• Investing
  • Stock
  • Economy
  • Editor’s Pick
Portfolio Performance Today
Economy

Trump v Powell: The Credibility Cost of Politicized Monetary Policy

by June 27, 2025
by June 27, 2025

The tension between President Donald Trump and Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell has reignited, following the Fed’s recent decision to hold interest rates steady. President Trump stated again that he might consider firing Powell, something he had previously ruled out. With unemployment still low and output not yet showing signs of contraction, the Fed has judged that the current policy stance is appropriate. Inflation, while lower than its peak, remains above target, leaving little room for interest rate cuts without risking renewed price pressures. Yet Trump prefers a lower interest rate, a policy that might, in the short run, counteract his policy on tariffs.

Trump’s push for lower interest rates creates economic and institutional problems. The first is macroeconomic. By lowering rates in the face of still-stubborn inflation, the Fed risks undoing the fragile progress made since the post-pandemic surge in prices. While lower rates could offer some short-term relief from the economic drag caused by trade tensions and the recent spike in tariffs — many of Trump’s own making — they would do so at the risk of future inflationary pressure. That’s a dangerous trade-off. Monetary easing in a context of persistent inflation is more likely to produce stagflation than sustainable growth.

The second problem is institutional, which is arguably more damaging in the long run. Political interference in monetary policy compromises the independence and credibility of the central bank. The Fed’s legitimacy rests on its ability to act according to economic data, not political pressure. If monetary policymakers can be cajoled into taking actions that align with electoral timelines or partisan agendas, the public will likely expect higher inflation. That would put the Fed in a difficult position: deliver the higher inflation expected by the public or risk a recession. 

Two historical precedents underscore the importance of central bank independence in very different ways. Fed Chair Arthur Burns gave in to President Nixon’s pressure campaign: he lowered interest rates ahead of the 1972 election, when doing so was unwarranted by the economic data, contributing to the high inflation of the 1970s. Fed Chair Paul Volcker refused to give in to pressure from President Reagan, who wanted the Fed chair to commit to not raise rates ahead of the 1984 election. Volcker was not planning to raise rates any further at the time, but refused to commit nonetheless. Volcker’s approach helped restore price stability and solidified the Fed’s reputation for independence. That legacy is now at risk.

President Trump’s calls for the Fed to cut rates risks undermining the institution, regardless of how the Fed responds. If the Fed were to cut rates today, the public might view the decision as a capitulation to political demands. If the Fed refuses to cut rates, as it has done since December 2024, the public might wonder whether the decision was at least partially driven by Fed officials’ desire to avoid the perception of yielding to political pressure. In either case, therefore, the public might come to believe the Fed is responding to political factors rather than economic data. Hence, the integrity of monetary policy suffers either way.

Credibility is hard earned and easily lost. That credibility is especially important in the international context. As the issuer of the world’s primary reserve currency, the US dollar’s value depends not only on the economic fundamentals in the United States, but also on the belief that the Fed will conduct policy in accordance with the economic fundamentals. Political meddling undermines that belief. A politicized central bank is one that foreign investors and trading partners may learn to doubt. Additionally, it can have a negative impact on the US Treasury’s international market.

With signs of disagreement emerging within the Fed’s Board of Governors on whether to pivot toward rate cuts later this year, the institution finds itself in a difficult position. Even if the eventual decision is economically justified, it risks being interpreted through a political lens. It is also likely that the Trump administration will publicly claim a victory over the Fed when cuts eventually begin, encouraging the political interpretation. In sum, the damage is already done: not necessarily to inflation or employment, but to the foundational principle of sound money itself.

0 comment
0
FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail

previous post
Consumer IoT Products are Priced 44% Higher on Average Than Similar Non-Connected Products
next post
PBS and NPR: A Free Press Doesn’t Need a Government Budget Line 

Related Posts

Tariffs Rest on Distrust of Citizens

October 3, 2025

What I Saw in Milei’s Argentina

October 3, 2025

Democrats refuse to budge over Obamacare fight as...

October 3, 2025

White House says federal layoffs could hit ‘thousands’...

October 3, 2025

Johnson shuts door on negotiating shutdown deal as...

October 3, 2025

‘Real consequences’: Food aid, flood insurance, FEMA funds...

October 3, 2025

Trump must triple severely outdated nuke arsenal to...

October 3, 2025

FLASHBACK: James Comey urged officials to always prosecute...

October 3, 2025

The agency staff Vought might recommend cutting and...

October 3, 2025

Trump’s DOGE savings dwarfed by Medicare, Social Security...

October 3, 2025

Stay updated with the latest news, exclusive offers, and special promotions. Sign up now and be the first to know! As a member, you'll receive curated content, insider tips, and invitations to exclusive events. Don't miss out on being part of something special.

By opting in you agree to receive emails from us and our affiliates. Your information is secure and your privacy is protected.

Recent Posts

  • What I Saw in Milei’s Argentina

    October 3, 2025
  • Tariffs Rest on Distrust of Citizens

    October 3, 2025
  • Cyberattack halts Asahi production, disrupts Japan’s beer supply

    October 3, 2025
  • Europe markets open: Stoxx 600 rises 0.4%, extending its record-setting rally

    October 3, 2025
  • Bitcoin ETFs see over $600M in inflows as BTC price nears $120K

    October 3, 2025
  • Stockholm leads Europe in IPO activity with $6.8 billion raised

    October 3, 2025

Editors’ Picks

  • 1

    Meta executives eligible for 200% salary bonus under new pay structure

    February 21, 2025
  • 2

    Walmart earnings preview: What to expect before Thursday’s opening bell

    February 20, 2025
  • 3

    New FBI leader Kash Patel tapped to run ATF as acting director

    February 23, 2025
  • 4

    Cramer reveals a sub-sector of technology that can withstand Trump tariffs

    March 1, 2025
  • 5

    Anthropic’s newly released Claude 3.7 Sonnet can ‘think’ as long as the user wants before giving an answer

    February 25, 2025
  • 6

    Nvidia’s investment in SoundHound wasn’t all that significant after all

    March 1, 2025
  • 7

    Pop Mart reports 188% profit surge, plans aggressive global expansion

    March 26, 2025

Categories

  • Economy (2,770)
  • Editor's Pick (279)
  • Investing (185)
  • Stock (1,885)
  • About us
  • Contact us
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms & Conditions

Copyright © 2025 Portfolioperformancetoday.com All Rights Reserved.

Portfolio Performance Today
  • Investing
  • Stock
  • Economy
  • Editor’s Pick
Portfolio Performance Today
  • Investing
  • Stock
  • Economy
  • Editor’s Pick
Copyright © 2025 Portfolioperformancetoday.com All Rights Reserved.

Read alsox

Europe’s Precautionary Principle Is Killing the Next...

July 30, 2025

Trump inks trade deal with UK, previews...

May 11, 2025

Reviving Factory Jobs is an Expensive Illusion

May 30, 2025