On April 24, 2026, before any official press release was awaited, news that the U.S. Department of Justice was "preparing to halt the criminal investigation into Powell" had already made the rounds in the media and market. Multiple sources revealed to ABC News that the Department of Justice is expected to terminate or withdraw the criminal investigation against Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell, with a timeline indicated as "as early as this Friday" — the last trading day of that week. However, at the moment the journalists pressed send, the investigation was still legally in a state of "not officially concluded."
This report first raised by ABC News was quickly cited by several Chinese crypto media outlets such as Foresight, Deep Tide TechFlow, PANews, and Odaily Planet Daily. Keywords like "terminate," "withdraw," "criminal investigation," and "Federal Reserve Chairman" were recombined in titles, rapidly amplifying the core discussion of that day in both macro and crypto communities. For many observers, what truly stirred emotions were not just the static facts of "there is an investigation" or "the investigation will terminate," but the incomplete timeline between them — when the Department of Justice would formally conclude, and whether the decision would arrive as rumored.
In this ambiguous zone of "expected termination, but not yet officially announced," the market instinctively took this news as a signal to alleviate uncertainty: if the criminal investigation into the Federal Reserve Chairman is withdrawn, the systemic risks of leadership vacuums and policy constraints under extreme circumstances seem to have been pushed back a step. Yet, at the same time, a more difficult question was also placed on the table — when a highly politically sensitive criminal investigation, which concerns the core of U.S. monetary policy, is quietly paused, is it mending the rift between judicial and central bank powers, or creating a new one? This article will explore this contradiction: how the expectation of terminating the investigation calms the market while reigniting the dual debates regarding judicial independence and central bank independence.
Criminal Investigation Targets Central Bank Leadership
What truly shocked the market was not just the word "investigation," but rather its target — the current Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell — and the clear labeling of it as a "criminal investigation" led by the U.S. Department of Justice.
In the political and financial framework of the U.S., the Federal Reserve Chairman is almost positioned at the pinnacle of monetary power: controlling interest rate directions and having primary responsibility for financial system stability, he is also the default "anchor figure" when pricing global risk assets. Launching a criminal investigation against someone in such a position is no longer seen as a simple individual compliance issue by market participants, but rather interpreted as a clash between institutions — judicial power directly points to the core of monetary policy, symbolizing far greater implications than the case itself.
What makes it even trickier is that the information currently available only confirms two key labels: "DOJ-led" and "criminal investigation," while the details of the charges, scope of involvement, and timeline remain shrouded in ambiguity. Externally, it can only be confirmed that "there is indeed such a matter," but it cannot explain "exactly why," and this information structure inherently amplifies the imagination for bearish scenarios: is it a technical dispute, or a higher-level accountability issue? Is it a short-term storm, or a potential institutional rift? No one can provide a definitive answer.
Under such uncertainty, the mere existence of the "investigation" itself is sufficient to trigger market concerns about several core issues: Can the Federal Reserve's policy maintain continuity? Will the central bank's independence be further squeezed between political pressures and judicial actions? Will future interest rate decisions be more inclined to a "safety posture" because the chairman is under investigation? Research briefings aimed at institutions have already pointed out that such investigations targeting the Federal Reserve Chairman have a high degree of political sensitivity, easily dragging discussions towards two keywords — judicial independence and central bank independence — and forcing investors to reassess the "reliability" of the U.S. institutional environment.
Emotions rapidly fermented in two parallel market worlds. The immediate response from the traditional financial circle was anxiety about "continuity": If the helm of monetary policy is shrouded in judicial shadows, do the assumptions behind the yield curve need to be rewritten? In the macro trading models of hedge funds, the "stability of the Federal Reserve leadership," previously viewed as a constant, suddenly becomes a variable that needs to be discounted.
The crypto community, on the other hand, amplified this news within a different narrative. On one hand, the fact that the Federal Reserve Chairman is caught in a criminal investigation was seen by many as a symbol of "cracks in the old order" — everything from the credibility of the dollar to financial regulation seems to be up for reevaluation; on the other hand, the judicial department's actions that reach the pinnacle of monetary policy were interpreted as a signal of deep political interference in the financial system, reinforcing the sentiment of "do not hand over fate to a single central institution." In discussions on social platforms, debates over judicial independence and central bank independence intertwined with speculations regarding the prospects of dollar assets and risk assets, creating a noisy background sound.
