The battle for the 2026 Federal Reserve Chairmanship is reshaping the logic of global asset allocation.

On the surface, this appears to be a policy confrontation between Trump and Powell—one advocating for loose liquidity to stimulate the economy, the other adhering to a professional stance on inflation management. But fundamentally, this contest touches on a deeper issue: how much independence should central banks have, and to what extent can political pressure sway monetary policy judgments?

The recent shift in candidate preferences is quite interesting. Previously considered a "front-runner," White House advisor Haskett raised market concerns due to his close ties with Trump—fears that he might become a political tool rather than an independent policy maker. This reversal itself indicates one point: markets actually value the professionalism of central banks more than obedience to political power.

Among the candidates emerging afterward, former Fed Governor Kevin Wash is seen as a "safe choice" due to his hawkish stance and Wall Street background, capable of balancing political demands with market confidence. Current Governor Waller is also in the running. These changes in candidates seem like internal power adjustments, but they actually signal possible directions for monetary policy in 2026.

This issue is highly significant for crypto assets. If political forces ultimately break through the central bank’s independence, a large-scale easing cycle is inevitable, putting pressure on the dollar and flooding global liquidity. Assets like Bitcoin and Ethereum could then undergo a new valuation restructuring. But if professionalism holds the line, markets will continue to oscillate under high interest rates, with inflation and recession risks persisting long-term.

In short, this is not just personnel changes but a key node in determining how the global financial ecosystem will evolve in 2026. What’s your take? Let’s discuss in the comments.