logo
Powell says Fed rate cut is on hold even as Trump demands cuts

Powell says Fed rate cut is on hold even as Trump demands cuts

The Mainichi7 hours ago

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Federal Reserve will continue to wait and see how the economy evolves before deciding whether to reduce its key interest rate, Chair Jerome Powell said Tuesday, a stance directly at odds with President Donald Trump's calls for immediate cuts.
"For the time being, we are well positioned to wait to learn more about the likely course of the economy before considering any adjustments to our policy stance," Powell said in testimony Tuesday before the House Financial Services Committee.
Several Republicans on the committee pushed Powell to consider reducing borrowing costs more quickly, as soon as its next meeting at the end of July. But on the whole, the hearing was uniformly polite and Powell did not face sharp criticism over the Fed's decision to leave its rate unchanged.
Members of both parties thanked Powell for maintaining his focus on the Fed's dual mission of controlling inflation and supporting maximum employment. Powell has often cited his support in Congress as a bulwark against Trump's attacks.
Trump lashed out again early Tuesday, posting on his social media site: "I hope Congress really works this very dumb, hardheaded person, over. We will be paying for his incompetence for many years to come."
Several Republicans asked Powell why the central bank has yet to lower borrowing costs. Powell responded that most economists, inside and outside the Fed, still expect tariffs to push inflation higher, and Fed policymakers want to see what happens over the next couple of months before making any changes.
"We do expect tariff inflation to show up more," Powell said. "We really don't know how much of that's going to be passed through the consumer. We have to wait and see."
Under questioning, Powell acknowledged that tariffs might not push up inflation as much as economists forecast. That, he said, could lead the Fed to reduce rates more quickly. A sharp rise in the unemployment rate could also spur the Fed to cut borrowing costs more quickly, he said.
"We could see inflation come in not as strong as we expect," he said. "And if that were the case, that would tend to suggest cutting sooner." But when asked specifically about July, Powell declined to comment.
Powell also said he expected to see tariffs' impact on prices emerge in the next few months, starting in June. The June inflation report will be released July 15.
Rep. Josh Gottheimer, a Democrat from New Jersey, asked Powell whether Trump's "bullying" would impact the Fed's decision-making.
Powell said the Fed wants to "deliver a good economy for the benefit of the American people, and that's it."
"Anything else is kind of a distraction," Powell added. "We always do what we think is the right thing to do, and we live with the consequences. I don't know how else to do the job."
The Fed's 19-member interest rate setting committee, led by the chair, decides whether to cut or raise borrowing costs. They typically increase rates to cool the economy to fight or prevent inflation, and lower rates when the economy is weak to boost borrowing and spending.
The Fed's committee voted unanimously last week to keep its key rate unchanged, though the Fed also released forecasts of future rate cuts that revealed emerging divisions among the policymakers. Seven projected no rate cuts at all this year, two just one, while 10 forecast at least two reductions.
The Fed chair said the bump to inflation from tariffs could be temporary, or it could lead to a more persistent bout of inflation.
The Fed's "obligation," Powell said, "is ... to prevent a one-time increase in the price level from becoming an ongoing inflation problem."
At a news conference last week, Powell suggested the Fed would monitor how the economy evolves over the summer in response to Trump's tariffs, hinting that a rate cut wouldn't occur until September.
Yet two high-profile members of the Fed's governing board, Michelle Bowman and Christopher Waller, have since suggested the central bank could cut its rate as early as July. Both officials were appointed by Trump during his first term and Waller is often mentioned as a potential replacement for Powell when his term ends next May. Powell was also appointed by Trump in late 2017.
Other officials, however, are still cautious about rate reductions. Beth Hammack, president of the Federal Reserve's Cleveland branch, said Tuesday that given the uncertainty enveloping the economy, rates may be on hold for "quite some time" before the Fed decides to make "very modest cuts."
Trump is urging the Fed to cut rates to save the U.S. government money on interest payments affixed to the vast national debt. Yet the Fed has long resisted consideration of the government's financing costs when making interest rate decisions, preferring instead to focus on the health of the economy and inflation..
Waller, in an interview Friday, said that lowering the government's borrowing costs is "not our job" and added that it was up to Congress and the White House to reduce the budget deficit.
Trump meanwhile, on social media Tuesday repeated his false claim that the European Central Bank has cut its key rate ten times while the Fed has not cut at all. In fact, in the last 12 months the ECB has reduced its rate eight times and the Fed has done so three times, all late last year.
The Fed's cuts last year lowered its rate to about 4.3%. Since then it has put reductions on pause out of concern that Trump's tariffs lead to inflation. The president has slapped a 10% duty on all imports, along with an additional 30% levy on goods from China, 50% on steel and aluminum, and 25% on autos.
Yet inflation has steadily cooled this year despite widespread concerns among economists about the impact of tariffs. The consumer price index ticked up just 0.1% from April to May, the government said last week, a sign that price pressures are muted.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

