Trump's Powell attacks show why Fed was designed to be independent
Add Axios as your preferred source to
see more of our stories on Google.
Photo illustration: Brendan Lynch/Axios. Photos: Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images and Roberto Schmidt/AFP via Getty Images
Three things can simultaneously be true: that it would be reasonable for the Federal Reserve to cut interest rates; that its headquarters renovation is too expensive; and that the Trump administration's attacks show why central banks are designed to be independent in the first place.
The big picture: The whole reason the U.S. and other advanced economies grant their central banks a measure of independence is to instill confidence that they won't make policy based on what's most convenient in the near-term for elected leaders — such as cutting rates to save the fiscal authorities cash.
- Yet that is exactly the grounds President Trump has repeatedly invoked as the reason he believes the Fed should cut rates drastically.
Driving the news: Bloomberg reported Wednesday that a White House official said Trump is likely to attempt to fire Fed chair Jerome Powell soon. CBS News reported that Trump circulated the idea to receptive Congressional Republicans on Tuesday.
State of play: The 3-percentage-point rate cut Trump has called for would put the Fed's policy in ultra-stimulative mode at a moment when unemployment is low, inflation remains elevated, and tariffs threaten a new price surge in the months ahead.
- The core of the argument playing out right now — and potential litigation, should Trump attempt to fire Powell for cause — is whether the U.S. will stick with its tradition of handing control over the money supply to technocrats as opposed to the president.
Between the lines: It's an important new chapter in the nation's long, tumultuous history with central banking.
- That includes key moments like Andrew Jackson's war with the Second Bank of the United States in the 1830s and the Treasury-Fed accord of 1951 that delineated the roles of the two institutions in managing government debt.
Yes, but: That doesn't mean that the Fed is getting things exactly right, either in its monetary policy or its real estate decisions.
- There is a pretty solid case for interest rate cuts right now, even if not the one Trump makes, and $2.5 billion truly is a massive amount of money to spend on renovating a couple of historic buildings.
Zoom in: The argument for rate cuts that could persuade independent-minded technocrats isn't tied to Trump's calls to save the federal government money on borrowing costs, but rather something rooted in current economic conditions.
- The argument would hold that the Fed's current target interest rate, around 4.4%, is still in territory that officials consider "restrictive," deliberately slowing economic activity to try to bring down inflation.
- But inflation has been mostly on a gradual downward path for three years now and is not far from the Fed's 2% target. Tariffs might create a price surge, but that should be a one-time event that policymakers ought to look past.
- Moreover, there are growing signs of weakness in the labor market, including low hiring rates and weak job creation in cyclical sectors.
Zoom out: The Fed's renovation — fueled by overhauling its historic 1935 headquarters building on the National Mall and a second historic building next door, with a tunnel connecting the two — really is costing a lot of money, ultimately borne by taxpayers.
- But it's also the case that the Federal Reserve Act gives the Board of Governors independent authority over its real estate precisely to insulate it from political pressure.
- And the Trump administration has left little doubt that the president's discontent over rates is driving the new scrutiny of the project.
What they're saying: "If the Fed were to lower interest rates this month to 1%, White House officials would stop talking about beehives and fancy elevators," Sarah Binder, a political scientist at George Washington University who has studied Fed governance, tells Axios.
- If Trump attempts to remove Powell from his job for cause before his term expires 10 months from now, it would set up a legal battle — very likely ending up before the Supreme Court — with long-term consequences for how U.S. economic policy is run.
The bottom line: "How far would the Court be willing to go to insulate the Fed if Powell were charged with 'neglect of duty?'" Binder asks. "Remains to be seen!"
