On April 26, the rhythm in Washington suddenly changed.

For several months, Republican Senator Thom Tillis from North Carolina had been a "brake" on the Federal Reserve's personnel nomination process. He publicly stated that as long as the U.S. Department of Justice or federal prosecutors were conducting a criminal investigation into current Chairman Jerome Powell, he would not push or support the confirmation of any Federal Reserve nominees. In his narrative, this investigation itself posed a serious threat to the independence of the Federal Reserve, even though President Trump had already chosen Kevin Warsh as the candidate to succeed Powell, the nomination was stalled at the Senate doors, remaining in limbo all winter.

The turning point also came from him. On April 26, Tillis publicly stated that after receiving assurances that "the criminal investigation into Powell has concluded," he now "looked forward to supporting" the confirmation of Kevin Warsh as Federal Reserve Chairman. According to reports from the Wall Street Journal and others, the meaning of this statement is not complicated: the condition he had set and adhered to for months—no nominations until the investigation was complete—was announced as satisfied at that moment, and he subsequently shifted his foot from the brake to the gas pedal.

The interpretation from the Wall Street Journal was more straightforward: when Tillis dropped his opposition to the candidate selected by President Trump, the "last major procedural obstacle" to Warsh's nomination confirmation was cleared. The Federal Reserve Chairman is nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate, and this institutional design gives the Senate substantial gatekeeping power, while it was Tillis who had used this process to block the president's nominee at the threshold. With this "obstructionist" turning into a supporter, the Senate opened the pathway for Warsh, leaving only procedural advancement issues.

The market, however, did not wait for a schedule. After the news of Tillis' change of heart broke, traders and analysts began placing their bets: after Powell's term ended, a new chairman was almost a done deal, and both the monetary policy path and financial regulatory environment could undergo reevaluation. Although there is currently insufficient publicly available information to outline Warsh's specific policy stance, after April 26, a new pattern regarding the "next Federal Reserve" had already begun to take shape at the expectation level.

The Criminal Investigation as a Pivot in Washington's Tug of War

To understand the turning point on April 26, the timeline must be rolled back to the criminal investigation surrounding Powell. The reasons for the investigation, amount of money involved, and even the specific start time have not been publicly substantiated, but the phrase "ongoing investigation" was seized upon by Thom Tillis and elevated to a threat at the institutional level—not to Powell personally, but to the "independence" of the Federal Reserve.

This Republican senator from North Carolina quickly made his position clear. According to multiple media reports, he explicitly drew a red line: as long as the U.S. Department of Justice or federal prosecutors were conducting a criminal investigation into Powell, he would not promote or support the confirmation of any Federal Reserve nominee. It was not a "delay" or "wait-and-see" approach but a blanket decision to keep all nominees equally stuck outside the door—regardless of which party the nominee belonged to or what their views were.

In Tillis' narrative, this red line was not a personal sentiment but a political pledge "to safeguard the independence of the Federal Reserve." He repeatedly described this investigation as a serious threat to the independence of the Federal Reserve: if the current chairman continued to lead monetary policy under the cloud of an unclear criminal investigation while the Senate proceeded with new appointments as usual, it would not only be a procedural chaos but also condone the erosion of independence. By using this type of rhetoric, he cloaked his obstruction in the legitimacy of institutional reasoning.

The problem is, the appointment of the Federal Reserve Chairman is inherently designed as a double-gate: the president nominates, and the Senate confirms. Donald Trump had already chosen Kevin Warsh as the candidate to replace Powell, which completed the first action at the executive level; but before the Senate's gate, Tillis had firmly jammed the lever with that red line. As long as he insisted that "nominations would not proceed until the investigation is concluded," the process would not move forward.

For the next several months, Warsh's nomination was thus locked in the procedural layers of the Senate, unable to make substantial progress. Without the initiation of key procedures, there could be no rhythm for hearings, let alone approaching a final vote. To the outside world, the nomination was "in progress"; yet internally within the Senate, it was precisely stuck at a position that was both compliant with the rules and sufficiently capable of stalling the whole situation.

