X Close

Is a Fed civil war brewing over interest rates?

US Federal Reserve governor Christopher Waller has called for interest rate cuts as early as July. Credit: Getty

US Federal Reserve governor Christopher Waller has called for interest rate cuts as early as July. Credit: Getty

June 21 2025 - 8:30pm

Judging by the “dot-plot” from Wednesday’s Federal Reserve Board meeting, in which the governors indicated their expectations for future interest rates, sentiment at the American central bank is, if anything, growing hawkish. Although some governors expect to make two or more rate cuts of a quarter of a percent between now and the end of the year, others are dialing back those expectations to just one or no cuts.

Nonetheless, the message delivered by Fed Chairman Jerome Powell at the press conference which followed the meeting appeared to capture the Board’s sentiment: until the data reveals a change in the direction of the economy, they’ll stick to their guns.

That caution doesn’t sit well with Donald Trump. For months, the US President has been pressing the Fed to cut rates to stimulate the economy, asking for as much as 2.5% to be taken off borrowing costs. As the central bank has ignored him, maintaining its independent stance in the setting of monetary policy, Trump’s patience has worn thin. He has become openly critical of Powell, yesterday calling him a “numbskull” and an “American disgrace”, while occasionally threatening to remove him before the end of his term next year.

This week, though, Trump appeared to find an ally in Christopher Waller, a Fed governor who the President appointed in 2020 to a ten-year term. In an interview on the business channel CNBC, Waller called for rate cuts to begin as soon as next month, arguing that the anticipated inflation from Trump’s tariffs hadn’t yet materialized — and that even if it did later in the year, it would be a one-off shock. In the meantime, he said the job market was deteriorating quickly, and that the Fed needed to take preemptive action to forestall a recession.

Waller’s is most likely a minority opinion. The data the Fed uses to inform its decisions is far from conclusive, suggesting the US economy may now be at a crossroads. On the whole, the “soft” data, which captures sentiments about future expectations for growth and prices, suggests the economy is slowing and inflation is rising. But the hard data, which reports actual employment and price changes over recent months, mostly suggests an economy that remains resilient.

Complicating the Fed’s task is that while its mantra is to follow the data, the data has grown murkier. Tight budgets at the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which conducts the surveys estimating both employment and inflation, are forcing its statisticians to increasingly guess when they lack hard figures. So the job market may be weaker or stronger than thought; the same applies for inflation. Most Fed governors will therefore wait to see clear movement one way or the other before they make a move.

What makes Waller’s public declaration so newsworthy, therefore, is not that there is a difference of opinion on the Board — there always is. Rather, his going public so openly has raised the question as to whether Waller, who is considered a candidate to succeed Powell as chairman next year, is trying to impress the boss.

If such public disagreement becomes widespread, and prospective Fed chairmen start competing for the President’s ear, bond investors may grow even more jittery than they already are. On the whole, the Fed only controls short-term interest rates, with bond rates determined by what investors are willing to accept. If the Fed looks to be losing its independence, investors will likely demand a greater risk premium on what they lend the US government.

Faced with this risk, Fed governors may choose to fight the President to safeguard their independence. The one thing which thus seems certain is that there will be more bickering between Trump and the central bank.


John Rapley is an author and academic who divides his time between London, Johannesburg and Ottawa. His books include Why Empires Fall: Rome, America and the Future of the West (with Peter Heather, Penguin, 2023) and Twilight of the Money Gods: Economics as a Religion (Simon & Schuster, 2017).

jarapley

China is threatening America in the AI race

Reports sugget Zhipu AI  has released a new model that can rival leading US systems. Credit: Getty

Reports sugget Zhipu AI has released a new model that can rival leading US systems. Credit: Getty

July 1 2026 - 10:18am

China is trying to catch up with America on artificial intelligence. The Wall Street Journal has reported that Zhipu AI — one of China’s six “AI tiger” LLMs — has released a new model that can rival leading US systems, including Anthropic’s Mythos, in cybersecurity tasks such as pinpointing security bugs. While this marks a milestone in China’s drive to catch up with Western AI capabilities, strong performance on a single benchmark does not mean it has taken the lead. Chinese models still lag behind their Western counterparts in broader capabilities, such as autonomous operation. Skepticism is therefore warranted before resorting to hysterical conclusions, but complacency about the geopolitical implications of China’s AI advances would be an even greater mistake.

On the infrastructure side, Chinese AI is still constrained by access to advanced chips, with American labs way ahead in computing capacity as well as investment. Analysis from earlier this year suggests that Chinese models are likely to be at least a few months behind those in the US. But they are still continuing to make progress, or that the geopolitical importance of AI will be decided only by whose LLM has ventured deeper into the technological frontier. The practical applications of AI, countries’ to capture foreign markets, and the application of AI into the real economy will matter just as much.

Here, China may hold an advantage. As with its dominance across many critical supply chains, Beijing may not need to produce the most advanced AI systems — only those that are affordable and widely deployable. In doing so, it could consolidate global influence by supplying functional, low-cost AI at scale.

Beijing seems to be pursuing exactly that path, developing an AI “open-source” strategy that offers affordable, widely available AI models for companies and individuals to use and modify as they wish. The production of the DeepSeek AI model, which matched the performance of Silicon Valley tools such as ChatGPT at a fraction of the cost for users, created goodwill among Chinese models with developers.

The four most popular models on OpenRouter, an AI hardware platform for developers, are now all Chinese. The goal for China is not only to win the frontier-model race, but to make its systems the default layer of AI adoption across industries and global markets. For most economies, the choice is increasingly between an affordable tool they can deploy now and a more robust one that may be out of reach.

And while the countries adopting Chinese models may be exposed to political pressure and cyber threats from Beijing, safer and more capable alternatives matter little if they are unaffordable. American AI companies are already under pressure to monetize products whose operating costs are rising. If Chinese open-source models become the cheap default for startups, universities, governments and businesses across the developing world, then America’s AI lead will be eroded from below.

Perhaps more concerning for America in the long run is how AI can give Chinese manufacturing even more strength, through the ongoing integration of AI as a general-purpose technology. China’s new Five-Year Plan mentioned AI more than 50 times and includes an “AI+” action plan aimed at spreading AI across the economy.

Beijing has been pioneering automation of its critical infrastructure for years, with promising recent results in increasing warplane production capacity. In that regard, China’s open-model strategy and manufacturing dominance will reinforce each other. Cheap, adaptable models accelerate deployment across the real economy while those deployments generate real-world data and use cases that can feed back into further model improvement.

The United States should not dismiss the importance of its lead in the AI race. That lead worries Beijing, not least because a more automated Chinese economy would also become more vulnerable to AI-generated cyber threats. But nor should Washington assume that China cannot catch up with American capabilities over time.

This AI competition represents part of a broader struggle over tech supply chains and geopolitical influence. Decisions over whether to adopt US or Chinese models could produce a more fragmented global reality, with different regions relying on different cloud providers, chips and security structures. The result will likely be a global economy which is divided into competing spheres, rather than one which produces a single winner.


Miquel Vila is a political and geopolitical risk consultant focusing on industrial strategy, critical infrastructure and global supply chains.

miquelvilam