Transcript of the Federal Reserve's July 2025 meeting

In a nutshell: No rate cut, disagreement, hawkish, etc.

Policy Statement

Although fluctuations in net exports continue to weigh on the data, recent indicators suggest that growth in economic activity slowed in the first half of the year. The unemployment rate remains low, and labor market conditions remain solid. Inflation remains slightly elevated.

(Translator's note: GDP data before the statement showed a decline in Q2 PDFP)

The Committee seeks to achieve maximum employment and 2 percent inflation over the longer run. Uncertainty about the economic outlook remains high. The Committee is mindful of the risks to its dual mandate. To support its goals, the Committee has decided to maintain the target range for the federal funds rate at 4.25 to 4.5 percent. In considering the size and timing of additional adjustments to the target range for the federal funds rate, the Committee will carefully assess incoming data, the evolving outlook, and the balance of risks. The Committee will continue to reduce its holdings of Treasury securities, agency debt, and agency mortgage-backed securities. The Committee remains firmly committed to supporting maximum employment and returning inflation to its 2 percent objective. In assessing the appropriate stance of monetary policy, the Committee will continue to monitor the implications of incoming information for the economic outlook. If risks emerge that could impede the Committee's achievement of its goals, the Committee will be prepared to adjust the stance of monetary policy as appropriate. The Committee's assessments will take into account a wide range of information, including labor market conditions, inflation pressures and inflation expectations, and financial and international developments.

Voting in favor of this monetary policy action were: Chairman Jerome Powell, Vice Chairman John Williams, Michael Barr, Susan Collins, Lisa Cook, Austan Goolsbee, Philip Jefferson, Alberto Musalem, and Jeffrey Schmid. Voting against were Michelle Baumann and Christopher Waller, who preferred to lower the target range for the federal funds rate by 0.25 percentage points at this meeting. Adrienne Kugler was absent and did not vote.

Opening Remarks: Thank you. Thank you, Chairman Powell. Many in the markets, not to mention the Administration, are leaning toward a September rate cut right now. Is that expectation unrealistic at this point? Powell: As you know, today we decided to maintain our policy rate at its current level, which I would describe as moderately restrictive. As I mentioned, inflation is running a bit above 2%, even excluding the effects of tariffs. The labor market is solid, unemployment is historically low, financial conditions are accommodative, and the economy is not performing as it should have if policies were inappropriately restrictive. So in my view, and in the view of almost the entire committee, the economy is not performing as well as an unduly restrictive policy would have, and moderately restrictive policy appears to be appropriate. That being said, there are downside risks to the labor market, and in the coming months, we will receive a wealth of data that will help us assess the balance of risks and the appropriate setting for the federal funds rate. Questioner: Just a follow-up question. When you say "coming months," does that include the possibility that you will essentially get two rounds of employment and inflation data between now and the September meeting? Would that be enough to warrant a decision to cut rates at that time? Powell: You're right, we do have -- this is an intersessional period, and we'll have two full rounds of employment and inflation data before the September meeting. We haven't made any decisions about September yet. We're not doing that in advance. We'll take that information, along with all the other information we have, into account when we make our decisions at the September meeting. Questioner: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You removed the phrase -- or the concept of -- "uncertainty has decreased" from your statement. Does that mean that uncertainty has increased? I'm wondering, the administration has reached some agreements with several large trading partners, and we seem to now know what the tariff rate will be. Does knowing that rate increase your certainty in changing policy, or do you need to wait and see the economic impact? Powell: Basically, the language in our statement about uncertainty reflected what was happening at the last meeting. At the last meeting, uncertainty had declined, but this time it's more or less flat, so we removed the "has declined" because it hasn't declined further, so that's not a big deal. Your second question? Questioner: Several bills have been agreed upon, and it seems like we know what the tariff rates with our major trading partners are going to be. Doesn't that