Business

Fed Chair Jerome Powell Shows Little Urgency to Lower Rates

Published

1 year ago

February 11, 2025

Fed Chair Jerome Powell Shows Little Urgency to Lower Rates

Jerome H. Powell, chair of the Federal Reserve, signaled little urgency to lower interest rates with the economy sturdy and inflation still too high in a hearing with lawmakers on Tuesday.

Mr. Powell, who testified before the Senate Banking Committee, confronts an economic and political landscape that is far different from what it was when he last appeared before Congress in July. The Fed has paused its rate-cutting plans with inflation still above its target, and questions are swirling about how it will navigate the economic and institutional ramifications of tariffs and other policies that President Trump has put at the center of his presidency.

“We do not need to be in a hurry to adjust our policy stance,” Mr. Powell told lawmakers.

The semiannual hearings, which will continue on Wednesday before the House Financial Services Committee, follow the Fed’s move into a new phase in its yearslong effort to tame price pressures. After lowering rates by a full percentage point last year, the Fed is in a holding pattern as it assesses how quickly to release its grip on the economy and ease borrowing costs.

Mr. Powell emphasized that conditions across the labor market “remain solid and appear to have stabilized.” That has given the central bank latitude to be patient about its next steps, especially since progress toward its 2 percent inflation goal has recently been bumpy.

“If the economy remains strong, and inflation does not continue to move sustainably toward 2 percent, we can maintain policy restraint for longer,” Mr. Powell said. “If the labor market were to weaken unexpectedly or inflation were to fall more quickly than anticipated, we can ease policy accordingly.”

The incoming inflation data has been slightly more reassuring, with price gains finally moderating in key sectors like housing. But sweeping proposals put forward by Mr. Trump that would affect immigration, tariffs and taxes have made the Fed’s job much more difficult.

The Fed, during Mr. Trump’s first trade war, did not respond to what it generally perceived as a one-off jump in prices stemming from tariffs. Instead, central bankers focused on souring business sentiment and a pullback in global demand, prompting it to lower rates in 2019 to shore up the economy.

The Fed could follow that same playbook this time. But much will depend on whether consumer and business expectations of future inflation remain in check. Because the backdrop is so different from 2018 — when inflation was too low — the fear is that Americans emerging from the worst shock to prices in decades will be more sensitive to additional increases.

Mr. Powell said the Fed’s job was not to comment on tariff policy, but to “try to react to it in a thoughtful, sensible way.” He later added that it would be “unwise to speculate” about the economic impact but said the Fed would be focused on the “net effect” of what Mr. Trump planned to pursue with regard to deportations, fiscal spending and taxes as well.

Already there are signs that people are bracing for higher inflation. Expectations about what will happen in the year ahead have risen sharply, according to a preliminary survey published by the University of Michigan on Friday.

Short-term metrics like that tend to bounce around a bit, so Fed officials focus on longer-term expectations. A new measure released by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York on Monday showed year-ahead inflation expectations steadying in January, while those over a five-year horizon rose slightly.

Mr. Powell expressed no concern on Tuesday about Americans’ expectations about future inflation and said that “policy is well positioned to deal with the risks and uncertainties that we face.”

The rules and regulations that govern Wall Street are also in focus for lawmakers, given the numerous changes since Mr. Powell last testified. The central bank has paused any “major rulemakings” after its top Wall Street cop, Michael Barr, decided a month ago to step down as vice chair for supervision. He said he was relinquishing that role, but not his Fed governorship, to avoid a lengthy legal battle with Mr. Trump that he feared could damage the Fed.

Mr. Barr had faced intense resistance from Wall Street and some of his own colleagues for seeking to impose stricter rules on big banks. He was eventually forced to scrap his initial proposal and issue a new one with significantly less onerous requirements. Mr. Powell said on Tuesday that the level of capital at the largest banks was “about right,” but acknowledged that having a global standard for regulations, known as “Basel III endgame,” was “good” for both U.S. banks and the economy.

