How will Donald Trump react in the remaining debates if Secretary Clinton comes at him in respect of the Federal Reserve? We ask because this is suddenly becoming one of the hottest questions. “Trump’s mudslinging puts the Fed in danger,” frets the headline over today’s editorial in the big Japanese financial newspaper, the London Financial Times. It’s alarmed that Mr. Trump is warning of a “false economy” created by the central bank’s increasingly desperate effort to get us out of the Great Recession by buying up the Obama administration’s debt.

Talk about blaming the messenger. The fact is that warnings about the Federal Reserve’s reckless expansion of its balance sheet, quantitative easing, zero interest rate policy, attempts to jaw-bone the economy back into action, and open contempt for the Congress, all pre-date the accession of The Donald to the leadership of the Republican Party. Not to take anything away from Mr. Trump. He won the nomination partly because he recognizes that the Fed has been part of the problem, which puts him ahead of our intelligentsia, if not the Congress.

This is underscored in the latest dispatch on this head from Bloomberg’s newswire. It reports that the Federal Reserve “may be headed for a shakeup regardless of who wins the 2016 election.” It publishes an astonishing chart showing the collapsing confidence in the Fed during the span from Alan Greenspan through Ben Bernanke to Janet Yellen. It quibbles somewhat about the causes of this (Mr. Greenspan “was more well known,” it reckons). But it also recognizes that, while Mrs. Clinton mightn’t be ready for “radical change,” contra Mr. Trump, things are moving quickly on Capitol Hill.

The Democratic nominee, it reports, has confined herself to calling for greater diversity at the Fed, “while,” as Bloomberg puts it, “defending the practice of recent U.S. presidents from both parties of not commenting on monetary policy.” That’s an error in an otherwise fine dispatch. It reports that Mr. Trump “has been vague on how the Fed should change, but has spurned the tradition of respecting its monetary policy independence.” It does note that Republican nominee has “slammed it for keeping interest rates low,” without mentioning that this is an example of the candidate going against his own commercial interests.

Congress, in any event, is way ahead of Bloomberg and the rest of the press. It has thrice passed (once by a vote of 333 to 92) the bill known as Audit the Fed, which would increase oversight of the Fed by the branch of our government to which the Constitution grants the monetary powers. The parchment underscores the fact that all the prattle about the “independence” of the Fed can only be taken so far. Independence from the Congress of the United States would be unconstitutional on its face. Mr. Trump has surrounded himself with economists who understand that down to the ground.

One of them, Judy Shelton, wrote just the other day in the FT an op-ed piece trying to explain to its long-suffering readers the essential points. These include the fact that everything the Fed does is inherently political. This has become ever more so after Democrats in Congress assigned to the Fed the task of using monetary policy for managing not only prices but also unemployment. That mandate, incidentally, is one thing the Congress and (we predict) Mr. Trump, if he’s elected, will be looking to end. Not that that’s the only reform under consideration.

Even Britain’s new prime minister, Theresa May, is warning that “change has got to come” to Britain’s version of the monetary crisis. Our own Congress is looking at the question of fiat money – whether we made a mistake in the 1970s in ending the system in which dollars held by governments overseas were redeemable at a 35th of an ounce of gold. The Bloomberg wire reports that “economists” are in agreement “that the gold standard is a failed and impractical system.” Congress, though, is not in agreement on that head. Imagine the dangers to the Federal Reserve when the world wakes up to that fact.