UK Court Says Trump Must Pay Massive Legal Bill Over Dismissed Steel Dossier Lawsuit

President Donald Trump faces a steep £626,000 legal bill after a London High Court dismissed his lawsuit against former MI6 officer Christopher Steele over the controversial dossier that alleged Russian connections.

Key Takeaways

Trump must pay £626,000 in legal costs after his lawsuit against former MI6 officer Christopher Steele was thrown out by a UK court.
The lawsuit concerned the Steele dossier, which contained unverified claims about Trump’s alleged ties to Russian intelligence prior to his 2016 election victory.
Judge Karen Steyn determined the case had no legal basis to proceed to trial and succeed.
The court dismissed the case without ruling on the accuracy of the dossier’s sensational allegations.
Trump’s 2022 data protection claim sought compensation for distress and reputational damage.

UK Court Orders Trump To Pay Legal Fees

The London High Court has ordered President Donald Trump to pay substantial legal costs following the 2024 dismissal of his lawsuit against Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence officer. The court directed Trump to pay £626,000 to cover legal expenses incurred by Steele’s company, Orbis Business Intelligence. This ruling comes after Trump’s attempt to sue over the infamous “Steele dossier” that contained unverified allegations about Trump’s connections to Russia before his presidency. The court found no legal basis for Trump’s claims to proceed further.

Trump had filed the lawsuit in 2022 under British data protection laws, alleging improper handling of his personal information and seeking damages for distress and harm to his reputation due to some of the allegations against him. The case targeted Orbis Business Intelligence, the private investigation firm founded by Steele after his retirement from MI6. Steele’s company had been commissioned by Democratic Party consultants, and the resulting dossier became a significant political flashpoint during the early days of Trump’s presidency.

U.S. President Donald Trump must pay $821,000 legal bill over ‘Steele dossier’ lawsuit, UK court rules https://t.co/KXLCTbdqMt

— CTV News (@CTVNews) April 3, 2025

The Controversial Steele Dossier

The 35-page dossier at the center of this legal dispute contained numerous sensational claims, including allegations that Trump was compromised by Russian intelligence services and that Moscow possessed compromising material that could be used to blackmail him. It also suggested that Russian President Vladimir Putin had actively supported operations to cultivate Trump as a presidential candidate. The document became public knowledge shortly before Trump’s inauguration in January 2017, sparking immediate denials from Trump and setting off years of investigations and political battles.

Orbis Business Intelligence successfully argued that it bore no responsibility for the dossier’s publication. The document had been commissioned as private intelligence but later made its way to media outlets and intelligence agencies. Some of the allegations contained in the dossier contributed to the appointment of Special Counsel Robert Mueller, whose investigation ultimately found evidence of Russian interference in the 2016 election but did not establish criminal conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russian operatives.

Legal Implications and Ongoing Controversies

Judge Karen Steyn’s decision to throw out the case focused narrowly on the legal merits of Trump’s data protection claim rather than assessing the veracity of the dossier’s allegations. This distinction is important as the court did not validate or invalidate the controversial contents of the Steele dossier. Instead, the ruling determined that Trump’s legal approach through British data protection law was fundamentally flawed and could not succeed. Trump was initially ordered to pay £290,000, but a court in London heard back in January that he had chosen not to pay it.

The Steele dossier continues to be a divisive topic in American politics, with Trump and many conservatives consistently denouncing it as politically motivated disinformation.