Donald Trump

ADVERTISEMENT

US President Donald Trump intensified pressure on Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell for interest rate cuts on Monday, calling him “a major loser” and warning of an economic slowdown.

“There can almost be no inflation, but there can be a SLOWING of the economy unless Mr Too Late, a major loser, lowers interest rates, NOW,” he posted on Truth Social. Trump also compared the Federal Reserve with the European Central Bank (ECB), which has reduced interest rates seven times. “Powell has always been ‘Too Late,’ except when it came to the election period when he lowered rates in order to help Sleepy Joe Biden, later Kamala, get elected. How did that work out?” he added.

The comments raised concerns over the independence of the Federal Reserve, triggering further sell-offs in US assets, including equities, the dollar, and government bonds.

Investors continue to offload US Assets

US stock markets deepened losses following the Easter holiday break, with all three major indices—the Dow Jones, S&P 500, and Nasdaq Composite—slumping more than 2% on Monday. Wall Street has experienced heavy selling since Trump announced reciprocal tariffs at the start of April, followed by a historic rebound after he decided to pause the levies on all countries except China one week later. However, Trump’s attack on Powell now raises fresh concerns about the Fed’s independence and may threaten the broader stability of the global financial system.

“Were Powell to be fired, the initial reaction would be a huge injection of volatility into financial markets, and the most dramatic rush to the exit from US assets that it is possible to imagine,” wrote Michael Brown, senior research strategist at Pepperstone in London. “If this were to happen, then the reserve status of the dollar, and haven value of Treasuries, would be wiped out—probably permanently in both cases.”

The US dollar weakened significantly against major currencies, with the dollar index falling to just above 98, its lowest level since March 2022. The euro surged against the greenback, surpassing 1.05 to reach its highest level since November 2021. The Swiss franc also strengthened to levels not seen since 2015, when the Swiss National Bank removed its currency peg to the euro.

US government bonds saw sharp declines as yields surged, particularly on long-dated Treasuries. The 10-year and 30-year Treasury yields rose by 8 and 10 basis points, reaching 4.4% and 4.9%, respectively.

Gold prices soared, repeatedly reaching new all-time highs amid concerns that the US dollar is losing its global reserve currency status. Risk-off sentiment and inflationary fears also lifted precious metal prices. Gold futures on COMEX rose 1.6% to $3,480 per ounce at 4:00 a.m. CEST, following a 2.9% rally on Monday.

Powell signals no rush to cut rates

Last week, Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell acknowledged that the central bank is facing a growing dilemma in fulfilling its dual mandate of price stability and maximum employment.

US Federal Reserve (Fed) Chair Jerome Powell warned last week that escalating tariffs could fuel inflation while undermining growth. He acknowledged that the central bank is facing a growing dilemma in fulfilling its dual mandate of price stability and maximum employment. Powell signalled no rush to cut interest rates further: “For the time being, we are well positioned to wait for greater clarity before considering any adjustments to our policy stance.”

Following the speech, Trump took aim at Powell, urging rate cuts, adding that his “termination cannot come fast enough.” National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett also indicated that the Trump administration was studying whether to fire Powell.

The Fed chair is an independent role, although appointed by the US president. Powell noted previously that presidents may not legally fire or demote the Fed chair. His four-year term will end on 15 May 2026. Under the Supreme Court ruling, Federal board members can only be dismissed before their terms expired “for cause.”

China has warned countries against striking trade deals with the United States at Beijing’s expense, ratcheting up its rhetoric in a spiralling trade war between the world’s two biggest economies.

Responding to reports suggesting that US President Donald Trump’s administration is pressuring other countries to isolate China, a spokesperson for China’s Ministry of Commerce said on Monday that Beijing “will take countermeasures in a resolute and reciprocal manner” against nations that align with the US against it.

The warning comes as countries prepare for talks with the US to seek exemptions from “reciprocal” tariffs that Trump imposed and then later paused on about 60 trading partners.

So what’s this latest verbal spat about, how much clout does China wield in global trade and can Trump drive a wedge between other capitals and Beijing?

What’s the backdrop?

The Wall Street Journal recently reported that Trump was seeking to use tariff talks to push US economic partners to curb trade with China and rein in Beijing’s manufacturing dominance.

In return, these nations could secure reductions in US levies and trade barriers. The Trump administration has said it is in negotiations with more than 70 countries.

On Monday, China’s Commerce Ministry hit back, warned other nations that “to seek one’s own temporary selfish interests at the expense of others’ interests is to seek the skin of a tiger”. In effect, it argued that those trying to strike deals with the US – the tiger – would be eaten up themselves eventually.

