The Federal Reserve controls the cost of borrowing money throughout the U.S. economy through a single mechanism: the federal funds rate. Every mortgage rate, credit card APR, auto loan offer, and savings account yield in the country traces back, directly or indirectly, to the rate the Fed sets at eight scheduled meetings per year. Understanding how this process works — who makes the decision, what they consider, and how the effects flow through to consumer financial products — gives investors a structural advantage in interpreting market reactions that might otherwise appear random.

What Is The Federal Funds Rate And Who Sets It?

The federal funds rate is the interest rate at which depository institutions — primarily banks — lend reserve balances to one another overnight. The Federal Open Market Committee, known as the FOMC, sets a target range for this rate and then directs the Federal Reserve Bank of New York to conduct open market operations that keep the actual overnight lending rate within that range.

The FOMC consists of 12 voting members: the seven members of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (who holds a permanent voting seat), and four of the remaining 11 regional Reserve Bank presidents who rotate into voting positions on a yearly basis. All 12 regional bank presidents attend and participate in FOMC discussions, but only the four in rotation cast votes alongside the governors and the New York Fed president.

The committee meets eight times per year on a pre-announced schedule, typically over two days. At the conclusion of each meeting, the FOMC releases a policy statement announcing its rate decision. At four of the eight meetings, the committee also publishes a Summary of Economic Projections, which includes the closely watched “dot plot” — a chart showing each participant’s individual projection for where the federal funds rate will stand at the end of the current year and several years into the future.

How Does The FOMC Decide Whether To Raise, Cut, Or Hold Rates?

The Federal Reserve operates under a dual mandate established by Congress: promote maximum employment and maintain stable prices. Every rate decision reflects the committee’s assessment of how the economy is performing against those two objectives.

When inflation runs above the Fed’s 2 percent target, the committee may raise rates to slow economic activity and reduce upward pressure on prices. Higher borrowing costs discourage consumer spending and business investment, which in turn reduces demand and eases inflationary pressures. When unemployment rises or the economy weakens, the committee may cut rates to stimulate borrowing, spending, and hiring.

The decision is rarely straightforward. The committee reviews hundreds of data points before each meeting, including employment reports, consumer price index readings, producer price data, retail sales figures, housing starts, manufacturing surveys, and financial conditions indices. FOMC members also weigh forward-looking risks — geopolitical developments, trade policy shifts, energy price trajectories, and credit market stress signals — that may not yet appear in backward-looking economic data.

The current federal funds rate target range stands at 3.5 to 3.75 percent, where it has held since December 2025 after the committee implemented three rate cuts in the latter months of that year. The FOMC has held rates steady at every meeting in 2026 through June.

How Do Rate Decisions Affect Bond Yields And Stock Prices?

Changes in the federal funds rate trigger what the Federal Reserve itself describes as a chain of events affecting short-term interest rates, long-term interest rates, foreign exchange rates, and the broader supply of money and credit. The transmission mechanism works differently across asset classes.

Bond prices and yields move inversely. When the Fed raises rates, newly issued bonds offer higher yields, making existing bonds with lower yields less attractive. Their prices fall to compensate. The 10-year Treasury yield, which serves as the benchmark for mortgage rates and corporate borrowing costs, does not move in lockstep with the federal funds rate but is influenced by it — particularly through market expectations about where the Fed will set rates in the future.

Stock markets react to rate decisions through two primary channels. The first is the discount rate effect: higher interest rates raise the rate at which investors discount future corporate earnings, reducing the present value of stocks and applying downward pressure on prices. The second is the economic growth channel: higher borrowing costs slow business expansion, compress profit margins, and reduce consumer spending, all of which can weigh on corporate earnings over time. Growth stocks, which derive a larger share of their value from distant future earnings, tend to be more sensitive to rate changes than value stocks.

Market reactions on the day of an FOMC announcement often reflect not the rate decision itself but the gap between the decision and what traders had priced in. A rate hold that markets expected produces minimal volatility. A hold accompanied by hawkish language suggesting future hikes can send stocks lower even though rates did not change.

How Do Rate Changes Flow Through To Consumer Financial Products?

The federal funds rate anchors the prime rate, which is the rate commercial banks charge their most creditworthy customers. The prime rate typically sits 3 percentage points above the federal funds rate target. With the current target range at 3.5 to 3.75 percent, the prevailing prime rate stands at 6.75 percent.

