National

House Democrats are seething over what is, by all indications, a nationwide Republican effort to elevate Democratic primary candidates viewed as more beatable in November.

Why it matters: This once-rare practice is becoming commonplace. Democrats did it in 2022 and 2024, with one House Democrat telling Axios it "seems like the new normal."

Republican former Rep. Adam Kinzinger told Axios that GOP spending in Democratic primaries is "awful" but was "inevitable" after Democrats adopted the tactic in the Biden years.

Democrats, he said, "probably ... taught the Republicans a lesson" in how to meddle in the opposing party's primaries.

Driving the news: A trio of obscure super PACs with progressive-sounding names have cropped up in recent months to support more left-leaning or scandal-tarnished candidates in key battleground districts.

Lead Left PAC played in Nebraska's 2nd district, Pennsylvania's 7th and — most infamously — Texas' 35th, where it reported spending over $1 million to boost Maureen Galindo, a sex therapist whose comments widely seen as antisemitic became a major flashpoint before she lost in a primary runoff.

Real Change PAC spent big to oppose the more moderate Democratic primary candidates in New Jersey's 7th, Maine's 2nd and California's 22nd districts.

Progressive Champions PAC is spending at least $1.5 million against centrist Cait Conley in New York's 17th district.

Between the lines: Republicans have played coy about their alleged role in these efforts, but there are plenty of clues pointing to their involvement.

Lead Left PAC's website — which says the group "stands against MAGA extremists" — includes a link to the GOP fundraising site WinRed in its metadata, according to Punchbowl News.

When someone signs up to receive emails from Real Change PAC, they receive a confirmation email from GOP consulting firm Cavalry LLC, which Axios first reported.

Progressive Champions PAC and Real Change PAC list the same bank of record on their FEC filings, with both reportedly using the same, Republican-affiliated compliance filing software.

What we're hearing: One former House Republican with knowledge of the effort, speaking on the condition of anonymity to share sensitive details, told Axios this is simply the GOP fighting fire with fire.

"After Dems ran these fake PACs two years ago, Republicans have entered the fray with the same strategy," the ex-lawmaker told Axios.

New York's 17th, they added, is "one of the districts [where] it's being employed."

Yes, but: A former House Democrat involved in the 2022 and 2024 elections argued that Democrats did their GOP primary meddling more out in the open in those cycles.

In 2022, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and House Majority PAC meddled directly in GOP primaries.

In 2024 primaries, a group called Duty and Country — which had public ties to Democrats' Senate Majority PAC — supported now-Sen. Bernie Moreno (R-Ohio).

Democrats may have intervened more secretively later on in 2024, however, with PACs boosting libertarians and other conservative-leaning third party candidates.

Between the lines: The tactic of boosting more extreme candidates in primaries is "extremely dangerous," said Kinzinger.

"There are people in Congress now nobody thought could win 10 years ago that now are actually setting policy," he told Axios. "Each side is spending a lot of money to put the worst people in."

What they're saying: Democrats "aren't happy" that Republicans are "trying to help the far left," a senior House Democrat told Axios.

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) has publicly blasted Republicans on the subject, writing in a post on X last week: "Stay the Hell out of our races with your malignant and desperate scheming."

"This type of spending is as prevalent as it is awful — by Dems and Republicans," Rep. Johnny Olszewski (D-Md.) told Axios.

The bottom line: This is all made possible in part by campaign finance laws allowing these groups to keep their funding sources hidden until after primary day. 

"Unfortunately this is the world of the super PAC," said Kinzinger. "It's a symptom of a bigger problem."

"If only Congress had the ability do something about these super PACs," Olszewski told Axios sarcastically, adding, "Oh wait."

Editor's note: This article was updated to add additional reporting.

same, Republican-affiliated compliance filing software

Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee

GOP sparks fury with apparent meddling in Democratic primaries

Democrats "aren't happy" the GOP is "trying to help the far left," a senior House Democrat said.

Illustration of an elephant wearing Groucho glasses.

