Trending Now
We have updated our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for Eurasia Group and its affiliates, including GZERO Media, to clarify the types of data we collect, how we collect it, how we use data and with whom we share data. By using our website you consent to our Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy, including the transfer of your personal data to the United States from your country of residence, and our use of cookies described in our Cookie Policy.
{{ subpage.title }}
Trump's silhouette as a wrecking ball banging into the Federal Reserve.
Trump’s attacks on the Fed will backfire
President Trump has made no secret of his longstanding desire for lower interest rates to juice the economy and reduce the cost of servicing the $30 trillion federal debt. But his attacks on the Federal Reserve will prove self-defeating, driving up borrowing costs for American consumers, businesses, and the federal government.
For months, the president has threatened and insulted Fed chair Jerome Powell for refusing to cut rates, even toying with the idea of firing him over supposed (and nakedly pretextual) cost overruns on the renovation of the Fed’s headquarters. Yet despite the bluster, he has stopped short of the one move advisers warned him could turn financial markets against him: actually sacking him. Why risk it when Powell’s term as chair expires in May, at which point Trump (who appointed him in 2018) will get to select a replacement more willing to do his bidding?
The president even got an unexpected chance to fill a Federal Reserve Board seat last month when Fed governor Adriana Kugler resigned under suspiciously hasty circumstances before the end of her term, allowing Trump to nominate his economic advisor Stephen Miran to succeed her. You’d think that’d be good enough to keep him placated for a while. Not so.
On Aug. 25, Trump posted a letter to Truth Social announcing he was firing Federal Reserve Board governor Lisa Cook over mortgage fraud allegations from before she joined the Fed. This unprecedented escalation – the first attempt to fire a Fed governor in presidential history – followed a politically motivated investigation started by the Federal Housing Finance Agency’s Bill Pulte, a Trump loyalist and donor who has weaponized his government position to make similar accusations against other MAGA political enemies (California Sen. Adam Schiff and New York Attorney General Letitia James).
Cook, a Biden appointee whose term is set to run until 2038, has refused to resign and is contesting the dismissal. The Supreme Court recently ruled that presidents have wide latitude to fire the heads of independent agencies, but it made a point to carve out an exception for the Fed, whose governors can only be removed “for cause.” What that means exactly, no one knows … because no president has ever tried to fire a Fed governor. Until now.
Although the Department of Justice has launched a criminal investigation into the allegations, Cook hasn’t yet been charged with a crime. It’s unclear whether an allegation of malfeasance that predates Cook’s employment at the Fed and is unrelated to her job meets the judicial bar for “cause” set by the Federal Reserve Act. The matter will be decided by the courts, which granted Cook a preliminary injunction last night, allowing her to stay in the job while the case gets litigated.
Of course, this isn't really about mortgage fraud – it's about seizing control of the Fed. Trump’s not coy about the endgame. On Aug. 26, the president bragged that “We’ll have a majority very shortly, so that’ll be great.” Trump already has two appointees on the Federal Reserve Board, Chris Waller (a favorite to succeed Powell as chair) and Michelle Bowman, and he will likely get a third soon once Miran gets confirmed. If the president ultimately succeeds in pushing out Cook, he’ll have appointed four of the board’s seven members, possibly before Powell even steps down.
That wouldn’t be enough to directly control the 12-person Federal Open Market Committee that sets rates. But a four-person Federal Reserve Board majority would have veto power over the appointment of the regional Fed presidents who sit on the FOMC – and those presidents just so happen to be up for reapproval for five-year terms at the end of February in what's normally a rubber-stamp vote, raising the stakes of both the outcome and the timing of the Cook ruling. Not that the administration needs to actually fire every independent-minded dissenter to chill dissent: sometimes, the demonstration effect of seeing some of your colleagues’ lives ruined is enough to sway behavior.
Yet even if Trump succeeds in stacking the FOMC with loyalists (a big if), the president will still struggle to get what he wants most out of this whole enterprise: substantially lower borrowing costs.
