Against the backdrop of one of the most dramatic clashes in American economic history, President Donald Trump’s intensifying battle with the Federal Reserve has catapulted the century-old tussle for central bank independence into the national spotlight.
Trump’s move to oust Fed Governor Lisa Cook — who is refusing to step down and taking legal action — marks an extraordinary escalation, with direct implications not just for monetary policy and the US economy, but for the very framework set by the founders of the Fed over a hundred years ago.
As global markets react and legal teams brace for what could end up before the Supreme Court, experts and historians warn that the stakes for US economic governance have rarely been higher.
The confrontation between the White House and the central bank forms just the latest chapter in a turbulent legacy of presidential ambitions colliding with the Federal Reserve’s mandate to operate above politics.
Is the central bank’s independence at risk?
The Federal Reserve — or “the Fed” — was established in 1913 with the explicit aim of removing short-term political pressures from the process of setting monetary policy.
From its inception, the institution was designed to safeguard price stability and employment, relying on a unique structure: a Board of Governors, including seven presidentially-nominated members approved by the Senate, and twelve regional Reserve Banks, jointly determining interest rates and overseeing the US financial system.
Yet the current standoff between Trump and the Fed’s current leadership has raised new questions about the durability of this independence.
Last week, Trump issued an unprecedented order to fire Fed Governor Lisa Cook, alleging that she made misleading statements about mortgage agreements and asserting constitutional authority to remove her “for cause”.
Cook, whose appointment by former President Biden made her the first Black woman on the board, has refused to resign, describing the firing as unlawful and has challenged it in federal court.
Fed officials, meanwhile, have circled the wagons.
Chair Jerome Powell remains a frequent target of Trump’s social media barbs and campaign rhetoric — blamed for keeping rates “too high” and accused of dragging his feet on growth and inflation, despite having weathered attacks throughout his tenure.
The government’s attempt to remove a sitting governor — and the apparent threat to fire Powell himself — sets a remarkable precedent, making Trump the first president in history to try and directly purge the Fed board for political reasons.
A century of presidential pressure: From Wilson to Biden
While Trump’s actions may be unprecedented, they fit into a long tradition of friction between the White House and the Fed.
President Woodrow Wilson, who signed the Federal Reserve Act, insisted the central bank be “independent yet accountable,” but subsequent presidents have routinely tested the boundaries of that independence.
President Harry Truman and the Treasury-Fed Accord of 1951 set an early standard, when Truman pressed the Fed to keep rates artificially low post-WWII — sparking a showdown that ended in the Fed winning autonomy over interest rates.
Lyndon Johnson cajoled and confronted Fed Chair William McChesney Martin (“My boys are dying in Vietnam, and you won’t print the money I need”), while President Nixon pressured Arthur Burns to juice growth before the 1972 election, resulting in disastrous inflation.
The Reagan and Clinton years — in contrast — saw quieter, if not always harmonious, relationships.
While Bill Clinton privately lamented Alan Greenspan’s rate hikes, he refrained from public attacks, wary of undercutting confidence in the Fed. Obama, facing financial crisis headwinds, also respected the Fed’s independence.
The evolution of the Fed’s mandate — from Wilson’s “servant, not master, of commerce” to the modern two-part focus on price stability and employment — reflects repeated reform efforts protecting central bank autonomy, notably the 1935 Banking Act and the Dodd-Frank reforms of 2010.
Why the Fed’s independence matters — and what the law says
Central bank independence is more than a lofty principle: it underpins the credibility of the dollar as the world’s reserve currency and the stability of US government debt markets.
Every rate decision made under duress — whether from presidents or Congress — risks undermining the Fed’s role in containing inflation, anchoring expectations, and defending long-term prosperity.
The president’s power to appoint Fed governors, including the chair, is counterbalanced by Senate confirmation and legal protections against arbitrary dismissal.
Under current law, only “cause” — typically gross malfeasance or profound dereliction of duty — can justify removing a sitting governor; political disagreements over interest rates or monetary policy do not qualify.
The Supreme Court weighed in earlier this year, affirming special protections for Fed officials, setting the stage for the Cook lawsuit’s dramatic showdown.
Central bankers around the world are watching closely.
Christine Lagarde, president of the European Central Bank, warned this week, “If US monetary policy were no longer independent… the balance of the US economy, and consequently the world, would be very troubling.”
The mechanics of control: How presidents shape the board
While appointments offer the president’s main lever, direct control remains elusive by design.
