US economy

Subterms

    Latest story

    200 Shares17 Views

    The Guardian view on Trump and the Fed: independence is no substitute for accountability | Editorial

    by

    Donald Trump’s attempt to sack the Federal Reserve governor, Lisa Cook, is the familiar authoritarian trick of bending institutions to serve the leader’s immediate ends. The widespread condemnation is deserved. This is not some daring experiment in popular control of monetary policy. Yet what should follow censure is reflection. For the furore over Ms Cook has revealed a peculiar reflex: to defend the Fed’s independence as though it were synonymous with democracy itself.But is independence of the Fed, or central banks generally, really that? Eric Levitz at Vox thinks so, or at least that it is close enough. He argues that Congress sets the Fed’s objectives; independence applies only to the means. Without independence, politicians would be free to game rates for votes – as Richard Nixon did in 1972, leaning on the Fed to juice growth before the election. On this view, independence is not anti-democratic but prudent delegation.The historian Adam Tooze says that argument misses the point. The Fed, he says, is not a neutral technocracy: its regional boards give business elites formal seats at the table, while labour and consumers are marginal or absent. Independence is not independence from politics; it is independence from electoral accountability. To defend this arrangement as democracy’s bulwark, Prof Tooze maintains, is to confuse professional consensus with popular legitimacy.The leftwing economist Michael Roberts goes further. In his blog this week he argues that central bank independence was never really about technocratic efficiency at all. It blossomed in the neoliberal era because it suited finance. He notes that the 1980s and 90s saw a sharp rise in central bank independence while inflation fell. The correlation has been taken as proof of causation. Yet Mr Roberts argues that the decline in prices owed more to slowing global growth and the end of one-off supply shocks.Central banks proved no better than anyone else at forecasting crises: the former Fed chair Alan Greenspan admitted the 2008 crash left him in “a state of shocked disbelief”. Turkey’s recent bout of hyperinflation was blamed on presidential meddling – but Mr Roberts suggests the real culprits were trade deficits, political instability and a collapsing lira. Monetary policy is too blunt an instrument, as many commentators concede, to deal with today’s volatile world. So where does this leave informed opinion? Certainly not with Mr Trump. To replace one form of unaccountability with a demagogic strongman is no gain. The real task is to ask what a democratic politics of central banking would look like.The academic Saule Omarova’s People’s Ledger is one radical answer: treat the Fed as a public utility, offering universal bank accounts and explicitly aligning its balance sheet with public priorities. A National Investment Authority could channel long-term finance towards infrastructure and decarbonisation, rather than leaving investment decisions to Wall Street. Efforts could be made to broaden board representation beyond business, require distributional impact assessments and tighten “for cause” clauses so that presidents cannot hound governors from office on flimsy pretexts.Mr Trump’s assault must be denounced – and Ms Cook defended. But if voters stop there, a deeper lesson will be missed. Central bank independence was never democracy incarnate. At best it was a compromise suited to an earlier era. Today’s challenge is to rebuild monetary authority on firmer, more democratic ground.Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here. More

    More stories

    • 163 Shares28 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump faces key legal test in effort to exert control over Federal Reserve

