Trump to Visit Federal Reserve as Pressure Campaign Intensifies
Mr. Trump will visit the Fed at 4 p.m. Eastern time on Thursday, according to a daily schedule published by White House. No additional details were given about the visit beyond that it would last about an hour. It did not specify whether Mr. Trump would be meeting with Jerome H. Powell, the Fed chair and the primary target of the president's repeated attacks on the central bank.
Public opinion about the Fed chair has become increasingly polarized
Percent saying they have at least a fair amount of confidence in (Fed chair name) to do or recommend the right thing for the economy
Source: Gallup surveys conducted between 2001 and 2025
By The New York Times
The Fed did not have an immediate comment about Mr. Trump's visit.
Top administration officials were already scheduled to tour the construction site on Thursday, a concession that was granted to them by the Fed as it has sought to deflect criticism of the project, which involves a pair of buildings that are close to 100 years old and undergoing a roughly $2.5 billion revamp.
In recent days, the central bank has published a virtual tour of the construction site, including footage of asbestos caulking being removed and blast-resistant windows being installed. It has also specified where certain features, like a rooftop terrace for staff, have been scaled back.
Mr. Trump's visit marks an escalation in his pressure campaign against the Fed. Presidents do not typically go to the central bank in an official capacity, reflecting the longstanding independence of the institution from the White House.
8
%
Federal funds
target rate
6
No change
4
RECESSIONS
2
2000
'05
'10
'15
'20
'25
20
%
18
Federal funds
target rate
16
14
12
RECESSIONS
10
8
6
No change
4
2
1970
'75
'80
'85
'90
'95
2000
'05
'10
'15
'20
'25
20
%
18
Federal funds
target rate
16
14
12
RECESSIONS
10
8
6
4
No change
2
1970
'75
'80
'85
'90
'95
2000
'05
'10
'15
'20
'25
20
%
18
Federal funds
target rate
16
14
12
RECESSIONS
10
8
6
No change
4
2
1970
'75
'80
'85
'90
'95
2000
'05
'10
'15
'20
'25
Note: The rate since December 2008 is the midpoint of the federal funds target range.
Source: Federal Reserve
By Karl Russell
Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
a minute ago
- The Hill
The Army's acquisition process for new weapons systems is still broken
To the surprise of many, the U.S. Army, long considered to be the most bureaucratically hidebound of the military services, appears to have successfully reoriented itself toward the demands of a potential war in the western Pacific. For example, at this month's Talisman Sabre military exercise with Australia and Singapore, the Army employed its Typhon missile system, which entered service in 2023, to sink a maritime target at a distance of over 100 miles. And in that same exercise, it employed the HIMARS rocket artillery system in conjunction with the other two nations to demonstrate interoperability among them. Recognizing the growing threat from China, the Army began to reorient itself during the Biden administration and has therefore easily and quickly adapted itself to the Trump administration's priorities. But notwithstanding its strategic reorientation, the Army's acquisition processes continue to suffer from a long-standing inability to consistently field major new weapons systems. The Army continues to operate Abrams tanks, Bradley infantry fighting vehicles and Apache helicopters that, although upgraded over the years, are fundamentally products of the mid-1970s. The list of failed Army programs is both long and troubling. In 1982, the Department of Defense canceled the Roland short-range air defense missile system, originally a Franco-German product that the Army unsuccessfully sought to modify and integrate. Three years later, Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger canceled the Sergeant York Division Air Defense gun which, like Roland, had been in development since the mid-1970s. The Sergeant York not only had spiraling costs but was also unable to track low-flying targets and suffered from a range too short to attack missiles fired from Soviet helicopters. In 1987, the Army had to cancel its Aquila remotely piloted vehicle program — the forerunner to today's drones. The Aquila suffered from cost overruns and development delays, as well as an inability to carry the payloads and data links for which it had been designed. In 2002, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld terminated the Crusader self-propelled howitzer, which also suffered from cost overruns and was too heavy for the expeditionary operations that became the military's priority after 9/11. Two years later, Rumsfeld canceled the Comanche reconnaissance helicopter. The cancellation represented the latest in the Army's decades-long failure to replace the late 1960s vintage OH-58 Kiowa Warrior. The Army tried again with its Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter program, and in 2008 this too was terminated. The Army's armor programs at best have had mixed results. The service successfully fielded the lightweight Stryker vehicle, which has seen a number of upgrades and variations since it was first entered full-scale production in 2005. But that was not the fate of the Manned Ground Vehicle, a key element of the Future Combat System, which was meant to be a lightweight companion to the Abrams tank. The Pentagon terminated the Future Combat System program in 2009 due to cost overruns and technological challenges, and the Manned Ground Vehicle, which suffered from the same shortcomings, collapsed with it. In June, the Army terminated its M-10 Booker combat vehicle program, previously known as Mobile Protective Firepower. The Booker was meant to be a lightweight air-droppable vehicle that could be carried on a C-130 aircraft. After having taken delivery of 80 of them, the Army determined that the M-10 was too heavy for the aircraft and a poor fit for the service's operational requirements. The common thread in all these failures is the Army's manifest inability to anticipate evolving requirements, to control costs and to avoid program delays. As the war in Ukraine has demonstrated, cutting-edge technologies will be critical to success on future battlefields. To be effective in any future contingency, the Army will have to overhaul its entire acquisition system. It simply cannot tolerate the program delays and cost growth that have stymied so many previous development programs. Moreover, the Army must carefully assess its requirements for new systems, focusing on a range of future contingencies and not limiting itself to any one of them. It is therefore critical that as the Army contemplates acquiring a follow-on to the M-10, and for that matter replaces key weapons systems like the Abrams tank, it should not restrict its requirements and programs to contingencies in the western Pacific, where it is likely to do no more than to supplement Navy, Marine and Air Force operations. Instead, the Army should look beyond both its current Pacific orientation and expected forthcoming reductions in its European presence. Its future program development and acquisition should also account for its ongoing and critical role in support of NATO's ability to deter an aggressive and predatory Russia that seems likely to continue menacing Europe for many years to come. Dov S. Zakheim is a senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and vice chairman of the board for the Foreign Policy Research Institute. He was undersecretary of Defense (comptroller) and chief financial officer for the Department of Defense from 2001 to 2004 and a deputy undersecretary of Defense from 1985 to 1987.
