Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free

Roula Khalaf, Editor of the FT, selects her favourite stories in this weekly newsletter.

The US economy blew past expectations to create 256,000 jobs in December, sending yields on US government debt lurching higher as traders and banks trimmed their forecasts for Federal Reserve interest rate cuts.

The figure from the Bureau of Labor Statistics on Friday exceeded the consensus forecast from economists polled by Reuters of 160,000 and was above the downwardly revised 212,000 positions added in November.

Treasury yields climbed as investors bet the Fed will be slower to cut interest rates this year. Futures markets pushed back the expected timing of the first quarter-point rate cut to September from June before the data release. The odds of a second cut this year fell to about 20 per cent from roughly 60 per cent.

Bank of America went further on Friday, saying the “gangbusters” jobs reports suggests “the cutting cycle is over”.

The Wall Street bank added “the conversation should move to hikes, which could be in play” if inflation picks up significantly. Goldman Sachs on Friday also scaled back its forecasts for 2025 rate cuts from three quarter-point reductions to two.

The robust jobs figures sent US government bond yields rising across the spectrum. The benchmark 10-year yield climbed 0.08 percentage points to 4.76 per cent — the highest level since November 2023. The policy-sensitive two-year yield soared 0.12 percentage points to 4.38 per cent.

Wall Street stocks dropped, with the broad S&P 500 closing down 1.5 per cent and the tech-heavy Nasdaq Composite losing 1.6 per cent. The S&P 500 fell to its lowest since the November 5 US election.

Eric Winograd, chief economist at AllianceBernstein, said: “[December’s jobs] number emphasises that the Fed does not need to rush . . . it validates to a significant degree that they should be on hold for a few months.”

The bond market was already “on edge”, he added.

Friday’s jobs data was hotly anticipated on both sides of the Atlantic amid a sell-off in government bond markets, fuelled in part by growing expectations that the Fed will cut interest rates only slightly in 2025.

UK chancellor Rachel Reeves has come under increasing pressure this week after government borrowing costs soared, leaving her with little scope to meet her self-imposed fiscal rules.

UK bond yields climbed after the publication of the US jobs figures. The 10-year gilt yield rose to 4.85 per cent, 0.02 percentage points higher on the day, but below the 16-year high of 4.93 per cent hit earlier this week.

US president-elect Donald Trump’s plans to cut taxes, impose tariffs and curb immigration have also led the Fed to signal it will be more cautious in 2025.

The central bank in December forecast just two quarter-point rate cuts this year, compared with a projection of four in September, partly because of persistent strength in the jobs market.

Jeff Schmid, a top Fed official, on Thursday said the US central bank was “pretty close” to meeting its objectives on inflation and employment, underscoring expectations that policymakers will refrain from sharp interest rate cuts this year.

The Fed began cutting its main interest rate in September, reducing it by 1 full percentage point by the end of 2024.

At its next meeting later this month, the central bank is widely expected to keep interest rates steady at its target range between 4.25 per cent and 4.5 per cent.

Tom Porcelli, chief US economist at PGIM Fixed Income, said: “I think the Fed is feeling very good right now about taking a pass at the coming meeting — and obviously, if this kind of strength persists, they’ll take a pass at the next several meetings.”

Friday’s figures showed the unemployment rate was 4.1 per cent, compared with 4.2 per cent in November. They marked the last monthly jobs numbers released under Joe Biden’s presidency, during which the US economy created 16.6mn jobs.

An exceptionally strong labour market that defied frequent predictions that a sharp slowdown or recession was looming was a defining feature of the economy under Biden’s watch.

But politically it did not help the Biden administration because those gains were undercut by the inflation surge that peaked in the summer of 2022, sharply raising the cost of living for households throughout his tenure.

The looming TikTok ban is barely a week away and the company is running out of time to do anything about it. On Friday, the Supreme Court heard last-minute arguments about the ban, with TikTok angling for an intervention or, at least, a temporary ruling to buy it a bit more time. They didn’t go especially well for TikTok — even justices who sounded sympathetic to the company’s arguments about free speech seemed satisfied by the government’s core national security argument.

As a matter of law, in other words, it’s looking like the ban is going to happen, and probably right before Donald Trump once again takes office. This is a completely unprecedented event — a massively popular app with a major cultural and economic footprint in the United States might just get switched off — but also something that the incoming president, who effectively originated the ban in the form of an executive order in 2020 but has since become aware that some people on the app actually like him and has also raised a bunch of money from one of its biggest American investors, now says he doesn’t want to happen.

