The Federal Reserve Under Siege:

 

The Final Capitulation: How the 1913 Federal Reserve Design Ensures Presidential Control (2026)

The Real Story in One Sentence

The Federal Reserve's "independence" was never structural—it was personal. Jerome Powell's integrity kept it alive. Kevin Warsh's confirmation will end it.

What's Happening Now (April 2026)

President Trump has consolidated control of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors through appointment of loyalists committed to low interest rates regardless of inflation. Fed Chair Jerome Powell's term expires May 15, 2026. Trump has nominated Kevin Warsh as his successor with an explicit condition: lower rates or "you will never be Fed Chairman."

A federal judge in March 2026 quashed Justice Department subpoenas against Powell, finding them designed to "harass and pressure" him into resignation. This extraordinary judicial intervention was the only structural brake on presidential control that existed.

With Powell's departure and Warsh's confirmation, the Federal Reserve will formally become what it always structurally was: an agency of the executive branch, subject to presidential control over monetary policy.

The system created in 1913 has no institutional safeguards. It operates on voluntary forbearance from presidents. Once that forbearance is withdrawn—as Trump is doing—there is no mechanism to restore it short of constitutional amendment.

Part One: The 1913 Architecture (Why This Happened)

The Federal Reserve Was Designed by Bankers, For Bankers

The 12 regional Federal Reserve Banks are owned by member banks, not by the government. Member banks hold non-transferable stock (3% of their capital) and receive guaranteed 6% annual dividends. Member banks also elect 6 of the 9 directors of each regional bank.

The Board of Governors (the federal part) was designed as oversight, not control. It appoints 3 directors per regional bank (Class C), but the member banks appoint the other 6.

Result: The Federal Reserve is a hybrid public-private institution where banks own the operating structure and the government appoints the policy board. It was designed this way intentionally—to give banks structural influence while allowing the government a policy lever.

No Sunset Clauses, No State Leverage, No Constitutional Limits

The Federal Reserve Act, passed in 1913, created permanent monetary authority with no expiration date and no requirement for congressional review. Unlike the Civil War income tax (1861–1872), which was explicitly repealed in peacetime, the Fed cannot be dismantled without constitutional amendment.

The 17th Amendment (1913, same year as the Fed) eliminated state legislative selection of senators. This severed the only structural mechanism states had to demand Fed independence. Pre-17th Amendment, senators answered to state legislatures and risked removal for federal overreach. Post-17th Amendment, senators answer to voters who benefit from federal spending.

Result: No federalist check on the Fed's subordination to presidential power.

The Fed's Independence Was Always Personal, Never Structural

From 1951 onward, the Federal Reserve maintained monetary policy independence through:

  • Presidential forbearance (presidents didn't openly demand control)
  • Fed chair integrity (chairs resisted pressure)
  • Professional institutional culture (technocratic commitment to price stability)
  • Public assumption that the Fed was independent

None of these were enshrined in law. All could be withdrawn by a president determined to assert control.

Part Two: Jerome Powell—The Last Independent Chair (2018-2026)

Why Powell Mattered

Jerome Powell was appointed by Trump in 2017 but reappointed by Biden in 2022. He is not an economist but a lawyer and investment banker—breaking the pattern of PhD economists that had dominated since Greenspan.

Powell's significance was not ideological but temperamental: He was willing to resist presidential pressure and endure personal attack to maintain the Fed's inflation-fighting mission.

The timeline of resistance:

  • 2018-2019: Trump attacked Powell for raising rates. Powell held firm.
  • 2020-2021: Fed accommodated COVID stimulus. Once inflation emerged, Powell eventually raised rates despite political pressure.
  • April 2021–May 2023: Negative real wages (inflation outpacing pay). Powell continued tightening.
  • 2025: Trump attempted to remove Powell through a Justice Department criminal investigation (into his testimony about Fed building renovations—transparently pretextual).

In March 2026, federal judge James Boasberg quashed the subpoenas, finding they were designed to "harass and pressure Powell either to yield to the president or to resign and make way for a Fed Chair who will."

This was the only institutional brake that existed, and it was provided by the judiciary, not by the Fed's own structure.

Powell's Dilemma

Powell's chair term ends May 15, 2026. His governor term runs until January 31, 2028. He has refused to say whether he'll remain on the board.

If he stays as a dissenting governor, he could block extreme actions (like firing regional Fed presidents who resist rate cuts). But this depends on one person's personal courage, not on law.

