graham steele

@adamtooze.bsky.social on Trump’s Fed nominee Stephen Miran’s defense of the Trump tariffs in April.

Trump names Stephen Miran as his temporary pick to join the Fed's board of governors after Adriana Kugler announced last week that she would step down from her position roughly six months before her term expires. Miran will need to be confirmed by the Senate for that position

he Stanford Daily covers news related to Stanford University, publishing short- and long-form articles along with editorials. Since the October 7, 2023, attack, The Stanford Daily has included coverage of student opinions and campus protests related to the conflict in Gaza. Since March 2025, fearing Secretary Rubio will revoke their visas under the Revocation Provision or Case 5:25-cv-06618 Document 1 Filed 08/06/25 Page 4 of 36 –4– VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF CASE NO. 5:25-cv-06618 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 render them deportable under the Deportation Provision, many of the paper’s noncitizen writers who are lawfully present in the United States have self-censored by declining to cover pro-Palestinian student protests at Stanford, refraining from covering topics related to the conflict in Gaza, and seeking removal of their previous articles about it

Stanford's student paper sues Noem and Rubio, saying their policies cause non-citizen students to avoid expressing themselves freely in the Daily's pages due to fear of detention and deportation

h/t @joshgerstein.bsky.social

www.thefire.org/sites/defaul...

This is well said.
bsky.app/profile/dand...

If the reports that he is the front runner to be the next Fed chair are accurate, this sort of thing does not inspire confidence that he will be an independent thinker.

The SEC's Division of Corp Finance has figured out a way to defeat the purpose of the provision in the new stablecoin legislation that prohibits stable coin issuers from paying interest. I predict the first big losses on stablecoins will be related to this activity.

www.sec.gov/newsroom/spe...

"Anything Republicans want to do is legal and anything Democrats want to do is illegal" is fast becoming the overriding theory of governance at both the state and federal levels.

I feel very comfortable assuming that this story, like much of this journalist’s other reporting, is not accurate.

This paper offers a second contribution by proposing a structure by which banking laws can serve as a democratically legitimate vehicle through which ESG considerations can be incorporated into the business of banking. As the current ESG debate illustrates, the allocation of corporate speech rights and antidiscrimination protections bears on which groups are entitled to full participation in the economy. How policymakers define the scope and aims of banking law determines who has access to money and credit—and therefore how the broader society is structured. Importantly, state anti-ESG efforts eschew longstanding issues of financial security and stability that have motivated banking laws in favor of partisan-political grievances that have the potential interfere with legitimate banking policy goals. Because banking and bank regulation has never and can never be fully “de-politicized” or separated from broader questions of democratic governance, such policies should be decided by publicly accountable agencies.

The good news is that this administration's actions create opportunities for future administrations to think more expansively about how the financial system can support goals like racial equity and climate sustainability.

Here's a shorter write-up of this issue: blogs.law.ox.ac.uk/oblb/blog-po...

A Bank of America spokesman said the bank welcomed the administration’s efforts to provide regulatory clarity. “We’ve provided detailed proposals and will continue to work with the administration and Congress to improve the regulatory framework,” he said. Over the past several months, banks have moved to head off action by the federal government, meeting with Republican attorneys general and updating their policies to clearly state they don’t discriminate on the basis of political affiliation.

Third, Wall Street won't save us.

They are eager for tax cuts and deregulation. In exchange, they are happy to work with the Trump Administration to further its agenda of exclusion in the same way some law firms and universities have.

This paper’s conclusions regarding the appropriate role of ESG in banking offers insights are likely to be counterintuitive to even careful observers of the anti-ESG debate. On its face, the Vullo decision narrowly vindicates the ability of pro-firearms, and by extension other anti-ESG entities, to mount free speech claims against certain types of government actions. Perhaps ironically, the broader ramifications of these cases actually pose the greatest threats to many of the partisan interests that have supported the NRA’s claim. That is because pro-ESG measures are largely supported by legitimate financial policy goals. Conversely, anti-ESG efforts are driven by partisan-political rhetoric and motives. As a result, anti-ESG laws likely violate the principles articulated in Vullo, but capacious safety and soundness-based bank regulation and supervision is clearly permissible. These findings challenge conventional narratives regarding ESG’s purported “politicization” of financial regulation.

Second, the Trump administration's attacks are factually baseless.

They are targeting reasonable actions taken by banking regulators and banks to respond to the financial impacts of climate change, financial and illicit finance risks of crypto, and racial discrimination in lending.

