The Supreme Court has been systematically dismantling the modern administrative state. In several decisions, the justices have pushed back against the idea that executive-branch agencies can be insulated from presidential oversight. The constitutional principle is straightforward: Executive power must be accountable to the president.

Yet the court has hesitated to apply this logic to the Federal Reserve, easily the most important independent agency. That exception is increasingly hard to defend.

Recent Supreme Court cases such as Seila Law v. CFPB and Collins v. Yellen reject the notion that Congress may create powerful agencies whose leaders are shielded from removal by the president. The Court has been clear that technocratic expertise, political convenience, and even good policy outcomes do not override the Constitution’s separation of powers. If an agency exercises executive authority, it must ultimately answer to the elected chief executive.

Monetary policy would seem to fit squarely within that framework. The Fed regulates banks, influences the availability and price of credit, and controls the nation’s ultimate settlement asset. These decisions materially shape markets for labor, housing, and securities, which include the market for Treasury debt. If this does not count as executive power, what does?

And yet the Court appears willing to carve out an exception for the central bank. Defenders of Fed independence point to history, especially the First and Second Banks of the United States, and to the dangers of presidential meddling with monetary policy. They warn that subjecting Fed decisions to democratic accountability would invite political interference, with the likely result of excessive dollar depreciation.

But these are not constitutional arguments. They are prudential ones. They do not change the basic matter of what the Constitution says about executive authority. If the Constitution rules out conventional central banking, it is central banking that needs to change, not the Constitution.

History alone cannot justify departures from constitutional structure. Contrary to the Supreme Court’s claims, the First and Second Banks of the United States bore little resemblance to today’s Federal Reserve, as even Fed Chair Powell recognized. They lacked modern macroeconomic stabilization powers, operated under government charters, and existed for limited terms. Invoking them as precedent for an unaccountable central bank with sweeping discretionary authority is an historical solecism.

Nor can expertise supply a constitutional warrant. The Supreme Court has repeatedly rejected the idea that technical competence licenses insulation from political control. If Ph.D. economists qualify for special treatment, why not epidemiologists, climate scientists, or national security analysts? The argument has no limiting principle.

The real issue, though perhaps uncomfortable, is simple: Either the president runs the executive branch, or he does not.

If we believe that presidential interference with monetary policy is so dangerous that it must be prevented at all costs, the Constitution offers two solutions. One is to place the Federal Reserve firmly under executive control and accept political accountability for monetary outcomes, just as we do for every other entity that enforces laws passed by Congress. The other is to eliminate discretion altogether by binding monetary policy to strict, automatic rules—ones that leave no room for judgment calls by policymakers, however credentialed.

What the Constitution does not permit is what we have now: discretionary macroeconomic governance by financial insiders who answer to no elected official.

The Fed’s defenders often invoke “constrained discretion” as a middle ground. But discretion is still discretion. Choosing inflation targets, interpreting economic data, timing interventions, and deciding when to bend or suspend rules all involve judgment. Those judgments often have significant distributional consequences, benefiting some groups at the expense of others. Exercising such power without political accountability is precisely what the Court has rejected in other contexts.

To be sure, markets have grown accustomed to an independent Fed. But market expectations do not confer constitutional legitimacy. Investors once took Chevron deference and expansive agency authority for granted, too. Stability is desirable, but it cannot come at the expense of constitutional government.

The uncomfortable truth is that the Federal Reserve survives not because it fits neatly within our constitutional order, but because the alternative frightens us. Presidents might pressure the Fed to run the printing presses before elections, just as President Nixon had Fed Chair Arthur F. Burns do. Yes, inflation might follow. These are real concerns—but they are not legal ones.

If discretionary monetary policy is incompatible with democratic accountability, the answer is to reform monetary institutions so that discretion is radically constrained, not exempt those institutions from constitutional scrutiny. Alternatively, we should rethink whether a centralized monetary authority is compatible with the letter and spirit of constitutional law in the first place.

The Supreme Court has rightly insisted that the separation of powers means what it says. If that principle stops at the doors of the Federal Reserve, it is not a principle. It is an exception born of fear. And fear is a poor foundation for constitutional self-government.

The darkest days of the year have always asked something of us.

Long before we strung electric lights and gathered around brick fireplaces, people across cultures marked the winter solstice — the darkest day of the year. We do so still, not with despair, but as a moment of deliberate action, of invitation. We bring greenery indoors. We light candles in the windows and fires in the hearth. We gather, sing, feast, celebrate. We tell stories about the sun’s return, even though the bulk of winter lies heavy ahead.

Why We Bring Life and Light Indoors

The solstice is neither the end of winter nor its harshest nadir. It is the turning point, the time when decline stops and reversal begins. The days will begin, imperceptibly, to lengthen again. There seems to be some universal human impulse to mark the deepest darkness with light of our own making, and to gather in the good things that sustain us through lean times.

By the second century BCE, Roman households decorated their doors with holly, sacred to the god Saturn. Its red berries and vibrant green foliage set the season’s signature color scheme. Around the same time, Druids were decorating holly trees (though cutting one down would bring bad luck) and bringing in red-and-white speckled fly agaric mushrooms to dry by the fire. Further north, the Norse were hanging mistletoe, with its tiny white berries, under which couples would stop to kiss. Celts and Germanic tribes cut boughs from the evergreen plants around them — ivy, fir, laurel — to symbolize enduring life. 

As Christianity crept across the continent, these cultural practices were absorbed by new narratives. The decorated tree was eventually brought indoors and adorned with ornaments, migrating from Germany with Prince Albert and Queen Victoria. It was subsumed into the Christmas tradition and subsequently across the Anglosphere, including the southern hemisphere. 

But indigenous midwinter celebrations of fire, music, and revelry were already observed there, in June. The Mapuche of southern Chile and adjacent Argentina celebrate We Tripantu around the June solstice as a new year and renewal of the natural cycle. Each recognizes that midwinter is not a time of death, but of quiet hibernation, preparation, and anticipation.

Why We Light the Dark

In Scandinavia, a giant oak log, the Yule log, was burned to symbolize strength and endurance, its light defying the darkness and promising regrowth and rebirth. A fragment was saved each year to start next year’s fire.

And that, perhaps, is the enduring lesson of these solstice ceremonies of renewal.

Evergreens remain visibly living when deciduous plants appear dead, so they become symbols of continuity, rebirth, and eternal life. But neither are really dead. They are storing away energy, waiting for the light and opportunity to grow to return.

The embers of the Yule log, saved for next year; the hard-won sugars stored up in evergreen boughs. Human beings have always marked the darkest economic and seasonal moments not by denial, but by deliberate acts of renewal — bringing light and living things indoors as a vote of confidence in the future.

Discipline in Dormancy

Human capital works the same way. Periods of stagnation and loss can be times of preparation — if we take responsibility for them. Skills can be sharpened. Habits can be examined. Character can be rebuilt. But none of this happens automatically. Winter only becomes preparation if we choose to treat it as such.

The first signs of recovery are often invisible: better decisions, renewed discipline, a willingness to accept responsibility for one’s future. These do not immediately produce abundance, but they change the trajectory. Compounding works quietly at first.

In economic life, downturns, stagnation, and personal failure function as winter solstices. In the moments when progress is slowest, we might not notice that reversal has already begun. Prosperity does not return automatically — it returns because people act as if it will. We conserve capital, tend embers, make plans, and orient ourselves toward the future. We honor the natural cycles by preparing ourselves to grow again.

Prosperity depends not only on policies or institutions, but on the daily choices of individuals who conserve, invest, and prepare. It depends on people willing to tend embers rather than curse the cold.

In a time when economic anxiety is widespread and faith in the future often feels thin, the solstice offers a bracing reminder. Darkness does not mean directionlessness. Dormancy does not mean decay. And renewal does not require grand gestures — only the discipline to preserve what still lives and the courage to believe that patient effort matters.

The people who celebrated the “longest night” were not naïve. They knew months of cold still lay ahead. They knew crops would not sprout for a long time. Yet they marked the moment anyway, because direction mattered more than speed. After the solstice, as in recession and personal loss, progress begins before comfort returns.

President Trump has accused virtually every country, including those inhabited only by penguins of ripping us off when it comes to trade. But there’s one region that the President has neglected to protect us from: the North Pole. By every metric that the Trump administration has used, Good Saint Nick should really be considered an economic terrorist. Consider the following:

North Pole Trade Deficit

Santa operates out of the North Pole which is (as of yet) not part of the United States; everything that he brings into the country is considered an import. Meanwhile we export nothing to the North Pole annually, giving us an entirely one-sided trade deficit with the North Pole. But just how much does Santa actually import into the United States each Christmas?

With just under two-thirds of Americans identifying as “Christian,” that gives us about 200 million people eligible for gifts from Santa, of which about half would be considered children. A recent survey finds that parents are anticipating spending about $521 per child on Christmas presents, which equates to $52.1 billion worth of Christmas spending. Obviously, parents and other family members will contribute the bulk of these presents to the kids. If we assume that only a quarter of the gifts that children receive on Christmas morning are “From: Santa,” that means that Santa must be importing $13 billion worth of Christmas presents on Christmas Eve.

