The NPR Politics Podcast - DOJ drops Fed chair probe to cap a busy week in politics

Episode Date: April 24, 2026

It was another busy week in politics. We discuss the Justice Department’s decision to drop its investigation into Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, the status of negotiations over funding for the still-shut-down Department of Homeland Security, Congress and cabinet members who left their positions, and more. This episode: senior political correspondent Tamara Keith, congressional reporter Sam Gringlas, and White House correspondent Franco Ordoñez.This podcast was produced by Casey Morell and Bria Suggs, and edited by Rachel Baye. Our executive producer is Muthoni Muturi.Listen to every episode of the NPR Politics Podcast sponsor-free, unlock access to bonus episodes with more from the NPR Politics team, and support public media when you sign up for The NPR Politics Podcast+ at plus.npr.org/politics.See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for sponsorship and to manage your podcast sponsorship preferences.NPR Privacy Policy

Hey there, it's the NPR Politics podcast. I'm Tamara Keith. I cover politics. I'm Sam Greenglass. I cover Congress. And I'm Frank O'Donias. I cover the White House. And it is time for our Friday news roundup where we tackle some of the other news of the week. And there is a lot of it. Franco, there was some intriguing news this morning from the Justice Department. The department signaled it was dropping its investigation into Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell and the Fed's renovation costs in recent years. This was something that President Trump had pushed for some time, wouldn't back down from saying this should be investigated, and now the Justice Department is stepping back. What do we know about this decision? Yeah, Trump never seemed to let off on the gas on this one at all. I mean, it's really, the decision's really quite a turnaround. I mean, Janine Puro, the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, she said she actually directed her office to close the

investigation of the Federal Reserve and the chair, Powell, of course. You know, she cited this Inspector General's office is now going to be kind of looking at the alleged cost overruns of this renovation. I will note that this flip indecision just comes days after Piro promised to continue the investigation. And as you pointed out, Trump has certainly not let up at all, including yesterday raising all these concerns. The problem that Trump had with Powell was that he was not, in his opinion, lowering interest rates soon enough. Yeah. To be clear, this investigation was pretty blatantly part of a pressure campaign from President Trump on Jerome Powell, the Fed chairman, who President Trump called too late and was trying to pressure to lower interest rates. And if not

that to just quit before his time was up. Sam, what does this mean for Kevin Warsh, who is the president's pick to become the Fed chair? He had a confirmation hearing this week, but there was a big cloud hanging over it. Yeah, North Carolina Republican Senator Tom Tillis pretty much had the power to hold up this nomination on the banking committee, so it couldn't even get out of committee to a floor vote. And it is pretty hard to argue that Tillis' blocking did not have a role. in this investigation coming to an end. And I will be curious to hear from Tillis whether he's going to his colleagues now and saying, look, Congress does have the power to influence what comes out of the White House. And you all need to, instead of taking a backseat, actually use your power to do

that. So I think he'll be looking at this as a lesson for his colleagues that Congress has a role to play here and they haven't been playing it and they need to reassert themselves. Tillis absolutely used his leverage here to full effect. And we should note that he's He's retiring. So he's in a little bit of a different category than a lot of his Republican colleagues are. Yes. Our retiring is the label you put on anyone who is a Republican retiring and suddenly using their power, speaking more freely criticizing the president in the way they wouldn't if they were going to be on the ballot again.

I talked to him at the annual dog parade that he hosts a couple of months ago. And he told me that he is thinking about his final months in office, It's not about the number of days he has left, but about how he uses those days. And this is one example of trying to use that power in these last couple of months before he leaves office. Franca, let's turn to the war in Iran now, which continues in this sort of stalemate that has been in place for about a week now. The White House has often said that this conflict would be fast and end quickly, but it's now approaching the two-month mark longer than the president initially said it would be. So what's the latest? Yeah, on that two-month mark, I mean, the president, even yesterday, is like calling for patience and making all these wild comparisons, despite saying in the beginning that it would be four, five, six weeks, you know, now he's kind of changing his tune and talking about how all these other conflicts, whether in Afghanistan, Vietnam, even the World War II, they were much longer. That said, you know, the president continues to try and do everything he can to end. this conflict. Right now, he's trying to ramp up pressure on Iran even more announcing these,

you know, kind of Venezuela-like strikes on boats that he says are laying mines in the Strait of Hormuz. You know, this is on top of the recent U.S. blockade that the administration has put on the Iranian ports, which they say is costing Iran about $400 million, $500 million a day. and those close to the administration are saying that this could be the thing that breaks the dam, this could be the thing that causes more havoc internally, more political fractures, more social unrest. The problem with that strategy is that the Trump administration has all along been playing this game, thinking that if you just put enough pressure on Iran, enough military pressure, enough economic pressure, that Iran would eventually capitulate the problem.

