Connect with us

Business

Michael Barr to Leave His Role as Fed Vice Chair for Supervision

Published

on

Michael Barr to Leave His Role as Fed Vice Chair for Supervision

Michael Barr will step down from his role as the Federal Reserve’s vice chair for supervision by Feb. 28, or sooner if President-elect Donald J. Trump appoints a successor, the Fed said on Monday.

Mr. Barr will continue to serve on the central bank’s Board of Governors. But in an interview, Mr. Barr said the decision to leave his role as vice chair of supervision was intended to sidestep a protracted legal battle with Mr. Trump that he believed could damage the central bank.

Some individuals attached to the Trump administration wanted to fire Mr. Barr before his term as vice chair expired, according to people familiar with the matter who spoke on background because of the sensitivity of the issue.

That could have resulted in a lengthy — and costly — legal fight over whether an incoming president has the authority to remove someone from a Senate-confirmed position at an independent agency.

Some financial regulatory experts questioned why Mr. Barr — and the Fed itself — would allow a political change to influence who served in a powerful role. Jerome H. Powell, the Fed’s chair, has made a point of saying that the Fed is independent of the White House and that its decisions are not influenced by politics. Mr. Powell has also insisted that Mr. Trump lacks the legal authority to fire him from his role as Fed chair, which is also confirmed by the Senate.

Advertisement

“I’m surprised by Barr’s announcement, because I expected him to resist Republican calls for his ouster and make a point of defending the Fed’s independence,” Ian Katz, managing director at Capital Alpha, said in an email.

Mr. Barr said he and his lawyers believed that he would prevail in court if Mr. Trump were to try and remove him. But he concluded that the fight wasn’t worth waging because of the harm it could inflict on the Fed.

“If it came to litigation on the merits, I would win,” Mr. Barr said. The bigger question, he said, was, “Do I want to spend the next couple of years fighting about that and is that good for the Fed? And what I decided was that no, it’s not good for the Fed, it would be a serious distraction from our ability to serve our mission.”

Mr. Barr said the decision was not easy. “The question I wrestled with is a tough question, and in many ways it was a painful decision.”

His departure will effectively freeze any bank regulatory actions until Mr. Trump names someone to the vice chairman role. In announcing his move, the central bank said: “The Board does not intend to take up any major rulemakings until a vice chair for supervision successor is confirmed.”

Advertisement

The combination of Mr. Barr’s decision to step down, combined with the moratorium, struck some financial regulatory experts as especially problematic.

“The Fed historically, zealously guards its independence,” Aaron Klein, the Miriam K. Carliner chair and senior fellow in economic studies at the Brookings Institution. “I find it strange that the Fed would not only tacitly seem to support this decision by Barr, but go further and announce a moratorium on rule making.”

Mr. Klein noted that if Mr. Trump opted not to pick anyone for a year or more, it could effectively chill bank rule making indefinitely.

Dennis Kelleher, the president, chief executive and co-founder of Better Markets, a nonprofit that pushes for tougher financial regulation, called Mr. Barr’s decision “shocking” and said it would hinder the Fed’s role in overseeing the safety and soundness of the financial system.

“His baseless capitulation to deregulation zealots will, in fact, destroy that mission quicker and more thoroughly than any dispute over the position,” he said.

Advertisement

Mr. Barr’s move comes after a tumultuous tenure overseeing regulation and supervision of the nation’s largest banks. Mr. Barr oversaw an attempt to rewrite financial rules that would have increased the amount of money that banks must have at the ready.

The overhaul would have required the largest banks to increase their cushion of capital — cash and other easily accessible assets that could be used to absorb losses — which Mr. Barr said would ensure banks could withstand periods of severe turmoil.

The proposal — and Mr. Barr — immediately came under attack from a wide variety of groups, including the banking industry, lawmakers and even some of his colleagues at the Fed. Two of the Fed’s seven governors, both Trump appointees, voted against the rules.

Mr. Barr ultimately watered down the proposal in September after acknowledging the blowback.

