NASA Rocket, Lunar Station Face Cuts In Trump 2026 Budget

Economic

Summary:

U.S. President Donald Trump's administration is seeking to axe key parts of NASA's moon program in favor of commercial alternatives and his Mars-focused agenda, targeting an array of established projects in a proposed $6 billion cut to the space agency's overall budget for next year.

The "skinny" - or outline - version of Trump's proposed 2026 budget, released on Friday, would cancel NASA's over-budget Space Launch System (SLS), a gigantic rocket built by Boeing and Northrop Grumman, and its Lockheed Martin-built Orion crew capsule after their third mission in 2027 under the agency's Artemis program.

The proposal, cutting 24% of NASA's current $24.8 billion budget, threatens to upend active contracts defended for years in Washington by an array of established NASA contractors, as well as overturn missions and programs in which U.S. allies play key roles, such as the European Space Agency, Canada and Japan.

The Artemis program was spawned by Trump during his first administration to accelerate a pre-existing effort to return humans to the moon before Chinese astronauts get there in 2030, growing into a multi-billion dollar effort on the frontline of an emerging global space race.

But in his new administration, Trump has instead fixated on getting humans to Mars, the long-sought destination for SpaceX CEO Elon Musk, the president's outgoing adviser who spent $250 million on Trump's effort to return to the White House.

"The Budget phases out the grossly expensive and delayed Space Launch System (SLS) rocket and Orion capsule after three flights," the budget summary said, noting SLS's per-launch pricetag of $4 billion. The rocket's development cost of roughly $23 billion since 2010 is "140 percent over budget," it added.

"The Budget funds a program to replace SLS and Orion flights to the Moon with more cost-effective commercial systems that would support more ambitious subsequent lunar missions," the summary added.

Source: Reuters

To stay updated on all economic events of today, please check out our Economic calendar

Risk Warnings and Disclaimers

You understand and acknowledge that there is a high degree of risk involved in trading. Following any strategies or investment methods may lead to potential losses. The content on the site is provided by our contributors and analysts for information purposes only. You are solely responsible for determining whether any trading assets, securities, strategy, or any other product is suitable for investing based on your own investment objectives and financial situation.

Add to Favorites

Alex

Economic

The global payments landscape is rapidly evolving, marked by an explosion of new payment methods, from real-time transfers to central bank digital currencies. While innovation brings opportunities, the coexistence of multiple parallel payment rails has led to increased fragmentation, creating inefficiencies for banks, fintechs, merchants and end users.

Many countries worldwide are discovering how fragmented payment rails complicate the adoption and efficiency of emerging financial technologies.

Fragmentation in practice

In Nigeria, 21 mobile money operators compete alongside traditional bank transfers and the central bank’s eNaira. This crowded, though diverse market is dominated by operators like Paga, which holds a 51% market share but has resulted in high interoperability costs. Despite launching eNaira to promote digital finance, adoption remains disappointingly low – less than 1% of bank customers regularly use it. A fragmented mobile money landscape significantly undermines the CBDC’s value.

Meanwhile, Europe’s SEPA Instant Credit Transfer (SCT Inst), introduced in 2017, set out to enable instant payments across the continent. However, the scheme achieved limited initial uptake due to voluntary bank participation. By 2021, only about 10% of euro credit transfers were processed instantly. Recognising the inefficiencies caused by the lack of integration, the European Union mandated universal participation by 2024, emphasising the need for unified solutions to achieve greater adoption and scale.

Long accustomed to fragmentation, the US payments system includes legacy methods – such as cheques, Automated Clearing House payments and card networks – alongside new instant payment solutions like The Clearing House’s RTP and the Federal Reserve System’s FedNow Service. With neither instant system achieving ubiquity – RTP covers approximately 70% of deposit accounts, FedNow about 35% – banks face extra costs connecting to multiple rails. Moreover, popular payment apps such as PayPal, Venmo and Zelle further split user experiences into isolated silos, complicating transactions for consumers.

