OMITTED

What the news leaves out.

← Omitted front page

Fed Watchdog Finds No Criminality in Jerome Powell Renovation Probe

11 sources · updated 2026-10-01
Left 42% Center 25% Right 33%
5 left · 3 center · 4 right

What happened

On Wednesday, Federal Reserve Inspector General Michael Horowitz released a report concluding that former Chair Jerome Powell and other Fed officials did not violate federal criminal law and did not commit administrative misconduct in overseeing a renovation of the central bank’s Washington, D.C. headquarters — the Marriner S. Eccles Building and a building at 1951 Constitution Avenue NW. The project’s board-approved budget rose from about $1.3 billion in 2020 to roughly $2.4 billion, with completion delayed from 2024 to December 2027; Horowitz found that the Fed failed to set a guaranteed maximum price and allowed major contracts to proceed without required competitive bids or senior-level cost reviews, that inflation, design changes, asbestos, and contaminated soil also contributed, and that features such as marble, a garden terrace, and water features “did not materially contribute” to the increases. President Donald Trump publicly attacked the project in 2025, touring the site with Powell in July; the Justice Department later opened a criminal investigation into Powell’s June 2025 Senate testimony, which Chief Judge James E. Boasberg of the U.S. District Court in Washington quashed after finding the subpoenas were intended to “harass and pressure Powell” over interest rates, and prosecutors dropped the probe in April 2026. Powell, who requested the inspector general review in July 2025, remains on the Board of Governors after his chairmanship ended in May 2026. Current Chair Kevin Warsh said the General Services Administration would become project executive and that the Fed would audit awarded costs and seek reimbursement for work paid for but not performed; Trump responded by demanding Powell resign and asking Attorney General Todd Blanche to study the report.
Sourcing check · Mostly on the record · 12 articles

10 of 12 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 10 of 12
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: Fed Inspector General Michael Horowitz, Inspector General, Federal Reserve’s independent inspector general, Federal Reserve inspector general, President Donald Trump and Office of Inspector General for the Federal Reserve's Board of Governors
Primary evidence · cites a document or data 11 of 12
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, official report, inspector general report, Inspector General report
Credits another outlet 0 of 12
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 12
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 Sep 30, 17:38 UTC by The Hill, naming its source. First document in the first report, from The Hill (watchdog report).
Not counted 0
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

Left-leaning coverage never reports the inspector general's finding that the high-profile design extras did not drive the cost overruns. Right-leaning coverage carried it, and Fox Business reported those finishes were not a meaningful source of later cost increases. Attacks on a garden terrace and VIP dining run through the Guardian without that finding. A reader on the left can finish the watchdog story without the report's own answer on the finishes that fueled the public fight. Left-leaning coverage opened on the legal clearance. Right-leaning coverage opened on the waste. Headlines split the same way, from The Hill's no-crime frame to the New York Post's blast at a "Palace of Versailles" headquarters. If those extras did not blow the budget and no official committed misconduct, what did the extra spending buy?
Bottom line

The Hill's version of the Fed report is a crime clearance. It skips the inspector general's finding that marble and the garden terrace were not what drove the overrun.

The receipts — 6 facts one side's coverage lacks
  • The inspector general determined that a garden terrace, marble, and water features did not materially contribute to construction cost increases. official statementin Fox Business, New York Post · absent from left-leaning coverage
  • About 95 percent of construction work awarded through December 2025 fell outside the project's rules for escalation and senior stakeholder input. numberin Breitbart · absent from left-leaning coverage
  • A federal judge found evidence that Justice Department subpoenas were intended to harass and pressure Powell over interest rates, and no evidence of wrongdoing on his part. legal rulingin CNBC · absent from right-leaning coverage
  • The Fed had not obtained a basic cost estimate until January 2026, three-and-a-half years after construction began. numberin New York Post · absent from left-leaning coverage
  • Mid-project, the Fed scrapped open workspaces for private offices and halted design progress for 21 months. numberin New York Post · absent from left-leaning coverage
  • Sen. Elizabeth Warren said the inspector general's report leaves the Justice Department no basis to restart a criminal investigation of Powell. official statementin CNBC · absent from right-leaning coverage
The Left View
Left-leaning outlets presented the report as clearing Powell after a campaign they described as an assault on the Fed’s independence. The Guardian and CNBC highlighted Powell’s January statement that the Justice Department inquiry was “pretext” for forcing rate cuts, and Judge Boasberg’s finding that the subpoenas were meant to “harass and pressure Powell.” Sen. Elizabeth Warren said the findings leave prosecutors “no basis to restart the President’s witch hunt against former Fed Chair Jerome Powell.” These sources acknowledged that the Fed “has not effectively managed” the project but stressed that Horowitz found neither criminal violations nor administrative misconduct, that the contested design elements were not a material cost driver, and that Trump immediately demanded Powell’s resignation anyway.
The Right View
Right-leaning outlets treated the same report as a verdict of incompetence even without a crime. The New York Post called it a “scathing” review of a “Palace of Versailles” overhaul that left taxpayers covering a “pay-as-you-go” blowout; Fox Business and Breitbart emphasized that the Fed never imposed a cost ceiling, that about 95 percent of awarded construction work escaped required senior escalation, that mechanical and plumbing packages more than tripled versus roughly 16 percent construction inflation, and that a mid-project switch from open workspaces to private offices halted design for 21 months. They foregrounded Trump’s demand that Powell resign because “[h]e can’t manage a Building,” and Warsh’s decision to install the GSA, audit contracts, and seek reimbursement — which Breitbart framed as correcting failures “during former Chairman Jerome Powell’s tenure.” Breitbart quoted a former Fed staffer saying that at “Powell’s Fed, no one knew where the buck stopped.”
Our Take (balanced)
The left’s strongest argument is that the inspector general found “no reasonable grounds to believe that a violation of federal criminal law had occurred” and no administrative misconduct, after a criminal inquiry a federal judge had already found was intended to pressure Powell over monetary policy — evidence that political accusations outran the record. The right’s strongest argument is the report’s own accounting of control failures: no guaranteed maximum price years into construction, overruns far beyond inflation on core mechanical contracts, and nearly all major spending decisions proceeding outside the escalation rules meant to constrain them. The central unresolved tension is whether the absence of crime and formal misconduct settles the matter, or whether those documented oversight failures still amount to a leadership lapse that should end Powell’s remaining tenure on the Board.

11 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.