DOJ Investigates Trump Accuser E. Jean Carroll for Perjury
Left says
- •The investigation represents unprecedented weaponization of the Justice Department to target Trump's accusers and critics in an obvious vendetta
- •Carroll successfully won two civil lawsuits against Trump with unanimous jury verdicts finding him liable for sexual abuse and defamation totaling $88 million
- •A federal appeals court already rejected Trump's perjury claims in 2024, finding no evidence Carroll was personally involved in securing funding or knew about it during her deposition
- •The probe appears designed to intimidate other potential accusers from coming forward rather than pursue legitimate criminal charges
Right says
- •Carroll's own public statements reveal her lawsuit was motivated by revenge and a desire to anger Trump rather than seeking justice
- •She admitted to deliberately crafting her appearance to look 'f**kable' during trial and called her strategy 'a trick'
- •The case was secretly bankrolled by Democratic mega-donor Reid Hoffman, undermining Carroll's credibility and revealing political motivations
- •Carroll provided false testimony under oath about receiving no outside funding, which constitutes potential perjury regardless of appeals court rulings
Common Take
High Consensus- Carroll won two civil lawsuits against Trump resulting in $88 million in damages that remain under appeal
- Reid Hoffman's nonprofit organization provided funding for some of Carroll's legal expenses
- Carroll initially testified in 2022 that she received no outside funding but later corrected this statement
- The Department of Justice has opened some form of investigation related to the Carroll case and funding arrangements
The Arguments
Right argues
Carroll's own public statements reveal her true motivations were revenge and political animus rather than justice, as she explicitly stated her pleasure came from making Trump 'so pissed off he can't think' and called the lawsuit 'the revenge that we all love.'
Left counters
Personal feelings about an outcome don't invalidate the underlying legal claims, and two separate juries unanimously found Trump liable for sexual abuse and defamation based on evidence and testimony, not Carroll's post-trial emotions.
Left argues
The DOJ investigation represents unprecedented weaponization of the Justice Department to intimidate Trump's accusers, especially since a federal appeals court already rejected Trump's perjury claims in 2024, finding no evidence Carroll was personally involved in securing funding.
Right counters
Perjury investigations are standard prosecutorial practice when witnesses provide false testimony under oath, and the appeals court ruling on civil liability doesn't preclude criminal investigation of potential false statements during depositions.
Left argues
Carroll won two civil lawsuits with unanimous jury verdicts totaling $88 million in damages, demonstrating the strength of her legal case and the credibility of her claims against Trump.
Right counters
The civil case was secretly bankrolled by Democratic mega-donor Reid Hoffman, undermining Carroll's credibility and revealing the political motivations behind litigation that was presented as a personal quest for justice.
Right argues
Carroll provided demonstrably false testimony under oath when she stated she received no outside funding for her lawsuit, which constitutes potential perjury regardless of whether she personally arranged the funding.
Left counters
The appeals court found no evidence Carroll knew about the funding arrangement during her deposition, and her attorneys corrected the record within two weeks, suggesting an honest mistake rather than intentional perjury.
Left argues
This investigation appears designed to deter other potential accusers from coming forward rather than pursue legitimate criminal charges, creating a chilling effect on those who might seek justice against powerful figures.
Right counters
If Carroll committed perjury during legal proceedings, investigating that potential crime is a legitimate prosecutorial function that upholds the integrity of the judicial system, regardless of the political implications.
Challenge Questions
These questions target genuine internal contradictions — meant to provoke honest reflection.
Right asks Left
“If the appeals court already definitively ruled there was no evidence of Carroll's knowledge about the funding, how can you simultaneously argue that a DOJ criminal investigation into the same matter serves any legitimate prosecutorial purpose rather than political retaliation?”
Left asks Right
“If Carroll's post-trial statements about revenge and her calculated courtroom appearance strategy don't undermine the validity of her legal claims, why should her apparent lack of knowledge about funding arrangements during her deposition be treated as definitive proof of innocence rather than convenient ignorance?”
Outlier Report
Left Fringe
Democracy Now hosts like Amy Goodman and progressive legal commentators like Deborah Tuerkheimer who frame this as purely retaliatory persecution represent about 15% of the left, taking an absolutist 'Trump can do no wrong to his accusers' stance.
