The standoff between the Federal Reserve and President Trump has entered its most direct confrontation yet.
The Fed delivered its first rate hike in three years, raising the federal funds rate by 25 basis points to a range of 3.75% to 4%. Trump immediately called for rates to be slashed to 1% or even lower, accusing the central bank of opposing him for "political purposes." Fed Chair Warsh countered clearly at the press conference: inflation has exceeded its target for over five consecutive years, and this hike aligns with the Fed's dual mandate, having passed with unanimous committee support.
The essence of this clash is a structural tension between a fundamentally solid economy and an administration pursuing increasingly aggressive fiscal, tariff, and geopolitical policies. The Fed has chosen to hold its ground, and Trump's 1% rate proposal lacks both justification and feasibility in the current macroeconomic environment.
First Hike in Three Years: Warsh Cites Inflation Overshoot
The Fed announced a 25-basis-point rate increase last week, its first in three years. Warsh offered two core arguments at the subsequent press conference: first, inflation has run above target for more than five years, making price stability the current policy priority; second, the U.S. economy is showing signs of strengthening, warranting a moderate removal of accommodative policy.
This decision marks not only a shift in policy direction but also a direct response to market signals. On September 17, the 10-year Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities (TIPS) yield stood at approximately 2.6%, while the conventional 10-year Treasury yield was around 4.9%, implying an inflation compensation of roughly 2.3%. From a historical perspective, both nominal and real yields have returned to levels seen before the 2007-2009 financial crisis, and given recent economic performance, current yield levels sit within a reasonable range.
Notably, Warsh refused to offer any support or endorsement—whether in policy stance or rhetoric—for Trump's demand for aggressive rate cuts. The hike ultimately passed with a unanimous committee vote, demonstrating strong internal cohesion.
Trump's 1% Proposal: A Flawed Logic
Trump took to social media to argue that the U.S. is "the world's most creditworthy nation" and that rates "should be 1% or even lower," accusing the Fed of engaging in "political actions targeting Trump." He also revealed he had told Warsh, "Better to just go along with the committee vote, because the outcome won't be any different."
However, the logic behind short-term policy rates has no direct connection to a nation's credit rating. Short-term rates are driven by macroeconomic variables such as inflation and unemployment, not by sovereign creditworthiness. Long-term nominal rates are determined by real rates, expected inflation, and various risk premiums. With inflation still above target and fiscal deficits at elevated levels, pushing policy rates to 1% would imply a real rate of approximately -2%, a level that could provoke creditor backlash and even a lending strike.
Furthermore, the claim that "America has the world's best credit" deserves scrutiny. The term "credit" derives from the Latin "credere," meaning "to believe." The U.S. boasts the world's largest and most dynamic economy, yet the credibility of its government is being strained by the Trump administration's persistent rule-breaking fiscal and tariff policies. Analysts note that given massive fiscal deficits, heavy reliance on external financing, and a shift in bond holdings from long-term holders toward hedge funds, a financing crisis is not beyond the realm of possibility.
Persistent Inflation Overshoot and Policy Multipliers: Compounding Pressures
From a broader perspective, both headline and core inflation metrics have consistently run above target since 2021. Meanwhile, demand expansion driven by the AI investment wave, the Trump administration's loose fiscal stance, supply-side shocks from tariffs, and energy price pressures stemming from the conflict with Iran have all compounded, making the prospect of natural disinflation more uncertain and tilting risks to the upside.
Against this backdrop, some observers have raised substantive questions about Warsh's monetary policy framework. Prominent economist Claudia Sahm posed key questions in her Substack column: Through what mechanism does monetary policy promote growth? If tighter policy doesn't work by suppressing economic activity, what other channels can bring inflation down? Does Warsh have a clear view of the "neutral rate"? Without one, how can he assess the current degree of policy tightness? These unresolved questions serve as key metrics for evaluating the Warsh-led Fed.
Still, Warsh's cautious stance on economic predictability partly reflects a methodological divergence from his critics, rather than a complete departure.
Central Bank Independence Under Stress: The Ultimate Test Awaits
The current standoff highlights a deeper structural question: how should a fundamentally sound economy respond to a government that continually crosses fiscal and policy boundaries? The Fed's job is to protect the credibility of its inflation target free from political interference, and the Trump administration's pressure is putting that role under public scrutiny.
Warsh's current posture is to maintain a conventional monetary policy framework and resist political pressure. The unanimous rate hike carries significant institutional signal value. But as analysts point out, the true test of this contest may still lie ahead—with both fiscal and inflationary pressures rising, whether the Fed can remain steadfast will be the decisive factor in the ultimate outcome of this battle.
Comments