JPMorgan Discloses Government Probe Into Debanking Practices
US regulators are examining whether JPMorgan Chase has denied customers fair access to banking, as pressure grows over debanking decisions that were made against conservative figures, according to reporting from Financial Times and the company’s 10-Q filing.
In its quarterly filing, the bank noted it was “responding to requests from government authorities and other external parties regarding, among other things, the firm’s policies and processes and the provision of services to customers and potential customers”.
JPMorgan linked the scrutiny to an August executive order from Donald Trump directing regulators to review possible “politicised or unlawful debanking”. The bank said related inquiries include “reviews, investigations and legal proceedings,” without identifying the agencies involved.
Bank of America has similarly reported responding to government demands about “fair access to banking.” Industry lobbyists argue that regulatory rules around politically exposed persons and “reputation risk” have pushed banks to deny certain customers.
Recall, just yesterday, we noted that a top bank watchdog was making sure big banks have finally ditched debanking policies. You remember those, right? We sure do. It happened around the same time Google, Paypal and Amazon all banned us due to our (correct) take on the origins of Covid-19 and because they didn’t like our (correct) take on the BLM movement.
For those that missed it, a slew of banks under the Biden administration outright cancelled people’s accounts and didn’t allow them access to a bank account based on the industry they worked in, or many times their political views (surprise, none of them were Democrats).
Jonathan Gould, head of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, or OCC, told a conference that supervisors are double-checking banks really did stop blacklisting sectors like firearms from banks, according to Reuters.
This oversight follows a June executive order from President Donald Trump directing banks to avoid denying services based on industry type or political considerations.
Reuters writes that supervisors are now ensuring that the largest banks are in compliance with the updated approach.
The United States has put forth a draft resolution within the U.N. Security Council meant to end sanctions on Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa, leader of the Islamist militant and political group Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS).
The proposal comes ahead of al-Sharaa’s anticipated meeting with President Donald Trump at the White House, set for next Monday.
The Security Council has regularly approved travel exemptions for al-Sharaa this year, meaning the White House meeting does not hinge on the outcome of the U.S. proposal.
The draft resolution, seen by Reuters on Tuesday, also advocates for the repeal of sanctions against Syria’s Interior Minister Anas Khattab.
The U.N. sanctions include a travel ban, asset freeze, and arms embargo.
It is unclear when a vote on the draft could be held. At least nine of the 15 council constituents need to vote in favor of the proposal for it to be enacted. However, Russia, China, the United States, France, and the UK each hold a veto.
Washington has for many months urged the Security Council to cease the sanctions on the regime in Syria.
President Bashar al-Assad was deposed in December 2024 after HTS-led militants effectively won a 13-year civil war in the country.
The country has languished since May 2014 on the U.N. Security Council’s sanctions list aimed at al-Qaeda and ISIS affiliates.
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt announced al-Sharaa’s visit to the White House at a press briefing on Tuesday.
“When the president was in the Middle East, he made the historic decision to lift sanctions on Syria to give them a real chance at peace, and I think the administration, we’ve seen good progress on that front under their new leadership,” Leavitt said.
In July this year, Trump rescinded unilateral U.S. sanctions on Syria via executive order, saying it was “a chance at greatness” for the Syrian people, but he kept sanctions on Assad and other leaders.
The Trump administration also revoked the foreign terrorist organization designation for HTS.
U.N. monitors said there are no active al-Qaeda-HTS ties in a July report.
Trump last met with al-Sharaa in mid-May in Saudi Arabia’s capital, Riyadh, where the U.S. president urged the Syrian leader to join the Abraham Accords. According to the White House, Trump also asked al-Sharaa to “tell all foreign terrorists to leave Syria, deport Palestinian terrorists, help the U.S. prevent the resurgence of ISIS, and assume responsibility for ISIS detention centers in Northeast Syria.”
On Sept. 22, al-Sharaa addressed the U.N. General Assembly—the first time a Syrian president had done so since 1967—where he called for full sanctions relief and highlighted his country’s reconstruction needs.
“Contrary To Human Nature”: VDH Reminds Us That Mamdani-Style Socialism Always Ends In Disaster
Victor Davis Hanson is warning that Democrats’ move towards socialism and their embrace of figures such as Zohran Mamdani is not going to end well.
