Editorial News Uncategorized

As Trump Threatens to Sue Powell: The Fed in the Eye of the Storm

Jacques Pj Provost

2026-06-21 00:21:45

Four billion dollars for “small ships”

Trump doesn’t mince words. During this historic press conference, he hammers home his accusations with the precision of a prosecutor. Renovations to the Fed’s headquarters, located near the National Mall in Washington, D.C., reportedly exceeded the initial budget of $1.5 billion. The total cost? More than four billion, according to the president. “These aren’t exceptional buildings,” he says contemptuously. “They’re small buildings. That’s the highest construction cost per square meter in the history of the world. Magnificent monuments are built for far less.” The words are chosen to hurt, to humiliate. Trump compares Powell’s project to his own construction of the new White House ballroom, claiming that his project is “massive” and costs “a fraction of that amount,” while being “under budget and ahead of schedule.”

The president doesn’t stop there. He calls Powell incompetent, repeating the term like a mantra. “The guy is just incompetent. There’s nothing you can do about it. Very incompetent. ” This repetition is no accident. It’s a rhetorical technique that Trump has mastered to perfection: hammering home a message until it sticks in people’s minds. Powell becomes “Too Late Powell”—the one who’s always too late, who doesn’t cut interest rates fast enough, who lets budgets spiral out of control. The man who is supposed to be the guardian of U.S. economic stability is reduced to a caricature of incompetence. Trump even goes so far as to say that he “would love to fire him,” but that Powell’s term expires in May 2026—in just a few months. “But maybe I’ll do it anyway,” he adds, leaving room for doubt.

The Federal Reserve’s Response: Contradictory Figures

Faced with these explosive accusations, the Federal Reserve is not remaining silent. A spokesperson for the institution directs reporters to the most recent budget document, which lists a total cost of approximately $2.5 billion for the renovation projects. Not four billion. Two and a half billion. The discrepancy is considerable—almost double. Who is telling the truth? Is Trump exaggerating the figures to bolster his case? Or is the Fed downplaying the actual costs to protect its reputation? In this war of numbers, the truth becomes a rare commodity, almost a luxury. What is certain is that the project is indeed expensive. Very expensive. But is that enough to justify a lawsuit for gross negligence?

In July 2025, during a visit to the construction site where both Trump and Powell were wearing hard hats, the president had already criticized this “very luxurious project.” But at the time, he had stated that he would not fire Powell, provided that Powell lowered interest rates. It was a form of barely veiled blackmail. Powell, for his part, had defended the project in a letter addressed to Russ Vought, the powerful director of the White House Office of Management and Budget. He explained that “the project is large-scale because it involves the renovation of two historic buildings on the National Mall, originally built in the 1930s.” Historic buildings, then, that require specific, costly work that respects their heritage. But for Trump, these explanations are nothing more than excuses—justifications from a man who has lost control of his own project.

There is something deeply troubling about this battle of numbers. Two and a half billion versus four billion. As if the difference were merely a detail. But behind these billions lies a more fundamental question: who controls what? Trump wants to show that he is the master, that even the Fed—this supposedly independent institution—must answer to him. Powell, for his part, is defending his territory, his autonomy, and his legitimacy. And we, ordinary citizens, are watching this cockfight, wondering who will foot the final bill. Spoiler: it’ll be us.

A Toxic Relationship: The Story of an Appointment That Turned Into a Nightmare

2017: When Trump Chose Powell

Let’s rewind. It’s 2017, and Donald Trump has just taken office at the White House. He must appoint a new chair of the Federal Reserve. His choice falls on Jerome Powell, a moderate Republican and an experienced figure who had previously served on the Fed’s Board of Governors. At the time, Trump praised Powell’s merits, presenting him as the right man for the job—the one who would steer the U.S. economy to new heights. The markets cheered. Economists approved. Everything seemed perfect. Powell was sworn in in February 2018, succeeding Janet Yellen. No one could have imagined then that this relationship would turn into one of the most toxic confrontations in recent American political history.

