Fed's Powell responds to White House on Fed headquarters renovation
Chair Jerome Powell on Thursday responded to a Trump administration official's demands for information about cost overruns for a renovation project at the central bank's Washington headquarters campus, saying the project was large in scope and involved a number of safety upgrades and hazardous materials removals.
"As explained on the Board's public website, we take seriously the responsibility to be good stewards of public resources as we fulfill the duties given to us by Congress on behalf of the American people," Powell wrote in his letter to Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought. "We have taken great care to ensure the project is carefully overseen since it was first approved by the Board in 2017."
Explore courses from Top Institutes in
Select a Course Category
healthcare
CXO
MCA
Finance
Leadership
Artificial Intelligence
Cybersecurity
Project Management
PGDM
Degree
Public Policy
Digital Marketing
others
Design Thinking
Management
MBA
Data Analytics
Technology
Others
Data Science
Operations Management
Healthcare
Data Science
Product Management
Skills you'll gain:
Duration:
11 Months
IIM Lucknow
CERT-IIML Healthcare Management India
Starts on
undefined
Get Details
He noted the project's budget is subject to annual approval by the Fed Board and the Fed's inspector general has full access to information on costs and other details.
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
Harry Potter Actress Stuns Fans With Grown-up Pics
Cash Roadster
Vought last week accused Powell of overseeing an "ostentatious" and costly overhaul of the buildings, and demanded answers from Powell to a series of questions about the project, which has emerged as the latest line of attack against Powell by the Trump White House.
"Dear Mr. Vought," Powell said in his letter, "both buildings were in need of significant structural repairs and other updates to make the buildings safe, healthy, and effective places to work, including the removal of asbestos and lead contamination, complete replacement of antiquated systems such as electrical, plumbing, heating, ventilation, and air conditioning, as well as fire detection and suppression systems."
Live Events
The project did not include private elevators or VIP dining rooms, as Vought asserted, or new marble except where the original was damaged "or where needed to keep with historic preservation guidelines and to address concerns raised by external review agencies," Powell said.
President
Donald Trump
, who wants Powell gone from the Fed because he has not delivered interest-rate cuts, has raised the renovation project as a possible reason for ousting the Fed chief, suggesting there could be fraud without providing evidence.
LAWMAKERS
Some Republican lawmakers have piled on, with Representative Anna Paulina Luna on Thursday saying on social media platform X she was referring Powell to the Justice Department for investigation, and Senator Cynthia Lummis calling for Powell's resignation.
But several other members of the Senate Banking Committee, which oversees the Fed, have come to Powell's and the Fed's defense.
"I just think long term, it really is best for the economic conditions in our country that the markets understand that the Fed really is independent," Republican Senator Mike Rounds, a member of the Senate Banking Committee, told reporters on Thursday.
Vought has said administration officials are trying to visit the site to inspect it.
"It's for a big, beautiful mansion for the federal chairman," White House spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt said during a White House press briefing on Thursday. "It's completely unnecessary. It's overpriced, and I think it's a good thing the administration, led by the president, is looking into it."
Leavitt was asked if the review finds any wrongdoing, would it trigger the president to fire Powell. "Look, it's a hypothetical question. We'll see where it goes," Leavitt said.
Powell's letter was largely a reiteration of what he told members of the Senate Banking Committee earlier this week, and of detailed explanations on the Fed's website of the project, countering Vought's assertions that changes to the project violated rules set by the National Capital Planning Commission and required the commission's review.
The Fed has worked closely and collaboratively with the NCPC, Powell said, and the changes the Fed has made were not substantial and therefore did not meet the NCPC's own guidance for what would need additional review.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Print
16 minutes ago
- The Print
Bihar mimics 19th-century American South. Citizenship is now weaponised to exclude voters
There is nothing wrong with re-stating the well-known constitutional principle that only citizens can vote. However, the way in which citizenship is to be established, and the list of documents required, would lead not to a vote by all citizens, but to disenfranchisement, especially of underprivileged citizens. What is, in principle, an inclusionary idea – namely, citizenship – will, in practice, become an exclusionary device. The democratic process in Bihar has been dealt a shock. The Election Commission of India (ECI) has announced that only those who can prove their citizenship will be allowed to vote in the forthcoming Assembly elections. Citizenship and subjecthood In modern political literature, a great distinction has always been drawn between subjects (praja) and citizens (nagrik). Subjecthood marked the polities of the pre-modern era, though it managed to bleed into modern times as well. Kings had subjects, whose privileges and entitlements depended on royal blessings (raja ki kripa). In contrast, born with the American and French Revolutions of the late 18th century, citizenship is a fundamentally modern concept. In principle, citizenship stands for membership in a political community and the rights that come with it. Citizenship rights do not depend on royal wishes. Citizenship is inclusionary and equalising, whereas subjecthood was exclusionary, as it came with a diverse set of privileges for different classes of people. In the 20th century, when more and more modern polities became democratic (though not