Trump seeks 'sphere of influence'

 

Gordon L. Weil

Make America Great Again assumes that the country had a golden past.

President Trump wants to recover it.  

The world’s major powers once dominated regions and other countries that fell within their so-called “sphere of influence.”   In those areas, the major power, its influence usually determined by the size of its economy and its military, called the shots.  That was their golden age.

Now, Trump seems to accept the world being divided among three great powers, each with its sphere of influence.  China, Russia and the U.S. would dominate.  The American sphere would encompass the entire Western Hemisphere, from Alaska’s Aleutian Islands to Greenland and from the Arctic to the Antarctic.

The U.S. area would be run under the newly created “Donroe Doctrine.”   President James Monroe warned of the use of American power to prevent further European colonization of Latin America.  Trump would extend his doctrine to allow U.S. power to be deployed throughout the hemisphere in the pursuit of economic and military advantage.

By understanding this policy, Trump’s moves on Venezuela, Greenland and Canada are explained.  The policy is unconstrained to the point that he can aspire to have his northern neighbors be absorbed by the U.S.  His minions imply that the country has the power to take what it wants.

In the case of Venezuela, America soldiers were deployed into the country, seized people and transported them to an American courtroom.  In the wake of this incursion, Trump made clear his intention to control Venezuela policy, and particularly its oil industry.

In fact, it worked so well that President Trump believes he has the “option” of using military force to seize Greenland, a sparsely populated Danish territory, and make it part of the U.S.  That might violate the law, but that wouldn’t matter. 

Who would enforce the law and either stop Trump or punish him and the U.S.?  Neither Venezuela nor Denmark has the power to block him.  What about the UN or Congress?

The UN Security Council met urgently to discuss the Venezuela situation, but no vote was taken on the American action.   If there had been a vote, the UN Charter might have provided a way to deny the U.S. its Council vote and hence, its veto.

It took no action because China and Russia, whose representatives spoke harshly about the U.S., don’t want an open conflict that could flare into real war.  Other Council members are either intimidated by the U.S. or dependent on it or both.

Trump used his status as commander-in-chief of the military to move into Venezuela.  He considers his military command gives him virtually unlimited authority to act.  With Congress having ceded many of its powers to the president, it does not employ the power of the purse.  It does not claim its right to declare war.  Impeachment alone would not deter him.  

The Supreme Court has usually endorsed his expansive view of the presidency.  It would normally leave a judgment up to Congress.  And some issues, like the kidnapping of the self-anointed president and his wife and their special status might fall outside of the scope of the case.

Trump’s asserts national security concerns, but he lacks evidence.   In Venezuela, he repeatedly has shown that his prime interest is oil.  In Greenland, he wants access for military bases and to minerals.

Trump’s actions are consistent with traditional American policy.  While people may find notions of democracy and neutrality in the country’s founding documents, the U.S. has long practiced “gunboat diplomacy” – the pursuit by force of American foreign policy objectives relating to smaller nations, especially in this hemisphere.

His sphere of influence policy encounters opposition in Europe, but countries there still decline to make the economic sacrifices needed to build their own defense, and he pays little attention to them.  To him, the EU is a threat to the U.S.

If there are downsides, they could come from the long-term consequences of his actions.  Trump looks for short-term results that would ensure he gets the credit.  Whatever his successes, animosity and even enmity has grown in neighboring countries in the hemisphere.  They could turn toward America’s rivals.

More desirable but less likely would be the recovery of Congress and the restoration of institutional checks on the president.  The legislative branch has abdicated its responsibilities, putting the institution itself in jeopardy.   Its integrity is threatened by members pushing partisanship ahead of preserving Congress. 

The UN’s leading members have given up on it.  The UN Charter is a treaty under international law, but is routinely ignored.  It might still be made to work instead allowing it to recede further as an irrelevant anachronism.

But everybody keeps their heads down.   That leaves Trump, violating laws and treaties, to remake the world as he wishes.

Constitution crashes under Trump amendments

 

Gordon L. Weil

Before the return of Donald Trump to the White House, I wrote a series of columns entitled “Fix It.”  They suggested ways of repairing the damage to historic practices that had their origins in the Constitution Framers’ shared understandings about the government they were creating.