Most observers expect Powell will leave, handing Trump a 4-3 board majority.

Part Three: Kevin Warsh and Explicit Presidential Control

Who Warsh Is (And What He Represents)

Kevin Warsh was a Federal Reserve governor under George W. Bush (2006-2011). He has an investment banking background and is aligned with Trump's preference for low rates and deregulation.

Trump's nomination of Warsh explicitly breaks with the fiction of Fed independence. Unlike previous nominees, who maintained a pretense of independence, Trump has made clear that Warsh must commit in advance to rate cuts or "you will never be Fed Chairman."

This is not subtle. This is a president openly demanding that the Fed chair subordinate monetary policy to presidential electoral interests.

Senate Confirmation: No Federalist Check

The Senate Banking Committee will confirm Warsh. The dynamics:

  • No state government leverage (17th Amendment effect)
  • Trump appointees control the committee
  • Biden precedent: Biden confirmed Powell despite Trump's criticism, establishing that Fed chairs belong to the president who appoints them

Warsh will be confirmed.

Part Four: The Fiscal Dominance Endgame

The Numbers: Deficits and Debt Crisis

Current fiscal state (2026):

  • FY2026 deficit: $1.9 trillion
  • National debt: $39 trillion
  • Debt held by public: 101% of GDP
  • Net interest payments: $1 trillion+ annually (first time in history)
  • By 2036: Social Security + Medicare + Medicaid + Interest = 100% of all federal revenues

The trajectory: Deficits are projected to reach $3.1 trillion by 2036. Debt will reach 120% of GDP (higher than post-WWII), then 175% over 30 years.

Biden's Spending Revealed the Mechanism (And Will Be Repeated)

From 2020-2021, Congress authorized $5 trillion in COVID relief. The critical moment was March 2021, when the American Rescue Plan ($1.9 trillion) was passed into an already-recovering economy (unemployment at 6%, stock market recovered, consumer demand surging).

This was not emergency relief. This was overheating.

But it faced no resistance because: (1) COVID provided political cover, (2) Republicans also voted for CARES Act, (3) media framed it as "necessary."

Then in August 2022, while inflation was peaking at 9.1%, Biden signed the Inflation Reduction Act ($369 billion), explicitly framed as climate and environmental justice spending. This was permanent, ideological, peacetime deficit spending passed while inflation was raging.

The political lesson: Spending faces no resistance when it can be framed as emergency, climate, justice, or security. The political language is always available.

Result: Cumulative inflation under Biden was 21.2% while wages rose 19.4%—a 1.8% loss of purchasing power. This was fiscal dominance in action, and it happened despite Powell's eventual resistance.

Trump's Spending + Warsh's Accommodation = Systematic Inflation

If Trump gets Warsh as Fed chair and maintains $2+ trillion annual deficits while the Fed keeps rates at 1-2%:

Year 1-2: Interest costs drop; markets rally; Congress accelerates spending; money supply expands with deficits.

Year 3-4: Inflation accelerates to 5-6% range; Fed politically constrained from raising rates (Warsh is committed to low rates); inflation becomes "sticky"; real interest rates turn negative.

Year 5+: Inflation becomes self-reinforcing at 6-8%+ annually; investors flee Treasuries; dollar weakens; import prices rise; wage pressures increase.

The outcome: Not hyperinflation (like Argentina or Turkey), but persistent 4-6% inflation eroding purchasing power systematically over 4+ years. Nominal metrics improve (nominal GDP grows, nominal debt grows), masking real wealth destruction. This is the "Turkish lira scenario"—inflation high enough to devastate real wages, low enough to avoid political crisis.

This is fiscal dominance: Congress spends, the Fed accommodates, inflation is the tax, and there's no structural brake.

Part Five: Why Trump's Spending Will Face Less Effective Resistance Than You'd Expect

The Political Asymmetry

COVID spending (2020-2021): Bipartisan, emergency framing, could be blamed on pandemic.

IRA spending (August 2022): Democratic-only, explicitly ideological (climate/justice), permanent tax credits, passed while inflation peaked at 9.1%—yet faced no effective resistance because it was framed as climate, not fiscal.

Trump spending (2026 onward): Will face Republican criticism (fiscal hawks), but Warsh will accommodate it anyway, making political opposition irrelevant.

The 1913 Architecture Ensures This Outcome

The Federal Reserve Act creates a system where:

  • Congress spends (no effective limit)
  • Fed accommodates (politically motivated chair will do this)
  • Inflation results (but is blamed on "transitory" causes or external shocks)
  • No structural brake exists

The only check was Fed chair integrity. Powell had it. Warsh will not.

