
Trump's agenda faces a $22 billion test from markets
Standard, boring bond auctions are drawing the attention of investors around the globe.
The Treasury Department on Thursday will sell $22 billion worth of 30-year government bonds, in what will serve as a gauge of investors' appetite for US debt. All eyes are on whether there is weak demand, particularly from foreign investors.
The Treasury auction, which is a regularly scheduled event, has become a closely watched barometer for how Wall Street is feeling about the Trump administration's policy agenda. A poor auction could reignite jitters about America's debt burden, President Donald Trump's 'One Big, Beautiful Bill Act' and the ability for lawmakers to get the country's finances in order.
If there is weak demand for 30-year bonds at Thursday's auction, that would push yields higher. Bond yields and prices have an inverse relationship. When there is strong demand for bonds, prices rise and yields fall. Vice versa, when there is weak demand for bonds, prices fall and yields rise.
Higher yields would squeeze the government with higher borrowing costs. Treasury yields are also benchmark interest rates for the economy, and higher yields can mean higher borrowing costs for consumers on everyday items including auto loans and credit cards.
Long-term US debt, which is usually considered the safe, risk-free corner of the market, has come under scrutiny as Trump's tax bill is set to add to the federal debt burden.
'The idea that the US fiscal position is unsustainable over the long run has been frequently noted for years, but it has taken the current set of circumstances to get market participants to begin pushing back,' John Canavan, lead US analyst at Oxford Economics, said in a Wednesday note.
Yields on 30-year Treasury bonds have soared this year as investors have demanded more compensation for what is looking like a riskier long-term loan to the US government. These concerns were exacerbated in May after Moody's downgraded the US, stripping the nation of its last perfect credit rating.
'The Moody's downgrade occurred as the ability to easily finance growing deficits increasingly comes into question,' Canavan said. 'Trump's tariff decisions are likely to raise inflation over the near term, while lowering economic growth and leading foreign investors to question the safe-haven allure of Treasury debt.'
This is the first 30-year Treasury auction since Wall Street has begun focusing on the details of Trump's mega bill and the deficit, making it an important gauge of sentiment, Collin Martin, a fixed income strategist at Charles Schwab, told CNN.
'There's a concern that yields might need to rise to attract more and more investors to keep buying,' Martin said.
'If it's a weak auction, we'll probably see yields rise relatively sharply, because that might spook investors,' Martin added, 'and on the flip side, if it ends up being a pretty good auction, that would probably allow the markets to kind of breathe a sigh of relief that, okay, there is enough demand.'
There is robust demand for shorter-term Treasuries like 10-year bonds, according to Chip Hughey, managing director for fixed income at Truist Advisory Services. An auction for 10-year Treasuries on Wednesday saw strong demand both for domestic and global investors.
Yet investors have shown hesitancy about longer-duration bonds like the 30-year bond, Hughey said.
Investors are increasingly uncertain about the long-term outlook for the US debt burden, giving them pause about the risk associated with loaning money to the government over a longer period.
'There certainly is a little bit of hesitancy about taking on a great deal of duration, just given the uncertainty around trade policy and deficits, and also what that would mean for your future debt supply,' Hughey said. 'The 30-year reflects the uncertainties around those more structural questions around budget deficits and the US debt load going forward.'
In May, the 30-year yield spiked to its highest level since 2023 after a Treasury auction for 20-year bonds that saw weak demand.
Pacific Investment Management Company, a global fixed income firm, said in a Tuesday report that bonds still look relatively attractive and affordable compared to stocks. However, Pimco expects to focus and be 'overweight' to 5- and 10-year bonds, while being less focused and 'underweight' to longer-term bonds.
Martin at Charles Schwab said that while concerns about the deficit linger, investors are also assessing factors like inflation and the path of potential Federal Reserve rate cuts. The latest data showed that consumer prices cooled more than expected in May. Fixed income assets like bonds can become more appealing when inflation is cooling.
'We still find yields pretty attractive, and our outlook on the safety of US Treasuries hasn't changed,' Martin said.
Elsewhere in markets, US stocks opened lower on Thursday. The Dow was lower by 250 points, or 0.6%. The broader S&P 500 fell 0.3% and the tech-heavy Nasdaq Composite slid 0.25%.
The S&P 500 is hovering near an all-time high, but has stalled in recent trading and is coming off a day in the red.
The US dollar broadly weakened on Thursday as investors wrestle with continued tariff uncertainty. The US dollar index, which measures the dollar's strength against six major foreign currencies, tumbled almost 1% and fell to its lowest level since 2022.
