US Fed Meeting: 5 key factors that will shape FOMC policy decision
The US Federal Open Market Committee meeting is underway, with the outcome due later today, July 30. The US Fed's next policy meeting is scheduled for September 16-17.
At this juncture, the Fed may maintain the federal funds rate in the 4.25 per cent to 4.50 per cent range, given the uncertainty over how the tariffs announced by US President Donald Trump will affect the economy — even as Trump continues to mount pressure on Powell to lower rates.
"A rate cut by the Fed is unlikely today. More important would be the Fed commentary on the evolving economic outlook. The FOMC decision today is unlikely to impact the market," said VK Vijayakumar, Chief Investment Strategist, Geojit Investments.
Let's take a look at five key factors that will influence the monetary policy decision of the US Federal Reserve on July 30:
In its June policy meeting, the Fed revised its economic growth forecast, highlighting the risks associated with Trump's tariffs. The central bank projected GDP growth of 1.4 per cent in 2025, down 0.3 per cent from the March meeting.
The US economy did contract by 0.5 per cent in the first quarter this year, but the world's largest economy is not showing signs of significant stress at this juncture.
In fact, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) on Tuesday raised its estimate for the US economy this year and next year.
The IMF has raised its US growth forecast to 1.9 per cent for 2025 and 2 per cent for 2026, an increase of 10 basis points (bps) for 2025 and 30 bps for 2026. The IMF said tax incentives for corporate investment in the recent tax bill are also expected to boost growth slightly next year.
Of course, the Fed will have its own assessments, which will be the bedrock of its policy decisions.
The Fed cannot ignore the sticky inflation in the US. The US Consumer Price Index (CPI) rose to 2.7 per cent in June from 2.4 per cent in May. Experts expected the June CPI to be 2.6 per cent.
The Fed's preferred inflation gauge, the Producer Price Index (PPI), however, declined to 2.3 per cent in June from 2.7 per cent in May. June PPI came below expectations of 2.5 per cent.
Nevertheless, inflation in the US remains above the central bank's long-term target of 2 per cent.
At this point, the Fed cannot be sure that inflation will ease sustainably given high uncertainty over Trump's tariff policies.
The US has finalised trade deals with several countries and is actively engaged in negotiations with other major economies, including India and China, for a conclusive agreement.
However, the key point to keep in mind is that despite these trade deals, tariff rates on imports to the US may remain high, in the range of 15–20 per cent. This is likely to influence inflation trends in the US.
So far, the US jobs market has remained resilient. However, June US job openings and hiring data indicate signs of weakness.
US JOLTS (Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey) data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics showed that job openings dropped by 2,75,000 to 7.437 million in June, compared to the expectations of 7.510 million.
In May, the US JOLTS data showed 7.71 million job openings — the highest since November 2024.
There are apprehensions that the job market is yet to see the real impact of the tariffs, as Trump extended the tariff deadline for many countries to August 1.
US stocks are trading near record highs, while the dollar and bond yields have been largely stable, barring occasional profit booking.
The current financial market conditions do not warrant the Fed to bite the bullet and cut rates.
The Fed wants to wait for more data before moving ahead with rate cuts. At this juncture, there is significant uncertainty about how the tariff war will evolve in the coming days.
Despite trade deals, the element of unpredictability in President Trump's policies cannot be overlooked.
Experts also warn that the tariff policies could cause lasting damage to the US economy. Trump's tariffs remain a key variable in the Fed's monetary policy considerations.
