Federal Reserve Chair Warsh is considering cutting the number of scheduled Federal Open Market Committee meetings held each year, according to The New York Times, which cited people familiar with the matter. If carried out, the change would rank among the biggest shifts in how the Fed operates in decades and would stand as the most consequential policy move of Warsh’s tenure so far.
The report said Warsh raised the idea at this week’s Fed meeting. A new meeting schedule could be decided before the next policy meeting in mid-September, although the actual change may not take effect until later.
A possible break from the schedule used since 1981
Reducing the number of meetings would also reduce the number of opportunities for FOMC members to vote on interest rates. That would break with the pattern in place since 1981: eight meetings a year, roughly one every six weeks.
The report said such a move could weaken the Fed’s ability to react to changes in inflation and the labor market. It could also limit one of the market’s main channels for reading monetary policy signals, reversing a long-running trend toward greater transparency at the central bank.
Warsh presented the concept this week
According to the people cited in the report, Warsh outlined the legal framework at this week’s meeting, including the minimum number of meetings required each year and the relevant timing rules. He did not open a formal discussion during the meeting and instead asked officials to send him feedback afterward.
The Banking Act of 1935 established the Fed’s modern structure. Under that law, the FOMC must meet “at least four times each year.” The chair, as well as any three members of the committee, may call a meeting.
The Fed’s website has already published the dates for the remaining meetings this year and for 2027, while noting that each date remains tentative until it is confirmed at the previous meeting.
The report also pointed to a discrepancy with Warsh’s earlier comments. During his Senate confirmation hearing, he said four meetings were “not enough” and that holding more meetings was appropriate. That leaves uncertainty over how far any reduction might go.
Fewer meetings would also narrow the market’s information window
The Fed’s current schedule of eight policy meetings a year dates back to 1981 under then-Chair Paul A. Volcker and has remained in place ever since.
That rhythm gives Fed officials, staff, Wall Street investors and market forecasters a predictable framework. Before each meeting, staff prepare detailed briefing and forecast materials known as the Tealbook. Minutes are released six weeks after the meeting, while full meeting transcripts and briefing materials are not made public until five years later.
In that setting, cutting meetings would mean more than fewer votes. It would also compress the window through which outsiders assess the Fed’s thinking on the future rate path, reducing transparency.
The report said the idea is consistent with Warsh’s broader style since taking office. He has already shortened post-meeting policy statements, spoken less publicly about economic conditions and the likely direction of rates, and floated the possibility of scaling back post-meeting press conferences that have been standard since January 2019.
Historically, the Fed’s meeting frequency has changed before. Prior to the current arrangement adopted in 1981, meetings were held more often. The Fed met 19 times in 1956, and during the peak of the inflation crisis in 1978 it held 12 formal meetings along with several emergency conference calls.
Part of a broader institutional reform push
The New York Times report framed the possible cut in meeting frequency as part of the “institutional reform” program Warsh has pursued since taking charge of the Fed in May.
Since then, Warsh has centered his agenda on reshaping an institution he had long criticized. So far, that effort has taken form through five working groups covering issues including how the Fed communicates externally and which data sources it should prioritize.
The Fed has examined the issue before. A 1988 internal memo showed that two senior staff members, including future Vice Chair Donald Kohn, evaluated the pros and cons of increasing meeting frequency. The memo said more frequent meetings offered “the advantage of more timely consideration of new information,” but also brought “the inconvenience of greater preparation and travel.” Its conclusion was that the eight-meeting schedule “can still be regarded as appropriate.”
The report said Warsh’s current direction runs counter to that 1988 assessment. If a plan to reduce the number of policy meetings is ultimately adopted, its effects on market information flows, the Fed’s policy flexibility and communication between the central bank and markets are likely to stay under close watch.