Meeting record

June 17, 2026

meeting_id · 20260617DIRECTION HIT

The call vs. the outcome

The Committee

HOLD

0 bp · 3.50% – 3.75%

The simulation

HOLD

0 bp · 3.50% – 3.75%

0 bp

Rate error

100.0%

Vote alignment

Analysis note

Direction and magnitude matched.
The Committee held the target range at 3.50–3.75% with a unanimous 12–0 vote, in line with the simulation's locked call from June 16. The SEP path came in more hawkish, meaning higher for longer, than the simulation projected: it placed the 2026 year-end median at 3.625%, while the published SEP median moved to 3.750%. The released statement also left out easing-bias language that remained in the simulation's draft.

Voting record

Voting record · 12 voters

Rate path

The simulation's projection

19 simulated members generated year-end rate projections.
Median path: 2026 3.625% · 2027 3.375% · 2028 3.125% · Longer run 3.125%

The Committee's published SEP

18 FOMC participants submitted projections.
Median path: 2026 3.750% · 2027 3.625% · 2028 3.375% · Longer run 3.125%

Statements, side by side

Committee statement

June 17, 2026

The Committee decided to maintain the target range for the federal funds rate at 3-1/2 to 3-3/4 percent, in support of the Federal Reserve's dual mandate. The Committee reaffirmed its policy of maintaining ample reserves in the banking system.

Economic activity is expanding at a solid pace despite elevated uncertainty that owes, in part, to the conflict in the Middle East. Productivity growth and capital investment are strong. Job gains have kept pace with the workforce, and the unemployment rate has changed little.

Simulated statement

Recent indicators suggest that economic activity has continued to expand at a solid pace, supported by solid growth in private domestic demand. Job gains have been solid on average when smoothing through recent volatility, and the unemployment rate has remained low. Inflation has eased over the past year but remains elevated. In recent months, there has been some upward movement in inflation, reflecting both energy price shocks and tariff-related pressures, while longer-term inflation expectations remain well anchored.

Deliberation trace

A preview of the locked simulated deliberation — the opening of each phase, 39 exchanges in all.

Phase 1: Grounded Briefing1

STACEY TEVLIN

PRE-MEETING BRIEFING: JUNE 17, 2026

TO: Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC)

FROM: Stacey Tevlin, Director of Research

Phase 2: Open Deliberation19

Beth M. Hammack

I agree that we must anchor our discussion in the hard data, particularly as the "disinflationary trend" we were looking for in March has encountered significant turbulence. What stands out to me is the widening gap between the slowing headline growth and the reality of firm-level pricing power. While real GDP growth was a modest 1.6 percent in the first quarter 📖 macro_snapshot_2026-06-15.md, we aren't seeing a corresponding cooling in price pressures; instead, national reports indicate prices increased at a "moderate to strong" pace, with most regions reporting higher inflation than in the previous period 📖 Beigebook_daily_2026-06-17.md.

Phase 3: Strategic Proposal [inherited regime: neutral]1

CHAIR WARSH

Step 1: Case for Maintaining the Current Target Range

Renewed Inflation Volatility: Aggregate data and regional reports indicate that the disinflationary trend has stalled, with prices increasing at a "moderate to strong pace" and manufacturing price increases reaching a "two-and-a-half-year high" in key Districts 📖 Beigebook_daily_2026-06-17.md.

Stable Labor Market Performance: Despite anecdotal reports of selective hiring, the national unemployment rate remains low at 4.3%, and nonfarm payrolls added 159,000 jobs, suggesting the economy is not currently in need of additional accommodation to support the employment mandate 📖 macro_snapshot_2026-06-15.md.

Geopolitical and Energy Uncertainty: The 50 percent surge in crude oil futures and its subsequent "spillovers into shipping, packaging, groceries, and fertilizer" create a highly volatile backdrop where the cost of a policy error is high 📖 minutes_2026-03.md.

Phase 4: Formal Vote12

Kevin M. Warsh

VOTE: Assent — While the acceleration in manufacturing prices and geopolitical energy shocks argue for a more restrictive posture to protect our inflation anchor, maintaining the current range is a disciplined step to confirm whether this volatility is a persistent regime shift before moving to tighten further.