Trump might fire Jerome Powell, but it could spark a legal war like nothing America's seen before
Donald Trump
is once again questioning whether Federal Reserve Chairman
Jerome Powell
should continue in his position. However, removing Jerome Powell could result in a legal battle unlike any other in American history.
From Supreme Court precedents to agency independence, this potential battle is already taking shape behind the scenes. Donald Trump may want to fire Fed Chairman Jerome Powell, but doing so could spark a complicated legal battle. With only 10 months left in Powell's term, Trump may simply wait him out.
Explore courses from Top Institutes in
Select a Course Category
Digital Marketing
Data Science
Technology
PGDM
Artificial Intelligence
Product Management
Project Management
Public Policy
Leadership
Design Thinking
healthcare
Cybersecurity
Operations Management
Others
Finance
Degree
Management
Data Analytics
Healthcare
MBA
others
CXO
MCA
Data Science
Skills you'll gain:
Digital Marketing Strategy
Search Engine Optimization (SEO) & Content Marketing
Social Media Marketing & Advertising
Data Analytics & Measurement
Duration:
24 Weeks
Indian School of Business
Professional Certificate Programme in Digital Marketing
Starts on
Jun 26, 2024
Get Details
Skills you'll gain:
Digital Marketing Strategies
Customer Journey Mapping
Paid Advertising Campaign Management
Emerging Technologies in Digital Marketing
Duration:
12 Weeks
Indian School of Business
Digital Marketing and Analytics
Starts on
May 14, 2024
Get Details
The Fed Chair has been clear about his intentions. His removal is "not permitted by law," he stated earlier this year, and he would not leave if Trump attempted to fire him.
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
Villas Prices In Dubai Might Be More Affordable Than You Think
Villas In Dubai | Search Ads
Get Quote
Undo
ALSO READ:
ESPN anchors go too far - shocking on-air stunt on Astronomer CEO Andy Byron and Kristin Cabot sparks outrage
The Wall Street Journal claims that Fed officials have been secretly preparing for a legal battle since Trump's first term, when the president also considered firing the chair.
Live Events
What makes firing Jerome Powell legally complicated?
Jerome Powell's case is strong because it relies on certain
Fed autonomy protections
that are already included in US law. The Federal Reserve Act, which established the central bank in 1913 and was revised in 1935, stipulates that each Fed board member will serve for a period of 14 years "unless sooner removed for cause by the President,' as per a report.
Powell is protected under federal law unless he is removed "for cause," which has never been fully tested in court.
The "for cause" requirement was designed to increase the Fed's independence by making it more difficult for a president to remove its president-appointed board members.
Although the Supreme Court's stance on the matter is unclear, there are indications that the court would intervene if Trump took action, as per a report.
Just this week, a federal judge ruled that Trump's prior firing of FTC Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter was illegal, citing a 1935 Supreme Court case, Humphrey's Executor v. United States, that limited the president's power to remove leaders of independent agencies.
The judge referenced a Supreme Court decision from ninety years ago that restricts the president's authority to fire independent agency board members unless there is negligence or misconduct. Powell has some protection from that precedent.
What does 'for cause' really mean in this context?
While the law says 'for cause,' it doesn't define exactly what that means in the context of firing the chair of the Fed, especially since the statute doesn't specifically reference the chair's role.
Historically, 'for cause' has been interpreted to mean serious misconduct, like inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance. But so far, those standards haven't been tested in court for a Fed chair.
Now, Donald Trump and his allies are suggesting a potential reason: the $2.5 billion renovation of the Fed's Washington headquarters. Trump recently claimed there might be fraud involved in the project, telling reporters, 'It's possible there's fraud,' and hinting that it 'sort of is' a fireable offense.
Although he clarified that he wasn't actively planning to remove Powell, Trump also said, 'I don't rule out anything.'
Kevin Hassett, former National Economic Council director and a rumored contender to replace Powell, said last weekend that the question of presidential firing authority is 'being looked into.' Still, he called it a 'highly uncertain legal matter.'
