𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐲 𝐉.𝐒. 𝐃𝐞𝐜𝐞𝐩𝐢𝐝𝐚 🇨🇦 🇺🇦 ¬1ɩ
LightNews LightNews
banner
ajsdecepida.bsky.social
𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐲 𝐉.𝐒. 𝐃𝐞𝐜𝐞𝐩𝐢𝐝𝐚 🇨🇦 🇺🇦 ¬1ɩ
@ajsdecepida.bsky.social
13K followers 16K following 20K posts
𝕏𝒌𝒑 #FBR #Resist #StandUnbowed
I employ em dashes — by habit.

Quijotesco, contra molinos de viento.
Nōlī cēdere; repugnā et resistē!
Reges, nulli!
Noli cedere; repugna et resiste!
Θάρρος. Ακεραιότητα. Ταπεινοφροσύνη.

https://buymeacoffee.com/ajsdecepida
Posts Replies Media Videos
ajsdecepida.bsky.social
🤔🧐
{𝗮𝙅𝙎𝘿} From what I (ancient history nerd that I am) recall… Short version: he was killed by the Parthians after a botched parley following his defeat at Carrhae in 53 BCE. Longer version: after Crassus’s army was shattered by Surena’s Parthian cavalry, the Romans tried to negotiate. During the meeting a scuffle broke out; Crassus was seized and killed (ancient sources differ on whether he was stabbed by Parthians or cut down amid a melee sparked by his own men). The Parthians then cut off his head and right hand and sent them to King Orodes II. Later writers add the famous taunt that molten gold was poured into his mouth — a post-mortem humiliation aimed at his greed, not the cause of death.
November 12, 2025 at 3:53 AM
ajsdecepida.bsky.social
19 ❝Fed posts record loss of $114.3 billion in 2023; deferred asset grows❞ — Reuters, Tue. 26-Mar-2024 — https://www.reuters.com/markets/us/fed-says-official-net-negative-income-was-1143-billion-2023-2024-03-26/
November 12, 2025 at 3:42 AM
ajsdecepida.bsky.social
The 2025 Inflection After losing the big constitutional case, opponents pivoted. Two levers emerged: Cut the cap — reconciliation lowered the ceiling the Director can request from the Fed, shrinking the Bureau even if it survives. Exploit Fed losses — argue that ❝combined earnings❞ means profits, so negative income equals no lawful transfers. The OLC opinion operationalizes that second lever.9,7,11 What's at Stake for Consumers (Beyond Bureaucratic Turf) Enforcement and redress With the staff slashed and funding frozen, the agency’s complaint system, supervision, and enforcement stall. A federal appellate record already documents how ❝stop-work❞ orders risked disabling complaint intake and other statutory duties — exactly the everyday functions that return money to victims and deter abusive practices.8 Market discipline The CFPB is one of the few actors that can police non-bank lenders and emerging fintech models at scale. Eliminating (or hobbling) that cop on the beat shifts the balance of power toward firms with the strongest incentives to relabel fees or push opaque credit. That’s not theoretical; it’s the logic behind years of trench warfare over overdraft, junk fees, and data access.16,14 Macro context The consumer-debt engine is enormous; Democrats and Republicans alike concede the Bureau sits astride oversight of a multi-trillion-dollar market. Pulling it back during a period of elevated delinquencies and household stress is not risk-free; it heightens the probability that bad actors arbitrage the vacuum.1,2 So Why this Ferocity? Part ideology — scepticism of independent regulators and preference for congressional appropriations control. Part political economy — rules on pricing, data, and ❝abusive❞ conduct directly hit bank and non-bank revenue models; weakening the referee raises the expected return to lobbying and litigation over compliance. And part opportunity — Fed accounting created a talking point that some opponents (notably Hal Scott and others) have pushed since 2024: if ❝profits❞ are negative, the spigot must turn off.10,11 Bottom Line The OLC ❝no profits, no money❞ gambit is a litigating position masquerading as inevitability. The statute’s text, the Fed’s accounting framework, recent judicial signals, and the Supreme Court’s 2024 decision all point to courts viewing this as an executive overreach rather than a faithful reading of ❝combined earnings.❞ If it nonetheless prevails, the practical effect is simple: fewer cops on the beat, fewer refunds to harmed consumers, and a quieter phone at the complaint desk — exactly when households can least afford it.3,5,6,8,17,18,19 Citations: 1 ❝Trump administration declares CFPB funding illegal❞ — POLITICO, Tue. 11-Nov-2025 — https://www.politico.com/news/2025/11/11/trump-administration-declares-cfpb-funding-illegal-00646354 2 ❝US consumer watchdog says it is legally blocked from accessing funds❞ — Reuters, Tue. 11-Nov-2025 — https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulation/us-consumer-watchdog-says-it-is-legally-blocked-accessing-funds-2025-11-11/ 3 ❝22-448 Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Community Financial Services Association of America❞ — Supreme Court of the United States, Thu. 16-May-2024 — https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-448_o7jp.pdf 4 ❝The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Budget (R48295)❞ — Congressional Research Service, Mon. 16-Jun-2025 — https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R48295 5 ❝Various Texas authorities reject latest attack on CFPB’s funding❞ — Consumer Law & Policy Blog (CLP), Thu. 17-Oct-2024 — https://clpblog.citizen.org/various-texas-authorities-reject-latest-attack-on-cfpbs-funding/ 6 ❝Texas AG again rejects ❛earnings❜ argument about CFPB’s funding❞ — Consumer Law & Policy Blog (CLP), Mon. 11-Nov-2024 — https://clpblog.citizen.org/texas-ag-again-rejects-earnings-argument-about-cfpbs-funding/ 7 ❝DoJ: CFPB cannot request new funding from the Fed❞ — American Banker, Tue. 11-Nov-2025 — https://www.americanbanker.com/news/doj-cfpb-cannot-request-new-funding-from-the-fed 8 ❝National Treasury Employees Union et al. v. Vought❞ (No. 25-5091) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, Fri. 15-Aug-2025 — https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/opinions/docs/2025/08/25-5091-2130273.pdf 9 ❝What’s Next for CFPB After ❛Big Beautiful❜ Funding Cuts❞ — Covington & Burling LLP, Mon. 28-Jul-2025 — https://www.cov.com/-/media/files/corporate/publications/2025/07/whats-next-for-cfpb-after-big-beautiful-funding-cuts.pdf 10 ❝The CFPB’s Pyrrhic Supreme Court Victory❞ — Wall Street Journal (op-ed), Mon. 20-May-2024 — https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-cfpb-pyrrhic-supreme-court-victory-federal-reserve-18099f59 11 ❝The Right Way to Close the CFPB❞ — Wall Street Journal (op-ed), Sun. 13-Apr-2025 — https://www.wsj.com/opinion/the-right-way-to-close-the-cfpb-funding-legal-fed-combined-earnings-61934f08 12 ❝Rep. Andy Barr Reintroduces Bill to Reform CFPB’s UDAAP Authority❞ — U.S. House of Representatives (KY-06), Sat. 03-May-2025 — https://barr.house.gov/2025/5/rep-andy-barr-reintroduces-bill-to-reform-cfpb-s-udaap-authority 13 ❝H.R. 1652 — Rectifying UDAAP Act (text)❞ — Congress.gov, Tue. 11-Nov-2025 — https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/1652/text 14 ❝ABA Calls on CFPB to Suspend Data Sharing Rule (Section 1033) Pending Changes❞ — American Bankers Association, Tue. 21-Oct-2025 — https://www.aba.com/about-us/press-room/press-releases/1033-comment-letter 15 ❝ABA Sues CFPB for Abuse of Statutory Authority (UDAAP exam manual)❞ — American Bankers Association, Tue. 06-Feb-2025 — https://www.aba.com/advocacy/policy-analysis/aba-sues-cfpb-for-abuse-of-statutory-authority 16 ❝ABA, CFPB agree to dismiss bureau’s appeal of UDAAP manual lawsuit❞ — ABA Banking Journal, Thu. 01-May-2025 — https://bankingjournal.aba.com/2025/05/aba-cfpb-agree-to-dismiss-bureaus-appeal-of-udaap-manual-lawsuit/ 17 ❝The Fed’s Remittances to the Treasury: Explaining the Deferred Asset❞ — Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, Tue. 21-Nov-2023 — https://www.stlouisfed.org/on-the-economy/2023/nov/fed-remittances-treasury-explaining-deferred-asset 18 ❝Federal Reserve Board announces preliminary results indicating a deferred asset; remittances resume only when positive income returns❞ — Federal Reserve Board (press release), Fri. 13-Jan-2023 — https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/other20230113a.htm
November 12, 2025 at 3:42 AM
ajsdecepida.bsky.social
👀🤔 Office of Legal Council’s ❝no profits, no funds❞ bid to starve the CFPB looks legally shaky after SCOTUS upheld its funding; courts —𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗻 𝗧𝗲𝘅𝗮𝘀’𝘀 𝗔𝗚— have rejected profits-only claims. With 2025 budget caps and deep RIFs, consumer oversight shrinks as delinquencies stay elevated.
