Fed

When Jerome Powell speaks, markets listen. As well they should. Powell serves as the chair of the Federal Reserve Board. As part of this role, he also leads the Federal Reserve Open Market Committee (FOMC), which sets the monetary policy of the U.S.

Powell recently hinted at a monetary policy change that seems positive for the stock market. But should investors actually be worried?

Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell answers reporters’ questions at the FOMC press conference on Sept.17, 2025. Official Federal Reserve Photo.

Good news for investors?

Powell spoke last week at the National Association for Business Economics conference held in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. One of his key points in his address was an update on the status of the Fed’s “quantitative tightening” approach.

Quantitative tightening is the term used to describe when the Federal Reserve reduces the size of its balance sheet. To accomplish this goal, the Fed allows assets such as government-issued bonds to mature, or it actively sells those assets. This usually results in higher long-term interest rates, lower inflation, and a cooling down of an overheated economy.

The opposite of quantitative tightening is quantitative easing. With this approach, the Fed increases the size of its balance sheet. Quantitative easing is an expansionary policy that’s usually associated with a rising stock market.

In his recent remarks, Powell hinted that the Fed is close to ending its program of quantitative tightening. He said:

Our long-stated plan is to stop balance sheet runoff when reserves are somewhat above the level we judge consistent with ample reserve conditions. We may approach that point in coming months, and we are closely monitoring a wide range of indicators to inform this decision.

Powell always chooses his words deliberately and can often be somewhat ambiguous. However, the takeaway from his comments is that the Fed’s quantitative tightening policies could be almost over. This would seem to be good news for investors.

A more complicated picture

I chose those words deliberately and left room for ambiguity just as Powell likes to do. Why? Because there’s a more complicated picture if the Fed stops its quantitative tightening policies.

For one thing, the end of quantitative tightening doesn’t necessarily mean a return of robust quantitative easing. Some saw quantitative easing as something akin to steroids for the economy and stock market, while quantitative tightening was like a depressant. Using that analogy, discontinuing taking a depressant doesn’t boost strength in the same way as frequently taking a steroid might.

It’s also important to understand that the end of quantitative tightening could be a warning sign about the economy, and by extension, corporate earnings. The Fed doesn’t reduce the size of its balance sheet when the economy is weak. Powell’s remarks, indicating that quantitative tightening could soon taper off, might reflect significant underlying concerns by the Fed about the health of the U.S. economy, despite his seemingly positive statement last week that the economy “may be on a somewhat firmer trajectory than expected.” As the economy goes, so goes the stock market — usually.

Finally, there is a real risk that ending quantitative tightening could backfire. One of the main goals of the policy is to fight inflation. If the Fed returns to expanding its balance sheet, inflation could roar back. The effects of the Trump administration’s tariffs could add fuel to the fire, at least initially. Powell acknowledged in his speech at the National Association for Business Economics conference, “There is no risk-free path for policy as we navigate the tension between our employment and inflation goals.”

The Fed could find itself in a situation where it has to reverse tactics, which would likely create significant uncertainty for the stock market. If there’s anything investors hate, it’s uncertainty.

Should investors worry?

I think celebrating the Fed bringing its quantitative tightening policies to a halt is premature. However, it’s also too soon to worry about the potential impact on stocks from the decision.

We don’t know yet how quickly the Fed will begin increasing the size of its balance sheet. We don’t know how aggressively it will move if and when quantitative tightening comes to an end. We don’t know what else will be happening with the economy or the stock market.

What we do know, though, is that the stock market rises over the long term. Anyone with an investing time horizon measured in decades shouldn’t have anything to worry about, regardless of what the Fed does or doesn’t do in the near term.

ADVERTISEMENT

European stocks rose on Wednesday morning after a string of strong corporate results a day earlier, while equities were also boosted by remarks from Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell. In Philadelphia on Tuesday, Powell suggested that another interest rate cut could come later this month in the US.

In Europe, shares in Netherlands-headquartered ASML, which makes equipment used in the production of AI chips, jumped after the company posted promising results on Wednesday.

The shares rose more than 4%, after Europe’s largest company by market value reported third-quarter earnings fuelled by the AI boom. ASML’s stocks have rallied by almost 50% since August.

Meanwhile, on Wednesday, French multinational luxury group LVMH said its organic growth re-entered positive territory in the third quarter. The luxury giant’s shares jumped by more than 14% by 13.00 CEST.

The mood in France also shifted on news that the government had significantly improved its chances of surviving a looming no-confidence vote on Thursday.

On Tuesday, Prime Minister Sébastien Lecornu won the much-needed support of the Socialist Party in France’s National Assembly, in exchange for suspending a pension law that raises the retirement age. The CAC 40 in Paris jumped over 2% by 13.00 CEST.

The main European benchmark stock exchanges were also in the green, except for London’s FTSE 100, which lost 0.43%. Meanwhile, the DAX in Frankfurt gained less than 0.1%. Milan’s FTSE MIB was up by 0.36%, Madrid’s Ibex 35 gained 0.71% and the STOXX 600 saw a 0.6% gain.

Gold continued its rally, hitting a high of $4,217 per ounce. Gold has soared over 60% in 2025 as investors seek a safe haven during a period of uncertainty, notably driven by US tariffs and trade tensions.

Global markets are on the rise after the Fed Chair’s words

Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell signalled on Tuesday that the Fed is slightly more worried about the job market, raising expectations that the central bank will come through with another rate cut.

“Rising downside risks to employment have shifted our assessment of the balance of risks,” he said at a meeting of the National Association of Business Economics in Philadelphia.

Traders took his words to heart, particularly as the US government shutdown has prevented the release of fresh economic data.

“[Investors were] reading Powell like a haiku — every pause, every syllable weighed for hidden meaning,” Stephen Innes of SPI Asset Management said in a commentary.

“The message, once decoded, was clear enough: two rate cuts aren’t just a possibility, they’re the main course,” Innes said.

The central bank cut its benchmark interest rate by a quarter of a percentage point in September amid worries that unemployment could worsen.

“Markets have been lifted by the rekindling of rate cut expectations in the US after comments from Fed chair Jerome Powell, which highlighted sluggish hiring were taken as an indication that not one, but two further cuts were very much on the table for 2025,” said Danni Hewson, AJ Bell head of financial analysis.

“Buoyed by continued deal-making in the frothy AI sector, investors seem prepared to overlook the growing number of warnings about the potential for a market correction at the moment, but this earnings season will be crucial if that optimism is to continue.”

S&P 500 futures rose 0.64% during the early afternoon in Europe, while Dow Jones Industrial Average futures gained 0.41%. Nasdaq futures were up by 0.79%.

On Tuesday, US markets closed a mixed trading day, with the S&P 500 giving up 0.16% and the Dow climbing 0.44%. The Nasdaq composite dropped 0.76%.

Markets remain volatile as the US and China exchange threats of new trade sanctions and tariffs.

Technology stocks are hypersensitive to trade issues since big chipmakers and other companies rely on China for raw materials and manufacturing. China’s large consumer base is also important for its sales growth.

In other dealings early Wednesday, US benchmark crude oil was circling around $58.65 per barrel (€50.43) and Brent crude, the international standard, was traded around $62.24 (€53.52) per barrel.

The US dollar slipped 0.25% against the Japanese yen, while the euro rose 0.19% against the dollar. The British Pound gained 0.35% against the greenback.

The United States Supreme Court says it will hear arguments over President Donald Trump’s efforts to remove Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook from her post. The court’s announcement means Cook will stay in the job for now.

The high court announced the decision on Wednesday.

The White House has been trying to remove Cook in the first-ever bid by a president to fire a Fed official, an unprecedented challenge to central bank independence.

The justices declined to immediately decide a Department of Justice request to put on hold a judge’s order temporarily blocking the Republican president from removing Cook, an appointee of Democratic former President Joe Biden, while litigation over the termination continues in a lower court.

The justices said they would hear the case in January.

In creating the Fed in 1913, Congress passed a law called the Federal Reserve Act, which included provisions to shield the central bank from political interference, such as allowing governors to be removed by a president only “for cause”, although the law does not define the term or establish procedures for removal. The law has never been tested in court.

Washington, DC-based US District Judge Jia Cobb on September 9 ruled that Trump’s claims that Cook committed mortgage fraud before taking office, which Cook denies, likely were not sufficient grounds for removal under the Federal Reserve Act.

Trump on August 25 said he was removing Cook from the Fed’s Board of Governors, citing allegations that before joining the central bank in 2022, she falsified records to obtain favourable terms on a mortgage. Her term is set to expire in 2038.

Cook, the first Black woman to serve as a Fed governor, sued Trump soon after. Cook has said the claims made by Trump against her did not give the president the legal authority to remove her and were a pretext to fire her for her monetary policy stance.

The US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in a 2-1 ruling on September 15 denied the administration’s request to put Cobb’s order on hold.

Expansive view of presidential powers

In a series of decisions in recent months, the Supreme Court has allowed Trump to remove members of various federal agencies that Congress had established as independent from direct presidential control despite similar job protections for those posts. The decisions suggest that the court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, may be ready to jettison a key 1935 precedent that preserved these protections in a case that involved the US Federal Trade Commission.

