NEW YORK — Former advice columnist E. Jean Carroll faces a federal investigation into whether she provided false testimony during her lengthy court battle with President Donald Trump over allegations of sexual assault, according to sources familiar with the matter.
Carroll has spent nearly seven years in litigation with Trump regarding her claims that he sexually attacked her in a Manhattan department store dressing room in 1996. The legal proceedings have largely favored Carroll, with juries ruling against Trump and awarding her substantial monetary damages for his public statements questioning her truthfulness.
However, Trump’s Justice Department has now launched a probe into potential perjury by Carroll during the civil proceedings, a source told The Associated Press on condition of anonymity due to lack of authorization to discuss the ongoing matter. The investigation focuses on Carroll’s deposition testimony regarding the financing of her legal representation.
The legal saga began when Carroll publicly revealed her assault allegations in June 2019 through an excerpt from her upcoming memoir “What Do We Need Men For?” published in New York magazine. She detailed encountering Trump at Bergdorf Goodman, engaging in flirtation, and then defending herself during a sexual attack in a fitting room.
Trump responded with vehement denials of the accusations. “I’ve never met this person in my life. She is trying to sell a new book — that should be sold in the fiction section,” he stated. He also declared, “Number one, she’s not my type. Number two, it never happened.”
Carroll initiated a defamation lawsuit in 2019, asserting that Trump’s dismissal of her account as fabricated had “smeared her integrity, honesty and dignity — all in the national press.” This case became stalled for years due to disputes over whether Trump’s denial constituted official presidential duties, with Trump arguing his federal employee status protected him from the defamation claim.
When Carroll first filed suit, statutes of limitations prevented her from pursuing the underlying sexual assault allegations due to the passage of time. New York’s 2022 legal reforms created new opportunities for sexual abuse survivors to file claims regarding historical incidents. Carroll quickly utilized this change, filing fresh litigation accusing Trump of rape and addressing his post-presidency statements about her.
This second lawsuit progressed more rapidly through the court system, reaching trial in New York City during 2023. Trump declined to appear, allowing his attorneys to present his defense. The jury determined that while Carroll had not established rape under New York’s legal definition, Trump had committed sexual abuse. Jurors also concluded he made false statements damaging her reputation, resulting in a $5 million award for Carroll.
A second trial occurred in January 2024, with a federal judge overseeing proceedings to assess additional defamatory statements by Trump. The scope was limited since sexual assault had already been established, focusing solely on reputational damage from Trump’s credibility attacks and assault denials.
Trump participated in this second trial, providing approximately three minutes of testimony. “She said something that I considered to be a false accusation,” he informed the jury, adding, “I just wanted to defend myself, my family and, frankly, the presidency.”
Carroll described receiving numerous death threats following Trump’s repeated challenges to her account. The second jury again ruled for Carroll, granting her over $83 million in damages.
Carroll has not yet collected any awarded funds as Trump’s appeals continue through the court system. The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals recently addressed questions about Carroll’s honesty regarding legal fee arrangements while reviewing one appeal.
Trump’s legal team had alleged Carroll concealed that her attorneys received funding from an organization supported by Reid Hoffman, the co-founder of LinkedIn. The appeals judges found no evidence suggesting Carroll participated in this funding arrangement or deliberately misled questioners during her 2020 deposition about legal fee payments.
“It showed that Ms. Carroll simply was not involved in the matter of who was or was not funding her litigation costs,” the appeals court stated.
A spokesperson for Carroll’s attorney declined to provide comment on Thursday.
