Share and Follow
Left: U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, chief judge of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, stands for a portrait at E. Barrett Prettyman Federal Courthouse in Washington, March 16, 2023. (Carolyn Van Houten/The Washington Post via AP, File). Right: U.S. D.C. Attorney Jeanine Pirro at a press conference detailing the arrest of Zubayr al-Bakoush, a person connected to the 2012 U.S. Embassy attack in Benghazi, at the Department of Justice building in Washington, D.C., on Friday, February 6, 2026. (Photo by Annabelle Gordon/Sipa USA)(Sipa via AP Images).
A judge known for his critical stance on the Department of Justice has nullified grand jury subpoenas issued by Jeanine Pirro. The ruling came after the U.S. attorney presented minimal evidence to suggest Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell had committed any crime, despite being given the opportunity to present her case behind closed doors.
Chief U.S. District Judge James Boasberg began his decision by highlighting President Donald Trump’s public criticisms of Powell. Trump has labeled Powell as “one of the dumbest, and most destructive, people in Government,” citing “real mental problems,” and criticized Powell’s perceived delay in lowering interest rates. It’s no secret that Trump has expressed a desire for action against Powell.
In December, Trump escalated his grievances by publicly threatening legal action against Powell, accusing him of “gross incompetence” in handling significant federal building renovations. Furthermore, he attempted to remove Fed governor Lisa Cook, following a referral related to mortgage fraud from Bill Pulte, the Trump-appointed Director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency.
By January, Powell publicly revealed that Pirro had served the Federal Reserve with grand jury subpoenas, implying a threat of criminal charges connected to his testimony before the Senate Banking Committee the previous June.
Powell clarified that his testimony involved a long-term project aimed at renovating historic Federal Reserve office buildings. He described the subpoenas as an “unprecedented action,” suggesting they were part of a broader pattern of threats and pressure from the administration.
— Federal Reserve (@federalreserve) January 12, 2026
“That testimony concerned in part a multi-year project to renovate historic Federal Reserve office buildings,” Powell explained, adding that the “unprecedented action should be seen in the broader context of the administration’s threats and ongoing pressure.”
Elsewhere, Trump proved that if he posted online calling for the investigations and prosecutions of his rivals, New York Attorney General Letitia James and ex-FBI Director James Comey, U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi’s DOJ would force out the resistance and appoint a prosecutor willing to try to make the president’s wishes come true.
Those prosecutions collapsed, however, and separate efforts to subpoena AG James’ office for investigating Trump were also quashed in recent weeks.
Boasberg saw much the same “pattern” unfolding here, also referencing Pirro’s failure to indict Sen. Mark Kelly and several other Democrats who told service members they can “refuse illegal orders.”
“Being perceived as the President’s adversary has become risky in recent years. In his second term, Trump has urged the Department of Justice to prosecute such people, and the Department’s prosecutors have listened. For instance, the President exhorted the Attorney General to prosecute James Comey, Adam Schiff, and Letitia James,” the judge said, according to the opinion he made public Friday. “Within weeks, prosecutors had indicted Comey and James and were investigating Schiff.”
“Consistent with this pattern, DOJ has now set its sights on Powell,” Boasberg added, ripping “asserted justifications for these subpoenas” as “mere pretexts.”
The judge’s proof of pretext was Pirro’s apparent unwillingness to show her hand at all, even in private, and to Boasberg alone.
“Of course, the Government might not want to tip its hand by showing its investigation’s target — i.e., Powell or the Board — what evidence it has already collected. Indeed, many prosecutors would understandably want to hold their cards close to the vest. Respecting this prerogative, the Court at the hearing invited the Government to submit any additional justifications for the subpoenas ex parte. In fact, in other recent cases in which subpoena targets have moved to quash, the Government has submitted ex parte the evidence that led it to suspect wrongdoing. In our case, however, the Government at the hearing declined to offer any other evidence,” the judge concluded. “The Court is thus left with no credible reason to think that the Government is investigating suspicious facts as opposed to targeting a disfavored official.”
Boasberg added some mockery of the evidence as a parting shot.
“Searching for any reason to suspect that Powell might have lied to Congress, the only one the Court can descry is that he testified at a hearing. The Government might as well investigate him for mail fraud because someone once saw him send a letter,” he quipped.
Pirro, for her part, promptly vowed to appeal and called Boasberg, a Barack Obama appointee, an “activist judge.”
“The American public is fed up with taxpayer money that goes into an unaccountable black hole,” the U.S. attorney said. “Today, an activist judge in Washington, D.C. has bathed Jerome Powell in immunity by taking the tool of a grand jury subpoena away from our ability to investigate the Federal Reserve. The Department of Justice will appeal.”
While Republican lawmakers have called for Boasberg’s impeachment and removal from office, the DOJ’s separate and simultaneous efforts to discipline him for ruling against the administration fell flat.