Gasoline prices over $4 a gallon, part of an ongoing supply shock in the energy markets, might seem like a cue for the Federal Reserve to raise interest rates to head off inflation. At least for now, that looks like a bad bet.

Investors instead expect the central bank to hold benchmark rates steady, or even pivot back toward cuts later in the year as policymakers weigh the risk that higher energy prices will slow growth more than they fuel lasting inflation.

In market-moving remarks Monday, Fed Chair Jerome Powell signaled that raising rates now could be the wrong medicine for an economy already facing a softening labor backdrop and elevated recession concerns on Wall Street.

Asked whether he thought policymakers should consider rate increases here, Powell responded: “By the time the effects of a tightening in monetary policy take effect, the oil price shock is probably long gone, and you’re weighing on the economy at a time when it’s not appropriate. So the tendency is to look through any kind of a supply shock.”

The comments come at a critical juncture for markets, which have struggled to get a handle on the Fed’s intentions amid a bevy of conflicting and perpetually shifting economic signals.

Just a few days ago, traders began to entertain the possibility that the Fed’s next move could be a hike. That mindset followed some unsettling inflation news: Import prices rose much more than expected in February, even ahead of the war-related oil spike, while the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development raised its U.S. inflation forecast dramatically, to 4.2% for 2026.

However, Powell’s comments — complete with the usual Fed qualifiers that there are potential cases for both hikes or cuts — helped bring the market back off the hawkish position. Before the war, markets had been looking for two and possibly even three cuts this year in anticipation that inflation could continue to drift back to the Fed’s 2% target and central bankers would switch their focus to supporting the labor market.

Futures prices Tuesday morning pointed to just a 2.1% chance of a rate hike by year-end, according to the CME Group’s FedWatch tool. That’s despite headlines noting that regular unleaded gasoline had eclipsed $4 nationally at the pump and U.S. crude oil priced above $102 a barrel.

While there’s still plenty of uncertainty about where rates are headed, Wall Street commentary shifted back to expectations for cuts. To be sure, odds are still low for a reduction — about 25% — but they have climbed considerably over the past two days.

“Central bankers’ bark will be bigger than their bite” when it comes to fighting higher prices, wrote Rob Subbaraman, head of global macro research at Nomura.

“Right now, it makes sense for central banks to do nothing but sound hawkish in order to help anchor inflation expectations as headline inflation spikes,” he added. “However … the pass-through to wage growth and core inflation is likely to be limited, and instead the Middle East war could quickly morph into a global growth shock.”

Indeed, concerns about the impact that the oil price spike will have on growth superseded the worries about consumer prices, echoing Powell’s worry that hiking now won’t fix energy costs and could cause more trouble later. Policymakers are worried less about the immediate hit from energy-driven inflation than the risks that higher prices could sap consumer demand and hiring.

Joseph Brusuelas, chief economist at RSM, said central bankers should fear “demand destruction” brought on by the energy shock.

“Time is not an ally of the American economy,” he wrote. “The bigger risk is what comes next: demand destruction. That’s the economic term for what happens when high prices force people and businesses to spend less. It sounds abstract, but it’s very concrete — it means fewer cars sold, fewer homes bought, fewer restaurant meals, fewer business investments, and eventually fewer jobs.”

The Fed is in a bind policy-wise, Brusuelas added: Raising rates now risks slowing economic growth further, while standing put runs the chance that the oil situation gets worse.

Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, in a wide-ranging talk at Harvard University, said Monday that he sees inflation expectations as grounded despite rising energy prices so the central bank doesn’t need to respond with higher interest rates.

As his term leading the central bank nears an end, Powell avoided questions about the longer-term direction of interest rates or inclinations his designated successor has espoused.

In the near term, he said the proper move is to look beyond the short-term gyrations of the energy market and focus on the Fed’s goals of stable prices and low unemployment.

“Inflation expectations do appear to be well anchored beyond the short term, but nonetheless, it’s something we will eventually maybe face the question of what to do here,” he said during a question-and-answer question with a moderator and students. “We’re not really facing it yet, because we don’t know what the economic effects will be, but we’ll certainly be mindful of that broader context when we make that decision.”

