Why the Federal Reserve Must Remain Independent

Last updated 3 weeks ago. Our resources are updated regularly but please keep in mind that links, programs, policies, and contact information do change.

The Federal Reserve is America’s central bank, created by Congress in 1913 to provide the nation with a safer, more flexible, and more stable monetary and financial system.

The Federal Reserve’s history shows how this institution emerged from the financial chaos of the early 1900s, when the U.S. government had to rely on private financier J.P. Morgan to stabilize the banking system during the Panic of 1907.

While the Fed may seem like a distant institution, its decisions directly affect every American. When the Fed raises or lowers interest rates, it influences mortgage costs, car loan rates, job availability, and the purchasing power of every dollar in your wallet. The Fed’s monetary policy touches virtually every aspect of economic life.

Policies that boost employment, such as lowering interest rates to encourage borrowing and spending, can sometimes trigger inflation. Meanwhile, actions needed to fight inflation, like raising rates to cool the economy, can slow growth and eliminate jobs. These goals don’t always align, making monetary policy one of the most difficult balancing acts in government.

This inherent conflict explains why the Federal Reserve was designed with a unique feature: independence. The Fed operates as an “independent entity within the government,” meaning that while Congress sets its goals, the Fed’s decisions on how to achieve them don’t require approval from the President or other elected officials.

What Central Bank Independence Really Means

Federal Reserve independence isn’t absolute freedom. The Fed remains a creation of Congress, which established its existence, defined its objectives, and retains the authority to change the laws governing it. The more accurate description is that the Fed is “independent within the government” – it operates with significant operational freedom but remains accountable to elected representatives.

The crucial distinction lies in operational independence. While Congress sets broad goals, it delegates authority to the Fed to decide how to achieve those goals. This means the Fed can raise or lower interest rates and deploy other monetary policy tools based on expert analysis of economic data, without seeking prior approval from the White House or Capitol Hill.

This model has become a global standard, largely as a reaction to the “Great Inflation” of the 1970s. That period of high inflation combined with high unemployment, known as stagflation, created political will in the United States and abroad to delegate monetary authority to institutions focused on long-term price stability.

Avoiding the Political Business Cycle

The primary argument for independence centers on insulating monetary policy from election pressures. Elected officials naturally focus on short-term results. There’s a powerful political temptation to push for “easy money” policies – such as lower interest rates – in the months before an election.

Cheaper borrowing costs can stimulate economic activity, boost hiring, and make voters feel more prosperous, potentially improving an incumbent’s reelection chances. However, this short-term gain often comes at the expense of long-term economic health. Overstimulating the economy can lead to rising inflation, which erodes the value of savings and wages and can destabilize the entire economy.

This can create an artificial and damaging “political business cycle” of boom followed by bust. An independent central bank, staffed by experts with long-term appointments, can resist these pressures. It can make the politically unpopular but economically necessary decision to raise interest rates to prevent inflation.

Former Fed Chair William McChesney Martin Jr. famously described this role as taking away “the punch bowl just when the party was really warming up.” By creating an independent Fed, Congress established what economists call a “commitment device” – a way for the government to pre-commit to more disciplined, long-term policy.

The Power of Credibility

A central bank’s effectiveness depends heavily on its credibility. Managing a modern economy requires managing public expectations about the future, particularly regarding inflation. If businesses and workers expect prices to rise rapidly, they act accordingly: businesses raise prices, and workers demand higher wages. This behavior can create a self-fulfilling inflationary spiral that’s difficult and painful to break.

An independent central bank is better positioned to build and maintain credibility. When the public and financial markets believe the Fed is genuinely committed to its long-term goal of price stability – defined as an average inflation rate of 2 percent – their expectations become “anchored.”

This anchoring proves immensely valuable. Even when temporary shocks, like a surge in oil prices, cause inflation to rise, people remain confident that the Fed will act to bring it back down. This confidence prevents a temporary price spike from becoming embedded in the economy as a permanent wage-price spiral.

Well-anchored expectations make the Fed’s job less painful for everyone. Because the public believes inflation will be controlled, the central bank doesn’t need to raise interest rates as aggressively or induce as severe a recession to restore price stability.

Separating Monetary from Fiscal Policy

A final critical rationale for independence is creating a firewall between the two main levers of government economic policy. Monetary policy, controlled by the Fed, involves managing the money supply and credit conditions. Fiscal policy, controlled by Congress and the President, involves decisions about government spending and taxation.

