world

Concerns are mounting among US senators regarding potential deregulation of the Federal Reserve, sparking debate over the central bank’s oversight and its impact on financial stability. The scrutiny comes as Federal Reserve Vice Chair Michelle Bowman engaged in discussions with Republican Congressman Dan Meuser of Pennsylvania, signaling increased congressional interest in the Fed’s regulatory approach.

The debate centers on the potential rollback of regulations implemented following the 2008 financial crisis. Senators are voicing apprehension that easing these rules could expose the financial system to undue risk, potentially leading to another economic downturn. This concern is particularly acute given the current economic climate, characterized by persistent inflation and uncertainty surrounding future growth. The core issue revolves around the balance between fostering economic activity and maintaining a robust regulatory framework to prevent systemic risk.

Congressional Scrutiny of the Federal Reserve

The increased attention from Congress follows a period of relative calm in financial markets, but lawmakers are wary of complacency. According to reports, senators are particularly focused on the potential for deregulation to impact smaller banks, arguing that these institutions may lack the resources to adequately manage increased risk. The discussion with Bowman, as reported by picture alliance, likely touched upon these concerns and the Fed’s perspective on the appropriate level of regulation.

The timing of this scrutiny is also significant. Federal Reserve officials recently opted to hold interest rates steady, a decision that has drawn criticism from some quarters who believe a more aggressive approach is needed to combat inflation. This decision, as noted in a Bloomberg report, has led to Powell being “headed for a congressional grilling.” The debate over deregulation adds another layer of complexity to the Fed’s already challenging task of navigating the economic landscape.

The specific regulations under review are not yet fully defined, but discussions are expected to focus on capital requirements, stress testing, and the Volcker Rule, which restricts banks from engaging in proprietary trading. These regulations were designed to prevent a repeat of the risky behavior that contributed to the 2008 financial crisis. Opponents of deregulation argue that weakening these safeguards could incentivize banks to take on excessive risk, potentially jeopardizing the stability of the financial system.

Geopolitical and Economic Context

The US financial system’s stability has global implications. As the world’s largest economy, any significant disruption in the US financial sector could have ripple effects across international markets. The debate over Fed deregulation is therefore being closely watched by policymakers and investors around the world. The US dollar’s status as the world’s reserve currency means that any changes in US monetary policy or financial regulation can have a significant impact on global trade and investment flows.

The current economic environment adds to the urgency of the debate. Global economic growth is slowing, and geopolitical tensions are rising, creating a climate of uncertainty. Some argue that deregulation could provide a much-needed boost to economic activity, whereas others contend that it would be a reckless gamble with potentially devastating consequences. The potential for increased risk-taking by financial institutions is a key concern, particularly as global economic conditions remain volatile.

What to Watch Next

The coming weeks are likely to spot increased scrutiny of the Federal Reserve’s regulatory policies. Congressional hearings are expected to be held, where Fed officials will be questioned about their approach to deregulation. The outcome of these debates will have significant implications for the future of the US financial system and the global economy. The focus will be on whether lawmakers can strike a balance between fostering economic growth and maintaining financial stability. Further discussions between the Fed and Congress, as well as ongoing economic data releases, will be crucial in shaping the debate and determining the path forward.

What are your thoughts on the potential deregulation of the Federal Reserve? Share your comments below and join the conversation.

WASHINGTON – Former President Donald Trump is expected to address the nation following today’s Supreme Court ruling that significantly limits presidential authority over trade policy. The Court determined that the power to impose sweeping global tariffs rests with Congress, not the executive branch. This decision represents a major setback for Trump, whose administration frequently utilized tariffs as a key economic tool, but doesn’t necessarily signal the complete of his trade agenda.

The ruling, delivered on Friday, February 20, 2026, upholds the constitutional principle of separation of powers, asserting that Congress holds the authority to regulate commerce with foreign nations. While the Court struck down the president’s ability to unilaterally levy broad tariffs, it did leave in place existing tariffs on specific goods from certain countries, potentially offering the administration a pathway to refine its approach. The core of the dispute centered on whether the president could impose tariffs for broad policy goals, or if such actions require congressional approval.

The decision echoes historical precedents, where presidents have been granted limited leeway to impose tariffs in specific circumstances. President Richard Nixon, in 1971, implemented a sweeping tariff on imports to address a currency crisis, but the tariffs were short-lived, lasting only four months. Similarly, in 2003, President George W. Bush imposed tariffs on steel imports, maintaining them for approximately nine months, as reported by the Congressional Research Service (LSB11292). Had Trump adhered to these more limited timelines, more of his tariffs may have withstood legal challenges.