Fed governors serve staggered terms, theoretically shielding them from turnover after each election. Nominees must be vetted and confirmed — and, crucially, any effort to sack sitting members faces formidable legal hurdles.
Still, presidents have found ways to exert pressure. Nixon’s infamous “friendly persuasion” of Arthur Burns, caught on White House tapes, is cited by historians as a cautionary tale — leading to the inflationary spiral of the 1970s.
More recently, Trump’s public denunciations and threats have rocked market confidence, jostling bond yields and the dollar’s status as a global haven.
Unexpected vacancies, meanwhile, can shift the balance quickly.
When Governor Adriana Kugler announced her decision to leave on a Friday afternoon, the news came as a surprise inside both the Fed and the West Wing.
Trump, however, is said to have been thrilled: the departure created an immediate opening for him to place an ally on the seven-member board ahead of a critical meeting, where officials will vote on whether to cut interest rates — a move he has repeatedly demanded.
If Trump also succeeds in firing Cook, he would gain not one but two additional appointments, giving him a potential 4–3 majority on the board.
That outcome would hand him a path to bend the Fed to his political will in much the same way he has reshaped other government institutions in recent months. “We’ll have a majority very shortly, so that’ll be great,” Trump said.
Once we have a majority, housing is going to swing and it’s going to be great. People are paying too high an interest rate.
Beyond appointments, the White House can also use its massive communication machinery to sway public opinion, heightening scrutiny of Fed decisions before FOMC meetings and rate announcements.
Historic showdowns and notable statements
Few moments in the history of American economic policy capture the fundamental tension between political power and monetary discipline better than a legendary remark by William McChesney Martin, who served as Federal Reserve Chair from 1951 to 1970. Martin famously said:
The role of the Federal Reserve is to take away the punch bowl just as the party gets going.
This metaphor succinctly illustrates the Fed’s essential function: to tighten monetary policy and curb inflationary excesses precisely when the economy appears strongest and political leaders are most tempted to celebrate and spend.
It serves as a powerful reminder that the Federal Reserve’s independence is necessary to resist short-term political pressures that might jeopardise long-term economic stability.
Fast forward to the 21st century, and former Fed Chair Ben Bernanke, reflecting on the deep economic crisis of 2007-2009 and its aftermath, issued a solemn warning:
“Political forces that undermine Federal Reserve independence threaten its ability to contain inflation and ensure economic stability.”
Bernanke’s words underscore the vital link between central bank autonomy and the Fed’s ability to make sometimes unpopular but necessary decisions—like raising interest rates in times of inflation—that safeguard the broader economy.
This principle of independence is now facing renewed tests.
Narayana Kocherlakota, a former president of the Minneapolis Fed, recently told CNN:
It appears to be another effort by the president to undermine the independence of monetary policy, which will result in negative economic outcomes.
His comment signals concern among Fed insiders and economists who see political attempts to control or pressure the Fed as dangerous precedents that threaten economic health and credibility.
Tim Mahedy, a former advisor at the San Francisco Fed, weighed in with a more pointed critique of the current standoff:
“Trump’s effort to oust Governor Lisa Cook was a blatant attack on the independence of the Fed,” he said, “If he succeeds in his pressure campaign, we will all face a heavy toll—a burden that could last for generations.”
Mahedy’s words remind us that the independence of the Federal Reserve is not just an abstract ideal but a crucial foundation for sustained economic growth and stability.
When political leaders seek to override or undermine the Fed’s autonomy, the risks include runaway inflation, volatile markets, and long-term damage to the nation’s economic credibility.
When the clashes become crises: Market and legal fallout
Every Fed president clash risks rattling financial markets.
Since Trump’s escalation against Cook and Powell, futures for the S&P 500 dipped, Treasury yields climbed, and the dollar’s standing as the world’s reserve currency faces new questions.
Investors fear political meddling could force the Fed to make economic, rather than technical, decisions, triggering inflation and undermining market stability.
Legal experts are now grappling with an unprecedented conflict.
Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook has filed a lawsuit seeking to block President Trump’s order to dismiss her, arguing that the allegations of mortgage fraud cited as “cause” are unsubstantiated and that the president lacks legal authority to remove her without due process.
The courts will need to decide whether these allegations meet the strict “cause” standard required by the Federal Reserve Act, or if the president’s true motive—to exert control over monetary policy by reshaping the Fed board—amounts to unlawful politicisation.
