Connect with us

Analysis

The Homeland Security Funding Crisis: How Two Deaths in Minneapolis Sparked America’s Latest Government Shutdown

Published

on

A standoff over immigration reform leaves critical agencies unfunded as the political fallout from fatal shootings in Minnesota reverberates through Washington

At 12:01 a.m. on Saturday, the Department of Homeland Security became the latest casualty in America’s increasingly dysfunctional budget process—but this shutdown tells a story that extends far beyond partisan gridlock. It’s a reckoning over the limits of federal power, the price of aggressive immigration enforcement, and what happens when smartphone videos collide with official narratives in the social media age.

The immediate trigger: Two fatal shootings in Minneapolis that transformed a routine funding debate into an existential battle over how the United States polices its borders—and its own citizens.

Renée Good, a 37-year-old mother of three, was shot dead by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent on January 7. Seventeen days later, Alex Pretti, an intensive care nurse at a Veterans Affairs hospital, was killed by Border Patrol agents while filming their operations with his smartphone. Both were U.S. citizens. Both incidents were captured on video. And both contradicted the federal government’s initial explanations.

Now, as DHS’s baseline funding expires, Senate Democrats have drawn a line: no more money for Homeland Security without binding reforms to immigration enforcement operations. Republicans, meanwhile, argue that Democrats are weaponizing the appropriations process to hobble President Trump’s signature immigration agenda.

The result is a partial government shutdown affecting one of America’s largest federal departments—but with a peculiar twist that reveals both the dysfunction and the strategic calculations at play.

The Shutdown That Isn’t: Understanding DHS’s Funding Paradox

Unlike the record-breaking 43-day government shutdown that paralyzed Washington from October through mid-November 2025, this impasse affects only the Department of Homeland Security. The other eleven appropriations bills funding the rest of the federal government sailed through Congress at the end of January.

But even calling it a “DHS shutdown” overstates the impact on the administration’s most controversial operations. Thanks to last summer’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA)—a sweeping Republican reconciliation package—ICE and Customs and Border Protection have already secured $165 billion in multi-year funding. That includes $75 billion specifically for ICE and $65 billion for CBP, enough to carry Trump’s mass deportation campaign through the end of his term.

As House Appropriations Chairman Tom Cole, an Oklahoma Republican, bluntly put it: “The things they want to shut down aren’t going to shut down. ICE is fully funded. The Border Patrol is fully funded.”

So who actually suffers from a DHS funding lapse? Not immigration agents conducting raids. Instead, it’s the 95% of Transportation Security Administration officers who must work without pay at airport security checkpoints. It’s the 56,000 Coast Guard personnel—the only armed force housed within DHS—who will continue drug interdiction and search-and-rescue missions while their paychecks stop. It’s FEMA workers attempting to coordinate disaster relief while furloughed or unpaid.

According to DHS’s contingency plan, approximately 92% of the department’s 272,000 employees are deemed “essential” and must report to work. Only 8% will be furloughed. The irony is stark: The shutdown punishes agencies that have nothing to do with the Minneapolis killings while leaving immigration enforcement essentially untouched.

The Minneapolis Crucible: How Bystander Videos Became Political Weapons

The path to this shutdown began with Operation Metro Surge, the Trump administration’s massive immigration enforcement operation that deployed 2,000 federal agents to the Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolitan area in early January. The scale was unprecedented—the largest single-city immigration sweep in U.S. history—and the tactics quickly drew scrutiny.

Masked agents conducting what Minneapolis residents described as paramilitary-style raids. Reports of intimidation, racial profiling, and disproportionate force. Then, on January 7, came the first death.

Renée Good was sitting in her SUV, stopped sideways in the street, when ICE agent Jonathan Ross circled her vehicle on foot. After other agents approached and ordered her out while reaching through her window, Good briefly reversed, then began moving forward—away from Ross, according to bystander video. Ross, standing at the front-left of the vehicle, fired three shots as her car turned away from him, killing her.

Federal officials immediately claimed Ross acted in self-defense, that Good had weaponized her vehicle to run him over, and that the agent was hospitalized with serious injuries. Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey, having reviewed the bystander footage, offered a different assessment: “Having seen the video myself, I want to tell everybody directly that is bullshit. To ICE, get the fuck out of Minneapolis.”

The video went viral. A Quinnipiac poll found 82% of registered voters had seen footage of Good’s shooting by mid-January—an extraordinary level of public awareness that turned a local tragedy into a national flashpoint.

