Pakistan is running two demanding reform programs at once, and they don’t obviously fit together. On one track, the IMF is pressing for stricter fiscal controls, expanded tax collection, and continued tight monetary policy under its Extended Fund Facility. On the other, Pakistan’s own constitution now mandates the removal of “riba” — interest — from the economy entirely, with a deadline set for January 2028, following a constitutional amendment passed in October 2024, according to IMF Country Report 25/109.

The IMF’s side of the ledger

Pakistan’s economic recovery gained real momentum in the first half of FY26, with GDP growth averaging 3.8% year-on-year, driven by the auto, construction, and garment industries, even as flooding in July-August weighed on output, according to IMF staff reporting. Inflation, however, climbed to 7.3% year-on-year in March as higher global commodity prices passed through to domestic energy costs. Foreign reserves have been rebuilding steadily — from $14.5 billion at end-June 2025 to $16 billion by end-December — while the primary fiscal surplus is expected to reach 1.6% of GDP in FY26, in line with IMF targets.

In May 2026, the IMF Executive Board completed the third review of Pakistan’s Extended Fund Facility and second review of its Resilience and Sustainability Facility, unlocking roughly $1.1 billion and $220 million respectively and bringing total disbursements under the two programs to about $4.8 billion, according to the IMF’s official press release. The Fund explicitly credited Pakistan’s “strong implementation” for maintaining stability despite the disruption from the Middle East war.

The parallel Islamic finance transformation

Running alongside that fiscal program is a structural transformation few outside Pakistan are tracking closely: the State Bank of Pakistan is required to develop a full financial sector strategy detailing the legal, regulatory, and strategic path to a riba-free economy, addressing monetary policy implementation, public debt management, and bank supervision — with a strategy deadline the IMF set for end-June 2026, per the same country report. Parliament has already moved on a related front, approving the Virtual Assets Bill in March 2026 and formally establishing the Pakistan Virtual Assets Regulatory Authority.

Why the IMF is watching this transition warily

The IMF’s own language signals concern about execution risk: publishing the riba-free transition plan “will help align the expectations of market participants, investors, and regulators… and mitigate concerns about any possible cliff effect,” according to the country report language. That is diplomatic phrasing for a real structural risk — an abrupt, poorly sequenced transition away from conventional interest-based finance could destabilize a banking sector the IMF has spent years helping stabilize.

The tax reform Pakistan still owes

Beyond monetary policy, Pakistan has committed to finalizing a new audit manual and centralizing taxpayer audit selection by August 2026, accelerating its Retailer Tax Registration Scheme, and making its Tax Policy Office fully operational, according to ProPakistani’s summary of IMF commitments. The Federal Board of Revenue has continued missing collection targets, prompting the IMF to propose making FBR revenue goals a formal Quantitative Performance Criteria — a stricter enforcement mechanism than before.

Why this matters for Gulf and global investors

Pakistan’s dual reform track — IMF-style fiscal orthodoxy alongside a constitutionally mandated Islamic finance transition — is unusual among IMF program countries and is drawing renewed Gulf capital interest, visible in DIFC’s decision to bring its Dubai FinTech Summit to Pakistan for the first time in August 2026 (see our companion report). Investors assessing Pakistan’s banking sector need to model both trajectories simultaneously, not just the more familiar IMF fiscal metrics.

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.

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.