logo
Fed holds interest rates steady despite Trump's push for cuts

Fed holds interest rates steady despite Trump's push for cuts

Fast Company2 days ago
The Fed's decision Wednesday leaves its key short-term rate at about 4.3%, where it has stood after the central bank made three cuts last year. Chair Jerome Powell has said the Fed would likely have cut rates already if not for Trump's sweeping tariffs. Powell and other Fed officials say they want to see how Trump's duties on imports will impact inflation and the broader economy. So far the duties have lifted costs of some goods, such as appliances, furniture, and toys, and overall inflation has risen a bit, though less than many economists had expected.
There were some signs of splits in the Fed's ranks: Governors Christopher Waller and Michelle Bowman voted to reduce borrowing costs, while 9 officials, including Powell, favored standing pat. It is the first time in more than three decades that two of the seven Washington-based governors have dissented. One official, Governor Adriana Kugler, was absent and didn't vote.
The choice to hold off on a rate cut will almost certainly result in further conflict between the Fed and White House, as Trump has repeatedly demanded that the central bank reduce borrowing costs as part of his effort to assert control over one of the few remaining independent federal agencies.
Trump argues that because the U.S. economy is doing well, rates should be lowered. But unlike a blue-chip company that usually pays lower rates than a troubled start-up, the Fed adjusts rates to either slow or speed growth, and would be more likely to keep them high if the economy is strong to prevent an inflationary outbreak.
Earlier Wednesday, the government said the economy expanded at a healthy 3% annual rate in the second quarter, though that figure followed a negative reading for the first three months of the year, when the economy shrank 0.5% at an annual rate. Most economists averaged the two figures to get a growth rate of about 1.2% for the first half of this year.
Some of the disagreement likely reflects jockeying to replace Powell, whose term ends in May 2026. Waller, in particular, has been mentioned as a potential future Fed chair.
Bowman, meanwhile, last dissented in September 2024, when the Fed cut its key rate by a half-point. She said she preferred a quarter-point cut instead, and cited the fact that inflation was still above 2.5% as a reason for caution.
Waller also said earlier this month that he favored cutting rates, but for very different reasons than Trump has cited: Waller thinks that growth and hiring are slowing, and that the Fed should reduce borrowing costs to forestall a weaker economy and a rise in unemployment.
There are other camps on the Fed's 19-member rate-setting committee (only 12 of the 19 actually vote on rate decisions). In June, seven members signaled that they supported leaving rates unchanged through the end of this year, while two suggested they preferred a single rate cut this year. The other half supported more reductions, with eight officials backing two cuts, and two — widely thought to be Waller and Bowman — supporting three reductions.
The dissents could be a preview of what might happen after Powell steps down, if President Donald Trump appoints a replacement who pushes for the much lower interest rates the White House desires. Other Fed officials could push back if a future chair sought to cut rates by more than economic conditions would otherwise support.
Overall, the committee's quarterly forecasts in June suggested the Fed would cut twice this year. There are only three more Fed policy meetings — in September, October, and December — and some economists forecast that a cut will occur in September. Wall Street investors also expect cuts in September and December, according to futures pricing.
When the Fed cuts its rate, it often — but not always — results in lower borrowing costs for mortgages, auto loans and credit cards.
Some economists agree with Waller's concerns about the job market. Excluding government hiring, the economy added just 74,000 jobs in June, with most of those gains occurring in health care.
'We are in a much slower job hiring backdrop than most people appreciate,' said Tom Porcelli, chief U.S. economist at PGIM Fixed Income.
Michael Feroli, an economist at JPMorgan Chase, said in a note to clients this week if the pair were to dissent, 'it would say more about auditioning for the Fed chair appointment than about economic conditions.'
The Fed's two-day meeting comes after a week of extraordinary interactions with the Trump White House, which has accused Powell of mismanaging an extensive, $2.5 billion renovation of two office buildings. Trump suggested two weeks ago that the rising cost for the project could be a 'firing offense' but has since backed off that characterization.
Notably, Trump argues that the Fed should cut because the economy is doing very well, which is a different viewpoint than nearly all economists, who say that a healthy, growing economy doesn't need rate cuts.
'If your economy is hot, you're supposed to have higher short-term rates,' Porcelli said.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Academics warn Columbia University deal sets dangerous precedent
Academics warn Columbia University deal sets dangerous precedent

Yahoo

time11 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Academics warn Columbia University deal sets dangerous precedent

Columbia University's $200 million agreement with President Donald Trump's administration marks the end of a months-long showdown, but academics warn it is just the first round of a government "assault" on higher education. Academics from Columbia and beyond have expressed concerns that the deal -- which makes broad-ranging concessions and increases government oversight -- will become the blueprint for how Trump brings other universities to heel. The New York institution was the first to be targeted in Trump's war against elite universities, for what the US president claimed was its failure to tackle anti-Semitism on campus in the wake of pro-Palestinian protests. It was stripped of hundreds of millions of dollars of federal funding and lost its ability to apply for new research grants. Labs saw vital funding frozen, and dozens of researchers were laid off. But Columbia last week agreed to pay the government $200 million, and an additional $21 million to settle an investigation into anti-Semitism. According to Ted Mitchell, president of the American Council on Education, the lack of due process -- with the government slashing funding before carrying out a formal investigation -- left Columbia in an "untenable position." Columbia law professor David Pozen agreed, saying the "manner in which the deal was constructed has been unlawful and coercive from the start" and slamming the agreement as giving "legal form to an extortion scheme." - Federal oversight - The deal goes beyond addressing anti-Semitism and makes concessions on international student admissions, race and ethnicity considerations in admissions and single-sex spaces on campus, among other issues. Columbia also agreed to appoint an independent monitor to implement the deal, share ethnicity admissions data with the government and crack down on campus protests. Many of the provisions "represent significant incursions onto Columbia's autonomy," said Pozen. "What's happened at Columbia is part of a broader authoritarian attack on civil society," he said, pointing to similar pressures on law firms and media organizations to fall in line. According to the law professor, the deal "signals the emergence of a new regulatory regime in which the Trump administration will periodically and unpredictably shake down other schools and demand concessions from them." In the coming weeks, Pozen said he expected the "administration will put a lot of pressure on Harvard and other schools to follow suit." Harvard University has pushed back against the government, filing a lawsuit in a bid to reverse sweeping funding cuts. But Steven Levitsky, a professor of government at Harvard, said that "in terms of academic freedom and in terms of democracy, the (Columbia) precedent is devastating." - 'First round' - Education Secretary Linda McMahon said she hoped the Columbia deal would be a "template for other universities around the country." On Wednesday, McMahon announced a deal with Brown University to restore some federal funding and end ongoing investigations after the Ivy League school agreed to end race considerations in admissions and adopt a biological definition of gender. Brown President Christina Paxson admitted "there are other aspects of the agreement that were not part of previous federal reviews of Brown policies" but were "priorities of the federal administration." Harvard is reportedly considering forking out $500 million to settle, according to the New York Times. Others have made smaller concessions to appease the government, with Trump's alma mater the University of Pennsylvania banning transgender women from competing in women's sports, and the University of Virginia's head resigning after scrutiny over its diversity programs. Brendan Cantwell, a professor at Michigan State University who researches the history and governance of higher education, said government interference in universities "has not happened at scale like this, probably ever in American history." While some university staff see striking an agreement as the quickest way to reopen the federal funding spigot, Cantwell warned that concessions such as sharing ethnicity data from admissions could be "weaponized" and provide fodder for future probes. Levitsky agreed, saying: "Extortionists don't stop at the first concession. Extortionists come back for more." "There's a very high likelihood that this is just the first round," he said. Pozen noted that it will be harder for "major research universities to hold the line" compared to smaller colleges which are less reliant on federal funding. But Levitsky still urged Harvard to stand its ground and "fight back," including in the courts. "Fighting an authoritarian regime is costly, but that's what we have to do," he said. "This is an unprecedented assault, and universities need to work together." aks/wd

'The Trade War Has Lost All Credibility:' Markets Shrug Off Trump's Tariff Blitz On Multiple Countries
'The Trade War Has Lost All Credibility:' Markets Shrug Off Trump's Tariff Blitz On Multiple Countries

Yahoo

time11 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

'The Trade War Has Lost All Credibility:' Markets Shrug Off Trump's Tariff Blitz On Multiple Countries

