Subterms
<!–> –><!–> [–><!–> –> <!–> –><!–> [–><!–> –> <!–> –><!–> [–><!–>Mr. Trump has made no secret of his desire to reshape the top ranks of the Fed, repeatedly lashing out at Mr. Powell and his colleagues for keeping interest rates too high.–><!–> –><!–> [–><!–>Mr. Trump’s first opportunity to remake the Fed roster came sooner than […] More
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
August 25, 2025
Dr. Lisa D. Cook
Member
Board of Governors
United States Federal Reserve System
20th Street & Constitution Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20551
Dear Governor Cook:
Pursuant to my authority under Article II of the Constitution of the United States and the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, as amended, you are hereby removed from your position on the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve, effective immediately.
The Federal Reserve Act provides that you may be removed, at my discretion, for cause. See 12 U.S.C. § 242. I have determined that there is sufficient cause to remove you from your position.
As set forth in the Criminal Referral dated August 15, 2025, from Mr. William J. Pulte, Director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, to Ms. Pamela Bondi, Attorney General of the United States (“Criminal Referral”) (attached to this letter as Exhibit A), there is sufficient reason to believe you may have made false statements on one or more mortgage agreements. For example, as detailed in the Criminal Referral, you signed one document attesting that a property in Michigan would be your primary residence for the next year. Two weeks later, you signed another document for a property in Georgia stating that it would be your primary residence for the next year. It is inconceivable that you were not aware of your first commitment when making the second. It is impossible that you intended to honor both.
The Federal Reserve has tremendous responsibility for setting interest rates and regulating reserve and member banks. The American people must be able to have full confidence in the honesty of the members entrusted with setting policy and overseeing the Federal Reserve. In light of your deceitful and potentially criminal conduct in a financial matter, they cannot and I do not have such confidence in your integrity. At a minimum, the conduct at issue exhibits the sort of gross negligence in financial transactions that calls into question your competence and trustworthiness as a financial regulator. More
He was the No. 2 at the Federal Reserve and the I.M.F. during periods of economic turmoil, and he mentored future economic leaders, like Ben Bernanke.Stanley Fischer, an economist and central banker whose scholarship and genial, consensus-seeking style helped guide global economic policies and defuse financial crises for decades, died on Saturday at his home in Lexington, Mass. He was 81.The cause was complications of Alzheimer’s disease, his son Michael said. Mr. Fischer served as the head of Israel’s central bank from 2005 to 2013, as vice chairman of the Federal Reserve Board from 2014 to 2017 and as the No. 2 officer at the International Monetary Fund from 1994 to 2001, when that agency was struggling to contain financial panics in Mexico, Russia, Asia and Latin America.As a professor at M.I.T., he was a thesis adviser or mentor to an extraordinary range of future leaders, including Ben S. Bernanke, later chairman of the Fed; Mario Draghi, president of the European Central Bank; and Kazuo Ueda, governor of the Bank of Japan. His former students also included two people who chaired the U.S. Council of Economic Advisers, Christina D. Romer and N. Gregory Mankiw, as well as Lawrence H. Summers, who served as secretary of the Treasury and president of Harvard University.“He had a role in shaping a whole generation of economists and policymakers,” Mr. Bernanke said in a February 2024 interview for this obituary. That included spurring Mr. Bernanke’s initial interest in macroeconomics and monetary policy.In 1998, The Times described Mr. Fischer as “the closest thing the world economy has to a battlefield medic.” He helped negotiate a rescue package for Russia by cellphone while standing atop a sand dune on Martha’s Vineyard, where he was on vacation. We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More
Since taking his second oath of office, President Trump has been on a firing spree. In violation of numerous laws or longstanding presidential practice (or both), he has ordered the removal of many high-level officials who normally retain their positions regardless of who is in the Oval Office.Some of these high-level officials have successfully challenged their removal in the lower courts. But on Thursday, in a case involving members of the National Labor Relations and Merit Systems Protection Boards, the Supreme Court quietly blessed some or all of these firings. In doing so, the court effectively allowed the president to neutralize some of the last remaining sites of independent expertise and authority inside the executive branch.The court sought to cast its intervention as temporary, procedural and grounded in considerations of stability, with the unsigned order noting concerns about the “disruptive effect of the repeated removal and reinstatement of officers during the pendency of this litigation.”In truth, the decision was radical. Whatever one thinks about the underlying question of presidential authority, the court should not have disposed of the case this way. It effectively overruled an important and nearly century-old precedent central to the structure of the federal government without full briefing or