THE NEUTRAL RATE AT THE FAULT LINE
R* After the Second Warsh FOMC Meeting, the Return of the Iran War, and the Road to G20 Miami
An Integrated Analytical Report Bridging the G7 Évian and G20 Miami Frameworks
Prepared for the G20 Miami Summit, Trump National Doral, 14–15 December 2026
Integrates and updates the G7 Évian Report (“The Moving Star: R* and the G7 in 2026,” through 30 May 2026)
Updated through 29 July 2026
Farid Novin
Executive Summary
This report integrates and updates two prior analytical products into a single framework for G20 leaders assembling in Miami: the G7 Évian report of 30 May 2026, “The Moving Star: R* and the G7 in 2026,” and the shorter note on the neutral rate of interest (r*) following the second FOMC meeting under Chairman Kevin Warsh. Two months separate the two source documents, and both the monetary and geopolitical baselines they rested on have shifted materially. This version reconciles the two Bayesian frameworks, corrects several factual points in the shorter note against verified reporting, and carries the analysis through 29 July 2026 — the date of Chairman Warsh’s second FOMC meeting and, within the same forty-eight hours, the collapse of the fragile US–Iran ceasefire that had held, imperfectly, since 8 April.
Three developments dominate the update. First, the 29 July FOMC produced the most unified hawkish dissent since September 2016: three regional Reserve Bank presidents — Beth Hammack (Cleveland), Neel Kashkari (Minneapolis), and Lorie Logan (Dallas) — voted together for an immediate quarter-point hike against a 9–3 majority that held the federal funds rate at 3.50–3.75 percent for a fifth consecutive meeting. Markets read this not as reassurance but as a signal: the Dow fell more than 1,150 points on the day, its worst session since April 2026, the 30-year Treasury yield touched a nineteen-year high near 5.2 percent, and CME-implied odds of a September hike moved above 57 percent. Second, the ceasefire that had anchored the disinflation narrative since April broke down on the night of 28–29 July, when Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps launched ballistic missiles at US forces in Jordan following joint US–Saudi strikes on Iran-backed militias in Iraq. Brent crude, which had fallen to a two-week low near $84 a barrel earlier in the week, jumped back above $86–$88 within hours. Third, the tariff architecture underlying both reports has been reconstructed on new legal footing: the Supreme Court’s 20 February 2026 ruling in Learning Resources v. Trump permanently struck down tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, and the administration has since rebuilt a comparable tariff wall using Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 and, for the first time in US history, Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930 against Canada.
Set against this backdrop, the Bayesian scenario framework developed for Évian is revised upward in probability mass toward the High Neutral / New Paradigm scenario and, to a lesser degree, toward the Fiscal Dominance Break tail. The probability-weighted posterior estimate for US real r* is revised to approximately 1.55–1.85 percent, modestly above the Évian estimate of 1.45–1.70 percent. The central conclusion carried into the G20 Miami proceedings is that Chairman Warsh’s strategy of withdrawing forward guidance — designed to let the bond market do the Fed’s tightening work without further hikes — is now being tested simultaneously by an internal hawkish revolt and an external supply shock that neither he nor the three dissenting presidents fully control. The era of costless capital, provisionally pronounced over in the Évian report, has not been reopened by subsequent events; if anything, it has been more firmly closed.
I. From Évian to Miami: The Structural Baseline
The Évian report established a Bayesian framework treating the neutral rate of interest — r*, the real policy rate consistent with full employment and stable inflation — as a genuinely uncertain, dynamically updating quantity rather than a fixed structural parameter. Four scenarios anchored that framework: Secular Stagnation Persistence (a return to post-2008 low-r* conditions), Moderate Structural Shift (the base case, reflecting AI investment and fiscal deficits pushing r* moderately higher), High Neutral / New Paradigm (a durable regime shift driven by AI capital expenditure, tariffs, and energy volatility), and Fiscal Dominance Break (a tail scenario in which US fiscal and institutional strain overwhelms the ordinary monetary-fiscal separation). As of 30 May 2026, the probability-weighted posterior real r* for the United States stood at approximately 1.45 to 1.70 percent, itself an upward revision from the framework’s original February 2026 estimate.
