the same thing, too. But that is no excuse. Parliament should press the government to stop using its powers so casually. It should also do more to blunt the tools used by the rich and powerful to intimidate or silence critics, such as lawsuits intended to impose ruinous costs on them (known as “strategic lawsuits against public participation”, or SLAPPs). This past weekend provided an egregious example, when Sarah Wynn-Williams, a former Meta employee turned whistleblower, had to sit mute on a stage at a literary festival in Wales, gagged by a global non- disclosure agreement and unable even to nod her head without risking financial penalties. With free speech under siege around the world, it is shameful that Britain, once a bastion of tolerance for vigorous debate, should be so censorious. The government’s job is to keep people safe from actual violence, not to try to shield them from words that might upset them. If it makes a habit of banning visiting speakers, it will create the impression that it endorses the views of the people it does let in. It will encourage more and more activists to lobby for bans on foreigners whose ideas they disagree with. And it will make Britain less free. ■ Subscribers to The Economist can sign up to our Opinion newsletter, which brings together the best of our leaders, columns, guest essays and reader correspondence. This article was downloaded by zlibrary from https://www.economist.com//leaders/2026/06/02/britain-is-wrong-to-ban-speakers- like-hasan-piker
America’s decaying Treasury market needs a fix High debt, disjointed markets and pugnacious trade policy all threaten the world’s safe asset June 4th 2026 SINCE RICHARD NIXON broke the link between the American dollar and gold in 1971, global finance has floated on a sea of Treasuries. No asset is more important than America’s government debt. It provides a haven for investors at dangerous moments. Trillions of dollars of contracts and securities worldwide are priced with reference to Treasury bonds. Alas, as our special report explains, the world’s safe asset has seen better days. The volume of Treasuries outstanding has grown by 126% over the past decade, to almost $32trn, far outstripping steady demand from the likes of foreign central banks. As a result yield-hunting private investors and hedge funds, fuelled by leverage, have taken a growing share of the market.
Occasionally—most notably in March 2020—this demand has suddenly dried up, sending short-term funding costs surging and forcing the Federal Reserve to buy bonds and, in effect, to underwrite the market. Economic and geopolitical trends are also hurting demand for Treasuries. The resurgence of inflation since 2021 has often made stocks and government bonds sell off in tandem, meaning that Treasuries have ceased to play the valuable role of ballast for riskier portfolios. Meanwhile America’s belligerent trade policy and its repeated deployment of financial sanctions (whatever their merits) have made foreign buyers think twice before becoming a long-term creditor to Uncle Sam. If these patterns continue, the market risks losing a special status that provides crucial benefits to both America and the wider world. Salvaging the situation raises tough questions for Kevin Warsh, the new chair of the Federal Reserve, for Scott Bessent, the treasury secretary, and for Congress. Mr Warsh has declared his intention to reduce the Fed’s holdings of Treasuries. That is an achievable goal, even if it will bring about a need for still more private demand. Yet Mr Warsh must also stand ready to buy bonds at any moment to calm a sudden seizure. Any such intervention would require a defter hand than the Fed has managed previously, when it has failed to distinguish quantitative easing (QE), bond purchases designed to stimulate the economy, from short-lived “market functioning” interventions designed to stop fire sales. In the past, it did not need to: in March 2020, for example, both goals were operative at once, and inflation was quiescent. Today the economy does not want for stimulus but the bond market could still need rescuing. It would be a disaster were a purchase of bonds made to unclog financial plumbing to be interpreted as the Fed kowtowing to President Donald Trump’s desire for loose money. So Mr Warsh must get a battle plan ready for a surgical intervention. The Bank of England is a model to follow: during a sell-off in British gilts in 2022, following a disastrous “mini-budget”, the bank bought bonds aggressively but promised to get out of the market as soon as possible. It fulfilled its promise in a matter of months, and ended up making a profit for taxpayers, to boot.
Reforming the market will require America’s many other regulators to work in tandem with the Fed. Trading currently operates through dealer banks, which have struggled to clear the market in moments of stress. Trading data are published daily, unlike the real-time reporting in the corporate-bond market. Quicker reporting would allow for the development of so-called all- to-all trading. Like the stockmarket, any investor could buy and sell directly to any other, boosting liquidity. But the most important remedy is in the gift of politicians. The size of America’s budget deficit, at around 6% of GDP, has no parallels during peacetime, except during deep recessions. Further fiscal pressure is coming, not least when the Social Security trust fund runs dry in six years. Mr Bessent is easing the strain of rising interest payments by favouring short- term debt, which is cheaper to service today but leaves the government more exposed to a crisis because it must be frequently refinanced. As for Congress, which writes the budget, it worries about the market only during its regular brinkmanship over the debt ceiling, a statutory limit which must regularly be lifted. Both the executive and the legislature must summon the will to confront the underlying long-term problem and find ways to shrink borrowing. It is not too late to stop the slow, steady erosion of the Treasury market. The prize is enormous. By one estimate America’s role as the supplier of safe assets to the world saves the country about 1% of GDP in interest spending each year, which today means more than $300bn. Only Treasuries can sate the world’s need for safe and liquid assets. There are few winners from letting the foundation of the global financial system rot. ■ Subscribers to The Economist can sign up to our Opinion newsletter, which brings together the best of our leaders, columns, guest essays and reader correspondence. This article was downloaded by zlibrary from https://www.economist.com//leaders/2026/06/04/americas-decaying-treasury-market- needs-a-fix
How to make football more exciting The World Cup is wonderful. It could be even better June 4th 2026 Football is the beautiful game. But it’s often also the boring game. The World Cup, which starts on June 11th, is being hosted by America, Canada and Mexico, the international equivalent of going to a dinner party and hearing the hosts rowing in the kitchen. The tournament will feature 48 teams playing 104 matches over the course of six and a half weeks. Although watching matches that feature your own nation is dependably exciting, for neutrals the average game is likely to be pretty drab. The stakes at a World Cup are too high for players to take big risks, and hanging on for a draw often pays off for less fancied teams. Ideas are already circulating for making football more fun. Arsène Wenger, a manager whose credentials include making Arsenal bearable to watch, has
proposed changes such as tweaking the offside rule and turning throw-ins into kick-ins. But these ideas are not radical enough. The Economist would like to propose the following changes, so that the world game is one that the world thrills to. If a team hits one of the posts or the crossbar three times, that will count as a goal. Attacking intent should be amply rewarded. This will favour teams that really go for it. Non-qualifiers get a team of their own. Some great footballers never get to participate in a World Cup because they play for countries that have not qualified. A neutral team, made up of the highest-ranked players from these countries, would give everyone a second-favourite side. As the match progresses, the goalkeeper is allowed to use less and less of his body to make saves. First one hand is off-limits, then the other. In injury time the only part of the body that a goalkeeper can use to block the ball is his face. Anyone who feigns injury runs a higher risk of being injured for real. Watching someone writhe around in pretend agony for minutes on end is tedious beyond belief. If a player is judged to have feigned injury, the next foul on them will be unpunishable. Either there will be less rolling around on the floor or there will be the drama of violent retribution. Either way, football is the winner. For a ten-minute period in the first half, a random member of the crowd is chosen to participate for each team. Spectators may well be picked to play for a team they do not support; their allegiances will not be known to anyone, including their new teammates. It’s up to them how they use their time. Corners have become wrestling matches. To make them more interesting, everyone on the pitch, including the corner-taker, must be blindfolded. Play will be allowed to continue until the ball goes off the field or the crowd starts booing.