National

Cassidy Hutchinson, a top aide to former president Trump’s Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, testified Tuesday to the House Select Committee investigating the January 6th attack on the Capitol. 

Plus: how the Roe decision could affect your online privacy. 

And: the human toll of surging migration at the Southern U.S. border.

Guests: Axios' Margaret Talev and Margaret Harding McGill.

Credits: Axios Today is produced by Niala Boodhoo, Erica Pandey, Sara Kehaulani Goo, Alexandra Botti, Nuria Marquez Martinez, Lydia McMullen-Laird and Alex Sugiura. Music is composed by Evan Viola. You can reach us at podcasts@axios.com. You can text questions, comments and story ideas to Niala as a text or voice memo to 202-918-4893.

Tech companies may surrender abortion-related data

50 migrants found dead inside tractor-trailer in San Antonio

ERICA PANDEY: Good morning! Welcome to Axios Today! 

It’s Wednesday June 29. I’m Erica Pandey in for Niala Boodhoo. 

Here’s what you need to know today: how the Roe decision could affect your online privacy. Plus, the human toll of surging migration at the Southern U.S. border.

But first, today’s One Big Thing: new testimony says former President Trump may have tried to join the January 6th insurrection.

CASSIDY HUTCHINSON: I was in the vicinity of a conversation where I overheard the president say something to the effect of, you know, “I don't f-ing care that they have weapons. They're not here to hurt me, take the f-ing mags away.” 

ERICA: That's testimony yesterday from Cassidy Hutchinson, a former top to former president Trump's chief of staff, Mark Meadows. She's describing the moment Trump urged the secret service to let his supporters go to the Capitol, despite knowing they were heavily armed. That testimony came as part of a surprise hearing Tuesday from the House select committee investigating the January 6th attack on the Capitol. Axios managing editor for politics Margaret Talev is here with more. Hi, Margaret.

ERICA: Margaret, this testimony was pretty shocking for observers. How much does this change our understanding of Trump's role? 

MARGARET: Erica, this was so far in the January 6th hearings, the most damning testimony for the former president. And that's true because Cassidy Hutchinson tied him directly to the attack that day on January 6th, 2021, by talking about his knowledge of weapons, his knowledge of the protesters and many other details. She gave testimony that the former president tried to take the steering wheel of the car that he was riding in and then lunged at his security detail when the secret service would not take him to the January 6th protest at the Capitol. She also testified that he, on multiple occasions, had thrown plates at the wall at the White House, that he was known to turn the tablecloth in fits of rage. And so we saw a picture of a president who acted violently through this testimony. 

ERICA: Did this testimony establish Trump's criminal culpability and what took place on January 6th? Was there any sort of smoking gun here?

MARGARET: Of course, these are congressional hearings, these are not criminal proceedings and the standard for testimony and evidence is different. Congress can't make the Justice Department do anything and the Justice Department has remained very independent and tight-lipped about what it intends to pursue. But certainly when you have a former aide with really unparalleled access inside the White House, she was able, both personally and through her conversations with other people, to describe in detail actions that could lend themselves potentially towards evidence were there to be a criminal investigation. But that really depends in part on what she witnessed firsthand and in part on what can be corroborated when she’s talking about things that she was described by others.

ERICA: And who from Trump's inner circle, did the Hutchinson testimony implicate?

MARGARET: The most interesting figure that it illuminated was that of Cassidy Hutchinson's former boss, the former chief of staff, Mark Meadows, and paints a picture of him directly involved in conversation with President Trump throughout the day with the White House Council and with so many people who were seeking to influence him and seeking to influence the president through him, begging him to intervene to get the president, to call off the protesters, to protect vice president Mike Pence, to acknowledge that he had lost the election so that the country could move on.

ERICA: Margaret at the end of the hearing, we heard a bit about possible witness tampering. What did you think of that?

MARGARET: I actually think this may be the most important element of the hearing. Look, the headlines are gonna be about the former president throwing plates or whether he lunged at his security detail. But, what Congresswoman Cheney was referring to at the end of the hearing, our texts and, uh, evidence from folks who have come before the committee already privately who have indicated that they have gotten what they perceive to be pressure from former President Trump or Trump world. Such as, he's reading the transcripts, he's keeping track of who's testifying, you know, he values loyalty, he knows you're loyal. He knows you'll do the right thing. She raised a red flag about concerns about this. I would expect to hear a lot more about this in future hearings.

ERICA: Margaret Talev is the managing editor for politics at Axios. Thanks Margaret.

ERICA: In a moment, how the Supreme Court abortion ruling could put online privacy at risk.

ERICA: Welcome back to Axios Today. I'm Erica Pandey in for Niala Boodhoo. Last week's Supreme Court decision to overturn Roe V. Wade brings up new questions about individual rights beyond abortion access. As Axios’ tech policy reporter, Margaret Harding McGill writes many experts fear the decision could erode our privacy online. She joins us now with more on this. Hi, Margaret.

MARGARET HARDING MCGILL: Hey Erica. Thanks for having me.

ERICA: So the original Roe v. Wade decision 50 years ago was based largely around a personal right to privacy in your own decisions. How does this recent court opinion change that?

