Inflation Is Cooling: January Increase Below Seasonal Norms

By Bryan Cutsinger
Bryan Cutsinger
Bryan Cutsinger
Bryan Cutsinger is an assistant professor of economics at the Norris-Vincent College of Business at Angelo State University, where he also serves as the assistant director of the Free Market Institute, and a research assistant professor at the Free Market Institute at Texas Tech University. Dr. Cutsinger’s research focuses on monetary history and political economy. His scholarly work has been published in leading economic journals, including Economics Letters, the European Review of Economic History, Explorations in Economic History, Public Choice, and the Southern Economic Journal. His popular writing has appeared in the National Review, the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Examiner. Dr. Cutsinger received his B.A. in economics from the University of Colorado at Boulder, and his M.A. and Ph.D. in economics from George Mason University, where he was awarded the William P. Snavely Award for Outstanding Achievement in Graduate Studies in Economics.
February 16, 2026Updated: February 19, 2026

Commentary

Inflation cooled more than expected in January, the Bureau of Labor Statistics said in a report on Feb. 13. The consumer price index (CPI) rose by 0.2 percent last month, down from 0.3 percent in December 2025. On a year-over-year basis, headline inflation fell to 2.4 percent in January 2026 from 2.7 percent in December 2025—the lowest reading since May 2025.

Core inflation, which excludes volatile food and energy prices, rose by 0.3 percent in January, up from 0.2 percent in December 2025. It eased to 2.5 percent on a year-over-year basis, down from 2.6 percent in the previous month. The January reading marks the slowest annual pace for core CPI since March 2021.

The latest inflation data are especially encouraging when viewed against historical patterns. Research from the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston shows that inflation has consistently run higher in January than in other months over the past quarter-century because of residual seasonality, the tendency for firms to change prices at the start of the year, and compositional effects in sectors that typically adjust prices in January. The fact that January 2026 came in at just 0.2 percent (below the historical January average) suggests that underlying inflation pressures are genuinely moderating.

The moderation in headline inflation was driven primarily by energy prices, which fell by 1.5 percent in January. Gasoline prices declined and utility costs moderated. Food prices rose by a modest 0.2 percent, with food at home and food away from home both posting smaller increases than in recent months.

Shelter costs, which account for roughly one-third of the index, rose by 0.2 percent—a notable deceleration from the 0.4 percent increase in December. The slower pace of shelter inflation is welcome news, as this category has been one of the most persistent sources of upward pressure on prices over the past several years.

Other components of the index showed mixed results. Airline fares surged by 6.5 percent in January, continuing their volatile pattern. Appliance prices also surged in January, rising by 4.4 percent. Apparel prices rose, while used vehicle prices fell by 1.8 percent. Medical care services increased by 0.4 percent.

Although the year-over-year figures show continued disinflation, the recent three-month trend tells a more nuanced story. Inflation averaged 0.2 percent per month in November 2025 (0.2 percent, estimated), December 2025 (0.3 percent), and January 2026 (0.2 percent)—equivalent to a roughly 2.9 percent annual rate. Core prices averaged 0.2 percent monthly over the same period, also equivalent to a 2.9 percent annual rate. Both measures suggest that inflation continues to exceed the Federal Reserve’s 2 percent target.

Although the Federal Reserve officially targets the personal consumption expenditures (PCE) price index, CPI data remain a timely and relevant gauge for policymakers. The two measures generally track one another closely, although CPI tends to run somewhat higher than PCE inflation. Historically, the gap between year-over-year core CPI and core PCE has averaged about 0.3 to 0.4 percentage points, meaning that January’s 2.5 percent core CPI reading likely translates to core PCE inflation in the range of 2.1 percent to 2.2 percent—very close to the Fed’s 2 percent target.

That makes the latest CPI readings particularly encouraging for policymakers as they assess the stance of policy. That said, current expectations of PCE inflation are higher than those for CPI inflation, potentially because measurement disruptions related to this past fall’s government shutdown may have temporarily biased CPI readings downward.

Financial markets seem to have interpreted the latest inflation data as a sign that the Federal Open Market Committee will continue cutting its federal funds rate target later this year. According to the CME Group’s FedWatch tool, markets continue to expect the Fed to hold rates steady at its March meeting. However, the probability of a rate cut by June rose sharply to approximately 83 percent following the report’s release—a dramatic reversal from earlier in the week, when a strong jobs report had pushed odds of a June cut below 50 percent. The shift reflects renewed confidence that inflation is moving closer to target even as the labor market remains resilient.

The January CPI report offers encouraging signs that inflation is approaching the Fed’s 2 percent target. The sharp decline in energy prices and the deceleration in shelter costs are particularly welcome developments. Although some uncertainty remains—particularly given methodological adjustments made to account for missing October 2025 data—the trend is moving in the right direction. Whether policymakers view current rates as neutral or mildly restrictive, the improving inflation picture provides room for the Fed to continue its gradual normalization process later this year without risking a resurgence in price pressures.

From the American Institute for Economic Research 

Views expressed in this article are the opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.