Connect with us

World

Can Donald Trump fire Jerome Powell, US Federal Reserve chair?

Published

on

Can Donald Trump fire Jerome Powell, US Federal Reserve chair?

President Donald Trump is sending mixed messages about whether he will fire Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell.

Trump said on July 16 he is “not planning on doing anything” when asked if he would fire Powell. However, he also said he doesn’t “rule out anything” and mentioned a renovation project with ballooning costs.

“I think it’s highly unlikely unless he has to leave for fraud,” Trump said. “And it’s possible there’s fraud involved with the $2.5, $2.7 billion renovation. This is a renovation, how do you spend $2.7 billion? And he didn’t have proper clearance.”

The Federal Reserve has been undergoing building renovations since 2021 on a project that the board that controls the Fed first approved in 2017. The project’s cost of $2.5bn is about $600m above the original budget, according to The Associated Press.

The cost has increased because of design changes, increasing labour and material costs and “unforeseen conditions”, such as “more asbestos than anticipated”, the Fed said in an FAQ.

Advertisement

But Trump’s administration seems to be using the renovation as a possible reason to oust Powell. Russ Vought, director of the Office of Management and Budget, sent Powell a July 10 letter saying the project is “out of compliance with the approved plan” and “in violation of” the National Capital Planning Act, which outlines how agencies can make changes to federal buildings.

Trump’s feud with Powell isn’t new. For months, the president has criticised Powell, whom he appointed to the role in 2017, for refusing to drop interest rates. The Fed raised interest rates in 2022 and 2023 during former President Joe Biden’s administration as a response to inflation.

Since Trump entered the White House in January, he has told Powell to resign and threatened to fire him.

“If I want him out, he’ll be out of there real fast, believe me,” Trump said in April. “I’m not happy with him.”

In November, after the 2024 election, reporters asked Powell if he would step down or whether he thought Trump had the authority to fire him.

Advertisement

“Not permitted under the law,” Powell said.

Trump spoke to a group of Republican lawmakers on July 15 about firing the chair, several news organisations reported. Trump showed lawmakers a draft letter firing Powell, The New York Times reported.

Trump denied having written a letter.

“No, I talked about the concept of firing him. I said, ‘What do you think?’ Almost every one of them said I should,” Trump said. “But I’m more conservative than they are.”

While Trump attributed his reticence to fire Powell to his “conservatism”, the bigger impediment is a question of legality. Here’s why.

Advertisement
The sculpture of an eagle looks out from behind protective construction wrapping on the facade as the Federal Reserve Board building undergoes both interior and exterior renovations, in Washington, on October 23, 2023 [J Scott Applewhite/AP]

What is the role of the Federal Reserve; who appoints its chair?

The Federal Reserve is the country’s central bank. Its responsibilities include setting interest rates and supervising and regulating banks. It was created in 1913 as part of the Federal Reserve Act and is run by an independent board of governors. The seven governors that make up the board are nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate. The president selects the chair and two vice chairs from among the seven, according to the Congressional Research Service.

While talking to reporters, Trump appeared to overlook that he was the person who nominated Powell to be the chair in 2017: “I’m surprised he was appointed,” Trump said. “I was surprised, frankly, that Biden put him in and extended him.”

In 2021, Biden nominated him for a second four-year term, which is set to end in May 2026. After that, Powell can remain on the board of governors until January 2028.

Can the president fire the Federal Reserve chair?

Unlike other government agencies, the Fed has a lot of independence from Congress and the White House, the Congressional Research Service said in a January report.

According to the report, economists have justified the independence, saying that decisions about monetary policy shouldn’t be influenced by political pressures. To ensure Fed accountability, the chair testifies before Congress, much like other government agencies.

Advertisement

The Fed chair can be removed “for cause by the President”, according to the law. This refers to “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office”, according to a Supreme Court decision about the Federal Trade Commission.

In May, the Supreme Court ruled on Trump’s authority to fire members of two different independent agencies. In its 6-3 ruling, the Court granted the Trump administration’s emergency request to fire the heads of the agencies while the case over the legality of firing them played out in the courts.

In its opinion, the Supreme Court addressed the Fed, saying its ruling didn’t affect the agency.

“The Federal Reserve is a uniquely structured, quasi-private entity that follows in the distinct historical tradition of the First and Second Banks of the United States,” the Supreme Court said.

