DC’s US Attorney, Jeanine Pirro, delivered a scathing critique on Friday against a federal judge’s decision to halt grand jury subpoenas connected to Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell. These subpoenas were part of an inquiry into Powell’s handling of renovation projects at the central bank.
Labeling the decision as “outrageous,” Pirro accused Judge James Boasberg of judicial activism, arguing that his ruling defied legal norms and effectively granted Powell undue immunity. Pirro’s comments came after Boasberg, who serves as the chief judge of the US District Court for Washington, DC, annulled the subpoenas.
Stay tuned to The Post for ongoing live updates and insights on President Trump and national political developments.
Judge Boasberg, appointed by former President Barack Obama, concluded that there was substantial evidence suggesting the Justice Department’s investigation aimed to coerce Powell into reducing interest rates or stepping down.
In his 27-page opinion, Boasberg stated, “The evidence overwhelmingly indicates that the subpoenas’ primary intention is to intimidate and coerce Powell to either comply with the President’s wishes or resign, paving the way for a new Fed Chair. The Government has failed to provide any proof of criminal activity by Powell, aside from dissatisfaction from the President.”
Pirro maintained that the probe focused on Powell’s alleged misleading statements to the Senate Banking Committee in June 2025 regarding the $2.5 billion refurbishment of the Federal Reserve’s headquarters in Washington, DC.
The DC US Attorney’s Office opened an inquiry into the Federal Reserve’s Board of Governors in November, and reached out to the central bank twice in December “to discuss our concerns” – only to be ignored – before two grand jury subpoenas were served, she went on.
According to Pirro, the subpoenas did not specifically target Powell and she decried what she called his Jan. 11 “woe is me video,” asserting that the Fed chief falsely claimed he was being threatened with criminal indictments.
Pirro then accused Powell of calling up “his political friends in DC and around the world to gin up support for himself, all the while refusing to produce simple documents.”
Boasberg’s ruling “makes clear his antipathy toward President Trump,” the prosecutor seethed.
“One of the age old tools that all prosecutors have to investigate any crime, including cost overruns, is a grand jury subpoena,” Pirro said. “Today, however, in Washington, an activist judge has taken that tool away from us 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. 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.”
The Supreme Court has long held that probable cause does not need to be established for prosecutors to obtain a grand jury subpoena.
However, Boasberg ruled that Pirro’s subpoenas amounted to a “rare case” where “evidence of improper purpose is overwhelming,” thus requiring “the Government to show something akin to probable cause.”
Pirro said she would appeal the “outrageous” ruling, arguing Boasberg’s order was was “untethered to the law.”
“It creates chaos,” she seethed, “where any defendant who wishes to evade an investigation, guilty or not, can allege ‘I’m a victim. I’m being targeted. And therefore, you cannot investigate me.’”
“This is the antithesis of American justice,” Pirro continued. “Exonerating anyone without any records, without an investigation or question is not how our criminal justice system works.
“This judge has put himself at the entrance door to the grand jury, slamming that door shut, irrespective of the legal process, and thus preventing the grand jury from doing the work that it does.”
