Trump Can and Should Fire Fed Boss Over Economy
Federal Reserve kingpin Jerome Powell is busy doing what he does best: sabotaging a prosperous economy so that President Donald Trump and his fellow Republicans lose popularity. Hes also ignoring Trump, whom voters will judge for the economys performance and whom the Constitution says runs the executive branch of which the Fed is a part.
This is old hat for Powell, who, after being installed by Trump in 2018, got straight to work undermining his bosss economic recovery.
You may recall that one of the circumstances that brought an unusual candidate like Trump to power in 2016 was the preceding decade of economic malaise. The Obama years averaged just 2.1% annual growth - the most lethargic economic recovery since World War II. It was fashionable among establishment economists to say that growth above this level, especially the 4.3% average annual growth of the Reagan boom, was simply unobtainable. Big-government economists - practically a redundant phrase today - called it "secular stagnation."
Enter Trump. Upon taking office, he immediately began deregulating the U.S. economy, particularly in the energy sector. He worked with Congress to lower the corporate tax rate from 35%, which was nearly the highest among advanced economies, to a more competitive 21%. He also cut personal income taxes for every income bracket, which meant lower taxes for the majority of small business owners who pull company income and taxes onto their personal tax returns.
Trump also incentivized corporations to bring home capital they held overseas. Apple alone said it would bring home a majority of its roughly $252 billion in offshore reserves, paying a one-time tax of $38 billion.
The results for the broader economy were impressive. Annualized GDP growth in the quarter Trump took office was 2.0%. By the end of the year, it had jumped to 4.6%. Unemployment dropped from 4.7% to 4.0%. Manufacturing jobs, which totaled nearly 17 million when NAFTA was enacted in 1994 and globalization ensued, had fallen to 12.3 million when Trump took office. Within a year, the sector saw modest improvement to 12.5 million jobs. Oil production increased from 8.9 million to 10 million barrels per day during that year. (It would reach 13 million later in Trumps first term.)
But Powell was having none of it. Like most of his predecessors and colleagues at the Federal Reserve, Powell adheres to the discredited Keynesian school of economics, which holds that the government should play a preponderant role in the economy, managing demand through government spending. Keynesians distrust free markets, free people, and the supply side of the economy that produces tangible goods. They believe economic growth leads inevitably to inflation, despite repeated economic expansions, including most notably Reagans, in which the expansion of the private-sector economy leads to more goods and services produced and stable prices.
In 2018, Powell saw looming inflation where there was none and tightened monetary policy for the first time since 2008. When Trump was elected in 2016, the federal funds effective rate stood at 0.41%. Despite no inflation, the Fed began a relentless cycle of rate increases that reached 2.2% in time for the 2018 midterm elections, when Republicans lost control of the House of Representatives to Democrats, leading eventually to Trumps impeachment.
Beyond being a Keynesian, Powell is also a fool. Trumps first term isnt the only time he saw inflation where there was none, or failed to see inflation when it was obvious. During the Biden administration, long after the pandemic had peaked, Powell enabled continued federal spending at crisis levels despite the lack of a crisis. Bidens Treasury Department issued bonds to pay for unprecedented deficits in excess of $1.5 trillion. This only worked because Powell had the Fed buy the bonds with dollars created out of thin air. He also tried to goose the Biden economy by buying mortgages from banks immediately after they were issued. The Feds balance sheet of debt it owned grew from $7.4 trillion when Biden took office to a peak of $10 trillion just over a year later. Powell also kept interest rates near zero even as inflation caused by his dilution of the dollar skyrocketed.
Inflation peaked at over 9% in 2022, and the cumulative inflation of the Biden years and Powells debasement of the currency eliminated more than 20% of Americans purchasing power. Powell and his establishment friends had assured Americans that inflation was "transient" when it wasnt.
Powell was eventually forced to acknowledge inflation and reluctantly began hiking interest rates to above 5%. He then started lowering them just before the 2024 election in an effort to help Democrats keep the White House. But the easing stopped when Trump took office. Even as central banks in Europe have cut rates due to the lack of inflation, Powell and his clique at the Fed have refused to do so, keeping them at sustained heights not seen in 20 years.
