US economy

Subterms

    More stories

    • 138 Shares183 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

    • 200 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      Lisa Cook to remain at Federal Reserve while fighting Trump’s attempt to fire her, judge rules

      by

      A federal judge has ruled that Federal Reserve board member Lisa Cook can stay in her post while suing Donald Trump over his unprecedented bid to fire her.Cook is legally challenging the US president after he sought to remove her, citing unconfirmed allegations of mortgage fraud, amid an extraordinary campaign by his administration to strengthen its control over the US central bank.She asked US district judge Jia Cobb to impose a temporary restraining order against Trump’s attempt to “immediately” dismiss her, pending further litigation. The administration has argued that Trump is able to fire Fed governors “for cause” and appoint replacements.Trump 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.Trump moved to fire Cook after one of his allies, Bill Pulte, whom he tapped to lead the US Federal Housing Finance Agency, alleged she had claimed two different properties as primary residences when obtaining mortgages in 2021.“How can this woman be in charge of interest rates if she is allegedly lying to help her own interest rates?” Pulte wrote on X. He referred the case to the Department of Justice for investigation.After Cook declined to resign, Trump tried to remove her from the Fed’s board. The justice department is now looking into the allegations of mortgage fraud.In a court filing, Cook’s attorneys insisted she “did not ever commit mortgage fraud” as they outlined their case.Multiple federal agencies were provided details of Cook’s mortgage arrangements when she was first nominated, by Joe Biden, to join the Fed’s board in 2022, according to her representatives. “The Government has long known about the alleged facial inconsistencies in Governor Cook’s financial documents,” the filing said.On one background check form, for example, Cook said that she had listed one property in Michigan as a primary residence and another in Georgia as a second home.On a separate questionnaire, she listed both homes as her “present” residence; the Michigan property as her “current permanent residence”; and a third property, in Massachusetts, as both a present residence, but also a second home and rental property, she said. More

    • 163 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      Donald Trump maelstrom likely to leave US economic model unrecognisable | Heather Stewart

      by

      Donald Trump observed blithely last week that if his cherished tariff regime is struck down by the US supreme court, he may need to “unwind” some of the trade deals struck since he declared “liberation day” in April.It was a reminder, as if it were needed, that nothing about Trump’s economic policy is set in stone. Not only does the ageing president alter his demands on a whim, but it is unclear to what extent he has the power to make them stick.Yet even if the “reciprocal” tariffs first announced on 2 April are rolled back, they are only one aspect of a much wider assault on the last vestiges of what was once known as the “Washington consensus”.To name just a few of Trump’s recent interventions, he has taken a 10% government stake in the US tech company Intel, demanded 15% of the revenue of Nvidia’s chip sales to China and suggested the chief executive of Goldman Sachs should go.This at the same as taking a sledgehammer to Federal Reserve independence by lobbing insults at the chair, Jerome Powell, and trying to sack Lisa Cook from the central bank’s board.The head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics was removed by Trump after a run of poor jobs data; the chief of the National Labor Relations Board, Jennifer Abruzzo, was fired, too.The tech bros who back Trump loathe the NLRB for its role in upholding workers’ rights – mandating unionisation ballots at Amazon warehouses, for example.Trump’s approach is simultaneously systematic, in its determination to smash existing norms, and utterly chaotic. It is hard to categorise: corporate America is being unleashed – through the wilful destruction of environmental and labour standards, for example – and brought to heel.The leftwing senator Bernie Sanders welcomed Trump’s efforts to take a stake in Intel in exchange for government grants, for example – something he advocated in the Guardian back in 2022 – while some Republicans have condemned the approach as (heaven forbid) “socialism”.Partly because it coincides with the AI-fuelled stock boom that has propelled the value of tech companies into the stratosphere, the market response to this torching of the status quo has so far been modest.Whatever emerges from another three and a half years of this maelstrom is likely to be unrecognisable as the US economic model of recent decades.Its destruction has not happened overnight. The days were already long gone when the US, as the world’s undisputed economic superpower, could export free market, financialised capitalism worldwide.After the 2008 crash, the conditions for which were created in Wall Street boardrooms, any moral or practical claim the US had to offer an economic example to other nations evaporated.As the turmoil rippled out through the global economy, and the US government responded by bailing out large chunks of its financial sector, the lie of laissez-faire was laid bare.The crisis exposed the risks of turbocharged capitalism to countries outside the US, too – not least in the former Soviet bloc – that had been advised to adopt the model wholesale.As Ivan Krastev and Stephen Holmes put it in their compelling polemic The Light that Failed, “confidence that the political economy of the west was a model for the future of mankind had been linked to the belief that western elites knew what they were doing. Suddenly it was obvious that they didn’t.”skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionBack home in the US, meanwhile – as in the UK – the perception that banks had been bailed out, while the galaxy brains behind the crisis got off scot-free, sowed the seeds of a corrosive sense of injustice.Similarly, even before the crash, the idea that ever-expanding free trade brings economic benefits was bumping up against the fact that even if that is true in aggregate, for workers across the US rust belt, just as in the UK’s former manufacturing heartlands, it brought deindustrialisation and unemployment.This was fertile ground for Trump’s populist economic message. His first-term China tariffs were, with hindsight, a relatively modest stab at, as he saw it, tilting the playing field back towards the US.Joe Biden did not unwind those tariffs, which went with the grain of geopolitics, as any hopes that economic liberalisation would bring China into the fold of democracies were sadly dashed, and President Xi’s regime took on an increasingly authoritarian bent.Biden also took a muscular approach to the state’s role in the economy, with the billions in grants and loans distributed under the Inflation Reduction Act linked to national priorities of cutting carbon emissions and creating jobs.So the idea that before Trump arrived on the scene, free market US capitalism was motoring along unchallenged is misleading, but the pace at which he is crushing its remaining norms is extraordinary.There is ample ground for legitimate disagreement here: taxpayer stakes in strategic companies are much more common in European economies, for example. Trump may be laying down tracks that future US governments with different priorities could follow.Given that it is so unclear even what kind of economy he is groping towards, the overriding sense for the moment is of radical uncertainty. Friday’s weak US payrolls data, with the unemployment rate close to a four-year high, suggested companies may be responding with caution.Investors appear to have decided to avert their eyes for now, buoyed up by the prospect of Fed rate cuts, and the mega returns of the tech companies. However, with every chaotic week that passes, the risks must increase – and as the UK has learned in the wake of the Liz Truss debacle, economic credibility is quicker to lose than to rebuild. More

    • 150 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      US justice department reportedly opens criminal inquiry into Fed governor Lisa Cook

      by

      The US justice department has initiated a criminal investigation into mortgage fraud claims against Federal Reserve governor Lisa Cook, according to new reports, as a lawsuit she filed against Donald Trump over her firing makes its way through court.Lawyers with the justice department have issued subpoenas for the investigation, according to the Wall Street Journal.Last month, Trump moved to fire Cook over unconfirmed claims that she listed two properties as her primary residence. Bill Pulte, the director of the Federal Housing and Finance Agency and a close ally of Trump, alleged Cook had lied on bank documents and records to obtain a better mortgage rate.Cook, a voting member of the Fed board that sets interest rates, said she has “no intention of being bullied to step down” and that she would “take any questions about my financial history seriously”.In response to Trump’s bid to dismiss her, Cook filed a lawsuit against the president arguing that her removal was unconstitutional and threatened the independence of the Fed. Cook’s lawyers say the firing was “unprecedented and illegal” and that federal law requires showing “cause” for a Fed governor’s removal.“An unsubstantiated allegation about private mortgage applications submitted by Governor Cook prior to her Senate confirmation is not [cause],” her lawyers said in court documents.In court documents, lawyers for Cook suggested that a “clerical error” may be behind the discrepancies found in her mortgage records.Cook was appointed by Joe Biden in 2022 for a 14-year term on the board that was set to end in 2038. She is the first Black woman to be appointed to the board.US district court judge Jia Cobb heard arguments for the lawsuit last week and said she will expedite the case, which is ultimately expected to be taken up by the US supreme court.Trump’s attacks against Cook come against the backdrop of a long fight the White House has waged against the Fed, which has historically been treated as nonpartisan.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionEarlier in the year, Trump threatened to fire the Fed chair, Jerome Powell, for not lowering interest rates, but ultimately walked back his threats after negative responses from investors. Trump also tried to accuse Powell of fraud over renovations at the Fed’s headquarters, which have cost more than anticipated.Abbe Lowell, Cook’s lawyer, told the Journal that “it takes nothing for this DoJ to undertake a new politicized investigation”. The justice department did not immediately respond to the Guardian’s request for comment.This is the third mortgage fraud inquiry the justice department has launched against Democrats and Democratic-appointed officials. Experts have called the pattern a type of “lawfare” as Trump and his allies use their roles to take down other officials.Last month, the US attorney general, Pam Bondi, appointed a special attorney to investigate similar mortgage fraud allegations the White House has levied against California senator Adam Schiff and the New York attorney general, Letitia James. More

    • 138 Shares149 Views

      in US Politics

      Why Trump’s firing of the US jobs chief has economists worried

      by

      As it has for over a hundred years, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) will release its latest monthly jobs report on Friday.But the routine monthly update on the health of the US jobs market has been overshadowed by Donald Trump’s firing of the agency’s commissioner, Erika McEntarfer, hours after July’s statistics were released last month.The BLS’s data is parsed by Wall Street, Federal Reserve officials and company bosses across the US. It is also widely watched – and admired – internationally as a barometer of the US economy.Both liberal and conservative economists have criticized Trump’s nominated replacement at the BLS and have raised concerns over what will happen to the agency after the dramatic shake-up. Here’s what we know about what’s happening to the bureau.What does the Bureau of Labor Statistics do?The bureau reports key economic statistics through surveys of employers and prices. Every month, it releases data on the labor market, including the current unemployment rate, and the Consumer Price Index (CPI), which measures the cost of a basket of goods and services. This data is an important monthly snapshot of the US economy and how it changes over time.Why did Trump fire the bureau’s commissioner?Last month, the bureau announced the US had added just 73,000 jobs in July – far lower than expected – and made big revisions to previously released stats on the labor market in May and June. The number of jobs added to the economy across those two months was dramatically cut by over 250,000.Trump, who spent months boasting about the strength of the economy amid fears about the impact of his trade wars, was furious. “Today’s Job Numbers were RIGGED in order to make the Republicans, and ME, look bad,” he declared on social media.Hours after the numbers were released, Trump announced he was firing McEntarfer and that she would “be replaced with someone much more competent and qualified”.Has Trump firing of the bureau’s commissioner changed its operations?Economists say that Trump’s firing hasn’t changed the bureau, yet. Although the White House has made other job cuts at the BLS, as it did throughout the federal workforce. Since Trump took office, the bureau has seen a hiring freeze and has lost 15% of its workforce.While the bureau said it was downsizing its data collection for CPI, it did not say it was making any significant changes to its survey to employers.Economists say that, for now, the bureau’s operations have largely remained the same. William Watrowski, a longtime leader within the bureau, is currently its acting commissioner. But there are still many questions about the future of the bureau, especially after Trump announced his nomination for McEntarfer’s replacement.Who does Trump want to appoint as the bureau’s new commissioner?Trump has nominated EJ Antoni, chief economist at the conservative Heritage Foundation, as the bureau’s commissioner.Antoni was a contributor to Project 2025 – the Heritage Foundation’s rightwing blueprint for reshaping the US government – and was a vocal critic of the bureau last year, claiming that it manipulated numbers to make them more favorable to Joe Biden and Democrats. Last November, Antoni said on Twitter that Elon Musk’s so-called Department of Government Efficiency needed to “take a chainsaw” to the bureau.“Month after month, the government bean-counters under former-president Biden published overly optimistic estimates for everything from job growth to the size of the economy, only to have those numbers routinely – and quietly – revised down later,” Antoni wrote in May.When announcing his appointment, Trump said Antoni “will ensure that the Numbers released are HONEST AND ACCURATE”.Antoni has yet to be confirmed by Congress, and a confirmation date has not been set.Why did the bureau revise its job figures for May and June?Revisions are standard to the bureau’s reporting of the labor market, which is based on surveys to employers throughout the country.Large revisions often happen when employers take more time to complete the bureau’s surveys or revise their own figures due to changing circumstances. Economists have pointed out that uncertainty can lead to larger revisions. The pandemic, for example, saw jobs figures in flux as employers were handling different shutdown laws and the spread of the virus.The impact of Trump’s tariffs on data collection could be a major factor in the revisions seen earlier this year. Businesses have been reporting rollercoaster levels of uncertainty over tariff policy, with sentiment among US small businesses dipping down in the spring before going up again in the summer.“We’ve gone through periods where there were larger revisions before,” said Michael Madowitz, principal economist at the Roosevelt Institute who served on the bureau’s data users advisory committee before it was dissolved by the Trump administration. “This is like so standard, and the idea that it’s what actually set off this big political kerfuffle – this is a really unprecedented political situation.”Has the bureau gone through any political fights before?This isn’t the first time the bureau has been accused of manipulating numbers for politics. In the mid-90s, Alan Greenspan, the Federal Reserve chair at the time, criticized the way the bureau was calculating the CPI. Greenspan argued that the bureau was overestimating CPI, making inflation look higher than it actually was.Thomas Stapleford, a historian at the University of Notre Dame and author of The Cost of Living in America: A Political History of Economic Statistics, pointed out that Greenspan’s criticism led to a series of hearings where the bureau’s methodology came under question and debate. There were congressional hearings and a committee of economists was formed to investigate the methodology.“There’s all this detailed look at digging into the methodology by these outside experts and also testimony from [the bureau],” Stapleford said. “In my mind, if you have questions about the methodology, that’s the way to approach it.”But Trump has pushed the bureau into uncharted waters. Stapleford noted McEntarfer’s firing was the first time the president fired a bureau commissioner.“What the administration, in the eyes of critics, is doing is pushing the numbers in a particular direction. Not for reasons that it can justify publicly in terms of methodology, but simply because it would like a different outcome,” Stapleford said. “That’s a really big deviation from how the bureau has operated in the past.”What does this all mean for the future of the bureau?The commissioner isn’t involved in much of the day-to-day operations of the bureau. A new leader could have major sway over how the bureau collects and reports data in the long term, but there are protections in place, and any significant changes would be subject to public scrutiny.“The commissioner isn’t directly involved in the data calculation. Most of the BLS staff are long-term civil servants. They’ve been there a long time, they have various protections around them,” Stapleford said. “If the new commissioner started to force major methodological changes, I think that would raise a lot of red flags if those changes were controversial.”But even if major changes aren’t made immediately, the fact that Trump has called the bureau’s data into question could risk confusing Americans over whether the data can be trusted.“It takes a whole lot longer to build credibility than to lose. I don’t think any of the experts involved at this point are at all worried about the credibility of BLS’s work, but I know a whole lot less about what’s filtering down to the average person right now,” Madowitz said.As an example, Madowitz pointed out how the science around climate change has been clear.“But having a one-side, other-side public position on what the science says has left the public really confused,” Madowitz said. “It would be really bad if that’s how we decided to understand the economy.” More

    • 200 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      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

    • 163 Shares199 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 Shares189 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