Trump Is Filling the Fed with Loyalists
By installing Stephen Miran and eyeing more allies, Trump is positioning the central bank for aggressive rate cuts and a sharp break from its tradition of independence.

Council of Economics Chair Stephen Miran was confirmed as a Federal Reserve governor just before September's Federal Open Market Committee meeting. The impact was immediate—and troubling.
Miran dissented in favor of a larger rate cut, and he put a dot on the dot plot—the Fed's survey of members' interest rate expectations—that was 150 basis points lower by the end of the year. Miran wants to lower the federal funds interest rates by 200 basis points immediately, which is well outside the consensus at the Fed.
Miran wants huge interest rate cuts at a time when the stock market, cryptocurrency, and gold are at all-time highs, credit spreads are at all-time lows, the unemployment rate is only 4.3 percent, and gross domestic product just came in at 3.8 percent. His logic is that the labor market is weakening—it is, slightly—and he wants to cut interest rates to forestall a recession.
But with financial conditions so easy, and inflation hovering around three percent—above the Fed's two percent target—an interest rate cut at this juncture makes no economic sense and risks stoking significant inflation.
Miran has made statements in favor of Fed independence in the past, yet his actions now undercut that principle. President Donald Trump has explicitly called for interest rates to be lowered to 0.5 percent, he has installed his man at the Fed, and his man is doing his bidding.
This is highly unusual. In the past, it has been political conservatives who have been hard money advocates, consistently pushing for higher interest rates and for fighting inflation. Now the liberals are the inflation fighters and the conservatives believe that a politically active Federal Reserve has been blocking the White House's agenda.
One possible reason for Trump and Miran's intransigence on lower rates could be that they are trying to lower the cost of funding the U.S. government. T-bill issuance has been at an all-time high, first under former Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen and then under Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent. By lowering short-term interest rates, the Fed would effectively be lowering the amount of interest that the government would pay on its debt. But this is not the purpose of the Federal Reserve. The Fed is supposed to set interest rates and the money supply to equilibrate inflation and unemployment—its two mandates. Lowering the cost of funding the government is not part of the Fed's mandate.
Bessent, for his part, is waiting for long-term interest rates to drop to term out the debt and lock in lower interest rates at longer maturities. This is a dangerous game, as the Fed's actions could actually cause long-term interest rates to rise.
Trump now has one loyalist on the Board of Governors, and he will soon have more. It seems likely that Lisa Cook will be replaced, and Jerome Powell will depart as chairman in 2026 (although Powell will have the option to stay on the board). It's not hard to envision a group of Trump's Fed officials acting as a voting bloc, lowering interest rates to near zero and keeping them there even as inflationary pressures build.
This is the monetary policy of Turkish President Recep Tayyib Erdogan. It has not worked out well in Turkey, where inflation has skyrocketed and the value of its currency has plummeted.
This is the reason that central banks are supposed to be remote from political pressures. Politicians always prefer that the economy run hot to keep people employed. But a "fast" economy is not necessarily a "good" economy. During Alan Greenspan's tenure as Fed chairman from 1987 to 2006, the Fed prioritized vigilance on inflation. By contrast, the 2010s Fed focused on countering post-crisis deflation, showing far less concern about rising prices. The Powell Fed had to fight inflation in 2021–2022, and it did so incompetently.
Absent Trump, the Fed would not have cut interest rates two weeks ago, and it would not be considering future interest rate cuts. Inflation is still high, and the economy can tolerate higher interest rates just fine—there is no compelling reason to lower them. Meanwhile, the search continues for a new Fed chair, and other candidates are being considered, including former St. Louis Fed President James Bullard and BlackRock executive Rick Rieder, who probably understands the bond market better than anyone but is clearly politicking for the job by advocating a 50 basis point cut at the last meeting.
Low interest rates may be good for borrowers, but they are terrible for savers. There are trillions in money market mutual funds earning about four percent. If those yields disappear, people will be pushed into buying things like high-yield bonds or stocks, perhaps at the worst possible time.
This would be an unprecedented experiment: slashing rates while the economy is already running hot.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Biden nominated the clearly unqualified Lisa Cook.
This is not a new thing.
You act like it is...but it is not.
