Can Donald Trump fire Jerome Powell, US Federal Reserve chair?
Trump said on July 16 he is 'not planning on doing anything' when asked if he would fire Powell. However, he also said he doesn't 'rule out anything' and mentioned a renovation project with ballooning costs.
'I think it's highly unlikely unless he has to leave for fraud,' Trump said. 'And it's possible there's fraud involved with the $2.5, $2.7 billion renovation. This is a renovation, how do you spend $2.7 billion? And he didn't have proper clearance.'
The Federal Reserve has been undergoing building renovations since 2021 on a project that the board that controls the Fed first approved in 2017. The project's cost of $2.5bn is about $600m above the original budget, according to The Associated Press.
The cost has increased because of design changes, increasing labour and material costs and 'unforeseen conditions', such as 'more asbestos than anticipated', the Fed said in an FAQ.
But Trump's administration seems to be using the renovation as a possible reason to oust Powell. Russ Vought, director of the Office of Management and Budget, sent Powell a July 10 letter saying the project is 'out of compliance with the approved plan' and 'in violation of' the National Capital Planning Act, which outlines how agencies can make changes to federal buildings.
Trump's feud with Powell isn't new. For months, the president has criticised Powell, whom he appointed to the role in 2017, for refusing to drop interest rates. The Fed raised interest rates in 2022 and 2023 during former President Joe Biden's administration as a response to inflation.
Since Trump entered the White House in January, he has told Powell to resign and threatened to fire him.
'If I want him out, he'll be out of there real fast, believe me,' Trump said in April. 'I'm not happy with him.'
In November, after the 2024 election, reporters asked Powell if he would step down or whether he thought Trump had the authority to fire him.
'Not permitted under the law,' Powell said.
Trump spoke to a group of Republican lawmakers on July 15 about firing the chair, several news organisations reported. Trump showed lawmakers a draft letter firing Powell, The New York Times reported.
Trump denied having written a letter.
'No, I talked about the concept of firing him. I said, 'What do you think?' Almost every one of them said I should,' Trump said. 'But I'm more conservative than they are.'
While Trump attributed his reticence to fire Powell to his 'conservatism', the bigger impediment is a question of legality. Here's why.
What is the role of the Federal Reserve; who appoints its chair?
The Federal Reserve is the country's central bank. Its responsibilities include setting interest rates and supervising and regulating banks. It was created in 1913 as part of the Federal Reserve Act and is run by an independent board of governors. The seven governors that make up the board are nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate. The president selects the chair and two vice chairs from among the seven, according to the Congressional Research Service.
While talking to reporters, Trump appeared to overlook that he was the person who nominated Powell to be the chair in 2017: 'I'm surprised he was appointed,' Trump said. 'I was surprised, frankly, that Biden put him in and extended him.'
In 2021, Biden nominated him for a second four-year term, which is set to end in May 2026. After that, Powell can remain on the board of governors until January 2028.
Can the president fire the Federal Reserve chair?
Unlike other government agencies, the Fed has a lot of independence from Congress and the White House, the Congressional Research Service said in a January report.
According to the report, economists have justified the independence, saying that decisions about monetary policy shouldn't be influenced by political pressures. To ensure Fed accountability, the chair testifies before Congress, much like other government agencies.
The Fed chair can be removed 'for cause by the President', according to the law. This refers to 'inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office', according to a Supreme Court decision about the Federal Trade Commission.
In May, the Supreme Court ruled on Trump's authority to fire members of two different independent agencies. In its 6-3 ruling, the Court granted the Trump administration's emergency request to fire the heads of the agencies while the case over the legality of firing them played out in the courts.
In its opinion, the Supreme Court addressed the Fed, saying its ruling didn't affect the agency.
'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,' the Supreme Court said.
Some legal experts question the legality of Trump firing Powell. Any move to oust him would likely end up in the courts.
Peter Conti-Brown, a professor of financial regulation at the University of Pennsylvania, said the Fed's building renovation costs aren't 'cause' for Powell's dismissal.
'There is no factual basis to support any conclusion that the cost overruns on the renovation project constitute anything like fraud or gross negligence,' Conti-Brown said. 'Had Powell committed fraud, in this context or any other, there could well be a case for his removal.'
Conti-Brown said that Trump has long talked about wanting Powell's removal. A court may consider Trump citing the renovation's budget as 'pretext' for his firing – a legal term used to describe a false reason an employer gives for firing an employee in order to cover the real reason, Conti-Brown said.
'Courts evaluating any attempted removal after the fact will assess both the animus and pretext very heavily against President Trump,' Conti-Brown said.