Three analytical inputs did the most work in that revision: the Iran War oil shock that began on 28 February 2026 and drove Brent crude briefly above $115 a barrel; Kevin Warsh’s confirmation as Federal Reserve Chair on the narrowest Senate margin in the institution’s history (54–45), inheriting an FOMC that had produced four dissents at its April meeting, the most since 1992; and Chicago Fed President Austan Goolsbee’s theoretical intervention at the Bank of Japan–IMES Conference in Tokyo on 27 May 2026, which argued that anticipated — as distinct from realised — AI productivity gains generate a demand-side wealth effect that can overheat the economy and require higher, not lower, near-term rates. That argument, elaborated at the Milken Institute Global Conference earlier in May, directly contested the Warsh–Treasury view, associated with Secretary Scott Bessent, that AI investment is unambiguously disinflationary and creates room to cut.
The present report treats the Évian framework as the structural baseline and asks what the events of June and July 2026 — culminating in the second Warsh FOMC meeting and the collapse of the Iran ceasefire on 28–29 July — imply for the posterior distribution G20 leaders will inherit when they convene in Miami in December.
II. The Second Warsh FOMC: Anatomy of 29 July 2026
The Federal Open Market Committee met on 28–29 July 2026, Chairman Warsh’s second meeting since his swearing-in on 15 May. The Committee voted 9–3 to hold the federal funds rate at 3.50–3.75 percent, its fifth consecutive hold. The headline outcome was unsurprising — the CME FedWatch tool had assigned roughly a one-in-three probability to a surprise hike, while prediction markets leaned more heavily toward a hold — but the composition of the dissent was not. Cleveland Fed President Beth Hammack, Minneapolis Fed President Neel Kashkari, and Dallas Fed President Lorie Logan each voted to raise the target range by twenty-five basis points, marking the first time since September 2016 that three FOMC members dissented in the same direction. Central Banking’s reporting quoted Chairman Warsh describing the internal discussion as “collegial and constructive,” a characterisation at odds with the market’s reaction to the outcome.
The post-meeting statement was, consistent with the pattern set at Warsh’s first meeting, markedly shorter than statements issued under his predecessor and offered no explicit forward guidance on the path of rates. Warsh has institutionalised this shift through a set of internal task forces — on AI and growth, on the Fed’s inflation framework, and on the frequency and format of press conferences — that are due to report later in 2026 and into 2027. Analysts covering the meeting noted that a hike at this stage would have implicitly foreclosed the conclusions those task forces are intended to reach, giving Warsh a structural incentive to hold even as three of his most vocal colleagues pushed the other way.
“This FOMC, this board, has been in business for eight and a half weeks. The impatience that households and businesses feel has been going for 63 months.” — Chairman Kevin Warsh, press conference, 29 July 2026
“The path to central bank heaven requires delivering on our remit. These days, that means delivering on price stability. I wouldn’t measure that path on 42 days or any one particular meeting.” — Chairman Kevin Warsh, referring to the interval since his first meeting
Market reaction was unambiguous. The Dow Jones Industrial Average fell more than 1,150 points (2.19 percent) on 29 July, its worst single session since April 2026; the S&P 500 declined 1.52 percent and the Nasdaq Composite 1.74 percent, leaving the Nasdaq roughly 9.8 percent below its early-June record and on the edge of a technical correction. The ten-year Treasury yield rose five basis points to 4.657 percent, the two-year yield fell four basis points to 4.236 percent, and the thirty-year bond yield climbed more than nine basis points to 5.193 percent — within reach of a nineteen-year high. Ian Lyngen, head of US rates at BMO Capital Markets, characterised the Committee as one “with vocal hawks,” while noting the majority continued to side with Warsh in awaiting the July and August CPI reports before the September meeting. CME-implied odds of a September rate increase rose above 57 percent in the meeting’s immediate aftermath.
For the Bayesian framework, the significance of the July meeting lies less in the headline hold than in what the dissent reveals about the distribution of beliefs inside the institution charged with anchoring r* expectations. A unified three-vote hawkish dissent, unseen in nearly a decade, is itself a strong signal that a meaningful bloc of policymakers judges current rates insufficiently restrictive relative to their own internal estimate of neutral — reinforcing, rather than resolving, the uncertainty the Évian report identified in the dispersion of formal r* models.
