Jamie Dimon says he didn't run for president because he knew winning the White House would mean barely seeing his family for 4 years
Jamie Dimon said that while he "would never rule it out," running for president is tough.
The JPMorgan CEO said in a podcast that being president would mean being away from his family.
"Some people are prepared for that, I was unprepared for it at the time," Dimon said.
Jamie Dimon, the CEO of JPMorgan Chase, said his family was one reason he did not run for president.
"I tell people, had I run and won, when I was walking into that White House, I'd be waving goodbye to my family for four years. They'd be saying, 'See ya, dad,'" Dimon told David Novak on the latest episode of the "How Leaders Lead" podcast, which aired on January 30. "I'm not sure my wife would have gone with me, there."
Dimon added that the presidency means "subjecting your family to some very tough stuff."
"Some people are prepared for that, I was unprepared for it at the time," Dimon said.
Dimon said that while he "would never rule it out," running for president would be difficult for him because of other reasons, too.
"I do think there are skills that people have in the business world that may translate to the political world, but I think it's a mistake to automatically think that's true," Dimon said, adding that he didn't think he had the necessary political skills to make the transition.
That's on top of the experience one should accrue from smaller political appointments before gunning for the presidency, Dimon told Novak.
"I literally think you should kind of have a warm-up before you go for president. A warm-up could be Congress, or Senate, or governor," Dimon said. "You have seen people learn those skills before you go for the big enchilada."
Running for president would also mean having to give up his job at JPMorgan, which he enjoys, Dimon said.
"I'm damn proud of it so — I think I add a lot here. I'd be giving that up for kind of a wild goose chase," Dimon said.
Dimon's age and health were also factors in his decision.
"I think it's hard. I'm 68 years old. As you know, I have had a health problem or two. So when you put it together, it just didn't seem like the right thing for me to do," Dimon said.
In 2014, JPMorgan said Dimon had been diagnosed with throat cancer, though it went into remission after treatment. In 2020, Dimon had another health scare — he was rushed to the hospital for emergency heart surgery.
Representatives for Dimon at JPMorgan did not respond to a request for comment from Business Insider.
This isn't the first time Dimon has been asked about his political ambitions. The 68-year-old banker said at an investors meeting in May that his retirement timeline was "not five years anymore," and that a plan to name his successor was "well on its way."
Then, in October, Dimon told analysts in an earnings call that he had no plans to join President Donald Trump's second administration if he was offered a role.
"I think the chance of that is almost nil, and probably I'm not going to do it," Dimon said.
"I intend to be doing what I'm doing — I almost guarantee I'll be doing this — for a long period of time, or at least until the board kicks me out," he added.
Read the original article on Business Insider
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNBC
an hour ago
- CNBC
Trump aims to slash Pell Grants, which may limit low-income students' college access
For many students and their families, federal student aid is key for college access. And yet, the Trump administration's budget proposal for fiscal year 2026 calls for significant cuts to higher education funding, including reducing the maximum federal Pell Grant award to $5,710 a year from $7,395, as well as scaling back the federal work-study program. The proposed cuts would help pay for the landmark tax and spending bill Republicans in the U.S. Congress hope to enact. Roughly 40% of undergraduate students rely on Pell Grants, a type of federal aid available to low-income families who demonstrate financial need on the Free Application for Federal Student Aid. Work study funds, which are earned through part-time jobs, often help cover additional education expenses. More from Personal Finance:Social Security gets break from student loan collectionsIs college still worth it? It is for most, but not allWhat to know before you tap your 529 plan President Donald Trump's "skinny" budget request said changes to the Pell Grant program were necessary due to a looming shortfall, but top-ranking Democrats and college advocates say cuts could have been made elsewhere and students will pay the price. "The money we invest in post-high school education isn't charity — it helps Americans get good jobs, start businesses, and