Trump has repeatedly pressured Powell to lower rates. He did so again on June 6 when the government reported that job growth had moderated and revised downward the job growth reported in previous months.
If a Republican president pressuring Powell could work, it would have worked by now. Instead, Trump will have to fire Powell and replace him with a pro-private-sector-growth banker who takes guidance from the president.
Powell and many establishment pooh-bahs think such a move would be illegal. After Trumps reelection, Powell vowednot to resign and said his termination is "not permitted under the law." In fact, the Federal Reserve Act does allow Powells removal "for cause," and grotesque incompetence and political conniving ought both to qualify.
But in fact, the whole idea of an "independent" Federal Reserve is unconstitutional, and Trump should fire Powell not only to save the economic recovery but to restore the power of the presidency and recognize the reality that the American people hold the president responsible for economic performance. If he is on the hook to perform, he must control the tools to do so.
Article II of the Constitution states plainly, "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America." In the Federalist Papers #70, Alexander Hamilton explained the necessity of the strong executive created by the then-draft Constitution to skeptics: "A feeble Executive implies a feeble execution of the government. A feeble execution is but another phrase for a bad execution; and a government ill executed, whatever it may be in theory, must be, in practice, a bad government." Its as though Hamilton could foresee Powell and the Fed of 2025.
There should be no doubt that the Framers of the Constitution intended the president to have the power to fire anyone as part of his responsibility to supervise the unitary executive branch. What was true in 1789 is still true today: any schmuck in Washington knows no bureaucrat will pay you much attention unless you might plausibly take away his job or budget.
Creating a person beyond the reach of the president in the executive branch would be like creating an unelected politburo in Congress to handle certain issues, or a special court completely independent from the Supreme Court to handle certain legal cases. Voters would see such actions as obviously unconstitutional attempts to weaken those pillars of democracy. So too is a theoretically independent Fed - an essentially fascist construct that purports to put monetary policy beyond the reach of the president, weakening the office held by the only man who represents all of the American people.
In recent years, the Supreme Court has consistently held that the president has the right to fire executive branch officials. It did so again last month in allowing Trump to dismiss members of supposedly independent federal agencies.
There was, however, a glitch. The unsigned order stated that: "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." This red herring in the courts order implied its recognition of the presidents power to fire might not extend to the Fed.
In reality, there is nothing "quasi-private" about an organization that sets interest rates and decides how many dollars to print. Furthermore, the court should take note of another "distinct historical tradition" that began in Franklin Roosevelts administration of pondering packing the court with new justices when its rulings are at odds with the wishes of administrations and Congresses. Its better to stick with what the Constitution means and says lest a flexible view of the Framers intent turn around and bite the court or Congress in their asses.
Furthermore, make-believe about an independent Federal Reserve was more believable when Fed chairmen took cues from presidents regardless of their political party. More recently, Fed bosses have joined the rest of the Deep State in seeking to help Democrats and harm Republicans. Firing Powell and dispensing with the fiction of his unfireability will be good for the economy, good for the presidency, and good for democracy.
Christian Whiton was a senior advisor at the State Department in the second Bush and first Trump administrations and served as an adviser to the secretary of state and other senior officials about public affairs and East Asia matters. He is a senior fellow at the Center for the National Interest and a principal at Rockies Aria LLC, a public affairs and government relations firm.