“Life gives you ample opportunity to learn and relearn the lesson of humility,” Mr. Barr said at an event that month.

Advertisement

While Mr. Trump has not announced any plans to try to replace Mr. Barr, the president-elect has made clear he plans to take an industry-friendly stance toward banks, echoing his administration’s approach during his first term. Mr. Trump’s vice chair of supervision, Randal K. Quarles, worked to loosen bank supervision during his tenure.

Even before Mr. Barr announced his decision to leave, there was widespread speculation that the bank proposal, known as Basel III endgame, would not gain final approval in a Trump administration.

The changes must be jointly agreed upon by the Fed, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. Mr. Trump has the opportunity to nominate the directors of the F.D.I.C. and O.C.C., though he has not yet said whom he plans to name.

Senator Tim Scott, the South Carolina Republican who will head the powerful Senate Banking Committee, welcomed Mr. Barr’s decision to step down, citing the blowup of Silicon Valley Bank and other regional firms in the spring of 2023 as well as the Basel III rules.

“From his supervisory failures during the spring 2023 bank failures to the disastrous Basel III endgame proposal — Michael Barr has failed to meet the responsibilities of his position,” Mr. Scott said in a statement. “I stand ready to work with President Trump to ensure we have responsible financial regulators at the helm.”

Advertisement

Business

Trump orders federal agencies to stop using Anthropic’s AI after clash with Pentagon

Published

on

Trump orders federal agencies to stop using Anthropic’s AI after clash with Pentagon

President Trump on Friday directed federal agencies to stop using technology from San Francisco artificial intelligence company Anthropic, escalating a high-profile clash between the AI startup and the Pentagon over safety.

In a Friday post on the social media site Truth Social, Trump described the company as “radical left” and “woke.”

“We don’t need it, we don’t want it, and will not do business with them again!” Trump said.

The president’s harsh words mark a major escalation in the ongoing battle between some in the Trump administration and several technology companies over the use of artificial intelligence in defense tech.

Anthropic has been sparring with the Pentagon, which had threatened to end its $200-million contract with the company on Friday if it didn’t loosen restrictions on its AI model so it could be used for more military purposes. Anthropic had been asking for more guarantees that its tech wouldn’t be used for surveillance of Americans or autonomous weapons.

Advertisement

The tussle could hobble Anthropic’s business with the government. The Trump administration said the company was added to a sweeping national security blacklist, ordering federal agencies to immediately discontinue use of its products and barring any government contractors from maintaining ties with it.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who met with Anthropic’s Chief Executive Dario Amodei this week, criticized the tech company after Trump’s Truth Social post.

“Anthropic delivered a master class in arrogance and betrayal as well as a textbook case of how not to do business with the United States Government or the Pentagon,” he wrote Friday on social media site X.

Anthropic didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

Anthropic announced a two-year agreement with the Department of Defense in July to “prototype frontier AI capabilities that advance U.S. national security.”

Advertisement

The company has an AI chatbot called Claude, but it also built a custom AI system for U.S. national security customers.

On Thursday, Amodei signaled the company wouldn’t cave to the Department of Defense’s demands to loosen safety restrictions on its AI models.

The government has emphasized in negotiations that it wants to use Anthropic’s technology only for legal purposes, and the safeguards Anthropic wants are already covered by the law.

Still, Amodei was worried about Washington’s commitment.

“We have never raised objections to particular military operations nor attempted to limit use of our technology in an ad hoc manner,” he said in a blog post. “However, in a narrow set of cases, we believe AI can undermine, rather than defend, democratic values.”

Advertisement

Tech workers have backed Anthropic’s stance.

Unions and worker groups representing 700,000 employees at Amazon, Google and Microsoft said this week in a joint statement that they’re urging their employers to reject these demands as well if they have additional contracts with the Pentagon.

“Our employers are already complicit in providing their technologies to power mass atrocities and war crimes; capitulating to the Pentagon’s intimidation will only further implicate our labor in violence and repression,” the statement said.

Anthropic’s standoff with the U.S. government could benefit its competitors, such as Elon Musk’s xAI or OpenAI.