But tensions soon began to surface. Trump wanted one thing: low interest rates. Very low. As low as possible. Why? Because low rates stimulate the economy, encourage investment, and boost the stock markets. And Trump loves rising stock markets. They’re his personal barometer of success. Powell, on the other hand, has a different vision. He must manage inflation, maintain price stability, and prevent the economy from overheating. In 2018 and 2019, the Fed gradually raised rates, from 1.5% to 2.5%. Trump flew into a rage. He called Powell “crazy” and an “enemy” worse than China. The angry tweets kept coming. The relationship was broken before it had even really begun. And yet, in 2021, it was Joe Biden who reappointed Powell to lead the Fed. A slap in the face for Trump, who saw his former protégé slip away from him for good.

Relentless Criticism: Powell, the Perfect Scapegoat

Since his return to the White House in January 2025, Trump has relentlessly attacked Powell. Every Fed decision becomes a pretext for criticism. In September, October, and December 2025, the Federal Reserve cuts rates by a quarter-point each time, bringing the federal funds rate down to a range of 3.5% to 3.75%. For most economists, this is a prudent, measured policy that takes both inflation and growth into account. For Trump, it’s too little, too late. “Too Late Powell,” he repeats tirelessly. The president wants massive, immediate, and dramatic rate cuts. He wants the Fed to become an instrument of his economic policy, a tool in the service of his vision.

But Powell resists. He refuses to resign despite Trump’s repeated calls. He upholds the Fed’s independence—that sacred principle ensuring the central bank is not subject to political pressure. This resistance drives Trump into a rage. The president boasts about U.S. economic growth, which reached 4.3% in the third quarter of 2025—an impressive figure. But even this success, he attributes to himself, not to Powell. “Despite the fact that we have a lunatic at the Federal Reserve,” he declared during the December 29 press conference. Powell has become the perfect scapegoat, the one on whom Trump can pin all the shortcomings of the U.S. economy. Aren’t interest rates falling fast enough? It’s Powell’s fault. Is inflation still high? It’s Powell’s fault. Are the Fed’s renovations too expensive? Again and again, it’s Powell’s fault.

Trump’s obsession with Powell both fascinates and frightens me. It’s like watching a car accident in slow motion. You know it’s going to end badly, but you can’t look away. Trump needs an enemy, an adversary onto whom he can project his frustrations. And Powell, with his Olympian calm and institutional restraint, is the perfect target. But at what cost? The independence of the Fed—an institution that has weathered decades of crises without ever buckling—is now under threat. And if it falls, the entire credibility of the U.S. financial system will collapse along with it.

The Fed's Independence: A Principle Under Threat

Why Central Bank Independence Is Crucial

To understand the scale of the current crisis, we need to go back to the basics. The Federal Reserve was created in 1913 with a clear objective: to maintain monetary and financial stability in the United States. To achieve this, it must be independent from political influence. Why? Because politicians tend to prioritize the short term, election cycles, and immediate gains. They want growth now, jobs now, and rising markets now. The Fed, on the other hand, must think long-term. It must sometimes make unpopular decisions, such as raising interest rates to curb inflation, even if that slows growth in the short term. This independence is not a luxury; it is an absolute necessity for the credibility of monetary policy.

All leading economists agree on this point. A central bank subject to political pressure loses its credibility. The markets no longer trust it. Investors flee. Inflation spirals out of control. This is what has happened in many countries where governments have taken control of the central bank. Argentina, Venezuela, Turkey: these are all examples of what happens when monetary policy becomes hostage to political power. The United States has always prided itself on its independent Fed, capable of withstanding pressure and making tough decisions. But today, that independence is under direct attack from the president himself. Trump isn’t content with merely criticizing Powell; he’s threatening to sue him, fire him, and destroy his reputation. This is a direct attack on one of the pillars of the American economic system.

The Limits of Presidential Power Over the Fed

But can Trump really fire Powell? The answer is complex. Legally, the president cannot simply fire the Fed chair because he disagrees with his decisions. The law stipulates that the chair of the Federal Reserve can only be removed for “sufficient cause,” which generally means serious misconduct, gross negligence, or misconduct. A mere disagreement over monetary policy is not enough. Courts and legal experts have repeatedly warned Trump: firing Powell without valid grounds would be illegal and would trigger a major constitutional crisis. But Trump doesn’t care. He has already shown in the past that he is willing to defy norms, push boundaries, and test the strength of institutions.