      by

      Donald Trump’s battle to exert control over the Federal Reserve faces a key legal test today, with a governor of the central bank seeking a temporary block on his extraordinary attempt to fire her.Lisa Cook sued the US president on Thursday, with her lawyers describing his attempt to dismiss her as “unprecedented and illegal”, and based on “pretextual” allegations.The case is widely expected to be ultimately decided by the supreme court. While it makes it way through the courts, Cook is seeking a temporary restraining order against Trump’s attempt to “immediately” dismiss her from the Fed’s board.A hearing on the motion is set for 10am in Washington on Friday. The case has been assigned to US district judge Jia Cobb, an appointee of Joe Biden.Trump wrote to Cook on Monday, telling her that he was removing her from her position “effective immediately”, based on the allegation from one of his allies that she had obtained a mortgage on a second home she incorrectly described as her primary residence.The president has spent months attacking the Fed, where most policymakers – including Cook – have so far defied his calls for interest rate cuts. He has spoken of rapidly building “a majority” on the central bank’s board, calling into question the future of its longstanding independence from political oversight.Firing Cook, whose term is not due to expire until 2038, would enable Trump to nominate a replacement. But she has argued the president has “no authority” to remove her.“An unsubstantiated allegation about private mortgage applications submitted by Governor Cook prior to her Senate confirmation is not [cause],” her lawyers argued in the complaint. “President Trump’s letter purporting to fire Governor Cook did not cite appropriate cause for removing her from the board of governors.”The White House claimed on Thursday that Cook had been “credibly accused of lying” by the administration. But the accusations are unconfirmed, and her lawyers said Trump and his officials had not explicitly alleged that any error on her mortgage paperwork was intentional.It comes as the Fed gears up to resume rate cuts as soon as next month, albeit not at the scale or pace Trump has repeatedly demanded – and its chair, Jerome Powell, has cautioned that the president’s tariffs and immigration crackdown have disrupted the global economy and knocked the US labor force. More

    • 200 Shares45 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump is out to end the Fed’s autonomy. Here’s how he’s trying to get his way

      by

      When Donald Trump stepped up his campaign to influence the US Federal Reserve, he traveled less than a mile from the White House, to tour the central bank’s headquarters. But as the administration considers how to actually get what it wants, one of the US president’s acolytes looked about 500 miles south.A condominium above the Four Seasons hotel in Atlanta, Georgia, is at the heart of an extraordinary battle over the future of the Fed, and the independence of its power of the world’s largest economy.For a generation, presidents have respected the Fed’s autonomy. They might disagree with its decisions. But they allowed it to make long-term calls in the best interest of the economy, even if they caused short-term political discomfort.Trump has ignored this precedent.Since returning to office in January, he has lambasted the Fed publicly and relentlessly – calling its chairperson, Jerome Powell, a “moron”, a “numbskull” and a “disaster” – and accused the central bank of damaging the US economy by failing to cut interest rates.As the Fed declined to lower rates at five consecutive meetings, Trump escalated his attacks, even suggesting (without evidence) that multi-billion dollar renovations of its Washington headquarters were tantamount to fraud.But policymakers held the line. With most rate-setting officials wanting to wait and see the impact of Trump’s policies – from trade wars to deportations – on the economy, they sat on their hands.While the Fed might be on the cusp of resuming rate cuts, Powell has made clear rates are unlikely to fall as drastically as the president wants.So how does Trump actually get what he wants?Back to that condo in Atlanta. It was allegedly bought by Lisa Cook, a respected economist appointed by Joe Biden to serve on the Fed’s board of governors, in July 2021. Trump’s officials claim she took out a mortgage which listed the property as her primary residence – two weeks after taking out another mortgage, which listed a property in Ann Arbor, Michigan, as her principal residence.The allegations – similar to those that the administration has leveled against other opponents – are unconfirmed. But that didn’t stop Trump from immediately demanding Cook’s resignation.When Cook refused to be “bullied”, he tried to fire her. Cook has insisted Trump has no authority to do so, and her attorney has pledged to sue the administration over its bid to remove her from her post.The Fed’s rate-setting Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) is in Trump’s sights. There are 12 seats around the table, filled by five representatives of local reserve banks and seven governors.Fed governors, once appointed, are hard to replace. A full term lasts 14 years, enabling them – in theory – to take a longer view on the economy than, say, presidential administrations working on four-year cycles.Cook’s term is not due to expire until 2038. It now appears likely that her future at the Fed will be settled in court. But Trump’s bid to exert control over the central bank, and its rate-setting committee, does not end there.He has already nominated one ally to sit on the Fed’s board of governors, following the exit of Adriana Kugler, another Biden appointee, earlier this month. Two other governors have already publicly sided with the president on rate cuts, and reportedly made the administration’s shortlist of potential successors to Powell.Powell’s term as Fed chair is due to end in May. His term as a governor is not due to expire until January 2028, but departing chairs have typically left the board at the same time.The Fed has so far defied Trump’s demands. But each departure enables him to build his influence over its policy committee – with view to obtaining an outright majority. Like the supreme court, these nominations have implications for years to come.The administration is arguing a mortgage on a condo in Atlanta should allow it handpick another official to join the Fed’s board. Who knows what the next purported reason will be, should it have another go.Trump has made no secret of this plan. “We’ll have a majority very shortly,” he claimed to reporters at a cabinet meeting on Tuesday. “So that’ll be great.”Of course, receiving his backing today does not guarantee his support tomorrow.Eight years ago, when he tapped Powell to lead the Fed, the president delivered a strikingly different verdict to the ones he now routinely publishes on social media. “He’s strong, he’s committed and he’s smart,” said Trump. More

