El candidato del Banco Federal de Trump: Implicaciones de la política monetaria, la inflación y el mercado de acciones para el año 2026

As the Trump administration nears its decision on the next Federal Reserve Chair, the stakes for monetary policy, inflation, and equity markets have never been higher. With Kevin Hassett and Kevin Warsh emerging as the top contenders, the choice will shape the trajectory of U.S. economic policy in 2026. This analysis examines the policy leanings of the leading candidates, contextualizes their potential impacts through historical Fed transitions, and evaluates the implications for investors.

The Contenders: Dovish Leanings and Policy Priorities

Kevin Hassett, the frontrunner with 50% odds on prediction markets, has been vocal in his advocacy for aggressive rate cuts. He recently called for a 50-basis-point reduction in December 2025, double the typical 25-basis-point move, arguing that the Fed's current approach is "partisan" and misaligned with economic realities. His dovish stance aligns with Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent's vision of a Fed that plays a subdued role in managing inflation, prioritizing growth over strict price stability.

Kevin Warsh, with 42% odds, shares a similar dovish outlook but brings a more academic and institutional background. A former Fed governor, Warsh has criticized the Fed's handling of inflation under Jerome Powell, arguing that inflation is a policy choice rather than an exogenous shock. His experience in both public and private sectors positions him as a pragmatic candidate who could balance Trump's economic agenda with institutional credibility.

Christopher Waller, a current Fed governor, has also advocated for rate cuts, emphasizing the fragility of the labor market and the need for proactive policy. However, his 6% odds reflect the political calculus of Trump's preference for loyalists over technocrats. Rick Rieder, with 2% odds, remains a long shot despite his finance expertise, underscoring the administration's focus on ideological alignment over institutional continuity.

Historical Precedents: Fed Transitions and Market Reactions

The transition of Federal Reserve Chairs has historically influenced monetary policy and market dynamics. For example, Paul Volcker's 1979 appointment marked a turning point in combating the Great Inflation, with aggressive rate hikes restoring price stability but at the cost of a severe recession. Conversely, Alan Greenspan's 1987 tenure began amid the Black Monday crash, where his swift liquidity injections-later dubbed the "Greenspan put"-stabilized markets and reinforced the Fed's role as an emergency lender.

Janet Yellen's 2014 transition highlighted the challenges of unwinding unconventional policies. Her cautious approach to tapering quantitative easing and maintaining low rates amid persistently low inflation demonstrated the Fed's adaptability to external shocks, such as falling energy prices and a strong dollar. These case studies underscore how new chairs often face immediate market volatility and require a delicate balance between policy normalization and economic stability.

Policy Implications for 2026: Dovish Fed and Inflation Risks

If Trump selects a dovish nominee like Hassett or Warsh, the Fed's 2026 policy trajectory will likely prioritize growth over inflation control. Hassett's call for a 50-basis-point cut in December 2025 signals a departure from the Fed's recent 2% inflation target, favoring a more accommodative stance to support the labor market. Warsh's emphasis on viewing tariffs as temporary price-level effects further suggests a willingness to tolerate higher inflation in the short term.

Historically, dovish Fed chairs have coincided with equity market rallies. Greenspan's tenure, for instance, saw the S&P 500 climb to record highs during Trump's first term, despite volatility from trade wars. A similar pattern could emerge in 2026, with rate cuts boosting asset valuations and corporate borrowing. However, this approach risks reigniting inflationary pressures, particularly if global supply chains remain fragile or energy prices rebound.

Equity Market Volatility and Political Uncertainty

The Trump administration's public pressure on the Fed, as seen during Jerome Powell's tenure, introduces additional volatility. Studies show that Trump's social media activity directly influenced equity market swings, with spikes in the VIX (volatility index) following his tweets. A Fed chair perceived as politically aligned with the administration could exacerbate this dynamic, as investors price in the risk of policy decisions being swayed by political agendas rather than economic data.

Moreover, the Fed's recent shift away from the Flexible Average Inflation Targeting framework-reaffirming a strict 2% target-adds another layer of complexity. A dovish chair might clash with this framework, potentially creating uncertainty about the Fed's commitment to price stability. Such ambiguity could weigh on long-term bond yields and corporate borrowing costs, even as equities benefit from short-term liquidity.

Investment Strategy: Navigating the New Normal

For investors, the key takeaway is to prepare for a Fed that prioritizes growth over inflation control in 2026. A dovish chair would likely support equities through lower interest rates and accommodative monetary policy, echoing the market resilience seen during Trump's first term. However, this environment could also lead to uneven sector performance, with growth stocks (e.g., tech) outperforming value sectors (e.g., energy) as inflation expectations remain anchored.

On the flip side, a hawkish chair-though unlikely given the current shortlist-would tighten financial conditions, potentially triggering a market correction. Investors should monitor the Fed's balance sheet normalization and inflation data closely, as deviations from the 2% target could force policy adjustments.

Conclusion

The choice of Trump's next Fed Chair will have profound implications for monetary policy, inflation, and equity markets in 2026. With Hassett and Warsh as the leading candidates, the Fed is poised to adopt a dovish stance, prioritizing growth and labor market stability. While this could fuel equity market gains, it also introduces risks of inflationary pressures and political volatility. Investors must remain agile, balancing exposure to rate-sensitive sectors with hedging strategies to mitigate potential shocks.