Why an Independent Fed Matters More Than Ever
by Kent O. Bhupathi & Mardoqueo Arteaga
Among colleagues who follow the U.S. economy closely, shifts in policy direction don’t usually come as a surprise. Yet, in recent weeks, a series of reports has indicated that the administration aims to select the next Federal Reserve Chair chiefly for ideological loyalty, favoring a candidate inclined to reduce interest rates regardless of macro dynamics; the prospect has given both these authors a significant pause.
As trained monetary and financial economists, we've dedicated years to understanding the delicate architecture that insulates the Federal Reserve from political pressures. When that independence is threatened, so too is the foundation of macroeconomic stability.
This moment, in our view, requires more than private concern. It calls for public reflection.
What Federal Reserve Independence Means
Central bank independence is not an abstraction. It empowers the Federal Reserve to set interest rates, regulate the money supply, and anchor inflation expectations, free from the political expediency of the moment. Although Congress created the Federal Reserve in 1913 and defines its broad mandates, notably the pursuit of maximum employment and stable prices, the institution retains what economists call “instrument independence”: the discretion to choose whatever tools are necessary to achieve those aims. From this, the Fed’s structure, a network of twelve regional Reserve Banks supervised by a central Board of Governors, was born of a compromise between progressive reformers and bankers wary of Wall Street dominance and still embodies the delicate balance between public oversight and institutional autonomy.
The Panic of 1907 exposed the United States’ banking fragility: local runs quickly escalated into systemic threats because institutions lacked adequate emergency reserves and mechanisms to contain contagion. The New York Clearing House’s response proved slow, discriminatory, and insufficient, further deepening mistrust between smaller country banks and the powerful Wall Street establishments. Confronted with these shortcomings, Congress enacted the Federal Reserve Act in 1913, intending principally to “furnish an elastic currency” and to create a “lender of last resort” capable of supplying liquidity during crises while supervising the banking system to restore public confidence and stability.
True independence for the Fed isn't about insulating it from democratic accountability, but rather empowering it to base decisions on rigorous economic data instead of fleeting political rhetoric. History shows that when central banks become beholden to political agendas, the economic consequences are severe: runaway inflation, destabilizing boom-bust cycles, and a loss of policy credibility that can take decades to rebuild.
The Economic Case: Stability Over Short-Termism
The threat of inflation bias is a concrete and persistent danger. During election cycles elected officials face heavy incentives to lower interest rates, expand credit and increase public spending, seeking a short‑term lift in activity regardless of underlying fundamentals. Such politicised stimulus, however, often breeds long‑term instability. Research by Alberto Alesina and Lawrence Summers showed that between the 1950s and the 1980s countries with more independent central banks experienced markedly lower and less volatile inflation, underscoring the cost of surrendering monetary policy to the electoral timetable.
By remaining insulated from day‑to‑day politics, an independent Federal Reserve can credibly commit to long‑run price stability, anchor inflation expectations and foster an environment conducive to investment and strategic planning. Those anchored expectations reinforce broader macroeconomic health.
The seventies offered a cautionary lesson. Political pressure and wavering policy eroded the Fed’s credibility, allowing inflation to entrench itself. Only Paul Volcker’s fiercely independent stewardship in the early eighties, marked by sharp interest‑rate rises that induced a recession, restored that credibility and set the stage for decades of stable growth.
When Politics Meddled: A Costly History
The risks of politicized monetary policy are far from theoretical.
In the early 1970s President Nixon pressured Fed Chair Arthur Burns to keep interest rates artificially low in the run‑up to the 1972 election. The short‑term stimulus overheated the economy and unleashed a surge in prices that fed the stagflation crisis later that decade. A decade earlier President Lyndon Johnson had physically confronted Fed Chair William McChesney Martin—who would become the longest-serving chairman in the Fed's history–demanding easier money to finance the Vietnam War and his Great Society programmes. Martin eventually yielded and later confessed deep regret, recognising the lasting economic damage that followed.
Because such political pressure is visible to investors it quickly shapes market expectations, pushing inflation volatility higher. A broad empirical literature confirms the pattern: interference may deliver a fleeting boost yet it ultimately leaves behind higher inflation, eroded purchasing power and greater macroeconomic instability.