MARGARET: So the court opinion basically undermines this idea that there is a constitutional right to make personal decisions without interference from the government. That same right that grants you federal access to abortions underpins rights to contraception, rights to interracial marriage and a right to same-sex relationships and marriage. So one fear I've heard is that those rights could also be in jeopardy by the Supreme Court and if that happens, a lot of activity that people do in their daily lives online could become evidence in criminal investigations against them.

ERICA: Right, there's been a lot of attention on apps that track a person's menstrual cycle, the kinds of data they collect and how that data might be used against someone in an abortion investigation. What other online activity could potentially be used as evidence? 

MARGARET: Well, prosecutors can serve Google with a keyword search warrant that could reveal every user that has searched for abortion help or for Planned Parenthood. They could get text messages. They could seek the phone's location data to see how many accounts have visited the location of an abortion clinic. So much of our daily lives happens online and now all of this activity in some states has become criminal.

ERICA: Do we know how tech companies like Google or Apple would handle data across from law enforcement, if they were looking into a potential abortion?

MARGARET: Well, the tech companies aren't coming outright and saying what they would do, but the thing to keep in mind is that the act of law enforcement seeking location data, content, username, browser history, that's already been happening. Tech companies do hand that information over. What has changed is the activity that is now criminal. So tech companies are gonna have to grapple with how they answer these requests, but they already have policies for answering them in other types of investigations.

ERICA: What do consumers do now? What, what can they do with this information?

MARGARET: There are steps consumers can take - you know, they could, look into their settings on their phones and try and minimize location history or location sharing. But honestly, as the privacy experts that I talk to said, it's really unfair to put this on consumers. That's a big burden for them. And what they would like to see is for Congress to pass a federal privacy law. And then on the tech company side, there's data minimization. If Google is not holding onto where you were three months ago, they can't share it with law enforcement. So as long as the companies are collecting the data and storing the data, they're gonna keep getting subpoenaed. If they stop storing it for so long or even collecting it in the first place that reduces that risk.

ERICA: Margaret Harding McGill covers tech policy at Axios. Thanks Margaret.

ERICA: One last story for you today. At least 50 migrants were found dead inside an abandoned truck in San Antonio, Texas on Monday. The majority of the dead are believed to be from Mexico, with others from Honduras and Guatemala…and this looks to be one of the most deadly incidents involving migrants crossing the U.S. border in modern history. Temperatures had climbed to 101 degrees that day and the cause of death for most is thought to be heat stroke in the sweltering, overcrowded truck. As summer heat sets in and new record highs are recorded in the U.S., a surge in migrants attempting to cross the southern U.S. border has officials worried about the months to come.

The investigation into the deaths in San Antonio is continuing today and we’ll keep following the story.

And that’s all from us for this Wednesday – remember you can text me and the team at (202) 918-4893. Please keep sending us your thoughtful observations and questions about abortion rights in your community. 

I’m Erica Pandey in for Niala Boodhoo - thanks for listening - stay safe and we’ll see you back here tomorrow morning.

The most damning Jan. 6 testimony so far

New testimony sheds new light on former President Trump's role in the Jan. 6 insurrection.

Jan. 6

Axios Today

Podcasts

Russia escalated its war effort by firing more than 65 missiles over Ukraine this past weekend. Then yesterday, a Russian missile hit a crowded shopping mall in Ukraine’s central Poltava region, killing at least 11 people and injuring dozens. Now, leaders at the G-7 summit in Germany are figuring out where this goes next.  How do they strike a balance between cutting off the financing for Russia's attacks and protecting consumers from the impact of that economic war against Russia?

Plus: Abortion rights supporters wage legal battles state by state. 

And: we want to hear how the aftermath of the Roe v Wade decision is playing out in your hometown.

Guests: Axios' Matt Phillips and Oriana Gonzalez. 

G7 leaders to ban imports of Russian gold

Abortion rights activists plot next legal steps

ERICA PANDEY: Good morning! Welcome to Axios Today! It’s Tuesday June 28. I’m Erica Pandey in for Niala Boodhoo. Here’s what you need to know today: Abortion rights supporters wage legal battles state by state. Plus, we want to hear how the aftermath of the Roe v Wade decision is playing out in your hometown. But first, today’s One Big Thing: G7 leaders face the cost of economic war with Russia.

Russia escalated its war effort by firing more than 65 missiles over Ukraine this past weekend. Then yesterday, a Russian missile hit a crowded shopping mall in Ukraine’s central Poltava region, killing at least 11 people and injuring dozens. Now, leaders at the G-7 summit in Germany are figuring out where this goes next. How do they strike a balance between cutting off the financing for Russia's attacks and protecting consumers from the impact of that economic war against Russia. Here to explain his Axios markets correspondent, Matt Phillips. Hi, Matt.

ERICA: So early in this war, there were heavy sanctions against Russia coming from the US, the UK in the EU. And yet the war still appears to be going strong. What does Russia's economy look like right now? 

MATT: Well, it really depends on what you think Russia's economy is. The state economy, the government's ability to finance this really massive land war in Europe, is actually in pretty good shape. After the initial kind of shock and awe of some sanctions that were really kind of unprecedented in their scope on a major economy, the Russian state and the Russian kind of official economy has adjusted. They have kind of taken measures like banning people from exchanging rubles for dollars. They've twisted arms of Russian companies to try to get them to hold onto their rubles, rather than selling them for dollars. So the Russian currency has come back a lot. So they're actually in pretty good shape to continue financing the war.

