Fed's Goolsbee Says Rates Can Fall If Trade Policy Is Resolved
Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago President Austan Goolsbee reiterated the US economy looks good underneath the surface, and the central bank can proceed with interest-rate cuts if uncertainty around trade policy is resolved.
'I still think, if we can get past this bumpy period, that the dual mandate still looks pretty good to me, and I think we could be on that path,' Goolsbee said Monday during a moderated discussion in Davenport, Iowa — referring to the Fed's congressional mandates of fostering price stability and maximum employment.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
8 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Could Musk-Trump feud stoke GOP divisions ahead of midterms? ANALYSIS
Even by the standards of President Donald Trump and billionaire Elon Musk's relationship -- an unprecedented alliance punctuated by a meme-inspired reshaping of the government, numerous rocket launches, assassination attempts, a quarter-billion-dollar political gamble and electric car photo-ops -- it's been an unusual week. For months, Musk had been the closest of Trump's advisers -- even living at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida and spending time with the president's family. More recently, Trump gave Musk a congratulatory Oval Office sendoff from his work leading cost-cutting efforts in his administration, giving him a golden key with a White House insignia. But the billionaire's muted criticisms of Trump's "big, beautiful bill" grew louder and more pointed, culminating in posts Thursday on his social media platform taking credit for Trump's November win and Republicans' takeover of the Senate. "Without me, Trump would have lost the election, Dems would control the House and the Republicans would be 51-49 in the Senate," Musk posted. "Such ingratitude." Some lawmakers and Republicans worry Musk's apparent acrimonious departure from Trump's orbit could create new uncertainties for the party -- and stoke GOP divisions that would not serve Republicans well heading into a critical legislative stretch before the midterm elections. The back-and-forth attacks, which continued into the weekend and took a sharply personal turn, reverberated across a capital they have both reshaped. Trump on Friday told several reporters over the phone that he was not thinking about Musk and told ABC News Chief Washington Correspondent Jonathan Karl that Musk had "lost his mind." In the near term, Trump and the GOP are trying to muscle their signature tax and domestic policy megabill through the House and Senate, with the slimmest of margins and no shortage of disagreements. MORE: Speaker Johnson tries to protect fate of megabill from Trump-Musk crossfire Any shift on the key issues could topple the high-wire act needed to please House and Senate Republicans. A nonstop torrent of criticism from Musk's social media megaphone could collapse negotiations, harden the position of the bill's critics and even undermine other pieces of Trump's first-term agenda. "You hate seeing division and chaos," Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb., who represents a swing district, told ABC News about the Trump-Musk fracas. "It's not helpful." Rep. Jodey Arrington, R-Texas, the chairman of the House Budget Committee, called Musk a "credible voice" on "debt and spending" issues. "It's never helpful when he says those things. He's a believable person and he has a broad reach, but I think he's frustrated and people understand the context," Arrington said, predicting that both men will eventually resolve their dispute. Republican operatives watching the spat unfold this week told ABC News it is too early to say how the feud between Trump and Musk could affect the next election. The billionaire spent more than anyone else on the last election, pouring $270 million into groups boosting Trump and other Republicans up and down the ballot, according to Federal Election Commission filings. MORE: Trump-Musk feud leaves some DOGE staffers worried about their futures: Sources He already suggested he would cut back on his political donations next cycle, more than a year out from the midterm elections. In the final stretch of the 2024 race, he relocated to Pennsylvania, hosting town halls and bankrolling his own get-out-the-vote effort in the critical swing state. Since his foray into Washington, Musk has become a deeply polarizing and unpopular figure, while the president's approval rating has ticked up in some recent surveys. Groups affiliated with Musk spent $20 million this spring on the Wisconsin Supreme Court race, only for the liberal candidate to win -- signaling to some Republicans the limits of Musk's political pull. While his support may be missed by Republicans next cycle, Trump has continued to raise millions of dollars to support his future