Undermining independent institutions in the US and Cyprus
Donald Trump has continued his aggressive tactics well into the second week in January. After the military coup in Venezuela and the unrelenting push to take over Greenland, he has moved on to a coup of a different kind, that of controlling the US Federal Reserve (Fed). Last Sunday the Fed received grand jury subpoenas that threatened a criminal indictment linked to chairman Jerome Powell’s congressional testimony outlining renovations at the central bank’s headquarters.
Nobody, of course, believes that the reason for the action has anything to do with the cost overruns. This is the same playbook used to overthrow Maduro in Venezuela, claiming that it was about drug related offences. The Trump administration is using truthful pretexts to justify actions whose real objective is something entirely different. In Venezuela it was about getting hold of the country’s oil reserves. In the Fed’s case it is about getting hold of the vast money reserves and the ability to determine the dollar short term interest rates.
The impact of getting control of the Fed may not appear a big deal, but it is far more important than the oil reserves of Venezuela or the minerals of Greenland for that matter. Previously, I wrote extensively of how Trump is scheming to achieve his aims and how that would hand him significant influence on the US and world economies (Sunday Mail, September 21, 2025 ‘Succession’ in play at the Federal Reserve).
The effort to get rid of Powell through legal means comes ahead of the January 21 decision of the Supreme court to hear arguments about the ability of the administration to fire another Fed governor, Lisa Cook, allegedly for some other misdemeanors. Even though Powell’s tenure as chairman is due to expire in May, the latest attempt by Trump to go after him shows that the objective is to remove him from the board altogether (Powell can remain as a member until 2028). If so, the plan may backfire. Powell made a rare public appearance defending his position and spelling out that the legal action initiated against him was a mere pretext. He sounded the alarm that the administration sought to bypass the independent decisions of the Fed about setting interest rates.
Having independent institutions is the cornerstone of a good governing society. Ignoring that notion is something that Cyprus found out to its cost last week. The recent scandal involving the video released on social media has many aspects to it. From the role and contact of social media, to foreign interference, to corruption by public and private figures not to mention the possible bypassing of election funding rules which would cast doubt on the integrity of the last presidential election.
The appointment of an independent criminal investigator (former Supreme Court judge Andreas Paschalides) will hopefully shed light on some of these issues. What is not discussed so much, and needs no investigation, is how the supposedly independent charity that was set up to provide financial assistance to students in hardship was independent only in name. The Independent Social Support Body was chaired by the wife of the president and she was forced to resign amid the furor. The problem was that she should not have been appointed to the position in the first place.
President Nikos Christodoulides, following the scandal, contemplated shutting the charity down as he said that no matter who he appointed as chairman, he would always stand to be accused of meddling in the charity’s affairs. Without realising it, the president actually hit the nail on the head. For the problem with independent institutions is exactly the way they appointment process is being conducted and is rife in promoting corruption. The whole process needs rethinking and the president’s power to appoint at will needs to be checked. Otherwise, the notion of independence goes out the window.
The excuse that the appointment of his wife to the post of the charity was following in the foosteps of the previous administration (Andri Anastasiades was the previous chairperson), is not really something that the president should seek refuge in. He came to the presidency arguing that he would fight corruption. But a person who grew up within the system steeped in corruption is unlikely to be the best candidate to fight it.
After all who can forget his response in a television election interview to giving an example of corruption. He offered, “the attempt by parents to send their children to a different public school than the one in their district”! Don’t say we did not get the president we deserve.