Trump just made the Fed's rate deliberations even more complicated
The Federal Reserve was already wrestling with a lot of uncertainty about the future path of monetary policy, and President Trump's weekend strike on Iran's nuclear sites will likely make that path even cloudier in the near term.
The uncertainty of the part of central bank policymakers was already evident last week in the Fed's latest "dot plot" outlining future interest rate moves. While eight officials saw two cuts still happening in 2025, seven officials predicted no cuts at all — up from the four officials who made that call previously.
Trump's strikes on three Iranian nuclear sites over the weekend inject yet another layer of unknowns into those discussions as central bank officials prepare for their next meeting in July and gauge the impact of the president's trade, tax and immigration policies on the path of inflation and economic growth.
There are worries from some Fed watchers that a sustained increase in oil prices would add to the inflationary impulse already present in the US from Trump's tariffs.
Wall Street analysts at JPMorgan Chase (JPM) have warned that a prolonged conflict and the potential closure of the critical Strait of Hormuz could drive oil prices as high as $120 a barrel, pushing US inflation back toward 5%.
That could bolster the argument of some hawks at the Fed that rates need to stay where they are for longer to protect against another inflation surge.
On the other hand, there is also an argument circulating on Wall Street that the conflict could push the Federal Reserve to cut interest rates sooner than expected.
"A sustained rise in oil prices could cause the Fed to strike a more dovish tone," Oxford Economics chief US economist Ryan Sweet wrote in a recent note to clients before Trump's attack, arguing that an extended oil shock could dent demand and potentially spill over into an otherwise resilient labor market.
For this view to hold, Fed officials would have to get comfortable with the idea that any sudden spikes in oil prices tend to cause only a temporary rise in inflation that can be overlooked — and that any such shock could pose a bigger threat to growth and jobs than to inflation itself.
Fed Chair Jerome Powell told reporters last Wednesday that while it's possible there could be higher energy prices, what has tended to happen when with turmoil in the Middle East is a spike in energy prices that tends to come down.
"Those things don't generally tend to have lasting effects on inflation," Powell said at a press conference after the Fed held rates steady for the fourth meeting in a row.
"Although of course in the 1970s, they famously did, because you had a series of very, very large shocks. But, we haven't seen anything like that now. The U.S. economy is far less dependent on foreign oil than it was back in the 1970s."
Powell will likely be asked for his views of how Trump's new actions will affect the economy as he appears before House and Senate committees Tuesday and Wednesday, as part of a regular semi-annual appearance before Congress.
The Fed will also get a new look at inflation this Friday with the release of the May Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE) report.
Economists expect annual "core" PCE — which excludes the volatile categories of food and energy — to have clocked in at 2.6%, up from the 2.5% seen in April. Over the prior month, economists project "core" PCE at 0.1%, unchanged from May.
One influential voice at the Fed did get louder about the case for cuts in the days before Trump's attack, dismissing concerns that any inflation from the president's tariffs could be long lasting.
In fact, Fed governor Christopher Waller on Friday told CNBC that rates could be cut at the next meeting on July 29-30.
"We could do this as early as July,' Waller said.
'I think we've got room to bring it down, and then we can kind of see what happens with inflation,' he said, adding the central bank could pause if needed due to a shock from developments in the Middle East.
One of his colleagues, San Francisco Fed president Mary Daly, is not on the same timetable.
'For me, I look more to the fall,' Daly said in a separate interview on CNBC. 'By then, we'll have quite a bit more information, and businesses are telling me that's what they're going to look to for some resolution.'
Richmond Fed President Tom Barkin additionally told Reuters in an interview published Friday that he was not in any rush to cut due to concerns that tariffs could push inflation up and data showing the labor market remains resilient.
That aligns with statements made by Powell. He noted last week that recent inflation reports have been favorable, but that goods prices have been moving up following the introduction of new tariffs and there could be more of that this summer.
"We're beginning to see some effects, and we do expect to see more of them over the coming months."
Thus, the right thing to do for now, he added, is 'hold where we are' on rates.
