DOJ Opens Perjury Probe Into E. Jean Carroll Over Lawsuit Funding

The Justice Department has opened a criminal investigation into whether E. Jean Carroll committed perjury during civil proceedings against President Donald Trump, according to multiple reports citing sources familiar with the matter. The inquiry centers on Carroll's statements under oath about funding for her lawsuits, which resulted in judgments totaling more than $88 million against Trump.

Carroll, an 82-year-old former advice columnist, accused Trump of sexually assaulting her in a New York department store dressing room in the mid-1990s. A 2023 jury found Trump liable for sexual abuse and defamation, awarding Carroll $5 million. A separate 2024 case produced an $83.3 million verdict after Trump repeated his denials. Both outcomes survived initial appeals, though Trump has petitioned the Supreme Court to review the first judgment and has pledged similar action on the second.

Investigators are examining Carroll's 2022 deposition testimony that she received no outside financial support for the litigation. Legal filings later indicated that Reid Hoffman, the LinkedIn co-founder and prominent Democratic donor, routed payments through his Chicago-based nonprofit, American Future Republic, to cover portions of Carroll's legal costs and expenses. Sources told CBS News and other outlets that this discrepancy forms the core of the perjury review.

The probe is being handled by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Illinois under Andrew Boutros, a Trump appointee. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, who previously represented Trump in related appeals, has recused himself. Neither the Justice Department nor Carroll's attorney, Roberta Kaplan, has issued a public comment on the investigation.

Trump has maintained from the outset that he never met Carroll and has described the accusations as fabricated for personal and financial gain. The civil trials relied on Carroll's account and supporting testimony rather than contemporaneous physical evidence or witnesses to the alleged incident. Large punitive components in the second award drew particular attention for exceeding typical defamation recoveries.

This development follows a pattern in which high-profile claims against Trump have faced subsequent scrutiny over procedural or factual details once initial media attention faded. The Justice Department's involvement reflects an institutional response to evidence that emerged after the civil verdicts rather than an initiation of new accusations. Carroll's team has not disputed the Hoffman funding reports but has not addressed their implications for the deposition statements.

The investigation does not guarantee charges or a trial. It does, however, subject testimony given in cases with significant political and financial stakes to formal examination under criminal standards of proof. Court records and deposition transcripts remain available for public review as the matter proceeds.