The Trump Admin's Animosity Towards the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB): Current and Origins By andy J.S. Decepida Here’s the uncomfortable bottom line: the ❝Fed has no profits❞ theory is a novel administrative gambit designed to do what courts so far have refused to do —kneecap the CFPB— and it’s on shaky legal footing. If it stands, consumers lose meaningful protections just as household delinquencies remain elevated and the $18 trillion consumer-debt machine keeps whirring.1,2 1) Can the Administration Lawfully Choke Off CFPB Funding on a ❝No Profits, No Money❞ Theory? What the Move Does The administration’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) says the CFPB can’t draw money from the Federal Reserve because the Dodd-Frank Act authorizes transfers from the Fed’s ❝combined earnings,❞ which OLC now reads to mean ❝profits.❞ With the Fed reporting negative income since 2022, the claim is that there’s legally nothing to transfer. The CFPB’s court filing says it can limp through year-end on cash in hand, then faces a funding cliff in early 2026.1,2,7 The Relevant Statutory Text and Precedent Dodd-Frank lets the CFPB Director request —up to a cap— a transfer ❝from the combined earnings of the Federal Reserve System.❞ In 2024, the Supreme Court upheld the CFPB’s general funding design against an Appropriations Clause attack; nothing in that ruling blesses an executive-branch power to zero out the Bureau by reinterpretation.3,4 Put plainly: Congress created a standing funding stream; the Court said that stream is constitutional. The fight now is over whether ❝combined earnings❞ disappears when the Fed records a temporary accounting loss. How ❝Losses❞ Work at the Fed (And Why OLC's Premise is Contestable) When the Fed’s interest expenses exceed its income, it doesn’t stop operating; it books a ❝deferred asset❞ —an IOU against future earnings— and suspends remittances to Treasury until surpluses return. That’s been explicit Fed practice and public guidance for years. The presence of a deferred asset does not mean the Fed lacks the legal or operational capacity to meet obligations; it means Treasury remittances pause. The OLC leap —from ❝no Treasury remittances❞ to ❝no legal funds exist for the CFPB❞— is not how the Fed’s accounting works.17,18,19 What Courts Have Said so Far About the Profits-Only Theory Before this week’s filing, courts (and even Texas’s attorney general) repeatedly rejected the idea that the Bureau becomes an outlaw agency when the Fed reports negative income. Those rulings treated ❝combined earnings❞ as a broader term tethered to the Federal Reserve System’s statutory framework, not a quarterly-profits toggle.5,6 That matters because judges dislike executive manoeuvres that functionally repeal statutes by memo. Separation-of-Powers Problem A parallel D.C. Circuit case this summer described an administration-wide ❝policy to shut the agency down,❞ and while the panel narrowed an injunction, it also memorialized the district court’s factual finding that leadership had ❝no intention of operating the CFPB at all.❞ Courts are alert to end-runs around Congress; if judges view the OLC opinion as a pretext to extinguish a congressionally created agency, expect serious scrutiny.8 Likely Outcome Three signals cut against the OLC gambit in court: The Supreme Court just reaffirmed Congress’s authority to structure the CFPB’s funding, making judges wary of an executive workaround that achieves through interpretation what challengers failed to win in CFSA v. CFPB.3 The Fed’s own accounting regime recognizes negative income via a deferred asset without suggesting that statutory obligations funded through the Fed must halt.17,18 Multiple courts and a Republican state AG have already brushed aside the profits-only theory.5,6 Could an administration legally argue for a narrower reading of ❝combined earnings❞? Sure. But persuading courts to accept a reading that allows the executive to starve an agency Congress chose to fund —right after the Supreme Court said that funding scheme is constitutional— looks like a long shot. The more credible path to downsizing has been legislative (e.g., cutting the cap in reconciliation), not administrative self-help.9 2) Why Republicans Have Fought the CFPB from Day One — And Why that Fight is Peaking Now Structural Objections From its birth in Dodd-Frank, the CFPB concentrated consumer-finance rulemaking, supervision, and enforcement in a single regulator, insulated from annual appropriations. Conservatives and many industry groups argued that this design reduces democratic accountability and invites mission creep. Think-tank papers and op-eds have called for shuttering or ❝restructuring❞ the Bureau for years, often casting it as an ❝unaccountable fourth branch.❞7,10,11 Policy Flashpoints The fiercest battles cluster around three fronts: UDAAP (❝abusive❞) authority and supervision Banking trade groups sued over the Bureau’s expansion of UDAAP in examinations; Republicans in Congress pushed bills to narrow or define ❝abusive,❞ arguing vague standards chill credit and innovation.12,13,15,16 Fee and pricing rules From overdraft to credit-card late fees, industry has fought rules that directly curb revenue lines, warning of reduced access to small-dollar liquidity if cross-subsidies are pulled. Lawsuits followed.16 Data portability (❝open banking❞ Rule 1033) Banks want tighter liability frameworks and screen-scraping bans; the CFPB has pressed for consumer-controlled data access to boost competition from fintechs. The friction here is about market power, not just privacy.14,5
November 12, 2025 at 3:42 AM
ajsdecepida.bsky.social
Citations: 1 ❝Trump administration declares CFPB funding illegal❞ — Politico, Tue. 11-Nov-2025 — https://www.politico.com/news/2025/11/11/trump-administration-declares-cfpb-funding-illegal-00646354 2 ❝US consumer watchdog says it is legally blocked from accessing funds❞ — Reuters, Tue. 11-Nov-2025 — https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulation/us-consumer-watchdog-says-it-is-legally-blocked-accessing-funds-2025-11-11/ 3 ❝Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Community Financial Services Association (No. 22-448)❞ — U.S. Supreme Court (Justia), Thu. 16-May-2024 — https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/601/22-448/ 4 ❝Various Texas authorities reject latest attack on CFPB’s funding❞ — Consumer Law & Policy Blog, Thu. 17-Oct-2024 — https://clpblog.citizen.org/various-texas-authorities-reject-latest-attack-on-cfpbs-funding/ 5 ❝Vought cuts off CFPB funding, saying it’s not necessary to run the agency❞ — Politico, Sun. 09-Feb-2025 — https://www.politico.com/news/2025/02/09/vought-cuts-off-cfpb-funding-00203261 6 ❝Opinion — NTEU v. Vought (No. 25-5091)❞ — D.C. Circuit, Thu. 14-Aug-2025 — https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/opinions/docs/2025/08/25-5091-2130273.pdf 7 ❝The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Budget (CRS R48295)❞ — Congressional Research Service, Mon. 16-Jun-2025 — https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/R/PDF/R48295/R48295.8.pdf
November 12, 2025 at 1:47 AM
ajsdecepida.bsky.social
🔃 {𝗮𝙅𝙎𝘿} My notes about the article… ⤵
{𝗮𝙅𝙎𝘿} My notes about the article… Claim set The administration now treats CFPB’s funding as unlawful and says the Bureau cannot seek additional transfers from the Federal Reserve.1 DoJ’s OLC interprets ❝combined earnings❞ in 12 U.S.C. §5497 as profits; because the Fed has had losses since 2022, no lawful transfers are available.1,2 CFPB told a court it can operate through at least Dec. 31, 2025, but expects to exhaust funds in early 2026 absent new appropriations.1,2 The Supreme Court upheld CFPB’s constitutionality in 2024; several courts (and Texas’s AG) previously rejected the ❝profits-only❞ funding theory.3,4 Acting Director Russ Vought earlier requested $0 from the Fed, drawing down reserves while pursuing mass layoffs; D.C. Circuit litigation is ongoing.5,6 Corroboration & Context Politico reports a court filing disclosing the new position and the early-2026 cash-out timeline; Reuters echoes the ❝legally blocked❞ funding and OLC rationale.1,2 CRS summarizes the statute’s design: quarterly transfers from the Fed up to a cap at the Director’s request, outside annual appropriations.7 The 2024 Supreme Court decision held the CFPB’s funding scheme satisfies the Appropriations Clause; it did not address Fed-loss contingencies.3 Texas AG Ken Paxton (2024 filing) and federal judges rejected arguments limiting transfers to Fed ❝surplus/profits,❞ citing the statute’s ❝combined earnings❞ text.4 Civics & Accountability (Power Flow) Under the administration’s view, only Congress can keep CFPB operating by appropriating funds; otherwise the Bureau winds down when cash runs out.1,2,7 OLC’s interpretation functionally weaponizes Fed operating losses to starve a non-appropriated agency Congress insulated in Dodd-Frank.1,2,7 Evidence Chain / What’s Confirmed Now Court filing states the profits-only reading and early-2026 depletion; Reuters independently reports the same rationale and timing.1,2 Prior record shows Vought’s $0 request and broad suspension of workstreams; appeals court proceedings over mass RIFs remain active.5,6 Risks & Trade-offs Consumer-protection gap: oversight of an ~$18T consumer-credit market, complaint intake, enforcement, and ❝open banking❞ rulemaking could stall.1,2 Legal/market uncertainty: questions about the validity of actions taken since Fed losses began, and the fate of ongoing cases.1,2,7 Disagreement Radar (Fact / Interpretation / Method) Fact: OLC profits-only reading vs. CFPB v. CFSA’s constitutional approval (distinct questions).1,3 Interpretation: Critics call the maneuver back-door nullification; proponents say it follows statutory text amid Fed losses.1,2,4,7 Method: Competing textual readings of ❝combined earnings❞; prior courts favoured a broader reading not contingent on ❝surplus.❞3,4 Confidence Bands (Tue. 11-Nov-2025) High: Administration position: no Fed draws; early-2026 depletion absent appropriations.1,2 High: Supreme Court upheld CFPB’s funding structure constitutionally in 2024 (separate issue).3 Medium-High: Prior judicial/AG rejections of ❝profits-only❞ theory complicate OLC’s stance; further litigation likely.4 Indicators to Watch Any appropriations bill or CR language funding CFPB directly.7 Litigation challenging OLC’s interpretation; motions referencing CFPB v. CFSA.3,4 CFPB operational triage: complaint handling, supervision, enforcement pauses as cash burns.1,2 What Would Change This Congressional appropriation or statutory tweak clarifying ❝combined earnings.❞7 Court rulings rejecting (or embracing) OLC’s profits-only reading.3,4 Method & Scope Primary reporting from Politico and Reuters; statutory/budget context from CRS; constitutional baseline from the Supreme Court; historical/procedural context from prior Politico reporting and D.C. Circuit materials. Dates rendered in ET.1,2,3,4,5,6,7
November 12, 2025 at 1:47 AM
ajsdecepida.bsky.social
👀🚨 CFPB cliff: DoJ’s OLC says the Fed lacks ❝combined earnings,❞ blocking new draws; the Bureau expects cash to run out early 2026. Shutdown-by-starvation continues amid mass-layoff fights; a consumer-protection gap looms.
