Business
Which Interest Rate Should You Care About?

Watch out for interest rates.
Not the short-term rates controlled by the Federal Reserve. Barring an unforeseen financial crisis, they’re not going anywhere, especially not after the jump in inflation reported by the government on Wednesday.
Instead, pay attention to the 10-year Treasury yield, which has been bouncing around since the election from about 4.8 to 4.2 percent. That’s not an unreasonable level over the last century or so.
But it’s much higher than the 2.9 percent average of the last 20 years, according to FactSet data. At its upper range, that 10-year yield may be high enough to dampen the enthusiasm of many entrepreneurs and stock investors and to restrain the stock market and the economy.
That’s a problem for the Trump administration. So the new Treasury secretary, Scott Bessent, has stated outright what is becoming an increasingly evident reality. “The president wants lower rates,” Mr. Bessent said in an interview with Fox Business. “He and I are focused on the 10-year Treasury.”
Treasuries are the safe and steady core of many investment portfolios. They influence mortgages, credit cards, corporate debt and the exchange rate for the dollar. They are also the standard by which commercial, municipal and sovereign bonds around the world are priced.
What’s moving those Treasury rates now is bond traders’ assessments of the economy — including the Trump administration’s on-again, off-again policies on tariffs, as well as its actions on immigration, taxes, spending and much more.
Mr. Bessent, and President Trump, would like those rates to be substantially lower, and they’re trying to talk them down. But many of the president’s policies are having the opposite effect.
The president needs the bond market on his side. If it comes to disapprove of his policies, rates will rise and the economy — along with the fortunes of the Trump administration — will surely suffer.
Treasuries, not Fed Rates
Mr. Bessent may be focusing on Treasury rates, or yields, partly to relieve pressure on the Federal Reserve, which President Trump frequently berated in his first term and on the campaign trail.
The Fed’s independence is sacrosanct among most economists and many investors. During the campaign, Mr. Trump repeatedly called on the Fed to lower rates. Yet any threat to the Fed’s ability to operate freely could panic the markets, which, clearly, is not what Mr. Trump wants.
To the contrary, when the markets are strong, he frequently cites them as a barometer of his popularity. In 2017, he boasted about the performance of the stock market an average of once every 35 hours, Politico calculated.
Shortly after the November election, I wrote that the markets might restrain some of Mr. Trump’s actions. But I wouldn’t go too far with this now. Few government departments or traditions seem to be off limits for the administration’s aggressive changes in policy or reductions in work force, masterminded by Mr. Trump’s sidekick, the billionaire disrupter-in-chief, Elon Musk. Just look at The Times’s running tabulation of the actions taken since Jan. 21. It’s dizzying.
Still, so far, at least, the administration has been remarkably circumspect when it comes to the Fed. That doesn’t mean President Trump has entirely constrained himself: He has continued to mock the Fed, saying in a social media post that it has “failed to stop the problem they created with Inflation” and has wasted its time on issues like “DEI, gender ideology, ‘green’ energy, and fake climate change.”
Nonetheless, Mr. Bessent said specifically that Mr. Trump “is not calling for the Fed to lower rates.” Instead, the Treasury secretary said, “If we deregulate the economy, if we get this tax bill done, if we get energy down, then rates will take care of themselves and the dollar will take care of itself.” The president has not contradicted him. So far, trying to control the Fed is a line that Mr. Trump hasn’t yet crossed. The bond market is another matter.
Longer-Term Rates
Treasury rates haven’t usually garnered the big headlines frequently devoted to the Federal Reserve.
The Fed is easier to explain. When it raises or lowers short-term rates, it’s clear that somebody took action and caused a measurable change.
In reality, when we report that the Fed is cutting or increasing rates, we mean that it is shifting its key policy rate, the federal funds rate. That’s what banks charge one another for borrowing and lending money overnight. It’s important as a signal — a red or green light for stock traders — and “it influences other interest rates such as the prime rate, which is the rate banks charge their customers with higher credit ratings,” according to the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. “Additionally, the federal funds rate indirectly influences longer- term interest rates.”
What causes shifts in longer-term rates is much harder to pinpoint because they are set by an amorphous force: the market, with Treasuries at the core. Day to day, you won’t hear much about it unless you’re already a bond maven.
