topics

politics-policy

epstein-files

donald-trump

2026-midterm-elections

immigration

behind-the-curtain

race-and-equity

technology

privacy-tech-regulation

automation-and-ai

tiktok-news

big-tech

social-media

cybersecurity

economy

social-security

inflation

tariffs

federal-reserve

jobs

transportation

business

stock-market-news

retail-news

crypto

media

elon-musk

dealmaking

health

rfk-jr

drug-prices

axios-explains-abortion

public-health

world

israel

axios-explains-ukraine

iran

russia

china

energy-climate

nuclear-energy

climate-energy-policy

climate-change

extreme-weather

alternative-energy

electric-vehicles

science

emerging-tech

biomedicine

newsletters

charlotte

detroit

columbus

austin

kansas-city

dallas

atlanta

washington-dc

nw-arkansas

boulder

chicago

indianapolis

nashville

richmond

houston

san-francisco

seattle

colorado-springs

boston

des-moines

salt-lake-city

philadelphia

denver

phoenix

new-orleans

miami

twin-cities

huntsville

raleigh

san-antonio

portland

san-diego

tampa-bay

cleveland

pittsburgh

axios-local

axios-pro

axios-live

the-axios-show

National

As improbable as it sounds, it looks like Trump is genuinely embracing an issue — prison reform — that seemed unthinkable when he was yelling "law and order" on the campaign trail. At an event at the White House on Friday, Trump endorsed prison reform— and promoted upcoming House legislation — with more passion than we've ever seen.

The big picture: Prison reform wasn't on his radar at all during the campaign and his impulses on this issue have frequently been muddled (he wants the death penalty for drug dealers and privately has spoken admiringly of what President Rodrigo Duterte is doing in the Philippines).

But this idea of a "second chance" — better rehabilitation programs and services for prisoners so they have a better chance of staying out of jail when they're released — seems to have finally connected with Trump.

Jared Kushner, the prime mover of this policy within the White House, was in the front row for the event.

Behind the scenes: A turning point for Trump was a Jan. 11 meeting in the White House's Roosevelt Room, according to two sources who were in the room that day. Trump was going around the room, asking everyone at the table their views on prison reform. People were talking about data and statistics, but they didn't seem to resonate.

Then, according to one source, the former White House official Reed Cordish said: "Mr. President, this is important. The people you talked about on the campaign trail, that you were fighting for. The people who voted for you, the forgotten men and women who have no voice — that's who we are talking about in the prisons."

"That — when he connected it to Trump's voters — really seemed to connect with him," the source added. The second source in the room confirmed that account.

What's next: The House plans to vote this week on the bipartisan "FIRST STEP Act." Advocates for the bill say it will reduce recidivism rates by giving non-violent prisoners access to better rehabilitation programs, including from the private sector, and give them the "time credits" they've earned. But there’s plenty of opposition on the left — who say the bill excludes too many prisoners and reinforces racial disparities — and the right, who worry it's too lenient on criminals. Civil rights leader John Lewis is an especially powerful opponent.

While it may pass the House, the path forward in the Senate is much dicier. Mitch McConnell is preoccupied with confirming judges.

Law and order hardliners, including Sen. Tom Cotton, remain skeptical. Some Sessions allies have been privately referring to the "earned time credits" idea — which rewards prisoners' good behavior — as "backdoor sentencing reform."

Trump's prison reform turn

It wasn't on his radar at all during the campaign and his impulses on this issue have frequently been muddled.

Politics

Prison reform

Politics & Policy

In a speech on Monday, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo will lay out the Trump administration's new diplomatic path on Iran now that the President has withdrawn America from the nuclear deal.

What we're hearing: It's Pompeo's first foreign policy speech since taking over as Secretary. A source with direct knowledge of the speech gave me a snippet: "Iran advanced its march across the Middle East during the JCPOA... It did so with house money, with wealth created by the West... This will not continue."

A senior State Department official added: "We are welcoming ALL nations to join us in pushing back against Iran — our sanctions regime and our broader efforts welcome the participation of all countries. Certainly includes our allies in the Arab world, our European and Asian allies. Iran's threats extend globally, the response to their malign behavior should match that."

Between the lines: Per the same source with knowledge of the speech, "This type of speech is in line with President Trump's goal of 'going big' with foreign policy announcements and plans." That's how the President views the North Korea talks and the Iran restart.

The Europeans are skeptical about Pompeo's speech. To put it mildly.