In many Middle Eastern countries, the reliance on cheques, including post-dated cheques, remains prevalent due largely to historical criminal laws associated with bouncing cheques. These laws provided businesses and individuals with confidence in navigating payments. Consequently, transitioning to digital payment methods like direct debits represents not just a technical but also a significant behavioural shift. Another barrier to digital adoption in the region is economic; cheques are often priced at little to no cost to end users, offering no direct financial incentive for shifting towards digital alternatives that can be comparatively expensive.

Challenges of new payment rails

Ushering in new systems – CBDCs, real-time payments, ISO 20022 messaging and mobile wallets – brings considerable integration challenges.

The integration of CBDCs with legacy systems, such as bank applications, ATMs and mobile money platforms is critical. Without interoperability, CBDCs risk becoming isolated, low-adoption silos, as seen with Nigeria’s eNaira. Effective integration strategies, such as linking digital wallets to traditional payment channels, will be essential.

While RTPs deliver speed and convenience, the costs of upgrading legacy batch-processing systems and ensuring interoperability among multiple RTP networks can be substantial. For instance, Brazil’s Pix successfully mitigated these issues with standardised QR codes and governance rules, resulting in over 140m active users within 2.5 years.

Transitioning to the data-rich ISO 20022 messaging standard enhances interoperability but requires coordinated migration. If banks adopt the new standard asynchronously, it can create fragmented messaging formats, hindering smooth cross-system communication.

In emerging markets, mobile wallets initially operated as isolated ecosystems. Regulators in countries like Tanzania, Ghana and Indonesia have since pushed interoperability between wallets and bank accounts, significantly improving user experience and adoption.

End-user preferences and pain points

Consumers and businesses prioritise simplicity, speed, security and universal acceptance in payment methods. However, a fragmented payments landscape complicates transactions and confuses users. Studies highlight significant user frustration from managing multiple payment apps and fragmented experiences. For instance, nearly one-third of UK consumers admitted confusion over the various payment options available to them.

Moreover, merchants struggle with the complexity and costs of accepting multiple payment methods. Where too many options at checkout can even erode consumer trust, a simplified payment experience can aid in sustained adoption.

Central banks’ strategies for modernisation

To counter fragmentation, central banks and policy-makers must focus on clear strategic initiatives, such as phasing out legacy methods, improving public education and marketing, and architecting designs for universal utility in mind.

Roadmaps to phase out legacy payment instruments and gradually reducing reliance on cash, help consolidate payment volumes onto modern rails. The Bahamas and Australia have pledged to wind down the use of paper cheques, with the latter phasing them out by no later than 2030.

Initiatives promoting new payments systems, like India’s United Payments Interface and Brazil’s Pix, educate users, address adoption barriers and establish widespread familiarity and trust. Unified branding and extensive outreach have significantly boosted usage.

Payment infrastructure should not only serve broad use-cases but ensure broad participation through open access standards and fair pricing structures. Initiatives like the Bank for International Settlements’ Project Nexus aim at cross-border interoperability, further reducing fragmentation.

A unified vision

While innovation in payments brings immense benefits, unmanaged fragmentation can dilute these gains. Successful stories, such as in Brazil and India, demonstrate that unified systems achieve higher adoption, efficiency and user satisfaction.

Reducing fragmentation involves collaborative efforts between regulators, banks, fintechs and merchants. The end goal: an instant and universally accessible payments system that feel as effortless as sending a text message.

Ultimately, a cohesive payments ecosystem – free from unnecessary complexity – benefits all stakeholders, boosts economic efficiency, enhances financial inclusion and increases public confidence in digital financial services.

Source:Fernando Pacheco

To stay updated on all economic events of today, please check out our Economic calendar

Risk Warnings and Disclaimers

Add to Favorites

Owen Li

Economic

Reframing inclusion in financial institutions has become a priority in response to recent backlash against diversity initiatives. Across the banking sector, steps are being taken to realign with progress. ‘Diversity to me is diversity of thought’, according to Souâd Benkredda, member of the board of managing directors at DZ BANK. ‘If you eliminate perspectives, this will ultimately influence your results, performance and customer experience in a negative way.’

