Saved articles

You have not yet added any article to your bookmarks!

Browse articles
Newsletter image

Subscribe to the Newsletter

Join 10k+ people to get notified about new posts, news and tips.

Do not worry we don't spam!

GDPR Compliance

We use cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. By continuing to use our site, you accept our use of cookies, Cookie Policy, Privacy Policy, and Terms of Service.

Trump's Threats Against the Fed Chair Signal Escalating Authoritarianism

In a recent dramatic flare-up, former President Donald Trump has threatened to fire Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, labeling him as 'TOO LATE AND WRONG' in a social media post. Trump asserted, 'Powell’s termination cannot come soon enough,' while reiterating at a White House briefing, 'If I want him out, he’ll be out of there real fast, believe me.' Trump's remarks not only blatantly challenge the legality of such an action—given that Powell has a term appointment—but also exemplify a growing trend of governing through intimidation and decree that some analysts argue borders on authoritarianism. Robert Kuttner, co-founder of The American Prospect, writes that this moment could serve as an inflection point wherein institutional pushback against Trump becomes a necessity. Recent history shows the repercussions of capitulation to Trump. Universities, such as Harvard and Columbia, have begun to take a stand against unjust demands, recognizing that yielding only emboldens Trump's further intrusions into various sectors. Kuttner highlights how numerous law firms, initially believing they could find peace by appeasing Trump with financial support, now find themselves trapped in an escalating cycle of demands. Drawing a parallel to the judicial system, he explains that while lower courts have ruled against Trump's actions, the Supreme Court has shown reluctance to decisively engage, leaving many questions about legality languishing in limbo. Additionally, Kuttner points out the pervasive fear among Republican lawmakers, as exemplified by Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski’s candid admission of anxiety regarding potential retaliation. This reflects a deeper issue within the party, where the intimidation tactics of a former president have led to a chilling of dissent, even when his policies appear detrimental to their constituents. The message is clear: opposing views and independent journalism are increasingly crucial as the nation faces an ideological battle—a condition urgent enough to spur editor David Dayen at The American Prospect to call on readers for support in the fight against this trend. In this climate, where the stakes are high, maintaining a steadfast opposition to authoritarian impulses is paramount for the preservation of democratic norms and institutions.

Bias Analysis

Bias Score:
85/100
Neutral Biased
This news has been analyzed from  22  different sources.
Bias Assessment: The article exhibits a significant bias, primarily against Trump and his administration, utilizing strongly charged language and emphasizing illegal activities attributed to them without equal scrutiny on opposing viewpoints or action. The framing portrays actions taken by Trump as unequivocally authoritarian, leaning heavily on alarmist rhetoric that suggests an imminent threat to democracy without balanced representation of alternative perspectives or accomplishments.

Key Questions About This Article

Think and Consider

Related to this topic: