
What happens if Trump fires Fed Chair Powell: 'This would be a mess,' analysts warn
"We expect, as does everyone else, that it would be significantly negative for markets, likely driving both an equity selloff and a counterproductive spike in long-term yields," Wolfe Research's Tobin Marcus and Chutong Zhu write in the note to clients.
Wolfe Research speculated that the Supreme Court could ultimately decide whether Trump has the power to fire Powell for cause.
The firm issued the analysis just hours after Powell's tenure as head of the central bank looked extremely shaky, and then abruptly looked less so.
A senior White House official told CNBC earlier Wednesday that Trump had told a group of Republican members of Congress the night before that he likely will fire Powell "soon."
But during a question-and-answer session in the Oval Office with reporters shorty after the official spoke, Trump quickly and publicly denied what his White House was saying.
"We're not planning on doing it," Trump said. "I don't rule out anything ... but I think it's highly unlikely, unless he has to leave for fraud."
Trump is notoriously mercurial, and has a long track record of firing employees very soon after saying they have his full support.
In Powell's case, however, Trump has been complaining for months, blasting the Fed chair for not cutting interest rates despite the president's demand that the central bank do so.
Evercore founder Roger Altman told CNBC's "Closing Bell" on Wednesday, "There are a lot of bad ideas out there. But the president firing the chairman of the Fed, or, should I say, trying to fire him —because that's not clear to me at all that he could succeed — that's among the worst ideas."
"It's a dreadful idea," said Altman, who served as deputy Treasury secretary under former President Bill Clinton.
Altman pointed to what he called a "stark" difference between the economic trajectories of countries which have truly independent central banks, like the United States, and nations which have "politicized central banks controlled, by example, by their heads of state."
For the latter, he cited Turkiye and Argentina as two examples. Both countries have had double digit inflation rates in recent years.
Moreover, said Altman, "I don't think Chairman Powell would accede to a request that he leave" if Trump were to make one.
"So I think, ultimately, this would be resolved in the courts," Altman said.
The Wolfe Research analysts concurred with Altman's view.
"If Trump moves to actually fire Powell rather than just pressure him to resign, Powell would presumably sue to stop it," the Wolfe Research note says.
"The first big question is whether he would, in fact, be de facto fired as litigation proceeds," the analysts added.
They noted that in several other instances where Trump had fired the commissioners of independent agencies during his second term, those commissioners had filed lawsuits seeking their reinstatement.
"Those lawsuits have failed," the analysts wrote.
"The wrinkle in this case is that Powell is the head of his agency, unlike the other recent firings at independent agencies, which typically occurred in situations where Trump had already designated a new chair of the agency and was firing non-chair commissioners," the note said.
"In those cases, the chair could effectuate these firings—but there's not really anyone at the Fed who can fire Powell."
The note highlights three possible scenarios if Trump fires Powell.
In the first, Powell remains the de facto chairman of the Fed while Trump seeks a judicial order to remove him.
In the second, Powell "leaves voluntarily and litigates to be reinstated."
In the third, and most dramatic scenario, Powell tries to remain as chair, and Trump seeks his removal through executive action.
The note says a similar scenario occurred in March when Washington, D.C., police were called to escort employees of the U.S. Institute of Peace out of their building after staff from Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency accused them of trespassing.
"Needless to say, Powell being escorted out of the Fed by either D.C. police or federal law enforcement would be a worrying image for markets," the Wolfe Research analysts wrote.
If there is litigation over Trump firing Powell, it likely would end up at the Supreme Court. The analysts noted that the majority recently indicated in an unrelated case that "it views the Fed differently from other independent agencies when it comes to for-cause firing protections."
"The Federal Reserve is a uniquely structured, quasi-private entity that follows in the distinct historical tradition of the First and Second Banks of the United States," the Supreme Court's majority wrote in an order allowing Trump to fire officials of two other agencies.
The Wolfe Research analysts said, "We think Powell would have a decent chance to win in court, but it's far from a sure thing."
They noted that the question of whether the Supreme Court is willing to maintain "for-cause protections for the Fed chair ... is a different question than whether they're willing to overrule the President on what constitutes cause."