Behind the scenes, White House officials appear unsure of their legal footing. According to Politico, outside attorneys warned that firing Powell over the renovation project would likely not hold up in court. One anonymous official even admitted, 'Whether or not it's illegal, I don't know. But is it a good thing to point out to damage this guy's image? Yeah.'
Could Donald Trump actually pull it off before Powell's term ends?
While the legal challenges would be significant, time may actually be Trump's biggest obstacle. Powell's term ends in less than a year, in May 2026. Some legal scholars think Trump may ultimately decide to let the clock run out.
Eric Chaffee, a business law professor at Case Western Reserve University, said he believes Powell would win any court fight. But more importantly, Chaffee says Trump may not see the battle as worth it.
FAQs
Can Donald Trump legally remove Jerome Powell?
Not easy. U.S. law requires "cause" for firing a Fed board member, and Powell has stated that he will oppose any such move.
What does Donald Trump accuse Powell of?
To justify a potential dismissal, Trump and allies have cited a $2.5 billion Fed building renovation, raising unproven fraud concerns.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
India Today
15 minutes ago
- India Today
Germany bets on AI robots, drones, and biotech to lead future wars
Germany is taking a leap toward modernising its defence system by heavily investing in advanced military technologies like artificial intelligence, autonomous robots, and even cyborg cockroaches. This could be a gamechanger amid security threats in Europe after Russia's invasion of has exposed Europe's military weaknesses and reliance on American security. For people like Gundbert Scherf, co-founder of defence tech startup Helsing, the war changed whose Munich-based company creates AI-based military tools and drones, struggled to get investors when he first started. But today, things have flipped. Speaking to Reuters, "Europe this year, for the first time in decades, is spending more on defence technology acquisition than the US." According to news agency Reuters, last month, Helsing's value more than doubled to $12 German government under Chancellor Friedrich Merz is now opening the doors of its military to collaborate directly with start-ups. The goal is to fast-track innovation and reduce dependence on traditional defence giants."We want to help give Europe its spine back," Scherf POWER GERMANY'S HIGH-TECH DEFENCE PUSHGermany is not just big firms like Rheinmetall and Hensoldt but also smaller companies working on futuristic ideas. These include ARX Robotics, which makes autonomous tank-like machines, and Swarm Biotactics, which is building insect-based spy tools."Our bio-robots -- based on living insects -- are equipped with neural stimulation, sensors, and secure communication modules," said Stefan Wilhelm, CEO of Swarm Biotactics. "They can be steered individually or operate autonomously in swarms."The German military's innovation hub is also seeing a sharp rise in interest. "Germany has developed a whole new openness towards the issue of security since the invasion," said Sven Weizenegger, who leads the Cyber Innovation Hub. He added that he now receives 20 to 30 LinkedIn messages a day with defence tech ideas, compared to just a few per week back in transformation isn't just about gadgets. Germany plans to nearly triple its annual defence budget to $175 billion by 2029 and meet NATO's 3.5% GDP defense spending goal. A new draft law will even make it easier for startups to get advance payments and win government Wietfeld, founder of ARX Robotics, described a turning point after meeting Defence Minister Boris Pistorius. "He told me: 'Money is no longer an excuse—it's there now'," Wietfeld AIMS TO LEAD EUROPE'S DEFENSE FUTUREIn fact, Europe's 19 largest defence spenders are set to outspend the US in military procurement this year: $180 billion versus America's $175 billion. Overall US military spending remains higher, but the gap in technology investment is narrowing has recognised that we have to defend our democracies," said Christian Saller, an investor in defence startups like ARX and Quantum capital funding in German defence tech has jumped from $373 million in 2022 to $1 billion in 2024. German companies have received $1.4 billion in the last five years—more than any other country in Europe."The startups just need the brains to do the engineering and prototyping," said Stefan Thumann, CEO of Donaustahl. "And the German Mittelstand will be their muscles."- EndsWith inputs from ReutersMust Watch
India.com
15 minutes ago
- India.com
Trump Briefed On Epstein Files; White House Says No Evidence Of Wrongdoing
