Ron Insana: Trump would imperil more than just the Fed's independence by naming a ‘shadow chair'

CNBC

5 hours ago

The saying, "No, no, a thousand times no" remains a relevant cry as a news report suggests President Donald Trump may preemptively name a new Federal Reserve chairman nearly a year before Jerome Powell 's term expires. The Wall Street Journal reported on Wednesday that the president has already narrowed his choices down to several candidates to replace Powell, who he has referred to as a " dummy " or " stupid " for not having already cut interest rates as the president wants him to do. Naming a new Fed chief this early, effectively creating a so-called "shadow" chair who can criticize the existing central bank leader, would have long-lasting consequences for the prized independence of the Fed. Packing the Fed, just as several presidents have tried to pack the Supreme Court, reduces the central bank to just another politicized arm of the executive branch. By statute, this was never intended to occur. The Fed's dual mandates and its impartiality If a president were to pressure the Fed to bend to their will, it would lead to legitimate questions about the central bank's ability to meet its statutory dual mandates of maximum sustainable employment and stable prices. Since the end of the era of Richard Nixon– a president who, in secret, tried to pressure then-Fed chief Arthur Burns to soften up on policy ahead of the 1972 election – his successors have all supported an independent Fed so that the central bank can keep the economy on an even keel. No doubt, all presidents – and most people – would love to see lower rates bring down the cost of borrowing, but at what price? Is the president willing to tolerate resurgent inflation? Are the American people, who elected President Trump to bring down prices, willing to risk the Fed's independence only to end up in the place where they started in 2024 – when they were upset and unsettled by the high cost of living? Time will tell. The erosion of trust in Treasurys and the U.S. dollar More important is whether a politicized central bank that cuts rates irrespective of economic conditions will be trusted by domestic and foreign bond market investors to maintain the safety and security of U.S. Treasury bonds, as well as the purchasing power and reserve currency status of the U.S. dollar. The answer is a resounding no, as the dollar is broadly weaker against foreign currencies, reflecting a clear protest to the Fed challenge being presented by the president. Several names have been floated as a possible early replacement for Powell. They include Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent – who raised the idea of a shadow Fed chair last year – National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett and former Fed Governor Kevin Warsh. The Journal also suggested that former World Bank President David Malpass could be in the running. While I'll leave my out my opinions about their respective qualifications, the issue is not about who will be the new leader of the Fed. This is about the process and the policy of subverting a sitting Fed chair – and that's what bothers me most. This should bother all Americans who value the absolute and relative stability of the U.S. economy, when compared to the rest of the world. We know that whether in Turkey, Venezuela or any other nation that has a dependent central bank, the results are always less than optimal. Currency debasement, inflation and unpredictable economic cycles dominate those countries while nations with independent central banks, be they New Zealand or the U.S., enjoy relative stability and prosperity. While I have long maintained that the U.S. economy is the envy of the world, my feelings would abruptly change if the Fed were to become a politicized tool influenced by executive expediency rather than economic necessity. If the day comes that a preemptive nominee emerges from the shadows, I would run for cover. The safety and soundness of the dollar and U.S. bonds would be suspect with a very long shadow cast over the nation's creditworthiness. Again, I say, "No, no, a thousand times no." —Ron Insana is a CNBC contributor.