Economy

Unlock the White House Watch newsletter for freeYour guide to what the 2024 US election means for Washington and the worldThis month, many investors feel dazed and confused. No wonder: as the US government flirts with another shutdown and President Donald Trump intensifies his trade war, indices of economic uncertainty have skyrocketed above even the 2020 pandemic or the global financial crisis of 2008. But the uncertainty could get worse. For amid all the tariff shocks, there is another question hovering: could Trump’s assault on free trade lead to attacks on free capital flows too? Might tariffs on goods be a prelude to tariffs on money? Until recently, the notion would have seemed crazy. After all, most western economists have long seen capital inflows as a good thing for America, since they have helped to fund its $36tn national debt and business. For instance, Elon Musk, Trump’s adviser, has benefited from Chinese investment, some of which is private.But some maverick economists, such as Michael Pettis, have long dissented from this orthodox view. Pettis sees these capital inflows as not “just” the inevitable, and beneficial, corollary of America’s trade deficit, but as a debilitating curse. That is because inflows boost the dollar’s value, foster excessive financialisation and hollow out America’s industrial base, he says, meaning that “capital has become the tail that wags the dog of trade”, driving deficits. Pettis wants curbs, like taxes, therefore. And six years ago, Democratic senator Tammy Baldwin and Josh Hawley, her Republican counterpart, issued a congressional bill, the Competitive Dollar for Jobs and Prosperity Act, which called for taxes on capital inflows and a Federal Reserve weak-dollar policy.The bill seemed to die. But last month American Compass, a conservative think-tank close to vice-president JD Vance, declared that taxes on capital inflows could raise $2tn over the next decade. Then the White House issued an “America First Investment Policy” executive order that pledged to “review whether to suspend or terminate” a 1984 treaty that, among other things, removed a prior 30 per cent tax on Chinese capital inflows. This did not grab headlines, since Trump was “flooding the zone” with other distractions, notably on tariffs. But it spooked Asian observers and probably contributed to recent US stock market falls, as some investors preemptively flee. In reality, a tax shift might not happen — or affect anyone other than the Chinese. Trump is (in)famously mercurial, which makes predicting future policy hard, particularly since his entourage is split into at least three warring factions: nationalist populists (such as Stephen Bannon), techno-libertarians (like Musk) and pro-Maga congressional Republicans. The last two factions might fight capital curbs, due to concerns about destabilising Treasury markets. But Trump is also eager to use all available tools to bolster his leverage on the world stage. And Pettis’s ideas seem to be influential among some advisers, such as Treasury secretary Scott Bessent, Stephen Miran, the chair of the Council of Economic Advisers, and Vance. This trio appears minded to reset global trade and finance, via a putative Mar-a-Lago accord, although their ambitions are on a grander scale than the 1985 Plaza accord. The latter “merely” weakened the dollar via joint currency intervention but Miran’s vision of a Mar-a-Lago accord includes a possible US debt restructuring too, which would force some holders of Treasuries to swap them for perpetual bonds. Some well-connected financial analysts, like Michael McNair, also expect to see a sovereign wealth fund, backed by America’s gold reserves, that would buy non-dollar assets to balance capital inflows (like, say, Greenland’s resources). A third idea is imposing taxes on capital inflows in a wider sense. This might become the preferred approach if the idea of debt swaps leaves rating agencies threatening to downgrade US debt. “[The trio’s] ultimate goal isn’t a series of bilateral [trade] deals but a fundamental restructuring of the rules governing global trade and finance [to remove] distorted capital flows,” says McNair. “Whether this approach succeeds remains to be seen, but the strategy itself is more coherent and far-reaching than most observers recognise.”Let me stress that I am not endorsing this, nor predicting with any confidence it truly will happen. And it must be noted that Pettis’s theories provoke outrage among many mainstream economists. But Pettis is unrepentant. And critics should also note that the 2019 Baldwin-Hawley bill was not only applauded by conservative groups like American Compass, but some union voices too. Since it has populist appeal, it might yet fly. Either way, the key point to understand is that a shift in economic philosophy is emerging that is potentially as profound as the rethinking unleashed by John Maynard Keynes after the second world war or that pushed by neoliberals in the 1980s. As Greg Jensen of the Bridgewater hedge fund recently quipped, paraphrasing Milton Friedman: “We are all mercantilists now.” Don’t expect that to be reversed any time soon.gillian.tett@ft.com More

