The Haizum Washington Dispatch is a monthly intelligence briefing that monitors the most relevant political, economic, regulatory, and strategic developments in the United States. This document focuses on federal policymaking, national security, trade, technology, and macroeconomic dynamics, considering the role of Washington within transatlantic relations, Indo-Pacific strategy, and global geopolitical competition. The report delivers high-level insights by leveraging Haizum’s deep network across the US institutional, policy, and strategic affairs ecosystem.
READING TIME: 15 MINUTES
This newsletter was prepared for Haizum Strategic Government Affairs. Haizum maintains exclusive rights to circulate this product. All statements of fact and expressions of opinion contained herein are the sole responsibility of the author. This newsletter was produced on Monday, November 24. Developments after that date will be covered in the next issue.
The historic 43-day government shutdown finally came to an end when President Donald Trump signed a funding bill crafted by Senate negotiators.
However, the relief may be short-lived, as Congress faces another funding deadline in late January. Meanwhile, Democrats delivered a strong performance in this year’s off-year elections, capturing key governorships in Virginia and New Jersey and positioning themselves advantageously ahead of the 2026 midterms. There are redistricting efforts in a number of states shaking up the electoral map ahead of the midterms. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and Trade Representative Jamieson Greer take to Brussels for high-stakes trade talks. Meanwhile, the US Supreme Court has taken up a landmark case challenging the legality of Trump-era tariffs, a decision that could significantly redefine the balance of power between Congress and the presidency in trade matters. Abroad, President Trump’s recent Asia tour yielded major diplomatic and economic agreements across Malaysia, Japan, and South Korea, while his meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping produced tentative progress toward easing trade tensions and expanding market access. Back home, the Federal Reserve cut interest rates again, signaling concern over slowing growth and persistent inflation even as policymakers debate how far to go with future easing. President Trump has begun dismantling the US Department of Education, following up on his March executive order to close the department.
The historic 43-day shutdown of the U.S. federal government finally came to an end on November 12, when President Donald Trump signed a funding measure crafted by Senate negotiators. The deal emerged after a 222–209 vote in the House, in which six Democrats joined Republicans to approve the measure.
Under the agreement, most federal agencies are funded through January 30, 2026, while three appropriations bills, covering the Departments of Agriculture and Veterans Affairs and the legislative branch, were funded for the full fiscal year ending September 30, 2026. In addition, the legislation reversed the more than 4,000 layoffs initiated during the shutdown and barred further reductions in force until the end of January. Food-assistance programs such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) were resumed, benefiting millions of low-income Americans.
Despite the relief of reopening, the shutdown left significant damage: airline travel was disrupted, pay for federal workers was delayed, and food assistance programs were suspended or delayed. Politically, neither side emerged with a clear victory: polls indicate that roughly half of Americans blame Republicans for the impasse, and nearly as many blame Democrats.
While the immediate crisis has ended, Congressional observers are already bracing for another potential funding shutdown in January. The deal’s January 30 funding expiration sets up a tight deadline for the remainder of the fiscal 2026 appropriations process. Moreover, key conflicts remain unresolved, most notably the extension of enhanced premium tax credits under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), which many Democrats demanded in the shutdown negotiations, but which Republicans refused to guarantee in the reopening deal. With the appropriations of clock ticking, lawmakers could again resort to short‐term funding measures or risk another shutdown if partisan gridlock returns. Stay tuned to see how this unfolds.
The 2025 off-year elections delivered a strong showing for the Democratic Party. In both Virginia and New Jersey, Democrats captured gubernatorial races and strengthened legislative control. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), Virginia added seats in the House of Delegates, ending the state’s divided government, while in New Jersey, the party maintained its trifecta of control over state government. Meanwhile, in California, voters passed Proposition 50, authorizing new congressional district maps that are expected to favor Democrats.
Post-election commentary from The Brookings Institution, a think tank, highlighted several trends: stronger turnout, especially among younger voters, and issues of affordability emerging as salient campaign themes. The Politico analysis described the results as reminiscent of the run-up to the 2018 midterms, noting that Democrats improved their appeal even in suburban and non-college-educated voter segments. Notably, ballot-measure and judicial races also reflected shifts: as Brookings notes, in Pennsylvania, three Democratic justices up for retention won comfortably, strengthening the party’s posture in key state courts.