I avoided proposing formal constitutional amendments, sharing a widely held concern that the process, especially a national convention, would expose the founding document to radical change.  They could modify or remove some of the constraints on government and endanger the Bill of Rights.

Without a formal amendment process, much of this has happened in a single year of Trump’s second term.  Widely accepted understandings about constitutional limits, guiding all branches of the federal government, were summarily swept away.

The political world has drastically changed since 1787, when the Constitution was drafted.  While its terms were sufficiently general to allow adaptation over time, they have also permitted significant departures from their intent and subsequent practice.   Key elements of the constitutional system have crashed.

The central innovation of American government was checks and balances.  Emerging from the arbitrary rule of the British king and his compliant parliament, the Framers designed a system that denied power to any one person, but distributed it over three independent and interlocking branches. 

Each would be subject to checks by the others and power would be balanced among them.  National policy would be embodied in laws passed by Congress.  The president would execute the laws, exercising discretion only within prescribed limits.  The Supreme Court would ensure that the other branches respected their legal limits, including those set in the Constitution.

The Framers assumed that each branch would accept checks and balances.  The three institutions would each receive more loyalty than that accorded to political “factions.”  The interests of individual states would be respected.   Political perspectives might shift over time to reflect the popular will, but only gradually.

The American government began abandoning that model after the 1994 congressional elections, as I have previously noted.  The Republican Party initiated discipline closer to the British parliamentary tradition than the Framers’ plan. 

Republican discipline reached its ultimate point in 2025, with the Republican president using unlimited powers affirmed by the Supreme Court dominated by his followers and enjoying his party’s virtually absolute congressional support.  Checks and balances, the unique American system, was abandoned, perhaps forever.

Commenting on the system now imposed on the country, a federal judge recently found the focus: “The Founders designed our government to be a system of checks and balances. Defendants [the Trump administration], however, make clear that the only check they want is a blank one.”

Impeachment may be the only constitutional check apparently still available under the disrupted balance of power.  Trump worries that a Democratic House majority could vote his third impeachment.  But the chances for conviction by the Senate are virtually nonexistent.

If the historic system is to be restored, the Constitution must be rescued.   Key changes can be made without amendments.  But, because we have seen constitutional provisions ignored by a willful regime, stronger protective barriers must be formally erected.  This might create a new originalism, though not the usual cynical distortion of original intent by obvious partisans.

Candidates should seek federal office on explicit platforms to restore checks and balances.  Unless there is greater independent, nonpartisan leadership by federal politicians on these central concerns, the changes of 2025 will have turned the United States away from limited government to authoritarian rule. 

The calendar must be the tool of limited government.  The Constitution should require that every law must have a sunset, requiring readoption after a designated period.  No longer would a president be able to misuse outdated laws for unintended purposes.

Similarly, public control of government would be enhanced by the imposition of term limits.  “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”  Without term limits, members of the House and Senate, and judges come to exercise absolute power.   Their focus changes from pursuing the public good to enjoying the intoxication of unfettered rule.

The unelected Supreme Court should retain its independence, but no longer should a five-person majority impose its interpretations on a nation of more the 330 million people.  Rulings on constitutionality should be reversible by Congress.

The Court’s misguided determination that unlimited campaign spending is free speech should be constitutionally quashed.   Congressional redistricting, which today makes a mockery of democracy, should be returned to the original intent, linking it to the census every ten years.

A president and Congress could achieve some of these goals, but legislative change might prove to be temporary.  The country could experience the federal government reversing itself in arbitrary and unpredictable ways after each election.

These proposals for constitutional change may seem hopelessly idealistic, coming from “one crying in the wilderness.”   Improbable, yes, but no more than the sweeping and unexpected constitutional change that has taken place in less than a year. 

How? Now is the time for the Constitution to become an election issue.

 

Poltical myths of the year

 

Gordon L. Weil

With the yearend, my occasional search for political myths is overflowing.  Here are ten of the best.

