JD Vance wants more political influence over the Fed

The Fed was created as an independent entity—in theory—more than a century ago. Historically, presidents from both parties have agreed to maintain the Fed’s independence.

But the Republican nominees of 2024 are determined to bring the question back to the table.

Former President Trump raised eyebrows on the campaign trail by dropping not-so-subtle hints about when he wants Fed chairman Jerome Powell to drop the base rate. These hints suggest that the chairman’s tenure could be on the line if Powell’s decision doesn’t go Trump’s way.

Trump’s running mate, Senator Vance of Ohio, backed this call, arguing that monetary policy—which includes interest rates—should “fundamentally be a political decision.”

This would be—even by Vance’s own admission—a massive departure from the norm.

The Fed’s independence has not happened by chance: The organization was specifically designed to be nonpartisan in order to ensure economic stability over the long term, without being pressured into policy decisions by an administration looking for a win to crow about.

Various White House occupants have tried to sway the Fed or thrown its autonomy into question, usually without success. Tension between the Federal Reserve boardroom and the Oval Office was probably at its worst under the Nixon administration. It is also a proposal that has been repeatedly lambasted by economists, Wall Street analysts, former Federal Reserve members, and fellow politicians.

Until this year, Fed independence was a little-discussed issue because of widespread agreement on both the left and right that subsuming the Fed to the interests of the president was simply something that hasn’t worked particularly well in the past.

But in an interview with CNN’s Dana Bash released Sunday, Vance said: “Agree or disagree, we should have America’s elected leaders having input about the most important decisions confronting the country.

“It would be a huge change, but whether the country goes to war, what our interest rates are, these are important questions that American democracy should have important answers for, and I think all President Trump is saying is: ‘Look, it’s kind of weird that you have so many bureaucrats making so many important decisions.’”

While Vance attributes Trump’s comments to a commitment to democracy, Trump himself simply said the President should have more influence over the Fed.

Late last week, Trump said he should have a say because he has “made a lot of money” and has “better instincts” than Powell.

Vance’s position that the Fed is not political enough is also at odds with the criticism from his would-be president, who has complained that the Fed is too political.

Powell has been keen to detach himself from the debate. “We’re a nonpolitical agency. We don’t want to be involved in politics in any way,” he said earlier this month.

Departure from the global norm

Across the world, interest rates are largely set by autonomous central banks, usually with the goal of controlling inflation and/or maximising employment. Every G7 nation, for example, has an independent body deciding its base rate.

But Vance seems keen to break with tradition: “If the American people don’t like our interest rate policy, they should elect somebody different to change that policy,” he said.

The risk of changing interest rates via an election is that, during a period of inflation, with prices rising, the public might refuse to vote to make the cost of money more expensive by increasing the interest rate, even though doing that is a necessary evil to rebalance supply and demand and bring down prices overall.

“Nothing should be above democratic debate in this country when it comes to the big questions facing the United States,” Vance said.

It is not clear how Trump and Vance would change the Fed’s relationship with the White House or how closely linked the two would be. Representatives for the Trump office did not respond to Fortune’s request for comment.

Why is Fed independence so important?

The Fed is not “above” democratic debate—the chairman is elected by the president—but its actions are independently decided by a committee of economists from across the States.

As Donald Kohn, former Vice Chair of the Federal Reserve told Goldman Sachs in a 2019 research paper: “It is crucial to have a group of people who analyze the economy with respect to the long-run goals of economic policy… politicians have a much shorter timeframe in mind than is consistent with achieving these goals.”

In a note seen by Fortune he explained further: “Politicians are looking at the next election and their impulse … is to step on the gas as hard as they can to maximize their chances of winning the next election, and then worry about the consequences later.”

“Elected representatives were very wise to recognize their own potential shortcomings and create an independent central bank that would have a longer perspective in policymaking.”

Tyler Cowen, an economics professor at George Mason University, writing in an opinion column for Bloomberg, says that the Fed could be held more accountable for its decisions via an executive-branch review process, as is the case for the Social Security Administration and the Securities and Exchange Commission.

“At the very least, the executive branch could draw up such a budget and fight for it. If the president—whether it’s Trump or not—did that, it would be proof that he is serious about monetary stability. Otherwise, it’s safe to assume that any plans for the Fed, however implausible, amount to just another clumsy power grab,” Cowen wrote.

The White House also published an analysis on the significance of the Fed staying an independent entity. In May this year, the White House’s Council for Economic Advisors wrote: “A central bank’s credibility is bolstered by its independence, and such credibility is also key to maintaining long-term, anchored expectations.

“When credibility is undermined by political influence, people, firms, and others who set prices are less likely to believe the central bank’s commitment to lower inflation, which in turn can induce higher inflation.”

Wall Street analysts, for their part, haven’t lost faith in the Fed’s credibility yet, according to Paul Donovan, chief economist at UBS Global Wealth Management.

On Friday Donovan said: “It may well be that markets choose not to price the risk of Fed independence being undermined. Investors seem to have been inclined to dismiss Trump policies with more extreme economic outcomes as a case of the former president not being serious.

“If there were evidence that Trump were to be serious about these policies, markets would probably react.”