A dispatch from someone who has been staring at the Fed funds futures strip for too long.
Okay. Walk me through this again, slowly.
We have a new Fed chair — sworn in at the White House, May 22, first time that's happened since Greenspan in 1987, which should tell you something about the vibe — who was hired by a president who has been publicly, repeatedly, loudly demanding rate cuts. The man Warsh replaced held rates at 3.50–3.75% for three consecutive meetings while inflation ran hotter than anyone wanted to admit. Now Warsh inherits that rate, that inflation, and that president. His first FOMC meeting is in one week.
And CPI just printed 3.8% year-over-year. In April. A three-year high.
The 30-year Treasury is above 5%. The 10-year broke 4.5% in May. Brent crude is sitting at $94, which is the easy version of this story — remember $114 a barrel when the Hormuz ceasefire looked like it was falling apart in May? The Strait is technically closed under a dual blockade. Spot Brent was $30 above the futures curve at one point because physical cargo just didn't exist. The Fed gets to set policy in that environment. Warsh gets to set policy in that environment. In a week.
There is a 0.6% probability of a June hike. Nobody expects him to move.
So of course that's all anyone is watching.
Here's the thing about inheriting a mess this large: your hands are tied on the rate itself, but your mouth isn't. The policy statement is where Warsh bleeds or doesn't. The April meeting produced four dissents — four — the most fractured FOMC since 1992. Three members wanted to remove the easing bias from the statement entirely. Another disagreed in the opposite direction. Warsh walks into a committee that has been quietly eating itself and he has to write something coherent enough to say to markets without triggering a tantrum in either the bond market or the Oval Office. This is not a job. It is a hostage negotiation.
Let's be honest about what's actually happening here. The president wants cuts. The data argues for hikes — or at minimum, an explicit acknowledgment that cuts are off the table. Warsh, who voted against rate cuts even when unemployment was rising in 2008 and 2009, is a structural hawk wearing a Trump appointment. Markets have priced exactly this contradiction by refusing to price anything at all: less than 3% probability of a cut at any remaining 2026 meeting, while the December hike odds sit at 40% and rising. The Fed funds futures strip is not a forecast. It's a shrug.
What Warsh actually does next Tuesday is drop the easing bias. He has to. The April minutes already had most participants saying it would take longer than previously expected to get back to 2%. The PPI jumped to 6.0% year-over-year in April — its highest since December 2022. Services inflation is sticky. Energy is not coming down until the Strait actually opens, and the Strait won't actually open until an Iran deal gets done, and the Iran deal has now unraveled twice since April. So the statement goes neutral. No more lean toward cuts. Maybe language about "prepared to act in either direction." And the market, which has been waiting for this confirmation like a hypochondriac waiting for their test results, reprices everything that touches duration.
The 10-year goes to 4.75%. Maybe 5%.
Then what?
Then you have an equity market sitting at 23x forward earnings — the most expensive since the dot-com era — where 40% of the index weight is concentrated in a handful of names that have been pricing in a soft-landing, rate-cut, AI-forever scenario since late 2024. You have the BOJ hiking to 1% the day before Warsh's own meeting, yen carry trade unwinding on a schedule nobody asked for. You have Goldman's ex-AI S&P 500 showing literally zero growth since the rally began. And you have a Fed chair who, if he acts on his instincts, is hawkish — but if he acts on his constraints, is frozen.
The actual nightmare scenario isn't a Warsh rate hike. It's Warsh losing control of the narrative. The moment markets decide that the Fed is behind the curve on inflation — that rates at 3.75% while CPI runs at 3.8% and PPI runs at 6% constitutes a negative real policy rate dressed up as restraint — you get a bond market that starts doing the Fed's work for it. The 30-year at 5.5%. The 10-year at 5%. Mortgage rates at 7.5%. And then every growth stock in the index has to reprice against a discount rate that hasn't been this punishing in a generation.
Ed Yardeni said exactly this. If Warsh doesn't signal credible inflation resolve at the June meeting, the market concludes the Fed is behind the curve, demands a higher inflation risk premium, and starts pushing yields higher regardless of what the FOMC does. The central bank loses the plot. Yields set policy by default. This is how you get a disorderly unwind rather than a managed one.
Warsh knows this. He is not an idiot. He wrote extensively about Fed credibility and inflation psychology years before anyone in this current cycle was taking it seriously. The question is whether a man confirmed by 54 votes in a Senate that was counting heads, reporting to a president who calls rate cuts a human right, chairing a committee with four dissenters, can translate that knowledge into a statement clear enough to anchor expectations without triggering the exact political firestorm that could undermine the institutional credibility he's trying to defend.
Seven days.
The Treasury market is not going to wait patiently for him to find his footing.
