There's no legal distinction, it's only defamation.

Fun fact. At least through the early 1800s, the First Amendment did not protect you from criminal defamation no matter how truthful your words were.

People v Croswell. A reporter, Croswell, discovered that Jefferson was paying a reporter to attack Adams and call Washington a traitor. He wrote an article on it.

Jefferson pressured the NY AG to bring forward charges of defamation. Croswell argued in court that he could not be defaming Jefferson because he had proof the actions occurred. The Court ordered the jury to only base their opinions on whether or not the statements were published. They found him guilty.

He appealed to the NY SC, this time with Hamilton representing him. Hamilton argued that the truth should always be an absolute defense against defamation. After all, it can't be defamation if it's factual. They ruled against him as well.

He appealed to the SCOTUS. Hamilton presented the same arguments: what Croswell wrote were facts, he could prove they were facts, and defamation should only apply to lies. They were split 2-2 which upheld his sentence and de facto prevented truth from applying as a defense to defamation.

While many states enacted laws providing truth as an absolute defense, it wasn't until over a century later that the Constitutional opinion changed and allowed the defense.