The Fed's recent rate cuts, despite strong economic indicators, are seen as a capitulation to political pressure. This suggests the central bank is now functioning as a "political utility" to manage government debt, marking a victory for political influence over its traditional independence.

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.

Economist Tyler Cowen argues that the market's muted reaction to the DOJ's investigation of Jerome Powell is because the Fed's independence was already compromised. The nation's high debt and deficits create implicit pressure to eventually monetize the debt through inflation, a structural force more powerful than political rhetoric.

Rajan argues that a central bank's independence is not guaranteed by its structure but by the political consensus supporting it. When political polarization increases, institutions like the Fed become vulnerable to pressure, as their supposed autonomy is only as strong as the political will to uphold it.

The market's calm reaction to threats against the Fed's independence is not disbelief, but a reflection that a "tipping point" hasn't been reached. As long as the board's composition is stable, markets remain subdued, but a sudden change could trigger a rapid and dramatic repricing of risk, similar to a bankruptcy.

While political pressure on the Federal Reserve is notable, the central bank's shift towards rate cuts is grounded in economic data. Decelerating employment and signs of increasing labor market slack provide a solid, data-driven justification for their policy recalibration, independent of political influence.

The market's significant reaction was not to the anticipated rate cut, but to Chair Powell's direct press conference statement that a December cut was "not a foregone conclusion. Far from it." This demonstrates how a central bank chair's specific phrasing and communication style can be a more powerful market-moving catalyst than the policy decision itself.

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 debate over Fed independence is misplaced; it has already been compromised. Evidence includes preemptive reappointments of regional bank presidents and outspokenness from governors concerned about being bullied, indicating the Fed no longer operates in its prior insulated environment.