Federal Reserve leaves interest rate unchanged

Added: 2026-04-29

[00:00:00]I do want to put this up on your screen from the Associated Press. We now have this coming down that the Federal Reserve has decided to keep key rate the key interest rates unchanged. This comes even as four officials descent. This is the most in 34 years. And so we'll continue to keep you updated with the very latest here as right now we do have Fed Chair Jerome Powell speaking and making remarks. They're talking about keeping these interest rates unchanged.

[00:00:27]Let's listen into this here on Live Now from Fox >> with a few thoughts. First, I want to congratulate Kevin Walsh on his advancement out of the Senate Banking Committee this morning. This is an important step forward and I wish him well as that process continues.

[00:00:45]The Federal Reserve exists for one fundamental purpose, to foster the economic conditions in which American families and businesses can thrive.

[00:00:53]stable prices, a strong job market, and a financial system they can depend on.

[00:00:59]Every decision we make, whether about interest rates or regulatory and supervisory matters or other issues, is made in service of that purpose.

[00:01:07]Our decisions reflect the collective judgment of the board of governors and the federal open market committee, colleagues who demonstrate analytical rigor, principled judgment, and a genuine commitment to the public interest. Our collaborative and deliberative process has long reflected a shared commitment to finding common ground in service to our mission.

[00:01:27]This institution is resilient, capable, and staffed by professionals of extraordinary talent and exceptional dedication. It has been a privilege to serve alongside so many great public servants at the board of governors and around the Federal Reserve system.

[00:01:44]The Fed's work is only as effective as the public's understanding of it. And you, the press, are essential to keeping the public informed about we about what we do and why. The people we serve benefit from your careful reporting.

[00:01:58]I welcomed the announcement last Friday by the US Attorney for the District of Columbia that she had closed the criminal investigation. She also noted, however, that she would not hesitate to restart the investigation.

[00:02:11]Over the weekend, the Department of Justice provided assurances that they will not reopen the investigation unless there's a criminal referral from the Fed's inspector general. And absent such a referral, if they do appeal the recent court decision, they would not seek, as part of that appeal to restart the investigation or send new subpoenas.

[00:02:33]I've said that I will not leave the board until this investigation is well and truly over with transparency and finality and I stand by that. I'm encouraged by recent developments and I'm watching the remaining steps in this process carefully.

[00:02:49]My decisions on these matters will continue to be guided entirely by what I believe is in the best interest of the institution and the people we serve.

[00:02:56]After my term as chair ends on May 15, I will continue to serve as a governor for a period of time. To be determined, I plan to keep a low profile as a governor. There is only ever one chair of the Federal Reserve Board. When Kevin Worsh is confirmed and sworn in, he will be that chair. Once sworn in as board chair, his new colleagues will elect him to chair the FOMC as well.

[00:03:22]As I regularly point out from this podium, our success in delivering our goals matters for all Americans. I'm confident that that the Fed will continue to do its work with objectivity, integrity, and a deep commitment to serve the American people.

[00:03:36]Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.

[00:03:46]Thank you, Mr. Chair. Appreciate the kind words about the press. often doesn't come from the podium in different places but appreciate that. Um can you talk about what is gone into your decision to remain on the board?

[00:03:56]What kind of criteria are you weighing and uh how long might you stay? Thank you.

[00:04:00]>> Sure. So you know my my concern is really about the series of legal attacks on the Fed which threaten our ability to conduct monetary policy without considering political factors. And I want to note here this has nothing whatever to do with verbal criticism by elected officials. Uh I I've never suggested that such ver verbal criticism is a problem and neither has anyone else here. But these legal actions by the administration are unprecedented in our 113year history. And there are ongoing threats uh of additional such actions. I I worry that these attacks are battering the institution and putting at risk the thing that really matters to the public which is the ability to conduct monetary policy without taking into consideration political factors. It is so important for our economy, for the people that we serve, that they can depend over time on a central bank that operates that way free of political influence.

[00:04:53]It's part of the absolute foundation of this amazing economy that we have. It's just one of the many reasons why the US economy is the envi envy of the world.

