Federal Reserve Press conference comparison — 29 October 2025 vs 18 March 2026

This Federal Reserve press conference comparison covers 29 October 2025 and 18 March 2026. Overall, the newer document was more dovish. Overall, the policy stance shifts subtly dovish on the rate path as the Fed moves from explicit pushback on near-term cuts to a neutral hold with acknowledgment that policy may already be at the high end of neutral. The next decision is likely unchanged, but the balance of risks leans toward eventual easing if labor market weakness persists.

What changed

More dovish. Overall, the policy stance shifts subtly dovish on the rate path as the Fed moves from explicit pushback on near-term cuts to a neutral hold with acknowledgment that policy may already be at the high end of neutral. The next decision is likely unchanged, but the balance of risks leans toward eventual easing if labor market weakness persists.

  • Inflation — Little changed. Both documents describe inflation as above target but driven by transitory factors; the current adds slightly more confidence in tariff disinflation but reaffirms commitment to 2%, resulting in no material shift.
  • Labour Market — Little changed. Both documents characterize the labor market as weak with near-zero adjusted job creation, and neither signals an acceleration of weakness or urgency, keeping the assessment unchanged.
  • Rate Path — More dovish. Prior document contained explicit pushback against a December cut and emphasized high uncertainty, while current adopts a neutral wait-and-see stance with limited urgency and some dovish undertones (policy reaction too late), marking a dovish shift.
  • Balance Sheet — Little changed. Prior document highlighted the end of runoff and a freeze on balance sheet size (dovish), while current document contains no balance sheet signals, implying no change in operational stance but reduced focus—net neutral.

Key wording

today the Federal Open Market Committee decided to lower our policy interest rate by ¼ percentage point.

rate path: 25bp cut, as expected, signals continued easing.

In the near term, risks to inflation are tilted to the upside and risks to employment to the downside—a challenging situation.

rate path: Highlights difficult trade-off with no risk-free path for policy.

A further reduction in the policy rate at the December meeting is not a foregone conclusion—far from it. Policy is not on a preset course.

rate path: Pushback against market pricing of consecutive cuts; December uncertain.

At today’s meeting, the Committee also decided to conclude the reduction of our aggregate securities holdings as of December 1.

balance sheet: Ending runoff earlier than some expected, supports liquidity.

a further reduction to the policy rate at the December meeting is not a foregone conclusion

rate path: Explicit pushback against market pricing of a December cut

they were strongly differing views

rate path: Highlights deep internal division on the committee

Today, the FOMC decided to leave our policy rate unchanged. We see the current stance of monetary policy as appropriate to promote progress toward our maximum-employment and 2 percent inflation goals.

rate path: No change, but language signals comfort with current stance.

The implications of developments in the Middle East for the U.S. economy are uncertain. We will remain attentive to risks to both sides of our dual mandate.

rate path: Acknowledges geopolitical uncertainty but no explicit policy lean.

The median participant projects that the appropriate level of the federal funds rate will be 3.4 percent at the end of this year and 3.1 percent at the end of next year, unchanged from December.

rate path: SEP dots unchanged despite higher inflation, suggesting limited near-term cuts.

I would say the rate is—you can characterize it as in the high end of neutral, or you can characterize it as perhaps mildly restrictive, even modestly restrictive.

rate path: Characterizing rates as 'high end of neutral' rather than clearly restrictive suggests limited urgency to cut.

We are balancing these two goals in a situation where the risks to the labor market are to the downside—which would call for lower rates—and the risks to inflation are to the upside—which would call for higher rates, or not cutting, anyway. So we’re in a difficult situation, and we feel like we’re—our framework calls on us to balance the risks, and we feel like where we are now, which is kind of on that borderline—the higher borderline of restrictive versus not restrictive, we feel like that’s the right place to be.

rate path: Highlights the dual risk trade-off; policy is on hold, but risks are balanced.

We’ll have to wait and see. I mean, we always say we’re going to learn more by the next meeting, and usually we do. But in this case, we’re going to learn a lot, because we’re going to learn—six weeks to the day until the next meeting.

rate path: Reinforces data-dependent wait-and-see stance; no precommitment to action at next meeting.

Official documents

Background reading

Related

29 October 2025 press conference · 18 March 2026 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.

Free. One email a day. Unsubscribe anytime.