How does any market set prices? Supply and demand, the preferences of buyers and sellers, trading rules — the textbooks say these and other factors determine market prices. That’s true for tangible things like milk, eggs, gasoline, a house or a car. Treasury prices — and those of other bonds, which use Treasuries as a reference — are more complicated. They include estimates of the future of interest rates, of inflation and of the Fed’s intentions.
The Fed sets overnight rates, which are involved indirectly in bond rates for a simple reason. The interest rate for a 10-year Treasury reflects assumptions about many, many days of overnight rates, chained together until they span the life of whatever bond you buy. Inflation matters because when it rises more quickly than anticipated, it will reduce the real value of the stream of income you receive from standard bonds.
That happened in 2022. Inflation soared and so did yields, while bond prices, which move in the opposite direction, fell — creating losses for bond funds and for individual bonds sold under those conditions.
That’s why the increase in inflation in January, to an annual rate of 3 percent for the Consumer Price Index from 2.9 percent the previous month, immediately pushed up the 10-year Treasury yield, which stands above 4.5 percent. Trump administration policies are weighing on bond prices and yields, too.
Mr. Bessent has pointed out that oil prices are a major ingredient in inflation and, therefore, bond yields. But whether Mr. Trump will be able to bring down oil prices by encouraging drilling — while eliminating subsidies and regulations that encourage the development of energy alternatives — is open to question.
Some Trump policies being sold as promoters of economic growth — like cutting regulations and tax rates — could have that effect. But others, like reducing the size of the labor force — which his deportations of undocumented immigrants and restrictions on the arrival of new immigrants will do — could slow growth and increase inflation.
So could the tariffs that he has been threatening, delaying and, in some cases, already imposing. Expectations for future inflation jumped in the University of Michigan’s monthly survey in January. Joanne Hsu, the survey’s director, said that reflects growing concerns about the Trump tariffs among consumers.
“These consumers generally report that tariff hikes will pass through to consumers in the form of higher prices,” she wrote. She added that “recent data show an emergence of inflationary psychology — motives for buying-in-advance to avoid future price increases, the proliferation of which would generate further momentum for inflation.”
None of that augurs well for the 10-year Treasury yield. Nor does a warning issued by five former Treasury secretaries — Robert E. Rubin, Lawrence H. Summers, Timothy F. Geithner, Jacob J. Lew and Janet L. Yellen — who served in Democratic administrations.
They wrote in The New York Times that incursions of Mr. Musk’s cost-cutting team into the Treasury’s payment system threaten the country’s “commitment to make good on our financial obligations.” They applauded Mr. Bessent for assuring Congress in writing that the Treasury will safeguard the “integrity and security of the system, given the implications of any compromise or disruption to the U.S. economy.”
But they decried the need for any Treasury secretary to have to make such promises in his first weeks in office.
Other potential flash points for Treasury yields loom. The Fed has in the past manipulated the market bond supply by buying and selling securities. It’s reducing its holding now, which could put upward pressure on interest rates — and make the Fed an irresistible Trump target. At the same time, Secretary Bessent is financing the government debt mainly with shorter-term bills but may not be able to avoid increasing the supply of longer-term Treasuries indefinitely, as the federal deficit swells. Yet Congress is reluctant to raise the debt ceiling, which will bite later this year.
These are difficult times. So far, the 10-year yield hasn’t shifted all that much. The markets, at least, have been holding steady.

Business
Maps: Where Trump Voter Jobs Will Be Hit by Tariffs

The counties where tariffs could hit jobs, by presidential vote winner
As President Trump imposes tariffs on products from countries around the world, foreign governments are answering back with tariffs of their own.
China has targeted corn farmers and carmakers. Canada has put tariffs on poultry plants and air-conditioning manufacturers, while Europe will hit American steel mills and slaughter houses.
Since Mr. Trump ordered steep levies on some of America’s largest trading partners in February and March, other countries have begun imposing their own tariffs on American exports in an attempt to put pressure on the president to relent.
The retaliatory tariffs have been carefully designed to hit Mr. Trump where it hurts: Nearly 8 million Americans work in industries targeted by the levies and the majority are Trump voters, a New York Times analysis shows.