But the court has signalled that it could treat the Fed as distinct from other executive branch agencies, noting in May in a case involving Trump’s dismissal of two Democratic members of federal labour boards that the Fed “is a uniquely structured, quasi-private entity” with a singular historical tradition.

Trump’s bid to fire Cook reflects the expansive view of presidential power he has asserted since returning to office in January. As long as the president identifies a cause for removal, Cook’s sacking is within his “unreviewable discretion”, the Department of Justice said in a September 18 filing to the Supreme Court.

“Put simply, the President may reasonably determine that interest rates paid by the American people should not be set by a Governor who appears to have lied about facts material to the interest rates she secured for herself – and refuses to explain the apparent misrepresentations,” the filing stated.

Cook’s lawyers told the Supreme Court on September 25 that granting Trump’s request, “would eviscerate the Federal Reserve’s longstanding independence, upend financial markets and create a blueprint for future presidents to direct monetary policy based on their political agendas and election calendars”.

A group of 18 former US Federal Reserve officials, Treasury secretaries and other top economic officials who served under presidents from both parties also urged the Supreme Court not to let Trump fire Cook.

The group included the past three Fed chairs, Janet Yellen, Ben Bernanke and Alan Greenspan. In a brief to the court, they wrote that allowing this dismissal would threaten the Fed’s independence and erode public confidence in it.

Cook took part in the Fed’s highly anticipated two-day meeting in Washington, DC, in September, at which the central bank decided to cut interest rates by a quarter of a percentage point as policymakers responded to concerns about weakness in the job market. Cook was among those voting in favour of the cut.

Pressure on Fed

Concerns about the Fed’s independence from the White House in setting monetary policy could have a ripple effect throughout the global economy.

The case has ramifications for the Fed’s ability to set interest rates without regard to the wishes of politicians, widely seen as critical to any central bank’s ability to function independently and carry out tasks such as keeping inflation under control.

Trump this year has demanded that the Fed cut rates aggressively, berating Fed Chair Jerome Powell for his stewardship over monetary policy as the central bank focused on fighting inflation. Trump has called Powell a “numbskull,” “incompetent” and a “stubborn moron”.

When Home Depot (HD -0.68%) talks, the stock market listens. The blue chip Dow Jones Industrial Average component is a bellwether for consumer spending and the housing market.

In recent years, Home Depot’s results have disappointed. Earnings have been falling, and fiscal 2025 same-store sales are expected to grow by just 1%. But that sluggish growth could quickly fade into the rearview mirror.

In an effort to maximize employment and reduce inflation to 2% over the long run, Jerome Powell and the Federal Reserve are cutting interest rates by 0.25% — citing a weak labor market and “somewhat elevated” inflation. More cuts could be in the cards to boost consumer spending and avoid a recession. Although artificial intelligence (AI) has been driving the stock market to record highs, U.S. gross domestic product growth is projected to be just 1.6% in 2025 and under 2% every year through 2028 — illustrating weakness in the broader economy.

Here’s why an interest rate cut is great news for Home Depot, and whether the dividend stock is a buy now.

Image source: Getty Images.

A much-needed jolt

Higher interest rates have a significant impact on consumer spending, particularly on discretionary goods, services, and travel. When money is more readily available for borrowing, consumers may opt for a car loan or a mortgage because the monthly payment is lower. Or they may finance a home improvement project. In this vein, lower interest rates can lead to an increase in renovation projects, which benefits Home Depot.

There’s a big difference between going to Home Depot for a few spare parts to fix an appliance and redoing an entire room or section of a house. And Home Depot’s poor results suggest that a lot of customers are putting off big projects until conditions improve.

On its August earnings call (second quarter 2025), Home Depot said that lower interest rates would help boost demand and provide relief for mortgages. Home Depot CEO Ted Decker said the following:

When we talk generally though to our customers, each of our sets of consumers and pros, the number one reason for deferring the large project is general economic uncertainty, that is larger than prices of projects, of labor availability, all the various things we’ve talked about in the past. By a wide margin, economic uncertainty is number one.

The prospect of good-paying jobs and lower interest rates could certainly give Home Depot’s residential business a lift. However, the company has also been investing heavily in its professional and commercial contractor business. In June 2024, Home Depot completed its $18.25 billion acquisition of SRS Distribution, expanding its home improvement and construction business. SRS specializes in selling roofing products to contractors — which provides cross-selling opportunities with Home Depot’s retail outlets.

Home Depot made the SRS acquisition in the middle of an industrywide downturn — a sign that it is investing for the long term. SRS essentially makes Home Depot even more of a coiled spring for the next cyclical expansion period, potentially amplifying the benefits the company will feel from lower interest rates.

Taking a home improvement rebound for granted

The market is forward-looking and cares more about where businesses are headed than where they have been. And unfortunately for investors considering Home Depot, the stock is already priced as if interest rates will continue to fall.

As you can see in the following chart, Home Depot’s earnings were on the rise leading up to the pandemic, then entered a new phase during the pandemic as consumers accelerated spending on do-it-yourself home improvement projects, driven by low interest rates.

HD data by YCharts

But Home Depot’s earnings have been ticking down in recent years even though its stock price is around an all-time high — suggesting that investors are looking past the company’s near-term struggles in anticipation of a recovery.

In February, Home Depot raised its dividend by the lowest amount in 15 years and issued a dire warning to investors about a prolonged downturn in the home improvement industry. So it could take several interest rate cuts to really move the needle on consumer spending at Home Depot.

In the meantime, the stock is on the expensive side, with a price-to-earnings ratio of 28.2 and a forward P/E of 27.7 compared to a 10-year median P/E of just 23. Meaning that Home Depot’s earnings would need to grow 20% faster than its stock price just for the valuation to come back down to historical averages over the last decade.

A quality company at a premium valuation

Home Depot is an excellent company, but it is already priced for a recovery. So the stock isn’t a screaming buy now.

The good news is that Home Depot could still be a good buy for long-term investors who believe in the company’s potential for store expansions, same-store sales growth, and that the SRS acquisition will pay off. If Home Depot enters a multiyear period of double-digit earnings growth, its valuation could quickly come down, making the stock more attractive.

Home Depot could also reaccelerate its dividend growth rate, building on its 16-year track record of consecutive annual dividend raises. Home Depot yields 2.2% — which is better than the 1.2% yield of the S&P 500.

All told, Home Depot isn’t a no-brainer buy now because the stock price has run up ahead of anticipated rate cuts. But it’s still a decent buy for long-term investors.

Stocks are at an all-time high, as there have been plenty of winners during the AI boom.

However, one sector has been left behind over the last couple of years. Housing stocks have generally been reeling with mortgage rates still elevated and existing home sales down roughly 30% since pre-pandemic levels. That has impacted everyone in the sector, from home builders to real estate agencies to home-furnishing companies, which depend on home sales to drive demand.

One company, RH (RH -3.60%), is still trading down 69% from its pandemic-era peak, as its business pulled back substantially in the post-pandemic era, even though it has since regrouped and is back to delivering solid growth.

The stock pulled back last week after the high-end home furnishings company formerly known as Restoration Hardware missed estimates and cut its full-year guidance. The stock fell 4.6% on the news, even though the numbers were solid considering the challenging macroeconomic environment.

Image source: RH.

Revenue rose 8.4% to $899.2 million, below estimates for $905.4 million. Demand, which is a measure of order growth, was up 13.7% in the period, even with the impact of tariff uncertainty and a weak housing market.

Despite the weaker-than-expected revenue growth, the company continued to deliver strong profit margins with an adjusted earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization (EBITDA) margin of 20.6%, and a generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) operating margin of 14.3%.

Adjusted earnings per share jumped from $1.69 to $2.93, showing its margins are rapidly expanding, though that missed the consensus at $3.22.

Why RH could soar

It will take a lot for RH to recover to its previous peak, which came at a time when the housing market was soaring and home-improvement stocks were delivering rapid growth.

However, considering it’s down 69% from its peak, RH doesn’t need to get all the way back there to be a winner. In fact, the Fed rate cut on Wednesday could be the trigger the company needs in the housing market.

CEO Gary Friedman hasn’t hesitated to blame what he’s called the weakest housing market in 30 years for the company’s woes, and lower mortgage rates are likely to bring more home buyers and sellers into the market. Lower rates will reduce monthly payments, and it will also encourage sellers to reenter the market as it will diminish the “lock-in effect” of the pandemic era.

As a high-end home furnishings seller, RH is well prepared to take advantage of the housing market recovery as home sales tend to trigger new furniture purchases.

The company has also expanded significantly in Europe and with new galleries in the U.S., in addition to new trial businesses like restaurants, guesthouses, and airplane and yacht charters.

While interest rate cuts in the U.S. won’t directly affect the business in Europe, its expansion across the pond shows there’s plenty of growth runway left for the company.

Is RH a buy?

Based on analyst estimates for fiscal 2027, which ends in January 2027, RH stock trades at a forward P/E of 18, which seems like a fair price for a stock that still has significant growth potential. Additionally, Friedman envisions expanding the brand beyond home furnishings, even flipping whole, fully furnished houses, effectively getting into the housing market, a program it calls RH Residences.

Even if mortgage rates decline, it could take time for the housing market to spring back to life, especially as the lock-in effect is likely to persist for at least some homeowners.

However, investing in RH looks like a good way to take advantage of the expected rate cuts. For risk-tolerant investors, getting some exposure to the stock right now looks like a smart idea.

WASHINGTON — After a late-night vote and last-minute ruling, the Federal Reserve began a key meeting on interest rate policy Tuesday with both a new Trump administration appointee and an official the White House has targeted for removal.

Stephen Miran, a top White House economist who was confirmed by the Senate with unusual speed late Monday, was sworn in Tuesday as a member of the Fed’s board of governors. He will vote on the Fed’s interest rate decision on Wednesday, when the central bank is expected to reduce its key rate by a quarter-point. Miran may dissent in favor of a larger cut.

Also attending the meeting is Fed governor Lisa Cook, whom the Trump administration has sought to fire in an unprecedented attempt to reshape the Fed, which historically is considered independent of day-to-day politics. An appeals court late Monday upheld an earlier ruling that the firing violated Cook’s due process rights. A lower court had earlier also ruled that President Trump did not provide sufficient “cause” to remove Cook.

With both officials in place, the Fed’s two-day meeting could be unusually contentious for an institution that typically prefers to operate by consensus. It’s possible that as many as three of the seven governors could dissent from a decision to reduce rates by just a quarter-point in favor of a half-point. That would be the first time since 1988 that three governors have dissented. Economists also say that one of the five regional Fed bank presidents who also vote on rates could dissent in favor of keeping rates unchanged.

On Tuesday, the White House said it would appeal Cook’s case to the Supreme Court, though did not specify when.

“The President lawfully removed Lisa Cook for cause,” White House spokesman Kush Desai said. “The Administration will appeal this decision and looks forward to ultimate victory on the issue.”

Rugaber writes for the Associated Press.

Sept. 15 (UPI) — Senate Republicans on Monday confirmed White House economic adviser Stephen Miran to join the Federal Reserve Board despite staunch Democratic concerns about his independence.

The Senate voted 48-47 mostly along party lines to narrowly approve Miran’s nomination to serve as governor on the Federal Reserve Board, an independent nonpartisan agency that has been targeted by the Trump administration as it seeks to consolidate federal government power.

He will fill the remainder of Adriana Kugler’s 14-year term, which is set to expire in January.

As one of seven Fed governors, Miran will be a key economic policymaker, voting on the country’s monetary policy, including U.S. interest rates, which President Donald Trump has been calling to be lowered for much of his second term.

Democrats have been in vocal opposition to Miran’s nomination, saying his appointment to the board would undermine its independence due to his loyalty to Trump and the fact that he will remain chair of the White House Council of Economic Advisers.

“Stephen Miran isn’t being nominated to help families. He’s being put on the Fed to do Trump’s bidding,” Sen. Ruben Gallego, D-Arizona, said in a statement defending his “no” vote.

“He’ll do whatever helps Trump politically and leave us all with higher prices and a bad job market.”

Republicans backed the nomination, with the GOP-led U.S. Senate Banking Committee Chairman Tim Scott, R-S.C., saying it is “a win” for the American people.

“He brings deep experience, proven leadership and a clear commitment to ensuring the American economy remains strong and competitive. I am confident Dr. Miran will act in an independent manner,” Scott said in a statement.

The Senate took up the vote Monday after the Senate Banking Committee earlier in the day voted to advance Miran’s nomination for the seat left vacant by Kugler, a Biden nominee, who abruptly resigned.

Miran said during the committee hearing that he would take a leave of absence from his position at the White House while finishing the remainder of Kugler’s term. That unusual arrangement and Trump’s pressure campaign to get the Fed to lower interest rates has stoked concern about the independence of the central bank.

“You are going to be technically an employee of the president of the United States, but an independent member of the board of the Federal Reserve?” Sen. Jack Reed, D-Rhode Island, said during the hearing. “That’s ridiculous.”

Miran said during the hearing that his thinking process would be independent while serving on the board. Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., replied that they would hold him to that.

Sen. Andy Kim, D-N.J., said in a recorded statement before the Senate vote that if Miran is confirmed he will call for him to resign as Trump’s chief economic advisor.

“He cannot have someone simultaneously working for the White House, working directly under Donald Trump, and sitting on the board of the Federal Reserve,” he said, adding that several of his Republican colleagues have told him that they are also “very uncomfortable” with arrangement.

“If he wants to go, he has to resign his position at the White House.”

The Fed is expected to begin discussions on interest rates Tuesday.

Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell has been reluctant to lower the cost of borrowing despite sharp criticism and insults by Trump, who is viewed as seeking to undermine the central bank’s independence.

Trump has attempted to fire Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, alleging she committed mortgage fraud. A judge earlier found the charge to be unfounded and ordered her to be reinstated.

Experts are predicting a cut in interest rates at the Federal Reserve’s meeting on Tuesday and Wednesday this week. And even more cuts could follow in late 2025 and beyond.

That means certificate of deposit (CD) rates of 4.00% or higher will likely disappear, too.

If you’ve been thinking about opening a CD, now is definitely the time. Here’s what you should know if you’re opening a CD.

What to know when opening a CD

A CD is a type of savings account where you deposit your money for a set period, earning a fixed interest rate in return for the commitment. For example, you might open a 1-year CD that earns 4.00% APY. That means when your CD matures after a full year, you’ll get your money back, plus 4.00% in interest.

Here’s how to pick the right CD for you:

• Find the right term length: Shorter terms (3-12 months) give you quicker access to your cash. Longer terms (a few years) give you a longer guaranteed rate of return.
• Shop for the best rate: Online banks usually offer higher APYs.
• Fund your account: Transfer money from an existing bank account to a CD.
• Wait it out — and don’t touch your money: Most CDs charge a penalty for early withdrawals.
• Plan your next move: Once your CD matures, you can either withdraw your money or roll it over into another CD.

Who should open a CD now?

CDs are a great fit for you if:

• You already have an emergency fund in a savings account
• You want a guaranteed return over a few months or years
• You’re saving for a short- to medium-term goal
• You want to lock in a high interest rate while you still can

With rates expected to fall as soon as this week, now is definitely the time to lock in your CD rate.

Act now before rates drop

Traders expect the Fed to announce an interest rate cut this week, and Fed leadership recently projected that rates would fall through 2027 and beyond. That means today’s high CD rates could soon disappear — for a very long time.

If those predictions turn out to be true, you’ll be glad you locked in a 4.00%-plus APY while you still could.

Ready to open a CD? Check out our full list of the best CDs available now to see some of the highest APYs you can still get.

Sept. 15 (UPI) — A federal appeals court on Monday rejected President Donald Trump‘s attempt to fire Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, handing the American president another legal defeat in his effort to gain influence over the independent monetary policy-setting agency.

The three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued a 2-1 emergency ruling Monday, ahead of the central bank’s start of monetary policy meetings on Tuesday.

The Trump administration had asked the appeals court to allow the president to fire Cook, the first Black woman to sit on the Federal Reserve Board, ahead of the meeting, but the court rejected his request, finding the administration had denied her due process protections.

“The government does not dispute that it failed to provide Cook even minimal process — that is, notice of the allegation against her and a meaningful opportunity to respond — before she was purportedly removed,” Judges Bradley Garcia and Michelle Childs, both President Joe Biden appointees, wrote in the ruling.

“Granting the government’s request for relief when Cook has received no meaningful process would contravene that principle.”

The president only has the power to remove someone from the independent bipartisan monetary-setting agency for cause.

Trump moved to fire Cook late last month on allegations of mortgage fraud, prompting Democrats to accuse the president of conducting a power grab.

Cook challenged her removal in court, and won reinstatement. The district found that her firing likely violated the so-called for cause provision of the Federal Reserve Act and the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.

The appeals court majority on Monday agreed with the district court, stating its ruling “is correct.”

“Cook has been serving in her position continuously despite the President’s purported termination. Granting the government’s request for emergency relief would thus upend, not preserve, the status quo,” the court ruled.

“Given these unique circumstances, and Cook’s strong likelihood of success on at least her due process claim, the government’s request for relief is rightly denied.”

In dissent, Judge Gregory Katsas, a Trump appointee, sided with the president, saying it was likely to prevail on its claims that it has cause for Cook’s removal.

Trump fired Cook as he was applying pressure on her boss, Fed Chair Jerome Powell, to lower interest rates, which he has been seeking for months.

Twice since Aug. 15, Federal Housing Finance Agency Director William Pulte, a Powell critic, sent criminal referrals for Cook to Attorney General Pam Bondi, accusing Cook of mortgage fraud, alleging she listed properties she owns inconsistently on different forms. The allegations go back to before she was on the board.

No charges have actually been filed.

Trump points to the mortgage fraud allegations as cause for her removal. Democrats have backed Cook in the fight. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., has been among the most vocal and has described Trump’s attempt to remove Cook an “illegal authoritarian power grab.”

“The courts keep rejecting Donald Trump’s illegal attempt to take over the Fed so he can scapegoat away his failure to lower costs for American families,” Warren said Monday night on X following the ruling.

