Federal Reserve Chair Kevin Warsh started his fight against inflation with jawboning during June’s decision on monetary policy. The performance was all words, many task forces, and no action. Warsh doubled down on the jawboning for July’s decision. The Chair expressed even more resolve for hitting the 2% inflation target while making the measuring stick provisional. PCE remains the benchmark for now, but Warsh suggested the task forces could change that strategy after January and declined to identify the broader set of inflation data informing his judgment.

Warsh doubled down on jawboning by describing a contentious policy meeting while also sidestepping a request to explain the decision to hold rates unchanged. Warsh also refused to provide any insight on the dissent from the three of twelve voting FOMC members who each voted for a quarter-point rate hike (Beth M. Hammack, Neel Kashkari, and Lorie K. Logan). He even declared as a counterpoint that there was “a lot of agreement on the hard questions.” He also heard a lot of “commonality” on the key questions he mentioned at the top of the press conference; the answers just had different “leans.”

Finally, Warsh further extended his brand of opaque Fedspeak by countering the image of a Fed fighting over rate hikes with the unanimity on a metaphorical vote for a period of “watchful thinking not watchful waiting.” In either sense of watchfulness, Warsh did not provide specifics about what the Fed is actually prepared to do to finally bring inflation back to target.

The statement itself made the decision to hold rates steady even harder to explain. The FOMC described economic activity as expanding at a solid pace, productivity and capital investment as strong, job gains as keeping pace with the workforce, and unemployment as little changed. At the same time, inflation remained elevated. Yet, the Committee offered no explanation for why this combination of solid growth, stable employment, and above-target inflation justified leaving rates unchanged. Instead, the statement jumped from attributing some price increases to supply shocks straight into more jawboning: “The Committee will deliver price stability.”

Warsh’s declarations about inflation were all the more awkward given he continued to imply that the Fed before his tenure was not serious enough about its inflation target. For context, Warsh consistently describes inflation as a choice, a claim predating his appointment to the Chair. However, he has yet to specify the choices the Fed needs to make beyond the potential recommendations from his various task forces. Instead, he is keen to point out distinctions between the current FOMC and prior ones: “we have begun a new chapter, and we understand that the five-plus years of inflation above target cannot be cured in nine weeks—or by a single month of modest price decreases.”

Warsh introduced one more potential choice without making it specific: the balance sheet. He asked how much accommodation it is still providing even if interest-rate policy remains the Fed’s primary instrument. As with the inflation framework, Warsh posed the question without providing an answer, an intended adjustment, or a timetable.

Passing the Inflation Fight to the Bond Market

One emergent choice could be passing the inflation-fighting baton to financial markets. In his opening statement, Warsh anticipated questions about what the Fed did to fight inflation between the June and July meetings. He pointed out that the Fed’s retreat from the business of forecasting and forward guidance allowed financial markets to react to data instead of the Fed. The result? Higher bond yields that have tightened financial conditions. He used a sports metaphor to emphasize the change in the game: “market participants are learning to play the ball, not the referee—and market prices will continue to respond in the direction and magnitude they see fit.”

While Warsh insisted that “where necessary and appropriate, we will not hesitate to act,” he declined to clarify the conditions under which the FOMC would actually do something about inflation. Still, toward the end of the press conference, Warsh acknowledged that the bond market’s tightening of financial conditions provides “some comfort that we’ve got the ability and capability to deliver.” The coded language suggests that the Fed is willing to let the bond market do part of the inflation-fighting work while the FOMC waits for results.

One perplexed reporter pointed out that the bond market’s higher rates suggested the Fed was falling behind on hiking its own rates. Another befuddled reporter bluntly asked, “Why should rates not be higher today?” Warsh deftly avoided referencing the Fed funds rate and instead chose to point out the “market’s judgement” to take nominal rates higher along the Treasury curve. While the Fed will not allow the market to dictate its actions, the Fed is “observing” markets.