This is a developing story and will be updated.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
29 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump gives off strongman pageantry with military parade we're paying for
We've all had that friend. The one who drops a year's salary on a one-day wedding with monogrammed cocktail ice and fireworks timed to the couple's first kiss. You smile politely, wear the overpriced bridesmaid dress, and pretend the champagne tower wasn't funded with a 401(k) withdrawal. Now imagine that wedding, but with tanks. Because on June 14, the 250th birthday of the U.S. Army and, coincidentally, the 79th birthday of President Donald Trump, we're all invited to his "Big Fat Military Parade." It's unnecessary. It's over the top. It's wildly expensive. And yes — we're paying for it. Letters: House budget provision exempts executive branch from following court orders So in the spirit of love, liberty, and judgment, here are 6 ways Trump's parade is like your friend's over-the-top gauche wedding: Your friend spent $100,000 on a single day while still renting a studio apartment and paying 23.99% interest on her credit card balance. This parade? Same energy. It's projected to cost up to $45 million dollars, but just like any good wedding, this one will likely blow the budget. We're talking tens of millions of dollars for tanks, jets, porta-potties, and housing the troops. Let's hope Rudy Giuliani's appearance fee these days is just a bottle of scotch and partial immunity. That's money that could actually help our troops and veterans with housing, healthcare, and food assistance. Instead they're being paraded around like GI Joe action figures at an America First themed birthday party with enough red, white, and blue smoke to make a bald eagle develop asthma. Trump's argument that tanks rolling down Pennsylvania Avenue is a demonstration of 'patriotism' is about as believable as your friend's horse-drawn carriage, champagne wall and a third outfit change demonstrating her love and commitment to Chad. This parade is about creating an Instagram thirst-trap but with tanks. We're about to get an epic amount of social media content set to a Lee Greenwood soundtrack. Just like a destination wedding, this isn't something most people asked for — and yet, we're the ones footing the bill. Americans struggling with rent, insulin costs, and groceries now get to sponsor the equivalent to a wedding in Bali they never RSVPed to — except instead of frequent flyer miles, they're paying for it in federal deficit. We didn't ask for this. We didn't budget for this. And we certainly don't need a military-themed engagement party for a man who avoided military service and now wants to wear patriotism like a rented tux. After the wedding? Broken wine glasses, credit card debt, and a drunk cousin crying by the photo booth. After the parade? Damaged streets, a gross misuse of public funds, and a fresh round of international side-eye. And like any bad wedding, the rest of us are left with a hangover and haunting memories of forced applause. Some brides plan weddings that are less about a joyful union and more about going viral. She's not inspired by love; she's copying Kim Kardashian's flower wall and Marie Antoinette's budget. Trump's parade Pinterest board seems to be emulating an aesthetic that is part Putin, part Kim Jong Un, with a little young Mussolini mustache twirl. The whole thing screams 'strongman pageantry,' except instead of tiaras and couture, we're flexing tanks and fighter jets. Trump's June 14 parade isn't about the country. It's about control, image, and the illusion of strength — just like your friend's over the top wedding was less about commitment and more about drone footage of the Amalfi Coast. Letters: Making Canada 51st state is a great idea, but not for reason Trump thinks Let's stop pretending this is normal. A true celebration of America doesn't need tanks. Just like a good wedding doesn't need a fog machine, a 17 piece big band or a commemorative hashtag. If this really were a wedding? I'd give it six months. Kristin Brey is the "My Take" columnist for the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. This article originally appeared on Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: True celebration of America doesn't need tanks or flyovers | Opinion
Yahoo
30 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Senate Republicans seethe as blue-state lawmakers dig in
Senate Republicans want to slash — or in some cases kill — the $40,000 state and local tax deduction cap that the House added to President Donald Trump's megabill — but avoiding a protracted battle may require them to bend. Senators are cutting deals on Trump's campaign priorities as they craft their version of the massive tax and spending plan, delaying a foreign 'revenge' tax and changing other divisive provisions the House passed. The so-called SALT deduction is one of the last sticking points: Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, told Semafor that the details of how his chamber treats the issue might look blank in its first draft because of the lingering bicameral disagreement. House Republicans say they won't back off their position, which would quadruple the current limit on SALT deduction. The main problem for those House members? Some senators' olive branch to the House reminds them of Michael Corleone's infamous offer: Nothing. 'Zero is a good number' for a SALT cap, Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fla., told Semafor. It's an epic clash between the disparate wings of the Republican Party – all over a tax break that disproportionately aids wealthy people in blue states. On one side is a Senate GOP almost entirely representing lower-cost states that is tired of kowtowing to the House; on the other side is a handful of House members whose electoral wins gave Republicans the majority, and the ability to even write a party-line tax bill. Several Senate Republicans said the chamber wouldn't totally zero out the SALT deduction, but they are contemplating making a big cut to the House language. That could lead to a protracted disagreement between the two chambers — and stall Trump's megabill well past the GOP's self-imposed July 4 deadline. 'Unless there's at least $40,000 of SALT in the bill, it can't pass the House,' said Rep. Nick Lalota, R-N.Y. 'Those who are thinking pragmatically understand that reality.' 