add to the certainty? Or are you waiting for the economic effects to show up? POWELL: You're right, this is a very dynamic time for these trade negotiations, and there's a lot going on between sessions. But we're still some way from seeing things settled. We're obviously getting more and more information, and I think at this point, people's estimates, our estimates, external estimates of what the likely effective tariff levels are, haven't moved much at this point. But at the same time, there are many, many uncertainties that remain to be resolved. So, yes, we're learning more and more. But it feels like we're far from the end of that process. That's not for us to judge, but it feels like there's more to come. QUESTIONER: Hi, Mr. Chairman. I'm Neal from Axios. This morning we got a GDP report where private domestic final purchases decelerated to their slowest pace in 22 years, with weakness in interest-sensitive sectors like residential investment and commercial construction. Aren't these signs that monetary policy is currently too tight, given the current state of the economy? Powell: The GDP and PDF (Private Domestic Final Purchases) data came in essentially exactly as we expected. You have to look at the big picture. So, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, the economic activity data, GDP, and private domestic final purchases, which we view as a narrower but better signal for the future and for where the economy is headed, have fallen to just over 1%. I think GDP was 1.2% in the first half of the year. Last year it was 2.5%. So it's a real decline. But if you look at the labor market, you'll see that, according to many, many statistics, the labor market remains in balance. Things like the quits rate, job openings, not to mention the unemployment rate, are very similar in many respects to where they were a year ago. So you're not seeing any slack in the labor market. You do see a slowdown in job creation, but you're also seeing a slowdown in the supply of labor. So you have a labor market that's in equilibrium, although partly because the demand for workers and the supply of workers are both falling at the same pace, which is why the unemployment rate has remained roughly stable, and why I say we do see downside risks to the labor market. Our two mandate variables, right, are inflation and maximum employment. Stable prices and maximum employment, not growth. So the labor market looks solid, inflation is above target, and even if you look through the tariff effects, we think it's still slightly above target. That's why our stance is where it is. But as I mentioned, the downside risks to the labor market are clear. Questioner: So, regarding the labor force, given the fluid labor supply, is there a single number in the jobs report we're getting on Friday that you consider to be balanced job growth? Powell: Primarily the unemployment rate. It's true that the demand for workers, in the form of new nonfarm payrolls, has declined, but so has the breakeven number. As long as—that keeps the labor market in balance. However, it's balanced by declines on both the supply and demand sides, which I think does suggest downside risks, so we'll certainly be watching closely. Questioner: Thank you. Colby Smith of The New York Times. Two of your colleagues called for a quarter-point rate cut today, and I'm wondering which of their arguments you find most persuasive, and how you weigh your views against those on the Committee who, based on the June projections, believe the Fed should keep interest rates unchanged for the rest of the year. Regarding the June SEP (Summary of Economic Projections), does it still best represent the Committee's core thinking? Powell: What you want from everyone, including dissenters, is a clear explanation of your thinking and the arguments you're making. We got that today. Basically, it was a good roundtable where everyone thought carefully about the issue and laid out their positions. As I mentioned, the majority of the Committee believes that inflation is slightly above target and maximum employment is at target. In my view, that calls for a moderately restrictive stance right now. We have two dissenters, and we hope they'll express their thoughts. We certainly heard that today at the roundtable. You asked about the June SEP. You know, I wouldn't—you're right, that's how it's written, and it's likely—I can't point to it six weeks from now and tell people what they think. You can't do that. We're not running a new SEP, and I don't want to substitute my own estimates for what the SEP might look like. We haven't. What I will say is that we haven't made a decision about monitoring all the incoming data and asking ourselves whether the federal funds rate is in the right place. Questioner: Regarding policy being "moderately restrictive," does that mean that once the conditions for a rate cut are met, there's not much room to cut unless