U.S. District Judge James Boasberg has blocked the Justice Department's efforts to issue a pair of grand jury subpoenas to the Federal Reserve Board, concluding that the effort was merely a "pretext" to pressure Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell into lowering interest rates or resigning. The ruling, newly unsealed, marks a significant legal setback for the Trump administration's attempts to remove or pressure the Fed chair.
The case stems from a criminal inquiry opened by U.S. Attorney for D.C. Jeanine Pirro into Powell's June 2025 testimony before the Senate Banking Committee. The investigation centered on the Fed's years-long renovation of its headquarters in Washington, D.C. Powell publicly revealed the investigation in January, describing it as an attack on the Fed's independence.
What the Right Is Saying
U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro, whose office opened the criminal inquiry, announced Friday that the Justice Department would appeal the ruling to a higher court. At a press conference, Pirro called Boasberg an "activist judge" who "put himself at the entrance door to the grand jury, slamming that door shut — irrespective of the legal process."
Supporters of the DOJ's position argue that no individual, including the Fed chair, should be above potential criminal inquiry. They contend that the investigation into the headquarters renovation was a legitimate law enforcement matter unrelated to monetary policy, and that Boasberg overstepped his judicial role by second-guessing the motivations of federal prosecutors.
What the Left Is Saying
Democrats and progressive defenders of Federal Reserve independence praised Boasberg's ruling as a defense of the central bank's autonomy from political pressure. Senator Thom Tillis, R-N.C., who has been critical of the investigation despite his Republican affiliation, called the ruling confirmation that the criminal investigation was "nothing more than a failed attack on Fed independence."
Progressive economists and former central bank officials have argued throughout the controversy that using criminal investigations to pressure monetary policy decisions undermines the core principle of Fed independence. They note that such independence is essential for credible monetary policy, as it allows the central bank to make difficult decisions on interest rates without fear of political retaliation.
What the Numbers Show
Boasberg's 27-page ruling cited what he described as "at least 100 statements that the President or his deputies have made attacking the Chair of the Federal Reserve and pressuring him to lower interest rates." The judge noted that the Justice Department offered "no evidence whatsoever" that Powell committed any crime "other than displeasing" President Donald Trump.
The investigation focused on statements Powell made during his June 2025 Senate Banking Committee testimony regarding the Federal Reserve's headquarters renovation project. The inquiry was opened by U.S. Attorney Pirro shortly after Trump began his second term and publicly revealed by Powell in January 2026.
The Bottom Line
The ruling represents a major legal check on the Trump administration's efforts to remove or pressure Fed Chair Powell. If Pirro's appeal proceeds, it could prolong the confirmation battle for Trump's chosen replacement, former Fed Governor Kevin Warsh. Boasberg's decision explicitly linked the administration's public pressure campaign on Powell to what he called the subpoenas' "dominant (if not sole)" purpose of harassment. The case is likely to become a landmark ruling on the separation between the executive branch and independent federal agencies.
The Justice Department's stated intention to appeal means this dispute will continue in the appellate courts, potentially reaching higher levels of the judiciary. The outcome could define the boundaries of presidential authority over independent federal agencies like the Federal Reserve.