The threat of a lawsuit for gross incompetence is a new tactic. Trump isn’t saying he’s going to fire Powell outright. He’s saying he’s going to sue him for mismanaging the Fed’s renovations. It’s a roundabout approach, an attempt to circumvent the legal protections Powell enjoys. But is this strategy viable? Legal experts are skeptical. On what legal grounds could Trump sue Powell? Which law would have been violated? What damages could be proven? The questions are numerous, and the answers are unclear. What is clear, however, is that this threat is creating massive uncertainty. Markets hate uncertainty. Investors hate uncertainty. And right now, uncertainty reigns supreme in Washington.

I sometimes wonder if Trump really realizes what he’s doing. Destroying the Fed’s independence is like sawing off the branch you’re sitting on. In the short term, he may get what he wants: lower interest rates, artificially boosted growth. But in the long term? It’s a guaranteed disaster. The markets will lose confidence. The dollar will collapse. Inflation will skyrocket. And it’s ordinary Americans who will pay the price for this madness. But maybe Trump doesn’t care. Maybe all that matters to him is winning the battle of the moment, proving that he’s the strongest, the most powerful. No matter the collateral damage.

The Fed's Renovations: A Controversial Project

A Massive Construction Project on the National Mall

Let’s return to the heart of the matter: the renovations to the Federal Reserve’s headquarters. The project involves two historic buildings located near the National Mall in Washington, D.C., built in the 1930s. These buildings, which house the Fed’s offices, are aging. They require extensive renovation to meet modern standards for safety, energy efficiency, and functionality. The initial project had a budget of approximately $2.5 billion, according to official Fed documents. But Trump claims that costs have skyrocketed, exceeding $4 billion. Where does this discrepancy come from? No one really knows. Trump provides no details, no documents, no evidence. He throws out numbers, and those numbers become weapons in his war against Powell.

What is undeniable is that the project is indeed costly. Renovating historic buildings is never simple or cheap. One must respect the heritage, use specific materials, and follow strict procedures. Furthermore, these buildings must meet very high security requirements, given their strategic importance. The Fed is no ordinary company. It is the heart of the U.S. financial system. Its facilities must be commensurate with that responsibility. Powell defended the project by explaining that it is a necessary and justified renovation, and that the Fed is acting as “good stewards of public resources.” But for Trump, these explanations are just hot air. He compares the project to his own White House ballroom, claiming that his renovation is more ambitious and less expensive. A dubious comparison, but an effective one rhetorically.

The battle of the numbers: who’s telling the truth?

In this communications war, numbers become weapons. Trump cites four billion. The Fed cites two and a half billion. Who is right? The truth likely lies somewhere in between. It’s possible that Trump includes indirect costs, ancillary expenses, and future projections in his calculation. It’s also possible that he’s deliberately exaggerating to strengthen his argument. The Fed, for its part, presents the official figures—those listed in its budget documents. But are these figures complete? Do they include all actual costs? Any potential cost overruns? Future adjustments? Without an independent audit and full transparency, it’s impossible to reach a definitive conclusion.

What is certain is that this battle of numbers fuels confusion and mistrust. Americans no longer know who to believe. On one side, a president who is accustomed to exaggerating, dramatizing, and turning every disagreement into an existential crisis. On the other, an institution that has every interest in downplaying problems, protecting its reputation, and avoiding scandals. In this context, the truth becomes collateral damage. And while Trump and Powell battle it out with press releases and statements, the real issues take a back seat. Because the real problem isn’t whether the renovations cost 2.5 billion or 4 billion. The real problem is that the President of the United States is using this as a pretext to attack the central bank’s independence.

This obsession with numbers makes my head spin. Two billion, four billion… These sums are so astronomical that they become abstract. Who can truly grasp what a billion dollars represents? And yet, these figures are brandished as evidence, as definitive arguments. But behind the numbers lies a darker reality: that of a president who is using every means possible to subjugate an independent institution to his will. And that is something no number can justify.

Economic Consequences: When Politics Shakes Up the Markets

The Financial Markets’ Reaction

Financial markets hate uncertainty. And right now, uncertainty is at its peak. Every statement Trump makes against Powell sends shockwaves through the markets. Investors are wondering: How far will the president go? Will he really take Powell to court? Will he try to fire him? And above all, what does this mean for U.S. monetary policy? If Trump succeeds in bending the Fed to his will, interest rates could fall rapidly, which would be good news for the markets in the short term. But in the long term, this could trigger a major crisis of confidence. International investors could lose faith in the stability of the U.S. financial system. The dollar could weaken. Inflation could start to rise again.