As President Donald Trump unveiled a blitz of new tariffs across different countries on Thursday, the markets remained largely unfazed by the move. What Happened: On Thursday, in a post on X, The Kobeissi Letter highlighted the market's muted response to Trump's sweeping new moves on the trade and tariff front. The post notes that Trump 'randomly' increased tariffs on Canada, the largest trading partner of the United States, from 25% to 35%. Followed by a string of new tariffs on others, such as 'Vietnam, Switzerland, South Africa, Taiwan, Cambodia, Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, Turkey, and Venezuela.' Trending: 7,000+ investors have joined Timeplast's mission to eliminate microplastics—now it's your turn to Yet, the market response was underwhelming, with S&P 500 futures 'down a mere 10 points,' which the post attributes almost entirely to 'Amazon's weak earnings results.' It says that in April, when the 'Liberation Day' tariffs were first announced, such a move would have sent the S&P 500 lower by 3% or more. The post says 'the trade war has lost all credibility' in the market, and that it has lost the 'shock effect' that it had a couple of months ago. Why It Matters: This could be seen as a fallout of the 'TACO Trade' meme, or 'Trump Always Chickens Out,' where investors buy equities right after Trump makes a tariff threat, knowing fully well that he will eventually back out. Economist Peter Schiff recently called this 'a classic paradox,' since markets not reacting to Trump's tariffs, because they expect him to 'chicken out,' will eventually lead him to follow through on his threats. 'Investors assume Trump will cancel the August 1 tariffs before they kick in, so stocks aren't selling off,' he says, but since there isn't a dramatic market response to this, 'Trump won't chicken out again.' Read Next: $100k+ in investable assets? Match with a fiduciary advisor for free to learn how you can maximize your retirement and save on taxes – no cost, no obligation. Bezos' Favorite Real Estate Platform Launches A Way To Ride The Ongoing Private Credit Boom Photo courtesy: Shutterstock UNLOCKED: 5 NEW TRADES EVERY WEEK. Click now to get top trade ideas daily, plus unlimited access to cutting-edge tools and strategies to gain an edge in the markets. Get the latest stock analysis from Benzinga? This article 'The Trade War Has Lost All Credibility:' Markets Shrug Off Trump's Tariff Blitz On Multiple Countries originally appeared on

FAA planning more helicopter route changes after fatal collision
FAA planning more helicopter route changes after fatal collision

Yahoo

time11 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

FAA planning more helicopter route changes after fatal collision

By David Shepardson WASHINGTON (Reuters) -The Federal Aviation Administration said on Friday it is planning additional helicopter route changes near Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport after the January 29 mid-air collision of an American Airlines regional jet and an Army helicopter that killed 67 people. FAA official Nick Fuller said at a National Transportation Safety Board investigative hearing that an agency work group is planning changes on a key helicopter route near Reagan after imposing permanent restrictions on non-essential helicopter operations in March and further restricting where they could operate in June. NTSB officials at the hearing expressed concerns about a "disconnect" between front-line air traffic controllers and agency leaders and raised other questions about FAA actions before the fatal collision, including why earlier reports of close call incidents did not prompt safety improvements. Board members have also raised concerns about the failure of the FAA to turn over documents in a timely fashion during the investigation of the January collision. The NTSB received details on staffing levels at the time of the January 29 crash "after considerable confusion and a series of corrections and updates from the FAA," a board report said. The hearing has run more than 30 hours over three days and raised a series of troubling questions, including about the failure of the primary controller on duty to issue an alert to the American regional jet and the actions of an assistant controller who was supposed to assist the primary controller. "That did not occur and we're trying to understand why. And no one has been able to tell us what the individual was doing during that time," NTSB Chair Jennifer Homendy said. Homendy said earlier this week the FAA had ignored warnings about serious safety issues. "Every sign was there that there was a safety risk, and the tower was telling you," Homendy said. "You transferred people out instead of taking ownership over the fact that everybody in FAA in the tower was saying there was a problem ... Fix it. Do better." FAA officials at the hearing vowed to work more collaboratively and address concerns. Senator Tim Kaine on Friday also cited concerns raised by an FAA manager about the volume of flights at the airport before the collision and the decision by Congress last year to add five additional daily flights to Reagan. "Congress must act to reduce dangerous congestion by removing flights into and out of (Reagan National)," Kaine said.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store