This morning (April 30), the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) released its advance estimate of GDP for the first quarter of 2025. (The report can be found here.) The BEA estimates that real GDP fell by 0.3 percent, measured at an annual rate, in the first quarter—January through March. Economists surveyed had expected an 0.8 percent increase. Real GDP grew by an estimated 2.5 percent in the fourth quarter of 2024. The following figure shows the estimated rates of GDP growth in each quarter beginning in 2021.
As the following figure—taken from the BEA report—shows, the increase in imports was the most important factor contributing to the decline in real GDP. The quarter ended before the Trump Administration announced large tariff increases on April 2, but the increase in imports is likely attributable to firms attempting to beat the tariff increases they expected were coming.
It’s notable that the change in real private inventories was a large $140 billion, which contributed 2.3 percentage points to the change in real GDP. Again, it’s likely that the large increase in inventories represented firms stockpiling goods in anticipation of the tariff increases.
One way to strip out the effects of imports, inventory investment, and government purchases—which can also be volatile—is to look at real final sales to domestic purchasers, which includes only spending by U.S. households and firms on domestic production. As the following figure shows, real final sales to domestic purchasers increase by 3.0 percent in the first quarter of 2024, which was a slight increase from the 2.9 percent increase in the fourth quarter of 2024. The large difference between the change in real GDP and the change in real final sales to domestic purchasers is an indication of how strongly this quarter’s national income data were affected by businesses anticipating the tariff increases.
In the separate “Personal Income and Outlays” report that the BEA also released this morning, the bureau reported monthly data on the personal consumption expenditures (PCE) price index. The Fed relies on annual changes in the PCE price index to evaluate whether it’s meeting its 2 percent annual inflation target. The following figure shows PCE inflation (the blue line) and core PCE inflation (the red line)—which excludes energy and food prices—for the period since January 2017 with inflation measured as the percentage change in the PCE from the same month in the previous year. In March, PCE inflation was 2.3 percent, down from 2.7 percent in February. Core PCE inflation in March was 2.6 percent, down from 3.0 percent in February. Both headline and core PCE inflation were higher than the forecasts of economists surveyed.
The BEA also released quarterly PCE data as part of its GDP report. The following figure shows quarterly headline PCE inflation (the blue line) and core PCE inflation (the red line). Inflation is calculated as the percentage change from the same quarter in the previous year. Headline PCE inflation in the first quarter was 2.5 percent, unchanged from the fourth quarter of 2025. Core PCE inflation was 2.8 percent, also unchanged from the fourth quarter of 2025. Both measures were still above the Fed’s 2 percent inflation target.
The following figure shows quarterly PCE inflation and quarterly core PCE inflation calculated by compounding the current quarter’s rate over an entire year. Measured this way, headline PCE inflation increased from 2.4 percent in the fourth quarter of 2024 to 3.6 percent in the first quarter of 2025. Core PCE inflation increased from 2.6 percent in the fourth quarter of 2024 to 3.5 percent in the first quarter of 2025. Clearly, the quarterly data show significantly higher inflation than do the monthly data. As we discuss in this blog post, tariff increases result in an aggregate supply shock to the economy. As a result, unless the current and scheduled tariff increases are reversed, we will likely see a significant increase in inflation in the coming months. So, neither the monthly nor the quarterly PCE data may be giving a good indication of the course of future inflation.
What should we make of today’s macro data releases? First, it’s important to remember that these data will be subject to revisions in coming months. If we are heading into a recession, the revisions may well be very large. Second, we are sailing into unknown waters because the U.S. economy hasn’t experienced tariff increases as large as these since passage of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff in 1930. Third, at this point we don’t know whether some, most, all, or none of the tariff increases will be reversed as a result of negotiations during the coming weeks. Finally, on Friday, the Bureau of Labor Statistics will release its “Employment Situation Report” for March. That report will provide some additional insight into the state of the economy—as least as it was in March before the full effects of the tariffs have been felt.
An image generated by ChatGTP-4o of a hypothetical meeting between President Richard Nixon and Fed Chair Arthur Burns in the White House.
In a speech on April 15 at the Economic Club of Chicago, Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell discussed how the Fed might react to President Donald Trump’s tariff increases: “Tariffs are highly likely to generate at least a temporary rise in inflation. The inflationary effects could also be more persistent…. Our obligation is to keep longer-term inflation expectations well anchored and to make certain that a one-time increase in the price level does not become an ongoing inflation problem.”
Powell’s remarks were interpreted as indicating that the Fed’s policymaking Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) was unlikely to cut its target for the federal funds rate anytime soon. President Trump, who has stated several times that the FOMC should cut its target, was displeased with Powell’s position and posted on social media that “Powell’s termination cannot come fast enough!” Stock prices declined sharply on the possibility that Trump might try to fire Powell because many economists and market participants believed that move would increase uncertainty and possibly undermine the FOMC’s continuing attempts to bring inflation down to the Fed’s 2 percent target. Trump, possibly responding to the fall in stock prices, stated to reporters that he had “no intention” of firing Powell. In this recent blog post we discuss the debate over whether presidents can legally fire Fed chairs.
Leaving aside the legal issue of whether a president can fire a Fed chair, would it be better or worse for the conduct of monetary if the presdient did have that power? We review the arguments for and against the Fed conducting monetary policy independently of the president and Congress in Macroeconomics, Chapter 17, Section 17.4 (Economics, Chapter 27, Section 27.4). One key point that’s often made in favor of Fed independence is illustrated in Figure 17.12, which is reproduced below.
The figure is from a classic study by Alberto Alesina and Lawrence Summers, who were both economists at Harvard University at the time. Alesina and Summers tested the assertion that the less independent a country’s central bank, the higher the country’s inflation rate will be by comparing the degree of central bank independence and the inflation rate for 16 high-income countries during the years from 1955 to 1988. As the figure shows, countries with highly independent central banks, such as the United States, Switzerland, and Germany, had lower inflation rates than countries whose central banks had little independence, such as New Zealand, Italy, and Spain. In the following years, New Zealand and Canada granted their banks more independence, at least partly to better fight inflation.
