SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
federal reserve
The Supreme Court's 2026 Term Was a Power Grab in Legal Garb
The term may be remembered most as a time when the supermajority of very conservative, very pro-business justices bent the shape of American government to empower the president at the expense of Congress.
Jul 02, 2026
How will we remember this Supreme Court term?
For Louisiana v. Callais, which demolished the 1965 Voting Rights Act. For near misses, too, as when the Constitution’s plain-language guarantee of birthright citizenship was recognized by only a bare majority of the justices. (As JD Vance crowed, that core protection is now “hanging by a thread.”)
I think the term may be remembered most as a time when the supermajority of very conservative, very pro-business justices bent the shape of American government. It was a power grab in legal garb, undermining Congress, granting presidents more authority, but with key decisions ultimately in the hands of the nine unelected officials now redesigning government.
In 2005, The New York Times Magazine published a story about a cadre of intense anti-government legal activists. They bemoaned “the Constitution in exile,” what they saw as an epic wrong turn in the 20th century. That was the era when Congress and presidents created expert independent agencies, such as the Securities and Exchange Commission, to police Wall Street, and the Federal Trade Commission, to protect consumers. To most Americans, that was how we grew a modern, fair, prosperous economy. To those activists, it was all a terrible mistake.
A future president may be a populist progressive, now with new levers of power to address climate change or boost union power. To quote Justice Brett Kavanaugh, “What goes around comes around.”
One of the few adherents of this eccentric theory, the Times reported, was an unknown young federal judge named John Roberts. Soon he would become chief justice.
Trump v. Slaughter, announced on Monday, marked a key moment in Roberts’s long drive to write pro-business dogma into the Constitution. On this, Roberts is far from a Midwestern country club Republican cheerfully calling “balls and strikes.” This is not about wins or losses for Donald Trump. These justices have wanted to do this since Trump was cavorting at Studio 54.
Congress established the first independent agency, the Interstate Commerce Commission, to set railroad rates in the 1880s. Since then, laws created nearly 60 agencies to police the economy or serve as watchdogs over the government, and tried to wall them off a bit from political pressure and partisan politics.
Congress has now been blocked from imposing removal protections for the heads of most federal agencies, a critical bulwark against presidential meddling. Consider a consequential, complex current question: Could an effective new agency regulate artificial intelligence? The Slaughter ruling could make it considerably harder to insulate such a powerful body from political interference.
Of course, independent agencies are not a purely partisan issue. Over the course of American history, they have frustrated presidents of both parties, who want control of the sprawling federal bureaucracy.
The Slaughter ruling overturned a 1935 case, Humphrey’s Executor. William Humphrey was a reactionary and thoroughly unpleasant Federal Trade Commission member whom President Franklin D. Roosevelt wanted to fire. Humphrey kept going to work even after he was dismissed, then died while the legal challenge to pry him from his office was being heard. His heirs sued for his back pay.
The Supreme Court ruled that even FDR, at the peak of his power, could not fire grumpy old Mr. Humphrey. “That damn little case,” recalled FDR aide Robert Jackson (later a justice himself), “made Roosevelt madder at the court than any other decision... [He] thought they went out of their way to spite him personally.”
Slaughter is one of the most significant expressions of the pretentiously named “unitary executive theory.” This is the idea that because a single individual, the president, is elected to lead the executive branch, that means the whole executive branch serves at his whim. Of note, this case revolved around one aspect of it, firing of agency officials.
Indeed, the justices seemed to recognize the havoc their new doctrine would cause. On the same day, a different lineup of justices blocked Trump from firing Federal Reserve governor Lisa Cook. The Fed, too, is an independent agency, signed into law by President Woodrow Wilson in the Progressive Era, but the rationale for independent central banking is well known. The Cook ruling mumbles about tradition and history, but the real answer for the divergent outcomes seemed to be, well, the Fed is just... different. (Of course, business interests revere the Fed and often loathe the FTC.)
A limited version of the unitary executive theory is not entirely crazy. We want a strong president able to guide the balky executive branch. But advocates have taken this idea to a dangerous extreme, turning it into a fancy cloak for an authoritarian executive. By their logic, if all federal employees work personally for a president, as if they were gardeners at Mar-a-Lago, that could demolish civil service protections and other rules that can keep government from being the instrument of executive whim.
Who knows how far this rhetoric of presidential power will go? Russell Vought, the White House budget director, says we live in a “post-constitutional time.” And in Trump v. United States, Roberts wrote that the president is “the only person who alone composes a branch of government.”
Policymakers now must grapple with the justices’ handiwork. How can we have strong inspectors general or independent military lawyers if a president can bark “you’re fired” at will? Can Congress step up by, say, giving the Government Accountability Office greater responsibility to police the executive branch? Such obscure questions will determine how government can work going forward. Necessary reforms can follow abuse and scandal. That’s what happened after Watergate. Now such safeguards must be designed in a world where the Supreme Court has supercharged presidential power.
Let’s not forget Donald Trump is a lame duck. (He is! Really!) A future president may be a populist progressive, now with new levers of power to address climate change or boost union power. To quote Justice Brett Kavanaugh, “What goes around comes around.” Of course, this court has also invented tools to stop policies it doesn’t like, such as the “major questions” doctrine it used to block Biden-era climate change rules. Stay tuned.