The dangers are not confined to the post‑war era. During the Second World War and its aftermath, for example, the Fed was subordinated to the Treasury’s financing needs, a situation that contributed to inflation exceeding 17% in the mid‑1940s. It was then only with the 1951 Treasury–Fed Accord was monetary independence restored, permitting the central bank to set policy without direct fiscal dictates.
Institutional Design: Built to Resist Capture?
Fortunately, the Federal Reserve was not built for obedience. Its architecture incorporates safeguards that resist political capture:
Board governors serve staggered fourteen‑year terms and the chair serves a renewable four‑year term that often spans more than one administration;
Governors, including the chair, can be removed only for cause, and no chair has ever been dismissed mid‑term;
The system finances itself through earnings on its operations rather than congressional appropriations, so budgetary threats carry little weight; and,
Policy authority is dispersed across twelve regional Reserve Banks whose local directors participate in Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) deliberations, ensuring that decisions arise from collaboration rather than command.
These protections, however, demand constant vigilance. Because the dual mandate covers both price stability and maximum employment, political actors can highlight whichever goal best serves an electoral narrative and press the Fed to justify its choices in those terms.
Moreover, the central bank’s occasional reliance on credit policy during crises blurs the boundary between monetary and fiscal action. Such tools may be indispensable in emergencies, yet they risk drawing the Fed into inherently political territory and inviting questions about its legitimacy.
There are, at minimum, three recurring macro configurations that stand out as common catalysts for executive branch pressure on the Federal Reserve. And each tends to pull against sound, medium‑horizon monetary practice (since… economics is neither linear nor straightforward with respect to time):
When the policy rate is rising quickly or sits materially above contained inflation while unemployment is relatively low but wobbling higher, incumbents often press for a pause or cuts to forestall growth weakness. Yet, best practice argues for staying the course until disinflation and expectations are secure.
When inflation is climbing and unemployment is still relatively low in the run‑up to an election, political actors have strong incentives to resist pre‑emptive tightening that would damp activity before voting. However, a forward‑looking central bank should lean against emerging price pressure early to avoid a larger, costlier correction later.
In crisis or post‑crisis episodes when the policy rate is pinned near zero and labor markets are distressed, the expansion of emergency lending facilities invites political influence over credit allocation and exit timing. Again, however, operational independence and rule‑based program design are critical to preserve impartiality and anchor expectations.
Present Dangers and Norm Erosion
These guardrails have historically held, but they are not immune to erosion.
During his first term, President Trump publicly criticized the Fed’s rate hikes and reportedly explored firing Chair Jerome Powell. While the legal protections held firm and Powell refused to resign, the episode underscored how quickly political norms can unravel.
More recently, talk of appointing a future Chair chiefly for their willingness to co-operate with a political agenda, even if that entails pursuing inflationary or unsound policies, signals a growing disregard for institutional boundaries. Although such actions may remain technically legal, they impose significant economic costs: they undermine investor confidence, destabilize expectations, and politicize the core of U.S. economic governance.
Why This Matters Now
In a global economy already wrestling with inflation shocks, war and heavy debt, the Federal Reserve’s capacity to act decisively and independently is no luxury: it is indispensable. Since 1977 Congress has directed the Fed to “promote effectively the goals of maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long‑term interest rates”. The dual mandate obliges the central bank to balance employment with price stability, a task it pursues through an average inflation target of two per cent. Independence ensures that this target is not sacrificed to short‑term political convenience.
Credibility built through decades of disciplined policy is a scarce asset, yet it can vanish far more quickly than it was earned. Independence shields monetary decisions from the perennial temptation to cover budget deficits by expanding the money supply, a shortcut that history shows breeds runaway inflation.
Should markets conclude that policy is dictated by electoral expediency, inflation expectations will drift, capital will grow volatile and the eventual cost of restoring stability will be severe. An autonomous Federal Reserve can commit credibly to long‑term price stability, anchoring those expectations and encouraging sound investment and planning. Empirical evidence demonstrates that countries with independent central banks maintain lower and more stable inflation without sacrificing growth precisely because such institutions can take unpopular measures, including timely interest‑rate rises, when economic health demands them. Undermining this autonomy would disrupt business planning and erode the standing of the dollar, the currency that still underpins global finance although its primacy is no longer guaranteed.
