Fed Versus Trump on Tariffs Impact Will Soon Be Put to the Test
Philadelphia Transit System Votes to Cut Service by 45%, Hike Fares
Squeezed by Crowds, the Roads of Central Park Are Being Reimagined
Sao Paulo Pushes Out Favela Residents, Drug Users to Revive Its City Center
Sprawl Is Still Not the Answer
Mapping the Architectural History of New York's Chinatown
Anticipation of firmer inflation has kept the US central bank from delivering interest-rate cuts this year as it waits to see what happens. The Trump administration is applying intense pressure on Fed Chair Jerome Powell to bring down borrowing costs, and two Fed governors in recent days have publicly diverged from Powell by asserting a cut could be appropriate as soon as July.
A pair of key reports in the coming weeks — the monthly jobs report due Thursday and another on consumer prices due July 15 — will be critical in determining the central bank's next steps. Both are expected to finally begin reflecting the impact of tariffs, but any surprises could change the schedule for rate cuts.
'One of the things that makes it such a difficult situation is that we simply haven't done this sort of experiment in the past,' William English, a professor at the Yale School of Management and former high-ranking Fed economist, said of the tariffs. 'We're outside the range of experience for a modern US economy, and so it's very difficult to be confident about any forecast.'
Trump and his allies have escalated attacks on the Fed and Powell in recent weeks, motivated by data showing inflation remained tame through May despite the tariffs put in place. The president has lobbed several insults at Powell, calling him a 'numbskull' and 'truly one of the dumbest, and most destructive, people in Government.'
Other Trump administration officials and some congressional Republicans — oftentimes more reticent to weigh in on monetary policy — have joined in as well. Kevin Hassett, director of the White House National Economic Council, said on June 23 that there is 'no reason at all for the Fed not to cut rates right now.'
Hassett, who is seen as a possible replacement for Powell when the Fed chair's term expires next year, emphasized data due in the coming weeks: 'I would guess that if they see one more month of data, they're going to really have to concede that they've got the rate way too high,' he said.
The debate reflects the delicate situation the Fed is in as it aims to avoid a policy mistake. Should officials cut rates just as tariff-induced price pressures kick in, they may have to resort to more aggressive measures later on. But holding rates at an elevated level to combat inflation that never materializes risks restraining the economy unnecessarily, potentially damaging the labor market in the process.
Forecasters expect inflation to accelerate in the coming months. Powell told Congress in testimony last week he expects 'meaningful' price increases to materialize in June, July and August data as the levies work their way through the economy. But he added Fed officials are 'perfectly open to the idea' the impact could be smaller than feared, 'and if so, that'll matter for our policy.'
The Bureau of Labor Statistics will publish its report on consumer prices for June on July 15, two weeks before the central bank's next policy meeting. Fed Governors Christopher Waller and Michelle Bowman — both Trump appointees — have broken step with Powell and their other colleagues to raise the possibility of a rate cut next month if the data cooperate.
'I think we've got room to bring it down, and then we can kind of see what happens with inflation,' Waller said in a June 20 CNBC interview, adding the central bank could always bring a halt to rate cuts again if necessary. 'We've been on pause for six months to wait and see, and so far the data has been fine.'
Still, investors currently see only about a 20% chance of a July move and are instead betting the next cut will come in September, according to federal funds futures.
Tariff Math
Benign inflation readings through May suggest companies are finding ways, at least for now, to avoid price hikes despite Trump's tariffs on dozens of US trading partners — and widespread uncertainty over how long the duties will last and the level where they'll ultimately settle.
One potential explanation is companies are working through inventories of imports they frontloaded in the first quarter to get ahead of the levies, said Josh Hirt, a senior US economist at Vanguard Group.
Hirt's calculations suggest that, on average, importers this year have paid an effective tariff rate lower than what Trump has put in place, largely because so much was brought in before they took effect.
Another source of uncertainty Powell discussed in his testimony is just how the costs of the tariffs will be split between exporters, importers, retailers, manufacturers and consumers.
'In the beginning, it will be the importer that pays the tariff, but ultimately it will be spread out among those five,' Powell said, adding that data suggests at least some of the impact will fall on consumers.
What Bloomberg Economics Says...
'After a brief lull in April and early May, container traffic from China to the US is rising again, with year-to-date import volumes on pace to exceed normal levels at least through summer. If that pace is sustained, US store shelves should be well-stocked at the holiday season. That likely means less need for firms to pass on tariff costs this year.'
— Estelle Ou and Andrej Sokol, economists
Before the July 15 inflation report comes equally consequential monthly data on employment, due from the BLS on July 3. So far this year, there's been little indication that tariffs have put a dent in hiring, which has allowed the Fed chair and many of his colleagues to maintain that a solid labor market means there's no rush to cut rates.