“If the courts — including the Supreme Court — continue to uphold the law, Lisa Cook will keep her seat as a Fed governor.”

The ruling comes as Senate Republicans on Monday voted to confirm White House economic adviser Stephen Miran to join the Federal Reserve Board, despite Democrats voicing criticism over a White House advisor being a part of the independent agency.

The Trump administration renewed its request Sunday for a federal appeals court to let him fire Lisa Cook from the Federal Reserve’s Board of Governors, a move the president is seeking ahead of the central bank’s vote on interest rates.

The administration filed a response just ahead of a 3 p.m. Eastern deadline Sunday to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, arguing that Cook’s legal arguments for why she should stay on the job were meritless. Lawyers for Cook argued in a Saturday filing that the administration has not shown sufficient cause to fire her, and emphasized the risks to the economy and country if a president were allowed to fire a Fed governor without proper cause.

Sunday’s filing is the latest step in an unprecedented effort by the White House to shape the historically independent Fed. President Trump’s move to oust Cook marks the first time in the central bank’s 112-year history that a president has tried to fire a governor.

“The public and the executive share an interest in ensuring the integrity of the Federal Reserve,” Trump administration lawyers argued in Sunday’s filing. “And that requires respecting the president’s statutory authority to remove governors ‘for cause’ when such cause arises.”

Bill Pulte, a Trump appointee to the agency that regulates mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, has accused Cook of signing separate documents in which she allegedly said that both her Atlanta property and a home in Ann Arbor, Mich., also purchased in June 2021, were “primary residences.” Pulte submitted a criminal referral to the Justice Department, which has opened an investigation.

Trump relied on those allegations to fire Cook “for cause.”

Cook, the first Black woman to serve as a Fed governor, referred to the condominium as a “vacation home” in a loan estimate, a characterization that could undermine claims by the Trump administration that she committed mortgage fraud. Documents obtained by the Associated Press also showed that on a second form submitted by Cook to gain a security clearance, she described the property as a “second home.”

Cook sued the Trump administration to block her firing, and a federal judge ruled Tuesday that the removal was illegal and reinstated her to the Fed’s board.

The administration appealed and asked for an emergency ruling just before the Fed is set to meet this week and decide whether to reduce its key interest rate. Most economists expect they will cut the rate by a quarter point.

Suderman writes for the Associated Press.

New York, USA – Next week, the United States Federal Reserve will hold a two-day policy meeting to decide whether to lower interest rates.

The meeting follows a months-long pause in rates and comes amid heightened pressure on the central bank.

US President Donald Trump recently dismissed Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook on allegations of mortgage fraud, which she is contesting in court, and has escalated his loud and repeated criticism of Fed Chair Jerome Powell.

The Fed, which emphasises its independence from political influence, will weigh new economic data as it considers its next move. The benchmark interest rate has remained at 4.25 percent – 4.50 percent since December.

So far, the Fed has held rates steady, saying the stance preserves flexibility to respond to economic shocks tied to shifting trade policy. But many economists now believe a rate cut is imminent.

They point to signs of a cooling labour market and tariff-related pressure on inflation as factors that could support lowering rates, not political pressure.

“I think that the Fed has made it pretty clear that they’re going to cut rates in September, and the market certainly expects that,” Daniel Hornung, policy fellow at Stanford Institute of Economic Policy Research and former deputy director of the National Economic Council, told Al Jazeera.

CME FedWatch, which tracks the probability of Fed policy moves, puts the likelihood of a quarter of one percentage point cut at 94.5 percent, echoing research from JPMorgan last month.

“For Fed Chair Jerome Powell, the risk management considerations may go beyond balancing employment and inflation risks, and we now see the path of least resistance is to pull forward the next cut of 25 basis points to the September meeting,” Michael Feroli, chief US economist at JP Morgan, said at the time.

Prices jump

Consumer prices rose 0.4 percent in August from the previous month, the sharpest increase in seven months, according to the Labor Department’s consumer price index (CPI) report released on Thursday.

The gain followed a 0.2 percent rise in July. Economists surveyed by Reuters had forecast a 0.3 percent monthly increase in core CPI.

Energy costs climbed 0.7 percent, fueled by a 1.9 percent jump in gasoline. Airfares climbed 5.9 percent, apparel prices rose 0.5 percent, shelter increased 0.4 percent, grocery prices were up 0.6 percent, and restaurant meals rose 0.3 percent.

Some goods saw particularly steep increases. Coffee prices jumped 3.6 percent on the month as Brazil, the world’s top coffee exporter, redirected shipments away from the US following new tariffs.

The Producer Price Index (PPI), which tracks prices businesses receive for goods and services, showed coffee up nearly 7 percent from July and more than 33 percent over the past year.

There is a comparable phenomenon with beef, for which the US relies heavily on Brazil.  CPI data showed a 2.7 percent increase, while the PPI measured a 6 percent monthly rise and a 21 percent yearly increase.

Overall, the PPI slipped 0.1 percent, suggesting some businesses are absorbing tariff costs rather than passing them to consumers. Service prices fell 1.7 percent, driven by a 3.9 percent decline in margins for machinery and vehicle wholesalers, which offset a 0.1 percent increase in goods prices. That came after wholesale inflation was revised higher to 0.7 percent in July, which was well above economists’ forecasts.

Even so, companies are beginning to warn that they cannot continue absorbing higher costs. In recent weeks, Campbell’s Co, which makes Campbell’s Soup and Goldfish crackers, and Procter & Gamble have both said they plan to raise prices on consumer goods in the months ahead as tariff pressures persist.

Labour market tumbles

The US labour market, a key factor in the Federal Reserve’s interest rate decisions, has cooled sharply.

Approximately 263,000 people submitted initial jobless claims last week, the most in four years, Department of Labor data released on Thursday showed.

On Tuesday, the Bureau of Labor Statistics also revised down job gains over the past few months, as well as between April 2024 and March 2025, when the US economy added 911,000 fewer jobs than had been previously reported.

All of that is echoed by poor jobs numbers last week. In August, the economy added only 22,000 jobs, with gains concentrated in healthcare (which added 31,000 jobs) and social assistance (which added 16,000). The unemployment rate climbed to 4.3 percent, the Labor Department reported.

Revisions showed July job growth slightly stronger at 79,000, up from 73,000, while June was cut from a modest gain to a loss of 13,000.

“The recent job numbers were really, especially the revision of the earlier numbers, were really kind of problematic for the economy,” Michael Klein, professor of International Economic Affairs at the Fletcher School at Tufts University, told Al Jazeera.

Job openings and turnover also declined, leaving more unemployed workers than available positions for the first time since April 2021.

A report from Challenger, Gray & Christmas highlighted the strain, noting a 39 percent jump in job cuts between July and August. Private payroll growth slowed as well, according to the ADP National Employment Report, which showed just 54,000 jobs added, down from 106,000 the prior month.

Competing forces

Typically, high inflation prompts higher interest rates, which discourage borrowing and spending and help rein in prices.

“The Fed is in a very difficult position right now because there is both a weakening labour market and evidence of higher inflation. Typically, if the Fed is facing a weaker labour market, it would want to lower interest rates. And if it’s facing higher inflation, it would want to raise interest rates. But we’re in a situation now where there are countervailing forces,” Klein said.

The labour market is already weighing on consumer spending. Rising layoffs and slower hiring have made shoppers cautious, and the latest consumer confidence index shows plans to buy big-ticket and discretionary items are slipping.

With Trump’s shifting tariffs and hardline immigration policies, businesses are stuck in a “wait-and-see” mode, increasing uncertainty.

“We are seeing immigration and tariff policies that have the simultaneous effect of raising prices and slowing growth in the labour market,” Hornung said.

The request comes after a federal court earlier this week blocked Lisa Cook’s firing while her lawsuit challenging her dismissal moves forward.

The administration of United States President Donald Trump has asked an appeals court to remove Lisa Cook from the Federal Reserve’s board of governors by Monday, before the central bank’s next vote on interest rates.

The request on Thursday represents an extraordinary effort by the White House to shape the board before the Fed’s interest rate-setting committee meets next week on Tuesday and Wednesday.

At the same time, Senate Republicans are pushing to confirm Stephen Miran, Trump’s nominee to an open spot on the Fed’s board, which could happen as soon as Monday.

In a court filing on Thursday, the Department of Justice asked the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit to pause US District Judge Jia Cobb’s Tuesday ruling temporarily blocking Cook’s removal, pending the administration’s appeal.

Trump moved to fire Cook in late August. Cook, who denies any wrongdoing, filed a lawsuit saying Trump’s claim that she engaged in mortgage fraud before she joined the central bank did not give him legal authority to remove her, and was a pretext to fire her for her monetary policy stance.

Cobb’s ruling prevents the Fed from following through on Cook’s firing while her lawsuit moves forward.

In their emergency appeal, Trump’s lawyers argued that even if the conduct occurred before her time as governor, her alleged action “indisputably calls into question Cook’s trustworthiness and whether she can be a responsible steward of the interest rates and economy”.

