Tonight, the eyes of global markets will focus on a swearing-in ceremony at the White House. Kevin Warsh will officially succeed Powell as Chairman of the Federal Reserve, marking the beginning of the "Warsh Era."
However, what he inherits is not a monetary policy apparatus poised for interest rate cuts, but a central bank simultaneously pressured by resurgent inflation, tightening bond markets, and internal divisions.
The swearing-in ceremony itself has already signaled something unusual. In recent years, the inauguration of a Fed Chair has typically been a low-key internal affair at the Fed, with presidential attendance being uncommon. The last similar ceremony held at the White House dates back to Alan Greenspan's appointment in 1987.
Trump's choice to personally preside is both an honor and a form of silent pressure—he has once again pushed the boundary of power between the White House and the Fed into the spotlight.
A Flawless Resume, but with a Common Misconception Warsh's resume reads like a meticulously crafted portfolio.
With dual degrees in Economics and Political Science from Stanford, a J.D. from Harvard, seven years in Morgan Stanley's M&A department, and serving as Special Assistant to the President for Economic Policy under the Bush administration, he became a Fed Governor in 2006 at the age of 35, making him one of the youngest governors in history. After leaving the Fed, he maintained ties with institutions like the Stanford Graduate School of Business, never truly stepping away from policy circles.
He previously came close to the Chair position. During Trump's first term, he was a leading candidate but was ultimately passed over in favor of Powell. It is reported that Trump later publicly expressed regret over that decision. This statement is significant—it is both a belated affirmation of Warsh and an early verdict on Powell.
This time, Warsh has been given a second chance.
The market has held a deep-seated misconception about him: Trump chose him, so he will cut rates.
During the post-financial crisis QE2, Warsh voted in support but almost simultaneously publicly criticized the policy—a stance later termed "silent dissent" by researchers. He has long been a proponent of free trade, a strong dollar, vigilant about debt expansion, and has explicitly emphasized the Fed's independence. He is not a man without convictions; he has simply kept them beneath the surface of consensus in the past.
Trump chose Warsh because he did not want to encounter another "disobedient Powell." However, he may find that Warsh's "obedience" comes with conditions.
This is the first key to understanding the Warsh Era.
Day One: The Fed Holds No Good Cards On his first day, Warsh faces a set of unfavorable data.
April's CPI rose 3.8% year-over-year, a three-year high. The Iran conflict pushed gasoline prices up 28.4% year-over-year, with fuel oil rising 54.3%. If inflation were solely due to oil prices, the story would be simpler: wait for oil prices to fall, inflation to cool, and the window for rate cuts would naturally reopen.
However, more troubling signals are emerging from the services sector.
Services inflation rose 0.5% month-over-month in April, the housing component increased 0.6%, and core CPI climbed 0.4%, the fastest pace since late 2025. Prices in dining, healthcare, transportation, and entertainment—these increases cannot be simply attributed to oil prices. Price pressures are spreading from energy to the services side.
This signal complicates the situation further. In 2022, the Fed misjudged inflation as "transitory." By the time service inflation became entrenched, it had to resort to aggressive rate hikes to catch up. This lesson is etched in the memory of the entire FOMC. If Warsh pivots to rate cuts at the first sign of similar signals, it would be a public declaration: the Fed has learned nothing from 2022.
There are also no signs of softening on the consumer side. April retail sales saw the strongest increase in eight months, the labor market has not slowed, and the unemployment rate remains low. The combination of "slowing growth + falling inflation" required for rate cuts has not materialized on any front.
The bond market reacted first. After the data release, the 2-year Treasury yield rose above 4%, the 10-year reached 4.56%, and the 30-year briefly touched 5.19%, nearing its 2007 high. Vincent Ahn, a fixed-income portfolio manager at Wisdom, put it bluntly: "Warsh likely hoped to have the option to cut rates on his first day, but the bond market has already taken that option off the table."
This is the market's first warning to the new Chair.
Balance Sheet Reduction: The Second Challenge The Fed's balance sheet currently stands at approximately $6.7 trillion, four times its size in 2006 when Warsh joined. He has long criticized the Fed for expanding the balance sheet without adequately rolling it back, leading to excessive market intervention and inadvertently subsidizing federal financing.
The logic is clear; the execution is extremely difficult.
Balance sheet reduction essentially involves shrinking the liability side. Treasury deposits and currency in circulation are not controlled by the Fed; overnight reverse repurchase agreements were nearly depleted in the previous reduction cycle. The primary lever is bank reserves—and reserves are the most sensitive nerve of the financial system. During the last reduction cycle, even a moderate decline in reserves triggered bond market turmoil, forcing the Fed to reverse course and expand. For Warsh to proceed with balance sheet reduction, he must not only persuade the FOMC but also convince the market that this time will be different.
During his confirmation hearing, he stated a hard truth: "It took 18 years to build a balance sheet this large; it cannot be fixed in 18 minutes."
The Third Challenge: Internal Fed Division The third challenge comes from within the Fed itself. The current FOMC is unusually divided, and the new Chair cannot unilaterally pivot.
The late April FOMC meeting kept rates unchanged, but the dissent pattern was notable, the most unusual since 1992: Hammack, Kashkari, and Logan opposed retaining language hinting at "possible future rate cuts"; another vote called for an immediate cut. The committee saw simultaneous dissents in opposite directions—some thought the stance too dovish, others too hawkish; no one was satisfied with the current position.
The meeting minutes adopted even more hawkish language. The description of inflation shifted from "somewhat elevated" to "elevated." In the Fed's lexicon, this is not semantics; it's a clear signal of reduced tolerance.
Former Philadelphia Fed President Patrick Harker was most direct: "They can't cut rates this year. How could they?"
Another detail cannot be ignored: although Powell has stepped down as Chair, his term as a Governor extends to January 2028. The former Chair will remain on the committee, becoming an unavoidable vote and a constant presence for any agenda the new Chair seeks to advance.
This is the opening paradox of the "Warsh Era": he rose to power on expectations of rate cuts, yet he assumes authority in an environment where cutting rates is becoming increasingly difficult.
The Toughest Test: Independence The root of the rift between Trump and Powell was the latter's refusal to cut rates as demanded. Trump labeled Powell "Too Late," called him a "jerk," and explicitly suggested the Fed should reduce its independence from the White House and align with fiscal agendas. Warsh was chosen against this backdrop.
This raises an unavoidable question: will the market believe Warsh is making decisions based on data, or is he reading cues from the White House?
For investors, the answer to this question is more important than the rate cuts themselves.
If the market perceives Warsh's rate cuts as "political," the discount on Fed independence will be directly reflected in bond market pricing. That cost will be borne by everyone—including the White House itself.
Citi economist Andrew Hollenhorst outlined a relatively moderate path: Warsh will not cut in June, but as core inflation cools and the unemployment rate rises, a cut in September may be possible. This path requires two conditions to be met simultaneously: cooling services inflation and a loosening labor market. If either is absent, a rate cut would no longer be a "data-driven decision" but a politically motivated move difficult to justify.
A statement from the fixed-income team at Caitong Securities is worth pondering: "Although Warsh is not a dovish Chair, one cannot rule out a rate cut this year—the relationship between the Fed Chair and the U.S. President is not static; it evolves over time."
The core of this statement is not to label Warsh but to remind the market: the Chair's preferences, White House pressure, inflation data, and FOMC consensus will pull in different directions over the coming months. No single factor will solely determine the outcome.
The First Battle: Proving Himself, Not Cutting Rates The "Warsh Era" has arrived, but it is not an era that begins lightly.
Tonight's swearing-in ceremony is merely a formal transfer. The real test of power will unfold in the next FOMC meeting, the next set of inflation data, and the market's repricing of Fed independence.
The core contradiction Warsh faces is not "whether he is dovish or not." A more precise question is: can someone chosen by Trump to cut rates wait for data sufficiently supportive of cuts without sacrificing the Fed's credibility?
If the data does not cooperate, the more urgently he tries to fulfill White House expectations, the greater the discount on Fed independence will be. If he insists on waiting, pressure from both Trump and the bond market will persist.
Warsh's first battle is not about cutting rates, but about proving he is not the opposite of Powell—not a Chair who traded compliance for position only to lose credibility at a critical moment.
This path is far more difficult than cutting rates.
Comments