Prof G Markets - The DOJ Comes for Jerome Powell

Episode Date: January 13, 2026

Ed Elson breaks down the Justice Department’s investigation of Fed Chair Jerome Powell with Liz Hoffman, Semafor’s business and finance editor, and Justin Wolfers, Professor of Public Policy and Economics at the University of Michigan. They discuss how markets reacted and what the escalation of conflict signals for the country.   Check out our latest Prof G Markets newsletter Follow Prof G Markets on Instagram Follow Ed on Instagram, X and Substack Follow Scott on Instagram Send us your questions or comments by emailing [e-mail] Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

This winter, the cold and flu have been especially bad. And the culprits? Well, they're everywhere. Literally the entire planet is just packed with viruses that are infecting everything. And I mean literally everything, even other viruses. This week, Unexplained to me from Vox, those pesky microbes getting us sick, and how they might also be helping us stay well. New episodes, Sundays, wherever.

you get your podcast. Every year, hundreds of thousands of people from all over the world flock to Las Vegas for the Consumer Electronics Show. And they spend a week trying to sell each other on the weirdest gadgets you've ever seen in your entire life. This week on the Vergecast, we're talking all about everything happening at CES, from the TVs to the AI gadgets to the humanoid robots that everybody is hoping might someday do your laundry and wash your dishes. All that and much more on the Vergecast wherever you get podcasts. Today's number 100.

That's how many McDonald's chicken nuggets you've seen bolt ate every single day during the 2008 Beijing Olympics. Today's other number is zero. That's how many dietitians deserve employment. Welcome to Profitiers'Amless. 13th. Let's check in on yesterday's market vitals. The major indices opened the day down after the Justice Department announced it is investigating Jerome Powell. More on that in just a moment. However, they quickly erase their losses with the down and the S&P closing at all-time highs. Meanwhile, the yield on

tenure Treasury spiked before moderating. Capital One shares fell more than 6% after Trump's head credit card companies should cap interest rates at 10%. Google hit a $4 trillion market cap after Apple said it will use Gemini to power Siri. And finally, President Trude said he is levying a 25% tariff on any country doing business with Iran. Effective immediately, he said, quote, this order is final and conclusive. Okay, what else is happening? The Justice Department has opened a criminal investigation into Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell. The probe, which was launched on Friday, is examining whether Powell lied to Congress in his testimony. about the Fed's building renovations.

But Powell says that the testimony which took place last June is merely, quote, pretext for the Trump administration's threats to lower interest rates. In a rare video statement that was released on Sunday, Powell called the investigation, quote, unprecedented, and he argued that it is part of the administration's ongoing pressure campaign. Let's listen to what he said. The threat of criminal charges is a consequence of the Federal Reserve

setting interest rates based on our best assessment of what will serve the public, rather than following the preferences of the president. The chain of events initially rattled markets. The S&P opened Monday in the red, but then it rallied into positive territory by the end of the day. Meanwhile, the dollar slid, and investors rushed into hard assets like gold and silver, which hit record highs. So this is a pretty incredible story that we are witnessing. And in keeping with that, we're going to do something a little bit different today.

were joined by two favorites of the Profji podcast. That is Liz Hoffman, Semmifor's Business and Finance Editor, and also Justin Wolfers, Professor of Public Policy and Economics at the University of Michigan. Liz, Justin, thank you very much for being here today. Excited to get into this. Thanks for having us. Absolutely. Liz, I'm going to start with you.

I just want to start with your reactions to what we saw. we have seen a criminal investigation opened against Jerome Powell. What is your initial reaction to the news? Pretty incredible. I mean, I watched the statement that Jerome Powell gave last night, and this is someone who has just tried as hard as humanly possible to stay away from this narrative to kind of ignore the noise, ignore the criticism, and finally got to a place where he felt like he could not.

