By CHRISTOPHER RUGABER, Associated Press Economics Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Federal Reserve will almost certainly reduce its key interest rate Wednesday, but the bigger question for financial markets and the economy is what signals Chair Jerome Powell may send regarding the central bank’s next steps.

Related Articles

OpenAI names Slack CEO Dresser as first chief of revenue as ChatGPT maker aims to make a profit

Cracker Barrel lowers revenue forecast as traffic falls after logo blowup

Google facing a new antitrust probe in Europe over content it uses for AI

US job openings barely budged in October, coming in just below 7.7 million

Wall Street drifts near its record high as Exxon Mobil climbs

It would be the third cut in a row and bring the Fed’s key rate to about 3.6%, the lowest in nearly three years. For Americans struggling with high borrowing costs for homes, cars, and other large purchases, this year’s rate cuts could reduce those costs over time — though it’s not guaranteed. Mortgage rates in particular are also influenced by financial markets.

This week’s meeting could presage a much cloudier path for the Fed in 2026. The government shutdown has delayed two months of jobs and inflation data, leaving the Fed with much less information on hiring and inflation than it is used to. Powell’s term as chair ends in May and President Donald Trump will nominate a replacement, possibly as soon as this month, who will almost certainly push for lower borrowing costs. Yet the new chair could face resistance from other Fed officials.

In addition to a likely rate cut, the Fed could signal that the bar for another reduction when they next meet in late January will be higher than it has been this fall. A year ago, after implementing a third rate cut at its December meeting, the Fed indicated it would likely keep rates unchanged in the coming months. It didn’t cut again until September.

“They would love to take a pass (in January), push it off to March, and just wait for a couple of more inflation reports to come in,” Tom Porcelli, chief economist at Wells Fargo, said.

The Fed’s 19-member rate-setting committee is deeply divided between those who support reducing rates to bolster hiring and those who’d prefer to keep rates unchanged because inflation remains above the central bank’s 2% target. Higher borrowing costs can slow spending and the economy and reduce price increases.

The government said last week in a delayed report that the Fed’s preferred inflation gauge remained elevated in September, with both overall and core prices rising 2.8% from a year earlier.

The lack of economic data has contributed to the divisions. But by their January meeting, they’ll have up to three months of backlogged reports to consider. If those figures show that hiring has remained weak, or that layoffs have spiked, the Fed could reduce rates again in January.

By contrast, if they show hiring has stabilized while inflation remains elevated, they may hold off on additional cuts for several months.

On Wednesday, the Fed will also issue their quarterly set of economic projections, which include forecasts for where they will set rates at the end of this year and next. Economists expect just one rate reduction next year, as they did in September.

Yet the projections will likely carry much less weight this year, since a new chair will probably push for more reductions. And if the economy weakens, more officials will support reductions.

In an interview with Politico published Tuesday, Trump said “yes” when asked if reducing rates “immediately” was a litmus test for his new Fed chair. Trump has hinted that he will likely pick Kevin Hassett, his top economic adviser.

Hassett has often called for lower borrowing costs, but this week has been more circumspect. In an interview Tuesday on CNBC, when asked how many more rate cuts he would support, Hassett did not give a specific answer and said, “What you need to do is watch the data.”

Playoff time is here, as the powers of fantasy football leagues begin three weeks of battle for championship glories.

But for non-powers, including your Humble Narrator who missed the playoffs by (checks math) just ONE lousy Week 13 point, it’s time for our lesser postseason competition. Unless you’re Notre Dame and just quitting.

Whether you are playing for big bucks, or a fantasy Rate Bowl, you need to hunker down and pick your lineup. And a lot of notable NFLers that looked great in summer have faded dramatically in the fall. We’ll break down your Week 15 issues by position:

Running back — Worried about relying on subpar efforts from Breece Hall, Ashton Jeanty or Alvin Kamara? You might be better off grabbing Chicago’s Kyle Monangai (vs. Browns), Houston’s Woody Marks (vs. Cardinals) or Pittsburgh’s Kenneth Gainwell (vs. Dolphins).

Wide receiver — Some up-and-down playmakers are hard to trust this week. We’re alluding to the Eagles’ Devonta Smith, the Dolphins’ Jaylen Waddle and the Jags’ Brian Thomas Jr. Two really hot and widely available pass catchers are the Jags’ Jakobi Meyers and Cards’ Mark Wilson.

Tight end — Who has been more disappointing this season? The Chiefs’ Travis Kelce or the Ravens’ Mark Andrews? Neither looks as good this week as Cleveland rookie Harold Fannin Jr., who faces Chicago.

Quarterback — Obviously Indy’s Daniel Jones is now completely broken, and Washington’s Jayden Daniels is hardly fixed. Two QBs with great matchups this week are the Jaguars’ Trevor Lawrence versus the Jets and the Giants’ Jaxson Dart against what’s left of Washington’s defense.

Kicker — There are plenty of reasons not to like the Chiefs’ Harrison Butker. Lack of scoring opportunities is now one of them. The Vikings’ Will Reichard is having a better season and will likely outscore the K.C. kicker in a possible shootout with Dallas.

Sitting stars

Seattle’s defense will be all over Indy running back Jonathan Taylor. But you’ll have to start him anyway and cross your fingers. … You can’t start any Commanders against the Giants, even Daniels or Terry McLaurin. … Carolina rookie WR Tetairoa McMillan will cool down against the Saints. … Two top tight ends will underperform in this key week: Vegas’ Brock Bowers versus Eagles and Cardinals’ Trey McBride against the Texans. … And the Chiefs-Chargers showdown has two usually excellent QBs that you probably can’t trust: Patrick Mahomes or Justin Herbert.

Matchup game

With two mediocre run defenses taking the field, both the Ravens’ Derrick Henry and Cincinnati’s Chase Brown will post big numbers this week. … Miami’s De’Von Achane, assuming he’s healthy, will continue his all-pro play against the Steelers. … Vikings’ Jordan Mason should find the end zone again versus Dallas. … In that same game, look for the old Justin Jefferson to return, finally. … Same for Detroit WR Amon-Ra St Brown against the Rams. … Three other receivers we expect to shine in Week 15: Dallas’ George Pickens versus Minnesota, Cincy’s Tee Higgins facing the Ravens and our old pal Stefan Diggs versus his old Buffalo pals.

Injury watch

Other than the Jones saga in Indianapolis that brought Philip Rivers out of retirement, the focus is on Pittsburgh wideout D.K. Metcalf, who is having what are politely being called “stomach issues.” … Notables considered questionable include three running backs (Giants’ Tyrone Tracy, Cards’ Emari Demercado and Texans’ Nick Chubb) and seven pass catchers (Cowboys‘ CeeDee Lamb, Cardinals’ Marvin Harrison Jr., Bears’ Rome Odunze, Bucs’ Chris Godwin and Mike Evans, and Falcons’ Drake London and Michael Pitts).

Deepest sleeper

Two words we were never expecting to promote here: Shedeur Sanders. Cleveland’s rookie fourth-stringer from the start of summer camp has been much less than “LEGENDARY.” But for fantasy mavens with playoff quarterback issues, a fellow coming off a 364-yard, three touchdown game might be palatable. And he’ll face no great defenses the next three weeks (Bears, Bills, Steelers).

The Thursday pick

Falcons at Buccaneers (-4½)
Pick: Buccaneers by 7

You can hear Kevin Cusick on Thursdays on Bob Sansevere’s “BS Show” podcast on iTunes. You can follow Kevin on X– @theloopnow. He can be reached at kcusick@pioneerpress.com.

Related Articles

The Loop Fantasy Football Update Week 14: Last-minute moves

The Loop NFL Picks: Week 14

The Loop Fantasy Football Update Week 13: Last-minute moves

The Loop NFL Picks: Week 13

The Loop Fantasy Football Update Week 12: Last-minute moves

President Donald Trump has always been just insider-enough to placate the Republican establishment and just outsider-enough to excite conservative populists. But keeping that political coalition together will be difficult for his successor in 2028.

Indeed, less than a year into Trump’s second presidency, the electoral consortium that made him only the second president to serve non-consecutive terms is showing signs of strain. That’s the best way to understand Republican infighting over Trump’s handling of the Jeffrey Epstein affair, as well as fresh fighting on the right over whether the GOP should tolerate antisemites and racists for the (presumed) sake of electoral expediency.

That’s also the prism through which to view the Republicans’ intraparty debate over extending Obamacare health insurance subsidies — and the fact that congressional Republicans are beginning to demand more information from the Trump administration about U.S. military strikes on suspected drug traffickers in the Caribbean.

“Trump has truly been a one-of-a-kind political figure,” Jeffrey Brauer, a political science professor at Keystone College, near Scranton, Pennsylvania, told me. “Cracks are beginning to emerge in the MAGA coalition.”

The “MAGA coalition,” aptly named for Trump’s “Make America Great Again” slogan, is often associated with the populist conservatives who have flocked to him. A significant percentage are low-propensity voters, or as Brad Todd and Salena Zito called them in their 2018 book, The Great Revolt: Inside the Populist Coalition Reshaping American Politics, “Perot-istas.” Why?

Prior to 2016, many might not have pulled the lever for a presidential candidate since Ross Perot, another billionaire populist businessman and political outsider, was on the ballot. They might go dormant again after Trump, 79, fades from the scene.

But an often-disregarded ingredient in the president’s success and staying power has been consistent buy-in from establishment GOP figures and regular Republican voters.

While populists have seen Trump as the common-sense, street-fighting political outsider who would finally turn Washington on its head, rank-and-file Republicans influenced by the Reagan era have seen in Trump a boardroom businessman who would roll back government regulations, cut taxes and shrink government.

The big unknown for the Republicans: Can they find a standard-bearer in 2028 with Trump’s knack for attracting support from the two disparate wings of their party?

“Anytime a party loses a dominant figure as its leader there’s always anxiety whether the winning coalition will hold. It happened after Kennedy, Reagan, and Obama,” Republican media strategist Alfredo Rodriguez, who is based in Texas, told me, referring to Presidents John F. Kennedy, Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama.

“Whether the (MAGA) coalition holds together or fractures some is a legitimate question to ask,” Rodriguez conceded. But he added: “The idea the Republican Party is certain for doom without Trump on the ballot is way overblown.”

For now, most Republican insiders I talk to expect Vice President JD Vance, 41, to be the GOP’s 2028 nominee. That’s not rocket science. Vance will likely have the backing of Trump and key members of the president’s family — Donald Trump Jr. in particular — not to mention a growing political machine of his own.

Some party stalwarts speculate that Secretary of State Marco Rubio, 54, is positioned to be selected as Vance’s running mate. (Rubio sought the White House in 2016 and was on Trump’s short list for vice president in 2024.)

Vance leading the GOP ticket would also suit a number of Republican operatives in the president’s political orbit. That fits; Vance has enjoyed a meteoric rise in the Republican Party. However, he can at times ring more populist than Trump and has yet to demonstrate the president’s canny ability to also appease the Reaganite establishment. Still, the vice president’s boosters see a politician with the right political skill set — once he grabs the baton from his boss.

“To me, the bridge between the populists and the establishment — it can be done with humor. I really like what JD Vance did at Halloween, for example,” said Jack Kingston, a former Republican congressman from Georgia who is now a contributor at Newsmax. Kingston was referring to Vance showing some self-deprecating humor by dressing up as an Internet meme of himself.

I’m more interested in the answer to two questions: First, will any substantial, viable Republican dare challenge a Trump-backed Vance after watching what happened to the president’s GOP opponents in 2024? And if so, will any Republican on that list include a Reaganite politician who attempts to push the GOP away from big-government populism and back toward traditional, constitutional conservatism? Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, the runner-up for the nomination in 2016 and known to be interested in trying again, belongs on this watch list.

How Republicans fare in next year’s midterm elections could determine whether there’s a market for that — or at least, whether some enterprising Republican is willing to explore if such a market exists.

David M. Drucker is a columnist covering politics and policy. He is also a senior writer for The Dispatch and the author of “In Trump’s Shadow: The Battle for 2024 and the Future of the GOP.”

Related Articles

Trudy Rubin: The question Trump and Hegseth won’t answer: Why is that flotilla in the Caribbean in the first place?

Editorial: Costco’s lawsuit puts Trump’s tariffs on trial at the kitchen table

Andreas Kluth: The US quietly made a new national security plan out of whims

Claudia Sahm: $2,000 tariff checks are a good idea badly planned

Lisa Jarvis: The FDA’s leaked COVID memo is reckless and dangerous

The angry queries from GOP legislators over possible U.S. military war crimes in the Caribbean are welcome. Yet, too many Republicans avoid the urgent question that hangs over the killing of more than 80 people allegedly smuggling drugs in small boats: Why is a massive American armada hovering off Venezuela in the first place?

The official response that this is a war to destroy criminal drug cartels who are poisoning Americans and thus undermining U.S. security is a transparent lie and a clumsy cover-up.

So, if drugs are only an excuse, is President Donald Trump really seeking regime change in Caracas (and has age dimmed his memory of his rants against regime change in Iraq and Libya)? Is he hoping for a domino effect on Cuba? Or is he fulfilling his self-appointed role as master of the Western Hemisphere (and perhaps of Venezuelan oil)?

As the United States faces domestic strife and serious conflicts in Ukraine, Gaza, and Asia, Americans need to know why Trump is obsessed with war on Caracas. Congress must demand answers, now.

First, let us dispense with the myth that a mighty U.S. fleet is needed to combat Venezuelan drug cartels.

The vicious drug that claims thousands of U.S. victims and is at the center of U.S. drug interdiction efforts is fentanyl. But Venezuela neither makes nor exports fentanyl. Fentanyl comes nearly entirely from Mexico, where it is manufactured from precursors procured from China.

Venezuela is a pass-through country for cocaine exports by criminals — not major cartels. But cocaine is mainly manufactured in Colombia and reaches the U.S. primarily via the Pacific Ocean. Only about 8% of the cocaine that enters our country comes via the Caribbean; the U.S. Coast Guard had been doing a fine job interdicting small boats and arresting smugglers before Trump’s current war.

Yet the most obvious reason Trump’s “drug war” is phony is his pardon last week of the former president of Honduras, Juan Orlando Hernández, who was convicted in 2024 in a U.S. court of conspiring to import more than 400 tons of cocaine into the United States. (His brother was convicted in 2019 of helping import another 200 tons of cocaine.)

Trump claimed Hernández received an unfair shake under President Joe Biden because “he was the president of the country,” making clear he saw the Honduran as a fellow victim of the Democratic administration. Yet, it was Trump’s own former criminal defense lawyer, Emil Bove III, who, as a top U.S. Department of Justice official, pursued the conviction of Hernández and his Honduran drug ring, for which the trafficker received a sentence of 45 years.

“If there was any belief in Venezuela that (Trump) was threatening Venezuela on account of drugs, the pardon of Hernández makes clear that is not true,” I was told by Venezuelan-born Carolina Jiménez Sandoval, president of the human rights think tank WOLA (Washington Office on Latin America), and also a distinguished fellow at the University of Pennsylvania’s Perry World House, a global affairs center.

WOLA opposes the U.S. killings of more than 80 mostly Venezuelan civilians without any judicial process, as well as the current, cruel U.S. treatment of Venezuelan refugees.

Jiménez Sandoval, who left Caracas in 2010 but still visits, is eager to see the end of the repressive regime of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, who refused to recognize a massive electoral victory by the Venezuelan opposition in 2024.

She hopes Maduro can be convinced to leave office through negotiations. So far, Trump has had no luck.

However, the Venezuelan activist is deeply worried that Trump may oust Maduro by force, which she fears would only lead to more disaster in Venezuela and the region. “Our concern is it would set a terrible example for the rest of Latin America,” she says.

Moreover, although Venezuelan opposition groups claim they are ready to take over, Jiménez Sandoval points out that “Venezuela is a complex country, whose institutions have been greatly weakened under Maduro. And many armed groups are operating in the country.”

There is no guarantee Maduro’s large army would melt away. Moreover, sizeable numbers of paramilitary groups, known as colectivos, as well as Colombian guerrilla fighters. are present in Venezuela. They have a strong interest in protecting their corrupt control of natural resources. As Jiménez Sandoval put it, “There are too many questions about the day after.”

I can’t help recalling how certain George W. Bush was that the exiled Iraqi opposition would quickly take over the running of Iraq once Saddam Hussein was ousted. Instead, the returning exiles, along with U.S. troops, got mired in an Iraqi civil war between competing factions.

Despite the societal differences between Iraq and Venezuela, Trump should mind the famous Pottery Barn rule former Secretary of State Colin Powell derived from America’s disastrous involvement in Iraq: If you break it, you own it.

GOP leaders — angry at being stiffed by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and at his careless handling of critical information — should stand tough and demand the details on this fake war he is refusing to provide.

Most importantly, Democrats and Republicans alike should warn Trump that they will oppose efforts to expand a war on Venezuela that has no legal or congressional justification and is based on the threat of a fictional drug war with Caracas.

Trump has huge leverage to exert on Maduro beyond a dangerous game of military chicken. The Venezuelan leader is unpopular in Latin America, and the U.S. should be allying with Venezuela’s neighbors in pushing Maduro toward recognition of the 2024 election results and exile.

GOP members will be severely punished at the polls if they let Trump blunder into an illegal military regime change based on ignorance of Venezuela and a tangle of lies about drugs.

Trudy Rubin is a columnist and editorial-board member  for The Philadelphia Inquirer, P.O. Box 8263, Philadelphia, Pa. 19101. Her email address is trubin@phillynews.com.

Related Articles

Andreas Kluth: The US quietly made a new national security plan out of whims

Claudia Sahm: $2,000 tariff checks are a good idea badly planned

Lisa Jarvis: The FDA’s leaked COVID memo is reckless and dangerous

John T. Shaw: Utah Gov. Spencer Cox makes a plea for American architects, not arsonists

Adrian Wooldridge: The West is facing five fearsome new giants