Longtime Trump Headache Is Now 'Bathed in Immunity' and Practically Untouchable

A federal judge has thrown a wrench into a high-profile dispute between the Trump administration and the nation’s central bank, halting a criminal probe targeting Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell and sparking sharp reactions from both sides of the political aisle.

The ruling came from James Boasberg, a federal judge in Washington, D.C., who ordered a stop to subpoenas issued as part of an investigation into Powell. The probe had been initiated after a Republican lawmaker referred Powell to the United States Department of Justice over allegations that the Fed chairman may have misled Congress about the cost of a Federal Reserve project.

But Boasberg determined that the investigation lacked sufficient legal basis and suggested the effort was primarily aimed at applying pressure on Powell.

“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 wrote in court documents obtained by NBC News.

Boasberg continued: “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.”

The dispute is the latest chapter in a long-running tension between President Donald J. Trump and Powell over monetary policy. Throughout both of Trump’s presidential terms, the president has publicly urged the Federal Reserve to lower interest rates to stimulate economic growth—calls the central bank has largely resisted.

In a newly unsealed opinion, Boasberg delivered even sharper criticism of the investigation.

“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.”

The decision drew immediate pushback from Jeanine Pirro, the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, who argued that the court had improperly interfered with a legitimate investigative process.

“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,” Pirro said in remarks following the ruling. “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 vowed to appeal the ruling, setting the stage for a potentially significant legal battle over the limits of executive authority and the independence of the central bank.

Interestingly, the judge’s ruling also drew praise from at least one Republican lawmaker. Thom Tillis, a GOP senator from North Carolina, criticized the investigation shortly after the decision was released.

“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 wrote on X (Twitter). “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.”

The clash underscores broader tensions between elected officials and the traditionally independent Federal Reserve, an institution designed to operate outside direct political control while guiding the nation’s monetary policy.

As the appeal process unfolds, the case could become a significant test of the balance of power between the executive branch, the judiciary, and independent financial institutions—an issue that has repeatedly surfaced during the presidency of Donald J. Trump.