The US Treasury secretary this month insisted Donald Trump had not changed America’s long-standing “strong dollar” policy. But investors have been puzzling over the president’s aims for the currency as some of his allies tout the benefits of a softer greenback for manufacturers.Many global currencies have recently appreciated against the dollar, but that is not by design. The foreign exchange movements reflect the expectation that the new administration’s radical economic agenda will weaken growth.With Trump still intent on turning the US into a manufacturing export powerhouse regardless of the short-term economic pain, investors have wondered if the administration might ever turn to a radical currency proposal known as the “Mar-a-Lago Accord” — though prospects of it being put into practice are remote.Why is the dollar in focus? Before winning his second term, Trump last year said he thought dollar strength against the Japanese yen and Chinese renminbi had been a “tremendous burden” on US industry and an obstacle to America becoming a “production economy”. JD Vance, now vice-president, had previously argued that while the greenback had been “great for American purchasing power”, that had come at a cost to US manufacturing. By historical standards, the dollar is strong.In the months after the election, it reached its highest level, against a basket of trading currencies including the euro and pound since 2022 and on a trade-weighted basis against a broader group, its highest in decades. The dollar’s gains were triggered in part by anticipation of higher tariffs, which were expected to stoke inflation and make it harder for the Federal Reserve to cut interest rates.But in recent months, concerns over a potential US recession have reversed some of those bets and weakened the currency as investors have priced in more cuts.What about the ‘strong dollar’ policy? Talk in Trump’s orbit about an overvalued dollar has prompted investors to ask whether the administration can back away from a “strong dollar” stance, in place since the Clinton administration. Treasury secretary Scott Bessent insisted in an interview with CNBC last week that the president was “committed to the policies that will lead to a strong dollar”. However, Bessent also decried countries that sought to engineer a bilateral weakening of their currencies against the US. Asked on Thursday about recent declines in the dollar, Bessent described the moves as a “natural” adjustment.Where does talk of a Mar-a-Lago Accord come from? The idea — touted by Stephen Miran, chair of Trump’s Council of Economic Advisers, in November — takes its name from the Plaza Accord, signed in 1985 in the New York hotel Trump later owned, to help bring an over-mighty dollar back down to earth.The Plaza Accord brought the US, France, Germany, Japan and the UK together to weaken the American currency. Forty years on, Miran believes a repeat is needed to correct a “persistent dollar overvaluation that prevents the balancing of international trade”. At the same time, Washington still wants the dollar to retain its role as an international reserve currency — a privilege that enables the government to pay relatively low interest rates on its debt. As part of the accord, foreign governments would be pushed into agreeing to increase the duration of their Treasury reserves, in exchange for remaining under what Miran refers to as the US’s “defence umbrella” and avoiding punitive tariffs. The paper has come under increasing scrutiny amid a climate of uncertainty, triggered by Trump proving far more aggressive on tariffs than many investors had anticipated. Steve Hanke, an economics professor and adviser in the Reagan White House, said: “It’s definitely in the wind, there’s no question about it.”How are markets reacting? Investors have struggled to position for the impact of a Mar-a-Lago Accord — if one is ever realistically put forward — in part because of uncertainty over what policies are being considered. “The problem for the new administration is that it simultaneously wants a weaker dollar, a reduced trade deficit, capital inflows and the [dollar] to remain the key currency in international reserves and payments,” said Standard Chartered’s Steven Englander in a note last month.Sonal Desai, chief investment officer for fixed income at Franklin Templeton, also highlighted the “internal inconsistency” in wanting a weak dollar and imposing tariffs that are likely to have the opposite effect. The mounting risk of a US slowdown — and the potential for that to lead to more aggressive interest rate cuts from the Fed — has opened the door for Trump to get a weaker dollar while continuing with his trade war. Traders are now pricing in two quarter-point cuts by the Fed by the end of the year, with a very high probability of a third. That compares with the one or two predicted before Trump returned to office. The dollar’s weakness has left some people wondering whether something deeper is going on. Deutsche Bank’s George Saravelos questioned last week whether we were witnessing the “potential loss of the dollar’s safe haven status”.Could the US do a deal on the dollar? Economists are sceptical. Adam Posen, director of the Peterson Institute for International Economics, noted that the Plaza Accord was struck with a small group of states, most importantly Japan and Germany, which were dependent on the US for security. “Now, [in 2025] you would be dealing with China, the Middle East and half a dozen or more east Asian economies, most of whom are not direct military allies of the US,” Posen said. “They’re extremely big hurdles.”Michael Strain, at the American Enterprise Institute, argued that the idea of an “accord” was “implausible on its face”. “Europe is not going to rejigger its savings and investments balance or take other sorts of big macroeconomic steps in order to revalue its currency just because the Trump administration wants it to,” he said. “I’m pretty confident in saying this is not a real thing and is not going to happen.” Hanke said that, while shifting exchange rates might alter the contribution of various countries to the trade balance, it “won’t affect the overall deficit”. Tinkering with the Treasuries market would also take the government into dangerous terrain. The nearly $30tn market is the bedrock of global finance, underpins the dollar’s role as the world’s de facto reserve currency and affords the US flexibility in its public finances. One of the proposals Miran discusses — that countries hand over their current holdings of US government debt in return for century bonds — can be seen by rating agencies as a technical default. Such an event would be so dramatic that the impact would be nearly impossible to predict. Connor Fitzgerald, a fixed-income fund manager at Wellington Management, said: “It’s so out of the box that there’s not really a precedent for it.”Data visualisation by Keith Fray More

