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.

“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.”

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.

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.

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.”

Hollywood hoisted a white flag in the culture war on Sunday.

That summation of the 82nd Golden Globe Awards will undoubtedly aggravate some people in the movie capital. Us? Conceding the moral high ground to President-elect Donald J. Trump and his supporters? Never.

They could point — fairly — to the movies that won prizes on Sunday. “Emilia Perez,” honored with four Globes, is a Spanish-language musical about trans identity. “The Brutalist,” which received three, is an epic about immigrant struggles. “Conclave,” the winner of best screenplay, is about the selection of a Mexican, intersex pope. “Wicked,” which was given a newish award for best blockbuster, is about prejudices and the corruption of power.

But the Globes have never been about subtlety. The Globes are where stars supposedly let it rip, where they proselytize for progressive causes and concerns. Sunday’s show was Hollywood’s first megaphone since Mr. Trump was comfortably elected to a second term. And this time, there was barely a peep about it.

In 2017, Meryl Streep tore into Mr. Trump from the Globes stage, firmly throwing down the gauntlet for a new kind of culture war. The next year, the Globes became a de facto rally for the Time’s Up movement, with dozens of actresses wearing black to protest sexual harassment and Oprah Winfrey delivering a barnburner of a speech. In 2020, Michelle Williams gave an impassioned plea for abortion rights, while Russell Crowe called attention to climate change and a bush fire crisis in Australia.

Black Lives Matter, the global refugee crisis and veganism have all been touted from the Globes stage. In 2023, the Globes gave airtime to the Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelensky, who gave a speech condemning Russia.

During the official red carpet preshow, hosts kept the conversation bordering on cotton candy: you’re beautiful, I’m beautiful, the weather is beautiful, everything is beautiful. “It’s Sunday afternoon, and the sun is out,” Felicity Jones told an interviewer. “There’s not a lot to complain about.”

During her monologue that opened the show, the comedian Nikki Glaser gently teased the assembled celebrities for not being able to stop Mr. Trump from returning to office. “It’s OK,” she said. “You’ll get ’em next time — if there is one.” She smiled and added, “I’m scared,” before changing the subject to Ben Affleck’s sex life.

The only other political commentary of note came three hours later, when “Emilia Pérez” won the Globe for best musical or comedy. The film’s star, Karla Sofía Gascón, used the moment to speak for trans rights. “You can beat us up,” she said. “But you never can take away our soul.”

“Raise your voice,” she added.

Maybe the lack of politics in Sunday’s show shouldn’t come as much of a surprise. Many of those who oppose Mr. Trump still seem to be sorting out how to push back against him and his administration. And there has even been a gentle drift to the right by Hollywood, to scrub some of the most progressive edges off some shows and select more movies that speak to Mr. Trump’s base.

Ahead of the Globes, some publicists and agents advised clients to keep quiet about Mr. Trump and pointed to Rachel Zegler as a cautionary example. After the election in November, Ms. Zegler, the young star of Disney’s coming live-action “Snow White,” harshly decried Mr. Trump and his supporters in a social media post. The MAGA blowback was severe, and Ms. Zegler was forced to apologize.

And for the people behind the Globes, the silence was probably welcome. Producers who specialize in awards telecasts say research, compiled mainly from Nielsen, indicates that viewers dislike it when celebrities turn a trip to the stage into a political bully pulpit. Minute-by-minute viewership analysis indicates that “vast swaths” of people turn off televisions when celebrities started to opine on politics.

It recalled a time, decades ago, when stars worked at being stars, turning on the charm and saying nothing that might alienate a single ticket buyer. The message came through loud and clear.