Trump says Fed Chair Powell’s exit ‘can’t come soon enough’

United States President Donald Trump has hinted at firing Federal Reserve chairman Jerome Powell amid the president’s frustration that the central bank will not aggressively cut interest rates.

On Thursday, Trump said that Powell’s “termination cannot come fast enough”.

Powell’s term does not expire until May 2026. The president does not have the authority to remove Powell from the central bank.

Trump’s attacks on Powell come after the Fed chair’s speech at the Economic Club of Chicago on Wednesday. Powell said the Fed would base its decisions solely on what is best for all Americans.

“That’s the only thing we’re ever going to do,” Powell said. “We’re never going to be influenced by any political pressure. People can say whatever they want. That’s fine, that’s not a problem. But we will do what we do strictly without consideration of political or any other extraneous factors.

“Our independence is a matter of law,” Powell continued. “We’re not removable except for cause. We serve very long terms, seemingly endless terms.”

The Republican president’s broadside comes a day after Powell signalled that the Fed would keep its key interest rate unchanged, while it seeks “greater clarity” on the effect of policy changes in areas such as immigration, taxation, regulation and tariffs.

Powell also reiterated that Trump’s tariffs would likely raise inflation and slow the economy, which could make it harder for the Fed to cut rates anytime soon. The Fed chair suggested that the central bank would focus on fighting inflation in the wake of the tariffs, even if the duties did weaken the economy. Powell’s comments contributed to a drop in stock prices on Wednesday.

Trump pushes back

Pushing back on Powell, Trump in a social media post said, “Oil prices are down, groceries (even eggs!) are down, and the USA is getting RICH ON TARIFFS.”

On the contrary, oil prices have risen 2 percent in the last two weeks. Grocery prices have actually increased under Trump, according to the most recent consumer price index report in April, and egg prices hit record highs last month as per the same report. Last week, the president falsely claimed the US brought in $2bn a day thanks to tariffs – it was $200m a day.

Referring to the European Central Bank (ECB), Trump added that Powell “should have lowered Interest Rates, like the ECB, long ago, but he should certainly lower them now. Powell’s termination cannot come fast enough!”

The ECB on Thursday lowered its key interest rate from 2.5 percent to 2.25 percent.

Powell was initially nominated by Trump in 2017 and was appointed to another four-year term by former President Joe Biden in 2022. At a November news conference, Powell indicated he would not step down if Trump asked him to resign, pointing out that removal or demotion of top Fed officials was “not permitted under the law”.

Trump’s comments come with the backdrop of a legal case at the Supreme Court that could determine whether presidents can fire the heads of independent agencies such as the Fed.

The case stems from Trump’s firings of officials from two independent agencies. The Supreme Court last week let the firings stand while it considers the case. It could issue a broader ruling this summer that would enable the president to fire Fed officials, including the chair.

Powell said the Fed is watching the case closely, adding it might not apply to the Fed. Lawyers for the Trump administration have argued that allowing the president to fire the two officials wouldn’t erode the Fed’s independence.

“It is difficult to overstate the consequences at this stressed moment of a Court ruling that found that President Trump … does have the authority to dismiss the heads of independent agencies and did not establish a clear carve-out for the Fed,” Krishna Guha, an analyst at investment bank Evercore ISI, wrote on Thursday. “If you liked the tariff debacle in markets, you’d love the loss-of-Fed-independence trade.”

Tariff mayhem

Powell started Trump’s second term in a relatively secure spot with a low unemployment rate and inflation progressing closer to the Fed’s 2 percent target, conditions that could have spared the US central banker from the president’s vitriol.

But Trump’s aggressive and haphazard tariffs have raised the threat of a recession with both higher inflationary pressures and slower growth, a tough spot for Powell, whose mandate is to stabilise prices and maximise employment. With the economy weakening because of Trump’s choices, the president appears to be looking to pin the blame on Powell.

Trump has unleashed a rash of tariffs that have put the US economy and the Fed in an increasingly perilous spot.

On April 2, the president rolled out aggressive tariff hikes based on US trade deficits with other nations, causing a financial market backlash that almost immediately led him to announce a 90-day pause in which most countries would be charged a baseline 10 percent tariff while negotiations go forward. But Trump increased his tariff hikes on China to a rate of 145 percent in addition to his existing tariffs on Canada, Mexico, autos and steel and aluminium.

Wall Street banks such as Goldman Sachs have raised their odds that a recession could start. Consumers are increasingly pessimistic in surveys about their job prospects and fearful that inflation would shoot up as the cost of the import taxes get passed along to them. The risk of stagflation – stagnant growth and high inflation – would make it harder for the Fed to respond with the same playbook as recent downturns.

Russia’s Putin, Qatar’s emir discuss Syria and Gaza at Moscow talks

Qatar’s Emir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani has told Russian President Vladimir Putin that Syria’s new leader is keen to build ties with Moscow.

