The Federal Reserve’s decision to renew the terms of most of its regional bank presidents earlier than usual caught markets off guard—and helped quiet growing worries that the central bank could soon face political interference, as President Donald Trump continues pushing for deeper interest-rate cuts.
On Thursday, the Fed said it had reappointed 11 of its 12 regional bank presidents. The only exception was the Atlanta Fed, where President Raphael Bostic has already said he plans to step down.
What made the announcement stand out wasn’t just the near-unanimous slate—it was the timing. The presidents’ five-year terms weren’t set to expire until February, and historically these renewals have tended to happen closer to the deadline as a largely routine matter. This time, however, the early move came after comments from the Trump administration hinted that new standards could be imposed on regional presidents—fueling speculation about a broader leadership overhaul.
Earlier this month, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent raised the idea of a three-year residency requirement for Fed presidents. A few days later, National Economic Council director Kevin Hassett—widely viewed as the leading contender to become the next Fed chair—backed the concept.
Regional Fed presidents are selected by governing boards within their districts, but their appointments still require approval from the Fed’s Board of Governors. That structure has long been seen as a buffer against political pressure. Still, critics have argued the balance could shift if the board itself becomes more dominated by presidential appointees—potentially giving Washington more leverage over who leads the regional banks.
Those leadership dynamics matter because the rate-setting Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) includes the seven governors plus five of the 12 regional presidents (with four of those seats rotating each year). In recent meetings—including Wednesday’s—regional presidents have generally been more hesitant about cutting rates, while Trump-appointed governors have been more willing to argue for cuts.
“The reappointments for 11 of the reserve bank presidents takes a risk off the table that the president or his appointment of a new chairman might disrupt the structure and governance of the system going into 2026,” Robert Eisenbeis, a former director of research at the Atlanta Fed, wrote to Fortune via email.
Right now, the Fed’s board includes three Trump appointees. Chair Jerome Powell’s term ends in May, though he could remain on the board afterward. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court is set to weigh whether Trump can remove Governor Lisa Cook. If the court allows it, Trump could gain the opportunity to appoint a fourth governor.
In a note on Friday, Deutsche Bank strategist Jim Reid said the 10-year Treasury yield ticked higher after the announcement, suggesting bond investors were factoring in a reduced likelihood of rate cuts.
“The regional presidents’ current terms expire in February, so the advance announcement suggests that the board was united in wanting to avoid the risk that the reappointment process raises questions over Fed independence,” Reid wrote.
Justin Wolfers, a University of Michigan professor of public policy and economics, reacted even more sharply, posting on X: “If I’m reading this properly, they just Trump-proofed the Fed.”
Another striking element: the decision to bring back the regional presidents was unanimous—signaling that Trump-appointed governors supported the move too.
That includes Stephen Miran, who is currently on leave from his White House role as chair of the Council of Economic Advisers while serving on the Fed to fill a vacancy.
Before joining the administration, Miran had called for sweeping changes to the Federal Reserve—arguing the U.S. president should be able to fire Fed governors and regional presidents at will, that Congress should control the Fed’s operating budget, and that the Treasury should take over the Fed’s regulatory responsibilities for banks and financial markets.
Such proposals would significantly reduce the Fed’s autonomy and expand White House influence. Earlier this year, JPMorgan analysts warned that Miran’s appointment “fuels an existential threat as the administration looks likely to take aim at the Federal Reserve Act to permanently alter U.S. monetary and regulatory authority.”
