Bitcoin just exposed a terrifying link to the AI bubble that guarantees it crashes first when tech breaks

Cryptocurrency

Summary:

Bitcoin has become tightly linked to AI-driven tech sentiment, making it vulnerable to an AI bubble burst. It likely falls harder during a tech-led credit squeeze, before potentially rebounding on renewed liquidity easing.

Oracle lost roughly $80 billion in market value on Dec. 11 when revenue missed expectations, and management hiked AI-related capex from $35 billion to about $50 billion, funded in part with rising debt.

The stock dropped up to 16%, dragging Nvidia, AMD, and the broader Nasdaq lower.

Reports framed the move as fanning “AI bubble” fears, with investors questioning whether the payoff from building massive data-center capacity is arriving fast enough to justify those costs.

On the same tape, Bitcoin slipped below $90,000, likely due to worries over the AI sector denting risk appetite.

The single-day episode encapsulates Bitcoin’s new structural vulnerability: it has become the high-beta tail of the AI trade, moving in lockstep with tech equity sentiment and bleeding harder when AI-linked stocks crack.

The correlation between Bitcoin and Nvidia reached approximately 0.96 over a rolling three-month window leading into Nvidia’s November earnings, according to analysis from 24/7 Wall St.

Regarding Nasdaq, The Block data shows that the 30-day aggregate Pearson Correlation coefficient was 0.53 as of Dec. 10.

Additionally, Bitcoin is down around 20% since the Fed began easing interest rates on Sept. 17, while the Nasdaq is up 6%. This suggests that when tech stocks crash, Bitcoin tanks harder.

The AI bubble narrative has matured rapidly over the past few weeks.

Reuters reported in late November that AI-linked valuations and macro gauges such as the Buffett Indicator have pushed overall US equity valuations beyond dot-com-era extremes, while AI-heavy indices show sharp pullbacks and rising volatility even as enthusiasm remains high.

Besides, big tech companies have raised hundreds of billions of dollars in bonds this year to finance data centers and hardware. Morgan Stanley estimated a funding gap of around $1.5 trillion for the AI infrastructure build-out, and Moody’s chief economist Mark Zandi warned that AI-related borrowing now exceeds tech’s run-up before the dot-com crash.

Essays in The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists and The Atlantic both cite roughly $400 billion in AI spending this year against only about $60 billion in revenue.

The math implies that most firms are deeply loss-making and that the wider economy is now partly leaning on an AI investment boom that cannot last indefinitely.

The liquidity mechanism that makes an AI bust worse for Bitcoin

If the AI bubble bursts, the damage to Bitcoin will go beyond simple correlation, as AI capex increasingly becomes a credit story.

Estimates indicated that AI-related data center and infrastructure financing deals jumped from about $15 billion in 2024 to roughly $125 billion in 2025, driven by bond issuance, private credit, and asset-backed securities.

Analysts in a Reuters piece compare some of the structures and opacity to pre-2008 patterns and warn of “untested risks” if tenants or cash flows disappoint.

Central banks now treat this as a financial-stability problem. The Bank of England’s recent stability update explicitly highlights stretched valuations in AI-focused firms. It also warns that a sharp correction in AI-linked equities could threaten broader markets via leveraged players and private-credit exposures.

The ECB’s November 2025 Financial Stability Review makes a similar point: the AI investment boom is increasingly funded through bond markets and private capital, making it more exposed to swings in risk sentiment and credit spreads.

Oracle is the poster child. Its $50 billion capex plan for AI data centers, alongside a roughly 45% jump in long-term debt and record credit-default-swap spreads, represents exactly the sort of over-extended balance sheet regulators worry about.

If an AI bubble pops, those spreads widen, refinancing costs jump, and leveraged funds that were long AI-themed debt and equities are forced to cut gross exposure. Bitcoin sits at the end of that chain.

Chinese researchers’ analysis of Bitcoin versus global liquidity finds a strong positive relationship between Bitcoin prices and global M2 or broad liquidity indices. Their paper called BTC a “liquidity barometer” that performs well when global liquidity is high and poorly when it contracts.

The liquidity story is straightforward: if the AI bubble bursts and forces a credit squeeze, the first-order effect is a global de-risking and liquidity pullback.

Bitcoin is one of the first things macro and growth funds sell when margin calls come in, and its outsized sensitivity to liquidity makes the drawdown worse.