Conclusion: The System Is Working As Designed (Which Is the Problem)

The 1913 Federal Reserve Act was designed by bankers to create an institution that:

  1. Appears to be independent but is structurally subject to executive control
  2. Operates without sunset clauses (permanent)
  3. Functions without federalist checks (17th Amendment eliminated state leverage)
  4. Maintains the illusion of independence through voluntary presidential forbearance

Once a president openly demands control (Trump) and appoints a compliant chair (Warsh), the illusion ends. What emerges is the system's true nature: centralized monetary authority subject to executive power and congressional spending drives.

This is not a bug in the 1913 design. This is the feature.

Powell's resistance was admirable but exceptional. It depended on his personal integrity, not on law. Now that dependence is ending.

The result will be fiscal dominance, persistent moderate inflation, systematic erosion of real wages and purchasing power, and no structural mechanism to reverse course short of constitutional amendment (mathematically impossible when constituencies depend on the federal spending that's causing the problem).

The 1913 reforms created permanent, irreversible centralization of monetary and fiscal power. Trump is simply exposing the architecture that was always there.

Sources & References

Federal Reserve Structure & Ownership:

Powell and Presidential Pressure:

Biden-Era Inflation and Spending:

Fiscal Dominance:

  • Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. "Fiscal Dominance and the Return of Zero-Interest Bank Reserve Requirements." November 14, 2025.
  • Money and Banking. "Fiscal Dominance: A Primer." November 17, 2025.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

ATSC 3.0 Implementation Challenges and Device Compatibility Issues in Digital Television Broadcasting

Image
Technical Analysis: ATSC 3.0 Implementation Challenges and Device Compatibility Issues in Digital Television Broadcasting Abstract —The deployment of ATSC 3.0 (Advanced Television Systems Committee 3rd generation), also known as NextGen TV, represents the most significant transformation of terrestrial broadcast television since the analog-to-digital transition of 2009. This paper analyzes the technical architecture of ATSC 3.0 based on the A/322:2024-09 Physical Layer Protocol specification, with particular focus on its non-backward-compatible design, proprietary digital rights management implementation, and resulting device compatibility challenges. We examine the system-level incompatibilities between ATSC 3.0's encryption framework and existing consumer electronics ecosystems, quantify adoption barriers, and evaluate the technical decisions that have impeded widespread deployment. Our analysis reveals that architectural choices favoring broadcaster control over interoperability...
Read more

Top Military and Marine Unmanned Underwater Vehicle Companies

Image
The Boeing Echo Voyager unmanned underwater vehicle is the model for the U.S. Navy extra-large unmanned underwater vehicle (XLUUV), which is developing four prototypes. Summary Here's a concise summary of military and marine autonomous underwater vehicle companies. Key Market Information: - The unmanned underwater vehicles market is valued at $4.8 billion in 2024 - Projected to reach $11.1 billion by 2030, growing at 15% CAGR - Growth driven by increasing investment in commercial and defense applications Leading Companies: Traditional Defense/Military Leaders: 1. Kongsberg (Norway) - Maritime tech and defense systems leader since 1814 2. Saab AB (Sweden) - Known for Sabertooth UUV with deep water capabilities 3. Boeing (USA) - Produces Echo Voyager, the model for US Navy's XLUUV program 4. Lockheed Martin (USA) - Provides underwater drones and sonar systems 5. Oceaneering International (USA) - Major ROV manufacturer, offers Freedom AUV 6. Fugro (Netherlan...
Read more

Nicholas A Lambert and WW1 - Everything old is new again.

Image
Everything old is new again. The economics, politics, and conflicts of the early 20th century are looking familiar in todays headlines. Maybe we can learn something from a top notch economist and historian study of the first World War. Nicholas Lambert received his undergraduate and graduate degrees from Oxford University. The World War One Historical Association has twice awarded him the Norman B. Tomlinson book prize: Sir John Fisher's Naval Revolution (1999) and Planning Armageddon: British Economic Warfare and the First World War (2013).  Lambert discusses Britain's carefully planned grand strategy of economic warfare intended to bring about the rapid collapse of Germany’s financial systems through engineering a controlled implosion of the global trading system. As such, "economic warfare" constituted a national strategy of quick, decisive war comparable in function and objectives to Germany’s infamous S...
Read more