Chicago U.S. Attorney Denies Investigation into E. Jean Carroll, Contradicting Media Reports
On May 28–29, 2026, multiple news outlets reported that the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Chicago, led by Andrew Boutros, had opened a criminal investigation into E. Jean Carroll over potential perjury related to her civil lawsuits against Donald Trump. The probe allegedly centered on her 2022 deposition statement that she received no outside funding, despite later revelations that Reid Hoffman funded part of her legal fees. However, Boutros publicly denied that any investigation into Carroll had been opened, stating his office 'has not opened—and has never opened—a criminal investigation into E. Jean Carroll.' An anonymous source later clarified to one outlet that the focus may be on a nonprofit involved in funding, not Carroll personally. A 2024 appeals court had previously accepted that Carroll plausibly forgot about the funding. The controversy emerged amid broader concerns about the Trump Justice Department investigating political adversaries. Juries previously found Trump liable for sexual assault and defamation in civil cases, though not rape, and he continues to deny all allegations.
The sources agree on core facts but diverge sharply in framing. The New York Times presents a narrative implying an investigation is underway and emphasizes Boutros’s controversial tenure, while the others report his denial and the media sourcing behind the initial claim. AP News adds critical nuance about the investigation’s potential target. The story highlights tensions between official statements, anonymous sourcing, and contextual framing in political-legal reporting.
- ✓ The top federal prosecutor in Chicago, Andrew Boutros, denied opening a criminal investigation into E. Jean Carroll.
- ✓ Multiple news outlets initially reported that a criminal investigation was underway, based on anonymous sources familiar with the matter.
- ✓ The alleged investigation centered on whether Carroll committed perjury during civil litigation against Donald Trump, specifically regarding her claim that she received no outside funding for her legal fees.
- ✓ Reid Hoffman, LinkedIn co-founder, was later revealed to have funded part of Carroll’s legal costs.
- ✓ An appeals court in 2024 ruled that Carroll plausibly forgot about the limited outside funding when questioned in 2022.
- ✓ Juries found in 2023 and 2024 that Trump sexually assaulted and defamed Carroll, though not that he raped her.
- ✓ Trump denies all allegations and remains in legal conflict with Carroll.
- ✓ The reports emerged amid broader concerns about the Trump Justice Department investigating political adversaries.
Existence and focus of investigation
Implies an investigation is ongoing by stating Boutros is 'overseeing a criminal investigation related to E. Jean Carroll' without directly quoting or referencing his denial.
Report Boutros’s explicit denial that any investigation into Carroll has been opened.
Scope of potential investigation
Clarifies that the actual focus may be on a nonprofit that helped fund Carroll’s case, not on Carroll herself—a detail absent in other sources.
Suggest the probe is into Carroll’s testimony, based on the funding disclosure issue.
Context about Boutros and his office
Provides extensive critical context: staff resignations, judicial admonishment, failed prosecutions, and political alignment with Trump.
Offer no such background on Boutros, focusing instead on the denial and sourcing of the initial report.
Timing and media dynamics
Notes Boutros issued his denial roughly 24 hours after initial reports, framing it as a response to media claims, and identifies AP as one of the original reporters.
Does not acknowledge the denial or media controversy, instead asserting the investigation exists.
The New York Times
Framing: The New York Times frames the event as part of a broader pattern of politically motivated prosecutions under Boutros, suggesting the investigation into Carroll is real and emblematic of a compromised Justice Department. The focus is on institutional credibility and political alignment.
Tone: Critical and skeptical of the prosecutor and his office, with an implicit suggestion of impropriety.
Narrative Framing: The New York Times opens by asserting Boutros is 'overseeing a criminal investigation related to E. Jean Carroll' without acknowledging his denial, creating a narrative that the probe exists.
"Andrew S. Boutros... is said to be overseeing the criminal investigation."
Framing by Emphasis: The article emphasizes Boutros’s political alignment with Trump and prosecutorial failures, suggesting bias and undermining credibility of the office.
"He has emerged as a prosecutor closely aligned with Mr. Trump’s agenda..."
Appeal to Emotion: Focuses on judicial rebuke and case dismissals, painting a picture of an office in disarray, which indirectly casts doubt on the legitimacy of any investigation.
"Judge April M. Perry... said: 'Your sole goal is to do justice... That trust has been broken.'"