Financial analysts are divided. Some believe Trump is bluffing—that he will never actually impeach Powell, and that this is all just a public relations strategy to put pressure on the Fed. Others are more concerned. They see these threats as a sign of an authoritarian drift—a desire to control all institutions, including those that are supposed to be independent. U.S. Treasury bonds, considered the safest asset in the world, could lose their appeal if investors begin to doubt the political stability of the United States. And if U.S. bonds lose their status as a safe haven, the entire global financial balance could be called into question. The stakes are enormous, far beyond a simple feud between Trump and Powell.

The Impact on the United States’ International Credibility

Beyond the markets, it is the United States’ international credibility that is at stake. For decades, the U.S. dollar has been the world’s reserve currency. Why? Because investors around the world have confidence in the stability of U.S. institutions, in the Fed’s independence, and in the strength of the legal system. But if that trust erodes, if U.S. institutions appear fragile and subject to the whims of an impulsive president, then the dollar could lose its privileged status. China, Europe, and other economic powers could take advantage of this to promote their own currencies and create alternative financial systems. This would be a major geopolitical upheaval, with incalculable consequences for the global economy.

U.S. allies are watching the situation with concern. European leaders and central bankers around the world are all asking themselves: What is happening in Washington? How can such a solid democracy be shaken by one man’s attacks on his own institutions? The answers are hard to find. What is clear is that every statement Trump makes, every threat against Powell, further weakens the United States’ position on the international stage. And in an increasingly multipolar world, where China is rising in power and Europe is seeking strategic autonomy, this weakness could have lasting consequences. The United States cannot afford to lose its credibility. But that is exactly what is happening.

I think of future generations who will have to live with the consequences of this madness. We are witnessing the slow but inexorable erosion of trust in institutions. And once that trust is lost, it takes decades to rebuild it. Trump may only be president for a few more years. But the damage he is inflicting on the system could last much longer. That’s what terrifies me. Not the angry tweets, not the bombastic threats. But the long-term consequences—the ones we can’t see yet, but which are already taking shape.

The historical precedent: unprecedented in modern history

When Presidents Took Aim at the Fed

Trump is not the first U.S. president to criticize the Federal Reserve. Far from it. History is rife with tensions between the White House and the Fed. In the 1960s, President Lyndon Johnson pressured Fed Chairman William McChesney Martin to keep interest rates low in order to finance the Vietnam War and the social programs of the “Great Society.” Johnson even went so far as to summon Martin to his ranch in Texas to lecture him. But even Johnson never threatened to sue the Fed chair. In the 1970s, Richard Nixon also criticized the Fed, accusing Arthur Burns of not doing enough to stimulate the economy. But again, there were no legal threats and no attempts to fire him.

More recently, in the 2000s, George W. Bush had occasionally expressed his disagreement with the Fed’s decisions, but always in a measured manner, respectful of the institutions. Even Barack Obama, who had inherited the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, had never publicly attacked Ben Bernanke or Janet Yellen. There was a red line, a tacit consensus: one could criticize the Fed in private, one could express disagreements, but one did not publicly call into question the institution’s independence. Trump has crossed that red line. He has not only crossed it—he has shattered it. By threatening to sue Powell, he is setting a historic precedent without parallel in modern American history. And in politics, precedents have an unfortunate tendency to become norms.

The Risks of an Authoritarian Drift

What is happening today in the United States is reminiscent of patterns observed in other countries—countries where democracy has gradually eroded. The first step is always the same: attack independent institutions, portraying them as corrupt, ineffective, and hostile to the people. Then, they are gradually brought under political control. Loyalists are appointed, dissenting voices are sidelined, and checks and balances are transformed into mere tools of the regime. This is what happened in Turkey under Erdogan, in Hungary under Orban, and in Venezuela under Chávez and then Maduro. Is the United States following the same path? The question may seem exaggerated or alarmist. But the warning signs are there—very real and impossible to ignore.