Independence prevents the government from using the central bank’s ability to create money as a way to finance its spending. If the Treasury could simply order the Fed to print money to cover budget deficits, it would remove the need for politically difficult decisions about raising taxes or cutting spending.

This practice, known as “monetizing the debt,” is a recipe for economic disaster. History is filled with examples, from Weimar Germany in the 1920s to modern-day Venezuela and Zimbabwe, where subordinating the central bank to fiscal authorities led to hyperinflation, destroying the currency and devastating the economy.

The Architecture of Independence and Accountability

The Federal Reserve’s structure directly reflects the historical and political forces that shaped its creation. It represents a uniquely American invention, born from deep suspicion of concentrated power, whether in federal government hands or those of powerful private financiers.

A Public-Private, Centralized-Decentralized Compromise

The need for a central bank became undeniable after the Panic of 1907, when the U.S. government had to rely on J.P. Morgan’s private capital to stabilize the banking system. This event highlighted the nation’s vulnerability, but the path to reform was fraught with political conflict.

Some feared a powerful central government bank, recalling the contentious history of the First and Second Banks of the United States. Others worried about a system controlled by Wall Street’s “Money Trust.”

The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 was the ultimate compromise. Instead of a single central bank, the act created a decentralized system consisting of a central governing agency in Washington – the Board of Governors – and twelve regional Federal Reserve Banks spread across the country.

This structure was intended to balance public oversight with private-sector and regional input, ensuring that Main Street’s economic concerns were represented alongside those of Washington and Wall Street. The regional banks gather vital on-the-ground economic intelligence from their districts, which informs national policymaking.

This hybrid public-private design frequently causes confusion. The regional Reserve Banks are technically private corporations whose stock is owned by commercial “member banks” within their district. This has fueled persistent misconceptions that the Fed is “owned” by private bankers.

In reality, this ownership is a legal formality. The stock cannot be sold or traded, and it doesn’t confer control the way corporate stock normally does. The Federal Reserve System as a whole is an independent entity within the government, which remits its profits to the U.S. Treasury and isn’t operated for private profit.

The Pillars of Independence

Several specific features of the Fed’s design safeguard its operational independence:

Leadership Structure: The seven Board of Governors members are appointed to long, 14-year terms that are staggered so one expires every two years. This structure spans multiple presidential and congressional terms, ensuring no single president can easily “stack the board” with political allies. A governor can only be removed by the president “for cause,” a high legal standard that historically has meant dereliction of duty, not policy disagreements.

Financial Autonomy: The Federal Reserve isn’t funded by congressional appropriations. Instead, its operations are financed primarily through interest earned on its portfolio of U.S. government securities. This financial independence prevents Congress from using the “power of the purse” to threaten the Fed’s budget and coerce it into adopting certain policies. After paying operational expenses, the Fed transfers remaining earnings to the U.S. Treasury – often tens of billions of dollars annually.

Policy Deliberation: The primary tool of monetary policy – the target for the federal funds rate – is set by the Federal Open Market Committee. The FOMC’s voting structure blends Washington-based Governors with presidents of regional Reserve Banks, ensuring policy decisions are informed by a wide range of data and perspectives.

The Framework of Accountability

With independence comes the obligation of accountability. The Fed’s freedom operates within a framework designed to ensure transparency and hold it responsible to Congress and the American people.

Congressional Accountability: The Fed Chair is required to testify before congressional committees multiple times per year to explain policy decisions and economic outlook. The Fed also submits a comprehensive Monetary Policy Report to Congress twice yearly.

Transparency as Accountability: The Fed has become significantly more transparent over recent decades. The FOMC issues a public statement immediately following each of its eight scheduled meetings per year. The Chair holds press conferences to answer media questions. Detailed minutes of each meeting are released three weeks later, providing insight into the committee’s deliberations.

Audits and Financial Reporting: The Fed’s financial statements are subject to multiple audit layers. An independent, external accounting firm audits the Board of Governors’ and Reserve Banks’ financial statements annually. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) conducts frequent audits of Fed operations. The one area the GAO is prohibited from auditing is the substance of monetary policy deliberations and decisions – a restriction designed to protect core functions from short-term political pressure.

Forged in Conflict: Three Defining Moments

The principle of Federal Reserve independence wasn’t simply written into law and forgotten. It has been tested, challenged, and solidified through high-stakes economic crises that forced the institution to prove its worth.

