Business

Powell faces partisan potholes as Fed nears soft landing on January 9, 2024 at 11:00 am Business News | The Hill

Published

2 years ago

January 9, 2024

Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell is attempting to bring the U.S. economy in for a rare soft landing on a runway littered with partisan potholes.

The central bank appears likely to avert a recession and pull off a remarkable feat of economic policymaking. The Fed last month signaled the end of a historic spate of rate hikes that have contributed to curbing inflation to 3.1 percent annually in November 2023 from its 9.1 percent peak in June 2022.

But the job isn’t done yet, and Powell faces several political obstacles — including former President Trump.

The 2024 presidential election will be in full swing as the Fed decides whether and how deeply it will cut interest rates. That will put Powell and the Fed in the middle of the partisan battle over President Biden’s handling of the economy.

“Jerome Powell’s position as the Federal Reserve chair places him at a strategic juncture between economic policy and its political implications,” Republican strategist Charlie Kolean, the chief strategist of RED PAC, told The Hill.

“His decisions on interest rates are not just economic tools but also carry significant political weight, especially in an election year. Given his history of being a target of political criticism, his decisions will be closely watched for their economic and political repercussions.”

Trump, the GOP presidential front-runner, is unlikely to tolerate a series of Fed rate cuts that stimulate the U.S. economy as he attempts to win back the White House. The former president berated Powell throughout his presidency for refusing to cut rates in line with his political objectives and has already vowed not to reappoint the Fed chair.

The Fed could also take heat from Democrats if it holds off on rate cuts, and some progressive lawmakers are already laying blame for another Trump presidency at Powell’s feet.

Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) said last month that the Fed “should cut interest rates” or be “most responsible” for Trump’s reelection.

Powell, however, has already shot down any attempt to sway the Fed.

“We don’t think about political events; we don’t think about politics. We think about what’s the right thing to do for the economy,” Powell said in December.

Powell, a Republican, has faced unprecedented public political pressure since becoming Fed chair in 2018.

A former investment banker and Treasury Department official, Powell joined the Fed board in 2012 after former President Obama nominated him to break a partisan stalemate.

Trump tapped Powell five years later to replace former Fed chair and current Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, touting his combination of experience on Wall Street and Washington.

Trump, however, turned on Powell soon after appointing him. As the Fed ignored the president’s demands to boost the stock market and his leverage in trade talks, Trump threatened to fire Powell and questioned whether Chinese President Xi Jinping was kinder to the U.S.

Powell brushed off Trump’s remarks until the onset COVID-19 pandemic forced the Fed into crisis mode and the former president lost his reelection bid in 2020. His leadership of the Fed amid crisis and his bipartisan credibility prompted Biden to renominate Powell over the objections of progressives.

The independence of the central bank is crucial to U.S. economic health, Martha Gimbel, a research scholar at Yale Law School and a former senior adviser to Biden’s Council of Economic Advisors, told The Hill.

“People obviously are talking about monetary policy in a political context, and I think one thing that’s really really important about the United States is we have an independent central bank,” Gimbel said.

“I think it is incredibly important that administrations respect that. I think you’ve seen that really clearly from the Biden administration, and I think it’s really important that that continue.”

Optimistic markets expect approximately six rate cuts starting as early as the March meeting of the Fed panel tasked with setting monetary policy. But the Fed will be wary of moving too fast on rate cuts if inflation remains elevated.

“The Fed also in its heart of hearts wants to remain credible as an independent institution. Well, that also makes you a little more risk averse on cutting too soon,” Claudia Sahm, founder of Sahm Consulting and a former Fed researcher who developed the recession indicator the “Sahm Rule,” told The Hill.

Holding off on a March rate cut would give the Fed three more meetings to cut or not cut before election day. Either choice could trigger political blowback.

“Talk about a tightrope to walk in a contentious election year,” Sahm said. “[Powell] is totally in the most impossible situations, and that’s been true from the moment the pandemic showed up.”

U.S. government officials including the Fed were criticized for initially describing inflation as “transitory” in 2021, as the pandemic eased but high prices did not.

From March 2022 to July 2023, the central bank hiked interest rates from near zero to a range of 5.25 percent to 5.5 percent, their highest level in decades, to try to cool stimulus-padded demand contributing to higher prices.

Wall Street was predicting a recession at this time last year because of the rate hike crusade, and at a Senate Banking Committee hearing last March, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) laid into Powell for interest rate hikes she said were “designed to slow the economy and throw people out of work.”

But as inflation has slowed, the economy has proven remarkably resilient, with strong gross domestic product growth and the longest run of an unemployment rate under 4 percent since the 1960s.

Following a surprisingly robust jobs report Friday, Yellen said the U.S. economy was seeing a soft landing.

“As crazy as last year was, it was all about the Fed. We had all these geopolitical developments, you know, Ukraine and Hamas, and they didn’t even move the needle to any significant extent, at least this past year,” Nick Sargen, a former Fed and Treasury official now affiliated with the University of Virginia’s Darden School of Business, told The Hill.

