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 perpetrator of a mass shooting in Odessa, Texas, Saturday had been fired from his job that morning and later called police and the FBI before opening fire in a drive-by shooting that left 7 dead and 22 injured, per AP.

What we know: The shooter had already been "in trouble" at work, according to FBI special agent Christopher Combs, and was terminated from his job at Journey Oilfield Services that morning. But authorities say his firing was not the cause of his actions.

“This did not happen because he was fired. He showed up to work enraged,” Combs said.

Authorities say the shooter then made "rambling" calls to police and the FBI before beginning his rampage. 

Combs also described the shooter's residence as “strange” and it “reflect[s] what his mental state was going into this.”

Go deeper: Mass shooting near Odessa, Texas: What we know

Odessa shooter called police and FBI after losing job

Authorities described the calls as "rambling."

FBI Special Agent Christopher Combs leaves a press conference

FBI special agent Christopher Combs leaves a press conference about the Odessa shooting Monday. Photo by Cengiz Yar/Getty Images

Politics

Mass shootings

New Jersey parade featuring governor canceled after explosives found

The alleged owner of the explosives has been arrested.

Photo: Kena Betancur/VIEWpress/Corbis via Getty Images

U.S. News

New Jersey

Data: Bureau of Labor Statistics; Map: Lazaro Gamio/Axios

AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka has challenged 2020 Democratic candidates to prove their support and not to take the union vote for granted — but there are half as many union members today than there were just 35 years ago, according to the Pew Research Center. 

Why it matters: Half of Americans say the decline of unions has had a negative impact on workers, according to a Pew Research Center survey. And it may be a central reason for stagnant wages and growing income inequality in the U.S., according to a new study by the Brookings Institution's Hamilton Project.

Between the lines: President Trump's appeal to blue-collar workers was a major factor in his victories in what were once big union states such as Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. Hillary Clinton won the union vote by the narrowest margin in decades.

But the decline hasn't made labor a less important part of the Democratic coalition, as top 2020 candidates such as Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren have already begun to woo union voters. 

Our thought bubble, from Axios' Dan Primack: Sanders and Warren have been unabashedly pro-union. An argument could be made that one of them becoming president could be the one thing that could bring back unions. It would be a central part of their campaign — not a "take for granted" sidelight.

Despite low wages and severe income inequality, the percentage of U.S. workers who are union members has fallen from 20.1% in 1983 to just 10.5% in 2018, according to Pew. 

Dying union membership has been most pronounced in states such as Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin — states where manufacturing employment has plummeted and Trump won in 2016, per Brookings. 

The main reasons for the decline, according to Brookings: 

The shift from manufacturing to a services-based economy. 

More people are getting college degrees, and workers with a high school degree or less have typically been more likely to have union jobs. 

The rise of tech, with the attraction of more high-paying, nonunion jobs for the highest-skilled workers. 

Deregulation, which made it easier for nonunion employers to compete.

The spread of right-to-work legislation, which allows for some workers to receive the benefits of unions without paying dues.

Aggressive employers who have used tactics like delaying union elections, hiring consultants to help fight unionization and publicly opposing unions. 

What to watch: Public sector unions have maintained their strength over the past several decades, according to Brookings. But a recent Supreme Court decision preventing public sector unions from collecting fees from nonunion employees could have a significant impact on membership.

Unions shrink fast in swing states

The decline could be a big reason for stagnant wages and growing income inequality.

Business

Labor unions

Jobs

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

As the Chinese government accelerates its crackdown on Hong Kong's pro-democracy protesters, the Trump administration has sharpened its view of the world's most important bilateral relationship.

What's happening: Senior officials tell me they are increasingly concerned about Beijing's treatment of activists in Hong Kong and, increasingly, fear overreach that could also target Taiwan. This comes as any chance of an armistice in the trade war seems to be shrinking away. 

Why it matters: Based on numerous conversations with Trump administration officials over the last few weeks, it is clear that many of the president's top advisers view China first and foremost as a national security threat rather than as an economic partner.  

This is a new normal. And it's poised to affect huge parts of American life, from the cost of many consumer goods — likely to go up under a punishing new round of tariffs — to the nature of this country's relationship with the government of Taiwan.

Trump himself still views China primarily through an economic prism. But the angrier he gets with Beijing, the more receptive he is to his advisers' hawkish stances toward China that go well beyond trade.