EDITORIAL: Japan must not forget rule of law principle in its diplomacy
EDITORIAL: Japan must not forget rule of law principle in its diplomacy

Asahi Shimbun

time28 minutes ago

  • Asahi Shimbun

EDITORIAL: Japan must not forget rule of law principle in its diplomacy

Wasn't maintaining international order based on the rule of law the fundamental policy of Japanese diplomacy? If that principle was to waver because undue priority was placed on maintaining good relations with the Trump administration, it would be difficult to avoid criticism of holding a double standard and there could even be negative effects on the national security situation in East Asia. At a news conference, Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba expressed understanding toward the U.S. attack on Iranian nuclear facilities and said it 'demonstrates (the U.S.) determination to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons while seeking to calm the situation as soon as possible.' He added that it was difficult for Japan to assess the move in terms of international law because it was not in a position to accurately grasp the detailed facts behind the attack. Without providing clear evidence that Iran was proceeding with the development of nuclear weapons, Iran cannot be considered a pressing threat to the United States. Washington argued that the act was the exercise of its right to collective self-defense in support of Israel. But the consensus among experts is that it cannot be allowed under international law. When the United States began the war on Iraq in 2003, then Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi clearly expressed his support. Although Ishiba did not go that far, it is clear that he selected his words so it could not be considered a criticism of the United States. After Israel launched an attack on Iranian nuclear facilities, Ishiba initially said he strongly condemned the move that was 'totally unacceptable.' But at the Group of Seven summit held soon thereafter, Ishiba went along with the leaders' statement expressing support for Israel's right to defend itself out of consideration for the U.S. support of Israel. Because the United States is Japan's only ally, the reality is that it must depend on U.S. protection as the security environment in East Asia worsens. If criticism was directed at U.S. President Donald Trump's judgment, that might also affect ongoing negotiations over tariffs. European nations face a similar situation so the joint statement issued by Britain, Germany and France did not make a clear assessment of the U.S. attack. But now with the international order on the brink of collapse with the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the fighting in Gaza and the latest attack on Iranian nuclear facilities, Japan must play a role in making the maximum diplomatic effort for the peaceful resolution of such conflicts rather than allowing domination through force. In the vicinity of Japan, China continues its aggressive maritime advances and applying pressure on Taiwan while North Korea continues with its development of nuclear weapons and missiles. Japan's position was supposed to have sought regional peace and stability while not allowing the unilateral change of the status quo through force. It must avoid a situation that places doubt on its resolve about the rule of law, which could damage trust from the so-called Global South group of newly emerging and developing nations. --The Asahi Shimbun, June 25

Local Economies under Pressure as ICE Crackdowns Create Climate of Fear
Local Economies under Pressure as ICE Crackdowns Create Climate of Fear

Yomiuri Shimbun

time2 hours ago

  • Yomiuri Shimbun

Local Economies under Pressure as ICE Crackdowns Create Climate of Fear

Lupe Lopez's Latino market in Newark, California, has been a shopping and social hub for decades – until recently. Now the aisles are often quiet, the parking lot near empty, she said. Neighboring businesses are no different, she added: Restaurants, party and clothing stores, and even the big-box retailers seem to be emptier since the Trump administration ramped up its mass deportation campaign, raiding businesses across industries and targeting day workers in retail parking lots. 'The fear is felt in every aspect – no one is doing a party, no one is going anywhere,' the 68-year-old said of her customers. 'The shelves are just untouched.' From California grocery stores to chicken chains in suburban D.C., businesses that serve large immigrant populations are reporting shifts in consumer behavior – fewer in-store visits, lower receipts and more delivery orders – that threaten to drag down local economies, according to interviews with business owners, as well as spending data. As part of the promised crackdown on illegal immigration that helped propel President Donald Trump to victory in 2024, the White House is pushing to expel at least 1 million undocumented immigrants in the first year. As such, federal immigration authorities have increasingly raided workplaces across the country – triggering protests in Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, Atlanta and other cities – and conducting about 2,000 arrests a day, Trump border czar Tom Homan told The Washington Post last week. Lopez says deportation fears are affecting who comes into her stores, noting that some of her undocumented customers are sending their U.S.-born children to pick up groceries. Even those here legally are afraid to be out during the day, she added, and many people carry their passport with them in case they are stopped. 'If this doesn't stop, I feel it's going to break our economy.' In-store traffic down, deliveries up Communities with significant foreign-born Latino populations have been particularly affected by the immigration raids, according to business owners and Hispanic business groups across the country, as Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents have descended on Home Depot parking lots, car washes and restaurants. Hispanic consumers are cutting back on grocery shopping: Food and beverage sales slid 4.3 percentage points in the first quarter, compared with the same three months in 2024, according to spending data from Kantar, a marketing data and analytics company. The same goes for discretionary categories, such as apparel, which slumped 8.3 percentage points during that same time period. Among non-Hispanics, by contrast, food and beverage spending dipped 0.1 percentage point during the same period, while discretionary categories like apparel and home goods climbed 0.9 and 1.9 percentage points, respectively. Such shifts can have implications for the broader economy, given that immigrants across the board accounted for 18 percent of total U.S. economic output in 2023, or $2.1 trillion in 2024 dollars, according to the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute. The White House did not respond to a request for comment. Some business groups describe a climate of fear in which undocumented immigrants – and even family members who are here legally – are not showing up for work. 'That is not to say that anyone is for open borders. It is not say that all of the workforce concerns are because they're employing unauthorized' workers, according to Monica Villalobos, president of the Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce in Phoenix, where 42 percent of the population is Latino and 1 in 5 is foreign-born. 'But when you threaten one member of a multi-status household, you threaten the entire family.' But Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, a think tank that supports fewer immigrants and increased enforcement, including the use of ICE raids, says that any disruption such tactics may have on regional economies should be seen as the cost of upholding immigration law. 'Any transition like that is going to have dislocations,' he said. 'Some people are going to be inconvenienced if we have allowed illegality to spread with impunity for years.' Trump's approach to immigration enforcement will probably have greater impacts on local economies than that of the Obama administration, which notably oversaw a vast number of deportations, according to immigrant experts. President Barack Obama, whom immigrants rights advocates labeled the 'deporter in chief,' recorded 5.3 million removals during his two terms. There were subtle effects on the economy because immigration arrests also occurred at worksites during those years, said David Leblang, a professor of politics and public policy at the University of Virginia. The difference is that enforcement focused on people with felony convictions, he said, while the current campaign is targeting anyone without legal status. 'During the Obama administration – and even during the first Trump administration – you didn't have migrants not showing up at work sites, whether they're legal or illegal, because they were worried that ICE was going to show up and basically grab everybody, pull them off the streets and send them either to jail or put them on a plane and send them to … another country,' Leblang said. Now, the 'fear is by design.' Trump's deportation campaign is playing out in urban centers across the nation's interior: ICE has been conducting raids at hotels and restaurants, farms and packing houses, car washes and retailers' parking lots. 'There will be no safe spaces for industries who harbor violent criminals or purposely try to undermine ICE's efforts,' Tricia McLaughlin, an assistant secretary for the DHS, said last week. 'Worksite enforcement remains a cornerstone of our efforts to safeguard public safety, national security and economic stability.' Though Krikorian acknowledged some businesses will go under in this climate, he contends that the short-term economic pain will ultimately benefit low-skilled native workers. He pointed to studies showing that they tend to lose out on work as they compete for jobs with undocumented immigrants. Slowing business is already being reflected in shopping data and public statements from retail chains and consumer goods companies. JD Sports CEO Régis Andre Schultz referenced this last month during a call with analysts. He noted that the sports-fashion retail company's Shoe Palace banner – which 'is targeting the Hispanic customer' – has seen 'a huge decline in traffic, which I think is telling. I think the online business has been okay. But you can definitively see the impact from the immigration policy on Shoe Palace.' Burlington, the clothing retailer, and beverage giant Keurig Dr Pepper, made similar observations during recent earnings calls. Keurig Dr Pepper CEO Timothy Cofer, noting in April that Hispanic consumers represent a 'meaningful percentage of our business,' said recent sales data revealed 'softening trends among Hispanic consumers relative to the broader population.' They're making fewer shopping trips, he added, and spending less when they do. Lopez fully expected to see some belt-tightening at Arteaga's Food Center, which counts eight stores from San Jose to Lodi, California – once tariffs pushed up prices. But she hadn't anticipated the ICE raids. Now, customers are hunkering down, trying to save by forgoing fresh produce and meat for cheaper shelf-stable options like boxed macaroni and cheese and canned soup. Many are afraid they might be deported, she said, and even if they're not, they're afraid of losing their jobs or small businesses if the economy goes south. Misinformation and heightened anxiety are also concerns. Lopez said her social media and messaging apps are being flooded with warnings about ICE raids. She tries to verify the claims before reposting on social media and responding to texts, in hopes of clearing up any misinformation before it affects local businesses. Most of the time they're false alarms, she said. 'You're afraid of your business being mentioned, you're afraid of your name being mentioned, you're afraid of someone coming in and targeting you,' she said. 'But at some point you just decide: I am going to not continue being afraid. I am angry and I am focusing that energy on something that perhaps can do some good.' For much of her adult life, Lopez, who emigrated from Mexico as a teenager, said she was living the American Dream. Now, she says, that dream is dying. 'It's not even about business anymore – it's not about keeping my doors open,' she said, tearing up. 'It is about keeping my community safe.' Empty booths, fewer money transfers On a recent weekday around dinnertime at a Pollo Campero restaurant in Wheaton, Maryland, the booths were empty save for the family of six seated at a corner table. Everyone else was doing take-out. The dining room has been that way for weeks, said manager Beatriz Ajucum, ever since the immigration crackdown. But it's not that business is slow; it has actually picked up, she said, only now 'all the orders are to-go or delivery.' Up and down Georgia Avenue in Wheaton, where Hispanic comprise nearly half the population – and 43 percent of residents were born outside of the United States – workers at shops and restaurants noted that foot traffic is unusually slow for June. 'Everyone's afraid of ICE,' according to a server at a Salvadoran restaurant just off the main corridor, who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of reprisal. 'We're worried about not getting customers.' Slow foot traffic appears to be a nationwide trend. Mary Brett Whitfield, the senior vice president for shopper insights at Kantar, said data shows that a greater number of Hispanic shoppers were already avoiding physical stores in the first quarter. In-store shopping dropped 9 percentage points compared with the previous quarter, according to Kantar. Instead, they're opting for delivery and pickup – which climbed from 51 percent in the fourth quarter of 2024 to 58 percent in the first quarter of this year. Among non-Hispanic shoppers, online spending was flat, at 49 percent, during the same period. Even businesses not directly targeted by ICE are feeling the effects. Two financial services companies that handle remittances ― payments that migrant workers send to friends and family abroad ― report that their customers are making fewer visits and sending more money with each transfer. Western Union and its competitors allow U.S.-based consumers to send money from designated storefronts using cash, sidestepping the need for a bank account. 'People are just more reticent to be out in public, sending money,' Western Union chief executive Devin McGranahan said in a May 29 call with investors. Consumers are 'sending larger amounts of money less often due to certain factors about which we can only speculate at this time,' Robert Lisy, chief executive of International Money Express, said in a May 9 call with analysts. The crackdown is also triggering convulsions through the construction industry. When Trump returned to office in January, George Carrillo, co-founder and chief executive officer of the Hispanic Construction Council, warned the trade group's tens of thousands of members about the risk his policies presented to their workforces. At the time, most were convinced 'he's going to go after criminals,' Carrillo said, and were optimistic about some of his goals, including 'opportunity zones' and 'cutting a lot of the red tape.' But in the wake of multiple workplace raids – including one in May at a Tallahassee construction site where more than 100 workers were taken into custody – 'it's hitting people differently now,' Carrillo said. Aggressive enforcement has created chaos and a 'domino effect' he said, one that touches major developers in housing and critical infrastructure, and funnels down to local plumbers, electricians and day laborers. His group's members are reporting that fewer workers are showing up to jobsites, forcing firms to overhaul operations or else risk missing deadlines. 'For many of these business owners now, they're saying, 'I'm having to take a different approach to this,' Carrillo said. And for millions of undocumented workers across the U.S., 'there's a lot of very difficult conversations that are happening at the dinner table right now.'

