Caution Takes Center Stage at the March Fed Meeting

The Federal Reserve held the policy rate steady in March at 3.5%–3.75%, a widely expected outcome as policymakers navigated an unusually complex macro backdrop. Modest upward revisions to near‑term inflation projections suggest that Fed officials view the recent energy supply shock as largely transitory, rather than a catalyst for persistent inflation pressure.

Overall, the Fed signaled continued patience regarding the timing of future rate cuts. The median path still points to eventual easing, but officials appear content to wait for greater clarity on the persistence of recent oil price shocks. This caution reflects uncertainty surrounding the Iran conflict and global energy supply risks, as well as questions about whether higher oil prices remain elevated temporarily or feed more durably into U.S. wages and inflation expectations.

Given the risks to both sides of the dual mandate, along with the Fed’s updated projections and communications, we still expect to see the Fed remain on hold through most of 2026, before resuming their easing cycle toward a neutral rate just above 3%.

Energy shock part of a balance of risks

As discussed in last week’s Macro Signposts (“Middle East Conflict Clouds the Economic Outlook”), the military conflict in the Middle East has increased the risk of a meaningful global energy supply shock.

Although the Fed typically looks through energy price fluctuations when assessing underlying inflation pressures, the current environment is more challenging given the economy’s recent experience with above‑target inflation. As a result, some officials appear more sensitive to the risk that persistent energy price increases could un-anchor inflation expectations or influence wage‑setting behavior. In his press conference, Fed Chair Jerome Powell also noted that the U.S.’s evolution into a net energy exporter could soften the drag on activity from higher oil prices, as sustained increases would likely spur additional investment in the domestic energy sector.

At the same time, the U.S. economy entered this shock with weaker underlying real income growth and a labor market that appeared less robust than headline GDP figures suggest, with recent payroll and aggregate hours data pointing to a labor market that is stagnating. In our view, these labor market vulnerabilities pose a more material risk in light of the near-term increase in activity supported by tax refunds. Some Fed officials appear to share this view, reinforcing the case for patience rather than preemptive tightening.

This perspective is further supported by the composition of recent growth. U.S. GDP has been driven disproportionately by productivity gains rather than labor input or underlying demand. With fading tariff effects and strong productivity helping to contain unit labor costs, we see the odds of renewed tightening as low, a view Powell echoed in his press conference.