[00:05:02]That piece of institutional architecture separates successful countries from unsuccessful countries. It is extremely important, not for the people who work at the Fed at any given time, but for the people that we serve, that the Fed remain able to conduct monetary policy in a way that doesn't get pulled into politics trying to help or hurt any particular politician or political party. It's critical for the people that we serve. In terms of when I would leave, I I will leave when I when I think it's appropriate to do so. Was that all your questions or was that >> Well, I just have a followup which is what would you say to the criticism that by remaining on the board, you're actually taking a political act and denying uh President Trump the majority of the board which as president he would have if you left.

[00:05:44]>> I I don't see that at all. As I mentioned, uh you know, I'm literally staying because of the actions that have been taken. I had long planned to be retiring. uh and uh you know the things that have happened in really in the last 3 months have have I think left me no choice but to stay until I see them through at least that long. Um you know in addition uh I don't see how this will interfere. I'm my intention is not to interfere. You know, I was a governor for almost six years, and the tradition is at the Fed that governors uh who understand how difficult the role of chair is, and as a as a soontobe former chair, I do understand how hard it is to get consensus with 19 strong-minded people, you work with the chair. You you try to you try to uh be heard, but also collaborate with the chair and try to support the chair when you can. When you can't, you can't. And I think that's the attitude that people generally take. And that's the attitude that I'll take.

[00:06:42]>> Uh Nick, >> J Pal, if I could ask about the inflation outlook. In March, you described the standard practice of looking through energy shocks as conditional on inflation expectations staying anchored. Since that meeting, there has been very little progress reopening uh key energy trade corridors.

[00:07:06]Can you help us understand how the inflation outlook has changed in the intermitting period beginning with the prospects for tariff pass through resolving on the timeline that you had outlined in March before getting to the energy shock that is now on top?

[00:07:21]>> So, you know, I would look at it this way. Um, for a long time we've been working on on the hypothesis really that tariff uh tariffs would would lead to a one-time price increase and that that would go away over time. In other words, that there would be no further change. So, measured inflation wouldn't reflect that higher level going up more and more. And it's time for that to happen. You know, we really do expect that to be happening in the next two quarters. So, we'll be watching very carefully to see that what we've thought all along would happen.

[00:07:54]That's the kind of critical part of the forecast. We we need to really see that with with energy. It's it's so hard to say. Um I I mentioned you know in you know sort of the textbook you you would look through an oil shock because they tend to be shortlived and they tend to revert and monetary policy works with long and variable lags. So you you know you wouldn't necessarily re react right away. I think that is all the more true given that we're several years above 2% inflation and that we're already looking through the tariff shock. So I think we're going to be very cautious about that. It's but the the question about about looking through energy really is not not in front of us right now. We it hasn't even peaked yet and I think we'd want to see the backside of that and progress on tariffs before we even thought about uh about reducing rates.

[00:08:41]So, if I could follow up, the the statement today preserves language that has taken on some meaning uh as it was socialized when the committee was actively lowering rates. Why is that easing bias still uh ripe given how different the inflation outlook is now versus a meeting or two ago? And what more would have to happen for it to get evicted?

[00:09:04]So um that was uh as you will recall we we had a discussion about that at the last meeting and we talked about it in in the press conference after the March meeting. We had the same today. We had quite a vigorous discussion about that that very issue and the guidance and is it still appropriate and that kind of thing. And I would say that the you know number of people on the committee who either could support that ch language change changing to a more neutral stance so that a hike is as likely as as a cut.

[00:09:33]that number has increased over the intermedating period and it's easy to see why. I mean it's it's a it's it's a good question right you see inflation has moved up over the interim a bit core inflation's 3.2 now moving albeit just a little bit in the wrong direction and we we know that there will be you know that there's uh headline inflation coming out of the Gulf and we don't know how much that will be. We just we're going to need to see. So, it makes all the sense in the world that people would look at that and and we'd have a vigorous discussion about that. You saw that three people desented over the language.

[00:10:06]I think all of those people agreed with the with the rate decision. Um, so the majority of the committee did not want to do that and and and I I was I didn't think we needed to do it at this meeting. It really was just a question of what's why do we need to do that now?

[00:10:21]You know, we have so much to learn.

[00:10:22]There's so much uncertainty about the path ahead. there doesn't need to be any rush to make that decision now because you know what what happens in the next 30 60 days even by the next meeting could really change the picture around that around that language. So, you know, it was a it was a it's a close it's it's a much closer thing on the committee than it was in March. And, you know, that makes all the sense in the world, it seems to me.

[00:10:46]>> CLA.

[00:10:49]So, Claire Jones, Financial Times. Um, just just going back to this issue of the the easing bias. Um, we've now got oil approaching $120 a barrel when it comes to the benchmark. um Brent crude.

[00:11:05]Um if it stays around those levels six weeks from now, what would be your guess best guess as to whether the easing bias will still be in the statement? Thank you.

[00:11:15]>> I I wouldn't want to guess, you know.

[00:11:17]Well, first of all, we're going to have new leadership in all likelihood by then and and new leadership is going to have a very important role to play in that.

[00:11:23]So, uh I won't be standing here this podium to answer your question. So, um I don't know. As I mentioned, that's all I can really say is that we had we had a great discussion about that today. It's a you know, it's got it's gotten to be a better question than the interim period.

[00:11:37]We had the discussion a majority are still on the page of of not feeling the need to move to that level and I I that's where I am. Uh I I get it though, you know, at a certain point you would move and that that conceivably could come as soon as the next meeting.

[00:11:52]>> Thank you. And just to follow on, um, the new leadership also seemed rather lukewarm on press conferences and on the dot plots. What would your advice to him be on these communication tools?

[00:12:04]>> So, I'm I'm not going to give him any advice through you today here, but I've you know uh I I think communications generally is uh I think every incoming chair takes a look at communications and it's a very healthy thing. I mean communications it's very complex and uh you know you can always be uh be looking at new things and and I if that happens feels like it's going to happen that's completely appropriate thing >> hi chair chair pal with axios um can you tell us if you've been uh in touch with with incoming chairman Worsh uh any uh to what extent is this a normal transition process versus all the things swirling around uh something unusual and and what can we expect when when he takes uh takes that podium in a few weeks.

[00:12:50]>> I I haven't seen him since uh seeing him at a dinner in January where I congratulated him and had a nice nice chat with him. Haven't seen him. I don't know what a normal process is. You know, the last process was with uh Janet Yellen with whom I had worked for six years and so it was you know we were sitting down the hall from each other.

[00:13:06]So it was a very different thing.

[00:13:07]>> I think I think this is and will be a very normal standard kind of a kind of a transition process. So that's that's what I expect. I have every reason to think it will be. Quick followup. Is the Supreme Court ruling on Governor Cook a factor in when you may leave as a governor?

[00:13:21]>> I wasn't thinking of it as such, but no, not really. I mean, I'm thinking more of the other things I mentioned.

[00:13:29]>> Chris, >> hi. Uh, thanks for taking our question.

[00:13:34]I wanted to ask a question about your tenure and Chris Rugver at Associated Press. Um during your tenure as chair, you often spoke about how disadvantaged Americans benefited from extended periods of low unemployment. Uh and the new framework the Fed adopted in 2020, some economists say elevated the Fed's employment mandate. Uh are you worried that the the pandemic inflation spike that followed will make future Fed chairs more reluctant to pursue a hot jobs market and should they be?

[00:14:05]>> Um I don't know the answer to that. I mean what we so what we experienced um in in uh the in the teens the mid teens was uh really low low levels of unemployment for a long period of time and no reaction from inflation and we all took very much took notice of that.

[00:14:27]We also noticed that the biggest wage gains were going to people at the bottom end of the income spectrum. And we had many many reports of uh I mean it felt like a fairly stable equilibrium and a lot of benefits were flowing to people at the bottom end of the uh income spectrum including companies were you know setting up in um in you know people who were confined and and like training them before they got out and it was it was a very healthy sort of set of societal dynamics. So of course I think anybody would love to get back to that.

[00:15:00]Um I I don't think that anything that happened to create the the global pandemic inflation was in any any way related to overweighting the employment market. I mean it was it was a global shock that happened essentially very very similarly all over the world that had to do with closing reopening stimulus and all that. And I mean you could you could look at a graph of 10 big economies on the page and not know which was the US and which was Germany, France and things like that. So I don't think that that that insight was in any way responsible for the high inflation that we experienced. So I mean I think it's always been a balance. Uh uh you you've got to you've got to be strong on both of our dual mandates and we we just for example now we we don't feel that the uh labor market is at all a source of inflation. So we don't need to be worrying about that. It's been a long time since we have had to worry about that. Well, actually during the during the pandemic recovery, the labor market was super overheated and tight and that's when we had to worry about it. But but not now.

