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.

American consumers and businesses are taking most of the hit from President Donald Trump’s tariffs, New York Federal Reserve President John Williams said Tuesday in remarks that counter White House claims.

“The tariffs have overwhelmingly been borne domestically — a New York Fed analysis estimates that most of the burden has fallen on U.S. firms and consumers.,” Williams said in remarks for a conference in Washington, D.C. “In addition, the tariffs have already meaningfully increased U.S. prices of imported goods, and the full effects have likely not yet been felt.”

The study Williams cited has generated a fair amount of controversy over the past few weeks.

In a white paper published on the New York Fed’s website, a team of researchers found that as much as 90% of the added cost from tariffs has been passed on to domestic producers and consumers. Trump and other White House officials had insisted that exporters would absorb the costs rather than raise prices.

National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett flamed the controversy during a CNBC appearance in which he suggested that the researchers should be “disciplined” for what he termed was “the worst paper I’ve ever seen in the history of the Federal Reserve system.” Hassett later stepped back the criticism.

Addressing the issue for the first time publicly, Williams said not only were the tariffs being felt at home, but they also were keeping the Fed from reaching its 2% inflation goal.

“My current estimate is that, to date, the increase in tariffs has contributed around one half to three quarters of a percentage point to the current inflation rate of about 3 percent,” he said. “The FOMC defines price stability as 2 percent inflation over the longer run. Owing to the effects of tariffs, progress toward that goal has temporarily stalled.”

On the bright side, Williams said he still expects the tariff impact on inflation to be temporary, and he sees the Fed hitting its target by 2027. He added that the U.S. economy “appears to be on a good footing.”

As for current policy, he said it is “well positioned” for the Fed to hit its dual mandate goal of steady prices and full employment. Should inflation progress lower after the tariff impact fades, “further reductions in the federal funds rate will eventually be warranted to prevent monetary policy from inadvertently becoming more restrictive.”

Markets expect the Fed to resume cutting later this year, possibly in July or September, according to current futures pricing. As New York Fed president, Williams carries extra influence on the Federal Open Market Committee, where he is a permanent voting member.

Chicago Federal Reserve President Austan Goolsbee said Tuesday that interest rate cuts aren’t appropriate until there’s more evidence that inflation is on its way down.

With recent indicators showing that inflation well off its highs but still above the Fed’s 2% target, Goolsbee noted that policymakers “have been burned by assuming transitory inflation” in the past and shouldn’t make the same mistake again.

“I feel that front-loading too many rate cuts is not prudent in that circumstance,” he said in remarks before the National Association for Business Economics at its annual gathering in Washington, D.C. “People express that prices are one of their most pressing concerns. Let’s pay attention. Before we cut rates more to stimulate the economy, let’s be sure inflation is heading back to 2%.”

The most recent inflation data, for December, showed core inflation, which excludes volatile food and energy prices, running at 3%, as measured by the consumption expenditures price index, the Fed’s primary forecasting gauge. That was up 0.2 percentage point from November and came somewhat due to tariffs, which are viewed as temporary, but also from underlying pressures in the service sector and areas not directly impacted by the duties.

Specifically, Goolsbee said stubbornly high housing inflation isn’t tariff driven, emphasizing the need for the Fed to be “vigilant.”

Goolsbee noted that a 3% inflation rate “is not good enough — and it’s not what we promised when the Federal Reserve committed to the 2% target. Stalling out at 3% is not a safe place to be for a myriad of reasons we know all too well.” He has said previously that he thinks the Fed will be able to cut later in the year.

The remarks come with markets expecting the Federal Open Market Committee, of which Goolsbee is a voter this year, to stay on hold until at least June and probably July. Futures traders are placing about a 50-50 chance of a cut in June and about a 71% probability of a July cut, according to the CME Group’s FedWatch gauge. The Fed enacted three quarter-percentage-point cuts in the latter part of 2025.

Fed Governor Christopher Waller, who has been an advocate for lower rates, took a more measured approach Monday while also speaking to the NABE conference.

Though Waller said he thinks policymakers should “look through” tariff impacts, he said recent data show the labor market may be in better shape than previously indicated, mitigating the need for further cuts. If the jobs picture continues to improve, that would further lessen the case for cuts, though he said he isn’t convinced that the January nonfarm payrolls data wasn’t “more noise than signal.”

Tuesday will be an active day Fed speakers, with Governor Lisa Cook also due to present to the NABE later in the morning.