Add most recent FED meetings

README.md

@@ -12,4 +12,50 @@ license: apache-2.0
 short_description: A Fed savant to answer all your monetary policy questions
 ---
 
-An example chatbot using [Gradio](https://gradio.app), [`huggingface_hub`](https://huggingface.co/docs/huggingface_hub/v0.22.2/en/index), and the [Hugging Face Inference API](https://huggingface.co/docs/api-inference/index).
+# Fed AI Savant
+
+An intelligent chatbot for analyzing Federal Reserve monetary policy and FOMC meeting minutes, powered by LLM-based agents and real-time data processing.
+
+## Setup
+
+```bash
+make setup  # Install uv, Python 3.11, create venv, and install dependencies
+```
+
+Create a `.env` file with your API key:
+```bash
+echo "FIREWORKS_API_KEY=your_api_key_here" > .env
+```
+
+## Components
+
+### Data Pipeline (`src/fed_scraper_pipeline/data_pipeline.py`)
+Scrapes FOMC meeting minutes from federalreserve.gov and processes them using LLM analysis to extract rate decisions, forward guidance, economic outlook, and market impact.
+
+**Run the pipeline:**
+```bash
+python -m src.fed_scraper_pipeline.data_pipeline --max-meetings 25 --start-year 2022 --end-year 2025
+```
+
+**Update recent meetings:**
+```bash
+python -m src.fed_scraper_pipeline.update_recent_meetings --num-recent 2
+```
+
+**Process from already scraped data:**
+```bash
+python -m src.fed_scraper_pipeline.data_pipeline --from-scraped data/fed_meetings_scraped_YYYYMMDD_HHMMSS.json
+```
+
+### Gradio App (`src/app.py`)
+Interactive chat interface for querying Federal Reserve policy with AI-powered assistance, searchable FOMC meeting minutes, and real-time streaming responses.
+
+**Run the app:**
+```bash
+make run
+```
+
+Or directly:
+```bash
+python -m src.app
+```

data/fed_processed_meetings.json

@@ -1,4 +1,40 @@
 [
+  {
+    "date": "2025-09-17",
+    "title": "FOMC Meeting 2025-09-17",
+    "full_text": "FOMC\nMinutes of the\nFederal Open Market Committee\nSeptember 16–17, 2025\nFEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM\n\nMinutes of the Federal Open Market\nCommittee\nSeptember 16--17, 2025\nA joint meeting of the Federal Open Market Committee and the Board of Governors of the Federal\nReserve System was held in the offices of the Board of Governors on Tuesday, September 16, 2025,\nat 10:30 a.m. and continued on Wednesday, September 17, 2025, at 9:00 a.m.1\nDevelopments in Financial Markets and Open Market Operations\nThe deputy manager turned first to an overview of financial market developments during the\nintermeeting period. Markets appeared to interpret data releases and FOMC communications as\nindicating that the baseline outlook was little changed but that downside risks to the labor market had\nincreased. Median modal expectations for personal consumption expenditures (PCE) inflation this\nyear and next from the Open Market Desk’s Survey of Market Expectations (Desk survey) increased\nonly slightly, and expectations for the unemployment rate increased only marginally overall. However,\nafter the weaker-than-expected July and August employment reports, investors’ focus shifted to\ndownside risks to the labor market. Near-term expectations for the policy rate had moved lower in response to weaker-than-expected\nemployment data and the apparent rise in downside employment risks. Almost all respondents to the\nDesk survey expected a 25 basis point cut in the target range for the federal funds rate at this\nmeeting, and around half expected an additional cut at the October meeting. The vast majority of\nsurvey respondents expected at least two 25 basis point cuts by year-end, with around half expecting\nthree cuts over that time. Respondents’ expectations for 2027 and beyond were unchanged, implying\nthat revisions to respondents’ near-term expectations reflected an anticipation of a faster return of the\nfederal funds rate to its longer-run level than previously expected. Market-based measures of policy\nrate expectations were broadly consistent with responses to the Desk survey, reflecting about three\n25 basis point cuts by the end of the year. The deputy manager then discussed developments in Treasury markets and market-based measures\nof inflation compensation. Nominal Treasury yields fell 20 to 40 basis points over the intermeeting\n1 The Federal Open Market Committee is referenced as the “FOMC” and the “Committee” in these minutes; the Board of\nGovernors of the Federal Reserve System is referenced as the “Board” in these minutes.\n\n2 September 16-17, 2025\nperiod, with the largest decline occurring at the short end of the yield curve; the curve therefore\nsteepened. Staff models indicated that nearly all the decline in short-term rates was attributable to\nthe shift down in policy rate expectations. Market-based measures of inflation compensation fell\nslightly over the intermeeting period. Equity prices continued to rise over the intermeeting period and stood very close to record highs\ndespite the recent weaker-than-expected employment reports. The deputy manager noted this\ndevelopment was consistent with the benign baseline macroeconomic outlook incorporated in most\nprivate-sector forecasts and strong realized earnings in technology and other sectors. Corporate bond\nspreads were little changed over the intermeeting period and remained at tight levels, signaling that\ninvestors anticipated relatively moderate credit losses. Regarding foreign exchange developments, the deputy manager noted that the broad trade-weighted\ndollar index had generally stabilized and that the dollar returned to trading roughly in line with\nfundamental macroeconomic drivers over the intermeeting period. The available data continued to\nsuggest foreign demand for U.S. assets remained resilient. The deputy manager turned next to money markets. The effective federal funds rate remained stable,\nand repurchase agreement (repo) rates moved higher over the intermeeting period. The increase in\nrepo rates over the period was driven by the increase in net Treasury bill issuance amid the rebuilding\nof the Treasury General Account (TGA) following the debt ceiling resolution, continued large Treasury\ncoupon issuance, and ongoing reductions in the Federal Reserve’s balance sheet. Reserves fell\nsharply on September 15 in response to an increase in the TGA, driven by tax receipts and significant\nnet issuance of Treasury coupon securities. Repo rates came under additional upward pressure that\nday, and take-up at the standing repo facility (SRF) reached $1.5 billion. There were some signs of\nslight upward pressure on rates in the federal funds market but not enough to move the effective\nfederal funds rate. While key indicators remained consistent with abundant reserves, money market\nrates were expected to continue to increase over time relative to administered rates and to eventually\npull the effective federal funds rate higher. The deputy manager concluded by discussing the trajectory of the balance sheet. If balance sheet\nrunoff were to continue at the current pace, the System Open Market Account (SOMA) portfolio was\nexpected to decline to just over $6 trillion by the end of March, with Federal Reserve notes growing at\na gradual pace, the TGA fluctuating around current levels, and usage of the overnight reverse\nrepurchase agreement (ON RRP) facility remaining very low except on quarter-end dates. As a result,\nthe deputy manager expected reserves to be close to the $2.8 trillion range by the end of the first\nquarter of next year if runoff were to continue at the current pace.\n\nMinutes of the Federal Open Market Committee 3\nAll but one member of the Committee voted to ratify the Desk’s domestic transactions over the\nintermeeting period. Governor Stephen Miran, who had been sworn in as a member of the Board that\nmorning, abstained from voting. There were no intervention operations in foreign currencies for the\nSystem’s account during the intermeeting period. Staff Review of the Economic Situation\nThe information available at the time of the meeting indicated that real gross domestic product (GDP)\ngrowth had moderated in the first half of the year. Although the unemployment rate continued to be\nlow, the pace of employment increases had slowed, and labor market conditions had softened. Consumer price inflation remained somewhat elevated. Total consumer price inflation—as measured by the 12-month change in the PCE price index—was\nestimated to have been 2.7 percent in August, based on the data from the consumer and producer\nprice indexes. Core PCE price inflation, which excludes changes in consumer energy prices and many\nconsumer food prices, was estimated to have been 2.9 percent in August. Both inflation rates were at\nthe upper end of their ranges since the beginning of the year. Recent data indicated that labor market conditions had softened. The unemployment rate edged up\nto 4.3 percent in August, a little higher than it had been at the beginning of the year. The participation\nrate was somewhat lower in August than it was at the beginning of the year. Average monthly\nincreases in total nonfarm payrolls over July and August were weak, and job gains were revised down\nnotably in May and June. The Bureau of Labor Statistics’ (BLS) preliminary estimate of the benchmark\nrevision for April 2024 through March 2025 indicated that the level of payrolls for March was more\nthan 900,000 lower than had been reported. The ratio of job vacancies to unemployed workers was\n1.0 in August and remained within the narrow range seen over the past year. The employment cost\nindex of hourly compensation for private-sector workers increased 3.5 percent over the 12 months\nending in June, and average hourly earnings for all employees rose 3.7 percent over the 12 months\nending in August. Both wage growth measures were lower than their year-earlier levels. Real GDP rose in the second quarter after declining in the first quarter, but GDP growth over the first\nhalf as a whole was slower than last year. Growth of real private domestic final purchases (PDFP)—\nwhich comprises PCE and private fixed investment and which often provides a better signal than GDP\nof underlying economic momentum—had also moderated in the first half relative to last year. Recent\nindicators for consumer spending and business investment spending—particularly for high-tech\nequipment and software—pointed to further moderate gains in PDFP in the third quarter, but housingsector activity remained weak. After falling sharply in the second quarter, real imports of goods\nincreased in July, particularly for capital goods. By contrast, exports edged down in July, following\nmodest increases over the first half of the year.