[00:16:04]>> Just on the other issue, um are you would you need do you need more assurance from the Justice Department before stepping down? Is that what you're waiting for or what else? I'm waiting, you know, for the for the investigation to be well and truly over with finality and transparency and and I'm waiting for that and I will leave when I think it's appropriate to do so.

[00:16:28]>> Michael McKe.

[00:16:32]>> Michael McKe from Blueber Television and Radio. I'd like to ask you if you could explain a little more or characterize a little more the discussion about the two-sided view and interest rates because there were some members of the open market committee who've been suggesting that we may need to raise interest rates even absent the war because inflation was not coming down fast enough. Uh is there any sense that interest rates might have to go up or was this just a setup to sort of uh warn people that you're worried about the war impacts? So nobody the three dissenters and and others who could have supported that and others who were you know who were voters and prefer non- voters who preferred it they all supported the right decision right so people are not saying we need to hike now it's more a question of you know don't we kind of feel that we should be neutral and markets or markets what are markets doing people argue that's this is consistent what markets are doing and again it's a it's a very fair question but you know these these changes is there is you know it's a form of forward guidance and you want to make you don't want to make them you want to make them in a way that that will be sustained and continue to make sense and not something you need to take back uh you know fairly quickly. So I I think we just a group of us including me didn't feel like we needed to be in a hurry on that that that markets are not confused about our reaction function. We don't have a problem to solve on that. But the other side of the argument is a good argument too as I as I mentioned. It's a perfectly good argument to be having, good discussion to be having. So, and it came out the way it came out.

[00:18:08]>> Well, you've got u three dissents uh in favor of two-sided uh warning. Uh you've got yourself staying on the board.

[00:18:17]You've got the criticism that does come from elected officials. uh and you've got a lot of uh critics who have faulted the Fed for being too slow 2021 with inflation. Are you worried about Fed credibility under all of this? Is that one reason that you want to stay on not driving my my thinking now? I mean, monetary policy is going to get made by, you know, 19 people. There's a lot of stability there. Uh I mean if you think about it any every new Fed Fed chair has the same situation which is you've got 18 colleagues on the FOMC 11 of them vote during any year and you have to your job is to create consensus is it's to talk to them understand them you know be inside their thinking and be able to pull them together and and get consensus and move and that's that's what every Fed chair has to do and I I think Kevin Wars is quite well. He has the capabilities, skills to be to be very good at that, I would think. So, I think I I'm not so worried about that process, you know. Uh I think that'll that'll work itself out.

[00:19:30]>> Howard, >> uh thank you, Chair Howard Schneider with Reuters. You you mentioned that uh staying on as a governor, you intend to keep a low profile. I'm just wondering if you could give us a little more detail on what that looks like and how you can Touche.

[00:19:47]Um what that Yeah. Walk down the steps.

[00:19:50]Uh what that looks like and particularly around the policy discussion, how you're able to uh to have your intervention and not be a shadowed chair and not have kind of an outsized influence over the process.

[00:20:02]>> Yeah. You know, that's just something I would never do. You know, the shadow chair thing. No, you know, it's it's I I don't know what the exact specifics of it will be, but I'm going back to being a governor. I respect the role of chair.

[00:20:14]I you know I was a chair I was a governor for six years and I know what that's like. I know and I I had a you know pretty front row seat with particularly with with chair yellen to whom I I was close when I when I I was worked with chairman Bernani for two years but um you know I I I was brand new at that time. So I got a sense of what it was and I had real sympathy for how hard it is to get that group to consensus and I always felt like I you know I don't want to add to that unnecessarily and that means try to support the chairs where the chair the direction the chair wants to go and if you can if you can't you can't but and I think that's that's the way it's always worked there because the chair only has one vote plus the ability to develop consensus and if people won't be you know they they won't if they're not flexible at all then how do you ever do that and so that's why the chair has the authority ity the chair has really is to develop relationships with people and work with them and then and then put something forward that has consensus and I you know I I prop I propose to be a very constructive participant in that process really out of respect for for the office of the chair >> and uh in your view as a a soontobe governor how do you see the risks of oil prices bleeding into core inflation in coming weeks because that was it seems like the commentary that was coming from particularly some of the reserve bank presidents. They were elevated concerns about the bleed into core and you know here we are with three descents. Now what do you see as the prospect of of a core inflation?

