Good afternoon. My colleagues and I remain squarely focused on achieving our dual mandate goals of maximum employment and stable prices for the benefit of the American people. The U.S. economy has been expanding at a solid pace. While job gains have remained low, the unemployment rate has been little changed in recent months. Inflation has moved up and is elevated, in part reflecting the recent increase in global energy prices. Today, the FOMC decided to leave our policy rate unchanged. We see the current stance of monetary policy as appropriate to promote progress toward our maximum employment and 2% inflation goals. Developments in the Middle East are contributing to a high level of uncertainty about the economic outlook, and we will remain attentive to risks to both sides of our dual mandate. I'll have more to say about monetary policy after briefly reviewing economic developments. Recent indicators suggest that economic activity has been expanding at a solid pace. Consumer spending has been resilient, and business fixed investment has continued to expand at a brisk pace. In contrast, activity in the housing sector has remained weak. In the labor market, the unemployment rate was 4.3% in March and has changed little in recent months. Job gains have remained low. A good part of the slowing in the pace of the job growth over the past year reflects a decline in the growth of the labor force due to lower immigration and labor force participation, though labor demand has clearly softened as well. Other indicators, including job openings, layoffs, hiring, and nominal wage growth, generally show little change in recent months. Inflation has moved up recently and is elevated relative to our 2% longer-run goal. Estimates based on the Consumer Price Index and other data indicate that total PCE prices rose 3.5% over the 12 months ending in March, boosted by the significant rise in global oil prices that has resulted from the conflict in the Middle East. Excluding the volatile food and energy categories, Core PCE prices rose 3.2% over the 12 months ending in March. This relatively high rate largely reflects the effects of tariffs on prices in the goods sector. Near-term measures of inflation expectations have risen this year, likely because of the substantial rise in oil prices. Most measures of longer-term expectations remain consistent with our 2% inflation goal. Our monetary policy actions are guided by our dual mandate to promote maximum employment and stable prices for the American people. At today's meeting, the committee decided to maintain the target range for the federa funds rate at 3.5% to 3.75%. The economic outlook remains highly uncertain and the conflict in the Middle East has added to this uncertainty. In the near term, higher energy prices will push up overall inflation. Beyond that, the scope and duration of potential effects on the economy remain unclear, as does the future course of the conflict itself. We will continue to monitor the risks to both sides of our dual mandate. We are well-positioned to determine the extent and timing of additional adjustments to our policy rate based on the incoming data, the evolving outlook, and the balance of risks. Monetary policy is not on a preset course, and we will make our decisions on a meeting-by-meeting basis. This is my last press conference as Chair, and I will close with a few thoughts. First, I wanna congratulate Kevin Warsh on his advancement out of the Senate Banking Committee this morning. This is an important step forward, and I wish him well as that process continues. The Federal Reserve exists for one fundamental purpose: to foster the economic conditions in which American families and businesses can thrive. Stable prices, a strong job market, and a financial system they can depend on. Every decision we make, whether about interest rates or regulatory and supervisory matters or other issues, is made in service of that purpose. Our decisions reflect the collective judgment of the Board of Governors and the Federal Open Market Committee, colleagues who demonstrate analytical rigor, principled judgment, and a genuine commitment to the public interest. Our collaborative and deliberative process has long reflected a shared commitment to finding common ground in service to our mission. This institution is resilient, capable, and staffed by professionals of extraordinary talent and exceptional dedication. It has been a privilege to serve alongside so many great public servants at the Board of Governors and around the Federal Reserve System. The Fed's work is only as effective as the public's understanding of it, and you, the press, are essential to keeping the public informed about what we do and why. The people we serve benefit from your careful reporting. I welcomed the announcement last Friday by the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia that she had closed the criminal investigation. She also noted, however, that she would not hesitate to restart the investigation. Over the weekend, the Department of Justice provided assurances that they will not reopen the investigation unless there's a criminal referral from the Fed's Inspector General. Absent such a referral, if they do appeal the recent court decision, they would not seek, as part of that appeal, to restart the investigation or send new subpoenas. I've said that I will not leave the Board until this investigation is well and truly over with transparency and finality, and I stand by that. I'm encouraged by recent developments, and I'm watching the remaining steps in this process carefully. My decisions on these matters will continue to be guided entirely by what I believe is in the best interest of the institution and the people we serve. After my term as Chair ends on May 15, I will continue to serve as a governor for a period of time to be determined. I plan to keep a low profile as a governor. There's only ever one Chair of the Federal Reserve Board. When Kevin Warsh is confirmed and sworn in, he will be that Chair. Once sworn in as Board Chair, his new colleagues will elect him to chair the FOMC as well. As I regularly point out from this podium, our success in delivering our goals matters for all Americans. I'm confident that the Fed will continue to do its work with objectivity, integrity, and a deep commitment to serve the American people. Thank you. I look forward to your questions. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Appreciate the kind words about the press. Often doesn't come from the podium in different places. Appreciate that. Can you talk about what is gone into your decision to remain on the board? What kind of criteria are you weighing, and how long might you stay? Thank you. Sure. You know, my concern is really about the series of legal attacks on the Fed which threaten our ability to conduct monetary policy without considering political factors. I wanna note here, this has nothing whatever to do with verbal criticism by elected officials. I've never suggested that such verbal criticism is a problem, and neither has anyone else here. These legal actions by the administration are unprecedented in our 113-year history, and there are ongoing threats of additional such actions. I worry that these attacks are battering the institution and putting at risk the thing that really matters to the public, which is the ability to conduct monetary policy without taking into consideration political factors. It is so important for our economy, for the people that we serve, that they can depend over time on a central bank that operates that way, free of political influence. It's part of the absolute foundation of this amazing economy that we have. It's just one of the many reasons why the U.S. economy is the envy of the world. That piece of institutional architecture separates successful countries from unsuccessful countries. It is extremely important, not for the people who work at the Fed at any given time, but for the people that we serve, that the Fed remain able to conduct monetary policy in a way that doesn't get pulled into politics, trying to help or hurt any particular politician or political party. It's critical for the people that we serve. In terms of when I would leave, I will leave when I think it's appropriate to do so. Was that all your questions, or was there- Well, I just have a follow-up, which is what would you say to the criticism that by remaining on the board, you're actually taking a political act in denying President Trump the majority of the board, which as president he would have if you left? I don't see that at all. As I mentioned, you know, I'm literally staying because of the actions that have been taken. I had long planned to be retiring, and, you know, the things that have happened in, really in the last three months have, I think, left me no choice but to stay until they're, till I see them through at least that long. You know, in addition, I don't see how this will interfere. My intention is not to interfere. You know, I was a governor for almost six years, and the tradition is at the Fed that governors who understand how difficult the role of Chair is, and as a soon-to-be-former Chair, I do understand how hard it is to get consensus with 19 strong-minded people. You work with the Chair. You try to be heard, but also collaborate with the chair and try to support the chair when you can. When you can't, you can't. I think that's the attitude that people generally take, and that's the attitude that I'll take. Nick. Chair Powell, if I could ask about the inflation outlook. In March, you described the standard practice of looking through energy shocks as conditional on inflation expectations staying anchored. Since that meeting, there has been very little progress reopening key energy trade corridors. Can you help us understand how the inflation outlook has changed in the intermeeting period, beginning with the prospects for tariff pass through resolving on the timeline that you had outlined in March before getting to the energy shock that is now on top? You know, I would look at it this way. For a long time we've been working on the hypothesis really that tariffs would lead to a one-time price increase, and that that would go away over time. In other words, that there would be no further change, so measured inflation wouldn't reflect that higher level going up more and more. It's time for that to happen. You know, we really do expect that to be happening in the next two quarters. We'll be watching very carefully to see that what we've thought all along would happen. That's the kind of critical part of the forecast. We need to really see that. With energy, it's so hard to say. I mentioned, you know, in, you know, sort of the textbook, you would look through it, an oil shock, because they tend to be short-lived, and they tend to revert, and monetary policy works with long and variable lags, you know, you wouldn't necessarily react right away. I think that is all the more true given that we're several years above 2% inflation and that we're already looking through the tariff shock. I think we're gonna be very cautious about that. The question about looking through energy really is not in front of us right now. We, it hasn't even peaked yet, and I think we'd wanna see the backside of that and progress on tariffs before we even thought about reducing rates. If I could follow up. The statement today preserves language that has taken on some meaning as it was socialized when the committee was actively lowering rates. Why is that easing bias still ripe given how different the inflation outlook is now versus a meeting or two ago? What more would have to happen for it to get evicted? That was, as you will recall, we had a discussion about that at the last meeting, and we talked about it in the press conference after the March meeting. We had the same today. We had quite a vigorous discussion about that very issue and the guidance, and is it still appropriate, and that kind of thing. I would say that the, you know, number of people on the committee who either could support that language change, changing to a more neutral stance so that a hike is as likely as a cut, that number has increased over the intermeeting period, and it's easy to see why. I mean, it's a good question, right? You see inflation has moved up over the interim a bit. Core inflation's 3.2 now, moving, albeit just a little bit, in the wrong direction. We know that there will be, you know, that there's headline inflation coming out of the Gulf, we don't know how much that will be. We just, we're gonna need to see. It makes all the sense in the world that people would look at that and we'd have a vigorous discussion about that. You saw that three people dissented over the language. I think all of those people agreed with the rate decision. The majority of the committee did not wanna do that, and I didn't think we needed to do it at this meeting. It really was just a question of why do we need to do that now? You know, we have so much to learn. There's so much uncertainty about the path ahead. There doesn't need to be any rush to make that decision now because, you know, what happens in the next 30, 60 days, even by the next meeting, could really change the picture around that, around that language. You know, it's a close, it's a much closer thing on the committee than it was in March. You know, that makes all the sense in the world, it seems to me. Claire. Claire Jones, Financial Times. Just going back to this issue of the easing bias, we've now got oil approaching $120 a barrel when it comes to the benchmark, Brent Crude. If it stays around those levels six weeks from now, what would be your guess, best guess as to whether the easing bias will still be in the statement? Thank you. I wouldn't wanna guess. You know, well, first of all, we're gonna have new leadership in all likelihood by then, and new leadership's gonna have a very important role to play in that. I won't be standing here at this podium to answer your question. I don't know. As I mentioned, that's all I can really say is that we had a great discussion about that today. It's a, you know, it's gotten to be a better question in the interim period. We had the discussion. A majority are still on the page of not feeling the need to move to that level, and that's where I am. I get it, though. You know, at a certain point you would move, and that conceivably could come as soon as the next meeting. Thank you. Just to follow on, the new leadership also seem rather lukewarm on press conferences and on the dot plots. What would your advice to him be on these communication tools? I'm not gonna give him any advice through you today here, I've, you know, I think communications generally is, I think every incoming chair takes a look at communications, and it's a very healthy thing. I mean, communications is, it's very complex and, you know, you can always be looking at new things. I, if that happens, feels like it's gonna happen, that's a completely appropriate thing. Neil. Hi, Chair. Chair Powell, Neil Irwin, Axios. Can you tell us if you've been in touch with incoming Chairman Warsh? To what extent is this a normal transition process versus all the things swirling around something unusual, and what can we expect when he takes that podium in a few weeks? I haven't seen him since seeing him at a dinner in January where I congratulated him and had a nice chat with him. Haven't seen him. I don't know what a normal process is. You know, the last process was with Janet Yellen who, with whom I had worked for six years, it was, you know, we were sitting down the hall from each other. It was a very different thing. I think this is and will be a very normal, standard kind of a transition process. That's what I expect. I have every reason to think it will be. Quick follow-up. Is the Supreme Court ruling on Governor Cook a factor in when you may leave as a governor? I wasn't thinking of it as such, but no, not really. I mean, I'm thinking more of the other things I mentioned. Chris. Hi. Thanks for taking our question. I wanted to ask a question about your tenure. Chris Rugaber at Associated Press. During your tenure as Chair, you often spoke about how disadvantaged Americans benefited from extended periods of low unemployment. The new framework the Fed adopted in 2020 some economists say elevated the Fed's employment mandate. Are you worried that the pandemic inflation spike that followed will make future Fed chairs more reluctant to pursue a hot jobs market, and should they be? I don't know the answer to that. I mean, what we experienced in the, in the teens, the mid-teens, was really low levels of unemployment for a long period of time and no reaction from inflation. We all took, very much took notice of that. We also noticed that the biggest wage gains were going to people at the bottom end of the income spectrum. We had many, many reports of. I mean, it felt like a fairly stable equilibrium. A lot of benefits were flowing to people at the bottom end of the income spectrum, including companies were, you know, setting up in, you know, people who were confined and, like, training them before they got out. It was a very healthy sort of set of societal dynamics. Of course, I think anybody would love to get back to that. I don't think that anything that happened to create the global pandemic inflation was in any way related to overweighting the employment market. I mean, it was a global shock that happened essentially very, very similarly all over the world that had to do with closing, reopening, Stimulus and all that. I mean, you could look at it, a graph of 10 big economies on the page and not know which was the U.S. and which was Germany, France, and things like that. I don't think that insight was in any way responsible for the high inflation that we experienced. I mean, I think it's always been a balance. You've got to, you've gotta be strong on both of our dual mandates. We, for example, now we don't feel that the labor market is at all a source of inflation, we don't need to be worrying about that. It's been a long time since we have had to worry about that. Well, actually, during the pandemic recovery, the labor market was super overheated and tight, that's when we had to worry about it, but not now. Just on the other issue, do you need more assurance from the Justice Department before stepping down? Is that what you're waiting for, or what else is gonna factor into the decision? I'm waiting, you know, for the investigation to be well and truly over with finality and transparency. I'm waiting for that, and I will leave when I think it's appropriate to do so. Michael McKee. Michael McKee from Bloomberg Television and Radio. I'd like to ask you if you could explain a little more or characterize a little more the discussion about the two-sided view and interest rates, because there were some members of the Open Market Committee who've been suggesting that we may need to raise interest rates even absent the war, because inflation was not coming down fast enough. Is there any sense that interest rates might have to go up, or was this just a setup to sort of warn people that you're worried about the war impacts? Nobody, the three dissenters and others who could have supported that and others who were, you know, who were voters and non-voters who preferred it, they all supported the right decision, right? It's more a question of, you know, don't we kind of feel that we should be neutral, and what are markets doing? People argue that this is consistent with markets are doing. Again, it's a, it's a very fair question, but, you know, these changes, there is, you know, it's a form of forward guidance and you wanna make them in a way that will be sustained and continue to make sense and not something you need to take back, you know, fairly quickly. I think we just, a group of us, including me, didn't feel like we needed to be in a hurry on that markets are not confused about our reaction function. We don't have a problem to solve on that. The other side of the argument is a good argument too. As I mentioned, it's a perfectly good argument to be having, good discussion to be having. It came out the way it came out. Well, you've got three dissents in favor of a two-sided warning. You've got yourself staying on the board. You've got the criticism that does come from elected officials, and you've got a lot of critics who have faulted the Fed for being too slow 2021 with inflation. Are you worried about Fed credibility under all of this? Is that one reason that you wanna stay on? Not driving my thinking now. I mean, monetary policy is gonna get made by, you know, 19 people. There's a lot of stability there. I mean, if you think about it, every new Fed chair has the same situation, which is you've got 18 colleagues on the FOMC, 11 of them vote during any year, and your job is to create consensus. It's to talk to them, understand them, you know, be inside their thinking and be able to pull them together and get consensus and move, and that's what every Fed chair has to do. I think Kevin Warsh is actually quite well, he has the capabilities, skills to be very good at that, I would think. I think I'm not so worried about that process, you know. I think that'll work itself out. Howard. Thank you, Howard Schneider with Reuters. You mentioned that, staying on as a governor, you intend to keep a low profile. I'm just wondering if you could give us a little more detail on what that looks like and how you can- Touché. Yeah, walk down the steps. What that looks like, and particularly around the policy discussion, how you're able to have your intervention and not be a shadow chair, not have a kind of an outsized influence over the process. You know, that's just something I would never do, you know, the shadow chair thing. No, you know, I don't know what the exact specifics of it will be, but I'm going back to being a governor. I respect the role of chair. You know, I was a chair, I was a governor for six years, and I know what that's like. I know it, and I had a, you know, pretty front row seat with, particularly with, Chair Yellen, to whom I was close when I worked with Chairman Bernanke for two years, but, you know, I was brand new at that time. I got a sense of what it was, I had real sympathy for how hard it is to get that group to consensus, I always felt like I, you know, I don't wanna add to that unnecessarily. That means try to support the Chairs where the Chair the direction the Chair wants to go in if you can. If you can't, you can't. I think that's the way it's always worked there, 'cause the Chair only has one vote, plus the ability to develop consensus. If people won't be, you know, they won't if they're not flexible at all, then how do you ever do that? That's why the Chair has the authority the Chair has, really, is to develop relationships with people and work with them, and then, and then put something forward that has consensus. I, you know, I propose to be a very constructive participant in that process, really out of respect for the office of the Chair. In your view as a soon-to-be governor, how do you see the risks of oil prices bleeding into core inflation in coming weeks? That was, it seems like the commentary that was coming from particularly some of the Reserve Bank presidents, there were elevated concerns about the bleed into core. You know, here we are with three dissents now. What do you see as the prospect of a core inflation problem? You know, there, those prospects are real. They're real, and the real thing is we're gonna have to wait and see. We're gonna need to see. The good news is we think our policy stance is just, is in a very good place for us to wait and see. We, you know, we're right kind of at the high end of neutral or perhaps mildly restrictive. The labor market shows more and more signs of stability, whereas inflation is kind of misbehaving. Maybe a little bit of restriction or the high end of neutral is just the right place to be. We can wait here and see, and see how things work out before we act. We'll see how much that, you know, how much does come through into core. You see it already in airfares of course, but you may see it in many other places. You know, we just don't know yet. It's so unknown, because how long will the strait be closed? You can develop any number of scenarios that you want, but we really won't know till we know. Fortunately, we're in a good place to wait and let things develop. Thank you. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. You started holding post-meeting press conferences for every meeting as opposed to the ones with just with SEPs. Can you talk about why you see that as a net positive? We always said when we were doing quarterly press conferences, we always said we can move at any meeting, but we only ever moved at the quarterly SEP meetings where we had the press conference. If you think about it, you know, we, during the pandemic, we were moving, like, a lot at every meeting and sometimes between meetings. Doing that with our press conference I think would have been quite challenging. It's become the industry norm. It's the standard. I don't know whether that has to remain that way. I don't know. I mean, I, it's just something people have become used to, and I do think it's quite helpful to, you know, to. I mean, I try to deliver a message on behalf of the committee rather than 18 other people going out and delivering their message. You know, it's gonna be all over the place, 'cause we do thankfully have widely disparate views. Okay, thanks. The other thing I wanted to ask about was the communications review from last year. Could you describe the debate last year, what changes were considered, what you wanted, and what prevented action, any action, on those changes? Yeah, I'm not gonna go into the real small specifics, but what we found very quickly was that making changes, making really large changes, for example, to the dot plot or the SEP, We couldn't come up with anything that had really broad support on the committee. We just moved on. We didn't really do as much on that as we might have. You know, I was never the world's biggest fan of the dot plot, but you can't beat something with nothing. You know, We've looked at a bunch of things and, you know, it's something, like I said, I think every new chair is gonna look at our suite of communications and think about what would be changes. We are the only major central bank that doesn't publish a forecast. That's because we have a 19-person committee and, you know, you try to do that at the Board, that's hard. At the committee, that's hard. It's hard if you do it at the staff. It's, you know, it works. I think our communications are fine. Looking at doing it in a different and better way is the most natural thing in the world. Colby. Thank you. Colby Smith of The New York Times. If I could follow up on Mike's question about hikes, are we right to assume that the hawkish outcome for the Fed is still one in which the committee just extends the pause in rate cuts? To what extent is there a growing sense within the committee that monetary policy really isn't just restrictive at all right now? The economy is holding up relatively well despite this major energy shock. The unemployment rate has ticked lower. Inflation was moving sideways even before the war, and is now moving higher. Where is the committee at on that debate? You know, where we're at is we think our really, we think our policy rate is in a good place. If we need to hike, we will certainly signal that and we will certainly do it. If we need to cut, then, or if it's appropriate to cut, then we'll signal the opposite. I think we, because we feel like we're in a good place to move in either direction, nobody's calling for a hike right now. It really is gonna depend on how things evolve. You know, that's really where it is. The, you know, as I mentioned, you know, much closer question this cycle on changing the guidance, but ultimately we didn't. As it relates to the war- at what point do you think the risks to growth will be larger than the risks to inflation as this conflict drags on? You know, you just have to find that out empirically. You know, given our the fact that we're, you know, a big exporter of energy and that our economy is far less energy intensive, oil intensive than it was during the '70s, you know, the effects on the United States are really substantially less than those of Western Europe or Asia, who are feeling much greater effects from these things. The effects we're feeling in, you know, in the current situation currently and in sort of what's priced in, which is, you know, a relatively quick outcome. If this goes on for much longer and prices go much higher, then we'll feel that much more. Of course, I'm talking about aggregate inflation numbers. We know, we're very well aware that people are experiencing higher gas prices all over the country now, and that hurts. That, and these are, those hikes may continue to happen. Other things are gonna start to reflect. Airline fares I've mentioned and other products and services that are dependent upon petroleum and derivatives of petroleum. People are gonna start to feel that. Edward. Thank you. Thank you, Chair Powell. Edward Lawrence with Fox Business. I guess I'll just ask you directly on this. The markets don't see a rate cut at all this year is what they're predicting. Do you think that we are at the neutral rate? Why or why not? You know, the neutral rate is, we cannot know it with certainty. I think pretty close to the neutral rate, yeah. I always had it, you know, between 3% and 4%. We're a little north of 3.5%, that's well in the range of what I would consider reasonable, but at the higher end of the range of what I would consider reasonable neutral rate. You know, I think the labor market is still probably cooling off just a little bit. I don't think there's much of a case for any case really for policy looking, you know, meaningfully restrictive, maybe mildly restrictive or neutral, I would say. I wanna follow up on some of the other questions about your future a little bit. The first time we've seen the four dissents now since October of 1992. Are you handing off a divided Fed? You know, the thing to remember is, we have always had vigorous debates and, they're excellent debates. I have to say, they're, they've been really good. We're in an unusually difficult situation. We've really had four supply shocks. You can, actually you can say more than four, but at a minimum we had the pandemic, we had the invasion of the, of Ukraine, we had tariffs, and now we have Iran and the oil, you know, the oil spike. Those, every supply shock has the capability of driving inflation up and unemployment up. What do you do? You know, you're, it's, the central bank has a really hard time knowing what to do. The right thing to do is to try to balance the achievement of those two goals, and that's what our framework calls for us to do. These are really tough, difficult judgments. You've gotta have a forecast for each variable. You've gotta think how long it's gonna take to get back to target. You gotta think how restrictive or not is policy. It's only natural that you have a range of views on the committee. You know, people are gonna see it different ways. They're gonna have different risk tolerances and that kinda thing. I mean, if everybody agreed, that would be surprising. I think it's only partly a function of the extraordinarily challenging set of supply shocks that we've been dealing with now for five, six years. Selena. Thank you so much, Chair Powell. Selena Wang with ABC News. Are you confident that Kevin Warsh will stand up to political pressure from President Trump? He testified very strongly to that effect in his hearing, I'll take him at his word. When it comes to gas, right now it's over $4 a gallon. Inflation just hit a two-year high. Should Americans expect to be paying higher gas prices for the rest of this year? In your view, does that take a rate cut off of the table? Secondly, by staying on as a Fed governor, what message do you think you're sending to the President? I don't know what gas prices are gonna do for the rest of the year. It will depend on how long the strait remains closed and how quickly it can be reopened and that kinda thing. Remember, when gas prices go up, that's disposable income coming out of people's pockets, so they're gonna spend less on other things. There will be a hit to GDP. It's a, you know, it's a, it's a question whether spending, you know, goes down to offset the inflationary effects. It's not, the answer isn't obvious, ex ante, whether you, whether you should move your rate over because of that. We'll have to see how it evolves. The message it sends to President Trump by staying on? I'll stand on what I said earlier. Victoria. Hi. Victoria Guida with Politico. During your tenure, Fed independence has come under pressure in a lot of different ways. I was just wondering, practically speaking, where do you see Fed independence as coming from? Is it the law? Is it political support from Congress? Is it the actions of the Fed? What sustains Fed independence? Well, it's, you know, it's to a significant extent it is the law, and, you know, we've had to go to court to, successfully so far, to defend it. But, you know, the law does create a setting in which the Fed can and is directed to make monetary policy without consideration of political factors. So part of it is the law. But it goes beyond that though. There's a set of customs. There's a boundary line between the Fed and the administration, between the Fed and the Treasury Department, and we need to respect those, continue to respect those boundaries about what the Fed is responsible for and what the Treasury is responsible for and what the rest of the administration's responsible for. Some of it is legal. In fact, it's all legal at the end of the day, but there, it's more than just monetary policy. We, you know, we haven't wanted to use our tools to achieve goals that are really clearly outside our mandate. Every administration looks at our tools and thinks it would be good to repurpose those to serve other purposes, but that gets it dragged, that's dragging us into politics and into fiscal policy. We've resisted that. Well, maybe another way of asking it too is do you think that Fed independence is as strong now as when you became chair? If so, why? Look, I think it's at risk. I mean, I think these, you know, these legal assaults, if you will, as I mentioned, you know, we're, the institution is being battered over these things. We're having to resort to, you know, the courts to enforce our legal, you know. It's not so much independence, it's really the ability to do monetary, to make monetary policy without political considerations. That's what we're talking about. We've had to do that, and we've been successful so far. That's not over. None of that is concluded yet. It's really important. It's not about people who work at the Fed or the institution. It's about the benefits of a central bank that makes decisions based on analysis and our best thinking, rather than, you know, trying to help or hurt politicians. It's, you know, there's a bright line between central banks who do one and do the other, and successful countries have uniformly successful advanced economy countries have a really strong set of protections around their central bank just for that reason. That's what it's all about. I, you know, I think, I am confident, as I said in my remarks, that the Fed will continue to make its decision based on analysis, rigorous analysis, and not on political considerations. We've had to fight for it. I, you know, I'd like to think that, you know, I'd like to think we can get out of that era and go back to respecting, you know, what the law says and what custom has been, which is to, you know, let the Fed do our thing. We're, you know, we're not. It's a, it's an institution full of human beings who work super hard to get things right for the benefit of the public. We're all human. Don't expect perfection, but do expect us to make, you know, decisions without political considerations and the very best analysis we can bring. Catarina. Catarina Saraiva, Bloomberg News. How would you characterize what you've heard from your colleagues on your decision to stay? Do you have their support? Have you heard concern from your colleagues about continued legal attacks from the executive branch? Is this something that others have, you know, talked to you about? I don't wanna report on what my colleagues think. They can speak for themselves. You know, there are widespread concerns that these things may continue. That's all I'll say. You know, that would be a problem. I just also wanted to ask about Governor Waller's speech on the Reserve Banks. What, you know, do you have any thoughts on centralizing some of those functions in the way he described? Have, you know, do, are you concerned that something like that could potentially be a slippery slope to, you know, to consolidate Reserve Bank functions even more in such a way where you know, the central bank ultimately loses some of that important regional information? We try to be good stewards of the public's money, and efficient, and Chris in particular, Christopher Waller, is particularly passionate about that. Of course, so are the reserves, so are the presidents. You know, it's a question of how do you accomplish it. We of course, and Chris said this in his speech, we, you know, we want 