Sam Altman, chief executive of OpenAI, the company behind ChatGPT and one of Anthropic’s biggest competitors, told CNBC in an interview that he trusts Anthropic.

Advertisement

“I think they really do care about safety, and I’ve been happy that they’ve been supporting our war fighters,” he said. “I’m not sure where this is going to go.”

Anthropic has distinguished itself from its rivals by touting its concern about AI safety.

The company, valued at roughly $380 billion, is legally required to balance making money with advancing the company’s public benefit of “responsible development and maintenance of advanced AI for the long-term benefit of humanity.”

Developers, businesses, government agencies and other organizations use Anthropic’s tools. Its chatbot can generate code, write text and perform other tasks. Anthropic also offers an AI assistant for consumers and makes money from paid subscriptions as well as contracts. Unlike OpenAI, which is testing ads in ChatGPT, Anthropic has pledged not to show ads in its chatbot Claude.

The company has roughly 2,000 employees and has revenue equivalent to about $14 billion a year.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Business

Video: The Web of Companies Owned by Elon Musk

Published

on

Video: The Web of Companies Owned by Elon Musk

new video loaded: The Web of Companies Owned by Elon Musk

In mapping out Elon Musk’s wealth, our investigation found that Mr. Musk is behind more than 90 companies in Texas. Kirsten Grind, a New York Times Investigations reporter, explains what her team found.

By Kirsten Grind, Melanie Bencosme, James Surdam and Sean Havey

February 27, 2026

Continue Reading

Business

Commentary: How Trump helped foreign markets outperform U.S. stocks during his first year in office

Published

on

Commentary: How Trump helped foreign markets outperform U.S. stocks during his first year in office

Trump has crowed about the gains in the U.S. stock market during his term, but in 2025 investors saw more opportunity in the rest of the world.

If you’re a stock market investor you might be feeling pretty good about how your portfolio of U.S. equities fared in the first year of President Trump’s term.

All the major market indices seemed to be firing on all cylinders, with the Standard & Poor’s 500 index gaining 17.9% through the full year.

But if you’re the type of investor who looks for things to regret, pay no attention to the rest of the world’s stock markets. That’s because overseas markets did better than the U.S. market in 2025 — a lot better. The MSCI World ex-USA index — that is, all the stock markets except the U.S. — gained more than 32% last year, nearly double the percentage gains of U.S. markets.

That’s a major departure from recent trends. Since 2013, the MSCI US index had bested the non-U.S. index every year except 2017 and 2022, sometimes by a wide margin — in 2024, for instance, the U.S. index gained 24.6%, while non-U.S. markets gained only 4.7%.

Advertisement

The Trump trade is dead. Long live the anti-Trump trade.

— Katie Martin, Financial Times

Broken down into individual country markets (also by MSCI indices), in 2025 the U.S. ranked 21st out of 23 developed markets, with only New Zealand and Denmark doing worse. Leading the pack were Austria and Spain, with 86% gains, but superior records were turned in by Finland, Ireland and Hong Kong, with gains of 50% or more; and the Netherlands, Norway, Britain and Japan, with gains of 40% or more.

Investment analysts cite several factors to explain this trend. Judging by traditional metrics such as price/earnings multiples, the U.S. markets have been much more expensive than those in the rest of the world. Indeed, they’re historically expensive. The Standard & Poor’s 500 index traded in 2025 at about 23 times expected corporate earnings; the historical average is 18 times earnings.

Advertisement

Investment managers also have become nervous about the concentration of market gains within the U.S. technology sector, especially in companies associated with artificial intelligence R&D. Fears that AI is an investment bubble that could take down the S&P’s highest fliers have investors looking elsewhere for returns.

But one factor recurs in almost all the market analyses tracking relative performance by U.S. and non-U.S. markets: Donald Trump.

Investors started 2025 with optimism about Trump’s influence on trading opportunities, given his apparent commitment to deregulation and his braggadocio about America’s dominant position in the world and his determination to preserve, even increase it.

That hasn’t been the case for months.

