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 White House’s release of the 2025 National Security Strategy and the Pentagon’s subsequent restructuring plansoutlines a significant shift in US security priorities and military organization. Congressional negotiations over Affordable Care Act subsidies are examined, including their role in the recent government shutdown and the potential for renewed funding tensions in January. Recent warnings from the US Trade Representative toward the European Union highlight escalating transatlantic tensions over digital regulation and market access. New task forces established by the Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission will focus on alleged price-fixing and anti-competitive practices in the food supply chain. The Federal Reserve’s latest interest-rate decision, internal divisions within the Federal Open Markets Committee (FOMC), and leadership continuity across regional banks are reviewed amid a slowing economic outlook. November’s jobs report provides insight into moderating employment growth, rising unemployment, and implications for monetary policy. A sweeping executive order on artificial intelligence was issued, outlining federal efforts to preempt state-level regulation and triggering a legal and political debate. The administration unveiled a new President’s Management Agenda outlining proposed changes to federal operations, workforce policy, and procurement. President Donald J. Trump designated illicit fentanyl as a weapon of mass destruction. The administration launched “The Genesis Mission,” a federal initiative launched by executive order to integrate artificial intelligence, advanced computing, and national laboratory resources to accelerate US scientific discovery, innovation, and technological leadership.
The White House released the 2025 National Security Strategy (NSS) on December 4, outlining a sweeping recalibration of US foreign policy under the banner of “America First.” Its core pillars emphasize protecting the homeland, revitalizing the American economy, maintaining military strength, and advancing US influence abroad, with alliances and partnerships leveraged for American interests rather than as ends in themselves. A central change is the elevation of immigration and border security as national security priorities. The NSS declares that “the era of mass migration must end,” and repurposes military and enforcement resources toward the Western Hemisphere under a renewed Monroe Doctrine, now framed as a “Trump Corollary.”
In the Indo-Pacific, the document focuses on competition with China, pledging deterrence in the South China Sea and defense of Taiwan, including a commitment to deny aggression anywhere along the First Island Chain. The NSS also removes democracy promotion from its core agenda. For Europe, the implications are especially stark. The strategy rebukes European allies for what it calls a decline in “civilizational identity,” warns of “civilizational erasure,” and demands that European nations assume full responsibility for their own security and defense, effectively marking a retreat from US leadership in transatlantic cooperation. As described by analysts at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), Washington will now favor pragmatic, interest-based relations over idealistic foreign-policy goals, a shift that may leave the US more powerful, but also “lonelier, weaker, more fractured.” Writing in Foreign Affairs, Michael Kimmage notes that the NSS
reflects a tension: a bid for renewed American power, but one that rejects older alliances, embraces transactional diplomacy, and abandons commitments to liberal international order.
The response abroad has been mixed. Beijing reiterated its willingness to cooperate but warned the US against threatening its core interests, especially over Taiwan. In Moscow, the strategy drew public praise, a senior Russian official lauded its emphasis on sovereignty and described the document as closely aligned with Russia’s own global outlook.
Crucially, the NSS’s strategic shift is now being operationalized through sweeping defense restructuring plansemanating from the Pentagon and the Defense Secretary, Pete Hegseth. In the days following the NSS release, senior Pentagon officials, led by Hegseth and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Dan Caine, have drafted proposals to consolidate and overhaul US military command structures to reinforce the NSS’s strategic priorities. Under the emerging plan, the number of geographic combatant commands would be reduced from 11 to eight through the creation of new unified commands, including a US International Command to absorb US Central, European, and Africa Commands, and a proposed US Americas Command (Americom) to unify Northern and Southern Commands. This realignment is intended to streamline command authority, enhance decision-making agility, and shift emphasis toward the Western Hemisphere, consistent with the NSS’s renewed regional priorities.
