Trump names Stephen Miran to Fed as White House fights for lower rates
Why it matters: The pick comes as the White House continues its pressure campaign to get lower interest rates.
But as opposed to early speculation that whoever took the seat might be the next Fed chair, Miran will only be a fill-in until January.
Catch up quick: Adriana Kugler announced her intention to step down as a Fed governor last week, five months before her term expired, giving Trump a chance to nominate a replacement.
What they're saying: Trump, in a Truth Social post, said Miran would serve the remainder of Kugler's term, through Jan. 31, and that "we will continue to search for a permanent replacement."
Context: Miran was confirmed by the Senate in March to be CEA chair.
A Harvard Ph.D., in Trump's first term he was a senior adviser at the Treasury Department.
What to watch: How soon Miran might be able to actually join the Board of Governors.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Two things this top strategist is watching now
From earnings to economic data, there is a lot of information for investors to digest. BlackRock chief investment and portfolio strategist, Americas Gargi Chaudhuri shares two things she is watching right now. To watch more expert insights and analysis on the latest market action, check out more Morning Brief. It might be if you read the headlines or have your own personal experience of prices going up versus looking at the stock market prices, there might be a dichotomy there and obviously, the real economy and the stock markets are not the same, we all know that. But I think a couple of things that I am focusing on are, the first is, you're right, the labor market certainly is not where we thought it was. I think the revisions were more important than the data that we got for this month. And I think that chances are that we can continue to see a few, you know, few areas of weakness, but at the same time, I think what that also means is that the Fed is likely to be able to resume their rate cutting cycle. So I think the market takes a lot of relief from that, that we've sort of been in this 4.375% range and now the recognition that here's a Fed that is going to very quickly be able to adjust their path on policy rates because they talked about it, even before the payroll report was available to us, they did say that the risk of labor market is something they're watching, they talked about the unemployment rate of course. But now that we're beginning to see that weakening perhaps that's where we have the Fed coming in and cut rates even as early as September and then continuing to do so for the remainder of this year. So that's number one. But, no doubt Julie, the point that you make around sort of this dichotomy, this divergence of real and stock markets is a meaningful one, which is also why we've been telling investors that this is the economy and this is the market in which you really need to be diversified and add hedges. So this beta move and this stock market move that has been tremendous may run into, and may being the operative word here, may run into some issues, August could very well be a little bit of a volatile month. I don't know that any pullbacks we see in the market will be long lived. I think they'll be short lived in nature. But at the same time this is why we think adding to fixed income, adding to income generating parts of the fixed income market because you have so many of those is really important here, especially in the front end and the belly of the curve. Adding to diversifying strategies, especially global market neutral strategies that don't have a lot of beta to the equity market is really important. And then having asset classes like gold and Bitcoin, which can and have been a diversifier, can also be important.
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Not everyone on Wall Street is still convinced a cut is coming: Morning Brief
In the span of a week, traders have coalesced around the idea of a September rate cut, spurred on by discouraging labor market data and revisions showing more weakness. While the Fed held rates steady to try and finish its inflation fight, the other side of the central bank's dual mandate is flashing warning signs. But even as the market abruptly shifted expectations — the probability of a September cut jumping from close to 40% last week to more than 90% Thursday — some prominent observers believe the Fed won't act at all this year. Read more: How the Fed rate decision affects your bank accounts, loans, credit cards, and investments In the uneasy context of a stalled labor market, that's a contrarian take. But it's one that draws its power from an inconvenient truth: Inflation is stuck above target. Despite the labor red flags, Bank of America economist Aditya Bhave doesn't believe the Fed will cut at all this year. His call runs counter to what many other market observers are banking on. And it's a reminder that nothing is guaranteed because so many economic indicators and policy currents (trade, immigration) are in play. Sign up for the Yahoo Finance Morning Brief By subscribing, you are agreeing to Yahoo's Terms and Privacy Policy In a note this week, Bhave explained that the Fed's decision not to cut would be influenced by stagflationary pressures. And that, even as the labor market revisions cast an even more negative spin on jobs growth, the Fed is still more offside on inflation compared to labor. "If it were to cut in September, it would be putting a lot of faith in a forecast of labor market deterioration, with no evidence that inflation has peaked," he wrote. The market does not agree. As of Thursday afternoon, the CME FedWatch tool, which uses futures data, showed more than a 90% chance of a rate cut on Sept. 17 and just a 0.6% chance of no cuts by Dec. 10. Bhave's case doesn't seem quite as outlandish when you also consider the Fed's timeline. Policymakers won't meet again for another six weeks, leaving room for another round of mind-changing numbers to complicate or fracture market consensus. But the no-cut take also comes as more officials inside the Fed have expressed a desire to start slashing. For the first time since 1993, two Fed governors dissented from the decision to keep rates unchanged. And President Trump will have the opportunity to nominate a new Fed official with governor Adriana Kugler's resignation. The person appointed to fill her seat could use the position as a stepping stone to succeed Jerome Powell as the next Fed chair — and at the very least be another dovish voice. Of course, another wave of unpleasant jobs data could knock down the idea of the Fed holding steady and strengthen the already powerful case to cut. As Bhave noted, tepid inflation figures and a rough August jobs report could change his tune. But like many hot, contrarian takes, it's not really about the actual take, but about the reasoning and points that underpin it. Namely, in this case: Just as there are risks to acting too late, there are downsides to jumping in too soon. Bhave is pointing out the risks. A cut designed to preempt a worsening labor market would leave the Fed vulnerable to reaccelerating inflation. And as Powell suggested at the last policy meeting, it's better to be late than wrong. The labor market trajectory suggests further weakening. Bhave's contention, however, is that now is an especially difficult time to rely on forecasts over data in hand. Observers suspect labor market troubles may soon arrive. But we already know inflation is still stubbornly here. Hamza Shaban is a reporter for Yahoo Finance covering markets and the economy. Follow Hamza on X @hshaban. 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