But it’s hard to escape the conclusion that this ruling will make government less effective, more chaotic, and more driven by politics and personality—steered there by a Supreme Court with too much power, now in thrall to an obscure and dangerous philosophy.
Keep ReadingShow Less
The Supreme Court Just Made Rank Corruption Great Again
The six on-the-take Republicans on the Supreme Court started America back down the road to Andrew Jackson’s Spoils System… except for the Federal Reserve.
Jun 30, 2026
The six unscrupulous Republicans on the Supreme Court—over the loud objections of the three true constitutionalists on the court—are aggressively dragging America back not just to the 1950s but, as of Monday, to the 1830s.
Arguably the most depraved president in American history, Andrew Jackson (aka “The Indian Killer” a title he gave himself), President Donald Trump’s favorite, whose picture he hung in the Oval Office, invented what came to be called the “Spoils System.”
If you wanted a job in the federal government, or a favorable ruling from one of the then-few federal agencies, all you had to do was give a big enough gift to President Jackson, or pledge your loyalty to him instead of the Constitution and the people, and your wish would be granted.
Prior presidents, particularly among the Founding generation, were generally strongly opposed to such a corrupt system.
On Monday those six Republican lickspittles on the Supreme Court universalized the new, Trump-era Spoils System by ruling that Trump can replace the heads of any federal regulatory agency (with one exception) with his own toadies.
Weeks after Thomas Jefferson was sworn in as president in 1801, the merchants of New Haven, Connecticut wrote a letter to the new president worrying out loud that he’d install loyalists rather than capable administrators who may have some oversight of issues like duties and tariffs that would impact them. Jefferson replied:
The remonstrance [your concerned letter] laments "that a change in the administration must produce a change in the subordinate officers;" in other words, that it should be deemed necessary for all officers to think with their principal [the president].
Jefferson then implicitly referenced the integrity of President George Washington, whose closest advisor, speechwriter, and Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton wrote of Washington’s hiring process:
He will... investigate with care the qualities requisite to the stations to be filled, and to prefer with impartiality the persons who may have the fairest pretensions to them.
And Jefferson pointed to the occasional corruption of President John Adams (who Jefferson had beat in that election of 1800, as Dan Sisson and I wrote about in The American Revolution of 1800: How Jefferson Rescued Democracy from Tyranny and Faction and What This Means Today), writing that his administration:
[S]hall return with joy to that state of things, when the only questions concerning a candidate shall be, is he honest? Is he capable? Is he faithful to the Constitution?
On Monday, however, in a shocking turnabout, the six corrupt, on-the-take Republicans on the Supreme Court—placed there via a 50-year-long project funded by America’s morbidly rich oligarchs—started America back down the road to Jackson’s corrupt Spoils System… except for the Federal Reserve (more on that and why it’s so mind-bogglingly corrupt in a moment).
Ironically, Jackson’s spoils system was ended in the late 19th century as much to protect the president from harm as to discourage the naked corruption it represented.
Back in 1881, a man named Charles Guiteau thought he’d properly bribed President James Garfield by giving the president, during an in-person visit in the White House, a speech he’d written for Garfield to use. Garfield was polite but refused to offer Guiteau the federal speechwriter’s job he was seeking, which provoked Guiteau to a murderous rage: shortly thereafter, Guiteau met Garfield’s train and shot him twice, killing him.
After Guiteau failed to gain his “spoil” or “patronage” from Garfield and killed him, President Chester Arthur oversaw the writing and passage of the Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act of 1883.
It separated all those government jobs from the administration in power, turning federal workers from patrons of the president into permanent bureaucrats, whose first loyalty was to the nation instead of to the guy who happened to be in the White House at any particular time. It realized the vision Hamilton described, that Washington had tried so scrupulously to follow.
It also explicitly outlawed bribing the president to get a job or other federal favors. The goal, which it accomplished and held for 143 years, was to end corruption in the bureaucratic branches of the federal government that the Constitution requires the executive branch—the president’s branch—to oversee and “faithfully execute the laws” and administer the agencies Congress had passed and created.
But, like Jackson, Donald Trump wanted to functionally end or at least cripple the Civil Service system with a modern version of the Spoils System and replace the top levels of the nation’s 2.7 million federal workers with people loyal exclusively to himself, essentially overturning the Pendelton Civil Service Act, at least for senior officials.
He tried to do this in the last months of his first presidency through an October 21, 2020 executive order, Schedule F, that reclassified those workers out of their Civil Service jobs and into political appointee positions, doing the same work but now entirely dependent on the good will of the president himself to keep their jobs.
President Joe Biden overturned Trump’s executive order creating Schedule F on his first day in office, restoring honesty and integrity to the executive branch across the entire federal bureaucracy, but last month, on June 3, Trump reinstituted Schedule F, reestablishing the essence of the Spoils System.
When Trump tried to replace Federal Trade Commission member Rebecca Slaughter, she sued, claiming he was violating the FTC Act of 1914 which Congress created as an independent agency free from presidential coercion.