The 2025 results could serve as an early indicator of momentum heading into the 2026 mid-term elections. The passage of Proposition 50 may give Democrats as many as five additional seats in the House.
Meanwhile, the strong margins in Virginia and New Jersey may signal voter fatigue with the party in power at the national level and reflect a responsiveness to issues such as the cost of living and economic stability. Yet analysts cautioned that off-year elections do not always translate into predictable mid-term outcomes; the mix of local dynamics, turnout, and redistricting will be critical. In short, while the Democratic Party appears to have established some advantageous positioning with favorable maps and successful messaging in 2025, the broader 2026 midterms will likely hinge on how national economic conditions, turnout patterns, and district-level competition unfold.
The fight over how congressional districts are drawn is heating up ahead of the 2026 midterms. As many states move beyond the usual post-census redistricting cycle, new maps, and legal challenges to them, are reshaping the terrain for both parties. At the heart of the surge is a push by Donald Trump and Republican-led legislatures to redraw maps mid-cycle in order to bolster GOP control of the United States House of Representatives.
According to Reuters, states like Texas and California are key battlegrounds in what is described as a “war” over congressional redistricting.
In Texas, the stakes are particularly high. A recent federal court ruling blocked Texas from using its newly drawn congressional map for the 2026 election, citing that the 2025 map appeared to be a racial gerrymander. The state’s GOP-backed map was designed to gain up to 5 additional Republican seats, but a three-judge panel barred its use, forcing Texas to stick with its 2021 lines for now. Meanwhile, in Ohio, the redistricting process is under scrutiny as well.
Ohio’s map-drawing commission adopted a new congressional map this fall; Republicans already held 10 of the state’s 15 districts, and the new lines are seen to further entrench the GOP advantage. At the same time, efforts are underway in Ohio to propose a constitutional amendment that would ban mid-cycle redistricting and require independent commissions, a sign of bipartisan concern over gerrymandering. Voters in California overwhelmingly approved a new map backed by Governor Gavin Newsom and Democratic lawmakers, designed to flip as many as five Republican-held seats in direct response to Texas, Democrats currently hold 43 of the state’s 52 districts.
Across the country, the result is fewer genuinely competitive seats. Analysts note that only three dozen or so of the 435 House districts are rated competitive, meaning redistricting is further reducing electoral responsiveness.
This week renewed energy and friction are colliding in the US–EU trade relationship as Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and Trade Representative Jamieson Greer land in Brussels for their first major diplomatic push since the July framework deal. At the heart of the negotiations is the unresolved issue of steel and aluminum tariffs. Despite the July agreement that imposed a 15% US tariff on many EU goods, the tougher 50% US duties on EU metals, including derivative goods, remain in force. The EU is urging the US to deliver on the spirit of the deal by cutting back these metals’ levies. Lutnick is pushing back: he’s made it clear that any relief on metal tariffs hinges on digital-policy concessions from Brussels. In a recent interview, he explicitly linked a rollback of EU tech regulations to a “cool steel and aluminum deal.” According to US officials, the pitch is that loosening digital rules could unlock “hundreds of billions, possibly $1 trillion” in transatlantic investment. But Brussels is pushing back strongly. EU trade ministers are expected to make clear that their tech regulation, especially under the Digital Services Act (DSA) and Digital Markets Act (DMA), is non-negotiable. Meanwhile, European officials warn that Lutnick’s proposal to broaden U.S. metals tariffs even further would betray the spirit of the July deal.
The Supreme Court has taken up a pivotal case testing the legality of Trump-era tariffs. At issue is whether the president may, under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) of 1977, unilaterally impose sweeping import duties. The tariffs in question include a baseline 10% duty on imports from virtually all countries, steeper “reciprocal” tariffs on those with large trade deficits, and separate levies targeting Canada, China, and Mexico, tied to alleged fentanyl trafficking. Lower courts have already struck down many of these tariffs, holding that the emergency-powers statute does not authorize such broad duties.
