DOJ Opens Criminal Investigation Into E. Jean Carroll

A federal perjury investigation into E. Jean Carroll — the woman who won a $5 million civil verdict against Donald Trump — hinges on a single sworn statement about who was paying her legal bills.

Story Snapshot

The Department of Justice (DOJ) has opened a criminal investigation into Carroll focused on possible perjury in her 2022 civil deposition.
Carroll allegedly testified under oath that she received no outside funding for her lawsuit — but her lawyers later disclosed that billionaire Democratic donor Reid Hoffman funded some legal fees and expenses.
The investigation is reportedly being handled through the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Illinois, with Trump’s former personal attorney and current DOJ official Todd Blanche recused from the matter.
No charging document, indictment, or subpoena has been made public, and the DOJ has not issued a direct confirmation — only a carefully worded non-denial.

What Carroll Said Under Oath and What Came Out Later

In a 2022 deposition connected to her civil lawsuits against Trump, Carroll reportedly stated she had received no external funding for her litigation. That testimony became the factual predicate for the current probe. Carroll’s attorneys later disclosed that Reid Hoffman, a prominent Democratic mega-donor and LinkedIn co-founder, had provided funding for legal fees and expenses. That gap between the sworn statement and the subsequent disclosure is what federal investigators are now reportedly scrutinizing. ^[1]

The critical legal question is not simply whether Hoffman’s money existed — it is whether Carroll knew about that funding arrangement when she testified, whether the deposition question was broad enough to cover it, and whether any omission was material to the litigation. Perjury is a specific-intent crime. A post-testimony disclosure alone does not establish that a witness knowingly lied under oath. The full deposition transcript and the precise question-and-answer exchange have not been made public, which means the evidentiary picture remains incomplete. ^[3]

The DOJ’s Non-Denial and What It Actually Tells Us

When CNN asked the DOJ about the investigation, a spokesperson did not confirm or deny it in the traditional sense. Instead, the spokesperson stated: “No U.S. Attorney’s Office has declined to investigate any case relating to the subject matter of CNN’s inquiry.” That is a lawyer’s answer — technically true, carefully constructed, and deliberately uninformative. It neither confirms a grand jury is seated nor rules out that one is being assembled. What it does confirm is that the DOJ was not willing to flatly say no investigation exists. ^[1]

Carroll’s Civil Verdicts Are Still Standing — For Now

Two separate juries ruled in Carroll’s favor against Trump. The first found Trump liable for sexual abuse and defamation, resulting in a $5 million verdict. A second jury later awarded Carroll an additional $83 million in a defamation case. Both verdicts remain under appeal. The civil wins are legally distinct from the criminal perjury question, but they provide essential context: Carroll is not a fringe accuser whose claims were dismissed — she won, twice, before juries of her peers. ^[2]

DOJ has opened a criminal investigation into E. Jean Carroll for potential perjury.

Investigators are examining whether she lied under oath in her 2022 deposition when she denied any third-party funding of her legal fees against Trump.

It’s now clear billionaire Reid Hoffman… https://t.co/HfQEPoPHAU pic.twitter.com/z0Wq1E1zEx

— 𝐃𝐔𝐓𝐂𝐇 (@pr0ud_americans) May 28, 2026

That context cuts in two directions. On one hand, the jury verdicts make it harder to frame this investigation purely as vindication of Trump’s original denials. On the other hand, if Carroll’s lawyers accepted third-party litigation funding that she denied under oath, the source of that funding — a major Democratic donor — raises legitimate questions about transparency in high-stakes political litigation. Those questions deserve honest answers regardless of the underlying verdict. The integrity of sworn testimony is not a partisan issue. It is the foundation of every civil and criminal proceeding in the country. ^[6]

Why the Funding Disclosure Is the Story Inside the Story

Third-party litigation financing — where outside investors or donors fund lawsuits in exchange for a share of any award — is a growing and largely unregulated practice in American courts. Carroll’s case may be the highest-profile example yet of that practice colliding with deposition testimony. If Carroll’s 2022 answer was shaped by how her attorneys defined “outside funding” versus how federal investigators define it, the entire probe may ultimately turn on contract language and deposition framing rather than deliberate deception. That distinction matters enormously under the law. ^[4]

What Has to Happen Before This Becomes a Real Case

Federal prosecutors pursuing perjury must prove the statement was false, that the speaker knew it was false when made, and that the false statement was material to the proceeding. None of those elements have been publicly established in the available record. No transcript has been released, no grand jury has been publicly confirmed, and no charging document exists in the public docket. The investigation is real enough that the DOJ would not deny it — but an investigation is not an indictment, and an indictment is not a conviction. The distance between those three points is where this story actually lives right now. ^[3]