A “reasonable base case” for tariffs is that their impact on US inflation is a one-off price increase, Jerome Powell said Wednesday, following a policy meeting at which two governors dissented for the first time in more than 30 years.

It’s possible, though, that tariff-related price pressures become an “ongoing problem” through the expectations channel, something the Fed’s determined to prevent. Current policy settings, which Powell described as mildly restrictive, are appropriate in that context.

During the press conference, Powell repeatedly refused to concede that the odds of a rate cut in September are high, although you might argue his references to the sheer volume of fundamental information the Fed will receive between now and then constitute a tacit acknowledgement that data-permitting, a cut’s likely at the next meeting.

When asked directly if the market (and the Trump administration) is overestimating the likelihood of a move in September, Powell said the US economy’s not performing as though restrictive policy’s holding it back “inappropriately.” The Fed will see “a good amount of data” over the next six weeks, and the Committee will take all of that information into consideration, he said.

Steve Liesman wondered if recent trade deals have removed some of the uncertainty around tariffs. Powell was reluctant to endorse that assessment. “We’re still a ways away from seeing where things settle down,” he told Liesman. “It’s a very dynamic time for trade negotiations.”

Powell had more or less the same exchange with Wall Street Journal “Fed whisperer” Nick Timiraos. This is “early days” on the tariffs, Powell reiterated. So far, the evidence suggests the cost of the levies is mostly paid by US importers “upstream from consumers.” The Fed expects to see more pass-through, but there’s a “long way to go” to understand exactly how much. “You could argue we’re looking through tariffs by not raising rates,” he remarked.

A reporter from Axios pointed to evidence of weaker demand in Wednesday morning’s GDP release. Powell reminded the room that the Fed’s mandate isn’t to promote rapid nominal growth. “The labor market looks solid and inflation is above target even if you look through tariff effects,” he said. “That’s why our stance is where it is.”

Asked by Colby Smith about dissents from Chris Waller and Miki Bowman, Powell gave a boilerplate answer. All he asks from policymakers is that they present their case “clearly,” which Waller and Bowman apparently did. He described this week’s meeting as a good one, and although he alluded to the possibility that the June dot plot’s already stale, he assiduously avoided prejudging September’s SEP.

Michael McKee wondered if the Fed’s concerned about the impact of its policies on the government’s interest bill. It wasn’t a real question. McKee knows full well the official answer has to be “no,” regardless of what the unofficial, wink-wink answer might be. The Fed doesn’t “consider the fiscal needs of the government,” Powell said. “No advanced economy central bank does that.”

Politico‘s Victoria Guida asked the only question anyone really cared about on Wednesday. “Do you see [The White House’s] interest in [the cost of renovations at the Eccles building] as being directly tied to the president’s push to get you to lower interest rates?” she asked.

“Not for me to say,” Powell responded. “I will say we had a nice visit with the president,” he added. “It was an honor to host him. It’s not something that happens very often at the Federal Reserve. To have the president come over.”