Core Viewpoint - The resignation of Federal Reserve Governor Kuger reflects a complex interplay of economic policy disputes, political pressure, and personal career choices, occurring during a sensitive period for the U.S. economy [2][10]. Economic Policy and Internal Disputes - Kuger’s resignation is seen as a result of increasing policy disagreements within the Federal Reserve and external political pressures, particularly as the U.S. economy faces tariff impacts [2][10]. - Kuger held a hawkish stance on interest rates, advocating for maintaining high rates to assess inflation trends, which conflicted with President Trump's views [6][10]. Political Interference - Trump's demand for the dismissal of Labor Statistics Bureau Director McKentafer, following disappointing employment data, indicates an attempt to shift economic responsibility and exert control over economic data, which is typically viewed as independent [12][14]. - The intertwining of political motives with economic data releases raises concerns about the integrity of economic statistics becoming a tool for political maneuvering [12][16]. Implications for Federal Reserve Independence - The events surrounding Kuger’s resignation and Trump’s criticisms of the Federal Reserve suggest a potential erosion of the institution's independence, which could lead to increased uncertainty in future monetary policy directions [10][16]. - The political polarization and institutional vulnerabilities highlighted by these events may raise concerns among international investors regarding the stability of U.S. economic governance [16].

Group 1 - The core event of the U.S. Army's 250th anniversary was marked by a high-profile parade in Washington, D.C., featuring tanks and aircraft, which was the first such event since 1991 [1] - Simultaneously, over 2,000 protests occurred across all 50 states, with millions of citizens expressing dissatisfaction with government policies on immigration, health, and education [1] - The contrasting scenes of celebration and protest highlight deep political and social divisions in the U.S., with some citizens supporting the federal government while others criticize its expansion of executive power [1][2] Group 2 - The protests reflect concerns over the Trump administration's use of military forces to enhance its image and pursue political goals, particularly in response to recent immigration enforcement actions in Los Angeles [2] - The deployment of the National Guard without a state governor's request marks a significant shift in presidential authority, leading to violent clashes between law enforcement and local communities [2] - The ongoing protests and riots illustrate a broader polarization within American society, with stark geographical and partisan divides in public opinion regarding the government's actions [2][3]

Group 1 - The United States is currently limited to using economic methods such as trade wars and tariffs to confront China due to complex considerations and various influencing factors [2] - The U.S. economy exhibits structural vulnerabilities, with consumer spending accounting for approximately 30% of global household final consumption, leading to a high dependency on imports [2] - The manufacturing sector's contribution to GDP has decreased from 17% in 1991 to 10.2% in 2023, indicating a hollowing out of domestic manufacturing [2] Group 2 - The political environment in the U.S. is characterized by high levels of partisanship and polarization, with figures like Trump leveraging a tough stance on China to gain electoral support [3] - This strategy diverts public attention from domestic issues, focusing blame on China and consolidating political backing, particularly in regions like the Rust Belt [3] Group 3 - From the perspective of international law and order, the U.S. recognizes that direct military confrontation would violate international laws and norms [4] - Trade disputes and tariff adjustments provide a framework within international rules, allowing the U.S. to express dissatisfaction and exert influence without resorting to military action [4] Group 4 - The U.S. military strategy is complex, with a global network of alliances and strategic positioning, maintaining a dominant military presence [5] - Direct military confrontation could provoke a strong response from China, leading to significant casualties and economic losses, as well as potential global economic repercussions [5]