National

White House envoy Steve Witkoff is on his way to Switzerland, where the first round of talks with Iran on a potential nuclear deal is expected to take place, a U.S. official told Axios.

The U.S. official said Trump's envoy Jared Kushner is already in Switzerland. 

Why it matters: The talks were supposed to start on Friday but were postponed because of the fighting between Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon. It's not yet clear if a new time has been set for the talks.

The other side: Iranian foreign minister Abbas Araghchi is planning to travel to Switzerland on Saturday, according to a source with knowledge. The source said this could still change.

According to a source from one of the mediating countries, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi told several of  his counterparts on Friday that the ceasefire in Lebanon is a critical issue for Iran and "make or break" for the U.S.-Iran negotiations.

A second source from one of the mediating countries said the Iranians stressed they want to see a ceasefire take hold before traveling to Switzerland. 

Behind the scenes: Qatari Prime Minister Mohammed Bin Abdul Rahman al-Thani, who is one of the key mediators between the U.S. and Iran, arrived in Switzerland earlier on Friday.

What to watch: Vice President Vance was expected to lead the U.S. delegation, but postponed his trip last minute on Thursday night. It's unclear if he will make the trip this weekend.

Trump envoys head to Switzerland for potential Iran talks

The talks were supposed to start Friday but were postponed

Photo: Will Oliver/EPA/Bloomberg via Getty Images

U.S. politics & policy

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

World

Trump offers clues to next moves on Cuba

President Trump said Thursday on "The Axios Show" that "it's possible" a potential Cuba invasion would resemble the swift capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro in January.

Why it matters: Trump wants to project U.S. military power across the Western Hemisphere, fitting a second term defined by blunt force and expansionist ambition.

Trump also acknowledged the Iran conflict is taking longer to resolve because Iran has a "more powerful" military and and is far away. 

He suggested Cuba could be easier to overpower.

What they're saying: When Axios' Marc Caputo asked whether a Cuba operation could unfold similarly to the Venezuela mission, Trump replied, "Possibly. It's possible."

"These places are close by. Whereas if you look at Iran, that's a very long trip. You know, I flew to that area a few times and unrelated to this, but you're flying for 18 hours, you're flying for a long time. Venezuela is relatively close and Cuba is a hopscotch."

Another key difference: resources. The president added: "Venezuela has oil. Cuba doesn't. Cuba has a nice property and they have nice shoreline."

Zoom in: Trump also said the Iran operation is "in a certain way, it's much bigger, much more powerful from the standpoint of weaponry than Venezuela."

"But Venezuela is a very military state. You know, they have a lot of soldiers."

"We went in less than ideal… And it actually lasted 48 minutes. And this is an army. You know, they have a lot of soldiers, a lot of good soldiers."

The big picture: Trump has floated a "friendly takeover" of Cuba and prefers a peaceful transition to a free island. But his administration has war-gamed military response plans in case the country's totalitarian regime collapses, potentially as early as this summer.

Zoom out: Cuba's military was once formidable, but it has declined substantially since losing Soviet support in the 1990s. Much of the force relies on Soviet-era hardware, munitions and armor.

But U.S. intelligence has found the island acquired more than 300 military drones and discussed using them to attack the U.S. base at Guantanamo Bay, U.S. military vessels and possibly Key West, Fla. — which could become a pretext for U.S. military intervention.

What's next: Trump declined to offer a timeline for an operation in Cuba, saying it remains "flexible." 

But he said Secretary of State Marco Rubio, the son of Cuban immigrants, is "involved very much."

Go deeper: Trump's all-powerful "Great Man" theory

Exclusive: Trump says Cuba operation could mirror Venezuela triumph

Trump said his timeline for a Cuba operation remains flexible.

Donald Trump

Iran

The Axios Show Season 2

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

The Axios Show

Tech Policy

Trump sounds off on Anthropic saga

President Trump reached the point last week of viewing Anthropic as a national security threat, he said in an exclusive interview for "The Axios Show," though he signaled that relations have improved since. 

