Fed Rate Hike: How Long Can Kevin Warsh Wait?

Last updated: August 2, 2026, 5:30 a.m. EDT

The Federal Reserve has not raised interest rates. But after its July meeting, the question confronting investors is no longer whether another increase is imaginable. It is how much longer policymakers can wait if inflation remains above target, long-term borrowing costs keep climbing, and the public begins to doubt that the central bank has a workable route back to 2% inflation.

On July 29, the Federal Open Market Committee left the federal funds target range unchanged at 3.50% to 3.75%. The decision itself was widely anticipated. The vote was not. Three officials—Beth Hammack, Neel Kashkari and Lorie Logan—preferred an immediate quarter-percentage-point increase. Their dissents turned an otherwise routine hold into a warning that the inflation debate inside the central bank has moved materially in a more hawkish direction.

The incoming data explain why. The Bureau of Economic Analysis reported that the personal consumption expenditures price index was 3.7% higher in June than a year earlier. The core measure, which excludes food and energy and is closely watched by the Fed, rose 3.3%. Consumer-price data offered a more mixed picture: headline CPI was up 3.5% over 12 months, while core CPI eased to 2.6%. The labor market remained stable by one important measure—the unemployment rate was 4.2%—but payroll growth was modest, participation fell, and earlier employment estimates were revised lower.

At the same time, financial markets were tightening conditions without a change in the Fed’s overnight policy rate. The 30-year Treasury yield moved above 5.2% after the meeting and reached 5.27% on July 31 in the Treasury Department’s daily curve data. Reuters reported that the benchmark had reached its highest level since 2007. Higher long-term yields feed into mortgages, corporate borrowing, public financing and the discount rates used to value stocks. That means the Fed is already receiving some of the restraint that a rate increase is intended to produce—but through a volatile market channel that it does not directly control.

Harvard economist Jason Furman, a former chair of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, framed the dilemma clearly in a Bloomberg interview following the decision. His argument was not that every recent price increase reflects an overheated domestic economy. Tariffs and the Middle East energy shock have raised costs in ways that differ from the wage-price dynamics seen earlier in the inflation cycle. Nor did he dismiss the possibility that current rates are already above neutral. His concern was that a sequence of individually plausible explanations can become a substitute for delivering the promised result.

That is the central policy issue now. A tariff can raise the price level without creating permanently accelerating inflation. An energy shock can lift headline inflation and then fade. But if businesses respond to repeated shocks by resetting prices more aggressively, workers demand compensation for past losses in purchasing power, and households come to expect inflation to remain high, the supposedly temporary disturbance can become persistent. The Fed’s credibility is the mechanism intended to prevent that transition. Credibility, however, is not self-renewing. It is strengthened when words, decisions and outcomes align, and depleted when they do not.

The strongest case for patience is that the economy is being hit by supply-side disturbances while long-term rates are already doing substantial tightening. The strongest case for a hike is that five years of above-target inflation, rising core PCE and a stable unemployment rate leave the Fed with both the obligation and the room to act. Neither case is frivolous. The difficulty for Chair Kevin Warsh is that his reduced reliance on forward guidance raises the stakes of every actual decision. If the Fed wants markets to listen less to promises, it may eventually have to make policy actions carry more of the message.

Key Takeaways

• The decision: The Federal Reserve held its target range at 3.50% to 3.75% on July 29, 2026, in a 9–3 vote.
• The surprise: Beth Hammack, Neel Kashkari and Lorie Logan dissented in favor of a 25-basis-point rate increase.
• The inflation problem: June headline PCE inflation was 3.7% year over year and core PCE inflation was 3.3%, both well above the Fed’s 2% objective.
• The labor-market cushion: Unemployment was 4.2%, giving policymakers more room to focus on inflation, although payroll growth and participation showed softness.
• The market signal: The 30-year Treasury yield reached 5.27% on July 31, extending a rise that has already tightened mortgages and other long-term borrowing conditions.
• The policy dilemma: Tariffs and energy disruptions may produce price-level shocks rather than permanently higher inflation, but repeated shocks can spread through expectations, wages and broad pricing behavior.
• The communication risk: Warsh’s retreat from detailed forward guidance can reduce false precision, but it can also magnify volatility and leave markets unsure how the Fed will translate its 2% commitment into action.
• What comes next: The September 15–16 FOMC meeting will include new economic projections. Before then, policymakers will receive additional employment, CPI and PCE data.

What the Federal Reserve Actually Decided

The July decision contained two messages that point in different directions. The formal action was restraint through inaction: the FOMC kept its policy rate where it had been since December 2025. The vote, by contrast, revealed a meaningful constituency for renewed tightening. That distinction matters because monetary policy is not only the announced target range. It is also the committee’s evolving reaction function—how officials are likely to respond when inflation, employment, growth and financial conditions change.

The official statement described economic activity as expanding at a solid pace, job gains as keeping pace with labor-force growth and unemployment as little changed. It said inflation remained elevated, partly because of supply shocks including higher energy prices. The committee again committed itself to maximum employment and 2% inflation over the longer run.

Nothing in that language amounted to a promise to raise rates in September. Nothing ruled one out. The statement’s deliberate ambiguity is standard central-bank practice when the outlook is uncertain. What made this meeting unusual was the number and direction of the dissents. A three-person bloc wanted to tighten immediately, even though the unemployment rate was not falling rapidly and even though long-term market rates had already risen sharply.

A dissent does not automatically predict the next decision. Officials can change their views as new data arrive, the voting membership can change over time, and those who supported the hold may still be open to a later increase. Yet dissents provide information about where policymakers see the balance of risks. In January 2026, the dissenting pressure was in the opposite direction: two officials preferred a cut. In March, one official wanted a cut. By July, three voters wanted a hike. The committee had moved from debating whether easing should proceed to debating whether the easing delivered in late 2025 needed to be partly reversed.

The policy rate had been reduced in three steps during the second half of 2025, from 4.25%–4.50% before the September meeting to 3.50%–3.75% in December. Those cuts were made as labor-market risks received greater attention and inflation appeared to be moving closer to target. The economy of mid-2026 presents a different mix: inflation has reaccelerated, energy markets have been disrupted, tariff policy remains active, and the labor market has not produced the kind of sharp deterioration that would make a rate increase obviously unacceptable.

That does not make the July hold inconsistent. Monetary policy acts with lags, and the committee can reasonably wait to distinguish a temporary price-level adjustment from a sustained inflation process. But the threshold for waiting becomes more demanding as the gap between actual inflation and the stated objective persists. A central bank can look through one shock. It cannot indefinitely look through the cumulative outcome.

Why the Three Rate-Hike Dissents Mattered More Than the Hold

Furman’s emphasis on the dissents is persuasive because the headline decision alone understates the change inside the committee. A hold at 3.50%–3.75% might sound like continuity. A 9–3 vote for that hold says the policy consensus has weakened. It also indicates that some officials believe the costs of waiting now exceed the risks of acting.

The dissenters are not interchangeable. Hammack, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland, Kashkari, president of the Minneapolis Fed, and Logan, president of the Dallas Fed, bring different institutional experiences and regional perspectives. Their common conclusion nevertheless sends a broad signal: the argument for higher rates is no longer confined to one unusually hawkish member.

Three dissents are especially important when the chair is trying to communicate less. Under a system of extensive forward guidance, markets can weigh speeches, projections and carefully repeated phrases to infer the likely path. Under a system that gives less directional guidance, votes become more informative. They are observable actions by policymakers, not verbal probabilities. The more the Fed retreats from describing what it might do, the more closely investors will study what individual officials were willing to do at the meeting itself.

The dissenters’ case can be reconstructed from public data even without attributing every argument to them individually. Inflation is above target on every major 12-month measure. Core PCE accelerated on a year-over-year basis. The unemployment rate is low by historical standards and has been stable. Real economic activity continued to expand in the second quarter. Long-term inflation expectations are not unanchored, but short-term expectations remain elevated. A quarter-point increase would therefore be presented not as an emergency response, but as insurance against persistence.

The majority’s case is also visible. Long-term Treasury yields had risen substantially before the meeting, tightening financial conditions. The latest headline CPI reading showed energy prices falling sharply in June, and core CPI was flat on the month. Payroll growth was modest. Supply shocks can make inflation temporarily worse while simultaneously weakening real demand. Raising the overnight rate in response to a war-related energy shock can impose additional costs without producing more oil, reopening shipping lanes or reversing tariffs.

The vote thus exposed a disagreement about timing rather than a disagreement about the destination. All participants officially support 2% inflation. The practical question is whether maintaining the current rate for another meeting helps the committee obtain better information, or merely postpones an action that becomes more disruptive if inflation remains high.

The Inflation Dashboard: One Economy, Several Different Signals

“Inflation” is not a single number. The Fed’s preferred PCE index and the more familiar CPI use different weights, formulas and coverage. Headline measures include food and energy; core measures exclude them. Monthly changes show current momentum but can be noisy. Twelve-month changes are smoother but incorporate older data. Annualized quarterly measures can reveal acceleration while also magnifying short-run volatility.

The June readings therefore need to be read together rather than treated as competing verdicts.

Sources: Bureau of Economic Analysis, Personal Income and Outlays; Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Price Index. Figures are seasonally adjusted where applicable.

Why core PCE is central to the Fed debate

The PCE index is broader than CPI, updates expenditure weights more readily and captures substitution between categories. It also includes some prices paid on behalf of households, such as certain health-care expenditures. The Fed states its 2% objective in terms of headline PCE inflation over the longer run, while core PCE is commonly used to judge the underlying trend because food and energy prices can be volatile.

June core PCE produced a superficially contradictory result: only a 0.1% monthly increase, but a 3.3% rise from a year earlier. The monthly figure supports patience because it suggests little immediate acceleration in that particular report. The annual figure supports tightening because it confirms that the level of underlying inflation remains well above the objective. Both are true.

One month cannot settle whether the tariff and energy effects are passing through once or propagating through the economy. The committee will want to know whether core goods prices continue to rise, whether services inflation slows, whether housing-related measures keep moderating, and whether businesses report greater ability to pass costs to customers. The composition matters as much as the average.

Why CPI looked better than PCE

The June CPI report showed a 5.7% monthly fall in the energy index and a 9.7% decline in gasoline. Those moves helped produce a 0.4% drop in headline CPI. Yet energy was still 15.7% more expensive than a year earlier and gasoline was up 26.7% over 12 months. A lower price than in May is relief; a much higher price than in June 2025 is still a squeeze on household budgets.

Core CPI was unchanged on the month and up 2.6% over the year. Shelter rose only 0.1% in June and 3.3% over 12 months, continuing a long-awaited moderation in a category that carries substantial weight. Airline fares, by contrast, were 26.5% higher than a year earlier, illustrating how fuel, capacity and travel demand can produce sharp sector-specific movements.

The difference between core CPI and core PCE does not mean one measure is wrong. Their weights and methodologies differ. The gap does mean that claims about “the inflation rate” need a label. A policymaker citing 2.6% core CPI is describing a different index from one citing 3.3% core PCE. The Fed’s preferred framework makes the latter especially difficult to ignore.

The second-quarter price data were hotter than the June snapshot

The advance estimate for second-quarter gross domestic product added another reason for caution. Real GDP expanded at a 1.5% annualized rate, down from 2.1% in the first quarter. Yet the PCE price index increased at a 5.1% annualized pace during the quarter, and core PCE prices increased at a 3.4% pace. The price index for gross domestic purchases rose 5.7%.

Quarterly annualization should not be confused with a 12-month inflation rate. It asks what the quarterly pace would look like if repeated for a year. That makes it sensitive to temporary movements. Even so, the combination of slower headline growth and high prices is uncomfortable. It limits the appeal of a simple demand-management response because the economy can face weaker real growth and stronger inflation at the same time.

There was a more resilient signal beneath the GDP headline. Real final sales to private domestic purchasers—a measure of consumer spending and private fixed investment that strips out inventories, government and net exports—rose at a 3.9% annualized pace. Domestic private demand therefore looked stronger than the 1.5% GDP figure alone suggested. That supports the view that the economy can withstand some restraint, but it also complicates the claim that demand is already too weak for a hike.

How the Rate-Hike Debate Returned After the 2025 Cuts

The current argument makes more sense when placed against the path the Fed took in late 2025. The committee lowered the target range at three consecutive meetings, ending the year at 3.50%–3.75%. At the time, officials were responding to a softer balance of risks: inflation had moved down from its earlier peaks, the labor market was cooling, and keeping rates too restrictive for too long threatened unnecessary damage to employment.

Those cuts were not a declaration that the inflation fight was finished. They were an attempt to recalibrate policy as the economy changed. Monetary policy is restrictive or accommodative relative to an uncertain neutral rate, not relative to the emotional tone of the latest meeting. A 3.625% midpoint can still restrain demand if the nominal neutral rate is lower. It can also prove insufficient if inflation expectations, productivity, fiscal borrowing or risk premiums push the equilibrium rate higher.

The policy sequence is nevertheless politically and economically consequential. Raising rates in 2026 would amount to reversing part of the previous year’s easing. Central banks do this when the outlook changes, but reversals can make communication harder. Officials must explain why a cut that was appropriate months earlier does not preclude a hike now. Markets may ask whether the original easing went too far. Households may see only that borrowing costs remain high and wonder why the central bank changed direction.

The answer lies in conditionality. A responsible central bank does not defend an old forecast after the facts change merely to appear consistent. It also should not overreact to every monthly fluctuation. The July vote suggests the FOMC is testing where that line now falls. The majority judged that one more period of observation was worth the risk. Three voters judged that the information already available justified action.

Sources: Federal Reserve monetary-policy statements and minutes. A basis point is one-hundredth of a percentage point.

Are Current Rates Already Above Neutral?

One of the best arguments for holding rates is that the policy setting may already be restrictive. Furman made this point using the image of a foot on the brake pedal: the question may not be whether the brake is engaged, but whether the Fed needs to press harder.

The neutral rate is the theoretical interest rate consistent with an economy operating near full employment and inflation stable at target. It cannot be observed directly. Estimates depend on assumptions about productivity, demographics, fiscal policy, global savings, risk preferences and inflation expectations. The neutral real rate is commonly discussed before inflation; adding expected inflation produces a nominal neutral rate.

If expected inflation over the relevant horizon were roughly 2.5% to 3% and the neutral real rate were around 1%, a nominal policy rate near 3.5% to 4% might be close to neutral or modestly restrictive. Different assumptions produce a different answer. That uncertainty is why policymakers rarely behave as if a single neutral-rate estimate provides a precise instruction.

There are at least four reasons the neutral rate may be higher than it was in the decade before the pandemic. Federal borrowing needs are large. Artificial-intelligence infrastructure and data-center construction have raised investment demand. Global supply chains and defense spending are being reorganized. Productivity could improve, which can raise the return on capital and the rate consistent with balanced growth. If neutral has risen, a 3.50%–3.75% policy range may be less restrictive than it appears from comparison with the 2010s.

There are also reasons not to assume a permanently higher neutral rate. Higher investment can eventually expand productive capacity. Aging populations can increase desired saving. A sharp decline in risk appetite can lower private demand. Estimates that appear to rise during an inflation shock can fall when the shock fades. The neutral-rate debate is therefore useful for framing uncertainty, not for escaping it.

The more practical test is whether interest-sensitive activity is slowing. Housing remains constrained by mortgage rates and affordability. Smaller businesses face expensive credit. Commercial real-estate refinancing is difficult for weaker properties. Yet consumer spending and private domestic demand have continued to grow. Financial conditions are tight in some channels and supportive in others, particularly where equity values, cash balances or AI-related investment remain strong.

A policy rate can be restrictive without being restrictive enough to return inflation to target in a reasonable period. That distinction is crucial. The Fed’s mandate is not satisfied merely because some borrowers feel pain. It is satisfied when aggregate conditions are consistent with price stability and maximum employment. The current rate may be braking the economy while still not producing sufficient disinflation.

Tariffs: A Price-Level Shock That Can Become an Inflation Process

Furman estimated that tariffs may have added roughly half a percentage point to a full percentage point to inflation. That range should be treated as an economist’s estimate, not an official decomposition. The exact contribution is difficult to isolate because tariff schedules changed, courts altered parts of the policy framework, exclusions mattered, exchange rates moved, firms absorbed different shares in margins, and the energy shock occurred at the same time.

The economic mechanism is straightforward. A tariff raises the cost of imported goods subject to the levy. Importers can absorb the cost, negotiate lower foreign-currency prices, change suppliers, reduce product quality, or pass the cost to downstream businesses and consumers. In practice, the burden is distributed across these channels. Domestic producers competing with tariffed imports may also gain room to raise prices even if their own goods are not directly taxed.

A one-time tariff increase normally raises the price level rather than causing inflation to accelerate forever. Suppose a product costs $100 and a tariff-related adjustment lifts it to $106. The year-over-year inflation rate is higher during the transition. Once the new price is established, the tariff does not by itself require the product to rise another 6% every year. This is what economists mean when they distinguish a level effect from an ongoing rate of change.

That clean textbook distinction can break down in the real economy. Tariff policy may arrive in waves rather than once. Companies can face repeated changes in rates, coverage and enforcement. Businesses may use a cost shock as the occasion for a broader price review. Suppliers can renegotiate contracts. Workers can seek higher wages to offset reduced purchasing power. Competitors can change markups. If expected inflation rises, firms become more willing to increase prices because they assume rivals and customers will accept the same environment.

The central bank therefore has to decide how much of the initial tariff effect to accommodate. Trying to offset every direct price increase immediately could require a large demand contraction and unnecessary job losses. Ignoring all pass-through could allow the shock to broaden. The appropriate response depends on expectations, wage growth, pricing behavior and the amount of economic slack—not merely on whether the first impulse originated in Washington rather than in private demand.

The Congressional Budget Office has illustrated the scale of the issue. In a 2024 analysis, CBO estimated that a broad 10% tariff could raise the PCE price level by about 0.6%, although actual outcomes depend on policy design and economic responses. In its 2026 outlook, CBO projected inflation remaining above 2% for an extended period and identified tariffs among the forces affecting the path. These are model-based estimates, not measurements of the exact contribution in June 2026.

Policy churn adds another complication. In February 2026, the Supreme Court rejected the use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act for broad global tariffs, changing the legal foundation of part of the administration’s trade program. The administration then continued to use other statutory authorities, including sectoral tariffs and a July Section 301 action related to forced labor. For companies, the relevant fact is not only the average tariff rate. It is the uncertainty around future sourcing costs, exemptions, retaliation and enforcement.

Uncertainty can be inflationary even when firms delay investment. A company that cannot predict its landed costs may carry more inventory, duplicate suppliers or demand a wider margin of safety. Those choices can improve resilience but reduce efficiency. They also make it harder for the Fed to determine whether a price increase is temporary. The more often the trade regime changes, the less useful a simple “one-time shock” assumption becomes.

The Middle East Energy Shock and the Limits of Interest Rates

The second major supply disturbance is energy. The Fed’s July Monetary Policy Report said inflation stepped up in March as energy prices surged following the outbreak of conflict in the Middle East. It also described severe constraints on shipping through the Strait of Hormuz and disruptions to regional energy infrastructure. By May, the PCE energy category was 24% higher than a year earlier.

Energy affects inflation through more than gasoline. Crude oil and natural gas influence transportation, chemicals, plastics, fertilizer, industrial heat, electricity generation and the cost of moving goods. Jet fuel affects airline economics. Diesel affects trucking and agriculture. Higher utility bills reduce disposable income. The pass-through varies by sector and can take months.

Interest-rate policy cannot produce oil or protect shipping. That is the strongest reason to avoid a mechanical response to headline inflation. If the Fed raises rates because a geopolitical event reduced supply, it suppresses demand without repairing the source of the shortage. The result can be lower output alongside still-high energy costs.

Yet the Fed cannot declare energy irrelevant. Households experience headline inflation, not an abstract core basket. When fuel and utility prices rise, consumers notice them frequently. Businesses incorporate energy into pricing decisions. Employees negotiate wages based on living costs. A sustained shock can therefore alter expectations even if the initial cause is outside monetary policy.

The June data demonstrated the volatility. Gasoline prices fell sharply from May, helping headline CPI and PCE decline on a monthly basis. Compared with a year earlier, however, gasoline remained dramatically more expensive. Policymakers must decide whether the monthly reversal signals normalization or only a pause within an unstable geopolitical environment.

This is where scenario analysis is more useful than a single forecast. A durable reduction in regional tensions, restored shipping capacity and lower energy prices would remove an important source of headline inflation and support patience. Renewed disruption, higher freight costs or damage to production infrastructure would do the opposite. The Fed cannot forecast military events with confidence, but it can examine how much inflation persistence the economy can absorb before expectations shift.

Is Inflation Broadening Into Wages and Economy-Wide Pricing?

Furman identified the most consequential question: whether the shock remains concentrated in particular prices or spreads into wages and broad price setting. A supply shock becomes much harder to look through when it changes the behavior of the whole economy.

The classic mechanism is a feedback loop. Prices rise, workers seek compensation, labor costs increase, companies raise prices again, and both sides come to expect the cycle to continue. The United States is not currently displaying the same combination of accelerating wages, severe labor scarcity and unanchored expectations associated with the most dangerous historical episodes. That is a real reason for cautious optimism.

But the absence of a full wage-price spiral is not proof that inflation will return to 2% automatically. Inflation can remain sticky through rents, insurance, health care, services, tariffs, energy and markups without producing an obvious 1970s-style loop. The relevant threshold is not whether the economy has recreated the worst historical case. It is whether nominal wage and price growth are compatible with 2% inflation over time.

For wages, productivity matters. If labor compensation rises 4% while productivity rises 2%, unit labor costs increase by roughly 2%, which can be consistent with the inflation objective depending on margins and sectoral conditions. If wage growth exceeds productivity by a larger amount, businesses may face pressure to raise prices or accept lower profits. Strong AI-related productivity gains could therefore give the economy more room to sustain wage growth without inflation. That possibility is central to Warsh’s supply-side emphasis, but productivity estimates are uncertain and uneven across industries.

Researchers and policymakers will watch measures such as average hourly earnings, the Employment Cost Index, unit labor costs, small-business compensation plans and survey-based hiring difficulty. No one series is decisive. Average hourly earnings can change because the occupational mix changes. The Employment Cost Index adjusts more carefully for composition but is quarterly. Unit labor costs depend on volatile productivity estimates. Surveys capture intentions rather than completed payments.

The broadening test also applies to prices. Policymakers need to know whether tariff-sensitive goods are driving most of the increase or whether services, shelter, insurance and other categories are accelerating. A narrow shock supports waiting. A diffuse increase supports action. The June split between flat core CPI and 0.1% core PCE on the month was encouraging, but it is too little evidence to establish a trend.

The Labor Market Gives the Fed Room—But Not a Blank Check

The Fed has a dual mandate: maximum employment and stable prices. The July labor-market picture made inflation the more obvious immediate problem, but it did not eliminate employment risk.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that nonfarm payrolls increased by 57,000 in June and the unemployment rate held at 4.2%. The number of unemployed people was 7.1 million. Payroll gains had averaged only 36,000 per month over the prior 12 months, and revisions reduced the previously reported April and May totals by a combined 74,000. Labor-force participation fell 0.3 percentage point to 61.5%.

Those data support two interpretations. The optimistic reading is that unemployment has been remarkably stable despite repeated shocks, suggesting the economy is near a sustainable employment balance. If unemployment is not rising, the Fed has room to focus on inflation. The cautious reading is that headline stability conceals weak job creation and declining participation. A rate increase could expose fragility that the unemployment rate has not yet captured.

The unemployment rate can remain steady when both employment and labor-force participation change. Payroll estimates can be revised substantially. Immigration and demographic changes affect how many jobs are needed to keep unemployment stable. A monthly gain that would have looked weak in a faster-growing labor force may be sufficient in a slower-growing one. That is why Furman’s statement that employment is in unusually good shape should be understood as a judgment about stability, not a claim that every labor indicator is strong.

The Fed must also consider asymmetry. If inflation expectations become unanchored, restoring credibility can require much larger rate increases later. If employment weakens unexpectedly, the committee can cut rates, although transmission is not instantaneous. This asymmetry strengthens the case for preventive action. On the other hand, workers who lose jobs cannot be made whole simply because rates are later reduced. That strengthens the case for caution.

The most defensible conclusion is that the labor market does not force the Fed to hold, but neither does it make a hike costless. Stable unemployment gives policymakers latitude. Soft payroll growth tells them to use that latitude carefully.

What the Bond Market Is Telling the Fed

The most visible post-meeting signal came from the long end of the Treasury curve. The Treasury Department’s official daily data show the 30-year yield at 4.93% on June 17, the date of the previous FOMC decision. It was 5.20% on July 29, 5.21% on July 30 and 5.27% on July 31. The 10-year yield rose from 4.49% on June 17 to 4.75% on July 31. The two-year yield moved from 4.20% to 4.28% over the same comparison.

The larger increase in long maturities matters. The two-year Treasury is especially sensitive to expectations for the near-term policy rate. The 10- and 30-year yields also reflect expected future short rates, long-run inflation, real growth, the supply of government debt, demand from investors and a term premium for holding duration. A steep rise at the long end cannot be translated into a single market opinion.

One interpretation, favored by Furman, is relatively constructive: much of the move occurred in real yields rather than inflation compensation, suggesting investors expected the Fed to deliver enough restraint to preserve price stability. Under this reading, higher long-term rates demonstrate credibility. Investors believe the central bank will eventually do what is necessary, so real borrowing costs rise before the policy rate changes.

A more skeptical interpretation is that the market demanded additional compensation because the policy path and inflation framework were unclear. Reuters reported that the 30-year yield moved above 5.2% after Warsh’s press conference and reached a 19-year high. Under this reading, the bond market was not calmly transmitting Fed credibility. It was repricing the risk that inflation would remain high, that fiscal borrowing would stay heavy, or that the Fed would need to tighten later and more abruptly.

Both mechanisms can operate at once. A rise in real yields can reflect confidence that the Fed will defend the target, concern that policy will have to be tighter, stronger expected growth, a higher term premium, or greater Treasury supply. Market prices reveal the compensation investors demand; they do not provide a transcript of why every investor demanded it.

Source: U.S. Treasury daily par yield curve rates. The Treasury describes these as indicative bid-side market quotations, generally obtained around 3:30 p.m. Eastern Time.

Why higher long-term yields can substitute for a Fed hike

Most households and companies do not borrow overnight at the federal funds rate. Mortgage rates are influenced by longer Treasury yields, mortgage-backed security spreads and lender costs. Corporate bond yields incorporate Treasury benchmarks plus credit spreads. Municipalities, utilities and infrastructure projects often borrow for years or decades. Equity valuations discount future cash flows using rates linked to the broader yield curve.

When the 10- and 30-year yields rise, financial conditions tighten even if the FOMC does nothing. Home affordability deteriorates. Refinancing becomes more expensive. Long-duration stocks face a higher discount rate. Capital projects need higher expected returns. The dollar may strengthen, restraining import prices but weighing on exporters. These effects reduce demand and can help lower inflation.

Warsh explicitly cited the increase in nominal and real yields as an important change between meetings. The press-conference transcript records his view that some inter-meeting increases were among the most significant of the past two decades. That observation gives the hold a coherent economic rationale: market rates had already delivered tightening.

The circularity is the problem. Long-term yields partly reflect expectations about what the Fed will do later. If investors expect a September hike, yields can rise today. If the Fed then cites those higher yields as a reason not to hike, the expectation may unwind. Financial conditions can loosen because the action investors anticipated never occurs. A central bank cannot permanently outsource its policy stance to a market forecast of its own future behavior.

This does not mean the Fed should ignore markets. It means officials must distinguish autonomous tightening from expectation-driven tightening. A rise caused by higher fiscal term premiums or diminished foreign demand may persist regardless of the next meeting. A rise caused by anticipated policy action may reverse when the committee disappoints that expectation. The same observed yield can therefore have different policy implications.

Why the 30-year yield is not a referendum with one answer

It is tempting to call a high long bond yield a vote of no confidence. That can be too simple. Long yields rise when bond prices fall, and those prices incorporate many forces beyond the Fed. The federal budget affects expected debt supply. Pension demand changes. Foreign reserve managers alter portfolios. Hedging flows move. Investors reassess productivity and growth. Inflation uncertainty can widen the term premium even if average expected inflation changes little.

For the Fed, the correct response is not to claim that every rise validates policy or that every rise condemns it. Officials should ask what component moved and why. Inflation-protected Treasury securities can help separate real yields from inflation compensation, although breakeven rates contain liquidity and risk premiums. Surveys provide a second perspective, but they too measure different populations and horizons.

The July University of Michigan survey showed one-year inflation expectations at 4.2%, down from 4.6% in June, while long-run expectations were 3.3%. The New York Fed’s June Survey of Consumer Expectations put median expectations at 3.7% for one year, 3.3% for three years and 3.0% for five years. These readings are not a picture of complete de-anchoring. They are also not comfortably at 2%.

The pattern—high near-term expectations and more contained longer-term expectations—is exactly what credibility is supposed to produce during a supply shock. People expect current inflation to hurt, but they expect the central bank eventually to restore stability. The danger is that “eventually” becomes less believable as the period above target lengthens.

Forward Guidance: Less False Precision, More Market Noise

Warsh has made clear that he wants to reduce the Fed’s dependence on forward guidance. His criticism has merit. Central-bank projections can be mistaken for promises. Markets can become overly focused on minor wording changes. Officials can appear to know more about the future than anyone realistically can. Detailed guidance can also constrain policy when the economy changes suddenly.

The Fed’s experience after the global financial crisis encouraged extensive communication because rates were near zero and policymakers needed to influence longer-term conditions through expectations. In a more normal rate environment, Warsh argues, markets should perform more independent price discovery. His press conference included a memorable formulation: policymakers should “play the ball, not the referee.” The Fed should focus on the economy rather than trying to manage every market reaction.

A retreat from forward guidance, however, is not the same as a retreat from explanation. Markets do not need a guaranteed path, but they do need a reaction function. Investors should understand which developments would make a hike more likely, which would justify patience, and how the committee distinguishes a temporary shock from persistent inflation. Without that framework, less guidance can become less accountability.

Furman’s critique goes to the institutional consequence. If the chair speaks less, other FOMC members will still speak. Their views may conflict. The absence of an authoritative framework can create more noise, not less. Each press conference then carries more weight because markets have fewer reference points. Surprises become larger even when the policy action is small.

The July meeting illustrated that risk. The hold was expected, yet the three dissents and Warsh’s discussion of long-term yields produced a substantial repricing. He said the Fed was not trying to surprise markets and did not intend to “spoon-feed” them. That is a reasonable distinction. Markets should not expect certainty. But avoidable confusion is not the same as healthy price discovery.

Good communication does not require a dot-by-dot promise. It can take the form of conditional clarity. For example, the Fed can say that it will judge persistence through several categories: core inflation breadth, wage growth relative to productivity, medium-term expectations, labor-market deterioration and the durability of market tightening. That tells the public how decisions are made without pretending to know the decision in advance.

If the Fed Talks Less, Does It Have to Act More?

Furman’s sharpest institutional point was that a central bank relying less on words may need to rely more on actions. This is not an argument for theatrical rate changes. It is an argument about information. Policy decisions reveal conviction. If officials repeatedly say inflation is too high but never alter the stance, markets may infer that the threshold for action is higher than the rhetoric suggests.

Under heavy forward guidance, a central bank can tighten financial conditions before a rate increase by signaling the likely path. Under sparse guidance, markets receive less reason to price future tightening until the Fed acts. That can make each action more important and potentially larger. The chair’s preferred communication style therefore cannot be separated from the committee’s willingness to move the policy rate.

There is a counterargument. A credible central bank can communicate commitment through a stable target and a disciplined analytical framework without frequent changes. Excessive action can look reactive and destabilizing. If long-term rates already incorporate the likely response, holding may be exactly what preserves a measured approach. The issue is not the number of rate moves. It is whether the combination of communication and action gives the public a coherent expectation.

Warsh’s phrase “watchful thinking, not watchful waiting” attempts to draw that distinction. It says the committee is actively reassessing rather than passively hoping. For the phrase to retain value, the September decision and accompanying projections will need to show what the reassessment produced. Another hold is possible, but it would require a clearer explanation of why the existing stance is sufficient despite inflation above target and three July dissents.

Federal Reserve Credibility Is a Stock, Not a Slogan

Credibility is often described as if it were a moral quality. Economically, it is a set of expectations. Households, businesses and markets believe the central bank will act strongly enough to keep inflation near its target over time. Because they believe that, they set wages, prices and contracts in ways that make the target easier to achieve. Credibility lowers the economic cost of disinflation.

The United States entered this episode with a large stock of credibility built over decades. That is visible in the relative stability of longer-term inflation expectations despite repeated shocks and five years of inflation above 2%. Furman is right to call that persistence remarkable. Markets have not behaved as if the Fed abandoned price stability.

Credibility can nevertheless be spent. A central bank may temporarily tolerate above-target inflation because it believes the cause will fade and because aggressive tightening would create unnecessary unemployment. If the public accepts the explanation, expectations remain anchored. But each extension of the forecast increases the burden of proof. Eventually, patience begins to look indistinguishable from unwillingness.

There are several channels through which credibility can erode:

• Target ambiguity: If officials appear to reinterpret 2% as a flexible ceiling that can be missed indefinitely, the numerical anchor weakens.
• Action-rhetoric gaps: Repeated promises without policy adjustment teach markets to discount statements.
• Forecast errors without learning: Mistakes are unavoidable, but failure to explain what changed reduces confidence in the framework.
• Political influence: Perceived pressure from elected officials can make inflation objectives look subordinate to short-term growth or financing costs.
• Communication inconsistency: Conflicting messages from the chair and other voters make the reaction function harder to infer.
• Outcome persistence: The longer inflation remains high, the less reassurance can rest on intentions alone.

Credibility is not restored by performing toughness for markets. An unnecessary hike can damage credibility if it appears disconnected from evidence. The more durable approach is consistency: a clear target, transparent criteria, decisions that follow those criteria and honest acknowledgment of uncertainty.

The July press conference contained the right verbal commitment. Warsh said there was no “soft” inflation target and reaffirmed 2%. He also argued that interest rates could be part of the solution if inflation remained elevated through the forecast horizon. The unresolved question is what evidence crosses that threshold. The September projections should help answer it.

Why the 1970s Comparison Is Useful—and Often Misused

Furman invoked the 1970s not to claim that the present economy is identical, but to identify a pattern of reasoning. During that decade, policymakers repeatedly found a new explanation for each inflation surge. Individual explanations often had merit: oil shocks, food prices, wage bargaining, fiscal policy and regulatory changes all mattered. The failure was allowing a sequence of special cases to obscure a persistent aggregate problem.

The comparison is useful because today’s list is also long. Pandemic disruptions, reopening demand, fiscal support, supply chains, housing, labor shortages, tariffs, energy conflict, insurance and AI investment have each affected prices. A central bank should analyze these causes. It should not assume that naming them removes responsibility for the total inflation rate.

The comparison is also limited. The institutional framework is stronger today. The Fed has an explicit 2% target, greater transparency and a long record of inflation control. Labor contracts are less broadly indexed. Unionization is lower. Monetary-policy research and real-time data are more developed. Longer-term expectations remain much better anchored than in the 1970s. The unemployment and wage dynamics are different.

Using the 1970s as a rhetorical weapon can encourage over-tightening. Not every oil shock requires a Volcker-style response. The lesson should be narrower: do not confuse a changing composition of inflation with the disappearance of inflation. Evaluate whether shocks are passing through once or repeatedly. Watch expectations. Be prepared to act before credibility is visibly lost, because visible loss is expensive to reverse.

How Higher Long-Term Rates Reach Households

The policy debate can sound remote until it reaches a monthly payment. The transmission is already visible in housing. Freddie Mac reported that the average 30-year fixed mortgage rate was 6.66% for the week of July 30, up from 6.58% a week earlier and close to the 6.72% rate recorded a year earlier. The average 15-year fixed rate was 6.04%.

Mortgage rates do not move one-for-one with the federal funds rate. They are more closely tied to longer-term Treasury yields and mortgage-backed security spreads. That is why borrowers can face higher rates even when the Fed holds. A rise in long yields can offset the benefit of a stable or lower overnight rate.

For a household buying a home, the effect is nonlinear. Higher rates reduce the loan size supportable by a given monthly payment. Existing owners with low fixed-rate mortgages may stay put rather than move, limiting supply. Builders face higher financing costs. Buyers may shift to smaller homes or adjustable-rate products. Transactions slow even when nominal house prices do not fall enough to restore affordability.

Renters are affected through a different channel. High mortgage rates can keep would-be buyers in rental markets, supporting demand. Developers may delay projects if financing becomes uneconomic, restricting future apartment supply. At the same time, slower growth can reduce rent increases. The net effect varies by city and property type.

Credit-card and home-equity borrowing are more directly sensitive to short-term rates. An actual Fed hike would tend to increase variable borrowing costs relatively quickly. Auto lending depends on both benchmarks and credit spreads. Student-loan effects depend on the type of loan and when rates are set. Savers, meanwhile, can benefit from higher deposit and money-market yields, although banks do not always pass through the full increase.

The distributional consequences complicate the mandate. Higher rates reward cash holders and burden leveraged households. They restrain demand partly by making financing less attractive and partly by reducing wealth and activity. That is not an accidental side effect; it is the mechanism. The public-policy question is whether the restraint is proportionate to the inflation risk.

What the Debate Means for Businesses and Financial Markets

Corporate borrowing and investment

For businesses, the long end of the curve can matter more than the next 25 basis points of Fed policy. Investment-grade and high-yield issuers borrow at a Treasury benchmark plus a credit spread. A company can face a higher all-in rate even if its credit quality is unchanged. Firms with large refinancing needs are most exposed because old low-coupon debt must be replaced at current rates.

Higher financing costs raise the hurdle rate for factories, data centers, acquisitions and inventory. Projects with distant cash flows become less attractive. Companies with strong balance sheets can continue investing and may gain an advantage over smaller rivals. Private companies dependent on venture or leveraged financing can face a sharper adjustment.

AI investment creates a special tension. Data centers, electricity generation and semiconductor capacity require enormous capital. If the investment produces rapid productivity growth, it can expand supply and ease inflation over time. In the near term, it can increase demand for power, construction, equipment and skilled labor. Higher long-term rates make these projects more expensive while the projects themselves may contribute to the forces lifting neutral rates.

Banks and financial institutions

Banks can benefit from higher asset yields, but the shape and speed of the rate move matter. A steepening curve can improve the economics of borrowing short and lending long. Rapid increases can also reduce the market value of securities, pressure deposit retention and raise credit losses. Institutions with concentrated exposure to commercial real estate or long-duration assets face greater sensitivity.

A Fed hike would lift short-term benchmarks. If long-term yields did not rise by the same amount, the curve could flatten, limiting net-interest-margin benefits. If the hike reassured investors on inflation and lowered long-term yields, some duration-sensitive balance sheets could gain. The banking effect is therefore not simply “higher rates equal higher profits.”

Stocks and valuation

Equity valuations depend on expected earnings and the rate used to discount them. Higher real yields reduce the present value of distant cash flows, making highly valued growth companies particularly sensitive. Banks, insurers, energy producers and companies with strong current cash generation can respond differently.

The July 29 stock-market decline cannot be attributed to the Fed alone. Reuters and other market reports noted overlapping influences, including geopolitical tension and major technology earnings. The broader lesson is that unclear policy can increase the range of plausible discount rates. Even when earnings expectations are unchanged, greater uncertainty about the risk-free rate and inflation premium can produce volatility.

The dollar, commodities and digital assets

A more hawkish Fed path can support the dollar by increasing the relative return on U.S. assets, although fiscal concerns and risk sentiment can overwhelm that relationship. A stronger dollar tends to reduce the dollar price of imports and can weigh on U.S. multinational revenue when foreign earnings are translated. It can also tighten financial conditions abroad because much global debt is dollar-denominated.

Gold and other inflation-sensitive assets respond to a mixture of real yields, currency movements, geopolitical risk and confidence in institutions. Higher real yields are usually a headwind for assets that produce no cash flow, while inflation fear and conflict can support demand. Digital assets are similarly exposed to liquidity and risk appetite, but their behavior is not a stable inflation hedge. Investors should avoid treating one meeting as proof of a permanent relationship.

The Strongest Case for Waiting

The best argument for another hold is not that inflation is acceptable. It is that the source, timing and transmission of the current inflation impulse make an immediate increase a blunt and possibly unnecessary response.

First, the latest monthly inflation readings were softer than the annual figures. Headline CPI and PCE both declined in June, core CPI was unchanged, and core PCE rose only 0.1%. Those results are consistent with a scenario in which the energy shock peaks, tariff pass-through becomes less intense and underlying inflation gradually resumes its decline. Raising rates immediately before that process becomes visible could tighten into a slowdown.

Second, long-term market rates have already increased sharply. The 34-basis-point rise in the 30-year Treasury yield between June 17 and July 31 represents meaningful tightening for mortgages, corporate bonds and asset valuations. Monetary policy should be assessed through the full constellation of financial conditions, not the overnight target in isolation.

Third, job creation is weak enough to justify caution. The 4.2% unemployment rate is stable, but June payroll growth was only 57,000, participation declined and previous months were revised lower. A rate increase acts with uncertain lags. By the time unemployment rises clearly, the weakening may already be embedded.

Fourth, a supply shock creates a difficult trade-off. Higher rates reduce demand; they do not reverse tariffs or restore energy supply. If the shock is temporary and expectations remain anchored, tolerating a limited period of above-target inflation can produce a better employment outcome than forcing an immediate return to 2%.

Fifth, the Fed’s credibility is still substantial. Longer-term expectations remain far below the current headline inflation rate. That gives the committee space to gather information without automatically triggering a wage-price spiral. Credibility has value partly because it allows a central bank not to react mechanically to every shock.

Finally, September offers a natural decision point. The meeting includes updated economic projections, allowing policymakers to present a coherent forecast for inflation, employment, growth and rates. Between July and September, additional data can reveal whether June’s softer monthly inflation was the beginning of a trend or a temporary reprieve.

This patience case is strongest when it is conditional. It weakens if core inflation reaccelerates, expectations rise, labor conditions remain stable and market tightening reverses. Waiting is a strategy only if the committee identifies what it is waiting to learn.

The Strongest Case for a Rate Hike

The case for an increase begins with the simplest fact: inflation is too high under the Fed’s own framework. Core PCE at 3.3% is not a marginal miss. Headline PCE at 3.7% is even farther from target. The overshoot has lasted long enough that another explanation for another delay carries diminishing persuasive force.

Second, the employment mandate is not in crisis. Unemployment at 4.2% and stable employment conditions mean the Fed does not face the classic choice between fighting inflation and responding to a rapidly deteriorating labor market. The economy may be slowing, but it is not showing the kind of broad job loss that would make a hike clearly inappropriate.

Third, supply shocks do not remain neatly isolated by assumption. Tariffs affect many goods and production chains. Energy affects transportation and services. Insurance, housing and other persistent categories can keep inflation elevated after the initial shock fades. A small preventive increase can reduce the chance that expectations and pricing behavior adjust to a permanently higher norm.

Fourth, the policy rate was cut three times in late 2025. If the inflation outlook has worsened, reversing part of that easing is not an admission of failure. It is an appropriate response to new information. Refusing to reverse course merely to preserve narrative consistency would be a larger error.

Fifth, market tightening may be partly conditional on expected Fed action. Citing higher long-term yields as a substitute for a hike can become circular. If the committee repeatedly holds, the expected tightening embedded in yields may unwind, leaving financial conditions easier than officials intended.

Sixth, credibility is cheaper to preserve than to rebuild. A quarter-point increase taken while unemployment is stable may be less costly than a larger sequence required after expectations rise. The Fed does not need to create a recession to demonstrate resolve, but it may need to show that 2% is an operational target rather than a distant aspiration.

The hike case is strongest if inflation breadth increases, wage growth outpaces productivity, energy prices rise again or surveys show medium-term expectations moving higher. It weakens if payrolls contract, unemployment rises quickly, core inflation remains subdued for several months or long-term rates tighten substantially further without destabilizing markets.

Two Different Policy Errors—and Why Both Matter

Central banks operate under uncertainty, so the choice is rarely between a clearly correct policy and a clearly wrong one. The July debate is a choice between two possible errors.

Error one: tightening into a supply-driven slowdown

If the Fed raises rates just as tariff pass-through and energy inflation fade, it could suppress housing, investment and hiring unnecessarily. Long-term yields are already high. A hike could reinforce those pressures, widen credit spreads and turn a stable labor market into a weaker one. The inflation benefit may be limited if the original shock was already reversing.

This error would be especially serious if the Fed mistakes weak real growth plus high prices for excessive demand. The second-quarter GDP data contained signs of both slower headline growth and strong private demand, making the diagnosis uncertain. A blanket tightening response can reduce the productive investment needed to relieve supply constraints later.

Error two: waiting until inflation expectations adjust

If the Fed holds too long, businesses and households may conclude that 3% or higher inflation will be tolerated. Wage contracts, pricing systems and investment decisions then incorporate that belief. Returning to 2% requires more restraint because the central bank is no longer fighting only current inflation; it is fighting the expectation of future inflation.

This error can also raise long-term borrowing costs independently of the policy rate. Investors demand compensation for inflation uncertainty and duration risk. The government pays more to finance debt. Mortgage rates remain high. The Fed may eventually have to raise short rates even as the economy weakens, producing a worse combination than an earlier, smaller adjustment.

The optimal decision depends on the relative probability and cost of these errors. That is why the committee’s communication should focus less on confidence in a single forecast and more on the evidence that would reveal which error is becoming more likely.

What the Fed Should Measure Before September

The next decision will be stronger if it is built around a transparent dashboard. No one indicator should control policy, but several categories can distinguish a fading shock from persistent inflation.

1. Monthly core inflation and its breadth

Another low core CPI or core PCE reading would strengthen the patience case, particularly if the slowdown is broad rather than driven by one volatile category. Reacceleration across goods and services would strengthen the hike case. Policymakers should examine trimmed-mean and median measures as well as the headline core indexes.

2. Tariff-sensitive goods prices

The committee should track categories with high import content and compare them with less-exposed goods. If increases remain concentrated and begin to level off, the level-shock interpretation gains support. If pricing power spreads beyond directly affected goods, second-round effects are more likely.

3. Energy, freight and transportation

Oil prices, refined products, shipping capacity, freight rates and airline costs will show whether the Middle East shock is fading or renewing. The distinction between lower monthly energy prices and still-high annual prices should remain explicit.

4. Wage growth relative to productivity

Nominal wage growth is not inflationary by definition. The critical relationship is compensation compared with output per hour. Strong productivity can support higher pay without equivalent price increases. Weak productivity makes the same wage growth harder to absorb.

5. Labor-market deterioration

Payrolls, unemployment, claims, hours worked, temporary help, job openings, hiring and participation provide different warning signals. A rapid rise in unemployment would materially change the balance. Continued low job growth without rising unemployment would be a more ambiguous sign.

6. Inflation expectations at several horizons

One-year expectations naturally respond to gasoline and food. Three-, five- and longer-term measures are more relevant to anchoring. The Fed should compare household surveys, professional forecasts and market-based compensation rather than relying on one series.

7. Financial conditions and their cause

Officials should separate increases in real yields, inflation compensation, term premiums and credit spreads. A durable autonomous tightening has different implications from a move driven by expectations of a rate increase that has not occurred.

8. Private domestic demand

Consumer spending, business investment, housing activity and real final sales to private domestic purchasers help reveal whether demand is too strong for available supply. Strong demand alongside persistent inflation supports tightening. A broad slowdown supports waiting.

Three Plausible Paths for Federal Reserve Policy

Scenario one: A September rate hike

A quarter-point increase becomes the most defensible path if July and August data show persistent core inflation, stable employment and no convincing decline in medium-term expectations. The committee could frame the move as a recalibration rather than the beginning of an aggressive cycle. It could emphasize that supply shocks have broadened enough to require demand restraint and that the July dissents anticipated the change.

Market reaction would depend on communication. A hike paired with a signal of further automatic increases could push short rates and the dollar higher while pressuring risk assets. A hike described as a limited insurance move could have a different effect, particularly if it lowers long-term inflation risk and causes the long end of the curve to stabilize.

Scenario two: Another hold with a clearer tightening bias

The Fed could hold if monthly inflation remains soft but not yet convincing. To avoid repeating July’s ambiguity, Warsh would need to explain the conditions for action more clearly. Updated projections could show a slower return to 2% and a higher expected policy path without promising a specific meeting.

This option preserves flexibility, but its credibility depends on evidence. A hold accompanied by another vague assurance would invite the same question: what is the committee waiting for? A hold supported by broad disinflation and weaker employment would be easier to defend.

Scenario three: A sustained hold as supply shocks fade

If energy prices normalize, tariff-sensitive inflation levels off, core measures remain subdued and labor conditions weaken, the Fed could keep rates unchanged for several meetings. Long-term yields might then decline as inflation risk recedes. The committee would argue that existing restraint was sufficient and that reacting to temporary shocks would have created unnecessary damage.

This is the most benign path, but it requires outcomes rather than rhetoric. Inflation would need to demonstrate a credible downward trajectory. A forecast of improvement would not be enough after repeated misses.

Could Balance-Sheet Policy Do Some of the Work?

The policy rate is not the Fed’s only instrument. The size and composition of the central bank’s balance sheet influence reserves, market functioning and term premiums. Slower or faster runoff of Treasury and mortgage-backed securities can alter financial conditions, although the effects are less precise and less familiar to the public than a rate change.

Using balance-sheet policy as a substitute for the policy rate carries complications. Faster runoff could put additional upward pressure on longer-term yields at a time when the 30-year rate is already historically high. That might tighten housing and government financing more than short-term consumer demand. It could also create liquidity risks if reserves approach levels banks regard as scarce.

Holding more mortgage-backed securities for longer could ease some pressure in housing, but it would blur the distinction between monetary policy and credit allocation. Selling or allowing faster runoff could reinforce mortgage-rate increases. Either direction would need a clear operational purpose.

The better principle is instrument consistency. The policy rate should communicate the stance toward aggregate demand and inflation. Balance-sheet policy should primarily manage reserves and the longer-run operating framework, with market-functioning interventions reserved for dysfunction rather than attempts to target asset prices. Mixing signals—holding the rate because long yields are high while deliberately pushing long yields higher through runoff—would require careful explanation.

Fiscal Policy, Treasury Supply and the Limits of Fed Control

Long-term yields also reflect federal borrowing. The Fed controls the overnight target range, not the budget deficit or the amount of Treasury debt issued. Large expected deficits can raise term premiums and real yields by increasing supply and uncertainty. If fiscal policy supports demand while the Fed is trying to reduce inflation, monetary policy may need to be tighter than otherwise.

This creates an institutional risk. High government interest costs can generate political pressure for lower rates. A central bank that appears to accommodate financing needs can lose credibility, which may push long rates higher rather than lower. Independence is therefore not an abstract governance preference. It allows the Fed to pursue price stability even when the short-term budget consequences are uncomfortable.

At the same time, the Fed should not treat every rise in long yields as proof that fiscal policy is excessive. Markets price many forces, and fiscal estimates change. The committee’s task is narrower: assess how the resulting financial conditions affect demand, inflation and employment. Congress and the administration determine taxes and spending; the Fed determines monetary policy within its mandate.

What Furman’s Argument Gets Right

Furman’s analysis is strongest in four areas. First, it recognizes that the composition of inflation has changed. The present episode is not simply a replay of the labor-market overheating seen earlier. Tariffs and energy are genuine shocks, and policy should account for that difference.

Second, it refuses to let causation become an excuse for outcomes. A sequence of supply explanations can still leave the public with persistent inflation. The Fed must judge the aggregate result, not merely catalog the source of each increase.

Third, it identifies wages and expectations as the bridge between temporary and persistent inflation. Direct pass-through matters, but the larger danger is economy-wide behavior. That gives policymakers an observable test rather than a semantic debate over whether “transitory” is a forbidden word.

Fourth, it exposes the tension in Warsh’s communication strategy. Less forward guidance can be healthy, but it increases the informational value of actions and dissents. The central bank cannot cite market expectations indefinitely while declining to explain how those expectations should be formed.

Where the Argument Needs Qualification

The estimate that tariffs added between half a percentage point and one percentage point to inflation is plausible, but it is not a settled measured fact. Tariff incidence is difficult to separate from exchange rates, margins, substitution and concurrent shocks. The range should remain explicitly labeled as an estimate.

The claim that the labor market is in exceptionally good shape depends heavily on the stable unemployment rate. Payroll growth, participation and revisions are less reassuring. Stability is valuable, but it does not imply immunity to restrictive policy.

The credibility interpretation of higher real yields is also not unique. Rising real yields can signal expected Fed resolve, but they can also reflect term premiums, fiscal supply, growth expectations or uncertainty. A bond-market move should inform policy, not be recruited as simple proof for one narrative.

Finally, the suggestion that the Fed may need to act more if it talks less is institutionally insightful but not mechanically true. A clear reaction function and consistent target can sometimes do more than frequent rate changes. The real requirement is alignment among communication, action and outcomes.

Five Years Above 2% Does Not Mean Five Years of the Same Inflation

The statement that inflation has exceeded the Fed’s objective for five years is powerful because it captures the failure to complete the return to price stability. It can also conceal how much the inflation process has changed. The cause, breadth and momentum of inflation in 2021 were not identical to those in 2023, 2025 or mid-2026.

The first stage combined pandemic supply constraints with an unusually rapid shift in demand. Households bought more goods while factories, ports and transport networks struggled to respond. Fiscal support and accumulated savings strengthened purchasing power. Shortages, delivery delays and commodity moves pushed goods inflation sharply higher. Monetary policy initially treated much of the increase as temporary, a judgment that underestimated the persistence and breadth of the shock.

The second stage involved a tighter labor market and wider services inflation. Reopening shifted demand back toward travel, restaurants and other in-person activity. Employers competed for workers, wage growth accelerated and housing-related inflation continued to feed into official indexes with a lag. By then, inflation could no longer be explained mainly by a few blocked supply chains.

The third stage was disinflation without outright deflation. Supply chains normalized, goods prices cooled, labor demand and supply moved toward better balance, and shelter inflation began to moderate. Inflation rates declined because prices rose more slowly, not because the overall price level returned to its pre-shock path. That distinction matters for public perception. Households still faced a permanently higher level of grocery, rent and service prices even as measured inflation improved.

By the end of 2024, the economy appeared close enough to target that a continued gradual decline was plausible. That progress helped support the later recalibration of interest rates. The 2025 and 2026 tariff and energy shocks then changed the composition again. Goods and energy costs regained importance, while the labor market did not display the same degree of overheating seen earlier.

This history supports both sides of the current debate. It supports patience because the Fed should not treat every source of inflation as if it were demand-driven. A tariff or oil shock has a different optimal response from a credit boom. It supports action because the aggregate objective has still not been achieved. The public experiences the cumulative outcome, not a sequence of econometric decompositions.

The changing composition also explains why the word “transitory” became politically toxic even though the underlying concept remains necessary. Every inflation shock has a duration. Policymakers must estimate whether it will fade. The mistake is not using a concept of transience; it is assuming transience without adequately testing second-round effects and without adapting quickly when evidence contradicts the forecast.

A better framework asks four questions. What directly caused the latest price increase? How broad is the pass-through? Are expectations and wages changing? Is aggregate demand strong enough to validate continued price increases? Those questions preserve economic distinctions while keeping the Fed accountable for the total result.

Five years above target therefore should not be used as proof that policy failed in exactly the same way every year. It should be used as evidence that the burden for another delayed return has become heavier. The longer the period, the more concrete the Fed’s path back to 2% must be.

Monetary-Policy Lags Make the Timing Problem Harder

Interest-rate changes do not reach the economy all at once. Some channels react within minutes; others take quarters or years. Treasury yields, currencies and stock prices can move as soon as expectations change. Credit-card rates can adjust quickly after a policy move. Business investment, hiring, housing construction and rent measures respond more slowly.

These lags create a basic problem. The Fed must act before it can observe the full effect of previous actions, but it must avoid acting so far ahead that policy becomes an exercise in forecasting confidence rather than evidence. The late-2025 cuts are still influencing refinancing decisions, bank pricing and investment in 2026. The rise in long yields since June is only beginning to affect some borrowers. An immediate hike would be layered on top of restraint that has not yet completed its transmission.

The lag is not fixed. Households with 30-year fixed mortgages are less sensitive to the policy rate until they move or refinance. Companies with long-dated fixed debt can postpone the impact until maturity. Borrowers using floating rates feel changes sooner. A financial system dominated by fixed-rate liabilities can delay monetary transmission and then produce refinancing cliffs when old debt matures.

Expectations can shorten the lag. If markets believe a hike is coming, longer rates may rise before the decision. If businesses believe demand will weaken, they can delay hiring immediately. This is one reason communication matters: guidance can move financial conditions ahead of formal action. It is also why unclear communication can generate volatility without a stable macroeconomic effect.

Supply shocks complicate the lag further. Higher energy prices can reduce real household income almost immediately, producing some of the demand restraint the Fed would otherwise seek. Tariffs can raise costs while also discouraging investment. If the Fed responds to the inflationary side without accounting for the contractionary side, total restraint may be excessive.

Policy lags argue for a gradual approach, but not automatically for waiting. If expectations are deteriorating, delayed action can allow persistence to build. The relevant question is whether the effects already in the pipeline are likely to be sufficient. That requires estimates of financial conditions, debt maturity structures, credit availability and demand—not merely the current federal funds rate.

The committee can improve its explanation by separating three concepts: the policy already delivered, the market tightening that has occurred since the last meeting and the additional restraint expected under unchanged rates. That decomposition would clarify why a hold can still be restrictive. It would also reveal when the committee is relying too heavily on hoped-for future effects.

For September, the lag argument cuts both ways. Another month and a half of data will show more of the effect of high long yields. But if inflation breadth increases during that period, waiting will have allowed another round of price and expectation adjustment. The calendar does not resolve the trade-off; it changes the evidence available to manage it.

Supply-Side Improvements Can Help, but They Do Not Replace Monetary Policy

Warsh has emphasized that the economy’s supply side matters for inflation. That is correct. Productivity, energy production, housing supply, trade logistics, labor-force growth, regulation and infrastructure determine how much the economy can produce without generating price pressure. A central bank that ignores supply can misread strong growth as inflationary when capacity is expanding.

Artificial intelligence is a prominent example. If AI allows workers and companies to produce more per hour, the economy can sustain faster wage and output growth without equivalent inflation. Higher productivity can improve real incomes and raise the neutral interest rate. It can also strengthen tax revenue and corporate profits.

The transition is not costless. Data centers require electricity, land, chips, cooling systems, grid connections and construction. Those demands can raise prices in constrained markets before productivity gains spread. A technology can be disinflationary over a decade and inflationary in a regional power market this year. The Fed needs to distinguish the investment phase from the realized productivity phase.

Housing offers another example. Restrictive rates can reduce demand for homes, but they can also make construction financing more expensive and discourage future supply. Local zoning, permitting, labor availability and material costs often determine the long-run housing constraint. Monetary policy can cool prices; it cannot create buildable land or approve a development.

Energy policy similarly affects the inflation trade-off. Greater production, transmission capacity and resilience can reduce vulnerability to geopolitical shocks. Those investments take time. In the short run, the Fed must decide how much of an energy price increase can pass through without changing expectations.

Trade policy can strengthen resilience or national-security objectives while increasing costs. The central bank does not decide whether those objectives justify tariffs. It decides how the resulting price changes interact with aggregate demand and the inflation target. Monetary neutrality toward the policy choice does not require neutrality toward its macroeconomic consequences.

Labor supply is also central. Participation, immigration, retirement, health, child care and skills determine how quickly employment can grow without wage pressure. A stable unemployment rate can coexist with slow payroll growth if labor-force growth is modest. Supply-side analysis therefore improves the Fed’s estimate of sustainable employment.

None of these considerations eliminates the role of interest rates. Supply reforms are controlled by Congress, the administration, states, local governments and private firms. Their timing and magnitude are uncertain. The Fed cannot promise 2% inflation on the assumption that another institution will expand supply later. It can incorporate credible improvements into its forecast, but its policy must remain robust if those improvements arrive slowly.

The most productive division of labor is clear. Elected governments should address structural constraints with tools suited to them. The Fed should prevent total spending and expectations from outrunning the economy’s evolving capacity. Better supply policy can reduce the amount of monetary restraint required; it cannot make an inflation target self-executing.

How Companies Can Read the Fed Without Pretending to Forecast It

Businesses do not need a perfect prediction of the September vote. They need plans that remain viable across plausible paths. The July meeting widened those paths, which makes scenario preparation more valuable than confidence in one call.

A company with near-term debt maturities should model at least three borrowing environments: stable benchmarks with current spreads, a moderate increase in short and long rates, and a risk-off environment in which credit spreads widen even if Treasury yields fall. The refinancing cost can change more through the spread than through the policy rate.

Companies with imported inputs should separate tariff exposure from general inflation. That requires mapping product classifications, countries of origin, exclusions, contract terms and the ability to substitute suppliers. A broad percentage added to every cost line is easier but less informative. The pricing response should also distinguish temporary surcharges from permanent list-price changes.

Energy-intensive businesses should stress-test both price and availability. Hedging can reduce price volatility but introduces counterparty, collateral and basis risks. Operational resilience may require inventory, alternative transport or flexible production schedules. These choices carry costs that should be compared with the expected loss from disruption.

Consumer-facing companies should watch unit volumes as closely as nominal revenue. Inflation can lift sales dollars while customers buy fewer items or trade down. A company reporting revenue growth in a high-price environment may still be losing real demand. Margin changes reveal whether the firm absorbed costs or passed them through.

For capital expenditure, the relevant hurdle rate should reflect both financing cost and project uncertainty. Canceling every long-duration investment because yields rose can sacrifice competitive position. Assuming rates will soon return to the pre-pandemic norm can be equally dangerous. Staged commitments, contractual flexibility and explicit sensitivity analysis can reduce reliance on one macro forecast.

Financial institutions should focus on duration, liquidity and borrower cash flow. A stable policy rate does not prevent losses on long assets when the 30-year yield rises. A higher yield also does not guarantee better margins if deposit costs or credit losses rise faster. Balance-sheet resilience depends on the joint movement of rates, spreads and defaults.

Management communication should avoid claiming that one Fed decision caused every change in demand. Customers, tariffs, energy, fiscal policy, technology and sector competition interact. Investors are better served by quantified exposure: the amount of debt maturing, the proportion of variable-rate borrowing, the share of cost of goods affected by tariffs and the sensitivity of margins to energy prices.

This approach does not eliminate uncertainty. It makes uncertainty governable. The lesson of the July meeting is that a hold can coincide with much higher borrowing costs and a more hawkish committee. Planning around only the headline policy rate misses the channels that matter most to operations.

A More Effective Communication Framework for Warsh

Warsh does not need to restore the most elaborate form of forward guidance to reduce confusion. He can preserve flexibility while making the decision process more legible.

First, the chair can distinguish shocks from propagation. The Fed can state that it will look through the direct first-round effect of tariffs and energy to the extent that expectations, wages and broad core inflation remain contained. It can also state that evidence of propagation will require tighter policy. That is conditional guidance, not a promise.

Second, the Fed can explain how financial conditions enter the decision. If higher real yields substitute for a policy increase, officials should describe how persistent the move must be and which channels matter. Otherwise, markets cannot know whether a rise in yields changes the policy path or merely reflects it.

Third, Warsh can identify the relative importance of the dual mandate. In July, stable unemployment and elevated inflation suggest price stability deserves greater weight. If labor data weaken, the balance can shift. Saying so is not mechanical targeting; it is transparent prioritization.

Fourth, the committee can describe disagreement without compromising individual independence. Three dissents are public facts. The chair can summarize the broad economic case for the majority and minority without attributing private statements. Avoiding the substance leaves the public to infer it from market moves and outside commentary.

Fifth, projections should be presented as distributions rather than a central path with false precision. The September outlook could show scenarios for fading energy prices, persistent tariffs and weaker employment. A scenario framework would fit Warsh’s skepticism of deterministic guidance while giving markets useful structure.

Finally, the Fed can acknowledge forecast errors directly. Credibility does not require pretending earlier forecasts were correct. It requires explaining why they failed, what the institution learned and how the reaction function changed. An organization that updates transparently can be more credible than one that maintains a polished but implausible certainty.

The objective is not calmer markets at any price. Volatility can reflect genuine news. The objective is to prevent volatility caused by avoidable ambiguity about the central bank’s framework. Market participants should disagree about the economy; they should not have to guess whether 2% still governs policy.

Why a Quarter-Point Move Would Matter Even If It Did Not Transform the Economy

A 25-basis-point increase would not reverse tariffs, settle a geopolitical conflict or instantly return inflation to 2%. The direct change in monthly borrowing costs would be modest for some households and material for others. Its larger significance would be informational. It would tell the public that the committee’s tolerance for persistent inflation had narrowed.

Monetary policy works through cumulative effects. A quarter-point change influences expectations for the sequence of future rates, which can move the whole yield curve. It affects bank prime rates, floating-rate loans and money-market returns. It can change currency values and risk appetite. The economic impact is therefore not limited to multiplying 0.25 percentage point by an existing loan balance.

The direction of the long end would be especially revealing. If a hike caused the 30-year Treasury yield to fall, the market might be interpreting the decision as credible insurance against future inflation. If long yields rose further, investors might be focusing on a higher expected path of short rates, fiscal supply or doubts that one move was sufficient. If short yields rose while long yields held steady, the curve would flatten, signaling tighter near-term policy without a comparable change in long-run compensation.

A hike would also alter the internal committee narrative. The July dissenters would move from minority to majority if they retained their views and attracted at least three more votes. Officials who had supported the hold would need to explain what changed. That explanation would help establish the reaction function Warsh has so far preferred not to express through detailed forward guidance.

Conversely, another hold would not mean the Fed had chosen permanent inaction. It could represent a decision that the existing stance and market tightening were sufficient while more data accumulated. But the committee would need to prevent “data dependence” from becoming an empty phrase. Every decision is data-dependent; the useful information is which data changed the judgment.

The size of a possible move also deserves perspective. A half-point increase would signal greater urgency but would be harder to justify without clear evidence of reacceleration or expectation slippage. A quarter-point move is the conventional increment because it allows adjustment without implying panic. The Fed could follow it with a pause, another increase or a reversal depending on the economy. No single step commits the committee to a predetermined cycle.

For businesses and investors, the key is not guessing the next meeting in isolation. It is understanding the distribution of policy paths. A company with refinancing exposure should test its finances against several rates and spread assumptions. A household considering a mortgage should recognize that long-term rates can move independently of the Fed’s next decision. A portfolio exposed to duration should account for real-yield and term-premium risk, not merely headline inflation.

This is also why the argument should not be reduced to “hike” versus “no hike” as an ideological test. A well-designed hike can be cautious, and a well-explained hold can be vigilant. A poorly designed move in either direction can damage confidence. The quality of the decision depends on the evidence, the explanation and the consistency of the subsequent path.

Frequently Asked Questions

Did the Federal Reserve raise interest rates in July 2026?

No. On July 29, 2026, the FOMC kept the federal funds target range at 3.50% to 3.75%.

Why was the July Fed meeting considered hawkish?

Three voting members dissented and preferred a 25-basis-point increase. The size and direction of the dissent showed that support for renewed tightening had grown even though the committee held rates steady.

Who voted for a rate hike?

Beth Hammack, Neel Kashkari and Lorie Logan preferred to raise the target range by a quarter of a percentage point.

What is the current Federal Reserve interest-rate range?

As of the July 29 decision and the August 2 research cutoff for this article, the target range is 3.50% to 3.75%.

What was the latest core PCE inflation rate?

Core PCE prices rose 0.1% in June 2026 and 3.3% from a year earlier, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis. Core PCE excludes food and energy.

Why might tariffs cause inflation?

Tariffs raise the cost of affected imports and can also give domestic competitors room to increase prices. The first effect is often a one-time rise in the price level, but repeated changes and second-round effects through wages, expectations and broader pricing can make inflation more persistent.

Why does the Iran and Middle East conflict matter for U.S. inflation?

Conflict and shipping disruption can raise oil, fuel, freight, airline and production costs. Higher energy costs affect household bills directly and spread through transportation and industrial supply chains.

Does a 5% 30-year Treasury yield mean the Fed must hike?

No. A high long-term yield already tightens financial conditions and can support patience. But the yield also reflects expected Fed policy, inflation risk, real growth, Treasury supply and term premiums. The Fed must assess why it rose and whether the tightening will persist.

When is the next Federal Reserve meeting?

The next scheduled FOMC meeting is September 15–16, 2026. It will include updated economic projections.

Is a September rate hike guaranteed?

No. The Fed has not promised a hike. The decision will depend on incoming inflation, employment, growth, expectations and financial-condition data.

Would a Fed hike immediately lower mortgage rates?

Not necessarily. Mortgage rates are influenced mainly by longer-term Treasury yields, mortgage-backed security spreads and lender conditions. A hike could raise borrowing costs, but it could also lower long yields if it convincingly reduces inflation risk. The net effect is uncertain.

Has the Fed abandoned its 2% inflation target?

No. Warsh explicitly said there is no soft target and reaffirmed 2%. The credibility debate concerns how quickly and through what actions the Fed will return inflation to that objective.

What Would Change This Assessment?

The conclusion that the Fed has a genuine choice—not an obvious instruction—depends on the present combination of elevated annual inflation, soft recent monthly readings, stable unemployment and tighter long-term financial conditions. A decisive change in any two of those pillars could make the policy direction much clearer.

A sequence of low monthly core readings, falling tariff-sensitive goods inflation and easing medium-term expectations would strengthen the case that the current shock is passing. If payroll growth also weakened or unemployment rose, another hold would become easier to defend even with the annual PCE rate still above target. Twelve-month inflation would then be carrying old increases that were no longer representative of current momentum.

The opposite pattern would favor a hike. Broad core acceleration, renewed energy pressure, stronger wage growth relative to productivity and stable employment would undermine the argument for observation. An increase in three- or five-year inflation expectations would be especially important because it would suggest that the shock was moving beyond immediate household experience into longer planning horizons.

Bond-market behavior could also change the balance. If long yields remain high because of durable real-rate or term-premium increases, the Fed may receive more restraint without raising the policy rate. If yields fall because markets conclude the committee will not act, officials may need to replace lost market tightening with their own decision. If credit spreads widen sharply and market functioning deteriorates, financial-stability concerns would enter the calculation even if inflation remained high.

Geopolitics is the largest external variable. A sustained restoration of energy flows would improve the headline outlook and household purchasing power. Renewed disruption would intensify the trade-off between inflation and growth. Tariff changes, exclusions or court decisions could similarly alter the expected pass-through.

The assessment should therefore be updated with evidence rather than defended as a fixed forecast. The strongest policy framework is one that can explain why a changing economy produced a changing decision while preserving the same 2% objective.

Final Assessment

The Federal Reserve’s July decision was not a passive continuation of the status quo. The unchanged target range concealed a committee that had moved sharply toward concern about inflation. Three hike dissents, core PCE at 3.3%, a stable 4.2% unemployment rate and a 30-year Treasury yield above 5.2% transformed the policy discussion from whether the Fed could ease further to whether it had already waited too long to reverse part of the 2025 cuts.

The evidence does not compel only one answer. June’s monthly inflation readings were subdued, payroll growth was weak, and tariffs and energy disruptions are supply shocks that interest rates cannot directly repair. Long-term yields have delivered real restraint without a change in the overnight rate. Those facts justify patience.

The concern is cumulative. Inflation has remained above target for years. The latest annual PCE readings are not close enough to 2% to be dismissed as measurement noise. Repeated shocks can influence expectations and broad pricing behavior even when each begins outside the labor market. Market tightening that rests on expected future Fed action cannot be counted twice—first as a reason to hold and later as evidence that no action was needed.

Warsh’s reduced reliance on forward guidance makes this a test of institutional design as well as economics. Saying less can eliminate false precision, but it does not eliminate the need for a comprehensible reaction function. If the Fed wants decisions rather than promises to carry the message, the September meeting will have to show what conditions justify action and what evidence justifies continued restraint.

The strongest interpretation in favor of the Fed is that it is using hard-won credibility to look through temporary shocks while markets tighten conditions on their own. The strongest concern is that officials are spending that credibility without specifying when patience ends. The distinction will be determined not by another phrase, but by the next two months of inflation, labor and expectations data—and by whether policy responds consistently to what those data show.

Sources

• Federal Reserve: FOMC Statement, July 29, 2026
• Federal Reserve: Transcript of Chair Kevin Warsh’s July 29 Press Conference
• Federal Reserve: Monetary Policy Report, July 2026
• Federal Reserve: FOMC Meeting Calendars
• Federal Reserve: Kevin Warsh Takes the Oath of Office
• Bureau of Economic Analysis: Personal Income and Outlays, June 2026
• Bureau of Economic Analysis: Gross Domestic Product, Second Quarter 2026 Advance Estimate
• Bureau of Labor Statistics: Consumer Price Index, June 2026
• Bureau of Labor Statistics: Employment Situation, June 2026
• U.S. Treasury: Daily Treasury Par Yield Curve Rates for 2026
• Freddie Mac: Primary Mortgage Market Survey
• Federal Reserve Bank of New York: June 2026 Survey of Consumer Expectations
• University of Michigan: Surveys of Consumers
• Congressional Budget Office: The Budget and Economic Outlook, 2026 to 2036
• Congressional Budget Office: Illustrative Effects of Tariffs on the Economy
• Office of the U.S. Trade Representative: July 2026 Section 301 Action
• Harvard Kennedy School: Jason Furman Biography
• Reuters: Warsh-Led Fed Holds Rates as Bond Market Seeks Clarity
• Reuters: 30-Year Treasury Yield Reaches Its Highest Level Since 2007

Affiliate disclosure: Businessfinance.news may earn compensation from qualifying actions completed through selected links on this website, at no additional cost to the reader. Affiliate relationships do not influence our editorial reporting, analysis, or conclusions.