Judge Dismisses Subpoenas In Criminal Investigation Into Fed Chair Jerome Powell

A federal judge dismissed subpoenas brought as part of a criminal investigation into Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell as “mere pretexts” in a decision issued on Friday.

The decision by Judge James Boasberg ends the investigation launched by the Trump administration on Jan. 10 into alleged abuses of taxpayer funds incurred during a renovation of the Federal Reserve’s headquarters. But many, including Powell, understood the investigation to be a pretext for removing him or pressuring him to lower interest rates according to President Donald Trump’s wishes. Boasberg agreed.

“There is abundant evidence that the subpoenas’ dominant (if not sole) purpose is to harass and pressure Powell either to yield to the President or to resign and make way for a Fed Chair who will,” Boasberg wrote. “On the other side of the scale, the Government has offered no evidence whatsoever that Powell committed any crime other than displeasing the President. The Court must thus conclude that the asserted justifications for these subpoenas are mere pretexts. It will therefore grant the Board’s Motion to Quash.”

The investigation marked the most public clash between a president and the Federal Reserve in its history as Trump sought to seize control of the independent agency. After the subpoenas became public, Powell released an extraordinary statement accusing the administration of creating “pretexts” to remove him from office.

“This is about whether the Fed will be able to continue to set interest rates based on evidence and economic conditions — or whether instead monetary policy will be directed by political pressure or intimidation,” Powell said.

Since retaking office in 2025, Trump waged a nonstop pressure campaign on Powell, whom he first appointed in 2018, to lower interest rates in order to juice the economy. Powell resisted Trump’s pressure, although the Fed did lower rates three times in 2025.

Boasberg’s order dismissing the subpoenas brought by U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Jeanine Pirro includes a voluminous rundown of Trump’s online posts pressuring Powell to lower rates and notes that this “mountain of evidence suggests that the dominant purpose is to harass Powell to pressure him to lower rates.”

The decision also states that when Trump’s pressure campaign didn’t work, his appointee at the Federal Housing Finance Authority, Bill Pulte, pushed the idea that Powell’s renovation of the Federal Reserve headquarters somehow broke the law. Pulte’s insinuations previously led to the indictment and purported firing of Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook. A district court later reinstated Cook, ruling that Trump had no power to fire her. The Supreme Court will issue a final decision in Cook’s case by the end of June.

Trump picked up Pulte’s claims and, as Boasberg notes, “the U.S. Attorney’s Office followed.”

“In sum, the President spent years essentially asking if no one will rid him of this troublesome Fed Chair,” Boasberg wrote. “He then suggested a specific line of investigation into him, which had been proposed by a political appointee with no role in law enforcement, who hinted that it could be a way to remove Powell. The President’s appointed prosecutor promptly complied. Those facts strongly imply that this investigation was launched for an improper purpose, as were the resulting subpoenas.”

The decision notes that the administration was offered the opportunity to present evidence that might show wrongdoing on the part of Powell or the Federal Reserve Board, but failed to do so.

“The Court is thus left with no credible reason to think that the Government is investigating suspicious facts as opposed to targeting a disfavored official,” Boasberg wrote.

Following the decision, Pirro told reporters that her office would file a motion to reconsider, claiming that Boasberg “got his dates wrong.”