Supreme Court Ruling: A Constitutional Check on Presidential Power

The Supreme Court’s decision stems from a case, Trump v. United States (case number 23-939), argued in July 2024 (23-939_e2pg.pdf). The Court found that the president’s authority to regulate international trade is not unlimited and that Congress retains the power to define the scope of such regulations. This ruling builds upon a series of recent Supreme Court decisions that have scrutinized the extent of presidential power, particularly under the “unitary executive” theory, as noted in a Washington Post opinion piece (Trump, Firing, and the Supreme Court).

The administration now faces the task of navigating a novel legal landscape. Experts suggest the ruling may prompt a shift towards more targeted tariffs, focusing on specific goods or industries, rather than broad, global levies. This approach would likely require collaboration with Congress, a potentially challenging prospect given the current political climate. The Los Angeles Lawyer Magazine reported in November 2025 that Congress has largely acquiesced to Trump’s policies, but this dynamic could change in light of the Court’s decision (The Unitary Presidency: Trump’s Second Term, the Supreme Court…).

Trump’s Longstanding Advocacy for Tariffs

Despite the legal setback, analysts believe Trump is unlikely to abandon his long-held belief in the effectiveness of tariffs. For decades, he has argued that an aggressive tariffs regime is essential for competing with economic rivals, particularly China. This stance predates his entry into politics and remains a core tenet of his economic philosophy. In November 2025, the Supreme Court deferred a decision on whether Trump could fire the head of the U.S. Copyright Office, highlighting a pattern of challenging established norms (Supreme Court defers decision on whether Trump can fire head of…).

The former president’s upcoming address is anticipated to address the Court’s ruling and outline his future plans regarding trade policy. While the specifics remain unclear, it is widely expected that he will reiterate his commitment to protecting American industries and securing favorable trade deals. The focus will be on how the administration intends to perform within the new constitutional constraints imposed by the Supreme Court.

The implications of this ruling extend beyond the immediate trade landscape. It raises fundamental questions about the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches and could have lasting effects on future presidential administrations. The Court’s decision underscores the importance of congressional oversight in shaping trade policy and reinforces the constitutional framework designed to prevent any single branch from wielding unchecked authority.

As the situation develops, further details regarding Trump’s address and the administration’s response are expected. This is a developing story, and we will continue to provide updates as they become available.

What are your thoughts on the Supreme Court’s decision? Share your comments below, and please share this article with your network.

Last year, a Facebook advertisement promising to unlock “four steps” to secure a comfortable retirement prompted a phone call within minutes, offering connection to a financial advisor. The experience, recounted by money contributor Bec Wilson in an opinion piece published February 21, 2026, highlights a growing trend of aggressive lead generation tactics targeting Australians’ superannuation savings.

Wilson’s account details a swift progression from clicking the ad to being contacted by a representative of a referral service, who previously held a director position at a financial firm. She was then connected with an advisor for a “free” initial appointment, with no upfront fee information provided. The process involved requests for sensitive personal and financial data, including superannuation balances, member numbers, and even passport details, raising immediate concerns.

The incident coincided with ongoing scrutiny of firms like First Guardian and Shield, which are facing allegations of inducing over 12,000 Australians to transfer a collective $1 billion into complex and high-risk investment funds. Wilson notes her Facebook feed has since been inundated with similar super-switching advertisements, and she is even receiving ads targeting her as an advisor, suggesting a continued proliferation of these practices.

The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) has confirmed it is conducting a serious review of this type of lead generation, particularly where it encourages unnecessary superannuation switching. ASIC Commissioner Alan Kirkland described a common pattern: a social media ad, a form submission, a telemarketing call, and a recommendation to switch superannuation into a different structure. According to Kirkland, the most frequent outcome is a move from a regulated fund into a self-managed super fund (SMSF) or a retail platform with higher-risk investments.

Kirkland issued a stark warning to consumers: “If you spot an ad on social media, and they’re asking you to hand over your contact details so someone can talk to you about your super, that’s immediately something you should be cautious about because there have been thousands and thousands of cases where that’s led people to lose their retirement savings.”

ASIC has identified 44 companies potentially involved in these practices, encompassing both advice firms and referral companies, and has initiated court action in several super-switching cases involving high-risk investments. The firm Wilson was referred to is among those listed by ASIC, though the regulator’s inclusion does not imply wrongdoing, but confirms the widespread nature of the practice.

