Trump’s team didn’t let this go.
A major legal battle erupted in Washington this week after a federal judge blocked grand jury subpoenas tied to an investigation involving Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell and a costly renovation project at the central bank.
D.C. U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro sharply criticized the decision, accusing an Obama-appointed judge of interfering with a lawful investigation that could have shed light on the management of billions of dollars in taxpayer-related spending.
The controversy centers around a reported $2.5 billion renovation of the Federal Reserve’s Washington, D.C., headquarters, a project that has drawn scrutiny from lawmakers and investigators.
Pirro Blasts “Outrageous” Ruling
Pirro did not hold back when reacting to the decision from Chief U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, who halted subpoenas issued as part of the investigation.
Calling the ruling “outrageous,” Pirro argued that the judge stepped far outside normal legal boundaries by preventing prosecutors from gathering basic evidence.
According to Pirro, grand jury subpoenas are one of the most common investigative tools used by prosecutors to determine whether wrongdoing has occurred.
“One of the oldest tools prosecutors have to investigate potential misconduct — including financial mismanagement and cost overruns — is the grand jury subpoena,” Pirro said.
She warned that the decision could undermine the ability of federal prosecutors to investigate major institutions like the Federal Reserve.
Judge Says Investigation Appeared Political
In a 27-page opinion, Boasberg argued that the investigation appeared to be motivated by pressure on Powell rather than evidence of a crime.
The judge wrote that the Justice Department had not presented proof that Powell committed any criminal wrongdoing.
Instead, Boasberg suggested the subpoenas may have been aimed at forcing Powell to change monetary policy decisions or step down as Federal Reserve chairman.
Boasberg wrote that the government had failed to present any proof that Powell committed a crime, suggesting the only issue appeared to be that the Fed chairman had angered the president.
Because of that concern, the judge ruled that prosecutors needed to meet a higher legal standard before obtaining the subpoenas.
Investigation Focused on Federal Reserve Renovation
Pirro strongly disputed that interpretation.
She said the investigation was focused on whether Powell made misleading statements to Congress during testimony before the Senate Banking Committee in June 2025 regarding the massive renovation project.
According to Pirro, her office began examining the Federal Reserve’s Board of Governors in November and later attempted to contact the central bank twice in December to discuss concerns.
Those requests were ignored, Pirro said, prompting investigators to issue grand jury subpoenas seeking documents related to the project.
She emphasized that the subpoenas were not designed to target Powell personally but rather to gather information about the renovation and possible financial mismanagement.
Claims Powell Sought Political Support
Pirro also criticized Powell’s public response to the investigation.
She said Powell released statements suggesting he was being threatened with criminal prosecution, which Pirro dismissed as misleading.
According to the U.S. attorney, Powell instead turned to political allies in Washington and abroad to rally support while declining to provide documents investigators requested.
Pirro argued that the judge’s decision now prevents prosecutors from reviewing key records that could clarify what happened during the renovation project.
Legal Experts Warn About Broader Impact
The ruling could have broader consequences for federal investigations.
Historically, prosecutors do not need to prove probable cause before issuing a grand jury subpoena. Instead, subpoenas are typically used to determine whether a crime occurred.
Pirro argued that the judge’s decision effectively blocks that investigative process.
“This decision places the judge at the doorway of the grand jury and shuts the door before investigators can even review the evidence,” she said.
Appeal Expected
Pirro confirmed that her office plans to appeal the ruling, calling it “untethered to the law.”
She warned that allowing the decision to stand could create a dangerous precedent in which anyone under investigation could claim they are being politically targeted to stop prosecutors from gathering evidence.
“If this ruling stands,” Pirro said, “any individual could attempt to avoid scrutiny simply by claiming they are the victim of political pressure.”
For now, the legal fight is expected to continue in higher courts, where judges will ultimately decide whether prosecutors can move forward with their investigation into the Federal Reserve and its controversial renovation project.