Could President Donald Trump oust Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, or is this just another chapter in their ongoing public feud?
The saga unfolds with Trump’s persistent criticism of Powell over interest rate policies, alongside fresh scrutiny of the Fed’s management, while a hefty 50% tariff on Brazilian imports adds a global trade twist to the drama, NBC News reported.
This tension isn’t new—Trump has long been vocal about his dissatisfaction with Powell, even dubbing him “very stupid” and branding him with the nickname “Too Late Powell.” It’s a sharp jab, but let’s be fair: managing monetary policy in a volatile economy isn’t exactly a walk in the park. Still, when a president throws around terms like that, it signals more than just policy disagreement—it’s personal.
Last year, Trump told NBC News he had no plans to cut Powell’s term, which runs until May 2026. But fast forward to an April post on Truth Social, and the tone shifted dramatically with a call that “Powell’s termination cannot come fast enough.” Days later, he backtracked to reporters, claiming he had “no intention” of firing him—talk about mixed signals!
Adding fuel to the fire, National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett recently noted that the president’s authority to dismiss Powell is “being looked into.” Hassett’s cautious remark, “That’s a thing that’s being looked into,” suggests the administration is testing the waters. If they’re digging for legal loopholes, conservatives might cheer the push for accountability, though it risks unsettling markets already jittery from tariff talks.
Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought has also entered the fray, penning a letter to Powell expressing Trump’s deep concern over what he called “mismanagement of the Federal Reserve System.” Vought fired off nearly a dozen questions about renovations at the Fed’s headquarters, probing whether the project strayed from approved plans. It’s a valid question—taxpayers deserve transparency—but piling on during a policy clash feels like a calculated pressure tactic.
Powell, for his part, has held firm, stating the Fed hasn’t lowered interest rates due to inflation concerns tied to Trump’s tariffs. It’s a polite way of saying, “Your policies are making our job harder.” While fiscal conservatives might respect the Fed’s independence, many on the right question if Powell’s caution is just stubbornness disguised as prudence.
The legal landscape adds another layer, as a May Supreme Court ruling clarified that presidents can remove heads of independent agencies, though the Fed’s unique, quasi-private status might exempt it. This gray area leaves room for debate, and neither the White House nor the Fed’s Board of Governors has commented on Hassett’s latest remarks. Uncertainty reigns, and markets hate uncertainty.
Hassett hinted that the decision to push for Powell’s removal might hinge on responses to Vought’s inquiries, saying it “is going to depend a lot” on the Fed’s answers. That’s a diplomatic dodge, but it keeps the pressure on. If the Fed’s explanations don’t satisfy, expect this feud to escalate further.
Meanwhile, Trump’s trade agenda is making waves with a 50% tariff on Brazilian imports announced last week, set to join other steep country-specific tariffs effective August 1. The administration points to trade deficits as the driving force behind these policies, though the U.S. had a $7.4 billion surplus with Brazil last year. That surplus undercuts the deficit narrative, but Hassett insists the broader strategy is about “onshoring production” to protect national security.
Trump’s letter on the Brazil tariff also aimed at the country’s handling of former President Jair Bolsonaro, who faces charges over an alleged coup attempt following a 2022 electoral loss. Trump called out Brazil’s “insidious attacks on Free Elections,” a bold accusation that ties trade to geopolitics. Hassett reinforced this, noting, “Normally, it’s not about a specific country, but with Brazil, it is.”
This isn’t just about economics—Trump’s frustration with Brazil’s actions is personal, as Hassett admitted the president has been “shocked” by their conduct. For conservatives who value strong leadership and fair elections, this stance might resonate. Still, slapping a massive tariff over political disagreements risks alienating trade partners at a delicate time.
Hassett defended the tariff strategy by invoking potential national security emergencies, stating Trump has authority under relevant laws if he deems it necessary. He argued that reducing the broader trade deficit is critical to avoid risks during a crisis. It’s a compelling point for those worried about over-reliance on foreign goods, though critics might see it as overreach.
Addressing the Brazil surplus specifically, Hassett dismissed it as not the sole factor, emphasizing a comprehensive approach to prevent loopholes like trans-shipping. His point that “if you don’t have an overall strategy,” objectives fail, holds weight for supporters of a robust America-first policy. Yet, one wonders if such heavy-handed tariffs might backfire, raising costs for American consumers already squeezed by inflation.
Ultimately, this dual story of Fed friction and trade tariffs showcases Trump’s unyielding drive to reshape institutions and global relationships. Whether it’s pressuring Powell or punishing Brazil, the message is clear: play by America’s rules, or face consequences. For conservatives tired of bureaucratic inertia and uneven trade deals, that’s a rallying cry—though the road ahead looks anything but smooth.