ESG opponents have framed ESG measures as violating the constitutional rights, namely as a form of “discrimination” against, or “redlining” of, companies in certain sectors. But there is a good reason why states have not enforced traditional antidiscrimination laws against banks that incorporate ESG considerations, and that is because banking laws and regulations make clear which groups and interests are protected against discrimination. Under fair lending laws like the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) and Fair Housing Act (FHA), it is unlawful to discriminate in credit or housing decisions on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex or marital status, age, disability, or because a person receives public assistance. Despite the attempts to force banks to serve them, fossil fuel companies and other corporations implicated by ESG policies are not members of a protected class and are therefore not entitled to constitutional protection in the form of guaranteed access to the banking system. Nor are banks, which have long enjoyed outsized influence over, not marginalization from, the political process.

The anti-ESG movement’s minoritarian worldview frames banks’ aversion to do business with fossil fuel and gun companies as “discrimination” against those companies. Importantly, however, not all minorities are seen as being worthy of protection. Many of the same constituencies that oppose ESG are also challenging laws that protect actual protected classes—including racial and other minorities—from discrimination and remedy past instances of discrimination. As drafted, anti-ESG laws allow banks to justify dropping low-income consumers for not being sufficiently profitable, while simultaneously making it harder for banks to make risk-based determinations regarding corporate borrowers in certain industries. This has the effect of allowing banks to perpetuate the marginalization of certain populations, violating the spirit, if not the letter, of fair lending laws.

First, it's important to understand the Executive Order as an attempt to use the banking system to privilege certain groups and marginalize others.

This administration claims (without legal basis) that conservatives are subject to "discrimination" while gutting actual anti-discrimination laws.

Conservatives accused banks of ‘discrimination’ and ‘redlining.’ They've tried to use federal regulations, state laws, state-constructed blacklists, law enforcement investigations, and jawboning to force banks to do business with energy companies, firearms businesses, crypto, and other industries.

This conspiracy theory is rooted in 2 sources: an Obama-era effort to stop payment fraud known as ‘Operation Choke Point’ that implicated certain industries (firearms, payday lending, gambling, tobacco, etc); and banks' voluntary commitments to address gun violence, climate change, and other issues.

Why is the White House planning to issue an order prohibiting banks from "discriminating" against conservatives and industries like crypto? Consider yourself lucky if you haven't followed this saga.

I'll try to explain, pulling from a paper I wrote last year: papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....

The biz titans were also quite, quite enraged by a briefly aggressive National Labor Relations Board. Totally incensed. But arbitrary tariffs, self-dealing, and the end of statistical reality? No big deal.

Last week he was saying the Columbia “settlement” was fine.

We don’t need to invent hypotheticals. The Biden administration’s efforts to enforce antitrust law and regulate Wall Street engendered a much more intense reaction from the business community, including a barrage of lobbying, WSJ editorials, and tv ads and billboards.

A "truth" from Donald Trump: "'Too Late' Powell should resign, just like Adriana Kugler, a Biden Appointee, resigned. She knew he was doing the wrong thing on Interest Rates. He should resign, also!"

Trump says Governor Kugler resigned because she knew Fed Chair Jay Powell was "doing the wrong thing on Interest Rates" and he calls on Powell to resign, too.

Time is one of the most precious resources in government. A lot of bad rules can be written in 6 months and a little delay might mean something never ultimately gets done.

Ok, nice talking with you. Have a good one.

Yes, I know.

These jobs change, and you never know what's going to happen when you take one--financial crisis, pandemic, insurrection, etc. The question is whether you're prepared to meet the moment or not, simple as that.

Fed governors are political appointees, nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. When you're in that kind of leadership position, you have to understand the assignment.

A truly baffling decision by a Biden-appointed Fed governor to step down several months early, handing Trump another seat on the Fed at a time he's attacking its independence.

And announcing it today of all days, after he's removed the BLS commissioner. SMH.

This is a very strange take from a professor at Columbia, of all places.

Trump Asks Bank CEOs to Pitch on Fannie, Freddie Stock Offerings President Donald Trump is bringing in bank leaders to meet with him one by one at the White House. Beyond the economic discussion, there’s a chance at a big payday for their firms.

Exclusive: Trump is asking bank executives for their pitches on monetizing mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, including a major public offering of stock, sources say

It's hard to make the case that Fed Chair Powell should be fired for cause over the cost of the Fed's renovation when the White House is wasting taxpayer money on things like this.

He may have no elbow left in a couple of years, but Miller is extremely fun to watch pitch in-person. Makes other pitchers seem like slow pitch when he's on the mound.

Has the White House explained why this is a reasonable use of government funds, but the Fed's renovation (which is self-funded) is not?