The Department of Justice has launched a criminal investigation into E. Jean Carroll, the former magazine columnist who won tens of millions of dollars in civil judgments against Donald Trump, over allegations she committed perjury during sworn testimony in those very cases.
The probe, led by the U.S. Attorney's Office in Chicago, centers on whether Carroll lied under oath during a 2022 deposition when she denied receiving outside funding for her legal campaign against Trump. Breitbart News reported that a source familiar with the matter described the investigation as focused on perjury in testimony tied to two civil lawsuits Carroll brought against the president, one alleging sexual abuse in a New York department store and another alleging defamation.
Neither the DOJ nor Carroll's attorney, Robbie Kaplan, responded to requests for comment.
The specific allegation driving the investigation is straightforward. During a 2022 deposition, Carroll reportedly testified under oath that no one else was paying her legal fees. That claim, the Washington Examiner reported, was contradicted by records showing that Reid Hoffman, the billionaire LinkedIn co-founder and prominent Democratic donor, had bankrolled certain legal expenses and fees tied to Carroll's defamation and sexual assault cases against Trump.
Carroll's denial of outside funding was not a minor detail. The question of who was financing the litigation bore directly on the credibility and motivations of the plaintiff. If Carroll knowingly misrepresented the source of her legal funding under oath, and her legal team was aware of the falsehood, it raises questions that go well beyond a paperwork oversight.
Trump's personal attorney, Alina Habba, did not mince words about what the record showed. She stated:
"In short, Plaintiff apparently perjured herself during her deposition; her counsel sat by and allowed her to do so, knowing full well that her testimony was false; and then they conspired to conceal the truth for nearly six months, only to disclose it on the eve of trial."
That accusation, that the deception was not only deliberate but coordinated, frames the DOJ investigation as something more than a routine review. It suggests prosecutors may be looking at whether Carroll's legal team participated in concealing the truth from the court.
Carroll accused Trump of sexually assaulting her in a Manhattan department store dressing room in 1996. She later accused him of defaming her by dismissing her claims as a hoax, as Just The News reported. Trump has consistently maintained he never met Carroll.
In May 2023, a jury found Trump sexually assaulted Carroll and defamed her, but notably did not find that he raped her, a distinction Carroll's supporters rarely emphasize. Carroll won a $5 million judgment in that case.
Then, in January 2024, a second jury found Trump defamed Carroll and ordered $83.3 million in damages. The combined judgments made Carroll's litigation one of the most financially consequential legal actions ever brought against a sitting or former president.
Yet the foundation of those judgments now faces a direct challenge. If the testimony that helped secure them was built on a lie about who was funding the fight, the integrity of the entire proceeding comes into question.
The Carroll investigation fits a broader pattern under the current DOJ, which has shown a willingness to pursue accountability in cases that previous leadership might have ignored. A former DOJ attorney was recently indicted for allegedly stealing sealed documents tied to the Jack Smith probe, a case that would have been unthinkable under the prior administration's Justice Department.
Reuters, cited in the initial reporting, cautioned that the launch of the probe "may not necessarily result in charges being brought against Carroll." That is true of any investigation. But the fact that a criminal probe has been opened at all marks a significant escalation from the civil litigation arena where Carroll has operated for years.
The DOJ under the Trump administration has pursued a range of enforcement actions that signal a break from the institutional passivity critics long complained about. The fraud prosecution of the Southern Poverty Law Center is one example. The department's posture has shifted from protecting legacy institutions to holding them to the same standards applied to everyone else.
That shift has not been limited to outside organizations. FBI Director Kash Patel has publicly accused the bureau of lying to obtain FISA warrants targeting Trump's 2016 campaign, a reminder that the apparatus of federal law enforcement was itself weaponized before the current administration took steps to reform it.
Several important questions remain open. The DOJ has not publicly confirmed the investigation, and the reporting relies on an anonymous source familiar with the matter. No charges have been filed. The specific statements under scrutiny in the 2022 deposition have not been publicly detailed beyond the funding question.
It is also unclear whether the investigation extends to Carroll's legal team. Habba's accusation, that Carroll's counsel "sat by and allowed her" to testify falsely, implies potential misconduct beyond the witness stand. Whether prosecutors share that view, or are pursuing it, remains unknown.
The involvement of Reid Hoffman adds a political dimension that will be difficult to ignore. Hoffman is not a casual donor. He is one of the Democratic Party's most prolific financiers, a man whose money flows into progressive causes, campaigns, and, apparently, civil litigation against the sitting president. The question of why that funding was concealed under oath is one that deserves a clear answer.
The broader effort to dismantle the weaponization of federal agencies has been a defining feature of the current administration's approach to governance. The Carroll investigation, if it proceeds to charges, would represent one of the most visible applications of that principle: the idea that the legal system cannot be used as a political instrument without consequence.
For years, Carroll's cases against Trump were treated by much of the media as acts of civic courage. The judgments were celebrated. The dollar figures were trumpeted. The underlying claims were amplified without much scrutiny of who was paying the bills or whether the testimony supporting those claims was honest.
Now the DOJ is asking a simple question: Did E. Jean Carroll tell the truth under oath?
Perjury is not a technicality. It is a crime against the integrity of the judicial system itself. If Carroll lied about her funding, and if her legal team helped conceal that lie, then the civil verdicts she won were secured on a corrupted foundation. That matters regardless of one's view of the underlying allegations.
The investigation is in its early stages. No charges have been filed. Carroll and her attorney have not commented. But the probe's existence alone sends a message that the era of consequence-free lawfare may be drawing to a close.
When you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, the system only works if someone checks.