Warsh next pointed out that both the Fed and markets have upcoming decisions to make about interest rates. He tried to make it plain: “Monetary policy matters not just by what we say, or even what we do. Monetary policy matters by how it affects the real economy.” Of all the Warshspeak on the day, that statement stood out to me as the clearest declaration of the Fed’s modality for action in the Warsh era. If the Fed concludes that market is tightening financial conditions in response to inflationary pressures, the Fed will be content to wait for inflation to respond accordingly.

The Bond Market Hears Warsh Loud and Clear

The bond market seemed to get the point. Long-duration Treasury bonds sold off sharply as soon as the Fed’s statement hit the wires and barely stopped to catch a breath for the rest of the regular trading day.

The reaction function for stocks was much more volatile. The S&P 500 (SPY) rallied into and through the statement until someone tapped stocks on the proverbial shoulder and turned attention to the bond sell-off. The S&P 500 sold off sharply in the last hour of trading, falling from a marginal 0.4% gain intraday to a 1.5% loss at the close.

The subtle frustration from the press intensified with every unanswered question. One reporter almost pleaded with Warsh. The reporter pointed out his repeated claims about intolerance for above target inflation while his Fed has yet to take action. In response to the reporter’s request to clarify what he means by “no tolerance for inflation” and the plans to act, Warsh responded by acknowledging the impatience he had heard about this situation. Yet, he still only offered the same menu of jawboning by declaring this Fed is “on the job. We will deliver.” First, the Fed needs to answer a series of hard questions in order to deliver on its remit.

The press’s frustration symbolically boiled over in the last question: “You said you’d be open to having press conferences when there’s news to make. Today, no change in rates. No forward guidance. For the average household, what was the news today?” Warsh’s final non-answer was telling. Warsh first reiterated his commitment to the existing press conference schedule for 2026. He went on to assure the audience that the Fed is “on the case”, and his confidence in the Fed’s ability to deliver on its inflation target was even stronger than when he took the Chair position. He concluded the session by leaving the audience with “the optimism of a new central banker that we’re committed as ever to deliver and to offer an assurance we will.” And with that doubling down, the jawboning came to an end.

Be careful out there!

Full disclosure: long TLT

The post Warsh Doubled Down On Jawboning Even As the Fed Fights Over Rate Hikes appeared first on Inflation Watch.

In his first press conference as Fed Chair, Kevin Warsh found another way to talk up and reaffirm the Fed’s credibility on inflation. He shortened the policy statement to focus on what he called the ”facts,” removed forward guidance, repeatedly invoked the Fed’s commitment to “price stability,” and launched task forces designed to produce strategic and operational reforms for some time in the future.

Fighting Inflation With Jawboning

In his opening remarks, Warsh insisted that “members of the FOMC are unambiguous and unanimous. This Committee will deliver price stability.” He returned to the same jawboning when asked about inflation and the Fed’s ability to bring inflation back to target: “Today, I am announcing that this Committee has unambiguously and unanimously decided that we are going to deliver on that.”

Given the lack of forward guidance, Warsh’s repetition and reemphasis came without defining what the commitment means for the next rate decision. This approach is classic central-bank jawboning. The posturing gives Warsh room to maintain hawkish credibility without committing the FOMC to a near-term rate hike.

The most revealing moments came when Warsh responded to questions about the restrictiveness of current policy. He described monetary policy’s restrictiveness as “uneven.”

“If I look at the housing market as one example,” Warsh said, “Fed policy is not the single determinant of the state of the housing market, but broadly, I would say Fed policy appears to be somewhat restrictive there.” Warsh contrasted housing with financial markets. “I would have a hard time saying those words if I were looking at what is happening in financial markets.” That observation alone could have been sufficient to knock the S&P 500 (SPY) down 1.2% on the day and position it for another test of its uptrending 50-day moving average (DMA) support (the red line below).

Warsh made a similar point later in the press conference: “I do see some restrictiveness in things like housing. It is hard to use those same words anywhere else.” In other words, there is little to no case for cutting rates when the majority of the economy and financial markets are not behaving as if monetary policy is restrictive.

And for Further Emphasis…

In response to a question about underlying inflation pressures in the economy, Warsh pointedly emphasized the message from the statement on monetary policy: “…to be clear, the Fed will deliver price stability.” He again described the Fed’s commitment to price stability as “strong, unanimous, and unambiguous.” Warsh called this commitment “an important message we have missed for five years” and promised, “we are going to fix that.”

Warsh’s insistence and emphasis build the credibility behind the jawboning. The end of forward guidance avoids pre-committing to a rate path that at this time would have to point to higher rates. Warsh wants to pre-commit to an outcome. The outcome is 2% inflation. The path is deliberately unspecified except through the work of task forces.

There’s A Task Force for That

The task forces were a pillar of Warsh’s first press conference. He announced the launch of five task forces: Fed communications, the Fed’s balance sheet, data sources, productivity and jobs in an era of technological transformation, and inflation frameworks. Warsh said the groups will “start with first principles, ask hard questions, examine current practice, consider alternatives, and ultimately propose next steps for policymaker consideration.”

The inflation task force bolstered the jawboning on inflation. Warsh said, “The last task force, the one on inflation frameworks, will examine the drivers of inflation, first principles, and weigh the full range of ideas for delivering price stability in a changing economy.” Since the Fed already wields substantial inflation expertise in the Cleveland Fed’s Center for Inflation Research, I am keenly interested in the makeup of this task force and the institutional response to its work. I also wonder whether Warsh will advocate for delays in changing monetary policy until this task force completes its work.

Warsh even deferred to the task force when asked whether he still believes AI-driven productivity gains pave the way to rate cuts. When asked whether productivity could justify lower rates, he shifted the issue to the new productivity and jobs task force. He said the task force will examine “timing, scale, speed, implications for output and employment.”

Confidence In Price Stability, Not the Path to Get There

Ironically, Warsh sounded most confident when discussing the things he believes the Fed can control, and least confident when discussing forecasts. He repeatedly showed confidence in the Fed’s ability to deliver price stability. He expressed little confidence in the effectiveness of the Fed’s rate projections.

That contrast may define his chairmanship. Forecasts are uncertain. Dots can be erased. Forward guidance can mislead. But inflation, in Warsh’s telling, is ultimately a monetary-policy choice.

“You bet it is,” he said when discussing the idea that inflation is primarily determined by monetary policy. “I’ve said for years, inflation is a choice. You bet it is.”

Once again, Warsh postured as hawkish without overtly committing to rate hikes. If inflation is a choice, and inflation remains above target, then the Fed is responsible for choosing differently. Rate cuts do not bring inflation down (just ask the Turkish Central Bank).

Reporters tried repeatedly to nudge Warsh into acknowledging rates must go higher. He steadfastly refused each time. For example, when asked why the Fed did not raise rates given the inflation risks, he answered curtly: “I’ve got nothing more to say than the statement itself.”

Still, when asked whether there was any discussion of a rate cut, Warsh dismissed the idea quickly: “There was one proposal on the table. There was no discussion of any other proposals. The discussion on that proposal was, I would say, quite limited. The group was unanimous and unambiguous on it.” Any lingering hopes for a rate-cut narrative officially died at that point. Perhaps the new narrative is possible now that the FOMC does not include a voting member who requests rate cuts no matter what the data say.

Conclusion

Warsh is targeting inflation credibility through communication before leaning on the interest-rate weapon. He seems to be buying time for inflation to cool on its own accord (transitory without calling it transitory). However, given inflation has remained sticky for years and is now creeping higher, time is not on his or the Fed’s side.

Yet, the latest Summary of Economic Projections (SEP) projects a Fed-standard glide path to the Fed’s target in another two years…

Regardless, toward the end of the press conference Warsh proclaimed a credibility argument underlined the jawboning: “When we deliver on our price-stability objectives, which we will, the American people will feel as though the hardships they have been living through, in part because of inflation over the last five years, are in the rearview mirror. That credibility will have dividends across what we do.”

The market question is whether Warsh can make this promise credible without first proving he and the FOMC are willing to raise rates. I am betting they continue to find ways to avoid rate hikes for the rest of the year absent a calamitous turn of monetary events.

Warsh’s war on inflation started with jawboning and the new Fed Chair used his first press conference to establish inflation-fighting seriousness without directly threatening tighter policy.

The post Warsh’s War On Inflation Starts With Jawboning appeared first on Inflation Watch.

Inflation Drivers

Inflation remains above target and is being driven by identifiable, but still unresolved, forces. Tariffs account for a significant share of core inflation and are taking longer than expected to pass through the economy. According to Powell, goods inflation has shifted from being flat or negative before tariffs to running around 2%, with tariffs contributing approximately 0.5 to 0.75 percentage points to the ongoing inflation overshoot.

Inflation has now run above target for five years, increasing concern as a new price shock from war has pushed oil prices higher. Powell acknowledged that the war against Iran has pushed up near-term inflation expectations. He also cautioned that the size and duration of oil’s impact on inflation is uncertain.

Powell expressed frustration with the stickiness of core non-housing services inflation. The labor market is no longer generating inflationary pressure yet services inflation has not declined accordingly.

The added uncertainty from war and oil reduces confidence in any forecasts. Powell acknowledged the lack of confidence behind them, noting that participants are effectively making estimates without strong conviction. He quipped that “you gotta write something down.” He even shared that someone on the FOMC joked that “This is one of those SEPs [Summary of Economic Projections], where if we were ever to skip an SEP, this would be a good one.”

Powell summarized the situation plainly: “the thing I really want to emphasize is that nobody knows.”

(Uncertain) Economic Backdrop

Still, Powell insisted that the broader economy remains resilient, with steady growth and stable unemployment. Longer-term inflation expectations remain anchored near 2%, which continues to provide an important foundation for policy.

The current SEP reflects low conviction and high uncertainty. Inflation’s trajectory will depend on how tariff effects resolve, how energy prices evolve, and whether services inflation begins to improve.

In the meantime, the Fed as a group still has core PCE (Personal Consumption Expenditure) inflation gliding comfortably to the Fed’s target of 2% by 2028 despite the recent updrift in the Fed’s preferred inflation gauge. Thus, the Fed remains confident in the path for the economy despite the lack of conviction in the forecasts.

The post Powell: Inflation Is Uncertain and the Forecasts Lack Conviction appeared first on Inflation Watch.

With so much dissension and disagreement in the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC), the minutes of recent meetings have become more revealing. The minutes from the December Fed meeting shed more light on the character of those disagreements than Powell was willing or able to share at the press conference. During that press conference, Powell emphasized consensus amid uncertainty and portrayed disagreement within the Fed as a natural consequence of a multidimensional policy environment. Read alongside those remarks, the minutes reveal a more fractious narrative, one marked by deep and structural differences that are likely to shape monetary policy well into 2026. Powell framed disagreement as technical. The minutes suggest it is structural.

A Committee Without An Anchor

As a reminder, the FOMC members displayed striking dispersion with their votes. While the nine votes in favor of a 1/4 percentage rate cut were sufficient to carry the decision, the minutes indicated that a few of the yes votes came from FOMC members who “indicated that the decision was finely balanced or that they could have supported keeping the target range unchanged”. Two votes opposed the rate cut outright and wanted to leave rates unchanged. The third opposing vote wanted a 1/2 percentage point cut. Specifically, in favor were Jerome H. Powell, Chair; John C. Williams, Vice Chair; Michael S. Barr; Michelle W. Bowman; Susan M. Collins; Lisa D. Cook; Philip N. Jefferson; Alberto G. Musalem; and Christopher J. Waller. Stephen I. Miran wanted the deeper cut. Austan D. Goolsbee and Jeffrey R. Schmid wanted no change.

Powell’s Consensus Narrative vs. the Reality in the Minutes

Powell framed the lack of unanimity as a question of risk-weighting rather than disagreement over fundamentals. “Everyone around the table agrees that inflation is too high and that we want it to come down,” he said, adding that officials also agree the labor market has softened. Where views diverge, Powell claimed, is “how do you weight those risks and what does your forecast look like,” describing the decision as a “close call” driven by the “complicated, unusual, difficult situation” tugging on the Fed’s dual mandates. Powell’s claim about inflation attitudes is particularly important given the Fed will likely spend a lot of time talking up its inflation-fighting credibility even as it cuts rates this year due to political and economic pressures.

The minutes suggest that the tension is forcing the Fed to confront a confluence of opposing economic views that resists clean consensus and raises the odds of persistent dissension. Importantly, a tension between inflation rhetoric and employment risk runs through the minutes.

Inflation: Confidence in Theory, Unease in Practice

Powell expressed confidence that inflation will continue to move lower over time. In aggregate, the minutes reflect that view. However, “a majority of participants remarked that overall inflation had been above target for some time and had not moved closer to the 2 percent objective over the past year”. The Fed’s staff reinforced these concerns by concluding that the upside risk to inflation has become more precarious given that inflation has remained above the Fed’s 2% target for four straight years. Still, some participants claimed that those upside risks have declined.

In a likely reference to the Fed’s Beige Book (which in 2025 was full of vivid descriptions of inflation pressures), the minutes reported that “some participants stated that their business contacts had reported persistent input cost pressures unrelated to tariffs”. Several of these participants in turn reported that “weaker demand limited the ability of some firms to raise prices or that business productivity gains might enable some firms to manage these cost pressures”. 

The minutes reported that “some participants highlighted the risk that elevated inflation might prove more persistent than expected”. These fears likely stem from the lingering and uncomfortable uncertainty about the ultimate impact of a fluid tariff regime. The minutes reported that a majority of participants expected disinflation in housing services to continue while a few participants also saw ongoing disinflation in core nonhousing services. As usual, this suggests the Fed finds plenty of comfort in the relatively tame long-term expectations for inflation based on survey and market data. As usual, these assessments suggest the Fed finds plenty of comfort in relatively tame long-term inflation expectations based on survey and market data.

If inflation will actually making a soft landing to the Fed’s 2% target in 2027 and 2028 as the current central tendency in the projections insists, the journey will likely continue to feature sticky inflation… and plenty of jawboning to convince financial markets the Fed will not allow tariffs, for example, to cascade into persistently high inflation. According to the minutes, “some participants noted concerns that a more prolonged period of above-target inflation could risk an increase in longer-run expectations”. Four years already seems like a prolonged period, so I am not convinced that a few more years above 2% will dissuade the Fed from continuing to cut rates to try to address weakness in the labor market.

Taken together, the minutes show a Fed that is far more concerned about labor-market fragility than its public messaging suggests. By incorporating that calculus, the bar for another rate cut looks lower than current market pricing implies”.

Labor Markets: Where the Fed’s Anxiety Really Shows

The FOMC sounded more unified about the employment picture. As a result, I expect in due time the Fed will give sway to cutting rates again sooner than later, as soon as January. According to the CME’s FedWatch tool, the current odds for a rate cut sit at a paltry 15% for the January 28th meeting, so I realize my perspective is an outlier. However, in a coming year that should deliver its share of outlier events, I think a January rate cut will be the least of the economic and financial surprises.

In December’s press conference, Powell acknowledged labor market softening. Powell said the Committee agreed that “the labor market has softened” and emphasized that employment faced “further risk”. However, he downplayed the urgency of the perceived deterioration. By contrast, the minutes uncovered some deeper anxieties about the employment picture and now give me further reason to believe in the high possibility for a January rate cut. For example, the minutes reported that several participants presented a case of potential signals of “greater fragility in the labor market”.

Why I am Expecting a January Rate Cut

The minutes reported that “participants generally assessed that, under appropriate monetary policy, the labor market likely would stabilize next year.” This conditional framing supports my expectation for more rate cuts than the market currently assumes. Notably, the central tendency of the Fed’s projections pegs 2025 as the peak year for unemployment. Any negative divergence from that assumption would strengthen the case for additional rate cuts.

Conclusion

The Fed as a group positions its statements for downside risks to employment and upside risks to inflation. However, the balance of its attention suggests the Fed is prepared to act as though inflation is well under control and employment is the more fragile component of the economic picture. I assume the stock market’s complete comfort with the current tensions comes from an abiding belief in the lower trajectory for interest rates. The market has already been gifted three rate cuts with the indices at or near all-time highs. The central tendency for rates in 2026 is 2.9% to 3.6%. The non-zero possibility that the Fed does not cut rates at all this year looks to me like window dressing meant to preserve the Fed’s inflation-fighting credibility.

I am betting on rate cuts to continue in January and an still positioned in the Goldman Sachs Access Inflation Protected USD Bond ETF (GTIP) as a main hedge against the stagflationary potential for more rate cuts in the face of sticky inflation. GTIP currently yields 4.2% and gained 1.9% in 2025. GTIP is down about 17% from its 2021 all-time high.

Be careful out there!

Full disclosure: long GTIP

The post Lessons from the Fed Minutes: Why Division and Dissension Are Likely to Dominate Monetary Policy in 2026 appeared first on Inflation Watch.

As before, Powell laid the blame for stagflationary impacts on tariffs: “increases in tariffs this year are likely to push up prices and weigh on economic activity.” In a likely reference to a Beige book full of tariff-driven warnings on inflation, Powell also observed the following:

“…we’re beginning to see some [tariff-driven inflationary] effects, and we do expect to see more of them over coming months. We do also see price increases in some of the relevant categories…that are attributable to tariff increases. In addition we look at surveys of businesses…many companies do expect to to put all or or some or all of the effective tariffs through to the next next person in the chain and ultimately to the consumer.”

These expectations for meaningful inflation keep the Fed sitting on its hands. The median expectation for the Federal Funds rate stayed the same for 2025 at 3.9% (the current range is 4.25 to 4.5%) but nudged higher for 2026 from 3.1% to 3.4%. Even 2027 nudged higher from 3.1% to 3.4%.

A Swipe at DOGE?

Powell’s implicit critique of Federal policies did not stop with economic policy this time around. In response to a question about the Federal Reserve’s plans to cut its workforce, Powell was curiously deliberate in explaining the “professional” way to rationalize a Federal workforce:

“This is something you do very carefully, thoughtfully, and you do it respecting that we have critical missions to carry out. I’ve had a lot of experience in my prior careers with headcount reductions and things like that, and this is how you do it professionally. You do it carefully, thoughtfully with a lot of planning, and you do it over a period of time.”

I took note of Powell’s commentary because the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) has made a name for itself with swift, sudden, and often deep cuts throughout the Federal government. Powell clearly plans to leave his Chairmanship swinging.

Muted Responses Include A Short-Term Bottom for the U.S. Dollar

While Powell was swinging, financial markets general yawned. The S&P 500 (SPY) did its typical post-Fed fade after erasing all of the morning’s gains. The net impact was a forgettable 0.03% loss on the day. The SPDR Gold Trust (GLD) fell 0.5% on the day as the U.S. dollar index (DXY) resumed its countertrend momentum since bottoming out at a fresh 3-year low and just below the April low. A major test is coming soon with resistance from the downtrending 50-day moving average (DMA) (the red line). I remain bearish on the U.S. dollar as long as that resistance holds.

Source: Tradingview.com

Be careful out there!

Full disclosure: long and short U.S. dollar currency pairs

The post Jerome Powell: Meaningful Inflation Is Coming appeared first on Inflation Watch.