Which is weirder, the fact that the president just suggested he might use a military intervention to stabilize the bond market, or the fact that almost no one seemed to notice?

When I say no one, obviously I don't mean social media, where for every event you can find someone who made a note of it.

Reporter on Bond Market: The yields have come back up since then. Have you talked to Bessent about another type of intervention.? Trump: The ultimate intervention is our military. And if we have to use that, we will.

[image or embed]

— Acyn (@acyn.bsky.social) August 21, 2026 at 2:26 PM

Some of the commenters reading just the tweet assumed that the president was confused and thought the reporter was talking about something else, but based on the entire exchange, it is obvious he was talking about Secretary Bessent's recent failed attempts to stabilize the bond market.

(Also note the characteristic way that Trump throws his underling under the bus, before the obligatory "I have total faith in the guy.")

From Mediaite:

Taking questions on the tarmac before boarding Air Force One on Friday afternoon, Trump was asked by a reporter whether he had directed Bessent to intervene and whether the move was his idea.

"No," the president replied. "Not at all. No, he's a very capable man. He wanted to do it. He's very good at it. He is a good touch. Very good natural touch for the bonds and interest. And he did that? Yeah."

The reporter followed up, noting that "yields have come back up since then."

She then asked: "Have you talked to him about another type of intervention? Is that something he will be doing?"

"We have many types of intervention. That's one," Trump said, adding: "The ultimate intervention is our military. And if we have to use that, we will."

Outside of social media and the cable shows that actually aired the clip, there was next to no coverage of the statement from major publications, and what little there was focused on the first half and completely omitted the batshit-crazy military part. Last time I checked, I couldn't find any mention of it whatsoever in The New York Times. This is, of course, the epitome of sanewashing: simply not mentioning the crazy part.

Based on most reporting, unless you take a deep dive, it's easy to get the impression that the Federal Reserve determines interest rates in general. What the Fed sets is the overnight rate. If you want to buy a car, get a mortgage, or service the national debt, you're interested in long-term interest rates, and while the Fed does have some influence, at the end of the day, those are set by the markets, and right now the markets are not happy.

It does not help that we have a president who has repeatedly said that you should lower rates when the economy is running hot, exactly the opposite of what the econ textbooks tell you, or that we have a $40 trillion national debt, that Fed independence has been undermined to a degree we haven't seen since the Nixon administration, or that even the former mentors of the Secretary of the Treasury are publicly saying that he's on the wrong track.

Robin (obviously not his real name) Wigglesworth writing for FT Alphaville. 

Stanley Druckenmiller is not only a bona fide Wall Street legend, the hedge fund manager is also a longtime mentor of both US Treasury secretary Scott Bessent and Fed chair Kevin Warsh. 

Bessent himself told the FT last year that “in macro, there’s Stan and then everybody else”. Which is why this must be exceptionally embarrassing for the protégé: 

The Treasury Department announced on Aug. 19 that it would double the size of its long-dated bond buybacks, from $2 billion to at least $4 billion per operation, aimed at the 10- to 30-year sector and running from Sept. 9 through Nov. 4. The announcement came after the 30-year yield touched a 19-year high. Yields fell within minutes. By the next afternoon they had round-tripped to levels above where they started. The market’s verdict was swift and correct: This wasn’t liquidity management, it was price management — and a mistake far larger than $4 billion suggests. . . . 

The bond market wasn’t being a vigilante, as some would argue. It was being a pushover that had finally begun to clear its throat, and Treasury moved to quiet even that. . . . 

Every basis point of artificial yield suppression is a subsidy to procrastination. Suppressed long rates sugarcoat the interest-cost projections, shrink the apparent urgency, and let incumbents assure voters the debt is someone else’s problem. If Congress and the administration are unlikely to touch entitlements even with the market’s signal, they are certain not to touch them without one. Whatever this operation saves in basis points, it will cost multiples in delay. 

Yes, yes, there are some tell-tale signs of AI involvement in this WSJ op-ed, but it still sends a pretty powerful signal. Druckenmiller has been studious about not criticising either of his influential protégés — with whom he has reportedly kept in regular touch — and putting his name on this is quite the slap. 

We'll let Patrick Boyle have the last word.