Rep. Dan Goldman went on MSNBC Monday and made a remarkable claim: the DOJ’s criminal investigation into Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell “will tank our economy.”
Not might affect markets. Not could cause uncertainty. Will tank our economy.
Think about what that argument actually means. Goldman is saying that one unelected official is so important, so central to American economic life, that investigating whether he committed crimes would destroy the country.
That’s not defending the rule of law. That’s arguing one man is above it.
“The Rule of Law Is the Foundation for Economic Success”
Goldman tried to frame his argument in constitutional terms.
“The rule of law is the foundation for the economic success of this country… the notion that our laws are followed, are independent and are neutrally arbitrary by judges is the basis for our economic system.”
He’s right that rule of law matters for economic confidence. Investors need to know contracts will be enforced, property rights protected, and disputes resolved fairly.
But here’s what Goldman gets backwards: rule of law means nobody is exempt from investigation. Not presidents. Not Fed chairs. Not anyone.
If Powell potentially lied to Congress about a $600 million cost overrun, investigating that isn’t an attack on rule of law. It’s rule of law functioning as designed.
The “Too Big to Prosecute” Argument
Goldman’s logic leads somewhere dangerous.
If investigating the Fed Chair will tank the economy, then the Fed Chair can never be investigated. Whatever crimes he might commit, whatever lies he might tell, the economic consequences of accountability are too severe.
That’s not rule of law. That’s rule of one man — protected by his institutional importance rather than his innocence.
We rejected “too big to fail” for banks. We should reject “too big to prosecute” for bureaucrats.
Lisa Murkowski’s Response
Goldman praised Senator Lisa Murkowski for saying “if the Department of Justice is investigating the Fed, then Congress needs to investigate the Department of Justice.”
That’s actually a reasonable position — congressional oversight of DOJ is legitimate and important.
But notice the asymmetry. When DOJ investigates Powell, Congress should investigate DOJ. When DOJ investigated Trump, Congress should… help DOJ.
The principle seems to be: investigations of Democrats and their allies are suspect; investigations of Republicans are justice.
“Political Cudgel” or Legitimate Investigation?
Goldman accused the Trump administration of “using the criminal justice system as a political cudgel.”
The investigation stems from Powell’s congressional testimony about a building renovation that went $600 million over budget. Powell told Trump, on camera, that he wasn’t aware of the cost overrun.
If that statement was false, it’s potentially criminal — lying to Congress, making false statements, or related offenses.
Whether Powell actually committed a crime is for prosecutors and courts to determine. But the existence of an investigation isn’t inherently political. It’s how we find out if laws were broken.
The Real Fear
Goldman’s panic reveals something important: Democrats understand that Fed independence is really Fed immunity.
For decades, the Federal Reserve has operated with minimal accountability. Congress defers to their expertise. Presidents complain but don’t act. The institution sets monetary policy affecting every American while answering to essentially no one.
Trump is challenging that arrangement. He’s questioning whether the Fed should be immune from the oversight every other agency faces.
Goldman’s response — claiming investigation will destroy the economy — shows how invested Democrats are in maintaining that immunity.
“Current Government Officials”
Goldman complained that Trump’s DOJ is now investigating “current government officials” like Powell and Fed Governor Lisa Cook, not just “political enemies.”
But current government officials aren’t immune from investigation. If anything, they should face more scrutiny — they’re actively wielding power that affects millions of lives.
The argument seems to be that investigating people currently in office is somehow worse than investigating former officials. That’s backwards. Current officials can still do damage; former officials cannot.
What Markets Actually Fear
Goldman claims markets will collapse if Powell is prosecuted.
But markets survived Nixon’s resignation. They survived Clinton’s impeachment. They survived the 2008 financial crisis and the COVID crash.
What markets actually fear is uncertainty and instability. A Fed Chair under indictment creates uncertainty. But so does a Fed Chair who may have lied to Congress and faces no consequences.
The solution isn’t to stop investigations. It’s to conduct them professionally, reach conclusions efficiently, and let the system work.
Powell’s Term Ends in May
Here’s context Goldman didn’t mention: Powell’s term expires in four months anyway.
Trump is already searching for a replacement. Prediction markets favor Kevin Warsh. The transition is coming regardless of the investigation.
The economy won’t “tank” because Powell leaves office. It might experience some volatility during transition — as it does with any leadership change — but the Fed will continue functioning.
Goldman’s apocalyptic framing doesn’t match reality.
“Crickets from House Republicans”
Goldman complained that House Republicans aren’t defending Powell.
Why would they? Republicans have criticized Fed policy for years. They’ve questioned whether Powell was too slow to raise rates during inflation, then too slow to cut them during the recovery. They’ve pushed for more congressional oversight of monetary policy.
Now DOJ is investigating potential misconduct, and Goldman expects Republicans to rush to Powell’s defense?
House Republicans are letting the investigation proceed. That’s not “crickets” — that’s appropriate deference to the justice system.
The Dollar and Confidence
Goldman argued that political interference in monetary policy will undermine faith in the dollar.
“If you are now going to have monetary policy driven by political considerations, all of that faith in the dollar just goes completely down.”
But monetary policy has always been influenced by politics. Fed chairs are appointed by presidents. Their terms are structured around election cycles. They testify before Congress and respond to political pressure.
The myth of pure Fed independence has always been exactly that — a myth.
What actually matters for dollar confidence is whether America remains economically strong, legally stable, and capable of paying its debts. None of that depends on Jerome Powell’s criminal liability.
Who’s Really in Charge?
Goldman’s argument reveals an uncomfortable truth about how Democrats view government.
They believe unelected technocrats should be immune from accountability because their institutions are too important to question. The Fed, the intelligence agencies, the permanent bureaucracy — these are the real power centers, and elected officials shouldn’t interfere.
Trump ran on challenging that arrangement. He’s doing exactly what he promised.
Goldman is terrified because it’s working. The Fed Chair is being investigated. The intelligence community is being reformed. The bureaucracy is being held accountable.
That’s not tanking the economy. That’s draining the swamp.
And Goldman knows the swamp is losing.