Judge blocks subpoenas in Fed Chair Jerome Powell probe citing ‘essentially zero evidence’
President Donald Trump speaks alongside Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, as they tour the Federal Reserve’s $2.5 billion headquarters renovation project, July 24, 2025, in Washington. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — A top federal judge in Washington on Friday blocked Justice Department subpoenas to the Federal Reserve’s Board of Governors after determining the government “produced essentially zero evidence” to support a criminal investigation of Fed Chair Jerome Powell, according to an unsealed court opinion.
“There is abundant evidence that the subpoenas’ dominant (if not sole) purpose is to harass and pressure Powell either to yield to the President or to resign and make way for a Fed Chair who will,” U.S. District Judge James Boasberg said in his opinion.
“A mountain of evidence suggests that the Government served these subpoenas on the Board to pressure its Chair into voting for lower interest rates or resigning. On the other side of the scale, the Government has produced essentially zero evidence to suspect Chair Powell of a crime; indeed, its justifications are so thin and unsubstantiated that the Court can only conclude that they are pretextual,” the judge added.
Acting U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro blasted Boasberg as an activist judge and has pledged to appeal the ruling.
The Justice Department’s probe centered on Powell’s testimony to Congress last year about cost overruns in a multi-billion-dollar office renovation project.
Powell rebuked the investigation in a video message in January as a politically motivated effort to influence the Fed’s interest rate policy.
The Justice Department’s move was met with heavy criticism from the Hill especially from key Republicans who stressed the importance of the Fed’s independence.
Sen. Thom Tillis, a North Carolina Republican who sits on the Senate Banking Committee, warned Pirro’s office against attempting to appeal Boasberg’s ruling.
“This ruling confirms just how weak and frivolous the criminal investigation of Chairman Powell is and it is nothing more than a failed attack on Fed independence. We all know how this is going to end and the D.C. U.S. Attorney’s Office should save itself further embarrassment and move on,” Tillis said in an X post Friday.
This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.
President Barack Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev shake hands after signing the latest nuclear arms reduction treaty between the two countries, known as “new START”, at Prague Castle, April 8, 2010, in Prague, Czech Republic. (Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — The historic treaty binding the U.S. and Russia to limit their deployment of the world’s most dangerous nuclear weapons lapsed overnight with no clear indication from Washington or Moscow on whether new talks would take place.
President Donald Trump, who in September appeared to be warming to the idea of renewing the treaty, backtracked last month, saying he would be comfortable allowing it to expire and hoped any new agreement would involve other parties.
“You probably want to get a couple of other players involved, also,” Trump told the New York Times.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio said Wednesday that any new arms control pact should include China, even though Beijing’s nuclear stockpile is dramatically smaller than that of the U.S. and Russia and any ceiling a deal might set would not be symmetrical to China’s arsenal.
“The president’s been clear in the past that in order to have true arms control in the 21st century, it’s impossible to do something that doesn’t include China, because of their vast and rapidly growing stockpile,” Rubio said.
Dmitry Peskov, the spokesperson for Russian President Vladimir Putin, confirmed the agreement was expiring Thursday.
“We view this negatively and regret this development,” he said, adding an offer from Putin to extend the deal went unanswered.
Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Lin Jian said his country would not take part in a trilateral arrangement.
“The nuclear forces of China and the U.S. are not on the same level at all, and it is neither fair nor reasonable to ask China to join the nuclear disarmament negotiations at this stage,” he said.
Last remaining arms control agreement
The New START treaty, which was struck between President Barack Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev in 2010 and went into effect the following year, was the last remaining arms control pact in force between the two nations, limiting the deployment of nuclear-capable weapons systems like intercontinental ballistic missiles and bombers — and placing a limit on the number of nuclear warheads which could be activated.
The U.S. and Russia have remained under the numeric limits of the treaty, whose “whole value” is “to have predictability between the United States and Russia,” said Rose Gottemoeller, a former State Department official who served as America’s chief negotiator on New START.
The U.S. has accused Russia of violating the treaty after Moscow suspended inspection and verification mechanisms during the COVID-19 pandemic, but Washington never accused the Russians of failing to adhere to the limits.
“The fact of the legally binding treaty limits [itself] has placed the brakes on any Russian attempt to build up the deployed systems,” said Gottemoeller, adding the U.S. has intelligence capabilities to unilaterally understand whether Russia is breaking promises under the treaty.
In September, Russian President Vladimir Putin offered the U.S. a one-year extension of New START, which Trump initially called a “good idea.”
But the U.S. never officially responded, according to Yuri Ushakov, Putin’s foreign policy aide.
In a statement to ABC News, The White House said that “the President will decide the path forward on nuclear arms control, which he will clarify on his own timeline.”
Russia and China have demonstrated increasing nuclear capabilities in recent years, a NATO official told ABC News. For its part, Russia has adopted a “posture of strategic intimidation” in its nuclear rhetoric, the official added.
Putin has flexed Russia’s muscles on nuclear arms over the past year, touting emerging technologies like its Poseidon system, a nuclear-armed and nuclear-propelled torpedo that travels underwater. Tactical nuclear arms like the Poseidon system were not covered by New START’s provisions.
“Restraint and responsibility in the nuclear domain is crucial to global security,” the NATO official said.
A “handshake” agreement?
Putin’s offer in the fall amounted to what would be a “handshake between the two presidents to preserve the limits of the treaty” even after the treaty itself formally expired, said Gottemoeller, who was under secretary of state for arms control and international security when the deal was originally struck and later became NATO’s deputy secretary general.
While the administration has pointed to China as a reason to forgo New START in favor of a broader deal, Gottemoeller said a one-year stopgap deal would actually help the U.S. pursue its arms control agenda with Beijing.
A one-year extension “makes sense for one very important reason,” she said. “We need to keep the Russians under control over the coming year, while we try to plan and prepare for what we’re going to do to respond to the … Chinese nuclear buildup.”
Gottemoeller and Lynn Rusten, another former U.S. official who helped negotiate the New START treaty, told ABC News a trilateral deal with the Chinese would not make practical sense, since China’s 600 nuclear-capable weapons are dwarfed by Russian and American stockpiles that are each more than 4,000.
A Pentagon report in December assessed the Chinese stockpile could rise to more than 1,000 in 2030.
The State Department did not respond to an inquiry about diplomatic channels for new arms control agreements with either Beijing or Moscow.
The president, who said he had an “excellent” call Wednesday with Chinese President Xi Jinping, did not say whether nuclear arms were mentioned.
Change won’t be immediate
The early days of a world without the last remaining treaty limiting the world’s largest nuclear powers will not be immediately changed, the former officials said.
“I don’t think we’re going to wake up tomorrow and be in a completely different world,” said Rusten, who led the U.S. government’s interagency process during talks over New START. “But I do think there’s going to be some mirror imaging. So if one country starts to build up its forces beyond New START limits, the other is almost sure to follow.”
The U.S. will have to “plan and prepare” for the reality after New START, given the Russians have more experience and defense capacity — including “hot warhead production lines” in support of its war in Ukraine, said Gottemoeller.
Rusten said the U.S.’s understanding of Russia’s arsenal will “atrophy,” a risk over the long run.
“Over time, we’re going to have a less and less precise picture of exactly how many Russian nuclear forces there are and where they are,” she said.
The U.S. and Russia — and the U.S. and the Soviet Union before that — cooperated on arms control for decades, managing to carve out the issue from other diplomatic issues which frayed the rivals.
In a statement marking the end of New START, the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation said decades of diplomacy between Washington and Moscow “helped reduce the global nuclear arsenal by more than 80% since the height of the Cold War.”
“Now,” the statement said, “both Russia and the United States have no legal obstacle to building their arsenals back up, and we could find ourselves reliving the Cold War.”
National Guard soldiers respond to a shooting near the White House on November 26, 2025 in Washington, DC. At least two National Guardsmen have been shot blocks from the White House. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — The man accused of ambushing West Virginia National Guard members near the White House in November, killing one and severely wounding another, is set to be arraigned in court on Wednesday.
Army Spc. Sarah Beckstrom, 20, died of her injuries on Nov. 26, the day before Thanksgiving. Air Force Staff Sgt. Andrew Wolfe suffered a gunshot wound to the head and remains in recovery.
Rahmanullah Lakanwal, a 29-year-old Afghan national who previously worked with the CIA in Afghanistan, faces nine charges, including first-degree murder, assault with intent to kill and illegal possession of a firearm, and has pleaded not guilty.
Lakanwal was one of thousands of Afghans evacuated to the United States after the Taliban seized control of Afghanistan in 2021, his application for asylum was approved in 2025 under the Trump administration.
