"Termination Cannot Come Fast Enough!" - Trump Pummels
"Always Too Late & Wrong" Powell
Tyler Durden

As US equity markets continue to fall - and recession calls mount from establishment elites, despite strong 'hard' data' - President Trump lashed out at Fed Chair Powell via TruthSocial this morning exclaiming that Powell's termination from his position can’t come quickly enough, arguing that the US central bank should have lowered interest rates already this year, and in any case should do so now.

The ECB is expected to cut interest rates for the 7th time, and yet, "Too Late” Jerome Powell of the Fed, who is always TOO LATE AND WRONG, yesterday issued a report which was another, and typical, complete "mess!”

Oil prices are down, groceries (even eggs!) are down, and the USA is getting RICH ON TARIFFS. 

Too Late should have lowered Interest Rates, like the ECB, long ago, but he should certainly lower them now. 

Powell's termination cannot come fast enough!

In Europe, trade wars are dovish: 

Reuters reports that the ECB decision to cut rates for a 7th time was unanimous as even some of the more hawkish rate setters agreed the global trade was has significantly altered the outlook.

In a news conference in November, Powell was asked whether he would step down if Trump asked him to resign. 

Powell gave an unusually blunt answer: "No."

He later added that the removal or demotion of top Fed officials was "not permitted under the law."

The President of the United States cannot unilaterally fire the Chairman of the Federal Reserve before the end of their term, except under specific legal conditions. Here’s a structured breakdown:

Appointment Process:
The Fed Chair is nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate for a 4-year term, which is renewable. The Chair also serves as a member of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, who have 14-year terms.

Legal Framework:
The Federal Reserve Act allows the President to remove a Board member (including the Chair) only “for cause” (e.g., misconduct, neglect of duty). This does not include policy disagreements or political differences.
This provision ensures the Fed’s operational independence from short-term political pressures, safeguarding its role in managing monetary policy.

Historical Context:
Past presidents (e.g., Nixon with Arthur Burns, Reagan with Paul Volcker) have faced limitations in influencing Fed Chairs. While they could apply political pressure or decline reappointment, outright removal was not legally feasible without just cause.
Courts have historically upheld the Fed’s independence, reinforcing that “for cause” requires a high threshold, such as ethical violations or incapacity.

Practical Implications:
A President can indirectly influence the Fed by shaping its leadership through appointments (when terms expire) or public persuasion. However, abrupt removal to impose preferred policies would face legal challenges and undermine institutional credibility.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent earlier this week indicated that the administration’s timeline for considering Powell’s successor was roughly six months away. 

Speaking in a Bloomberg Television interview, Bessent said that the timing for interviewing candidates to replace Powell was “sometime in the fall.”

Bessent also said that Fed independence in deciding on monetary policy was a “jewel box that has got to be preserved.” 

We suspect some of Trump's frustration comes from the fact that China's PBOC is doing 'whatever it takes' to prop up their economy/market (take your pick)...

Furthermore, Trump does have grounds for thinking that the so-called 'Independent' Fed is far from it following the comments from Bill Dudley in 2019...

Doesn't sound like an 'apolitical' entity to us?

One more thing - for mathematically gifted among you - why did The Fed slash rates by 50bps just ahead of the election when financial conditions were already 'easy' but refuses to do so now that financial conditions are drastically tighter?

However, Trump’s ability to remove top officials at agencies that had long been viewed as having a measure of independence from the White House has come into acute focus in recent months, after the administration dismissed senior officials at the Federal Trade Commission, the National Labor Relations Board and Merit Systems Protection Board.

As Bloomberg reports, the firings are the most direct challenge yet to a 1935 Supreme Court decision that paved the way for agency independence. 

Powell made reference Wednesday to a current Supreme Court case with regard to the removal of the NLRB and MSPB officials.

“There’s a Supreme Court case. People will have read probably” about it,Powell said in answering questions at the Economic Club of Chicago. 

“That’s a case that people are talking about a lot. I don’t think that decision will apply to the Fed but I don’t know,” he said.

“It’s a situation that we’re monitoring carefully.”

Powell’s term as chair runs into May 2026, while his term as a governor lasts until February 2028.

 

our mission:

to widen the scope of financial, economic and political information available to the professional investing public.
to skeptically examine and, where necessary, attack the flaccid institution that financial journalism has become.
to liberate oppressed knowledge.
to provide analysis uninhibited by political constraint.
to facilitate information's unending quest for freedom.
our method: pseudonymous speech...
Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. it thus exemplifies the purpose behind the bill of rights, and of the first amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation-- and their ideas from suppression-- at the hand of an intolerant society.

...responsibly used.

The right to remain anonymous may be abused when it shields fraudulent conduct. but political speech by its nature will sometimes have unpalatable consequences, and, in general, our society accords greater weight to the value of free speech than to the dangers of its misuse.

Though often maligned (typically by those frustrated by an inability to engage in ad hominem attacks) anonymous speech has a long and storied history in the united states. used by the likes of mark twain (aka samuel langhorne clemens) to criticize common ignorance, and perhaps most famously by alexander hamilton, james madison and john jay (aka publius) to write the federalist papers, we think ourselves in good company in using one or another nom de plume. particularly in light of an emerging trend against vocalizing public dissent in the united states, we believe in the critical importance of anonymity and its role in dissident speech. like the economist magazine, we also believe that keeping authorship anonymous moves the focus of discussion to the content of speech and away from the speaker- as it should be. we believe not only that you should be comfortable with anonymous speech in such an environment, but that you should be suspicious of any speech that isn't.

 

www.zerohedge.com