Business

Subterms

    More stories

    • 188 Shares117 Views

      in US Politics

      Lisa Cook urges supreme court to reject Trump’s bid to fire her from Fed board

      by

      Federal Reserve governor Lisa Cook urged the US supreme court on Thursday to reject Donald Trump’s attempt to fire her, telling the justices the Republican president’s unprecedented move would destroy the central bank’s independence and disrupt financial markets.Lawyers for Cook filed a written response opposing the justice department’s 18 September emergency request to lift a federal judge’s order that blocked Trump from immediately removing Cook, an appointee of Democratic former president Joe Biden, while her legal challenge continues.Granting Trump’s request, her lawyers told the supreme court, “would dramatically alter the status quo, ignore centuries of history and transform the Federal Reserve into a body subservient to the president’s will”.Washington-based US district judge Jia Cobb ruled on 9 September that Trump’s claims that Cook committed mortgage fraud before taking office – allegations that Cook denies – likely were not sufficient grounds for removal under the 1913 law that created the Fed.The US court of appeals for the District of Columbia circuit in a 2-1 ruling on 15 September denied the administration’s request to put Cobb’s order on hold, ruling that Cook likely was denied due process in violation of the US constitution’s fifth amendment.In Thursday’s filing, Cook’s lawyers said the Fed’s “unique history of independence” has helped make the US economy the strongest in the world. Siding with Trump, they wrote, “would signal to the financial markets that the Federal Reserve no longer enjoys its traditional independence, risking chaos and disruption”.Cook, the first Black woman to serve as a Fed governor, sued Trump in August after the president announced he would remove her. Cook has said the claims made by Trump against her did not give him the legal authority to remove her and were a pretext to fire her for her monetary policy stance.Earlier on Thursday, a group of 18 former US Federal Reserve officials, Treasury secretaries and other top economic officials who served under presidents from both parties urged the supreme court in a brief to reject Trump’s petition to allow his attempt to fire Cook.The group included the past three Fed chairs – Janet Yellen, Ben Bernanke and Alan Greenspan – as well as former Treasury secretaries Henry Paulson, Lawrence Summers, Jacob Lew, Timothy Geithner and Robert Rubin. They argued that letting the president remove Cook while her legal challenge to Trump’s action is ongoing would threaten the central bank’s independence and erode public confidence in it.In its filing to the court last week, the justice department wrote: “This application involves yet another case of improper judicial interference with the President’s removal authority – here, interference with the President’s authority to remove members of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors for cause.”Congress included provisions in the law that created the Fed to shield the central bank from political interference. Under that law, Fed governors may be removed by a president only “for cause”, though the law does not define the term nor establish procedures for removal. No president has ever removed a Fed governor, and the law has never been tested in court.Trump has pursued a broad vision of presidential power since returning to office in January.The Cook legal battle has ramifications for the Fed’s ability to set interest rates without regard to the wishes of politicians, widely seen as critical to any central bank’s ability to function independently to carry out tasks such as keeping inflation under control.Trump this year has demanded that the Fed cut rates aggressively, berating Fed chair Jerome Powell for his stewardship over monetary policy as the central bank focused on fighting inflation. Trump has called Powell a “numbskull”, “incompetent” and a “stubborn moron.“Trump on 25 August said he was removing Cook from the Fed’s board of governors, citing the allegations that, before joining the central bank in 2022, she falsified records to obtain favorable terms on a mortgage. In blocking Cook’s removal, the judge found that the 1913 law only allows a Fed governor to be removed for misconduct while in office. The mortgage fraud claims against Cook relate to actions prior to her Senate confirmation in 2022. More

    • 113 Shares87 Views

      in US Politics

      Disney investors demand details into company’s Jimmy Kimmel suspension

      by

      A group of Disney investors is asking the company to turn over documents related to the company’s decision to temporarily suspend Jimmy Kimmel’s late-night show, amid charges the media company may have been “complicit in succumbing” to media censorship.The investors, composed of lawyers for the American Federation of Teachers and Reporters Without Borders, noted that Disney’s stock “suffered significant declines in response to the company’s abrupt decision to suspend Mr. Kimmel and his show”, it said in a letter to Disney.“The fallout from suspending Jimmy Kimmel Live! sparked criticism as an attack on free speech, triggered boycotts and union support for Mr. Kimmel, and caused Disney’s stock to plummet amid fears of brand damage and concerns that Disney was complicit in succumbing to the government overreach and media censorship,” the letter said.The lawyers are demanding “copies of any meeting minutes, meeting agenda and written materials provided to the [company’s] board or presented at any meeting of the board” regarding Kimmel’s decision. It cites a law in Delaware, where Disney is incorporated, that says shareholders can receive materials around board discussion “to investigate potential wrongdoing, mismanagement and breach of fiduciary duty by members [of the board]”.Disney did not immediately respond to requests for comments.The company first suspended Kimmel’s show “indefinitely” on 17 September, after the network aired comments Kimmel made about Charlie Kirk’s killing saying “the Maga gang [is] desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them, and doing everything they can to score political points from it”.The next day, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) chair, Brendan Carr, criticized Kimmel’s comments and said that the regulatory agency would be willing to throw its weight behind making sure the companies airing Kimmel’s show are held accountable.“We can do this the easy way or the hard way,” Carr said. “These companies can find ways to change conduct to take action on Kimmel, or there’s going to be additional work for the FCC ahead.”Soon after, Nexstar Media Group, a major owner of ABC affiliates, announced it would preempt Kimmel’s show, calling Kimmel’s comments “offensive and insensitive at a critical time in our national political discourse”. Nexstar is seeking FCC approval for a $6.2bn merger with Tegna, another major TV station owner.After Nexstar’s announcement, ABC, which is owned by Disney, announced it would halt Kimmel’s show “indefinitely” without further explanation. A few days later, ABC said the show would return Tuesday night. Nexstar and Sinclair Broadcast Group, another major owner of ABC affiliates, said they would continue to preempt the show, which amounts to a Kimmel blackout for 25% of TV audiences. More