The situation is complicated by recent Supreme Court decisions that have reinforced the protections of Fed officials from arbitrary removal, thrusting constitutional interpretations of executive power and central bank independence into the spotlight for only the second time in the Fed’s history.
Why this moment is unprecedented
Though previous presidents have criticised the Fed, Trump is the first to attempt the direct removal of a sitting governor, bypassing established procedure and legal tradition. In past episodes, even when presidents sought compliance, the threat of firing was largely theoretical.
Today, it is real and immediate, amplified by social media and a polarised political climate.
Historically, Congress and the courts have served as brakes on presidential overreach.
Yet with partisanship running high, some warn that the checks and balances enshrined in the Fed’s structure may be at risk, raising both institutional and constitutional concerns.
The Fed’s institutional memory: Lessons from history
As the Cook battle rages, observers look back to times when central bank independence was almost fatally undermined. Nixon’s pressure on Burns may have secured a short-term election win, but it triggered years of stagflation and lost economic confidence.
The Treasury-Fed Accord of 1951, on the other hand, laid the foundation for modern autonomy, proving that only a firewall between politics and monetary policy protects the public interest in the long run.
Current governors — and central bankers abroad — increasingly view independence and credibility as fragile assets, potentially eroded by a single administration’s relentless campaign.
How collaboration and conflict shape economic outcomes
Periods of presidential-Fed collaboration have produced sound policy — as when Greenspan and Clinton coordinated on deficit reduction, or when Bernanke and Obama worked through the 2008 crisis.
But when presidents intervene for electoral gain, as Nixon did, the results can be catastrophic, with inflation surging and growth stagnating.
Trump’s demand for rate cuts and his promise to “defeat inflation” are part of a broader pattern: presidents attempting to deliver growth for voters, regardless of economic fundamentals.
Yet, as Claudia Sahm, former Fed economist, says,
The Fed’s independence exists for moments like this, when political leaders want policies like higher tariffs that might lower growth and raise inflation.
The global dimension: World’s reserve currency at stake
Since its creation, the Fed’s decisions have shaped not only US borrowing costs but also central bank policy worldwide.
As Europe’s Christine Lagarde made clear, any politicisation of US monetary policy could destabilise world markets, threaten the dollar’s dominance, and raise borrowing costs globally.
International bankers, governments, and traders are watching the Trump-Fed standoff closely, warning of ripple effects if independence is breached dramatically.
What comes next: Legal battle, political fallout
Cook’s legal team will fight her firing in federal court, armed with the Supreme Court’s recent affirmations of central bank autonomy.
If the case intensifies, Powell and other board members — whose terms extend past Trump’s administration — may also dig in, risking further confrontation and institutional crisis.
Congress, meanwhile, faces mounting pressure to clarify legal protections, with some proposing reforms or even splitting Fed functions to shield them from executive interference.
No matter the outcome, the standoff will shape debates about the role, structure, and future of the Federal Reserve for years to come.
The expert consensus: Why independence is not optional
As the battle between Trump and the Fed enters its next phase, the vast weight of expert opinion — economists, central bankers, historians — agrees that independence is essential.
“History shows us the potential consequences when a populist leader attempts to take control of a central bank,” warns economist Justin Wolfers.
The consensus: political meddling invites inflation, volatility, and a loss of credibility that takes years — and painful adjustments — to restore. The lessons of the past, embodied in famous phrases and hard-won reforms, now serve as warnings for the present.
The Fed stands at a crossroads
The Biden and Obama years, the Nixon and Johnson crises, the current Trump sequence — together they comprise a mosaic of ambition, reform, conflict, and recalibration.
The Fed’s journey from Wilson’s “servant of commerce” to this week’s high-stakes confrontation is a lesson in the enduring challenge of balancing democracy, expertise, and public interest.
As the confrontation deepens, the world watches: will the Federal Reserve remain, as its designers intended, “above politics”? Or will this moment mark the reversal of a century’s hard-won autonomy?
For now, Cook’s resolve, Powell’s steady hand, and a legal system designed to withstand political storms will determine how the next chapter unfolds.
But what is clear — perhaps clearer than ever before — is that the health of the American, and global, economy depends on the Fed’s ability to say “no” to short-term political expediency, and “yes” to the long-term public good.
The post Federal Reserve vs US President: A century of power, pressure, and autonomy appeared first on Invezz
