OMITTED

What the news leaves out.

← Omitted front page

DOJ Declines to Reopen Criminal Investigation Into Jerome Powell

5 sources · updated 2026-10-03
Left 0% Center 0% Right 100%
0 left · 0 center · 2 right

What happened

On Friday, Attorney General Todd Blanche said the U.S. Justice Department will not reopen a criminal investigation into former Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell over cost overruns on the central bank's headquarters renovation. The Fed's inspector general had found no reasonable grounds to believe a federal crime occurred requiring a referral to the attorney general, while faulting the bank for major management and oversight failures that contributed to the project's soaring costs. The department opened the investigation in January and issued grand jury subpoenas that a federal judge quashed in March, finding they had been issued for an improper purpose and that the government had produced essentially no evidence Powell committed a crime; the DOJ later closed the probe rather than appeal. Powell, succeeded as chair by Kevin Warsh in May, remains on the Board of Governors through January 31, 2028; Warsh said the Fed would hire an independent auditor, and Blanche said the Justice Department could investigate if that review found evidence of criminal wrongdoing. President Donald Trump said Powell should be "forced to resign" from the board "at a minimum."
Sourcing check · Fully on the record · 6 articles

5 of 5 articles cite a named source for the story. It was on the record from the first report.

What these terms mean and how they're counted
On the record · names a source 5 of 5
On the record means the article cites a source by name for the story's main claim: a person, or an institution speaking officially, such as a company statement or a named agency's spokesperson. The opposite is an unnamed source. The count is how many of the counted articles cite at least one such source; the names are everyone named across them, each once however the articles spell it. Here: DOJ, Blanche, Todd Blanche, Attorney General Todd Blanche, Federal Reserve's inspector general and US justice department
Primary evidence · cites a document or data 1 of 5
Primary evidence means the article cites a record you could check yourself: a court filing or ruling, a dataset or report, a recording or transcript, an official statement or press release, market data. A quote is not a document. The count is how many articles cite one. Here: watchdog report
Credits another outlet 0 of 5
The article says the story comes from another outlet's reporting (“first reported by Reuters”). Those articles relay the story; they are not independent confirmation. Here: Each article presents its own reporting.
Unnamed sources 0 of 5
The main claim is attributed to people who are not identified: “people familiar with the matter”, “officials said”. The count is how many articles do this.
How it developed
When the first report landed and whether it named anyone; when the first named source and the first document appeared. Here: First report Oct 2, 18:57 UTC by Bloomberg, naming its source. First document 8 hours later, from Washington Examiner (watchdog report).
Not counted 1
Opinion, analysis and video pieces, and articles too short to assess. Every count above is out of the counted articles. An article republished under a new headline is one article.
This is about who is cited, not whether the story is true. Each source below says what it names. How we count
Omitted — what each side leaves out

Unpacked

Right-leaning coverage never reports that the Justice Department will not reopen a criminal investigation of Jerome Powell. Left-leaning coverage makes that the story. CNBC reports Blanche saying the department is not reopening. A judge had found "essentially no evidence" that Powell committed a crime. The department later closed the case rather than appeal. Right-leaning coverage instead spent the week on the inspector general's management critique, so a reader there would not know the criminal file is closed. Left-leaning coverage leads with the probe staying shut. Right-leaning coverage leads with a "stinging rebuke" of Powell's supervision and argues that finding no crime is not exoneration when officials avoided accountability by not supervising the project. What improper purpose did the judge find behind the original grand jury subpoenas?
Bottom line

You can finish a week of Breitbart and still not know a judge already threw out the Powell subpoenas and the Justice Department is leaving the criminal file shut.

The receipts — 2 facts one side's coverage lacks
  • A federal judge in March quashed the grand jury subpoenas after finding they had been issued for an improper purpose. legal rulingin CNBC · absent from right-leaning coverage
  • Attorney General Todd Blanche said an independent audit could still prompt an investigation if it uncovers evidence of criminal wrongdoing. official statementin CNBC, Guardian · absent from right-leaning coverage
The Left View
Left-leaning outlets treat the decision as confirmation that the criminal case lacked a foundation, stressing the inspector general's finding of no grounds for a criminal referral and the March ruling that the subpoenas were issued for an improper purpose. They place Trump's resignation demand — including his claim that Powell "can't manage a Building, and he certainly shouldn't be allowed to manage his High Interest Rate Policy (only on 'TRUMP!')" — in the context of years of clashes over interest-rate policy. They report that Blanche has not ruled out action if the independent audit uncovers criminal wrongdoing, and they note Powell's April statement that he would not leave the board "until this investigation is well and truly over, with transparency and finality."
The Right View
Breitbart frames the inspector general's report as a "stinging rebuke" of Powell's leadership rather than a vindication, arguing the financial press treated the absence of a crime as exoneration even though the Fed was "doing a lot of things wrong" and the project was "inadequately supervised in such a way as to allow the top Fed officials—including Powell—to avoid accountability." It calls the idea that "You can't pin the blame on top officials because they didn't actually supervise things" "not quite the exoneration some journalists think." The outlet contrasts that press reaction with Warsh's reforms to the supervisory structure, which it describes as "a stern repudiation of Powell's supervisory practices." It also recalls Powell's earlier claim that the original investigation was a pretext to influence monetary policy, a view it says the "legacy financial press" treated as "obviously correct" without explaining how construction subpoenas would change interest rates.
Our Take (balanced)
The left's strongest argument is legal: the inspector general found no grounds for a criminal referral, and a federal judge concluded the government produced essentially no evidence of a crime and had issued subpoenas for an improper purpose. The right's strongest argument is managerial: the same report documented inadequate supervision that, as Breitbart puts it, allowed "the top Fed officials—including Powell—to avoid accountability," and Warsh's subsequent reforms read as "a stern repudiation of Powell's supervisory practices" rather than a clean bill of health. The central unresolved tension is whether clearance on criminal grounds settles Powell's responsibility for the renovation's failures, or whether those documented oversight lapses remain a separate accountability question that a no-prosecution decision cannot answer — particularly given Trump's simultaneous pressure on Powell over interest-rate policy.

5 sources

More stories

The week's bottom lines, in your inbox

One email a week: the five stories that mattered and what they actually mean. Free.