Further changes include significant reductions in the number of four-star generals and admirals, reshaping military leadership to reduce bureaucratic overhead and reallocate resources to frontline readiness. Other restructuring initiatives already underway include the merger of legacy Army commands (such as Army Futures Command and Training and Doctrine Command) into unified formations and the reorganization of sustainment and combat units in accordance with the NSS’s operational priorities. These proposals, which have not yet been submitted in full to Congress, are already generating debate on Capitol Hill. Lawmakers have pressed the Pentagon to provide detailed assessments of cost, force implications, and impacts on alliance commitments before implementation. Taken together, the NSS and the Pentagon’s simultaneous reordering of US defense architecture signal a comprehensive reorientation of American national security policy: away from multilateral engagements and global burden-sharing, and toward a leaner, more centralized military posture aligned with the strategic imperatives articulated in the 2025 NSS.
The battle over Affordable Care Act (ACA) premium subsidies, set to expire on December 31, 2025, has become a flashpoint in Washington, laying bare deep divisions within and between the parties and raising the odds of another funding clash when Congress returns in January. Enhanced subsidies, expanded during the pandemic to sharply reduce premiums for millions of marketplace enrollees, helped make coverage affordable for roughly 22–24 million Americans, especially middle-income households. Without action, analysts warn premiums could double or more in 2026 for many families.
Congress’s struggle over these subsidies was a central driver of the recent 43-day government shutdown, as Democrats insisted any funding package address the looming expiry, while many House Republicans opposed locking in what they see as long-term spending without offsets. In the Senate earlier this month, both Democratic and GOP proposals failed to secure the 60 votes needed to advance, leaving the enhanced tax credits in limbo and triggering warnings of steep premium hikes starting January 1. The impasse shifted to the House this week. A group of moderate Republicans broke ranks with Speaker Mike Johnson to join Democrats in signing a discharge petition, a procedural move that reached the required 218 signatures to force a floor vote on a three-year extension of the subsidies in early 2026. However, House Republican leadership blocked an expedited vote on December 17, with the chamber voting 204-203 to halt Democratic efforts to quickly pass the extension before the year’s end. Leadership insists it remains in control, even as internal tensions grow amid a razor-thin GOP majority.
With the Senate also having blocked clean extensions, prospects for resolving the issue by December 31 appear dim. As lawmakers prepare to depart Washington for the holidays, the expiry deadline looms. Unless a bipartisan compromise materializes, policymakers may find themselves back at a funding standoff in January, with both high insurance premiums and another potential government funding battle on the table.
The Office of the US Trade Representative (USTR) on December 16 issued a strong warning on X (formerly Twitter) to the European Union that it could impose fees or operational restrictions on European service providers in response to what it characterizes as “discriminatory” actions against American firms operating in Europe. The announcement marks a notable escalation in digital trade tensions between Washington and Brussels. At the core of the dispute are European regulatory actions and fines targeting major US technology companies under the EU’s Digital Services Act and other digital rules. Most prominently, the EU fined Elon Musk’s social platform X approximately €120 million for transparency and design violations—a move the USTR condemned as part of a pattern of “discriminatory and harassing lawsuits, taxes, fines and directives” against US firms.
In its social media post, the USTR identified a range of European firms that could face retaliatory measures, including Accenture, Amadeus, Capgemini, DHL, Mistral, Publicis, SAP, Siemens, and Spotify. US officials argue that these companies enjoy broad access to the US market while American tech firms grapple with asymmetric regulatory burdens in Europe. If the EU persists in restricting US competitiveness, the US “will have no choice but to begin using every tool at its disposal,” the office said, including the assessment of fees or restrictions on foreign services.
Brussels has rejected claims of discrimination, asserting that its digital rules apply equally to all companies operating in the EU and are designed to ensure fairness and safety in digital markets. European officials emphasize ongoing dialogue with US counterparts on trade and regulatory cooperation, even as both sides navigate this growing friction. The dispute underscores broader transatlantic tensions over digital regulation and market access, with potential implications for the future of US-EU digital trade relations and global tech governance standards.