    • 138 Shares127 Views

      in US Politics

      Jerome Powell dismisses Trump’s criticism of ‘political’ Fed as ‘cheap shot’

      by

      The US Federal Reserve chair, Jerome Powell, pushed back hard against claims the central bank allows politics to drive decisions, in the midst of an extraordinary battle over its independence.Donald Trump, who is seeking to increase his administration’s control over the Fed, has branded Powell “a very political guy” after he declined to bow to the president’s public demands for drastically lower interest rates.The White House has launched an unprecedented campaign to overhaul the Fed’s rate-setting board of governors, installing an administration official and trying to fire a Biden appointee over unconfirmed claims of mortgage fraud.But on Tuesday, Powell, who is typically diplomatic when speaking publicly, roundly dismissed one of the common allegations made by Trump and his allies: that the Fed is somehow political when making key decisions about the world’s largest economy.“Many people don’t believe” the Fed is simply allowing economic data to drive its decisions, Powell acknowledged at an event in Rhode Island. “But the truth is, mostly people who are calling us political, it’s just a cheap shot.”He did not mention Trump by name. But the president has become the most prominent critic of the Fed and Powell since returning to office.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionIt comes a week after the central bank ordered its first rate cut since December, a move to stabilize a wobbling labor market, even as Trump’s tariffs continue to push up prices.“Near-term risks to inflation are tilted to the upside and risks to employment to the downside – a challenging situation,” Powell reiterated on Tuesday.Stephen Miran, the Trump official now serving as a Fed governor, takes a different view. He dissented from every other policymaker on the central bank’s board of governors last week to advocate for a deeper rate cut.“Relatively small changes in some good prices have led to what I view as unreasonable levels of concern,” Miran argued in a speech earlier this week, claiming that tariffs would ultimately lead to “substantial swings in net national savings” for the country.Reuters contributed reporting More

    • 213 Shares125 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump’s take on a court decision on tariffs is bonkers – even for him | Steven Greenhouse

      by

      Just hours after an appeals court ruled that it was illegal for Donald Trump to impose his unpopular across-the-board tariffs on dozens of countries, he posted a frantic, over-the-top rant that declared: “If allowed to stand, this Decision would literally destroy the United States of America.”So here the president of the United States was asserting that if the courts torpedoed his tariffs, then the US, the most powerful nation on earth, would be destroyed, would “literally” be kaput. Trump seemed to suggest that court rulings that blocked his beloved tariffs would have the destructive power of, say, 100 hydrogen bombs.Call me naive, but I never cease to be amazed when Trump says such egregiously false and ludicrous things. OK, I sometimes forget that he’s the guy who said that noise from wind turbines causes cancer. After narrowly winning the presidency a second time notwithstanding the 30,573 Trump lies, falsehoods and misleading claims in his first term, Trump evidently thinks he can say anything, no matter how false or foolish, and get away with it. As part of his tariff fight, Trump also blurted this absurdity: if the courts don’t uphold his tariffs, “we would become a Third World Nation.”Trump’s statement that ending tariffs will destroy the US is totally bonkers because the US became the world’s richest nation and has largely prospered for nearly 250 years (despite occasional slumps) before Trump imposed his “Liberation Day” tariffs in April. In the months before then, the US had solid GDP growth, low unemployment and declining inflation – the Economist magazine even called the US economy “the envy of the world”. But now Trump says that if the courts give a thumbs down to his favorite plaything – I mean weapon – to bang other countries over the head with, it would end the US. Even Ramesh Ponnuru, editor of the conservative National Review, called that “lunatic stuff”.The truth is that if the courts block Trump’s across-the-board tariffs, that would be good news for the US economy. It would prevent Trump’s tariffs from further pushing up inflation and slowing economic growth. By giving a thumbs down to Trump’s tariffs, the courts might be doing him a huge economic and political favor because his tariffs, and the inflation they are fueling, have been dragging his dismal approval ratings even lower.On 29 August, the US court of appeals for the federal circuit in Washington DC ruled that Trump overstepped his authority when he invoked the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose his Liberation Day tariffs. The court said that act doesn’t give presidents the authority to slap sweeping tariffs on other countries. Trump has appealed the ruling to the supreme court, which might rule on the tariffs this fall.The court of appeals repeatedly noted that the constitution gives Congress, not presidents, the power to impose tariffs. It further noted that the Emergency Act doesn’t mention the word “tariffs” even once among the tools the act authorizes presidents to use to deal with emergency trade problems. (That appellate ruling overturned the bulk of Trump’s tariffs: the blanket 10% to 50% tariffs on exports from more than 70 countries. The court didn’t rule on Trump’s product-specific tariffs on steel, aluminum and auto parts.)As part of his conniptions over the appeals court ruling, Trump also warned of fiscal disaster, complaining that the US would lose hundreds of billions of dollars if his tariffs were halted. But Trump conveniently forgets that it’s embattled US consumers who will be paying most of those hundreds of billions as they pay Trump’s tariffs, essentially import taxes on furniture, cars, coffee, electronics and other foreign goods.In using his hysterical language, Trump evidently had one audience in mind: the supreme court’s six conservative justices who have repeatedly ruled his way. Trump’s goal is evidently to scare the bejesus out of those justices – he hopes that by shrieking “You’ll Destroy the Country If You Rule Against Me,” that will persuade them to overturn the appellate court’s decision and uphold his tariffs. (The appellate court let the tariffs remain in force to allow time for appeal.)So far in his second term, Trump has a remarkable batting average with the supreme court’s six rightwing justices, who seem astonishingly subservient and supine vis-a-vis the most authoritarian, power-grabbing president in US history. The justices have used their emergency docket to grant Trump administration requests 18 times in a row, often vacating injunctions that lower courts put in place to stop what they saw as Trump’s rampant lawlessness. In repeatedly siding with Trump, the supreme court has scrapped lower court injunctions in several highly controversial cases, provisionally letting Trump fire the chair of the National Labor Relations Board, gut the federal Department of Education, and give Doge – with its staff of twentysomethings – access to the highly private social security information of hundreds of millions of Americans.Trump is no doubt worried that the supreme court, though submissive so far, will overturn his tariffs. Many conservative and libertarian scholars and lawyers oppose his tariffs as both harmful and illegal. Not only do they dislike the tariffs for pushing up inflation and disrupting global supply chains, but they see Trump’s tariffs as anti-free market and mucking up the US and world economies.When Trump announced his Liberation Day tariffs, he invoked a national emergency, saying the US trade deficit and other countries’ tariffs were urgent problems undermining the US economy. Admittedly the trade deficit and other countries’ tariffs are a problem, but in no way do they constitute a national emergency, especially since the US economy was seen as “the envy of the world” before Trump went hog wild with his tariffs. (There’s no denying that the flood of imports from China and other low-wage nations badly damaged many communities in America’s industrial heartland two and three decades ago.) Wouldn’t it be great if, in this tariff litigation, the supreme court stood up to Trump and issued a candid ruling that told him: “Sorry, Mr President, your supposed national emergency is hogwash, a pretext for you to pursue your destructive tariff obsession”?The supreme court’s justices shouldn’t let themselves be cowed, bullied or fooled by Trump’s talk that the nation will be destroyed if they nix his tariffs. Trump is like the boy who cried wolf, forever crying catastrophe if he doesn’t get his way. It’s time for the court and the nation to wise up to Trump’s lies, hype and shenanigans.Virtually every non-Trumpian economist agrees that Trump’s tariffs have hurt the US by increasing inflation, undermining GDP growth, creating huge headaches for corporations and seriously damaging the US’s relations with other nations. The justices shouldn’t buy Trump’s calamitous warnings that if they overturn his tariffs, the world will end.If the justices declare his tariffs illegal, it certainly won’t be a “disaster” for the US, as Trump has claimed. But it might be a disaster for Trump’s ego and for his dangerous dream of having an authoritarian presidency wholly unchecked by the other branches of government.If the supreme court rules against Trump’s tariffs, let’s hope that will serve as a much-needed first step to the court’s developing the backbone to rule many times more against Trump’s authoritarian and lawless actions.

