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

When President Trump tweeted in January that he wanted to cut off disaster aid for California's forest fires, other White House aides might have ignored his forest punditry and hoped he forgot about it — but not the leadership team at the Office of Management and Budget.

The big picture: OMB acting director Russell Vought and general counsel Mark Paoletta made it their mission to find lateral ways to accomplish Trump's goals.

Their approach provides a window into how the Trump White House really works.

It's a valuable lesson about not just the typical bureaucratic battles that happen inside any White House, but about the specific battles that take place among administration officials with different views on how to treat Trump's demands.

Case in point: It was Vought — who took over the agency from acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney — and his team who came up with the way to help Trump build his border wall by declaring a national emergency that allowed him to use military funds.

The White House counsel's office originally objected to the idea, and the administration is now fighting off a court ruling against it. But it's the approach that won the day in the White House and allowed Trump to get what he wanted: the ability to move ahead without Congress..

The budget office is also discussing ways to channel Trump's anger about the California wildfires into a policy response — most likely by attaching conditions to disaster relief funding to encourage states to take more preventive steps against future wildfires, like conducting controlled burns to get rid of dead trees.

"The nature of the bureaucracy is that if it isn't status quo, it must be impossible," Vought said. "However, most of the time, when we actually dig into the ways to do what the president wants, we find a way to accomplish it."

Behind the scenes: Some officials treat Trump's frequent venting sessions as a storm that just needs to blow over — or in some cases, be contained. Think Gary Cohn, the president's former top economic adviser, stealing a document off Trump's desk that, if signed, would have ended the United States-Korea Free Trade Agreement.

Others, like Vought and his team, take the approach that Trump is the president and he has the right to get what he wants — if there's any legal way to get it done. And in their view, there usually is.

"We view ourselves as the president's Swiss army knife," said Vought. "How do you come up with options that work and then talk through the pros and cons?"

Paoletta, a former adviser to Vice President Mike Pence, said the agency has a clear mission: "We embrace the view that the president wants to do something, we're going to see if we can get it done for him. He's the president." 

Between the lines: Throughout his nearly three years as president, aides say Trump has often complained about his White House lawyers being too "conservative" and always telling him "no" when he asks for things. In that context, the budget office has become an island of "yes" in Trump's government. They've also netted plenty of enemies and critics from both parties and at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other appropriators have publicly criticized acting Chief of Staff Mulvaney and his fiscally hawkish allies at OMB as impossible to work with. 

Both Democratic and Republican appropriators say they prefer to negotiate with Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin as the administration's representative — and that's what has happened in the recent government funding negotiations.

The OMB team has also had a big hand in helping Trump slow down the disbursement of hurricane aid to Puerto Rico.

OMB also moved money around in highly unusual ways, at the beginning of this year, in a bid to contain the political damage of the longest government shutdown in U.S. history.

The most famous recent example of the budget office's involvement is already well known — it held the Ukraine military aid that's now at the center of House Democrats' impeachment case against Trump.

But even here, Vought casts the holdup as no more than pushback against National Security Council and Defense Department officials who just wanted to spend the money — while he wanted to make sure "the president makes this call." (Here is the budget office's new legal memo defending its holdup of aid to Ukraine.

Yes, but: Key senior Trump administration officials have said they formed the view that Trump's freeze of the Ukrainian aid was directly linked to his stated desire, on his phone call with Ukraine's president, that Ukraine investigate the Bidens and the origins of the Russia investigation.

Trump's yes-men

The approach of the OMB's leadership team provides a window into how the Trump White House really works.

Politics

Inside the White House

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

In a wide-ranging interview on "Fox News Sunday," former FBI director James Comey argued that the bureau was "vindicated" by the Justice Department inspector general's findings on the origins of the Russia investigation, but admitted that he was "wrong" about serious failures the watchdog found in the FBI's surveillance process.

Fox News Sunday With Chris Wallace-9 04 50 Am - 9 06 56 Am-2019-12-15

WALLACE: "Seventeen significant errors in the FISA process, and you say that it was handled in a thoughtful and appropriate way."

COMEY: "He's right, I was wrong. I was overconfident in the procedures that the FBI and Justice had built over 20 years. I thought they were robust enough. It's incredibly hard to get a FISA. I was overconfident in those because he's right, there was real sloppiness. Seventeen things that either should have been in the applications or at least discussed and characterized differently. It was not acceptable, so he's right, I was wrong."

Why it matters: Inspector General Michael Horowitz determined that there were 17 errors and omissions in the FBI's applications for the surveillance of former Trump campaign aide Carter Page, including the altering of an email by an FBI lawyer to exclude potentially exculpatory information.

Horowitz said at a hearing on Capitol Hill last week that no one who "touched" the surveillance process should feel "vindicated."

The big picture: Comey argued, however, that the central conspiracy that President Trump and his allies have pushed about the Russia investigation — that it was a "treasonous" attempt by the FBI to overthrow the president — was "nonsense." Horowitz concluded that there was no evidence of political bias in the FBI's opening of the investigation.

This finding has been disputed, however, by Attorney General Bill Barr, whom Comey criticized for suggesting that the FBI's errors were "intentional" and politically motivated.

"He does not have a factual basis as the attorney general of the United States to be speculating that agents acted in bad faith," Comey said. "The facts just aren't there. Full stop. That doesn't make it any less consequential, any less important, but that's an irresponsible statement."

Comey also addressed claims Trump made at a rally this week that the Russia investigation "destroyed" the lives of many people, admitting that Page was treated unfairly and that his name never should have become public. He countered, however, that Trump's "lies" about the FBI were also deeply harmful:

 "The FBI is an honest, apolitical organization. Remember the treason, remember the spying, remember all of us going to jail. That was false information that your viewers and millions of others were given. ... Now I'm saying on behalf of the FBI: It was all made up. And I hope people will stare at that and learn about what the FBI is like — human and flawed, but deeply committed to trying to do the right thing."

Horowitz: No one who touched FISA process should feel "vindicated"

Horowitz says he was "surprised" Durham disputed Russia probe findings

Horowitz says he found no evidence of "deep state" bias against Trump

Comey defends FBI but admits FISA failures: "I was wrong"

In a wide-ranging interview, Comey doubled down on claims that he was "vindicated" by the IG report.

James Comey

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 United States this fall quietly expelled two Chinese Embassy officials suspected of spying after they breached a military base near Norfolk, Virginia, that houses U.S. Special Operations forces, the New York Times reports.

Why it matters: The episode, which has not been publicly acknowledged by either Washington or Beijing, is believed to be the first instance of Chinese diplomats being expelled on suspicions of espionage in more than 30 years, per the Times. It has also heightened concerns in the Trump administration that China is expanding its spying operations in the U.S.

Details: In September, the Times reports that two Chinese Embassy officials and their wives drove up to an entrance checkpoint on the Virginian base. A guard realized the officials did not have permission to enter and asked the group to drive through the gate, turn around and exit.

The Chinese officials instead continued onto the base and evaded military personnel pursuing them. Fire trucks finally blocked the group, and the officials were kicked off the base.

The Chinese officials said they misunderstood the guard’s English instructions and simply got lost — but U.S. officials believe the group was testing the base's security. 

In response to the base intrusion and other incidences of suspected spying, the State Department in October announced new restrictions on Chinese diplomats, requiring them to provide notice before meeting with American officials or visiting educational and research institutions.

China accused the U.S. of violating the Vienna Convention, which defines diplomatic relations between independent countries, but has not retaliated by expelling any American officials.

The Times notes that this could be an acknowledgment by Chinese officials that the diplomats overstepped their limits by attempting to gain access to the sensitive base.

Go deeper: How China became a global power of espionage

NYT: U.S. expelled Chinese Embassy officials for trespassing on military base

It may be the first instance of Chinese diplomats being expelled on suspicions of espionage in 30 years.

World

China

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

A top Mexican trade negotiator traveled to Washington on Sunday to push back against U.S. officials for allegedly blindsiding Mexico with a provision to designate labor monitors as part of the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), the Washington Post reports.

The big picture: House Democrats came out in support of the USMCA last week after successfully negotiating a mechanism to ensure the enforcement of labor standards in Mexico, which had been a sticking point during trade talks. Mexico had claimed during negotiations that foreign labor inspectors would violate its sovereignty, and the three countries had instead settled on three-person panels to resolve labor disputes.

Legislation scheduled to be voted on in the House next week, however, includes a provision to appoint up to five attachés to monitor Mexico's labor conditions. 

Jesús Seade, Mexico's undersecretary for North America in the Foreign Ministry, told reporters Saturday that the plan was  “never mentioned to Mexico — never. And, of course, we don’t agree."

Between the lines: Mexico and the U.S. depend on one another for trade. Mexico's government has been strongly in favor of revamping NAFTA, with the Mexican Senate overwhelmingly voting in favor of the new deal Thursday.

The labor issue has since erupted into a political controversy, however, with some Mexican officials now questioning what they had signed up to.

Critics accused Seade of being careless during final negotiations with the U.S., according to the Post.

Go deeper: Business groups express growing dissatisfaction with USMCA compromise

Top negotiator accuses U.S. of blindsiding Mexico with USMCA labor provision

Jesús Seade claims the plan to send labor monitors to Mexico was "never mentioned" to them.

Jesús Seade. Photo: Pedro Gonzalez Castillo/Getty Images

USMCA

Latin America and Latinos

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

Sen. Lindsey Graham said on CBS' "Face the Nation" Sunday that he's ready to vote against removing President Trump from office in a Senate trial, even before the House has held a full-body vote on articles of impeachment.