Election results & voting

U.S. politics & policy

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

CIA Director John Ratcliffe told President Trump and other senior officials that evidence gathered by U.S. intelligence agencies raises serious doubts about Iran's willingness to make the nuclear concessions the U.S. is seeking in any final deal, according to three sources familiar with those discussions.

Friction point: Ratcliffe isn't the only skeptic in Trump's top team. In internal discussions, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth both expressed concerns and raised questions about the memorandum of understanding (MOU) announced Sunday, while Vice President Vance and U.S. envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner advocated for it, according to two of the sources.

Behind the scenes: There were a series of high-level meetings about the deal between Trump and his advisers in the lead-up to Sunday's announcement.

During those meetings, Trump and his team discussed intel gathered by several U.S. intelligence agencies that showed that the way Iranian officials were discussing the deal among themselves was inconsistent with what they were telling the mediators and the U.S., two sources said.

Ratcliffe and Rubio said that based on that intel, they doubted the Iranians would agree to take the nuclear steps the U.S. was seeking, according to two sources.

"The intelligence reflects that the Iranian intentions are not in line with their commitments under the deal," a source said. 

What they're saying: "President Trump listens to all opinions on any given issue — but everyone understands he is the final decision-maker," a White House official said in response to questions for this story.

"This MOU meets all of the redlines that the administration has long articulated by ensuring that Iran can never possess a nuclear weapon, they cannot keep their highly enriched uranium, and they cannot hold the world's energy supply hostage," the official said, adding that Trump would only agree to a "good" final agreement.

The CIA and the State Department declined to comment. 

Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell replied after publication and said Hegseth "supports the peace deal" and "all of President Trump's objectives."

Zoom out: The nuclear elements of the MOU signed Sunday depend on the parties reaching a more detailed nuclear deal over the next 60 days.

Vance, Witkoff and Kushner are expected to meet Friday with Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad-Bagher Ghalibaf and Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, along with Pakistani and Qatari mediators, to discuss that next phase.

Between the lines: The full text of the 14-point initial deal has yet to be published, but a source familiar with the text contended that the Iranians will get more than they give under the MOU — unless they agree to sign a nuclear deal that meets the U.S. objectives.

The big picture: The deal is designed to extend the ceasefire and launch 60 days of negotiations, which can be extended by mutual consent.

In the context of those talks, Iran reiterates its past commitment to never acquire or procure a nuclear weapon. 

The source said the MOU says the U.S. and Iran commit to "resolve the disposition of stockpiled enriched material" and "discuss the issue of future enrichment and other mutually agreed matters related to Iran's nuclear needs based on a satisfactory framework being agreed upon in the final deal."

The text says Iran will maintain the status quo of its nuclear program so long as negotiations continue. For its part, the U.S. won't impose new sanctions or deploy additional forces to the region.

If a final nuclear deal is reached, within 30 days the U.S. will remove the forces it mobilized for the war and will terminate all sanctions against Iran under an agreed-upon schedule, according to the source's description of the text.

Breaking it down: Internal skeptics of the deal contend that Iran is unlikely to sign a nuclear deal on the U.S. terms, and in the meantime it will benefit more than the U.S. from the MOU.

However, two senior U.S. officials contended in a briefing with reporters Monday that the benefits for Iran all depend on it taking meaningful steps. 

One senior U.S. official said the U.S. will know in two to three weeks if Iran is serious about nuclear concessions. If not, the process could stop without Iran gaining much.

"I am somewhat concerned that Iran's view of the agreement seems different than what the American negotiating team is claiming," Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) told Axios, while calling for the document's immediate release.

Zoom in: While the nuclear aspects are conditional, the MOU calls for the Strait of Hormuz to be reopened in the near term.

The MOU stipulates that "Iran will make arrangements, using its best efforts, for the safe passage of commercial vessels with no charge for 60 days," while the U.S. will gradually lift its blockade such that it's entirely removed within 30 days, according to the source familiar with the text.

The MOU says Iran will conduct a dialogue with Oman "to define future administration and maritime services" in the strait, with other Gulf countries participating in that dialogue to reach a solution "in line with applicable international law and sovereign rights" of regional countries, the source said.