    • 138 Shares23 Views

      in US Politics

      Who is Lisa Cook, the Fed governor facing removal by Trump?

      by

      Lisa Cook, the first Black woman to sit on the Federal Reserve’s board of governors, is now facing removal by Donald Trump, another obstacle in a long line she has faced and written about during her experiences as one of a small number of Black women in the field of economics.Cook was nominated to the Fed in 2022 by then president Joe Biden after building a career that spanned both government and academia, including work at the treasury department, service in the White House, and a long record of scholarly contributions.But her path to confirmation wasn’t without hostility. Republicans opposed her nomination, forcing Vice-President Kamala Harris to break a 50–50 Senate deadlock. That narrow vote made Cook the first, and so far the only, Black woman to serve as a Fed governor.Her potential dismissal comes just days after federal housing finance agency director Bill Pulte alleged on social media that she falsified records and other documents to obtain favorable mortgage terms prior to her appointment. Cook has not been charged with a crime or found guilty of misconduct.By law, governors on the Fed’s board are appointed to 14-year terms and can only be removed for “cause”, generally understood to mean corruption or serious wrongdoing. Cook has continued to push back. Last week, she declared she had “no intention of being bullied” and promised to gather “accurate information to answer any legitimate questions and provide the facts”.In a statement on Tuesday, she insisted that “no cause exists under the law, and he [Trump] has no authority” to strip her of the seat she has held since 2022. Her attorney has said they intend to sue.Since joining the board, Cook has consistently voted in line with chair Jerome Powell, supporting last year’s decision to cut interest rates and this year’s decision to hold them steady. She is sometimes described as a “dove”, a label economists use for officials who lean toward lower rates.Cook was born in Georgia, where she was raised by a hospital chaplain and a nursing professor. She and her sisters were among the first Black students to integrate their schools.She went on to study at Spelman College, then Oxford University as a Marshall scholar, before earning her PhD in economics from the University of California, Berkeley, in 1997.Her academic work often linked economics with the realities of race and discrimination. One of her most recognized works, Violence and economic activity: evidence from African American patents, described how lynchings and other acts of racial violence in the late 1800s and early 1900s drastically reduced patent activity among Black inventors.Cook has also written candidly about the challenges she has faced in her profession. In a 2019 opinion piece in the New York Times, she and a co-author argued that “economics is neither a welcoming nor a supportive profession for women”.She added: “But if economics is hostile to women, it is especially antagonistic to Black women.” More

    • 150 Shares45 Views

      in US Politics

      What Trump’s move to fire Fed governor means for central bank’s independence

      by

      Donald Trump has said he is firing Lisa Cook, a Federal Reserve governor, in a move viewed as a sharp escalation in his battle to exert greater control over the independent institution.Trump said in a letter posted on his Truth Social platform that he is firing Cook because of allegations she committed mortgage fraud. The allegation was made last week by Bill Pulte, a Trump appointee to the Federal Housing Administration, an agency that regulates mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.Cook previously said she would not leave her post.Trump has repeatedly attacked the Fed’s chair, Jerome Powell, for not cutting its short-term interest rate, and even threatened to fire him. Powell, who has previously warned that tariffs will push up inflation, told the Jackson Hole economic symposium in Wyoming last week that the Fed could soon change its policy stance.Powell’s caution has infuriated Trump, who has demanded the Fed cut borrowing costs to spur the economy and reduce the interest rates the federal government pays on its debt. Trump has also accused Powell of mismanaging the US central bank’s $2.5bn building renovation project.Firing the Fed chair or forcing out a governor threatens the Fed’s venerated independence, which has long been supported by most economists and Wall Street investors. Here’s what to know about the Fed:The Fed wields extensive power over the US economy. By cutting the short-term interest rate it controls – which it typically does when the economy falters – the Fed can make borrowing cheaper and encourage more spending, accelerating growth and hiring. When it raises the rate – which it does to cool the economy and combat inflation – it can weaken the economy and cause job losses.Economists have long preferred independent central banks because they can more easily take unpopular steps to fight inflation, such as raise interest rates, which makes borrowing to buy a home, car, or appliance more expensive.The importance of an independent Fed was cemented for most economists after the extended inflation spike of the 1970s and early 1980s. Arthur Burns, former Fed chair, has been widely blamed for allowing the painful inflation of that era to accelerate by succumbing to pressure from Richard Nixon to keep rates low heading into the 1972 election. Nixon feared higher rates would cost him the election, which he won in a landslide.Paul Volcker was eventually appointed chair of the Fed in 1979 by Jimmy Carter, and he pushed the Fed’s short-term rate to the stunningly high level of nearly 20%. (It is currently 4.3%). The eye-popping rates triggered a sharp recession, pushed unemployment to nearly 11% and spurred widespread protests.Yet Volcker didn’t flinch. By the mid-1980s, inflation had fallen back into the low single digits. Volcker’s willingness to inflict pain on the economy to throttle inflation is seen by most economists as a key example of the value of an independent Fed.An effort to fire Powell would almost certainly cause stock prices to fall and bond yields to spike higher, pushing up interest rates on government debt and raising borrowing costs for mortgages, auto loans and credit card debt. The interest rate on the 10-year treasury is a benchmark for mortgage rates.Most investors prefer an independent Fed, partly because it typically manages inflation better without being influenced by politics but also because its decisions are more predictable. Fed officials often publicly discuss how they would alter interest rate policies if economic conditions changed.If the Fed was more swayed by politics, it would be harder for financial markets to anticipate – or understand – its decisions.The supreme court in a ruling earlier this year suggested that a president can’t fire the chair of the Fed just because he doesn’t like the chair’s policy choices. But he may be able to remove him “for cause”, typically interpreted to mean some kind of wrongdoing or negligence.It’s a likely reason the Trump administration has zeroed in on the building renovation, in hopes it could provide a “for cause” pretext. Still, Powell would likely fight any attempt to remove him, and the case could wind up at the supreme court. More

    • 175 Shares84 Views

      in US Politics

      Federal Reserve set to cut interest rates – but still Trump won’t be happy

      by

      Stocks soared on Friday following the strongest signal yet that US the Federal Reserve is gearing up to start cutting interest rates again this fall. But how long can this celebration last?While Wall Street cheered the biggest headline from the speech by the Fed chair, Jerome Powell, at the annual Jackson Hole symposium in Wyoming, Powell also delivered a reality check on where interest rates could settle in the longer term.“We cannot say for certain where rates will settle out over the longer run, but their neutral level may now be higher than during the 2010s,” said Powell.In other words: even if the Fed does start cutting interest rates again this year, they may not fall back to their pre-pandemic levels. It’s a signal, despite the short-term optimism on potential rate cuts, that the Fed’s long-term outlook is more unstable.“Markets might be ahead of their skis on how aggressive the Fed is going to be in reducing interest rates, because the neutral rate might be higher than some believe,” Ryan Sweet, an economist at Oxford Economics, said.Higher rates means borrowing money for loans, such as mortgages, will be more expensive. The average 30-year fixed mortgage rate was just under 3% in 2021, when interest rates were near zero.Now the average mortgage rate is closer to 6.7%. Paired with home prices at near-record highs, elevated mortgages mean many Americans will continue to struggle to purchase a home.Although Trump has been pushing the Fed for months to decrease rates to 1%, claiming that Powell is “hurting the housing industry very badly”, it seems unlikely that rates will return to such a level any time soon.The Fed is trying to achieve a Goldilocks balance. Rates that are too high risk unemployment, while rates that are too low could mean higher inflation. Policymakers are searching for a “neutral” level, where everything is just right.Many economists believed the central bank was close to achieving this balance before Trump started his second term. In summer 2022, as inflation scaled its highest levels in a generation, the Fed started raising rates, at the risk of hurting the labor market, in an attempt to get inflation down to 2%.Rates rose to about 5.3% in less than two years, but the jobs market remained strong. Unemployment was still at historically low even as inflation came down. Although some economists had feared rapidly increasing rates would throw the US economy into a recession, instead the Fed appeared to achieve what is known as a “soft landing”.But things were thrown into a tailspin when Trump returned to office, armed with campaign promises to enact a full-blown trade war against the US’s key trading partners.The president has long argued that tariffs would boost American manufacturing and set the stage for better trade deals. “Tariffs don’t cause inflation. They cause success,” Trump declared back in January, acknowledging that there might be “some temporary, short-term disruption”.But so far, success has been limited. Economists doubt the policies will generate a manufacturing renaissance, and Trump’s trade war has inspired new commercial alliances that exclude the US.All the while, US consumers are starting to see higher prices due to Trump’s tariffs.At Jackson Hole on Friday, Powell said tariffs had started to push some prices up. In June and July, inflation was 2.7% – up 0.4 percentage points since April, when Trump first announced the bulk of his tariffs.This is still only a modest increase in price growth, but the bulk of the White House’s highest tariffs only went into effect in early August. Fed policymakers are waiting to see whether Trump’s aggressive trade strategy will cause a one-time shift in price levels – or if the effects will continue.The once strong labor market has grown sluggish. Though there are fewer job openings, there are also fewer people looking for jobs. Powell called it “a curious kind of balance” where “both the supply of and demand for workers” have slowed. He noted that the balance was unstable and could eventually tip over, prompting more layoffs and a rise in unemployment.This instability in the labor market has made Fed officials more open to a rate cut. Powell pointed to a slacking in consumer spending and weaker gross domestic product (GDP), which suggests an overall slowdown in economic activity.Although it set the stage for a rate cut as soon as next month, Powell’s speech was far from optimistic.“In this environment, distinguishing cyclical developments from trends, or structural developments is difficult,” he said. “Monetary policy can work to stabilise cyclical fluctuations but can do little to alter structural changes.”From Powell, who is typically diplomatic and reserved in his public statements, this seemed to be a careful warning: when executive policies destabilise the economy, the Fed can only do so much to limit the damage. More

    • 113 Shares140 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump nominates Heritage Foundation economist as labor statistics chief

      by

      Donald Trump has announced he is nominating EJ Antoni, the chief economist at the conservative Heritage Foundation, as the next commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics.“Our Economy is booming, and E.J. will ensure that the Numbers released are HONEST and ACCURATE,” Trump said in a post on Truth Social.The nomination comes after Trump fired the BLS commissioner, Erika McEntarfer, earlier this month following the release of a weak jobs report which he claimed, without evidence, had been “rigged”.Antoni, a longtime critic of the agency, had previously voiced concerns about revisions to the BLS jobs data.“There are better ways to collect, process, and disseminate data – that is the task for the next BLS commissioner, and only consistent delivery of accurate data in a timely manner will rebuild the trust that has been lost over the last several years,” Antoni posted on X earlier this month.The Senate will have to confirm his nomination to lead the BLS, an independent agency under the labor department. The Wall Street Journal reported on Sunday that former White House adviser and rightwing provocateur Steve Bannon had advocated for Antoni’s nomination.In a statement on X, labor secretary Lori Chavez-DeRemer said Antoni would “provide the American people with fair and accurate economic data they can rely on”.The president’s shock firing of McEntarfer alarmed economists and statisticians – as well as some senior Republican lawmakers –who feared the move would undermine the credibility of the agency’s economic data – long seen as a gold standard. More

