There seems to be no norm or conventional wisdom that President Trump is not willing to overturn. Following Fed Chairman Powell’s congressional testimony Tuesday in which he confirmed the Fed’s intention to continue its gradual increase in its policy interest rate, Trump said: “I don’t like all of this work that we’re putting into the economy and then I see rates going up.” The statement is wrong on multiple accounts.
The economy is now fully employed and interest rates probably should have been returned to normal some time ago. The alarming current and projected fiscal deficits of the federal government will force interest rates and trade deficits still higher. This is Trump’s fault– not Powell’s. “Who pays uncle Sam’s deficits?” The major policies threatening to undermine the economic boost from tax and regulatory reforms are Trump’s trade policies (pulling out of the Trans Pacific Partnership, stalling and threatening U.S. withdrawal from NAFTA, Steel and Aluminum tariffs (taxes) on our friends in Canada, Mexico and the EU, and a deepening trade war with China). Leaving the TPP Resisting the interest rate increases needed to keep inflation at 2% would increase the most regressive tax around (inflation).
But Presidential interference in implementing monetary policy, as is now being undertaken by President Erdoğan in Turkey, violates a long established principle and practice of central bank independence. Historically, inflation, which falls heaviest on the poor and undermines economic efficiency and growth, has resulted primarily from governments turning to their central banks for financing in misguided and ultimately futile efforts to keep interest rates (government borrowing costs) low.
President Trump can save the economic benefits of his tax and regulatory reforms by rejoining the TPP, rapidly concluding amendments to NAFTA that improve productive efficiency and fairness, dropping the steel and aluminum tariffs, ending the trade war with China, joining with the EU, Canada, Japan and others to bring China into compliance with the rules of a strengthened WTO, and establishing a fiscal budget surplus primarily through entitlement reform.
Warren's space 
there is a horror movie that was never thought of “Trump and Monetary Policy”.
Is there a model that indicates the relative impulse from tax cuts for growth, compared with the relative drag from a “targeted tariff” that does not affect the domestic micro-markets?
Smoot-Hawley was overall, against all imports, and against all importers. Trump is picking out industries, and while those are severely impacted, will the “macro drag” from the target-tariffs offset most of the impulse from the tax cuts? I am hoping for a situation in which the tariffs only slice off a percentage point of expansion, without driving it down to “Obama levels.”
Trump is playing a game (with our lives and economy) but he apparently “deals” with his power to impose them, as in the case of ZTE.
I think Lighthizer is the one responsible for preventing appointment of new WTO appeals arbitrators, although Wilbur Ross is a protectionist in the old school (e.g. steel). Lighthizer opposed the WTO accession act Congress passed in 1995, and forced negotiator Carla Hills to eliminate any review of “antidumping” by WTO. I was working with Congressmen to persuade them he and his labor union allies were simply wrong about “rules based arbitration” in world trade.
Trump is just misled by his “collectivist way of thinking”:
trade is not between “nations” but is an activity at the micro level of individual choices for suppliers and overseas customers. The “trade deficit” is a fallacy of composition, compounded by an arbitrary statistical classification that counts services differently; and ignores the value of direct foreign investment and foreign demand for “Dollars” – latter of which is good for US interest rates.
Note: my comment about micro-markets, suggesting they are not affected by tariffs, I meant to include the adverb ‘comprehensively.’ The secondary effects of higher supplier prices can spread out, as ripples in a pond. But not every operating company is in the ripple range. Smoot-Hawley made wild ripples all over the pond.