US FOMC Held its Benchmark Federal Funds Rate at 3.5%

The Federal Reserve’s FOMC held its benchmark federal funds rate steady at 3.5%–3.75% on April 29, 2026 following the April 28–29 meeting with an unusually high level of dissent—four members voting against the decision.

This marks the highest number of dissents since October 1992 over 33 years. The vote was roughly 8-4; accounts vary slightly on exact tally due to how the dissents were framed, but four officials opposed aspects of the action or statement. Governor Stephen Miran dissented in favor of an immediate 25-basis-point rate cut. He has consistently pushed for easier policy since joining the Fed in 2025.

Three regional Fed presidents—Beth Hammack (Cleveland), Neel Kashkari (Minneapolis), and Lorie Logan (Dallas)—agreed with holding rates but opposed the easing bias; language in the statement suggesting the next move could be a rate reduction. They preferred more neutral or hawkish forward guidance amid inflation risks.

The statement retained language indicating that the next policy move could still be a cut, while noting solid economic activity, low job gains, and elevated uncertainty including from the Middle East conflict and energy prices. No one on the committee was pushing for a rate hike at this meeting.

This was likely Jerome Powell’s final meeting as Chair, his term as chair ends in May 2026. Powell indicated he plans to remain on the Board of Governors for some time afterward, citing concerns over related investigations. The Fed had delivered three 25-bp cuts late in 2025 before pausing in January and March 2026. Rates have now been on hold for three straight meetings.

Markets had fully priced in no change for this meeting. Dissent reflects ongoing tension within the committee over:Inflation risks — Some see upside pressure from energy prices and geopolitical factors. Growth and labor — activity’s has been resilient, but job gains are soft. Forward guidance — How strongly or whether to signal future easing.

The three presidents who dissented against the easing bias wanted to avoid locking in a dovish tilt when risks are two-sided. Miran, by contrast, sees policy as still too restrictive. This level of division is notable but not unprecedented in Fed history during uncertain times. It highlights that while the current stance is seen as appropriate by the majority, there is no strong consensus on the next steps.

Powell emphasized in the press conference that the economy has shown resilience, and the committee remains attentive to risks on both sides of its dual mandate; price stability and maximum employment. The April 29, 2026 FOMC meeting was not a projections (SEP) meeting. The Fed releases its Summary of Economic Projections—including the famous dot plot—only at the March, June, September, and December meetings.

Therefore, there are no new dot plot or updated median projections from this meeting. The most recent dot plot and SEP come from the March 18, 2026 meeting. Real GDP growth: 2.4% in 2026, 2.3% in 2027, 2.1% in 2028, 2.0% longer run. Slight upgrade to near-term growth vs. prior SEP, signaling resilience despite energy/geopolitical shocks.

Unemployment rate: 4.4% in 2026, 4.3% in 2027, 4.2% in 2028, 4.2% longer run. Stableand slightly soft labor market; no sharp deterioration expected. Headline PCE inflation: 2.7% in 2026; up from ~2.4% in December 2025 SEP, 2.2% in 2027, 2.0% in 2028, 2.0% longer run. Core PCE inflation: 2.7% in 2026 up from ~2.5%, 2.2% in 2027, 2.0% in 2028.

The Fed revised inflation forecasts modestly higher for 2026–2027, largely reflecting energy price pressures and lingering stickiness, while still expecting a return to the 2% target by 2028. Growth and unemployment projections remained relatively stable and optimistic, consistent with a soft landing or no recession baseline.

The distribution for 2026 showed a fairly tight cluster around the median; many participants saw zero or one cut, with some doves including Governor Miran penciling in more aggressive easing and a few hawks seeing no cuts at all. By 2027–2028 and the longer run, views diverged more widely. The majority kept the easing bias language in the statement, consistent with the March dot plot’s expectation of at least modest cuts later in 2026 if inflation cools and risks evolve favorably.

Governor Stephen Miran dissented for an immediate 25 bp cut, aligning with his persistently dovish stance; he has often projected more easing than the median. The three regional presidents dissented against the easing bias in the statement. They preferred a more neutral stance, reflecting caution over elevated inflation risks from energy prices and geopolitics.

This hawkish push against signaling cuts soon suggests some participants may now see the current ~3.6% rate as closer to neutral than the March median implied. In short, the April dissents highlight growing internal tension around the March dot plot’s modest easing path. Upside inflation risks and resilient growth appear to have made some officials less comfortable pre-committing to cuts, while doves like Miran still see policy as overly restrictive for the labor market.

Markets had priced in no change for April and continue to expect limited easing in 2026. The next dot plot will be important: it could show the median shifting toward fewer and no cuts in 2026 if inflation data remains sticky or energy prices stay high, or it could reaffirm the March path if disinflation resumes. Powell emphasized data dependence, two-sided risks, and economic resilience. The higher longer-run neutral rate (3.1%) suggests the Fed views a somewhat higher normal rate environment going forward.

The March dot plot painted a picture of gradual normalization toward 2% inflation with limited easing and stable growth. The April meeting’s high dissent level signals that this path is not consensus—particularly the timing and certainty of cuts—amid fresh inflation and geopolitical uncertainties. The committee remains attentive to both sides of its dual mandate but is proceeding cautiously.