I believe that Wosh's reformist stance is highly likely to gain traction, while Hackett faces significant challenges in maintaining the dovish camp.

Wosh's "reversal" is not a sudden change of heart but a clear reform logic that has been in place for a long time—he has always opposed loosening policies during periods of economic stability and even resigned over protests against QE. His current call to "reduce the balance sheet to control inflation and create room for rate cuts" not only aligns with Trump's demand for rate cuts but also has the support of key figures like Powell and JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon. His approval rating has soared from 11% to 47%, which is the best proof. Moreover, he advocates for "repair rather than overthrow" the Federal Reserve, avoiding radical revolution. This moderate reform approach is more likely to be accepted internally, unlike Hackett, who has caused controversy over "Fed independence" due to his close ties with Trump. His approval rating has plummeted from 81%, and even if he states he will maintain independence, market trust is unlikely to recover quickly.

However, Hackett still has a chance; he hasn't been completely left behind. Trump values loyalty most, and if he can dispel market concerns about "political interference in monetary policy" in the future, he might reverse the downward trend. But from the current trend, the Fed's shift from "massive liquidity" to "precise reform" is the main direction, and Wosh's stance aligns more closely with this trend, giving him a clear advantage.