Breakdown of the prediction vs. what happened (2023–2024):

1. Divided government with Republicans in Congress and Biden as president

   • After the 2022 midterms, Republicans won a narrow majority in the House while Democrats retained control of the Senate, and Joe Biden remained president. This created divided government for the remainder of Biden’s term covered by the 118th Congress (Jan 2023–Jan 2025). (en.wikipedia.org)
   • The quote says Republicans would “control Congress,” which is imprecise (they controlled only the House), but the core point—divided government rather than unified Democratic control—was correct.

2. “Largely in a gridlock situation”

   • With split partisan control, there were repeated showdowns over the debt ceiling, appropriations, and shutdown threats, and Biden was unable to pass anything comparable in scale or ambition to his early-term partisan bills like the American Rescue Plan or Inflation Reduction Act. (justapedia.org)
   • Nonetheless, important bipartisan legislation did pass, including the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 (debt‑ceiling deal with spending caps) and the annual National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2024, along with multiple continuing resolutions and other bills. (justapedia.org)
   • So politics were often gridlocked on big new initiatives, but not so gridlocked that Congress stopped legislating altogether. Describing it as “largely” gridlocked is directionally reasonable.

3. “Orgy of spending and money printing … is going to stop”

   • Federal spending/deficits: The overall federal deficit rose after the midterms: from about $1.4T in FY 2022 to $1.7T in 2023 and $1.8T in 2024, with total outlays also rising. (en.wikipedia.org) In other words, the aggregate fiscal “orgy of spending” did not stop; deficits stayed very large and actually increased versus 2022.
   • What did change is that the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 imposed statutory caps on discretionary spending for FY 2024–2025, cut non‑defense discretionary spending below 2023 levels, and clawed back some unspent COVID and IRS funds. (budget.house.gov) That’s a move toward restraint on new discretionary spending, but it didn’t meaningfully halt overall high federal spending driven by entitlements and interest.
   • Money printing: Here the prediction was accurate. The Federal Reserve had already ended quantitative easing and by mid‑2022 was in quantitative tightening, shrinking its balance sheet. Between March 2023 and September 2023 the balance sheet fell from about $8.7T to $8.0T, and it continued down to around $7.1T by September 2024 and $6.7T by March 2025—a cumulative reduction of roughly $2+ trillion from the 2022 peak. (federalreserve.gov) This is the opposite of “money printing,” so the claim that aggressive money creation would stop (and reverse) did come true.

4. Republican investigations, including into COVID

   • In January 2023, with their new House majority, Republicans rechartered the existing COVID oversight panel as the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic, explicitly tasked with investigating COVID’s origins, gain‑of‑function research, pandemic spending, and mandates. (en.wikipedia.org)
   • The subcommittee conducted dozens of hearings, depositions, and document requests; probed figures like Anthony Fauci and EcoHealth Alliance; and issued interim and final reports concluding COVID most likely originated from a lab‑related incident in Wuhan and criticizing aspects of the federal response. (oversight.house.gov)
   • This matches the prediction that, even if Republicans couldn’t pass much substantive legislation, they would run multiple investigations, including into the federal COVID response.

Overall assessment:

• Core structural claim—divided government with Republicans controlling (part of) Congress, Biden in the White House, and politics shifting toward gridlock and investigations rather than big new Democratic spending bills—was borne out.
• The prediction overstated how much overall federal “spending” would stop (deficits and outlays remained very high and grew), though it was correct about Fed “money printing” ending and about Congress imposing tighter caps on new discretionary appropriations.

Because the central features of the forecast came true, with the spending part notably weaker but not enough to overturn the main thesis, the best overall rating is “right” (directionally accurate with important caveats).