Since the founding of the Federal Reserve in 1914, the United States has had 16 Fed chairs, yet rarely has the selection of the nation’s central-bank leader captured such sustained media and political attention as the spectacle which his playing out right now. Of course, this is by design; at least since the debut of The Apprentice in 2004, Donald Trump has reveled in transforming senior hiring decisions into a public spectacle—casting staffing choices as a form of modern gladiatorial entertainment. While this approach has drawn criticism, including my original 2004 critiques in the WSJ, it also has the paradoxical virtue of rendering candidates’ strengths, weaknesses, and temperaments unusually transparent.
Much of the media’s attention has centered on Kevin Hassett and Kevin Warsh as the presumptive front-runners to be next Fed Chair. Both are highly respected, with long track records of public service and honorable character. But whether fairly or not, their perceived weaknesses have been under a magnifying glass, creating an opening for an ascendant dark horse who is drawing growing backing from the top CEOs of the nation’s largest enterprises.
CEOs are gravitating towards that dark horse candidate, current Fed Governor Chris Waller, because while he may lack the White House network of other top contenders; he is quickly emerging as perhaps the only candidate who can cut interest rates with broad-based credibility and build broad consensus around those needed rate cuts, both at the Fed as well as across corporate America and within financial markets.
A great irony in President Trump’s jawboning of the Fed is that Trump is perhaps his own worst enemy in trying to force interest rates down. Ironically, the belief that interest rates need to come down is shared not only among economists across ideological anchoring, and not only among many top business leaders, but even many of Trump’s most vocal critics. We have previously written several publications calling for the Fed to lower interest rates, pointing out that entire sectors, such as homebuilders, are getting hammered unnecessarily from holding rates so high for so long.
CEOs care about interest rates coming down, but they care even more about Fed independence. History is clear: countries that politicize their central banks set themselves on a path towards monetary purgatory and collapse. That’s why Trump’s brazen interventions at the Fed have wreaked havoc in the markets, with bond investors in active revolt and with long-term bond yields rising by 20 basis points after some pointed commentary from Trump.
Chris Waller is perhaps the only choice for Fed Chair who can thread the needle. Unlike other top contenders, Waller’s calls for rates to come down reflect not convenient political posturing nor obsequious flattery, but genuine intellectual conviction. Waller has been incredibly consistent and correctly prescient across his entire career at the Fed; he correctly pointed to signs that the economy, and in particular employment, was softening, and has been calling for rates to come down for far longer than any of his peers at the Fed.
Many CEOs at our Yale CEO Summit expressed their appreciation for Waller’s long track record of partnering effectively with business leaders on challenges as well as opportunities. Take crypto innovation as one such example. As the Fed Governor who oversees the payment system, Waller was once again correctly prescient as an advocate of stablecoins dating back to before 2021, when few knew what stablecoins even were, and he convened the first ever Payments Innovation Conference earlier this year, bringing in top leaders from industry to help shape the future of stablecoin payments.
President Harry Truman lamented, “Give me a one-handed economist. All my economists say, ‘on ONE hand…’, then ‘but on the other.’” Business leaders appreciate Waller’s serious and decisive style, his systemic economic knowledge, his track record of constructive engagement, his clarity of message, and his credible presence, which transcend political or personal career agendas.
The opinions expressed in Fortune.com commentary pieces are solely the views of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and beliefs of Fortune.
More than a thousand flights were canceled or delayed across the Northeast and Great Lakes regions due to snow as thousands took to U.S. roads and airports during the busy travel period between Christmas and New Year’s.
As of Saturday morning, New York City had received just under three inches of snow — roughly half of what some forecasts had predicted. At least 1,500 flights were canceled from Friday night into Saturday, according to flight-tracking service FlightAware.
Newark Liberty International Airport, John F. Kennedy International Airport and LaGuardia Airport posted snow warnings on the social media platform X on Friday, cautioning that weather conditions could cause flight disruptions.
The National Weather Service warned of hazardous travel conditions from the Great Lakes through the northern mid-Atlantic and southern New England, with the potential for tree damage and power outages. Forecasters said the storm was expected to weaken by Saturday morning.
