The Waller Honeymoon Is Over: The Fed Faces Three Paths
nashnova research
Trump publicly pressured new Fed Chair Kevin Warsh to cut rates, but the market is pricing a rate hike at over 50% probability — the honeymoon is over, and every move the Fed makes now risks its own credibility.
What did Trump demand, and why did the market shrug?
Trump posted on social media that "high rates put America at a deeply unfair disadvantage" and called for rate cuts. This is his first public pressure on new Chair Warsh.
Investors barely flinched, betting on three defenses: the judiciary protecting Fed independence, the committee's diffused voting structure resisting interference, and potential Democratic gains in November's midterms checking the president.
But analysts warn that even if all three defenses hold, sustained pressure is eroding the Fed's public credibility. This means → inflation is fundamentally a psychological phenomenon — public expectations and reality reinforce each other, so damaged credibility makes inflation harder to tame.
How far has public trust in the Fed fallen?
A Gallup survey in September 2025: only 33% of U.S. adults rated the Fed "excellent" or "good"; 27% rated it "poor."
The net positive rating: just 6% — the lowest on record going back to at least 2003.
In plain terms = the Fed's public "report card" is the worst in over twenty years, and that is the backdrop against which every decision it makes will be judged.
Scenario one: the committee hikes without the chair — then what?
Three committee members already voted for a hike at the last meeting: Cleveland Fed's Beth Hammack, Minneapolis Fed's Neel Kashkari, and Dallas Fed's Lorie Logan. Since then, governors Lisa Cook, Michael Barr, and Christopher Waller have signaled they do not rule out tightening.
Former Chair Jerome Powell has stayed silent since stepping down, but per Bloomberg Opinion, his decision to remain on the Board of Governors is itself seen as a defense of independence — and he may join the hawkish camp.
This means → if the committee passes a hike over the chair's objection, it would be the first time since Chair Marriner Eccles in 1939 — rate-market and bond-yield volatility would spike sharply, and a leadership crisis would be unavoidable.
Scenario two: hold rates — how would the market read it?
If the federal funds rate stays at 3.5%–3.75%, the market may interpret it as political considerations driving the policy decision. Trump's social-media post becomes the most direct exhibit.
Bloomberg Opinion columnist Claudia Sahm argued: "Appeasement is not an effective strategy for dealing with the Trump administration." She cited Michael Barr's early-2025 resignation as vice chair to placate the new administration — after which pressure only continued.
This reflects a well-documented pattern: the market punishes perceived looseness. From the start of Fed rate cuts in late 2024 through January 2025, the 10-year Treasury yield rose roughly 1.15 percentage points.
Scenario three: Warsh breaks ranks — what does it cost?
A third possibility: Warsh himself votes against the committee majority, projecting independence and signaling he is not bowing to political pressure.
But the cost is clear: a chair at odds with the majority is itself a signal of instability.
In plain terms = all three paths are painful — hiking means internal fracture, holding means political appeasement, and Warsh breaking ranks exposes a leadership rift. Each step draws down the Fed's scarcest asset: credibility.
What is the next critical data point?
The U.S. Consumer Price Index (CPI) due Friday is the last major inflation reading before the September meeting.
This means → the CPI result will directly shift the probability distribution across all three paths — a hot print strengthens the hawks' hand; a mild print opens space to hold.
This reflects the Fed's real predicament: it is not about any single rate decision, but about how long an already-damaged credibility can hold up when every option tests it further.
市场有风险，内容仅供研究参考，不构成投资建议。