Latest news with #Trump-dominated
Business Times
a day ago
- Business
- Business Times
Fed structure may be in flux, not just rates
WHATEVER happens at September's Federal Reserve meeting will pale in comparison to a wholesale rethinking of the US central bank's design, a possibility stirred by Donald Trump's latest appointment. The president nominated White House adviser Stephen Miran to temporarily fill Adriana Kugler's vacant Fed board seat, reheating a debate about whether the Fed structure, its independence and even its central role in the monetary economy should now become live questions. That may sound like a giant leap in a discussion that has so far centred largely on how quickly the Fed should lower interest rates, and numerous big hurdles certainly limit the potential for massive institutional change. For one thing, Miran, who has written about re-ordering the Fed voting system and appointment process and binding the central bank more closely to government thinking, still has to be confirmed by the Senate. While that process may be expedited, because he was already confirmed as a White House official, he would ostensibly hold the post only until Kugler's term formally ends in January. He would also get only one vote under the current system, and Trump has yet to name his pick to replace chair Jerome Powell next May. But most Fed watchers think Miran is likely to be confirmed for the full board term eventually, even if he's not considered a candidate for the top job. And his appointment, the eventual new Fed chair, along with Chris Waller – the current favourite to replace Powell when his leadership term ends – and fellow Trump appointee Michelle Bowman, would then give Trump a board majority. BT in your inbox Start and end each day with the latest news stories and analyses delivered straight to your inbox. Sign Up Sign Up On monetary policy, at least, the five rotating regional Fed presidents on the 12-person policymaking committee can still push back. That said, their views are likely in flux since last week's employment report, and markets expect interest-rate cuts to resume next month regardless. Sowing the seeds of longer-term structural change would reside more clearly with the board itself. 'Tempest in a teapot?' The wider issue of rethinking Fed structure, its functioning and independence is a much harder nut to crack. Even if a Trump-dominated board opened the process, it would likely face considerable Congressional opposition and take some time. Many voices have been quick to downplay such speculation. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, who spoke just last month of the need to examine the entire institution, also told NBC that Trump has 'great reverence' for the central bank and just 'likes to work the referees'. Former Fed officials, such as ex-New York Fed boss Bill Dudley, also think the institution and its independence will withstand Trump's repeated attacks on the current leadership. In an opinion piece on Bloomberg last week, Dudley said: 'Don't be fooled by the drama. In terms of how the Fed manages the economy, it's mostly a tempest in a teapot.' And yet, the appointment of Miran – whose work also includes a radical rethink of US trade policy and the controversial 'Mar-a-Lago Accord' idea on cutting US deficits and debt obligations – indicates that a wider Trump worldview is being injected into the Fed. For some critics, Trump's dramatic embrace of digital assets, cryptocurrency tokens and stablecoins is already an indication of a very real direction of travel that could transform the monetary world and banking system. Former International Monetary Fund chief economist Kenneth Rogoff wrote last week that Trump's stablecoin framework bears striking similarities to the free-banking era of the 1800s, when the United States did not have a central bank. 'At the time, private banks issued their own dollar-backed currencies, often with disastrous consequences such as fraud, instability and frequent bank runs,' Rogoff said on the Project Syndicate site. While similar problems are 'bound to emerge' with stablecoins, particularly tax evasion, he added that top stablecoin issuers today are at least more transparent and better capitalised than their 19th-century cousins. What happens to the Fed's role in a potential world of private money, however, is a whole other question. Trump supporters regularly insist that his asides and off-the-cuff remarks are often taken too literally, and that people catastrophise what ends up being fairly sensible plans. Yet, dismissing Trump's intention to reshape American and global institutions has proven to be folly this year as well. REUTERS
Time of India
a day ago
- Business
- Time of India
Fed structure may be in flux, not just rates
Donald Trump's nomination of Stephen Miran to the Federal Reserve board has ignited debate about the central bank's structure and independence. This appointment, along with potential future nominations, could shift the Fed's direction, particularly regarding monetary policy and the role of digital assets. Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads By Mike DolanWhatever happens at September's Federal Reserve meeting will pale in comparison to a wholesale rethinking of the U.S. central bank's design, a possibility stirred by Donald Trump 's latest appointment. The president nominated White House advisor Stephen Miran to temporarily fill Adriana Kugler's vacant Fed board seat, reheating a debate about whether the Fed structure, its independence, and even its central role in the monetary economy should now become live may sound like a giant leap in a discussion that has so far centered largely on how quickly the Fed should lower interest rates, and numerous big hurdles certainly limit the potential for massive institutional change. For one, Miran, who has written about re-ordering the Fed voting system and appointment process and binding the central bank more closely to government thinking, still has to be confirmed by the that process may be expedited, because he was already confirmed as a White House official, he would ostensibly only hold the post until Kugler's term formally ends in January. He would also only get one vote under the current system, and Trump has yet to name his pick to replace Chair Jerome Powell next most Fed watchers think Miran is likely to be confirmed for the full board term eventually, even if he's not considered a candidate for the top his appointment, the eventual new Fed Chair, along with Chris Waller, the current favorite to replace Powell when his leadership term ends in May, and fellow Trump appointee Michelle Bowman, would then give Trump a board monetary policy at least, the five rotating regional Fed presidents on the 12-person policymaking committee can still push back. That said, their views are likely in flux since last week's employment report, and markets expect interest rate cuts to resume next month the seeds of longer-term structural change would reside more clearly with the board itself.'TEMPEST IN A TEAPOT?'The wider issue of rethinking Fed structure, its functioning and independence is a much harder nut to crack. Even if a Trump-dominated board opened the process, it would likely face considerable Congressional opposition and take some voices have been quick to downplay such Secretary Scott Bessent, who spoke just last month of the need to examine the entire institution, also told NBC this week that Trump has "great reverence" for the central bank and just "likes to work the referees".Former Fed officials, such as ex-New York Fed boss Bill Dudley, also think the institution and its independence will withstand Trump's repeated attacks on the current an opinion piece on Bloomberg this week, Dudley wrote, "Don't be fooled by the drama. In terms of how the Fed manages the economy, it's mostly a tempest in a teapot." And yet the appointment of Miran - whose work also includes a radical rethink of U.S. trade policy and the controversial "Mar-a-Lago Accord" idea on cutting U.S. deficits and debt obligations - indicates that a wider Trump worldview is being injected into the Fed. For some critics, Trump's dramatic embrace of digital assets, crypto tokens and stablecoins is already an indication of a very real direction of travel that could transform the monetary world and banking system. Former International Monetary Fund chief economist Kenneth Rogoff wrote this week that Trump's stablecoin framework bears striking similarities to the free-banking era of the 1800s, when the United States did not have a central bank."At the time, private banks issued their own dollar-backed currencies, often with disastrous consequences such as fraud, instability and frequent bank runs," Rogoff wrote on the Project Syndicate similar problems are "bound to emerge" with stablecoins, particularly tax evasion, he added that top stablecoin issuers today are at least more transparent and better capitalized than their nineteenth-century happens to the Fed's role in a potential world of private money, however, is a whole other supporters regularly insist that his asides and off-the-cuff remarks are often taken too literally and that people catastrophize what ends up being fairly sensible dismissing Trump's intention to reshape American and global institutions has proven to be folly this year as opinions expressed here are those of the author, a columnist for Reuters-- Enjoying this column? Check out Reuters Open Interest (ROI), your essential new source for global financial commentary. Follow ROI on LinkedIn. Plus, sign up for my weekday newsletter, Morning Bid opinions expressed here are those of the author, a columnist for Reuters
New York Post
28-07-2025
- Business
- New York Post
Trump's trade wins shock the experts — who are blind to business reality