American democracy has always been considered solid, resilient, and capable of withstanding attacks. But it is not invincible. It rests on norms, conventions, and mutual respect for institutions. When these norms are flouted, when respect disappears, democracy becomes fragile. Trump has already shown that he is willing to defy the norms: he refused to concede defeat in 2020; he encouraged the storming of the Capitol on January 6, 2021; and he has launched repeated attacks against the judiciary, the media, and institutions. Now, he’s targeting the Fed. What will be the next target? The Supreme Court? The Pentagon? The FBI? Every institution that dares to resist him becomes an enemy to be taken down. And meanwhile, the safeguards are weakening, the checks and balances are eroding, and democracy is cracking.

I don’t want to be an alarmist. I don’t want to give in to panic. But neither can I turn a blind eye to what’s happening. Democracies don’t die all at once, with a great crash. They fade away slowly, gradually, almost imperceptibly. One day, we wake up and realize it’s too late—that the institutions have been stripped of their substance, that the checks and balances have vanished. I’m not saying the United States is there yet. Not yet. But the warning lights are flashing red. And if we don’t take them seriously, if we keep thinking that “it can’t happen here,” then we risk regretting it bitterly.

Powell in the Eye of the Storm: A Man Under Pressure

The Profile of a Central Banker Under Fire

Jerome Powell is not a politician. He is a banker, a technocrat, someone who has spent his career in the world of finance and regulation. Before joining the Fed, he worked in the private sector, notably at the Carlyle Group, an investment firm. He also served as Under Secretary of the Treasury under George H.W. Bush in the 1990s. He fits the profile of a moderate, pragmatic Republican committed to institutions. When Trump appointed him in 2017, Powell seemed like the perfect choice: experienced, respected, and capable of navigating the murky waters of monetary policy. But no one had anticipated the scale of the attacks he would face.

Since 2018, Powell has become Trump’s prime target. Every Fed decision is scrutinized, criticized, and distorted. Powell has had to learn to manage this constant pressure and these relentless attacks while staying the course on monetary policy. It is no easy task. Most Fed chairmen operate in relative tranquility, far from the spotlight, protected by the institution’s independence. Powell, however, is constantly under fire. He must defend every decision, justify every choice, and resist political pressure. And he does so with Olympian calm and almost superhuman restraint. During his press conferences, he answers questions precisely, without ever allowing himself to be drawn into controversies. He refuses to respond to Trump’s attacks, preferring to focus on his mandate: maintaining price stability and full employment.

The Strategy of Silent Resistance

Faced with Trump’s threats, Powell has chosen a strategy of silent resistance. He does not respond to provocations. He does not engage in media wars. He does his job, period. This approach has its advantages: it avoids fueling controversy, it preserves the institution’s dignity, and it shows that the Fed remains focused on its mission. But it also has its limits. By not responding, Powell leaves the field open for Trump to control the narrative and impose his version of events. Trump’s accusations go unanswered, and in the vacuum, they gain momentum and turn into “alternative facts.” This is Powell’s dilemma: if he responds, he plays into Trump’s hands and turns the Fed into a political actor. If he doesn’t respond, he lets Trump destroy his reputation and that of the institution.

Powell has clearly chosen not to resign, despite Trump’s repeated calls. “He should resign. It would be a service to the nation,” Trump said during the December 29 press conference. But Powell will not budge. He will remain in his post until the end of his term in May 2026. It is a matter of principle, dignity, and respect for institutions. Resigning under pressure would be an admission of weakness, a signal sent to the entire world that the Fed can be intimidated and subjugated. Powell refuses to give Trump that satisfaction. He is standing his ground, despite the storm, despite the threats, despite the isolation. It is an act of courage, but also a risky gamble. For if Trump truly decides to take action—to sue him or attempt to remove him from office—Powell will have to fight on a battlefield he does not master: that of the courts and politics.

I can’t help but admire Powell, even if I don’t agree with all his decisions. There is something deeply human about his resistance. He could resign, walk away with his head held high, and avoid this exhausting battle. But he stays. Because he believes in something greater than himself: the Fed’s independence, the strength of institutions, and respect for the rules. In a world where everything seems negotiable, where principles are constantly sacrificed on the altar of opportunism, Powell represents a form of moral resistance. And that is precious. Even if it may not be enough to save the Fed from Trump’s assault.

The Challenges Facing the U.S. Economy: Beyond the Media Hype

Economic Growth: A Deceptive Success?

