Warsh Should Have Exposed the Fed! If President Trump’s account is accurate, Kevin Warsh missed a defining opportunity. The Federal Reserve did not merely raise rates. It demonstrated how far America’s central bank has drifted from a transparent, data-driven institution toward a political actor insulated from democratic scrutiny. Trump says he discussed the chairman’s planned vote with Warsh beforehand. Warsh’s reported response was telling: he might as well vote with the Board because “it’s not going to matter.” That is not how a central bank committed to evidence and accountability should operate. It is how a closed political institution operates when dissent is treated as irrelevant. Warsh should have dissented. More importantly, he should have gone public with a clear explanation: what did the inflation data show, what did employment and growth data show, and why did the Fed nevertheless choose tighter policy? If the Fed’s decision was defensible, the case should withstand public scrutiny. If it was not, Americans deserved to know. Instead, the public is left with the unmistakable impression that the Fed’s leaders are less concerned with following the evidence than with resisting Donald Trump. The institution that controls the price of money cannot demand independence while behaving like another partisan power center. A public dissent from Warsh would have forced the issue. It would have shown whether the Fed was guided by theory and data—or by a political desire to deny Trump an economic victory.