The real reason Trump wants to fire the Fed chair
President Donald Trump has said the quiet part out loud. His threats to terminate Federal Reserve Chair Jerome H. Powell if Powell doesn't cut interest rates are motivated by one simple desire: to make it cheaper for the administration to add about $4 trillion to the federal debt.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Buzz Feed
a few seconds ago
- Buzz Feed
This Hilarious Video Of Trump Being Drowned Out By Bagpipes Is Going Viral
Welcome back to another post about Donald Trump in Scotland. On Monday, Trump met with British Prime Minister Keir Starmer at one of his golf courses. As they say, the comment section did not disappoint. "How disrespectiful, talking while they're playing bagpipes.." one person said. "This is so wrong...i can still hear his voice we could've played the bagpipes louder than that," another person "joked." And this person asked: "Wait someone turn the bagpipes up i can still hear him." Another top comment asked, "Can we make it more like a permanent thing and not geographically bounded just to Scotland?" Then there was this realization: "This looks like it came straight out of an office episode." We have this American asking: "Do we have bagpipes in the USA asking for a friend." And another person wondering, "Why is trump speaking in bagpipes." Honestly, the whole comment section turned into a bagpipe appreciation zone. "Never been happier to hear bagpipes." This person summed it up perfectly: "This is the most Scottish thing I've ever seen. I love it, hear those beautiful bagpipes." I guess we'll see what happens on Trump's big trip next!
Fast Company
a few seconds ago
- Fast Company
Trump's deportations could boost demand for foreign farmworkers
The U.S. has an important choice to make regarding agriculture. It can import more people to pick crops and do other kinds of agricultural labor, it can raise wages enough to lure more U.S. citizens and immigrants with legal status to take these jobs, or it can import more food. All three options contradict key Trump administration priorities: reducing immigration, keeping prices low and importing fewer goods and services. The big tax-and-spending bill President Donald Trump signed into law on July 4, 2025, included US$170 billion to fund the detention and deportation of those living in the U.S. without authorization. And about 1 million of them work in agriculture, accounting for more than 40% of all farmworkers. As the detention and deportation of undocumented immigrants ramps up, one emerging solution is to replace at least some deported farmworkers with foreigners who are given special visas that allow them to help with the harvest but require them to go home after their visas expire. Such 'guest worker' programs have existed for decades, leading to today's H-2A visa program. As of 2023, more than 310,000 foreigners, around 13% of the nation's 2.4 million farmworkers, were employed through this program. About 90% of the foreign workers with these visas come from Mexico, and nearly all are men. The states where the largest numbers of them go are California, Florida, Georgia and Washington. As a professor of Latin American politics and U.S.-Latin American relations, I teach my students to consider the difficult trade-offs that governments face. If the Trump administration removes a significant share of the immigrants living in the U.S. without legal permission from the agricultural labor force to try to meet its deportation goals, farm owners will have few options. Few options available First, farm owners could raise wages and improve working conditions enough to attract U.S. citizens and immigrants who are legal permanent residents or otherwise in the U.S. with legal status. But many agricultural employers say they can't find enough people to hire who can legally work – at least without higher wages and much-improved job requirements. Without any undocumented immigrant farmworkers, the prices of U.S.-sourced crops and other agricultural products would spike, creating an incentive for more food to be imported. Second, farm owners could employ fewer people. That would require either growing different crops that require less labor or becoming more reliant on machinery to plant and harvest. But that would mean the U.S. could have to import more food. And automation for some crops is very expensive. For others, such as for berries, it's currently impossible. It's also possible that some farm owners could put their land to other uses, ceasing production, but that would also necessitate more imported food. Trump administration's suggested fixes U.S. Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins has predicted that farm owners will soon find plenty of U.S. citizens to employ. She declared on July 8 that the new Medicaid work requirements included in the same legislative package as the immigration enforcement funds would encourage huge numbers of U.S. citizens to start working in the fields instead of losing their health insurance through that government program. For one thing, most adults enrolled in the Medicaid program who can work already do. Many others are unable to do so due to disabilities or caregiving obligations. Few people enrolled in Medicaid live close enough to a farm to work at one, and even those who do aren't capable of doing farmwork. When farm owners tried putting people enrolled in a welfare program to work in the fields in the 1990s, it failed. Another experiment in the 1960s, which deployed teenagers, didn't pan out either because the teens found the work too hard. It seems more likely that farm owners will try to hire many more foreign farmworkers to do temporary but legal jobs through the H-2A program. Although he has not made it an official policy, Trump seems to be moving toward this same conclusion. In June, for example, Trump said his administration was working on ' some kind of a temporary pass ' for immigrants lacking authorization to be in the U.S. who are working on farms and in hotels. Established in 1952, numbers now rising quickly The guest worker system, established in 1952 and revised significantly in 1986, has become a mainstay of U.S. agriculture because it offers important benefits to both the farm owners who need workers and the foreign workers they hire. There is no cap on the number of potential workers. The number of H-2A visas issued is based only on how many employers request them. Farm owners may apply for visas after verifying that they are unable to locate enough workers who are U.S. citizens or present in the U.S. with authorization. To protect U.S. workers, the government mandates that H-2A workers earn an ' adverse effect wage rate.' The Labor Department sets that hourly wage, which ranges from $10.36 in Puerto Rico to about $15 in several southern states, to more than $20 in California, Alaska and Hawaii. These wages are set at relatively high levels to avoid putting downward pressure on what other U.S. workers are paid for the same jobs. After certification, farm owners recruit workers in a foreign country who are offered a contract that includes transportation from their home country and a trip back – assuming they complete the contract. The program provides farm owners with a short-term labor force. It guarantees the foreign workers who obtain H-2A visas relatively high wages, as well as housing in the U.S. That combination has proven increasingly popular in recent years: The annual number of H-2A visas rose to 310,700 in 2023, a more than fivefold increase since 2010. Possible downsides Boosting the number of agricultural guest workers would help fill some gaps in the agricultural labor force and reduce the risk of crops going unharvested. But it seems clear to me that a sudden change would pose risks for workers and farm owners alike. Workers would be at risk because oversight of the H-2A program has historically been weak. Despite that lax track record, some unscrupulous farmers have been fined or barred from participating in the H-2A program because of unpaid wages and other abuses. Relying even more on guest farmworkers than the U.S. does today would also swap workers who have built lives and families north of the border with people who are in the U.S. on a temporary basis. Immigration opponents are unlikely to object to this trade-off, but to immigrant rights groups, this arrangement would be cruel and unfair to workers with years of service behind them. What's more, the workers with guest visas can be at risk of exploitation and abuse. In 2022, the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Georgia described conditions for H-2A workers at an onion farm the government had investigated as ' modern-day slavery.' For farm owners, the downside of ramping up guest worker programs is that it could increase costs and make production less efficient and more costly. That's because transporting Mexican farmworkers back and forth each year is complicated and expensive. Farm groups say that compliance with H-2A visa requirements is cumbersome. It can be particularly difficult for small farms to participate in this program. Some farm owners have objected to the costs of employing H-2A workers. Rollins has said that the Trump administration believes that the mandatory wages are too high. To be sure, these problems aren't limited to agriculture. Hotels, restaurants and other hospitality businesses, which rely heavily on undocumented workers, can also temporarily employ some foreigners through the H-2B visa program – which is smaller than the H-2A program, limits the number of visas issued and is available only for jobs considered seasonal. Home health care providers and many other kinds of employers who rely on people who can't legally work for them could also struggle. But so far, there is no temporary visa program available to help them fill those gaps.