Act two: how the policy response could fuel Bitcoin’s next bull cycle

The other half of the story is what happens after the first wave of deleveraging.

The same institutions that worry about an AI-driven correction also implicitly point toward the likely response. If over-levered AI and credit markets wobble hard enough to threaten growth, central banks will re-ease financial conditions.

The IMF’s latest Global Financial Stability Report warns that AI-driven equity concentration and stretched risk asset valuations make a “disorderly correction” more likely and stresses the need for careful, but ultimately supportive, monetary policy to avoid amplifying shocks.

History gives a template. After the COVID shock in March 2020, aggressive quantitative easing and liquidity provision coincided with a massive rise in total crypto market cap from around $150 billion in early 2020 to roughly $3 trillion by late 2021.

A recent Seeking Alpha report mapped Bitcoin against global liquidity and the dollar index shows that, once easing starts in earnest and the dollar weakens, BTC tends to put in large upside moves over the following quarters.

The narrative rotation also matters. If AI equities go through a classic post-bubble hangover, with lower multiples, negative headlines, and political backlash over wasted capex, some portion of speculative and macro capital could rotate into a different “future of money” or “anti-system” bet.

Bitcoin is the cleanest non-corporate candidate.

Recent market stress has already seen capital concentrate back into BTC rather than alts. As liquidity thinned and volatility rose recently, Bitcoin’s dominance has climbed to around 57%, with ETFs serving as the institutional on-ramp.

Additionally, although Bitcoin has recently shown a correlation with tech stocks, decentralization and scarcity remain the core of the “hedge” narrative.

The trade-off Bitcoin can’t escape

Bitcoin’s structural problem is that it cannot decouple from the AI trade in the short term, but it depends on policy responses to an AI bust for its medium-term upside.

In the immediate aftermath of an AI credit crunch, Bitcoin bleeds because it is the high-beta tail of macro risk, and global liquidity contracts faster than most assets can adjust.

In the months that follow, if central banks respond with renewed easing and the dollar weakens, Bitcoin historically has captured outsized gains as liquidity flows back into risk assets and speculative narratives reset.

The question for allocators is whether Bitcoin can survive the first hit well enough to benefit from the second wave.

The answer depends on how violent the AI correction is, how quickly policy pivots, and whether institutional flows through ETFs and other vehicles hold or break under stress.

Oracle’s Dec. 11 earnings miss is a preview: Bitcoin dropped below $90,000 in the same tape that wiped $80 billion off Oracle’s market cap, showing that the correlation is live and the sensitivity is real.

If the AI bubble fully unwinds, Bitcoin takes the punch first. Whether it emerges stronger depends on what central banks do next.

However, one short term positive indicator revealed itself later in yesterday’s trading session. Nvidia recovered 1.5% from its intraday low, while Bitcoin followed suit but gained over 3%, reclaiming $92,000.

Source: cryptoslate

Risk Warnings and Disclaimers

You understand and acknowledge that there is a high degree of risk involved in trading. Following any strategies or investment methods may lead to potential losses. The content on the site is provided by our contributors and analysts for information purposes only. You are solely responsible for determining whether any trading assets, securities, strategy, or any other product is suitable for investing based on your own investment objectives and financial situation.

Add to Favorites

Devin

Political

U.S. financier Jeffrey Epstein appears in a photograph taken for the New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services' sex offender registry March 28, 2017 and obtained by Reuters July 10, 2019. New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services/Handout via REUTERS.

WASHINGTON, Dec 12 (Reuters) - Democrats on a congressional oversight panel released more than a dozen new images from the estate of the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein on Friday, including photos of now-President Donald Trump.

Trump is featured in three of the 19 photos shared by House Oversight Committee Democrats, who said they are reviewing more than 95,000 images produced by the estate.

In one black-and-white photo, Trump is seen smiling with several women — whose faces are redacted — on each side of him. A second image shows Trump standing beside Epstein, and a third, less-clear image shows him seated alongside another woman, whose face is also redacted, with his red tie loosened. It was not clear when or where the photos were taken.

Former President Bill Clinton, former Trump aide Steve Bannon, Bill Gates and former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers also appear in the batch of images, as well as sex toys, a $4.50 "Trump condom" emblazoned with Trump's face and the all-caps phrase "I'M HUUUGE!"

"These disturbing photos raise even more questions about Epstein and his relationships with some of the most powerful men in the world," Representative Robert Garcia of California, the top Democrat on the oversight committee, said in a statement. "We will not rest until the American people get the truth. The Department of Justice must release all the files, NOW."