The administration deems CFPB’s funding unlawful, barring new draws from the Fed and pointing the watchdog toward a cash-out shutdown early next year. ❝The Trump administration has formally determined the [CFPB’s] current funding mechanism is unlawful.❞ Michael Stratford — ❝Trump administration declares CFPB funding illegal❞ — Politico — Tue. 11-Nov-2025 The Bureau ❝anticipates exhausting its currently available funds in early 2026.❞ Michael Stratford — ibid
November 12, 2025 at 1:47 AM
ajsdecepida.bsky.social
Citations: 1 ❝SEALs flatten ❛weak❜ Hegseth as elite captain’s career ruined because she’s female: report❞ — Raw Story, Tue. 11-Nov-2025 — https://www.rawstory.com/pete-hegseth-2674284934/ 2 ❝Pentagon Pete Accused of Forcing Out SEAL Team Six Heroine❞ — The Daily Beast, Tue. 11-Nov-2025 — https://www.thedailybeast.com/pentagon-pete-hegseth-accused-of-pushing-out-first-woman-to-serve-with-navy-seal-team-six/ 3 ❝Navy Reserve, Naval Special Warfare Leaders Removed from Command❞ — USNI News, Fri. 22-Aug-2025 — https://news.usni.org/2025/08/22/navy-reserve-naval-special-warfare-leaders-removed-from-command 4 ❝Pentagon fires heads of Navy Reserve, Naval Special Warfare Command❞ — Task & Purpose, Sat. 23-Aug-2025 — https://taskandpurpose.com/news/navy-fires-reserve-special-warfare-command/ 5 ❝Hegseth removes first female superintendent in shake-up at Naval Academy❞ — The Washington Post, Fri. 18-Jul-2025 — https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2025/07/18/yvette-davids-naval-academy-hegseth/ 6 ❝Hegseth wants ❛male standard❜ for combat roles. Many female veterans say that’s already the case❞ — AP News, Tue. 30-Sep-2025 — https://apnews.com/article/b423fd49730d9ab97151a2d2a4fdf6a7 7 ❝2023 Demographics Profile of the Military Community❞ (PDF) — Department of Defense (Military OneSource), Mon. 16-Dec-2024 — https://download.militaryonesource.mil/12038/MOS/Reports/2023-demographics-report.pdf 8 ❝Pentagon chief cancels program on women in security that was signed into law by Trump❞ — Reuters, Tue. 29-Apr-2025 — https://www.Reuters.com/world/us/pentagon-chief-cancels-program-women-security-that-was-signed-into-law-by-trump-2025-04-29/ 9 ❝Hegseth terminates women’s advisory group, slams ❛divisive agenda❜❞ — Military Times, Tue. 23-Sep-2025 — https://www.militarytimes.com/news/pentagon-congress/2025/09/23/hegseth-terminates-womens-advisory-group-slams-divisive-agenda/
November 11, 2025 at 8:38 PM
ajsdecepida.bsky.social
🔃 {𝗮𝙅𝙎𝘿} My notes about the article… ⤵
{𝗮𝙅𝙎𝘿} My notes about the article… Claim set A Navy captain who would have been the first woman to lead a Naval Special Warfare command had her promotion cancelled two weeks before the ceremony.1,2 Sources allege the move reflects Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s hostility to women in combat roles; Pentagon interlocutors deny that and cite role/qualification or restructuring.1,2 Because of Navy ❝up-or-out❞ rules, cancelling the billet effectively ends the officer’s career.1,2 The episode lands amid broader Hegseth-era actions affecting senior women and gender-policy programs.3,4,5,6,8,9 Corroboration & Context Secondary outlets (Daily Beast, Memeorandum index) echo CNN’s reporting on the revoked orders and competing explanations; CNN itself is referenced but not quoted here due to access limits.2 Separate, documented personnel shake-ups since mid-2025 include the removal of Naval Special Warfare Command’s admiral and the Navy Reserve chief.3,4 Hegseth replaced the Naval Academy’s first female superintendent and has dismantled women-focused programs/advisory bodies, framing them as ❝woke.❞5,8,9 AP contemporaneously recorded Hegseth urging a ❝return to the highest male standard❞ for combat roles, a stance disputed by female veterans who note standards are already gender-neutral.6 Chronology & Sequence Fri. 22-Aug-2025: USNI reports removal of NSW Command leader; shortly after, Task & Purpose confirms both NSW and Navy Reserve chiefs ousted.3,4 Fri. 18-Jul-2025: WaPo reports superintendent Yvette Davids replaced.5 Tue. 30-Sep-2025: AP covers Hegseth’s Quantico address on ❝male standard.❞6 Tue. 29-Apr-2025: WPS program cancelation reported; later, DACOWITS termination reported in September.8,9 Tue. 11-Nov-2025: Raw Story aggregates CNN account of the cancelled NSW woman’s command orders.1,2 Risks & Trade-offs Talent loss: Cancelling a top-ranked officer’s command undercuts merit signals within special operations and deters future female candidates.2,6 Force composition: Women constitute ~17.7% of active duty; policy shifts that reduce perceived fairness may harm retention/recruitment.4,6,7 Governance risk: If informal phones supersede standard orders, auditability and accountability degrade.2 Disagreement Radar (Fact / Interpretation / Method) Fact: Orders revoked ≤ two weeks pre-ceremony; status of billet justification (role ❝not necessary❞) vs. ❝not a SEAL❞ qualification dispute.2 Interpretation: Critics infer gender bias; Pentagon-side sources frame it as organizational/qualification logic.1,2 Method: Reliance on anonymous sources vs. official documentation leaves room for revision when records or on-the-record statements surface.2 Confidence Bands (Tue. 11-Nov-2025) High: Orders were revoked; the officer’s promotion/command did not proceed.1,2 Medium: Causal attribution to Hegseth’s direct intervention remains contested pending documentary evidence.1,2 Medium-High: Broader pattern of removals and program terminations affecting women is well-documented.3,4,5,8,9 Indicators to Watch Official Navy paper trail (orders modification memos, billet justification, selection board rankings).2 IG/GAO inquiries or congressional oversight letters on NSW personnel decisions.3,4,5 Future flag-officer slates and special operations command assignments by gender.7 Retention/exit-survey signals among special operations-track women after Sept.–Nov. 2025.7 What Would Change This Release of the underlying assignment orders and cancellation rationale.2 On-the-record statements from the officer, NSW leadership, or SECDEF staff.1,2 Independent confirmation from additional primary documents (e.g., fitreps, selection board minutes).2 Method & Scope Primary narrative from Raw Story summarizing CNN; secondary corroboration via Daily Beast.1,2 Context built from AP reporting, USNI/Task & Purpose personnel records, Washington Post coverage, and DoD demographics.3,4,5,6,7,8,9 Bottom Line A barrier-breaking NSW command for a female Navy captain was abruptly cancelled, ending her career under ❝up-or-out.❞ Allegations center on anti-women bias; official explanations cite structure/qualifications. The episode aligns with recent personnel and policy shifts disadvantaging women, but documentary proof of intent is still pending.1,2,3,4,5,6,8,9
November 11, 2025 at 8:38 PM
ajsdecepida.bsky.social
Navy captain set to become first woman to head a Naval Special Warfare command had her orders revoked two weeks pre-ceremony, per CNN reports. DoD sources deny bias; critics blame Hegseth. Career-ending under ❝up-or-out❞ rules; fallout for women’s retention looms.
