Greenland latest: Vance to lead Trump team in showdown with Denmark and Greenland PMs

Top officials from the United States, Denmark and Greenland will meet at the White House for the first time since President Trump said he wanted to own Greenland.

Civilians have had apparent seizures. One had his eyes roll back. Another had ribs broken. “I felt like I was going to pass out and die,” said a 16-year-old citizen put in a chokehold. The government ...

The battle to win the Republican Party nomination to replace the termed-out Gov. Ron DeSantis on the November ballot took an uglier turn as hedge fund CEO James Fishback ramped up his racist attacks on primary frontrunner Rep. Byron Donalds (R).Donalds, a longtime defender and ally of Donald Trump, ...

Hegseth has been outspoken about ridding the military of so-called 'woke' policies, including diversity, equity and inclusion efforts.

Project 2025 is a policy blueprint developed by conservative groups outlining priorities for a future Republican administration. During the presidential campaign, Donald Trump publicly denied having any involvement with the project or knowledge of its contents. Since taking office for his second term, outside analysts have pointed out that a substantial portion of Project 2025’s policy goals appear to align with actions taken during the administration’s first year. Estimates circulated by independent trackers suggest that roughly half of the agenda has been advanced through executive actions, agency restructuring, and regulatory changes, though the administration has not formally adopted the document. As attention has focused on which parts of the agenda are moving fastest, one section of Project 2025 stands out: its objectives for the Federal Reserve. The plan includes proposals that would significantly alter how the central bank operates. One recommendation calls for removing the Federal Reserve’s responsibility to support maximum employment, leaving price stability as its sole mandate. Another proposes abolishing the Federal Reserve entirely and replacing it with a free banking system. While neither proposal has been enacted, both would represent major structural changes to U.S. economic governance if pursued. Under current law, the Federal Reserve operates with a dual mandate established by Congress. It is charged with maintaining stable prices while also promoting maximum sustainable employment. Narrowing that mandate would change how monetary policy decisions are evaluated, shifting the institution’s formal focus away from labor market outcomes. Eliminating the Federal Reserve would go further, requiring Congress to dismantle the existing framework governing interest rates, currency issuance, and financial system stability. These proposals are emerging at a time of heightened political tension surrounding the Federal Reserve and its leadership. Chair Jerome Powell has faced sustained criticism over interest rate policy, particularly as borrowing costs have remained high. That pressure intensified after Powell became the subject of a criminal investigation related to his congressional testimony about renovations at the Federal Reserve’s headquarters. Powell has characterized the investigation as unusual and suggested it reflects broader conflict over monetary policy rather than routine oversight. As debates over the Fed’s role have intensified, historical comparisons have entered the conversation, particularly around how governments have previously reduced the independence of monetary institutions. Historians caution that such comparisons are not about ideology or rhetoric, but about institutional process. In Germany during the 1930s, the central bank was not immediately dismantled after Adolf Hitler rose to power. Instead, its independence was reduced through a series of legal and administrative changes. Governing councils were eliminated, leadership appointment powers were transferred to the executive, and the central bank was formally subordinated to the state. These changes were framed as economic reform and national stabilization rather than as an overt seizure of power. Over time, the central bank ceased to function as an independent authority and became an instrument of government policy. Historians emphasize that the shift was incremental and occurred alongside broader legal changes that weakened institutional checks across the government. The loss of central bank independence followed, rather than preceded, wider consolidation of executive authority. Scholars stress that this historical example is often cited not to suggest identical outcomes, but to illustrate how independent economic institutions can be reshaped through legal means when political pressure converges with structural reform efforts. The comparison is about sequence and safeguards, not equivalence. The United States operates under a constitutional system with separation of powers, legislative oversight, and judicial review. Any change to the Federal Reserve would require congressional approval and would likely face legal challenges. Still, history explains why proposals that target central bank independence draw scrutiny early, particularly when they coincide with pressure on institutional leadership. For now, the Federal Reserve continues to function under existing law, and Project 2025 remains a policy blueprint rather than enacted statute.