Core Points - President Trump nominated Stephen Miran as a member of the Federal Reserve Board to fill the vacancy left by Adriana D. Kugler's resignation [1] - Miran's term will last until January 31, 2026, and he is considered a key figure in shaping Trump's trade policies during his second term [1] - Kugler's resignation was effective from August 8, and she will return to Georgetown University, but the reason for her departure was not disclosed [1] Summary by Sections - **Nomination Details** - Stephen Miran has been nominated to fill the vacancy on the Federal Reserve Board [1] - His term is set to last until January 31, 2026 [1] - **Background of Stephen Miran** - Miran is recognized for his influence on trade policy and proposed the controversial "Mar-a-Lago Accord" [1] - He has a Ph.D. in economics from Harvard University and previously served as a senior advisor on economic policy at the U.S. Treasury during Trump's first term [1] - **Resignation of Adriana D. Kugler** - Kugler announced her resignation effective August 8, with her term originally set to expire on January 31, 2026 [1][2] - She will be returning to academia at Georgetown University [1]

Core Argument - The speech by Stephen Milan, Chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, equates U.S. military presence and the dollar system to "global public goods," suggesting that other countries should bear a "fair share" of the costs through acceptance of U.S. tariff policies, which reflects a "tariff-funded hegemony" logic [1][2] Group 1: Misinterpretation of Economic Concepts - The characterization of U.S. military deployment as a "global public good" distorts the economic concept, as public goods are defined by non-competitiveness and non-exclusivity, while U.S. military bases serve its own geopolitical interests, indicating a self-serving nature [1] - The U.S. military presence creates security pressure for non-allied countries rather than providing public welfare, exemplified by the tensions arising from NATO's eastward expansion [1] Group 2: Dollar System and Economic Benefits - Although approximately 50% of global trade is settled in dollars, this monetary hegemony primarily benefits the U.S., which gains substantial "seigniorage" revenue from issuing the world currency [2] - The U.S. has created a risk-shifting and "tide harvesting" mechanism through its monetary policies, such as the Federal Reserve's unlimited quantitative easing in 2020, which imposed inflationary pressures on the global economy [2] - The U.S. employs financial sanctions through systems like SWIFT, highlighting the exclusivity of the dollar system, while framing it as a "public good" is a mockery of international economic realities [2] Group 3: Coercive Economic Policies - The proposed solutions under the "tariff-funded hegemony" include coercive measures such as accepting tariffs, increasing purchases from the U.S., and direct payments to the U.S. Treasury, which force other countries to adjust their economic policies for U.S. interests [3] - This approach of economic bullying contradicts the principles of equal negotiation and mutual benefit advocated in modern international relations [3] Group 4: Internal Economic Challenges - The U.S. faces significant fiscal pressures and economic challenges rooted in its own policies, including high military spending and imbalanced fiscal policies, which have led to substantial national debt [3] - Blaming external factors for these internal issues and attempting to impose tariffs as compensation is an ineffective strategy that does not address the underlying problems [3] Group 5: Future of International Relations - The current global landscape necessitates multilateral coordination and cooperation to address complex challenges, rather than unilateral dominance and bullying [4] - Any attempts to maintain hegemony by forcing the world to pay for U.S. privileges are counterproductive, and major powers should focus on promoting peace, development, and genuine global public goods [4]