The combination of aggressive tax cuts and escalating national debt in the United States is putting upward pressure on interest rates. In particular, former President Donald Trump’s economic approach – featuring large tax reductions and trade tariffs – highlights how swelling deficits can roil the bond market and, in turn, raise borrowing costs across the economy. This article analyzes why tax-cut fueled debt increases can lead to higher interest rates, how the Federal Reserve may respond under political pressure, and what it all means for consumers and investors. We’ll also explore the international ripple effects of Trump-era policies on global demand for U.S. debt and the strength of the dollar, with insights from experts like geopolitical strategist Peter Zeihan on the long-term debt and bond market dynamics.
Trump’s signature tax policy, the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, slashed corporate and individual tax rates with the promise that faster economic growth would make up for lost revenue. In reality, that growth “offset did not happen with 2017 tax cuts” – the tax cuts did not pay for themselves and instead added over $1 trillion to federal deficits, according to congressional budget forecasters (Trump's tax-cut plans could be slowed by a wary bond market | Reuters) (Trump's tax-cut plans could be slowed by a wary bond market | Reuters). As a result, the U.S. national debt – already high – continued to climb. By late 2024, total federal debt had reached roughly $36 trillion and was “expanding at a pace of $2 trillion a year”, even before accounting for any new initiatives (Trump's tax-cut plans could be slowed by a wary bond market | Reuters).
Trump has proposed even further tax breaks, including extending the 2017 cuts (which are set to expire for individuals in 2025) and introducing new cuts such as eliminating taxes on certain income like Social Security benefits and overtime pay (Trump's tax-cut plans could be slowed by a wary bond market | Reuters). Fiscal analysts warn these measures would significantly worsen the debt burden. In fact, extending and expanding Trump’s tax cuts is estimated to cost roughly $7.7–$8 trillion over the next decade on top of already-projected deficits (Trump's tax-cut plans could be slowed by a wary bond market | Reuters) (Trump's tax-cut plans could be slowed by a wary bond market | Reuters). Such massive unfunded tax cuts would require the Treasury to borrow even more, swelling the supply of U.S. bonds in the market.
When the government issues a flood of new Treasury bonds to finance budget shortfalls, it can put “red warning light” pressure on the bond market (Trump's tax-cut plans could be slowed by a wary bond market | Reuters). Investors become wary of the U.S. taking on “too much [debt]”, especially if deficits are growing with no sign of restraint (Trump's tax-cut plans could be slowed by a wary bond market | Reuters). The basic laws of supply and demand apply: if more Treasuries are for sale and buyers are concerned about inflation or credit risk, bond prices fall and yields (interest rates) rise (What is the bond market, and why does it matter for the economy? | PBS News) (What is the bond market, and why does it matter for the economy? | PBS News). This is exactly what happened in anticipation of Trump’s policies. By late 2024, markets were betting that Trump’s tax cuts and tariffs would “fuel inflation”, prompting investors to demand higher returns on Treasuries (Trump's tax-cut plans could be slowed by a wary bond market | Reuters). The benchmark 10-year Treasury yield jumped to about 4.3% (up roughly 0.7 percentage points in a matter of weeks) as Trump’s policy agenda became expected on Wall Street (Trump's tax-cut plans could be slowed by a wary bond market | Reuters).
Such a surge in yields indicates investors require a higher interest rate to compensate for the risk of a swelling debt load and potential inflation. Notably, this rise occurred even as the Federal Reserve had been cutting short-term rates in 2024 – the bond market effectively tightened financial conditions on its own, “counteracting Federal Reserve rate cuts” (Trump's tax-cut plans could be slowed by a wary bond market | Reuters). Representative David Schweikert described the situation bluntly: “the bond market is now on the verge of running this country”, signaling that bond investors’ intolerance for unlimited borrowing was imposing real constraints (Trump's tax-cut plans could be slowed by a wary bond market | Reuters). In practical terms, rising Treasury yields quickly translate into higher costs for all kinds of loans. As Reuters reported, this trend “is driving higher interest rates for mortgages, car loans and credit card debt”, which in turn can put U.S. economic growth at risk (Trump's tax-cut plans could be slowed by a wary bond market | Reuters).
