Earlier this year, John, a seasoned professional with a major firm, decided it was time for a leap. The stock market had been climbing steadily, financial headlines were full of optimism, and investor sentiment seemed to signal a revitalised economy. And John was getting increasingly tired of feeling left out. So, convinced that growth had returned, he left his stable job to join a consumer–facing start‑up.

Six weeks later, John was unemployed.

The start‑up’s sales projections were built on an assumed rebound in household demand, but real personal consumption expenditures had stalled. Delinquency rates on credit‑card loans were climbing toward the highest level recorded since the early 2020s, and unemployment‑insurance claims had been trending upward since April. Meanwhile, corporate profits after tax had registered their first significant drop in more than two years, and real exports had flattened.

John’s decision was shaped by a popular narrative: when equities rise, the economy must be healthy. That narrative is both persistent and dangerous.

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 pause.

As trained monetary and financial economists, we’ve spent years studying the delicate architecture that allows the Federal Reserve to function independently 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.