Tag: Jerome Powell

The Fed Can’t Be Independent: When money is power, its control must rest with the people, not an untouchable elite

The recent events surrounding the Federal Reserve and President Trump’s administration lay bare a fundamental tension in American governance: the supposed independence of the central bank versus the democratic accountability demanded by an elected executive and, ultimately, the people. In early 2026, Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell publicly accused the administration of using a Justice Department criminal investigation—ostensibly into cost overruns on the Fed’s headquarters renovation and his congressional testimony—as a pretext to intimidate him into slashing interest rates more aggressively. Powell stated plainly that this threat stemmed from the Fed’s refusal to align monetary policy with the president’s preferences for lower borrowing costs, which Trump has repeatedly demanded to ease federal debt servicing and stimulate growth. This episode is not mere political theater; it exposes the core flaw in the Federal Reserve’s design. While defenders hail its independence as essential for sound economic stewardship—insulated from short-term political pressures—the reality is that this insulation has enabled an unaccountable entity to wield immense power over the nation’s currency, economy, and even its sovereignty, often in ways that favor entrenched financial elites over ordinary citizens.

The Federal Reserve was never meant to be a neutral arbiter of economic stability in the way its proponents claim. Established in 1913 through the Federal Reserve Act, it emerged from a secretive 1910 meeting on Jekyll Island, Georgia, where powerful bankers—including representatives of J.P. Morgan interests, Paul Warburg, and others representing a quarter of the world’s wealth—crafted a plan for a central bank disguised as a public institution. As detailed in G. Edward Griffin’s seminal work, The Creature from Jekyll Island: A Second Look at the Federal Reserve, this gathering aimed to create a cartel that could issue money from nothing (fiat currency via fractional-reserve banking), control bank reserves to prevent reckless competitors from collapsing the system, socialize losses through taxpayer bailouts, and present the whole apparatus as a safeguard for the public. The result was not a government agency in the traditional sense but a hybrid: privately influenced yet granted governmental authority, with board members appointed by the president but insulated from direct oversight on monetary decisions.

This structure deviates sharply from the constitutional framework envisioned by the Founders. Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution grants Congress the power “to coin Money, regulate the Value thereof,” implying a system of sound money tied to tangible value, not endless fiat expansion. Early American history reflects fierce resistance to centralized banking precisely because it concentrated power in unelected hands. Andrew Jackson, a Democrat who understood the threat of financial monopolies, waged war on the Second Bank of the United States in the 1830s. He viewed it as a corrupt engine benefiting the wealthy elite at the expense of farmers, mechanics, and laborers. Jackson’s veto of the bank’s recharter in 1832 declared that such concentrated power could “influence elections or control the affairs of the nation.” His policies dismantled the bank, ushering in a period of decentralized, state-chartered banking that coincided with explosive economic growth and westward expansion.

Similarly, Ulysses S. Grant, a Republican president during Reconstruction, navigated pressures from banking interests amid the Panic of 1873 and debates over greenbacks versus specie resumption. Grant’s administration pushed for sound money policies, resisting inflationary schemes that favored creditors and speculators over debtors and producers. The post-Civil War era under Grant saw the U.S. rise to global prominence through industrial expansion, innovation, and opportunity—precisely because monetary policy was not yet fully captured by a central cartel. These leaders—Jackson the populist Democrat and Grant the steadfast Republican—stood against centralized banking as antithetical to republican virtue and economic freedom. Their eras produced wealth creation that lifted millions, contrasting sharply with the boom-bust cycles exacerbated by modern central banking.

The Federal Reserve’s defenders argue that independence prevents politicians from manipulating money for electoral gain, ensuring decisions based on data rather than demagoguery. Yet history shows the opposite: central banks enable endless government spending, fund wars without direct taxation, and create inflation that acts as a hidden tax on savings and wages. The Fed’s massive bond purchases post-2008 crisis, for instance, flooded the system with liquidity, inflating asset bubbles while eroding purchasing power for average Americans. Ron Paul’s End the Fed powerfully articulates this critique, drawing on economic history to show how the institution fosters dependency, rewards recklessness, and undermines liberty. Paul argues that fiat money debases currency—stealing value from holders—and that true prosperity requires sound money, competition in banking, and accountability to voters.

