White House Power Play: Miran Moves, Powell Probed, Fed Faces Crisis

Paul Riverbank, 2/4/2026Stephen Miran's unusual dual roles spark controversy as Fed and White House face mounting crises.

Miran’s final week as chair of the Council of Economic Advisers closed out a quietly turbulent episode. When President Trump tapped him for a temporary seat on the Federal Reserve Board, Miran held onto his White House credentials a bit longer—a move that unsettled some around Capitol Hill. Folks in economic circles tend to trade desks the moment their new gig is confirmed; Miran took unpaid leave from the Council instead, eyeing a stint at the Fed that was supposed to be a postscript rather than a full rewrite.

“You don’t see that sort of overlap,” a White House staffer confided, hinting at the unwritten traditions that often weigh heavier than the legal ones. Democratic senators, quick to sense possible conflicts, pressed the point—was Miran blurring lines that ought to stay crisp? Their worry: that he might be too close to the president, carrying out White House wishes inside the walls of the central bank. Miran countered: “I was legally advised there was no need to quit my CEA post as the Fed job was only for a few months.” He offered his reasoning as plainly as any economist could.

Circumstances forced his hands—and his timetable. The moment his temporary Fed service risked extending beyond January 31, Miran made good on a promise he’d given to the Senate. In a resignation letter, he put it simply: “I promised the Senate that if I should stay on the Board past January, I would formally depart the Council.” His tone: equal measures dutiful and direct, with an undercurrent that suggested such rituals matter more than outsiders might think.

The White House reacted swiftly—Kush Desai, speaking for the administration, hailed Miran’s “brilliant” work. It was the sort of official praise that comes between transitions, delivered crisply and without fanfare. Miran’s departure fits into a larger chess game now playing out in Washington’s economic ranks. With the administration angling for Kevin Warsh—back for a possible encore at the Fed, this time set to replace Jerome Powell as chair—the next turns seem uncertain. Powell’s term wraps up in May, but the complications only begin there.

Recent months have seen the Fed itself drawn into the spotlight for less orthodox reasons. Powell, respected by many on Wall Street, now faces a federal probe tied to renovation statements before the Senate—a twist fueled by the Department of Justice. He’s waved away the matter as a veiled challenge to the Fed’s independence, while DOJ continues its inquiry. Meanwhile, another probe, this one involving Governor Lisa Cook, grinds on, with Cook rejecting any claim of impropriety.

The Senate, not keen to move forward with new Fed nominations while so many questions hang in the air, finds itself at a standstill. Republican Thom Tillis, with sway on the Banking Committee, won’t advance candidates until these threads are resolved. Democrats—and even a Republican or two—share his hesitation. So, Warsh’s path is blocked, Miran stays at the Fed longer than even he expected, and Pierre Yared, now acting chair at the Council of Economic Advisers, waits for clarity on his position.

Throughout his time at the Fed boardroom table, Miran consistently advocated lower interest rates—a stance that mirrors President Trump’s ongoing demands for a more aggressive monetary policy. Some might accuse the administration of seeking loyalty over independence, others say Miran simply followed the numbers. In either case, his exit is seen by observers in two distinct lights: as a return to more predictable boundaries, or as just another sign of Washington’s growing volatility.

For all the commotion, it's tough to find anyone who accuses Miran of being less than honest—perhaps even blunt to a fault. Even his critics admit he navigated the awkward overlap with notable steadiness, his reputation emerging, if anything, a bit more resilient than before. In the relentless churn of political and economic news, Miran’s brief but notable double tenure will likely register as one more reminder of how tradition and necessity frequently collide in the nation’s capital.

The corridors of power in Washington rarely see anyone pull double duty at the top ranks, but Stephen Miran just wrapped up a rare season doing exactly that—a fleeting, if debated, stretch influencing the nation’s economic steering wheel from both the White House and the Federal Reserve.Miran’s final week as chair of the Council of Economic Advisers closed out a quietly turbulent episode. When President Trump tapped him for a temporary seat on the Federal Reserve Board, Miran held onto his White House credentials a bit longer—a move that unsettled some around Capitol Hill. Folks in economic circles tend to trade desks the moment their new gig is confirmed; Miran took unpaid leave from the Council instead, eyeing a stint at the Fed that was supposed to be a postscript rather than a full rewrite.“You don’t see that sort of overlap,” a White House staffer confided, hinting at the unwritten traditions that often weigh heavier than the legal ones. Democratic senators, quick to sense possible conflicts, pressed the point—was Miran blurring lines that ought to stay crisp? Their worry: that he might be too close to the president, carrying out White House wishes inside the walls of the central bank. Miran countered: “I was legally advised there was no need to quit my CEA post as the Fed job was only for a few months.” He offered his reasoning as plainly as any economist could.Circumstances forced his hands—and his timetable. The moment his temporary Fed service risked extending beyond January 31, Miran made good on a promise he’d given to the Senate. In a resignation letter, he put it simply: “I promised the Senate that if I should stay on the Board past January, I would formally depart the Council.” His tone: equal measures dutiful and direct, with an undercurrent that suggested such rituals matter more than outsiders might think.The White House reacted swiftly—Kush Desai, speaking for the administration, hailed Miran’s “brilliant” work. It was the sort of official praise that comes between transitions, delivered crisply and without fanfare. Miran’s departure fits into a larger chess game now playing out in Washington’s economic ranks. With the administration angling for Kevin Warsh—back for a possible encore at the Fed, this time set to replace Jerome Powell as chair—the next turns seem uncertain. Powell’s term wraps up in May, but the complications only begin there.Recent months have seen the Fed itself drawn into the spotlight for less orthodox reasons. Powell, respected by many on Wall Street, now faces a federal probe tied to renovation statements before the Senate—a twist fueled by the Department of Justice. He’s waved away the matter as a veiled challenge to the Fed’s independence, while DOJ continues its inquiry. Meanwhile, another probe, this one involving Governor Lisa Cook, grinds on, with Cook rejecting any claim of impropriety.The Senate, not keen to move forward with new Fed nominations while so many questions hang in the air, finds itself at a standstill. Republican Thom Tillis, with sway on the Banking Committee, won’t advance candidates until these threads are resolved. Democrats—and even a Republican or two—share his hesitation. So, Warsh’s path is blocked, Miran stays at the Fed longer than even he expected, and Pierre Yared, now acting chair at the Council of Economic Advisers, waits for clarity on his position.Throughout his time at the Fed boardroom table, Miran consistently advocated lower interest rates—a stance that mirrors President Trump’s ongoing demands for a more aggressive monetary policy. Some might accuse the administration of seeking loyalty over independence, others say Miran simply followed the numbers. In either case, his exit is seen by observers in two distinct lights: as a return to more predictable boundaries, or as just another sign of Washington’s growing volatility.For all the commotion, it's tough to find anyone who accuses Miran of being less than honest—perhaps even blunt to a fault. Even his critics admit he navigated the awkward overlap with notable steadiness, his reputation emerging, if anything, a bit more resilient than before. In the relentless churn of political and economic news, Miran’s brief but notable double tenure will likely register as one more reminder of how tradition and necessity frequently collide in the nation’s capital.