Trump calls on Federal Reserve board to wrest full control of central bank from Fed Chair 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 said, 'THE BOARD SHOULD ASSUME CONTROL, AND DO WHAT EVERYONE KNOWS HAS TO BE DONE!'
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 its $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.
___
Follow the AP's coverage of the Federal Reserve System at https://apnews.com/hub/federal-reserve-system.
Error al recuperar los datos
Inicia sesión para acceder a tu cartera de valores
Error al recuperar los datos
Error al recuperar los datos
Error al recuperar los datos
Error al recuperar los datos
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Wall Street Journal
a minute ago
- Wall Street Journal
Boeing Defense Workers Set to Strike Monday
Boeing BA 0.03%increase; green up pointing triangle leaders face another picket line Monday after machinists in its St. Louis-area defense business rejected their latest contract offer. The union division that represents about 3,200 workers in Missouri and Illinois on Sunday rejected the aerospace giant's latest four-year contract proposal, scheduling a strike to begin at midnight Monday and threatening the company's fragile turnaround effort.
Forbes
a minute ago
- Forbes
The Revision Economy And The Retraction Life
Last Friday, we learned we are less employed than we thought we were. A quarter million jobs vanished, yet no one new was fired and no one new quit. Those jobs never existed in the first place. Only our estimate of the truth changed, not the truth itself. This was definitely a large revision. The two-month downward revision in jobs hadn't been this negative since Covid, and before that, the global financial crisis in October 2008. Before that, it hadn't happened in decades, with only a handful of occurrences in 1979, 1980, and 1982. In response, the US equity market fell between one and two percent and Treasury bond yields collapsed, especially in the front-end, as the market began pricing in a substantially higher expectation of Fed rate cuts. President Trump ordered the firing of the commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), citing 'a lengthy history of inaccuracies and incompetence.' Should he have? Revision History Usually, revisions are frequent and fairly modest. The monthly nonfarm payroll report is always revised twice, so there are three numbers: the preliminary estimate, the first revision the following month, and the second revision in the month following that. There are also annual revisions. The average magnitude of the revisions since 1979 are between 40,000 and 60,000 jobs. Sometimes we find out we are more employed than we thought we were, and sometimes less. On Friday, the May 2025 seasonally adjusted estimate was revised down 120,000 jobs from its first estimate and the June 2025 estimate was revised down 133,000 jobs. Each of those was historically extreme, worse than 95% of relevant monthly revisions since 1979. The two-month combination was basically a once-in-a-decade event, as the chart above shows. Big numbers. But ultimately, they are just one source of data. Jobs numbers help us think about the economy, but they are just one piece of the puzzle. What makes job numbers particularly useful is they may be forward-looking: rather than estimating historical consumer purchases, job creation can presage future spending. That's why revisions could matter too. You drive differently if you think your exit is three miles away than if you think it's a quarter mile away. But we can't live our lives in the past, constantly revising what we used to think about ancient history. So, when should a revision of the past change your perspective of the future? Estimates vs. Reality Surely, it should have some effect. One famous quote attributed to John Maynard Keynes summarizes this view: 'When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?' Of course, not all facts matter the same amount or at the same time. Yesterday's future is tomorrow's past. Eventually, other data should matter more than the jobs numbers. If the BLS announced an inadvertent and unnoticed typo in a jobs number from eight years ago, that should presumably have almost no effect on your views today, since so much additional data has already come in, about spending, saving, production, consumption, inflation, and more. In other words, those quarter million jobs either existed or not. Estimates and revisions won't change what actually happened. Even knowing the exact true number is only a proxy for the actual information you would be interested in, and as time has gone on, other data has come out that can be more valuable and important than a more accurate but more historically distant estimate. There is a devastating counterpoint, however, as anyone who has ever been in any kind of personal or professional relationship would know. If a piece of information about the ancient past can change or color your perception of the entire relationship, then almost no amount of time can reduce that emotional impact. In any fight with a loved one, the biggest pain isn't whatever action they did or did not do, or your best estimate of their action, or even the revisions of your best estimates of their actions: it's the possibility that they never loved you at all. Was it all a lie? President Trump's firing of the BLS commissioner may be controversial. But both the administration and its critics worry about the same thing: data ought to be as accurate and objective as possible. This issue is a lot like reading the news. The loud front pages say one thing, usually preliminary news. Later retractions or corrections are quiet and unnoticed. As a society, we can begin to split and live in two different worlds: those that did not know the truth and did not see the retraction, and those that knew the truth or saw the retraction. Therefore, we no longer even have the same facts. Some of us begin to live in the hallucinated, unrevised, unretracted world, a world much like the Mandela effect, where we swear we remember things that in fact never happened. Trust is a fragile thing. A good-faith revision here or a revision there can be fine. But if you notice a consistent bias or pattern in the revisions and retractions, if the errors are rarely in your favor, you may stop subscribing to that source of news or data. If you are in a relationship, you may look to end or fix it. If you are the President of the United States, you may seek a new commissioner. The primary challenge in all these cases is then the same: restore the trust. In the revision economy and the retraction life, beliefs can bend, but faith can snap.
Fox News
a minute ago
- Fox News
DHS official calls out NJ gov over sanctuary city policies: 'He must answer for this'
DHS Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs Tricia McLaughlin sounds off over sanctuary city policies and reacts to the Los Angeles mayor lauding a ruling restricting ICE.
