Fed Chair Warsh Appoints Two Conservative Economists as Interim Advisers

Federal Reserve Chair Kevin Warsh has made his first personnel moves since taking the helm of the nation's central bank, hiring two conservative policy veterans — Paul Winfree and Daniel Heil — as temporary contract advisers [1][2]. The appointments, first reported by The Wall Street Journal on June 2, 2026, have drawn immediate scrutiny because of Winfree's role as the author of the Federal Reserve chapter in Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation's conservative policy blueprint [2].

The two men will work as temporary contractors supporting Warsh on policy analysis and planning, according to the reports. Warsh has made no final decisions about more permanent roles at the central bank [1].

Who Are the Appointees?

Paul Winfree holds a Ph.D. in economics from Queen's University Belfast, a master's degree from the London School of Economics, and a bachelor's degree from George Mason University [3]. He describes himself as an "economic historian" who applies empirical techniques to questions in history [3].

Winfree's policy career spans the Senate Budget Committee, where he served as director of income security from 2011 to 2015, and the Trump White House, where he held the titles of Deputy Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy, Deputy Director of the Domestic Policy Council, and Director of Budget Policy beginning in 2017 [3]. He went on to found the Economic Policy Innovation Center (EPIC), a Washington-based think tank he describes as focused on fiscal sustainability [4]. When asked about EPIC's donors, Winfree has declined to identify them, saying funding comes from "private donations, with most from charitable foundations and none from government or corporate sources" [4].

Daniel Heil is a policy fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, the same think tank where Warsh held a position before joining the Fed [5]. Heil holds a master's of public policy degree from Pepperdine University and served as economic policy adviser to Jeb Bush's 2016 presidential campaign [5]. His published work focuses on the federal budget, tax policy, and antipoverty programs. He co-authored "A Pro-Growth Fiscal Consolidation Plan for the United States" with Hoover economist John Cogan in 2020 [5].

Neither appointee has disclosed financial ties to banks, hedge funds, or entities that lobby the Fed. But Winfree's refusal to name EPIC's donors has drawn criticism from transparency advocates [4]. Heil's connection to the Hoover Institution — which receives funding from a range of corporate and individual donors — places him within a network of conservative economic thought that has long been skeptical of the Fed's post-2008 policy framework.

What Is an 'Interim Adviser,' and What Authority Does It Carry?

The positions Winfree and Heil are filling do not require Senate confirmation. They are classified as temporary contractors, a category that falls well outside the Federal Reserve Act's framework for the Board of Governors, whose seven permanent seats require presidential nomination and Senate approval [6][7].

This distinction matters. The Board of Governors and the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) — the 12-member body that sets interest rates — are the formal decision-making structures of the Fed. Advisers and contractors have no vote and no statutory authority to direct policy. As Yale professor and former Fed official Bill English has noted, "The chair's job is to talk to everybody, try to convince them that the chair is right" [8]. The chair holds one vote among 12 on the FOMC.

But informal influence at the Fed can be substantial. The chair sets the agenda, controls the flow of information to the committee, and shapes the analytical framework through which policy options are presented. Advisers who help prepare briefing materials and policy memos can influence outcomes without ever casting a vote.

Historical Precedents

There is limited precedent for a newly installed Fed chair bringing in outside policy advisers in a contractor capacity. Fed chairs have historically relied on the institution's existing research staff — a corps of more than 400 Ph.D. economists spread across divisions including Financial Stability, International Finance, Monetary Affairs, and Research and Statistics [9]. These career economists conduct research used directly by the Board of Governors and the FOMC, presenting their findings at academic conferences and publishing in peer-reviewed journals [9].

Warsh's decision to bring in outside voices at the outset of his tenure is itself a statement about the existing institution. His repeated calls for "regime change" at the Fed — a phrase he has used to describe fundamental reforms to how the central bank operates, communicates, and even measures inflation — suggest a chair who views the internal apparatus with some skepticism [10][11].

The Policy Views in Question

The most scrutinized policy position belongs to Winfree, whose chapter in Project 2025's Mandate for Leadership proposed ending the Fed's dual mandate — its congressional directive to maximize employment while stabilizing prices — in favor of a single mandate focused on "protecting the dollar and restraining inflation" [3][2]. This would represent a fundamental shift in the Fed's statutory mission, one that would require an act of Congress to implement.

Source: FRED / Federal Reserve Board

Data as of May 1, 2026CSV

The federal funds rate currently stands at 3.63% as of May 2026, down from 4.33% a year earlier [12]. Warsh has signaled openness to lower rates, but inflation has complicated that stance.

Source: FRED / Bureau of Labor Statistics

Data as of Apr 1, 2026CSV

Consumer prices rose 3.8% year-over-year as of April 2026, the highest reading in nearly three years, driven in part by rising oil prices following disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz [13][8]. This creates a policy tension: Warsh has historically favored tighter monetary policy during his earlier stint on the Board of Governors (2006–2011), but has more recently suggested that AI-driven productivity gains could justify easier policy [8].

Heil's published work focuses more on fiscal than monetary policy, centering on federal budget sustainability and entitlement reform [5]. His specific views on interest rates, the Fed's balance sheet, or inflation targeting are not well documented in public writings — raising questions about what analytical framework he brings to monetary policy deliberations.

Source: FRED / Federal Reserve Board

Data as of Jun 1, 2026CSV

The 10-year Treasury yield has climbed to 4.47% as of early June 2026, reflecting market uncertainty about the path of both inflation and Fed policy [12].

The Case For — and Against — Outside Advisers

The Reform Argument

Defenders of Warsh's appointments point to genuine failures in the Fed's recent analytical track record. The most cited example: the "transitory" inflation call of 2021, when Fed Chair Jerome Powell and other officials maintained for months that surging prices were temporary and supply-driven [14]. Annual inflation hit 6.2% in 2021 and 5.4% in 2022, far exceeding the Fed's own forecasts of 3.4% and 2.1% [14]. Mohamed El-Erian, chief economic adviser at Allianz, called it "probably the worst inflation call in the history of the Federal Reserve" [15].

The Cato Institute has argued that Warsh's reform agenda — including changes to how the Fed measures inflation and communicates with the public — represents a necessary course correction [16]. From this perspective, bringing in outside advisers is not politicization but a reasonable response to demonstrated institutional failure. If the Fed's own models missed the worst inflation surge in 40 years, the argument goes, fresh analytical perspectives are not just permissible but necessary.

The Independence Concern

Critics see the appointments through a different lens. Former Fed Chair Janet Yellen has expressed doubt that the FOMC would accept radical changes in the short run, telling reporters, "I really don't see the FOMC accepting this" [10]. Claudia Sahm, a prominent Federal Reserve economist, said she felt "more confused" about Warsh's intentions after his Senate confirmation hearing than before it [17].

The deeper concern is structural. The Fed's independence — its ability to set monetary policy without political interference — is widely regarded by economists as essential to price stability. When Fed chairs have appeared to bend to political pressure historically, bond markets have punished the dollar and driven up long-term borrowing costs.

Warsh himself has tried to straddle this line. At his swearing-in, he spoke positively about upholding both sides of the dual mandate, even as his newly hired adviser authored a paper calling for its elimination [10][2]. During his confirmation hearing, Warsh denied he would be a "sock puppet" for President Trump and promised to exercise independent judgment [13].

The 54-45 Senate confirmation vote — the most divisive in Fed history — reflected this tension [13]. Every Democrat voted against Warsh, and the confirmation was delayed after complications involving a dropped criminal investigation tied to Senator Thom Tillis's initial opposition [13].

Who Stands to Gain or Lose?

If Warsh's advisers push the Fed toward a tighter policy posture focused solely on price stability, the distributional consequences would be significant.

Fixed-income investors and savers would benefit from higher real interest rates, which increase the purchasing power of bond yields and savings accounts. With the 10-year Treasury already at 4.47%, any further tightening could push long-term yields higher still [12].

Borrowers — homebuyers, businesses, and the federal government itself — would face higher costs. The 30-year mortgage rate tracks the 10-year yield closely, meaning housing affordability, already strained, could deteriorate further.

Low-income workers are most sensitive to the employment side of the dual mandate. If the Fed de-emphasizes maximum employment in favor of price stability alone, it would in theory be more willing to tolerate higher unemployment to bring down inflation. With inflation at 3.8%, that trade-off is not hypothetical [8].

The scale of assets affected is enormous. The U.S. bond market exceeds $50 trillion. Even small shifts in the Fed's policy framework can move billions of dollars in market value across equities, fixed income, and real estate.

How Other Central Banks Handle Advisory Relationships

The Fed's structure leaves it more exposed to political influence through personnel decisions than some of its peers.

The European Central Bank's independence is enshrined in the Maastricht Treaty, an international agreement that can only be changed by unanimous consent of its signatories [18]. No single head of state can force the resignation of an ECB Executive Board member, and the institution's mandate — price stability — is defined by treaty rather than domestic legislation [18].

The Bank of England, by contrast, has historically been more susceptible to government pressure. It operated essentially as an agent of the British Treasury for much of the 20th century and was only granted operational independence in 1997 [18]. Even since then, successive U.K. governments have attempted to influence its policy direction.

The Fed sits somewhere between these models. Its dual mandate is defined by Congress and can be changed by legislation — exactly the kind of change Winfree's Project 2025 chapter advocates [3]. The president appoints the chair and Board members, but cannot fire them for policy disagreements. This structural arrangement gives the executive branch meaningful influence over the Fed's direction without formal control over its decisions.

Currently, only three of the FOMC's 12 voting members are Trump appointees. The remaining votes include three Biden appointees, Jerome Powell (who remains on the Board despite stepping down as chair), and five regional Fed bank presidents whom the White House cannot directly appoint [8]. This limits how quickly any single chair can reshape the committee's policy consensus.

What Comes Next

Warsh has described these as interim arrangements while he evaluates longer-term staffing needs [1]. But the symbolism of his first hires — a Project 2025 author and a Hoover Institution fellow — has already shaped expectations about his tenure.

Former Fed governor Sarah Bloom Raskin has said Warsh will need to build consensus by making "credible, analytically strong and disciplined" cases for any policy changes [8]. Former Fed official Randall Kroszner put it more directly: "The chair has the power to persuade...But they still need to persuade" [8].

The question now is whether Winfree and Heil will serve as quiet analytical support or as the vanguard of the "regime change" Warsh has long promised. The answer will depend less on their formal authority — which is minimal — and more on the ideas they bring into a building staffed by 400 economists who have spent their careers there.

With inflation at 3.8% and markets pricing in a 70% chance of a rate increase by December 2026, the stakes of that intellectual contest are measured in trillions [8][12].