12 strong independent central banks with their own staffs and their own monetary policy views and all that. You know, there are things that are done in all 12 which could well be done at one much more efficiently and with cost savings. There's a back and forth going on on that. Everybody's on the same page. The other thing he touched on was the idea of removing Reserve Bank presidents from office over different views on monetary policy. I would just agree with him so strongly that that would be the beginning of the end of the Fed's ability to make monetary policy independently. If every administration could come in and do that, you're just another cabinet agency at that point. That's not something that I would support. Chris said the same thing. Christine. Thanks, Chair Powell. Christine Romans, NBC News. I wanna ask about legacy. When the history books are written, how do you think your stewardship at the Fed will be remembered for the past eight years? You know, I'm gonna just say that's for, that's for someone else to say. I'll give you a mulligan on that. All right. I'm gonna ask you about misbehaving inflation then. You talked about those four big shocks, supply shocks, over the past five years, and inflation's still misbehaving. What's your message to American families who feel like inflation has not been under control for them really since the COVID reopening? You know, we're committed to bringing inflation back down to 2% and sustainably. That's our goal. We'll stick at it until that happens. These events keep happening which keep driving up costs. You know, the best thing we can do is to use our tools to guide inflation back down to 2%. I think trying to get there really quickly could be very costly in terms of job loss and things like that. We try to get there over time in a way that does the least damage possible. You know, our commitment to that is never-ending and unshakable. How would you describe the economy outside of the misbehaving inflation? I mean, it's still awfully resilient given all of the blows- I don't know that you can be awfully resilient. It's actually quite resilient, I would say, 'cause it's a positive thing, if I can, if I can have that amendment. Yeah, the, you know, growth is really solid across our economy. Some of that is that consumer spending is hanging in pretty well. The most recent data are good. Some of it is just the apparently insatiable demand for data centers all over the United States. A lot of business investment going into building data centers, and every reason to think that that continues. You've got an economy that's growing at 2% or better. PDFP, which is private domestic final purchases that, which is really a better signal of a momentum, and it comes actually higher than that. That's, you know, that's a positive thing. The, if you look at the unemployment rate, it's 4.3%, that's a low rate. That's pretty close to mainstream estimates of the natural rate. We've been there for a long time. It's, it doesn't feel like a good labor market to some who don't have jobs because quits are really low, hires are really low, and there's effectively no new net job creation. That's a, you know, in a sense the labor market is in balance, but it's an unusual and uncomfortable kind of a balance where people who don't have jobs will have a hard time breaking in unless somebody quits their job. That's pretty good. You know, inflation is the thing we need to work on, and it's partly tariffs, which we think, we think that that inflation should subside over the course of this year because it's kind of a one-time increase. It shouldn't be repeated, and that should start happening pretty soon. The energy inflation that we're getting should go through fairly quickly, and we'll just have to see how that works out. In the meantime, you know, we think our policy stance is in a good place for us to hold and wait developments. Jennifer. Thank you, Chair Powell. Jennifer Schonberger with Yahoo Finance. At the risk of beating the dead horse here, clearly three members objected to keeping that easing bias in the statement. You said that the majority still didn't need to move to new language at this point. Does the majority of the committee still have a bias towards cuts at this point, or has the bias on the committee shifted away from cuts towards holding or hikes if that was needed? I think the, you know, the center is moving toward a more neutral place, and that's sort of what markets are saying too. I just think, you know, there's a lot of signaling going on when you change guidance like that. We just, I guess the majority of us didn't feel like we needed to send a signal on that right now. Maybe it'll come to that. The reason is because, you know, we're kind of waiting to see what happens with events in the Middle East, and what are the implications of those events for the U.S. economy. There's a group who feels like we don't need to be in a hurry to do that. We get it. Of course we will move to a hiking bias if we wanna hike, we'll move to a neutral bias before that. There was a difference over whether to do it at this meeting, at a meeting at which all but one of us agreed that the rate decision was correct, which was not to move. You just said moments ago that you believe Fed independence is at risk. Is it safe to say that you want to stay on as a Governor to serve as a check and balance on that? I wanna stay until I will stay until I feel it's appropriate for me to leave. Yes, that is really what is driving this. I'm not looking to be, you know, a high-profile, dissident or anything like that. I'm more looking at the other aspects of this and wanting to see that things have calmed down and we're returning to a traditional model of working with the people that you have and bringing them to consensus and respecting that consensus. That's what I'm hoping to see. Matt Egan. Thanks, Chair Powell. Matt Egan with CNN. You've made many tough decisions in your time at the Fed. As your time as Chair comes to a close and you think about your tenure and perhaps your legacy, are there any decisions that stand out as ones that you're particularly proud of? Are there any that with the benefit of hindsight you would take a mulligan on? Yeah, it's hard. I wouldn't wanna single out individual things at this point. You know, I'll just say, you know, we, all of us together have consistently tried to do what we think is best for the American people based on our tools and our objectives that Congress has given us. It's been very challenging because we've been in a situation of supply shocks really for six years, that's just a very different situation than for a very long time what the Fed and other central banks were doing all the time was demand management. You know, and there was always the inflation mandate, but inflation was low for 25 years. This is a very different world and a much more challenging one where you have to balance the two objectives. By the way, central banks that have an inflation mandate have to do exactly the same thing because they're balancing economic activity. That's been challenging. We've, you know, we've tried to do our very best through these really challenging times, and I'm really proud of the work that I've done that my colleagues and I have done during these years. Now to follow up on some of the discussion around Fed independence, can you explain to the public why this notion of Fed independence, which might sound kind of wonky to some, is so critical? I mean, what are the consequences if either the Supreme Court rules against Lisa Cook, or the Fed in the future decides to make decisions more around the political calendar instead of the economic data? Every major advanced economy in the world has made the same decision the United States has made, and that is that they wanna take the making of monetary policy, the setting of interest rates to support the economy, to achieve maximum employment and price stability, they wanna take that out of the direct control of elected politicians. The reason is elected politicians are always running for election, and they'll always want low rates, and that will lead to inflation over time. After, you know, literally centuries of experience with that, the whole world moved to the different model, and it's worked great. I mean, this is, this is the era in which inflation was under control for 40 years. We had the pandemic inflation everywhere in the world, now we have inflation that had gone pretty much all the way back to target, really close to all the way back to target, now is being buffeted by the energy shock and the U.S. buffeted by the tariff shock as well. What I would say to the general public is that's the backstory. Is that, don't think about an institution being independent. Think about it this way, you want people to make monetary policy and set interest rates to benefit the general public and to try to achieve economic goals, which are maximum employment and price stability, focus only on that, ignore political considerations, completely ignore them. This isn't bipartisan. This is nonpartisan. We, wanna just, we just work directly for the American people doing these things. We don't think, "Oh, this'll. I wanna do this because the president says it's a good idea or because there's an election coming up, and I wanna speed up or slow down the economy." That, I mean, that, think about that. If that's, if that, if that's what we were doing, we'd have no credibility, markets would lose faith in us and our ability to control inflation, and have any respect would be, you know, would be gone. Let me say, whatever people say, the markets believe in, that we will produce 2% inflation. If you look at longer run expectations, markets believe that they. There's no sense in which our credibility in the markets has weakened. It's just not the case. People do get it, that this is our commitment, and that we will achieve it, and it's priced in. If you disagree with that, then you can go ahead and bet against the markets, but the markets are pricing in Fed credibility. Okay. We'll go to Richard for the last one. Thank you. Thank you, Chair Powell. Richard Escobedo with CBS News. We talked a lot about gasoline prices and even you mentioned airline ticket prices, both of which are up dramatically because of the war in Iran. I wonder, are you seeing that weigh down consumer spending in other parts of the economy? If so, how worried are you that that will be a drag on growth? You don't see t in spending yet. You really don't. I mean, as one of your colleagues said, the economy has been resilient. It really has. Not just this time, but it's been remarkably resilient for some years now. The U.S. economy has just powered through shock after shock, consumers are still spending, that's what the banks will tell you, credit card companies will tell you, the retail sales numbers that we got most recently. People are still spending. You know, how long can that go on in a world where if gas prices were to go up a bunch more, that's taking otherwise spendable money out of people's pockets? Right now we don't actually see much slowdown in yet and certainly none from this. You think logically you will, because people have a certain amount of money to spend. If they're spending 25% more on gas or something like that, then, you know, that's gonna come out of other spending. We, again, we don't see it yet. One last thing. You mentioned those economies in Southeast Asia that are particularly dependent on petroleum. They make a lot of the stuff that American consumers buy. Was there any discussion today about whether or not those costs getting passed along to consumers is a real concern and whether or not that might push up inflation? All of those things are in the models that we use to calculate inflation. We, you know, they're just parts. You can ask about anything like that, and they have a place, the staff has a place where they're looking at that and pricing in what will happen with higher prices and that kinda thing. It's there. The effects are not that big yet. You know, we're a huge economy. The import sector is only 10% of the economy, so we're not like a European country where 50% of the external of GDP is in the external sector. We're also, you know, as I mentioned, we're an oil exporter, so we're not feeling the same kind of pain, and we're not likely to feel the same kind of pain that economies in Western Europe and certainly in Asia are feeling. Anyway, thank you very much everyone. I won't see you next time.