In a new analysis shared with Fortune, Swonk argues that Powell is treating the slowdown in hiring as a sign of weakening demand that must be offset with lower interest rates. But if that weakness is being driven instead by structural forces—specifically, AI adoption and sharp declines in immigration—then cutting rates won’t fix the underlying problem and could worsen inflation.

“Powell risks the Fed’s inflation-fighting credibility if the weakness in employment is due more to AI and curbs in immigration than weak demand,” Swonk wrote.

That warning comes after one of the most contentious Federal Open Market Committee meetings in years. The Fed cut rates by a quarter point for the third meeting in a row, taking the federal funds rate down to 3.5%–3.75%, but the vote fractured the committee. Swonk notes it was the first time since 2019 that there were three dissents, and they came “in opposite directions.”

Governor Stephen Miran — currently on leave from the White House Council of Economic Advisers — voted for a half-point cut, while Kansas City Fed President Jeff Schmid and Chicago Fed President Austan Goolsbee voted to hold rates steady.

Swonk highlights that the Fed’s statement resurrected language meant to indicate a pause: “In considering the extent and timing of additional adjustments… the Committee will carefully assess incoming data, the evolving outlook and the balance of risks.” Powell reinforced that stance, saying “We are well positioned to see how the economy evolves” and emphasizing that policymakers would need to “be a bit skeptical” of data distorted by the government shutdown.

But the bigger issue, Swonk argues, is that Powell kept pointing to imminent downward revisions to employment, revisions she warns may not mean what the Fed thinks they do.

If job growth is negative because automation is replacing workers or because the labor force is shrinking due to immigration policy, then monetary policy can’t solve the problem. That’s because rate cuts can stimulate demand, but they cannot create workers or reverse automation decisions already made by firms. 

“The challenge is if that weakness is due to AI and curbs on immigration, then rate cuts will not do much to shore up the labor market. More could show up in inflation,” she wrote.

Powell, during the conference, acknowledged that AI may be “part of the story” behind the cooling labor market, citing major employers like Amazon that have linked hiring freezes and job cuts to automation. But he stressed that it’s “not a big part of the story yet,” and said it’s too early to know whether this wave of technological change will ultimately destroy more jobs than it creates.

He also noted that labor supply has “come down quite sharply” due to a drop in immigration and participation.

A misread could become especially dangerous given the fiscal backdrop. Swonk notes that “expansions to tax cuts last year will show up as a record high tax refunds in early 2026,” warning that the windfall could “further entrench inflation much like we saw in the wake of the pandemic.” 

At the same time, federal debt is projected to surpass GDP for the first time since World War II, marking a level of issuance that is “a lot of debt for bond markets to absorb.”

Swonk also flags mounting risks to credibility inside the Fed itself.

Six participants wanted to hold rates steady, and the market openly dismissed Powell’s attempt at a hawkish spin: investors “priced in more cuts after the meeting,” she notes. Powell now appears to be one of the more dovish voices on the committee, raising questions about the direction of policy if the administration installs a new chair aligned with Miran’s more aggressive easing stance.

Swonk expects the Fed to pause early next year, but warns that if inflation fails to cool as expected, “the bond market could grow more skittish about rate cuts.”