
Bond market shudders as tax bill deepens deficit worries
Colby Smith and Joe Rennison
The market for US government bonds, the bedrock of the global financial system, continued to shudder on Thursday, as President Donald Trump's bill to extend expensive tax cuts and create new ones without significantly slashing spending passed through the House of Representatives. The bill has unnerved investors, deepening worries that the country's debt is becoming unmanageable.
Yields on US bonds, which underpin consumer and business interest rates around the world, from mortgages to corporate loans, have been rising in recent weeks. Yields rise as prices fall. Higher yields reflect investors' concerns that lending to the government by buying its debt has become more risky.
The 30-year Treasury yield rose as high as 5.15 per cent in early trading, its highest since October 2023, before easing back later in the morning. The 30-year yield is trading about 0.7 percentage points higher than its low in April — a huge move in such a short time in that market.
The lectern is prepared for a news conference at the Capitol in Washington on Thursday morning, May 22, 2025, after the House narrowly passed a wide-ranging bill to deliver President Donald Trumps domestic agenda. (Kenny Holston/The New York Times)
Christopher J Waller, an influential governor at the Federal Reserve, said on Thursday that financial markets were looking for more 'fiscal discipline' from Washington, warning that investors are likely to continue to demand higher yields in order to hold US assets.
'We ran $2 trillion deficits the last few years — this is just not sustainable and so the markets are looking for a little more fiscal discipline,' he said in an interview with Fox Business. 'They're concerned.' Waller said that investors more broadly were shunning US assets and in turn demanding a 'premium' to buy. That so far has come in the form of rising yields on government bonds, indicating a drop in price.
The Trump administration has denied that the latest bill will be detrimental to the country's financial standing, despite the United States' loss of its top-tier credit rating status last week.
Russell Vought, who leads the Office of Management and Budget, said the decision by Moody's, which downgraded the nation's debt on Friday, was misguided and an attempt to 'sink the president's tax cut.' 'The notion that this was in any way harmful to debt and deficits is fundamentally untrue,' he said.
But others on Capitol Hill disagree, citing the recent turbulence in the bond markets.
Rep Chip Roy, R-Texas, acknowledged the 'issues in recent days' — after the downgrade — as a sign that the nation 'needs to have fiscal discipline.' Appearing on CNBC, he said the bond markets had actually been 'a little helpful,' as he and his fellow conservatives tried to push for even deeper spending cuts. 'And this bill, by the way, I've got to be honest, we took a step, but, man, we've got a long ways to go,' he added.
The rising cost of borrowing has prompted American businesses to flock to European debt markets to raise new cash, taking advantage of the relatively lower interest rates on offer, according to a research report from Bank of America.
'There does seem to be a risk-off on American assets across the board, not just government debt, but everything,' Waller said.
That aversion was last on full display when Trump announced his most aggressive set of tariffs in early April, which he was forced to walk back days later after traditional relationships in financial markets started to break down. As US stocks sold off, so did the dollar and government bonds, which typically act as safe havens.
'As long as the economy gets back on a good path — the economy starts growing, inflation stays down — you might see a resurge in demand for American assets,' Waller said.
He reiterated that there was still a path for the Fed to lower interest rates this year, barring the return of significantly more onerous tariffs.
'If we can get the tariffs down closer to 10 per cent and then that's all sealed, done and delivered somewhere by July, then we're in good shape for the second half of the year,' he said of rate cuts.
Investors warn that the fiscal package that eventually passes may end up keeping the Fed on hold for even longer because the measures will at least in the near term support the economy.
Ajay Rajadhyaksha, global chair of research at Barclays, is still maintaining his call that the Fed will cut once in December, but said it was increasingly plausible that the central bank would opt to do nothing all year.
Deficit hawks have warned for a long time about the risks of running large deficits, where the government spends more than it earns in taxes and other revenue. Those fears intensified after interest rates rose rapidly in 2022, making cheap debt taken on when interest rates were low suddenly a lot more expensive to maintain long-term.
This year, the government will spend more than $1 trillion on interest payments on its debt, more than military spending and twice the government's interest cost five years ago.
Investors had hoped that a Republican sweep of Congress, backed by a president who made cutting government spending a core message of his campaign, would provide the opportunity to meaningfully tackle the federal deficit.
Given that backdrop, Thursday's passage of a bill that would extend tax cuts, introduce some new ones and add more than $3 trillion to the deficit — based on figures from the Congressional Budget Office — weighed on the market.
