Why the September Fed Meeting Feels So Strange? The Answer Lies with Miran, Cook and Trump

TradingKey - Beyond analyzing whether the updated dot plot after the Fed’s rate decision reflects a dovish or hawkish tilt, investors are increasingly curious about what will become of the Federal Reserve amid political interference, personnel changes, and potential institutional shifts. The Wall Street Journal has called this month’s meeting the “strangest in years.”

In an article published ahead of the September 17 policy decision, Fed watcher and WSJ journalist Nick Timiraos said this meeting is taking place during an unprecedented political moment for the central bank, making it one of the most unusual gatherings in recent memory.

Timiraos noted that prior to the meeting, President Trump had spent months attacking the Fed over its reluctance to cut rates — culminating in a legal battle that even raised doubts about who would be allowed to participate in the meeting.

Overall, the “oddities” of the September 16–17 FOMC meeting can be summarized in five key aspects.

Governor Cook’s “Standoff”

On the day before the formal FOMC meeting (September 15), a U.S. federal appeals court swiftly rejected President Trump’s attempt to remove Governor Lisa Cook from the Fed board. 

This allowed Cook to retain her position and participate in the September meeting — a rare judicial intervention in central bank affairs.

Miran’s “Lightning Confirmation”

Also on September 15, Stephen Miran, Trump’s handpicked nominee, narrowly passed Senate confirmation by a vote of 48–47, enabling him to join the high-profile meeting — which will mark the first rate cut of 2025.

Typically, Fed nominee confirmations take several months, but Miran’s process was completed in just six weeks. 

Even more unusually, while the historical record for fastest swearing-in after Senate approval is four business days, Miran took his oath within 24 hours — setting a new “fastest-ever” record.

This urgency reflects the Trump administration’s intent to rapidly push the Fed toward lower rates, aligning monetary policy with its tax cuts and debt management agenda.

Miran’s “Third Mandate”

The Fed has long operated under a dual mandate: maximum employment and price stability. However, during recent congressional hearings, Miran referenced the pursuit of moderate long-term interest rates — sparking speculation that he may reshape the Fed’s mission by adding a “third mandate.”

Natalliance Securities noted that the Trump administration found a loosely defined clause in the Fed’s founding documents allowing greater influence over long-term rates — which are also shaped by market forces and Treasury actions.

While not an immediate market theme, the firm added that this move signals Trump’s willingness to break decades of institutional norms, ultimately serving his political goals and undermining the Fed’s long-standing independence.

Miran’s “Dual Role”

Currently, Miran serves not only as a Fed Governor but also retains his role as Chair of the White House Council of Economic Advisers — reviving concerns about a “shadow chair” within the central bank.

Though Miran pledged to uphold Fed independence, a group of Democratic senators has launched an initiative to ban central bank officials from holding separate presidential appointments.

Miran’s Potential Dissent and Dot Plot Disruption

Many analysts expect Miran to voice policy disagreements, possibly advocating for deeper rate cuts and signaling a more accommodative outlook in the Summary of Economic Projections (SEP) — though not yet reaching Trump’s long-stated demand for a 300-basis-point cut.

Since 1988 — early in former Fed Chair Alan Greenspan's term — the Fed has never seen three governors dissent simultaneously. In July’s meeting, the two dissents from Bowman and Waller were already the first since 1993.

Beyond these developments, Chair Jerome Powell continues to face intense political pressure from President Trump — a persistent obstacle to the Fed’s ability to defend its independence.