      Steven Greenhouse is a journalist and author, focusing on labour and the workplace, as well as economic and legal issues More

    • 263 Shares91 Views

      in US Politics

      Starmer and Trump to hold talks as PM warned UK faces ‘huge dilemma’ over relationship with US – UK politics live

      by

      Donald Trump and his wife Melania posed for a photograph with King Charles and Queen Camilla in the grand grand Green Corridor at Windsor Castle before Trump headed to the PM’s country residence Chequers, PA Media reports. PA says:
      The four posed for a joint photograph together in the atmospheric corridor which is lined with gilt edged historic paintings and antique furniture.
      Outside at the sovereign’s entrance, the Kkng said a solo goodbye with Trump shaking his hands warmly and placing his other hand on top. The president said “thank you very much, everybody. He’s a great gentleman and a great King”.
      The Windsor Castle detachment of The King’s Guard turned out in the Quadrangle outside to mark Trump’s departure. Although Melania attended the official parting of ways, she is in fact staying behind to carry out joint engagements, first with Camilla, and then the Princess of Wales.
      She was joining the Queen for a tour of Queen Mary’s Doll’s House and the Royal Library in Windsor Castle.
      President Trump is now leaving Windsor Castle. He will be flying to Chequers by helicopter.Volodymyr Zelenskyy, the Ukrainian president, has thanked King Charles for what he said at the state banquet last night strongly supporting the Ukrainian cause.In a post on social media, Zelenskyy said:
      I extend my deepest thanks to His Majesty King Charles III @RoyalFamily for his steadfast support. Ukraine greatly values the United Kingdom’s unwavering and principled stance.
      When tyranny threatens Europe once again, we must all hold firm, and Britain continues to lead in defending freedom on many fronts. Together, we have achieved a lot, and with the support of freedom-loving nations—the UK, our European partners, and the US—we continue to defend values and protect lives. We are united in our efforts to make diplomacy work and secure lasting peace for the European continent.
      In his speech Charles said:
      Our countries have the closest defence, security and intelligence relationship ever known. In two world wars, we fought together to defeat the forces of tyranny.
      Today, as tyranny once again threatens Europe, we and our allies stand together in support of Ukraine, to deter aggression and secure peace. And our Aukus submarine partnership, with Australia, sets the benchmark for innovative and vital collaboration.
      Donald Trump is likely to become “much more aggressive” towards Russia in support of Ukraine, one of his allies has claimed.Christopher Ruddy, CEO of Newsmax, a rightwing news organisation in the US, was a guest at the state banquet last night. In an interview with the Today programme, Ruddy, who has been a friend and informal adviser to the president for years, predicted that Trump would soon harden his stance against Russia. He said:
      President Trump is not against Ukraine, like some people might think, and he’s moved a long way in his posture. And I think we’re going to see much more aggressive action in the weeks and months ahead.
      Ruddy conceded that Trump was not in favour of sending US troops into action.
      I think the president is highly reluctant to put troops on the ground. That’s nothing to do with Ukraine. He just doesn’t like American troops put in harm’s way. He doesn’t like physical engagements. He’ll do these kinetic strikes from time to time, you saw that in Iran, but it’s still not really deploying American troops and putting them in a lot of risk.
      Instead, Trump sees this as “an economic battle”, Ruddy said.
      He’s been pushing for [lower oil prices]. He wants sanctions. He wants Nato countries to stop buying Russian oil. So he sees this in economic war, as a businessman.
      Asked about Trump’s views on Vladimir Putin, the Russian president, Ruddy said Trump viewed him as “a bad guy, even though he won’t say that publicly”.Trump thought it was worth trying to win Putin round, Ruddy said. But Trump has now decided that’s “not going to work”, Ruddy claimed.
      Putin hasn’t talked to anyone. He hasn’t talked to any American president – reluctant, won’t do anything. So Trump looks at this and says, let me see if I can be his friend. I’ll reach out. I’ll be overly generous, I’ll be overly kind.
      And he tried that. I think he really honestly thought it was going to work.
      And I think he’s coming to the conclusion that it’s not going to work and that he needs to do [things] and that’s why he’s ramping up talk about tariffs and secondary tariffs on India and China.
      Four men who were arrested after images of Donald Trump with Jeffrey Epstein were projected on to Windsor Castle have been bailed, PA Media reports. PA says:
      A 60-year-old man from East Sussex, a 36-year-old man from London, a 37-year-old man from Kent and a 50-year-old man from London were arrested on suspicion of malicious communications on Tuesday night after the stunt at the Berkshire royal residence, Thames Valley police (TVP) said.
      They were released on conditional bail on Wednesday night until December 12 while inquiries continue, according to the force.
      “Those arrested are being investigated for a number of possible offences including malicious communications and public nuisance,” a spokesperson for TVP said.
      The nine-minute film created by British political campaign group Led By Donkeys went over the history of the US president’s links to Epstein, including the recent release by US legislators of documents said to include a letter from Trump to the paedophile financier to celebrate his 50th birthday.
      The film was projected from a hotel room with a direct view over the castle as an act of “peaceful protest”, a Led By Donkeys spokesperson said on Wednesday.
      “My colleagues were arrested for malicious communications, which seems ridiculous, because we’ve done 25 or 30 projections before, no-one’s ever been arrested,” the spokesperson told PA.
      “So suddenly, because it’s Trump, you get this reaction, which is surprising, disappointing and very heavy-handed from police. I think they’ve been arrested for embarrassing Donald Trump.”
      Back to Nick Clegg (see 8.56am), and this is what the former deputy PM told the Today programme about why he was not over-impressed by the US tech investments in the UK that have been announced alongside the state visit. He said:
      Of course it’s great there’s investment in the UK, and it’s better still that a young, London-based company like Nscale is involved.
      But these really are crumbs from the Silicon Valley table.
      If you consider that the total compute capacity in the UK is estimated to be around 1.8 gigawatts, withI’ve read ambitions to reach six gigawatts by 2030. Well, that is about the same as one single data centre being built by my former employer Meta in Louisiana.
      And so I just think some sort of perspective needs to be applied to all the hype that comes from the government and the tech companies at times like this, especially when we are never going to compete with the Chinese and America on infrastructure. We’re never going to develop our own frontier foundation models – the base layer of the AI industry.
      Where we can complete is how you deploy AI in the workplace innovatively through new applications and so on.
      And, crucially, none of this does anything to deal with our perennial Achilles heel in technology in the United Kingdom, which is we’re a very innovative place, with great entrepreneurs, scientists, people who create new companies. But the moment those companies start developing any momentum, they have to go to Palo Alto, to the VC [venture capital] firms there to get money. They then say, well, you’ve got to move to the West Coast if you’re going to take our money.
      So not only do we import all their technology, we export all our good people and good ideas as well.
      And that’s why I just think it’s worth keeping some of the hyperbole at moments like this in context.
      Clegg says everyone in the UK was using phones designed in America, run with US software and US operating systems, with the data stored on American cloud infrastructure
      I sometimes wonder how we would react as a body politic if all that infrastructure, all of that technology that we depend on for every sort of minute detail of our lives, were produced by the French. I think there’d be absolute uproar from Nigel Farage and others.
      Yet because of the very close partnership we’ve had with the United States, understandably so in the cold war period, I think we’ve been quite relaxed about this very heavy dependency … both in the public and the private sector, on American technology.
      Here is a Guardian explain on what the US-UK tech deal actually involves.Jennifer Rankin is the Guardian’s Brussels correspondent.Keir Starmer’s government is expected to soon begin talks with the EU to negotiate Britain’s entry into the EU’s €150bn (£130bn) defence loans scheme.The negotiations can start because EU member states on Wednesday agreed a negotiating mandate for the European Commission, but must conclude quickly if British companies are to be involved.The scheme, called Security Action for Europe (Safe), provides EU member states with cheap EU-backed loans to finance defence equipment, either for their armies or for Ukraine. The UK is not applying for a loan, but would like the biggest possible role for British companies in winning contacts.The first loans are expected to be disbursed in early 2026, with member states due to submit spending plans to the commission by the end of November.Europe minister Nick Thomas-Symonds made clear the deadline was on his mind when he spoke at a conference in Brussels on Wednesday. Asked by politics professor Anand Menon whether the UK could miss out on the first round, he said:I profoundly hope not … But my sense on this is that you’re absolutely right to emphasise the deadline.The Guardian reported this week that France has called for a 50% ceiling on the value of UK components in projects financed by Safe. The final EU negotiating mandate leaves the point vague, giving EU negotiators flexibility.The EU and UK must also negotiate a British entry fee to cover administrative costs. EU sources have suggested the fee will be linked to the level of British participation.Asked about the French position, Thomas-Symonds said the UK and EU were in a live negotiation, without commenting on details. He said:
      The bigger picture here is the real importance, when we have seen the return of war to our continent, that what we are doing is making sure we don’t fragment European defence production at this moment.
      Shabana Mahmood, the home secretary, has been accused of putting lives at risk by the anti-slavery watchdog.Yesterday Mahmood said the use of modern slavery legislation to block deportations of migrants made a “mockery of our laws”. Rajeev Syal and Diane Taylor have the story.Today the independent anti-slavery commissioner Eleanor Lyons condemned the Home Secretary’s comments. She told Radio 4 comment like this “have a real-life impact on victims of exploitation, who may now be more scared to come forward and talk about what’s happened to them”.She went on:
      The Home Office are the deciders in this country on whether someone is a victim of modern slavery. They have the final decision-making.
      Both the House of Commons and the House of Lords select committees have looked at this issue in recent years, and they found there’s no misuse of the system.
      It puts vulnerable lives at risk when the Home Secretary is claiming that is the case.
      The ABC has been barred from attending Donald Trump’s press conference near London this week after a clash between the broadcaster’s Americas editor, John Lyons, and the president in Washington DC over his business dealings, Amanda Meade reports.Good morning. It’s day two of the state visit and, after the pomp, today we’re on to the policy. Donald Trump is leaving Windsor Castle and heading for Chequers where he will have private talks with Keir Starmer before the two leaders hold a press conference.In his speech at the state banquet last night, Trump delivered used some uncharacteristically sophisticated and lovely metaphors to describe the US/UK relationship. He said:
      We’re joined by history and faith, by love and language and by transcendent ties of culture, tradition, ancestry and destiny.
      We’re like two notes in one chord or two verses of the same poem, each beautiful on its own, but really meant to be played together.
      Starmer defends his use of flattery diplomacy with Trump on the grounds that it delivers for Britain and, with No 10 announcing US investments in the UK worth £150bn there is evidence to suggest it’s working.But, to return to Trump’s analogy, there are others who suspect that, if anything is being “played” in all of this, it’s us.On the Today programme this morning Nick Clegg came close to expressing this view. As a former Lib Dem deputy prime minister in the 2010-15 coalition government, and a former president of global affairs at Meta, he is very well placed to comment on the relationship. Clegg told Today that the AI investments being anounced for the UK were “crumbs from the Silicon Valley table”. He said he thought the UK had become over-dependent on American technology. And he went on:
      Because of the very close partnership we’ve had with the United States, understandably so in the cold war period, I think we’ve been quite relaxed about this very heavy dependency … both in the public and the private sector, on American technology.
      I just so happen to believe that is now changing because the rupture – notwithstanding the pomp and ceremony of the state visit by Donald Trump this week – the transatlantic rupture, in my view, is real.
      I think the Americans – and we’ve been on notice for this for ages – are turning their attention to the Pacific. They have much less attachment to the transatlantic relationship.
      So my view is, over time, British governments need to learn to ask themselves different questions to how we can roll out the red carpet to American investment, welcome as that is. We need to ask ourselves questions about how we can develop and grow … our own technology companies to the size the need to be.
      Clegg said the UK faced “a huge dilemma”.
      We’ve got to learn, technologically, as much as in so many other walks of life, to stand more on own two feet, rather than just cling on to Uncle Sam’s coattails.
      While that served us well for a while, I think that’s no longer going to be the paradigm that works for us going forward.
      Today I will be focusing mostly on the Trump visit, although I will cover some other UK politics too. Here is the agenda for the day.10am: Donald Trump leaves Windsor CastleMorning: Melania Trump and Queen Camilla visit Queen Mary’s Dolls’ House in Windsor and Frogmore Gardens10.45am: Trump is due to arrive at Chequers, where he will hold bilateral talks with Keir Starmer. The two leaders are also speaking at an event for business leaders, and viewing items from the Winston Churchill archive at the mansion, the official country residence of the PM. And there will be a parachute display by the Red Devils.Around 2.30pm: Starmer and Trump hold a press conference at Chequers.If you want to contact me, please post a message below the line when comments are open (normally between 10am and 3pm BST at the moment), or message me on social media. I can’t read all the messages BTL, but if you put “Andrew” in a message aimed at me, I am more likely to see it because I search for posts containing that word.If you want to flag something up urgently, it is best to use social media. You can reach me on Bluesky at @andrewsparrowgdn.bsky.social. The Guardian has given up posting from its official accounts on X, but individual Guardian journalists are there, I still have my account, and if you message me there at @AndrewSparrow, I will see it and respond if necessary.I find it very helpful when readers point out mistakes, even minor typos. No error is too small to correct. And I find your questions very interesting too. I can’t promise to reply to them all, but I will try to reply to as many as I can, either BTL or sometimes in the blog. More