Then came Alex Pretti.

On January 24, the 37-year-old nurse was filming Border Patrol agents in the Whittier neighborhood when he witnessed an agent shove a woman to the ground. Pretti stepped between them. The agent pepper-sprayed both Pretti and the woman, then multiple agents wrestled Pretti to the ground. One removed Pretti’s legally carried firearm from his holster. Then, as Pretti lay on the ground surrounded by at least six agents, two officers—later identified by ProPublica as Jesus Ochoa and Raymundo Gutierrez—fired at least ten shots, killing him.

Within hours, DHS Secretary Kristi Noem called Pretti a “domestic terrorist.” White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller labeled him a “would-be assassin” who intended to “massacre” officers. The official statement claimed Pretti had “approached US Border Patrol officers with a 9mm semi-automatic handgun” and “violently resisted” attempts to disarm him.

Multiple bystander videos told a different story. They showed Pretti filming with his phone—not wielding a weapon. They showed an agent disarming him before he was shot. They showed, as NPR carefully documented, a narrative that “contradict[ed] the accounts of federal officials.”

“Once again DHS has come out with a predetermined narrative that contradicts everything we saw with our own eyes,” said Minnesota Representative Kelly Morrison, a Democrat. “Two 37-year-old Minnesotans are now dead, a poet and a nurse, for what?”

Democrats’ Demands: Ten Reforms That Became a Funding Firewall

The killings galvanized Senate Democrats in a way that previous immigration controversies had not. On February 4, party leaders released a formal list of ten demands that would need to be “cemented into law” before they would vote to fund DHS:

Key Democratic Reform Proposals:

  • Ban ICE and CBP agents from wearing masks to conceal their identities during operations
  • Mandate body cameras for all immigration enforcement agents in the field
  • Prohibit roving patrols and warrantless searches
  • End immigration enforcement in “sensitive locations” including schools, churches, and hospitals
  • Strengthen use-of-force policies and de-escalation training
  • Ban racial profiling in immigration operations
  • Increase transparency and public accountability for officer-involved shootings
  • Allow state and local law enforcement access to crime scenes involving federal agents
  • Provide congressional oversight of DHS’s internal investigations
  • Ensure cooperation with state prosecutors investigating federal agents

Some reforms, like body cameras, have attracted bipartisan support. Trump himself sent border czar Tom Homan to replace the Minneapolis Border Patrol commander, and DHS announced it was acquiring body cameras—meeting one Democratic demand without legislation.

But Republicans have balked at most other changes, particularly the mask prohibition. They argue that allowing agents to be filmed and identified puts them at risk of harassment, doxing, and targeted violence from immigration advocates and criminal organizations. Some Republicans have countered with their own demands, including measures to crack down on so-called sanctuary cities that limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement.

The fundamental impasse, however, is philosophical: Democrats see federal agents operating with insufficient oversight and accountability. Republicans see attempts to handcuff law enforcement during a crisis they believe requires maximum operational flexibility.

The Economic Ripple Effects: From Airport Delays to Disaster Response

While ICE operations continue unimpeded, the shutdown’s collateral damage is already materializing across sectors that have nothing to do with immigration.

Transportation Security and Travel Industry Impact

TSA acting administrator Ha Nguyen McNeill warned that forcing 95% of the agency’s screeners to work without pay creates “a cascading negative impact on the American economy.” History supports her concern: During the October-November shutdown, approximately 1,100 TSA officers quit—a 25% increase over the same period in 2024. As the current shutdown extends, similar attrition is expected.

Higher callout rates due to financial stress typically force TSA to close security lanes, extending wait times and causing flight delays or cancellations. The timing could prove particularly problematic: February’s light travel season offers some buffer, but spring break traffic begins in March. Major events like the World Cup and America’s 250th anniversary celebrations later this year will place extraordinary demands on an already strained system.

Fortunately, air traffic controllers work for the Federal Aviation Administration under the Department of Transportation, which has full-year funding, so basic flight operations remain unaffected.

Coast Guard Operations Under Strain

Vice Admiral Thomas Allan, the Coast Guard’s acting vice commandant, testified that the service would “suspend all missions except those for national security or the protection of life and property.” While law enforcement, national defense, and emergency response continue, training, maintenance, and long-term capability development cease.