    • 175 Shares166 Views

      in US Politics

      Now’s the time for Democrats to hammer Trump on the economy | Lloyd Green

      by

      “Economic Growth Shatters Expectations as President Trump Fuels America’s Golden Age,” the White House announced on Wednesday. But within 48 hours, the data told a very different story, giving the Democrats a badly needed opening if they can muster the competence and focus to seize upon it.On Thursday, the US commerce department announced that inflation had ticked up to 2.6%. A day later, the labor department reported that unemployment had risen to 4.2% in July, and that the US had actually gained 258,000 fewer jobs than previously reported.From the looks of things, Donald Trump and his tariffs are damaging the economy. Suddenly, things aren’t looking so hot.Rather than copping to a screw-up, however, the president immediately laid blame elsewhere. In a barrage of posts on social media, he lambasted Jerome Powell, the chair of the Federal Reserve, attacked his intelligence and again threatened his tenure at the Fed.The president trashed Powell, who he appointed, as “a stubborn MORON”. Adding insult to injury, Trump brayed: “IF HE CONTINUES TO REFUSE, THE BOARD SHOULD ASSUME CONTROL, AND DO WHAT EVERYONE KNOWS HAS TO BE DONE!”But things didn’t end there. The tantrum continued unabated.Hours later, Trump grabbed another page from the strongman playbook and fired Erika McEntarfer, the head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics. He suggested that she had cooked the books and was essentially giving aid and comfort to Joe Biden, the man who first appointed her.As we know, there is reality and then there is Trump’s version of reality.At Friday’s final bell, the Dow had dropped more than 540 points and the Nasdaq was down 2.24%. The ghost of Trump’s so-called “liberation day” had returned to haunt the markets, giving the Democrats ample material to work with.Already, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act places Trump and the Republicans at odds with their base and with swing voters. According to a Wall Street Journal poll, 70% of the US believes the act benefits the rich. Beyond that, the tax plan is underwater with the public, 42-52, and is disfavored by a majority of independents.Practically speaking, the Congressional Budget Office projected in June that nearly 8 million people would lose their insurance under the Trump-backed bill. For the current iteration of the GOP, that’s a problem. These days, Republican voters tilt working class. Many of them break economically liberal and socially conservative.This why House Republicans danced around the issue of coming Medicaid cuts. They stand to harm their own voters. And they know it.Take Mike Lawler, a representative from New York’s Hudson Valley. More than 200,000 of his constituents receive Medicaid benefits. Town halls in his district have become rowdy events, with the police hauling out a constituent.Lawler claims to have “fought extensively to make sure that there were not draconian changes to Medicaid”.“At the end of the day, this is about strengthening the program,” Lawler added. Uh, that’s why he needed the cops.More than 64 Republican House members represent districts where Medicaid rates exceed the national average, according to CNN. In those seats, five incumbents won last November by five points or fewer.But the GOP’s problems don’t end with Medicaid. These days, social security, the most sacrosanct legacy of the New Deal, may be in the crosshairs of Team Trump.On Wednesday, Scott Bessent, the treasury secretary, acknowledged the so-called “Trump accounts” created for kids by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act were actually a “back door for privatizing social security”.The accounts are designed as a vehicle for Americans to build and accumulate wealth as soon as they are born. Under the new law, newborns will be eligible to receive $1,000 from Uncle Sam.“Social security is a defined benefit plan paid out,” Bessent explained. “To the extent that if all of a sudden these accounts grow, and you have in the hundreds of thousands of dollars for your retirement, then that’s a gamechanger.”As a candidate and then again in office, Trump had pledged to leave social security untouched. Now that pledge is in doubt.In 2024, the Republicans made the economic failures of the Biden-Harris administration central to their campaigns. The Trump-Vance campaign raked the Democrats over the coals over inflation. In politics, turnabout is fair play. It is time for the Democrats to show that they actually care about the average voter.

