Jeanine Pirro has taken the highly unusual step of convening a special grand jury in Washington, D.C., less than two weeks after angering President Donald Trump by abandoning a vandalism prosecution he publicly demanded.

What the grand jury is investigating remains undisclosed.

That secrecy—combined with the extraordinary powers available to such a panel and Trump’s repeated demands for investigations of his perceived enemies—has left legal experts watching Pirro’s next move with intense interest.

“This could be very interesting,” Elon University law professor Steve Friedland told The Washington Post.

Unlike an ordinary grand jury, which primarily determines whether prosecutors have presented enough evidence to indict someone, a special grand jury can conduct a broader, longer-running investigation.

Under certain circumstances, it may also produce a public report describing its findings—even if prosecutors never bring criminal charges.

That power makes the mystery surrounding Pirro’s decision particularly consequential.

Three government officials told the Post that the panel is being overseen by Steven Vandervelden, one of Pirro’s closest allies in the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia.

Vandervelden has reportedly played an important role in some of the office’s most politically sensitive investigations, including an unsuccessful inquiry involving then-Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell and a probe into allegations that the Metropolitan Police Department manipulated crime statistics.

No evidence currently establishes that either matter is the subject of the new special grand jury.

There is also no public indication that Pirro convened the panel to investigate the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool controversy, Trump’s political opponents or any particular government agency.

The absence of an identified target means any conclusion about its purpose would be speculation.

Still, the timing is impossible to ignore.

Pirro recently came under intense pressure from Trump after her office dropped the case against Olympic canoeist David Hearn, who had been accused of damaging the newly renovated Reflecting Pool.

Prosecutors concluded that they lacked evidence to prove Hearn committed vandalism. Their filing reportedly attributed the damage to a rushed and defective installation carried out as officials hurried to complete the project.

Hearn consistently denied ripping the pool’s liner.

Trump responded by publicly attacking Pirro, accusing her of folding “like an umbrella” and demanding that prosecutors revive the case.

The president later claimed that a National Park Service employee had witnessed Hearn pulling at the pool’s coating. But that assertion appeared to conflict with previously reported government communications and with Pirro’s own court filing blaming the installation process.

Attorney Norm Eisen said any renewed prosecution would face an immediate problem: The Justice Department would effectively be forced to contradict its own written explanation.

Now, with Pirro’s standing inside the administration reportedly under strain, her office has activated one of the federal system’s least commonly used investigative mechanisms.

“They are very unusual,” said Niki Kuckes, a Roger Williams University law professor who specializes in grand jury procedure.

“Sometimes they can issue a report, which a regular grand jury can’t do,” she explained.

Legal experts told the Post they knew of no recent precedent for such a panel in Washington, although they could not rule out the possibility that another had operated without attracting public attention.

Special grand juries were created to investigate organized crime and complex, long-term wrongdoing extending beyond the practical life of a conventional grand jury. Federal law allows them to sit for considerably longer periods and to examine broad patterns of criminal activity.

Their ability to prepare reports creates both investigative opportunities and significant risks.

A public report can expose institutional misconduct even when the available evidence does not justify indictments. But it can also inflict enormous reputational damage on people who are never charged and therefore never receive the opportunity to defend themselves at trial.

Any report would face legal review and procedural restrictions before becoming public. Nevertheless, its mere possibility distinguishes this panel from the ordinary grand juries routinely convened by federal prosecutors.

That distinction becomes especially sensitive in an administration where Trump has openly demanded criminal investigations of political rivals, former officials, journalists and other critics.

The Justice Department maintains that its enforcement actions are based on law and evidence. Yet Trump’s public interventions in individual cases have repeatedly raised questions about whether prosecutors are operating independently or responding to presidential demands.

Pirro now occupies the center of that tension.

As U.S. attorney, she has broad authority to investigate potential federal crimes in the nation’s capital. Convening a special grand jury falls within the legitimate tools available to her office and does not, by itself, demonstrate political misconduct.

But if the panel is being used to pursue someone Trump has publicly targeted, or to create a damaging report where prosecutors cannot obtain an indictment, its work could provoke a major battle over the weaponization of federal law enforcement.

Conversely, the grand jury could be examining an entirely conventional matter unrelated to Trump’s political grievances.

Until its purpose becomes known, both possibilities remain open.

Friedland cautioned that every presidential administration develops its own enforcement priorities and determines how aggressively to use the legal tools at its disposal.

That may be true. But a secretive investigative body with reporting powers—operating under a prosecutor facing public pressure from the president—is bound to attract exceptional scrutiny.

Pirro’s next challenge will therefore extend beyond proving that any target violated the law. She must also demonstrate that her office selected the investigation based on evidence rather than presidential anger.

For now, witnesses have not been publicly identified, the investigative subject remains concealed and no charges have been announced.

All Washington knows is that a rarely used legal machine has been switched on.

Who it was built to investigate may determine whether Pirro repairs her relationship with Trump—or ignites an even larger controversy.