1. Commerce Department reports unexpectedly strong economic growth. 

This report exceeds earlier results and independent economic forecasts.  The Commerce Department’s questionable objectivity could raise doubts about it.   Trump fired one of its top independent economists, because he disliked her analyses, and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick is totally loyal to his president.

2. Epstein papers are being released. 

Candidate Trump promised they’d be released, implying that the Democrats suppressed them to avoid embarrassment.  But he tried unsuccessfully to block their release, throwing suspicion on himself and on his campaign promise.  The release drags on.  Does it matter?  Probably not, as the absence of a political reaction to his “Access Hollywood” groping story showed.

3. Trump has launched a peace deal in Gaza between Israel and Hamas. 

The first phase of the deal successfully brought the release of prisoners and hostages.  But the neutral international force to be stationed in Gaza does not exist, and the conflict continues.  With Trump’s support, Israel retains control and won’t fully withdraw, and Hamas terrorists cling to power in Gaza.  Trump claims he brought peace; he didn’t even bring a ceasefire.

4. Trump might run for a third term. 

A third term is unconstitutional, but with this Supreme Court anything is possible.   Still, as Trump’s health has evolved, third-term chatter has virtually vanished.  Appearing to have abandoned his hope, he has even named possible successors – Vance and Rubio.

5. Canada should be the 51st state. 

He might have noticed it already was.   But he wanted more than dependence; he wanted historic American territorial expansion.   Mark Carney, the new Canadian Prime Minister, strongly opposed Trump’s tariffs, and Canada promptly began diversifying away from the U.S.  The expansionist policy backfired.

Statehood would require the approval of Congress and the unlikely agreement of most Canadians.  If it happened, the U.S. could gain each of the ten provinces as states, not huge Canada signing on as one state.  That was probably not Trump’s intent.

6. Greenland is part of North America and the Monroe Doctrine entitles the U.S. to it.

Tectonic plates make Greenland a part of North America, but the Monroe Doctrine does not apply.  Greenland was under the Danish crown before the Monroe Doctrine, which specifically exempts Western Hemisphere territories already under European control.   It was aimed at keeping Spain and Portugal from trying to retake their former colonies.

Greenland, an autonomous region of Denmark, would agree to host increased U.S. military operations.  Without territorial concessions, upgraded defense could be achieved. Trump’s goal seems to be about territory, not defense, and he has alienated an ally. 

7. The president can deploy the National Guard to protect U.S. facilities in American cities.

Despite Trump’s deployments, the Supreme Court recently ruled that the National Guard can be used to protect federal facilities only when the regular military cannot.  It can’t replace local police.  That’s originalism, but it was opposed by the very justices usually favoring that concept.  Trump got the message and withdrew the troops in most places.

8. Child labor protection denies children their freedom.

Congress once planned a constitutional amendment on child labor.  Instead, it long ago enacted strong, protective legislation.  Facing labor shortages due to reduced immigration, some Republicans now want to loosen that protection.  Their logic? Since kids now stay up late playing video games, they should be free to work more hours.

9. The U.S. is committed to Taiwan’s independence from China.

While it intentionally waffles on China’s claim to Taiwan, the U.S. could thwart a Communist Chinese invasion of the island.  China menaces Taiwan and has been conducting nearby live-fire exercises in international waters, patrolled by the U.S. Navy to ensure freedom of the seas and to oppose China’s claims.

American policy is weakened by moving an entire aircraft carrier group from the South China Sea to the Caribbean, trying to force Venezuelan regime change.  The U.S. pushes an aggressive view of the Monroe Doctrine rather than resisting Chinese expansion affecting Taiwan, the Philippines and South Korea, all important allies.

10. The U.S. is the only power that can bring peace between Ukraine and Russia.

Russia invaded Ukraine to expand and extend its influence on the territory of the former Soviet Union.  Conflicting territorial claims and Ukraine’s insistence on protecting its sovereignty put a peace deal out of reach.  The U.S. could force a resolution by stronger backing for Ukraine or tougher retaliation against the Russian aggressor, as some Republicans advocate, or both.

