Which Senators will vote for Kevin Warsh as Fed chair?
Short Answer
Both the model and the market expect Susan Collins to vote for Kevin Warsh as Fed chair, with no compelling evidence of mispricing.
1. Executive Verdict
- Senator Collins previously opposed a hawkish Fed nominee due to policy.
- Lobbying efforts for Warsh primarily focused on the Senate Banking Committee.
- Kevin Warsh's proposed Fed reforms align with Senator Rand Paul's views.
- Warsh faced scrutiny regarding inflation and bank regulation in his hearing.
- Significant market volatility included a recent sharp upward spike and a drop.
Who Wins and Why
| Outcome | Market | Model | Why |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rand Paul | 69.0% | 59.7% | Senator Paul often scrutinizes Federal Reserve policy and potential nominees. |
| John Fetterman | 98.0% | 97.4% | Support from the Senator indicates a broad appeal for the nominee. |
| Mitch McConnell | 92.0% | 89.4% | As party leader, Senator McConnell typically supports presidential nominations for key roles. |
| Lisa Murkowski | 85.0% | 84.8% | Senator Murkowski often evaluates nominees based on their qualifications and experience. |
| Kevin Cramer | 94.7% | 93.0% | Senator Cramer generally supports the President's nominees for significant roles. |
2. Market Behavior & Price Dynamics
Historical Price (Probability)
Outcome probability
Date
This market, which speculates on Senate votes for Kevin Warsh as Fed Chair, has shown a distinct upward trend, culminating in a near-certainty price. The probability started at 83.0% and established a trading range with a floor around 73.0%. The most significant event was a sharp 19.0 percentage point spike on April 28, 2026, which sent the price from 79.0% to its current high of 98.0%. This movement established a new, very high price ceiling, breaking decisively from the previous trading activity.
The dramatic price increase on April 28 lacks a clear catalyst based on the provided context. Without specific news events to explain the jump, the move appears to be driven by a sudden and powerful shift in trader sentiment. The total volume of 14,782 contracts indicates substantial overall interest in this market. However, the sample data points show zero volume during the period of the spike, which suggests the price adjustment may have occurred quickly on thin liquidity or that the specific trades driving the change are not captured in the sample. The sustained high price since the spike suggests the market has accepted this new level as valid.
The chart indicates a clear support level was established in the low-to-mid 70s before the breakout. The current price of 98.0% is now acting as a new resistance level, representing the market's peak confidence. Overall market sentiment is extremely bullish, pricing the outcome as a near certainty. The conviction of traders, as represented by the price, is that the specified senators' votes are virtually guaranteed. The market has moved from a state of high probability to one of almost complete consensus.
3. Significant Price Movements
Notable price changes detected in the chart, along with research into what caused each movement.
Outcome: John Fetterman
📈 April 28, 2026: 19.0pp spike
Price increased from 79.0% to 98.0%
What happened: No supporting research available for this anomaly.
Outcome: Lisa Murkowski
📉 April 26, 2026: 11.0pp drop
Price decreased from 96.0% to 85.0%
What happened: No supporting research available for this anomaly.
4. Market Data
Contract Snapshot
The market resolves to "Yes" if Senator Rand Paul votes "Yea" for Kevin Warsh as Fed Chair nominee before January 1, 2027, or if the nominee is confirmed without a recorded vote tally. It resolves to "No" if the nominee is rejected without a recorded vote, or if the nomination is formally withdrawn by the President or President-elect. The market closes following the first confirmation vote or nomination withdrawal, or by January 1, 2027, 10:00 AM EST. Only the first Senate confirmation vote for the Nominee determines the outcome, with results verified from U.S. Senate sources.
Available Contracts
Market options and current pricing
| Outcome bucket | Yes (price) | No (price) | Last trade probability |
|---|---|---|---|
| Susan Collins | $0.99 | $0.05 | 99% |
| Tim Scott | $0.99 | $0.04 | 99% |
| John Fetterman | $0.99 | $0.02 | 98% |
| Thom Tillis | $0.98 | $0.05 | 97% |
| John Kennedy | $0.99 | $0.04 | 96% |
| Kevin Cramer | $0.99 | $0.06 | 95% |
| Mike Lee | $0.99 | $0.04 | 93% |
| Mitch McConnell | $0.99 | $0.05 | 92% |
| Lisa Murkowski | $0.96 | $0.09 | 85% |
| Rand Paul | $0.71 | $0.31 | 69% |
| Maggie Hassan | $0.31 | $0.74 | 26% |
| Jeanne Shaheen | $0.10 | $0.92 | 20% |
| John Hickenlooper | $0.13 | $0.93 | 16% |
| Ruben Gallego | $0.08 | $0.96 | 8% |
Market Discussion
The market discussion focuses on predicting individual senators' votes for Kevin Warsh as Fed chair, particularly Rand Paul and Thom Tillis. For Rand Paul, some traders believe he would vote Yes, citing his past comments that Warsh "sounds like a Man after my Heart" and his alignment on auditing the Fed. However, a counter-argument suggests Paul might vote No, seeking a candidate more aligned with abolishing the Fed or due to factors like Trump's stance on Jerome Powell. Thom Tillis is largely expected to vote No, explicitly stating he will oppose Warsh's confirmation until a DOJ investigation into Jerome Powell is resolved, a position reportedly acknowledged by Trump.
5. What Are Senators' Stances on Hawkish Federal Reserve Nominees?
| Sen. Collins' Shelton Stance | Opposed nomination due to concerns (July 2020) [^] |
|---|---|
| Sen. Murkowski's Shelton Stance | Indicated support for nomination (November 2020) [^] |
| Collins' Impact on Shelton Vote | Opposition created significant confirmation hurdle [^] |
Senator Susan Collins opposed Judy Shelton's Federal Reserve nomination due to policy concerns. The Republican Senator from Maine publicly stated her opposition to Judy Shelton's nomination to the Federal Reserve Board of Governors in July 2020. Her reasoning stemmed from concerns about Shelton's "past statements on the independence of the Federal Reserve, the gold standard, and interest rates," which led Collins to conclude Shelton was not the "right fit" for the position [^]. Collins's declared opposition was a significant factor, contributing to the unlikelihood of Shelton's confirmation due to insufficient votes [^].
Senator Lisa Murkowski supported Judy Shelton's nomination, aiding its procedural advancement. In contrast to Senator Collins, the Republican Senator from Alaska indicated her support for Judy Shelton's nomination in November 2020 [^]. Murkowski's stance played a role in advancing Shelton's appointment through a procedural step, though the nomination ultimately failed for other reasons [^]. While Murkowski has engaged in discussions regarding Department of Justice probes into the Federal Reserve and made statements concerning investigations into the Fed Chair, these actions are not directly related to her views on specific nominees holding hawkish monetary policy [^].
No specific records exist for Senators Shaheen or Hassan on hawkish nominees. For Senators Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) and Maggie Hassan (D-NH), the available research does not contain specific voting records or public statements concerning past nominees for the Federal Reserve or Treasury who held hawkish monetary policy views, such as those similar to Kevin Warsh. Therefore, information on their positions regarding such nominees cannot be provided based on the current sources.
6. What Lobbying Efforts Targeted Kevin Warsh's Fed Chair Nomination?
| Primary Lobbying Target | Senate and Senate Banking Committee [^] |
|---|---|
| Key Supporters | Financial industry groups, e.g., American Bankers Association (ABA) [^] |
| Key Opponents | Progressive advocacy groups, e.g., Americans for Financial Reform (AFR), Better Markets [^] |
Lobbying efforts regarding Kevin Warsh's nomination for Fed chair primarily targeted the Senate Banking Committee. Influence was directed towards the U.S. Senate and, more specifically, the Senate Banking Committee, rather than specific individual senators [^]. Both financial industry groups and progressive advocacy organizations aimed their efforts at this legislative body. The Senate itself was described as "divided" on Warsh's nomination, reflecting polarization over his views on regulation and monetary policy [^].
Financial industry groups strongly supported Warsh, advocating regulatory relief and hawkish monetary policy. Organizations such as the American Bankers Association (ABA) expressed strong support for Warsh's nomination, formally congratulating him and issuing a statement emphasizing his experience and commitment to sound monetary policy and financial stability [^]. Their support implicitly aligned with Warsh's known positions, which included advocacy for "regulatory relief" and a "hawkish stance on monetary policy" [^], alongside his view that Fed independence must be "earned" [^].
Progressive groups strongly opposed Warsh, citing concerns about deregulation harming consumers. In contrast, progressive advocacy organizations, including Americans for Financial Reform (AFR) and Better Markets, actively opposed Warsh's nomination and urged the Senate Banking Committee to reject him [^]. These groups voiced concerns about his "problematic record" and past advocacy for "deregulation," cautioning that his policies could potentially "hurt consumers and workers" [^]. Better Markets further criticized Warsh for allegedly prioritizing "politics and Wall Street Not Main Street" and for his record of "flip-flopping on key issues" [^].
7. How Do Kevin Warsh's Fed Reforms Align with Senators?
| Warsh's Primary Reform | Smaller balance sheet, tighter mandate, rules-based policy [^] |
|---|---|
| Rand Paul's Fed Criticism | Fed causes inflation through 'money printing' [^] |
| John Fetterman's Powell Support | Fully supports Jerome Powell [^] |
Kevin Warsh's Fed reform proposals align with Rand Paul's libertarian views. Warsh advocates for sweeping Federal Reserve reforms, including a smaller balance sheet, a tighter mandate focused solely on inflation, and a rules-based monetary policy, while also criticizing past quantitative easing [^]. These proposals align significantly with Senator Rand Paul's long-standing libertarian perspective. Paul argues that the Fed's expansionist policies, including 'money printing', are the primary cause of inflation [^]. He has consistently called for auditing the Fed and limiting its power, viewing its expansive reach as 'crippling America' [^]. Both Warsh and Paul share a skepticism of an overly powerful and interventionist Federal Reserve, advocating for a more constrained and rules-bound institution [^].
John Fetterman's views present a more nuanced alignment with Warsh. Senator John Fetterman has publicly stated, "I fully support Jerome Powell" as the Fed chair [^], suggesting satisfaction with current Fed leadership rather than a call for Warsh's fundamental structural reforms. While his views on presidential influence on interest rates are 'mixed' [^], Fetterman has joined 'fiscal hawks' in expressing concern over the national debt, noting it was nearing a 'staggering $37T' [^]. A smaller Fed balance sheet, as proposed by Warsh [^], could indirectly align with Fetterman's concerns about government spending and debt. However, Fetterman's overall policy positions do not explicitly endorse the kind of monetary policy reforms advocated by Warsh [^].
8. What are Senators Tillis' and Scott's Views on Kevin Warsh?
| Financial Executive Sentiment | No information found regarding views of major financial institutions like Bank of America or Truist on Warsh, nor communication to senators [^]. |
|---|---|
| Senator Thom Tillis' Stance | Expressed readiness to confirm Warsh as Fed chair and pledged to vote to confirm him [^]. |
| Senator Tim Scott's Stance | Championed Warsh for Fed Chair, believing he would restore Fed independence, and hoped an investigation into the current Fed Chair would 'go away' [^]. |
Information on financial executives' Warsh sentiment and communication is unavailable. The research provides no data regarding the specific sentiment of senior executives at major financial institutions with significant operations in North and South Carolina, such as Bank of America or Truist, towards Kevin Warsh as a potential Federal Reserve Chairman. Consequently, there is also no information detailing how any such sentiment might have been communicated to their home-state senators, Thom Tillis of North Carolina or Tim Scott of South Carolina. The provided sources do not cover the perspectives or lobbying efforts of these financial institutions.
Senator Tillis publicly supports Kevin Warsh for Federal Reserve Chair. Senator Thom Tillis has consistently expressed strong support for Warsh's potential nomination. He has stated his readiness to move ahead with confirming Warsh as Fed chair [^] and has explicitly pledged to vote to confirm him [^]. His public statements reflect a clear endorsement of Warsh's potential nomination.
Senator Scott also strongly champions Warsh for the Federal Reserve Chair position. Senator Tim Scott has championed Kevin Warsh as the next Chair of the Federal Reserve [^], stating that Warsh would restore the independence to the Fed that he believed was lacking under the previous chair [^]. Scott has also indicated a hope that an investigation into the current Fed Chair would "go away" to pave the way for Warsh [^]. Like Senator Tillis, Senator Scott's public statements indicate strong support for Warsh's potential nomination [^].
9. What Were Kevin Warsh's Stances on Inflation and Bank Regulation?
| Inflation Target Commitment | Strong commitment to the Federal Reserve's 2% inflation target with a disciplined approach [^] |
|---|---|
| Bank Supervision Views | Openness to reviewing and streamlining post-crisis regulations, especially for smaller banks [^] |
| Overall Policy Accommodation | Signaled willingness to accommodate conservative policy priorities through hawkish inflation stance and regulatory review [^] |
Warsh faced scrutiny on inflation and bank regulation during his hearing. During his confirmation hearing for Federal Reserve chair, Kevin Warsh likely faced extensive questioning on his commitment to the central bank's 2% inflation target, emphasizing a disciplined approach to price stability [^]. Senators also pressed Warsh on his views regarding bank supervision, particularly the potential for streamlining or tailoring post-crisis regulations, such as Dodd-Frank, especially for smaller banks [^]. His responses generally indicated a strong commitment to controlling inflation and an openness to reviewing and potentially revising existing regulatory frameworks [^].
Republican Senators like Scott and Kennedy probed Warsh's policy alignment. Republican senators, including Tim Scott and John Kennedy, used their questioning to allow Warsh to articulate views aligning with conservative policy priorities [^]. Senator Scott would have inquired about Warsh's commitment to achieving the 2% inflation target through disciplined monetary policy and the impact of regulatory burdens on community and regional banks, seeking opportunities for streamlining existing rules [^]. Similarly, Senator Kennedy would have pressed Warsh on the Federal Reserve's independence in preventing entrenched inflation and the broader impact of regulations on economic growth and lending capacity, particularly for smaller financial institutions [^].
Warsh signaled accommodation by reaffirming anti-inflation and regulatory reform. Warsh's signals of accommodation would have manifested in his reaffirmation of a strong commitment to combating inflationary pressures through decisive action and his openness to evaluating and potentially refining regulatory frameworks [^]. This approach aimed to promote economic dynamism while maintaining stability, thereby aligning with Republican calls for a less intrusive yet effective regulatory environment and a market-oriented monetary policy [^].
10. What Could Change the Odds
Key Catalysts
Catalyst analysis unavailable.
Key Dates & Catalysts
- Expiration: January 01, 2027
- Closes: January 01, 2027
11. Decision-Flipping Events
- Trigger: Catalyst analysis unavailable.
13. Historical Resolutions
No historical resolution data available for this series.
Get Real-Time Research Updates
Sign up for early access to live reports, historical data, and AI-powered market insights delivered to your inbox.
