Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 614

Trump vs Powell: Who will blink first?

Futures markets suggest we’ll get just one rate cut from the U.S. Federal Reserve this year. That’s not surprising: The latest U.S. consumer and producer price inflation data has been relatively cool, and Fed Chair Jerome Powell has been sounding hawkish. He has even hinted at reconsidering the treatment of the 2% inflation target as a longer-term average, the one thing currently allowing some tolerance of above-target data.

President Donald Trump is not happy. After criticising “Too-Late” Powell through much of April, the president had to clarify that he isn’t going to remove him from office. Nonetheless, he still thinks the Fed should “lower rates like Europe and China have done” (the European Central Bank cut on April 17, the People’s Bank of China cut last week), and that Powell is a “total stiff.”

The name-calling is revealing, and not just because it underlines the Trump administration’s unconventional ways. The office of U.S. president is endowed with broad executive powers – and this president is testing even these limits. By contrast, numerous Fed officials, many with voting power, have been lining up to explain why it was best to “wait and see” before cutting rates. The Fed chair – hemmed in by process, meticulously chosen words and consensus decision-making – is always going to look like an unresponsive “stiff” to President Trump.

At the top of the U.S. fiscal and monetary authorities, investors face an unprecedented clash of leadership styles.

Process and transparency

When Paul Volcker was tackling runaway inflation in the early 1980s, process and consensus was not the name of the game. His shock therapy – raising rates to 20% and inducing recession – was decisive, unbending and unpopular.

His successor as Fed Chair, Alan Greenspan, began to introduce the elements of process and transparency that we know today, such as published minutes, interest-rate projections and qualitative forward guidance. More recently, Ben Bernanke’s Fed formalized the 2% inflation target. When rates were stuck at zero after the Global Financial Crisis and during the COVID-19 pandemic, the process and public commentary effectively became the central bank’s policy.

In Greenspan’s view, process, consensus and transparency would help protect the independence that Volcker had to fight for, but they would also give capital allocators and investors more certainty, taming the violent cycles that Volcker had to deal with, bringing down the cost of capital and making the economy and its markets more efficient.

Decisive unconventional action, in collaboration with other federal agencies and other central banks around the world, is still possible in a crisis. But the central bank’s day-to-day activity is now deliberate, consensual and jealously independent – and, as an inevitable result, somewhat reactive. “Too late,” if you take the view of President Trump. Predictable and reassuring, if you’re more technocratic.

Move fast and break things

The Trump administration is more ‘tech bro’ than technocratic. It likes to move fast and break things in pursuit of its strategic aims.

In economic terms, those aims might be summed up in Robert Lighthizer’s 2023 book, No Trade Is Free: Changing Course, Taking on China and Helping America’s Workers. Lighthizer sees the post-World War II era as an anomaly and wants the U.S. to embrace the historical use of trade policy and tariffs: protecting and developing certain industries; reciprocating and retaliating against other countries’ levies; and raising revenue. In his thoughts about China, he also advocates using trade policy to advance geopolitical ends.

Because it is so unconventional, this strategy necessitates a concentration of trade policy in the executive. It also bypasses the multilateral and technocratic trade architecture built over the past 80 years, envisaging bilateral negotiations undertaken and overseen at the highest administrative levels.

In our view, investors should take care not to mistake the chaos of the past 125 days as a lack of strategy. Just as President Trump’s first term effected a paradigm shift in the way other political parties and other countries thought about China, we think this term is likely to leave us with more bilateral, more protectionist international relations, regardless of who wins the next U.S. elections.

The chaos comes not due to lack of strategy, but due to the administration’s tactic of testing practical limits in pursuit of its strategy. In crude terms, it is figuring out what is possible as it goes – as opposed to assuming what is possible based on some informed consensus and adapting the strategy to fit.

Bubbles

Whereas Powell’s leadership style is designed to minimize the cost of capital, Trump’s style seems to raise it, in the form of higher stock market volatility, wider credit spreads, climbing Treasury yields and a rating agency downgrade.

As investors, however, we don’t automatically side with the Powell style. Leading by consensus at central banks has arguably resulted in reflexively low real interest rates and artificially low volatility in both financial markets and credit cycles. That, in turn, has allowed successive bubbles to be inflated in technology stocks, U.S. real estate and government debt. A little more mystery around Fed policymaking might have mitigated or even prevented those bubbles.

Should that be how we think about the Trump administration’s tactics? Recent policy uncertainty has made U.S. government debt less affordable and the U.S. dollar weaker. This could be seen as needlessly raising the cost of capital. But it could also help to deflate a multidecade bubble in debt-fueled U.S. consumption and force a return to a more sustainable manufacturing- and exports-based economy.