Your browser does not support playing this file but you can still More

This is an audio transcript of the FT News Briefing podcast episode: ‘Modi’s tariff tap dance with Trump’Marc FilippinoGood morning from the Financial Times. Today is Friday, March 14th, and this is your FT News Briefing.Intel had a rare bit of good news, and Russia is playing hardball over a potential ceasefire with Ukraine. Plus, India and the US are strong trading partners, but will tariffs get in the way of all that?I’m Marc Filippino and here’s the news you need to start your day.[MUSIC PLAYING]Vladimir Putin has set some tough conditions for a ceasefire in Ukraine. But the Russian president technically supports the idea of the 30-day pause in fighting that the US proposed this week. So what does this current moment look like for Ukraine? The FT’s foreign editor, Alec Russell, is just back from a visit to the country, and he joins me now. Hey, Alec!Alec RussellMarc, hi! Very good to be back with you.Marc FilippinoSo do me a favour, can you just describe the mood in Ukraine? How tired are people of this war?Alec RussellThey are immensely tired of this war, Marc. It has been going on full tilt effectively for three years and they are bone tired. I mean, take Kyiv — the capital, for example — every night some drones come over and explode over Kyiv and possibly a ballistic missile. And I spoke to one soldier in Kyiv the other day, and he said, it is very strange, we’ve reached a situation where now people are so relaxed about these missiles that they sort of say, oh, that sounds like it was a ballistic missile just in the next-door neighbourhood, but I don’t think it was a very big one. And they joke about it. So obviously that’s great that they’re sort of come into terms, but it’s miserable, miserable, miserable in Ukraine right now.Marc FilippinoYeah. Tough conditions that they’ve desensitised themselves to. Does that mean that they’re willing to accept a deal on Russia’s terms? And what would those terms be?Alec RussellAbsolutely they are not willing to accept a deal on Russia’s terms. Russia’s terms haven’t changed since Putin launched the full-scale invasion in February 2022. He wants Ukraine to effectively be a neutered state. He doesn’t want it to have close links to the west, he wants it to be in the shadow of Moscow. And Ukrainians, however exhausted they are by this war and demoralised, they feel why, after all we’ve been through, should we effectively capitulate. And also they have at the back of their mind that actually this is a very slow progress for Russia in this war. And so they feel that maybe they’re just gonna have to keep going.Marc FilippinoYeah. But on the flip side of that, Alec, Ukraine has lost confidence in a wavering major ally in the United States. What does Ukraine do if it has to keep fighting with or without American help?Alec RussellSo it faces three massive problems if America pulls the plug on its aid permanently. It loses American intelligence, it loses air defence systems — which have been protecting Ukraine’s major cities, and then the third thing they worry about losing is the Starlink satellite system — which has been essential for battlefield communications.Now that said, Ukrainians, they point to two things: they say that they have built up in the last year or so an extraordinary drone manufacturing industry. And this is immensely important because the war has become increasingly a war of drones and robotic vehicles. And then they point to Europe and they say, if, if, if Europe can deliver on what it promises to deliver, then maybe they can just about hull Russia off.Marc FilippinoOK, so, Alec, where does Ukraine go from here? We have the US ceasefire plan on the table, what’s next?Alec RussellWell, this is now . . . It’s a very, very interesting time. Even though Ukraine would not accept a ceasefire — let alone a full-term settlement on Russia’s terms — absolutely, just about everyone in Ukraine wants this war to end — as long as it ends, as they say, fairly and justly. And I think that privately, increasingly, most Ukrainians would accept that much of the territory that Russian forces have taken control of in the last three years is lost to them. And what is essential to them, though, is not the regaining of that territory so much as some form of a security guarantee from the west that ensures that Putin’s not gonna come back for more. And I struggle to see how Putin’s going to agree to that.Marc FilippinoAlec Russell is the FT’s foreign editor. Thanks, Alec.Alec RussellThank you. Marc.