Politics
Justice Department drops criminal investigation of Fed chair Powell, likely clearing way for Warsh
WASHINGTON — In a surprising about-face, Jeanine Pirro, the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, announced Friday that she would be dropping an investigation into Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell that critics had labeled as politically motivated since it became public in January.
That investigation, which focused on whether Powell had lied to Congress about the $2.5-billion renovation of the central bank’s headquarters, had emerged as a stumbling block in President Trump’s effort to install his pick to succeed Powell.
Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) had said he would block the nomination of Kevin Warsh to be the next chairman of the Federal Reserve as long as the Powell investigation continued.
While the Justice Department’s investigation is now closed, the bank’s inspector general will take on the investigation into the costly renovations instead, and Pirro did not rule out the possibility of resuming her criminal investigation.
“Note well, however, that I will not hesitate to restart a criminal investigation should the facts warrant doing so,” Pirro wrote on X.
White House spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt also told reporters later that Pirro’s announcement did not signal the end of the investigation.
“This has been a priority for the president,” she said.
Tillis did not respond to requests for comment.
Powell was first appointed to the role by Trump in 2017 but fell out of the president’s favor by resisting his pressure campaign to lower interest rates.
The bank has historically enjoyed greater independence than other federal agencies to insulate its decision-making from political influence.
The limits of the bank’s independence are currently being tested by Trump’s attempt last August to fire one of Powell’s colleagues, Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, over allegations that she committed mortgage fraud.
Cook protested her firing and the Supreme Court heard arguments from her and the administration in January. The court’s decision, which has not yet been rendered, could determine whether officials at the bank are more insulated from being fired by the president than officials at other federal agencies.
While Powell didn’t comment on the news that Pirro had dropped her investigation, he said in March that he had “no intention of leaving the Board until the investigation is well and truly over, with transparency and finality.”
The case had already suffered a significant blow in March when James Boasberg, a U.S. district judge for the District of Columbia, quashed subpoenas targeting Powell.
Several former federal prosecutors said Powell is one of several political enemies of the president who have found themselves the targets of criminal investigations into statements they made to Congress, including former CIA Director John Brennan and former FBI Director James Comey.
“The basis for the investigation into Jerome Powell was always suspect in light of President Trump’s public complaints about his refusal to lower interest rates on demand,” said Barbara McQuade, a former U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan.
The political calculations that seemed to underpin the decision to begin the Powell investigation — and ultimately drop it — marked a significant break from prior precedent, said Greg Brower, a former U.S. attorney for Nevada.
“If you spoke to 100 former U.S. attorneys I don’t think you’d find one who would say that they felt political pressure to bring a case or not bring a case,” he said.
Pirro’s decision could clear the way for Warsh’s nomination to proceed.
Warsh has walked a tightrope at confirmation hearings before the Senate Banking Committee, where he sought to convince senators that he will not be a “sock puppet” for the president and Wall Street, as Donald Trump continues to demand the Fed lower interest rates.
His nomination has been met with scrutiny from Senate Democrats on the committee, who question his close ties to Trump and Wall Street investors.
“The president never once asked me to commit to any particular interest rate decision, period,” Warsh said at a hearing. “Nor would I ever agree to do so if he had.”
Those comments came just hours after Trump, in an interview on CNBC, was asked if he would be disappointed if Warsh didn’t immediately cut rates and responded, “I would.”
A former Fed governor during the financial crisis, Warsh later emerged as a critic of the central bank’s prolonged low interest rate policies and heavy-handed market interventions. He later researched economics at the Hoover Institution, sat on the board of UPS and worked as a private equity consultant.
With a net worth estimated between $135 million and $226 million, Warsh would become the wealthiest Federal Reserve Chairman in history.
If confirmed, he has proposed a “regime change” in Fed policy in favor of pro-growth, market-first approaches.
“Status quo practices and policies are especially harmful when the world is changing this fast,” Warsh told lawmakers at his Senate confirmation hearing this week.
Warsh has signaled an interest in slashing the Fed’s $6.6-trillion balance sheet, which he says has become too “bloated.”
Since the 2008 financial crisis, the Fed has bought trillions of dollars in bonds to prop up the economy and housing markets. But Warsh says that safety net is no longer needed.
He’s proposed the Fed sell off the bulk of its assets and print less money, moves he argues will effectively shift the power to set interest rates to the private market. Critics worry that such a move would destabilize the economy and cause mortgage rates to spike.
“My simple version of this is: Run the printing press a little bit less. Let the balance sheet come down,” he told Fox Business last year.
Michael Gapen, chief U.S. economist at Morgan Stanley, said that a rapid shift in the Fed’s footprint under Warsh is “unlikely.” While reducing reserves is a long-term goal, Gapen said, slashing assets could make the financial system less resilient in periods of economic stress.
“There is no free lunch,” he said.
Since the financial crisis, the Federal Reserve has been involved in predicting the economic future of the U.S. economy. The practice is known as “forward guidance,” a tool the Federal Reserve economists use to communicate their future interest rate intentions.
Warsh wants to do away with forward guidance, but has declined to address how he would approach interest rate decisions if confirmed.
“I don’t believe that I should be previewing for you what a future decision might be,” he said in an exchange with Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.).
This article includes reporting by the Associated Press.
Politics
Reporter’s Notebook: How Trump’s surprise move on DNI confirmation upended key Senate deal on FISA
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
They didn’t know what to do.
Just before 4 a.m. ET on Wednesday, President Trump blindsided everyone in the U.S. Senate. In a post on Truth Social, the president declared he was “cancelling the Senate hearing” for his Director of National Intelligence nominee Jay Clayton. Moreover, the President said he would withhold Clayton’s nomination from “going forward until Jamie McDonald is approved to be U.S. Attorney.”
If confirmed, Clayton would vacate his post as U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York. That’s the slot for which the President is nominating McDonald.
TRUMP SAYS SENATE HEARING ON DNI NOMINEE IS CANCELED UNTIL US ATTORNEY REPLACEMENT CONFIRMED
Jay Clayton, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, speaks next to Jessica S. Tisch, New York Police Department commissioner, during a press conference at NYPD headquarters following the arrest of suspects charged with igniting IEDs near Gracie Mansion, the home of New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, in New York City on March 9, 2026. (REUTERS/Brendan McDermid)
So what would happen with the hearing?
Lawmakers and aides scrambled as they woke to the news Wednesday morning. After all, Trump is the president. He doesn’t have the authority to cancel a Senate hearing.
“Yeah. I don’t think that’s his call,” said Sen. Martin Heinrich, D-N.M., a member of the Intelligence Committee.
One senior source told Fox News they presumed that Clayton’s confirmation hearing would forge ahead. Another told Fox the fate of the hearing was “undetermined.”
On one hand, lawmakers and aides had to first digest what was happening. Was the President withdrawing Clayton’s nomination? Was he saying he just wasn’t allowing Clayton to testify? Did the head of the executive branch really believe he could bigfoot a congressional hearing? Or was this the president flexing his political muscle, testing Senate Republicans to see how compliant they might be with his intimation — and potentially cancel the hearing on their own?
So was Clayton’s hearing on or off?
“Are we going to have an Intelligence Committee confirmation hearing today?” yours truly asked panel Chairman Tom Cotton, R-Ark., as he slid behind a backdoor to a hearing in the Dirksen Senate Office Building.
Silence from Cotton.
SCOOP: TOP GOP SEN. COTTON TO MEET WITH EMBATTLED TRUMP DEFENSE NOMINEE AS DOUBTS SWIRL
Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., arrives for a vote in the U.S. Capitol on April 30, 2025, stating the war with Iran will continue for weeks as the U.S. limits their offensive capabilities. (Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)
“Do you know the answer?” I followed up.
“Do you think the President overstepped his bounds, saying he was canceling the hearing?” I continued.
By that point, Cotton was well behind the doorway and it closed.
“I have never seen anything quite like this,” said Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., one of the longest-serving members on the Intelligence Committee in Senate history. “Everybody else is going to have to keep guessing for a while.”
It was Washington whiplash.
“Things change around here pretty quick, Chad,” quipped Sen. John Hoeven, R-N.D.
But a bit later, Cotton finally weighed-in when he posted on X that the hearing would proceed. The Arkansas Republican then materialized again in the hallway, heading for an elevator bank.
“To be clear, you will proceed with the hearing and you expect Jay Clayton to be there despite what the President said?” I asked.
A steel-faced Cotton stared straight ahead at the green elevator door.
“Chad, you have our statement,” said a terse Cotton.
But an hour later, Cotton ditched the hearing after the President blocked Clayton from testifying.
“It’s regrettable that the President has directed Jay Clayton not to appear at his confirmation hearing today,” said Cotton in a new statement on X. “While today’s hearing is now unfortunately postponed, I look forward to proceeding with his confirmation in the near future.”
The stunning reversal left everyone trying to grasp what happened. And what might be next.