And his statement is, I mean, it's really worth, you know, your listeners should go watch it in full. I mean, it is incredible. To state the obvious, this is not about the renovations to the Fed building and what Jay did or did not say to Congress about it. This is punitive and it's retaliatory. And it's, I mean, really, you know, unprecedented is a word that's getting used quite a lot these days. But I was really floored by the whole thing. Justin, were you flawed? Is this unprecedented? Absolutely not flawed. I was flabbergasted. Completely different.

Every day, we hit that day where I think I never thought I'd see this in my life. So it is unprecedented in American history. It's not in the world. Tin pot dictators do this all the time. This is, and one of the things I admire Liz full is called it what it is, which is it's the president threatening to jail the bed chair. Put all a pretext aside. That's what it is. Well, so we've got a president threatening to jail the head of the central bank.

That's happened before. It's happened in Russia. Venezuela, Argentina, Zimbabwe, Turkey, and now America. So it's not unprecedented, but it puts America in a club of tin pop dictatorships who've experienced hyperinflation and immense economic instability. it's bananas. Based on those examples that we've seen in other nations, so this hasn't happened in America,

and when we say this, we're saying the president basically threatening the chair with some sort of criminal charge to enact whatever monetary policy he so desires. But given what we've seen in other nations, like you say this has happened,

how does this usually play out when this happens, Justin? not well. So look, here's what each of the examples has in common, which is a strong man head of state. A strong man head of state possessed of enormous self-belief who issues experts. Again, that's common in every one of those stories. And often it finds themselves in some form of economic trouble and they think they can fiddle with interest rates to solve it or they have an internal belief that if they were to fiddle with interest rates, it would lead to better. outcomes. In many of these cases, can we introduce word for the day? Word for the day is fiscal

dominance. Fiscal dominance is this idea that, and I think this is what's going on if you listen to what the president has said. Normally, we set interest rates with a view to trying to keep inflation low and unemployment low. Interest rates play another role in our economy. The interest rates determine the monthly credit card bill for the United States. We have an enormous government debt, the interest rate determines how much we devote to paying interest. And every dollar we spend on interest is a dollar of tax cuts we can't give to our mates or a dollar we can't spend on roads or defense or ice. So what you get often with cases of fiscal dominance is the head of state says, well,

I don't like paying interest and I control the interest rate, or if I take over the central bank, I can control the interest rate. So they could reduce the interest rate with an eye of reducing the government's interstate. payments. And so far, so good that works. But what that means now is that you're setting interest rates not to control inflation and not to control unemployment. If you were to do that, then you typically send interest rates far lower than current conditions warrant. And the president has already said he'd like interest rates to be 1% right now. They'll give him a whole lot more money to splash around. Now, if you set interest rates below what is required to keep inflation low and stable,

you don't get low and stable inflation. You get higher and higher and higher inflation. As inflation goes up, the appropriate interest rate goes up too, but if you're pig-headed, you leave interest rates where they are, and then inflation keeps going all the way until you get a hyperinflation. And so to be clear, this is not moving from an interest rate of, an inflation rate of 3% to 4%, it's moving from 3 to 30, or from 30 to 300, or in some of these cases, from 300 to 3,000 or in fact 3 million percent.

we move to an economy where one of the most important things you do every day is you wake up and you think about inflation, you think about how to maintain your family's purchasing power. You might say this couldn't happen in the United States, and I hope that's true. But you might have said that wouldn't have happened in some of these other countries. Some of these other countries, take Turkey, for instance, it had fairly low and stable inflation, had a check in history, but it looked like it was determined to be a modern industrial country. and a popular strong man came to power. He got rid of the independence of the central bank. He had, like President Trump, an unusual attachment to low interest rates, implemented his own theory of the case,

and Turkey ended up not that much later with 80% inflation. I would like to say that's impossible here. I can no longer say that. Yeah. Liz, I mean, just looking at what we've got here, which is probably the clearest evidence we've seen that there is at least significant interest in making, in reducing the Fed's independence to bending it to the will of the strong man in this situation, which, as Justin points out,

like we've seen this before. We've seen this in other countries. It leads to hyperinflation almost every time. But the market's reaction has been quite interesting in that it's reacted, but not massively. I mean, the S&B was down and then it actually rebounded and, and closed in the green. Same with the Dow. We did see some big moves in gold. Gold hit a record high. Silver hit a record high. But overall, I guess if I had to, you know, pass what the market is telling us, it's something along the lines of like, this is maybe important, but not that big of a deal. Would you agree with that reading? What do you make of how the market has reacted? I would say I was disappointed but not surprised in what the administration did. I was disappointed

and surprised in the collective response of the markets today, as you said, stocks ended up higher. I mean, really what you want to be looking at here, if you're hoping that there's some check on behavior like this is the bond market, treasury yields. I think we're up a couple of basis points. I mean, not reflecting any kind of concern. And if you wind back to Liberation Day, it was actually the bond market throwing a temper tantrum that got the president to back off his most aggressive tariffs, not, in fact, the stock market. There's been this talk of, Is there a Trump put somewhere in the market? Is there a pain point that will reel in the policy process?

And it is much more likely to be found in the bond market than in the stock market. As you said, gold and silver hit highs, but they've been doing so pretty consistently for a bunch of months now. I'm very surprised. And, you know, I think we had a column last week are saying the market's kind of acting like a teenager with noise canceling headphones on. And I wish I had saved that column in my pocket for this week. because, you know, one of three things is happening. The market is kind of reading that this is going to be mostly theater, a non-event. And I should say there was some reporting today that suggested kind of that this was a bit of perhaps a rogue advisor.

This is that came out of the district court in Washington, run by Janine Piro, that it may have had some influence from Bill Pulte, who's the housing czar, who has, you know, a history of some more aggressive policy ideas. and that perhaps, you know, Scott Besson, Treasury Secretary, who's sort of emerging really as the economics are of this administration, perhaps has some qualms and wish it had not happened. So we'll see. There is an off-ramp, as there often is around Trump, where you have advisors kind of trying to see what he might want them to do and doing it, and he can turn on them, too.

So there is a bit of an off-ramp. But, yeah, you know, so either people think it is just theater and is going to go nowhere. They think it's real, but not a problem. which is alarming, or they have just so totally tuned out the noise, you know, a year into the Trump administration. And I think that's a real problem. I mean, you know, the one check, like we said, on the president, has been severe market reactions. And if that starts to go away as, you know, the so-called the bond vigilantes, if they're ceding their power here, I don't know. I mean, you know, there was a call today from J.P. Morgan that, you know, they think the Fed's next move on

rates is up, not down. Like, I don't know how to square those two things, especially if you assume that there will be a more compliant or White House-friendly Fed chair coming in to replace Jerome Powell. I also think this makes it more likely that he sticks around. He's entitled to stay as a member of the board after his term as chair expires. And you could see him dig in there. So I don't know. And we're coming off this political cycle where inflation was just proven, as it has so many times in history, to just be politically toxic. And they're already flirting with that with the tariffs, which we've not yet really seen come through on prices. But at some point probably will. Justin, you may have a point of view on this. They probably have to if import prices are coming

up, get passed on to consumers. So this all just feels very politically dangerous. And my question often is, like, who is this for? Like what, even if you're trying to play kind of crass, kind of campaign politics, who is this for? I don't know. Yeah, an argument that I've seen floating around is that it's an argument that I've seen in the past, which is that Trump is trolling Jerome Powell. And so it's not to be taken seriously. It's not to be considered like a real threat. He's just having a goof. It's sort of like whatever presidential equivalent of shit posting is, which seems to me to be perhaps how the market is viewing this as well. Oh, he's just trolling. Oh, it's not that big of a deal. Oh, he's just kind of kidding. I guess, Justin, is that wrong?