ERICA: And then what has the effect of those sanctions been on, on other countries?

MATT: It has added to the already inflationary tilt of the world economy coming out of the pandemic. I mean, obviously, inflation's kind of been around now for much of the last year or so, but it's gotten worse since Russia invaded. All over the world you've seen, increases in food and energy costs. I mean, this global rush to secure supplies has pushed prices everywhere up. And it's a lot worse, over in Europe. Say the Germans they're, they're worried about having no heating fuel this coming winter. So they're, they're beginning to contemplate sort of really serious rationing efforts.

ERICA: Now the G-7 is meeting, you know, one side there's you wanna keep sanctioning Russia on the other side, your consumers are hurting. What do they do? How do they think about this?

MATT: Yeah, it's a, it's a really difficult balance. I mean, they clearly want to ensure that they maintain the pressure on Moscow, but the question is, are they are these same leaders gonna be in power to maintain that So, I mean, there's a political calculus here that's kind of an offshoot of  the economic war question because it's what kind of government system has the ability to to have the staying power to win this fight. You know, Vladimir Putin doesn't have to worry about midterm elections coming up. So, you know, he's got a different calculus that's clearly the bet the Russians are making is that democracies are gonna have a hard time weathering this inflationary spiral.

ERICA: You're calling this economic war a stalemate for now. What moves either side out of that stalemate?

MATT:  You know, some people say, this will have to be determined on the battlefield of Ukraine. Like that's the only way we get out of this. Other people say, well, the only way you know, Ukraine has a chance of prevailing on the battlefield as if we maintain the economic pressure on Russia. So it it's really all related. What analysts have said to me is that in the short term Russia can muddle along, but in anywhere from sort of the midterm to longer term, the kind of restrictions and pressure the Russian economy on is under, is really catastrophic. I mean, it's gonna be a much grimmer economy for the people who are living there.

ERICA: Matt Phillips is a markets correspondent at Axios. Thanks, Matt.

ERICA: In a moment: courts block trigger laws in Louisiana and Utah, keeping abortion temporarily legal in those states.

ERICA: Welcome back to Axios Today. I'm Erica Pandey in for Niala Boodhoo. Abortion rights activists are reacting to the overturning of Roe v. Wade with state by state legal challenges to abortion bans. Yesterday, a Louisiana district court temporarily blocked the state's trigger laws from going to effect after abortion providers filed a lawsuit. That means abortions in Louisiana can continue for now. Similar suits followed in at least three other states. Axios’ Oriana Gonzalez has been following these legal battles and joins us now. Hey Oriana.

ERICA: So this Louisiana case resulted in the first abortion ban reversal, but it's not the only one. We also saw a Utah judge file a temporary restraining order against the trigger law there. What is the strategy behind these lawsuits?

ORIANA: Both in the Utah and the Louisiana case, the plaintiffs in these cases, which are abortion providers, are arguing that the abortion bans, the trigger laws in these states are unconstitutional. And this is a strategy that we're seeing in general for abortion rights advocates in the US who are planning the next legal battles in the US now that Roe v. Wade is gone. Now because there is no federal protection on abortion, they're looking specifically at two things. One, whether specific state constitutions protect abortion access and two, whether there is some sort of state court precedent say from the State Supreme Court that protects the right to an abortion.

ERICA: So we talked Louisiana and Utah. Where are some of the other places we're starting to see these challenges on trigger bans?

ORIANA: So yesterday on Monday, in a matter of minutes between each other, lawsuits were filed in Mississippi, in Texas and in Idaho, all from abortion providers. They all work a little bit differently. So for example, in the Mississippi lawsuit, the plaintiffs are arguing that the right to an abortion is protected under State Supreme Court precedent, specifically a 1998 case. In the Idaho lawsuit, they are saying that the state's trigger law is “unconstitutionally vague,” that's a quote, and therefore should be declared unconstitutional. And in Texas, there's a little bit of a difference in terms of the lawsuit, because the State Attorney General in Texas said that right now, while the trigger law is not in effect, the state's pre-Roe ban is in effect. And the plaintiffs in that case are arguing that the pre ban was declared unconstitutional years ago.

ERICA: There's also been movement in blue states like California and Oregon to protect abortion providers and patients. What does that look like?

ORIANA: So specifically for the west coast, California, Oregon, and Washington state actually came out with what they're calling a west coast offense to protect abortion providers and patients in their states from bans in other states, particularly red states, that could potentially look to prosecute them for seeking abortion care or providing abortion care. In general, we're seeing those types of actions in other states. Connecticut was the first one to pass a law and enact a law that specifically says that they will protect providers and patients in their state from bans in other states.

ERICA: What reaction are you seeing from conservative lawmakers to some of these state by state challenges to the bans?

ORIANA: So, as we know when Roe v. Wade was overturned, what ended up happening is not saying that abortion is legal in the US, but rather saying that now states have the authority to regulate abortion, meaning it's a state battle from now on. And what I'm seeing from the public, particularly those that identify as anti-abortion, is that while they do not agree with these bands being blocked, they are happy that this is now a state battle.

