Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Key Senate panel advances Trump’s pick for Fed chair

The Senate Banking Committee voted to move ahead with Kevin Warsh’s nomination, clearing a path to his confirmation

News

Key Senate panel advances Trump’s pick for Fed chair

Kevin Warsh testified in a Senate Banking Committee confirmation hearing for Fed chair last week.

Photo provided

WASHINGTON – The Senate Banking Committee on Wednesday voted 13 to 11 to advance Kevin Warsh’s nomination as Federal Reserve chairman despite Democrats’ concerns that he would not be independent from President Donald Trump.

The banking committee’s vote fell along party lines, with all 13 Republicans voting in favor of the nomination and all 11 Democrats voting against it. Senator Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., said in a press release that it was the first time a vote on a Fed chair nominee was entirely partisan.


Democrats warned that installing Warsh as Fed chair would mean Trump exerting control over the central bank, with consequences for the economy.

The committee’s decision marked a win for Trump, who announced in January that he selected Warsh to lead the Fed. The nomination came amid a months-long public feud between the president and the current Fed Chair Jerome Powell over interest rates that thrust the central bank into political controversy. Trump also attempted to fire Lisa Cook, a Fed governor.

“Donald Trump by pursuing this criminal prosecution against the Fed chair and also against a Fed governor, Lisa Cook, basically unsheathed a sword and holds it over everyone at the Fed,” Warren told reporters before the vote. “He has made clear that he doesn't care what term you have, what's been passed by Congress, what the law is. He is willing to go after people criminally, even when they're in office, if they make decisions that he doesn't like.”

Warsh’s nomination was blocked for weeks by Senator Thom Tillis, R-NC, who said he would not vote to advance Warsh until the Justice Department dropped its criminal investigation into Powell regarding a costly renovation project of the central bank’s headquarters. The department closed its probe last week, and Tillis on Wednesday voted to move Warsh’s nomination forward.

But Warren, along with other Senate Democrats, expressed concern that the probe could be reopened and voted against Trump’s pick. Tillis spoke to reporters after the vote and criticized Warren’s actions as “political theater.”

“I'm happy with the way the DOJ comported themselves over the week, and got me to a point where I'm comfortable with (voting for Warsh),” he said. “She didn't get the assurances that I did, and I'm confident that we'll move forward in good faith, and they will deliver on their commitment.”

If the full Senate votes to confirm Warsh, he would replace Powell when his term expires on May 15 and become the 17th chairman of the Federal Reserve.

But Senate Democrats have criticized Warsh’s nomination, citing concerns in a confirmation hearing last week that he would serve as Trump’s “sock puppet.”

At the hearing, Warsh declined to say that Joe Biden won the 2020 presidential election and dodged questions about whether he thought the Trump administration’s probe into Powell threatened the independence of monetary policy.

Democrats have interpreted his refusal to answer questions as a sign of his loyalty to Trump and worried that Warsh could compromise the central bank’s independence.

But Warsh explained his silence in another way. “We need to keep politics out of monetary policy and keep monetary policy out of politics,” he said.

The Federal Reserve was created by Congress in 1913 to serve as the central bank of the United States with the purpose of promoting maximum employment and stable prices. It does not receive funding from Congress and is considered an independent agency within the government.

“It's become the consensus view that independence of the central bank is important, that it will generally lead to better outcomes,” said Seth Carpenter, global chief economist at Morgan Stanley and former deputy director at the Federal Reserve Board. “If you have a central bank that is subject to short-term political wins, then you could get into a situation where policy decisions are made to try to curry favor with voters to get a certain economic outcome for a political outcome, and that could be bad.”

He pointed to former Fed Chair Arthur Burns as a cautionary tale. Burns served as head of the central bank in the 1970s and is remembered for allowing inflation to run rampant after bending to political pressure from President Richard Nixon.

Warsh previously positioned himself as a reformer intent on changing the central bank, including shrinking its balance sheet and holding fewer press conferences to communicate policy decisions.

But Robert Hetzel, a Federal Reserve historian and former economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, said he believes Warsh would be unlikely to make major changes at the central bank.

He anticipated that Warsh would have to strike a balance between being a reformer and working closely to convince members of the Federal Open Market Committee to go along with his plans.

“What remains to be seen is just how pragmatic he is, just how willing he is to disappoint Trump, and realistically go after the kinds of reforms he's suggested publicly,” Hetzel said.

But he stressed that he expected Warsh to do a good job and resist the flak he receives from politicians.

However, Democrats predicted Trump would pressure Warsh to make the economy seem stronger before the mid-term elections in November.

“The Fed is supposed to be there as a protector for our economy overall and insulate monetary policy from politics, but that's not what Donald Trump wants,” Warren told reporters. “What Donald Trump wants is the Fed to be under his complete control, and he wants it right now, because he's in real trouble on this economy, prices are up, jobs are stagnant, and the economy is looking shaky, and voters know that.”

Erika Tulfo is a reporter covering business and financial policy for Medill News Service.


Read More

Calling Wealthy Benefactors!
A rusty house figure stands over a city.
Photo by Katja Ano on Unsplash

Calling Wealthy Benefactors!

My housing has been conditional on circumstances beyond my control, and the time is up; the owner is selling.

Securing affordable housing is a stressor for much of the working class. According to recent data, nearly 50% of renters are cost-burdened, meaning they spend over 30% of their take-home income on housing costs. Rental prices in California are especially high, 35% higher than the national average. Renting is routinely insecure. The lords of land need to renovate, their kids need to move in. They need to sell.

Keep ReadingShow less
Iran’s Exiled Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi Believes in Iranian Regime Change — Experts Contradict Him

Dacha Burns and Reza Pahlavi at the Politico Security Summit

(GEORGIA EPIPHANIOU/ MNS)

Iran’s Exiled Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi Believes in Iranian Regime Change — Experts Contradict Him

WASHINGTON — At a tenuous moment for the U.S.-Iran war, President Trump rejected Tehran’s terms for a truce proposal Monday. With negotiations stalled and concessions on a ceasefire deal dragging on, exiled Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi emphasized that regime change still could happen.

“Of course, it (a regime change) is a possibility, but more than a possibility, it is a necessity,” Pahlavi said in a security panel hosted by Politico on Tuesday.

Keep ReadingShow less
An ICE agent monitors hundreds of asylum seekers being processed upon entering the Jacob K. Javits Federal Building on June 6, 2023 in New York City. New York City has provided sanctuary to over 46,000 asylum seekers since 2013, when the city passed a law prohibiting city agencies from cooperating with federal immigration enforcement agencies unless there is a warrant for the person's arrest.(Photo by David Dee Delgado/Getty Images)
An ICE agent monitors hundreds of asylum seekers being processed.
(Photo by David Dee Delgado/Getty Images)

The Power of the Purse and Executive Discretion: ICE Expansion Under the Trump Administration

This nonpartisan policy brief, written by an ACE fellow, is republished by The Fulcrum as part of our partnership with the Alliance for Civic Engagement and our NextGen initiative — elevating student voices, strengthening civic education, and helping readers better understand democracy and public policy.

Key Takeaways

  • Core Constitutional Debate: Expanded ICE enforcement under the Trump Administration raises a core constitutional question: Does Article II executive power override Article I’s congressional power of the purse?
  • Executive Justification: The primary constitutional justification for expanded ICE enforcement is The Unitary Executive Theory.
  • Separation of Powers: Critics argue that the Unitary Executive Theory undermines Congress’s power of the purse.
  • Moral Conflict: Expanded ICE enforcement has sparked a moral debate, as concerns over due process and civil liberties clash with claims of increased public safety and national security.

Where is ICE Funding Coming From?

Since the beginning of the current Trump Administration, immigration enforcement has undergone transformative change and become one of the most contested issues in the federal government. On his first day in office, President Trump issued Executive Order 14159, which directs executive agencies to implement stricter immigration enforcement practices. In order to implement these practices, Congress passed and President Trump signed into law the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), a budget reconciliation package that paired state and local tax cuts with immigration funding. This allocated $170.7 billion in immigration-related funding for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to spend by 2029.

Keep ReadingShow less
Towards a Reformed Capitalism
oval brown wooden conference table and chairs inside conference room

Towards a Reformed Capitalism

Despite all the laws and regulations that apply to corporations, which for the most part are designed to make corporations more responsive to the greater good, corporations have wreaked great harm on our environment, their workers, their customers, and the general public. Despite all the rules, capitalism can still pretty much do what it wants.

The problem is not that the laws and regulations are not enforced, although that is partly true. The problem is more that the laws and regulations are weak because of the strong influence corporations have on both Congress (this is true of Democrats as well as Republicans) and those responsible for regulating.

Keep ReadingShow less