However, it is unclear how courts would react because 'this is uncharted legal territory', Jeremy Kress, a former Fed banking regulator who is a faculty director of the University of Michigan's Center on Finance, Law and Policy, told The New York Times.
Lev Menand, a legal scholar at Columbia University, agreed with Kress.
'In normal times, I would say Powell wins 10 times out of 10,' Menand told The New York Times. 'But these aren't normal times, because this court has shown that it is willing to look the other way when the president engages in illegal conduct and it is willing to construe the president's power under the Constitution as so broad as to allow the president to flout laws.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Al Jazeera
an hour ago
- Al Jazeera
Inmates, pregnant woman among 27 killed in Russia's attacks on Ukraine
At least 27 people, including 16 inmates and a pregnant woman, have been killed in Russian air attacks on mostly southeastern Ukraine, according to President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and regional officials. The attacks came overnight on Tuesday, a day after United States President Donald Trump set Russia a new deadline of '10 or 12 days' to reach a peace deal in its war on Ukraine or face tough new sanctions, shortening a 50-day deadline he had set earlier this month. Ivan Fedorov, head of the military administration in Zaporizhia, on Tuesday said Russia carried out eight overnight air attacks on his region alone, hitting a prison near the city of Zaporizhzhia. 'Russia bombed a penal colony near Zaporizhzhia overnight – 16 killed, 35 injured. Civilians continue to suffer. Another blatant war crime,' Fedorov said in English on X. Zelenskyy said a pregnant woman was among three people killed in a Russian missile attack on the city of Kamianske in the central region of Dnipropetrovsk, targeting a hospital. Yesterday, very important words were spoken by President Trump about how the Russian leadership is wasting the world's time by talking about peace while simultaneously killing people. We all want genuine peace – dignified and lasting: Ukraine, all of Europe, the United States,… — Volodymyr Zelenskyy / Володимир Зеленський (@ZelenskyyUa) July 29, 2025 Also in Dnipropetrovsk, a person was killed and several wounded in the Synelnykove district, according to Serhiy Lysak, head of the Dnipropetrovsk military administration. In a separate attack on the village of Velyka Mykhailivka in the Odesa region on Monday night, a '75-year-old woman was killed. A 68-year-old man was wounded. A private house was damaged,' Lysak said on Telegram. Russian forces also struck a grocery store in a village in the northeastern Kharkiv region, police was cited as saying by the AP news agency, killing five and wounding three civilians. Authorities in the southern Kherson region reported one civilian killed and three wounded over the past 24 hours, the AP report said. Reacting to the developments, Andriy Yermak, a senior aide to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, wrote on social media: 'Russian President [Vladimir] Putin's regime, which also issues threats against the United States through some of its mouthpieces, must face economic and military blows that strip it of the capacity to wage war.' Ukraine's Air Force said Russia had launched 37 drones and two missiles overnight, adding that its air defence systems had downed 32 of the drones. In Russia's southern Rostov region, multiple Ukrainian drone attacks killed one person, according to Russian authorities. Russia's Ministry of Defence, which reports only how many drones were destroyed, not how many Ukraine launched, said its defence units downed a total of 74 drones overnight, including 22 over the Rostov region. 'A car was damaged on Ostrovsky Street. Unfortunately, the driver who was in it died,' Yury Slyusar, acting governor of the Rostov region, said in a post on Telegram. He said the attack had targeted several places, including Salsk, Kamensk-Shakhtinsky, Volgodonsk, Bokovsky, Tarasovsky and Slyusar. Drone debris also fell on Salsk train station, damaging a freight train and passenger train, with passengers being evacuated, Slyusar added. Power was disrupted at the station, forcing the suspension of train traffic, Russia's Railways said on Telegram. No casualties were reported. There was no immediate comment from Ukraine, which has often said its attacks inside Russia are in response to Moscow's relentless strikes on Ukraine. Both sides deny targeting civilians in their attacks, but thousands of civilians have been killed in the conflict, the majority of them Ukrainian. Kyiv has been trying to repel Russia's summer offensive, which has made new advances into areas on the eastern front line largely spared since the start of the 2022 offensive. Over the weekend, the Russian army said its forces had captured the settlement of Maliyevka in Dnipropetrovsk, weeks after it seized the first village in the region – claims Kyiv has contested.
