Trump calls on the Federal Reserve board to take full control of the central bank from Powell
Posting on his Truth Social platform, Trump called Powell 'stubborn.' The Fed chair has been subjected to vicious verbal attacks by the Republican president over several months.
The Fed has the responsibility of stabilizing prices and maximizing employment. Powell has held its benchmark rate for overnight loans constant this year, saying that Fed officials needed to see what impact Trump's massive tariffs had on inflation.
If Powell doesn't 'substantially' lower rates, Trump posted, 'THE BOARD SHOULD ASSUME CONTROL, AND DO WHAT EVERYONE KNOWS HAS TO BE DONE!'
Two of the seven Fed governors, Christopher Waller and Michelle Bowman, issued statements Friday saying they see the tariffs as having a one-time impact on prices and the job market as most likely softening. As a result, the two dissented at the Fed meeting on Wednesday and pushed for slight rate cuts relative to what Trump was seeking.
Even though Trump, who nominated Waller and Bowman, has claimed the US economy is booming, he welcomed their arguments and what he called their strong dissents.
After the Fed announced later Friday that governor Adriana Kugler will step down next week, Trump said Powell should follow her lead and leave, too. 'She knew he was doing the wrong thing on Interest Rates. He should resign, also!' Trump said on social media.
Friday's jobs report showed a rapidly decelerating economy, as just 73,000 jobs were added in July and downward revisions brought down the June and May totals to 14,000 and 19,000, respectively.
Trump sees the rate cuts as leading to stronger growth and lower debt servicing costs for the federal government and homebuyers. The president argues there is virtually no inflation, even though the Fed's preferred measure is running at an annual rate of 2.6%, slightly higher than the Fed's 2% target.
Trump has called for slashing the Fed's benchmark rate by 3 percentage points, bringing it down dramatically from its current average of 4.33%. The risk is that a rate cut that large could cause more money to come into the economy than can be absorbed, possibly causing inflation to accelerate.
The Supreme Court suggested in a May ruling that Trump could not remove Powell for policy disagreements. This led the White House to investigate whether the Fed chair could be fired for cause because of the cost overruns in the Fed's $2.5 billion renovation projects.
Powell's term as chair ends in May 2026, at which point Trump can put his Senate-confirmed pick in the seat.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scroll.in
9 minutes ago
- Scroll.in
Judges don't decide who is ‘true Indian', says Priyanka Vadra after SC rebukes Rahul Gandhi
Congress leader Priyanka Gandhi Vadra on Tuesday defended her brother Rahul Gandhi a day after the Supreme Court criticised his remarks on alleged Chinese incursions, saying that it is not for judges to decide who a 'true Indian' is, PTI reported. On Monday, a Supreme Court bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and AG Masih told Rahul Gandhi that a 'true Indian' would not make remarks such as the ones he did about China allegedly having intruded into Indian territory. The court asked the Opposition leader how he had verified his claims, and said that he should have made the comments in Parliament, rather than on social media. Commenting on the court's observations, Priyanka Gandhi Vadra said: 'With due respect to the honourable judges, they do not decide who a true Indian is. It is the duty of the Opposition leader to question the government.' Vadra also said that Rahul Gandhi would never speak against the Army, and that he holds it in the highest respect, PTI reported. 'This is a misinterpretation,' she said, in an apparent reference to a defamation case filed against Rahul Gandhi for the remarks. VIDEO | Congress leader Priyanka Gandhi (@priyankagandhi) reacts to Supreme Court's observation on Lok Sabha LoP Rahul Gandhi. 'With due respect to the honourable judges, they do not decide who a true Indian is. It is the duty of the Opposition Leader to question the government.… — Press Trust of India (@PTI_News) August 5, 2025 In a similar vein, Trinamool Congress MP Saket Gokhale said that it was very dangerous for Supreme Court judges to question whether someone was a true Indian. 'NOTHING in the Constitution gives the SC the power to hand out certificates for being a true Indian',' Gokhale said. 'We are ALL equal under law.' The Trinamool Congress member said that it was the prerogative of an MP to decide whether to make statements in Parliament or outside. 'As long as it's within the law, no court has the right to tell MPs whether they should say something inside the House or outside,' he said on social media. It is VERY dangerous when the Supreme Court uses language like 'are you a true Indian?' Questioning the govt does not make someone 'not a true Indian'. It is a fundamental DUTY of the political opposition. NOTHING in the Constitution gives the SC the power to hand out… — Saket Gokhale MP (@SaketGokhale) August 5, 2025 The Supreme Court on Monday made the comments about Rahul Gandhi while hearing his petition seeking that defamation proceedings filed against him be quashed. Even as the court rebuked the Congress leader for his remarks, it stayed the proceedings for three weeks. The case pertains to comments made by Gandhi on December 16, 2022, about a clash between the Indian and Chinese soldiers along the Line of Actual Control in Arunachal Pradesh's Tawang. Uday Shankar Srivastava, a former director of the Border Roads Organisation, had filed a defamation complaint against Gandhi. His lawyer claimed that the Congress leader's statements were derogatory and defamed the Indian Army. refused to quash the proceedings in May.
Indian Express
9 minutes ago
- Indian Express
‘Right to choose trading partners': Russia calls Trump's trade ‘threats' to India ‘not legal'
The Kremlin on Tuesday hit out at US President Donald Trump's recent remarks targeting India over its continued trade ties with Russia, calling such pressure tactics 'not legal'. Responding to Trump's announcement of a 25 per cent tariff on Indian imports, Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov said, 'We hear many statements that are in fact threats, attempts to force countries to cut trade relations with Russia. We do not consider such statements to be legal.' In a sharp rebuke of Trump's stance, Peskov added, 'We believe that sovereign countries should have and do have the right to choose their own trading partners, partners for trade and economic cooperation, and to choose for themselves the forms of trade and economic cooperation that are in the interests of a particular country.' The comments came days after Trump, in a July 31 post on Truth Social, vowed to impose steep tariffs on India for what he described as 'obnoxious' trade barriers. His threat included an unspecified 'penalty' for buying Russian crude. New Delhi has called Trump's threats 'unjustified' and vowed to protect its economic interests, deepening a trade rift between the two major economies.
The Hindu
9 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Does India need to decriminalise teenage relationships?
Senior advocate Indira Jaising, in a written submission to the Supreme Court recently, saidthat consesual sex between teenagers aged 16 to 18 must not be criminalised. Why is this a hot button issue? Under the Pocso or Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, any sexual relationship under the age of 18 is a crime, as those below 18 are considered children, and therefore consent does not matter. This is not a new issue: child rights activists and court in India too, have for years now highlighted the fact that a chunk of cases filed under the Pocso Act are of consensual teenage romantic relationships and elopements and that navigating the criminal judicial system in India can wreak havoc on young lives. The government however has maintained its stand that the age of consent cannot be lowered, that doing this, would erode child protection and child marriage laws and polices. Is there a case for decriminalising consensual teenage relationships? Is it fair to punish young persons for their romances? How is consent defined and regulated? How can India protect its children from marriage, abuses and crime while also allowing them freedom to choose their partners when they want to? Guest: Swagata Raha, legal researcher on child protection Host: Zubeda Hamid Edited by Sharmada venkatasubramanian Listen to more In Focus podcasts:
