Barry Eichengreen: Is the US Federal Reserve's independence at threat?

The independence of the US Federal Reserve is back in the spotlight. Late last month, Fed Chair Jerome Powell met at the White House with President Donald Trump 'to discuss economic developments," as the Fed antiseptically put it in a post-meeting statement. Market participants will wonder what went on.
Held at the president's request, the meeting was exceptional but not unprecedented. Fed chairs have met with presidents on occasion, although those occasions generally were less than propitious. In 1965, William McChesney Martin met with Lyndon B. Johnson at LBJ's Texas ranch. Johnson worried that a Fed interest-rate hike had created headwinds for growth, and anticipated a challenging midterm election.
Also Read: Powell versus Trump: Why Fed independence matters in times of turmoil
Johnson confronted the Fed chair physically as well as verbally, using his considerable girth to pin Martin to a wall. The impact on Fed policy is disputed to this day. President Richard Nixon met with his Fed Chair Arthur Burns on scores of occasions, regularly pressing him to pursue expansionary monetary policies, which Burns obligingly did.
In 1984, with another election looming, Ronald Reagan summoned Paul Volcker to the White House, where James Baker, the president's chief of staff, instructed Volcker not to raise rates.
Ben Bernanke met repeatedly with George W. Bush during the Global Financial Crisis, when cooperation to prevent collapse of the financial system was imperative.
Powell himself dined with Trump at the White House in 2019.
Periodic meetings pose no threat to central bank independence. Independence requires accountability. And in describing the Fed's priorities and general outlook to the president, the Fed chair is demonstrating accountability to the public. But as in the case of Nixon and Burns, a president who regularly harangues the Fed chair, specifically over interest-rate policy, threatens that independence.
Also Read: The US-China trade truce doesn't solve the Fed's headache
Trump has, of course, repeatedly criticized the Fed's interest-rate decisions. The post-meeting statement issued by the Fed was careful to say that 'expectations for monetary policy" were not discussed. So far so good, assuming the statement can be taken at face value.
The second event raising questions about Fed independence was the Supreme Court's 22 May decision in Trump vs Wilcox in which the court granted an administration request to allow the president to fire members of independent government agencies such as the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), which oversees union elections and labour laws.
Technically, the court paused a lower court ruling that would have stayed the president's power of dismissal, suggesting that presidential discretion is justified because NLRB members 'exercise considerable executive power." In other words, they are de facto members of the executive branch, subordinate to the president. This logic would appear to put the Federal Reserve squarely in Trump's crosshairs.
Also Read: Barry Eichengreen: Trump is taking aim at the IMF, World Bank and US Fed
But in a 6-3 ruling, the six-member majority on the court explicitly exempted the Fed. 'The Federal Reserve," the justices reasoned, 'is a uniquely structured, quasi-private entity that follows in the distinct historical tradition of the First and Second Banks of the United States."
This argument might be seen as providing strong support for Fed independence, except that it is illiterate, illogical and ahistorical. The First and Second Banks of the US, which executed limited functions on behalf of the government between 1791 and 1836, were private banks, full stop. Along with providing depository services to the government, they competed with other banks, extending commercial loans. There was nothing quasi about their private status.
In contrast, the Federal Reserve Board—if we assume that's what the justices mean when they write 'Federal Reserve"—is made up of seven presidentially-appointed public servants. The Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC), responsible for interest-rate policy, includes those seven board members and five regional Reserve Bank presidents, who are appointed by Reserve Bank directors, subject to the approval of the Federal Reserve Board.
The regional Reserve Banks come closest to being 'quasi-private,' because private citizens serve on their boards. But to argue that the same is true of the FOMC or the Federal Reserve System as a whole is a non sequitur.
Also Read: The Fed's 'Mission Impossible' is now 'Mission Accomplished'
Beyond the Fed's governance is the scope of its authority. The First and Second Banks of the US lacked statutory authority to regulate banks, a key public-policy mandate of the Federal Reserve.
In justifying its decision, the majority cited an earlier ruling, Seila Law LLC vs Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, in which the court affirmed the president's power to remove the heads of agencies led by a single director and not a board. That decision included a footnote that the Second Bank and the Fed 'can claim a special historical status." But it provided no legal basis for that statement, and no judgment of validity of the claim. The note reads like a ChatGPT hallucination.
Removing checks on presidential powers while arbitrarily exempting the Fed opens the door to arbitrarily not exempting the US central bank. Advocates of Fed independence should be worried. Maybe that's what Trump and Powell talked about. ©2025/Project Syndicate
The author is professor of economics and political science at the University of California, Berkeley, and the author, most recently, of 'In Defense of Public Debt'

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

First Post

15 minutes ago

• First Post

Why Donald Trump is desperate to win Nobel Peace Prize

Donald Trump has once again ranted about not getting the Nobel Peace Prize. In a long post on Truth Social, he listed a number of reasons why he deserves it. Now, Islamabad has nominated him for the honour for his 'decisive diplomatic intervention and pivotal leadership during the recent India-Pakistan crisis'. But why does the US president long for the validation of the prize so much? read more US President Donald Trump has once again complained about not getting the Nobel Peace Prize. AP United States President Donald Trump has made no bones about coveting a Nobel Peace Prize. He brought up the award again while reiterating his claim of ending hostilities between India and Pakistan — an assertion rejected by New Delhi. Trump has mentioned the Nobel Peace Prize dozens of times publicly, be it in his speeches, interviews or campaign rallies. After failing to get the award in his first term, his obsession with the prestigious award has returned. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD But why does Trump desire the Nobel Peace Prize so strongly? We will take a look. Trump says 'won't get Nobel Peace Prize' US President Donald Trump reiterated his claims of brokering a peace deal between India and Pakistan, griping he would not get a Nobel Peace Prize for 'stopping' the 'war' between the two South Asian neighbours. In a long post on his Truth Social platform on Friday (June 20), the Republican leader mentioned the prestigious award six times. He listed a variety of reasons why he should get the award. The Republican leader complained he would not get the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts in the Russia-Ukraine or Israel-Iran conflicts. 'I won't get a Nobel Peace Prize, no matter what I do,' Trump said in his post. The US President began the post saying he was 'very happy' to report that he, along with Secretary of State Marco Rubio, has arranged a 'wonderful treaty between Congo and Rwanda, in their war, which was known for violent bloodshed and death, more so even than most other Wars, and has gone on for decades.' He went on to say that representatives from Rwanda and Congo will be in Washington on Monday to sign documents, adding that this was a 'Great Day for Africa and, quite frankly, a Great Day for the World!' Donald J. Trump Truth Social 06.20.25 05:58 PM EST — Commentary Donald J. Trump Posts From Truth Social (@TrumpDailyPosts) June 20, 2025 STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Trump said he 'won't get a Nobel Peace Prize for this, I won't get a Nobel Peace Prize for stopping the War between India and Pakistan, I won't get a Nobel Peace Prize for stopping the War between Serbia and Kosovo, I won't get a Nobel Peace Prize for keeping Peace between Egypt and Ethiopia.' The US president has claimed multiple times that he halted the 'war between India and Pakistan' . New Delhi has, however, maintained that an understanding to cease fire with Pakistan was reached after direct talks between the Directors General of Military Operations (DGMOs) of the two militaries. Trump then said that he 'won't get a Nobel Peace Prize for doing the Abraham Accords' in West Asia, which, 'if all goes well, will be loaded to the brim with additional countries signing on, and will 'unify' West Asia 'for the first time in 'The Ages!'' STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The Abraham Accords, signed during Trump's first term at the White House, are landmark agreements to establish ties between Israel and four Arab countries. Trump ended his post with: 'No, I won't get a Nobel Peace Prize no matter what I do, including Russia/Ukraine, and Israel/Iran, whatever those outcomes may be, but the people know, and that's all that matters to me!' Trump's obsession with Nobel Peace Prize This is not the first time that Trump has lamented not winning the Nobel Peace Prize. He has spoken about it several times, and as per New York Times (NYT), complained 'publicly and privately' about not getting it for nearly a decade. As Trump pushes for a ceasefire between Russia and Ukraine and a peace deal in West Asia, the 'award is looming large in his mind', the American newspaper reported, citing current and former advisers. At an Oval Office meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in February, the US president said: 'They will never give me a Nobel Peace Prize.' 'It's too bad. I deserve it, but they will never give it to me,' he added. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Trump has been nominated many times for the Nobel Peace Prize. A wide variety of people can nominate someone for the honour. Last year, Congresswoman Claudia Tenney, a Republican from New York, nominated him for brokering the Abraham Accords. Norwegian politician Christian Tybring-Gjedde and a Swedish political figure, Magnus Jacobsson, nominated Trump during his first term. But the esteemed prize evaded the US president. Trump has been nominated once again. In February, Anat Alon-Beck, an Israeli-born professor at the Case Western Reserve University School of Law, submitted a letter to the Nobel committee, arguing that Trump should get the award for his early work on securing a peace deal in West Asia. 'By securing the release of hostages, standing firm against antisemitism, and fostering historic agreements that bring stability to the world's most volatile regions, [Trump] has once again demonstrated why he is a deserving recipient,' Alon-Beck wrote, as per Axios. The Trump administration officials have also rallied behind the US president in his quest for the prestigious prize, which is decided by the Nobel Committee – appointed by Norway's parliament. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD 'The Nobel Peace Prize is illegitimate if President Trump — the ultimate peace president — is denied his rightful recognition of bringing harmony across the world,' Steven Cheung, the White House communications director, said in a statement earlier. Speaking to Fox News in February, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said Trump deserves a Nobel for his efforts to end the Russia-Ukraine war. 'If it were fairly awarded, I think in a year, he should get it from what I've seen,' he said. US National Security Adviser Mike Waltz, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, and New York Representative Elise Stefanik have also advocated for Trump winning the Nobel. Meanwhile, Pakistan has nominated Trump for the 2026 Nobel Peace Prize 'in recognition of his decisive diplomatic intervention and pivotal leadership during the recent India-Pakistan crisis'. 'At a moment of heightened regional turbulence, President Trump demonstrated great strategic foresight and stellar statesmanship through robust diplomatic engagement with both Islamabad and New Delhi which de-escalated a rapidly deteriorating situation, ultimately securing a ceasefire and averting a broader conflict between the two nuclear states that would have had catastrophic consequences for millions of people in the region and beyond', a statement by Pakistan on Saturday (June 21) claimed. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The announcement came just days after the US president hosted Pakistan Army chief Asim Munir at the White House for lunch. Islamabad has parroted Trump's claim that he 'helped settle' the hostilities between the neighbours. ALSO READ: Not so Noble: How the Nobel Prize has become the most controversial award ever Why is Trump pushing for the Nobel Peace Prize? Trump's obsession with the Nobel Peace Prize may have to do with former US President Barack Obama, who had won the award less than nine months after taking office in 2009. Obama, who was a highly controversial choice, got the prize for his 'extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples'. Trump has criticised the Nobel committee for picking Obama for the award. In 2019, the Republican leader said he should get the prize 'for a lot of things, if they gave it out fairly — which they don't. They gave one to Obama immediately upon his ascent to the presidency, and he had no idea why he got it. … That was the only thing I agreed with him on.' Towards the end of his 2024 presidential campaign, Trump repeatedly brought up Obama's Nobel Peace Prize, ranting that he did not deserve the award. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD 'If I were named Obama, I would have had the Nobel Prize given to me in 10 seconds,' he said. John Bolton, who was ousted by Trump as his national security adviser in 2019, told NYT, 'The centre of his public life is the greater glory of Donald Trump, and the Nobel Peace Prize would be a nice thing to hang on the wall.' 'He saw that Obama got the Nobel Peace Prize and felt if Obama got it for not doing anything, why should he not get it?' he said of the US president. While Trump longs for the validation of the Nobel Peace Prize, critics say he does not deserve it, as there is no guarantee he will achieve a lasting peace between Russia and Ukraine or in West Asia. They also accuse the US president of aligning himself with aggressors. With inputs from agencies

India Today

28 minutes ago

• India Today

At 16, Pranjali Awasthi built a Rs 100-cr AI firm, now she's making ‘ChatGPT with hands'

If you're looking for proof that age is just a number in tech, meet Pranjali Awasthi. She's the Indian-born, US-based coder who started programming at seven, interned at research labs by 13, and launched her own AI startup – --at just company hit a valuation of around Rs 100 crore (about 12 million dollars) in just over a story is as much about passion as it is about opportunity. Born in India, she moved to Florida at 11, where her dad, a computer engineer, encouraged her love for coding. She dove into computer science and competitive maths at school, and soon found herself interning at Florida International University's Neural Dynamics of Control she worked on machine learning projects from a young age, even helping with research to differentiate ADHD types using EEG THE RS 100 CRORE AI STARTUPIn January 2022, Pranjali founded in Miami. The idea was to make research easier for is an AI-powered platform that helps researchers extract and summarise information from academic content, PDFs, and can search multiple documents at once, connect to your cloud drives, and export results in CSV format. There's even a free plan, with paid options for more quickly grabbed attention, raising around $450,000 (Rs 3.89 crore) from investors like Backend Capital and Village Global. By October 2023, it was valued at about Rs 100 love it because it can cut down on repetitive R&D tasks by up to 75%, saving them hours of NEXT? DASH—HER 'CHATGPT WITH HANDS'Now 18, and a Bachelor of Science (Computer Science) student at Georgia Institute of Technology in the US, Pranjali has moved on to her next big thing: Dash. She calls it 'ChatGPT with hands'.Dash is designed to be an AI assistant that doesn't just chat, but can actually take action -- think automation, not just month, Dash hit number one on Product Hunt, and Pranjali celebrated the launch of their official Discord server with a post on RESEARCH LABS TO THE FUTURE OF AIPranjali's journey didn't start with She's interned at the Swartz Center for Computational Neuroscience, and led workshops at also completed the Creative Destruction Lab's Apprentice Program, diving into AI, agriculture, and story is proof that you don't need to wait to make an impact. As she puts it, was built to 'go behind the paywall to get you relevant information fast' -- and now, with Dash, she's aiming to make AI even more useful.

Mint

31 minutes ago

• Mint

Gold price outlook: MCX gold rate falls to ₹99,000 per 10 grams amid Israel-Iran war. What should be trading strategy?

Gold prices on Multi Commodity Exchange (MCX) ended flat on Friday, tracking a muted trend in the international bullion prices, after US President Donald Trump delayed a decision on entering the Israel-Iran war. MCX gold rate ended marginally lower by ₹ 13, or 0.01%, at ₹ 99,096 per 10 grams on Friday. During the session, gold prices hit an intraday high of ₹ 99,198, and touched a low of ₹ 98,431 level. For the week, MCX gold price declined over 1%. MCX silver prices gained ₹ 51, or 0.05%, to close at ₹ 1,06,275 per kg. Silver rates hit an intraday high of ₹ 1,06,695, and a low of ₹ 1,05,053. In the global markets, spot gold prices fell 0.2% to $3,365.51 an ounce, while the index was down 1.8% for the week. US gold futures shed 0.7% to $3,385.50. Spot silver prices fell 1.1% to $35.98 per ounce, and were down 0.9% for the week. 'Gold prices dropped as investors balanced expectations of US Federal Reserve rate cuts against escalating geopolitical tensions in the Middle East. A firm US dollar and elevated bond yields continue to pressure gold,' said Jigar Trivedi, Senior Research Analyst at Reliance Securities. President Trump is expected to decide within the next two weeks whether the United States will intervene in the ongoing Israel-Iran air conflict, the White House stated on Thursday. Gold, traditionally regarded as a safe-haven asset, often gains during periods of heightened geopolitical and economic uncertainty. Meanwhile, US Fed policymakers project a total of 50 basis points rate cuts for 2025. However, they have slightly moderated the trajectory of easing, now expecting just one 25-basis-point cut in both 2026 and 2027. A high interest rate environment tends to weigh on gold prices, as the metal does not offer any yield. 'While Fed Governor Christopher Waller opened the door to potential rate cuts as early as July, Fed Chair Jerome Powell maintained a cautious, data-driven stance. This divergence has created uncertainty, limiting gold's upside even amid geopolitical stress,' Trivedi said. Next week, focus will remain on the Israel-Iran conflict, particularly any signs of US military involvement. Moreover, Fed Chair Powell's testimony before Congress will also be on investors' radar along with a slew of macroeconomic data that will influence the gold prices. 'While geopolitical tensions support gold in the short term, markets may remain reactive and headline-driven. Investors will look for any shift toward a more dovish or hawkish tone, especially in light of recent mixed comments from Fed officials,' said Jigar Trivedi. Additionally, any sustained strength in the greenback could keep bullion prices under pressure, despite safe-haven flows, he added. 'MCX Gold August futures find immediate support near ₹ 97,000 per 10 grams. With macro headwinds in play, we maintain a sell-on-rise strategy, especially around technical resistance zones,' said Trivedi. Gold prices remain caught between opposing forces: geopolitical risks providing support, and robust US data along with Fed policy uncertainty capping gains. Trivedi advises traders to stay cautious ahead of key economic events, with the potential for breakout or consolidation depending on how these narratives unfold. Disclaimer: The views and recommendations made above are those of individual analysts or broking companies, and not of Mint. We advise investors to check with certified experts before making any investment decisions.