Some legal experts question the legality of Trump firing Powell. Any move to oust him would likely end up in the courts.

Advertisement

Peter Conti-Brown, a professor of financial regulation at the University of Pennsylvania, said the Fed’s building renovation costs aren’t “cause” for Powell’s dismissal.

“There is no factual basis to support any conclusion that the cost overruns on the renovation project constitute anything like fraud or gross negligence,” Conti-Brown said. “Had Powell committed fraud, in this context or any other, there could well be a case for his removal.”

Conti-Brown said that Trump has long talked about wanting Powell’s removal. A court may consider Trump citing the renovation’s budget as “pretext” for his firing – a legal term used to describe a false reason an employer gives for firing an employee in order to cover the real reason, Conti-Brown said.

“Courts evaluating any attempted removal after the fact will assess both the animus and pretext very heavily against President Trump,” Conti-Brown said.

However, it is unclear how courts would react because “this is uncharted legal territory”, Jeremy Kress, a former Fed banking regulator who is a faculty director of the University of Michigan’s Center on Finance, Law and Policy, told The New York Times.

Advertisement

Lev Menand, a legal scholar at Columbia University, agreed with Kress.

“In normal times, I would say Powell wins 10 times out of 10,” Menand told The New York Times. “But these aren’t normal times, because this court has shown that it is willing to look the other way when the president engages in illegal conduct and it is willing to construe the president’s power under the Constitution as so broad as to allow the president to flout laws.”

World

Analysis: Trump’s policies set to widen EU-US innovation gap

Published

on

Analysis: Trump’s policies set to widen EU-US innovation gap

As the curtain falls on 2025, policymakers in Brussels have yet to decisively counter the negative economic impacts of two major developments: the trade deal struck between the European Union and the United States this summer, and President Trump’s so-called “Big Beautiful Bill”, a mammoth piece of domestic legislation with global economic implications.

The EU’s slow progress toward improving relative business conditions at such a volatile moment has left investors frustrated and looking elsewhere.

According to a report published this week by the European Round Table for Industry, the leaders of the bloc’s industrial giants are “alarmed at the lack of urgency in delivering on Draghi and Letta’s bold reforms to restore the business case for investing in Europe.”

The report also points to a survey of CEOs conducted in October, which shows that only 55% expect to stick to their investment plans. Even worse, a mere 8% intend to invest more in Europe than they planned to six months prior, in contrast with the 38% who will either invest less than previously intended or have put decisions on hold.

And most tellingly, the US now attracts more investment than originally planned by 45% of respondents.

Advertisement

The ‘carrot-and-stick’ approach

The Trump administration’s combination of supply-side economics and protectionism has converted the necessity of avoiding US tariffs into a massive financial incentive for foreign companies and multinationals to invest in the United States directly.

The Big Beautiful Bill, which Trump signed into law in July, formalised huge tax breaks and effectively guaranteed incentives to shift investments across the Atlantic. Namely, the 100% bonus depreciation for new machinery and factories, as well as the 100% immediate expensing of domestic research and development (R&D) costs, mitigating the expenses of moving production and innovation to the US.

Companies have until 1 January 2026 to finalize their decisions and collect retroactive benefits for capital deployed in 2025, but the conditions will remain the same next year.

To compound the EU’s growing inability to compete, the heavily criticised EU-US trade deal was agreed in the same month. The agreement de-escalated the transatlantic trade war of 2025 but it levied a 15% tariff on the vast majority of the EU’s industrial exports to the US, with an exemption from duties for most US-made goods bound for the EU market.

In addition, the EU committed to spending over €640 billion in US energy, investing more than €500 billion in the US economy and buying around €35 billion worth of US-made AI chips, until the end of President Trump’s mandate. Meanwhile, the United States made no similar pledges.

Advertisement

As for corporations, the choice became simple: relocate investment to the US, avoid the tariff and claim massive tax deductions.

The innovation gap in numbers

The R&D siphon is the most critical threat to Europe’s future competitiveness, as the Trump administration’s new incentives pull core innovation to the US.

In the most innovative industries, such as the AI and healthcare sectors, the numbers for 2025 already demonstrate the chasm between the EU and the US.

In the first three quarters of this year, private investment flowing into US AI companies exceeded €100 billion, with the US capturing over 80% of global AI funding. In contrast, the entire EU attracted just shy of €7 billion, according to the widely read State of AI Report 2025.

This severe 15-to-1 funding deficit means the technological future is being built and scaled primarily outside the EU, something that has been recognised by the European Parliament.

Advertisement

Likewise, the EU is aiming to achieve 20% market share in semiconductor manufacturing by 2030, as outlined in the Chips Act, but experts say such a goal is unlikely given that Europe is among the slowest growers in the sector year-on-year.

Furthermore, the EU is even falling behind on AI adoption among young users, according to a new survey by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development.

As for the pharmaceutical industry, CEOs sent a stark warning to President von der Leyen back in April that “unless Europe delivers rapid, radical policy change then pharmaceutical research, development and manufacturing is increasingly likely to be directed towards the US.”

In the following weeks, fuelled by the fear of the ongoing transatlantic trade war at the time and frustration with the European regulatory scene, the third largest company in Europe by market capitalization, the Swiss-based Roche, committed over €40 billion in US investment over the next five years. Likewise, the French multinational Sanofi announced an investment of €17 billion to expand manufacturing in the US through 2030.

In July, as the Big Beautiful Bill and the EU-US trade deal were being agreed, the British-Swedish company AstraZeneca also declared investing over €40 billion in the US over the next five years, including the construction of a chronic disease research centre in the state of Virginia, the company’s largest single investment in a facility to date.

Advertisement

In November, the White House announced a large-scale agreement between two pharmaceutical rivals, the American manufacturer Eli Lilly, and the Danish corporation Novo Nordisk, known for pioneering the prescription drug for type 2 diabetes, Ozempic, which has also been widely used off-label for weight loss.

The two companies agreed a strategy to reduce the prices of several medications for Americans and announced new investments in the US, with Novo Nordisk committing roughly €8.5 billion to expand US manufacturing capacity. In exchange, the Danish company is expected to receive a three-year exemption from US tariffs, among other benefits.

In total, the European pharmaceutical industry has pledged more than €100 billion for US expansion in 2025 alone with multi-year commitments.

The scramble to deregulate

The pressure applied by the US is evident as this year has seen the European Commission pivot to an aggressive deregulation agenda.

In response to a request from the European Council, six simplification proposals, referred to as “omnibuses”, have been presented since February covering energy, finance, agriculture, technology, defence and chemicals.

Advertisement

Notably, the so-called Digital Omnibus was introduced in November, and it includes delays to provisions of the AI Act and modifications to the GDPR.

These initiatives aim to rapidly cut red tape and reduce bureaucratic costs for European businesses in an attempt to stem the outflow of talent and capital. However, the proposed measures are still facing legislative scrutiny, as well as administrative oversight and political backlash from privacy and climate advocates, among others.

It was only this week that an agreement was finally reached on the first omnibus, another sign that the EU is still far from offering the immediate financial certainty of minimising or avoiding US tariffs while benefiting from President Trump’s policies where possible.

The numbers reveal the plain economic truth: while the EU debates the fine print of deregulation, the investment in innovation is already being decisively relocated.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

World

Dakota Johnson Joins Lily Allen to Play ‘Madeline’ on ‘SNL’

Published

on

Dakota Johnson Joins Lily Allen to Play ‘Madeline’ on ‘SNL’

Star Dakota Johnson made a surprise appearance on “Saturday Night Live” this week, playing the mysterious “Madeline” during Lily Allen‘s performance of that track. The song was Allen’s second of the night.

During the performance, Johnson was mostly hidden behind a screen through the song, as Allen sang about the mistress. But Johnson performed the spoken word portion of the song, which appears on Allen’s album “West End Girl.” In the track, Allen notes that she and her signficant other “had an arrangement: Be discreet and don’t be blatant. And there had to be payment. It had to be with strangers. But you’re not a stranger, Madeline.”

Later in the song, “Madeline” explains her side of the story via texts to Allen: “I hate that you’re in so much pain right now. I really don’t wanna be the cause of any upset. He told me that you were aware this was going on and that he had your full consent. If he’s lying about that, then please let me know. Because I have my own feelings about dishonesty. Lies are not something that I wanna get caught up in. You can reach out to me any time, by the way. If you need any more details or you just need to vent or anything. Love and light, Madeline.”

After reading those lines, Johnson came out from behind the curtain and walked up to Allen — and gave her a quick kiss.

