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

The U.S. still backs Saudi Arabia's fight in Yemen, even though Congress voted to end that support. Now, progressive Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) is pushing Democratic leaders to turn to the Supreme Court to help enforce Congress' will.

Why it matters: Congress' resolution seeking to end U.S. involvement in Yemen passed with support from diverse ideological factions — from moderates to Bernie Sanders to Rand Paul, only to meet a veto from President Trump.

That has united a similarly diverse group of law professors, who say Trump usurped Congress' authority over matters of war when he vetoed the resolution and that the House should sue him for it.

"I think the Speaker is seriously considering pursuing the lawsuit and will make the correct next step for the people of Yemen and our constitutional integrity," Khanna told Axios. "Yemen can’t wait, and it is my hope that this legal challenge to Trump’s veto moves forward."

"If Nancy Pelosi gets a majority behind her to bring suit, this is a moment of truth for the Supreme Court," said Yale law professor Bruce Ackerman, who's leading the charge on this legal theory.

The response: "We continue to consider all viable options to end this humanitarian crisis," Pelosi's office said.

The big picture: The Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war, and in the wake of Vietnam, Congress spelled out more detailed rules about presidential unilateral power. In Ackerman's view, the Yemen vote is a referendum on whether those rules still apply.

The big question: The Supreme Court has said presidential power is "at its lowest ebb" when exercised in a way that's "incompatible with the ... will of Congress." If the House sues over Trump's Yemen veto, the central question would be whether that's what happened here, said Scott Anderson, a Brookings fellow and former State Department lawyer.

Ackerman says it obviously is. Trump's veto "defied fundamental principles of constitutional law," he and 12 other law professors wrote in a letter to Pelosi.

Between the lines: The case is likely a long shot, given the Supreme Court's ideological balance as well as Chief Justice John Roberts' traditional reluctance to get in the middle of disputes between the other two branches. 

The courts would have to toss aside a decades-old interpretation of certain parts of Congress' war powers, Anderson said, adopting a new standard for America's work with other countries' militaries. 

"Courts have been really resistant and reluctant to take up these questions," he said.

What's next: If Congress wants to force the U.S. out of Yemen, its best bet might be to keep trying with different legislative vehicles, Anderson said.

That could include the annual Defense Authorization Bill, a must-pass omnibus that will get rolling in the Senate over the summer.

The case for taking Trump to the Supreme Court over his Yemen war veto

"If Nancy Pelosi gets a majority behind her to bring suit, this is a moment of truth for the Supreme Court."

Rep. Ro Khanna and Sen. Bernie Sanders at a press conference following a vote on ending U.S. military involvement in the war in Yemen

Politics

Yemen

World

North Korea fired missiles, a U.S. warship deployed to the Middle East and unrest continues in Venezuela, but two days after President Trump announced he would appoint him as Defense secretary, Patrick Shanahan spent his Saturday in McAllen, Texas, underscoring his focus on solving the crisis at the border.

1 key quote: "We're not going to leave until the border is secure," Shanahan told Customs and Border Protection (CBP) personnel during his visit.

Driving the news: The Department of Homeland Security submitted a new request for the military's help in providing housing for migrants at the border. Shanahan is leaning toward agreeing to the additional help, a Defense official told Axios. Meanwhile, border patrol stations in the Rio Grande Valley are dealing with more than double the number of migrants their facilities were designed for, a CBP spokesperson told reporters.

The scene: After landing in McAllen, Shanahan, along with top DHS officials, visited the Border Patrol McAllen Station for an update from border officials. Outside, about a dozen migrant women and children who had turned themselves in or been arrested by border patrol stood outside of a large, khaki Army tent being used as shelter due to overcrowding at the station. 

They are waiting to be processed by immigration officials who will determine whether they can be quickly deported or — more likely — sent to an immigrant detention center, a Health and Human Services child migrant shelter or released into the U.S. until their immigration court date. The CBP spokesperson told reporters they've been trying to finish this process within 48 hours.