ERICA: Oriana Gonzalez is a healthcare reporter at Axios. Thanks Oriana.

ERICA: One last thing for today: we want to know how conversations about abortion access are playing out where you live. How is your community reacting? And what questions do you have about this moment? Be our ears on the ground and text a voicememo to 202-918-4893. We may use it this week on the show.

And that’s all we’ve got for you today! I’m Erica Pandey in for Niala Boodhoo - thanks for listening - stay safe and we’ll see you back here tomorrow morning.

The cost of economic war with Russia

Leaders at the G-7 summit are weighing the impact of sanctions on Russia and their own countries' economies.

Russian invasion of Ukraine

Following the Supreme Court ruling, searches for “abortion pill” have surged, according to Google Trends data. Medication abortion bans are harder to enforce than for surgical abortions, and are set to be at heart of legal battles in states across the U.S.

Plus: lessons from one historic heat wave…as the U.S. faces more extreme heat.

Guests: Axios' Tina Reed and Eric Klinenberg, author of Heat Wave: A Social Autopsy of Disaster in Chicago.

Abortion pills become central issue after SCOTUS ruling

Abortions are now illegal in 7 states but more bans are coming

On first day of summer, heat wave intensifies and heads for the South

It’s Monday June 27th. I’m Erica Pandey in for Niala Boodhoo. 

Here’s what we’re covering today: lessons from a historic heat wave…as the U.S. faces more extreme heat.

But first, today’s One Big Thing: the fight over abortion pills in a post Roe America.

Americans this weekend reacted to the repeal of Roe v. Wade with massive protests…

…outside the Supreme Court, and around the country. A few hours after the court issued its decision, trigger laws banning abortions went into effect in seven states. Most abortions are now illegal in Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, Oklahoma, South Dakota and Utah. At least six other states are expected to officially ban or heavily restrict access in the coming weeks. Abortion rights remain protected in 16 states.

Now searches for quote “abortion pill” — which is abortion by medication — have surged, according to Google trends data from Friday and Saturday. Medication abortion bans are harder to enforce than for surgical abortions, and they’re set to be at heart of legal battles in states across the U.S.

For more on that Axios health care editor Tina Reed is with us. Hey, Tina.

ERICA: Tina, what exactly are abortion pills? And how much are they used for abortions in the U.S.?

TINA: Abortion pills are a method of abortion, referred to as medication abortion, and they're used in actually a majority of abortions in the United States. As of 2020, they were used in 54% of abortions, according to the Guttmacher Institute and these medications are authorized by the FDA for use in the first 10 weeks of pregnancy and involves taking the drugs 24 to 48 hours apart to first stop the development of pregnancy and then cause contractions to expel the fetus. 

TINA: So it does require a consultation with a doctor and it requires the patient is located physically in a state where abortion is legal. It can be accessed or ordered online, sent via the mail and taken by the patient at home. 

ERICA: So explain to me, why is the legality of these abortion pills more complicated than with surgical abortion?

TINA: So when we talk about these medications, they have been deemed safe and effective by the FDA. And so that makes it tricky for a state to say they're going to ban the use of that pill. And Attorney General Merrick Garland even came out and already has said that states cannot ban drugs that are FDA approved. There's actually some case law out there on this. Back in 2014, Massachusetts tried to ban a particular opioid and lost in a court that said you couldn't ban an FDA-approved drug. However, a lot of folks in the legal sector are saying that this is definitely going to be fought out in the courts and it's not necessarily clear how it would land.

ERICA: Right, so I was gonna ask you, are we seeing this start to play out already in some states, some of these questions start to get dug into? What's happening so far?

TINA: So it's too soon, I think to say exactly where and how this is going to be challenged. But a lot of folks are saying that because of the conservative makeup of many different courts throughout the United States, it is entirely possible that the courts could potentially allow states in the future to ban a particular drug. It's just not clear how and when that's going to happen, but they say it's almost certain that this will be challenged in a court of law.

ERICA: And, and what are you watching in this fight? What should we be paying attention to as this unfolds?

TINA: I think what I would be paying attention to right now is what the health ramifications are of some of these trigger bans, whether or not they might ban other devices or procedures such as IUDs or IVF and, potentially emergency contraception, like Plan B. And I think it's going to be interesting to see as some of these different health implications come out, how the states actually ultimately respond to that.

ERICA: Axios health care editor Tina Reed. Thanks Tina.

ERICA: In a moment, how better social infrastructure can save us from extreme heat.

ERICA: Welcome back to Axios Today. I’m Erica Pandey in for Niala Boodhoo.

Heat waves have been striking around the world – including here in the U.S. Late last week at least 15 states hit 100 degrees, according to the National Weather Service. More people die each year because of heat in the U.S. than any other type of extreme weather… and NYU Sociologist Eric Kleinenberg says one reason… is social infrastructure. 

To understand that, we can look back to a week-long heat wave in Chicago, 27 years ago, when more than 700 people died. It was one of the deadliest heat waves in US history. 

Eric Kleinenberg is the author of Heat Wave: A Social Autopsy of Disaster in Chicago, and he sat down with Niala last week to talk about what we can learn from Chicago…as we look ahead.

