For over 110 years, the Federal Reserve (the Fed) has operated at a deliberate distance from the White House and Congress.

It is the only federal agency that doesn’t report to any single branch of government in the way most agencies do, and can implement policy without waiting for political approval.

These policies include interest rate decisions, adjusting the money supply, emergency lending to banks, capital reserve requirements for banks, and determining which financial institutions require heightened oversight.

The Fed can act independently on all these critical economic decisions and more.

But why does the US government enable this? And why is it that nearly every major economy has adopted a similar model for their central bank?

‍

The foundation of Fed independence: the panic of 1907

The Fed was established in 1913 following the Panic of 1907, a major financial crisis. It saw major banks collapse, the stock market drop nearly 50%, and credit markets freeze across the country.

At the time, the US had no central authority to inject liquidity into the banking system during emergencies or to prevent cascading bank failures from toppling the entire economy. 

J.P. Morgan personally orchestrated a bailout using his own fortune, highlighting just how fragile the US financial system had become.

The debate that followed revealed that while the US clearly needed a central bank, politicians were objectively seen as poorly positioned to run it.

Previous attempts at central banking had failed partly due to political interference. Presidents and Congress had used monetary policy to serve short-term political goals rather than long-term economic stability.

So it was decided that a stand-alone body responsible for making all major economic decisions would be created. Essentially, the Fed was created because politicians, who face elections and public pressure, couldn’t be relied upon to make unpopular decisions when needed for the long-term economy.

‍

How does Fed independence work?

Although the Fed is designed to be an autonomous body, separate from political influence, it still has accountability to the US government (and thereby US voters). 

The President is responsible for appointing the Fed Chair and the seven Governors of the Federal Reserve Board, subject to confirmation by the Senate. 

Each Governor serves a 14-year term, and the Chair serves a four-year term. The Governors' terms are staggered to prevent any single administration from being able to change the entire board overnight.

Beyond this “main” board, there are twelve regional Federal Reserve Banks that operate across the country. Their presidents are appointed by private-sector boards and approved by the Fed's seven Governors. Five of these presidents vote on interest rates at any given time, alongside the seven Governors.

This creates a decentralised structure where no single person or political party can dictate monetary policy. Changing the Fed's direction requires consensus across multiple appointees from different administrations.

‍

The case for Fed independence: Nixon, Burns, and the inflation hangover

The strongest argument for keeping the Fed independent comes from Nixon’s time as president in the 1970s.

Nixon pressured Fed Chair Arthur Burns to keep interest rates low in the lead-up to the 1972 election. Burns complied, and Nixon won in a landslide. Over the next decade, unemployment and inflation both rose simultaneously (commonly referred to now as “stagflation”). 

By the late 1970s, inflation exceeded 13 per cent, Nixon was out of office, and it was time to appoint a new Fed chair.

That new Fed chair was Paul Volcker. And despite public and political pressure to bring down interest rates and reduce unemployment, he pushed the rate up to more than 19 per cent to try to break inflation. 

The decision triggered a brutal recession, with unemployment hitting nearly 11 per cent. 

But by the mid-1980s, inflation had dropped back into the low single digits. 

Volcker stood firm where non-independent politicians would have backflipped in the face of plummeting poll numbers.

The “Volcker era” is now taught as a masterclass in why central banks need independence. The painful medicine worked because the Fed could withstand political backlash that would have broken a less autonomous institution.

‍

Are other central banks independent? 

Nearly every major developed economy has an independent central bank. The European Central Bank, Bank of Japan, Bank of England, Bank of Canada, and Reserve Bank of Australia all operate with similar autonomy from their governments as the Fed.

However, there are examples of developed nations that have moved away from independent central banks.

In Turkey, the president forced its central bank to maintain low rates even as inflation soared past 85 per cent. The decision served short-term political goals while devastating the purchasing power of everyday people.

Argentina's recurring economic crises have been exacerbated by monetary policy subordinated to political needs. Venezuela's hyperinflation accelerated after the government asserted greater control over its central bank.

The pattern tends to show that the more control the government has over monetary policy, the more the economy leans toward instability and higher inflation.

Independent central banks may not be perfect, but they have historically outperformed the alternative.

‍

Why do markets care about Fed independence?

Markets generally prefer predictability, and independent central banks make more predictable decisions.

Fed officials often outline how they plan to adjust policy and what their preferred data points are. 

Currently, the Consumer Price Index (CPI), Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE) index, Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) monthly jobs reports, and quarterly GDP releases form expectations about the future path of interest rates.

This transparency and predictability help businesses map out investments, banks to set lending rates, and everyday people to plan major financial decisions.

