![\"article](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/1783541421_527_image.png\"\/)
<\/p>\n(Kitco News) \u2013 The minutes from the June 16-17 Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) meeting showed members united on monetary policy and changes to the Fed\u2019s post-meeting communications but concerned about the economic impacts of the Iran war, tariffs, and the AI buildout, with the majority still seeing upside risks to inflation.<\/p>\n
In the staff review of the financial situation, they noted that the information available at the time of the meeting \u201cindicated that inflation remained elevated and had moved higher, partly reflecting the effects of energy and other supply shocks,\u201d while \u201clabor market conditions remained stable, and real gross domestic product (GDP) continued to expand at a solid pace.\u201d<\/p>\n
The staff noted that economic growth abroad slowed in Q1 of 2026, with weakness seen in Canada, the euro area, and Mexico. \u201cBy contrast, output growth in several high-income Asian economies remained robust, as their exports of high-tech goods continued to surge, driven by the AI buildout,\u201d they wrote. \u201cRecent indicators suggested that the conflict in the Middle East was weighing on foreign economic activity because of higher energy costs and weaker consumer and business confidence, particularly in lower-income Asian economies and in Europe.\u201d<\/p>\n
The staff also noted that foreign headline inflation \u201chad increased significantly since the start of the conflict in the Middle East, with a sharp rise in retail energy and producer prices across Europe and much of Asia.\u201d<\/p>\n
On inflation expectations, the staff noted that \u201coptimism around the Iran conflict pushed market-based measures of expected inflation significantly lower over the period, leaving near-term inflation expectations only moderately higher than they were before the onset of the conflict.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u201cLonger-term inflation expectations remained well anchored near the Committee’s 2 percent longer-run inflation objective,\u201d they added.<\/p>\n
On monetary policy expectations, the minutes said that while market participants \u201cgenerally expected no change in the target range of the federal funds rate at the June FOMC meeting,\u201d they noted that \u201cmarket- and survey-based measures of expected policy rates moved higher\u201d over the intermeeting period. \u201cMarket pricing suggested that one rate hike was priced for mid-2027, but the manager noted that these measures were likely boosted, in part, by term premiums,\u201d they said.<\/p>\n
Turning to the economic outlook, Fed staff noted that their inflation forecast for 2026 and 2027 \u201cwas higher than the one prepared for the April meeting, reflecting incoming data, higher energy prices and other input costs due to the conflict in the Middle East, and the effects of the AI buildout on consumer prices.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cTotal inflation was projected to slow over the second half of this year from its recent pace, as retail gasoline prices were expected to decline, although core inflation was forecast to change little over the rest of the year,\u201d they wrote. \u201cInflation was projected to step down next year, as some of the factors lifting inflation this year\u2014such as tariffs\u2014were expected to wane, and then move down further to about 2 percent in 2028.\u201d<\/p>\n
The staff’s outlook for real GDP growth was slightly lower than the one prepared for the previous meeting. \u201cReal GDP was forecast to expand at about the same pace as potential this year and to slightly outpace potential over the next two years, buttressed by persistently strong productivity growth, continued gains in AI-related capital spending, and supportive financial conditions,\u201d they said. \u201cThe unemployment rate was expected to remain close to the staff’s estimate of its longer-run rate this year and next before edging slightly below it in 2028.\u201d<\/p>\n
Fed staff continued to view the uncertainty around their forecast as elevated, mainly due to the conflict in the Middle East and the potential economic effects of AI investment and adoption. \u201cOn balance, risks to the forecasts for employment and real GDP growth were seen as tilted somewhat to the downside,\u201d they wrote. \u201cRisks to the inflation projection were seen as more skewed to the upside. With inflation having run significantly above 2 percent over the past five years and in light of some emergent price pressures that appeared unrelated to tariffs or energy prices, the staff continued to view the possibility that inflation would be more persistent than projected as a salient risk.\u201d<\/p>\n
Turning to FOMC members\u2019 deliberations,\u00a0the minutes noted that participants observed that \u201cinflation had increased further and remained well above the Committee’s 2 percent longer-run objective, with both core and total inflation moving higher, which they attributed to \u201cthe lingering effects of tariffs, supply chain disruptions related to the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, and strength in demand for some goods and services stemming from robust AI-related investment.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cSeveral participants commented that price pressures had become more broad based, with a large share of goods and services\u2014including transportation, airfares, petrochemical products, and agricultural inputs\u2014experiencing substantial increases,\u201d the minutes noted. \u201cSeveral participants remarked that services price inflation excluding housing had declined little and remained high.\u201d<\/p>\n
The majority of participants were recorded as saying that \u201cmost measures of medium- and longer-term inflation expectations remained at levels consistent with the Committee’s 2 percent objective,\u201d and they anticipated that inflation \u201cwould remain elevated in the near term and then begin to decline as the effects of tariffs and energy price increases wane and other supply disruptions related to the closure of the Strait of Hormuz diminish. Participants judged that the risks to the inflation outlook were still tilted to the upside.\u201d<\/p>\n
