The Federal Reserve’s decision on Wednesday to cut interest rates by a quarter of a percentage point drew dissent from two policymakers, with one favoring a larger cut and the other favoring no cut at all, a rare example in recent decades of multiple dissents in opposing directions.
The Federal Open Market Committee voted 10-2 to lower the policy rate to a range of 3.75 to 4.00 percent. Fed Governor Stephen Miran dissented in favor of a half-percentage point cut, while Fed President Jeffrey Schmid of Kansas City dissented in favor of no cut.
The following is a history of Federal Open Market Committee policy decisions since 1990, in which multiple dissenting opinions emerged, while those who disagreed with the policy decision did so for a variety of reasons, with one or more favoring simpler policies and one or more preferring tighter policies or a different policy outcome.
September 18, 2019
The FOMC voted 7-3 to cut rates by a quarter point.
St. Louis Fed President James Bullard dissented in favor of a half-point cut.
Boston Fed President Eric Rosengren and Kansas City Fed President Esther George disagreed that there would be no cuts.
The FOMC voted 7-3 to adjust its forward guidance, saying it “can be patient as we begin to normalize” policy.
Minneapolis Fed Chair Narayana Kocherlakota disagreed, saying that communicating the intention to phase out the accommodation created “unacceptable downside risk to inflation.”
Richard Fisher, president of the Dallas Fed, disagreed, saying that while he wanted to be patient, a rate hike would likely be necessary sooner than the majority of the FOMC envisioned.
Philadelphia Fed President Charles Plosser disagreed, saying the FOMC should not emphasize, as it did, that the new guidance was consistent with previous guidance that no rate hike for a “significant period of time” would be appropriate.
June 19, 2013
The FOMC voted 10-2 to leave rates unchanged near zero, reiterating that its forward guidance signals would remain exceptionally low for some time, and to continue with its massive quantitative easing program.
St. Louis Fed President James Bullard dissented in favor of a stance that more aggressively defended the Fed’s inflation target given the string of low inflation numbers.
Esther George, chair of the Kansas City Fed, disagreed, citing concerns that continued high levels of accommodation would risk future imbalances and could lead to a loosening of inflation expectations.
October 2, 1990
The FOMC voted 7-4 to maintain the previous policy position, but also indicated that some policy easing was likely in the future.
Fed Governor Martha Seger did not agree with an immediate easing of policy.
Fed Governor Wayne Angell, Dallas Fed President Robert Boykin and Cleveland Fed President W. Lee Hoskins disagreed with the easing preference included in the policy statement.
February 7, 1990
The FOMC voted 8-3 to adopt a money supply growth target of 3 to 7 percent.
Fed Governor Martha Seger disagreed with a higher target for M2 money supply growth from 3.5 percent to 7.5 percent.
Dallas Fed President Robert Boykin and Cleveland Fed President W. Lee Hoskins disagreed with a lower money supply growth limit of 6 percent.
Published on October 30, 2025
#history #Federal #Reserve #differs #directions