'Most Divided' Fed In 37 Years Cuts Rates; Restarts Balance Sheet Growth

Tl;dr: The FOMC cut rates by 25bps to 3.50-3.75% as expected, with a 9-3 vote split; Miran sought a 50bps cut, while Goolsbee and Schmid preferred no change.

• It reiterated data dependence, signalling further adjustments will hinge on the evolving outlook, labor market conditions, inflation dynamics, expectations, and global and financial developments.

• Policy guidance was tweaked, changing the the phrase "in considering additional adjustments'' becomes "in considering the extent and timing of additional adjustments."

• In its updated Statement of Economic Projections (SEP), the Fed Funds projections were essentially unchanged, signalling steady expectations for a gradual return toward the longer-run rate. However, the 2025 dot plot composition shows six members' projected rates at the end of 2025 at 3.75-4.00%, indicating that four non-voters would have voted to keep rates on hold at today's meeting if they had voting rights.

• The Fed noted slower job gains and a slight rise in unemployment through September. Compared with October, the December statement updates the labor-market reference by replacing "the unemployment rate has edged up but remained low through August" with “the unemployment rate has edged up through September." Unemployment forecasts are only marginally firmer in the out-years, suggesting a more resilient labor market.

• Inflation has increased since earlier in the year and remains somewhat elevated. Core PCE expectations have eased modestly, indicating a marginally softer inflation path and slightly more confidence in disinflation over the forecast horizon.

• Economic activity is described as expanding at a moderate pace, with uncertainty around the outlook still high and downside risks to employment having risen recently. The December SEP projects a stronger increase in 2026 GDP compared to the Sept SEP.

• The Fed said reserve balances have declined to ample levels and will use shorter-term Treasury purchases when needed to maintain sufficient reserves. October's balance-sheet guidance, "the Committee decided to conclude the reduction of its aggregate securities holdings on December 1" is removed; instead, December adds new guidance: “the Committee judges that reserve balances have declined to ample levels and will initiate purchases of shorter-term Treasury securities as needed to maintain an ample supply of reserves."

* * *

Since the last FOMC meeting (on October 29th), The Fed has largely been flying blind from a macro data perspective (thanks to the government shutdown) with the sporadic 'hard' data outperforming while 'soft' data has shit the bed and alternative labor market insights remain mixed at best (and extremely lagged at worst)...

Source: Bloomberg

Interestingly, it is labor market data that has 'outperformed' since the last FOMC (so the hawks have a point) while surveys and inflation data has faded (doves can point to)...

Source: Bloomberg

Gold has been the biggest gainer since the last FOMC as bonds and crude oil plunged. Stocks and the dollar are basically unchanged...

Source: Bloomberg

Rate-cut odds have been jawboned wildly since the last FOMC, tumbling on Powell's hawkish bias (and plunging later on follow-on hawkish FedSpeak) only to surge back to a lock (100%) following Fed's Williams dovish comments right before the blackout began...

Source: Bloomberg

Today, we also get a fresh set of Dots, which many expect to shift more hawkishly. As the chart below shows, the market is already dramatically more dovish than the 'old' Dots...

Source: Bloomberg

The number of dissents will be on many people's watchlist with WSJ's Fed Whsiperer, Nick Timiraos, noting that "as many as five of the 12 voting members of the Fed’s policy committee, and 10 of all 19 members, have signaled in speeches or public interviews that they didn’t see a strong case to cut. Of those, only one formally dissented from the central bank’s decision to cut rates in October."

Hey @AskPolymarket what are the odds December FOMC meeting will have 4 dissenters or more.

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) November 21, 2025

The market is expecting 3 or more dissents...

So, we have five things to watch in today's Fed discussions: Rate-change (cut is a done deal, but then what), Dissents (record split), Dots (hawkish bias), Balance Sheet (QE begins?), Presser (hawkish?).

FOMC

As was 100% expected, The Fed cut rates...

• *FED CUTS BENCHMARK RATE TARGET RANGE TO 3.5%-3.75% IN 9-3 VOTE

But, also - as expected - there were dissents... the most since 1988

• Fed Governor Stephen Miran voted against the decision in favor of lowering rates by a half-point, while Kansas City Fed President Jeff Schmid and Chicago Fed President Austan Goolsbee dissented in favor of holding rates steady

FORWARD GUIDANCE (flying blind?):

• Fed to assess incoming data, evolving outlook and balance of risks in considering extent and timing of further adjustments

• Fed says it will monitor implications of incoming information for economic outlook

• Fed prepared to adjust policy stance if risks emerge impeding goal attainment

• Fed assessments to consider labor market conditions, inflation pressures, inflation expectations, financial and international developments

LABOR MARKET

• Fed says job gains slowed and unemployment edged up through September

INFLATION

• Fed says inflation moved up since earlier in year and remains somewhat elevated GDP GROWTH

• Fed says economic activity expanding at a moderate pace

BALANCE OF RISKS

• Fed says uncertainty about economic outlook remains elevated

• Fed judges downside risks to employment rose in recent months

But the “Dot plot” of rate projections did not signal a much more hawkish trajectory:

The median official expected to lower rates by a quarter-point in 2026 and another quarter-point in 2027, the same as they projected in September

In fact, arguably 2026 dots show a very slight dovish tilt from September (with the number of Fed voters wanting no cuts or a hike down from 8 to 7...

