Fed chair Jerome Powell fighting to survive

Last week the Commerce Secretary, Howard Lutnick, said Powell was “obviously afraid of his own shadow.”

“These high interest rates make no sense. Enough is enough,” he posted on X.

Vice President J.D. Vance described the Fed’s decision to keep rates on hold as “monetary malpractice” while the White House economic adviser, Kevin Hassett, said this week that he saw no reason for the Fed not to cut rates right now.

Bowman and Waller have joined the chorus of voices arguing for an immediate rate cut.

Bowman said she would support a cut as soon as next month, as recent data hadn’t shown any clear signs of material impacts from the tariffs.

The trade war might take longer, be more delayed and have a smaller effect on inflation than initially expected, she said.

“Ongoing progress on trade and tariff negotiations has led to an economic environment that is now demonstrably less risky.

“As we think about the path forward, it is time to consider adjusting the policy rate.

“Should inflation pressures remain contained, I would support lowering the policy rate as soon as our next meeting in order to bring it closer to its neutral setting and to sustain a healthy labour market.”

Waller is of the same view.

“I don’t think we need to wait much longer because, even if the tariffs come in later, the impacts are still the same,” Waller said last week.

“It should be a one-off level effect and not cause persistent inflation.”

There is a broad consensus that the tariffs inflationary impacts will be transitory; a one-off price shock that raises costs for US companies and prices for US consumers, but whose effects then stabilise at the higher levels.

Loading

The unknowns, however, are how significant those effects are and how long the transition might be. The punitive reciprocal tariffs could, for instance, generate significant and lasting supply chain shocks.

The Fed hasn’t forgotten the big mistake it (and most central banks) made during the pandemic, when it thought the inflationary effects of the disruptions to global supply chains would be transitory. Instead, the inflation rate soared and the Fed was forced to raise US rates sharply.

That’s why Powell is adopting a conservative, data-driven approach to the potential inflationary impacts of Trump’s tariffs.

At this moment, the Fed has no data to suggest what those impacts might be and is unlikely to have that data to hand until much later this year – but is aware that the risks of cutting rates prematurely are likely to be greater than the risks of leaving them on hold.

Bowman, in 2018, and Waller, in 2020, were both appointed to the Fed by Trump in his first term, with Bowman elevated to vice chair earlier this month. That position carries with it responsibility for bank supervision, with Bowman expected to oversee some deregulation of US banks, in line with the administration’s deregulatory agenda.

The willingness of Bowman and Waller to support Trump’s call for rate cuts comes at a key moment for the Fed.

Powell’s term as chair (but not as a governor) ends in May next year and Trump is expected to announce his successor before the end of this year.

Among those touted as potential chairs are former Fed governor Kevin Warsh, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent…and Waller. Bowman might also be in the frame.

Trump would obviously look favourably on those candidates that support his conviction that US rates are too high, although his opinion is framed on a misunderstanding of how tariffs work.

The Fed hasn’t forgotten the big mistake it (and most central banks) made during the pandemic, when it thought the inflationary effects of the disruptions to global supply chains would be transitory.

He thinks they are paid for by the companies exporting their products to the US. Few, if any, economists would share that belief. Tariffs are paid by the US importer, with their costs potentially shared between the companies and their customers. They are inflationary.

In any event, Trump has made no secret of his desire to have greater influence over the Fed, even posing the question of whether he can appoint himself to the board. He will want to appoint someone he believes will do what he has always advocated and slash US rates.

The chair of the Fed is a powerful role, leading the world’s most influential central bank, but the moment Trump announces a successor Powell’s status will start to diminish as the focus shifts towards the views of the incoming chair.

Loading

An obviously partisan appointment would not just undermine Powell but would also damage perceptions of the Fed’s independence, which is fundamental to its credibility and the trust within financial markets and the business community that it is acting only to pursue its dual mandate of ensuring price stability and maximising employment – that it is apolitical.

There is, however, a twist. Trump could put someone beholden to him in the chair, but the decision-making body within the Fed is the Open Market Committee, whose chair is elected by its 12 voting members.

It is conceivable, albeit perhaps unlikely, that Powell, who can remain a governor until February 2028, could still lead the committee beyond the end of his term as chair in May next year if its members don’t trust the new Fed chair to keep their distance from the White House.

That would almost inevitably embroil the Fed in an unprecedented and even more destabilising confrontation with Trump.

The Market Recap newsletter is a wrap of the day’s trading. Get it each weekday afternoon.