President Trump’s Justice Department has been scrutinizing Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell, particularly focusing on the expensive renovations of the Fed’s offices. As part of an investigation being conducted by the DOJ, a grand jury issued subpoenas for records related to these renovations.
On Friday, we learned that a federal judge has quashed those subpoenas, and you won’t be surprised at all when you find out who it was:
“A mountain of evidence suggests that the Government served these subpoenas on the Board to pressure its Chair into voting for lower interest rates or resigning,” Judge James Boasberg, the chief judge on the U.S. District Court for Washington, D.C., wrote in a court filing.
Boasberg continued: “On the other side of the scale, the Government has produced essentially zero evidence to suspect Chair Powell of a crime; indeed, its justifications are so thin and unsubstantiated that the Court can only conclude that they are pretextual.”
“The Court therefore finds that the subpoenas were issued for an improper purpose and will quash them,” the order states.
One, how does this guy keep getting Trump cases? And two, he literally accused the DOJ of launching a political prosecution while opposing President Trump and his administration for political reasons.
Interestingly, the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia has some opinions on this matter as well:
The U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, Jeanine Pirro, said in a press conference on Friday that the judge’s order wrongly exonerated Powell and others.
“No one is above the law, but for the first time a judge’s ruling that a grand jury subpoena — on its face legal in all regards — can be ignored, because the judge thinks the subject is beyond reproach. This is a decision that is untethered to the law,” she said.
It seems quite unusual for a federal judge to overturn a grand jury subpoena. This is a rare occurrence, to say the least. According to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 17, it states in part:
(1) In General. A subpoena may order the witness to produce any books, papers, documents, data, or other objects the subpoena designates. The court may direct the witness to produce the designated items in court before trial or before they are to be offered in evidence. When the items arrive, the court may permit the parties and their attorneys to inspect all or part of them.
(2) Quashing or Modifying the Subpoena. On motion made promptly, the court may quash or modify the subpoena if compliance would be unreasonable or oppressive.
“…[U]nreasonable or oppressive.” The subpoenas issued in this case pertain to spending records linked to a renovation. This doesn’t seem particularly unreasonable or oppressive, unless one is an activist judge intent on throwing as much mud as possible into the workings of the Trump administration.
And of course, this tale wouldn’t be complete without throwing a retiring RINO into the mix:
Tillis on Boasberg ruling quashing grand jury subpoena of Fed Chair Powell. “This ruling 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. We all know how this is going to end and…
— Chad Pergram (@ChadPergram) March 13, 2026
The post notes further:
We all know how this is going to end and the D.C. U.S. Attorney’s Office should save itself further embarrassment and move on. Appealing the ruling will only delay the confirmation of Kevin Warsh as the next Fed Chair.”
Tillis has threatened to hold up (the) Warsh nomination until (the) Powell matter is resolved.
But, of course Tillis has done that.
As of now, there has been no indication regarding whether the ruling will be appealed. Stay tuned, as it’s reasonable to assume this isn’t over.