NIALA BOODHOO: Eric, let's start with what happened in Chicago almost 30 years ago. Your research showed that fewer Latino people died in part because of the neighborhoods that they lived in, whereas more Black people died because of isolation. Men were twice as likely to die as women. So can you explain what role social connection plays in these types of disasters?

ERIC KLEINENBERG: You know, what I learned when I looked closely at the map of who died in Chicago is that the neighborhoods that were hit really hard were places that weren't just poor and segregated, but also really abandoned and depleted. They didn't have what, what I've come to call, a robust social infrastructure, not a lot of great parks or gathering places, a lot of empty lots and abandoned buildings, this kind of depletion that makes daily life more isolating and makes it more difficult for people to support their neighbors. 

And, you know, as it happens in Chicago, the neighborhoods that look like that are primarily Black neighborhoods. Latino neighborhoods are really different because although they're also very poor and increasingly segregated in Chicago, they're crowded. In a heat wave, the crowding is protective.  The thing that makes a place like Chicago so dangerous is cities are heat islands because they have a lot of concrete and steel that attracts the heat. And then, this is crucial - they stay hot at night because the pollution traps heat in cities. And it's that combination of the ecological threat and the social reality that creates fault lines.

NIALA: What happens to our bodies in a heat wave?

ERIC: Your body starts to break down if it's overheated. A lot of people experience kidney failure, essentially when your internal organs start to overheat, you lose your body's capacity to even sense its own temperature. Actually a heat illness or heat death is relatively easy to prevent. You just need someone there with you who can recognize that, you look sick, that you are overheated, that the place where you are is dangerously hot. And, and if you can get that person into cool water or into an air conditioned environment, you can really prevent the death. What, what we saw in Chicago and what we see in heat waves around the world is people who are vulnerable are people who are isolated.

NIALA: As we think about how our society adapts to the increasing frequency of these events, what kind of social infrastructure do we need to really prevent more death and suffering?

ERIC: The first thing we need to do to prevent more death and suffering is start to decarbonize. We've gotta shift to renewable energy because if we, if we don't change that it's going to get so hot so often that we won't be able to adapt. Then, I think we need to pay a lot more attention to the social infrastructure. What kinds of places do neighborhoods have that give people who live there capacity to help each other out? You know, it's about the playground. It's about the park. It's about the commercial strip. You know, when you're in a neighborhood that's got a rich social infrastructure where the daily routine involves, you know, sitting on a stoop or hanging out in a park bench or going to the local library or shopping in a shared marketplace. You notice when your neighbor. who's always there isn't there that day. And if it's 104 degrees outside, you knock on their door. And what we need to do right now is build neighborhoods that encourage knocking on the door. 

NIALA: Eric Kleinenberg is the director of the Institute for Public Knowledge at New York University. Thanks, Eric.

ERICA: That’s all we’ve got for you today! I’m Erica Pandey in for Niala Boodhoo - thanks for listening - stay safe and we’ll see you back here tomorrow morning.

The fight over abortion pills in a post-Roe America

Medication abortion bans are set to be at heart of legal battles in states across the U.S.

Abortion

This morning, the Supreme Court issued a ruling overturning Roe v. Wade. The 6-3 decision effectively ends all federal protections on abortion. 

Credits: Axios Today is produced by Niala Boodhoo, Sara Kehaulani Goo, Alexandra Botti, Nuria Marquez Martinez, Lydia McMullen-Laird and Alex Sugiura. Music is composed by Evan Viola. You can reach us at podcasts@axios.com. You can text questions, comments and story ideas to Niala as a text or voice memo to 202-918-4893.

Democrats condemn Supreme Court's abortion ruling

Where abortion will be illegal with Roe v. Wade overturned

Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade

This morning, the Supreme Court issued a ruling overturning Roe v. Wade.

Roe v. Wade

The Supreme Court yesterday struck down a more than a century-old New York state gun law. The court said that the law, which limits who can carry guns outside the home, conflicts with the second amendment – and the ruling stands to significantly change the legal landscape of gun rights in the U.S. 

Plus: devastation following an earthquake in Afghanistan. 

And: a call for solidarity from Asian Americans.

Also: why so many January 6th witnesses mention their faith

Guests: Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center and Jose Antonio Vargas, co-founder of Define American.

Supreme Court strikes down New York's concealed carry gun law

Deadly Afghanistan quake hits nation already reeling from economic, hunger crises

Ex-Trump aides say six House Republicans sought pardons after Jan. 6

NIALA BOODHOO: Good morning! Welcome to Axios Today! It’s Friday June 24. I’m Niala Boodhoo. Here’s what we’re covering today: devastation in Afghanistan. Plus, a call for solidarity from Asian Americans. But first, today’s One Big Thing: a Supreme Court ruling expands gun rights.

NEW YORK GOVERNOR KATHY HOCHUL: Shocking, absolutely shocking.

NIALA: That was the reaction of New York governor Kathy Hochul when the Supreme Court yesterday struck down a more than century-old New York State gun law. The court said the law, which limits who can carry guns outside the home, conflicts with the second amendment. And the ruling stands to significantly expand gun rights in the US.

Jeffrey Rosen is president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, a nonprofit focused on education about the constitution, and he's here with more. Hi Jeffrey.

