美联储内部鸽派集体转鹰，沃什首秀「左右为难」

Original author: Long Yue

Original source: Wall Street CN

Trump chose him to cut rates. But shortly after taking office, his colleagues began discussing raising them.

The Wall Street Journal recently published an in-depth article by veteran reporter Nick Timiraos, timed right before the first rate-setting meeting chaired by new Federal Reserve Chairman Kevin Warsh. Timiraos, a longtime Fed correspondent, is widely regarded by the market as a "Fed mouthpiece."

Timiraos wrote that Warsh walked into the boardroom at an extremely awkward moment. Last year, he publicly advocated for rate cuts, and it was precisely this stance that won Trump's favor. Yet, just after he formally assumed office, the discussion direction inside the Fed had quietly reversed — no longer "when to cut," but "whether to hike."

This reversal didn't happen overnight. Since the beginning of this year, U.S. inflation has risen instead of falling, exceeding 3%; the job market has strengthened again; supply bottlenecks caused by the AI construction boom and oil prices driven higher by the Iran conflict have continuously fueled price pressures. One by one, the reasons that had supported expectations for rate cuts have vanished.

Warsh faces a committee he didn't assemble, a forecasting tool he has long criticized, and a policy direction that runs counter to the wishes of the president who appointed him. This debut is bound to be anything but easy.

How Did the Dove Turn Hawkish?

The most telling example is the shift in stance of Fed Governor Christopher Waller.

Waller spent all of last year worried about a weakening job market, even voting in January this year against most of his colleagues to support a rate cut. But just last month, he publicly stated that the latest data "pushed me in a different direction." He explicitly supported removing the "easing bias" from the statement and stated bluntly, "I can no longer rule out the possibility of a rate hike at some point in the future."

Responding to market discussions about a rate cut in September, Waller was quite direct: "As a serious central banker, you can't seriously talk about that."

The Middle Ground is Shifting Too

If Waller represents the dovish turn, the change in Governor Lisa Cook shows that even the "middle ground" is loosening.

Cook is not a hawk. She said last month that maintaining rates was the correct decision, and her baseline scenario remains that inflation will recede on its own. But she added a condition — one that would have been almost unthinkable for her a year ago: She said that if the decline in inflation "does not materialize in a timely manner," she is "prepared to raise rates."

The underlying concern is that five years of inflation running above target may have begun influencing how businesses and workers set prices and negotiate wages, creating a self-reinforcing expectation.

The Hawks Were Ready for This

In reality, the hawks on the committee were already dissatisfied.

When the Fed cut rates late last year, Cleveland Fed President Beth Hammack, Dallas Fed President Lorie Logan, and Minneapolis Fed President Neel Kashkari dissented from the rate cut decision, arguing that the case for easing was unwarranted.

In April, the three joined forces again. This time, they opposed not the rate decision itself, but the language in the statement suggesting the "next move is more likely to be a cut" — they demanded its removal to signal that a hike was equally possible.

Now, data is moving further in their favor. Hammack said this month that holding steady is appropriate for now, "but if recent trends persist, action may soon be needed." Logan went further: "I am increasingly concerned that it may be necessary to raise rates later this year."

The hawks also put forward a notable argument: As inflation rises, the "real interest rate" (adjusted for inflation) is actually falling, meaning the Fed's policy constraint on the economy may be looser than the nominal numbers suggest. In other words, simply "holding pat" is, in a sense, already an easing of policy.

Warsh's Dilemma

This Wednesday, the Fed is expected to keep the benchmark rate unchanged at 3.5% to 3.75%. But the real focus is on two things.

First, the statement language. The "easing bias" phrase that has been maintained for months — hinting that the next move is more likely a cut — is expected to be removed, meaning a cut and a hike are now seen as equally possible.

Second, the quarterly "dot plot." In March, over a dozen officials still expected at least one rate cut this year. This time, most officials are expected to project holding steady for the year, and some might even mark a hike on the chart.

Warsh himself has long criticized the Fed's over-reliance on "forward guidance," including tools like the dot plot. He could choose not to submit his own forecast or remove the relevant hints from the official statement. But Timiraos points out that such procedural distinctions matter little to investors — they will read the substance directly. The one who truly cares about these differences is the president hoping for low rates.

Austan Goolsbee, President of the Chicago Fed, perhaps best summed up the current predicament last month: "Now we face a rather serious inflation problem forming, but the job market is basically stable."

The result: Hardly anyone on the committee is still advocating for a rate cut. Warsh's debut may send a signal — the Fed's next move might be a hike. And this signal will be transmitted through the very tools he has criticized and by a committee he did not choose, heading in a direction his appointer does not want to see.