Right Fringe
Commentators like Sara Gonzales and some Daily Wire personalities who focus heavily on Carroll's personal statements and appearance choices rather than the legal/perjury issues represent about 20% of the right, making it more about character assassination than legal process.
Noise Assessment
Moderate noise level - while partisan media amplifies extreme positions, the core legal questions about perjury and political funding resonate with genuine public concerns about justice system integrity.
Sources (6)
<p>The Department of Justice is investigating the nonprofit of billionaire Reid Hoffman, which made contributions that were partially used for <a href="https://www.axios.com/2025/11/11/trump-supreme-court-abuse-defamation-carroll" target="_blank">E. Jean Carroll's</a> legal expenses during her civil lawsuit against <a href="https://www.axios.com/politics-policy/donald-trump" target="_blank">President Trump</a>, a source familiar tells Axios.</p><p><strong>Why it matters:</strong> The investigation raises concerns about a <a href="https://www.axios.com/2026/04/29/trump-investigations-maga-red-meat" target="_blank">pattern of retaliation</a> against Trump critics while testing the independence of DOJ officials. </p><hr /><ul><li>Hoffman, a LinkedIn co-founder, has donated <a href="https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/factcheck/2026/03/06/is-reid-hoffman-the-largest-donor-to-the-wisconsin-democratic-party/88999806007/" target="_blank">millions</a> to Democratic causes and the party over the years and is a longtime Trump critic. The president previously <a href="https://www.axios.com/2025/09/26/trump-organized-political-violence-radical-left" target="_blank">alleged</a> Hoffman is a funder of "radical left" groups that promote political violence.</li></ul><p><strong>What they're saying:</strong> "The investigation is more focused on Reid Hoffman's nonprofit," American Future Republic, than Carroll herself, a source familiar with the DOJ's operations tells Axios.</p><ul><li>"It's related to E. Jean Carroll and her deposition, but she is not the subject of the investigation." </li><li>"The investigation is ongoing... but as of right now, it would be inaccurate to say that she is being investigated."</li><li>The White House referred Axios to the DOJ for comment. The DOJ and Carroll's legal team declined to comment. </li></ul><p><strong>Hoffman did not immediately</strong> respond to Axios' request for comment.</p><p><strong>Flashback:</strong> Carroll accused Trump of sexual assault at a Manhattan department store in the 1990s, filing a civil <a href="https://www.axios.com/2023/05/09/trump-verdict-e-jean-carroll-lawsuit-damages" target="_blank">suit against him</a>. Trump was initially found liable for sexual abuse and defamation and <a href="https://www.axios.com/2023/05/09/trump-verdict-e-jean-carroll-lawsuit-damages" target="_blank">fined $5 million</a>.</p><ul><li>Trump has appealed the case to the Supreme Court, but the court <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/05/court-puts-off-deciding-whether-to-consider-5-million-verdict-against-trump-yet-again/" target="_blank">has not decided</a> if it will hear the case. </li></ul><p><strong>Context:</strong> Carroll was previously questioned about a <a href="https://www.axios.com/2023/05/09/trump-verdict-e-jean-carroll-lawsuit-damages" target="_blank">2022 deposition</a> in which she said she received no outside funding for her lawsuit, but her attorneys later said that Hoffman's nonprofit covered some of her legal expenses.</p><ul><li>Dmitri Mehlhorn, then a philanthropic adviser for Hoffman, said in a 2017 statement that the nonprofit made a donation to the Kaplan Hecker & Fink law firm for a different public interest lawsuit. But when the firm took up Carroll's case in 2020, her lawyer asked if the grant money could be used for the suit against Trump. </li><li>"We had no prior knowledge at the time of the original grant that our funding would go to support her case in particular," Mehlhorn said, according to the<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/13/nyregion/trump-carroll-lawsuit-hoffman-linkedin.html" target="_blank"> New York Times</a>.</li></ul><p><strong>Yes, but: </strong>Trump argued in court that Carroll had committed perjury. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals <a href="https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca2/23-793/23-793-2024-12-30.html" target="_blank">rejected</a> his position. </p><ul><li>The court found that "there was no evidence to suggest that Ms. Carroll was personally involved in securing the funding, interacted with the funder," or had knowledge of where the money came from prior to being deposed in October 2022. </li></ul><p><strong>Go deeper: </strong><a href="https://www.axios.com/2026/04/29/trump-investigations-maga-red-meat" target="_blank">Red-meat retribution: Trump escalates campaign against MAGA foes</a></p>