'We all think it's a rather unrealistic demand that the few members in the House are driving such a huge deficit creator,' shot back Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis. LaLota flipped his vote Thursday on legislation clawing back federal spending on public media and foreign aid. Asked how leaders got him to 'yes,' he replied that 'PBS and NPR will live on … and I expect my constituents will be quite pleased when they get $40,000 worth of SALT.' Several lawmakers are playing peacemaker between the chambers; Senate Majority Leader John Thune and Finance Chair Mike Crapo were expected to address the matter with Trump directly at a White House meeting on Thursday. Sen. Markwayne Mullin, R-Okla., is negotiating directly with Rep. Mike Lawler, R-N.Y., one of the most hardline SALT Republicans. And House Ways and Means Chair Jason Smith told Semafor Thursday that he is urging Senate Republicans to proceed with caution. 'They know what's necessary by what we passed out of the House,' Smith said. 'SALT, it's not an issue to them other than they want to have a bill on the president's desk.' 'We passed a very reasonable compromise in the House, and I just tell the Senate to thread the needle lightly,' Smith added. There are 'at least five' House Republicans who see $40,000 as a dealbreaker, LaLota said, who included Lawler and Rep. Tom Kean of New Jersey in that camp. He added that they are 'on a roadshow of sorts, making sure that folks … understand how resolved we are about $40,000 SALT.' While some Senate conservatives would prefer to blow up the SALT cap completely, they will likely have to finesse the language to avoid steamrolling the House. The increase to the SALT cap is estimated to cost roughly $350 billion over 10 years, and slimming it down could satisfy fiscal hawks. Senators are considering potentially imposing a more strict income cap on the deduction to wring more savings out of the bill. 'I'm certainly willing to try to pass a bill that the House is going to struggle with, but ultimately pass,' said Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas. Battleground-seat House Republicans, meanwhile, are so far out on a limb for SALT that backing down now could severely harm their election chances. Republicans from states like California, New York and New Jersey form the majority-making component of the House GOP. 'No Republican senator likes the SALT; raising the SALT cap. I don't either,' House Speaker Mike Johnson said on the 'Ruthless' podcast Thursday. 'But I told [senators], 'The reality is, our majority runs through states like California and New York.'' Most GOP senators understand that dynamic — to a point. Republican senators are also tired of swallowing whatever can pass the House, a dynamic that has repeated itself on several recent must-pass pieces of legislation. And conservatives vowed to pursue the most savings they can out of the bill. A House priority that almost no GOP senators support is a prime target. 'It's an easy way to go in and grab money and cut the deficit, which: Don't disagree. The problem we have is, we still got to get the votes over there,' Mullin told reporters. The general message from most Republicans is that blue-state House colleagues may have to climb down on SALT — at least a little. As Rep. Byron Donalds, R-Fla., put it: 'Everybody's having to accept stuff they don't like in this bill.' 'I think it's actually going to be cut down a lot over here [in the Senate] and we move on,' Donalds said. 'For my SALT colleagues: What matters more, SALT or small business taxes going up?' Republicans are closing in on a deal. But the last pieces are always the hardest, and the weird SALT dance has the potential to snarl things even more at the last minute — especially after Speaker Johnson labored to get some of the same pro-SALT members to codify spending cuts. It's hard to see the Senate passing something that doesn't slim down the House's SALT language. We've even heard they might put a lowball number in their legislation to throw a scare into the House. But in the end we think they'll back-channel a compromise. It doesn't seem like anyone wants a lengthy bicameral conference that delays the bill even longer. The so-called revenge tax is likely to be delayed in the final bill. LaLota met with Senate leadership staff this week to discuss SALT, according to POLITICO.
Yahoo
30 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Private school families lose legal challenge against Labour VAT raid
Private school families have lost their High Court challenge against the Government over its decision to apply VAT on fees. Three separate challenges were heard together in a judicial review between April 1 and 3, using more than a dozen families as case studies. In a single written judgement issued on Friday, the three judges presiding over the case said they 'dismiss the claims'. Dame Victoria Sharp, Lord Justice Newey and Mr Justice Chamberlain said the VAT policy was 'proportionate' in its aim to raise extra revenue for state schools. Private school families sued the Government over its decision to apply 20 per cent VAT to fees, which came into force in January. Parent groups were seeking a 'declaration of incompatibility' under human rights laws. Even if successful, this would not have overturned the VAT policy in itself, but could have forced the Government to take a second look at the tax raid or hand out exemptions. The Independent Schools Council (ISC), which represents more than 1,400 private schools, hired Lord Pannick KC, the leading human rights barrister, to spearhead its legal challenge. The case was wrapped together with two others, using children as case studies to highlight the alleged unfairness of the policy. They included children with special education needs (SEND) who are not eligible for tailored care plans, religious families with children at faith schools, and a girl at a single-sex school. Claimants argued that the VAT raid interferes with the fundamental right to education for some pupils, and disproportionately affects lower-income families. Julie Robinson, chief executive of the ISC, said: 'This is an unprecedented tax on education and it was right that its compatibility with human rights law was tested. 'We would like to thank the claimants who shared their stories on key issues: SEND, faith schools, bilingual provision and girls-only education. It showcased how vital independent schools are for many families and the broad, diverse community choosing what they feel is the right education for their child. 'The ISC is carefully considering the court's judgment and next steps. Our focus remains on supporting schools, families and children. We will continue to work to ensure the government is held to account over the negative impact this tax on education is having across independent and state schools.' More follows. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.