Kevin Warsh, President Donald Trump’s choice for Federal Reserve Chair, has been a long-standing critic of the central bank’s substantial bond holdings and has advocated for a smaller balance sheet. He argues that very large holdings could distort the overall financial picture of the U.S. economy.
The Federal Reserve dramatically expanded its balance sheet to support markets during the global financial crisis and again during the COVID-19 pandemic. After peaking near $9 trillion in 2022, the balance sheet declined to roughly $6.6 trillion late last year. In December, however, the Fed began increasing its holdings again to ensure sufficient liquidity in the financial system and to help keep short-term interest rates around officials’ target range.
It remains uncertain whether Warsh, if confirmed, would press to halt or reverse the recent expansion. Bank of America analysts Mark Cabana and Katie Craig noted in a research note that while Warsh has frequently voiced opposition to the Fed’s balance sheet policies, he may find it easier to criticize than to execute a deep change.
The BofA team argued that shrinking the balance sheet materially would require more than merely selling assets or allowing securities to mature. To compress the Fed’s size, the central bank would also need to reduce its liabilities, which could involve adjustments to bank liquidity guidance and regulatory rules. The analysts warned that an aggressive push to shrink the balance sheet could risk funding volatility, broader market turbulence, and tighter financial conditions.
"We suspect Warsh to favor easy financial conditions over smaller Fed sheet, given difficulty of reducing Fed liabilities," they wrote, and they suggested that President Trump would likely prioritize financial conditions above the level of the Fed’s reserves. On that basis, the analysts said Warsh might align with presidential preferences.
Economists at Morgan Stanley described the logistics of a balance sheet drawdown as tricky. They said changes would likely be gradual and would involve trade-offs with market consequences that could be underappreciated. The Fed has two primary mechanics available to reduce securities on its books: allow holdings to mature without reinvesting the proceeds, or sell securities actively in the secondary market.
Morgan Stanley noted that allowing securities to run off at maturity has done most of the heavy lifting to date, and that approach could remain the main tool if the Fed persists in shrinking its holdings. Active sales in the secondary market are an alternative, but each route carries its own operational and market implications.
Warsh himself has acknowledged the difficulty of materially reducing the Fed’s balance sheet, in part because the balance sheet plays a role in managing the Fed’s target range for short-term interest rates. That operational linkage complicates any straightforward effort to shrink reserves without affecting interest-rate control.
The debate outlined by analysts centers on a core tension: a preference for a smaller balance sheet versus the practical need to preserve stable, functioning financial conditions. Any significant movement on that front would require careful sequencing of actions and attention to potential knock-on effects for funding markets, banks, and broader market liquidity.
Summary
Kevin Warsh favors reducing the Fed’s bond holdings, but BofA and Morgan Stanley analysts caution that doing so would be difficult, slow, and could introduce funding and market volatility unless accompanied by reductions in Fed liabilities or regulatory change. The Fed’s balance sheet fell from about $9 trillion in 2022 to $6.6 trillion late last year but began to expand again in December to support liquidity and the Fed’s interest-rate management.
Key points
- Warsh has publicly argued for a smaller Federal Reserve balance sheet, warning large holdings may distort financial conditions.
- Reducing the balance sheet materially would likely require lowering Fed liabilities, which could mean changes to bank liquidity rules and guidance; otherwise the effort risks funding and market volatility.
- Sectors most directly affected include banking and funding markets, fixed-income markets, and broader financial markets sensitive to liquidity and interest-rate stability.
Risks and uncertainties
- Funding volatility - an aggressive balance-sheet reduction could disrupt short-term funding markets and banking operations.
- Broader market volatility - rapid changes in the Fed’s holdings or approach could heighten volatility across fixed-income and equity markets.
- Tighter financial conditions - shrinking the balance sheet without coordinated liability reductions could tighten financial conditions, affecting credit availability and market liquidity.