Iranian state media has reported on the possibility of charging transit fees after that 60-day period ends.

One of the most contentious issues in the negotiations was the release of Iran's frozen funds and assets. 

The MOU leaves much room for interpretation by stating that the U.S. "undertakes to make [the funds] fully available for use ... upon the implementation of this MOU," according to the source familiar.

U.S. officials say it will be a "pay for performance" model. A senior U.S. official told reporters that if the U.S. sees positive "gestures" from Iran, it may release some funds in exchange.

The MOU also says any final deal will include a "definitive and mutually agreed plan" for the establishment of a $300 billion fund for the "reconstruction and economic development" of Iran, as well as a mechanism for its implementation, the source said. 

Advocates of the deal argue it's a long-term proposition that will become reality only if Iran dismantles its nuclear program and undergoes significant internal reforms.

Go deeper: The 8 unresolved questions in Trump's Iran deal

The 8 unresolved questions in Trump's Iran deal

Scoop: CIA director doubts Iran's intentions on deal, sources say

CIA Director John Ratcliffe's skepticism is based on sensitive intelligence, sources say.

CIA Director John Ratcliffe at a Cabinet meeting in May. Photo: Kent Nishimura/AFP via Getty

Defense & national security

Nuclear

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

World

Breaking climate science and policy coverage as extreme weather events reshape communities. Keep tabs on the race to a low carbon economy, which may be bumpy as governments, climate tech startups and major oil and gas companies race to find their niche amid the changing energy landscape.

Energy & Climate

The U.S.-Iran deal was signed electronically on Sunday by President Trump, Vice President JD Vance and Iranian parliamentary speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, senior administration officials told reporters on Monday. 

Why it matters: The deal is already testing whether Washington and Tehran can turn a battlefield pause into a broader settlement — starting with the Strait of Hormuz and then moving to the far thornier question of Iran's nuclear program. 

State of play: A 60-day ceasefire extension is in effect, U.S. officials say, including in Lebanon. But the Strait of Hormuz is not expected to begin reopening until after a formal signing ceremony Friday in Geneva.

Vance, U.S. envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, Ghalibaf, and Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi are expected to meet Friday with Pakistani and Qatari mediators to discuss the next phase.

U.S. officials say the full text of the memorandum of understanding will be released in the next 24–48 hours, though Trump said it might not be published until after it's signed.

The big picture: Washington and Tehran are racing to shape the narrative around a deal that few people have actually read, but which markets, world leaders and ordinary citizens are already reacting to.

The U.S. says relief for Iran will be tied to performance. Iranian state media has described a more generous package.

Shipping companies say they're waiting for clearer guarantees from Tehran before sending cargo through the Strait of Hormuz.

Hawks in Washington and Israel are pressing the White House to explain exactly what Iran is getting — and what happens if nuclear talks fail.

Breaking it down: Here are eight key questions that are still swirling around the deal.

The MOU was signed electronically on Sunday, with a more formal signing ceremony to be held on Friday in Switzerland.

The 60-day extension of the ceasefire took immediate effect, but the strait is not yet fully open.

While Trump announced the "immediate" lifting of the U.S. blockade and opening of the strait on Sunday, he later said it would open on Friday once the ceremony takes place.

A U.S. defense official said the military was ordered to prepare to lift the blockade Friday.

Trump claimed Monday that ships were already moving, though Iranian state media said the status of the strait was unchanged.

The U.S. side has consistently said the deal would open the strait without tolls or any other restrictions. 

A regional diplomat involved in the mediation told Axios last week that the deal called for shipping volumes through the strait to return to prewar levels within 30 days. 

But Iranian officials have told state media the strait won't simply return to "pre-war status," and that Iran will retain some level of control.

The Fars news agency reported that Iran had agreed not to impose tolls during the 60 days, but would begin charging safety and environmental fees after that.

The intrigue: A senior administration official said there would be a "regional dialogue" on the future of the strait and how to ensure it will never be closed again.

State of play: Shipping companies are moving cautiously. 

Maersk and others have said they're waiting for more clarity and guarantees of safety, and some analysts doubt volumes will actually return to the pre-war norm anytime soon.

A senior administration official told reporters the U.S. expects volumes to increase significantly over the next two weeks, though probably not to return to normal.

"Some crews want to see a little bit more stability for the next couple of days, maybe the next couple of weeks," the official said.

Both sides agree that Iran gets two big things: an end to the fighting and sanctions waivers to allow oil exports. 

That alone would generate much-needed revenue for Tehran, but Iranian state media has claimed the government is also getting billions of dollars in frozen funds just for signing.

A senior U.S. official adamantly denied that, saying Iran would only get access to those funds based on a "pay for performance model." The full economic benefits of the deal, the U.S. side says, depend on signing a more detailed nuclear accord.

Some skeptics of the deal have raised concerns there might be side agreements that give Iran access to cash immediately, though the White House calls that "misinformation."

Yes, but: The senior administration official said the U.S. was prepared to make some "small gestures" early in the process on frozen funds and sanctions relief if Iran made similar "gestures" reflecting their willingness to comply with the deal.

The U.S. and Iran are offering conflicting accounts of what the deal requires — and what each side gets in return.

That's in part because the negotiations were handled largely indirectly, through mediators, and the MOU is a broad political understanding rather than a detailed treaty.

That could leave enough ambiguity for both sides to claim they got what they needed, even if they have different expectations about what happens next.

"I am somewhat concerned that Iran's view of the agreement seems different than what the American negotiating team is claiming," said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), a hawkish Trump ally.

One of the senior administration officials claimed the discrepancies were actually due to Iran overselling the deal for domestic consumption.

Much of this confusion could be cleared up if the parties or the mediators simply published the full text of the MOU.

In the Monday briefing, a senior administration official said that would happen in the next 24–48 hours. Trump said it might not happen until after Friday.

The agreement is receiving criticism from across the political spectrum in Israel, less than four months before an election. That's in part because it requires Israel to observe a ceasefire in Lebanon.

Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz has said Israel will not withdraw from the parts of southern Lebanon it occupies or give up its ability to respond to Hezbollah attacks. If Iran strikes Israel over the war in Lebanon, Katz said, Israel will hit Iran "with full force."

A senior U.S. official said the deal does not require an Israeli withdrawal and would not create a "one-way ceasefire," meaning Israel could respond if Hezbollah attacks.

But Israeli officials worry their freedom to operate in Lebanon will be sharply curtailed.

After an Israeli strike in Beirut on Sunday nearly derailed the deal, Trump told Axios that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had "no fucking judgment."

Trump said Monday that he hopes to "solve" the situation in Lebanon and that "we'll have to have a little chat with Hezbollah about this."

The MOU is designed to launch 60 days of nuclear negotiations. 

All of the nuclear elements of the deal are dependent on a much more technical final agreement, as is the bulk of the sanctions relief Iran hopes to receive.

U.S. officials acknowledge it will be very difficult to achieve such a deal, given the mutual distrust and how difficult it was to get the much less detailed MOU.

Witkoff and Kushner traveled to Oak Ridge, Tennessee, earlier this month to meet with nuclear experts who would play a role in such negotiations.

What's next: Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, one of the mediators, said there would be meetings "this week" to set the stage for nuclear negotiations.

8. Will the war resume without a nuclear deal?

U.S. officials say they will not withdraw the forces sent to the region unless there is a nuclear deal. 

One official argued that the damage imposed on Iran increased the chances of a deal, and said Trump still has "tools in his arsenal" if diplomacy fails.

Iranian officials, meanwhile, claim Trump was desperate to end the war and that Tehran now has the leverage.

What to watch: "I think we'll know over the next two to three weeks whether those understandings will turn into an actual agreement," a senior administration official told reporters.

What they're saying: In response to these questions and to criticism of the deal from hawks, a senior administration official told Axios that Trump said from the outset that his goals were to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon or keeping its highly enriched uranium.

"This deal accomplishes both objectives, and the United States, our allies, and our troops in the region will be safer as a result."

The deal was signed, but almost no one has seen it.