The congressional Democrats said they redacted the women's faces to protect the identities of Epstein's victims.

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Trump and Epstein were friends during the 1990s and early 2000s, but Trump says he broke off ties before Epstein pleaded guilty to prostitution charges.

Trump has consistently denied knowing about the late financier's abuse and sex trafficking of underage girls.

Source: Reuters

Risk Warnings and Disclaimers

Add to Favorites

Gerik

Commodity

Economic

Oil Pressured by Surplus Outlook

Crude oil prices held steady near $61 per barrel, hovering around their lowest point since October. While global equities rallied after the U.S. Federal Reserve delivered a rate cut and expressed optimism on the economic outlook, oil did not follow suit due to supply-side anxieties.

The International Energy Agency (IEA) reaffirmed its projection of an unprecedented oil surplus in 2026, noting that global inventories are now at a four-year high. This reinforces the downward pressure on Brent crude, with futures edging closer to the $60 psychological support.

Haris Khurshid of Karobaar Capital noted that “traders are happy to buy a bit of risk, but the fundamental surplus hasn’t gone anywhere,” signaling that bullish macro sentiment hasn't translated into commodities like oil.

Geopolitical Flashpoints Add Mixed Signals

Oil prices found modest geopolitical support after President Trump ordered new sanctions against Venezuela, including on six oil tankers and the nephews of President Maduro. This came shortly after the U.S. seized a sanctioned supertanker, escalating its campaign to choke off oil revenues to the Maduro regime. Analysts interpret this as a shift toward more aggressive economic statecraft.

However, the market reaction was muted, likely due to the relatively small volume impact of Venezuelan oil exports in the global supply picture, especially amid surplus conditions.

Putin's Financial Resilience Threatens Long-Term Stability

Meanwhile, tensions surrounding the Russia-Ukraine conflict remain unresolved, despite U.S. President Donald Trump’s push for a peace deal. According to former Russian central bank deputy Sergey Aleksashenko, Putin can fund the war for at least 2–3 more years, despite budget deficits and economic stagnation.

Although Russia’s GDP growth forecast has slowed to 0.9% (from 4.3% last year), Aleksashenko emphasized that the government retains significant financial firepower to sustain military operations. The Bank of Russia is even suing Euroclear in response to frozen assets, highlighting tensions with Western institutions.

Adding to NATO’s concern, Secretary General Mark Rutte warned that Russia could be ready to use military force against NATO in five years, citing its war-focused economy.

U.S. Peace Efforts Losing Momentum

President Trump is reportedly frustrated by stalled peace talks, criticizing European leaders and Ukrainian President Zelenskyy for lacking urgency. Trump claims Russia has accepted the U.S.-drafted peace proposal, while Ukraine has not, possibly due to controversial terms such as territorial concessions and military downsizing.

The White House insists peace efforts are ongoing, but Trump is “sick of meetings just for the sake of meeting.” His administration appears to be pressuring Ukraine to agree to a deal before Christmas, a timeline many analysts view as unrealistic.

Oil Markets Stuck Between Surplus and Shocks

Oil prices are being pushed down by tangible supply concerns but are also held up by the potential for geopolitical disruption. With Russia showing resilience in its war financing and Trump growing impatient in diplomacy, the potential for policy-driven or military shocks remains a key upside risk for oil in 2026.

In the short term, however, unless there is a supply disruption or major geopolitical escalation, prices may continue to hover in the $60–$65 range, weighed down by inventory levels and muted demand.

Source: CNBC

To stay updated on all economic events of today, please check out our Economic calendar

Risk Warnings and Disclaimers

Add to Favorites

Adam

Commodity

Market Overview

Oil prices inched higher on Friday as escalating geopolitical tensions revived concerns about supply disruptions, though the market remained on track for a weekly loss amid optimism over progress in broader peace negotiations. The risk of additional tanker seizures heightened fears of reduced crude flows, prompting a rebound in buying after earlier selling pressure.

Analysts noted that a credible diplomatic breakthrough could unlock sanctioned supply, potentially pulling WTI toward the $55 range.

Meanwhile, the International Energy Agency raised its 2026 demand forecast and trimmed supply expectations, signaling a tighter market ahead, even as OPEC projected a more balanced global outlook.

