Well, it’s official: Kevin Warsh isn’t Kevin Hassett, which is to say Warsh isn’t the rate-cutting super-patriot Donald Trump hoped he might be.
The Fed kept rates on hold Wednesday, as expected. Only one of 54 professional Fed watchers polled by Bloomberg saw a different outcome. John Barron, Chief US Economist at World Liberty Financial, penciled in a 150bps cut.
“We should lower interest rates,” Barron explained, when reached for comment. “We built a country by doing great and having rates low.”
Although Warsh “didn’t have the courage to do what should have been done,” as Barron put it, in the same remarks, the new chair did shake things up during his first meeting at the helm of the world’s most important institution.
The statement was concise, bordering on curt. So concise, in fact, that it’s amenable to a verbatim reprint without risking any undue disruption to the editorial flow:
The Committee decided to maintain the target range for the federal funds rate at 3-1/2 to 3-3/4 percent, in support of the Federal Reserve’s dual mandate. The Committee reaffirmed its policy of maintaining ample reserves in the banking system.
Economic activity is expanding at a solid pace despite elevated uncertainty that owes, in part, to the conflict in the Middle East. Productivity growth and capital investment are strong. Job gains have kept pace with the workforce, and the unemployment rate has changed little.
Inflation remains elevated relative to the Committee’s 2% goal, in part reflecting supply shocks that have driven price increases in certain sectors, including energy. The Committee will deliver price stability.
There you go. That’s all you get from Warsh. That statement’s just a third the length of a typical Powell-era statement, and now looks more like something that might’ve emanated from a pre-Lehman Fed.
Recall that the Committee was widely seen dropping its anachronistic easing bias on Wednesday. There were three dissents in favor of jettisoning the implicit nod to rate cuts at the last meeting. Warsh “solved” the problem by jettisoning forward guidance altogether.
To restate the obvious: There’s no defensible case for cutting rates in the near-term, although The White House will surely claim that “peace” in the Mideast, and the accompanying oil price relief, removes an obstacle to additional easing.
Notwithstanding an argument that says the (conveniently-timed) Iran MOU gives Warsh air cover to leave the door open for cuts, the macro facts on the ground argue that such a move would be folly.
Headline inflation’s running two full percentage points above target and we’re one CPI uptick (or UNR downtick) away from YoY growth on the all-items gauge exceeding the jobless rate.
The economy’s adding nearly 200,000 jobs per month on average, consumer spending’s holding up (see Wednesday’s retail sales report) and with the S&P loitering at or near records, the wealth effect’s in full swing.
Real Fed funds, you’re gently reminded, is now negative and as such, it’s more than a full percentage point below SEP-implied r-star.
Speaking of the SEP, the dot plot refresh shows half of policymakers now expect to hike rates at least once this year. Warsh, it appears, didn’t submit a rate forecast. He’s not a fan of the dots, nor of forward guidance more generally.
As expected, the new inflation projections reflected sharp upward revisions to the headline and core PCE outlook. Overall and underlying price growth on the Fed’s preferred measure (which Warsh doesn’t like either) will average 3.6% and 3.3% this year, respectively, according to the June SEP.
The growth and unemployment forecasts were more or less unchanged. The 2026 GDP median projection was 2.2% versus 2.4% in March a downward revision that “offset,” if you will, a slightly lower (4.3% versus 4.4%) UNR projection.
There were no dissents on Wednesday. That, many argued ahead of this week’s proceedings, was Warsh’s only real goal at his first meeting: Conveying the managerial capacity to cobble together unanimity around the language for an refashioned policy communiquĂ©.


we’re gonna need a task force to keep track of the task forces.
Considering the forces in play, this was a very good outcome.
My God, will Warsh phase out the dot plots??
I have long advocated for WEEKLY dot plot.surveys to further boost hedge fund profits.
Been a while since we’ve heard from John Barron, thanks for bringing that perspective here.
Both the statement and press conference were unmistakably hawkish in my opinion, which is fine given current inflation and the fact that other central banks are already reacting. If the new chair was seeking to reaffirm his credibility with markets and colleagues I believe today accomplished that for the most part, this was the perfect debut for pretty much everyone except the man who gave Warsh the job, which should lead to interesting outcomes…
I disagree with this assessment. I think Warsh and his task forces and the subtle inclusion of a line alluding to yet-to-be-realized productivity gains in the statement (which Warsh spent time editorializing around in the presser) plainly indicate an intention to create the latitude for rate cuts in the event Trump “needs” them. When you’re not out there explaining yourself — i.e., when the statements are short, if/when you start cutting out press conferences, if/when you stop releasing projections and if/when you even start skipping whole policy meetings — you’re less accountable to the public. There was a (very) strong argument for pretty much everything Warsh wants to do when Fed independence wasn’t in question. Now that it is in question, we need to hear from him/them regularly to be sure they’re not succumbing to pressure.
The market reaction wasn’t to Warsh. It was to the dots. And he wants the dots gone.
If I understand correctly, doing away with forward guidance increases uncertainty, and markets don’t like uncertainty. Seems like a recipe for volatility…
Is the value of this strategy that it gives the chair greater latitude to pivot (say if he needs to save his job)?