Fed Chirp — Hawkish/Dovish Tone Tracker for Fed Speeches & FOMC

FedChirp tracks public speeches, FOMC statements, minutes, and Powell press-conference transcripts from the seven Federal Reserve Board governors and twelve regional bank presidents. Each document is scored on a −2 (dovish) to +2 (hawkish) scale by Claude against a fixed rubric, building a longitudinal view of every speaker's tone and the committee's collective stance. Scrapers run every weekday evening; alerts fire when a speaker's score drifts meaningfully from their 90-day baseline.

FOMC pulse

Per-meeting combined view

Meeting	Statement	Presser	Combined	Drift (P−S)	Δ vs prior meeting	Minutes
2026-04-29	-0.30	+0.50	+0.10	+0.80	-0.05	pending
2026-03-18	+0.30	+0.00	+0.15	-0.30	+0.00	+0.30 (2026-04-08)
2026-01-28	+0.30	+0.00	+0.15	-0.30	+1.05	+0.50 (2026-02-18)
2025-12-10	-1.00	-0.80	-0.90	+0.20	— (first)	-0.50 (2025-12-30)

Combined = average of statement and presser scores (same-day tone). Drift = presser − statement: positive means Powell's Q&A pulled hawkish against the prepared text. Δ vs prior meeting compares this meeting's combined score to the previous meeting's.

FOMC Statement

Press Conference

FOMC Minutes

FOMC market reaction

Date	Score	Label	Δ vs prior	URL
2026-04-29	-0.30	neutral	-0.60	link
What changed vs prior statement 'somewhat elevated' → 'elevated, in part reflecting the recent increase in global energy prices' on inflation: stronger language with a supply-side driver cited — modestly hawkish. Middle East framing shifts from 'implications...are uncertain' to 'contributing to a high level of uncertainty': more direct acknowledgment of an active upside inflation risk — modestly hawkish. Three new dissents (Hammack, Kashkari, Logan) opposing inclusion of an 'easing bias' in the statement: signals meaningful internal pushback against any dovish tilt in the reaction function — hawkish committee signal. Miran dissent persists for a second consecutive meeting preferring a 25bp cut, while three hawks push back on easing-bias language: committee is pulled in both directions, but the hawkish bloc is larger — internal tension, net hawkish lean.
2026-03-18	+0.30	neutral	+0.00	link
What changed vs prior statement 'shown some signs of stabilization' → 'been little changed in recent months' on unemployment: slightly more neutral/stable characterization — no meaningful change in stance. New sentence added: 'The implications of developments in the Middle East for the U.S. economy are uncertain' — flags a specific geopolitical risk but does not tilt the balance clearly; marginally dovish as it adds to uncertainty framing. Waller flips from dissenter to majority: previously dissented for a cut alongside Miran; now votes with the majority, leaving Miran as the sole dissenter — modestly hawkish shift in committee alignment, reducing cut pressure. Rate decision and all reaction-function language unchanged: hold at 3-1/2 to 3-3/4 percent, 'carefully assess' phrasing retained — no change in policy stance.
2026-01-28	+0.30	neutral	+1.30	link
What changed vs prior statement 'moderate pace' → 'solid pace' on economic activity: upgrade in growth assessment signals more confidence in the expansion — modestly hawkish. Rate decision: cut → hold (maintained at 3-1/2 to 3-3/4%): pausing the easing cycle after December's cut — hawkish shift. Dropped 'downside risks to employment rose in recent months' and removal of 'shift in the balance of risks' language: Committee no longer flagging labor-market deterioration as a catalyst for cuts — hawkish. Dissent pattern reversed: prior dissents split between a larger cut (Miran) and no cut (Goolsbee, Schmid); now Miran and Waller both dissent for a cut, signaling dovish minority pressure within a hold decision — committee tilted slightly more cautious on easing. 'Job gains have slowed this year' → 'Job gains have remained low' and added 'some signs of stabilization' on unemployment: softer but stabilizing labor framing, removing the deterioration narrative — neutral to slightly hawkish.
2025-12-10	-1.00	dovish	— (first)	link

