And This Guy is Handling Our Monetary Policy
Segment #749
Pirro's office launching a criminal investigation into Powell.
One wonders if Powell has nothing to worry about, why he would not see this investigation as an opportunity to embarrass Trump and Judge Pirro. Just like lowering the Fed rate under debatable circumstances before Biden’s last campaign, Powell is acting guilty.and affirming the arguments of his critics.
This stems from alleged cost overruns (often described as around $1 billion in some reports and statements) on a Federal Reserve headquarters renovation project, not a literal "overdraft" (like a bank account overdraft). The project ballooned from an estimated ~$1.9 billion to $2.5 billion, with explanations from the Fed citing inflation, asbestos abatement, and other factors.Key details from recent news (mid-January 2026):
Pirro's office attempted informal outreach first: They sent letters (reportedly three times) requesting information about the overruns and Powell's prior congressional testimony on the matter (from June 2025). These were allegedly ignored by the Fed/Powell.
When no response came, her office escalated to formal legal process, including grand jury subpoenas served on the Fed. Powell publicly described this as a "threat" of criminal indictment tied to his testimony, claiming it undermines Fed independence.
Pirro has defended the probe publicly (e.g., on Fox News and X), emphasizing "no one is above the law," accountability for potential federal crimes (like misleading Congress), and that it could have been avoided with cooperation. She stressed it's about a massive $1 billion overrun, not small amounts.
The investigation has sparked backlash, including from some Republicans, former Fed chairs, and economists, who see it as politically motivated pressure on Powell (a Trump appointee whom Trump has criticized heavily). There are reports of internal White House frustration over how Pirro handled/rolled it out without broader coordination.
Overview of the InvestigationThe investigation led by U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Jeanine Pirro targets Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell and focuses on alleged cost overruns in the Fed's headquarters renovation project in Washington, D.C. The project, initially estimated at around $1.9 billion, has reportedly escalated to approximately $2.5 billion, with explanations from the Fed attributing the increase to factors like inflation, supply chain issues, and unexpected challenges such as asbestos removal.
Pirro's office initiated the probe in November 2025, citing potential misleading statements Powell made to Congress in June 2025 about the project's scope and costs. After allegedly sending multiple informal requests (including emails on December 19 and 29, 2025) that went unanswered, her office escalated to grand jury subpoenas. Powell has publicly described this as a "threat" to the Fed's independence, while Pirro defends it as routine accountability for public funds. The controversy has drawn mixed reactions, with some viewing it as essential oversight and others as politically motivated interference. Below, I'll outline the key merits (arguments in support) and counterarguments (criticisms), drawing from a range of sources including news outlets and public discussions on X to represent diverse perspectives.Merits of the Investigation (Arguments in Favor)Supporters, including Pirro herself and some conservative commentators, argue that the probe promotes transparency, fiscal responsibility, and legal accountability. Key points include:
Merits of the Investigation
Ensuring Accountability for Taxpayer Funds: The $1 billion overrun represents significant "bureaucratic bloat" and "fiscal irresponsibility," especially in a government-funded project.
Proponents emphasize that no entity, including the Fed, should be exempt from scrutiny when public money is involved, aligning with the principle that "no one is above the law."
This could uncover potential embezzlement or mismanagement, as some speculate the overruns might involve personal gain for those connected to Powell.
Investigating Potential Misleading of Congress: The probe examines whether Powell's congressional testimony understated the project's costs or scope, which could constitute a federal offense.
Supporters argue this is a legitimate use of prosecutorial tools to verify facts, especially given the scale of the discrepancies.
Following Proper Legal Process After Ignored Outreach: Pirro's office claims it attempted non-confrontational communication (three letters or emails) before resorting to subpoenas, which could have resolved the matter quietly if the Fed had cooperated.
This demonstrates restraint and positions the investigation as a necessary escalation rather than an aggressive attack.
Jurisdictional Relevance: As the U.S. Attorney for D.C., Pirro asserts this falls squarely in her purview, particularly for potential crimes like lying to Congress occurring in the district.