[00:21:41]>> You know they're those prospects are real. Remember though our our um and they're real and the real thing is we're going to have to wait and see. We're going to need to see and the good news is we think our policy stance is just is in a very good place for us to wait and see. we, you know, we're right kind of at the high end of neutral or perhaps mildly restrictive. U the labor market shows more and more signs of stability whereas inflation is kind of misbehaving and so maybe a little bit of uh of restriction or the high end of neutral is just the right place to be. So we can wait here and see uh and see how things work out before we act and we'll see how much that you know how much does come through into core. You see it already in air airfares of course but you may see it in many other places. Uh you know uh we just don't know yet and it's it's so unknowable because how how long will the straight be closed? You can develop any number of scenarios that you want but we really won't know till we know. So fortunately we're in a good place to to to wait and let things develop.

[00:22:46]>> Uh thanks Mr. Chairman. um you started holding post uh post meeting press conferences for every meeting as opposed to the ones with just uh with SCPs. Can you talk about why you see that as a net positive?

[00:22:58]>> So we um we always said when we were doing quarterly press conferences, we always said we can move at any meeting, but we only ever moved at the quarterly SCP meetings where we had the press conference. So if you think about it, you know, we during the pandemic, we were moving like a lot at every meeting and sometimes between meetings and and doing that without a press conference, I think would have been quite challenging.

[00:23:18]It's become the industry norm. It's the standard. I don't know whether that has to remain that way. I don't know. I mean I it's it's just something people have become used to and I I do think it's quite helpful to you know to uh I mean I I I try to deliver a message on behalf of the committee rather than 18 people 18 other people going out and delivering their message and it's you know it's going to be all over the place because we do thankfully have widely disperate views.

[00:23:45]>> Um okay thanks. The other thing I wanted to ask about was the communications review from last year. Um uh could you describe the debate last year? what changes were considered, what you wanted, and what prevented action um any action uh on the on on those changes.

[00:24:01]So, I'm not going to go into the the real small specifics, but what we found very quickly was that um making making changes making really large changes, for example, to the DOT plot or the SCP um it didn't have we couldn't come up with anything that had really broad support on the committee and and so we just moved on. We didn't we we didn't really do as much o on on that as we might have and you know I was never the world's biggest fan of the dot plot but you you can't can't beat something with nothing and you know there's a that we've looked at a bunch of things and uh you know it's something I like I said I think every new chair is going to look at our suite of communications and and think about what would be changes. We we are the only major central bank that doesn't publish a forecast and that's because we have a 19 person committee and you know you try to do it you try to do that on the at the board that's hard or the at the committee that's hard. Uh it's hard if you do it at the staff. So it's you know it's been it works. I think our communications are fine but looking at doing it in a different and better way is the most natural thing in the world.

[00:25:19]>> Thank you. Um, Colobby Smith with the New York Times. If I could follow up on Mike's question about hikes, are we right to assume that the hawkish outcome for the Fed is still one in which the committee just extends the pause in rate cuts? And to what extent is there a growing sense within the committee that monetary policy really isn't just restrictive at all right now? Um, the economy is holding up relatively well despite this major energy shock. The unemployment rate has ticked lower.

[00:25:46]inflation was moving sideways even before the war and is now moving higher.

[00:25:50]Um so so where is the committee at on that debate?

[00:25:53]>> You know where we're at is we think our really we think our policy rate is in a good place. Um if we need to hike we will we will certainly signal that and we will and we will certainly do it. And if we need to to cut then if it's appropriate to cut then we'll we'll signal the opposite. I think we because we feel like we're we're in a good place to move in either direction. Um, nobody's calling for a hike right now.

[00:26:18]Um, so it really is going to depend on how things how things evolve. Uh, and you know that that's really where it is.

[00:26:25]And I as I mentioned clo you know much closer question this cycle on changing the guidance but but ultimately we didn't.

[00:26:33]>> And as it relates to the war at what point do you think the risk to growth will be larger than the risk to inflation as this conflict drags on?

[00:26:43]you know, you just have to find that out empirically, you know, with given our um the fact that we're, you know, a big exporter of energy and that our economy is far less energy intensive, oil intensive than it was during the 70s.

[00:26:58]Um, you know, the the effects on the United States are really substantially less than those of Western Europe or or Asia. We're feeling much greater effects from from these things. are the effects we're feeling in, you know, in the current situation currently and in in sort of what's priced in which is, you know, a relatively quick outcome. If if this goes on for much longer and prices go much higher, then we'll feel that much more. And of course, I'm talking about aggregate inflation numbers. We know, we're very well aware that people are experiencing higher gas prices all over the country now, and that hurts that and these are those those hikes may continue to happen.

[00:27:39]and other other things are going to start to reflect air airline fairs I've mentioned and and other other products and services that are dependent upon petroleum and derivatives of of petroleum people are going to start to feel that >> Edward >> thank you thank you chair Edward Lawrence with uh Fox Business so I guess I'll just ask you directly on this markets don't see a rate cut at all this year is what they're predicting do you think that we are at the neutral rate why or why not, >> you know, the neutral rate is a we cannot know it with uh with certainty. I think pretty close to the neutral rate.

[00:28:16]Yeah, I I always had it, you know, between 3 and 4%. We're a little north of 3 and a half. So, that's well in the range of what I would consider a reasonable reasonable, but at the higher end of the range of what I would consider reasonable neutral rate. Um, you know, I think you're the labor market is still probably cooling off just a little bit. Um, and I I I don't think there's a much of a case for any case really for the for uh policy looking, you know, meaningfully restrictive, maybe mildly restrictive or neutral, I would say.

[00:28:49]>> Um, and I want to follow up on some of the other questions about uh your future a little bit. The the first time we've seen to four descents now since October of 1992, are you handing off a divided Fed? You know, the thing to remember is uh uh we have always had vigorous debates and and uh they're excellent debates. I have to say they're they've been really good. Uh and uh we're in an unusually difficult situation. So we've we've really had four supply shocks. You can actually you can say more than four but at a minimum we've we had the pandemic, we had the invasion of the UK of Ukraine, we had tariffs and now we have of Iran and the oil um you know the oil spike. So those every every supply shock has the capability of right driving inflation up and unemployment up and and what do you do? You know you're it's it's central bank has a really hard time knowing what to do. So the right thing to do is to try to balance the achievement of those two goals. And that's what our framework calls for us to do. But these are really tough, difficult judgments. You've got to have a forecast for each variable. You've got to think how long it's going to take to get back to target. You got to think how how restrictive or not is policy. So it's only natural that you have a range of views on the committee. You know, people are going to see it different ways. They're going to have different risk tolerances and that kind of thing.

[00:30:10]I mean, if everybody agreed, that would be that would be surprising. Uh and I I think it's only it's partly a function of the extraordinarily challenging set of supply shocks that we've been dealing with now for five six years.

[00:30:30]>> Thank you so much, Chair.

[00:30:31]>> All right, as you see there, we're listening into this press conference where we heard the breaking news from Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell making this announcement as these interest rates are remaining unchanged.

[00:30:42]And so we wanted to make sure we were able to bring that to you here on Live Now from Fox. But in case you missed the beginning of that announcement to recap, ultimately what we just learned there in that press conference is that the Federal Reserve has now decided to keep those interest rates steady. This was a major deal as you see there from the Associated Press with four officials voting in the descent. This is the most in almost 34 years. And so we're watching all of this unfolding here on Live Now from Fox as we're in listening into Fed Chair Jerome Fowl talk about where that went. And so as we're continuing on, we did get this other breaking update. Powell says that he plans to remain on the board of the Federal Reserve after his term ends as chair next month. This is for a quote undetermined period of time. Ultimately, we know this came as sight he cited lingering threats against himself and the central bank as a part of pressure campaign by President Trump for lower borrowing cost. He said quote this after my term as chair ends on May 15th. I will continue to serve as a governor for a period of time to be determined. And so we want to continue on here on live now. Also showing you this other another update there with the Federal Reserve and how things will move forward. We do know that the Senate Banking Committee today voted 13 to11 to advance Kevin Worsh's nomination to chair of the Federal Reserve Board, bringing him a step closer to replacing Jerome Powell a top the central bank next month. Worsh ultimately cleared the panel in a partyline vote after the Justice Department agreed to defer the Fed's inspector general on an investigation of the central bank's headquarters renovations, opening the way now for Senator Tom Tillis, a Republican of North Carolina, to end his blockade of Fed nominees. Tillis though has criticized the DOJ probe as an attempt to undermine the central bank's independence.