Trump’s recent pressure on the Fed, including calls for rates as low as 1% and the escalation to subpoenas and threats, highlights the problem from the other side. If the Fed is truly independent, why does an elected president feel compelled to intimidate its chair? The answer lies in the Fed’s unchecked power over interest rates, money supply, and thus the cost of government debt. Trump’s frustration stems from a desire to align monetary policy with executive goals—lower rates to reduce borrowing costs on trillions in debt and boost growth. Yet this very dynamic reveals the constitutional mismatch: monetary policy, which affects every citizen’s wallet, remains largely outside the branches accountable to the people. Congress delegated its coinage power to an entity that operates with minimal direct oversight, creating a shadow government of bankers.

This setup serves globalist interests more than American ones. Centralized banking facilitates international coordination, where interest rate policies can be manipulated to favor multinational finance over national sovereignty. The Fed’s actions post-2008—buying toxic assets and guaranteeing returns—exemplified how losses are socialized while profits privatize. It rewards legacy wealth and entrenches inequality, preventing the broad access to opportunity that defined America’s rise.

The alternative is not chaos but a return to constitutional principles: Congress reclaiming money creation, perhaps through sound money standards or competing currencies, and subjecting policy to electoral scrutiny. Presidents like Jackson and Grant demonstrated that decentralized systems foster innovation and prosperity. Trump’s challenge, however flawed in execution, underscores a truth: the Fed cannot remain an island unto itself. True independence from scrutiny invites abuse; accountability to the people ensures service to the republic.

The intimidation tactics against Powell may backfire, raising inflation expectations and yields as markets lose confidence in institutional integrity. But they also force a reckoning. The Federal Reserve’s vaunted independence is, in practice, independence from the American people. Until that changes, the system remains rigged—favoring those who pull levers behind closed doors over those who build, work, and vote.  And we can’t allow that kind of system to erode our means of management over our money supply and the nation it is poised to serve.

Bibliography

•  Griffin, G. Edward. The Creature from Jekyll Island: A Second Look at the Federal Reserve. American Media, 2010 (updated editions available).

•  Paul, Ron. End the Fed. Grand Central Publishing, 2009.

•  Lowenstein, Roger. America’s Bank: The Epic Struggle to Create the Federal Reserve. Penguin Press, 2015.

•  Meltzer, Allan H. A History of the Federal Reserve (multiple volumes). University of Chicago Press, various dates.

•  Remini, Robert V. Andrew Jackson and the Course of American Freedom, 1822-1832. Harper & Row, 1981.

Footnotes for Further Reading

1.  For the Jekyll Island meeting and origins: Griffin (above), chapters on the “secret meeting.”

2.  Jackson’s Bank War: Remini’s biography series; also “The Bank War” essays from the Miller Center and Richmond Fed.

3.  Ron Paul’s critique: End the Fed, especially sections on inflation as theft and unconstitutional nature.

4.  Recent events: Powell’s January 11, 2026 statement (federalreserve.gov); coverage from Reuters, NPR, PBS News, and The New York Times on the DOJ probe and independence concerns.

5.  Grant-era policies: Discussions in economic histories of Reconstruction and the Panic of 1873.

Rich Hoffman

Click Here to Protect Yourself with Second Call Defense https://www.secondcalldefense.org/?affiliate=20707

How To Get Rid of Jerome Powell: One thing we must have is civilian oversight of America’s money supply

This is something that has never been resolved in America, and it has always been headed for a collision course.  The question hasn’t been asked well for over a century now, because we allowed too many presidents to be picked for us by the established two-party system controlled through international finance and foreign tampering.  But if you heard Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell the day after President Trump was elected, you get a sense of where it’s going.  President Trump was the people’s pick, as it should have always been.  But not since President Jackson has a president been willing even to challenge the authority of the centralized banks, and based on what we know about how they have mismanaged our affairs, it’s long overdue.  However, this problem goes back to Alexander Hamilton and his great fights with Thomas Jefferson, who advocated for a strong federal government and a centralized bank to run the money supply.  Many will say that America would have never gotten off the ground without Hamilton’s policies.  However, to Jefferson’s point, Hamilton only made it so that a country of free people would always be ruled over by those who control the money supply.  So, this problem was never solved in the American Constitution and has been kicked down the road to our present time.  Ultimately, this is one of the reasons that Trump has so much support.  However, in regard to the Federal Reserve and its creation in 1913, it might have had good intentions.  Someone has to manage a country’s money supply; it can’t just be ruled over by chaos.  But, there must be rigid civilian oversight of the economy by the nation’s people, which was never the intention of the Federal Reserve. 