Debates over Fed independence didn’t start with President Trump and Fed Chair Powell; they date all the way back to the passage of the Federal Reserve Act in 1913. The background to the passage of the Act is the political struggle over establishing a central bank during the early years of the country. In 1791, Congress established the Bank of the United States, at the urging of the country’s first Treasury secretary, Alexander Hamilton. When the bank’s initial 20-year charter expired in 1811, political opposition kept the charter from being renewed, and the bank went out of existence. The bank’s opponents believed that the bank’s actions had the effect of reducing loans to farmers and owners of small businesses and that Congress had exceeded its constitutional authority in establishing the bank. Financial problems during the War of 1812 led Congress to charter the Second Bank of the United States in 1816. But, again, political opposition, this time led by President Andrew Jackson, resulted in the bank’s charter not being renewed in 1836.
As we discuss in Chapter 14, Section 14.4, Congress established the Federal Reserve as a lender of last resort to bring an end to bank panics. In 1913, Congress was less concerned aboout making the Fed independent from Congress and the president than it was in overcoming political opposition to establishing a central bank located in Washington, DC. Accordingly, Congress established a decentralized system by having 12 District Banks that would be owned by the member banks in the district. Congress gave the responsibility for overseeing the system to the Federal Reserve Board, which was the forerunner of the current Board of Governors. The president had a greater influence on the Federal Reserve Board than presidents today have on the Board of Governors because the Federal Reserve Board included the secretary of the Treasury and the comptroller of the currency as members. Then as now, the president is free to replace the secretary of the Treasury and the comptroller of the currency at any time.
When the United States entered World War I in April 1917, the Fed came under pressure to help the Treasury finance the war by making loans to banks to help the banks purchase Treasury securities—Liberty Bonds—and by lending funds to banks that banks could loan to households to purchase bonds. In 1919, a ruling by the attorney general clarified that Congress had intended in the Federal Reserve Act to give the Federal Reserve Board the power to set the discounts rate the 12 District Banks charged member banks on loans.
Despite this ruling, authority within the Fed remained much more divided than is true today. Divided authority proved to be a serious problem when the Fed had to deal with the Great Depression, which began in August 1929 and worsened as the result of a series of bank panics. As we’ve seen, the secretary of the Treasury and the comptroller of the currency, both of whom report directly to the president of the United States, served on the Federal Reserve Board. So, the Fed had less independence from the executive branch of the government than it does today.
In addition, the heads of the 12 District Banks operated much more independently than they do today, with the head of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York having nearly as much influence within the system as the head of the Federal Reserve Board. At the time of the bank panics, George Harrison, the head of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, served as chair of the Open Market Policy Conference, the predecessor of the current Federal Open Market Committee. Harrison frequently acted independently of Roy Young and Eugene Meyer, who served as heads of the Federal Reserve Board during those years. Important decisions could be made only with the consensus of these different groups. During the early 1930s, consensus proved hard to come by, and taking decisive policy actions was difficult.
The difficulties the Fed had in responding to the Great Depression led Congress to reorganize the system with the passage of the Banking Act of 1935. Most of the current structure of the Fed was put in place by that law. Power was concentrated in the hands of the Board of Governors. The removal of the secretary of the Treasury and the comptroller of the currency from the Board reduced the ability of the president to influence the Fed’s decisions.
During World War II, the Fed again came under pressure to help the federal government finance the war. The Fed agreed to hold interest rates on Treasury securities at low levels: 0.375% on Treasury bills and 2.5% on Treasury bonds. The Fed could keep interest rates at these low levels only by buying any bonds that were not purchased by private investors, thereby fixing, or pegging, the rates.
When the war ended in 1945, the Treasury and President Harry Truman wanted to continue this policy, but the Fed didn’t agree. The Fed’s concern was inflation: Larger purchases of Treasury securities by the Fed could increase the growth rate of the money supply and the rate of inflation. Fed Chair Marriner Eccles strongly objected to the policy of fixing interest rates. His opposition led President Truman to not reappoint him as chair in 1948,although Eccles continued to fight for Fed independence during the remainder of his time as a governor. On March 4, 1951, the federal government formally abandoned the wartime policy of fixing the interest rates on Treasury securities with the Treasury–Federal Reserve Accord. This agreement was important in eestablishing the Fed’s ability to operate independently of the Treasury.
Conflicts between the Treasury and the Fed didn’t end with that agreement, however. Thomas Drechsel of the University of Maryland has analyzed the daily schedules of presidents during the period from 1933 to 2016 and finds that during these years presidents met with Fed officials on more than 800 occasions. Of course, not all of these interactions involved attempts by a president to influence the actions of a Fed Chair, but some seem to have. For example, research by Helen Fessenden of the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond has shown that in 1967, President Lyndon Johnson, who was facing reelection in 1968, was anxious that Fed Chair William McChesney Martin adopt a more expansionary monetary policy. There is some evidence that Johnson and Martin came to an agreement that if Johnson agreed to push Congress to increase taxes, Martin would pursue an expansionary monetary policy.
An image generated by ChatGTP-4o of a hypothetical meeting between President Lyndon Johnson and Fed Chair William McChesney Martin in the White House.
Similarly, in late 1971, President Richard Nixon was concerned that the unemployment rate was at 6%, which he believed would, if it persisted, endanger his chance of reelection in 1972. Dreschel finds that Nixon met with Fed Chair Arthur Burns 34 times during the second half of 1971. Evidence from tape recordings of Nixon’s conversations with Burns at the White House and from Burns’s diary entries indicate that Nixon pressured Burns to increase the rate of growth of the money supply and that Burns agreed to do so.
