pam bondi

April 22 (UPI) — Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell‘s term is nearing its end and President Donald Trump is pushing for his replacement but an investigation into Powell may hold up the appointment of a new chair.

The Justice Department opened an investigation into Powell over the renovation of the Marriner S. Eccles Federal Reserve Board Building in Washington, D.C., which Trump claims has exceeded $3 billion. The renovation was not the beginning of Trump’s feud with Powell but it has added to his effort to oust the chairman before the end of his term.

Powell’s term as chairman of the Federal Reserve will end in May but he will remain on the Board of Governors until January 2028.

Typically when a Fed chair’s term ends, they resign. However, Powell said he plans to stay put until a replacement is appointed.

At least one lawmaker, Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., said he would not vote on a new chairman until the investigation into Powell is over.

The Justice Department alleges that Powell made false or misleading statements to Congress about the cost of the renovation project at the Federal Reserve headquarters during his testimony to the House Committee on Financial Services in June.

Powell’s testimony was part of his semiannual report to Congress on monetary policy.

Following the hearing, Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, R-Fla., submitted a request to then-Attorney General Pam Bondi for Powell to be investigated for perjury and making false statements. Luna said that Powell denied there would be “luxury features” included in the renovations, including a “VIP dining room, premium marble, water features and a roof terrace garden.”

Luna added that Powell “falsely claimed that the Eccles building ‘never had’ a serious renovation.” She notes that the building underwent renovations in 1999 and 2003.

“These are not minor misstatements,” Luna said. “Chairman Powell knowingly misled both Congress and executive branch officials about the true nature of a taxpayer-funded project. Lying under oath is a serious offense — especially from someone tasked with overseeing our monetary system and public trust.”

No charges have been formally filed against Powell. The challenge the Justice Department faces in convicting Powell of perjury or false statements is in proving that he willfully, knowingly made statements he knew to be false at the time.

Powell, who was Trump’s nominee for chairman in 2017, has said that the investigation into him and the Federal Reserve renovation is “pretext” to punish him for not following Trump’s direction to lower interest rates.

“No one, certainly not the chair of the Federal Reserve, is above the law, but this unprecedented action should be seen in the broader context of the administration’s threats and ongoing pressure,” Powell said in a video message in January. “This is about whether the Feed will be able to continue to set interest rates based on evidence and economic conditions — or whether instead monetary policy will be directed by political pressure or intimidation.”

Last month, federal prosecutor George A. Massucco-LaTaif told Chief U.S. District Judge James E. Boasberg that the Justice Department does not know of any evidence that a crime has been committed in the Federal Reserve renovation project.

“We do not know at this time,” Massucco-LaTaif said. “However, there are 1.2 billion reasons for us to look into it.”

The fissure between Powell and Trump began and has continued over the Federal Reserve’s decision to maintain elevated interest rates in response to inflation. Trump has repeatedly called on the Federal Reserve to lower interest rates, saying the United States should “have the lowest interest rate in the world.”

All along the Federal Reserve continues to hold an elevated interest rate, currently between 3.5% and 3.75%, in an effort to tame inflation. Its target rate of inflation is 2% on an annual basis.

Economic markers from the U.S. Bureau of Labor statistics show the rate of inflation remains at about 3%.

Trump has nominated Kevin Warsh to succeed Powell. Warsh served on the Fed’s board for five years after being appointed by President George W. Bush in 2006.

“I have known Kevin for a long period of time, and have no doubt that he will go down as one of the great Fed chairmen, maybe the best,” Trump posted on social media in January. “On top of everything else, he is ‘central casting,’ and he will never let you down.”

Warsh faced his first hearing on the path toward confirmation on Tuesday when he testified before the Senate Banking Committee. Questions by senators centered on the Federal Reserve’s independence, something Trump’s influence has called into question.

If appointed, Warsh would be the wealthiest person to lead the Federal Reserve.

Presidents have butted heads with the Federal Reserve throughout its history, as monetary policy can reflect on how the U.S. population views the president’s performance. A president has never tried to fire the chairman of the Federal Reserve.

The Federal Reserve is a non-partisan, independent agency made up of a board of governors posted in Washington, D.C., and 12 regional banks located across the United States.

Independence is key to the Federal Reserve’s function, keeping it from choosing policy based on the political goals of those occupying the White House and other branches of government.

Trump has not attempted to fire Powell yet but he did attempt to fire Fed board Gov. Lisa Cook. The attempt was unsuccessful as the U.S. Supreme Court intervened in October and ruled that she can remain at her post on an interim basis, at least for 2026.

The president does have some authority over choosing or designating a new Federal Reserve chair, Peter Shane, a constitutional law scholar in residence at NYU Law School, told UPI. However, a president must demonstrate a good reason for doing so.

There are two mechanisms in place that are meant to protect the independence of the Federal Reserve and its chair from political influence.

First, there is Supreme Court precedent. In 1935, the high court made a ruling in the landmark case Humphrey’s Executor vs. the United States. In this case, the court ruled that President Franklin D. Roosevelt could not fire the commissioner of the Federal Trade Commission, another independent agency, without cause.