The big open question remains whether Trump's anger with China — especially its flooding of the U.S. with deadly fentanyl and its backtracking on promises to make huge agricultural purchases — will ever grow to such a point that he wants to move in a tougher direction on national security and human rights. If he gets to that point, his advisers will have plenty of hawkish policy ideas waiting for his green light.

Behind the scenes: A New York Times op-ed by Hong Kong activists Joshua Wong and Alex Chow — titled "The People of Hong Kong Will Not Be Cowed by China" — has been circulating inside the administration. And U.S. officials have been reviewing reports of Chinese authorities snatching protesters off the streets.

Senior administration officials have also contemplated selling another tranche of advanced weaponry to Taiwan, beyond the recent F-16 fighter jet sale, according to 3 sources briefed on the sensitive internal conversations. A senior administration official cautioned that these talks may go nowhere and that Trump would probably hesitate to expand his fight with China to include Taiwan.  

Trump administration officials have also discussed terminating the State Department's self-imposed restrictions on contact with Taiwanese officials. A policy under discussion would let Taiwanese officials attend meetings at State Department headquarters and send direct letters to State. 

A State Department official responded to this reporting: "The Department of State regularly reviews our activities with Taiwan, within the scope of our unofficial relationship. As of this time, no decisions to change current practices have been made."

If the State Department made such a change, it would stick in China's craw and lessen the chances of a trade deal. But it wouldn't be the first departure from the status quo under this administration. Trump enraged Beijing and broke decades of protocol a few weeks after he was elected by taking a phone call from Taiwan's leader. 

The big picture: As the Hong Kong situation deteriorates, the Trump administration is entering the tensest stage of its economic standoff with China. The situation is further complicated by China's militarization of the South China Sea and dominant role in propping up North Korea's rogue regime.

Trump's latest round of China tariffs kick in today, imposing a new 15% tariff on billions worth of consumer products. 

Between the lines: Trump's advisers say he was genuinely infuriated that, in his view, the Chinese recently reneged on 2 key promises: to buy huge amounts of agricultural goods from American farmers and to stop the flow of deadly fentanyl into the U.S. So any progress toward getting the talks back on track would likely have to start with the Chinese making a new offer on agriculture purchases and cracking down on drug trafficking.

About a week and a half ago, Chinese and U.S. officials at USTR and Treasury had a phone call about agricultural purchases, per a U.S. administration official. Another source briefed on these lower level discussions said the Chinese are frustrated that Trump is not giving them enough credit for the agricultural goods they bought earlier this year.

Sources briefed on the talks say the the two sides still aren't wrestling with the thorniest trade issues that caused the impasse in the first place. The most optimistic scenario for those favoring a deal is that the two sides can generate enough goodwill in the next couple of weeks that a Chinese delegation, led by trade negotiator Liu He, could visit Washington at the end of September. Senior administration officials have discussed such a trip, but nothing is locked in.

The bottom line: During the 2.5 years of his presidency, Trump has fundamentally changed how the world's top two economies relate to each other. And his advisers think there's no going back.

Top officials: China a national security threat

Hong Kong, Taiwan and the trade war are fundamentally changing the U.S.-China relationship.

Trump holding up a confusing map of China

U.S. China trade war

World

A couple of Washington's top literary agents say President Trump's former personal secretary, Madeleine Westerhout, could make millions if she writes a tell-all of her time working for the president.

Driving the news: Keith Urbahn and Matt Latimer — who run the literary agency Javelin and secured 7-figure book deals for former FBI director James Comey and former White House official Cliff Sims — say most publishers in the country right now want a meeting with Westerhout.

But a source close to Westerhout says she has "no intention" of writing a book about her time working for the president. The source added that Westerhout had "very positive" experiences with President Trump and would have nothing negative to say.

Context: Westerhout resigned last week after Trump learned she'd shared intimate details about him and his family during off-the-record drinks with reporters. 

Trump described Westerhout as a "very good person" on Saturday, but in the same tweet sent a warning shot, saying that she has a "fully enforceable confidentiality agreement" and that he is "currently suing various people for violating their confidentiality agreements."

Urbahn says the lawyers his agency works with are confident that Trump's nondisclosure agreements are unenforceable for government service. The former White House employees' First Amendment rights override these agreements, he says.

The big picture: Latimer and Urbahn say that if Westerhout is willing to endure the legal, media and presidential onslaught that would come as a result of turning on her former boss, then she could get the biggest literary payday so far in the Trump era. 