One scenario postulated in the note is that the Supreme Court would allow a lower court's injunction blocking Trump from firing Powell to remain in effect while the case over Trump's authority to fire him plays out.
"That would likely be enough for him to serve out his term as chair," the note says.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Forbes
a few seconds ago
- Forbes
Trump Shouldn't Let Big Beautiful Bill Boost China's Clean Energy Edge
President Trump signed the One Big Beautiful Bil (OBBB) into law on July 4th, significantly changing ... More the American energy landscape as it rolls back measures from the Inflation Reduction Act. (Photo by Brendan SMIALOWSKI / POOL / AFP) (Photo by BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI/POOL/AFP via Getty Images) On July Fourth, President Donald Trump signed the 'One Big, Beautiful Bill' into law, introducing significant changes that will dramatically reshape America's energy landscape. The newly minted OBBB Act leaves businesses and policymakers trying to determine its potential impact on jobs, investment, and the nation's position in the global energy race. The OBBB, especially 'Title 5-Ending Green New Deal Spending, Promoting America-first Energy, and Other Reforms,' introduces significant reductions to clean energy tax credits, and reduces the eligibility timeline for credits and accessibility to them, while extending these for fossil fuels such as the coal used in steelmaking. The Biden-era Inflation Reduction Act overemphasized renewable energy over oil and gas. Both of these are energy sources that the U.S. has a significant opportunity to leverage for growth and security. It makes sense to play to America's strengths. However, some experts warn that the OBBB risks creating an overcorrection. Zigzagging in the race for energy dominance may wind up costing the U.S. the geo-economic race against China. Charting a course that allows the country to excel on all energy fronts might work better in the medium and long term. While insisting on renewables instead of hydrocarbons, and even vilifying fossil fuels and nuclear, was questionable for a country rich in oil and gas, continued American presence in the renewable energy sector is critical to the future of the U.S. and America's ability to compete with foreign powers, especially China. What's New in the OBBB? The sweeping, nearly 1,000-page OBBB brings significant changes to IRA provisions that prioritized clean energy investments and manufacturing in the U.S. over other options. The OBBB sets a placed-in-service deadline for wind and solar projects, making any project that started a year after the IRA became law ineligible for tax unless it is placed in service before the end of 2027. This will create additional risks for projects grappling with supply chain delays and complex permitting and construction timelines. Many developers may decide to turn down new projects rather than trying to race against the regulatory clock. On the other hand, metallurgical coal, which is used in steelmaking, will now qualify for tax credits. Besides this being contradictory to the OBBB's goal of making needed budget cuts, it also works against innovation, providing credits to coal at the expense of developing a green steel industry. The U.S. was an early leader in this field, but now Europe leads globally, and China is working to catch up quickly through low-carbon policies, R&D, and incentives for innovation. China continues to pursue green measures across its economy while the OBBB puts the United States ... More behind in the field. The OBBB also tightens Foreign Entity of Concern rules with more clear and explicit designations. As we explained earlier, the IRA's rather broad treatment of this issue tended to deter investment in companies 'with even a tiny stake of Chinese ownership, or doing business in Russia' and to discourage U.S. partners in resource-rich areas such as Central Asia. The new definitions per the OBBB will limit tax credit eligibility for producers using inputs coming mainly from Chinese companies. Although this aims to reduce supply chain dependence on China and prevent Chinese companies from benefiting from subsidies, the complexity and uncertainty around how to actually apply these provisions for clean energy projects means these rules can backfire, reducing domestic clean energy production and innovation and sharpening the competitive edge of Chinese alternatives, helping Beijing to become even more dominant in the global market. Can the OBBB Help American Manufacturing? Policy uncertainty has chilling effects on investment, and as far as the OBBB, this is already happening. According to E2, since January 2025, over $14 billion in clean energy projects and more than 10,000 announced jobs had been cancelled before the Senate even passed the bill. The proposed timeline for building and operationalizing wind and solar projects is significantly affected by the new law, which creates obstacles for manufacturers in the clean energy space and, consequently, for proposed new projects, no matter how innovative. Speeding up America's slow and overly bureaucratic review process is admirable, but deadlines need to be realistic. Lawmakers were able to secure a one-year extension of existing wind and solar tax breaks. However, renewable energy industry leaders and advocates argue that this short-term extension is insufficient to encourage the kind of long-term, large-scale investments needed for projects like billion-dollar battery plants or large solar farms. For the U.S. to truly revive domestic manufacturing and lead in global energy, it must encourage the industries of the future (without breaking the bank), quickly