The Hill
a minute ago
- The Hill
Wisconsin Republican faces angry town hall over Trump agenda
Rep. Bryan Steil (R-Wis.) was heckled and booed during a Thursday town hall in his district over a slate of GOP policies, including immigration, the 'big, beautiful bill,' and President Trump's tariffs. Steil faced particular criticism of the administration's aggressive deportation campaign, drawing jeers from the crowd as he attempted to answer. 'What I view is the moral hazard created by the Biden administration by allowing the U.S.-Mexico border to remain unsecure,' he began, before pausing and shrugging his shoulders as the audience began to boo. An audience member later in the town hall referred to Alligator Alcatraz, the recently constructed detention center in the Florida Everglades, as a 'concentration camp.' Other audience members went after Steil for being too closely aligned with Trump. 'I am so disappointed in how you represent us, as the citizens of Walworth County. Southeast Wisconsin is not represented by you,' one man said. 'President Trump seems to run southeast Wisconsin, through you.' The event's moderator stepped in at multiple points to attempt to quiet the crowd, CNN reported, and called out a specific audience member for being 'very obnoxious and very disrespectful.' Angry voters at GOP town halls also made headlines during the House's last recess in March, with constituent ire often focused on cuts made by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). The backlash escalated to a point where House Republican leaders urged their members to avoid live, in-person town halls. Republicans have also accused Democrats of organizing the public pushback. Steil also faced questions about Trump's tariff policies as new, elevated rates were set to kick in Friday (the town hall took place before the president announced a series of new tariffs would go into effect next week). 'I would like to know what dire economic circumstances put Trump in position of throwing tariffs on over 190 countries,' one voter said, drawing cheers and clapping from the audience. Steil defended the policies as forcing other countries to treat the U.S. fairly in trade. Steil, who represents a district just south of Milwaukee once held by former House Speaker Paul Ryan (R), wrote on X after the 'listening session' that he was committed to holding future events. 'Despite a handful of individuals attempting to disrupt the discussion, we had a great dialogue about the issues that matter most,' he wrote. Last week, Steil was the target of a demonstration in which a group of elderly protesters left what appeared to be a cardboard coffin in front of his home, chastizing him for supporting the 'big, beautiful bill.' Democrats have hoped to use the massive legislation package, which cuts Medicaid and other social services along with extending tax cuts, as a cudgel against Republicans in the midterms.
UPI
a minute ago
- UPI
Trump's super PACs are stockpiling cash, nearly $200 million available
President Donald Trump speaks in the Roosevelt Room at the White House on Wednesday. Trump superPACs are saving their cash for midterm elections. Photo by Yuri Gripas/UPI | License Photo Aug. 1 (UPI) -- President Donald Trump's super PAC has raised $177 million in the last six months, and has nearly $200 million in cash available to use in the next midterm elections. His leadership PAC raised $28 million, according to filings submitted to the Federal Election Commission Thursday. It's an unprecedented amount for a president who can't run again. Donors include, Jeffrey Yass, billionaire trader, $16 million; Ronald Lauder, cosmetics heir, $5 million; Marc Andreessen, Silicon Valley investor, $3 million; Elon Musk, $5 million; Kelcy Warren, CEO of Energy Transfer Partners, $12.5 million, and the company also gave $12.5 million; Securing American Greatness, a pro-Trump dark money group, $13.75 million and $5 million. The two PACs reported a combined $234 million in cash at the end of June. They mostly haven't spent the cash. Instead, they've been stockpiling it to use in 2026 primaries or to boost Republicans in midterms. Never Surrender is now the president's primary leadership PAC. It was converted from his 2024 campaign committee. It reported $38 million in cash on hand after spending $16.8 million, which was mostly leftover expenses from the campaign. The main pro-Trump superPAC is MAGA Inc., which reported $196 million in cash on hand after only spending a few million. SuperPACs have no donation limits. They can pay for political ads, but they can't coordinate with or contribute directly to campaigns or political parties. Musk donated $5 million to MAGA Inc. on June 27, three days before reigniting his feud with Trump over his megabill. He also donated $5 million each to two super PACs to help Republicans keep their House of Representative and Senate majorities.
