Federal Reserve Press conference comparison — 30 July 2025 vs 17 September 2025
This Federal Reserve press conference comparison covers 30 July 2025 and 17 September 2025. Overall, the newer document was more dovish. The September 2025 meeting marks a clear dovish pivot: the Fed cut rates by 25bp and acknowledged heightened labor market downside risks, while inflation remains elevated but is now a secondary concern. The updated dot plot and risk-balance language signal further easing is likely if labor conditions continue to soften.
What changed
More dovish. The September 2025 meeting marks a clear dovish pivot: the Fed cut rates by 25bp and acknowledged heightened labor market downside risks, while inflation remains elevated but is now a secondary concern. The updated dot plot and risk-balance language signal further easing is likely if labor conditions continue to soften.
- Inflation — Little changed. Inflation remains above target and recently accelerated, but the prior document's explicit hawkish warnings about persistent effects are not reinforced; the assessment is factually similar.
- Labour Market — More dovish. Prior language described labor market as solid and balanced; current language highlights a sharp slowdown in hiring and increased downside risks, signaling a clear dovish shift.
- Rate Path — More dovish. The prior document maintained a neutral-to-hawkish stance emphasizing patience and restrictive policy; the current document delivers a rate cut, lowers the dot plot, and explicitly shifts the balance of risks toward easing.
- Balance Sheet — Little changed. No balance sheet passages in prior document; current passage indicates gradual runoff slowdown without directional signal.
Key wording
today the Federal Open Market Committee decided to leave our policy interest rate unchanged. We believe that the current stance of monetary policy leaves us well positioned to respond in a timely way to potential economic developments.
In the labor market, conditions have remained solid. ... a wide set of indicators suggests that conditions in the labor market are broadly in balance and consistent with maximum employment.
A reasonable base case is that the effects on inflation could be short lived—reflecting a one-time shift in the price level. But it is also possible that the inflationary effects could instead be more persistent, and that is a risk to be assessed and managed.
today we decided to leave our policy rate where it’s been, which—where I would characterize as modestly restrictive. Inflation is running a bit above 2 percent, as I mentioned, even excluding tariff effects. The labor market’s solid—historically low unemployment. Financial conditions are accommodative, and the economy is not—the economy is not performing as though restrictive policy were holding it back inappropriately. So it seems to, to me and to almost the whole Committee that the economy is not performing as though restrictive policy is holding it back inappropriately, and modestly restrictive policy seems appropriate.
So, essentially, the statement in the—in the—in our statement about uncertainty reflects what’s gone on since the last meeting. So, at the time of the last meeting, uncertainty had, had, had moved down a little bit, but it was more or less even this time. So we took out, you know, “had diminished” because it didn’t diminish further.
No, I think we’re still—so you’re right, it’s been a very dynamic time for these trade negotiations, and lots and lots of events in the intermeeting period, but we’re still, you know, a ways away from seeing where things settle down.
today the Federal Open Market Committee decided to lower our policy interest rate by ¼ percentage point. ... the Committee decided to lower the target range for the federal funds rate by ¼ percentage point to 4 to 4¼ percent
Payroll job gains have slowed significantly to a pace of just 29,000 per month over the past three months. ... the downside risks to employment appear to have risen.
total PCE prices rose 2.7 percent over the 12 months ending in August and that, excluding the volatile food and energy categories, core PCE prices rose 2.9 percent. These readings are higher than earlier in the year, as inflation for goods has picked up.
In the near term, risks to inflation are tilted to the upside and risks to employment to the downside—a challenging situation. With downside risks to employment having increased, the balance of risks has shifted.
The median participant projects that the appropriate level of the federal funds rate will be 3.6 percent at the end of this year, 3.4 percent at the end of 2026, and 3.1 percent at the end of 2027. This path is ¼ percentage point lower than projected in June.
I think if you go back to April and now look at the revised job-creation numbers for May, June, July, and August, you can kind of—I can no longer say that. So what that means is that the risks, which—the risks were clearly tilted toward inflation. I would say they’re moving toward equality.
Official documents
Background reading
Related
30 July 2025 press conference · 17 September 2025 press conference · Earlier meeting · Later meeting · Previous comparison · Next comparison · Methodology
The Cadence Brief
The one number that moved central bank pricing — delivered each weekday morning.