An appeal is looming in a fight over evidence in an investigation into possible crimes at the Federal Reserve regarding the massively expensive rehab of its offices.
That’s after James Boasberg, a federal judge in Washington who has spent years already opposing President Donald Trump and trying to undermine him, refused to reconsider his order.
He earlier had blocked subpoenas tied to a criminal investigation into Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell and the hundreds of millions of dollars spent on office improvements.
The judge complained, after he blocked efforts to obtain evidence, that prosecutors failed to present new evidence or identify legal error in his ruling.
Boasberg, appointed by Barack Obama, earlier has issued extraordinary rulings against Trump, including one telling him to turn jets around in mid-air because they were deporting illegal alien criminals subject to deportation.
Boasberg also has deeply involved in a variety of the Democrat schemes against Trump that appeared as cases brought by special prosecutor Jack Smith. Also involved were secret demands through which prosecutors obtained the private telephone records of hundreds of people, including many members of Congress.
Boasberg opined that he was right all along.
“The Government’s arguments do not come close to convincing the Court that a different outcome is warranted,” Boasberg wrote in his six-page order denying reconsideration.
His earlier ruling killed the evidence-seeking subpoenas issued by the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Washington, led by Jeanine Pirro.
She sought records from the Fed’s Board of Governors as part of an investigation into Powell.
🚨 U.S. Attorney for D.C. Jeanine Pirro just laid out what REALLY happened with Fed Chair Jerome Powell.
They sent Powell a letter THREE different times demanding answers about the $1 BILLION cost overruns on the Federal Reserve building renovation…
And he just ignored it.
— Stand Up For Truth 🇺🇸 (@StandUpForFact) April 2, 2026
The Washington Examiner said, “Prosecutors have said they are examining whether Powell committed fraud or made false statements to Congress related to cost overruns at the Fed’s headquarters renovation project and his prior testimony about them.”
Boasberg had to concede that prosecutors have broad authority to issue grand jury subpoenas, but he ruled that they cannot be used for “political” ends.
The report said, “DOJ lawyers argued that the court applied too strict a standard at the investigative stage and misinterpreted the timeline of the investigation.”
The DOJ now is expected to appeal the often-overturned Boasberg to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
Pirro has said her investigation will continue no matter the subpoenas.
Boasberg’s behavior increasingly has triggered reaction from PresidentTrump, who has called for his impeachment, and members of Congress, who actuially have introduced impeachment articles.
The DOJ earlier filed a misconduct complaint against Boasberg, but he was protected by another federal judge. That was when he infamously complained to other judges, including members of the Supreme Court, that he was worried the president would not follow his orders.
WorldNetDaily reported earlier on Bosaberg’s decision to change grand jury rules to comply with his agenda.
The new notification requirement imposed by Boasberg demands that the “duty magistrate judge” must be notified whenever a grand jury “fails to concur in an indictment.”
Boasberg wrote, “This court has reviewed current practices relating to the return of indictments and notification of instances in which a grand jury has declined to indict. In furtherance of the interests of consistency and transparency, and pursuant to its authority under Rule 57.14(b), this court finds that notification should be provided to the duty magistrate judge whenever a grand jury fails to concur in an indictment, regardless of whether the defendant has already been charged.”
He issued a list of demands, including, “When a grand jury fails to concur in an indictment in a GJO [Grand Jury Original] investigation, the foreperson shall promptly and in writing report the lack of concurrence to the duty magistrate judge under seal.”
He also demands, “Notifications provided pursuant to this order shall be maintained in the confidential files of the Clerk’s Office and will not be made public absent order of the Court; and This order shall remain in effect for 120 days, during which time the Court will consider the adoption of a local rule requiring such notifications. See LCvR 1.1(b).”
Fox noted the order followed by days a decision by a grand jury not to indict several members of Congress, described as the “seditious six” for their public warning to U.S. service members not to follow the “illegal orders” of President Trump, without being able to identify any such illegal orders.
The DOJ had sought potential grand jury indictments of six Democrats — Reps. Jason Crow, D-Co.; Maggie Goodlander, D-N.H.; Chris Deluzio, D-Pa.; and Chrissy Houlahan, D-Pa.; and Sens. Mark Kelly, D-Ari.; and Elissa Slotkin, D-Mich.
The six released a video publicly calling for U.S. service members to reject unlawful orders, again, without identify any such orders, but clearly targeting “this administration.”
The president has described the attack as “seditious behavior” for undermining the confidence of U.S. service members in the command structure.
Pirroi sought the indictments in the district that is so notoriously left-leaning some 9 in 10 voters opposed Trump’s presidency.
