DECODING: Trump's DOJ opens criminal investigation against Carroll — justice as a weapon

DECODING: Trump's DOJ opens criminal investigation against Carroll — justice as a weapon

Introduction: when the State pursues the victim

A stunning reversal

Here is what happened in June 2026: Donald Trump's Department of Justice opened a criminal investigation against E. Jean Carroll — the woman a federal jury found to be a victim of sexual abuse committed by Trump himself, and defamed by that same man after she dared to speak out. Two civil verdicts, totaling nearly $90 million, were rendered against Trump. And it is Carroll who finds herself in the DOJ's crosshairs.

The investigation targets an alleged perjury tied to a 2022 deposition, in which Carroll purportedly stated she had not received outside financial support for her lawsuit, while funds were allegedly provided by Reid Hoffman, the billionaire co-founder of LinkedIn. If true, that fact would normally fall under civil disclosure rules. Under Trump's DOJ, it becomes the basis of a federal criminal investigation.

What the factual record shows

The 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals had previously examined and rejected similar allegations raised in the civil context, finding they did not alter the outcome of the verdicts. Meanwhile, Trump announced on June 2, 2026 his intention to bring the second verdict of $83.3 million before the Supreme Court, requesting that both Carroll cases be heard together. The Supreme Court had already postponed consideration of the appeal on the first verdict ($5 million) 15 times since February 2026.

The timing is precise: the DOJ's criminal investigation is opened exactly as Trump's judicial appeals reach their most critical phase. For legal observers, that timing is not coincidence — it is tactics.

The perjury charge: let's unpack what we actually know

What Carroll stated in 2022

During a deposition taken in 2022, E. Jean Carroll, then 78 years old, reportedly stated she had not received outside financial support to fund her legal proceedings. Yet evidence indicates that Reid Hoffman — Silicon Valley billionaire and declared Trump critic — allegedly contributed to financing Carroll's legal representation. If that assistance existed and was not disclosed, the question is whether it constitutes a willful false statement under oath on a material fact.

Criminal law experts are clear: perjury requires proof of a deliberate intent to lie about a material fact. An incomplete statement or an imprecision about civil litigation funding is rarely treated as a material fact sufficient to justify federal criminal charges. This type of inaccuracy is routine in civil litigation and almost never prosecuted as a federal crime.

The 2nd Circuit precedent

The 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals had already dismissed similar arguments raised by Trump's team in the civil context. The appellate judges determined that these allegations about Carroll's funding did not change the legal analysis of the verdicts. If a federal appeals court deemed those elements insufficient to affect the civil verdicts, what is the probability that they validly ground a criminal prosecution?

The legal answer is: very low. The political answer is different. A criminal investigation opened, even without a final indictment, generates pressure, legal costs, and stigma for the target. It is the perfect instrument to deter anyone from suing the president.

Reid Hoffman, the funding, and the politics

A left-leaning billionaire in Trump's crosshairs

Reid Hoffman, co-founder of LinkedIn and influential Silicon Valley investor, is one of the most active Democratic donors and a public Trump critic. His alleged financial assistance to Carroll fits within a broader pattern in which wealthy individuals fund public-interest litigation against powerful persons or entities — a legal practice in the United States, governed by varying disclosure rules depending on jurisdiction.

The idea that this funding amounts to a criminal conspiracy is an argument Trump and his allies have used to discredit the entirety of legal proceedings against him, framing them as a coordinated network of left-wing billionaires rather than legitimate proceedings. This is the "Liberal Lawfare" thesis — and the DOJ investigation grants it an institutional appearance of legitimacy it would never have earned otherwise.

What litigation funding practice actually says

In the United States, third-party litigation funding — known as litigation funding — is a legal and regulated industry that allows plaintiffs without resources to hold their own against wealthy defendants. Disclosure rules vary by state and case type, and violations generally result in civil sanctions, not criminal prosecutions.

In this context, even if Carroll understated or misreported the assistance she received, turning it into a federal criminal perjury case represents a qualitative leap that virtually no legal expert considers warranted. What is warranted, however, is the political conclusion: by opening this investigation, Trump's DOJ sends a clear signal to any future plaintiff.