contribute to our economy," Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., told CNBC. "No kid's education should be defunded to pay for giant tax giveaways for billionaires." Nearly 75% of all undergraduates receive some type of financial aid, according to the National Center for Education Statistics. "Historically the Pell Grant was viewed as the foundation for financial support for low-income students," said Lesley Turner, an associate professor at the University of Chicago Harris School of Public Policy and a research fellow of the National Bureau of Economic Research. "It's the first dollar, regardless of other types of aid you have access to." Under Trump's proposal, the maximum Pell Grant for the 2026-2027 academic year would be at its lowest level in more than a decade. "The Pell reduction would impact the lowest-income families," said Betsy Mayotte, president of The Institute of Student Loan Advisors, a nonprofit. More than 92% of Pell Grant recipients in 2019-2020 came from families with household incomes below $60,000, according to higher education expert Mark Kantrowitz. If the president's cuts were enacted and then persisted for four years, the average student debt at graduation will be about $6,500 higher among those with a bachelor's degree who received Pell Grants, according to Kantrowitz's own calculations. "If adopted, [the proposed cuts] would require millions of enrolled students to drop out or take on more debt to complete their degrees — likely denying countless prospective low- and moderate-income students the opportunity to go to college altogether," Sameer Gadkaree, president and CEO of The Institute for College Access & Success, said in a statement. Already, those grants have not kept up with the rising cost of a four-year degree. Tuition and fees plus room and board for a four-year private college averaged $58,600 in the 2024-25 school year, up from $56,390 a year earlier. At four-year, in-state public colleges, the average was $24,920, up from $24,080, according to the College Board. The Pell program functions like other entitlement programs, such as Social Security or Medicare, where every eligible student is entitled to receive a Pell award. However, unlike those other programs, the Pell program does not rely solely on mandatory funding that is set in the federal budget. Rather, it is also dependent on some discretionary funding, which is appropriated by Congress. The Congressional Budget Office projected a shortfall this year in part because more students now qualify for a Pell Grant due to changes to the financial aid application, and, as a result, more students are enrolling in college. Although there have been other times when the Pell program operated with a deficit, slashing the award amount is an "extreme" measure, according to Kantrowitz. "Every past shortfall has been followed by Congress providing additional funding," he said. "Even the current House budget reconciliation bill proposes additional funding to eliminate the shortfall." However, the bill also reduces eligibility for the grants by raising the number of credits students need to take per semester to qualify for the aid. There's a concern those more stringent requirements will harm students who need to work while they're in school and those who are parents balancing classes and child care. "These are students that could use it the most," said the University of Chicago's Turner. "Single parents, for example, that have to work to cover the bills won't be able to take on additional credits," Mayotte said. "If their Pell is also reduced, they may have to withdraw from school rather than complete their degree," Mayotte said.
The Intercept
an hour ago
- The Intercept
Top U.S. General in Africa Paints Grim Picture of U.S. Military Failures in Africa
President George W. Bush created a new command to oversee all military operations in Africa 18 years ago. U.S. Africa Command was meant to help 'bring peace and security to the people of Africa.' The Trump administration now has AFRICOM on the chopping block as part of its sweeping reorganization of the military. According to the general leading the command, its mission is far from accomplished. Gen. Michael Langley, the head of AFRICOM, offered a grim assessment of security on the African continent during a recent press conference. The West African Sahel, he said last Friday, was now the 'epicenter of terrorism' and the gravest terrorist threats to the U.S. homeland were 'unfortunately right here on the African continent.' The embattled four-star general — who noted his days were numbered as AFRICOM's chief — was speaking from a conference of African defense chiefs in Kenya, where he had been imploring ministers and heads of state to help save his faltering command. 