It is precisely in this rare atmosphere of power convergence and highly asymmetric information that any subsequent winds of potential "investigation termination" will be amplified by the market into directional signals — both an attempt to ease the currently tense emotions and a new starting point for a larger debate.
How the Expectation of Investigation Termination Cools Panic
In the days of extreme information scarcity, the first "safety rope" came from what seemed like a technical message. Multiple informed sources told ABC News that the U.S. Department of Justice is expected to terminate or withdraw its criminal investigation against Powell, potentially making a decision as early as Friday, April 24, 2026. Once the news was released, it was cited by multiple Chinese media outlets, and the phrase "expected termination" quickly replaced "under investigation" as the new market keyword — not because the outcome was certain, but because it was seen as a directional signal capable of alleviating panic.
For traders and macro researchers, such wording of "expected termination" is essentially a tool for managing expectations of "risk landing": it does not equate to a formal closure of the case, but probabilistically diminishes the weight of the most extreme scenarios. Previously, in a state of unclear boundaries, the market had to incorporate a series of tail risks into scenario analyses: if the investigation dragged on indefinitely, it could hang over the Federal Reserve like a sword of Damocles, becoming a political undercurrent in all monetary policy decisions; if it escalated further, it could give rise to even more extreme scenarios — from damage to leadership authority to the possibility of a decision vacuum or policy constraints under certain circumstances.
These scenarios are regarded not as "what will happen," but as "what could happen in the worst case" written into the risk list. Precisely because the target is the critically significant position of the Federal Reserve Chairman, these tail risks are magnified in value: even if the likelihood is low, it is sufficient to raise the institutional risk premium. ABC News' disclosure of the "expected termination" expectation effectively tells the market: given the current information, the probability of extreme paths is declining. This adjustment in probability is enough to shift discussions from previously assumed scenarios of "leadership vacuum" and "policy paralysis" back to marginal hypotheses.
However, easing does not equal conclusion. As of the time of reporting, the Department of Justice had not officially announced the termination of the investigation, and the market repeatedly dissected the time and tone of details like "expected" and "potentially making a decision on Friday": on one hand, it was viewed as a signal of reduced uncertainty, alleviating concerns about political shocks interfering with monetary policy; on the other hand, the lack of an official statement also means that this expectation could be corrected by new information at any time, and the emotions had not completely desensitized.
From a macro pricing perspective, the stability of the central bank leadership and judicial environment is one of the foundational assumptions for pricing risk assets. Risk assets — whether in the stock market or crypto assets — are typically highly sensitive to the central bank's policy path and governance stability: the structure of power and public opinion surrounding the Federal Reserve will translate into overall risk appetite through interest rate expectations and confidence in policy coherence. A Federal Reserve surrounded by political and judicial storms would be viewed as a central bank with "limited policy space," leading to greater uncertainty about its future paths for interest rate hikes, cuts, or even balance sheet adjustments.
In this context, the message of "expected investigation termination" briefly reconstructs a more familiar script for the macro market: the Federal Reserve's policy continuity is temporarily seen as maintainable, expectations for judicial shocks interfering with monetary policy are lowered, and risk appetite experiences a slight retreat from extreme defensive stances. This emotional easing indirectly supports a repricing of stocks and crypto assets — not because anyone has suddenly become optimistic, but because the worst institutional narrative, at this moment, has been pressed on pause. The real direction, however, will depend on every word spoken the next time the Department of Justice steps to the microphone.
The Information Vacuum of Mysterious Details
The market's emotions being briefly soothed by the "expected investigation termination" does not mean that the story has become clear. So far, the hard information we can truly confirm is remarkably limited: first, the U.S. Department of Justice has initiated a criminal investigation against Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell; second, multiple informed sources told ABC News that this investigation is "expected" to be terminated or withdrawn, potentially making a decision as early as Friday, April 24, 2026. Beyond that, the most critical details that could influence the nature of the event remain blank.
