This video covers high-level discussions regarding the Federal Reserve's interest rate decisions and the political debates surrounding its independence. The conversation highlights President Trump's public comments about Chairman Powell's actions, questions about possible presidential interference, and broader concerns about the perception and reality of the central bank's autonomy. Officials affirm that while the administration voices opinions, there is no current intention to fire the Fed Chair, and the tradition of Fed independence is defended—albeit amidst notable amounts of public pressure.

Another central topic is the Trump administration's fiscal strategy, particularly the use of rescission packages to cancel previously appropriated funds and the possibility of using less conventional measures like pocket rescissions. These are portrayed as essential tools in reducing the national deficit and increasing government efficiency. Administration representatives defend these measures against criticisms that they undermine the appropriations process or neglect larger sources of federal spending, emphasizing that bipartisan reform is both feasible and needed to address the rising national debt.

Main takeaways from the video:

Please remember to turn on the CC button to view the subtitles.

Key Vocabularies and Common Phrases:

1. remittances [rɪˈmɪtnsɪz] - (noun) - Sums of money sent, typically on a regular basis, to a party, often referring to funds transferred to a government or central authority. - Synonyms: (transfers, payments, remissions)

They've gone negative in terms of a profit loss over the last several years. We don't get those remittances into the federal Treasury.

2. monstrosity [mɒnˈstrɒsɪti] - (noun) - Something, especially a building, that is very large and unsightly or considered unpleasant. - Synonyms: (eyesore, monstrosity, abomination)

...not having a large monstrosity on the National Mall.

3. rescissions package [rɪˈsɪʒənz ˈpækɪdʒ] - (noun phrase) - A legislative proposal to cancel or rescind previously granted appropriations. - Synonyms: (budget cuts, spending cuts, funding cancellation)

It's called a rescissions package. Is the Trump administration going to attempt another rescissions package?

4. pocket rescission [ˈpɒkɪt rɪˈsɪʒən] - (noun phrase) - A procedural tactic that allows an administration to let appropriated funds expire without Congressional approval by delaying spending until the fiscal year ends. - Synonyms: (delayed cancellation, budgetary maneuver, executive impoundment)

I want to ask you about that in a second, but before I do, there are reports that you're considering using something called a pocket rescission, which is essentially allow the White House to run out the clock to sidestep Congress weighing in on additional spending cuts.

5. impoundment [ɪmˈpaʊndmənt] - (noun) - The act of a government agency retaining or holding back funds that have been appropriated, rather than spending them as required. - Synonyms: (withholding, sequestration, retention)

It is a fully legal approach to being able to use the impoundment Control act, another law we are not too big fans of, to use that to be able to send up a rescissions bill later in the year and be able to have it just evaporate at the end of the fiscal year.

6. appropriations process [əˌprəʊpriˈeɪʃənz ˈprəʊsɛs] - (noun phrase) - The procedure by which legislative bodies allocate funding to government agencies and programs. - Synonyms: (budget allocation, funding process, allotment procedure)

But again, there's a debate right now on Congress as to the extent to which these things upset the appropriations process.

7. Baseline (In Finance) [ˈbeɪslaɪn] - (noun) - A reference point or standard for comparing financial figures, often used in budgeting and economic forecasts. - Synonyms: (reference point, benchmark, standard)

No, CBO was using artificial baselines that treat spending as eternal and tax relief that was in law since 2017 to be temporary.

8. bipartisan [ˌbaɪˈpɑːrtɪzən] - (adjective) - Involving the agreement or cooperation of two political parties that usually oppose each other's policies. - Synonyms: (cross-party, dual-party, two-party)

And we ultimately think it makes the appropriations process work better than because you can then have bipartisan votes on top line levels.

9. sidestep [ˈsaɪdˌstɛp] - (verb) - To avoid dealing with or discussing something directly. - Synonyms: (evade, dodge, bypass)

...allow the White House to run out the clock to sidestep Congress weighing in on additional spending cuts.