While the court didn’t specifically rule based on the Pendleton Act (she was a Senate-confirmed appointee, not a civil servant), the principles are similar and point to how future all-Republican rulings by this court could affect the Civil Service itself.
And, sure enough, on Monday those six Republican lickspittles on the Supreme Court universalized the new, Trump-era Spoils System by ruling that Trump can replace the heads of any federal regulatory agency (with one exception) with his own toadies, who can then turn the agencies away from their job of protecting our democracy, our public lands, our people, and our environment into new ways to enrich himself, his family, his Epstein-billionaire class, his corporate donors, and his cronies.
That one exception was that on Monday the court also ruled, 5-4 with two Republican appointees joining the three Democratic ones, that Trump can’t fire Lisa Cook on the Federal Reserve, who holds a position eerily similar to that of Rebecca Slaughter on the FTC.
Why the difference?
The Federal Reserve protects the nations’ banking system and thus ensures stability and prosperity for America’s billionaires and the companies that made them that way. By blowing up Trump’s attempt to remove the Fed’s one Black governor (presumably as part of his and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s Make America White Again campaign), the Republicans on the court defended America’s oligarchs.
The other federal agencies, like the FTC, mostly protect you and me. They oversee our environment, consumer product safety, the purity of our food and drugs, and so on. If anything, America’s oligarchs consider them a pain in the ass.
Republicans, who—with the conspicuous exception of Dwight D. Eisenhower—have been exclusively serving the morbidly rich and powerful since the election of Harding in 1920 (he cut the top tax rate from 90% to 25% and instituted massive deregulation of the banks, leading straight to the Republican Great Depression) are cheering.
But, as we approach America’s 250th anniversary, the rest of us should be outraged.
The next time Democrats have true power in Washington, DC, overturning Slaughter and other corrupt all-Republican Supreme Court decisions (particularly Citizens United) must be Job One.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Don't Mourn Alan Greenspan
He never mourned for you.
Jun 24, 2026
Alan Greenspan, who served as chair of the Federal Reserve from to 1987 to 2006 and who died on Monday, was a monster. He was the Henry Kissinger of economic policy. Like Kissinger, he was mistakenly considered a genius. Reporters, businesses, and many members of Congress hung on his words—more accurately, his jargon-filled word salad, which obscured more than it explained—to understand what was going on in the economy. Despite the fact that his policies, like Kissinger's, were a blatant failure, he was, also like Kissinger (who also died at 100), still taken seriously by the media after he left government service, and made a ton of money as a consultant. Both men caused enormous harm and suffering for which they were never held accountable.
The New York Times obituary has a few paragraphs about writer and pseudo-philosopher Ayn Rand's influence on Greenspan, but doesn't do justice to the fact that Rand's inner circle wasn't just a discussion group. It was a cult. Greenspan absorbed her belief that selfishness was the highest principle. It was that view that guided his economic thinking, including when he was Fed chair, and before that, chief economic advisor to President Gerald Ford.
The core of Rand's influence was Greenspan's belief that government should play no role in regulating business. He believed that corporations could police themselves without any government rules. He reflected Rand's belief that corporations' self-interest and greed, and those of major shareholders, would lead them to behave responsibly.
Greenspan was appointed Fed chair by Ronald Reagan in 1987 and reappointed by George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush. He was also part of the corporate ruling class, serving on the boards of several Fortune 500 corporations, including Mobil Oil, J.P. Morgan, the Aluminum Corp. of America (Alcoa), Morgan Guarantee Trust Co., Automatic Data Processing Inc., Capital Cities/ABC, Pittston Company, and General Foods.
Greenspan's influence, along with the intense lobbying by the banking industry, provided the justification for the dismantling of dismantling of decades of government bank regulations, providing lenders with the leeway to engage in an orgy of mergers, speculation, and risky and racist lending practices that ultimately led to the collapse of major Wall Street firms.
The banking industry's greed—its insatiable appetite for profits and wealth—led to the 2007 mortgage meltdown, the implosion of the housing market, the near-collapse of the financial industry, and the breakdown of the whole economy, including widespread layoffs and foreclosures, from which we have still not fully recovered. But it was made possible by the see-no-evil views of Greenspan and his ilk.
In the late 1990s, during Greenspan's watch at the Federal Reserve, banks and private mortgage lenders began pushing subprime mortgages, many with “adjustable” rates that jumped sharply after a few years. These risky loans comprised 8.6 percent of all mortgages in 2001, soaring to 20.1 percent by 2006. That year alone, 10 lenders accounted for 56 percent of all subprime loans, totaling $362 billion. These loans were a ticking time bomb, waiting to explode.
Starting in 2007, housing prices fell by third. Americans lost $7 trillion in wealth. Over 5 million Americans lost their homes. The drop in housing values affected not only families facing foreclosure but also families in the surrounding communities because having a few foreclosed homes in a neighborhood brings down the value of other houses in the area. The neighborhood blight created by the housing collapse was much worse in African-American and Hispanic areas because they were the primary victims of subprime loans and almost twice as likely as whites to lose their homes to foreclosures.
