The recent clash between Donald Trump and the Federal Reserve has reignited the debate over the independence of central banks and their role in shaping economic policy. Trump’s unprecedented pressure campaign for interest rate cuts—met with resistance from a cautious Fed—evokes past presidential confrontations with America’s central bank. Notably, the parallel with John F. Kennedy’s 1963 challenge to the Fed through Executive Order 11110 offers a revealing perspective.
This article explores these dynamics, analyzing how such conflicts reflect a deeper tension: the clash between democratically elected power and independent financial-technocratic authority—a struggle that continues to shape America’s economic and political landscape.
Trump vs. the Federal Reserve (April 2025)
In April 2025, a heated battle is unfolding between President Donald Trump and the Federal Reserve, centering on monetary policy and the central bank’s independence. Trump, now back in office, is exerting intense pressure for immediate interest rate cuts, while Fed Chair Jerome Powell is resisting, citing inflation risks and the need to maintain institutional autonomy (Reuters, AP).
The dispute echoes earlier tensions from Trump’s first term but has dramatically intensified in recent months, driven by aggressive public statements, divergent economic strategies (especially on tariffs and inflation), and even unprecedented legal maneuvers.
Trump’s Pressure for Rate Cuts
On April 4, 2025, Trump took to Truth Social with a blunt message:
“CUT INTEREST RATES, JEROME, AND STOP PLAYING POLITICS!” (Fox Business)
According to Trump, it’s the “PERFECT TIME” to loosen monetary policy. He cited falling prices (e.g., energy, eggs) and strong job numbers as evidence that inflation is under control. He accused Powell of being “always late” and warned him to “change his image, fast.”
This level of direct political interference is rare in U.S. presidential history. Traditionally, the White House refrains from public comments on the Fed’s decisions. But Trump has unabashedly crossed that line, repeatedly criticizing the Fed on social media (HuffPost).
After the Fed held interest rates steady (4.25%–4.50%) in March 2025, Trump responded with another outburst:
“The Fed would be MUCH better off CUTTING RATES as U.S. Tariffs start to transition… Do the right thing.” (Reuters)
In response, Powell and other Fed officials, including Tom Barkin, Jeff Schmid, and Lorie Logan, emphasized they would await solid evidence of sustained disinflation before making any moves—a position notably at odds with Trump’s demands (Fortune).
Trump’s Tariffs, Inflation Risks, and Economic Policy Clashes
Trump’s aggressive tariff policy, launched in early April 2025, is further fueling tensions. Market analysts warn that these tariffs—marketed as “reciprocal trade measures”—could raise import prices and stoke inflation, while simultaneously dampening growth and investment (Washington Post, Reuters).
Chicago Fed President Austan Goolsbee noted the difficulty central banks face during trade shocks:
“There’s no playbook for this.”
The Fed is caught between its dual mandates: price stability and full employment.
In early April, Powell described the new tariffs as “larger than expected,” warning they would likely “lead to higher inflation and slower growth” (AA.com.tr). The Fed’s March 2025 forecasts reflected this concern, revising inflation up to 2.7% and GDP growth down to 1.7%, largely due to Trump’s tariff plans.
Yet Trump minimizes inflation risks, arguing the Fed should boost growth to offset the impact of his trade agenda. This contradiction is telling: while celebrating tariffs as victories, he simultaneously calls on the Fed to ease policy to prevent economic fallout.
A pivotal episode occurred between April 2–5, 2025, when Trump declared sweeping punitive tariffs and dubbed the announcement day “Liberation Day.” The move roiled financial markets, prompting speculation that the Fed would need to cut rates to avoid a recession. Just days later, Trump backtracked, pausing the implementation of most tariffs for 90 days—briefly calming investors, but not dispelling long-term uncertainty.
The Fed, for its part, has responded cautiously. By mid-April, officials reiterated their wait-and-see approach. The central bank is now forced to navigate a volatile environment driven by unpredictable White House moves.
The Battle Over the Fed’s Independence
At the heart of this conflict lies a fundamental institutional question: Should the Federal Reserve remain politically independent?
By law and tradition, the Fed makes technical decisions in pursuit of medium-term economic stability, independent from partisan interests. But Trump has repeatedly argued that the President should have a say in monetary policy.
During the 2024 campaign, he promised exactly that. Now in office, he’s making good on that promise—intervening forcefully in the monetary debate.
Though Trump appointed Powell in 2017, the Fed Chair now finds himself back in Trump’s crosshairs. Powell has defended the Fed’s autonomy:
“The Fed’s ability to set rates free from political interference is essential to serve all Americans… We must stay out of politics,”
he told reporters, adding that he trusts Congress to uphold the Fed’s independence (AP).
But Trump is challenging even the legal structures that protect the Fed’s autonomy. In April 2025, the White House filed a legal case with the Supreme Court, seeking to grant the President authority to fire leaders of independent federal agencies—including, potentially, Powell.
The Court, under Chief Justice John Roberts, has already temporarily sided with Trump on a procedural matter, signaling that a major legal shift could be underway (Business Standard).
Echoes of JFK: Executive Order 11110
If this were just about inflation or rates, why was JFK also at odds with the Fed?
The Kennedy case highlights a deeper dimension: the conflict between elected democratic power and unelected financial authority.
In 1963, President John F. Kennedy signed Executive Order 11110, authorizing the U.S. Treasury to issue money directly—“United States Notes”—bypassing the Federal Reserve. The order built on the 1920 Silver Purchase Act and was seen by many as a challenge to the Fed’s money monopoly. Indeed, bills labeled “United States Note” (not “Federal Reserve Note”) briefly entered circulation.
Though some historians view EO 11110 as technical, others—especially critics of the private banking system—see it as a bold move to restore monetary sovereignty to the state. After all, controlling money creation is tantamount to controlling political power.
JFK also famously warned against the undue influence of the military-industrial complex and powerful financial lobbies, as in his April 27, 1961 speech:
“We are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy…”
What Does This Have to Do With Trump?
Trump has never proposed stripping the Fed of its money-issuing power, as Kennedy did. However, the spirit of the confrontation is similar:
-
He challenges the Fed’s independence.
-
He accuses it of working against American interests.
-
He suspects it serves elite or globalist agendas, not the average citizen.
Like JFK, Trump is viewed (rightly or wrongly) as an “outsider” to the Washington establishment—clashing with agencies like the Fed, CIA, and State Department.
Conclusion: A Political Power vs. a Technocratic Power
Kennedy’s conflict with the Fed was not just technical—it symbolized a state-led effort to regain control over monetary sovereignty.
Trump’s conflict, though different in tone and method, follows the same underlying pattern:
A democratically elected power clashing with a technocratic-financial power, accusing it (explicitly or implicitly) of serving elites rather than the people.
Sources: Reuters, Washington Post, Fox Business, Associated Press, and other outlets cited throughout.
Note:
In the next article, “Who Controls the Money, Controls the Country – Trump, Kennedy, and Jackson vs. the Central Bank”, we will explore the views of Trump, JFK, and Andrew Jackson—another president who famously fought against a central bank he saw as hostile to the people.
Se apprezzi il lavoro che trovi su questo blog e credi nell'importanza di una voce libera, il tuo sostegno può fare la differenza.
🔹 Puoi donare con con carta di credito o direttamente dal tuo conto PayPal. Se lo desideri, puoi anche attivare un contributo mensile.
Grazie di cuore per il tuo supporto!