Even a number of Republicans who have reservations about Jerome Powell’s performance as head of the Federal Reserve rejected the idea that he had broken the law by lying about the renovation of the central bank’s headquarters.
“This probe remains in motion,” stated Jeanine Pirro, the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, last Wednesday, referring to the criminal inquiry into Powell that she initiated in November. “I will proceed. We are appealing Judge Boasberg’s ruling.”
Her remarks followed a March 11 decision by James Boasberg, the chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, which voided two grand jury subpoenas seeking information about the over-budget renovation of the Fed’s Washington, D.C., headquarters and Powell’s allegedly dishonest testimony before a Senate Banking Committee hearing on June 25. Yet on Friday, just two days after affirming her resolve to continue the probe, Pirro announced she was terminating the investigation.
The rationale for that retreat is clear. Boasberg found the inquiry to be a transparent effort to intimidate Powell, a figure whom President Donald Trump has long criticized for not delivering the interest-rate cuts he demanded. Sen. Thom Tillis (R–N.C.), a Banking Committee Republican, endorsed that assessment, having previously pledged to block the confirmation of Trump’s pick to succeed Powell as Fed chair, Kevin Warsh, until the Justice Department “drops their bogus investigation into Chairman Powell,” which he argued “threatens the independence of the Fed.”
Pirro’s investigation of Powell fit into a broader pattern of Trump’s attempts to use criminal enforcement to go after his adversaries. The pattern includes Pirro’s push to prosecute members of Congress for constitutionally protected speech and the dismissed charges against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James. The case against Powell, which never gained traction, is particularly notable because even Republicans skeptical of Powell’s performance agreed there was no evidence of criminal conduct on his part.
The central accusation against Powell was that he lied when he testified to the Senate Banking Committee that the Fed’s headquarters renovation did not entail any of the luxurious features that press reports had suggested. In a June 24 letter to Powell, several committee members asked him about amenities such as “rooftop garden terraces, ornate water features, new elevators that drop board members off directly in their VIP dining suite, use of white marble, rooftop Italian beehives, and a private art collection in the basement.” The following day, Powell sought to correct the record in testimony.
“There is no VIP dining room,” Powell claimed. “There’s no new marble. We removed the old marble and are reinstalling it. We will need to use new marble in places where the old marble was damaged, but there are no special elevators. They are the existing elevators. There are no new water features. There are no beehives, nor rooftop terrace gardens. All of the sensational claims circulated by the media are either not in the current plan or simply inaccurate.”
Supporters of the investigation argued that this contradicted plans approved by the National Capital Planning Commission in 2021. Powell maintained, however, that any perceived discrepancies were either mischaracterizations or elements that had been abandoned since 2021.
The “garden terrace” mentioned in the 2021 plan, Powell wrote in a July 17 letter to Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought, referred to “the ground-level front lawn of the 1951 Constitution Avenue building,” which “serves as the roof of the parking structure beneath.” He explained that such “green roofs” are typically used to aid stormwater management and to improve building efficiency and roof longevity.
Powell reiterated that “there are no VIP dining rooms being built as part of the project.” Instead, he said, “the Eccles Building houses historic multi-use rooms on the 4th Floor that function as conference spaces and for meals,” and those already-existing rooms “are being renovated and preserved.”
Powell also reiterated that “there are no special, private, or VIP elevators being constructed as part of the project.” Rather, he said, “the original Eccles Building elevators are undergoing rehabilitation, including an elevator that services historic conference spaces.” He added that “an eighteen-inch extension” to a rehabilitated elevator will improve accessibility for people with disabilities.
Although the initial design “included new water features for the 1951 Constitution Avenue building,” Powell wrote, “they have been removed.” Instead, “fountains that were original to the Eccles building are being restored.”
Regarding the marble, Powell explained: “The Eccles and 1951 Constitution Avenue buildings were originally built with marble façades and stonework. The project has salvaged the original exterior marble to be reinstalled and will use new domestic marble sourced from Georgia in areas where the original was damaged or where historic preservation guidelines require replacement and to address concerns raised by outside reviewing agencies.”
