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.

JetBlue Airways is raising bag fees at least $4 as jet fuel prices soar amid the Iran war.

Airfare has climbed for routes around the world since the U.S. and Israel attacked Iran on Feb. 28. The higher fees for checked bags are the most recent sign of airlines passing steeper fuel costs down to U.S. consumers. Jet fuel is airlines’ biggest expense after labor.

JetBlue now lists the price to check a first piece of luggage for domestic, Caribbean and Latin America flights as $39 for off-peak periods for most economy passengers, up from $35. For peak periods, like much of the summer and major holidays, the fee will go up to $49 from $40.

If paying less than 24 hours before departure, such as at the airport, travelers will pay $10 more. Airlines have charged customers less for prepaying for their checked baggage in recent years.

There are exemptions to the bag fees entirely, however, such as travelers with a co-branded credit card and frequent flyers with elite status.

“As we experience rising operating costs, we regularly evaluate how to manage those costs while keeping base fares competitive and continuing to invest in the experience our customers value,” JetBlue said in a statement to CNBC.

When an airline raises fees, competitors often follow. American Airlines, United Airlines, Delta Air Lines, Southwest Airlines and Frontier Airlines didn’t immediately respond to CNBC’s requests for comment.

Fuel prices for Chicago, Houston, Los Angeles and New York averaged $4.57 a gallon last Friday, up nearly 83% since the day before the war began, according to data from Argus published by industry group Airlines for America.

“Adjusting fees for optional services used by select customers, such as checked baggage, allows us to continue offering more competitive fares while delivering the onboard experience our customers love, including complimentary snacks and drinks, unlimited, high-speed Wi-Fi and seatback entertainment screens,” JetBlue said. “While we recognize that fee increases are never ideal, we take careful consideration to ensure these changes are implemented only when necessary.” 

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.”

U.S. President Donald Trump said Monday that the U.S. will “completely” obliterate Iran’s electric generating plants, oil wells and Kharg Island if the strategically vital Strait of Hormuz is not “immediately” reopened and a peace deal is not reached “shortly.”

“The United States of America is in serious discussions with A NEW, AND MORE REASONABLE, REGIME to end our Military Operations in Iran,” Trump said in a post on Truth Social.

“Great progress has been made but, if for any reason a deal is not shortly reached, which it probably will be, and if the Hormuz Strait is not immediately “Open for Business,” we will conclude our lovely “stay” in Iran by blowing up and completely obliterating all of their Electric Generating Plants, Oil Wells and Kharg Island (and possibly all desalinization plants!), which we have purposefully not yet “touched.””

His comments come as the Iran war enters its fifth week and as the Trump administration weighs sending in ground forces to seize Kharg Island, a major fuel hub which serves as the centerpiece for Iran’s oil industry.

It is estimated that around 90% of the country’s crude exports pass through it before tankers then travel through the Strait of Hormuz. The island is also said to have a loading capacity of roughly 7 million barrels per day.

Iran has not yet commented on Trump’s latest remarks. Earlier in the day, a spokesperson for Iran’s Foreign Ministry reportedly said Iran deemed proposals presented in a 15-point plan from the U.S. as “excessive and unreasonable.” Iran’s leaders have denied being in direct talks with the U.S.

Shipping traffic through the Strait of Hormuz has virtually ground to a halt since the U.S. and Israel launched strikes against Iran on Feb. 28. Iran has retaliated by targeting ships trying to pass through the maritime corridor, with several incidents reported in recent weeks.

Trump said last week that he would pause attacks on Iran’s energy plants for 10 days, which pushed the deadline to April 6.

Oil prices traded higher on Monday, with international benchmark Brent crude on track to notch its steepest monthly rise on record.

U.S. President Donald Trump said he has “no problem” with a Russian crude tanker delivering fuel to Cuba, appearing to reverse course over his administration’s oil blockade as the island grapples with a deepening energy crisis.

Speaking to reporters aboard Air Force One on Sunday, Trump said: “If a country wants to send some oil into Cuba right now, I have no problem with that, whether it’s Russia or not.”

His comments come as a Russian-flagged oil tanker, the sanctioned Anatoly Kolodkin, makes its way to Cuba carrying an estimated 730,000 barrels of crude oil.

The tanker is reportedly expected to reach port on Monday and is seen as something of a lifeline to the Caribbean nation, which is facing its biggest test since the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Cuba had been heavily dependent on oil supplies from Venezuela, but it has effectively been cut off since early January when the U.S. launched an extraordinary military operation to depose Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro.

The Trump administration subsequently threatened to impose tariffs on any country that sent crude to Cuba, prompting the likes of Mexico to halt shipments. The Kremlin has previously shrugged off Trump’s tariff threats, pointing out that Washington and Moscow “don’t have much trade right now.”

Cuba’s President Miguel Díaz-Canel said last week that the island hadn’t received oil shipments in more than three months. The communist-run country, which has said it is holding talks with the U.S., has sought to dramatically increase its solar power generation amid the ongoing fuel shortage.

The island of roughly 10 million people has faced a series of power blackouts in recent weeks and the United Nations has warned that Cuban hospitals have been struggling to maintain emergency and intensive care services.

“Cuba is finished, they have a bad regime and they have very bad and corrupt leadership and whether or not they get a boat of oil it’s not going to matter,” Trump said Sunday.

“I prefer letting it in, whether it’s Russia or anybody else, because the people need heat and cooling and all of the other things that you need,” he added.

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.