all did), voting increasingly became a citizenship right without any distinctions of class, ethnicity, or gender. Universal franchise became the lifeblood of democratic citizenship after the Second World War. There have been instances in history when the inclusionary thrust of citizenship was severely curtailed. We need to keep such examples in mind as we think about the implications of what the ECI is trying to do in Bihar. The best-known case of citizenship truncation, even crushing, is the American South during the 1880s and mid-1960s. After the Civil War between the largely Republican-led North and Democrat-led South ended in 1865 – in which the North was a victor – the 13th Amendment of the US Constitution abolished slavery, the 14th Amendment gave Black Americans citizenship for the first time, and the 15th Amendment gave Black adult males the right to vote. By 1873-74, 80-85 per cent of southern Blacks had registered to vote. After 1876, Democrats started returning to power in southern states. One of their biggest political objectives was to deprive Blacks of their voting rights. How did they do it? By developing literacy tests, instituting poll taxes, and demanding various other documents. The literacy rate of Black Americans was very low, and their incomes were so meagre that they could not afford the poll taxes necessary for voting. Partly as a result, a vast majority of southern Blacks lost their voting rights, dropping from 84-85 per cent in the mid-1870s to a mere 4-5 per cent by 1904-05. Only in 1965 did universal franchise finally return to America, the vote truncation thus lasting nearly seven to eight decades. Also read: ECI's voter verification drive in Bihar is tailor-made to keep Dalits, Muslims, EBCs out Similarities with Bihar ECI's plans for Bihar have quite a few similarities. The basic similarity – and a big surprise – is that, much like in the US, the onus of registering voters is now being placed on citizens, when it was always the responsibility of the government. People must supply proof of their citizenship to vote. The assumption of India's founding figures was that the poor citizenry would not have the literacy, or wherewithal, to step forward and register for voting. The government would, therefore, use its great resources to reach out to the poor and include them in the electoral rolls. The second similarity has to do with literacy. According to the last Census (2011), Bihar's literacy rate was a mere 61.8 per cent (as against the all-India average of 73 per cent). Illiterate citizens, like many in Bihar, are unlikely to have documents ECI needs — birth certificates, passports, matriculation certificates – to prove their citizenship. For those temporarily residing outside of the state with or without documents registered in Bihar, the requirement is that they download the partially pre-printed enumeration form from a computer, fill them out, and upload them on the ECI's website or app. For millions of Bihar's migrants – working as doormen, watchmen, and labourers in cities such as Delhi, Mumbai, Bengaluru, and Chennai – this requirement is absolutely forbidding. Also read: The price of citizenship for Indians like Goa's Joseph Pereira—uncertainty, red tape, tears Weaponisation of citizenship The problem is compounded by the fact that the Government of India issues no single citizenship document. Very few Indians, including the literate ones, have birth certificates or passports. Citizenship is inferred from a variety of documents. The long-lasting practice is that if citizens say they are citizens and would like to vote, they are presumed to be one unless challenged by others and issued a notification. To try to solve the problem of ineligible voters via a documentation process, for which citizens are wholly responsible, is to inflict exclusion. It is well known in social science research that the idea of documentary adequacy works against the poor and those who have low literacy (which they did not choose but had to suffer). Which communities will be disenfranchised as a result of this exercise? Most of Bihar's poor are Dalits, Muslims, and lower OBCs (The Adivasi community constitutes a very small share in Bihar). The electorate will be disproportionately based among the upper castes and upper OBCs. Voting data shows that these are also the communities that heavily vote for the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). Whether or not one can prove that the ECI wanted this to happen, the effect of the new documentary process will tilt the scales in favour of the BJP. Fair and inclusive elections have been a well-known hallmark of Indian democracy. India needs to return to it. Disenfranchisement by institutional fiat is profoundly undemocratic. Citizenship, an inclusive political idea in principle, is being weaponised to exclude citizens in practice. Ashutosh Varshney is Sol Goldman Professor of International Studies and the Social Sciences and Professor of Political Science at Brown University. Views are personal. (Edited by Zoya Bhatti)
Time of India
16 minutes ago
- Time of India
Who is Lindsey Graham? The US Senator who warned India, China and Brazil over Russian Oil
US Senator Lindsey Graham has once again made headlines, this time for his strong remarks targeting India, China, and Brazil over their ongoing oil trade with Russia. Known for his outspoken political stance, Graham issued a stern warning, stating that under Donald Trump's potential future leadership, countries purchasing oil from Russian President Vladimir Putin will face severe economic consequences. Lindsey Graham's Warning to Nations Buying Russian Oil In a recent interview with Fox News, Lindsey Graham stated that President Donald Trump would take strict action against nations buying oil from Russia. 'Trump is going to impose tariffs on people that buy Russian oil—China, India, and Brazil. These three countries are purchasing nearly 80% of discounted Russian oil, which is directly funding Vladimir Putin's war machine,' he said. Graham claimed that Trump plans to implement a 100% tariff on these nations to penalise them for indirectly supporting Putin's agenda. 