Why it matters: National security concerns and personality clashes landed AI heavyweight Anthropic in the middle of a government crackdown with domestic and international repercussions. 

Between the Commerce Department's imposition of sweeping export controls and the Pentagon's designating it a supply chain risk, the company has faced treatment typically reserved for foreign adversaries.

What they're saying: Axios' Marc Caputo asked Trump in a wide-ranging White House interview if he viewed Anthropic, or CEO Dario Amodei, as a threat to national security.

"Well, not now, but a week ago, maybe," the president said. 

But he said he walked away from the G7 summit with the impression that Amodei was "nice" and "smart."

"He responded to us very quickly because you know it's  a tremendous liability," Trump said. "People get put in prison immediately for that. You can't play games with that. And he responded very responsibly, I thought."

Catch up quick: Last week the Trump administration restricted any country outside of the U.S., and foreign nationals within the U.S., from accessing Anthropic's most advanced models. 

A report from Amazon detailing a vulnerability alarmed the administration, which took it to Anthropic leadership but felt dismissed.

Technical discussions in Washington ensued. The two sides are now reportedly working on standards to evaluate AI jailbreaks. 

For Anthropic, it's been a matter of learning how to communicate with the administration as much as reaching an understanding on how the technology works.

Yes, but: Trump did not rule out leveraging emergency powers under the Defense Production Act if the AI lab did not get in line, as was previously threatened during a dispute with the Pentagon. 

"I have the power to use a lot of things," Trump said of the DPA. "But I'm not sure I have to do that."

"It was a competitor and a part owner that turned Anthropic in. They didn't like what they were doing. They were very concerned," Trump said of the concerns raised by Amazon. "I think so far it's been very responsible."

For the record: "We are grateful to the administration for their ongoing partnership in working to get this matter resolved as quickly as possible," Anthropic said in a statement.

"We remain committed to working alongside them towards our shared goals of protecting critical infrastructure and making sure the U.S. leads in AI."

Between the lines: The race to beat China on AI still outweighs the political clashes with Anthropic or its peers, in Trump's view. 

Trump said he does not want to shut down Anthropic because the U.S. is beating China "by a lot."

"I was with President Xi. We talked about it. We're beating China by a lot," Trump said. "The good far outweighs the bad. We are going to find the bad and we're going to stop it." 

The bottom line: The relationship between the White House and Anthropic appears to be on the mend. 

But the technical work of setting AI safety standards and what international cooperation should look like is far less certain.  

Exclusive: Trump tells "The Axios Show" that Anthropic was a national security threat

National security concerns and personality clashes landed Anthropic in the middle of a government crackdown.

Trump gestures while speaking to Marc Caputo on The Axios Show

AI & machine learning

Cybersecurity

Tech company news

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 Axios Show: Watch the extended interview with President Trump

President Trump joins Axios' Marc Caputo on the latest episode of "The Axios Show." 

Speaking from the Roosevelt Room of the White House, Trump sounds off on the Iran war, his views of world leaders, his plans for Cuba and what he thinks about AI.

Watch the extended Trump interview on "The Axios Show"

Trump joined Axios' Marc Caputo in the White House's Roosevelt Room.

Donald Trump sits for an interview in the White House with Axios' Marc Caputo

Mr. President, welcome to the Axios Show.

We wanted to make this more of a conversation than a typical interview where we're just going to hop around from topics to topic, and we wanted to do, Axios likes to do "1 big thing." And so the one big thing we want to talk about is power, and how you think about it and how you wield it. And so a decade ago, you first became president, and you've had loads of experience since then. In that span of time, what is the one big thing you've learned about wielding power?

Well, I think you have to do it judiciously. I think that experience is good. I always say that potential is far more important. In other words, having ability is far more important than experience. But having both is very good. And I learned a lot during the first administration. And I was told just the other day, because you know we had a tremendous G7 and very dominant G7. We got what I wanted. And somebody said the other day that this is a far more powerful administration or term than the first one. And we had a good first term. You know we had the best economy. We had a lot of good things happening. Rebuilt the military. We did a good job. But I feel it's a more powerful term than the first one. Now that comes with experience. It also comes by having somebody precede you who was a disaster. The man was a disaster. And so when you compare to somebody like that, you look maybe better than you are. That's possible, but I feel that it's a very powerful administration right now.

But that's because you've applied lessons, you've done some things differently. What are some of those things you did differently, or better than you did before?

Well, it's a terrible answer actually, but I don't think about it. I just do what I have to do. I want to get something done. I don't say, oh, I'm going to do it a little bit differently this time. I probably say that down deep, but I don't think about, like 'Gee, what can I do differently?' I just want to get the job done, and I've always gotten the job done. That's how I got elected the first time, and that's how I got elected the second time. But the second Trump administration is a more powerful. And it feels more to me. I may not be wrong. You would know maybe better than I would cause I don't give it a lot of thought, but I think it's a more powerful administration. And I think the first one was really good. You know, I rebuilt the military in the first one. I did Space Force. I did so many things. We had the best economy. We had a great economy. We had the best job numbers. We had everything. First administration was good. We got hit by COVID. That's not my fault. But at the end. But we had a great administration. But this one is I think better.

You've mentioned the G7. You saw a number of world leaders. You walked in and you said, I'm the boss. How many of them believe that?

All of them. But I was just being funny. What happened is they're all sitting, and then I walked into the room and it was just sort of funny because there's a very long table, but there's only seven of them. The table was meant for like 30 people. So the whole end of the table looked like almost the perfect podium-type setup, right? And I saw them all sitting. They're all well-known figures. The heads of countries. We had a couple of others in there too, as you know. As an example, Modi of India, a great guy. A lot of people came. They're allowed to come if they want and sit. But I walked in there, these leaders, and I just looked at 'em. I said, I'm the boss, and you remember. And you know that was done as a joke. This thing I carried all over the world. I can't believe it. I was just being cute. Funny. I wasn't trying to be the boss.

You have experience, obviously, with the world leaders from your two terms. What's your definition of a great leader? How do you define?

Well, you have so many different types of leaders. Yesterday as an example, I'll mention the name again because pretty great. You know, all my life I've watched India. They just kept changing, changing, changing. Somebody would be there for six months and then a year. And then all of a sudden, Prime Minister Modi ends up there. He's been there for more than 12 years, very solid. And he does it through, like, there's a great calmness, and yet he's not a calm person. He's a very tough guy. I know him very well. And you have such different leaders. I watched Brazil, the leader who I know a little bit. We have some — he's a very volatile person.

You're not a fan of Lula, if I'm not mistaken.

I'm not a fan or not a fan. I don't think about him to be honest with you. I don't really think about him. I couldn't care less. But he's a different kind of a person now. Very volatile. I watched as he made a speech. It was a very volatile and it's fine. It's all different types. So when you say about leaders, when you say about, you know, what do they all have in common? Look, they're all smart. You can't get to that level without being smart. You know who is very smart — is President Xi of China. He's a very smart man. You don't get to those levels where you are running a country, even if it was a small country, you have something special. Now, in some cases, it doesn't work out, but you need something special. It's not an easy thing to do.

What is it about Xi that you find most admirable?

So we have a very good relationship, and you probably heard me say yesterday, I said, you know, I want to thank him because he didn't get involved with the whole thing with Iran. He could have gotten involved. He could have sent a nice oil ship surrounded by 12 destroyers and see if he could blast his way through the blockade, which was an unbelievable military. I think it's going to go down as one of the great military maneuvers. It was every bit as important as all the bombing we did. It really, they were dying. They had no money, no nothing for months. But President Xi, I asked him, I said, I'd really appreciate you not getting involved. And he was great. He didn't get involved. And I think if somebody else would've said that, I don't think somebody else would've even asked him that. But I did, I get along with him well. He's a strong man. He's no games. He won't sit down and say, oh, what a beautiful day. This is a wonderful day, Marc. Look how beautiful. Look at the sunshine. There's none of that stuff. It's like all business, which I like. I think it's great.

Is there something about the Chinese system that you think advantages him in his country that you wish you had here?

Well, it's actually supposed to be a disadvantage. You know, we have the entrepreneurship and all the things you read about, but they're there just about as quick as we are. You go to something's hot, and we get there and the Chinese are standing there before us, or we beat 'em by a little bit. But I'll tell you, we're beating them on AI. We have the strongest military in the world. We have the most powerful military in the world. He admitted to me, you have the most powerful. I did a great job. I rebuilt our military in the first term and did it well. Look, take a look at Venezuela. 48 minutes. The whole thing was over. 48 minutes. And by the way, now we have a great relationship, and we've paid for that war with Venezuela many, many, many times. We're taking out millions of barrels of oil and we're making them more money than they've ever made before. All the big oil companies are moving in. It's amazing. There's no place with that kind of oil. I guess us, maybe, we have the most, and they're probably second or third.

Obviously, if I ask you who are the two greatest, or leaders you like the most on the world stage, I'll assume one of them is Xi.

Yeah, I think in terms of leadership, I think that's true.

Who's the other? When you think of power and leverage and the ability to execute on that?

Well, I think Modi is very good. Yeah, they've had some very good numbers announced. He stays out of wars, which is smart. He's 1.5 billion people. He's actually the biggest. India's actually the biggest. Modi's a great leader, and we do a lot of business with them, but now we do fair business. They used to really rip us off. I don't blame them for that. We had stupid politicians, but, that allowed that to happen. But now we do a lot of business. They're not that happy about it because they used to do a lot better. But Modi's great. President Xi is great. Classics, you know. I mean, if you were going to make a movie about either one of them, you wouldn't be able to find the man in Hollywood. I'm telling you. As an example, the look of Xi, he's got a great look. Looks don't matter, right? We don't like to, they say don't talk about looks, but he's tall.

He's 6 foot 2. He's got a great stature. He's got great confidence, and he is smart. Modi in a very different way. Just highly respected. I've seen, you know, I know the real Modi is a very tough cookie. I'll tell you, you have, I got to know some that I didn't know very well. In Pakistan, you have the field marshal, who is great. Munir, he's great. And you have the prime minister, and they just get along great. I figured, well, maybe the military guy would be, he totally respects the prime minister. It's a beautiful thing to see. But they really helped us with this deal. They knew the Iranians, they knew the people and they were good. You have leaders in, I mean, you have so many different types. For the most part, if you're a smart person, you can understand to be in these positions, you have to be smart. You have to be tough. Maybe smart even more so, but the combination is probably better. But we have, there are a lot of great leaders out there, and there are a lot of really bad ones.

I can't say. I will tell you, though, that this couple of days was interesting. It was held in France, and Emmanuel Macron of France, who won't be there that much longer, he's the president and he was, I'll tell you what, he did a great job of hosting the G7. Really good. No games, no nothing. And he invited me about a week before. He said, would you do me a favor? Would you come in to Paris? We'd like to honor you. I view it as honoring the nation. But he said, I'd like to honor you. And he had the biggest people in Europe there and beyond. I mean some people in Versailles, and I was sort of not going to do it, but he knew my weakness because I like Versailles, it's one of the great places. I figured...

Like, places like Versailles. But no, it's incredible. And it's not something they do. I understand. They don't do that. They don't do dinners at Versailles. And we had a fantastic dinner. I think he did a fantastic job. I'll tell you with the G7, I've seen G7s. I've been to a lot of G7s, and it used to be G8s. They should have kept the G8. You probably wouldn't have the war with Russia and Ukraine if they did, but Obama didn't want Putin there. I guess one or two others also. But they wanted Putin out. It used to be the G8. It would've been much better if they kept that that way.

Speaking of Putin, who do you admire more out of the two of them? Putin or Zelensky?

Well, I think it's amazing what's happened, actually. You have a war that should have been over very quickly. You know, I don't know if you know the story, but when that started, Putin had hundreds of tanks that were driving up a highway. There's a highway, concrete, very good highway, solid as a rock, right into Kyiv. And about halfway there, he would've been there in three hours going at 51 miles an hour, which is about the max speed for a tank. And they had, you remember the big line of tanks? And they had some general, who probably is no longer with us. He decided rather than going right into Kyiv and ending the war on the first day. I don't think anyone even knows this story, that he would go through the farmland and through the dirt in the mud. And they had a record-setting rainstorm a couple of days before, and those tanks got stuck in that mud.

And I gave them Javelins and they took out the tanks. I gave it before this happened. But you know there's an expression because they say, oh, you're so nice to Russia. I'm not nice to Russia. I've been very tough on Russia. I've been very tough on China, tougher than anybody. That's why they respect me. I have good relationships with these people, but I gave them Javelins. A javelin is an anti-tank weapon, and those tanks were obliterated. And everybody said, what's wrong? Because, you know, they have the satellites, right? The satellite photos and the tanks were lined up and they weren't moving for days. And then they came to hit 'em with satellites. They were locked in quicksand, practically. It was mud like quicksand. They couldn't move. Had the general just, tells you. That's why war is always risky. Had this general just gone right up the concrete highway, they would've been in Kyiv within four hours, and there wasn't a damn thing that Ukraine was going to do about it. That war would've been over in one day. That was four and a half years ago. So that was a terrible mistake. And here's a general, decides rather than going up the middle of a highway right into the town, they couldn't have done anything. They were totally unprepared. And not only that, when they wiped out all these tanks, it gave them confidence. You know, confidence is very important. But have you ever heard that story, by the way?

I haven't heard that story. I know that you had armed Ukraine with Javelins in the prior administration.

You know the expression: Trump gave him Javelins, Obama gave him sheets. Right? That's true.

Let's shift a little, cause time is of the essence. Shift to Iran. There's now light at the end of the tunnel for the conflict. What have you learned about not just the exercise of power, but the limits on your power as a result of the conflict?

No, none. I haven't learned that lesson yet. I know there are, but there are no limits. We defeated them totally militarily. I was asked by Pakistan because they're close to please not do anymore. I said, I like them a lot. You know, I stopped Pakistan from fighting India, two nuclear nations, and the prime minister of Pakistan said, President Trump saved 50 million lives. They were going to use nuclear weapons. 11 planes were shot down. They were at it. And I was hearing about it, then I saw some really terrible pictures. They were going at it, Pakistan and India. They have gone at it in the past, but this was, and they're both nuclear-armed, heavily, and they were going to use those nuclear weapons. And the prime minister of Pakistan said Donald Trump saved 50 million lives. But it's not 50. I think it was much more than that. 50 is nothing when you look at 1.5 billion people just in India alone. So I think that there are no limits. We have the most powerful military in the world by far. Who else could have done a blockade like that? I did a naval blockade where not one ship was able to get through. Some tried. They didn't, you know, it didn't last very long,

And it certainly brought Iran to the table more than before. However, beginning a conflict you had talked about you only wanted unconditional surrender. And...

The MOU doesn't look like unconditional surrender.

Well, it really probably is unconditional surrender. [Axios: It is?] I think so. Look, they have no military. They're all at the bottom of the sea. 159 ships. That's what they had.

Sure, but they could still menace. They only had these small Gashti boats or go-fast boats. 

Look, you call it what you want. I hear the JCPOA, the Obama nuclear catastrophe, which was so bad. When Obama left, he didn't hit their military. He didn't damage their navy or destroy their air force. I destroyed the air force. I destroyed their anti-aircraft weapons. That's why we were flying over there totally unimpeded. We turned off all the stealth. They couldn't do a damn thing. He didn't do any of that stuff. He didn't kill their leadership. I did, twice. Two and a half times to be exact. He didn't do anything to Soleimani. I killed Soleimani.

And I sadly hurt the other ayatollah, who I will tell you, I did not meet him. I did not speak to him, but people were speaking of. But he's got a certain braveness because he was, he's badly injured.

Oh, the second, the jr. Nevertheless, all of those things being true that the...

Well, you can't just say, oh, forget about. Excuse me. I wiped out their military.

Read the transcript of Trump's interview with "The Axios Show"

Axios' Marc Caputo spoke with Trump at the White House on Thursday, June 18.

Two men in suits sit facing each other in a formal office; one gestures with his hands. A wood desk with a sculpture, flags, and framed paintings sits behind them, with the "The Axios Show" logo on the left.

Joe Biden

President Trump joins The Axios Show

President Trump tells "The Axios Show" that his deal to end the war in Iran averted a global depression, that Cuba could get the same treatment as Venezuela, and that a leading AI lab looked in recent days like a national security threat.

The big picture: In a sweeping 45-minute interview on Thursday with Axios White House correspondent Marc Caputo, Trump made clear his view of the extent of his post-war power: "There are no limits."

What he's saying: The president touched on many of the world's hot-button topics in a Roosevelt Room sitdown:

🇮🇷 Ending the war in Iran: "This is the kind of thing that could cause a worldwide depression," Trump said, adding that his deal averted that fate.

🇨🇺 On whether an action in Cuba would be as swift as the one in Venezuela: "It's possible," Trump said. "These places are close by. Whereas if you look at Iran, that's a very long trip. ... Venezuela is relatively close and Cuba's a hopscotch."

🇮🇱 On Israel's fate: "If it weren't for me, Israel would not exist today because I terminated the Barack Hussein Obama deal, the JCPOA, which was a road to a nuclear weapon."

🤖 If Anthropic's latest models pose a national security risk: "Well, not now, but a week ago maybe."

💪 The limits of his power in the wake of the war: "There are no limits," Trump said. "I haven't learned that lesson yet. I know there are, but there are no limits."

This episode has been edited for brevity ....  Watch the extended interview.

WATCH: President Trump talks Iran, Cuba, Israel, AI, and power on "The Axios Show"

The president took an expansive view of his power in the wide-ranging interview.

President Trump and Axios reporter Marc Caputo, seated facing each other in the White House. 

China

Geopolitics & international conflict

President Trump declared on "The Axios Show" on Thursday that he's discovered "no limits" to his power since going to war with Iran.

A forthcoming book reveals he's been entertaining an even grander idea: that he may be the most powerful man in history.

Why it matters: Trump is no longer merely testing the limits of the presidency. He's describing power in world-historical terms — placing himself in the lineage of conquerors, dictators and strongmen who bent nations to their will.

In a wide-ranging, soon-to-be-released 45-minute interview with Axios' Marc Caputo, Trump repeatedly measured power by submission: G7 leaders believed him when he joked "I'm the boss," he said, while Israel has "a lot of respect for me" and will "do as I say."

Zoom in: In "Regime Change," coming Tuesday from The New York Times' Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan, Trump proudly shows off a document arguing he's more powerful than Attila the Hun, Genghis Khan, Napoleon, Stalin, Mao and Hitler.

Trump "began reading from it," the authors write, "reciting the names of some of history's most powerful figures" and explaining how each "fell short of his own power as U.S. president."

"They didn't have airplanes, right? You couldn't travel around," Trump said of Alexander the Great, the Caesars and William the Conqueror. "Napoleon," he added "with relish," according to the authors.

Haberman and Swan write that the revealing part was "the evident pleasure he took in the company of Mao, Hitler, and Stalin" — and "the untroubled ease with which he accepted a place among men who had reshaped the world through conquest and fear."