[MUSIC PLAYING]Marc FilippinoIntel had a good day yesterday, and that hasn’t happened a lot lately. The US chipmaker’s share price soared by as much as 15 per cent. The FT reported on Wednesday that Intel has appointed a new top boss to take over the hot seat. Lip-Bu Tan will take over as CEO — he’s the former head of the software group Cadence. Tan is replacing Pat Gelsinger, who was ousted by the board in December. And oooh boy, does Tan have his work cut out for him?You see, Intel is the only US company that can theoretically make super high-end chips. Most other companies are in Taiwan, which leaves those supply chains pretty exposed if tensions ratchet up with China. But Intel hasn’t been able to capitalise on its position, and in fact, it’s haemorrhaged billions of dollars lately. To put this all into perspective, its share price is down a whopping 45 per cent over the past year.[MUSIC PLAYING]India is a tough market for foreign competitors to enter. It has protected its home-grown industry since independence in 1947, and it has some of the highest tariff barriers in the world. But could all this be about to change under the Trump presidency?Donald Trump voice clipYou can’t even sell anything into India, it’s almost restrictive — it is restrictive. You know, we do very little business inside. They’ve agreed, by the way, they want to cut their tariffs way down now.Marc FilippinoThat was Donald Trump speaking a few days ago at the White House. I’m joined by the FT’s John Reed in New Delhi. Hey, John.John ReedHi, Marc.Marc FilippinoSo can you just give us a picture of the current trading relationship between the US and India? How important is it to each side?John ReedSo the US is India’s largest trading partner by a small margin, roughly on a par with China. From the US point of view, it’s a less important trading partner. If you look at the rank of large economies with which the US runs a trade deficit, I think it ranks number 10. But as you pointed out in your intro, it has some of the highest tariffs in the world. And so this puts India firmly in Trump’s sights.Marc FilippinoNow we heard that clip of Trump earlier, is it right what he said that India has agreed to slash its tariffs?John ReedNot that according to latest information we have, which is that a negotiation is underway, perhaps well underway. The two countries have set a deadline of getting the first tranche of a bilateral trade agreement done by September. I will add with a proverbial gun to India’s head. I think this is something that the Trump administration was demanding. That said, talks are well underway and there have been various leaks coming from both camps that indicate they are talking about substantive issues.Marc FilippinoHow is the Indian government handling trade issues with the US compared, say, with how it’s handled talks with other countries?John ReedThat’s a really good question. I find it fascinating to observe the language that India uses. Delhi has traditionally been a very tough negotiator on other trade talks, including the Free Trade Association talks, which are ongoing with the UK and the FTA agreement that was concluded with EFTA — that’s the European Free Trade Association last year. In both of these negotiations, India was very tough, even rambunctious, demanding better access for its goods than it was going to give access to its own market.When you see how Modi conducted himself in Washington last month, he was very and I don’t know what the word is very complacent. Very different power dynamic. He sort of had his shoulders hunched, almost. There was a recognition that the US is India’s most powerful diplomatic partner, an increasing defence supplier and that it had to conduct itself rather differently with Washington than it has done in past trade talks.Marc FilippinoJohn, one last question. What could a potential realignment on the tariffs mean for Indian businesses?John ReedI think we don’t know yet, it depends on what they agree. Obviously, agriculture is the most sensitive area. India is one of the biggest farming countries and indeed food producers in the world. It’s a very protected market. That’s where some of the highest tariffs are.If India were to be pressured by Washington successfully to open up to more imports of foodstuffs like US rice or wheat, this would be a really big deal and a shock to the sector. And again, farmers have traditionally been a very sort of intransigent lobby group in India, which is why I’m doubtful this will happen. And again, the Trump administration has been a sort of very volatile actor. So I think it’s very hard to predict from either side how this whole thing will land.Marc FilippinoJohn Reed is the FT’s south Asia bureau chief. Thanks, John.John ReedThank you.[MUSIC PLAYING]Marc FilippinoYou can read more on all these stories for free when you click the links in our show notes. This has been your daily FT News Briefing. Check back next week for the latest business news.The FT News Briefing is produced by Sonja Hutson, Fiona Symon, Lulu Smyth, Ethan Plotkin, Kasia Broussalian, and me, Marc Filippino. Our engineer is Joseph Salcedo. We had help this week from  Michael Lello, Peter Barber, David DaSilva and Gavin Kallmann. Our executive producer is Topher Forhecz. Cheryl Brumley is the FT’s global head of audio, and our theme song is by Metaphor Music.[MUSIC PLAYING] More

