Trump’s interest-rate fantasy runs into debt gravity



You can have very low interest rates, and you can have debt-driven inflation. You just can’t have both at the same time. That is the reality President Trump refuses to recognize.

At the core of the president’s half-baked plan to resuscitate the economy is a return to the good old days of near-zero interest rates.

The Federal Reserve can set the short-term rates as low as it wants, but the bond markets will continue to rebel and reflect reality.

“We should have the lowest interest rates anywhere in the world,” Trump said last week in response to a reporter’s question in the Oval Office.

“In the old days … if we announced good numbers, interest rates went down. Now, if you announce good numbers, interest rates go up because they’re so afraid of inflation.”

It’s hard to make sense of that statement, but it reflects a grievance Trump has voiced consistently. He wants endless spending for his projects, he doesn’t want the inflation it causes, and he wants to pay near-zero interest on the resulting record debt. Don’t we all?

Perhaps in another lifetime, God will create such an innovative world. In this one, when you have protracted inflation and must sell endless Treasuries to service the debt, you cannot offer near-zero interest to buyers of that debt — especially at a rate below inflation.

We had multiple periods of near-zero interest rates this century, including during COVID. We also spent trillions of dollars we did not have during Trump’s first term and Biden’s presidency. That helped fuel the inflation surge of 2021-22. Prices have continued rising even as the inflation rate slowed, while the debt keeps exploding. Year-over-year inflation has now remained above the Fed’s 2% target for 65 consecutive months, with most months above 3%.

Far from being “artificially high,” as Trump contends, rates have been held artificially low. After the federal funds rate peaked at 5.5% during the inflation fight — a historically unremarkable level — the Fed cut rates six times beginning in 2024. The effective rate now stands at 3.63%, below the long-run average.

So what did the bond market do? The 10-year Treasury yield is roughly as high as it was when the federal funds rate peaked in 2024, and the 30-year yield is at levels not seen since 2007.

The Federal Reserve can set short-term rates as low as it wants, but the bond market will still reflect fiscal reality. There is no way around crushing debt other than cutting spending.

RELATED: The government would like to discuss your allowance

Love Employee/iStock/Getty Images

That was on vivid display late last month when Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent instituted a “twist” operation: The government bought back more long-dated Treasuries while relying more heavily on cheaper short-term bills and notes to finance the deficit and the purchases themselves. The goal was to reduce the supply of long-duration debt, support bond prices, lower long-term yields, and exploit the fact that short-term rates remain below 10- and 30-year yields.

The response from the bond market?

After a few hours of lower yields, by the next morning they were back near their pre-announcement baseline.

The 10-year yield is now around 4.75%, higher than at any point since April 2007. Back then, the effective federal funds rate was 5.25% — 162 basis points above today’s rate. The bond market is telling us that long-term rates are not high because the Fed forgot how to cut. They are high because investors demand compensation for inflation, deficits, and debt risk.

There is a simple reason the Fed can no longer wave a magic wand, return rates to near zero, and service the debt on the cheap as it did from the post-9/11 recession through COVID. On September 11, 2001, gross federal debt was about $5.77 trillion, roughly 55% of GDP. In April 2007, before the financial crisis, it was about $8.84 trillion, or 63% of GDP. Today it exceeds $40 trillion and is roughly 123% of GDP.

RELATED: Democrats want amnesia on inflation

wildpixel/iStock/Getty Images

The long-term trajectory is even worse, because faster debt growth creates a vicious cycle: Treasury needs more buyers, inflation and fiscal risk force yields higher, and more existing debt rolls over at those higher rates.

After an election fought in part against Bidenflation, nearly $4 trillion in new debt has been added since January 2025. Across Trump’s two terms, roughly $11.7 trillion of gross federal debt has accumulated. There are still more than two years left in his term, and there is no serious plan to bend the trajectory.

Naturally, all this new debt is being accumulated at higher interest rates. But the sheer magnitude of the debt also makes Trump’s dream of permanently cheap money impossible.

We all share Trump’s desire to service the debt on the cheap. He probably should have thought harder about that desire when he pressured Republicans in March 2020 to shut down the country and then pass trillions in new spending. Unfortunately for him and his delayed second term, what goes around in debt comes back around as inflation and higher interest rates.

Fed Deep State Undercuts Kevin Warsh, Who Wins Some Surprise Support

The new chairman of the Federal Reserve, Kevin Warsh, is facing his own version of the same problem that the president who appointed him encountered—an entrenched and highly partisan bureaucracy that fiercely resists change while taking itself very seriously.

