An inflation surge could swamp Trump's presidency. This one investment will keep your money safe.
America's financial outlook has darkened under President Donald Trump's leadership. All three major credit-rating agencies now rank U.S. federal debt one notch below triple-A, and Jamie Dimon, the chairman and CEO of JPMorgan Chase JPM, has warned of a crack in the U.S. bond market. With the 10-year U.S. Treasury yield BX:TMUBMUSD10Y at 4.4% on Wednesday and the 30-year rate BX:TMUBMUSD30Y at 4.9%, holders of nominal U.S. debt should be prepared for significant real losses.
The principal risk is not U.S. sovereign default, but rather unexpected increases in medium- and long-term interest rates, owing to market expectations of higher inflation. Fiscal policy under Trump is unsustainable, as it was under former President Joe Biden — but even more so if the Trump administration's 'big, beautiful' budget passes in anything like its current form.
'I'm at my wit's end': My niece paid off her husband's credit card but fell behind on her taxes. How can I help her?
Why the biggest-ever 'triple witching' options expiration could deliver a jolt to Friday's trading
Israel-Iran clash delivers a fresh shock to investors. History suggests this is the move to make.
'I prepaid our mom's rent for a year': My sister is a millionaire and never helps our mother. How do I cut her out of her will?
I'm 75 and have a reverse mortgage. Should I pay it off with my $200K savings — and live off Social Security instead?
The January 2025 Financial Report of the United States Government makes this clear. The U.S. ratio of federal debt held by the public to GDP at the end of the 2024 fiscal year was around 98%, although $4.7 trillion of the $28.3 trillion in federal debt was held by the Federal Reserve — meaning it is erroneously categorized as held by the 'public,' when really the central bank's accounts should be consolidated with those of the federal government.
Under current policy and based on the report's assumptions, federal debt held by the public would reach 535% of GDP by 2099. Stabilizing the U.S. debt-to-GDP ratio requires that the annual primary federal deficit (excluding interest payments) fall by an average of 4.3% of GDP over the next 75 years. And yet, the federal deficit and primary deficit were 6.4% and 3.3% of GDP, respectively, in fiscal-year 2024 — far above what can be justified with the economy near full employment.
Read: America's debt is at a breaking point — Trump's tax bill might just push it over the edge
With the U.S. Congress so dysfunctional, no one has any faith that it will deliver the required deficit reduction. Democrats do not do permanent spending cuts, and Republicans do not do permanent tax increases. The federal government does own about 28% of U.S. land (roughly 640 million acres), as well as other real commercial assets that could yield significant additional nontax revenues if properly managed. But neither party — nor even the misnamed Department of Government Efficiency — appears to have considered this option, so the federal deficit as a share of GDP is likely to rise over the next few years.
With no foreseeable improvement in fiscal policy, there are two possible outcomes. First, the U.S. government could default. There has long been a small, but recurrent, risk of a technical, short-lived default if Congress fails to raise, suspend, extend, revise or abolish the federal debt ceiling on time. Fortunately, it has averted this scenario 78 times since 1960, and we expect it to continue doing so.
As matters stand, the debt ceiling (including debt held by federal agencies) is set at $36.1 trillion, and debt subject to the limit is also $36.1 trillion. If needed, the Treasury has a highly liquid asset (the Treasury General Account held with the Fed) worth $332.9 billion that it can use to meet its obligations, and it may temporarily use 'extraordinary measures to continue to borrow additional amounts for a limited time.'
The second, more likely possibility is that the Fed will monetize enough federal debt to prevent default. Since U.S. federal debt is serviced in dollars, 'printing money' is always an option. But, as the Fed well knows, a large-scale monetization of federal debt would result in significantly above-target inflation. We believe the Fed will do this without its operational independence being revoked by Trump.
To get the Federal Open Market Committee to do something it does not want to do, the president would need to control the majority of its 12 voting members. These include the seven members of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors and five (out of 12) regional Federal Reserve Bank presidents who vote at any given FOMC meeting.
Neither the president nor Congress can appoint or fire Federal Reserve Bank presidents. The Board of Governors must approve them, and only the board can remove them. The president nominates board members, but the Senate must confirm them. Board members' current term limits imply that, assuming none are fired, Trump will have the opportunity to nominate only two new members.
True, with the power to fire board members 'for cause' — meaning 'inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance' — Trump could try to replace a majority of the members with loyalists. But this seems unlikely. Whether the 'for cause' criterion has been met will be contested in the courts, and the Senate would have to confirm Trump's appointees.
Read: Trump's pick to replace Fed Chair Powell could rock your mortgage and retirement. Buckle up.
Similarly, Congress could revise the Federal Reserve Act to replace the Fed's monetary-policy objectives with a mandate to buy or sell sovereign debt according to the wishes of the Treasury. But this, too, is unlikely. And the same goes for a scenario in which the Treasury sets a rapidly depreciating exchange-rate target for the dollar DXY that can be achieved only through large-scale Fed purchases of U.S. public debt that generate high inflation.
However, fiscal dominance — indeed, fiscal capture — is very likely, because the need to avoid a domestic and global financial crisis will force the FOMC's hand. It will do whatever is necessary to prevent a U.S. government default, because the Fed's financial-stability mandate (the Financial Stability Act of 2010 mentions the Fed 179 times) undoubtedly trumps its monetary-policy mandate of maintaining maximum employment, stable prices and moderate long-term interest rates.
