>> Continued From the Previous Page <<
According to reports, Boasberg concluded that the investigation had little legal justification and appeared to be politically motivated pressure on the Federal Reserve.
In court filings obtained by media outlets, Boasberg said the evidence pointed overwhelmingly toward a campaign of political intimidation rather than a legitimate criminal probe.
“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,” Boasberg said in court documents obtained by NBC News.
The judge went even further, saying investigators had not produced meaningful proof of wrongdoing.
“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.”
Powell vs. Trump: A Long-Running Clash
The tension between Trump and Powell has been building for years.
Throughout Trump’s presidency, the former president repeatedly pressured the Federal Reserve to slash interest rates, arguing that lower borrowing costs would stimulate economic growth and strengthen American competitiveness.
Powell, however, consistently resisted those demands.
The Federal Reserve maintained its position that monetary policy decisions must remain independent from political pressure.
That standoff made Powell one of the most persistent frustrations for the Trump administration.
Judge Boasberg referenced that conflict directly in a newly unsealed opinion explaining his ruling.
“The Government has offered no evidence whatsoever that Powell committed any crime other than displeasing the President,” Boasberg wrote. “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.”
DOJ Fires Back
The ruling quickly triggered a furious response from U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Jeanine Pirro.
Pirro argued that Boasberg overstepped his authority by interfering with a grand jury investigation before prosecutors had the chance to present evidence.
“By inserting himself and preventing the grand jury from even obtaining, let alone hearing evidence, he has neutered the grand jury’s ability to investigate crime,” a visibly frustrated Pirro said.
Her criticism did not stop there.
“As a result, Jerome Powell today is now bathed in immunity, preventing my office from investigating the Federal Reserve.”
“This is wrong and it is without legal authority.”
Pirro has already indicated that her office plans to challenge the decision in a higher court.
Republicans Split Over the Investigation
While the Justice Department blasted the ruling, not all Republicans were eager to defend the probe.
Some GOP lawmakers warned that targeting the Federal Reserve could undermine the central bank’s independence and destabilize financial markets.
North Carolina Republican Sen. Thom Tillis openly supported the judge’s decision.
“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,” Tillis posted on Friday.
“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.”
What Happens Next
With Pirro preparing an appeal, the legal battle is far from finished.
If the ruling stands, it could effectively shut down the investigation into Powell and reinforce the Federal Reserve’s independence from political influence.
But if higher courts overturn Boasberg’s decision, the case could quickly reopen and escalate into another major political and legal clash.
For now, Powell remains in his position at the head of the Federal Reserve — and, as Pirro put it, temporarily “bathed in immunity” from the investigation that had threatened to engulf him.