Click here for in-depth analysis of the latest stock market news and events moving stock prices
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
7 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Stifel Keeps Buy Rating on EVGO
EVgo, Inc. (NASDAQ:EVGO) is one of the 11 Best US Stocks to Invest in Under $5. On May 14, Stifel analysts maintained a 'Buy' rating on EVgo, Inc. (NASDAQ:EVGO) with a price target of $8.00. The analysts showed confidence in the company's strong performance based on the first-quarter 2025 results. A businessman plugging in to a public charging station, symbolizing the services provided by the company. Stifel analysts highlighted that EVgo, Inc. (NASDAQ:EVGO) has continued to exceed expectations and remains their top pick among US electric vehicle charging companies. The first quarter of 2025 showed promising signs, such as the likely retention of a Department of Energy loan and expected better profit margins in the company's charging business. The analysts also pointed out that tariffs are expected to have little impact on EVgo, Inc.'s (NASDAQ:EVGO) plans to install new chargers in 2025. The company's management has also reiterated its guidance for 2025, which supports a stable outlook. While there is some concern about slower EV sales, Stifel analysts believe that the growing number of EVs on the road will increase the use and throughput of EVgo, Inc.'s (NASDAQ:EVGO) charging network. The growth in EV usage is seen as a key factor driving the company's future growth and performance. EVgo, Inc. (NASDAQ:EVGO) is an electric vehicle fast charging provider in the United States with over 1,100 fast charging stations across more than 40 states. While we acknowledge the potential of EVGO as an investment, we believe certain AI stocks offer greater upside potential and carry less downside risk. If you're looking for an extremely undervalued AI stock that also stands to benefit significantly from Trump-era tariffs and the onshoring trend, see our free report on the best short-term AI stock. READ NEXT: 11 Stocks That Will Bounce Back According To Analysts and 11 Best Stocks Under $15 to Buy According to Hedge Funds. Disclosure: None. Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
9 minutes ago
- Yahoo
The Strait of Hormuz is a vital route for oil. Closing it could backfire on Iran
The war between Israel and Iran has raised concerns that Iran could retaliate by trying to close the Strait of Hormuz, the world's most important oil chokepoint due to the large volumes of crude that pass through it every day. The U.S. military's strike on three sites in Iran over the weekend has raised questions about how its military might respond. The Strait of Hormuz is between Oman and Iran, which boasts a fleet of fast-attack boats and thousands of naval mines as well as missiles that it could use to make the strait impassable, at least for a time. Iran's main naval base at Bandar Abbas is on the north coast of the strait. It could also fire missiles from its long Persian Gulf shore, as its allies, Yemen's Houthi rebels, have done in the Red Sea. About 20 million barrels of oil per day, or around 20% of the world's oil consumption, passed through the strait in 2024. Most of that oil goes to Asia. Here is a look at the waterway and its impact on the global economy: An energy highway in a volatile region The strait connects the Persian Gulf with the Gulf of Oman and the Arabian Sea. It's only 33 kilometers (21 miles) wide at its narrowest point, but deep enough and wide enough to handle the world's largest crude oil tankers. Oil that passes through the strait comes from Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Iraq, Iran, Kuwait, and Bahrain, while major supplies of liquefied natural gas come from Qatar. At its narrowest point, the sea lanes for tankers lie in Omani waters, and before and after that cross into Iranian territory. While some global oil chokepoints can be circumvented by taking longer routes that simply add costs, that's not an option for most of the oil moving through the strait. That's because the pipelines that could be used to carry the oil on land, such as Saudi Arabia's East-West pipeline, they don't have nearly enough capacity. 'Most volumes that transit the strait have no alternative means of exiting the region,' according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Closing the Strait of Hormuz would send oil prices massively higher — at least at first If Iran blocked the strait, oil prices could shoot as high as $120-$130 per, at least temporarily, said Homayoun Falakshahi, head of crude oil analyst at Kpler, in an online webinar Sunday. That would deal an inflationary shock to the global economy — if it lasted. Analysts think it wouldn't. Asia would be directly impacted because 84% of the oil moving through the strait is headed for Asia; top destinations are China, India, Japan and South Korea. China gets 47% of its seaborne oil from the Gulf. China, however, has an oil inventory of 1.1 billion barrels, or 2 1/2 months of supply. U.S. oil customers would feel the impact of the higher prices but would not lose much