By doing neither, Trump is unable to bring peace.  His solution is to force Ukraine to accept Russian demands, but his problem is that Europe feels threatened and supports Ukraine’s independence, pledging to back it indefinitely.  As a result, Trump cannot become the historic dealmaker, when a deal on Russian-U.S. terms is impossible.

A loyal reader found an editorial error in the last column.  The correct name with nickname of the Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is Gen. Dan “Raizin’ Caine”.

“Woke” may be here to stay, but Trump tries to roll back history

 

Gordon L. Weil

Donald Trump opposes “woke.” 

The dictionary says that “woke” is a word coined by African Americans to make themselves and others aware of social injustice and the need to deal with it.  Trump disagrees with that goal.

Diversity, equality and inclusion – DEI - recognizes that institutions have discriminated against women and non-whites.  He believes DEI now reserves job slots for them as unjustified compensation.

People who see themselves as displaced by DEI question the entire effort, claiming it rewards identity and not merit.  Rather than assuring that DEI should provide equal opportunity without setting aside preferential slots, they argue that DEI simply must go.  Trump agrees and leads the movement to stamp it out.  

But the notion of “woke” does not stop there for him.    It is obviously his view that the term “woke” is the same as “politically correct.”  That term embodies liberal positions that are justified and politically popular, but are not accepted by those whose vested interests may be affected.

For almost a century, in their responses to the Great Depression and the Second World War, the United States and Europe turned toward policies using the government to provide social and financial support to minorities and less fortunate people.  Environmental concerns and international cooperation to reduce conflict became parts of this evolution.

At its core Trump’s concept of “Make America Great Again” focuses on a return to values and practices that existed a century ago.  They are inaccurately labeled as “socialism,” because of the increased role of government. 

The practices and standards adopted in democracies, even including the opening of political participation to women and minorities, are thought to be the “woke” work of elites seeking control and are targeted for removal.

An automatic assumption is that leadership positions occupied by women or Blacks were attained by DEI and not by merit.  Upon taking office, Trump fired the Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, a Black, and the heads of the Navy and Coast Guard, both women.  The new military chief, a white man, seems to have been selected based on his nickname, “Raising Kaine.”

When it comes to race and the nation’s struggles for equality, Trump minimizes slavery and the historic political and economic bias against Black people.  Elemental truths of American history are minimized or erased if they might provide a basis for policies to ensure equal opportunity.  Racial supremacists have emerged in fervent support of Trump’s effort.

As a result, the war on “woke” extends to changing exhibits at national parks and museums to minimize mentions of slavery and racism.  It penalizes academic institutions for offering places to members of groups who had previously been denied access.   It suppresses voting by members of minority groups who are denied representation.

But it goes much further.   Policies that are aimed at environmental improvement, especially air quality, are rejected.  The use of polluting coal for power generation and heating was being phased out until Trump’s undertook to keep it in business.  

Mileage standards for cars are weakened, and support for renewable energy is eliminated. Wind power is opposed by presidential whim.

Quitting the Paris agreement on environmental goals, the U.S. has isolated itself from the body of world opinion trying to reduce global warming.  Trump calls climate change a “hoax.”   Just as he has tried to rewrite American history, he attempts, by this unsubstantiated claim, to repeal scientific findings and the real experience of billions of people.

His war on the conventional wisdom of the world goes even further.  Disillusioned by the shortcomings of the United Nations, he prefers to weaken its ability to resolve conflicts.  Instead of trying to make it work, he lauds his own attempts to force peace settlements by using American political and military power.

His attitude toward the U.N. reflects his disdain for international cooperation.  He has made clear that the U.S., the essential pillar of the Western alliance, is uncomfortable with its commitment to NATO.  Though from a different starting point, he is becoming the ally of Russia’s Putin in promoting its decline.

He goes even further in aligning himself with Putin by opposing the EU.   Though formed with U.S. support to make new European wars impossible, Trump ignores that history and is only able to see European unification in trade terms, as a plot against the U.S.  Neither Trump nor Putin wants a strong rival in Europe, so, in essence, the EU becomes “woke.”

Rejecting history may appeal to MAGA supporters who believe they have lost influence and power.  But Trump’s efforts to repeal progress are likely to fail, because change is inevitable, even if he dislikes it.  As shown by the growing political opposition to his ending healthcare subsidies, most people are becoming accustomed to being “woke.”

Trump's choices: Ukraine, Fed mistakes

 

Gordon L. Weil

Making policy is a matter of making tough choices.  As two current cases show, there’s a lot of room for error.

Ukraine vs. Russia

Almost four years ago, Russia invaded neighboring Ukraine, seeking to gain territory and install a puppet regime there.  To the world’s surprise, Ukraine halted the Russians and regained much lost territory.

Under the Soviet Union, Ukraine was under Moscow’s total control.  Historically, the Russians had treated Ukrainians as second-rate subjects.  Even after the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia broke successive agreements to respect Ukraine’s independence.

Under President Biden, the U.S. opposed the invasion and supported the Ukraine government.  Relying heavily on that support, Ukraine pushed Russian forces back. What Russia’s Putin had planned as a rapid and complete victory turned into a protracted war.

European nations, alarmed by the Russian land invasion, which they fear as a potential threat to themselves, also support Ukraine.  Like much of the world, they recognize Russian aggression as a breach of the rules-based world order that followed World War II.  But they lack the military resources and intelligence capability that the U.S. deployed. 

As president, Trump revealed a different view.  He ignored the historical relations between Russia and Ukraine and Russia’s repeated violation of its non-aggression agreements.  He saw the conflict as a matter of territory and causing an unnecessary loss of life on both sides.  He believed that the war could be easily ended.

Trump concluded that Russia’s superior strength would make it the ultimate victor.   Ukraine, dependent on American aid, could be forced to surrender territory and independence, but could survive a while longer.  Zelenskyy would not agree.  Trump angrily stopped all but intelligence support; Europe has been forced to step up.

Trump can either help Russia by promoting a deal including its demands for a weakened Ukraine or help Ukraine by backing its resistance to the invasion that is gradually weakening Russia.  This is the American policy choice, one in which aggression could either be ignored and rewarded or rejected and punished.

Though the U.S. claims it is the only entity in the world that could foster an accord between the two sides, Trump has apparently failed to recognize that even the U.S. cannot bring about a deal.  Russia’s Putin will not relent in his ambition as long as Russian resources permit.  Ukraine’s Zelenskyy will not surrender his country’s independence.  The U.S. may just walk away.

Trump has made his choice, based on an inadequate understanding of Ukraine and European history.  But it is a false choice, because ultimately, it is not his to make.

Jobs vs. inflation

The Federal Reserve has been given two tasks:  to limit inflation and to promote full employment.  An independent board, it seeks to find a balance between these tasks by carefully controlling the supply of money in the American economy.  It usually follows its own economic analysis and judgment, immune from short-term political demands.

Political action on the economy, usually reflecting presidential policy with congressional approval, takes place through fiscal policy – setting the level of government spending and the taxation and borrowing to cover it. 

Thus, one of the two elements of government economic policy is dominated by political considerations and the other is based on economic analyses, insulated from politics.

Congress has assigned the Fed its independent role, but presidents may be tempted to try to influence it to align with their political goals.  When they try to control the Fed, conflict is inevitable. 

Trump wants lower interest rates, which he believes will stimulate the economy, assisting him redeem some of his campaign promises.  He is unconcerned about the inflation that an overly aggressive policy could cause, eroding the value of the dollar.

He believes that his upcoming choice of a new Fed chair can produce his desired result.  His Fed would lower interest rates to emphasize job creation over controlling inflation.  He would replace the Fed’s effort to meets its dual responsibilities with his choice in favor of one of them.

By setting interest rates and using other measures to control the money supply, the Fed can have a direct and immediate effect on inflation affecting individuals and businesses. Because they rely on credit, their costs may immediately rise or fall.

Job creation is less direct.  By lowering employers’ interest costs, the Fed may assume they will increase investment, potentially creating jobs.  But companies may pocket gains rather than investing them or might employ more automation.  In short, the Fed’s job creation efforts are less direct than its anti-inflation moves and resemble trickle-down economics.