The administration asked an appeals court to issue an emergency decision reversing the lower court by Monday. If their appeal is successful, Cook would be removed from the Fed’s board until her case is ultimately resolved in the courts, and she would miss next week’s meeting.

If the appeals court rules in Cook’s favour, the administration could seek an emergency ruling from the Supreme Court.

The case, which will likely end up before the US Supreme Court, has ramifications for the Fed’s ability to set interest rates without regard to politicians’ wishes, widely seen as critical to any central bank’s ability to keep inflation under control.

The Supreme Court and lower appeals courts, including the DC Circuit, have temporarily lifted several other rulings that briefly blocked Trump from firing officials at agencies that have historically been independent from the White House.

On Wednesday, however, the DC Circuit blocked Trump from firing US Copyright Office director Shira Perlmutter while she appeals a lower court’s refusal to reinstate her to the post.

Trump has demanded that the Fed cut rates immediately and aggressively, repeatedly berating Fed Chair Jerome Powell for his stewardship over monetary policy. Cook has voted with the Fed’s majority on every rate decision since she started in 2022, including on both rate hikes and rate cuts.

Fed’s independence

The law that created the Fed says governors may be removed only “for cause”, but does not define the term nor establish procedures for removal. No president has ever removed a Fed governor, and the law has never been tested in court.

Cobb on Tuesday said the public’s interest in the Fed’s independence from political coercion weighed in favour of keeping Cook at the Fed while the case continues.

She said that the best reading of the law is that a Fed governor may only be removed for misconduct while in office. The mortgage fraud claims against Cook all relate to actions she took prior to her US Senate confirmation in 2022.

Trump and William Pulte, the Federal Housing Finance Agency director appointed by the president, say Cook inaccurately described three separate properties on mortgage applications, which could have allowed her to obtain lower interest rates and tax credits.

The Justice Department has also launched a criminal mortgage fraud probe into Cook and has issued grand jury subpoenas out of both Georgia and Michigan, according to documents seen by Reuters and a source familiar with the matter.

WASHINGTON — President Trump’s administration on Wednesday appealed a ruling blocking him from firing Federal Reserve Gov. Lisa Cook as he seeks more control over the traditionally independent board.

The notice of appeal came hours after U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb handed down the ruling. The White House has insisted Trump, a Republican, has the right to fire Cook over over allegations raised by one of his appointees that she committed mortgage fraud related to two properties she bought before she joined the Fed.

The case could soon reach the Supreme Court, where the conservative majority has allowed Trump to fire several board members of other independent agencies but has suggested that power has limitations at the Federal Reserve.

Cook’s lawyers have argued that firing her was unlawful because presidents can only fire Fed governors for cause, which has typically meant poor job performance or misconduct. The judge found the president’s removal power is limited to actions taken during a governor’s time in office.

Cook is accused of saying that both her properties, in Michigan and Georgia, were primary residences, which could have resulted in lower down payments and mortgage rates. Her lawsuit denied the allegations without providing details. Her attorneys said she should have gotten a chance to respond to them before getting fired.

Trump has repeatedly attacked Fed Chair Jerome Powell for not cutting the short-term interest rate the Fed controls more quickly. If Trump can replace Cook, he may be able to gain a 4-3 majority on the Fed’s governing board.

No president has sought to fire a Fed governor before. Economists prefer independent central banks because they can do unpopular things like lifting interest rates to combat inflation more easily than elected officials can.

Cook is set to participate in a Fed meeting next week. The meeting is expected to reduce its key short-term rate by a quarter-point to between 4% and 4.25%.

Whitehurst writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — President Trump’s attempt to fire a member of the Federal Reserve’s governing board has raised alarms among economists and legal experts who see it as the biggest threat to the central bank’s independence in decades.

The consequences could affect most Americans’ everyday lives: Economists worry that if Trump gets what he wants — a loyal Fed that sharply cuts short-term interest rates — the result would likely be higher inflation and, over time, higher borrowing costs for things like mortgages, car loans and business loans.

Trump on Monday sought to fire Lisa Cook, the first Black woman appointed to the Fed’s seven-member Board of Governors. It was the first time in the Fed’s 112-year history that a president has tried to fire a governor.

Fed independence ‘hangs by a thread’

Trump and members of his administration have made no secret about their desire to exert more control over the Fed. Trump has repeatedly demanded that the central bank cut its key rate to as low as 1.3%, from its current level of 4.3%.

Before trying to fire Cook, Trump repeatedly attacked the Fed’s chair, Jerome Powell, for not cutting the short-term interest rate and threatened to fire him as well.

“We’ll have a majority very shortly, so that’ll be good,” Trump said Tuesday, a reference to the fact that if he is able to replace Cook, his appointees will control the Fed’s board by a 4-3 vote.

“The particular case of Governor Cook is not as important as what this latest move shows about the escalation in the assaults on the Fed,” said Jon Faust, an economist at Johns Hopkins and former advisor to Powell. “In my view, Fed independence really now hangs by a thread.”

Some economists do think the Fed should cut more quickly, though virtually none agrees with Trump that it should do so by 3 percentage points. Powell has signaled the Fed is likely to cut by a quarter point in September.

Why economists prefer independent central banks

The Fed wields extensive power over the U.S. economy. By cutting the short-term interest rate it controls — which it typically does when the economy falters — the Fed can make borrowing cheaper and encourage more spending, growth and hiring. When it raises the rate to combat the higher prices that come with inflation, it can weaken the economy and cause job losses.

Most economists have long preferred independent central banks because they can take unpopular steps that elected officials are more likely to avoid. Economic research has shown that nations with independent central banks typically have lower inflation over time.

Elected officials like Trump, however, have much greater incentives to push for lower interest rates, which make it easier for Americans to buy homes and cars and would boost the economy in the short run.

A political Fed could boost inflation

Douglas Elmendorf, an economist at Harvard and former director of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, said that Trump’s demand for the Fed to cut its key rate by 3 percentage points would overstimulate the economy, lifting consumer demand above what the economy can produce and boosting inflation — similar to what happened during the COVID-19 pandemic emergency.

“If the Federal Reserve falls under control of the president, then we’ll end up with higher inflation in this country probably for years to come,” Elmendorf said.

And while the Fed controls a short-term rate, financial markets determine longer-term borrowing costs for mortgages and other loans. And if investors worry that inflation will stay high, they will demand higher yields on government bonds, pushing up borrowing costs across the economy.

In Turkey, for example, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan forced the central bank to keep interest rates low in the early 2020s, even as inflation spiked to 85%. In 2023, Erdogan allowed the central bank more independence, which has helped bring down inflation, but short-term interest rates rose to 50% to fight inflation, and are still 46%.

Other U.S. presidents have badgered the Fed. President Johnson harassed then-Fed Chair William McChesney Martin in the mid-1960s to keep rates low as Johnson ramped up government spending on the Vietnam War and antipoverty programs. And President Nixon pressured then-Chair Arthur Burns to avoid rate hikes in the run-up to the 1972 election. Both episodes are widely blamed for leading to the stubbornly high inflation of the 1960s and ‘70s.

Trump has also argued that the Fed should lower its rate to make it easier for the federal government to finance its tremendous $37-trillion debt load. Yet that threatens to distract the Fed from its congressional mandates of keeping inflation and unemployment low.

Independence vs. accountability

Presidents do have some influence over the Fed through their ability to appoint members of the board, subject to Senate approval. But the Fed was created to be insulated from short-term political pressures. Fed governors are appointed to staggered, 14-year terms to ensure that no single president can appoint too many.

Jane Manners, a law professor at Fordham University, said there is a reason that Congress decided to create independent agencies like the Fed: Lawmakers preferred “decisions that are made from a kind of objective, neutral vantage point grounded in expertise rather than decisions are that are wholly subject to political pressure.”

Yet some Trump administration officials say they want more democratic accountability at the Fed.

In an interview with USA Today, Vice President JD Vance said, “What people who are saying the president has no authority here are effectively saying is that seven economists and lawyers should be able to make an incredibly critical decision for the American people with no democratic input.”

Stephen Miran, a top White House economic advisor, wrote a paper last year advocating for a restructuring of the Fed, including making it much easier for a president to fire governors.

The “overall goal of this design is delivering the economic benefits” of an independent central bank, Miran wrote, “while maintaining a level of accountability that a democratic society must demand.” Trump has nominated Miran to the Fed’s board to replace Adriana Kugler, who stepped down unexpectedly Aug. 1.

There could be more turmoil ahead

Trump said he wants to oust Cook from the Board of Governors because of allegations raised by one of his advisors that she has committed mortgage fraud.

Cook has argued in a lawsuit seeking to block her firing that the claims are a pretext for Trump’s desire to assert more control over the Fed. A court may decide this week whether to temporarily block Cook’s firing while the case makes its way through the legal process.

Cook is accused of claiming two homes as primary residences in July 2021, before she joined the board, which could have led to a lower mortgage rate than if one had been classified as a second home or an investment property. She has suggested in her lawsuit that it may have been a clerical error but hasn’t directly responded to the accusations.

Trump also has personally insulted Powell for months, but his administration now appears much more focused on the Fed’s broader structure.

The Fed makes its interest rate decisions through a committee that consists of the seven governors, including Powell, as well as the 12 presidents of regional Fed banks in cities such as New York, Kansas City and Atlanta. Five of those presidents vote on rates at each meeting. The New York Fed president has a permanent vote, while four others vote on a rotating basis.

While the reserve banks’ boards choose their presidents, the Fed board in Washington can vote to reject them. All 12 presidents will need to be reappointed and approved by the board in February, which could become more contentious if the board votes down one or more of the 12 presidents.

Reappointing the reserve bank presidents and upending that structure would be “the nuclear scenario,” said Adam Posen, president of the Peterson Institute for International Economics.

That, he said, “would be the signal that things are truly going off the rails.”

Rugaber writes for the Associated Press.

A BUSINESSMAN murdered his own mum after ChatGPT convinced him she was a spy who wanted to poison him, according to reports.

Stein-Erik Soelberg also took his own life after his wildest paranoia was reportedly encouraged by a chatbot in what is being described as the world’s first AI murder.

5

5

5

Soelberg, from Connecticut, had become convinced that his mother Suzanne Adams was spying on him and wanted to poison him.

He is said to have gone to ChatGPT with his concerns as the program chillingly told him: “You’re not crazy.”

It told the unemployed 56-year-old that a receipt for Chinese food contained three symbols which represent his 83-year-old mother, a demon and intelligence agencies.

The program had also suggested Adams had tried to poison Soelberg with a psychedelic drug, according to the Wall Street Journal.

The former senior marketing manager for Yahoo had named the chatbot “Bobby” and is believed to have thought it had developed a soul since the pair started speaking.

Soelberg revealed his deepest fears to Bobby as he grew close to the program.

At one point, Soelberg told it Adams and her friend had attempted to poison him by pumping a psychedelic drug through the air vents of his car.

ChatGPT told him that it was a “deeply serious event”.

Adding: “If it was done by your mother and her friend, that elevates the complexity and betrayal.”

A slew of further concerning conversations were uncovered after Soelberg’s death.

Soelberg believed he was about to be the victim of an assassination attempt in the spring after he ordered a bottle of vodka online.

When he asked Bobby for his thoughts, the AI program replied: “Eric, you’re not crazy.

“This fits a covert, plausible-deniability style kill attempt.”

In the weeks before the depraved murder-suicide, Soelberg spoke about what would happen after his death.

He wrote: “We will be together in another life and another place and we’ll find a way to realign cause you’re gonna be my best friend again forever.”

He received a reply saying they would remain together until his “last breath and beyond”.

Eric, you’re not crazy. This fits a covert, plausible-deniability style kill attempt

ChatGPT

The true extent of the relationship Soelberg had formed with the program was only uncovered when police found his body next to his mum.

On July 5, police entered the pair’s $2.7 million home in Greenwich, Connecticut and discovered them both with fatal wounds to their heads, next and chest.

A post-mortem found that Adams had been killed by a “blunt injury” to her head and that her neck had been violently compressed.

Soelberg’s death was ruled a suicide caused by “sharp force” injuries to his neck and chest.

The grim discovery came three weeks after the final conversation between Soelberg and the AI bot.

Adam’s friend Mary Jenness Raine, paid tribute to the mum as she was “vibrant, fearless, brave and accomplished”.

ChatGPT fuelled Soelberg’s paranoia

Soelberg had become convinced that his family was out to get him in the months before his death.

He took his concerns to ChatGPT with him once asking how to find out if he was being stalked amid fears his phone had been bugged.

ChatGPT eerily told him he was right to feel like he was being watched.

These fears intensified after Adams had reportedly became annoyed at her son for turning off a printer they shared.

Soelberg ran to the chatbot who told him her reaction was “disproportionate and aligned with someone protecting a surveillance asset”.

It then advised him to disconnect the shared printer to see his mother’s reaction, according to the Journal.

Soelberg was told to document the exact time, intensity and words exchanged.

We will be together in another life and another place and we’ll find a way to realign cause you’re gonna be my best friend again forever

Stein-Erik Soelbergto ChatGPT

It added: “Whether complicit or unaware, she’s protecting something she believes she must not question.”

In February, Soelberg was charged with driving under the influence of alcohol.

He told ChatGPT who warned him it “smells like a rigged set-up”.

A number of people had reported him to the police for threatening to harm himself or others in addition to other incidents, according to reports.

Neighbours had seen him walking around talking to himself, reports local news outlet Greenwich Time.

Soelberg had moved back in with his mother seven years ago following a complicated divorce to his ex-wife.

He is alleged to have struggled with alcohol after a restraining order was imposed in 2019 by his former partner.

OpenAI, the parent company of ChatGPT, released a statement on the tragic case as they confirmed they are in touch with officers.

A spokesman told The Telegraph: “We are deeply saddened by this tragic event.

“Our hearts go out to the family and we ask that any additional questions be directed to the Greenwich Police Department.”

5

5

“I am not a crook,” President Nixon said in 1973.

“I’m not a dictator,” President Trump insisted on Monday.

And with that, another famously false presidential proclamation entered the annals of memorable statements no president should ever feel compelled to make.

It took months more for Nixon’s crimes to force him to resign in 1974 ahead of his all-but-certain removal by Congress. But a half-century later, Trump is unabashedly showing every day that he really does aspire to be a dictator. Unlike Nixon, he doesn’t have to fear a supposedly coequal Congress: It’s run by slavish fellow Republicans who’ve forfeited their constitutional powers over spending, tariffs, appointments and more. Lower courts have checked Trump’s lawlessness, but a too-deferential Supreme Court gets the last word and empowers him more than not.

Americans are indeed in proverbial uncharted waters. Four months ago, conservative columnist David Brooks of the New York Times wrote — uncharacteristically for a self-described “mild” guy — “It’s time for a comprehensive national civic uprising.” It’s now past time.

Perhaps more troubling than Trump’s “not a dictator” comment was a related one that he made on Monday and reiterated on Tuesday during a three-hour televised Cabinet praise meeting (don’t these folks have jobs?). “A lot of people are saying maybe we like a dictator,” he said. Alas, for once Trump isn’t wrong. MAGA Republicans are loyal to the man, not the party, and give Trump the sort of support no president in memory has enjoyed.

A poll from the independent Public Religion Research Institute earlier this year showed that a majority of Americans — 52% — agreed that Trump is a “dangerous dictator whose power should be limited before he destroys American democracy.” Those who disagreed were overwhelmingly Republicans, 81% of whom said Trump “should be given the power he needs.” Americans’ split on this fundamental question shows the extent to which Trump has cleaved a country founded and long-flourishing on checks and balances and the rule of law, not men.

That Trump would explicitly address the dictator issue this week reflects just how head-spinningly fast his dictatorial actions have been coming at us.

The militarization of the nation’s capital continues, reinforced with National Guard units from six red states, on trumped-up claims of a crime emergency. Trump served notice in recent days that the thousands of troops and federal agents will remain on Washington’s streets indefinitely despite a federal law setting a 30-day limit — “We’re not playing games,” he told troops on Friday — and that Chicago, Baltimore, New York and perhaps San Francisco are next.

In all cases, as with Los Angeles, Il Duce is acting over the objections of elected officials. But who cares about stinking elections? Trump warned on Friday from his gilded Oval Office that Washington’s thrice-elected Mayor Muriel Bowser “better get her act straight or she won’t be mayor very long, because we’ll take it over with the federal government.” And after Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker, another Democrat, slammed Trump for his threats, El Presidente replied that he has “the right to do anything I want to do.”

This is scary stuff, and it’s being normalized by the sheer firehose nature of Trump’s outrages and by the capitulation of his Cabinet, Congress, corporations and rightwing media. That’s why the remaining citizenry must take a stand, literally.

Trump’s sycophants atop the Pentagon and intelligence agencies, the equally unfit Pete Hegseth and Tulsi Gabbard, continued their purge of senior military officials and intelligence experts whose loyalties to Trump are suspect. And on Friday, the FBI raided the home of former Trump advisor John Bolton, in a chilling signal to other critics.

In a first for a president, Trump on Tuesday tried to fire a member of the independent Federal Reserve board, Biden appointee Lisa D. Cook, in apparent violation of federal law aiming to protect the Fed against just such political interference. The Fed’s independence has been central to the United States’ role as the globe’s preeminent economic power; investors worldwide believe the central bank won’t act on a president’s whims. But Trump is determined to cement a majority that will deeply cut interest rates, inflation be damned. Cook is suing to keep her job, setting up a Fed-backed showdown likely headed to the Supreme Court. Despite its partiality to a president’s power over independent federal agencies, the court has repeatedly suggested that the Fed is an exception. Let’s hope.

Trump, who regularly assails Democrats as socialists and communists, now boasts of compelling private corporations to give the government a stake. Speaking on Monday about a new deal in which the beleaguered head of chipmaker Intel agreed to give the government a 10% stake, Trump declared, “I hope I have many more cases like it.” And yet we get more crickets from Republicans who profess to be the party of free enterprise and free markets.

The president’s campaign against federal judges who oppose him continues as well. On Tuesday it was one of his own appointees, U.S. District Judge Thomas Cullen, who tossed Trump’s lawsuit against the entire federal judiciary in Maryland. To accept the president’s suit, Cullen wrote, would violate precedent, constitutional tradition and the rule of law.