New Delhi: US President Donald Trump was informed in May that his name appeared in files related to the Justice Department's review of the Jeffrey Epstein case, CNN reported, citing sources familiar with the matter. Attorney General Pam Bondi, during a briefing with Trump and Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche at the White House, disclosed the presence of Trump's name in the documents. According to two White House officials, the meeting was a "routine briefing" that covered the Justice Department's findings, with the mention of Trump's name not being the primary focus. Bondi also told Trump that other high-profile figures were named in the documents, but investigators did not find evidence of a so-called client list or anything contradicting the conclusion that Epstein died by suicide, CNN reported. Sources familiar with the department's review told CNN that the files contained several unsubstantiated claims, including those related to Trump, which the Justice Department ultimately deemed not credible. It remains unclear in what context Trump's name appeared in the documents. As CNN noted, Trump was among several prominent individuals associated with Epstein during the 1990s, when Epstein actively courted celebrities and influential figures to boost his public profile. The new revelations do little to expand on the public's existing understanding of Trump's ties to Epstein. "The White House is not surprised by this - Trump's name was present in the binders that Bondi produced and handed out," a White House official told CNN. The official added that many of the materials already released by the Justice Department had included mention of Trump's name. "The White House does not view this as groundbreaking or new or surprising at all," the official said, emphasizing that there is no evidence implicating Trump in any wrongdoing. White House Communications Director Steven Cheung also responded to the developments in a statement to CNN, saying, "The fact is that the President kicked him out of his club for being a creep. This is nothing more than a continuation of the fake news stories concocted by the Democrats and the liberal media, just like the Obama Russiagate scandal, which President Trump was right about." CNN reported that the Wall Street Journal first broke the story about Bondi informing Trump in May that his name appeared in the Epstein-related documents. The revelations appear to contradict Trump's more recent denial that he was aware of being named in the files. When pressed last week about whether Bondi had informed him, Trump responded, "No, no. She's given us just a very quick briefing." The issue has added to growing political pressure on the administration following its decision not to release additional Epstein-related documents, a move that has drawn sharp criticism from Trump's supporters, according to CNN. White House officials were reportedly frustrated that Bondi did not redact Trump's name from the binders distributed to conservative influencers in February, calling it a longstanding point of contention between the DOJ and the White House. In a joint statement issued on Wednesday, Bondi and Blanche said, "The DOJ and FBI reviewed the Epstein Files and reached the conclusion set out in the July 6 memo. Nothing in the files warranted further investigation or prosecution, and we have filed a motion in court to unseal the underlying grand jury transcripts. As part of our routine briefing, we made the President aware of the findings." While the White House has dismissed the continued scrutiny of the Epstein files as politically motivated and distracting, bipartisan calls for full transparency have intensified. A House Oversight subcommittee voted Wednesday to subpoena the Department of Justice to release all documents related to Epstein, forcing GOP leaders to cut short the legislative session to avoid further votes on the matter. Adding to the controversy, the Wall Street Journal reported last week that a letter bearing Trump's name and an outline of a naked woman was part of a photo album gifted to Epstein for his 50th birthday in 2003. Trump has denied writing the letter and has filed a lawsuit against the publication over the article, CNN reported.
New Indian Express
15 minutes ago
- New Indian Express
Appeals court finds Trump's effort to end birthright citizenship unconstitutional, upholds block
WASHINGTON: A federal appeals court ruled Wednesday that President Donald Trump's order seeking to end birthright citizenship is unconstitutional, affirming a lower-court decision that blocked its enforcement nationwide. The ruling from a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals comes after Trump's plan was also blocked by a federal judge in New Hampshire. It brings the issue one step closer to coming back quickly before the Supreme Court. The 9th Circuit decision keeps a block on the Trump administration enforcing the order that would deny citizenship to children born to people who are in the United States illegally or temporarily. "The district court correctly concluded that the Executive Order's proposed interpretation, denying citizenship to many persons born in the United States, is unconstitutional. We fully agree," the majority wrote. The 2-1 ruling keeps in place a decision from U.S. District Judge John C. Coughenour in Seattle, who blocked Trump's effort to end birthright citizenship and decried what he described as the administration's attempt to ignore the Constitution for political gain.