'I said: 'OK, if we're that important to [you], you need to communicate that,'' he explained, asking them to have their U.S. ambassadors make entreaties on behalf of AFRICOM. Current and former defense officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to provide candid assessments, were divided on whether Langley deserves a measure of blame for the dire straits the command finds itself in. One former defense official spoke highly of Langley, calling him 'an effective and transformational leader' who 'rapidly grew into the job and developed strong, fruitful relationships with members of Congress.' A current official, however, said almost the opposite, calling the four-star general a 'marble mouth' who did a poor job of making a case for his command, 'fumbled' relations with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, and diminished AFRICOM's standing with legislators. Asked by messaging app if the latter assessment was accurate, a former Africa Command official sent a laughing emoji and replied 'no comment' followed by 'but yes.' (The official said he could be quoted as such.) Before 2008, when the command began operations, U.S. military activities in Africa were handled by other combatant commands. AFRICOM's creation reflected rising U.S. national security interests on the continent and a desire for a single command to oversee a proliferation of post-9/11 counterterrorism activities, predominantly in the West African Sahel and Somalia. Since U.S. Africa Command began operations, the number of U.S. military personnel on the African continent — as well as programs, operations, exercises, bases, low-profile Special Operations missions, deployments of commandos, drones strikes, and almost every other military activity — has jumped exponentially. AFRICOM 'disrupts and neutralizes transnational threats' in order to 'promote regional security, stability and prosperity,' according to its mission statement. That hasn't come to pass. Throughout all of Africa, the State Department counted 23 deaths from terrorist violence in 2002 and 2003, the first years of U.S. counterterrorism efforts in the Sahel and Somalia. By 2010, two years after AFRICOM began operations, fatalities from attacks by militant Islamists had already spiked to 2,674, according to the Africa Center for Strategic Studies, a Pentagon research institution. The situation only continued to deteriorate. There were an estimated 18,900 fatalities linked to militant Islamist violence in Africa last year, with 79 percent of those coming from the Sahel and Somalia, according to a recent analysis by the Africa Center. This constitutes a jump of more than 82,000 percent since the U.S. launched its post-9/11 counterterrorism efforts on the continent. 'The Sahel — that's where we consider the epicenter of terrorism — Mali, Burkina Faso, and Niger are confronted with this each and every day; they're in crisis. The terrorist networks affiliated with ISIS and al-Qaeda are thriving, particularly in Burkina Faso,' said Langley. During his tenure, the U.S. was largely kicked out of the region, forced to abandon key nodes of its archipelago of West African bases and many secret wars across the Sahel that were largely unknown to members of Congress as they played out. Langley noted that, since the U.S. left Niger in September of last year, AFRICOM has observed a rise in violence across the Sahel. He neglected to mention that terrorism increased exponentially during the years of heaviest U.S. military involvement, leading to instability and disenchantment with the U.S. He also failed to note, despite having been previously grilled about it during congressional testimony, that the military juntas that booted the U.S. from West Africa were made up of U.S.-supported officers who overthrew the governments the U.S. trained them to protect. As violence spiraled in the region over the past decades, at least 15 officers who benefited from U.S. security assistance were key leaders in 12 coups in West Africa and the greater Sahel during the war on terror — including the three nations Langley emphasized: Burkina Faso (in 2014, 2015, and twice in 2022), Mali (in 2012, 2020, and 2021), and Niger (in 2023). At least five leaders of the 2023 coup d'état in the latter country, for example, received American assistance. U.S. war in Somalia which has ramped up since President Donald Trump retook office, also got top billing. The U.S. 'is actively pursuing and eliminating jihadists,' said the AFRICOM chief. 