Whatever one makes of these explanations, Powell’s testimony did not appear to violate 18 U.S.C. 1001, which prohibits knowingly and willfully making “any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation” during congressional testimony. As Tillis noted on the Senate floor in February, he did not believe Powell had deliberately deceived the Banking Committee, and many other Republicans on the panel shared that view.
“I found him to be inept at his job, but ineptitude or incompetence is not a crime,” said Sen. Tim Scott (R–S.C.), the committee’s chairman, in February. “I do not believe he committed a crime during the hearing.”
Sen. Dave McCormick (R–Pa.) agreed. “I value an independent Federal Reserve,” he stated in January. “I also share President Trump’s view that Powell has been slow to reduce rates. The Fed renovation could very well have wasted taxpayers’ money, but the proper remedy is congressional oversight. I do not think Chairman Powell is guilty of criminal activity.”
Sen. Kevin Cramer (R–N.D.) adopted a similar stance, criticizing the project’s overruns but adding: “I do not think he is a criminal. I hope this criminal investigation can be concluded swiftly along with the remainder of Powell’s term. Restoring confidence in the Fed is essential.” Sen. Mike Crapo (R–Idaho) likewise urged a quick resolution, emphasizing that the central bank must stay free from political meddling.
Sen. John Kennedy (R–La.) also questioned Pirro’s investigation. “We need this like we need a hole in the head,” he remarked in January. “I know Chairman Powell well. I would be stunned—I would be shocked—if he has done anything improper.” Sen. Cynthia Lummis (R–Wyo.), a prominent Powell critic, likewise told Reuters that the Justice Department’s use of a criminal statute appeared to be a “heavy lift” and that she saw no criminal intent.
“We don’t think a crime was committed,” Tillis said after recounting those remarks, and “we form the majority among Republicans on the Banking Committee.” He added that the stance sent a clear message to Pirro: “Why don’t you talk to people who were at the scene? We see no criminal intent.”
Pirro’s retreat makes explicit that she had no contrary evidence. Even when Boasberg invited her to back up her suspicions with ex parte material visible only to him, she had nothing to present. “I will not hesitate to restart a criminal investigation if the facts justify doing so,” Pirro said on Friday, effectively conceding that “the facts” did not justify the probe she had vowed to press two days earlier.
“The investigation still continues,” Pirro asserted weakly. “It’s just under a different authority.”
Pirro was referring to an inquiry into the renovation by the Federal Reserve’s inspector general, which Powell had himself requested. Although she implicitly suggested that the inspector general’s review was essentially the same as her criminal inquiry, that claim is incorrect. While the inspector general’s report may highlight failures that unnecessarily increased the project’s costs, it does not amount to an accusation of criminal behavior.
When Boasberg quashed Pirro’s subpoenas, he noted that Trump or his aides had issued “at least 100 statements” criticizing Powell’s performance and pressuring him to lower interest rates. In a Truth Social post that was characteristic of his communications, Trump called Powell “TOO ANGRY, TOO STUPID, & TOO POLITICAL” to hold the job of Fed Chair, claiming “he is costing our Country TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS.” Powell was labeled “a TOTAL LOSER,” Trump said, and the country was paying the price. If Powell resisted, Trump warned, “I may have to force something.”
In that framework, Boasberg concluded that Pirro’s investigation resembled an attempt to criminalize a policy disagreement. “There is ample evidence that the subpoenas were primarily aimed at harassing and pressuring Powell to yield to the President or to resign so that a Fed chair who would comply could take the helm,” he wrote. “The Government has offered no evidence whatsoever that Powell committed any crime other than displeasing the President.”
Even as he condemned Boasberg’s ruling, Trump acknowledged the judge’s conclusion that the Powell inquiry was politically motivated. He emphasized Powell’s supposed poor performance in setting interest rates, a policy critique that does not bear on the legal merits of pursuing a criminal case against him.
Although Trump regularly complains about Democratic “weaponization” of the legal system, Tillis warned that Republicans can be guilty of similar abuses. Regardless of which party is in power, “vindictive prosecutions are wrong, period,” Tillis said. “At some point, one of the two parties must stand by principle and end this cycle, or it will only worsen.”