NIALA: Jeffrey, why does the current New York law conflict with the second amendment? At least according to the six conservative members who voted to strike it down?

JEFFREY: According to the Supreme Court, the New York law is an outlier inconsistent with the history and tradition of gun regulations. Basically the court said that only six states have a system like New York, where you have to show a good reason for carrying a gun. And it embraced a view that Justice Thomas has long held, but didn't seem to have a majority until now, which is that the second amendment is not a second class, right as Justice Thomas said. And by basically insisting that you have to look to history to figure out whether a regulation is okay, the court has signaled a real willingness to, to take a hard look at gun regulations that many folks have thought were constitutionally  unproblematic.

NIALA: What do we hear from the dissenting judges on this?

JEFFREY: Well, this is one of Justice Breyer's most blistering dissents. And he both suggested in his final words that this would make the country more dangerous. But he also said that until now in second amendment cases, like first amendment cases, the court has balanced the urgent interest in public safety against the individual interest in self defense. Here, Justice Thomas threw all that out the window and he said, it's just up to judges to look at the historical record on their own and tried to decide whether weapons that, of course the framers couldn't have imagined cuz they didn't exist back 200 years ago are, or not consistent with tradition. So it just, it, I, I think it's not too much to say that this changes the legal landscape. It was not obvious that there was a majority on the court to adopt such a robust vision of the second amendment and now all sorts of regulations, both those that are currently on the books and ones that might be adopted in the future are open to constitutional challenge.

NIALA: Jeffrey Rosen is the president and CEO of the National Constitution Center. Thanks Jeffrey.

NIALA: Another story we’re watching this morning: Residents of Southeast Afghanistan are taking stock of the devastation from Wednesday’s magnitude 6.1 earthquake – which estimates say has killed more than a thousand people. Many more are thought to be injured. Minimal resources along with rough weather and terrain have made rescue and recovery efforts difficult, but already thousands of people are facing the loss of loved ones, homes, and even entire villages. The Associated Press reported yesterday that some people were digging through the rubble by hand - while others were preparing mass graves. Afghanistan was already dealing with a number of other crises, including hunger – one UN-backed report said about half the country was facing acute hunger as of early May. 

In a moment, a solidarity march on the national mall – led by Asian American community members.

NIALA: Welcome back to Axios Today. I'm Niala Boodhoo. 15,000 people are expected in Washington, D.C. tomorrow for a solidarity march led by the Asian American community. As we continue to see increased violence against Asian Americans, organizers of the first national Unity March say their goal is to demand progress towards achieving equity across marginalized groups in the U.S. One of the speakers for the event is Jose Antonio Vargas. The founder of Define American and he's with me now. Hey Jose.

JOSE ANTONIO VARGAS: Hi, nice to be with you.

NIALA: What are the other calls to action for this Unity March? What are the specific goals you're hoping to achieve with this gathering?

JOSE: One of the goals is to actually get people to talk about a pathway to citizenship for undocumented Asians and Pacific Islanders, to have a conversation about racial and economic justice. We get treated so much as a monolith and yet the community is so diverse and the gap between higher income to lower income, the lowest income is actually the widest gap of any racial group in the country. So that's a big one.  And to me, cultural equity and media representation. When you ask people about the most popular Asian Americans, the answer is Jackie Chan and Bruce Lee, at a time when Kamala Harris, right, is the first, not only the first Black American, but the first Asian American, right. She's South Asian. So, the erasure, the kind of marginalization that we even get at that level is something that we all have to push back against.

NIALA: Unfortunately, the rise in anti-Asian hate crimes has also given - I've seen reports where this feeds into existing stereotypes that exist between marginalized groups. How do we keep that conversation open and inclusive, especially when we're thinking about the Asian American community?

JOSE: I think making sure that we call it out whenever we see it. I know within my own family, sometimes the media plays up, you know, for example, when Asian American elders are getting attacked, it's Black suspects, right? And you have to remind people, no, that's actually, you are, you are picking certain parts and actually not looking at the big picture. It's sad in a way that it takes violence to unite this community, but in a way I'm thankful that against all of this, we have found a way to actually come together as a community, as a group of people.

NIALA: So if in a year's time, you and I were to sit down to talk again on the 12th anniversary of your coming out as undocumented,  

NIALA: What, what change would you like to have seen happen in the next year?

JOSE: Well, I'm not gonna lie to you. I am, I'm not sure we're gonna see much change policy-wise, for example, on immigration reform. I think we are now at the mercy of a paralyzed Congress. I also think when I look at the arc of LGBTQ rights, I'm reminded that so much of that change happens state by state. It's not perfect, but cultural change in the LGBTQ movement preceded policy and political change. So that is what we're working towards and that's the kind of change that I think we can actually work on and actually see have some movement.

NIALA: Jose Antonio Vargas is the founder of Define American and the author of “Dear America: Notes of an Undocumented Citizen.” Thanks for being with us, Jose.

NIALA: Yesterday was the sixth day of public hearings this month by the House January 6th committee. One headline from the hearing: Six House Republicans sought pardons after the attack on the Capitol including Representatives Matt Gaetz and Marjorie Taylor Greene. On Fridays we like to sum up the week’s political news. That’s why today I wanted to end this week with something that struck me as we’ve been covering the hearings. It’s a theme we’ve heard from a number of Republicans who have testified: how their religious beliefs – specifically their Christian faith – played a role in their refusal to subvert the 2020 election result. 