      Lloyd Green is an attorney in New York and served in the US Department of Justice from 1990 to 1992 More

    • 138 Shares195 Views

      in US Politics

      White House officials rush to defend Trump after shaky economic week

      by

      Donald Trump administration officials fanned out on Sunday’s US political shows to defend the president’s policies after a bruising week of poor economic, trade and employment numbers that culminated with the firing of labor statistics chief Erika McEntarfer.US trade representative Jamieson Greer said Trump has “real concerns” about the jobs numbers that extend beyond Friday’s report that showed the national economy added 73,000 jobs in July, far below expectations. Job growth numbers were revised down by 285,000 for the two previous months as well.On CBS News’s Face the Nation, Greer defended Trump’s decision to fire McEntarfer, a respected statistician, saying: “You want to be able to have somewhat reliable numbers. There are always revisions, but sometimes you see these revisions go in really extreme ways.”He added: “The president is the president. He can choose who works in the executive branch.”But William Beach, who served as Trump’s commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) in his first presidency, warned that McEntarfer’s dismissal would undermine confidence in the quality of US economic data.The BLS gave no reason for the revised data but noted that “monthly revisions result from additional reports received from businesses and government agencies since the last published estimates and from the recalculation of seasonal factors”.“This is damaging,” Beach said on Sunday on CNN’s State of the Union. “I don’t know that there’s any grounds at all for this firing.“And it really hurts the statistical system. It undermines credibility in BLS.”McEntarfer on Friday published a statement on social media reacting to her dismissal, calling it the “honor my life” to have served as BLS commissioner.She said the BLS employs “many dedicated civil servants tasked with measuring a vast and dynamic economy”.“It is vital and important work, and I thank them for their service to this nation,” McEntarfer’s statement on the Bluesky platform said.Uproar over McEntarfer’s firing has come as a series of new tariff rates are due to come into effect this month. While the president has predicted a golden age for the US economy, many economists warn that higher import tariffs could ultimately weaken American economic activity.On CBS, Greer said that Trump’s tariff rates are “pretty much set” and unlikely to be re-negotiated before they come into effect.The first six months of Trump’s second terms have been characterized by a seesawing of tariff rate announcements that earned the president the moniker on Wall Street of Taco – “Trump always chickens out”. But last week he issued an executive order outlining tariff modifications for dozens of countries after he had twice delayed implementation.Yet Greer also said many of the tariff rates announced “are set rates pursuant to deals”.“Some of these deals are announced, some are not, others depend on the level of the trade deficit or surplus we may have with the country,” he said.On NBC’s Meet the Press, the national economic council (NEC) director, Kevin Hassett, said modified US tariff rates were now “more or less locked in, although there will have to be some dancing around the edges about exactly what we mean when we do this or that”.Asked if tariff rates could change again, he said, “I would rule it out because these are the final deals.”On Fox News Sunday, Hassett said he also supported McEntarfer’s dismissal. “I think what we need is a fresh set of eyes at the BLS, somebody who can clean this thing up,” he remarked.But former treasury secretary Larry Summers told ABC’s This Week that McEntarfer’s firing was “way beyond anything that Richard Nixon ever did”, alluding to the late former president who resigned in 1974 over the Watergate scandal.Summers said Trump’s claim that the poor job numbers were “phony” and designed to make him look bad “is a preposterous charge”.“These numbers are put together by teams of literally hundreds of people following detailed procedures that are in manuals,” Summers said. “There’s no conceivable way that the head of the BLS could have manipulated this number. The numbers are in line with what we’re seeing from all kinds of private sector sources.”Summers placed McEntarfer’s firing, Trump’s pressure on Jerome Powell, the Federal Reserve chair, to lower interest rates, and the strong-arm tactics that the administration has aimed at universities, law firms and media institutions in the same bucket.“This is the stuff of democracies giving way to authoritarianism,” Summers said. “Firing statisticians goes with threatening the heads of newspapers.“It goes with launching assaults on universities. It goes with launching assaults on law firms that defend clients that the elected boss finds uncongenial. This is really scary stuff.” More