Despite a direct political threat to the Federal Reserve's independence, market reaction was minimal. This is attributed to the "taco trade" (Trump Always Chickens Out), a belief that the president will walk back extreme actions, suggesting a growing desensitization to institutional risks.

Related Insights

Rajan suggests that a central bank's reluctance to aggressively fight inflation may stem from a fear of being blamed for a potential recession. In a politically charged environment, the institutional risk of becoming the 'fall guy' can subtly influence policy, leading to a more dovish stance than economic data alone would suggest.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The Fed broke its usual silence to counter a DOJ probe it saw as politically motivated. Instead of a prolonged fight, President Trump quickly disavowed knowledge, leaving the situation in a strange limbo and making future actions from either side difficult to predict.

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.