Trump's dismissal of Federal Reserve Board member Lisa Cook is not only the first such case in 111 years, but also a sharp knife piercing the 'institutional protective layer' of trust in the global financial system— the independence of the Federal Reserve. This is far from a simple personnel change; it is a blatant challenge to the long-standing consensus of 'political non-interference in monetary policy,' and the chain reactions it triggers have long gone beyond the United States, evolving into a crisis of trust in global markets.
From an institutional logic perspective, the independence of the Federal Reserve is the 'keystone' of global financial stability. The establishment of this principle in 1913 (Federal Reserve Act) essentially aimed to separate monetary policy from short-term political games, focusing on core economic goals like inflation and employment, and preventing the president from forcibly implementing loose or tight policies for short-term political gains. Now, Trump has broken the 'tacit agreement' by directly intervening in the appointment and dismissal of board members, effectively opening the Pandora's box of 'political manipulation of monetary policy.' Even if this dismissal is ultimately stalled by judicial review, the expectation that 'the president can arbitrarily shake up Federal Reserve personnel' has formed; regardless of who governs in the future, market trust in Federal Reserve policy will be significantly discounted. Once trust is lost, rebuilding it will be as difficult as climbing to the sky.
For the market, short-term fluctuations are merely a façade; the deeper hidden danger lies in the soaring 'policy uncertainty premium.' The violent oscillation of sensitive assets like cryptocurrencies seems to be an immediate reaction to 'black swans,' but in reality, it is a panic response to the 'disorder of policy logic.' When Federal Reserve policies may tilt towards political interests, investors can no longer rely on economic data to predict the direction of monetary policy and can only passively endure the risks of 'policy flip-flopping.' More worrisome is that if the Federal Reserve loses the trust of the global market, its role as the 'global central bank' will be weakened, and the global capital flows and trade settlement order originally supported by the dollar system may fall into more prolonged turmoil.
As for the expectation that 'a shift to dovish monetary policy is favorable for cryptocurrencies,' it is more like a short-term fantasy of the market amidst chaos. Even if there are indeed loose policies in the future, it would come at the cost of sacrificing the Federal Reserve's long-term credibility—a 'drinking poison to quench thirst' scenario. The short-term benefits of easing cannot offset the long-term risks caused by 'damaged institutional foundations.' For investors, the most pressing concern should not be the short-term ups and downs of certain assets, but rather a reassessment of the underlying logic of 'the reliability of the US financial system': when rules once considered 'safe boundaries' are broken, any investment strategy based on old consensus must incorporate 'political interference' as a high-risk variable and prepare for the restructuring of the global financial order.
The cost of this 'institutional gamble' may need to be borne by the global market for years or even longer. Trump's dismissal order not only shakes the independence of the Federal Reserve but also undermines the foundation of global capital trust in the US financial system, which is a 'gray rhino' more worthy of vigilance than short-term market fluctuations.
