Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Why Fed Independence Is a Cornerstone of Democracy—and Why It’s Under Threat

Opinion

Why Fed Independence Is a Cornerstone of Democracy—and Why It’s Under Threat
1 U.S.A dollar banknotes

In an era of rising polarization and performative politics, few institutions remain as consequential and as poorly understood by citizens as the Federal Reserve.

While headlines swirl around inflation, interest rates, and stock market reactions, the deeper story is often missed: the Fed’s independence is not just a technical matter of monetary policy. It’s a democratic safeguard.


That’s the premise behind the Sept. 25 episode of The Unity Forum, a cross-partisan webinar series hosted by Chris Malone to elevate civil dialogue and challenge assumptions on the most pressing issues of our time.

Chris is co-author of the award-winning book, The Human Brand, and a founder of Alumni For Freedom & Democracy, a network of individuals committed to preserving the essential freedoms that sustain an open society—freedom of thought, civil dialogue, democratic principles, and economic opportunity.

The guest speaker for the webinar is Dr. Pat Harker, whose career spans the highest levels of academia, government, and finance, including a decade as President of the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia and current leadership roles at the Wharton School and Penn Washington.

Dr. Harker recently authored a provocative op-ed in The Wall Street Journal titled “Public Ignorance and Fed Independence,” arguing that cynicism about the Fed stems not from its actions but from widespread misunderstanding of its legal boundaries and economic role. He warns that political interference—whether through executive threats or legislative overreach—risks destabilizing the very mechanisms that protect long-term economic health.

The conversation will explore:

  • Whether recent Federal Open Market Committee decisions reflect data-driven independence or creeping political pressure.
  • What the Fed does and what it is legally prohibited from doing.
  • How the judiciary, Congress, and public opinion serve as backstops against interference.
  • The implications of budget deficits, Social Security reform, and demographic shifts on monetary policy.
  • What universities must do to prepare the next generation of economists for the complex realities of central banking.

Dr. Harker’s insights are especially timely given recent attempts to dismiss Fed leadership, a move that echoes historical tensions but may signal a new level of partisan intrusion. As he puts it, “The Fed’s independence is not a luxury—it’s a necessity.”

For those interested in diving deeper into this critical issue, join the live webinar or receive a recording of The Unity Forum, featuring Dr. Harker.

The event will be held on Zoom on Thursday, Sept. 25, at 1:00 p.m. ET, with an audience Q&A near the end of the program. All registered participants will receive a link to the discussion recording, allowing them to listen at their convenience.

Webinar Registration: https://us06web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_995jr6iBSYmwEIpb_Zhmxg

In an era when economic policy is often reduced to market performance and partisan soundbites, we need more spaces for reasoned discourse. That’s what The Unity Forum aims to provide.

David Nevins is publisher of The Fulcrum and co-founder and board chairman of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.


Read More

Open Letter to Justice Roberts: Partisan Gerrymandering Is Unconstitutional
beige concrete building under blue sky during daytime

Open Letter to Justice Roberts: Partisan Gerrymandering Is Unconstitutional

The Supreme Court, in holding that partisan gerrymandering is permissible—unless it "goes too far"—stated that the argument made against this practice based on the Court's "one person, one vote" doctrine didn't work because the cases that developed that doctrine were about ensuring that each vote had an equal weight. The Court reasoned that after redistricting, each vote still has equal weight.

I would respectfully disagree. After admittedly partisan redistricting, each vote does not have an equal weight. The purpose of partisan gerrymandering is typically to create a "safe" seat—to group citizens so that the dominant political party has a clear majority of the voters. It's the transformation of a contested seat or even a seat safe for the other party into a safe seat for the party doing the redistricting.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Puncher’s Illusion: Winning the First Round and Losing the War
Toy soldiers in a battle formation
Photo by Saifee Art on Unsplash

The Puncher’s Illusion: Winning the First Round and Losing the War

In the Rumble in the Jungle, George Foreman came in expecting to end the fight early.

At first, it looked that way. He was stronger, faster, and landing clean punches. I watched the 1974 championship on simulcast fifty-two years ago and remember how dominant he was in the opening rounds.

Keep ReadingShow less
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
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