At the conclusion of every Federal Reserve monetary policy summit, Fed Chair Jerome Powell has a standard disclaimer during his post-meeting press conference: Future Fed policy decisions lack a predetermined course and will be dictated by forthcoming economic data.

But during his Oct. 29 presser — after the central bank prioritized economic stimulus by cutting the benchmark federal funds rates by 25 basis points for the second straight month — Powell offered a more forceful hedge than usual.

“A further reduction of the policy rate at the December meeting is not a foregone conclusion,” the Fed chair said. “In fact, far from it.”

Two members of the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) dissented in October. Stephen Miran, the newest economist on that rate-setting body, preferred a jumbo cut of 50 basis points. Jeffrey Schmid, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, voted for no rate cut at all.

In light of Powell’s headline comments, Schmid has now become the hawkish face of the Fed’s inflation-focused camp, arguing that heightened consumer prices, not the slowing U.S. jobs market, poses the greater risk to economic stability.

On Friday, Schmid elaborated on his rate decision in a formal dissent statement.

“By my assessment, the labor market is largely in balance, the economy shows continued momentum, and inflation remains too high,” Schmid stated.

He said inflation is “spreading across categories, both goods and services.” Among business contacts in his Kansas City district, “rising health care costs and insurance premiums are top of mind,” he noted.

In conclusion, Schmid argued that October’s quarter-point rate cut may have a detrimental impact on inflation while failing to address systemic labor market challenges.

“I do not think a 25-basis-point reduction in the policy rate will do much to address stresses in the labor market that more likely than not arise from structural changes in technology and demographics,” Schmid wrote. “However, a cut could have longer-lasting effects on inflation if the Fed’s commitment to its 2% inflation objective comes into question.”

Logan and Hammack join the chorus

Elsewhere in the Fed universe, regional Fed leaders Lorie Logan and Beth Hammack joined Schmid in publicly affirming their support for pausing rate cuts.

Logan and Hammack each serve as FOMC alternate members, meaning they did not have a vote at the October meeting. Both are set to become voting members in 2026.

But Logan, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, said during a Dallas Fed conference Friday that she “would have preferred to hold interest rates steady” in October.

“The labor market remains balanced and cooling slowly,” Logan said in prepared remarks. “Inflation remains too high, taxing the budgets of businesses and families, and appears likely to exceed the FOMC’s 2% target for too much longer. So I didn’t see this economic outlook as calling for cutting rates.”

Elaborating on the jobs market situation, Logan noted that both labor supply and demand are falling, “particularly due to changes in immigration policy and labor force participation.”

“Despite the drop in job growth,” Logan stated, “we’re not seeing a rapidly widening gap between the number of jobs available and the number of people who want work.”

Later in the conference, Hammack, who heads the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland, said during a “fireside chat” with Atlanta Fed President Raphel Bostic that she also would have preferred to hold rates steady.

Hammack said the Fed is being challenged on both sides of its dual mandate of promoting maximum employment and a 2% inflation goal. While acknowledging “emerging signs of softness in the labor market,” she said her greater concern is “inflation that is too high.”

“It’s about a percentage point above our target and has been there for a long period of time,” Hammack commented. “My projection is that it’s going to stay there probably for the better part of next year before it starts making its way back down to 2%.”

Bostic, who is scheduled to assume one of the FOMC’s rotating seats in 2027, said he initially was in favor of sticking to just one rate cut this year at the September Fed meeting, but he “eventually got behind” easing rates in October.

“I still think we’re in restrictive territory,” Bostic said, referring to a monetary policy strategy in which interest rates are kept higher than neutral to combat inflation.

Hammack gently disagreed, judging current policy to be “right around my estimate of neutral.”

“I do think we need to maintain some amount of restriction to help bring inflation down to target,” she said.

As of Friday afternoon, the futures market is divided on whether the Fed will ease interest rates again in December. Roughly 70% of fed funds futures traders think the central bank will ease by another 25 basis points at the December meeting, with the other 30% predicting a pause in rate cuts.