Forbes
a minute ago
- Forbes
'Trump Accounts' Are The Next Generation's First Steps Toward Financial Independence
WASHINGTON, DC - JULY 03: Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-LA) (C) is congratulated by his ... More fellow Republicans after signing the One Big Beautiful Bill Act during an enrollment ceremony in the Rayburn Room at the U.S. Capitol on July 03, 2025 in Washington, DC. The House passed the sweeping tax and spending bill after winning over fiscal hawks and moderate Republicans. The bill makes permanent President Donald Trump's 2017 tax cuts, increase spending on defense and immigration enforcement and temporarily cut taxes on tips, while at the same time cutting funding for Medicaid, food assistance for the poor, clean energy and raises the nation's debit limit by $5 trillion. (Photo by) On July 4th, Congress signed into law H.R.1 – more commonly known as 'One Big Beautiful Bill' – one of the most sweeping policy reforms from the White House in recent memory, and among the most controversial. A seismic shift in U.S. fiscal policy, the bill ushers in significant tax cuts and Medicaid cuts, as well as increases to funding for immigration enforcement and the debt ceiling. The coverage and debate over the legislation have obscured arguably one of its most impactful components – the introduction of savings accounts for all children born in the U.S. over the next four years. The administration is calling these accounts 'Trump Accounts.' Title aside, this initiative has the potential to fundamentally change how – and how many – Americans invest for their children's futures. As believers in the power of long-term investing, I have long been a proponent of baby investment accounts (see: How Newborns Can Invest Like Warren Buffett). Here are the basics: While financial and tax experts may quibble with some of the provisions relative to other types of savings, the bill offers several clear benefits. Universality Education savings accounts already existed before Trump Accounts. State-based 529 plans offer tax-free accounts, but there are no federal contributions. 'Baby bonds' have been proposed and discussed for years, usually with means-tests and invested in bonds. Each of these types of plans would support some children with an education savings account. In contrast, every baby gets a Trump Account. The newborn's family does not have to be financially savvy or 'in the know' to make this happen. While a lack of a means test can be debated, it made passage in Congress a simpler task and will make the administration of these accounts much simpler. Strength of Public Equities Another distinctive feature of Trump Accounts is that they will be invested in equities, not bonds or a mix of investments, allowing all children with them to participate in the growth of the equity market. To get a rough sense of the numbers, let's model the outcome if this program had been implemented 18 years ago. If a baby born in 2006 had invested a $1,000 government contribution at the end of that year (not great timing, right before the Global Financial Crisis), they would have had almost $6,000 by their 18th birthday in 2024. That is substantially higher than the $1,575 they would have had if they had invested in 10-year Treasuries. Contributions from families and employers Beyond the initial $1,000, the option to add an additional $5,000 each year through a combination of parents' contributions or via their employers could end up being the secret to this initiative's success. Recall the earlier example of a child born in 2006. If they had not only received their initial $1,000 but also an additional $5,000 contribution each year, they would have had $360,000 by the time they turned 18 (not adjusted for inflation or rising costs over that timeframe). That amount of money is transformational, providing an ability to get an education without loans, buy a home, or save for a comfortable retirement down the road. And a financially strong cohort – particularly in the wake of a generation of Americans that are saving less, buying fewer homes, and having fewer children – would make the economy stronger in turn. The obvious criticism – and a fair one – is that not every family can afford to contribute $5,000 on a yearly basis. But could their employers contribute $2,500? That amount would mean the 18-year-old had roughly $185,000 – a life-changing number. And why stop there? Friends and extended family could make contributions as birthday gifts. State or local governments could also contribute to some or all of their newborns like California does through CalKIDS. What about philanthropic organizations in targeted areas? Making contributions a common practice would make the accounts more likely to achieve their purpose. The contributions will make all the difference. It's also one of the key areas for marketing. If the perception around 529 plans is any indication, there is a lot of work to do in this regard – May 2025 study from Edward Jones found that 52% of Americans don't know about 529 plans, and 38% feel they are not saving enough for their educational goals. With all the communications firepower of the White House, they'd be well-served to be talking up this program a lot more. The success of Trump Accounts will ultimately depend on whether families actually embrace them. Without active participation and better information and awareness, these accounts risk becoming little more than a short-lived handout. And they only are slated to apply to babies born by 2028. It remains to be seen if this administration, or the ones to come, will follow through and make this program thrive. But for the sake of the future of the next generation of Americans, I hope they do.