The administration has established two new task forces, within the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), to investigate alleged price-fixing, collusion, and anti-competitive practices in the US food supply chain. According to the recently signed executive order, these task forces will examine sectors including meat processing, seeds, fertilizer, and farm equipment, areas the government considers vulnerable to market manipulation. The concern goes beyond just shop-floor economics: the order highlights the role of foreign-controlled companies as potential drivers of price spikes, posing not only economic but also national security risks to America’s food supply. If evidence of wrongdoing is uncovered, the DOJ and FTC are authorized to pursue enforcement actions, including criminal prosecution if necessary. The agencies may also suggest new regulations to promote fair competition. Importantly, under the order, the two task forces are required to brief Congress twice over the next 12 months, once at six months and again at one year, outlining their findings and recommending any legislative changes needed. Supporters of this initiative say it is a crucial step to combat collusion, protect farmers, and reduce grocery costs for American families. For many households feeling the strain of rising food prices, the task forces represent a promise of increased accountability and a fairer market.
On December 10, the Federal Reserve lowered its benchmark federal funds rate by 25 basis points, its third quarter-point cut of the year, bringing the target range to 3.50%–3.75%, the lowest level in nearly three years. While widely anticipated, the decision exposed deep fissures within the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC), three of the 12 policymakers dissented, with two preferring to hold rates steady and one advocating for a larger cut, underscoring sharply divergent views on the economy’s trajectory.
In the accompanying economic projections, the so-called “dot plot” revealed a median forecast for only one more quarter-point cut in 2026, though some policymakers see no further cuts at all, and a few even entertain the possibility of a rate hike. That mixed outlook reflects the Fed’s struggle to balance elevated inflation pressures against a softening labor market and slowing growth. The Fed also signaled new policy tools to ensure market functioning, particularly a willingness to purchase short-term Treasury securities to maintain ample reserves, a signal that stress can emerge in year-end money markets if liquidity tightens.
Amid the contentious policy backdrop, the Board of Governors unanimously reappointed 11 of the 12 regional Federal Reserve Bank presidents and their first vice presidents to new five-year terms beginning March 1, 2026. The sole exception was Atlanta Fed President Raphael Bostic, who had previously announced his retirement. This reappointment process drew heavier scrutiny than usual as the Trump administration floated potential changes to the Fed’s governance and Presidents’ selection criteria, including comments from Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent about encouraging regional ties, though none of those proposals directly altered this round’s outcomes. The unanimous vote, including support from Trump-appointed governors, was interpreted by many market watchers as an expression of stability and continuity within the System’s leadership even as policy disagreements persist.
Federal Reserve Governor Stephen Miran, one of the dissenters at the December 10 FOMC meeting, has publicly argued that measured inflation overstates underlying price pressures, particularly due to components like shelter costs and imputed services prices, and that a more aggressive easing path is justified. He has repeatedly maintained that inflationary signals should be interpreted considering broader economic conditions rather than headline numbers alone. Other voices reflect a cautious but open stance on future rate action. Governor Christopher Waller noted that monetary policy remains restrictive relative to neutral, leaving room for further cuts if warranted by the labor market and inflation dynamics, though any moves should be gradual.
As the US economy grapples with slowing job growth (see next section), lingering inflation above target, and uncertainty about 2026, the Fed’s messaging and internal cohesion will remain critical for markets and policymakers alike, especially as discussions intensify about the next Fed chair ahead of Jerome Powell’s term ending in May.
The latest US jobs report, released after a significant delay due to a 43-day federal government shutdown, paints a labor market showing modest job gains but clear signs of cooling as the year closes. Employers added 64,000 nonfarm payrolls in November, exceeding expectations, but the labor market’s broader health remains uncertain. The unemployment rate climbed to 4.6%, the highest level in more than four years, a sharp reminder that hiring momentum has faded.
A deeper look at the data reveals that October’s widely anticipated unemployment rate was not calculated because household data could not be collected during the shutdown, leaving analysts with only partial context for interpreting trends. Still, payroll declines in October (-105,000 jobs) and the modest rebound in November suggest continued weakness in labor demand. Sector performance was uneven: healthcare, construction, and social assistance accounted for most new positions, while manufacturing, transportation, and warehousing continued to shed jobs, a troubling sign given recent policy emphasis on bolstering US industry. Wage growth also slowed, with average hourly earnings up 3.5% year-over-year, the weakest pace since 2021.
White House National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett addressed the mixed picture in the data, noting that rising unemployment partly reflects more people re-entering the workforce after the shutdown. “We saw an uptick in the unemployment rate, but we also saw an uptick … in labor force participation. So, I think those government workers are out there looking for jobs,” Hassett said in response to the report.
Economists broadly describe the report as a soft labor market—not in collapse, but far from robust, with persistent uncertainty dampening hiring. The Fed, watching these trends closely, may view the data as justification to pause further rate cuts until clearer signs of sustained job growth emerge.
On December 11, President Donald Trump signed a highly contested executive order aimed at preempting state-level artificial intelligence (AI) regulations and creating a unified national framework for overseeing the burgeoning technology. The order, titled Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence, reflects growing anxiety in Washington about fragmented state laws that could hamper US competitiveness in the global AI race, particularly against China.
At its core, the order directs federal agencies to identify and push back against what the administration calls “onerous and excessive” state AI laws. It instructs the Attorney General to establish an AI Litigation Task Force to challenge state regulations that conflict with federal policy and threatens to withhold federal broadband and other discretionary funding from states whose laws are deemed burdensome. The Commerce Department is tasked with evaluating existing state laws and recommending which ones to contest.
The White House says a single national standard will spur innovation by avoiding a patchwork of 50 different regulatory regimes and streamline compliance for companies operating across state lines. Trump and his AI advisor, David Sacks, have framed the move as essential to maintaining American leadership in AI and beating strategic rivals like China.
But the order has sparked significant backlash. Governors and lawmakers from states such as California have criticized the move as federal overreach that undermines states’ rights to protect their citizens. Legal experts note that the order may face court challenges, with questions about whether the president can unilaterally preempt state law absent clear congressional authorization.
The executive order also calls for legislative action, urging Congress to craft a federal AI regulatory framework that would ultimately supersede conflicting state laws. With states such as Colorado, Utah, and Texas already enacting their own AI statutes, the stage is set for a prolonged federal-state regulatory battle over the future of AI governance.
The newly released President’s Management Agenda (PMA) outlines a sweeping reorientation of the federal government, aiming to “end weaponized government,” shrink the bureaucracy, and realign operations with the priorities of the current administration.
At its core, the PMA focuses on three priorities: 1) Shrink the Government & Eliminate Waste, 2) Ensure Accountability to Americans, and 3) Deliver Results — Buy American. Under the first priority, the agenda targets elimination of what it calls “woke, weaponized, and wasteful” programs, cutting non-essential positions, downsizing the federal real estate footprint, and ending federal support for diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. In pursuit of greater accountability, the PMA calls for a merit-based workforce, hiring based on skill and results rather than demographic or ideological aims, and promises to crack down on government censorship and over-classification, while demanding contractors and grantees meet higher performance standards. Finally, through the “Deliver Results, Buy American” priority, the PMA commits to using the government’s purchasing power to favor domestic suppliers, modernizing procurement, and leveraging technology to deliver services more efficiently and securely.
While the new PMA is compact (only two pages), it reflects a broader, ongoing effort by the administration to overhaul how the federal government operates: focusing on efficiency, consolidation, and political alignment.
On December 15, President Donald Trump signed an executive order designating illicit fentanyl and its core precursor chemicals as Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs). The White House framed the move as a national-security imperative, arguing that the synthetic opioid’s extreme potency and the scale of overdose deaths in the United States place it in the same category as chemical threats traditionally reserved for warfare agents.
Under the order, key Cabinet officials are directed to expand enforcement and interagency coordination: the Justice Department will intensify prosecutions; the State and Treasury Departments will target financial networks linked to trafficking; and the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security will update response plans to include fentanyl as a chemical threat.
Supporters, including some bipartisan lawmakers and families affected by overdose deaths, say the designation underscores the deadly impact of illicit fentanyl and allows the government to marshal broader tools to disrupt supply chains largely tied to Mexican cartels and precursor chemicals sourced abroad. Critics, including public-health and legal experts, caution that classifying a drug as a WMD risks militarizing drug policy, could strain cooperation with international partners, and may not address underlying addiction and treatment needs. They argue that most fentanyl deaths result from accidental overdoses rather than intentional attacks.
On November 24, the White House issued an executive order establishing the Genesis Mission, a national effort to harness artificial intelligence (AI) to dramatically accelerate scientific discovery and innovation across federal research enterprises. The mission is designed to build an integrated AI platform using the federal government’s vast scientific datasets, linking supercomputers, national laboratories, and advanced computing resources to train AI models and automate research workflows. Led by the Department of Energy (DOE) under the leadership of Under Secretary for Science Dr. Darío Gil, the initiative mobilizes the DOE’s 17 national laboratories, industry partners, and academic institutions to create what officials describe as a scientific discovery engine capable of solving pressing challenges from energy innovation to national security.
According to the DOE, the Genesis Mission will double the productivity and impact of American science and engineering within a decade by integrating supercomputing, next-generation quantum systems, and AI technologies with state-of-the-art scientific instruments. The platform aims to accelerate breakthroughs in energy dominance, biotechnology, advanced materials, quantum information science, and other critical fields. The executive order designates the Secretary of Energy as responsible for implementing the mission and directs the Assistant to the President for Science and Technology to coordinate participating agencies through the National Science and Technology Council. The initiative also encourages collaboration with the private sector and universities to expand AI innovation nationwide.
Department of Agriculture – Mary F. (Pletcher) Rice is now the Assistant Secretary for Administration.
Department of Commerce – Garrett Bruce is now a Special Assistant at the Office of Policy and Strategic Planning, Office of the Chief of Staff.
Department of Defense – Jacob S. “Jake” Glassman is now Assistant Secretary of Defense for Science and Technology (Acting). Dr. Richard D. Tilley has been appointed Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low-Intensity Conflict (Acting).
Department of Energy – Dr. Darío Gil is now the Director of the Genesis Mission, Office of the Deputy Secretary.
Department of Homeland Security – W. Rory “Rory” Burke is now Deputy Assistant Secretary in the Office of Border Security and Immigration Policy. Simon E. Bland is now Assistant Secretary for International Affairs. Jason D. Killmeyer is the Chief of Staff at the Office of Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Department of the Interior – James C. “Jim” Lake has been appointed Director of the Office of Intergovernmental and External Affairs in the Office of the Secretary.
Department of State – John P. Coale has been designated Special Envoy to Belarus.
Department of Transportation – Michael “Paten” Kidd is now the Senior Advisor for Intergovernmental Affairs at the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Governmental Affairs.
Department of the Treasury – Kyle Perel has taken on a new role as Special Advisor, Office of the Secretary. Christopher “Chris” Esparza is now the Senior Counselor at the Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence.
Department of Veterans Affairs – Gary W. Shatswell has been appointed Senior Advisor, Office of the Secretary. Dr. Paul R. Lawrence, PhD, is now Assistant Secretary and Chief Information Officer (Acting), Office of Information and Technology. MG Reginald G.A. “Reg” Neal, ARNG (Ret), is now the Assistant Secretary for Operations, Security, and Preparedness.
Environmental Protection Agency – Jacob Tipton is now a Special Assistant at the Office of the Administrator.
The White House – 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). Brandon T. Dues is now the Deputy Assistant National Cyber Director for Cyber Workforce at the Office of the National Cyber Director. And Joseph L. “Joe” Billingsley, PhD, is now Director for Cyber Workforce. Christina Bonarrigo Villamil has been named Chief of Staff, Office of the Director of Personnel Management. Dario Camacho is now General Counsel in the Office of National Drug Control Policy. Hassan Ali is now the Digital Services Expert for Engineering at the US DOGE Service. Lauren S. McCarthy is now the Senior Policy Advisor at the Domestic Policy Council (DPC). Kole A. Nichols is now an Economist at the Council of Economic Advisers.
