
Meddling With the Fed Could Backfire on Trump
Trump has mused publicly about replacing Fed Chair Jerome Powell since before he even took office, calling him 'Too Late Powell' (as in waiting too long to cut rates) and a 'numbskull.' Those threats have gotten more serious recently. In a meeting with House Republicans last Tuesday, the president reportedly showed off the draft of a letter that would have fired the Fed chair. Trump later claimed that it was 'highly unlikely' that he would fire Powell, but he left open the possibility that the chair might have to 'leave for fraud.' To that end, the administration has launched an investigation into Powell's management of an expensive renovation of the central bank's headquarters. (Any wrongdoing would, at least in theory, offer a legal pretext for firing him.)
This plan is unlikely to succeed in the near term. The administration's legal case against Powell is almost certainly specious, and the Fed sets interest rates by the votes of 12 board members, not according to the chair's sole discretion. Even if the president eventually does get his way, however, and installs enough pliant board members to slash government interest rates, this could have the paradoxical effect of raising the interest rates paid in the real world. If that happened, mortgages would get more expensive, businesses would have a harder time investing, and government financing would become even less sustainable.
Trump seems to have a simple mental model of monetary policy: The Federal Reserve unilaterally sets all of the interest rates across the entire economy. The reality is more complicated. The central bank controls what is known as the federal-funds rate, the interest rate at which banks loan one another money. A lower federal-funds rate means that banks can charge lower interest on the loans they issue. This generally causes rates on short-term debt, such as credit-card annual percentage rates and small-business loans, to fall.
But the interest rates that people care the most about are on long-term debt, such as mortgages and car loans. These are influenced less by the current federal-funds rate and more by expectations of what the economic environment will look like in the coming years, even decades. The Fed influences these long-term rates not only directly, by changing the federal-funds rate, but also indirectly by sending a signal about where the economy is headed.
Rogé Karma: The Federal Reserve's little secret
What signal would the Fed be sending if it suddenly slashed the federal-funds rate from its current level of about 4.5 percent to Trump's preferred 1 percent? Typically, an interest-rate cut of this magnitude would be reserved for a calamity in which the Fed drastically needs to increase the money supply to give the labor market a big boost. (This is what happened after the 2008 financial crisis.) Today's economy has a very different problem: Unemployment is low, but inflation remains above the Fed's target and has risen in recent months. In this environment, most economists predict that a dramatic increase in the money supply would send prices soaring.
Last week, in response to Trump flirting with the possibility of firing Powell, a key measure of investors' long-term-inflation expectations spiked dramatically. The mere prospect of higher inflation is 'kryptonite' for lenders and bondholders, Mark Zandi, the chief economist at Moody's Analytics, told me, because it creates the risk that any debt paid back in the future will be worth a lot less than it is today. In such a situation, Zandi explained, banks and investors would likely impose a higher interest rate up front.
Many experts, including former Fed chairs, believe that cutting rates simply because the president demands it could have an even more profound consequence: It would tell the world that the U.S. central bank can no longer be trusted to credibly manage the money supply going forward. Investors would 'get really nervous about holding U.S. Treasuries,' the economist Jason Furman told me, and demand a far higher return for buying them to make up for the higher risk—which would, perversely, drive interest rates higher, not lower. As evidence, Furman pointed out that, on several occasions, including last week, the interest rates on 10- and 30-year government bonds have shot up in response to Trump threatening to fire Powell. (In fact, the gap between short- and long-term rates jumped to its highest level since 2021 last week in the less-than-one-hour window between when reports surfaced about Trump planning to fire Powell and the president's denial of that plan.) Because most long-term interest rates, including those for home mortgages, student loans, and auto loans, are directly pegged to the rate on government bonds—which serves as a sort of base rate for the entire financial system—all of those other rates would rise as well.
Jonathan Chait: What Trump's feud with Jerome Powell is really about
The precise consequences of a move as drastic as what Trump has suggested are impossible to forecast with certainty. And the predictions of economists have been proved wrong many times. (Remember the inevitable recession of 2023?) Still, recent history has not been kind to populist leaders who try to forcibly lower interest rates. Between 2019 and 2022, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan replaced three central-bank governors with loyalists who were willing to slash interest rates even as prices were rising. This caused inflation to spiral even higher, at one point reaching 85 percent. Foreign investors panicked, prompting a fire sale of Turkish government bonds. Long-term interest rates spiked, the Turkish lira crashed in value, and the country appeared on the verge of hyperinflation. The crisis began to abate only when Erdoğan changed course in 2023 and brought in new central-bank leadership who raised interest rates to above 45 percent in a desperate effort to restore credibility. (Inflation has since fallen considerably but remains very high.) 'When investors start running for the hills, you get into really dangerous territory,' Zandi told me.
A path exists to persuade the Fed to cut interest rates without such a high risk of backfiring. The problem for Trump is that it would require a complete reversal of the highest-priority economic policies of his second term. Last September, the Fed began cutting interest rates and signaled that it would continue to do so. Then Trump entered office and threatened sky-high tariffs on every country on the planet. In response, the Fed has refrained from cutting rates further, terrified that Trump's policies will unleash another bout of inflation.
There is some debate, including within the Fed itself, over whether tariff-induced price increases will in fact lead to sustained higher inflation. But for now at least, the central bank doesn't appear willing to take any chances. 'In effect, we went on hold when we saw the size of the tariffs and essentially all inflation forecasts for the United States went up materially as a consequence of the tariffs,' Powell said on July 1. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which passed days later and includes trillions of dollars of unpaid-for tax cuts, has only made Powell's case stronger.
If the president were serious about lowering the cost of borrowing for families and businesses, he would be wise to leave Powell alone and simply stop enacting wildly irresponsible policies. Trump tends to prefer a different approach to people and institutions refusing to do his bidding: force them into submission. But America's central bank isn't like most other institutions; it is the central node in a highly complex chain of interactions that undergirds the entire global economy. Even one seemingly small error or misstep can result in disaster. If Trump manages to break the Fed, he will likely regret it.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


New York Post
13 minutes ago
- New York Post
Biden's top aides lived in ‘fog of denial' over president's cognitive decline: insider
As lawmakers continue their investigation into what former President Joe Biden's inner circle knew about his alleged cognitive decline, one insider who's written about the issue says he continues to be stunned by the 'fog of denial' that surrounded the aging president. 'They [just] convinced themselves, in effect, they believed what they wanted to believe instead of their lying eyes, even during the debate when everything went south,' said Chris Whipple, author of the book 'Uncharted,' which chronicled the lead-up to the 2024 presidential election. Advertisement Whipple interviewed several members of Biden's inner circle in the aftermath of his widely criticized debate performance, which ultimately led to the suspension of his re-election campaign. Former chief of staff Ron Klain, who reportedly told House lawmakers this week that Biden had grown 'more forgetful' in office, was among sources who opened up for Whipple's book. 'Despite that devastating debate, which was lights out, game over, everybody knew it, Klain was still all in on Joe Biden's nomination and re-election and somehow thought he could beat Trump,' Whipple told 'America's Newsroom' Friday. 'He's been in the doghouse with Joe Biden and his inner circle ever since he was devastatingly candid to me about Joe Biden's condition in that pre-debate prep at Camp David.' Advertisement Author Chris Whipple said he was stunned by the denial he saw after interviewing former President Biden's top aides about his alleged cognitive decline. AP House Republicans have launched a probe into the former president's cognitive health and have called on former Biden administration officials to testify about what they witnessed. Most of those called have pleaded the Fifth and refused to answer lawmakers' questions, including the former president's physician. But based on his conversations, Whipple does not believe there was a secretive scheme to control the presidency. Advertisement Former Biden chief of staff Ron Klain leaving an interview with the House Oversight Committee Chairman on July 24, 2025. Getty Images 'The notion that this was somehow, you know, Biden's last year was 'Weekend at Bernie's' and that there he was non compos mentis and there was a cabal running the country with an autopen is just silly,' he said. 'The notion that they're [Republicans are] going to be able to prove that there was this dastardly cover-up on the part of Biden's inner circle is just crazy to me. I think the answer is that this thing goes nowhere.'


UPI
14 minutes ago
- UPI
Calif., Illinois may fight new Texas congressional maps with their own
1 of 2 | California Gov. Gavin Newsom says he may seek to change his state's congressional maps if Texas redraws its borders. File photo by Jonathan Alcorn/UPI | License Photo July 26 (UPI) -- As the Texas Legislature plans to redraw congressional maps in an effort to increase Republican members in the U.S. House, the governors of California and Illinois may devise their own new borders. Traditionally, the boundaries are changed every 10 years with the latest U.S. Census data but Texas Gov. Greg Abbott has called a special legislative session after pressure from the White House to preserve the GOP majority in the U.S. House. President Donald Trump believes an additional five seats could be created by changing the borders. Of the state's 38 districts, 25 are held by Republicans. Democrats hold seats in big cities of Austin, Dallas, El Paso, Fort Worth, Houston, Laredo, McAllen, San Antonio. Ahead of the 2026 midterm elections, Republicans hold a 219-212 advantage in the House with four vacancies -- three Democrats who died and one Republican who resigned this week. More than a dozen Texas House members flew to Illinois and California -- two blue states -- on Friday for a meeting with California Gov. Gavin Newsom and Illinois Gov. JB Pritzkeper, during which they revealed their intentions. "Donald Trump called up Governor Abbott for one simple reason: to rig the 2026 elections. California's moral high ground means nothing if we're powerless because of it," Newsom said after meeting with Democrats from the Texas House. "This moment requires us to be prepared to fight fire with fire. Whether that's a special election, a ballot initiative, a bill, a fight in court. If they proceed in Texas, we will be ready." "This is not a bluff. This is real, and trust me, it's more real after listening to these leaders today, how existential this is," Newsom said. As the most populous state in the nation, California has 43 Democratic members of the house and nine Republican members, while Illinois is represented by 14 Democrats and three Republicans. "Everything is on the table," Pritzer