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 again nominated Rep. John Ratcliffe (R-Texas) as Director of National Intelligence (DNI), in a tweet on Friday. 

Catch up quick: If confirmed, Ratcliffe would eventually replace Richard Grenell, a staunch defender of Trump and former U.S. ambassador to Germany who was installed as the acting DNI only a few weeks ago. Grenell would have had to leave the post on March 11 unless Trump formally nominated someone else to oversee the U.S. intelligence community, the New York Times reports.

Ratcliffe's nomination will allow Grenell to remain as acting intelligence chief as it winds its way through Senate confirmation. 

Flashback: Trump had previously nominated Ratcliffe in July, but Ratcliffe withdrew his name in August as senior congressional Republicans "deemed him unqualified for the job," per the Times. Democrats and Republicans alike questioned his lack of intelligence experience.

 Trump reconsidered the nomination in August, saying it would expose Ratcliffe to "months of slander and libel."

The big picture: Ratcliffe's second nomination comes amid the administration's broader effort to identify "disloyal government officials" and replace them with "trusted pro-Trump people," more than a dozen sources familiar with the effort told Axios' Jonathan Swan.

“Intelligence should never be guided by partisanship or politics.  Unfortunately, Congressman Ratcliffe has shown an unacceptable embrace of conspiracy theories and a clear disrespect and distrust of our law enforcement and intelligence patriots that disqualify him from leading America’s intelligence community.

Last summer, this nomination was withdrawn after revelations about Congressman Ratcliffe’s clear lack of qualifications and many misleading statements about his resume. The President is now ignoring these many serious outstanding concerns and letting politics, not patriotism, guide our national security."

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in a statement on Friday

Go deeper: Trump to install loyalist Ric Grenell as acting intelligence chief

Trump again nominates Rep. John Ratcliffe for intelligence chief

Ratcliffe would eventually replace acting DNI Richard Grenell, if confirmed.

In this image, John Ratcliffe sits in a suit and light green tie at CPAC

Ratcliffe at CPAC on Feb. 27. Photo: Michael Brochstein/Echoes Wire/Barcroft Media via Getty Images

Politics

Director of National Intelligence (DNI)

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

Democrats in the House lost an appeal to force former White House counsel Don McGahn to comply with a subpoena, Politico was the first to report.

Why it matters: McGahn was seen as a crucial witness in the House investigation into whether President Trump tried to obstruct the Mueller inquiry into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election . The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled 2-1 on Friday that it did not have the authority to resolve the dispute between the executive and legislative branches.

The state of play: The decision overturns a district court ruling in November that compelled McGahn to testify before the House Judiciary Committee. But the Justice Department appealed that ruling and won in the higher court Friday.

Judge Thomas Griffith, in his majority opinion, cautioned that imposing the committee’s subpoena would amount to overreach by "unelected judges" — and risk politicizing the judicial branch.

“The Committee’s suit asks us to settle a dispute that we have no authority to resolve. The Constitution does not vest federal courts with some ‘amorphous general supervision of the operations of government,’”

"If federal courts were to swoop in to rescue Congress whenever its constitutional tools failed, it would not just supplement the political process; it would replace that process with one in which unelected judges become the perpetual 'overseer[s]' of our elected officials. That is not the role of judges in our democracy, and that is why Article III compels us to dismiss this case," 

Judge Thomas Griffith in the majority opinion

Judge Judith Rogers, a Bill Clinton appointee, was the lone dissenter, arguing the majority's finding could set precedent for presidents to block oversight requests from the legislative branch with impunity.

What they're saying: “We are extremely pleased with today’s historic ruling from the D.C. Circuit recognizing that the House of Representatives cannot invoke the power of the courts in its political disputes with the Executive Branch," said Justice Department spokeswoman Brianna Herlihy. 

"I strongly disagree with today's split decision. It is fundamentally hostile to reason and precedent, as the dissent recognized. If upheld, it would destroy the power of Congress to gather information and hold this or any future administration accountable ... Now more than ever, the courts cannot abandon their responsibility to resolve legal disputes involving the President. The Judiciary Committee will work in the coming days with House leadership and the Office of the General Counsel to pursue further review and to seek rehearing en banc before the full D.C. Circuit."

