Unprecedented Division Inside the Fed
The Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) is heading into its final meeting of 2025 amid an unusually high level of internal disagreement. Five of the twelve voting members have publicly voiced skepticism or outright opposition to further rate cuts, while three governors at the Fed’s Washington headquarters support easing. This level of division three or more dissenting views has not been recorded in a single meeting since 2019 and has occurred only nine times since 1990.
This rare fragmentation underscores a deeper tension within the Fed: the struggle to balance the dual mandate of stabilizing inflation and sustaining labor market strength. According to Michael Rosen of Angeles Investments, this divergence is more profound than at any time in recent memory. The degree of disagreement is not merely symbolic it may signal the direction of monetary policy in 2026 and beyond.
Mixed Signals from the Economy Complicate the Policy Outlook
Recent data present a conflicting picture for policymakers. Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE) inflation met expectations, while consumer confidence rose in December. At the same time, unemployment benefit claims fell to a three-year low, alleviating some labor market concerns. The unemployment rate in November is estimated to hover around 4.4%, suggesting continued job market resilience.
Yet these indicators arrive amid a fog of delayed data. Due to a historic 43-day government shutdown, the official October unemployment figures remain unavailable, and November’s report will be published only after the Fed’s meeting. This data gap adds to the challenge of making well-informed policy decisions.
Despite these limitations, markets appear confident: LSEG data show an 84% probability that the Fed will cut rates by 25 basis points in December, following the most recent cut on October 29, which brought the benchmark rate down to the 3.75–4.00% range. However, this confidence may be misplaced.
Powell’s Influence and the Power of Messaging
Chair Jerome Powell has made efforts to temper expectations, stating in recent remarks that a December rate cut was “not a certainty.” His words triggered immediate reversals in equity markets, which had largely priced in a cut as a done deal.
Some investors, including Tony Roth of Wilmington Trust, argue that a rate cut is already “priced in,” meaning the actual decision may cause less market volatility than Powell’s tone or the split among FOMC members. Roth believes that future guidance particularly language about data dependence will matter more than the December outcome itself.
On the other hand, Jeremiah Buckley of Janus Henderson contends that what the Fed does in the first half of 2026 will have a far greater long-term impact. He sees December’s meeting as more of a transition point than a policy pivot.
Cause or Correlation? Parsing the Disagreement
The current division within the FOMC is not just a reaction to immediate data it reflects structural uncertainty about the Fed’s operating model going forward. David Seif of Nomura notes that the upcoming meeting will offer insight into how strongly individual members assert their views against Powell’s leadership. With four regional Fed presidents rotating out of voting roles, their dissent may serve as a parting statement on policy independence.
This dynamic hints at a possible shift toward a more evenly distributed decision-making structure, where dissent is not only tolerated but institutionally integrated. Whether this trend reflects a causal restructuring of Fed governance or is simply a temporary correlation tied to current political and economic conditions remains an open question.
Policy Pivot or Policy Paralysis?
As the Fed prepares for one of its most contentious meetings in years, markets remain cautiously optimistic but vulnerable to surprises. A 25-point rate cut may seem likely, but the deeper story lies in the fissures within the central bank and the challenge of navigating incomplete data and political pressure.
Ultimately, what matters most may not be the rate decision itself, but the tone of Powell’s statement, the number of dissenting votes, and the message the Fed sends about 2026. Whether this meeting marks the start of a new easing cycle or a pause in indecision will depend on how convincingly the Fed can articulate a path forward in an increasingly uncertain economic landscape.