'And at the request of the Somali Government, this year alone AFRICOM has conducted over 25 airstrikes — double the number of strikes that we did last year.' The U.S. military is approaching its 23rd year of operations in Somalia. In the fall of 2002, the U.S. military established Combined Joint Task Force–Horn of Africa to conduct operations in support of the global war on terror in the region, and U.S. Special Operations forces were dispatched to Somalia. They were followed by conventional forces, helicopters, surveillance aircraft, outposts, and drones. By 2007, the Pentagon recognized that there were fundamental flaws with U.S. military operations in the Horn of Africa, and Somalia became another post-9/11 stalemate, which AFRICOM inherited the next year. U.S. airstrikes in Somalia have skyrocketed when Trump is in office. From 2007 to 2017, under the administrations of George W. Bush and Barack Obama, the U.S. military carried out 43 declared airstrikes in Somalia. During Trump's first term, AFRICOM conducted more than 200 air attacks against members of al-Shabab and the Islamic State. By the end of his first term, Trump was ready to call it quits on the sputtering conflict in Somalia, ordering almost all U.S. troops out of the country in late 2020. But President Joe Biden reversed the withdrawal, allowing the conflict to grind on — and now escalate under Trump. The Biden administration conducted 39 declared strikes in Somalia over four years. The U.S. has already carried out 33 airstrikes in Somalia in 2025, according to AFRICOM public affairs. At this pace, AFRICOM is poised to equal or exceed the highest number of strikes there in the command's history, 63 in 2019. Despite almost a quarter-century of conflict and billions of taxpayer dollars, Somalia has joined the ranks of signature forever-war failures. While fatalities from Islamist attacks dropped in Somalia last year, they were still 72 percent higher than 2020, according to the Africa Center. AFRICOM told The Intercept that the country's main militant group, al-Shabab, is now 'the largest al Qaida network in the world.' (Langley called them 'entrenched, wealthy, and large.') The command called ISIS-Somalia 'a growing threat in East Africa' and said its numbers had tripled from 500 to an estimated 1,500 in the last 18 months. The U.S. recently conducted the 'largest airstrike in the history of the world' from an aircraft carrier on Somalia, according to Adm. James Kilby, the Navy's acting chief of naval operations. That strike, by 16 F/A-18 Super Hornets, unleashed around 125,000 pounds of munitions. Those 60 tons of bombs killed just 14 ISIS members, according to AFRICOM. At that rate, it would take roughly 13,000,000 pounds of bombs to wipe out ISIS-Somalia and about 107,000,000 pounds to eliminate al-Shabab, firepower roughly equivalent to four of the atomic bombs the U.S. dropped on Hiroshima, Japan. Troubles loom elsewhere on the continent as well. 'One of the terrorists' new objectives is gaining access to West Africa coasts. If they secure access to the coastline, they can finance their operations through smuggling, human trafficking, and arms trading,' Langley warned, not mentioning that U.S. counterterrorism failures in the Sahel led directly to increased attacks on Gulf of Guinea nations. Togo — which sits due south of Burkina Faso — saw a 45 percent increase in terrorist fatalities in 2024, according to the Africa Center. Langley also referenced trouble in Africa's most populous nation. 'We're observing a rise in attacks by violent extremist organizations, not only in Niger but across the Sahel to include Nigeria,' Langley warned. He offered a somewhat garbled plan of action in response: 'The scale and brutality of some of these incidents are really troubling. So we're monitoring this closely and these events, and offering of sharing intel with the Nigerian and also regional partners in that area remains constant. We are committed to supporting one of the most capable militaries in the region, in Nigeria.' U.S. support to the Nigerian military has been immense, and Nigerian people have suffered for it — something else that Langley left unsaid. Between 2000 and 2022, alone, the U.S. provided, facilitated, or approved more than $2 billion in security aid to the country. In those same years, hundreds of Nigerian airstrikes killed thousands of Nigerians. A 2017 attack on a displaced persons camp in Rann, Nigeria, killed more than 160 civilians, many of them children. A subsequent Intercept investigation revealed that the attack was referred to as an instance of 'U.S.-Nigerian operations' in a formerly secret U.S. military document. A 2023 Reuters analysis of data compiled by the Armed Conflict Location and Event Data Project, a U.S.