Federal Reserve press conference, 2025-07-30 — Chair Jerome Powell

Question (Howard Schneider, Reuters): So just to follow up: By, by “coming months,” does that include the possibility you’ll, you’ll be getting essentially two rounds of jobs and inflation data between now and the September meeting? Is that potentially adequate to make a decision to lower rates at that point?
Answer: So you’re right. We do have—this is an, an, an intermeeting period when we’ll get two full rounds of employment and inflation data before the time of the September meeting. We have made no decisions about September—we don’t do that in advance. We’ll be taking that information into consideration and all the other information we get as we make our decision at the September meeting.

Question (Steve Liesman, CNBC): There have been several deals that have been struck, and now we seem to have an idea of what the tariff rates are going to be with some of our large trading partners. Does that not add to the kind of certainty you might need, or is it you’re waiting for the economic effects to show, show themselves?
Answer: No, I think we’re still—so you’re right, it’s been a very dynamic time for these trade negotiations, and lots and lots of events in the intermeeting period, but we’re still, you know, a ways away from seeing where things settle down. We are clearly getting more and more information. And, you know, I think at this point, people’s estimates, our estimates, outside estimates of the—of the likely, you know, effective, effective level of tariffs is, is not moving around that much at this point. But at the same time, there are many, many uncertainties left to resolve. So, yes, we are learning more and more. It doesn’t feel like we’re very close to the end of that process. And that’s, that’s not for us to judge, but it does—it feels like there’s much more to come, you know, as well looking ahead.

Question (Nick Timiraos, Wall Street Journal): So if I could follow up, is the reticence to “look through” core goods inflation being driven by the judgment that during the pandemic, expectations proved more adaptive than anyone at the Fed expected? Is it being driven by uncertainty over how restrictive policy is?
Answer: You could argue we are, a bit, “looking through” goods inflation by not raising rates. You know, we haven’t reacted to, to new inflation. But, I mean, I wouldn’t—I wouldn’t insist upon that. But I don’t think—I think the base case—I said—as I said, a reasonable base case is that these are one-time—one-time price effects. Of course, in the end, there, there will not be. This will not turn out to be inflation, because we’ll make sure that it’s not. We will, through our tools, make sure that this does not move from being a one-time price increase to serious inflation. We want to do that efficiently, though, efficiently. And that means we want to do it—if you—if you move too soon, you wind up maybe not getting inflation all the way fixed, and you have to come back. That’s inefficient. If you move too late, you might do too—unnecessary damage to the labor market. So there won’t be, in the end, a big inflationary problem. What we’re trying to do is accomplish that in a way that is efficient. But in the end, there should be no doubt that we will do what we need to do to keep inflation under control. Ideally, we do it efficiently.

Question (Nancy Marshall-Genzer, Marketplace): Hi, Chair Powell. Nancy Marshall-Genzer with Marketplace. One more question on the lack of unanimity in today’s decision, the two dissents. Was there talk during the meeting? I know you’re not going to talk about what—exactly what individuals said, but, in general, was there talk during the meeting of cutting rates, and what was the case against that at the meeting?
Answer: Sure. So, you know, we have—we have an economic go-round, where people talk about the economy, and then the next—to—then to—that’s yesterday. And then today, we have a monetary policy go-round, all the way around the table—everyone gives their views. So the discussion around policy was—the majority view was, was still what it has been, which is that inflation is running above target, maximum employment is right at target. That means policy, policy should be a little bit restrictive, somewhat restrictive, because we want—we want inflation to, to move all the way back to its target. So that’s where people have been and still are. Two of our members felt that the time had come to cut and that they—for the reasons that they’re—they’re going to express. I won’t tell you the reasons. They—they’ll issue some kind of a—of a thing in the next day or so. So—but that’s the story. And I would say, you know, well argued, very thoughtfully argued all around the table, good arguments. And, you know, it’s a situation where—an unusual situation. The economy is in—is in, you know, good shape, but it’s an unusual situation where you have risks to both your employment mandate and your inflation. That’s the nature of a supply shock. And it’s probably not surprising that there would be differences and different perspectives on that as well as different views of where the neutral rate is, so they—different views of how tight policy is. So we have those. I will say, what you hope is that people, you know, explain their, their positions very thoughtfully and clearly. And we absolutely had that today all the way around the table. I would call it one of the better meetings I can recall from that standpoint.