Fed 98% Likely To Leave Key Rate Intact After Latest Meeting Minutes
Tierney L. Cross/Bloomberg
Federal Reserve officials are 98% likely to leave the benchmark federal funds rate unchanged at their next meeting in June after the central bank's latest monetary policy meeting minutes depicted economic conditions as highly uncertain.
There is a 97.8% chance that Fed policymakers will decide to keep the target range for the fed funds rate, which has significant implications for broader borrowing costs, intact at their next policy meeting on June 18, according to data provided by the CME FedWatch Tool following the release of the latest policy minutes.
The graphic below provides a screenshot of the aforementioned tool taken close to 8 p.m. EST:
This tool shows the likelihood that Fed officials will keep the benchmark rate unchanged at their ... More next policy meeting.
Such policy decisions can have implications for a wide range of risk assets like cryptocurrencies and stocks. Many of these assets do not make regular payments, and as long as the benchmark rate stays high, it will place upward pressure on the yields paid by many fixed-income financial instruments.
This set of circumstances could potentially reduce demand for the aforementioned risk assets.
The minutes of the central bank's latest policy meeting, which involved members of both the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Federal Open Market Committee, emphasized that the financial institution's officials might encounter challenging circumstances that could complicate their ability to make policy decisions.
'Participants noted that the Committee might face difficult tradeoffs if inflation proves to be more persistent while the outlooks for growth and employment weaken,' the minutes stated. 'Participants observed, however, that the ultimate extent of changes to government policy and their effects on the economy was highly uncertain.'
At the same time, the policymakers did speak to strength in the job market, stating that 'Participants further noted that the unemployment rate had stabilized at a low level and that labor market conditions had remained solid in recent months.'
'In this context, and amid a further increase in uncertainty about the economic outlook and a rise in the risks of both higher unemployment and higher inflation, all participants viewed it as appropriate to maintain the target range for the federal funds rate at 4-1/4 to 4-1/2 percent,' the minutes continued.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fox News
17 minutes ago
- Fox News
JONATHAN TURLEY: Democrats' rabid anti-ICE resistance in LA against Trump could backfire
California Gov. Gavin Newsom was in his element over the weekend. After scenes of burning cars and attacks on ICE personnel, Newsom declared that this was all "an illegal act, an immoral act, an unconstitutional act." No, he was not speaking of the attacks on law enforcement or property. He was referring to President Donald Trump's call to deploy the National Guard to protect federal officers. Newsom is planning to challenge the deployment as cities like Glendale are cancelling contracts to house detainees and reaffirming that local police will not assist the federal government. Trump has the authority under Section 12406 of Title 10 of the U.S. Code to deploy the National Guard if the governor is "unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States." The administration is saying that that is precisely what is unfolding in California, where mobs have attacked vehicles and trapped federal personnel. Most critics are challenging the deployment on policy grounds, arguing that it is an unnecessary escalation. However, even critics like Berkeley Law Dean Erwin have admitted that "Unfortunately, President Trump likely has the legal authority to do this." There is a fair debate over whether this is needed at this time, but the president is allowed to reach a different conclusion. Trump wants the violence to end now as opposed to escalating as it did in the Rodney King riots or the later riots after George Floyd's death, causing billions in property damage and many deaths. Courts will be asked to halt the order because it did not technically go through Newsom to formally call out the National Guard. Section 12406 grants Trump the authority to call out the Guard and employs a mandatory term for governors, who "shall" issue the president's order. In the memo, Trump also instructed federal officials "to coordinate with the Governors of the States and the National Guard Bureau." Newsom is clearly refusing to issue the orders or coordinate the deployment. Even if such challenges are successful, Trump can clearly flood the zone with federal authority. Indeed, the obstruction could escalate the matter further, prompting Trump to consider using the Insurrection Act, which would allow troops to participate directly in civilian law enforcement. In 1958, President Eisenhower used the Insurrection Act to deploy troops to Arkansas to enforce the Supreme Court's orders ending racial segregation in schools. The Trump administration has already claimed that these riots "constitute a form of rebellion against the authority of the government of the United States." In support of such a claim, the administration could cite many of the Democratic leaders now denouncing the claim. After January 6th, liberal politicians and professors insisted that the riot was an "insurrection" and claimed that Trump and dozens of Republicans could be removed from ballots under the 14th Amendment. Liberal professors insisted that Trump's use of the word "fight" on January 6th and his questioning of the results of an election did qualify as an insurrection. They argued that you merely need to show "an assemblage of people" who are "resisting the law" and "using force or intimidation" for "a public purpose." The involvement of inciteful language from politicians only reinforced these claims. Sound familiar? Democrats are using this order to deflect from their own escalation of the tensions over the past several months. From Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz calling ICE officers "Gestapo" to others calling them "fascists" and "Nazis," Democratic leaders have been ignoring objections that they are fueling the violent and criminal responses. It did not matter. It was viewed as good politics. While Newsom and figures like New Jersey Democrat Sen. Cory Booker have called these "peaceful" protests, we have also seen rocks, and Molotov cocktails thrown at police as vehicles were torched. Police have had to use tear gas, "flash bang" grenades, and rubber bullets to quell these "peaceful" protesters. There appears little interest in deescalation on either side. For the Trump administration, images of rioters riding in celebration around burning cars with Mexican flags are only likely to reinforce the support of the majority of Americans for the enforcement of immigration laws. For Democrats, they have gone "all in" on opposing ICE and these enforcement operations despite support from roughly 30 percent of the public. Some Democrats are now playing directly to the mob. A Los Angeles City Council member, Eunisses Hernandez, reportedly urged anti-law enforcement protesters to "escalate" their tactics against ICE officers: "They know how quickly we mobilize, that's why they're changing tactics. Because community defense works and our resistance has slowed them down before… and if they're escalating their tactics, then so are we. When they show up, we gotta show up even stronger." So, L.A. officials are maintaining the sanctuary status of the city, barring the cooperation of local police, and calling on citizens to escalate their resistance after a weekend of violent attacks. Others have posted the locations of ICE facilities to allow better tracking of operations, while cities like Glendale are closing facilities. In Washington, House Speaker Hakim Jeffries has pledged to unmask the identities of individual ICE officers who have been covering their faces to protect themselves and their families from growing threats. While Democrats have not succeeded in making a convincing political case for opposing immigration enforcement, they may be making a stronger case for federal deployment in increasingly hostile blue cities.
CNN
21 minutes ago
- CNN
Los Angeles mayor blames immigration raids for violence
The situation in Los Angeles has calmed down after protesters clashed with police over the weekend. CNN witnessed police using flash-bangs and tear gas to disperse crowds, with some hitting protesters, as well as protesters setting self-driving cars on fire. The city's mayor, Karen Bass, says she blames federal immigration raids for the escalating tensions.
New York Times
21 minutes ago
- New York Times
Mayor Bass of Los Angeles Blames Immigration Raids for Inflaming Tensions
Mayor Karen Bass of Los Angeles said on Monday that the Trump administration and its immigration raids were to blame for inflaming tensions in the city. In a televised interview, Ms. Bass sought to downplay the protests of the last few days. 'This is not citywide civil unrest,' she said on CNN. 'A few streets downtown, it looks horrible.' She noted that most Angelenos have been living life as normal, away from the clashes focused in a relatively small area outside a federal office building and detention center downtown. She promised that protesters who destroyed cars and threw things at police officers would be prosecuted, and said that the police were combing through video images of the clashes to identify people who had committed crimes. Ms. Bass said that it was President Trump and his federal immigration authorities who had provoked the unrest by sending federal agents in tactical gear to workplaces in the city to detain and deport immigrants. 'Why were there raids?' she asked. 'We had been told that he was going to go after violent criminals. It wasn't a drug den; it was a Home Depot.' Ms. Bass was referring to one of several immigration raids conducted on Friday that prompted days of protest, including at a Home Depot in the nearby city of Paramount, Calif., where day laborers regularly gather in search of work. She said it appeared that the Trump administration was deliberately trying to sow chaos in the city, and then generating more backlash by sending in National Guard troops. 'What was the reason that the president had to take the power from the governor and federalize the National Guard?' she asked. 'The night before this action was taken, there was a protest that got a little unruly, late at night. It was 100 people. Twenty-seven people were arrested. There wasn't a reason for this.'
