Fact check: Can Congress directly fire the Federal Reserve chair?

1. Summary of the results

Based on the analyses provided, Congress does not have the direct authority to fire the Federal Reserve chair. The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 establishes that only the president has the power to remove Federal Reserve Board of Governors members, and this removal must be "for cause" ^{[1] [2] [3]}. However, there is significant legal uncertainty regarding the Federal Reserve chair specifically, as the Federal Reserve Act doesn't explicitly address the removal of the FOMC chair, potentially requiring a court decision to clarify this authority ^[4].

The "for cause" standard is a crucial limitation that requires the president to demonstrate that the chair has done something wrong before removal can occur ^[3]. This legal requirement has never been tested in court, making the actual enforceability of presidential removal power uncertain ^[2].

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The original question omits several important contextual factors:

• Legislative efforts to expand removal powers: Rep. Earl L. "Buddy" Carter has introduced legislation that would grant the president explicit power to fire the Fed chair and broaden the scope of reasons for removal beyond the current "for cause" requirement ^[5]. This indicates that current removal authority is considered insufficient by some lawmakers.
• The Federal Reserve's designed independence: The Fed's structure is intentionally designed to be independent of direct political influence, which explains why neither Congress nor the president has straightforward removal authority ^[6]. This independence serves as a buffer against political pressure on monetary policy decisions.
• Regional Fed bank presidents: The analyses reveal that the president and Senate have no say in selecting presidents of the 12 regional Fed banks, highlighting the Fed's broader independence from direct political control ^[3].
• Distinction between Board members and the Chair: While the law clearly addresses removal of Board of Governors members, there's ambiguity specifically regarding the chair position, creating a potential legal gray area ^[4].

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question itself doesn't contain misinformation, but it could lead to incomplete understanding if answered without proper context. The question focuses solely on Congress's direct authority while omitting:

• The president's limited removal power under current law
• The untested nature of even presidential removal authority
• The ongoing legislative efforts to change these powers
• The intentional design of Fed independence

Powerful political figures and institutions would benefit from different interpretations of Fed removal authority. Presidents seeking greater monetary policy control would benefit from expanded removal powers, while financial markets and institutions generally prefer Fed independence to maintain predictable monetary policy free from political interference.