Zoom out: Hints of that grandiose theory of power surfaced throughout Trump's interview with Axios, hours after returning from what he called a "very dominant" G7 summit in France.

Trump named China's Xi Jinping and India's Narendra Modi as the world leaders he most admires, praising Xi as "all business" and Modi as "a very tough cookie." 

He declined to identify the leaders he considers the weakest — then pivoted to lamenting Vladimir Putin's absence from the G7, which was the G8 prior to Russia's expulsion after its 2014 annexation of Crimea.

Trump lingered on French President Emmanuel Macron's decision to honor him with a dinner at Versailles, the kind of imperial stage Trump called "my weakness."

Between the lines: Allies, in Trump's telling, are only relevant when they recognize who holds the real power.

"If it weren't for me, Israel would not exist today," Trump told Axios, adding that his relationship with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is "good, but we have to keep him a little bit sane." 

Trump struck a similar tone toward Republican hawks furious over his Iran deal: "Some guys that I used to respect, I don't respect anymore. They're hardliners," he said.

Pressed on why the deal falls short of his original demands, a defiant Trump opted for his own reality — insisting the outcome does, in fact, amount to "unconditional surrender" by Iran as well as "regime change."

Reality check: For all of Trump's claims of limitless power, he acknowledged one force still constrains him — the economy.

He argued that extending the war to satisfy hawks could have triggered a "worldwide depression." He pointed to falling oil prices and a surging stock market as proof he made the right decision to back a deal that could end the Iran war.

"I have one primary wish as president ... I never want to be the late, great Herbert Hoover," Trump said, referring to the 31st president, who's forever associated with the Great Depression.

The bottom line: Trump posted the "Great Men" document on Truth Social on Thursday, calling its author a "presidential historian." Haberman and Swan report that the author was actually the longtime caddy and personal confidant to golfer Gary Player.

The document's conclusion: Trump's willingness to use his power on a global scale "makes him by far the most powerful person that has EVER walked this planet."

Trump's all-powerful "Great Man" theory

In Axios interview and new book, he describes power in world-historical terms.

President Trump in a navy suit and red tie speaks during an Axios Show interview; American flag and presidential seal behind.

Dealmaking

Israel

Latest news on Wall Street, Corporate America and financial regulation.

Business

Two U.S. officials told Axios on Friday that Israel and Hezbollah had agreed to a renewed ceasefire in Lebanon, but clashes continued even after it was supposed to be in effect.

Hezbollah sources told Reuters the group would observe the ceasefire, but a spokesperson for Israel's military declined to confirm its participation.

Why it matters: The continued fighting between Israel and Hezbollah led to the postponement of U.S.-Iran talks planned for Friday. U.S. officials hope the talks can be launched if the ceasefire holds.

The conflict has displaced more than one million people and Israel is still occupying a swath of southern Lebanon. 

The U.S.-Iran deal includes a ceasefire in Lebanon, but Israeli officials have raised doubts about their commitment to any such truce. Political allies of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu have openly attacked the deal.

Tehran claimed Israel's attacks in Lebanon on Thursday morning were a violation of the U.S.-Iran MOU.

Driving the news: A senior U.S. official told Axios the renewed ceasefire in Lebanon was mediated by the U.S. and Qatar and went into effect at 4pm local time (9am ET). 

But in the hour after the ceasefire was supposed to come into effect, the Israeli military conducted strikes in southern Lebanon and Hezbollah launched drones towards northern Israel.

What they're saying: "Netanyahu approved it 100%," the senior U.S. official said. 

Netanyahu's office has not confirmed that, and the military spokesperson, Efi Defrin, said the ceasefire was a matter for political leadership and he could not confirm.

Defrin stressed that Israeli forces would stay in southern Lebanon and operate against threats.

Two Hezbollah sources told Reuters the group considered the truce to now be in effect.

The latest: An Israeli defense official said Israeli political leadership directed the military to halt all military action north of the "yellow line" — which separates the zone Israel is occupying from the rest of Lebanon — but continue operating against threats in the occupied areas.