Natural Gas Price Forecast

Natural Gas (NG) Price Chart

Natural Gas is trading near $4.21 after a sharp breakdown from the rising trendline that supported the rally through November. The selloff accelerated once price sliced below $4.37 and $4.31, both former support zones now acting as resistance. Candlesticks show multiple lower highs and strong bearish bodies, confirming sustained seller control.

If downside momentum continues, the next support sits at $4.13, followed by $4.02 and $3.91, where prior consolidation pauses occurred. A deeper move could retest the broader base near $3.86. For buyers, a recovery above $4.31 is needed to challenge $4.37 and $4.49, but EMAs remain firmly downward-sloping.

WTI Oil Price Forecast

WTI Price Chart

WTI Crude Oil is trading near $57.95, holding below a descending trendline that has capped price since the December high. Recent candles show rejection near $58.21, confirming it as immediate resistance. The 20-EMA and 50-EMA remain above current price, reinforcing bearish structure and showing sellers are still in control.

If price stays below the trendline, downside pressure could extend toward $57.12, a level tested multiple times this week. A break below that exposes $56.60, followed by deeper support near $56.14. Candlestick bodies remain small, indicating hesitation but still favoring lower highs.

On the upside, bulls need a firm close above $58.21 to challenge the trendline and potentially retest $59.05. RSI is hovering near 40, showing weak momentum without oversold conditions, allowing room for further declines.

Brent Oil Price Forecast

Brent Price Chart

Brent Crude is trading near $61.59, holding below a descending trendline that has capped price since the December high. Recent candles show repeated rejection near $61.85, confirming it as immediate resistance and aligning with the 20-EMA, which continues to slope lower. This keeps bearish pressure intact.

If sellers maintain control, downside levels to watch include $60.91, followed by $60.36 and $60.10, where prior reactions formed intraday floors. A break below these zones would open the path toward $59.90.

For bulls to gain momentum, Brent needs a clean breakout above $61.85 to challenge $62.72 and the broader trendline.

Source: fxempire

Risk Warnings and Disclaimers

Add to Favorites

Gerik

Economic

Commodity

Oversupply Fears Anchor Oil Prices Below $62

Crude markets are struggling to gain upward momentum even as broader financial markets rally on optimism sparked by the Federal Reserve’s interest rate cut and its confident economic outlook. Brent crude futures, the global oil benchmark, hovered just above $61 per barrel on Friday, December 12, 2025 close to their lowest levels since mid-October.

This stagnation reflects a divergence in investor sentiment: while equity markets eye new highs, oil remains bogged down by fundamentals, particularly supply dynamics. According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), global oil inventories have ballooned to a four-year high. The agency reiterated its forecast of a significant surplus in 2026, slightly trimmed from its previous estimate but still historically high.

This reinforces a bearish undertone in oil markets. Brent has been range-bound for nearly two months, fluctuating between $60 and $67, with growing downside pressure as inventories swell and demand growth lags behind expectations. Traders appear cautious, unwilling to commit to bullish oil positions despite increased risk appetite in other asset classes.

Traders Cautious Despite Risk-On Mood Elsewhere

Haris Khurshid, Chief Investment Officer at Chicago-based Karobaar Capital LP, noted that while investors are embracing risk in equities and credit, the same enthusiasm hasn’t translated to crude oil. "The fundamental surplus hasn’t gone anywhere," he said, underscoring that market technicals remain vulnerable to inventory data and production metrics.

The disconnect between energy and equity markets is especially stark now. While the S&P 500 and global equity benchmarks flirt with record highs, oil lacks a meaningful catalyst. The Fed’s rate cut may reduce borrowing costs and stimulate broader economic activity, but it has not yet translated into higher energy consumption or confidence in future oil demand.

IEA’s Surplus Warning: A Drag on Price Recovery

The IEA’s latest monthly report, released Thursday, warned of an “unprecedented surplus” next year, driven by non-OPEC production increases and softening demand from key markets, including China and the EU. Even with voluntary cuts from OPEC+ producers, the agency expects global stockpiles to continue rising, particularly in developed economies.

This forecast undermines bullish narratives tied to geopolitical tensions, reinforcing traders’ focus on fundamentals over headlines. Crude is facing headwinds from both supply-side resilience and demand-side ambiguity. With inventories at a four-year peak, there is little immediate incentive for upward price reversion, especially as winter demand remains mild in the Northern Hemisphere.