The figures underscore the dramatic impact that a trade war could have on American workers, potentially causing Mr. Trump’s economic strategy to backfire. Mr. Trump has argued that tariffs will help boost American jobs. But economists say that retaliatory tariffs can cancel out that effect.
Number of jobs affected by each country’s retaliatory tariffs
The countermeasures are aimed at industries that employ roughly 7.75 million people across the United States. The bulk of those — 4.48 million — are in counties that voted for Mr. Trump in the last election, compared with 3.26 million jobs in counties that voted for former Vice President Kamala Harris, according to a calculation by The Times that included examining retaliatory tariffs on more than 4,000 product categories.
These totals are the number of jobs in industries that foreign countries have targeted with their tariffs — not the number of jobs that will actually be lost because of tariffs, which is likely to be significantly lower. But industries hit by retaliatory tariffs are likely to sell fewer goods on foreign markets, which may mean lower profits and job losses.
The jobs that could be hit by retaliation are especially concentrated in pockets of the upper Midwest, South and Southeast, including many rural parts of the country that are responsible for producing agricultural goods. It also includes areas that produce coal, oil, car parts and other manufactured products.
Robert Maxim, a fellow at the Brookings Metro, a Washington think tank that has done similar analysis, said that other countries had particularly targeted Trump-supporting regions and places where “Trump would like to fashion himself as revitalizing the U.S.” That includes smaller manufacturing communities in states like Wisconsin, Indiana and Michigan, as well as southern states like Kentucky and Georgia, he said.
The message foreign countries are trying to send, he said, is, “You think you can bully us, well, we can hurt you too. And by the way, we know where it really matters.”
Retaliation may also mean concentrated pain for some industries, like farming. In Mr. Trump’s first term, American farmers – a strong voting bloc for the president – were targeted by China and other governments, which caused U.S. exports of soybeans and other crops to plummet.
Chinese buyers shifted to purchasing more agricultural goods from nations like Argentina and Brazil instead, and U.S. farmers had a difficult time winning back those contracts in subsequent years. Mr. Trump tried to offset those losses by giving farmers more than $20 billion in payments to compensate for the pain of the trade war.
One analysis published last year by economists at M.I.T., the World Bank and elsewhere found that retaliatory tariffs imposed on the United States during Mr. Trump’s first term had a negative effect on U.S. jobs, outweighing any benefit to employment from Mr. Trump’s tariffs on foreign goods or from the subsidies Mr. Trump provided to those hurt by his trade policies.
The net effect on American employment of U.S. tariffs, foreign tariffs and subsidies “was at best a wash, and it may have been mildly negative,” the economists concluded.
Rural parts of the country are once again at risk from retaliation. Agriculture is a major U.S. export and farmers are politically important to Mr. Trump. And rural counties may have one major employer — like a poultry processing plant — that provides a big share of the county’s jobs, compared with urban or suburban areas that are more diversified.
The retaliatory tariffs target industries employing 9.5 percent of people in Wisconsin, 8.5 percent of people in Indiana and 8.4 percent of people in Iowa. The shares are also relatively high in Arkansas, Alabama, Mississippi, Kentucky and Kansas.
Share of jobs in targeted industries in each state
Wisconsin Wis. | 9.5% | 298,600 | |
Indiana Ind. | 8.5% | 289,900 | |
Iowa Iowa | 8.4% | 146,500 | |
Arkansas Ark. | 8.2% | 115,800 | |
Alabama Ala. | 8.1% | 186,800 | |
Mississippi Miss. | 8.0% | 101,600 | |
Kentucky Ky. | 7.6% | 167,500 | |
Kansas Kan. | 7.0% | 113,200 | |
Michigan Mich. | 6.8% | 319,300 | |
Tennessee Tenn. | 6.5% | 231,500 |
In an address to Congress earlier this month, Mr. Trump implied that farmers could be hit again, saying there may be “an adjustment period” as he put tariffs in place on foreign products. There may be “a little disturbance,” he said. “We are OK with that. It won’t be much.”
Mr. Trump said he had told farmers in his first term to “‘Just bear with me,’ and they did. They did. Probably have to bear with me again,” he said.
Mark Muro, a senior fellow at Brookings Metro, said that many of the counties affected by retaliation were rural, and “hard red territory.” The geography of Mr. Trump’s political support, he said, was “no secret to our trade partners.”