Al Jazeera
3 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
Now that countries have capitulated on tariffs, Trump will be back for more
Governments have been falling over one another to offer concessions to United States President Donald Trump as his August 1 tariff deadline looms. On Sunday, the US president scored his biggest victory to date, as European Union chief Ursula von der Leyen, like the leader of a vassal state paying homage to an emperor, travelled to Trump's private golf course in Scotland to offer him tribute. It came in the form of an entirely one-sided tariff pact in which Brussels accepted a huge tariff hike and pledged to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on US fossil fuels and military products. The pact has changed the balance between two of the largest economic powers in the world. The EU has simply rolled over without a fight. French Prime Minister Francois Bayrou described it as a 'dark day' for the union, while a European diplomat bemoaned by saying 'those who don't hang together get hanged separately.' The economic impact on the rest of the world is likely to be worse still. Trump has declared economic war on friends and foes alike. Many countries are facing higher tariffs than the EU and are less capable of defending themselves. By giving in, Brussels has made it harder for other countries to stand firm. A 40 percent tariff on Laos or 36 percent on Cambodia, for example, will be devastating to the export industries which US corporations encouraged them to build in recent decades. And without a united front, other countries are reluctantly coming to the table. Last week, Trump announced a deal with the Philippines for 19 percent tariffs on all goods exported to the US and no tariffs on imported US goods; it was unclear if Manilla had fully agreed to the arrangement before the US president made it public. Indonesia's deal is even worse, with the country forced to give up controls on its critical mineral exports and aspects of its emerging digital sector – both of which are critical to its economic development. For Brazil, US demands go beyond the economic realm, with Washington going as far as trying to interfere in the prosecution of former President Jair Bolsonaro. While the provisions of different trade deals vary, they all follow the same strategy: Bullying governments to change their rules and regulations in favour of US corporate interests, especially those of oligarchs who surround the president. Trump's trade negotiations style might be highly erratic, but his is a clear-cut end goal: To upend the world economic system, replacing rules which were already unfair with the absolute dominance of the biggest bully. The immediate impact of this restructuring will be bad for the countries that submit to it, but this won't be the end of the story. By giving Trump what he wants, they have strengthened his hand, and he will be back for more. Already, the EU has little clarity around a range of additional tariffs the US president might bring in and how they will affect the 'deal' that's been made. Canada ditched its digital services tax on Big Tech to get a deal, only to be hit by higher tariffs. The Philippines now faces a higher tariff than it did in April, despite making concessions. And the UK thought it had a deal on steel, only to discover it didn't, really. There's no fairness in any of this. The only way out is to stand up to Trump; he does not respect weakness. As a minimum, for countries that have signed a deal, that means implementing as little as they can. Governments that can retaliate should do so. That does not necessarily mean matching tariff for tariff, a policy which could inflict serious self-harm, but rather using the tools that show their strength best. The EU has ample power to challenge the US services trade, and should have retaliated by limiting US corporate access to, for example, government contracts, financial markets and intellectual property protection. In failing to take such action, the EU showed a profound misunderstanding of the moment we're in. Von der Leyen seems to think Trump is a temporary anomaly who can be contained while we wait for a resumption of business as usual in four years. But in Europe and the US, the public has had enough of a corporate-dominated global economy. There's no return to that world. Retaliatory policies like the ones mentioned above can not only maximise the pain directed at Trump's oligarchic friends, but they can also help unwind the power of the monopolies which are at the heart of our deeply unfair, unsustainable economy. This last point is important. Because if we want Trump gone, as millions of Americans do, we will not get there by handing him unnecessary victories. Trump won power by building a bridge between those angry at a corporate-dominated economy and the corporate barons themselves. It was an impressive feat. But the alliance will only last as long as he's winning. The question now is how governments can best protect their economies long-term, and that must come through regaining sovereignty, not handing it over to the bully in the White House. What's more, such action can show Trump for the corporate lobbyist he really is and lay a path to his eventual downfall. The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial stance.
