Chicago Federal Reserve President Austan Goolsbee said on Friday that he opposed this week’s interest rate cut because he believed policymakers should have waited for clearer economic signals before moving ahead with further easing. In an interview with CNBC, Goolsbee explained that while he remains confident rates can be lower in the coming years, he is uneasy about cutting too aggressively before inflation shows more convincing progress.

Speaking on CNBC’s Squawk Box, Goolsbee said he is optimistic about the medium-term outlook for interest rates. He noted that by 2026, borrowing costs could be meaningfully lower than where they stand today. However, he stressed that optimism about the future does not justify rushing decisions in the present. According to Goolsbee, the recent pattern of inflation data has not provided enough reassurance to support another rate reduction at this time.

The Federal Open Market Committee voted this week to reduce the benchmark interest rate by a quarter of a percentage point, marking the third straight rate cut. Goolsbee was one of three officials who dissented from the decision. He was joined by Kansas City Fed President Jeffrey Schmid, while Federal Reserve Governor Stephen Miran also opposed the move, though Miran favored a larger cut rather than no cut at all.

Goolsbee has previously indicated that there is room for interest rates to come down over time. Nevertheless, he emphasized that the recent lack of improvement in inflation was a key reason behind his dissent. Latest data show annual inflation running at approximately 2.8 percent, still notably above the Federal Reserve’s long-standing target of 2 percent.

“There’s no way around the fact that we’ve been above the inflation target for four and a half years,” Goolsbee said in the interview. He added that over the past six months, inflation has shown little sign of further easing. In particular, he pointed to recent data on services inflation that raised concerns just before the federal government shutdown disrupted some data releases. For Goolsbee, assuming inflationary pressures will fade on their own carries risks that policymakers should be cautious about taking.

In a separate statement posted on the Chicago Fed’s website, Goolsbee reiterated that although he supported rate cuts at the September and October meetings, he believed it would have been wiser to pause this time. He wrote that waiting for additional inflation data would have provided a stronger foundation for future policy moves.

Goolsbee will not be a voting member of the FOMC in 2026, but he will continue to attend meetings and contribute to policy discussions. In his written remarks, he highlighted the concerns he has heard directly from businesses and consumers across the Chicago Fed’s district. According to Goolsbee, rising prices remain one of the most frequently cited worries among those groups, reinforcing his view that patience would have been the more prudent course.

During his CNBC appearance, Goolsbee expanded on his reservations about cutting rates too soon. While some Fed officials have voiced increasing concern about a weakening labor market, he said the data he has reviewed suggest employment conditions remain relatively stable. In his view, the labor market does not currently present enough deterioration to outweigh the risks posed by persistent inflation.

Goolsbee again emphasized that he sees little downside to waiting a bit longer before making additional cuts. He argued that delaying until early 2026 to confirm inflation is clearly on track toward the 2 percent goal would not impose excessive economic costs. Instead, such caution could help preserve the Federal Reserve’s credibility and reduce the risk of having to reverse course later.

On Wednesday, the FOMC voted to lower its benchmark interest rate to a target range of 3.5 percent to 3.75 percent. At a post-meeting press conference, Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell acknowledged signs of softness in the labor market. Powell said headline employment figures may be overstating strength and suggested that revisions to payroll data could reveal job losses in recent months.

Despite these concerns, Goolsbee said he remains among the most optimistic policymakers when it comes to the outlook for rates in the year ahead. He reiterated that his dissent should not be interpreted as opposition to easing altogether, but rather as a call for better timing and stronger evidence that inflation is firmly under control.

Kansas City Fed President Jeffrey Schmid also issued a statement on Friday explaining his vote against the rate cut. Schmid, who similarly dissented from the October decision, said inflation remains too elevated and that the broader economy continues to show momentum. He described the labor market as cooling but still broadly balanced and argued that current monetary policy is only modestly restrictive, if restrictive at all. Given that assessment, Schmid said he preferred to keep rates unchanged at this week’s meeting.

Other Fed officials expressed differing views. Earlier on Friday, Philadelphia Fed President Anna Paulson, who will be a voter in 2026, said she considers current policy somewhat restrictive and is more concerned about rising unemployment than inflation. Meanwhile, Cleveland Fed President Beth Hammack said she would favor a slightly more restrictive policy stance to protect against the risk of renewed inflationary pressure.

Overall, six of the 19 participants at the FOMC meeting indicated some level of opposition to the rate cut. However, only two of those participants held voting rights at this meeting. The split underscores the ongoing debate within the Federal Reserve as officials balance the competing risks of persistent inflation and potential labor market weakness in shaping the next phase of monetary policy.