Fed Chair Warsh (Q&A): In aggregate, more or less at full employment

The significance lies less in the phrase itself, which is boilerplate, than in what it closes off: chairs have tended to deploy the full-employment formulation when pushing back against market pricing of imminent cuts, since it undercuts the labour-side leg of the dual-mandate argument for accommodation. The qualifier 'in aggregate' leaves room for softness at the margin, a hedging pattern that in past cycles has preceded either a longer hold or a shift to emphasising distribution and participation rather than the headline rate. Remarks delivered in Q&A rather than a prepared text are typically lower-signal and move the front end only modestly unless they break with recent committee language. The follow-ons worth noting are whether the full-employment framing recurs in minutes or in other officials' speeches, and how the next payrolls and wage prints are read against it, since an at-full-employment stance raises the bar for a dovish surprise.