argument. And it did so in a thinly reasoned, unsigned, two-page order handing the president underspecified but considerable new authority.Over the last four months, the legal world — and the country — has been plunged into chaos, and the Supreme Court bears a heavy dose of responsibility. Many of it decisions involving the presidency — including last year’s on presidential immunity — have enabled the president to declare himself above the law. The court’s latest order both enables the consolidation of additional power in the presidency and risks assimilating a “move fast and break things” ethos into constitutional law.No modern president has ever come close to the large-scale personnel purges that we have seen under Mr. Trump, and for good reason: Many of the officials in question are protected by law from being fired at will by the president. Mr. Trump maintains that laws limiting the president’s ability to fire high-level officials are unconstitutional. In making that argument, he is drawing on a series of recent Supreme Court opinions emphasizing the importance of presidential control over subordinate officials and invalidating removal limitations at agencies like the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More
President Trump’s global tariffs have sent stock markets worldwide into a tailspin, and the S&P 500 on Monday entered bear market territory for the first time since 2022.Mr. Trump has seemed unmoved by the decline. He signaled on Monday that he had no plans to back off on tariffs, insisting that they would bring in “billions of dollars” in revenue and that other countries had been “abusing” the United States with their trade policies.Here is what to know about a bear market.What is a bear market?A bear market is a Wall Street term for a sustained market downturn, when a stock index falls 20 percent from its last peak.The 20 percent threshold signals investor pessimism about the future of the economy.Are we in a bear market now?The S&P 500, the benchmark U.S. stock index, opened lower on Monday. The index was already down 17.4 percent from its last high, on Feb. 19, and if it closes Monday’s trading with a loss of at least 3.1 percent, that would tip it into a bear market.Analysts at Morgan Stanley have warned that an even steeper drop is possible. Goldman Sachs on Monday slashed its forecast for economic growth, citing a growing risk of a U.S. recession next year.The Nasdaq Composite Index, as well as the Russell 2000 index of smaller companies that are more vulnerable to the economic outlook, are already in a bear market.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More
President Trump’s plans risk stoking inflation and denting growth, an undesirable combination that economists warn could lead to much tougher trade-offs for the central bank.When inflation was too high and the economy was resilient in the aftermath of the pandemic, the Federal Reserve’s decision to sharply raise interest rates beginning in 2022 seemed like a no-brainer. The same was true just over two years later when inflation had fallen sharply from its recent peak and the labor market had started to cool off. That paved the way for the central bank to lower borrowing costs by a percentage point in 2024.What made those decisions relatively straightforward was the fact that the Fed’s goals of achieving low and stable inflation and a healthy labor market were not in conflict with each other. Officials did not have to choose between safeguarding the economy by lowering rates and staving off price increases by either keeping rates high or raising them further.Economists worry that could soon change. President Trump’s economic agenda of tariffs, spending cuts and mass deportations risks stoking inflation while simultaneously denting growth, an undesirable combination that could lead to much tougher trade-offs for the Fed.“We’re getting to a harder decision point for the Fed,” said Nela Richardson, chief economist at ADP, the payroll processing company.Jerome H. Powell, the Fed chair, indicated little concern about this dilemma on Wednesday after the Fed’s decision to keep interest rates unchanged for a second-straight meeting in light of a highly “uncertain” economic outlook.Mr. Powell did warn that “further progress may be delayed” on getting inflation back to the central bank’s 2 percent target because of tariffs. A combination of rising inflation and weaker growth would be “a very challenging situation for any central bank,” he conceded, but it was not one the Fed currently found itself in.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More
The prospect of using taxpayer money to stockpile cryptocurrencies in a national reserve has drawn criticism from lawmakers and investors.The crypto market gives and takes: After President Trump’s plan for a national crypto reserve drew backlash from both Republicans and investors, the prices of digital tokens that would be involved soared higher — and then tumbled. (Bitcoin was trading at about $83,800 early on Tuesday, down nearly $10,000 from a day ago.)The plan has spurred a lot of questions about how it would work and the risks that would be involved.How would a national reserve work?Mr. Trump campaigned last summer on creating a federal Bitcoin stockpile and appointed the venture capitalist David Sacks as his crypto czar. Advisers have suggested holding on to any Bitcoin the government has already seized from criminals, recently estimated at about $17 billion.A bill proposed by Senator Cynthia Lummis, Republican of Wyoming, would direct the government to buy about 200,000 Bitcoin a year over five years, for a value of about $90 billion. (To help pay for that, the bill proposes taking $4.4 billion out of the Federal Reserve’s surplus, cutting into the Treasury Department’s coffers.) Of course, the digital token’s prices would probably rise in anticipation of those federal purchases.One unknown is whether Mr. Trump, in the face of divisions among Republican lawmakers on the idea of a reserve, would seek to test legal limits on his authority and create one unilaterally.Would taxpayer money be involved?That prospect drew the most criticism. Joe Lonsdale, a financier and Trump supporter, said it was “wrong to tax me for crypto bro schemes.” Another investor called the proposal an “unforced error” that would “enrich the insiders and creators of these coins at the expense of the U.S. taxpayer.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More
