Last Friday, the White House dispatched a letter to Federal Reserve Board member Lisa Cook, asserting it was "considering" her dismissal based on unsubstantiated mortgage fraud allegations. Cook's legal team has previously stated these accusations are "baseless." The letter demands a response from Cook within three weeks. This action presents an unprecedented and severe challenge to Federal Reserve Chairman Kevin Warsh's efforts to insulate the institution from political interference.
As the U.S. central bank, the Federal Reserve's independence is designed to prevent short-term executive influence over monetary policy. The U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling in June confirming the special statutory protections enjoyed by the Fed. However, the ruling did not specifically address whether the allegations against Cook constitute a valid basis for removal. The deadline set by President Trump for Cook to clear her name falls roughly three weeks before the critical monetary policy meeting on September 15-16. According to reports, Trump has repeatedly called Chairman Warsh since he took office in May, persistently applying policy pressure. In late July, Trump publicly praised Warsh as "brilliant" but simultaneously placed the blame for failing to cut interest rates immediately on the Fed's board. Trump emphasized at the time, "I know he wants to see rates lower, but he's facing a politicized board that wants to keep them high."
Internal divisions within the Fed are intensifying, and the probability of a rate hike before the November midterm elections is rising
At the upcoming monetary policy meeting, diverging positions within the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) are becoming more pronounced, with each vote carrying significant weight. At last month's meeting, the committee voted 9-3 to hold rates steady, with three members explicitly supporting a rate increase. Board members Christopher Waller and Lisa Cook both voted to maintain the status quo at that time. However, both Waller and Cook have since indicated that the Fed may ultimately need to tighten policy to bring persistently above-target inflation back to its 2% long-term goal. If these two shift their positions and vote for a rate hike at the next meeting, the original 9-3 camp favoring inaction would shrink to 7-5. Former Fed Chair Jerome Powell remains on the board, with his term extending into early 2028. If Powell also changes his stance to support a rate hike, the FOMC would face a 6-6 deadlock. There is intense focus on whether Chairman Warsh will take action. Whether he will publicly defend Cook, as Powell did in the past, before the charges are proven remains a major question. Such a show of support seems unlikely, given market skepticism about Warsh's vague inflation target and his preference for reduced public communication. If Cook is not successfully removed, the current public pressure could backfire, pushing her to firmly align with the hawkish camp in future votes. Trump's revival of this issue may also be a political defense strategy ahead of the two policy meetings before the November midterm elections. If the Fed tightens policy at these meetings, the White House could frame the rate hike as a blatant act of political defiance, using it as a scapegoat for economic pressures.
Policy credibility is under scrutiny, and long-term inflation risk premiums may be undervalued
Despite weak July employment data, futures markets currently price in roughly a 75% probability of a 25-basis-point rate hike by the Fed before the November midterm elections. The core drivers supporting a rate increase remain strong. Over the past six years, U.S. inflation has consistently exceeded its target, with core price increases remaining elevated. Concurrently, energy shocks related to Iran over the past six months have further intensified price pressures. Consumer and producer price inflation reports due this week will be decisive for the Fed's policy path. Market consensus suggests the outcome of the September meeting is as uncertain as a coin toss. Tim Duy, Chief U.S. Economist at SGH Macro Advisors, argues that the issue of Fed independence is far from resolved. He suggests that the current situation indicates Warsh is either unwilling or unable to align with Trump's long-standing demand for significant rate cuts amid high inflation. Duy warns that if Trump can replace a Fed board member based on dubious allegations, markets will expect the appointment of more individuals inclined towards aggressive rate cuts, similar to former board member Stephen Miran. Over the past 18 months of independence-related turmoil, a pattern of rising long-term U.S. Treasury yields and a weakening U.S. dollar index has frequently emerged. It remains unclear whether investors view this political pressure as a deep-seated erosion or a transient episode. Strategists at Barclays have issued a report warning that the long end of the bond market is significantly underestimating current systemic risks. The combination of Warsh's ambiguous inflation target and political pressure from the White House to install rate-cut advocates could substantially increase long-term inflation risk premiums in the bond market. Barclays emphasizes that if July marks the beginning of deteriorating market confidence in the Fed's commitment to its inflation target, the policy dynamics of the coming weeks will be exceptionally critical. The firm advises investors to closely monitor medium-to-long-term inflation compensation indicators, such as the five-year, five-year forward inflation swap rate, to assess the damage to the Fed's market credibility from the past week's events. Unless Warsh unexpectedly votes with the hawks at the next meeting to demonstrate his independence, doubts about his resolve to defend price stability and his ability to resist White House pressure will continue to permeate markets, particularly in the highly sensitive bond market.
Comments