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

pittsburgh

atlanta

san-diego

charlotte

boulder

washington-dc

kansas-city

dallas

denver

detroit

des-moines

austin

boston

chicago

cleveland

columbus

houston

indianapolis

miami

nashville

new-orleans

nw-arkansas

philadelphia

phoenix

portland

richmond

salt-lake-city

san-antonio

san-francisco

seattle

tampa-bay

twin-cities

raleigh

huntsville

colorado-springs

axios-local

axios-pro

axios-live

the-axios-show

National

I've spent the weekend calling Trump administration and congressional sources to get a read on what's going to happen with the government shutdown. Nobody could confidently describe the exit ramp, and it seems there's no immediate end in sight.

The bottom line: The only thing everyone agreed on was that Trump is so far dug in that there's little if any chance he'll reopen the government without a concession from Democrats. "Normally at this time [in a shutdown], we know what the exit is and we're just waiting for the clear moment," said a Republican member who is in close touch with Trump. "But there isn't a clear path to an exit."

Behind the scenes: Senior administration officials have discussed inviting rank-and-file Democrats to the White House, hoping they may be willing to negotiate over funding for a barrier, according to two sources privy to the private discussions. They're planning to target freshman Democratic House members from districts Trump won in 2016.

Republican officials involved conceded to me that it's a stretch to imagine the White House can break Nancy Pelosi's strong command of her caucus. But administration officials tell me they're going to try.

A House Democratic aide emailed: "Dems have been united behind the Speaker's approach to these shutdown negotiations but look to anxious freshmen potentially becoming more vocal / public with their desire to reach compromise and get the government open. They are ready to get to work on the issues they campaigned on."

What's next? Trump has so far held off on declaring a national emergency, in an effort to tap the Pentagon, and other sources, to pay for his wall. And several senior Republican members are urging Trump, publicly and privately, not to do it.

"I would hate to see it," Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson, chair of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, told Jake Tapper on CNN's "State of the Union" today. "If we [declare an emergency], it's going to go to court, and the wall won't get built."

Several prominent Republican members have privately told Trump it will set a terrible precedent and give the Democrats everything they want. It will let them bash Trump as lawless and avoid taking a tough vote, one of these members told me.

8 House Republicans break with Trump and vote to end shutdown

Trump walks out of shutdown meeting with Schumer and Pelosi

Behind the scenes: Mass confusion on how to end the shutdown

It seems there's no immediate end in sight.

Photo:  Chris Kleponis, Pool/Getty Images

Politics

Government shutdown

Donald Trump

2024 will be an election year like no other, as President Biden seeks re-election amid economic uncertainty, two wars and questions about his age. His likely foe, former President Trump, faces felony charges and vows revenge on his political enemies. Meanwhile, Americans generally are dissatisfied with those choices and are divided over immigration, race, education and more.

Politics & Policy

Former Defense Secretary James Mattis had "deep concerns" about a request late last year from national security adviser John Bolton for options to attack inside Iran, according to a source close to Mattis.

The big picture: "There were deep concerns about any efforts to escalate a conflict with Iran," the source told me. As the Wall Street Journal first reported, Bolton's request came "after militants fired three mortars into Baghdad's sprawling diplomatic quarter, home to the U.S. Embassy, on a warm night in early September. The shells — launched by a group aligned with Iran — landed in an open lot and harmed no one."

Behind the scenes: Mattis thought that attacking inside Iran risked escalating a conflict with an Iranian proxy into war with a nation state — the Iranian regime. The source told me that despite Mattis' concerns, the Pentagon provided the White House with options to counterattack against Iran.

In response to questions for this article, National Security Council spokesman Garrett Marquis said: "The NSC coordinates policy and provides the president with options to anticipate and respond to a variety of threats. We continue to review the status of our personnel following attempted attacks on our embassy in Baghdad and our Basra consulate and will consider the full range of options to preserve their safety and our interests."

