Since returning to the White House, he has demanded that the Fed cut rates and routinely insults Chairman Jerome Powell for not doing so. After teasing that he could fire Powell then backing off, Trump has threatened to fire Fed Governor Lisa Cook if she doesn’t resign.

For her part, Cook said she won’t be bullied into stepping down and plans to rebut accusations of mortgage fraud from a Trump administration housing official. That’s raised the question of how long she might choose to serve.

Cook joined the Fed in 2022 after being tapped by President Joe Biden to fill an unexpired term that ended in 2024, then getting reappointed. So she can stay on the Fed board until 2038, though governors typically don’t serve out their entire 14-year terms.

“However, the Fed has increasingly become a political football,” Ian Katz, managing partner at Capital Alpha Partners, said in a note Wednesday. “Trump has been clear that he wants to put loyalists on the board. As a result, some governors may choose to remain on the board until a president from their same political party is in the White House — making the Fed in that way more like the Supreme Court.”

Meanwhile, Trump has named Stephen Miran, chair of the White House’s Council of Economic Advisers, to fill a vacancy on the board left by Adriana Kugler, who stepped down before her term was due to expire in January.

He has backed Trump’s call for lower rates. More notably, Miran also cowrote a paper in 2024 calling for an overhaul of the Fed that reduces its independence.

That could factor into Cook’s decision on how long she will stay. In his note, Katz observed that “governors in the past have stepped down without concern that the president would nominate a replacement who isn’t a strong believer in Fed independence.”

Similarly, Powell’s own plans have come under scrutiny. While his term as board chair expires in May, his term as a governor extends to January 2028. 

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has said Powell should step down as governor when his term as chairman ends, saying that has been the tradition. Powell has declined to say what he will do.

The stakes could go well beyond how much the Fed lowers rates. Analysts at JPMorgan have even warned that Miran’s appointment represents an “existential threat” to the Fed as it signals an intention to amend the Federal Reserve Act and alter the central bank’s authority.

Split decisions

It’s not clear if Miran will be reappointed to the Fed board as the White House looks for someone to replace Powell as chairman. But either way, the Fed will have three Trump-appointed governors.

To be sure, that’s not enough to sway rate decisions on the 12-member Federal Open Market Committee, which is also comprised of regional Fed presidents. But if Trump is able to name a fourth governor, that’s enough to tip the balance on the seven-member board.

As Axios recently pointed out, a board majority would give Trump appointees power over the Fed’s budgets, staffing, and even selection of regional Fed presidents. Those presidents are appointed by directors of the regional Fed banks, but they are subject to the approval of the board. And in February, the five-year terms for all the bank presidents are scheduled to expire.

With composition of the Fed in flux, a more divided era may be looming that also resembles the Supreme Court.

Fed rate decisions are usually unanimous with even one dissenting vote being rare. By contrast, the high court rarely has unanimous votes, while split decisions along ideological lines are common.

July’s Fed meeting may have been a preview of what’s to come as two Trump-appointed governors voted to lower rates, going against the majority that kept rates steady.

And although Powell opened the door to a rate cut at the September meeting, that doesn’t guarantee a consensus either as other FOMC members still sounded hawkish, such as Kansas City Fed President Jeffrey Schmid.

That sets up another FOMC meeting with dissenting votes. In addition, the pace of any subsequent cuts isn’t clear, providing more fodder for debate at the central bank as Trump-appointed officials push for dovish policy.

Like the chief justice of the Supreme Court, the Fed chair represents just one vote but is also a first among equals who carried outsized influence. So whoever replaces Powell may need to rely on their powers of persuasion on a Fed with more conflicting views.

A required part of this site couldn’t load. This may be due to a browser
extension, network issues, or browser settings. Please check your
connection, disable any ad blockers, or try using a different browser.

Sean Charles Dunn, the now internet-famous protestor known better as “Sandwich Guy,” was captured on video hucking a sandwich wrapped in green and yellow paper at the officer, after calling a group of agents standing outside Subway “fascists.” The video was uploaded to Instagram on Aug. 10 and has since gone viral, with major news outlets reporting on the incident and eliciting responses from the Trump administration.

