Connect with us

Analysis

Why Trump’s next Fed chair may not deliver the interest-rate cuts investors expect

Published

on

Federal Reserve Governor Christopher Waller went out on a limb last week and urged the central bank to cut interest rates at its next meeting in nine days. But Waller is likely to be soundly outvoted by his fellow governors on the Fed’s board. If anything, the majority of the Fed is growing less interested in cutting rates in September than they were in June, said Aditya Bhave, senior U.S. economist at BofA Securities.
Waller’s isolation should be a wake-up call for Wall Street traders who think low interest rates are coming next year, no matter what, simply because President Donald Trump is going to appoint a new sheriff at the Federal Reserve. Jerome Powell’s term as Fed chair ends next May, and the sentiment goes that the new chair will be a “low-rate guy” who will deliver steep interest-rate cuts. Legendary macro investor Paul Tudor Jones summed up this view in a recent Bloomberg interview, when he said people “know that we are going to cut short-term rates dramatically in the next year.”
But analysts who follow the Fed, as well as former staffers at the central bank, think this confidence is out of touch. The structure of the Fed means that a new chair could still face an uphill battle in achieving Trump’s goal.
While one or two rate cuts after next May seem plausible, “if you want to go below that, it is going to be much more challenging to get the committee on board,” Bhave said. Assuming the new Trump-appointed chair would want to cut aggressively, they would have to get six more Fed officials to go along. It takes seven votes to get a majority on the Fed’s 12-member Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC), which sets the interest rate. These officials won’t back rate cuts just because Trump or a new Fed chair want it; they will demand data to back up the move. “The economic case for a rate cut has to be apparent in the data and the forecast,” said Ellen Meade, a former top Fed staffer and now an economics professor at Duke University. “If the push for cuts isn’t coming from inside the Fed by some of those voting members, I don’t see how the new chair would have a majority on the FOMC to move.”
Trump has spend the last several weeks bashing Powell while publicly considering firing him. But even with all the theatrics, there are other people standing in the president’s way. This year’s interest-rate committee has cooled on the idea of rate cuts, at least in September, Bhave said. Inflation is stuck well above the Fed’s 2% target even without taking into account the White House’s new tariffs on imports, he added. Krishna Guha, vice chairman of Evercore ISI, said Fed officials “worry the tariff shock is so large and messy that it could contaminate underlying inflation.” He noted that the public may accept that inflation is here to stay, which would just ensure that higher prices persist. “The Fed cannot take this for granted and has to act in ways” to make consumers trust that inflation is coming back to the 2% goal, Guha said. Next year’s committee doesn’t get any easier. Cleveland Fed President Beth Hammack and Dallas Fed President Lorie Logan will be voters. Economists at Deutsche Bank say that they both are among the seven Fed officials who don’t see a reason to cut rates at all this year.