Brooksley Born, chairwoman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission from 1996 to 1999, wanted her agency to regulate derivatives and other exotic financial investments (including credit default swaps) that she accurately predicted were too risky and would lead to disaster. But Greenspan, along with President Clinton’s Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin and economic advisor Larry Summers, stopped her from exercising the kind of regulatory authority that would have prevented the calamity. In 2000, Edward Gramlich, a Federal Reserve Board member, repeatedly warned Greenspan about subprime mortgages and predatory lending, which he said jeopardized the twin American dreams of owning a home and building wealth. He tried to get Greenspan to crack down on irrational subprime lending by increasing oversight, but his warnings fell on deaf ears.
Greenspan was the leading culprit of the policies that led to the economic collapse. He allowed the banks' short-sighted gluttony to cause enormous human suffering.
It wasn’t until the system imploded that Greenspan gained any insight about the fundamental flaw of his belief that greed is the best operating principle for the economy. In 2008, testifying before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Greenspan admitted: “Those of us who have looked to the self-interest of lending institutions to protect shareholders’ equity, myself included, are in a state of shocked disbelief…. This modern [free market] paradigm held sway for decades. The whole intellectual edifice, however, collapsed in the summer of last year.”
Of course, there was plenty of evidence throughout history that big corporations do NOT behave responsibly unless they are required to do so by government regulations and enforcement. This has been especially true of banks. But because Greenspan was such a libertarian ideologue, in thrall to Rand and others, he could not, or refused to, see what was right in front of him. For the millions of Americans who lost their homes, their jobs, and their small businesses through no fault of their own. Greenspan's self-awareness came much too late.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Fed's May Beige Book Shows Working Families Falling Behind As Trump Is 'Choosing to Keep Prices High'
Middle-income households were "squeezing more life out of every dollar before deciding to spend it" last month, while low-income families and individuals "showed greater financial strain."
Jun 05, 2026
The Beige Book, a monthly report on consumer spending, labor markets, and inflation from the Federal Reserve's 12 districts across the country, offers an up-to-date look on how the US economy is impacting households across the US—and this week, the report for May showed a continuation of the trend that accelerated after President Donald Trump joined Israel in attacking Iran more than three months ago.
"This month’s report, the third since the escalation of the conflict in the Middle East, reveals that soaring input costs are triggering price hikes for consumers," said the progressive think tank Groundwork Collaborative.
The report notes that regional contacts at the Federal Reserve's districts described middle-income households as "squeezing more life out of every dollar before deciding to spend it,” while low-income families and individuals "showed greater financial strain."
"Overall, there were reports of increased credit card usage, fewer retail visits, and stronger demand for necessities," reads the Beige Book.
"Higher-income households remained resilient and less sensitive to price increase," the Federal Reserve reported, indicating a "K-shaped economy"—in which wealthy Americans are represented by the top angled line and middle- and lower-income households are represented by the line angled toward the lower right.
The report comes as peace talks with Iran are stalled and the Strait of Hormuz—a key waterway for trade, particularly for the world's oil supply, remains effectively closed following the US-Israeli invasion. Iran's retaliatory move has sent global oil prices soaring, with gas now costing $4.22 per gallon on average.
"High prices for essentials like groceries and a tank of gas are busting household budgets and eliminating breathing room for middle- and low-income families."
"Numerous contacts mentioned the conflict in the Middle East as a source of cost pressures and heightened business uncertainty," reads the Beige Book. "Higher energy and fertilizer prices contributed to a moderate increase in food prices, especially for fresh produce."
Manufacturers and retailers are also facing increased shipping costs, while auto repair rates and used-car financing rates "remained very high" in parts of the country.
The report was released days after the administration launched new strikes against Iran last weekend, and as Iran announced it was suspending peace talks with the US over Israel's continued targeting of Lebanon.
Alex Jacquez, Groundwork's chief of policy and advocacy, said that "Trump is choosing to keep prices high for working families."
"High prices for essentials like groceries and a tank of gas are busting household budgets and eliminating breathing room for middle- and low-income families," said Jacquez. "Despite his own party’s opposition, the president is forging ahead with his reckless, costly war—and leaving working Americans in the dust.”
The Beige Book also describes a "low-hire, low-fire" job market, "with workers increasingly reluctant to change jobs because of economic uncertainty."
"Widespread economic uncertainty from continued tariffs and persistent inflation means businesses are delaying expansion, leading cautious employees to remain in their current roles—even if it means staying in worse-paying jobs," said Groundwork.
The Federal Reserve pointed to a contact in the construction industry in Cleveland, Ohio who said employees are "nervous and stressed, as well as a human resources firm in Richmond, Virginia that reported "that clients have explicitly slowed hiring for new roles due to uncertainty, while their existing employees seemed reluctant to leave 'something stable' for new opportunities."
Jacquez said that based on the report, "Americans lucky enough to be employed full-time are losing faith in their ability to keep up with inflation as paychecks lag and the labor market stalls out."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Fetterman and Senate GOP Confirm Trump 'Sock Puppet' Warsh as Fed Chair
"Warsh's confirmation is another step in Trump's attempt to take over the Fed. That's not good for working families—it's good for Wall Street," said Sen. Elizabeth Warren.