Australia’s total superannuation pool currently sits at approximately $4.5 trillion. The majority of Australians – around 62 percent – hold their savings in large, APRA-regulated MySuper funds, designed for individuals who prefer not to actively manage their investments or incur high fees. These funds are subject to performance benchmarking and public reporting by the Australian Taxation Office’s YourSuper tool.

Switching to a retail platform or SMSF alters this landscape. Retail platforms are not subject to the same performance tests, and SMSFs operate outside of APRA supervision, falling under ATO regulation. Wilson urges individuals to carefully consider several factors before making any changes, including their fund’s historical performance using independent tools like the ATO’s YourSuper comparison site and ASIC’s Moneysmart resources, the insurance coverage they may lose, all associated fees, and potential conflicts of interest.

Wilson, author of How to Have an Epic Retirement and Prime Time: 27 Lessons for the Latest Midlife, emphasizes the importance of questioning whether staying put was genuinely considered by the advisor, and whether the process began with an unsolicited advertisement creating a sense of urgency. She advises seeking advice deliberately, starting with one’s existing super fund, and consulting multiple advisors to understand their fees, investment models, and whether remaining in the current fund is a viable option.

Wilson’s newsletter, epicretirement.net, provides further resources for pre- and post-retirees. She cautions against making hasty decisions based on fear and encourages thorough research and careful consideration before altering superannuation arrangements.

The British Royal Family is attempting to maintain a sense of normalcy following the arrest of Prince Andrew, the Duke of York, on Thursday. The arrest, on suspicion of misconduct in public office, marks a latest and unprecedented development in a saga that has already presented a significant challenge to King Charles III in the early stages of his reign. The unfolding situation centers on allegations related to Andrew’s relationship with the late Jeffrey Epstein, and is being closely watched both domestically, and internationally.

While the arrest has triggered renewed scrutiny of the Royal Family, experts suggest the crisis is largely a personal one for its members, rather than a systemic threat to the monarchy itself. Royal historian Justin Vovk explained via email that the removal of Andrew’s titles and privileges last year created a “firewall” between him and the institution. This separation, Vovk argues, means the current investigation will primarily be navigated within the family, shielded from direct institutional impact.

Prince Andrew was arrested by Thames Valley Police and held for nearly 12 hours before being released under investigation, according to multiple reports. He has consistently denied all allegations of wrongdoing concerning his association with Epstein. The arrest stems from scrutiny surrounding claims that Andrew may have sent confidential government documents to Epstein, as reported by CNN and other UK media outlets.

King Charles’ Response and Maintaining Appearances

King Charles issued a statement Thursday, affirming his family’s commitment to their duties despite the ongoing investigation. “My family and I will continue in our duty and service to you all,” the King stated, signaling an intention to project business as usual. Judith Rowbotham, a social and cultural scholar at the University of Plymouth, noted that there have been no announcements of cancelled royal engagements, indicating a deliberate effort to maintain public appearances.

King Charles continued with his scheduled public engagements on Thursday, meeting with new ambassadors to the U.K. At St. James’s Palace and attending London Fashion Week, as shown in this image from the Associated Press. Queen Camilla too carried out a previously scheduled engagement, meeting with musicians and attending a lunchtime concert.

Calls for Further Investigation and Republican Sentiment

The anti-monarchy group Republic has been vocal in its calls for a thorough police investigation into Prince Andrew’s conduct. CEO Graham Smith stated that the organization had previously reported Andrew to the police and initiated a private prosecution when they felt authorities were hesitant to act, according to a statement released by the organization. Smith also urged King Charles and Prince William to address the situation directly and disclose any prior knowledge they may have had regarding Andrew’s actions.

Despite the ongoing controversy, Rowbotham indicated there is currently no significant public demand for the abolition of the monarchy or a transition to a republic. However, the arrest has been welcomed by those who advocate for such changes.

Looking Ahead

The decision to strip Prince Andrew of his royal titles last year, as reported by The New York Times, appears to have created a degree of separation between Andrew and the core institution. However, the ongoing police investigation raises numerous questions, including the potential for further charges related to his conduct and the extent of his network of associates. The immediate future will likely involve a period of quiet as the investigation proceeds, with the Royal Family focused on navigating the crisis internally.

The situation remains fluid, and further developments are anticipated. Share your thoughts on this evolving story in the comments below.