This week, gone up first one trend, emerging this election season.
President Trump actively opposing Republicans he sees as disloyal, and endorsing their primary challengers, who've toppled in commits in multiple states.
“We're watching key primaries on Tuesday in Kentucky and elsewhere to see if that narrative holds up.”
And what those races might tell us about November,
listen to up first every morning on the NPR app or wherever you get your podcasts.
Today is Jerome Powell's last day. As Fed cherries, he'll still be on the Fed board. That he's allowed to do until 2028. Now some quick hits from what has been a pretty eventful tenure. The Powell Fed faced a once in a century pandemic. Over saw the economy as inflation spiked 29.1% and then went back down to nearly 2%.
And now as inflation has started to go back up, as the US has gone to war and continues to try and levied the most comprehensive tariffs since the 1940s. But beyond all that, perhaps Powell will be most remembered as a target
of angry tweets, speeches, ultimately a criminal investigation by President Trump and his
administration, the very president who nominated him in the first place.
“And I remember the moment we at planet money really started paying attention”
to the Trump Powell tensions. It happened about 10 months after Powell was appointed back in 2018. The federal reserve had raised rates a few times. Inflation was still sort of uncomfortably high. And the day before the upcoming Fed meeting, President Trump tweets that it is "incredible" that quote, "the Fed is even considering yet another interest rate hike." And then tweet it again the next day that the Fed
better not "make yet another mistake." Later that day, the Fed did do another interest rate hike.
They seem to ignore the president's tweets, but at the time we had simply never seen anything
like this before. For most Americans' lives, this kind of presidential meddling was unprecedented. Because it is generally understood to be quite bad for the president of the United States to strong arm the chair of the federal reserve. Because it's impossibly important for our central bank to not worry about the short-term political whims. The Fed will often need to do unpopular things that politicians don't like, such as raising interest rates and slowing down the economy
before inflation inflates. This idea is known as Fed Independence. And those tweets kicked off a semi-regular, unofficial series that planet money about Fed independence. We even try to create a Fed independence holiday. We even had a special guest in the course. That holiday. Big special. This is Janet Yellen's former chair of the Board of Governors of the Circle Reserve. I want to wish every body of very happy Fed Independence Day.
Yellow from the rooftops, Janet, get the hallmark cards out. That hasn't really taken off, but that's okay. Because generally speaking, the kinds of Fed independence episodes that we have made over the last eight years, they looked at the famous case studies of other times a US president tried to pressure their Fed chair. These are history stories. Because history stories are what you look to when you're in the middle of something. When you don't know how your own story is going
to end. Well, as of today folks, we finally do know how our story ends or at least drone pals,
“and honestly, that story was wilder and more alarming than we could have ever imagined back in 2018.”
Hello and welcome to Planet Money. I'm Kenny Malone. And I'm Erica Barris. Today on the show, where does the drone pals story fit into the sweep of history? We'll hear from someone who was on the Fed board when Powell became chair and when Trump started to pressure Powell. Plus, we will learn what signs to watch for to tell whether Fed independence is crumbling or standing strong as the new Trump-nominated Fed chair takes office.
You know that feeling when you hear a great tip, and it's like, "That makes so much sense." Why haven't I been doing that all this time? If that's you, you might like life kit. Whether you're looking to make changes around your health, your money, your relationships, your parenting, your guaranteed the, this is so helpful feeling. Listen to the life kit podcast and the NPR app, or wherever you get your podcasts.
Up until now, there have only really been two cautionary tales in Fed independence history. Right. Let's call them two entries in, I want to say Fed independence holiday, but that's not
Quite right.
them teach us what happens when a president starts to pressure a Fed chair and just how bad it can
“get. The first of those moments. All right. Well, I just want to thank you for”
you most thoughtful and generous letter and I appreciate it so much. And this is President Lyndon B. Johnson. Days after taking office, calling to introduce himself to then Fed chair William Bill Machessney Martin. And Johnson was just called to say hi, you know, to say like, "You're the expert. Bill, I'm just here to listen to you about monetary policy." But you just assumed that you're starting with someone that doesn't know much about your shop
and then you start to tell me what I ought to know about it. When I said we will happen every way that I can, that's the president I'm with." So fun. So charming. So folksy. Yeah. So nice. Machessney Martin was Fed chair in a hugely important time for Fed independence. In fact, Fed independence was a brand new experiment for the United States. Right. So in the olden days, the Fed kind of did take orders from the president because the Fed took orders from Treasury, which took orders from the president.