If America is in the midst of a trade war, the question we have to ask is: Are we tired of winning yet? President 'Donald Trump reaps $50bn tariff haul as world 'chickens out,'' reads the Financial Times headline. 'Only China and Canada have retaliated against US president's tariff war,' its subhead adds. 'In the Trump-dominated global economy, the US gets plenty but gives nothing in return,' reads a rueful post on X from Axios — another publication with an upmarket readership — promoting an article titled, 'Trump trade deals prove access to the US still matters above all else.' Populist publications have a different take on Trump's spate of trade victories. 'Trump's trade deal bloc — let's call it The Free World — now encompasses 57% of global GDP . . . 40% of total global trade in goods,' and '18% of the world's population,' according to Breitbart's John Carney. The president has only been in office six months, and his tariffs haven't even been in place that long, but already the results are undeniable. At a time when there otherwise seems to be no end to federal deficits, Trump's trade policy put the federal government in the black for the month of June, with a $27 billion surplus — and, as it happens, about $27 billion in tariff revenue. It's one thing that Trump so often surprises political opponents who underestimate him at election time and can't understand the root of his appeal. What's more remarkable is Trump seems to defy the very laws of economics — or rather, the law as laid down by economists. Other social sciences have lately lost credibility thanks to a 'republication crisis' that shows how the results reported in leading journals of psychology and other fields all too often fail to be repeated when experiments are conducted anew and data are re-examined. Every morning, the NY POSTcast offers a deep dive into the headlines with the Post's signature mix of politics, business, pop culture, true crime and everything in between. Subscribe here! Will the economics profession — whose mainstream is fervently in favor of free trade and is convinced tariffs are madness — face a similar reckoning for getting this test wrong? Trump can do things the economists say can't be done because he approaches trade the way he conducts his real-estate business: It's a negotiation, and leverage is what counts. Precisely because the United States has such an enormous trade deficit with the rest of the world — amounting to more than $918 billion in 2024 — other nations depend on access to our market as an outlet for their goods. The size and wealth of the American consumer base is unmatchable, and countries that get cut off from it can't easily make up the difference by selling more goods and services somewhere else. Whole industries in Europe and Asia would collapse without access to the American consumer. Trump is willing to give them access — for a price. Instead of using punitive tariffs to exclude foreign goods altogether, Trump is willing to strike a deal with anyone to allow goods to be sold in America at a price that makes the trade worthwhile for Americans and foreign companies alike. The hitch: The deal must be on terms favorable for American workers and industry. The president's arrangement with the European Union levies a 15% tariff on most EU goods — but that's peanuts compared to the 30% Trump was threatening if Europe didn't cooperate. The deal calls for new European investments of $600 billion in America, as well as for EU members to buy more energy and military equipment from us. The 15% tariff is higher than what European producers were paying before Trump returned to the White House — high enough that American producers will get some protective advantage, but not so high that foreign companies won't be able to compete. Start your day with all you need to know Morning Report delivers the latest news, videos, photos and more. Thanks for signing up! Enter your email address Please provide a valid email address. By clicking above you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Never miss a story. Check out more newsletters That's crucial because competition is what keeps prices down for American consumers. Foreign firms can't easily 'pass on' a tax on their goods — which is what a tariff is — to the Americans who buy their products when those same Americans can choose from domestic producers instead. The modest protection a 15% tariff affords gives more investors at home a reason to put their capital into American companies — which is good for our workforce and consumers alike. It means more jobs and more goods; more money in Americans' pockets and more stock on the shelves, which keeps prices down. There's risk in all this, but the upside opportunity is much greater, as entrepreneurs here and abroad recognize. For the Europeans, it's a no-brainer: The American market is so rife with profit possibilities that a 15% access fee is a very modest cost of doing business. American businesses should recognize their opportunity as well — they're native to a market the entire world is desperate to be in, and they should use that advantage to the fullest, investing at home and making the sales that foreign firms are so eager to make here. In this trade war, all Americans are winning — except, perhaps, the overeducated prisoners of the Ivory Tower. Daniel McCarthy is the editor of Modern Age: A Conservative Review and editor-at-large of The American Conservative.