When political influence infiltrates these decisions, it introduces uncertainty. Instead of following predictable patterns based on publicly released data, interest rates can shift based on electoral considerations or political preference, which makes long-term planning more difficult.

The markets react to this uncertainty through stock price volatility, potential bond yield rises, and fluctuating currency values.

‍

The enduring logic

The independence of the Federal Reserve is about recognising that stable money and sustainable growth require institutions capable of making unpopular decisions when economic fundamentals demand them.

Elections will always create pressure for easier monetary conditions. Inflation will always tempt policymakers to delay painful adjustments. And the political calendar will never align perfectly with economic cycles. 

Fed independence exists to navigate these eternal tensions, not perfectly, but better than political control has managed throughout history.

That's why this principle, forged in financial panics and refined through successive crises, remains central to how modern economies function. And it's why debates about central bank independence, whenever they arise, touch something fundamental about how democracies can maintain long-term prosperity.

Asia starts the week with a fresh geopolitical shock that is already being framed in oil terms, not just security terms. The first-order move may be a repricing of risk premia and volatility across energy and macro, while markets wait to see whether this becomes a durable physical disruption or a fast-fading headline premium.

At a glance

• What happened: US officials said the US carried out “Operation Absolute Resolve”, including strikes around Caracas, and that Venezuela’s President Nicolás Maduro and his wife were taken into US custody and flown to the United States (subject to ongoing verification against the cited reporting).
• What markets may focus on now: Headline-driven risk premia and volatility, especially in products and heavy-crude-sensitive spreads, rather than a clean “missing barrels” shock.
• What is not happening yet: Early pricing has so far looked more like a headline risk premium than a confirmed physical supply shock, though this can change quickly, with analysts pointing to ample global supply as a possible cap on sustained upside.
• Next 24 to 72 hours: Market participants are likely to focus on the shape of the oil “quarantine”, the UN track, and whether this stays “one and done” or becomes open-ended.
• Australia and Asia hook: AUD as a risk barometer, Asia refinery margins in diesel and heavy, and shipping and insurance where the price can show up in friction before it shows up in benchmarks.

What happened, facts fast

Before anyone had time to workshop the talking points, there were strikes, there was a raid, and there was a custody transfer. US officials say the operation culminated in Maduro and his wife being flown to the United States, where court proceedings are expected.

Then came the line that turned a foreign policy story into a markets story. President Trump publicly suggested the US would “run” Venezuela for now, explicitly tying the mission to oil.

Almost immediately after that came a message-discipline correction. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the US would not govern Venezuela day to day, but would press for changes through an oil “quarantine” or blockade.

That tension, between maximalist presidential rhetoric and a more bureaucratically describable “quarantine”, is where the uncertainty lives. Uncertainty is what gets priced first.

Why this is price relevant now

What’s new versus known for positioning

What’s new, and price relevant, is that the scale and outcome are not incremental. A major military operation, a claimed removal of Venezuela’s leadership from the country, and a US-led custody transfer are not the sort of things markets can safely treat as noise.

Second, the oil framing is explicit. Even if you assume the language gets sanded down later, the stated lever is petroleum. Flows, enforcement, and pressure via exports.

Third, the embargo is not just a talking point anymore. Reporting says PDVSA has begun asking some joint ventures to cut output because exports have been halted and storage is tightening, with heavy-crude and diluent constraints featuring prominently.

What’s still unknown, and where volatility comes from

Key unknowns include how strict enforcement is on water, what exemptions look like in practice, how stable the on-the-ground situation is, and which countries recognise what comes next. Those are not philosophical questions. Those are the inputs for whether this is a temporary risk premium or a durable regime shift.

Political and legal reaction, why this drives tail risk

The fastest way to understand the tail here is to watch who calls this illegal, and who calls it effective, then ask what those camps can actually do.

Internationally, reaction has been fast, with emphasis on international law and the UN Charter from key partners, and UN processes in view. In the US, lawmakers and commentators have begun debating the legal basis, including questions of authority and war powers. That matters for markets because it helps define whether this is a finite operation with an aftershock, or the opening chapter of a rolling policy regime that keeps generating headlines.

Market mechanism, the core “so what”

Here’s the key thing about oil shocks. Sometimes the headline is the shock. Sometimes the plumbing is the shock.

Volumes and cushion

Venezuela is not the world’s swing producer. Its production is meaningful at the margin, but not enough by itself to imply “the world runs out of oil tomorrow”. The risk is not just volume. It is duration, disruption, and friction.

The market’s mental brake is spare capacity and the broader supply backdrop. Reporting over the weekend pointed to ample global supply as a likely cap on sustained gains, even as prices respond to risk.