The tent and migrants are surrounded by a chain link fence. A row of portajohns, a table with snacks and orange water coolers have been set up inside the enclosure. One migrant man sat on the concrete, leaning back in a corner of the metal fencing away from the others. A woman stood at a water cooler making a bottle of baby formula. Children stared.

There are other tents just like it on the other side of the station, holding hundreds of migrants waiting to be processed, the CBP spokesperson said.

Troops on the border: Shanahan told reporters that defense officials are working on a long-term plan to help DHS end the crisis. "I can't keep playing this wack-a-mole," he said.

On Friday, the acting Pentagon chief signed off on transferring $1.5 billion to build a border wall, bringing DOD's total wall contributions to $2.5 billion. As much as $3.6 billion more could still be coming from the department's military construction budget. DOD is still looking at which construction projects the funds would come from, Defense officials told reporters.

Already, about 4,500 troops are helping CBP with transportation, barrier construction, surveillance and other tasks.

The big picture: For two months in a row, border patrol has arrested or turned away more than 100,000 migrants attempting to cross the southern border, according to CBP data. There are near record numbers of migrant children in government custody again, the San Francisco Chronicle recently reported.

Immigration officials say that detention centers are so crowded, they have begun releasing migrant families into the U.S. because there is nowhere to put them. What's more, Border Patrol continues to suffer from a recruiting crisis, according to DHS officials. 

When asked what the solution was to border patrol's personnel shortage, DHS acting Secretary Kevin McAleenan told Axios, "Right now, it's DOD [the Department of Defense]."

On the scene: The Pentagon commits to the border crisis

“We’re not going to leave until the border is secure,” acting Defense Secretary Shanahan said in McAllen, Texas.

Acting Defense secretary Patrick Shanahan walks past troops in uniform. 

Acting Defense secretary Patrick Shanahan. Photo: Brendan Smialowski / AFP

Immigration

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

Some of President Trump’s top aides, who assume he will be re-elected, are already planning for an epic 2021 spending battle.

What's happening: Senior administration officials — including acting Office of Management and Budget director Russ Vought and fiscally conservative chief Mick Mulvaney — have told Republicans that the president doesn't want Congress to strike a spending deal in September when current funding runs out. Instead, Team Trump wants a short-term solution to preserve the ability to fight for massive spending cuts in the fifth year of a Trump presidency.

The White House thinks the most likely scenario this year is that the president signs a one-year "continuing resolution" (a continuation of 2019 spending levels through 2020), followed by another short-term extension next September to get past the November election.

Why it matters: Some senior administration officials envision a newly re-elected Trump liberated to slash spending. They view 2021 as the year to have that fight — the final year in which the president can threaten hundreds of billions of dollars' worth of automatic spending cuts known as the sequester. (These automatic cuts, which attack both defense and domestic spending, expire in 2021.)

As president, Trump has floated massive budget cuts but signed legislation making the debt and deficits worse.

It's a huge broken promise. During his 2016 campaign, Trump said he would eliminate the $19 trillion debt over eight years. The debt now stands at $22 trillion — the highest ever.

Trump has spent prolifically, cutting taxes without making up the lost revenue. And now, he’s flirting with a $2 trillion infrastructure bill (but doesn't want to raise taxes to pay for it).

The big picture: Trump wants to spend more on prized projects, but still views most of government as a mass of fraud and waste — ripe for slashing.

Aides say Trump wants to spend more on the military, veterans’ programs, NASA, infrastructure and border security. 

The bottom line: Trump will entertain cutting almost anything else. "The president feels like he's had to give up ransom" to Democrats, who pressured him to increase domestic spending in exchange for more spending on the military and border security, an administration official told me.

He reserves special contempt for foreign aid and additional disaster relief money going to Puerto Rico, which he believes the Puerto Rican government is unfit to manage.

The "Year Five Plan": Team Trump's post-election dream

Some of Trump’s top aides, who assume he will be re-elected, are already planning for an epic 2021 spending battle.

Trump administration

Capital

Axios Capital

Uber's IPO this week came with predictable headlines about the rich getting richer — after all, when a company goes public at a valuation of more than $80 billion, that's what usually happens. This particular offering, however, created a whole lot of losers. 

