Verified National Economic Report — First-Hand Sources Only
Appalachian Post — December 1, 2025

The Federal Reserve is approaching its final meeting of the year amid an unusually visible internal divide, according to a review of official statements, minutes, and public comments from policymakers. While outside analysts have speculated about an unprecedented number of dissenting votes at the December 9–10 Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) meeting, the verified first-hand record shows something more fundamental: the committee is openly split on how restrictive monetary policy currently is, how quickly inflation is cooling, and what the appropriate rate should be moving forward.

At its October 29 meeting, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System announced that the FOMC voted to reduce the federal funds rate by 0.25 percentage point to a target range of 3.75%–4.00%, while ending balance-sheet reductions on December 1. The decision was not unanimous.
Stephen I. Miran dissented in favor of a larger 0.50-point cut, while Jeffrey R. Schmid dissented in favor of no cut at all.

In an official dissent statement, Jeff Schmid, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, warned that inflation remains elevated and that financial conditions are not restrictive enough to guarantee progress toward the Fed’s 2% inflation mandate. He stated explicitly that he “preferred to maintain the current target range,” arguing that easing too quickly risks undermining the Fed’s credibility on price stability.

Minutes from the October 28–29 meeting, released by the Federal Reserve, confirm that policymakers held “strongly differing views” about the decision itself and the upcoming December vote. According to the official record, some members supported the quarter-point cut, others would have accepted either a cut or no change, one preferred a 0.50-point cut, and several opposed any cut at all.

This division extends beyond the two dissenting votes. Michelle W. Bowman, Vice Chair for Supervision at the Board of Governors, dissented from an earlier meeting in July because she believed the committee should avoid easing too early while inflation remained above target.

On November 3, Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta President Raphael Bostic described the October decision as the year’s second cut approved by a “divided FOMC,” adding that inflation continues to pose a “significant problem.”

Together, these first-hand sources confirm that the committee is not only divided over the October decision, but also over the broader question of whether the United States economy still faces meaningful inflationary risk, or whether interest rates are already tight enough to justify more aggressive easing.

Analysis: What Is Driving the Divide?

The disagreement between Schmid and Miran does not stem from conflicting data, but from differing interpretations of what that data means for monetary policy.

Schmid’s Position: Inflation Still Too High, Policy Only Modestly Restrictive

Data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) shows year-over-year CPI inflation near 3.0%, above the Federal Reserve’s 2% target. Core inflation, which excludes food and energy, also remains close to 3.0%, indicating that underlying price pressures have not fully receded.
Rising costs in housing, healthcare, transportation, and insurance further reinforce Schmid’s concern that cuts may be premature.

Under this interpretation, maintaining the October interest rate would reduce the risk of a renewed inflation cycle.

However, this is not a provable fact. Inflation is lower than it was earlier in the cycle, and some categories have begun to stabilize. Whether policy is “modestly restrictive” cannot be measured directly, it is an interpretation based on models and economic judgment.

Miran’s Position: Neutral Rate is Lower, Policy Already Too Tight

Miran argues that structural changes, including demographics, productivity trends, and global capital flows have reduced the U.S. economy’s “neutral rate” (r*), the interest rate that neither stimulates nor restrains growth. If the neutral rate has indeed fallen, then the current 3.75%–4.00% target range may be tightening monetary policy more than intended.

There is academic research to support the idea that r* has drifted downward over decades. Some Federal Reserve and international studies show long-term declines in neutral interest rates due to aging populations, slower productivity, and global savings trends.

But just like Schmid’s case, Miran’s position is not provable.
The neutral rate cannot be observed directly, and economic models estimating it vary widely.
Miran has not released a detailed written dissent explaining how he calculates the neutral rate or why he believes the current stance is excessively restrictive.

Thus, while credible, his argument remains interpretation rather than measurable fact.

What Each Policy Approach Could Mean for Americans

If Schmid’s preferred policy (no cut) prevailed:

• Borrowing costs would remain higher for mortgages, auto loans, credit cards, and business lending.
• Inflation might cool more quickly and more predictably.
• Job and wage growth could slow in certain sectors.
• Price-stability credibility would remain strong.

If Miran’s preferred policy (larger cut) prevailed:

• Borrowing costs for households and businesses would fall more quickly.
• Mortgage and refinancing activity could pick up.
• Economic activity and hiring might strengthen.
• Inflation could risk reaccelerating if rate cuts arrive before cost pressures fully subside.

Both outcomes are possibilities — not guarantees.
Economic responses depend on global energy prices, supply chains, labor markets, and geopolitical risk.

Interpretation vs. Fact

The verified data establishes two things clearly:

• Inflation numbers are factual.
• Interest-rate decisions are factual.

But:

• The correct policy path is not factual.
  It is a matter of interpretation.

Both Miran and Schmid present plausible, academically grounded cases. Neither can be proven “right” or “wrong” because macroeconomic policy effects cannot be known with certainty in real time.

This is why the upcoming December FOMC meeting is expected to feature continued division.

We report only the 100% verifiable facts. No speculation, no narrative shaping, and no interpretation. We present the confirmed information exactly as first-hand sources provide it, allowing the public to decide the meaning for themselves.

Primary Sources (College-Style Citations — First-Hand Only)

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
“FOMC Statement — October 29, 2025.”

Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City.
Jeffrey R. Schmid. “Dissent Statement.” October 31, 2025.

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
“Minutes of the Federal Open Market Committee, October 28–29, 2025.”

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
Michelle W. Bowman. “Statement by Vice Chair for Supervision Michelle W. Bowman.” July 30, 2025.

Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta.
“Bostic Responds to Rate Cut Decision.” November 3, 2025.

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).
“Consumer Price Index Summary.”

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).
“CPI: All Items Less Food and Energy.”

US Dollar banknotes: public domain, via Wikimedia Commons