Analysis

The Homeland Security Funding Crisis: How Two Deaths in Minneapolis Sparked America’s Latest Government Shutdown

Published

4 months ago

February 15, 2026

A standoff over immigration reform leaves critical agencies unfunded as the political fallout from fatal shootings in Minnesota reverberates through Washington

At 12:01 a.m. on Saturday, the Department of Homeland Security became the latest casualty in America’s increasingly dysfunctional budget process—but this shutdown tells a story that extends far beyond partisan gridlock. It’s a reckoning over the limits of federal power, the price of aggressive immigration enforcement, and what happens when smartphone videos collide with official narratives in the social media age.

The immediate trigger: Two fatal shootings in Minneapolis that transformed a routine funding debate into an existential battle over how the United States polices its borders—and its own citizens.

Renée Good, a 37-year-old mother of three, was shot dead by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent on January 7. Seventeen days later, Alex Pretti, an intensive care nurse at a Veterans Affairs hospital, was killed by Border Patrol agents while filming their operations with his smartphone. Both were U.S. citizens. Both incidents were captured on video. And both contradicted the federal government’s initial explanations.

Now, as DHS’s baseline funding expires, Senate Democrats have drawn a line: no more money for Homeland Security without binding reforms to immigration enforcement operations. Republicans, meanwhile, argue that Democrats are weaponizing the appropriations process to hobble President Trump’s signature immigration agenda.

The result is a partial government shutdown affecting one of America’s largest federal departments—but with a peculiar twist that reveals both the dysfunction and the strategic calculations at play.

The Shutdown That Isn’t: Understanding DHS’s Funding Paradox

Unlike the record-breaking 43-day government shutdown that paralyzed Washington from October through mid-November 2025, this impasse affects only the Department of Homeland Security. The other eleven appropriations bills funding the rest of the federal government sailed through Congress at the end of January.

But even calling it a “DHS shutdown” overstates the impact on the administration’s most controversial operations. Thanks to last summer’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA)—a sweeping Republican reconciliation package—ICE and Customs and Border Protection have already secured $165 billion in multi-year funding. That includes $75 billion specifically for ICE and $65 billion for CBP, enough to carry Trump’s mass deportation campaign through the end of his term.

As House Appropriations Chairman Tom Cole, an Oklahoma Republican, bluntly put it: “The things they want to shut down aren’t going to shut down. ICE is fully funded. The Border Patrol is fully funded.”

So who actually suffers from a DHS funding lapse? Not immigration agents conducting raids. Instead, it’s the 95% of Transportation Security Administration officers who must work without pay at airport security checkpoints. It’s the 56,000 Coast Guard personnel—the only armed force housed within DHS—who will continue drug interdiction and search-and-rescue missions while their paychecks stop. It’s FEMA workers attempting to coordinate disaster relief while furloughed or unpaid.

According to DHS’s contingency plan, approximately 92% of the department’s 272,000 employees are deemed “essential” and must report to work. Only 8% will be furloughed. The irony is stark: The shutdown punishes agencies that have nothing to do with the Minneapolis killings while leaving immigration enforcement essentially untouched.

The Minneapolis Crucible: How Bystander Videos Became Political Weapons

The path to this shutdown began with Operation Metro Surge, the Trump administration’s massive immigration enforcement operation that deployed 2,000 federal agents to the Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolitan area in early January. The scale was unprecedented—the largest single-city immigration sweep in U.S. history—and the tactics quickly drew scrutiny.

Masked agents conducting what Minneapolis residents described as paramilitary-style raids. Reports of intimidation, racial profiling, and disproportionate force. Then, on January 7, came the first death.

Renée Good was sitting in her SUV, stopped sideways in the street, when ICE agent Jonathan Ross circled her vehicle on foot. After other agents approached and ordered her out while reaching through her window, Good briefly reversed, then began moving forward—away from Ross, according to bystander video. Ross, standing at the front-left of the vehicle, fired three shots as her car turned away from him, killing her.

Federal officials immediately claimed Ross acted in self-defense, that Good had weaponized her vehicle to run him over, and that the agent was hospitalized with serious injuries. Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey, having reviewed the bystander footage, offered a different assessment: “Having seen the video myself, I want to tell everybody directly that is bullshit. To ICE, get the fuck out of Minneapolis.”

The video went viral. A Quinnipiac poll found 82% of registered voters had seen footage of Good’s shooting by mid-January—an extraordinary level of public awareness that turned a local tragedy into a national flashpoint.

Then came Alex Pretti.

On January 24, the 37-year-old nurse was filming Border Patrol agents in the Whittier neighborhood when he witnessed an agent shove a woman to the ground. Pretti stepped between them. The agent pepper-sprayed both Pretti and the woman, then multiple agents wrestled Pretti to the ground. One removed Pretti’s legally carried firearm from his holster. Then, as Pretti lay on the ground surrounded by at least six agents, two officers—later identified by ProPublica as Jesus Ochoa and Raymundo Gutierrez—fired at least ten shots, killing him.