Did you know that JARED DILLIAN is the founder and principal of Jared Dillian Money?
Oh, well shit. His word is law then.
Seriously, is this clown a drinking buddy of Boehm or Sullum?
That was (D)ifferent, though.
It was different because she was qualified.
Cite, Dr. Retard?
Uh, no. No she’s not. Amd I would ask you to justify your statement, but we all know you won’t, and can’t.
So fuck off Tony. Go back to the bath house and stop tarding up the discussion.
Did she answer, what is a woman?
She has a PhD in economics, an expert in international economics and an economics professor. How much more qualifications do you want?
Which paper of hers do you want to cite to prove she's an expert?
And besides, if she gets canned, there will be “chaos in the market “.
Loyalty to Trump is the only necessary qualification for federal jobs.
So she wrote a paper to get some letters after her name. That in no way makes her an expert on economics. It just means show wrote a paper.
Now explain how she’s an expert, or GTFO.
End the Fed
This; Make Gold Great Again
Absolutely. Look up "inflation 1800-present" and you see a nice chart showing how stable money's value was up until the Fed in 1913. Wiggles a lot but always small. Inflation during war, deflation afterwards, until 1920, when the Fed got its first chance to stop natural deflation, and all hell breaks lose from 1929 on.
https://economics-charts.com/chart-of-consumer-price-index-1800-2005/
Feds have a targeted inflation percentage. Not to control anything, just make over spending cheaper over time through inflationary measures.
They've done a piss-poor job of it. But I guess it's good enough for government work.
People that love the Fed are fedophiles.
Like Shrike and Jeffy.
There are no independent agencies, and The Fed should be no exception.
So the Fed should switch governing board/voting members every time a new President comes in? You can't foresee any potential problems with this?
Huh. I find it hard to believe that a fed board beholden to the President - and who owe their appointment and allegiance to said President - would have anything but a 4 or 8yr future window to care about and would do whatever short term monetary/fiscal policy that made their President look best. If and when the economy comes crashing down once their guy is out... fuck it? Someone else's problem?
Ya. No. That is a recipe for total mismanagement and recklessness. And it would be a problem for the entire country.
Show us where in the Constitution the fed is authorized. I’ll wait.
They should do it as outlined in the Constitution. Oh wait there's no such thing as the Federal Reserve in the Constitution? Hmm...
Trump Is Filling the Fed with Loyalists
Yes, transitioning to autocracy requires appointees based on loyalty rather than merit. You get used to it.
Appointments are always about loyalty, no matter how they're cloaked in fancy words. Look at Biden appointing KBJ -- his top requirements were "color" and "woman", although she herself didn't know how to define "woman".
Merits only came second to loyalty, at best.
You are certainly correct. I think there is only a difference in scale with Trump.
That and dems long ago stopped giving even lip service to merit as they descended into identity politics.
Yeah, Trump is the one who’s worse……….
Who cares whose "worse" when any loyalist is bad? For any agency, under any administration?
How does merit undermine autocracy?
Merit doesn't undermine autocracy necessarily, but loyalty is more important to the autocrat, and merit and unquestioning loyalty are rarely found in the same mind.
The executive branch is autocratic by constitutional design.
Uhhh, no.
Poor QB.
^Here's a guy suited for a Fed appointment. He has all the qualification
s.He’s a black woman?
No, that was the last administration, please keep up.
Yes. I am 100% certain that he is a black transwoman...or is it transman...or is it Trans Am?
Yes, RMac is a classic 70's Trans Am.
Do you understand why no one respects you?
Lol. What merit? Cooks own tenure board wanted to deny her tenure.
You say awfully retarded bullshit like this to protect your dem favored unelected heros.
You won't find me defending Brandon or Cooks. Cooks certainly wasn't a merit based appointment. She just ticked the right demographic boxes.
"I'm going to be meeting with generals and with admirals and with leaders, and if I don't like somebody, I'm going to fire them right on the spot,"- Trump
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-says-he-will-fire-us-military-leaders-if-he-doesnt-like-them-2025-09-30/
Yup
Intriguing.
This is now known as a "Charlie Kirk out of context quote".
Kirk was murdered because of leftist snippets convinced a trannie/furry lover that Kirk said shit that wasn't true.