The ruling affirmed that the authority to remove the head of any independent agency falls to Congress.

Second, there is the Federal Reserve Act. President Woodrow Wilson signed the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 to decentralize the control over monetary policy in the United States. This established the Federal Reserve and set its independence as a foundational feature of its existence.

The Federal Reserve Act makes the Federal Reserve independent in setting monetary policy without the influence of the president or Congress.

Congress has the ability to change the Federal Reserve Act. It did so in 1977 with the Federal Reserve Reform Act.

This amendment, signed into law by President Jimmy Carter, codified the objectives of the agency and established a requirement for the board of governors to report to Congress in hearings twice a year. It also added the requirement of Senate confirmation hearings for the chairman and vice chairman of the board of governors.

Last year, Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., introduced the Federal Reserve Board Abolition Act, calling for the board of governors of the Federal Reserve and all Federal Reserve banks to be abolished.

“Americans have suffered under crippling inflation and the Federal Reserve is to blame,” Massie said in a statement.

Since being introduced in March 2025 the bill has not progressed beyond being referred to the House Committee on Financial Services.

April 17 (UPI) — A federal judge on Friday blocked a lawsuit against the state of Hawaii that the federal government filed to prevent it from suing oil companies.

The Department of Justice last year sued Hawaii to stop a suit against fossil fuel companies for the impact of climate change on the state, but Senior Judge Helen Gillmor of the U.S. District Court in Hawaii said they it has no standing, The Hill and The New York Times reported.

In the ruling, Gillmor said that an “abstract, theoretical future harm” is not a valid basis for a lawsuit because stating an intention to file suit — which the state’s governor declared on television that he planned to do — does not amount to “concrete harm” that would allow an entity to sue.

Gillmor blocked the lawsuit because the DOJ’s theory of harm would require predicting claims brought against unknown companies; predicting that the lawsuit would be successful; “guessing” that oil companies would react in specific way; and then hypothesizing that the reaction would somehow harm the United States’ commerce and future energy policy, she wrote in the 30-page decision.

The DOJ’s suit, which was filed by now-former Attorney General Pam Bondi, alleged that Hawaii’s action was a “burdensome and ideologically motivated” lawsuit that could cause “crippling damages” with the energy and climate policies the state allegedly is pursuing.

“We disagree with the Hawaii District Court’s ruling, which ignored Supreme Court precedent regarding the United States’ interest in the supremacy of federal law,” the DOJ’s principal deputy assistant attorney general Adam Gustafson said in a statement. “We are exploring all options.”

March 31 (UPI) — Three former FBI agents filed a lawsuit against FBI Director Kash Patel, Attorney General Pam Bondi and their departments Tuesday for firing them, claiming it was for political retribution.

The suit includes a proposed class-action of all FBI employees already fired or potentially fired in the future for political reasons. It was filed in the Federal District Court in Washington, D.C.

Former FBI agents Jamie Garman, Blaire Toleman and Michelle Ball served on a public corruption squad at the FBI that investigated President Donald Trump‘s efforts to overturn the 2020 election. Special counsel Jack Smith eventually took over the investigation code named Arctic Frost. He dropped the charges against Trump after he was elected in 2024.

The three agents were fired last fall.

“Our removal from federal service — without due process and based on a false perception of political bias — is a profound injustice that raises serious concerns about political interference in federal law enforcement,” they said in a statement released by their lawyer, Daniel M. Eisenberg. “We bring this lawsuit to protect the rule of law and to allow our former colleagues to do their jobs without fear of retaliation.”

A federal judge will have to decide if the case can be a class-action suit. The three agents are seeking to include more than 50 FBI employees who have been fired since Trump took office.

Since taking control of the FBI in February 2025, Patel and the other defendants “have summarily terminated members of the proposed class because of their perceived political affiliation, without legitimate investigation, finding of misconduct, pre-termination notice of charges to the employees, an opportunity for the employees to present a defense, and/or any compelling or exigent circumstances,” the suit said.

At the Conservative Political Action Conference in Texas Thursday, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche said in a speech that Patel had “cleaned house” at the FBI.

“There isn’t a single man or woman with a gun, federal agent, still in that organization that had anything to do with the prosecution of President Trump,” the lawsuit alleges Blanche said.

1 of 4 | President Donald Trump speaks in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, D.C., on Tuesday. A Justice Department disclosure sent to members of Congress shows Trump had classified documents related to his personal business dealings stored at Mar-a-Lago after he left the presidency. File Photo by Graeme Sloan/UPI | License Photo

March 25 (UPI) — A 2023 Justice Department disclosure to Congress revealed that President Donald Trump had documents so secretive that only six people had received copies among classified documents he kept at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida after he left office.

The disclosure was part of former special counsel Jack Smith’s report on his investigation into Trump, which has not been made public. Elements of the report, though, were distributed to the House and Senate judiciary committees and subsequently made public this week as part of their own probes.

