The Department of Justice has reportedly opened a criminal investigation into E Jean Carroll, the former magazine columnist who accused Donald Trump of sexual assault.
At the center of the alleged investigation is whether Carroll committed perjury in her civil lawsuits against the president, who lost two federal lawsuits holding him liable for sexual abuse and defamation.
The former Elle magazine writer was awarded $5 million in 2022 after a jury found the president liable for sexual abuse, and a separate jury awarded her $83.3 million for the president’s defamatory statements about her and the case.
Earlier this month, a federal appeals court rejected Trump’s attempts to rehear his arguments against Carroll, who has accused the president of repeatedly defaming her. The Justice Department then announced plans to intervene and stepped in on the president’s behalf in his appeal to the Supreme Court.
A criminal inquiry under Trump’s Justice Department into a woman who accused the president of sexually assaulting her would amount to a shocking escalation into what has been labeled a politically motivated retribution campaign against his enemies, which has seen prosecutors seek indictments against Democratic officials and other prominent Trump critics.
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche has recused himself from the current investigation as he represented Trump as his personal lawyer in the case, sources told ABC News.
The investigation, which was first reported by CNN, is being led by U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, Andrew Boutros.
Carroll’s team declined to comment to CNN. A Justice Department spokesperson declined to comment on the investigation to ABC News.
The Independent has requested comment from representatives for Carroll and the Justice Department.
Her first lawsuit against the president alleged he sexually abused her in a New York department store in the 1990s, and she brought a second defamation lawsuit against him over his 2019 denials of the alleged assault, in which he claimed she was not his type and said she had made up the claim for book sales.
Federal prosecutors are reportedly looking into Carroll’s 2022 videotaped deposition statement in which she said that she did not get any outside funding for her lawsuit against Trump.
It was later made public that billionaire Reid Hoffman had covered some of Carroll’s expenses and legal fees.
During her deposition, Carroll told Trump’s then-personal attorney Alina Habba that no one else was paying her legal fees. Two weeks before the trial, her attorneys wrote a letter to the court to inform the judge and Trump’s lawyers that the team received support from Hoffman’s nonprofit American Future Republic.
But neither Carroll nor her legal team ever met or spoke with anyone at the nonprofit, they told the judge.
On the first day of the trial, Trump wrote in a since-deleted Truth Social post that Carroll’s team was “financed by a big political donor.”
Dmirtri Mehlhorn, one of Hoffman’s philanthropic advisors, said in a statement at the time that Hoffman and his associates have provided third-party funding to legal efforts to “protect our citizens from violent threats,” adding that recipients “generally do not know our identity.”
Carroll had “no prior knowledge that our funding would go to support her in particular,” he said.
The judge overseeing the case determined there was no issue with Carroll’s credibility and blocked Trump’s lawyers from questioning Hoffman’s funding during the trial.
Carroll, meanwhile, is still fighting the president’s appeals in what have become years-long cases against him.
Trump has twice turned to the Supreme Court to overturn his losses in the Carroll lawsuits.
Earlier this month, he asked the justices to strike down the $83.3 million defamation verdict after an appeals court declined to let Trump replace himself as defendant with the U.S. government.
The court is already reviewing whether to take up his case against the $5 million sexual abuse verdict, which the president’s lawyers claim was fueled by Carroll’s attempt to “maximize political injury to him and profit for herself.”
The justices have deferred a decision on whether to take up that appeal at least a dozen times.
