The appointment of Kevin Warsh as Fed Chair shifts the focus from purely economic decisions to a fundamental governance question: will the central bank remain independent or take political orders from the president? This represents a potential paradigm shift in the separation of powers.

While interest rates are set by a committee vote, the Federal Reserve Chair wields immense influence by deciding what policy to propose and acting as the primary communicator to markets. The public and financial markets give deference to the chair's views, making their ability to shape the narrative a powerful tool.

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.

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 Fed Chair is just one vote on the FOMC and cannot unilaterally dictate policy. To be effective, they must persuade other governors and regional presidents. A nominee like Kevin Warsh, perceived as partisan and not data-driven, may struggle to build the necessary consensus to implement his agenda, rendering him less powerful than expected.

Despite intense political criticism, a coalition including former Fed chairs, Treasury secretaries from both parties, and major bank CEOs has publicly defended the central bank's independence. This signals that markets view a non-politicized Fed as critical for economic stability, overriding political allegiances.

After his term as chair ends, Jay Powell can remain a Fed governor until 2028. His decision to do so, breaking with tradition, would be a powerful statement. It would signal deep concern about Fed independence under new leadership and an attempt to provide a moderating institutional voice.

The Federal Reserve's independence is crucial for long-term economic stability because it prevents presidents from succumbing to the political temptation of lowering interest rates for short-term popularity, a move that risks spiraling inflation.