Date	Score	Label	Δ vs prior	URL
2026-04-29	+0.50	hawkish	+0.50	link
2026-03-18	+0.00	neutral	+0.00	link
2026-01-28	+0.00	neutral	+0.80	link
2025-12-10	-0.80	dovish	— (first)	link

Date	Score	Label	Δ vs prior	URL
2026-04-08	+0.30	neutral	-0.20	link
2026-02-18	+0.50	hawkish	+1.00	link
2025-12-30	-0.50	dovish	+0.00	link
2025-11-19	-0.50	dovish	— (first)	link

S&P (ES=F) and Nasdaq (NQ=F) intraday moves around each FOMC meeting. Statement = 2:00pm → 2:30pm ET (statement → presser); Same-day close = 2:30pm → 4:00pm ET; Next-day close = 2:30pm ET → next trading day 4:00pm ET. σ = annualized realized volatility (%).

Market-implied path

Meeting	Statement window 14:00→14:30 ET	Same-day close 14:30→16:00 ET	Next-day close → next 16:00 ET
2026-04-29	-0.19%σ19.6	-0.15%σ26.3	+0.34%σ22.2	+0.47%σ28.2	+1.29%σ20.9	+1.35%σ32.5
2026-03-18	-0.10%σ26.4	-0.10%σ27.8	-0.69%σ23.5	-0.82%σ27.6	-0.97%σ24.0	-1.13%σ28.4
2026-01-28	—	—	—	—	-0.16%σ27.2	-0.64%σ40.0
2025-12-10	—	—	—	—	+0.16%σ16.6	-0.42%σ26.8

Market-implied path (as of 2026-05-08)

Next FOMC meetings (implied move probabilities)

Probabilities are computed from settlement-implied per-meeting rate changes via the standard CME-FedWatch step-path methodology (linear decomposition into 25 bp buckets). Hold = 0 bp move.

Committee divergence

Hawk / neutral / dove camps

Each speaker's trailing 90-day mean places them in a camp; numbers after each name are the mean and the number of speeches in the window. Widening spread historically precedes dissents at the next FOMC meeting.

Governors and presidents

Meeting	Implied rate after	Δ at meeting	Cut 25 bp	Hold	Hike 25 bp
2026-06-17	3.616%	-1.6 bp	6%	94%	0%
2026-07-29	3.602%	-1.5 bp	6%	94%	0%
2026-09-16	3.610%	+1.0 bp	0%	96%	4%
2026-10-28	3.571%	-3.9 bp	16%	84%	0%
2026-12-09	3.647%	+2.7 bp	0%	89%	11%
2027-01-27	3.635%	-1.2 bp	5%	95%	0%

Each row is one Federal Reserve speaker. Speeches by the seven Board governors are pulled from their per-speaker RSS feeds on federalreserve.gov; speeches by the twelve regional bank presidents are scraped from each reserve bank's own website (NY Fed, SF Fed, Atlanta Fed, etc.). 90d mean is the average score across all of that speaker's speeches in the trailing 90 days. Last 30 speeches is a sparkline of their up-to-30 most recent speech scores, oldest → newest, on the −2…+2 scale. Most recent shows the latest speech's score and date plus the speaker's all-time speech count. Coverage depends on each upstream source: a few regional banks (notably the Chicago Fed) publish limited speech archives, so a thin row usually reflects what that bank posts publicly rather than how often the president actually speaks.

