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
Economic Times
8 minutes ago
- Economic Times
No formal discussion on F-35 fighter jets with US: Centre tells Parliament
Union Minister of State (MoS) for External Affairs Kirti Vardhan Singh informed the Lok Sabha in a written reply that there has been no formal discussion on F-35 fighter jets with the United States (US). Singh was responding to questions posed by Congress MP Balwant Baswant Wankhade, who enquired about the relationship with the US on military assistance. "During PM Modi's US visit, the joint statement issued after the meeting with Trump mentioned that the US will review its policy on releasing F-35 and underwater systems to India. However, no formal discussion has taken place on this issue so far," the junior minister said in his written reply. On the role of American diplomats to stop hostilities between India and Pakistan, MoS Singh said that there were a number of diplomatic conversations with various countries, including the US. He asserted that the discussion to cease military action took place directly between India and Pakistan, and it was initiated at Pakistan's request. "With specific reference to the United States, it was conveyed to Vice President JD Vance on May 9 that India would appropriately respond if Pakistan launched a major attack. The discussion to cease military action took place directly between India and Pakistan through the existing channels of communication between the two armed forces, and it was initiated at Pakistan's request," the reply read. When asked about whether India has evaluated the impact of receiving US military assistance on the autonomy of its foreign policy, considering strategic implications, especially in a conflict scenario involving third-party mediation, Singh said that the outstanding issues with Pakistan will be discussed only bilaterally. "Our longstanding position remains that any outstanding issue with Pakistan will be discussed only bilaterally. This has been made clear to all nations, including by the Prime Minister to the US President," the reply read. "The India-US Comprehensive Global Strategic Partnership is anchored in mutual trust, shared interests, goodwill and robust engagement between our citizens. The partnership has also benefited from growing strategic convergence and cooperation. The Government of India closely evaluates all its external partnerships, including those in the defence and strategic domains, through the prism of India's national interest and commitment to strategic autonomy," it added.
Economic Times
8 minutes ago
- Economic Times
US-Russia-India tensions could spark crude oil prices to touch $80 per barrel
Synopsis Oil market experts predict Brent crude oil prices will likely surge to USD 80 per barrel due to escalating US-Russia tensions threatening global oil supplies. Potential sanctions and tariffs on countries trading with Russia, initiated by the US, could further inflate prices. Disruptions in Russian oil flow could push prices even higher, potentially reaching USD 100-120 per barrel. ANI Representative image. Brent crude oil prices are expected to rise to USD 80 per barrel in the coming months as tensions between the United States and Russia threaten to disrupt the global oil supply chain, highlighted oil market experts in conversation with prices may face upward pressure as geopolitical risks increase. NS Ramaswamy, Head of Commodities & CRM at Ventura, said, "Brent Oil (Oct'25) from USD 72.07 has a short-term target of USD 76. Year end 2025 could reach USD 80-82. Downside support and cap at USD 69. U.S. President Donald Trump has given Russia a deadline of 10-12 days to end the war in Ukraine, failing which it runs a risk of additional sanctions and secondary tariffs of 100 per cent on countries trading with Russia, which would push the oil prices higher."This move by US President Trump could further increase oil prices, as countries dependent on Russian crude would face a difficult choice between buying cheaper oil and facing heavy export tariffs to the WTI Crude Oil (Sep'25), experts expect a short-term target of USD 73 from the current level of USD 69.65. The price could rise to USD 76-79 by the end of 2025, while the downside support is at USD 65. Experts said such developments could disrupt the global oil market. A supply shock may result from reduced spare production capacity, which would likely push oil prices higher through dilemma remains that President Trump wants lower oil prices, but a quick increase in US oil production is not possible, as it involves infrastructure, labour, and expert Narendra Taneja told ANI, "Russia exports 5 million barrels of oil into the global (oil) supply system every day. Crude oil prices would rise significantly - USD 100 to 120 per barrel, if not more - if the Russian oil is forced out of the global supply chains".He also added, "If Russian oil stops flowing into Indian refineries, prices would rise globally for sure. There would be no shortage of oil in India because our refiners import from 40 different countries, but balancing the price for consumers would be a challenge."Even if Saudi Arabia and select OPEC countries step in to fill the supply gap, it will take time, adding to short-term price pressure. The oil market could shift into a deficit situation even if OPEC+ does not announce further production the recent US-EU trade deal has provided some support to the market, but geopolitical tensions persist and continue to add upside risks. The market is also closely watching US inventory levels and the upcoming interest rate decision, with a stronger US dollar keeping some pressure on oil extended US-China trade truce has also supported market sentiment, but risks remain elevated in the oil sector.
