logo
Powell says Fed can wait to reduce interest rates as Trump demands cuts

Powell says Fed can wait to reduce interest rates as Trump demands cuts

Nahar Net16 hours ago

by Naharnet Newsdesk 24 June 2025, 16:51
The Federal Reserve will continue to wait and see how the economy evolves before deciding whether to reduce its key interest rate, Chair Jerome Powell said Tuesday, a stance directly at odds with President Donald Trump's calls for immediate cuts.
"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," Powell said in prepared remarks he will deliver Tuesday before the House Financial Services Committee.
Powell is facing two days of what could be tough grilling on Capitol Hill, as Trump has repeatedly urged the Fed to reduce borrowing costs. Powell has often received a positive reception before House and Senate committees that oversee the Fed, or at least muted criticism. Powell has also often cited his support in Congress as a bulwark against Trump's attacks, but that support could wane under the president's ongoing assaults.
Trump lashed out again early Tuesday, posting on his social media site: "I hope Congress really works this very dumb, hardheaded person, over. We will be paying for his incompetence for many years to come."
In February, the last time Powell appeared before Congress, Rep. French Hill, the Arkansas Republican who chairs the financial services committee, urged Powell to ensure inflation returned to the Fed's target of 2%, which typically requires keeping rates elevated.
Powell said in his written testimony that " increases in tariffs this year are likely to push up prices and weigh on economic activity."
He said the bump to inflation from tariffs could be temporary, or it could lead to a more persistent bout of inflation.
The Fed's "obligation," Powell said, "is ... to prevent a one-time increase in the price level from becoming an ongoing inflation problem."
The Fed's 19-member interest rate setting committee, led by the chair, decides whether to cut or raise borrowing costs. They typically increase rates to cool the economy to fight or prevent inflation, and lower rates when the economy is weak to boost borrowing and spending.
The Fed's committee voted unanimously last week to keep its key rate unchanged, though the Fed also released forecasts of future rate cuts that revealed emerging divisions among the policymakers. Seven projected no rate cuts at all this year, two just one, while 10 forecast at least two reductions.
At a news conference last week, Powell suggested the Fed would monitor how the economy evolves over the summer in response to Trump's tariffs and other policies before deciding whether to cut rates. His comments suggested a rate reduction wouldn't occur until September.
Yet two high-profile members of the Fed's governing board, Michelle Bowman and Christopher Waller, have since suggested the central bank could cut its rate as early as its next meeting in July. Both officials were appointed by Trump during his first term and Waller is often mentioned as a potential replacement for Powell when his term ends next May. Powell was also appointed by Trump in late 2017.
Trump is urging the Fed to cut rates to save the U.S. government money on its interest payments affixed to the vast national debt. Yet the Fed has long resisted considering the government's financing costs when making interest rate decisions, preferring instead to focus on the health of the economy and inflation.
Waller, in a television interview Friday, said that lowering the government's borrowing costs is "not our job" and added that it was up to Congress and the White House to reduce the budget deficit.
Trump meanwhile, on social media Tuesday repeated his claim that the European Central Bank has cut its key rate ten times, while the Fed has not cut at all. In fact, in the last 12 months the ECB has reduced its rate eight times and the Fed has done so three times, all late last year.
The Fed's cuts last year lowered its rate to about 4.3%. Yet since then it has put reductions on pause out of concern that Trump's tariffs could push up inflation. The president has slapped a 10% duty on all imports, along with an additional 30% levy on goods from China, 50% on steel and aluminum, and 25% on autos.
Yet inflation has steadily cooled this year despite widespread concerns among economists about the impact of tariffs. The consumer price index ticked up just 0.1% from April to May, the government said last week, a sign that price pressures are muted.
Prices for some goods rose last month, but the cost for many services such as air fares and hotels fell, offsetting any tariff impact. Compared with a year ago, prices rose 2.4% in May, up from 2.3% in April.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Mediator Qatar working on resuming Gaza ceasefire talks
Mediator Qatar working on resuming Gaza ceasefire talks

Nahar Net

time14 hours ago

  • Nahar Net

Mediator Qatar working on resuming Gaza ceasefire talks

by Naharnet Newsdesk 24 June 2025, 14:06 Mediator Qatar's said Tuesday it was working on resuming Gaza ceasefire talks in days, urging Israel not to exploit a truce with Iran to "unleash everything it wants to unleash" on the blockaded strip. "We are still continuing our efforts, and God willing, we will try to look for an opportunity during the next two days for having indirect negotiations between the two parties... We hope that the Israeli side will not exploit the ceasefire with Iran to unleash what it wants to unleash on Gaza and continue its bombing of" the strip, said Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman bin Jassim Al-Thani during a joint press conference with his Lebanese counterpart.

