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 House on Wednesday voted largely along party lines to pass a Republican measure censuring Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.).

Why it matters: It’s a significant rebuke of a vocal Trump critic by the House Republican majority.

Driving the news: The House voted 213-209 to pass the resolution, which cites the former House Intelligence Committee chair's allegations of ties between Trump and Russia.

Most Republicans voted for the resolution, while all Democrats voted against it.

The five Republican members of the House Ethics Committee, as well as Rep. Ken Buck, voted "present" on the measure.

A censure is a severe condemnation over violations of the House's rules or behavioral code that don't rise to the level of expulsion.

The intrigue: As House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) tried to read out the resolution, House Democrats, gathered on the floor in solidarity with Schiff, repeatedly shouted him down.

They chanted "shame!" and cheered Schiff, jeering at McCarthy as a "spiteful coward" and "weak." Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) calling for him to be ousted.

One Republican shouted back, "Jack***es!"

The backdrop: The measure, introduced by Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.), initially included a $16 million fine, which spurred 20 Republicans to vote with Democrats last week to kill it.

Luna removed the fine this week in order to make the measure more palatable to her colleagues, clearing the way for it to pass.

The measure also directs the Ethics Committee to open an investigation into Schiff.

What they're saying: Asked what she expects the Ethics Committee to uncover, Luna told Axios, "They have a good start with what Durham discovered," referring to the special counsel's criticism of the FBI's Trump-Russia probe.

"I think the fact is he exploited his position, he had access to classified information that not even I have or other members of Congress have," she said.

The other side: Schiff said in a floor speech, "To my Republican colleagues who introduced this resolution, I thank you. You honor me with your enmity. You flatter me with this falsehood."

Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), a close ally of Schiff, called the vote a "puppet show" and Trump the "puppeteer." Turning to Luna, she added: "You look miserable. You look miserable."

allegations of ties between Trump and Russia

criticism of the FBI's Trump-Russia probe

House votes to censure Trump antagonist Adam Schiff

Democrats shouted McCarthy down as he tried to read the resolution on the House floor.

Rep. Adam Schiff. Photo: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images.

Adam Schiff

Politics & Policy

As a record-number of book bans sweep the nation amid increasing pressure from the political right, some state-level elected officials are pushing back.

The big picture: It's the latest salvo in the culture war that has taken hold between liberals and conservatives over what kids can read — and that has become a rallying cry for top Republicans as the 2024 elections near.

Driving the news: Last week, Illinois became the first state to pass a law penalizing libraries that ban books.

Gov. JB Pritzker (D) signed a bill that will make public libraries ineligible for state funding if they ban materials because of "partisan or doctrinal: disapproval.

The book-banning movement — which often targets books written by or about members of the LGBTQ community and people of color — is not taking place through "isolated challenges," Kasey Meehan, director of the Freedom to Read project at PEN America, told Axios.

"[It's] an organized effort to push censorship in education," Meehan said. 

What they're saying: Banned books have been targeted for including sexual content, profanity, LGBTQ themes, or critical race theory.

"Curating a children’s library is not banning books," Moms for Liberty co-founder Tiffany Justice told Deseret News.

But it's unfair for a minority of parents to dictate what's in libraries, social studies teacher Erin McCarthy previously told Axios.

"They're kind of overstepping their boundaries," she said. "Books really allow you to dive in and understand another perspective."

By the numbers: Of the 1,477 reported book ban cases so far this school year, 74% were connected to organized efforts of advocacy groups, elected officials, or enacted legislation, per PEN America. 

The organization recommended that policymakers, school boards and district administrators consider the many reasons for including and celebrating books rather than restricting them.

"We've always had some form of censorship targeting books that people don't like or don't agree with," said Deborah Caldwell-Stone, director of the American Library Association's Office for Intellectual Freedom.

"We've had these waves of moral panics over the years, with efforts to take away books from kids in particular," she told Axios, adding that there were attempts two decades ago to censor Harry Potter over witchcraft accusations.

"What we're seeing now is less of an individual parent expressing a concern about a book their child is reading, but an organized political campaign to try to suppress a wide range of ideas that reflect the voices of marginalized communities," she said.

Be smart: Information should not be seen as a threat, Caldwell-Stone added. 

She called on state governments and leaders to issue firm guidance to public libraries and school districts, "reminding them of their obligations to both protect and respect the rights of their readers ... and that they are not empowered to remove books because they don't like the ideas in them."

California leaders did just that in a joint letter earlier this month, cautioning educators in their state against removing books.

