The Justice Department is investigating whether E. Jean Carroll committed perjury during sworn testimony in her civil lawsuits against President Trump, specifically, her 2022 deposition claim that no outside sources funded her litigation, the New York Post reported. That claim collided with the later revelation that billionaire LinkedIn co-founder and Democratic megadonor Reid Hoffman had in fact paid some of Carroll's legal fees and expenses through his Chicago-based nonprofit, American Future Republic.
The probe has been referred to the U.S. Attorney's Office in Chicago. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, who previously served as Trump's personal attorney on the Carroll appeals, has recused himself from the matter.
If the facts bear out, the case presents a straightforward question: Did Carroll lie under oath about who was bankrolling her lawsuits, and if so, why?
During a 2022 deposition, Carroll reportedly testified that neither of her two civil suits against Trump was funded by outside sources. That statement is now the focus of the DOJ inquiry. Just The News reported that the investigation centers on the gap between that sworn claim and the subsequent disclosure that Hoffman covered some legal fees and expenses.
Hoffman's money flowed through American Future Republic, a nonprofit based in Chicago. The precise amounts, timing, and scope of his financial support remain unclear from available reporting. But the core discrepancy is plain: Carroll said no one funded her lawsuits. Someone did.
That someone happened to be one of the Democratic Party's most prolific donors.
Carroll, now 82, accused Trump of assaulting her in a Bergdorf Goodman fitting room in the spring of 1996. She later sued him for defamation after he denied the allegation, said she was not his type, and suggested she fabricated the claim to sell books. A second defamation suit followed what the New York Post described as Trump's continued statements about Carroll.
In May 2023, a Manhattan federal jury found Trump liable for sexual abuse and defamation and awarded Carroll $5 million. Trump has appealed that verdict to the Supreme Court.
In January 2024, a second jury ordered Trump to pay Carroll $83.3 million in the follow-on defamation case. That figure included $65 million in punitive damages, $11 million to help Carroll rebuild her reputation, and $7.3 million for pain and suffering. Trump has pledged to appeal that award as well.
The combined judgments against the sitting president total more than $88 million. The question of who financed the litigation that produced those judgments is not a footnote, it goes to the integrity of the proceedings themselves.
Todd Blanche's recusal adds an unusual layer. Before becoming acting attorney general, Blanche represented Trump personally on the Carroll appeals. His decision to step aside from the perjury investigation removes the most obvious conflict-of-interest objection. The probe is now being led by prosecutors in Chicago, geographically and organizationally separate from Main Justice.
Blanche has publicly stated that a president has the right and duty to direct DOJ investigations. His recusal here suggests the department is taking care to insulate this particular inquiry from that broader principle, a step that strengthens the investigation's credibility regardless of where it leads.
An investigation, of course, does not guarantee charges. The U.S. Attorney's Office in Chicago will have to determine whether Carroll's deposition testimony was materially false, whether she knew it was false when she gave it, and whether the evidence meets the high bar required for a federal perjury prosecution.
Reid Hoffman is not a minor figure in Democratic politics. The LinkedIn co-founder has poured millions into progressive causes and candidates. His decision to underwrite Carroll's legal fight against Trump, quietly, through a nonprofit, raises questions that go well beyond one deposition answer.
If Carroll knew Hoffman was funding her litigation and denied it under oath, that is a potential crime. If she somehow did not know where her legal funding came from, that raises a different set of questions about the structure of American Future Republic and the transparency of the arrangement.
The DOJ investigation into Carroll fits a broader pattern of the department examining conduct by prominent figures aligned with the Democratic Party. The department has also been investigating whether Rep. Ilhan Omar committed immigration fraud, a probe Vice President Vance has confirmed publicly.
Neither investigation has produced charges. But both signal a DOJ willing to follow evidence into politically sensitive territory, territory the previous administration's Justice Department showed little interest in exploring.
Several material questions remain unanswered. The timing of Hoffman's payments relative to Carroll's 2022 deposition is not established in current reporting. If his funding began after her testimony, the perjury theory weakens considerably. If it preceded or overlapped with her sworn denial, the case sharpens.
The specific dollar amounts Hoffman contributed through American Future Republic have not been disclosed. Nor is it clear whether Carroll's legal team was aware of the funding source and failed to correct her testimony, or whether Carroll herself directed the misleading statement.
When the investigation formally began is also unclear. No charges have been filed. No timeline for a decision has been reported.
Meanwhile, the broader accountability landscape for Democratic officials continues to shift. Rep. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick recently resigned from Congress minutes before an ethics sanction hearing, and the DOJ under Trump has moved aggressively on cases the prior administration left dormant, including its dismissal of Steve Bannon's contempt conviction from the January 6 investigation.
Carroll's lawsuits produced two of the largest civil judgments ever entered against a sitting president. They dominated news cycles, shaped political narratives, and were wielded as evidence of Trump's unfitness by his opponents for months.
If the woman at the center of those cases lied under oath about who was paying for them, and if that funder turns out to be a billionaire Democratic megadonor operating through a nonprofit, the credibility of the entire enterprise comes into question. Not the jury verdicts themselves, necessarily, but the public confidence that the litigation was what it appeared to be: one woman's pursuit of justice, not a politically funded operation disguised as one.
The Washington Examiner reported on the criminal nature of the investigation, underscoring that this is not a civil dispute or a political talking point. It is a federal probe into whether a witness lied under oath in proceedings that carried enormous legal and political consequences.
Perjury is a serious federal offense. It corrodes the justice system at its foundation, the oath. If Carroll told the truth in her deposition, the investigation will confirm that and move on. If she didn't, the American public deserves to know that the most politically charged civil litigation of the Trump era was built on a lie about its own funding.
The oath means something, or it means nothing. Chicago prosecutors now get to decide which.
