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

A major misconception on Capitol Hill right now is the notion that Mick Mulvaney is behind President Trump's decision to back a lawsuit to demolish the Affordable Care Act.

After a week of talking to sources who've discussed the matter privately with Trump, it's clear that this health care push is coming from the president himself. These people say Trump thinks it's a great idea to try to brand the GOP as "the party of health care” by backing the controversial litigation and pushing for legislative change.

Behind the scenes: Trump has privately said he thinks the lawsuit to strike down the Affordable Care Act will probably fail in the courts, according to two sources who discussed the matter with the president last week.

Trump's view is that Democrats are going to bash him up on health care in 2020 regardless, so ignoring the issue won’t work.

He says he wants to "brand" himself and the Republican Party as caring about health care and pre-existing conditions. He plans to repeat this message again and again and again.

Trump has asked Republicans to come up with a replacement plan, even though nobody thinks they've got a chance of passing anything through this divided Congress. On top of that, Republicans had 8 years to come up with an Affordable Care Act replacement and couldn't do it.

Between the lines: Trump privately thinks ACA lawsuit will fail in court

But he knows he can't sit back while Democrats bash him on health care in 2020.

Illustration of republican medical red cross

Politics

Health care

Health Care

The U.S. health system faces critical questions about cost, access and equity. Technological advances and new discoveries about diseases like cancer and Alzheimer’s are transforming patient care and reshaping public health.

Health

Both parties hate the automatic budget cuts known as sequestration. But in a closed-door Hill meeting last week, White House legislative affairs official Paul Teller said the president is fine with it.

"The president does not want a caps deal" to keep sequestration from kicking in, he told Hill staff last week. That's a direct quote, confirmed by two sources with direct knowledge of his comments.

Why it matters: Congressional sources found it bizarre that the White House isn't interested in making a deal to block sequestration. Instead, the White House says it can offset those cuts to the Pentagon by parking a huge amount of money in a controversial slush fund that sequestration can't touch.

Trump wants to spend a ton of money on the military and has called for a $750 billion Pentagon budget.

Lawmakers from both parties are outraged, and most think there's no chance Congress would approve of Trump parking more than $100 billion in the slush fund, as his budget proposes.

Behind the scenes: Teller made the comments in a weekly meeting with conservative groups, Republican leadership staff and other conservative Capitol Hill aides. Teller said it in the context of promoting Trump's budget, saying the president "really wants to stick to his numbers and doesn't want a caps deal because that means more domestic spending," said a source familiar with his private remarks.

People in the room didn't engage Teller on the point, and nobody encouraged him, according to a source who was there.

One source familiar with the comments said they showed a new hard-edged ideological direction for a White House that has never been known for its fiscal discipline. They pointed to the influence of chief of staff Mick Mulvaney — who, unlike his predecessor John Kelly, is a budget hawk. (When Mulvaney was in Congress, he criticized the "slush fund" the White House is now boosting and he was fine with cutting what he saw as unnecessary military spending.)

Republican lawmakers are unlikely to let the White House's hawkish position dissuade them from negotiating a spending deal with Democrats.

Context: Trump has not steeped himself in the details of his budget, and his aides wonder how many decisions he'll reverse when he finds out about them. We saw Trump backflip twice over the past week:

Trump announced Thursday that he had "overridden my people" and restored funding to the Special Olympics — throwing Education Secretary Betsy DeVos under the bus.

And in his Michigan rally on Thursday night, Trump overruled his own budget, which would have cut $270 million in funding for the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative.

"I guarantee you can find all sorts of cuts that he'll turn around and say I'm not cutting this shit," said a source who has been closely involved in the Trump administration's budget deliberations.

White House official: Trump doesn’t want a spending deal

Both parties hate the automatic budget cuts known as sequestration. But Trump is fine with it.

President Donald Trump. Photo: Eric Baradat/AFP/Getty Images

Federal budget

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

Sen. Bernie Sanders, who at 77 is the oldest 2020 contender, is the favorite among 18- to 29-year-old likely Democratic primary voters at 31%, according to a new poll by Harvard's Institute of Politics (IOP) given first to Axios. Former Vice President Joe Biden follows in second place at 20%.

The big picture: Candidates with the most experience and name recognition are receiving more support among younger voters, as Hillary Clinton did at this point in the 2016 cycle. But we're still 19 months out from the 2020 election, giving lesser-known candidates ample time to win over young people, as Sanders ultimately did in 2016.

Context: In the same Harvard IOP survey conducted in spring 2015, around the time Sanders announced his 2016 presidential bill, Clinton was in the lead at 53% and Sanders polled at just 2%. But just 6 months later, Sanders held a lead over Clinton 44% to 41%.

By the numbers: IOP's latest poll has former Rep. Beto O'Rourke in third at 10%, then Sen. Kamala Harris at 5%, Sen. Elizabeth Warren at 4%, Sen. Cory Booker at 3%, and Andrew Yang at 2%.

Mayor Pete Buttigieg, Julián Castro, Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, Gov. Jay Inslee and Sen. Amy Klobuchar all polled at 1%.