Hashtags

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


Forbes
15 minutes ago
- Forbes
High-Yield Savings Account Rates Today: June 11, 2025
Rates on savings accounts are the same compared to one week ago. You can now earn up to 5.84% on your savings. Searching for an account where you can save for a rainy day or retirement? Here's a look at some of the best savings rates you can find today. Related: Find the Best High-Yield Savings Accounts Of 2025 Traditional savings accounts, called "statement savings accounts" in the banking world, have been notorious for paying paltry interest in past years, especially after the Great Recession. That's changed more recently, and you can find rates 10-times higher than those offered by traditional financial institutions if you opt for an online bank or a credit union. The highest yield on a standard savings account with a $2,500 minimum deposit amount within the last week has been 5.84%, according to data from Curinos. If you spot a basic savings account with a comparable rate, you've done well for yourself. Today's average APY for a traditional savings account is 0.22%, Curinos says. APY, or annual percentage yield, reflects the actual return your account will earn in a year. It includes compound interest, which is interest that builds on the interest already in your account. High-yield savings accounts generally pay considerably more interest than conventional savings accounts. But the thing to know is you may have to jump through some hoops to earn that higher rate, such as becoming a member of a credit union or putting down a large deposit. On high-yield accounts requiring a minimum deposit of $10,000, today's best interest rate is 4.88%. That's about the same as last week. The average APY for those accounts is now 0.23% APY, unchanged from a week ago. On high-yield savings accounts with a minimum opening deposit of $25,000, the highest rate available today is 3.94%. You'll be in good shape if you can find an account offering a rate close to that. The current average is 0.24% APY for a high-yield account with a $25,000 minimum deposit. Interest rates on savings accounts typically fluctuate in response to other rate changes throughout the economy. Savings rates are primarily influenced by the Federal Reserve's rate moves, and the central bank has finally begun reducing its benchmark federal funds rate as inflation has fallen closer to the Fed's 2% goal. Financial institutions usually adjust borrowing and savings rates soon after the Fed changes rates. The Fed votes to adjust rates eight times per year during meetings of the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC). Curinos determines the average rates for savings accounts by focusing on those intended for personal use. Certain types of savings accounts—such as relationship-based accounts and accounts designed for youths, seniors and students—are not considered in the calculation. The best high-yield savings account pays 5.84% now, according to Curinos data, so you'll want to aim for an account that delivers a yield in that ballpark. But rates aren't everything. You want an account that charges few fees, offers great customer service and has a track record of being a stable institution. Savings yields are variable and can change depending on economic conditions or a bank's particular financial need. Usually rates are influenced by the federal funds rate, meaning that a bank tends to raise or lower its rates along with the Fed. Online banks and credit unions tend to offer the best yields because they can pass along savings from low overhead while also striving to attract new customers.


UPI
17 minutes ago
- UPI
Posse comitatus, or America beware
Protestors face off with Los Angeles County Sheriff deputies during a protest against ICE and immigration raids in Paramount, Calif., earlier this week. President Donald Trump's federalizing of the California National Guard and the ordering of a battalion from the 7th Marine Regiment at Twentynine Palms to Los Angeles against the explicit refusal of Gov. Gavin Newsom to accept assistance brings a term into focus: posse comitatus. Photo by Jim Ruymen/UPI | License Photo June 10 (UPI) -- For good or ill reasons, few Americans are aware of the Latin phrase posse comitatus and what it means. President Donald Trump's federalizing the California National Guard and ordering a battalion from the 7th Marine Regiment at Twentynine Palms to Los Angeles against the explicit refusal of Gov. Gavin Newsom to accept assistance brings the term into focus. It means organizing a group to confront lawlessness. In 1878, responding to the abuses of the Union Army in law enforcement after the Civil War and Reconstruction, the Posse Comitatus Act was signed by President Rutherford Hayes. In part, that law read: "From and after the passage of this act it shall not be lawful to employ any part of the Army of the United States, as a posse comitatus, or otherwise, for the purpose of executing the laws, except in such cases and under such circumstances as such employment of said force need the expressly authorized by the Constitution or by act of Congress." The law was amended in the Patriot Act to expand the use of the military but not regarding law-enforcement roles. That requires the president to invoke the Insurrection Act of 1807 that, in part, grants the president the authority to deploy the U.S. military and federalize the National Guard to suppress insurrections, rebellions or civil disorder within the United States. The last time the Insurrection Act was used to authorize the use of federal troops was in 1992 when President George H. W. Bush responded to the riots in Los Angeles after the Rodney King verdict was delivered acquiting