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

President Trump's ban on transgender military personnel has evolved after a lengthy battle with multiple federal court injunctions, and the latest version goes into effect April 12. 

Where it stands: The current version of the ban prohibits new military recruits from transitioning and also allows the military to discharge those currently serving if they do not present as their birth gender. This policy battle started before Trump took office.

Gender dysphoria: The American Medical Association said in an April press release that there "is no medically valid reason — including a diagnosis of gender dysphoria — to exclude transgender individuals from military service."

Medical costs of transition: A 2016 study by the RAND Corporation found that military health system costs would increase anywhere between $2.4 million and $8.4 million per year if it were to extend care to transgender personnel. The study states this "represents an exceedingly small proportion of active component health care expenditures." 

June 2016: Under President Obama, former Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter lifts the Pentagon's ban on transgender people serving openly in the armed forces and says the Pentagon will cover medical costs for uniformed personnel who undergo gender-affirming transition. 

Obama's undersecretary of defense writes the new policy and says he believes it applies to both active-duty service members and academy personnel, despite officials' attempts to find loopholes.

October 2016: Transgender troops are able to start formally changing their gender identifications in the Pentagon's personnel system.

June 2017:  Military chiefs are granted a 6-month delay by former Defense Secretary Jim Mattis per the Obama-era rule's July 1 deadline to determine enlistment guidelines for new transgender recruits.

Pentagon officials say there are now at least 250 service members in the process of transitioning to their preferred genders.

July 2017: Trump tweets that transgender people will not be allowed "to serve in any capacity in the U.S. Military," citing medical costs and "disruption." 

August 2017: The administration formalizes the ban. The ACLU sues the administration in Stone v. Trump on behalf of 6 transgender members of the armed forces.  

October 2017: A federal judge temporarily blocks the ban.

November 2017: A second federal judge blocks the ban, saying it likely violated equal protection provisions of the Constitution. This ruling says the government has to pay for service members' gender-affirming transition — the first judge did not say that. 

December 2017: The Pentagon announces that transgender troops will be allowed to enlist in the U.S. military beginning January 1, 2018. 

November 2018: The Trump administration asks the Supreme Court to hear a challenge to the president's ban on transgender military personnel. 

January 2019: The Supreme Court lets Trump's transgender military ban proceed in a 5-4 vote. 

March 2019: The Department of Defense approves an edited version of Trump's ban, which bars transgender troops and military recruits from transitioning, requires most individuals to serve in their birth gender, and says "a service member can be discharged based on a diagnosis of gender dysphoria." 

The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals dissolves the remaining injunction — Stone v. Trump — against Trump's ban. 

Two days after Stone v. Trump is dissolved, the House passes a resolution 238-185 opposing the ban. 

April 2019: The final version of Trump's transgender military ban goes into effect on April 12. 

After April 12, no one diagnosed with gender dysphoria who is taking hormones or has transitioned to another gender will be allowed to enlist, per the Associated Press, and those currently serving can be discharged for doing so. 

Military personnel will be given "a chance to change their decision," or given a chance to agree to serve in their birth gender, before being discharged.

Everything you need to know about the transgender military ban

The final version of Trump's transgender military ban goes into effect on April 12.

In this image, the Supreme Court is visible against a clear blue sky. 

Politics

Military

Politics & Policy

Finish Line

Axios Finish Line

While Big Tech is increasingly on board with helping Americans emulate the rest of the world on cashless payments, there's a growing backlash at home against stores that don't take cash.

What's happening: The push against cashless is reaching companies.

It began in Philadelphia and has since spread to New York, D.C., Chicago, San Francisco and beyond. 

An Amazon spokesperson told Axios the company is exploring a cash option at its Go stores. 

Standard Cognition, a Silicon Valley startup that outfits existing stores with automated checkout, said it is doing the same.

The big picture: As we've reported, the U.S. still leans on cash. Around 30% of all U.S. business is still done in cash, not credit cards — some 14 million Americans have no bank account.

Over the last two years or so, Chinese tech giants Alibaba and JD.com have wholly eliminated checkout in hundreds of stores. American counterparts Amazon and Walmart, meanwhile, are only starting to debut such technology in a few flagship locations.

But unlike in China, local U.S. movements are working to keep cash alive.

The bottom line: While adding cash could make these futuristic bodegas accessible to millions more Americans, it will add hiccups to the streamlined “just walk out” checkout model that many of these companies originally touted.

The cashless backlash is getting results

About 30% of transaction in the U.S. are in cash.

The presidents who are on U.S. currency gathered at a diner

Future

Future of Retail

Technology

Retail

Axios Pro: Deals

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

Data: DRC Ministry of Health; Chart: Andrew Witherspoon, Harry Stevens/Axios

The World Health Organization declined Friday to declare a "Public Health Emergency of International Concern," (PHEIC} its highest alert level, despite a sharp uptick in the number and geographical spread of cases of the Ebola virus in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC).

Why it matters: This is already the second-largest Ebola outbreak on record, with more than 1,000 cases of the hemorrhagic fever so far, and it's the first to occur in a country where there is widespread civil unrest. 

The details: The outbreak, which began in August, has killed 751 and sickened 1,186 as of April 9, according to WHO and DRC Ministry of Health data. 

During the past few weeks, a dramatic increase in the number of cases, and the prevalence of community cases — patients unknown to health workers who often die at home, exposing caretakers to the virus — have raised concerns and prompted a WHO committee meeting to determine if an emergency declaration was warranted. 

"The emergency committee almost unanimously decided against recommending a public health emergency of international concern," said Robert Steffen, chair of the WHO's Emergency Committee, during a press conference in Geneva.