said. The Illinois governor said he doesn't want to redraw the maps but "if they're going to take this drastic action, then we might also take drastic action to respond." "We want the country to understand [that] what's going on in Texas is a national battle," State Rep. Richard Pena Raymond, a Democrat from Laredo, said. Raymond told Pritzner that redistricting is "clearly aimed at affecting the entire country." Responsibility for determining Congressional district maps differs from state to state. In California, an independent commission approved by voters in 2010 works on the maps. Illinois maps, on the other hand, are put together by the state lawmakers have been drawn strongly to favor the Democrat Party in the state. Newsom said he is considering having a referendum to change the rules before the 2026 election, unless the Legislature comes up with another solution, which would take two-thirds of legislators voting in favor of. "We have to fight fire with fire," Newsom said. Other states Two other Democratic governors are considering new maps -- Phil Murphy in New Jersey and Kathy Hochul in New York. "There's other states that are violating the rules," Hochul said during a news conference on Thursday. "I'm going to look at it closely with Hakeem Jeffries," a New York member of the House, as well has House minority leader. In New York, Democrats have a 19-7 advantage as a result of their districting maps. "It's deplorable," Murphy said during an interview at the summer meeting of the bipartisan National Governors Association in Colorado Springs. "If they're going to play these games, we're going to have to be just as aggressive. We can't bring a knife to a gunfight." Democrats hold nine of the 12 seats in New Jersey. In Florida, the state Supreme Court on July 17 upheld its newest congressional map. He said he believes the state had been "malappropriated" and redistricting "would be appropriate" in a few years. Florida's congressional delegation is controlled by Republicans, 20-8. In Ohio, legislators are required to redraw maps before 2026. The GOP has 10 of the 15 seats. Colorado Gov. Jared Polis is against redistricting more frequently. The state's maps are overseen by an independent commission and it's eight U.S. House seats are evenly split 4-4. Texas situation Texas last redrew its borders in mid-cycle in 2003 after the GOP gained control of both chambers for the first time since Reconstruction. In Texas, Abbott noted a July 7 letter from the Justice Department that said majority Black and Hispanic districts in Dallas need to be redrawn based on a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit last year. The DOJ said those districts are "unconstitutional racial gerrymanders," but Abbott argued the opposite in 2021. In federal court in El Paso, he argued race had not been taken into account there. "We are no longer compelled to have coalition districts," Abbott said in an interview with KDFW in Dallas. U.S. Rep. Joaquin Castro, a San Antonio Democrat, appeared at a state House hearing. "That's what's at stake here, whether you all are going to work for the people of Texas, as we used to do, to try to do, or whether you take your commandments from Donald Trump and the White House," Castro said. "I hope that you all will choose to do the business of the people of Texas, as this body has a history of being independent from the federal government."


Politico
14 minutes ago
- Politico
Democrats desperately look for a redistricting edge in California, New York and Maryland
Hochul's political allies believe there is little upside to drawing new lines. 'I understand those in New York who are watching what's happening in Texas and Ohio want to offset their unfair advantage,' said New York Democratic Chair Jay Jacobs. But 'the constitution seems pretty clear that this redistricting process should be done every 10 years. I don't know where someone could interpret it as something you can do every two years.' Beyond Texas, Republicans have their eye on picking up seats in other states like Missouri and Florida — which would put Democrats in a tough spot, given they don't have as much leeway to squeeze out extra seats. New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy was noncommittal when asked by reporters earlier this week if he plans to pursue redistricting, noting that it's 'too early to make any definitive statement about it.' But he echoed what many other Democrats across the country have said when talking about the possibility of early redistricting: 'Never bring a knife to a gunfight.' New Jersey has its own constitutional impediment, which states that congressional districts, which are drawn by an independent commission, 'shall remain unaltered through the next year ending in zero in which a federal census for this State is taken.' Even if they were able to circumvent the state constitution, Democrats already have the majority in the New Jersey congressional delegation, and just two seats — the 7th, held by Republican Rep. Tom Kean Jr., and the 9th, held by Democratic Rep. Nellie Pou — are considered battlegrounds. Even some other Hail Mary options seem off the table. State lawmakers in Washington, Minnesota and Colorado balked at the suggestion they should pursue drawing new maps in the next few months. California Gov. Gavin Newsom, accompanied by several members of the Texas state Legislature, calls for a new way for California to redraw it's voting districts during a news conference In Sacramento, Calif., Friday July 25, 2025. | Rich Pedroncelli/AP 'It's just not in the cards,' said Washington House Majority Leader Joe Fitzgibbon, citing the requirement that a two-thirds majority is needed in both the state House and Senate to reconvene the state's bipartisan redistricting commission. And Minnesota State Sen. Aric Nesbitt shut down the idea quickly: 'We're not power-crats, we're Democrats. We should do things that improve democracy, even if that means sometimes we don't get our way.' Democrats hold the governorship and state Senate in Minnesota, but Republicans narrowly control the House.