#美联储政策 Seeing these remarks, my mind flashes back to the controversial decisions around the 2008 financial crisis. Trump is complaining about the market's "abnormality"—good news actually leading to a stock market decline, a phenomenon that is not unfamiliar.

Going back to around 2010, we also experienced a similar dilemma. At that time, QE policies had just been introduced; theoretically, abundant liquidity should have benefited the market, but the market's reaction was often delayed or opposite. The reason is simple: the market had already priced in the policy expectations in advance, and subsequent rate hike expectations overshadowed the immediate benefits. The same logic applies this time—GDP exceeding expectations by 4.2%, but the market worries that the Federal Reserve will tighten policy as a result.

What's even more interesting is the subsequent news. Under pressure, senior Federal Reserve officials chose a "partial compromise"—cutting 10% of staff in response to Trump's demand to reduce government size, thereby protecting the core independence of monetary policy. This is a delicate political balancing act. Throughout history, every concession on central bank independence has usually been to hold the line on more important issues.

But the problem is, once independence begins to waver, chain reactions tend to follow. In 2016, both the European Central Bank and the Bank of Japan faced similar political pressures, which eventually led to long-term policy distortions. What we need to be wary of is whether this "retreat to advance" strategy can truly protect decision-making independence, or if it’s just self-deception. The current market calm may just be the calm before the storm.