The Hill
27-06-2025
- Politics
- The Hill
Trump defies the skeptics and conquers Europe
Remember how President Trump was going to destroy the NATO alliance? How Joe Biden was the trusted guardian of U.S. international relations? Remember Biden crowing, 'We're back?' It turns out that Trump is back, and thank Heaven for that. Trump has arguably just saved NATO, and possibly Europe. His triumphant return to the NATO stage — called by NPR the 'Trump-dominated NATO summit' — should be celebrated by every American. He stood up for our country, as opposed to acting as a functionary of the global world order, and it worked. NPR reported that the recent summit in the Netherlands is being called 'transformational' and 'historic.' They write, 'If there were doubts that the United States runs NATO, the summit removed them.' They also quoted Finland's President Alexander Stubb as saying, 'We're witnessing the birth of a new NATO.' Has NATO been bullied by Trump? Yes — bullied into becoming a stronger, more effective alliance that will draw on the treasuries of its 32 member countries to beef up its mutual defense. No longer will it rely so heavily on the U.S. to counter Russia or other adversaries. With the U.S. still providing a needed backstop, Europe is taking charge of its own destiny, at long last. NATO members have now agreed to hike their outlays on munitions and other defense items to 5 percent of GDP — an astonishing pivot from years of underinvesting, and also a huge win for Trump on an issue he has been raising for more than a decade. Europe's free ride is over. Further defying the incessant naysayers, Trump affirmed our country's commitment to the alliance in a press conference afterward, calling NATO essential for the 'safety of Europe and the safety of the world.' In 2023, former Trump administration national security adviser John Bolton, whom Trump fired in 2019, predicted, 'In a second Trump term, we'd almost certainly withdraw from NATO.' In 2024 the Brookings Institute quoted Bolton's dire warning in a piece titled, 'Could NATO survive a second Trump administration?' Their conclusion? 'Most likely not — at least not with the United States as a committed ally and alliance leader.' The Brookings author explained that Trump 'believes allies use their defense savings to bolster their industries, out-compete the United States in trade, and take American jobs.' And of course, the Brookings author was all wrong, even though Trump is right in all of those beliefs. Yes, Europe has been freeloading for decades, relying on the U.S. to pay for the bulk of its defense and — to rub salt in the wound — also erecting tariffs and non-trade barriers to advantage its own industries. But those days are over. Both on defense and trade, Trump has lowered the hammer. In 2017, the U.S. accounted for 51.1 percent of the allies' combined GDP and 71.7 percent of their combined defense expenditures. More shocking: in 2017, the U.K. spent some $55.2 billion on defense, Germany $45.4 billion and France $45.9 billion; the United States shelled out $685.9 billion. What's reasonable about that? Eventually, some European countries got on board with the need to up their militaries. Earlier this year, Polish prime minister Donald Tusk addressed the European Parliament and said, 'Don't ask America what it can do for our security. Ask yourselves what we can do for our own security.' Poland is one of the few countries in Europe spending 5 percent of its GDP on defense because, as Tusk said, 'Poland … has such a long border with Russia and Belarus, and the friendly one with Ukraine, but a war border in a way at the moment.' He made the case: 'If Europe is to survive, it needs to be armed. It is not our choice.' Early in his 2016 presidency, Trump attended his first NATO meeting, and began a years-long push to get members to raise their spending. In 2014 the alliance had committed to raise defense spending to 2 percent of GDP by 2024, but only six countries at the time of the 2017 gathering had met that goal or even indicated a willingness to do so. Thanks in part to public shaming by Trump, by 2023, more than two-thirds of alliance countries were expected to hit that target. Trump not only embarrassed NATO, he also refused to reflexively support Article Five of the 1949 Washington Treaty, which affirms that an attack against one 'shall be considered an attack against them all.' That set off alarm bells. The Brookings analyst noted that endorsing 'Article Five is something American presidents ritualistically do, in part because Article Five does not commit allies to a specific action. However, American presidents other than Trump made clear the United States would come to the aid of an attacked ally with U.S. military force. That bolsters deterrence.' He noted that Trump, at a campaign stop last year, threatened that if NATO members did not raise their defense outlays, he would 'absolutely not' defend them, adding 'I would encourage [the Russians] to do whatever the hell they want.' What has been the fallout from Trump's bullying of NATO? They have done exactly as he correctly wanted them to do, taking on an increasing share of the collective defense budget. In 2014, members other than the U.S. accounted for roughly 24 percent of total defense spending. By 2024 that portion had jumped to about 36 percent. That is a win, not only for the U.S. but for Europe as well. Forcing Europe into self-reliance is essential to our ability to counter China. As Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth told the Ukraine Defense Contact Group in February, 'We also face a peer competitor in the communist Chinese with the capability and intent to threaten our homeland and core national interests in the Indo-Pacific. The U.S. is prioritizing deterring war with China in the Pacific, recognizing the reality of scarcity, and making the resourcing tradeoffs to ensure deterrence does not fail.' NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte texted Trump as he traveled to the NATO gathering, saying 'Europe is going to pay in a BIG way, as they should, and it will be your win.' Indeed. Liz Peek is a former partner of major bracket Wall Street firm Wertheim and Company.