The crux of the issue is that the Fed only has direct control over short-term interest rates, but most borrowers care about long-term rates, which are determined by market expectations of future economic growth, inflation, and fiscal policy. The more the president leans on the Fed, the greater the compensation demanded to hold long-term bonds, as investors lose confidence in the Fed’s ability to keep inflation under control no matter the political costs to the president.
Accordingly, the benefits to Trump of pushing for lower interest rates than merited by economic conditions would likely be offset by large and sustained increases in long-term yields. In the worst-case scenario, Trump forces the Fed to set rates inappropriately low, causing inflation to rise and damaging the Fed’s credibility. By the time the president starts feeling the political pain of runaway prices and orders the Fed to reverse course, the genie is already out of the bottle: inflation expectations are unanchored, long-term rates have spiked, and the Fed is forced to print ever more money to pay for the mounting costs of servicing a growing debt pile. This may sound like the story of an emerging market, but it’s becoming suddenly plausible for the United States.
The last time a US president messed with the Fed’s independence was when Richard Nixon strong-armed Fed chair Arthur Burns into keeping rates low ahead of the 1972 presidential election, causing inflation to spike. It took a decade and punishingly high interest rates to get runaway inflation under control and rebuild the Fed’s credibility, long since understood to be a key pillar of America’s world-beating economy and the dollar’s reserve currency status. Most Wall Street leaders understand the risks of going down the same path again, even if they are too timid to speak out publicly against it (with few exceptions).
So why the muted market reaction? Maybe investors doubt Trump can pull this off. After all, we've been down this road with President Trump before – he's been threatening the Fed since 2017 to little effect. Or maybe investors assume he'll back down in the face of any significant bond market fallout – the so-called TACO trade. But what if that market calm emboldens him to push harder? By the time investors wake up, the damage may be done. As Hemingway wrote about bankruptcy, crises happen gradually, then suddenly.
The real irony? Trump is ramping up his Fed attacks just as he's about to start getting the rate cuts he wants – though not for reasons he'll like. Two weak jobs reports show his tariffs, immigration crackdown, and policy volatility are beginning to weigh on the labor market. The Fed will almost certainly cut rates next week, even if not as aggressively as Trump demands given signs of rising inflation.
If Trump truly wants to lower borrowing costs for Americans, he should stop attacking the Fed and start cutting the deficit. Otherwise, the president will head into the midterms with a slowing economy, soaring prices, and higher long-term rates. Turns out not even the world’s most powerful man can bully bond markets into submission.
Erik Prince, founder of Blackwater, attends a police and military presentation, in Guayaquil, Ecuador April 5, 2025.
What We’re Watching: Haiti turns to foreign fighters, China’s economy slumps, protests flare-up in Serbia
Haiti turns to foreign guns as gangs tighten grip
Blackwater founder Erik Prince is ramping up his private security firm’s presence in Haiti, deploying hundreds of fighters from the US, Europe, and El Salvador to battle gangs controlling much of the country. Prince’s Vectus Global, active there since March, says it’s working under a 10-year deal with Haiti’s government, including a role in tax collection. The move — involving snipers, helicopters, and drones — comes after gangs toppled the government in February, causing ongoing chaos in Port-au-Prince.
The stakes of China’s economic slowdown
China’s economy stumbled in July, with factory output hitting an eight-month low, though still 5.7% higher year-over-year than the previous July. The relative slowdown reflects weakening domestic demand, property sector woes, extreme weather, and fierce market competition — compounded by uncertainty over Donald Trump’s trade policy. Beyond the economic hit, analysts note that prolonged weakness could limit Beijing’s ability to come into impending trade talks on strong footing.
Tension in Serbia flare
Tensions in Serbia escalated this week after supporters of President Aleksandar Vučić and his ruling Serbian Progressive Party (SNS) hurled flares at anti-government protestors late Wednesday. The violence follows nine months of demonstrations sparked by the deadly collapse of a train canopy in Novi Sad that killed 16 last year – an incident which protestors have blamed on state corruption and mismanagement. With Serbian Prime Minister Miloš Vučević having already resigned earlier this year, we’ll be watching to see if Vučić can outlast this growing political crisis.
What's at stake in the US-China trade war
As countries around the world scramble to respond to the Trump administration’s tariffs and renegotiate trade agreements, does China stand to benefit from so much global uncertainty? CNN’s Fareed Zakaria joins Ian Bremmer on GZERO World to discuss the shifting power dynamic as America retreats from its global leadership role. China, he notes, is hitting its stride in international relations. The Chinese have a stranglehold on critical mineral supply and renewable energy technology, and are pitching themselves as a stable, reliable trading partner to the world.
President Xi Jinping has also softened his tone from the aggressive “wolf warrior” diplomacy of years past. Beijing is strengthening alliances with Russia, Africa, and across the Global South. Zakaria warns that China sees opportunity as the United States walks away from the global trade system, and will try to drive a wedge between the Western alliance.
“We cannot have dependence on the Chinese, but that doesn’t mean we need to make everything here. This is the mistake I think we're making.” Zakaria says, “We have these deep connections with Canada, with Mexico, Britain, and Europe. Why don’t we use them?”
GZERO World with Ian Bremmer, the award-winning weekly global affairs series, airs nationwide on US public television stations (check local listings).
New digital episodes of GZERO World are released every Monday on YouTube. Don't miss an episode: subscribe to GZERO's YouTube channel and turn on notifications (🔔). GZERO World with Ian Bremmer airs on US public television weekly - check local listings.
Are Trump's tariffs the end of the free trade era?
For the last 80 years, America has been a leading advocate of free trade. It built (and benefited from) the rules of the global economic system. But as the Trump administration imposes record tariffs on allies and renegotiates trade agreements around the world, it’s no longer playing by the rules it created. Instead, it's becoming the most protectionist advanced industrial economy in the world. What happens when globalization's biggest backer becomes its biggest critic?
On GZERO World, CNN’s Fareed Zakaria joins Ian Bremmer to discuss President Trump’s tariffs, the rise of protectionism, and US retreat from global leadership, an ideology Zakaria calls the “beating heart” of MAGA. Big economies like China and the EU that rely on trade to maintain growth are increasingly trying to go around the US to make trade deals of their own. But America still has the largest economy in the world. President Trump's trade policies could send shockwaves through the global economic system America has spent generations building. The US has imposed high tariffs on many of its biggest trading partners, and so far, economy appears surprisingly resilient. But is this just the calm before a very big storm?
“The US was the beating heart of the free trade movement, the country that forced all the other countries in the world to open their markets,” Zakaria says, “If you shelter your best companies behind 15, 20% tariff walls, they're just not going to be as competitive.”
GZERO World with Ian Bremmer, the award-winning weekly global affairs series, airs nationwide on US public television stations (check local listings).
New digital episodes of GZERO World are released every Monday on YouTube.Don't miss an episode: subscribe to GZERO's YouTube channel and turn on notifications (🔔). GZERO World with Ian Bremmer airs on US public television weekly - check local listings.
The new global trade wars, with Fareed Zakaria
President Trump’s policies swiftly rewriting the rules of global trade. As the United States imposes tariffs on allies and adversaries alike, do we risk losing our edge? On the GZERO World Podcast, CNN’s Fareed Zakaria joins Ian Bremmer to discuss what happens when globalization’s biggest champion becomes its biggest critic. For the past 80 years, the United States has been the beating heart of the free trade movement, the country that forced all the other countries in the world to open their markets. But now, Washington is tearing up the economic playbook—levying historic tariffs and recasting the world as a high-stakes, winner-take-all, zero-sum game.
Zakaria says we are living through an age of backlash to 30 years of globalization and that the next 10 years will be a period of “slowbalization,” where we'll see a much slower pace of growth and a much more political economy. Bremmer and Zakaria break down America’s retreat from global leadership, shifting power dynamics between the US and China, European pressure to become more self-sufficient, and whether the Trump administration’s economic gamble is worth the risk.
