal strategy: sue aggressively, but retreat when the oath looms. His fear of sworn testimony—rooted in the risks of perjury, cross-examination, and loss of control, has shaped decades of litigation, from Trump University to the Cohen case. Each retreat is a calculated move to protect his legal and political interests, but it also reveals a vulnerability: a man who thrives on spectacle cannot afford the scrutiny of truth under oath. As Trump’s legal battles intensify, the question remains: how long can he keep dodging the stand before the law catches up?