innovate in sectors like steel, and scale up solar and battery production alongside a renewed focus on America's existing core competencies in oil, gas, and nuclear. This is not a zero-sum game. It is vital to an 'all of the above' energy strategy. The Trump Administration has already indicated an appetite for 'energy abundance', encouraging LNG exports, grid modernization, and nuclear energy development. An energy policy prioritizing abundant, affordable, cutting-edge energy must keep renewable advancements on the table, even though they are not yet suitable to fully replace other forms of generation. China is forging ahead aggressively, aiming to dominate the clean energy space of tomorrow, and seeking to push the U.S. down the global energy sector totem pole. President Trump's energy priorities surround taking advantage of the United States' advantageous ... More position in the oil and gas sectors, but renewable development is necessary to remain competitive and pursue energy dominance. While the OBBB is focused on rolling back IRA measures that put the green transition ahead of America's advantages and interests in the energy space, its provisions risk making the U.S. less competitive as China and other powers strive to advance renewables and their associated technologies. The Trump Administration is seeking to ensure a modern workforce and achieving energy dominance in the long term, so it needs to start investing in the future, which will include the energy industries the president has already prioritized, as well as those currently dominated by China. Exceling on all fronts will serve America's interests better than abandoning certain key arenas to the key geo-economic competition of the 21st century.


Forbes
a few seconds ago
- Forbes
Trump Calls For Washington Commanders to ‘Immediately' Change Name Back To Redskins
President Donald Trump called for the Washington Commanders to 'immediately' change their name back to the Washington Redskins, the controversial moniker criticized for years as a racial slur that the team abandoned in 2020. The president also criticized the Cleveland Guardians for retiring their 'Indians' nickname. Icon Sportswire via Getty Images In a post on Truth Social, Trump claimed there was a 'big clamoring' for the Commanders to return to their original name, and instructed the team's owners to 'GET IT DONE!!!' Trump also mentioned the Cleveland Guardians, who changed their name and mascot from the Cleveland Indians, insisting, without further elaborating, that 'our great Indian people, in massive numbers, want this to happen.' Trump has criticized the name change to reporters multiple times in the past, but ramped up the call for change Sunday, claiming 'times are different now than they were three or four years ago.' The president has made backing Native American mascots one of his pet causes, previously launching a Title VI investigation into New York's attempt to retire Massapequa High School's 'Chiefs' mascot and nickname, even sending Education Secretary Linda McMahon to speak in May at the high school in support of the name. The Redskins moniker was dropped after the 2019 season, with the team officially going by the name 'Washington Football Team' for the 2020 and 2021 seasons before the Commanders name was adopted for 2022. Trump has a long history with professional sports, first owning the New Jersey Generals, a team in the short-lived United States Football League that challenged the National Football League in the 1980s. He also famously tried to purchase the Buffalo Bills in 2014, only to be outbid. During his career in politics, Trump has repeatedly weighed in on culture war issues surrounding the NFL. During his first term in office, Trump constantly criticized NFL players for taking a knee during the national anthem in protest. What Has Trump Said About The Commanders Before? In the past, Trump has criticized the name changes but stopped short before calling for them to reverse the decision. After the Cleveland Guardians announced they would retire their 'Indians' nickname, Trump in a 2020 tweet said it was 'not good news, even for 'Indians'' and blamed 'cancel culture.' When asked about the Commanders' name change multiple times this year, Trump said he would not have changed the name in the first place. 'I wouldn't have changed the name,' Trump said while speaking to reporters earlier this month. 'It just doesn't have the same ring to me.' Later speaking to reporters in the Oval Office, Trump again defended the old name. 'It's a great population, and they like when they're called by various names. Now Washington, the Redskins, that possibly a little different, a little bit different, but I can tell you I spoke to people of Indian heritage and they love that name and they love that team,' Trump said. The president also heaped praise on the Kansas City Chiefs and their quarterback Patrick Mahomes, who have also been criticized for their Native American imagery. 'They're not changing their name. A great team, great people,' Trump said. 'I like that team, they're called the Chiefs, and frankly I see nothing wrong with them.' The Chiefs lost to the Philadelphia Eagles 40-22 in Super Bowl LIX earlier this year, where Trump became the first sitting president to attend the big game. Forbes estimates the Washington Commanders are worth $6.3 billion, making them the 10th-most valuable team in the NFL. Tangent A deal for the redevelopment of the RFK Stadium site in Washington, D.C., to become the Commanders' new stadium is under consideration by the D.C. City Council. If the $3.7 billion deal is greenlit, it would pave the way for NFL football to return to Washington proper for the first time since 1996.