As he has in the past, Powell said he believes the current rate target, in a range between 3.5%-3.75%, is “a good place” for the Fed to sit as it observes events currently playing out, including the Iran war and the impact tariffs are having on prices.

The comments appeared to register in financial markets, with traders no longer pricing in a significant chance of a rate hike this year. As recently as Friday morning, markets were looking at a better than 50% probability of a quarter percentage point increase amid expectations the Fed would react to the surge in energy costs. However, odds of a hike by December fell to 2.2% after Powell’s appearance.

Powell said raising rates now could have negative effects on the economy later. He noted that Fed rate moves have a lagged impact on the economy, so tightening here wouldn’t help the inflationary impact of the Iran war.

“By the time the effects of a tightening in monetary policy take effect, the oil price shock is probably long gone, and you’re weighing on the economy at a time when it’s not appropriate. So the tendency is to look through any kind of a supply shock,” he added.

Market-based measures such as breakeven rates in Treasury yields indicate few fears of an inflation spike. Breakevens measure the difference between Treasurys inflation-indexed securities. The five-year breakeven rate most recently was around 2.56% and trending lower over the past 10 days.

Powell’s term ends in mid-May, and President Donald Trump has nominated former Governor Kevin Warsh as the next chair. However, Warsh’s nomination is being held up in the Senate Banking Committee as U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro continues her investigation into renovations at Fed headquarters.

Though a judge threw out a subpoena Pirro’s office issued to Powell, she has appealed the decision. While the case is being adjudicated, Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., has vowed to prevent the nomination from going through.

For his part, Warsh has stated a preference for lower interest rates than the current level. Asked to comment on his successor’s plans, Powell said, “I’m not going to swing at that pitch.”

Regarding private credit, Powell noted rising defaults, investor withdrawals and concerns about wider issues in the $3 trillion sector.

“I’m reluctant to say anything that suggests that we’re dismissive of the risk, but we’re looking for connections to the banking system and things that might result in contagion. We don’t see those right now,” he said. “What we see is a correction going on, and certainly there’ll be people losing money and things like that. But it doesn’t seem to have the makings of a broader systemic event.”

Federal Reserve Governor Stephen Miran on Monday continued his campaign for lower interest rates, telling CNBC that policymakers should disregard the current energy price spike unless there are signs it will have longer-lasting impacts.

“If I saw a wage-price spiral, or I saw evidence that inflation expectations are starting to pick up, then I would get worried about it,” he said during a “Squawk on the Street” interview. “There’s no evidence of it thus far, and you can move the monetary policy rate all you want — today tomorrow — but it’s not going to affect inflation the next couple of months.”

Citing market-based indicators, Miran said inflation expectations remain well anchored, despite the jump in oil to more than $100 a barrel and a price shock at the pump that has pushed gasoline higher by more than $1 a gallon.

Monetary policy works with a lag and isn’t geared toward short-term market gyrations, he added.

Miran has dissented at each of the meetings he has attended since September 2025. He told CNBC that he continues to think “we could be about a point easier, gradually done over the course of a year.”

The fed funds rate is currently targeted in a range between 3.5%-3.75%. Market pricing is implying no moves in either direction before the end of the year.

Miran’s term has expired, but he continues to serve as the nomination of former Federal Reserve Governor Kevin Warsh is held up in the Senate Banking Committee. If confirmed, Warsh will take over as chair for Jerome Powell when the latter’s term expires in May.

TOKYO/NEW YORK — Genevieve Price considers herself a great flight hacker.

The 35-year-old naturopathic doctor based in San Diego usually buys basic economy tickets when she visits her family in New Jersey and then uses her Alaska Airlines frequent flier status to pick a seat, something that’s usually not allowed for those no-frills fares.

“I like to travel a lot,” Price told CNBC at New York’s John F. Kennedy International Airport, where she was returning from Rome.

But Price said she has her limits, and is planning to cap the spending she does on future flights, such as no more than $900 to Rome, where her partner is from.

Consumers’ willingness to fly is being put to the test this spring as soaring fuel prices are leading to higher airfares. Cathay Pacific, SAS, Finnair and others are among the carriers that have already raised fares.

Travelers also have to contend with hourslong airport security lines in the U.S. because of the second government shutdown in half a year that’s hitting the Transportation Security Administration, leaving many frustrated.

Fuel at major U.S. airports was going for $3.98 on Wednesday, up nearly 60% since before the U.S. and Israel attacked Iran on Feb. 28.

The conflict has meant crisis for the aviation industry, particularly in the Middle East, where airspace closures have forced carriers to cancel flights and take longer and costlier routes.

Airlines will brief investors starting early next month on the longer-term impacts, but they immediately started raising airfare or increasing fuel surcharges on tickets to help cover the rising costs.

DHS has blamed Democrats for the closure, which has become the longest partial shutdown in U.S. history. As of Friday afternoon, the Senate had passed a potential deal to end the shutdown, thought its fate was unclear.

The clock is ticking on the U.S.-Israeli war in Iran. The emerging view from oil industry executives and analysts is that the economic and market fallout from the war could escalate sharply if the Strait of Hormuz isn’t reopened within roughly the next one to three weeks. Even then, enough damage may have been done already to leave energy and many other prices higher for longer. 

These risks haven’t been clearly reflected in some widely followed markets, including stocks broadly and the benchmark Brent crude price. Stopgap measures to soften the blow of the oil cutoff have kept crude prices relatively low in the U.S. and European markets. But when those measures lose their effectiveness in early-to-mid April, analysts warn there will be little the U.S. or other governments can do to keep energy prices from rising dramatically. 

Iran has attacked civilian ships and energy infrastructure in its neighborhood, causing traffic in the narrow Strait of Hormuz to fall to a standstill. Roughly 20% of global oil supply normally moves through the approximately 100-mile waterway, which borders Iran. Some oil has been rerouted through pipelines, but they can only carry so much. The U.S. and others are releasing 400 million barrels of oil from strategic reserves — the biggest release on record — and the U.S. has temporarily lifted sanctions on some Russian and Iranian oil to give the market breathing room.

The White House says it believes the president’s military strategy will soon end the Iranian threat, allowing the price worries to fade.

But all agree there is no substitute for reopening the strait. Oil industry executives have in the past few days sketched out the risk of growing disruption from the war. 

“There are very real, physical manifestations of the closure of the Strait of Hormuz that are working their way around the world,” Chevron CEO Mike Wirth said Monday at S&P Global’s CERAWeek in Houston. Shell CEO Wael Sawan echoed him a few days later at the annual gathering of industry heavyweights. Disruptions that started in South Asia have “moved to Southeast Asia, Northeast Asia and then more so into Europe as we get into April,” Sawan said Wednesday.

The talk of the conference was the difference between so-called paper and physical prices, said Ben Cahill, director for energy markets and policy at the Center for Energy and Environmental Systems Analysis, University of Texas at Austin. 

Paper prices reflect trading in financial markets and are often the headline oil prices discussed in the press. They have generally remained lower than prices for physical delivery of oil, especially in Asia, which is the main buyer of crude from the Middle East.

Brent crude futures prices rose 36% from Feb. 27, the last day of trading before the started, through March 27, when they traded above $113 a barrel. But the Dubai price, which tracks physical delivery from certain Middle East sellers, is up 76%, more than twice the paper price, at $126. That price has been especially volatile lately. 

One reason paper prices are lower is they have regularly fallen in reaction to suggestions by President Donald Trump that the war could soon end or otherwise de-escalate. Traders call that “jawboning.” 

The looming possibility of physical supply shortages in the oil market appears to be blunting the effect of Trump’s jawboning. Financial markets reflect the reality that Trump has often managed to avoid worst-case scenarios, including when he attacked Iran’s nuclear program in June. Oil futures then spiked but quickly fell once it was clear the war wouldn’t spread.