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

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.

It takes courage to name what you see. A sitting president who uses his justice department to criminally pursue a woman who defeated him in court — twice — is a subversion of the rule of law. Whatever the legal wrapping, the political reality is naked and disturbing.

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.

The 2nd Circuit already looked at these allegations and rejected them. The DOJ now recycles them under criminal wrapping. This is not jurisprudence — it is persecution dressed in procedure. And the fact that this is happening in the United States, in 2026, should shock people well beyond American borders.

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.

Litigation funding exists precisely because without it, only the wealthy could sue the wealthy in court. Attacking that mechanism as a crime means wanting ordinary people to never be able to challenge power in court. It is an assault on equal access to justice — and it is deliberate.

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.

I am a columnist, not an attorney. But I can read a strategy when I see one. Two simultaneous fronts against the same woman, opened exactly when the appeals reach their critical point — this is not legitimate defense. It is operational coordination between the president's office and his own justice department.

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.

I think of all the women watching this case who tell themselves: if this can happen to Carroll — who won, who has the resources, who has the world's attention — what would happen to me? That thought, that fear, is exactly what Trump wants to create. And it may be the most serious crime in this entire affair.

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.

I am not saying the United States is Russia. But I am saying that the distance between a democracy that holds and one that yields is often shorter than people think. And every time a government uses its judicial powers to punish its personal enemies, that distance narrows by one notch. Carroll is a canary in the mine. Let us listen.

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.

Institutions are holding. Not perfectly, not without wounds, but they are holding. That is the most important thing to remember amid all this chaos. And if Carroll keeps fighting, it is because she knows the system — imperfect, under attack, worn — can still deliver justice. I trust her on that point.

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.

The midterms will be, in part, a referendum on what Americans want their justice to be. Do they want courts that rule impartially? Or courts that serve the political interests of the current power? That choice, Americans will have to make with open eyes — and cases like Carroll give them all the information they need to decide.

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.

America is looking at itself in the mirror of the Carroll case. What it sees is not flattering. A woman who won in court, pursued by the State of her abuser. No money paid. Fifteen Supreme Court postponements. If that is what democracy looks like in 2026, we must admit it is sick. And admitting it is sick is the first step toward healing it.

By Maxime Marquette, columnist

Editorial stance

I am not a journalist but a columnist and analyst. My expertise lies in observing and analysing the geopolitical, economic and strategic dynamics that shape our world. My work is to take political strategies apart, to understand global economic movements, to put the decisions of international actors in context and to offer analytical perspectives on the changes that are redefining our societies.

I do not claim the cold objectivity of traditional journalism, which stops at reporting facts. I claim analytical clarity, rigorous interpretation and a deep understanding of the complex issues that concern us all. My role is to give meaning to the facts, to place them in their historical and strategic context, and to offer a critical reading of events.

Method and sources

This text keeps the basic distinction between verified facts and interpretive analysis. The rule never changes: a factual claim is published only when a verifiable source supports it, and the sources this article actually used are listed under Sources, never here.

Primary source families used by the publication, when the story has them: official statements from governments and international institutions, public statements by political leaders, reports from intergovernmental organisations, dispatches from recognised international news agencies.

Secondary source families: specialised publications, internationally recognised news media, analyses from established research institutions, reports from industry organisations.

When an article cites statistical, economic or geopolitical data, it comes from the institutions that produce it (intergovernmental organisations, central banks, national statistics offices), and the exact institution is named under Sources.

Nature of the analysis

The analyses, interpretations and perspectives in the analytical sections of this article are a critical, contextual synthesis based on the information available, the trends observed and the expert comments cited in the sources consulted.

My role is to interpret these facts, to set them in the context of today's geopolitical and economic dynamics, and to give them a coherent meaning within the larger story of the changes shaping our time. These analyses reflect expertise built through continuous observation of international affairs and an understanding of the strategic mechanisms that drive global actors.

This article describes a documented state of affairs on its publication date, not a prediction: later developments may shift its outlook. No update is promised in advance; when an article is corrected or completed, the change is dated in the text.