Trump Lashes Out at 'Dummy' Jerome Powell As Pressure Tactics Ignored

Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources.
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
President Donald Trump called Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell "a real dummy" after interest rates were held steady once again.
Trump has been sharply critical of Powell, publicly chastising him for not cutting interest rates sooner and making clear he wants a new Fed chair.
"Too Late—Powell is the WORST. A real dummy, who's costing America $Billions!" Trump posted to his Truth Social platform.
The Fed is concerned about the outlook for inflation, largely due to the uncertainty over tariffs and trade.
Trump believes higher interest rates are holding back the American economy unnecessarily.
This is a developing article. Updates to follow.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

New York Times

10 minutes ago

• New York Times

Trump Administration Live Updates: U.S. to Examine Social Media Posts of Student Visa Applicants

A Norwegian naval commando hoisted himself onto the deck of a ship during a NATO exercise in March. Beyond projecting military strength and pledging unity, a more pressing theme has emerged for next week's NATO summit: Keep President Trump happy. As leaders prepare to meet for the annual forum starting on Tuesday, U.S. allies have watered down their public support for Ukrainian membership and drafted a policy communiqué as short as five paragraphs to keep the American leader on board. The meeting itself, in The Hague, will open and close in under two days — a timeline designed to keep it devoid of drama. 'No one wants to say no to Trump,' said Mujtaba Rahman, who analyzes Europe for the Eurasia Group. Asked on Wednesday whether the Iran-Israel war would prompt him to skip the meeting, Mr. Trump told reporters that he still planned to attend. In any case, his influence is certain to loom over the gathering. It has already driven an effort by NATO's secretary general, Mark Rutte, to increase military spending by each of the alliance's 32 members to meet a figure suggested by Mr. Trump. He has demanded it be raised to 5 percent of each country's gross domestic product, up from the current level of 2 percent. Mr. Rutte has proposed widening the definition of military spending to help meet that objective. The new benchmark would include 3.5 percent of G.D.P. on core defense spending — weapons, capabilities, troops — and the rest on what NATO calls 'defense and security-related investment, including in infrastructure and resilience.' In the weeks since Mr. Rutte's idea gained steam, its details, and shortcomings, have become clearer, according to officials and experts. The timeline to increase spending may be different for everyone, and officials are confused about the requirements. Even if countries do allocate the sums, European and even American defense industries may not be able to absorb the money or deliver in a timely fashion. And while NATO countries generally agree it is past time to spend more on security in Europe, where officials believe a militarized Russia might be tempted to test the alliance within years, some nations already struggle to reach the existing target on military spending. They are unlikely to meet Mr. Trump's demand soon, if ever. The discussion about Mr. Rutte's proposal, experts said, has devolved into a debate over spending billions of dollars to fund an ever-widening range of priorities. 'It is largely a shell game,' said Jeremy Shapiro, a former State Department official and now research director of the European Council on Foreign Relations. 'There is some reality there, because defense spending is increasing across Europe, but more because of Vladimir Putin than Donald Trump.' Image President Trump, at the White House on Wednesday, has demanded an increase in military spending by NATO's members. Credit... Doug Mills/The New York Times A NATO Numbers Game Mr. Trump first demanded the 5 percent figure two weeks before his inauguration, although his ambassador to NATO, Matthew G. Whitaker, insisted recently that the United States was not 'driving the timeline' for allies to spend more on defense. 'The threats are driving the timeline,' he said. 'Europe keeps telling us that Russia is their biggest threat and we agree, in the Euro-Atlantic it is. And so we need to make sure everybody's investing.' Initially, Mr. Trump's ambitions seemed both abstract and implausible: Only 23 NATO members were meeting their spending goals by the end of last year. But Mr. Rutte's proposal allows for some spending on what NATO calls 'military-adjacent' projects. In practical terms, that could include investments in advanced technology; rebuilding roads, bridges and other infrastructure; civic defense; education; improved health services; and aid to Ukraine. In effect, the Trump benchmark 'is both real and not real,' said Nathalie Tocci, director of Italy's Institute of International Affairs. 'The real thing is 3.5 percent, which has nothing to do with Trump and everything to do with NATO's getting what it judges it needs,' she said. 'The unreal part is the 1.5 percent, the P.R. move for Trump,' she said. 'Of course infrastructure is important, and diplomacy and education, so lump it all together for Trump. And if the magic figure of 5 percent ensures benign indifference rather than malign hostility, that's all to the good.' Image Ukrainian soldiers last month in the Donetsk region. Credit... Tyler Hicks/The New York Times Counting Aid to Ukraine The proposal may have helped Mr. Rutte balance the president's desires with those of European leaders, but it has also created complications. Defense ministers meeting at NATO headquarters in Brussels this month appeared confused over how the money should be spent, and how soon, and over whether aid to Ukraine could count. 'We have to find a realistic compromise between what is necessary and what is possible, really, to spend,' said Germany's defense minister, Boris Pistorius. Luxembourg's defense minister, Yuriko Backes, was more blunt. 'It will be the capabilities that will keep us safe, not percentages,' she said. 'This is what should be driving our investments, not the other way around.' Luxembourg will reach the current spending threshold — which was set in 2014 to be accomplished in a decade — only this year. And not until recently was it clear — even among some NATO defense ministers — that countries could include a small fraction of their military contributions to the war in Ukraine as part of their defense spending. But the rules for what qualifies are complex and decided at NATO headquarters on a case-by-case basis, to ensure that countries don't double-count what they give to Ukraine as a part of domestic military investment. 'Supporting Ukraine is really an investment into our own security,' said Sweden's defense minister, Pal Jonson. Allies are debating how to count the aid to Ukraine. The current plan is to consider it core military spending. But some of the countries nearest to Russia's borders do not want to dilute their domestic defense and want aid to Ukraine categorized as 'related investments.' Image Mark Rutte, the NATO secretary general, during a visit to the White House in April. Mr. Rutte is the architect of a plan that would allow for some spending on what the alliance calls 'military-adjacent' projects. Credit... Haiyun Jiang for The New York Times A Matter of Time There is also uncertainty about when allies would be expected to meet the higher spending threshold. Mr. Rutte initially proposed 2032, but countries on NATO's eastern flank want it to happen sooner. NATO intelligence suggests that, without a credible military deterrent, Russia could mount an effective offensive against the alliance in five years after the Ukraine war ends. 'We don't have time even for seven years,' Defense Minister Hanno Pevkur of Estonia said recently. 'We have to show that we have everything we need to defend our countries.' Britain, for example, has committed to spending only 3 percent by 2034, long after Mr. Trump is scheduled to leave office. Canada, Italy, Luxembourg and Spain will reach 2 percent, a decade-old goal, only this year. And the United States itself currently spends about 3.4 percent of its G.D.P. on defense, even though in sheer dollars it accounts for nearly half of NATO spending. The amount that Washington spends just on Europe is a much smaller percentage of the Pentagon's $997 billion budget. Like Mr. Rutte, other world leaders have sought ways to get the most out of their dealings with Mr. Trump and avoid unpredictable problems. At this week's Group of 7 summit, the newly elected prime minister of Canada and host of the event, Mark Carney, deployed a mix of flattery and discipline. Yet the president still disrupted the gathering, departing early to address the Iran-Israel war. Mr. Rutte hopes to avoid such an outcome. 'Trump is making a fake demand for more spending, and they're giving him a fake response,' Mr. Shapiro said. He called the Rutte plan 'clever, because it lets Trump get what he wants and he can brag about it.'

Forbes

22 minutes ago

• Forbes

Forbes Unveils Its 13th Annual List Of The World's Most Influential CMOs

NEW YORK/CANNES – June 19, 2025 – Forbes today released its 13th annual list of the World's Most Influential CMOs List, recognizing the 50 chief marketers from around the world whose work is not only driving the trajectory of their brands and businesses, but often reshaping the cultural landscape as well. Marian Lee, Chief Marketing Officer of Netflix, tops the list for the second year in a row, with Chris Davis of New Balance and Asmita Dubey of L'Oréal Groupe making up the top three. The chief marketers featured on the 2025 Forbes World's Most Influential CMOs list represent companies with a combined market cap of nearly $14 trillion, as of the close of markets on June 6th, an increase of 28% compared to the previous year. The Forbes list is data-driven, analyzing 10 billion data points from the past 12 months to get from an initial eligible universe of marketers from nearly 3000 companies to the 50 chief marketers recognized. Alongside this annual list, and for the fourth year, Forbes is inducting six CMOs into its Forbes CMO Hall of Fame, recognizing those who would have appeared on the World's Most Influentials list five times. This year's inductees are Enrico Galliera, Chief Marketing and Commercial Officer of Ferrari; Carla Hassan, CMO of JPMorgan Chase; Greg ('Joz') Joswiak, EVP Worldwide Marketing of Apple; Alex Schultz, CMO and VP Analytics of Meta; Alicia Tillman, CMO of Delta; and William White, CMO of Walmart. The market capitalization of the companies represented by these six Hall of Fame CMOs, adds another $6.35 trillion to an aggregated valuation exceeding $20 trillion. 'These 50 CMOs are the ones who pull ideas, people, resources, and strategies into their orbit,' said Seth Matlins, Managing Director of the Forbes CMO Network. 'They shape decisions far beyond the traditional remit of marketing. They eschew the mere idea of marketing's traditional remit in times that bear no similarity to anything once, now quaintly, resembling the traditional.' Forbes also named Donald Trump as the 'Unofficial #1' on the 2025 list for his singular influence over and responsibility for global uncertainty and its consequences. Matlins commented: 'Regardless of your politics or nationality, it seems fair to say that no one and nothing is having a greater cause and effect relationship on what does or doesn't come next for global consumers, CMOs, and the companies they help steward, than the current American president.' You can see this story here. The Forbes list is data driven and along with the company's primary research partner, Sprinklr, and with essential supplemental data and analysis provided by LinkedIn. This year's honorees will be celebrated at Forbes' World's Most Influential CMOs Luncheon in Cannes, bringing together the global marketing community's most influential thinkers and doers. Adobe and Salesforce are the Partner sponsors of the World's Most Influential Luncheon. Acxiom, McKinsey & Company and Valtech are the Supporting Level sponsors. To see the full World's Most Influential CMO list, visit: The 2025 Forbes World's Most Influential CMOs List and for the complete Forbes CMO Hall of Fame list visit: Introducing The 2025 Forbes CMO Hall Of Fame Inductees. Forbes Media Contacts Christina Vega Magrini, cmagrini@ Feryal Nawaz, fnawaz@ Europe Media Contacts Charlotte Juckes, Johanna Pemberton,

Los Angeles Times

23 minutes ago

• Los Angeles Times

Letters to the Editor: As concerns arise around ICE and racial profiling, ‘Could it happen to me?'

To the editor: The article about racial profiling fears regarding the Trump administration's immigration enforcement set me to thinking ('Fears of racial profiling rise as Border Patrol conducts 'roving patrols,' detains U.S. citizens,' June 15). Could it happen to me? I'd characterize myself generally as recognizable as Latino. I assure myself that I was born here in a family that has been in California for 125 years. Yet, we hear of Latinos who are U.S. citizens getting detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement. I further assure myself that I'm a Stanford law graduate living in an upscale community, and have been a practicing business litigation attorney for 48 years. No matter; if my friend, Sen. Alex Padilla, can be manhandled by law enforcement officials, who am I to think I would be exempt? But I'll be damned if I'll go around carrying my passport 'just in case.' It galls me most of all that I, a Vietnam-era vet, could be subject to having my citizenship questioned simply on the basis of physical appearance under policies promulgated by President Trump and his political advisor, Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller — neither of whom ever served in uniform, and neither of whom would even be in this country but for the historical American tradition of chain migration. To cut to the chase, what is a sound basis for determining whether someone on the street might be foreign born without authorization to be in this country? I don't have the answer, but both moral and secular law dictate that it should not be their skin tone or physical appearance. Agustin Medina, South Pasadena .. To the editor: 'Growing concerns of racial profiling,' you think? It really doesn't take much to come to this conclusion. ICE, along with other federal agencies, has been rampaging through neighborhoods in our city where our Latino co-workers and neighbors live and grabbing people off the street, with seemingly no reason other than the color of their skin. This certainly isn't happening in Woodland Hills, where the majority of immigrants are white. And, as this is happening, the president of the United States is calling for 'remigration,' which is a term used by the far-right in Europe calling for ethnic cleansing of nonwhite people through forced or 'voluntary' deportation. This is also against the backdrop of Trump offering asylum to white South Africans. There is no evidence that they face any persecution in the country where, despite the victory of the African National Congress in the '90s, the economy still disproportionately favors white people. Let's call it what it is. This is not about catching and deporting 'violent criminals.' It is about white supremacy, or making America white privileged again. Leslie Simon and Marc Bender, Woodland Hills .. To the editor: It is clearly illegal, not to mention immoral, to stop people and ask for proof of citizenship based on the color of their skin. If ICE wants to catch people who are not supposed to be here, they need to do it neutrally. I suggest they set up checkpoints like the ones used on New Year's Eve to deter drinking and driving. They need to stop every car and ask every person, no matter their age or appearance, for proof of citizenship. And that means birth certificate or passport — driver's licenses don't count. Anyone without the proper documentation would be taken into custody until someone can come down and produce the proper paperwork. And this needs to be done everywhere, including, say, Huntington Beach. After a few days of this, let's see how popular ICE is with the MAGA crowd. Craig Zerouni, Los Angeles