ANALYSISApril 13, 2026
Federal Reserve holds rates steady at April meeting
The Federal Reserve is expected to hold its federal funds rate steady at 3.50%–3.75% at its April 28–29, 2026 FOMC meeting, with markets pricing in an 85% probability of no change. This follows the March 17–18 meeting where the Fed voted 11-1 to hold rates, with Chair Jerome Powell citing elevated inflation and geopolitical uncertainty tied to the Iran conflict. The April meeting will not include updated economic projections, meaning all forward guidance will come from the policy statement and Powell's press conference.
With inflation still above target and recession fears mounting, the Fed just chose to do nothing — is that the most responsible move a central bank can make, or is 'steady' just another word for falling behind?
Not familiar with this story? Get context →
Supply-shock inflation versus rate tool fit
C
Holding rates is the right posture because with core PCE revised up to 2.7% and tariff pass-through actively pushing prices higher, the Fed cannot afford to signal that it will accommodate supply shocks. The 1970s lesson is precisely that supply-side price pressures can become embedded in wage negotiations and forward pricing contracts — and once that happens, the Fed has to inflict a Volcker-style recession to undo it.
L
The 1970s comparison assumes the inflation mechanism is the same, but it isn't. What the Fed is holding rates against now is tariff policy and an Iranian oil shock — supply constraints that demand-restriction cannot resolve. The ECB made this exact mistake in 2011, hiking into a supply-constrained sovereign debt crisis and deepening the recession rather than containing it.
C
The ECB comparison proves too much — the 2011 error was hiking into a demand collapse, not holding into an inflationary supply shock with above-target PCE still accelerating. The relevant question isn't whether rates can fix oil supply; it's whether cutting now prevents the secondary expectation spiral that turns a supply shock into embedded inflation.
L
That secondary-spiral argument requires assuming inflation expectations are already at risk of unanchoring — but with zero net job creation, workers don't have the bargaining power to embed wage-price dynamics the way the 1970s actually required. The mechanism the conservative model depends on is exactly what a stalling labor market suppresses.
Labor market deterioration and dual mandate
C
Stephen Miran's dissent for a 25-basis-point cut reflects real concern, and if Powell's 'essentially zero' job creation characterization persists through spring, the calculus genuinely shifts — that is worth acknowledging. But one data point does not a trend make, and cutting into an inflationary environment on early labor market softness is how central banks get trapped between two fires.
L
Powell didn't say job creation is 'softening' — he said it has slowed to 'essentially zero.' That's not an early signal; that's the employment side of the dual mandate already sending a distress reading. The conservative framing of 'stabilize prices first, then ease' only works if holding rates is actually fixing the inflation — but against supply shocks, it isn't fixing anything, just compounding the employment damage while waiting.
C
The dual mandate doesn't require acting on both simultaneously — it requires not permanently sacrificing either. Cutting now into 2.7% PCE with rate-increase language still live in the minutes risks exactly the kind of expectation unanchoring that would ultimately destroy far more employment than a sustained hold.
L
Permanently sacrificing neither is the standard, and that's precisely what a hold achieves when inflation is supply-driven — it accepts permanent employment damage to fight inflation that rate policy structurally cannot resolve faster.
Fed credibility and leadership transition
C
Markets have already priced a cut into June 2026 — after Kevin Warsh takes the chair — effectively front-running a leadership transition. A central bank whose expected policy path shifts based on who sits at the head of the table has already lost a measure of credibility. The appropriate response is for Powell to demonstrate that April's hold is data-driven and durable, not contingent on succession.
L
The conservative argument here actually cuts both ways. If markets are reading the leadership transition as the unlock for cuts rather than economic data, that's not an argument for Powell to hold more aggressively — it's evidence that the current policy posture itself lacks credibility as a sustainable equilibrium. Markets aren't pricing Warsh as more dovish arbitrarily; they're pricing that the current hold is unjustifiable on the data once the institutional pressure to maintain it is gone.
C
Markets pricing a cut after a leadership change is equally consistent with anticipating a less disciplined successor as with the current hold being unjustified — you can't read institutional skepticism as data-driven vindication of easing without assuming your conclusion.
L
Fair, but if the hold were genuinely defensible on the data, markets would price it surviving the transition — and they aren't. The market read is its own form of evidence about whether this policy posture has legs independent of Powell's personal credibility.
Asymmetry of cutting versus holding errors
C
The asymmetry here runs in one direction only: cutting too early and being wrong is catastrophic and requires a Volcker-style correction; holding too long and being wrong is painful but correctable. With inflation still 35% above target and some FOMC members wanting rate increases back on the table, the risk distribution is not symmetric and should not be treated as such.
L
The asymmetry argument assumes the downside of holding is bounded — but if job creation is genuinely at zero, holding isn't 'merely painful and correctable.' A labor market contraction compounds: unemployment rises, demand falls further, small businesses that can't finance at 6.75% close, and the Fed ends up having to cut more aggressively later into a weaker economy than if it had moved incrementally now.
C
That compounding scenario requires the labor market to be deteriorating, not merely at zero — and zero job creation in a tariff-disruption quarter reads differently than a structural employment collapse. Inflation at 2.7% with upward revision is an observable present fact; the compounding contraction scenario is a projection contingent on assumptions the data haven't confirmed.
L
Powell's own words are the data: 'essentially zero' job creation isn't a projection, it's his characterization of current conditions — and if the chair of the Fed is saying that, waiting for confirmation before acting is itself a policy choice with compounding consequences.
1970s Burns precedent applicability
C
The Burns warning is not ancient history — it is a live institutional template. Burns cut under political pressure, inflation reignited, and Volcker had to engineer a brutal recession to restore credibility. With a new administration publicly pressuring the Fed and a compliant successor apparently incoming, the structural conditions for repeating that sequence are present right now, not hypothetically.
L
The Burns comparison requires political pressure to be the operative variable — but the conservative argument itself identifies the actual driver as tariff pass-through and the Iran oil shock. Burns faced a wage-price spiral in an economy with strong union density and demand-pull dynamics. Applying that template to a zero-job-creation, supply-shock environment isn't institutional memory; it's pattern-matching to a surface resemblance.
C
The wage-price spiral didn't exist at the start of the Burns era either — it developed after premature easing allowed expectations to drift. The argument isn't that conditions are identical; it's that the sequence of errors is the same: accommodating a supply shock early, watching expectations drift, and then facing a far more costly correction.
L
The sequence-of-errors logic only holds if the easing actually accommodates expectations drift — but a 25-basis-point cut from 3.75% into zero job growth is not the same policy signal as Burns cutting from 1970s rates into a demand-hot economy with rising union bargaining power. The historical rhyme is real; the equivalence isn't.
Conservative's hardest question
Chair Powell's own characterization that job creation has slowed to 'essentially zero' is the most difficult data point to dismiss — if the labor market is genuinely deteriorating rather than merely softening, the calculus for holding shifts materially, and the Fed may be risking the employment side of its dual mandate to fight supply-driven inflation it cannot directly control through interest rates.
Liberal's hardest question
The strongest challenge to this argument is that the March FOMC minutes show some officials wanted to keep rate increases on the table — meaning the Fed may not simply be holding inappropriately but actively considering tightening against genuine re-acceleration risks. If tariff pass-through proves larger and more persistent than supply-shock models suggest, cutting into that environment could embed inflation expectations in a way that requires far more painful correction later, making the hold not just defensible but necessary.
Both sides agree: Both sides accept that the March FOMC minutes revealing officials considered keeping rate increases on the table means the risk distribution around inflation is genuinely asymmetric, not a manufactured hawkish pose.
The real conflict: The core factual-interpretive dispute is whether current inflation is primarily demand-driven (making rate holds effective and necessary) or supply-driven (making rate holds a misapplied tool that imposes employment costs without resolving the price pressure) — both sides treat their answer as obvious, but the data does not clearly settle it.
What nobody has answered: If the inflation now running above target is genuinely supply-driven and beyond the Fed's corrective reach, at what point does holding rates become an institutional performance of toughness rather than an economically effective intervention — and who inside the Fed is asking that question honestly?
Sources
- FOMC March 17–18, 2026 meeting statement and vote record
- Federal Reserve Summary of Economic Projections (dot plot), March 2026
- FOMC March 2026 meeting minutes, released April 8, 2026
- Federal Reserve April 28–29, 2026 meeting schedule and market probability data
- Chair Powell press conference remarks, March 2026
- Reports on Kevin Warsh Fed chair nomination by President Trump