It was a meeting that many on Wall Street had been watching with bated breath. On September 18, 2025, the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) gathered under the steady hand of Chair Jerome Powell, and what unfolded surprised more than a few market watchers. Instead of a fractured vote split by deep divisions—something some analysts had feared—the committee delivered an 11-1 decision to lower interest rates by a quarter point, a move that signaled both consensus and continuity at a moment of political and economic uncertainty.
Stephen Miran, the newest face at the table and a recent Trump appointee, was the lone dissenter. He advocated for a much steeper cut: a half-percentage-point reduction, and he wasn’t shy about pushing for even more aggressive action in the coming months. "I was the only supporter for a 50-basis-point cut," Miran acknowledged in an interview with CNBC. He explained, "I owed the world an accounting for why my views are so different." Miran, who was sworn in just an hour before his first FOMC meeting, said he plans to make his case in greater detail in the weeks and months ahead.
According to Bloomberg, former New York Fed President Bill Dudley watched the proceedings closely and concluded, "Powell is firmly in control" of the FOMC. Dudley noted that central bankers who had previously leaned toward keeping rates steady ultimately deferred to Powell’s judgment and agreed to the quarter-point cut. Governors Christopher Waller and Michelle Bowman, both Trump appointees who had dissented at the prior meeting, fell in line this time. Dudley praised their actions, writing, "Their actions demonstrate integrity, commitment to the Fed’s mission and the importance of sustaining the central bank’s independence."
For Powell, whose term as chair expires in May 2026, the meeting was a test of both leadership and principle. During his post-meeting remarks, Powell was asked whether a larger, half-point cut had been seriously considered. He answered flatly, "There wasn’t widespread support at all" for it. As for the timing of the rate cut—the first since December—Powell had no regrets, despite relentless pressure from President Trump, who has been vocal in his criticism of the Fed’s pace. "I think we were right to wait and see how tariffs and inflation and the labor market evolved," Powell said.
The debate over just how much to cut—and why—wasn’t merely academic. Miran’s argument for a bigger reduction was rooted in his view that the U.S. economy faces little inflation risk and that a "near neutral" rate is now appropriate. He pointed to factors like strict immigration policies, which he said are dampening demand for housing and would, in turn, help keep inflation in check. "I don’t see very significant tariff inflation...I see disinflation coming from border policies...I don’t see a reason for being so far from neutral at the moment," Miran told CNBC. He warned that keeping rates too restrictive for too long could result in "significant misses to the employment mandate."
Yet Miran’s views were clearly out of step with the FOMC’s prevailing consensus, which favors a gradual approach to rate cuts this year. Many on the committee remain concerned about a weakening job market, even as inflation—some of it linked to the Trump administration’s tariffs—remains above the Fed’s 2% target. In fresh projections published the same day, more than a third of Fed policymakers signaled that they don’t believe any further rate cuts are warranted this year.
Despite the policy debate, the meeting’s tone was, by all accounts, collegial. Miran himself described the experience as "extremely welcoming and extremely kind and extremely cordial." He added, "It was a very collegial environment, and I really appreciated that—and that includes Governor Cook." Minneapolis Fed President Neel Kashkari echoed this sentiment, telling CNBC that Miran’s arrival was "like any other transition where somebody comes in and everybody says 'hey, welcome to the table. We look forward to hearing your contributions.' And then everybody went about their business as normal." Kashkari summed up, "What was remarkable about this meeting was how unremarkable it was."
The broader context, however, is anything but ordinary. Political pressure on the Fed has been mounting, with President Trump not only pushing for lower rates but also attempting to fire Governor Lisa Cook. That effort has so far been blocked by two federal courts, with the administration’s request now pending before the Supreme Court. The specter of political interference looms large, and the Fed’s independence—a cornerstone of its credibility—has become a topic of public debate.
Both Powell and Miran addressed concerns about outside influence. Miran revealed that President Trump did call him the day before the FOMC meeting, but only to congratulate him on his new role. "I did not talk to him about how I would vote. I did not talk to him about my 'dots'"—a reference to the Fed’s table of rate and economic projections—Miran said. "I will do independent analysis based on my interpretation of the data, based on my interpretation of the economy, and that is all that I will do...He didn’t ask me to do any particular actions. I didn’t commit to doing any particular actions."
Powell, for his part, pushed back against suggestions that the Fed should formally adopt a third mandate—targeting moderate long-term rates—an idea Miran had recently raised. "We haven’t thought about that for a very long time as a third mandate that requires independent action," Powell said. "So that’s where that is. And there’s no thought, as far as I’m concerned, there’s no thought of considering that we somehow incorporate that in as something in a different way." Miran later clarified to CNBC that he was simply pointing out what’s in the law regarding the Fed’s three mandates.
Amid these debates, the Fed’s decision to lower its benchmark interest rate to the 4% to 4.25% range marked the first policy change since Trump’s return to office. San Francisco Fed President Mary Daly explained the rationale: "We took a 25 basis-point rate cut to try to support the labor market through the slowing that we’ve seen, and achieve both of our goals." The Fed’s legal mandate, after all, is to aim for maximum employment and stable prices.
Support for the Fed’s independence remains strong, at least for now. Kashkari pointed to the recent decline in the 10-year Treasury yield as evidence that "the public had faith in the Fed’s independence and ability to control inflation despite efforts by Trump to gain influence." He added, "There’s widespread appreciation for how important Fed independence is. I also think there’s a lot of confidence on both sides of the aisle that Fed independence...will be protected, and that the courts also see it that way...I think people are betting on the institutions of the country continuing to keep Fed independence, to keep it outside of the short-term political process."
As the dust settles from this latest FOMC meeting, it’s clear that Powell’s leadership, the committee’s consensus, and the ongoing debate over the Fed’s independence will remain central to the economic story in the months ahead. The next chapter, no doubt, will be just as closely watched.