You are doing the same thing by omitting the entire context.
What context is missing?
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/NorfcXb9Xx0
I found a longer clip. Quote in question is at 5:02. I don't get any different meaning in context than I did as a stand alone quote.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQmvqRbyzOY
It’s always a good idea to hire people that hate you.
Well...YOU would have to, wouldn't you?
But I wouldn't know. Everybody loves me. Just ask Jesse and Sevo.
Do you understand why no one respects you?
What? No one respects me? Despite my Rodney Dangerfield-like good looks?
Yes removing fascism and corruption by removing the democrat Biden Obama loyalists will put America on a path away from insolvency. Sorry but you don't get to see the US collapse from the inside out as you wish by democrats in the next few years...
Yes removing fascism and corruption
Parody or delusional?
Reason demands only deep state keyenesians man these unelected offices.
“Tradition of Independrnce?” To-o-light. The Senator who got thFederal Reserve Act through Congress Was Nelson Aldrich, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Rockefeller family (Nelson Aldrich Rockefeller was named after him. That’s how close they were). How is it people bloviate about the Fed’s “independence” when the Constitution says “The Congress shall have the power to …To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof…”. That power is not wven given to a central bank, never mind pretending that they buddy be independant in wielding that unconstitutional power.
I have never been convinced that "ending the Fed" is a smart or wise policy position.
If your argument is that the Fed should be ended, regardless of the consequences, because it is the morally right thing to do (in your view), then fine I can at least understand that argument even if I can't quite agree with it.
But if your argument is that the Fed should be ended because it would produce superior outcomes compared to the present day, then I will require more convincing.
And not just "me", but the vast majority of Americans as well, I would imagine.
The Fed failed to stop the Great Depression.
The Fed also failed to stop the 1789-1792 copper panic, the 1815-1821 depression, the 1836-1843 depression, the pre-Civil War panics, the 1873-1879 depression, the panics/depressions of the 1890's, or the panics/recessions of 1907-1914.
In those previous instances, the Fed had the excuse of not existing.
That is true. But was it even within the power of the Fed to stop the Great Depression?
They only have the ability to make things worse.
That's true. Know why? Because it didn't do what it was supposed to do. Banks failed around the country and as a result to amount of currency fell. The result was massive deflation. Had the Fed juiced the economy like it did the last time a few big banks failed, things might have turned out differently.
What have they done right?
Can you point to the successes the Fed has produced?
Longer recessions?
Pedo Jeffy loves the fed, almost as much as he ‘loves’ children, and illegals.
“Tradition of independence” …. Thats a good one
One possible reason for Trump and Miran's intransigence on lower rates could be that they are trying to lower the cost of funding the U.S. government.
Hard to imagine how trashing the dollar will lower the cost of funding the government. What's funny is that they really do believe foreigners will agree to some Mar-a-Lago Accord
What does Reason expect? Trump to call up Obama and ask who he should nominate? In fact, if he did do that you would still take umbrage with his pick because of the TDS infection.
"a sharp break from its tradition of independence"
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Ow my gut! Ow! Ow!
So Trump is doing overtly what Biden, Obama, Clinton and most every other president over the past 50 years has done with equal intent but a lot less media fanfare. And we're supposed to be newly worried now why, precisely?
This is the same "deep state" problem that conservatives have been talking about for decades. Now it's just a reversed political valance.
Not true. No other president in history has managed to fire members of the Fed in order to stack the board with loyalists.
Prior Presidents didn't have Governors committing fraud while working at the FED that came into the public light. You break the law you should be held accountable. Are you not a no one is above the law person?
How about No Kings?
POTUS is responsible for appointments. Before writing articles maybe learn about what you are writing about?
Why? Democrats never learn what they’re talking about. It’s why they’re democrats.
part of the problem is the FED has private owners and they receive dividends from the profits of the fed. The more the fed makes from the American people the more the private portion profits.
When people were screaming evil oil after the announcement that Exxon made the highest profits of any corporation in the 1990's, the Federal Reserve profited more. Nothing was said about the Fed profits.
When it is said the FED is a non profit central bank it is false. People seem to ignore the 6% payout of the profits to "member banks" which are the private portion of the FED.