Within hours, DHS Secretary Kristi Noem called Pretti a “domestic terrorist.” White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller labeled him a “would-be assassin” who intended to “massacre” officers. The official statement claimed Pretti had “approached US Border Patrol officers with a 9mm semi-automatic handgun” and “violently resisted” attempts to disarm him.

Multiple bystander videos told a different story. They showed Pretti filming with his phone—not wielding a weapon. They showed an agent disarming him before he was shot. They showed, as NPR carefully documented, a narrative that “contradict[ed] the accounts of federal officials.”

“Once again DHS has come out with a predetermined narrative that contradicts everything we saw with our own eyes,” said Minnesota Representative Kelly Morrison, a Democrat. “Two 37-year-old Minnesotans are now dead, a poet and a nurse, for what?”

Democrats’ Demands: Ten Reforms That Became a Funding Firewall

The killings galvanized Senate Democrats in a way that previous immigration controversies had not. On February 4, party leaders released a formal list of ten demands that would need to be “cemented into law” before they would vote to fund DHS:

Key Democratic Reform Proposals:

Ban ICE and CBP agents from wearing masks to conceal their identities during operations
Mandate body cameras for all immigration enforcement agents in the field
Prohibit roving patrols and warrantless searches
End immigration enforcement in “sensitive locations” including schools, churches, and hospitals
Strengthen use-of-force policies and de-escalation training
Ban racial profiling in immigration operations
Increase transparency and public accountability for officer-involved shootings
Allow state and local law enforcement access to crime scenes involving federal agents
Provide congressional oversight of DHS’s internal investigations
Ensure cooperation with state prosecutors investigating federal agents

Some reforms, like body cameras, have attracted bipartisan support. Trump himself sent border czar Tom Homan to replace the Minneapolis Border Patrol commander, and DHS announced it was acquiring body cameras—meeting one Democratic demand without legislation.

But Republicans have balked at most other changes, particularly the mask prohibition. They argue that allowing agents to be filmed and identified puts them at risk of harassment, doxing, and targeted violence from immigration advocates and criminal organizations. Some Republicans have countered with their own demands, including measures to crack down on so-called sanctuary cities that limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement.

The fundamental impasse, however, is philosophical: Democrats see federal agents operating with insufficient oversight and accountability. Republicans see attempts to handcuff law enforcement during a crisis they believe requires maximum operational flexibility.

The Economic Ripple Effects: From Airport Delays to Disaster Response

While ICE operations continue unimpeded, the shutdown’s collateral damage is already materializing across sectors that have nothing to do with immigration.

Transportation Security and Travel Industry Impact

TSA acting administrator Ha Nguyen McNeill warned that forcing 95% of the agency’s screeners to work without pay creates “a cascading negative impact on the American economy.” History supports her concern: During the October-November shutdown, approximately 1,100 TSA officers quit—a 25% increase over the same period in 2024. As the current shutdown extends, similar attrition is expected.

Higher callout rates due to financial stress typically force TSA to close security lanes, extending wait times and causing flight delays or cancellations. The timing could prove particularly problematic: February’s light travel season offers some buffer, but spring break traffic begins in March. Major events like the World Cup and America’s 250th anniversary celebrations later this year will place extraordinary demands on an already strained system.

Fortunately, air traffic controllers work for the Federal Aviation Administration under the Department of Transportation, which has full-year funding, so basic flight operations remain unaffected.

Coast Guard Operations Under Strain

Vice Admiral Thomas Allan, the Coast Guard’s acting vice commandant, testified that the service would “suspend all missions except those for national security or the protection of life and property.” While law enforcement, national defense, and emergency response continue, training, maintenance, and long-term capability development cease.

All 56,000 active duty, reserve, and civilian Coast Guard personnel face working without pay—a particularly acute problem for enlisted sailors who often live paycheck to paycheck. During the previous shutdown, some Coast Guard families relied on food banks. The service, often called “America’s forgotten military branch,” finds itself once again bearing the cost of political dysfunction that has nothing to do with its mission.

FEMA and Disaster Preparedness

Gregg Phillips, associate administrator of FEMA’s Office of Response and Recovery, warned Congress that furloughing many FEMA workers would hamper the agency’s ability to “coordinate effectively with state, local, tribal, and territorial partners.” He called the prospect of crippling FEMA’s operations “[coming] at the expense of the American people.”

FEMA’s Disaster Relief Fund currently holds roughly $7 billion from prior appropriations, enough to respond to immediate emergencies. But if the shutdown extends beyond a month, or if a catastrophic disaster strikes, the agency’s capacity could be severely compromised. With hurricane season approaching and the agency still processing a backlog of claims from 2025’s devastating storms, the timing could hardly be worse.

Cybersecurity in the Crosshairs

Perhaps most concerning from a national security perspective: The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) will largely suspend operations. CISA helps state and local governments monitor their networks and defend against cyber threats—work that becomes especially critical as foreign adversaries probe American infrastructure and the 2026 midterm elections approach.

“When the government shuts down, our adversaries do not,” CISA leader Madhu Gottumukkala testified. Only functions essential for immediate safety—like 24/7 operation centers monitoring for imminent threats—continue. Threat assessments, security training, stakeholder engagement, and special event planning all cease.

The Political Calculus: What Each Side Stands to Gain or Lose

This shutdown represents a fundamental shift in how Democrats approach immigration politics. For years, the party largely avoided confrontations over immigration enforcement, wary of appearing soft on border security. The Minneapolis killings changed that calculation.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has framed the standoff as a moral imperative rather than a political gamble. “Our caucus is passionate about this,” he told reporters. “If you sat in on our caucus meetings, you’d see how strongly people feel.”

Public opinion polling suggests Democrats may have chosen their battle wisely. The Quinnipiac survey showing 82% awareness of Good’s shooting indicates unprecedented public engagement with immigration enforcement tactics. Multiple polls show majority support for body cameras and increased oversight—though opinions diverge sharply along partisan lines when questions reference Trump or ICE specifically.

For Republicans, the political optics are complicated. They can credibly argue that Democrats are holding disaster relief and airport security hostage over immigration disputes. “What they’re doing is hurting TSA agents, hurting air traffic controllers that would get a pay raise, keeping men and women from the Coast Guard from getting paid, making sure we can’t fully fund FEMA,” Chairman Cole said.

But Republicans also face pressure from their base to resist any constraints on Trump’s immigration agenda. The former president has made mass deportation central to his political identity, and any perceived retreat risks intraparty backlash.

The Trump administration has walked a careful line. In a memo directing DHS to execute shutdown plans, Office of Management and Budget Director Russ Vought emphasized that the administration “is currently engaged in good faith negotiations with Congress to address recently raised concerns.” Trump himself has been characteristically ambiguous, saying Democrats have “gone crazy” while acknowledging “we’re talking.”

What Comes Next: Three Scenarios for Resolution

As Congress remains out of session until at least February 23—with members instructed to remain available if a deal emerges—three potential paths forward have taken shape:

Scenario 1: Comprehensive Reform Deal Senate Republicans and Democrats reach agreement on a subset of reforms—likely body cameras, enhanced training, and limited restrictions on sensitive location enforcement—in exchange for Democratic votes for full-year DHS funding. This would require both sides to claim partial victory while accepting significant compromises. Probability: Moderate, but would likely take weeks to negotiate details.

Scenario 2: Split Appropriations Some Democrats, including Connecticut Representative Rosa DeLauro, have suggested separating non-immigration agencies like TSA, FEMA, and the Coast Guard into their own funding bill, allowing those to pass while keeping ICE and CBP under continuing resolution pending reform negotiations. Republicans have strongly resisted this approach, viewing it as an attempt to defund immigration enforcement through the back door. Probability: Low unless public pressure over TSA disruptions becomes overwhelming.

Scenario 3: Short-Term Extension with Promises Republicans offer a brief continuing resolution (two to four weeks) with non-binding commitments to implement some reforms administratively, betting that Democrats will eventually accept a face-saving compromise rather than prolonged shutdown. Democrats blocked a two-week extension on February 13, but might accept a longer period with stronger commitments as public pressure mounts. Probability: Increasing if the shutdown extends past ten days.

The wild card: public reaction to travel disruptions. If spring break travelers face significant delays due to TSA understaffing, or if a major disaster strikes requiring robust FEMA response, political pressure for resolution will intensify dramatically. Conversely, if February’s light travel season passes without major disruption, both sides may feel emboldened to hold firm.

The Broader Context: Shutdowns as the New Normal

This marks the third partial or full government shutdown in the past six months—a frequency unprecedented in modern American governance. The October-November 2025 impasse lasted 43 days, setting a new record. A four-day partial shutdown earlier in February preceded this one.

Budget analysts warn that treating shutdowns as routine political tools carries serious long-term costs beyond immediate disruptions. Federal agencies lose institutional knowledge as experienced employees flee to private sector stability. Contractors cancel projects, unable to sustain uncertainty. America’s credit rating faces pressure when global markets question whether the government can perform basic functions like funding itself.

The peculiar structure of this shutdown—where immigration enforcement continues while seemingly unrelated agencies suffer—underscores how America’s appropriations process has become decoupled from rational policymaking. The OBBBA’s multi-year funding for ICE and CBP was designed to insulate Trump’s immigration agenda from exactly this kind of congressional leverage. But Democrats have discovered they can still inflict political pain, even if they cannot directly defund the operations they oppose.

The Human Cost Beyond Politics

Lost in the strategic maneuvering are the human consequences radiating from Minneapolis to Washington and back.

In Minnesota, the families of Renée Good and Alex Pretti continue seeking answers and accountability while federal investigators maintain control of evidence and refuse to cooperate with state authorities. Despite court orders to preserve evidence, tensions between federal and local law enforcement have reached crisis levels. Governor Tim Walz has called the federal government’s handling of investigations—including “closing the crime scene, sweeping away the evidence, defying a court order”—an “inflection point in America.”

In Washington, hundreds of thousands of federal workers face the prospect of working without pay for an indeterminate period. Coast Guard families who barely recovered from the last shutdown’s financial strain brace for another round of uncertainty. TSA screeners who received $10,000 bonuses after the previous shutdown wonder if they’ll qualify again—or if political will for such compensation has evaporated.

And across America, travelers, disaster victims, and citizens relying on government services navigate the consequences of a political system increasingly unable to perform its most basic function: funding the government.

Looking Ahead: What This Means for American Governance

The DHS shutdown crystallizes several troubling trends in American politics:

The Fragmentation of Appropriations: By funding some agencies but not others, Congress has created a tiered system where political priorities determine which parts of government function. This sets dangerous precedents for future battles.

Smartphones as Accountability Tools: The ubiquity of video recording has fundamentally altered the power dynamic between armed federal agents and the public. When official narratives contradict viral footage, trust in institutions erodes—but transparency also becomes harder to avoid.

The Weaponization of Funding: Both parties now view government funding as leverage for unrelated policy goals. This transformation of appropriations from technocratic necessity to political hostage-taking undermines governance itself.

Midterm Election Preview: The issues at stake—immigration enforcement, federal overreach, public safety, accountability—will dominate the November 2026 midterms. How voters respond to the Minneapolis killings and this shutdown will shape campaigns nationwide.

As Senate Majority Leader John Thune acknowledged when dismissing colleagues for recess, the situation remains fluid: “I have let people know to be available to get back here if there’s some sort of deal they strike to vote on it.”

Until then, America watches another chapter unfold in the ongoing crisis of governability—where two deaths in Minneapolis have exposed the fault lines not just of immigration policy, but of democracy itself when institutions lose the capacity to resolve disputes through deliberation rather than dysfunction.

Stay Informed

As this situation continues to develop, the impacts on travel, disaster response, and national security will become clearer. For updates on DHS funding negotiations, congressional actions, and practical information about how the shutdown affects government services, follow our continuing coverage.

The resolution of this crisis—whether through comprehensive reform, political compromise, or public pressure—will set precedents that extend far beyond homeland security funding. At stake is nothing less than the question of how America balances enforcement power with accountability, and whether its political system retains the capacity to govern during moments of genuine crisis.

This story will be updated as negotiations continue and new developments emerge.

Discover more from The Economy

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Up Next

China Tightens Financial Oversight: D-SIB Expansion Signals Intensified Property Crisis Response

Don't Miss

How to Make Pakistan’s Budget 2026-27 Debt-Proof and Surplus: Well-Researched and Expert Recommendations

Click to comment

Oil Markets

China’s Oil Shock Absorber: How Beijing Kept Crude Prices Half of What Analysts Predicted

Published

9 hours ago

June 22, 2026

Abdul Rahman

Analysts predicted oil above $200 during the Hormuz crisis. China’s intervention kept prices roughly half that. Fortune and Bloomberg explain how Beijing did it — and why the strategy has limits that markets have not fully priced in.

The $200 Oil That Never Arrived

When Iranian forces declared the Strait of Hormuz closed in early March 2026, the analytical consensus in energy markets shifted rapidly toward a catastrophic scenario. The Strait carries 27% of globally traded crude oil and petroleum products (Congressional Research Service, 2026). Iran had demonstrated both the capability and willingness to enforce that closure through attacks on shipping. A sustained blockade, analysts projected, could push Brent crude to $150, $175, or even above $200 per barrel — levels not seen since the 1970s oil shocks in real terms.

Brent reached approximately $113 at its peak in April. That is a severe price spike by any historical standard — a 100%-plus rise from January levels of around $56. But it is emphatically not $200. And the primary reason it is not $200, according to reporting from Fortune and Bloomberg, is China (Fortune, June 2026).

How Beijing managed to suppress oil prices to roughly half of what the most bearish forecasters projected — and why analysts warn that capability has limits — is one of the most consequential and under-analysed stories in global energy markets this year.

Key Takeaways

Analyst consensus during the Hormuz closure was for Brent crude to potentially breach $200/barrel
China’s strategic reserve releases, demand management, and alternative supply sourcing kept prices around $100–113 at their peak
China receives approximately one-third of its total oil imports via the Strait of Hormuz
Beijing is reportedly running out of its ability to continue suppressing oil price volatility through reserves alone
The longer-term consequence may be a permanent reshaping of Asian energy supply chains away from Gulf dependence

China’s Structural Exposure and Its Response

China is not merely a passive participant in global oil markets. It is, by a significant margin, the world’s largest crude oil importer, and the Strait of Hormuz occupies a central role in its energy security architecture. Approximately one-third of China’s total oil imports — representing about 3–4 million barrels per day — transits the Strait of Hormuz (Wikipedia / 2026 Hormuz Crisis). The disruption of that supply was not an abstract geopolitical concern for Beijing; it was a direct threat to industrial production, electricity generation, and economic stability.

China’s response operated on multiple fronts simultaneously. The most immediate was the release of strategic petroleum reserves — a buffer that Beijing has been systematically expanding since the early 2000s precisely in anticipation of supply disruptions. China’s strategic reserve capacity, estimated at approximately one billion barrels by the time of the conflict, provided a multi-month cushion that allowed Chinese refineries to maintain throughput without paying spot prices at the elevated levels that would otherwise have cleared the market (Wikipedia / Hormuz Crisis).

Simultaneously, Beijing accelerated the diversification of its spot purchasing toward West African, Russian, and Central Asian supply — suppliers not exposed to the Strait bottleneck. Russia, whose pipeline export routes run overland through Central Asia and whose Pacific coast ports access Chinese markets without Middle East transit, saw a significant increase in contracted volumes. The rapid rerouting of demand is a function of commercial relationships that China’s National Petroleum Corporation and Sinopec have been cultivating for precisely this scenario for over a decade.

Demand Management: The Hidden Tool

Less visible but equally important was demand-side management. China’s centralised economic planning apparatus has tools that market economies simply do not possess. When spot crude prices spiked, Chinese industrial regulators directed state-owned enterprises in energy-intensive sectors — aluminum smelting, steel production, cement manufacturing — to reduce output or shift to pre-accumulated inventory rather than purchase at market prices.

This is not a price mechanism adjustment; it is a direct administrative intervention in the quantity of oil demanded. By reducing industrial throughput in sectors where the marginal cost of a production pause is relatively low, Beijing effectively shifted the demand curve downward during the period of peak supply disruption — suppressing the equilibrium price without directly intervening in international markets.

The geopolitical complexity of this strategy should not be overlooked. China’s demand management created cover for an implicit diplomatic position: Beijing was neither supporting the U.S.-led international effort to reopen the Strait nor openly backing Tehran’s closure. It was simply managing its own economic exposure — a position that Xi Jinping could maintain with public statements calling the Strait’s openness “in the common interest of regional countries and the international community” while privately doing whatever was necessary to insulate the Chinese economy from the worst consequences (Wikipedia / Hormuz Crisis).

Why the Strategy Has Limits

Fortune’s analysis is clear: China’s oil shock absorption cannot continue indefinitely, and cannot protect global markets much longer at current intensity (Fortune, June 2026).

The strategic petroleum reserve, however large, is a finite buffer. It is designed to cover weeks or a few months of disruption — not a sustained multi-year reorientation of global supply chains. Every barrel released from reserve must eventually be replaced, and replacement purchases at a time of market tightness push prices back up. If the Hormuz situation were to deteriorate again after a partial reopening, China’s reserve cushion would be materially depleted compared to its pre-crisis level.

The administrative demand management approach also carries economic costs that compound over time. Cutting aluminum or steel output during a supply shock is tolerable for weeks. Sustained output reductions damage trade relationships, create delivery failures on international contracts, and impose real economic costs on the downstream industries that depend on those materials. At some point, the cost of demand suppression exceeds the cost of simply paying higher oil prices.

The most durable consequence of the crisis is not what China did in the short term — it is what it is now doing structurally. Long-term supply agreements with non-Gulf producers, accelerated domestic refinery investment, expanded strategic reserve capacity, and intensified electric vehicle and renewable energy adoption are all being fast-tracked as direct lessons of the 2026 disruption. Those investments will reduce China’s Hormuz dependency over a five-to-ten-year horizon — permanently altering the geopolitical leverage that control of the Strait confers.

What This Means for Global Oil Prices

The two-sided implication for global energy markets is stark. In the near term, as the Hormuz deal is implemented and Chinese reserve releases wind down, the physical oil market will need to find a new equilibrium without Beijing’s suppressive effect. The natural clearing price — in the absence of further disruption — is likely in the $75–90 Brent range, reflecting OPEC-plus production discipline, recovering non-Gulf supply, and the partial demand destruction caused by the price spike.

In the medium term, China’s structural shift away from Gulf dependency represents a secular demand reduction for Hormuz-routed barrels. That reduction, distributed across a five-to-ten year transition, is manageable for Gulf producers who can reroute via pipeline (Saudi Arabia, UAE) but is structurally damaging for those who cannot (Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar).

For energy investors, the China oil story of 2026 offers a counterintuitive insight: the country that was most exposed to the supply disruption also proved to be the most effective damper on the price shock. That capability will not disappear — but it will not be unlimited either. The next disruption will test reserves and administrative levers that are now partially depleted, and the price response, when it comes, may be harder to contain.