The ministry also said China would in turn target all countries that fell in line with US pressure to hurt Beijing.

What’s the status of US-China trade?

After Trump suspended his “reciprocal tariffs” on major US trading partners on April 9, he ramped them up on China. US trade levies on most Chinese exports have climbed to 145 percent. Beijing has retaliated with duties of its own at 125 percent on US goods.

Trump has long accused China of exploiting the US on trade, casting his tariffs as necessary to revive domestic manufacturing and return jobs to the US. He also wants to use tariffs to finance future tax cuts.

For his part, Chinese President Xi Jinping travelled to three Southeast Asian countries last week to bolster regional ties. He called on trading partners, including Vietnam, to oppose unilateral bullying.

“There are no winners in trade wars and tariff wars,” Xi said in an article published in Vietnamese media, without mentioning the US.

As with other countries in Southeast Asia, Vietnam has been caught in the trade war’s crossfire. It is not only a manufacturing hub itself, but China also frequently uses it to dispatch exports to the US to avoid the tariffs imposed by the first Trump administration on Beijing in 2018.

Elsewhere, the Trump administration has begun talks with East Asian allies over the tariffs with a Japanese delegation visiting Washington, DC, last week and South Korean officials set to arrive this week.

Many countries now find themselves stuck between the world’s two biggest economies – China, a large source of manufactured goods and a key trading partner, and the US, a crucial export market.

How dependent is the world on Chinese exports?

In a report published in January by the Lowy Institute, a Sydney-based think tank, analysts found that in 2023, about 70 percent of countries imported more from China than they did from the US.

China’s rapid ascent as a trading superpower can be traced back to 2001, the year it joined the World Trade Organization (WTO) and when it started to dominate global manufacturing after years of successful protectionist industrial policies.

During the 2000s, China benefitted from the relocation of international supply chains, turbocharged by substantial inflows of foreign investment, large pools of low-cost labour and an undervalued currency exchange rate.

By 2023, China had become the largest trading partner for at least 60 countries, almost twice as many as for the US, which remained the largest trading partner for 33 economies.

The gap between them is also widening in many countries: The Lowy Institute analysis found that in 2023, 112 economies traded more than twice as much with China as they did with the US, up from 92 in 2018 during Trump’s first trade war.

“The critical dependence China has developed around the world, especially in Asia, means that lots [of trading partners] cannot do without China,” said Alicia Garcia-Herrero, an economist at the investment bank Natixis. “From critical minerals to silicon chips, Chinese exports are almost irreplaceable.”

Has world trade tipped more in China’s favour since Trump’s last trade war?

In 2018, two years into his first administration, Trump imposed 15 percent tariffs on more than $125bn in Chinese goods, including footwear, smartwatches and flat-screen TVs.

Since then, the US has become an even more important source of demand for non-Chinese exports, especially from Mexico and Vietnam, reflecting the impact of years of US tariffs on China.

Yet if Trump’s aim in part was to hurt Beijing, his first salvoes failed.

Since 2018, many more nations have deepened their trade relations with China – at the expense of the US.

When China joined the WTO, more than 80 percent of countries had more two-way trade with the US than with China. That had fallen to just 30 percent by 2018, the year of Trump’s first tariffs on China, according to the Lowy Institute analysis.

That trend has only solidified since then: In 2018, 139 nations traded more with China than with the US. By 2023, that number had risen to 145, and about 70 percent of the world’s economies now trade more with China than with the US – up from just 15 percent in 2001.

“Trump doesn’t seem to understand how important Chinese trade flows have become,” Garcia-Herrero told Al Jazeera. “What’s more, he’s not offering much by way of carrots, like more investment, so I don’t think he’ll get what he wants.”

Can countries afford to alienate China on trade?

According to Garcia-Herrero, a few countries such as Mexico that have particularly deep trade links with the US, probably will “say no to Chinese imports”.

However, she highlighted that “China’s presence in supply chains is so massive for most of America’s other trade partners, decoupling is virtually impossible.”

Indeed, around the world, China has become an invaluable source of imports. The European Union, for instance, had a trade deficit with China worth 396 billion euros ($432bn) in 2022, up from 145 billion euros ($165bn) in 2016.

China accounts for 20 percent of EU goods imports. The equivalent figure in Great Britain is 10 percent. Last week, Treasury Secretary Rachel Reeves said it would be “very foolish” for the UK to engage in less trade with China.

Across the developing world, China’s trade role is just as crucial. Roughly a quarter of Bangladesh’s and Cambodia’s total imports are from China. Nearly a fifth of Nigeria’s and Saudi Arabia’s goods imports come from China.

“Trump’s trade policy is shortsighted,” Garcia-Herrero said. “Trying to pry trade away with China may work in countries where the US has military bases. … They may have to accept the US’s concerns.”

“But for most countries, particularly those in the Global South, the more that Trump threatens, the more that countries will go on China’s side.”

US stocks and the dollar have dropped sharply as United States President Donald Trump’s attacks on the chief of the US central bank shake investors’ confidence in the world’s top economy.

The benchmark S&P 500 fell 2.36 percent on Monday, one of the steepest one-day declines of the year.

The tech-heavy Nasdaq Composite tumbled 2.55 percent, dragging the index down nearly 18 percent from its position at the start of the year.

The dollar fell to a three-year low, at one point weakening to 97.923 against a basket of major currencies.

US government bonds also fell as investors sold off the traditional safe-haven assets, with the yield on 10-year Treasury notes rising above 4.4 percent.

Asian markets opened broadly lower on Tuesday, with Japan’s Nikkei 225, Hong Kong’s Hang Seng Index and Taiwan’s TAIEX down about 0.8 percent, 0.6 percent and 0.5 percent, respectively, as of 02:00 GMT.

The steep losses came as Trump renewed his attacks on US Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, branding the central bank boss a “major loser” and “Mr Too Late” on social media for not moving faster to cut interest rates.

Trump has repeatedly threatened to replace Powell, saying last week that his termination “cannot come fast enough”.

On Friday, Kevin Hassett, Trump’s top economic adviser, said the administration was studying the possibility of removing Powell, whose term runs until May next year.

Since announcing its most recent cut to its benchmark interest rate in December, the Federal Reserve’s policy-making committee has expressed caution about lowering rates further in the near term amid concerns that Trump’s sweeping tariffs will stoke inflation.

Powell warned in a speech last week that the tariffs could leave the US economy grappling with weak growth, rising unemployment and higher inflation all at once, putting the central bank’s dual goals of maximum employment and stable prices in “tension”.

“We know from experience in the United States and many other countries that politicians are tempted to ease monetary policy while they are in office because the initial effects are to increase growth and employment. Only later, perhaps when they have left office, does the higher inflation show up,” Joseph E Gagnon, a senior fellow at Peterson Institute for International Economics, told Al Jazeera.

“Markets understand this and are worried that President Trump may try to undo the Fed’s longstanding protection against political interference.”

Powell, who was nominated by Trump in 2017 and tapped to serve another four-year term by former US President Joe Biden, has said he would not resign if asked and insisted that he can only be removed for malfeasance.

Under a US Supreme Court ruling handed down in 1935, the executive branch is prohibited from dismissing the heads of independent federal agencies such as the Federal Reserve except for “cause”.

The Trump administration, which has taken aim at numerous established norms, is seeking to overturn the 90-year-old precedent in a Supreme Court case related to its dismissal of the heads of the Merit Systems Protection Board and the National Labor Relations Board.

Any move to dismiss Powell would almost certainly send shockwaves through financial markets, given the more than century-old principle that the Federal Reserve should set interest rates free from political considerations.

On Monday, Austan Goolsbee, the president and chief executive officer of the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, warned that any effort to undermine the independence of the central bank would have negative ramifications for the economy.

“When there is interference over the long run, it’s going to mean higher inflation,” Goolsbee said in an interview with CNBC, without commenting directly on Trump’s attacks on Powell.

“It’s going to mean worse growth and higher unemployment.”

Gagnon said the financial markets were reacting to the “greater probability of presidential interference” with the Federal Reserve.

“More generally, investors will be less interested in holding investments in the United States if they believe the Fed will not be independent in the future because that means the US economy will not perform as well in the future as in the past,” he said.

April 21 (UPI) — Harvard, one of the most prestigious universities in the United States, on Monday sued the Trump administration after federal funding was withdrawn and institutional oversight was demanded of the private school.

The 51-page lawsuit, which was filed in federal court of its home state of Massachusetts, asks a judge to block the funding freeze, arguing it is “unlawful and beyond the government’s authority.”

The White House did not immediately respond to comments with ABC News and CNN about the lawsuit by the Ivy League school.

“All told, the tradeoff put to Harvard and other universities is clear: Allow the Government to micromanage your academic institution or jeopardize the institution’s ability to pursue medical breakthroughs, scientific discoveries, and innovative solutions,” Harvard’s lawyers wrote.