While that explanation fits with the apparent long-term strategy, it doesn’t follow that these are sensible tactics. Uncertainty and risk are healthy in small doses. Decisiveness can be powerful when tempered by informed consideration. But sheer disruptiveness could, in itself, lead investors to demand higher risk premia than are necessary to achieve the strategic aims.

President Trump and Chair Powell sit at opposite policymaking poles, and both could take a lesson from the other—not least because, ultimately, the fiscal and monetary authorities need to work together.

 

Brad Tank is Co-Chief Investment Officer and Global Head of Fixed Income at Neuberger Berman, a sponsor of Firstlinks. This material is provided for general informational purposes only and nothing herein constitutes investment, legal, accounting or tax advice, or a recommendation to buy, sell or hold a security. You should consult your accountant, tax adviser and/or attorney for advice concerning your own circumstances.

For more articles and papers from Neuberger Berman, click here.

 

RELATED ARTICLES

Trusting the process in a high-rate environment

There are good reasons interest rates need to rise

Which asset class in Australia offers the best value now?

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

Australian house prices close in on world record

Sydney is set to become the world’s most expensive city for housing over the next 12 months, a new report shows. Our other major cities aren’t far behind unless there are major changes to improve housing affordability.

The case for the $3 million super tax

The Government's proposed tax has copped a lot of flack though I think it's a reasonable approach to improve the long-term sustainability of superannuation and the retirement income system. Here’s why.

Tariffs are a smokescreen to Trump's real endgame

Behind market volatility and tariff threats lies a deeper strategy. Trump’s real goal isn’t trade reform but managing America's massive debts, preserving bond market confidence, and preparing for potential QE.

Getting rich vs staying rich

Strategies to get rich versus stay rich are markedly different. Here is a look at the five main ways to get rich, including through work, business, investing and luck, as well as those that preserve wealth.

The super tax and the defined benefits scandal

Australia's superannuation inequities date back to poor decisions made by Parliament two decades ago. If super for the wealthy needs resetting, so too does the defined benefits schemes for our public servants.

CBA, AUSTRAC and our Orwellian privacy laws

Imagine receiving an email from your bank demanding to know if you keep cash at home and threatening to freeze your accounts if you don't respond in seven days. This happened to me and it raises disturbing questions. 

Latest Updates

SMSF strategies

Meg on SMSFs: Withdrawing assets ahead of the $3m super tax

The super tax has caused an almighty scuffle, but for SMSFs impacted by the proposed tax, a big question remains: what should they do now? Here are ideas for those wanting to withdraw money from their SMSF.

Superannuation

The huge cost of super tax concessions

The current net annual cost of superannuation tax subsidies is around $40 billion, growing to more than $110 billion by 2060. These subsidies have always been bad policy, representing a waste of taxpayers' money.

Planning

How to avoid inheritance fights

Inspired by the papal conclave, this explores how families can avoid post-death drama through honest conversations, better planning, and trial runs - so there are no surprises when it really matters.

Superannuation

Super contribution splitting

Super contribution splitting allows couples to divide before-tax contributions to super between spouses, maximizing savings. It’s not for everyone, but in the right circumstances, it can be a smart strategy worth exploring.

Economy

Trump vs Powell: Who will blink first?

The US economy faces an unprecedented clash in leadership styles, but the President and Fed Chair could both take a lesson from the other. Not least because the fiscal and monetary authorities need to work together.

Gold

Credit cuts, rising risks, and the case for gold

Shares trade at steep valuations despite higher risks of a recession. Amid doubts that a 60/40 portfolio can still provide enough protection through times of market stress, gold's record shines bright.

Investment strategies

Buffett acolyte warns passive investors of mediocre future returns

While Chris Bloomstan doesn't have the track record of his hero, it's impressive nonetheless. And he's recently warned that today has uncanny resemblances to the 1990s tech bubble and US returns are likely to be disappointing.

Sponsors

Alliances

© 2025 Morningstar, Inc. All rights reserved.

Disclaimer
The data, research and opinions provided here are for information purposes; are not an offer to buy or sell a security; and are not warranted to be correct, complete or accurate. Morningstar, its affiliates, and third-party content providers are not responsible for any investment decisions, damages or losses resulting from, or related to, the data and analyses or their use. To the extent any content is general advice, it has been prepared for clients of Morningstar Australasia Pty Ltd (ABN: 95 090 665 544, AFSL: 240892), without reference to your financial objectives, situation or needs. For more information refer to our Financial Services Guide. You should consider the advice in light of these matters and if applicable, the relevant Product Disclosure Statement before making any decision to invest. Past performance does not necessarily indicate a financial product’s future performance. To obtain advice tailored to your situation, contact a professional financial adviser. Articles are current as at date of publication.
This website contains information and opinions provided by third parties. Inclusion of this information does not necessarily represent Morningstar’s positions, strategies or opinions and should not be considered an endorsement by Morningstar.