All 56,000 active duty, reserve, and civilian Coast Guard personnel face working without pay—a particularly acute problem for enlisted sailors who often live paycheck to paycheck. During the previous shutdown, some Coast Guard families relied on food banks. The service, often called “America’s forgotten military branch,” finds itself once again bearing the cost of political dysfunction that has nothing to do with its mission.

FEMA and Disaster Preparedness

Gregg Phillips, associate administrator of FEMA’s Office of Response and Recovery, warned Congress that furloughing many FEMA workers would hamper the agency’s ability to “coordinate effectively with state, local, tribal, and territorial partners.” He called the prospect of crippling FEMA’s operations “[coming] at the expense of the American people.”

FEMA’s Disaster Relief Fund currently holds roughly $7 billion from prior appropriations, enough to respond to immediate emergencies. But if the shutdown extends beyond a month, or if a catastrophic disaster strikes, the agency’s capacity could be severely compromised. With hurricane season approaching and the agency still processing a backlog of claims from 2025’s devastating storms, the timing could hardly be worse.

Cybersecurity in the Crosshairs

Perhaps most concerning from a national security perspective: The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) will largely suspend operations. CISA helps state and local governments monitor their networks and defend against cyber threats—work that becomes especially critical as foreign adversaries probe American infrastructure and the 2026 midterm elections approach.

“When the government shuts down, our adversaries do not,” CISA leader Madhu Gottumukkala testified. Only functions essential for immediate safety—like 24/7 operation centers monitoring for imminent threats—continue. Threat assessments, security training, stakeholder engagement, and special event planning all cease.

The Political Calculus: What Each Side Stands to Gain or Lose

This shutdown represents a fundamental shift in how Democrats approach immigration politics. For years, the party largely avoided confrontations over immigration enforcement, wary of appearing soft on border security. The Minneapolis killings changed that calculation.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has framed the standoff as a moral imperative rather than a political gamble. “Our caucus is passionate about this,” he told reporters. “If you sat in on our caucus meetings, you’d see how strongly people feel.”

Public opinion polling suggests Democrats may have chosen their battle wisely. The Quinnipiac survey showing 82% awareness of Good’s shooting indicates unprecedented public engagement with immigration enforcement tactics. Multiple polls show majority support for body cameras and increased oversight—though opinions diverge sharply along partisan lines when questions reference Trump or ICE specifically.

For Republicans, the political optics are complicated. They can credibly argue that Democrats are holding disaster relief and airport security hostage over immigration disputes. “What they’re doing is hurting TSA agents, hurting air traffic controllers that would get a pay raise, keeping men and women from the Coast Guard from getting paid, making sure we can’t fully fund FEMA,” Chairman Cole said.

But Republicans also face pressure from their base to resist any constraints on Trump’s immigration agenda. The former president has made mass deportation central to his political identity, and any perceived retreat risks intraparty backlash.

The Trump administration has walked a careful line. In a memo directing DHS to execute shutdown plans, Office of Management and Budget Director Russ Vought emphasized that the administration “is currently engaged in good faith negotiations with Congress to address recently raised concerns.” Trump himself has been characteristically ambiguous, saying Democrats have “gone crazy” while acknowledging “we’re talking.”

What Comes Next: Three Scenarios for Resolution

As Congress remains out of session until at least February 23—with members instructed to remain available if a deal emerges—three potential paths forward have taken shape:

Scenario 1: Comprehensive Reform Deal Senate Republicans and Democrats reach agreement on a subset of reforms—likely body cameras, enhanced training, and limited restrictions on sensitive location enforcement—in exchange for Democratic votes for full-year DHS funding. This would require both sides to claim partial victory while accepting significant compromises. Probability: Moderate, but would likely take weeks to negotiate details.

Scenario 2: Split Appropriations Some Democrats, including Connecticut Representative Rosa DeLauro, have suggested separating non-immigration agencies like TSA, FEMA, and the Coast Guard into their own funding bill, allowing those to pass while keeping ICE and CBP under continuing resolution pending reform negotiations. Republicans have strongly resisted this approach, viewing it as an attempt to defund immigration enforcement through the back door. Probability: Low unless public pressure over TSA disruptions becomes overwhelming.

Scenario 3: Short-Term Extension with Promises Republicans offer a brief continuing resolution (two to four weeks) with non-binding commitments to implement some reforms administratively, betting that Democrats will eventually accept a face-saving compromise rather than prolonged shutdown. Democrats blocked a two-week extension on February 13, but might accept a longer period with stronger commitments as public pressure mounts. Probability: Increasing if the shutdown extends past ten days.

The wild card: public reaction to travel disruptions. If spring break travelers face significant delays due to TSA understaffing, or if a major disaster strikes requiring robust FEMA response, political pressure for resolution will intensify dramatically. Conversely, if February’s light travel season passes without major disruption, both sides may feel emboldened to hold firm.

The Broader Context: Shutdowns as the New Normal

This marks the third partial or full government shutdown in the past six months—a frequency unprecedented in modern American governance. The October-November 2025 impasse lasted 43 days, setting a new record. A four-day partial shutdown earlier in February preceded this one.

Budget analysts warn that treating shutdowns as routine political tools carries serious long-term costs beyond immediate disruptions. Federal agencies lose institutional knowledge as experienced employees flee to private sector stability. Contractors cancel projects, unable to sustain uncertainty. America’s credit rating faces pressure when global markets question whether the government can perform basic functions like funding itself.

The peculiar structure of this shutdown—where immigration enforcement continues while seemingly unrelated agencies suffer—underscores how America’s appropriations process has become decoupled from rational policymaking. The OBBBA’s multi-year funding for ICE and CBP was designed to insulate Trump’s immigration agenda from exactly this kind of congressional leverage. But Democrats have discovered they can still inflict political pain, even if they cannot directly defund the operations they oppose.

The Human Cost Beyond Politics

Lost in the strategic maneuvering are the human consequences radiating from Minneapolis to Washington and back.

In Minnesota, the families of Renée Good and Alex Pretti continue seeking answers and accountability while federal investigators maintain control of evidence and refuse to cooperate with state authorities. Despite court orders to preserve evidence, tensions between federal and local law enforcement have reached crisis levels. Governor Tim Walz has called the federal government’s handling of investigations—including “closing the crime scene, sweeping away the evidence, defying a court order”—an “inflection point in America.”

In Washington, hundreds of thousands of federal workers face the prospect of working without pay for an indeterminate period. Coast Guard families who barely recovered from the last shutdown’s financial strain brace for another round of uncertainty. TSA screeners who received $10,000 bonuses after the previous shutdown wonder if they’ll qualify again—or if political will for such compensation has evaporated.

And across America, travelers, disaster victims, and citizens relying on government services navigate the consequences of a political system increasingly unable to perform its most basic function: funding the government.

Looking Ahead: What This Means for American Governance

The DHS shutdown crystallizes several troubling trends in American politics:

The Fragmentation of Appropriations: By funding some agencies but not others, Congress has created a tiered system where political priorities determine which parts of government function. This sets dangerous precedents for future battles.

Smartphones as Accountability Tools: The ubiquity of video recording has fundamentally altered the power dynamic between armed federal agents and the public. When official narratives contradict viral footage, trust in institutions erodes—but transparency also becomes harder to avoid.

The Weaponization of Funding: Both parties now view government funding as leverage for unrelated policy goals. This transformation of appropriations from technocratic necessity to political hostage-taking undermines governance itself.

Midterm Election Preview: The issues at stake—immigration enforcement, federal overreach, public safety, accountability—will dominate the November 2026 midterms. How voters respond to the Minneapolis killings and this shutdown will shape campaigns nationwide.

As Senate Majority Leader John Thune acknowledged when dismissing colleagues for recess, the situation remains fluid: “I have let people know to be available to get back here if there’s some sort of deal they strike to vote on it.”

Until then, America watches another chapter unfold in the ongoing crisis of governability—where two deaths in Minneapolis have exposed the fault lines not just of immigration policy, but of democracy itself when institutions lose the capacity to resolve disputes through deliberation rather than dysfunction.


Stay Informed

As this situation continues to develop, the impacts on travel, disaster response, and national security will become clearer. For updates on DHS funding negotiations, congressional actions, and practical information about how the shutdown affects government services, follow our continuing coverage.

The resolution of this crisis—whether through comprehensive reform, political compromise, or public pressure—will set precedents that extend far beyond homeland security funding. At stake is nothing less than the question of how America balances enforcement power with accountability, and whether its political system retains the capacity to govern during moments of genuine crisis.

This story will be updated as negotiations continue and new developments emerge.


Discover more from The Economy

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Banks

Inside the Fed’s Most Divided Vote in Years: Why Warsh Held the Line on Rates

Published

on

The Federal Reserve’s rate-setting committee held its benchmark borrowing rate steady on July 29, keeping it in a range of 3.5% to 3.75% — but the calm on the surface masked one of the most contested votes of the post-pandemic era. The Federal Open Market Committee split 9 to 3, with three members pushing to raise rates rather than hold, according to NPR’s coverage of the decision.

Chair Kevin Warsh, who took over the Eccles Building earlier this year after a nomination process that rattled bond markets, used his post-meeting press conference to make a point of not making a point. Rather than signal where rates are headed next, Warsh told reporters the Fed would judge market reaction “direct and unfiltered” instead of offering the rolling forecasts investors have come to expect, a stance detailed in CNBC’s meeting recap.

A rate hike was genuinely on the table

What made this meeting unusual wasn’t just the dissent — it was how close markets came to pricing in a hike rather than a cut. Fed funds futures tracked by CME Group put the odds of a rate increase at roughly 35% heading into the decision, up sharply from 26% a week earlier, according to CNBC’s markets analysis. That is a striking reversal from the rate-cutting cycle many investors had expected when Warsh’s nomination was first floated as a “productivity-led growth” pivot away from his predecessor’s caution.

The market reaction told its own story. The S&P 500 slid roughly 0.6% during Warsh’s press conference, the Dow shed more than 840 points intraday, and the 10-year Treasury yield rose to 4.657%, even as the Fed opted for a hold rather than a hike.

Why Warsh is playing it differently

Warsh’s approach reflects both economic and political calculus. Treasury yields have climbed since the Fed’s prior meeting despite the hold, a dynamic Warsh acknowledged directly. And unlike his predecessor, Warsh has been explicit that he intends to set policy independent of the White House’s preferences — even as he awaits a possible additional ally on the Board once a pending internal review concludes, according to CNBC’s analysis of the political backdrop.

Why this matters beyond Washington

A genuinely undecided Fed has knock-on effects well past US borrowers. Higher-for-longer Treasury yields pull global capital toward dollar assets, complicating rate paths in London, Ottawa, and emerging markets alike — a dynamic playing out in parallel with the UK’s own fiscal squeeze (see our companion report on the Autumn Budget) and China’s deflationary drag on global demand. For businesses and investors across the Gulf, Southeast Asia, and South Asia weighing dollar-denominated debt or dollar-pegged currencies, an unpredictable Fed chair is arguably a bigger variable than the rate level itself.


Discover more from The Economy

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Continue Reading

Analysis

Pakistan Passed Its Third IMF Review

Published

on

The IMF’s Executive Board completed Pakistan’s third review of its 37-month Extended Fund Facility (EFF) and second review of its Resilience and Sustainability Facility (RSF) on May 8, 2026, unlocking roughly $1.1 billion under the EFF and $220 million under the RSF, according to the IMF’s official statement. Total disbursements under both arrangements now stand at roughly $4.8 billion. Acting Chair Nigel Clarke credited Pakistan’s “strong program implementation” for supporting macroeconomic recovery and building resilience to shocks.

The Genuinely Good Numbers

By the IMF’s own account, the underlying data supports the assessment. GDP growth accelerated to an average of 3.8% year-on-year in the first half of FY26, driven by the auto, construction and garment industries, even accounting for flood disruption in July-August, according to the IMF’s staff report. Inflation, while ticking up to 7.3% year-on-year in March as commodity price pass-through hit domestic energy prices, remained within a broadly contained range, with core inflation at 7.6%. The current account was described as broadly balanced, and reserve rebuilding exceeded earlier projections — the State Bank of Pakistan projects reserves continuing to climb to roughly $18 billion by June 2026, according to analysis from the Islamabad Policy Research Institute.

The State Bank confirmed receipt of $1.3 billion from the IMF on May 12, 2026, according to CSS Prep’s policy analysis, which notes reserves had fallen to dangerously low levels in 2022-2023 before this recovery.

The External Risk the IMF Flagged Explicitly

The Fund’s own report is notably candid about downside exposure: under its April 2026 World Economic Outlook adverse scenario, the cumulative hit to Pakistan’s GDP from continued Middle East conflict could rise to around 1.5 percentage points by FY27, with inflation and the current account deficit each worsening by roughly 1.5-2.5 percentage points of GDP, according to the IMF’s staff country report. Given Pakistan’s reliance on imported energy, oil price volatility discussed in the IMF’s global outlook feeds directly into this specific country risk.

The Reform Question That Keeps Recurring

The structural policy conditions attached to this review read as familiar territory: sustaining fiscal consolidation, broadening the tax base, maintaining tight monetary policy to keep inflation within the State Bank’s target range, and advancing energy-sector reform — commitments the IMF’s own end-of-mission statement described as still “ongoing” rather than complete, per the IMF’s March 2026 mission statement.

A sharper framing comes from Pakistani policy analysts themselves: reforms that would genuinely break the IMF-program cycle — broadening the tax base to include agriculture and retail, ending energy subsidies, privatizing loss-making state-owned enterprises — impose concentrated, visible costs on politically organized interest groups, while the benefits of reversing those costs are diffuse and delayed, according to CSS Prep’s analysis. That political-economy imbalance, the analysis argues, consistently favors populist continuation of stabilization support over the structural reform that would end the need for it — a pattern this third review’s genuine macroeconomic progress doesn’t yet break.

Social Cost of the Adjustment

Pakistan’s poverty headcount rate rose to 25.3% in FY24, up sharply from 18.3% in FY22, driven by overlapping shocks from COVID, floods and inflation, according to the IMF’s staff report. The Benazir Income Support Programme (BISP) remains the primary social protection mechanism absorbing the distributional cost of IMF-mandated energy price increases and fiscal tightening — whether its scale is adequate remains, in the IMF’s own words, a live policy question rather than a settled one.


Discover more from The Economy

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Continue Reading

Analysis

The Fed Is Fractured — And a New Chair Just Made It Louder, Not Quieter

Published

on

The Federal Reserve held its benchmark interest rate steady at 3.5%-3.75% on July 29, 2026, but the more consequential detail was the vote itself: 9-3, with three regional Federal Reserve Bank presidents — Cleveland’s Beth Hammack, Minneapolis’s Neel Kashkari, and Dallas’s Lorie Logan — dissenting in favor of a rate hike, according to CNBC’s coverage of the meeting. Inflation has remained above the Fed’s 2% target for more than five years, the underlying tension driving the split.

A New Chair, A Different Communication Style

The decision was the latest under Fed Chair Kevin Warsh, who took over after Jerome Powell’s term expired on May 15, 2026, according to iShares’ 2026 Fed outlook. Warsh has deliberately shortened the Fed’s post-meeting statements and pulled back on the kind of explicit forward guidance markets had grown accustomed to under his predecessors — he has reportedly dedicated one of five internal task forces specifically to rethinking how the Fed communicates, according to CNBC’s reporting. Warsh has publicly called inflation “a choice,” repeatedly emphasizing the importance of getting prices under control in recent congressional testimony.

At his post-meeting press conference, Warsh pushed back on characterizing the decision as a “pause,” instead describing it as “a rigorous review of the economic situation” and “a view of what our own homework is to try to resolve those questions in the period ahead,” according to a separate CNBC recap. Warsh has reportedly used the phrase “family fight” 13 times across five public appearances to acknowledge the committee’s internal divisions — an unusually candid framing for a sitting Fed Chair.

Why the Split Exists

Governor Christopher Waller has separately voiced concern that higher rates could become necessary without more inflation progress, even though he voted for the hold at this meeting. The full committee’s June projections penciled in one quarter-point increase by the end of 2026 — a notable shift from the rate-cutting path markets had priced in earlier in the year, according to the Fed’s own June 2026 Summary of Economic Projections, which explicitly flags that the federal funds rate outlook “is subject to considerable uncertainty” given how sensitive each participant’s view is to how inflation and employment data evolve from here.

Complicating Factors

Renewed U.S.-Iran tensions have already pushed mortgage rates near a one-year high independent of the Fed’s own decisions, since longer-term rates track Treasury yields and inflation expectations rather than the Fed funds rate directly, according to CNBC’s analysis. Separately, iShares had earlier projected that once a new Chair was confirmed, the Fed might seek one or two rate cuts to bring rates closer to a 3%-3.25% range — a path the July hold and hawkish dissents now put in serious doubt.

The next FOMC meeting is scheduled for September 15-16, 2026, and will include a fresh Summary of Economic Projections, according to Forbes’ Fed tracker — the next real test of whether Warsh’s committee can narrow its internal divide or whether the “family fight” framing becomes the defining feature of Fed policy through the rest of 2026.


Discover more from The Economy

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Advertisement

Trending

Copyright © 2026 The Economy, Inc . All rights reserved .

Discover more from The Economy

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading