Justice Department Opens Criminal Inquiry Into E. Jean Carroll Over Trump Defamation Lawsuits

The Justice Department has launched a criminal investigation into E. Jean Carroll, the writer and advice columnist who secured two jury verdicts against President Donald Trump for sexual assault and defamation. Prosecutors are examining whether Carroll committed perjury during a 2022 deposition in which she stated that no outside party was funding her lawsuit [1][2].

The investigation, first reported by CNN on May 27, 2026, is being conducted out of the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Illinois in Chicago — not New York, where Carroll's lawsuits were filed and where her deposition took place [2]. Senior leaders at DOJ headquarters referred the matter to the Chicago office, reportedly because Reid Hoffman, the LinkedIn co-founder whose nonprofit covered some of Carroll's legal expenses, has a nonprofit based there [3].

Carroll's legal team has declined to comment publicly [4]. The DOJ has not confirmed the investigation.

The Perjury Theory

The criminal inquiry rests on a narrow factual question. During a 2022 videotaped deposition, Trump's then-attorney Alina Habba asked Carroll whether anyone else was paying her legal fees. Carroll said no [2][3]. Two weeks before the first trial began in 2023, Carroll's attorneys disclosed to the court and to Trump's lawyers that a nonprofit backed by Hoffman, called American Future Republic, had covered some legal costs [5].

The discrepancy between the deposition answer and the later disclosure is the basis of the perjury theory. Federal perjury under 18 U.S.C. § 1621 requires proof that a person made a materially false statement under oath, knowingly and willfully [2].

But multiple layers of judicial review have already examined this issue. U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan — who presided over both Carroll trials — ruled that the funding question did not undermine Carroll's credibility and barred extensive cross-examination about it at trial [5]. On appeal, the Second Circuit found that Carroll had "plausibly represented" in her deposition "that she had forgotten about the limited outside funding counsel obtained" [5]. Carroll's lawyers have said she never met nor had conversations with anyone associated with the nonprofit [5].

No legal scholars cited in available reporting have argued that Carroll's deposition answer, given the subsequent judicial findings, would meet the threshold for a criminal perjury charge. Perjury prosecutions are notoriously difficult, and federal prosecutors have historically required clear evidence of deliberate falsehood rather than forgetfulness or ambiguity [2].

The $88 Million in Verdicts — and Where the Money Stands

Carroll's legal victories against Trump came in two phases. In May 2023, a federal jury found Trump liable for sexually assaulting Carroll in a Bergdorf Goodman department store dressing room in the mid-1990s and for defaming her in 2022 statements, awarding $5 million in damages. In January 2024, a second jury found Trump liable for defamation based on statements he made about Carroll while he was president in 2019, awarding $83.3 million [6][7].

Trump appealed both verdicts. The Second Circuit rejected the appeal in September 2025. On April 29, 2026, the full Second Circuit denied Trump's request for en banc rehearing [7].

The money, however, remains uncollected. On May 11, 2026, the court granted a stay of the $83.3 million judgment — with Carroll's consent — on the condition that Trump increase his bond by $7.46 million to cover potential interest through October 2027 [7]. Trump has petitioned the Supreme Court to review both verdicts, but as of late May 2026, the justices have repeatedly scheduled and then postponed consideration of his petitions without taking action [7][8].

A separate, potentially case-ending maneuver is underway. On May 5, 2026, the head of DOJ's Civil Division indicated the department would ask the Supreme Court to substitute the United States as the defendant under the Westfall Act, a federal statute that shields government employees from personal liability for actions taken within the scope of their employment [9]. The Second Circuit had already rejected a substitution attempt, finding that both Trump and the government had waived the right to seek substitution earlier in the proceedings [9]. If the Supreme Court overturns that ruling and accepts substitution, Carroll's defamation claims would be dismissed because the federal government is immune from defamation suits [9].

The criminal investigation adds another dimension. While perjury charges would not directly vacate Carroll's civil judgments, an active criminal proceeding could constrain her legal strategy, consume her resources, and create leverage in settlement or appellate negotiations.

The Pattern: Who Else Has Been Investigated

Carroll is not the first person who took legal action against Trump or his associates to face a federal investigation after Trump returned to office in January 2025.

Protect Democracy, a nonpartisan legal advocacy organization, maintains a tracker documenting what it describes as retaliatory uses of arrests, prosecutions, and investigations by the Trump administration. As of mid-2026, the tracker has catalogued an escalating number of cases across multiple quarters [10].

Source: Protect Democracy

Data as of May 28, 2026CSV

Among the most prominent cases:

Letitia James, the New York Attorney General who sued Trump's business empire for fraud, was indicted in October 2025 on two counts of bank fraud and making false statements related to a property she purchased in Virginia [11]. A federal judge dismissed the indictment in November 2025, ruling that the interim U.S. Attorney who brought the charges had not been lawfully appointed [11]. DOJ prosecutors tried twice more to secure an indictment; grand juries in both Norfolk and Alexandria, Virginia declined to indict [12][13].

James Comey, the former FBI director whom Trump fired in 2017, was indicted on charges of making a false statement to Congress and obstructing a congressional investigation. His case was dismissed on the same legal grounds as James's — the unlawful appointment of the prosecutor [11].

Federal Reserve Chair Jay Powell was the subject of a criminal investigation approved by Attorney General Jeanine Pirro in November 2025, involving his official statements about the central bank's headquarters renovation [10].

