Trump Tried to Fire a Fed Governor; His Prosecutors Used Criminal Subpoenas to Pressure Powell

Asked for Evidence, the Prosecutor Had None

On March 3, 2026, Chief Judge James E. Boasberg asked a federal prosecutor what false statements Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell had made.¹ The answer began: "Well, we don't know".¹ In January the Justice Department had served two criminal subpoenas on the Fed's Board.² On March 11 Boasberg quashed both, finding that their dominant, if not sole, purpose was to harass and pressure Powell into yielding to the President or resigning.²

The investigation focused on cost overruns in the renovation of the Fed's buildings and on Powell's answers at the June 25, 2025 Senate Banking Committee hearing.²³ Asked about evidence of renovation fraud, the prosecutor, Assistant U.S. Attorney Massucco-LaTaif, again said the Government did not know, pointing instead to the cost overrun: "1.2 billion reasons for us to look".¹ Offered an opportunity to present criminal evidence privately, he declined, saying "I don't think it's necessary" and "You can even act on tips or rumors."¹

Memorandum Opinion, In re Grand Jury Subpoenas, ECF 23, at 3²

On the other side of the scale, the Government has offered no evidence whatsoever that Powell committed any crime other than displeasing the President. The Court must thus conclude that the asserted justifications for these subpoenas are mere pretexts.

What would please the President was public. "Powell’s termination cannot come fast enough!" Trump posted in April 2025.² That December, as he considered the next chair, he wrote: "Anybody that disagrees with me will never be the Fed Chairman!"² The subpoenas came from the office of U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro, whom Trump appointed and could fire.² Boasberg did not find that Trump ordered them; he drew an inference.²

Memorandum Opinion, In re Grand Jury Subpoenas, ECF 23, at 20²

It is a natural inference that the President’s appointee was responding to his desires (whether real or perceived) here.

Congress gave Fed governors fourteen-year terms and allowed the President to remove them only for cause.⁴ Those protections keep monetary policy at a distance from presidential control so that the Fed, in the Supreme Court's account, can pursue maximum employment, stable prices and moderate long-term interest rates rather than short-term political gains.⁵

Public Demands Become Criminal Subpoenas

The pressure on Powell began in public and ended in a grand jury.² Boasberg counted at least 100 statements by Trump or his deputies attacking Powell and pressuring him to lower interest rates.² On July 2, 2025, Federal Housing Finance Agency Director William Pulte asked Congress to investigate Powell's political bias, building renovations and Senate testimony, suggesting that an inquiry could enable Trump to remove him for cause.² Hours later Trump reposted an article about the demand and called for Powell's resignation.² After the Fed held rates steady on July 30, Trump demanded a substantial cut and urged the Board to assume control if Powell refused.²

The testimony at issue was a spoken answer at the Senate hearing, in which Powell denied VIP dining rooms, special elevators, new water features, beehives and roof terrace gardens.³ The court also noted a report that, after the investigation opened, Trump berated a gathering of U.S. attorneys for not prosecuting his opponents faster; it placed the subpoenas the next day.² One subpoena concerned the renovations and the other Powell's testimony.² In his January 11 statement, Powell said they threatened a criminal indictment and called the testimony and renovation explanations pretexts for pressure over rates, while acknowledging that the Fed chair is not above the law.⁶

Members of Trump's own party rejected the criminal theory.³² Senator Thom Tillis told the Senate he had voted for Trump but never thought of Powell as a criminal.³ Boasberg noted that a majority of each party's committee members, and the chair, said Powell had committed no crime.²

The Government's strongest legal defense was the grand jury's broad authority to investigate: subpoenas are presumptively valid, prosecutors need not prove a crime before seeking records, and courts generally do not supervise the grand jury.⁷⁸⁹¹ Boasberg accepted that no probable-cause showing was required.¹ But both parties agreed a subpoena could be quashed when its sole or dominant purpose was improper, a standard the opinion traced through ten other circuits while noting the D.C. Circuit had not decided the question.²¹⁰ That is the ground on which Boasberg, whom President Obama appointed to the district court, ruled.¹¹²