BALANCE SHEET (full details here)

• On December 10, 2025, the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) directed the Open Market Trading Desk (the Desk) at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York to increase System Open Market Account (SOMA) securities holdings to maintain an ample level of reserves through purchases in the secondary market of Treasury bills (or, if needed, of Treasury securities with remaining maturities of 3 years or less).

• These reserve management purchases (RMPs) will be sized to accommodate projected trend growth in the demand for Federal Reserve liabilities as well as seasonal fluctuations, such as those driven by tax payment dates.

• Monthly amounts of RMPs will be announced on or around the ninth business day of each month alongside a tentative schedule of purchase operations for the subsequent approximately thirty days.

• The Desk plans to release the first schedule on December 11, 2025, with a total amount of RMPs of approximately $40 billion in Treasury bills; purchases will start on December 12, 2025.

• The Desk anticipates that the pace of RMPs will remain elevated for a few months to offset expected large increases in non-reserve liabilities in April. [ZH: and in May Powell is out and Trump replaces him with a dovish surrogate].

• After that, the pace of total purchases will likely be significantly reduced in line with expected seasonal patterns in Federal Reserve liabilities. Purchase amounts will be adjusted as appropriate based on the outlook for reserve supply and market conditions.

• The Desk was also directed in October to reinvest all principal payments from the Federal Reserve's holdings of agency securities into Treasury bills via secondary market purchases. The monthly schedule of planned purchases will include RMPs as well as these purchases.

• The Desk plans to distribute the monthly secondary market purchases across two Treasury bill sectors. Purchase amounts in each sector will be determined by sector weights. These sector weights will be based on the 12-month average of the par amount of Treasury bills outstanding in each sector relative to the total amount outstanding across the two sectors as initially measured at the end of September 2025.

For the purists this is "Reserve Management Purchases", for the non-purists, QE is back with us.

SEP PROJECTIONS:

Fed Funds

• 2025: 3.625% (exp. 3.625%, prev. 3.625%)
• 2026: 3.375% (exp. 3.375%, prev. 3.375%)
• 2027: 3.125% (exp. 3.125%, prev. 3.125%)
• 2028: 3.125% (exp. 3.125%, prev. 3.125%)
• Longer run: 3.00% (exp. 3.125%, prev. 3.00%)

GDP Growth

• 2025:1.7% (exp. 1.8%, prev. 1.6%)
• 2026: 2.3% (exp. 1.8%, prev. 1.8%)
• 2027: 2.0% (exp. 1.9%, prev. 1.9%)
• 2028:1.9% (exp. 1.8%, prev. 1.8%)
• Longer run: 1.8% (exp. 1.8%, prev. 1.8%)

Unemployment rate

• 2025: 4.5% (exp. 4.5%, prev. 4.5%)
• 2026: 4.4% (exp. 4.5%, prev. 4.4%)
• 2027: 4.2% (exp. 4.4%, prev. 4.3%)
• 2028: 4.2% (exp. 4.2%, prev. 4.2%)
• Longer run: 4.2% (exp. 4.2%, prev. 4.2%)

PCE Inflation

• 2025: 2.9% (exp. 2.9%, prev. 3.0%)
• 2026: 2.4% (exp. 2.6%, prev. 2.6%)
• 2027: 2.1% (exp. 2.1%, prev. 2.1%)
• 2028: 2.0% (exp. 2.0%, prev. 2.0%)
• Longer run: 2.0% (exp. 2.0%, prev. 2.0%)

Core PCE Inflation

• 2025: 3.0% (exp. 3.0%, prev. 3.1%)
• 2026: 2.5% (exp. 2.6%, prev. 2.6%)
• 2027: 2.1% (exp. 2.2%, prev. 2.1%)
• 2028: 2.0% (exp. 2.1%, prev. 2.0%)

Finally, in a difference from the state of play into December 2024's hawkish cut, we note that equity positioning into the Fed looked skewed toward expectations for a benign or mildly hawkish cut that leaves the high-beta rotation intact, with the SPX still contained in a wider trading range.

Implied, realized and vol-of-vol are all back at more normal levels after November’s turbulence, while correlations and the tail-risk indexes sit in the middle or lower end of recent bands. The SPX term structure was in gentle backwardation into the FOMC, with forward implied vols pointing to only a modest post-meeting decline due to the importance of next week’s CPI and jobs report data.

SPX options are pricing a +/-0.7% move for FOMC day, largely in-line with expectations ahead of the past 8 FOMC events (+/-0.8%).