Using the same methodology that the President’s Council of Economic Advisors has used, we can calculate the devastation that this pile of presents would bring upon our nation. At an average wage of $36 per hour, Santa’s imports are the equivalent of 180,555 manufacturing jobs that are destroyed by him deciding to spread his “good cheer.” 

Of course, if Santa were to contribute more than a mere quarter of the Christmas presents per year, this number would only rise.

Unfair Trade Practices

Worse still, is Santa’s practice of dumping gifts on the American economy. “Dumping,” according to US law, is when a foreign producer sells goods in America below the cost of production. Previous administrations have solved this in the past through the use of antidumping duties, sometimes exceeding 200 percent of the product’s value.

But Santa does not merely sell below cost. He gives his goods away for free. This is dumping at a price of zero, which is completely indefensible under US law. Even China, often referred to as the worst trade offender in the world, has the decency to charge us something for their harmful production. 

Using standard methodology to calculate the appropriate response is simple: take the value of the good, divide it by the price the importer is selling, and multiply it by 100 to arrive at the appropriate percentage penalty to apply. Since Santa charges us nothing, the appropriate response is therefore an infinite tariff rate applied to any and all goods imported from the North Pole.

Unfair Production Processes

We must also consider the means by which the North Pole produces its wares: intellectual property theft. Santa does not produce his own merchandise, but rather creates facsimiles of products readily available on shelves of stores around the country. This is intellectual property theft at its finest, which by some estimates costs the US up to $600 billion annually. Is it possible that all of those “elves on the shelves” are really spies, seeking to steal trade secrets through corporate espionage? After all, they apparently return to the North Pole every evening to “report to Santa.” Just what is in those reports? Has anyone seen them?

And how does Santa build these gifts? Through the use of what can only be considered child and slave labor, no less. Watching 1994’s The Santa Clause with the eyes of a trade representative reveals just how abhorrent Santa’s labor practices are as Santa has been using child elf labor since the beginning of his operation. Worse is 2003’s Elf, which reveals that when an elf does manage to escape, none other than Santa himself will descend from his throne and seek to collect the escapee. And should an elf wish to be anything other than a toymaker, he is berated and faced with serious pressure to conform, as the 1964 Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer shows with the plight of Hermey and his desire to become a dentist.

“And what are these elves paid with?” you ask. That’s easy: candy canes, hot cocoa, and “Christmas spirit.” This is currency manipulation at its finest. Meanwhile, these workers live in a region with no significant thermal activity and average temperatures of about -40°F, six months of darkness, and zero compliance with standard OSHA practices. Still, Santa reports that his elves are “merry.”

National Security Threat

Finally, we must consider the national security threat that Santa presents. President Trump has secured the border against illegal crossings. So why has nothing been done against Santa? Has he been vetted by national security advisors? Does he have visa paperwork or asylum status? Does he enter through a designated port of entry, submit to customs inspections, or declare the goods he is importing? It appears that the answers to all of these questions are a resounding “no,” which means that if any border is in need of a wall, it’s our northern border. Good luck building one tall enough to stop reindeer flying at over 650 miles per second.

Either Condemn Santa—or Thank Free Traders 

To his credit, the President has tried to convince parents that they should give their children fewer Christmas presents. At his affordability rally in Pennsylvania just a few weeks ago, he pointed out very clearly that “you don’t need 37 [dolls] for your daughter. Two or three is nice.” This isn’t the first time the President has derided excess consumption in the name of national security: he said as much back in May as well.

The reality is that the American people understand full well that Santa is no “economic terrorist.” While we may bemoan having to clean up the mess of wrapping paper, find ourselves unprepared for the sheer number of toys that need (but do not include) batteries, and perhaps find frustration that after a late night, we have to get up absurdly early, we still see Christmas Day not as a sign of us being taken advantage of, but as a day of celebration and good cheer.

But if we really stop and think about it, foreign producers have a degree of “Santa” in them. While they do not sell us their wares at zero price, they still charge lower prices than our domestic counterparts can match. This means more access to goods and services that allow us to live healthily and wealthily, however we choose to define those terms. Unlike Santa, foreign producers sell their “gifts” to everyone regardless of age or religious affiliation and they do so year round. 

So what we should really be after here is consistency: either condemn Santa as the job-destroying, IP-stealing, border-flouting menace he is — or thank foreign producers for enriching our lives with their gifts of specialization. You cannot have it both ways.