SPRINT TO CONFIRM TRUMP NOMINEES KICKS OFF IN JANUARY
U.S. President Donald Trump attends a morning work meeting to “revive balanced, inclusive, and sustainable economic growth for the benefit of all” in the presence of the G7 countries, partner countries, the International Monetary Fund, and the OECD, as part of the G7 summit, in Evian, eastern France, on June 17, 2026. (Ludovic MARIN / AFP via Getty Images)
“I am not sure whether Jay Clayton has simply been postponed or withdrawn,” mused Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., the Vice Chairman of the Intelligence Committee. “I wonder whether Jay Clayton knows whether he has been postponed or withdrawn.”
Democrats and Republicans brokered a fragile agreement weeks ago to renew FISA Section 702. The intelligence community argues that program is the powerful tool in the American arsenal to track and combat potential terrorism. Congress repeatedly punted a full renewal for months.
But with both bodies on the precipice of reauthorizing the program, President Trump announced he would install housing czar Bill Pulte as interim DNI. Democrats balked at Pulte, noting he had no intelligence experience. Plus, they viewed him as a political hack who would run roughshod over America’s intelligence apparatus.
So Democrats pulled their support from the FISA compromise.
Most Republicans weren’t exactly enamored with Pulte, either. And those worried about the nation’s security pushed to block Pulte from entering the DNI’s office. That’s why Cotton scheduled Clayton’s confirmation hearing so quickly. It was thought that the Senate might be able to pivot after the hearing and confirm Clayton on the floor late this week or early next.
Rapid confirmation of Clayton was essential. Such a scenario would unlock Democrats’ votes to reauthorize FISA Section 702 after the program’s congressional blessing expired a week ago.
That was the plan. At least until the president initiated the firestorm over Clayton’s confirmation hearing this week.
“Another Trump victory gets upended by an impulse,” vented Sen. Kevin Cramer, R-N.D. “It’s frustrating.”
WHY TRUMP PICKED BILL PULTE TO LEAD US INTELLIGENCE AS CRITICS QUESTION HIS QUALIFICATIONS
Sen. Kevin Cramer, R-N.D., spoke to reporters at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., on April 1, 2025, before the weekly Republican Senate policy luncheon. (Kayla Bartkowski/Getty Images)
But wait. There’s more.
President Trump inserted another chestnut — or hot potato — into his pre-dawn Truth Social screed. Especially if you thought the president was going to make it easy for Congress to hastily re-up FISA as soon as the Senate confirmed Clayton.
“To add a slight bit of intrigue but, for the Good of the Nation, and the People of our Country, I will not approve FISA without THE SAVE AMERICA ACT going along with it,” Trump said.
He added that his plan was for Pulte to “remain as the Acting Director of National Intelligence” and declared that “Republicans fell into a trap.”
The SAVE America Act is the touchstone of President Trump’s 2026 legislative agenda. It requires proof of citizenship to vote. However, the bill has never garnered even 50 yeas in the Senate on two previous test votes.
“We’ve got to pass the SAVE America Act and conditioning passage of FISA on the prior passage of SAVE America would be a great thing,” said Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah.
Other Senate Republicans were more realistic, based on the legislative history of the SAVE America Act.
“You can’t always get what you want,” said Sen. John Kennedy, R-La. “I mean, I want a Porsche for my birthday. I’m not going to get it.”
TRUMP, THUNE CLASH ON VOTER ID ULTIMATUM AS GOP REMAINS DIVIDED ON PATH FORWARD
Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., said a classified briefing reinforced his view that Iran’s leaders would use a nuclear weapon if they obtained one during a Senate Judiciary subcommittee hearing in Washington, D.C. (Elizabeth Frantz / Reuters)
Democrats seethed about national security as Republicans squirmed.
“We had a path forward as of yesterday (on FISA) and today we don’t,” said Sen. Mark Kelly, D-Ariz. “This has become a complete debacle and now it’s up to the White House to figure out a path forward here.”
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
No one knows what’s next for Clayton. Or McDonald. Or FISA. And there’s high skepticism anything happens on the SAVE America Act. So it’s all in a cryogenic Congressional freeze.
Regardless, Clayton’s confirmation hearing never happened. Such hearings are the responsibility of the legislative branch. But by the end of the day, there was no question who canceled it.
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled for gun rights and against drug laws on Thursday, striking down part of a federal law that made it a crime for an “unlawful user” of an illegal drug like marijuana to own firearms.
All nine justices agreed the law was too broad and overly harsh.
They left open the possibility that “addicts” and “unusually dangerous” people who were impaired by drugs could be denied guns.
The Trump administration had urged the court to uphold the prosecution of Ali Hemani, a Texas man who was investigated for alleged terrorist ties and admitted to being a regular user of marijuana.
Since 1968, federal law has prohibited gun possession by felons, fugitives and any other person who is “an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance.”
In defense of the law, Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer argued that “habitual” drug users were akin to “habitual drunkards” in early American history, and could therefore be denied the gun rights protected by the 2nd Amendment.
