Justice Department Probes E. Jean Carroll Over Possible Perjury in Trump Lawsuits as Legal Battle Takes New Turn

A new legal development has emerged in the long-running and highly scrutinised dispute involving author E. Jean Carroll and former U.S. President Donald Trump, as federal authorities are now reportedly examining whether Carroll may have given false testimony during earlier stages of her civil litigation.

According to people familiar with the matter, the U.S. Department of Justice has opened a criminal inquiry focusing on whether Carroll committed perjury in connection with sworn statements made during her lawsuits against Trump. The investigation is said to be based in the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Illinois, and remains at an early and sensitive stage, with officials yet to publicly confirm the scope or direction of the probe.

At the center of the inquiry is a specific question tied to Carroll’s sworn deposition in 2022. During that testimony, she stated that she had not received outside financial support for her legal action. However, later disclosures indicated that billionaire investor Reid Hoffman had contributed to covering some of her legal expenses. This revelation has since become a focal point for attorneys and investigators assessing whether the earlier statement constituted a material misrepresentation or a misunderstanding of how legal funding arrangements were structured.

The issue of funding was not widely known during the early stages of the litigation, but it surfaced publicly in court filings submitted by Trump’s legal team shortly before the first trial concluded in 2023. Those filings argued that the existence of external financial support could be relevant to credibility and transparency in the case. Carroll’s legal representatives, however, have maintained that any assistance provided did not change the substance of her claims or her direct involvement in the proceedings.

The civil litigation itself has already resulted in two separate jury verdicts in favour of Carroll. In 2023, a jury found Trump liable for sexual assault and defamation, awarding Carroll five million dollars in damages. A second jury in 2024 found him liable for additional defamatory statements made years earlier, awarding her more than eighty million dollars in damages. Both verdicts were later upheld on appeal, reinforcing the legal findings of liability in civil court.

Despite those outcomes, Trump has consistently denied all allegations brought against him, including Carroll’s account of an alleged incident in a New York department store dressing room in the mid-1990s. Carroll first made the accusation public in a 2019 magazine essay, which led to an initial defamation lawsuit that was later delayed in court proceedings before being expanded into further legal action.

The current Justice Department review adds a new layer of complexity to an already highly charged legal and political narrative. While civil courts previously focused on whether Trump was liable for damages based on the evidence presented, a criminal investigation into perjury introduces a separate legal standard. Prosecutors would need to determine not only whether a statement was inaccurate, but whether it was knowingly false and made with intent to mislead under oath.

One of the key points under examination is how Carroll and her legal team characterised funding arrangements during sworn testimony. In earlier court reasoning, an appeals panel noted that Carroll had “plausibly represented” her understanding of the funding situation, suggesting that she may not have been closely involved in the financial structuring of legal assistance. The court also indicated that the evidence did not necessarily demonstrate deliberate deception, but rather a possible lack of awareness of administrative details handled by her attorneys.

The appellate court further observed that external funding, while relevant in some contexts, did not automatically undermine the substance of her claims or the jury’s findings regarding Trump’s conduct and statements. That distinction is now likely to become central if prosecutors proceed with any formal charges.

Public commentary around the case has intensified due to the political stature of Trump and the prominence of the individuals connected to the litigation. Hoffman himself previously explained his involvement, stating in a 2023 interview that his support was not aimed at initiating legal action, but rather at assisting after the case had already begun. He characterised his reasoning as rooted in the belief that individuals pursuing civil claims should not be financially overwhelmed when facing far more powerful opponents in court.

As the matter stands, Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche is reportedly recused from any involvement due to prior professional ties connected to Trump’s legal representation. That recusal is intended to ensure that any investigative decisions are made without conflicts of interest, particularly given the politically sensitive nature of the underlying civil cases.

Legal observers note that perjury investigations tied to civil litigation are typically complex and depend heavily on intent, context, and materiality. Even if discrepancies are identified, prosecutors must establish that any alleged false statement had a significant impact on the judicial process. In this case, that would involve examining whether the funding disclosure, or lack thereof, influenced the outcome of proceedings or the credibility assessments made by juries.

The Justice Department has not publicly detailed any conclusions, and it remains unclear whether the investigation will result in charges or be closed without further action. What is clear, however, is that the development adds another dimension to a dispute that has already moved through multiple trials, appeals, and years of public debate.

For now, the legal spotlight remains fixed on the intersection of testimony, funding transparency, and credibility in high-profile civil litigation, as investigators attempt to determine whether any boundaries of sworn evidence were crossed in the process.