\n\n4 September 16-17, 2025\nForeign GDP growth slowed markedly in the second quarter, as the transitory boost due to the frontloading of U.S. imports earlier in the year faded. Canadian economic activity contracted significantly,\nas exports of price-sensitive industrial supplies fell sharply in the face of higher U.S. tariffs. Economic\ngrowth in Mexico and parts of Asia was supported by strong demand for high-tech products. Headline inflation was near central banks’ targets in most foreign economies, aided by past declines\nin energy prices. However, core inflation remained persistently elevated in some economies, such as\nBrazil, Mexico, and the U.K. By contrast, inflation in China continued to be subdued. Several foreign\ncentral banks—including the European Central Bank—held their policy rates steady, while others—such\nas the Reserve Bank of New Zealand and the Reserve Bank of Australia—resumed reducing their\npolicy rates, as disinflation continued. Staff Review of the Financial Situation\nThe market-implied path of the federal funds rate decreased notably over the intermeeting period. Options on interest rate futures suggested that market participants were placing a higher probability\non greater policy easing by early 2026 than they had just before the July FOMC meeting. Consistent\nwith the downward shift in the implied policy rate path, nominal Treasury yields declined notably, on\nnet, particularly at shorter horizons. Changes in nominal yields were driven primarily by reductions in\nreal Treasury yields as inflation compensation fell to a lesser degree, on net, across maturities. Broad equity price indexes increased amid strong corporate earnings reports and expectations of\nlower policy rates, while credit spreads were little changed and remained very low by historical\nstandards. The one-month option-implied volatility on the S&P 500 index—the VIX—ended the period\nessentially unchanged, on net, at a moderate level. Risk sentiment generally improved in global financial markets, supported by trade policy\ndevelopments that were perceived as reducing negative tail risks to economic growth, strong\ncorporate earnings, and lower interest rates in the U.S. On balance, foreign equity indexes rose\nmoderately, credit spreads narrowed slightly, and the exchange value of the dollar declined modestly. Increased political uncertainty led to volatility of longer-term government bond yields in some\nadvanced foreign economies. Conditions in U.S. short-term funding markets remained orderly over the intermeeting period, and the\nFOMC’s target policy rate continued to transmit to private rates in the usual manner. Following the\nincrease in the federal debt limit in early July, TGA balances continued to increase, while usage of the\nON RRP facility declined notably to its lowest levels since April 2021. Amid increases in the TGA, there\nwere mild upward pressures in secured market rates over the July and August month-ends. Secured\nrates remained elevated in the lead-up to the mid-September tax and coupon issuance date. On\n\nMinutes of the Federal Open Market Committee 5\nSeptember 15, the Secured Overnight Financing Rate temporarily printed above the minimum bid rate\nat the SRF amid $1.5 billion in take-up at the facility. Amid these movements in secured rates, the\neffective federal funds rate remained unchanged relative to the interest rate on reserve balances. In domestic credit markets, borrowing costs generally declined but remained elevated relative to their\naverage post–Global Financial Crisis (GFC) levels. Yields on corporate bonds decreased moderately,\nwhile yields on leveraged loans were little changed on net. Interest rates on commercial and industrial\n(C&I) and short-term business loans remained elevated relative to their post-GFC averages. Rates on\n30-year fixed-rate conforming residential mortgages declined moderately, on net, and remained\nelevated. Yields on higher-rated tranches of commercial mortgage-backed securities (CMBS) moved\ndown modestly, and those on lower-rated tranches of non-agency CMBS declined notably. Interest\nrates on existing credit card accounts continued to tick up through June, while offer rates on new\ncredit cards were little changed. Financing from capital markets remained broadly available for medium-sized and large businesses. Gross issuance of nonfinancial corporate bonds across credit categories continued at a strong pace in\nJuly and August, and issuance of leveraged loans was robust in recent months. Lending in private\ncredit markets continued at a solid pace in July. After relatively strong growth in the second quarter,\nC&I loan balances on banks’ books also continued to grow at a solid pace in July and August. Commercial real estate (CRE) loans continued to grow at a modest pace in July and August. Credit remained available for most businesses, households, and municipalities, while credit continued\nto be relatively tight for small businesses and households with lower credit scores. In the residential\nmortgage market, credit remained easily available for high-credit-score borrowers who met standard\nconforming loan criteria but generally tight for low-credit-score borrowers. While consumer credit\nremained generally available for most households, the growth of revolving credit and auto loans was\nrelatively weak in the second quarter. Credit quality was generally stable at levels somewhat weaker than during the pre-pandemic period. The credit performance of corporate bonds and leveraged loans remained generally stable, though the\ndefault rate for leveraged loans that includes distressed exchanges continued to be elevated. Delinquency rates on small business loans in June and July ticked up and were moderately above prepandemic levels. In the CRE market, CMBS delinquency rates remained elevated through August. Regarding household credit quality, the delinquency rates on Federal Housing Administration\nmortgages remained at the upper end of their range over the past few years. By contrast, delinquency\nrates on most other mortgage loan types stayed near historical lows. In the second quarter, credit\ncard and auto loan delinquency rates remained at elevated levels but were little changed.\n\n6 September 16-17, 2025\nStaff Economic Outlook\nCompared with the staff forecast prepared for the July meeting, the projection of real GDP growth was\nrevised up somewhat, on balance, for this year through 2028, primarily reflecting stronger-thanexpected data for both consumer spending and business investment as well as financial conditions\nthat were projected to be a little more supportive of output growth. GDP growth was still projected to\nbe faster next year than this year, as the effects of tariff increases and slower net immigration were\nexpected to diminish. The staff continued to expect that the labor market would soften further this\nyear, though the projected path for the unemployment rate in following years was a little lower than in\nthe previous staff forecast. The unemployment rate was projected to move slightly above the staff’s\nestimate of its natural rate through the remainder of this year and then to decline later in the\nprojection as GDP growth picked up. The staff’s inflation projection was only slightly revised from the one prepared for the July meeting. Tariff increases were still expected to raise inflation this year and to provide some further upward\npressure on inflation in 2026. Inflation was projected to decline in 2026, to reach 2 percent in 2027,\nand to remain there in 2028. The staff continued to view the uncertainty around the projection as elevated, primarily reflecting\nuncertainty regarding changes to economic policies, including those for trade, immigration, fiscal\nspending, and regulation, and their associated economic effects. Risks to employment and the labor\nmarket were judged to have become a little more tilted to the downside, stemming from the recent\nsoftening in labor market conditions amid modest real GDP growth. The staff continued to view the\nrisks around the inflation forecast as skewed to the upside, as the projected rise in inflation this year\ncould prove to be more persistent than assumed in the baseline projection. Participants’ Views on Current Conditions and the Economic Outlook\nIn conjunction with this FOMC meeting, participants submitted their projections of the most likely\noutcomes for real GDP growth, the unemployment rate, and inflation for each year from 2025 through\n2028 and over the longer run. The projections were based on participants’ individual assessments of\nappropriate monetary policy, including their projections of the federal funds rate. Participants also\nprovided their individual assessments of the level of uncertainty and the balance of risks associated\nwith their projections. The Summary of Economic Projections was released to the public after the\nmeeting. Participants observed that inflation had moved up since the beginning of the year and remained\nsomewhat above the Committee’s 2 percent longer-run goal. Although participants generally\nassessed that this year’s tariff increases had put upward pressure on inflation, some remarked that\n\nMinutes of the Federal Open Market Committee 7\nthese effects appeared to have been somewhat muted to date relative to expectations from earlier in\nthe year. A few participants suggested that productivity gains may be reducing inflation pressures. A\ncouple of participants expressed the view that, excluding the effects of this year’s tariff increases,\ninflation would be close to target. A few other participants, however, emphasized that progress of\ninflation toward the Committee’s 2 percent objective had stalled, even excluding the effects of this\nyear’s tariff increases. With regard to the outlook for inflation, participants generally expected that, given appropriate\nmonetary policy, inflation would be somewhat elevated in the near term and would gradually return to\n2 percent thereafter. Some participants noted that business contacts had indicated that they would\nraise prices over time because of higher input costs stemming from tariff increases. Uncertainty\nremained about the inflation effects of this year’s increase in tariffs, though most participants\nexpected these effects to be realized by the end of next year. Some participants remarked that the\nlabor market was not expected to be a source of inflationary pressure. A couple of participants\nexpected that the reduction in net migration would be associated with lower demand and lower\ninflation, and a couple of participants observed that continued productivity gains would likely reduce\ninflation pressures. Participants noted that longer-term inflation expectations continued to be well\nanchored and that it was important they remain so to help return inflation to 2 percent. Various\nparticipants stressed the central role of monetary policy in ensuring that longer-term inflation\nexpectations remained well anchored. A majority of participants emphasized upside risks to their\noutlooks for inflation, pointing to inflation readings moving further from 2 percent, continued\nuncertainty about the effects of tariffs, the possibility that elevated inflation proves to be more\npersistent than currently expected even after the inflation effects of this year’s tariff increases fade, or\nthe possibility of longer-term inflation expectations moving up after a long period of elevated inflation\nreadings. Some participants remarked that they perceived less upside risk to their outlooks for\ninflation than earlier in the year. In their discussion of the labor market, participants observed that job gains had slowed and the\nunemployment rate had edged up. Participants noted that the low level of estimated job gains over\nrecent months likely reflected declines in growth of both labor supply and labor demand. Participants\nnoted low net immigration or changes in labor force participation as factors reducing labor supply. As\nfor factors that may be reducing labor demand, participants noted moderate economic growth or the\neffects of high uncertainty on firms’ hiring decisions. Under these circumstances, participants cited a\nnumber of other indicators as helpful for assessing labor market conditions. These included the\nunemployment rate, the ratio of job vacancies to unemployed workers, wage growth, the percentage of\nunemployed workers who find a job, the quits rate among employed workers, and the layoff rate. Participants generally assessed that recent readings of these indicators did not show a sharp\n\n8 September 16-17, 2025\ndeterioration in labor market conditions. A few participants, though, saw recently released labor\nmarket data, including revisions to previously released data and the BLS’s preliminary estimate of the\npayroll employment benchmark revision, as indicating that labor market conditions had been\nsoftening for longer than was previously reported. With regard to the outlook for the labor market, participants generally expected that, under\nappropriate monetary policy, labor market conditions would be little changed or would soften\nmodestly. Several participants noted that the number of monthly job gains consistent with a stable\nunemployment rate had declined over the past year and would likely remain low, citing the large\nnumber of workers nearing retirement age or continued low net immigration. Participants indicated\nthat their outlooks for the labor market were uncertain and viewed downside risks to employment as\nhaving increased over the intermeeting period. In support of this view, participants mentioned a\nnumber of indicators, including the following: low hiring and firing rates, which are evidence of less\ndynamism in the labor market; concentrated job gains in a small number of sectors; and increases in\nunemployment rates for groups that have historically shown greater sensitivity to cyclical changes in\neconomic activity, such as those for African Americans and young people. Several participants saw\ncontinuing adoption of artificial intelligence as potentially reducing labor demand. Some participants\nnoted that survey responses indicated that household sentiment regarding the labor market had\nmoved down. Participants observed that growth of economic activity slowed in the first half of the year relative to\nlast year. Regarding the household sector, participants noted that lower consumption growth had\ncontributed to the slowdown in the growth of economic activity in the first half of the year. Several\nparticipants remarked that recent data indicated some firming of consumption expenditures this\nquarter. Some participants mentioned that households were showing greater price sensitivity, and\nseveral participants observed that high-income households were increasingly doing better,\neconomically, than lower-income households. Several participants noted continued weakness in the\nhousing market, and a couple of participants mentioned the possibility of a more substantial\ndeterioration in the housing market as a downside risk to economic activity. For businesses, many\nparticipants noted strong high-tech investment. Several participants noted that financial conditions\nwere supportive of economic activity. A few participants commented that the agricultural sector\ncontinued to face headwinds because of low crop prices and high input costs. In their consideration of monetary policy at this meeting, participants noted that inflation had risen\nrecently and remained somewhat elevated, and that recent indicators suggested that growth of\neconomic activity had moderated in the first half of the year. While participants noted the\nunemployment rate remained low, they observed that it had edged up and job gains had slowed. In\naddition, they judged that downside risks to employment had risen. Against this backdrop, almost all\n\nMinutes of the Federal Open Market Committee 9\nparticipants supported reducing the target range for the federal funds rate ¼ percentage point at this\nmeeting. Participants generally noted that their judgments about this meeting’s appropriate policy\naction reflected a shift in the balance of risks. In particular, most participants observed that it was\nappropriate to move the target range for the federal funds rate toward a more neutral setting because\nthey judged that downside risks to employment had increased over the intermeeting period and that\nupside risks to inflation had either diminished or not increased. A few participants stated there was\nmerit in keeping the federal funds rate unchanged at this meeting or that they could have supported\nsuch a decision. These participants noted that progress toward the Committee’s 2 percent inflation\nobjective had stalled this year as inflation readings increased and expressed concern that longer-term\ninflation expectations may rise if inflation does not return to its objective in a timely manner. One\nparticipant agreed with the need to move policy toward a more neutral stance but preferred a\n½ percentage point reduction at this meeting. All participants judged it appropriate to continue the\nprocess of reducing the Federal Reserve’s securities holdings. In considering the outlook for monetary policy, almost all participants noted that, with the reduction in\nthe target range for the federal funds rate at this meeting, the Committee was well positioned to\nrespond in a timely way to potential economic developments. Participants observed that monetary\npolicy was not on a preset course and would be informed by a wide range of incoming data, the\nevolving economic outlook, and the balance of risks. Participants expressed a range of views about\nthe degree to which the current stance of monetary policy was restrictive and about the likely future\npath of policy. Most judged that it likely would be appropriate to ease policy further over the\nremainder of this year. Some participants noted that, by several measures, financial conditions\nsuggested that monetary policy may not be particularly restrictive, which they judged as warranting a\ncautious approach in the consideration of future policy changes. In discussing risk-management considerations that could bear on the outlook for monetary policy,\nparticipants generally judged that upside risks to inflation remained elevated and that downside risks\nto employment were elevated and had increased. Participants noted that, in these circumstances, if\npolicy were eased too much or too soon and inflation continued to be elevated, then longer-term\ninflation expectations could become unanchored and make restoring price stability even more\nchallenging. By contrast, if policy rates were kept too high for too long, then unemployment could rise\nunnecessarily, and the economy could slow sharply. Against this backdrop, participants stressed the\nimportance of taking a balanced approach in promoting the Committee’s employment and inflation\ngoals, taking into account the extent of departures from those goals and the potentially different time\nhorizons over which employment and inflation are projected to return to levels judged consistent with\nthe Committee’s mandate.\n\n10 September 16-17, 2025\nSeveral participants remarked on issues related to the Federal Reserve’s balance sheet and\nimplementation of monetary policy. A few participants stated that balance sheet reduction had\nproceeded smoothly thus far and that various indicators pointed to reserves remaining abundant. Nevertheless, with reserves declining and expected to decline further, they noted that it was important\nto continue to monitor money market conditions closely and evaluate how close reserves were to their\nample level. In that context, a few participants noted that the SRF would help keep the federal funds\nrate within its target range and ensure that temporary pressures in money markets would not disrupt\nthe ongoing reduction in Federal Reserve securities holdings to the level needed to implement\nmonetary policy efficiently and effectively in the Committee’s ample-reserves regime. Committee Policy Actions\nIn their discussions of monetary policy for this meeting, members agreed that recent indicators\nsuggested that growth of economic activity had moderated in the first half of the year. To reflect\ndevelopments in the labor market, they agreed to no longer characterize labor market conditions as\nsolid and instead state that job gains had slowed and that the unemployment rate had edged up but\nremained low. Members concurred that inflation remained somewhat elevated and agreed to add\nthat inflation had moved up. They agreed that the Committee was attentive to the risks to both sides\nof its dual mandate and to add that downside risks to employment had risen to reflect their concerns\nabout the labor market. In support of the Committee’s goals and in light of the shift in the balance of risks, almost all members\nagreed to lower the target range for the federal funds rate ¼ percentage point to 4 to 4¼ percent. One member voted against that decision, preferring to lower the target range ½ percentage point at\nthis meeting. Members agreed that, in considering additional adjustments to the target range for the\nfederal funds rate, the Committee would carefully assess incoming data, the evolving outlook, and the\nbalance of risks. All members agreed that the postmeeting statement should affirm their strong\ncommitment both to supporting maximum employment and to returning inflation to the Committee’s\n2 percent objective. Members agreed that, in assessing the appropriate stance of monetary policy, the Committee would\ncontinue to monitor the implications of incoming information for the economic outlook. They would be\nprepared to adjust the stance of monetary policy as appropriate if risks emerged that could impede\nthe attainment of the Committee’s goals. Members also agreed that their assessments would take\ninto account a wide range of information, including readings on labor market conditions, inflation\npressures and inflation expectations, and financial and international developments.\n\nMinutes of the Federal Open Market Committee 11\nAt the conclusion of the discussion, the Committee voted to direct the Federal Reserve Bank of New\nYork, until instructed otherwise, to execute transactions in the SOMA in accordance with the following\ndomestic policy directive, for release at 2:00 p.m.:\n“Effective September 18, 2025, the Federal Open Market Committee directs the Desk to:\n• Undertake open market operations as necessary to maintain the federal funds rate in a\ntarget range of 4 to 4¼ percent.\n• Conduct standing overnight repurchase agreement operations with a minimum bid rate of\n4.25 percent and with an aggregate operation limit of $500 billion.\n• Conduct standing overnight reverse repurchase agreement operations at an offering rate\nof 4 percent and with a per-counterparty limit of $160 billion per day.\n• Roll over at auction the amount of principal payments from the Federal Reserve’s\nholdings of Treasury securities maturing in each calendar month that exceeds a cap of\n$5 billion per month. Redeem Treasury coupon securities up to this monthly cap and\nTreasury bills to the extent that coupon principal payments are less than the monthly cap.\n• Reinvest the amount of principal payments from the Federal Reserve’s holdings of\nagency debt and agency mortgage-backed securities (MBS) received in each calendar\nmonth that exceeds a cap of $35 billion per month into Treasury securities to roughly\nmatch the maturity composition of Treasury securities outstanding.\n• Allow modest deviations from stated amounts for reinvestments, if needed for\noperational reasons.”\nThe vote also encompassed approval of the statement below for release at 2:00 p.m.:\n“Recent indicators suggest that growth of economic activity moderated in the first half of the\nyear. Job gains have slowed, and the unemployment rate has edged up but remains low. Inflation has moved up and remains somewhat elevated. The Committee seeks to achieve maximum employment and inflation at the rate of 2 percent\nover the longer run. Uncertainty about the economic outlook remains elevated. The\nCommittee is attentive to the risks to both sides of its dual mandate and judges that\ndownside risks to employment have risen. In support of its goals and in light of the shift in the balance of risks, the Committee decided\nto lower the target range for the federal funds rate by ¼ percentage point to 4 to 4¼ percent. In considering additional adjustments to the target range for the federal funds rate, the\n\n12 September 16-17, 2025\nCommittee will carefully assess incoming data, the evolving outlook, and the balance of risks. The Committee will continue reducing its holdings of Treasury securities and agency debt and\nagency mortgage-backed securities. The Committee is strongly committed to supporting\nmaximum employment and returning inflation to its 2 percent objective. In assessing the appropriate stance of monetary policy, the Committee will continue to\nmonitor the implications of incoming information for the economic outlook. The Committee\nwould be prepared to adjust the stance of monetary policy as appropriate if risks emerge that\ncould impede the attainment of the Committee’s goals. The Committee’s assessments will\ntake into account a wide range of information, including readings on labor market conditions,\ninflation pressures and inflation expectations, and financial and international developments.”\nVoting for this action: Jerome H. Powell, John C. Williams, Michael S. Barr, Michelle W. Bowman,\nSusan M. Collins, Lisa D. Cook, Austan D. Goolsbee, Philip N. Jefferson, Alberto G. Musalem, Jeffrey R. Schmid, and Christopher J. Waller. Voting against this action: Stephen I. Miran. Governor Miran preferred to lower the target range for the federal funds rate by ½ percentage point at\nthis meeting in light of further softening in the labor market over the first half of the year and\nunderlying inflation that in his view was meaningfully closer to 2 percent than was apparent in the\ndata. Governor Miran also expressed the view that additional policy easing was also appropriate to\nreflect that the neutral rate of interest had fallen due to factors such as increased tariff revenues that\nhad raised net national savings and changes in immigration policy that had reduced population\ngrowth. Consistent with the Committee’s decision to lower the target range for the federal funds rate to 4 to\n4¼ percent, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System voted to lower the interest rate\npaid on reserve balances to 4.15 percent, effective September 18, 2025. The Board of Governors of\nthe Federal Reserve System voted to approve a ¼ percentage point decrease in the primary credit\nrate to 4.25 percent, effective September 18, 2025.2\nIt was agreed that the next meeting of the Committee would be held on Tuesday–Wednesday,\nOctober 28–29, 2025. The meeting adjourned at 10:10 a.m. on September 17, 2025.\n2 In taking this action, the Board approved requests to establish that rate submitted by the Boards of Directors of the Federal\nReserve Banks of Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Richmond, Atlanta, Chicago, Minneapolis, Kansas City, Dallas, and San\nFrancisco. The vote also encompassed approval by the Board of Governors of the establishment of a 4.25 percent primary\ncredit rate by the remaining Federal Reserve Banks, effective on September 18, 2025, or the date such Reserve Banks inform\nthe Secretary of the Board of such a request. (Secretary’s note: Subsequently, the Federal Reserve Banks of Cleveland and St. Louis were informed of the Board’s approval of their establishment of a primary credit rate of 4.25 percent, effective September\n18, 2025.)\n\nMinutes of the Federal Open Market Committee 13\nNotation Vote\nBy notation vote completed on August 19, 2025, the Committee unanimously approved the minutes of\nthe Committee meeting held on July 29–30, 2025. Attendance\nJerome H. Powell, Chair\nJohn C. Williams, Vice Chair\nMichael S. Barr\nMichelle W. Bowman\nSusan M. Collins\nLisa D. Cook\nAustan D. Goolsbee\nPhilip N. Jefferson\nStephen I. Miran\nAlberto G. Musalem\nJeffrey R. Schmid\nChristopher J. Waller\nBeth M. Hammack, Neel Kashkari, Lorie K. Logan, Anna Paulson, and Sushmita Shukla, Alternate\nMembers of the Committee\nThomas I. Barkin, Raphael W. Bostic, and Mary C. Daly, Presidents of the Federal Reserve Banks of\nRichmond, Atlanta, and San Francisco, respectively\nJoshua Gallin, Secretary\nMatthew M. Luecke, Deputy Secretary\nBrian J. Bonis, Assistant Secretary\nMichelle A. Smith, Assistant Secretary\nMark E. Van Der Weide, General Counsel\nRichard Ostrander, Deputy General Counsel\nTrevor A. Reeve, Economist\nStacey Tevlin, Economist\nBeth Anne Wilson, Economist\nShaghil Ahmed and William Wascher, Associate Economists\nRoberto Perli, Manager, System Open Market Account\nJulie Ann Remache, Deputy Manager, System Open Market Account\nDaniel Aaronson, Interim Director of Research, Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago\nJose Acosta, Senior System Engineer II, Division of Information Technology, Board\nMary L. Aiken, Acting Director, Division of Supervision and Regulation, Board\nOladoyin Ajifowoke, Program Management Analyst, Division of Monetary Affairs, Board\nRoc Armenter, Executive Vice President, Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia\n\n14 September 16-17, 2025\nAlyssa Arute,3 Assistant Director, Division of Reserve Bank Operations and Payment Systems, Board\nAlessandro Barbarino, Special Adviser to the Board, Division of Board Members, Board\nWilliam F. Bassett, Senior Associate Director, Division of Financial Stability, Board\nErik Bostrom, Senior Financial Institution Policy Analyst I, Division of Monetary Affairs, Board\nEllen J. Bromagen, First Vice President, Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago\nBrent Bundick, Vice President, Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City\nMichele Cavallo, Special Adviser to the Board, Division of Board Members, Board\nLisa M. Chung,3 Capital Markets Trading Director, Federal Reserve Bank of New York\nJuan Carlos Climent, Special Adviser to the Board, Division of Board Members, Board\nDaniel M. Covitz, Deputy Director, Division of Research and Statistics, Board\nStephanie E. Curcuru, Deputy Director, Division of International Finance, Board\nAndrea De Michelis, Deputy Associate Director, Division of International Finance, Board\nMarnie Gillis DeBoer, Senior Associate Director, Division of Monetary Affairs, Board\nAnthony M. Diercks, Principal Economist, Division of Monetary Affairs, Board\nLaura J. Feiveson, Special Adviser to the Board, Division of Board Members, Board\nGlenn Follette, Associate Director, Division of Research and Statistics, Board\nBrian Gowen,3 Capital Markets Trading Principal, Federal Reserve Bank of New York\nChristopher J. Gust, Associate Director, Division of Monetary Affairs, Board\nValerie S. Hinojosa, Section Chief, Division of Monetary Affairs, Board\nColin J. Hottman, Principal Economist, Division of International Finance, Board\nMatteo Iacoviello, Senior Associate Director, Division of International Finance, Board\nJane E. Ihrig, Special Adviser to the Board, Division of Board Members, Board\nBenjamin K. Johannsen, Assistant Director, Division of Monetary Affairs, Board\nMichael T. Kiley, Deputy Director, Division of Monetary Affairs, Board\nElizabeth Klee, Deputy Director, Division of Monetary Affairs, Board\nEdward S. Knotek II, Senior Vice President, Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland\nAnna R. Kovner, Executive Vice President, Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond\nAndreas Lehnert, Director, Division of Financial Stability, Board\nPaul Lengermann, Deputy Associate Director, Division of Research and Statistics, Board\nKurt F. Lewis, Special Adviser to the Chair, Division of Board Members, Board\nLaura Lipscomb, Special Adviser to the Board, Division of Board Members, Board\n3 Attended through the discussion of developments in financial markets and open market operations.\n\nMinutes of the Federal Open Market Committee 15\nDavid López-Salido,4 Senior Associate Director, Division of Monetary Affairs, Board\nByron Lutz, Deputy Associate Director, Division of Research and Statistics, Board\nFernando M. Martin, Senior Economic Policy Advisor II, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis\nBenjamin W. McDonough, Deputy Secretary and Ombudsman, Office of the Secretary, Board\nBrent H. Meyer, Assistant Vice President, Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta\nNorman J. Morin, Associate Director, Division of Research and Statistics, Board\nAnna Nordstrom, Head of Markets, Federal Reserve Bank of New York\nNicolas Petrosky-Nadeau, Vice President, Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco\nCaterina Petrucco-Littleton, Deputy Associate Director, Division of Consumer and Community Affairs,\nBoard; Special Adviser to the Board, Division of Board Members, Board\nEugenio P. Pinto, Special Adviser to the Board, Division of Board Members, Board\nOdelle Quisumbing,3 Assistant to the Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Board\nAndrea Raffo, Senior Vice President, Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis\nJeanne Rentezelas, First Vice President, Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia\nArgia Sbordone, Research Department Head, Federal Reserve Bank of New York\nKirk Schwarzbach, Special Assistant to the Board, Division of Board Members, Board\nZeynep Senyuz, Special Adviser to the Board, Division of Board Members, Board\nJohn J. Stevens, Senior Associate Director, Division of Research and Statistics, Board\nJenny Tang, Vice President, Federal Reserve Bank of Boston\nManjola Tase, Principal Economist, Division of Monetary Affairs, Board\nMary H. Tian, Group Manager, Division of Monetary Affairs, Board\nAnnette Vissing-Jørgensen, Senior Adviser, Division of Monetary Affairs, Board\nJeffrey D. Walker,3 Senior Associate Director, Division of Reserve Bank Operations and Payment\nSystems, Board\nRebecca Zarutskie, Senior Vice President, Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas\nAndrei Zlate, Group Manager, Division of Monetary Affairs, Board\n_______________________\nJoshua Gallin\nSecretary\n4 Attended opening remarks for Tuesday session only.",
+    "url": "https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/files/fomcminutes20250917.pdf",
+    "action": "Lowered",
+    "rate": "4.00%-4.25%",
+    "magnitude": "0.25 percentage points",
+    "forward_guidance": "The Fed said it will keep easing further over the rest of the year if data support it, but will adjust as needed if risks change.",
+    "key_economic_factors": [
+      "Moderate economic growth and slower job gains",
+      "Higher inflation that remains above target",
+      "Increased downside risk to employment",
+      "Tariff‑related inflation pressures"
+    ],
+    "economic_outlook": "Inflation has risen but is still somewhat above the 2% goal; growth is moderate and employment remains low but with rising risks; the Fed expects inflation to fall to 2% by 2027 while GDP growth should pick up next year.",
+    "market_impact": "Lower rates should ease borrowing costs for businesses and consumers, potentially boosting spending and earnings, while markets may see modest gains; however, persistent inflation risks could temper long‑term optimism."
+  },
+  {
+    "date": "2025-07-30",
+    "title": "FOMC Meeting 2025-07-30",
+    "full_text": "FOMC\nMinutes of the\nFederal Open Market Committee\nJuly 29–30, 2025\nFEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM\n\nMinutes of the Federal Open Market\nCommittee\nJuly 29–30, 2025\nA joint meeting of the Federal Open Market Committee and the Board of Governors of the Federal\nReserve System was held in the offices of the Board of Governors on Tuesday, July 29, 2025, at\n9:00 a.m. and continued on Wednesday, July 30, 2025, at 9:00 a.m.1\nReview of Monetary Policy Strategy, Tools, and Communications\nParticipants continued their discussion related to the ongoing review of the Federal Reserve’s\nmonetary policy strategy, tools, and communication practices (framework review). They observed that\nthey had made important progress toward revising the Committee’s Statement on Longer-Run Goals\nand Monetary Policy Strategy (consensus statement). Participants discussed potential revisions to the\nconsensus statement that would incorporate lessons learned from economic developments since the\n2020 framework review and would be designed to be robust across a wide range of economic\nconditions. Participants noted that the Committee was close to finalizing changes to the consensus\nstatement and would do so in the near future. Developments in Financial Markets and Open Market Operations\nThe manager turned first to a review of financial market developments. Over the intermeeting period,\nthe expected path of the policy rate and longer-term Treasury yields were little changed, equity prices\nincreased, credit spreads narrowed, and the dollar depreciated slightly. The manager noted that\nmarkets continued to be attentive to news related to trade policy, though markets’ reaction to\nincoming information on this topic was more restrained than in April and May. Against this backdrop,\nthe manager reported that the Open Market Desk’s Survey of Market Expectations (Desk survey)\nindicated that the median respondent’s expectations regarding both real gross domestic product\n(GDP) growth and inflation were roughly unchanged. The manager turned next to policy rate expectations, which held steady over the intermeeting period,\nconsistent with a relatively stable macroeconomic outlook. The median modal path of the federal\nfunds rate, as given in the Desk survey, was unchanged from the corresponding path in the June\n1 The Federal Open Market Committee is referenced as the “FOMC” and the “Committee” in these minutes; the Board of\nGovernors of the Federal Reserve System is referenced as the “Board” in these minutes.\n\n2 July 29–30, 2025\nsurvey and continued to indicate expectations of two 25 basis point rate cuts in the second half of this\nyear. Market-based measures of policy rate expectations were also little changed and indicated\nexpectations of one to two 25 basis point rate cuts by the end of the year. The manager then discussed developments in Treasury securities markets and market-based\nmeasures of inflation compensation. Nominal Treasury yields were little changed, on net, over the\nintermeeting period, consistent with the lack of appreciable changes in the macroeconomic outlook\nand in policy rate expectations. Perceived risks associated with trade policy developments contributed\nto an increase in near-term market measures of inflation compensation, while longer-horizon\nmeasures of inflation compensation rose more modestly. The manager then turned to market pricing of risky assets. The increases in equity prices and\nnarrowing of credit spreads suggested that markets assessed that the overall U.S. economy was\nremaining resilient; still, financial markets appeared to be making distinctions between individual\ncorporations on the basis of the size and quality of their earnings. Valuations of the S&P 500 index\ncontinued to move above long-run average levels, mostly driven by optimism about the largest\ntechnology firms’ scope to benefit from the further adoption of artificial intelligence (AI). However,\nvaluations of an index of smaller-capitalization firms, although higher over the intermeeting period,\nremained below their historical averages. Regarding foreign exchange developments, the manager noted that the broad trade-weighted dollar\nindex had continued to depreciate since the previous FOMC meeting but at a slower pace than in\nrecent intermeeting periods. At the same time, the manager noted that correlations between the\ndollar and its fundamental drivers had normalized recently. The available data continued to suggest\nrelative stability in foreign holdings of U.S. assets. The manager turned next to money markets. Unsecured overnight rates remained stable over the\nintermeeting period. Rates on Treasury repurchase agreements (repo) were somewhat higher than\nthe low levels seen in the previous intermeeting period. The manager observed that two factors\ncontributed to this slight increase: the normal upward pressure on money market rates associated\nwith the June quarter-end; and the rise in net Treasury bill issuance amid the rebuilding of the\nTreasury General Account (TGA) balance following the increase in the debt limit in early July. On\nJune 30, as market rates climbed modestly above the standing repo facility’s (SRF) minimum bid rate\nat quarter-end, there was material usage of the facility, with counterparties borrowing a bit more than\n$11 billion, the highest utilization to date. The manager also discussed the projected trajectory of various Federal Reserve liabilities. With\nincreased Treasury bill issuance associated with the rebuilding of the TGA balance likely to result in a\nrise in money market rates, take-up at the overnight reverse repurchase agreement (ON RRP) facility\n\nMinutes of the Federal Open Market Committee 3\nwas expected to decline to low levels relatively soon. Market indicators continued to suggest that\nreserves remained abundant; however, ongoing System Open Market Account (SOMA) portfolio runoff,\na substantial expected increase in the TGA balance, and the depletion of the ON RRP facility were\ntogether likely to bring about a sustained decline in reserves for the first time since portfolio runoff\nstarted in June 2022. Against this backdrop, the staff would continue to monitor indicators of reserve\nconditions closely. The manager also noted that there would be times—such as quarter-ends, tax\ndates, and days associated with large settlements of Treasury securities—when reserves were likely to\ndip temporarily to even lower levels. At those times, utilization of the SRF would likely support the\nsmooth functioning of money markets and the implementation of monetary policy. By unanimous vote, the Committee ratified the Desk’s domestic transactions over the intermeeting\nperiod. There were no intervention operations in foreign currencies for the System’s account during\nthe intermeeting period. Staff Review of the Economic Situation\nThe information available at the time of the meeting indicated that real GDP expanded at a tepid pace\nin the first half of the year. The unemployment rate continued to be low, and consumer price inflation\nremained somewhat elevated. Disinflation appeared to have stalled, with tariffs putting upward pressure on goods price inflation. Total consumer price inflation—as measured by the 12-month change in the price index for personal\nconsumption expenditures (PCE)—was estimated to have been 2.5 percent in June, based on the\nconsumer and producer price indexes. Core PCE price inflation, which excludes changes in consumer\nenergy prices and many consumer food prices, was estimated to have been 2.7 percent in June. Both\ninflation rates were similar to their year-earlier levels. Recent data indicated that labor market conditions remained solid. The unemployment rate was\n4.1 percent in June, down 0.1 percentage point from May. The participation rate edged down\n0.1 percentage point in June, and the employment-to-population ratio was unchanged. Total nonfarm\npayroll gains were solid in June, though the pace of private payroll gains stepped down noticeably. The ratio of job vacancies to unemployed workers was 1.1 in June and remained within the narrow\nrange seen over the past year. Average hourly earnings for all employees rose 3.7 percent over the\n12 months ending in June, slightly lower than the year-earlier pace. According to the advance estimate, real GDP rose in the second quarter after declining in the first\nquarter. Growth of real private domestic final purchases—which comprises PCE and private fixed\ninvestment and which often provides a better signal than GDP of underlying economic momentum—\nslowed in the second quarter, as a step-down in investment growth offset faster PCE growth.\n\n4 July 29–30, 2025\nAfter exerting a substantial negative drag on GDP growth in the first quarter, net exports made a large\npositive contribution in the second quarter. Real imports of goods and services declined sharply, likely\nreflecting the aftereffects of the substantial front-loading of imports recorded in the first quarter ahead\nof anticipated tariff hikes. By contrast, exports of goods declined at a more moderate pace, and\nexports of services rose further. Abroad, activity indicators pointed to a slowdown of foreign economic growth in the second quarter, as\nthe transitory boost due to the front-loading of U.S. imports earlier in the year faded. Of note, monthly\nGDP data through May indicated that economic activity contracted in Canada. China’s GDP, however,\ncontinued to expand at a moderate pace in the second quarter, supported by solid domestic spending. Headline inflation rates were near targets in most foreign economies, held down by past declines in oil\nprices and fading wage pressures following a tightening in monetary policy stances over the past few\nyears. However, core inflation remained somewhat elevated in some foreign economies. Over the intermeeting period, several foreign central banks, such as the Bank of Mexico and the Swiss\nNational Bank, further eased their monetary policy stance, while others, such as the Bank of England\nand the European Central Bank, held their policy rates steady. In their communications, foreign\ncentral banks continued to emphasize that U.S. trade policies and accompanying uncertainty have\nstarted to weigh on economic activity in their economies. Staff Review of the Financial Situation\nOver the intermeeting period, both the market-implied expected path of the federal funds rate over the\nnext year and nominal Treasury yields were little changed, on net, while real yields declined. Inflation\ncompensation rose across the maturity spectrum—particularly at shorter horizons—reflecting, at least\nin part, perceived risks associated with trade policy developments. Broad equity price indexes increased and credit spreads tightened, consistent with improving risk\nsentiment attributed in part to easing geopolitical tensions as well as stronger-than-expected\neconomic activity. Credit spreads for all rating categories except the lowest-quality bonds narrowed to\nexceptionally low levels relative to their historical distribution. The VIX—a forward-looking measure of\nnear-term equity market volatility—declined moderately to just below the median of its historical\ndistribution. Over the intermeeting period, news about trade policy interpreted as positive by investors together\nwith some easing of geopolitical tensions in the Middle East led to moderate increases in foreign\nequity prices and longer-term yields. The broad dollar index was little changed on net.\n\nMinutes of the Federal Open Market Committee 5\nConditions in U.S. short-term funding markets remained orderly over the intermeeting period while\ndisplaying typical quarter-end dynamics. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which became law on July 4,\nended the previous debt issuance suspension period, after which the TGA balance increased from\n$313 billion on July 3 to an expected $500 billion by the end of July. Rates in secured markets were,\non average, somewhat elevated relative to the average over the previous intermeeting period, owing in\npart to quarter-end effects. Although upward pressure on repo rates was modest at quarter-end, takeup at the SRF was $11.1 billion on June 30—its highest level since the inception of the facility—as the\naddition of an early settlement option seemed to encourage participation. Average usage of the ON\nRRP facility was little changed over the intermeeting period. In domestic credit markets, borrowing costs facing businesses, households, and municipalities eased\nmoderately but remained elevated relative to post-Global Financial Crisis (GFC) average levels. Yields\non both corporate bonds and leveraged loans declined modestly, while interest rates on small\nbusiness loans were little changed on net. Rates on 30-year fixed-rate conforming residential\nmortgages were little changed and remained near the top of the post-GFC historical distribution. Interest rates on new auto loans and for new credit card offers have fluctuated in a narrow range in\nrecent months around the upper end of their post-GFC distributions. Credit remained generally available. Financing through capital markets and nonbank lenders was\nreadily accessible for public corporations as well as large and middle-market private corporations. Issuance of nonfinancial corporate bonds and leveraged loans was solid in June, and private credit\ncontinued to be broadly available despite ebbing somewhat in May and June. Loan balances on\nbanks’ books increased at a moderate pace in the second quarter, led by growth in commercial and\nindustrial (C&I) loans. Lending to small businesses remained subdued, an outcome attributed to weak\nborrower demand. Banks in the July Senior Loan Officer Opinion Survey on Bank Lending Practices reported that, on net,\nunderwriting standards were little changed in the second quarter across most loan categories,\nalthough the level of standards remained on the tighter end of their historical range. C&I loan\nstandards, however, were reported to be a little easier than the range seen since 2005, yet still\nsomewhat tighter than in periods not associated with financial stress. Consumer credit continued to\nbe readily available for high-credit-score borrowers, though growth in applications for home purchases,\nrefinances, auto loans, and revolving credit was relatively weak, reflecting heightened borrowing costs\nand tighter credit standards for lower-credit-score borrowers. In the second quarter, credit performance was generally stable but somewhat weaker than prepandemic levels. Corporate bond and leveraged loan credit performance declined moderately in May\nand June, though defaults remained below post-GFC medians through June. In the commercial real\n\n6 July 29–30, 2025\nestate market, delinquency rates on commercial mortgage-backed securities remained elevated\nthrough June. The rate of serious delinquencies on Federal Housing Administration mortgages\ncontinued to be elevated. By contrast, delinquency rates on most other mortgage loan types\ncontinued to stay near historical lows. In May, the credit card delinquency rate was a little below its\nyear-earlier value, while that for auto loans was roughly the same as in May last year; both were\nelevated relative to their pre-pandemic levels. Student loan delinquencies reported to credit bureaus\nshot up in the first quarter of the year after the expiration of the on-ramp period for student loan\npayments. The staff provided an updated assessment of the stability of the U.S. financial system and, on balance,\ncontinued to characterize the system’s financial vulnerabilities as notable. The staff judged that asset\nvaluation pressures were elevated. In equity markets, price-to-earnings ratios stood at the upper end\nof their historical distribution, while spreads on high-yield corporate bonds narrowed notably and were\nlow relative to their historical distribution. Housing valuations edged down but remained elevated. Vulnerabilities associated with nonfinancial business and household debt were characterized as\nmoderate. Household debt to GDP was at its lowest level in the past 20 years, and household balance\nsheets remained strong. The ability of publicly traded firms to service their debt remained solid. For\nprivate firms, debt grew at a rapid pace, while these firms’ interest coverage ratios declined to the\nlower range of their historical distributions, suggesting that vulnerabilities may be growing in that\nsector. Vulnerabilities associated with leverage in the financial sector were characterized as notable. Regulatory capital ratios in the banking sector remained high, while recent annual supervisory stresstest results showed that all participants stayed above minimum capital requirements even under\nstress conditions. Banks, however, were still seen as more exposed to interest rate risk than had\nbeen historically typical, albeit to a lesser degree than was the case earlier in the decade. In the\nnonbank sector, life insurers’ allocation of assets toward private credit and risky assets, funded in part\nby nontraditional liabilities with short maturities, continued to grow. Leverage and rollover risk at\nhedge funds remained high and concentrated in the largest firms. Vulnerabilities associated with funding risks were characterized as moderate. Money market funds\n(MMFs) continued to be vulnerable to runs, though the aggregate assets of such prime and prime-like\ninvestment vehicles remained in the middle of their historical range as a fraction of GDP. Prime-like\nalternatives—including private liquidity funds, offshore MMFs, and stablecoins—have grown rapidly and\nwere noted as relatively less transparent.\n\nMinutes of the Federal Open Market Committee 7\nStaff Economic Outlook\nThe staff’s real GDP growth projection for this year through 2027 was similar to the one prepared for\nthe June meeting, reflecting the offsetting effects of several revisions to the outlook. The staff\nexpected that the rise in the cost of imported goods inclusive of tariffs would be smaller and occur\nlater than in their previous forecast; in addition, financial conditions were projected to be slightly more\nsupportive of output growth. However, these positive influences on the outlook were offset by weakerthan-expected spending data and a smaller assumed population boost from net immigration. The\nstaff continued to expect that the labor market would weaken, with the unemployment rate projected\nto move above the staff’s estimate of its natural rate around the end of this year and to remain above\nthe natural rate through 2027. The staff’s inflation projection was slightly lower than the one prepared for the June meeting, reflecting\nthe downward revision to the assumed effects of tariffs on imported goods prices. Tariffs were\nexpected to raise inflation this year and to provide some further upward pressure on inflation in 2026;\ninflation was then projected to decline to 2 percent by 2027. The staff continued to view the uncertainty around the projection as elevated, primarily reflecting\nuncertainty regarding changes to economic policies, including trade policy, and their associated\neconomic effects. Risks to real activity were judged to remain skewed to the downside in light of the\nweakening in GDP growth seen so far this year and elevated policy uncertainty. The staff continued to\nview the risks around the inflation forecast as skewed to the upside, as the projected rise in inflation\nthis year could prove to be more persistent than assumed in the baseline projection. Participants’ Views on Current Conditions and the Economic Outlook\nIn their discussion of inflation, many participants observed that overall inflation remained somewhat\nabove the Committee’s 2 percent longer-run goal. Participants noted that tariff effects were becoming\nmore apparent in the data, as indicated by recent increases in goods price inflation, while services\nprice inflation had continued to slow. A couple of participants suggested that tariff effects were\nmasking the underlying trend of inflation and, setting aside the tariff effects, inflation was close to\ntarget. With regard to the outlook for inflation, participants generally expected inflation to increase in the near\nterm. Participants judged that considerable uncertainty remained about the timing, magnitude, and\npersistence of the effects of this year’s increase in tariffs. In terms of timing, many participants noted\nthat it could take some time for the full effects of higher tariffs to be felt in consumer goods and\nservices prices. Participants cited several contributors to this likely lag. These included the\nstockpiling of inventories in anticipation of higher tariffs; slow pass-through of input cost increases into\n\n8 July 29–30, 2025\nfinal goods and services prices; gradual updating of contract prices; maintenance of firm–customer\nrelationships; issues related to tariff collection; and still-ongoing trade negotiations. As for the\nmagnitude of tariff effects on prices, a few participants observed that evidence so far suggested that\nforeign exporters were paying at most a modest part of the increased tariffs, implying that domestic\nbusinesses and consumers were predominantly bearing the tariff costs. Several participants, drawing\non information provided by business contacts or business surveys, expected that many companies\nwould increasingly have to pass through tariff costs to end-customers over time. However, a few\nparticipants reported that business contacts and survey respondents described a mix of strategies as\nbeing undertaken to avoid fully passing on tariff costs to customers. Such strategies included\nnegotiating with or switching suppliers, changing production processes, lowering profit margins,\nexerting more wage discipline, or exploiting cost-saving efficiency measures such as automation and\nnew technologies. A few participants stressed that current demand conditions were limiting firms’\nability to pass tariff costs into prices. Regarding inflation persistence, a few participants emphasized\nthat they expected higher tariffs to lead only to a one-time increase in the price level that would be\nrealized over a reasonably contained period. A few participants remarked that tariff-related factors,\nincluding supply chain disruptions, could lead to stubbornly elevated inflation and that it may be\ndifficult to disentangle tariff-related price increases from changes in underlying trend inflation. Participants noted that longer-term inflation expectations continued to be well anchored and that it\nwas important that they remain so. Several participants emphasized that inflation had exceeded\n2 percent for an extended period and that this experience increased the risk of longer-term inflation\nexpectations becoming unanchored in the event of drawn-out effects of higher tariffs on inflation. A\ncouple of participants noted that inflation expectations would likely be influenced by the behavior of\nthe overall inflation rate, inclusive of the effects of tariffs. Various participants emphasized the central\nrole of monetary policy in ensuring that tariff effects did not lead to persistently higher expected and\nrealized inflation. In their discussion of the labor market, participants observed that the unemployment rate remained\nlow and that employment was at or near estimates of maximum employment. Several participants\nnoted that the low and stable unemployment rate reflected a combination of low hiring and low\nlayoffs. Some participants observed that their contacts and business survey respondents had\nreported being reluctant to hire or fire amid elevated uncertainty. Regarding the outlook for the labor\nmarket, some participants mentioned indicators that could suggest a softening in labor demand. These included slower and more concentrated job growth, an increase in cyclically sensitive Black and\nyouth unemployment rates, and lower wage increases of job switchers than job stayers. Some of\nthese participants also noted anecdotes in the Beige Book or in their discussions with contacts that\npointed to slower demand. Furthermore, a number of participants noted that softness in aggregate\n\nMinutes of the Federal Open Market Committee 9\ndemand and economic activity may translate into weaker labor market conditions, as could a potential\ninability of some importers to withstand higher tariffs. Some participants remarked, however, that\nslower output or employment growth was not necessarily indicative of emerging economic slack\nbecause a decline in immigration was lowering both actual and potential output growth as well as\nreducing both actual payroll growth and the number of new jobs needed to keep the unemployment\nrate stable. A few participants relayed reports received from contacts that immigration policies were\naffecting labor supply in some sectors, including construction and agriculture. Participants observed that growth of economic activity slowed in the first half of the year, driven in\nlarge part by slower consumption growth and a decline in residential investment. Several participants\nstated that they expected growth in economic activity to remain low in the second half of this year. Some participants noted that economic activity would nevertheless be supported by financial\nconditions, including elevated household net worth, and a couple of participants highlighted stable or\nlow credit card delinquencies. A couple of participants remarked that economic activity would be\nsupported by the resolution of policy uncertainty over time. Regarding the household sector, several\nparticipants observed that slower real income growth may be weighing on growth in consumer\nspending. A few participants noted a weakening in housing demand, with increased availability of\nhomes for sale and falling house prices. As for businesses, several participants remarked that\nongoing policy uncertainty had continued to slow business investment, but several observed that\nbusiness sentiment had improved in recent months. A few participants commented that the\nagricultural sector faced headwinds due to low crop prices. In their evaluation of the risks and uncertainties associated with the economic outlook, participants\njudged that uncertainty about the economic outlook remained elevated, though several participants\nremarked that there had been some reduction in uncertainty regarding fiscal policy, immigration\npolicy, or tariff policy. Participants generally pointed to risks to both sides of the Committee’s dual\nmandate, emphasizing upside risk to inflation and downside risk to employment. A majority of\nparticipants judged the upside risk to inflation as the greater of these two risks, while several\nparticipants viewed the two risks as roughly balanced, and a couple of participants considered\ndownside risk to employment the more salient risk. Regarding upside risks to inflation, participants\npointed to the uncertain effects of tariffs and the possibility of inflation expectations becoming\nunanchored. In addition to tariff-induced risks, potential downside risks to employment mentioned by\nparticipants included a possible tightening of financial conditions due to a rise in risk premiums, a\nmore substantial deterioration in the housing market, and the risk that the increased use of AI in the\nworkplace may lower employment. In their discussion of financial stability, participants who commented noted vulnerabilities to the\nfinancial system that they assessed warranted monitoring. Several participants noted concerns about\n\n10 July 29–30, 2025\nelevated asset valuation pressures. Regarding banks, a couple of participants commented that,\nthough regulatory capital levels remained strong, some banks continued to be vulnerable to a rise in\nlonger-term yields and the associated unrealized losses on bank assets. A few participants\ncommented on vulnerabilities in the market for Treasury securities, raising concerns about dealer\nintermediation capacity, the increasing presence of hedge funds in the market, and the fragility\nassociated with low market depth. A couple of participants discussed foreign exchange swaps, noting\nthat these served as key sources of dollar funding for foreign financial institutions that lend dollars to\ntheir customers in the U.S. and abroad, but also that they entailed vulnerabilities due to maturity\nmismatch and rollover risk. Many participants discussed recent and prospective developments\nrelated to payment stablecoins and possible implications for the financial system. These participants\nnoted that use of payment stablecoins might grow following the recent passage of the GENIUS Act\n(Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins Act). They remarked that payment\nstablecoins could help improve the efficiency of the payment system. They also observed that such\nstablecoins could increase the demand for the assets needed to back them, including Treasury\nsecurities. In addition, participants who commented raised concerns that stablecoins could have\nbroader implications for the banking and financial systems as well as monetary policy implementation,\nand thus warranted close attention, including monitoring of the various assets used to back\nstablecoins. In their consideration of monetary policy at this meeting, participants noted that inflation remained\nsomewhat elevated. Participants also observed that recent indicators suggested that the growth of\neconomic activity had moderated in the first half of the year, although swings in net exports and\ninventories had affected the measurement and interpretation of the data. Participants further noted\nthat the unemployment rate remained at a low level and that the labor market was at or near\nmaximum employment. Participants judged that uncertainty about the economic outlook remained\nelevated. Almost all participants viewed it as appropriate to maintain the target range for the federal\nfunds rate at 4¼ to 4½ percent at this meeting. All participants judged it appropriate to continue the\nprocess of reducing the Federal Reserve’s securities holdings. In considering the outlook for monetary policy, almost all participants agreed that, with the labor\nmarket still solid and current monetary policy moderately or modestly restrictive, the Committee was\nwell positioned to respond in a timely way to potential economic developments. Participants agreed\nthat monetary policy would be informed by a wide range of incoming data, the economic outlook, and\nthe balance of risks. Participants assessed that the effects of higher tariffs had become more\napparent in the prices of some goods but that their overall effects on economic activity and inflation\nremained to be seen. They also noted that it would take time to have more clarity on the magnitude\nand persistence of higher tariffs’ effects on inflation. Even so, some participants emphasized that a\n\nMinutes of the Federal Open Market Committee 11\ngreat deal could be learned in coming months from incoming data, helping to inform their assessment\nof the balance of risks and the appropriate setting of the federal funds rate; at the same time, some\nnoted that it would not be feasible or appropriate to wait for complete clarity on the tariffs’ effects on\ninflation before adjusting the stance of monetary policy. Some participants stressed that the issue of\nthe persistence of tariff effects on inflation would depend importantly on the stance of monetary\npolicy. Several participants commented that the current target range for the federal funds rate may\nnot be far above its neutral level; among the considerations cited in support of this assessment was\nthe likelihood that broader financial conditions were either neutral or supportive of stronger economic\nactivity. In discussing risk-management considerations that could bear on the outlook for monetary policy,\nparticipants generally agreed that the upside risk to inflation and the downside risk to employment\nremained elevated. Participants noted that, if this year’s higher tariffs were to generate a larger-thanexpected or a more-persistent-than-anticipated increase in inflation, or if medium- or longer-term\ninflation expectations were to increase notably, then it would be appropriate to maintain a more\nrestrictive stance of monetary policy than would otherwise be the case, especially if labor market\nconditions remained solid. By contrast, if labor market conditions were to weaken materially or if\ninflation were to come down further and inflation expectations remained well anchored, then it would\nbe appropriate to establish a less restrictive stance of monetary policy than would otherwise be the\ncase. Participants noted that the Committee might face difficult tradeoffs if elevated inflation proved\nto be more persistent while the outlook for the labor market weakened. Participants agreed that, if\nthat situation were to occur, they would consider each variable’s distance from the Committee’s goal\nand the potentially different time horizons over which those respective gaps would be anticipated to\nclose. Participants noted that, in this context, it was especially important to ensure that longer-term\ninflation expectations remained well anchored. Several participants remarked on issues related to the Federal Reserve’s balance sheet. Of those who\ncommented, participants observed that balance sheet reduction had been proceeding smoothly thus\nfar and that various indicators pointed to reserves being abundant. They agreed that, with reserves\nprojected to decline amid the rebuilding of the TGA balance following the resolution of the debt limit\nsituation, it was important to monitor money market conditions closely and to continue to evaluate\nhow close reserves were to their ample level. A few participants also assessed that, in this\nenvironment, abrupt further declines in reserves could occur on key reporting and payment flow days. They noted that, if such events created pressures in money markets, the Federal Reserve’s existing\ntools would help supply additional reserves and keep the effective federal funds rate within the target\nrange. A couple of participants highlighted the role of the SRF in monetary policy implementation—as\n\n12 July 29–30, 2025\nreflected in increased usage at the June quarter-end—and expressed support for further study of the\npossibility of central clearing of the SRF to enhance its effectiveness. Committee Policy Actions\nIn their discussions of monetary policy for this meeting, members agreed that although swings in net\nexports had affected the data, recent indicators suggested that the growth of economic activity had\nmoderated in the first half of the year. Members agreed that the unemployment rate had remained at\na low level and that labor market conditions had remained solid. Members concurred that inflation\nremained somewhat elevated. Members agreed that uncertainty about the economic outlook\nremained elevated and that the Committee was attentive to the risks to both sides of its dual\nmandate. In support of the Committee’s goals, almost all members agreed to maintain the target range for the\nfederal funds rate at 4¼ to 4½ percent. A couple of members preferred to lower the target range for\nthe federal funds rate by 25 basis points at this meeting. These members judged that, excluding tariff\neffects, inflation was running close to the Committee’s 2 percent objective and that higher tariffs were\nunlikely to have persistent effects on inflation. Furthermore, they assessed that downside risk to\nemployment had meaningfully increased with the slowing of the growth of economic activity and\nconsumer spending, and that some incoming data pointed to a weakening of labor market conditions,\nincluding low levels of private payroll gains and the concentration of payroll gains in a narrow set of\nindustries that were less affected by the business cycle. Members agreed that in considering the\nextent and timing of additional adjustments to the target range for the federal funds rate, the\nCommittee would carefully assess incoming data, the evolving outlook, and the balance of risks. All\nmembers agreed that the postmeeting statement should affirm their strong commitment both to\nsupporting maximum employment and to returning inflation to the Committee’s 2 percent objective. Members agreed that, in assessing the appropriate stance of monetary policy, the Committee would\ncontinue to monitor the implications of incoming information for the economic outlook. They would be\nprepared to adjust the stance of monetary policy as appropriate if risks emerged that could impede\nthe attainment of the Committee’s goals. Members also agreed that their assessments would take\ninto account a wide range of information, including readings on labor market conditions, inflation\npressures and inflation expectations, and financial and international developments. At the conclusion of the discussion, the Committee voted to direct the Federal Reserve Bank of New\nYork, until instructed otherwise, to execute transactions in the SOMA in accordance with the following\ndomestic policy directive, for release at 2:00 p.m.:\n\nMinutes of the Federal Open Market Committee 13\n“Effective July 31, 2025, the Federal Open Market Committee directs the Desk to:\n• Undertake open market operations as necessary to maintain the federal funds rate in a target\nrange of 4¼ to 4½ percent.\n• Conduct standing overnight repurchase agreement operations with a minimum bid rate of\n4.5 percent and with an aggregate operation limit of $500 billion.\n• Conduct standing overnight reverse repurchase agreement operations at an offering rate of\n4.25 percent and with a per-counterparty limit of $160 billion per day.\n• Roll over at auction the amount of principal payments from the Federal Reserve’s holdings of\nTreasury securities maturing in each calendar month that exceeds a cap of $5 billion per\nmonth. Redeem Treasury coupon securities up to this monthly cap and Treasury bills to the\nextent that coupon principal payments are less than the monthly cap.\n• Reinvest the amount of principal payments from the Federal Reserve’s holdings of agency\ndebt and agency mortgage-backed securities (MBS) received in each calendar month that\nexceeds a cap of $35 billion per month into Treasury securities to roughly match the maturity\ncomposition of Treasury securities outstanding.\n• Allow modest deviations from stated amounts for reinvestments, if needed for operational\nreasons.”\nThe vote also encompassed approval of the statement below for release at 2:00 p.m.:\n“Although swings in net exports continue to affect the data, recent indicators suggest that\ngrowth of economic activity moderated in the first half of the year. The unemployment rate\nremains low, and labor market conditions remain solid. Inflation remains somewhat elevated. The Committee seeks to achieve maximum employment and inflation at the rate of 2 percent\nover the longer run. Uncertainty about the economic outlook remains elevated. The\nCommittee is attentive to the risks to both sides of its dual mandate. In support of its goals, the Committee decided to maintain the target range for the federal\nfunds rate at 4¼ to 4½ percent. In considering the extent and timing of additional\nadjustments to the target range for the federal funds rate, the Committee will carefully assess\nincoming data, the evolving outlook, and the balance of risks. The Committee will continue\nreducing its holdings of Treasury securities and agency debt and agency mortgage-backed\nsecurities. The Committee is strongly committed to supporting maximum employment and\nreturning inflation to its 2 percent objective.\n\n14 July 29–30, 2025\nIn assessing the appropriate stance of monetary policy, the Committee will continue to\nmonitor the implications of incoming information for the economic outlook. The Committee\nwould be prepared to adjust the stance of monetary policy as appropriate if risks emerge that\ncould impede the attainment of the Committee’s goals. The Committee’s assessments will\ntake into account a wide range of information, including readings on labor market conditions,\ninflation pressures and inflation expectations, and financial and international developments.”\nVoting for this action: Jerome H. Powell, John C. Williams, Michael S. Barr, Susan M. Collins, Lisa D. Cook, Austan D. Goolsbee, Philip N. Jefferson, Alberto G. Musalem, and Jeffrey R. Schmid. Voting against this action: Michelle W. Bowman and Christopher J. Waller. Absent and not voting: Adriana D. Kugler\nGovernors Bowman and Waller preferred to lower the target range for the federal funds rate by\n¼ percentage point at this meeting. Governor Bowman preferred at this meeting to lower the target\nrange for the federal funds rate by 25 basis points to 4 to 4¼ percent in light of inflation moving\nconsiderably closer to the Committee’s objective, after excluding temporary effects of tariffs, a labor\nmarket near full employment but with signs of less dynamism, and slowing economic growth this year. She also expressed her view that taking action to begin moving the policy rate at a gradual pace\ntoward its neutral level would have proactively hedged against a further weakening in the economy\nand the risk of damage to the labor market. Consistent with the Committee’s decision to leave the target range for the federal funds rate\nunchanged, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System voted unanimously to maintain the\ninterest rate paid on reserve balances at 4.4 percent, effective July 31, 2025. The Board of Governors\nof the Federal Reserve System voted unanimously to approve the establishment of the primary credit\nrate at the existing level of 4.5 percent. It was agreed that the next meeting of the Committee would be held on Tuesday–Wednesday,\nSeptember 16–17, 2025. The meeting adjourned at 10:15 a.m. on July 30, 2025. Notation Vote\nBy notation vote completed on July 8, 2025, the Committee unanimously approved the minutes of the\nCommittee meeting held on June 17–18, 2025. Attendance\nJerome H. Powell, Chair\nJohn C. Williams, Vice Chair\nMichael S. Barr\n\nMinutes of the Federal Open Market Committee 15\nMichelle W. Bowman\nSusan M. Collins\nLisa D. Cook\nAustan D. Goolsbee\nPhilip N. Jefferson\nAlberto G. Musalem\nJeffrey R. Schmid\nChristopher J. Waller\nBeth M. Hammack, Neel Kashkari, Lorie K. Logan, Anna Paulson, and Sushmita Shukla, Alternate\nMembers of the Committee\nThomas I. Barkin, Raphael W. Bostic, and Mary C. Daly, Presidents of the Federal Reserve Banks of\nRichmond, Atlanta, and San Francisco, respectively\nJoshua Gallin, Secretary\nMatthew M. Luecke, Deputy Secretary\nBrian J. Bonis, Assistant Secretary\nMichelle A. Smith, Assistant Secretary\nMark E. Van Der Weide, General Counsel\nRichard Ostrander, Deputy General Counsel\nTrevor A. Reeve, Economist\nStacey Tevlin, Economist\nBeth Anne Wilson,2 Economist\nShaghil Ahmed, Kartik B. Athreya, Brian M. Doyle, Eric M. Engen, Carlos Garriga, Joseph W. Gruber,\nand Egon Zakrajšek, Associate Economists\nRoberto Perli, Manager, System Open Market Account\nJulie Ann Remache, Deputy Manager, System Open Market Account\nJose Acosta, Senior System Engineer II, Division of Information Technology, Board\nIsaiah C. Ahn, Information Management Analyst, Division of Monetary Affairs, Board\nMary L. Aiken, Senior Associate Director, Division of Supervision and Regulation, Board\nGianni Amisano, Assistant Director, Division of Research and Statistics, Board\nRoc Armenter, Executive Vice President, Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia\nDavid M. Arseneau, Deputy Associate Director, Division of Financial Stability, Board\nAlyssa Arute,3 Assistant Director, Division of Reserve Bank Operations and Payment Systems, Board\nWilliam F. Bassett, Senior Associate Director, Division of Financial Stability, Board\nMichele Cavallo, Special Adviser to the Board, Division of Board Members, Board\nAndrew Cohen,4 Special Adviser to the Board, Division of Board Members, Board\nDaniel M. Covitz, Deputy Director, Division of Research and Statistics, Board\nMarnie Gillis DeBoer,3 Senior Associate Director, Division of Monetary Affairs, Board\n2 Attended Tuesday’s session only.\n3 Attended through the discussion of developments in financial markets and open market operations.\n4 Attended the discussion of economic developments and the outlook.\n\n16 July 29–30, 2025\nWendy E. Dunn, Adviser, Division of Research and Statistics, Board\nEric C. Engstrom, Associate Director, Division of Monetary Affairs, Board\nLaura J. Feiveson,5 Special Adviser to the Board, Division of Board Members, Board\nAndrew Figura, Associate Director, Division of Research and Statistics, Board\nGlenn Follette, Associate Director, Division of Research and Statistics, Board\nEtienne Gagnon, Senior Associate Director, Division of International Finance, Board\nJonathan Glicoes, Senior Financial Institution Policy Analyst II, Division of Monetary Affairs, Board\nValerie S. Hinojosa, Section Chief, Division of Monetary Affairs, Board\nJane E. Ihrig, Special Adviser to the Board, Division of Board Members, Board\nMargaret M. Jacobson, Senior Economist, Division of Monetary Affairs, Board\nMichael T. Kiley, Deputy Director, Division of Monetary Affairs, Board\nDon H. Kim, Senior Adviser, Division of Monetary Affairs, Board\nElizabeth Klee, Deputy Director, Division of Monetary Affairs, Board\nAnna R. Kovner, Executive Vice President, Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond\nSpencer D. Krane, Senior Vice President, Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago\nSylvain Leduc, Executive Vice President and Director of Economic Research, Federal Reserve Bank of\nSan Francisco\nAndreas Lehnert, Director, Division of Financial Stability, Board\nKurt F. Lewis, Special Adviser to the Chair, Division of Board Members, Board\nLogan T. Lewis, Section Chief, Division of International Finance, Board\nGeng Li, Assistant Director, Division of Research and Statistics, Board\nLaura Lipscomb, Special Adviser to the Board, Division of Board Members, Board\nBenjamin W. McDonough, Deputy Secretary and Ombudsman, Office of the Secretary, Board\nNeil Mehrotra, Assistant Vice President, Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis\nAnn E. Misback,6 Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Board\nDavid Na, Lead Financial Institution Policy Analyst, Division of Monetary Affairs, Board\nEdward Nelson, Senior Adviser, Division of Monetary Affairs, Board\nAnna Nordstrom, Head of Markets, Federal Reserve Bank of New York\nAlyssa T. O'Connor, Special Adviser to the Board, Division of Board Members, Board\nEkaterina Peneva, Assistant Director and Chief, Division of Research and Statistics, Board\nCaterina Petrucco-Littleton, Special Adviser to the Board, Division of Board Members, Board\n5 Attended through the discussion of developments in financial markets and open market operations, and from the discussion\nof current monetary policy through the end of the meeting.\n6 Attended the discussion of the review of the monetary policy framework.\n\nMinutes of the Federal Open Market Committee 17\nDamjan Pfajfar, Vice President, Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland\nEugenio P. Pinto, Special Adviser to the Board, Division of Board Members, Board\nJordan Pollinger,3 Associate Director, Federal Reserve Bank of New York\nFabiola Ravazzolo,3 Capital Markets Trading and Policy Advisor, Federal Reserve Bank of New York\nKirk Schwarzbach,7 Special Assistant to the Board, Division of Board Members, Board\nZeynep Senyuz, Special Adviser to the Board, Division of Board Members, Board\nThiago Teixeira Ferreira, Special Adviser to the Board, Division of Board Members, Board\nMary H. Tian, Group Manager, Division of Monetary Affairs, Board\nAnnette Vissing-Jørgensen, Senior Adviser, Division of Monetary Affairs, Board\nJeffrey D. Walker,3 Senior Associate Director, Division of Reserve Bank Operations and Payment\nSystems, Board\nJonathan Willis, Vice President, Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta\nRebecca Zarutskie, Senior Vice President, Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas\n_______________________\nJoshua Gallin\nSecretary\n7 Attended through the discussion of developments in financial markets and open market operations through the end of the\nmeeting.",
+    "url": "https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/files/fomcminutes20250730.pdf",
+    "action": "Maintained",
+    "rate": "4.25%-4.50%",
+    "magnitude": "No change",
+    "forward_guidance": "The Fed will keep the target range unchanged, monitor incoming data closely, and adjust the stance if risks to inflation or employment emerge.",
+    "key_economic_factors": [
+      "Inflation remains somewhat above the 2% goal but close to target, with tariff‑related price pressures.",
+      "The labor market is solid but growth is slowing, raising concerns about future employment momentum.",
+      "Tariff effects on goods prices are becoming more apparent, adding uncertainty to inflation dynamics.",
+      "Overall economic outlook is uncertain, with moderate growth and potential downside risks to employment and inflation."
+    ],
+    "economic_outlook": "Growth is moderate and likely to remain near the Fed’s neutral rate. Inflation is expected to ease toward 2% by 2027, though tariff‑related risks could keep it slightly above target in the near term. Employment is near maximum but could soften if growth slows further.",
+    "market_impact": "Markets will likely see stable borrowing costs and a muted reaction to the unchanged policy stance, but uncertainty around tariffs and inflation could increase volatility in equity and bond markets."
+  },
   {
     "date": "2025-06-18",
     "title": "FOMC Meeting 2025-06-18",

src/fed_scraper_pipeline/update_recent_meetings.py

@@ -0,0 +1,89 @@
+"""
+Script to update only the most recent FOMC meetings while keeping existing data intact.
+"""
+import asyncio
+import json
+import os
+from datetime import datetime
+from dotenv import load_dotenv
+
+from src.fed_scraper_pipeline.data_pipeline import FedDataPipeline, DATA_DIR
+
+load_dotenv()
+
+PROCESSED_MEETINGS_FILE = DATA_DIR / "fed_processed_meetings.json"
+
+
+async def update_recent_meetings(num_recent: int = 2):
+    """
+    Scrape and process only the most recent meetings, then merge with existing data.
+
+    Args:
+        num_recent: Number of most recent meetings to fetch (default: 2)
+    """
+    api_key = os.getenv("FIREWORKS_API_KEY")
+    if not api_key:
+        print("Error: FIREWORKS_API_KEY not found in environment variables")
+        return
+
+    print(f"Loading existing data from {PROCESSED_MEETINGS_FILE}...")
+    with open(PROCESSED_MEETINGS_FILE, 'r', encoding='utf-8') as f:
+        existing_meetings = json.load(f)
+
+    print(f"Found {len(existing_meetings)} existing meetings")
+    print(f"Most recent existing meeting: {existing_meetings[0]['date']}")
+
+    pipeline = FedDataPipeline(api_key=api_key, model="small")
+
+    print(f"\nScraping {num_recent} most recent FOMC meetings...")
+    new_meetings = await pipeline.scraper.scrape_meetings(
+        max_meetings=num_recent,
+        year_range=(2025, 2025)  # Current year only
+    )
+
+    if not new_meetings:
+        print("No new meetings found")
+        return
+
+    print(f"Successfully scraped {len(new_meetings)} meetings")
+    print("\nProcessing new meetings with LLM analysis...")
+    processed_new_meetings = await pipeline.processor.process_meetings(new_meetings)
+
+    new_meetings_data = [meeting.to_dict() for meeting in processed_new_meetings]
+
+    print("\nMerging with existing data...")
+    existing_dates = {meeting['date'] for meeting in existing_meetings}
+
+    truly_new = [m for m in new_meetings_data if m['date'] not in existing_dates]
+    updated_old = []
+
+    for new_meeting in new_meetings_data:
+        if new_meeting['date'] in existing_dates:
+            print(f"  Updating existing meeting: {new_meeting['date']}")
+            updated_old.append(new_meeting)
+
+    kept_old = [m for m in existing_meetings if m['date'] not in {nm['date'] for nm in new_meetings_data}]
+
+    all_meetings = truly_new + updated_old + kept_old
+    all_meetings.sort(key=lambda x: x['date'], reverse=True)
+
+    print(f"\nAdded {len(truly_new)} new meetings")
+    print(f"Updated {len(updated_old)} existing meetings")
+    print(f"Kept {len(kept_old)} unchanged meetings")
+    print(f"Total meetings: {len(all_meetings)}")
+
+    backup_file = PROCESSED_MEETINGS_FILE.parent / f"fed_processed_meetings_backup_{datetime.now().strftime('%Y%m%d_%H%M%S')}.json"
+    print(f"\nCreating backup at {backup_file}...")
+    with open(backup_file, 'w', encoding='utf-8') as f:
+        json.dump(existing_meetings, f, indent=2, ensure_ascii=False)
+
+    print(f"Saving updated data to {PROCESSED_MEETINGS_FILE}...")
+    with open(PROCESSED_MEETINGS_FILE, 'w', encoding='utf-8') as f:
+        json.dump(all_meetings, f, indent=2, ensure_ascii=False)
+
+    print("\n✅ Update completed successfully!")
+    print(f"Most recent meeting is now: {all_meetings[0]['date']}")
+
+
+if __name__ == "__main__":
+    asyncio.run(update_recent_meetings(num_recent=2))