But as with the inflation data, forecasters have largely maintained that any potential labor-market impact of the trade policy upheaval wouldn't be visible before the release of the June figures. In a Bloomberg survey, economists said they expect the this week's report will show the unemployment rate in June crept up to 4.3%, which would mark the highest level since 2021.
Bowman, in a June 23 speech, said Fed officials should 'recognize that downside risks to our employment mandate could soon become more salient, given recent softness in spending and signs of fragility in the labor market.'
Monthly consumer spending figures published Friday by the Bureau of Economic Analysis showed a drop in outlays in May as households pulled back on discretionary services like travel and dining, and forecasters warned higher prices in the months ahead would put more pressure on consumption.
English, at Yale, said the impact of tariffs will depend on factors which are difficult to measure. But 'the kind of intuition that there's going to be some pass-through of the tariffs to prices just feels right,' he said. 'I am not yet thinking that the basic story is wrong.'
America's Top Consumer-Sentiment Economist Is Worried
How to Steal a House
Inside Gap's Last-Ditch, Tariff-Addled Turnaround Push
Apple Test-Drives Big-Screen Movie Strategy With F1
Does a Mamdani Victory and Bezos Blowback Mean Billionaires Beware?
©2025 Bloomberg L.P.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Newsweek
4 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Major SALT Deduction Cap Boost Passes Senate. Here's Who Would Benefit
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. The U.S. Senate has passed a significant expansion to the federal deduction for state and local taxes (SALT), more than tripling the cap from $10,000 to $40,000 starting in 2025. Senators voted 50-50 on President Donald Trump's broad tax and spending bill on Tuesday, with Vice President JD Vance casting the tiebreaking vote. The increased SALT deduction cap would phase out for those earning above $500,000 and increase 1 percent annually until 2029, then revert to the current $10,000 limit in 2030. Why It Matters The move marks a dramatic reversal in policy on SALT deductions, one of the most contentious features of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, and has implications for millions of taxpayers, especially those living in high-tax states like New York, New Jersey, Illinois and California where property and income taxes often far exceed the old $10,000 cap. Analysts have said the provision will most likely benefit wealthier Americans who have high property taxes, as taxes paid on income and property ownership are typically the largest for those who itemize their taxes. Senate Majority Leader John Thune (center), shown with Senator John Barrasso, the GOP whip (left), and Finance Committee Chairman Mike Crapo, speaks to reporters after Senate passage of the budget reconciliation package of President Donald... Senate Majority Leader John Thune (center), shown with Senator John Barrasso, the GOP whip (left), and Finance Committee Chairman Mike Crapo, speaks to reporters after Senate passage of the budget reconciliation package of President Donald Trump's signature bill of big tax breaks and spending cuts, at the Capitol in Washington on July 1, 2025. More J. Scott Applewhite/AP What To Know Prior to 2017, taxpayers who itemized deductions could fully subtract the amount paid in state and local income, property and sales taxes from their federal taxable income. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act imposed a $10,000 cap on these deductions, a limit that mostly affected residents of states with higher tax rates. Along with raising the cap to $40,000 until 2029, the Senate bill also increases a tax break for pass-through businesses to 23 percent while clamping down on a frequently used tax loophole for certain pass-through businesses. The House bill had proposed the same higher limit and $500,000 income phaseout but for a longer period of time, rising 1 percent each year from 2026 to 2033. The House also blocked certain white-collar professionals from being able to use a popular SALT deduction workaround. While the Senate version appears to be cheaper for the federal government, given its shorter time frame, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB) said that "it's actually far more generous." The CRFB said the Senate's direct SALT relief is "roughly 10 percent larger than the House," adding that it estimated the Senate changes would cost $325 billion while the House bill would cost roughly $200 billion. Affluent homeowners and high-income individuals stand to benefit the most from the expanded cap, according to the Tax Foundation's May analysis. The Tax Foundation also warned that the Senate's provisions would cost about $320 billion more than an extension of the existing cap, and cost $150 billion more than a $30,000 cap. "The bill is already suffering from a math problem," Tax Foundation analysts wrote. "This is a recipe for worsening deficits at a time when Congress needs to be more concerned about the country's fiscal outlook." What People Are Saying Owen Zidar, a professor of economics and public affairs at Princeton University, told Newsweek: "The broader bill and the SALT cap increase are a boon for high-income taxpayers, especially high-income private business owners who got a special loophole that lets them avoid the SALT caps. Millions are estimated to lose health insurance coverage. The bill is very irresponsible fiscally. It's mortgaging our future for our children. "The increase in the deficits will put pressure on interest rates and crowd out productive investment, hurting economic growth." What Happens Next After being passed by the Senate, the GOP tax bill will now head to the Joint Conference Committee for reconciliation of differences between the Senate and House.


CNN
5 minutes ago
- CNN
Fact check: Trump lies again about gas prices, falsely claiming five states are at $1.99
The president's imaginary list keeps getting longer. In April, President Donald Trump claimed gas prices in 'a couple' unspecified states had just fallen to $1.98 per gallon. That wasn't even close to true. But the next day he said it was 'three states' that had just hit $1.98 per gallon, which also wasn't remotely accurate. Trump used the 'three' figure on multiple occasions in subsequent weeks, again with no factual basis. Then, during an immigration-focused visit to Florida on Tuesday, Trump made it five states with supposed sub-$2 gas. 'Gasoline just hit $1.99 today in five states – $1.99, isn't that a nice sound?' he said, adding moments later, 'We just hit, in five states, $1.99, $1.98.' Once more, this was a lie. The lowest state average price on Tuesday for a gallon of regular gas was about $2.71 in Mississippi, according to data published by AAA. The state with the fifth-cheapest Tuesday average, Louisiana, was at about $2.79 per gallon, per the AAA data. And the national average was about $3.18 per gallon, AAA reported. GasBuddy, a firm that tracks prices at tens of thousands of stations around the country, did not find a single station selling regular gas for below $2.26 per gallon on Tuesday. (There are sometimes individual drivers who get special discounts.) And GasBuddy's head of petroleum analysis, Patrick De Haan, told CNN that the last time his data showed any state average below $2 per gallon was more than four years ago, in January 2021, when demand was unusually weak because of the Covid-19 pandemic. The White House did not respond to CNN's Tuesday request to explain Trump's claim. The president has a long history of using inaccurate statistics even when he could make a similar point using accurate statistics. His false Tuesday boast was especially needless given that he could have correctly said that – as CNN reported in an article earlier in the day – gas prices for this Fourth of July weekend are expected to be the lowest for the holiday since at least 2021, according to GasBuddy.
Yahoo
9 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Fact check: Medicaid cuts for immigrants in Trump's ‘big, beautiful bill'
(NewsNation) — The White House has posted a 'mythbuster' fact sheet defending its proposed Medicaid changes in President Donald Trump's 'big beautiful bill' — but is it accurate? The nearly 1,000-page megabill outlines the removal of 'at least 1.4 million' immigrants who are in the United States unlawfully from Medicaid, the administration said. According to the White House, doing so would strengthen Medicaid for 'the American citizens for whom the program was designed — pregnant women, children, people with disabilities, low-income seniors, and other vulnerable low-income families.' That's not entirely true. No, immigrants who have entered and remained in the U.S. illegally are not eligible for Medicaid. Although they might benefit from some of its services — including emergency care — they aren't eligible for federally funded Medicaid coverage. The Congressional Budget Office and research organizations such as the Kaiser Family Foundation and Georgetown University's McCourt School of Public Policy corroborate these restrictions. Trump-Musk feud reignites over the 'big, beautiful bill' The White House's 1.4 million estimate appears to refer to those with questionable immigration status who will lose coverage due to reductions in state health care programs currently providing them with assistance. These programs are funded by the states, not through federal Medicaid dollars. Some emergency services provided by hospitals are available to people lacking a Medicaid-eligible immigration status. Services include 'those requiring immediate attention to prevent death, serious harm or disability, although states have some discretion to determine reimbursable services,' according to the KFF. 5 takeaways as Senate ships Trump's megabill to House The foundation estimated emergency care for undocumented patients accounted for less than 1% of Medicaid spending from 2017 to 2023. Trump and most congressional Republicans claim the reductions aren't true cuts, arguing that no one who should be on Medicaid will lose benefits. 'We're cutting $1.7 trillion in this bill, and you're not going to feel any of it,' Trump said at the White House last week. 5 takeaways as Senate ships Trump's megabill to House But experts and health advocates say a recent CBO analysis confirms that despite Trump's repeated pledges to only cut waste, fraud and abuse in Medicaid, the legislation would enact an unprecedented reduction in the program currently used by more than 70 million low-income Americans. 'This bill isn't being crafted to improve health care in America, or to improve the Medicaid program, or to improve the [ACA]. The purpose of these cuts in the bill is to try to find savings to pay for tax cuts,' said Andrea Ducas, vice president of health policy at the Democratic-aligned Center for American Progress. NewsNation partner The Hill contributed to this report. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.