Quality and transmission

Venezuela’s barrels are disproportionately extra heavy, and extra heavy crude is not just “oil”. It is oil that often needs diluent or condensate to move and process. That is exactly the kind of constraint that shows up as grade-specific tightness and product effects.

Reporting has highlighted diluent constraints and storage pressure as exports stall. Translation: even if Brent stays relatively civil, watch cracks, diesel and distillates, and any signals that “heavy substitution” is getting expensive.

Products transmission, volatility first, pump later

If crude is the headline, products are the receipt, because products tell you what refiners can actually do with the crude they can actually get. The short-run pattern is usually: futures reprice risk fast, implied volatility pops; physical flows adapt more slowly; retail follows with a lag, and often with less drama than the first weekend of commentary promised.

For Australia and Asia desks, the bigger point is transmission. Energy moves can influence inflation expectations, which can feed into rates pricing and the dollar, and in turn affect Asia FX and broader risk, though the links are not mechanical and can vary by regime.

Some market participants also monitor refined-product benchmarks, including gasoline contracts such as reformulated gasoline blendstock, as part of that chain rather than as a stand-alone signal.

Historical context, the two patterns that matter

Two patterns matter more than any single episode.

Pattern A: scare premium. Big headline, limited lasting outage. A spike, then a fade as the market decides the plumbing still works.

Pattern B: structural. Real barrels are lost or restrictions lock in; the forward curve reprices; the premium migrates from front-month drama to whole-curve reality.

One commonly observed pattern is that when it is only premium, volatility tends to spike more than price. When it is structural, levels and time spreads move more durably.

The three possible market reactions

Contained, rhetorical: quarantine exists but porous; diplomacy churns; no second-wave actions. Premium bleeds out; volatility mean-reverts.

Embargo tightens, exports curtailed, quality shock: enforcement hardens; PDVSA cuts deepen; diluent constraints bite. Heavies bid; cracks and distillates react; freight and insurance add friction.

Escalation, prolonged control risk: “not governing” language loses credibility; repeated operations; allies fracture further. Longer-duration premium; broader risk-off impulse across FX and rates.

Australia and Asia angle

For Sydney, Singapore, and Hong Kong screens, this is less about Venezuelan retail politics and more about how a Western Hemisphere intervention bleeds into Asia pricing.

AUD is the quick and dirty risk proxy. Asia refiners care about the kind of oil and the friction cost. Heavy crude plus diluent dependency makes substitution non-trivial. If enforcement looks aggressive, the “price” can show up in freight, insurance, and spreads before it shows up in headline Brent.

Catalyst calendar, key developments markets may monitor

• US policy detail: quarantine rules, enforcement posture, exemptions.
• UN and allies: statements that signal whether this becomes a long legitimacy fight.
• PDVSA operations: storage, shut-ins, diluent availability, floating storage signals.
• OPEC+ signalling: whether the group stays committed to stability if spreads blow out.

The United States entered a government shutdown on October 1, 2025, after Congress failed to agree on full-year appropriations or a short-term funding bill. Although shutdowns have occurred before, the timing, speed, scale, and motives behind this one make it unique. This is the first shutdown since the last Trump term in 2018–19, which lasted 35 days, the longest in history.For traders, understanding both the mechanics and the ripple effects is essential to anticipating how markets may respond, particularly if the shutdown draws out to multiple weeks as currently anticipated.

What Is a Government Shutdown?

A government shutdown occurs when Congress fails to pass appropriation bills or a temporary extension to fund government operations for the new fiscal year beginning October 1.Without the legal authority to spend, federal agencies must suspend “non-essential” operations, while “essential” services such as national security, air traffic control, and public safety continue, often with employees working unpaid until funding is restored.Since the Government Employee Fair Treatment Act of 2019, federal employees are guaranteed back pay to cover lost wages once the shutdown ends, although there has been some narrative from the current administration that some may not be returning to work at all.

Why Did the Government Shutdown Happen?

The 2025 impasse stems from partisan disputes over spending levels, health-insurance subsidies, and proposed rescissions of foreign aid and other programs. The reported result is that around 900,000 federal workers are furloughed, and another 700,000 are currently working without pay.Unlike many past standoffs, there was no stopgap agreement to keep the government open while negotiations continued, making this shutdown more disruptive and unusually early.

Why an Early Shutdown?

Historically, most shutdowns don’t occur immediately on October 1. Lawmakers typically kick the can down the road with a “Continuing Resolution (CR)”. This is a stopgap measure that can extend existing funding for weeks or months to allow time for an agreement later in the quarter.The speed of the breakdown in 2025, with no CR in place, is unusual compared to past shutdowns. It suggests it was not simply budgetary drift, but a potentially deliberate refusal to extend funding.