Variable-rate products like credit cards and home equity lines of credit adjust almost immediately because their rates are contractually pegged to the prime rate. Fixed-rate mortgages, by contrast, are tied to the 10-year Treasury yield rather than the federal funds rate directly, which means mortgage rates can move in anticipation of future Fed actions rather than in response to the current rate.

Savings account and certificate of deposit rates respond more slowly and less uniformly. Banks raise deposit rates to attract funds but often lag behind Fed increases, particularly at large national banks where deposit competition is less intense. Online banks and credit unions tend to pass rate changes through to savers more quickly.

The gap between how fast borrowing costs rise and how slowly savings rates follow represents one of the most consistent asymmetries in consumer finance — and one that makes understanding the Fed’s rate-setting process a practical, not just academic, exercise for every household managing debt and savings simultaneously.

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial advice. Consult a qualified financial advisor before making investment decisions.

In recent years, the global shipping industry has seen significant increases in freight costs, which have had widespread effects across many sectors of the economy. One of the most affected areas is agricultural exports, which rely heavily on cost-effective and efficient transportation methods to reach global markets. As freight costs rise, the consequences for agricultural exports become increasingly evident. This article explores how increased freight costs impact agricultural exports, focusing on prices, international competitiveness, supply chains, and global trade patterns.

Impact on Export Prices and Profit Margins

One of the most immediate effects of increased freight costs is the rise in export prices. For agricultural products, which often face narrow profit margins, the increase in freight costs can significantly affect profitability. As the cost of shipping rises, these expenses are often passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices for goods. This can make agricultural products less competitive in global markets, particularly for countries that rely on exporting these goods to generate economic revenue.

For instance, a rise in freight costs can make products like grains, meat, or fruits more expensive in foreign markets, reducing their appeal compared to products from countries with lower transportation costs. In many cases, producers are forced to absorb these higher costs, which can diminish their overall profit margins, especially for those in developing nations with limited resources or pricing power.

Effects on International Competitiveness

Increased freight costs can reduce the international competitiveness of agricultural exports, particularly for countries that heavily depend on the export of agricultural products. Countries with more affordable shipping options, such as those geographically closer to major importers or with better infrastructure, are at an advantage.

This can result in a shift in the global agricultural trade balance. For example, countries in South America and Africa, which export large quantities of agricultural products, may find their goods priced out of competitive markets due to rising freight costs. Conversely, nations in regions with more advanced shipping infrastructure or those that have trade agreements in place may see less of an impact from the rise in freight costs, allowing them to maintain or even increase their market share.

Increased Supply Chain Costs

Freight is a critical component of the agricultural supply chain, and an increase in freight costs adds to the overall expense of transporting agricultural products. These increased supply chain costs often involve multiple stages, including transportation from farms to ports, processing facilities, and finally, to export markets. As freight prices rise, these costs compound, further elevating the overall cost structure for agricultural goods.

Producers may also face delays due to shipping bottlenecks or port congestion, adding time and cost to the transportation process. For products that are time-sensitive, such as fruits and vegetables, the added expense and delays in the supply chain can result in spoilage, reducing the overall quality and quantity of products that reach international markets.

Changes in Demand for Agricultural Products

As freight costs rise, the demand for agricultural exports can shift. Higher shipping costs may make imported agricultural goods more expensive, leading consumers to seek alternatives. This is particularly true for non-essential or luxury agricultural products, such as certain fruits, nuts, or specialty goods, where price sensitivity is higher.

In some cases, countries may start looking for alternative sources for agricultural products. For example, if freight costs from a particular region rise significantly, consumers or businesses may look to countries with lower freight costs, potentially causing shifts in trade patterns. Countries that produce less expensive or locally available alternatives may benefit, while those whose agricultural products rely on distant international markets may experience decreased demand.

Economic Impact on Developing Countries

Developing countries that rely heavily on agricultural exports are among the most vulnerable to rising freight costs. These countries often have less-developed infrastructure, making them more reliant on expensive, less-efficient shipping methods. The result is a double blow: higher freight costs increase the price of exports, while limited access to competitive shipping options stifles growth opportunities.