Ahead of the storm, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul declared a state of emergency for more than half of the state. Acting New Jersey Gov. Tahesha Way declared a state of emergency for all of New Jersey, “due to a severe winter storm causing dangerous weather conditions, including heavy snow, sleet, and freezing rain.”
“This storm will cause dangerous road conditions and impact holiday travel,” Way said in a statement. “We are urging travelers to avoid travel during the storm and allow crews to tend to the roads. Drivers should plan their travel accordingly, monitor conditions and road closures, and follow all safety protocols.”
California this week dropped a lawsuit officials filed against the Trump administration over the federal government’s withdrawing of $4 billion for the state’s long-delayed high-speed rail project.
The U.S. Transportation Department slashed funds for the bullet train aimed at connecting San Francisco to Los Angeles in July. The Trump administration has said the California High-Speed Rail Authority had “ no viable plan ” to complete a large segment of the project in the farm-rich Central Valley.
The authority quickly filed a lawsuit, with Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom calling the federal government’s decision “a political stunt to punish California.”
The authority said this week that it would focus on other funding sources to complete the project, which is estimated to cost more than $100 billion.
“This action reflects the State’s assessment that the federal government is not a reliable, constructive, or trustworthy partner in advancing high-speed rail in California,” an authority spokesperson said in a statement.
The Transportation Department did not respond to a request for comment. President Donald Trump and Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy have both previously criticized the project as a “train to nowhere.”
“The Railroad we were promised still does not exist, and never will,” Trump said on his social media platform Truth Social in July. “This project was Severely Overpriced, Overregulated, and NEVER DELIVERED.”
The authority’s decision to drop the lawsuit comes as the group seeks private investors to support the bullet train. The project recently secured $1 billion in annual funding from the state’s cap-and-trade program through 2045.
The program sets a declining limit on total planet-warming emissions in the state from major polluters. Companies must reduce their emissions, buy allowances from the state or other businesses, or fund projects aimed at offsetting their emissions. Money the state receives from the sales funds climate-change mitigation, affordable housing and transportation projects, as well as utility bill credits for Californians.
The rail authority said its shift in focus away from federal funding offers “a new opportunity.”
“Moving forward without the Trump administration’s involvement allows the Authority to pursue proven global best practices used successfully by modern high-speed rail systems around the world,” a spokesperson said in a statement.
The president of the Kennedy Center on Friday fiercely criticized a musician’s sudden decision to cancel a Christmas Eve performance at the venue days after the White House announced that President Donald Trump’s name would be added to the facility.
“Your decision to withdraw at the last moment — explicitly in response to the Center’s recent renaming, which honors President Trump’s extraordinary efforts to save this national treasure — is classic intolerance and very costly to a non-profit Arts institution,” the venue’s president, Richard Grenell, wrote in a letter to musician Chuck Redd that was shared with The Associated Press.
In the letter, Grenell said he would seek $1 million in damages “for this political stunt.”
Redd did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
A drummer and vibraphone player, Redd has presided over holiday “Jazz Jams” at the Kennedy Center since 2006, succeeding bassist William “Keter” Betts. In an email Wednesday to The Associated Press, Redd said he pulled out of the concert in the wake of the renaming.
“When I saw the name change on the Kennedy Center website and then hours later on the building, I chose to cancel our concert,” Redd said. He added Wednesday that the event has been a “very popular holiday tradition” and that he often featured at least one student musician.
“One of the many reasons that it was very sad to have had to cancel,” he told the AP.
President John F. Kennedy was assassinated in 1963, and Congress passed a law the following year naming the center as a living memorial to him.
Grenell is a Trump ally whom the president chose to head the Kennedy Center after he forced out the previous leadership. According to the White House, Trump’s handpicked board approved the renaming, which scholars have said violates the law. Kennedy niece Kerry Kennedy has vowed to remove Trump’s name from the building once he leaves office, and former House historian Ray Smock is among those who say any changes would have to be approved by Congress.
The law explicitly prohibits the board of trustees from making the center into a memorial to anyone else, and from putting another person’s name on the building’s exterior.