US Treasury: Korean Won's Plunge Defies Strong Economy

Bitcoin (BTC) has climbed above $97,000 after U.S. markets opened, hitting a price not seen since November. The rally comes as market participants await a key Supreme Court decision on tariffs, which was expected today but has been pushed to next week. While an announcement is not guaranteed, the White House has previously indicated it expects a decision in January.

Amid these developments, the focus is sharpening on the Federal Reserve and its potential policy shifts, which could have major implications for asset prices.

A Fed Official's Argument for Lowering Rates

Miran, a key member of the Federal Reserve and a representative of Trump at the central bank, has recently made a strong case for lowering interest rates. Despite strong employment figures last week that all but guarantee the Fed will not cut rates in its January decision, Miran continues to advocate for future reductions.

His core argument centers on deregulation. According to Miran, deregulation creates a positive supply and productivity shock for the economy. This enhances economic capacity while simultaneously easing price pressures. He argues that if the central bank doesn't adjust for this deflationary effect, monetary policy becomes overly restrictive and unnecessarily holds back growth.

Miran projects that about 30% of regulations could be eliminated by 2030, which could reduce inflation by half a percentage point each year. He noted that deregulation was significant last year and is expected to continue.

The Outlook for Inflation and Fed Policy

This perspective aligns with President Trump's broader economic strategy, which asserts that a combination of tariffs, deregulation, and immigration policy will bring down inflation.

If inflation can be kept below 3% in the near future—despite today's opposing Producer Price Index data—it could give the Federal Reserve the confidence to ease policy and bring interest rates toward a more neutral level.

Figure 1: Market expectations for future Fed policy, as reflected in the CME FedWatch Tool, signal a measured pace for interest rate adjustments.

However, Miran’s thesis is unlikely to persuade a majority of Fed members to act aggressively in the short term. For now, the prevailing expectation is that the pace of any potential rate reductions will remain slow.

Bitcoin's price has soared past $97,000, hitting a high not seen since last November as U.S. markets opened for trading. The surge comes as traders navigate a complex economic landscape, with a postponed Supreme Court decision on tariffs and an anticipated January announcement from the White House adding to the uncertainty.

Amid these developments, the central question for investors is what to expect from the Federal Reserve's upcoming financial declarations.

The Federal Reserve's Next Move

Federal Reserve official Miran, who also serves as a representative for Trump, has been a vocal advocate for reducing interest rates. He has repeatedly stressed the need for rate cuts to support the economy.

However, strong employment data from last week has tempered expectations for an immediate policy shift. The robust jobs report makes it highly unlikely that the Federal Reserve will lower rates during its January session.

Deregulation: The Wild Card for Inflation and Growth?

A key argument for a more accommodative monetary policy centers on the potential impact of deregulation. Proponents believe that reducing regulatory burdens could stabilize prices and enhance economic productivity by expanding supply capabilities.

According to Miran, failing to align monetary policy with deregulation would lead to an "overly restrictive" environment that unnecessarily hinders growth. His long-term vision includes a goal to lift approximately 30% of regulations by 2030, a move he estimates could slice inflation by half a percentage point each year.

He explained his reasoning:

"Deregulation should exert downward pressure on prices, offering another reason for us. The central bank is expected to reduce interest rates. Deregulation introduces a positive supply and productivity shock, enhancing the economy's capacity while alleviating price pressures. If central banks do not counteract the effects of deregulation, policy becomes overly restrictive, unnecessarily inhibiting growth."

While today's Producer Price Index figures were conflicting, any clear sign that inflation is falling below 3% would make it easier for the Fed to consider a shift toward a neutral interest rate. President Trump has also argued that a combination of tariffs, deregulation, and immigration policies would contribute to lower inflation.

Key Factors Driving Market Sentiment

The current scenario presents several key takeaways for investors and market watchers:

• No Imminent Rate Cut: The Federal Reserve is widely expected to hold interest rates steady in its upcoming January meeting, primarily due to strong employment figures.

• Deregulation's Potential: Proposed deregulation stands out as a potential catalyst for significant economic benefits, including reduced inflation and enhanced productivity.

• Persistent Uncertainty: The deferral of the Supreme Court's decision on tariffs adds another layer of uncertainty to market expectations.

Although Miran's perspective on interest rate cuts may not yet represent the consensus view within the Federal Reserve, the broader economic and regulatory environment continues to fuel speculation and drive volatility in markets like Bitcoin.

Source: Bloomberg

A revealing shift in language from a U.S. congressman signals a profound change in American foreign policy. Last December, Rep. Andy Ogles described the United States as "the dominant predator across all landscapes," a phrase reflecting decades of global power projection. Today, that vision has shrunk.

The United States has long operated as the world's preeminent superpower. Its influence is built on a global network of allies, unparalleled military might, and the ability to deploy force to any corner of the globe. This power wasn't just for show; it was designed to protect concrete American interests, including:

• The stability of the dollar-based financial system.

• Freedom of navigation on the open seas.

• Access to strategic resources worldwide.

• The ability to project power from allied territories like Europe.

This global posture was a complex mix of hard power, diplomatic persuasion, and carefully maintained international institutions.

However, recent actions under President Donald Trump, including those related to Venezuela and outlined in the National Security Strategy, suggest this era is over. This is not a classic exercise in power projection but a deliberate retreat from America's role as a global superpower.

From Global Predator to Regional Power

The evidence for this pullback is clear. When questioned recently about a raid in Venezuela, Rep. Ogles updated his description of American dominance. The U.S., he declared, is "the dominant predator force in the Western Hemisphere."

The vague, all-encompassing term "landscapes" is gone, replaced by a single, geographically limited hemisphere. This isn't a strategic realignment; it's an unforced retreat. In effect, the Trump administration is adopting the "spheres of influence" worldview long advocated by rivals like Russia and China.

A Green Light for Russia and China?

Many observers worry that Trump's actions weaken international law, setting precedents that authoritarian leaders will exploit. They suggest that President Xi Jinping of China and President Vladimir Putin of Russia might get "ideas" from the White House.

This misses the point. Neither leader has been waiting for permission from Washington. Xi already has his own timeline for a potential move on Taiwan, and Putin's history of war crimes in Ukraine shows he acts without seeking approval.

Instead, these leaders will interpret Trump's new hemispheric focus as an American surrender to their long-pushed narrative of "multipolarity"—a world with multiple centers of power, each dominating its own region. They will see it as a validation of their goal to break U.S. hegemony.

This effectively gives them a green light to pursue their imperial ambitions more openly. Russia and China won't lament the loss of U.S. influence in the Caribbean if it legitimizes their own expansionist goals closer to home. This dynamic was already visible in 2019, when Moscow reportedly offered Washington a free hand in Venezuela in exchange for Russia having its way in Ukraine.

Echoes of Empire: The Dangers of Showing Weakness

History offers a cautionary tale. From 1945 to 2025, the U.S. played a global role similar to that of 19th-century Britain. To maintain its empire, Britain had to manage emerging competitors, cultivate a global network of allies, and, most importantly, never show weakness. In a predatory international system, perceived weakness is blood in the water.

It would have been unthinkable for Britain at the height of its power to abandon its global empire in exchange for securing Normandy. Yet, that is analogous to the strategic trade-off Trump appears to be making.

The High Cost of a Hemispheric Focus

This strategic retreat is likely to generate damaging geopolitical ripple effects.

First, it will further alienate U.S. allies. If Trump takes aggressive action to acquire Greenland, for instance, these former partners will be even less likely to support American interests.

Second, the pullback signals to adversaries that the dominant global power may be weak, wounded, and incapable of sustaining its global commitments. This perception will only embolden them.

Trump's hemisphere-centric plan does not secure U.S. interests or consolidate its strength. It creates severe strategic dilemmas by pushing away allies while encouraging enemies. The price of rebuilding the alliances and global posture being discarded will be immeasurably higher than the cost of preserving Washington's current influence.

The concept of a "rules-based international order" is being openly challenged by a return to raw power politics. Recent state news broadcasts in Russia champion a new reality where strength dictates outcomes, a doctrine vividly demonstrated by recent military actions from both Washington and Moscow.

From a lightning raid in the Caribbean to a hypersonic missile strike in Eastern Europe, both superpowers are signaling a strategic pivot toward pravo sil'nogo—the "right of the strong."

Washington's "Absolute Resolve" in Venezuela

On January 3, the Trump administration executed a dramatic show of force with "Operation Absolute Resolve." In a 30-minute strike, U.S. Delta Force commandos captured Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife in Caracas.

The operation, supported by over 150 aircraft, represents an aggressive reassertion of the Monroe Doctrine. By using overwhelming force to decapitate a hostile regime, Washington sent a clear message. President Trump later reinforced this, stating, "American dominance in the Western Hemisphere will never be questioned again."

Moscow's Hypersonic Warning to NATO

Just days later, on January 9, the Kremlin responded with its own form of "kinetic diplomacy." Russia launched its Oreshnik hypersonic missile, targeting the Ukrainian city of Lviv near the Polish border.

This was a calculated signal to NATO. The missile, carrying six warheads traveling at Mach 10, was designed to demonstrate a capability that Western air defenses cannot intercept. While the warheads were reportedly inert "dummies," the launch served as a blunt reminder of Moscow's capacity for escalation and its ability to hold Western targets at risk.

The Grinding War as a Backdrop

These escalatory moves unfold against the backdrop of a brutal war of attrition in Ukraine. Russia's full-scale invasion has now lasted longer than the Soviet Union's war against Nazi Germany in World War II.

Despite the deployment of advanced drones and hypersonic technology, the frontlines have remained largely static. The conflict has devolved into a "meat grinder" that has also diminished the battlefield effectiveness of advanced Western weapons systems like the Abrams tank and HIMARS.

Geopolitical Maneuvers Beyond Ukraine

The trend of assertive power plays extends to other strategic regions. The U.S. has continued to signal territorial ambitions in the Arctic, with President Trump vowing to acquire Greenland from Denmark. "I would like to make a deal, you know, the easy way. But if we don't do it the easy way, we're going to do it the hard way," Trump stated at a recent press conference.

These events raise critical questions about the new global landscape. Was the raid in Venezuela the opening move in a larger geopolitical bargain between Washington and Moscow? And is Russia's Oreshnik strike a genuine threat or a desperate signal aimed at an unpredictable U.S. administration? As global norms erode, the world is left to decipher the intentions behind these powerful displays of force.

Sales of previously owned homes in December rose to a seasonally-adjusted, annualized rate of 4.35 million units, a 5.1% increase from November, according to the National Association of Realtors. That was higher than analysts' expectations for a gain of 2%. Sales were 1.4% higher than a year earlier.

For the full year, there were 4.06 million existing home sales, unchanged from 2024.

After adjusting for seasonal factors, December sales were the strongest in nearly three years. Sales increased in all regions month-over-month and were higher annually in the Northeast and Midwest, but lower in the South and West.

This count is based on closings, so sales contracts likely signed in October and November, when mortgage rates weren't moving much. The average rate on the 30-year fixed loan hovered between 6.2% and 6.3% during that time. That rate, however, was lower than it was last spring and summer, when it was closer to 7%.

"2025 was another tough year for homebuyers, marked by record-high home prices and historically low home sales," said Lawrence Yun, chief economist for The Realtors, in a release. "However, in the fourth quarter, conditions began improving, with lower mortgage rates and slower home price growth."

Inventory was the big headline of the monthly report. There were 1.18 million units available for sale at the end of December, down 18% from November, although 3.5% higher year-over-year.

With stronger sales, that dropped the supply to just 3.3 months, which is considered quite lean. Low supply kept prices in positive territory, although just barely.

The median price of a home sold in December was $405,400, up 0.4% annually and the 30th straight month of annual gains. The increase, however, was smaller than the 1.2% gain in November.

"With fewer sellers feeling eager to move, homeowners are taking their time deciding when to list or delist their homes. Similar to past years, more inventory is expected to come to market beginning in February," Yun added.

Source: CNBC