Presidents vs. Congress: Trump only the latest to test War Powers Act
Presidents vs. Congress: Trump only the latest to test War Powers Act

Nahar Net

time14 hours ago

  • Nahar Net

Presidents vs. Congress: Trump only the latest to test War Powers Act

by Naharnet Newsdesk 24 June 2025, 17:21 Donald Trump isn't the first president to order military strikes without congressional approval. But his decision to bomb Iran comes at a uniquely volatile moment — both at home and abroad. Overseas, the U.S. risks deeper entanglement in the Middle East if fighting erupts again between Israel and Iran. At home, Trump continues to sidestep oversight, showing little regard for checks and balances. His move has reignited a decades-old debate over the War Powers Act, a law passed in the early 1970s meant to divide authority over military action between Congress and the president. Critics say Trump violated the act by striking with little input from Congress, while supporters argue he responded to an imminent threat and is looking to avoid prolonged conflict. Even after Trump announced late Monday that a "complete and total ceasefire" between Israel and Iran would take effect over the next 24 hours, tensions remained high in Congress over Trump's action. A vote is expected in the Senate later this week on a Democratic Iran war powers resolution that is meant to place a check on Trump when it comes to further entanglement with Iran. Here's a closer look at what the act does and doesn't do, how past presidents have tested it and how Congress plans to respond: Dividing war powers between Congress and the president Passed in the wake of American involvement in Vietnam, the War Powers Resolution prescribes how the president should work with lawmakers to deploy troops if Congress hasn't already issued a declaration of war. It states that the framers of the Constitution intended for Congress and the President to use its "collective judgement" to send troops into "hostilities." The War Powers Resolution calls for the president "in every possible instance" to "consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces." But when Congress enacted the law, "it didn't install any hard requirements, and it provided a lot of outs," said Scott Anderson, a fellow at the Brookings Institution. "Habitual practice for presidents in the last few decades has been to minimally — almost not at all — consult with Congress on a lot of military action," Anderson said. And "the language of the statute is so vague and open-ended that it's hard to say it's in clear contradiction" to the War Powers Resolution. Unless a Declaration of War has already been passed or Congress has authorized deploying forces, the president has 48 hours after deploying troops to send a written report to congressional leadership explaining the decision. Trump did so on Monday, sending Congress a letter that said strikes on Iran over the weekend were "limited in scope and purpose" and "designed to minimize casualties, deter future attacks and limit the risk of escalation." In March, when Trump ordered airstrikes in Houthi-held areas in Yemen, he wrote a letter to congressional leadership explaining his rationale and reviewing his orders to the Department of Defense. President Joe Biden wrote nearly 20 letters citing the War Powers Resolution during his term. If Congress doesn't authorize further action within 60 to 90 days, the resolution requires that the president "terminate any use" of the armed forces. "That's the hard requirement of the War Powers Resolution," Anderson said. How past presidents have used it Congress hasn't declared war on another country since World War II, but U.S. presidents have filed scores of reports pursuant to the War Powers Resolution since it was enacted in 1973, over President Richard Nixon's veto. Presidents have seized upon some of the vague wording in the War Powers Resolution to justify their actions abroad. In 1980, for example, Jimmy Carter argued that attempting to rescue hostages from Iran didn't require a consultation with Congress, since it wasn't an act of war, according to the Congressional Research Service. President George W. Bush invoked war powers in the weeks after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and persuaded Congress to approve an authorization for the use of military force against Iraq in 2002. Throughout his presidency, President Barack Obama faced pressure to cease operations in Libya after 90 days. But his administration argued that the U.S. use of airpower in Libya didn't rise to the level of "hostilities" set forth in the War Powers Resolution. What Congress is doing now Trump's actions in Iran have drawn the loudest praise from the right and the sharpest rebukes from the left. But the response hasn't broken cleanly along party lines. Daily developments have also complicated matters. Trump on Sunday raised the possibility of a change in leadership in Iran, before on Monday announcing that Israel and Iran had agreed to a "complete and total" ceasefire to be phased in over the next 24 hours. Nevertheless, the Senate could vote as soon as this week on a resolution directing the removal of U.S. forces from hostilities against Iran that have not been authorized by Congress. Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., the bill's sponsor, told reporters Monday — prior to the ceasefire announcement — that the vote could come "as early as Wednesday, as late as Friday." He expects bipartisan backing, though support is still coming together ahead of a classified briefing for senators on Tuesday. "There will be Republicans who will support it," Kaine said. "Exactly how many, I don't know." He added that, "this is as fluid a vote as I've been involved with during my time here, because the facts are changing every day." Passing the resolution could prove difficult, especially with Republicans praising Trump after news of the ceasefire broke. Even prior to that, Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., defended Trump's actions on Monday and said he's operating within his authority. "There's always a tension between Congress' power to declare war and the president's power as commander in chief," said Sen. John Kennedy, R-La. "But I think the White House contacted its people, as many people as they could." A similar bipartisan resolution in the House — led by Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna and Republican Rep. Thomas Massie — could follow soon, although Massie signaled Monday that he may no longer pursue it if peace has been reached. Khanna was undeterred. "In case of a conflict in the future, we need to be on record saying no offensive war in Iran without prior authorization," Khanna said. "We still need a vote."

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