(Trump's tax-cut plans could be slowed by a wary bond market | Reuters) Interest on the U.S. federal debt has skyrocketed alongside rising rates and cumulative deficits. In 2024, annual interest payments on the debt topped $1 trillion for the first time – making it the second-largest federal expense after Social Security (Trump's tax-cut plans could be slowed by a wary bond market | Reuters). This chart shows how interest costs have grown over the past few decades, underscoring how costly debt becomes when rates climb.
The explosion in interest payments illustrates the feedback loop of debt and rates: more debt issuance leads to higher yields, which makes servicing the debt more expensive, further widening deficits. Credit rating agencies have taken notice of this trajectory. Moody’s Investors Service, for example, warned in 2025 that “unfunded tax cuts” combined with “sustained high tariffs” present a negative credit outlook for the U.S., as these policies diminish the country’s ability to manage “widening fiscal deficits and declining debt affordability” (Moody’s Warns Recent Policy Decisions Worsen U.S. Fiscal State, Maintains Negative Outlook Rating). In other words, large tax cuts that aren’t offset by spending cuts can undermine confidence that the U.S. will keep its debt under control, so bond investors insist on even higher yields to lend money. It’s a caution echoed by the old Wall Street term “bond vigilantes,” wherein bond investors effectively punish governments for fiscal profligacy by demanding higher interest rates or refusing to buy debt.
Beyond the immediate market reaction, some experts point to deeper structural forces that could keep interest rates elevated. Geopolitical strategist Peter Zeihan argues that the era of easy money is ending due to demographic and geopolitical shifts. In the 2020s, the huge generation of global savers (like the Baby Boomers in the U.S.) is retiring, and the world is seeing a retreat from globalization. According to Zeihan, this means far less excess capital sloshing around to buy bonds, so borrowers will face scarcer and pricier capital for years to come. He predicts that interest rates will remain “much higher… for much, much longer,” potentially another decade, until a younger generation accumulates enough savings to ease the capital shortage (Much Higher Interest Rates for Much, Much Longer - Zeihan on Geopolitics). In practical terms, Zeihan quips, “if you’re going to borrow, do it now” because even after the recent run-up, today’s rates may be the lowest we’ll see until the mid-2030s (Much Higher Interest Rates for Much, Much Longer - Zeihan on Geopolitics).
This insight underscores the bond market’s message: the U.S. can no longer count on a limitless appetite for its debt at ultra-low rates. When tax cuts and deficit spending surge in an environment of tightening global capital, the government may have to offer substantially higher yields to attract buyers. That raises borrowing costs across the board, and those costs eventually filter down to consumers.
Normally, the Federal Reserve can counteract economic headwinds by cutting interest rates to stimulate growth. But in a scenario of large deficit-financed tax cuts, the Fed faces a dilemma – especially if those fiscal policies are also stoking inflation. Big tax cuts when the economy is near full capacity act as a fiscal stimulus, potentially boosting demand and prices. At the same time, Trump’s trade policies such as tariffs tend to raise production costs and consumer prices. Indeed, tariffs directly contribute to inflation by making imported goods more expensive. Fed Chair Jerome Powell has acknowledged this bind, noting that “tariffs [are] driving up prices while also weakening the economy,” which could force the Fed to “choose between fighting inflation or supporting growth” in a trade-war scenario (Trump Threatens to Fire Fed Chair Jerome Powell | Entrepreneur). In other words, expansionary tax and trade policies can create an inflationary push that collides with a growth slowdown – a worst-of-both-worlds situation for a central bank.
During Trump’s term in office (2017–2021), he frequently pressured the Fed to slash rates to juice the economy. He argued that other countries had ultra-low or negative rates and that the U.S. was at a competitive disadvantage (Trump heaps pressure on Fed and its chairman Powell to cut rates | Reuters). In 2019, as the Fed raised rates modestly to prevent the economy from overheating, Trump famously lambasted Fed Chair “Jay” Powell on Twitter, calling him “a golfer who can’t putt” and demanding “BIG CUT” in rates (Trump heaps pressure on Fed and its chairman Powell to cut rates | Reuters). Such public pressure broke with the tradition of presidents respecting Fed independence. In a dramatic illustration, by 2025 Trump was even threatening to fire Powell for not cutting rates fast enough – a move which legal experts note isn’t straightforward, short of cause. Powell, for his part, has repeatedly insisted on the Fed’s independence, responding that “We’re never going to be influenced by any political pressure… we will do what we do strictly without consideration of political or any other extraneous factors.” (Trump Threatens to Fire Fed Chair Jerome Powell | Entrepreneur). This tension sets up a conflict: political leaders might want lower rates to spur cheap credit and stock market gains, but the Fed’s mandate compels it to keep inflation in check and ensure long-term stability.
If deficits and tariffs are pushing inflation higher, the Fed may have no choice but to hold interest rates higher or even hike them, despite political backlash. We saw a glimpse of this dynamic when Trump’s tariff announcements spooked financial markets. In April 2018, for example, Trump unveiled far-reaching tariffs that surprised investors. Instead of behaving as a safe-haven in a time of policy uncertainty, Treasuries sold off sharply – 10-year bond yields leapt from under 4% to about 4.5% in a matter of days after the tariff news (What is the bond market, and why does it matter for the economy? | PBS News). Analysts noted that this was the opposite of the usual pattern (normally bad news sends yields down as investors seek safety), suggesting markets feared an inflation spike more than a growth slowdown (What is the bond market, and why does it matter for the economy? | PBS News) (What is the bond market, and why does it matter for the economy? | PBS News). As one economist observed, “If [yields are] going up, that suggests that inflation and risk are rising.” (What is the bond market, and why does it matter for the economy? | PBS News). The Fed, seeing such signals and rising prices, would be inclined to tighten policy, not loosen it. Yet Trump continued to push for rate cuts, creating an unusual spectacle of the White House urging easier money even as the bond market was effectively tightening conditions due to deficit worries and trade conflicts.
The Fed’s tightrope walk is complicated further by the sheer size of government borrowing. With annual interest on the debt now exceeding $1 trillion (Trump's tax-cut plans could be slowed by a wary bond market | Reuters), any Fed-induced increase in rates can significantly add to federal interest costs – something elected officials are keenly aware of. Nevertheless, Fed officials have stressed that succumbing to short-term political desires could backfire. Cutting rates prematurely to accommodate deficit spending could unleash even higher inflation, ultimately requiring more painful corrections later. This was a lesson from the late 1960s and 1970s, when political pressure to keep rates low contributed to runaway inflation that the Fed under Paul Volcker had to quash with punishingly high rates in the early 1980s. Powell in 2023–2024 faced a similar resolve-testing scenario: inflation had surged post-pandemic, and the Fed raised rates aggressively. By 2025, with inflation still above the Fed’s 2% target, Powell made clear that rate cuts were off the table in the near term. In fact, some Fed officials hinted that rates could stay elevated “higher for longer” until they are confident inflation is durably under control (Much Higher Interest Rates for Much, Much Longer - Zeihan on Geopolitics) (Much Higher Interest Rates for Much, Much Longer - Zeihan on Geopolitics).
In short, the Federal Reserve may find itself at odds with a White House pursuing debt-fueled stimulus. Trump’s calls for easy money collided with a reality of rising inflation and market pushback. This can lead to showdowns – Trump even mused about whether he could “remove” Powell from his post at one point (What is the bond market, and why does it matter for the economy? | PBS News). Such conflicts carry risks: investors worry about the erosion of Fed independence, which could undermine confidence in U.S. economic management. Any hint that the Fed might bend to political will can rattle markets, as stable monetary policy is one pillar of trust in the U.S. dollar.
U.S. economic policies don’t exist in a vacuum – they have international repercussions, especially when it comes to the appetite for U.S. debt and the standing of the dollar. Under Trump’s approach, several foreign-policy choices could dampen global demand for Treasuries just as the supply of Treasuries is skyrocketing.
Trade tensions and tariffs: Trump’s imposition of tariffs on major trading partners (from China and the EU to even allies like Canada) strained relationships and prompted some countries to diversify away from U.S. assets. China, for instance, has been one of the largest foreign creditors to the United States for decades. But amid trade wars and geopolitical frictions, China has steadily reduced its holdings of U.S. Treasury bonds – by early 2025, China’s stockpile of Treasuries fell to about $760 billion, the lowest level since 2009 (Foreign holdings of US Treasuries steady in January, up from year earlier -data shows | Reuters). While China’s trimming of U.S. debt is gradual (and driven partly by its own economic needs), it signals a wariness to fund U.S. deficits while being targeted by U.S. tariffs and export controls. If other countries followed suit, the U.S. would lose some major buyers of its debt. That would force the Treasury to offer higher yields to attract alternative investors, contributing to the upward pressure on interest rates.
Allies’ trust and geopolitical alignment: Trump’s foreign policy posture – characterized by an “America First” skepticism of multilateral institutions – raised doubts among traditional U.S. allies. He repeatedly disparaged NATO, at one point calling it “obsolete,” and questioned whether the U.S. should honor security commitments to allies who he felt didn’t spend enough on defense. Such comments unnerved Europe and Japan, who rely on U.S. leadership for security. In a potential second Trump term, these tensions could escalate. In fact, in early 2025 the United Nations General Assembly held a vote condemning Russia’s war in Ukraine – in a stunning break from the Western alliance, the U.S. under Trump sided with Russia (and North Korea) in voting against the resolution (UN general assembly backs resolution condemning Russia for Ukraine war | United Nations | The Guardian). This “extraordinary shift in U.S. policy” away from allies shocked many and widened the gulf between Washington and European capitals over the future of the NATO alliance (UN general assembly backs resolution condemning Russia for Ukraine war | United Nations | The Guardian) (UN general assembly backs resolution condemning Russia for Ukraine war | United Nations | The Guardian). European leaders openly began discussing steps to reduce their dependence on the United States. Germany’s likely next chancellor remarked that Europe must “achieve independence from the USA” as a priority (UN general assembly backs resolution condemning Russia for Ukraine war | United Nations | The Guardian).
Such geopolitical estrangement can have economic consequences. If key allies seek greater autonomy, they may invest more in their own defense and regional projects rather than recycling savings into U.S. Treasury bonds. They might also consider increasing reserves in other currencies (like the euro) to lessen reliance on the U.S. dollar. Over time, this shift could erode the strong international demand the U.S. has long enjoyed for its debt. The U.S. has benefited immensely from the dollar’s status as the world’s primary reserve currency – it means many foreign institutions hold Treasuries for safety and liquidity, keeping U.S. borrowing costs lower. However, for the first time in decades, there are murmurs about diversification. For example, countries like Saudi Arabia have talked about trading oil in other currencies; the BRICS nations (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) have explored settling more trade in their own currencies or gold. These trends remain nascent, but Trump’s unpredictable foreign policy and open friendliness toward authoritarian figures (like Russia’s Putin or North Korea’s Kim) at the expense of alliances could accelerate a drift away from U.S. leadership in the global financial system.
Another factor is the perceived stability of U.S. governance. Large, unfunded tax cuts and repeated debt-ceiling brinkmanship have already led to credit downgrades for the United States. Standard & Poor’s downgraded the U.S. credit rating in 2011 amid fiscal squabbles, and in August 2023 Fitch Ratings cut the U.S. rating from AAA to AA+ citing “expected fiscal deterioration” and erosion in governance (Moody’s Warns Recent Policy Decisions Worsen U.S. Fiscal State, Maintains Negative Outlook Rating). If investors see the U.S. political system as unable to manage debt (for example, extending massive tax cuts with no plan to offset them) or if they fear the independence of institutions like the Fed is under threat, they could demand a risk premium on U.S. assets. As Cornell economist Eswar Prasad cautioned, when Trump takes “the cudgel” to institutions long seen as apolitical – like the central bank – it “could have serious long-term ramifications for the value and broad use of the dollar in global markets.” (Trump Threatens to Fire Fed Chair Jerome Powell | Entrepreneur) Simply put, the U.S. stands to lose the confidence that its debt and currency will remain a bedrock of the world financial system if its policies appear reckless or capricious. A loss of confidence would likely mean a weaker dollar (making imports more expensive for Americans) and higher interest rates to convince buyers to hold dollar-denominated debt.
To be sure, the U.S. dollar and Treasury market still enjoy a unique trust globally – in times of worldwide crisis, money usually pours into U.S. bonds (as happened during the 2020 COVID shock). The dollar’s dominance doesn’t vanish overnight. But the trends under discussion pose gradual headwinds. Even a slight decline in global demand for Treasuries, at a time when U.S. issuance is exploding, can contribute to the upward drift in rates.
For households and investors, these macro dynamics aren’t just abstract – they hit home in very real ways. The most immediate effect of rising government debt and higher bond yields is more expensive borrowing costs throughout the economy. Mortgage rates, for example, have surged in response to the jump in Treasury yields. In October 2023, the average 30-year fixed mortgage rate in the U.S. hit about 7.9% – the highest level in more than 23 years (U.S mortgage rates soar to highest in more than 23 years | Reuters) (U.S mortgage rates soar to highest in more than 23 years | Reuters). This was a dramatic rise from the ~3% rates homebuyers enjoyed just two years prior, and it directly reflected the market’s reassessment of long-term inflation and debt risks. Higher mortgage rates mean higher monthly payments for the same loan amount, pricing many buyers out of the market and cooling the housing sector. Indeed, mortgage applications in late 2023 fell to their lowest level since the mid-1990s as rates nearly doubled (U.S mortgage rates soar to highest in more than 23 years | Reuters). Prospective homebuyers are now grappling with a much tougher affordability crunch: not only are home prices elevated, but the financing costs are exorbitant compared to the recent past.
It’s not just mortgages. Credit card interest rates are at record highs (often 20%+ APR) because they are typically pegged to benchmark rates like the prime rate, which moves with the Fed’s policy and overall credit conditions. Auto loans have become costlier, with interest rates on new car loans climbing to levels not seen since before the 2008 financial crisis. For anyone with an adjustable-rate loan, the burden of higher rates is felt quickly – as the Fed raises short-term rates to combat inflation (it hiked rates from near 0% in early 2022 to over 5% by 2023), those borrowing costs reset higher, squeezing household budgets. For example, a homeowner with a home equity line of credit or an adjustable mortgage will have seen their rate jump in parallel with Fed hikes. In addition, banks have tightened lending standards in a higher-rate environment, meaning it’s tougher to qualify for loans or refinance. In sum, consumers face tighter credit conditions and must be prepared for the cost of debt to remain high. It’s a stark change from the 2010s, when interest rates were at historic lows and leveraging up was relatively cheap.
Investors also need to recalibrate. A high-deficit, rising-rate environment can be challenging for stocks and bonds alike. Bond prices, of course, fall when yields rise, so anyone holding long-term bonds has seen their values decline. The flip side is that new bonds are paying more attractive interest – for the first time in years, safe U.S. Treasury bonds or even savings accounts are yielding something meaningful (4-5% or more). This can alter portfolio strategies, as investors may shift some funds from riskier assets into higher-yielding safe assets, potentially putting pressure on the stock market. Equities tend to face valuation headwinds when interest rates climb, because future earnings are discounted at a higher rate. Indeed, periods of rapidly rising rates often coincide with stock market volatility or downturns, as was evident in 2022 when the S&P 500 fell sharply during the Fed’s aggressive rate hikes. Furthermore, if Trump’s policies (tariffs, etc.) introduce more uncertainty and inflation risk, sectors can be unevenly affected – for instance, industries exposed to higher import costs (like auto manufacturers reliant on imported parts) might see profit margins squeezed.
For long-term investors, one key takeaway is to expect interest rates to remain higher than the rock-bottom levels of the past decade. The consensus among many analysts, and echoed by experts like Peter Zeihan, is that we are not likely to return to near-zero interest rates unless there is a severe recession. Barring a major deflationary crisis, the combination of heavy federal borrowing needs, declining global liquidity, and the Fed’s vigilance against inflation suggests a new normal of relatively elevated rates. This means when making long-term decisions – whether it’s taking out a 30-year mortgage, financing a business, or allocating a retirement portfolio – it’s prudent to assume borrowing costs won’t bail you out by dropping magically. Fixed-rate debt can provide certainty in a potentially rising-rate environment; locking in a rate today could be beneficial if experts forecasting “higher for longer” are correct (Much Higher Interest Rates for Much, Much Longer - Zeihan on Geopolitics). Conversely, investors might want to be cautious about asset classes that were propped up by cheap credit (such as highly leveraged companies or speculative tech stocks) because those could struggle if capital stays expensive.
History offers some guidance as well. In the 1980s, the U.S. saw a mix of large tax cuts and defense spending increases (under President Reagan) that blew up deficits – a parallel to today’s tax cut and spending dynamics. Interest rates in the early ’80s were extremely high due to inflation, but even as inflation came down, the U.S. found itself relying on foreign buyers (like Japan) to finance its deficits, contributing to a very strong dollar and trade deficits (“twin deficits”). Eventually, market and international pressure forced adjustments (e.g. the 1985 Plaza Accord to weaken the dollar). The lesson is that high deficits eventually require tough medicine – either in the form of austerity (spending cuts or tax hikes), inflation (eroding the real value of debt), or a combination. Similarly, after the 2008 financial crisis, U.S. debt surged, and by 2011 there was enough concern for S&P to downgrade U.S. debt. A bipartisan budget deal and several years of economic growth stabilized the debt/GDP for a while, but the 2017 tax cuts and then the COVID crisis led to another explosion of debt. Now in the mid-2020s, we’re at another inflection point where fiscal policy choices will determine whether interest costs spiral or come under control.
For consumers and investors, the bottom line is to stay informed and be prepared. If the government continues on a path of large tax cuts without fiscal balance, expect the bond market to react with vigilance – which likely means persistently higher interest rates than many are used to. That translates to paying more for mortgages and loans, but also earning a bit more on savings. It calls for a cautious approach to taking on new debt; one should budget for higher rates and not assume refinancing into lower rates will be easily available as it was in the 2010s. It also means scrutinizing investments for interest rate sensitivity. For instance, keep an eye on your exposure to long-duration bonds (which drop in value when rates rise) or to sectors that heavily depend on cheap credit.
Lastly, one silver lining is that higher rates can impose a discipline that perhaps politics hasn’t – a sort of market-based check. As one lawmaker noted, there are no “blank checks” anymore; if Congress pursues deficit-busting policies, the bond market response (rising yields) is a “hurdle in the financing of the U.S. government.” (Trump's tax-cut plans could be slowed by a wary bond market | Reuters) In other words, the cost of excess debt is made painfully clear. For the U.S. economy to thrive in the long run, either fiscal policy will need to adjust or interest rates will do the adjusting. Either way, consumers and investors should plan for a future where borrowing isn’t as dirt-cheap as it once was, and where the health of the nation’s finances increasingly affects our daily financial lives – from the rate on a 30-year mortgage to the returns on a retirement portfolio.
Sources:
Reuters – Analysis of Trump’s tax cut plans and bond market concerns (Trump's tax-cut plans could be slowed by a wary bond market | Reuters) (Trump's tax-cut plans could be slowed by a wary bond market | Reuters) (Trump's tax-cut plans could be slowed by a wary bond market | Reuters).
Reuters – Summary of 2017 tax cut effects and cost of extending cuts (Trump's tax-cut plans could be slowed by a wary bond market | Reuters) (Trump's tax-cut plans could be slowed by a wary bond market | Reuters).
Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (via Reuters) – Growth from tax cuts offsets only a small fraction of lost revenue (Trump's tax-cut plans could be slowed by a wary bond market | Reuters).
Moody’s / PGPF – Warning on credit impact of tariffs and unfunded tax cuts, and rising interest costs on debt (Moody’s Warns Recent Policy Decisions Worsen U.S. Fiscal State, Maintains Negative Outlook Rating) (Moody’s Warns Recent Policy Decisions Worsen U.S. Fiscal State, Maintains Negative Outlook Rating).
PBS NewsHour – Bond market reaction to Trump’s tariff announcement (investors selling bonds, yields spiking) (What is the bond market, and why does it matter for the economy? | PBS News) (What is the bond market, and why does it matter for the economy? | PBS News).
Reuters – Trump’s pressure on the Fed for rate cuts and criticism of Fed Chair Powell (Trump heaps pressure on Fed and its chairman Powell to cut rates | Reuters).
Entrepreneur/Due – Trump threatening Fed’s independence; Powell’s quotes on political pressure and tariffs vs growth trade-off (Trump Threatens to Fire Fed Chair Jerome Powell | Entrepreneur) (Trump Threatens to Fire Fed Chair Jerome Powell | Entrepreneur).
Reuters – U.S. aligning with Russia and North Korea in UN vote; European response on NATO and independence (UN general assembly backs resolution condemning Russia for Ukraine war | United Nations | The Guardian) (UN general assembly backs resolution condemning Russia for Ukraine war | United Nations | The Guardian).
Reuters – Data on foreign holdings of U.S. Treasuries (China’s holdings at lowest since 2009) (Foreign holdings of US Treasuries steady in January, up from year earlier -data shows | Reuters).
Zeihan on Geopolitics – Peter Zeihan’s commentary on demographics leading to higher interest rates for longer (Much Higher Interest Rates for Much, Much Longer - Zeihan on Geopolitics).
Reuters – U.S. mortgage rates hitting multi-decade highs in 2023 (impact on housing) (U.S mortgage rates soar to highest in more than 23 years | Reuters) (U.S mortgage rates soar to highest in more than 23 years | Reuters).