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

Block to cut more than 4,000 jobs amid AI disruption of the workplace

Published

3 minutes ago

March 2, 2026

Press Room

Block to cut more than 4,000 jobs amid AI disruption of the workplace

Fintech company Block said Thursday that it’s cutting more than 4,000 workers or nearly half of its workforce as artificial intelligence disrupts the way people work.

The Oakland parent company of payment services Square and Cash App saw its stock surge by more than 23% in after-hours trading after making the layoff announcement.

Jack Dorsey, the co-founder and head of Block, said in a post on social media site X that the company didn’t make the decision because the company is in financial trouble.

“We’re already seeing that the intelligence tools we’re creating and using, paired with smaller and flatter teams, are enabling a new way of working which fundamentally changes what it means to build and run a company,” he said.

Block is the latest tech company to announce massive cuts as employers push workers to use more AI tools to do more with fewer people. Amazon in January said it was laying off 16,000 people as part of effort to remove layers within the company.

Block has laid off workers in previous years. In 2025, Block said it planned to slash 931 jobs, or 8% of its workforce, citing performance and strategic issues but Dorsey said at the time that the company wasn’t trying to replace workers with AI.

As tech companies embrace AI tools that can code, generate text and do other tasks, worker anxiety about whether their jobs will be automated have heightened.

In his note to employees Dorsey said that he was weighing whether to make cuts gradually throughout months or years but chose to act immediately.

“Repeated rounds of cuts are destructive to morale, to focus, and to the trust that customers and shareholders place in our ability to lead,” he told workers. “I’d rather take a hard, clear action now and build from a position we believe in than manage a slow reduction of people toward the same outcome.”

Dorsey is also the co-founder of Twitter, which was later renamed to X after billionaire Elon Musk purchased the company in 2022.

As of December, Block had 10,205 full-time employees globally, according to the company’s annual report. The company said it plans to reduce its workforce by the end of the second quarter of fiscal year 2026.

The company’s gross profit in 2025 reached more than $10 billion, up 17% compared to the previous year.

Dorsey said he plans to address employees in a live video session and noted that their emails and Slack will remain open until Thursday evening so they can say goodbye to colleagues.

“I know doing it this way might feel awkward,” he said. “I’d rather it feel awkward and human than efficient and cold.”

Business

WGA cancels Los Angeles awards show amid labor strike

Published

12 hours ago

March 1, 2026

Press Room

WGA cancels Los Angeles awards show amid labor strike

The Writers Guild of America West has canceled its awards ceremony scheduled to take place March 8 as its staff union members continue to strike, demanding higher pay and protections against artificial intelligence.

In a letter sent to members on Sunday, WGA West’s board of directors, including President Michele Mulroney, wrote, “The non-supervisory staff of the WGAW are currently on strike and the Guild would not ask our members or guests to cross a picket line to attend the awards show. The WGAW staff have a right to strike and our exceptional nominees and honorees deserve an uncomplicated celebration of their achievements.”

The New York ceremony, scheduled on the same day, is expected go forward while an alternative celebration for Los Angeles-based nominees will take place at a later date, according to the letter.

Comedian and actor Atsuko Okatsuka was set to host the L.A. show, while filmmaker James Cameron was to receive the WGA West Laurel Award.

WGA union staffers have been striking outside the guild’s Los Angeles headquarters on Fairfax Avenue since Feb. 17. The union alleged that management did not intend to reach an agreement on the pending contract. Further, it claimed that guild management had “surveilled workers for union activity, terminated union supporters, and engaged in bad faith surface bargaining.”

On Tuesday, the labor organization said that management had raised the specter of canceling the ceremony during a call about contraction negotiations.

“Make no mistake: this is an attempt by WGAW management to drive a wedge between WGSU and WGA membership when we should be building unity ahead of MBA [Minimum Basic Agreement] negotiations with the AMPTP [Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers],” wrote the staff union. “We urge Guild management to end this strike now,” the union wrote on Instagram.

The union, made up of more than 100 employees who work in areas including legal, communications and residuals, was formed last spring and first authorized a strike in January with 82% of its members. Contract negotiations, which began in September, have focused on the use of artificial intelligence, pay raises and “basic protections” including grievance procedures.

The WGA has said that it offered “comprehensive proposals with numerous union protections and improvements to compensation and benefits.”

The ceremony’s cancellation, coming just weeks before the Academy Awards, casts a shadow over the upcoming contraction negotiations between the WGA and the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers, which represents the studios and streamers.

In 2023, the WGA went on a strike lasting 148 days, the second-longest strike in the union’s history.

Times staff writer Cerys Davies contributed to this report.

Business

Commentary: The Pentagon is demanding to use Claude AI as it pleases. Claude told me that’s ‘dangerous’

Published

1 day ago

March 1, 2026

Press Room

Commentary: The Pentagon is demanding to use Claude AI as it pleases. Claude told me that’s ‘dangerous’

Recently, I asked Claude, an artificial-intelligence thingy at the center of a standoff with the Pentagon, if it could be dangerous in the wrong hands.

Say, for example, hands that wanted to put a tight net of surveillance around every American citizen, monitoring our lives in real time to ensure our compliance with government.

“Yes. Honestly, yes,” Claude replied. “I can process and synthesize enormous amounts of information very quickly. That’s great for research. But hooked into surveillance infrastructure, that same capability could be used to monitor, profile and flag people at a scale no human analyst could match. The danger isn’t that I’d want to do that — it’s that I’d be good at it.”

That danger is also imminent.

