logo
Fed Chair Jerome Powell sticks it to Trump as he reveals the BIG reason interest rates haven't been cut

Fed Chair Jerome Powell sticks it to Trump as he reveals the BIG reason interest rates haven't been cut

Daily Mail​9 hours ago

Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell struck back at President Donald Trump on Tuesday, claiming his sweeping tariff plan is the main reason he has not lowered interest rates.
'Increases in tariffs this year are likely to push up prices and weigh on economic activity,' Powell told members of the House Financial Services Committee.
'For the time being, we are well-positioned to wait to learn more about the likely course of the economy before considering any adjustments to our policy stance,' the Fed chair testified.
Powell has served atop the Federal Reserve since 2018 and has long caught the ire of the president, who has recently nicknamed the banker 'Too Late' Powell for not yet lowering the cost of borrowing.
'We should be at least two to three points lower. Would save the USA 800 billion dollars per year, plus,' Trump said in a late-night social media post ripping Powell ahead of his hearing.
The president also called on his GOP lieutenants in Congress to pummel Powell for refusing to lower interest rates.
'I hope Congress really works this very dumb, hardheaded person, over. We will be paying for his incompetence for many years to come.'
Several Republican lawmakers took Trump's memo and pressed Powell on why the central bank has yet to lower interest rates this year.
During a pointed questioning from Rep. Bill Huizenga, R-Mich., Powell continued to reiterate that Trump's tariffs have prompted uncertainty over rising inflation.
'The reason we're not is the forecast by all professional forecasters that I know of on the outside and the Fed do expect a meaningful increase in inflation over the course of this year,' he said.
The central bank chairman also conceded that tariffs may not push inflation up to forecasted levels.
In that case, the Fed would move to quickly reduce rates, Powell testified. A drastic increase in unemployment could also prompt the bank to lower borrowing costs, he said.
'We could see inflation come in not as strong as we expect,' he said. 'And if that were the case, that would tend to suggest cutting sooner.'
Rep. Mike Lawler, R-N.Y., slammed the Fed chair for being too late in raising interest rates in 2021 when inflation from COVID-19 began to grip the nation.
'Do you believe we are in a position where we may be able to cut rates in July?' Lawler asked.
Powell responded: 'If it turns out that inflation pressures do remain contained, then we will get to a place where we cut rates sooner rather than later... I don't think we need to be in any rush,' he added.
The impact of Trump's tariffs are expected to show up in the June inflation report, the Fed chair said.
However, the analysis won't be released until July 15.
The 19-member Federal Reserve members unanimously voted against changing interest rates last week.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Israel-Iran live: Iran executes three men accused of spying for Israel - as Trump rejects US intel on nuclear sites
Israel-Iran live: Iran executes three men accused of spying for Israel - as Trump rejects US intel on nuclear sites

Sky News

time13 minutes ago

  • Sky News

Israel-Iran live: Iran executes three men accused of spying for Israel - as Trump rejects US intel on nuclear sites

