WASHINGTON – The Federal Reserve on Wednesday voted to hold its key interest rate steady but not without opposition from three officials who have expressed concern over inflation and wanted to hike.
Despite increasing support among some officials for a rate increase, the Federal Open Market Committee voted 9-3 to leave the federal funds rate in a range between 3.5% and 3.75%.
All of the “no” votes came from regional presidents – Beth Hammack of Cleveland, Neel Kashkari of Minneapolis and Lorie Logan of Dallas, who had been the most explicit about the need for higher rates to address inflation that has been above the Fed’s 2% target for more than five years.
The post-meeting statement noted that the three dissenters “preferred to raise the target range for the federal funds rate by ¼ percentage point at this meeting.”
The no votes presented an early challenge to Chairman Kevin Warsh, whose refusal to provide clear road signs on where monetary policy is headed led to an unusually high level of uncertainty heading into the meeting.
Markets largely had expected the central bank policymakers to approve another hold on rates, though there had been some inclination – about a 1-in-3 chance, according to the CME Group’s FedWatch – that a surprise rate hike was in the cards. Prediction markets had a higher level of certainty that the Fed would hold.
Warsh has argued that the Fed should spend less time trying to tell markets what it will do and instead emphasizing the conditions under which action would be taken. However, Wednesday’s statement provided neither, even with markets largely expecting the Fed to hike in September.
The post-meeting statement was almost identical to the one following the June 17 decision and was in keeping with the Fed’s actions all year, following three rate cuts in the latter part of 2025.
Officials again noted that “Economic activity is expanding at a solid pace despite elevated uncertainty that owes, in part, to the conflict in the Middle East.” The statement further said that job growth has “kept pace with the workforce and the unemployment rate has changed little” even as the U.S. labor force has contracted.
As in June, the statement concluded with the simple declaratory, “The Committee will deliver price stability.”
Officials favoring tighter policy argued inflation has been a burden on households and is not showing clear signs of abating. Recent price pressures have reflected both tariffs imposed by President Donald Trump and higher energy costs tied to the Iran conflict.
The full committee in June penciled in one quarter-percentage-point increase by the end of 2026.
Governor Christopher Waller also voiced worries recently over inflation, saying higher rates could be necessary if more progress isn’t made. However, he voted in favor of a hold at this meeting.
For his part, Warsh has called inflation “a choice,” and he repeatedly stressed the importance of getting prices in check during recent hearings on Capitol Hill.
But from a policy perspective, Warsh has expressed disdain for the Fed’s past practice of providing forward guidance on its expectations for rates.
Keeping with Warsh’s first meeting, the statement was much shorter than what had become the norm. Warsh has stressed changing the way the Fed communicates, even dedicating one of five task forces he has created to address the issue.
In the weeks leading up to the meeting, his FOMC colleagues had expressed disparate policy views.
New York Fed Chair John Williams has said he sees current policy well-positioned to bring inflation back to target. However, Logan countered that “modestly” higher rates would be needed. Hammack also has been an inflation hawk, citing the pressure households are facing from persistently higher prices across the board.
Earlier this week, Trump showed support for Warsh, calling him “fantastic” while noting other Fed officials had “bad intentions” and perhaps had political motivations.