US prosecutors filed a motion to drop the appeal, but Powell still faces legal threats.
2026-05-05 10:32:10
On Monday (May 4), Jeanine Pirro, the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, filed a motion with a federal judge requesting the reversal of part of the ruling that previously blocked her from launching a criminal investigation into Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell. This move has drawn significant attention from markets and observers, indicating a new turning point in the legal dispute surrounding the Federal Reserve.
Piro's latest motion effectively withdraws her previously stated plan to appeal the judge's ruling to a higher court, temporarily ending the direct threat that Powell might be forced to hand over evidence to Piro. However, analysts point out that this is not enough to give the Federal Reserve Chairman the complete certainty he desires—that the legal threats against him and the Fed have been completely eliminated.
Nevertheless, Piro has made it clear that he hopes the investigation will continue. Since the investigation was launched in November 2025, Piro has yet to present any substantial evidence of criminal activity, which continues to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the investigation.
Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell's term as chairman will end on May 15, 2026, but he publicly stated last week that he will remain on the Federal Reserve Board of Governors until the legal threats against the Fed are "truly and completely over, and are transparent and final." This statement indicates that Powell remains cautious about the current legal environment and is unwilling to leave his key position while the controversy remains unresolved.
Piro's investigation focused primarily on cost overruns in the Federal Reserve's ongoing building renovation project and related testimony given to Congress by Powell. In March, Chief Judge James Boasberg of the District of Columbia dismissed Piro's subpoena to the Federal Reserve. He ruled that Piro failed to provide sufficient evidence to refute the widespread view that the investigation was a political maneuver by Trump to pressure Powell into lowering interest rates. He upheld this ruling in April.
Piro argued that the judge's decision severely hampered her ability to conduct a general grand jury investigation. She was scheduled to formally file her appeal by Monday.
In a statement, Piro said, "We will continue our litigation against Judge Boasberg for unlawfully dismissing our subpoena in order to render it invalid and prevent any legal consequences."
The Federal Reserve declined to comment.
Former Assistant U.S. Attorney Sean P. Murphy analyzed that a motion to dismiss an event is essentially asking a judge to pretend that something never happened. Murphy added that Piro recently filed a similar motion in a case related to the January 6, 2020 incident, seeking to dismiss the convictions of members of the Proud Boys and the Oathkeepers, aiming to erase the convictions of those involved.
Murphy further pointed out, "The key difference is that I don't think she has the authority to simply erase the Justice Department's losing record in the Federal Reserve investigation." Judge Boasberg has not yet ruled on Piro's latest request to withdraw the case.
In his March ruling, Judge Boasberg explicitly opposed Piro's approach. He argued that Piro's office had failed to present concrete evidence of a crime, while there was substantial evidence that the investigation was designed to harass Powell for defying President Trump's order for the Federal Reserve Chairman to cut interest rates quickly. Judge Boasberg wrote, "Substantial evidence suggests that the government issued these subpoenas to the Federal Reserve Board in an attempt to force the Chairman to vote for a rate cut or resign."
Typically, such appeals require approval from senior Justice Department officials, as this could set a precedent unfavorable to the Department. It is unclear whether Piro has received such approval.
The possibility of an appeal has itself become a focus of the Federal Reserve's attention, as it contradicts Piro's claim that he has dropped the case. Powell reiterated last Wednesday that he will remain on the Federal Reserve Board of Governors after his term as chairman ends, until he is confident that the legal threats against the Fed have been fully resolved.
Piro stated that she would reopen the investigation if she deems it necessary. She is currently awaiting a report from Federal Reserve Inspector General Michael Horowitz regarding the cost overruns. Piro refused to commit to closing the investigation even if Horowitz determines no criminal activity occurred.
However, even if Judge Boasberg overturns the previous ruling, Piro cannot immediately compel the Federal Reserve to provide evidence, as the grand jury that issued the subpoena has expired. In a filing on Monday, Piro noted that a new investigation could still be launched, and the legal battle would resume once the judge agrees to overturn the ruling.
Murphy believes Judge Boasberg is unlikely to approve the motion. He points out that the government's reasoning attempts a "massive" retrospective recalculation to rewrite the timeline of the entire event. Murphy has appeared in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and has briefed the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
Last week, Massachusetts Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren and her Democratic colleagues on the Senate Banking Committee voted against proceeding with the confirmation process for Kevin Warsh, Trump's nominee to succeed Jerome Powell, arguing that the nomination should not proceed while the Federal Reserve still faces legal threats.
"This doesn't look like the end of a criminal case," Warren said in a statement.
In summary, while Jeanine Pirro's latest motion has temporarily eased the direct confrontation, the legal and political controversy surrounding Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell is far from over. Whether Powell can smoothly transition to a new chairmanship and whether the Senate nomination process will be hindered still depends on the judge's final ruling and the development of subsequent investigations. This event not only tests the independence of the US judiciary but also highlights the complex situation the Federal Reserve faces in the current political environment. The future trajectory remains to be seen and requires continued observation of the next steps taken by all parties.
Piro withdraws his appeal plan, easing pressure on evidence transfer in the short term.
