When the threat of criminal prosecution is deployed not to punish corruption but to discipline dissent, the Justice Department stops being an instrument of justice and becomes an instrument of compliance. That is the significance of the escalating legal pressure on Jerome Powell.
The Federal Reserve Chair said on Monday that the DOJ had served grand jury subpoenas on the central bank and threatened him with criminal indictment, not over corruption or embezzlement, but related to his congressional testimony about a $2.5 billion renovation of Fed buildings. Powell said the move was designed to pressure the Fed to lower interest rates, rather than a bona fide legal inquiry.
This is more than a political feud. To critics, it represents the starkest example yet of a president weaponizing prosecutorial tools—the Justice Department and grand juries—to coerce compliance from autonomous institutions, using the criminal law as leverage. Congress is now threatening to block any Federal Reserve nominee until this legal battle is resolved, showing how profoundly this strategy threatens institutional independence.
Why This Is Happening?
At the heart of this crisis is a long-running dispute between Trump and Powell over monetary policy. Powell has resisted relentless calls from the president to aggressively slash interest rates, basing decisions on economic data rather than presidential preference—the very definition of central bank independence. Trump’s public barbs at the Fed began months ago, with personal insults and repeated pressure on Powell to accede to political demands.
The dramatic escalation came when the DOJ, under Trump’s attorney general, opened a criminal investigation into Powell over the Fed’s renovation project and his Congressional testimony, approved by a Trump-appointed U.S. attorney. Powell’s statement Monday made clear he believes that the threat of prosecution is directly tied to his refusal to comply with political pressure: “The threat of criminal charges is a consequence of the Federal Reserve setting interest rates based on our best assessment…rather than following the preferences of the president,” he said.
This strategic use of prosecutorial authority to reshape the behavior of an independent agency accompanies other administration efforts, like the attempted removal of Fed Governor Lisa Cook, which has triggered legal action and raised separation-of-powers questions.
What Is the Right Saying?
Some conservative voices frame this as legitimate oversight of public officials. White House economic adviser Kevin Hassett—a possible Trump pick to replace Powell—voiced support for scrutiny of the renovation project’s costs and defended the DOJ’s role, suggesting that legal examination of Powell’s actions is appropriate if there is evidence of wrongdoing.
Conservative economists argue that the renovation controversies—especially alleged cost overruns—warrant investigation and accountability, separate from monetary policy debates.
But some Republicans in Congress have voiced concerns, arguing the DOJ’s actions raise questions about its own independence and credibility.
“If there were any remaining doubt whether advisers within the Trump administration are actively pushing to end the independence of the Federal Reserve, there should now be none,” Senator Thom Tillis of North Carolina, a Republican, wrote on X.
What Is the Left Saying?
Democratic critics paint Trump’s actions as blatant political corruption. Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren has been among those calling the leverage of legal threats against Powell an abuse of prosecutorial power aimed at bending the Fed to Trump’s political will.
Progressive lawmakers warn such tactics erode democratic norms, compromising not just the Fed’s independence but the rule of law itself. They argue that turning the DOJ into a tool to punish policy disagreement marks a dangerous precedent.
Some commentators note that markets are already jittery, as the threat of politically driven prosecutions undermines confidence in U.S. institutions and could ripple through global financial systems.
What Happens Next?
This confrontation over Powell’s independence is likely to reverberate well beyond the Fed. For one, the Senate may refuse to confirm any Federal Reserve Board nominees until this legal conflict is resolved, potentially hollowing out leadership at the central bank at a critical juncture for the economy.
If Trump succeeds in forcing compliance through prosecutorial threats, it would signal a broader shift in how executive power can be used against autonomous institutions, from the Fed to regulatory agencies—fundamentally reordering the balance between political authority and technocratic independence.
Legal challenges—like the Supreme Court case over Trump’s attempt to fire another Fed governor—will test whether checks and balances can hold when prosecutions become political tools.
In the end, this isn’t just about interest rates or renovation budgets. It’s about whether a U.S. president can compel an independent public servant to bend to political pressure under threat of criminal prosecution—a precedent that could reshape federal governance in the decades to come.
Once a core feature of Newsweek’s print edition, Perspectives distilled the week’s news into a chorus of standout quotes. Today, we’re relaunching Perspectives in a different format, but with the same mission of keeping our members informed by showcasing the views that shape the conversation.
Read the full article here
