Political pressure for Fed rate cut: The US Federal Reserve enters 2026 in an environment shaped as much by politics as by economics. Inflation has eased from its recent highs but remains above target. Unemployment is rising, though still far from levels associated with recession. Financial markets remain buoyant, housing is constrained largely by supply rather than credit, and fiscal policy has turned expansionary under a tariff-heavy trade regime. Against this backdrop, sustained political pressure from the White House for faster and deeper rate cuts has become part of the policy environment.
The immediate question is not whether the Fed cuts rates again. It is whether monetary policy, under visible political direction, loses its anchoring role in the US economy—and with it, the credibility that reinforce global financial stability.
READ I Global economy’s 2026 optimism masks deep fault lines
Political pressure and the erosion of Fed independence
The December 2025 Fed rate cut, by itself, was not extraordinary. What made it unusual was the setting. The Federal Open Market Committee’s 9–3 vote—an uncommon level of dissent—reflected genuine disagreement over the balance of risks. But it unfolded amid public threats to remove senior Fed officials, litigation against a sitting governor, and repeated presidential statements demanding sharply lower interest rates.
Central bank independence rests less on legal clauses than on convention and restraint. The authority of the Federal Reserve depends on the belief that policy decisions respond to inflation, employment, and financial conditions—not electoral timelines. When a president declares that the next Fed chair must “believe in lower interest rates by a lot,” that belief begins to fray. Markets are quick to adjust. Yield curves start to reflect political risk, not just economic fundamentals. Once that shift occurs, the damage is difficult to reverse.
READ I Indian economy: Growth brings prestige — and expectations
Cutting rates with inflation still unfinished
Inflation has cooled, but the job is not complete. Official data place US consumer price inflation at 2.7 percent in November 2025, with core services inflation proving more resistant. That distinction matters. Services inflation is closely tied to wage growth and expectations, and it tends to unwind slowly.
The Fed’s own projections underline this uncertainty. At the December meeting, officials were sharply divided over the path of rates in 2026, with views ranging from no further cuts to multiple reductions. Such divergence does not signal confusion. It reflects the difficulty of judging how restrictive policy remains when inflation has fallen but not settled.
Fed rate cuts without firmer evidence that inflation expectations are anchored risks repeating a familiar mistake. In earlier episodes, political impatience to support growth prolonged inflation rather than curing it. The IMF has repeatedly cautioned that premature easing after inflation shocks often leaves economies with higher inflation floors and weaker policy credibility. The US is not immune to that risk.
READ I US-China rivalry: Too entangled to decouple
Markets, debt, and the limits of reassurance
Advocates of faster easing argue that financial conditions remain tight. The evidence does not fully support that claim. Equity markets closed 2025 with a third consecutive year of double-digit gains. Credit spreads remain narrow. Asset prices suggest confidence, not distress.
Lower rates delivered under political pressure also create a subtler problem. They signal that monetary policy will be used to cushion markets from uncertainty generated elsewhere—by tariffs, abrupt immigration actions, or fiscal swings. That weakens market discipline and encourages risk-taking.
The fiscal backdrop compounds the concern. US public debt now exceeds 120 percent of GDP. Sustained easing in this environment risks blurring the boundary between monetary support and fiscal accommodation. Bond markets have already shown discomfort with that prospect. When the Fed cut rates in late 2023, long-term yields rose rather than fell, reflecting investor concern about inflation and policy direction. That reaction could recur.
Labour market weakness and monetary remedies
Labour market data provide the strongest argument for further cuts. Payroll growth slowed markedly through mid-2025. Unemployment rose to 4.6 percent, a four-year high. These trends deserve attention, but they also require interpretation.
Much of the slowdown reflects uncertainty created by trade and immigration policy. Tariffs raise costs and cloud pricing decisions. Deportations disrupt labour supply in key sectors. Businesses delay hiring not because credit is unavailable, but because policy signals are unstable. Monetary easing cannot resolve that uncertainty. Using interest rates to offset non-monetary shocks risks diluting accountability across institutions.
Even the Fed has acknowledged the limits of transmission. Jerome Powell has noted that rate cuts exert only indirect influence over mortgage rates, which are driven largely by long-term Treasury yields. Despite three rate cuts in 2025, mortgage rates have remained stuck above 6 percent. Expectations, not policy rates alone, are doing the work.
Global spillovers of Fed rate cuts
The consequences extend beyond US borders. A weaker dollar may support exports, but it also raises import prices—especially under a tariff regime—and feeds inflation back into the system. For emerging economies, abrupt or politically driven shifts in US policy complicate capital flows, exchange rates, and debt servicing.
The World Bank has warned that volatile US monetary policy amplifies financial stress in developing economies with high dollar-denominated liabilities. Predictability matters as much as direction. A Federal Reserve perceived as politically constrained undermines that predictability.
For countries such as India, the trade-offs are acute. A softer dollar can ease external financing pressures, but it also destabilises commodity prices and trade balances. The Reserve Bank of India has consistently emphasised that global stability depends on a credible and independent US monetary anchor.
The Fed’s mandate is narrow by design: price stability and maximum employment. It does not extend to offsetting the political consequences of trade wars, immigration shocks, or fiscal expansion. Further rate cuts may yet be justified if inflation falls convincingly toward target or labour market deterioration accelerates. But cuts delivered under visible political pressure carry institutional costs.
Credibility erodes quietly and then all at once. Once markets conclude that monetary policy is being used to compensate for uncertainty created elsewhere in government, discipline weakens and responsibility blurs. For the US economy—and for a global system still anchored to the dollar—that is a risk worth resisting.