OMFIF’s Gender Balance Index has tracked diversity in senior leadership at commercial banks since 2021. As fundamental components of the global financial architecture, who leads these institutions matters. However, the sector remains ‘far away’ from achieving true diversity of thought – a fact reflected in the average GBI score for commercial banks which is 42, not even halfway to parity.

To this end, current diversity initiatives serve as necessary stepping stones. ‘What we currently define as diverse groups is just the means to help us simplify the fact that we actually need diversity of thought,’ she explains. This is particularly relevant in commercial banking, where pipeline challenges and leadership barriers persist despite progress in entry-level roles.

Support systems are key to retention

For a group of institutions that have been working on diversity and inclusion efforts for the better part of the past decade, the results have been slow to materialise. Only seven of the 50 banks covered in the GBI are led by women. More broadly, 21% of all C-suite staff are women, which is far lower than the 30% that is widely recognised as an acceptable target. So what are the main barriers?

The ‘childcare tax’ is often cited as the main barrier, referring to how women’s career progression is limited by their care duties and responsibilities. However, the environment and culture of the workplace might play an equally, if not more important role. ‘If you have a supportive environment, then you might take on the higher burden of balancing both motherhood and work,’ Benkredda explained. Drawing from her personal experience as a mother of twins, she credits her former employer, Deutsche Bank, for creating a supportive culture that enabled her six-month maternity leave and successful return.

She spoke about practical measures like providing confidential maternity coaches and empowering women to make their own choices about returning to work, adding: ‘I felt the organisation wanted to work on making my return successful, and that makes a huge difference.’

Leading by example

Role models are also equally important. Having senior leaders, both men and women invested in fostering an inclusive culture is key. As she notes, ‘each of us should be and is a role model, regardless of gender, because you lead by example’.

Now serving on the board of a major German bank, Benkredda views her appointment as a statement of the institution’s progressive direction. ‘I’m blessed to be able to contribute through my own hiring, but also by simply being there myself, because that attracts talent who see an African, Arab woman in leadership.’

When asked about coaching and mentoring opportunities more generally, she acknowledged the value of mentorship, but emphasised the greater importance of sponsorship for career advancement. ‘I am more on the sponsor side’, she stated, warning that mentorship programmes risk becoming ‘tick-box exercises’ without careful implementation. On the other hand, sponsorship can be more meaningful in fostering effective, work-oriented pillars of support.

The journey towards genuine diversity in commercial banking is complex. What it boils down to fundamentally is an embracing of different perspectives. This will require a cultural transformation that not only values individual potential, but also challenges traditional barriers and welcomes diverse voices to shape the conversation.

Source:Arunima Sharan

To stay updated on all economic events of today, please check out our Economic calendar

Risk Warnings and Disclaimers

Add to Favorites

Kevin Du

Economic

China’s National People’s Congress and the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference met in early March to lay down the country’s main economic targets for 2025. As expected, the main target is once again real gross domestic product growth at around 5% and consumer price index inflation of around 2%. This real growth will have to be achieved by an increase in the deficit to GDP ratio of 4%, up from the previous 3%. Special local government bond quotas will be allowed to increase by 4.4%, compared with 3.9% previously.

These debt indicators are comparable to the debt ceiling in the US and the Maastricht criteria in the euro area. China has always paid attention to limiting the general fiscal deficit to 3%. The local government financing requirement has always remained below the radar as local governments were not allowed to borrow. However, as the main source of local government revenues (some 80%), the allocation of land use has dried up since the onset of the real estate crisis and borrowing though local government financing vehicles has skyrocketed.

