Given that you've said you believe policy is restrictive and the Fed is now dialing back that restriction, are the growth risks presented by higher U.S. Treasury yields today any different from those you identified one year ago when inflation was still meaningfully above your target.
So I would just say this.
We've watched the run-up in bond rates and it's nowhere near where it was, of course, a year ago.
I guess the long run rates are well below that level.
So we're watching that.
Things have been moving around and we'll see where they settle.
I think it's too early to really say where they settle.
Ultimately, I'm sure we've all read these decompositions of what and I certainly have, but it's not really our job to provide our specific decomposition.
I will say though that it appears that the moves are not principally about higher inflation expectations.
They're really about a sense of more likelihood of stronger growth and perhaps less in the way of downside risks.
So that's what they're about.
You know, we do take financial conditions into account if they're persistent and if they're material, then we'll certainly take them into account in our policy.
But I would say we're not at that stage right now.
It's just something that we're watching.
And again, these things don't really have mainly to do with Fed policy, but to do with other factors in the economy.
If I could follow up, is the September SEP, are those rate projections still valid?
Do they still seem relevant given where we are now?
You know, you get halfway through the cycle between the last set and the next set.
I wouldn't want to comment one way or the other.
Let's talk about the data we've gotten since the last meeting.
So in the main, the economic activity data have been stronger than expected.
The NIPA revision was stronger.
Certainly the September employment report was stronger.
The October report not stronger.
Retail sales stronger.
So overall, though, I think you take away a sense of some of the downside risks to economic activity having been diminished with the NIPA revisions in particular.
And so overall feeling good about economic activity.
So I think we would factor that in.
At the same time, we got one inflation report, which wasn't terrible, but it was a little higher than expected.
So I think really the question is, is December, and by December, we'll have more data, I guess one more employment report, two more inflation reports, and lots of other data.
and, you know, we'll make a decision as we get to December.
Gina Smilick from the New York Times.
Thanks for taking our questions, Chair Powell.
When it comes to December, what will you be looking at specifically as you try to make that decision?
And then as of the Fed's economic projections in September, you had written down four quarterpoint interest rate cuts in 2025.
Do you still think that those are likely?
Is that sort of the baseline outlook at this point, or has that shifted?
And if it shifted at all, can you give a little bit of detail as to why?
You know, we don't fill out an SEP, and I can't characterize one that wasn't filled out today.
So I can't really speak for kind of exactly where the committee is.
I would just say for December, we're going to be, again, at every meeting, we're going to be looking at the incoming data and how that affects the outlook.
As you know, we're in the process of recalibrating from a fairly restrictive level at 5.33 percent.
After today's move, we're down 75 basis points.
And we're asking ourselves, is that where we need to be?
You know that we're trying to steer between the risk of moving too quickly and perhaps undermining our progress on inflation or moving too slowly and allowing the labor market to weaken too much.
We're trying To be on a middle path where we can maintain the strength in the labor market while also enabling further progress on inflation.
We think that's where we are, but that's the question we're going to be asking in September and in other meetings.
And again, I can't really update you on the committee's thinking because we don't fill out an SEP at this meeting.
Yeah, totally appreciate that.
I guess when it comes to your own thinking, do you think that a full percentage point of rate cuts in 2025 is a reasonable outlook?
Again, we're going to wait and see how things come in in December.
I mean, it's just, I would put it this way: we're on a path to a more neutral stance, and that's very much what we're on.
That has not changed at all since September.
And we're just going to have to see where the data lead us.
We have a whole six weeks of data to look at to make that decision in December.
Obviously, I'm not ruling it out or in, but I would say that again, we didn't update the SEP, so I'm not going to characterize where the committee would be.
Howard?
Thanks, Howard Schneider with Reuters.
I wondered if you could please elaborate, explain a little bit the two changes in the language of the statement here in the first paragraph when you say inflation has made progress, dropping the word further progress, and in the second paragraph, dropping the sentence that the committee had gained greater confidence that inflation was progressing towards its 2 percent goal.
Is there any policy substance behind either of those changes in language?
Is it meant to open the door to a December pause?
Is it meant to communicate anything about the stickiness of core inflation in the last three months?
Not really, no.
So let me tell you what we were thinking.
So the test of gaining further confidence was our test for the first rate cut, right?
And so we met that test in September, and therefore we take that test out.
If you leave it in, then it's new forward guidance.
It's brand new forward guidance.
What do you mean by it?
Are you requiring yet further?
We have to say yes or no at every meeting, whether we've made further progress.
The point is, we have gained confidence that we're on a sustainable path down at 2 percent.
So that I would tell you is what that's really all about.
It's not meant to send a signal.
Neither of those is meant to send a further signal.
And saying further progress, it becomes a test.
We don't think it's a good time to be doing a lot of forward guidance.
There's a fair amount of uncertainty in that in what I've said.
The path that we're on, we do know where the destination is, but we don't know the right pace and we don't know exactly where the destination is.
So the point is to find that, to find the right pace and the right destination as we go.
And I think there's a fair amount of uncertainty about that.
And you don't want to tie yourself up with guidance.
You want to be able to make sensible decisions as you go.
Steve.
Steve Leechman, CNBC.
Mr. Chairman, you talked about higher rates, perhaps from an expectation of higher growth.
You didn't talk about it in terms of expectations of higher deficits.
Is that something you think might be behind the recent rise in interest rates?
And are rising deficits a concern to you?
So we no comment on fiscal policy.
And again, I don't have a lot more to say on what's driving bond yields.
In terms of policy changes, though, let me give you a sense of how this works in the ordinary case.
Let's say Congress is considering a rewrite of the tax laws.
It doesn't matter what's in the content.
So we would follow that.
At a certain point, we'd think we see the outline, so we'd start to model it.
And then we'd wait and we'd wait.
And then at a certain point, the staff would brief the FOMC and say, you know, these are the likely effects.
There's lots and lots of literature on the effects of tax policy changes on various parts of the economy.
So we'd try to get smart on that.
And then the law actually passes.
And you'd start to put it, you'd probably run an alternative simulation before that happens, just to keep people trying to understand it.
Then when it actually passes, it goes into the model along with a million other things.
So we have a very large economy.
Many things are affecting it at any given time.
And a law change of some kind would go in there, but it would go in.
But it's a process that takes some time.
Clearly, the legislative process takes a lot of time.
And of course, the real question is not the effect of that law.
It's all of the policy changes that are happening.
What's the net effect?
And the overall effect on the economy at any given time.
So I think that's a process that takes a lot of time and that we go through all the time with every administration constantly.
And this will be no different.
But right now, there's nothing to model right now.
It's such an early stage.
We don't know what the policies are.
And once we know what they are, we won't have a sense of when they'll be implemented or all those sorts of things.
So I think I would just say we're not doing that now.
And all that will take time.
And it will be very much regular order when we do do that.
If I could just follow up on Nick's question, are the current rates something you feel like you need to lean against in that they go against the direction of policy by adding restrictions to the economy, or do you just take them as a given and perhaps a signal that you should do less?
Look, I just think the first question is: how long will they be sustained?
If you remember the 5% 10-year, people were drawing massively important conclusions only to find three weeks later that the 10-year was 50 basis points lower.
So it's material changes in financial conditions that last, that are persistent, that really matter.
And we don't know that about these.
What we've seen so far, we're watching it.
We're doing the decompositions and reading others, but right now it's not a major factor in how we're thinking about things.
Chris.
Thank you, Chris Rugaber at Associated Press.
You mentioned the positive economic data that we've seen since the September meeting, including the revisions to things like savings, higher GDP growth.
We saw a stock market jump yesterday.
That's renewed some of the questions about why do many cuts at all with this backdrop.
So you're right.
As I mentioned, and as you mentioned, the latest economic data have been strong, and that's, of course, a great thing and highly welcome.
But, of course, our mandate is maximum employment and price stability.
And we think that even with today's cut, policy is still restrictive.
We understand it's not possible to say precisely how restrictive, but we feel that it is still restrictive.
And if you look at our goal variables, the labor market has cooled a great deal from its overheated state of two years ago and is now essentially in balance.
It is continuing to cool, albeit at a modest rate.
And we don't need further cooling, we don't think, to achieve our inflation mandate.
So that's the labor market.
Inflation has moved down a great deal from its higher, its highs of two years ago.
And we judged, as I mentioned, that it's on a sustainable path back to 2%.
So the job's not done on inflation.
But if you look at those two things, we judged in September that it was appropriate to begin to recalibrate our policy stance to reflect this progress, and today's decision is really another step in that process.
Overall, as I mentioned, we believe that with an appropriate recalibration of our policy stance, we can maintain strength in the labor market even as our policy stance enables further progress toward our inflation goal.
Great.
And just to follow up, what might cause you to pause rate cuts in December?
What kind of economic data would lead you to that path?
Thank you.
So we haven't made any decision like that at all.
So we're in the process, as I mentioned, of moving policy down our stance down over time to more neutral level.
And as a general matter, as we move ahead, we are prepared to adjust our assessments of the appropriate pace and destination as the outlook evolves.
So for example, if we were to see the labor market deteriorating, we'd be prepared to move more quickly.
Alternatively, as we approach levels that are plausibly neutral or close to neutral, it may turn out to be appropriate to slow the pace at which we're dialing back restriction.
Again, haven't made any decisions about that, but that's certainly a possibility.
You can think of it as similar to what we do with asset purchase, with asset runoff, with QT.
So we reach a point where we slow the pace, much like an airplane reaching the airport slows down.
And so we're thinking about it that way, but it's something that we're just beginning to think about.
Edward.
Thanks, Chair Powell.
So with the noise in the jobs reports that we've seen, and you look at the Fed's favorite inflation, PCE inflation, overall it's 2.1 percent, very close to the Fed's target, but core inflation is 2.7 percent, and it's been that way since July.
So why doesn't this data give fuel to a rate pause for this meeting?
Well, so I think if you look at the three and six month, you're quoting the 12 month.
So we look at all of them, right?
But if you look at three and six month core PCE, you'll see they're around 2.3 percent.
So we look at all of them, and we also look at 12 as well.
But what it's telling us is that we really have made significant progress, and we expect there to be bumps.
For example, you know, the last three months of last year, the core PCE readings were very, very low, probably unsustainably low.
So that's why you see, that's why forecasts generally see a couple of upticks toward the end of the year.
On the other hand, the January reading certainly looks like an example of residual seasonality so that we saw last year.
So when that falls out of the 12-month calculation in February, we should see a thing down.
So it will literally be a bump up and then down.
We understand that.
Overall, you see the progress on inflation, and you also look at the economy and you say, what is the inflation story now?
Where is it coming from?
So I point to a couple of things.
One is the non-housing services and goods, which together make up 80% of the core PCE index, are back to the levels they were at the last time we had sustained 2% inflation, which happens to be in the early 2000s for a period of five, six, seven years.
So they're back at that level.
What's not is housing services.
So let's talk about housing services.
Housing services is higher.
What's going on there is market rents, newly signed leases, are experiencing very low inflation.
And what's happening is older, you know, leases that are turning over are taking several years to catch up to where market leases are, market rent leases are.
So that's just a catch-up problem.
It's not really reflecting current inflationary pressures.
It's reflecting past inflationary pressures.
So that's one thing.
The other thing is I'd say look at the labor market, not a source of inflationary pressures.
Where is it coming from?
It's not a very tight economy.
What is the story about inflation?
You see that catch-up inflation also in insurance and several other areas.
So you're seeing we're not declaring victory, obviously, but we feel like the story is very consistent with inflation continuing to come down on a bumpy path over the next couple of years and settling around 2 percent.
That story is intact, and it won't be one or two really good data months or bad data months aren't going to really change the pattern at this point now that we're this far into the process.
So you're quickly trying to get to that neutral rate that you see, or do you foresee that you have some time to get there?
Nothing in the economic data suggests that the committee has any need to be in a hurry to get there.
We are seeing strong economic activity.
We are seeing ongoing strength in the labor market.
We are watching that carefully, but we do see maintaining strength there.
And so we think that the right way to find neutral, if you will, is carefully, patiently.
Again, that's not meant to have a specific meaning other than we, to the extent the economy remains strong, we have the ability to take advantage of that as we try to navigate that middle path between the two risks.
All right, Chair Powell, Craig Torres from Bloomberg.
Two questions today.
Did you learn anything about what Americans think about the economy from the election results?
First question.
Second question.
I want to talk about some labor market indicators, and I do so with great respect for your attentiveness to the maximum employment side of the mandate, Chair Powell.
So the unemployment rate has been at 4 percent or higher for six months.
One of the broadest measures of unemployment is up about a half a point from a year ago.
Compensation gains are sliding back.
The quits rate, a signal of labor market dynamism, has been heading down to that bad neighborhood of the 20 teens.
So you have put a marker at Jackson Hole saying any further cooling is unwelcome.
It is cooling generally a little bit further.
So at what point do we reach what you would describe as a shortfall from maximum employment?
Thank you.
Sure.
So on your first question, I'm not going to talk about anything that relates directly or indirectly to the election.
On the second one, this is the great question, and it's the one we think about all the time.
So I'll just say a couple things.
There's nothing really surprising here.
What we know is that the unemployment rate is low.
We also know that it's come down significantly, sorry, moved up significantly from a year or so ago.
So we've seen a big change upward in unemployment.
Sometimes that has meant bad things.
So far, it doesn't appear to be ⁇ it appears that the ⁇ I wouldn't say that the labor market has fully stabilized because I do think it's continuing to very gradually cool, but it seems to be in a good place.
And our policy, of course, is designed to keep it in that good place, to maintain the strength in the labor market while also enabling further progress on inflation.
You know, you mentioned a bunch of indicators, and you're right.
The openings to unemployment rate is back to a normal level.
I would characterize it more broadly as normalizing.
You mentioned wages.
Wages are still running just a bit above where they would need to be to be consistent with 2 percent inflation unless productivity is going to remain at this high level.
If we see productivity more sustainably at these high levels, then that would sustain higher wage gains.
So I would say, in fact, you can say it the other way, That wage increases are now consistent with 2 percent inflation given current productivity readings.
But of course, the lore on productivity readings is whenever you see high readings, you should assume they're going to revert pretty quickly to the longer-term trend.
That has always been the case for 50 years.
But it may be that we're now five years.
If you look at the NIPA revisions that came out a month ago, we're five years into a nice set of productivity readings, which are sustained and very healthy.
But overall, it's a good labor market.
We could talk about 20 different data series.
We'll be looking at all of them, of course.
But we don't want the labor market to soften much from here.
We don't think we need that to happen to get inflation back to 2 percent.
Victoria.
Hi, Victoria Aguida with Politico.
Some of the President's elect advisors have suggested that you should resign.
If he asked you to leave, would you go?
No.
Can you follow up on his do you think that legally you're not required to leave?
No.
Mike?
Michael McKee from Bloomberg Radio and Television.
You talk a lot about what the data are telling you and how you are dependent on the data.
But in terms of forward-looking assessments of the economy, what are you hearing from CEOs or other officials around the country?
What did you hear today from the regional bank presidents about what companies and consumers think about where the economy is going from here rather than looking backwards?
And does that match up with what your forecasts have been and what you think the appropriate policy path should be?
So it's hard to characterize a really interesting set of discussions we had, and of course you'll see them in the minutes in three weeks.
But I would say this: I think the comments from our Reserve Bank colleagues and from the CEOs that they talk to are pretty constructive on the economy right now, pretty constructive, feeling that the labor market is back to normal to the point where it's no longer that much a discussion topic in their world, whereas two years ago it was all they were talking about.
So they feel like the labor market's in balance.
People feel good about where the economy is.
Demand is obviously pretty strong.
And you're seeing 2.8% growth in the third quarter estimated, maybe the year is 2.5%.
This is a strong economy.
It's actually remarkable how well the U.S. economy has been performing with strong growth, a strong labor market, inflation coming down.
We're really performing better than any of our global peers.
And I think that is reflected in what you hear from what I hear people hear from CEOs.
I don't get to talk to a lot of CEOs in my job, but I hear what others summarize from those.
And of course, I hear the Reserve Bank presidents do a lot of that.
And it's pretty constructive overall.
Now, that's not to say there are areas of caution and things like that, but ultimately, overall, pretty positive.
Well, to follow up, the areas of caution, if there were black clouds on the horizon that you identified as something you're watching, what would they be?
I think it's things like clearly geopolitical risks around the world are elevated, and just as clearly they've had relatively little effect on the U.S. economy.
Now, that can change through the price of oil or otherwise, but people talk about those as something that's on the horizon all the time.
But ultimately, if you look at the U.S. economy, its performance has been very good.
And that's what we hear from business people, and expectation that that will continue.
If anything, people feel next year, I've heard this from several people, that next year could even be stronger than this year.
Andrew.
Hi, it's Andrew Ackerman with the Washington Post.
I just wanted to follow up on the discussion earlier on fiscal policy.
Your predecessors, Greenspan and Volker, spoke up loudly when they thought large budget deficits endangered economic or financial stability.
Will you do that too?
And right now we're in a period of full employment.
We have large budget deficits and debt at historic highs that are rising.
Is that something you'd speak out against?
So, you know, I have said many times, no more, no less than what the predecessors you mentioned have said.
And what that is, is that the U.S. fiscal federal government's fiscal path, fiscal policy is on an unsustainable path.
The level of our debt relative to the economy is not unsustainable.
The path is unsustainable.
And we see that in, you know, you've got a very large deficit at you're at full employment, and that's expected to continue.
So it's important that we, you know, that to be dealt with.
It is ultimately a threat to the economy.
Now, I can say that.
I don't have oversight.
We don't have oversight over fiscal policy.
I've said it on many occasions.
Just said it again.
Okay, thank you.
I guess the other question is to follow up on Victoria's question.
Do you believe the President has the power to fire or demote you?
And has the Fed determined the legality of a president demoting at will any of the other governors with leadership positions?
Not permitted under the law.
Not what?
Not permitted under the law.
Thank you.
Courtney.
Chair Howell Courtney Brown from Axios.
In response to Howard's question, you said it wasn't an ideal time to give forward guidance because of the economic uncertainties.
Can you lay out what some of those uncertainties are and whether or not it includes some of the proposals that the president-elect has put out on the campaign trail, tariffs, for instance?
No, I was not referring to the new administration's policies at all, nor will I today.
So what I'm just saying is as we look ahead, we know, and I mentioned this in my statement, that the risks are two-sided.
I guess I should start by saying that we think that the economy and we think our policy are both in a very good place, a very good place.
But as you look forward, you say, what are the risks?
And one risk is that we would move too quickly and find ourselves having moved too quickly and inflation comes back and we lost our chance to get inflation back to 2%.
So we have to avoid that risk.
And to avoid that risk, that means you want to move carefully.
The other risk is that we move too slowly and that we allow the labor market to weaken too much and do unnecessary damage to the labor market and to people's working lives.
That says don't get behind the curve.
So these two things are the two risks that we have to manage.
And so we're in the middle there.
We try to be in the middle and deal with both of them, manage both of those.
Again, the idea is to maintain support, the strength that we have in the labor market and in the economy, but also with somewhat less restrictive but still restrictive policy, enable further progress toward our 2% inflation goal.
So there's, you know, this is a thing where we're meeting by meeting.
We're going to be making our assessment of what the right path is.
It's not as important.
The precise timing of these things is not as important as the overall arc of them.
And the arc of them is to move from where we are now to a sense of neutral, a more neutral policy.
We don't know exactly where that is.
We only know it by its works.
We're pretty sure it's below where we are now.
But as we move further, there will be more uncertainty about where that is.
And we're going to move carefully as this goes on so that we can increase the chances that we will get it right.
Simon.
Thank you, Chair Powell, Simon Reminovich with The Economist.
I know you don't want to share your decomposition of bond yields, but if you look at the break-evens, it is clear that longer-term inflation expectations do seem to have risen up at about 2.5 percent, for example, on the five-year.
That's up half a point from when you cut in September.
Do you have any concern at all that longer-term inflation expectations are de-anchoring, or put another way, are anchoring at a slightly higher level?
Thanks.
So we would be concerned if we saw if we thought we saw longer-term inflation expectations anchoring at a higher level.
That's not what we're seeing.
We're still seeing between surveys and market readings broadly consistent with, you know, I looked at the five-year, five-year earlier today, and it's probably moved, but it's just not, it's just kind of right where it's been, and also it's pretty close to consistent with 2% PCE inflation.
So that's one that's been a traditional one that we look at a lot.
But overall, expectations seem to be, and really have throughout this, in a place that's consistent with 2% inflation.
But you're right to say we watch that very carefully, and we will not allow inflation expectations to drift upward.
But that's really why we reacted so sharply back in 2022, was to avoid that.
Kelly.
Hi, Chair Powell, Kelly O'Grady, CBS News.
We just talked about what you've heard from business leaders on the economy, but many average Americans are still not feeling the strength of the economy in their wallets.
So what's your message to them on when they might expect relief?
So you're right that we say the economy is performing well, and it is, but we also know that people are still feeling the effects of high prices, for example.
And we went through, the world went through a global inflation shock, and inflation went up everywhere.
And it stays with you because the price level doesn't come back down.
So what that takes is it takes some years of real wage gains for people to feel better.
And that's what we're trying to create.
And I think we're well on the road to creating that.
Inflation has come way down.
The economy is still strong here.
Wages are moving up, but at a sustainable level.
So it's just, I think what needs to happen is happening and for the most part has happened.
But it'll be some time before people regain their confidence and feel that.
And we don't tell people how to feel about the economy.
We respect, completely respect what they're feeling.
Those feelings are true.
They're accurate.
We don't question them.
We respect them.
And just a quick follow-up.
President-elect Trump has been critical of your performance.
Any concern about his influence on the Fed's independence?
I'm not going to get into any of the political things here today, but thank you.
Nancy.
Hi, Chair Powell, Nancy Marshall-Genser with Marketplace.
What is your plan if we start to see stagflation?
Well, so that's a, you know, The whole plan is not to have stagflation so we don't have to deal with it.
So that is actually our plan.
You know, it's of course a very difficult thing because anything you do with interest rates will hurt one side or the other, either the inflation mandate or the employment mandate.
I would just say that we've been able to see inflation come down a whole lot, you know, much closer to our goal without the kind of sharp increase in unemployment that has often accompanied programs of disinflation.
So, knock on wood, we've gotten this far without seeing a real weakening in the labor market.
And we believe we can complete the inflation task while also keeping the labor market strong.
And that, of course, is exactly what we're trying to do.
Can you rule out an interest rate hike next year?
No, I wouldn't rule anything out or in that far away, but that's certainly not our plan.
I mean, our baseline expectation is that we'll continue to move gradually down towards neutral, that the economy will continue to grow at a healthy clip, and that the labor market will remain strong.
If you look at our, look at our, that will not change from the September SEP.
You know, that is our baseline forecast, and short of some exogenous event, that will continue to be our forecast for the foreseeable future.
But ultimately, we're not in a world where we can afford to rule things out a full year in advance.
There's just too much uncertainty in what we do.
Student Gene, for the last question.
Hi, Chair Powell, Gene Young with MI Market News.
I wanted to go back to a comment that you had made about Americans being quite unhappy about the cumulative price level rises over the past few years, even though now inflation is back on a path to 2%.
Would it be appropriate for the Fed to undershoot for a while on its inflation goal under the average inflation targeting regime so people have a chance to catch up?
No, that's not the way our framework works.
We're aiming for inflation at 2%.
We do not have, we did not think it would be appropriate to deliberately undershoot.
And part of the problem there is that low inflation can be a problem too, in a way, but that's not part of our framework and it's not something we're going to be going to be looking at in our framework review.
Thank you very much.
Join Book TV Saturday and Sunday, November 16th and 17th for the Texas Book Festival, live from Austin.
Our coverage begins Saturday at 11 a.m. Eastern and Sunday at noon.
Highlights include PBS's Ray Suarez with his book, We Are Home, on Immigration and the Process of Becoming an American, The Washington Post's Liza Mundy discussing her book, The Sisterhood on Women in the CIA, former DOD and DOJ Inspector General Glenn Fine and his book, Watchdogs, on the Role of an Inspector General, and Elizabeth Diaz discussing her book, The Fall of Roe, on Post-Roe America.
Watch the Texas Book Festival live Saturday and Sunday, November 16th and 17th on Book TV on C-SPAN2.
To see the full Texas Book Festival schedule, visit our website, booktv.org.
C-SPAN is your unfiltered view of government.
We're funded by these television companies and more, including Mediacom.
Nearly 30 years ago, Mediacom was founded on a powerful idea.
Bring cutting-edge broadband to underserved communities.
From coast to coast, we connected 850,000 miles of fiber.
Our team broke speed barriers, delivered one gig speeds to every customer, has led the way in developing a 10G platform, and now with Mediacom Mobile, is offering the fastest, most reliable network on the go.
MediaCom, decades of dedication, decades of delivery, decades ahead.
Mediacom supports C-SPAN as a public service, along with these other television providers, giving you a front-row seat to democracy.
Coming up on Washington Journal this morning, we'll take your calls and comments live.
And then semaphores Dave Weigel and Scott Wong of NBC News analyze the political implications of unified GOP control of the executive branch, Senate, and potentially the House.
C-SPAN's Washington Journal starts now.
Join the conversation.
This is Washington Journal for Friday, November 8th.
Election Day 2024 is in the books with Republicans winning control of the White House and the Senate and possibly the House.