Face The Nation-10 33 02 Am - 10 34 27 Am-2019-12-15

"I think what's best for the country is to get this thing over with. I have clearly made up my mind. I'm not trying to hide the fact that I have disdain for the accusations in the process. So I don't need any witnesses. ... I am ready to vote on the underlying articles. I don't really need to hear a lot of witnesses."

Why it matters: Before beginning an impeachment trial, Senate rules dictate that senators must swear an oath to do "impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws."

Graham said in an interview with CNN Saturday that he is "not trying to pretend to be a fair juror."

The big picture: Graham recently told Axios that he believes it's best to "deep-six" a possible impeachment trial as quickly as possible, which potentially clashes with Trump's desire to have Vice President Mike Pence, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney and other White House officials stage a public defense of his dealings with Ukraine.

Graham said he doesn't believe it would be "good for the country" for White House officials to sit as witnesses during the trial. Instead, Graham said he wants to make his decision based on the "trial record established in the House."

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell last week vowed "total coordination" with the White House on Senate trial, adding that there is "zero chance" that Trump will be removed from office. Like Graham, he favors a short trial that would include no witnesses, according to the Washington Post.

Top Democrats say Giuliani's Ukraine trip is "a crime in progress"

Lindsey Graham says he's not trying to be a "fair juror" in impeachment trial

Senate rules dictate that senators must swear an oath to do "impartial justice" before the trial begins.

Lindsey Graham

House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) said on ABC's "This Week" that Rudy Giuliani's recent trip to Ukraine to dig up more dirt on the Bidens is "a crime in progress," claiming that it underscores the argument that President Trump's conduct poses an ongoing "threat to election integrity."

Wjla-9 00 Am - 10 00 Am-9 04 54 Am - 9 06 35 Am-2019-12-15

Schiff: "This misconduct goes on. The threat to our election's integrity coming up goes on. It's a clear and present danger, I think, to our democracy and not something we can turn away from simply because the Republicans in the House refuse to do their duty and continue to put the person of the president above their constitutional obligation."

Nadler: "This is a crime in progress against the Constitution and against American democracy. We cannot take the risk that the next election will be corrupted through foreign interference solicited by the president, which he's clearly trying to do."

Context: Giuliani in early December traveled to Ukraine and Hungary to meet with former Ukrainian prosecutors to gain information that he hoped would undercut the case for impeachment. After returning, Giuliani claimed that Trump asked him to brief the Justice Department and GOP senators on his findings. 

Senate Judiciary Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) has said he would be open to hearing from Giuliani after impeachment has concluded, but it's not yet known if Republicans plan to call the president's lawyer to testify in the Senate trial.

The big picture: Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has vowed "total coordination" with the White House during the impeachment trial, while Graham has said he is not trying to hide the fact that he has already made up his mind. The comments have set off outrage from Democrats.

Nadler said on ABC: "Here you have the majority leader of the Senate, in effect the foreman of the jury, saying he's going to work hand-in-glove with the defense attorney. Now that's a violation of the oath they're about to take, and it's a complete subversion of the constitutional scheme."

Of note: Senators must take the following oath before sitting in impeachment trials, according to Senate impeachment rules: 

"I solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be,) that in all things appertaining to the trial of the impeachment of [name of person being impeached], now pending, I will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws: so help me God."

Go deeper: Giuliani pursued business in Ukraine while seeking to dig up dirt on Trump's rivals

"We cannot take the risk that the next election will be corrupted through foreign interference solicited by the president..."

Rudy Giuliani

Get breaking news alerts sent directly to your inbox

Never miss a major politics story

Generate

Axios Generate

Extended United Nations climate talks ended early Sunday with a modest agreement that punts key decisions and, activists argue, fails to reflect the urgency needed to confront the problem.

Why it matters: The latest round of annual UN negotiations in Madrid, which ended two days after Friday's scheduled close, are the last before nations are slated to offer revised emissions-cutting pledges next year under the Paris Climate Agreement.

Where it stands: Negotiators from over 200 countries, for the second straight year, also failed to reach an agreement on rules to govern international carbon credit trading markets.

Marathon UN climate talks sputter to a close but avoid collapse

There's "no sugarcoating" the outcome of the talks, one activist said.

Axios

Sunday's top stories

Trump's yes-men

Comey defends FBI but admits FISA failures: "I was wrong"

NYT: U.S. expelled Chinese Embassy officials for trespassing on military base

Top negotiator accuses U.S. of blindsiding Mexico with USMCA labor provision

Lindsey Graham says he's not trying to be a "fair juror" in impeachment trial

Top Democrats say Giuliani's Ukraine trip is "a crime in progress"

Marathon UN climate talks sputter to a close but avoid collapse

Chinese broadcaster drops Arsenal match after player speaks out about Uighurs

America's interest in impeachment fades

China suspends additional retaliatory tariffs on U.S. goods

2020 frontrunners back Cory Booker's call to ease DNC debate rules

UN climate emergency talks limp on