Fed chair tells Trump policy will not be politically influenced
Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell had a meeting with President Donald Trump on Thursday. File Photo by Annabelle Gordon/UPI | License Photo
May 30 (UPI) -- The Federal Reserve chair, Jerome Powell, has told President Donald Trump that monetary policy will not be influenced by politics.
Powell and Trump had a meeting Thursday as the president has been pressuring the central bank to lower interest rates.
A statement published by the Reserve following the meeting said that Powell and Trump discussed economic issues, including growth, employment and inflation.
What Powell did not discuss was his expectation for monetary policy, according to the sternly worded statement, "except to stress that the path of policy will depend entirely on incoming economic information and what that means for the outlook."
"Chairman Powell said that he and his colleagues on the [Federal Open Market Committee] will set monetary policy, as required by law, to support maximum employment and stable prices and will make those decisions based solely on careful, objective and non-political analysis," the statement said.
The meeting was held at Trump's invitation, it added.
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt confirmed during a press conference Thursday that Trump saw the statement and that it was "correct."
"However, the president did say that he believes the Fed chair is making a mistake by not lowering interest rates, which is putting us at an economic disadvantage to China and other countries," she said.
The announcement comes as the Trump administration has been seeking to influence Powell and the Fed to lower interest rates.
The Fed has steadily cut the interest rate from a high of 5.5% since the summer of 2024 but has maintained a lending rate of between 4.25% and 4.5% throughout the Trump administration due to uncertainty over the president's ever-changing tariff policies.
The Fed issued its most recent hold on the interest rate earlier this month over concerns about tariff-related inflation and slower economic growth.
"Uncertainty about the economic outlook has increased further," the Fed said in its May 7 statement.
Trump has repeatedly lashed out at the Fed and Powell.
On May 2, he took to his Truth Social platform to broadcast "THE FED SHOULD LOWER ITS RATE!!!" As a reason, he pointed to a recent drop in gas prices.
After the Fed maintained its interest rate hold about a week later, Trump called Powell "a FOOL, who doesn't have a clue."
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
10 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Ambarella First Quarter 2026 Earnings: Beats Expectations
Revenue: US$85.9m (up 58% from 1Q 2025). Net loss: US$24.3m (loss narrowed by 36% from 1Q 2025). US$0.58 loss per share (improved from US$0.93 loss in 1Q 2025). Trump has pledged to "unleash" American oil and gas and these 15 US stocks have developments that are poised to benefit. All figures shown in the chart above are for the trailing 12 month (TTM) period Revenue exceeded analyst estimates by 2.2%. Earnings per share (EPS) also surpassed analyst estimates by 8.2%. Looking ahead, revenue is forecast to grow 13% p.a. on average during the next 3 years, compared to a 16% growth forecast for the Semiconductor industry in the US. Performance of the American Semiconductor industry. The company's shares are down 15% from a week ago. It's still necessary to consider the ever-present spectre of investment risk. We've identified 2 warning signs with Ambarella, and understanding them should be part of your investment process. Have feedback on this article? Concerned about the content? Get in touch with us directly. Alternatively, email editorial-team (at) article by Simply Wall St is general in nature. We provide commentary based on historical data and analyst forecasts only using an unbiased methodology and our articles are not intended to be financial advice. It does not constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any stock, and does not take account of your objectives, or your financial situation. We aim to bring you long-term focused analysis driven by fundamental data. Note that our analysis may not factor in the latest price-sensitive company announcements or qualitative material. Simply Wall St has no position in any stocks mentioned. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
New York Times
11 minutes ago
- New York Times
What We Know About the Conflict Over a Trans Athlete in a California Track Meet
A transgender girl in California qualified for this week's state high school track and field meet, and her inclusion in the two-day event has angered people who do not believe that trans girls should compete in girls' events. They believe that trans girls hold a physical advantage and say that allowing them to take part is unfair. Her participation has fueled a political debate that has reached the White House: President Trump has threatened to pull federal funding from the state if it lets the trans girl, AB Hernandez, compete at the meet. Civil rights advocates have denounced the threat as bullying behavior. Now the eyes of the president, the governor, conservative activists and transgender rights groups will be on the meet, which began Friday in Clovis, near Fresno. It's arguably the most competitive high school track and field meet in the nation. Here's what to know: What events is the trans girl competing in? Hernandez qualified for the meet in three events: the high jump, the long jump and the triple jump. On Friday, she finished as the top qualifier in all three events and advanced to Saturday's finals. There, medals typically go to the top nine athletes. She is one of the favorites in the long jump and the triple jump. What is the gist of the debate? People who are against trans girls' competing in girls' events believe that those athletes hold unfair advantages over other competitors. Athletes who were born male, they say, have a physiological edge — including muscle mass and bone length — that they retain even after their transition. They think that physical edge makes it harder for all girls to have an equal chance at making teams, qualifying for meets and winning. In California, trans girls have had the right to compete in girls' events since 2013, when a law was passed that said students could participate in school sports in the category that matched their gender identity. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Forbes
15 minutes ago
- Forbes
Lawrence Lepard Predicts 'The Big Print'
Although the Federal Reserve and other major central banks, even the Bank of Japan, are not today buying bonds or increasing the base money supply significantly, many people suspect that more overt financing of governments via the money-creation process may lie not too far ahead – what, in the past, often took the form of literally printing paper banknotes; although today, the process is likely to be more digital in character. One such person is Lawrence Lepard, author of The Big Print (2025). Lawrence Lepard's new book The Big Print Lawrence Lepard Just in recent weeks, Japan's government bond market has had a price breakdown of the sort not seen since, perhaps, the late 1970s. People have been predicting disaster there literally for decades; but perhaps now the time is upon us. Even the US Treasury market, although one of the better credits in the developed world, has had a notable trend toward weakness. Bond buyers can see that today's historically huge deficits – the Congressional Budget Office predicts 6%+ of GDP deficits basically forever – do not seem to have any upcoming resolution. Despite the heroic recent efforts of the Department of Government Efficiency, Congress has not yet found the will to cut its spending in any meaningful way, preferring instead minor tweaks. But, decades of minor tweaking, in lieu of significant reforms, are what brought us to this point in the first place. Lawrence Lepard is well qualified as a guide to this era. His history, first in the Venture Capital world in the 1980s, and later as a fund manager, has given him a front-row seat to the whole historical process. Most people don't have the time to follow these things very closely, or the expertise to judge them. About the best they can do is read certain business journalists. Fund managers have both the time (it's part of their job) and also the expertise, enough expertise to point out where the journalists are wrong, missing the main points, or, often, biased by certain interests. My favorite account of the crisis of 1907 was that of Jesse Livermore, one of the largest speculators of the time. Unfortunately for the rest of us, fund managers are often very busy, far too busy to write books. Ray Dalio, after his retirement from daily management of a large hedge fund, has benefited us with several insightful books. (His latest book, How Countries Go Broke, is due June 3.) I hope other fund managers also feel inspired. Lepard begins his story around the introduction of the Federal Reserve in 1913, which followed the introduction of similar monopoly central banks around the world in the late 19th century. Immediately afterward, with the outbreak of World War I, these central banks were pressed to help with war financing efforts, with the result that floating fiat currencies erupted across the global landscape. But things really took a turn for the worse in 1971, when a combination of abject incompetence, and also a spreading enthusiasm for using monetary distortion to attempt to manage the macroeconomy (President Nixon wanted to be re-elected in 1972), resulted in the outbreak of floating fiat currencies around the world again, even in the midst of peace, balanced budgets and unprecedented prosperity. There is a lot to tell along the way, taking things up through the Financial Crisis of 2008, and the Covid era of 2020. Lepard's expertise shows through, as his brief descriptions hit on the most important points and correct conclusions. The 2020 period, in which central banks around the world engaged in unprecedented monetary expansion, showed their increasing willingness to essentially 'run the printing presses' whenever things got tough. Unfortunately, along the way, they also showed Congress (and other governments worldwide) that no real discipline is needed, because every problem can ultimately be solved with the central bank printing press. The natural conclusion of such logic is a Big Print somewhere down the line here, and maybe not too far away. The fact of the matter is, debt/GDP ratios have become so high, throughout the developed world, that the 10%+ interest rates of the early 1980s are no longer tolerable. Even at 6%, with a 100% debt/GDP ratio, that implies 6%-of-GDP in debt service costs alone, on top of 'primary deficits' (perhaps 3%-4%) driven by unreformed 'mandatory spending' programs such as Medicare and Social Security. Either a decline in currency value, or 'monetary inflation' as we called it in our recent book Inflation, or even more direct purchases of government bonds by central banks, may become necessary to inflate away the existing debt, and finance continued deficits at tolerable rates. Unfortunately, coming this far, Lepard loses the plot entirely toward the end of the book, championing Bitcoin as some kind of improved 'Sound Money' system. It is not. The idea is that Bitcoin's supply is limited, so that wanton 'increases in the money supply' can't come about. This is true, but the reason why 'Sound Money' has always meant gold in the past, is because gold has been proven, over centuries of human experience, to be reliably stable in value. It's this stability of value that makes gold work so well as a basis for monetary systems. This error, mistaking 'stability of supply' for 'stability of value,' is an old one, going back at least to Milton Friedman's flawed proposals of the 1950s. Or, as I put it here more than a decade ago, 'Bitcoin Proves Milton Friedman's Big Plan Was A Joke.' Basically, Lepard is a bullish Bitcoin speculator. And, perhaps Bitcoin will rise in value, in coming years. It seems to be persistently popular. But it is this tendency to rise in value (or fall in value, dramatically, from time to time) that makes it unusable as a currency; and why it is not, today, used as a currency. If you want to see what a currency looks like, look at the US dollar stablecoin Tether (USDT). Since its value is linked to the dollar, we can be pretty sure that almost nobody is using it as a speculative vehicle. (Forex traders have better platforms, such as FXCM, to do their speculation on.) But, Tether has also had an enormous increase in popularity, with the number of outstanding Tether coins rising from $2 billion in 2019 to $153 billion today. It is popular because it works pretty well, as a kind of monetary alternative. Bitcoin and gold are not really competitors. They are completely different. If gold is a pretty good hammer, to hit the nail of Stable Currency Value, Bitcoin is not a better or worse hammer. It is more like a lemon meringue pie. But, if you are wondering why an experienced hedge fund manager might be bullish on Bitcoin today, Lepard will give you an excellent list of arguments. For now, gold-based stablecoins have not been very popular. They still look like Tether in 2019. Even Tether's own gold alternative, Tether Gold (XAUT), still has a sub-$1 billion market cap. But, since USDT Tether is linked to the US dollar, Tether's value would also fall, in some kind of 'Big Print' situation. Around that time, people might become more serious in their search for monetary alternatives that achieve the ideal of Stable Value. Neither Tether nor Bitcoin would qualify.
