Economy March 13, 2026

Warsh Nomination Frozen as Legal Fight Over Powell Moves to Appeals

D.C. U.S. Attorney appeals judge's decision, prolonging confirmation uncertainty as Powell's term nears its end

By Maya Rios
Warsh Nomination Frozen as Legal Fight Over Powell Moves to Appeals

President Donald Trump's pick for Federal Reserve chair, Kevin Warsh, remains blocked as U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro appeals a federal judge's decision that quashed grand jury subpoenas in a criminal probe of Chair Jerome Powell. Republican senator Thom Tillis has refused to advance any Fed nominees while the investigation continues, tying Warsh's fate to the pace and outcome of the appeals process even as Powell approaches the end of his four-year term on May 15.

Key Points

  • Kevin Warsh's nomination for Fed chair is effectively stalled after D.C. U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro announced she will appeal a judge's decision that quashed grand jury subpoenas related to an investigation of Chair Jerome Powell - impacts the pace of Fed leadership change.
  • Senator Thom Tillis has said he will not advance any of the president's Fed nominees until the Powell probe is closed - this blocks committee action and delays confirmation hearings for Warsh.
  • If Warsh is not confirmed by the Senate in time for the June 16-17 Federal Open Market Committee meeting, Jerome Powell would continue to chair that meeting despite his term as Fed chair ending on May 15 - creating potential continuity in rate-setting leadership.

WASHINGTON - President Donald Trump's nomination of Kevin Warsh to lead the Federal Reserve is on hold as legal wrangling over an investigation into current Chair Jerome Powell moves forward, prolonging uncertainty about the central bank's leadership ahead of a looming term deadline.

Jeanine Pirro, the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, announced on Friday that she will appeal U.S. District Judge James Boasberg's ruling that quashed grand jury subpoenas connected to her criminal probe of Powell over Fed building renovations. Judge Boasberg had written that there was "no evidence whatsoever" of wrongdoing by Powell and criticized the investigation as a pretext to pressure the central bank on interest rates - pressure that President Trump has publicly sought to exert.

While Pirro framed the appeal as a defense of the grand jury process, the move has an immediate practical consequence: it effectively keeps Warsh's nomination from advancing. Republican Senator Thom Tillis, a member of the Senate committee that would vet Warsh, said he will not vote to move forward with any of the president's Fed nominees while the probe into Powell remains open. Tillis has clashed with the president since deciding not to seek reelection to the Senate.

Following the judge's ruling, Tillis wrote on the social platform X that "This ruling confirms just how weak and frivolous the criminal investigation of Chairman Powell is and it is nothing more than a failed attack on Fed independence." He added that the D.C. U.S. Attorney's Office should save itself further embarrassment and warned that appealing the ruling would only delay Warsh's confirmation.

Pirro, speaking at a forceful press conference, said she intends to continue the investigation and move forward with the appeal. She dismissed concerns that her decision could prevent Warsh from joining the Fed and could allow Powell to continue presiding over rate-setting meetings beyond the end of his current four-year term as chair. "I don’t care what they say, I have a job. I have the ability to go into a grand jury. There are questions that the American public and people in D.C. are entitled to know," she said. "This decision will be appealed by the United States Department of Justice."

Powell has characterized the probe as a pretext to influence the Fed's interest rate decisions. Pirro's appeal now connects the timeline for Warsh's confirmation to how long the appellate process takes and its eventual outcome.

Powell's term as Fed chair is set to expire on May 15, with two more Federal Reserve meetings scheduled before that date. Although his term as chair ends then, he will remain a member of the Board of Governors. If Warsh has not been confirmed by the Senate in time for the June 16-17 Federal Open Market Committee meeting, Powell would continue to lead those rate-setting sessions.

The prospect that a Trump administration action could inadvertently prevent the president's preferred successor from taking the chairmanship was noted by observers cited in the record. Kathryn Judge, a Columbia University law professor who has studied the Fed's legal protections, said the judge's ruling made clear what many already believed - that the investigation was an abuse of power. She observed that Pirro's actions at this stage appear to be more of an impediment than an aid to the administration's effort to install its preferred team at the Fed. "Any effort to appeal seems likely to fail and will only delay Senate hearings for Warsh," she said.


Background and immediate effects

The appeal keeps alive a legal process that a federal judge deemed unsupported by evidence and described as a possible attempt to pressure the Federal Reserve. That decision has prompted public comments from both supporters and critics of the investigation, setting up a political standoff that now has direct consequences for the timing of a potential leadership change at the central bank.

Timing and procedural implications

Because Senator Tillis has refused to advance any nominations from the administration while the probe is unresolved, Warsh's confirmation cannot proceed through the Senate committee that vets Fed nominees. The chain of events - the judge's ruling, Pirro's announcement that she will appeal, and Tillis' withholding of committee action - means the nomination will remain in limbo until the appeals court addresses the judge's decision or until other procedural changes occur in the Senate.

Legal framing

Judge Boasberg's ruling explicitly found "no evidence whatsoever" of wrongdoing by Powell and questioned the motives behind the subpoenas. Pirro has framed her decision to press forward as a duty to allow the grand jury process to run its course, while others see the appeal as prolonging a politically charged inquiry.


This unfolding sequence leaves open the near-term question of who will preside over the Fed's rate-setting discussions if a successor has not been confirmed by mid-June, and it illustrates how a legal action within the administration can intersect with the normal processes for staffing the nation's central bank.

Risks

  • Legal appeals and political disputes could delay the confirmation process for the next Fed chair - this uncertainty affects rate-setting continuity and could influence sectors sensitive to interest-rate expectations such as fixed income and banking.
  • Ongoing investigation and appeals create procedural risk for the Senate timetable, as committee withholding of nominations prevents timely vetting and confirmation - this could extend leadership uncertainty at the central bank through key policy meetings.

More from Economy

Powell’s Counsel Raised Prospect He Could Stay on Fed Board After Chair Term Ends Mar 13, 2026 Fed Turns to Former Biden Special Counsel in Fight Over DOJ Subpoenas Mar 13, 2026 Federal Judge Restores VA Union Bargaining Agreement for 320,000 Workers Mar 13, 2026 Judge Temporarily Blocks DOJ Subpoenas Targeting Fed Chair Powell Mar 13, 2026 White House Issues Two Orders Aimed at Easing Housing Costs Mar 13, 2026