The US Department of Justice (DOJ) has opened a criminal investigation into writer E Jean Carroll, known for alleging that former President Donald Trump sexually assaulted her in the 1990s and subsequently defamed her. The probe is focused on whether Carroll committed perjury in a deposition she gave in 2022, specifically regarding the absence of outside financial support for her civil lawsuits against Trump.
Carroll’s claims led to two successful civil cases against Trump, one awarding her $5 million in damages for sexual assault and the other $83 million for defamation. Both judgments were upheld on appeal, although Trump has requested to overturn the first verdict in the US Supreme Court. Trevor’s legal team also contested the second judgment, which found him liable for remarks about Carroll’s allegations.
In the deposition that is now under review, Carroll asserted that she received no funding outside of her own resources. However, court filings from 2023 revealed that Reid Hoffman, the LinkedIn co‑founder, helped cover a portion of Carroll’s legal fees. The court subsequently held that Carroll “plausibly represented” that she had forgotten about the limited outside funding when she admitted it. The DOJ’s investigation into this alleged misstatement represents a rare instance of a federal inquiry into a single perjury claim arising from civil litigation.
Legal scholars note the difficulty of proving perjury: the prosecution must demonstrate that the defendant knowingly and willingly lied. Attorney Dmitriy Shakhnevich of John Jay College explained that the DOJ will have to prove a high degree of intent before any indictment could be issued.
The investigation is spearheaded by the US Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Illinois. While it remains unclear whether Trump or his allies will take a direct stance on the probe, it is part of a broader pattern of DOJ actions targeting individuals who have been critical of the former president.
Earlier this year, the DOJ announced a $1.8 billion pool to compensate “unfairly investigated” individuals in futures administrations, sparking debate within the Republican base about potential payouts to extremist defendants. The E Jean Carroll case underscores the evolving interplay between civil litigation, criminal investigations, and political accountability in the post‑Truman era.
The DOJ declined to comment on the investigation, and Carroll’s counsel has likewise not provided a response. In the meantime, court documents continue to delineate the legal parameters of both the original civil suits and the emerging criminal inquiry.
Carroll’s claims led to two successful civil cases against Trump, one awarding her $5 million in damages for sexual assault and the other $83 million for defamation. Both judgments were upheld on appeal, although Trump has requested to overturn the first verdict in the US Supreme Court. Trevor’s legal team also contested the second judgment, which found him liable for remarks about Carroll’s allegations.
In the deposition that is now under review, Carroll asserted that she received no funding outside of her own resources. However, court filings from 2023 revealed that Reid Hoffman, the LinkedIn co‑founder, helped cover a portion of Carroll’s legal fees. The court subsequently held that Carroll “plausibly represented” that she had forgotten about the limited outside funding when she admitted it. The DOJ’s investigation into this alleged misstatement represents a rare instance of a federal inquiry into a single perjury claim arising from civil litigation.
Legal scholars note the difficulty of proving perjury: the prosecution must demonstrate that the defendant knowingly and willingly lied. Attorney Dmitriy Shakhnevich of John Jay College explained that the DOJ will have to prove a high degree of intent before any indictment could be issued.
The investigation is spearheaded by the US Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Illinois. While it remains unclear whether Trump or his allies will take a direct stance on the probe, it is part of a broader pattern of DOJ actions targeting individuals who have been critical of the former president.
Earlier this year, the DOJ announced a $1.8 billion pool to compensate “unfairly investigated” individuals in futures administrations, sparking debate within the Republican base about potential payouts to extremist defendants. The E Jean Carroll case underscores the evolving interplay between civil litigation, criminal investigations, and political accountability in the post‑Truman era.
The DOJ declined to comment on the investigation, and Carroll’s counsel has likewise not provided a response. In the meantime, court documents continue to delineate the legal parameters of both the original civil suits and the emerging criminal inquiry.