And it was a classic mess. After World War II, inflation started spiraling. President Truman insisted
the Fed not raise rates. Inflation hit 21 percent. Woo. The Fed was like, no, no, we cannot
let this happen again. And on March 4th, 1951, Fed independence day, the Treasury and Fed issued a totally unassuming little memo basically saying, henceforth the Treasury. And therefore, the president is leaving the Fed alone. We're out. We're letting you be. But this was not like
“a law or anything. It was just really a handshake deal that worked fine, honestly,”
until Lyndon B. Johnson came into office. Well, Lyndon Johnson had a reputation for being a manipulator. He remembered slights. He exchanged favors and he played them like fiddles. That is Bob Brahmner, who wrote the biography of McChessney Martin. And within two years, Johnson is really mad at McChessney Martin, his Fed chair for raising interest rates. Bob says that Johnson forces McChessney Martin to fly down to Johnson's ranch in Texas
calls him into the office. And Johnson is just fit to be tied. Yeah, Johnson real mad. He was hot. Now, we don't know exactly what we said in that office. But there is a reference to the fact that Johnson was so angry that he pushed Martin against the wall.
“The president of the United States, laid hands on his Fed chair. Yes.”
And what does Martin do? Well, Martin says, Mr. President, I do have the very strong conviction that this is one of those few occasions where the Federal Reserve decision has to be final. And this is a huge moment. McChessney Martin stands up to LBJ and says, no, this little memo from 1951 is more than a handshake. The Fed is not going to be bullied into doing what the president wants. Yeah. I mean, if you want one single moment when the Federal Reserve
defined its independence, that's it. And so William McChessney Martin is the good cautionary tale. The bad cautionary tale, well, that would be the chairship of one Arthur Burns. Arthur Burns had a reputation of being an extremely cautious monetary economist. That is Professor Burton Abrams. He spent decades studying monetary policy and sort of uncovered why the Burns chairship was such a mess by digging through the Nixon tapes.
The Nixon tapes. This is Richard Nixon talking to Arthur Burns and in the Nixon tapes, there are some, how do we say, rough phone calls for Fed independence? Yeah, Nixon was strong arming Burns to juice the economy leading up to Nixon's reelection. There were rumors going around at the time of the White House functionally taking over the Fed. And it sure seems like Burns caved in the face of these threats and rumors. And in the tapes, you'll hear Arthur Burns
sound like a like a lap dog bringing Nixon the policies he wants. Look, I wanted you to know if we reduce the discount rate today. Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah, good. And what is it now for, for, and what do we got it down to four and a half percent for the half, yeah. It's a bad look.
Yeah, little wild. It's a bad look. Ultimately, Economist Burton Abrams says all of this
tanked Arthur Burns reputation. Yeah, Arthur Burns was a very well-respected economist
He won up creating one of the worst inflationary experiences in the last hund...
Yeah, eventually in the early 80s inflation picked that get this 14.6 percent. And it certainly did
seem that U.S. presidents after that learned their lesson. For decades, we simply did not see a sitting president actively pressuring their fed share. So it is not a particularly controversial opinion that fed independence is hugely important. There's a whole economic literature on what's called the inflation bias. And a big part of that is the idea that governments, when given the choice, will tend towards forcing their central banks into things that cause inflation, keeping interest rates
low, printing too much money, etc. And so governments that take away their own choice tend to do much better. Develop nations that let their central banks act independently, tend to have considerably lower inflation overall. And this is why. Back in 2018, just a handful of tweets from President Trump telling his fed to not make another mistake again. This set off alarm bells for us at Planet Money. Also, I guess, for Burton Abrams. I confess I've voted for Donald
Trump, but he's not a very good monetary policy manipulator. So I would wish he would stay out of that. Because Burton Abrams is the expert on the worst case scenario, the Arthur Burns scenario,
which was why he was also our first call to discuss how fed share Jerome Powell ultimately handled
Trump's pressure. My question is for you, for someone who studied these important historical case studies,
“was Jerome Powell ultimately more like McChasney Martin, more like Burns?”