20% of likely young Democratic primary voters were undecided.

Background: Voter turnout is usually low among young people. However, the 2018 midterm elections saw "the highest level of youth participating in a midterm cycle in at least the last 25 years," according to Tufts University's Center for Information & Research on Civic Learning and Engagement (CIRCLE).

Young voters also tend to lean liberal. In 2018, CIRCLE reported that 67% of young people voted for a House Democratic candidate, and 32% voted for a House Republican candidate, a 35-point gap.

Why it matters: The youngest Americans — millennials and Generation Z — will make up 37% of the electorate in 2020, per Pew Research.

"This will be one of the most significant sized youth vote than we've had in many years," John Della Volpe, director of polling for IOP, told Axios.

"Young people are more tuned in and likely to vote now than they were at this time 4 years ago and 8 years ago," he added. "For any other candidate to fight their way into the top 3 tier [of the Democratic presidential field], they will have to be incredibly competitive among young voters, if not win the youth vote entirely."

Methodology: Interviews of likely Democratic presidential primary voters were conducted between March 8 and March 20. The margin of error for this portion of the sample (n=934) was +/- 4.5% with a 95% confidence interval. The full poll of all 18- to 29-year-olds includes more than 3,000 interviews and will be released later this month.

First look: Oldest candidates are winning the youngest vote

"This will be one of the most significant sized youth vote than we've had in many years," a polling expert told Axios.

Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders. Photo: Scott Olson; Mandel Ngan/AFP via Getty Images

2020 election polls

2020 election

Joe Biden

As he was deliberating last year over replacing Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, President Trump told confidants he had big plans for Judge Amy Coney Barrett.

"I'm saving her for Ginsburg," Trump said of Barrett, according to three sources familiar with the president's private comments. Trump used that exact line with a number of people, including in a private conversation with an adviser two days before announcing Brett Kavanaugh's nomination.

Barrett is a favorite among conservative activists, many of whom wanted her to take Kennedy’s spot.

She's young and proudly embraces her Catholic faith.

Her past academic writings suggest an openness to overturning Roe v. Wade.

Her nomination would throw gas on the culture-war fires, which Trump relishes.

Some Trump advisers worried Barrett's staunch opposition to abortion rights would lose the votes of Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska). But there wasn't consensus; some advisers argued they would ultimately "do the right thing" and vote for Barrett.

Trump came to doubt that "the women" (his shorthand for Collins and Murkowski) would support Barrett, according to sources who discussed the situation with Trump at the time.

Some of Trump's aides also felt confident about picking up more Senate seats in the 2018 midterms (which they did), meaning a more conservative pick might stand a better chance later.

Yes, but: There's no guarantee Trump will get another Supreme Court pick. It's very unlikely Ginsburg will retire while he’s in office. And though she's 86 and has had 3 bouts with cancer, she's on the bench now and appears healthy.

Barrett isn't a lock even if Trump does get to make another appointment, the people familiar with his thinking said.

Barrett has the inside track "in a very specific sense," said a source who's discussed Barrett with Trump. "She is the most known quantity right now amongst the women on the list. ... And she also has the inside track in the sense that she was kind of battle-tested for having gone through a confirmation already."

Between the lines: Trump changes his mind all the time, and Barrett would need to undergo a fresh round of vetting to review the rulings and public comments she's made since confirmed to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in 2017.

"The Supreme Court judicial selection process with the president is a very fluid one," said a source familiar with Trump's thinking on the subject. "He floats in and out of these discussions over a period of time."

Barrett's education didn't appeal to Trump, according to sources familiar with his thinking. She went to law school at Notre Dame, and Trump prefers candidates with Harvard and Yale on their resumes.

Why it matters: Trump has already pulled the court well to the right. If he gets to replace Ginsburg, especially with Barrett, he would cement a young, reliably conservative majority that could last for decades.

Scoop: Trump "saving" Judge Amy Barrett for Ruth Bader Ginsburg seat

If it happens, Trump would cement a young, reliably conservative majority that could last for decades.

A judge's robe one a wire hanger with a label above reading 'Amy'

Supreme Court justices

Chris Petersen stands in front of his sows in Clear Lake, Iowa

Chris Petersen with his hogs. Photo: Steve LeVine/Axios

CLEAR LAKE, Iowa — Chris Petersen, a third-generation hog farmer who says "I bleed rural" and tears up at the fate of family and friends, has found a way to keep his small holding going, and avoid the exodus that so many are making. His grown son and daughter have, too.

But meanwhile, Petersen is at war with the big companies that he says are destroying the culture of smaller places like Clear Lake. 

"We are going down the same road as the Russians with the collective farm system," he told me yesterday. "There, the government controlled it. Here, it's the corporations." 

The big picture: While his is a dramatic rendering of the state of American agriculture, Petersen has a point: Across industries, the U.S. has become a country of monopolies. 

Three companies control about 80% of mobile telecoms. Three have 95% of credit cards. Four have 70% of airline flights within the U.S. Google handles 60% of search. The list goes on. (h/t The Economist) 

In agriculture, four companies control 66% of U.S. hogs slaughtered in 2015, 85% of the steer, and half the chickens, according to the Department of Agriculture. (h/t Open Markets Institute)

Similarly, just four companies control 85% of U.S. corn seed sales, up from 60% in 2000, and 75% of soy bean seed, a jump from about half, the Agriculture Department says. Far larger than anyone — the American companies DowDuPont and Monsanto.

As we have reported, some economists say this concentration of market power is gumming up the economy and is largely to blame for decades of flat wages and weak productivity growth.

The issue has become a higher-profile plank of both political parties — and could move to the center of the 2020 debate. 

Farmers like Petersen are on the receiving end of all this concentration. Just in the five years from 2007 to 2012, the number of U.S. hog farms declined by 25%, the Agriculture Department says. 

Joe Peiffer, a bankruptcy lawyer in the Iowa city of Hiawatha, told me that the current wave of consolidation shows no sign of reversing.

The culprit he sees is cheap food: In 1960, Americans spent 17% of their disposable income on food; the figure now is just 6.4%, according to U.S. government figures. The tight margins ran out everyone but the big dogs.

Whatever the reason, you can see the outcome outside of Des Moines. "A lot of towns are ghost towns because the farmers are gone. Schools are consolidating. My high school graduated 86 kids in 1974. It was 50 last year." 

The heyday, in Petersen's memory, was the 1970s, when "rural America was ungodly vibrant." Sixty cents per pound of hog gave farmers a healthy profit, he said.

The nearby city of Swaledale had just 220 people, yet when you added in everyone in the surrounding, smaller towns, there was sufficient business for a bank, grocery and hardware stores, a gas station, and two bars with restaurants. 

Now, Swaledale is about 150, and the businesses have shuttered: "It's all gone. That's what they've done to rural America."  

When Petersen says "they," he means Big Ag, which in his view is plain greedy. It is trying "to run us out," he says, banging the table with his fist.  

In a statement, Bayer, which owns Monsanto, said: “Agriculture is a complex and highly competitive industry, and there are hundreds of companies driving innovation and competing for farmers’ business. After a robust global regulatory review process, we brought together two talented teams and a robust portfolio to offer more choices for farmers. Working with our customers and partners around the world, we are focused on developing smarter ways to grow healthy crops that are more environmentally and economically sustainable.”

In 2001, Petersen went bankrupt. After that, he changed his business model and began to raise a premium hog known as a Berkshire, a breed whose meat he compares with Kobe beef. They fetch twice the price of the standard hog.

The whole sequence is outside the packers system. He said he earns more from the 500 Berkshires he raises every year than from the 2,500 ordinary hogs he used to produce.

"It's capitalism at its best. You get a price, not a fee," Petersen said.

Petersen's daughter Becky and son Matt live nearby. How have they managed to stay? Becky's husband Curtis and Matt both work as conductors for Union Pacific Railroad, he says. 

Petersen doesn't want to say what they earn but says it's "ungodly wages." Both have acreage and raise cattle and chickens. 

"In this wicked world," he says, "they're adjusted and are doing well." 

Go deeper: Shrinking, aging, withering away

Farm bankruptcies shed new light on perils of Big Agriculture

"We are going down the same road as the Russians with the collective farm system."

Future

Monopolies

Capital

Axios Capital

Who are you? And can you prove that, in today's digital world? Identity is the biggest problem, and opportunity, facing just about every online service out there. The result is that for-profit corporations are increasingly making inroads into areas where governments can't or won't tread.

Driving the news: Apple, this week, announced a slew of new services at a star-studded California event. Its shiny new AirPods and iPads and iMacs, by contrast, were revealed with almost no fanfare at all. One big difference: While gadgets are hardware that can be bought anonymously and given to anybody, services are inextricably tied, from the day they're bought, to a single identity.

A new ecosystem is emerging. Apple ID encompasses biometric data (your face) and financial information (through Apple Card and other cards uploaded to your Apple wallet), and it powers all of Apple's services.

Already you can simply tap your Apple Watch to travel on London's public transit. It's not inconceivable that your passport or green card could end up on there, allowing you to cross borders with a wave of your wrist.

New Apple ecosystem marks step toward privatizing identity

Services, unlike hardware, are inextricably tied to a single identity from the day they're bought.

Axios

Sunday's top stories

Between the lines: Trump privately thinks ACA lawsuit will fail in court

White House official: Trump doesn’t want a spending deal

First look: Oldest candidates are winning the youngest vote

Scoop: Trump "saving" Judge Amy Barrett for Ruth Bader Ginsburg seat

Farm bankruptcies shed new light on perils of Big Agriculture

New Apple ecosystem marks step toward privatizing identity

Joe Biden addresses inappropriate touching allegations

Trump's post-Mueller policy wars

First of its kind study shows CEO political donations favor GOP

North Korea "watching FBI rumors" in Madrid embassy "terrorist attack"

Trump executive order on Arctic Ocean drilling unlawful, judge rules