Powell temporarily retains position, court voices opposition to presidential dismissal authority.

Recently,Jinrong Global official website President Trump met with Federal Reserve Chairman Powell at the White House, where they discussed economic growth, employment, and inflation. After the meeting, Powell stated that the Federal Reserve's policies would continue to be guided by objective analysis, entirely dependent on the latest economic data and forecasts.

This meeting came at a time when Trump has repeatedly expressed dissatisfaction with Powell. Since taking office, Trump has often criticized Powell's monetary policies, even suggesting the possibility of dismissing him. These statements have sometimes caused market fluctuations and heightened concerns about the independence of the Federal Reserve. However, a recent Supreme Court ruling on Thursday may ease this tension.

The ruling stemmed from Trump's previous dismissal of heads of several federal agencies. While the decision allowed the President to remove two members from the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), the court emphasized that the legal status of the Federal Reserve is distinctly different from other agencies. The justices noted that the Federal Reserve is a "uniquely structured quasi-private entity," with its roots tracing back to the traditions of the First and Second Banks of the United States, possessing a stronger degree of institutional independence.

It is worth mentioning that the court outright rejected some arguments regarding the "unconstitutionality of presidential dismissals" concerning federal agency members, asserting that the dismissal protection for members of the Federal Reserve Board should not be equated with that of general administrative officials. According to Section 10 of the Federal Reserve Act, board members serve 14-year terms and can be removed "for cause" by the president. However, the legal definition of "for cause" is vague, generally understood as inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance.

Although the Act does not provide explicit protection for the role of the Federal Reserve Chairman, the latest Supreme Court ruling signals that any attempt by a president to remove Powell would face strict judicial scrutiny and systemic resistance.

In fact, besides Powell, Trump has also issued dismissal notices to several high-ranking officials in the Federal Trade Commission, the Federal Election Commission, and others, leading to numerous legal disputes in lower courts. A former Federal Trade Commission member dismissed by Trump stated: "If the President can remove me, he can also remove Powell."

In response, the Supreme Court in its decision stated that although the President holds broad executive powers, there are a few exceptional cases—such as independent agencies like the Federal Reserve—where core functions must remain relatively free from political interference. The court suggested that members of these agencies should not be easily dismissed to maintain professionalism and neutrality in public policy-making.

Currently, it appears Powell's position is temporarily secure, but the debate over presidential intervention in independent agencies will likely continue to be a central topic in U.S. political and financial policy discussions.

The market carries risks, and investment should be cautious. This article does not constitute personal investment advice and has not taken into account individual users' specific investment goals, financial situations, or needs. Users should consider whether any opinions, viewpoints, or conclusions in this article are suitable for their particular circumstances. Investing based on this is at one's own responsibility.