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler, in a statement

What's next: The ruling could still face additional appeals, including to the Supreme Court, per CNN. 

House Democrats lose appeal to force McGahn testimony

A judge wrote the court did not have the authority to resolve the dispute.

The stock markets are in bad shape, but for the millions of Americans who aren’t invested in stocks, coronavirus is presenting a far more imminent concern.

Why it matters: Quarantines usually work with at least 90% participation, but many Americans lack the flexibility to work remotely, take a sick day or absorb having schools close.

And today, the World Health Organization raised its global risk assessment for the novel coronavirus to its highest risk level as countries struggle with containing the spread of the virus.

The big picture: People in service jobs or low-wage workers could disproportionately lose some income, compared to those with advanced education or more-skilled professions.

Rural Americans sometimes have less reliable internet access for remote work and remote schooling.

Parents may have to scramble as children get pulled out of school and day care.

Students on free and reduced lunch risk going without a meal if schools close.

Undocumented immigrants are less likely to call off work or check into a health care facility from lack of health insurance and ICE fears.

Health care workers risk getting sick if an outbreak brings in an influx of patients to the emergency room.

Public transit users could be in trouble if trains and buses shut down.

Flashback: After the SARS pandemic in 2005, a report from the SARS commission concluded there were no repercussions for cities that didn't follow federal quarantine orders.

Paid sick leave, which Americans aren't guaranteed, would have been a great incentive for hourly-wage workers to stay home, the author wrote.

"We have to think about the vulnerable subpopulations.  What about those who work for hourly wages without sick pay? What about those who can’t afford to stay home if there is an outbreak? We should consider how to support the needs of all vulnerable populations to curb the spread of disease," Chris Coughlin, professor at the Wake Forest University School of Law, tells Axios.
Mick Mulvaney at CPAC Friday “Are you going to see some schools shut down? Probably. May you see impacts on public transportation? Sure. But we do this. We know how to handle this."

National Economic Council director Larry Kudlow Friday called the market downturn a "short-term market plunge" and said, "I don't think at this point it's going to have much of an impact."

Still, technological advances have Americans better equipped for teleworking, digital medical services and take-home assignments for students. 

More than 1 in 20 Americans say they usually work from home, Labor Department data shows.

The bottom line: "I understand this situation may seem overwhelming and that disruption to everyday life may be severe, but these are things that people need to start thinking about now," said the CDC's Nancy Messonnier.

The Americans who can't hide from coronavirus

People in service jobs or low-wage workers could disproportionately lose some income.

Illustration of fast food worker with a face mask.

Health Care

Coronavirus

Business

Public health

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

Macro

Axios Macro

Stocks closed down about 1% on Friday, ending the worst week for Wall Street since the financial crisis.

Why it matters: The stretch of declines came after a spike in coronavirus cases around the world earlier this week. The steep losses prompted questions about the fate of the record-long economic expansion, as well as a rare statement from the Federal Reserve. 

Go deeper: The growing coronavirus recession threat

Wall Street notches worst week for stocks since 2008

It extends Wall Street’s ugly stretch of losses.

Traders work on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange on February 27, 2020 in New York City

Traders work on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange. Photo: Scott Heins/Getty Images

Stock market

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

Federal Reserve chairman Jerome Powell took the rare move Friday of issuing a statement meant to reassure investors, one that opened the door to a possible interest rate cut.

Why it matters: The Fed rarely issues statements like this outside of policy meetings and scheduled public appearances. It came as the stock market continues its steep decline this week. Stocks briefly pared some losses after the 2:30 p.m. EST statement came out.

"The fundamentals of the U.S. economy remain strong. However, the coronavirus poses evolving risks to economic activity. The Federal Reserve is closely monitoring developments and their implications for the economic outlook. We will use our tools and act as appropriate to support the economy."

Between the lines: In recent days, traders piled on bets that the Fed would change its wait-and-see stance and cut interest rates in mid-March because of the coronavirus.

Bank of America predicted Friday that the Fed would trim rates by 50 basis points, considered an emergency measure.