Mamdani, a socialist who’s promised to redistribute wealth, and insists that “taxation isn’t theft, capitalism is” – is pushing politics that VDH says are ‘contrary to human nature.’
“Historically, socialists always come in after capitalists have made prosperity, and then they offer and improve prosperity,” he told Fox News’ Laura Ingraham. “And it’s contrary to human nature. People like initiative. They like pride in their property. Some people like to work a lot and get compensated.”
According to Hanson, when the state is in control of human innovation and productivity, it it ‘has to be repressive.’
“It gives you that freedom of opportunity. And then the society at large benefits, Laura, from all these millions of agendas and ideas that improve, that people are free to innovate and to take experiments and risk. But when the state monopolizes all of that, it’s contrary to human nature, and then it has to be repressive,” Hanson said. “So all of these social experiments, even if they’re democratic, they end up repressive. At the worst form, it’s no accident that the greatest mass murderers in history were Mao [Zedong] and [Joseph] Stalin, 30 million, 60 million, and they were radical communists, and even people like Hitler, National Socialist Party.”
And of course, whoever is running a communist regime is living a life of privilege.
“Talented people who can help the economy, who are successful or demonized, they flee. People who want things for nothing come in. There’s open borders,” Hanson continued. “They destroy personal liberty, and they stamp out any dissent or criticism. And there’s always an elite, the billionaire Castro brothers, Chavez and Maduro. They always are never subject to their consequences, their ideology. Here in California, we are becoming socialist.”
By Elwin de Groot, Head of Macro Strategy at Rabobank
Markets were in a risk-off mood yesterday, led by a sell-off in tech shares and growing investor concerns about valuations and policy risks. The US made the books with the longest government shutdown in its history. The S&P lost 1.2%, the Eurostoxx 50 index fell 0.4%. The risk-off tone resulted in lower yields across the board, albeit modestly (1-3 bp in US/Europe). Remarkably, Bitcoin plunged and gold prices dipped as well, an unusual move suggesting broader repositioning rather than just a classic safe-haven bid.
Talks between EU environment ministers yesterday confirmed that the bloc remains committed to its headline goal of cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 90% by the 2040, but with greater flexibility built in. This flexibility introduces a higher risk that targets may not be fully met, or not within the set timeframe. Ministers agreed to include so-called brake clauses, which would allow targets to be adjusted if natural carbon sinks underperform, and to permit offsetting, meaning that part of the reductions could come from foreign carbon credits. They also discussed enabling emissions to be traded between domestic sectors such as industry and agriculture.
This shift in tone is not surprising and reflects the recalibration of priorities between economic and environmental goals advocated in the 2024 Draghi report on competitiveness. That report did not call for abandoning climate objectives, but it urged integrating decarbonization with competitiveness through a “Clean Industrial Deal” and a major investment push. The EU intends to present a unified view next week at the COP30, but many details remain unresolved and attention may already be shifting toward another critical issue: raw material supply security.
On that front, tensions between China and the Netherlands –and by extension the EU– remain unresolved. The US announced on Saturday that China would allow Dutch chipmaker Nexperia BV to resume shipments from its Chinese facilities, easing fears of disruptions to auto production. However, China escalated pressure yesterday. Beijing criticized the Dutch government’s “unilateral” actions and urged it to stop interfering in Nexperia’s internal affairs and find a constructive solution.
The broader economic impact on European or even global industry is still hard to gauge at this stage. Nexperia chips are widely used, especially in automotive applications. Since Nexperia halted wafer exports to China, supply disruptions could also affect production of consumer goods there. Automotive experts note that substitutes exist, but switching would take weeks at minimum – raising the risk of temporary production halts given low inventories in Europe. Some companies, such as Robert Bosch GmbH in Germany and Honda in the US, have already announced production reductions, while others, including Volkswagen AG, have warned they may have to follow suit.
There is little precedent for assessing the impact. The post-COVID chip shortage, which partly caused a 40% decline in motor vehicle production between November 2020 and August 2021, offers some perspective. That shortage stemmed from a perfect storm of factors: surging demand for consumer electronics during lockdowns, automakers cancelling chip orders early and then scrambling as demand rebounded, factory shutdowns, and staffing shortages at semiconductor fabs, natural disasters such as droughts in Taiwan and fires in Japan, and later raw material shortages linked to the Russia–Ukraine war.