    • 150 Shares156 Views

      in US Politics

      The Federal Reserve’s independence is about to be tested like never before

      by

      The time has come to ban the “revolving door” between the White House and the Federal Reserve, two academics argued last year. Doing so would be “critical to reducing the incentives for officials to act in the short-term political interests of the president”, they wrote.Eight months ago, the two writers – Dan Katz and Stephen Miran – joined the Trump administration in senior roles. On Tuesday, Miran, the chair of the US Council of Economic Advisers, walked into the Fed as a governor.Strolling through the revolving door himself, Miran pledged during his confirmation hearing to preserve the Fed’s independence, but made clear he would not resign from the White House, just take unpaid leave.Having expressed concern last year about the Fed’s vulnerability to the short-term political interests of the president, Miran was rushed into his new seat on the central bank’s board of governors hours before its latest meeting – as Donald Trump continued to push to have another voting member removed.The president, at least, is clearer about aspirations for the Fed. “We’ll have a majority very shortly,” Trump said of the central bank’s rate-setting open market committee last month. “So that’ll be great.”As his efforts to exert greater influence and fire Lisa Cook, a governor appointed by Joe Biden, fuel concern over the Fed’s ability to operate without political interference, Trump was asked by reporters on Tuesday if he thought the central bank was independent. “Oh, it should be,” he replied. “But I think they should listen to smart people, like me.”For a generation, presidents – no matter how smart they may be – have broadly steered clear of publicly expressing opinions for the Fed to listen to. Trump has bulldozed through this norm, calling for drastic rate cuts and attacking Fed chair Jerome Powell for not delivering them.On Wednesday, the Fed finally nudged rates in the direction Trump has been demanding, albeit not at nearly the pace he wants. The benchmark federal funds rate was cut by 25 basis points to a range of between 4 and 4.25%, their lowest level in almost three years, and policymakers indicated more reductions would follow.There was only one dissent: Miran wanted to cut by 50 basis points.If Miran is truly independent from the White House, his first vote on interest rates as Fed governor fell somewhat conveniently in line with the president’s demands for faster, and deeper, cuts than his new colleagues have been minded to execute.Other rate-setting officials have been far more concerned about striking a delicate balance. Of course, they want to shore up the economy – and cutting rates typically spurs activity – but they are also wary of inflation, which has held firm in recent months.The economic impact of Trump’s sweeping tariffs on foreign imports is one thing. But the uncertainty caused by months of erratic threats, declarations, pauses and vague trade pacts with certain economies has so far cast the darker shadow.“Changes to government policies continue to evolve, and their effects on the economy remain uncertain,” Powell, ever the diplomat, put it in a press conference on Wednesday. Risks around inflation are “tilted to the upside”, he added, with risks to the labor market to the downside.Official data for August indicated that price growth is again picking up, and Fed officials have increased their expectations for inflation next year, according to projections released alongside their latest decision.But Trump, and, apparently, Miran, believe concern over higher inflation, and the risk of overheating the US economy by cutting rates too fast, is unfounded.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThe US president, impatient for the Fed to come around to his way of thinking, is trying to change who sits around the table.Miran has secured a seat – at least until the new year. The campaign to remove Cook continues. And Powell’s term as chair will expire next year, enabling Trump to select a new figure to lead the Fed.For now, Trump’s control over the central bank remains limited. Sure, Miran might have voted for a deeper cut, but at this week’s meeting there “wasn’t widespread support at all” for this move, Powell stressed afterwards.The Fed chair expressed confidence that discussions on rates remain unaffected by politics. Such considerations are typically left at the door, he noted, as 12 voting policymakers – out of a pool of 19 – gather at a table to make the decision.“The only way for any voter to really move things around is to be incredibly persuasive,” said Powell. “And the only way to do that, in the context in which we work, is to make really strong arguments based on the data, and one’s understanding of the economy. That’s really all that matters.”“That’s in the DNA of the institution,” he added. “That’s not going to change.”Time will tell. “We’re strongly committed to maintaining our independence,” Powell told reporters. “And beyond that, I really don’t have anything to share.”That strong commitment faces an extraordinary test. “They have to make their own choice,” Trump said of the Fed earlier this week. “But they should listen.” More

    • 250 Shares93 Views

      in US Politics

      Federal Reserve cuts interest rates by a quarter point, for first time in nearly a year – as it happened

      by

      The Fed just announced an interest rate cut by a quarter point, which was largely anticipated amid a weakening labor market.This is the first time the Fed has cut rates since December 2024. Rates now stand at a range of 4% to 4.25%, the lowest since November 2022.Stay tuned for a press conference Fed chair Jerome Powell is expected to give at 2.30pm ET.The US Federal Reserve cut interest rates by a quarter point today, a move that will reverberate across the economy in the coming months. Fed chair Jerome Powell spoke at a closely watched press conference about the Fed’s decision.Here’s a summary of what happened this afternoon:

      The Fed cut interest rates by a quarter point, the first cut since December 2024. Rates are now at a range of 4% to 4.25%.

      Fed economists also released projections, which point to a majority expecting at least one more rate cut by the end of the year.

      During his press conference, Powell said the rate cut was a move toward “risk management” instead of a testament to the strength of the economy. Economists at the Fed are concerned about a weakening labor market, which could see higher layoffs if worsened.

      But Fed officials are still concerned about inflation. Powell said that prices are likely to continue going up toward the end of the year as companies pass along the price of tariffs to consumers.

      A question remains: Will tariff-related inflation be a one-time price increase, or will it be persistent? Powell said economists at the Fed expect it to be more of a one-time price increase but that the Fed’s just is to make sure it’s not persistent.

      With pressure from the labor market and prices, Powell described it as an “unusual” situation for the Fed to manage. “Our tools can’t do two things at once,” he said.

      Powell also took questions about the recent appointment of Fed governor Stephen Miran, who was confirmed by the Senate on Monday. Powell assured that the Fed’s independence is a priority to the entire committee that sets interest rates. And the Fed’s structure offers protection: For a single member to have outsized influence, they need to “make really strong arguments based on the data and one’s understanding of the economy… That’s in the DNA of the institution.”
      Powell responded to a question about comments new Fed governor Stephen Miran made at his confirmation hearing in front of the Senate earlier this week.Miran said that the Fed actually has a “third mandate”, which is to “moderate long-term interest rates”.The introduction of a third mandate is in opposition to how Powell has framed the Fed’s “dual mandate” – balancing unemployment and price increases.“We always think of it as the dual mandate,” Powell said, explaining that moderate interest rates come from stable inflation.“As far as I’m concerned, there’s no thought of … incorporating that in a different way,” he said.Markets appear to be relatively unresponsiveness to the Fed’s highly anticipated rate cut. Both the S&P and Nasdaq are both slightly down for the day, while the Dow is up.It’s a stark contrast to last week, when markets shot up at data that showed wholesale prices falling slightly in August, and consumer inflation being within expectations for the month.The overall picture that Powell has painted of the economy in his press conference isn’t necessarily one that’s thriving. Powell said that the economy has left the Fed in an “unusual” situation, and said that the Fed’s rate cut is more about “risk management” rather than an testament to a strong economy. The recent rate cut could cause inflation to rise, but risks of the job market worsening under current rates are higher.“We’ve seen much more challenging economic times from a policy standpoint, the standpoint of what we’re trying to accomplish, it’s challenging to know what to do,” Powell said. “There are no risk-free paths now.”Powell was, again, questioned about Stephen Miran’s role as both a new Fed governor and Trump’s chair to the Council of Economic Advisor.A reporter asked Powell how the Fed can be nonpolitical if one of its voting members is explicitly connected to politics. Powell emphasized that there are 12 voting members and 19 total participants on the board.“The only way for any voter to really move things around is to be incredibly persuasive, and the only way to do that in the context in which we work is to make really strong arguments based on the data and one’s understanding of the economy,” Powell said. “That’s really all that matters. … That’s in the DNA of the institution, that’s not going to change.”A Politico reporter asked Powell how Americans will be able to tell if the Fed, which has historically been nonpartisan, starts to be partisan.“We don’t frame these questions at all or see them in terms of political outcomes. In another part of Washington, everything is seen through the lens of does it help or hurt this political party, this politicians,” Powell said. “That’s the framework. People find it hard to believe that’s not at all the way we think about things at the Fed. We take a longer perspective, we’re trying to serve the American people as best as we can.”“I think you would be able to tell. I don’t think we’ll ever get to that place.”When asked about Fed governor Lisa Cook’s lawsuit against Donald Trump for her firing (a court reinstated her last week), Powell said: “I see it as a court case that I would see as inappropriate for me to comment on.”Powell said that Fed officials are expecting inflation from tariffs to be a one-time price level increase, though “we can’t just assume that, [and] or job is to make sure that’s what happens.”“We continue to expect it to move up,” Powell said of prices. “Maybe not as high as we would have expected it to.”He added that the case for “persistent inflation” is weaker.Which is why the Fed cut rates, what he described as a “neutral” policy, given that inflation isn’t out of control, but the labor market has slowed down.But Powell acknowledged that it’s “an unusual situation” – the Fed would most likely want to be more careful with rate cuts because of inflation, but has to be wary of the labor market.“Our tools can’t do two things at once,” he said.Powell is again describing the labor market as being in a “curious balance” – a term that he first used in his Jackson Hole speech last month.The labor market is balanced out, meaning that the supply of workers is on par with the demand that employers have for workers, but it’s not necessarily a sign of strength.Because of immigration, “the supply of workers is coming down”, Powell noted. “At the same time, demand for workers has come down quite sharply to the point where we see what I’ve called a ‘curious balance’.”“Typically, when we say things are in balance that sounds good,” he added. “But in this case, the balance is because both demand and supply have come down sharply, now demand is coming down more sharply because we now see the unemployment rate going up.”A reporter asked Jerome Powell about Stephen Miran’s appointment, specifically on the fact that Miran is the first Fed governor to also have a role in the executive branch while also serving on the Fed board. Miran is the chair of the Council of Economic Advisors.“The committee remains united in pursuing our dual mandate goals,” Powell said in response. “We’re strongly committed to maintaining our independence and beyond that, I really don’t have anything to share.”Fed chair Jerome Powell just started his press conference on the Fed’s rate cut decision.As outlined in the board’s statement, Powell said that the unemployment rate, while still generally low, has edged up.“Job gains have slowed and the downside risks to unemployment have risen,” he said.Powell pointed to new immigration policy as a major factor in the labor market slowdown.“A good part of the slowing likely reflects a decline in the growth of the labor force, due to lower immigration and lower labor force participation,” Powell said. “Even so, labor demand has softened and the recent pace of job creation appears to be running below the breakeven rate needed to hold the unemployment rate constant.”The median projection for the unemployment rate, which is currently at 4.3%, sees it rising to 4.5% by the end of the year.Powells also said higher tariffs have begun to push up some prices in some categories of goods, though the full impact have yet to be seen. Price increases due to tariffs could be a one-time price increase or it could lead to “persistent” inflation.