Jared Kushner, Steve Witkoff and Vice President JD Vance in Islamabad in April for negotiations with Iran. Photo: Jacquelyn Martin/AFP via Getty

Dealmaking

Geopolitics & international conflict

Iran

Macro

Axios Macro

The prospect of a reopened Strait of Hormuz and a pending U.S.-Iran peace deal could help ease the big inflation risk hanging over Kevin Warsh's first Federal Reserve meeting as chairman.

"Ships are starting to move, many loaded up with Oil, out of the Strait of Hormuz," President Trump said Monday morning in a post on Truth Social.

Friction point: Lingering disruptions to shipments of oil, fertilizer and other industrial inputs could keep inflation concerns alive at the Fed.

What they're saying: "Sailing through the strait will remain riskier and more costly than before the war," Oxford Economics' Ben May wrote in a note Monday morning. 

May noted that damage from underwater mines or a sudden re-escalation of the conflict will keep insurance coverage for the strait higher than pre-war levels. 

Reuters reported Monday morning that ensuring the strait is safe from mines could take weeks. 

"Physical flows are still likely to recover gradually rather than immediately, even if prices respond more quickly to signs that a credible reopening deal is in place," May wrote.

The bottom line: The peace deal might reduce geopolitical risk, though the effects on global supply chains might come more slowly.

U.S.-Iran peace deal's supply chain effects may be slow-going

Lingering disruptions to shipments of oil, fertilizer and other industrial inputs could keep inflation concerns alive at the Fed.

Photo illustration of graph paper with a tear in the shape of the Strait of Hormuz and photos of President Trump and a collection of oil tanker ships 

Photo illustration: Sarah Grillo/Axios. Photo: Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images

Top stories & latest news on the Federal Reserve, real-time data, plus the biggest shifts happening in the U.S. and global economy.

Economy

As Kevin Warsh leads his first policy meeting as Federal Reserve chairman this week, he is not getting the luxury of starting the job in "easy" mode.

The big picture: He faces a renewed surge of inflation, a restive wing of monetary hawks on the policy committee and big questions around how he will operationalize the major changes he advocates in how the Fed works.

Even if the policy outcome — no change to rates — looks preordained, the messaging would be tricky in any circumstance.

Coming as the first substantive public communications as Fed chairman adds to the possibility for confusion, as Warsh finds his sea legs in the press conference format and markets learn how to interpret his words.

State of play: Even putting aside the effects of the Iran war on energy prices, core inflation has been surging so far this year. That puts in doubt the interest rate cuts that Fed officials penciled in to their last projections, released in March — and has some officials (and market-based forecasts) looking to raise rates.

Warsh's stated policy views would seem to pull him in opposite directions.

He has historically been a monetary hawk, and said in his confirmation hearing that "inflation is a choice, and the Fed must take responsibility for it" and do so "without excuse or equivocation, argument or anguish."

He has also argued that the AI boom and supply-side policies of the Trump administration will enable non-inflationary growth, making an intellectual case for the rate cuts desired by the president who appointed him.

Zoom out: The questions Warsh faced at his April confirmation hearing didn't really zero in on the near-term policy direction, and the economic backdrop has shifted since then anyway.

So this will be his first opportunity to guide financial markets on which of those concepts prevail in his thinking.

Zoom in: Warsh will surely face questions about the quarterly economic and policy projections from participants on the policy committee — a practice that he himself has sharply criticized, arguing that it makes officials too reluctant to pivot policy based on incoming evidence.

It will be unsurprising if he plays down the importance of those projections even more than his predecessor, Jerome Powell, did.

Still, Fed watchers the world over won't be able to help but scrutinize the "dot plot" to see how many officials now anticipate raising rates this year and how many continue envisioning rate cuts.

Between the lines: One option the committee has in reshaping its statement is to eliminate language implying that the next policy move will be a rate cut, without replacing it with language pointing to a rate increase.

That may satisfy the three hawkish dissenters who objected to that language six weeks ago while also aligning with Warsh's stated desire to get the Fed out of the business of giving detailed forward guidance.