To answer the question for all the legal people out there, I’ll be happy to provide it; if there is going to be a Federal Reserve, it must be managed by the Executive Branch, a president picked by the people to do their business.  A president does not just appoint someone to it to appease the people; the Executive Branch must manage the money supply.  Even if the Constitution doesn’t spell it out word for word, the spirit of the Constitution indicates that the president has the responsibility for the nation’s security, and nothing makes a country more vulnerable to foreign attack than control over the money supply.  However, when a reporter asked Jerome Powell if he would step down if President Trump asked him to, Powell quickly (too quickly) said no, that his term was in place through 2026, and that was the end of the story.  The implication is that American Presidents are free to deal with other issues in running the nation; they can ask for more money for a military or crusade to save a turtle trying to cross the road in California.  But they are designated by mandate to stay out of the money supply, and we are all supposed to sit on the edge of our seats and wait for the Fed Chairman to tell us whether or not the economy will have interest rates raised or lowered based on what the central banks decide in Jackson Hole at the annual retreat that the Federal Reserve has there to discuss these matters.  As I said, the intentions for creating the Federal Reserve may have been good, but it has turned out to be catastrophic for our national security and sovereignty.  Even though Trump appointed Jerome Powell during his first term, Trump’s lack of control over him quickly caused the President to consider firing him.  However, there was much ambiguity over whether Trump had that right.  So Trump needed another term to deal with the issue, which was taken from him with the insertion of Biden in the Presidency.  In many ways, to preserve these central bank-run institutions like the Federal Reserve, they don’t want a meddlesome president asking too many questions. 

But as often happens, the people who end up in these positions are bleeding-heart liberals who support globalism, and the Fed has dug itself into a deep hole that it hoped nobody would ever get into the details enough to manage.  But this is the heart of the argument of Ron Paul and his End the Fed campaign that has only gained steam over the years.  There has been an increasing desire to attack the premise of Alexander Hamilton’s fiscal policies and to start all over, and that is where Trump is heading.  The Federal Reserve is not independent of American management; it is to be ruled over by the Executive Branch.  Not just appointed, then turned loose like some dog in the field.  But managed and fired should they stray away from the needs of the country they are to serve.  One of the reasons that the Broadway play institutionalists advocated for Hamilton during Trump’s first term was to attempt to prop up Hamilton’s stature as a Founding Father and tear down Thomas Jefferson and his Anti-Federalist ideas.  They didn’t just pick that Founding Father to feature out of thin air, they had a point to it.  It’s that same preservation of institutional value as opposed to civilian oversight behind Jerome Powell’s refusal to step down should Trump ask him to once he returns to office in January 2025. 

Over the last few years, a lot of smart cookies have asked the right questions about the unreasonable imposition of central banking connected to international finance that has eroded our sovereignty in the background, and they aren’t going to let the Fed stand unmanaged, as it has now for over a century.  Jerome Powell and his predecessor Janet Yellen, who was the economic advisor for Joe Biden and is a contributor to the World Economic Forum in Davos, have made terrible financial arrangements with Larry Fink of BlackRock to funnel money printed through Modern Monetary Theory and washed through Wall Street 401K plans that have allowed those prominent money managers to buy up many of the largest corporations in the country which were spelled out very well by Vivek Ramaswamy in his book Woke, Inc., And Vivek is going to be a part of the Trump team in the White House.  So, this issue is coming back to the table and is not in favor of the globalists.  Larry Fink, through his arrangement with the Fed and Jerome Powell specifically, should have never gained the kind of power he has over people, which is quite evident if you’ve read Larry’s ridiculous letters to the CEOs of America that are worth less than used toilet paper.  But the intent to run America through its money supply and force companies to hire more liberal CEOs to appease the gods at the Federal Reserve through Larry Fink and the gang of Democrat-minded thugs from Wall Street, going back to the accusations that were leveled at Hamilton, to have the nation’s money ran by speculators and gamblers for the moral impurity of womanizers and con artists, which was undoubtedly the case.  Those kinds of people need civilian oversight, not just a cosmetic president, and Trump was not put back in the White House to be just an ornament.  No, a real standoff will happen, and the rule of law says that the elected President must manage the money supply for the nation’s security.  And for Jerome Powell, he doesn’t get a vote on the matter.  If Trump wants him gone, he will go because people are backing Trump and putting him in the White House to do this job and many others.  And it’s either this, as was evident by the recent landslide election against all odds, or the physical removal of people like Jerome Powell by an angry public.  And I don’t think he wants that.  So the way to get rid of Powell, just for those paying attention, is to exploit the irresponsible management of money through Larry Fink and Jerome Powell’s involvement in that scam, with full knowledge of what he was doing, which ultimately was criminal in destabilizing American sovereignty. 

Rich Hoffman

Click Here to Protect Yourself with Second Call Defense https://www.secondcalldefense.org/?affiliate=20707