May 13, 2026
The US Senate on Wednesday voted to confirm Kevin Warsh, the financier picked by President Donald Trump to be the next chair of the Federal Reserve.
Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) joined with all Senate Republicans in voting to confirm Warsh, whose nomination was opposed by all other Senate Democrats except for Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), who did not vote.
US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent thanked Republican senators and Fetterman for backing Warsh's confirmation, which he predicted would "usher in a new day at an institution that is in need of accountability, sound policy guidance, and the renewed sense of purpose to help guide our economy."
Warsh's nomination has been controversial from the start given that Trump has repeatedly undermined the US central bank's independence by browbeating outgoing Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell to lower interest rates.
After the confirmation vote, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) warned that Warsh would try to carry out Trump's demands to lower rates, even as key metrics show that inflation has accelerated in recent months thanks to the president's illegal war with Iran.
"Trump wants to control interest rates, and he nominated Kevin Warsh to be his sock puppet," wrote Warren in a social media post. "Warsh's confirmation is another step in Trump's attempt to take over the Fed. That's not good for working families—it's good for Wall Street."
Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said he voted against Warsh's nomination because "working families are struggling more than ever to afford basic goods," and "they need a central bank that will fight for them, not the president and billionaires."
"I am not convinced that Warsh has the willingness to do what is best for the American people," Durbin added. "For that reason, I voted no on his nomination."
While Trump may want Warsh to start slashing interest rates to boost the economy, he likely faces an uphill climb in convincing other Fed board members.
Data released by the US Bureau of Labor Statistics this week showed the consumer price index posted a year-over-year increase of 3.8%, the highest rate of inflation since May 2023, driven by energy prices that surged nearly 18% from the year before.
Additionally, the latest producer price index, which measures wholesale prices paid by businesses and is considered a strong predictor of future inflation, posted a year-over-year increase of 6% in April, indicating inflation will likely accelerate in the coming months.
During Powell's final meeting as Fed chair last month, the board voted to hold interest rates steady, with several board members indicating opposition to projecting future rate cuts in the near term given signals of rising inflation.
Keep ReadingShow Less
In Dead of Night, Senate GOP Schedules Vote on Trump Fed Pick
"No Republican claiming to care about Fed independence should support moving forward the nomination of Kevin Warsh," said Sen. Elizabeth Warren.
Apr 25, 2026
In the late hours of Friday night, Republicans on the Senate Banking Committee scheduled a vote to advance President Donald Trump's pick to lead the Federal Reserve, shortly after the Justice Department announced it was dropping its criminal probe into the current head of the central bank, Jerome Powell.
The committee vote will take place on April 29, putting megarich financier Kevin Warsh on track for full Senate confirmation by the time Powell's term as Fed chair ends on May 15. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), the top Democrat on the banking panel, said in a statement early Saturday morning that "either the Republican majority is fooled easily or they are hoping to fool the American people," arguing that the Justice Department only agreed to drop its widely condemned probe of Powell—for now, at least—to clear the way for Warsh's confirmation.
"The Department of Justice threatened to restart the investigation into Fed Chair Powell at any time while continuing its probe against Gov. Lisa Cook," said Warren. The senator pointed to White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt's remark on Friday that the investigation into Powell "is not necessarily dropped, it's just being moved over to the inspector general."
The probe into the Fed's building renovations produced no evidence of a crime and was seen as a politically motivated attack on Powell, whom Trump has targeted repeatedly for not supporting the president's desired monetary policy. Trump originally nominated Powell to lead the central bank in 2017.
Warren said Saturday that "no Republican claiming to care about Fed independence should support moving forward the nomination of Kevin Warsh, who proved in his nomination hearing to be nothing more than President Trump’s sock puppet.”
While the DOJ investigation into Powell was ongoing, Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC)—a banking committee member—put a hold on Warsh's confirmation. As of this writing, Tillis has yet to indicate he is satisfied with federal prosecutors' announcement of an end to the Powell investigation.
Warren and other critics see Warsh as someone who would bow to Trump's influence at the Federal Reserve. During his confirmation hearing, Warsh declined to say whether Trump lost the 2020 election, which the president still falsely claims was stolen.
"He argues he's going to be an independent Fed chair, but refuses to acknowledge that Trump lost the 2020 election," said economist Justin Wolfers. "If you can't state simple facts when you're in the political spotlight, you aren't independent. You're a coward."
Observers have also raised concerns about Warsh's financial disclosures—or lack thereof. In recent Senate filings, Warsh disclosed owning assets worth between around $135 million and $226 million, but he did not provide specific details about more than $100 million in holdings, citing confidentiality agreements.
Warren told reporters earlier this month that after meeting with Warsh, she spoke with "the White House briefer on the FBI investigation into Mr. Warsh’s background."
"And what I can say about that report," said Warren, "is that I was told that the FBI made zero investigation into any of Mr. Warsh’s financial holdings, including those that he is refusing to disclose, and that they made zero investigation as to why [Warsh] appears in the publicly available Epstein files and whether he appears in other files that have not been made public.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Warren Says DOJ Dropped Powell Probe to Secure Installation of Trump 'Sock Puppet' as Fed Chair
"Anyone who believes Donald Trump’s corrupt scheme to take over the Fed is over is fooling themselves."