If so, it probably requires more financial resources from governments as well, which are in short supply, as the IMF warned yesterday. The institution argues for “a rethink of the role of government […] in some countries” and notes that “if reforms and medium-term consolidation are insufficient, then more radical fiscal measures could include reassessing the scope of public services and other government functions, potentially affecting the social contract.”
Things Aren’t Looking Great For Trump In Supreme Court Tariff Arguments
Odds of the Supreme Court siding with Trump over tariffs tumbled on Wednesday, after conservative justices Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, and Coney Barrett asked tough questions during oral arguments in two cases.
After the first hour of argument, the Trump administration’s case justifying tariffs looked to be in serious trouble – specifically his claim that a 1977 economic emergency law grants the president unilateral power to impose tariffs at will.
Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Neil Gorsuch and other conservatives raised against Solicitor General John Sauer one of the legal principles they used to strike down big priorities for the Biden administration: the Major Questions Doctrine, which holds that the executive can’t find extraordinary powers in statutes that don’t contemplate major policy changes. –WSJ
More:
Gorsuch hammered Solicitor General John Sauer over separation of powers – suggesting that if the court were to accept Sauer’s argument that Congress can delegate sweeping power to the president, there might be no limit to what other powers they could “hand off.”
The Justice then launched into a “series of skeptical – and at times openly hostile – questions at the solicitor general.” (WSJ)
Justice Brett Kavanaugh also focused on Trump’s assertion of power – noting that he’s the first president in US history to invoke wartime law to impose sweeping global tariffs.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked Sauer to explain how the global tariffs were necessary to respond to an “unusual and extraordinary threat.”
That said, the Trump admin has a plan if things don’t go their way with the Supremes.
As the WSJ notes;
Trump’s team for months has weighed using other laws as contingency plans to replace the Ieepa tariffs if they lose in court. That includes potentially deploying a never-before used provision in the Trade Act of 1974-Section 122– which allows for tariffs of up to 15% for 150 days to address trade imbalances with other countries. That would buy time for Trump to devise individualized tariffs for each major trading partner under a different provision of the same law, Section 301, which is used to counter unfair foreign trade practices.
That plan could be more legally defensible. The U.S. Court of International Trade, which ruled against Trump’s tariffs, pointed to Section 122 as a more reasonable legal defense for global tariffs. Section 301, meanwhile, has long been used to address unfair foreign trade practices, and was deployed to underpin Trump’s first-term tariffs on China. Additionally, the administration could also seek to use Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930, which allows the president to impose tariffs up to 50% on nations that discriminate against U.S. commerce.
More specifically, the justices are expected to hear two cases—Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, and Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, Inc.—for at least 80 minutes with input from various parties. According to the court, oral arguments will include 40 minutes from the Trump administration and 20 minutes each for both the private businesses and states challenging Trump’s policy.
Whatever the ruling, the case could have major implications for the nation’s economy and determine how much future presidents can alter trade. Here’s what you need to know heading into oral arguments.
1. What Are the Cases About?
The cases center on two groups of tariffs that the Trump administration imposed earlier this year. One group targeted Mexico, Canada, and China over their alleged failure to address fentanyl trafficking, and the other set included a lengthy list of reciprocal tariffs on countries worldwide.
The tariffs were imposed under a 1977 emergency powers law—the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Trump is the first president to impose tariffs under this law, although President Richard Nixon used an identical provision in a predecessor law in 1971—the Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917—to declare a trade emergency and issue 10 percent tariffs on all imports.
Trump established the fentanyl tariffs in February in response to the three countries’ failure to stem the flow of illegal opioids into the United States, which created a national emergency, including a public health crisis, according to his executive orders.
The president cited the hundreds of thousands of overdose deaths of Americans and the drug crisis’s impact on the health care system, communities, and families. Mexico and Canada were also penalized for failing to stem illegal immigration.
In enacting the reciprocal tariffs in April, Trump declared an emergency over large and persistent U.S. trade deficits caused by decades of unfair trade practices by other countries in the form of tariffs and nontariff barriers.