Tillis is a Republican senator, yet he was blocking a Federal Reserve chairman candidate personally chosen by his party's president. This type of intra-party "reverse action" could continue for months without collapsing, relying not on emotion but on procedure: in a system that emphasizes procedural legitimacy, whoever can define a certain investigation as a "serious threat to the independence of the Federal Reserve" can use that investigation to provide sufficient political protection for their obstruction.

The prolonged deadlock on Warsh's nomination itself serves as a vivid demonstration—within Washington, a criminal investigation is not just a legal matter; it can also be amplified into a metaphor for institutional crisis; and when a senator's procedural tools are tied to such metaphors, it can freeze the personnel replacement for a key monetary policy position. Until that gate was reopened on April 26, this was the reality Kevin Warsh had to face.

From Strong Opposition to Support in a Day

April 26 marked a day for Thom Tillis when his position made a complete turn in public. Just a short time prior, he was still using one phrase to block all nominees from entering the Senate process—"no push or support for any Federal Reserve nominee until the criminal investigation is officially concluded." This was a red line he had drawn himself, and it was the key locking Warsh's nomination for months.

The turning point came from the "assurance" he mentioned. According to the Wall Street Journal, after Tillis was informed that relevant parties confirmed the criminal investigation into Jerome Powell had concluded, he swiftly changed his tone, stating he "looked forward to supporting Kevin Warsh as Federal Reserve Chairman." The same person, almost in line with the same narrative line—"investigation" and "institutional independence"—completed the action from fully applying brakes to pressing the accelerator.

This phrase "looked forward to supporting" not only formed a stark contrast to his previous public commitment of "not supporting any Federal Reserve nominee until the investigation is concluded" but also amounted to a public announcement: the procedural checkpoint he had set had been removed. Over the past few months, he repeatedly emphasized the threat the investigation posed to the independence of the Federal Reserve, using it as a reason to press the pause button on all related appointments; after confirming the investigation's conclusion, he chose to give a contrary signal in the same solemn tone.

The media quickly seized upon the significance of this shift. The Wall Street Journal's interpretation was quite direct: Tillis' abandonment of opposition to the candidate selected by Trump for the Federal Reserve Chair cleared the "last major procedural obstacle" to Warsh's nomination confirmation. Under the institutional design in which the Senate holds substantive gatekeeping power, a Republican senator who insisted on "blocking the process" suddenly transformed from an obstructionist to a facilitator, carrying greater symbolic weight than a single vote.

This change also brought the personnel arrangement that had been suspended in the White House much closer to fruition. Long before Tillis relented, Donald Trump had already nominated Kevin Warsh as the candidate to succeed Powell; however, under the deadlock of "no nominations until the investigation is concluded," this choice had remained on paper for a long time. Now, with support from this North Carolina Republican, Trump's choice was no longer just a news headline; it began to have a realistic pathway towards formal consideration and confirmation in the Senate.

Some sources claim that Tillis' statement appeared during a television interview, but the specific program name and context are yet to be verified. Regardless of where the statement was made, what truly matters for Warsh's nomination is the content itself: that phrase "looked forward to supporting" signifies that the political leverage that had long frozen the nomination under the guise of "investigation" has been personally released by its original operator.

The Tug of War Over White House Personnel and Federal Reserve Independence

From the White House's perspective, nominating Kevin Warsh was merely a "normal" personnel arrangement: the president selects a successor, and the Senate is responsible for voting approval, as written in the institutional design. However, in the reality of political operations, this process was quickly torn open—a tear made by the senator from the president's own party, Thom Tillis.

According to the institutional arrangement, the Federal Reserve Chairman must be nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate. This constitutional chain was originally designed to balance executive power and legislative oversight: the president decides the direction, and the Senate vets the candidates. Yet Tillis chose to position himself in the middle of this chain—as a Republican senator from North Carolina, he openly obstructed President Trump's personnel selection using the reason of an unresolved criminal investigation, which caused Warsh's nomination to be delayed for months at the Senate level. This was not merely a simple intra-party disagreement but a knot combining intra-party politics and power separation impacting a single senator.