The Fed’s obvious answer is to make a balanced choice.  Trump’s choice is to override its independence.   If the Supreme Court backs him, which seems unlikely, he could have his way and end the independent role of the central bank.

Is Trump becoming desperate? Outllook for 2026

Gordon L. Weil

Running under the surface of all politics these days is next year’s battle for congressional control.  It will amount to a report card on President Trump, and it could set the terms for his administration’s final years and the 2028 presidential elections.

Trump knows that.   This week he made a televised address that sounded like a campaign speech.  He asked voters to withhold their judgment on his promises until they see the results next year.  Meanwhile, without the required congressional approval, he may make transition payments to taxpayers, beginning with a bonus to military personnel.

That he is desperate to turn around his falling poll ratings was evident from his false claims and extravagant promises.   For example, no reduction in drug prices could exceed 100 percent, but he promised more – “even 600 percent.”  His speech contained none of the bipartisan appeal of a traditional presidential address; it was pure Trump campaigning.

Can he hold onto the congressional control that gives him the ability to do almost anything he wants?   The 2026 elections hold the answer.

The Republican majority now hold a narrow and fluctuating majority in the House and a 53-47 majority in the Senate.  

The party of an incumbent president usually loses seats in midterm elections.   Since Franklin D. Roosevelt, only Bill Clinton and the second George Bush picked up seats.  Unlike Trump, they both enjoyed high popularity at the time. 

The Democrats should flip the House.   Trump believes GOP gerrymandering can produce new Republican seats to offset Democratic gains.  The Democrats have reacted by trying to redistrict in states they control.

Even if he is right, a GOP House majority might no longer give him unlimited power.   MAGA loyalists dislike his changing positions on releasing the Epstein files, and his foreign moves.  The obviously limited role allowed House GOP women is also beginning to cause problems.  MAGA members have begun to defy Speaker Mike Johnson, on whom he relies.  

The Senate is not subject to redistricting.  The GOP may now feel safe, but history shows that, like the House, Senate midterm races are influenced by the president’s popularity.  

The election results yield several possible scenarios.

The third term scenario.  Republicans retain control of both houses and act as if Trumpism would roll on in 2028.  Fearful of his ability to defeat them in primaries, GOP members continue to allow him broad powers.

The lame duck scenario.  No matter which party controls one or both houses, Trump’s influence fades.  Members look forward to no longer having him at the top of the ticket, and being forced to run on their own records.

The Democrats would try to create issues for 2028, as they have with healthcare assistance.     If they control the House, they would have an enhanced forum to make their case.

Stalemate scenario.  If the Democrats win the House, they will be able to block at least some of the president’s proposals.  If Trump holds fast to his treatment of the Democrats as “the enemy,” the government could be deadlocked.   The 2028 presidential campaign becomes the sole focus.

If the Democrats win the Senate, it could mean political war.  They could block Trump’s nominees to the courts and executive agencies.  While his veto would limit their chances to dictate their own policies, his power would be substantially reduced.  His eyes on the Prize, he would concentrate on foreign affairs, where congressional power is limited.

Compromise scenario.  If the Democrats were to control either or both houses, Trump could decide to try to make deals with them, in line with political tradition.   His concern with his legacy is greater than his commitment to GOP conservatism.  He wants to be seen positively and hailed for great achievements, so compromise could yield more for him than conflict.

That could explain his surprisingly friendly encounter with Zohran Mamdani, the newly elected New York city mayor.  He was friendly to Mamdani, making many MAGA backers nervous.    Just as an aging President Biden faded from the scene, Trump could compensate for his aging by being less combative.

The Democrats’ burden would then face the choice of either cooperating, which the polls say people want, or seeking partisan redlines as a way of striking a clear contrast with Trump and undermining 2028 Trumpism. 

The media focus is now on gerrymandering and the contest to redraw House maps, but the real 2026 contest may be about whether Trump has retained enough popularity to carry on.   Or is the electorate returning to more traditional GOP conservatism and regaining some confidence in the Democrats?  