The persistent trade imbalance has threatened national and economic security, Trump’s executive order states, by hollowing out the country’s manufacturing capacity, undermining critical supply chains, and causing the defense industry to be dependent on foreign adversaries.
Trump has said that winning the case will be “vital to the interests” of the United States. Tariffs have been used against the country for years, causing the United States to lose its domestic industries, he said in an October interview with Fox Business.
The president noted that he was able to stop several wars by using the threat of tariffs as leverage, including one earlier this year between Pakistan and India.
As of Sept. 23, revenue from tariffs imposed under the emergency law hit nearly $90 billion in fiscal year 2025, according to data by U.S. Customs and Border Protection. That’s nearly half the total tariff revenue collected in the fiscal year.
The United States faces a trade deficit of more than $1 trillion, and the Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the tariffs will reduce federal deficits by $4 trillion, according to a Justice Department (DOJ) filing.
So far, the Trump administration has reached trade deals with several countries, including the U.K., the European Union, Japan, and South Korea. These deals have led to more than $2 trillion in purchases and investment commitments in the United States.
Should the administration lose the case, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has said that the government could invoke other authorities to implement tariffs, although they are “not as efficient, not as powerful.”
Private companies have urged the Supreme Court to rule against the Trump administration, arguing that the tariffs represent hundreds of billions of dollars in new taxes. Some outside estimates have also been critical of the tariffs.
For example, the Peterson Institute for International Economics stated in September that U.S. businesses had absorbed much of the tariff costs through July, and consumers could see higher prices.
The Supreme Court is set to review whether the tariffs are authorized by the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The law authorizes the president to take a range of actions in response to emergencies.
It allows the president to declare a national emergency to deal with any “unusual and extraordinary threat” to the country’s national security, foreign policy, or economy.
In court, the DOJ has defended the Trump administration’s invocation of the law to impose tariffs by pointing to a section that allows presidents to regulate imports.
That provision allows the president to “investigate, block during the pendency of an investigation, regulate, direct and compel, nullify, void, prevent or prohibit, any acquisition, holding, withholding, use, transfer, withdrawal, transportation, importation or exportation of, or dealing in, or exercising any right, power, or privilege with respect to, or transactions involving, any property in which any foreign country or a national thereof has any interest.”
In arguing that the levies were not authorized by the law, challengers have highlighted that the provision doesn’t include the word tariffs.
The justices are expected to consider not only whether the law allows the tariffs but also whether the law was constitutional.
Because the Constitution grants tariff power to Congress, there is a question over whether the emergency law violated the nation’s separation of powers by unconstitutionally delegating expansive tariff authority to the president.
So far, multiple federal courts—including the U.S. Court of International Trade and the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia—have stated that Trump’s tariffs are unlawful, but delayed the effects of their orders blocking the tariffs.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit halted oral arguments for one of the cases after the Supreme Court granted certiorari, or took it up for further consideration. The Supreme Court is expected to review that case, as well as one that the U.S. Court of International Trade ruled on in May. That ruling against Trump’s tariffs was affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in August.
Both the district court in Washington and the Federal Circuit have noted that the law does not use the term tariffs. According to the court in Washington, regulating imports entails controlling them through rules, whereas tariffs are taxes on imports or exports.
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said an executive order is being drafted to strengthen U.S. elections and curb mail-in ballot fraud, after President Donald Trump alleged that California’s mail voting system “is rigged” and parts of it are under “legal and criminal review.”
“The White House is working on an executive order to strengthen our elections in this country and to ensure that there cannot be blatant fraud, as we’ve seen in California with their universal mail-in voting system,” Leavitt told reporters during a Nov. 4 briefing. “It’s absolutely true that … there is fraud in California’s elections. It’s just a fact.”
Leavitt’s comments followed a Truth Social post by Trump earlier in the day, in which he renewed his criticism of mail-in voting and suggested criminal investigations were underway.
“The Unconstitutional Redistricting Vote in California is a GIANT SCAM in that the entire process, in particular the Voting itself, is RIGGED,” Trump wrote.
“All ‘Mail-In’ Ballots, where the Republicans in that State are ‘Shut Out,’ is under very serious legal and criminal review.”
When asked what evidence the White House had to support those claims and which authorities were conducting the purported reviews, Leavitt said she would provide evidence of fraud to reporters after the briefing, alleging that “fraudulent ballots are being mailed in the names of other people, in the names of illegal aliens who shouldn’t be voting in American elections.”
The White House has not disclosed details of the upcoming executive order. The president has repeatedly promised sweeping changes to election procedures, including a nationwide ban on universal mail-in voting and electronic voting machines.
Redistricting Vote Sparks Clash
On Nov. 4, California voters approved Proposition 50, a ballot measure championed by California Gov. Gavin Newsom and state Democrats that allows lawmakers to temporarily bypass the state’s nonpartisan redistricting commission to redraw congressional maps.
Supporters said the measure was a needed counterweight to Republican-led redistricting in states such as Texas, while critics—including Trump—characterized it as an unconstitutional power grab.
Newsom described the referendum as “California’s chance to save democracy,” saying it would help Democrats regain momentum ahead of next year’s elections.
“At the end of the day, it’s about the future of our country,” he told supporters at a Los Angeles rally on Nov. 1.
Republican state Sen. Tony Strickland told The Epoch Times that the measure could ultimately backfire on Democrats.
“If Prop 50 passes, it becomes a rally cry nationally,” he said. “The biggest winner tonight will be [President] Donald Trump.”
California Gov. Gavin Newsom speaks at a “Yes on Prop 50” volunteer event at the LA Convention Center in Los Angeles on Nov. 1, 2025. Jill Connelly/Getty Images
After Trump posted on Truth Social that the redistricting vote was unconstitutional and that some of California’s mail-in ballots are under criminal review, Newsom responded by dismissing the comments as the “ramblings” of someone who “knows he’s about to LOSE.”
Trump has long criticized mail-in voting, calling it a source of widespread fraud. In August, he told reporters that his legal team was drafting an executive order to ban mail-in voting nationwide and to phase out electronic voting machines in favor of paper ballots.
Constitutional experts have said that any such move would face immediate legal challenges. Under the U.S. Constitution, states control the “times, places, and manner” of elections, though Congress retains the power to alter those regulations.
“The president has no power to dictate to states how they conduct national elections,” Rick Pildes, a political science professor at New York University, told The Epoch Times in an earlier interview. He said such changes would likely require congressional approval.
Trump’s forthcoming order would mark the latest in a series of White House efforts to tighten federal election rules.
In March, the president signed an executive order directing agencies to update election security protocols, voter registration processes, and mail-ballot deadlines.
While portions of that order were blocked by a federal judge who found the action exceeded presidential authority, a directive tightening mail-in ballot deadlines was allowed to stand.
The UK is doomed under Labour, the boss of Ryanair has warned as he claimed wealthy people were scrambling to ‘get the hell out of London’ before being hit by a Budget tax raid.
Michael O’Leary said he had no faith in the Chancellor’s ability to restore growth and branded her tax policies ‘dumb’.
The comments came amid reports that Rachel Reeves is planning to target the wealthy with a mansion tax in the Budget later this month.
He told the Guardian: ‘The UK economy under the current leadership is doomed.’
‘The UK badly needs growth, but the way to deliver growth is through selective tax cuts… you are not going to grow the UK economy by taxing wealth or taxing air travel.’
Mr O’Leary’s comments add to a chorus of criticism of Labour from UK business leaders – following warnings about tax from the likes of Marks & Spencer boss Stuart Machin and Asda’s Allan Leighton.
Michael O’Leary branded Labour’s policies ‘dumb’
The Ryanair boss said: ‘I hold very little faith in Rachel Reeves or the current economic strategy of the Labour government.’
‘Rich people are fleeing… as they are trying to find low-fare flights to get the hell out of London before Rachel Reeves taxes their mansions, their income and inheritance.’
Mr O’Leary has also taken umbrage at Labour’s decision to hike air passenger duty – a tax on flights – and said further increases in the Budget would prompt the carrier to shift capacity to other countries with lower tax burdens such as Sweden or Italy.
He told Bloomberg: ‘She hasn’t a rashers how to deliver growth. She puts up employment taxes, puts up APD.’
Mr O’Leary said Ryanair had written to the Treasury describing the increase in the air tax as ‘the dumbest idea even you lot have come up with’.
He said that a further increase at the Budget would mean 10 per cent of Ryanair’s capacity, or about five million seats, is moved to lower tax countries.
‘Eventually even a dumb Labour government will work out that for an island on the periphery of Europe, the way to grow – and the way to increase tax revenue – is to get tourists onto the island first and then tax them,’ he added.
‘The way to grow is not by increasing entry taxes, which is what APD is.’
Mr O’Leary made the comments as the airline revealed a surge in half-year profit amid a hike in fares. It was also helped by aircraft deliveries helping it fly more passengers.
The low-cost airline reported a pre-tax profit of £2.6 billion for the six months to the end of September, 40 per cent higher than the same period last year.
It flew 119 million passengers, 3 per cent more than last year
Average airfares rose by 13 per cent year on year to 58 euros (£50.90), Ryanair revealed, having spiked during the Easter period.
CNN’s “expert” political panel gloated in victory as conservative commentator Scott Jennings issued a blunt warning to the Democratic Party on Tuesday night.
The results are in, and it’s official. New Jersey and Virginia elected Democratic governors. Zohran Mamdani will be the next mayor of New York City, and arguably worst of all, Jay Jones — the Democrat wishing for death on his political opponents and his children — won Virginia’s attorney general race.
The wins of Mamdani and Jones, in particular, Jennings called a “terrible” image for the Democratic Party — one he warned would come back to haunt them. “You own this now,” he said bluntly.
Jennings’ warning began with Mamdani’s win, when he issued this message to Chuck Schumer: “AOC is going to be the next senator from New York.”
But the real warning came when he shifted his focus to Jay Jones.
CNN panel gloats in laughter as Scott Jennings delivers a blunt warning to the Democratic Party.
It began with Mamdani’s win, when Jennings issued this message for Chuck Schumer: “AOC is going to be the next senator from New York.”
“I see the energy in Virginia Democrats looking the other way on a violent candidate for attorney general who says he wants to murder Republicans and their children. If you think you’re getting rid of Graham Platner in Maine now, think again. This is a terrible night for the national Democratic image given what is happening inside their party.”
Jennings continued: “Mamdani is an avowed socialist. It’s not what people say that he is. It’s what he says that he is. He’s now the leader of their party. That’s their energy and Chuck Schumer’s —”
Anderson Cooper cut in, mocking the idea: “[Mamdani’s] the leader of the Democratic Party?”
“Who is the leader? Can someone tell me?” Jennings shot back.
“He’s a life raft for Republicans who have to go on TV and get their asses kicked,” David Axelrod responded with a big smile.
Even as the panel laughed him off, Jennings doubled down on his warning about Mamdani and Jones: “You own this now. You all own this now.”
The US Treasury announced it expects to borrow $569BN in privately-held net marketable debt in the Oct-Dec quarter down from the $590BN it projected for Q4 in July. The lower estimate is due to higher start of quarter cash balance, partially offset by lower projected net cash flows. The projection still assumes an end-Dec cash balance of $850BN, albeit some had been looking for this to increase to $900BN. Looking ahead to Q1 ’26 (Jan-Mar), the Treasury expects to borrow $578BN, assuming an end-March cash balance of $850BN.
During the July-September 2025 quarter, the Treasury borrowed $1.058TN in privately-held net marketable debt and ended the quarter with a cash balance of $891BN. In July 2025, Treasury estimated borrowing of $1.007TN and assumed an end-of-September cash balance of $850BN. The $50BN difference in privately-held net marketable borrowing resulted primarily from the higher end-of- quarter cash balance and lower net cash flows. Excluding the higher-than-assumed end-of-quarter cash balance, actual borrowing was $10BN higher than announced in July.
Turning to the Quarterly Refunding Announcement, Newsquawk notes that for the refunding, the Treasury maintained guidance that it expects to maintain nominal coupon and FRN auction sizes for at least the next several quarters; any change to this would be of note. However, Morgan Stanley expects current coupon sizes to remain steady until February 2027, with guidance expected to be maintained. Regarding TIPS, Morgan Stanley expects the Treasury will continue with incremental increases to the TIPS auction sizes, expecting the $19BN of 10yr TIPS re-opening auction to be maintained, with a $1BN increase to both the 5yr TIPS re-opening and the 10yr TIPS new issue.
We will have a look at the upcoming buyback operations too for any changes. The prior refunding saw the Treasury state in H1 2026, it plans to offer direct buyback access to a limited number of additional counterparties, based on their participation in Treasury auctions. Morgan Stanley “interpret this statement to mean that the additional eligible participants for buyback operations will be the largest participants in auctions by risk taken down”.
One thing to bear in mind is the Fed’s end of QT. From December 1st, the Fed will start to reinvest all maturing Treasury security holdings on its balance sheet, while it will continue to let mortgage-backed securities roll off the balance sheet; however, the payments will be reinvested into Treasury bills instead of MBS. Morgan Stanley writes that after QT ends, the Fed will deem an across-the-curve reinvestment strategy as most optimal, meaning more front-end UST demand relative to the status quo.
Providing the nominal coupon auction sizes are left unchanged as per guidance, this is what the auction sizes would look like.
Democrats Conveniently Weigh Ending Record Shutdown After Socialist Wins NYC Mayoral Race
A report overnight suggests that several moderate Senate Democrats are prepared to break ranks and vote to end what has become the longest U.S. government shutdown in history. The push to reopen the government comes conveniently after major victories for Democrats in Tuesday’s elections, including socialist Zohran Mamdani becoming New York City’s next mayor, and Abigail Spanberger and Mikie Sherrill winning their respective gubernatorial races in Virginia and New Jersey.
The Soros family is very happy.
So proud to be a New Yorker! The American dream continues!
Washington Post reporters Riley Beggin and Theodoric Meyer cite multiple people familiar with the talks who say “a handful” of moderate Senate Democrats are ready to end the government shutdown.
Here’s more color on those conversations:
A bipartisan group of senators is working to craft a deal in which Congress would pass three full-year appropriations bills to fund some agencies, along with a short-term bill that would reopen the rest of the government, according to four people familiar with the talks, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe private discussions. In exchange, Senate Republicans would agree to hold a vote at a set date on extending Affordable Care Act subsidies that are otherwise slated to expire. Democrats have insisted throughout the shutdown that the subsidies be extended.
About a dozen Senate Democrats are open to backing the proposal, three of the people estimated, which is still being hammered out — more than enough to break the impasse and reopen the government.
Democrats have used the government shutdown to push for the restoration of taxpayer-funded health insurance subsidies for illegal aliens. That funding stream was terminated when Republicans delivered working families tax cuts that include no tax on tips, overtime, and Social Security as well as major health care reforms earlier this year.
The report continued:
Sen. Gary Peters (D-Michigan), who has been a part of the negotiations, said Tuesday that “everything’s on the table,” adding that “the pace of talks have increased.” Senate Democrats met for lunch Tuesday for nearly three hours to discuss the path forward. Those involved in the talks updated their colleagues on where they stand. Afterward, Peters said it was a “thoughtful” discussion: “It was one of the better caucus meetings I’ve been in in a while.”
Republicans hold a 53-47 majority in the Senate. They need at least eight Democratic votes to overcome a filibuster and reopen the government. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) remains opposed to the measure. A couple of lawmakers have already crossed the center aisle, including Sen. Angus King (I-Maine), Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nevada), and Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pennsylvania, who support the GOP’s clean continuing resolution.
Last week, a Washington Post-ABC News-Ipsos poll found that most respondents blamed President Donald Trump and Republicans more than Democrats for the shutdown than blame Democrats. The informational war to pin the blame on Trump by Democrats, their billionaire funders, their corporate media allies, and their protest industrial complex comes as no surprise, given that this shutdown likely gave Dems a boost during last night’s election.
This is a firm warning to Republicans, serving as an early indicator of which national strategies will work in the 2026 midterms.
🚨 BREAKING: President Trump on Democrats’ election wins last night
“It was not expected to be a victory. Very Democrat areas. But I don’t think it was good for Republicans, or good for anybody.”