”The Trump trade is dead. Long live the anti-Trump trade,” Katie Martin of the Financial Times wrote this week. “Wherever you look in financial markets, you see signs that global investors are going out of their way to avoid Donald Trump’s America.”

Advertisement

Two Trump policy initiatives are commonly cited by wary investment experts. One, of course, is Trump’s on-and-off tariffs, which have left investors with little ability to assess international trade flows. The Supreme Court’s invalidation of most Trump tariffs and the bellicosity of his response, which included the immediate imposition of new 10% tariffs across the board and the threat to increase them to 15%, have done nothing to settle investors’ nerves.

Then there’s Trump’s driving down the value of the dollar through his agitation for lower interest rates, among other policies. For overseas investors, a weaker dollar makes U.S. assets more expensive relative to the outside world.

It would be one thing if trade flows and the dollar’s value reflected economic conditions that investors could themselves parse in creating a picture of investment opportunities. That’s not the case just now. “The current uncertainty is entirely man-made (largely by one orange-hued man in particular) but could well continue at least until the US mid-term elections in November,” Sam Burns of Mill Street Research wrote on Dec. 29.

Trump hasn’t been shy about trumpeting U.S. stock market gains as emblems of his policy wisdom. “The stock market has set 53 all-time record highs since the election,” he said in his State of the Union address Tuesday. “Think of that, one year, boosting pensions, 401(k)s and retirement accounts for the millions and the millions of Americans.”

Trump asserted: “Since I took office, the typical 401(k) balance is up by at least $30,000. That’s a lot of money. … Because the stock market has done so well, setting all those records, your 401(k)s are way up.”

Advertisement

Trump’s figure doesn’t conform to findings by retirement professionals such as the 401(k) overseers at Bank of America. They reported that the average account balance grew by only about $13,000 in 2025. I asked the White House for the source of Trump’s claim, but haven’t heard back.

Interpreting stock market returns as snapshots of the economy is a mug’s game. Despite that, at her recent appearance before a House committee, Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi tried to deflect questions about her handling of the Jeffrey Epstein records by crowing about it.

“The Dow is over 50,000 right now, she declared. “Americans’ 401(k)s and retirement savings are booming. That’s what we should be talking about.”

I predicted that the administration would use the Dow industrial average’s break above 50,000 to assert that “the overall economy is firing on all cylinders, thanks to his policies.” The Dow reached that mark on Feb. 6. But Feb. 11, the day of Bondi’s testimony, was the last day the index closed above 50,000. On Thursday, it closed at 49,499.50, or about 1.4% below its Feb. 10 peak close of 50,188.14.

To use a metric suggested by economist Justin Wolfers of the University of Michigan, if you invested $48,488 in the Dow on the day Trump took office last year, when the Dow closed at 48,448 points, you would have had $50,000 on Feb. 6. That’s a gain of about 3.2%. But if you had invested the same amount in the global stock market not including the U.S. (based on the MSCI World ex-USA index), on that same day you would have had nearly $60,000. That’s a gain of nearly 24%.

Advertisement

Broader market indices tell essentially the same story. From Jan. 17, 2025, the last day before Trump’s inauguration, through Thursday’s close, the MSCI US stock index gained a cumulative 16.3%. But the world index minus the U.S. gained nearly 42%.

The gulf between U.S. and non-U.S. performance has continued into the current year. The S&P 500 has gained about 0.74% this year through Wednesday, while the MSCI World ex-USA index has gained about 8.9%. That’s “the best start for a calendar year for global stocks relative to the S&P 500 going back to at least 1996,” Morningstar reports.

It wouldn’t be unusual for the discrepancy between the U.S. and global markets to shrink or even reverse itself over the course of this year.

That’s what happened in 2017, when overseas markets as tracked by MSCI beat the U.S. by more than three percentage points, and 2022, when global markets lost money but U.S. markets underperformed the rest of the world by more than five percentage points.

Economic conditions change, and often the stock markets march to their own drummers. The one thing less likely to change is that Trump is set to remain president until Jan. 20, 2029. Make your investment bets accordingly.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending