DOJ subpoenas link to renovation testimony The Justice Department served grand‑jury subpoenas to Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, tying the action to his Senate Banking Committee testimony about a $2.5 billion renovation of Fed headquarters and the recent budget increase for the project [1][2]. Powell said the subpoenas are intended to pressure the Fed to lower interest rates rather than investigate genuine criminal conduct. Critics describe the move as weaponizing prosecutorial power against an autonomous central bank.

Powell frames investigation as retaliation for policy Powell characterized the probe as a political maneuver aimed at forcing rate cuts, insisting that monetary decisions remain data‑driven and independent of political wishes [1][2]. He warned that such interference threatens the Fed’s credibility and market stability. The chair reiterated that the central bank will not bow to external pressure.

Lawmakers unite to block Trump’s Fed nominee Democrats and a handful of Republicans announced they will oppose any Trump‑appointed Fed chair until the legal dispute is resolved [1][2]. Senators Thom Tillis and Mark Warner publicly condemned the DOJ action as an assault on the Fed’s independence. Their opposition underscores broader concerns about governance and potential market repercussions.

White House and Trump respond differently White House adviser Kevin Hassett defended the DOJ’s role, saying scrutiny is appropriate if evidence of wrongdoing emerges [1]. In contrast, former President Donald Trump told NBC News he had no knowledge of the probe, criticized Powell’s performance, and argued that current interest rates are too high [2]. Both statements add distinct political angles to the unfolding controversy.

Coverage highlights consistent political stakes Both Newsweek pieces agree on the core facts: DOJ subpoenas, Powell’s claim of retaliation, bipartisan legislative pushback, and the looming Trump nomination. Article 1 emphasizes the abuse of prosecutorial power, while article 2 adds Trump’s denial and the upcoming nomination timeline, but no substantive factual contradictions appear.