Piro's latest motion effectively withdraws her previously stated plan to appeal the judge's ruling to a higher court, temporarily ending the direct threat that Powell might be forced to hand over evidence to Piro. However, analysts point out that this is not enough to give the Federal Reserve Chairman the complete certainty he desires—that the legal threats against him and the Fed have been completely eliminated.
Nevertheless, Piro has made it clear that he hopes the investigation will continue. Since the investigation was launched in November 2025, Piro has yet to present any substantial evidence of criminal activity, which continues to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the investigation.
Powell chose to remain in office as his term was drawing to a close.
Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell's term as chairman will end on May 15, 2026, but he publicly stated last week that he will remain on the Federal Reserve Board of Governors until the legal threats against the Fed are "truly and completely over, and are transparent and final." This statement indicates that Powell remains cautious about the current legal environment and is unwilling to leave his key position while the controversy remains unresolved.
The investigation was initiated in connection with the judge's previous ruling.
Piro's investigation focused primarily on cost overruns in the Federal Reserve's ongoing building renovation project and related testimony given to Congress by Powell. In March, Chief Judge James Boasberg of the District of Columbia dismissed Piro's subpoena to the Federal Reserve. He ruled that Piro failed to provide sufficient evidence to refute the widespread view that the investigation was a political maneuver by Trump to pressure Powell into lowering interest rates. He upheld this ruling in April.
Piro argued that the judge's decision severely hampered her ability to conduct a general grand jury investigation. She was scheduled to formally file her appeal by Monday.
Latest statements from all parties and legal analysis
In a statement, Piro said, "We will continue our litigation against Judge Boasberg for unlawfully dismissing our subpoena in order to render it invalid and prevent any legal consequences."
The Federal Reserve declined to comment.
Former Assistant U.S. Attorney Sean P. Murphy analyzed that a motion to dismiss an event is essentially asking a judge to pretend that something never happened. Murphy added that Piro recently filed a similar motion in a case related to the January 6, 2020 incident, seeking to dismiss the convictions of members of the Proud Boys and the Oathkeepers, aiming to erase the convictions of those involved.
Murphy further pointed out, "The key difference is that I don't think she has the authority to simply erase the Justice Department's losing record in the Federal Reserve investigation." Judge Boasberg has not yet ruled on Piro's latest request to withdraw the case.
Background of the ruling and the appeal dispute
In his March ruling, Judge Boasberg explicitly opposed Piro's approach. He argued that Piro's office had failed to present concrete evidence of a crime, while there was substantial evidence that the investigation was designed to harass Powell for defying President Trump's order for the Federal Reserve Chairman to cut interest rates quickly. Judge Boasberg wrote, "Substantial evidence suggests that the government issued these subpoenas to the Federal Reserve Board in an attempt to force the Chairman to vote for a rate cut or resign."
Typically, such appeals require approval from senior Justice Department officials, as this could set a precedent unfavorable to the Department. It is unclear whether Piro has received such approval.
The possibility of an appeal has itself become a focus of the Federal Reserve's attention, as it contradicts Piro's claim that he has dropped the case. Powell reiterated last Wednesday that he will remain on the Federal Reserve Board of Governors after his term as chairman ends, until he is confident that the legal threats against the Fed have been fully resolved.
The prospects for the investigation remain uncertain.
Piro stated that she would reopen the investigation if she deems it necessary. She is currently awaiting a report from Federal Reserve Inspector General Michael Horowitz regarding the cost overruns. Piro refused to commit to closing the investigation even if Horowitz determines no criminal activity occurred.
However, even if Judge Boasberg overturns the previous ruling, Piro cannot immediately compel the Federal Reserve to provide evidence, as the grand jury that issued the subpoena has expired. In a filing on Monday, Piro noted that a new investigation could still be launched, and the legal battle would resume once the judge agrees to overturn the ruling.
Murphy believes Judge Boasberg is unlikely to approve the motion. He points out that the government's reasoning attempts a "massive" retrospective recalculation to rewrite the timeline of the entire event. Murphy has appeared in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and has briefed the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
The political situation continues to escalate.
Last week, Massachusetts Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren and her Democratic colleagues on the Senate Banking Committee voted against proceeding with the confirmation process for Kevin Warsh, Trump's nominee to succeed Jerome Powell, arguing that the nomination should not proceed while the Federal Reserve still faces legal threats.
"This doesn't look like the end of a criminal case," Warren said in a statement.
Overall Outlook
In summary, while Jeanine Pirro's latest motion has temporarily eased the direct confrontation, the legal and political controversy surrounding Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell is far from over. Whether Powell can smoothly transition to a new chairmanship and whether the Senate nomination process will be hindered still depends on the judge's final ruling and the development of subsequent investigations. This event not only tests the independence of the US judiciary but also highlights the complex situation the Federal Reserve faces in the current political environment. The future trajectory remains to be seen and requires continued observation of the next steps taken by all parties.
- Risk Warning and Disclaimer
- The market involves risk, and trading may not be suitable for all investors. This article is for reference only and does not constitute personal investment advice, nor does it take into account certain users’ specific investment objectives, financial situation, or other needs. Any investment decisions made based on this information are at your own risk.