the four LA police officers of murder. The recent LA riots broke out over Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials arresting and detaining people accused of illegally entering the United States. A great majority of Americans -- 80-90% -- agree on deporting undocumented migrants with criminal records and who are dangers to the community. An equal number of Americans oppose deporting those people here illegally who are now part of the community and -- rather than being threats -- contribute to society. But the politics of immigration and the profound disagreements between the two political parties, not the riots, is the issue. In that regard, both Trump and Newsom are responding accordingly to their bases. However, make no mistake: The Trump-Newsom dispute, including a lawsuit filed against the government for federalizing the National Guard, is a symptom and sign of the dreadful state of American politics. Trump may have been very clever playing to his base that favors "peace through strength" abroad and at home. Both the Guard and Marines have been assigned to protect federal buildings, installations and employees not, repeat not, to conduct law-enforcement tasks. Yet, that has not been widely advertised to allow most Americans to believe that the military will have a wider use. And Trump has not authorized the Insurrection Act to that end. Newsom and Trump are using this crisis to make opposite points when the reality is different. Had this been a Republican-controlled state, whether Trump would have reacted or not is debatable. However, it is entirely reasonable that any president would be committed to protecting federal assets. Had Trump made this argument clear from the beginning, Newsom's response might have been different. But that would have defused the crisis, ironically, in neither of their interests. Tragically, politics demand exploiting these riots for clearly political and not security or public safety reasons. Trump was arguing that the law was on his side in deporting undesirable undocumented migrants. Newsom was asserting that the governor should be consulted first; that federal forces were not needed; and the president was using this to advance his agenda. As Inspector Renault in the movie Casablanca famously remarked, "Gambling at Rick's. I'm shocked!" In these circumstances when rationality and common sense are missing in action, immigration poses an impossible dilemma: what to do with millions who have integrated into U.S. society yet have broken the law in entering the United States illegally? A tragedy can be seen as a clash to two justified views. These people broke the law. That cannot be ignored. Yet the vast majority of these individuals are now part of the U.S. polity. The future is self-evident. This dilemma will only worsen as will virtually all political issues on which the nation is divided. In these incendiary conditions, if the Insurrection Act were wrongly invoked, the effect will likely provoke the rebellion it is meant to prevent. So beware America. Harlan Ullman is UPI's Arnaud de Borchgrave Distinguished Columnist; senior adviser at Washington's Atlantic Council, chairman of a private company, and principal author of the doctrine of shock and awe. His next book, co-written with General The Lord David Richards, former U.K. chief of defense and due out next year, is Who Thinks Wins: Preventing Strategic Catastrophe. The writer can be reached on X @harlankullman.


CNN
17 minutes ago
- CNN
Newsom and California confront Trump with a potential blueprint for Democrats
Democratic politicians have spent the last few months talking about standing up to President Donald Trump in his second term. California Gov. Gavin Newsom is among the first faced with figuring out what standing up actually looks like. Allies and opponents agree how Newsom handles the protests – including Trump's calling in the National Guard and sending in active-duty Marines over the governor's objections – will reverberate far beyond California, and long after this week. That's how Newsom is approaching what has become a fight on the streets and in the courts, only a few days after he was responding to a Trump administration effort to identify federal grants going to the state that can be canceled. Other Democratic governors have been calling Newsom, checking in, ticking through scenarios in their minds of how what's happened in California could play out at home for them, according to multiple people briefed on the conversations. Every Democratic governor signed onto a statement over the weekend calling Trump's call-up of the National Guard an 'alarming abuse of power,' but they have been treading carefully since then, their eyes on both the politics of potentially triggering Trump and on the legal concerns of how their words might be used in lawsuits they might have to bring. Newsom, people familiar with his thinking say, wants California to hold the line after some universities and law firms facing White House pressure reached concession deals with the administration. 'What Donald Trump wants most is your fealty. Your silence. To be complicit in this moment,' Newsom said in remarks released Tuesday evening. 'Do not give into him.' 'If some of us can be snatched off the streets without a warrant – based only on suspicion or skin color – then none of us are safe. Authoritarian regimes begin by targeting people who are least able to defend themselves. But they do not stop there,' Newsom said, reiterating accusations that Trump officials instigated and inflamed what started as peaceful protests, though there have been skirmishes and occasional violence that Newsom and others have condemned. 'This is about all of us. This is about you,' he said. 