there's significant slack in the labor market? Powell: Let me say that my own estimate is "moderately restrictive." There's a range of views about what the neutral rate of interest is for our economy at this point, and others might say it's more restrictive or even less restrictive. At some point, as we move back toward a more neutral stance, we'll make judgments as we go. We don't have a pre-set course. It's not so mechanical as to say we've derived the neutral rate with great confidence and that's where we're going. No one knows what the neutral rate is. We do know how it works, how the economy will respond over time to slightly accommodative policy. Questioner: I'm Nick from the Wall Street Journal. Mr. Chairman, my question is, what have you learned about the processes of inflation generation and price transmission over the last few months? Specifically, the June CPI report showed evidence of tariff-induced goods inflation. The tariff landscape is only beginning to settle with some of the recent agreements. Given the lag between tariff announcements and their appearance in commodity prices, is two months long enough to assess their impact and be confident that tariffs won't affect the broader inflation process? POWELL: I think you have to view this as very early days, so I think what we're seeing now is a significant amount of tariff revenue being collected, about $30 billion a month, which is much higher than before. The evidence seems primarily that exporters are paying a small portion of the price reductions, while firms or retailers, upstream of the consumer, are currently paying the bulk. As you know, it started showing up in consumer prices in the June report, and we expect to see more. We know from surveys that firms feel they fully intend to pass this on to consumers. But, you know, the reality is that in many cases they may not be able to do so. So, I think we'll have to observe and learn empirically how much of this is happening and over how long. I think we've learned that this process may be slower than we anticipated at the outset. But we never expected it to be fast. We think we have a long way to go before we really understand exactly how it will play out. So, that's our thinking right now. Questioner: If I could follow up on that, was the hesitation to not delve into core goods inflation driven by a judgment that expectations have proven more adaptable during the pandemic than anyone at the Fed anticipated, or was it driven by uncertainty about the degree of policy restrictiveness? Powell: You could say that we ignored goods inflation to some extent by not raising rates. We didn't respond to new inflation. But I wouldn't insist on that. But I think the base case, as I said, a reasonable base case is that these are one-off price effects. Ultimately, of course, this won't turn into inflation, because we're going to make sure that it doesn't. We're going to use our tools to make sure that this doesn't go from a one-off price increase to significant inflation. However, we want to do this effectively, which means we want to get the timing right. If you act too early, you might not end up fully addressing the inflation problem, and you'll have to come back. That's inefficient. If you act too late, you might do unnecessary damage to the labor market. So, ultimately, there won't be a big inflation problem. What we want to do is do this in an efficient way. But ultimately, there's no question that we'll do what's necessary to get inflation under control. Ideally, we'll do that effectively. Questioner: I'm Michael McKee with Bloomberg Television and Radio. That big bill, adjectives aside, do you expect it to add stimulus to the economy in 2026? Does that warrant keeping interest rates steady or reducing the number of expected rate cuts next year? Powell: Of course, let me start with the usual disclaimer that we don't make any judgments on fiscal legislation. When you say the largest part of the bill makes the existing tax code permanent, I don't think we consider it particularly stimulative. There should be some stimulative effect, but it shouldn't be significant over the next few years. Questioner: Just to follow up, I don't want to put this in the context of you and the president. Let me ask this. Are you concerned about the cost of maintaining high interest rates for an extended period in terms of interest expenses? POWELL: We have a mandate, and that's maximum employment and price stability. We don't consider the cost to the government of our interest rate changes. We have to be able to look at the objective variables that Congress has given us and use the tools they've given us to achieve those objectives. That's what we do. We don't consider the fiscal needs of the federal government. No central bank in any advanced economy does that, and if we did, it would be bad for our credibility and the credibility of U.S. fiscal policy. So, that's not a factor in our considerations at all. QUESTIONER: Hi. I'm Victoria Guido from Politico. Regarding the Federal Reserve headquarters renovation, which the government has been investigating, do you think their interest in this issue is directly related to the president's efforts to push you to lower interest rates? POWELL: That's not something I can say. I will say that we had a great meeting with the president, and it was an honor to host him. It's not often that the president comes to the Federal Reserve, let alone tours a building. But it was a good visit. QUESTIONER: Was there anything about the project they proposed that made you reconsider any aspect of it? POWELL: This project was conceived and developed nearly a decade ago, and we went through a very long process, going through historic preservation approval with the National Capital Planning Commission, and a lot of back and forth. It was very constructive. We've broken ground, and the work is progressing well. I'm glad the President has said repeatedly that what he really wants to see done is for us to complete this construction as quickly as possible. That's our focus. And that's what we're going to do. Questioner: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm Andrew Ackerman with The Washington Post. What's your takeaway from the fact that inflation has rebounded higher after hitting 2.1% last September? Why do you think financial conditions are restrictive, with the neutral rate below 4%, when inflation has stopped falling for almost a year? Powell: Inflation, when you talk about these 12-month inflation measures, you're always fighting residual seasonality. For example, we'll have two months of high inflation, sometimes at the beginning of the year, and then inflation will turn lower, and a lot of that can be artificial. That's why we look at the 12-month numbers. I think inflation has mostly returned to 2%. There's some catch-up inflation, like all the insurance costs that are only now showing up through inflation, but they're actually reflecting inflationary pressures from two or three years ago. So, that has to go through this process. Also, now we have three or four percentage points of core inflation coming from tariffs. So, we can't really isolate that. We're not going to have a separate inflation component specifically for tariffs. We're always going to be dealing with the whole of inflation. But as I mentioned, the composition has definitely changed. And if you go back a few years, it was all about services inflation, which was very sticky. Now services inflation is coming down nicely. Goods inflation was doing well. And now goods inflation is rising. So, the situation has really changed. That's partly because of the tariffs. And partly because of the restrictive policies we've put in place, and we're already seeing the results of that gradually showing up in the services economy. Questioner: Another thing I wanted to ask is, if the data agencies were to undergo an 8% reduction in staff and mandates, as the administration has proposed, would you be confident that they would be able to continue to effectively carry out their missions? Powell: I'm not going to comment on the administration's proposal. As I said, I think we're getting the data we need to do our jobs, and I think good data is very important not only for the Fed, but also for the government, and for the private sector as well. People in the economy use this data a lot. So, for our economy, and certainly for the work of the Fed and other government agencies, it's very important that we continue to get better at data. That's what we've been doing for 100 years, and we've been getting better and better. Accurately capturing the output of an economy over $20 trillion in real time is very difficult. The United States has a 100-year lead in this area, and in my opinion, we really need to continue doing that. Questioner: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm Edward Lawrence from Fox Business News. How concerned are you that the data we've seen shows no significant upward trend in inflation over the past six months, and that a "wait-and-see" inflation strategy is actually providing cover for companies to raise prices? Powell: How concerned I am -- I'll say that again. Questioner: It's the "wait-and-see" strategy -- Powell: What do you mean by a "wait-and-see" strategy? Questioner: Regarding the rate cuts. You're waiting to see whether tariffs impact inflation. So it's a wait-and-see strategy— Powell: That's—when policy is restrictive, it moves toward neutral when we start cutting rates. Questioner: The one-time price increase from tariffs could lead to more inflation. But is that giving companies cover to raise prices? Powell: Probably—that's not our policy stance. Some companies will certainly take advantage of tariffs and all the talk about how—you know, companies will raise prices when they can, so you saw that with those tariffs during President Trump's first administration. Washing machines got tariffs, but dryers didn't. But you know what, the price of dryers went up, just like washers. So companies typically act collectively, if you know what I mean. We haven't seen a lot of that. I mean, what we're seeing now are the first signs of what the impact of commodity inflation will ultimately be. And, I repeat, they may be smaller or larger than people estimate. They won't be zero. Consumers will pay some of it. Businesses will pay some of it. Retailers will pay some of it. But, you know, we'll just have to wait and see. Questioner: If I could follow up on that, some additional tariffs have been implemented since February. And, you know, the economy really hasn't collapsed yet. So how do you explain that to someone who's house hunting and faces a 7% mortgage rate and might not be able to afford it? How do you defend it? POWELL: Well, so housing is a special case, right? We at the Fed don't set mortgage rates. We set the overnight rate. And the interest rates that affect mortgages are long-term rates, like maybe the 30-year Treasury rate, or maybe shorter than that, but it's not the overnight Fed rate. It's not that we have no influence at all. We do, but we're not the primary factor. There are other things going on in housing, one of which is that we have a chronic housing shortage. We're not building enough housing, and that's not something the Fed can help with. And that's going to remain the case even after things normalize. So, I think the best thing we can do for housing is to achieve 2% inflation and maximum employment. That's what we can contribute to housing. There's a lot of other work for the private sector and for Congress to do, but that's what we're trying to get to. We've made a lot of progress toward that goal. We have a very good labor market right now. In terms of inflation, we're very close to 2%. We're seeing some commodity inflation that's pushing us away from our goal, but not far so far. Questioner: Hi, Chairman Powell. Thank you. Can you tell us more about what kind of economic data the Fed needs to see before it's ready to cut rates? Do you need inflation to be almost back to target? Are there any other things you're looking for in terms of pricing? Do you need to see some slack in the job market? What kind of things are you looking for? POWELL: I mean, ultimately it could be any of those things, right? But, you know, if you see the risks to the two objectives balancing out, if they're completely balanced, that would suggest you should move to a more neutral stance of policy. This is the particular situation we're in, where we have risks that go both ways, risks to both of our objectives. When we paused, inflation was above target, and the labor market was doing quite well. So, you know, that was a policy -- policy was restrictive when we paused, and the restrictiveness was to support a return to our inflation target, right? As the two objectives come back into balance, you would think you should move it closer to neutral, and the next steps we take would likely be in that direction. What does that require? You know, it's going to be the totality of the evidence. As I mentioned, there's going to be quite a bit of data coming in before the next meeting. Will it be decisive? You know, that's really hard to say. We don't make those decisions right now. So, we'll have to wait and see. Questioner: I guess in terms of inflation, for example, some people would point out that if it's just in goods and not spilling over into services, then maybe that's evidence that the tariff effect will be temporary, a one-off. Does that kind of thing influence your thinking? Or do you need to see the number come down closer to 2%? Powell: We'll look at everything. You know, as I mentioned, a pretty reasonable base case scenario is that this will be a one-time price increase. Ultimately, we'll make sure that's the case. We just want to do it effectively. And effectively means getting the timing right. If we cut rates too early, perhaps we haven't done our job on inflation, and history is replete with examples of this. If you cut rates too late, then you might have done unnecessary damage to the labor market. So, we're trying to get that timing right. And that's actually what we're doing. Questioner: I'm Clare Jones from the Financial Times. Just a question about the dollar. We've seen a significant decline in the dollar this year. I'm wondering if there was any discussion of that at the meeting and to what extent that might complicate your efforts to bring inflation back to target. Thank you. Powell: This goes back to the division of labor between the Fed and the Treasury, and I'm sure you know, only the Treasury talks about this, about the dollar. This isn't something that's been a major topic of discussion at the Fed. I wouldn't say it wasn't mentioned -- in a few years when the minutes come out, it might reflect some reference to the dollar, but it was never going to be the primary focus. Questioner: Just a follow-up to Andrew's question, I think the estimates in the CPI were as high as 35%. Is there any discussion about that, any consideration of looking at alternative measures, data scraping, etc., to make sure you have a good understanding of what's happening with prices in the U.S. economy? Thank you. Powell: You know, so, we're monitoring the situation. We certainly -- I mean, as you know, during this pandemic, we looked at a lot of new types of data. People were looking at big data sets that were available from all sorts of places. We did all of that. But we really -- government data is really the gold standard of data, and we need it, you know, to be good and be able to rely on it. We can't replace it. But (indistinct audio). Questioner: Hi, Mr. Chairman, I'm Jay O'Brian from ABC News. President Trump has apparently mentioned your name frequently. He's personally pressured you. Are you concerned that this behavior might affect the future independence of the Federal Reserve? Powell: I would just say that I think having an independent central bank is an institutional arrangement that serves the public. As long as it serves the public well, it should continue and be respected. If it doesn't serve the public well, then it's not something we should automatically defend. But what it gives us and other central banks is the ability to make these very challenging decisions in a way that focuses on the data, the changing outlook, the balance of risks, and all the things we talk about, rather than on politics. So, governments in developed economies around the world have chosen to keep a little distance between direct political control of these decisions and the decision makers. So, if you -- if you don't have that, there's certainly a huge temptation to use interest rates, for example, to influence elections. And that's something we don't want to do. So, I think that's widely understood. Certainly in Congress. And, I mean, I think it's very important, and I just want to say that. Questioner: Good afternoon, Mr. Powell. I'm from Bloomberg News (?). You mentioned the slowdown in consumer spending, and I was wondering if you could walk us through the Committee's discussions around that. We're seeing rising delinquencies among high-income households. How do you think this will evolve over the next few months, and how vulnerable is this to the economy going forward? POWELL: Consumer spending has been very, very strong over the last few years, and forecasters, not just us, had repeatedly predicted that it would slow down. Now perhaps it's finally slowing down. So, I would say that if you talk to the credit card companies, for example, they'll tell you that the consumer is in solid shape, spending is at a healthy level. It's not growing rapidly, but it's at a healthy level, and delinquencies are not a problem. In general, if you look at the banks, and what the banks are talking about on their earnings calls, credit performance has been very good. So, essentially, you have a consumer who is in good shape and spending, but not at a rapid pace. But that's the reality, and, again, exactly what we expected with the GDP data we got this week. So, I think it's still a little difficult to interpret because you have this big swing in net exports, which may also be affecting, you know, some of that may also be affecting consumer spending. Look, that's one of the data points we watch most closely. There's no question it's slowing. We're watching it closely. But we're also watching the performance of the labor market and inflation, the two variables we're assigned to maximize. Questioner: Following up on the question my colleagues asked, Dr. Waller said the labor market is "on edge," and he pointed to weakness in the private sector. I'm wondering, you said the main number to watch is the headline unemployment rate. But what about the discussion about the state of the private sector job market? Powell: So, I'm not going to address any individual, you know, any individual comments. I'm not going to do that. But look, I think what we know is that private sector job creation, certainly in the last report, which we'll see on Friday, has declined. If you take the QCEW (Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages) adjustment seriously, it's probably close to zero, but the unemployment rate is still—still very low. So what that tells you is, you know, the demand for workers is slowing, but the supply is also slowing. So, it's—oddly enough, it's in equilibrium. You have a very low unemployment rate, and it's been that way for a year because job creation has declined, but we also know that the flow into our labor force has slowed significantly, you know, really because of immigration policy, and those two things are slowing more or less in tandem.

If you look at things like the quits rate, which I mentioned, and wages, they're gradually cooling. I look at the ratio of job openings to unemployed people. Those things have been pretty stable—they haven't moved much over the entire year. So, I think if you look at the totality of the labor market data, you have a solid labor market. But I think you have to see that there are downside risks. It's not -- you're not seeing slack in the labor market, but I think in a world where unemployment is being held down because both demand and supply are falling, you have downside risks. I think that's -- it's worth watching closely, and we're doing that. Questioner: Hi, Chairman Powell. This is Nancy Marshall-Genzer from Marketplace. One more question about the lack of unanimity in today's decision, the two dissenting votes. Was there any discussion during the meeting? I know you don't talk about what individuals said. But generally speaking, was there any discussion about a rate cut in the meeting, and what was the argument against a rate cut in the meeting? Powell: We had an economic roundtable discussion where people talked about the economy, yesterday and then about monetary policy. Everyone around the table expressed their views. In the discussion around policy, the majority view remains the same as before: inflation is above target and maximum employment is right on target. This means that policy should be somewhat restrictive, somewhat restrictive, because we want inflation to return fully to its target. So, that's the position that people have been taking, and that remains the position. We have two members who believe the time has come for a rate cut, and they'll express their reasons. I won't tell you why. They'll release something in the next day or two. But that's the situation. I would say, you know, the arguments are well-made, thoughtfully argued by everyone around the table, and they're good arguments. This is an unusual situation. The economy is in good shape. But it's an unusual situation where you face risks to both your employment mandate and your inflation mandate. That's the nature of a supply shock. And, perhaps not surprisingly, there are disagreements and different views on this, as well as different views on where the neutral rate is, and therefore different views on how tight policy should be. So, we had these, and I would say what you hope for is people, you know, explaining their positions very thoughtfully and clearly, and we absolutely did that today. Everybody around the table did. From that perspective, I would call it one of the best meetings I can recall. Questioner: You've said that you'd wait before you start cutting rates until you're confident that inflation is moving toward your 2% target. When you gain that confidence, would you be in favor of an immediate rate cut? Powell: I wouldn't say that. You know, I said that's why we believe policy should be restrictive because, you know, inflation is above target. When we have risks to both of our objectives, one of them is further away from the target than the other, and that's inflation. Maximum employment is on target. That means policy should be tight, because tight policy is what brings inflation down. If you think the risks to the two objectives are more balanced, that means policy shouldn't be restrictive. It should be more neutral. That would be lower than where we are now. That's the framework I think I would adopt. We'll have to wait and see. We'll obviously be looking at a lot of data in the next cycle. This is one of those cycles where we have two employment reports and two inflation reports. We'll see where that takes us. Questioner: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for taking the question. I'm Jeff Cox from CNBC.com. One indicator you often cite is final sales by domestic purchasers, which fell to a 1.2% increase in the second quarter from a 1.9% increase in the first quarter, suggesting some softening in underlying demand. I'm wondering, if you look at this and combine it with some of the housing data, the softness you acknowledged in your opening remarks, that the housing market is indeed soft, and today's GDP inflation data, which fell to 2.1% overall and 2.5% core, I'm wondering how much movement you'd need to see from these data points before you'd feel comfortable with, say, a rate cut in September. Powell: It would be overall. It's hard to answer that specifically. I think domestic final purchases, or what people call final sales, for the first half of the year were 1.6%. GDP, I believe, was 1.2%. For the first half of the year, you mentioned quarterly. Those are slower. But GDP is bumpy from quarter to quarter, from half-year to half-year, and is often revised after the fact, you know. The labor market data, we still believe is -- continues to believe is -- the best data point about the economy. It shows an unemployment rate of 4.1%. It shows wages, you know, still at a healthy level. But it's getting closer and closer to what we think is sustainable over the long run, consistent with long-term productivity and 2% inflation. So the labor market is actually still pretty solid. Inflation is above target, and even ignoring the tariffs, it's slightly above target, and there are tariffs. So we're watching all of that. And, again, trying to do the right thing in this challenging situation because you're being pulled in two directions and you have to decide which way to go, and actually at some point, if the risks are roughly equal, then you really want to be in a neutral policy stance, and we're not there right now. Questioner: If the data holds where it is now, is it safe to say you wouldn't be comfortable cutting rates in September? Powell: I wouldn't say that, no. I just think we need to look at the data, which could go in a lot of different directions. Inflation data, employment data. We'll make a judgment based on all the data and based on the risk balance analysis that I mentioned. Questioner: Thank you. Questioner: Last question, Greg Rob. Questioner: Thank you, Chairman Powell. I'm Greg Rob with Market Watch. The Treasury Secretary recently said that the markets would be confused if you continued to serve as Governor after your term as Chairman ended, and I was wondering if you have any updates for us on that front? Powell: No comment. Thank you very much.