A senior European official who's been privy to the high-level conversations tells me: "If it's what I hear, it's a winding up of the spin operation; bigger better Iran deal, Europeans coming on board, but Gulfies and Asia too. We like Pompeo, and he's proving much more pragmatic than some predicted, but there is a fundamental problem here..."

The fundamental problem: The major European powers — France, Germany and the U.K. — fought hard against Trump’s plan to withdraw from the nuclear deal. And now that he has, they're trying to figure out ways to keep the deal alive and help European firms continue to do business with Iran.

The Trump administration is betting that the Europeans will ultimately fold — and that a choice between doing business with Iran and the massive U.S. market is really no choice at all.

To bolster that theory, we're already seeing some firms, like France's Total, cancel anticipated contracts with Iran.

Most Iran experts I've spoken to are betting against a new Iran deal. They believe it's more likely that Trump follows through on his sanctions, the Europeans fold to some extent, and Iran begins making gradual steps back to developing its nuclear program.

The Iranians would likely start small — for example, boosting R&D spending — because doing anything aggressive would risk war with the U.S. Hassan Rouhani is surely familiar with John Bolton's 2015 New York Times Op-Ed "To Stop Iran’s Bomb, Bomb Iran."

The senior European official from the item above outlined another possible path forward to me: "There is a live and let live way through. It is that the Europeans stick with the JCPOA [the official name for the nuclear deal], the U.S. stay out but don't impose secondary sanctions on European companies, and we work together on ballistics and regional issues."

Mike Pompeo's "Plan B" speech on Iran

It's his first foreign policy speech since taking over as Secretary of State.

World

Iran

Conflicts, policies and powers are intersecting and shaping the world. Breaking news and analysis of national security, foreign policy and global crises.

You could almost hear the markets breathe a sigh of relief this morning when Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin announced an armistice in the trade war.

Between the lines: This was basically foreseeable. A few weeks ago, Axios had a story headlined "the one-trick pony," in which sources who've been in the negotiating room with Trump described his predictable tactics: "threaten the outrageous, ratchet up the tension, amplify it with tweets and taunts, and then compromise on fairly conventional middle ground."

And last week, Axios had an item headlined "Trump's grand bargain on China," in which we reported that his most bellicose threats against Beijing — which include tariffs on $150 billion worth of Chinese products — may never eventuate, as free-traders in his team, led by Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, chase a deal to avoid a trade war.

He told Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace: "We're putting the trade war on hold... we have agreed to put the tariffs on hold while we try to execute the framework."

And on Saturday, after several days of talks, the U.S. and Chinese governments issued a vague joint statement, with China promising to buy an unspecified amount of U.S. products (not the $200 billion U.S. officials had been foreshadowing) and to take other wishy-washy, unspecified actions to improve the bilateral trading relationship.

What's next: More talks. And miles of uncertainty between the two countries — with the added complication of the North Korea negotiations. Because it's Trump, nothing can be guaranteed. But so far, at least, Trump's bite to bark ratio on China is tracking around 85,000:1.

The China bargain emerges

This was basically foreseeable, given President Trump's negotiating tactics.

Photo: Andrew Caballero-Reynolds/AFP/Getty Images

Trump trade war

Top stories & latest news on the Federal Reserve, real-time data, plus the biggest shifts happening in the U.S. and global economy.

Economy

After a record economic expansion, the coronavirus pandemic sent the U.S. economy into a recession as unemployment soared to staggering heights. The country now faces urgent questions about how much stimulus is needed for reeling consumers and businesses, and what a recovery might look like.

Economy & Business

Paul Ryan's House is collapsing, and if the chaos keeps accelerating it could force him out of the speakership before his planned graceful exit at the end of the year:

The state of play: A group of about 20 moderate Republicans are threatening to help Democrats force a vote on a DACA bill. If this works, it could trigger a larger rebellion — likely driven by the Freedom Caucus — similar to the revolt that brought down Ryan's predecessor John Boehner.

On Friday, House Republicans failed to pass the farm bill — one of Congress's few remaining must-pass projects. Ryan, a lame duck Speaker, has little power over his members. He can't convincingly threaten them. And nor can he cajole them or make any promises to help members in the future. He's stuck.

The ultra conservative House Freedom Caucus took down the farm bill, with chairman Mark Meadows saying his group wouldn't vote on it until Republican leaders brought a conservative immigration bill to the floor. And Democrats refused to give Ryan an assist because the bill toughened work requirements for food stamps. A late push from Trump couldn't save Ryan.

