Connect with us

Business

Down Arrow Button Icon

Published

on



With Trump 2.0, markets and the media knew they would get their fair share of double-takes. For me, the image that springs to mind the most was the moment in July when the President of the United States showed up on the doorstep of the Fed, literally. Armed with a disputed list of costs for Fed building renovations, President Trump said that “generally” speaking he would fire a project manager who had gone over budget. The Fed’s Powell, looking visibly uncomfortable, had already provided a breakdown explaining that the project was on track, and he highlighted that Trump had included in his costings a building which was already complete. The Chairman of the Federal Reserve and the president stood stiffly, side-by-side, in matching hard hats, bickering on a building site, for all the world to see.

Trump’s visit to the Fed was only the fourth in U.S. history—the tradition is that the credibility of the central bank and the White House are both strengthened if neither attempts to interfere with the other.

The image summed up the conversations (off the record and, in recent months, increasingly nervously) I regularly have with sources—either within the Fed or at agencies working closely with the financial institution. In my catch-ups with these 10 or so people since January, their mood has shifted. Early on, there was optimism that the focus of politicians would pass (as it so often does). But as the months rolled by, they mentally battened down their hatches against an onslaught of insults, scrutiny, and unprecedented criticism. 

In the run-up to the election, Trump claimed Powell acted politically by lowering interest rates to help President Biden (an insult, given the legally mandated autonomy of the organization). Vice president JD Vance lobbied for more political control over the base interest rate.

While some economists later echoed Trump in saying the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) should cut rates, the public outpouring of Trump’s fury was extraordinary: Trump called him “Too Late Powell,” a “stubborn mule,” a “major loser,” and a “stupid person.” 

Wall Street grew uncomfortable with the attacks. Even if it wanted to see rate cuts, it didn’t want to see the central bank’s independence threatened. When Trump pulled back on the notion of firing Powell, he instead focused on other members of the FOMC. In September, he attempted to oust Fed Governor Lisa Cook via social media, alleging she made false statements on a mortgage application. She denies that and has taken her case to the Supreme Court. Hearings begin in January.

Other autonomous agencies got the message: If Trump is willing to take on the Fed, they might be next.

“How much can truly change under a single administration?” I asked one source. “Three years is a long time yet,” was the response. 

The January question

Since January, many federal employees inside and outside the Fed have quietly decided that discretion is the better part of valor. To the relief of Wall Street, the Fed’s most prominent figures haven’t gone to ground entirely.

Outside of monetary policy leaders have publicly stuck to the script when it comes to political questions. Time and again, Powell insisted that base rate decisions are made exclusively and entirely on data pertaining to the economy. On the elephant in the room that is January’s court hearings over the firing of Cook, Powell said it would be “inappropriate” to comment. 

While the temperature has dropped for now, sources say, they’re preparing for the mercury to start rising again early next year. The reasoning that an independent Fed leads to better economic outcomes is widely accepted. But if Trump succeeds in ousting Cook, then the Fed’s autonomy looks less secure—potentially leading to inflationary sentiment.

Analysts’ concerns over the Fed’s independence don’t descend as low as comparisons to President Nixon and Arthur Burns however, when an alignment on monetary policy between the White House and the Fed plunged the economy into a crisis.

Economists more widely believe that there are too many defenders of independence—and too much scrutiny from the markets—to allow politicians to attempt to fundamentally alter the trajectory of the Fed, especially if Jerome Powell sticks around as a governor.

Selective silence is a tactic on which it seems everyone, at last, can agree. Critics argue that the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC)—with its mysterious dot-plots and the breadcrumbs its members occasionally drop into speeches—engages the attention of Wall Street a little too much. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has been lobbying for a “backseat” Federal Reserve, something insiders will be only too happy to oblige. 

On the other hand, the Federal Reserve system is mandated to answer to Congress and, by extension, the American public. In an era of economic volatility, with business leaders and consumers alike unsure of the path forward, a void of insight from key decision-makers could be damaging and frustrating. 

