DOJ probes E. Jean Carroll perjury

What's happened

Federal prosecutors have opened a criminal inquiry into whether E. Jean Carroll lied under oath in depositions tied to two civil suits she won against Donald Trump; the probe is focusing on statements about outside funding, including donations from Reid Hoffman’s nonprofit, and is being led by the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Chicago.

What's behind the headline?

What prosecutors are focused on

Prosecutors are examining whether Carroll has committed perjury by saying in a 2022 deposition that she received no outside financial support for her litigation, while later disclosures showed Reid Hoffman’s nonprofit, American Future Republic, paid some legal costs.

Why this matters now

The inquiry is being opened by the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Chicago and is occurring while Trump is appealing the civil judgments Carroll won. The acting attorney general, Todd Blanche, is recused from the matter because of prior representation of Trump, which is concentrating the probe in Chicago.

Institutional and political dynamics

The Justice Department is being used more frequently to investigate individuals associated with Trump’s critics; prosecutors have recently opened several inquiries into other prominent figures. That pattern will increase political scrutiny of prosecutorial choices and will intensify debates about whether the department is applying criminal tools for political ends.

Legal pathway and likely next steps

A criminal inquiry will involve gathering deposition transcripts, financial records from American Future Republic, and testimony from lawyers who disclosed the funding. If evidence shows false statements meeting the elements of perjury, prosecutors will present charges; absent such evidence, the inquiry will close.

Consequences and forecasts

This will escalate pressure on Carroll and her legal team and will give Trump’s allies political leverage. It will also force funders and litigants using third‑party support to increase documentation of funding arrangements; courts will likely pay closer attention to disclosure practices in civil litigation.

What readers should watch for next

Whether the U.S. Attorney in Chicago moves from an inquiry to an indictment; whether American Future Republic or Reid Hoffman becomes a target; and whether the Supreme Court addresses Carroll’s appeals before any criminal decision is filed.

How we got here

Carroll has won two civil judgments finding Trump liable for sexual abuse and defamation and has been awarded roughly $88.3 million. Reports have connected the inquiry to a 2022 deposition where Carroll said she received no outside funding; her lawyers later disclosed that Reid Hoffman’s nonprofit paid some legal expenses.

Our analysis

The New York Times has reported that the inquiry "involves donations made by a nonprofit founded by Reid Hoffman" and that the U.S. attorney in Chicago said his office "has never opened" a criminal investigation into Carroll specifically (Adam Liptak, NYT). Reuters identified the probe as focusing on whether Carroll committed perjury tied to her 2022 deposition statement that she received no outside funding and noted the U.S. Attorney's Office in Chicago is leading the work (Reuters). Business Insider quoted Reid Hoffman calling the scrutiny "absurdly false," and reported the probe is examining American Future Republic's payments for Carroll’s legal costs. The Associated Press and France 24 have outlined the sequence: Carroll said in 2019 she was assaulted; juries in 2023 and 2024 found Trump liable and awarded damages; prosecutors are now scrutinising her deposition answers about funding. The Independent and The Guardian emphasised broader concerns that the Justice Department "is opening criminal investigations into perceived adversaries of the president," and noted Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche's recusal because of prior representation of Trump. Those pieces frame the inquiry as part of a pattern of investigations led by Trump-appointed officials. Across sources, key facts converge: the probe centers on a deposition statement about outside funding, American Future Republic is connected, the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Northern District of Illinois is leading the inquiry, and Blanche is recused. Reporting differs in emphasis: Reuters and AP present the legal mechanics and caution that an inquiry may not produce charges; opinion-focused outlets such as The Independent and Guardian present the action as an escalation in a politicised use of the department. Direct quotes: Business Insider cites Hoffman saying, "Trump cannot be allowed to use the full weight and power of the US Government to come after women who speak up," and the New York Times quotes Boutros's statement that his office "has never opened

Go deeper

Will prosecutors in Chicago bring charges or close the inquiry?
Will American Future Republic or Reid Hoffman become targets of the investigation?