political plans, a remarkable sum for a term-limited president that underscores his central role in the party and undisputed kingmaker status. MORE: Trump tells ABC Musk 'lost his mind,' as CEO's dad says 'make sure this fizzles out' Rep. Mike Lawler, R-N.Y., who is mulling a gubernatorial bid in 2026, downplayed the tensions or political implications, suggesting that reporters "spend way more time worrying about these things than most average people." "I'm sure they will make peace," Lawler told ABC News on Friday. There were some signs of a détente. While Musk continued to hurl insults at Trump ally and critic Steve Bannon, his social media activity appeared to cool off on Friday, and the billionaire said one supporter was "not wrong" for saying Trump and Musk are "much stronger together than apart." Through nearly a decade in politics and three campaigns for the White House, Trump has demonstrated a remarkable ability to move past disputes or disagreements with many intraparty rivals and onetime critics, including some who now serve in his Cabinet. Now, some Republicans left Washington this week asking themselves if Musk is willing to do the same. Could Musk-Trump feud stoke GOP divisions ahead of midterms? ANALYSIS originally appeared on
Wall Street Journal
27 minutes ago
- Wall Street Journal
Trump's New Steel Tariffs Look Vulnerable to a Courtroom Challenge
U.S. steelmaker shares soared on news of President Trump's new tariffs. But are these tariffs as bulletproof as investors seem to believe? The steel tariffs, like those on autos and auto parts, are sector-based. They differ in that respect from the 'Liberation Day' tariffs Trump unveiled in April. The U.S. Court of International Trade in May blocked Trump's tariffs on U.S. trading partners, rejecting the argument that he could invoke emergency powers to set the country-by-country tariffs. An appeals court stayed that ruling, pending its own review. The conventional wisdom in the markets has been that Trump's recent sector-based tariffs are on firmer legal footing. That might not be the case, though. In fact, there is reason to believe his new 50% tariff on imported steel could be vulnerable to a legal challenge. To speed up the process, Trump piggybacked on the findings of a national-security investigation by the Commerce Department in 2018, during his first term. The question now is whether the findings were too stale to be the basis for a new tariff hike, and thus whether Trump should have sought a new national-security investigation first. Going that route would have delayed his CLF 7.04%increase; green up pointing triangle is up 30% since Trump announced his new tariff plans May 30. Nucor NUE 2.37%increase; green up pointing triangle and Steel Dynamics STLD 1.11%increase; green up pointing triangle are up 11% and 9%, respectively. The tariff increase took effect June 4. Trump also relied on Commerce Department findings from his first term in office when raising sector-based tariffs this year on aluminum, autos and auto parts. His directive raising aluminum tariffs to 50% from 25% took effect June 4, as well. While it is too soon to know whether the sectoral tariffs will draw serious court challenges, a look at the legal underpinnings shows potential soft spots. Trump in his June 3 proclamation said he exercised his authority under the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 to raise steel tariffs to 50% from 25%. In doing so, he cited the Commerce Department's 2018 investigative report that concluded the quantities of steel being imported into the U.S. threatened to harm national security. The trade statute says the president, within 90 days of such a report, shall determine whether he concurs with the findings and decide what action to take in response. After that, he has 15 days to implement the action. A 2021 ruling by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said the deadlines aren't strict and some flexibility is allowed. In that case, Trump waited five months after his initial 2018 action to boost tariffs on imported Turkish steel to 50% from 25%. An importer, Transpacific Steel, sued, and the Court of International Trade ruled against the higher tariffs on Turkish imports, saying Trump had gone past the statutory time limit. (By then, Trump had already returned the tariff on Turkish steel to 25%.) The appellate court reversed that ruling in a 2-1 decision. That decision might have opened the door for Trump to rely on the same 2018 investigative report yet again—seven years later—for his latest tariff boost. However, the appeals court said its ruling applied 'in the circumstances presented here.' A decision could turn out differently in other circumstances, such as where the investigative findings are 'simply too stale to be a basis' for new presidential actions, the court said. Tim Meyer, an international-trade specialist and professor at Duke Law School, said the appeals court's ruling appears to leave room for a plaintiff to challenge the new steel tariffs. 