Hammack worked at Goldman Sachs for three decades, rising to become its co-head of global finance, before being selected by the Cleveland Fed’s board of directors as president in August 2024. She dissented from the last Fed rate cut in December 2024. Logan is the former top staffer at the New York Fed who is well regarded for her role in guiding the central bank’s reaction to the COVID-19 pandemic.  Meade, the former Fed staffer now at Duke University, said that the Fed’s interest-rate committee doesn’t usually vote by a slim majority. Dissents are very unusual. Legendary former Fed Chair Paul Volcker, who famously put the brakes on inflation in the early 1980s, lost a board vote in February 1986 and considered resigning. The vote was considered embarrassing, but he did serve out his term, which ended a year later. Every vote matters, and Trump and his surrogates are aware of this math. So they are widening their attacks to other top Fed officials. In the Oval Office this week, Trump said Powell was a “terrible” Fed chair, but then added: “That goes for his board, too, because his board is not doing the job because they should try and rein this guy in.” Former Fed Governor Kevin Warsh, who is reportedly under consideration to replace Powell, has talked about “regime change” and “breaking some heads” at the central bank. 
But what makes the math even more complicated for the White House is Powell himself. While Powell’s term as Fed chair ends next May, his term as a Fed governor doesn’t end until early 2028. If he would stay as a governor, this would likely make the Trump-appointed Fed chair’s job even harder. Analysts think that is why Trump and his surrogates continue to be fixated on cost overruns on the $2.5 billion renovation of the Fed’s headquarters in Washington. Even when Trump said this week that he was unlikely to fire Powell, he kept alive the option of removing Powell for “cause” because there was fraud in the renovation project.  The Supreme Court indicated in May that Trump can’t fire Powell for policy disagreement and can only be removed for cause, meaning neglect of duty or malfeasance. Powell has not addressed whether he plans to stay on the Fed board after his term as chair expires. “Trump is making an effort to build a case, however weak, that there are some other grounds” for removing Powell because of the cost overruns on the renovations, said Kathryn Judge, a law professor at Columbia University. “Anyone can tell that the concerns about the renovations are a pretext for removing Powell because he wants interest rates to be lower.”
Another reason there has been so much pressure on Powell about the renovation “is an effort to encourage him to leave his role as governor,” she added. The Fed’s leadership is comprised of seven members of the Board of Governors in Washington and 12 regional Fed presidents. Democrat-appointed Fed Governor Adriana Keugler’s term on the board is up in January. If Powell leaves, that means Trump appointees would have a slim 4-3 majority on the Fed board.  “Having a majority on the Board — 4 seats — would get them somewhere. It won’t get them a majority on the FOMC, but it could provide them with leeway to make other institutional and procedural changes,” said Meade. Robert Brusca, president of FAO Economics, said having a Trump majority on the board “could change the tenor of the policy discussions.” In one scenario, the board could vote to cut the Fed’s discount rate — the rate that banks pay to borrow from the Fed. Only the board votes on the discount rate. That could force the Fed’s larger interest-rate committee to go along with a move, Brusca said.
In addition, tough talk from Trump and his surrogates has some experts concerned that a new Republican majority on the Fed board could try to remove opponents to their interest-rate plans. “There is this idea that if the Trump appointees end up with the majority of the board, they could remove regional Fed presidents,”  Judge said. It is an important issue to watch,” she added. “The tool has never been used historically. Regional Fed presidents have played a vital role in maintaining the independence of the Federal Reserve system. That is certainly a risk that has grown.” It is not clear that all of Trump’s Fed appointees would go along with either plan. For instance, Fed Governor Waller spent a decade as a top official at the St. Louis Fed. For Trump, the path to lower rates may start with Powell’s departure or removal as Fed chair, but more challenging work would lie ahead.