Federal Reserve: Coronavirus poses "evolving risk" to the economy

The statement comes as traders bet the Fed would cut interest rates amid the stock market's slump.

Federal Reserve chairman Jerome Powell. Photo: Sarah Silbiger/Getty Images

Federal Reserve

Pro Rata

Axios Pro Rata

Sens. Bernie Sanders (D-VT) and Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) introduced legislation that would tax nonqualified stock options at vesting, rather than at exercise, for employees making at least $130,000 per year. 

The big picture: Select employees at private companies would be taxed on monies that they hadn't yet banked.

The legislation is officially designed to "end tax advantages that allow CEOs to contribute unlimited amounts to special executive retirement plans," with proceeds going to "shore up multiemployer pension plans for 1.7 million workers." Startup employees are collateral damage, much like they would have been had similar language not been stripped from the 2017 tax bill.

This only applies to employees making more than $130,000 per year and vesting more than $100,000 worth of stock per year.

That means it would be most likely affect employees at later-stage startups, where the strike prices are higher.

The proposal doesn't have a grandfather clause, but does include a nine-year transition period (i.e., this wouldn't apply until paying 2029 taxes).

Why it matters: Many of the affected employees, even though well-compensated, may be unable to afford the taxes.

Imagine you make $130,000 per year at a privately held company and have $200,000 worth of annual options vesting.

You obviously are required to pay regular taxes on your $130,000 income, but now also must pay taxes on $100,000 worth of stock options (again, the first $100k is excluded).

Or, put another way, you make $130,000 but are paying taxes on $230,000.

Not only might you not have the cash, but there's also the possibility that the stock will later go to zero or liquidate lower than your strike price — but the bill includes no claw-back mechanism. So you've now paid taxes on money you never saw.

Tax attorneys tell me that this legislation would likely result in companies shifting more from stock options to restricted stock units (RSUs), and also changing vesting periods to quarterly or yearly (because paying taxes monthly would be an administrative nightmare for both companies and employees).

But there are negative consequences to both: Companies typically provide fewer RSUs than options, because there's no strike price, and longer vesting periods could result in unhappy employees feeling compelled to stick around longer than they otherwise would.

Sources familiar with the legislation tell me that there could still be tweaks to the language, so don't be surprised if all of this gets addressed. Particularly given that a top Sanders campaign advisor is Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA), whose district includes such Silicon Valley burgs as Cupertino and Sunnyvale.

The bottom line: This isn't about how much people pay in taxes. It's about when they pay it. It would make more sense for the timing to match the receipt.

Go deeper: Wall Street is scared of Elizabeth Warren

Bernie's plan to hike taxes on some startup employees

The proposal applies to employees earning more than $130,000 per year.

illustration of bernie sanders with a quarter

Bernie Sanders

Stay on top of the biggest deals in venture capital, private equity and M&A

Sign up for the Axios Pro Rata newsletter

A federal judge on Thursday overturned a 2018 Trump administration directive that sought to speed up energy leases on public land by limiting the amount of time the public could comment.

Why it matters: U.S. Chief Magistrate Judge Ronald Bush's decision voids almost a million acres of leases in the West, according to The Washington Post. It's a victory for environmentalists, who tried to block the change as part of an effort to protect the habitat of the at-risk greater sage grouse.

The ruling invalidated five oil and gas leases in Nevada, Utah, and Wyoming, and affected 104,688 square miles of greater sage-grouse habitat, per The Associated Press.

Judge rules against Trump policy limiting public comment on energy leasing

The decision voids almost a million acres of leases in the West.

Axios

Friday's top stories

Trump again nominates Rep. John Ratcliffe for intelligence chief

House Democrats lose appeal to force McGahn testimony

The Americans who can't hide from coronavirus

Wall Street notches worst week for stocks since 2008

Federal Reserve: Coronavirus poses "evolving risk" to the economy

Bernie's plan to hike taxes on some startup employees

Judge rules against Trump policy limiting public comment on energy leasing

Your best defense against coronavirus

Major League Soccer embarks on its 25th season

Ad spending on 2020 primary tops $1 billion

The growing coronavirus recession threat

Mass shooting in Milwaukee: What we know

Syria's darkest chapter