The US debt to GDP ratio is anticipated to decrease in 2024. This optimism is based on recent financial policies put in place by the Trump administration, though the exact savings remain uncertain.

The administration aimed for $2 trillion in cuts, now reduced to a goal of less than $1 trillion. By May 2025, the Department of Government Efficiency, led by Elon Musk, has achieved around $160 billion in federal cuts.

The Impact of Workforce Reductions

These cuts result from actions like workforce reductions and program eliminations, but the financial impact is unclear due to costs like severance. Tariffs are another measure being considered to increase Treasury revenue and reduce national debt.

Uncertainty is prevalent due to these revolutionary changes; the Treasury Secretary’s belief in the debt reduction goal introduces further doubt. The Fed considers the strategic balance between price stability and employment levels important, maintaining that inflation and job rates are connected.

Additionally, tariffs impacting essential items for child care are under evaluation.

The initial information presents a cautiously constructive view on the fiscal outlook for the United States, hinging on a combination of spending cuts and prospective revenue adjustments in order to restrain public debt levels. These actions are framed around early outcomes from policy decisions originating in the previous administration, although actual progress towards the intended adjustments remains in question.

The targeted expenditure reductions, originally set higher, have been scaled down to reflect a more moderate approach. Only a fraction of these reductions have been implemented as of the latest data point in mid-2025. Measures undertaken include cuts to federal staffing and the discontinuation of long-standing programmes. However, associated expenses—salaries paid during notice periods, redundancy packages, and transitional overheads—blur the beneficial impact on the balance sheet. Simply put, the arithmetic remains incomplete.

More innovatively, duties on imports are being evaluated as a form of revenue enhancement to support broader fiscal goals. These are not limited to luxury goods; core import categories, including key materials tied to social infrastructure like child care, are also subject to scrutiny. The implications for consumers and domestic producers alike could alter input costs and purchasing behaviour, depending on scope and execution.

Fed’s Commitment to Dual Mandate

Meanwhile, the central bank remains committed to its dual mandate, which continues to shape decision-making around monetary policy. That commitment is tested as they consider where to place emphasis—either on curbing inflation or sustaining employment—especially in a shifting economic environment. In practice, they treat this as a moving target, adjusting response as data develops. These conditions place added weight on forecasting accuracy, both in terms of inflation expectations and job market trajectories.

For those of us observing price movement and scanning for possible mispricing, the disjoint between fiscal intentions and quantifiable outcomes underscores the need for patience. The market can rapidly reprice expectations, especially when official rhetoric shifts or revisions to spending materialise. In past cycles, long positioning early on in policy shifts, before the expenditure effects filtered through, has left portfolios misaligned. Flatteners and steepeners both come with risks in the near term.

Whatever anchoring long-term projections may offer, the short-dated curves are more geared to policy headlines and related surprises. Domestic instruments with direct exposure to Treasury issuance may remain volatile, particularly in response to alternative funding choices. A change in buyback activity, shifts in auction schedules, or new tax-related outflows could all prompt measurable moves.

We note that the tone from senior figures at the Fed reflects caution rather than confirmation. Disinflation isn’t assumed; it has to be earned through data. Accordingly, market participants adjusting expectations too early might be forced to reverse course. Long gamma strategies linked to CPI prints or jobs data might offer better entry than directional outright trades for now, given the breadth of possibilities.

Those mapping forward rates should also weigh the secondary effects of tariffs, particularly if items under review result in new inflationary channels. These distinctions may not be immediately apparent in headline numbers, but they will matter over time. Cross-asset positioning will depend on anticipating knock-on effects in manufacturing, service consumption, and supply chain bottlenecks.

The window for rebalancing is narrow. Fiscal initiatives, even when partially applied, have unintended consequences. These aren’t always addressed in immediate public briefings, but they tend to leak through in revisions and technical footnotes. In past periods where fiscal tightening clashed with moderate monetary support, volatility clusters were common.

Watching shorter-dated volatility and implied risk premiums remains useful, especially where pricing fails to align with past reaction norms. Short calendar spreads or skew-tilted structures may offer margin, provided slippage is controlled. There is no immediate need to chase directional bias unless new data emerges.

Create your live VT Markets account and start trading now.