The S&P 500 was roughly flat in early trading. The dollar rose against other major currencies, only partly reversing a three-day slide.
Despite the uneasy mood across Wall Street, financial markets are still functioning smoothly.
Officials at the central bank are unlikely to intervene unless that changes drastically, something Beth Hammack, president of the Cleveland Fed, made clear this week at the Atlanta Fed's conference on financial stability. She described the bar for the Fed to step in as 'incredibly high.' 'It needs to be a level of dysfunction where participants are unable to conduct business, banks are unable to lend credit,' she said in a moderated discussion. 'When we need to help support the financial markets is when there can be meaningful transmission into that real economy.' — The New York Times
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Observer
6 hours ago
- Observer
This is what autocracy looks like
Since Donald Trump was elected again, I've feared one scenario above all others: that he'd call out the military against people protesting his mass deportations, putting America on the road to martial law. Even in my more outlandish imaginings, however, I thought that he'd need more of a pretext to put troops on the streets of an American city — against the wishes of its mayor and governor — than the relatively small protests that broke out in Los Angeles last week. In a post-reality environment, it turns out, the president didn't need to wait for a crisis to launch an authoritarian crackdown. Instead, he can simply invent one. It's true that some of those protesting Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids in Los Angeles have been violent; on Sunday one man was arrested for allegedly tossing a Molotov cocktail at a police officer, and another was accused of driving a motorcycle into a line of cops. Such violence should be condemned both because it's immoral and because it's wildly counterproductive; each burning Waymo or smashed storefront is an in-kind gift to the administration. It's important to understand that for this administration, protests needn't be violent to be considered an illegitimate uprising. The presidential memorandum calling out the National Guard refers to both violent acts and any protests that 'inhibit' law enforcement. That definition would seem to include peaceful demonstrations around the site of ICE raids. In May, for example, armed federal agents stormed two popular Italian restaurants in San Diego looking for workers in the country illegally; they handcuffed staff members and took four people into custody. As they did so, an outraged crowd gathered outside, chanting 'shame' and for a time blocking the agents from leaving. Under Trump's order, the military could target these people as insurrectionists. The administration, after all, has every reason to want to intimidate those who might take part in civil disobedience. Violent protests play into its hands; peaceful ones threaten the absurd narrative it's trying to bludgeon America into accepting. Just look at the lengths to which it's going to silence David Huerta, president of the Service Employees International Union of California. Last week, Huerta was arrested after sitting on a sidewalk and blocking a gate while protesting an immigration raid at a work site in Los Angeles. While he was being detained, he was knocked to the ground, resulting in his hospitalisation. On Monday, the Justice Department charged him with 'conspiracy to impede an officer,' a felony that carries a maximum prison term of six years. Trump also, on Monday, called for the arrest of Newsom. If you saw all this in any other country — soldiers sent to crush dissent, union leaders arrested, opposition politicians threatened — it would be clear that autocracy had arrived. The question, now, is whether Americans who hate tyranny can be roused to respond. Many people have speculated that the confrontation in Los Angeles will play into Trump's hands, allowing him to pose as a champion of law and order bringing criminal mobs to heel. Maybe they're right; Trump is a master demagogue with a gift for creating the scenes of conflict his supporters crave. We now know that TV celebrity Dr Phil McGraw was on the ground with ICE during the raids that set off the Los Angeles unrest, filming a prime-time special. The administration appeared to want a spectacle. Public opinion, however, isn't set in stone, which is why it's important for everyone who has a platform — politicians, veterans, cultural and religious leaders — to denounce the administration's authoritarian overreach. Administration officials like Stephen Miller are pushing the idea that Los Angeles is 'occupied territory,' as evidenced by the foreign flags some protesters are carrying. Americans who still have hope for democracy should be saying, as loudly and as often as they can, that this is an insultingly stupid lie to justify a dictatorial power grab. Yes, America has lurched to the right since Trump's first term, and he can get away with abuses now that would have set off mass outrage then. Plenty of Democrats, burned by the backlash against Black Lives Matter and large-scale illegal immigration, would rather not have a fight over disorder in Los Angeles. 