Yahoo
01-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Spooked By Trade Wars, Trump Officials Hoard Supplies: ‘It Would Be Stupid Not To!'
Donald Trump's trade wars with China and other nations are widely expected to cause sharp economic pain, but some experts have warned consumers not to hoard supplies and goods before prices skyrocket, arguing that mass stockpiling could backfire spectacularly. Well, many Americans aren't listening to that advice, according to survey data this year, instead preparing for the possibility of store shelves being bare amid a Trump-inflicted recession. Funnily enough, this includes a number of government officials and staffers working directly for the man who launched these massive new trade wars, all on the grounds of bad tariff math and the flimsy premise that he would bring economic 'liberation' to America and make the country 'wealthy again.' Two Trump administration officials and a Trump aide tell Rolling Stone that they have done some stockpiling of their own in recent weeks or months, and that they know others working in Republican politics — inside and outside of the administration — who are doing the same. One of the Trump officials says they have already run to Target to bulk-buy toilet paper, some types of food, and other household supplies. When asked why they're doing this, the Trump aide — who says they and their partner have done similar household-supply hoarding lately, and are also 'stashing cash' reserves in their D.C.-area home — simply replies: 'Because it would be stupid not to!' The aide adds that they still believe in Trump's tariffs regime, though, citing the supposed advantage of 'short-term pain' in exchange for long-term 'prosperity.' The trend is symptomatic of a larger panic taking place within the Trump-dominated Republican elite. A significant share of the GOP luminaries on Capitol Hill, members of the Republican donor class, and some top-ranking officials in the Trump administration are privately (and sometimes publicly) extremely fearful that Trump's trade warfare is going to throttle the U.S. economy and further drive down his and the party's approval ratings ahead of the 2026 midterm elections. But because Trump commands a towering personality cult among the Republican base and rules over his party with catty malice, these GOP bigwigs mostly have to just go along with it and smile. They'll tell the American people one thing (Trump's got this, they'll claim), and behave privately another way (hoarding toilet tissue for themselves, and occasionally trying to talk the president off his Peter Navarro-shaped ledge). In the corridors of power within Trump's own administration, there is a growing belief that the Chinese government indeed has the upper hand in this stage of the trade standoff, and that Trump is strategically flailing and looking for easy wins that don't actually exist, multiple sources with knowledge of the matter attest. Many in the GOP's upper echelons are keeping their fingers crossed that the president will find some outs and declare imaginary victory before his economic war inflicts too much damage on the average American voter. Nobody — not even Trump, it seems — knows how long this is going to last. The American public has been trying to tell the president that they won't put up with it for very long. 'U.S. consumer confidence plummets to Covid-era low as trade war stokes anxiety,' the Associated Press reported on Tuesday, referencing the last time Trump was in office overseeing a crisis that also involved numerous Americans hoarding toilet paper, amid a supply chain crisis. (A similar supply shock is on its way.) In recent days, multiple high-quality polls have separately shown the president's approval rating sinking, in some data to the thirties. The poor numbers have infuriated Trump enough for him to call for criminal investigations of pollsters. He has reason to be upset. Widespread dissatisfaction with the American economy is a primary reason Trump won, and why the last president had his legacy ripped apart. As CNN reported on Monday: 'A 59 percent majority of the public now says President Donald Trump's policies have worsened economic conditions in the country, according to a new CNN poll conducted by SSRS, up from 51 percent in March and on par with the worst numbers Joe Biden saw during his presidency.' On Tuesday, after it was first reported by Punchbowl News that Amazon planned to 'display how much of an item's cost is derived from tariffs — right next to the product's total listed price,' the Trump White House slammed it as a 'hostile' act, and a reportedly 'pissed' Trump quickly got Amazon founder Jeff Bezos on the phone. The president later claimed, 'Bezos was very nice' and 'solved the problem very quickly. Good guy.' By Wednesday morning, when news broke that the American economy had shrank and, per The Wall Street Journal, that 'the 0.3 percent decline in GDP fell short of the 0.4 percent growth that economists surveyed' predicted, the president did the only thing he could think to do: He took to the internet to try to pin the blame for the mess he's made on former President Joe Biden. 