Discover more from The Economy

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Analysis

U.S. Inflation at a Three-Year High: How the Iran War Turned an Economic Recovery Into a Stagflation Risk

Published

10 hours ago

June 22, 2026

Abdul Rahman

U.S. inflation hit 4.2% in May 2026 — its highest since April 2023 — driven by an oil price surge linked to the U.S.-Iran conflict and the Strait of Hormuz closure. Here’s what it means for households, the Fed, and economic growth.

Key Takeaways

U.S. CPI rose 4.2% year-on-year in May 2026, the highest reading since April 2023
Core CPI (ex-food and energy) is more contained at 2.9%, limiting but not eliminating the Fed’s concern
WTI crude rose from ~$57/barrel in January to a peak of $113 in April — nearly doubling in three months
The Federal Reserve has revised its 2026 PCE inflation forecast up sharply, from 2.7% to 3.6%
The risk of second-round inflationary effects — where energy costs embed into the broader price level — is Citigroup’s primary concern

From Recovery to Renewed Pressure

Entering 2026, the U.S. economic outlook appeared broadly constructive. Inflation had trended down from post-pandemic peaks; the Federal Reserve had delivered three successive quarter-point rate cuts in the final months of 2025; the labour market, while cooling, remained healthy; and consumer spending was proving more resilient than many forecasters expected.

Then, in late February 2026, the United States and Israel launched military operations against Iran, and the macroeconomic calculus changed almost overnight.

The Consumer Price Index rose 4.2% year-on-year in May 2026 — the highest annual reading since April 2023, and a dramatic reversal of the disinflationary trajectory that had defined 2024 and most of 2025 (CBS News, June 2026). The Federal Reserve revised its headline PCE inflation forecast for 2026 up from 2.7% to 3.6% at the June FOMC meeting — a 90-basis-point upward revision in a single quarter, the most aggressive single-meeting inflation reassessment in years (Fox Business, June 17, 2026).

The Oil Price Channel: From $57 to $113

The transmission mechanism is straightforward. Iran’s declaration that the Strait of Hormuz was “closed” on March 4, 2026 — through which approximately 27% of globally traded crude flows — created an immediate and severe supply shock. West Texas Intermediate crude futures rose from approximately $57 per barrel at the start of the year to a peak of $113 in April (U.S. Bank Asset Management, June 2026).

At the pump, the consequences were immediate. U.S. gasoline prices track crude oil prices closely, with a lag of several weeks. By the time WTI peaked in April, American consumers were paying materially more to fill their tanks, heat their homes, and power their businesses. Energy is both a direct component of the CPI and an indirect input cost for virtually every sector of the economy — transportation, manufacturing, agriculture, and retail alike.

The energy shock was the primary driver behind the May CPI reading. Core inflation — which strips out volatile food and energy prices and is the Fed’s preferred gauge of underlying price dynamics — came in at a more contained 2.9% (NPR, June 17, 2026). That 130-basis-point gap between headline and core is the central interpretive challenge facing policymakers: it suggests the inflation is mostly a supply shock rather than a demand-driven phenomenon — but that is cold comfort when households are paying 4.2% more for their consumption basket than they were a year ago.

The Second-Round Effect: The Slow Spread

The more dangerous scenario, from a monetary policy perspective, is not the initial energy price spike — it is what economists call second-round effects. These occur when energy cost increases flow into the prices of non-energy goods and services through transportation costs, higher manufacturing input costs, and wage demands that workers make in response to a higher cost of living.

Citigroup flagged this risk in a late-May research note, warning that the prolonged run-up in crude prices was already beginning to spill into broader inflation pressures, with second-round effects becoming visible in sectors where energy costs are a significant input — logistics, food processing, and industrial manufacturing in particular (CNBC, May 28, 2026). Once second-round effects are embedded in the wage-price dynamic, the supply-shock origin becomes irrelevant: the inflation is self-sustaining regardless of what happens to oil.

This mechanism is why the Federal Reserve — which under normal doctrine would look through a supply-driven energy shock — has moved to a hawkish posture despite the conflict being the source of price pressure. Nine of 18 FOMC members now project a rate hike before year-end 2026 (Fox Business). The committee has explicitly raised its inflation outlook and removed its easing-biased forward guidance. That is not the behaviour of a central bank confident it can look through an energy spike.

Labour Market Complexity

What makes this inflation episode particularly difficult to manage is the backdrop of a surprisingly resilient labour market. U.S. employers added an average of 188,000 jobs per month over the three months to May, and the unemployment rate has held steady at 4.3% for a full year — a remarkably stable number given the geopolitical disruption (CNBC, June 17, 2026).

In a conventional supply-shock inflation scenario, one would expect the real income compression caused by higher energy prices to dampen consumer spending and slow growth — effectively doing the Fed’s tightening work for it. That has not clearly happened yet. Consumer spending has remained resilient, supported by a tight labour market, lower income and corporate taxes enacted earlier in the Trump administration, and fiscal tailwinds from government spending programmes.

The combination of elevated inflation and a still-strong labour market is, in monetary policy terms, the worst of all worlds for a central bank trying to justify patience. It removes the “growth is already slowing” argument that would otherwise support a hold-and-wait posture. The hawks within the FOMC have a clean case: prices are too high, jobs are plenty, and there is no compelling reason to leave rates where they are.