But that historical argument fell flat, including with the court’s conservatives.
Justice Neil M. Gorsuch is a skeptic of laws that give prosecutors broad and unchecked power.
“The law automatically bans an individual from possessing a gun from the moment he becomes an unlawful user of any controlled substance until he ceases being one,” he wrote in U.S. vs. Hemani. “It doesn’t matter what controlled substance an individual uses, in what amounts he does so, or whether his drug use has ever made him a danger to himself or others.”
The government’s view “suggests that the millions of Americans who now regularly use marijuana are categorically and unusually dangerous.”
And a conviction can lead to a 15-year prison term, he added.
The American Civil Liberties Union welcomed the ruling.
“The court has sent a strong message that the government cannot criminalize the conduct of large numbers of people by making categorical and unfounded assumptions about whether they are dangerous,” said Cecillia Wang, legal director at the ACLU. “With nearly half of Americans reporting marijuana use at some point in their lives, this ruling protects the rights of millions and curbs the government’s ability to impose arbitrary and discriminatory penalties.”
Some defenders of gun regulation opposed the ruling.
“We disagree with the Supreme Court’s ruling in Hemani,” said Janet Carter, managing director of 2nd Amendment litigation at Everytown Law. “That said, the court has stressed that its decision is limited — rightly recognizing that drugs and guns can make for a dangerous mix, and leaving open the possibility of prosecuting someone with proof that their drug use renders their gun possession dangerous to themselves or others.”
Two years ago, Hunter Biden, the president’s son, was charged and convicted under the gun law for making a false statement when he applied for a gun permit. He denied being a drug user at a time when prosecutors said he was addicted to crack cocaine.
Then-President Biden gave him a full pardon in December 2024.
Hemani was investigated by the FBI for suspected ties to terrorists but was not charged with such a crime.
In 2020, he and his parents “traveled to Iran to participate in a celebration of the life of Qasem [Suleimani], an Iranian general and terrorist who had been killed by an American drone strike the month before,” the administration told the court last year.
The FBI obtained a warrant to search Hemani’s family home. Agents found a Glock 9-millimeter pistol, 60 grams of marijuana and 4.7 grams of cocaine.
When questioned, Hemani said he used marijuana about every other day.
A federal grand jury in Texas charged him with possessing a firearm as an unlawful habitual user of marijuana.
But the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled this restriction on guns violated the 2nd Amendment. It said that “there is no historical justification for disarming a sober citizen not presently under an impairing influence.”
Appealing to the Supreme Court, the Trump administration urged the justices to uphold the law.
“Habitual illegal drug users with firearms present unique dangers to society — especially because they pose a grave risk of armed, hostile encounters with police officers while impaired,” the solicitor general said.
But the justices affirmed the 5th Circuit’s decision.
Still pending before the court is a 2nd Amendment challenge to new laws in Hawaii and California that would prohibit carrying guns into private businesses unless the owner or manager had given their express approval.
Gun rights advocates said such laws, if enforced, are intended to deny their rights to carry concealed weapons when they leave home. The case is Wolford vs. Lopez.
The justices will issue decisions next week on Tuesday and Thursday.
new video loaded: Reflecting Pool Turns Green, Paint Peels After Renovation
transcript
transcript
Reflecting Pool Turns Green, Paint Peels After Renovation
Algae blooms have hit the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool, which underwent a $14.2 million repair project. Blue paint appeared to be chipping from the bottom.
-
“The reflecting pool is greener than I have ever seen it before due to algae.” “I was expecting to see blue, but green is O.K.” “Honestly, I don’t think you can fight mother nature.”
By Julie Yoon, Jackeline Luna and Alisa Shodiyev Kaff
June 19, 2026
-
Health12 minutes agoVideo: Wii Bowling Takes Over Tulsa Retirement Homes
-
Lifestyle27 minutes ago
This Pride month, teen flicks are recasting familiar tropes with a queer sensibility
-
Technology35 minutes agoNASA selects Eric Schmidt’s rocket company for a 2028 mission to Mars
-
World42 minutes agoBritish Prime Minister Keir Starmer faces potential leadership challenge from newly-elected Andy Burnham
-
Politics45 minutes agoReporter’s Notebook: How Trump’s surprise move on DNI confirmation upended key Senate deal on FISA
-
Health57 minutes agoWeight-loss drugs linked to ‘Ozempic ears’ and other cosmetic complaints, surgeons say
-
Sports1 hour agoFlorida AG launches civil rights investigation into MLB’s warning to Christian pitchers over Pride Night caps
-
Technology1 hour agoFox News AI Newsletter: Bezos predicts labor shortage