Read all market-related news here
Read more stories by Nishant Kumar
Disclaimer: This story is for educational purposes only. The views and recommendations expressed are those of individual analysts or broking firms, not Mint. We advise investors to consult with certified experts before making any investment decisions, as market conditions can change rapidly and circumstances may vary.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
36 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
India ramps up US energy imports as Trump pushes balanced trade
Washington: India has dramatically increased its energy purchases from the US since Donald Trump returned to office in January, with crude oil imports surging 51% in the first half of 2025 compared to the same period last year, according to data cited by people aware of the trade specifics between the two nations. The surge follows a February agreement between Trump and Prime Minister Narendra Modi in Washington, where both leaders committed to expanding energy cooperation. (PTI) The energy buying spree reflects New Delhi's commitment to rebalance trade ties with Washington, a key demand of the Trump administration. Liquefied natural gas imports have nearly doubled from $1.41 billion in FY2023-24 to $2.46 billion in FY2024-25. The surge follows a February agreement between Trump and Prime Minister Narendra Modi in Washington, where both leaders committed to expanding energy cooperation. India pledged to boost American energy imports to $25 billion from $15 billion in 2024, while bilateral trade is targeted to more than double from $200 billion to $500 billion by 2030. 'The leaders reaffirmed their commitment to increase energy trade, as part of efforts to ensure energy security, and to establish the United States as a leading supplier of crude oil and petroleum products and liquefied natural gas to India,' the joint statement said. The momentum has accelerated significantly. Indian crude purchases from America jumped 114% to $3.7 billion in the first quarter of FY2025-26 from $1.73 billion in the same period the previous year. In July alone, imports rose 23% month-on-month, pushing America's share of India's total crude imports from 3% to 8%. 'This trend is increasing further from July this year. So, in July 2025 India imported 23% more crude oil from the US compared to June 2025,' said one of the people who analysed the data. 'Also, in India's overall crude imports, while the US share was earlier only 3%, in July that share increased to 8%.' American LNG has emerged as particularly attractive to Indian companies. 'Buying LNG from America is a very attractive proposition for many Indian companies,' said Prashant Vashisht, senior vice president at ratings agency ICRA. 'Firstly, US LNG, which is priced based on the Henry Hub benchmark, is very competitive price-wise compared to other sources. Second, a large number of LNG projects are coming online in the United States, which will mean that more Indian companies will look closely at the American market for tying up long-term contracts.' The timing aligns with America's plans to rapidly expand oil and gas exports. Trump reversed the Biden administration's pause on processing LNG export licences soon after taking office. The US Energy Information Administration expects North America's LNG export capacity to double by 2028, with America providing most of the increase. India's growing appetite for American energy comes as the country is poised to become the world's largest driver of oil demand growth. The International Energy Agency estimates India will surpass China as the major driver of global oil demand growth by 2030, with LNG demand expected to jump 78% to reach 64 billion cubic metres annually. 'Additional long-term LNG contracts worth tens of billions of dollars are being discussed. Indian oil and gas majors are in discussions with their US counterparts for long-term purchase of US oil and gas,' another person familiar with the matter said. 'India considers the US as among the most reliable partners for India's energy security.' However, energy ties remain a point of contention, particularly regarding India's continued purchases of Russian crude oil. The Trump administration has pressed New Delhi to reconsider its energy relationship with Moscow to pressure President Vladimir Putin to negotiate an end to the Russia-Ukraine conflict.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
From Laos to Brazil, Trump's tariffs leave a lot of losers. But even the winners will pay a price
President Donald Trump 's tariff onslaught this week left a lot of losers - from small, poor countries like Laos and Algeria to wealthy U.S. trading partners like Canada and Switzerland. They're now facing especially hefty taxes - tariffs - on the products they export to the United States starting Aug. 7. The closest thing to winners may be the countries that caved to Trump's demands - and avoided even more pain. But it's unclear whether anyone will be able to claim victory in the long run - even the United States, the intended beneficiary of Trump's protectionist policies. Explore courses from Top Institutes in Please select course: Select a Course Category MCA Data Science Degree Product Management Project Management others Finance Design Thinking Data Science Technology Operations Management Cybersecurity PGDM CXO Healthcare Leadership Management Public Policy Others MBA Data Analytics Digital Marketing healthcare Artificial Intelligence Skills you'll gain: Programming Proficiency Data Handling & Analysis Cybersecurity Awareness & Skills Artificial Intelligence & Machine Learning Duration: 24 Months Vellore Institute of Technology VIT Master of Computer Applications Starts on Aug 14, 2024 Get Details "In many respects, everybody's a loser here,'' said Barry Appleton, co-director of the Center for International Law at the New York Law School. Barely six months after he returned to the White House , Trump has demolished the old global economic order. Gone is one built on agreed-upon rules. In its place is a system in which