On May 3, 2026, the inflation already pushed up by war was not yet settled, and the Federal Reserve's policy path and personnel prospects were simultaneously brought to the table. The supply chain was disrupted, delivery cycles were lengthened, input inflation spread globally, and the Federal Reserve had to deal with unclear price pressures while being drawn into political tug-of-war over power boundaries and the future of the chairperson. On the same day, three key figures in different positions — Minneapolis Federal Reserve President Neel Kashkari, financial journalist Nick Timiraos, and U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Posen — provided signals that pointed in almost different directions regarding interest rates, independence, and Powell's future: Kashkari reminded that with the duration of the war unknown and inflation pressures likely to continue accumulating, the Federal Reserve must maintain an “open mind” about future interest rates and, under certain circumstances, even revisit “interest rate hikes,” as the damaged supply chain could not be repaired immediately even if the war ended immediately; Timiraos shifted the focus from “whether to hike next” back to the institutional level, emphasizing that the Federal Reserve's independence comes from the agency structure established by Congress, not from the personal will of any president. This design, which prevents arbitrary dismissal and maintains budget autonomy through staggered terms, should ideally keep monetary policy as far removed from short-term election cycles as possible; contrasting this was Posent's open pressure — he “optimistically” believed Powell would step away from the Federal Reserve in the short term and bluntly stated that continuing to serve as a governor after the chair's term “violates conventions,” while also mentioning that futures markets were betting on a significant decline in oil prices, seemingly laying the groundwork for a change of leadership and adjustment of direction under the expectation that “medium-term inflation will ease.”

Under the external shock of war-driven inflation, the shadow of potential rate hikes, repeated questioning of the independence of the Federal Reserve, and the multiple signals of possible leadership change, the market was forced to recalculate every pricing model in hand. From the U.S. Treasury yield curve, interest rate futures, to dollar assets and global risk appetite, and to cryptocurrency assets such as Bitcoin and Ethereum that are highly sensitive to real interest rates and dollar liquidity, the day’s fluctuations essentially presented different answers to the same question: In a world where the inflation path is distorted by war and the independence of monetary authorities is also questioned, at what level should interest rates be set, and how much are risk assets worth.

War Drags Down Supply Chains: The Ghost of Rate Hikes Approaches Again

The war is like a giant rock dropped on the global supply chain: shipping is hindered, transportation and energy costs are rising, delivery cycles are continually lengthened, and input inflation is transmitted layer by layer along the trade chain. For the Federal Reserve, this is not a path of inflation that can be easily extrapolated using historical experience, but a zigzag that is repeatedly rewritten by geopolitics — any news regarding the war situation could immediately alter the price trajectory for the coming months. In such a context, traditional “forward guidance” becomes particularly awkward: if promises are made too firmly, the next round of supply shocks could turn those commitments into liabilities; if stated too lightly, it becomes difficult to anchor market expectations.

President Neel Kashkari of the Minneapolis Federal Reserve laid bare this uncertainty to the market on May 3. He repeatedly emphasized that the Federal Reserve must “keep an open mind” regarding future interest rate policies, and the longer the war continues, the greater the inflation pressure. In certain cases, the Federal Reserve may need to raise interest rates — the option of raising rates is explicitly kept on the table, albeit conditioned on the “course of the war.” He also reminded that even if the war were to abruptly stop, the recovery of the supply chain could take months, and the price system would not “automatically repair” immediately. Under this narrative, the Federal Reserve's position is not simply dovish or hawkish but rather a flexible hawkish stance: restrained regarding rate hikes, but not completely closing the door.

In contrast to Kashkari's caution regarding supply-side drag, some market bets appeared much more optimistic. Treasury Secretary Scott Posen mentioned that the futures market was giving predictions of falling oil prices, implying that energy prices and inflation pressures would ease in the medium term. On one side of the screen, local Federal Reserve presidents repeatedly emphasized the realism that “the war is over, and the supply chain needs to be slowly repaired”; on the other side of the screen, the oil futures curve reflected financial imagination that “shock is controllable, and inflation will eventually recede.” This tension means that if the war drags on longer than expected and supply recovery is delayed, what will stand with Kashkari is sharply rising prices, not the currently mild market pricing; at that time, what could be forced to be corrected may not just be the interest rate path but the entire pricing framework of risk assets.

Posen Pushes: Powell's Future Sparks Speculation

While the market was still depicting the path of “controllable shock” through oil futures and inflation swaps, Posen directed thoughts straight to the Federal Reserve building. On May 3, this Treasury Secretary openly stated that he “optimistically” believed Powell would step away from the Federal Reserve in the short term — not regarding a specific point or monetary policy statement, but giving an emotionally colored subjective judgment about the current chair's future direction. In the midst of a dilemma regarding monetary policy, such language resembled a form of “soft pressure”: it translated the differences in inflation and interest rate paths into an open discontent and pressure towards leadership.