Will we get a surprise?

On average, the S&P 500 has moved +/-0.6% during the last 8 FOMC meetings with realized moves coming lower than expectations during all events except the December FOMC (hawkish cut) which saw an outsized move (-2.9%) relative to unusually low expectations (+/-0.7%).

Read the full red-line below...

Tyler Durden Wed, 12/10/2025 - 16:00

Musk Reveals Life On "Hardcore Mode" As Serious Security Concerns Linger Amid Radical Left Threat

Elon Musk said on the Katie Miller podcast that the current threat environment from radical left-wing activists remains too dangerous for him to appear in public, especially after the political assassination of Charlie Kirk.

Miller asked Musk:

"When's the last time you did something extremely ordinary like go to Target or CVS?"

Musk responded: 

"I can't go to things where there's the general public because I'm there, there's an immediate, can I have a selfie line that forms, and these days, particularly in light of Charlie Kirk's murder, there are serious security issues. It's not that I don't want to. I simply can't." 

Miller then asked:

"Has Charlie's murder changed how you do things or were you already locked down pretty well before that?"

Musk responded:

"It certainly reinforced the severity of the situation where life is on hardcore mode. You make one mistake, and you're dead, and it only takes one mistake."

Here's the clip: 

Musk is referring to what we view as a heightened threat environment stemming from Democratic-aligned NGOs and activist groups over his DOGE initiatives earlier this year. 

The pressure campaign against Musk, driven by left-wing orgs, was followed by incidents in which radical militants firebombed Tesla vehicles at showrooms. At the same time, progressive lawmakers like Tim Walz publicly highlighted Tesla's plummeting stock price.

This campaign of chaos against Musk was amplified by left-wing activist groups that assembled outside Tesla locations, who handed out signs to paid protesters that read Musk is a 'fascist' or 'Nazi'... Remember, these groups have already projected ... 

However, this entire effort to bankrupt Tesla actually failed, as we pointed out on Tuesday (read report)...

As for the Trump administration, Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy and Homeland Security Advisor Stephen Miller has declared war on radical left-wing groups after Kirk's assassination.

Even Deep State publication The Atlantic had to admit the obvious ...

The broad view here: General Flynn Calls For National Address From Trump On Color Revolution Threat ... 

Tyler Durden Wed, 12/10/2025 - 15:45

Wall Street Reacts To Powell's "More Dovish Than Expected" Rate Cut

Consensus was expecting a hawkish rate cut, and while it got the cut, the hawkish elements - more dissenters, higher dots, a pushback by Powell during the presser - did not not materalize, and instead we have a low-grade revolt by the non-voters at the Fed (6 dots for unch today, only 2 dissents, more 3 dots expecting a rate hike in 2026), yet that will be promptly snuffed by whoever Trump picks to replace Powell next May.

In fact, one can say that today's meeting was much more dovish than expected when accounting for the $40BN in T-Bill purchases coming in two days (just as we said would happen) which was a very contrarian call. And not only was this announced by a NY Fed implementation, but Powell decided to put that right in the statement, something that has not happened since the liquidity crunch after covid in early 2020.

With that in mind, let's take a look at some kneejerk reactions from Wall Street traders and strategists:

David Mericle, Head of US Econ at Goldman Sachs:

• “A lot of little hawkish elements, but largely in line. Now we need to see what Powell says for the full read”
• 25bp cut - still 1 cut in 2026 and 1 in 2027, as expected
• Statement language changed to 'in considering the extent and timing of additional adjustments' as expected.
• Schmidt and Goolsbee hawkish dissents (in line - plus Miran for a larger cut, so 3 total)
• In the dot plot, have 6 hawkish dissents for next year – more than Goldman expected
• Fed have also announced resumption of purchases to keep balance sheet steady - they put that right in the statement

Mike Cahill, Macro FX Research at Goldman:

This all looks very close to GS expectations, so will come down to Powell's presentation in the press conference. I'm most interested in how he characterizes the debate on the Committee and risks to the labor market--what would it take for them to be ready to move again. Most notably to me in that context, they've kept their forecast for the Q4 unemployment rate average at 4.5%. That implies a much slower rate of increase than we've been seeing lately. The current rate is 4.44%, so this requires a little less than 5bp a month to meet the median. 7ppl expect it too move up to 4.6-4.7, which would be in line with the recent average. The GDP forecast for this year also implies they are penciling in a pretty big hit to growth in Q4 and a decent transfer into next year so a sizeable hit from the shutdown presumably. On net, I would characterize that labor market forecast as optimistic rather than obviously hawkish, but it will depend on how much weaker it would need to be to get the Committee to reconsider that "extent and timing" of additional easing. I expect Powell will convey that the hurdle is relatively high given the 6 soft dissents already, but will see whether he brings up some of those risks more than he did in October.

