The Fed can only directly set the Federal Funds rate, which effectively allows them to set a floor on short-term interest rates. Short term rates influence longer-term rates, but the longer you go out on the yield curve the weaker the effect. So, yes, while the Fed wants lower interest rates generally because lower cost of capital is good for growth, the Fed cannot artificially will long-term interest rates to be at a certain level.

Eventually, the yield curve will start to look somewhat normal again, and we'll start to have a yield curve that rewards longer-term fixed income investors. Longer-term interest rates reflect market forces, and eventually investors will demand higher yields for longer-dated US government and corporate debt.

Finally, though I increasingly see the term "hyperinflation" thrown around in conversation, hyperinflation in the US is just not even a remote possibility. The last time an actual hyperinflation occurred in a major economy was Germany after WW1. The differences between then and now are too many to mention, but here are a few: fiat current vs gold standard, reserve currency status (the US today), massive debt burden denominated in a foreign currency (Germany then), immature and non-independent central banking (Germany then). A Weimar Republic style hyperinflation is just off the table; so let's stop throwing the term around.

Maybe you're referring to something akin to the US 1970s era "very high but not event close to hyper-" inflation, e.g. 5-20+% per year. While possible, it's highly unlikely. Maybe we get to something like 5% annualized inflation for a year or so, but I wouldn't bet on much more than that.

The inflation period in the 70s (stagflation) perplexed monetary policy-makers at the time, who weren't used to seeing high inflation coupled with stagnant or negative growth. This period of inflation was caused largely by market characteristics that simply don't exist today: energy price shocks that caused raw materials supply constraints throughout the economy. The US was a much more concentrated economy in the 70s, with a relatively large portion of GDP tied to raw materials and thus imported oil. Today the US is largely energy independent and does not have such a narrow concentration of supply dependencies in the economy. The US has evolved into a much more diversified and service-based economy, as opposed to the manufacturing-focused economy of the post-war period. There is no one commodity that we rely heavily on that, if unable to access would effectively stagnate economic growth. In the 1970s, OPEC basically said, "hey, no more oil!", and we were like "yea but we need it for pretty much everything and if we can't have it we're fucked" and OPEC basically said "yea well tough shit".

There is not a modern equivalent of imported oil that is the lifeblood of the economy controlled by a cartel that when supply is artificially constrained we would be completely fucked. Even something like semi-conductors while worrisome, is fundamentally different than a commodity like oil. We can decide to produce semi-conductors if it's in our economic interest, but we can't just decide to have more oil.

Finally, central bankers are not stupid. They're very aware of inflation risks. And while they are committed to keeping short-term interest rates low for an unusually long period of time, long-term interest rates do and will reflect market conditions.

This does not end in hyperinflation; it ends with moderately elevated inflation and that outcome is undeniably better than a deflationary outcome.