10. multifaceted [ˌmʌltiˈfæsɪtɪd] - (adjective) - Having many aspects or phases; complex or varied. - Synonyms: (complex, diverse, many-sided)

I think you got to take a multifaceted approach.

JUST IN - OMB Director Russell Vought Speaks To CNN Amid Trump's Feud With Fed Chair Powell

Federal Fed officials met this week to set interest rates. Trump, the president, has said that he believes Powell will, quote, do the right thing and lower interest rates soon. If Powell does not lower interest rates, will President Trump be tempted to fire him? And can he? Well, I think the President's been very clear about that. He says he has no intention of firing the Fed Chairman. He is putting his viewpoints out there with regard to what interest rates should be, which is dramatically lower than where they are. And of course, we were up there visiting the renovations and kind of getting a firsthand look ourselves for the extent to which it's been mismanaged. It's a host of issues with regards to the Fed. They've gone negative in terms of a profit loss over the last several years. We don't get those remittances into the federal Treasury. We, we believe on a host of fronts. Chairman Powell has been too late and the President is doing what the President should do, which is get out there and articulate the views on behalf of the American people.

Do you not have any concerns with all this back and forth? And I realize it's not unprecedented for a President to speak about what they want in terms of the interest rates, although this is probably taking it to a new level. But do you not have any concerns with all this back and forth about firing Powell, about the concept or the perception of undermining the independence of the Fed, which therefore could then undermine confidence that global investors have in the United States? As you know, the idea of an independent federal bank is an important part of that. No, in fact, I think the patience that the President has demonstrated towards Chairman Powell is, in fact a defense of that independence. You had Secretary Bessen out there talking about the independence of the Fed, but we also have to articulate the views of the American people and the President with regard to needing lower interest rates and not having a large monstrosity on the National Mall. So there's a lot of things that need to occur. And again, the Fed isn't independent with regard to its regulatory affairs. It's supposed to go through the cost benefit analysis that all so called independent agencies go through. They are not doing that. And so these are the kinds of things we have to do to make sure these issues are understood and made aware to the country.

Republicans in Congress approved President Trump's request to cancel $9 billion in already appropriated foreign aid and $1 billion for public broadcasting. It's called a rescissions package. Is the Trump administration going to attempt another rescissions package? And what would you target? If so, we're very open to it. The president will make a decision on that in the weeks ahead. But you know, we have a lot of cuts that we found Department of Government efficiency. We've sent many of those reductions up to the Hill. In terms of our fiscal year 26 budget, we're taking a look as to the extent to which there are unspent fiscal year 25 funds. We're also going through a review and sometimes we may not rescind it. This last week we released billions of dollars in education funding. It took us longer because many of those programs we have fundamental concerns with because they go to left wing advocacy groups. And it took us a long time to make sure that they were consistent with presidential eos. We were able to release those in time for the school year, even though they're multi year funds. And so each funding program is different. We'll be looking at that. But we are very open. We had a very good vote in the House, in the Senate. But again, there's a debate right now on Congress as to the extent to which these things upset the appropriations process. We do not believe they do. We think that the rescissions bills in fact make the appropriations process work and allow taxpayers to receive some dividend for the fact that we are $37 trillion in debt. But it's a push and pull that we're going through over the next several weeks.

I want to ask you about that in a second, but before I do, there are reports that you're considering using something called a pocket rescission, which is essentially allow the White House to run out the clock to sidestep Congress weighing in on additional spending cuts. Democrats say that's illegal. You can't do it. Is this a tool you're going to use? It's very possible that we might use pocket rescissions. It's one of our executive tools. It's been used before. The General Accounting Office, which we're not a big fan of, has said it was legal in the 1970s. And so Congress has come along and said, hey, we have concerns with it. It is a fully legal approach to being able to use the impoundment Control act, another law we are not too big fans of, to use that to be able to send up a rescissions bill later in the year and be able to have it just evaporate at the end of the fiscal year.

You said possible, but it sounded like you were about to say likely. No, we're definitely looking at it. We're looking at all options. I've said on every one of these shows, nothing is taken off the table for us to be able to deal with the deficits that we have. In addition to Murkowski skeptical of this, you need Democratic votes to keep the government open. In a vote coming up in September, are you worried at all about blowing up the appropriations process? We've already heard Democrats say we can't. You know, their perspective is we enter into a back and forth, we get an appropriations bill and then the Trump administration comes in and undermines the concessions that we got and it just blows up the whole thing. No, we're not worried about that at all. Obviously the introduction of rescissions is new muscle memory, but it's something that rescissions were done very commonly. 70s, 80s, the first part of the 90s. So this is not something the appropriations process has never handled before. Look, the appropriators want a scenario where we propose cuts and they use that in their bills to then pay down for higher levels of spending. We're $37 trillion in debt. We actually have to have a dollar of cut, go to a dollar of deficit reduction. That's really what this is about. And we ultimately think it makes the appropriations process work better than because you can then have bipartisan votes on top line levels. And if an agency comes along and says, look, we're finding waste and garbage that the taxpayers wouldn't want to spend, then we can send those up for rescissions. Even with the deficit. Addressing the deficit in this new bill, the One Big Beautiful Bill act, the deficit is still, the debt is still projected to climb $25 trillion over the next 10 years. And there's some criticism from conservatives at the Manhattan Institute, for example, saying that doge is just what they call spending theater going after, quote, culture war totems. Their argument is basically, if you really wanted to cut spending, if you really wanted to get the deficit and the debt under control, you should be going after bigger areas such as the defense budget. What's your response to that criticism? I think it's unfair criticism. I think you got to take a multifaceted approach. The One Big Beautiful bill reduces deficits. It had $1.5 trillion in mandatory reforms. Those are the structural programs. But I mean, the GAO and CBO says it's going to actually increase the deficit. No, CBO was using artificial baselines that treat spending as eternal and tax relief that was in law since 2017 to be temporary. And so if you adjust for that and the bill does have additional tax relief of which we paid for with spending reductions. This bill reduces deficits and will help us with the national debt. Overall, the moves that we are making as an economic team under President Trump's leadership will lead to about a third of what's necessary to balance the budget, given the numbers that you just articulated. That's just in our six months. When you talk about the tariff revenues that are coming in $3 trillion, CBO believes the same numbers that we have. And again, those are in advance of a number of the trade agreements that we're talking about over the next several weeks. So we're making big moves. And, and I think the country is going to come alongside of us and see the progress that we're making.

Quickly, if you could, I want to ask you about some medical research funding that the White House is withholding right now from the National Institutes of Health. Fourteen Republican senators say you're risking, quote, undermining critical research and, quote, could threaten Americans ability to access better treatments. Will you allow that funding to go through at the nih? We're going through the same programmatic review of the NIH that we did on education funding. So NIH is a program that. That if they were a company that went through the last pandemic, their stock market, their stock prices would be in shambles. I mean, they fundamentally mismanaged and in some respects caused the pandemic by their own research for gain of function research. Now put that aside for a second. Now you have waste, foreign abuse of funding, injecting dogs with cocaine and studying the impacts of it, giving money to Harvard to study lizards being blown off of branches by leaf blowers. Every step of the way, you have fundamental DEI across the board. There's literally a tie. I don't think that's what the Republican senators. We literally have an entire institute that does nothing more than DEI research at nih. Do you think that's what the Republican senators want funding for? What I'm suggesting is that we have fully funded all important research through our budget proposal. We will continue to make sure that funding goes out, but we're going to do everything we can to make sure the NIH is not weaponized and wasteful against the American people.

ECONOMICS, POLITICS, FINANCE, FEDERAL RESERVE, FISCAL POLICY, GOVERNMENT SPENDING, FORBES BREAKING NEWS