For these nations, the higher costs can lead to reduced economic growth and a decrease in foreign exchange earnings, which they rely on to fund national development and infrastructure projects. Moreover, small farmers in these regions may struggle to compete in global markets due to rising transportation costs, threatening their livelihoods and diminishing food security.

The Role of Global Freight Rates in Trade Policies

Global freight rates play a significant role in shaping trade policies. Countries may revise their policies and agreements to address the effects of rising freight costs on agricultural exports. For example, countries may negotiate for better access to transportation routes, reduced tariffs, or subsidies to help offset the increasing shipping costs.

In some cases, governments may consider establishing stronger domestic agricultural policies or regional trade agreements to support local producers in the face of higher shipping costs. Trade policies that promote the development of domestic infrastructure, such as more efficient ports and better transportation systems, can help mitigate some of the negative effects of rising freight prices.

Impact on Perishability and Storage Costs

For agricultural products that are perishable—such as fruits, vegetables, dairy, and meat—higher freight costs can create significant challenges. Perishable goods require faster, more efficient transportation to ensure they reach consumers in fresh condition. With rising freight prices, producers may need to invest in additional storage and refrigeration to compensate for longer shipping times or more expensive delivery methods.

This increases operational costs for farmers and exporters, making it more difficult for small-scale farmers or producers in developing countries to afford the necessary logistics infrastructure. The added costs for storage and refrigeration further inflate the final price of perishable goods, limiting their competitiveness in global markets.

Government Interventions and Subsidies

In response to rising freight costs, some governments may step in with subsidies or other forms of financial support to assist agricultural exporters. These interventions are typically aimed at helping farmers and businesses remain competitive despite the increasing cost of shipping. Government subsidies for transportation or direct financial support for exporters can help reduce the burden of higher freight costs, at least temporarily.

However, these subsidies can also have long-term implications, potentially distorting market prices or encouraging dependency on government support. Policymakers must balance these interventions with the need for market-driven solutions to ensure that agricultural sectors remain sustainable in the face of increasing global freight costs.

Effects on Local Food Security and Supply Chains

The impact of rising freight costs is not limited to international markets. Higher shipping costs can affect local food security by making it more expensive to import food products that are not produced domestically. This is particularly significant for countries that rely on agricultural imports to meet their citizens’ food needs. As freight costs rise, the cost of these imports also increases, which may drive up the price of food at the local level.

Additionally, the disruption of international agricultural supply chains due to increased freight costs can lead to shortages or delays in food distribution. For countries that depend on global trade to meet domestic food demands, these disruptions can result in food insecurity, particularly for low-income populations.

Technological Solutions to Mitigate Freight Costs

While the rise in freight costs poses several challenges, technological solutions can help mitigate these issues. Advances in supply chain technology, such as the use of AI and machine learning for route optimization, can help reduce transportation inefficiencies and lower overall shipping costs.

The development of more sustainable and cost-effective shipping methods, such as autonomous vehicles or drones for local delivery, can also help reduce the reliance on traditional freight systems. Additionally, innovations in packaging technology can help reduce storage and shipping requirements for perishable goods, further lowering costs and waste.

The effects of increased freight costs on agricultural exports are multifaceted, with consequences ranging from higher prices and decreased demand to economic challenges for developing countries. These rising costs can disrupt global supply chains, decrease competitiveness, and exacerbate food insecurity in certain regions. However, governments, industries, and businesses can mitigate these effects through strategic policies, investments in infrastructure, and technological innovation. By addressing these challenges, the global agricultural export sector can continue to thrive despite rising freight costs.

Both major U.S. inflation gauges declined in June by more than economists expected, building the strongest statistical case in five months that the energy-driven price surge triggered by the Iran conflict may have peaked. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported on July 15 that the Producer Price Index fell 0.3% in June, following a July 14 CPI report showing consumer prices dropped 0.4% for the month. Every headline and core reading beat consensus forecasts. The relief, however, rests almost entirely on a gasoline price decline that has already begun to reverse as the U.S.-Iran ceasefire collapses and crude oil climbs back above $85 per barrel.

What Did the PPI Report Show?

The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that the Producer Price Index for final demand declined 0.3% on a seasonally adjusted basis in June, the first negative reading in months and well below the consensus estimate of no change. Core PPI, which excludes food and energy, rose 0.2%, also undershooting the 0.3% forecast. The BLS noted that “nearly two-thirds of the June decline in the index for final demand goods can be traced to prices for gasoline, which dropped 12%.”

The PPI measures what producers pay for inputs before those costs reach consumers, making it a leading indicator of where retail inflation is heading. A negative headline print, combined with a below-consensus core reading, suggests that pipeline price pressures were easing broadly in June, not just in the energy category.

The PPI data arrived one day after the CPI report, which showed consumer prices fell 0.4% month-over-month, the steepest monthly decline since April 2020. Annual headline CPI slowed to 3.5% from 4.2% in May, beating the 3.8% consensus. Core CPI was flat for the month, bringing the annual rate down to 2.6% from 2.9%, also below the 2.8% forecast.

Taken together, the two reports represent the first time since January that both headline inflation measures moved in the same direction, and the first time in five months that both declined simultaneously. That synchronization matters because it reduces the possibility that one report was a statistical anomaly. The pattern across both datasets points to the same cause: a temporary collapse in energy prices during the June ceasefire period between the U.S. and Iran.

Why Did Energy Prices Fall So Sharply in June?

The U.S. and Iran reached a temporary ceasefire agreement in late May that reopened shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, the chokepoint through which roughly 20% of the world’s oil supply flows. The ceasefire sent crude oil prices sharply lower and gasoline followed. The CPI data captured a 9.7% monthly decline in gasoline prices, while the PPI recorded a 12% drop. The broader CPI energy index fell 5.7% after rising 3.9% in May, 3.8% in April, and 10.9% in March, a sequence that traced the escalation of the conflict from its start in late February.

The energy decline drove the vast majority of the headline improvement in both reports. Strip out energy and the picture is less dramatic. Food prices rose 0.2% in the CPI. Shelter increased 0.1%. Airline fares climbed 0.2% and remain 26.5% above year-ago levels. Core CPI was flat rather than negative, meaning underlying price pressures did not disappear — they simply stopped accelerating for one month.

What Has Changed Since the Data Was Collected?

The June data reflects a world that no longer exists. The U.S.-Iran ceasefire fractured in early July, and by mid-July the two sides had exchanged strikes for three consecutive days. President Trump reinstated a military blockade on Iranian oil shipping through the Strait of Hormuz and told Fox News he would “knock out all of their bridges unless they get to the table and negotiate.”

Crude oil responded immediately. Brent futures topped $85 per barrel this week, up more than 15% from the June lows that produced the favorable CPI and PPI readings. The national average gasoline price stood at $3.89 per gallon on July 15, according to AAA, still well below the $4.56 peak from May 21 but already climbing from the sub-$3.84 level recorded the prior week. AAA noted on July 9 that prices had jumped 5 cents overnight as ceasefire uncertainty returned.

The arithmetic is straightforward. If oil prices remain at or above current levels through July, the next CPI report — scheduled for August 12 — will reflect a month of rising, not falling, energy costs. That would reverse the dynamic that produced June’s favorable readings and could push headline inflation back toward 4% or higher.

How Is the Federal Reserve Responding?

Fed Chair Kevin Warsh used his first congressional testimony on July 14 to deliver a message that left no ambiguity about the central bank’s posture. Warsh told lawmakers that Fed officials have “no tolerance for persistently elevated inflation” and described price stability as “the star we steer by.” The hawkish language came on the same day as the cooler CPI data, suggesting the Fed is not ready to declare victory based on one month of energy-driven improvement.

The Fed has held its benchmark overnight rate at 3.5%–3.75% through four consecutive meetings in 2026 after three rate cuts in late 2025. The CME FedWatch tool showed an 86% probability the Fed will hold rates at its next meeting following the CPI release, up from roughly 75% a day earlier. Traders lowered the probability of a September rate hike to 63% from over 75%, but that figure still implies a meaningful chance the Fed tightens policy before year-end.

Ellen Zentner, chief economic strategist at Morgan Stanley Wealth Management, said the June data “gives them room to breathe” and “makes it considerably easier for policymakers to maintain their current wait-and-see stance through the next meeting.” BMO’s chief U.S. economist Scott Anderson offered a more cautious read, noting that “large and volatile changes in energy prices could still stoke downstream inflation pressures if the war in Iran continues,” adding that the data “will keep the Federal Reserve’s finger on the rate hike trigger should inflation pressure resurface in the core measures.”