“Madeline” is one of the standout tracks from Allen’s new album “West End Girl,” and has led to much speculation over who the mysterious pseudonym is (or might be a composite of). At least one person has told the press that she is “Madeline,” although Allen has said that it’s actually a composite of several women.

Advertisement

For her first “SNL” number, Allen performed “Sleepwalking” from “West End Girl,” in a bedroom set under a neon sign. Given the saucy lyrics, Allen did have to censor herself, omitting the lyric, “Why aren’t we fucking, baby?” (She did the same thing with “Madeline,” avoiding part of the line “I’m not convinced that he didn’t fuck you in our house.”)

Allen appeared on “Saturday Night Live” to promote “West End Girl,” which has been met with wide acclaim for its brutal honesty and craftsmanship. The album addresses her split from “Stranger Things” star David Harbour, without ever mentioning him by name. (As characterized through scathing lyrics on songs such as “Pussy Palace,” “Sleepwalking” and “Madeline.”)

In his Variety review, Chris Willman called “West End Girl” a contender for album of the year. He wrote of “savoring every confessional line and wondering what the hell she was going to tell us in the next one to top it. It’s the pleasure of listening to a master storyteller who makes your jaw drop by seeming to have spilled all the tea almost at the outset, and then the tea just keeps on coming. Not since Boston in 1773, maybe, has anyone dumped it this massively, or this fulfillingly.”

“West End Girl” repped Allen’s first album release since 2018. Allen has announced a tour next March to support the album, which marks Allen’s first time touring since 2019.

This is Allen’s second time on “Saturday Night Live,” following an appearance on the Feb. 3, 2007 episode hosted by Drew Barrymore. During that episode, Allen performed the tracks “Smile” and “LDN” from her debut album “Alright, Still.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading

World

Australian authorities: Bondi Beach shooting was ‘terrorism … designed to target Sydney’s Jewish community’

Published

on

Australian authorities: Bondi Beach shooting was ‘terrorism … designed to target Sydney’s Jewish community’

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

A mass shooting during a Hanukkah celebration at Bondi Beach in Sydney, Australia, on Sunday evening left at least 12 people dead and 29 people hospitalized, authorities say.

The annual celebration, known as “Chanukah By The Sea,” was scheduled to kick off at 5 p.m. to celebrate the first day of the Jewish holiday by lighting the first candle on the Menorah. Police say the attack “targeted” the Jewish community and is being investigated as an act of terrorism.

The New South Wales Police Force (NSWPF) said officers responded to reports of shots fired at about 6:45 p.m. on Sunday. Police say there were at least two gunmen involved in the attack, and they are investigating the possibility of a third. Twelve people were killed in the shooting, including one of the two suspected gunmen, police said. The second alleged shooter is in critical condition.

At least 29 others were hospitalized after the shooting, including two police officers, the agency confirmed. The shooting is the worst attack against Jews since the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas terror attacks.

Advertisement

ANTISEMITIC ATTACKERS VIOLENTLY TARGET SYNAGOGUE, ISRAELI RESTAURANT IN AUSTRALIA

An investigation is underway after a deadly attack on a Hanukkah event at Bondi Beach in Sydney, Australia, on Sunday.  (David Gray/AFP via Getty Images)

Police added that they found evidence of multiple improvised explosive devices in a vehicle near the scene of the attack.

“We have our rescue bomb disposal unit there at the moment working on that,” he said. 

Israeli President Isaac Herzog acknowledged the attack while speaking at an event in Jerusalem recognizing immigrants’ extraordinary achievements on Sunday.

Advertisement

“At these very moments, our sisters and brothers in Sydney, Australia, have been attacked by vile terrorists in a very cruel attack on Jews who went to light the first candle of Chanukah on Bondi Beach,” Herzog said. “Our hearts go out to them. The heart of the entire nation of Israel misses a beat at this very moment, as we pray for the recovery of the wounded, we pray for them and we pray for those who lost their lives.”

AUSTRALIA’S JEWISH COMMUNITY ALARMED BY RISING ANTISEMITISM: ‘FEAR AND ANXIETY’

A health worker moves a stretcher after a shooting incident at Bondi Beach in Sydney, Australia, on Dec. 14, 2025. (Saeed Khan/AFP via Getty Images)

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Herzog also called on the Australian government to “seek action and fight against the enormous wave of antisemitism which is plaguing Australian society.”

Advertisement

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending