The September 2026 FOMC Decision: Inflation, Energy Shock, Labor-Market Resilience and the Bayesian Credibility of the Warsh Federal Reserve
An Updated Assessment as of September 9, 2026
I. The Monetary-Policy Decision Has Entered a New Bayesian Regime
The Federal Open Market Committee enters its September 15–16, 2026 meeting under substantially different informational conditions from those prevailing when the earlier assessment was prepared on August 28. The central question is no longer simply whether the Federal Reserve can afford to wait for additional evidence. It is whether, given the evidence that has arrived since Jackson Hole, Chairman Kevin Warsh can maintain a decision to hold the federal funds target range at 3.50–3.75 percent without creating a credibility cost that may exceed the economic cost of a 25-basis-point increase.
The distinction is important. Monetary policy operates under uncertainty, and the Federal Reserve does not observe the underlying inflation process or the economy's supply capacity directly. Warsh emphasized precisely this epistemological problem in his August 28 Jackson Hole address. He argued that policymakers must distinguish underlying trends from isolated observations and explicitly warned against allowing financial markets to become overly dependent on Federal Reserve guidance. At the same time, however, he made unusually clear that inflation remained above the Federal Reserve's 2 percent objective and that price stability should be the institution's predominant concern. (Federal Reserve)
The information set has now changed in three consequential ways.
First, the labor market has demonstrated considerably more resilience than the July data suggested. Second, the geopolitical energy shock has intensified rather than dissipated, with Brent crude moving above $100 per barrel on September 9. Third, market expectations concerning monetary tightening have become increasingly sensitive to the interaction between those two developments and the inflation data scheduled for release immediately before the FOMC meeting.
The September decision should therefore be understood as a Bayesian updating problem in which the FOMC must distinguish three competing hypotheses: that inflation is continuing to converge toward target; that inflation has become temporarily elevated because of supply shocks; or that the underlying inflation process has become sufficiently persistent to require renewed monetary restraint.
The evidence available on September 9 has moved the posterior probability away from the first hypothesis and toward the latter two. The decisive question is whether the August CPI and September financial-market response, both arriving before the meeting, will determine which of those two alternatives dominates.
II. Warsh's Jackson Hole Framework Has Become a Constraint on His Own Reaction Function
The analytical significance of Warsh's August 28 speech has increased rather than diminished.
Warsh stated that the economy appeared stronger, that consumption and investment remained resilient, that credit conditions showed few signs of monetary restraint, and that he would be "hard pressed" to describe broad financial conditions as restrictive. He characterized the labor market as consistent with full employment. Most importantly, he argued that inflation was more concerning, with headline PCE inflation at 3.7 percent and six-month PCE inflation at 4.1 percent. He also noted that core inflation remained elevated and that the progress toward 2 percent over the preceding two years had been modest. (Federal Reserve)
This was not merely a description of the economy. It was a revelation of the chairman's policy preferences.
In signaling-game terms, Warsh effectively revealed a relatively high weight on inflation persistence and a relatively low marginal weight on a modest deterioration in employment. His statement that labor markets were consistent with full employment reduced the probability that he would tolerate additional inflation in order to insure against a hypothetical weakening of employment.
The August employment report subsequently strengthened the factual foundation of that position.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that nonfarm payroll employment increased by 162,000 in August, while the unemployment rate remained at 4.1 percent. More importantly for the interpretation of the earlier July weakness, June payroll growth was revised upward by 11,000 and July payroll growth was revised upward by 44,000. The combined June-July revision was therefore +55,000 relative to the previously published figures. Average hourly earnings increased 0.3 percent in August and were 3.1 percent higher than a year earlier. (Bureau of Labor Statistics)
The employment report therefore does not prove that the labor market has reaccelerated into a strong expansion. Its significance is subtler. It removes part of the evidentiary basis for arguing that monetary restraint should be postponed because employment has suddenly become the dominant downside risk.
That is particularly important because the July FOMC meeting itself revealed a divided Committee. Three voting members—Beth Hammack, Neel Kashkari and Lorie Logan—preferred a 25-basis-point increase at the July meeting, while the majority voted to maintain the existing range. (Federal Reserve)
The September meeting consequently begins from a more hawkish institutional baseline than a simple reading of the July decision would suggest.
III. The Labor Market: Stronger, but Not Necessarily Inflationary
The August payroll report should nevertheless not be overstated.
The 162,000 increase is a significant improvement over July's initially reported decline of 23,000, but one month of payroll growth does not establish a new trend. Warsh himself emphasized at Jackson Hole that trends matter more than isolated observations. (Federal Reserve)
The appropriate Bayesian interpretation is therefore asymmetric.
The August report substantially reduces the probability of an imminent employment crisis, but it does not establish that labor-market conditions are generating an acceleration in inflation. Wage growth of 3.1 percent remains moderate in historical and contemporary terms. The August report also showed relatively limited employment changes across many major industries rather than a generalized employment boom. (Bureau of Labor Statistics)
This distinction matters because a central bank should not raise rates merely because payroll growth exceeds expectations. The monetary-policy case for tightening depends on the interaction between labor-market resilience, aggregate demand, inflation persistence and inflation expectations.
The evidence nevertheless strengthens Warsh's argument that the employment side of the dual mandate does not presently require additional accommodation.
It therefore shifts the burden of proof.
Before the August employment release, a Warsh hold could plausibly be presented as a precaution against labor-market deterioration. After the report, that argument is substantially weaker. A hold now requires a different justification: that inflation will decline sufficiently without additional monetary restraint because the principal inflationary pressure is temporary and supply-driven.
That brings the analysis directly to energy.
IV. The Energy Shock Has Changed from a Background Risk into a Monetary-Policy Variable
The most consequential development since August 28 has been the renewed deterioration in Middle Eastern energy markets.
Brent crude rose above $100 per barrel on September 9 as U.S.-Iranian attacks on shipping intensified around the Strait of Hormuz. Reuters reported Brent at approximately $100.95, with WTI near $95.78. The latest escalation followed attacks on commercial and oil shipping and renewed disruption to energy flows through the Gulf. (Reuters)
This is economically different from a conventional one-month increase in gasoline prices.
The issue is no longer simply whether an oil-price shock produces a first-round increase in headline inflation. The more consequential question is whether the shock becomes persistent enough to influence transportation costs, producer prices, inflation expectations, wage-setting behavior and the pricing decisions of firms.
The July FOMC minutes provide an important benchmark. At that meeting, participants observed that inflation compensation had moved relatively little despite the earlier increase in oil prices. Near-term inflation compensation had declined notably after the June meeting and increased only marginally thereafter despite the sharp rise in oil prices. (Federal Reserve)
That evidence supported the interpretation that the oil shock could initially be treated as a relative-price disturbance rather than evidence of generalized inflationary de-anchoring.
But the September situation is more difficult.
The earlier oil shock did not simply disappear. Instead, the conflict has intensified, shipping disruptions have become more consequential, and Brent has once again crossed the psychologically important $100 threshold. Reuters reported that Gulf oil exports remain substantially below pre-conflict levels and that the market has become increasingly vulnerable because of impaired flows and limited spare capacity. (Reuters)
The Bayesian problem for the Fed is consequently one of duration.
A temporary oil-price spike can reasonably be looked through.
A persistent disruption to global energy supply cannot automatically be treated in the same way.
The distinction cannot be established from the price of oil alone. It requires evidence concerning the duration of the shock, inflation expectations, core prices and the transmission of energy costs into broader production and service prices.
V. The Inflation Data Now Carry Disproportionate Weight
The August CPI release, scheduled for September 11, has consequently become the pivotal observation in the September decision. The Bureau of Labor Statistics has scheduled the release for 8:30 a.m. Eastern time, five days before the FOMC decision. The August PPI will arrive one day earlier, on September 10. (Bureau of Labor Statistics)
This timing is extraordinary from the perspective of the Bayesian decision problem.
The Committee will receive two major inflation signals immediately before deliberation. The PPI will provide information about upstream price pressures, while the CPI will provide evidence about consumer prices, including the interaction between energy, shelter and core services.
The July PCE data already available to policymakers are not reassuring enough to remove the inflation problem. Headline PCE inflation was 3.7 percent year over year in July, while core PCE inflation was 3.3 percent. On a monthly basis, both headline and core PCE increased 0.2 percent. (Bureau of Economic Analysis)
These data explain why Warsh's Jackson Hole argument cannot be dismissed as simply rhetorical.
The Fed's preferred inflation measure remained substantially above the 2 percent objective. Moreover, Warsh's concern was not merely the level of inflation but the possibility that underlying inflation had become insufficiently responsive to previous monetary restraint. He noted that 54 percent of PCE components had increased more than 3 percent over the preceding year and 49 percent had done so on an annualized six-month basis. (Federal Reserve)
The September CPI therefore matters not because one monthly number can establish an inflation trend, but because it will update the probability that the apparent stabilization in inflation is genuine.
VI. The Central Analytical Question: First-Round Energy Shock or Second-Round Inflation?
The strongest case for a September hold remains intellectually defensible.
Suppose the August CPI shows relatively contained core inflation. Suppose PPI inflation does not signal a generalized acceleration in upstream prices. Suppose inflation expectations and market-based inflation compensation remain anchored. Under those circumstances, Warsh could argue that the energy shock is principally a relative-price adjustment and that monetary policy should not respond mechanically to an exogenous supply disturbance.
Such a decision would be consistent with his Jackson Hole insistence that the Fed should distinguish genuine trends from isolated observations.
But the burden of evidence has changed.
A hold becomes much easier to defend if the inflation data show that core prices remain contained and market expectations remain anchored. A hold becomes substantially harder to defend if core inflation accelerates at the same time that energy prices rise and employment proves resilient.
The critical Bayesian distinction is therefore not simply:
oil up versus oil down.
It is:
oil shock without generalized inflation versus oil shock accompanied by evidence of broader inflation persistence.
The second outcome would fundamentally alter the policy calculus.
VII. Financial Conditions Complicate the Case for a Hold
Warsh's argument about financial conditions adds another layer.
At Jackson Hole, he emphasized strong corporate earnings, rapid capital expenditure, elevated equity valuations, narrow credit spreads, strong credit issuance and relatively easy bank lending standards. He concluded that broad financial conditions were difficult to characterize as restrictive. (Federal Reserve)
Since then, the rise in oil prices has occurred alongside higher Treasury yields and renewed inflation concerns.
This creates a paradox.
Market yields can tighten financial conditions without necessarily representing a successful monetary-policy tightening by the Fed. If long-term yields rise because investors demand compensation for inflation, fiscal risk or geopolitical uncertainty, the resulting tightening is qualitatively different from a deliberate increase in the federal funds rate.
Warsh therefore faces a choice between allowing markets to perform part of the tightening through higher long-term yields or reinforcing the inflation signal through a 25-basis-point policy increase.
A hold could be defended on the argument that financial conditions have already tightened.
A hike could be defended on the counterargument that higher long-term yields caused by inflation risk are not a substitute for a credible monetary-policy response.
The distinction is important for the credibility of the new Warsh framework.
VIII. The Waller Counter-Signal Prevents a Simple Hawkish Interpretation
The September decision cannot be understood solely through Warsh's preferences.
Governor Christopher Waller has provided an important counter-signal. He has argued that recent inflation developments warrant caution and indicated that he could support holding rates steady if the forthcoming inflation data confirm continued disinflation. His position has contributed to considerable volatility in market expectations for the September meeting. (Axios)
This means the FOMC is not simply deciding whether to implement Warsh's preferred policy.
It is a collective decision in which the chairman must construct a coalition.
The July meeting demonstrated that the Committee already contains a meaningful hawkish minority. Three members preferred a hike then. Yet the majority held. (Federal Reserve)
The August employment report moves the center of gravity somewhat toward the hawkish side, while Waller's recent communications pull in the opposite direction.
The result is a genuine signaling game.
If Warsh hikes, he demonstrates that the Jackson Hole speech was a genuine revelation of his reaction function.
If he holds while simultaneously stressing inflation risks, he must persuade markets that the pause represents information-sensitive patience rather than retreat.
If he holds and adopts an explicitly dovish tone, he risks creating the largest discrepancy between his August communication and his September action.
IX. The Credibility Cost of a Hold Has Increased—but Has Not Become Prohibitive
Our original report's credibility argument should therefore be retained, but modified.
It is too strong to say that a hold would necessarily imply that Warsh's Jackson Hole rhetoric was "theater." A central banker can legitimately change his posterior beliefs when new information arrives. Indeed, Bayesian updating requires precisely that flexibility.
Nor should a decision to hold automatically be interpreted as evidence of political pressure.
The relevant question is whether the information received between August 28 and September 16 provides a sufficiently strong reason for Warsh to alter his stated reaction function.
At present, the answer depends overwhelmingly on the September inflation releases.
A weak core CPI result would provide Warsh with a legitimate Bayesian explanation for holding. It would allow him to say that the labor market has remained resilient but that the inflation process has not broadened sufficiently to justify additional restraint.
A strong CPI/PPI combination would do the opposite. It would make the August Jackson Hole diagnosis appear not merely plausible but increasingly binding.
In that circumstance, a hold would generate a larger credibility cost because the observable data would have moved in the same direction as Warsh's stated priorities.
This is the central signaling-game insight.
The credibility cost of a decision is endogenous to the policymaker's previous communication.
A chairman who has emphasized inflation risk has less freedom to ignore subsequent inflation evidence than a chairman who has emphasized employment risk.
X. Market Pricing Should Be Treated as a Signal, Not as a Probability of the Decision
This report should also be careful with CME FedWatch and prediction-market probabilities.
Market-implied probabilities are useful Bayesian signals, but they are not forecasts generated independently of the Fed's communication. They incorporate the very signals that Warsh has attempted to influence.
Following the August employment report, Reuters reported that futures implied approximately a 59 percent probability of a September hike. Subsequent comments from Waller reduced those expectations toward roughly 50 percent, while later developments in energy markets and inflation concerns pushed expectations back toward tightening. Reuters reported on September 9 that markets had begun pricing the possibility of two rate increases by March. (Reuters)
The correct interpretation is therefore not that "the market predicts a hike with probability X."
Rather, market pricing reveals the market's continuously updated estimate of the Fed's reaction function.
This is particularly important under Warsh because he has explicitly criticized excessive dependence on forward guidance and warned of a "hall-of-mirrors" problem in which markets rely on the Fed while the Fed relies on markets. (Federal Reserve)
The September meeting therefore presents Warsh with an institutional paradox: his desire to reduce forward guidance increases the informational value of the actual policy decision.
The less the Fed tells markets in advance, the more the policy decision itself becomes a signal about the chairman's underlying preferences.
XI. The September 11 CPI as the Bayesian Pivot
The August CPI should therefore be treated as the principal pivot rather than as simply another data release.
Three broad outcomes are analytically possible.
A benign core CPI outcome would preserve the hold option. In that case, Warsh could argue that headline energy inflation is largely supply-driven and that the underlying inflation trend has not materially deteriorated. The September decision could remain a hold, accompanied by a strong warning that future inflation deterioration would trigger action.
A moderately adverse CPI outcome would produce the most difficult decision. If headline inflation rises substantially because of energy while core inflation remains relatively stable, the Committee would have to decide how much weight to assign to the supply shock. This would probably favor a hold or an extremely narrow hawkish decision depending on inflation expectations and PPI evidence.
A clearly adverse core CPI/PPI combination would substantially strengthen the case for a 25-basis-point increase. It would indicate that the energy shock is beginning to interact with broader pricing behavior rather than remaining confined to a volatile component.
In that third scenario, the argument for waiting until October becomes increasingly weak.
The October employment report cannot arrive before the September decision, whereas the September Committee will already have unusually fresh information about prices.
XII. Updated Probability Distribution
As of September 9, the probability distribution should be revised from the August 28 assessment, but it should not be presented as mechanically equivalent to CME pricing.
The most defensible baseline is now a closely divided September decision with a modest hawkish tilt.
A 25-basis-point hike to 3.75–4.00 percent should be assigned approximately 55–60 percent probability before the September 10 PPI and September 11 CPI releases.
A hold at 3.50–3.75 percent accompanied by strongly hawkish communication and an explicit signal that October or December tightening remains possible should receive approximately 30–35 percent.
A genuinely dovish hold should receive approximately 10 percent or somewhat less, because it would require a combination of favorable inflation data and a convincing interpretation of the oil shock as temporary.
These probabilities should be understood as analytical priors, not as market prices.
The key point is that the probability of a hike has risen materially since August 28, but the increase is not yet decisive. Reuters' September 9 economist survey still found a majority expecting the Fed to hold rates through the remainder of 2026, even while reporting a growing number of forecasters expecting at least one hike. (Reuters)
This disagreement is itself informative.
It indicates that the economic evidence has not produced a dominant policy equilibrium.
XIII. The Most Probable Policy Equilibrium
The most likely equilibrium is therefore not simply "Warsh hikes."
It is a more nuanced equilibrium in which the FOMC chooses between two increasingly credible strategies.
Under the first strategy, the Committee raises the policy rate by 25 basis points and describes the move as insurance against persistent inflation rather than as the beginning of an aggressive tightening cycle.
Under the second strategy, the Committee holds the rate unchanged but delivers a strongly conditional message that further inflation deterioration would trigger an increase at the October or December meeting.
The latter would be a form of contingent tightening.
It would allow the Fed to avoid responding mechanically to an oil shock while preserving the credibility of its inflation objective.
The least plausible equilibrium is now a dovish hold accompanied by language suggesting that inflation risks are diminishing rapidly.
Such a communication would conflict with Warsh's August diagnosis, the July PCE data, the current energy shock and the resilience of the labor market.
XIV. The Deeper Economic Issue: Monetary Policy under Radical Supply Uncertainty
The September decision illustrates a broader problem that extends beyond the immediate rate-setting question.
The Federal Reserve is confronting an economy in which conventional demand-side indicators are unusually difficult to interpret because supply conditions have become endogenous to geopolitics.
Oil prices are no longer simply commodity-market variables. They incorporate military risk, shipping risk, sanctions, spare capacity, strategic inventories and the probability distribution surrounding the future of the Strait of Hormuz.
This creates a monetary-policy environment in which the central bank cannot observe a stable supply curve.
Warsh's Jackson Hole emphasis on uncertainty is therefore particularly relevant. He argued that policymakers observe economic activity but must infer the underlying supply conditions. (Federal Reserve)
The September decision may consequently become an early test of whether the Warsh Federal Reserve can operationalize its stated philosophy.
A central bank committed to avoiding overreaction should not respond mechanically to every oil-price movement.
But a central bank committed to price stability cannot assume that every oil shock is temporary.
The difficult task is to determine when a supply shock has acquired persistence through expectations and private-sector behavior.
That is precisely where Bayesian reasoning becomes useful.
XV. Strategic Interpretation
The September meeting should therefore not be reduced to the question of whether the Fed is "hawkish" or "dovish."
The deeper issue is whether the new chairman can establish a credible reaction function without adopting a mechanical rule.
Warsh has explicitly rejected excessive dependence on forward guidance. He has emphasized real-time information, trends rather than isolated observations, and institutional humility. (Federal Reserve)
The September decision will test all three propositions.
If the Fed hikes after the employment and inflation evidence strengthen, Warsh demonstrates consistency between revealed preference and action.
If it holds after a benign CPI, he demonstrates that his anti-mechanical approach is genuine: the chairman can acknowledge an inflation risk without automatically tightening in response to a supply shock.