Recent speeches

Speaker	Region	Role	90d mean	Most recent
Jerome H. Powell	Board	Chair	— (90d, n=0)	+0.00 2025-12-01 (10 total)
Philip N. Jefferson	Board	Vice Chair	+0.15 (90d, n=2)	+0.30 2026-04-07 (15 total)
Michelle W. Bowman	Board	Vice Chair for Supervision	— (90d, n=0)	-1.00 2026-01-30 (6 total)
Michael S. Barr	Board	Governor	+0.50 (90d, n=3)	+0.50 2026-03-26 (13 total)
Lisa D. Cook	Board	Governor	— (90d, n=0)	+0.80 2026-02-04 (12 total)
Stephen I. Miran	Board	Governor	+0.50 (90d, n=1)	+0.50 2026-03-26 (6 total)
Christopher J. Waller	Board	Governor	-0.15 (90d, n=2)	+0.50 2026-04-17 (12 total)
Raphael W. Bostic	Atlanta	President	— (90d, n=0)	+0.50 2026-02-05 (12 total)
Thomas I. Barkin	Richmond	President	+0.00 (90d, n=1)	+0.00 2026-03-27 (101 total)
Susan M. Collins	Boston	President	+0.80 (90d, n=1)	+0.80 2026-03-06 (38 total)
John C. Williams	New York	President	-0.05 (90d, n=4)	+0.00 2026-05-04 (105 total)
Mary C. Daly	San Francisco	President	— (90d, n=0)	+0.00 2025-11-13 (8 total)
Austan D. Goolsbee	Chicago	President	+0.50 (90d, n=1)	+0.50 2026-05-08 (1 total)
Beth M. Hammack	Cleveland	President	+0.50 (90d, n=1)	+0.50 2026-02-10 (8 total)
Alberto G. Musalem	St. Louis	President	+0.50 (90d, n=1)	+0.50 2026-04-01 (6 total)
Anna Paulson	Philadelphia	President	+0.50 (90d, n=1)	+0.50 2026-03-27 (3 total)
Neel Kashkari	Minneapolis	President	+0.50 (90d, n=1)	+0.50 2026-05-01 (4 total)
Jeffrey R. Schmid	Kansas City	President	+1.25 (90d, n=2)	+1.50 2026-03-31 (2 total)
Lorie K. Logan	Dallas	President	+0.80 (90d, n=1)	+0.80 2026-02-10 (37 total)

Date	Speaker	Score	Label	URL	Rationale
2026-05-08	Austan D. Goolsbee	+0.50	hawkish	link	Goolsbee's speech is primarily analytical, exploring how anticipated vs. unexpected productivity growth affects the appropriate policy rate. However, the prescriptive conclusion leans hawkish: since surveys show most people expect AI-driven productivity gains to come in the future, this implies rates should be higher now to offset wealth-effect-driven demand pull-forward. He explicitly warns that a central bank that ignores this dynamic ends up with more inflation and must raise rates by more in the end.
2026-05-04	John C. Williams	+0.00	neutral	link	Williams presents a balanced dual-mandate framing, noting elevated inflation (3.5% PCE) alongside mixed labor market signals, and explicitly states 'the current stance of monetary policy is well positioned to balance the risks to our maximum employment and price stability goals.' He neither advocates for rate hikes nor cuts, describing risks as having 'increased' on both sides without prescribing a directional policy shift. The forward-looking base case (inflation returning to 2% by 2027, GDP near trend) is consistent with holding steady.
2026-05-01	Neel Kashkari	+0.50	hawkish	link	Kashkari dissented because he wanted to remove forward guidance implying the next move is a cut, arguing the FOMC should signal equal probability of a hike or cut given inflation risks from the Middle East conflict. He explicitly raises the possibility of 'a series' of rate hikes if the Strait of Hormuz closure persists and inflation expectations become unanchored, and favors tightening financial conditions preemptively. While he still sees some eventual easing as possible in the benign scenario, the dominant prescriptive message is to remove dovish forward guidance and remain open to hikes.
2026-04-17	Christopher J. Waller	+0.50	hawkish	link	Waller signals caution about rate cuts in the near term, noting that underlying inflation is still above 2% and that sequential price shocks (tariffs, then energy) risk embedding higher inflation expectations—explicitly invoking the 2021-22 'look through' lesson as a cautionary tale. His prescriptive stance leans hawkish: in the benign scenario he is 'cautious about rate cuts now' and more inclined toward cuts only later, while in the adverse scenario he considers maintaining the current policy rate if inflation risks outweigh labor-market risks. The overall tone is balanced between dual-mandate risks but tilts toward restraint.
2026-04-16	John C. Williams	+0.00	neutral	link	Williams presents a balanced assessment of both sides of the dual mandate, noting mixed labor market signals alongside inflation crosscurrents, and explicitly states 'the current stance of monetary policy is well positioned to balance the risks.' He neither advocates for rate hikes nor cuts, holding the funds rate at 3½–3¾% and framing future decisions as data-dependent with risks in both directions.
2026-04-07	Philip N. Jefferson	+0.30	neutral	link	Jefferson describes a balanced dual-mandate risk environment—downside risk to employment and upside risk to inflation—and explicitly supports holding rates steady at current levels, which he characterizes as 'broadly in the range of neutral.' He notes inflation remains above target with little core progress and tariff headwinds, but also flags labor market fragility, suggesting no strong lean toward either tightening or easing. The slight hawkish tilt comes from emphasis on inflation persistence and the lack of core progress over the past year.
2026-04-01	Alberto G. Musalem	+0.50	hawkish	link	Musalem expresses a preference for holding rates steady 'for some time,' describes the real policy rate as 'in the lower portion of the neutral range' (implying limited room to ease), and emphasizes upside inflation risks including sticky core services, tariff pass-through, and the danger of supply-shock inflation becoming entrenched as in the 1970s. While he acknowledges downside labor market risks and leaves the door open to cuts under specific conditions, his dominant prescriptive message is caution about premature easing and vigilance against above-target inflation persistence, tilting the overall stance modestly hawkish.
2026-03-31	Jeffrey R. Schmid	+1.50	hawkish	link	Schmid explicitly states he is 'more focused on the risks to inflation at this time' and argues against looking through the energy price shock, emphasizing that inflation has run above target for five years and progress has stalled near 3%. He prescribes that the Fed must follow through with policy actions to prevent inflation from getting stuck at 3%, downplaying employment risks by describing the labor market as 'operating near full employment' and the economy entering from 'a position of strength.'
2026-03-30	John C. Williams	+0.30	neutral	link	Williams describes a broadly balanced economic picture with solid growth, a stable labor market, and elevated inflation partly driven by tariffs and energy prices. He characterizes current policy as 'well positioned to balance the risks,' without signaling urgency for either cuts or hikes. The slight hawkish lean comes from inflation running at ~3% above target, an expectation that the unemployment rate will edge down (reducing urgency to cut), and the 2027 timeline for returning to 2% implying no near-term easing.
2026-03-27	Thomas I. Barkin	+0.00	neutral	link	Barkin explicitly frames risks as balanced — both labor market fragility and inflation stalling — and describes the decision to hold rates as prudent given the foggy outlook. He neither signals a tilt toward cuts nor toward hikes, emphasizing data dependence and awaiting clarity. The speech is squarely in the neutral/balanced camp, consistent with a hold posture.
2026-03-27	Anna Paulson	+0.50	hawkish	link	Paulson emphasizes that inflation remaining above 2% (currently 2.8%) for six years means the Fed has less room to be patient than during the Greenspan era, and she explicitly states she would 'weight the possibility of overheating more heavily' if inflation is above target. While the speech is largely framed around AI/productivity uncertainty and long-run R*, the prescriptive message is that current above-target inflation warrants more caution and less patience than the 1990s precedent, a mildly hawkish lean.
2026-03-26	Philip N. Jefferson	+0.00	neutral	link	Jefferson explicitly frames the outlook as balanced between downside labor market risk and upside inflation risk, and endorses holding rates steady as 'well positioned to respond to a range of outcomes.' He neither advocates for cuts nor for further tightening, emphasizing data dependence and describing current policy as appropriately calibrated—classic balanced/neutral positioning.
2026-03-26	Michael S. Barr	+0.50	hawkish	link	Barr explicitly supports holding policy steady while emphasizing inflation persistence risks, elevated core inflation (~3%), rising near-term inflation expectations, and the danger that repeated price shocks could entrench inflation above 2%. Although he notes labor market vulnerabilities, his prescriptive stance is to hold and remain vigilant on inflation rather than signal easing, tilting the speech modestly hawkish.
2026-03-26	Stephen I. Miran	+0.50	hawkish	link	The speech advocates for reducing the Fed's balance sheet, which is a tightening of financial conditions, and explicitly acknowledges its 'contractionary effects for the economy.' While Miran frames balance sheet reduction as a long-run structural goal rather than an immediate policy prescription, he expresses a clear personal preference ('I would like to see') for further reduction and suggests it would warrant offsetting rate cuts only as a secondary adjustment. The overall thrust is modestly hawkish in its emphasis on shrinking the Fed's footprint.
2026-03-24	Michael S. Barr	+0.50	hawkish	link	The speech is predominantly about community development and CRA, but Barr briefly addresses monetary policy, stating he supported holding rates steady and believes 'we may need to keep rates steady for some time.' He explicitly conditions any rate cuts on seeing sustained evidence of goods and services inflation retreating, while noting inflation remains 'notably above' the 2% goal, signaling a patient, higher-for-longer lean rather than easing bias.
2026-03-06	Susan M. Collins	+0.80	hawkish	link	Collins explicitly favors maintaining 'policy rates at their current, mildly restrictive levels for some time,' citing continued upside inflation risks and no urgency for additional policy adjustments. She emphasizes that core PCE inflation remains a full percentage point above target with demand exerting upward price pressure, while characterizing the labor market as relatively stable — tilting her risk assessment toward patience rather than easing. The stance is hawkish-leaning but not strongly so, as she acknowledges balanced labor market conditions and a fairly benign baseline outlook.
2026-03-03	John C. Williams	-0.50	dovish	link	Williams characterizes monetary policy as 'currently well positioned' and sees tariff effects as temporary and one-off, with inflation expected to return to 2% by 2027. His forward guidance explicitly notes that 'further reductions in the federal funds rate will eventually be warranted to prevent monetary policy from inadvertently becoming more restrictive,' signaling a dovish lean toward eventual easing. He also highlights labor market softening signals and cautionary survey data, balancing the inflation discussion with downside employment risks.
2026-03-03	Jeffrey R. Schmid	+1.00	hawkish	link	Schmid consistently emphasizes that inflation remains too high at near 3%, warns against complacency, and stresses the risks of inflation becoming entrenched. His framing that 'inflation remains too hot,' that 'we still have some work to do,' and his analysis that current demand-driven growth is inflationary all point to a hawkish lean with no prescription for near-term easing. He acknowledges labor market softening but minimizes it by attributing it to structural supply factors rather than cyclical weakness requiring policy response.
2026-02-23	Christopher J. Waller	-0.80	dovish	link	Waller dissented in January in favor of a cut and frames the current situation as balanced between holding and cutting, with explicit readiness to cut in March if February labor data disappoints. His baseline view emphasizes labor market fragility (characterizing 2025 as one of the weakest years for job creation outside a recession since 2002), and he treats underlying inflation as already near 2% by looking through tariff effects. While he acknowledges a coin-flip between holding and cutting, his prior dissent and the weight he places on downside labor risks push the stance clearly dovish.
2026-02-17	Michael S. Barr	+0.50	hawkish	link	Barr opens with explicit policy prescriptions: inflation remains elevated at 3%, he sees 'significant' risk of persistent inflation, and states it will 'likely be appropriate to hold rates steady for some time.' He conditions any rate cuts on seeing sustained goods-price disinflation while the labor market remains stable, and argues the AI boom is 'unlikely to be a reason for lowering policy rates.' The overall stance is modestly hawkish—holding steady with a bias toward patience rather than easing.