By the numbers: From 2016 onwards, per PitchBook, Uber raised $15.35 billion at $48.77 per share; it then raised another $8.6 billion in its IPO on Thursday at the slightly lower price of $45 per share. Those numbers dwarf the $5.6 billion that Uber raised before 2016. As of the close of trade on Friday, the market has now spoken: Uber shares are actually worth $41.57.

The bottom line: A whopping 81% of the $29.55 billion in equity that Uber has raised is underwater. IPO investors have lost $655 million, while investors from 2016 and 2018 have between them lost $2.27 billion. 

Losers: Investors who bought Uber shares 3 years ago have lost 15% of their money, before fees. The opportunity cost is even greater: Investors in the S&P 500 have seen their money grow by 50% over the same period. 

Winners: Lyft shares are also trading well below their IPO price, which didn't help the Uber offering. But so far all of Lyft's pre-IPO investors remain in the money. The most that any of them paid was $47.35 per share.

Why it matters: Uber is the ultimate minotaur — a company where billions of dollars of private-market funding were supposed to create a self-fulfilling prophecy of dominance and market power. It hasn't worked out like that. To make billions of dollars out of Uber, like Benchmark Capital did, the secret is to invest millions of dollars in the Series A and then allow other investors to invest the extra billions needed to scale the business and fund ongoing losses.

Our thought bubble, from Axios' Dan Primack: Uber loses more money than any other company to ever go public. It's the sort of thing that everyone ignores until they don't.

Go deeper: Uber's IPO got caught in a perfect storm

Uber's underwater investors

A whopping 81% of the $29.55 billion in equity that Uber has raised is underwater.

Business

Uber

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 former chief of staff of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), Gen. Gadi Eizenkot, warned White House officials last week that there could soon be a violent escalation in the West Bank, and he recommended that the Trump administration take this into account as part of its calculations for the upcoming release of its peace plan. 

Why it matters: Eizenkot, who was the IDF's chief of staff until just 4 months ago, is highly respected by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, most of his Cabinet ministers and the Israeli public. 

Eizenkot gave his warning at a closed-door meeting last Tuesday in Washington between President Trump's special envoy Jason Greenblatt and a group of 10 Middle East experts from the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and other think tanks who were part of Israeli-Palestinian peace talks in the Clinton, Bush and Obama administrations. 

The purpose of the meeting, which lasted 3 hours, was to discuss the upcoming U.S. peace plan and for Greenblatt to hear different views from the former U.S. negotiators. 

Details: According to 5 sources who are well-informed about the content of the meeting, Eizenkot told Greenblatt that the situation in the West Bank is "sensitive and explosive" — partially due to the total cessation of U.S. funding to the Palestinian Authority and its security forces. 

According to the five sources, Eizenkot told Greenblatt: "The West Bank could erupt before, during or after you present your peace plan, and you should add this to your calculations. Once this genie is out of the bottle, it will take 5 years to put it back in."

The former IDF chief of staff added that regardless of whether or not the U.S. releases its peace plan, the U.S. should promote steps on the ground that will de-escalate the situation so that it will be "a win-win for both sides." Eizenkot proposed renewing U.S. aid to the Palestinian security forces and taking steps to improve the economic situation.

What to watch: The sources tell me that following Eizenkot's remarks, Greenblatt said that the Trump administration is aware of the situation in the West Bank and the risk of escalation, but is keen on presenting its peace plan soon — likely after the Jewish Holiday of Shavuot, which ends on June 10.

Greenblatt told me: "While I won’t comment on private discussions, Israel’s security is of paramount importance to the Trump administration and the plan takes Israel’s security into account."

Go deeper: Israel warns White House about cutting off aid to Palestinian Authority

Scoop: Former IDF chief of staff warned Trump advisers of West Bank escalation

He recommended that the administration consider this for the upcoming release of the White House peace plan.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (L) and Israeli chief of staff Gadi Eizenkot give a press conference, Dec. 4, 2018. Photo: Jack Guez/AFP/Getty Images

Palestine

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

The largest free trade area in the world, both by area and by population, will formally come into effect on May 30, now that Gambia has become the 22nd country to ratify the Africa Continental Free Trade Area, or AfCFTA.

Adapted from World Economic Forum; Map: Axios Visuals

The big picture: Africa has 1.2 billion people — more than double the EU or NAFTA. Almost every African country has signed the treaty; the one big exception is Nigeria. AfCFTA came together in record time, after first being proposed by Rwandan President Paul Kagame in March 2018. As a result, a lot of the implementation details are a bit fuzzy.

"What’s been really impressive is how quickly they’ve agreed to and then ratified the deal," says Grant Harris, the CEO of Harris Africa Partners. "Now the real world begins in terms of how issues are worked through in practice."

Reality check: Africa's trade problems won't be solved overnight. The continent needs some $50 billion per year in infrastructure investment, and truckers are still likely to spend hours or days idling at international borders. 

By the numbers: The World Bank's Paul Brenton calculated in 2012 that passenger traffic between Brazzaville and Kinshasa — on opposite sides of the Congo River — was just 20% of the amount of traffic between East and West Berlin before the wall came down. 

Why it matters: Almost every African country exports more outside the continent than it does within it. African supply chains are extremely weak, and the amount of prosperity that could be generated by strengthening them is enormous. AfCFTA, on its own, is not sufficient to create a booming market in intra-African trade. Still, it's an extremely important milestone on the way there. 

Free trade comes to Africa

Gambia has become the 22nd country to ratify the Africa Continental Free Trade Area, or AfCFTA.

Africa

The first rule of trade negotiations is that they take place in private. The minute either side starts setting out goals and demands in public, positions become hardened and compromise becomes an embarrassing climbdown. 

Why it matters: With the imposition of massive new tariffs this week, accompanied by explicit threats, Trump has taken Sino-American trade negotiations outdoors, into a public arena where they have much less chance of success. Even before announcing retaliatory countermeasures, China has similarly gone public with its own red lines. Resolving this dispute is not yet impossible, but it has become exponentially harder. Among the dangers:

Recession: Bank of America is already warning that "a trade war could cause a global recession." As Axios' Dion Rabouin has written, this is a war the world cannot afford. 

Inflation: American tariffs on Chinese goods will increase the price of those goods. If that ends up contributing to domestic inflation, Trump's desire for a rate cut will look even less realistic.

Food dumping: As the FT's Alan Beattie notes, Trump has already started talking about using the tariffs as an excuse to dump America's agricultural surplus onto poor countries, undercutting their domestic markets. 

The big picture: "When you have both sides convinced that they have the upper hand, you get the kind of conflict that you have right now," China trade expert Patrick Chovanec told Foreign Policy. He added: 

"If we want China to embrace structural reform, that requires real commitment—it’s not something we can just twist their arm to do, they have to buy into it. And they have to believe that it is not going to sink them or hurt them. When you basically strongarm them into doing something they really don’t want to do, and they’re convinced it’s harmful to their interests, at some point they are going to cheat, push back, or scuttle it, and it’s just a question of when."

The bottom line: Trump's trade negotiator, Robert Lighthizer, might consider these tariffs to be a tough way of forcing China to make concessions. And the market seems hopeful that the trade war will be temporary, on the grounds that ending it would be rational for both sides. But Trump himself wanted these tariffs all along. 

Go deeper: Farmers across the Midwest struggle to cope with Trump's trade war

Trade talks become trade war

The minute either side starts setting out goals and demands in public, positions become hardened.

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.

Axios

Sunday's top stories

The case for taking Trump to the Supreme Court over his Yemen war veto

On the scene: The Pentagon commits to the border crisis

The "Year Five Plan": Team Trump's post-election dream

Uber's underwater investors

Scoop: Former IDF chief of staff warned Trump advisers of West Bank escalation

Free trade comes to Africa

Trade talks become trade war

Trump’s Biden obsession

America's booming economy is Trump’s 2020 tailwind

Louisiana hit by heavy rain: NWS warns of life-threatening flood risk

Schiff: Trump's obstruction of Congress "does add weight to impeachment"

Lawsuit accuses Teva of working with other drug firms to inflate prices

How Amazon can win the shipping war