'These countries will soon have to decide—the American economy or supporting Putin. I believe they will choose the American economy,' Graham added confidently. A Closer Look at Lindsey Graham's Career Born on 9 July 1955, Lindsey Graham is a seasoned American politician and lawyer. He has been serving as the senior US Senator from South Carolina since 2003. A loyal member of the Republican Party, he also chaired the Senate Judiciary Committee between 2019 and 2021. Graham's early career includes service in the US Air Force from 1982 to 1988, where he worked in the Judge Advocate General's Corps as a defence attorney and chief prosecutor across Europe. He continued to serve in the Air Force Reserve while in Congress and received the Bronze Star Medal in 2014 for meritorious service. However, he did not participate in direct combat. Before becoming a senator, Graham served in the South Carolina House of Representatives (1993–1995) and later represented South Carolina's 3rd congressional district in the US House of Representatives (1995–2003). His long political career reflects a commitment to both national security and conservative governance. Net Worth of Lindsey Graham in 2025 Despite decades in public office, Lindsey Graham's net worth remains modest when compared to other long-serving US senators. As of 2025, his estimated net worth lies between $2 million and $4 million. Most of his income stems from his Senate salary, which currently stands at $174,000 per year. In addition, Graham has made smart investments in mutual funds, real estate, and corporate bonds. He owns residential properties in South Carolina and Washington, D.C., contributing to his overall wealth. Graham's Relationship with Donald Trump I really enjoyed dinner this evening at the White House with President @realDonaldTrump and my Republican Senate colleagues, celebrating the passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill and so many other accomplishments in the historic first six months of this administration. Mr.… Interestingly, Lindsey Graham once stood as a critic of Donald Trump, especially during the 2016 presidential campaign. He publicly disapproved of Trump's controversial statements and even condemned his remarks about John McCain, a close friend of Graham's. However, their relationship shifted dramatically after a meeting in 2017. Since then, Graham has become one of Trump's most vocal supporters, often defending his policies and political decisions. This change surprised many across the political spectrum and sparked debate within the media. His Stand on Foreign Policy and Russia A staunch neoconservative, Lindsey Graham has long supported interventionist foreign policy. He is known for urging strong military action when necessary and has frequently criticised regimes like that of Vladimir Putin. Graham has often voiced concern about global security threats, especially when it involves American interests. His recent comments about tariffs on India, China, and Brazil reflect his belief that these nations should not assist Russia's economy—directly or indirectly—by buying oil. Lindsey Graham remains one of America's most influential Republican senators. With a political career spanning over three decades, his voice continues to carry weight in both domestic and foreign affairs. Whether discussing his net worth, his longstanding career, or his alliance with Donald Trump, Graham's presence in US politics remains significant—especially when it involves taking a stand against Russian president Vladimir Putin. For the latest and more interesting financial news, keep reading Indiatimes Worth. Click here.
Indian Express
16 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Trump warns US will attack Iran nuclear facilities again ‘if necessary'
US President Donald Trump on Monday (July 22) asserted that the American bombing had severely damaged Iran's key nuclear facilities, warning that Washington would attack again 'if necessary.' Trump's remarks came after Iran's Foreign Minister, Abbas Araghchi, acknowledged the impact of the US strike, stating that the damage to his country's nuclear infrastructure was 'serious and severe'. However, he vowed that Iran would not give up on its nuclear enrichment program as it was now a 'question of national pride.' 'It is stopped because, yes, damages are serious and severe. But obviously we cannot give up of enrichment because it is an achievement of our own scientists. And now, more than that, it is a question of national pride,' Araghchi told Fox News. 'Our enrichment is so dear to us.' Taking to his Truth Social handle, the US president said, 'Iran's Foreign Minister, Abbas Araghchi, on the Iran Nuclear Sites: 'Damages are very severe, they are destroyed.' Of course they are, just like I said, and we will do it again, if necessary!' Nuclear facilities 'seriously damaged': Araghchi Iran's foreign minister, in an interview with Fox News, admitted that the extent of the damage to his country's nuclear facilities was severe but refused to comment on whether any enriched uranium survived the strikes. 'Our facilities have been damaged – seriously damaged,' Araghchi said. 'The extent of which is now under evaluation by our atomic energy organisation.' 'But as far as I know, they are seriously damaged,' he added. Araghchi has previously reiterated Iran's position that it would not accept any nuclear agreement that blocks its right to enrich uranium. The United States, on June 22, joined Israel's offensive against Iran and launched operation 'Midnight Hammer' to target three nuclear facilities of Iran, namely Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan, and the operation involved 125 US military aircraft, including seven B-2 Stealth bombers. About two dozen cruise missiles were also launched at the Isfahan nuclear site from a submarine by the US military. One of the major strikes by the United States was on Fordow nuclear enrichment facility, buried deep below a mountain outside Tehran, and is considered vital to Iran's nuclear ambitions. At least 14 GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrators (MOPs) were dropped at the Fordow site. After the strikes, Israel and Iran agreed to a ceasefire brokered by the United States and Qatar, and the 12-day conflict between the two warring nations came to a pause on June 24. (With inputs from agencies)