“Our obligation is to ensure that a one-time price increase in the price level does not become an ongoing inflation problem,” he said.Much of this is what Powell said during his speech last month at the Fed’s symposium in Jackson Hole, during which he first suggested that the Fed was looking toward an interest rate cut.In economic projections released after the Fed’s rate-cute decision, members of the Fed’s board submitted their economic predictions for the economy over the next few years.A slight majority of board members seem to expect another rate cut by the end of the year, while a majority see more rate cuts in 2026. Board members are predicting a slight increase in unemployment, though they seem to think that inflation will largely cool in 2026 and 2027.It’s a more dovish take on the economy than how the Fed is describing the current economy in its board statement, where the Fed said that the labor market has slowed and inflation is going up – a dynamic that points to an economic condition known as stagflation.Before Fed chair Jerome Powell can expand on the Fed’s decision in his 2.30pm ET press conference, right now we just have the Fed’s statement on its rate cut to parse through why officials voted for a cut.Notably, the Fed’s rate-setting board took note of the jobs market.“Job gains have slowed, and the unemployment rate has edged up but remains low,” it said. It also noted that “inflation has moved up and remains somewhat elevated”.This is a change from the board’s last meeting in July, when it said that labor market conditions “remain solid”. And this is the first time the board has said inflation is going up.The statement also noted that Stephen Miran, Trump’s appointee to the board who was confirmed on Monday, was the only member of the board to vote against the rate cut. Miran wanted to lower rates by a half-point, instead of a quarter-point.The Fed just announced an interest rate cut by a quarter point, which was largely anticipated amid a weakening labor market.This is the first time the Fed has cut rates since December 2024. Rates now stand at a range of 4% to 4.25%, the lowest since November 2022.Stay tuned for a press conference Fed chair Jerome Powell is expected to give at 2.30pm ET.Inflation rose slightly in August as companies continued to push the cost of tariffs on to consumers.The newest update to the consumer price index (CPI), which measures a basket of goods and services, showed that prices increased 2.9% over the last year – the highest since January. Core CPI, which excludes energy and food costs, stayed stable at 3.1% after going up in July.Despite this slight uptick in inflation, Wall Street remains optimistic that the Federal Reserve will cut interest rates at the central bank’s board meeting next week. The Fed is under intense pressure from Donald Trump to cut rates, but the decision looks likely to be led by fears that the US jobs market is weakening.Investors are anticipating a quarter-point rate cut. Rates currently stand at a range of 4.25% to 5.5%.The Fed chair Jerome Powell indicated last month that the central bank was gearing up to cut interest rates for the first time this year.For months, policymakers defied public calls from Trump to lower rates – and brushed off his increasingly aggressive criticism of the Fed’s decision to hold them steady.“With policy in restrictive territory, the baseline outlook and the shifting balance of risks may warrant adjusting our policy stance,” Powell said in a closely scrutinized speech at the Jackson Hole symposium in Wyoming, highlighting a “challenging” dichotomy of risks: that Trump’s tariffs might increase inflation, while his immigration policies knock the US labor market.Concerning economic signs, including data indicating that the labor market has stalled while inflation picked up, have reinforced expectations that many policymakers will want to tread carefully in the months ahead.Trump has already suggested that he will be unhappy with the modest cut the Fed is widely expected to unveil later. Powell “MUST CUT INTEREST RATES, NOW, AND BIGGER THAN HE HAD IN MIND”, the US president wrote on his Truth Social platform early on Monday, claiming: “HOUSING WILL SOAR!!!”The Trump administration’s extraordinary bid to fire Lisa Cook, a Fed governor appointed by Biden, and remove her from the central bank’s board before this meeting, has so far failed.Late on Monday, a federal appeals court rejected Trump’s request to block Cook from attending the Fed’s latest rate-setting session, which started yesterday.The president cited unconfirmed allegations of mortgage fraud as he attempted to fire Cook, who has denied wrongdoing and argued Trump has no authority to fire her. Her term is not due to expire until 2038.No president has pursued such action – and moved to dismiss a governor at the Fed, which has long been independent from political interference – since the central bank’s founding in 1913.Trump has made no secret of his hopes to increase his oversight of the Fed, calling into question the future of its longstanding independence from political oversight by publicly describing plans to swiftly build “a majority” on its board.The Trump administration raced to strengthen its influence over the Fed ahead of this week’s meeting.Stephen Miran, a senior official who served as chair of the White House council of economic advisers, was confirmed by Senate Republicans as a Fed governor on Monday evening, and formally sworn in on Tuesday.His appointment marks the first time in the history of the modern Federal Reserve, which stretches back almost a century, that a sitting member of the executive branch will also work at the highest levels of the central bank.While Miran described the Fed’s independence as “critical” during a confirmation hearing earlier this month, and pledged to preserve it as governor, his decision to only take unpaid leave from his current job at the White House, rather than resign, raised questions over his ability to operate independently.The US Federal Reserve is expected to announce the first interest rate cut since December as a two-day policy meeting nears its end.The Fed started the meeting on Tuesday, hours after Donald Trump’s new appointee narrowly won confirmation to join the central bank – while Fed governor Lisa Cook continues to fight her removal by the president.Stephen Miran, the chair of Trump’s Council of Economic Advisers, took the oath of office as a Fed governor early on Tuesday after narrowly winning a Senate confirmation vote along party lines on Monday night.There is little doubt that the Fed will make its first interest rate cut of 2025 after the latest gathering, as policymakers pivot towards shoring up a deteriorating jobs market.But concerns about political influence targeting the independent central bank looms over the gathering, as Trump repeatedly bashes Fed Chair Jerome Powell over his rate decisions, and after he moved to fire governor Lisa Cook, sparking a legal battle.On Tuesday, Trump told reporters that the Fed should “listen to smart people like me”. More