Gov. Gavin Newsom (D), Attorney General Rob Bonta and State Superintendent Tony Thurmond wrote that if an educational agency removes or bans instructional material, it could qualify as "unlawful discrimination" and the AG’s office may examine the case.

Two weeks ago, Newsom and Bonta called on the Temecula Valley Unified School District Board of Education to explain its decision to reject the social studies curriculum over its inclusion of gay rights leader Harvey Milk.

Assembly Member Corey Jackson also introduced a bill earlier this year that would require school boards of K-12 institutions gain a super-majority when voting to ban a book. Parents would also get the right to appeal.

"The goal is to cool down what we're seeing locally in school boards and put more obstacles in the way for a small number of folks to be able to, basically, whitewash history," Jackson told Axios.

Democratic lawmakers in New Jersey have taken Illinois' approach, introducing a bill that would cut state funding for public and school libraries that ban books or restrict access.

Meanwhile, the governors of nine states and one U.S. territory signed a letter to textbook publishers last month, saying they were "deeply troubled" by reports of some publishers "yielding to the unreasonable demands of certain government representatives calling for the censorship of school educational materials."

The letter — signed by the leaders of New Jersey, Delaware, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island, Washington state and the U.S. Virgin Islands — called on publishers "to hold the line for our democracy."

"The negative impact that censorship and book-banning has on this nation’s students – many already marginalized and underrepresented in society – cannot be overstated during a time when we are facing an unprecedented youth mental health crisis," the letter states.

What's next: It's unclear how many more states might take up similar measures to fight book bans — or whether bills that lawmakers have proposed will eventually become law. 

States fight to save books from growing number of bans across U.S.

Illinois this week became the first state to pass a law penalizing libraries that ban books.

Illustration of a red lifesaver rescuing a hardcover book

Books

House Republicans erupted into infighting on Wednesday as leadership and members across the conference pushed back on a burst of impeachment votes being forced by right-wing lawmakers.

Why it matters: It's an escalation of an increasingly acrimonious internal GOP dynamic as members of the right-wing Freedom Caucus try to seize control of the party's agenda.

"I think they've kind of gone rogue," said Rep. Ken Calvert (R-Calif.), an ally of House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.).

Driving the news: McCarthy, in a closed-door conference meeting on Wednesday, argued against Rep. Lauren Boebert's (R-Colo.) resolution to impeach Biden, according to multiple sources in the meeting.

The speaker said investigations into the Biden administration need to play out, and such resolutions have to run through the normal committee process, before any such vote takes place.

Even some members aligned with the Freedom Caucus were receptive to that case. "I like the committee system," Rep. Tim Burchett (R-Tenn.) told, saying that an effort like Boebert's to circumvent it "frustrates me."

The intrigue: Boebert was not at the conference meeting despite McCarthy inviting her to speak, according to multiple sources.

The backdrop: Boebert's measure, which targets Biden's handling of the U.S.-Mexico border, isn't the only one being forced to a vote this week.

Rep. Anna Paulina Luna's (R-Fla.) resolution censuring Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) is set to be voted on again on Wednesday after failing last week – although it appears to have the necessary GOP votes this time.

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), who has introduced impeachment resolutions against five Biden officials, told Axios: "Impeachment has to be done ... I do not have an exact timeline, but I'm converting them to privileged resolutions."

What they're saying: Several Republicans told Axios they don't plan to vote for Boebert's resolution, placing it in serious jeopardy. "I don't intend to," said Rep. French Hill (R-Ark.), another McCarthy ally.

Rep. Carlos Gimenez (R-Fla.) said he is "probably not" voting for what he called a "premature" impeachment, adding, "I may vote to impeach the president, but we need to go through a process."

"This motion is not going to pass. It's probably going to have quite a bit of opposition from both parties," Rep. John Duarte (R-Calif.) told Axios.

"Impeachment [is] one of the awesome power of the Congress. It's not something you should flippantly exercise in two days," said Rep. Garret Graves (R-La.), a McCarthy lieutenant, arguing it "actually undermines" future efforts.

Zoom in: Some swing-district members said in the conference meeting that Boebert's vote puts them in a tough political position, Biden-district Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.) told Axios: "It's not right. It's people thinking of themselves."

"They are just using [these motions] for raising campaign cash," one House Republican, speaking on the condition of anonymity, vented.

Duarte, another Biden-district member, told Axios he is "frustrated" with Boebert for bringing it up.

Rep. Kelly Armstrong (R-N.D.) predicted its impacts will be felt "more so, probably, in primaries," with moderates who vote against the resolution risking a challenge from the right.

The other side: "People are fed up with the weaponized government ... so, in my opinion, and the opinion of the base, we have all the evidence we need," Greene said. 

"Everybody's got a different opinion," said Rep. Ralph Norman (R-S.C.). "There's a question of timing, but there always is. You debate the issue, you discuss them ... if we get 218, that kind of rules."

What's next: The vote on Boebert's resolution is expected as soon as this week, with Democrats planning to introduce a motion to "table," or kill, the measure.

resolution censuring Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.)

House GOP fumes as the right goes “rogue” on impeachment

Boebert's impeachment resolution is "not going to pass," one Republican said.

Rep. Lauren Boebert, flanked by fellow members of the Freedom Caucus. Photo: Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images.

House Republicans

Justice Samuel Alito defended going on an Alaska fishing trip with a politically active Republican megadonor without disclosing it in a rare Wall Street Journal op-ed on Tuesday.

Why it matters: The op-ed was posted hours before ProPublica published an investigation saying Alito took a luxury vacation with billionaire Paul Singer, who later had cases before the Supreme Court.

An editor's note at the top of Alito's Journal op-ed noted that ProPublica had reached out to the justice on Friday asking him to respond to a request for comment by Tuesday at noon.

ProPublica wrote that a spokesperson for the court informed them that Alito would not comment.

Driving the news: The ProPublica investigation details a trip that Alito and Singer took to a luxury fishing resort in Alaska in 2008.

Singer flew Alito to the resort on a private plane, while the costs of the stay at the resort were covered by another major Republican donor — Robin Arkley — the then-owner of the fishing resort.

Singer's hedge fund went on to have business before the Supreme Court at least 10 times in the following years.

Alito didn't include the fishing trip or private jet trip in his financial disclosures and didn't recuse himself from any of the cases involving Singer, ProPublica reported.

What they're saying: In his op-ed, Alito argued that he had "no obligation to recuse in any of the cases" cited by ProPublica.

He and Singer had never discussed Singer's business activities or any cases before the court, Alito said, adding that he had no knowledge of Singer's connection to any of the cases because his name did not appear in any of the court documents or briefs.

Alito noted that his flight on Singer's private jet was not consequential because it "would have otherwise been vacant" and imposed no extra cost on Singer.

While ethics law experts told ProPublica that Alito likely violated disclosure rules by not disclosing his private jet travel, Alito countered that he had "followed what I understood to be standard practice."

Zoom out: This is the latest in a spate of revelations in recent months about Supreme Court justices accepting luxury gifts.

Earlier this year, ProPublica reported that Justice Clarence Thomas had accepted luxury trips from GOP megadonor Harlan Crow, who also made private school tuition payments for Thomas' grandnephew.

Thomas also allegedly sold properties in Savannah, Georgia, to Crow in 2014 without reporting the transactions in financial disclosures.

Go deeper: More ethics questions rise for Supreme Court justices

More ethics questions rise for Supreme Court justices

Alito defends using "vacant" seat on private jet for Alaska fishing trip

Alito argued he had "followed what I understood to be standard practice" when it came to financial disclosures.

Justice Samuel Alito testifies in front of a House committee in 2019.

Justice Samuel Alito testifies in front of a House committee in 2019. Photo: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

Supreme Court

Macro

Axios Macro

Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell told lawmakers on Wednesday there is still "a long way to go" to cool inflation and interest rates are expected to rise further this year. 

Why it matters: Powell began two days of appearances before Congress, where he is facing questions about the rate hiking campaign that the Fed paused as inflation continues to runs hot, as well as the impact of higher rates on the economy and labor market.

What they're saying: "[I]nflation pressures continue to run high, and the process of getting inflation back down to 2 percent has a long way to go," Powell said in his opening statement at a House Financial Services Committee hearing.

Reducing inflation will likely require slower economic growth and "some softening of labor market conditions," he added.

Fed chair expects interest rates will increase "somewhat further" this year

He is expected to tell lawmakers that there is still "a long way to go" to cool inflation.

Axios

Wednesday's top stories

House votes to censure Trump antagonist Adam Schiff

States fight to save books from growing number of bans across U.S.

House GOP fumes as the right goes “rogue” on impeachment

Alito defends using "vacant" seat on private jet for Alaska fishing trip

Fed chair expects interest rates will increase "somewhat further" this year

Tesla EVs are the most made-in-America vehicles, Cars.com reports

China's economy may be in a "liquidity trap"

Middle schoolers' reading and math scores plummet

Scoop: Dems push to smoke out George Santos' bail co-signers

House to vote on Biden impeachment and Schiff censure