upholds

A United States federal judge has once again batted down a pair of subpoenas from the administration of President Donald Trump seeking information about Jerome Powell, the chairman of the Federal Reserve, the country’s central bank.

In a brief, six-page opinion published on Friday, Judge James Boasberg rejected the Department of Justice’s motion to reconsider his earlier ruling rejecting the subpoenas.

“The Government’s arguments do not come close to convincing the Court that a different outcome is warranted,” Boasberg wrote.

On March 13, Boasberg, a judge for the federal court in the District of Columbia, nullified the subpoenas on the basis that they were issued for an “improper purpose”: to pressure Powell into compliance with the president’s demands.

Trump and Powell — an appointee from the president’s first term — have been at loggerheads since the Republican leader returned to the White House in January 2025.

Although the Federal Reserve is an independent government agency, not subject to political demands, Trump has repeatedly called on the bank to slash interest rates, and he has denounced Powell as “incompetent”, “crooked” and a “fool” for not following suit.

For months, pressure had been building from the Trump White House to investigate Powell and push him prematurely from his job as Federal Reserve chair. Powell’s term is slated to expire in May.

Much of the Trump administration’s focus has fallen on renovations to the Federal Reserve’s historic 1930s buildings in Washington, DC, which have gone over budget.

The administration has pointed to the cost overruns as evidence of malfeasance.

Last July, for instance, Trump appointee William Pulte called on Congress to investigate Powell for “political bias” and “deceptive” testimony related to the renovation project.

The following month, Trump posted on his platform Truth Social that he was considering “a major lawsuit against Powell” in response to “horrible, and grossly incompetent” work on the renovations.

The pressure reached a climax on January 11, when Powell made a rare statement announcing he was under a Justice Department investigation over the renovation project. He dismissed the probe as a “pretext” to undermine the Federal Reserve’s leadership over monetary policy.

“The threat of criminal charges is a consequence of the Federal Reserve setting interest rates based on our best assessment of what will serve the public, rather than following the preferences of the president,” Powell said.

The Federal Reserve has since sought to have the subpoenas into Powell’s behaviour tossed.

Boasberg sided with the central bank in his initial ruling, and in Friday’s opinion, he called the Trump administration’s efforts to change his mind insufficient.

The Justice Department had argued that it does not need to produce evidence of a crime to seek a grand jury subpoena.

Boasberg agreed with that point, but he said subpoenas were also subject to a legal standard that bars them from being issued for “improper” purposes.

“The subpoena power ‘is not unlimited’ and may not be abused,” Boasberg wrote, citing court precedent.

He therefore ruled that the lack of evidence overall against Powell was relevant to the legality of the subpoenas.

“The controlling legal question is what these ‘subpoena[s’] dominant purpose’ is: pressuring Powell to lower rates or resign, or pursuing a legitimate investigation opened because the facts suggested wrongdoing,” Boasberg said.

“Resolving that question requires probing whether the Government’s asserted basis for the subpoenas — suspicions of fraud and lying to Congress — is colorable or tenuous. That inquiry, in turn, means asking how much evidence there is to back up the Government’s assertions.”

Boasberg underscored that he has seen no suggestion that Powell committed criminal wrongdoing and pointed to the long list of statements Trump has made attacking the Federal Reserve chair, suggesting an ulterior motive.

“The Government’s fundamental problem is that it has presented no evidence whatsoever of fraud,” he concluded.

Friday’s ruling is likely to set the stage for the Trump administration to appeal. US Attorney Jeanine Pirro has previously denied any political motivation for the investigation.

She has also asserted that Boasberg is “without legal authority” to nullify the subpoenas.

The football federation of Morocco says it welcomes the CAF Appeal Board decision to award it the 2025 AFCON title.

The Royal Moroccan Football Federation (FRMF) has commended the decision to award its country the 2025 Africa Cup of Nations (AFCON) title, which was stripped from Senegal.

The FRMF “welcomes the decision, which reaffirms the primacy of competition regulations and reinforces the conditions necessary for the proper conduct of international tournaments”, the federation said in a statement on Thursday.

The Confederation of African Football (CAF) had announced on Tuesday that its Appeal Board had awarded the tournament to Morocco, the defeated finalists, on January 18.

The final, which Senegal won 1-0 in extra time, was delayed for 14 minutes when the Senegalese players and staff returned to the dressing room in protest against the awarding of an injury-time penalty to Morocco in the second half.

When play eventually resumed, Moroccan striker Brahim Diaz missed the kick with Senegal going on to win the game thanks to Pape Gueye’s stunning strike.

“From the outset, following the incidents that led to the interruption of the match, the FRMF maintained a clear and consistent position: the strict application of the governing regulations. The Federation’s approach was solely guided by this principle,” the FRMF statement read.

“Following its appeal, CAF has now confirmed that the applicable regulations were not properly enforced.”

Morocco appealed to CAF to overturn the result immediately after the final, which descended into chaos during and after the protest, and led to a pitch invasion, which resulted in 18 Senegalese fans being handed prison sentences.

The initial appeal was rejected, and the Appeal Board decision came exactly two months after the final was completed.

“Throughout the process, the FRMF acted in full compliance with all relevant legal and procedural frameworks, with a constant focus on upholding its rights and preserving the integrity of the competition,” it said in the statement.

“This decision provides clarity on the applicable framework and strengthens the consistency and credibility of international competitions, particularly within African football.”

The Senegal Football Federation (FSF) immediately responded to CAF’s ruling by saying it would take its own appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport.

Such a process could take as long as a year to reach a final decision.

Senegal’s government on Wednesday went on to allege corruption following the decision and called for an independent international investigation into the matter.