Steffen said an emergency was not warranted because the outbreak has not spread to any other country, though there's nothing preventing its spread.

Between the lines: The WHO has been criticized for moving too slowly to declare a public health emergency during this outbreak while issuing optimistic outlooks about its ability to contain it, despite a steady rise in cases, an anemic international response effort and multiple deadly attacks on Ebola treatment facilities and workers. 

According to Jennifer Nuzzo, a public health expert at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, an emergency declaration is the best option at the WHO's disposal:

"I am deeply disappointed by today’s decision to not declare a PHEIC. The statement that there would be no added benefits of a PHEIC declaration is misplaced. Potential benefits are not criteria by which these decisions should be made. The decision to declare a PHEIC should be made on technical merits, not political ones."

Alexandra Phelan, a health expert at Georgetown University, also criticized the WHO's decision:

"The persistence of community and health care workers’ cases and high risk of regional spread means that significantly greater financial, political, and technical support is urgently needed. A PHEIC declaration is intended to garner this support and provide guidance to the international community. This is not only a missed opportunity but undermines the international law developed to safeguard global health.” 

By the numbers: The WHO's director, Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, said the WHO needs $104 million until July 31 to close a funding gap in order to continue to fight the disease in the DRC. 

The WHO says it needs a total of $148 million to carry out its Ebola fight.

But, but but: A lack of an emergency declaration may work against the fundraising effort, Nuzzo says.

"The reason that’s been given for not declaring a [Public Health Emergency] has been skepticism that it will result in anything," she says, referring to additional resources from the international community.

"While I can understand where that skepticism is coming from ... I also know that not declaring it certainly doesn’t wake up world leaders either."

Go deeper: Ebola outbreak passes 900 cases amid urgent new warnings

WHO stops short of declaring health emergency over DRC Ebola outbreak

It is already the second-largest outbreak on record.

Science

Ebola virus disease

World

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

Whats Next

Axios What's Next

The Army unveiled new automated vehicle technology this week that could be deployed before self-driving cars hit city streets.

Why it matters: More than half of all battlefield casualties occur when soldiers are delivering fuel, food or other supplies in combat zones. AVs could reduce that risk.

What's new: This week at Texas' Fort Bliss, the Army demonstrated the first 10 driverless trucks it is developing for convoys, one of several robot-vehicle projects underway.

The leader-follower platoons would have a pair of drivers in the first truck, followed closely by a half dozen or so unmanned trucks.

60 additional trucks will be deployed at two other U.S. military bases over the next year, giving soldiers an opportunity to work with them and develop tactics and procedures they can transfer to the battlefield.

The big picture: The Pentagon's fiscal 2020 budget proposal includes $3.7 billion in research and development of "unmanned and autonomous technologies," including autonomous weapons and unmanned battle ships.

About $350 million is for the Army's AV research, one DOD source tells Axios — a fraction of what carmakers spend annually.

Fun fact: The Defense Department has been working on AV research for decades, and its 2007 DARPA Urban Challenge launched the careers of many execs who are now racing to bring commercial AVs to market.

Of note: The Army's engineering challenges are different and, in some ways, more difficult...

There are no high-definition maps of war zones.

Roads may not even exist — and if they do, they might be impassable or change from day to day.

If there are road signs, they're often damaged or misleading.

Digital infrastructure in the form of 5G isn't likely to be available or accessible. 

The backdrop: The truck platoon deployment is faster than expected, after Army Secretary Mark Esper, impressed by a demonstration, asked last year to push the timetable forward, according to National Defense magazine.

Like other AV developers, the Army wants to start racking up real-world miles to collect data that will make its AVs even better.

The original plan was to put 300 autonomous trucks into service in 2025. To bring the program forward, the Army pared down its original list of 45 requirements for AVs to 15 must-haves, Trucks.com reported.

The plan now is for production to ramp up starting in 2021, per National Defense magazine.

Oshkosh Defense received a $49 million contract in June 2018 to outfit its trucks with autonomy kits. Lockheed Martin is the systems integrator.

What to watch: As part of a broad modernization effort launched in late 2017, a Next-Generation Combat Vehicle team in Michigan is working on an "optionally manned fighting vehicle" to replace the Army's aging workhorse, the Bradley fighting vehicle.

Go deeper: Helping autonomous vehicles develop a "sixth sense"

The Army steps up its pace on self-driving cars

This week, it demonstrated the first 10 driverless trucks it is developing for convoys.

Illustration of a hanging military medal with a tire as the medal.

Transportation

Autonomous vehicles

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.

Generate

Axios Generate

Uber's big new IPO prospectus touts the company's green ambitions as it prepares for its multibillion dollar offering — and acknowledges that environmental policy is a risk factor.

Why it matters: Uber is going public amid growing scrutiny of ride-hailing's carbon footprint as research shows it can boost emissions by cannibalizing mass-transit and increasing miles driven.

The climate stakes of Uber's IPO

The role of ride-hailing is a wildcard in the future of urban carbon emissions.

Axios

Friday's top stories

Everything you need to know about the transgender military ban

The cashless backlash is getting results

WHO stops short of declaring health emergency over DRC Ebola outbreak

The Army steps up its pace on self-driving cars

The climate stakes of Uber's IPO

Alaska is feeling the effects of the Arctic's changing climate

Apple's growing antitrust problem

Why investors may ignore earnings this earnings season

How Big Tech's rise fuels income inequality

Exclusive: Trump administration to unveil big 5G push

Amazon strikes back as criticism of its power mounts

Colleges are upending majors