"This is someone who had total access, saw everything, which Trump obviously knows," says Latimer. "If she was willing to say 'here's everything I saw and I'm not trying to protect anybody,' then she could have a huge advance."

The bottom line: Urbahn says if Westerhout's anecdotes of her time working for the president at intimate quarters are "sufficiently shocking" she could get an advance of $5 million or more. "It doesn't get much higher. I mean that would be a major score," he said. "But everything has to align."

"And I still think there would be hesitation on the part of both editors and the reading public to buy a book that purely dished," Urbahn adds. "There has to be an argument or a higher calling for why you're doing this. Otherwise it would come across as transactional. ... It's a tricky path. It has to be revelations plus here's why the American people need to know this."

The other side: Former colleagues of Westerhout say they don't expect she'll write a tell-all book. And Latimer and Urbahn say their experience with Trump White House officials makes them think she won't do it, either.

Latimer and Urbahn say they've spoken to numerous current and former Trump administration officials about writing books. And "most people, so far, end up taking the safer course, which is, 'Eh, I don't want to be tweeted about every day, with people attacking me and I have to move out of my house'," Latimer says.

"What the administration tends to do is offer people cushy jobs somewhere to keep people quiet, so she's got to weigh all those things," Latimer adds.

Sean Spicer, who served as President Trump's press secretary, left the White House in 2017 and met with publishers who were eager to pay him big bucks for a tell-all. Spicer ultimately took a more modest advance than he could have gotten because he wrote a positive book about the president in which he did not reveal any confidential information from his time in the White House. 

"Anyone leaving this administration that's interested in writing a book has a choice to make," Spicer says. "Number one: Go for the big bucks, tell all, but then worry about whether anyone in the future will continue to trust you. Two is to share your story but maintain a level of loyalty, integrity and trustworthiness."

So who would be these literary agents' No. 1 pick among former Trump administration officials? Latimer and Urbahn agree that if former Defense Secretary James Mattis was willing to offer his candid assessment of Trump as commander in chief — rather than write a leadership book that avoids discussing Trump — then he'd be by far their top choice. 

But Urbahn says it's getting "too late" even for Mattis to get a staggering advance as any such book would need to be released before the 2020 election. "The window is small and closing," he says.

Top literary agents say Trump's ex-personal secretary could make millions

Madeleine Westerhout resigned last week after Trump learned she'd shared intimate details about him and his family.

Illustration of a book with dollar signs as the title.

Inside the White House

Axios AM

Finish Line

Axios Finish Line

President Trump's campaign and key allies plan to make allegations of bias by social media platforms a core part of their 2020 strategy, officials tell Axios. 

The big picture: Look for ads, speeches and sustained attacks on Facebook and Twitter in particular, the sources say. The irony: The social platforms are created and staffed largely by liberals — but often used most effectively in politics by conservatives, the data shows. 

Why it matters: Trump successfully turned the vast majority of his supporters against traditional media, and he hopes to do the same against the social media companies.

Republicans' internal data shows it stirs up the base like few other topics. 

"In the same way we've seen trust in legacy media organizations deteriorate over the past year, there are similarities with social media companies," a top Republican operative involved in the effort told me. 

Between the lines: The charges of overt bias by social media platforms are way overblown, several studies have found. But, if the exaggerated claims stick, it could increase the chances of regulatory action by Republicans.

"People feel they’re being manipulated, whether it's by what they're being shown in their feeds or actions the companies have taken against conservatives," the operative said. 

"It's easy for people to understand how these giant corporations could influence them and direct them toward a certain favored candidate."

How tech execs see it: They know the escalation is coming, so they are cranking up outreach to leading conservatives and trying to push hard on data showing that conservative voices often outperform liberal ones.

Reality check, from Axios chief tech correspondent Ina Fried: What is real is that most of the platforms have policies against bias that some conservative figures have run afoul of. 

Managing editor Scott Rosenberg notes that Twitter is Trump's megaphone, while Facebook is often his favorite place to run ads. 

What's next: By the time 2020 is over, trust in all sources of information will be low, and perhaps unrecoverable.

Axios

Monday's top stories

Odessa shooter called police and FBI after losing job

New Jersey parade featuring governor canceled after explosives found

Unions shrink fast in swing states

Top officials: China a national security threat

Top literary agents say Trump's ex-personal secretary could make millions

Trump allies plot new war on social media

Trump trade war: 15% tariffs on Chinese imports take effect

Hong Kong protesters ignore government ban in 13th weekend of protests