The Commentary Magazine Podcast

Episode: Why Is Trump Fed Up?

Date: January 23, 2026
Host: Jon Podhoretz
Panelists: Seth Mandel, Eliana Johnson, Chris Stirewalt

Overview

This episode delves into why Donald Trump is preoccupied with the Federal Reserve and its chairman, Jerome Powell, at a time when the economy is arguably healthy according to key indicators. The panel examines both the political motives and the broader implications of seeking control over the Fed, using historical context and recent Supreme Court drama for perspective. In the latter half, the conversation pivots to a critique of American academia’s increasingly negative framing of U.S. history, especially as the nation approaches its 250th anniversary, highlighting the cultural rift between elite institutions and the general population.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Weather as Political Distraction

• The show opens with a brief, humorous reflection comparing the obsessive talk about impending "Snowmageddon" to the proliferation of data and uncertainty in both weather and politics.
• Chris Stirewalt: "The more data that became available in weather did not increase the amount of surety...it actually ended up decreasing." (01:23)
• The weather discussion segues into how non-political topics like weather are increasingly politicized.

2. Trump, the Federal Reserve, and Jay Powell

• Trump’s administration is investigating Fed Chair Jay Powell, criticizing spending on Fed building renovations, but the underlying motive seems to be replacing Powell with someone more politically pliable.
• Jon Podhoretz: "There's Trump and the administration criminalizing the Fed chairmanship and looking to replace the Fed chairman with somebody more friendly. And I just think that's a very...weird thing to do now." (05:53)
• Eliana Johnson contextualizes this through Powell's past mistakes, noting he was "part of the problem to begin with" regarding inflation, but Trump's frustration is really about "public sentiment, not actually the Fed policy". (06:42)
• The panel points out that while inflation is moderating and consumer spending is up, Trump seemingly wants someone to blame for lagging public perception and wage growth.

3. Understanding the Fed’s Independence – ‘Humphrey's Executor’

• Chris Stirewalt brings up "Humphrey's Executor," a Supreme Court case that solidified the independence of the Fed by keeping it out of the executive’s direct control.
• Chris: "There is value in having an independent Federal Reserve regardless of what the policies being put in place are because it provides what Washington very much lacks right now...predictability." (13:30)
• The group discusses the current administration’s attempt to remove Fed board member Lisa Cook, reinforcing this as part of a broader campaign to assert executive control.

4. Politics, Partisanship, and the Courts

• The discussion widens to include the recent Congressional hearing where Special Counsel Jack Smith reiterated Trump's guilt regarding January 6th.
• Jon Podhoretz: "They gave Smith yesterday a platform to sit in front of Congress and say, Trump was guilty...So congratulations to the Republicans on the Hill who basically...threw a fastball straight down the middle for a Democratically aligned prosecutor." (18:45)
• The broader point: both parties are making arguments mainly to satisfy their own bases, with little regard for how this looks to outsiders.

5. The Search for Control, "Being Right vs. Being Happy"

• Chris Stirewalt: "As my old daddy used to say, you can be right or you can be happy, but not usually both. And what Republicans right now very much want is both." (22:59)
• Trump’s unchanging desire is to both be vindicated (right) and have things go his way (happy), leading to constant internal conflict and shifting narratives.

6. The Problem with Trump-Based Prognostication

• Chris denounces "imaginary Trump journalism," calling out tendencies to project other people’s wishes or fears onto Trump:
• Chris: "Donald Trump is unchanging. He is like himself, and only more so over time." (23:57)
• Political analysis, he argues, often fixates on speculating about a post-Trump future, but Trump’s inconstancy makes such forecasting pointless.

7. National Narrative, Academia, and the 250th Anniversary

• The conversation shifts to academic hostility toward America as highlighted by a Wall Street Journal study showing 80% of American Studies articles are critical of the U.S.
• Jon Podhoretz: "80% of articles published between 2022 and 2024 were critical of America. 20% were neutral. None were positive." (36:39)
• Eliana Johnson: This academic outlook explains both campus radicalism and why popular histories of America, written outside academia, are so much more successful and positive. (45:33)
• The issue, Jon notes, is not just negativity but "unlearning"—teaching students frameworks that make understanding reality harder, even in scientific subjects (e.g., interpreting thermodynamics as colonialist).

8. History, Identity, and the Loss of National Confidence

• The academy's focus on novelty and critique has, per the panel, replaced balanced or admiring histories of the U.S.
• Chris Stirewalt: "What the academy has done to American history is...The academy rewards novelness. ...what you can do and what's available is to say actually, the United States...what they told you is actually a huge lie." (47:45)
• The panel laments that the U.S. is described daily as terrible and unworthy, contradicting everyday experience and undermining civic confidence. (51:27)

9. Popular Understanding vs. Elite Dogma

• Popular works (e.g., Hamilton, Death by Lightning) fill a void by telling complex but ultimately positive stories about America.
• Eliana Johnson: "Most people do have a positive view of America. ...and are eager to learn about the complex view of history put forward by the Goodwins and the McCulloughs and the Chernows." (45:34)
• The success of these works, the panel argues, is evidence of national resilience against academic negativity.

Notable Quotes

• Chris Stirewalt: "You can be right or you can be happy, but not usually both. And what Republicans right now very much want is both." (22:59)
• Jon Podhoretz: "80% of articles published between 2022 and 2024 were critical of America. 20% were neutral. None were positive." (36:39)
• Eliana Johnson: "Most people do have a positive view of America...and are eager to learn about the complex view of history put forward by the Goodwins and the McCulloughs and the Chernows." (45:34)
• Chris Stirewalt: "Donald Trump is unchanging. He is like himself, and only more so over time." (23:57)
• Jon Podhoretz: "We're standing here...to say to stand up and say, no, no, no, this is all lies. You're telling lies. You are brainwashing people into believing lies…" (52:18)

Timestamps for Major Segments

• 00:00–03:02 — Opening, weather as pre-political safe space
• 03:02–11:07 — Trump, the Fed, politics of blame
• 11:07–15:48 — Fed independence & the "unitary executive" debate
• 15:48–18:45 — Supreme Court, Lisa Cook, and administration vs. independence
• 18:45–24:39 — Congressional spectacle, Jack Smith, and performative partisanship
• 24:39–29:16 — Trump’s inconstancy & the futility of predicting Republican direction
• 35:39–38:02 — American Studies’ anti-American tilt, according to new study
• 38:02–46:19 — Academic radicalism vs. resilience of popular, patriotic history
• 46:19–55:21 — The gulf between elite negativity and broader American optimism

Memorable Moments

• Chris Stirewalt’s southern dad wisdom that "you can be right or you can be happy, but not usually both" is celebrated as deeply Jewish by Jon Podhoretz, highlighting the wry fusion of wit and cultural insight on the show. (23:28–23:54)
• An academic article posits thermodynamics as a "settler capitalist theory," prompting the panel to mock the spread of academic jargon into basic science. (37:59)
• The unexpected popularity of works about underappreciated presidents or positive takes on American history, like "Death by Lightning," is held up as a rebuke to elite negativity. (52:18–55:21)

Takeaway

This episode argues that Trump’s Fed fixation is less about economic policy and more about the politics of control and blame, set against a backdrop of a shifting national identity crisis. The true danger, the panel contends, is not any one leader’s temperament, but the growing disconnect between elite institutions' negative narratives and the broader public’s enduring—if embattled—belief in the American experience.