'For months, Democrats scarred by the politics of the issue sought to sidestep President Donald Trump's immigration wars — focusing instead on the economy, tariffs or, in the case of deportations, due process concerns,' reported Politico. But there's no sidestepping a president deploying the military in an American city based on ludicrous falsehoods about a foreign invasion. Indeed, it's hard to think of a clearer signpost on the road to dictatorship. This Saturday, on Trump's birthday, he's planning a giant military parade in Washington, ostensibly to celebrate the Army's 250th anniversary. Tanks have been photographed en route to the city, the Lincoln Memorial standing tragically in the background, like an image from some Hollywood dystopia. On that day, there will be demonstrations all over the country under the rubric 'No Kings.' I desperately hope that Trump's attempt to quash protest ends up fuelling it. Those who want to live in a free country may be scared, but they shouldn't be cowed. — The New York Times Michelle Goldberg The writer is an American journalist and author, and an op-ed columnist for The New York Times


Observer
17 hours ago
- Observer
Trump administration deploys Marines to Los Angeles, vows to intensify migrant raids
The Trump administration on Monday ordered U.S. Marines into Los Angeles and intensified raids on suspected undocumented immigrants, fueling more outrage from street protesters and Democratic leaders who raised concerns over a national crisis. Some 700 Marines based in Southern California were expected to reach Los Angeles Monday night or Tuesday morning, officials said, as part of a federal strategy to quell street demonstrations opposing the immigration raids, which are a part of a signature effort of President Donald Trump's second term. Although their mission to protect federal personnel and property is temporary - filling the gaps until a full contingent of 4,000 National Guard troops can reach Los Angeles - the deployment is an extraordinary use of military force in support of a police operation, and it comes over the objection of state and local leaders who did not request help. Meanwhile, U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem pledged to carry out even more operations to round up suspected immigration violators, extending a crackdown that provoked the protests. Trump officials have branded the protests as lawless and blamed state and local Democrats for permitting upheaval and protecting undocumented immigrants with sanctuary cities. The military and federal enforcement operations have further polarized America's two major political parties as Trump, a Republican, threatened to arrest California's Democratic governor, Gavin Newsom, for resisting the federal crackdown. California sued the Trump administration to block deployment of the National Guard and the Marines on Monday, arguing that it violates federal law and state sovereignty. The top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator Jack Reed, said he was "gravely troubled" by Trump's deployment of active-duty Marines. "The president is forcibly overriding the authority of the governor and mayor and using the military as a political weapon. This unprecedented move threatens to turn a tense situation into a national crisis," Reed said. "Since our nation's founding, the American people have been perfectly clear: we do not want the military conducting law enforcement on U.S. soil," he said. The announcement that Marines would be deployed was made on the fourth straight day of protests. Late on Monday police began to disperse hundreds of demonstrators who gathered outside a federal detention center in downtown Los Angeles where immigrants have been held. Police said arrests were being made. National Guard forces had formed a human barricade to keep people out of the building. Then a phalanx of police moved up the street, pushing people from the scene and firing "less lethal" munitions such as gas canisters. Police had used similar tactics since Friday. RARE USE OF MILITARY U.S. Marines are known as the first American forces to establish a beachhead in U.S. military interventions, and as the last forces to leave any occupation. Though military forces have been deployed domestically for major disasters such as Hurricane Katrina and the attacks of September 11, 2001, it is extremely rare for troops to be used domestically during civil disturbances. Even without invoking the Insurrection Act, Trump can deploy Marines under certain conditions of law or under his authority as commander in chief. The last time the military was used for direct police action under the Insurrection Act was in 1992, when the California governor at the time asked President George H.W. Bush to help respond to Los Angeles riots over the acquittal of police officers who beat Black motorist Rodney King. Newsom contends it is his charge as governor to call in the National Guard, labeling Trump's" action as "an unmistakable step toward authoritarianism." Trump in turn said he supported a suggestion by his border czar Tom Homan that Newsom should be arrested over possible obstruction of his administration's immigration enforcement measures. "I would do it if I were Tom. I think it's great," Trump told reporters.