What truly struck the market’s nerve were his follow-up remarks — Powell continuing to serve as a governor after his chair term “violates conventions.” Historically, Federal Reserve chairs typically leave the board directly after their term ends and rarely continue to serve, and this “convention” itself is part of the institutional independence: the chair can come from any governor, but must quickly exit after serving to avoid personal influences lingering within the institution. By naming this point, Posen essentially packaged a technical arrangement as a “deviant state” that needed correction, causing the market to begin to question: if even behavioral conventions are to be rewritten, to what extent can monetary policy maintain its existing decision-making style?

In this context, the widespread perception of Waller as a potential candidate for the next Federal Reserve chair quickly amplified into a whole set of policy imaginations: if there is a change in leadership, will the new chair be more hawkish regarding inflation under the impact of the war, or more willing to tolerate prices hovering at high levels in exchange for growth? The rhetoric and political maneuvers surrounding Powell's future began to overlap with already shaky interest rate expectations. In interest rate futures and swap trading, scenarios maintaining higher rates in the medium to long term naturally had to increase in price, long-term U.S. Treasury yields were forced to rise, and the stock market as well as high-risk assets such as cryptocurrencies required higher returns to compensate for uncertainties at both institutional and personnel levels. The market was no longer just asking “Will there be rate hikes?” or “How much?” but had to inscribe a sharper question into the pricing model: who will steer the Federal Reserve in the coming years.

Timiraos Draws the Sword: The Federal Reserve Belongs to Congress, Not the President

On the same day the market was questioning “who will steer the Federal Reserve,” Nick Timiraos turned the issue back to the system itself from a different angle. On May 3, he publicly emphasized that the Federal Reserve's autonomy comes from the structure established by the U.S. Congress, not from the personal will of the president. This remark superficially serves as textbook clarification but actually dismantles a stereotype prevalent in the discourse — monetary policy is not an “administrative tool” of the White House, and the power and checks of the Federal Reserve legally point to Congress rather than the President's office. Timiraos' statement serves as a reminder to the market: the real party holding the “blueprint” is the one capable of modifying the Federal Reserve Act at any time.

Surrounding this “blueprint,” the framework of the Federal Reserve's independence has been repeatedly written: by staggering the terms of governors and chairs to avoid leadership replacement coinciding with election cycles; by convention to prevent arbitrary dismissal of chairs and governors due to policy differences, thus reducing the space for short-term political emotions to influence the interest rate path; plus a relatively independent budget arrangement to prevent monetary authorities from being led by administrative or legislative branches in fiscal allocations. These institutions, on paper, form a barrier that separates “election politics every four years” from “monetary policy that needs cross-cycle management.” During the high-inflation era of the 1970s, the Federal Reserve's adherence to tight monetary policy under immense political pressure during Volcker's period is often seen as a typical demonstration of this framework — even at the cost of severe fluctuations in short-term economics and votes.

However, the ongoing debate about Powell's future and the choice of successors is transforming these safety valves, which should reduce political noise, into new political levers. Treasury Secretary Posen's public “optimism” regarding Powell's leaving the Federal Reserve in the short term, and the question of whether it is conventional for him to continue serving as a governor after his term ends, precisely touch the boundaries of independence using personnel discourse; meanwhile, Waller being seen as a potential next chair further ties the issues of “who will take over” and “whether the policy will shift” into a single topic. Timiraos emphasized the Federal Reserve's affiliation to Congress serves as both a counter-narrative to this politicized discourse and a hint to the market: formally, independence still has a solid institutional shell; in substance, when politicians frequently point fingers at the Federal Reserve’s personnel and policy tendencies, investor trust in that shell may be eroded or forced to reassess — which also explains why every statement from Washington recently leaves a distinct crease on the interest rate expectation curve and risk asset pricing.

Interest Rate Paths and Personnel Games: How Wall Street and Crypto Price

For Wall Street, the straight line that Kashkari drew between war and inflation essentially reopened a crack in the “rate hike door.” The longer the war drags on, the slower the supply chain fixes, and input inflation bearing down frontally increases the odds that the Federal Reserve will have to maintain high interest rates or even hike rates once more. The interest rate swaps and futures curves were thus redrawn: the originally bet path of “reaching a peak soon and then easing” is forced to rise and lengthen, with the timeline for maintaining high rates being dragged to the right. The U.S. Treasury yield curve experienced a slope change in this repricing, one side worries about economic slowdown, while the other defends against nominal interest rate hikes, and risk assets reacted more directly — the volatility index rose, growth stocks and high-leverage assets were pressured first, and the market expressed its distrust toward the combination of “war inflation + open rate hike option” through prices.

Posen added fuel on another side. He openly “optimistically” anticipated Powell leaving the Federal Reserve in the short term and specifically named Waller as a potential next chair, exposing the personnel dispute to traders under the guise of institutional independence. Would the next chair be more hawkish or dovish? Before the data release, this had already been repeatedly simulated in the interest rate futures and swaps market: the same inflation path but different leadership styles meant different response functions, leading to a wider “tail” in forward rates along the curve, while the dollar, stock market, and credit spreads oscillated around that uncertainty. Posen's mention of “the futures market betting on falling oil prices” contrasts with Kashkari's caution regarding the pace of supply chain recovery — on one side is political-level anticipation of easing inflationary pressure, while on the other side is the monetary authority unwilling to give up precaution against re-inflation risks, and this split itself would be priced in.

Against this backdrop, crypto assets have become amplifiers of macro expectations swaying. Bitcoin, Ethereum, and others are viewed as high-risk assets that are extremely sensitive to changes in real interest rates and dollar liquidity: when the market raises the probability of “high rates lasting longer,” the reality often features drastic pullbacks amid amplified trading volumes, with leveraged funds being forcibly liquidated; once signs of easing oil prices and inflation expectations arise and the implied terminal rate of the interest rate curve is lowered, risk appetite rebounding will also quickly reflect on these high-beta varieties. From here, several broad scenarios can be outlined: first, if the war drags on, recovery from the supply chain slows, and the rate hike option Kashkari mentioned is genuinely triggered, then both U.S. Treasury yields and volatility will rise, and traditional risk assets and the crypto market will be under pressure simultaneously; second, if the war eases relatively quickly, coupled with the implied mid-term retreat of oil prices in futures, the market bets on inflation peaking, the Federal Reserve does not need to tighten again, the stock and bond markets resonate with “risk appetite returning,” while Bitcoin and Ethereum often see the greatest elastic response in this emotional recovery; third, if Powell's departure and Waller's succession smoothly conclude procedurally, maintaining the existing policy framework, uncertainty premiums will decrease, the interest rate curve will stabilize, and the crypto market will enter a period of oscillation more dependent on internal narratives under the premise of continued macro constraints; and fourth, if the personnel changes evolve into fierce political conflicts surrounding the independence of the Federal Reserve, both the interest rate path and institutional authority will become unanchored, causing further amplifications in the volatility of bond and stock markets, while crypto assets may react most intensely amidst a blend of safe haven and speculation to every subtle movement from Washington.

Under the Pressure Test of Independence, What Will the Federal Reserve Focus on Next

The current situation is essentially a “dual pressure test”: on one side, the war and supply chain shocks have lengthened the tail of inflation, and Kashkari has pointed out that even if fighting stops immediately, supply recovery will take “months” to calculate, making it difficult for the Federal Reserve to quickly withdraw from its tightening posture; on the other side, the uncertainties surrounding independence and personnel are escalating, as Posen openly discusses Powell's future and implies the potential for Waller's succession, which sharply contrasts with Timiraos's institutional-level emphasis that “independence comes from Congress, not the President.” What is truly being tested is not just how the next monetary policy meeting proceeds but whether the market can still believe that: the Federal Reserve will act according to its statutory goals and data, rather than according to political calendars. Moving forward, investors need to closely monitor several lines: whether there will be a turning point in the progress of the war and supply chain recovery, how U.S. inflation and employment data will respond to this external shock, whether the Federal Reserve's commentary and officials' statements will continue to uphold “institutional priority,” and what formal actions the White House and Congress will ultimately take regarding Powell and potential successors.

In the baseline scenario, as long as the war does not uncontrollably escalate, and the independence framework set by Congress is still generally respected, the path of interest rates will likely continue to be dominated by inflation and employment data — Kashkari retains the option for “necessary rate hikes,” while Posen's mention of falling oil prices hints that some funds are betting on easing mid-term inflation. Within this framework, medium-term interest rates are unlikely to swiftly drop significantly, and risk assets will need to find equilibrium under the premise of “high rates lasting longer”; however, before the institutional game and personnel arrangements settle, the market will demand higher risk compensation for “policy surprises” and “personnel surprises,” and the U.S. Treasury yield curve and risk asset pricing may repeatedly increase their premiums until clearer directions are seen from data and appointments. For crypto investors, this means that during a phase of resonance between macro and institutional uncertainties, the sensitivity of Bitcoin, Ethereum, and others to changes in real interest rates and dollar liquidity will be amplified, and volatility and correlations with traditional assets may also rise: first, control leverage to avoid high multiple positions before and after critical data and interest rate meetings; second, manage liquidity and margin to prioritize “survival” over “earning the last point”; third, align position allocation with the macro timeline, viewing war progress, inflation and employment data, Federal Reserve statements, and personnel appointments as triggers within the same trading calendar rather than solely focusing on industry narratives. During this period of pressure testing the Federal Reserve's independence, those who can incorporate both macro and institutional variables into their risk control framework are the ones who qualify to discuss “long-term layout” after the next round of volatility.

Join our community, let's discuss together and grow stronger!
Official Telegram community: https://t.me/aicoincn
AiCoin Chinese Twitter: https://x.com/AiCoinzh
OKX Benefits Group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=l61eM4owQ
Binance Benefits Group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=ynr7d1P6Z

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。