A federal judge in the United States has again rejected two subpoenas from President Donald Trump’s administration seeking information about Jerome Powell, the chairman of the Federal Reserve, the country’s central bank.
In a brief six-page opinion released Friday, Judge James Boasberg rejected the Justice Department’s motion to reconsider an earlier ruling denying the subpoena.
Recommended stories
list of 3 itemsend of list
“The government’s arguments fall far short of convincing the court that a different outcome is warranted,” Boasberg wrote.
On March 13, Judge Boasberg of the District of Columbia federal court invalidated a subpoena issued for the “improper purpose” of pressuring Powell to comply with the president’s demands.
President Trump and President Powell, an appointee from the president’s first term, have been at odds since the Republican leader returned to the White House in January 2025.
Although the Federal Reserve is an independent government agency and is not influenced by political demands, President Trump has repeatedly called on the Fed to lower interest rates and has accused Powell of not complying, calling him “incompetent,” “crooked,” and “stupid.”
Pressure has been building for months from President Trump’s White House to investigate Powell and prematurely remove him from his position as Federal Reserve chairman. Powell’s term is set to expire in May.
Much of the Trump administration’s focus has been on renovating the historic 1930s Federal Reserve building in Washington, D.C., which is over budget.
The administration points to cost overruns as evidence of wrongdoing.
Last July, for example, Trump appointee William Pulte asked Congress to investigate Powell for “political bias” and “deceptive” testimony related to the renovation project.
The following month, President Trump posted on his Truth Social platform that he was considering a “massive lawsuit against Mr. Powell” for his “horrific and extremely incompetent” efforts to complete the renovations.
The pressure reached a climax on January 11, when Mr. Powell made an unusual statement announcing that he was under investigation by the Justice Department over his renovation plans. He dismissed the investigation as a “pretext” to undermine the Federal Reserve’s leadership in monetary policy.
“The threat of criminal charges is the result of the Federal Reserve setting interest rates based on its best assessment of what will serve the public, rather than following the wishes of the president,” Powell said.
The Fed has since sought to quash the subpoena for Mr. Powell’s actions.
Boasberg sided with the central bank in his initial ruling, but in Friday’s opinion he said the Trump administration’s efforts to change its mind were insufficient.
The Justice Department had argued that it did not need to provide evidence of a crime to seek a grand jury subpoena.
Boasberg agreed with that point, but said subpoenas are also subject to legal standards that prohibit them from being issued for “unreasonable” purposes.
“Subpoena power is ‘not unlimited’ and cannot be abused,” Boasberg wrote, citing case law.
He therefore ruled that the overall lack of evidence against Mr. Powell was relevant to the legality of the subpoena.
“The key legal question is what the primary purpose of these subpoenas is: to pressure Mr. Powell to reduce rates or resign, or to pursue a legitimate investigation that was initiated because the facts suggest wrongdoing,” Boasberg said.
“To answer that question, we need to examine whether the government’s subpoena claims — allegations of fraud and lying to Congress — are colorful or ambiguous. That investigation, in turn, means asking how much evidence there is to support the government’s claims.”
Boasberg stressed that there is no suggestion that Powell committed any criminal wrongdoing and pointed to a long list of statements made by Trump attacking the Federal Reserve chairman and suggesting ulterior motives.
“The government’s fundamental problem is that it has not presented any evidence of wrongdoing,” he concluded.
Friday’s ruling likely sets the stage for an appeal by the Trump administration. U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro has previously denied any political motive for the investigation.
She also argued that Boasberg “doesn’t have the legal authority” to quash the subpoena.
