Kevin Warsh out as Fed chair?

The available evidence points strongly toward continuity rather than an imminent departure. Warsh is described as actively serving, still shaping rates, balance-sheet policy, and communications, and the Fed’s own listing reportedly still identifies him as chair. Recent reporting about policy disagreements and White House tension is meaningful for the medium term, but it is not the same thing as a concrete removal process, a resignation signal, or a replacement being selected. In practical terms, chairs usually leave because of a clear political transition, a resignation, health issues, or a major institutional break, and none of those are evident here.

The main argument for a Yes outcome is that Fed chairs can become politically vulnerable when their policy stance conflicts with the administration, especially if the White House openly prefers a different interest-rate path. If tensions escalated sharply, or if a future administration tried to pressure a leadership change, the probability of an early exit would rise. Still, with only a few months elapsed since taking office and with coverage framing him as operationally in command, the base rate for a chair being out within such a short window remains low.

The market price of 2% for Yes is even more conservative than my own estimate, but not by a wide margin. Given the explicit reports that he is still serving and the absence of any concrete replacement or resignation news, the No side deserves to be heavily favored. If the market is mispricing anything, it is probably underweighting tail risks like sudden resignation, scandal, or an abrupt political intervention; even so, those risks are small enough that a low-single-digit Yes probability still seems appropriate.