What they're saying: "We expect the press conference to be pivotal," UBS economists led by Jonathan Pingle wrote in a note.

"We do not really know what his policy views are. We also do not know what kind of communications he will pursue," they added. "His testimony was relatively general, and at times somewhat non-committal outside of references to AI."

Of note: We'll also be on the lookout for early signs that Warsh is changing the details of how the Fed communicates.

Changing the formal process of projections is a committee decision, but adjustments to other communications — the length and tone of the press conference, for example — he can make unilaterally.

In his confirmation hearing, he seemed wary of the Fed communicating too much. Powell conducted a roughly 50-minute press conference after each policy meeting, eight times a year.

The bottom line: It's early days in the Warsh Fed, but all eyes will be on him both to glean his latest policy instincts and what this leadership transition will mean for the institution.

All eyes on Warsh at new Fed chairman's first policy meeting

Kevin Warsh faces a renewed inflation surge, monetary hawks on the policy committee and big questions about how the major changes he advocates in how the Fed works will play out.

Kevin Warsh, with President Trump, at his swearing-in ceremony as Federal Reserve chairman. Photo: Yuri Gripas/Abaca/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Federal Reserve & interest rates

Inflation

President Trump is billing Washington, D.C.'s July 4 celebration of 250 years of American independence as a political rally for himself.

Why it matters: Turning America's birthday into a Trump rally underscores the tension in the nation's capital between bipartisan celebrations of U.S. history and the partisan spectacle of Trump's presidency. 

Driving the news: The morning after a UFC bash on White House grounds that coincided with his 80th birthday, Trump announced on Truth Social that "at The Lincoln Memorial and Washington Monument, in beautiful and safe Washington D.C., we are going to host the most spectacular TRUMP RALLY of them all" on July 4.

He pitched his speech as remarks "you will not want to miss" to be followed by a display of pyrotechnics that he wants to be "the LARGEST FIREWORKS SHOW IN HISTORY."

Freedom 250 says that the event will "honor and celebrate the United States" and feature military demonstrations, "patriotic performances" and special guests. 

Catch up quick: Concerns over the perceived partisanship of 250th events have warped parts of the celebration.

After two-thirds of the announced lineup for the Freedom 250 concert series dropped out, with several citing issues about how the event was initially proposed to them, Trump called for a "giant MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN RALLY" in lieu of musicians.

He also suggested personally replacing the artists, comparing his crowds to those of Elvis Presley and calling himself "THE GOAT."

Friction point: The chaotic breakdown of the concert series fueled the divide — and confusion — over who is hosting the nation's birthday party. 

America250, a congressionally created and federally funded group, has been prepping for the anniversary for close to a decade. 

Meanwhile, Freedom 250 is a public-private partnership established in Trump's second term. It hosted Rededicate 250, billed as a "Jubilee of Prayer," and will oversee "The Great American State Fair." 

What we're watching: Many D.C. residents were already dreading the events — with accompanying road closures, intense security and fireworks threatening to terrorize the district's pets, Axios D.C. reports.

Go deeper: America's 250th celebration alternatives emerge in D.C.

America's 250th celebration alternatives emerge in D.C.

Washington D.C.

blue

Get smarter, faster on what matters in D.C. with Mimi Montgomery, Cuneyt Dil, and Anna Spiegel.

Axios D.C.

Standard

Trump declares D.C.'s July 4 celebration a "TRUMP RALLY"

The president is turning America's birthday into a political rally.

Axios

Monday's top stories

GOP sparks fury with apparent meddling in Democratic primaries

Scoop: CIA director doubts Iran's intentions on deal, sources say

The 8 unresolved questions in Trump's Iran deal

U.S.-Iran peace deal's supply chain effects may be slow-going

All eyes on Warsh at new Fed chairman's first policy meeting

Trump declares D.C.'s July 4 celebration a "TRUMP RALLY"

How SpaceX's arrival impacts the stock market

Medicare weight-loss drug coverage could overwhelm doctors

"They screwed us": Personality clashes sent Anthropic's models offline

Boris Epshteyn: Trump's "psychiatrist" and counsel