There’s also been a delicate balance to strike between pushing back on claims about bias within the Fed and reminding the public that the Fed is focused mainly on, and is guided by, its mandate. 

The next Fed chairman

Another awkward question is who’s actually in charge. Secretary Bessent has made it clear that in the search for a new Federal Reserve leader, he wants to appoint a “shadow chair”, someone to be the true power at the Fed while Powell is increasingly overlooked as he nears the end of his term in May.

It was not a popular idea, but the White House has proceeded with a very public recruitment process ever since. Potentially impacted parties are keeping an eye on frontrunners, they said, without becoming overly invested in outcomes that may never come to pass. 

One concern is that the broadcast nature of the selection process means pressure is already piling onto the shoulders of the would-be nominee, who must wrangle expectations without having accumulated much real influence within the central bank. 

Wall Street is also preparing for some early hiccups. Until the past few meetings, Powell’s run had been one of steady consensus. As UBS’s Paul Donovan said in a note to clients this week: “What is perhaps more interesting today is the extent of division within the Federal Reserve. This is potentially storing up trouble for Powell’s successor as Fed Chair. A Fed that is prepared to dissent under Powell may be more inclined to dissent under a Fed chair who commands less respect in the institution, and the wider financial markets.”

Whatever the creases that will need to be ironed out under a new Federal regime, Trump’s cabinet seems keen for it to happen behind closed doors. For federal staffers who want to crack on without the weight of the White House breathing down their necks, the diversion of that attention can’t come soon enough.



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Epstein files fight in court heats up as congressmen accuse DOJ of ‘serious misconduct’

Published

on



Manhattan’s top federal prosecutor said Friday that a judge lacks the authority to appoint a neutral expert to oversee the public release of documents in the sex trafficking probe of financier Jeffrey Epstein and British socialite Ghislaine Maxwell.

Judge Paul A. Engelmayer was told in a letter signed by U.S. Attorney Jay Clayton that he must reject a request this week by the congressional cosponsors of the Epstein Files Transparency Act to appoint a neutral expert.

U.S. Rep. Ro Khanna, a California Democrat, and Rep. Thomas Massie, a Kentucky Republican, say they have “urgent and grave concerns” about the slow release of only a small number of millions of documents that began last month.

In a filing to the judge they said they believed “criminal violations have taken place” in the release process.

Clayton, though, said Khanna and Massie do not have standing with the court that would allow them to seek the “extraordinary” relief of the appointment of a special master and independent monitor.

Engelmayer “lacks the authority” to grant such a request, he said, particularly because the congressional representatives who made the request are not parties to the criminal case that led to Maxwell’s December 2021 sex trafficking conviction and subsequent 20-year prison sentence for recruiting girls and women for Epstein to abuse and aiding the abuse.

Khanna said Clayton’s response “misconstrued” the intent of their request.

“We are informing the Court of serious misconduct by the Department of Justice that requires a remedy, one we believe this Court has the authority to provide, and which victims themselves have requested,” Khanna said in a statement.

“Our purpose is to ensure that DOJ complies with its representations to the Court and with its legal obligations under our law,” he added.

Epstein died in a federal jail in New York City in August 2019 as he awaited trial on sex trafficking charges. The death was ruled a suicide.

The Justice Department expects to update the court “again shortly” regarding its progress in turning over documents from the Epstein and Maxwell investigative files, Clayton said in the letter.

The Justice Department has said the files’ release was slowed by redactions required to protect the identities of abuse victims.

In their letter, Khanna and Massie wrote that the Department of Justice’s release of only 12,000 documents out of more than 2 million documents being reviewed was a “flagrant violation” of the law’s release requirements and had caused “ serious trauma to survivors.”

“Put simply, the DOJ cannot be trusted with making mandatory disclosures under the Act,” the congressmen said as they asked for the appointment of an independent monitor to ensure all documents and electronically stored information are immediately made public.