Timeline: from Carroll's lawsuit to the judicial reversal

The key steps from 2019 to 2026

In 2019, Carroll publishes her accusation of assault in a book and a magazine article. Trump immediately denies it and publicly attacks her, saying she is "not his type." In November 2022, taking advantage of a new New York State law allowing civil claims for past assaults, Carroll files a complaint. In May 2023, the first jury delivers a verdict of $5 million. In January 2024, the second jury pronounces $83.3 million in damages for aggravated defamation.

In 2024, the 2nd Circuit upholds the first verdict. In June 2025, the request for full-court rehearing is rejected. In February 2026, the appeal reaches the Supreme Court — which begins its long series of postponements. In June 2026, the DOJ opens the criminal investigation against Carroll. The wheel has come full circle: the plaintiff has become the target.

June 2 and the strategic consolidation

On June 2, 2026, Trump's attorneys notify the Supreme Court of their intention to bring the second verdict ($83.3 million) before it, requesting consolidation of both cases. This strategy, if successful, delays any payment until fall 2026 at the earliest. Combined with the DOJ's criminal investigation, it creates simultaneous pressure on two fronts: stalling the civil verdicts through appeals while undermining the plaintiff's credibility through a criminal proceeding.

For legal scholars, this is a double-pincer strategy: on one side, civil justice is paralyzed by appeals; on the other, criminal justice is mobilized against the victim. The combined effect is a complete neutralization of civil justice through the tools of criminal law.

The impact on women who want to file complaints

The chilling effect: when justice becomes frightening

Legal scholars specializing in women's and civil rights speak of a massive chilling effect. The criminal investigation against Carroll sends an implicit but powerful message to any woman considering suing a powerful man: you may win in civil court, but the State can still prosecute you criminally for how you funded your case. That is a risk that most victims, without Carroll's resources, could not afford to take.

Organizations such as the Time's Up Legal Defense Fund and other women's rights groups have reacted with alarm. They point out that this investigation, even if it produces no indictment, marks a turning point in the deterrence of plaintiffs. The Trump administration is using its prosecutorial powers as a tool of retaliation — and that has real consequences for thousands of women watching.

Carroll has still received nothing

Despite two verdicts confirmed on appeal, E. Jean Carroll has not received a single dollar from Trump. The bonds imposed under the appeals proceedings ensure that funds will be available if the verdicts are ultimately confirmed — but they are not cash paid to the victim. Meanwhile, Carroll incurs her own legal fees to defend herself against the new criminal investigation from the DOJ.

This is the complete absurdity of the system in its Trump incarnation: a woman who won in court must now defend herself criminally, at her own expense, against the government of the man she defeated. If that does not perfectly illustrate State power abuse, nothing will.

What this reveals about Trump's DOJ

DOJ independence: another fiction?

The American Department of Justice is supposed to operate independently from the executive branch in its prosecutorial decisions. This independence, though imperfect, is one of the pillars of the rule of law in liberal democracies. Under Trump II, this independence has been formally weakened by several administrative decisions that brought the DOJ closer to the White House.

The Carroll case is not isolated. The Trump administration has also used the DOJ to target other political adversaries, journalists, and whistleblowers. Carroll is not a politician — she is a writer and former columnist. But her legal victory humiliated Trump in the most public way possible. For this president, that is more than enough to justify an institutional counterattack.

The historical precedents that are worrying

Historically, using the State's judicial apparatus to target private individuals who have sued political leaders is a characteristic of authoritarian regimes, not democracies. Orbán's Hungary, Erdoğan's Turkey, and Putin's Russia have all used criminal proceedings against plaintiffs, journalists, and activists who dared challenge power. Comparing the United States to those regimes is an exercise done with caution — but the analogy becomes a little less exaggerated each day.

The difference remains real: the United States has checks and balances — independent judges, a free press, legal defense organizations. These safeguards are holding. But holding is not enough: constant, repeated, institutionalized pressure ultimately wears down institutions themselves. That is Trump's bet — and it is not certain he will lose.

The reaction of legal scholars and rights defenders

A legal consensus against the investigation

Many criminal law professors have publicly criticized the opening of this investigation, calling it extraordinarily unusual and politically motivated. They point out that federal perjury requires proof of a deliberate false statement about a material fact. An imprecision about civil lawsuit funding does not meet that threshold. Similar cases have almost never been prosecuted as federal crimes in recent history.

