"They say everything I want to hear to get the job, and then suddenly they say, 'Let's raise interest rates a bit.'"

This was a public complaint made by U.S. President Donald Trump at the Davos Forum in Switzerland in late January.

It was a grievance that before being nominated, candidates would support rate cuts to suit President Trump's preferences, only to change their tune once appointed.

A few days after the Davos Forum concluded, President Trump nominated Kevin Warsh as Chair of the Federal Reserve.

President Trump's frustration ultimately became reality.

Having taken office after Senate confirmation in May, Chair Warsh implemented a rate hike about four months later, despite President Trump's repeated pressure that U.S. interest rates should be the lowest in the world.

Given the independence of the Fed, the term "rebellion" may not be entirely appropriate, but considering how persistently President Trump has pressured the Fed to cut rates, observers note that it must have been a difficult decision for Chair Warsh as well.

In particular, Chair Warsh is well aware that President Trump subjected his predecessor, former Chair Jerome Powell, to personal insults and even attempted investigations, and that he selected Warsh with high expectations for interest rate cuts.

However, Chair Warsh made his clear stance on the independence of the Fed known on this day, showing that he was not afraid of a clash with President Trump.

Describing the independence of the Fed as "staying true to one's fundamental duties," Chair Warsh emphasized that those responsible for trade and fiscal policies must also stick to their respective duties.

By stating that the executive branch makes appropriate judgments in the realms of trade and fiscal policy while the Fed makes necessary judgments in the realm of monetary policy, he effectively drew a clear boundary between the Fed and the executive branch.

Since his days as a Fed governor in the past, Chair Warsh has been classified as a prominent hawk who guards against inflation and emphasizes the necessity of monetary tightening, but since taking office as Fed Chair, he has rarely made definitive remarks about his own judgments.

President Trump refrained from directly attacking Chair Warsh, responding with more restraint than expected.

Writing on the social media platform Truth Social, President Trump urged that U.S. benchmark interest rates should be 1% or lower and that rates must be cut quickly.

However, as expectations grow that an additional rate cut might be made at the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) meeting in late October, just before the midterm elections, there is a possibility that President Trump will gradually ramp up the intensity of his attacks against Chair Warsh.

There is a reason why this "blow" from Chair Warsh feels even more painful from President Trump's perspective.

It comes on top of another blow dealt two days prior on September 14, when the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision running counter to President Trump's desire to restrict mail-in voting.

All three Supreme Court justices directly appointed by President Trump failed to take his side.

While they did not actively oppose him, they did not actively take his side either.

Ever since his first administration, President Trump has poured his efforts into achieving his political interests through a conservative-leaning composition of the Supreme Court.

This reflects the reality that most of his policies face lawsuits and end up heading to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court currently has a conservative-leaning composition of 6 to 3, and while rulings favorable to President Trump have indeed followed one after another, the impact of this decision is not insignificant for President Trump, who desperately needs restrictions on mail-in voting ahead of the midterm elections.

Whether it is the Supreme Court or the Fed, independence is the lifeblood of these institutions, but President Trump has openly displayed the perception that officials he appoints must not make judgments disadvantageous to him.

It is highly likely that he holds a perception of "ungratefulness" toward both Chair Warsh and the Supreme Court justices he appointed.