The problem is they have not so far, and they just keep holding on with feeling, at least from that perspective, that they can endure more pain than the president can. Yeah, the White House is calling this now Operation Economic Fury instead of Epic Fury. This is the blockade stage of the war, which the president still doesn't really want to call it a war. But I do think that there is an issue that the White House is learning the hard way, which is, Iran can win by not losing, and it's much harder for the U.S. to win, especially if the Strait of Hormuz is not open and the economy all over the world, the global economy, is being hurt by that. Sam, two months, 60 days is a notable time period because under federal law, the president is either supposed to pull back from a conflict or get Congress to authorize the war. Is anybody sitting there watched by this timeline? So early on in this conflict, we heard from some Republican senators saying, you know, right now I'm okay with the actions that the administration is taking. But if this stretches on to that 60 day mark, to that 90 day mark, then maybe that's when I'm going to have some more concerns.

As we're getting closer to that mark, there hasn't really been a huge change in the number of Republicans who are saying that they're going to force the issue or push back on the president's ability to use force in the space. But what Democrats are hoping for is by continuing to have these votes, eventually that support may grow for pushing back on what the president's doing. Franco, I want to turn from the war abroad to what is turning into something of a war in the cabinet room at the White House. Three members of the administration have gotten the boot in recent weeks, cabinet secretaries, Homeland Security Secretary Christine Ome, Attorney General Pam Bondi, and Labor Secretary Lori Chavez, Dreamer was the latest one. There was a lot of turnover in Trump's first term and it was very dramatic. In the second term, there was no cabinet level turnover until, well, right around the time the war started and all of a sudden, three or out in two months. What's going on here? Yeah, I was actually thinking the same thing that this is definitely reminding me of the first

administration when so much focus was on the palace intrigue and, you know, kind of the different political factions that were in the White House. So after a year where things seemed to be pretty steady, you know, most of the conversations and the reports where everyone was so much more loyal in this administration, things really have seemed to kind of break apart a bit in the last couple months. And I'm just kind of wondering how much farther this is going to go. You're starting to see more leaks coming out of the administration. You're seeing these challenges. And I think that's reflective of this war in Iran and other issues that, you know, this administration is just having a much harder time with the public narrative. And it's causing them, you know, challenges in different

ways. Yeah, this was a very bad no good week for the president, arguably, and not just with the war sort of stagnating, but also in Virginia voters approved a partisan redistricting plan that could give Democrats several more congressional seats in that state. And this is part of an ongoing fight that President Trump started last summer with redistricting in Texas. And it's just been going and going and going and going. In the end, though, Franco, this is getting close to being a wash. Is there any regret coming from the White House? You know, Trump's calling the results of that election rigged, but he hasn't provided any ever. evidence to that point. And it really is reflective of a broader pattern of challenges that the

president has raised when he has not won or when elections have not gone in the way he'd like. And it's also, you know, critics certainly say this is another example of what we may see later on in future elections. You know, I agree that this could be a wash, but I do think it shows momentum for Democrats. And you could argue that this vote in Virginia is a bit of a backfire from what is happening in other parts of the country. And Sam, we should note there are still some legal challenges playing out in Virginia, and we don't know how that is going to end challenges to that ballot measure that was approved by the voters. And also, there's still Florida in play.