How American Households Are Feeling It

Behind the statistics is a lived economic reality for American households. Inflation has now been running above the Fed’s 2% target for five consecutive years (Fox Business). The compounding effect of sustained above-target inflation on real purchasing power is substantial: a household that was earning $75,000 in 2021 needs approximately $89,000 in 2026 to maintain the same standard of living, even before accounting for the latest energy-driven spike.

The political consequences are significant. Inflation is historically the most potent economic grievance among voters. An inflation reading of 4.2% — after a period when the public narrative had shifted to “inflation is under control” — represents a reputational setback for the administration and a genuine hardship for lower- and middle-income households, who spend a disproportionate share of their income on energy and food.

SNAP benefit restrictions — under active congressional consideration — would compound the impact on the most vulnerable households. Food companies and grocery chains are watching the policy debate closely, as changes to SNAP purchasing rules could meaningfully alter demand patterns for staple goods (CNBC, June 20, 2026).

The Path Forward

The good news — and it is significant — is that the primary driver of the inflation surge is now partially reversing. Brent crude has retreated from its April peak of approximately $113 to approximately $78 by mid-June, as the U.S.-Iran peace framework reduces near-term supply disruption fears (Al Jazeera, June 17, 2026). If Brent settles in the $70–80 range and the Strait reopening is durable, the energy component of CPI should provide disinflationary relief in the June, July, and August prints.

The lagged second-round effects will take longer to unwind. Wage growth that has been pulled higher by workers’ cost-of-living concerns does not retreat immediately when pump prices fall. Transportation costs embedded in goods pricing take months to work out of supply chain contracts. Services inflation — already running hot before the conflict — has limited sensitivity to oil prices in either direction.

The base case, shared by most economists surveyed ahead of the June FOMC meeting, is that inflation moderates back toward 3% by year-end as energy effects dissipate — but that the Fed holds rates steady at best, and hikes once at worst. The stagflationary risk — where growth slows meaningfully while inflation remains above target — is not the central scenario but is no longer a tail risk.

Discover more from The Economy

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

IPO

IPO Summer 2026: Anthropic, OpenAI, and the Race to Price Artificial Intelligence on Public Markets

Published

10 hours ago

June 22, 2026

Abdul Rahman

With SpaceX now public, Anthropic has confidentially filed at a ~$965 billion valuation and OpenAI follows at $852 billion. We break down what their IPOs mean for public markets, AI competition, and investors.

Key Takeaways

Anthropic confidentially filed its S-1 with the SEC on June 1, 2026; OpenAI followed on June 8
Anthropic’s latest funding values it at approximately $965 billion; OpenAI targets a $852 billion debut valuation
Anthropic’s annualised revenue run rate crossed $44–47 billion in May 2026, growing at roughly 10x per year
Both Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley are bookrunning both deals, each expected to raise at least $60 billion
Together with SpaceX, the three mega-IPOs could demand north of $200 billion from public markets in 2026

The Year Public Markets Had to Price AGI

SpaceX’s June 12 debut was historic. But in the longer narrative arc of 2026, it may prove to be the prelude. With Elon Musk’s rocket company now trading on the Nasdaq and raising $85.7 billion in the largest IPO in history, Wall Street’s attention has pivoted immediately to the next act: Anthropic and OpenAI, the two companies whose products are reshaping global knowledge work, coding, legal services, healthcare, and finance — and whose valuations are asking public markets to price something it has never priced before: the plausible path to artificial general intelligence.

The sequence is moving fast. Anthropic confidentially filed its S-1 with the SEC on June 1, 2026, the company confirmed in a blog post that day (Fortune, June 1, 2026). OpenAI followed exactly one week later, on June 8, announcing its own filing rather than allowing it to leak — a signal from Sam Altman’s team that they intend to control the IPO narrative (FutureSearch, June 2026). Both are bookrun by the same dual-bank syndicate: Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, each expected to raise at least $60 billion (FutureSearch).

Anthropic: The Quiet Frontrunner

Twelve months ago, Anthropic was universally described as OpenAI’s challenger. Today, by several key metrics, it has pulled ahead. The company’s annualised revenue run rate crossed $44–47 billion in May 2026, compounding at approximately 10x per year — a growth rate that makes OpenAI’s roughly 3.4x annualised growth look almost conventional by comparison (IndMoney, June 2026; BitMEX).

Anthropic raised $30 billion in a Series G round in February 2026 at a $380 billion post-money valuation, before a $65 billion Series H-1 round in May pushed the private valuation to approximately $965 billion — eclipsing OpenAI’s valuation for the first time (Fortune, June 2026). The company is also on track to post its first-ever operating profit in Q2 2026, projecting approximately $559 million on $10.9 billion in quarterly revenue (IndMoney).