They also recommended that a court-appointed monitor be given authority to prepare reports about the true nature and extent of the document production and whether improper redactions or conduct have taken place.



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

See the face of ICE’s crackdown on normal Americans: a 21-year-old college student permanently blind in one eye

Published

on



A 21-year-old college student who said he was blinded in one eye by a projectile fired by a federal officer during a Southern California protest said he faces a drastically different life now.

Kaden Rummler said in an interview that he was in agonizing pain and underwent an extensive six-hour surgery to his left eye after he was injured at a Jan. 9 protest over the fatal shooting of a woman by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer in Minneapolis. Rummler said he has no depth perception and can no longer drive. Shards of metal and a nickel-sized piece of plastic remain lodged in his skull, his attorney said, and he is considering suing.

“It’s going to affect every aspect of my life,” said Rummler, who hopes to pursue a career in forestry.

A second demonstrator at the same protest outside a federal immigration building in Orange County told the Los Angeles Times he was also blinded in one eye by a projectile fired by federal agents. Britain Rodriguez, 31, said he was standing on steps outside the immigration building when he was struck in the face.

“I remember hitting the ground and feeling like my eye exploded in my head,” Rodriguez told the newspaper.

The Department of Homeland Security didn’t respond to questions from The Associated Press about what type of projectile was used. Tricia McLaughlin, assistant secretary for the agency, said in an emailed statement this week that the protesters were violent and that two officers were injured but didn’t specify the extent of their injuries. DHS said one demonstrator was taken to the hospital with a cut. McLaughlin confirmed to the Times that was a reference to Rummler and called his injury claims “absurd.”

Rummler has been charged with a misdemeanor count of disorderly conduct. One of his fellow protesters was jailed for several days and has been charged with assaulting, resisting or impeding a federal officer.

Rummler’s attorney John Washington said doctors want to know whether the materials in the projectile could be toxic but have been unable to get answers from DHS. Washington said based on their preliminary investigation they believe it was a capsule made from metal and plastic containing pepper spray.

The injuries in California are the latest in a growing number of violent encounters between federal agents and community members during protests over the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown.

Federal immigration agents deployed to Minneapolis have used aggressive crowd-control tactics that have become a dominant concern after the deadly shooting of Renee Good.

In Santa Ana, California, hundreds of people marched in the streets on Jan. 9 to protest Good’s killing. A smaller group later congregated outside the federal immigration building, shouting expletives through megaphones about ICE, according to video taken by OC Hawk, a group that films breaking news in Orange County.

The video shows a handful of officers in riot gear standing guard and urging demonstrators to move back. An orange cone is later seen rolling onto a plaza outside the building, and authorities begin firing crowd-control projectiles as they walk toward the crowd.

In the video, an officer is seen grabbing a protester by the arm and Rummler and a few others are seen stepping forward shouting in response. An officer then fires a crowd-control weapon, striking Rummler from several feet away. Rummler grabs his face and falls to the ground, and an officer grabs him by the shirt and drags him backward across the ground toward the building, the video shows. Later, video appears to show him face down on the ground being handcuffed.

Rummler said he joined the protest against immigration authorities because he can’t stand seeing families torn from their homes. Despite his injuries, he said he would do it again.

“I refuse to sit around idly and watch that happen, and in 50 years, I would absolutely regret not trying to make a change,” he said.

Washington, a civil rights lawyer, said his client could have been killed.

“Any officers with just the most basic training would know you don’t shoot someone ever in the face with this, but let alone at point-blank range, and that’s because it is a lethal weapon when used like that, and it very nearly was,” Washington said.

Geoffrey Alpert, a professor of criminology and criminal justice at University of South Carolina, said a thorough investigation is needed into the reason for using a high level of force in that situation.

“I don’t know of any projectile where you train to shoot at that close range,” Alpert said.



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Fortune Article | Fortune

Published

on



The eight European countries targeted by U.S. President Donald Trump for a 10% tariff for opposing American control of Greenland blasted the move Sunday, warning that the American leader’s threats “undermine transatlantic relations and risk a dangerous downward spiral.”