2026-02-10	Beth M. Hammack	+0.50	hawkish	link	Hammack explicitly supports holding rates steady with patience, noting the funds rate is 'in the vicinity of neutral' and inflation remains 'too high' at 2.8% while having 'moved sideways for more than two years.' She prefers to 'err on the side of patience' and acknowledges they 'could be on hold for quite some time,' with risks to the rate path 'about balanced.' The speech leans slightly hawkish due to the emphasis on inflation persistence, tariff-driven price pressures, and the risk of inflation becoming entrenched, though the balanced risk assessment and neutral rate framing prevent a stronger hawkish score.
2026-02-10	Lorie K. Logan	+0.80	hawkish	link	Logan supports holding rates steady, expresses greater concern about inflation remaining stubbornly high than about labor market weakness, and suggests current policy may already be near neutral (providing 'little restraint'). She conditions future cuts on labor market deterioration while framing the baseline as 'no further rate cuts are needed,' tilting the speech hawkish-leaning.
2026-02-06	Philip N. Jefferson	+0.00	neutral	link	Jefferson explicitly frames the current policy stance as 'well positioned to address the risks to both sides of our dual mandate,' supports holding rates steady at the current level (after 175bps of cuts that brought rates to the neutral range), and employs balanced data-dependent language throughout. He acknowledges inflation remains elevated and above target but sees tariff effects as transitory, while also noting labor market softening risks—giving roughly equal weight to both sides of the mandate with no clear prescriptive lean toward either further cuts or hikes.
2026-02-05	Raphael W. Bostic	+0.50	hawkish	link	Bostic's primary policy prescription is that rates should remain in a 'moderately restrictive' posture to bring inflation back to 2%, noting inflation has been 'too high for too long.' He acknowledges labor market softening but characterizes current unemployment (4.4%) as 'still extraordinarily strong' and says the economy can 'just run for a while before we have to do anything else,' suggesting no urgency to cut. The overall stance leans mildly hawkish given the explicit preference for maintaining restriction.
2026-02-04	Lisa D. Cook	+0.80	hawkish	link	Governor Cook explicitly states that risks are 'tilted toward higher inflation' and supported holding rates steady, emphasizing that inflation has 'stalled stubbornly above our 2 percent goal' and that further easing is contingent on seeing 'stronger evidence that inflation is moving sustainably back down to target.' While she acknowledges labor market softening and downside risks, her prescriptive stance prioritizes inflation credibility and shows no inclination toward near-term rate cuts.
2026-02-03	Thomas I. Barkin	+0.30	neutral	link	Barkin describes an economy that remains resilient with inflation still above target, but frames past rate cuts as 'insurance' for the labor market rather than signaling urgency for further easing or tightening. He acknowledges inflation persistence seriously ('I take this sustained miss seriously') while also noting downside risks to growth and employment, resulting in a roughly balanced stance with a slight hawkish tilt due to inflation vigilance.
2026-01-30	Michelle W. Bowman	-1.00	dovish	link	Bowman explicitly frames downside labor-market risks as the dominant concern, notes that policy remains 'moderately restrictive,' and signals readiness to cut toward neutral absent a clear improvement in labor conditions. She downplays elevated inflation readings by attributing them to tariff effects and statistical noise, and cautions against signaling an extended pause. Her projection of three cuts in 2026 and emphasis on not delaying action if labor markets deteriorate reinforces a dovish-leaning stance.
2026-01-16	Philip N. Jefferson	-0.50	dovish	link	Jefferson signals that prior rate cuts were appropriate given rising downside employment risks and characterizes current policy as near-neutral, suggesting a patient, data-dependent pause rather than any further tightening. He frames the balance of risks as having shifted toward employment and treats tariff-driven goods inflation as likely transitory, reducing urgency for restrictive policy. His forward guidance is explicitly non-committal but leans toward holding rather than hiking.
2026-01-16	Michelle W. Bowman	-1.20	dovish	link	Bowman explicitly frames labor market fragility as the dominant risk, argues inflation is near target after stripping out tariff effects, and advocates for preemptive policy easing to 'stabilize and support labor market conditions.' She characterizes current policy as only 'moderately restrictive' and explicitly warns against signaling a pause, indicating a clear bias toward further cuts. The speech supports the three 25bp cuts already delivered in 2025 and calls for readiness to ease further absent clear labor market improvement.
2026-01-16	Susan M. Collins	+0.00	neutral	link	This speech is purely introductory remarks at a banking forum, explicitly stating 'I won't be addressing the economy or monetary policy in these brief comments.' The content focuses on the structure of the Federal Reserve System, the Boston Fed's mission, and an introduction of Vice Chair Bowman, with no monetary policy prescriptions whatsoever.

Speeches not scored

Pieces of content the pipeline saw but did not score, in the trailing 90 days. Listed for transparency: each speaker's hawk/dove mean is computed only from items that DO have a score, so it's worth knowing what was deliberately left out.

Date	Speaker	Reason	Note	URL
2026-05-08	Christopher J. Waller	Excluded by rubric (non-MP topic)	previously excluded; original rationale not preserved	link
2026-05-08	Lisa D. Cook	Excluded by rubric (non-MP topic)	previously excluded; original rationale not preserved	link
2026-05-08	Michelle W. Bowman	Excluded by rubric (non-MP topic)	previously excluded; original rationale not preserved	link
2026-05-08	Jeffrey R. Schmid	Failed speech-likeness filter	too_short (words=239)	link
2026-05-06	Austan D. Goolsbee	Failed speech-likeness filter	too_short (words=81)	link
2026-05-06	Alberto G. Musalem	Failed speech-likeness filter	too_short (words=38)	link
2026-05-05	Michelle W. Bowman	Excluded by rubric (non-MP topic)	previously excluded; original rationale not preserved	link
2026-05-01	Beth M. Hammack	Excluded by rubric (non-MP topic)	previously excluded; original rationale not preserved	link
2026-05-01	Michelle W. Bowman	Excluded by rubric (non-MP topic)	previously excluded; original rationale not preserved	link
2026-04-21	Christopher J. Waller	Excluded by rubric (non-MP topic)	previously excluded; original rationale not preserved	link
2026-04-14	Michael S. Barr	Excluded by rubric (non-MP topic)	previously excluded; original rationale not preserved	link
2026-04-08	Mary C. Daly	Excluded by rubric (non-MP topic)	previously excluded; original rationale not preserved	link
2026-04-02	Lorie K. Logan	Excluded by rubric (non-MP topic)	previously excluded; original rationale not preserved	link
2026-03-31	Michael S. Barr	Excluded by rubric (non-MP topic)	previously excluded; original rationale not preserved	link
2026-03-31	Michelle W. Bowman	Excluded by rubric (non-MP topic)	previously excluded; original rationale not preserved	link
2026-03-26	Lisa D. Cook	Excluded by rubric (non-MP topic)	previously excluded; original rationale not preserved	link
2026-03-21	Jerome H. Powell	Failed speech-likeness filter	too_short (words=411)	link
2026-03-12	Michelle W. Bowman	Excluded by rubric (non-MP topic)	previously excluded; original rationale not preserved	link
2026-03-06	Anna Paulson	Excluded by rubric (non-MP topic)	previously excluded; original rationale not preserved	link
2026-03-06	Beth M. Hammack	Excluded by rubric (non-MP topic)	previously excluded; original rationale not preserved	link
2026-03-03	Michelle W. Bowman	Excluded by rubric (non-MP topic)	previously excluded; original rationale not preserved	link
2026-02-24	Susan M. Collins	Excluded by rubric (non-MP topic)	previously excluded; original rationale not preserved	link
2026-02-24	Christopher J. Waller	Excluded by rubric (non-MP topic)	previously excluded; original rationale not preserved	link
2026-02-24	Lisa D. Cook	Excluded by rubric (non-MP topic)	previously excluded; original rationale not preserved	link
2026-02-20	Raphael W. Bostic	YouTube captions unavailable	TranscriptsDisabled for https://www.youtube.com/live/izmOhgLd_b4	link
2026-02-19	Michelle W. Bowman	Excluded by rubric (non-MP topic)	previously excluded; original rationale not preserved	link
2026-02-17	Mary C. Daly	Excluded by rubric (non-MP topic)	previously excluded; original rationale not preserved	link
2026-02-16	Michelle W. Bowman	Excluded by rubric (non-MP topic)	previously excluded; original rationale not preserved	link

Effective fed funds rate (current)	3.632%
Market-implied, 6 months out	3.620% (−1.2 bp vs current)
Market-implied, 12 months out	3.710% (+7.7 bp vs current)

Trailing 90-day spread (max − min)	1.40 ↓ -0.95 vs 30d ago
Trailing 90-day stdev of speaker means	0.36
Speakers covered	14 / 19 (5 had no speeches in window)
Hawk pole / dove pole	Jeffrey R. Schmid vs Christopher J. Waller

Fed Chirp beta