Vice President Mike Pence’s lawyer, Greg Jacob, shared this moment from when he and Pence were in a Congressional bunker, and Jacob pulled out his Bible and read the story of Daniel in the Lion’s Den.

GREG JACOB: My faith really sustained me through it. I, down in the secure location, pulled out my Bible, read through it, and just took great comfort. 

NIALA: And Arizona House Speaker Rusty Bowers told the committee about his reaction to pressure from Trump’s team to remove Biden electors from his state:

RUSTY BOWERS: It is a tenet of my faith, that the constitution is divinely inspired of my most basic foundational beliefs. And so for me to do that, because somebody just asked me to is foreign to my very being, I, I, I will not do it.

NIALA: To me, it’s a reminder that for many of the people involved in the events of January 6th, this was much deeper than politics. It was a crisis that forced them to go to the core of their identity and what they believe, to decide how they would respond.

The next round of hearings for the committee will resume in a few weeks.

Axios Today is produced by Nuria Marquez Martinez and Lydia McMullen-Laird. Our sound engineers are Alex Sugiura and Ben O’Brien. Alexandra Botti is our Supervising Producer. Sara Kehaulani Goo is Axios’ Editor In Chief.

I’m Niala Boodhoo, thanks for listening! I’m out next week on vacation - but Erica Pandey will be here filling in for me. Stay safe and I’ll see you soon!

A Supreme Court ruling expands gun rights

The Supreme Court yesterday struck down a more than a century-old New York state gun law.

Gun laws

With gas prices hovering around $5 a gallon, President Biden called on Congress Wednesday to suspend the federal gas tax for 90 days. He also asked states to suspend their gas taxes, and pushed back against his Republican critics who blame him for the price surge. 

Plus: a new solution to the housing crisis for Indigenous Americans. 

And: Juul e-cigarettes could soon be banned in the U.S.

Guests: Axios' Hans Nichols and Russell Contreras.

Biden calls on Congress to suspend federal gas tax

Biden administration wants to take the buzz out of cigarettes

NIALA: Good morning! Welcome to Axios Today! It’s Thursday June 23. I’m Niala Boodhoo. Here’s what we’re covering today: a new solution to the housing crisis for indigenous Americans. Plus, juul e-cigarettes could soon be banned in the U.S. But first, today’s One Big Thing: what a gas tax holiday would actually mean for prices at the pump.

NIALA: With gas prices hovering around $5 a gallon across the country, President Biden on Wednesday called on Congress to suspend the federal gas tax for 90 days. Biden also asked states to suspend their gas taxes…and he pushed back against Republican critics who are blaming him for the price surge. Hans Nichols joins us now with a reality check. Hey, Hans.

NIALA: So Hans say this federal tax holiday happens, does that mean consumers automatically pay lower prices at the pump?

HANS: Economists will tell you no. Economists will say that in the short term, that all that 18 cents, 24 cents for diesel will go to the oil and gas producers, the refiners. Now, somewhere on a time horizon, the money in theory should revert back to consumers, to taxpayers, to people that are at the pump. It's unclear when that will happen, but probably outside of the three month window.

And that's why, you know, economists, Democratic economists, old Obama economists - That's why they're pretty uniformly negative on this proposal because they don't think that the savings will actually pass through to consumers that are lining up and filling up their tank. Now Biden's making a big push of this. He's saying, you know, he expects the oil companies to pass this through, but let's be clear. There's not a whole lot Joe Biden can do to force the oil companies. And there's really no way to sort of judge it or even like, tabulate or calculate for Biden to make sure that this actually gets to the consumers.

NIALA: What the president can do is use sort of his bully pulpit, which we saw yesterday, Hans, because he talked about how prices should be going down further at the pump and that gas station operators should be lowering prices more. How much is that public pressure helpful for the Biden administration getting the message out that look prices shouldn't be as high as they are right now?

HANS: Well, it helps them make their case. It helps the Biden administration make their case that the oil and gas companies are to blame. What the oil and gas companies say is look, oil prices are at historic highs and we are already producing and refining at capacity. We can't do anything more. And so Niala, you have this dynamic where Biden seems willing to criticize, antagonize, almost pick a fight with the one group of one part of the industry that can really solve his problem. And that is the oil and gas industry. Now there's another option and this is plan B and that is go convince the Saudis to pump more oil. And that's the other main policy lever that any president has when you're faced with historically high oil prices.

NIALA: He was also really clear in this speech about placing blame on Vladimir Putin and his invasion of Ukraine.

PRESIDENT BIDEN: Are you now saying we were wrong to support Ukraine? Are you saying we were wrong to stand up to Putin? Are you saying that we would rather have lower gas prices in America and Putin's iron fist in Europe? I don't believe that.

NIALA: Hans, how much was this announcement as much about the opportunity to respond to those criticisms?

HANS: That certainly was a factor, right? I mean, the White House has been mulling, considering this really since January, February and the polling on it kind of indicates that they needed to be seen as taking some action even if you know, it's not gonna be terribly successful. The line I heard was you wanna get caught trying. Whether or not this actually lowers the prices, you know, who knows if it actually will because the oil markets, international oil markets are so complicated and there's so many other push and pull factors at play, but clearly the White House wants to get caught trying.

