DOJ opens probe into E. Jean Carroll perjury

DOJ inquiry – The Justice Department has opened a criminal inquiry into E. Jean Carroll, who previously won $88.3 million after federal juries found that Donald Trump sexually abused her in 1996 and later defamed her. The reported focus is whether Carroll committed perjury

The timing landed like a threat that was meant to be quiet and clinical. After E. Jean Carroll won her damages case against Donald Trump—$88.3 million after federal juries determined Trump sexually abused her in 1996 and later defamed her—she now faces a different kind of courtroom fight.

Reporting says the Justice Department has opened a criminal inquiry into Carroll, with the allegation focused on whether she committed perjury during a deposition in the case. In that deposition, Carroll addressed a question about whether someone was “presently paying” her legal fees.

Supporters of Carroll have framed the investigation as political punishment—an effort to use the Justice Department as a weapon against one of Trump’s most effective critics. Law professor Barb McQuade, a former U.S. attorney, sees it that way too.

“It’s absurd to think that prosecutors would be able to reach a different result when this time the government, and not she, has the burden of proof, and by the much higher standard of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt,” McQuade said, arguing that a jury had already spoken on Carroll’s credibility.

The case turns on a factual dispute that has already been tested in court—one that. according to McQuade. may make a criminal prosecution nearly impossible. In September 2020, Carroll’s attorney told her that an outside source was helping fund her lawsuit against Trump. That source was Reid Hoffman, a Democratic mega-donor. Over two years later. during a trial deposition. Carroll was asked whether someone was “presently paying” her legal fees. and she said no.

The reported theory from the Justice Department is that Carroll’s answer was perjury because she allegedly knew, in 2022, that she was being funded as of the 2020 arrangement.

But a court has already ruled on that question in Carroll’s favor. In an unanimous decision denying an appeal from Trump. the Second Circuit concluded that Carroll “plausibly represented that she had forgotten about the limited outside funding counsel obtained in September 2020 when this question was first posed to her in 2022. ” and that “the additional discovery did not indicate otherwise.” The appellate court added that the discovery showed “that Ms. Carroll simply was not involved in the matter of who was or was not funding her litigation costs.”.

With that history in place, the stakes in a criminal case rise sharply. Beyond the question of what was true in 2022, prosecutors would need proof that Carroll “knowingly lied” about the funding—something McQuade says is unlikely.

“A conviction is just not going to happen,” she concluded.

The Justice Department’s willingness to bring such a weak case, in McQuade’s view, signals something more troubling than a courtroom disagreement. She points to how the decision looks less like a pursuit of justice and more like punishment without the evidence required for conviction.

“Ordinarily, DOJ policy prohibits prosecutors from indicting a case just because they have probable cause. The standard is that prosecutors should believe it probable that the evidence is sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction. ” McQuade said. “Filing criminal charges just to shame someone without the evidence to back it up is a violation of ethical standards and abuse of the Justice Department’s power.”.

That criticism lands in a wider picture of how Trump’s Justice Department has handled prosecutions of political and legal opponents. McQuade argues the record shows a pattern: repeated attempts that fail to produce indictments, and even when cases are brought, judges step in and stop them.

She pointed to the administration’s efforts against former FBI Director James Comey. saying its most recent indictment centered on an allegedly threatening picture of seashells. She cited February’s grand jury rejection of attempts to prosecute six Democratic lawmakers over a video calling on the U.S. military to disobey unlawful orders. She also described a criminal investigation into then–Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell as having backfired after senators threatened to block his replacement. then being halted.

Just this week, federal judges threw out both a case against anti-ICE protesters in Chicago and the administration’s latest effort to imprison Kilmar Abrego Garcia.

Taken together, these cases form the clearest contradiction at the heart of the Carroll probe: the government appears determined to push politically charged prosecutions—yet repeatedly runs into the limits of American institutions and the practical requirements of proving guilt.

One way to read the Carroll investigation is as a sign of damage to democratic safeguards. Another way is to see it as evidence that those safeguards still work—at least often enough to block even the president’s most vindictive ambitions from fully taking shape.

The two views don’t have to clash. The pattern, McQuade’s concerns suggest, is built on intent and execution that don’t line up. Trump’s approach. as it has played out across the past year. has been described here as “haphazardism”—a style of rule marked by sustained individual attacks on the system of government that are dangerous. but also repeatedly self-undermining.

The Carroll case fits that description cleanly: the alleged assault was already determined by federal juries, and now the attempt is said to be aimed at turning a credibility fight into a new criminal threat. Yet the legal pathway looks narrow, and the burden is higher.

Trump has. in this telling. managed to challenge longstanding norms—especially the idea that the Justice Department will act independently of presidential pressure. The aim is clear: to make vindictive prosecution possible. The obstacle is equally clear: courts still require evidence. judges still intervene. and juries still decide when the law reaches a factual threshold.

The result is a kind of ongoing tension in the American system. The push toward political punishment can move fast enough to create fear and headlines. But it may not be coherent or competent enough to guarantee convictions.

In that gap. McQuade’s argument lands with particular force: filing charges without evidence strong enough to sustain a conviction doesn’t just risk failure—it risks breaking trust in the process itself. And for Carroll. who already won her day in court. the question now is whether the government’s next move can overcome not only what a jury decided. but what a higher court already found about what she plausibly believed in 2022.

E. Jean Carroll DOJ inquiry perjury allegation Donald Trump Second Circuit Reid Hoffman Barb McQuade federal court criminal investigation