Geopolitical Flashpoints Offer Limited Support

President Trump’s recent moves against Venezuela added a flash of geopolitical drama this week. The U.S. seized a large supertanker carrying Venezuelan crude off the country’s coast and followed up with sanctions on six oil tankers and three of President Nicolás Maduro’s nephews. The Biden administration had previously taken a softer stance on Venezuela’s oil exports, but Trump’s return to a “maximum pressure” doctrine appears aimed at cutting off Maduro’s oil revenues.

While such measures often tighten supply in specific grades or markets, analysts note that Venezuela’s overall export capacity is limited and unlikely to meaningfully impact global balances. Unless tensions escalate further or disruptions hit a major producer like Iran or Russia geopolitical events may only offer brief price support.

Oil’s Fragile Balance Going Into 2026

Looking ahead, oil prices are likely to remain under pressure as traders weigh macroeconomic optimism against a stubborn supply glut. Unless demand indicators improve meaningfully or major producers take deeper cuts, Brent may test the psychological $60 floor in coming weeks.

Market watchers are increasingly concerned that crude’s underperformance could signal broader doubts about industrial demand strength, particularly if China’s recovery falters or European energy use remains weak. For now, oil bulls will have to wait for either a geopolitical jolt or a concrete shift in global consumption patterns to break free from this bearish range.

Source: Bloomberg

To stay updated on all economic events of today, please check out our Economic calendar

Risk Warnings and Disclaimers

Add to Favorites

Justin

Political

Economic

Stocks

PepsiCo Inc. offers Walmart Inc. special product promotions and discounts that it doesn't offer to any other retailers, according to a Biden-era antitrust complaint that was unsealed by a court.

Details of a now-dismissed Federal Trade Commission complaint were made public by a judge Thursday in response to a request by an antimonopoly advocacy group, the Institute for Local Self-Reliance. The agency revealed that Walmart was the retailer that received special advantages in a filing Thursday.

The FTC in January voted 3-2 to file the lawsuit against PepsiCo, alleging the company violated the law by charging small retailers higher prices than they do for beverages sold to a large multinational chain store. The agency didn't publicly disclose the name of the retailer in the original complaint, and the Trump FTC in May dismissed the case.

In the unsealed complaint, the FTC said PepsiCo recognizes Walmart as its "most important customer," citing a 2023 regulatory filing where it told investors losing the company as a customer would have a "material adverse effect" on its business.

PepsiCo provides Walmart with promotional payments, allowances and services "to keep Walmart happy," according to the complaint, "while failing to make similar benefits available to Walmart's competitors on proportionally equal terms."

According to the FTC complaint, that conduct disadvantages smaller retailers including convenience stores that compete with Walmart to sell Pepsi and other soft drinks, including Mountain Dew, and Rockstar Energy drinks.

The FTC lawsuit was filed just days before Donald Trump was sworn in as president. The agency, now staffed entirely by Republicans after Trump fired its two Democrats, said in May that it was dismissing the case because it was poorly conceived.

At the time, FTC Chair Andrew Ferguson said in a statement that "the Biden-Harris FTC rushed to authorize this case just three days before President Trump's inauguration in a nakedly political effort to commit this administration to pursuing little more than a hunch that Pepsi had violated the law.'

Walmart said in a statement that the company remains "committed to negotiating on behalf of our customers so we can deliver value and everyday low prices," noting that the FTC voluntarily dismissed the case.

PepsiCo didn't immediately respond to request for comment, but had denied wrongdoing when the case was filed. The FTC also didn't immediately respond to a request for comment on the unsealed complaint.

The FTC's complaint alleged that PepsiCo violated a rarely invoked 1930s law called the Robinson-Patman Act that bars price discrimination against retailers. Biden's FTC Chair Lina Khan advocated for greater use of the law, arguing that its under-enforcement has harmed smaller retailers.

Earlier this week PepsiCo said it would reduce prices in its key brands as part of an agreement with activist investor Elliott Investment Management.

The case is Federal Trade Commission v PepsiCo Inc., 25-cv-664, US District Court, Southern District of New York.

Source: Bloomberg Europe

To stay updated on all economic events of today, please check out our Economic calendar

Risk Warnings and Disclaimers

Add to Favorites

Gerik

Economic

AI’s Dual Role: Economic Engine and Political Liability

Throughout his first year back in office, President Donald Trump has made artificial intelligence a cornerstone of his economic strategy and political messaging. Backed by surging tech sector investments and optimistic economic forecasts, Trump has signed executive orders to promote AI expansion and reduce regulatory barriers, including preempting state-level restrictions.