'The tricky part is how to apply the standards the court identifies,' he said. 'For example, what does it mean for a report to be 'stale'? The court seems to suggest that the passage of time might be enough. But how much time is too much time?' Much has happened in the past seven years, including a pandemic. U.S. steel imports were 26.2 million metric tons in 2024, according to the Commerce Department, down 24% since 2017. That point alone could underscore the need for new investigative findings as a predicate for presidential action. Trump in his June 3 proclamation said he also considered 'current information newly provided' by the Commerce Department, but didn't say what it was. Investors will be watching to see if any well-heeled plaintiffs surface to contest the tariffs. Gordon Johnson, chief executive at GLJ Research, in a June 2 note to clients said he believed the surge in steel stocks was premature and that the new 50% tariffs 'could be overturned due to a lack of a new investigation.' He also noted that no one had sought an injunction yet to block them. That said, he wrote, 'we believe there are procedural problems that make these new tariffs vulnerable to a lawsuit.' Steelmaker shares could take a hit if a court invalidated the sectoral tariffs. U.S. automaker stocks, on the other hand, could rally. Of course, the Trump administration could simply initiate new Commerce Department investigations and reinstitute the tariffs later. The net result for investors and the economy ultimately might be just more prolonged uncertainty about Trump's favorite negotiating tool. Write to Jonathan Weil at
WIRED
28 minutes ago
- WIRED
The Mystery of iPhone Crashes That Apple Denies Are Linked to Chinese Hacking
Plus: A 22-year-old former intern gets put in charge of a key anti-terrorism program, threat intelligence firms finally wrangle their confusing names for hacker groups, and more. Democratic presidential nominee, U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris, speaks during a campaign rally at the PNC Music Pavilion on November 02, 2024 in Charlotte, North Carolina. With Photo-Illustration: WIRED Staff; Photograph:Since it's already chaos out there, this week, we thought we'd lean into the madness by envisioning the future threats that you're not ready for. From cyberattacks on the US grid to GPS blackouts, rampant deepfake scams, AI-powered super hackers, and widespread communication system collapse, there's a whole spectrum of scenarios that could take things from bad to worse. All is not lost, however—at least if you're Ross Ulbricht. The creator of the Silk Road dark web market, who was pardoned by President Donald Trump earlier this year, received a mysterious $31 million bitcoin donation last weekend. Crypto-tracing firm Chainalysis now suspects the lavish gift may have come from a vendor at another now-defunct black market, AlphaBay. A trove of public records reviewed by WIRED this week reveal a years-long effort by a farming industry group to get the FBI to treat animal rights activists as a 'bioterrorist' threat. The Animal Agriculture Alliance (AAA) was repeatedly in contact with the bureau's Weapons of Mass Destruction Directorate about the activities of groups like Direct Action Everywhere, or DxE. The records show that AAA fed intelligence about DxE to the FBI and used corporate spies to infiltrate the group's activities. Immigration and Customs Enforcement recently updated its guidance for agents who carry out courthouse raids and other 'enforcement actions' in and nearby court houses, according to an agency document reviewed by WIRED. The updated policy removes language that explicitly instructed agents to ensure they followed local and state laws. Anyone who was trying to play a new video game on Christmas Day in 2014 likely remembers the infamous Lizardsquad hack of Xbox Live and Playstation Network. Now, more than a decade later, we finally have the full story. But that's not all! Each week, we round up the security and privacy news we didn't cover in depth ourselves. Click the headlines to read the full stories. And stay safe out there. Mysterious iPhone Crashes Hint at a Chinese Hacks. Apple Denies It The security firm iVerify this week brought to light a series of suspicious iPhone crashes that researchers say might just indicate a stealthy, unprecedented Chinese zero-click hacking campaign victimizing American phones, including even those of staffers for the Harris-Walz presidential campaign. Or it's a random, not-particularly-dangerous bug that Apple has already squashed. In a report released Thursday, iVerify assessed with 'moderate confidence' that China-linked hackers may have targeted a series of iPhones with a sophisticated exploit, going after activists and dissidents