So, why did Trump choose him? Aside from the need to calm markets that have been spooked by his attacks on Fed independence, one reason may be that Warsh believes that AI and other technological innovations will reduce inflation and thus allow for lower policy rates.
But there is a problem here: If AI reduces inflation, it would do so through higher GDP and productivity growth, implying the need for a higher equilibrium real (inflation-adjusted) policy rate and real long-term rate, even if lower inflation implies a potentially lower nominal policy rate. On net, then, AI would not necessarily justify a lower neutral federal funds rate. If Warsh and Trump’s other ally on the Fed board, Stephen Miran, think otherwise, they could be in for an unpleasant surprise.
A second possible reason is that Warsh has voiced support for credit-easing policies. But there could be a problem here, too. With Michelle Bowman, another Trump appointee, now in charge of bank supervision, the Warsh Fed will probably accelerate efforts to ease credit conditions even at the risk of fueling credit and asset bubbles. And that, in turn, could undermine financial stability at a time when markets are already frothy, leverage is high, and private credit is wobbling.
Unwinding the balance sheet
See also: Fed set to hold rates as Iran war scrambles economic outlook
Warsh believes that unwinding the Fed’s balance sheet will allow it to reduce policy rates more sharply, on the grounds that quantitative tightening (QT) causes financial conditions to tighten. But he is simply wrong about this. Under the post-2008 regime, the interest rates on excess reserves paid to banks nullify the impact of those reserves on credit creation and financial conditions. That is why the Fed has been able to reduce its balance sheet by 25% without triggering tighter financial conditions. There is no reason to think that more QT will justify much lower policy rates.
Warsh’s opposition to the current ample-reserves regime may come back to bite him. After all, the recent aggressive QT policy already put so much stress on the repo and money markets that the Fed had to revert to pursuing backdoor quantitative easing (through the purchase of short-term bills and reverse repos) last December. If Warsh truly wants to avoid new emergency QE episodes, he should favour, rather than oppose, ample excess reserves. If he can’t see that now, he will realise it the next time financial stresses occur.
Moreover, Warsh has suggested that he may support a new Fed-Treasury accord in which monetary policy would be further removed from fiscal policy and public-debt management. For example, this could mean reducing the Fed’s balance sheet and buying short-term public debt rather than long-term bonds, as was the case before the global financial crisis.
See also: US data centre boom slows due to power grid limits — WoodMac
But putting aside the fact that this could also phase out the current ample-reserves regime, further reducing the Fed’s holdings of long-term bonds would force the Treasury to double down on its Activist Treasury Issuance policy, implying that there would be even more manipulation of the market for long-term debt and mortgage-backed securities.
In fact, a new Fed-Treasury accord could lead to even more backdoor ATI and more mixing of monetary and fiscal policy — the exact opposite of the arrangement’s stated goal. Has either Warsh or Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent considered these risks?
‘Mission creep’
Warsh has also decried the Fed’s “mission creep” into issues such as financial stability, climate change, and inequality. But financial stability absolutely should be a Fed objective, especially if other Fed policies could lead to excessive credit easing. Moreover, since climate change could affect financial stability, owing to large stocks of potentially distressed, impaired, or stranded assets in real estate and other sectors, it would not be appropriate simply to ignore the issue.
In the face of a “K-shaped recovery,” where many households survive from paycheck to paycheck while a privileged few grow wealthier than ever, ignoring inequality may turn out to be a mistake, especially if AI exacerbates it.
Fortunately, the Fed chair is not an absolute monarch. Warsh will have only one vote out of 12 on the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC). Though he will be primus inter pares (first among equals), he cannot bully the committee into doing whatever he wants. That is good news for markets, given how misguided some of Warsh’s stated positions are.
Moreover, recent economic data suggest that US growth remains above potential — in fact, it could even accelerate this year after a modest soft patch last year — while inflation remains stubbornly above the Fed’s 2% target.
Sink your teeth into in-depth insights from our contributors, and dive into financial and economic trends
So, even the single rate cut that the FOMC has pencilled in for 2026 may not be justified. With other risks looming — like a protracted war with Iran that sends oil prices higher and puts upward pressure on inflation and inflation expectations — the Fed may well find itself raising rates, rather than cutting them.
Once confirmed, Warsh will quickly get a reality check. The views he has expressed as a pundit are unlikely to survive an encounter with the real world of markets and geopolitics.— © Project Syndicate, 2026
Nouriel Roubini, a senior economic strategist at Hudson Bay Capital Management, is Professor Emeritus at New York University’s Stern School of Business and the author, most recently, of Megathreats: Ten Dangerous Trends That Imperil Our Future, and How to Survive Them (Little, Brown and Company, 2022)