From the White House to Wall Street, AI is hailed as the growth catalyst driving over half of U.S. GDP gains in the first half of 2025. Massive capital expenditures from tech giants like Google, Meta, and Amazon are projected to exceed $500 billion in 2026. Markets have responded, with AI-linked stocks powering much of the S&P 500's gains this year.

Yet the very infrastructure enabling this boom data centers is now facing growing resistance from the American public. The tension mirrors earlier controversies surrounding globalization and automation: while AI promises long-term gains, many voters fear short-term losses in jobs, affordability, and environmental stability.

Backlash at the Local Level: Data Centers Meet Community Resistance

Local opposition to data center developments is mounting. Voters in multiple districts across Virginia, New Jersey, and Ohio recently expressed concern over the rising electricity bills, land use, and limited permanent job creation tied to AI infrastructure.

Data Center Watch reported that nearly $100 billion in planned investments faced delays or cancellations in Q2 2025 more than all previous quarters combined since 2023. The backlash reflects deeper anxieties about whether these projects truly benefit communities or merely burden them with higher utility costs and environmental risks.

In Lordstown, Ohio, a town that lost nearly 40% of its manufacturing jobs over the past two decades, a proposed $3.6 billion data center project has met fierce opposition. Despite developer promises of state tax revenue and high-paying construction jobs, residents and local officials are skeptical about the lasting benefits of a facility that will employ only 120 full-time workers post-completion.

Lordstown Council President Robert Bond summarized local concerns: “We don’t see the advantage tying up large industrial acreage for 120 jobs.”

Energy Inflation: Electricity Costs Become a Political Flashpoint

Electricity prices have emerged as a central issue in the AI debate. Power-intensive data centers are driving up regional energy demand, with some voters likening the affordability pressure to fuel prices a long-standing barometer of political satisfaction.

Trump administration insiders now admit that among Republican governors, there’s growing concern that AI infrastructure could trigger a broader utility cost backlash. Ohio Governor Mike DeWine remains optimistic, citing long-term economic spillovers, but the administration is expected to respond by fast-tracking a new executive order on expanding and modernizing the electric grid.

This planned order will focus on boosting transmission capacity and updating grid technology both crucial for managing AI’s future energy demands while keeping household costs stable.

Employment and Social Stability: Echoes of the Free Trade Debate

Beyond electricity bills, the public is increasingly worried about AI’s labor market implications. While AI firms argue that the technology will enhance worker productivity, many fear that automation will erase more jobs than it creates. These fears echo the economic displacement experienced during the offshoring and automation waves that once fueled populist sentiment the same populism that helped Trump rise to power.

Even within Trump’s base, voices like Steve Bannon are warning that AI could become the next elite-driven disruption to hit working Americans. On his “War Room” podcast, Bannon criticized tech firms for using worker productivity “until they get the robots and then they’ll toss you aside like trash.”

The administration has responded by expanding Department of Labor investments in workforce reskilling and infrastructure employment but the long lead times between training and benefits leave a political vulnerability heading into 2026.

Wall Street vs. Main Street: AI Bubble or Structural Growth?

There’s a growing divide between financial markets and public sentiment. Analysts widely agree that AI is responsible for the majority of stock market gains in 2025. However, some, including Oaktree Capital’s Howard Marks, have called the employment risks “terrifying” and are urging caution.

Investors are now factoring in political and regulatory risks, especially as delays in data center builds and state-level friction add cost and uncertainty. Meanwhile, the long U.S. government shutdown earlier this year has left economists without clear, timely data to assess how AI is reshaping productivity, inflation, and employment leaving markets and policymakers somewhat in the dark.

AI as a Political Wildcard Heading Into 2026

For Trump, AI is both a symbol of American technological dominance and a tool for economic growth. But politically, it’s becoming a liability if voters perceive its benefits as flowing to corporate elites while households face higher costs and uncertain job prospects.

Democrats, sensing opportunity, have begun crafting voter-friendly narratives focused on protecting communities from AI-related shocks. In the absence of a unified policy strategy from either party, AI is becoming a “political football,” as one Trump adviser put it with its future shaped not just by innovation or regulation, but by the 2026 election and the voices of communities trying to navigate a new economic reality.

The administration now faces a critical choice: double down on AI-led expansion without addressing public fears, or recalibrate the message and policy to ensure that voters don’t feel left behind by the very growth that’s fueling the markets.