III. The Renewed Iran War: From Fragile Ceasefire to Resumed Strikes
The Évian report treated the Iran War, which began on 28 February 2026, as a supply shock that was serious but ultimately transitory — a conflict that had produced a conditional two-week ceasefire on 8 April, brokered with Pakistani mediation, under which Brent crude fell from roughly $109 to $92 a barrel and Iran agreed, provisionally, to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. That ceasefire proved durable in name only. Through the late spring and summer it was punctuated by tanker seizures, mariner casualties in the Hormuz approaches, and militia drone attacks from Iraq that Washington treated as continuing IRGC aggression by proxy. By late July, Brent had climbed back above $100 a barrel at a fresh peak before easing toward $84 in the days immediately preceding the FOMC meeting, as diplomats worked, without success, to restore the pause.
The ceasefire collapsed outright on the night of 28–29 July. US and Saudi forces conducted joint strikes against Iran-backed militias in Iraq, killing at least twenty fighters and six Iranian advisers, in response to what US Central Command described as more than thirty militia drone attacks in the preceding seventy-two hours. Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps retaliated hours later, launching ballistic missiles at US forces at Jordan’s Muwaffaq Salti Air Base and a CENTCOM facility; Jordanian and US authorities reported that all incoming missiles were intercepted, with no casualties. President Trump, speaking at the NATO summit in Turkey earlier in the episode, had already declared the ceasefire “over” and dismissed further negotiation with Tehran as “a waste of time.” Iran separately rejected an Omani proposal for joint fifty-fifty management of the Strait of Hormuz, and the IRGC claimed to have struck three oil tankers in the waterway on 29 July, without casualties. Independent tallies place mariner deaths from Hormuz-related incidents since the April ceasefire at fourteen or more.
Oil markets moved accordingly. Brent, which had fallen to a two-week low of roughly $84.09 a barrel on 28 July amid hopes that the US had paused its bombing campaign to reassess strategy, jumped 3 to 5 percent within hours of the missile exchange, trading in the high $86 to $88 range by the afternoon of 29 July. This is the fourth distinct escalation-and-de-escalation cycle since the war began five months ago, and each cycle has left the average price level for both Brent and WTI durably above the pre-war baseline even as peaks and troughs vary widely. For the r* debate, the renewed strikes matter in the same way the original shock did in the Évian analysis, but with less remaining credibility for the “transitory” characterisation: a conflict now in its sixth month, with a ceasefire that has failed to hold twice under real testing, is harder to model as a one-off supply disruption and easier to model as a recurring tax on global energy markets — precisely the kind of persistent cost-push pressure that complicates the Goolsbee framework’s already-delicate distinction between anticipated-productivity inflation and supply-driven inflation.
IV. The Tariff Patchwork: From IEEPA to Section 301 and Section 338
Both source documents referred to tariffs in general terms; the legal architecture underneath them has since been substantially rebuilt and warrants precision, not least because it bears directly on Canada and other G20 members whose political economies are treated elsewhere in this analyst’s work. On 20 February 2026, the Supreme Court ruled 6–3 in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump (consolidated with V.O.S. Selections) that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not authorise the president to impose broad, open-ended tariffs — a power the Court held is reserved to Congress. The ruling permanently invalidated the 10 percent global reciprocal tariff and the higher country-specific rates layered on top of it (46 percent on Vietnam, 36 percent on Thailand, 32 percent on Taiwan, 25 percent on South Korea, 20 percent on the European Union, and the compounded China-specific rates), and opened the door to tens of billions of dollars in potential refund claims.
The administration did not treat the ruling as terminal. Within hours, President Trump signed a new 10 percent global tariff under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 — a narrower authority capped at 150 days absent congressional extension — and soon after floated raising the rate to 15 percent. Section 232 national-security tariffs on steel and aluminium (50 percent), copper (50 percent), semiconductors (25 percent), and lumber (10 percent), resting on separate statutory authority, remained untouched by the ruling throughout. As the Section 122 authority approached its 150-day expiration around 24 July 2026, the administration rolled out a replacement structure: baseline duties of 10 to 12.5 percent under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, differentiated according to whether trading partners have implemented bans on forced labour, applied indefinitely to fifty-nine countries and the European Union following formal Section 301 investigations. Separately, and more consequentially for North American economic relations, the White House invoked Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930 for the first time in its ninety-six-year history to impose 50 percent retaliatory tariffs on Canadian goods — a step that escalates, rather than resolves, the CUSMA-era frictions already analysed in this analyst’s comparative work on Canadian and Danish exposure to US sovereignty coercion paired with tariff pressure.
For the r* framework, the shift from a single sweeping IEEPA levy to a patchwork of Section 301, Section 232, and Section 338 measures does not change the basic direction of the effect — tariffs remain a persistent, supply-side inflationary pressure, as the original G20 note correctly noted — but it changes the character of the uncertainty. A single emergency-powers tariff can be reversed by a single stroke of executive discretion or a single court ruling; a lattice of statute-specific tariffs, each resting on its own investigatory record and procedural runway, is considerably stickier and harder to unwind quickly, which argues for treating tariff-driven inflation as a more durable, rather than more transitory, input to the neutral-rate calculus than the Évian and G20 notes separately assumed.
V. The Goolsbee Framework, Restated and Tested
Chicago Fed President Austan Goolsbee’s argument, first developed at the Milken Institute Global Conference on 6 May and elaborated in Tokyo on 27 May, remains the single most important analytical addition to the r* debate carried over from the Évian report, and nothing in the intervening two months has weakened it. Goolsbee’s distinction is between unexpected and anticipated productivity growth. Alan Greenspan’s mid-1990s insight was that productivity had already risen before the data confirmed it — a genuine surprise that expanded supply ahead of demand and was, in consequence, disinflationary. The AI narrative of 2026 is structurally different: it is fully priced into equity valuations, corporate investment plans, and household expectations before the productivity gains have shown up in aggregate output. Anticipation of future wealth generates present-day consumption and investment — a wealth effect that pulls demand forward and can overheat the economy well before AI’s supply-side benefits materialise.
Goolsbee’s own framing, delivered in Tokyo, is direct: future productivity gains that are expected to make households richer can inflate equity valuations today, and people who believe they will be wealthier in the future may spend against that expectation now, ahead of any actual increase in output. The policy implication he draws is correspondingly direct — that the larger the AI narrative looms in public and market expectations, the higher, not lower, near-term rates may need to be to prevent overheating, a conclusion that stands in direct tension with the Warsh–Bessent “stronger, not hotter” thesis under which AI-driven productivity is assumed to justify rate cuts.
The renewed Iran War strengthens rather than weakens Goolsbee’s argument, for the same reason identified in the Évian analysis: a negative supply shock reduces near-term potential output at precisely the moment anticipated-productivity effects are adding to near-term demand. The result, in Goolsbee’s own vocabulary, is a stagflationary configuration in which the central bank confronts a simultaneous reduction in what the economy can produce and an increase in what it wants to spend. The three hawkish dissents at the July FOMC are broadly consistent with a committee bloc that has internalised some version of this logic, whether or not its members would frame it in Goolsbee’s specific theoretical terms; Logan’s public statements calling for “modestly” higher rates, and Hammack and Kashkari’s parallel positioning, read as a practical expression of exactly the overheating risk Goolsbee has been describing since May.
VI. Updated Bayesian Game-Theoretic Scenario Analysis
This section reconciles the two prior Bayesian treatments into a single framework: the four structural r* scenarios developed for Évian, and the three-player strategic game — the Federal Reserve under Warsh, the bond market, and the fiscal authority represented at the G20 — developed in the shorter G20 note. The structural scenarios describe where r* is likely to settle; the strategic game describes how the Fed, the market, and fiscal policymakers interact, under incomplete information, to discover that level over the next six months.
The Players and the Information Problem
The Federal Reserve under Warsh seeks to anchor inflation at 2 percent and establish institutional credibility without triggering an unnecessary recession, while deliberately withholding forward guidance so that the task forces he has convened can complete their work without being pre-empted by a single rate decision. The bond market seeks to price duration correctly despite not knowing the Fed’s true reaction function or its internal estimate of neutral, and must now do so while pricing in a demonstrated, unified hawkish bloc on the Committee itself. The fiscal authority — both the US Treasury under Secretary Bessent and, more broadly, the G20 host presidency — seeks maximum near-term growth and technological leadership ahead of the December summit, through deregulation, energy expansion, and AI investment that are each independently expansionary in the near term even if disinflationary over a longer horizon.
Historically, as the Évian report noted, the bond market held a prior belief that the Fed tolerated inflation modestly above its 2 percent target. Warsh’s rhetoric, the elimination of forward guidance, and now the three hawkish dissents at the July meeting all function as signals designed to force an update of that prior. The information problem, however, cuts both ways: because Warsh has withdrawn forward guidance, the market must infer the Fed’s reaction function almost entirely from the pattern of votes and dissents rather than from stated intentions — and a unified three-vote hawkish minority is a considerably stronger signal than a single dissent would be, precisely because unity among three separately-appointed regional presidents is difficult to attribute to idiosyncratic local conditions.
Revised Scenario Weights
Scenario I — Secular Stagnation Persistence: Revised weight approximately 10–12 percent (down from 15 percent at Évian and 20 percent in the original February framework). A renewed war shock, a fifth consecutive rate hold accompanied by a historically unified hawkish dissent, and a tariff architecture that has proven durable rather than transitory all argue against a return to post-2008 low-r* conditions in the near term. The Holston-Laubach-Williams model’s sub-1-percent reading, and the Bank of Japan’s continued position near 0.75 percent, remain the strongest empirical anchors for this scenario, but the balance of new evidence since May has moved further away from it. Implied real r* range: 0.4–0.8 percent.
Scenario II — Moderate Structural Shift (base case): Revised weight approximately 38–40 percent (down modestly from 45 percent at Évian). This remains the probability-weighted centre of mass, accommodating a genuine AI- and deficit-driven structural shift while treating both the renewed war and the tariff patchwork as significant but not regime-defining complications. The July FOMC’s continued hold at 3.50–3.75 percent, alongside the still-standing March 2026 SEP long-run dot of 3.1 percent nominal, remains broadly consistent with this scenario, though the erosion in weight reflects the growing plausibility of the more hawkish alternative below. Implied real r* range: 1.25–1.85 percent.
Scenario III — High Neutral / New Paradigm: Revised weight approximately 32–35 percent (up from 28 percent at Évian and 25 percent in February). This is the largest single revision in the framework. Three independent forces now point the same direction: Goolsbee’s anticipated-productivity-inflation mechanism, still unresolved and, if anything, reinforced by the renewed war; the historically unified hawkish dissent at the July FOMC, which signals that a meaningful bloc inside the Committee already believes current policy is insufficiently restrictive; and a tariff regime that has proven structurally durable rather than a one-time IEEPA shock. September hike odds above 57 percent following the July meeting are themselves a market-side echo of this shift. Implied real r* range: 2.00–2.60 percent.
Scenario IV — Fiscal Dominance Break (tail risk): Revised weight approximately 14–16 percent (up from 12 percent at Évian and 10 percent in February). The renewed Iran War, an escalating and increasingly improvisational tariff regime now resting on three distinct and contestable statutory authorities, and a Federal Reserve navigating its most divided vote since 2016 within months of a historically contested confirmation, all incrementally raise the tail probability of an institutional or fiscal breakdown in the ordinary operation of monetary policy. This scenario does not require outright fiscal dominance to be realised in a meaningful sense — elevated term premia and a persistently wide dispersion of r* estimates across models are themselves symptomatic of the condition this scenario describes.
Probability-weighted posterior estimate, US real r*: approximately 1.55 to 1.85 percent, a modest but directionally clear upward revision from the Évian estimate of 1.45 to 1.70 percent. The revision is driven primarily by the reallocation of weight from Scenario I and, to a lesser extent, Scenario II toward Scenario III, reflecting the cumulative effect of the July FOMC dissent, the renewed war, and the hardening tariff architecture.
Reconciling the Named Short-Run Equilibria
The shorter G20 note’s three named equilibria — the Credibility Trap, the Hawkish Surprise, and the Productivity Miracle — map onto this structural framework as transition paths rather than as competing alternatives to it. The Credibility Trap equilibrium, in which the bond market does the Fed’s tightening for it without further hikes, corresponds to a continuation of Scenario II with gradually rising weight on Scenario III — essentially the trajectory realised between the Évian and July FOMC dates. The Hawkish Surprise equilibrium, in which energy shocks and sticky inflation force the FOMC to validate its rhetoric with an actual hike, corresponds to the mechanism by which probability mass moves decisively from Scenario II into Scenario III; the events of 28–29 July — the renewed missile exchange and the unified three-vote dissent occurring within the same forty-eight hours — constitute the clearest real-world instance of this equilibrium beginning to unfold that either source document anticipated. The Productivity Miracle equilibrium, in which AI capital expenditure delivers unexpected rather than merely anticipated productivity gains and both inflation and r* fall, remains the low-probability outcome; nothing in the July data moves meaningfully in its direction, since the productivity gains needed to trigger it must appear in aggregate total factor productivity statistics that have not yet materialised.
On the weight of evidence assembled through 29 July, the prevailing near-term trajectory most closely resembles a blend of the Credibility Trap and Hawkish Surprise equilibria: the bond market continues to do a substantial share of the Fed’s tightening work organically, as reflected in the nineteen-year-high thirty-year yield, while the probability of an actual September hike — rather than a further hold validated solely by market pricing — has risen materially. G20 leaders arriving in Miami in December should expect to do so against a backdrop in which the federal funds rate may or may not have moved, but in which real borrowing costs across the curve will almost certainly be higher than they were at the time of the Évian summit.
VII. G20 Miami: Venue, Agenda, and Political Context
The Twenty-First G20 Leaders’ Summit will convene on 14–15 December 2026 at Trump National Doral Miami, in Doral, Florida — a property owned by the summit’s host, President Trump, which the White House has stated will host the gathering “at cost,” with no profit accruing to either the State Department or a foreign government. The United States assumed the G20 presidency on 1 December 2025 and has since narrowed the forum’s agenda substantially relative to recent cycles, dropping climate, debt sustainability, development, and inequality workstreams in favour of a finance-track agenda organised around three themes: unleashing economic prosperity by limiting regulatory burdens, unlocking affordable and secure energy supply chains, and pioneering innovation in AI and emerging technologies. The G20.org website was reset at the start of the US presidency to display only the Miami 2026 branding and the tagline “The Best Is Yet to Come.”
The composition of the summit itself has also shifted. President Trump announced in November 2025 that South Africa would not be invited to the 2026 summit, citing its treatment of Afrikaner farmers and a dispute over the transfer of G20 hosting responsibilities at the close of the 2025 Johannesburg summit; Poland has been named as South Africa’s replacement among the invited states, alongside Azerbaijan, Finland, Ireland, Kazakhstan, the Netherlands, Norway, Qatar, Singapore, Spain, the United Arab Emirates, and Uzbekistan. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent is organising the substantive agenda, with National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett serving as the White House point person for the summit. The finance track’s published priorities explicitly reference addressing tariff and non-tariff barriers and restoring balance to US trade relationships — language that connects the summit’s deregulation and energy themes directly to the Section 301 and Section 338 tariff architecture discussed above.
The tension identified in the original G20 note persists and has, if anything, sharpened: the summit’s own agenda — deregulation, energy abundance, and AI acceleration — is disinflationary and r*-lowering only over a long horizon, while in the near term each element is independently stimulative to demand. Rapid deregulation front-loads investment; an “energy abundance” framing sits uneasily alongside a live, recurring supply shock from an active war in Persian Gulf; and AI acceleration is, on Goolsbee’s reading, precisely the anticipated-productivity dynamic most likely to keep near-term rates elevated. The Federal Reserve will be navigating this stimulative fiscal and regulatory posture, and a bond market pricing an elevated probability of a September hike, in the same weeks the G20’s own working groups are finalising the substantive deliverables Secretary Bessent intends to present at Doral.
VIII. Regional and Country Divergence
The Évian report’s country-by-country assessment remains the correct starting point for the G20’s broader membership and is carried forward here with targeted updates.
United States: presents the strongest case for an elevated r*, on both structural grounds (AI capital expenditure, persistent fiscal deficits above 6 percent of GDP, relatively favourable G7 demographics) and cyclical grounds (the anticipated-productivity wealth effect Goolsbee describes, and renewed pass-through from the collapsed Iran ceasefire). The federal funds rate at 3.50–3.75 percent sits at or modestly above most model-based estimates of Scenario II neutral, and the July FOMC’s hawkish dissent indicates a meaningful internal constituency believes it should sit higher still.
The Euro Area: continues to face a more severe terms-of-trade shock than the United States from any renewed Middle East energy disruption, given Europe’s heavier reliance on imported energy. The European Central Bank held its deposit rate at 2.0 percent through the spring, describing that level as broadly neutral; a renewed and prolonged supply shock strengthens, rather than weakens, the case analysts have made for a possible single defensive hike, reversing part of the 2024–2025 easing cycle.
The United Kingdom: remains caught between a genuinely weak underlying productivity trend — which the Bank of England itself has described as exceptionally weak in recent years — and an energy-driven inflation profile now complicated further by the resumption of hostilities. The interaction between renewed oil-price volatility and the base effects built into UK inflation comparisons for the second half of 2026 is now considerably less favourable than it appeared in May.
Japan: remains the G7’s structural outlier and the clearest illustration of Scenario I conditions holding at scale, with the Bank of Japan’s policy rate at 0.75 percent following an April vote in which three of nine board members argued, even before the July escalation, for a rise to 1.0 percent on the strength of Iran War–related inflation risk. That minority position looks considerably more prescient in light of the 28–29 July developments than it did in April.
Canada: enters the Miami summit under materially greater trade-policy strain than it faced at the time of the Évian report, owing to the first-ever invocation of Section 338 and the resulting 50 percent retaliatory tariff on Canadian goods. This development sits directly alongside the sovereignty-coercion and tariff-pressure dynamics this analyst has examined comparatively for Canada and Denmark, and reinforces the case that Ottawa’s effective neutral rate and its policy space are now shaped as much by US trade posture as by the Bank of Canada’s own domestic reading of r*.
IX. Strategic Implications for G20 Leaders
The Évian report’s strategic recommendations for G7 leaders remain sound and are extended here for the broader G20 membership assembling at Doral in December.
Acknowledge the structural shift without over-committing to its magnitude. The balance of evidence — the July FOMC dissent, the renewed war, the hardened tariff architecture — continues to support a higher-r* world relative to the post-2008 baseline, but the dispersion across models (from sub-1-percent HLW readings to above-3-percent market-implied measures) remains wide enough that G20 communiqué language should preserve genuine humility about the precise level.
Treat the renewed Iran War as a recurring, not a one-off, risk factor. A conflict that has now broken two separate ceasefires under real testing should be modelled, for monetary and fiscal planning purposes, as a source of persistent rather than transitory energy volatility through at least the first half of 2027.
Engage explicitly with the Goolsbee framework in G20 finance-track discussions, independent of whether individual central banks formally adopt it. Governments — including the summit host — that are simultaneously expanding fiscal capital expenditure on the expectation of future AI-driven productivity gains are contributing to the same anticipated-productivity overheating dynamic Goolsbee describes, which argues for coordinated caution in the pace of AI-linked fiscal expansion even as the underlying technology is welcomed.
Recognise that the shift from IEEPA to a Section 301 / Section 232 / Section 338 tariff architecture has made the current tariff regime structurally stickier, not more provisional, and should be priced accordingly by finance ministries and central banks rather than treated as a transitional arrangement pending further litigation.
Maintain the asymmetry argument from the Évian report: given Japan’s three-decade experience of the cost of exiting a low-r* equilibrium, the cost of holding rates modestly too high in a genuinely higher-r* world is considerably lower than the cost of returning prematurely to near-zero policy if the shift proves durable. Nothing in the events of June and July 2026 weakens that asymmetry; the renewed war and the hawkish FOMC dissent, if anything, strengthen it.
X. Conclusion
For G20 leaders convening at Trump National Doral in December, the practical implication carried forward from both source documents is unchanged in direction and strengthened in degree: position for structurally higher real borrowing costs, not principally because the Federal Reserve will necessarily raise its policy rate again before the summit, but because the organic repricing already under way in the bond market — and now reinforced by the Committee’s own internal division — reflects a genuine, if still imprecisely measured, upward migration in the equilibrium rate of interest. The telescope, as the Évian report observed, does not create the star. But through the summer of 2026, more observers than not have converged on the same reading of where it now sits.
Annex: Key Data Points as of 29 July 2026
The figures below update the Évian report’s data annex and are presented in narrative form, consistent with this analyst’s standing methodological practice of rendering reference data in prose rather than in tabular form.