Chicago Tribune
25 minutes ago
- Chicago Tribune
Letters: Op-ed by liberal attack dog is an over-the-top criticism of Donald Trump
The Tribune's vendetta against President Donald Trump continues. Liberal college lecturer Storer H. Rowley goes after Trump like the newspaper's personal attack dog. His Aug. 3 opinion piece is so over the top that I thought I was reading the satirical Babylon Bee. The headline blares: 'Six months into his presidency, Trump has created a police state.' In Rowley's opinion, Trump has created a 'hellscape' of fear and chaos where unaccountable, masked immigration agents are hunting unauthorized workers 'like animals.' Trump deliberately appeals to white nationalists. His police state tactics are causing blowback. Only people power and voters can stop a criminal president! Nowhere does Rowley admit that the current situation was caused by the Joe Biden administration, which allowed countless immigrants to enter the U.S., and that Trump is trying to fix that situation. But Rowley does admit that 'Americans voted to get the border under control, and to be fair, Trump's administration has done that.' Hmm. On the opposite page in print, eternal liberal Clarence Page dwells on the Jeffrey Epstein files, just like CNN, in his column 'Trump drives a wedge into his own movement.' And no surprise that the Tribune did not report on the Department of Justice investigation into the Democrats' push to sell 'Russia collusion' to the American public during Trump's first op-ed by Storer H. Rowley is right on the mark. I don't believe most Americans want to have a police state that scares Americans and legal immigrants. We should never have masked officers scooping up people from schools, playgrounds and their homes, with no constitutional rights, and whisked away to a foreign gulag. We look like the dictator states we have always and Customs Enforcement has arrested, detained and/or deported tens of thousands of workers; this has chilled many others from reporting to jobs where they fear being picked up by ICE. The Department of Government Efficiency has encouraged tens of thousands of federal workers to retire early or quit and mandated the firing of tens of thousands of additional federal workers by closing departments and offices; this has deterred many individuals who might join the federal workforce in a typical year from seeking federal employment. Is it any surprise that unemployment is up and new jobs are down?Due process is a fundamental right guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. It protects all people, citizens and noncitizens alike, from arbitrary government decisions and ensures fairness in legal matters. It's a basic promise: Before the government can take away someone's life, freedom, or property, they must have a fair chance to defend themselves. But today, that promise is under serious threat. In April, the U.S. Supreme Court deliberated on whether noncitizens have any right to a fair legal process before being removed from the country. Although the justices had different views on how much process is due, the court decided: Due process protections apply to everyone in America, regardless of immigration status. Due process means having access to a fair hearing before a neutral judge. It means having the right to speak with a lawyer. It means protecting the integrity of our legal system and protecting our communities. The Supreme Court's reaffirmation comes at a time when immigration policies have made it easier to deport people without traditional legal hearings, raising urgent questions about the strength and future of constitutional protections for all of us. Our organization represents residents from Barrington, Hoffman Estates, Inverness, Palatine, Rolling Meadows and Schaumburg, some of whom are immigrants. We are committed to ensuring all residents receive the legal protections to which they are entitled under the law. We value fairness and justice. Weakening due process protections for some puts all of our rights at risk. If the government can take away someone else's rights without a hearing, what prevents them from doing the same to you? Readers can take action by raising their voices in support of a fair legal process for everyone. Most importantly, remember that standing up for due process isn't just about protecting others; it's also about defending the fundamental rights that make America a place of justice and fairness for the last three months, the U.S. created a paltry 106,000 jobs. This, of course, was to be expected, as Donald Trump's tariffs have brought uncertainty and chaos to the economy. His response? Fire the messenger. But this poor jobs report is just another example of history showing that Republicans aren't very good with the economy. As recently as the fourth quarter in 2024, Joe Biden's last in office, the unemployment rate was 4%. Biden delivered the longest stretch of 4% or lower unemployment in 50 years, while creating an impressive 15 million new jobs in just four years. That's almost eight times more jobs what we saw with the last three Republican presidents combined. In his first term, Donald Trump actually lost 2 million jobs. In fact, since 1990, the U.S. has created over 50 million new jobs. Almost 49 million of those jobs — or 96% — were created by Democratic presidents. Poor job growth and economic downturns under Republican presidents are to be expected. Of the last 11 recessions that have occurred post-World War II, 10 have occurred under Republican presidents. In more recent history, George H.W. Bush's recession begat Bill Clinton's economic recovery; more than 18 million new jobs were generated during Clinton's term, the most in our history. George W. Bush's 'Great Recession' begat Barack Obama's economic recovery, one of the longest stretches of economic expansion in our history. Donald Trump's COVID-19-related recession begat Joe Biden's economic recovery. History shows that electing a Republican president often leads to slower growth, while also leading to massive budget deficits driven by tax cuts for the rich — Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill' is forecast to add over $3 trillion to the national debt. In fact, the only presidents to reduce the deficit in the last 60-plus years were Democrats. The tired belief that Republicans are better at handling the economy simply isn't true.