The disclosure detailed the types of documents Trump took with him to his home in Palm Beach after leaving office in 2020. Smith was appointed by former President Joe Biden to investigate the mishandled classified documents, resulting in 41 criminal counts against Trump. Trump-appointed U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed the case in 2024 and recently ruled that Smith’s full report can’t be released publicly.

Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, sent a letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi on Tuesday questioning why the Justice Department is “fighting tooth and nail to gag Special Counsel Jack Smith and bury his report.” He said the Justice Department’s disclosure sent to the committee earlier this month included “cherry-picked” documents related to the investigation.

“You have, quite amazingly, missed the fact that some of the documents you provided include damning evidence about your boss’s conduct and may well violate the gag order your DOJ and Donald Trump demanded from Judge Aileen Cannon,” the letter read.

Raskin’s letter said that the Justice Department disclosure included information that Trump held documents at Mar-a-Lago that only six people in the government had access to and that other documents related to his business interests.

The disclosure also indicated that White House chief of staff Susie Wiles — then the CEO of Trump’s super PAC — said she observed Trump showing off a classified map to fellow passengers on his private plane.

“This glimpse into the trove of evidence behind the coverup release a president of the United States who may have sold out our national security to enrich himself,” Raskin wrote.

March 24 (UPI) — Authorities in Washington, D.C., are hunting for at least two suspects after a U.S. Park Police officer was shot while on undercover duty in the nation’s capital.

The shooting occurred at about 7:30 p.m. EDT Monday near the 5000 block of Queens Stroll Place SE and the 4600 block of Hillside Road SE, the Metropolitan Police Department said in a statement.

U.S. Park Police Deputy Chief Scott Bretch told reporters in a press conference that the officer was riding in an unmarked police car as part of an ongoing U.S. Park Police investigation when the office was “ambushed” by at least two gunmen.

The officer was struck by gunfire, he said. Authorities said police did not return fire.

Bretch said the police vehicle continued down the street until it pulled over, where the wounded officer received first aid before being airlifted to the hospital with non-life-threatening injuries.

Bretch would not say what kind of investigation U.S. Park Police was working on or how the suspects fled the scene. It was unclear how many police officers were in the targeted police car.

Interim Metropolitan Police Chief Jeff Carroll said that they believe the suspects had targeted the U.S. Park Police officer in the vehicle for being law enforcement.

Authorities are searching for two suspects both described as Black males. One was dressed in a white hoodie with blue jeans, and the other was dressed all in black with a white stripe down his sleeves and pant legs.

D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser said she had been briefed on the shooting.

“Our prayers are with the officer for a quick recovery and we are grateful for all our law enforcement officers and first responders for their quick response,” she said in a statement.

Attorney General Pam Bondi said she was also briefed on the shooting by Bowser and Carroll, stating the FBI and other federal law enforcement agencies will assist the Metropolitan Police Department “in any way we can.

“Please pray for the officer’s recovery,” she said.

March 11 (UPI) — A bipartisan group of senators penned a letter to the Government Accountability Office on Wednesday calling for an investigation into the Justice Department over its handling of the Jeffrey Epstein files release.

The letter accuses the Justice Department of noncompliance with the Epstein Files Transparency Act, the bipartisan law overwhelmingly passed by both chambers of Congress last year. The lawmakers shared concern that the department has still not released all of the files it is required to by the law, despite a December deadline.

Sens. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., Ben Ray Lujan, D-N.M., Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., and Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, signed the letter. They also shared concerns about the files that have been released, including victims’ names not being redacted and alleged coconspirators’ names being redacted.

The Government Accountability Office is an independent and nonpartisan agency in the legislative branch. Its purpose is to operate as a watchdog over the federal government, with the authority to investigate and perform audits.

“Contrary to Congress’s explicit directive to protect victims, these records included email addresses and nude photos in which the names and faces of publicly-identified and non-public victims could be identified,” the letter said. “But when it came to information identifying powerful business and political figures who are alleged coconspirators or material witnesses, DOJ appears to have heavily redacted those.”

The senators are requesting that Comptroller General Orice Williams Brown reviews the department’s process it used to review, redact and release the files. They specify that they want the Government Accountability Office to investigate whether the release of the files “has serve to cover up child sexual abuse.”

The Epstein files have continued to be a source of contention between lawmakers and the Trump administration more than two months after the Justice Department was required by law to release the files.

Lawmakers have pushed for answers about the delayed and mistake-filled release from Attorney General Pam Bondi, leading to fiery exchanges in a House Judiciary Committee hearing last month.

The House Oversight Committee issued a subpoena for Bondi’s testimony last week. Five Republicans joined all of the Democrats in the committee in voting for the subpoena.

“This horrific scandal is one where powerful, wealthy men groomed, abused, and raped young women, men, and children,” the letter from the senators reads. “It is critical to understand what led to DOJ’s failure to redact the victims; information and re-victimize those individuals while violating the Epstein Files Transparency Act in its redactions of information related to their alleged abusers.”