Mr. Powell faced a number of questions from Republican senators about “debanking,” which refers to the closing of customer accounts for politically motivated reasons. The Fed chair said that he was “troubled by the quantity of these reports” and that it was “fair to take a fresh look” at the practice.

Mr. Powell confirmed that the Fed had removed language in a manual for its regional reserve banks regarding master accounts, which give financial companies access to the Fed’s payment systems. It had previously said reserve banks should “consider the conduct of the institution and its leadership” and the prospects of “undue reputational risks” before proceeding. One focal point was whether the institution engaged in “controversial commentary or activities.”

The Fed’s chair also came under fire for changes set to be made on the yearly stress tests it runs on the country’s largest banks to gauge their ability to withstand big economic and financial market shocks. Banking lobbyist groups sued the institution over the issue in December.

In a letter sent to Mr. Powell ahead of the hearings, Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts joined Representative Maxine Waters of California in calling on the Fed to resist making those changes or risk allowing banks to “game the stress tests” in a way that could ultimately undermine the stability of the financial system.

“The changes sought by big banks — like previous rollbacks of banking rules — will come back to haunt families, small businesses and the economy, increasing the likelihood of another Wall Street-driven economic collapse,” said the letter, which was seen by The New York Times.

Ms. Warren, the ranking Democrat on the Banking Committee, and Ms. Waters, who serves in a parallel role on the Financial Services Committee, also made the case that the banks’ legal arguments “do not have merit” and suggested that they would not hold up if the Fed would “vigorously defend its clear legality in court.”

The confrontation comes amid apprehension about how the Fed is handling directives from the White House. The central bank operates independently of the executive branch and prizes above all its ability to make decisions on interest rates without interference.

“We are concerned that, instead of fighting against the banks in courts and elsewhere, the Fed is now — in the wake of President Trump’s election — seeking new avenues for premature surrender,” Ms. Warren and Ms. Waters said in their letter to Mr. Powell.

The issue of policy independence reared up during Mr. Trump’s first term as he consistently attacked Mr. Powell for resisting his demands to lower interest rates speedily enough. He has been more circumspect so far in his second term, even saying the Fed’s decision to pause rate cuts in January “was the right thing to do.”

Asked about what he would do if Mr. Trump tried to remove a member of the Fed’s policymaking Board of Governors, Mr. Powell said, “It’s pretty clearly not allowed under the law.”

On issues apart from its policy independence, the Fed has shown a clear willingness to align with the White House when it deems it is appropriate and lawful. Most recently, the Fed voluntarily complied with Mr. Trump’s executive order to halt hiring. The Fed has also scaled back on its diversity, equity and inclusion programs as well as public initiatives related to climate change — areas the Trump administration has railed against.

Still, Mr. Trump’s imprint on the Fed so far pales next to what other agencies have experienced. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the federal government’s financial industry watchdog, was effectively shut down over the weekend, with its acting director, Russell Vought, ordering employees to cease working.

Mr. Vought, who leads the Office of Management and Budget, also cut off the consumer bureau’s funding, which originates from requests to the Fed. The central bank last transferred $245 million in January to cover a portion of the agency’s 2025 budget of around $800 million.

Mr. Powell was pressed repeatedly by Democrats on Tuesday about the potential impact on consumers if the bureau ceases operations. He conceded that the Fed had limited jurisdiction and agreed that there would be a gap in terms of enforcement.

Mr. Powell was also asked about the Treasury Department’s payments system, which channels about 90 percent of the payments for the government and has been a source of concern after Elon Musk’s team recently gained access to it. Mr. Powell confirmed that the Fed’s sole role is to execute the payments directed by Treasury and that the central bank’s capacity to carry out those duties was “safe.”

Click to comment

Business

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

Published

1 hour ago

February 27, 2026

Press Room

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.

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.”

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.”

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.

“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.

Business

Video: The Web of Companies Owned by Elon Musk

Published

12 hours ago

February 27, 2026

Press Room

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

Business

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

Published

13 hours ago

February 27, 2026

Press Room

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%.

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.

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.”

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.”

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%.

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.