With Stakes High, White House Pushes Negotiations with Harvard
With Stakes High, White House Pushes Negotiations with Harvard

Yomiuri Shimbun

time2 hours ago

  • Yomiuri Shimbun

With Stakes High, White House Pushes Negotiations with Harvard

The Trump administration is ramping up negotiations with Harvard University in an effort to reach an end to its months-long battle with the elite school, two senior White House officials have said, as Harvard has been racking up legal wins in court. The administration expects a deal to land by the end of the month, one official said, and hopes the agreement would make a big enough splash to 'basically be a blueprint for the rest of higher education.' The White House officials spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private deliberations. Harvard declined to comment. The university has been a key target in the Trump administration's mounting attacks on higher education, which have focused on diversity efforts and allegations of antisemitism on campuses across the country. Harvard has drawn praise in academia for its efforts to push back on the White House's sweeping demands to limit student protests, submit to extensive government oversight, and revamp its admissions and hiring practices. The university has also amassed dozens of statements of support from organizations, universities and states in a lawsuit filed after the administration froze federal research funding. A person close to the university, speaking on the condition of anonymity because of the matter's sensitivity, said Tuesday that Harvard will not compromise its values or its First Amendment rights. Harvard allies, free-speech advocates and others have feared that the Trump administration would use its attacks on Harvard to exert control over universities nationwide and dismantle academic freedom. Whatever the outcome, the case will create a significant precedent, said higher education attorney Sarah Hartley. 'This is the playbook to be used with other universities by the government going forward,' said Hartley, a partner at the Washington-based law firm BCLP. 'It, in many ways, is being used as a test of democracy and what the government can force on private institutions.' Harvard has filed two lawsuits against the Trump administration in an effort to block its punitive actions, including freezing more than $3 billion in federal funding, which imperils scientific and medical research at the university. Court filings in that case, submitted either in support of Harvard or the government, offer a window into the opposing camps that have been drawn into the battle and spotlight how the fight between the Trump administration and Harvard is being felt across America. More than 40 parties in support of Harvard's case filed amicus briefs – legal statements submitted in court by parties who are affected by, but not directly involved in, the case. They included groups of 12,000 Harvard alumni, 24 research universities, 12 hospitals and 18 former U.S. officials. In the briefs, the hospitals wrote that their ability to develop treatments and cures for diseases is at stake if the research funding is not reinstated. Universities said research projects like those that put humans on the moon and created cancer drugs are threatened. More than 20 states said more cuts to university research would devastate their economies. And free-speech advocates said the United States' bedrock ideals are at risk. In response, a group of 16 Republican-led states filed a brief on Monday in support of the Trump administration and its cutoff of federal funding to Harvard. In the brief, conservative attorneys general echoed the government's claims that Harvard has discriminated against Jews in violation of federal law and that the federal government is not obligated to fund institutions that are antisemitic. Harvard has asked a judge in this case, filed in U.S. District Court in Massachusetts, to make a ruling that would resolve the lawsuit without a trial, which is scheduled to begin July 21. The government may have more motivation to come to a settlement outside of court than Harvard does, said higher education attorney Jodie Ferise, who believes Harvard has a stronger legal case. 'The White House has every incentive to want to reach some kind of compromise, because I don't think they'll win this case,' she said. Harvard has accused the Trump administration of violating its First Amendment rights and of not following the proper federal procedures for revoking funding as laid out under a federal law known as Title VI. The First Amendment claim has become one of the case's central questions: whether it's constitutional for the government to tell a university how to hire, make decisions or regulate campus speech. That issue drew the attention of many of the advocates who filed in support of Harvard. 'The government cannot attempt a hostile takeover of any private institution, much less a private college or university, in order to impose its preferred vision of ideological balance,' the American Civil Liberties Union wrote in a brief filed with seven other organizations, including the right-leaning Cato Institute and Rutherford Institute. In their Monday filing, the administration's allies focused on concerns about alleged antisemitism on campus, pushing for the court to find that Harvard has violated federal antidiscrimination law and should face consequences. 'Universities that accept federal funding must live up to their obligations to protect Jewish students,' the attorneys general of Iowa and 15 other states wrote. '… Harvard's current, suffocating atmosphere of antisemitism is illegal. And that illegal conduct is not protected by the First Amendment.' In a separate case on Friday, a federal judge in Massachusetts issued a preliminary injunction to prevent the Department of Homeland Security and the State Department from barring international students and scholars from entering the country to attend, conduct research or teach at Harvard. The Trump administration issued a proclamation earlier this month after the same judge – U.S. District Judge Allison D. Burroughs – blocked the administration's attempt to revoke the university's certification to host international students. The proclamation claims the entry of foreign nationals heading to Harvard is 'detrimental to the interests of the United States because, in my judgment, Harvard's conduct has rendered it an unsuitable destination for foreign students and researchers.' Harvard sued the administration in May after the government pulled its certification and said foreign students, who make up more than a quarter of Harvard's student body, must transfer or risk losing their visa status. Burroughs's latest ruling addresses what she called 'an end run' around her first order. In a 44-page opinion issued Monday, Burroughs said, 'This case is about core constitutional rights that must be safeguarded: freedom of thought, freedom of expression, and freedom of speech, each of which is a pillar of a functioning democracy and an essential hedge against authoritarianism.' She added: 'Here, the government's efforts to control a reputable academic institution and squelch diverse viewpoints, seemingly because they are, in some instances, opposed to this Administration's own views, threaten these rights. To make matters worse, the government attempts to accomplish this, at least in part, on the backs of international students.'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store