Continue Reading

Analysis

As EU plans Russian Gas exit, Ministers to convene in Paris to chart Africa’s export potential

Published

on

In the wake of seismic shifts in the European energy landscape, the Invest in African Energy (IAE) 2026 Forum in Paris will host a Ministerial Dialogue on “Unlocking Africa’s Gas Supply for Global Energy Security.” This strategic session will examine how Africa can turn its untapped gas reserves into a reliable and sustainable source of supply. With Europe seeking to diversify away from Russian gas, the dialogue highlights both the continent’s growing role in global energy markets and the opportunity for African producers to attract long-term investment. Recent developments underscore the urgency of Africa’s role in global energy security. Last month, EU countries agreed to phase out their remaining Russian gas imports, with existing contracts benefiting from a transition period: short-term contracts can continue until June 2026, while long-term contracts will run until January 2028. In parallel, the European Commission is pushing to end Russian LNG imports by January 2027 under a broader sanctions package aimed at limiting Moscow’s energy revenues.

Africa’s role in this rebalancing is already gaining momentum. Algeria recently renewed its gas supply agreement with ČEZ Group, ensuring continued deliveries to the Czech Republic. In Libya, the National Oil Corporation (NOC) has approved new compressors at the Bahr Essalam field to boost output and reinforce flows via the Greenstream pipeline to Italy. These developments complement the Structures A&E offshore project – led by Eni and the NOC – which is expected to bring two platforms online by 2026 and produce up to 750 million cubic feet per day, supporting both domestic and European demand. West Africa is pursuing ambitious export routes as well.

Nigeria, Algeria and Niger have revived the Trans-Saharan Gas Pipeline (TSGP), with engineering firm Penspen commissioned earlier this year to revalidate its feasibility. The proposed $25 billion Nigeria–Morocco pipeline is also advancing as a long-term corridor linking West African gas to European markets. Meanwhile, the Greater Tortue Ahmeyim (GTA) project off Mauritania and Senegal came online earlier this year, with its first phase targeting 2.3 million tons of LNG annually. In June, the project delivered its third cargo to Belgium’s Zeebrugge terminal, marking the first African LNG shipment from GTA to Europe. Together, these milestones underscore a strategic convergence: African producers are accelerating efforts to scale up exports just as Europe intensifies its search for reliable alternatives to Russian gas.

Yet, as the ministerial session will explore, unlocking Africa’s gas supply demands sustained investment, regulatory alignment, environmental management and community engagement. For Europe, diversification of supply is a strategic necessity; for African producers, it is an opportunity to accelerate development, build infrastructure and secure long-term capital. At IAE 2026, these shifts will be examined by the officials and stakeholders driving them. The Ministerial Dialogue brings African energy leaders together with European policymakers, industry players and investors in a setting that supports practical, solution-focused discussion on supply, export strategies and future cooperation. As Europe adapts its gas strategy and African producers progress major projects, the Forum provides a direct platform for ministers to outline priorities and for investors to engage with key decision-makers.

Continue Reading

Analysis

Authorities must respond as digital tools used by organized criminals accelerate financial crime—IMF