I mean, clearly we don't want to take this stuff lightly, but maybe he is just trolling and maybe we shouldn't care? I mean, what do you think? I have a different story. So let me try mine out. So look, I think this is a grave, grave threat to the United States. Liz does too. It sounds like to, and every economist I spoke to today agrees. Yet the markets didn't sink. So option one is I'm a fool, Lizzie's a fool, Ed's a full, Ed's a full, the other economists are fools. Option two is let's go back and make sense of this. So the question is, what do we know right now that we didn't know 24 hours ago? What do we know about the world? Well, when I, last night, I knew that Trump wanted leverage over the Fed.

Already knew that. Last night, I already knew that Trump had no respect for the independence of the Fed. He's been undermining it for a long, long time. I already knew that he'd weaponized the Justice Department. So all of those things I already knew. So what do they learn today? Now, one thing to understand is this news cycle did not come from the administration. It was Jay Powell who'd received the subpoenas, who decided he would move this into the public arena.

This was meant to be a private threat. Do what I want or you go into jail, brother. Powell moved it to the public arena. He did so powerfully. He did so directly to the public. He's literally never done before what he did last night. Neither is any chair of any industrialized central bank that I'm aware of. He released a video directly to the American people,

not only put it on the Fed website, but also many others as well to make sure it couldn't be taken down, and spoke directly to the camera about what's going on here. What happened is we had a round of Trump trying to undermine the Fed. Power won. Powell beat him. Look, Power said, I'm not back and down, and you don't have the goods.

And here we are talking about it right now and everywhere. No one's saying that tomorrow that this threat, which is the only news we learned about was this threat, no one's saying this threat in and of itself is doing anything to the stance of monetary policy. And in fact, what we got was he laid the whole game out so clearly that we saw Senator Tillis today come out and say, this is not okay. Tillis said, I'm not voting for a Federal Reserve chair until this is cleared up, by which he means I'm not voting for a Trump toady. Lisa Mikowski did the same thing. What that actually means is, now I'm going to make the argument market should have gone up.

because what it actually means is we were, many of us were worried that Trump was going to appoint a toadie and that we would have a non-independent central bank and would have occurred through the normal process of him suggesting Kevin, Kevin, yes, sir, has it. And Kevin would have gone and been federal reserve chair in name only and taken all of his marching orders from the Fed. And we would have gotten all of the negative consequences. And now what he's done is he's woken up the Senate. And that Senate confirmation now, we have at least two Republicans now on record is saying, no, I'm not going to rubber stamp a toadotty. And I think what happens in that fight,

that fight to replace Jay Powell is going to be vitally, vitally important. But the thing I want you to notice is when I tell the story, we didn't actually learn much that was bad that we didn't already know. And markets respond to new knowledge. And so I think that's really the story. Now, let me say it in simpler language, right? Markets had priced in that Trump hate the Fed. Yeah. They priced in a lot of that. And then there's the yap, yap, yap, yapping. Well, the president yap, yap, yap's all day. And some of the yaps are really offensive, but only some of them he means. And then even the ones he means he often tarkers. If I'm a trader on Wall Street, I would be sick to death of losing

money because I responded to a yap only to get tarkered. By the way, those are technical trading terms. And so, of course, they're not going to move. Yeah. Right. So you need to discount everything by the probability that actually happens. And for any given yap, the probability it actually becomes an un-tarcored outcome is incredibly low beyond knowing that it's going to continue this campaign to under one-one the fit. We'll be right back. If you're enjoying the show, give Profi Markets a follow. Support for this show comes from LinkedIn. If you've ever hired for your small business, you know how important it is to find the right person. That's why LinkedIn jobs is stepping things up with their new AI assistant. So you can feel confident you're finding top

talent that you can't find anywhere else. And those great candidates you're looking for are already on LinkedIn. In fact, according to their data, employees hired through LinkedIn are 30% more likely to stick around for at least a year compared to those hired through the leading competitor. That's a big deal when every hire counts. With LinkedIn Jobs AI assistant, you can skip confusing steps and recruiting jargon. It filters through applicants based on criteria you've set for your role and services only the best matches so you're not stuck sorting through a mountain of resumes. LinkedIn jobs AI assistant can even suggest 25 great fit candidates daily so you can invite them to apply and keep things moving. Hire right the first time. Post your job for free at

LinkedIn.com slash prof, then promoted to use LinkedIn jobs new AI assistant, making it easier and faster to find top candidates. That's LinkedIn.com slash prof to post your job for free. Terms and conditions apply. We're back with Profty Markets. Just thinking ahead, Liz, as Justin was talking about here, about what happens next for the Fed Chair. I mean, his term is up in May. The concern was that we'd get some form of a yes man in his place. Do you think that this changes anything? Looking ahead to the next few months or so, I mean, does this tell us anything about who will be the next Fed Chair, what that will look like?

Does this change things, I guess, is my question. question. I would still expect to see one of the Kevin's probably. Kevin has it, as Justin said, or Kevin Warsh who are both seen as, you know, fairly compliant, I would say. There was a longer list of people who would probably likely be a little bit more independent. There was a BlackRock executive Rick Reader on that list at one point. A current Fed governor, Chris Waller, was in the list at one point. I don't know exactly. But the other thing to think about, and this gets kind of a little inside the way the Fed works in Fed baseball is that it is fundamentally a consensus-driven place. People vote and no one has, you know, more power than anyone else. And, you know, a bunch of

new voting members rotate on and rotate it on this year. And there's a real, there's a real mix, you know, the dot plot that everyone talks about, which is this, I think, twice a year, the Fed officials kind of say where they expect to see interest rates over the next, you know, one, two, three years. And, you know, in most normal times, they're in a fairly tight band. They are all over the place right now. You know, and there were dissents in both directions at the last Fed meeting in, you know, late last year. And so I don't know. But I think, you know, the one thing that Powell had tried very hard to do as FedShare was kind of maintained consensus.

And you could see it fraying on him. And, you know, he hasn't quite lost control of it, you know, but I think you're going to end up with just people who have wild. different points of view, some for political reasons, but also because, you know, especially with the government shut down, we were in a bit of a blackout, and it was, you know, the dual risk to the economy right now, or that the labor market is weakening even faster than we think, or that inflation is sort of prime to rise again, and we're going to get this double-dib thing. And the policy prescriptions for those are really different. Justin's the economist here, you can tell you about it, but, you know, depending on which of those you think is a bigger risk

to the economy, like, that's kind of how you're going to vote on rates, and smart people can in fact, disagree on that particular point. But looking ahead, the other thing I would just kind of keep in mind, and that's a little bit of a longer-term question is, you know, over so many institutions that Trump has put his fingerprints on, there's a question of how much of that, those changes and that influence outlasts him. And the Fed's credibility for a bunch of fair reasons has been eroded. You know, they were, they had a mistake on the policy side coming out of the pandemic. you know, were too slow to respond to inflation. I would note a bunch of that was a fiscal policy

decision. That last round of stimulus did not do anyone any favors. But, you know, the broader discussion around kind of Fed independence, the more charitable flip side of it, I would say, is Fed accountability and should it be accountable. And once these institutions start kind of coming down from the mountain and being a little more transparent, there's an argument that the Fed has been too transparent about how it's making these decisions because it just lets people pick and pick and pick and second guess. I think that some of that is just going to stick around. This is going to be a more political body. It's going to be a body that is sort of expected to answer for itself in a way that it didn't really have to for a long time. And kind of the

flip side of independence is accountability to the public. And I thought Powell did a very good job kind of speaking to that yesterday. But I think that influence is going to remain for a long time with us. Yeah, having this conversation, it's interesting. It makes me feel more confident in the Fed. It makes me feel more confident in institutions. In a funny way, it's almost as if when Trump tests the limits of US institutions, we get to see how strong they really are. And it's a good point. It's like, well, yeah, he's the Fed chair, but he only gets one vote, same as every other member of the committee. So, you know, how big a deal is it if we have a complete toady as the Fed chair? I'm not totally sure. One thing that is clear to me, though, is that this is very much a political

story at this point. And it seems to be playing really badly for Trump, based on the reactions that I've seen. Also, I found quite interesting as Powell's approval rating, and this is from before this happen, but he has one of the highest approval ratings among anyone in Washington, 44% compared to Trump at 36%. This is from December of last year. I have no idea what it's going to look like tomorrow or the next day. But I guess, Justin, what do you think this does to the political story? I know we're talking about economics and markets, but how does this change the political story, especially considering we've got midterms coming up? Yeah, look, I'm no political gurus. So, let's me not pretend to be that. But I think what makes this particular story very interesting is

Trump does a lot of stuff that would offend institutionalists that would offend folks who believe in the status quo. But often he's doing so because it serves a MAGA interest. So I don't approve of a single damn thing that ICE is doing, but I do know that there's enormous anti-immigrant sentiment out there and he's serving that sentiment. What's not true? There's no one. No one who's saying, you know what, I really wish monetary policy was run out of the White House. I am utterly convinced that Trump's version of the Taylor Rule would be superior to Jay Powell's version of the Taylor Rule. There is no one who sees lower unemployment. There's no one who sees lower inflation coming out of this.

It's serving no political interest at all. And I think that gives a lot, that's part of the reason you haven't said, you've not heard a single person defend the president's actions. And let me go a step further. Not only is it bad, it doesn't serve Trump's interests, right? So to the extent that we now believe even more that he wants to undermine Fed independence, what does that do? If he succeeds at undermining Fed independence, he can get his toadie in there to reduce the short-term interest rate.

But what matters for government debt is the long-term interest rate. And the long-term interest rate depends on expectations of inflation. And the moment he appoints a toady or he undermines central bank independence, It's what we've seen every time we've seen versions of this movie before is, yes, he can get the short term rates down, but long term rates rise. So in fact, he ends up undoing exactly that which he hopes to do. But it's, you know, it's, it's even worse than that. I think the way that this has played out is you've actually seen Republican senators discover a spine. Yeah.

And so I don't, but it's even, actually, even worse. if you wanted to get rid of Fed chair, Jay Powell, if you actually thought Powell was bad at his job, I have a secret plan that will work. But Liz, Ed, I need you to keep it a secret so that it doesn't get out on the hill. What you do is you wait till May. Right. And in May, his term ends.

And then you appoint a new bloke. And May is four months away. Yes. So trying to destroy an institution because you can't wait four months is absurd. Yes. And if he waited four months, he probably could have gotten a toady appointed. This game might actually prevent him from doing that. So he isn't serving the American people.

He's not serving Maga. He's not even serving Trump's interests. Right. But it seems to say something about his urgency. Perhaps it does have something to do with the midterms. He needs to get a hold of monetary policy right now so that things are. go his way. We've exhausted our time. I just want to end with a quick question to you, Liz, before we go. Jerome Powell's term is ending. He'll be done with the job. What do you think Powell's legacy

will be in America? And do you think this will be a big piece of that legacy? I think he did a lot of rewriting it in the last 24 hours. I think you can look at Powell's legacy. really, there's two halves to it. I mean, just a textbook response to the pandemic. I mean, I think really handled that very well, borrowed from, it was actually a pretty good response, you know, under, you know, in conjunction with the White House and Stephen Mnuchin, Treasury Secretary. I think that whole crew actually, like, really overperformed on the way in. Clearly too late on inflation. And again, part of that just goes to the Fed, just not being historically that political a place. is why Janet Yellen had trouble with that job, you know, with the Treasury job, which is a more

political institution. They try to stay out of the fray, but clearly misjudged inflation. I mean, I think he's shown himself to have a real backbone. And, you know, that statement, I think it's sort of one of those things in the archives that people point to. So I think he deserves a lot of credit here. And I think he will think very carefully about his next step, whether he stays on the board based in large part on how the nomination and confirmation process for his successor goes. Can I just add one thing here because Liz highlighted something so important, which is Powell showed enormous spine. We've seen business leaders rollover. We've seen university leaders rollover.

We've seen big law rollover. We've seen public servants roll over. What we saw this time was an economist. Well, Trump's actually a pal's actually a lawyer, but playing an economist not rollover. And let me give you one other example. Mark Carney hasn't rolled over. And so we spend days as economists being reviled as being the worst possible people in the world. But when it comes time for hard choices in a spine, I'm proud to call myself an economist

and to be in the same profession as those blocs. I love that. Revenge of the Economist. I also think, by the way, this is a very good week for the private sector to find one, right? We're going to have big bank earnings. Every big bank and financial institution CEO is going to be in front of big crowds over the next two weeks being asked exactly about this. And I'll be very curious how much ever. appetite they have to say if English true.

That's a great point. Thank you. Liz Hoffman, Sunifor's Business and Finance Editor, Justin Wolf, as a professor of public policy and economics at the University of Michigan. Liz, Justin, this has been great. Thank you both so much. Thanks, Ed. Before we end, just a quick reminder of why Powell has been subpoenaed here. This whole investigation supposedly revolves around this renovation of this Fed building,

was approved, by the way, by Trump in his first term, but ever since then, the renovation has gone over budget. They thought it would cost $1.9 billion. Instead, it is projected to cost $2.6 billion. So this renovation under Jerome Powell's watch has gone over budget by about 35, 36%. Trump has complained about this a lot in the past, and to his credit, it's not ideal that they are going over budget, where things take a completely different turn, though, is the fact that this is being used as the basis for an investigation into criminal activity. And the assumption appears to be Powell went over budget,

therefore he must be doing something illegal, which is obviously ridiculous, and it is a lot more ridiculous when you realize that Trump's own construction project, the ballroom, has gone from $200 million to $4,000, to $400 million, a 100% increase in just a few months. But of course, as Powell said in that video, this has nothing to do with the renovation of the Eccles building.

They might say it's about the renovation, but ultimately it is obvious what this is really about, and that is interest rates, monetary policy. Trump wants interest rates to go down further and faster. Powell isn't budging, and this is Trump's attack on power, a criminal investigation into the renovation of a building. Now, usually when something like this happens,

I feel the need to spend my time trying to convince people of what's really happening, trying to expose the lie. But what's fascinating about this story is I don't feel the need to do that because it seems to me that everyone agrees on the left and the right that Trump is lying and Trump is in the wrong.

In less than 24 hours, Powell's statement received over 70 million views on Twitter. It was reshared nearly 60,000 times. Everyone was sharing it. Everyone was saying, in unison, what a terrible thing this was. Here are some quotes from some Republicans. Senator Murkowski, quote, this is nothing more than an attempt at coercion. Senator Tillis, as Justin mentioned, quote,

the independence and credibility of the Department of Justice are in question. Even a very popular Trump-supporting Twitter account said, quote, we are going full-blown Banana Republic. And this says nothing of the market's reaction, which of course also agreed. This isn't about the renovation. This is about interest rates. This is the president using the DOJ to intimidate and influence Jerome Powell, which is why futures fell and it's why gold and silver both hit a record high.

Put another way. something about that video got through to people. Maybe it was Jerome Powell's delivery. Maybe it was his history of being so unemotional, so focused on the numbers, or maybe it's just the fact that the facts of the case here are at this point so glaringly obvious to everyone. I don't really know.

But it's clear to me that something about this story is different. Something about it perfectly encapsulates what is really going on in America today. Whether you're on the right, whether you're on the left, whether you're an investor, whether you're not an investor. It seems most of us can agree this is unprecedented and more importantly, this is wrong. Okay, that's it for today. This episode was produced by Claire Miller and Alison Weiss edited by Joel Patterson and engineered by Benjamin Spencer. Our research team is Dan Shalon, Isabella Kinsel, Chris and O'Donoghue, and Mia Silverio. Thank you for listening to Profitie Markets from Profitri Media.

If you liked what you heard, give us a follow. I'm Ed Elson. I will see you tomorrow.