U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Jeanine Pirro said in a video posted on X last Wednesday that Dunn would be charged with assault on a police officer, a felony that is punishable by up to eight years in prison. The following day, Attorney General Pam Bondi said in an X post that Dunn had been fired from his job at the DOJ.

“Stick your Subway sandwich somewhere else,” Pirro said in the video that has now racked up over 2 million views.

Well, Dunn hasn’t, but D.C. residents have, painting the nation’s capital with Banksy-styled portraits of Sandwich Guy, his right hand winding up, armed with a green, yellow and red footlong. The single act of protest has blossomed into a symbol of resistance against President Donald Trump’s federal law enforcement takeover. T-shirts depicting footlongs have hit Etsy, and some protestors are even bringing wrapped Subway sandwiches to demonstrations outside the White House.

But what happens when a large brand gets tied up in a national debate? 

Other well-known brands have been monitored and discussed closely by the public for cultural and political implications.

In July, American Eagle came under fire for its “Sydney Sweeney Has Great Jeans” denim ad campaign that featured the actress saying, “Genes are passed down from parents to offspring… My jeans are blue.”

This month, Cracker Barrel’s logo refresh drew online criticism from restaurant patrons accusing the brand of straying from its roots and going “woke.”

Experts told Fortune that Subway’s position is unique in that it didn’t incite any of the debate it’s embroiled in now. Unlike an ad campaign, policy change or public support of a marginalized community or cause, Subway hasn’t sparked a brand conversation of their own doing. Instead, experts said the unlikely string of events is a case study in brand image management due to external forces and crisis communication.

“Subway didn’t choose to be in this situation,” Stacy Rosenberg, professor of marketing at Carnegie Mellon University’s Tepper School of Business, told Fortune. Yet, “they do need to issue a crisis communication statement to take some level of control of the message.”

Although Subway was thrown into the D.C. police takeover debate involuntarily, she said companies have to prepare for the unexpected to be able to respond in a timely manner.

Subway hasn’t publicly responded to the incident yet, and didn’t respond to Fortune for comment.

Since Aug. 10, Subway has posted routine promotional material on TikTok, X and Instagram. Some of their followers have taken to the comments section to further the conversation about the D.C. incident. Under an Aug. 13 picture of a 6-inch, one Instagram commenter replied, “I’m just excited to throw them at fascists.” X users have responded to an Aug. 12 Subway rewards post with a picture of Dunn being arrested, calling for him to be the sandwich chain’s new spokesperson.

“I think (Subway) is waiting it out, probably hoping not to have to” comment, Melissa Murphy, another marketing professor at Carnegie Mellon, told Fortune.

As social media allows for individual videos to become flashpoints and viral symbols, messaging can slip away from brands quickly. It’s Subway’s responsibility to provide a response, she said.

Murphy said that one of the exercises she does with marketing students is to brainstorm “every possible thing that could go wrong,” rank them by likelihood, and draft up the beginnings of public statements for the ones with the greatest chance to happen.

Though a Subway sandwich throwing “may not have been on the bingo card,” it falls under a political issue affecting a brand, which is something companies have to keep in mind, she said.

“If a brand isn’t prepared for that, I mean, it’s sort of shame on them,” Murphy said.

But, others don’t think Subway needs to do anything right now.

“There is a time to respond,” crisis communications expert Cindyee Harrison, CEO of Synaptic, a PR agency for small businesses, told Fortune. “I’m not entirely sure that that moment has arrived or will arrive for Subway.”

Harrison said the brand of the sandwich thrown at the federal officer has taken a backseat in people’s minds.

“It is the irony of the weaponization of a sandwich,” she said. “I think that’s the point more. So it really could have been any sandwich. It happens to be from Subway.”

The sandwich becoming an iconic symbol was an organic crowd response to a viral moment, something common in today’s media and likely to pass quickly, Harrison said.

If Subway potentially looks to capitalize on this heightened brand conversation online, it could come off as disingenuous, she added.

Though Murphy said she’s surprised Subway hasn’t issued an official statement on the matter, she understands the sub chain doesn’t want to alienate any of their customer base.

“I think it forces their hand a little bit to have an opinion,” Murphy said. “And that’s dangerous.”