Newsweek
a few seconds ago
- Newsweek
Iran to Hold Nuclear Talks With 3 European Countries
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Leaders from Iran, Germany, France, and Britain are finalizing plans to discuss Tehran's nuclear program, a major source of global tension, "in the coming week," a German diplomatic source told Newsweek on Sunday. Newsweek has reached out to press representatives for France, Britain, and Iran via email for comment on Sunday. Why It Matters Iran's nuclear program has long been a source of international concern. In 2015, Iran and several world powers including France, the United Kingdom, and Germany, signed the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), an agreement aimed at limiting Tehran's nuclear activities in exchange for sanctions relief. The JCPOA is set to expire in October. The United States withdrew from the accord in 2018 under the Trump administration, reimposing sanctions and reigniting diplomatic friction. Iran has consistently maintained that its nuclear program is intended for civilian purposes, while the U.S. and some of its allies like Israel have accused Tehran of seeking nuclear weapons capability. Tensions spiked again last month when the U.S. conducted airstrikes on three nuclear sites in Iran, prompting Iranian retaliation with a strike on a U.S. military base in Qatar. What To Know The three European countries, known as the E3, "are in contact with Iran to arrange further talks in the coming week," a German diplomatic source told Newsweek in an email Sunday. Iran's semi-official Tasnim news agency reported a source informed on the matter, saying, "The principle of talks has been agreed upon, but consultations are continuing on the time and place of the talks. The country in which the talks could be held next week has not been finalized." The organization of talks with E3 leaders and Iran comes just days after Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi held discussions with French, German and European Union (EU) officials. That was the first formal call since the Israel-Iran war. A German diplomatic source told Newsweek that "Iran must never possess nuclear weapons." They added: "Regarding the Iranian nuclear program, a sustainable and verifiable diplomatic solution that addresses the security interests of the international community is essential." The source continued: "If such a solution is not achieved by the end of the summer, the snapback mechanism will remain an option for the E3. We continue to coordinate closely with our E3 and U.S. partners on this issue." The E3 have warned they will trigger a "snapback" of sanctions on Iran by the end of summer if Tehran does not make progress on a nuclear deal. The snapback mechanism embedded in the 2015 deal allows sanctions to be reimposed if Tehran is found noncompliant. Washington and Tehran held five rounds of nuclear talks mediated by Oman this year. Talks halted after Israel launched "Operation Rising Lion," a military campaign against Iran that it said was meant to preempt a reportedly planned Iranian attack and disrupt Iran's nuclear capabilities. The war intensified when the U.S. joined and bombed three Iranian nuclear sites, Fordow, Isfahan and Natanz, in the largest B-2 operation in U.S. history. Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi attends the 17th annual BRICS summit in Rio de Janeiro on July 7. Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi attends the 17th annual BRICS summit in Rio de Janeiro on July 7. AP Photo/Eraldo Peres What People Are Saying Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said earlier this week: "If EU/E3 want to have a role, they should act responsibly, and put aside the worn-out policies of threat and pressure, including the 'snap-back' for which they lack absolutely [any] moral and legal ground." French President Emmanuel Macron said last month: "We don't want Iran to get a nuclear weapon. But the biggest error would be to use military strikes to change the regime because it would then be chaos and our responsibility is to return discussions as quickly as possible to be able to set a course again on the nuclear and ballistic question." What Happens Next? Details regarding the place and timing of the talks are still being finalized. Tasnim reported that the talks would be carried out by the foreign ministers of the four countries.