President Ronald Reagan and Federal Reserve Chair Paul Volcker argued over who was at fault for the severe economic recession of the early 1980s. Reagan blamed the Fed for soaring interest rates. Volcker held that the Fed could not take action to bring down interest rates until the budget deficit—which results from policy actions of the president and Congress—was reduced. Similar conflicts occurred during the administrations of George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton, with the Treasury frequently pushing for lower short-term interest rates than the Fed considered advisable.
During the financial crisis of 2007–2009 and during the 2020 Covid pandemic, the Fed worked closely with the Treasury. The relationship was so close, in fact, that some economists and policymakers worried that the Fed might be sacrificing some of its independence. The frequent consultations between Fed Chair Ben Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson in the fall of 2008, during the height of the crisis, were a break with the tradition of Fed chairs formulating policy independently of a presidential administration. During the 2020 pandemic, Fed Chair Jerome Powell and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin also frequently consulted on policy.
These examples from the Fed’s history indicate that presidents have persistently attempted to influence Fed policy. Most economists believe that central bank independence is an important check on inflation. But, given the importance of monetary policy, it’s probably inevitable that presidents and members of Congress will continue to attempt to sway Fed policy.
In this photo of a Federal Open Market Committee meeting, Fed Chair Jerome Powell is on the far left and Fed Governor Christopher Waller is the third person to Powell’s left. (Photo from federalreserve.gov)
This post discusses two developments this week that involve the Federal Reserve. First, we discuss the apparent disagreement between Fed Chair Jerome Powell and Fed Governor Christopher Waller over the best way to respond to the Trump Administration’s tariff increases. As we discuss in this blog post and in this podcast, in terms of the aggregate demand and aggregate supply model, a large unexpected increase in tariffs results in an aggregate supply shock to the economy, shifting the short-run aggregate supply curve (SRAS) to the left. The following is Figure 13.7 from Macroeconomics (Figure 23.7 from Economics) and illustrates the effects of an aggregate supply shock on short-run macroeconomic equilibrium.
Although the figure shows the effects of an aggregate supply shock that results from an unexpected increase in oil prices, using this model, the result is the same for an aggregate supply shock caused by an unexpected increase in tariffs. Two-thirds of U.S. imports are raw materials, intermediate goods, or capital goods, all of which are used as inputs by U.S. firms. So, in both the case of an increase in oil prices and in the case of an increase in tariffs, the result of the supply shock is an increase in U.S. firms’ production costs. This increase in costs reduces the quantity of goods firms will supply at every price level, shifting the SRAS curve to the left, as shown in panel (a) of the figure. In the new macroeconomic equilibrium, point B in panel (a), the price level increases and the level of real GDP declines. The decline in real GDP will likely result in an increase in the unemployment rate.
An aggregate supply shock poses a policy dilemma for the Fed’s policymaking Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC). If the FOMC responds to the decline n real GDP and the increase in the unemployment rate with an expansionary monetary policy of lowering the target for the federal funds rate, the result is likely to be a further increase in the price level. Using a contractionary monetary policy of increasing the target for the federla funds rate to deal with the rising price level can cause real GDP to fall further, possibly pushing the economy into a recession. One way to avoid the policy dilemma from an aggregate supply shock caused by an increase in tariffs is for the FOMC to “look through”—that is, not respond—to the increase in tariffs. As panel (b) in the figure shows, if the FOMC looks through the tariff increase, the effect of the aggregate supply shock can be transitory as the economy absorbs the one-time increase in the price level. In time, real GDP will return to equilibrium at potential real GDP and the unemployment rate will fall back to the natural rate of unemployment.
On Monday (April 14), Fed Governor Christopher Waller in a speech to the Certified Financial Analysts Society of St. Louis made the argument for either looking through the macroeconomic effects of the tariff increase—even if the tariff increase turns out to be large, which at this time is unclear—or responding to the negative effects of the tariffs increases on real GDP and unemployment:
“I am saying that I expect that elevated inflation would be temporary, and ‘temporary’ is another word for ‘transitory.’ Despite the fact that the last surge of inflation beginning in 2021 lasted longer than I and other policymakers initially expected, my best judgment is that higher inflation from tariffs will be temporary…. While I expect the inflationary effects of higher tariffs to be temporary, their effects on output and employment could be longer-lasting and an important factor in determining the appropriate stance of monetary policy. If the slowdown is significant and even threatens a recession, then I would expect to favor cutting the FOMC’s policy rate sooner, and to a greater extent than I had previously thought.”
In a press conference after the last FOMC meeting on March 19, Fed Chair Jerome Powell took a similar position, arguing that: “If there’s an inflation that’s going to go away on its own, it’s not the correct response to tighten policy.” But in a speech yesterday (April 16) at the Economic Club of Chicago, Powell indicated that looking through the increase in the price level resulting from a tariff increase might be a mistake:
“The level of the tariff increases announced so far is significantly larger than anticipated. The same is likely to be true of the economic effects, which will include higher inflation and slower growth. Both survey- and market-based measures of near-term inflation expectations have moved up significantly, with survey participants pointing to tariffs…. Tariffs are highly likely to generate at least a temporary rise in inflation. The inflationary effects could also be more persistent…. Our obligation is to keep longer-term inflation expectations well anchored and to make certain that a one-time increase in the price level does not become an ongoing inflation problem.”
In a discussion following his speech, Powell argued that tariff increases may disrupt global supply chains for some U.S. industries, such as automobiles, in way that could be similar to the disruptions caused by the Covid pandemic of 2020. As a result: “When you think about supply disruptions, that is the kind of thing that can take time to resolve and it can lead what would’ve been a one-time inflation shock to be extended, perhaps more persistent.” Whereas Waller seemed to indicate that as a result of the tariff increases the FOMC might be led to cut its target for the federal funds sooner or to larger extent in order to meet the maximum employment part of its dual mandate, Powell seemed to indicate that the FOMC might keep its target unchanged longer in order to meet the price stability part of the dual mandate.
Powell’s speech caught the notice of President Donald Trump who has been pushing the FOMC to cut its target for the federal funds rate sooner. An article in the Wall Street Journal, quoted Trump as posting to social media that: “Powell’s termination cannot come fast enough!” Powell’s term as Fed chair is scheduled to end in May 2026. Does Trump have the legal authority to replace Powell earlier than that? As we discuss in Macroeconomics, Chapter 27 (Economics Chapter 17), according to the Federal Reserve Act, once a Fed chair is notimated to a four-year term by the president (President Trump first nominated Powell to be chair in 2017 and Powell took office in 2018) and confirmed by the Senate, the president cannot remove the Fed chair except “for cause.” Most legal scholars argue that a president cannot remove a Fed chair due to a disagreement over monetary policy.
Article I, Section II of the Constitution of the United States states that: “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.” The ability of Congress to limit the president’s power to appoint and remove heads of commissions, agencies, and other bodies in the executive branch of government—such as the Federal Reserve—is not clearly specified in the Constitution. In 1935, a unanimous Supreme Court ruled in the case of Humphrey’s Executor v. United States that President Franklin Roosevelt couldn’t remove a member of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) because in creating the FTC, Congress specified that members could only be removed for cause. Legal scholars have presumed that the ruling in this case would also bar attempts by a president to remove members of the Fed’s Board of Governors because of a disagreement over monetary policy.
The Trump Administration recently fired a member of the National Labor Relations Board and a member of the Merit Systems Protection Board. The members sued and the Supreme Court is considering the case. The Trump Adminstration is asking the Court to overturn the Humphrey’s Executor decision as having been wrongly decided because the decision infringed on the executive power given to the president by the Constitution. If the Court agrees with the administration and overturns the precdent established by Humphrey’s Executor, would President Trump be free to fire Chair Powell before Powell’s term ends? (An overview of the issues involved in this Court case can be found in this article from the Associated Press.)
The answer isn’t clear because, as we’ve noted in Macroeconomics, Chapter 14, Section 14.4, Congress gave the Fed an unusual hybrid public-private structure and the ability to fund its own operations without needing appropriations from Congress. It’s possible that the Court would rule that in overturning Humphrey’s Executor—if the Court should decide to do that—it wasn’t authorizing the president to replace the Fed chair at will. In response to a question following his speech yesterday, Powell seemed to indicate that the Fed’s unique structure might shield it from the effects of the Court’s decision.
If the Court were to overturn its ruling in Humphrey’s Executor and indicate that the ruling did authorize the president to remove the Fed chair, the Fed’s ability to conduce monetary policy independently of the president would be seriously undermined. In Macroeconomics, Chapter 17, Section 17.4 we review the arguments for and against Fed independence. It’s unclear at this point when the Court might rule on the case.
Today (April 10), the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) released its monthly report on the consumer price index (CPI). The following figure compares headline inflation (the blue line) and core inflation (the red line).
The headline inflation rate, which is measured by the percentage change in the CPI from the same month in the previous year, was 2.4 percent in March—down from 2.8 percent in February.
The core inflation rate,which excludes the prices of food and energy, was 2.8 percent in March—down from 3.1 percent in February.
Both headline inflation and core inflation were below what economists surveyed had expected.
In the following figure, we look at the 1-month inflation rate for headline and core inflation—that is the annual inflation rate calculated by compounding the current month’s rate over an entire year. Calculated as the 1-month inflation rate, headline inflation (the blue line) fell sharply from 2.6 percent in March to –0.6 percent—that is, the economy experienced deflation in March. Core inflation (the red line) decreased from 2.6 percent in February to 0.7 percent in March.
Overall, considering 1-month and 12-month inflation together, inflation slowed significantly in March. Of course, it’s important not to overinterpret the data from a single month. The figure shows that 1-month inflation rate is particularly volatile. Also note that the Fed uses the personal consumption expenditures (PCE) price index, rather than the CPI, to evaluate whether it is hitting its 2 percent annual inflation target.
There’s been considerable discussion in the media about continuing inflation in grocery prices. In the following figure the blue line shows inflation in the CPI category “food at home,” which is primarily grocery prices. Inflation in grocery prices was 2.4 percent in March, up from 1.8 percent in February, but still far below the peak of 13.6 percen in August 2022. Although, on average, grocery price inflation has been low over the past 18 months, there have been substantial increases in the prices of some food items. For instance, egg prices—shown by the red line—increased by 108.1 percent in March. But, as the figure shows, egg prices are usually quite volatile month-to-month, even when the country is not dealing with an epidemic of bird flu.
To better estimate the underlying trend in inflation, some economists look at median inflation and trimmed mean inflation.
Median inflation is calculated by economists at the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland and Ohio State University. If we listed the inflation rate in each individual good or service in the CPI, median inflation is the inflation rate of the good or service that is in the middle of the list—that is, the inflation rate in the price of the good or service that has an equal number of higher and lower inflation rates.
Trimmed-mean inflation drops the 8 percent of goods and services with the highest inflation rates and the 8 percent of goods and services with the lowest inflation rates.
The following figure shows that 12-month trimmed-mean inflation (the blue line) was 3.0 percent in March, down from 3.1 percent in February. Twelve-month median inflation (the red line) also declined slightly from 3.1 percent in February to 3.0 percent in March.
The following figure shows 1-month trimmed-mean and median inflation. One-month trimmed-mean inflation fell from 3.3 percent in February to 2.6. percent in March. One-month median inflation increased from 3.5 percent in February to 4.1 percent in March. These data are noticeably higher than either the 12-month measures for these variables or the 1-month and 12-month measures of headline and core inflation. Again, though, all 1-month inflation measures can be volatile.
There isn’t much sign in today’s CPI report that the tariffs recently imposed by the Trump Administration have affected retail prices. President Trump announced yesterday that many of the tariffs would be suspended for at least 90 days, although the across-the-board tariff of 10 percent remains in place and a tariff of 145 percent has been imposed on goods imported from China. It would surprising if those tariff increases don’t begin to have at least some effect on the CPI over the next few months. As we noted in this post from earlier in the month, Tariffs pose a dilemma for the Fed, because tariffs have the effect of both increasing the price level and reducing real GDP and employment.
What are the implications of this CPI report for the actions the Federal Reserve’s policymaking Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) may take at its next two meetings? Investors who buy and sell federal funds futures contracts still do not expect that the FOMC will cut its target for the federal funds rate at its next two meetings. (We discuss the futures market for federal funds in this blog post.) Today, investors assigned only a 29.9 percent probability that the Fed’s policymaking Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) will cut its target from the current 4.25 percent to 4.50 percent range at its meeting on May 6–7. Investors assigned a probability of 85.2 percent that the FOMC would cut its target after its meeting on June 17–18 by at least 0.25 percent (or 25 basis points).
By the time the FOMC meets again in early May we may have more data on the effects the tariffs are having on the economy.
Please listen to a podcast discussion recorded just this past Friday between Glenn Hubbard and Tony O’Brien as they discuss tariffs and it’s impact on monetary policy. Also, check out the regular blog posts while on the site! So much has been happening and these posts helps both instructors and students integrate this discussion into their classroom.
Join authors Glenn Hubbard and Tony O’Brien as they discuss the impact of new tariff policies on trade but also on the larger economy. They delve into the Fed, monetary policy, and the impact on inflation. They also discuss some of the history back to when tariffs used to be a high proportion of government revenue and analyze the mix of products that are imported & exported by the US. Should the Fed change its current behavior due to the tariff environment?
Today (March 28), the BEA released monthly data on the personal consumption expenditures (PCE) price index as part of its “Personal Income and Outlays” report. The Fed relies on annual changes in the PCE price index to evaluate whether it’s meeting its 2 percent annual inflation target. The following figure shows PCE inflation (the blue line) and core PCE inflation (the red line)—which excludes energy and food prices—for the period since January 2016 with inflation measured as the percentage change in the PCE from the same month in the previous year. In February, PCE inflation was 2.5 percent, unchanged since January. Core PCE inflation in January was 2.8 percent, up slightly from 2.7 percent in January. Headline PCE inflation was consistent with the forecasts of economists, but core PCE inflation was higher.
The following figure shows PCE inflation and core PCE inflation calculated by compounding the current month’s rate over an entire year. (The figure above shows what is sometimes called 12-month inflation, while this figure shows 1-month inflation.) Measured this way, PCE inflation declined slightly in February to 4.0 percent from 4.1 percent in January. Core PCE inflation jumped in February to 4.5 percent from 3.6 percent in January. So, both 1-month PCE inflation estimates are running well above the Fed’s 2 percent target. The usual caution applies that 1-month inflation figures are volatile (as can be seen in the figure), so we shouldn’t attempt to draw wider conclusions from one month’s data. But it is definitely concerning that 1-month inflation has risen each month since November 2024.
Fed Chair Jerome Powell has noted that inflation in non-market services has been high. Non-market services are services whose prices the BEA imputes rather than measures directly. For instance, the BEA assumes that prices of financial services—such as brokerage fees—vary with the prices of financial assets. So that if stock prices fall, the prices of financial services included in the PCE price index also fall. Powell has argued that these imputed prices “don’t really tell us much about … tightness in the economy. They don’t really reflect that.” The following figure shows 12-month headline inflation (the blue line) and 12-month core inflation (the green line) for market-based PCE. (The BEA explains the market-based PCE measure here.)
Headline market-based PCE inflation was 2.2 percent in February, and core market-based PCE inflation was 2.4 percent. So, both market-based measures show less inflation in February than do the total measures. In the following figure, we look at 1-month inflation using these measures. The 1-month inflation rates are both very high. Headline market-based inflation was 4.0 percent in February, up from 3.5 percent in January. Core market-based inflation was 4.6 percent in February, up from 2.8 percent in January. Both 1-month market-based inflation members have increased each month since November.
In summary, today’s data don’t show any evidence that inflation is returning to the Fed’s 2 percent annual target. It has to concern the Fed that the 1-month inflation measures have been increasing since November with the latest data showing inflation running far above the Fed’s target. The Fed’s goal of a “soft landing”—with inflation returning to the Fed’s 2 percent target without the economy entering a recession—no longer appears to be on the horizon. The current data seem more consistent with a “no landing” scenario in which the economy avoids a recession but inflation doesn’t return to the Fed’s target. As a result, it seems very unlikely that the Fed’s policymaking Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) will lower its target for the federal funds rate at its next meeting on May 6-7, unless the unemployment rate jumps or the growth of output slows dramatically.
Investors who buy and sell federal funds futures contracts expect that the FOMC will leave its federal funds rate target unchanged at its next meeting. (We discuss the futures market for federal funds in this blog post.) As the following figure shows, investors assign a probability of 82.9 percent to the FOMC leaving its target for the federal funds rate unchanged at the current range of 4.25 percent to 4.50 percent. Investors assign a probability of only 17.1 percent to the FOMC cutting its target by 0.25 percentage point (25 basis points).
As the following figure shows, investors assign a probability of 72.9 percent percent to the FOMC cutting its target range by at least 25 basis points at its meeting on June 17–18. Despite the bad news on inflation in today’s BEA report, investors assign a zero probability to the FOMC increasing its target range for the federal funds rate to help push inflation back to the Fed’s target. One aspect of the current situation that both policymakers and investors are uncertain of is the effect of the Trump Administration’s new tariffs on the price level. It’s possible that some of the increase in inflation seen in today’s report is the result of tariff increases, but the full extent of the effect will only become evident when the tariffs are fully in place.
Fed Chair Jerome Powell speaking at a press conference following a meeting of the FOMC (photo from federalreserve.gov)
As they had before their previous meeting, members of the Fed’s Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) had signaled that the committee was likely to leave its target range for the federal funds rate unchanged at 4.25 percent to 4.50 percent at its meeting today (March 19). In a press conference following the meeting, Fed Chair Jerome Powell noted that the FOMC was facing significant policy uncertainty:
“Looking ahead, the new Administration is in the process of implementing significant policy changes in four distinct areas: trade, immigration, fiscal policy, and regulation…. While there have been recent developments in some of these areas, especially trade policy, uncertainty around the changes and their effects on the economic outlook is high…. We do not need to be in a hurry to adjust our policy stance, and we are well positioned to wait for greater clarity.”
The next scheduled meeting of the FOMC is May 6–7. It seems likely that the committee will also keep its target rate constant at that meeting. Although at his press conference, Powell noted that “Policy is not on a preset course. As the economy evolves, we will adjust our policy stance in a manner that best promotes our maximum employment and price stability goals.” The statement the committee released after the meeting showed that the decision to leave the target rate unchanged was unanimous.
The following figure shows, for the period since January 2010, the upper bound (the blue line) and lower bound (the green line) for the FOMC’s target range for the federal funds rate and the actual values of the federal funds rate (the red line) during that time. Note that the Fed is successful in keeping the value of the federal funds rate in its target range. (We discuss the monetary policy tools the FOMC uses to maintain the federal funds rate in its target range in Macroeconomics, Chapter 15, Section 15.2 (Economics, Chapter 25, Section 25.2).)
After the meeting, the committee also released a “Summary of Economic Projections” (SEP)—as it typically does after its March, June, September, and December meetings. The SEP presents median values of the 18 committee members’ forecasts of key economic variables. The values are summarized in the following table, reproduced from the release.
There are several aspects of these forecasts worth noting:
Committee members reduced their forecast of real GDP growth for 2025 from 2.1 percent in December to 1.7 percent today. Committee members also slightly increased their forecast of the unemployment rate at the end of 2025 from 4.3 percent to 4.4 percent. (The unemployment rate in February was 4.1 percent.)
Committee members now forecast that personal consumption expenditures (PCE) price inflation will be 2.7 percent at the end of 2025. In December, they had forecast that it would 2.5 percent. Similarly, their forecast of core PCE inflation increased from 2.5 percent to 2.8 percent. The committee does not expect that PCE inflation will decline to the Fed’s 2 percent annual target until 2027.
The committee’s forecast of the federal funds rate at the end of 2025 was unchanged at 3.9 percent. The federal funds rate today is 4.33 percent, which indicates that committee members expect to make two 0.25 percentage point (25 basis points) cuts in their target for the federal funds rate this year. Investors are similarly forecasting two 25 basis point cuts.
During his press conference, Powell indicated that a significant part of the increase in goods inflation during the first two months of the year was likely due to tariffs, although the Fed’s staff was unable to make a precise estimate of how much. Economists generally believe that tariffs cause one-time increases in the price level, rather than persistent inflation. Powell was asked during the press conference whether the FOMC was likely to “look through”—that is, not respond—to the tariffs. Powell replied that it was too early to make that decision, but that: “If there’s an inflation that’s going to go away on its own, it’s not the correct response to tighten policy.”
Powell noted that although surveys show that businesses and consumers expect an increase in inflation, over the long run, expectations are that the inflation rate will return to the Fed’s 2 percent annual target. In that sense, Powell said that expectations of inflation remain “well anchored.”
Barring a sharp slowdown in the growth of real GDP, a significant rise in the unemployment rate, or a significant rise in the inflation rate, the FOMC seems likely to leave its target for the federal funds rate unchanged over the next few months.
Today (March 12), the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) released its monthly report on the consumer price index (CPI). The following figure compares headline inflation (the blue line) and core inflation (the green line).
The headline inflation rate, which is measured by the percentage change in the CPI from the same month in the previous year, was 2.8 percent in February—down from 3.0 percent in January.
The core inflation rate,which excludes the prices of food and energy, was 3.1 percent in February—down from 3.3 percent in January.
Both headline inflation and core inflation were slightly below what economists surveyed had expected.
In the following figure, we look at the 1-month inflation rate for headline and core inflation—that is the annual inflation rate calculated by compounding the current month’s rate over an entire year. Calculated as the 1-month inflation rate, headline inflation (the blue line) fell sharply from 5.7 percent in February to 2.6 percent in January. Core inflation (the green line) decreased from 5.5 percent in January to 2.8 percent in January.
Overall, considering 1-month and 12-month inflation together, the most favorable news is the sharp decline in both the headline and the core 1-month inflation rats. But inflation is still running ahead of the Fed’s 2 percent annual inflation target.
Of course, it’s important not to overinterpret the data from a single month. The figure shows that 1-month inflation is particularly volatile. Also note that the Fed uses the personal consumption expenditures (PCE) price index, rather than the CPI, to evaluate whether it is hitting its 2 percent annual inflation target.
There’s been considerable discussion in the media about continuing inflation in grocery prices. In the following figure the blue line shows inflation in the CPI category “food at home,” which is primarily grocery prices. Inflation in grocery prices was 1.8 percent in February and has been below 2 percent every month since November 2023. Although on average grocery price inflation has been low, there have been substantial increases in the prices of some food items. For instance, egg prices—shown by the green line—increased by 96.8 percent in February. But, as the figure shows, egg prices are usually quite volatile month-to-month, even when the country is not dealing with an epidemic of bird flu.
To better estimate the underlying trend in inflation, some economists look at median inflation and trimmed mean inflation.
Median inflation is calculated by economists at the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland and Ohio State University. If we listed the inflation rate in each individual good or service in the CPI, median inflation is the inflation rate of the good or service that is in the middle of the list—that is, the inflation rate in the price of the good or service that has an equal number of higher and lower inflation rates.
Trimmed-mean inflation drops the 8 percent of goods and services with the highest inflation rates and the 8 percent of goods and services with the lowest inflation rates.
The following figure shows that 12-month trimmed-mean inflation (the blue line) was 3.1 percent in February, unchanged from January. Twelve-month median inflation (the green line) declined slightly from 3.6 percent in January to 3.5 percent in February.
The following figure shows 1-month trimmed-mean and median inflation. One-month trimmed-mean inflation fell from 5.1 percent in January to 3.3. percent in February. One-month median inflation from 3.9 percent in January to 3.5 percent in February. These data provide confirmation that (1) CPI inflation at this point is likely running higher than a rate that would be consistent with the Fed achieving its inflation target, and (2) inflation slowed somewhat from January to February.
What are the implications of this CPI report for the actions the FOMC may take at its next several meetings? The major stock market indexes rose sharply at the beginning of trading this morning, but then swung back and forth between losses and gains. Inflation being lower than expected may have increased the probability that the FOMC will cut its target for the federal funds rate sooner rather than later. Lower inflation and lower interest rates would be good news for stock prices. But investors still appear to be worried about the extent to which a trade war might both slow economic growth and increase the price level.
Investors who buy and sell federal funds futures contracts still do not expect that the FOMC will cut its target for the federal funds rate at its next two meetings. (We discuss the futures market for federal funds in this blog post.) Today, investors assigned only a 1 percent probability that the Fed’s policymaking Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) will cut its target from the current 4.25 percent to 4.50 percent range at its meeting next week. Investors assigned a probability of 33.3 percent that the FOMC would cut its target after its meeting on May 6–7. Investors today assigned a probability of 78.6 percent that the committee will cut its target after its meeting on June 17–18. That probability has fallen slightly over the past week.
At his press conference after next Wednesday’s FOMC meeting, Fed Chair Jerome Powell will give his thoughts on the current economic situation.
In a post earlier this week, we noted that according to the usually reliable GDPNow forecast from the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, real GDP in the first quarter will decline by 2.8 percent. (The forecast was updated yesterday on the basis of additional data releases to a slightly less pessimistic –2.4 percent decline.) This morning (March 7), the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) released its “Employment Situation” report (often called the “jobs report”) for February. The data in the report show no sign that the U.S. economy is in a recession. We should add the caveat, however, that at the beginning of a recession the data in the jobs report can be subject to large revisions.
The jobs report has two estimates of the change in employment during the month: one estimate from the establishment survey, often referred to as the payroll survey, and one from the household survey. As we discuss in Macroeconomics, Chapter 9, Section 9.1 (Economics, Chapter 19, Section 19.1), many economists and Federal Reserve policymakers believe that employment data from the establishment survey provide a more accurate indicator of the state of the labor market than do either the employment data or the unemployment data from the household survey. (The groups included in the employment estimates from the two surveys are somewhat different, as we discuss in this post.)
According to the establishment survey, there was a net increase of 151,000 jobs during February. This increase was below the increase of 160,000 that economists had forecast. The previously reported increase for December was revised upward, while the previously reported increase for January was revised downward. The net change in jobs, taking the revisions for those two months together, was 2,000 lower than originally estimated. (The BLS notes that: “Monthly revisions result from additional reports received from businesses and government agencies since the last published estimates and from the recalculation of seasonal factors.”) The following figure from the jobs report shows the net change in payroll employment for each month in the last two years.
The unemployment rate rose slightly to 4.1 percent in February from 4.0 percent in January. As the following figure shows, the unemployment rate has been remarkably stable in recent months, staying between 4.0 percent and 4.2 percent in each month since May 2024. Last December, the members of the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) forecast that the unemployment rate for 2025 would average 4.3 percent.
As the following figure shows, the net change in jobs from the household survey moves much more erratically than does the net change in jobs from the establishment survey. The net change in jobs as measured by the household survey for February showed a sharp decrease of 588,000 jobs following a very large increase of 2,234,000 jobs in January. In any particular month, the story told by the two surveys can be inconsistent with employment increasing in one survey while falling in the other. The difference was particularly dramatic this month. (In this blog post, we discuss the differences between the employment estimates in the two surveys.)
Another concerning sign in the household survey is the fall in the employment-population ratio for prime age workers—those aged 25 to 54. The ratio declined from 80.7 percent in January to 80.5 percent in February. Although the employment-population is still high relative to the average level since 2001, it’s now well below the high of 80.9 percent in mid-2024. Continuing declines in this ratio would indicate a significant softening in the labor market.
It’s unclear how many federal workers have been laid off since the Trump Administration took office. The household survey shows a decline in total federal government employment of 10,000 in February. The household survey was conducted in the week that included February 12, so, it’s possible that next month’s jobs report may find a more significant decline.
The establishment survey also includes data on average hourly earnings (AHE). As we noted in this post, many economists and policymakers believe the employment cost index (ECI) is a better measure of wage pressures in the economy than is the AHE. The AHE does have the important advantage of being available monthly, whereas the ECI is only available quarterly. The following figure shows the percentage change in the AHE from the same month in the previous year. The AHE increased 4.0 percent in February, up slightly from 3.9 percent in January.
The following figure shows wage inflation calculated by compounding the current month’s rate over an entire year. (The figure above shows what is sometimes called 12-month wage inflation, whereas this figure shows 1-month wage inflation.) One-month wage inflation is much more volatile than 12-month wage inflation—note the very large swings in 1-month wage inflation in April and May 2020 during the business closures caused by the Covid pandemic. The February 1-month rate of wage inflation was 3.4 percent, a decline from the surprisingly high 5.2 percent rate in December. Whether measured as a 12-month increase or as a 1-month increase, AHE is still increasing somewhat more rapidly than is consistent with the Fed achieving its 2 percent target rate of price inflation.
