
Trump's interest rate demands put 'fiscal dominance' in market spotlight
"(Fiscal dominance) is a concern ... There are risks on the horizon, both from the perspective of increasing debt loads and the probability for higher structural inflation, or at minimum, more volatility of inflation," said Nate Thooft, chief investment officer for equity and multi-asset solutions at Manulife Investment Management.
"The reason why the Trump administration and politicians in general ... would like to see lower rates, is because it actually requires lower rates to be able to afford the debt levels that we have outstanding," he said. The U.S. experienced fiscal dominance during and shortly after World War Two, when the Fed was required to keep interest rates low for the war borrowing effort. The inflation spike that followed led to the 1951 Treasury-Fed accord that restored central bank independence.
High long-term Treasury yields and a sliding dollar already reflect that economic setup, some analysts say, as investors require more compensation to hold U.S. assets that could lose value if inflation rises.
"The administration wants to outgrow the debt ... but the other way to deal with the debt is to inflate it away," said Kelly Kowalski, head of investment strategy at MassMutual, who sees the dollar continuing to weaken.
Higher inflation would mean the real value of government debt shrinks. Trump said last month that the Fed's benchmark interest rate should be three percentage points lower than the current 4.25%-4.50% range, arguing that such a reduction would save $1 trillion per year. He separately said the central bank could raise rates again if inflation rose. In the 12 months through June, inflation as measured by the Personal Consumption Expenditures Price Index advanced 2.6% - still above the Fed's 2% target.
Fed Chair Jerome Powell, however, has explicitly said that the U.S. central bank does not consider managing government debt when setting its monetary policy.
Some investors argue fiscal dominance lies on an uncertain horizon, with rising debt yet to trigger unsustainable interest rates, while others see it already seeping into markets as long-term yields remain elevated even amid expectations of Fed rate cuts. White House spokesperson Kush Desai said the Trump administration respects the Fed's independence, but that, with inflation having come down significantly from its highs in recent years, Trump believes it's time to reduce rates.
The U.S. central bank so far has resisted those demands, though it is expected to lower borrowing costs at its September 16-17 meeting.
It declined to comment on this story.
FED'S MANDATE
The dollar is down about 10% this year against a basket of major currencies while Treasury term premiums - the extra compensation investors demand for holding long-term debt - are high, even as yields have recently dipped amid slowing economic growth.
"It's difficult to be bullish (on) long bonds in this environment," said Oliver Shale, an investment specialist at Ruffer, citing government spending that could keep inflation elevated and erode bond values.
"If you have an economy that's running above its natural output, that's going to result in inflation or have important implications for inflation, interest rates, and probably the currency," he said.
Thooft at Manulife said he was bearish on long-dated Treasuries as higher inflation would require higher term premiums. Despite years of economic growth, U.S. deficits have continued to balloon. Debt now stands at more than 120% of GDP, higher than after World War Two.
The Fed normally manages inflation while Congress maintains fiscal discipline. That balance inverts under the fiscal dominance scenario, with inflation driven by fiscal policies and a Fed trying to manage the debt burden, said Eric Leeper, an economics professor at the University of Virginia.
"The Fed cannot control inflation and keep interest payments on the debt low. Those are in conflict," Leeper said.
One red flag for investors is the narrowing gap between interest rates and economic growth. Benchmark 10-year yields have hovered around 4.3% in recent weeks, while nominal GDP grew at an annual rate of 5.02% in the second quarter.
When interest rates exceed the growth rate, debt as a percentage of gross domestic product typically rises even without new borrowing, making the debt increasingly unsustainable.
"Risks to Fed independence stemming from fiscal dominance are high," Deutsche Bank analysts said in a recent note, citing high deficits and long-term rates close to nominal GDP growth.
'DOVISH BIAS' History offers cautionary tales. Extreme fiscal dominance triggered hyperinflation in Germany in the early 1920s and in Argentina in the late 1980s and early 2000s. More recently in Turkey, pressure on the central bank to keep interest rates low undermined policy credibility and fueled a currency crisis. A majority of economists polled by Reuters last month said they were worried the Fed's independence was under threat. Despite a barrage of criticism from Trump and administration officials, Powell has vowed to remain Fed chief until his term expires in May 2026.
"It seems relatively clear that whoever is nominated for the seat, regardless of whatever views they've espoused in the past, is likely to articulate a dovish bias in order to be nominated," said Amar Reganti, a fixed income strategist at Hartford Funds and former Treasury official.
Lower interest rates, however, might only be a temporary fix.
The administration may be hoping to "juice nominal growth," despite the risk of creating higher inflation, to get to a place where real growth makes the debt trajectory sustainable, said Brij Khurana, a fixed income portfolio manager at Wellington.
"The problem they have is ... the central bank is saying: 'I don't want to make that bet with you.'"
(Reporting by Davide Barbuscia; editing by Megan Davies and Paul Simao)
Hashtags

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


Arabian Post
3 hours ago
- Arabian Post
Prospects Of Ukraine Peace Deal Brighten After Trump-Zelensky Meeting
By Nitya Chakraborty The prospects of arriving at a peace agreement between Ukraine and Russia to end the nearly three and half year old war have brightened after the Monday meeting of President Donald Trump with the Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky at the White House in the presence of the major European government heads. As a follow up, President Putin will be meeting Zelensky at a one on one meeting within next few days in a third country followed by a trilateral meeting to be attended by Trump. Two issues on which Trump was insistent was that Ukraine will not get back Crimea which Russia took control in 2014 and Ukraine will have to give up its ambition to become a member of NATO. To compensate this, Trump agreed to security guarantee to Ukraine by the European powers as also the USA. There are issues about land swapping. Those have been discussed but Trump has asked Zelensky to talk with Putin bilaterally. This actual control issue of some the areas remain unresolved as of now and this hurdle has to be crossed at the bilateral meeting. But if the US sources are to be believed, Trump has some proposals on land swapping which might be the basis for an understanding at the next meeting. Overall, the situation is positive as far as the prospects of ending the Ukraine war finally. President Putin has talked of the bilateral meeting within next two weeks, but Trump is in a hurry and so is Zelensky. Possibility is there, the bilateral one on one meeting will be held much before that. For Trump, it is a matter of personal prestige as any failure this time in arriving at a peace agreement will be taken as his personal failure also as a peace maker. In the entire efforts at making deal to end the Ukraine war, Trump has used trade and arms purchases from the USA as a bait to persuade the recalcitrant countries to come to agreement. This approach has been pursued with more vigour in the case of Ukraine which is very rich in minerals including rare earth but badly needs huge arms to modernize more its armed forces and air power. Trump took advantage of this and extracted a US$ 500 billion deal in March/April this year from Ukraine President in the first round of talks for ending Ukraine war, and in the current round, Zelensky has agreed to buy $ 90 billion arms from the USA to modernize its army. Talks have been held to allow Ukraine to export its own manufactured drones to the USA. After this$90billion purchase of arms from the US companies, Ukraine will assess its own requirements and place orders. Thus, Trump has opened up a big opportunity for the US defence companies in the US market, irrespective of the peace deal. Ukraine, with its $12.5 trillion in mineral wealth – including 20% of global titanium, significant lithium, and rare earths is a big attractive market to both Trump and Putin. While Trump is interested in the mineral wealth of Ukraine and already he has made a big deal, Putin is equally interested in getting control of big deposits of coal, gas and rare earth in some provinces of Ukraine like Donesk, Luhansk and Kherson. These were the part of Soviet Union in the communist rule. President Putin who was a leading member of the CPSU and the chief of KGB, still dreams of Greater Russia. His annexation of some strategic areas of Ukraine has to do with his nationalistic ambitions on Greater Russia, apart from taking steps to combat threat from NATO. The US, under Trump's second administration, counters with its own expansionist agenda. The April 2025 Ukraine-United States Mineral Resources Agreement ties Kyiv's economic recovery to American corporates.. This deal subjugates Ukraine's resources to US firms seeking to counter China's dominance in rare earth processing. In the latest US-China trade deal, Trump was able to extract a concession from China on resuming supply of rare earth minerals to the US market, but this was of small quantity. Trump wants to have bigger share of the rare earth minerals market and collaboration with Ukraine can ensure that. Ukraine economy is suffering in the last three and half years of war since February 24, 2022. The government badly needs massive financial support to rebuild its economy. That is not possible without big help from the USA. In 2022, the GDP of Ukraine went down by 28.8 per cent, but it recovered to 5.3 per cent in 2023 and 3.5 per cent in 2024. In 2025, the projected GDP growth is only 2 per cent. Thousands of young soldiers have died. Ukraine people are tired of the war ravages. They are looking for a respite. Nearly 33 million population of the country generally maintain a good living standard with the per capita GDP at $ 6261 projected in 2025. Sector wise services contribute 60 per cent to the GDP, industry 28.6 per cent and agriculture 12.2 per cent. Ukraine will need a massive rehabilitation and reconstruction programme if the war finally ends. But if the peace agreement is not reached at the proposed bilateral and trilateral meetings and the war intensifies, the impact on the Ukraine economy will be tragic. Ukraine people are looking at the coming meetings with big expectations that their woes will be over. (IPA Service)


The National
4 hours ago
- The National
Microsoft workers protest at company HQ against Israeli ties
