In an unprecedented public intervention, President Donald Trump has demanded that the next chair of the Federal Reserve be “totally independent”, a stance that has drawn praise from UK MPs who point to the Bank of England’s autonomous structure as a model for central banking integrity. Speaking to reporters at the White House, Trump stated, “The Fed must be free from political influence. We need someone who can make decisions based on data, not politics. Look at what the Bank of England does – they set interest rates without interference, and Britain respects that.” The remark marks a sharp departure from his previous attacks on Fed chair Jerome Powell, whom he once accused of undermining his economic agenda with rate hikes. However, critics question whether Trump’s sudden conversion to monetary autonomy is genuine or a ploy to install a compliant figurehead under the guise of independence.
Across the Atlantic, British parliamentarians have seized the moment to tout the Bank of England’s operational independence, enshrined in the Bank of England Act 1998. Conservative MP Sir Robert Syms noted, “Our central bank’s autonomy has been a cornerstone of economic stability for over two decades. If President Trump is serious about replicating this model, it would be a welcome change from the erratic policy signals we’ve seen from Washington.” The Bank of England’s Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) sets interest rates to meet a government-set inflation target, but does so without political approval, a system that has weathered crises from the 2008 financial meltdown to Brexit.
Yet the comparison reveals deeper anxieties on both sides. In the UK, the Bank of England’s independence has faced strains during the cost-of-living crisis, with some MPs calling for greater government oversight of rate decisions that impact mortgage payers. Meanwhile, Trump’s demand lands at a volatile moment for the Fed, which is battling persistent inflation while navigating geopolitical upheaval. His call for “total independence” may be a tactical shift to distance himself from upcoming rate decisions that could be unpopular with voters ahead of the 2026 midterms.
The practical implications are murky. Federal Reserve chairs are nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate, but once in office, they operate with de facto independence – a tradition that has held since the 1970s. Trump’s explicit demand for a “totally independent” chair could paradoxically be seen as an attempt to weaken that tradition by inserting a political litmus test. “Independence is not something a president can grant; it’s an institutional norm earned over decades,” warned former Fed vice-chair Alan Blinder. “If the next chair is seen as Trump’s chosen one, their every move will be viewed through a political lens.”
The Bank of England model, while revered, is not a perfect blueprint. Its MPC includes external members selected for their expertise, not political alignment. In contrast, Trump’s nominees to the Fed’s Board of Governors have often been chosen for their loyalty, raising questions about whether he would select an independent figure or a proxy for his views. Meanwhile, UK MPs who praised the model are themselves grappling with calls for reform: the opposition Labour Party has floated giving the Treasury more influence over the Bank’s mandate, particularly on climate change and inequality.
For the common citizen, this transatlantic dialogue on central bank independence may seem arcane, but the stakes are tangible: interest rates, mortgages, and job markets hang in the balance. If the Fed were to become seen as an arm of the White House, credibility in global markets could erode, undermining the dollar’s reserve status. Conversely, a truly independent chair could restore faith in US economic governance.
As the search for the next Fed chair intensifies, the world will watch whether Trump’s rhetoric matches reality. The Bank of England model may offer a template, but its success depends on a culture of institutional trust that cannot be mandated by decree. In the coming weeks, the president’s true intent will become clear: will he champion independence, or capture the central bank for his own ends?