On a procedural level, the weapons at Tillis' disposal were not complicated: senators can significantly slow down or even freeze the confirmation process for key positions through refusal to support, delaying procedures, and so forth. He publicly stated that as long as the U.S. Justice Department or federal prosecutors were conducting a criminal investigation into current Fed Chairman Powell, he would not promote or support any Federal Reserve nominee—including Warsh. One person's "not promoting" or "not expressing support" was enough to lock the entire nomination chain.

What truly escalated the situation was the political narrative Tillis attached to this "procedural gate." He did not treat the criminal investigation directed at Powell as an isolated judicial matter; instead, he framed it as a serious threat to the independence of the Federal Reserve. This reasoning provided grounds for blocking related personnel nominations over several months. Thus, an investigation with details yet to be broadly disclosed and confirmed was elevated into a public case concerning institutional boundaries: the power relations among the White House, Senate, and Federal Reserve were forcibly dragged into the same discussion frame.

This method of intervening in Federal Reserve personnel matters using a criminal investigation as leverage further blurred the distinct separation that should exist between judicial processes, public appointments, and monetary policy in the eyes of the external world. The debate surrounding the White House's influence over the Federal Reserve has persisted for a long time, and this contest involving Warsh and Powell provided a new sample for concerns about "political interference in monetary policy": when the investigation was still viewed as "ongoing," nominations were frozen; when the investigation was declared "concluded," the political stance quickly shifted to support, and the personnel gate reopened.

On the surface, what Warsh's nomination encountered was just a "procedural obstacle"—a precondition maintained by one senator, subsequently removed by the same individual. The interpretation by the Wall Street Journal is that once this obstacle is removed, it opens up space for Warsh to move toward a confirmation vote. However, behind the procedural language, what is truly contested is the shaping power over the future independence and policy trajectory of the Federal Reserve: whoever can determine who will steer the Federal Reserve next holds the key to influencing future interest rates and financial regulatory paths. Tillis' "blocking" over the past months has exposed this contest to the spotlight.

As Warsh Takes Over, How Will the Market Interpret Signals?

From the perspective of power dynamics, after Tillis relented, the Senate opened for Warsh not just a vacant position, but an entire set of gates for repricing expectations. Once Warsh is ultimately confirmed and takes over after Powell's term ends, the change in the leadership of the Federal Reserve itself will force the market to reassess the future path of U.S. interest rates and the financial regulatory environment—even if the new chairman has not made any statements that clearly delineate policy.

Currently, publicly available information regarding Warsh's specific positions on interest rates, financial regulation, and crypto assets remains quite limited. There are neither widely corroborated systematic records of speeches nor clear trajectories of votes and decisions to extrapolate from. Research briefs on this point are quite restrained: they merely remind that any new chairman naturally leads the market to assume "there could be significant adjustments in interest rates and financial regulation," but this is more a summary of the general experience that "new chairman = policy repricing" rather than a qualitative judgment on Warsh specifically.

Because of this, anyone attempting to label Warsh as either "hawkish" or "dovish" at this moment is likely crossing a boundary and weaving a narrative. The highest limit that can be stated is: if Warsh takes over, the power dynamics within the Federal Reserve will change, and the market will closely monitor any public statements he makes regarding inflation, growth, and financial risks, adjusting bets on the future trajectory accordingly; but until those statements are actually made, any conclusion regarding "how he will certainly impact the market" lacks a solid foundation.

Experience tells us the market does not wait for the new chairman to sit in the office for expectations to begin shifting. In the lead-up to and following significant personnel changes, interest futures, stock markets, bond markets, and various risk asset prices—including cryptocurrencies—often reflect participants' reassessments of future Federal Reserve paths ahead of time: some bet on quicker policy shifts, some on tighter regulatory frameworks, while others merely try to capitalize on volatility itself. But this is a general pattern rather than a specific quantitative assessment of this particular personnel change.