A decorated Navy captain’s ground-breaking command was abruptly pulled, with multiple sources alleging hostility to women at the top of the Pentagon. ❝They want to keep it the brotherhood and don’t like that she’s coming in and challenging the status quo.❞ Navy special operations source — ❝SEALs flatten ❛weak❜ Hegseth as elite captain’s career ruined because she’s female: report❞ — Raw Story — Tue. 11-Nov-2025 ❝They can justify it by saying she’s not qualified because she’s not a SEAL. But the SEALs thought she was qualified.❞ Retired SEAL — ibid ❝To be quite honest, I am fearful for women in uniform right now.❞ Patti J. Tutalo — ibid
November 11, 2025 at 8:38 PM
ajsdecepida.bsky.social
Bottom Line Trump’s $2,000 ❝tariff dividend❞ is politically vivid but fiscally upside-down: one round costs ~$600B against ~$195B in FY2025 tariff receipts, raising deficits unless Congress both authorizes it and finds offsets.1,2,3,7 A yearly $2,000 dividend would add trillions to debt over a decade under independent scoring.2 ACA enhanced credits (~$35B/yr) and CPB (~$0.5B/yr) are tiny compared with a $600B dividend.6,16 Claims that PEPFAR was ❝shut down❞ overstate a freeze/stop-work episode; funding posture has been mixed and evolving.9,10,11 Citations: 1 ❝Trump says he’ll issue $2,000 tariff dividend to all except ❛high-income people❜❞ — ABC News, Sun. 09-Nov-2025 — https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-hell-issue-2000-tariff-dividend-except-high/story?id=127356839 2 ❝Tariff Dividends Could Cost $600 Billion Per Year❞ — Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB), Mon. 10-Nov-2025 — https://www.crfb.org/blogs/tariff-dividends-could-cost-600-billion-year 3 ❝Tariff Revenue Soars in FY 2025 Amid Legal Uncertainty❞ — CRFB, Mon. 27-Oct-2025 — https://www.crfb.org/blogs/tariff-revenue-soars-fy-2025-amid-legal-uncertainty 4 ❝Trump’s $2,000 Tariff Dividend Payments Would Explode the Deficit by Nearly $4 Trillion Over a Decade❞ — Common Dreams (Dean Baker op-ed), Mon. 10-Nov-2025 — https://www.commondreams.org/tag/tariffs 5 ❝AP FACT CHECK: Trump exaggerates revenue from tariffs❞ (updated) — Associated Press, Mon. 21-Apr-2025 — https://apnews.com/article/trump-fact-focus-tariffs-us-deficit-85c4c 6 ❝Understanding the ACA Subsidy Discussion❞ — CRFB, Wed. 05-Nov-2025 — https://www.crfb.org/blogs/understanding-aca-subsidy-discussion 7 ❝Trump proposed $2000 payments for Americans from tariff revenue: what to know❞ — PolitiFact, Mon. 10-Nov-2025 — https://www.politifact.com/article/2025/nov/10/Trump-tariff-dividend-2000-stimulus/ 8 ❝Trump says Americans will get $2000 from tariffs, but …❞ — Yahoo Finance, Sun. 09-Nov-2025 — https://finance.yahoo.com/news/trump-says-americans-2-000-001500859.html 9 ❝IAS statement: Restore access to all PEPFAR-supported HIV services immediately❞ — International AIDS Society, Wed. 29-Jan-2025 — https://www.iasociety.org/ias-statement/restore-access-all-pepfar-supported-hiv-services-immediately 10 ❝The Trump Administration’s Foreign Aid Review: Status of PEPFAR❞ — KFF, Thu. 16-Oct-2025 — https://www.kff.org/global-health-policy/the-trump-administrations-foreign-aid-review-status-of-pepfar/ 11 ❝U.S. exempts security funds from aid freeze; little for humanitarian programs❞ — Reuters, Fri. 21-Feb-2025 — https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-exempts-security-funds-aid-freeze-little-humanitarian-programs-2025-02-21/ 12 ❝Appellate judges question Trump’s authority to impose tariffs without Congress❞ — Associated Press, Wed. 30-Jul-2025 — https://apnews.com/article/4c289f51008f6a3a02939caa73ab5404 13 ❝The Estimated Effects of Enacting Selected Health Legislation❞ — CBO (PDF), Thu. 18-Sep-2025 — https://www.cbo.gov/publication/61734 14 ❝ACA Marketplace Premium Payments Would More than Double on Average Next Year if Enhanced Premium Tax Credits Expire❞ — KFF, Tue. 30-Sep-2025 — https://www.kff.org/affordable-care-act/aca-marketplace-premium-payments-would-more-than-double-on-average-next-year-if-enhanced-premium-tax-credits-expire/ 15 ❝It’s ❛too late❜ to extend ACA subsidies without major disruptions, some states and lawmakers say❞ — Politico, Thu. 16-Oct-2025 — https://www.politico.com/news/2025/10/16/its-too-late-to-extend-aca-subsidies-without-major-disruptions-some-states-and-lawmakers-say-00612001 16 ❝CPB Statement in Response to President Trump’s Proposed Rescissions Package and Budget Eliminating CPB Funding❞ — Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), Tue. 03-Jun-2025 — https://cpb.org/pressroom/cpb-statement-response-president-trumps-proposed-rescissions-package-and-budget 17 ❝Rescissions Proposals Pursuant to the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974❞ — Federal Register, Mon. 09-Jun-2025 — https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/06/09/2025-10377/rescissions-proposals-pursuant-to-the-congressional-budget-and-impoundment-control-act-of-1974
November 11, 2025 at 7:54 PM
ajsdecepida.bsky.social
🔄 {𝗮𝙅𝙎𝘿} My notes about the article… ⤵
