By attempting to fire Federal Reserve Gov. Lisa Cook this week, President Donald Trump has broken with decades of precedent in American central banking. Governors are appointed for 14 years, specifically to insulate them from political pressure. Trump’s actions are now raising fundamental questions not only about the direction of Fed policy, but about the basic constitutional foundations of its work.

By attempting to fire Federal Reserve Gov. Lisa Cook this week, President Donald Trump has broken with decades of precedent in American central banking. Governors are appointed for 14 years, specifically to insulate them from political pressure. Trump’s actions are now raising fundamental questions not only about the direction of Fed policy, but about the basic constitutional foundations of its work.

What practical effects does the Federal Reserve’s independence have on its monetary work? What effect does political pressure have on interest rates? And what would an explicitly politicized Fed look like?

Those are just a few of the questions that came up in my recent conversation with FP economics columnist Adam Tooze on the podcast we co-host, Ones and Tooze. What follows is an excerpt, edited for length and clarity. For the full conversation, look for Ones and Tooze wherever you get your podcasts. And check out Adam’s Substack newsletter.

Cameron Abadi: How does the Fed’s political independence affect its practical real-world work?

Adam Tooze: In everyday life we all completely understand what this is about. This is about the question of whether or not you have to continuously demonstrate and prove, by some rather blunt-force means, the fact that you are serious in your commitment or promise to some future course of action. And the basic issue here is timing consistency. We might all agree that in the long run we’d be better off doing X, Y, or Z.