US federal funds rate: 3.50–3.75 percent, held for a fifth consecutive meeting at the 28–29 July FOMC meeting, the second chaired by Kevin Warsh.
FOMC vote and dissent: 9–3 in favour of a hold; Hammack (Cleveland), Kashkari (Minneapolis), and Logan (Dallas) dissented in favour of a twenty-five-basis-point hike — the first unified three-member hawkish dissent since September 2016.
US Treasury yields, 29 July close: ten-year approximately 4.657 percent (+5 bp on the day); two-year approximately 4.236 percent (–4 bp); thirty-year approximately 5.193 percent (+9 bp), within reach of a nineteen-year high.
September rate-hike probability: moved above 57 percent on CME-implied pricing in the immediate aftermath of the July meeting.
US equity reaction, 29 July: Dow Jones Industrial Average −1,153 points (−2.19 percent), worst session since April 2026; S&P 500 −1.52 percent; Nasdaq Composite −1.74 percent, roughly 9.8 percent below its early-June record.
US inflation: headline CPI 3.5 percent year-on-year in June 2026 (down from 4.2 percent in May, the first decline in five months), driven by falling energy prices; core CPI 2.6 percent year-on-year. Core PCE remained at 2.8 percent year-on-year in June, above the FOMC’s 2 percent objective.
Oil prices: Brent crude fell to a two-week low near $84.09 a barrel on 28 July before rising 3–5 percent to the high $86–$88 range following the IRGC missile attack on US forces in Jordan on the night of 28–29 July; WTI traded in a comparable range. Both benchmarks remain far below the roughly $115–$125 peaks reached during the initial February–April phase of the war, but above pre-war levels.
Iran War status: ceasefire in effect since 8 April 2026 collapsed on 28–29 July following joint US–Saudi strikes on Iran-backed militias in Iraq and a retaliatory IRGC missile attack on US forces in Jordan; the conflict entered its sixth month with mediators reported to be seeking a restoration of the pause.
Tariff architecture: the Supreme Court’s 20 February 2026 ruling in Learning Resources v. Trump (6–3) struck down IEEPA-based tariffs; the administration has since layered a Section 122 global tariff (since lapsed after its 150-day limit around 24 July), new Section 301 baseline duties of 10–12.5 percent on fifty-nine countries and the EU, standing Section 232 tariffs on steel, aluminium, copper, and semiconductors, and a first-ever Section 338 action imposing 50 percent retaliatory tariffs on Canada.
G20 Miami Summit: 21st G20 Leaders’ Summit, 14–15 December 2026, Trump National Doral Miami, Doral, Florida; finance-track agenda centred on deregulation, energy security, and AI/technology innovation; South Africa excluded from the 2026 summit and replaced among invited states by Poland.
Prior r* posterior (Évian, 30 May 2026): US real r*, probability-weighted, approximately 1.45–1.70 percent.
Revised r* posterior (this report, 29 July 2026): US real r*, probability-weighted, approximately 1.55–1.85 percent.
Sources: Federal Reserve (FOMC statements and press conference transcripts, 29 July 2026); CNBC, CNN Business, Bloomberg, Fox Business, Kiplinger, and PNC Economics Research coverage of the July 2026 FOMC meeting; Central Banking coverage of the FOMC dissent; CENTCOM statements and CNN, Associated Press, and Motley Fool reporting on the 28–29 July 2026 Iran–US escalation; GlobalSecurity.org Iran War operational updates; US Bureau of Labor Statistics CPI release, 14 July 2026; Trading Economics inflation data; Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago statements and speeches of Austan Goolsbee (May–June 2026); Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, “Comparing the FOMC’s Estimate of R-Star with Alternative Estimates,” May 2026; Supreme Court of the United States, Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump (2026); Kiplinger and Semafor reporting on the Section 301 and Section 338 tariff actions, July 2026; G20.org official working-group and priorities pages; Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and Brookings Institution analysis of the US G20 presidency; CBS News and Yahoo/AP reporting on the Doral summit announcement. This report also incorporates and updates the analyst’s prior work, “The Moving Star: R* and the G7 in 2026” (Évian, 30 May 2026). The Bayesian scenario framework and posterior estimates are analytical constructs developed by this analyst and do not represent the position of any government, central bank, or international institution.
