02:25 PM EDT, 10/31/2025 (MT Newswires) -- Dallas Fed President Lorie Logan (nonvoter) said that she would have preferred to have maintained the target range for the federal funds rate at the October Federal Open Market Committee meeting, saying that was no need for another preemptive rate cut after the September reduction and adding that there may not be a need for a rate cut in December unless there is evidence that the labor market is cooling more rapidly.

Kansas City Fed President Jeffrey Schmid (voter) said in an explanation of his dissenting vote at the October FOMC meeting that he would have preferred to maintain the current policy rate as concerns about inflation remain and that a 25-basis point reduction would do little to help the labor market but could have an impact to the Fed's efforts to lower inflation.

Cleveland Fed President Beth Hammack (nonvoter) said that she would have preferred to hold rates steady at the October FOMC meeting, while Atlanta Fed President Raphael Bostic (nonvoter) said at the same event that he was convinced to lower rates further as he sees policy as still being restrictive.

Recent comments of note:

(Oct. 29) Fed Chair Jerome Powell (voter) said that a further reduction at the next FOMC meeting in December is "far" from being a foregone conclusion due to double-sided risks and divergent opinions on the path of monetary policy, adding that the FOMC will act based on incoming data and not on a preset course. Powell said that the lack of government data due to the shutdown could mean the FOMC will need to move slower if the data backlog continues into December.

(Oct. 29) The FOMC voted to lower the target for its federal funds rate to 3.75% to 4.00%, with two dissents. Fed Governor Stephen Miran, as expected, wanted the FOMC to lower the target range by 50 basis points, while Kansas City Fed President Jeffrey Schmid wanted no rate reduction. Additionally, the FOMC said that it intends to end the reduction of its securities holdings, or quantitative tightening, on Dec. 1. The economic language was little changed, owing to the missing federal government-produced data.