Global leaders are retaliating and investors have sold off stocks in Asia and Europe.Nowhere to hide as a new wave of U.S. tariffs sinks global stock markets.Franck Robichon/EPA, via ShutterstockNot just tough talk President Trump wasn’t bluffing, after all.Global markets plunged on Tuesday after U.S. tariffs went into effect on roughly $1.5 trillion worth of imports from Canada, Mexico and China, with another, and even broader, wave set to kick in as soon as next week.China and Canada have already responded, with Beijing targeting the American heartland with sweeping levies on imported food and halting log and soybean shipments from select U.S. companies. Mexico is expected to retaliate, too.The escalation has global business leaders increasingly worried about what will come next, as economists warn that consumers and companies will soon see higher prices. Warren Buffett offered a reminder of what the global economy is facing. “Tariffs,” the billionaire investor said this week, “are an act of war, to some degree.”Here’s the latest:Stocks in much of Asia and Europe fell on Tuesday, after the S&P 500 yesterday suffered its worst one-day decline this year. U.S. stock futures were down slightly on Tuesday.Hit especially hard on Tuesday were the shares of European automakers, including Volkswagen, BMW, and Daimler Truck. Levies could slam the sector, which is highly dependent on a complex cross-border supply chain.The CBOE volatility index, Wall Street’s so-called fear gauge popularly known as the VIX, jumped, posting its biggest one-day spike this year, according to Deutsche Bank.The sell-off also extended to cryptocurrencies (more on that below), and, in a new twist, the dollar.If global investors weren’t spooked before, they seem to be now. “The market finally took the Trump administration at its word, and the realization that the tariff talk wasn’t just a negotiating tactic is starting to sink in,” Chris Zaccarelli, an investment strategist for Northlight Asset Management, said in a research note yesterday evening.How long will the trade battle last? Analysts see reason for cautious optimism — at least on China. “We view Beijing’s responses as still strategic and restrained,” Xiangrong Yu, Citigroup’s chief China economist, said in a research note on Tuesday. He said a trade deal was still “plausible.”The Shanghai composite index closed slightly higher on Tuesday.Market watchers warn of deep repercussions should the trade war drag on. Trump seems to be digging in, telling reporters yesterday that there is “no room left for Mexico or for Canada.” A protracted fight could dent global growth and accelerate inflation, all of which could “hamstring the Fed,” Mark Haefele, the chief investment officer at UBS Global Wealth Management, told Bloomberg Television on Tuesday.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More
But consumer spending unexpectedly slowed, complicating the central bank’s plans for interest rates.Getting inflation under control since the worst surge in decades has been a bumpy process in recent months. New data on Friday showed a little progress, but also an unexpected pullback in consumer spending, complicating the path forward for the Federal Reserve as it debates when to restart interest rate cuts.The central bank’s preferred inflation measure, released on Friday, climbed 2.5 percent in January from a year earlier, slightly lower than the previous reading of 2.6 percent but still well above the central bank’s 2 percent target. On a monthly basis, prices increased 0.3 percent, in line with December’s pace.The “core” personal consumption expenditures price index, which strips out volatile food and energy costs and is closely watched as a gauge for underlying inflation, rose another 0.3 percent in January. Compared to the same time last year, it is up 2.6 percent, data from the Commerce Department showed. In December, it rose at an annual pace of 2.8 percent.The inflation figures were in line with what economists had expected and underscored the Fed’s decision to proceed cautiously with interest rate cuts after making adjustments in the second half of last year. The interest rate set by the Fed stands at 4.25 percent to 4.5 percent.Spending fell 0.2 percent in January, led by a drop in spending on cars and other goods. Economists had expected a 0.2 percent increase overall, following a 0.8 percent increase in December. Once adjusted for inflation, spending dropped by 0.5 percentage points, which is the sharpest monthly drop in almost four years.Thomas Ryan, an economist at Capital Economics, attributed the decline in part to “unseasonably severe winter weather,” but warned that the Fed’s job will become “trickier if January’s sharp decline in consumption was a sign of consumer strength buckling.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More