Regarding the labor market, participants observed that payroll employment gains \u201chad strengthened this year and appeared roughly consistent with underlying labor force growth,\u201d with several participants saying that \u201clabor market indicators, such as job openings, initial unemployment insurance claims, and layoffs had remained stable in recent months and that such data pointed to a balanced labor market.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cSeveral participants noted, however, that declines in the job-finding rate and certain survey measures of job availability reflected a labor market with relatively low dynamism.\u201d<\/p>\n
In their consideration of monetary policy, the minutes noted that \u201call participants supported maintaining the current target range for the federal funds rate.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cParticipants generally assessed that information received over the intermeeting period suggested that upside risks to price stability remained elevated while downside risks to achieving maximum employment had moderated a bit,\u201d the minutes stated. \u201cA few participants commented that, in light of these developments, there was a case for raising the target range for the federal funds rate, but those participants indicated that they supported maintaining the current target range at this meeting. Several participants remarked that they did not see the current policy stance as restrictive, while a few other participants commented that they saw the current policy stance as slightly restrictive.\u201d<\/p>\n
Regarding the outlook for monetary policy, while acknowledging \u201chigh assessed uncertainty,\u201d FOMC members \u201cdiscussed a range of scenarios for the evolution of the economy and for future monetary policy actions.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cMost participants remarked on scenarios in which inflationary pressures would dissipate and inflation would soon begin to return to 2 percent,\u201d the minutes said. \u201cIn such scenarios, almost all of these participants noted that it would likely be appropriate to maintain or eventually lower the target range for the federal funds rate. Most participants, however, also pointed to scenarios in which, in the context of stable labor market conditions, inflation would remain elevated due to strong AI-related demand, the conflict in the Middle East, or the effects of tariffs. In such scenarios, almost all of these participants indicated that some policy firming would likely be warranted to return inflation to 2 percent.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cRegarding participants’ individual assessments of appropriate monetary policy under what each participant judged to be the most likely scenario for the economy, many participants indicated that the appropriate level of the federal funds rate would be within or slightly below the current target range at the end of this year,\u201d they stated. \u201cMany other participants, however, assessed that the appropriate level of the federal funds rate would be above the current target range at the end of this year.\u201d<\/p>\n
Members also discussed the significant overhaul of the post-meeting statement. \u201cA majority of participants remarked that they saw advantages in shortening the statement,\u201d the minutes said. \u201cMost participants emphasized that they preferred not to repeat the language in the previous postmeeting statement that had suggested an easing bias regarding the likely direction of the Committee’s future interest rate decisions.\u201d<\/p>\n
Gold prices saw little reaction to the 2 pm Eastern release as they continued to trade in a narrow $10 range.\u00a0<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Spot gold last traded at $4,068.44 for a loss of 0.92% on the session.<\/p>\n
Disclaimer:\u00a0The views expressed in this article are those of the author and may not reflect those of Kitco Metals Inc. The author has made every effort to ensure accuracy of information provided; however, neither Kitco Metals Inc. nor the author can guarantee such accuracy. This article is strictly for informational purposes only. It is not a solicitation to make any exchange in commodities, securities or other financial instruments. Kitco Metals Inc. and the author of this article do not accept culpability for losses and\/ or damages arising from the use of this publication.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"(Kitco News) \u2013 The minutes from the June 16-17 Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) meeting showed members united…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":575669,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":"","_share_on_mastodon":"0"},"categories":[174],"tags":[2820,2808,79,2813,2814,2807,2817,2811,179,18,2809,2812,2818,1742,19,2819,2810,17,2798,2821,2804,2822,2806,2801,2802,2800,2803,790,2805,2816,2823,2799,2815,2708],"class_list":["post-575668","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-economy","tag-bank-forecasts","tag-bitcoin-news","tag-business","tag-central-banks","tag-charts","tag-crypto-news","tag-currency","tag-economic-reports","tag-economy","tag-eire","tag-ethereum-news","tag-forecasts","tag-global-economy","tag-gold","tag-ie","tag-international-policy","tag-interviews","tag-ireland","tag-kitco-news","tag-market-nugget","tag-metals","tag-mining-minutes","tag-mining-news","tag-palladium","tag-pgm","tag-platinum","tag-platinum-group-metals","tag-politics","tag-precious-metals","tag-rare-earth-metals","tag-roundups","tag-silver","tag-tech-metals","tag-us-dollar"],"share_on_mastodon":{"url":"","error":"Validation failed: Text character limit of 500 exceeded"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/575668","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=575668"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/575668\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/575669"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=575668"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=575668"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=575668"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}