“They’re very cognizant of these industries, the geography of these industries, and how American politics work,” he added.
Methodology
The analysis was based on an analytical technique used by the Brookings Institution to examine the first round of Chinese retaliatory tariffs.
To expand on the analysis, The Times collected the lists of U.S. products targeted for retaliatory tariffs by China, Canada and the European Union as of March 14. In total, the six published lists contain more than 4,000 individual product categories, many of which were targeted by more than one country. The tariffs from China and Canada are currently in force. One set of tariffs from the European Union is scheduled to go into effect April 1, while the other set is preliminary, and is subject to change until its implementation in mid-April.
After collecting the list of products, The Times used a concordance table from the Census Bureau, which provides a way to tie a given product category to the general industry which produces it.
To tally the number of jobs, The Times used data from Lightcast, a labor market analytics company. Lightcast provided The Times with industry-level employment data based on the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages. The quarterly census suppresses employment data for industries at the county level to protect the privacy of employers when there are only a handful of establishments. Lightcast uses a proprietary algorithm that draws from a number of related datasets to estimate the employment level for fields that are suppressed in the census.
County election results are from The Associated Press.
Business
Senators Grill Dr. Oz on Medicaid Cuts and Medicare Changes

In a hearing on Friday, senators pressed Dr. Mehmet Oz, the TV celebrity nominated to head Medicare and Medicaid, on Republican-led proposals that would significantly affect the health care coverage for nearly half of all Americans.
At his confirmation hearing before the Senate Finance Committee, Dr. Oz bantered with senators in a friendly atmosphere, joking about basketball and allegiances to college teams. He largely escaped tough questions from either side of the aisle, displaying his on-air charm as he deflected Democrats’ most pointed concerns about potentially radical changes in health coverage for not only those 65 and older but also for poor children.
Many senators seemed distracted by the fierce debate over the Republicans’ budget deal to avert a government shutdown, and they dashed in and out of Dr. Oz’s hearing. But he is poised to sail through the Senate for confirmation as the next administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, an agency with $1.5 trillion in spending.
Senator Elizabeth Warren, Democrat of Massachusetts, made a big deal of his financial conflicts before the hearing. But at the session, she did not press him on those issues. Instead, she focused on his views about whether private Medicare plans are overcharging the government, an area where she and Dr. Oz seemed to agree on the need to tackle potential fraud and waste.
Throughout the hearing, he displayed a facile knowledge of a variety of relevant agency issues, although he repeatedly reverted to stock answers that he would need to study the topic at hand more.
Several lawmakers, mainly Democrats, tried to force Dr. Oz to express his views on the Trump administration’s goals to cut back on health care costs and agency budgets, but he repeatedly sidestepped those minefields.
“It is our patriotic duty to be healthy,” he told senators. “It costs a lot of money to take care of sick people who are sick because of lifestyle choices.”
This refrain is in line with the Make America Healthy Again movement championed by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the new secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, and Dr. Oz’s soon-to-be boss if he is confirmed.
Medicare Advantage and privatization
Introductory remarks from Senator Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon, held out an initial promise of some challenging questions. He accused Dr. Oz of dodging almost $500,000 in Social Security and Medicare taxes in recent years by using a tax exemption related to limited partnerships, something Democrats concluded after reviewing Dr. Oz’s tax returns. But there were no follow up questions on it.
Mr. Wyden also raised the specter that he was going to grill Dr. Oz on his connection to TZ Insurance Solutions, a for-profit company that sells Medicare Advantage plans to older Americans. Dr. Oz has been a relentless promoter of these private plans, which have been criticized by lawmakers and regulators for systemic overbilling and denying patients care, on his show and YouTube channel.
Dr. Oz, 64, is also a registered broker for TZ Insurance in states across the country, according to a recent investigation into his finances by The New York Times. Again, Mr. Wyden flagged the issue and did not follow up.
Despite concerns by Democrats that Dr. Oz would most likely roll back some of the rules meant to rein in the plans, he instead committed to strong oversight. He acknowledged that some of the brokers now selling these plans were “churning policies,” switching people from one plan to another, regardless of whether the change in coverage benefited them.
