With Fed Chair Jerome Powell's term ending, attacking him seems irrational. The strategy is likely a signal to intimidate his eventual successor and other committee members, establishing a precedent of White House pressure to ensure long-term institutional compliance on interest rates.
Related Insights
Increasing political influence, including presidential pressure and politically-aligned board appointments, is compromising the Federal Reserve's independence. This suggests future monetary policy may be more dovish than economic data warrants, as the Fed is pushed to prioritize short-term growth ahead of elections.
The threat to the Federal Reserve's independence is not limited to a single appointment. It involves a broader potential strategy of simultaneously nominating a chair, replacing other board members like Lisa Cook, and filling vacancies as they arise. This creates the possibility for a majority of the Fed board to become politically aligned with the administration.
The pressure on Fed Chair Powell aims not only to replace him as chair before his term ends but also to force him to vacate his governor seat, which runs until 2028. This would give the President an extra board appointment, accelerating control over the Fed's seven-member board.
The investigation is a strategic move to remove Powell's long-term influence from the Board of Governors after his chairmanship ends, thereby eliminating a key voice of institutional stability and independence.
When an institution is under political attack, leaders can follow Jerome Powell's model: remain calm and steady publicly, articulate the facts of the situation clearly, and privately leverage relationships with allies to build a wall of support.
Ongoing political pressure, including attempts to remove a governor and uncertainty over the next Fed Chair, is perceived as a threat to the Federal Reserve's independence. This political risk is a key factor leading to the view that inflation break-evens are too low and their risks are skewed to the upside.
Investors are pushing back on predictions of a Fed rate hike in H1 2027. The primary reason is the belief that a new Fed chair would be reluctant to signal hikes just months before the US midterm elections, regardless of the economic rationale.
Alan Blinder argues that financial markets are severely underpricing the risk of political interference at the Federal Reserve. He cites the President's attempt to remove a governor and political appointments as clear threats that defy historical norms, calling it "one of the biggest underreactions" he's ever seen.
The criminal indictment threat against Fed Chair Jerome Powell is not merely a dispute over central bank independence. It's a tactic to make an example of a high-profile official, signaling to all government employees the consequences of defying the administration and forcing out perceived opponents.
Despite the perception of independence, the Federal Reserve historically yields to political pressure from the White House. Every US president, regardless of party, has ultimately obtained the monetary policy they desired, a pattern that has held true since the Fed's creation.