“The United States has gone from the leading advocate of free trade to being the most protectionist advanced industrial country in the world,” Zakaria warns, “We’ve always invited competition from the world’s best. If we move to something else, I think we lose that edge.”
Trump's tariffs are already changing global trade
The Trump administration is imposing tariffs on allies and adversaries alike—15% on the EU, 50% on Brazil, 25% on India. America has become the main driver of global economic uncertainty and increasingly seen as an unreliable trade partner. So what can countries do? They adapt. If they can’t trade through Washington, they’ll try trading around it.
On Ian Explains, Ian Bremmer breaks down the new global trade map as allies negotiate their own alliances in ways that make them less vulnerable to US chaos. The biggest power play is coming from the EU, which is pitching itself as a steadfast trade partner—reinforcing ties with the UK, Latin America, and Asia, and even floating the idea of an EU-led alternative to the WTO. The US economy is still the largest in the world, it won’t be excluded from global trade entirely. But global supply chains are sticky, and new trade relationships could long outlast Trump’s presidency. As America walks away from 80 years of economic leadership, does it risk being left behind?
GZERO World with Ian Bremmer, the award-winning weekly global affairs series, airs nationwide on US public television stations (check local listings).
New digital episodes of GZERO World are released every Monday on YouTube. Don't miss an episode: subscribe to GZERO's YouTube channel and turn on notifications (🔔). GZERO World with Ian Bremmer airs on US public television weekly - check local listings.
Graphic Truth: Where US tariffs stand with key trade partners
After weeks of high-stakes negotiations, US President Donald Trump rolled out sweeping changes to tariff rates on Thursday. Here’s a look at where those tariffs stand for the United States’ principal trading partners, including info on whether these partners have struck deals with Washington so far.
A view of Yarlung Zangbu Grand Canyon, the world's largest and deepest canyon, in Tibet, China, on August 12, 2012.
China’s mega-dam gambit: The $167 billion bet that could reshape Asia
On Saturday, China announced the start of one of the world’s biggest infrastructure projects: a $167 billion mega-dam in Tibet that will, when completed, be the most powerful source of hydroelectricity in history.
The Yarlung Tsangpo dam, located at a hairpin river bend where water plunges 6,500 feet through the Himalayas, will dwarf China’s existing Three Gorges Dam, currently the world’s largest, and will produce 60 gigawatts of electricity, ten times as much as the most powerful American dam, Grand Coulee in Washington State.
“You could power many medium-sized countries with 60 gigawatts,” Eurasia Group energy expert Herbert Crowther explains. “Most nuclear reactors would be around a gigawatt.”
Yarlung Tsangpo, set to be completed by 2035, is meant to stimulate the Chinese economy and boost clean energy, but it will also control waters flowing to hundreds of millions of people in neighboring India and Bangladesh at a time when tensions over water are already high.
Why is China building the dam? Like the Three Gorges Dam constructed in China in the 1990s, this will deliver a significant economic boost while also providing a major new supply of clean energy that may ultimately support the nation’s aim to achieve net-zero emissions by 2060.
“The Chinese government’s favorite infrastructure is a dam,” says Dan Wang, Eurasia Group’s China director. “The electricity generation aspect is less relevant than the massive investment, jobs, and demand for domestic technology such projects can generate.”
Water as a weapon? Downstream nations are sounding alarms, since the Yarlung Tsangpo flows through the state of Arunachal Pradesh in northeastern India before merging with the Brahmaputra River, which eventually continues into Bangladesh. Both governments are wary of a situation in which Chinese officials control access to their water.
This could trigger competitive dam-building throughout the Himalayas, as each nation scrambles to control its water resources before neighbors do. India has already announced plans to accelerate its own hydropower development near the Chinese border in response, fearing Beijing could weaponize water flows during future conflicts.
The specter of water wars isn’t theoretical — when military tensions nearly boiled over between India and Pakistan back in May, India suspended the Indus Waters Treaty that had governed water sharing between the two nations for decades. With Pakistan being one of China’s closest regional partners, the Yarlung Tsangpo dam adds another layer of complexity to an already volatile triangle of neighbors competing for the same resources..