Apr 24, 2026
The Justice Department on Friday dropped its criminal investigation into US Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell, but Sen. Elizabeth Warren warned in response that the threat to the central bank's independence is far from over.
Shortly after US Attorney Jeanine Pirro announced on that her office was abandoning its months-long investigation of Powell for now, Warren released a statement cautioning that the end of the widely condemned probe didn't mean an end to President Donald Trump's efforts to take over the Federal Reserve.
Warren pointed out that while Pirro was no longer investigating Powell, the Justice Department is still investigating Federal Reserve Gov. Lisa Cook, whom Trump has unsuccessfully tried to fire.
"Let’s be clear what the Justice Department announced today," said Warren. "They threatened to restart the bogus criminal investigation into Fed Chair Powell at any time while failing to drop their ridiculous criminal probe against Governor Cook. Anyone who believes Donald Trump’s corrupt scheme to take over the Fed is over is fooling themselves."
Warren concluded by saying that the US Senate should not move forward with the confirmation of Kevin Warsh, a financier whom Trump nominated to be Powell's replacement.
“This is just an attempt to clear the path for Senate Republicans to install President Trump’s sock puppet Kevin Warsh as Fed chair," the Massachusetts senator said.
Sen. Andy Kim (D-NJ) echoed Warren's criticisms, and said that dropping the Powell investigation wasn't enough to make him believe the president had given up on his quest to control US monetary policy.
"Trump wants a Fed chair that will do his bidding," wrote Kim. "He'll drop the bogus investigation into Powell but not Lisa Cook because it clears the path for Senate Republicans to confirm Kevin Warsh, Trump’s pick for Fed chair. You deserve a Fed that works for you, not Donald Trump."
Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee also called foul on the Trump DOJ's machinations, writing in a social media post that the entire investigation into Powell "was just a political tactic and had nothing to do with evidence of a crime."
"The White House is using criminal prosecutions to free up spots on the Federal Reserve Board so the President can manipulate the money supply to cover up for his disastrous economic policies," the House Judiciary Democrats wrote. "And US Attorney Jeanine Pirro is content to abuse the grand jury process to attack Trump's chosen political targets."
University of Michigan economist Justin Wolfers delivered a warning for Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC), who had vowed to hold up Warsh's confirmation until the probe of Powell was dropped, to resist the temptation to believe the investigation's end meant the crisis was over.
"While I admired Tillis' stand for Fed independence, this was always the problem with his strategy," Wolfers explained. "The president can meet Tillis' threshold of promising not to jail this end-of-term Fed chair, but he's kept open the option of threatening to jail the next one. The threats will continue unless the Senate refuses to confirm any nominee without clear legislation outlawing it. Congress has a role to play."
While Pirro is no longer investigating Powell, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said this didn't mean the probe had ended, but had been transferred to the Federal Reserve inspector general.
"The case is not necessarily dropped, it's just being moved over to the inspector general," Leavitt told reporters. "This has been a priority for the president. The investigation still continues."
LOL -- Leavitt says the Powell investigation actually isn't over
"The case is not necessarily dropped, it's just being moved over to the inspector general. This has been a priority for the president. The investigation still continues." pic.twitter.com/LW4jeKzY9p
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) April 24, 2026
This prompted Warren to reiterate that the Senate should not move forward with any vote to confirm Warsh as Federal Reserve chairman.
"Trump's spokeswoman says the witch hunt against Jerome Powell 'still continues,'" Warren wrote. "No Republican claiming to care about Fed independence should move Warsh’s nomination forward."
Trump for the last year has publicly attacked Powell for not aggressively cutting interest rates. Powell, who was nominated by Trump to be chairman of the Federal Reserve in 2017, has refused to cave into the president's pressure campaign, and has pointed to the Trump administration's own policies—in particular its global tariffs on imported products—as putting upward pressure on inflation.
Powell's term as chairman expires on May 15.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'I'm Just Asking You a Factual Question': Warren Corners Trump's Fed Chair Pick on 2020 Election
“American monetary and bank safety policy will now depend on a demented ventriloquist in the White House," said one consumer watchdog.
Apr 21, 2026
Kevin Warsh, the financier picked by President Donald Trump to be the next chair of the US Federal Reserve, found himself tripped up by a seemingly simple question from Sen. Elizabeth Warren.
During a confirmation hearing before the Senate Banking Committee, Warren (D-Mass.) said she wanted Warsh to demonstrate he had the prerequisite independence to serve as chairman of America's central bank.
"Independence takes courage," Warren informed Warsh. "Let's check out your independence and your courage."
She then asked Warsh if Trump lost the 2020 election to former President Joe Biden—a question numerous appointees of Trump have failed to answer correctly during their confirmation hearings.
"We try to keep politics, if I'm confirmed, out of the Federal Reserve..." Warsh began.
At this point, Warren interjected.
"I'm just asking you a factual question," she said. "I need to know, I need to measure your independence and your courage."
ELIZABETH WARREN: Did Donald Trump lose the 2020 election?
KEVIN WARSH: Uhm, we try to keep politics if I'm confirmed out of the Federal Reserve
WARREN: I'm just asking a factual question
WARSH: I believe this body certified the election
WARREN: That's not the question I'm… pic.twitter.com/AZvmIqZXhN
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) April 21, 2026
"Senator, I believe that [the US Senate] certified that election many years ago," said Warsh.
"That's not the question I'm asking," Warren shot back. "I'm asking, 'Did Donald Trump lose in 2020?'"
Warsh refused to directly answer the question, insisting that asking about the outcome of the election was outside the realm of monetary policy.
University of Michigan economist Justin Wolfers took note of Warsh's response to Warren, and wrote in a social media post that it "raises real questions about whether Warsh is independent of the president and if he has the courage to tell hard truths."
Later in the hearing, Warren pressed Warsh on whether there was anything he would disagree with Trump about any aspect of his economic agenda, the financier responded with a joke about the president's comment that Warsh was straight out of "central casting."
"Quite adorable," the senator said sarcastically. "But you know, we need a Fed chair who is independent."
Warren wasn't the only senator to probe Warsh's ability to maintain his independence should he be confirmed as chairman of the Federal Reserve.
Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.) asked Warsh, who is a visiting scholar at the Stanford Graduate School of Business, to give a letter grade to the US economy.
Trump and top administration officials including Treasure Secretary Scott Bessent have insisted is strong and serving working families well even as the war in Iran has sent gas prices soaring and Trump's tariff policy has cost households more than $2,500 on average.
Warsh joked that modern universities practically require all students to get "A" grades, but Warnock nonetheless pressed him to give his own evaluation of the economy under Trump's stewardship.
"Well, if I gave a student anything other than an 'A,' the dean would summon me to his office because I would have hurt his self-image," Warsh replied.
WARNOCK: What grade would you give the American economy?
WARSH: Well, if i gave a student anything other than an A, the dean would summon me because I would've hurt his self-image
WARNOCK: Consumer confidence is at a record low. That's Americans' grade on the economy pic.twitter.com/3B5dOa2DKe
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) April 21, 2026
Warnock was not satisfied with Warsh's answer.
"Well, the Americans that I talk to, particularly in the state of Georgia," said Warnock, "who haven't had the benefit of attending some of these elite institutions... they're sitting around their kitchen tables trying to figure out how to put their kids through school."
Warnock then added that "regardless of how the markets are doing, consumer confidence is at a record low."
Bartlett Naylor, economist for Public Citizen, said on Tuesday that Warsh's confirmation hearing showed how fundamentally unfit he is to be chair of the Federal Reserve.
"Trump named Kevin Warsh because he won the sycophancy contest, threatening the independence of the nation’s most important economic institution," Naylor said. "At his nomination hearing, he failed to acknowledge that Trump lost the 2020 election, affirming that loyalty, not facts, will govern his policy choices."
Naylor warned that, if Warsh is confirmed, then "American monetary and bank safety policy will now depend on a demented ventriloquist in the White House."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Admin Readies Big Gift for Wall Street While Waging War, Gutting Aid Programs
“At a time of extreme and growing inequality," said one critic, "today’s proposals will drain lending away from Main Street families’ needs and priorities and further enrich the already wealthy on Wall Street."
Mar 19, 2026
The Trump administration and Federal Reserve unveiled proposals Thursday that would significantly reduce capital requirements for the largest banks in the United States, potentially setting the stage for another financial industry collapse as the US-Israeli war on Iran destabilizes the global economy and jacks up prices for consumers.
Under the new rules proposed by the Fed, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, large banks would have to hold nearly 5% less capital on average. The advocacy organization Better Markets noted that the proposals—combined with other deregulatory actions taken by the Trump administration and the Fed over the past year—would return Wall Street banks' capital requirements "to the irresponsibly low 2007 levels they had just before the 2008 crash."
“At a time of extreme and growing inequality, when tens of millions of Americans are struggling to pay their bills, today’s proposals will drain lending away from Main Street families’ needs and priorities and further enrich the already wealthy on Wall Street and the top 10% of Americans they focus on serving," Dennis Kelleher, the president of Better Markets, said in a statement. "The banking agencies’ proposals to loosen capital rules are a victory for Wall Street lobbying, and claims to the contrary are nothing more than an attempt to mislead the American people."
Fed Gov. Michael Barr, who was nominated by former President Joe Biden, was the central bank board's lone dissenting voice against the new rules, a product of years of aggressive Wall Street lobbying for less stringent regulations in the wake of the Great Recession.
"Today's proposals, if adopted, would harm the resilience of banks and the US financial system," Barr warned in a statement. "There are suggestions that liquidity requirements could also be reduced. Additionally, Federal Reserve supervisory staff have been cut by over 30%, and supervisory practices have been weakened. Banking is built on trust. I worry greatly that these actions are rapidly eroding that trust."
The new deregulatory package, which will be subject to a 90-day public comment period before it's finalized, comes as President Donald Trump is waging an expensive and deadly war on Iran with no end in sight and attacking social programs at home, from Medicaid to nutrition assistance.
“With private credit markets cratering, AI transforming the workforce, and Trump’s Iran war threatening the world economy, we need healthy, resilient, well-capitalized banks," said Bartlett Naylor, an economist for the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen. "Lessons learned after millions lost their jobs, homes, and savings following the 2008 megabank crash must not be ignored."
"Trump’s bank regulators propose to tear at the already tissue-thin layer of solvency levels at the nation’s banks," said Naylor. "Lowering solvency standards won’t generate more loans; it will only send banks closer to failure."
Matt Stoller, an anti-monopoly researcher and author of the BIG newsletter, wrote that the juxtaposition of a quagmire in Iran, Wall Street deregulation, and millions of Americans losing health insurance "tells the story" of the Trump administration.
Today's WSJ front page tells the story of the Trump admin.
#1: Hegseth Says ‘No Time Set’ on Ending Operations in Iran
#2: U.S. Regulators Propose More Lenient Capital Rules for Big Banks
#3: Millions of Americans Are Going Uninsured Following Expiration of ACA Subsidies pic.twitter.com/26jKsQuNc4
— Matt Stoller (@matthewstoller) March 19, 2026
The effort to curb banks' capital requirements was spearheaded by Fed Vice Chair for Supervision Michelle Bowman, a Trump appointee whose nomination last year was criticized by watchdogs as a "gift to the banking industry."
Kelleher of Better Markets said Thursday that "such counterproductive, shortsighted, and wrongheaded rulemaking isn’t a surprise given that the interests of Wall Street’s biggest banks are driving the priorities at the banking agencies, rather than facts, merit, and the public interest."
"The worst is at the Federal Reserve, where the senior regulatory staff comes from Wall Street’s top DC lobbyist (the Bank Policy Institute), Goldman Sachs, and one of Wall Street’s top law firms (a former partner is now the director responsible for supervising and regulating his recent Wall Street clients)," Kelleher observed. "That’s why mindless deregulation, especially for the biggest Wall Street banks, is at the top of the agenda, just as it was in the years before the 2008 crash."
Keep ReadingShow Less
‘Arsonist as Fire Chief’: Fed Appoints Wall Street Lobbyist to Key Bank Oversight Role
"There can be little doubt that having a Wall Street lawyer-lobbyist in charge of supervising and regulating his former Wall Street clients will likely result in a catastrophe for the American people."
Feb 25, 2026
The Federal Reserve board has quietly appointed a prominent Wall Street lawyer and lobbyist as the central bank's director of supervision and regulation, a move that one critic said was worse than "putting the fox in charge of the henhouse."
"This is like appointing a lifelong arsonist as a fire chief," Dennis Kelleher, president and CEO of Better Markets, said in response to the Fed's decision to put Randall Guynn in a position to regulate the industry he has long represented.
Politico reported Tuesday that "Guynn, a prominent Wall Street lawyer, will become the next director of supervision and regulation at the Federal Reserve, effective March 8."
Before joining Fed staff last year as an adviser to the central bank's vice chair for supervision, Guynn worked for close to four decades at the corporate law firm Davis Polk & Wardwell, where he recently chaired the company's Financial Institutions Group. According to Guynn's bio, he has "focused on advising banks of all sizes on their most critical financial regulatory issues and transactions."
Reuters, which first reported earlier this month that the Fed was expected to appoint Guynn to the bank policing role, noted that the decision "would mark a departure for the central bank, which since at least 1977 has filled the job with long-serving Fed career staff."
"The only reasonable expectation is that his leadership of Fed supervision and regulation will accelerate the Fed’s current push to implement policies that favor the biggest, most dangerous banks."
In a statement, Kelleher of Better Markets described Guynn as a "lawyer-lobbyist" who has "spent his entire professional life—almost 40 years—zealously and exclusively representing the interests of the financial industry, including the biggest financial firms on Wall Street."
A 2024 paper published in Cambridge University's Perspectives on Politics journal identified Guynn as part of a "vast subterranean world of regulatory influence-seeking" that has managed to escape the scrutiny of legislative lobbying.
"Reporting exceptions under the Lobbying Disclosure Act allow many of the most powerful advocates to characterize their activity as lawyering, not lobbying, and thereby fly under the radar," the paper notes.
Kelleher argued that, given Guynn's history, "the only reasonable expectation is that his leadership of Fed supervision and regulation will accelerate the Fed’s current push to implement policies that favor the biggest, most dangerous banks—his former clients just ten months ago and presumably his current circle of professional and personal friends."
"That will crush small banks, harm the Main Street economy, and make another financial crash inevitable. That’s what happened in the early 2000s when the Fed’s misguided belief that Wall Street could regulate itself directly led to the catastrophic 2008 crash," said Kelleher. "We don’t have to speculate. We can look at his attached record or read the remarkable story of how, as a lawyer-lobbyist prior to joining the Fed staff last year, he was instrumental in pushing through a back-door merger approval by the Fed."
"There can be little doubt that having a Wall Street lawyer-lobbyist in charge of supervising and regulating his former Wall Street clients will likely result in a catastrophe for the American people," he added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More Stories
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy