The idea that the president could make munis taxable is dubious at best. The executive branch (including the IRS) generally, and the president specifically, can change regulations and policies only to the extent that the changes remain consistent (do not contradict) existing laws.
The Internal Revenue Code, section 103 states succinctly that with three exceptions (in 103(b)), interest paid on state and local bonds must not be taxed.
Congress certainly has the power to pass legislation making some or all muni bonds taxable. It did this in creating Build America Bonds. Congress enacted Section 54AA of the IRC, which says that if not for Section 54AA, the bonds would be tax exempt under IRC 103, as described above. That is, BAB bonds are, by a specific law, not tax-exempt.
It would take an act of Congress to make muni bonds generally taxable. The president cannot do this by fiat.
From a strictly pragmatic perspective, Congress is barely able to pass appropriations bills before the government again runs out of money in a couple of weeks. And this is the legislative body you fear will proactively take away the tax-exempt status of muni bonds?
Even if, against all odds, Congress did come together and pass some such bill, what would it look like? Would it revoke the tax-exempt status of current muni bonds> Or would the possibility that such a change might be unconstitutional prod Congress into taxing only bonds issued in the future (as was done with advance refunding)?
If so, then what do you see as the risk to currently outstanding munis? ISTM that by preserving their tax exempt status but drying up the supply of future tax-exempt munis, Congress might make current munis even more valuable. A double win for current bond holders - tax exempt interest and capital appreciation. As an investor, I wouldn't mind getting stomped on by that elephant.
As a taxpayer, the prospect of having to pay 40% more to get infrastructure does not please me. But that's a different matter altogether.

LSBIX is available at Schwab for an initial minimum investment of $2,500 for taxable and non-taxable accounts.

As a follow-up in supporting @msf's post,
Here is an excerpt from the 8/31/19 prospectus for Seafarer:
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/915802/000139834419015471/fp0044912_485bpos.htm
..."Small Account Balances / Mandatory Redemptions
If at any time your account balance falls below the applicable minimum initial investment amount for the share class and type of account described under “Investment Minimums” in this Prospectus due to redemptions, a letter may be sent advising you to add to your account to meet the applicable minimum account balance, to transfer your shares to another share class of the Fund for which you are eligible, or to redeem the remaining shares in your account. If action is not taken within 30 days of the notice, the Fund may require mandatory redemption of shares, or the Fund may elect to transfer the shares to another share class of the Fund for which you are eligible. The Fund may adopt other policies from time to time requiring mandatory redemption of shares in certain circumstances, such as to comply with new regulatory requirements.
Each Fund reserves the right to waive or change investment minimums, and delegates such authority to Seafarer. Employees of the Adviser and their family members are not subject to any initial or subsequent investment minimums. "
Brokerages are a little hard to say, but probably follow the prospectus when in doubt.

Hard to say, for multiple reasons.
The prospectus says that: "If at any time your account balance falls below the applicable minimum initial investment amount [$2500, or $1,000 for IRA] ... in this Prospectus due to redemptions, a letter may be sent advising you to add to your account to meet the applicable minimum account balance, ... or to redeem the remaining shares in your account. If action is not taken within 30 days of the notice, the Fund may require mandatory redemption of shares"
So the fund itself may require you to keep at least $2500 (or $1K), but this is at its discretion. I've owned two funds at Vanguard where I dropped below Admiral level thresholds. Vanguard forced a downgrade conversion to Investor class shares for one of the fund. The other fund Vanguard left alone. Discretion.
Then there is the fact (I assume from your post) that you're investing through Fidelity. Fidelity generally sets a $2500 min for fund investments (except for its own funds). Whether it requires one to keep $2500 in a fund is something I don't know. Regardless, whether it would enforce such a rule is up to Fidelity. Then there is the question of whether Fidelity would tell Seafarer if you dropped below its minimum requirement.
In any case, it seems that $2500 would be safe. The actual minimum, however, could be lower. That's what is hard to say.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/ladder-select-bond-fund-receives-211500859.html
Ladder Select Bond Fund Receives ‘4 Stars’ From Morningstar Upon 3 Year Anniversary
Business WireDecember 5, 2019, 3:15 PM CST
The Ladder Select Bond Fund (Institutional Class: LSBIX) Receives '4 Stars' Overall from Morningstar®, out of 491 Funds, respectively, in the US Fund Short-Term Bond Category, based on 3-years of historical risk-adjusted returns as of 10/31/2019.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/trump-perfectly-orchestrates-the-stock-markets-rise-whenever-momentum-wanes-2019-12-05
Price action, internal momentum and volume aren’t great, but that doesn’t matter when the president wields his baton

