President Trump on Tuesday suggested the handling of renewal at the Central Bank headquarters of Federal Reserve President Jerome Powell, seizing on an issue that has become a growing point of criticism among Powell’s critics.
“I think he is terrible. I think he is tough. But one thing I did not see him is a person who needs a palace to live,” Trump asked reporters in Pennsylvania if he would set Pavel on fire.
Asked if the Fed’s spending $ 2.5 billion on renewal at Washington, DC, headquarters is a firing offense, Trump replied, “I think it’s this.”
Trump has instigated the decision not to reduce interest rates on Fede’s decision against Powell for months, a decision chairman Has held responsible For uncertainty around the President’s aggressive use of tariffs.
Trump is in the past Stopped Saying that he would fire Powell, there cannot be a legal right to do anything. Pavel’s word ends in May 2026.
But the top officials of the White House focused their focus on the cost of renewal of Fed in recent times, questioning whether the President and his colleagues can try to exclude Powell before their tenure as the chairman is ending in next May.
Director of Russell Wout, Management and Budget Office,Wrote PowellLast week, Fed Chairman accused the Central Bank of mismanagement. He cited several discrepancies amidst the testimony of the Congress amid Pavel’s testimony and explained the clear changes for renewal.
Trump recently appointed Deputy Chief James Blair to the National Capital Planning Commission. Blair has indicated that it will use its position on the Commission to see if Powell has followed the law with renewal.
Powell asked the Inspector General of the Central Bank to review the renewal, a source confirmed this week.
In an attempt to reduce concerns around the project, Fed this weekPosted a question answerWhile addressing some details of the project for its webpage and arguing on the renewal, “the cost will be reduced over time by allowing the board to strengthen most of its operations.”
Fed cited “various factors” for increased costs, including the difference over time between estimates and actual costs and toxic contamination in the soil and more asbestos than the anticipated.