A Closed Investigation and an Attempt to Erase the Ruling

The Government did not appeal the ruling; it asked the judge to erase it.¹² First it asked him to reconsider, arguing that the subpoenas targeted the Board rather than Powell, and one did not even name him.¹⁰ Boasberg denied that request on April 3: the records sought still concerned Powell's testimony and the renovations Trump blamed on him.¹⁰

Pirro twice promised an appeal in public, then announced on April 24, 2026 that she was closing the investigation.¹² The Government next moved to vacate the rulings.¹³ It said it disagreed with the quashal and had closed the investigation so the Fed's inspector general could review documents and interview witnesses about reported billion-dollar overruns, and that leaving the rulings in place would create an unnecessary conflict with a coequal branch.¹³

Boasberg refused on June 11.¹⁴¹² His opinion described the maneuver directly: the Government had closed the investigation instead of appealing, then asked to clear its loss from the books because an appeal would be moot.¹² The docket, updated October 7, 2026, lists no notice of appeal.¹⁵

On October 2, Reuters reported a Justice Department spokesperson's statement that the Department was not reopening the criminal investigation.¹⁶ It also reported that Attorney General Todd Blanche had left open action if new evidence of wrongdoing emerged, and that Kevin Warsh, who took the oath as Fed chairman in May, planned an independent audit of the project's costs.¹⁶¹⁷

The Overruns Were Real; They Did Not Establish a Crime

The inspector general's later report, a September 29, 2026 evaluation, substantiated serious criticism of the Board's management, although the cost overruns were already known when the court quashed the subpoenas.¹⁸²¹² The approved project budget grew from $1.317 billion in February 2020 to $2.381 billion in December 2024.¹⁸ The Board failed to use available measures that could have controlled costs, and its chairman concurred with the findings and recommendations.¹⁸ By July 2026, more than four years after construction began and after $2 billion had been awarded for construction, the Board still had no guaranteed maximum price. Inflation, limited bidding, Board design changes and site conditions contributed to rising costs; the inspector general did not quantify the financial effect of management decisions or determine whether the project's costs were reasonable.¹⁸

The report also complicated the dispute over building features.¹⁸ Planning documents labeled an elevator private and some rooms private dining spaces, labels officials told the inspector general were incorrect.¹⁸ Four new fountains remained in plans until June 2025.¹⁸ Beehives were not part of the design, and the questioned design features did not materially contribute to subsequent construction cost increases.¹⁸

The evaluation found no reasonable grounds to believe a federal crime had occurred requiring a referral to the Attorney General, and no administrative misconduct.¹⁸ It reviewed project management and costs, not the truthfulness of Powell's testimony or the validity of the subpoenas.¹⁸ Its review began in July 2025 at Powell's request; the inspector general learned of the criminal probe from Powell's public statement in January 2026.¹⁸ Reuters reported that the findings of lax oversight prompted Trump to call again for Powell's resignation.¹⁶

Ten Days From a Referral to a Removal

Before the January 2026 subpoenas, Trump had tried to remove another Fed official. On August 25, 2025, President Trump signed a letter declaring Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook removed.¹⁹ It was the first such attempt in the Fed's 111-year history, the Supreme Court said.⁵ Cook's term runs to January 31, 2038.²⁰

The removal began with a criminal referral. Ten days before the letter, Pulte sent Attorney General Pamela Bondi a criminal referral accusing Cook of falsifying mortgage documents to obtain better loan terms.²¹ Trump's stated reason was that Cook may have made false statements on mortgage agreements, undermining confidence in her integrity and, at a minimum, demonstrating gross negligence that called her fitness as a financial regulator into question.¹⁹

Cook sued on August 28.²² On September 9, Judge Jia Cobb issued a preliminary injunction blocking the removal, finding Cook likely to succeed on her statutory removal claim and her constitutional due-process claim.¹⁹²³

A Cause the Courts Could Not Question

The administration's strongest defense was that dishonesty or serious misconduct before appointment can make a governor unfit for office.²⁴²⁵ One appellate judge agreed. When the D.C. Circuit left the injunction in place on September 15, 2025, Judge Gregory Katsas, a Trump appointee, dissented: pre-appointment fraud, bribery or murder, he argued, plainly could bear on fitness.²⁵²⁶ Biden had appointed the three judges who ruled for Cook to their current courts.²⁷

The administration then went further. Solicitor General D. John Sauer asked the Supreme Court to let Trump's removal take effect.²⁴ His application conceded that Congress ruled out removal for no reason or for policy disagreement, but claimed that determining cause belonged to the President's unreviewable discretion.²⁴

Application for a Stay, Trump v. Cook, No. 25A312, at 24²⁴

If the President provides no reason at all for removing a member, a court could properly review that decision. But once the President identifies a cause, judicial review must cease.