<img src="https://www.theblaze.com/media-library/image.jpg?id=66849656&width=1245&height=700&coordinates=0%2C0%2C0%2C0" /><br /><br /><p>The Department of Justice has opened a criminal investigation into E. Jean Carroll over her testimony in Trump’s sexual abuse lawsuit — and her past incriminating podcast appearances may be coming back to haunt her.</p><p>“I know my own pleasures, and that doesn’t involve buying things. Where my pleasure comes is making him so pissed off he can’t think. We need to prick his little balloon constantly. And one of the ways to do that is to give his money to women’s reproductive rights,” Carroll said in an interview on MeidasTouch.</p><p>“Can you imagine how angry?” she asked happily. “It’s just so delicious thinking about how pissed off he’ll be.”</p><p>“Heaven, heaven. It’s the revenge that we all love,” she added.</p><h3></h3><br /><span class="rm-shortcode" style="display: block; padding-top: 56.25%;"></span><p>“Hell yeah to killing babies in the womb,” BlazeTV host Sara Gonzales says, mocking Carroll and her interviewer on “Sara Gonzales Unfiltered.”</p><p>“She’s just saying, ‘I just wanted to be a thorn in his side. I just want to piss him off.’ That’s all this is about,” she adds.</p><p>In another interview on “The Bulwark” podcast, Carroll revealed to the host that she needed to be “f**kable” to win her case against the president.</p><p>“I had a talk show, a TV talk show in 1996. I went through that, some of the shows, took screenshots of my hair cut in a bob, and then I found the hairdresser and the makeup person who made me look like that in 1996. She came every day to trial, did my hair and makeup exactly like it was in 1996. I wore the exact same clothes I wore in 1996,” she explained.</p><p>“And it was enough. It was enough,” she continued, adding, “It was a trick.”</p><p>“A lot of thought went into, as she says, making sure that she looked f**kable, because I guess judges only rule in your favor if you are,” Gonzales says.</p><p>“This is the woman we’re supposed to believe?” she adds.</p><h2>Want more from Sara Gonzales?</h2><p>To enjoy more of Sara's no-holds-barred takes on news and culture, <a href="https://get.blazetv.com/sara/?utm_source=theblaze&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=article_shortcode_saragonzalesunfiltered" target="_blank">subscribe to BlazeTV</a> — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.</p>
This article is part of Upstream, The Daily Wire’s new home for culture and lifestyle. Real human insight and human stories — from our featured writers to you. *** There’s an unhinged 82-year-old in the woods of upstate New York, and she’s set to get $83 million from the president. But we may have been ...
The Justice Department has reportedly launched a criminal investigation into the writer E. Jean Carroll, who successfully sued Donald Trump twice, for sexual abuse and defamation. According to <span class="caps">CNN</span>, <em>The New York Times</em> and other outlets, the investigation is focused on whether Carroll committed perjury in a deposition, even though a federal appeals court upheld the rulings in 2024.</p> <p>In 2019, Carroll published a memoir describing an encounter in the 1990s when she says Trump sexually assaulted her in a department store. When Trump denied the account, Carroll sued him and won $5 million in damages, with a unanimous New York jury finding Trump liable for sexual abuse and defamation. After Trump made disparaging remarks about Carroll, she sued him again and won a second defamation judgment for over $83 million. (She has yet to collect any money pending appeals by Trump.)</p> <p>“The use of the Justice Department to go after E. Jean Carroll in this way is completely unprecedented,” says law professor Deborah Tuerkheimer, who says the probe is part of an obvious “vendetta” by Trump. “It’s frankly galling.”</p> <p>See our interview with director Ivy Meeropol about her documentary <a href="https://www.democracynow.org/2026/5/19/e_jean_carroll_documentary"><em>Ask E. Jean</em></a>.
It sounds as if the department is targeting Reid Hoffman instead.
<img alt="E Jean Carroll" class="webfeedsFeaturedVisual wp-post-image" src="https://thefederalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/Screenshot-2026-05-29-at-1.47.42-PM-scaled-e1780076979195-1200x675.png" style="display: block; margin: auto; margin-bottom: 5px;" />A known anti-Trump, Democrat mega-donor financed a lawsuit built on allegations from decades earlier to assassinate the character of a sitting president.