    • 138 Shares187 Views

      in US Politics

      US treasury secretary reportedly made similar mortgage pledge to Lisa Cook

      by

      Scott Bessent, the US treasury secretary, previously agreed to occupy two different houses at the same time as his “principal residence”, Bloomberg News reported on Wednesday, an agreement similar to one Donald Trump has called mortgage fraud in his unprecedented bid to fire the Federal Reserve governor Lisa Cook.The Bloomberg report cites Bessent’s mortgages with lender Bank of America and his pledge in 2007 to primarily occupy homes in New York and Massachusetts.Mortgage experts told Bloomberg there was no sign of wrongdoing or proof of fraud in Bessent’s home-loan filings and said the issue highlights incongruities found in such documents.Bank of America did not rely on Bessent’s pledges and never expected him to occupy both homes as his primary residences, Bloomberg reported, citing the mortgage documents.“Nearly 20 years ago, Mr Bessent’s lawyers filled out paperwork properly, the bank has confirmed it was done properly, and this nonsensical article reaches the conclusion that this was all done properly,” Bessent’s lawyer Alex Spiro said in a statement.The Republican president, who appointed Bessent to the Treasury post, and members of his administration have accused Cook, an appointee of the Democratic former president Joe Biden, of committing mortgage fraud before taking office, a claim Cook denies.Congress included provisions in the 1913 law that created the Fed to shield the central bank from political interference. Under that law, Fed governors may be removed by a president only “for cause”, though the law does not define the term nor establish procedures for removal. No president has ever removed a Fed governor, and the law has never been tested in court. Trump has sought to remove her for cause, citing the alleged fraud.A US appeals court on Monday declined to allow Trump to fire her. The White House has said it will appeal the decision to the US supreme court. Trump’s justice department also has launched a criminal mortgage fraud inquiry into Cook, issuing grand jury subpoenas in Georgia and Michigan, Reuters previously reported.A loan estimate for an Atlanta home purchased by Cook showed that she had declared the property as a “vacation home”, according to a document reviewed by Reuters. The property tax authority in Ann Arbor, Michigan, also said Cook had not broken rules for tax breaks on a home there that had been declared her primary residence.Bloomberg in its report on Wednesday pointed to similar but not identical pledges made by an attorney on Bessent’s behalf on 20 September 2007, agreeing to make a Bedford Hills, New York, house his “principal residence” over the next year as well as another house in Provincetown, Massachusetts.“There are people who think that President Trump is putting undue pressure on the Fed. And there are people like President Trump and myself who think that if a Fed official committed mortgage fraud, that this should be examined, and that they shouldn’t be serving as one of the nation’s leading financial regulators,” Bessent told Fox Business Network in an interview on 27 August. More