Organizations such as the ACLU and the National Women's Law Center published statements denouncing this use of the DOJ as a weaponization of justice against a winning victim. Their positions politically isolate this decision within the American legal community, and document a rare professional consensus on the abusive nature of the move.

Guardrails that still hold

Despite institutional pressure, the system retains its checks and balances. Carroll's attorneys can challenge the investigation before independent federal judges. Judges who have already blocked several Trump administration policies in 2025–2026 can intervene if procedural abuses are established. The free press continues to cover the case with a precision that authoritarian regimes do not tolerate.

These guardrails are not infallible. But their existence and ongoing activation show that the United States of 2026, however troubling some developments may be, is not yet at the mercy of a single man. The fight is unequal. But it is not lost.

Toward a jurisprudence of retaliation: the stakes for 2026

A dangerous precedent to monitor

Whatever the outcome of the criminal investigation, the Carroll case in its DOJ dimension will create a precedent. If the investigation leads to an indictment, it normalizes the idea that the State can criminally pursue winning civil plaintiffs. If it is dropped, other actors will note that this strategy works provisionally to intimidate — and will be less hesitant to replicate it.

In both cases, the right of access to justice for ordinary victims exits this episode scarred. The message received in American society is legible: if you sue the powerful and win, you are not safe. That message carries a deterrent value that reaches far beyond the case of E. Jean Carroll.

The 2026 midterms: a referendum on justice

The American midterm elections of November 2026 are on the horizon. The Carroll case — the verdicts, the delays, the DOJ investigation — will be a political marker in those elections. Democrats will make it a symbol of the weaponization of the DOJ. Republicans will present the investigation as a search for truth about undue influences in the judicial system.

This divide is not new in American politics — but its intensity in 2026 is without recent precedent. When a civil case generates $90 million in verdicts AND a criminal investigation against the plaintiff, the judicial system has become a full-blown political battlefield.

Conclusion: a case that judges America

Two narratives, one judicial truth

On one side, Trump and his allies see the Carroll case as political weaponization — an attack orchestrated by left-wing billionaires against a president they hate. On the other, Carroll and her defenders see two legal verdicts, confirmed on appeal, and a man using every available lever — including the machinery of the State — to escape them. There is no common ground between these two readings. But there are facts: twelve jurors decided. Appellate courts confirmed. And yet, in June 2026, nothing has been paid and the victim is facing criminal prosecution.

What comes next will say something about America

If the DOJ investigation leads to a Carroll indictment, it will signal that America has crossed a line. If it is quietly dropped after serving its purpose as political pressure, it will confirm that the system is being cynically exploited. Either way, the damage is done: fear is installed, deterrence is in place, and the next potential victim will think twice. That may well be the true objective of this entire mechanism.

By Maxime Marquette, columnist

Columnist's transparency note

My positions and my limits

I cover American legal cases with the conviction that judicial independence is non-negotiable in a democracy. I believe that jury verdicts deserve to be respected — by defendants and by the State alike. I acknowledge that my reading of the DOJ investigation as a tool of retaliation is a plausible political interpretation, not a definitively proven fact. I do not have access to the internal deliberations of the Department of Justice.

Method and sources

This article is based on reporting from The Guardian of June 6, 2026 (analysis by Moira Donegan), CNN of June 22, 2026, Democracy Now of June 23, 2026, and SCOTUSblog. I cross-referenced these sources to report only verifiable facts. The interpretations are mine — owned and signed.

Sources

Primary sources

The Guardian — Trump turns the State against Carroll: analysis by Moira Donegan — June 6, 2026

CNN — Trump's Carroll verdict appeal stalls at the Supreme Court — June 22, 2026

The Guardian — The Trump-Carroll lawsuit: a status report — June 5, 2026

Secondary sources

Democracy Now — Supreme Court postpones Carroll appeal for the 15th time — June 23, 2026

Political Wire — Justices delay Trump's Carroll appeal 15 times — June 22, 2026

SCOTUSblog — Key takeaways from the order list — June 2026