Court documents say Lakanwal shot Beckstrom and Wolfe in the back of the head with a .357 Smith & Wesson revolver. A National Guard major returned fire, and another Guard officer subdued Lakanwal. Wolfe is still recovering and will have cranioplasty, or skull reconstruction surgery, in March, according to Melody Wolfe, his mother.
U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi said she is seeking the death penalty. Lakanwal’s attorney declined to comment.
In Afghanistan, Lakanwal was affiliated with a so-called Zero Unit, working closely with the CIA and special operations, ABC News reported in December. He was considered a trusted member of the unit, which carried out U.S. counterterrorism missions, officials with direct knowledge explained.
Investigators believe Lakanwal was under financial strain after his work permit expired and may have been experiencing a mental health crisis, sources told ABC News.
Investigators are also examining whether the recent death of an Afghan commander Lakanwal had worked with and might have admired may have worsened his mental and emotional state, according to sources.
The two guard members were a part of President Donald Trump’s surge of troops into Washington, D.C., for law enforcement. After the shooting, the president deployed an additional 500 guard members into D.C. where some 2,600 are currently deployed performing civic duties like cleaning garbage off the street and patrolling the city’s tourist spots and parks and Metro rail stations.
The guard deployment will last through 2026, two officials told ABC News in January.
Voter in voting booth. (Hill Street Studios/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — While the Democratic National Committee chose not to release its after-action report on the 2024 election, one prominent Democratic group is sharing feedback from a group of influential voters.
To some of them, Democrats can seem condescending, elitist and out-of-touch. And to win them over, candidates don’t need to take a specific policy position, but should communicate directly, authentically and with empathy.
Drawn from in-depth interviews and focus groups with more than 100 voters from battleground House districts and states, the “Baseline Report” released by MD PAC, a political action committee working to reshape Democratic Party, aims to help candidates and campaigns connect with voters who supported Joe Biden in 2020 and either voted for Donald Trump or stayed home four years later.
The organization is affiliated with Majority Democrats, one of several groups working with candidates to remake and redefine the party’s image ahead of the midterms.
“It’s not exactly a state secret that something went very wrong for Democrats in 2024,” Lis Smith, a senior adviser to Majority Democrats, told ABC News. “The responsible thing isn’t to bury our heads in the sand, it’s to figure out how to win their votes so we can move forward.”
Across the entire cohort, voters shared a sense of exhaustion and emotional burnout. They view both Democrats and Republicans skeptically, and they feel “unseen, unheard, and unrepresented by the federal government,” the group notes in its report.
According to the analysis and the group’s briefing on the findings, voters across the cohort felt a sense of economic strain, and a fear that the “floor could drop at any time,” as one of them told the group.
In 2024, Trump and Republicans won over a larger share of voters without college degrees, performing 4 points better than he did in 2020 among voters who are more economically vulnerable, according to ABC News exit polls.
Republicans also won more than half of voters whose total family income in 2023 was between $30,000 and $49,999, and $50,000 to $99,999, according to ABC News exit polls for the House of Representatives in 2024.
Smith recalled a conversation with a Democratic senator after the 2024 election that underscored how the party didn’t connect with voters’ concerns about the economy.
“They told me, ‘I would hear from voters about price of eggs and I thought it was a Fox News talking point,'” she said. “That suggested to me that a lot of members of Congress and their staffs are insulated from what voters are feeling. And this is a way to break through that.”
At a time when Democrats are grappling over the party’s positions on the U.S. relationship with Israel and whether to call for the abolishing or reform of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the Majority Democrats’ report doesn’t recommend a specific set of positions for Democrats to adopt.
“Voters were not demanding ideological purity. They expected leaders to be flawed, change their minds, or even contradict themselves. What mattered was why — and whether the shift seemed honest,” the report reads.
While the report doesn’t dig into what went wrong for the party in 2024 and how Biden’s unsuccessful run for a second term impacted the fall results, the voters who participated expressed a desire to see politicians focus on issues that matter to them and show a willingness to disagree with their party.
“When voters were overwhelmingly telling us Joe Biden was too old to run for reelection, the Democratic powers that be responded, ‘Don’t believe your lying eyes,'” Smith said.
She also pointed to Democrats’ defending the Biden administration’s economic record by saying inflation was lower in the U.S. than in other countries.
“Democrats came off too often as defenders of the status quo,” Smith said. “That missed the mark, and going forward what we recommend is that Democrats understand the real, deep frustrations with economic and political systems.”