Microsoft employees rallied at the company's Redmond, Washington, headquarters to try to increase pressure on the company to stop doing business with Israel over its war in Gaza. Protesters started gathering on Tuesday afternoon at a plaza at the centre of a recently redeveloped part of the company's main base, which covers about 200 hectares in the suburban town. They set up tents and declared the space a 'liberated zone". Addressing 'friends and colleagues' through a microphone, former Microsoft employee and protest leader Hossam Nasr said: 'We are here because over 22 months of genocide, Israel — powered by Microsoft — has been killing, maiming Palestinian children every hour.' About an hour after the activists arrived, a Redmond police officer used his SUV speaker to warn they were trespassing and subject to arrest if they stayed. Soon after, the about three dozen demonstrators packed up their tents, rolled up their banners and departed the plaza. They reassembled on a slice of sidewalk that organisers said was public property. For more than a year, the Microsoft employee group No Azure for Apartheid, has been pushing Microsoft to end its relationship with Israel, saying use of the company's products is contributing to civilian deaths in Gaza. Azure, the company's cloud-computing division, sells on-demand software and data storage to businesses and governments, including Israeli government and military agencies. A handful of No Azure for Apartheid organisers have been fired for holding what Microsoft said was an unauthorised event on campus and disrupting speeches by executives. 'Microsoft is the most complicit digital arms manufacturer in Israel's genocide of Gaza,' Nisreen Jaradat, a Microsoft employee, said in a statement on Tuesday. Microsoft did not immediately respond to a request for comment. In a blog post published in May, the company said it had 'found no evidence to date that Microsoft's Azure and AI technologies have been used to target or harm people in the conflict in Gaza". But Microsoft said this month that it had enlisted the law firm Covington & Burling to conduct a further review after a report that Israel's military surveillance agency intercepted millions of mobile phone calls made by Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank and stored them on Azure servers. That trove helped the military choose bombing targets in Gaza, according to reporting by The Guardian newspaper and other outlets. The activists took their inspiration from protests staged on at least 100 US university campuses since the war in Gaza began. Students at schools such as Columbia University pitched tents and called for their colleges to divest financial holdings tied to Israel and US weapons makers, in many cases sparking disciplinary action from administrators.


Khaleej Times
10 hours ago
- Khaleej Times
S&P affirms 'AA+' credit rating for US, cites impact of tariff revenue
S&P Global on Monday affirmed its "AA+" credit rating on the US, saying the revenue from President Donald Trump's tariffs will offset the fiscal hit from his massive tax-cut and spending bill. Trump signed the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" into law in July after it was passed by the Republican-controlled Congress. The bill, which delivered new tax breaks, also made Trump's 2017 tax cuts permanent. "Amid the rise in effective tariff rates, we expect meaningful tariff revenue to generally offset weaker fiscal outcomes that might otherwise be associated with the recent fiscal legislation, which contains both cuts and increases in tax and spending," S&P said in a statement. "At this time, it appears that meaningful tariff revenue has the potential to offset the deficit-raising aspects of the recent budget legislation." The U.S. reported a $21 billion jump in customs duty collections from Trump's tariffs in July, but the government budget deficit still grew nearly 20% in the same month to $291 billion. Interest on the public debt also continued to grow, hitting $1.013 trillion in the first 10 months of the fiscal year, an increase of 6%, or $57 billion, over the prior-year period due to slightly higher interest rates and increased debt levels. Since returning to power in January this year, Trump has launched a global trade war with a range of tariffs that have targeted individual products and countries. The Republican president has set a baseline tariff of 10% on all imports to the U.S., as well as additional duties on some items and trading partners. IMPACT OF TARIFFS S&P, which became the first ratings agency to cut the pristine U.S. government rating in 2011, said the outlook on the U.S. rating remains stable. The ratings agency said it expects the Federal Reserve, which Trump has criticized this year for not cutting interest rates, "to navigate the challenges of lowering domestic inflation and addressing financial market vulnerabilities." It projected the country's general government deficit to average 6.0% of GDP during the 2025-2028 period, down from 7.5% in 2024 and from an average 9.8% of GDP in 2020-2023. S&P said it could lower the rating over the next two to three years if already high deficits increase. "The ratings could also come under pressure if political developments weigh on the strength of American institutions and the effectiveness of long-term policymaking or independence of the Federal Reserve," it said. SP, however, said it could raise the U.S. rating in the event of sustained economic growth and adjustments to the U.S. fiscal profile that would diminish recent increases in the country's debt burden. There was no reaction in markets on Tuesday to SP's credit rating affirmation, which follows a U.S. sovereign credit downgrade by Moody's in May, when that ratings agency cut the triple-A U.S. rating by one notch, citing rising debt levels. The U.S. national debt load surged above a record $37 trillion last week. James Ragan, co-chief investment officer and director of investment management research at D.A. Davidson, said the SP rating affirmation was an acknowledgment of the meaningful tariff revenue generated so far. "That's all good revenue (coming) in, but that's also a drag on the economy, so I think we don't know the impact of that going forward," he said.