supply. The U.S. imported only about 7% of its oil from Persian Gulf countries through the strait in 2024, according to the USEIA. That was the lowest level in nearly 40 years. Iran has good reasons not to block the strait Closing the strait would cut off Iran's own oil exports. While Iran does have a new terminal under construction at Jask, just outside the strait, the new facility has loaded oil only once and isn't in a position to replace the strait, according to Kpler analysts. Closure would hit China, Iran's largest trading partner and only remaining oil customer, and harm its oil-exporting Arab neighbors, who are at least officially supporting it in its war with Israel. And it would mean blocking Oman's territorial waters, offending a country that has served as a mediator between the U.S. and Iran. The US would likely intervene to reopen the strait Any price spike would probably not last. One big reason: Analysts expect that the U.S. Navy would intervene to keep the strait open. In the 1980s, U.S. warships escorted Kuwaiti oil tankers through the strait to protect them against Iranian attacks during the Iran-Iraq war. A price spike 'wouldn't last very long' and the strait would likely be reopened 'very fast,' said Kpler's Falakshahi. U.S. use of force to reopen the strait would likely be supported by Europe and 'even unofficially by China,' he said. 'Iran's navy would probably get destroyed in a matter of hours or days.' David Mchugh, The Associated Press
Politico
11 minutes ago
- Politico
White House tries to find messaging balance on Trump's regime change comment
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt on Monday sought to explain President Donald Trump's comment suggesting he's open to regime change in Iran, saying that the president 'believes the Iranian people can control their own destiny.' 'If the Iranian regime refuses to come to a peaceful, diplomatic solution, which the president is still interested and engaging in by the way, why shouldn't the Iranian people take away the power of this incredibly violent regime that has been suppressing them for decades?' Leavitt told Fox and Friends. She continued, 'Our posture has not changed. Our military posture has not changed. These were decisive precision strikes that were successful on Saturday evening. But the president is just simply raising a good question that many people around the world are asking.' Over the weekend, the U.S. bombed three Iranian nuclear sites — Fordow, Natanz and Esfahan — entering a conflict between Israel and Tehran just days after Trump said he would make a decision about joining the conflict in two weeks. Though administration officials have repeatedly said the White House did not strike the Iranian nuclear sites to bring about a regime change in the country, Trump floated the idea in a social media post. He did not, however, directly call for a change in Iranian leadership. 'It's not politically correct to use the term, 'Regime Change,' but if the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn't there be a Regime change??? MIGA!!!' Trump said in a Truth Social post over the weekend. A White House official, granted anonymity to discuss the administration's stance, told POLITICO that if the Iranian people were to rise up against the current regime, Trump is not saying the U.S. would contribute — but they also said Trump isn't saying the U.S. wouldn't contribute. 'He's just saying the Iranian people control their own destiny and why wouldn't there be a regime change if the regime is refusing to do what's right by their people,' the official added. Leavitt also told ABC News on Monday that the administration is 'confident' the U.S. bombers 'completely and totally obliterated' all of Iran's nuclear sites. 'The President wouldn't have launched the strikes if we weren't confident in that,' she said. 'So this operation was a resounding success, and administration officials agree with that as well as Israel.' On Sunday, Vice President JD Vance said on NBC's Meet the Press that the strikes on Iran 'substantially delayed their development of a nuclear weapon. And that was the goal of this attack.' Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has advocated for a change in Iranian leadership throughout his career. In recent weeks, Netanyahu has urged the U.S. to join its war against Iran if America wants to remain safe. Iran has already vowed retaliation for the strikes, worrying some about the safety of Americans in the region as well. But the White House official told POLITICO that 'immense preparations' were taken pre-strike to minimize American troops in the region in case of retaliation. On Monday, Leavitt said that the strikes were necessary to keep Americans both in the U.S. and the Middle East safe. 'Just to be clear, this strike on Saturday did make our homeland safer because it took away Iran's ability to create a nuclear bomb,' Leavitt said on Fox. 'This is a regime that threatens death to America and death to Israel and they no longer have the capability to build this nuclear weapon and threaten the world.' Megan Messerly contributed to this report.