Published

on

International Monetary Fund IMF, has said that criminals are outpacing enforcement by adapting ever faster ways to carry out digital fraud. The INF in a Blog post said the Department of Justice in June announced the largest-ever US crypto seizure: $225 million from crypto scams known as pig butchering, in which organized criminals, often across borders, use advanced technology and social engineering such as romance or investment schemes to manipulate victims. This typically involves using AI-generated profiles, encrypted messaging, and obscured blockchain transactions to hide and move stolen funds. It was a big win. Federal agents collaborated across jurisdictions and used blockchain analysis and machine learning to track thousands of wallets used to scam more than 400 victims. Yet it was also a rare victory that underscored how authorities often must play catch-up in a fast-changing digital world. And the scammers are still out there. They pick the best tools for their schemes, from laundering money through crypto and AI-enabled impersonation to producing deepfake content, encrypted apps, and decentralized exchanges. Authorities confronting anonymous, borderless threats are held back by jurisdiction, process, and legacy systems.
Annual illicit crypto activity growth has averaged about 25 percent in recent years and may have surpassed $51 billion last year, according to Chainalysis, a New York–based blockchain analysis firm specializing in helping criminal investigators trace transactions. Bad actors still depend on cash and traditional finance, and money laundering specifically relies on banks, informal money changers, and cash couriers. But the old ways are being reinforced or supercharged by technologies to thwart detection and disruption.
Encrypted messaging apps help cartels coordinate cross-border transactions. Stablecoins and lightly regulated virtual asset platforms can hide bribes and embezzled funds. Cybercriminals use AI-generated identities and bots to deceive banks and evade outdated controls. Tracking proceeds generated by organized crime is nearly impossible for underresourced agencies. AI lowers barriers to entry. Fraudsters with voice-cloning and fake-document generators bypass the verification protocols many banks and regulators still use. Their innovation is growing as compliance systems lag. Governments recognize the threats, but responses are fragmented and uneven—including in regulation of crypto exchanges. And there are delays implementing the Financial Action Task Force’s (FATF’s) “travel rule” to better identify those sending and receiving money across borders, which most digital proceeds cross.
Meanwhile, international financial flows are increasingly complicated by instant transfers on decentralized platforms and anonymity-enhancing tools. Most payments still go through multiple intermediaries, often layering cross-border transactions through antiquated correspondent banks that obscure and delay transactions while raising costs. This helps criminals exploit oversight gaps, jurisdictional coordination, and technological capacity to operate across borders, often undetected.
Regulators and fintechs should be partners, and sustained multilateral engagement should foster fast, cheap, transparent, and traceable cross-border payments. There’s a parallel narrative. Criminals exploit innovation for secrecy and speed while companies and governments test coordination to reduce vulnerabilities and modernize cross-border infrastructure. At the same time, technological implications remain underexplored with respect to anti–money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism, or AML/CFT. Singapore’s and Thailand’s linked fast payment systems, for example, enable real-time retail transfers using mobile numbers; Indonesia and Malaysia have connected QR codes for cross-border payments. Such innovations offer efficiency and inclusion yet raise new issues regarding identity verification, transaction monitoring, and regulatory coordination.
In India, the Unified payments interface enables seamless transfers across apps and platforms, highlighting the power of interoperable design. More than 18 billion monthly transactions, many across competing platforms, show how openness and standardization drive scale and inclusion. Digital payments in India grew faster when interoperability improved, especially in fragmented markets where switching was costly, IMF research shows These regional innovations and global initiatives reflect a growing understanding that fighting crime and fostering inclusion are interlinked priorities—especially as criminals speed ahead. The FATF echoed this concern, urging countries to design AML/CFT controls that support inclusion and innovation. Moreover, an FATF June recommendation marks a major advance: Requiring originator and beneficiary information for cross-border wire transfers—including those involving virtual assets—will enhance traceability across the fast-evolving digital financial ecosystem.
Efforts like these are important examples of how technology enables criminal advantage, but technology must also be part of the regulatory response.
Modernizing cross-border payment systems and reducing unintended AML/CFT barriers increasingly means focusing on transparency, interoperability, and risk-based regulation. The IMF’s work on “safe payment corridors” supports this by helping countries build trusted, secure channels for legitimate financial flows without undermining new technology. A pilot with Samoa —where de-risking has disrupted remittances—showed how targeted safeguards and collaboration with regulated providers can preserve access while maintaining financial integrity without disrupting the use of new payment platforms.
Several countries, with IMF guidance, are investing in machine learning to detect anomalies in cross-border financial flows, and others are tightening regulation of virtual asset service providers. Governments are investing in their own capacity to trace crypto transfers, and blockchain analytics firms are often employed to do that. IMF analysis of cross-border flows and the updated FATF rules are mutually reinforcing. If implemented cohesively, they can help digital efficiency coexist with financial integrity. For that to happen, legal frameworks must adapt to enable timely access to digital evidence while preserving due process. Supervisory models need to evolve to oversee both banks and nonbank financial institutions offering cross-border services. Regulators and fintechs should be partners, and sustained multilateral engagement should foster fast, cheap, transparent, and traceable cross-border payments—anchored interoperable standards that also respect privacy.
Governments must keep up. That means investing in regulatory technology, such as AI-powered transaction monitoring and blockchain analysis, and giving agencies tools and expertise to detect complex crypto schemes and synthetic identity fraud. Institutions must keep pace with criminals by hiring and retaining expert data scientists and financial crime specialists. Virtual assets must be brought under AML/CFT regulation, public-private partnerships should codevelop tools to spot emerging risks, and global standards from the FATF and the Financial Stability Board must be backed by national investments in effective AML/CFT frameworks.
Consistent and coordinated implementation is important. Fragmented efforts leave openings for criminals. Their growing technological advantage over governments threatens to undermine financial integrity, destabilize economies, weaken already fragile institutions, and erode public trust in systems meant to ensure safety and fairness. As crime rings adopt and adapt emerging technologies to outpace enforcement, the cost is not only fiscal—it is structural and systemic. Governments can’t wait. The criminals won’t.

