Nonfarm payrolls are expected to bounce back — barely — in March as the bar keeps getting lower for what constitutes a healthy labor market.

The U.S. economy is projected to show job gains of 59,000 for the month, an anemic rate by the standards of previous years this decade but enough to keep the unemployment rate at 4.4%.

If the estimate is reasonably accurate, it actually would represent above-trend job growth for a labor market that has created virtually no jobs over the past year.

Immigration restrictions, shifting demographics and geopolitical uncertainty have left companies eager neither to hire nor fire workers en masse, resulting in a static labor market and a series of ho-hum monthly counts from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The BLS will release the number Friday at 8:30 a.m. ET, though the stock market will be closed in observance of the Good Friday holiday.

“We have to revise our idea of what a good or bad job number is,” said Guy Berger, chief economist at Homebase, which provides workforce management services for small businesses.

A report like February’s showing job losses “would have been raising alarm bells about the state of the labor market,” he added. “Now we’re like, yeah, that was a very bad report, but it doesn’t freak anybody out about the job market. I didn’t look at that report and say, wow, we’re on the verge of tipping into recession.”

Echoing views expressed by Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell and other central bankers, Berger said he’s more focused on the unemployment rate as a gauge of labor market stability.

In a recent report, the St. Louis Fed updated previous research on the breakeven level for job growth. The bank’s economists now think that number could be as low as 15,000, with a high end of 87,000.

That’s a steep drop from an estimate as recent as April 2025 that showed the breakeven level at 153,000, and an update in August of that year putting the number between 32,000 to 82,000.

In other words, the labor market needs nowhere near the job growth it required previously to keep the population near full employment.

“Things have been slowly getting worse each for the last few years,” Berger said, but added, “There’s no real sign of us tipping into a recession.”

Some economists on Wall Street disagree. Goldman Sachs, Moody’s Analytics and others in recent days have raised their odds of recession in the next 12 months, with a focus on threats from a slowing jobs picture and surging energy costs.

Earlier this week, BLS data showed that the rate of hiring as a share of the workforce fell to 3.1%, its lowest level since the Covid recession in 2020 and, before that, January 2011.

Still, Homebase’s data is consistent with other indicators, including the ADP private payrolls report for March, showing modest gains in payrolls. February’s loss of 92,000 jobs came in part due to a since-resolved strike at health-care provider Kaiser Permanente that sidelined some 31,000 workers in California and Hawaii.

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.

Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell last week pushed back when asked whether stagflation posed a threat to the U.S. economy. His successor may face a tougher challenge, as Wall Street forecasters raise their expectations of recession, brought on in part by the Iran war and potential for higher prices.

In recent days, economists have pulled up their risk assessments of a U.S. contraction amid heightened uncertainty over geopolitical risk and a labor market that for the past year has shown strains over the past year.

Moody’s Analytics’ model has raised its recession outlook for the next 12 months to 48.6%. Goldman Sachs boosted its estimate to 30%. Wilmington Trust has the odds at 45%, while EY Parthenon has it at 40%, with the caveat that “those odds could rapidly rise in the event of a more prolonged or severe Middle East conflict.”

In normal times, the risk for a recession in any given 12-months span is around 20%. So while the current predictions are hardly certainties, they signify elevated risk.

The situation poses a tough challenge for policymakers who are being asked to balance threats to the labor market against sticky inflation.

“I’m concerned recession risks are uncomfortably high and on the rise,” said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Analytics. “Recession is a real threat here.”

Talk of an economic contraction has accelerated as the war with Iran has dragged on.

An oil shock has preceded virtually every recession the U.S. has seen since the Great Depression, save for the Covid pandemic. Prices at the pump have risen by $1.02 a gallon over the past month, an increase of 35%, according to AAA.

While economists still debate the pass-through impact from higher energy, the trend has held.

“The negative consequences of higher oil prices happen first and fast,” Zandi said. “If oil prices stay kind of where they are through Memorial Day, certainly through the end of the second quarter, that’ll push us into recession.”

Like his fellow forecasters, Zandi said his “baseline” expectation is that the warring sides find a diplomatic off-ramp, oil flows again through the Strait of Hormuz and the economy can avoid a worst-case scenario.

To be sure, economists as a lot are negative and subject to the old trope about predicting nine of the last five recessions. Markets also have been wrong about where the economy is headed. A portion of the yield curve — or the spread between various Treasury maturities — most closely watched by the Fed has sent repeated false recession signals for much of the past 3½ years.

But the threat of a prolonged war, pressure on a consumer who drives more than two-thirds of all growth, and a labor market that created virtually no jobs in 2025 collectively raises the risk that the expansion could falter.

“That path through is increasingly narrow, and it’s getting increasingly difficult to see the other side,” Zandi said.

Consumers also are pessimistic. Consumer site NerdWallet said its March survey showed 65% of respondents expect a recession in the next 12 months, up 6 percentage points from the month before.

Beyond energy prices, economists say the labor market is a key pressure point.

The U.S. economy created just 116,000 jobs for all of 2025 and lost 92,000 in February. While the unemployment rate has held steady at 4.4%, that’s largely been because of a dearth of firing rather than a burst in hiring.

Indeed, stocks have had a rough ride during the war. The Dow Jones Industrial Average has fallen more than 5% during the hostilities — important because consumer spending and sentiment have been supported by higher-income households benefiting most from rising equity prices.

Gross domestic product is on track to grow at a 2% pace in the first quarter, according to the Atlanta Fed’s GDPNow tracker of rolling data. However, that’s coming off an increase of just 0.7% in the fourth quarter, the product in part of the government shutdown. Economists had expected that the drain on growth in Q4 would translate to a boost in Q1, but the effects of that appear to be modest.

Still, if global leaders can find an end to the war soon, the economy again is expected to skirt the gloomiest predictions. Stimulus from the One Big Beautiful Bill in 2025 is projected to goose growth, with lower regulations and a boost in tax returns that could help consumers cope with elevated prices. A sustained rise in production also is a factor in the economy’s favor.

“There is support underneath,” said North, the Allianz economist. “That makes me real hesitant to use the ‘R’ word. But certainly, I think we’re seeing a slowdown this year.”

Sen. Elizabeth Warren is demanding answers to economic questions surrounding the Iran war, ticking off a list of queries about the impact on food, energy and retail costs, among other concerns, in a letter sent Friday to administration officials.

The liberal Democratic firebrand from Massachusetts ripped President Donald Trump, whom she said has “dragged the United States into an illegal and reckless war” that will hurt U.S. consumers, particularly in the middle and lower classes.

“I write today with grave concern that President Trump is weakening an already fragile economy, and will continue to do so, pouring billions of dollars into a war that will drive up prices, slow growth, and leave American families with higher costs while they are forced to foot the bill,” Warren said, according to a letter exclusively obtained by CNBC.

Warren is the ranking member on the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee.

Since the war began three weeks ago, energy costs have soared. The benchmark global oil price is approaching $110 a barrel, with costs at the pump nearing $4 a gallon, or about $1 higher than a month ago, according to AAA.

Official government inflation figures are not available yet for March, but surging energy costs — and pass-through effects — are likely to boost prices at least as long as the fighting continues.

Warren delineated impacts on energy, food and retail prices, and said the war is having a broader impact in terms of economic uncertainty.

“The list of economic consequences goes on and on,” she wrote. “And it does not appear that the Trump Administration has any meaningful plan to keep prices low or prevent Americans from running low on the goods they need to work, go to school, and feed their families.”

Administration officials did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The letter was addressed specifically to Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett, and Pierre Yared, the acting chair of the Council of Economic Advisers.

Warren quizzed the recipients on whether their organizations had done costs analyses on the war’s impact prior to its start or had projections on where they see prices going for the rest of 2026.

Earlier in the week, Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell did not directly address the war but said he expected energy prices would rise but wasn’t sure of the longer-term impacts. The Fed voted to hold its benchmark rate steady, in part citing uncertainty over the war.

Sen. Tim Scott on Wednesday said he hopes the federal investigation into Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell “goes away” so the Senate can take up the nomination of Kevin Warsh, President Donald Trump’s pick to replace the head of the U.S. central bank.

“That proceeding going away allows for us to get the Fed fully functioning, back on target,” Scott, who chairs the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee, said during an appearance on CNBC’s “Squawk Box.”

Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., has vowed to hold up any Fed nominees until a federal criminal investigation into Powell is resolved. Trump floated the idea of firing Powell last year and lashed out at the Fed chair for refusing to cut interest rates to the extent he desired. Powell has denied any wrongdoing and has said he is being targeted for refusing to accede to Trump’s demands.

Powell was expected to testify before Congress on Feb. 11, but missed that date because of the federal probe, Scott said.

“I had a conversation with Jay about his testimony,” Scott said. “I recommended that he come before the committee.”

“At this point he is more concerned about the criminal proceeding ,” he said. “And I get that.”

The Fed did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Tillis is otherwise supportive of Warsh, who Trump nominated for the role in January, but doubled down on his blockade after meeting with the Fed nominee on Tuesday.

“This is not about people, it’s about process,” Tillis said. “I think this is a foul.”

“This is about this is bedrock principle of Fed independence,” Tillis told reporters Tuesday. “I have no earthly idea what the market reaction would have been if suddenly the perception is that the Fed chair serves at the pleasure of the president.”

Sen. Kevin Cramer, R-N.D., another Banking committee member, told CNBC earlier Wednesday he sees no reason why some Democrats won’t support Warsh’s nomination.

“There’s really no reason by anything from he’s ever said or that he’s done that, that Democrats shouldn’t support his nomination,” Cramer, who was scheduled to meet with Warsh on Wednesday, said. “They’re going to be rigorous, of course, in their interviewing of him and and the cross examination … when his hearing takes place. But I think we should be on track to get him across the finish line so that there’s no gap between … the end of Jay Powell’s term and the beginning of the new term.”

The investigation into Powell is in part based on testimony Powell gave to the Senate Banking committee last year. Scott has said in the past that he did not believe Powell committed a crime in his testimony, sentiment he repeated Wednesday. He said the Senate would begin confirmation hearings for Warsh “as soon as possible.”

“At the end of the day … when he was before the committee he definitely was unprepared,” Scott said of Powell. “I think he was woefully unprepared. But he did not commit a criminal act when he was before the committee.”

President Donald Trump on Wednesday officially nominated Kevin Warsh to be the next chairman of the Federal Reserve.

Warsh, if confirmed by the Senate, would replace Fed Chairman Jerome Powell, for a four-year term.

Trump’s nomination was transmitted to the Senate, the White House said in a statement posted online on Wednesday.

That transmittal came more than a month after Trump first publicly announced he wanted Warsh as the Fed chairman.

Sen. Thom Tillis, a North Carolina Republican, has said he would block Warsh’s nomination from proceeding in the Senate until a federal criminal investigation of Powell by the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Washington, D.C., is dropped.

Tillis’ stance could prevent the nomination from being considered by the full Senate.

Powell said in mid-January that he was under investigation in connection with the $2.5 billion renovation of the Federal Reserve’s headquarters in Washington, and his testimony about that project to the Senate.

The chair also said that “the threat of criminal charges” against him is directly due to him and other Fed governors refusing to bow to Trump and his demands that they cut interest rates more quickly than the president has demanded.

Last summer, Trump tried to fire Fed Governor Lisa Cook, who sided with Powell on interest rate decisions. Trump, at the time, cited an allegation by a housing official he had picked that Cook had committed mortgage fraud, but his move to terminate her was seen as motivated by his ire over her stance on interest rates.

Cook, who has denied any wrongdoing, has remained on the Fed pending the outcome of a lawsuit against Trump challenging her removal.

The Supreme Court in January heard oral arguments in that case. The court has yet to issue a ruling on whether Trump can fire Cook.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent on Thursday refused to rule out the possibility of a criminal investigation of Kevin Warsh, President Donald Trump’s nominee for Federal Reserve chair, if Warsh ends up refusing to cut interest rates.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, the top Democrat on the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee, questioned Bessent about a joke Trump made over the weekend about suing Warsh if he does not reduce rates to the president’s liking, according to The Wall Street Journal.

“I think it was a joke, but just in case, this should be an easy one, Mr. Secretary: can you commit right here and now that Trump’s Fed nominee Kevin Warsh will not be sued, will not be investigated by the Department of Justice if he doesn’t cut interest rates exactly the way that Donald Trump wants?” Warren asked. 

“That is up to the president,” Bessent said, as the questioning devolved into cross talk.

U.S. presidents typically leave interest rate decisions up to the Fed, with a metaphorical firewall between the independent board and the White House.

Bessent’s testimony before the Senate committee was his second appearance on Capitol Hill in as many days. On Wednesday, he was grilled by Democrats during a contentious hearing of the House Financial Services Committee. Democrats there pressed Bessent on tariffs and inflation, regulation of cryptocurrencies, and the independence of the Federal Reserve, a hot-button issue.

Trump in recent months has targeted Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell over his refusal to lower interest rates to the president’s liking. Powell on Jan. 11 revealed he was the subject of an unprecedented investigation by the Department of Justice relating to cost overruns on the renovation of the Federal Reserve headquarters.

Trump critics have characterized the investigation, which is based in part on testimony Powell gave to the Senate banking committee last year, as a thinly veiled attempt to strong arm the independent central bank.

Committee Chair Tim Scott, R-S.C., said this week he does not believe Powell committed a crime in his testimony. And Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., a member of the committee, has vowed to block the nomination of Warsh, unless the probe into Powell is dropped. Powell’s term as chairman ends in May. Trump, meanwhile, doubled down on the investigation earlier this week.

Warren and her Democratic colleagues on the committee have also called on Scott to hold up Warsh’s nomination until the probes into Powell and Federal Reserve Board Governor Lisa Cook — who is being investigated for alleged mortgage fraud — are ended.

“Donald Trump has been trying to take over the Fed for months and months now,” Warren said before Thursday’s hearing. “He’s threatened to fire Jerome Powell. He started a bogus criminal investigation against him. He started a bogus investigation trying to fire Lisa Cook, and now he wants to appoint his man who’s going to do exactly what he says at the Fed.”

“That’s a takeover,” Warren continued.