During oral arguments, justices expressed sharp skepticism toward the administration’s position. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. questioned whether IEEPA really authorizes tariffs, given that Congress holds the power to “lay and collect duties” under Article I of the Constitution. Justice Neil Gorsuch, a Trump appointee, warned of a “one-way ratchet toward the gradual but continual accretion of power in the executive branch” if the president were allowed such authority. Solicitor General D. John Sauer defended the tariffs as “regulatory … not revenue-raising,” arguing the revenue was “only incidental.”
Opponents countered that tariffs are taxes and thus lie squarely within Congress’s domain.
The stakes are high. The US government has collected approximately $90 billion under these tariffs so far, and the administration projects that by next June, the total may reach $750 billion to $1 trillion. A ruling against the administration could result in substantial refunds and limit an expansive view of presidential trade power. Conversely, if upheld, the decision would endorse a major expansion of executive authority over trade and the economy.
The Court’s written decision is expected in the first half of 2026. While the hearing suggests a majority of justices are uneasy with the administration’s arguments, the final ruling may carve out a narrower path, allowing some tariffs while limiting the broad authority claimed under IEEPA. Regardless of the outcome, the case is likely to be cited in future disputes over the separation of powers, executive authority, and congressional delegation.
President Trump’s Asia tour spanned three major stops: Malaysia, Japan, and the Republic of Korea. In Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, he attended the ASEAN-related summit and, alongside Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim, helped broker the “Kuala Lumpur Peace Accords” between Thailand and Cambodia, thereby ending border tensions and establishing border-observer teams. At the same time, the US signed reciprocal trade agreements with Malaysia and Cambodia and announced negotiation frameworks with Thailand and Vietnam that address tariffs and market-access issues.
Next, in Tokyo, Japan, President Trump met with Japanese leadership (including new Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi) and announced major investment and supply-chain deals: a $332 billion Japanese commitment to US critical‐energy infrastructure, a US–Japan Technology Prosperity Deal covering AI, 6G, biotech, and quantum research, and strengthened cooperation on customs law and counter-trafficking enforcement.
Finally, in South Korea, President Trump concluded his Indo-Pacific swing with landmark export, energy and industrial agreements. Korean Air committed to purchasing 103 Boeing jets valued at $36.2 billion; GE Aerospace engines were valued at $13.7 billion; rare-earth/magnet production partnerships with US firms and Korean groups were announced; and the Korea Gas Corporation agreed to purchase 3.3 million tons/year of US LNG under long-term contracts. While in South Korea, Trump also met with President Xi Jinping of China (see next section).
Throughout the trip, the key deliverables included peace-diplomatic achievements in Southeast Asia, large-scale U.S. export and investment agreements, critical minerals and supply-chain partnerships, and strengthened alliances in the technology and energy sectors. Analysts described the tour as “a surprising success” given the scope and speed of the deals.
On October 30, President Donald J. Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping met for roughly an hour and forty minutes on the sidelines of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Summit in Busan, South Korea. It was the first in-person meeting between the two leaders in years, concluding with a set of joint commitments on economic and trade relations. Key outcomes included China’s agreement to lift new export controls on rare earths, gallium, germanium, antimony, and graphite for US end-users, and to suspend certain retaliatory tariffs. In return, the United States agreed to reduce certain tariffs and delay additional increases, contingent upon Chinese cooperation to curb the flow of fentanyl precursor chemicals and expand U.S. market access. China also pledged to expand agricultural purchases, particularly soybeans and corn, a move welcomed by U.S. farmers. Both sides characterized the meeting as constructive. President Trump called it a “12 out of 10” success and announced that the US and China had agreed to schedule follow-up meetings in early 2026 to continue discussions on trade, technology, and security cooperation.
During their most recent Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) meeting on October 29, the Federal Reserve trimmed its benchmark interest rate by 25 basis points, moving the target range to 3.75%–4.00%. The decision marked the second consecutive cut this year, reflecting concerns over a softening labor market and elevated inflation pressures. Chair Jerome Powell underscored that the Fed is not on a preset path, and that a further cut in December is a given.
Diverging views are emerging among policymakers. Governor Stephen Miran argues a 50 basis-point cut would be “appropriate” for December, though he conceded a quarter-point cut should be the minimum. Meanwhile, President Mary Daly of the San Francisco Fed said policy should remain “modestly restrictive” and that she keeps an open mind about further cuts—but warned against moving too quickly given inflation remains above target. Other officials, such as St. Louis Fed President Alberto Musalem, have emphasized limited room for further easing, arguing the policy rate may already be near neutral.
Complicating the decision-making process, the government shutdown has delayed key economic data releases, limiting the Fed’s usual information set and forcing officials to rely more on anecdotal and alternative metrics. With inflation still hovering around 3% and labor-market indicators showing slower job gains, the Fed’s next move will hinge significantly on what incoming data reveal, and how much weight different policymakers give to growth risks versus inflation risks.
President Trump has launched a sweeping initiative to restructure the US Department of Education, marking a major shift in federal education policy. In March 2025, he signed an executive order directing the department to begin dismantling its operations and transferring functions back to the states.
Most recently, on November 18, the administration announced six new inter-agency agreements that will move key grant programs and offices from the Department of Education to other federal agencies, including the Departments of Labor, State, Interior, and Health & Human Services. Under the plan, programs for K-12 grants (including Title I funding for low-income schools), teacher training, college access, Native American education, childcare access, and international language work will shift oversight to other agencies. Student loans and Pell grants remain under the Department for now, although critics say the restructuring threatens stability and oversight of vulnerable students. The White House framed the moves as part of a broader goal: “returning education … back to the states” and reducing federal “bureaucracy”. In a November 17 message for American Education Week, Trump emphasized empowering families, expanding choice, and delivering “the good, the true, and the beautiful.” The opposition is intense. Democratic lawmakers and educators warn that transferring core functions without Congressional authorization could undermine civil rights enforcement, aid delivery, and student loan administration. Some conservative Republicans share concerns about implementation, potential disruption, and legal liabilities.
Commodity Futures Trading Commission – Michael Selig was nominated to be Chairman.
Department of Agriculture – Richard Lynn Fordyce is now the Undersecretary for Farm Production and Conservation.
Department of Defense – Hung Nguyen Cao was confirmed as Undersecretary of the Navy.
Brian Birdwell is the nominee for Assistant Secretary of Defense for Sustainment.
Greg Sawyer is now the Principal Director for Russia, Ukraine, and Eurasia in the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs.
Eric R. Hannis is now the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Strategy and Acquisition Reform in the office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology.
Department of Energy – Dawn Zimmer is now the Chief Information Officer.
Walter Llaque is the Director of the Division of Minerals Sustainability in the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Fossil Energy and Carbon Management.
Department of Health and Human Services – Dr. Brian S. Christine, MD, is now the Assistant Secretary for Health.
Department of Homeland Security – Pedro Martin Allende is the nominee for Undersecretary for the Science and Technology Directorate.
Department of Housing and Urban Development – Ben Demarzo is now the Assistant Secretary for Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations.
Department of the Interior – Steve Pearce is the nominee to be the Director of the Bureau of Land Management.
Department of State – Caleb Orr was confirmed as Assistant Secretary of State for Economic and Business Affairs.
Wes Brooks is the nominee for Assistant Secretary at the Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs.
Mark Savaya was appointed as Special Envoy to the Republic of Iraq. The following Ambassadorial nominations were transmitted to the Senate: Jennifer Wicks McNamara for the Socialist Republic of Vietnam and John Breslow for the Republic of Cyprus. Gregory LoGerfo is the nominee to be Coordinator for Counterterrorism.
Department of Transportation – Edward Eppler is the nominee for Chief Financial Officer.
Export-Import Bank of the United States – Jonathon D. Walz is now the Inspector General.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) – Jared Taylor Isaacman was nominated as Administrator.
The White House – Dan Scavino Jr. is now Assistant to the President and Director in the Office of Presidential Personnel (PPO).
Andrea F. Lucas is now a Confidential Assistant to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Dr. Kevin R. Rhodes is now Administrator at the Office of Federal Procurement Policy at OMB. Gillian A. Evans is now the Chief of Defense Operations, Personnel, and Support at OMB. Kim J. Ruhl is now the Vice Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers. Sihao Huang, PhD, is now Senior Policy Advisor for AI and Emerging Technology in the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), and Michael J. Gerovitch is now an AI Policy Assistant in OSTP.
