The ladies of The View practically needed smelling salts Thursday after news broke that the Trump Justice Department is taking a hard look at E. Jean Carroll’s courtroom claims — reopening one of the ugliest legal and political circus acts of the Trump era.
The daytime roundtable descended into outrage after reports surfaced that federal investigators are examining whether Carroll may have lied under oath during her 2022 deposition testimony about who was bankrolling her lawsuits against President Donald Trump.
Carroll, the magazine writer who won massive jury awards after accusing Trump of sexual abuse and defamation, had testified that no outside political interests were funding her legal crusade. But later court filings revealed that LinkedIn billionaire and Democrat mega-donor Reid Hoffman helped cover some of her legal expenses — a revelation that raised obvious questions about whether the jury ever got the full picture.
DOJ LAUNCHING PROBE INTO E. JEAN CARROLL, PER SOURCES: Years after a jury found Pres. Trump liable for sexually abusing E. Jean Carroll, ‘The View’ co-hosts question why the Department of Justice is reportedly launching a probe into her deposition.
That was enough to send The View hosts into full panic mode.
DOJ LAUNCHING PROBE INTO E. JEAN CARROLL, PER SOURCES: Years after a jury found Pres. Trump liable for sexually abusing E. Jean Carroll, ‘The View’ co-hosts question why the Department of Justice is reportedly launching a probe into her deposition. pic.twitter.com/7EnKehaDQp
— The View (@TheView) May 28, 2026
“Given all the problems we’re dealing with right now and the fact that two juries found him guilty, why is the administration spending time trying to relitigate this case that was already decided by two juries? What the hell?” Whoopi Goldberg demanded.
Of course, nobody on the panel seemed particularly interested in the underlying issue: whether misleading sworn testimony in a politically explosive case deserves scrutiny at all.
Former Trump aide Alyssa Farah Griffin tried to frame the investigation as political overkill, asking viewers to believe Americans are more worried about grocery bills than whether high-profile witnesses told the truth in court. “Find me the sole voter who went out and voted in November because they wanted to see the Department of Justice at taxpayer expense investigate an 82-year-old woman,” Griffin said. “Like, it makes absolutely no sense. Absolutely no one voted for this.”
She then pivoted into a broader complaint about inflation, food insecurity and health-care costs, arguing those are the issues Washington should focus on instead of revisiting the Carroll controversy. “There’s this incredible stat that came out, February 2026, that 10% of households in America have food insecurity,” Griffin said. “Not enough food to feed their families. In the greatest nation on Earth, that is shameful.”
But critics of the original Carroll lawsuits have long argued the case was never just about one woman’s allegations. They viewed it as part of a years-long campaign by wealthy anti-Trump activists, media allies and Democratic donors determined to politically and financially damage Trump by any means necessary.
Griffin herself accidentally stumbled into that point while lamenting the renewed attention.
“From a P.R. standpoint, no one was talking about this,” she admitted. “Literally no one has uttered the words E. Jean Carroll in months if not years. I think he just wants his vengeance but he’s putting something that’s horrible for him back in the headlines!”
That may be true politically. But investigations are not typically launched because a topic is convenient for cable television producers.
Sara Haines took the conversation where it inevitably goes on The View — straight into anti-Trump therapy hour. “There was never really an America first. There’s a Donald Trump first,” Haines declared. “It’s all about Donald Trump, period.”
What the panel carefully avoided mentioning is that perjury allegations are serious business regardless of age, politics or media sympathy. If a witness in one of the most high-profile civil cases in modern political history gave inaccurate testimony about financial backing, investigators are likely to ask questions — especially when billionaire donors and partisan legal networks are involved.
And while The View hosts acted shocked that anyone would dare revisit the case, Americans have spent nearly a decade watching prosecutors, activists and media figures repeatedly test legal theories against Trump that would never survive scrutiny if aimed at a less polarizing political figure. The sudden outrage over investigations now that the spotlight swings the other direction is hard to miss.