{𝗮𝙅𝙎𝘿} My notes about the article… Claim Set The article argues Trump’s promised ❝tariff dividend❞ of $2,000 per person (excluding ❝high-income people❞) would cost >$600B per round and thus balloon deficits; it contrasts this with far smaller line-items like ACA enhanced premium tax credits (~$35B/yr) and CPB (~$0.55B/yr).1,2,3,4,5,6 It asserts tariff revenues are ~$270B, implying a large shortfall versus any $2,000 payout round.4 It further claims Trump ❝shut down PEPFAR,❞ saving ~$6B/yr.4 Corroboration & Context Proposal (on record): Trump publicly vowed a ❝dividend of at least $2,000 a person (not including high income people)❞; Treasury Sec. Bessent has not detailed delivery mechanics.1 Budget math (independent): CRFB estimates ~$600B per round for $2,000 payments to adults and children, consistent with simple population arithmetic; it further projects ~$6T added to deficits over ten years if paid annually.2 Tariff revenue (actuals): FY2025 customs duties totalled ~$195B (Treasury MT S, compiled by CRFB). Earlier-in-year averages cited by AP imply much lower annualized figures than $270B. Takeaway: $270B is high versus final FY2025 receipts.3,5 Baseline deficits: FY2025 deficit finalized at ~$1.8T; without offsets, any large new cash transfer worsens the trajectory.3 Legality/process: Direct federal cash payments require congressional appropriation; experts note the White House has not produced an operational plan.7,8 Evidence Chain / What’s Confirmed Now Confirmed: Trump’s $2,000 ❝dividend❞ statement; no formal program; CRFB’s ~$600B/round estimate; FY2025 tariff receipts of ~$195B; FY2025 deficit ~$1.8T.1,2,3 Consistent but inference: A $600B round cannot be fully covered by current-pace tariff receipts; net effect is deficit-increasing absent offsets.2,3,5 Contested/overstated: Article’s $270B tariff-revenue figure (above FY2025 receipts); description that Trump ❝shut down PEPFAR.❞3,4,9,10,11 Chronology & Sequence Jan.–Apr. 2025: Broad tariffs imposed; appellate court casts doubt on IEEPA tariff authority; AP documents lower tariff-revenue run-rate early in the year.5,12 Oct. 27, 2025: CRFB tallies FY2025 customs duties at $195B.3 Nov. 9-10, 2025: Trump reiterates $2,000 ❝dividend❞; CRFB posts $600B/round analysis.1,2 Civics & Accountability (Power Flow) Congress’s ❝power of the purse❞: Any mass cash dividend must be authorized and appropriated by Congress, as with prior stimulus checks; campaign-style promises do not create spending authority.7,8 Tariff authority under review: Courts are testing the President’s unilateral tariff powers; a Supreme Court loss could erase revenue and create refund liabilities.12 Regulatory/Policy Trajectory ACA enhanced subsidies: CBO/CRFB peg a full extension at ~$350B over 10 years (~$35B/yr); KFF/others project premium payment doubling for many if they lapse — context for the article’s comparison.6,13,14,15 CPB: Annual appropriation ~$535M (FY2025/26 window), orders of magnitude smaller than a $600B cash round.16,17 Risks & Trade-offs Deficit impact: A $600B transfer funded by <$200B in annual tariff receipts implies hundreds of billions in new borrowing per round.2,3 Legal/revenue risk: If courts strike down key tariffs, revenues fall and refunds may be owed, worsening the fiscal hit of any dividends.3,12 Incidence: Tariffs are largely paid by importers/consumers; using them to fund dividends mixes regulatory and revenue aims and can raise prices.5 Disagreement Radar (Fact / Interpretation / Method) Fact: Article’s $270B tariff-revenue figure vs. $195B documented FY2025 duties (methodology/timing gap).3,4 Interpretation: Characterizing PEPFAR as ❝shut down❞ vs. aid freeze/stop-work order with partial waivers and later funding actions.9,10,11 Confidence Bands (Tue. 11-Nov-2025) High: Trump publicly promised a $2,000 ❝tariff dividend❞; CRFB’s ~$600B/round cost; FY2025 duties ~$195B; FY2025 deficit ~$1.8T.1,2,3 Medium-High: Any $2,000 round increases deficits substantially absent offsets and/or far higher sustained tariff receipts.2,3,5 Medium: Article’s $270B tariff-revenue figure; PEPFAR described as ❝shut down.❞3,4,9,10,11 Indicators to Watch Statute/appropriation: Any bill text authorizing/appropriating ❝dividends.❞7,8 Tariff litigation: Supreme Court decision on IEEPA-based tariffs.12 Scorekeeping: CBO/CRFB scoring of any enacted dividend design (scope, income phase-outs, cadence).2,6 Receipts: Monthly Treasury Statement customs-duty line.3 What Would Change This A materially different benefit design (e.g., smaller amount, less frequent, tighter phase-outs) or sustained tariff receipts several hundred billions above FY2025 levels; or Congress declines cash and opts for tax-code rebates instead.2,7,8 Method & Scope Primary statements (President/Treasury); fiscal tallies (Treasury via CRFB); CBO/JCT/CRFB/KFF analyses for ACA context; health-aid sources (IAS, KFF) for PEPFAR status. PDFs/screens where applicable were checked; dates are rendered in ET.1,2,3,5,6,9,10,11,12
November 11, 2025 at 7:54 PM
ajsdecepida.bsky.social
👀🤔 Dean Baker argues Trump’s $2,000 ❝tariff dividend❞ would pay out >$600B while tariffs raise only ~$270B — pushing the 2026 deficit toward ~$2.1T. He contrasts the cost with ACA subsidies, PEPFAR, and public broadcasting.