While Sargen said “nobody is really sure” how much credit the central bank’s rate hikes should get in easing high prices, he gives the Fed credit because it “took the heat to make sure that people didn’t think the run up in inflation was going to be a mini replay of the ’70s.”

With what will surely be a heated election ahead, the central bank will also want to avoid another cautionary tale from the 1970s: the legacy of then-Fed Chair Arthur Burns.

“I would expect [the Fed] to be more cautious than usual and I don’t think it has to do about Trump versus Biden or the current environment. Where the extra caution could come from is the history,” Sahm said.

Despite high inflation, Burns cut interest rates in 1971 after President Nixon privately pressed him to help him win reelection. Nixon won a second term, but inflation soared to double digits by 1974.

Gimbel likened compromising the central bank’s independence to eating “a ton of sugar.”

“It feels great, and then the next day, you feel like hell,” she said. “The political independence of the Federal Reserve allows them to stay away from sugar binges.”

Sylvan Lane contributed.

Business, Donald Trump, Elizabeth Warren, federal reserve, Interest rates, Jerome Powell, Joe Biden, Ro Khanna Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell is attempting to bring the U.S. economy in for a rare soft landing on a runway littered with partisan potholes. The central bank appears likely to avert a recession and pull off a remarkable feat of economic policymaking. The Fed last month signaled the end of a historic spate of…

Business

How Trump’s Tariffs Could Hit American Wallets

Published

1 day ago

July 11, 2025

Bolanle Media Staff

As the debate over tariffs heats up ahead of the 2024 election, new analysis reveals that American consumers could face significant financial consequences if former President Donald Trump’s proposed tariffs are enacted and maintained. According to a recent report highlighted by Forbes, the impact could be felt across households, businesses, and the broader U.S. economy.

The Household Cost: Up to $2,400 More Per Year

Research from Yale University’s Budget Lab, cited by Forbes, estimates that the average U.S. household could pay an additional $2,400 in 2025 if the new tariffs take effect and persist. This projection reflects the cumulative impact of all tariffs announced in Trump’s plan.

Price Hikes Across Everyday Goods

The tariffs are expected to drive up consumer prices by 1.8% in the near term. Some of the hardest-hit categories include:

Apparel: Prices could jump 37% in the short term (and 18% long-term).
Footwear: Up 39% short-term (18% long-term).
Metals: Up 43%.
Leather products: Up 39%.
Electrical equipment: Up 26%.
Motor vehicles, electronics, rubber, and plastic products: Up 11–18%.
Groceries: Items like vegetables, fruits, and nuts could rise up to 6%, with additional increases for coffee and orange juice due to specific tariffs on Brazilian imports.

A Historic Tariff Rate and Economic Impact

If fully implemented, the effective tariff rate on U.S. consumers could reach 18%, the highest level since 1934. The broader economic consequences are also notable:

GDP Reduction: The tariffs could reduce U.S. GDP by 0.4% annually, equating to about $110 billion per year.
Revenue vs. Losses: While tariffs are projected to generate $2.2 trillion in revenue over the next decade, this would be offset by $418 billion in negative economic impacts.

How Businesses Are Responding

A KPMG survey cited in the report found that 83% of business leaders expect to raise prices within six months of tariff implementation. More than half say their profit margins are already under pressure, suggesting that consumers will likely bear the brunt of these increased costs.

What This Means for Americans

The findings underscore the potential for substantial financial strain on American families and businesses if Trump’s proposed tariffs are enacted. With consumer prices set to rise and economic growth projected to slow, the debate over tariffs is likely to remain front and center in the months ahead.

For more in-depth economic analysis and updates, stay tuned to Bolanlemedia.com.

Business

U.S. Limits Nigerian Non-Immigrant Visas to Three-Month Validity

Published

3 days ago

July 9, 2025

Bolanle Media Staff

In July 2025, the United States implemented significant changes to its visa policy for Nigerian citizens, restricting most non-immigrant and non-diplomatic visas to a single entry and a maximum validity of three months. This marks a departure from previous policies that allowed for multiple entries and longer stays, and has important implications for travel, business, and diplomatic relations between the two countries.

Key Changes in U.S. Visa Policy for Nigerians

Single-Entry, Three-Month Limit: As of July 8, 2025, most non-immigrant visas issued to Nigerians are now valid for only one entry and up to three months.
No Retroactive Impact: Visas issued prior to this date remain valid under their original terms.
Reciprocity Principle: The U.S. cited alignment with Nigeria’s own visa policies for U.S. citizens as the basis for these changes.
Enhanced Security Screening: Applicants are required to make their social media accounts public for vetting, and are subject to increased scrutiny for any signs of hostility toward U.S. institutions.

Rationale Behind the Policy Shift

Security and Immigration Integrity: The U.S. government stated the changes are intended to safeguard the immigration system and meet global security standards.
Diplomatic Reciprocity: These restrictions mirror the limitations Nigeria imposes on U.S. travelers, emphasizing the principle of fairness in international visa agreements.
Potential for Further Action: The U.S. has indicated that additional travel restrictions could be introduced if Nigeria does not address certain diplomatic and security concerns.

Nigeria’s Updated Visa Policy

Nigeria Visa Policy 2025 (NVP 2025): Introduced in May 2025, this policy features a new e-Visa system for short visits and reorganizes visa categories:
- Short Visit Visas (e-Visa): For business or tourism, valid up to three months, non-renewable, processed digitally within 48 hours.
- Temporary Residence Visas: For employment or study, valid up to two years.
- Permanent Residence Visas: For investors, retirees, and highly skilled individuals.
Visa Exemptions: ECOWAS citizens and certain diplomatic passport holders remain exempt.
Reciprocal Restrictions: Most short-stay and business visas for U.S. citizens are single-entry and short-term, reflecting reciprocal treatment.

Impact on Travelers and Bilateral Relations

Nigerian Travelers: Face increased administrative requirements, higher costs, and reduced travel flexibility to the U.S.
U.S. Travelers to Nigeria: Encounter similar restrictions, with most visas limited to single entry and short duration.
Diplomatic Tensions: Nigerian officials have called for reconsideration of the U.S. policy, warning of negative effects on bilateral ties and people-to-people exchanges.

Conclusion

The U.S. decision to limit Nigerian non-immigrant visas to three months highlights the growing complexity and reciprocity in global visa regimes. Both countries are tightening their policies, citing security and fairness, which underscores the need for travelers and businesses to stay informed and adapt to evolving requirements.

Business

Nicki Minaj Demands $200 Million from Jay-Z in Explosive Twitter Rant

Published

3 days ago

July 9, 2025

Bolanle Media Staff

Nicki Minaj has once again set social media ablaze, this time targeting Jay-Z with a series of pointed tweets that allege he owes her an eye-popping $200 million. The outburst has reignited debates about artist compensation, industry transparency, and the ongoing power struggles within hip-hop’s elite circles.

The $200 Million Claim

In a string of tweets, Minaj directly addressed Jay-Z, writing, “Jay-Z, call me to settle the karmic debt. It’s only collecting more interest. You still in my top five though. Let’s get it.” She went further, warning, “Anyone still calling him Hov will answer to God for the blasphemy.” According to Minaj, the alleged debt stems from Jay-Z’s sale of Tidal, the music streaming platform he launched in 2015 with a group of high-profile artists—including Minaj herself, J. Cole, and Rihanna.

When Jay-Z sold Tidal in 2021, Minaj claims she was only offered $1 million, a figure she says falls dramatically short of what she believes she is owed based on her ownership stake and contributions. She has long voiced dissatisfaction with the payout, but this is the most public—and dramatic—demand to date.

Beyond the Money: Broader Grievances

Minaj’s Twitter storm wasn’t limited to financial complaints. She also:

Promised to start a college fund for her fans if she receives the money she claims is owed.
Accused blogs and online creators of ignoring her side of the story, especially when it involves Jay-Z.
Warned content creators about posting “hate or lies,” saying, “They won’t cover your legal fees… I hope it’s worth losing everything including your account.”

She expressed frustration that mainstream blogs and platforms don’t fully cover her statements, especially when they involve Jay-Z, and suggested that much of the coverage she receives is from less reputable sources.

Satirical Accusations and Industry Critique

Minaj’s tweets took a satirical turn as she jokingly blamed Jay-Z for a laundry list of cultural grievances, including:

The state of hip-hop, football, basketball, and touring
The decline of Instagram and Twitter
Even processed foods and artificial dyes in candy

She repeatedly declared, “The jig is up,” but clarified that her statements were “alleged and for entertainment purposes only.”

Political and Cultural Criticism

Minaj also criticized Jay-Z’s political involvement, questioning why he didn’t campaign more actively for Kamala Harris or respond to President Obama’s comments about Black men. While Jay-Z has a history of supporting Democratic campaigns, Minaj’s critique centered on more recent events and what she perceives as a lack of advocacy for the Black community.

The Super Bowl and Lil Wayne

Adding another layer to her grievances, Minaj voiced disappointment that Lil Wayne was not chosen to perform at the Super Bowl in New Orleans, a decision she attributes to Jay-Z’s influence in the entertainment industry.

Public and Industry Reaction

Despite the seriousness of her financial claim, many observers note that if Minaj truly believed Jay-Z owed her $200 million, legal action—not social media—would likely follow. As of now, there is no public record of a lawsuit or formal complaint.

Some fans and commentators see Minaj’s outburst as part of a larger pattern of airing industry grievances online, while others interpret it as a mix of personal frustration and performance art. Minaj herself emphasized that her tweets were “for entertainment purposes only.”

Conclusion

Nicki Minaj’s explosive Twitter rant against Jay-Z has once again placed the spotlight on issues of artist compensation and industry dynamics. Whether her claims will lead to further action or remain another dramatic chapter in hip-hop’s ongoing soap opera remains to be seen, but for now, the world is watching—and tweeting.