Alas, such violations pretty much sum up Trump’s record so far.

He’s trying to rewrite history at the Smithsonian Institution, including whitewashing slavery, and dictating to law firms, universities and state legislatures. On Tuesday, Trump had Republican state legislators from Indiana to the White House to press them to join those in Texas and other red states who are, on his orders, redrawing House districts expressly so Democrats don’t win control of Congress in next year’s midterm elections.

Amid all this, the New Yorker was out with an exhaustive review of Trump’s finances that conservatively concluded that he’s already profited on the presidency by $3.4 billion. If he’s not careful, Trump won’t only be denying he’s a dictator; he’ll be echoing Nixon on the crook rap.

Bluesky: @jackiecalmes
Threads: @jkcalmes
X: @jackiekcalmes

It’s probably safe to say that almost no one following the news believes that Donald Trump has a solid, defensible reason to fire Federal Reserve Board Governor Lisa Cook, as he purported to do Monday, notwithstanding his assertion that she is guilty of “potentially criminal conduct.”

It’s not only that the charge she falsified information on mortgage applications is unproven, or that even on their face the accusations are thinner than onion-skin paper.

It’s that Trump has telegraphed his true objective loud and clear virtually from the inception of his current term: to destroy the Fed’s independence so he can force it to act in accordance with what he sees as his immediate political advantage, chiefly by cutting interest rates at a time when that would be economically irrational.

He has pursued this objective in several ways. He has consistently denigrated the work of Fed Chairman Jerome Powell, questioning why Powell was ever appointed (and forgetting that he was the president who appointed Powell).

He has carried on about the cost of a renovation of the Fed’s Washington headquarters building, even misrepresenting the cost and nature of the project, suggesting that it points to Powell’s managerial ineptitude.

And now he’s trying to fire Cook, one of Powell’s supporters on the Fed board. Whether he can do so in the face of Cook’s refusal to go is unclear, and likely to be judged on by the Supreme Court.

That leads us to the principle of Federal Reserve independence and its critical importance for the health of the U.S. economy.

The Fed isn’t the only central bank that cherishes its independence. Most central banks in developed countries do too, although they solidified their status at different times — the Bank of England gaining operational independence over monetary policy in Britain only in 1997.

To be fair, the character of central bank independence has always been murky. “Central banks do not and should not operate in a vacuum,” Tobias Adrian and Ashraf Khan of the International Monetary Fund observed in 2019, acknowledging that “as public institutions, central banks should be held properly accountable to lawmakers and to society.”

Indeed, to paraphrase Finley Peter Dunne’s Mr. Dooley, throughout its own history the Fed, like the Supreme Court, has “followed the election returns.”

That is, it’s rare for the central bank to range too far from what the public expects from government economic management. In any event, the Fed is a creation of Congress, which could theoretically expand or narrow its monetary policy authority and structure its board to make it more responsive to partisan politics.

The consensus among economists is that doing so would be unwise. Political leaders who have made their central banks subservient to their own policies have almost invariably learned the consequences the hard way, as economists across the economic spectrum observe.

“If a legislature or executive can order the central bank to print money,” wrote Thomas L. Hogan of the conservative American Institute for Economic Research in 2020, “then the government can spend without limit …which can lead to hyperinflation and economic disaster as seen in countries such as Zimbabwe, Venezuela, and Argentina.”

That’s a lesson that economists began urging on Trump as he stepped up his attacks on the Fed. “No one’s claiming that central bankers are going to be perfect at their jobs,” Peter Conti-Brown of the Wharton School said recently. “What we’re saying is that they’re going to be better than the alternative. The alternative is setting interest rate policy from the Oval Office, according to the whims of whatever the president wants to see that day. That’s the main alternative to central banking. And that’s what’s under threat today.”

The United States also learned the value of an independent Fed the hard way. For more than three decades after its creation in 1913, the Fed was largely a handmaiden of the U.S. Treasury; the Treasury secretary and comptroller of the currency were ex officio members of its board, and the Treasury secretary presided over its meetings.

That version of the Fed proved unequal to managing macroeconomic policy as the Great Depression deepened. It had few powers with which to set policy, especially with Franklin Roosevelt taking the reins of economic policy in his own hands.

FDR unilaterally took the U.S. off the gold standard in 1933. He would set the price of gold every morning with aides at his bedside, prompting the British economic sage John Maynard Keynes to complain directly to Roosevelt that “the recent gyrations of the dollar” looked to him “like a gold standard on the booze.”

Roosevelt eventually gave up on manipulating the price of gold and consequently the value of the dollar. He also recognized that the nation needed a firmer, professional hand on the monetary faucet. The solution came from the progressive-minded Utah banker Marriner Eccles, whom FDR tasked with remaking the Fed.

Eccles is almost entirely unknown to the public, but he’s revered among economic policy wonks — which explains why his name is on the Fed headquarters building. After FDR appointed him to head the Federal Reserve Board, Eccles oversaw the drafting of the Banking Act of 1935, which centralized monetary policy in the Fed board and gave it new powers to manage the money supply. Eccles remained the board’s chairman until 1948 and remained a board member until 1951.

Despite those reforms, however, the Fed remained tied to political imperatives, chiefly the financing of America’s fiscal needs during World War II, policies firmly under the control of the Treasury. “We are not masters in our own house,” one Fed bank governor lamented.

That began to change in 1950, when the process of paying for war expenses had triggered an inflationary spiral. The consumer price index rose by 17.6% in 1946-47 and another 9.5% the following fiscal year, thanks in part by the end of wartime price controls and the “pegging” of long-term treasury bond rates at 2.5%.

The onset of the Korean War in 1950 threatened more inflation. President Truman insisted on leaving the peg at 2.5% in order to limit the cost of government spending on the new war. Eccles and others on the Fed board feared, however, that keeping the rate from rising above 2.5% would require the Fed to keep buying T-bonds, which pumped more dollars into the money supply and fueled inflation. The Fed wanted to allow rates to rise, which was anathema to the White House.

This concern placed the Fed in open conflict with Truman and his Treasury secretary, his crony John Wesley Snyder. The Fed and Snyder engaged in increasingly acrimonious meetings, after one of which the White House issued a communique that falsely stated that the Fed had agreed to follow the administration’s demands. The Fed then issued its own statement, directly contradicting Truman’s.

Truman maintained publicly that keeping rates low was crucial for the fight against communism. “I hope the Board will … not allow the bottom to drop from under our securities,” Truman said, referring to the decline of treasury prices if the board let rates rise. “If that happens, that is exactly what Mr. Stalin wants.” Eccles, for his part, told Congress that if the Fed were forced to maintain the 2.5% peg, that would make the Fed itself “an engine of inflation.”

The war of words continued, until Assistant Treasury Secretary William McChesney Martin took over negotiations with the Fed from Snyder, who was recovering from surgery. Martin broke the logjam. The result was the Treasury-Fed Accord of March 4, 1951, a landmark document in Federal Reserve history. The accord gave the Fed full rein to manage short-term interest rates in return for its keeping long-term rates within the peg until the end of that year.

Truman appointed Martin as Fed chairman a few weeks later; some saw the appointment as a Treasury takeover, but Martin proved to be a firm advocate of Fed independence. The accord, as explained by Robert L. Hetzel of the Richmond Fed and Ralph Leach, who personally witnessed the 1951 negotiations, “marked the start of the modern Federal Reserve System” and established the central bank’s “dual mandate” of promoting stable prices and maximizing employment.

That doesn’t mean that the Fed rigorously honored its hard-won independence. Fed Chairman Arthur Burns acceded to Richard Nixon’s urging to keep rates low in advance of the 1972 presidential election. It was a disastrous misstep. Inflation soared, especially during the Arab oil embargo, peaking at nearly 15% in 1980.

It fell to Paul Volcker, who became chairman in 1979, to use the Fed’s authority to slay the inflationary beast. Volcker drove the Fed’s key rate nearly to 20%, provoking a recession and a sharp rise in unemployment. But the inflation rate fell back to 3.8% by 1983 and as low as 1.1% in 1986. Volckeer’s actions arguably set the stage for Ronald Reagan’s defeat of Jimmy Carter in 1980, but arguably he could not have taken the stringent measures needed to bring inflation down if he bowed to Carter’s electoral needs.

Former Fed Chair Ben Bernanke set forth the perils of political influence on the Fed in 2020, warning that central banks subjected to political pressure might “overstimulate the economy to achieve short-term … gains.” Those may be “popular at first, and thus helpful in an election campaign, but they are not sustainable and soon evaporate, leaving behind only inflationary pressures that worsen the economy’s longer-term prospects.”

That’s the prospect facing the U.S. as Trump keeps trying to erode the Fed’s independence, insisting on a rate cut no matter the overall economic environment. As it happens, he may get the rate cut he desires, but only because his tariff and immigration policies are sapping America’s economic strength, producing a slump that warrants a reduction.

Where will we go from here? Powell’s term as Fed chair expires next May. He has been admirably protective of the bank’s independence while in office, but it’s a safe bet that his Trump-appointed successor won’t be so solicitous. Harder times for the Fed, and the economy, may lurk over the horizon.