The 1951 Treasury-Fed Accord

The modern era of Federal Reserve independence began in 1951, not 1913. During World War II, the Fed had willingly subordinated its monetary policy to the war effort. At the Treasury’s request, the Fed committed to “pegging” interest rates at artificially low levels – holding short-term Treasury bills at just 0.375% and capping long-term bonds at 2.5%.

This policy allowed the government to finance the war’s immense cost as cheaply as possible. The Fed essentially gave up control over its balance sheet and the nation’s money supply, becoming an arm of the Treasury’s debt-management operations.

After the war, this arrangement became untenable. The U.S. economy faced rampant inflation. Between 1946 and 1948, consumer prices surged. The Korean War’s outbreak in 1950 added fuel to the fire, with annualized inflation reaching 21 percent by early 1951.

The Federal Open Market Committee, led by Chairman Thomas McCabe and Governor Marriner Eccles, recognized that continuing to hold down interest rates was like pouring gasoline on an inflationary fire. They argued for the need to raise rates to cool the economy.

President Harry Truman and Treasury Secretary John Snyder fiercely resisted. They were determined to keep borrowing costs low to finance the Korean War and protect the value of war bonds held by millions of Americans. The conflict escalated into a public political showdown.

After a tense White House meeting, President Truman issued a statement claiming the FOMC had pledged to continue supporting the peg – a claim committee members vehemently denied. The dispute became a crisis of institutional authority.

Finally, on March 4, 1951, after intense negotiations, both sides announced a “full accord”. This landmark agreement formally separated monetary policy from Treasury debt management. The Fed was no longer obligated to peg interest rates and was free to pursue policies aimed at stabilizing the economy, even if it meant higher government borrowing costs.

The 1951 Treasury-Fed Accord was a declaration of independence that marked the birth of the modern Fed and established the principle that the central bank’s primary responsibility was to the long-term health of the economy, not the short-term financing needs of the government.

Paul Volcker and the Great Inflation

By the late 1970s, the U.S. economy was suffering from the “Great Inflation,” a period of soaring prices that saw inflation climb from just 1 percent in the mid-1960s to a peak of 14.8 percent in 1980. Public confidence was shattered, and a dangerous “inflationary psychology” had taken hold, where people expected prices to keep rising indefinitely.

Previous Fed chairs had been widely seen as lacking the political fortitude to take the tough medicine needed to cure the disease, often backing down when faced with political pressure from presidents who favored cheap credit.

Appointed Fed Chairman by President Jimmy Carter in August 1979, Paul Volcker was determined to succeed where his predecessors had failed. At his confirmation hearing, he made his intentions clear, pledging that fighting inflation would be his “top priority” and that the Fed would “have to call the shots as we see them.”

On October 6, 1979, he acted. In a dramatic, unscheduled press conference, Volcker announced a radical shift in Fed policy. The FOMC would stop targeting the day-to-day level of the federal funds rate and instead focus on controlling the quantity of bank reserves – a monetarist-inspired approach designed to choke off money supply growth.

The consequences of this “Volcker Shock” were immediate and brutal. Interest rates skyrocketed. The federal funds rate, which had averaged 11.2% in 1979, soared to a peak of 20% in June 1981, and the prime lending rate for businesses climbed above 21%.

This aggressive credit tightening plunged the country into a deep recession from 1981 to 1982, pushing unemployment to nearly 11 percent. The political and public backlash was ferocious. Volcker was vilified. Farmers, crushed by high interest rates and low commodity prices, drove their tractors to Washington to blockade the Fed’s headquarters. Homebuilders mailed pieces of lumber to the Fed in protest of the housing market’s collapse. “Wanted” posters were printed with Volcker’s face on them.

There were widespread calls in Congress for his resignation, and some even threatened impeachment. Yet Volcker and the Fed did not flinch. By withstanding this immense political heat, the Fed achieved its goal. By the mid-1980s, inflation had been crushed, falling back into the low single digits.

More importantly, the Fed’s credibility was restored. Volcker’s painful but resolute actions are now universally seen as the ultimate demonstration of an independent central bank’s value – the ability to impose necessary short-term pain to achieve vital long-term economic stability.

The 2008 Financial Crisis

The global financial crisis of 2008 presented a different kind of challenge. It wasn’t a battle against inflation but a desperate fight to prevent complete financial system collapse and a second Great Depression. The Fed, under Chairman Ben Bernanke, was forced to act as the ultimate “lender of last resort” on an entirely unprecedented scale.

The Fed’s response was swift, massive, and innovative. It slashed its target for the federal funds rate effectively to zero. It invoked its emergency lending powers under Section 13(3) of the Federal Reserve Act to provide liquidity not just to traditional banks, but to a vast array of non-bank financial institutions at the crisis’s heart.

This included facilitating the rescue of investment bank Bear Stearns and providing a massive support package to insurance giant AIG to prevent its catastrophic failure. The Fed also launched a series of large-scale asset purchase programs, popularly known as “quantitative easing” (QE), buying trillions of dollars in long-term Treasury and mortgage-backed securities to push down long-term interest rates and support the housing market.

While these actions are widely credited with preventing a far worse economic outcome, they were deeply controversial and posed a new kind of threat to Fed independence. By lending to specific firms and purchasing assets in specific markets, the Fed was engaging in “credit allocation” – effectively picking winners and losers.

This blurred the traditional line between monetary policy and fiscal policy, which is Congress’s constitutional domain. The perception that the Fed was “bailing out Wall Street” while “Main Street” suffered led to a sharp decline in public trust and a surge in political attacks from both left and right.

The political backlash had lasting consequences. The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 preserved the Fed’s core independence in setting interest rates. However, it placed new restrictions on the Fed’s emergency lending powers, requiring Treasury Department approval for some programs and limiting its ability to lend to individual firms.

The crisis demonstrated that while Fed independence is robust, it isn’t absolute. When the central bank is forced to venture into the gray area between monetary and fiscal policy, it can provoke a political response that leads to new constraints on its authority.

The Case Against Unchecked Independence

While the economic case for an independent Federal Reserve is strong and widely accepted among mainstream economists, it faces powerful and persistent criticisms that raise fundamental questions about democratic governance, accountability, and the potential for an insulated, technocratic institution to make catastrophic errors.

The Democratic Accountability Gap

The most fundamental critique of Fed independence is philosophical: in a representative democracy, it’s inherently problematic to concentrate so much power over citizens’ economic well-being in the hands of a small group of unelected officials.

Critics argue this creates a “democratic deficit.” When the Fed raises interest rates, it can slow the economy and lead to job losses, affecting millions of families. Yet the officials making these momentous decisions – the Board of Governors members and regional Reserve Bank presidents – aren’t on any ballot and can’t be voted out of office by a public that disagrees with their policies.

This accountability gap is a source of constant tension. While the Fed is formally accountable to Congress, this oversight is indirect. This has led to a perception that the Fed is an “uncontrollable” and “self-perpetuating oligarchy” that operates outside normal channels of democratic control.

This tension creates a paradox: the very mechanisms designed to ensure accountability, such as the Fed Chair’s regular congressional testimony, often become the primary venues for political pressure that threatens independence. Public hearings and media scrutiny, while essential for transparency, can be used by politicians to publicly attack the Fed and demand specific policy outcomes.

The Risk of Groupthink and Major Policy Errors

A second major criticism is that the Fed’s insulation from outside pressure can foster an insular institutional culture prone to intellectual “groupthink” and consensus that can lead to monumental policy errors. Without the disruptive influence of more direct political accountability, the Fed can become captured by a dominant economic ideology and fail to see emerging risks.

Critics point to two of the most significant economic calamities in American history as evidence:

The Great Depression: Nobel laureate Milton Friedman and collaborator Anna Schwartz famously argued that Federal Reserve policy failures were a primary cause of the Great Depression’s severity. They contended that facing the 1929 stock market crash and subsequent banking panics, the Fed pursued an erroneously restrictive monetary policy, allowing the nation’s money supply to contract by a third and failing to act as a lender of last resort.

The 2008 Financial Crisis: In the years leading up to the 2008 crisis, critics argued that the Fed under Chairman Alan Greenspan held interest rates too low for too long following the 2001 recession. This “easy money” policy, they contend, fueled the unsustainable housing bubble and the proliferation of risky subprime mortgages that lay at the crisis’s heart.

In both cases, critics suggest that a Fed more accountable to a wider range of political and public viewpoints might have been less likely to fall into the intellectual traps that led to disaster.

Mission Creep: Straying into Political Territory

In recent years, a new critique has emerged: that the Federal Reserve is suffering from “mission creep,” expanding its mandate into areas that are inherently political and far outside its core responsibilities of monetary policy and financial stability.

There’s growing concern, particularly among some members of Congress, that the Fed has begun to wade into contentious social and political issues such as climate change, racial economic inequality, and corporate diversity.

While proponents argue that these issues have significant economic implications, critics contend that they are the proper domain of elected legislators, not unelected central bankers. By taking positions on these topics, the Fed risks squandering its most valuable asset: its reputation for political neutrality.

This expansion of its remit undermines the very justification for its independence and invites political attacks that could compromise its ability to conduct its core mission effectively.

Calls for Reform and Increased Oversight

These criticisms have fueled persistent efforts in Congress to increase political oversight and rein in the Fed’s power. The most prominent is the “Audit the Fed” movement, which advocates for legislation that would allow the Government Accountability Office to conduct a full audit of the Fed’s monetary policy deliberations and decisions.

Proponents argue this would bring much-needed transparency and accountability, while opponents warn it would effectively end Fed independence by subjecting its interest rate decisions to second-guessing and intense political pressure.

Other proposed reforms have included bills to change the governance structure, such as making the twelve regional Reserve Bank presidents into presidential appointees requiring Senate confirmation, rather than being selected by their local boards of directors.

These proposals reflect an ongoing and unresolved debate in American politics about how to strike the right balance between the acknowledged economic benefits of central bank independence and the fundamental principles of democratic accountability.

A Global Perspective: The Fed vs. Other Central Banks

The American model of central banking isn’t the only approach to balancing independence and accountability. Examining other major central banks provides valuable context, revealing that while the principle of independence is nearly universal among advanced economies, its specific design is deeply rooted in each nation’s unique political history and culture.

The European Central Bank: A Fortress of Independence

The European Central Bank, which sets monetary policy for the 20 countries using the euro, is often considered the world’s most independent central bank. Its independence isn’t just a matter of domestic law, as with the Fed, but is enshrined in an international treaty – the Maastricht Treaty – making it exceptionally difficult for politicians to alter.

This formidable independence is coupled with a mandate that’s narrower and more hierarchical than the Fed’s. The treaty explicitly states that the ECB’s primary objective is to maintain price stability. While the ECB is also required to support the European Union’s general economic policies, this is a secondary goal, to be pursued only as long as it doesn’t prejudice the primary objective of price stability.

This stands in stark contrast to the Fed’s co-equal “dual mandate” of maximum employment and stable prices. This structure was a deliberate political choice, reflecting the deep historical anxieties of the nations that formed the Eurozone. Countries like Germany, with traumatic national memory of 1920s hyperinflation, would only agree to give up their own currency if the new supranational central bank had an ironclad, legally binding commitment to fighting inflation above all else.

The Bank of England: A Different Model of Partnership

The Bank of England, one of the world’s oldest central banks, offers a different model that some see as striking a more direct balance between technocratic expertise and democratic accountability. The BoE was granted operational independence to set interest rates in 1997, but its framework differs from the Fed’s in a crucial respect.

Unlike the Fed or ECB, the Bank of England doesn’t define its own inflation goal. Instead, the British government – specifically, the Chancellor of the Exchequer – sets a specific, numerical inflation target for the bank to achieve. The Bank’s Monetary Policy Committee then has complete operational independence to decide what interest rate is needed to meet that politically determined target.

This model maintains a clear line of democratic legitimacy for monetary policy goals, while delegating the technical methods of achieving those goals to independent experts. Furthermore, the UK government formally retains reserve powers to direct the bank in “extreme economic circumstances,” a direct political override that has no equivalent in the U.S. system.

This structure reflects the UK’s parliamentary system of government, where ultimate authority resides with the elected government, even as it delegates operational tasks to an independent body. These varying models demonstrate that central bank independence isn’t monolithic.

The Fed’s unique, decentralized, public-private structure is a product of America’s federalist system and its historical suspicion of concentrated power. The ECB’s treaty-based, inflation-focused design reflects a multinational compromise born from Europe’s 20th-century history. The Bank of England’s model of “constrained discretion” is a natural fit for a parliamentary democracy.

Each represents a tailored solution, proving that while the goal of insulating monetary policy from short-term political pressure is a shared value, the institutional architecture used to achieve it can and does vary significantly.

Our articles make government information more accessible. Please consult a qualified professional for financial, legal, or health advice specific to your circumstances.