In an unusual and very strong joint statement coming from major U.S. allies, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and Finland on Sunday said troops sent to Greenland for the Danish military training exercise “Arctic Endurance” pose “no threat to anyone.”

Trump’s Saturday announcement sets up a potentially dangerous test of U.S. partnerships in Europe. The Republican president appeared to indicate that he was using the tariffs as leverage to force talks over the status of Greenland, a semiautonomous territory of NATO ally Denmark that he regards as critical to U.S. national security.

“We stand in full solidarity with the Kingdom of Denmark and the people of Greenland,” the group said. “Building on the process begun last week, we stand ready to engage in a dialogue based on the principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity that we stand firmly behind. Tariff threats undermine transatlantic relations and risk a dangerous downward spiral.”

There are immediate questions about how the White House could try to implement the tariffs because the EU is a single economic zone in terms of trading. It was unclear, too, how Trump could act under U.S. law, though he could cite emergency economic powers that are currently subject to a U.S. Supreme Court challenge.

European Union foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas said China and Russia will benefit from the divisions between the U.S. and Europe. She added in a post on social media: “If Greenland’s security is at risk, we can address this inside NATO. Tariffs risk making Europe and the United States poorer and undermine our shared prosperity.”

Trump’s move was also panned domestically.

U.S. Sen. Mark Kelly, a former U.S. Navy pilot and Democrat who represents Arizona, posted that Trump’s threatened tariffs on U.S. allies would make Americans “pay more to try to get territory we don’t need.”

“Troops from European countries are arriving in Greenland to defend the territory from us. Let that sink in,” he wrote on social media. “The damage this President is doing to our reputation and our relationships is growing, making us less safe. If something doesn’t change we will be on our own with adversaries and enemies in every direction.”

‘These tariffs will hurt us’

Six of the countries targeted are part of the 27-member EU, which operates as a single economic zone in terms of trading. It was not immediately clear if Trump’s tariffs would impact the entire bloc. EU envoys scheduled emergency talks for Sunday evening to determine a potential response.

The tariff announcement even drew blowback from Trump’s populist allies in Europe.

Italy’s right-wing premier, Giorgia Meloni, considered one of Trump’s closest allies on the continent, said Sunday she had spoken to him about the tariffs, which she described as “a mistake.”

The deployment to Greenland of small numbers of troops by some European countries was misunderstood by Washington, Meloni told reporters. She said the deployment was not a move against the U.S. but aimed to provide security against “other actors” that she didn’t name.

French President Emmanuel Macron wrote on social media that “no intimidation or threats will influence us, whether in Ukraine, Greenland or anywhere else in the world when we are faced with such situations.” He added that “tariff threats are unacceptable and have no place in this context.”

Jordan Bardella, president of Marine Le Pen’s far-right National Rally party in France and also a European Parliament lawmaker, posted that the EU should suspend last year’s tariff deal with the U.S., describing Trump’s threats as “commercial blackmail.”

Trump also achieved the rare feat of uniting Britain’s main political parties — including the hard-right Reform UK party — all of whom criticized the tariff threat.

“We don’t always agree with the U.S. government and in this case we certainly don’t. These tariffs will hurt us,” Reform UK leader Nigel Farage, a longtime champion and ally of Trump, wrote on social media. He stopped short of criticizing Trump’s designs on Greenland.

Meanwhile, U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer, who leads the center-left Labour Party, said the tariffs announcement was “completely wrong” and his government would “be pursuing this directly with the U.S. administration.”

The foreign ministers of Denmark and Norway are also expected to address the crisis Sunday in Oslo during a news conference.

__

Leicester reported from Paris and Cook from Brussels. Associated Press writers Jill Lawless in London, Barry Hatton in Lisbon, Portugal, Aamer Madhani in Washington and Josh Boak in West Palm Beach, Florida, contributed to this report.



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © Miami Select.