“Part of this is just recognizing there’s a new sheriff in town,” Dr. Oz said. “We actually have to go after places and areas where we’re not managing the American people’s money well.”
Several times in the hearing, Dr. Oz addressed bipartisan concerns over whether Medicare Advantage plans are overpaid. In response to questions from a fellow physician, Senator Bill Cassidy, Republican of Louisiana, Dr. Oz mentioned a study suggesting the federal government spends more on the private alternative to Medicare than the government-run program. “It’s upside down,” he said.
“We should examine whether some of the money should be reimbursed to the American people,” Dr. Oz said.
He also expressed interest in solving some of the bipartisan concern over insurers’ use of prior authorization for approving medical procedures by reducing the number of services that would be subject to review.
Republican plans to cut Medicaid
Democrats seemed most frustrated by Dr. Oz’s stance toward Medicaid, the state-federal program that covers 72 million low-income Americans. “All my colleagues want to know, are you going to cut Medicaid?” asked Senator Maria Cantwell, Democrat of Washington.
But Dr. Oz, who has not spoken much about the program he would also oversee as head of the agency, did not answer directly. He said he did not know the details of the Republican budget discussions, in which lawmakers are looking at hundreds of billions of dollars in cuts that could result in people’s loss of coverage as it became more difficult to enroll and states had to shoulder more of the burden.
When questioned by Senator Raphael Warnock, Democrat of Georgia, about Republican efforts to add burdensome monthly paperwork for some people to show they should get benefits, Dr. Oz said he favored the work requirements that Republicans want to limit eligibility. But he agreed with the senator about making sure people who should be eligible for Medicaid were not cut off.
Dr. Oz and his supplement business
There were other subjects senators seemed to veer away from. For instance, Dr. Oz has made tens of millions of dollars over the years promoting dietary supplements, often without any mention of his financial interest. He has been paid by numerous medical and health firms for showcasing their products. Many of those companies would be affected by any decisions he would make as the administrator for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, and many already benefit from agency funding.
Senator Maggie Hassan, Democrat of New Hampshire, asked him to put a dollar figure on exactly what he has made from promoting supplements on his daytime TV show. He said he was not paid anything. He started to explain that Sony Pictures distributed the show, and that it was the entity paid by these companies (which in turn paid him), but he was cut off. Ultimately, Ms. Hassan was unable to extract anything meaningful from him and moved on.
Patient privacy and the DOGE intrusion
In the hearing, Mr. Wyden pressed Dr. Oz about the access granted to Elon Musk’s so-called Department of Government Efficiency to Americans’ private medical information. Mr. Wyden raised concerns about the need to protect people’s privacy given the department’s potential ability to view personal health and medical data. Despite his repeated questions, he said, the Trump administration had so far not addressed those concerns. Surprisingly, Dr. Oz said he had no discussions with the administration about what Mr. Musk’s team was doing as it inspected agency information, but he promised to “address what is going on.”
Measles
The measles outbreak in Texas and New Mexico has heightened concerns and leveled significant criticism at the response by Mr. Kennedy and the Trump administration. Senator Ben Ray Luján, Democrat of New Mexico, asked Dr. Oz whether he believed the measles vaccine was safe. Dr. Oz said he did, but when the senator followed up by asking whether it was effective, Dr. Oz stepped back and said that judging individual vaccines and their recommendations for use would not be under his purview but under that of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
“My job, if confirmed, is to make sure we pay for those vaccines,” he said.
Business
China Backs Iran in Nuclear Talks, Slams ‘Threat of Force’ From the West

China and Russia joined Iran on Friday in urging an end to Western sanctions after President Trump called this week for nuclear talks with Tehran, with both countries denouncing the “threat of force.”
After talks in Beijing with the deputy foreign ministers of Russia and Iran to discuss Iran’s nuclear program, the Chinese government said the three countries had agreed that all parties should “abandon sanctions, pressure and threats of force.”
That appeared to be a reference to recent overtures that Mr. Trump has made toward Iran. Mr. Trump said last week that he had sent a letter to the Iranian government seeking to negotiate a deal to prevent Tehran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. But he warned that the country would have to choose between curbing its fast-expanding program and losing it in a military attack.
