U.S. Judge Blocks Investigation Into Fed Chair Powell

A U.S. federal judge has upheld his earlier decision to block subpoenas in a criminal investigation involving Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell. The ruling could significantly extend the timeline for President Donald Trump’s efforts to appoint a successor. Chief U.S. District Judge James Boasberg rejected the Justice Department’s attempt to revisit his March 13 decision.

Judge Boasberg concluded that the subpoenas were intended to pressure Powell into lowering interest rates or stepping down rather than to investigate legitimate criminal activity. The subpoenas targeted documents related to cost overruns at the Federal Reserve headquarters and Powell’s congressional testimony.

The judge stated that prosecutors had shown “no evidence whatsoever of fraud” and lacked a good-faith basis to suspect a crime. A spokesperson for prosecutor Jeanine Pirro announced plans to appeal the ruling, which will be heard by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

The legal dispute could affect the confirmation process for Kevin Warsh, Trump’s nominee to succeed Powell. Senator Thom Tillis has stated he will continue blocking Warsh’s confirmation while the appeal remains pending. Powell himself has said he will remain in office until the investigation is resolved.

Prosecutors are examining Powell for potential fraud and false statements to Congress, yet court records show they have not identified evidence of any crime. Justice Department lawyers argued the judge applied too strict a standard, while Fed lawyers maintained the decision was supported by overwhelming evidence.

The outcome of the appeal will have major implications for the independence of the Federal Reserve and the stability of U.S. monetary policy. Financial markets are watching closely as the dispute unfolds.

Business leaders and investors view the ruling as an important safeguard for institutional independence. The prolonged legal battle adds uncertainty to expectations around future interest rate decisions and leadership changes at the Fed.

The case highlights the tension between political pressures and the autonomy of key economic institutions in the United States. Further developments in the appeal process are expected in the coming weeks.

Overall, the judge’s decision reinforces the principle that investigations must be based on genuine evidence rather than political motives.

Mintesinot Nigussie