Why this matters: The Republican House is careening into chaos at the moment its members most need to rally together. We're less than six months away from the midterms, and the House is on the line. Hill Republicans are anxious and effectively leaderless. Nobody fears repercussions from a lame duck Speaker. So even the usually well-behaved moderate members are wreaking havoc.

"Another major misstep could really start a spiral," a senior aide to a moderate Republican House member told me. "Moderates are showing a new willingness to defy leadership, so we are tiptoeing into uncharted waters. Don't think this episode is fatal by any means, but it could be the kindling to start a bigger fire."

"There's an every man for himself attitude because there's a leadership vacuum and because everyone is running scared in an election year," said a source close to leadership.

When Ryan announced his retirement in April, he created a power vacuum that's being filled by conservatives, below-the-radar leadership jostling, and outside agitators like movement leader Ginni Thomas who isleading a petition for hardliner Jim Jordan to replace Ryan as Speaker.

Ryan has anointed Kevin McCarthy as his successor, but McCarthy is stuck in dangerous limbo as a not-quite leader.

McCarthy's enemies are beginning to peck away at him; and the Majority Leader's allies tell me they believe opponents are planting stories amping up the Ryan-McCarthy divide to "drive a wedge" between the two men.

The pushback: Ryan's defenders say the Freedom Caucus's purpose in life is to screw with leadership and sink reasonable legislation. In other words: the Republican House has long been ungovernable; nothing new here. But this allegedly "ungovernable" House — led by the pre-retirement Ryan — passed an Obamacare repeal bill and overhauled the tax code.

What's next: House Republicans could come to blows again in June when Ryan may introduce immigration legislation. More drama is sure when they start introducing appropriations bills and stare down a September government-funding deadline.

The bottom line: None of this turmoil helps in November's elections.

Paul Ryan's House is collapsing

It could force him out of the speakership before his planned graceful exit at the end of the year.

House Republicans

Policymaking

At 1:37 p.m. today, the President issued a consequential and ominous tweet: "I hereby demand, and will do so officially tomorrow, that the Department of Justice look into whether or not the FBI/DOJ infiltrated or surveilled the Trump Campaign for Political Purposes - and if any such demands or requests were made by people within the Obama Administration!"

Why this matters: Trump was effectively rolling a grenade into the Department of Justice — ordering the agency to conduct a politically-motivated investigation of itself.

The twist: Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein appears to be trying to pre-empt Trump's official request by saying he's happy to allow an independent investigation. (The thing DoJ officials are most concerned about is the exposure of confidential sources and documents, which Trump still hasn't formally ordered Rosenstein to do.)

Four hours after Trump's tweet, Justice Department spokeswoman Sarah Isgur Flores emailed: "The Department has asked the Inspector General to expand the ongoing review of the FISA application process to include determining whether there was any impropriety or political motivation in how the FBI conducted its counterintelligence investigation of persons suspected of involvement with the Russian agents who interfered in the 2016 presidential election.

"As always, the Inspector General will consult with the appropriate U.S. Attorney if there is any evidence of potential criminal conduct."

Rosenstein also issued the following statement: “If anyone did infiltrate or surveil participants in a presidential campaign for inappropriate purposes, we need to know about it and take appropriate action.”

Between the lines: Trump would be happy if Jeff Sessions or his deputy Rosenstein resigned, according to multiple sources who've discussed both men with the President. But Trump's lawyers have been urging him not to meddle in the Justice Department and to avoid any actions that look like he's interfering with Robert Mueller's investigation.

Some Trump allies thought his tweet would put the DoJ leadership in a bind: accept the President's order (one many will hate), or resign.

A former administration official, who stays in touch with a number of people involved in these discussions, told me on Saturday that exactly this would happen. The source presented it as a perfect way to "set the predicate" for getting rid of Rosenstein.

A current senior administration official then told me they'd heard this idea was being kicked around, but didn't think Trump would ultimately follow through with it.

The bottom line: As I publish this newsletter I don't know whether Trump will feel mollified by Rosenstein's statement and his decision to kick the expanded investigation over to the Inspector General. If he backs off, and doesn't order Rosenstein to go even further and release documents and reveal sources, then it might be crisis averted. For today at least.

As Trump tweets, Rosenstein leaps

The deputy attorney general responded to Trump's bombshell afternoon tweet.

Department of Justice (DOJ)

A collection of progressive groups will launch a six figure digital ad offensive Monday telling the Federal Trade Commission to break up Facebook’s social networking empire.

The big picture: Facebook’s new reality is being a political punching bag for those on the left, who want it broken up, and the right, who accuse it of systemic bias. But the company continues to do well financially.

The groups are asking for the FTC to do three things:

Break off Instagram, WhatsApp, and Messenger into their own companies separate from Facebook proper.

Make it possible for users on competing social networks to communicate with one another.

The coalition will run digital ads with messages like “Facebook keeps violating your privacy. Break it up.” and “Mark Zuckerberg has a scary amount of power. We need to take it back.”

Zuckerberg’s users will see them: they’re running on Facebook and Instagram, as well as Twitter and more traditional display ad slots.

Groups involved range from the anti-concentration Open Markets Institute to broader progressive groups like Demand Progress and MoveOn Civic Action.

Why now? The push coincides with the start of a new era at the FTC under Chairman Joe Simons, who has expressed some willingness to take on tech but also appointed a lawyer who represented Facebook to a key consumer protection position. The agency is currently investigating whether Facebook violated a previous legal agreement as a result of the Cambridge Analytica data scandal. Antitrust concerns have also been raised about Google and Amazon.

Some commissioners are likely sympathetic to taking big action on Big Tech. “FTC orders are not suggestions,” new Democratic Commissioner Rohit Chopra said earlier this month, with the questions about Facebook’s deal with the FTC looming.

But, but, but: None of the new FTC commissioners have gone as far as to say that any of the giants of Silicon Valley, including Facebook, should be broken up.

The other side: The right is just as willing to take on Facebook right now. Conservative lawmakers spent a hearing last month talking about charges that the social network and its competitors have silenced conservative voices.

Facebook has noticed the pressure, bringing in outsiders to look at the allegations of political bias and audit its platform’s impact on underrepresented communities.

Pushing back against this populist campaign, a Facebook spokesman told Axios that regulators reviewed Facebook's acquisitions and concluded they didn't harm competition. "The average person uses eight different apps to communicate and stay connected," he said, and Facebook operates only a few of those.

"We support smart privacy regulation and efforts that make it easier for people to take their data to competing services," the spokesman added. "But rather than wait, we’ve simplified our privacy controls and introduced new ways for people to access and delete their data, or to take their data with them."

The left turns up the heat to break up Facebook

Facebook’s new reality is being a political punching bag.

Technology

Big Tech backlash

Business

Big Tech

From the Valley to D.C., Big Tech players like Facebook, Google and Amazon are under more scrutiny than ever as new technology develops and privacy and antitrust concerns grow in lockstep with companies’ ambitions.

We know that major U.S. cities such as New York and Boston are pricing swaths of people out of the housing market. But the cities are also unfavorable ground if you happen to be seeking work in certain lower-paid occupations, like as a trailer mechanic, concrete finisher or freight handler, according to a new report.

Note: Expensive metros are defined as the 10 most expensive with populations over 1 million people based on Bureau of Economic Analysis Regional Price Parity data for 2015; Data: Indeed.com; Chart: Chris Canipe/Axios

Why it matters: The report by the jobs listing site Indeed suggests that big U.S. cities are increasingly bland places — havens for richly-paid data scientists and behavioral therapists who may never mix with a lawn technician or a cable installer.

How to read the chart above: You are looking at the number of wanted ads in expensive U.S. cities, sorted by occupation. The percentages compare job listings in pricey and other, not-so-pricey metro areas. The top grouping are plentiful jobs, and the bottom are listed far less often in wanted ads.

Jed Kolko, Indeed's chief economist, tells Axios that high housing prices not only push less-wealthy people out, but also ostracize certain job categories. Among his findings:

Less-diverse cities tend to grow slower, he said: If a certain occupation gets wiped out by market conditions, diversity is a "form of insurance," maintaining economic conditions including the tax base.

But some of the lack of certain jobs lies in the nature of cities: "There are fewer auto mechanics and groundskeepers because fewer people own cars and have lawns," Kolko said.  

Big U.S. cities snub lower-paid professions

But they're havens for richly-paid positions, like data scientists and software developers.

Axios

Sunday's top stories

Trump's prison reform turn

Mike Pompeo's "Plan B" speech on Iran

The China bargain emerges

Paul Ryan's House is collapsing

As Trump tweets, Rosenstein leaps

The left turns up the heat to break up Facebook

Big U.S. cities snub lower-paid professions

Big Tech reckons with calls to be a better neighbor

White House walks back Chinese tariff plans

What we're watching: The Sunday show gun debate

Donald Trump Jr. under Mueller investigation microscope

Reality check: What about "Clinton collusion"?