Conclusion: Independence with Accountability
Federal Reserve independence does not place the institution beyond scrutiny; rather, its legitimacy rests upon transparency and public oversight. The central bank reports to Congress, explaining its decisions in testimony and formal reports. It releases policy statements, economic projections and detailed minutes after each meeting. Its accounts are audited and its actions are subject to robust debate in academic, market and civic forums. Independence therefore protects the integrity of decision‑making, not secrecy.
The Fed was established to stand above the political fray, never above the rule of law. Safeguarding its autonomy is not a choice between technocracy and democracy but a means of ensuring that critical monetary decisions remain grounded in evidence rather than electoral expediency. History makes plain the costs of allowing short‑term politics to dictate long‑term policy.
And as we navigate the complex economic landscape of 2025 and beyond, the ongoing dialogue about the Fed's role and its independence is more critical than ever. For it is a conversation that demands informed engagement from all who value a stable and prosperous economic future.
Sources:
Boak, Josh, and Chris Megerian. 2025. "Trump Eyes Federal Reserve as Campaign Issue, Pledging to Oust Powell." AP News, July 10, 2025. https://apnews.com/article/trump-powell-vought-renovation-a6039751f110612abf00bc3cfe9e1ed6.
Drechsel, Thomas. 2025. "How Immune Is the Federal Reserve From Political Pressure?" EconoFact, February 27, 2025. https://econofact.org/how-immune-is-the-federal-reserve-from-political-pressure.
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. 2010. "Central Bank Independence and Inflation." April 20, 2010. https://www.stlouisfed.org/about-us/resources/why-fed-is-well-designed-central-bank/central-bank-independence-inflation.
Federal Reserve History. 1951. "The Treasury-Fed Accord." Federal Reserve History, March 1951. https://www.federalreservehistory.org/essays/treasury-fed-accord.
Humpage, Owen F. 2023. On the Origins of the Federal Reserve System and Its Structure. Working Paper No. 23-17. Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland. https://doi.org/10.26509/frbc-wp-202317.
Ji, Christine. 2025. “Why Trump Removing Powell Is the Market’s Most Underestimated Risk.” Business Insider, July 14, 2025. https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-powell-feud-market-most-overlooked-risk-dollar-bond-rates-2025-7.
Kugler, Adriana D. 2024. "Central Bank Independence and the Conduct of Monetary Policy." Speech, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, November 14, 2024. https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/kugler20241114a.htm.
Levin, Bess. 2018. "Trump Tells Fed to Ignore the 'Numbers' and Just Do His Bidding." Vanity Fair, December 18, 2018. https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/12/trump-tells-fed-to-ignore-the-numbers-and-just-do-his-bidding.
Plosser, Charles. n.d. "Federal Reserve Independence: Is It Time for a New Treasury-Fed Accord?" Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond. https://www.richmondfed.org/publications/research/goodfriend/plosser.
Reuters. 2019. "Trump Says He Wouldn't Stop Fed Chair Powell if He Offered to Resign." Reuters, August 23, 2019. https://www.reuters.com/article/usa-fed-trump/trump-says-he-wouldnt-stop-fed-chair-powell-if-he-offered-to-resign-idUSW1N225038/.
Rubin, Gabriel. 2025. "Fighting the Fed Means More than Switching Chairs." Reuters, July 15, 2025. https://www.reuters.com/commentary/breakingviews/fighting-fed-means-more-than-switching-chairs-2025-07-14/.
Thoma, Mark. n.d. "Federal Reserve Independence: The Never-Ending Story." Milken Institute Review. https://www.milkenreview.org/articles/federal-reserve-independence.
Warr, Richard. 2025. "What Is Fed Independence—And Why Does It Matter?" Poole Thought Leadership, April 24, 2025. https://poole.ncsu.edu/thought-leadership/article/what-is-fed-independence-and-why-does-it-matter/.
Wessel, David. 2025. "Why Is the Federal Reserve Independent, and What Does That Mean in Practice?" Brookings, May 23, 2025. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/why-is-the-federal-reserve-independent-and-what-does-that-mean-in-practice/.
Disclaimer: The opinions, thoughts, and perspectives expressed herein are personal to Kent and Mardoqueo and do not, in any way, reflect the views, policies, or official positions of Mardoqueo’s employer, its affiliates, or any other organization with which his employer may be associated. More from Mardoqueo can be found at his personal site: https://mmarteaga.github.io/