The Fed cannot credibly threaten to refuse to monetize debt and deficits to compel fiscal retrenchment by the Treasury, let alone Congress. Thus, the Fed will have no choice but to engage in sovereign-debt purchases that it knows to be incompatible with its monetary-policy objectives.
With nominal interest rates for medium- and long-term U.S. sovereign debt far below the levels consistent with realistic expectations of future inflation, serious capital losses on nominal debt instruments (public and private) are likely. The inflation surge could be no more than three years away. As the prospect of fiscal capture comes into view, investing in Treasury inflation-protected securities (TIPS) and other indexed public and private debt instruments will become increasingly attractive.
Willem H. Buiter, a former chief economist at Citibank and former member of the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England, is an independent economic adviser.
Anne C. Sibert is professor emerita of economics at Birkbeck, University of London.
This commentary — 'U.S. Debt Holders Should Brace for Impact' — is published with the permission of Project Syndicate.
Read: 'You are going to panic,' Jamie Dimon tells regulators about what will happen when the bond market cracks
More: What's at stake if world's most powerful market finally buckles after decades-long U.S. debt splurge
20 companies in the S&P 500 whose investors have gained the greatest rewards from stock buybacks
Israel-Iran conflict poses three challenges for stocks that could slam market by up to 20%, warns RBC
I'm 51, earn $129K and have $165K in my 401(k). Can I afford to retire when my husband, 59, draws Social Security at 62?
'It might be another Apple or Microsoft': My wife invested $100K in one stock and it exploded 1,500%. Do we sell?
Why the stock market will be performing a high-wire act over the summer, according to UBS
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
31 minutes ago
- Yahoo
James Carville Calls Out Fox News On Live TV For Playing Into This 'Giant Lie'
James Carville on Friday took on Fox News after host Martha MacCallum tried to push back at his criticism of President Donald Trump as he weighs U.S. military action against Iran amid Israel's war on the country. The longtime Democratic strategist, when asked about Trump's decision-making in a live Fox News appearance, reminded MacCallum of the network's history covering the lead-up to the U.S. invasion of Iraq (and the resulting war). 'I'm old enough to remember 2002 when this network and everybody else was beating war drums as loud as you could beat war drums, that there was every evidence of weapons of mass destruction. Of course, it turned out to be a giant lie,' he said of the Bush administration's pretext for the invasion. MacCallum interjected, 'You think this is like that?' Carville chimed back in, 'I don't know but I do know the government lied to me profoundly 22 years ago, that I do know, why would I trust this government more than I trust —.' MacCallum pointed to a clip she played earlier of David Albright, a nuclear weapons expert, who argued that there's not a sort of 'redux' of the Iraq War claims when it comes to the Iranian nuclear program. Carville jumped back in, 'Again, you are free to beat the war drums as loud as you want to —.' MacCallum replied, 'I'm not beating any war drums, I'm just reporting the facts.' Another panelist, OutKick founder Clay Travis, hopped into the crosstalk before Carville hit back. 'Excuse me for speaking while you're interrupting me,' Carville said. He later continued by noting that Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard testified to the Senate in March that Iran wasn't building a nuclear weapon, a comment that Trump has since dismissed. 'I think that he needs to take his time, they need to assess it and they need to give us a very clear rationale for why this step is necessary to start a war with 92 million people, that's all I'm saying,' added Carville of Trump, who has stressed that Iran is a matter of weeks away from completing a nuclear weapon. 'And that country has 92 million people, half have a college degree, half of those are women and I just don't think it's a good idea to rush headlong into a war. I'm sorry. I was skeptical in 2002 and I'm skeptical in 2025.' Carville: I'm old enough to remember in 2002 when this network was beating war drums as loud as you could beat war drums about WMDs— of course, it turned out to be a giant We just heard from an expert who said there's so much You are free to… — Acyn (@Acyn) June 20, 2025 Trump's Plan To Stop Harvard From Hosting Foreign Students Blocked CNN Data Chief Exposes How Trump Totally Lost This 'Political Battle' Trump Shuts Down Tulsi Gabbard On Iran: 'She's Wrong'
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Dow Jones Futures: Will Elon Musk's Big Robotaxi Bet Pay Off? Four Stocks In Buy Areas
The market rally held in a range this past week, amid Israel-Iran news. The Tesla robotaxi launch is set for Sunday.
E&E News
an hour ago
- E&E News
Maine sues for reinstatement of NOAA grant
The state of Maine has sued the Trump administration over cancellation of a $9 million NOAA grant to restore tidal salt marsh habitat and protect coastal infrastructure from flooding. A complaint before the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine alleges NOAA singled out the grant for termination in April, roughly six weeks after Maine Gov. Janet Mills publicly (D) sparred with President Donald Trump in February over the state's policy on transgender girls and women participating in school sports. The complaint says the administration's action was 'capricious and arbitrary,' violates the Administrative Procedure Act and ignores multiple provisions of the U.S. Constitution. Advertisement 'Despite NOAA's lack of explanation for the termination, context strongly suggests that the project grant was terminated for a reason entirely unrelated to the project's merits,' Maine Attorney General Aaron Frey says in the complaint filed Tuesday.