'We will get back to the GDP, etc., moving forward, and we remain convinced and confident this president knows exactly what he is doing. He is the ultimate dealmaker,' Trump's Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins insisted to a Fox News host, who really did not sound like he was buying what she was selling. Rollins' appeal to good vibes aside, as indicators have worsened by the week, some close Trump allies and conservative-economics stalwarts aren't bothering to dissuade the American people — and Trump officials, evidently — from hoarding certain goods and products. In fact, some are openly saying it's a perfectly rational response to the Trump administration's tariff salvos. 'We had a pretty good consumer spending report a few days ago and the hunch is that people are buying in advance of the tariffs; that sounds plausible,' says Stephen Moore, a conservative writer and Project 2025 contributor who has advised Trump on economic matters for years. 'That's just logical consumer behavior,' he adds. 'The tariffs in the short term will probably bump prices up, [so] it might make sense to buy in advance of that. This is like a tax increase; basically, you buy before the tax increase takes effect … But the problem is that now it is getting too late to buy in advance because tariffs are already having an effect. Consumers are gonna change their behavior based on these things, if it's something that's imported. If Trump starts to get a few of these deals done, then it'll alleviate some of that pressure, but I don't know where they are on that right now.' Moore is just one example of a long-established figure in the national GOP ecosystem and right-wing media who continues to counsel and support Trump, despite his and other conservative diehards' misgivings about the tariffs. For years, the president, unlike more traditional Republicans, has viewed massive tariffs as a net-positive for the country and as his perfect negotiating tool in high-stakes international trade standoffs. He also believes he can impose his tariff blitzes unilaterally as president, a legally dubious claim that is currently working its way through the courts. 'When a country (USA) is losing many billions of dollars on trade with virtually every country it does business with, trade wars are good, and easy to win,' Trump tweeted in 2018, when he was president the first time and toying with trade warfare on a smaller scale than now. 'When we are down $100 billion with a certain country and they get cute, don't trade anymore — we win big. It's easy!' Senior officials from Trump's first administration are about as convinced by that argument today as they were when they worked for him. 'If we continue down this path, I think it's going to be pretty bleak for the economy,' says Marc Short, who once served as Trump's White House legislative affairs director and as a top aide to Mike Pence. 'There's likely going to be significant job losses and potential supply problems in your stores. I do think the president is very adept at claiming victory and reversing his policies, so there's a question about how long this actually goes. But if you look at the data on trucking and shipping right now, I think by the end of May you're going to see more shortages and supply disruptions.' Short continues: 'On Tuesday morning, there was data that showed how the monthly trade deficit ballooned to one of the highest levels ever, and the tariffs in theory were about fixing that deficit. But it's only gotten worse. I think this could mean a lot of Americans — not just White House staff — are out there ordering supplies ahead of what they expect to be a rougher period. Thankfully we live in a relatively free economy that's dynamic, but in the past we [in the Republican Party] have criticized central planners on the left. But I think there are currently central planners in this White House who think they can control what Americans buy and sell through their trade policies.' He concludes: 'I don't think it works.' More from Rolling Stone Kamala Harris Slams Trump's 'Narrow, Self-Serving Vision of America' in Gala Speech Trump Goes Full Grinch as Tariffs Threaten to Ruin Christmas Sheryl Crow Says an Armed Man Got on Her Property After She Ditched Her Tesla Best of Rolling Stone The Useful Idiots New Guide to the Most Stoned Moments of the 2020 Presidential Campaign Anatomy of a Fake News Scandal The Radical Crusade of Mike Pence