Trump himself sets the rules, using America's enormous economic power to punish countries that won't agree to one-sided trade deals and extracting huge concessions from the ones that do. "The biggest winner is Trump," said Alan Wolff, a former U.S. trade official and deputy director-general at the World Trade Organization . "He bet that he could get other countries to the table on the basis of threats, and he succeeded - dramatically.'' Live Events Everything goes back to what Trump calls "Liberation Day'' - April 2 - when the president announced "reciprocal'' taxes of up to 50% on imports from countries with which the United States ran trade deficits and 10% "baseline'' taxes on almost everyone else. He invoked a 1977 law to declare the trade deficit a national emergency that justified his sweeping import taxes. That allowed him to bypass Congress, which traditionally has had authority over taxes, including tariffs - all of which is now being challenged in court. Winners will still pay higher tariffs than before Trump took office Trump retreated temporarily after his Liberation Day announcement triggered a rout in financial markets and suspended the reciprocal tariffs for 90 days to give countries a chance to negotiate. Eventually, some of them did, caving to Trump's demands to pay what four months ago would have seemed unthinkably high tariffs for the privilege of continuing to sell into the vast American market. The United Kingdom agreed to 10% tariffs on its exports to the United States - up from 1.3% before Trump amped up his trade war with the world. The U.S. demanded concessions even though it had run a trade surplus, not a deficit, with the UK for 19 straight years. The European Union and Japan accepted U.S. tariffs of 15%. Those are much higher than the low single-digit rates they paid last year - but lower than the tariffs he was threatening (30% on the EU and 25% on Japan). Also cutting deals with Trump and agreeing to hefty tariffs were Pakistan, South Korea, Vietnam, Indonesia and the Philippines. Even countries that saw their tariffs lowered from April without reaching a deal are still paying much higher tariffs than before Trump took office. Angola's tariff, for instance, dropped to 15% from 32% in April, but in 2022 it was less than 1.5%. And while Trump administration cut Taiwan's tariff to 20% from 32% in April, the pain will still be felt. "20% from the beginning has not been our goal, we hope that in further negotiations we will get a more beneficial and more reasonable tax rate," Taiwan's president Lai Ching-te told reporters in Taipei Friday. Trump also agreed to reduce the tariff on the tiny southern African kingdom of Lesotho to 15% from the 50% he'd announced in April, but the damage may already have been done there. Bashing Brazil, clobbering Canada, shellacking the Swiss Countries that didn't knuckle under - and those that found other ways to incur Trump's wrath - got hit harder. Even some of the poor were not spared. Laos' annual economic output comes to $2,100 per person and Algeria's $5,600 - versus America's $75,000. Nonetheless, Laos got rocked with a 40% tariff and Algeria with a 30% levy. Trump slammed Brazil with a 50% import tax largely because he didn't like the way it was treating former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, who is facing trial for trying to lose his electoral defeat in 2022. Never mind that the U.S. has exported more to Brazil than it's imported every year since 2007. Trump's decision to plaster a 35% tariff on longstanding U.S. ally Canada was partly designed to threaten Ottawa for saying it would recognize a Palestinian state. Trump is a staunch supporter of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Switzerland was clobbered with a 39% import tax - even higher than the 31% Trump originally announced on April 2. "The Swiss probably wish that they had camped in Washington'' to make a deal, said Wolff, now senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics . "They're clearly not at all happy.'' Fortunes may change if Trump's tariffs are upended in court. Five American businesses and 12 states are suing the president, arguing that his Liberation Day tariffs exceeded his authority under the 1977 law. In May, the U.S. Court of International Trade, a specialized court in New York, agreed and blocked the tariffs, although the government was allowed to continue collecting them while its appeal wend its way through the legal system, and may likely end up at the U.S. Supreme Court. In a hearing Thursday, the judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit sounded skeptical about Trump's justifications for the tariffs. "If (the tariffs) get struck down, then maybe Brazil's a winner and not a loser,'' Appleton said. Paying more for knapsacks and video games Trump portrays his tariffs as a tax on foreign countries. But they are actually paid by import companies in the U.S. who try to pass along the cost to their customers via higher prices. True, tariffs can hurt other countries by forcing their exporters to cut prices and sacrifice profits - or risk losing market share in the United States. But economists at Goldman Sachs estimate that overseas exporters have absorbed just one-fifth of the rising costs from tariffs, while Americans and U.S. businesses have picked up the most of the tab. Walmart, Procter & Gamble, Ford, Best Buy, Adidas, Nike , Mattel and Stanley Black & Decker, have all hiked prices due to U.S. tariffs "This is a consumption tax, so it disproportionately affects those who have lower incomes,'' Appleton said. "Sneakers, knapsacks ... your appliances are going to go up. Your TV and electronics are going to go up. Your video game devices, consoles are going to up because none of those are made in America.'' Trump's trade war has pushed the average U.S. tariff from 2.5% at the start of 2025 to 18.3% now, the highest since 1934, according to the Budget Lab at Yale University. And that will impose a $2,400 cost on the average household, the lab estimates. "The U.S. consumer's a big loser,″ Wolff said.