They have a special legislative session scheduled for next week. How are Republicans in Congress thinking about all of this? What's interesting with Florida is we're starting to hear some Republicans on the Hill saying they are hesitant. about doing this redistricting because they're now seeing that maybe it could possibly backfire. You know, when you change districts to such an extent, sometimes that can make seats that were safe for Republicans now a lot more competitive. We're hearing this from some Florida members, particularly in the Miami area, who are hesitant about what a massive reshaping of their districts could do ahead of their reelections, which were already looking maybe a little more challenging

than they had been in past cycles. One other thing I want to add, I went to Indiana. to cover the redistricting fight there back in the fall. And something I heard from Professor Laura Merrifeld Wilson, a political science professor at the University of Indianapolis, has really stuck with me and I think feels even more relevant at this stage in the process. She said, what if enough states do this? And it's actually awash. The real losers are the voters in those congressional districts.

And I think it is very hard to look at that Virginia map and say that these are districts that are good for the constituents who live inside of them. The map is extremely gerrymandered. We had these movements to making maps less gerrymandered with independent redistricting commissions over the last few years. And a lot of that has backslid now. Yeah. All right. We are going to take a quick break and we will have more political news after the break.

Welcome back, everybody. And Sam, I want to stay on Capitol Hill where a number of members have left office over the past 10 days or so. As best you can, walk us through what's happened there. Okay, so it's kind of interesting the House Press Gallery when they put the list together online of these actually calls it a casualty list. Oh my God. Yeah. In this case, we're talking about a couple members who have resigned ahead of possible expulsion votes for various forms of misbehavior or misconduct. And then we had another member who died in office this week.

That's Georgia Democratic Congressman David Scott, who was 80 years old and had been under pressure to step aside, did not run for re-election again. because of his age and concerns from some of his constituents. But I want to get in now to the folks who resigned as they face possible expulsion votes. Our scandals, if you will. Yes. So the latest was Florida Democrat Sheila Sherfulness McCormick. She's under indictment over allegations of using $5 million in disaster relief money for her campaign. And she resigned just as the Ethics Committee was set to recommend sanctions against.

her. And this comes after California Democrat Eric Swalwell resigned last week amid sexual assault and harassment allegations. So did Texas Republican Tony Gonzalez, who admitted to an affair with a staffer who later died by suicide. And then there's also Florida Republican Cory Mills, who has not resigned but is facing pressure to over allegations of assault and also allegations that he violated campaign finance law. All four of these members have denied wrongdoing. Three held on, eventually resigned this fourth. We are still waiting to see what happens. You know, one thing I do want to ask you about here, though, is we had these members who ultimately quit before they could be kicked out. And Congress is a weird place where there isn't a traditional HR department, where the member of Congress is really the boss, and where they investigate themselves for wrongdoing. And they do so slowly. Yeah, there's no HR department, but there is the House Ethics Committee.

You know, I talked to one of the former chairs of the committee, Charlie Dent, a former Congressman Republican from Pennsylvania. And he described kind of what that awkward dance can be like to have to police your own colleagues. He said he had so many incredibly uncomfortable elevator rides with colleagues who his committee was actively investigating. But, you know, one thing I think that is different here. Historically, so few members have been expelled from Congress because they're will resign before that happens. You know, if all four of these members had been expelled, that would have been more than in the past 165 years. Almost all of these happened during the Civil War when

Congress tried to boot out active members of the Confederacy who were sometimes taking up arms against the United States. But what is different now is that members are sometimes hanging on longer. Former Congressman Charlie Dent told me that is because they have taken a page from President Trump. Members would resign because they felt shame. If you don't feel shame and you're not embarrassed, you're not going to care what people say about you and you're just going to hang in there. And this is something we've seen not just from Republicans, but from Democrats too. And, you know, one more thing I want to add here that is different about maybe a past political era is often these members would not be pushed out because there would not be blessing from leadership because the margins are really tight or they would wait until these ethics investigations, which you mentioned, can take a really long time to play out. Now we're seeing more backbench members of Congress being willing to force these expulsion votes or these censure votes, which is really a departure from the past.

And they're doing that because they have more of a platform that a very junior member of Congress might previously not have had. They come in with this big social media presence. And that also means that the public is more tuned in to misconduct in Congress. And that has implications for trust in the institution. I talked about that with Georgetown University's Matthew Glassman. He is an expert on congressional history. There's a widespread belief that members of Congress don't have to follow the same rules or can get away with things. And, you know, when these scales come to light, that feeds that perception.