The Chinese government has addressed this problem by allowing sub-national governments to issue bonds within the local government bond quotas to swap their hidden LGFVs for official bond issues and to refrain from using this shadow financing channel to cover their current financing needs. The LGFVs were mainly held by banks and insurances. However, direct bank lending has also replaced the issue of LGFVs.

According to the most recent International Monetary Fund Article IV Consultations in mid-2024, China’s general government borrowing rose rapidly to an estimated 60.5% of GDP in 2024 from 38.5% in 2019. Augmented debt, which includes LGFVs, has increased to 124% of GDP from 86.3%. The share of local government debt rose to more than 60% of GDP from close to 50%. The overall non-financial debt increased to 312% of GDP in 2024 from 245%, putting China among the most indebted countries.

On the reverse side of the coin, the increase in M2 money supply (annex 4 of the IMF report) is running at twice the growth in real GDP. At the same time the CPI is running close to deflation (negative in February 2025), a conundrum in itself.

Can China reach its growth target?

The recent parliamentary decisions tell us that everything is subordinate to the real GDP growth target of around 5%. However, this growth has to be supported by an accommodating monetary policy and by a higher debt to GDP ratio of 4% as adopted by the NPC.

The People’s Bank of China has been pursuing this accommodative monetary policy already over the past two years to boost sagging economic growth. The bank purchased a record supply of newly issued government bonds last year, without calling it quantitative easing. However, this was suspended at the beginning of 2025 as yields fell to record lows and the renminbi depreciated. Regional banks and institutional investors continued buying these additional bonds issued. In early 2025, the PBoC also supplied record liquidity in the money market to support bank lending, which is supposed to pick up.

The open question is whether all these measures will stimulate real economic activities such as borrowing by the private sector to boost private consumption and investment. In view of the uncertain export prospects and lack of confidence in the domestic market, the growth objective might be even more elusive than before.

Source:Herbert Poenisch

To stay updated on all economic events of today, please check out our Economic calendar

Risk Warnings and Disclaimers

Add to Favorites

Jason

Economic

The US trade measures – import tariffs, but also other types of export and import restrictions – will have far-reaching and long-term consequences for the US and the global economy. I believe the effects will be quicker, more severe and longer lasting than thought. The international trade system built after the second world war will come under grave pressure, with sustained consequences for the world economy.

Owing to the unusual degree of uncertainty, the International Monetary Fund provided its estimates in its 22 April World Economic Outlook in the form of a reference forecast with a range of possible developments. In this ‘reference’ scenario, US gross domestic product growth for 2025 (relative to the January forecast) has been revised downwards to 1.8% from 2.7%. For the euro area and China, it has been revised to 0.6% and 4.0%, respectively, down from 0.8% and 4.6%.

For several reasons – recent and long-term historical experience, the relatively long 90-day ‘relief period’, erratic US negotiating tactics and sharply increasing geopolitical risks – I believe the IMF is too optimistic.

Looking to history for comparisons

Trump’s chaotic geopolitical approach represents the most worrying aspect of current circumstances. Unfortunately, subtlety is not part of the US administration’s DNA. It is bringing in trade restrictions at the same time as numerous measures aimed at domestic individuals and institutions, covering areas as varied as diversity, equality and inclusion, immigration, financial matters and the judiciary.

All this is being done with little or no coordination, for reasons often based on either prejudice or vindictiveness, and in a manner that frequently borders on the unconstitutional. America’s geopolitical tactics show the same erratic and ill-considered characteristics, with associated dangers for economic and political stability.

In the WEO, the IMF emphasises the downside risks, including those stemming from financial instability, exchange rate movements and fiscal developments. It does not foresee recession, either in the US or globally. Understandably the Fund does not wish to be too pessimistic. It aims to avoid either self-fulfilling expectations or provoking Trump into disastrous madcap actions such seeking to leave the IMF.

But we need to look at comparators. The most relevant historical example is America’s Smoot Hawley Tariff Act of 1930. Like Trump’s protectionist measures, it was introduced against the advice of prominent economists and only after much political wrangling. Because this Tariff Act more or less coincided with the outbreak of the Great Depression, it is difficult to isolate its effects from the other influences. However, it is clear that this act deepened and prolonged the downturn that had already begun in 1929.

The 1930 experience shows the difficulty of dismantling protectionist measures once they have been introduced. Only in 1934, with the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act, could the US president negotiate bilateral tariff reductions. Import tariffs were gradually reduced until the early years of the war. After the second world war, US trade tariffs were reduced gradually and by the turn of the century the effective tariff on all US imports had reached an extremely low level. In current circumstances, substantially reversing import measures is even more difficult because revenues from import tariffs are desperately needed to finance promised US tax cuts.

Learning from the Brexit experience

We should examine, too, the effects of Britain leaving the European Union. Supply chains largely cross national borders and capital flows can move freely around the world. This has greatly increased vulnerability to trade barriers and can widen and speed up negative effects. The UK-EU Trade and Co-operation Agreement (effective January 2021) led to average import tariffs (2.8% for the UK and 1.5% for the EU) that were based on ‘rules of origin’ and compliance with the most-favoured-nation clause and are incomparably lower than the present effective rate on all US imports of around 25%.

Yet despite the relatively limited increase in import duties, Brexit has been extremely damaging. The UK Office for Budget Responsibility estimates that, longer term, withdrawal will reduce the size of the economy by 4%.

The non-tariff consequences of Trump’s measures are likely to be much greater. The number of countries and supply chains affected is much larger. Many more conflict situations will arise. The MFN approach has de facto been abandoned. The US and subsequently China have decided additional targeted, non-tariff measures such as restrictions on goods such as certain chips, Boeing aircraft and rare earths that could further fuel the trade war.

Uncertainty fuelled by negotiations

Regarding the 90-day negotiation period, Trump’s wayward style in dealing with Mexico, Canada, China as well as the EU adds to anxiety about what could go wrong. As an example of this behaviour, Trump announced he would double the universal base rate of 10% and add specific rates with a focus on China. When he put this on hold – except for China – financial markets and governments breathed a sigh of relief, but this appears premature.

The tariff policy has clearly got completely out of hand with absurdly high tariffs, especially for China, which Scott Bessent, US Treasury secretary, has termed unsustainable. Trump has expressed a willingness to negotiate, under pressure from financial markets and US corporations. However, the path to an acceptable outcome is paved with problems. The Chinese want an end to the tariff war, but their demands will be hard for Trump to swallow. His claims that negotiations with China have started appear to have no factual basis. It will not be easy to rein back, especially because Chinese confidence in American trustworthiness will have sunk to a very low level.

No one knows exactly what the US position will be in coming months. Uncertainty will prevail for a relatively long period, with a paralysing impact on investors and consumers. The negotiations will in any case be extremely complex. The US will attempt to incorporate more than just trade considerations. For example, America will try – and probably fail – to separate Asian countries from China.

The reciprocity approach is another complicating aspect. For the US, reciprocity includes not only tariffs but also value added tax and safety and health requirements, which the US believes distorts competitive relations. However, reciprocity is at odds with the MFN clause. Compliance with this clause is crucial. It seems almost impossible to reach an agreement with so many countries in such a short period, in a way that maintains equal trade opportunities.

A balanced outcome requires a multilateral framework and not bilateral negotiations in which a dominant country tries to impose its often misguided economic views on others through all kinds of threats.

With Brexit we have already seen, in a much more limited case, the high price of non-tariff consequences. Without MFN, customs authorities will have to check the goods codes of hundreds of imported products as well as the country of origin, which could lead to discussions about where ‘substantial transformation’ has taken place.Forthcoming difficulties include increasing bureaucracy, interpretation problems, delays in processing, political and legal conflicts and retaliation. Furthermore, the system will become much more susceptible to fraud because companies will seek export opportunities to the US via countries with low tariffs.

Three-stage Trump process: bravado, threat and confusion

We are now familiar with the three-stage Trump process. It starts with bravado (‘We will solve this problem overnight’), followed in many cases by threat and ends in confusion and derailment. We have seen this with Ukraine and Israel, areas of high geopolitical risk.

Both cases are striking. Trump recently stated that Putin had made a significant concession by renouncing the occupation of all of Ukraine. After America gave carte blanche to Israel gradually bombing the entire Gaza strip and its inhabitants, Trump proposed turning this territory, under American supervision, into a wonderful holiday resort and relocating the inhabitants to surrounding countries. This proposal defies all descriptions of empathy and international law.

The next risk areas are Iran and China. Both countries are willing to negotiate but demand mutual respect, dialogue and consultation on an equal footing. If the discussions with these two countries do not end well, serious consequences will probably ensue.

Resistance in the US to Trump’s policies is growing. States, universities and individuals are increasingly turning to the courts to influence or stop processes under way. I hope the judiciary will act vigorously and independently, but legal contests are time-consuming. The damage done in the meantime, not least in the trade arena, will be difficult to repair quickly.

In its 22 April report the IMF rightly emphasises that the path forward requires clarity, caution and co-operation. In the foreseeable future, these are not traits we can expect to see from the Trump administration. For all the talk at the IMF-World Bank meetings in Washington that Trump may be switching back to more sensible policies, there is a strong probability of pessimistic rather than optimistic outcomes.

Source:Nout Wellink

To stay updated on all economic events of today, please check out our Economic calendar

Risk Warnings and Disclaimers

Add to Favorites

Devin

Economic

Forex

Questions about whether President Donald Trump’s tariffs spell the end of dollar dominance and the safe-haven status of US Treasuries elicited tremendous hand-wringing by market participants and officials at the International Monetary Fund-World bank spring meetings. And rightly so.

But while critical and legitimate concerns have been raised about Trump’s chaotic actions and policies, and recent developments may indeed be setting in motion a gradual decline in dollar dominance, the hand-wringing is overdone.

Fundamental components of dollar dominance are under attack

Since Trump’s disastrous tariff rollout, financial markets have understandably been on edge. A risk-off environment generally is seen as benefitting the dollar and bond prices. But in the latest period, stocks and bond prices fell sharply. Moreover, while most analysts had expected the dollar to rise alongside the announcement of tariffs, in fact the dollar fell, reflecting concerns that tariff policy would cause a recession and a ‘sell America’ loss of confidence in the administration’s chaotic policy-making.

Market participants are fully justified in worrying that dollar dominance may wane, and sharply, given that the administration appears uncommitted to protecting the properties that give rise to that dominance. The dollar’s global role is predicated not only on the huge size of the US economy, but also broadly sound macroeconomic policies, the depth, liquidity and openness of US capital markets, good rule of law, sound institutions and America acting as a trustworthy ally and partner.

These are all under attack.

US fiscal debt and deficits are high and the unsustainable fiscal trajectory is on the wrong track. Yet Trump plans to cut taxes, which will worsen the outlook. Trump’s attacks on Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, along with challenges to representatives at other agencies, raise questions about the independence of the Fed and strength of US institutions.

Stephen Miran’s misguided Mar-a-Lago Accord proposal raises questions about whether the administration might eventually use coercive capital markets measures to help finance the US government. Trump’s attacks on Europe, Canada and others, his volte face on supporting Ukraine and his casting doubt on US adherence to Nato commitments raised questions about whether the US can be a trusted partner and ally. Lurking in the background is America’s overuse of financial sanctions.

No real alternative to the dollar

It is little wonder that questions arose about whether these developments mark the beginning of the end of dollar dominance and the dollar’s safe-haven status.

But the stories about the death of dollar dominance are premature. It will continue for the foreseeable future given a lack of viable alternatives. The dollar’s role may ease as markets look for alternatives such as gold, boost allocations of other currencies at the expense of the dollar or pursue other asset classes such as private credit. But significant near-term declines are unlikely.