Today’s jobs report leaves the situation facing the Federal Reserve’s policy-making Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) largely unchanged. There are some indications that the economy may be weakening, as shown by some of the data in the jobs report and by some of the data incorporated by the Atlanta Fed in its pessimistic nowcast of first quarter real GDP. But the Fed hasn’t yet brought inflation down to its 2 percent annual target. In addition, it’s unclear how the Trump Administration’s policies—particularly with respect to tariff increases—might affect the economy. Speaking today at an event at the University of Chicago, Fed Chair Jerome Powell observed the following:
“Looking ahead, the new Administration is in the process of implementing significant policy changes in four distinct areas: trade, immigration, fiscal policy, and regulation. It is the net effect of these policy changes that will matter for the economy and for the path of monetary policy. While there have been recent developments in some of these areas, especially trade policy, uncertainty around the changes and their likely effects remains high. As we parse the incoming information, we are focused on separating the signal from the noise as the outlook evolves. We do not need to be in a hurry, and are well positioned to wait for greater clarity.”
The likeliest outcome is that the FOMC will keep its target for the federal funds rate unchanged, perhaps for several meetings, unless additional data are released that clearly show the economy to be weakening.
One indication of expectations of future cuts in the target for the federal funds rate comes from investors who buy and sell federal funds futures contracts. (We discuss the futures market for federal funds in this blog post.) The data from the futures market indicates that investors don’t expect that the FOMC will cut its target for the federal funds rate at either its March 18–19 or May 6–7 meetings. As shown in the following figure, only at the FOMC’s June 17–18 meeting do investors assign a greater than 50 percent probability to the committee cutting its target. As of this afternoon, investors assign a probability of only 19.2 percent to the FOMC keeping its target unchanged at 4.25 percent to 4.50 percent at that meeting. They assign a probability of 80.8 percent to the committee cutting its target rate by at least 0.25 percentage point (25 basis points) at that meeting.
Image generated by GTP-4o of people engaging in economic forecasting
How do we know when we’re in a recession? Most economists and policymakers accept the decisions of the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), a private research group located in Cambridge, Massachusetts (see Macroeconomics, Chapter 10, Section 10.3). Typically, the NBER is slow in announcing that a recession has begun because it takes time to gather and analyze economic data. The NBER didn’t announce that a recession had begun in December 2007 until 11 months later in November 2008. When the NBER announced in June 2020 that a recession had begun in February 2020, it was considered to be an unusually fast decision.
On its website, the NBER notes that: “The NBER’s traditional definition of a recession is that it is a significant decline in economic activity that is spread across the economy and that lasts more than a few months.” The NBER lists the data it considers when determining whether a recession has begun (or ended), including: “real personal income less transfers (PILT), nonfarm payroll employment, real personal consumption expenditures, manufacturing and trade sales adjusted for price changes, employment as measured by the household survey, and industrial production.” In practice, it is normally the case that an NBER business cycle peak coincides with the peak in nonfarm payroll employment and an NBER business cycle trough coincides with a trough in the same employment series.
Of course, policymakers at the Fed don’t wait until the NBER announces that a recession has begun when formulating monetary policy. Members of the Fed’s policymaking Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) monitor a wide range of data series as the series become available. The broadest measure of the state of the economy is real GDP, which is only available quarterly, and the data are released with a lag. For instance, the Bureau of Economic Analysis’s “advance” (first) estimate of real GDP in the first quarter of 2025 won’t be released until April 30.
Given the importance of GDP, there are several groups that attempt to nowcast GDP. A nowcast is a forecast that incorporates all the information available on a certain date about the components of spending that are included in GDP. The Federal Reserve Bank of New York and the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta both release nowcasts of GDP. They use different methodologies, so their forecasts are not identical. Today (March 3), the two estimates are surprisingly far apart. First, here is the nowcast from the NY Fed:
This nowcast indicates that real GDP will grow in the first quarter of 2025 at a 2.94 percent annual rate. That would be an increase from growth of 2.3 percent in the fourth quarter of 2024.
The nowcast from the Atlanta Fed—which they call GDPNow—is strikingly different:
The Atlanta Fed nowcast indicates that real GDP in the first quarter of 2025 will decline by 2.8 percent at an annual rate. If accurate, this forecast indicates that—far from the solid expansion in economic activity that the NY Fed is forecasting—the U.S. economy in the first quarter of 2025 will contract at the fastest rate since the first quarter of 2009, near the end of the severe 2007–2009 downturn (leaving aside the highly unusual declines in the first three quarters of 2020 during the Covid pandemic).
What explains such a large difference between these two forecasts? First, note that the Atlanta Fed includes in its graphic the range of forecasts from Blue Chip Indicators. These forecasts are collected from 50 or more economists who work in the private sector at banks, brokerages, manufacturers, and other firms. The graphic shows that the Blue Chip forecasters do not expect that the economy grew as much as the NY Fed’s nowcast indicates, but the forecasters do expect solid growth rate of 2 percent or more. So, the Atlanta Fed’s forecast appears to be an outlier.
Second, the NY Fed updates its nowcast only once per week, whereas the Atlanta Fed updates its forecast after the release of each data series that enters its model. So, the NY Fed nowcast was last updated on February 28, while the Atlanta Fed nowcast was updated today. Since February 28, the Atlanta Fed has incorporated into its nowcast data on the Institute for Supply Management (ISM) manufacturing index and data on construction spending from the Census Bureau. Incorporating these data resulted in the Atlanta Fed’s nowcast of first quarter real GDP growth declining from –1.5 percent on February 28 to –2.8 percent on March 3.
But incorporating more data explains only part of the discrepancy between the two forecasts because even as of February 28 the forecasts were far apart. The remaining discrepancy is due to the different methodologies employed by the economists at the two regional Feds in building their nowcasting models.
Which forecast is more accurate? We’ll get some indication on Friday (March 7) when the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) releases its “Employment Situation” report for February. Economists surveyed are expecting that the payroll survey will estimate that there was a net increase of 160,000 jobs in February, up from a net increase of 143,000 jobs in January. If that expectation is accurate, it would seem unlikely that production declined in the first quarter to the extent that the Atlanta Fed nowcast is indicating. But, as we discuss in this blog post from 2022, macro data can be unreliable at the beginning of a recession. If we are currently in a recession, then even an initial estimate of a solid net increase in jobs in February could later be revised sharply downward.
HubbardOBrienEconomics.com Blog 