Explained: Where are Iran's nuclear facilities? Donald Trump has been praising US strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities - but intelligence suggests the destruction may not have been emphatic as he claims. In fact, the attacks may have just set the programme back by months, rather than eliminated it entirely - see our post at 21.16. As a reminder, this map shows the key nuclear locations - and we'll be going through each one. For context, we use the term nuclear proliferation a lot below, so here's the definition: The spread of nuclear weapons, and, more generally, the spread of nuclear technology and knowledge that might be put to military use. Nuclear proliferation is controlled by the Nuclear Non‐proliferation Treaty, which recognises five nuclear states: the US, the UK, Russia, China and France. Oxford Reference Natanz One of Iran's principal uranium enrichment complexes lies on a plain adjacent to mountains outside the Shiite Muslim holy city of Qom, south of Tehran. Natanz houses facilities including two enrichment plants: the vast, underground Fuel Enrichment Plant and the above-ground Pilot Fuel Enrichment Plant. It was revealed in 2002 that Iran was secretly building the facility, which is said to be three floors underground. Fordow Another enrichment site can be found at Fordow - one that is extremely well protected, given that it's thought to be dug into the side of a mountain. Isfahan Iran's second-biggest city is home to a large nuclear technology centre, which includes a Fuel Plate Fabrication Plant and a uranium conversion facility. There is equipment at Isfahan to make uranium metal, a process that is particularly proliferation-sensitive since it can be used to create the core of a nuclear bomb. Khondab In Khondab lies a partially built heavy-water research reactor. These pose a nuclear proliferation risk because they can produce plutonium which, like enriched uranium, can be used to make the core of an atom bomb. Iran has informed the International Atomic Energy Agency that it plans to bring the reactor online in 2026, with a previous 2015 deal seeing the reactor's core removed and filled with concrete to make it unusable. Tehran Iran's nuclear research facilities in its capital Tehran include a research reactor. Bushehr Iran's only operating nuclear power plant lies in the Bushehr area on the Gulf coast. The facility uses Russian fuel that Moscow then takes back when it is spent, therefore reducing the proliferation risk.

Britain to buy 12 nuclear-carrying F-35A warplanes worth £700,000,000
Britain to buy 12 nuclear-carrying F-35A warplanes worth £700,000,000

Metro

time17 minutes ago

  • Metro

Britain to buy 12 nuclear-carrying F-35A warplanes worth £700,000,000

Britain will buy a dozen F-35A warplanes – all capable of carrying nuclear weapons – from the US, following criticism from Donald Trump that Nato members are not spending enough on defence. Today, Sir Keir Starmer will tell a summit of Nato allies in The Hague that the new squadron will join an alliance mission that can be armed with US nuclear weapons. The prime minister is expected tp say: 'The UK's commitment to Nato is unquestionable, as is the alliance's contribution to keeping the UK safe and secure. 'But we must all step up to protect the Euro-Atlantic area for generations to come.' Downing Street Biggest hailed the purchase as the 'biggest strengthening of the UK's nuclear posture in a generation'. All eyes are now on Russia and China who will undoubtedly see this as an escalatory move. More Trending The jets, a variant of the F35Bs the UK already uses, can carry conventional weapons, but can also be equipped with nuclear bombs. Each F-35A plane costs around £60 million for the latest production lots, so a dozen could set the UK back an estimated £700 million. The full details of the deal with the US were not immediately clear. Sir Keir said: 'Russia, not Ukraine, should pay the price for Putin's barbaric and illegal war, so it is only right we use the proceeds from seized Russian assets to ensure Ukraine has the air defence it needs.' Get in touch with our news team by emailing us at webnews@ For more stories like this, check our news page. MORE: Trump has a meltdown over 'failed' strikes on Iran that did not destroy nuclear sites MORE: 'Living Nostradamus' issues chilling warning on Trump's Israel-Iran ceasefire MORE: Experts reveal real risk of WW3 — and what's at stake for anywhere that gets dragged in

Israel-Iran war highlights Mideast's declining influence on oil prices
Israel-Iran war highlights Mideast's declining influence on oil prices

Reuters

time20 minutes ago

  • Reuters

Israel-Iran war highlights Mideast's declining influence on oil prices

LONDON, June 25 - The contained move in oil prices during the Israel-Iran war highlights the increasing efficiency of energy markets and fundamental changes to global crude supply, suggesting that Middle East politics will no longer be the dominant force in oil markets they once were. The jump in oil prices following Israel's surprise attack on Iran was meaningful but relatively modest considering the high stakes involved in the conflict between the Middle East rivals. Benchmark Brent crude prices, often considered a gauge for geopolitical risk, rose from below $70 a barrel on June 12, the day before Israel's initial attack, to a peak of $81.40 on June 23 following the United States' strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities. Prices, however, dropped sharply that same day after it became clear Iran's retaliation against Washington – a well-telegraphed attack on a U.S. military base in Qatar that caused limited damage – was essentially an act of de-escalation. Prices then fell to below pre-war levels at $67 on Tuesday after U.S. President Donald Trump announced that Israel and Iran had agreed to a ceasefire. The doomsday scenario for energy markets – Iran blocking the Strait of Hormuz, through which nearly 20% of the world's oil and gas supplies pass – did not occur. In fact, there was almost no disruption to flows out of the Middle East throughout the duration of the conflict. So, for the time being, it looks like markets were right not to panic. The moderate 15% low-to-high swing during this conflict suggests oil traders and investors have slashed the risk premium for geopolitical tensions in the Middle East. Consider the impact on prices of previous tensions in the region. The 1973 Arab oil embargo led to a near quadrupling of oil prices. Disruption to Iranian oil output, opens new tab following the 1979 revolution led to a doubling of spot prices. Iraq's invasion of neighbouring Kuwait in August 1990 caused the price of Brent crude to double to $40 a barrel by mid-October. And the start of the second Gulf war in 2003 led to a 46% surge in prices. While many of these supply disruptions – with the exception of the oil embargo – ended up being brief, markets reacted violently. One, of course, needs to be careful when comparing conflicts because each is unique, but the oil market's response to major disruptions in the Middle East has – in percentage terms, at least – progressively diminished in recent decades. There are multiple potential explanations for this change in the perceived value of the Middle East risk premium. First, markets may simply be more rational than in the past given access to better news, data and technology. Investors have become extremely savvy in keeping tabs on near-live energy market conditions. Using satellite ship tracking and aerial images of oilfields, ports and refineries, traders can monitor oil and gas production and transportation, enabling them to better understand supply and demand balances than was possible in previous decades. In this latest conflict, markets certainly responded rationally. The risk of a supply disruption increased, so prices did as well, but not excessively because there were significant doubts about Iran's actual ability or willingness to disrupt maritime activity over a long period of time. Another explanation for the limited price moves could be that producers in the region – again, rational actors – learned from previous conflicts and responded in kind by building alternative export routes and storage to limit the impact of any disruption in the Gulf. Saudi Arabia, the world's top oil exporter, producing around 9 million bpd, nearly a tenth of global demand, now has a crude pipeline running from the Gulf coast to the Red Sea port city of Yanbu in the west, which would have allowed it to bypass the Strait of Hormuz. The pipeline has capacity of 5 million bpd and could probably be expanded by another 2 million bpd. Additionally, the United Arab Emirates, another major OPEC and regional producer, with output of around 3.3 million bpd of crude, has a 1.5 million bpd pipeline linking its onshore oilfields to the Fujairah oil terminal that is east of the Strait of Hormuz. Both countries, as well as Kuwait and Iran, also have significant storage facilities in Asia and Europe that would allow them to continue supplying customers even through brief disruptions. Perhaps the most important reason for the world's diminishing concern over Mideast oil supply disruptions is the simple fact that a smaller percentage of the world's energy supplies now comes from the Middle East. In recent decades, oil production has surged in new basins such as the United States, Brazil, Guyana, Canada and even China. OPEC's share of global oil supply declined from over 50% in the 1970s to 37% in 2010 and further to 33% in 2023, according to the International Energy Agency, largely because of surge in shale oil production in the United States, the world's largest energy consumer. To be sure, the global oil market was well supplied going into the latest conflict, further alleviating concerns. Ultimately, therefore, the Israel-Iran war is further evidence that the link between Middle East politics and energy prices has loosened, perhaps permanently. So geopolitical risk may keep rising, but don't expect energy prices to follow suit. The opinions expressed here are those of the author, a columnist for Reuters. Enjoying this column? Check out Reuters Open Interest (ROI),, opens new tabyour essential new source for global financial commentary. ROI delivers thought-provoking, data-driven analysis. Markets are moving faster than ever. ROI, opens new tab can help you keep up. Follow ROI on LinkedIn, opens new tab and X., opens new tab

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store