And Pentagon spokesman Col. Rob Manning responded: "The Department of Defense is a planning organization and provides options to the president for decision. Discussions between the secretary of defense and the president are privileged."

A conversation with Iran's foreign minister

Renewed fears that Iran could attack West

Mattis had "deep concerns" about White House request for Iran strike options

The former defense secretary was worried about the possibility of war.

Then-Defense Secretary James Mattis and President Trump last year. Photo: Win McNamee/Getty Images

World

Iran

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

Powerful Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley, who as Finance Committee chairman will oversee Trump's trade agenda, sat down with Axios on Friday to discuss this fraught moment in international trade.

Behind the scenes: Trump's principal trade negotiator Robert Lighthizer had just left Grassley's office as we entered, a Grassley aide told us, and we began the trade discussion by asking Grassley what he learned from that conversation with Lighthizer. Grassley said they discussed the ongoing China negotiations, the early moves toward a U.S.-Japan bilateral trade deal, and the USMCA (Trump's re-negotiated NAFTA, which Congress has yet to approve).

On China negotiations: "I think I would make my comment based upon what I've read in the paper, which isn't a whole lot different than what maybe he [Lighthizer] told us. Progress made on a lot of little things, but on the structural things that we want progress made on, there hasn't been much progress made. ... And a conclusion I've drawn, that doesn't necessarily come from his conversation, is so China makes an agreement. How are you going to police it?"

Why it matters: Trump has been touting the progress he's been making with China, but China hawks are worried he's going to let Beijing off the hook by effectively letting them purchase away their problems.

The risk: Instead of stopping their bad behavior — including theft of U.S. intellectual property — the Chinese government would go on a short-term shopping spree, buying U.S. products. Such a deal might temporarily stimulate the U.S. economy, and therefore be politically tempting for Trump, but it wouldn't solve any of the major long-term problems with China.

On the USMCA: Grassley reiterated that Trump should "pull out" of NAFTA if the Democrat-controlled House doesn't ratify the deal signed by the U.S., Mexico and Canada last November.

On re-engaging with Asia: Grassley said it "was a mistake" for Trump to withdraw from the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal with 11 other countries. He said the first step to repairing Asian trading relationships would be to "start with Japan. ... If we get a good bilateral agreement with Japan ... I'll bet it'll make up 90% of the bad things that resulted because we pulled out of TPP."

On Trump's hawkish trade adviser Peter Navarro: "He's a professor. Professors often aren't practical. ... His way, I think the practical effect would be to move forward ideologically without any concern about impact on the economy."

Steel, soybeans and NAFTA 2.0: A year of Trump's trade wars

Nebraska farmers say Trump's trade war cost them $1 billion

Chuck Grassley talks trade

As Senate Finance Committee chairman, he'll oversee the president's trade agenda.

Photo: Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call via Getty Images

Chuck Grassley

Business

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

President Trump chastised his new chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney, over his handling of shutdown talks, creating an awkward scene in front of congressional leaders of both parties, according to two sources who were present. 

Behind the scenes: The encounter came near the end of a meeting in the White House Situation Room on Jan. 4, these sources said. Trump had spent the meeting restating his demand for $5.7 billion for his wall. (Vice President Pence, at Trump's behest, had previously asked the Democrats for just $2.5 billion.)

Mulvaney inserted himself into the conversation and tried to negotiate a compromise sum of money, according to the sources in the room. Mulvaney said "that if Dems weren't OK with $5.7 [billion] and the president wasn't OK with $1.3 [the Democratic offer] ... he was trying to say we should find a middle ground," one of the sources said, paraphrasing Mulvaney's remarks. 

"Trump cut him off ... 'You just fucked it all up, Mick,'" the source recalled Trump saying. "It was kind of weird."

Another source who was in the room confirmed the account. That source said their impression was that Trump was irritated at Mulvaney's negotiating style. "As a negotiator, Trump was resetting," the source said. "Mick was not reading the room or the president."

