Introduction
A theory has gained traction among financial analysts and investors suggesting that the U.S. government, under the Trump administration, might be intentionally allowing or even engineering a stock market crash. The proposed motive? To drive down Treasury bond yields and make refinancing the country’s massive debt more affordable. This theory suggests that by inducing fear in the markets, investors will flee to the safety of bonds, pushing their prices up and yields down. A reduction in bond yields would then ease the government’s debt-servicing burden and potentially force the Federal Reserve into rate cuts.
While this idea may sound conspiratorial, there are valid macroeconomic concerns that make it worth exploring. The U.S. is facing an unprecedented $7 trillion in debt maturing within the next six months, and current high yields could dramatically increase borrowing costs. Given that bond yields have declined significantly following the recent stock market drop, the theory appears to have some supporting evidence.
This essay will examine the plausibility of this theory by analyzing recent trends in bond yields, liquidity cycles, and Federal Reserve policy, historical precedents of governments tolerating market pain for strategic reasons, expert opinions, including those of macro analysts like Raoul Pal and Anthony Pompliano, and alternative explanations for the market downturn.
Ultimately, we aim to determine whether this is a well-executed strategy or simply a natural macroeconomic response to policy decisions.
Understanding the Economic Context
1. The U.S. Debt Refinancing Crisis
The U.S. national debt stands at over $34 trillion, with an annual interest expense expected to surpass $1 trillion by 2026. Since the Federal Reserve aggressively raised interest rates in 2022-2023 to combat inflation, Treasury bond yields have remained elevated. In late 2024, 10-year Treasury yields peaked at 4.8%, making refinancing government debt increasingly expensive.
At the same time, economic data has pointed to slowing growth, causing fears of a potential recession. Investors are growing more cautious, and liquidity—measured by the availability of money in the financial system—has been tightening. In response, there has been speculation that Trump’s administration, facing a looming debt crisis, might be deliberately allowing the stock market to fall in order to force down interest rates and borrowing costs.
2. The Relationship Between Stock Markets and Bond Yields
There is a well-documented relationship between stock prices and bond yields. When stocks decline sharply, investors seek safe-haven assets like Treasury bonds, causing their prices to rise and yields to fall. This has been evident in recent months.
- As the S&P 500 declined nearly 8% from its all-time high, bond yields also dropped from 4.8% to around 4.2%.
- This is a typical pattern seen in financial markets during economic slowdowns or risk-off events.
The Federal Reserve also plays a role in this dynamic. Historically, when markets crash and recession risks rise, the Fed steps in with monetary easing—either through rate cuts or liquidity injections. If the U.S. government were intentionally engineering a market crash, it could be aiming to create conditions that force the Fed’s hand into cutting rates, which would further push yields down and make refinancing the debt more manageable.
Could the Government Be Engineering a Crash?
1. The Case for a Deliberate Market Decline
Proponents of the theory argue that Trump and his advisors are aware of the need to lower yields before refinancing the debt. Some key arguments include:
- Massive Refinancing Needs: With $7 trillion in debt maturing in six months, a drop in bond yields could save the government tens of billions in interest payments.
- Tariff and Trade War Tactics: Trump has a history of using tariff threats to gain economic leverage. Recently, his administration has hinted at new tariffs, which have spooked markets. Critics argue that these threats might be intentional to rattle investors.
- Fed Pressure: Trump has openly criticized high interest rates, arguing they are restricting economic growth. If the stock market tanks, the Fed may be forced into cutting rates, easing financial conditions and helping to lower bond yields.
Prominent Bitcoin investor Anthony Pompliano has been a leading advocate of this theory. He argues that the administration is “intentionally crashing markets” to force the Fed to act. The timing of events supports this claim.
- Market crash begins
- Bond yields drop significantly
- Trump administration remains silent instead of intervening
- No emergency measures taken to stabilize markets
This suggests that, at the very least, the government may be willing to tolerate market pain if it serves a larger strategic purpose.
2. Historical Precedents: Have Governments Done This Before?
While an outright engineered crash would be unprecedented, there are historical examples of governments tolerating market pain to achieve policy goals.
- 1929 – Federal Reserve Tightening: The Fed raised rates aggressively to curb speculation, helping trigger the Great Depression.
- 1980s – Paul Volcker’s Recession Strategy: The Fed induced back-to-back recessions to crush inflation, ultimately reducing long-term bond yields.
- 2019 – Trump’s Trade War Pressure: Trump’s tariff threats spooked markets, leading to bond yield declines, which eventually prompted the Fed to cut rates.
These examples show that economic policymakers have, at times, accepted short-term pain to achieve longer-term financial stability.
Counterarguments: Is This Just a Normal Macro Cycle?
1. Raoul Pal’s Liquidity Theory
Raoul Pal, a respected macro investor, doesn’t buy into the idea of a deliberate crash. Instead, he attributes the recent market turmoil to liquidity cycles.
- The Fed tightened aggressively in 2022-23, which has naturally slowed economic growth and led to a stock market correction.
- As liquidity contracts, risk assets like stocks decline, while safe-haven assets like bonds rally (causing yields to fall).
- Historically, the Fed always pivots toward easing when financial conditions tighten too much, and that is likely what we are seeing now.
2. Other Macroeconomic Explanations
Several mainstream economists argue that the stock market drop and bond yield decline are happening for traditional reasons, not due to government manipulation.
- Recession Fears: Growth is slowing, and earnings revisions are coming down, making stocks less attractive.
- Interest Rates Too High: The Fed’s restrictive policy has naturally pushed the economy toward a correction.
- Normal Flight to Safety: Investors fleeing stocks and buying bonds is a typical recessionary pattern, not evidence of a conspiracy.
Additionally, financial conditions have been relatively loose despite high rates, meaning the Fed might have seen a stock market correction as a necessary rebalancing rather than an orchestrated event.
Conclusion: Intentional Crash or Market Forces?
The idea that the U.S. government is crashing the stock market to lower yields is provocative but speculative. There are valid incentives for policymakers to desire lower yields, given the looming debt refinancing crisis. However, macroeconomic fundamentals also support the recent market moves. Liquidity tightening, recession fears, and Fed policy are all sufficient explanations for the current stock and bond trends. While the government might be tolerating the decline, active manipulation remains unproven. The Fed’s response will be critical—if rate cuts come soon, this theory gains credibility.
Regardless of intent, one thing is clear: lower bond yields benefit the U.S. government’s debt burden. Whether engineered or coincidental, the market downturn may ultimately achieve the administration’s desired financial outcome.
For investors, this period of volatility underscores the importance of understanding macroeconomic cycles. Whether the market is being manipulated or simply following historical patterns, the best strategy remains the same: stay informed, hedge risks, and be prepared for policy shifts that will inevitably follow.
UPDATE 9TH ARPIL – The Dollar’s Overvaluation Crisis: Stephen Miran’s Vision and Trump’s Tariff Gambit
As the U.S. stock market reels from a $2.4 trillion wipeout in April 2025—its worst performance since 2020—President Donald Trump’s latest round of tariffs, launched on April 2 and dubbed “Liberation Day,” has ignited a firestorm of debate. These sweeping levies, targeting not just China but allies like Canada, Mexico, and the European Union, have erased market gains, sparked recession fears, and drawn threats of retaliation from global powers. Yet beneath the chaos lies a deeper strategy, one shaped by Stephen Miran, Trump’s Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers, whose November 2024 paper, A User’s Guide to Restructuring the Global Trading System, offers a radical diagnosis of America’s economic woes: the overvaluation of the U.S. dollar. Miran’s influence—and his proposed “Mar-a-Lago Accord”—may explain why Trump is doubling down on tariffs, risking short-term pain for a long-term reimagining of global trade.
The Core Argument: The Dollar’s Overvaluation Problem
At the heart of Miran’s thinking is a critique of the U.S. dollar’s status as the world’s reserve currency—a privilege that, he argues, has become a curse. Drawing on the “Triffin Dilemma”—a 1960s theory by economist Robert Triffin—Miran contends that the dollar’s dominance forces the U.S. to run persistent trade deficits to supply the world with currency. Foreign nations, from Japan to Saudi Arabia, hoard dollars by snapping up U.S. Treasury securities, keeping the dollar artificially strong. In 2024 alone, the U.S. trade deficit topped $800 billion, a symptom of this imbalance.
This overvaluation, Miran warns, is strangling American competitiveness. A strong dollar makes U.S. exports—like cars, steel, and tech—pricier on the global stage, while flooding the country with cheap imports. The result? A hollowed-out manufacturing base, lost jobs in Rust Belt states, and a reliance on foreign supply chains exposed during crises like COVID-19. For decades, Wall Street thrived on this system, but Main Street bore the cost. Miran’s paper calls this unsustainable—a structural flaw past administrations ignored in favor of free-market dogma. His solution? Break the cycle, even if it means shaking the world economy to its core.