The Government challenged the statutory limit's reach while expressly waiving a constitutional challenge to it.²⁴²⁸⁵

On June 29, 2026, the Supreme Court refused, five Justices to four.⁵ Chief Justice Roberts wrote for the majority, joined by Trump's appointee Brett Kavanaugh; Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch and Barrett dissented.⁵²⁷

The Court rejected both sides' extremes: Cook's argument that private conduct before taking office could never be cause, and the Government's low threshold for removal.⁵ Cause must reflect the Fed's special role and genuinely imply unfitness, rather than provide a pretext for a more congenial replacement.⁵ The Court also rejected the claim that judges could not review a removal or protect a governor's place while litigation continued.⁵

Its decisive ground was the process Trump denied Cook: an explanation of the evidence, a way to respond and a deadline.⁵ In the opinion's words, her removal was "erroneous and void" from the start.⁵ The Court was deciding a stay and left the mortgage allegations and Cook's constitutional due-process claim unresolved; it had not addressed the facts or received the mortgage documents.⁵

Trump won a major removal-power ruling that same morning. In Trump v. Slaughter, the Court struck down the Federal Trade Commission's removal protection and overruled Humphrey's Executor, continuing earlier rulings expanding presidential removal authority.²⁹³⁰³¹ But it expressly reserved historically distinct arrangements such as the Fed.²⁹ In Cook, the Court upheld the Fed's constitutionality as currently structured, including its existing enforcement powers, while reserving any additional regulatory powers remote from monetary policy.⁵ Barrett disputed that distinction as inconsistent with the FTC ruling; Alito objected to deciding so much on an undeveloped record, and Thomas opposed an injunction against presidential removal.⁵

Trump Starts Again

The Supreme Court read the injunction to block the August 25 letter, leaving Trump free to try again and Cook free to seek judicial review of a new decision.⁵

On August 5, 2026, the White House sent Cook notice that Trump was considering removing her, with 21 days to respond.³² The notice relied on Pulte's original referral, arguing that two mortgages treated different properties as her principal residence and that an Atlanta rental listing and financial disclosures added to the concern, and that the conduct showed, at minimum, gross negligence incompatible with her responsibilities as a financial regulator.³² Reuters reported that the Justice Department also opened a mortgage investigation into Cook in 2025.³³

Cook's lawyer Abbe Lowell answered on August 26.³⁴ He acknowledged that she signed a mortgage form classifying the Atlanta condominium as her primary residence, but called it an inadvertent oversight.³⁴ He said she had sought a vacation-home mortgage, disclosed Michigan as her residence and identified Atlanta as a second home in other documents, and that she never rented the Atlanta property, so there was no rental income to disclose.³⁴ A mortgage expert's declaration attached to his letter said the two security instruments did not establish lender reliance or a financial benefit from the occupancy classification.³⁴

Lowell also accused Trump of singling Cook out. Citing published reports, he said Trump, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Attorney General Todd Blanche had held mortgages classifying multiple homes as primary residences, while Trump had neither fired those officials nor asked them to resign.³⁴

On October 7, 2026, Trump established a committee of inquiry of three executive-branch officials.³⁵ He scheduled a closed hearing at the White House for November 5.³⁵ The memorandum requires the committee to give Cook the evidence beforehand and allows her to present argument and evidence with counsel.³⁵ The hearing will be transcribed, and Cook may submit a post-hearing written statement by November 10.³⁵ The committee recommends whether cause exists. Trump decides.³⁵

The district-court docket, updated October 9, lists no merits judgment.³⁶ Cook remained on the Board on October 10, 2026.³⁷

What the Campaign Cost and What It Achieved

The danger reaches beyond the two targets: even the prospect of removal on a pretext, the Supreme Court explained, could weigh on a governor's words and votes.⁵ In January 2026, central bankers including Christine Lagarde of the European Central Bank and Andrew Bailey of the Bank of England expressed solidarity with Powell and identified central-bank independence as essential to price, financial and economic stability for the citizens they serve.³⁸

Investors reacted too. Reuters reported that Trump's attempted removal of Cook raised concerns about Fed independence on August 26, 2025.³⁹ It connected that day's Treasury-market moves to expectations of easier Fed policy and concerns about inflation and credibility, while also citing Powell's unexpectedly dovish remarks the previous Friday.³⁹

Trump also nominated one of his own White House officials to the Board: Stephen Miran, his Senate-confirmed chair of the Council of Economic Advisers.⁴⁰⁴¹⁴² Miran's defense was the leave plan he disclosed before confirmation: no Council pay or email access, and Council contact only for appropriate Fed business.⁴³ He tied the leave arrangement to the appointment's short duration and said he would reevaluate it if his Fed service extended beyond the term's January 2026 expiration. He also promised independent economic judgment.⁴³ The Senate confirmed him 48 to 47 on September 15, 2025.⁴¹ That seat was not Cook's; she kept hers.⁴¹⁴⁴ Two days later he dissented alone, seeking a larger rate cut than the one the other eleven voters adopted, Cook among them.⁴⁴ Reuters reported in February 2026 that he had resigned his White House job, and he submitted his Board resignation on May 14.³³⁴⁵⁴⁶

Trump wanted lower rates and Powell's departure.² He did obtain the chairmanship through the lawful appointment process: the Senate confirmed Warsh as chairman 54 to 45 on May 13, 2026.⁴⁷ Warsh took the oath on May 22, when Powell's chairmanship ended.¹⁷⁴⁸ Powell nevertheless remained a governor on October 10, 2026, with a term ending January 31, 2028.⁴⁸³⁷

The latest rate decision runs against Trump's demand. On September 16, 2026, under the chairman he chose, the committee voted 12 to 0 to raise its target range by a quarter percentage point, citing elevated inflation.¹⁷²⁴⁹

Why This Is an Impeachment Question

The Constitution permits impeachment and removal for treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors.⁵⁰ Hamilton described impeachable offenses as abuses of public trust; the House Judiciary Committee's 1974 inquiry staff said they need not be ordinary crimes.⁵¹⁵² Nixon's second impeachment article supplies the closest parallel. On July 29, 1974, the House Judiciary Committee adopted it 28 to 10, charging misuse of executive agencies, including the FBI and Secret Service, against their purposes and the proper administration of justice.⁵³

History also supplies a warning.⁵⁴⁵⁵ The House impeached Andrew Johnson over his Secretary of War's removal in 1868; the Senate's vote for conviction fell short of two-thirds, and the Supreme Court later held the Tenure of Office Act invalid insofar as it barred removal of executive officers appointed with Senate consent.⁵⁴⁵⁵ Madison opposed impeachment for maladministration as making the President serve at the Senate's pleasure.⁵⁶ A disputed removal power alone is a poor basis for impeachment; these cautions call for a charge about abuse of power, not a policy disagreement.⁵⁴⁵⁵⁵⁶

A charge about purpose meets one more objection: the Supreme Court's criminal-immunity ruling restricts motive inquiries when courts classify official acts and recognizes presidential authority over investigations. But that ruling treats impeachment as Congress's political process for removal.⁵⁷ In Trump's favor, his February 2025 Executive Order 14215 exempted Fed monetary policy from the whole order, including its management and budget controls, while applying those controls to bank supervision and regulation; that exemption did not govern removal or criminal subpoenas.⁵⁸

Trump signed Cook's removal letter and established the renewed inquiry himself; the office of a U.S. attorney he appointed issued the subpoenas.¹⁹³⁵² Courts blocked the August 2025 removal of Cook and quashed the Powell subpoenas; the renewed Cook removal process continues.⁵²³⁵ The case for impeachment is that Trump used removal powers and his administration used criminal investigation to pressure an independent central bank into doing what he wanted.⁵²⁴² Its clearest abuse was criminal pressure on a central banker because he would not give the President the policy he wanted.²