A federal judge has blocked the Justice Department from issuing a pair of grand jury subpoenas to the Federal Reserve Board, ruling that prosecutors offered "no evidence whatsoever" that Chairman Jerome Powell committed any crime and that the entire effort was a pretext to force him out.
U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, in a newly unsealed ruling, concluded that the subpoenas served one real purpose: pressuring Powell into lowering interest rates or resigning to make way for someone who would.
"Did prosecutors issue those subpoenas for a proper purpose? The Court finds that they did not."
The ruling lands in the middle of a broader political fight over Fed independence, the confirmation of former Fed Governor Kevin Warsh as Powell's replacement, and the question of how far executive power should extend into monetary policy.
According to Fox News, the criminal inquiry traces back to U.S. Attorney for D.C. Jeanine Pirro, who opened a probe into Powell's June 2025 testimony before the Senate Banking Committee. That testimony centered on the Fed's years-long renovation of its headquarters in Washington, D.C.
Powell revealed the investigation publicly in January, describing it as an attack on the Fed's independence.
Boasberg did not mince words. His 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." He pointed to social media posts from President Trump blasting Powell and suggesting someone else should lead the Fed, including one in which Trump called Powell:
"Jerome 'Too Late' Powell has done it again!!! He is TOO LATE, and actually, TOO ANGRY, TOO STUPID, & TOO POLITICAL, to have the job of Fed Chair."
From that record, the judge drew a sharp conclusion:
"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 also offered a broader observation about the current political environment, writing that "being perceived as the President's adversary has become risky in recent years" and that Trump "has urged the Department of Justice to prosecute such people, and the Department's prosecutors have listened."
Pirro was not quiet about the ruling. At a news conference Friday, she announced the Justice Department would appeal to a higher court and characterized Boasberg as an obstacle to the legal process.
"This process has been arbitrarily undermined by an activist judge."
She accused him of having "put himself at the entrance door to the grand jury, slamming that door shut" and "preventing the grand jury from doing the work that it does."
The "activist judge" label is doing a lot of work here. Boasberg is not some obscure district court newcomer; he is the same judge who has been at the center of several high-profile clashes with the executive branch. Whether his intervention was judicial overreach or a legitimate check on prosecutorial abuse depends largely on whether the underlying investigation had any merit to begin with.
And according to Boasberg's own findings, it did not. The judge stated the DOJ offered no evidence that Powell committed any crime "other than displeasing" the President. That is a remarkable sentence to appear in a federal court ruling. A headquarters renovation dispute, elevated to a criminal probe, with no underlying evidence of criminal conduct. The facts here are not flattering to the prosecution.
Republican Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina, who announced in June that he would not seek a third term in 2026, did not hold back on social media Friday. He called the ruling confirmation of what many already suspected:
"confirms just how weak and frivolous the criminal investigation of Chairman Powell is, and it is nothing more than a failed attack on Fed independence."
He went further, urging the D.C. U.S. Attorney's Office to "save itself further embarrassment and move on." And he connected the dots to the real prize:
"Appealing the ruling will only delay the confirmation of Kevin Warsh as the next Fed Chair."
That last point is the one that should focus conservative minds. Warsh is the pick. His confirmation is the path forward on monetary policy. Every news cycle consumed by a floundering investigation into a building renovation is a news cycle not spent advancing the transition at the Fed.
There is a legitimate conservative case for scrutinizing Powell's Fed. Interest rates stayed too low for too long, inflation roared back, and the institution's credibility took real damage. Those are serious policy arguments.
A criminal investigation built on congressional testimony about office renovations is not a serious policy argument. It is a sideshow. And it hands Powell and his defenders the one thing they should never have been given: the ability to credibly claim political persecution.
Conservatives who want real accountability at the Fed, who want a chair committed to sound money and institutional reform, should want Kevin Warsh confirmed and seated. That requires political capital and forward momentum. A DOJ appeal of Boasberg's ruling does the opposite. It burns oxygen, invites unfavorable headlines, and delays the very outcome that would actually change monetary policy.
The investigation was thin from the start. The judge said so. A Republican senator said so. The appeal will almost certainly fail, and every week it drags on is a week Warsh is not running the Fed.
Sometimes the best way to win is to stop fighting the wrong battle.