'California may be first – but it clearly won't end here. Other states are next. Democracy is next.' Prev Next As obvious as Newsom's presidential ambitions are, several top Democrats say this is much more America over the next few months than any talk of the 2028 presidential primary. Connecticut Sen. Chris Murphy, another potential 2028 candidate, has become one of the most outspoken Democrats calling attention to what he says is Trump's direct threat to democracy in his second term. Trump 'is clearly trying to scare his opposition into silence, and that is definitely one of the ways that democracies die: when people fear that they are going to face physical harm if they turn out for protests, it often causes people to stay home. That is a tried and true path for democracies to be converted into autocracies. Elections still happen, but the opposition can never amount to any kind of numbers because people fear they'll get the shit kicked out of them if they show up,' Murphy told CNN. New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker, who acknowledged his record-breaking 25-hour Senate speech came during a different phase both for Trump and for Democrats' response, saw the faceoff the same way. 'With this president's clear authoritarian bent, lack of respect for separation of powers and violations of the law, we're in dangerous territory with still three-plus years to go. That's what California has me concerned about,' Booker said. For months, Newsom angered many Democrats by inviting Trump-friendly figures onto his podcast or taking shots at his own party for going too far on the issue of transgender athletes playing in women's sports. He tried to connect with Trump in an effort to get more federal money to rebuild after the devastation of the Los Angeles wildfires at the beginning of the year and suggested he'd work with Trump on tariffs aimed at bucking up the film industry that has been fleeing California, even as other leading Democrats called for more intense pushback, like when Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker said in a fiery speech in New Hampshire in April that, 'never before in my life have I called for mass protests, for mobilization, for disruption. But I am now.' But the events of the last few days have rekindled the long-simmering rivalry between Trump and Newsom. Newsom dared the Trump administration in one television interview to arrest him rather than targeting immigrant children. Trump then suggested in response to a reporter's question that Newsom should be arrested. The only rationale Trump has offered for making the threat of arresting a sitting governor is because 'his primary crime is running for governor, because he's done such a bad job.' 'I like the fact that when one of Trump's henchmen threatened Newsom with arrest, he said, 'Well, come and get me, here I am.' We're not going to be afraid of Donald Trump because we have the rule of law on our side. We're standing up for the Constitution. The states are not the pawns of the federal government. The states have an independent constitutional and political existence,' said Maryland Rep. Jamie Raskin, who taught constitutional law before being elected to the House. 'Other governors should stand up for the rule of law and stand up for the rights of their people.' With some looters also taking to the streets while Trump and his deputy chief of staff refer to an 'insurrection,' the situation hasn't gone over well with every Democrat, including those who worry about playing into Trump's hands on a signature issue. Pennsylvania Sen. John Fetterman is among members of the party who have called for a more forceful condemnation of violent protesters. Newsom himself has said that those engaged in violence or attacking police officers would be prosecuted and noted that law enforcement is already reviewing videos of the events to track down more perpetrators. Even before Trump already threatened 'very heavy force' if any protesters disrupt the massive military parade he is hosting this Saturday in Washington on his 79th birthday, leaders in other centers of immigrants were expressing concern about what happens if federal agents target their communities. 'I would hope that New Yorkers will speak up and do whatever they believe is their constitutional right in a non-violent way, and if Trump tried to tamp it up, I think the people would see it for what it is,' said New York Rep. Greg Meeks. 'I would say to New Yorkers and others, 'We know what he's trying to do.'' A few Republicans have joined Democrats in expressing concern, including swing district California GOP Rep. David Valadao, who tweeted Tuesday that he is 'concerned about ongoing ICE operations through CA.' But for now, most Republican leaders have either been expressing support for Trump or staying quiet about the situation. House Speaker Mike Johnson said he couldn't speak to the legal argument about arresting Newsom, but 'he ought to be tarred and feathered.' While some Democratic strategists, including some who have kicked in with advice to Newsom in recent days, have urged a more defensive position that echoes Trump's hardline approach to immigration so that they don't give the president a fight he clearly wants, others are glad to see Newsom taking a more forceful lead on his own terms. 'Democrats need to recognize that voters are appalled by Trump's overreach on immigration – not just Democratic voters, but independent voters, libertarian leaning voters don't believe in arresting random peaceful people and separating families,' said Texas Rep. Greg Casar, the chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. 'So we shouldn't be scared of going toe-to-toe with Trump on his overreach and abuse of people's rights.'