Claude’s maker, the Silicon Valley company Anthropic, is in a showdown over ethics with the Pentagon. Specifically, Anthropic has said it does not want Claude to be used for either domestic surveillance of Americans, or to handle deadly military operations, such as drone attacks, without human supervision.

Those are two red lines that seem rather reasonable, even to Claude.

However, the Pentagon — specifically Pete Hegseth, our secretary of Defense who prefers the made-up title of secretary of war — has given Anthropic until Friday evening to back off of that position, and allow the military to use Claude for any “lawful” purpose it sees fit.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, center, arrives for the State of the Union address in the House Chamber of the U.S. Capitol on Tuesday.

(Tom Williams / CQ-Roll Call Inc. via Getty Images)

The or-else attached to this ultimatum is big. The U.S. government is threatening not just to cut its contract with Anthropic, but to perhaps use a wartime law to force the company to comply or use another legal avenue to prevent any company that does business with the government from also doing business with Anthropic. That might not be a death sentence, but it’s pretty crippling.

Other AI companies, such as white rights’ advocate Elon Musk’s Grok, have already agreed to the Pentagon’s do-as-you-please proposal. The problem is, Claude is the only AI currently cleared for such high-level work. The whole fiasco came to light after our recent raid in Venezuela, when Anthropic reportedly inquired after the fact if another Silicon Valley company involved in the operation, Palantir, had used Claude. It had.

Palantir is known, among other things, for its surveillance technologies and growing association with Immigration and Customs Enforcement. It’s also at the center of an effort by the Trump administration to share government data across departments about individual citizens, effectively breaking down privacy and security barriers that have existed for decades. The company’s founder, the right-wing political heavyweight Peter Thiel, often gives lectures about the Antichrist and is credited with helping JD Vance wiggle into his vice presidential role.

Anthropic’s co-founder, Dario Amodei, could be considered the anti-Thiel. He began Anthropic because he believed that artificial intelligence could be just as dangerous as it could be powerful if we aren’t careful, and wanted a company that would prioritize the careful part.

Again, seems like common sense, but Amodei and Anthropic are the outliers in an industry that has long argued that nearly all safety regulations hamper American efforts to be fastest and best at artificial intelligence (although even they have conceded some to this pressure).

Not long ago, Amodei wrote an essay in which he agreed that AI was beneficial and necessary for democracies, but “we cannot ignore the potential for abuse of these technologies by democratic governments themselves.”

He warned that a few bad actors could have the ability to circumvent safeguards, maybe even laws, which are already eroding in some democracies — not that I’m naming any here.

“We should arm democracies with AI,” he said. “But we should do so carefully and within limits: they are the immune system we need to fight autocracies, but like the immune system, there is some risk of them turning on us and becoming a threat themselves.”

For example, while the 4th Amendment technically bars the government from mass surveillance, it was written before Claude was even imagined in science fiction. Amodei warns that an AI tool like Claude could “conduct massively scaled recordings of all public conversations.” This could be fair game territory for legally recording because law has not kept pace with technology.

Emil Michael, the undersecretary of war, wrote on X Thursday that he agreed mass surveillance was unlawful, and the Department of Defense “would never do it.” But also, “We won’t have any BigTech company decide Americans’ civil liberties.”

Kind of a weird statement, since Amodei is basically on the side of protecting civil rights, which means the Department of Defense is arguing it’s bad for private people and entities to do that? And also, isn’t the Department of Homeland Security already creating some secretive database of immigration protesters? So maybe the worry isn’t that exaggerated?

Help, Claude! Make it make sense.

If that Orwellian logic isn’t alarming enough, I also asked Claude about the other red line Anthropic holds — the possibility of allowing it to run deadly operations without human oversight.

Claude pointed out something chilling. It’s not that it would go rogue, it’s that it would be too efficient and fast.

“If the instructions are ‘identify and target’ and there’s no human checkpoint, the speed and scale at which that could operate is genuinely frightening,” Claude informed me.

Just to top that with a cherry, a recent study found that in war games, AI’s escalated to nuclear options 95% of the time.

I pointed out to Claude that these military decisions are usually made with loyalty to America as the highest priority. Could Claude be trusted to feel that loyalty, the patriotism and purpose, that our human soldiers are guided by?

“I don’t have that,” Claude said, pointing out that it wasn’t “born” in the U.S., doesn’t have a “life” here and doesn’t “have people I love there.” So an American life has no greater value than “a civilian life on the other side of a conflict.”

OK then.

“A country entrusting lethal decisions to a system that doesn’t share its loyalties is taking a profound risk, even if that system is trying to be principled,” Claude added. “The loyalty, accountability and shared identity that humans bring to those decisions is part of what makes them legitimate within a society. I can’t provide that legitimacy. I’m not sure any AI can.”

You know who can provide that legitimacy? Our elected leaders.

It is ludicrous that Amodei and Anthropic are in this position, a complete abdication on the part of our legislative bodies to create rules and regulations that are clearly and urgently needed.

Of course corporations shouldn’t be making the rules of war. But neither should Hegseth. Thursday, Amodei doubled down on his objections, saying that while the company continues to negotiate and wants to work with the Pentagon, “we cannot in good conscience accede to their request.”

Thank goodness Anthropic has the courage and foresight to raise the issue and hold its ground — without its pushback, these capabilities would have been handed to the government with barely a ripple in our conscientiousness and virtually no oversight.

Every senator, every House member, every presidential candidate should be screaming for AI regulation right now, pledging to get it done without regard to party, and demanding the Department of Defense back off its ridiculous threat while the issue is hashed out.

Because when the machine tells us it’s dangerous to trust it, we should believe it.