NIALA: Hans Nichols covers the Biden administration for Axios. Thanks Hans.

NIALA: In a moment, a new approach to housing for indigenous communities in South Dakota. Welcome back to Axios Today, I’m Niala Boodhoo. In South Dakota, indigenous communities have struggled with housing for decades. Many Native Americans on reservations and in nearby urban enclaves live in dilapidated and overcrowded structures without electricity or indoor plumbing. Now, a community development group is trying something new to change that: returning to Oglala Lakota traditions. Here with the story is Axios justice and race reporter Russell Contreras – Russ, I think we need to start with just understanding the history of housing when it comes to native Americans, and why there are so many issues today.

RUSSELL CONTRERAS: We have to remember when indigenous people were put on reservations, many of them weren't allowed to apply for home loans and mortgages either on reservation land, or in urban settings. Under treaty agreements the federal government was supposed to provide basic housing and basic services for native people. That didn't happen. So when we, if we flash forward today, not only is there a housing shortage but there are lack of services that allow indigenous people to apply for mortgages, go to banks, do everything that everybody else can.

NIALA: So Russ, that explains why we say that some native Americans, indigenous communities have housing in this country where they don't have electricity or indoor plumbing.

RUSS: That's right. They're located in isolated regions. There isn't that, water, sewage structures. Not only that, I mean, if you look at the Navajo nation or in Lakota, these homes are far out in these isolated areas and it's difficult to get repairs. 

NIALA: Different people have been working on this, including the Thunder Valley Community Development Corporation. How are they trying to solve this problem?

NIALA: They came up with the idea that if you teach about say credit or financial literacy, and you talk about building a housing structure that is sustainable, that you can attack poverty that way. So what this corporation has done isought out, uh, indigenous tribal members told them that you, we can bring you into financial literacy classes, we can show you basically how to apply for a loan, fix credit and so forth, and then buy a home either on their development or elsewhere. Thunder Valley is really interesting because they're to develop these really environmental sustainable houses, and they do it in a Lakota tradition. So instead of block by block, they do it in circles like you would have back in the day when they were nomadic and put out, say a teepee, these are very culturally relevant structures. It speaks to their heritage. In addition, They're teaching you on how to apply for a home and get something on your own. It's very unique. And a lot of indigenous tribes are looking at Thunder Valley to see how successful they're gonna be.

NIALA: How successful has this been? How many people have they been able to house?

RUSS: Well, since they're still starting, just a handful of folks have purchased homes. But the pandemic also put a pause on some of their programs. They couldn't come in and do the financial literacy classes, uh, doing it, uh, online as a challenge because there's not a lot of broadband. But they do other things too, as well as, as teaching, tribal members, the Lakota language, and especially pass it on to younger generations. So these programs are designed to be culturally relevant to these populations.

NIALA:Axios race and justice reporter Russell Contreras. Thanks Russell.

NIALA: Before we go - cigarettes AND e-cigarettes have been in the headlines this week as the target of two major regulatory moves from the Biden administration. The FDA proposed a new rule Tuesday that would cut back on the amount of nicotine in cigarettes sold in the US, to bring it to non-addictive levels. In the proposed rule, regulators said the cap on nicotine would make cigarettes and other tobacco products less attractive to younger people. It’s unclear how and when this could go into effect.

The FDA is also preparing to order vaping company Juul Labs to pull its electronic cigarettes from the U.S. market - that’s according to a report in the Wall Street Journal yesterday. The announcement is expected this week. It follows a nearly two-year FDA review of data from the company, as concerns grew over the company’s role in hooking young users. But Juul has gone down in popularity among high schoolers after the FDA banned its flavored pods. The FDA has not however, banned disposable, flavored e-cigarettes from other brands which are still highly popular among teenagers. 

That’s all we’ve got for you today! You can reach our team at podcasts at axios dot com or you can message me directly on twitter. You can also text me at (202) 918-4893.

I’m Niala Boodhoo - thanks for listening - stay safe and we’ll see you back here tomorrow morning.

Money Rehab with Nicole Lapin [pronounced Lap-pin] is the chart-topping daily podcast that’ll help you gain control of your financial life in 10 minutes or less.

Whether you’re trying to save money at the gas station or navigate salary negotiations, Money Rehab is here to help thanks to its host: award-winning finance journalist and former CNBC anchor Nicole Lapin [pronounced Lap-pin].

Follow Money Rehab with Nicole Lapin [pronounced Lap-pin] wherever you find podcasts. 

What a gas tax holiday would mean for Americans

President Biden called on Congress to suspend the federal gas tax for 90 days.

Sections

Axios Local

Axios gets you smarter, faster with news & information that matters.

About

Subscribe

Axios Today

The big picture

All Axios Today episodes

The most damning Jan. 6 testimony so far

The cost of economic war with Russia

The fight over abortion pills in a post-Roe America

Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade

A Supreme Court ruling expands gun rights

What a gas tax holiday would mean for Americans

Pressure to the breaking point for election officials

A new wave of LGBTQ candidates

The high cost of evictions