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
A tribute to economist Shankar Acharya, A World in Flux, explores what needs to be done to achieve India's goal of becoming Viksit by 2047
A confession — I have known Shankar Acharya, a friend and fellow cricket junkie, far longer than he or I are willing to admit. It is an honour to review 'A World in Flux – India's Economic Priorities', a timely and deeply researched collection of essays in honour of Shankar's thinking and contributions. The book is about what change is needed to allow India to meet its tryst with a destiny that is viksit by its 100th anniversary in 2047. The contributors are much more than eminent scholars — they are acknowledged experts in their fields. The biggest — and the most well-deserved — tribute to Shankar is that the contributors have chosen to write a learned and expert commentary. Much of what they have written and advocated as policy is spot on, so what is a reviewer supposed to do? I can summarise the issues raised by the authors, but the editors, Amita Batra and AK Bhattacharya, provide a must-read analysis — a model introduction to a very distinguished economist, policy advisor and policy-maker. There has only been one major policy question on which Shankar and I have disagreed — and continue to disagree — and that is the danger that fiscal deficits pose to growth and inflation. He, of course, initiated India's long-term fiscal policy in the early 1980s, at a time when such a roadmap was very much needed. Before going further, I want to add that we have differences — differences that arise not out of a difference in expertise or analysis but differences in our genes. Shankar, by his own admission, gravitates towards pessimism; and when I have to err, I err on the side of my DNA++ disposition. The 'what should be done about fiscal deficits' debate is a good point ofdeparture for illustrating why 'yeh dil mange more' than offered by the experts in the volume. Does India have a high fiscal deficits problem or a problem of plenty, one which allows policy makers from doing nothing (at best) or actually implementing bad policies? Sajjid Chinoy in his tour de force essay ('Getting Rich Before Getting Old') speaks about raising India's tax/GDP ratio from an already high level of around 19 per cent today. It is quite the fashion among Indian commentators (I include myself in this galaxy) to point to China as a worthy example to follow — when in doubt, do what China does and thou shalt succeed. China's tax/GDP ratio of 14.5 per cent in 2024 suggests we should radically decrease our rate of taxation. But our experts do not advocate that. Why? India's fiscal problem is one oftoo high taxation, not too little. 'Easy' revenue allows the government (state and central) to indulge in ever more wasteful expenditure (freebies) which slows growth. Our slow growth, relative to potential, is the problem, not that fiscal deficits are causing inflation to be at a historic low. The IMF orthodoxy of 'when in doubt, raise tax revenue' is now hopelessly outdated. Another example of divergence between necessary policy, and one offered by experts, pertains to the low share of manufacturing (and even the ever lower share of manufactured exports). We all agree that something needs to be done, but what? One favourite solution (like raising the tax revenue) is to join the China-led RCEP. This is dictated by the specious reasoning that since China leads in manufactured export growth, by joining RCEP we will do so too. However, 13 of 15 RCEP countries have lower growth of manufactured exports than before (joining) RCEP. As far as policy analysis goes, why not note that our two 'global champions' — Ambani and Adani-led enterprises — produce zero manufactured goods (unless an intermediate good like polyester is considered a final manufactured good, like shirts)? And why, iflack of textile growth is a problem (it is!), our reform experts (except Amitabh Kant) don't point to the fact that a very very low hanging fruit is the reduction of high import duties on manmade fibres? Why don't the experts argue that the government should choose winners like Ambani and Adani? The government should appoint these global experts to lead the march on manufactured goods. Instead of Production Linked Incentives (PIL) we should have EIL — Export Linked Incentives. If subsidies are involved (as they will be), the government should provide them. Learn from China (again) how to sidestep WTO regulations. This is how Korea, China and the US have succeeded — we will succeed too. Bhattacharya also has a much-needed, must-read chapter on the political economy of reforms. AK notes that in the near-50-year history of economic reforms in India, an important pattern emerges. 'But once the immediate economic crisis was overcome, the pace of implementing subsequent reforms slowed considerably'. Phrased differently, the story of economic reforms in India is that reforms stop because our politicians (and the Deep State behind them) are not risk-takers, but comfort-zone seekers. They like the comfort zone of 'not rocking the boat', and thereby insure that Viksit Bharat 2047 might very well be no more than a dream. Before ending, I have a quibble with even this most worthy chapter. Bhattacharya's path to reform is via consensus-building (the mantra of every failed and defeated optimist). But AK fails to note that the path to consensus is littered with sabotage by the major groups (or group) hurt by the proposed reforms. Why, if everything is as well-known and as dutifully documented by all of us, are we still asking for basic reforms in agriculture, manufacturing, and governance? Note that a Supreme Court survey conducted after the withdrawal of farm-reform legislation, found an overwhelming consensus (87 per cent) among farmers wanting the proposed farm laws reform. Bhalla is chairperson of the Technical Expert Group for the first official Household Income Survey for India. Views are personal
