E. Jean Carroll took to Substack on Thursday to deny she committed perjury in testimony connected to her two civil lawsuits against President Trump, a response that came roughly a week after CNN first reported the Department of Justice was probing the matter. But the situation grew more tangled when the U.S. attorney whose office was reportedly involved publicly denied any investigation existed at all.
The competing claims, Carroll insisting she told the truth, the DOJ staying largely silent, and a federal prosecutor flatly contradicting the premise of the story, have left the public sorting through a fog of assertions with few hard answers.
What is clear is that the Carroll saga, already one of the most politically charged legal disputes of the Trump era, is far from over. Two massive civil jury awards remain in legal limbo. The Supreme Court may soon decide whether to weigh in. And now the specter of a criminal perjury investigation, real or not, has added a volatile new layer.
Carroll's Thursday post struck a defiant, sardonic tone. The Hill reported on her response, which included a direct denial and a jab at the administration.
"I will just tell you that I did not commit perjury. I did, however, vacuum the Hovel and scrub the toilet in the event the chaps who showed up at my door to cart me away needed to use the john."
She went further, casting herself as the target of a political operation that had now reversed course.
"Because Trump and the DOJ picked on the wrong old woman... and because there was such a screaming, banging outcry, the boys have backed up and say there is no investigation."
She closed with two words: "We will see."
Carroll's framing is worth pausing on. She simultaneously denied perjury and claimed vindication, while acknowledging that the situation remains unresolved. That's not the posture of someone who considers the matter closed.
Adding to the confusion, Andrew Boutros, U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, posted a statement on X directly contradicting the reported investigation. His language left no room for ambiguity.
"In light of wide-spread reporting and intense media and public interest into the E. Jean Carroll matter in New York, the Chicago U.S. Attorney's Office can confirm that it has not opened, and has never opened, a criminal investigation into E. Jean Carroll. Any claim to the contrary is categorically false."
That is an unusual public statement from a sitting U.S. attorney. Federal prosecutors rarely comment on the existence or nonexistence of investigations, and the emphatic denial, posted on social media, not through a formal press release, raises its own questions. CNN first reported on May 27 that the DOJ was investigating whether Carroll committed perjury. Boutros's denial did not address whether any other DOJ office might be involved.
The Hill reached out to the DOJ for comment. The source material does not indicate whether the department responded.
The perjury question, whatever its status, exists against a backdrop of two civil jury verdicts that have already produced eye-popping dollar figures. The first jury found Trump liable for sexually abusing Carroll and ordered him to pay $5 million. That verdict also found Trump defamed Carroll in a 2022 statement. A second jury ordered Trump to pay $83.3 million for defaming Carroll when he denied her story after she first came forward.
Trump has denied Carroll's claims throughout. He contested the second payment, asserting presidential immunity, and has taken the fight to the Supreme Court. A federal appeals court last month agreed Trump could continue holding off on payment until the Supreme Court decides whether to get involved.
That means Carroll has won twice in civil court but has not collected the larger award. If the Supreme Court takes the case, the legal landscape shifts again. If it declines, the payment question returns to the lower courts.
The reported Carroll investigation did not emerge in isolation. The Hill noted that during Trump's second term, the DOJ has launched criminal investigations into multiple figures described as "purported Trump rivals." Those named include New York Attorney General Letitia James, former Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, and Federal Reserve board of governors member Lisa Cook.
Critics of these probes have framed them as politically motivated. Supporters counter that no one, regardless of political alignment, should be above scrutiny if evidence of wrongdoing exists. The tension between those two positions has become a defining feature of the current DOJ's public posture.
The broader debate over Justice Department politicization is hardly new. Both parties have spent decades accusing the other of weaponizing federal law enforcement. But the volume and visibility of recent investigations have pushed the issue back to the front of the national conversation.
For its part, the administration has also moved to address past claims of government overreach. The DOJ created a $1.776 billion fund to compensate Americans who say they were targeted by government weaponization, a step that signals the current leadership views prior enforcement actions as, in many cases, unjust.
Several basic questions remain unresolved. CNN reported a DOJ investigation on May 27, but the specific testimony under scrutiny has not been publicly identified. Boutros denied his office was involved, but his denial was limited to the Chicago U.S. Attorney's Office. Whether another DOJ component initiated or is conducting a review remains unclear.
Carroll herself seemed to acknowledge the ambiguity. Her "We will see" suggests she does not consider the matter fully settled, despite Boutros's denial.
There is also the question of what, precisely, would constitute perjury in the context of Carroll's civil testimony. Perjury is a high bar, it requires proof that a witness knowingly made a false statement under oath on a material matter. Civil cases generate extensive testimony, and isolated inconsistencies rarely rise to criminal thresholds. No public filing or official statement has identified the specific statements at issue.
The broader legal proceedings involving Trump-connected figures continue to generate headlines and uncertainty. The recent departure of the prosecutor who secured the Comey indictment, with no public explanation, underscores how fluid and unpredictable these cases remain.
For Carroll, the stakes are straightforward. If a perjury investigation materializes, she faces potential criminal exposure on top of a civil case she ostensibly won. If no investigation exists, she has been subjected to a public scare that she says was designed to intimidate her.
For the DOJ, the stakes are institutional. A probe that was reported, denied, and then left in limbo satisfies no one. If the investigation is real, the public deserves to know the basis. If it is not, the department owes a clearer explanation than a single U.S. attorney's social media post.
And for the public, the stakes are about trust. Americans watching this from the outside see a system where major investigations are reported by major outlets, denied by federal prosecutors on X, and left unresolved, all while the underlying civil case winds toward the Supreme Court. That is not a system that inspires confidence in anyone's direction.
Meanwhile, other high-profile federal cases tied to the Trump era continue to churn through the courts, each one adding to the sense that the legal system has become a permanent theater of political combat rather than a place where facts get settled.
Carroll says she didn't commit perjury. The Chicago U.S. Attorney says there's no investigation. CNN says there is. Somebody is wrong, and the American public is left, once again, to guess which institution is telling the truth.