Trump never stops boasting about U.S. economic growth. And it’s true that the numbers are impressive. In the third quarter of 2025, U.S. GDP grew by 4.3%, an exceptional growth rate—the strongest in two years. Unemployment remains low, job creation is robust, and stock markets are hitting all-time highs. On paper, everything looks good. Trump attributes this success to his policies: tax cuts, deregulation, and trade protectionism. But the reality is more complex. Part of this growth is fueled by massive public spending, skyrocketing budget deficits, and an accommodative monetary policy carried over from the post-COVID period. It is a stimulated, artificial growth that may not be sustainable.

Economists are concerned about several warning signs. Inflation, although down from the peaks of 2022–2023, remains high—around 3%—well above the Fed’s 2% target. Housing prices continue to climb, making homeownership increasingly difficult for the middle class. Inequality is widening, with a growing concentration of wealth at the top of the pyramid. Above all, U.S. public debt is reaching dizzying heights, exceeding $35,000 billion. This debt will have to be repaid someday, and it is future generations who will pay the price. But for Trump, these concerns are secondary. What matters are the growth figures, the stock market levels, and the positive headlines. The rest can wait.

Interest Rates: The Heart of the Conflict

At the heart of the conflict between Trump and Powell lies the issue of interest rates. Trump wants low—very low—rates to stimulate investment, encourage borrowing, and boost the markets. Powell, on the other hand, must balance several objectives: controlling inflation, maintaining financial stability, and preventing the formation of speculative bubbles. In 2025, the Fed cut rates three times, bringing the federal funds rate down to a range of 3.5% to 3.75%. For Powell, this is a prudent, measured policy that takes both growth and inflation into account. For Trump, it’s too little, too slow. He wants massive, immediate, spectacular rate cuts. He compares Powell to a “madman” who is holding back the economy through incompetence.

But what would happen if Trump got what he wants? If the Fed were to slash rates drastically under political pressure? In the short term, it would be a celebration. Markets would skyrocket, businesses would invest heavily, and consumers would borrow to buy homes and cars. But in the medium term, the risks would be enormous. Inflation could start rising again, fueled by excessive demand. Speculative bubbles could form in the real estate and stock markets. And above all, the Fed’s credibility would be destroyed. International investors would lose confidence in the central bank’s ability to maintain price stability. The dollar would weaken. Long-term interest rates would rise, offsetting the benefits of short-term rate cuts. This is the nightmare scenario that Powell is trying to avoid. But Trump doesn’t care. He wants results now, regardless of the future consequences.

This obsession with interest rates reminds me of a drug addict craving a fix. Trump wants his fix of growth, his rush from rising markets. And it doesn’t matter if it destroys the economy in the long run. What matters is the immediate high, the euphoria of the moment. But like any addict, he’ll eventually crash. And when that happens, he won’t be the one paying the price. It will be ordinary Americans—those who will lose their jobs, their homes, and their savings. But by then, Trump may already be gone, leaving behind a field of ruins.

The political dimension: a diversionary tactic?

Diverting Attention from the Real Issues

There is another possible interpretation of Trump’s attack on Powell: that it is a diversionary tactic. Right now, the Trump administration is facing numerous challenges. Trade negotiations with China have stalled. Tensions in the Middle East are escalating. Immigration issues remain unresolved. The U.S. healthcare system is still in crisis. Faced with these complex problems, which require difficult and unpopular solutions, Trump prefers to create an easy target: Jerome Powell. It’s a classic political tactic: when things go wrong, find a scapegoat, focus attention on him, and hope that people will forget the real issues.

This strategy has the advantage of being simple and effective. Powell cannot truly defend himself without entering into a political battle. He is bound to silence by his office. Trump, on the other hand, can say whatever he wants, whenever he wants, without restraint. He controls the narrative; he dictates his media agenda. And while everyone is talking about the Fed, renovations, and threats of lawsuits, the real issues take a back seat. This is Trump at his finest: creating a stir, monopolizing attention, and diverting focus from the real problems. And it works. The media is talking about Powell, not the administration’s failures. Voters are focusing on the Fed, not on broken promises. It’s a brilliant, cynical, and terribly effective manipulation.

Mobilizing the Electoral Base

There’s also an electoral dimension to this offensive. Trump knows that his base hates elites, technocrats, and Washington institutions. By attacking Powell, he’s sending a clear message to his supporters: I’m fighting for you against the incompetent bureaucrats who are holding back the economy. It doesn’t matter that this message is false, that Powell isn’t responsible for the economic problems, or that the Fed’s independence is crucial. What matters is the symbolism, the image, the narrative. Trump presents himself as the champion of the people against the elites. Powell becomes the embodiment of those elites, the enemy to be defeated. And Trump’s base loves it. They cheer every attack, every threat, every insult. It’s a show, entertainment, reality politics.