The court was concerned, mostly, with the substance of the law, which requires that TikTok either be sold to an American company or banned entirely, but the justices did briefly touch on the urgent question of what might practically happen next, in the real world. Congress passed a law. Trump can say he doesn’t support it, but it’s still on the books, and it passed with substantial bipartisan support. If he really wants to stop it he’ll have to do something about it, and the available options are all pretty messy.

According to the law he could, as President, temporarily pause the ban if the company demonstrates its intent to imminently sell, but TikTok parent company ByteDance has strongly suggested that this isn’t possible, not least because of tightening Chinese export controls around algorithms and AI. Should ByteDance agree to offload an algorithmically stripped-out version of TikTok — something at least one credible buyer has nonetheless expressed interest in — Trump, who would also be able to unpause the ban, would have a great deal of influence over the terms of the deal. But the app would almost certainly experience an interruption in service and return, eventually, as something fundamentally different.

Near the end of the hearing, though, Justice Kavanaugh floated the possibility that’s most aligned with how Trump is talking about this at the moment: “Could the president say we are not going to enforce this law?” Indeed, this is an approach he’s been implying, it certainly matches his mental model of how government should work — TikTok is unbanned if I say so — and it seems like something that he might at least attempt.

Kavanaugh helped answer his own question: Trump could do this, he noted, but it would create serious practical problems. One way the ban is intended to work is by making it illegal to provide “services to distribute, maintain, or update such foreign adversary controlled application,” meaning that Apple and Google, which between them maintain the app stores on virtually all of America’s smartphones, would be legally required to delist the app. A promise by Trump not to enforce a TikTok ban, or to unilaterally and/or counterfactually declare TikTok in compliance with the law, would leave Apple and Google in a risky position. They could relist an app that’s still technically illegal but which the President says is actually fine in support of a company to which they have no particular reason to help and which is in fact, in Google’s case, a direct competitor.

Or they could just say: Hey, hosting a service that has been declared a “FOREIGN ADVERSARY CONTROLLED APPLICATION” by lawmakers isn’t worth the trouble even if the President says he’s personally totally cool with it. This would be prudent unless, of course, such an action would be interpreted as a slight against the President, and wielded against them publicly or privately, in which case two of American’s largest companies, each facing ongoing antitrust cases, might just have to hire a few dozen more lobbyists and OFAC attorneys and figure out how to make things work. Welcome to the new tech industry.

A firefighting plane flying over the Palisades fire in Los Angeles collided with a civilian drone on Thursday, officials said, putting the plane out of service and further stretching the resources available to battle the raging fires in Southern California.

The plane landed safely after the incident, said the Federal Aviation Administration, which will investigate the episode. The collision punctured a wing and put the plane out of commission, said Chris Thomas, a Cal Fire spokesman.

The blazes that broke out this week in the Los Angeles area were fueled by fierce winds that initially prevented aircraft from taking off safely. Once conditions improved, dozens of helicopters and planes joined the fight to contain the fires. More were on the way Thursday night, the authorities said.

The plane involved in the collision on Thursday is a Canadair CL-415 Super Scooper, leased by the Los Angeles County Fire Department from the Canadian province of Quebec, said Kenichi Haskett, a department spokesman. The department said on social media that the collision on Thursday, at around 1 p.m., involved a civilian drone.

The CL-415 can fly very low and scoop up water to dump on fires, according to its maker, De Havilland Aircraft of Canada. Mr. Thomas, the Cal Fire spokesman, said the Super Scooper holds 1,600 gallons and can refill in about five minutes.

In an hour, even if a refill takes 10 minutes, “that’s six water drops,” he said while discussing the setback to firefighting efforts. “So whose house is not going to get that water to protect it?”

The F.A.A. has imposed temporary flight restrictions in the Los Angeles area while firefighters work to contain the fires. The agency said Thursday that it has not authorized anyone who is not involved in the firefighting operations to fly drones in the restricted zones. Despite that, many videos of wildfire areas that appear to be from drones have been posted on social media this week.

Flight restrictions are often imposed by the F.A.A. when wildfires break out, and the authorities have warned for years about the threat posed by drones to firefighting aircraft. In September, at least two drone incursions were reported as firefighters battled the Line fire in Southern California.

Drone sightings force the authorities to ground firefighting aircraft for a minimum of 15 minutes and for as much as 30 minutes while they confirm it is safe to fly again, Mr. Thomas said.

“We have a saying: ‘If you fly, we can’t,’” he added. “But I don’t know how effective it is because everybody thinks it’s so cool to fly a drone up through the fire.”

Disrupting firefighting on public lands is a federal crime, punishable by up to 12 months in prison, according to the F.A.A., which said it can also impose a civil penalty of up to $75,000 on a drone pilot who interferes with efforts to suppress wildfires.