自 2026 年初以来，美国成长预测已从约 2% 上修到约 2.4%，部分原因是预期川普政府会在 11 月国会选举前让经济偏热运行，而其他已开发经济体表现落后。按常理，相对更高的美国短期殖利率应支撑美元，但美元指数年初至今却下跌约 1.7%，显示与过去相关性出现分歧。近期一个例子是：1 月就业数据（因一次临时的联邦政府停摆而延后到较晚公布）显示净增就业 130,000，约为市场预期的两倍，使 2 年期殖利率走高，但美元仍持平；有人将此解读为，市场开始在强劲数据下也卖出美元，因联准会（Fed）被认为愈来愈政治化。
文中指出，更大的投资组合转向不是「卖出美国」，而是「对冲美国」：非美投资人可能仍会持续买入美国资产，但会更常透过卖出美元来对冲汇率曝险，这比改变基准权重很高的美股配置更低摩擦。Amundi 的首席投资长（CIO）表示，在绝大多数新委托中，至少对冲部分美元风险已成常态，并称去年是一次警钟，暗示这种行为可能随著委员会调整而持续数月或数年。他还主张，历史上约 5% 到 10% 的美元「溢价」如今正受到挑战，意味著支付它的理由变少，且在数学上有向下漂移的趋势；若此类对冲变得自我强化，即使美国成长景气蓬勃，美元也可能走弱。
The article argues the US dollar, the world’s key reserve currency, is becoming more driven by US politics than by traditional economic fundamentals like growth and interest-rate expectations. Analysts increasingly see the usual links between rate differentials and the dollar weakening, even if they frame it euphemistically. This shift is visible in 2026 market behavior as investors try to price US-specific political uncertainty into currency moves.
Since the start of 2026, forecasts for US growth have been upgraded from about 2% to about 2.4%, partly on expectations the Trump administration will run the economy hot ahead of November congressional elections, while other developed economies lag. Normally, higher relative US short-term yields would support the dollar, yet the dollar index is down about 1.7% year-to-date, signaling a divergence from past correlations. A recent example: January jobs data (released late after a temporary federal shutdown) showed net job gains of 130,000 versus expectations of roughly half that, nudging 2-year yields higher, but the dollar stayed flat, which some interpret as markets beginning to sell dollars even on strong data as the Fed is perceived as increasingly politicized.
The piece suggests the bigger portfolio shift is not “sell America” but “hedge America”: non-US investors may keep buying US assets but more often hedge currency exposure by selling dollars, a lower-friction change than altering benchmark-heavy US equity allocations. Amundi’s CIO says hedging out at least some dollar risk is in the vast majority of new mandates and calls last year a wake-up call, implying the behavior could persist for months or years as committees adjust. He also claims an historical dollar “premium” of about 5% to 10% is now being challenged, implying less reason to pay it and a mathematical drift lower; if such hedging becomes self-reinforcing, the dollar could weaken even alongside booming US growth.