Asset managers adjust portfolio benchmarks slowly and gradually, though they are likely to modify dollar benchmarks. The euro may benefit, but its rise will most likely be limited given the lack of euro safe assets, as distinct from Bunds and French government bonds (OATs) for example, lack of economic dynamism and fragmented European capital markets. The renminbi will make little headway given China’s economic headwinds, capital controls, inconvertibility and questionable rule of law. There’s something to be said for the adage in foreign exchange markets about the dollar often being the ‘least ugly’ currency.

Gold is in vogue but there are limits to how much one can load up a portfolio. There are also limits to how much portfolios can be bulked up with Australian and Canadian dollars and Swiss francs.

‘Exorbitant privilege’

While global policy-makers have long decried the dollar’s purported ‘exorbitant privilege’, other countries have hardly done what it takes to get in on the action. And they protest too much – they benefit from having a medium of exchange that allows low transaction costs for global trade and finance, let alone a usually decent store of value.

The dollar has faced huge pressures in the past. It fell sharply in 1978 amid a loss of confidence in US economic policy-making. In 2008, the dollar fell towards $1.60 to the euro during the global financial crisis amid heavy agonising from European officialdom, while China worried about its stash of US paper. Yet the dollar’s dominance increased in subsequent years, particularly in the last decade when aggregate reserves levelled off but the private sector made heavy use of the currency in international transactions.

The dollar’s global role will most likely ease in the coming years as portfolios are rebalanced somewhat away from the currency in reaction to Trump’s policies and the associated diminished confidence in the US. That will hurt Americans and the international community. But ‘sell America’ concerns and the news of the dollar’s demise are premature.

Source:Mark Sobel

To stay updated on all economic events of today, please check out our Economic calendar

Risk Warnings and Disclaimers

Add to Favorites

Kevin Du

Central Bank

What are the Expected Economic Impacts?

The signing of an initial trade agreement next week, as disclosed by Bessent, is expected to have far-reaching economic implications. Meanwhile, optimism surrounds the ongoing trade discussions with China, which show promise. In parallel, the Federal Reserve is anticipated to announce its interest rate decision in the U.S., with remarks from Fed Chair Powell guiding economic forecasts throughout the year.

Should the current economic indicators, hinting at recessionary pressure, persist, the favorable PCE data might prompt Powell to consider accelerating interest rate reductions by June. Despite the recent rapid adjustments in interest rates during election season, the Federal Reserve is likely to maintain current levels at the upcoming May meeting, though this restraint may be difficult to sustain moving forward.

How Will President Trump’s Policies Influence the Fed?

President Trump’s strategy seeks to curb inflation by tackling oil prices while generating national income through revised trade agreements. In response to Trump’s approach, it is expected the Federal Reserve will delay messaging about potential interest rate cuts scheduled for announcement on Wednesday.

Market outlooks from three analysts have been revealed, offering varied forecasts. Altcoin Sherpa humorously referred to ETH as a slow-declining asset, speculating that historic lows in the ETHBTC pair could imply an impending bullish reversal. Meanwhile, DaanCrypto highlighted a potential upward market trend following tight breakouts, showing confidence in maintaining trades with the current trends.

In his latest forecast, Roman Trading depicted Bitcoin‘s return to prior sell points, expressing no concern about missed peaks. Highlighting the substantial decline in altcoin positions, he hints at potential opportunities to reinvest should altcoins start rising.

– A new tariff agreement is anticipated to be signed soon.– Discussions with China hint at positive progress.– The EU is ready to spend $100 billion to boost trade.– Federal Reserve’s stance on interest rates is pivotal.

Future negotiations and economic strategies could potentially foster robust financial stability and growth. The developments next week are critical and may steer market trajectories, influencing both investors and international relations profoundly. The unfolding scenario suggests important repercussions for future economic policies and trade dynamics worldwide.