Observer
a day ago
- Observer
The EU can play it cool with Trump's trade threats
Other governments have so far taken three main approaches to dealing with Donald Trump's trade threats. China hit back hard at the US president's tariffs and got him to back down partly. Canada also retaliated and avoided some of the pain Trump inflicted on other countries. Meanwhile, Britain cut a quick deal that favoured the United States. None of these is a model for the European Union. The 27-member group is not China. Though its bilateral goods trade with the United States last year was worth 70% more than between the US and the People's Republic, the EU is not an autocracy that can outpunch Trump. If it antagonises the US president, he might up the stakes by pulling the rug from under Ukraine and undermining the EU's defences. American hard power gives it what geopolitical strategists call 'escalation dominance'. The EU is not Canada either. Ottawa was able to hang tough because its people were infuriated that Trump was trying to blackmail Canada into becoming part of the United States. While anti-Trump sentiment is high in the EU, politicians who are sympathetic to him, such as Poland's new president, can still get elected. On the other hand, the EU is not the United Kingdom. Both are at risk from Russia's invasion of Ukraine. But the EU trades seven times more goods with the United States than Britain does - so Washington has more to lose if economic relations break down. There is another way for the EU to handle Trump's threats: play it cool. That is more or less what the bloc is doing. It involves neither escalating the conflict nor accepting a bad deal. It means being open to a good agreement if the US lowers its demands, but willing to play the long game if it does not. One reason to buy time is to help Kyiv. The longer the EU has to prepare its own support package for Ukraine, which should include getting it a lot of cash, the less the damage if Trump ultimately cuts off all US aid to the country. The president's own vulnerabilities may also increase over time. Just look at the spectacular end of his alliance with Tesla boss Elon Musk. The fragile US trade truce with China may break down causing more financial turmoil, making Trump less keen to pick a fight with the EU. If the Supreme Court stops him using emergency powers to impose tariffs, his negotiating position will be weaker. And tariffs could hurt the US more than its supposed victims, by pushing up inflation and crimping growth. A QUICK DEAL? Trump has zig-zagged in his trade threats and actions against the EU. The current state of play is that there are 50% tariffs on US imports of steel and aluminium from the bloc, a 25% tariff on cars and 10% so-called reciprocal tariffs on most other goods. And so they're trying to be the first and the best to get there, which is why everybody's throwing so much money at it without any clear sense of, you know, The US president has threatened to jack up these reciprocal tariffs to 50% if there is no deal by July 9. He is also looking at more 'sectoral tariffs', including on pharmaceuticals and semiconductors. While the EU has complained to the World Trade Organization (WTO), it has delayed its own retaliation. Its negotiators accept that they are unlikely to overturn the reciprocal tariffs, the Financial Times has reported. The bloc still aims to avoid the sectoral ones. Those on cars and any on pharmaceuticals would hurt it the most. It has dangled the possibility of buying more US equipment and natural gas to get a deal. An agreement on those lines could be good for the EU. It needs to beef up its defences and eliminate its purchases of Russian gas. While it would be best to have its own arms and energy supplies, buying more from the US makes sense as an interim measure. An important nuance, though, is that the EU should reserve the right to take action against the reciprocal tariffs after the WTO issues its verdict, says Ignacio Garcia Bercero, a former senior EU trade official. Such a pact would involve quite a climbdown by Trump. True, arms and gas purchases would narrow the US goods deficit with the EU, which was $236 billion last year. But his administration has a host of other complaints including the bloc's value-added tax and food safety standards as well the digital taxes that some of its members impose on tech giants. It is hard to see the bloc agreeing anything in those areas, says Simon Evenett, professor of geopolitics and strategy at IMD. BACK TO WAR? Although the US side described last week's trade talks with the EU as 'very constructive', discussions could easily break down. The question then is how the bloc would react if Trump imposed higher reciprocal tariffs. The EU has so far imposed no countermeasures. Though it has agreed to tax 21 billion euros of US imports in response to the steel and aluminium tariffs, it has delayed these until July 14 to try to get a deal. The European Commission, its executive arm, is also consulting on taxing a further 95 billion euros of US imports in response to the car tariffs and the reciprocal ones. But added together, these tit-for-tat measures would be equivalent to only a third of the 379 billion euros of EU imports subject to Trump's tariffs. Some analysts think the bloc needs to be tougher. One idea is to crack down on American services, where the US had a 109 billion euro surplus with the EU in 2023. Another is to activate its 'anti-coercion instrument ', which would allow retaliation against US companies operating in the bloc. Yet another is to threaten to ban exports of critical goods, such as the lithographic equipment necessary to make semiconductors. Extreme events may require extreme responses. But for now, the EU should keep its cool. It should not kid itself that it is stronger or more united than it is. It should remember that Trump may get weaker with time. And it should never forget Ukraine. — Reuters Hugo Dixon The writer is Commentator-at-Large for Reuters. He was the founding chair and editor-in-chief of Breakingviews.