Federal Reserve independence faces another blow: Atlanta Fed president selection stuck in deadlock, White House seeks opportunity to intervene.

The selection of the new president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta has been under way for seven months. The search was forced to restart after the initial round of candidates failed to reach a consensus. Meanwhile, White House advisers—who have no formal authority to intervene—have been trying to influence this appointment, raising renewed concerns about the Federal Reserve’s political independence.

In an article for “The New Fed Wire,” Nick Timiraos said that the Atlanta Fed completed interviews with its first batch of shortlisted candidates in April. The original plan was to announce the results in May, but the process ultimately did not move forward to the approval stage in Washington by the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, after which the search immediately stalled.

At the same time, some White House advisers have begun exploring whether they can use this to influence the Fed’s internal personnel composition, and to push for a candidate whose policy stance is more aligned with the Trump administration. The Atlanta Fed president will also have a rotating vote on interest-rate decisions of the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) starting next year.

The backdrop to this impasse is a particularly sensitive period for the ongoing pressure on the Fed’s independence. Trump has repeatedly tried to pressure Fed officials, including attempting to fire Governor Lisa Cook, though he has not succeeded so far. The delay in this selection process also means that the person serving as Fed Chair—who took office on May 22—will have a say in this appointment.

Process stalled; restart enters its seventh month

The selection process for the Atlanta Fed president typically follows two steps: first, six directors on the regional Fed board select candidates; then the selected candidates are submitted to the Board in Washington for approval. The two institutions traditionally coordinate with each other, with the regional Fed recommending a candidate that the Board will accept.

Among the first batch of shortlisted candidates was Rebecca Patterson, a former executive at hedge fund giant Bridgewater Associates. A University of Florida graduate, she met the selection committee’s criteria both in terms of management experience and regional background, and was the regional board’s preferred candidate.

However, she never advanced to the second stage of interviews with the Fed Board. The reason for the delay and her current status could not be confirmed.

Another finalist, Marc Sumerlin, is an economic consulting adviser who previously served as an adviser in the George W. Bush administration. Last year, he was interviewed by Treasury Secretary Bessent about the Fed chair position. In 2019, the Trump administration also considered nominating him to serve as a Fed governor. However, the Atlanta Fed ultimately did not move forward with his candidacy, and he is no longer under consideration.

In a statement, Gregory Haile, chair of the Atlanta Fed board and head of the selection committee, said that the committee is conducting a “comprehensive and deliberate selection,” focusing on “choosing the best candidate for the Sixth District while maintaining the integrity of the process.”

White House advisers step in, seeking to recommend pro-administration candidates

Although the White House has no formal role in the appointment of regional Fed presidents, the selection uncertainty has provided an opening for some presidential advisers.

One of the candidates that these advisers discussed was Michael Faulkender, who was forced out of a senior position at the Treasury Department last year. As of now, Faulkender’s progress in the Atlanta Fed candidacy process is not as advanced as that of other candidates.

In Washington, the person formally responsible for overseeing this process is Fed Governor Christopher Waller, who has served as chair of the Board’s Committee on Regional Fed Affairs since 2022.

Waller has recently been pressing regional Feds to cede more operational autonomy, but the regional Feds have resisted his plan to centralize back-office functions. This administrative tension is intertwined with deeper issues surrounding the selection of leaders for the regional Feds.

Behind Bostic’s departure: ethical controversy leaves potential hazards

The direct trigger for this selection crisis was the resignation of Raphael Bostic, the former president of the Atlanta Fed, who stepped down in February this year. During his tenure leading the Atlanta Fed from 2017 through early 2025, Bostic publicly disclosed in 2022 what he described as an inadvertent violation of the Fed’s investment management rules.

A 2024 investigation by the Fed’s Inspector General found no evidence that he used inside information to make investments. However, it also noted that his violations created the appearance of potentially acting on confidential information, which could lead the public to question his impartiality.

What the Fed Board was truly concerned about last year was not the disclosures themselves, but the political risk they could create.

At the time, multiple trading and ethics controversies had already led several Fed officials to leave their posts. If Bostic had been reappointed, these disclosures could have provided the Trump administration with a pretext to pressure the Fed to fire him. Historically, no sitting regional Fed president has ever been removed. Therefore, in the view of some, the safest approach would be to avoid leaving this vulnerability from the start.

President Trump has been looking for opportunities to replace Fed officials. For example, he attempted to remove Fed Governor Lisa Cook, but has not succeeded so far.

Bostic said last year that his retirement was entirely a personal decision. In December, he told reporters that the impending end of his term became a moment to “seriously think” about “natural transition points in life.” He said:

“This was my decision, and it was my independent decision.”

Risk Warning and Disclaimer

        Market risk exists; investments require caution. This article does not constitute personal investment advice, and it does not take into account any specific investment objectives, financial situations, or needs of individual users. Users should consider whether any opinions, views, or conclusions in this article are appropriate for their specific circumstances. You bear the responsibility for any investment made based on this article.