And when the House doesn't do anything about it, it feeds that perception. Yeah. And so this has really created conversations about whether the House Ethics Committee is in a position to deal with these allegations appropriately and quickly. And, you know, there was also an era when there were really powerful congressional leaders. who would go up to their member and say, we can do this the easy way or we can do this the hard way, but you need to go. And those conversations don't seem to be happening in the same way right now. Yeah, we don't have a speaker, Nancy Pelosi or John Boehner. You know, we have folks that are still trying to get a handle on their caucuses in some ways. Yeah, I mean, I just feel like the bigger dynamics have just changed so much in Washington and across the country in the Trump era.

They hang on because they can, you know, perhaps because the news cycle changed so rapidly. Trump, you know, has certainly survived his number of scandals. I mean, he was indicted and then continued to run for re-election and won the presidency. I think he is, you know, serving as a bit of an example for some that, hey, if you can hang on long enough, people's attention will change and you can perhaps survive this out. though Trump has unique powers there that some other people don't share. Sam, let's talk about the Department of Homeland Security. There's this whole government agency that's really huge and has technically been in a government shutdown for more than two months now.

Does Congress have any urgency to fix this? Has there been any movement? It doesn't seem like it. I mean, yeah, there's been some movement. So just to recap a little bit, the Senate struck this deal to, to fund most of the Department of Homeland Security except for immigration and customs enforcement and customs and border protection, which were really the two agencies that were the target of Democrats' concerns as they tried to push for reforms to hinge this appropriations on.

That plan has basically stalled in the House for like four weeks now. The House has been sitting on a resolution to fund most of DHS and is not past it. And the reason that is happening is because they want assurances that the Senate is going to move to fund ICE and CBP through a party line maneuver that we call budget reconciliation. And so they're waiting to see some tangible progress on that front in the Senate, which we did see this week. But that has opened up a whole other can of worms as some Republicans start to say, well, this budget reconciliation is too narrow. This is our last chance to enact some policy priorities that we can run on in the midterms. We want to throw more things in here, whether

that's a voting overhaul or cost of living policies. And so this has continued to balloon into a bigger conversation. And here we are two months in and this department is still unfunded. I mean, if they were to use this sort of special one-time only power that they have through budget reconciliation to avoid the 60 vote threshold, it would be remarkably unambitious if they only used it to fund a small part of the government, which is just a very basic part of the job. Sure, but there's concerns from Senate Majority Leader John Thune that if you expand it out to anything else, then you're in a position where there is conflict within the caucus and you don't have the votes to get it done quickly. And this department stays shut down for even longer. And they could run out of money. And

people could again start seeing lines at airports and all of these other problems that we've been dealing with. Right. Trump has been paying them through other forms. But as we heard from Secretary Mark Wayne Mullen this week, that money is not going to last forever. So the dynamic could shift again. Franco, the White House is signaled that it is on board with this plan that would have the House signing on and passing the Senate bill that funds most of the Department of Homeland Security and then doing a reconciliation bill that cuts out Democrats to fund the more controversial parts of Homeland Security like Customs Supporter Protection and ICE. And yet the House is back and they haven't done anything. Is the President losing his juice with them? It's a good question.

I mean, the President certainly has some leverage. There's no more powerful voice in the GOP than President Trump. And certainly he could use his bully pulpit to get the House and get House Republicans as allies to take more action with unanimity, you know, to basically cut out the Democrats. That said, you know, he is getting some pushback from Republicans and he hasn't been pushing as hard as he has in the past. So it is very interesting. Perhaps he is hearing some things behind the scenes that, you know, Republicans are not as, you know, favorable to do this. I mean, that certainly, certainly seems to be the signs of things. But it is fascinating to see that the president doesn't seem to have the same kind of muscle with, you know, his own party that he has in the past.

And, you know, I'm trying to think through how much of this is a Trump question versus a Speaker Mike Johnson question. You know, this is a very narrow margin that Johnson has. And so just a couple of members can trip up plans. And we've seen that happen time and time again with getting this DHS funding done. Johnson's best laid plans end up kind of falling by the wayside. And this is a moment that Johnson and Republicans in Congress want to be talking about the one big beautiful bill act and tax savings ahead of the midterms and what they're going to run. on when they go to voters this fall, and they're still being dragged into not being able to figure out funding for DHS and some of these other programs that should seem like easier lifts. All right, we're going to take one more quick break, and then it's time for Can't Let It Go. And we're back. And it's time for Can't Let It Go, the part of the pod where we talk about the things

from the week that we just can't stop thinking about politics or otherwise, Franco Ortonius. Yeah, my, you know, what I can't let go this week is how this battle. in Iran has gone online. These meme wars that have really taken off, especially with the Iranian aligned memes using Lego characters and other characters, kind of trying to make fun of the U.S. I mean, this is something in a way that the administration was actually doing early on. You know, remember those video games that they were kind of like displaying about the war, but those kind of seemed to be more like targeting Trump's base where these kind of Lego ones and the others, they're all AI-driven, seem to be more directed to more of a global audience. And it's just fascinating thinking and

watching how this, you know, public warfare is happening and this fight for, you know, the hearts and minds of a global audience because it does seem to be having an impact. And, you know, it's certainly getting a lot, a lot of attention. I will be honest. I've had a rather not online week this week and I haven't seen them. Damn. But my group chats are blowing up with people talking about it. My teenage son was like, oh, yeah, everybody's talking about the Lego Trump. And I'm like, oh, I feel like I'm missing out. That's the point right there. How much does your teenage son, you know, staying on top of so much news of the day, you know, but he's watching this. I mean, it's fascinating. It's really. in this crazy way reaching a different audience. This is a propaganda war in addition to everything else.

Exactly. I'll go next. And what I can't let go of is these prediction markets, sites like Pauley Market and Kalshi, where you can place trades on all kinds of things like what the president is going to say today, or what the oil price will get to, or who's going to win the presidential election. and how in the last week there has been all kinds of news about insider trades or things that certainly appear to be insider trades. And then this news that broke yesterday where federal prosecutors unsealed an indictment against a U.S. Army Special Forces soldier who used allegedly insider knowledge of the military operation to capture Venezuela's leader, Nicholas Maduro. Duro to win more than $400,000 in profits.

Like, that is wild. Wasn't Trump asked about this and said something like, I don't like it, but this is just the way things are now? I mean, it's fascinating because when, you know, when these stories of people making all this money based on this information about, you know, attacks and invasions, whether it was Venezuela or Iran, I mean, there was a lot of money being made. It was just too much of a coincidence. It was just too much.

So it's perhaps not surprising, but still fascinating. I will say that the president's son, Donald Trump Jr., is an advisor to both of those companies, Kalshie and Polly Market. And President Trump used some sort of an example of Pete Rose where he said, well, you know, he was betting for his team to win. And so that's better than betting for your team to lose. Trump is always a Pete Rose fan. Always. Sam, what can't you leco of? Okay, now I'm still thinking about the Legos because I hadn't thought about it much before,

but now I feel like we need to have Lego figures. Maybe this is part of our online branding campaign. I don't know. Just tell me. Okay, I want to, I know we've been a little politics heavy in this segment, but I'm also going to stay on the Hill, sorry. And that is, it was Take Your Kid to Work Day on Capitol Hill this week. And House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries held a press conference,

not for reporters, but for the children of reporters as part of Take Your Kid to Work Day. And he got both some pretty hard-hitting questions. I think the first one right out of the gate was why do voters view Democrats so poorly? Wow. Good question, kid, whoever you are. Pretty tough question from a kid. But he also got questions about some lighter things, including what is your favorite candy? And this was his answer.

I've been trying to eat healthy. And so actually sugar-free Hershey's chocolate has become the candy of my choice. There is a wrong answer, and he found it. Like if he is a dietary thing, fine. I am all behind his choice. But if that is just a choice, I do have questions. It's like handing out the raisins or the apples in your turkey tree basket. I could just see some Republican sources saying that answer right there is the answer for the first question that was raised.

That's why Democrats have challenges. Dietary challenges for sure. Okay, that's all for today. Our executive producer is Mithani Maturi. Our producers are Casey Morel and Brea Suggs. Our editor is Rachel Bay. Special thanks to Krishna Dev Kalimer and Dana Farrington. I'm Tamara Keith.

I cover politics. I'm Sam Greenglass. I cover Congress. And I'm Frank Ordonez. I cover the White House. And thank you for listening to the NPR Politics Podcast. Thank you.