Trump’s $2,000 tariff-dividend promise fails basic math, Baker says: payouts would far exceed tariff revenue and blow up the deficit, making debt-reduction claims incoherent. ❝The arithmetic here is about as simple as it gets.❞ Dean Baker — ❝Trump’s desperate new gambit should have even Republicans screaming bloody murder❞ — Raw Story — Tue. 11-Nov-2025 ❝That means we will be paying out $330 billion more in Trump tariff dividend checks than he is raising in tariff revenue.❞ Dean Baker — ibid ❝Letting someone talk about $2,000 dividend checks, and also about paying down the debt, is a sick joke.❞ Dean Baker — ibid
November 11, 2025 at 7:54 PM
ajsdecepida.bsky.social
Citations: 1 ❝Text — H.R.5371: Continuing Appropriations… and Extensions Act, 2026 (Division C, Sec. 213)❞ — Congress.gov, Tue. 11-Nov-2025 — https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/5371/text 2 ❝Shutdown Deal Would Let Senators Sue for Jack Smith Searches❞ — Bloomberg Law, Mon. 10-Nov-2025 — https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/shutdown-deal-would-let-senators-sue-over-jack-smith-searches 3 ❝John Thune secures provision in government funding bill letting senators sue for phone records seizure❞ — Politico, Mon. 10-Nov-2025 — https://www.politico.com/news/2025/11/10/john-thune-government-funding-phone-records-seizure-00646094 4 ❝US Senate passes bill to end government shutdown, sends measure to House❞ — Reuters, Tue. 11-Nov-2025 — https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-senate-compromise-sets-stage-end-government-shutdown-2025-11-10/ 5 ❝Shutdown deal lets senators sue for $500k over data seizures in Jan. 6 probe❞ — CBS News (Live Updates), Tue. 11-Nov-2025 — https://www.cbsnews.com/news/government-shutdown-senate-lawsuits-500k-january-6/ 6 ❝Republicans Use Shutdown Deal to Take Revenge Against Jack Smith❞ — The New Republic, Tue. 11-Nov-2025 — https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/dem-surrender-caucus-voted-pure-033426176.html
November 11, 2025 at 6:39 PM
ajsdecepida.bsky.social
🔃 {𝗮𝙅𝙎𝘿} My notes about the article… ⤵
{𝗮𝙅𝙎𝘿} My notes about the article… Claim set The Senate’s shutdown package (H.R. 5371) includes Section 213 amending 2 U.S.C. §6628 to require provider/Senate notice for ❝Senate data❞ and to create a private cause of action with statutory damages of at least $500,000 per instance, attorney fees, and a sovereign-immunity waiver. Limited retroactivity applies from Jan. 1, 2022.1 Reporting ties the provision to undisclosed phone-record demands involving GOP senators during Special Counsel Jack Smith’s Jan. 6-related probes; the provision would newly authorize those senators to sue.2,3 The shutdown package advanced/passed the Senate and moved to the House as part of a deal to reopen government.4,5 TNR frames the move as eight Senate Democrats giving Republicans a path to ❝take revenge❞ on Jack Smith by enabling these suits.6 Corroboration & Context The statutory text defines ❝Senate data,❞ mandates notice (providers and SAA), and sets a special rule: notice delays only when a senator is a formal criminal ❝target,❞ with court-ordered 60-day windows.1 The cause-of-action section specifies per-❝instance❞ damages (e.g., each device/account or nondisclosure order), five-year limitations from actual notice, and bars absolute/qualified immunity defenses.1 Bloomberg Law and Politico both connect the policy to Thune-led GOP efforts after revelations about Smith-era data requests; they describe minimum $500k damages and retroactivity.2,3 Civics & Accountability (Power Flow) Congress is creating a private right of action against the United States, expressly waiving sovereign immunity and constraining secrecy orders vis-à-vis senators’ data.1 DoJ retains a path to delay notice only if a senator was formally designated a criminal target and a judge approved limited nondisclosure.1 Evidence Chain / What’s Confirmed Now Exact language (notice mandate; damages; retroactivity) appears in H.R. 5371, Division C, Sec. 213.1 National outlets report Senate passage/advancement of the shutdown package.4,5 Specialist/legal press reports the Jack Smith linkage and expected beneficiaries (GOP senators).2,3 Risks & Trade-offs Potential chilling of criminal inquiries touching Senate offices; costly litigation exposure for the U.S. (statutory damages per instance plus fees).1,2 Separation-of-powers friction: statutory override of standard secrecy orders for non-target senators; courts may face threshold fights over definitions and ❝instance❞ counting.1 Disagreement Radar (Fact / Interpretation / Method) Interpretation: Critics call it a partisan payoff; proponents frame it as guardrails against DoJ overreach and for Speech-or-Debate protections.2,3 Method: Media characterizations vary on scope (❝millions❞) because total exposure depends on how many ❝instances❞ courts count. The $500k minimum per instance is textual.1,2 Confidence Bands (Tue. 11-Nov-2025) High: H.R. 5371 contains Sec. 213 with notice, private right of action, $500k-per-instance damages, and Jan. 1, 2022 retroactivity.1 High: Coverage links the measure to Smith-era data seizures involving GOP senators.2,3 Medium-High: Senate passage/advancement toward ending the shutdown; House action pending/underway.4,5 Indicators to Watch House floor timing and any amendment stripping or narrowing Sec. 213.4,5 Immediate filings by senators; early judicial rulings on ❝instance❞ counting and retroactivity.1 DoJ/carrier compliance guidance on notice requirements.1 What Would Change This If the House removes the provision or a court enjoins it pre-effectiveness.4,5 Clarifying legislation or Senate rules guidance narrowing ❝Senate data❞ scope.1 Method & Scope Primary source: Congress.gov text of H.R. 5371 (Division C, Sec. 213).1 Secondary: Bloomberg Law and Politico on provenance/intent; Reuters and CBS on bill movement/passage context.2,3,4,5 TNR article provides framing and emphasis on partisan stakes.6 Bottom Line The shutdown package carries a little-noticed ❝Senate data❞ section: mandatory notice plus a new private right of action with $500k-per-instance damages, retroactive to 2022 — potentially inviting lawsuits over Jack Smith-era seizures. The text is explicit on damages, immunity waiver, and retroactivity.1 Coverage ties the aim to GOP senators whose records were obtained in Jan. 6-related probes.2,3 Fate now hinges on House action and possible legal challenges.4,5
November 11, 2025 at 6:39 PM
ajsdecepida.bsky.social
Précis of Malcolm Ferguson’s article follows ⤵
Précis of Malcolm Ferguson’s article What's New Tue. 11-Nov-2025, The New Republic reports the Senate’s shutdown package adds a ❝Senate data❞ provision: mandatory notice of data requests and a private right of action for undisclosed seizures. Why It Matters Statutory damages are set at a minimum $500,000 per violation (plus fees), with a waiver of sovereign immunity — exposure that could reach millions across multiple ❝instances.❞ Who It Could Affect Republican senators whose phone/account data were quietly obtained during Jack Smith’s Jan. 6-related probes could now sue, as the measure applies retroactively to 01-Jan-2022. Limits & Carve-Outs If a senator is a formal criminal ❝target,❞ a judge can delay notice up to 60 days; that can serve as an affirmative defence for the government. What to Watch House action on the package; any immediate lawsuits; DoJ guidance and carrier compliance; potential court challenges to the retroactivity or immunity waiver.
