
Why Some Trump Allies Want to Protect the Fed's Independence
What happens next to the Fed may hinge on a counterintuitive question: Can temperate voices persuade Trump that the central bank's insulation from immediate political pressures — from him — is actually good for him?
Some of Trump's allies have been making that case to me, and likely to him as well. However exasperating Trump finds the Fed's independence, these supporters see political value to the president in having some distance from the central bank.
The idea that Trump is persuadable on this point might seem especially far-fetched this week, after he floated the idea of firing Powell to a group of House Republicans, even reportedly showing them a draft letter that would complete the task.
Markets dropped on Wednesday as they digested the possibility that Trump might really try to remove the Fed chief, a move he has been actively considering.
But he walked it back soon after. It is a cycle we've seen before. (My colleague Megan Messerly and I reported that Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent talked Trump down from a springtime anti-Powell eruption.)
And here we are: Trump still has not yet tried to fire Powell.
It's legally questionable whether he really could, and the Supreme Court hinted recently that it might shield Powell from such a move. Trump is also aware of the financial instability it would create to attempt to punish the chair so directly for not cutting interest rates.
That would suggest, at minimum, that he understands the need for the Fed chair to have credibility with markets. But is that enough to make him pick a person to succeed Powell who has pledged some level of independence?
Some of the president's allies are arguing in private that having a Fed chair who is not simply a yes man is a way to help head off the kind of damaging inflation that sank Democrats in 2024. That is, investors and businesses have to believe that the central bank is willing to do what's necessary to avoid inflation, even if that means higher rates.
One of the lessons from the 1970s, when President Richard Nixon successfully pressured then-Chair Arthur Burns to keep rates low — and a dramatic lesson from Turkey — is that lowering rates in response to political pressure can lead to higher inflation and force even higher rates down the road.
JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon made a similar point on Tuesday when I asked him if he was worried about risks that might arise from a less autonomous Fed.
'The independence of the Fed is absolutely critical, and not just for the current Fed chairman, who — I respect Jay Powell — but for the next Fed chairman,' Dimon said to me and other reporters on a call shortly after his bank announced earnings. 'Playing around with the Fed can often have adverse consequences, the absolute opposite of what you might be hoping for.'
It's also a theme I've heard on Capitol Hill.
'The independence of the Fed chair may very well come back and help the administration as the economic growth improves with the policies being implemented,' Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) told me recently.
Trump clearly doesn't fully buy into this idea, but it's an open and critical question whether he buys into it at all. At the very least, his administration still feels the need to publicly endorse the Fed's freedom to set policy as it sees fit.
'Everybody at the White House understands the independence of the Fed is super important,' National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett, himself a top candidate to replace Powell, said on NBC Wednesday evening. When central banks lose their independence, Hassett said, 'it's bad for the economy and bad for markets.'
There's also another classic reason for presidents to like Fed independence: It gives them a scapegoat if the economy goes south.
The expectation from investors is that anyone Trump picks will be more receptive to his calls for lowering borrowing costs than Powell is, though there is a wide spectrum of ways that could play out in practice. Certainly, regularly communicating with the president seems to be a baseline expectation.
The short list for now is Hassett; former Fed board member Kevin Warsh; Bessent, and current Fed board member Chris Waller, people familiar with the deliberations have told me and my colleague Rachael Bade. The two Kevins are seen as the frontrunners, and Trump said this week that he likes Bessent better where he is at Treasury.
All four candidates have suggested that rates should be lower. They likely differ in how low and how fast. It's not an unusual view among economists that the Fed should consider moving later this month rather than waiting until September, with signs that the economy might be slowly weakening and inflation only slightly above 2 percent.
Even Powell is forecasting that the Fed will cut rates this year, though he's in no rush to do so, citing uncertainty around how tariffs will play out in the economy.
But Trump has called for rates to be dramatically lower, and it's unclear whether any of the frontrunners to replace Powell have such large cuts in mind. Hassett didn't dismiss the idea in the NBC interview Wednesday but didn't endorse it either.
Trump's preferred rate might be hard to achieve for any Fed chair.
Powell is only one of 12 people who vote on monetary policy, and a future central bank leader who is viewed merely as a stooge of the president might have a harder time making an intellectual case to the rest of the committee.