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
9 minutes ago
- First Post
Why Trump's public order to reposition nuclear submarines near Russia is concerning
US President Donald Trump has ordered two nuclear submarines to 'appropriate regions' after a fiery exchange with former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, raising eyebrows worldwide. While experts stress this is more of a signal than a military move, Trump's decision to publicise submarine positioning marks a rare escalation in rhetoric with Moscow read more US President Donald Trump looks on as a member of the media raises their hand, at the White House in Washington, DC, US, August 1, 2025. File Image/Reuters United States President Donald Trump on Friday revealed that he had directed two American nuclear submarines to be relocated to what he described as 'the appropriate regions.' His announcement followed a volatile exchange with former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev. In a post on Truth Social, Trump wrote, 'Based on the highly provocative statements of the Former President of Russia, Dmitry Medvedev … I have ordered two Nuclear Submarines to be positioned in the appropriate regions, just in case these foolish and inflammatory statements are more than just that.' STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD He added, 'Words are very important, and can often lead to unintended consequences, I hope this will not be one of those instances.' Later in the day, Trump doubled down on his decision during an interaction with reporters, stating, 'A threat was made by a former president of Russia, and we're going to protect our people.' In an interview with Newsmax, he offered further reasoning, saying, 'We always want to be ready, and so I have sent to the region two nuclear submarines. I just want to make sure that his words are only words and nothing more than that.' The Pentagon and the US Navy, however, remained silent on the development, highlighting how rare it is for a sitting US president to publicly disclose or even allude to the positioning of nuclear-capable submarines, an issue typically kept behind numerous classified protocols. Why Medvedev's remarks triggered Trump The chain of events began days earlier, when Trump issued a blunt ultimatum to Moscow: agree to a ceasefire in Ukraine within ten days or face sweeping tariffs. The warning was the latest in Trump's already hardening stance on the conflict, which has dragged on for more than three years since Russia's invasion in 2022. Medvedev, now deputy chairman of Russia's Security Council, responded with a post that bristled with mockery and menace. He wrote that Trump's series of ultimatums represented 'a threat and a step towards war. Not between Russia and Ukraine, but with his own country. Don't go down the Sleepy Joe road!' Dmitry Medvedev is a former President as well as Prime Minister of Russia. File Image/Reuters The post referenced 'Sleepy Joe,' a nickname Trump has long used to deride his predecessor Joe Biden. By comparing Trump's ultimatum to Biden's policies and warning of potential war, Medvedev appeared to deliberately provoke a reaction. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD In another statement, he made reference to Russia's Cold War-era automatic nuclear retaliation capabilities — a statement that escalated the online confrontation and set off alarms in Washington. Trump, who has increasingly voiced anger toward Russia in recent months, snapped back and told Medvedev to 'watch his words,' accusing Moscow of carrying out 'disgusting' attacks on Ukraine and warning of additional sanctions. In one message, he wrote: 'This is Biden's War, not 'TRUMP's.' I'm just here to see if I can stop it!' Though Medvedev is widely seen as a political figurehead with little direct control over Russia's nuclear arsenal, his language has often been combative and is viewed by many Western officials as reflecting the Kremlin's ideological posture. Some US officials quietly downplayed the seriousness of Medvedev's comments, saying they were not treated as an imminent nuclear threat. But for Trump, the exchange became personal — and public. What submarines did Trump mean One of the biggest questions following Trump's announcement was: what exactly did he mean by 'nuclear submarines'? The United States operates 71 nuclear-powered submarines, which fall into two broad categories: fast-attack submarines and ballistic missile submarines. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The latter — the Ohio-class fleet — forms one of the three pillars of America's nuclear 'triad,' alongside land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) and strategic bombers. The US has 14 Ohio-class submarines, each able to carry up to 24 Trident II D5 ballistic missiles. These missiles are capable of delivering multiple thermonuclear warheads to targets up to 4,600 miles (7,400 km) away. At any given moment, between 8 and 10 of these subs are on patrol in undisclosed locations across the globe, maintaining a constant state of readiness. Experts note that such submarines do not need to be 'moved into position' to strike potential targets, because their range covers vast swaths of the planet. Hans Kristensen of the Federation of American Scientists highlighted this point, saying: 'The subs are always there all the time and don't need to be moved into position. He grants Medvedev a response to these crazy statements.' It remains unclear whether Trump was referring to these nuclear-armed Ohio-class subs or to other nuclear-powered attack submarines, which are not armed with nuclear weapons but can carry conventional missiles and conduct surveillance, intelligence, and anti-ship operations. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Meanwhile, Russia boasts around 64 vessels in its submarine fleet of which more than half of them are reportedly nuclear-powered. This includes 11 nuclear-powered cruise missile submarines, 14 nuclear-powered attack submarines, and 16 ballistic missile submarines, according to the Nuclear Threat Initiative. Why this is unusual by a US president While the US military regularly shifts its submarine deployments, it almost never advertises those movements. In fact, the operational secrecy of ballistic missile submarines is a foundational element of US nuclear deterrence strategy — their undetected presence is meant to assure adversaries that any nuclear strike on the United States would be met with devastating retaliation. That is what made Trump's announcement so unusual. By publicly declaring the submarine repositioning, he effectively turned a normally silent act of military deterrence into a loud political signal. Analysts say this appears to be part of Trump's well-known style of performative strength — responding visibly when provoked. Security expert explained the move by saying that the submarines were likely already where they need to be, but announcing their movement amplifies the signal to Moscow. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Trump's decision to go public also fits a broader pattern. In December 2016, weeks before his first inauguration, Trump had posted on Twitter that the US 'must greatly strengthen and expand its nuclear capability.' That statement triggered fears of a potential arms race, even though the number of US nuclear warheads has largely remained stable in recent decades, shrinking from Cold War highs through arms control agreements. Why Trump publicly mentioned the nuclear submarines Trump's relationship with Russia and its leadership has long been a matter of intense debate. In his first term, he frequently boasted about his rapport with President Vladimir Putin, portraying himself as a dealmaker who could manage the bilateral relationship better than his predecessors. But his recent language suggests a turn toward frustration and confrontation. In recent weeks, Trump has blasted Russia's military actions in Ukraine, describing them as 'disgusting' and accusing Putin of talking 'bullshit.' He has also threatened secondary sanctions on countries purchasing Russian energy — explicitly mentioning India — and warned that buyers of Russian oil could face economic penalties. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD At the same time, he has pursued aggressive tariff policies, declaring, 'They can take their dead economies down together.' Although Medvedev was the immediate target of his submarine remarks, many observers believe the real message was aimed at Putin. Trump has become more critical of the Kremlin while still appearing to believe he retains a personal channel with the Russian president. Experts weigh in: signalling, not immediate conflict Despite the fiery language and the alarming subject matter — nuclear weapons — most security analysts say Trump's announcement is not evidence of imminent military escalation. Evelyn Farkas, executive director of the McCain Institute and a former senior Pentagon official, argued that this move was mostly about messaging rather than preparing for a nuclear clash. 'It's really signalling. It's not the beginning of some nuclear confrontation and nobody reads it as such. And I would imagine the Russians don't either,' she told Reuters. At the same time, there are concerns about the potential consequences of such rhetoric. Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association, condemned the tone of the exchange, stating: 'This is irresponsible and inadvisable. No leader or deputy leader should be threatening nuclear war, let alone in a juvenile manner on social media.' STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Other analysts warn that Trump could be stepping into what they call a 'commitment trap,' in which strong words create an expectation that he will follow through with increasingly forceful actions if tensions escalate further. What next for Trump, Ukraine and Putin Trump's submarine declaration did not happen in isolation. It is part of a broader strategy — or at least a series of moves — to pressure Moscow into ending the war in Ukraine. On July 29, Trump had given Russia a ten-day deadline to agree to a ceasefire or face punishing tariffs. The deadline expires on August 8, and Moscow has shown no signs of complying. Putin has instead reiterated that the 'momentum of the war' favours Russia, while saying he remains open to 'peace talks,' a statement that has not been accompanied by any real concessions. Supporters may see this as a show of decisiveness and resolve, especially toward a Russia that has frequently used its own nuclear rhetoric to intimidate. Critics, however, argue that publicising such decisions undermines the quiet deterrence posture that the US has cultivated for decades — and raises unnecessary fears of a nuclear standoff. Also Watch: With inputs from agencies