Al Jazeera
4 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
As Trump's August 1 deadline looms, tariffs are here to stay, experts say
As United States President Donald Trump blasts his way through tariff announcements, one thing is clear, experts say: Some level of duties is here to stay. In the past few weeks, Trump has announced a string of deals – with the European Union, Japan, Indonesia, Vietnam and the Philippines – with tariffs ranging from 15 percent to 20 percent. He has also threatened Brazil with a 50 percent tariff, unveiled duties of 30 percent and 35 percent for major trading partners Mexico and Canada, and indicated that deals with China and India are close. How many of Trump's tariff rates will shake out is anybody's guess, but one thing is clear, according to Vina Nadjibulla, vice president of research and strategy at the Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada: 'No one is getting zero tariffs. There's no going back.' Trump's various announcements have spelled months of chaos for industry, leaving businesses in limbo and forcing them to pause investment and hiring decisions. The World Bank has slashed its growth forecasts for nearly 70 percent of economies – including the US, China and Europe, and six emerging market regions – and cut its global growth estimate to 2.3 percent, down from 2.7 percent in January. Oxford Economics has forecast a shallow recession in capital spending in the Group of Seven (G7) countries – Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom and the US – lasting from the second quarter to the third quarter of this year. 'What we're seeing is the Donald Trump business style: There's lots of commotion, lots of claim, lots of activity and lots of b*******,' Robert Rogowsky, professor of international trade at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies, told Al Jazeera. 'That's his business model, and that's how he operates. That's why he's driven so many of his businesses into bankruptcy. It's not strategic or tactical. It's instinctive.' Rogowsky said he expects Trump to push back his tariff deadline again, after delaying it from April to July, and then to August 1. 'It's going to be a series of TACO tariffs,' Rogowsky said, referring to the acronym for 'Trump Always Chickens Out', a phrase coined by Financial Times columnist Robert Armstrong in early May to describe the US president's backpedalling on tariffs in the face of stock market turmoil. 'He will bump them again,' Rogowsky said. 'He's just exerting the image of power.' Trump's back-and-forth policy moves have characterised his dealings with some of the US's biggest trade partners, including China and the EU. China's tariff rate has gone from 20 percent to 54 percent, to 104 percent, to 145 percent, and then 30 percent, while the deadline for implementation has shifted repeatedly. The proposed tariff rates for the EU have followed a similar pattern, going from 20 percent to 50 percent to 30 percent, and then 15 percent following the latest trade deal. The EU's current tariff rate only applies to 70 percent of goods, with a zero rate applying to a limited range of exports, including semiconductor equipment and some chemicals. European steel exports will continue to be taxed at 50 percent, and Trump has indicated that new tariffs could be on the way for pharmaceutical products. Despite the trade deals, many details of how Trump's tariffs will work in practice remain unclear. Whether Trump announces more changes down the track, analysts agree that the world has entered a new phase in which countries are seeking to become less reliant on the US. 'Now that the initial shock and anger [at Trump policies] has subsided, there is a quiet determination to build resilience and become less reliant on the US,' Nadjibulla said, adding that Trump was pushing countries to address longstanding issues that had been untouchable before. Canada, for instance, is tackling inter-provincial trade barriers, a politically sensitive issue historically, even as it looks elsewhere to increase exports, said Tony Stillo, director of Canada Economics at Oxford Economics. 'It would be foolhardy not to provide to the US, seeing as it's our largest market, but it also makes us more resilient to provide to other markets as well,' Stillo told Al Jazeera. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney has reached out to the EU and Mexico and indicated his wish to improve his country's strained relations with China and India. This month, Canada expanded its exports of liquified natural gas beyond the US market, with its first shipment of cargoes to Asia. To mitigate the fallout of Trump's tariffs, Ottawa has been offering relief to Canadian businesses, including automakers, and has instituted a six-month pause on tariffs on some imports from the US to give firms time to re-adjust their supply chains. There is also 'some relief' in the fact that other countries 'don't seem to be imitating the Trump show [by levying their own tariffs]. They're witnessing this attempt to strong-arm the rest of the world, but it doesn't seem to be working,' Mary Lovely, the Anthony M Solomon senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics (PIIE), told Al Jazeera. But the world is watching how the tariffs will affect the US economy, as 'that will also be instructive to other countries', Lovely said. 'If we see a slowdown, as we expect, it becomes a cautionary tale for others.' Although the US stock market is near an all-time high, it is heavily weighted towards the 'magnificent seven', said Lovely, referring to the largest tech companies, and that reflects just one part of the economy. Re-emergence of industrial policy Trump's tariffs come on top of other growing challenges for exporters the world over, including China's subsidy-heavy industrial policy that allows its businesses to undercut its competitors. 'We've entered a period of global economic alignment with the reintroduction of industrial policies,' Nadjibulla said, explaining that more and more governments are likely to roll out support for their domestic industries. 'Each country will have to navigate these and find ways to de-risk and reduce overreliance on the US and China.' Still, countries seeking to support their homegrown industries will have to do so while reckoning with the World Trade Organization and rules-based trade agreements such as the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, Nadjibulla said. 'It will take some tremendous leadership around the world to corral this wild mustang [Trump] before he breaks up the world order,' Rogowsky said. 'But it will break because I do think Donald Trump will drive us into a recession.'
