Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell has recently been thrust into the spotlight. The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia is conducting a criminal investigation into him, primarily focusing on the Federal Reserve headquarters renovation project and whether he provided false information to Congress regarding the scope of the project.

This investigation was authorized by the head of the prosecutor’s office, Jeanine Pirro, a long-time ally of former President Trump, in November of last year. Currently, the prosecutorial team has repeatedly requested various documents related to the renovation project from Powell’s office. While it is still unclear whether Powell has been formally subpoenaed or if a grand jury has been convened, the Department of Justice issued a subpoena to the Federal Reserve last Friday, hinting at possible criminal charges related to his congressional testimony in June of last year.

In response to the mounting public scrutiny, Powell issued a formal statement on the evening of the 11th. He began by expressing respect for the rule of law and accountability, emphasizing that no one is above the law. However, he then pointed out that these allegations, on the surface, concern the renovation project, but essentially reflect something else — namely, that the Federal Reserve, under his leadership, did not follow Trump’s wishes to significantly cut interest rates, and instead maintained its independence and professional stance. Therefore, he explicitly stated that this investigation is a form of "political threat and pressure."

This statement is widely interpreted as Powell’s public defense of the Federal Reserve’s independence. It’s important to note that Trump publicly criticized Powell multiple times for refusing to cut rates, even threatening to fire him, and claimed he would sue Powell over the $2.5 billion headquarters renovation plan, calling him "incompetent."

In his statement, Powell further clarified the core issue: "It’s about whether the Federal Reserve can set interest rates independently based on economic data, or whether monetary policy becomes a tool for political intimidation." He emphasized that he has maintained "impartiality" through successive administrations and has always been committed to achieving price stability and maximum employment. He also pledged to continue working "with integrity" in the future.

While this incident appears to involve personal legal responsibility, it actually touches on the long-standing fundamental conflict between American politics and monetary policy. It’s not just about whether interest rates should go up or down, but more deeply about how modern economies can maintain rational and coherent policy.