According to Fortune, the Federal Reserve made a unanimous and early move on Thursday to reappoint 11 of its 12 regional bank presidents, with only the Atlanta Fed’s Raphael Bostic not included as he had already announced his departure. The five-year terms for these presidents were set to expire in February 2025, but the Fed’s Board of Governors, which includes Trump appointees, approved the reappointments well ahead of the typical schedule. This comes after recent suggestions from the Trump administration, including from Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and NEC Director Kevin Hassett, for new conditions like a three-year residency requirement for these officials. The immediate market reaction saw the 10-year Treasury yield edge higher as bond investors priced in fewer future interest rate cuts. University of Michigan professor Justin Wolfers called the move the Fed “Trump-proofing” itself.
Why this is a big deal
Here’s the thing: reappointing Fed bank presidents is usually a boring, procedural affair done right before the deadline. Doing it five months early, and unanimously, is a huge signal. It’s the institutional equivalent of locking the doors and changing the security codes before the new property manager shows up with a sledgehammer. The Fed is basically saying, “Our leadership is settled, thanks very much.” This is a direct response to the very real fear that a reshuffled Fed Board could reject sitting presidents to install more politically aligned figures. And given that these regional presidents vote on interest rates, controlling them is a backdoor way to influence monetary policy.
The real battle is about control
Look, the debate over rate cuts is just the surface-level skirmish. The deeper war is about who controls the Fed’s structure and power. The reappointment news is notable because even Trump-appointed governors voted for it. But that doesn’t mean the threat is over. One of those governors, Stephen Miran, is literally on leave from the White House. Before joining the administration, he authored a paper calling for a radical overhaul that would let the President fire Fed officials at will and hand key powers to Congress and the Treasury. You can read his controversial proposal here. JPMorgan analysts called his appointment an “existential threat.” So, this early reappointment is a defensive trench, not a peace treaty.
What it means for markets and policy
The bond market’s reaction—yields ticking up on the news—tells you everything. Traders saw this as the Fed fortifying its hawkish flank. The regional presidents have generally been more resistant to rate cuts than the Trump-appointed governors. By securing their jobs, the Fed has made it harder for a future board to force through a dramatically more dovish policy. It’s a move for stability, or maybe stagnation, depending on your view. But does it actually “Trump-proof” anything? For the immediate future, yes. It solidifies the current lineup. But if the administration is serious about rewriting the Federal Reserve Act itself, as Miran’s paper suggests, then no procedural move can stop that. This just kicks the ultimate confrontation over governance down the road.