Alternative Theories Behind the Early Shutdown

While the main narrative coming from the U.S. administrators points to budget deadlock, several other theories are being discussed across the media:

• Executive Leverage – The White House may be using the shutdown as a tool to increase bargaining power and force structural policy changes. Health care is central to the debate, funding for which was impacted significantly by the “one big, beautiful bill” recently passed through Congress.
• Hardline Congressional Factions – Small but influential groups within Congress, particularly on the right, may be driving the shutdown to demand deeper cuts.
• Political Messaging – The blame game is rife, despite the reality that Republican control of the presidency, House, and Senate, as well as both sides, is indulging in the usual political barbs aimed at the other side. As for the voter impact, Recent polls show that voters are placing more blame on Republicans than Democrats at this point, though significant numbers of Americans suggest both parties are responsible
• Debt Ceiling Positioning – Creating a fiscal crisis early could shape the terms of future negotiations on borrowing limits.
• Electoral Calculus – With midterms ahead, both sides may be positioning to frame the narrative for voters.
• Systemic Dysfunction – A structural view is that shutdowns have become a recurring feature of hyper-partisan U.S. politics, rather than exceptions.

Short-Term Impact of Government Shutdown

AreaImpactFederal workforceHundreds of thousands have been furloughed with reduced services across various agencies.Travel & aviationFAA expects to furlough 11,000 staff. Inspections and certifications may stall. Safety concerns may become more acute if prolonged shutdown.Economic outputThe White House estimates a $15 billion GDP loss per week of shutdown (source: internal document obtained by “Politico”.Consumer spendingFederal workers and contractors face delayed income, pressuring local economies. Economic data releaseKey data releases may be delayed, impacting the decision process at the Fed meeting later this month.Credit outlookScope Ratings and others warn that the shutdown is “negative for credit” and could weigh on U.S. borrowing costs.Projects & researchInfrastructure, grants, and scientific initiatives are delayed or paused.

Medium- to Long-Term Impact of Government Shutdown

1. Market Sentiment

Shutdowns show some degree of U.S. political dysfunction. They can weigh on confidence and subsequently equity market and risk asset sentiment. To date, markets are shrugging off a prolonged impact, but a continued shutdown into later next week could start to impact.Equity markets have remained strong, and there has been no evidence of the frequent seasonal pullback we often see around this time of year.Markets have proved resilient to date, but one wonders whether this could be a catalyst for some significant selling to come.

2. Borrowing Costs

Ratings downgrades could lift Treasury yields and increase debt-servicing costs. The Federal Reserve is already balancing sticky inflation and potential downward pressure on growth. This could make rate decisions more difficult.

3. The Impact on the USD

Rises in treasury yields would generally support the USD. However, rising concerns about fiscal stability created by a prolonged shutdown may put further downward pressure on the USD. Consequently, it is likely to result in buying into gold as a safe haven. With gold already testing record highs repeatedly over the last weeks, this could support further moves to the upside.

4. Credibility Erosion

Repeated shutdowns weaken the U.S.’s reputation as the world’s most reliable borrower. With some evidence that tariffs are already impacting trade and investment into the US, a prolonged shutdown could exacerbate this further.

What Traders Should Watch

For those who trade financial markets, shutdowns matter more for what they could signal both in the short and medium term. Here are some of the key asset classes to watch:

• Equities: Likely to see volatility as political risk rises, and the potential for “money off the table” after significant gains year-to-date for equities.
• U.S. Dollar: With the US dollar already relatively weak, further vulnerability if a shutdown feeds global doubts about U.S. fiscal stability.
• Gold and other commodities: May continue to gain as hedges against political and credit risk. Oil is already threatening support levels; any prolonged shutdown may add to the bearish narrative, along with other economic slowdown concerns
• Outside the US: With the US such a big player in global GDP, we may see revisions in forward-looking estimates, slingshot impacts on other global markets and even supply chain disruptions with impact on customs services (potentially inflationary).

Final Word

The 2025 shutdown is unusual because of its scale and because it started on Day 1 of the fiscal year, without even a temporary extension. That speed points to a deeper strategic and political contribution beyond the usual budget wrangling that we see periodically.For traders, the lesson is clear: shutdowns are not just what happens in Washington, but may impact confidence, borrowing costs, and market sentiment across a range of asset classes. In today’s world, where political credibility is a form of capital, shutdowns have the potential to erode the very foundation of the U.S.’s role in global finance and trade relationships.