What actions did the Federal Reserve and Biden administration take to curb inflation in 2024–2025?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
The Federal Reserve used traditional monetary tools—raising policy rates through 2023 and then trimming them modestly across late 2024—while the Biden administration pursued fiscal and regulatory measures aimed at lowering specific consumer costs and boosting supply-side capacity; both actors framed their actions as part of a broader strategy to return inflation toward 2 percent while preserving a healthy labor market [1] [2] [3]. Critics argued the mix left everyday inflationary pressures—especially on wages and rents—only partially addressed, and political dynamics shaped perceptions of timing and emphasis [4] [5].
1. The Fed’s blunt instrument: tightening, then calibrated easing
After holding the federal funds target range at 5-1/4 to 5-1/2 percent through mid‑September 2024, the Federal Open Market Committee began reducing the policy rate by a cumulative 100 basis points across its September, November and December meetings, bringing the range to 4‑1/4 to 4‑1/2 percent as officials judged inflation was moving toward their 2 percent objective [1]. That policy sequence followed an earlier period of aggressive tightening designed to cool demand and slow wage growth—actions the Fed described as necessary to return inflation to its 2 percent goal and consistent with its dual mandate to support maximum employment and price stability [2] [6]. Market commentary and reporting flagged the political optics and potential electoral effects of rate decisions, noting that rate cuts in 2024 could influence public perceptions of the economy during the campaign season [5].
2. How the Fed judged progress: data, labor market rebalancing, and global conditions
The Fed pointed to a rebalancing of labor demand and supply and a slowing in nominal wage gains as evidence that monetary restraint was working, and it emphasized uneven global disinflation and an appreciating trade‑weighted dollar in its assessment of domestic inflation dynamics [1]. Federal Reserve reports through 2024 repeatedly stressed vigilance and data dependence—saying inflation had eased but remained above target and that future rate moves would hinge on incoming indicators [2] [7]. Some outlets later characterized the Fed as divided about the timing of cuts, balancing still‑stubborn services inflation against softening labor market signals [8].
3. Biden administration: cost‑cutting, supply investments, and targeted regulations
The White House pointed to the Inflation Reduction Act and associated programs as central to its strategy for lowering costs and addressing supply constraints—highlighting millions of Americans saving on health insurance, electric‑vehicle tax credits claimed since 2024, and major clean‑energy and manufacturing investments that officials say will raise productivity over time [3] [9] [10]. The administration framed these fiscal measures as complementary to monetary policy because they aim to reduce specific price pressures (health coverage, energy and transportation costs) and strengthen long‑run supply capacity [3] [10]. Treasury and IMF‑style statements publicly stated confidence that rents and core services inflation would moderate over time while the administration prioritized investments to boost productivity and address inequality [6].
4. Regulatory price levers: methane fees and implementation
Beyond tax credits and subsidies, the administration implemented regulatory tools tied to the Inflation Reduction Act, including a methane Waste Emissions Charge for oil and gas firms announced in November 2024 and finalized in early 2025, a measure intended both to reduce emissions and—by changing industry behavior—affect energy‑related price dynamics over a longer horizon [11]. Supporters argue such charges internalize costs and encourage cleaner, more efficient production that ultimately reduces volatility in energy prices; opponents warned of implementation challenges and distributional effects across regions and industries [11].
5. Tension and critique: timing, wages, and political framing
While policymakers stressed progress, independent observers and critics pointed to continued above‑target inflation readings and to real wage declines over multi‑year spans as evidence that actions were incomplete or mistimed—some analyses documented rising nominal wages but noted real hourly earnings fell through January 2025, framing the political debate over whether fiscal measures and a later Fed easing achieved adequate relief for households [4]. Reporting also noted the political context: Fed decisions carried electoral implications and the administration’s cost‑cutting narrative competed with critiques that long‑run investments take years to lower prices materially [5] [9].