A retired Navy officer faced Pentagon review of "serious allegations of misconduct" in November 2025, with potential recall to active duty for court-martial proceedings [10].

Protect Democracy has characterized the pattern as systematic, noting that "retaliatory action need not include arrest or prosecution to be damaging, as ongoing investigations that cannot be immediately dismissed can be just as punitive as court wins" [10].

The Steelman Case for the Investigation

Defenders of the DOJ inquiry argue that Carroll's deposition answer was, at minimum, misleading — and that perjury in federal civil proceedings must be investigated regardless of who the defendant is or what political office they hold.

The argument runs as follows: Carroll stated under oath that no one was funding her lawsuit. Hoffman's nonprofit subsequently paid an undisclosed portion of her legal costs. Whether Carroll knew about the funding arrangement at the time of her deposition, or whether her attorneys arranged it without her detailed knowledge, is a factual question that prosecutors have a legitimate interest in resolving [3][5].

Some commentators have also pointed to Carroll's public media strategy — including extensive press appearances, social media engagement, and fundraising connected to the litigation — as raising questions about whether the lawsuits served primarily legal or political purposes [14]. Under this view, any DOJ, regardless of the president's identity, would have an obligation to ensure that sworn testimony in high-profile federal litigation was truthful.

This argument faces several obstacles. The trial judge considered the funding issue and found it immaterial. The appeals court found Carroll's explanation plausible. Grand juries have the funding disclosure already in the record. And the timing — with DOJ simultaneously seeking to replace Trump as the defendant in Carroll's civil case while opening a criminal investigation into Carroll herself — suggests coordination that would be unusual in any administration.

The Exodus at DOJ

The Carroll investigation arrives against a backdrop of unprecedented departures from the Justice Department. An estimated 5,500 prosecutors, agents, and other employees left DOJ in 2025, according to the Justice Connection [15]. The Civil Rights Division alone lost 214 employees — more than half its workforce — representing 2,223 years of combined expertise [16].

Source: CREW / Justice Connection

Data as of May 28, 2026CSV

Over 200 former Civil Rights Division employees stated publicly that they left "because this Administration turned the Division's core mission upside down, largely abandoning its duty to protect civil rights" [16].

The most dramatic resignations came in politically charged cases. In February 2025, seven prosecutors — including the acting head of the Criminal Division and the acting head of the Public Integrity Section — resigned rather than carry out an order to dismiss the corruption case against New York Mayor Eric Adams [17]. In January 2026, 13 prosecutors from the Minnesota U.S. Attorney's Office resigned over the administration's refusal to investigate an ICE agent who killed Renée Good [18].

Whether career DOJ attorneys or ethics officials were consulted before the Carroll investigation was opened is unknown. None of the available reporting identifies specific career prosecutors involved in the referral or any formal objections. Given the scale of departures, however, the question of who remains at DOJ to serve as an institutional check on politically sensitive investigations is acute.

The Chilling Effect on Civil Litigation

The Carroll investigation has landed in a legal profession already under pressure. In 2025, President Trump signed executive orders targeting law firms that represented clients in litigation against him or his administration. A federal judge found that one order "casts a chilling harm of blizzard proportion across the entire legal profession" [19].

Perkins Coie, a firm with longstanding ties to Democratic campaigns, was the first to challenge the orders in court, and more than 500 law firms signed an amicus brief in its support [19]. Civil rights organizations reported immediate effects: attorneys at advocacy groups told NPR that law firms were pulling back from pro bono work at odds with Trump's positions, reducing the legal resources available for civil rights cases [20].

Twenty-two civil rights organizations — including the NAACP and the ACLU — jointly condemned a DOJ memorandum they said was intended to "chill dissent, avoid accountability, and weaponize the government to attack opponents of this administration" [20].

The Carroll investigation extends this dynamic to individual plaintiffs. If a person who sued the president and won — twice, before two separate juries — can face a criminal investigation over a deposition answer that the trial court and appeals court already evaluated and found insufficient to disturb the verdict, the signal to future plaintiffs is clear. The legal system's mechanisms for correcting false testimony in civil proceedings — sanctions, adverse inferences, appellate review — were all available and were all used. The additional step of a criminal referral by DOJ political appointees raises the question of whether the investigation serves law enforcement purposes or litigation strategy.

Several civil rights attorneys and victim advocacy groups have reported changes in client behavior since the broader pattern of retaliatory investigations became public, though comprehensive data on this effect is not yet available [20].

What Happens Next

The Carroll investigation is in its earliest stages. No charges have been filed, no grand jury has been empaneled (based on available reporting), and no public subpoenas have been issued. Carroll has not been arrested or asked to appear before prosecutors.

Simultaneously, the Supreme Court is weighing whether to hear Trump's appeals of the civil verdicts and whether to allow the Westfall Act substitution that would end Carroll's defamation claims entirely. The justices' decision on these petitions — expected by the end of the current term — will shape the legal landscape in which any criminal case would proceed.

The factual record is narrow: Carroll gave a deposition answer that was incomplete, her attorneys corrected it before trial, the judge found it immaterial, and the appeals court found her explanation plausible. Whether that sequence constitutes a crime is a question that has already been answered, in effect, by multiple federal judges. The DOJ's decision to answer it again — this time with the coercive power of criminal prosecution — will test whether the department's investigative resources are being directed by evidence or by the interests of the man Carroll sued.