The Ministry of Justice wants to investigate Powell? Court: No evidence, dismissed! Trump's personnel replacement plan was blocked.

Chief Justice James Boasberg of the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia in the United States made a key ruling this Friday, officially rejecting the Department of Justice's motion to restore the subpoena power for Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell, effectively halting the criminal investigation against Powell. This decision is likely to provoke an appeal, and may further delay President Donald Trump's plan to appoint a more compliant head of the central bank. In his ruling on March 13, Boasberg found that the subpoenas issued to the Federal Reserve Board in January were for improper purposes, aiming to pressure Powell to comply with Trump's demands - either to cut interest rates quickly or resign. These subpoenas were issued by Washington, D.C. Federal Prosecutor Jenny Piero, a staunch ally of Trump, officially for investigating whether there was budget mismanagement in the $2.5 billion renovation project at the Federal Reserve headquarters, and if Powell made misleading statements when reporting the progress of the project to Congress. In Friday's ruling, Boasberg pointed out that Piero's office "fell far short of convincing this court that a change in the result was warranted," and added that the prosecutor "completely lacked a sincere basis for doubting the crime." He wrote, "The government's core problem is that it provided no evidence of fraud." Boasberg was appointed by Democratic President Barack Obama. In response, a spokesperson for Piero's office released a statement, saying that their office "will absolutely appeal the Department of Justice's interference with our access to the grand jury." The Federal Reserve declined to comment. It is understood that Piero's prosecutor immediately indicated they would appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, indicating that this dispute will enter a higher level of legal proceedings. According to sources, the leadership of the Department of Justice has supported the decision to appeal. The prosecution is investigating Powell for alleged fraud and making false statements to Congressional committees. However, according to court records, a senior lawyer from Piero's office admitted in court on March 3 that there is currently no evidence of Powell committing a crime. Piero's office must meet a high legal threshold to convince Boasberg to overturn the previous ruling, which requires showing new evidence or an obvious legal error by the judge. Lawyers from the Department of Justice argued that Boasberg set the standard too high in the early stages of the investigation and misunderstood the timeline of the investigation. Lawyers for the Federal Reserve Board argued that there is "overwhelming evidence" supporting Boasberg's initial ruling. This judicial ruling is not just a legal victory for Powell personally, but directly affects the balance of power in Washington between politics and finance. Because Powell has made it clear that he will not leave his position before his term ends in May until all criminal investigations against him are completely terminated, this ruling effectively prolongs his "political life." At the same time, the appointment process for Kevin Wash, the nominee for the next Federal Reserve Chairman by the Trump administration, has been affected. Republican Senator Tom Tillis has publicly stated that he will use his power to block the Senate Banking Committee's confirmation process for Wash until the legal cloud hanging over Powell is cleared. This internal partisan disagreement suggests that if the legal impasse continues, Powell is likely to continue to steer the Federal Reserve as interim chair after May, thwarting the Trump administration's plan to quickly replace the leadership of monetary policy. On a macroeconomic level, this legal battle over the subpoena is taking place during a sensitive period of global instability, exacerbating uncertainty in the financial markets. With energy price fluctuations sparked by the conflict with Iran, inflation pressures in the United States are rising again, putting the Federal Reserve's policy direction in a precarious position. The market generally believes that the Department of Justice's persistent appeal in this case has become a public battle over the "independence of the central bank." For investors, the escalation of the legal battle could not only disrupt the Federal Reserve's decision-making pace but also undermine public confidence in the stability of monetary policy during a critical time of inflation fluctuations.