E. Jean Carroll Investigation Denial Masks Broader DOJ Probe

Here’s the twist nobody saw coming: E. Jean Carroll isn’t being investigated for perjury—but the money trail funding her legal battle against President Donald Trump absolutely is.

On Thursday, United States Attorney Andrew Boutros for the Northern District of Illinois posted on X to flatly deny reports that his office had opened a criminal investigation into Carroll herself. The message was direct: any claim that they were probing her was“categorically false.”But that denial came with a crucial asterisk. According to law enforcement sources, Boutros’office is actually zeroed in on a Chicago-based entity allegedly connected to billionaire Reid Hoffman, who allegedly funneled cash to Carroll to cover legal expenses during her Trump lawsuit. So technically, the U.S. Attorney told the truth—they’re not investigating Carroll directly. They’re investigating the money.

The distinction matters because earlier this week, CNN, the New York Times, NBC, and other major outlets had reported that prosecutors were looking into whether Carroll committed perjury when she testified about Trump. Specifically, the theory went, she may have lied in a 2022 deposition when she claimed she never received funding for her initial lawsuit. Then Hoffman’s involvement surfaced, and the narrative shifted. Now prosecutors appear to be tracking the source and nature of those funds rather than focusing on her testimony—at least for now.

But here’s where it gets murkier. Law enforcement sources tell us that while Boutros’office received information alleging Carroll committed perjury at her deposition, they’re currently not pursuing that angle. The emphasis right now is on the money itself and the Chicago entity involved. That said, sources added a crucial qualifier: their focus could change as more information surfaces.

This story matters because it touches on the intersection of high-profile litigation, wealthy benefactors, and federal scrutiny. Carroll sued Trump twice—once claiming he sexually abused her in a Manhattan department store in the 1990s, and again for defaming her when Trump publicly denied the assault, claiming she wasn’t his type and was only pushing the allegations to boost sales of her 2019 book,“What Do We Need Men For?: A Modest Proposal.”The funding question raises legitimate issues about transparency in civil litigation. But it also raises questions about how aggressively prosecutors pursue the money behind controversial cases.