Download App

[Spikes of Division Within the Federal Reserve, Trump's Pressure Intensifies Policy Wars] 1. Wednesday's Fed meeting may break with over 30 years of tradition—multiple board members simultaneously dissenting. Board members Waller and Bowman have recently publicly supported a rate cut, in stark contrast to Powell's wait-and-see stance. Notably, both are Trump appointees, who have been frequently pressuring the Fed, including surprise visits to headquarters and public criticism of Powell's leadership, and even sparking a race for his successor before Powell's term ends next May. Historically, collective dissent among Fed board members is extremely rare, with the last such occurrence dating back to 1993 and no such event occurring in the 259 meetings since. 2. Behind this division lies the Trump administration's increasing influence over the Fed. Analysts point out that the Reagan administration weakened Volcker's power by installing board members in the 1980s, and the current situation could end the consensus culture of the Fed established since the 1990s. SGH economist Tim Duy believes that the Trump 2.0 era will profoundly reshape the Fed, and "its ability to resist political influence is nearing a breaking point." Although Bowman and Waller's previous dissents were based on policy positions (the former opposed aggressive interest rate cuts, and the latter questioned the pace of balance sheet reduction), current colleagues speculate that this dissent may include political considerations for Waller to pave the way for his bid for the next chairman. 3. In the policy game, there is a paradox in the actual influence of dissidents. Former Vice Chairman Clarida emphasized that the theoretical basis of dissidents should be taken seriously, and Waller himself claimed that dissent needs to be "cautious and principled." However, historical experience shows that excessive dissent may weaken the voice of officials in participating in policy statements. Faced with a complex situation, Powell, who is good at building consensus, may continue to use the established statement, and the market is more concerned about whether this rare disagreement will become a landmark event for the Federal Reserve to turn to politicized decision-making.