Musk Appointment Delayed? Trump Administration Requests Judge Reconsider Withdrawing Subpoena Against Powell

How do AI and legal disputes affect Wash’s Federal Reserve appointment process?

On Monday, Trump’s government lawyers requested the U.S. District Court Judge James Boasberg to reconsider his previous ruling— which overturned grand jury subpoenas against Federal Reserve Chair Powell. This move appears to fulfill Washington, D.C. federal prosecutor Jeanine Pirro’s earlier promise to appeal to a higher court.

In the motion for reconsideration filed Monday, the U.S. Department of Justice prosecutors stated that the court “applied the wrong legal standard, misjudged certain factual issues, and ignored other relevant facts.” The prosecution argued that as long as there is a “reasonable possibility” that the materials sought by the government could produce information related to the overall theme of the grand jury investigation, subpoenas should be issued; even if the recipient “raises seemingly reasonable alternative motives,” they should not prevent the issuance of the subpoena.

This document was filed two days after Judge Boasberg blocked two grand jury subpoenas issued to the Federal Reserve Board. The judge believed at the time that these subpoenas were merely a “pretext” aimed at pressuring Powell to lower interest rates or resign as Fed Chair.

The U.S. Department of Justice argued on Monday that the Federal Reserve Board “never denied” that these subpoenas only involved materials directly related to the grand jury investigation: including the budget overruns for the Washington headquarters renovation—estimated at over $1 billion, which is “quite astonishing” even by Washington standards—and Powell’s testimony before Congress.

This request was made just as Boasberg had recently ruled to prevent the prosecutors led by Pirro from continuing to pursue record and testimony subpoenas related to the Fed investigation. In his subsequent unsealing order, he stated that the Department of Justice had provided no evidence that Powell committed any crimes, aside from displeasing Trump.

Boasberg wrote, “Are these subpoenas issued for legitimate purposes? The court finds not. There is substantial evidence that the primary, if not the sole, purpose of these subpoenas is harassment and pressure on Powell—to either yield to the President or resign, paving the way for a Fed Chair willing to do so.”

This ruling stems from a criminal investigation launched by Pirro in January of this year, focusing on Powell’s testimony before the Senate Banking Committee in June 2025, with the investigation centering on the renovation of the Fed’s Washington headquarters over the years.

Powell publicly disclosed this investigation in January, calling it an attack on the independence of the Fed.

Pirro stated last Friday that the Department of Justice would appeal to a higher court, calling the ruling “shocking.” She said at a press conference, “This process has been arbitrarily undermined by an extremist judge.” She accused Boasberg of positioning himself at the entrance of the grand jury, ignoring legal procedures and directly shutting the door, thereby preventing the grand jury from doing its work.

If an appeal is filed, it could prolong Trump’s efforts to oust Powell from the Fed and replace him with his appointee—former Fed Governor Kevin Wash. Republican Senator Thom Tillis from North Carolina mentioned this last Friday on social media.

Trump also attacked Boasberg on Truth Social Sunday night, claiming he suffers from “the highest level of Trump Delusional Disorder,” and accused the judge of “targeting me and my team for years.”

In last week’s ruling, Boasberg also listed multiple posts by Trump criticizing Powell on social media, as well as comments where Trump pressured Powell on interest rates and implied that someone else should replace him as Fed Chair. Boasberg wrote in his ruling, “In recent years, those perceived as opponents of the President have become increasingly risky. During his second term, Trump urged the Department of Justice to prosecute these individuals, and DOJ prosecutors have followed this demand.”