November 11, 2025 at 6:22 PM
ajsdecepida.bsky.social
🚨👀 Senate shutdown package quietly adds a new ❝Senate data❞ rule: providers must notify senators of DoJ requests and, if not, senators can sue the U.S. for ≥$500k per violation — retroactive to Jan. 1, 2022. Could cover Jack Smith-era seizures.
A Senate deal to end the shutdown contains a retroactive clause letting senators sue over undisclosed data seizures — potentially targeting Jack Smith-era requests. ❝Eight Senate Democrats didn’t just give up on affordable health care…they also gave the GOP a clear path to take revenge on former…special counsel Jack Smith.❞ Malcolm Ferguson — ❝Republicans Use Shutdown Deal to Take Revenge Against Jack Smith❞ — The New Republic — Tue. 11-Nov-2025 ❝Any Senator whose Senate data…has been…searched…without notice…may bring a civil action against the United States.❞ Bill text — ibid
November 11, 2025 at 6:22 PM
ajsdecepida.bsky.social
Précis of Rachel Kahn’s report follows ⤵
Précis of Rachel Kahn’s report Ruling Mon. 10-Nov-2025, Judge Dianna Gibson invalidated the legislature’s congressional map and adopted a Prop-4-compliant plan proposed by voting-rights groups. Legal Reasoning She found the legislature’s map was designed to advantage Republicans; the adopted plan was independently produced and barred partisan data. Immediate Effect The replacement map is projected to create Utah’s first Democratic-leaning U.S. House district in roughly 25 years. Background Voters approved Proposition 4 in 2018 to set up an independent redistricting commission and prohibit partisan inputs; lawmakers rolled it back in 2020, prompting a 2022 suit by the League of Women Voters of Utah and Mormon Women for Ethical Government. What to Watch Appeals and implementation timelines; whether the new lines stand for the coming midterms and how candidate fields adjust.
November 11, 2025 at 6:03 PM
ajsdecepida.bsky.social
Utah judge Dianna Gibson rejects the GOP-drawn congressional map as partisan and selects a Prop-4-compliant plan — likely creating the state’s first Dem-leaning House district in 25 years ahead of the midterms.
A Utah court tossed the legislature’s map and approved a plaintiffs’ alternative likely to yield the state’s first Democratic-leaning district in decades. ❝ [The map was] drawn with the purpose to favor Republicans.❞ Judge Dianna Gibson — ❝Democrats Get Big Win in Red State After GOP’s Blatant Gerrymandering❞ — The New Republic — Tue. 11-Nov-2025
November 11, 2025 at 6:03 PM
ajsdecepida.bsky.social
Citations: 1 ❝The Real Reason Dems Caved on Shutdown Will Make You Want to Scream❞ — The New Republic, Mon. 10-Nov-2025 — https://newrepublic.com/post/202948/real-reason-democrats-caved-shutdown-obamacare-midterms 2 ❝US Senate advances bill to end federal shutdown❞ — Reuters, Sun. 09-Nov-2025 — https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/trump-takes-aim-obamacare-historic-federal-shutdown-hits-40th-day-2025-11-09/ 3 ❝The Eight Senators Who Broke with Democrats to End the Government Shutdown❞ — TIME, Tue. 11-Nov-2025 — https://time.com/7332610/8-senators-broke-with-democrats-to-end-government-shutdown/ 4 ❝ACA Marketplace Premium Payments Would More than Double on Average Next Year if Enhanced Premium Tax Credits Expire❞ — KFF, Tue. 30-Sep-2025 — https://www.kff.org/affordable-care-act/aca-marketplace-premium-payments-would-more-than-double-on-average-next-year-if-enhanced-premium-tax-credits-expire/ 5 ❝4.8 Million People Will Lose Coverage in 2026 If Enhanced Premium Tax Credits Expire❞ — Urban Institute, Wed. 17-Sep-2025 — https://www.urban.org/research/publication/48-million-people-will-lose-coverage-2026-if-enhanced-premium-tax-credits 6 ❝Shutdown: the US Senate votes to end the blockade and adopt the budget❞ — Le Monde, Mon. 10-Nov-2025 — https://www.lemonde.fr/en/united-states/article/2025/11/10/shutdown-the-us-senate-votes-to-end-the-blockade-and-adopt-the-budget_6541109_133.html
November 11, 2025 at 5:52 PM
ajsdecepida.bsky.social
🔄 {𝗮𝙅𝙎𝘿} My notes about the article… ⤵
{𝗮𝙅𝙎𝘿} My notes about the article… Claim Set On Sun. 09-Nov-2025, the Senate advanced a House-passed stopgap to reopen government; a 60-40 vote followed a deal with Democrats for a December vote on ACA subsidies, not an extension in the bill itself.1,2 Eight members of the Senate Democratic caucus — Durbin, Cortez Masto, Rosen, Hassan, Shaheen, Fetterman, Kaine — and independent Angus King — broke with party leadership to back the plan.1,3 Reporting cited by the article says some Democrats feared that extending enhanced ACA premium tax credits would deprive them of an election issue; letting them lapse would hand Democrats a cudgel.1 If the enhanced credits expire after 2025, average net premium payments for subsidized marketplace enrollees would more than double in 2026; Urban Institute projects about 4.8 million more uninsured relative to extension.4,5 Corroboration & Context Reuters contemporaneously reports the 60-40 procedural vote on Sun. 09-Nov-2025, the 40-day length of the shutdown, and the deal’s promise of a December vote on subsidies.2 Multiple outlets describe this as the longest U.S. shutdown; coverage the next day details the eight cross-over votes and the absence of an immediate subsidy extension.3,6 KFF estimates a 114% increase in average net premiums for subsidized enrollees if enhanced credits lapse in 2026.4 Urban Institute’s microsimulation estimates 4.8M more uninsured and identifies states (e.g., MS, SC, TN, TX, GA) with steep drops in subsidized enrolment if credits expire.5 Chronology & Sequence Shutdown began Tue. 01-Oct-2025; Senate advanced reopening measure Sun. 09-Nov-2025; subsequent votes and House action still required as of Mon. 10-Nov-2025.2,6 Civics & Accountability (Power Flow) Senate required 60 votes to overcome a filibuster; GOP leaders secured eight cross-over votes after agreeing only to a future subsidies vote. House action and presidential signature remained necessary.2,6 The article relays anxieties (via NYT) about potential rules changes and electoral calculus; these are reported motivations, not formal Senate actions.1 Evidence Chain / What’s Confirmed Now Names of the eight senators: reported by TNR and mainstream outlets; aligned lists.1,3 No enacted extension in the stopgap; only a promised vote window.2,6 Quantified impacts if credits lapse: KFF (payments more than double for subsidized enrollees); Urban Institute (≈4.8M uninsured).4,5 Risks & Trade-offs Policy risk: Lapse raises financial barriers, shrinking marketplace enrolment and worsening risk pools, which can feed back into higher premiums.4,5 Political risk: If the December vote fails in either chamber, Democrats own the trade-off of reopening government without securing the extension.2,6 Disagreement Radar (Fact / Interpretation / Method) Interpretation: Supporters argue reopening enables a clean vote later; critics say the leverage was surrendered and outcomes are uncertain.2,6 Method: Impact estimates differ by model and assumptions (e.g., rate filings, income distributions), but directionality (higher net payments; coverage losses) is consistent.4,5 Confidence Bands (Tue. 11-Nov-2025) High: Senate advanced a CR without an ACA subsidy extension; a December vote was part of the deal.2,6 High: Eight named senators crossed over.1,3 Medium-High: If credits lapse, subsidized enrollees❛ net payments rise sharply; millions more uninsured.4,5 Medium: Reported electoral calculus and filibuster concerns influenced strategy.1 Indicators to Watch Formal scheduling of the December subsidies vote; whip counts.2 House leadership signals on taking up any Senate-passed extension.6 Updated KFF/Urban/CBO projections as 2026 premiums finalize.4,5 What Would Change This Enactment of an extension (temporary or permanent) before 2026 plan year deadlines.2,6 State-level subsidies offsetting federal lapse (partial mitigation).4 Method & Scope Primary event records from wire/reporting; policy impact from KFF (methods described) and Urban Institute (HIPSM model).2,4,5,6 The motivational claims are attributed to NYT via TNR’s report; underlying NYT text not reproduced here.1 Bottom Line The shutdown moved toward resolution after eight cross-over votes delivered a stopgap without extending ACA subsidies — the deal hinges on a later vote with uncertain prospects. Without extension, subsidized enrollees❜ average net premiums would more than double in 2026.4 Urban Institute projects about 4.8 million more uninsured if credits lapse.5 Political calculus traded immediate policy certainty for a promise of a December vote.2,6
November 11, 2025 at 5:52 PM
ajsdecepida.bsky.social
Précis of Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling’s article follows ⤵
Précis of Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling’s article What Happened After a 40-day shutdown, eight members of the Senate Democratic caucus backed a GOP funding deal that omitted an ACA subsidy extension, settling for a promised vote in December. Who Broke Ranks Dick Durbin, Catherine Cortez Masto, Jacky Rosen, Maggie Hassan, Jeanne Shaheen, John Fetterman, Tim Kaine, and independent Angus King. Why It Happened (Per the Article) Democrats feared that actually extending the enhanced premium tax credits would remove a potent campaign issue; allowing expiration gives them something to run on. Why It Matters If the enhanced credits lapse at year-end, analysts project net premiums would more than double on average for subsidized enrollees and millions could lose coverage. The Stakes Low-income regions and states with many marketplace enrollees would be hit hardest; the health-system ripple effects would raise costs for those who remain insured.
November 11, 2025 at 5:52 PM
ajsdecepida.bsky.social
Eight Senate Democrats (plus Angus King) backed a GOP stopgap to end the 40-day shutdown without extending ACA subsidies. A later vote was promised. Analyses say net premiums would roughly double in 2026 and ~4-5M could lose coverage.
The piece argues the shutdown ended because Democrats wanted to keep Obamacare as an election issue, with eight senators backing a deal minus subsidy extension. ❝It turns out, the government shutdown ended because some senators want to be able to keep campaigning on Obamacare.❞ Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling — ❝The Real Reason Dems Caved on Shutdown Will Make You Want to Scream❞ — The New Republic — Mon. 10-Nov-2025 ❝Seven Senate Democrats and one independent caved on the government shutdown Sunday, leaving their party empty-handed after a grueling 40-day deadlock with Republicans.❞ Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling — ibid ❝The political logic of the shutdown fight was inverted: If Democrats got the tax credits extended — if they ❛won❜ — … If Republicans … allowed the tax credits to expire — … they would be handing Democrats a cudgel…❞ Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling — ibid
November 11, 2025 at 5:52 PM
ajsdecepida.bsky.social
{𝗮𝙅𝙎𝘿} Today is 🇨🇦 107th Remembrance Day.
Today is 🇨🇦 107th Remembrance Day.
November 11, 2025 at 4:54 PM
ajsdecepida.bsky.social
Citations: 1 ❝BBC boss and head of news quit after criticism of Trump documentary edit❞ — Reuters, Mon. 10-Nov-2025 — https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/britains-bbc-boss-tim-davie-resigns-following-criticism-over-trump-documentary-2025-11-09/ 2 ❝BBC crisis exposes fractures at renowned British institution❞ — Reuters, Mon. 10-Nov-2025 — https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/bbc-crisis-exposes-fractures-renowned-british-institution-2025-11-10/ 3 ❝Trump threatens to sue BBC as UK broadcaster admits error in editing his January 6 speech❞ — Reuters, Mon. 10-Nov-2025 — https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/bbc-chairman-apologises-error-judgment-trump-speech-edit-2025-11-10/ 4 ❝BBC chair Samir Shah’s letter to MPs — key points❞ — Sky News, Mon. 10-Nov-2025 — https://news.sky.com/story/bbc-chair-samir-shahs-letter-to-mps-key-points-13468063 5 ❝Exclusive: BBC doctored Trump speech, internal report reveals❞ — The Telegraph, Mon. 03-Nov-2025 — https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/11/03/bbc-report-reveals-bias-donald-trump/ 6 ❝Ofcom investigation finds BBC Gaza documentary in breach of Broadcasting Code❞ — Ofcom, Fri. 17-Oct-2025 — https://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv-radio-and-on-demand/broadcast-standards/ofcom-investigation-finds-bbc-gaza-documentary-in-breach-of-broadcasting-code 7 ❝UK regulator says BBC’s Gaza documentary broke broadcasting rules❞ — Reuters, Fri. 17-Oct-2025 — https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/uk-regulator-says-bbcs-gaza-documentary-broke-broadcasting-rules-2025-10-17/ 8 Donald ❝Trump threatens to sue BBC for $1bn over January 6 speech edit❞ — Financial Times, Mon. 10-Nov-2025 — https://www.ft.com/content/758d5947-1574-416f-938d-6f8b1bc276ef
November 11, 2025 at 4:48 PM