A US federal judge has quashed subpoenas issued by the Justice Department targeting Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, dealing a significant legal blow to former President Donald Trump’s efforts to pressure the central bank.
According to unsealed court documents, Judge James Boasberg ruled the subpoenas, which sought records related to the Fed’s building renovation costs, were not justified by any credible suspicion of criminal conduct. The judge stated the government had produced “essentially zero evidence to suspect Chair Powell of a crime” and described the justification as “thin and unsubstantiated.” He concluded the dominant purpose of the subpoenas was to “harass and pressure Powell either to yield to the president or resign.”
The subpoenas, issued in January by US Attorney General Jeanine Pirro, related to Powell’s congressional testimony about the Fed’s headquarters renovation project, whose estimated cost has risen to $2.5 billion. Powell had previously called the criminal threat a “pretext” to undermine the Fed’s independence in setting monetary policy, particularly interest rates. Trump has repeatedly criticized Powell for not lowering rates.
Judge Boasberg’s ruling blocks the Justice Department from obtaining the requested Fed records. Attorney General Pirro has criticized the decision and stated she plans to appeal, a process that could cause further delays.
The ruling directly impacts the nomination of Kevin Warsh, Trump’s choice to replace Powell when his term as chair ends on May 15. Senate consideration of Warsh’s nomination is already stalled, and the appeal could prolong the uncertainty. While Powell’s term as chair concludes on that date, he could remain on the Fed’s Board of Governors if a successor is not confirmed.
The decision reinforces the judicial protection of the Federal Reserve’s operational independence from direct political interference, a core principle of its mandate. The case highlights ongoing tensions between the executive branch and the central bank over interest rate policy, with the legal avenue now focused on the appeal process.