Unlock the White House Watch newsletter for freeYour guide to what the 2024 US election means for Washington and the worldThe writer is executive director of the Lowy Institute in SydneyWhile the world was engrossed by the Oval Office struggle session between President Donald Trump, Vice-President JD Vance and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, we Australians watched it in split screen. On one side, a US president bullied a wartime leader fighting for his country’s survival. On the other, a Chinese naval task group circumnavigated the Australian continent in a pointed display of power. In international waters off our east coast, without providing advance notice, the flotilla conducted live-fire exercises.US allies in the Indo-Pacific, including Australia, have long been concerned about Beijing’s intentions. Now we also worry about Washington’s reliability. What if, in future, we face the worst possible combination: a reckless China and a feckless America?Donald Trump’s attitude to Russia is clear. But what is his settling point on China? Those who believe that Trump 2.0 will be tough on Beijing note that he ended his first term in an adversarial posture. He had tariffed Chinese goods, approved arms sales to Taiwan and revived the Quad, the security partnership between the US, India, Japan and Australia. As he felt his re-election slipping through his fingers, Trump blamed China for Covid-19, calling it “the Chinese virus” and “kung flu”.But for much of his first term, an accommodation with Beijing seemed as likely as an argument. The US president often prefers the company of autocrats to democratic leaders, and he was intrigued by Chinese President Xi Jinping. In 2017, Trump hosted Xi in grand style at Mar-a-Lago, with one of his granddaughters singing a Chinese folk song in Mandarin.It’s true that the new administration contains many China hawks, including secretary of state Marco Rubio and national security adviser Mike Waltz. But they comprise just one faction in Trumpworld, alongside Maga, the tech bros, the business stiffs and the Trump family — each of which has different interests when it comes to China. Elon Musk, for example, has significant China exposure through his companies and ties to the leadership in Beijing. Trump skates above these factions, intervening at will. His preferences are determinative.Since his inauguration, Trump has applied 20 per cent tariffs on Chinese imports, among others against Canada and Mexico. He has claimed, without evidence, that China controls the Panama Canal and has vowed to take it back. When Trump is asked about China, however, he goes straight to the positive. “I happen to like [Xi] a lot’, he said recently. “I love talking to him.” Trump invited Xi to his inauguration, and there is speculation about an early rendezvous between the two leaders — either a meeting in China in April, or a “birthday summit” in the US in June, the month when both men celebrate their birthdays.Anti-China sentiment runs high in the US Congress. Trump has a different take. His concerns about China relate not to its external behaviour, its designs on Taiwan or its internal human rights record, but to its trade surplus with the US. If Beijing behaves in a way that threatens America’s core interests or makes Trump look weak, he would confront China. But he will not be inclined to spend American blood and treasure on behalf of allies, many of whom he regards as freeloaders. Does anyone believe Trump would risk war with China to protect Taiwan? To ask the question is to answer it.There is little evidence that Trump is cosying up to the Kremlin in order to drive a wedge between Russia and China. In any case, both Russian President Vladimir Putin and Xi have made it clear that won’t happen.Trump may be tempted by a deal with China, especially if Beijing were to provide a term sheet tailored to his America First worldview. It’s early days, and a grand bargain would be hard to strike and even harder to maintain. Still, imagine if China promised to invest and manufacture more in the US and export less, in return for getting more elbow room in its own neighbourhood. Imagine if Xi turns out to be as skilful as Putin in handling Trump.The hawks around Trump would hate the idea of trading away the security interests of the US and its allies in Asia. The same people no doubt hate current US policy towards Russia and Ukraine, yet they are going along with it.At Mar-a-Lago in 2017, Trump served Xi what he claimed was “the most beautiful piece of chocolate cake that you’ve ever seen”. Australians and other US allies now wonder: how will Trump cut up the cake in the Indo-Pacific? More