A White House official, who was in the room, responded to Axios' questions about the encounter: "This is an exaggerated account of the exchange that doesn't reflect the good relationship Mulvaney has built over the last two years with the president." (The official did not deny the quote we provided, but denied that it was as heated a moment as some in the room perceived it to be.)

The same WH official said, "The president and Mulvaney joked about it afterwards."

Between the lines: A fourth source, who was not in the room but has observed Mulvaney and Trump's interactions during previous congressional talks, told me Trump has long been irritated that Mulvaney's initial 2019 budget only requested $1.6 billion for the wall. Democrats relish pointing this out, asking the White House why they're not happy getting the money they originally asked for.

The answer: Trump signed off on that budget, but as we've previously reported, Trump privately asked, in a 2018 meeting attended by Mulvaney, "Who asked for $1.6 billion?"

Why it matters: Trump’s willingness to humiliate his top staffer in front of Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi is another reminder — beyond Democratic unwillingness to fund a barrier — of why shutdown talks have made zero progress: Trump exhibits little regard for the credibility of his own deputies. 

Behind the scenes of Mick Mulvaney's move to chief of staff

Mick Mulvaney called Trump's border wall "absurd" in 2015

Poll: Most Americans blame Trump, GOP for shutdown

Scoop: Trump dressed down Mulvaney in front of congressional leaders

The confrontation happened during the shutdown briefing in the Situation Room.

Inside the White House

Of all the disagreements that drove President Trump and then-Defense Secretary Jim Mattis apart, one of the most perilous had to do with blowing up Iranian boats. "Why don't we sink them?" the president would ask.

Acting on an obsession that went back to the campaign, Trump repeatedly asked his national security team for plans to blow up Iranian "fast boats" in the Persian Gulf during the first year of his presidency, according to two sources who directly heard Trump's requests and three other former senior officials briefed on them.

Trump appeared incredulous that the U.S. military hadn't sunk these small Iranian attack boats, and he viewed it as a humiliation and sign of weakness.

"So these boats, they get in, they come in really fast, they come in really close ... and they might have explosives on them and we don't even know," Trump said, repeatedly, in the recollection of a source who heard the president directly in the Oval Office. 

"Can you believe this? And we don't do anything?"

There was just one problem: Iran's "fast boats" were harassing U.S. navy vessels less than in previous years. Such a disproportionate response from Trump could have quickly metastasized into war with Iran, these sources said. 

The U.S. previously responded to Iranian naval provocations by attacking their ships and speedboats during the end of the Iran-Iraq War in the late 1980s.

Over the years since, Iran has persistently used its small attack boats, armed with machine guns and rocket launchers, to harass U.S. Navy vessels.

At times the confrontations in the Persian Gulf have become so testy that the U.S. vessels fired off warning shots.

Why it matters: The episode, first referenced last year by the Washington Post, shows Trump's often-contradictory national security impulses. While Trump has been eager to withdraw U.S. troops from their stations in the Middle East and Asia, he's also, at times, proposed military actions that could draw the U.S. further in.

We have seen this pattern throughout Trump's term. For example, he launched strikes against the Bashar al-Assad regime in Syria before announcing he was withdrawing U.S. troops from the region. He threatened apocalyptic war with North Korea — telling Kim Jong-un that there'd be "fire and fury" if he kept threatening America — and has at other times flirted with withdrawing all U.S. troops from the Korean Peninsula.

Mattis, who took pride in resisting Trump's errant instincts, never provided the plans to blow up the Iranian fast boats, according to three former officials involved in the deliberations. Former national security adviser H.R. McMaster had to try to pacify the boss.

While receiving the President's Daily Brief — on multiple occasions, and in at least one separate Oval Office meeting — Trump chastised McMaster about it.

A source who observed the exchange said McMaster replied: "Mr. President, this has happened in the past, but DOD [Department of Defense] is telling us it hasn't happened lately. ... So they're not that concerned about it."

Trump persisted: "OK, but if it happens again, what would we do?"

McMaster replied: "We've got them [DOD] looking at options."

As his presidency wore on, Trump became less interested in the boats.

That's probably because Iran stopped the "fast boat" harassment during the first summer Trump was in office, according to the U.S. Navy.

This change in Iranian behavior ultimately became a point of pride for the president.

The bottom line: Close observers of the Iranian military caution against reading too much into this narrow retreat from Tehran.

"From mid-2017 to mid-2018, it's likely that the Iranians were worried about the prospects of escalation with the U.S. in the Persian Gulf. More worried than perhaps any other time since the end of the Iran-Iraq War," says Behnam Ben Taleblu, an Iran expert at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

"But caution should not be mistaken for a change in Iran's asymmetric naval doctrine, capabilities or intentions. As always, Iran plays the long game."

"Just because Iran's naval harassment numbers have dropped, does not mean it hasn't found another medium to use, like drones, to signal resolve against the U.S."

Netanyahu rejected Russian plan to work with U.S. on Syria, Iran

Inside the Oval: How Trump tormented Mattis

The former defense secretary took pride in resisting Trump's errant military instincts.

Capital

Axios Capital

Slack is considering a direct listing at some point this year, according to reports in both the WSJ and the FT on Friday. 

Why it matters: The move would allow Slack stock to be traded on the stock exchange, but it's not an IPO — no new shares would be issued, and the company would not raise any money.

That's no great hardship for Slack, which has already raised some $1.2 billion, per Crunchbase, and has so much money that it has an in-house VC arm that invests in other companies. Whatever growth constraints it might have, they're not financial.

Another advantage of a direct listing: It doesn't dilute existing shareholders. If the share price turns out to be significantly lower than earlier-stage investors like SoftBank think the company is worth, then it's a great opportunity for them to increase their stake without the company having to answer pointed questions about taking Saudi money.

SoftBank's Vision Fund is designed as a private equity fund, not a public-equity fund. But SoftBank founder Masayoshi Son also talks about having a time horizon of hundreds of years, and he is happy to own public companies like Sprint.

The bottom line: A lot of people would love the opportunity to invest in Slack, while many others, including employees, would love the opportunity to be able to sell their stock at will and diversify their investments.

A direct listing is an elegant solution that brings those two sides together. And if CEO Stewart Butterfield wants to be able to show impressive long-term growth in his share price, then if anything it helps him to go public at a relatively low valuation.

Go deeper: Spotify inspires unicorns to ponder going public via direct listing

Slack eyes a direct listing

A lot of people would love the opportunity to invest in Slack.

Slack (software)

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.

Technology

The head of state wants to renegotiate a major free-trade agreement, and there is a deal on the table that has been agreed to by all parties. Now all that's needed is for domestic lawmakers to approve the deal. There are signs they might not be willing to do so. In order to concentrate the legislators' minds, the leader exits the old agreement, leaving a stark choice: Either accept the new one, or embrace the chaos of a no-deal exit.

Trump channels Theresa May's Brexit plan for NAFTA 2.0

The president wants to force lawmakers into accepting his plan.

Axios

Sunday's top stories

Behind the scenes: Mass confusion on how to end the shutdown

Mattis had "deep concerns" about White House request for Iran strike options

Chuck Grassley talks trade

Scoop: Trump dressed down Mulvaney in front of congressional leaders

Inside the Oval: How Trump tormented Mattis

Slack eyes a direct listing

Trump channels Theresa May's Brexit plan for NAFTA 2.0

Top House Democrats warn Trump after Cohen comments

The death of department stores

The corporate world's rush to "de-brand"

Pompeo: It's "ludicrous" to suggest Trump is a threat to U.S. security

Millennial women are fueling the job boom

Poll: Most Americans blame Trump, GOP for shutdown