How it happened: On Thursday afternoon, President Trump, the speaker of Lebanon's parliament and the Israeli ambassador to Washington all expressed commitment to the ceasefire in Lebanon. 

But several hours later, on Thursday night, Hezbollah conducted several attacks on Israeli forces in southern Lebanon, killing at least 4 Israeli soldiers. Israel responded with massive strikes on Hezbollah targets across Lebanon.

That led to the postponement of the U.S.-Iran talks, which were to be held in Switzerland.

A spokesperson for Iran's foreign ministry confirmed the postponement and said the conditions for negotiations had yet to be met. "Holding the said meeting in Switzerland is not urgent, but we are planning to hold a meeting in the coming days," he said.

Go deeper: Trump tells "The Axios Show" there are "no limits" to his power after Iran war

Trump tells "The Axios Show" there are "no limits" to his power after Iran war

U.S. claims Israel-Hezbollah ceasefire back on

The continued fighting led to the postponement of U.S.-Iran talks

Israeli tanks in an occupied area of southern Lebanon. Photo: Jack Guez/AFP via Getty 

Washington D.C.

Axios D.C.

The triumph of a democratic socialist in the D.C. mayoral race is the latest sign that younger urban voters are turbo-charging candidates who promise to go big on affordability and take on President Trump.

Why it matters: While Washington joined New York and Seattle as the latest big city to elect a democratic socialist, Janeese Lewis George's victory was less about her political label than about punishing prices and anger at the president.

State of play: Lewis George, who handily defeated a moderate in the Democratic primary, marks a break from decades of business-friendly politicians running the nation's capital. Three trends explain her rise:

Unhappiness with the city's direction stood at the highest level (55%) since Marion Barry's reign 28 years ago, per a Washington Post-Schar School poll. A lot of that disaffection was driven by Trump, but there was also a shout for change after three terms of Mayor Muriel Bowser.

Washington's influx of white residents, who tend to be younger and more progressive, made winning that vote even more important, and Lewis George ran up the score in neighborhoods where they've settled. She also proved critics wrong by winning in majority-Black, working-class communities — the only place she lost was the city's wealthiest enclave, Northwest's Ward 3. 

Nearly half of D.C.'s registered Democrats have a favorable view of socialism, per the poll — so it's not a turnoff. Three other progressives led D.C. Council races, giving the presumptive mayor powerful allies. 

Zoom in: Lewis George appears to have broken through by:

Echoing New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, she made the cost of living her No. 1 issue. Her rival, Kenyan McDuffie, ran on public safety and called her soft on crime, even as violence was fading as a top issue. 

Assembling a potent get-out-the-vote machine that encompassed almost every major local union plus the Democratic Socialists of America's local chapter, which helped knock on what she says were 200,000 doors.

Crafting a vibey social media campaign that might not have reached New York City-level cinematic appeal but attracted eyes, including on Gen Z's favorite hangout app, Partiful. 

Reality check: Lewis George's campaign rhetoric is about to collide with governing realities.

The city's economic slump calls for business growth. Trump's slashing of the federal workforce has unemployment sitting at 6.3%, city data shows, and population growth is slowing. The city is dealing with a budget gap of up to $1.1 billion this year.

Lewis George is already adapting to facts on the ground. She appeared to distance herself from a new wealth tax in an upcoming budget vote, and when asked if her pricey promise of universal child care is achievable in year one, she told Axios: "We will see." 

She'll also need Trump's help. Lewis George made two pitches to Washington's business elite: Rejuvenating empty federal offices downtown, and kickstarting a multi-billion dollar Union Station expansion. TBD if Trump bites.

The bottom line: For most D.C. voters, Lewis George's message hit all the right notes: Everything's expensive, and Trump is making life worse.

How a democratic socialist swept D.C.

Janeese Lewis George promised to take on affordability and President Trump.

Axios

Friday's top stories