The Powell investigation is settled, and allegations of political interference have been rejected.
2026-06-12 10:37:55
On Thursday (June 11), a key ruling by a U.S. federal court in Washington, D.C., formally rejected the prosecutor's application to dismiss the case, thus ending the months-long investigation into alleged misconduct against former Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell . This ruling strongly condemned any politically motivated judicial interference, upheld several key previous judgments, not only clearing Powell's name but also safeguarding the independence of the Federal Reserve's monetary policy institution, and has significant implications for the operation of the U.S. judicial and financial system.
Chief Judge James Boasberg of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued a strongly worded formal ruling rejecting a motion filed by the team of U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro. The prosecution had previously sought to overturn all previous unfavorable court rulings and erase the record of legal defeats in this investigation. In his ruling, the judge, drawing on publicly available media reports and relevant video evidence, clearly outlined the entire incident and pointed out significant flaws in the investigation.
Back in March, Judge Bosberg halted the core procedures of the investigation and legally revoked the two subpoenas issued by the prosecution. The court explicitly determined that Piro's investigation was, to some extent, in line with the White House's demands, using legal means to harass and pressure former Federal Reserve Chairman Powell to force him to cooperate with interest rate cuts, and was not a purely compliant judicial investigation.
Under the combined pressure of the judiciary and checks and balances from Congress, the investigation took a turn.
In April of this year, under pressure from North Carolina Republican Senator Thom Tillis, Piro announced the termination of the investigation into Powell. In exchange, the senator lifted the congressional blockade on the nomination of a new Federal Reserve Chairman.
Kevin Warsh, Trump's nominee, was confirmed in May and will chair his first Federal Reserve interest rate decision meeting next week. Although the investigation has been terminated, the controversy is far from over. While Powell has legally stepped down as Fed chairman, he retains his seat on the Fed's Board of Governors, and he remains concerned that the politically charged investigation has not truly ended. Piro has publicly stated that the Fed reserves the right to reopen the investigation at any time, confirming market concerns.
This ruling details the prosecution's contradictory actions, pointing out Piro's fluctuating judicial stance. Initially, after the loss, the prosecution threatened to appeal but never did so. Later, they suddenly attempted to overturn the original verdict by claiming the investigation was complete, trying to circumvent the defeat. The judge explicitly stated that such actions seriously violated the principles of judicial fairness.
Judge Bosberg stated that allowing losing parties to arbitrarily overturn unfavorable judgments would undermine the accumulation and continuity of judicial precedents and undermine the very foundation of the U.S. judicial system.
Although this ruling is not the most authoritative precedent, its reasoning has important public reference value and can restrain similar acts of political interference in the judiciary in the future.
This ruling has completely ended the months-long legal farce and severely curbed the chaos of using judicial means to interfere with the Federal Reserve's monetary policy.
The Federal Reserve has remained silent on the matter, and Piro's team has not yet responded regarding whether it will continue its appeal. Overall, this ruling upheld the bottom line of judicial fairness, guaranteed the independence of the Federal Reserve's policy-making, and eliminated a major uncertainty threat to the stability of the US financial market.
The court issued a firm ruling, rejecting the prosecution's request to overturn the verdict.
Chief Judge James Boasberg of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued a strongly worded formal ruling rejecting a motion filed by the team of U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro. The prosecution had previously sought to overturn all previous unfavorable court rulings and erase the record of legal defeats in this investigation. In his ruling, the judge, drawing on publicly available media reports and relevant video evidence, clearly outlined the entire incident and pointed out significant flaws in the investigation.
Back in March, Judge Bosberg halted the core procedures of the investigation and legally revoked the two subpoenas issued by the prosecution. The court explicitly determined that Piro's investigation was, to some extent, in line with the White House's demands, using legal means to harass and pressure former Federal Reserve Chairman Powell to force him to cooperate with interest rate cuts, and was not a purely compliant judicial investigation.
The situation has taken a turn; the termination of the investigation leaves room for uncertainty.
Under the combined pressure of the judiciary and checks and balances from Congress, the investigation took a turn.
In April of this year, under pressure from North Carolina Republican Senator Thom Tillis, Piro announced the termination of the investigation into Powell. In exchange, the senator lifted the congressional blockade on the nomination of a new Federal Reserve Chairman.
Kevin Warsh, Trump's nominee, was confirmed in May and will chair his first Federal Reserve interest rate decision meeting next week. Although the investigation has been terminated, the controversy is far from over. While Powell has legally stepped down as Fed chairman, he retains his seat on the Fed's Board of Governors, and he remains concerned that the politically charged investigation has not truly ended. Piro has publicly stated that the Fed reserves the right to reopen the investigation at any time, confirming market concerns.
The prosecution's shifting stance has solidified evidence of political interference in the judiciary.
This ruling details the prosecution's contradictory actions, pointing out Piro's fluctuating judicial stance. Initially, after the loss, the prosecution threatened to appeal but never did so. Later, they suddenly attempted to overturn the original verdict by claiming the investigation was complete, trying to circumvent the defeat. The judge explicitly stated that such actions seriously violated the principles of judicial fairness.
Judge Bosberg stated that allowing losing parties to arbitrarily overturn unfavorable judgments would undermine the accumulation and continuity of judicial precedents and undermine the very foundation of the U.S. judicial system.
Although this ruling is not the most authoritative precedent, its reasoning has important public reference value and can restrain similar acts of political interference in the judiciary in the future.
With the case concluded, the independence of the financial judiciary has been upheld.
This ruling has completely ended the months-long legal farce and severely curbed the chaos of using judicial means to interfere with the Federal Reserve's monetary policy.
The Federal Reserve has remained silent on the matter, and Piro's team has not yet responded regarding whether it will continue its appeal. Overall, this ruling upheld the bottom line of judicial fairness, guaranteed the independence of the Federal Reserve's policy-making, and eliminated a major uncertainty threat to the stability of the US financial market.
- 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.