At 59B AUM, it’s not that startling a discovery...

Hi guys,
iforno: I like Wellington......anything. Mainly, Wellsley.
johnN: Good job! I only drive on Michelins. They're on the GT also.
Gary: I also have FNSTX. Also look at FIFNX. It's also new.....I like it. Just saying.......
Hi Skeeter - Yeah, looks like a good AA fund with ETFs and Blackrock funds....I like it.
Me? I sold FSENX this week. It's just too volatile with Armco coming. It's a pump job, I believe.....just saying. Have added to ADEVX. The MLP----MLPFX is at a 52-week low and pays a great dividend......just saying....
God bless
the Pudd

Lewis makes an excellent point about percentage change in rates (e.g. a change from 0.25% to 0.50% is a doubling). Since you'll get the face value of a bond back at maturity, the market price of a bond won't be cut by anything near a half. Still, you'll take quite a haircut if rates double.
A 30 year bond with a coupon of 0.25% will lose nearly 7% (6.96%) so that its yield to maturity (YTM) matches the new market rate of 0.50%.
In contrast, a 30 year bond with a coupon of 4.00% will lose "just" 4.22% given the same 0.25% increase in market rates. So at "normal" rates, you'd just about break even (interest minus capital loss) in a year's time.
Calculator for bond price given coupon and market rates:
https://dqydj.com/bond-pricing-calculator/

Also, the examples provided didn't go back prior to 1986. (I find the reasoning for this--that some fixed income categories didn't exist prior to 1986--a bit dubious, but nevertheless.) I believe most of the rate increases after that period were gradual and modest ones allowing fixed income to catch up with its yield payments to compensate for losses. The real test would be a period of rapid rate and inflation increases like in the 1970s--what is known as a "rate shock." I doubt Wellesley income or many funds to be honest would hold up too well in such a period. Also, because rates are so low now, as has already been pointed out, a small increase actually can be more significant. Going say from a 0.25% rate to 0.50% is actually a doubling of rates. That is more uncharted territory. Also, income-oriented stocks that Wellesley owns might do particularly poorly in a rate shock environment because unlike bonds they essentially have an infinite duration as they never mature. Then again, they could do better if they have a growth component to compensate for rising rates. It's hard to predict how it would do. Yet here is some useful information: https://sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/105544/0000893220-95-000089.txt
If you go to page 6, you can see how Wellesley performed in the 1970s. Other than 1973 and 1974, it held up pretty well. So there's that. I wonder how it would do in a rate shock today when we're starting from such low rates.

Try this link instead:
https://www.icmarc.org/x3333.html?RFID=W1582&usg=AOvVaw2I9Vd-WRuW_zIiwp1pxMzJ
A solid piece, pretty much textbook (longer duration = greater loss with rising rates, junk = less sensitive to rates).
A few curiosities:

• It is interesting to note that contrary to conventional wisdom, all fixed income sectors experienced positive returns during the four rate hikes.
  I thought conventional wisdom said that historically NAV losses were more than compensated for by high coupons. Vanguard certainly makes this point in writing that buying bond funds in rising rate environments can still be profitable. (Not checking for citation now.)
  The problem is that with interest rates at historical lows, the coupons will likely not fully mitigate capital losses. The Vantage Point article alludes to this as well: "it is possible that the next upturn in rates would not result in positive returns for fixed income sectors due to unique factors, which may not have been present in the last four rate hikes."
• It gives as its rationale for not studying rising rate periods earlier than 1986 that "many fixed income sectors did not exist prior to 1986." So presumably it excludes securitized assets prior to the 1999 period of rising rates for the same reason. Yet MBSs (a major portion of secutized assets) certainly did exist then. FMSFX dates to 12/31/1984 and VFIIX got its start 6/27/1980.
• It explains that in the fourth rising rate period it studied, intermediate term bonds (actually aggregate bond portfolios) outperformed short term bonds in part because "short-term rates [rose] much more than longer-term rates, as shown by the flattening of the yield curve ". These days, there's not much more flattening to be had. Just a ¾% difference between a 3 month T-bill and a 30 year T-bond. Short term rates could again rise faster than long term rates, but that would result in an inversion not a flattening.

.

I believe (on little but circumstantial evidence) that these fees are for transfers of securities, regardless of medium. That is, the fees would be charged regardless of whether the ACAT service were used to send the securities to another institution. It's just that in nearly all cases, the securities are sent via ACATS. Hence "transfer" and ACAT are used synonymously.
For example, WellsTrade says that its "Outgoing Transfer Fee" is $95 (and that it "will display as “Termination Fee” on client statement.") It does not say that this is for a transfer via ACATS.
Third party sites often conflate account transfer and ACAT:

• Top Rated Firms:Account Transfer Out Fees At Brokers (ACAT Cost)
• BrokerageReview.com: Wellstrade Account Closing Fee (ACAT)
• Magnify Money: To transfer the assets in your account, many brokers charge you what is known as an ACAT fee.

That last page does a much better job of explaining what's going on. While calling the fee an "ACAT fee", it clarifies that the fee is "for the costs [brokerages] incur to complete the paperwork necessary to make the transaction as well as to transfer information about the purchase date, cost basis, etc., of securities in your account." I recommend this page for a clear explanation of the transfer process and fees.
Consistent with its guidance on avoiding outgoing fees, I've closed a Schwab account for free by transferring all securities out ($0 for a partial transfer), and getting a check sent for the remaining few dollars of cash left in the account.
The Investopedia page is at best imprecise. It seems to imply that the ACAT system can handle all security transfers. But it cannot handle fractional shares. I believe this is why Merrill simply will not transfer fractional shares, even of mutual funds that trade in fractions. On the other hand, Merrill will accept incoming fractional shares, which are transmitted outside of ACATS by most other institutions.
Investopedia also seems to imply that mutual fund families can use ACATS ("NCC-eligible members"). According to DTCC (which through its NSCC subsidiary runs ACATS), "Mutual Fund Service Members of NSCC are eligible to use the service on a limited basis, only as the contra-party to a transfer initiated by a broker dealer or a bank for the purpose of re-registering a mutual fund position to or from them directly."
The ACAT system is just the usual medium for transferring securities into or out of a brokerage. If you've ever transferred an account or a holding from one brokerage to another, you've made an ACAT transfer. So if you've ever closed an account by doing anything other than liquidating it and getting a check cut, you've likely used ACATS.

(
Administrative nuisances with some financial institutions
Here is a thought. Have the financial institution that you are moving the assets to use the ACAT system to make the transfer. The link below will describe how this works.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/acat.asp
Old_Skeet November 30 in Fund Discussions
First I was interested if anyone here ,MFO'ers, or visitors have used ACAT ? Second question . Can anyone answer as to how much this would cost ? I checked the link & didn't find anything related to the cost. I guess I''ll google ACAT & see what shows up.
@Old-Skeet; Thanks for the link & just for the record I sold the few shares of BHF @ $3.50/ share commish& moved on.
Derf
Added:
Came up with this fee schedule , but I don't know how dated it is plus one may encounter closing fees !!
List of brokers and their ACAT fee:
WellsTrade: $95
Bank of America: $75
TD Ameritrade: $75
SogoTrade: $75
E*Trade: $60
Charles Schwab: $50
Zecco: $50
Sharebuilder: $50
TradeKing: $50
FirstTrade: $50
OptionsXpress: $50
Scottrade: $0
Fidelity: $0

https://www.google.com/amp/s/seekingalpha.com/amp/article/4310599-vanguard-wellesley-fund-exceptional-conservative-mutual-fund-hidden-in-plain-sight
vanguard Wellesley fund

@Gary I don't know how any one can legitimately argue that the old-school media outlets "have done it to themselves." :https://theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/12/post-advertising-future-media/578917/

It’s tempting to think that this is the inevitable end game of Google and Facebook’s duopoly. The two companies already receive more than half of all the dollars spent on digital advertising, and they commanded 90 percent of the growth in digital ad sales last year. But what’s happening in media right now is more complex. We’re seeing the convergence of four trends.It’s not just Facebook and Google; just about every big tech company is talking about selling ads, meaning that just about every big tech company may become another competitor in the fight for advertising revenue.Amazon’s ad business exploded in the past year; its growth exceeded that of every other major tech company, including the duopoly. Apple is building tech that would skim ad revenue from major apps such as Snapchat and Pinterest, according to The Wall Street Journal.

and:

Ultimately, however, the market might not support some forms of journalism. For example, the number of local reporters today is at its lowest point since the 1970s, despite the fact that the U.S. population has grown by 50 percent. Research has shown a direct connection between declining local journalism and less civic engagement. If local news is a public good, it may deserve public support—perhaps in the form of government subsidies. But asking for public assistance might seem like an act of pure desperation.

Pondering FAMEX, DFDPX, and YAFFX which I would buy on their distribution dates later this month. However, YAFFX has over 25% in cash and 2.5% in Macy's which has fallen 50% year to date, so I can't help but to question their judgement. I do not believe the market is overvalued by any measure whatsoever and I do believe the bull will continue for many more years, so a fund with 25% in cash is probably not for me. Yet the long term history of YAFFX is compelling.
I'm realling looking for a fund which scores highly on ESG and low on carbon. I already have Brown Advisory Sustainable Growth and am looking at the Parnassus lineup. Many tech funds qualify on ESG as well. Any other suggestions would be gratefully received.

https://investorplace.com/2019/12/5-etfs-for-oodles-of-monthly-dividends/
5 ETFs for Oodles of Monthly Dividends
Dividend ETFs can provide plenty of needed monthly income in retirement

Here's the press release:
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/vanguard-to-introduce-total-international-bond-ii-index-fund-as-new-component-for-funds-of-funds-300970047.html
Identical to VTABX, but designed for Vanguard's funds of funds. Also, it does not offer an ETF share class. Int'l Bond I has the BNDX share class.
From the prospectus:

Share Class Overview
This prospectus offers the Fund's Investor Shares and Admiral Shares. A separate prospectus offers the Fund's Institutional Shares, which are generally for investors who invest a minimum of $5 million.

From the prospectus of Vanguard Total International Bond Index Fund (VTABX):

Share Class Overview
This prospectus offers the Fund‘s Investor Shares and Admiral Shares. A separate prospectus offers the Fund‘s Institutional Shares, which are generally for investors who invest a minimum of $5 million. Another prospectus offers Institutional Select Shares, which are generally for investors who invest a minimum of $3 billion. In addition, the Fund issues ETF Shares (an exchange-traded class of shares), which are also offered through a separate prospectus.

https://www.financial-planning.com/list/vanguard-blackrock-fidelity-mutual-funds-and-etfs-have-largest-inflows-of-2019
Funds with the largest inflows of 2019
With an eye on market volatility and rate cuts from the Fed this year, the bond fund universe has seen a surge of new money.
The 20 mutual funds and ETFs with the largest year-to-date inflows are home to more than $2.5 trillion in combined assets under management, according to Morningstar Direct. These funds, mostly index-trackers, underline the continued trend toward low-cost investing, says Greg McBride, senior financial analyst at Bankrate.