The United States Department of Justice has opened a criminal investigation into E. Jean Carroll, the writer and former advice columnist who won two civil lawsuits against Donald Trump, according to reports from CNN and The New York Times. The investigation centres on whether Carroll committed perjury during testimony in those cases — marking the latest in a series of legal actions brought under the Trump administration against figures the president regards as adversaries.
Carroll, 82, sued Trump for sexually abusing her in the dressing room of a New York department store in 1996, and separately for defamation after Trump publicly dismissed her account as a fabrication designed to boost book sales. A federal jury in 2023 found that Trump had sexually abused Carroll — stopping short of rape — and ordered him to pay $5 million in damages. In the defamation case, he was ordered to pay $83 million. Trump is appealing both judgements.
The specific legal theory under investigation concerns a 2022 deposition in which Carroll said she had received no outside funding for her lawsuit. Several months later, her attorneys disclosed to the court that a nonprofit organisation funded by Reid Hoffman, the billionaire co-founder of LinkedIn, had covered some legal fees and expenses. Carroll's lawyers maintained she had never spoken with anyone from the nonprofit and was unaware of the funding arrangement. A federal appeals court panel in New York, affirming the judgement against Trump in December 2024, already considered and rejected the argument that Carroll had lied, finding it plausible that she had simply forgotten about the limited funding her counsel had independently arranged.
The investigation has been opened by Andrew Boutros, the Trump-appointed US attorney for the Northern District of Illinois. Todd Blanche, the acting attorney general who previously defended Trump in the Carroll proceedings, has recused himself from the matter. Boutros is himself the subject of scrutiny: a defence attorney in an unrelated case in Chicago has told a federal judge there is reason to believe Boutros had improper personal contact with a grand jury.
The move fits a broader pattern in which the Trump administration has pursued or sought to pursue legal action against political opponents and those who have successfully taken the president to court. Critics note that a federal appeals court has already examined and dismissed the perjury argument at the heart of this investigation, raising questions about the legal basis and motivations behind reopening it now.