Federal Reserve Chair Powell's重大決断—5月の任期終了を前にした進退問題

As of March 2026, just two months before the end of Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell’s term, concerns about U.S. monetary policy have risen to the highest levels. It has become clear that Chair Powell has not made a final decision regarding his future, sparking active debate about the leadership structure of the Federal Reserve. This period of uncertainty could also impact global financial markets, as the stability of the U.S. economy and policy consistency are being directly tested.

Just Two Months Until Term Ends—The Final Choice as Fed Chair

In a recent press conference after the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) meeting, Chair Powell indicated that he has not yet finalized whether he will remain on the Board of Governors after his term ends in May 2026 or fully resign. This situation is complicated by institutional structures: Powell’s term as a Board member extends until January 31, 2028, meaning he could remain involved with the Fed for nearly two years after stepping down as Chair.

Historically, most U.S. central bank leaders have resigned from the Board when their chairmanship ends. Ben Bernanke resigned from the Board upon completing his term in 2014, and Alan Greenspan did the same in 2006. However, Janet Yellen remained on the Board for a short period after her chairmanship, showing that past practices are not absolute.

Under the Federal Reserve Act, six of the seven Board seats are currently filled. If Powell resigns from both his chairmanship and the Board, the number of Board members would temporarily drop to five until a successor is appointed and confirmed. This practical challenge may influence Powell’s decision.

Historical Context and Institutional Challenges in Policy Continuity

If Powell remains on the Board, the continuity of monetary policy and institutional memory could be preserved. Since March 2022, the Fed has undertaken the most aggressive rate hikes in over 40 years. Inflation remains above the Fed’s 2% target, and policy adjustments in 2026–2027 will require delicate balancing.

Understanding the importance of policy continuity, it is useful to review past major chair transitions and the economic conditions at those times:

The 2026 chair change will occur during a policy transition. While inflation is easing, appropriate policy levels, financial supervision, and market communication must all remain consistent under new leadership.

Central Bank Roles During Economic Transitions and Market Impact

Experts emphasize the importance of leadership stability during uncertain economic times. A former U.S. economist now in policy research notes, “The Fed will face very difficult policy decisions in the coming years. Institutional knowledge is essential to balancing inflation control and economic growth.”

Markets react sensitively to leadership changes. The smooth transition from Yellen to Powell in 2018 was notable, but some past transitions have caused volatility. The impact of the 2026 change will depend heavily on the new appointee, whether Powell stays on, and the clarity of the new leadership’s policy messages.

Key factors markets will watch during the chair change include:

• Policy Credibility: Continuity of goals from old to new leadership
• Communication Strategy: Transparency and accountability to market participants
• Transparency of Appointments: Trustworthiness of the process until a new chair is confirmed
• Institutional Stability: Predictability of Board voting patterns after the change

Powell and the Treasury: Separating Monetary and Currency Policies

In the same press conference, Powell clarified that currency policy regarding the U.S. dollar falls under the Treasury’s jurisdiction. “Dollar policy is the responsibility of the Treasury. The Fed does not involve itself in that area,” he stated. This reflects the longstanding institutional practice of separating monetary policy from exchange rate management.

The relationship between the Treasury and the Fed forms a key aspect of U.S. economic governance. While the Treasury Secretary traditionally leads exchange rate policy, the central bank focuses on domestic financial objectives. This division helps prevent conflicting signals in markets and maintains policy clarity. Both agencies also regularly consult to coordinate overall economic policy.

Powell’s reluctance to comment on legal issues aligns with the Fed’s independence, which is especially important during ongoing legal proceedings affecting policy decisions.

Central Bank Independence vs. Democratic Accountability—Institutional Governance

A fundamental feature of the Fed’s design is balancing political independence with democratic accountability. Legislation has insulated monetary policy from short-term political pressures, while the Fed remains accountable through congressional testimony, transparency requirements, and regular reporting.

If Powell remains on the Board under new leadership, how this balance functions will be intriguing. Board members, regardless of the Chair, have equal voting rights on monetary policy. They contribute individual perspectives to policy discussions, influencing collective decisions. This structure means that if Powell continues as a Board member, his voting power and intellectual input could ensure institutional continuity during this critical transition.

Governance experts highlight that Board membership itself wields significant influence. While the Chair has substantial authority, individual Board members’ expertise and judgment are crucial to policy quality.

Conclusion—Choosing Policy Continuity Beyond Uncertainty

Powell’s decision to withhold his future plans is not merely a personal career matter but directly impacts U.S. monetary policy, market stability, and the effectiveness of economic governance. With only a short time until his term ends in May, the significance of this decision continues to grow.

If Powell continues in a leadership role, he could bring valuable expertise and institutional memory during a challenging economic transition. Conversely, most historical precedents favor resignation. His final choice will likely weigh personal circumstances against institutional needs. Regardless of the outcome, market participants and policymakers will focus on three key elements: policy credibility, financial system stability, and governance continuity.