On the surface, February’s inflation data brought some encouraging news. But underneath, there were signs likely to keep the Fed on hold when it comes to interest rates.
While the consumer and producer price indexes both were lower than market expectations, that won’t necessarily be reflected in the main PCE price index measure the Fed uses to gauge inflation.
“In short, progress on inflation has started off 2025 on the wrong foot,” Bank of America economist Stephen Juneau said in a note.

Watermelons from Mexico are displayed on a shelf at a Target store on March 5, 2025 in Novato, California.
Justin Sullivan | Getty Images

On the surface, February’s inflation data released this week brought some encouraging news. But underneath, there were signs likely to keep the Federal Reserve on hold when it comes to interest rates.
While the consumer and producer price indexes both were lower than anticipated, that won’t necessarily be reflected in the main measure the Fed uses to gauge inflation.

Because of some byzantine math and trends in a few key areas beneath the headline readings, policymakers are unlikely to take a lot of comfort in these numbers, according to multiple Wall Street economists.
“In short, progress on inflation has started off 2025 on the wrong foot,” Bank of America economist Stephen Juneau said in a note. “Our forecast for PCE inflation reinforces our view that inflation is unlikely to fall enough for the Fed to cut this year, especially given policy changes that boost inflation. We maintain our view that policy rates will stay on hold through year-end unless activity data really weakens.”
Markets agree, at least for now. Traders are assigning virtually no probability of a cut at next week’s Federal Open Market Committee meeting and only about a 1-in-4 chance of a reduction in May, according to CME Group calculations.

While the Fed pays attention to the two Bureau of Labor Statistics gauges, it considers the last word on inflation to be the Commerce Department’s personal consumption expenditures price index.
Central bank officials believe the PCE reading — in particular the core that excludes food and energy prices — to be a broader look at price trends. The index also more closely reflects what consumers are buying rather than just the prices of individual goods and services. If consumers are, say, substituting chicken for beef, that would be more indicated in the PCE rather than the CPI or PPI.

Most economists think the latest PCE reading, scheduled for release later this month, will show the year-over-year inflation rate at best holding steady at 2.6% or perhaps even ticking up a notch — further away from the Fed’s 2% goal.
Specifically, Thursday’s PPI report, which measures wholesale costs and is thus considered an indicator of pipeline inflation, “confirms our fears that the benign February inflation print would map across to a hotter than expected inflation print on the Fed’s preferred PCE inflation gauge,” wrote Krishna Guha, head of global policy and central bank strategy at Evercore ISI.
“Rather than decline steadily through early [second quarter], PCE inflation looks instead set to be bumpy and choppy,” he added.
Some of the areas that will feed through from the PPI and elevate the PCE include higher prices for hospital care as well as insurance prices and air transportation, according to Sam Tombs, chief U.S. economist at Pantheon Macroeconomics.
“The outturn almost certainly will make the Fed wince,” Combs wrote.
Combs predicts the core PCE reading for February will show an inflation rate of 2.8%, a 0.2 percentage point increase from January. That’s about in line with others on the Street, as Bank of America and Citigroup see the core inflation rate at 2.7%. Either way, it’s moving in the wrong direction. The consumer price index showed a core inflation rate of 3.1%, the lowest since April 2021.
However, there could be some good news yet.
As much as the expectation is for a bounce from February, many forecasters see inflation pulling back beyond that, even with the impact from tariffs.
Citi thinks March will see a “much more favorable” reading, with the firm predicting an out-of-consensus call of the Fed resuming its rate cuts in May. Market pricing currently indicates a much greater likelihood of a June cut.

Don’t miss these insights from CNBC PRO More

Unlock the White House Watch newsletter for freeYour guide to what the 2024 US election means for Washington and the worldWall Street stocks sank and gold hit a record high on Thursday as US President Donald Trump’s tariffs and investor doubts about a potential ceasefire between Russia and Ukraine weighed on risky assets.The blue-chip S&P 500 closed 1.4 per cent lower, leaving the index in correction territory, having slumped more than 10 per cent — erasing about $5tn from its market value — since hitting a record high on February 19. The tech-heavy Nasdaq Composite slipped 2 per cent.Investors piled into gold at the same time, pushing prices of the haven metal to a fresh high of $2,985 per troy ounce.  The moves come as investors grow increasingly concerned that Trump’s aggressive trade agenda will hit US economic growth, with the president on Thursday threatening to impose a 200 per cent retaliatory tariff on alcohol imports from the EU.Investor sentiment was further hit after Russian President Vladimir Putin expressed concerns about how a potential ceasefire with Ukraine would be implemented and monitored. Some content could not load. Check your internet connection or browser settings.“Investors are repricing risk all over the world,” said Manish Kabra, head of US equity strategy at Société Générale. “But it’s happening most aggressively in the US, where there’s a major risk-off mood setting in.”US equities had surged in the weeks after Trump’s landslide election win as investors bet that corporate tax cuts would lead to an economic boom. But those hopes have been hit by Washington’s flurry of tariff announcements, which have begun to weigh on business and consumer sentiment and dented animal spirits.Goldman Sachs earlier this week slashed its year-end S&P 500 target from 6500 to 6200 while downgrading its US GDP forecast to 1.7 per cent from 2.4 per cent — its first below-consensus projection in two-and-a-half years. US growth concerns have spurred a rotation out of highly valued tech groups including the so-called Magnificent Seven into defensive pockets of the market, according to analysts.Gold has climbed 14 per cent this year as investors turn to bullion as a hedge against inflation. Several banks have upgraded their gold price forecasts in recent weeks, including Macquarie, which said on Thursday morning that it expected gold to touch $3,500 per troy ounce this year. “President Trump’s rapid move to announce, if not always to enact, import tariffs has contributed to geopolitical uncertainty and boosted inflation expectations, helping push down front-end real rates and supporting gold,” wrote Macquarie analysts in a note. Fears of potential Trump tariffs have brought physical gold surging into New York — bullion inventories on Comex are at an all-time high of more than 40mn troy ounces — although that influx has started to slow. More