Mere opposition to Trump is not enough as the Democratic platform.  While they may not achieve total unity, the Democrats need better leadership and to offer practical alternatives with bipartisan appeal if they want to stage a comeback next year.  

  

Federal Reserve should survive Trump bluster

 

Gordon L. Weil

As courts deal with President Trump’s executive orders, people have come to understand that judges make decisions influenced by their politics.  Hardly a news item about a court decision appears without mentioning the president who appointed the judge.  The underlying message is that Republicans appoint reliable conservatives, while Democrats name liberals.

If judges don’t perform independently, courts end up looking partisan, as the Supreme Court does.  Trump spokespersons help promote that belief by attacking judges when the president’s policies face setbacks.  He thinks judges should follow the lead of the president who picked them.

Trump is now also trying to bend the Federal Reserve, the nation’s central bank, to his will. The Fed sets short-term interest rates that have broad economic effects. He wants lower rates that, he believes, will spur growth and reduce the interest costs on the federal debt, which has been sharply increased by his policies.

He focuses on who will be the Fed chair.  As with other of his policies, he would go back to a time when the Fed’s Board of Governors and its rate setting Open Market Committee, adopted rates set by the chair.  Trump believes that a new leader, supportive of his views on interest rates and even taking direction from him, will be able to bring down rates.

Just as judges are supposed to reflect the leanings or the partisan stance of the presidents who appointed them, Trump believes that Fed governors should similarly follow the election results rather than their economic analysis.  He would like to easily replace Fed governors, shaping the Board to follow his will.

In effect, the last remaining major “court” would be stripped of its neutrality.   The Fed makes decisions that affect almost everybody, unlike most legal rulings, so if it lost its independence, the effect would flow across the entire economy.

The federal government deploys two major tools to influence the economy.  One is fiscal policy, wielded by Congress and the president, and it focuses on spending and taxes.  The other is monetary policy, managed by the Fed, and it focuses on the value of the dollar, often measured by the rate of inflation that can gradually reduce its value.

Fiscal policy is meant to be political.   Monetary policy, with the goals of taming inflation and promoting job growth, is supposed to be isolated from politics, and it usually is protected.  As a sign of its intended independence, Fed governors are appointed for 14-year terms, thus insulating them from election results.

The Fed is not taxpayer financed.  It receives payments from banks and its own trading in money markets.  It is a combined public-private entity, acting independently in line with the judgments of the governors and the presidents of the regional Fed banks, who are chosen by their own boards.

This is the system that Trump wants to change.  It has generally worked well, though possibly moving slower or faster than would be ideal.  It has tried to keep interest rates low and employment high, both part of congressional mandate.

In a rare break from Fed neutrality, President Nixon, facing reelection, induced its chair to lead the Fed into cutting interest rates.  The result was raging inflation.   Soaring interest rates were halted under a new Fed chair, using astronomical interest rates and causing a recession.  President Reagan reaped the political reward for the ultimate recovery.

The Fed no longer works that way.  Trump has attacked Fed chair Jerome Powell, his own pick for the job, for not cutting rates.  The president may fail to understand that the chair no longer calls the shots.  Votes on rates by the Open Market Committee, composed of Fed governors and selected regional Fed bank presidents, are public, but Trump seems to ignore them.

Last week’s vote showed a three-way split. The majority, including Powell, supported a small rate reduction; some opposed any reduction; one wanted a bigger cut.   Trump wants next year’s new chair to lead the Fed into making deep cuts.  But his appointee is likely to prove as independent as Powell.  And Powell could remain on the Board as a governor.

While the Supreme Court has supported stronger executive power for Trump by allowing him to fire independent agency members, it seems ready to protect the Fed.  It recognizes the intent, virtually from the outset of the country, to have an independent central bank.  So does Congress.

Both understand that the independent Fed has given the world a currency of reliable, long-term value.  The U.S. dollar is recognized as the principal reserve currency by other countries and businesses around the world.  Trump’s own National Security Strategy would retain the dollar’s role.

In the end, Trump’s effort to have his new chair seize Fed control is likely to amount to nothing more than futile and distracting bluster.