Well, I would say it was more like William McChasney Martin. He actually stood up to Trump when Trump was demanding lower interest rates. And so he showed, I think, strong independence. From that. That's not to say that I think he did a good job overall, but I would say that he seemed to demonstrate that the fed needed independence. Burton says on fed independence, yeah, Jerome Powell was not an Arthur Burns in the end. You know, as for overall performance as a
fed share, well, you're going to find quite the spread of feelings about that. Right. Some people will argue Powell's fed manage the impossible. They soft landed the economy after inflation spike during COVID. They got inflation down and somehow kept unemployment low. On the other side, there are people like Burton who feel like inflation shouldn't have spiked so badly during COVID to begin with. That the fed did things that made it worse, including, and this is one of Burton's
big issues, a bunch of quantitative easing where the fed bought up things like mortgage back securities introduced even more money into the system and made buying a home even more difficult
for lots of people. So to summarize, you ultimately feel like Powell created the independence
to run the central bank the way that he wanted to run the central bank. You don't agree with
“how he ran the central bank, but you feel like the independence was there. I think so. The truth is,”
we're not really in a place to grade Powell's fed today, because that part of the story that will often take years to unfold. But we can, on his final day, as fed share, finish etching the Jerome Powell entry into the fed independence hall of infamy. Because what absolutely seems to be true is in 50 years of an economics podcast or went looking for extraordinary moments in fed in the independence history, there are now three. Much has named Martin, Arthur Burns, and Jerome Powell.
And Powell's big moment, well, that is arguably even more dramatic than getting shoved against a wall by a president. After the break. Hi, it's Mary Louise Kelly. My podcast sources and methods is one of the top-rated national security shows on Apple, average rating 4.9 out of 5. We're one of the best for a reason. Correspondence around the world, veteran journalists, trusted analysis, and on the ground reporting,
to understand war, geopolitics, and our changing world. Listen to sources and methods from NPR. Okay, there was one final person we wanted to talk to about Powell's term as fed share.
“Was Jay Powell more at McChessany Barton or more in Arthur Burns?”
Well, I would say that Trump's second term has really put Jerome Powell in a category of his own,
Because the actions that have been taken have been really unprecedented.
former member of the fed board of governors. No, we've talked a lot about the fed share,
but you know, the fed is a group, really. There's a board of seven people, including the fed share, plus five heads of regional feds. And what really happens is those 12 people go into a room, look at data, debate, the direction of the economy, and then set monetary policy. Lail was one of those seven board members. She was nominated by Obama, and she was still there when Trump appointed Powell. So I was on the board for about nine years, and I was there during
all of the first Trump terms. Yes, so you were there during the time we started paying attention
“to this, because there were these little blips that seemed unusual. Do you remember internally”
feeling those things crop up as odd? So it was very clear that during the first term, President Trump wanted US interest rates to be lowered by the Federal Reserve, and he was very
vocal, very critical, and very personal. For this last chapter of our episode, we wanted to talk
to Lail for a couple of reasons. Number one, there are simply not very many people who can tell you what it's like inside the fed when the president starts to pressure the fed. And number two, to ask what she'll be watching going forward, signs she'll be looking for that fed in the pendants is holding strong, or starting to crumble. But let's start inside the fed. Lail was there when Trump first started to tweet the stuff that we had planned at money noticed. You know,
how it was incredible, the fed was considering another rate hike, and how the fed better not make another mistake. Is there a policy in place where it's like, if the president tweets, don't show it to me. I don't want to see it. I don't want it to influence my decision. Is there
“anything like that in place back then? No, there's no policy. I think it is not unusual, and”
it's highly understandable why presidents might get frustrated with the Federal Reserve when their reelection really hinges on how consumers are feeling about the economy. So when that tweet goes out, you don't say like, Lail, I'm not listening. I'm not seeing this. That's not the approach. The approach is to simply carry on and just keep communicating with the public. Here is my objective that Congress gave me, keep inflation low and stable to percent,
keep the labor market robust full employment. And here's the data and how I'm making the decision. Yeah, that's the fed's dual mandate or dual objective, keeping inflation and unemployment low. And Lail says as a president made it more and more clear in public that he wanted the fed to do specific things, the fed felt like it was more and more important to just show their work when they made decisions. Yeah, you know, the fed is speaking to all of these audiences, the public,
financial markets, Congress. And so ignoring the president and simply saying clearer than ever, why they are making the choices that they are making, that was their way of showing all of those audiences that they were setting policy based on facts and data and not executive pressure.
And really, Lail says that was a general approach during the first Trump term and it seemed to work.
Under President Joe Biden, Lail actually became Powell's vice chair, then left that role to head up Biden's national economic council. She, she moved on from being inside the fed. She was, of course, still paying attention to what her old fed colleagues were up to, just from the outside, which was why she, like the rest of us, had no inside information leading up to January
“11th of this year. I think we all learned about it in the same way when we saw that extraordinary”
statement on the part of Chair Powell. Good evening. On Friday, the Department of Justice served the Federal Reserve with Grand jury Sapiens. This is from a video released by the fed. It's just to roam Powell, addressing the camera, dropping an absolute bomb that he was being investigated by the DOJ. Related to testimony he gave about cost overruns on a fed construction project. And of all the super unusual things about this video, what still stands out to me is how
Jerome Powell, a man famous for calmly fed speaking his way through giant announcements, how he is shockingly straightforward about what he thinks is going on in this investigation. The threat of criminal charges is a consequence of the Federal Reserve setting interest rates based on our best assessment of what will serve the public, rather than following the preferences of the president. For Lail, when we look back at the Powell era, this is the moment.
It's Powell's version of getting pushed against the wall by LBJ.
moment where the chair of the Federal Reserve found it necessary to speak to the American people
to note that he saw this as a real threat to the independence of the Federal Reserve. Have you
“talked to Chairman Powell at all during this extreme ramp up in pressure? I have not. I believe”
it's important to as somebody who was formerly at the Federal Reserve to kind of give them all the space they need while they're navigating through a very complicated situation. Yes, complicated situation is perhaps an understatement. A criminal investigation into a fed share is so beyond any of the historic case studies in fed independence. And personally, it has not made
me particularly optimistic about the future of this hugely important ideal. That's a big reason
we wanted to talk to Lail. To hear what signs she is watching for whether fed independence is crumbling or holding going forward. So let's start with this. The incoming fed share, nominated by Trump, is named Kevin Warsh. Like Lail, Kevin Warsh served on the fed board. He was nominated by George W. Bush back in 2006. No, Kevin and Lail did not overlap, but it does seem as if Warsh's time on
“the board means something to Lail. I think everybody who serves on the Federal Reserve board”
takes very seriously this mandate to really stay focused on the dual objectives that Congress gives the fed and is not swayed by political judgments. And so I would certainly give the incoming share the benefit of the doubt. Are you optimistic about the term of the incoming share? I am optimistic in the sense that it was extremely important that we saw the checks and balances reassert themselves. Ah, yes, the checks and balances reasserting themselves. A few things have happened
in the last year that that are making Lail optimistic and are worth going through one by one. All right, cause for optimism, number one. Congress, not messing around when it comes to fed
independence. What we've seen finally is that the Senate, which is responsible for confirming
nominees to the Federal Reserve, has finally stood up and said enough, we're not going to confirm the new chair until this criminal investigation is dropped. The criminal investigation of Jerome Powell. Republican Senator Tom Tellis specifically led this charge. And indeed, the DOJ announced they were closing the investigation. I mean, they did say they'd keep looking and would open a new investigation if they found anything wrong. But yes, technically they have closed the Powell
investigation because at least one Republican lawmaker drew a line. So I'll be watching how much Congress continues to defend the independence of the Fed on a bipartisan basis against presidents, even when they are a president, your own party. That's really important. Lail says there's more Congress could do. The 1913 law that created the Fed says a president can fire a Fed board member, but only for cause. It does not however define cause. Congress could
pass legislation making clear what for cause means being corrupt, being negligent in your job responsibilities, just something more specific than just for cause. That kind of clarification would be extremely helpful because this has become an issue under Trump. Yeah, last year, Trump attempted to fire the Biden-nominated Fed board member, Lisa Cook, for alleged mortgage fraud, which too many people seemed like an obviously spun up excuse for a political attack on Cook.
Cook sued. And this is another thing, Lail is watching for how the judicial branch handles the Cook case. So the lower courts have kept Cook on the Fed board, but the case is now before the Supreme Court. I think it's not yet clear where the Supreme Court is headed on this, but there's plenty of opportunity for the Supreme Court to harden up in a way that strengthens the
“independence of the Federal Reserve if that's what they decide. The Supreme Court has already”
heard oral arguments for the case and listening to the Justice's questions made Lail optimistic. But this is a high stakes decision to watch for because if the president can fire board members at will, Lail says there's not really an independent Fed anymore. Yes, I think we should all be
Extremely concerned if the bar is lowered for the Federal Reserve, for firing...
Board of the Federal Reserve, the way that the Supreme Court has lowered the bar for other independent
“agencies that would fundamentally alter the ability of the Federal Reserve to control inflation.”
And finally, we wanted to ask Lail about something that we've noticed as a possible sign of
fractured independence. That would be dissent on the Fed board. Right. Lately, a strange thing has been happening when the Fed meets. They'll announce their decision, but basically every time there is this one board member, Trump nominated Stephen Moran, who openly dissents. Basically, he says, I disagree with this decision. Rates should be lowered. Now, people, including Lail, have said, well, this is probably the new norm. We may hear more dissenting voices from all over
the political spectrum going forward, which would be pretty unheard of from our Fed. The Fed, in recent history at least, has tended to speak with one steadfast voice. And we asked Lail about this.
“So, should people be worried about that? No, I think that dissent is very healthy. You're right”
that for many years, certainly when I was on the Federal Reserve Board, dissent was rare on monetary policy. And there was a real effort on the part of all members of the monetary policy committee to come together in support of the chair. She even told us a story about this, when she was on the board,
back in 2015. Yeah. And basically, the situation was, Lail did not think it was time to raise
rates. Some of her Fed colleagues disagreed. And the way the Fed worked back then, basically, the way it has worked for the last few decades, is the board members, the regional heads, they went into their room, they talked it all out, said their peace, and eventually a decision was reached. They were going to raise rates. I would not have done that if I had chosen independently, but for me, at that juncture, it was more important to support the chair and give the chair the
“ability to communicate clearly with the American public. Why now? What was the rationale here?”
Just because it makes it easier for the chair to explain. It's a united voice. Absolutely.
On the other hand, there are other central banks where dissent is the norm like the Bank of England,
and I think over time, both the public and financial markets, have come to absorb those dissents and understand what they mean. So I think that's probably where we're headed in the next maybe few years, but I don't know that for sure. So, if, when you see stories about the sense, it might feel bad. But just remember, Lail says, not necessarily so. You know, I think generally, reporting this episode has made me more optimistic about the future
of Fed independence than I was. I don't know, Erica, like a week ago. With, with, may I say, one major exception, a real downer of an idea to end on, but I would like to, if that's okay. Okay, go for it. All right. We'll put uplifting music at the end, so it'll be fine. Yeah, okay. So, you know, back in 2018, when we started to look for examples of President's pressuring their Fed shares, it was really just to make Chesney Martin and Burns. And you know,
when you go researching those cases, it's all black and white photos and scratchy phone calls. It all feels very distant, like the idea of a president overstepping, seemed so archaic and rare. But today, Jerome Powell, he is just the eighth Fed share in the Fed independence era, like after the Treasury Fed accord. And so when you run those numbers, it may be felt like President's pressuring Fed shares was rare, but Jerome Powell now makes three of eight Fed shares to face historic
pressure from a president when the president is supposed to leave the Fed alone. So maybe this was the norm all along. And that 40 years of peace we just lived through, that will go down in history as the exception. Today's episode was produced by Sam Yellow Horse Kessler. It was edited by Jess Zhang, fact checked by Sierra Wattas, and engineered by Sinalofrato and Robert Rodriguez. Our executive producer is Alex Goldmark. I'm Kenny Mulberry.
America Baris, this is NPR. Thanks for listening. We're digging into why so many women of color under 50 believe in astrology. It is really, oh, I know. I don't want it to be real. I wake up every day ready for this not to be real. Listen to NPR's code switch podcast on the NPR app or wherever you get your podcast.