Continue Reading

Analysis

Multilateral development banks reaffirm commitment to climate finance, pledge innovative funding for adaptation

Published

on

Multilateral development banks have reaffirmed their commitment to climate finance, pledging to scale up innovative funding to boost climate adaptation and resilience. “Financing climate resilience is not a cost, but an investment.” This was the key message from senior MDB officials at the end of a side event organised by the Climate Investment Funds (CIF) on the opening day of the 30th United Nations Climate Conference (COP30) in Belém, Brazil.

The conference runs from 10 to 21 November. During a panel discussion titled “Accelerating large-scale climate change adaptation,” MDB representatives, including the African Development Bank Group, outlined how their institutions are fulfilling Paris Agreement commitments by mobilising substantial and innovative resources for climate adaptation and mitigation. Ilan Goldfajn, President of the Inter-American Development Bank Group, emphasised that “resilience is more than a concern for the future: it is also essential for development today.” He announced that MDBs are tripling their financing for resilience over the next decade, targeting $42 billion by 2030.

“At the Inter-American Development Bank, we are turning preparedness into protection and resilience into opportunity,” Goldfajn added. Tanja Faller, Director of Technical Evaluation and Monitoring at the Council of Europe Development Bank, stressed that climate change “not only creates new threats, but also amplifies existing inequalities. The most socially vulnerable people are the hardest hit and the last to recover. This is how a climate crisis also becomes a social crisis.” Representatives from the Islamic Development Bank, the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, the Asian Development Bank, the World Bank Group, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development,  the European Investment Bank, the New Development Bank and IDB Invest (the private sector arm of the Inter-American Development Bank Group) also shared concrete examples of successful adaptation investments and strategies for mobilising new resources.

Kevin Kariuki, Vice President of the African Development Bank Group in charge of Power, Energy, Climate and Green Growth, presented the Bank’s leadership in advancing climate adaptation and mitigation. “At the African Development Bank, we understand the priorities of our countries: adaptation and mitigation are at the heart of our climate interventions.” He highlighted the creation of the Climate Action Window, a new financing mechanism under the African Development Fund, the Bank Group’s concessional window for low-income countries.

“The African Development Bank is the only multilateral development bank with a portfolio of adaptation projects ready for investment through the Climate Action Window,” Kariuki noted, adding that Germany, the United Kingdom and Switzerland are among key co-financing partners. Kariuki also showcased the Bank’s YouthADAPT programme, which has invested $5.4 million in 41 youth-led enterprises across 20 African countries, generating more than 10,000 jobs — 61 percent of which are led by women, and mobilising an additional $7 million in private and donor funding.

Representatives from Zambia, Mozambique and Jamaica also shared local perspectives on the financing needs of communities most exposed to climate risk. The panel followed the official opening of COP30, marked by a passionate appeal from Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva for greater climate investment to prevent a “tragedy for humanity.”

“Without the Paris Agreement, we would see a 4–5°C increase in global temperatures,” Lula warned. “Our call to action is based on three pillars: honouring commitments; accelerating public action with a roadmap enabling humanity to move away from fossil fuels and deforestation; and placing humanity at the heart of the climate action programme: thousands of people are living in poverty and deprivation as a result of climate change. The climate emergency is a crisis of inequality,” he continued.

“We must build a future that is not doomed to tragedy. We must ensure that we live in a world where we can still dream.” Outgoing COP President Mukhtar Babayevn, Azerbaijan’s Minister of Ecology, urged developed nations to fulfil their promises made at the Baku Conference, including commitments to mobilise $300 billion in climate finance. He called for stronger political will and multilateral cooperation, before handing over the COP presidency to Brazilian diplomat André Corrêa do Lago, who now leads the negotiations.

Continue Reading

Trending