This is also a point that people in Trump's circle have brought up to me, and the president himself recently posted on Truth Social that those other Fed officials are 'equally to blame' for rates staying high.
But a new Fed chief could — under current economic conditions — easily make the case for smaller, more gradual cuts, with Trump's influence potentially leading rates to go lower than they otherwise would.
Julia Coronado, who is president of the Wall Street consulting firm MacroPolicy Perspectives, argued that any Trump pick for the job will be viewed by markets as having less inflation-fighting credibility than prior Fed chairs since Paul Volcker.
'It's too strong to say [the Fed's independence] is the dam that hasn't broke, because it doesn't look good,' she said.
But if Trump tries to kill off that independence entirely, he might not love the world he ends up with. The Fed's future will be determined by whether he heeds that warning.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Los Angeles Times
27 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Fox News' Jesse Watters admits mistake in program claiming Newsom lied about Trump call
Fox News host Jesse Watters acknowledged Thursday that his program made a mistake in reporting on Gov. Gavin Newsom's phone conversation with President Trump during last month's immigration raids in Los Angeles. Newsom filed a $787 million defamation lawsuit against Watters and Fox News on June 27 after the host reported on comments Trump made about a phone call with the governor as tensions heated up over the raids and the president's decision to deploy the National Guard. Newsom's lawsuit said Watters lied on his primetime program about the timeline of his conversations with the president. After the lawsuit was filed in a Delaware court, Newsom's lawyers said they were prepared to drop the suit if the governor got a retraction and a formal on-air apology. The suit claims Fox News willfully distorted the facts about the Trump call to harm the governor politically. It remains to be seen if Watters' comments at the end of his Thursday program will suffice. A spokesman for Newsom didn't immediately respond to a request for comment. Watters' on-air persona is snarky and tongue-in-cheek and he did not deviate from it when he addressed the Newsom matter. He acknowledged he misunderstood Newsom's social media post on Trump's remarks and used the words 'I'm sorry.' But it was far from a fulsome apology. 'Fox News invited [Newsom] on the show to talk it out man to man but he said no,' Watters said. The dust-up began after Trump told reporters in the Oval Office on June 10 that he spoke to Newsom 'a day ago — called him up tell him you've got to do a better job, you're doing a bad job.' Trump's comment gave the impression that the two spoke on the same day 700 marines were deployed in Los Angeles. Newsom refuted the claim in a post on X. The governor had already said publicly he spoke to Trump after midnight Eastern time on June 7 and the National Guard was not discussed. They never spoke after that. 'There was no call,' Newsom posted on X. 'Not even a voicemail. Americans should be alarmed that a President deploying Marines onto our streets doesn't even know who he's talking to.' Newsom's lawyers allege in the complaint that by making the call seem more recent, Trump could suggest they discussed the deployment of troops to Los Angeles, which they had not. Trump sent Fox News anchor John Roberts a screen shot showing the June 7 date stamp of the phone call, which Watters showed on his program to assert that Newsom was lying when he said they did not speak. When Watters showed a clip of Trump's June 10 comments about the call on his program, it omitted the portion where the president said he spoke to Newsom the previous day. A banner at the bottom of the screen read: 'Gavin lied about Trump's call.' Watters told viewers Thursday he believed Newsom's X post asserted that the two had not spoken at all. ''Not even a voicemail' — we took that to mean there was no call ever,' Watters said. 'We thought the dispute was about whether there was a phone call at all when he said without qualification that there was no call,' the host continued. 'Now Newsom's telling us what was in his head when he wrote the tweet. He didn't deceive anybody on purpose so I'm sorry he wasn't lying. He was just confusing and unclear. Next time governor, why don't you say what you mean.' The $787 million figure in the lawsuit is the amount Fox News paid to Dominion Voting Systems to settle another defamation case in 2023. Fox agreed to pay the company, which said the network aired false claims that its voting equipment was manipulated to help President Biden win the 2020 election. Times staff writer Taryn Luna contributed to this report.