Stephen Miran’s Influence: From Theory to Trump’s Playbook
Miran, a former Wall Street strategist turned White House insider, isn’t just theorizing from an ivory tower. His appointment in Trump’s second term reflects the president’s appetite for bold, nationalist fixes—a stark contrast to the technocratic consensus of prior decades. Published just months before Trump’s January 2025 inauguration, Miran’s paper caught the eye of a leader eager to deliver on promises of industrial revival. Now, as tariffs dominate headlines, Miran’s fingerprints are unmistakable.
His strategy hinges on three pillars. First, tariffs—not as an end, but as a means. They raise revenue (Trump’s first-term China tariffs netted over $80 billion), protect domestic industries by making imports costlier, and arm the U.S. with leverage to force concessions from trading partners. Second, currency realignment—weakening the dollar to boost exports, potentially through a modern-day Plaza Accord-style deal. Third, security-trade linkage—tying U.S. defense commitments (think NATO or Asian bases) to economic cooperation, a controversial twist that weaponizes America’s global clout.
Trump’s April 2025 tariffs, hitting 34% on Chinese goods and extending to allies, align with this vision. They’re broader and bolder than his first-term trade war, reflecting Miran’s call for systemic change over isolated wins. The market’s panic—coupled with a sharply weakening dollar—suggests the administration is betting on short-term disruption to renegotiate the rules of global trade. Whether this is deliberate or a chaotic byproduct, Miran’s influence looms large.
The “Mar-a-Lago Accord”: A Blueprint for Rebalancing
Central to Miran’s plan is the “Mar-a-Lago Accord,” a proposed framework named after Trump’s Florida estate—a nod to his dealmaking persona. Inspired by the 1985 Plaza Accord, where G5 nations weakened the dollar by 40% to curb Japan’s export surge, this modern analog aims to devalue the dollar, rebalance trade, and revive U.S. industry. It’s not a signed pact yet, but a strategic “North Star” buzzing in financial circles.
The Accord’s mechanics are ambitious. It would pressure allies—Japan, Germany, South Korea—to appreciate their currencies (yen, euro, won) while the U.S. eases dollar strength. Tariffs serve as the stick, threatening economic pain unless partners comply. A key twist: restructuring U.S. debt. Foreign banks hold over $7 trillion in Treasuries, much of it short-term, fueling constant dollar demand as they roll over maturing securities. Miran wants them to swap these for long-term bonds (e.g., 10- or 30-year notes), reducing frequent dollar buying and calming its value—a subtle but potent shift.
Unlike the cooperative Plaza Accord, the Mar-a-Lago vision is coercive, blending tariffs with hints of security leverage (e.g., “pay more for U.S. troops or face trade barriers”). It’s a nationalist break from decades of dollar-driven globalization, aiming to relocate production stateside and narrow deficits. Critics call it reckless; supporters see it as a overdue reckoning.
Context: Trump’s Tariffs in 2025
Trump’s current tariff blitz—unleashed just three months into his second term—feels like Miran’s theory in action. The April 2 rollout, targeting a wider net than his 2018 China-focused levies, has triggered a market meltdown and a 60% recession probability from analysts. China’s retaliatory 34% tariff on U.S. goods and threats from the EU signal a brewing trade war. Yet the dollar’s sharp drop and easing financial conditions hint at alignment with Miran’s goals, intentional or not.
In Trump’s first term, tariffs dented stock values and hit corporate profits, but the reaction was muted compared to today’s carnage. The difference? Scale and scope. The 2025 tariffs are a systemic shock, not a bilateral spat, reflecting Miran’s push for wholesale restructuring. Recession fears dominate headlines, but some investors—like crypto enthusiasts—see opportunity, betting a weaker dollar and rising liquidity will fuel asset rallies once the dust settles.
Risks and Rewards
Miran admits the path is narrow. Tariffs could spike inflation, disrupt supply chains, and provoke a global slowdown—echoes of the 1930s Smoot-Hawley debacle. Allies might resist currency shifts, and U.S. consumers could chafe at higher prices. Yet if successful, the payoff is a revitalized American heartland, a leaner trade deficit, and a dollar reflecting economic reality—not reserve status.
Trump’s pursuit of this vision—whether he names it “Mar-a-Lago” or not—remains a gamble. The tariffs are real; their fallout is immediate. But Miran’s influence suggests a bigger game: using America’s economic might to rewrite the rules, risking chaos for a shot at renewal. As markets tremble and the world watches, the question lingers: Is this bold strategy or reckless brinkmanship?