Trump targets Fed Chair Jerome Powell again, calls him ‘numbskull', says he'll be out in 8 months
Advertisement
"I think he's done a bad job, but he's going to be out pretty soon anyway. In eight months, he'll be out," the president declared.
While Powell's current term as Fed Chair ends in May 2026, Trump appeared to suggest he could be replaced sooner — though he did not explain why the eight-month timeframe was relevant.
GOP scrutiny over Fed HQs renovations
Apart from interest rate policy, Powell has faced growing criticism from Republican lawmakers over the Federal Reserve's $2.5 billion headquarters renovation project. Trump and others have accused the Fed of lacking fiscal oversight.
'The Fed has had big mission creep,' Bessent said, adding, 'They just print money to spend it. And I think a thorough review should be done.'
Advertisement
He argued that while the Fed's monetary policy should remain protected like 'a jewel box,' its other functions had 'just grown and grown,' due in part to not being subject to congressional appropriations.
Bessent calls for internal review
Bessent has demanded an internal review of the Fed's non-monetary activities, especially the renovation.
'There's a real chance here for [Powell's] legacy — that he right-size the non-monetary policy functions of the Fed,' he said.
'Since the financial crisis, the Fed has had what I call gain-of-function monetary policy, and the expenses have gone up a lot,' Bessent noted.
Trump doesn't rule out anything
When asked last week whether he ruled out firing Powell, Trump said, 'I don't rule out anything, but I think it's highly unlikely — unless he has to leave for fraud.'
Advertisement
Powell responds: 'Good stewards of public resources'
In a letter to Trump's budget director Russ Vought, Powell defended the renovation project, stating, 'We take seriously the responsibility to be good stewards of public resources as we fulfill the duties given to us by Congress on behalf of the American people.'
Powell's term as Fed Chair runs through May, but his broader role as a Federal Reserve governor continues until January 2028.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
India.com
15 minutes ago
- India.com
Next Vice President? Telangana CM Revanth Reddy Picks THIS OBC Leader From BJP
HYDERABAD: Telangana Chief Minister A. Revanth Reddy on Wednesday accused the BJP of stalling 42 per cent reservation for Backward Classes (BCs) by using Muslim community as an excuse. He alleged that the leaders of saffron party were playing politics of sentiment by stating that they would back 42 percent quota for BCs if Muslims are removed from the list of BCs. Addressing a press conference in Delhi, he clarified that Muslims are being extended the benefits of reservation on the basis of their backwardness. He dared BJP to scrap reservation for Muslims in the states ruled by it or its allies. He asked why the BJP was not scrapping Muslim quota in Uttar Pradesh, Gujarat, Maharashtra and Andhra Pradesh. He alleged that BJP is adopting double standards on the issue of Muslim reservation and trying to derive political mileage by whipping up passions. 'You can't have one justice for Telangana and another justice for other states,' he remarked. He warned that if BJP oppose Backward Class reservation, the party will be wiped out from Telangana. Revanth Reddy along with some state ministers and Congress leaders arrived in the national capital to mobilise support of various parties for including two state laws for 42 per cent Backward Class reservation in the 9th Schedule of the Constitution. The Chief Minister recalled that the state legislature passed two Bills for 42 per cent quota for BCs in education, employment and public life and sent the same to the Centre for including in the 9th Schedule. Revanth Reddy also pointed out that the local body elections have to be conducted in the state by September as per the direction of the High Court. 'If 42 percent seats in local bodies are to be reserved for the BCs, the Centre will have to give its approval,' he said. The Chief Minister said there was no justification in the argument that total reservations should not cross 50 per cent. He claimed that the Centre crossed this limit long back with 10 per cent reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS). The Chief Minister also demanded that a leader from Telangana should be made the Vice-President of India. Revanth Reddy said Bandaru Dattatreya, whose tenure as Haryana Governor has just ended, should be made Vice-President. He alleged that since Dattatreya is an OBC leader he was sidelined to make G. Kishan Reddy the union minister. He said similarly Bandi Sanjay was removed as state BJP president and a Brahmin was recently appointed as the state BJP chief.
Time of India
33 minutes ago
- Time of India
Landmark ICJ verdict on climate change: Inaction by nations is illegal; reparations possible
Activists protest outside top UN court ahead of climate change advisory ruling. (AP photo) United Nations's top court has said that inaction on climate change could be unlawful. The international court of justice (ICJ) said on Wednesday that countries may be breaching international law if they fail to take meaningful steps to protect the climate. It also opened the door for reparations to countries already affected by the crisis. Court president Yuji Iwasawa called the climate emergency 'an existential problem of planetary proportions' and warned that ignoring it could amount to a 'wrongful act' under international law. Activists celebrated outside the court. The case was led by the Pacific island nation of Vanuatu and supported by more than 130 countries. After years of pressure from vulnerable island states, the UN general assembly had asked the ICJ in 2023 to give its opinion. A panel of 15 judges answered two key questions: what are states legally required to do to protect the environment, and what happens if they don't? The court's opinion, over 500 pages long, said that every person has a right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment. It's a human right. The statement alone could be used in domestic and international courts. Experts say this could shape future lawsuits, investment treaties, and even climate policies. Vanuatu's attorney general reminded judges that his people's survival was at stake. Sea levels in parts of the Pacific were rising faster than the global average. Global temperatures have already increased by 1.3°C since pre-industrial times. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like No annual fees for life UnionBank Credit Card Apply Now Undo UN's top court says failing to tackle climate change 'could violate international law' Some countries, like the US and Russia, have opposed any court-mandated emission cuts. But ICJ's opinion adds to growing legal pressure. Earlier this month, the Inter-American court of human rights ruled that countries must avoid environmental harm and restore damaged ecosystems. Last year, the European court of human rights made a similar call. In 2019, the Dutch supreme court became the first to link climate change and human rights, ruling the government must protect citizens from its effects. Though the ICJ ruling is not legally binding, it marks a significant shift in climate law. The court itself admitted that law alone cannot solve the crisis, but said it plays an 'important' role in shaping global responsibility.
Economic Times
33 minutes ago
- Economic Times
The US can survive tariffs. That doesn't mean they're worth it
On hearing of the Continental Army's pivotal victory at the Battle of Saratoga in 1777, John Sinclair told Adam Smith, 'The British nation must be ruined.' As Sinclair recalled, the author of The Wealth of Nations (published the year before) urged him to calm down. 'Be assured, my young friend, there is a great deal of ruin in a nation.'Dedicated though he was to the benefits of free trade, Smith would doubtless say the same about today's turn toward mercantilism. It's a blow, but not the end of the world. That's worth noting: Catastrophism, a popular mode of discourse these days, is usually unhelpful. But champions of President Donald Trump's approach to trade are apt to make the opposite mistake — namely, thinking that if the roof hasn't fallen in, the policy must be succeeding. If it results in slower growth and persistent underperformance, that might not be 'ruin,' but it sure isn't Trump's new system of tariffs has settled down — if it ever does — what might it cost? What might 'less than ruin' amount to?According to most estimates, the direct economic losses are certainly tolerable, especially for a huge and relatively closed economy like the US. One recent study explores the upper limit on what's at stake by calculating the benefits of liberal trade compared with no trade at all. For the US, the costs of closing the economy altogether would fall in the range of 2% to 8% of gross domestic product. The costs of less trade, as opposed to no trade, would naturally be smaller still. Earlier this month the Federal Reserve published a research note on the effects of specific tariffs. Its economists modeled an increase of 60 percentage points in the US tariff on imports from China, with and without a 'baseline' tariff of 10% on other trading partners, assuming for one set of scenarios that the trade deficit is unchanged and for another that it shrinks. According to their model, the 60% extra tariff on China, the 10% baseline tariff on everybody else plus a 25% reduction in the trade deficit would cut US GDP by a little under 3%. (China's losses would be about the same; thanks to shifts in the pattern of trade, the rest of the world would come out about even.) These and other such studies reveal the complexity of the changes caused by trade barriers. For example, surely tariffs would reduce imports and hence shrink the trade deficit. Why assume, as some of the Fed's scenarios do, that the deficit doesn't change? Actually, it's far from obvious that the trade deficit will narrow. You'd expect a smaller trade deficit to make the dollar appreciate — in due course increasing imports, cutting exports and undoing the initial effect. In any case, the overall external balance is determined by the gap between its saving and investment, which tariffs affect only consider the surprisingly small estimated cost of closing the economy completely. One of the assumptions behind the estimated losses of 2% to 8% of GDP is that the ease of replacing domestic goods with imports — the so-called elasticity of substitution — can be estimated from current trade data. But as the economy approaches autarky, this elasticity might fall abruptly as certain critical foreign products prove difficult or impossible to replace. The costs of abolishing imports might then be much bigger than projected. (Granted, a rational mercantilist would be careful not to press too far: An entirely closed economy isn't the goal.)The list of other complications is endless. What's the effect of trade on competition and innovation? It depends. Up to a point, competition through trade is likely to spur innovation, but if foreign competition is severe enough to shut a domestic industry down, said industry won't be more innovative. The dynamic effects of trade — that is, the effects of trade on growth — are even harder to estimate than the static effects captured in the studies mentioned all the uncertainty, two points seem worth emphasizing. First, despite the complexities, economists generally agree that trade does deliver net gains — that, on this, Adam Smith was right. If suppressing trade is costly, then exactly how costly is not the most important question. You don't do it. To be sure, the US has a huge domestic market and is richly endowed with natural resources. These advantages mean that trade is likely to deliver smaller gains than it does for other economies. But, to repeat, small gains are better than the costs of the new mercantilism aren't confined to the implications for GDP of moving from a settled regime of liberal trade to a settled regime of managed trade. That shift involves massive economic and geopolitical dislocations, which are likely to be costly in restructuring expends resources; it creates jobs and destroys them. The 'China Shock' was disruptive — but vainly trying to reverse it will be disruptive all over again. In the first case, there were aggregate benefits; in the second, there'll be aggregate dislocation could involve the biggest costs of all. The new mercantilism puts US-led alliances and multilateral institutions under enormous strain. The view that the US has been exploited by these arrangements isn't unwarranted — there's been some free-riding, no doubt — but on balance US global leadership has been an exercise in enlightened self-interest. Dismantling the global trading order, and casting this as overdue retaliation against selfish so-called friends, is to cast away American power. It would be bad policy if undertaken in return for small economic gains. In return for substantial, even if less-than-ruinous, economic losses, it's insane.