This strategy for mobilizing the base is particularly important as Trump may be preparing for a new presidential campaign. By keeping his supporters in a state of constant mobilization—by giving them enemies to hate and battles to fight—he ensures their loyalty. Powell is just one enemy among many in this strategy. Before him, there were the media, the Democrats, the judges, and the “deep state” officials. After him, there will be others. It’s an endless cycle, a permanent war against real or imagined enemies. And as long as this cycle continues, Trump remains the center of attention; he controls the agenda; he dominates the public debate. It’s exhausting, it’s toxic, but it’s incredibly effective.

I’m tired of this never-ending circus. Tired of these artificial wars, these invented enemies, this constant manipulation. But I also know that I can’t look away. Because behind the spectacle, there are real stakes, institutions crumbling, a democracy growing weaker. Trump is playing with fire, and we’re all in the house that’s burning. We can choose to look the other way, to tell ourselves that it’s all just theater, that it will eventually blow over. Or we can face reality: we are living through a pivotal moment, one of those moments when history takes a turn. And what we do now will determine the world we’ll live in tomorrow.

International Reactions: The World Watches with Concern

European Central Banks on High Alert

In Frankfurt, London, and Paris, European central bankers are watching the situation in the U.S. with a mix of concern and disbelief. Christine Lagarde, president of the European Central Bank, has always defended central bank independence as a sacred principle. She knows that if the Fed falls under political control, the entire global financial system could be destabilized. European central banks face their own challenges: persistent inflation, sluggish growth, and geopolitical tensions. But they have always been able to count on the Fed’s stability as an anchor. If that stability disappears, if the Fed becomes a political tool, then Europeans will have to rethink their entire monetary strategy.

Discussions among central bankers—usually technical and discreet—are taking a more political turn. How should they respond if Trump succeeds in subjugating the Fed? Should they take preventive measures to protect the euro? Should they accelerate efforts to create European financial autonomy, less dependent on the dollar? These questions, which until now were theoretical, are suddenly becoming urgent. Europe cannot afford to remain passive in the face of what is happening in the United States. The consequences would be too severe. But at the same time, Europeans are divided, weakened by their own internal crises. They are watching, they are worried, but they don’t really know what to do. And meanwhile, the situation in Washington continues to deteriorate.

China and the Emerging Powers: An Opportunity to Seize

In Beijing, Chinese leaders are watching the U.S. crisis with particular interest. For years, China has sought to internationalize the yuan, reduce its dependence on the dollar, and create alternative financial systems. But these efforts have always been thwarted by the strength of the U.S. system, confidence in the dollar, and the credibility of the Fed. Now, that credibility is under attack from within—by the U.S. president himself. This is a golden opportunity for China. If the dollar loses its status as the global reserve currency and international investors seek alternatives, the yuan could benefit. China could accelerate its plans for an international payment system independent of the dollar, strengthen its alliances with emerging economies, and promote its own financial institutions.

Other emerging powers, such as India, Brazil, and South Africa, are also watching the situation closely. They have all suffered, at one time or another, from the dominance of the dollar, U.S. sanctions, and dependence on the Western financial system. If this system shows signs of weakness, they might be tempted to break free from it and create their own mechanisms for financial cooperation. The BRICS—this group of emerging economies—are already discussing the creation of a common currency and an alternative development bank. These projects, which seemed utopian just a few years ago, are suddenly becoming more realistic. Because the United States, through its own fault, is destroying the trust that was once its strength. And in a multipolar world, trust is the most precious resource.

There is something tragic about this spectacle. The United States, the superpower that has dominated the world for nearly a century, is in the process of scuttling itself. Not because of an external enemy, not because of an economic crisis, but because of its own internal divisions, its own demons. Trump, in his obsessive quest for power and control, is destroying the very foundations of American power. And the rest of the world is watching, waiting, preparing to take advantage of this weakness. It is the decline of an empire, live, in real time. And we all have front-row seats.

Conclusion: A Point of No Return?

Possible Scenarios for the Coming Months

As we enter 2026, several scenarios are possible. The first, and most optimistic, is that Trump eventually calms down, that his threats remain just that—threats—and that Powell completes his term in May without any major incidents. In this scenario, the current crisis would be just another episode in the long series of tensions between Trump and the Fed. Institutions would hold firm, American democracy would demonstrate its resilience, and everything would return to normal. This is the scenario many hope for, but few truly believe in. Because Trump has shown, time and again, that he never backs down, never calms down, and always pushes things further.

The second, bleaker scenario is that Trump takes action. That he actually sues Powell, that he tries to fire him, that he appoints a compliant successor who will do whatever he asks. In this scenario, the Fed’s independence would be destroyed, the credibility of the U.S. financial system would collapse, and the economic consequences would be catastrophic. Markets would plunge, the dollar would weaken, and inflation would skyrocket. It would be a major crisis, comparable to that of 2008—or even worse. And this time, there would be no independent Fed to save the day, because the Fed would have become a political tool, incapable of acting credibly. This is the nightmare scenario—one that no one wants to see come true, but which is becoming increasingly plausible as Trump intensifies his attacks.

The Legacy of This Crisis: Beyond Trump and Powell

Whatever scenario plays out, one thing is certain: this crisis will leave deep scars. The Fed’s independence—a principle that once seemed unshakable—has been directly attacked by the President of the United States. Even if Powell resists, even if the institutions hold firm, the precedent has been set. Future presidents will know that they can attack the Fed, threaten it, and attempt to subjugate it. And perhaps one of them will succeed where Trump failed. That is the most toxic legacy of this crisis: the normalization of the unacceptable, the trivialization of attacks on institutions. What was unthinkable yesterday becomes possible today, and normal tomorrow. It’s a slippery slope, and we’re already sliding down it.

Beyond Trump and Powell, beyond personalities and egos, this crisis raises a fundamental question: what kind of democracy do we want? A democracy where institutions are respected, where checks and balances function, where the rules apply to everyone? Or a democracy in name only, where power is concentrated in the hands of a single man, where institutions are nothing but empty shells, where rules are negotiable depending on the circumstances? This is the choice Americans face. And by extension, it is the choice we all face, because what happens in the United States has repercussions around the world. Democracies are fragile. They require constant nurturing, constant vigilance, and commitment from everyone. When they are neglected, when they are taken for granted, they crumble, they deteriorate, they die. And we may be witnessing this process unfold right before our eyes, in real time.

I end this article with a deep sense of unease. Not anger, not outrage, but something darker, more visceral. A kind of sadness in the face of this monumental waste. The United States had it all: economic power, institutional credibility, the respect of the entire world. And it is squandering it all, destroying it all, to satisfy the ego of a single man. It’s pathetic. It’s tragic. It’s revolting. But it’s also profoundly human. Because that’s the story of humanity: civilizations that are patiently built, stone by stone, generation after generation, and that suddenly collapse, destroyed by the pride, greed, and madness of a few. We thought we were different, more evolved, wiser. We were wrong. We are still the same, with the same weaknesses, the same demons. And now, we must live with the consequences of our choices. May God help us.

Sources

Primary sources

Just the News, “Trump threatens to sue Fed Chair Jerome Powell for ‘gross incompetence,’” by Misty Severi, published December 29, 2025. New York Post, “Trump threatens to sue Fed Chair Jerome Powell for ‘gross incompetence’ over costly building renovation,” by Taylor Herzlich, published December 30, 2025. Press conference with Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu, White House, December 29, 2025. Official budget documents from the U.S. Federal Reserve, accessed December 30, 2025.

Secondary sources

BFM TV, “Donald Trump Threatens to Sue the Chair of the U.S. Federal Reserve,” published on December 30, 2025. Xinhua, “Trump Threatens to Sue Powell Over Costly Renovation of Fed Headquarters,” published on December 30, 2025. Boursorama, “U.S. – Trump Threatens to Sue Powell; Name of His Replacement to Be Announced in January,” published December 30, 2025. CNN, “Trump Threatens to Sue Fed Chair Jerome Powell,” published on December 29, 2025. US News, “Trump Threatens to Sue Fed’s Powell, Will Announce Replacement Next Month,” published on December 29, 2025.

This content was created with the help of AI.

Commentaires

0 0 votes

Article Rating