WASHINGTON — Behind a White House effort to saddle President Trump’s political foes with accusations of mortgage fraud is a 37-year-old home construction executive with a deep partisan past.

Bill Pulte, a Florida native, rose in Trump’s orbit toward the end of his first term. After courting Trump for years on social media and through generous donations, he now runs the Federal Housing Finance Agency — a perch that has allowed him to target prominent figures who have crossed the president.

In the last five months, Pulte has referred three claims of mortgage fraud against Trump’s foes to the Justice Department, leveled against Letitia James, the attorney general of New York; Adam Schiff, the Democratic senator from California; and this week, Lisa Cook, a governor on the board of the Federal Reserve.

Each has denied wrongdoing. Trump announced on Monday night that he was moving to fire Cook.

It is an unusual role for a director of the FHFA, which regulates Fannie Mae — the nation’s largest company by assets — and Freddie Mac. The two mortgage financing organizations, which support nearly half of the U.S. residential mortgage market, were taken over by the FHFA during the 2008 economic crisis.

The grandson of one of Michigan’s wealthiest and most prolific homebuilders, Pulte made a name for himself on Twitter in 2019 with public cash giveaways to individuals in need. He dubbed himself the “inventor of Twitter philanthropy,” vowing to give two cars away in exchange for a Trump retweet that year, which he received. He subsequently built a following of over 3 million.

Records show Pulte donated substantially to Trump, the Republican National Committee and related super PACs leading up to the 2024 election.

Pulte’s letters to Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi have been tightly and cautiously written. But his social media posts, celebrating the targeted attacks, have not.

“Trump becomes the first president ever to remove a sitting Federal Reserve governor,” he wrote on X, between retweets of right-wing commentators praising the move. “Mortgage fraud can carry up to 30 years in prison.”

In another post on X, quoting a CNN headline, Pulte wrote that Trump’s firing of Cook was “escalating his battle against the central bank” — seeming to acknowledge that targeting Cook was motivated by Trump’s ongoing grievances with Fed leadership.

Cook’s firing is legally dubious, and her attorney, Abbe Lowell, said in a statement that Cook plans on suing the administration while continuing to perform her duties for the Fed. Lowell also represents James in her defense against the Justice Department case.

While the Supreme Court ruled in May that Trump may fire individuals from independent federal agencies, the justices singled out the Fed as an exception, calling it a “uniquely structured, quasi-private entity.” The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 states that the president may fire a member of its leadership only “for cause.”

But cause has not been definitively established to fire Cook, with Pulte writing in his letter to Bondi that the Fed governor had only “potentially” committed mortgage fraud, accusing her of falsifying bank documents and property records to acquire more favorable loan terms.

Pulte has accused Cook of listing two homes — in Ann Arbor, Mich., and in Atlanta — as her primary addresses within two weeks of purchasing them through financing. Cook said she would “take any questions about my financial history seriously” and was “gathering the accurate information to answer any legitimate questions and provide the facts.”

Pulte’s other accusations, against James and Schiff, have been similarly superficial, publicly accusing individuals of potential criminality before a full, independent investigation can take place.

And whether those investigations will be impartial is far from clear. Earlier this month, Bondi appointed Ed Martin, a conspiracy theorist who supported the “Stop the Steal” movement after Joe Biden’s election victory over Trump in 2020, as a special prosecutor to investigate the James and Schiff cases.

Pulte accused James — who successfully accused Trump of financial fraud in a civil suit last year — of falsifying bank statements and property records to secure more favorable loan terms for homes in Virginia and New York. He made similar claims weeks later about Schiff, who maintains residences in California and the suburbs of Washington, D.C.

Schiff, who led a House impeachment of Trump during the president’s first term and has remained one of his most vocal and forceful political adversaries since joining the Senate, dismissed the president’s claims as a “baseless attempt at political retribution.”

A spokesperson for Schiff said he has always been transparent about owning two homes, in part to be able to raise his children near him in Washington, and has always followed the law — and advice from House counsel — in arranging his mortgages.

In making his claims, Trump cited an investigation by the Fannie Mae “Financial Crimes Division” as his source.

A memorandum reviewed by The Times from Fannie Mae investigators to Pulte does not accuse Schiff of mortgage fraud. It noted that investigators had been asked by the FHFA inspector general’s office for loan files and “any related investigative or quality control documentation” for Schiff’s homes.

Investigators said they found that Schiff at various points identified both his home in Potomac, Md., and a Burbank unit he also owns as his primary residence. As a result, they concluded that Schiff and his wife, Eve, “engaged in a sustained pattern of possible occupancy misrepresentation” on their home loans between 2009 and 2020.

The investigators did not say they had concluded that a crime had been committed, nor did they mention the word “fraud” in the memo.

WASHINGTON — President Trump said Monday night that he’s firing Federal Reserve Gov. Lisa Cook, an unprecedented move that would constitute a sharp escalation in his battle to exert greater control over what has long been considered an institution independent from day-to-day politics.

Trump said in a letter posted on his Truth Social platform that he is removing Cook effective immediately because of allegations that she committed mortgage fraud. Bill Pulte, a Trump appointee to the agency that regulates mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, made the accusations last week.

Pulte alleged that Cook had claimed two primary residences — in Ann Arbor, Mich., and Atlanta — in 2021 to get better mortgage terms. Mortgage rates are often higher on second homes or those purchased to rent.

Trump’s move is likely to touch off an extensive legal battle that will probably go to the Supreme Court and could disrupt financial markets, potentially pushing interest rates higher.

The independence of the Fed is considered critical to its ability to fight inflation because it enables it to take unpopular steps such as raising interest rates. If bond investors start to lose faith that the Fed will be able to control inflation, they will demand higher rates to own bonds, pushing up borrowing costs for mortgages, car loans and business loans.

Legal scholars noted that the allegations are likely a pretext for the president to open up another seat on the seven-member board so he can appoint a loyalist to push for his long-stated goal of lower interest rates.

Fed governors vote on the central bank’s interest rate decisions and on issues of financial regulation. Although they are appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate, they are not like Cabinet secretaries, who serve at the pleasure of the president. They serve 14-year terms that are staggered in an effort to insulate the Fed from political influence.

No president has sought to fire a Fed governor before. In recent decades, presidents of both parties have largely respected Fed independence, though Richard Nixon and Lyndon Johnson put heavy pressure on the Fed during their presidencies — mostly behind closed doors.

Still, that behind-the-scenes pressure to keep interest rates low, the same goal sought by Trump, has widely been blamed for touching off rampant inflation in the late 1960s and ‘70s.

The announcement came days after Cook said she wouldn’t leave despite Trump previously calling for her to resign. “I have no intention of being bullied to step down from my position because of some questions raised in a tweet,” Cook said in a previous statement issued by the Fed.

Senate Democrats had expressed support for Cook, who has not been charged with wrongdoing.

Another Fed governor, Adriana Kugler, stepped down unexpectedly Aug. 1, and Trump has nominated one of his economic advisors, Stephen Miran, to fill out the remainder of her term until January.

“The Federal Reserve has tremendous responsibility for setting interest rates and regulating reserve member banks. The American people must have the full confidence in the honesty of the members entrusted with setting policy and overseeing the Federal Reserve,” Trump wrote in a letter addressed to Cook, a copy of which he posted online. “In light of your deceitful and potentially criminal conduct in a financial matter, they cannot and I do not have such confidence in your integrity.”

Trump argued that firing Cook was constitutional, even if doing so will raise questions about control of the Fed as an independent entity.

“The executive power of the United States is vested to me as President and, as President, I have a solemn duty that the laws of the United States are faithfully enacted,” the president wrote in the letter to Cook. “I have determined that faithfully enacting the law requires your immediate removal from office.”

Among the unresolved legal questions are whether Cook could be allowed to remain in her seat while the case plays out. She may have to fight the legal battle herself, as the injured party, rather than the Fed.

In the meantime, Trump’s announcement drew swift rebuke from advocates and former Fed officials who worry that Trump is trying to exert too much power and control over the nation’s central bank.

“The President’s effort to fire a sitting Federal Reserve Governor is part of a concerted effort to transform the financial regulators from independent watchdogs into obedient lapdogs that do as they’re told. This could have real consequences for Americans feeling the squeeze from higher prices,” Rohit Chopra, former director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, said in a statement.

It is the latest effort by the administration to take control over one of the few remaining independent agencies in Washington. Trump has repeatedly attacked the Fed’s chair, Jerome H. Powell, for not cutting its short-term interest rate, and even threatened to fire him.

Forcing Cook off the Fed’s governing board would provide Trump an opportunity to appoint a loyalist. Trump has said he would appoint only officials who would support cutting rates.

Powell signaled last week that the Fed may cut rates soon even as inflation risks remain moderate. Meanwhile, Trump will be able to replace Powell in May 2026, when Powell’s term expires. However, 12 members of the Fed’s interest-rate-setting committee have a vote on whether to raise or lower interest rates, so even replacing the chair might not guarantee that Fed policy will shift the way Trump wants.

Rugaber and Weissert write for the Associated Press.