In a week marked by heightened scrutiny of the nation’s financial regulators, President Donald Trump and House Financial Services Committee Chair French Hill, R-Ark., have both thrust monetary policy and banking oversight into the spotlight, setting the stage for consequential changes in the months ahead. The dual focus on the Federal Reserve’s leadership and the future of deposit insurance signals a moment of flux for U.S. economic policy, with potential ripple effects for markets, banks, and consumers nationwide.
On November 19, 2025, President Trump took the stage at the U.S. Saudi Investment Forum in Washington and delivered some of his sharpest criticism yet of Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell. According to Investing.com, Trump did not mince words, declaring he “would love to fire” Powell and recounting a tense exchange with Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent. “The rates are too high, Scott, and if you don’t get it fixed fast, I’m gonna fire your ass,” Trump said, relaying his impatience with the pace of interest rate cuts. Trump’s comments revealed the mounting pressure within the White House to move quickly on monetary policy as Powell’s term draws to a close in May 2026.
Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, Trump added, was “a little bit more for firing,” with Trump suggesting Lutnick would urge him to “get him the hell out.” The remarks, delivered with characteristic bluntness, underscored the administration’s desire for a more accommodative stance from the Fed and a leadership change at the top.
The succession process, meanwhile, is well underway. Last month, Treasury Secretary Bessent confirmed that the list of candidates to replace Powell has been narrowed to five: Fed Governors Christopher Waller and Michelle Bowman, National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett, former Fed Governor Kevin Warsh, and BlackRock executive Rick Rieder. Multiple media outlets have corroborated these names, and Trump himself indicated a replacement is likely to be named by year-end—months ahead of Powell’s official departure.
Despite the fiery rhetoric, the White House later sought to temper the sense of internal discord. In a statement, officials expressed “complete confidence” in Bessent and reaffirmed Trump’s “search for a new – and competent – chairman of the Federal Reserve,” as reported by Investing.com. Still, the compressed timeline and public airing of disagreements have thrust the Fed’s future leadership into the center of market debate.
Financial markets, ever attuned to signals from Washington, are already handicapping the race. Adam Crisafulli of Vital Knowledge told Investing.com, “Trump could name his Powell replacement at any moment.” While all five candidates are on the official shortlist, Crisafulli noted that markets view Hassett, Warsh, and Waller as the true frontrunners. “Hassett [is] the most likely person to get the nod,” he said, but added, “Waller would be the best-case outcome for markets.”
The distinction between the candidates is not trivial. According to Crisafulli, while the leading contenders generally lean dovish on interest rates, they are “more hawkish on the balance sheet.” The Federal Reserve is expected to resume balance-sheet expansion in the first quarter of 2026 for liquidity purposes. However, Crisafulli cautioned that in a future crisis, there would be “a lot more resistance to deploying the balance sheet in the post-Powell Fed.”
All eyes are now on the upcoming Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) meeting scheduled for December 10, 2025. Crisafulli sees two plausible outcomes: a rate cut accompanied by continued division inside the committee, or unchanged rates with more dovish messaging and less acrimony. “Of the two scenarios, the latter would be the ideal outcome for equities,” he concluded.
As the White House zeroes in on its choice for the next Fed chair, Congress is tackling its own set of weighty financial questions. House Financial Services Committee Chairman French Hill has emerged as a key figure in the debate over deposit insurance reform and the fate of failing banks. Unlike the Senate Banking Committee, which has focused on a narrowly tailored “skinny” bill to raise the deposit insurance limit for non-interest-bearing accounts, Hill is pushing for a broader, more comprehensive approach.
Speaking to reporters a day after a high-profile hearing, Hill explained his committee’s stance. “This is a complicated area that deserves thought, and everyone who's testified acknowledges they don't have the math and the data to support making a decision that is not well considered,” Hill said, as reported by multiple outlets. He emphasized the importance of weighing all available ideas, rather than “just cherry picking one idea out there.”
Hill’s committee is considering significant changes, including waiving the least-cost resolution requirement for the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. (FDIC) when selling failed banks—if doing so would promote competition. Other modifications to the FDIC’s bank resolution toolkit are also on the table. “We tried to attach to the hearing all ideas that we've been hearing about over recent months,” Hill said, highlighting the committee’s wide-ranging review.
When pressed about the Senate’s “skinny” bill, known as the Hagerty-Alsobrooks bill, Hill declined to say whether he would take it up, signaling skepticism about a piecemeal fix. Instead, he reiterated the need for a comprehensive strategy that fully addresses the complexities of deposit insurance and bank failures.
Hill also addressed industry concerns surrounding the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), particularly regarding its organization and funding. “Members have always expressed concerns about the CFPB's organization and its source of funding from the day it was created,” Hill said, but he acknowledged the bureau’s legal responsibilities and the ongoing need for clarity on its future. Hill revealed that his committee is working with the Office of Management and Budget to understand the administration’s long-term “roadmap” for the CFPB, especially as questions loom about the bureau’s funding and ability to carry out its mandate.
Stakeholders, Hill noted, are eager for answers on pending rules and unresolved complaints. “I hear from stakeholders routinely, 'How am I going to get my new version of 1033 published? How am I going to have a new rule 1071 published? How am I going to resolve maybe a customer complaint issue that's still pending over there or some form of litigation?'” Hill said, underscoring the practical implications for banks, consumers, and regulators alike.
With both the White House and Congress grappling with leadership transitions, regulatory reforms, and the broader direction of U.S. monetary policy, the coming months promise to be pivotal. The stakes are high—not just for policymakers and market participants, but for millions of Americans whose financial well-being depends on sound, stable, and forward-looking oversight of the nation’s economic institutions.
As the clock ticks toward the end of Powell’s term and the December FOMC meeting, the nation’s economic future hangs in the balance, shaped by forces both inside and outside the halls of power.