At talks in the Russian capital on Thursday, Al Thani assured the Russian leader that interim president Ahmed al-Sharaa was seeking to build relations with Russia, after the removal of former President Bashar al-Assad, who was a close ally of Moscow.

“As for Syria, a few days ago President al-Sharaa was in Qatar, and we spoke with him about the historical and strategic relationship between Syria and Russia”, Al Thani told Putin.

The talks come as Putin attempts to retain Russia’s use of two military bases in Syria to maintain its influence in the region after al-Assad fled the country in December as opposition fighters led by Ahmed al-Sharaa closed in on the capital.

Putin said Syria’s situation, rocked by sectarian violence in recent weeks, was of serious importance.

“We would like to do everything to ensure that Syria, firstly, remains a sovereign, independent and territorially integral state, and we would like to discuss with you the possibility of providing assistance to the Syrian people, including humanitarian assistance”, the Kremlin leader told the emir.

The two men also discussed the situation in Gaza, where Qatar played a key role in brokering a January ceasefire deal between Israel and Hamas for a three-phase ceasefire.

Israel restarted its offensive in the besieged enclave in March, and talks to try to restore the ceasefire have so far failed to achieve a breakthrough.

“We reached an agreement regarding Gaza a few months back, but Israel has not adhered to the agreement”, Al Thani said.

“Qatar, in its role as a mediator, will strive to bridge differing perspectives in an effort to reach an agreement to end the suffering of the Palestinian people”.

Putin told the emir, “We know that Qatar is making very serious efforts to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Unfortunately, the initiatives put forward, including by you, have not been implemented. Peaceful people continue to die in Palestine, which is an absolute tragedy of today”.

Russia’s Putin, Qatar’s emir discuss Syria and Gaza at Moscow talks

Qatar’s Emir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani has told Russian President Vladimir Putin that Syria’s new leader is keen to build ties with Moscow.

At talks in the Russian capital on Thursday, Al Thani assured the Russian leader that interim president Ahmed al-Sharaa was seeking to build relations with Russia, after the removal of former President Bashar al-Assad, who was a close ally of Moscow.

“As for Syria, a few days ago President al-Sharaa was in Qatar, and we spoke with him about the historical and strategic relationship between Syria and Russia,” Al Thani told Putin.

The talks come as Putin attempts to retain Russia’s use of two military bases in Syria to maintain its influence in the region after al-Assad fled the country in December as opposition fighters led by Ahmed al-Sharaa closed in on the capital.

Putin said Syria’s situation, rocked by sectarian violence in recent weeks, was of serious importance.

“We would like to do everything to ensure that Syria, firstly, remains a sovereign, independent and territorially integral state, and we would like to discuss with you the possibility of providing assistance to the Syrian people, including humanitarian assistance,” the Kremlin leader told the emir.

The two men also discussed the situation in Gaza, where Qatar played a key role in brokering a January ceasefire deal between Israel and Hamas for a three-phase ceasefire.

Israel restarted its offensive in the besieged enclave in March, and talks to try to restore the ceasefire have so far failed to achieve a breakthrough.

“We reached an agreement regarding Gaza a few months back, but Israel has not adhered to the agreement,” Al Thani said.

“Qatar, in its role as a mediator, will strive to bridge differing perspectives in an effort to reach an agreement to end the suffering of the Palestinian people.”

Putin told the emir, “We know that Qatar is making very serious efforts to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Unfortunately, the initiatives put forward, including by you, have not been implemented. Peaceful people continue to die in Palestine, which is an absolute tragedy of today.”

Could Trump invoke Insurrection Act – and what powers would that give him?

Social media posts have warned for more than a month that President Donald Trump would declare martial law on April 20, which typically means suspending civil law while the military takes control of civilian functions such as courts.

But many of the posts appeared to conflate martial law with the potential invocation of the Insurrection Act of 1807, which was mentioned in a recent executive order.

“I just learned about this executive order (section 6-b) which says Trump will invoke the Insurrection Act of 1807 on April 20th which will (amount) to declaring martial law”, a Reddit user posted on March 19. “That’s the end of the USA”.

The narrative spread beyond Reddit to Facebook posts and videos shared on TikTok, X and Threads.

Trump’s January 20 executive order declared a national emergency at the US southern border and required the defence and homeland security secretaries to submit a report on border conditions within 90 days. The report should include “any recommendations regarding additional actions that may be necessary to obtain complete operational control of the southern border, including whether to invoke the Insurrection Act of 1807”, the executive order said.

April 20 is the 90-day deadline.

Invoking the Insurrection Act would allow Trump to direct federal military personnel to enforce federal law at the US southern border. But legal experts told PolitiFact it would not amount to martial law. They said they do not see a clear path for Trump to lawfully implement martial law in the way it’s commonly understood. Trump, on his part, has not publicly discussed martial law.

In a statement to PolitiFact, the Defense Department said the agency is working with the Homeland Security Department to develop the requested report on the southern border conditions.

PolitiFact contacted the Homeland Security Department and the White House and received no response.

What would the Insurrection Act invocation allow?

Invoking the&nbsp, Insurrection Act&nbsp, temporarily suspends&nbsp, another US law&nbsp, that forbids federal troops from conducting civilian law enforcement.

A president can invoke the law after determining that “unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion” against the federal government make it “impracticable to enforce” US law “by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings”. In those cases, the Insurrection Act would allow the president to direct federal troops “as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion”.

The Insurrection Act is broadly written and does not define terms such as “insurrection” or “rebellion”. In 1827, the US Supreme Court ruled that the authority to decide whether a situation represents an acceptable reason to invoke the Insurrection Act “belongs exclusively to the President”.

Chris Edelson, an American University assistant professor of government, said the law provides a “limited authority for the president to use the military to respond to genuine emergencies – a breakdown in regular operational law when things are really falling apart”.

The act was invoked when southern governors&nbsp, refused to integrate schools&nbsp, and&nbsp, during the 1992 Los Angeles riots, after four white police officers were acquitted in the roadside beating of a Black man, Rodney King.

Experts expressed doubt that the situation at the US southern border constitutes a breakdown or obstruction of federal law that would necessitate the use of the Insurrection Act the way the law was intended.

Tung Yin, a Lewis and Clark Law School professor, said it’s hard to see how immigrants coming into the country illegally were obstructing state or federal laws.

Obstruction is “more like an invading army or maybe such severe riots that the government has lost control”, he said.

Martial law, on the other hand, &nbsp, typically refers&nbsp, to imposing military law on civilians.

Edelson said the Insurrection Act “does not allow the president to completely replace regular authorities with military authority”.

Chris Mirasola, University of Houston Law Center assistant professor, said military law is more stringent and has fewer protections for people than civilian law. US constitutional protections would not disappear if the Insurrection Act were invoked, Mirasola said.

Yin said that when a president uses the Insurrection Act to call on the military to enforce civilian law, “that might seem like ‘ martial law ‘ to a layperson. But it’s not a military government, which might be what people generally think of”.

Can Trump impose martial law at the southern border?

In a 1946 ruling, the US Supreme Court wrote that the term martial law “carries no precise meaning” and said it wasn’t defined in the Constitution or an act of Congress.

Edelson said because of this, “At the federal level, it’s not clear that presidents can declare martial law at all”.

Mirasola said some other countries ‘ constitutions include provisions that outline when a president can declare martial law, but the US Constitution lacks such detail.

Still, martial law has been declared before. The US imposed&nbsp, martial law&nbsp, in Hawaii&nbsp, for three years after the 1941 Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. President Abraham Lincoln also&nbsp, declared martial law in certain parts of the US during the Civil War. President Andrew Johnson&nbsp, restored&nbsp, civilian law.

At that time, the Supreme Court “more or less found that martial law could only be declared in an active war zone”, Mirasola said, citing an 1866 Supreme Court ruling that held that martial law cannot be imposed unless civilian courts aren’t open and functioning.

For that reason, Mirasola said he could see no legal or constitutional basis for Trump to declare martial law to control the southern border, which “is not an area of active hostilities, notwithstanding how the administration continues to talk about the actions of cartels”.

“The circumstances within which presidents have invoked martial law and that the Supreme Court has understood martial law are incredibly narrow”, he said. “It would require an active hostility on US territory that prevents civilian legal proceedings from occurring”.

Experts said Trump’s suggestions about using military powers could be one reason for the martial law speculation: In October, Trump&nbsp, said “radical left lunatics” in the US “should be very easily handled by, if necessary, by National Guard, or if really necessary, by the military”.

In June 2020, during nationwide protests following the death of George Floyd, Trump said if governors didn’t deploy the National Guard to sufficiently “dominate the streets”, he would order the US military to “quickly solve the problem for them”.

Then there is his willingness to challenge constitutional precedent.

He is trying to&nbsp, end birthright citizenship&nbsp, by executive order, the move was blocked by multiple federal judges, including one who described the order as “blatantly unconstitutional”.

In mid-March, Trump said the US is being invaded by a Venezuelan gang and invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, an obscure law that was used&nbsp, to detain or deport foreign nationals from enemy nations without due process during wartime. The Supreme Court lifted a lower court’s&nbsp, order that temporarily halted&nbsp, deportations of Venezuelan migrants under the law. It&nbsp, did not rule&nbsp, whether Trump’s use of the law was constitutional.

Edelson mentioned the January 6, 2021 attack on the US Capitol, and the fact that Trump pardoned about 1, 500 people charged with crimes that day.