-based armed violence monitoring group, found that more than 2,600 people were killed in 248 airstrikes outside the most active war zones in Nigeria during the previous five years. That same year, an investigation by Nigeria's Premium Times called out the government for 'a systemic propaganda scheme to keep the atrocities of its troops under wraps.' In his conference call with reporters, held as part of the 2025 African Chiefs of Defense Conference, Langley took only written, vetted questions, allowing him to skirt uncomfortable subjects. AFRICOM failed to provide answers to follow-up questions from The Intercept. During the call, Langley offered a farewell and a pledge. 'This will likely be my last, final Chiefs of Defense Conference as the AFRICOM commander. A nomination for my successor is expected soon,' Langley told The Intercept and others. 'But no matter who holds this position, the AFRICOM mission remains constant. AFRICOM will continue to stand shoulder to shoulder with African partners into the future.' Langley's pleas at the conference suggested less certainty. For years, AFRICOM — and Langley in particular — has been paying lip service to a preference for 'African solutions for African challenges' or as Langley put it last week: 'It's about empowering African nations to solve African problems, not just through handouts but through trusted cooperation.' But he has seemed less than enamored with African solutions that include severing ties with the United States. In April, before the Senate Armed Services Committee, he accused Burkina Faso's leader, Captain Ibrahim Traoré, of misusing the country's gold reserves 'to protect the junta regime.' Langley partially walked back those comments last week and appeared to seek reconciliation. 'We all respect their sovereignty,' he said. 'So the U.S. seeks opportunities to collaborate with Burkina Faso on counterterrorism challenges.' For more than two decades, the U.S. was content to pour billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars into failed counterterrorism policies as deaths mounted across the continent. Today, the dangers of terrorism loom far larger, and the U.S. finds itself shunned by former partners. 'I've been charged by the Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth to mitigate threats to the U.S. homeland posed by terrorist organizations,' said Langley. 'It's about the mutual goal of keeping our homeland safe, and it's about long-term capacity, not dependence.' The current Pentagon official said that Langley had used up what good will he once had. 'I don't think many will be sad to see him go,' he told The Intercept. Langley's tenure may not have sown the seeds of AFRICOM's dissolution, he said, but if the command is ultimately folded into European Command — as some have proposed — he likely helped to hasten it. 'He's been part of this problem,' the official said. 'Maybe him leaving could be one solution.'
Wall Street Journal
2 hours ago
- Wall Street Journal
Moody's Chief Economist on Recession Fears and How Politics Shapes the Economy - WSJ's Take On the Week
On WSJ's Take On the Week, co-hosts Telis Demos and Gunjan Banerji start the show by looking at why rare earth magnets remain at the center of trade talks with China. Why are business leaders like Elon Musk and Jamie Dimon critical of President Trump's tax and spending bill, and what does it mean for bonds and the deficit? Plus, we take a look at inflation ahead of this week's CPI report. Later on the show, Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moody's Analytics, gives his take on all the policy balls in the air and how where they land will affect the economy. He shares which economic barometers he's keeping an eye on – from employment rates and immigration to inflation and consumer sentiment – and which give him confidence in a resilient U.S. economy. This is WSJ's Take On the Week where co-hosts Gunjan Banerji, lead writer for Live Markets, and Telis Demos, Heard on the Street's banking and money columnist, cut through the noise and dive into markets, the economy and finance—the big trades, key players and business news ahead. Have an idea for a future guest or episode? How can we better help you take on the week? We'd love to hear from you. Email the show at takeontheweek@ To watch the video version of this episode, visit our WSJ Podcasts YouTube channel or the video page of Further Reading Automakers Race to Find Workaround to China's Stranglehold on Rare-Earth Magnets Why the U.S. Economy Will Muddle Through Trump's Tariffs. Probably. U.S. Economy Shows Remarkable Resilience in Face of Trade Turmoil What the U.S.-China Tariff Rollback Means for the American Economy Trump Downplays Economic Concerns as He Looks to Cut Trade Deals For more coverage of the markets and your investments, head to , WSJ's Heard on The Street Column, and WSJ's Live Markets blog . Sign up for the WSJ's free Markets A.M. newsletter.