The briefing writes very calmly: specific charges related to this investigation, the precise timeline of initiation, and the processes of issuing and withdrawing subpoenas have not been confirmed by authoritative media or official documents. Even the most basic questions — exactly what is being investigated, when it started, how far it has progressed — lack reliable sources that can be publicly cited. For a criminal procedure directly targeting the Federal Reserve Chairman, this lack of information itself creates immense uncertainty.
In such a vacuum, a few "single-source" claims have been rapidly magnified. For example, some channels claim that this case is related to cost overruns in the renovation project of the Federal Reserve headquarters, involving around $2.5 billion; others circulate that the investigation may have started in January 2026, with key subpoenas withdrawn in March, and this withdrawal being maintained in April. All of these have been uniformly labeled as "unverified information" in the briefing — originating from a single channel, not independently verified, and cannot be packaged as already conclusive "plot details."
● In other words, many of the "insider details" circulating about Powell's investigation currently:
- either have only one source;
- or lack accompanying public documents or verification by multiple media outlets;
- under professional standards, can only be viewed as rumors awaiting further validation, rather than facts on which conclusions can be drawn.
The briefing even emphasizes that outsiders should not "imagine" based on this — should not fabricate case charges or details of the amount involved, nor invent a complete timeline, and should not script dialogues for the Department of Justice, judges, or within the Federal Reserve. For information practitioners, this serves as a rare but necessary "brake reminder": what lies ahead is a highly sensitive case with extremely sparse details, and any extra sentence of "entertaining plot" could cross the boundaries of fact.
In this information vacuum, what often holds the advantage is not fact, but narrative. Market participants and the public sphere need an explanation, leading to conspiracy theories and partisan stories beginning to fill the void: some interpret it from the angle of judicial independence, suspecting this is a politically motivated operation; others view the investigation itself as a potential threat to the neutrality of monetary policy. The event has yet to reach a conclusion, but the dual debate surrounding "Can justice remain unled by politics?" and "Can the central bank remain unled by justice?" has already begun to intensify.
This state of "substituting emotions for information" is incredibly dangerous for pricing and risk preferences. The signal of "expected investigation termination" has pressed the pause button on the worst-case scenario for the market, but with the charges, amounts, and timeline still pending, asset prices are effectively searching for anchors amidst a backdrop of narrative noise. Moving forward, every formal statement from the Department of Justice will directly influence that anchor: either filling the void with clear details and pushing conspiracy theories out, or continuing to leave blanks, allowing doubts about justice and central bank integrity to amplify through imaginative gaps.
The Game Between Judicial Independence and Central Bank Authority
In the context of near-blank case details, the external world soon incorporated this "criminal investigation of the Federal Reserve Chairman — expected to terminate" into a long-term observation framework of U.S. judicial independence and political struggle. For many observers, what is truly under scrutiny is not just Powell himself but whether the Department of Justice dares to, should, and how to utilize criminal tools against the highest official of the central bank as a whole institutional behavior.
Two diametrically opposite narrative templates have emerged around the same set of facts.
One narrative depicts it as a model of "institutional self-correction": The Department of Justice previously initiated a criminal investigation against Powell and is now expected to terminate it, but as of the time of reporting, no formal publicly available documents have been issued. Supporters of this view would emphasize that the mere possibility of investigating the Federal Reserve Chairman indicates that the U.S. judicial system does not establish "sacred untouchables"; and as more internal evaluations suggest that proceeding is inappropriate, the choice to stop is framed as a form of self-repair to curb power. The expectation for termination learned from multiple insiders through ABC News, which was swiftly cited by several Chinese media outlets, is interpreted within this perspective as a part of a system operating transparently — the information flowed through media, reducing market uncertainty, and although the process has not put a formal end, the direction has been pre-aligned in public discourse.
The other narrative interprets it as the latest evidence of political pressure or political protection: initiating a criminal investigation against a highly sensitive position like the Federal Reserve Chairman is viewed as an action that touches on the core of power; in the absence of key information such as charges, amounts involved, and the initiation timeline, the expectation of termination is instead interpreted by some as the appearance of an "invisible hand" — either some political force is trying to use the existence of an investigation to pressure the central bank or elements within the system are backing up core officials at a critical moment. In this narrative, the decision to expect the Department of Justice to terminate the investigation is not seen as a manifestation of independence, but rather included in the long list of "political interference in justice," used to validate existing suspicions.
This divisive interpretation directly impacts the discourse surrounding central bank independence. At the market level, the "termination expectation" is generally viewed as a signal to reduce extreme governance risks — at least in the foreseeable future, the Federal Reserve leadership will not immediately fall into a vacuum due to criminal proceedings, and the continuity of macro policy is nominally maintained. However, in the public discourse, this event has already been shaped into a reusable material: every time the Federal Reserve's interest rate path or balance sheet choices provoke controversy in the future, supporters can present this incident along with the expectation of termination to emphasize "the Federal Reserve also has to face judicial accountability, but ultimately continues to operate," thereby defending its professional authority; opponents may repeatedly point to the same event, stressing that "even the Federal Reserve Chairman can be investigated," even implying that as political winds change, judicial tools can again hover over the central bank, casting doubt on the pretended independence.
Against this backdrop, whether and how the Department of Justice will officially wrap up this investigation transforms from merely a technical legal move into a litmus test for assessing the image of American judicial independence and the boundaries of central bank authority. Should formal documents continue to remain blank, narratives about "political interference" and "institutional self-repair" will coexist long-term, serving as referential stories to be invoked repeatedly in future fluctuations in macro and crypto market sentiments.
Macroeconomic Bets After the Powell Incident
From the pricing results, the market has already treated the "expected termination of the investigation" as a calming agent: as long as the U.S. Department of Justice does not actually push the "criminal investigation into the current Federal Reserve Chairman" to an extreme conclusion, the probability of extreme scenarios like leadership vacuum and policy constraints has pulled back, leading to a short-term decline in institutional risk premiums.
Yet as of the writing, this criminal investigation remains at the stage of "expected termination" rather than "official termination"; with charges, timelines, and details still unresolved, the rift surrounding judicial independence and central bank independence has already etched itself into market memory — it can be awakened at any time by a new headline.
For participants in the crypto market, such highly politically sensitive events require a set of "noise-reduction" observational frameworks, rather than just repeatedly following emotional ups and downs:
● The first layer is to look for formal documents and press releases from the Department of Justice — whether the investigation is explicitly "terminated" or "withdrawn," whether it will retain phrasing for future actions, rather than just relying on the word "expected."
● The second layer is to observe whether the event is introduced to a larger political stage, such as public procedures like congressional hearings; even if only a request or discussion is made, it will influence market imaginations about future power struggles.
● The third layer is to monitor follow-up in-depth reports from mainstream media — this time ABC News was the first to bring the "expected termination" message into mainstream view, subsequently cited by several Chinese media outlets; whether similar follow-up reports of the same caliber appear is more worthy of weight than single anonymous leaks.
Within this framework, unverifiable single anonymous news is, at most, merely a "warning signal," rather than a "hard premise" that can be directly transferred into position decisions. For high-volatility assets, overly amplifying such noise is a risk exposure in itself.
Looking ahead, this investigation has roughly two divergent paths.
First, if the Department of Justice concludes with a clear formal statement, and Congress and the media do not raise the volume in the short term, this turmoil may gradually sink into the background, only to be mentioned as an old example of "how close the system once came to the edge" during severe future swings in macro sentiment.
Second, if more details about the investigation are disclosed after the termination decision, or are repackaged as material for a new round of political defense, then this story will not quietly end but will persist in episodic form: each new detail and each new faction could again transmit to the prices of crypto assets through macro expectations and regulatory sentiments.
The market has long proven that crypto assets are particularly sensitive to macro uncertainty and regulatory signals. Central bank leadership and judicial environment are seen as foundational "institutional parameters" for pricing risk assets; when these two parameters are simultaneously questioned, price fluctuations are not just reactions to interest rate curves but also a repricing of institutional narratives.
After Powell's incident, what truly needs to be bet on may not be the outcome of a single event, but rather — when similar conflicts arise again, can you recognize immediately: is this emotional noise, or a substantial rewriting of institutional variables?
Join our community to discuss together and become stronger!
Official Telegram community: https://t.me/aicoincn
AiCoin Chinese Twitter: https://x.com/AiCoinzh
OKX Benefits Group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=l61eM4owQ
Binance Benefits Group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=ynr7d1P6Z
免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。