Axios
27 minutes ago
- Axios
Trump threatens to sue WSJ for story alleging racy letter to Epstein
President Trump threatened to sue the Wall Street Journal over a Thursday story describing a "bawdy" happy-birthday letter bearing Trump's name that the outlet says was given to Jeffrey Epstein. The latest: Trump said in a Thursday night Truth Social post that he personally warned the WSJ and owner Rupert Murdoch "that the supposed letter" was "a FAKE and, if they print it, they will be sued. Mr. Murdoch stated that he would take care of it but, obviously, did not have the power to do so." Trump said both he and White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told WSJ editor-in-chief Emma Tucker that the letter at the center of the article was fake, but she "didn't want to hear that" and "instead, they are going with a false, malicious, and defamatory story anyway." Leavitt said on X the "WSJ refused to show us the letter and conceded they don't even have it in their possession when we asked them to verify the alleged document they're basing their ENTIRE fake story on." Driving the news: The letter, which the WSJ reports that it reviewed, was in a leather-bound album that Ghislaine Maxwell put together in 2003 for Epstein's birthday, according to the story. The WSJ reported that Department of Justice officials reviewed pages from the album years ago, but that it wasn't clear if the Trump DOJ looked at the documents for its report that concluded there's no evidence to suggest Epstein was killed or kept a " client list." Maxwell is serving a 20-year sentence in Florida after being found guilty of sex trafficking and other charges in 2021. Zoom in: The letter bearing Trump's name allegedly features a "bawdy" drawing of a naked woman, but the president told the Wall Street Journal he had nothing to do with the gift. "This is not me. This is a fake thing. It's a fake Wall Street Journal story," he told the outlet. The WSJ didn't immediately post an image of the letter or drawing. Representatives for the WSJ declined to comment further on the report. Meanwhile, the president announced on Thursday night that he has directed Attorney General Pam Bondi to release all relevant grand jury testimony in the Epstein case, subject to court approval. Zoom out: Trump has faced pressure from MAGA circles since the conclusion of his administration's review of the Epstein case. What they're saying: Many top MAGA influencers, even ones critical of Trump's handling of the Epstein matter, bashed the Journal story.


The Hill
27 minutes ago
- The Hill
Pocan, Van Orden trade insults on camera: ‘Are you drinking right now?'
Reps. Mark Pocan (D-Wisc.) and Derrick Van Orden (R-Wisc.) bickered on camera Wednesday during a Spectrum News interview. Pocan was discussing cuts to public broadcasting when Van Orden pulled up in his Harley-Davidson, revving the engine and interrupting the interview, according to the video shared by the outlet. 'Hey Derrick, classy as always, man. We love it. Thank you,' Pocan said after his colleague pulled up. 'Have you lost your mind? You know, people read this stuff,' Van Orden said, referring to the lawmaker's comments on the Republican spending package. 'I saw your drunken tweet at 1:30 in the morning last night,' Pocan shot back. The recent feud between the two started with a post on the social platform X on Wednesday morning. 'Wisconsin is getting $1,000,000,000 a year plus up to Medicade per year. If any Wisconsinite loses coverage it will be due to incompetence, mismanagement, and malice by @GovEvers,' Van Orden wrote. 'Seek mental health counseling,' he added. The message was written in a quote tweet of Pocan's post from New York cartoonist Paul Noth with an image and line that read, 'You no longer have Medicaid, so you have a big beautiful bill.' Democrats have been decrying the millions of Medicaid removals slated to come following the budget reconciliation. The tension seeped over into the Wednesday spat between Wisconsin lawmakers on air. 'Derrick, why don't you debate me? Why are you so afraid to debate anyone? Here, we can do this in the media. Why don't you want to debate the big, beautiful bill?' Pocan said. 'So, Mark Pocan has never had a job his entire life other than politics, and he doesn't understand,' Van Orden said. 'I've owned a small business for 37 years. Tony, you've owned a small business; that's a little work, isn't it?' Pocan fumed, turning to Rep. Tony Wied (R-Wisc.), who stood by during the verbal flare. 'He funnels over $500,000 a year of his campaign money to buy signs from his company,' Van Orden interrupted. Pocan then asked if he was intoxicated. 'Okay, look that up. Oh my God. Are you drinking right now, Derrick? That's the real question. All right,' the Wisconsin Democrat said. Their back-and-forth represents a larger divide among representatives in the House who are reeling from sweeping cuts to social services and new reforms lauded by the spending legislation.