For traders of crypto assets and broader risk assets, the easiest mistake to make at this moment is to treat a senator's statement or a media "source says" as a transactional signal that can be leveraged. Personnel rumors and procedural developments do indeed trigger emotions and short-term expectations, but the true determinants of asset pricing remain every word the Federal Reserve utters in formal communications thereafter—this includes policy statements, press conference remarks, and any changes in language that find their way into future minutes.

In other words, if Warsh ultimately steps into the chairman's office, what the market needs to read is not his name but every segment of text he leaves in institutional contexts and every public speech he makes. All current analyses can only remain at the level of "the market will pay attention to his stance": the transition itself may trigger adjustments in expectations, but which way those expectations tilt can only be truly priced once the Federal Reserve’s own words are articulated.

Details of the Investigation Remain a Mystery, Nomination Progress Still Has Variables

The current awkwardness lies in the fact that the market has already begun betting on when the "Warsh era" will commence, yet even the core foundational information regarding this turmoil remains unclear. The criminal investigation into Powell was indeed real, but when it will conclude, what specific behaviors it concerns, and how much money is involved, remain lacking in significant public cross-verification. Time points and case details circulating in the public domain mostly arise from single sources—for instance, there are claims that the investigation concluded on April 25, focused on overspending during renovations of the Federal Reserve headquarters, mentioning an amount of approximately $2 billion—but these details have not yet been independently verified and can only be considered information pending confirmation, not "conclusions" worthy of being written into textbooks.

Equally ambiguous is the timeline itself. Reports citing a single source suggest that Powell's term may end in mid-May, and the Senate might arrange a confirmation vote for Warsh in late April; there are also reports that Tillis welcomed internal oversight involvement in the investigation, then used the investigation as a reason to block the nomination. The issue is that this entire narrative remains at the level of sporadic disclosures and prospective arrangements without a publicly verifiable authoritative version. Under these circumstances, treating any specific date as "set in stone" is more about reading the winds rather than examining documents.

The Wall Street Journal's interpretation is that Tillis' position reversal cleared the "last major procedural obstacle" to Warsh's nomination confirmation. However, the removal of a procedural obstacle does not mean that only the process remains to be completed. The Senate has to schedule the nomination, coordinating timing between committees and the full chamber, and make room for the voting amid inter-party negotiations, intra-party calculations, and other pressing priorities—any delay in any step would change the timing of Warsh actually stepping into the chairman's role. Formally, the path is now open; substantively, the rhythm remains undetermined.

Moving forward, what truly deserves close attention are a few specific observational points, not the improvisational predictions of "rate cuts before June" on social media (which are merely subjective bets by market participants and should not be conflated with the personnel process or formal policy decisions):

● First, when and how official channels will indicate the investigation has concluded—will it be a brief statement from judicial or oversight bodies, or will there be more detailed accounts of the reasons and conclusions, which will determine whether the public can upgrade the circulating details from "rumor" to "fact."
● Second, when the Senate will officially schedule the confirmation for Warsh—every step from committee hearings to full chamber votes can be advanced or delayed, and the final version of this "timeline" has yet to be made public.
● Third, how the market will respond to these timelines—if the conclusion of the investigation is made clear and the voting date is locked in, how will interest rate expectations and risk preferences be repriced; if there are prolonged delays, how will this negatively impact the imagination of the "Warsh era."

Before these questions receive clearer answers, we can only ascertain one thing: the direction of the story is roughly clear, but key details remain locked in the filing cabinet, and even when the main character will officially make an appearance is still just a teaser-level promise.

Join our community for discussions and to grow stronger together!
Official Telegram community: https://t.me/aicoincn
AiCoin Chinese Twitter: https://x.com/AiCoinzh
OKX Benefits Group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=l61eM4owQ
Binance Benefits Group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=ynr7d1P6Z

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。