A United States federal judge has once again rejected a subpoena from President Donald Trump’s administration seeking information about Jerome Powell, Chairman of the Federal Reserve, the country’s central bank.
In short, six pages Opinion Published on Friday, Judge James Boasberg rejected the Justice Department’s motion to reconsider his earlier decision rejecting the subpoenas.
Recommended Stories
list of 3 itemsend of list
“The government’s arguments come no closer to convincing the Court that a different result is required,” Boasberg wrote.
On March 13, Boasberg, a judge in the federal court in the District of Columbia, quashed the subpoenas on the grounds that they were issued for an “improper purpose”: to pressure Powell to comply with the President’s demands.
Trump and Powell – the president’s first-term appointee – have been at loggerheads since the Republican leader returns to the White House in January 2025.
Although the Federal Reserve is an independent government agency not subject to political demands, Trump has repeatedly called on the bank to cut interest rates, and he has described Powell as “incompetent”, “devious” and a “stupid” for not following through.
For months, there has been pressure from the Trump White House to investigate Powell and prematurely remove him from the job of Federal Reserve Chairman. Powell’s term is set to end in May.
Much of the Trump administration’s attention has focused on renovating the Federal Reserve’s historic 1930s buildings in Washington, D.C., which have gone over budget.
The administration has pointed to cost overruns as evidence of bad faith.
For example, last July Trump appointed William Pulte called On Congress to investigate Powell for “political bias” and “misleading” testimony related to the renovation project.
Next month, Trump Posted On his forum Truth Social that he was considering “a major lawsuit against Powell” in response to the “terrible, and extremely incompetent” work on the renovation.
The pressure reached its peak on January 11, when Powell accomplished a rare feat. statement Announcing that he was under Justice Department investigation over the renovation project. He dismissed the investigation as an “excuse” to weaken the Federal Reserve’s leadership on monetary policy.
“The threat of criminal charges is the result of the Federal Reserve setting interest rates based on our best assessment of serving the public rather than following the President’s preferences,” Powell said.
The Federal Reserve has since sought to issue a subpoena regarding Powell’s behavior.
Boasberg sided with the central bank in his initial decision, and in Friday’s opinion he criticized the Trump administration’s efforts to change its mind as inadequate.
The Justice Department had argued that it did not need to produce evidence of a crime to seek a grand jury subpoena.
Boasberg agreed with that point, but added that the subpoenas were also subject to a legal standard that prevents them from being issued for “improper” purposes.
“The subpoena power is ‘not unlimited’ and cannot be abused,” Boasberg wrote, citing court precedent.
He therefore ruled that the overall lack of evidence against Powell was relevant to the validity of the subpoena.
Boasberg said, “The controlling legal question is what is the primary purpose of these ‘subpoenas’: to pressure Powell to lower rates or resign, or to launch a legitimate investigation because the facts suggested wrongdoing.”
“Resolving that question requires examining whether the government’s claimed basis for the subpoena – suspicion of fraud and lying to Congress – is colorable or tenuous. In turn, that inquiry means asking how much evidence there is to support the government’s claims.”
Boasberg underlined that he has seen no suggestion that Powell has committed criminal wrongdoing and pointed to the long list of statements by Trump attacking the Federal Reserve chairman that suggest an ulterior motive.
He concluded, “The government’s fundamental problem is that it has presented no evidence of fraud.”
Friday’s decision is likely to set the stage for the Trump administration to appeal. US Attorney Jeanine Pirro has previously denied any political motivation for the investigation.
He also claimed that Boasberg is “without legal authority” to quash the subpoena.