University President Alan M. Garber, in a letter addressed to the Harvard community on Monday, said the actions “have stark real-life consequences for patients, students, faculty, staff, researchers, and the standing of American higher education in the world.”

He added: “Indiscriminately slashing medical, scientific, and technological research undermines the nation’s ability to save American lives, foster American success, and maintain America’s position as a global leader in innovation.”

In a previous letter on April 14, Garber wrote that Harvard “will not surrender its independence or relinquish its constitutional rights” by agreeing to the government’s demands.

“Before taking punitive action, the law requires that the federal government engage with us about the ways we are fighting and will continue to fight antisemitism,” Garber wrote Monday. “Instead, the government’s April 11 demands seek to control whom we hire and what we teach.

The federal government said it is would freeze more than $2.2 billion in grants and $60 million in contracts after Harvard refused to agree to demands, including eliminating diversity, equity and inclusion programs, banning masks at campus protests, enacting merit-based hiring and admissions reforms, and silencing those “more committed to activism than scholarship.”

Also, another $1 billion in federal health research contracts to Harvard could be withheld. The IRS is considering rescinding the tax-exempt status of the university. And the administration has threatened Harvard’s ability to enroll foreign students.

“The consequences of the government’s overreach will be severe and long-lasting,” Garber wrote. “Research that the government has put in jeopardy includes efforts to improve the prospects of children who survive cancer, to understand at the molecular level how cancer spreads throughout the body, to predict the spread of infectious disease outbreaks, and to ease the pain of soldiers wounded on the battlefield.

“The victims will be future patients and their loved ones who will suffer the heartbreak of illnesses that might have been prevented or treated more effectively.”

Teaching hospitals affiliated with Harvard Medical School and/or Harvard University include Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Massachusetts General Hospital, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center. There are also research and rehabilitation centers associated with Harvard.

The lawsuit also alleges the funding freeze violates the First Amendment and federal law. And the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which requires procedures needed before funding can be frozen, has been violated, the suit alleges.

“The Government made no effort to follow those procedures – nor the procedures provided for in Defendants’ own agency regulations – before freezing Harvard’s federal funding,” the lawsuit said.

Other private universities, including Princeton, Cornell and Northwestern, have seen federal funding paused.

The Trump administration has been concerned about antisemitism and anti-Muslim bias on campus since October 2023 when Hamas invaded Israel and a war continues in Gaza.

“The Government has not – and cannot – identify any rational connection between antisemitism concerns and the medical, scientific, technological, and other research it has frozen that aims to save American lives, foster American success, preserve American security, and maintain America’s position as a global leader in innovation,” the suit, filed Monday, said.

Hardvard’s president said he will soon release reports of the Task Force on Combating Antisemitism and Anti-Israeli Bias and the Task Force on Combating Anti-Muslim, Anti-Arab, and Anti-Palestinian Bias.

“The reports are hard-hitting and painful,” he wrote. “They also include recommendations with concrete plans for implementation, which we welcome and embrace. No one in our community should experience bias, intolerance, or bigotry. We believe adoption of the recommendations and other measures will go far toward eradicating those evils on our campus.”

The Anti-Defamation League’s CEO and national director said the Trump administration may be overreaching.

“The issue of combating antisemitism on campus should be addressed on its own process and merits,” Jonathan Greenblatt wrote Friday in an article published in the Times of Israel. “Other debates on higher education may be important, but they can and should be resolved separate from fighting antisemitism on campus.”

Harvard has an enrollment of 24,596 undergraduate and graduate students with 20,667 faculty and staff.

Tuition at Harvard was more than $56,000 this year and total cost of attendance was almost $83,000, according to its financial aid website.

In March, the school announced undergraduate tuition will be free for students from families making $200,000 or less, starting next fall. Currently, 55% of undergraduates receive financial aid, with the average family contribution standing at $15,700 in 2023-2024.

Harvard’s endowment is valued at $53.2 billion, but it’s considered a long-term investment and not a slush fund.

Massachusetts’ Democratic Gov. Maura Healey told CBS News’ Face the Nation on Sunday: “It’s part of this continued playbook that Donald Trump has been using, which is to silence critics.

“First he went after the law firms, then he went after companies, then he went after everyday Americans. Now he’s going after colleges and universities, using any and all tactics to try to shut them down, to silence them.”

Garber concluded his letter by writing: “The time ahead will demand much from each of us, but I am as confident as ever in our ability to meet our challenges with integrity and resolve, our minds set on the work before us and our hearts committed to the future of our beloved University.”