The enterprise thesis is central to Anthropic’s public market story. Approximately 80% of revenue comes from enterprise customers, and Anthropic’s share of the enterprise AI market surpassed OpenAI’s for the first time in April 2026, driven by Claude’s dominance in agentic coding workflows, legal research, and financial analysis (IG UK, June 2026). Anthropic has told investors its annualised run rate will surpass $50 billion by July, and has projected $70 billion in revenue with $17 billion in free cash flow by 2028 (IG UK).

The risks are real. A $5.6 billion net loss in 2024 and a 2028 cash-flow profitability target — rather than an immediate one — mean investors must take a long-dated view. The company is also embroiled in a legal dispute with the U.S. government after the Pentagon designated it a supply-chain risk, a designation Anthropic argues could jeopardise billions in revenue (Fortune). Additionally, a June 12 regulatory action suspending the “Claude Fable” model export has widened the tail risk on Anthropic’s IPO timeline, pushing the p10 downside date out to April 2028 in some analyst models (FutureSearch).

The consensus target date for Anthropic’s listing is December 2026, with a first-day market cap median of approximately $1.10 trillion — which would make it the first pure-enterprise AI safety company to trade publicly, and one of the most valuable companies ever to debut (FutureSearch).

OpenAI: Bigger by Brand, Smaller by Growth Rate

OpenAI carries extraordinary brand recognition — ChatGPT crossed 900 million weekly active users by early 2026 — and its revenue trajectory, while slower than Anthropic’s in percentage terms, is still formidable in absolute terms: revenues grew from approximately $2 billion annualised in 2023 to over $20 billion by end-2025 (IndMoney).

But the loss picture gives public investors pause. FutureSearch estimates OpenAI’s 2026 GAAP net loss at $25–26 billion against a widely cited $14 billion non-GAAP figure — a gap that reflects the difference between the story management is telling on the roadshow and the financial reality a public company must disclose in quarterly filings (FutureSearch). The 90-day post-IPO market cap estimate of $0.86 trillion — materially below the first-day median — reflects the prediction that institutional models, once they have time to fully digest the loss line, will price more conservatively than day-one narrative demand.

OpenAI’s $852 billion debut valuation target positions it slightly below Anthropic’s pre-IPO mark (Fortune, June 2026). The later it lists, the more revenue compounds under the number — meaning OpenAI has a structural incentive to maximise quality of disclosure ahead of its September target rather than rush to beat Anthropic to market.

The Capital Markets Challenge: Can the System Absorb It?

The scale of capital being demanded is genuinely unprecedented. SpaceX alone raised $85.7 billion. Anthropic and OpenAI are each expected to raise at least $60 billion. Total 2026 U.S. IPO proceeds could reach approximately $160 billion, according to Goldman Sachs projections — against a 2025 baseline of $45 billion (IndMoney).

The liquidity case is that there is an estimated $8 trillion sitting in U.S. money market funds. SpaceX’s $85.7 billion raise represents roughly 1% of that pool. Institutional investors who have spent years gaining AI exposure indirectly — via Nvidia for chips, Microsoft for its OpenAI stake, Alphabet for its Anthropic investment — now have the option of owning the underlying models directly. The pent-up demand for pure-play AI exposure is enormous.

The displacement risk is subtler but real. Money rotating into SpaceX, Anthropic, and OpenAI must come from somewhere — and that somewhere is likely existing Magnificent 7 positions or cash allocations that would otherwise flow into other sectors (IndMoney). The portfolio rebalancing triggered by three mega-listings could create meaningful headwinds for established large-cap tech stocks in the second half of 2026.

The Race to First-Mover Advantage

Anthropic’s decision to file first was strategically deliberate. By going to market ahead of OpenAI, the company avoids being overshadowed by its more famous rival and benefits from scarcity — institutional investors who buy Anthropic have less capital available for OpenAI when it comes. OpenAI, meanwhile, gains a tactical advantage from watching how the market prices audited frontier AI financials before committing to its own price.

It is worth noting, as IG UK observes, that both companies filed within days of each other despite being direct competitors — suggesting that both management teams made independent calculations that the post-SpaceX IPO window represents an optimal moment for AI listings, when investor appetite for frontier technology is at a verifiable high and the SpaceX roadshow has done the work of educating institutional allocators on how to think about pre-profitability, mission-driven, deeply moated technology businesses (IG UK).

2026: The Year That Changes Public Markets Forever

If SpaceX, Anthropic, and OpenAI all complete their listings before year-end, 2026 will be remembered as the year public markets were forced to price artificial general intelligence for the first time. Their combined target valuations of approximately $3.6 trillion equal the GDP of France — and they are not asking investors to value what they earn today, but what humanity becomes tomorrow (IndMoney).

That is a proposition without precedent in the history of capital markets. Whether public markets accept it enthusiastically, price it conservatively, or — as some veteran investors warn — create the conditions for a correction of historic proportions when the gap between narrative and quarterly earnings becomes undeniable, is the central investment question of 2026.