Stephen Miran Is Going To Be Fed Chair.

Soft-spoken, intensely private and highly educated. This is how Federal Reserve Governor Stephen Miran is described. Beneath this cool and erudite facade, however, is a zealot and sycophant hellbent on doing the bidding of Donald Trump.

Miran has already made his mark at the Fed by dissenting twice in as many Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) votes on where the Federal Funds rates should be set. In just a matter of months he has become the most visible and perhaps polarizing member of the Fed, but many still treat him as though he’s merely an outsider and Trump loyalist. He is both of those things, but more importantly, he’s probably going to replace Jerome Powell as the head of the Fed when Powell’s term expires.

The role of Fed Chair is important but it’s not omnipotent. The Federal Reserve is designed in such a way that no one person has undue influence or unlimited authority. That said, past chairs such as Alan Greenspan and Paul Volcker have loomed large over the U.S. economy and had the ability to move the market with their words and actions. But that’s not the danger in selecting a figure like Miran to run the Fed. The danger lies in his designs on how to destroy its independence.

The Audition

Stephen Miran isn’t auditioning to run the Federal Reserve. He’s auditioning to destroy it.

Miran currently sits on the Federal Reserve Board of Governors. He was confirmed in September of this year to fill the unexpired term of Adriana Kugler, who mysteriously departed for reasons that have yet to emerge. His term expires January 31, 2026—just a few months away. Recall that Trump initially wanted Miran to take Lisa Cook’s position instead, because her term runs much longer. They tried to fire Cook to make room for Miran, but the courts said no. For now, Cook stays. So they went back to Plan A and put Miran in Kugler’s seat.

At Miran’s very first FOMC meeting, he was the lone dissenting voice, arguing that the Fed should cut rates more aggressively than the 25 basis point reduction the other 11 members agreed on. Eleven members, some of whom are considered Trump allies. Then last week, he did it again. This time he was one of two dissenting voices, though importantly the other dissenting vote was against any cuts at all. So he’s still the only one advocating for much steeper cuts.

This isn’t about monetary policy. This is about allegiance; fealty to Trump who has been pushing the Fed to cut rates dramatically because he believes it will supercharge corporate lending.

This might be true in so-called “normal times” when rate cuts can spur lending and investments, but it has far less impact when the economy is in the toilet. To the extent that it does kick off a wave of activity, it usually benefits a small number of leveraged corporations like real estate firms. There’s a deeper discussion to be had on the impact of rates and the perception of them in the market, but the point we need to illustrate today is that the Fed has a host of monetary powers that should be wielded carefully.

When considering these powers, it’s critical to know that Federal Reserve independence is supposed to be sacrosanct. Monetary policy shouldn’t be subject to the whims of whoever occupies the Oval Office at any given moment because the economy runs on cycles that span years, sometimes decades. Presidents come and go every four years (hopefully) and their incentives are almost always short-term: goose the economy before the next election, worry about the consequences later.

The Fed is designed to think long-term. And Fed independence is one of the fundamental pillars of modern economic stability.

And Stephen Miran has written a blueprint for how to tear it down.

This isn’t speculation. This isn’t me reading tea leaves. Miran co-authored a white paper in March 2024 for the Manhattan Institute—a conservative think tank—titled “Reform the Federal Reserve’s Governance to Deliver Better Monetary Outcomes.” And in this paper, he lays out, step by step how to gut the Fed’s independence and place it under the direct control of the president.

This is the same playbook we’ve seen with Project 2025—the blueprint for consolidating executive power that everyone swore wasn’t real until it absolutely was. The same playbook as Project Esther, the blueprint for mass deportation that they said was just a thought exercise until ICE started loading people onto planes.

Like Bond villains, they always reveal their plans and tell you what comes next. They write it down. They publish it. They put their names on it.

Miran’s Federal Reserve paper is what comes next.

The man who wrote the playbook for destroying Fed independence will be appointed to lead the Fed. Just like Linda McMahon was appointed to obliterate the Department of Education. Just like RFK Jr. was put in charge of dismantling public health agencies.

The Power and Powers of the Fed

Before we get into exactly how Miran plans to dismantle the Fed, let’s talk about what it does and why this institution matters so much.

The Federal Reserve was established in 1913—after a series of devastating bank panics made it clear that the United States needed a central bank to stabilize the financial system. Importantly, its authority derives from Congress. The Fed doesn’t just exist because it wants to. It exists because Congress, through the Federal Reserve Act, gave it specific powers and responsibilities.

Chief among those is what’s called the “dual mandate,” which came later in its existence: maximum sustainable employment and stable prices. In other words, the Fed is tasked with keeping unemployment low and inflation under control. Two goals that often work against each other, by the way, which is why this job is complicated and sometimes at odds with itself.

First, they control interest rates. When the Fed raises the federal funds rate—the rate at which banks lend to each other overnight—it makes borrowing more expensive across the entire economy. Car loans cost more. Credit card interest climbs. Businesses think twice about taking out loans to expand. The economy slows down. Inflation cools.

When the Fed cuts rates, the opposite happens. Borrowing gets cheaper. Businesses invest. Hiring goes up. The economy heats up—but so does the risk of inflation.

For clarity—this comes up a lot—the Federal Funds rate impacts short-term lending between banks. Oftentimes you’ll hear people say that these rates affect mortgages and other consumer products but that’s really not the case. There are correlations between them, but the market sets these rates based on many different factors in the real economy. Again, for another day.

Second, they buy and sell U.S. Treasury securities. This is called open market operations, and it’s how the Fed injects or removes money from the banking system. When they buy Treasuries, they’re pumping money into the economy. When they sell them, they’re pulling money out. This directly affects how much cash is sloshing around in the financial system—and that affects everything from bank lending to stock prices.

Third, they act as the lender of last resort. This is taking on a significant role as we speak. See, during a financial crisis like 2008, or March 2020 when COVID hit—and the one we’re in right now but no one wants to admit—the Fed can step in and provide emergency liquidity to banks and other financial institutions. Think of it as the financial system’s emergency brake.

These are not small powers. These are the most powerful economic tools our country has. And right now, they’re wielded by a board of governors with staggered 14-year terms, specifically designed so that no single president can pack the board with loyalists. The Fed Chair serves a four-year term and can be reappointed, but they cannot be fired at will.

This structure exists for one reason: independence.

Because when the Fed is independent, it can make decisions based on economic reality, not political expediency. When the Fed is independent, it can raise rates even when a president is screaming about it on Truth Social. When the Fed is independent, it can tell a president “no, we’re not going to juice the economy right before your reelection because it’ll cause long-term damage.”

And that’s exactly what Stephen Miran wants to eliminate even though he claims he’s in favor of the opposite.

Now, whether you’re an “End the Fed” libertarian who thinks the whole thing should be abolished, or a classical liberal who believes in its independence—you have to acknowledge that the Fed’s power cannot be overstated. It affects your job. Your savings. Your retirement account. The stability of every dollar in your wallet.

And if that power falls entirely into the hands of one man—one madman—we are all, in a word, fucked.

The Numbnut

Let’s talk about who Stephen Miran actually is.

Miran received a BA from Boston University in economics, philosophy, and mathematics. PhD in economics from Harvard. So yes, the man has credentials.

He worked for a decade in financial markets, including as a senior strategist at Hudson Bay Capital Management. From 2020 to 2021, he served as senior adviser for economic policy at the U.S. Department of the Treasury during Trump’s first term. After that, he became a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute—where he co-authored his Fed restructuring paper. Most recently, he was appointed Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers by Trump before being nominated to the Federal Reserve Board.

And, file this one away because it’s important: He’s still technically on leave from the White House.

Why does this matter? Glad you asked. Here’s an excerpt from Miran’s paper in the Manhattan Institute explaining why Fed governors shouldn’t serve in political roles:

“To pretend that one can easily shift between highly political and allegedly nonpolitical roles without letting political biases inform policy is, at best, naïve, at worst, sinister.”

I’ll give you a moment to let that sink in.

Stephen Miran. Who is on leave from the White House. While serving on the Fed. Wrote that. The cognitive dissonance is staggering.

But it gets better. Here’s another gem from his paper:

“Excessive control by elected, political actors (like the president) interferes in good policy and results in bad economic outcomes.”

And yet, as we’ll see, his entire proposal is designed to give the president unprecedented control over the Fed.

So what exactly does Miran propose

1. Make all Fed Governors and Reserve Bank Presidents “at-will” employees.

Currently, Fed governors can only be removed “for cause”—meaning gross misconduct or incompetence, not just because the president doesn’t like their policies. Miran wants to eliminate that protection. He argues that recent Supreme Court decisions are pointing toward a world where the president has the authority to fire any executive branch employee at will—and he believes the Fed should fall under that umbrella.

Here’s what he writes: “Recent Supreme Court jurisprudence is casting doubt on the constitutionality of independent agencies not under direct presidential control, and it is conceivable that in the coming years, the Supreme Court will eliminate for-cause removal protections for officials exercising executive authority, as Fed board members do.”

Translation: The courts are moving in our direction, so let’s just get ahead of it and formalize presidential control now.

This is de facto destruction of Fed independence. If governors can be fired at will, they serve at the pleasure of the president. They make decisions based on what will keep them employed, not what’s best for the economy.

2. Shorten governor terms and eliminate fixed terms.

Miran proposes cutting the 14-year terms down to 8 years and eliminating the staggered, calendar-based structure. Instead, each new governor would serve 8 years from confirmation. This would allow a president to potentially remake the entire board during their tenure—especially if combined with at-will removal.

3. Nationalize the Reserve Banks and put state governors in charge.

Currently, the 12 regional Federal Reserve Banks are quasi-private institutions with boards of directors selected through a mix of local business interests and Fed appointees. Miran wants to “nationalize” them—which sounds progressive until you realize his plan is to let state governors appoint the boards of directors for each Reserve Bank.

Why does this matter? Because there are currently more Republican governors than Democratic governors. This would tilt control of the regional Reserve Banks toward one party, and since regional Reserve Bank presidents vote on the Federal Open Market Committee, this gives the party controlling the most state houses de facto control over monetary policy.

4. Put the Fed’s budget under Congressional appropriations.

Right now, the Fed is self-funding. It makes money through seigniorage—the profit from printing money—and through the interest it earns on its holdings of Treasury securities. This makes it financially independent from Congress and the president.

Miran wants to end that. He wants the Fed’s operating budget to come from Congressional appropriations, just like any other agency.

We’ve already seen that this administration, working with Russell Vought at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), plans to strip appropriations authority away from Congress and consolidate it in the executive branch. This is part of the larger Project 2025 agenda to restore “impoundment”—the president’s ability to refuse to spend money Congress has appropriated.

If the Fed’s budget is subject to appropriations, and appropriations are controlled by the president, then the president controls the Fed’s funding. Don’t do what we want? No money for you. Good luck conducting monetary policy.

5. Strip crisis response powers from the Fed and give them to a presidential appointee.

Currently, the Fed has broad authority under Section 13(3) of the Federal Reserve Act to create emergency lending facilities during financial crises. Think of all the programs they rolled out in 2008 and 2020 to keep credit flowing and prevent a complete meltdown.

Miran wants to create a new position—a “Vice Chair for Crisis Response”—who would take over all these powers during a declared emergency. And this person would report directly to the president.

This means that during the next financial crisis, the president gets to decide who gets bailed out and who doesn’t. Which banks get liquidity. Which companies get rescued. Which industries get emergency loans.

In other words, the president becomes the sole arbiter of winners and losers in a crisis.

This isn’t monetary policy. This is authoritarian control of the economy dressed up in technocratic language.

Consistently Inconsistent

Now let’s talk about why Stephen Miran’s entire intellectual edifice is built on quicksand.

Let’s start with how he got his current jobs. Miran got his position as Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers because he wrote a white paper in 2024 laying out the rationale for Trump’s tariff policy. The paper was titled “A User’s Guide to Restructuring the Global Trading System.”

We’ve talked about this before but it bears review.

In it, Miran argues that massive tariffs wouldn’t be inflationary if paired with currency offsets, and that they would rebalance trade by addressing the so-called Triffin Dilemma. For those unfamiliar, the Triffin Dilemma—named after economist Robert Triffin—is a theory about how the dollar’s role as the global reserve currency would eventually undermine the U.S. economy because we’d have to run persistent trade deficits to supply the world with dollars.

Here’s the problem: The Triffin Dilemma was based on the Bretton Woods system, where the dollar was tied to gold. In 1971, Richard Nixon took the U.S. off the gold standard. The entire theoretical foundation of the Triffin Dilemma disappeared. The constraints that Triffin worried about—running out of gold reserves—no longer exist in a fiat currency system.

But Miran resurrected this outdated theory to provide intellectual cover for Trump’s tariff agenda. Why? Because the administration needed a justification—any justification—for imposing tariffs to raise revenue. They knew they were going to blow up the tax base with corporate and high-income tax cuts. They needed a way to fund government operations. Tariffs were the answer. And Miran gave them the academic veneer to make it sound legitimate.

Then there’s his Fed paper, which gave them the blueprint for seizing control of monetary policy. Two white papers. Two auditions. Both designed to give Trump exactly what he wants: unchecked economic power.

Now let’s talk about Miran’s policy positions—or more accurately, the complete lack of consistency in them.

In 2024, he was calling for rate hikes. Inflation was still elevated, and the Fed needed to get more aggressive.

In 2025, after being appointed to the Fed, he’s calling for massive rate cuts saying that mass deportation and Trump’s tariff regime have changed everything.

Look, there’s nothing inherently wrong with changing your view as economic conditions change. That’s what you’re supposed to do. But Miran’s shifts don’t track with the data. They track with political convenience.

In his first public address, Miran laid out his case using Taylor Rule models, adjusting for what he calls the “neutral rate” or r-star, factors in fiscal policy changes, immigration policy, regulatory shifts—it’s all very wonky and mathematical. And you might listen to it and think, “Wow, this guy really knows his stuff.” He’s quoting models. He’s citing academic literature. He’s using equations.

But here’s the thing, you can dress up any conclusion you want in equations and Fed-speak if you’re willing to manipulate the inputs.

Miran arrives at an r-star estimate of around 1.3% by making a series of assumptions about how Trump’s policies—tariffs, tax cuts, immigration restrictions—will affect the economy. He assumes these policies will lower the neutral rate by dampening aggregate demand.

But those assumptions are highly debatable. Many economists would argue the opposite—that tariffs are inflationary, that tax cuts for the wealthy don’t trickle down to broad-based demand, that immigration restrictions reduce labor supply and therefore productive capacity.

Miran simply works backward from “rates should be lower” to “here’s a model that tells me rates should be lower.”

This is the same guy who resurrected a defunct economic theory to justify tariffs. He’s not interested in the truth. He’s interested in providing intellectual cover for what Trump wants to do.

Bring it Home, Max.

Here’s what to be on the lookout for. At some point the Republican Party will float the idea of securing Fed accountability and independence legislatively. Any legislation to restructure the Fed will likely be wrapped into some larger package—probably tied to budget reconciliation or debt ceiling negotiations—and it’ll sail through. Democrats will scream. Some economists will write op-eds. But it’ll happen because Trump controls both houses of Congress and this is important to him.

And when it does, Stephen Miran will be perfectly positioned to take over as Fed Chair.

This would be a disaster on so many levels. When the Fed loses its independence, your personal borrowing rate becomes a political decision. Your ability to get a car loan becomes a political decision. Who gets bailed out in a crisis becomes a popularity contest or whoever pledges the most to the presidential library.

When the president controls monetary policy, your savings lose their protection against inflation. Because there’s no one left to say, “No, we can’t just print more money to pay for your tax cuts.”

This isn’t about being pro-Fed or anti-Fed. This is about not handing the nuclear codes of economic policy to one person.

And the blueprint is right there. Publicly available. Published in March 2024. Co-authored by the man who’s now on the Fed Board of Governors and in line to become Fed Chair.

They wrote it down.

Just like Project 2025.

Just like Project Esther.

Just like every other authoritarian power grab they’ve telegraphed and then executed.

It’s time to learn his name just like we’ve learned Russ Vought’s. These are the architects of our demise and it’s up to us to mobilize and kick every single one of these miscreants and monsters to the curb starting with the midterms next year and all the way through to wholesale change come then next election. If you want my thoughts on how that happens, make sure to check out our 5 Non-Negotiables of the Left because it’s obvious we can’t leave this up to the Democrats.

Image Source

• Federalreserve “Miran IIF Annual Meeting 202530” Flickr, 16 October 2025. CC BY-NC 4.0. Changes were made.