The meeting was the latest sign of Beijing’s close alignment with Moscow and Tehran, and of its ambition to become a key arbiter of international disputes. Earlier this week, the three countries held joint naval drills in the Gulf of Oman.
China and Russia are taking a very different approach to Iran now than they did a decade ago. In 2015, they insisted on first reaching a deal with Iran to stop its nuclear weapons program before ending sanctions. Russia even took a lot of Iran’s nuclear fuel stockpile as part of that arrangement.
The United States is now pursuing maximum political pressure with a threat of military action. But China and Russia are pursuing a more cooperative and conciliatory approach. This means that major powers are divided on how to approach Iran, which may give Tehran more diplomatic room to maneuver.
“Russia and China are also signaling to other countries that there are alternatives to U.S. global leadership — that Moscow and Beijing are responsible global actors that can address major global challenges like nuclear weapons,” said Andrea Kendall-Taylor, a senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security, a Washington research group.
The most concerning part of the Iranian program is the production of potential nuclear weapons material that has been enriched to 60 percent purity, which is nearly bomb-grade. It could take a week or so to convert it to the 90 percent purity required for use in bombs that produce large nuclear detonations. Experts believe Iran may now have enough for roughly six weapons.
Russia and China did not present a plan to remove or reduce in purity the Iranian supply of potential nuclear weapons material. Nor did they address Iran’s installation of more advanced centrifuges, which will increase the size of the country’s stockpile of enriched material.
The Iranian government said in late November that it would begin operating the advanced centrifuges to enrich more uranium, which could bring it closer to having a nuclear weapon.
Wang Yi, China’s foreign minister, issued a five-point plan for addressing Iran’s nuclear program. While calling for an end to sanctions on Iran, the plan also urged Iran to “continue to abide by its commitment not to develop nuclear weapons.”
Beijing wants to show that “while the United States irresponsibly pulls out of the Iran Nuclear Agreement, China will also hold fast to this international commitment and assume the responsibility of leadership,” said Shen Dingli, an international relations scholar in Shanghai.
The message is also one of solidarity with Iran. “Even though the United States exerts extreme pressure, as long as Iran does not give up on its relevant commitments, it will still have friends,” Mr. Shen said. “Iran doesn’t need to worry. In the end, this is a strategic game between China and the United States.”
Iran’s supreme leader last week decried “bullying governments” and seemed to push back on the idea of negotiating with the United States.
China and Russia’s support could help Iran seem less isolated, but Tehran might have concerns, as well.
“The Iranians, for their part, are very wary of Chinese, but especially of Russian involvement in negotiations, as they fear they will be sold out by Moscow as part of a broader U.S.-Russia accord,” said Gregory Brew, a senior analyst at the Eurasia Group. “They will be looking for support from Russia while resisting any pressure to give in to U.S. demands.”
China has considerable leverage over Iran: Chinese companies purchased over 90 percent of Iran’s oil exports last year, often at deep discounts to world prices, according to Kpler, a Vienna-based company that specializes in tracking Iran’s oil shipments. Most other countries have refrained from buying oil from Iran so as to comply with Western-led sanctions aimed at persuading Iran to stop its development of nuclear weapons.
Sales by Iran’s state oil company to China represent about 6 percent of Iran’s entire economy, or half of government spending in Iran.
David E. Sanger contributed reporting from Washington and David Pierson from Beijing.
-
News7 days ago
Gene Hackman Lost His Wife and Caregiver, and Spent 7 Days Alone
-
Politics7 days ago
Republicans demand Trump cut American legal association out of nominee process
-
Politics1 week ago
Agriculture secretary cancels $600K grant for study on menstrual cycles in transgender men
-
News7 days ago
States sue Trump administration over mass firings of federal employees
-
Movie Reviews1 week ago
‘Black Bag’ Review: Cate Blanchett and Michael Fassbender Cozy Up in Steven Soderbergh’s Snazzy Spy Thriller
-
News1 week ago
Who Paid for Trump’s Transition to Power? The Donors Are Still Unknown.
-
News1 week ago
Trump Seeks to Bar Student Loan Relief to Workers Aiding Migrants and Trans Kids
-
Politics1 week ago
Kristi Noem says 2 leakers accused of disclosing ICE operations ID'd: 'Put law enforcement lives in jeopardy'