If it holds despite a strong core inflation reading, however, the decision becomes much harder to reconcile with his Jackson Hole framework.
That would not automatically destroy credibility. But it would force markets to reconsider the weight they should place on future Warsh communications.
The credibility issue is therefore conditional, not predetermined.
XVI. Conclusion: The September Decision Has Become a Test of Bayesian Discipline
As of September 9, the evidence has moved materially against the easiest version of the case for patience.
The labor market has proved more resilient than the July data implied. August payrolls rose 162,000, unemployment remained at 4.1 percent, and previous months were revised upward by 55,000. Wage growth remains moderate, preventing the employment report from becoming an unambiguously inflationary signal, but it removes much of the immediate employment-based justification for waiting. (Bureau of Labor Statistics)
At the same time, the energy shock has intensified. Brent crude has returned above $100 as the conflict around the Strait of Hormuz has escalated, increasing the probability that energy inflation will persist long enough to affect broader price formation. (Reuters)
Inflation itself remains substantially above target. July headline PCE inflation was 3.7 percent and core PCE inflation 3.3 percent. (Bureau of Economic Analysis)
The result is a narrowing Bayesian corridor for a September hold.
A hold remains economically defensible if the September inflation data show that underlying inflation remains contained and expectations remain anchored. It would then be possible for Warsh to characterize the oil shock as a supply disturbance that monetary policy should look through.
But if the August CPI and PPI reveal renewed broad-based inflation pressure, the logic changes.
At that point, the September decision becomes less about whether a 25-basis-point increase can materially lower oil prices and more about whether the Federal Reserve will prevent an externally generated price shock from becoming internally generated inflation persistence.
That is the fundamental monetary-policy dilemma.
The September FOMC meeting is therefore likely to become an early defining test of the Warsh Federal Reserve.
The issue is not simply whether Kevin Warsh raises rates.
It is whether he can demonstrate that his new doctrine of data dependence, skepticism toward mechanical forward guidance and recognition of radical uncertainty is compatible with a credible commitment to price stability.
The answer will depend disproportionately on the information arriving between September 10 and September 11.
Until those releases are available, the appropriate conclusion is that a 25-basis-point hike has become the modal outcome, but not yet an inevitable one.
The decisive Bayesian question is whether the September inflation evidence validates Warsh's Jackson Hole diagnosis that underlying inflation remains insufficiently improved—or instead provides him with the evidentiary basis for looking through the energy shock and waiting.
References
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. Keynote Remarks by Chairman Kevin Warsh at the 2026 Jackson Hole Economic Policy Symposium: “In Our Time.” August 28, 2026. (Federal Reserve)
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. Minutes of the Federal Open Market Committee, July 28–29, 2026. August 19, 2026. (Federal Reserve)
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. FOMC Meeting Calendar, 2026. (Federal Reserve)
U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. Personal Income and Outlays, July 2026. August 26, 2026. (Bureau of Economic Analysis)
U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. Personal Consumption Expenditures Price Index. July 2026 data. (Bureau of Economic Analysis)
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. The Employment Situation—August 2026. September 4, 2026. (Bureau of Labor Statistics)
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Schedule of Selected Releases for September 2026. (Bureau of Labor Statistics)
Reuters. Strong August jobs report sends yields higher. September 4, 2026. (Reuters)
Reuters. UBS forecasts two US Fed rate hikes in 2026 after strong jobs report. September 7, 2026. (Reuters)
Reuters. Fed to hold rates steady in rest of 2026; rising number of analysts see at least one hike. September 9, 2026. (Reuters)
Reuters. Brent crude oil rises above $100 a barrel as Middle East conflict intensifies. September 9, 2026. (Reuters)
Reuters. Iran and US hit tankers in biggest wave of attacks on shipping since war began. September 9, 2026. (Reuters)
Reuters. Oil pushes past $100 as wave of US-Iran attacks exposes dwindling safety net. September 9, 2026. (Reuters)
Reuters. The Gulf of uncertainty. September 9, 2026. (Reuters)
No comments:
Post a Comment