The post Fed Deep State Undercuts Kevin Warsh, Who Wins Some Surprise Support appeared first on .

New Fed chair's first major interest-rate decision doesn't rock the boat — and Trump may not be happy about it



The first major decision at the Federal Reserve under new Chairman Kevin Warsh has come and gone, but little has changed.

On Wednesday, the Fed announced that the interest rate would hold at between 3.5% and 3.75%, despite calls from Dallas Fed President Lorie Logan and others for a "modest" increase.

'We will deliver price stability.'

The decision was released at 2 p.m. ET, revealing that Warsh and eight other committee members had voted in favor of a fifth straight hold on rates, while three opposed.

Shortly after the announcement, Warsh spoke publicly.

"The economy is showing impressive resilience," Warsh said. "Even with recent shocks, the trends are positive and reveal solid growth. Job gains have kept pace with the workforce, and the unemployment rate has changed little."

Warsh also admitted that "inflation remains elevated relative to the committee's 2% goal," but promised: "We will deliver price stability."

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Blaze News.

RELATED: Jerome Powell is out — for good reason. Here are 4 of his top blunders.

Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images

President Donald Trump has pushed for years for the Fed to lower interest rates. "Interest Rates too high!" he posted on Truth Social back in May.

On Monday, Trump said of Warsh: "Kevin’s fantastic, but he’s got a board, and the board members are very political. He wants to do the right thing. I know what he wants to do. But you need the consent of some people that have perhaps bad intentions. Rates should be lowered."

Trump nominated Warsh to be Fed chair back in January, and he was confirmed in May. Warsh replaced longtime Chair Jerome Powell, who repeatedly butted heads with Trump over interest rates.

Trump nicknamed Powell "Too Late" and called him a "DISASTER" because of his reluctance to lower interest rates.

"Jerome 'Too Late' Powell wants to stay at the Fed because he can’t get a job anywhere else — Nobody wants him," Trump wrote in April.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Glenn Beck: The housing crisis will spiral out of control unless we do this NOW



Why does buying a home feel more out of reach than ever? According to Blaze Media co-founder Glenn Beck, the answer isn’t corporate greed, mysterious market manipulation, or some hidden conspiracy theory. It’s basic economics and government policy.

Citing new research from the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas and data from the National Association of Home Builders, Beck argues that America’s housing affordability crisis stems from a collision of rising demand and artificially constrained supply.

“Thirty percent of the increase in U.S. home prices from '21 to '24 along with 20% of the rise in rent prices comes from just bringing in seven, 10, 15 million people and just adding them in,” Glenn explains.

“Today, our home, the typical American house, runs closer to five times what a family earns in a year,” he adds.


Back in March, economists at the Federal Reserve Bank in Dallas ran the numbers on what seven million illegal border crossings under the Biden administration did to the local housing market.

In Dallas, it put “roughly 30% of the total run-up in home prices and about 20% of the run-up in rents.”

“Every 1% increase in unauthorized workers relative to the local workforce pushed the home price up 2.2%. And rents up 1.4%. So you want to know why we’re having a hard time buying houses?” he asks, answering, “It’s because our local governments along with the federal and state government are completely out of control with regulation, and our federal government just opened up the borders.”

“Now, why isn’t that being explained to the American people?” he asks.

“It’s not the builders. It’s not the people selling the houses. It’s the government that is the problem,” he says.

And while the Biden administration spent four years adding millions of people to the demand side, local and federal governments made it "slower and more expensive to add anything to the supply side."

“There’s no mystery here. There’s no shadowy cartel. There’s no Jew behind the corner. It’s a bathtub with the tap wide open and a towel that is stuffed in the drain,” Glenn explains.

“Which means the fix should be just as simple. And there are three fixes,” he says.

“One, don’t add people to the country faster than you can add roofs to it. ... Two, make it legal to build a cheap house. ... Three, stop borrowing money you didn’t have because the deficit sets the interest rate and the interest rate sets the mortgage,” he continues.

“I don’t know why we don’t do this.”

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

No slaughter for the CIA's DEI office — yet



President Trump won the 2024 election promising to gut Biden-era DEI across the federal government, calling it "illegal and immoral." The CIA and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence tried to do exactly that — moving to fire 19 career officers who had spent their time on diversity, equity, and inclusion assignments instead of actual intelligence work.

Two Democrat-appointed judges said not so fast.

'As long as the employee subject to termination chooses to pursue reassignment, the agencies must attempt to reassign her.'

The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 Thursday that the CIA and ODNI have to let the 19 DEI-linked officers appeal their firings and, in some cases, apply for reassignment before they can be shown the door, the Washington Times reported.

The panel found the agencies skipped procedural steps required for a reduction in force — a technicality that's now kept the firings frozen for well over a year, according to Bloomberg Government.

Writing for the majority, Biden-appointee Judge Nicole Berner — joined by Obama-appointee Judge Stephanie Thacker — ruled the officers had enough of a claim to their jobs to sue in the first place.

Berner wrote: "As long as the employee subject to termination chooses to pursue reassignment, the agencies must attempt to reassign her."

RELATED: 'BIG WIN': Trump calls SCOTUS 'Slaughter' ruling the greatest increase of presidential power in 100 years

Graeme Sloan/Bloomberg/Getty Images

In a blistering dissent, Judge Paul Niemeyer, a George H.W. Bush appointee, argued that Congress gave intelligence directors "unfettered discretion" to fire employees precisely so courts couldn't micromanage personnel decisions at agencies handling national security.

He called the injunction unlawful and urged the Supreme Court to step in, calling it a serious separation-of-powers problem: judges telling the CIA how to run its own house.

The ruling lands days after the Supreme Court handed Trump a win affirming his broad authority to fire employees, with a separate case providing a narrow carve-out for officials like Federal Reserve board members.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

John Roberts Again Undermines SCOTUS Legitimacy With Irreconcilable Slaughter And Cook Opinions

In one ruling, SCOTUS affirmed the president's power to fire independent agency officials. On the same day, it invented a fourth branch of government to protect the Fed.

Here Are The Key Takeaways From SCOTUS’ Monday Decisions

Of the three political opinions issued by SCOTUS on Monday, the Trump v. Slaughter case will have the greatest effect.

Thomas RAILS against SCOTUS ruling on firing of Fed governor — with 2 conservatives siding with liberals



Two of the conservatives on the Supreme Court have sided with the three liberal justices to rule against the president's decision to fire Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook while a lawsuit continues.

President Donald Trump has been trying to fire Cook since 2025 after she was accused of committing mortgage fraud through evidence gathered from the Federal Housing Finance Agency.

'Today’s decision is an unprecedented incursion on the executive branch.'

On Monday, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh ruled against the president being allowed to fire Cook while the litigation continued. Four other conservative justices dissented.

"Not only the fact of independence but also the appearance of independence is key to the Federal Reserve’s design," wrote Roberts in the majority opinion.

He went on to assert that the president had not followed due process in firing Cook, which he indicated should have included offering an explanation for her removal, allowing her to respond, and setting up a deadline for the response. However, he also said in a footnote that the president could fire Cook if he tried again and followed due process.

The president responded in a post on Truth Social.

"The Cook Lawsuit, having to do with her suitability in sitting on the Board of the Federal Reserve, was sent back by the Supreme Court on a strictly procedural basis," Trump wrote, "we will take appropriate action immediately to make sure that someone who has committed wrongdoing will not be making vital decisions concerning the Welfare of the United States of America!"

Roberts said the ruling was necessary to maintain the independence of the Federal Reserve and to assuage the public.

"Any change in that scheme must come from Congress, not the courts," Roberts continued. "That is why we cannot accept the government’s contentions in this case. To do so would allow the president to remove a member of the Federal Reserve at any time, for any reason, without any notice before, and without any judicial check after.”

Justice Clarence Thomas called the arguments for the independence of the Federal Reserve unconstitutional.

"Today’s decision is an unprecedented incursion on the executive branch," Thomas wrote in the dissent.

"Many do not share the court’s rosy appraisal of the past century. But if the court prefers an independent Federal Reserve Board, then its issue is not with the president but with the Constitution," he added.

RELATED: Warsh approved to replace Powell as Federal Reserve head — and even 1 Democrat supports him

Cook responded in a statement Monday that accused the president of acting out of political motivation.

"It was an attempt to remove me on a manufactured pretext because I refused to bow to political pressure and continued to set interest rates based only on what would best serve the American people," she wrote.

She has denied the allegations and has not been charged with any crime.

While the president has been demanding that the Federal Reserve lower interest rates, he has backed off on that campaign after some metrics showed inflation climbing to 4%.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

John Roberts: Presidents Have Executive Power. Also John Roberts: No, They Don’t

Taken together, Cook and Slaughter reveal a chief justice once again attempting to split the baby between constitutional principle and institutional pragmatism.

Supreme Court Allows Lower Court Blockade On Trump’s Federal Reserve Firing To Remain In Place

In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court declined to halt a lower court blockade against President Trump's removal of Lisa Cook from the Fed.