Anna Wong, Bloomberg Chief Economist: 

“We assess the overall tone of the statement and updated projections as leaning dovish — though there are some hawkish undertones. On the dovish side, the committee sharply revised up the growth trajectory while lowering the inflation outlook, and kept the dot plot unchanged. The FOMC also announced the commencement of reserve-management purchases. On the other hand, there’s a signal in the policy statement that suggests the committee is inclined for an extended hold.

Even though the dot plot shows just one 25-bp cut in 2026 — markets are pricing two — our view is that the Fed will end up cutting by 100 bps next year. That’s because we anticipate weak payroll growth and currently see scant signs of an inflation resurgence in the first half of 2026.”

Ira Jersey, Bloomberg Rates Strategist

“What the Federal Reserve seems to have forgotten is that reserve balances are either ample, or not. If the Fed wants to maintain an ample supply of reserves, I’m still unsure why it isn’t considering temporary open-market operations around tax days and other periods when reserve balances tend to fall as the TGA rises. Doing permanent operations is more difficult to explain to market participants, and although we understand the need for slow increases on the asset side of the balance sheet -- similar to, but larger than, pre-2007 operations -- we think using traditional repos to calibrate reserve demand would be a good way to right-size asset purchases.”

Seema Shah, Principal Asset Management:

“With the recent scarcity of economic data and the wide dispersion in neutral rate estimates, it is hard to imagine any level of confidence in the economy that would lead to unanimous Fed voting. We expect the Fed to pause and assess the lagged effects of prior tightening. While some additional easing is likely in 2026, it will probably be marginal and contingent on greater confidence—and evidence—regarding the health of the US economy.”

Matthew Luzzetti, chief US economist at Deutsche Bank:

"I'd want to ask Chair Powell if the committee has already internalized some of the weakness expected in next week’s belated jobs data. I’d like to get confirmation from the chair today."

Raphael Thuin, Tikehau Capital: 

“With limited visibility on the data path, policymakers are forced to balance softening labor signals against the need to keep inflation moving lower. The result is greater policy uncertainty—likely a key driver of market volatility as we approach 2026.”

Jim Bianco, Bianco Research:

"A big issue is that the US will have a new Fed chair next year. And the new chair may be perceived as having a political agenda. That’s why I wanted to see more dissents to signal that they were ready, willing and able to be that political break. Maybe they will once we get that new Fed chairman but then that looks political that they didn’t take the chance to do it before the new guy came.”

Richard Flynn, Charles Schwab UK

“By acting pre-emptively, the Fed is signaling caution in the face of mounting downside risks, particularly as global growth remains sluggish and policy uncertainty persists. For investors, this is a measured adjustment rather than a dramatic pivot. While the cut could offer near-term support for risk assets, and potentially fuel a seasonal ‘Santa rally’, volatility is likely to remain elevated as markets assess the implications for future policy and the broader economic outlook.”

Source: Bloomberg

Tyler Durden Wed, 12/10/2025 - 15:30

FTA Threatens To Cut Funds To Chicago Transit Authority After Woman Set On Fire

Authored by Melanie Sun via The Epoch Times,

The Federal Transit Authority has threatened to withdraw funding for Chicago’s public transport network if the city doesn’t “measurably reduce assaults on transit workers and passengers” and address “unsafe conditions that have contributed to increased crime.”

FTA Administrator Marc Molinaro on Dec. 8 sent letters to Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson and Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker, outlining a Dec. 15 deadline for the Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) to develop a “verifiable security enhancement plan” to be implemented in full across the CTA’s bus and rail system by Dec. 19 or risk cuts to federal funding.

The special directive also ordered the CTA to update its public transportation agency safety plan by the end of December and share that plan with the FTA within seven days of approval by the CTA’s Transit Board Committee.

The CTA is an FTA-regulated transit agency and must comply with the FTA’s safety oversight through special directives by the specified deadlines. Otherwise, it could face up to 25 percent cuts in federal funding under the Urbanized Area Formula Grants program authorized by statute 49 U.S.C. § 5307.

In the letters, Molinaro cited an attack last month in which 26-year-old female commuter Bethany MaGee was set on fire while traveling on a Chicago train, leaving her with life-threatening burns. She survived but remains hospitalized, with years of surgeries ahead of her.

Police arrested 50-year-old Lawrence Reed of Chicago the next morning. He was charged with committing a terrorist attack. Molinaro said in the letter that Reed was previously arrested 72 times.

He was on pretrial release at the time of the attack. Molinaro said in the letter that Reed was released after being charged with assaulting a social worker in August. Online court records did not list an attorney for Reed.

“Illinois is notorious for being the first state in the U.S. to impose a deadly cashless bail policy that allows alleged criminals to be released from jail without paying any money while they await trial,” the FTA said in a statement.

The Cook County chief judge’s office, when asked to comment on the case, pointed to a state law that limits judges’ ability to deny the release of defendants ahead of their trials.

Molinaro said the “preventable” attack on MaGee was not an isolated incident, pointing to “high crime rates on CTA property.”

A Chicago Transit Authority train pulls into the new Damen Ave. station just two blocks from the United Center on Aug. 12, 2024. Charles Rex Arbogast/AP Photo

This included reports to the FTA of a violent crime rate four times higher than the national average, marked by four homicides in the past 18 months and a more than doubling of assaults against workers and riders in the last five years.

The attack “reflects systemic failures in both leadership and accountability on all levels that cannot be tolerated,” Molinaro wrote. “I will not accept the brutal assault of an innocent 26-year-old woman as an inevitable cost of providing public transportation.”

The FTA administrator said if the CTA does not quickly increase its law enforcement presence, the FTA will act, “including by withholding federal funds.”

“Transit leaders and elected officials who fail to enforce basic laws and permit disorder to erode the integrity of their systems are making deliberate choices that endanger riders,” he said.

Johnson told reporters Dec. 9 that his office will respond to the Federal Transit Administration letter.

“We do have to look at what the security apparatus looks like for public transportation,” the mayor said. “I don’t need a letter from the Trump administration to tell me what my priorities are.”

Pritzker also responded to the FTA letter at a press conference.

“This is the federal government threatening state and local government with taking away federal funds for a purpose that they’re not allowed to,” he ‌said. “We want the safest possible and most modern transit system in the entire country, and that’s what we’re prepared to implement.”

Illinois passed public transit reform that includes increased funding for public safety programs, including combating violent crime on public transit, his office said.

A CTA spokesperson said in a statement that the agency is reviewing the FTA request and will “respond within the requested timeline.” Its operations rely heavily on federal funding, particularly for capital improvement projects.

The Trump administration in October announced it was withholding $2.1 billion for Chicago infrastructure projects, including expansion plans for the Red Line L commuter train. The project would have established stops in some of the city’s poorest neighborhoods. White House budget officials said at the time that they wanted to ensure funding wasn’t moving through race-based contracting.

Tyler Durden Wed, 12/10/2025 - 13:45

"Bud Light" Moment Hits Cracker Barrel: Stock Crushed, Traffic Slides, Guidance Slashed

Cracker Barrel shares are lower in premarket trading after posting softer-than-expected quarterly sales and cutting full-year revenue and profit guidance. Customer traffic dropped more than anticipated, driven in part by backlash after the casual dining chain effectively "Bud Lighted" itself with a disastrous woke rebranding.

The rebranding ... 

... which was eventually reversed and the marketing 'expert' resigned, appears to have a lasting impact on sales. 

First-quarter results swung to an adjusted loss of 74 cents per share versus a profit a year ago, slightly better than the Bloomberg Consensus estimate. Revenue dipped 6% and missed forecasts, with comparable sales for both restaurants and retail declining more than expected.

Wall Street analysts were spooked by the 7.3% decline in customer traffic for the quarter. 

Snapshot: First quarter results (courtsey of Bloomberg): 

• Adjusted loss per share 74c vs. EPS 45c y/y, estimate loss/shr 79c

• Revenue $797.2 million, -5.7% y/y, estimate $801.1 million

• Restaurant comp sales -4.7% vs. +2.9% y/y, estimate -4.02%

• Retail comparable sales -8.5% vs. -1.6% y/y, estimate -6.5%

Ongoing traffic deterioration sharply reduced annual sales and profit guidance (courtsey of Bloomberg):

• Sees revenue $3.2 billion to $3.3 billion, saw $3.35 billion to $3.45 billion, estimate $3.38 billion (Bloomberg Consensus)

• Sees capital expenditure $110 million to $125 million, saw $135 million to $150 million

• Sees adjusted Ebitda $70 million to $110 million, saw $150 million to $190 million

In premarket trading, Cracker Barrel shares are down about 5.5%. As of Tuesday's close, the stock has been cut in half since the August rebranding debut. 

Here's what Wall Street analysts are saying (courtsey of Bloomberg);

Piper Sandler (neutral, PT to $27 from $49), Brian Mullan

• "Unfortunately, the struggles that kicked off in August have continued at CBRL, with traffic in the quarter down 7.3% (better in the beginning of August, and then worse after that)," Mullan writes

• Traffic for the fiscal 2Q-to-date period is running down 11%, and management "materially" reduced its annual guidance

• Cracker Barrel is sticking with many of the turn-around efforts designed to help over the long-term, but the main takeaway from the 3Q report/conference is that "things remain pretty tough at the business in the here and now"

Citi (sell PT to $20 vs. $24), Jon Tower

• "The traffic slump spurred by the ill-fated logo change resonated through F1Q results, and, along with a softer restaurant backdrop, prompted a weaker start to F2Q and a FY26 guidance cut," Tower writes

• In the near-term, the company is "mixing in tactical sales drivers," like buy-one-get-one and holiday promos, that may "prove costly" to the P&L, and weaving in longer-term initiatives to "sustainably drive the top line and preserve profits."

• Believes the stock will remain under pressure until traffic/sales show "sustained improvement, as out-year numbers remain a question mark"

Truist (buy, PT to $45 from $50), Jake Bartlett

• "Sales trends have not begun to recover from the 8/19 re- branding fiasco, or any recovery has been offset by macro pressures," Bartlett writes 

• Says Cracker Barrel is "taking the right steps" to boost traffic, with its focus on improved service and food quality

• This has been reflected in improving guest satisfaction scores and will eventually, he believes, be reflected in a traffic recovery

• Business investments, including adding value to the menu and retaining labor hours, are headwinds to FY26 margins, but should drive operating leverage in FY27

Cracker Barrel is a case study for every other casual dining chain: go woke, get crushed.

Tyler Durden Wed, 12/10/2025 - 13:25

Obamacare Was Not A Failure

Authored by Connor O'Keefe via The Mises Institute,

“You have turned, Mr. President, the right of every American to have access to decent healthcare into reality for the first time in American history.”

Those are the words then-Vice President Joe Biden said to President Obama in the East Room of the White House on March 23, 2010, as he prepared to sign the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act—or Obamacare—into law.

The signing ceremony was jubilant as party leaders celebrated their legislative victory. And across the country, their joy was shared by millions of Obama’s supporters who were convinced that the man they voted for had actually delivered the kind of meaningful reform every politician promises, but few make good on.

Americans listened to Joe Biden proclaim that every American would now have access to decent healthcare. And they listened to Obama recount stories of people he had brought to the ceremony who had gone untreated for various serious medical conditions because they could not afford it, and then suggest that, because of the bill he was about to sign, those stories would be a thing of the past.

I think it’s safe to assume that the Obama supporters who were watching that day would never have imagined that, fifteen years later, Congress would be battling over the extension of several temporary “emergency” subsidies that had had to be put in place to keep Obamacare afloat as healthcare and health insurance costs soared to heights that would have been considered unimaginable to anyone living in 2010.

But here we are.

As Congress fights over not whether but how to extend these covid-era ACA subsidies, it can be tempting to call Obamacare a failure. I mean, how else would you describe an “affordable care” act that made healthcare and health insurance less affordable while requiring a constant influx of new tax dollars to keep it from falling apart?

That’s a reasonable conclusion.

But the problem with it is that it takes the political class at its word and accepts that Obamacare was genuinely meant to make healthcare more affordable and accessible to the American people. It wasn’t.

To understand the true purpose that Obamacare served, you have to first go back and understand why government first intervened in the healthcare market a little over a century ago.

It was not, as the progressive creation myths many of us are taught in school suggest, to protect Americans from maniacal doctors or food and drug companies that were trying to kill them. Nor was it to help Americans afford healthcare—prices back then weren’t anywhere near the absurd levels we see today.

The reason government began intervening in healthcare was because some industry insiders and interest groups recognized that they could achieve and protect a level of market dominance practically unseen up to that point if they stopped merely trying to offer customers more value than their competitors and instead used government power to warp the healthcare industry to their benefit.

That began when a physicians’ interest group maneuvered its way into setting the accreditation standards for American medical schools. That position of influence allowed the group to ban programs that didn’t align with its specific medical philosophy, leading to the forced closure of nearly half the country’s medical schools.

This created an artificial shortage of doctors, which kicked off the affordability crisis that has defined American healthcare ever since.

Of course, the problem was still quite limited in the early days. But as other related industries—especially pharmaceuticals—began falling prey to the same crony dynamic at the heart of the Progressive Era, healthcare quickly began to grow more expensive.

Then, in the middle of the twentieth century, the health insurance industry followed the lead of healthcare providers and pharmaceutical companies and lobbied government officials for rules and regulations that benefited insurance companies’ bottom lines.

That effort culminated in a reworking of the tax code under President Truman. The government made employer-provided health insurance tax-deductible while it continued to tax other forms of employee compensation and other means of paying for care. In other words, the government used the tax code to change how Americans paid for healthcare. It didn’t take long for employer-provided insurance plans to become the dominant arrangement and for health insurance to morph away from actual insurance.

Shortly after that happened, the government significantly ramped up demand for the artificially-constrained supply of medical care with the passage of Medicare and Medicaid, leading to an easily-predictable explosion in the price of healthcare.

And, as fewer and fewer people could afford healthcare at these higher prices, more government assistance was required, which meant more demand, higher prices, more need for government support, and so on.

This was not good for everyday Americans, but it was excellent for healthcare providers and drug companies whose revenues were ballooning as more and more cash poured into the healthcare system.

And it was great for the health “insurance” companies. All the taxes on competing means of payment effectively acted as a subsidy, putting the industry in a strong position to benefit from the mounting crisis because, in addition to facilitating most of the country’s healthcare spending, they helped these providers grow far beyond the typical bounds of insurance.

In a free market, insurance serves as a means to trade risk. It works well for accidents and calamities that are hard to predict individually but relatively easy to predict in bulk, like car accidents, house fires, and unexpected family deaths. But with the government incentivizing people to buy healthcare through insurance plans, those plans began to grow to cover easily-predictable occurrences like annual physicals.

So, zooming out, industry leaders and interest groups joined forces with government officials to use government interventions to create a healthcare system designed to move as much money as possible to healthcare providers, pharmaceutical companies, and the insurance industry. That is, and has always been, the main motivation behind the federal government’s healthcare policy.

But, as with any scheme like this, the party cannot last forever. It only works as long as money keeps coming in. For an important service like healthcare, which most people don’t consider optional, the threshold is pretty high. But there is still a point where premiums grow too high, fewer employers or individual buyers are willing to buy insurance, and the flow of money into the healthcare system starts to falter.

According to the government’s own census data, that tipping point was reached in the early 2000s. For the first time since the scam had really kicked off, the number of people with health insurance began to fall each year. The industry—which had apparently assumed the flow of money would never stop increasing—began to panic.

Something had to be done.

And that something was Obamacare.

Despite all the talk of affordability and access used to sell the bill to the public, the Affordable Care Act is best understood as a ploy by the healthcare industry and the government to keep the party going.

Obamacare required all 50 million uninsured Americans to obtain insurance and greatly expanded what these “insurance” companies covered. Demand for healthcare shot back up, and the vicious cycle started back up again.

As any competent economist was saying before the bill was even passed, ramping demand back up would not make healthcare more “affordable,” it would only raise prices. And that’s exactly what happened.

Of course, as prices rose higher and health “insurance” moved further and further away from actual insurance, it’s made the American people even more dependent on the government for healthcare, which is how we’ve arrived at our current situation where extra, “temporary” subsidies rolled out during an official national emergency need to be made permanent to keep everything going.

So, if you want to take the political establishment at their word, the best you can say is that Obamacare kicked the can down the road and made the healthcare affordability crisis worse in exchange for a bit of temporary relief for some uninsured Americans.

But if you view the ACA within the context of the last century of American healthcare policy, it reversed the faltering demand for healthcare and health insurance, accelerated the racket moving as much money as possible into the industry, and quickly became a new political third rail that the “opposition” party refuses to even consider rolling back.

It’s hard to view that as anything other than a meaningful success.

Tyler Durden Wed, 12/10/2025 - 13:05

Trump Says National Guard Member Who Survived DC Shooting 'Stood Up Today'

Authored by Aldgra Fredly via The Epoch Times,

President Donald Trump said on Dec. 9 that West Virginia National Guard member Staff Sgt. Andrew Wolfe, who was critically injured after being shot in Washington last month, has stood up from his bed and is showing signs of recovery.

Wolfe and fellow National Guard member Army Spc. Sarah Beckstrom were shot on Nov. 26 in what U.S. authorities say was an ambush near the White House. Beckstrom died of her injuries the following day, while Wolfe was left in critical condition.

Trump gave an update on Wolfe’s condition during a speech at an event in Pennsylvania.

“Today I got a call that he got up from bed. Do you believe that? He got up, he got up,” he said.

The president added that Wolfe has not spoken yet, noting that the National Guard member had been hit in the head during the attack.

“He didn’t speak, he’s not ready for that yet. I mean, he got hit in the head, but he got up and, boy, they’re so happy. It’s amazing,” he said, while commending the hospital staff and the military for their care.

“The love and the affection and the care that they’re given, they can’t even believe what’s happened. But Andrew stood up today, and people can’t believe it.”

West Virginia Gov. Patrick Morrisey said on Dec. 5 that Wolfe’s head wound is slowly improving, and he is beginning to “look more like himself,” quoting Wolfe’s parents.

Wolfe’s family said they expect him to remain in acute care for another two to three weeks as he continues recovering, according to the governor, adding that they have been “optimistic about his progress.”

“We continue to ask all West Virginians and Americans for their prayers! They are making a difference,” Morrisey said.

The suspect, Rahmanullah Lakanwal, 29, was shot during the confrontation.

Trump said in his speech that the U.S. government will seek the death penalty for Lakanwal, calling the attack an “act of terrorism.”

A makeshift memorial for U.S. Army Spc. Sarah Beckstrom and U.S. Air Force Staff Sgt. Andrew Wolfe outside of Farragut West Station, near the site where the two National Guard members were shot, in Washington on Dec. 1, 2025. Julia Demaree Nikhinson/AP Photo

Lakanwal, an Afghan national who once worked with the CIA and entered the United States in September 2021 through a Biden-era resettlement program, has been charged with first-degree murder, two counts of assault with intent to kill while armed, and three counts of possession of a firearm during a crime of violence.

Last week, he pleaded not guilty to murder and assault charges during his first hearing before a judge, appearing remotely by video from a hospital bed.

A court-appointed defense attorney for Lakanwal entered the plea during the virtual court appearance. The attorney pushed for his release, citing his lack of criminal history.

D.C. Superior Court Judge Renee Raymond ordered Lakanwal held without bond. His case is due back in court on Jan. 14.

A picture of Rahmanullah Lakanwal, an Afghan national who is the suspect in the shooting of two National Guard members, is displayed at a press conference in Washington on Nov. 27, 2025. Nathan Howard/Reuters

Wolfe and Beckstrom were among the National Guard members assigned to Joint Task Force-D.C., activated in August to support local and federal law enforcement efforts in restoring order in the nation’s capital.

Two lawmakers, Reps. Carol Miller (R-W.Va.) and Riley Moore (R-W.Va.), introduced a resolution to honor the two National Guard members. A similar measure was also introduced in the Senate.

“This resolution sends a clear message that the American people stand with the Beckstrom family, Andrew Wolfe, and the whole West Virginia National Guard community,” Moore said in a Dec. 3 statement. “We grieve this horrific and senseless attack, and continue to pray for these Guardsmen and their families.”

Tyler Durden Wed, 12/10/2025 - 12:25

Intel Shares Fall After Lawsuits Claim US Chipmakers Aided Russian Weapons

Intel shares slipped in early trading Wednesday after the company was named in a series of lawsuits accusing major U.S. chipmakers of failing to stop their technology from ending up in Russian weapons used against civilians in Ukraine.

Intel, Advanced Micro Devices and Texas Instruments — along with Mouser Electronics, a Berkshire Hathaway–owned distributor — are alleged to have shown “willful ignorance” as restricted semiconductors were resold through third parties to Russia and Iran, according to five suits filed Wednesday in Texas state court.

The cases, brought on behalf of dozens of Ukrainian civilians, cite five attacks from 2023 to 2025 that killed and injured civilians. The filings claim the companies’ components were found in Iranian-made drones tied to Intel and AMD, as well as Russian Iskander and KH-101 missiles.

The defendants allegedly failed to prevent illegal diversions despite U.S. sanctions, amounting to “domestic corporate negligence.” Mass-tort lawyer Mikal Watts filed the suits in Dallas, arguing Texas jurisdiction because the companies operate in the state.

Mouser, acquired by Berkshire in 2007, is accused of helping route chips from Intel, TI and others to shell companies controlled by Russian proxies. The distributor’s U.S.-based logistics were a “substantial domestic component” of the harm, one suit claims.

Intel, AMD, TI, Mouser and Berkshire Hathaway didn’t immediately comment. All three chipmakers have previously said they fully comply with export rules, oppose any use of their technology in Russian weapons and ended business in Russia after the invasion.

Bloomberg reporting last year found U.S. chips continue to power Russian drones, missiles and communications systems despite sanctions, prompting repeated warnings from U.S. lawmakers that manufacturers must do more to stop the flow.

Tyler Durden Wed, 12/10/2025 - 12:05

Deep Discounts Tempt Indian Refiners To Seek Non-Sanctioned Russian Oil

Authored by Tsvetana Paraskova via OilPrice.com,

The majority of India’s biggest refiners are buying Russian oil from non-sanctioned sellers and traders as widening discounts of Russia’s crudes to benchmarks are tempting the price-sensitive Indian importers, sources involved in the purchases told Bloomberg on Wednesday. 

Before the latest sanctions on Russian oil producers Rosneft and Lukoil, India bought from Russia around one-third of all the crude it imported, as it sought cheaper oil.

Amid tense trade negotiations with the United States, India earlier this year was singled out by U.S. President Donald Trump as the main financier of the Kremlin’s oil revenues.

At the time, India remained adamant that it would buy the cheapest oil available, regardless of whether it came from Russia or elsewhere.    

However, the U.S. sanctions on Rosneft and Lukoil upended all previous plans by Indian refiners, who hastened to withdraw from the spot market for Russian crude in December.

But Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (BPCL) and Indian Oil Corporation (IndianOil) have bought Russian crude from non-sanctioned companies for January delivery, at a discount of $6-$7 to Brent crude, reports emerged last week.

Combined, IndianOil and Bharat Petroleum have purchased in recent days 10 cargoes of non-sanctioned Russian crude, including Urals, according to Bloomberg’s sources.

Another state-owned Indian refiner, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (HPCL), is seeking non-sanctioned Russian oil for January delivery, the sources said. 

Private refiner Reliance Industries, the owner of the world’s biggest integrated refining complex at Jamnagar, is a notable absence among Indian refiners in the market for non-sanctioned Russian crude, according to Bloomberg. 

Reliance, which operates the 1.4 million barrels per day (bpd) Jamnagar complex, has a long-term deal with Rosneft to buy almost 500,000 bpd.

Reliance was India’s single biggest buyer of Russian crude, until now, but it halted all purchases of oil from Russia last month, after the sanctions on Rosneft and Lukoil. 

Tyler Durden Wed, 12/10/2025 - 11:40