critical of China, an EU government official, tech executives at AI firms competing with Chinese ones, and US political staffers—revealed by NBC News to be employees of the Harris-Walz campaign. iVerify didn't have a sample of the malware that might have infected those phones or other definitive proof that any hacking occurred. But it pointed to signs that seem like more than coincidences: The staffers whose phones had experienced the crashes had also been warned by the FBI that they'd already been targeted in China's Salt Typhoon hacking campaign against US telecoms. Another owner of the devices that crashed in the same way was later warned by Apple itself that he or she had been targeted by sophisticated hackers. All of that would represent a serious threat to national security. Except that, strangely, Apple flatly denies it happened. 'We strongly disagree with the claims of a targeted attack against our users,' Apple's head of security engineering, Ivan Krstić, wrote in a statement to WIRED. Apple has patched the issue that iVerify highlighted in its report, which caused iPhones to crash in certain cases when a message sender changed their own nickname and avatar. But it calls those crashes the result of a 'conventional software bug,' not evidence of a targeted exploitation. (That blanket denial certainly isn't Apple's usual response to confirmed iPhone hacking. The company has, for instance, sued hacking firm NSO group for its targeting of Apple customers.) The result is that what might have been a four-alarm fire in the counterintelligence world is reduced—for now—to a very troubling enigma. A 22-Year-Old Is Running a Key US Anti-Terrorism Program A 22-year-old former intern at the Heritage Foundation with no national security experience has reportedly been appointed to a key Department of Homeland Security role overseeing a major program designed to combat domestic terrorism. According to Propublica, Thomas Fugate last month assumed leadership of the Center for Programs and Partnerships (CP3), a DHS office tasked with funding nationwide efforts to prevent politically motivated violence—including school shootings and other forms of domestic terrorism. Fugate, a 2024 graduate of the University of Texas at San Antonio, replaced the former CP3 director, Bill Braniff, an Army veteran with 20 years of national security experience who resigned in March following staff cuts ordered by the Trump administration. According to CP3's most recent report to Congress, the office has funded more than 1,100 initiatives aimed at disrupting violent extremism. In recent months, the US has seen a string of high-profile targeted attacks, including a car bombing in California and the shooting of two Israeli Embassy aids in Washington, DC. Its $18 million grant program, designed to support local prevention efforts, is reportedly now under Fugate's supervision. Threat Intelligence Firms (Finally) Agree to a Glossary of Hacker Group Names Hacker group names have long been an unavoidable absurdity in the cybersecurity industry. Every threat intelligence company, in a scientifically defensible attempt to not make any assumption that they're tracking the same hackers as another firm, comes up with their own code name for any group they observe. The result is a somewhat silly profusion of overlapping naming systems based on elements, weather, and zoology: 'Fancy Bear' is 'Forest Blizzard' is 'APT28' is 'Strontium.' Now, several major threat intelligence players, including Google, Microsoft, CrowdStrike, and Palo Alto Networks, have finally shared enough of their internal research to agree to a glossary that confirms that they're referring to the same entities. The companies did not, however, agree to consolidate their naming systems into a single taxonomy. So this agreement doesn't mean the end of sentences in security reporting such as 'the hacker group Sandworm, also known as Telebots, Voodoo Bear, Hades, Iron Viking, Electrum, or Seashell Blizzard.' It just means we cybersecurity reporters can write that sentence with a little more confidence. Phone-Hacking Firm Corellium Acquired for $200 Million—After Trump Pardons Its Founder Chris Wade, the founder and CTO of mobile device reverse-engineering company Corellium, has had a wild last few decades: In 2005, he was convicted on criminal charges of enabling spammers by providing them proxy servers, and agreed to work undercover for law enforcement while avoiding prison. Then in 2020, he mysteriously received a pardon from President Donald Trump. He also settled a major copyright lawsuit from Apple. Now his company, which creates virtual images of Android and iOS devices so that customers can find ways to break into them, is being acquired by phone-hacking firm Cellebrite, a major law enforcement contractor, for $200 million—a significant payday for a hacker who has found himself on both sides of the law.
