Andrew Boutros – Chicago’s top federal prosecutor denied that his office opened a criminal investigation into E. Jean Carroll, contradicting multiple media reports that the Justice Department was looking into whether Carroll lied during civil litigation against Donald Trump. T
The denial landed late Thursday evening, and it did not land softly.
Andrew Boutros, the U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Illinois. said his office “has not opened — and has never opened — a criminal investigation into E. Jean Carroll. ” hours after multiple news organizations reported that the Justice Department was investigating whether the longtime advice columnist had lied during civil litigation against Donald Trump.
The specific claim that had circulated came from reporting that said federal prosecutors’ office in Chicago had opened an investigation into Carroll examining possible perjury allegations. The first report was published earlier this week. and the swirl around it quickly pulled in familiar. high-voltage themes: whether federal prosecution decisions are being used to punish political enemies.
Boutros issued his statement roughly 24 hours after the initial report was published. placing a hard stop on one version of events. But the details of what investigators were actually looking at shifted as the story spread. A person familiar with the matter told the Associated Press on Thursday morning that investigators were focused on Carroll. before later clarifying that the actual focus was on a nonprofit that had helped fund Carroll’s case.
Carroll’s lawyer declined to comment through a spokesperson on Thursday.
The Justice Department investigation into Carroll was first reported by CNN on Wednesday evening.
Carroll’s legal fight against Trump has been both widely public and intensely contested. Carroll has said a flirtatious. chance encounter with Trump in 1996 at Bergdorf Goodman’s Fifth Avenue store in Manhattan ended violently. She said Trump slammed her against a dressing room wall, pulled down her tights and forced himself on her. Trump has called the allegations a “made-up scam. ” and he has attacked Carroll’s motivations. saying they were politically driven or arose from a desire to promote her memoir.
Two juries later found in Carroll’s favor. In 2023, a jury found Trump liable for sexually abusing Carroll and defaming her and awarded her $5 million. The following year, another jury awarded Carroll $83.3 million in a defamation case related to Trump’s social media posts about her.
The dispute that now sits at the center of the latest round is about credibility during the civil case—not the underlying allegation alone. Reports this week said the Justice Department was scrutinizing a statement Carroll made in the course of the civil litigation that no one else was paying her legal fees.
That claim has taken on a sharper edge because it became public that a Chicago-based organization backed by Reid Hoffman. the co-founder of LinkedIn. helped fund Carroll’s case. Trump’s lawyers in the civil case accused Carroll of concealing that information. arguing it called into question whether the case was politically motivated.
The tension predates the civil litigation verdicts. A month before the first trial in 2023. then-Trump lawyer Alina Habba sought to delay it. saying in court papers that new revelations about Hoffman partially funding Carroll’s case “raises significant questions as to Plaintiff’s credibility. as well as her motive for commencing and/or continuing the instant action.”.
Carroll’s side has disputed that characterization. In a Dec. 30, 2024, ruling, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the $5 million jury award from 2023. The court addressed Carroll’s credibility after Trump accused her of lying. during a deposition. about how her case was funded. The appeals court said it was tied to Carroll’s explanation that when the question about Hoffman’s contributions was first posed to her in 2022. she had forgotten about “the limited outside funding” received in September 2020.
The appeals court wrote: “It showed that Ms. Carroll simply was not involved in the matter of who was or was not funding her litigation costs.”
Hoffman has defended the financial assistance, saying in a social media post that “supporting women’s fight for progress and justice in philanthropy, politics and business has been a longstanding priority of mine, as is supporting America against the threat of Trump.”
Even as the perjury narrative circulated this week, the litigation over money has continued on its own track. A court entry earlier this month said Trump will not have to pay the award until the U.S. Supreme Court gets a chance to review the case or reject an appeal. The appeals court agreed to a request by one of Trump’s lawyers that it let Trump delay the payment to Carroll. though he was required to post a $7.4 million bond to cover any additional interest costs. a request Carroll’s attorney had made.
For Democrats and other former officials. the reports of a Justice Department inquiry landed amid a broader skepticism about independence from the White House. The reporting added to perceptions that prosecutorial decisions can be shaped—or at least painted—as tools used against political enemies. Trump’s Justice Department has opened multiple investigations into perceived adversaries of the Republican president. including securing an indictment last month against former FBI Director James Comey.
In this latest episode, the human stakes are tied to something more immediate than doctrine: whether a case shaped by testimony, memory, and funding details becomes the subject of criminal scrutiny, or whether it stays within the bounds of civil court credibility.
And as the dispute over who was under investigation tightened and shifted—from Carroll to a nonprofit backed by Hoffman—the bluntness of Boutros’s statement underscored the gap between what was reported and what the office says it is doing.
Associated Press reporter Larry Neumeister in New York contributed to this report.
E. Jean Carroll Andrew Boutros Northern District of Illinois Justice Department perjury investigation Donald Trump James Comey Reid Hoffman LinkedIn Bergdorf Goodman defamation case $5 million award $83.3 million verdict 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Supreme Court bond Alina Habba