What Should Markets Watch Next?

The July inflation data will be the definitive test of whether June was a turning point or a one-month reprieve. If oil stays above $80 per barrel, the energy drag that pulled both CPI and PPI lower will flip to a tailwind for inflation, and the Fed’s hawkish posture will harden further.

Three data points will determine the trajectory between now and the August 12 CPI release. The first is crude oil. Brent’s path through the rest of July will dictate whether gasoline prices resume their climb or stabilize near current levels. The second is shelter. The CPI shelter component rose just 0.1% in June, a meaningful deceleration, and whether that pace holds will shape the core reading. The third is the labor market. The June jobs report came in at just 57,000 — less than half of expectations — and any further softening could reduce demand-side pressure on prices even as energy costs rise.

The June PPI and CPI reports delivered the data the market wanted. Whether they delivered a trend or just a pause depends on what happens in the Strait of Hormuz over the next four weeks.

Federal Reserve Chair Kevin Warsh will deliver his first Semiannual Monetary Policy Report testimony before Congress this week, appearing before the House Financial Services Committee on July 14 and the Senate Banking Committee on July 15. The timing carries unusual weight: the Bureau of Labor Statistics will release June Consumer Price Index data on the morning of Warsh’s House appearance, giving lawmakers fresh inflation figures to confront the new Fed chair with in real time. Projections point to year-over-year headline inflation declining from 4.2% in May to approximately 3.8% in June, which would mark a meaningful deceleration — but one that still leaves inflation nearly double the Federal Reserve’s stated 2% target more than five years after prices first began accelerating.

Key Takeaways

• Fed Chair Kevin Warsh testifies before the House Financial Services Committee on July 14 at 10 a.m. ET and the Senate Banking Committee on July 15 at 10 a.m. ET, marking his first congressional testimony since taking office on May 22, 2026
• June CPI data releases the morning of Warsh’s House testimony, with projections pointing to headline inflation declining from 4.2% to approximately 3.8% and core inflation expected at roughly 2.8%
• The June FOMC meeting held rates steady at 3.50%–3.75%, but median projections from committee participants placed the appropriate year-end federal funds rate at 3.8% — above the current range — and nine members indicated support for a rate increase by December
• Warsh eliminated forward guidance from the Fed’s policy statement at his first meeting and launched five task forces covering communications, the balance sheet, data methodology, AI-era productivity, and inflation frameworks
• The CME FedWatch tool shows markets pricing in a possible quarter-point rate hike as early as September

What Happened at Warsh’s First FOMC Meeting?

Warsh’s June 17 press conference — his first as chair — established a markedly different tone from the Powell era. The committee held the federal funds rate at 3.50% to 3.75%, but the policy statement was shorter, stripped of forward guidance language, and built around a direct pledge: “This Committee will deliver price stability.”

Warsh announced five internal task forces during the press conference, each charged with reviewing foundational elements of how the Federal Reserve operates. The task forces cover Fed communications (including a review of the Summary of Economic Projections), balance sheet policy, data methodology, productivity and employment in the AI era, and inflation frameworks. Warsh told reporters the task forces would begin work within weeks of the June meeting and deliver recommendations by year-end.

The median projections submitted by FOMC participants placed real GDP growth at 2.2% for 2026, total PCE inflation at 3.6% for the year (declining to 2.3% in 2027), unemployment at approximately 4.3%, and the appropriate federal funds rate at 3.8% by year-end — a figure above the current target range. Nine of the committee’s participants indicated through the dot plot that they favored at least one rate increase before December.

Warsh himself did not submit personal projections, a deliberate break from his predecessors. When pressed on whether the current policy stance was restrictive enough, Warsh called conditions “uneven” — restrictive in housing markets but difficult to characterize the same way when looking at financial market conditions. When asked directly under what circumstances the Fed would raise rates, Warsh declined to offer forward guidance, stating that the committee had dropped forward guidance from the statement and that the next meeting was six weeks away.

Why Does the Timing of June CPI Matter?

The convergence of fresh inflation data and Warsh’s House testimony on the same morning creates a dynamic that neither the Fed chair nor lawmakers can script in advance. If June CPI comes in at or below the projected 3.8%, Warsh will face questions about whether the deceleration is sufficient to keep rates on hold — or whether it remains too far above 2% to justify inaction. If the number surprises to the upside, the conversation shifts immediately toward whether the nine dot-plot members who favored a hike were right all along.

The projected decline from 4.2% to 3.8% in headline inflation is partially attributed to falling energy prices. Core inflation, which strips out volatile food and energy components, is expected at approximately 2.8% for June — a reading that would represent continued progress toward the Fed’s target but would also mark the fourth consecutive year that core inflation has remained above 2%.

Producer price data releases the following morning, just ahead of Warsh’s Senate Banking Committee appearance on July 15. The back-to-back structure gives markets two sequential data points and two days of testimony to parse for signals on the Fed’s next move.

What Will Lawmakers Press Warsh On?

Warsh’s confirmation was not a landslide — the Senate approved the nomination 54-45 — and the narrow margin suggests the political dynamics of these hearings will be charged. Warsh was nominated by President Trump and confirmed in early 2026, which means lawmakers on both sides will be watching for signals about Fed independence alongside the standard monetary policy questions.

House Financial Services Committee members are expected to press on housing affordability, the impact of tariff-related price pressures on consumers, and whether the Fed’s current rate stance is contributing to or alleviating cost-of-living pressures for working families. Senate Banking Committee members may focus on financial stability, the Fed’s balance sheet, and the implications of the June FOMC minutes, which revealed that a minority of officials argued a rate hike was already warranted at the June meeting.

Warsh’s own framing during his June 17 press conference provides a preview of how the chair is likely to handle the questioning. Warsh repeated a phrase he has used for years — “inflation is a choice” — and stated that the Fed’s own strategy review acknowledges inflation is “primarily determined by monetary policy.” That language leaves little room for deflecting responsibility onto supply-side factors or external shocks, which means Warsh will likely absorb rather than redirect criticism about inflation’s persistence.

The five task forces Warsh announced also create a natural line of questioning. Lawmakers may ask for updates on the inflation framework review, the balance sheet assessment, and the AI productivity task force — particularly given that the June FOMC minutes reportedly incorporated AI infrastructure investment into inflation discussions for the first time, with some officials expressing concern that AI-driven capital expenditure could itself push prices higher.

What Are Markets Expecting?

The CME FedWatch tool shows markets pricing in a possible quarter-point rate hike as early as the September FOMC meeting. That expectation has built gradually since the June meeting revealed the internal division within the committee. A rate increase would be the first since July 2023, when the Fed raised its target range to the cycle peak of 5.25% to 5.50% before holding steady for more than a year and then cutting six times across 2024 and 2025.

Whether Warsh’s testimony reinforces or softens that market expectation will depend on how directly the chair addresses the gap between current inflation readings and the 2% target — and whether the June CPI data gives him new material to work with in real time.

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice or a recommendation to buy or sell securities. Readers should consult qualified financial professionals before making investment decisions.

FAQs

When does Fed Chair Warsh testify before Congress? Kevin Warsh testifies before the House Financial Services Committee on Monday, July 14, 2026, at 10 a.m. ET and before the Senate Banking Committee on Tuesday, July 15, at 10 a.m. ET. Both hearings are part of the Fed’s legally required Semiannual Monetary Policy Report to Congress.

What is the current federal funds rate? The Federal Reserve’s target range for the federal funds rate is 3.50% to 3.75%, set at the June 17, 2026, FOMC meeting. The committee has not adjusted rates in 2026 after executing six cuts across 2024 and 2025.

What is the projected June CPI reading? Projections point to year-over-year headline inflation declining from 4.2% in May to approximately 3.8% in June. Core inflation, which excludes food and energy, is expected at roughly 2.8%.

Did any FOMC members want to raise rates at the June meeting? Nine FOMC participants indicated through the dot plot that they favored at least one rate increase before the end of 2026. The June meeting minutes also revealed that a minority of officials argued a rate hike was already warranted at that meeting.

What task forces did Warsh announce? Warsh launched five task forces at his June 17 press conference covering Fed communications, balance sheet policy, data methodology, productivity and employment in the AI era, and inflation frameworks. Each is expected to deliver recommendations by year-end.

When is the next FOMC meeting? The next scheduled FOMC meeting follows approximately six weeks after the June 17 session. The September meeting is the point at which markets are currently pricing in the highest probability of a rate adjustment.