Cherry-Picking: Quotes a defense attorney critical of Boutros, giving voice to skepticism without counterbalance from Boutros or DOJ.
"I’m concerned that Andrew Boutros is willing to take down all of the credibility..."
Omission: Does not mention Boutros’s denial of the investigation, omitting a key factual update.
ABC News Australia
Framing: ABC News Australia frames the event as a developing news story centered on conflicting information—official denial versus anonymous sourcing—while providing legal and political context.
Tone: Neutral and factual, with measured presentation of claims and context.
Balanced Reporting: ABC News Australia leads with Boutros’s denial, centering the story on the contradiction between official statements and anonymous sourcing.
"The top federal prosecutor in Chicago has denied that his office has launched a criminal investigation..."
Proper Attribution: Provides context on the appeals court ruling that Carroll plausibly forgot about the funding, which weakens the perjury claim.
"An appeals court, however, decided in 2024 that: 'Ms. Carroll plausibly represented that she had forgotten...'"
Framing by Emphasis: Notes that the probe 'may not necessarily result in charges,' tempering sensationalism.
"The launch of a probe may not necessarily result in charges being brought against Carroll."
Comprehensive Sourcing: Mentions broader pattern of Trump DOJ targeting adversaries, providing political context without editorializing.
"Since last year, Mr Trump's Justice Department has pursued a slew of investigations against the president's antagonists..."
Reuters
Framing: Reuters presents the story as a straightforward news bulletin, focusing on the denial and the anonymous report without deeper analysis or context.
Tone: Neutral and concise, with minimal interpretive framing.
Balanced Reporting: Mirrors ABC News Australia in structure and content, leading with the denial and citing the same anonymous source.
"The top federal prosecutor in Chicago denied... that his office has launched a criminal investigation..."
Omission: Lacks the appeals court explanation found in ABC News Australia, reducing context on the perjury claim’s viability.
Vague Attribution: Uses passive voice and minimal elaboration, typical of wire-service reporting.
"A person familiar with the matter told Reuters..."
AP News
Framing: AP News frames the event as a media-legal-political intersection, emphasizing the discrepancy between reporting and official denial, while introducing new clarifying information about the investigation’s target.
Tone: Analytical and contextual, with attention to media dynamics and institutional implications.
Framing by Emphasis: Explicitly frames the story as a denial 'disputing media reports,' highlighting the conflict between official statements and journalism.
"denies investigation into E. Jean Carroll, disputing media reports"
Comprehensive Sourcing: Adds unique detail: the investigation’s focus may be on a nonprofit, not Carroll herself—a significant clarification.
"a person familiar with the matter... later clarified that the actual focus was on a nonprofit that had helped fund her case"
Framing by Emphasis: Notes timing of Boutros’s statement (24 hours after initial reports), suggesting a delayed response.
"issued a statement roughly 24 hours after the first report was published"
Narrative Framing: Connects the case to broader concerns about weaponization of DOJ, citing the Comey indictment as an example.
"added to the perception from Democrats... that a Justice Department... is being weaponized"
The New York Times
The New York Times provides detailed background on the prosecutor, including his appointment, professional history, controversies in his office, judicial rebukes, and political alignment. It offers context beyond the immediate denial, focusing on the credibility of the office involved.
AP News
AP News includes key clarifications not found in others—such as the shift in focus from Carroll to a nonprofit—and situates the story within broader concerns about weaponization of the Justice Department. It also references multiple media reports and includes timeline details.
ABC News Australia
ABC News Australia and Reuters are nearly identical in content and structure, offering a straightforward account of the denial and the anonymous sourcing behind initial reports. ABC News Australia edges slightly ahead due to inclusion of additional context about the appeals court ruling and the nature of the alleged perjury.
Reuters
Reuters is factually similar but lacks the depth of ABC News Australia and does not include some clarifying details (e.g., the appeals court’s rationale). It appears to be a wire-service version with minimal editorial expansion.
Top federal prosecutor in Chicago denies investigation into E. Jean Carroll, disputing media reports
US prosecutor denies launching criminal investigation into E Jean Carroll
Chicago prosecutor denies opening investigation of E. Jean Carroll
Who Is the Prosecutor Investigating E. Jean Carroll’s Lawsuits?