Several days before President Trump and members of his administration said publicly that they were prepared to wash their hands of Russia-Ukraine diplomacy, Trump ranted in private about his frustrations that the negotiations were going nowhere.

Why it matters: After promising a deal within 24 hours of taking office, then kicking off weeks of negotiations, Trump said Friday that he was about ready to give up. He hasn't set a deadline or said whether he would take any further action beyond walking away.

• If either side continues to block a deal, "we're just going to say, 'You're foolish, you're fools, you're horrible people,' and we're going to just take a pass," Trump said Friday.

Behind the scenes: Trump made his frustrations clear a few days earlier in an impromptu conversation about the ceasefire push with several of his top advisers, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio and diplomatic envoy Steve Witkoff.

• That's where Trump raised the idea that if a deal isn't reached soon he could simply move on to other foreign policy issues, a U.S. official briefed on the issue said.

Driving the news: By Friday, Trump's rant had turned into a public policy statement.

• Rubio said Trump had decided "he has dedicated a lot of time and energy to this, and there are a lot of things going on in the world right now that we need to be focused on."
• "We need to figure out ... within a matter of days, whether this is doable in the short term.  If it's not, then I think we're just going to move on," Rubio said.
• Later on Friday Rubio held a phone call with NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte and reiterated that "if a clear path to peace does not emerge soon, the United States will step back from efforts to broker peace," State Department spokesperson Tammy Bruce said.

Zoom in: Rubio also shared Trump's frustrations with the French, British, German and Ukrainian officials gathered in Paris for a marathon of meetings on Thursday to discuss the path to peace.

• "Rubio was not specific about what such a step would look like but only stressed that the U.S. wants fast progress," one European diplomat told Axios.
• Two European diplomats confirmed Rubio said Trump was losing his patience and might withdraw from the process if a deal wasn't reached soon.

Between the lines: Three European diplomats felt Rubio's comments were mostly aimed at the Ukrainians.

• A source close to the Ukrainian government also said it seemed Rubio's comments were aimed at pressing Ukraine. The source was also concerned that a Trump withdrawal from the negotiations could lead to suspension of U.S. military aid to Ukraine.
• The European diplomats said Rubio didn't speak about increasing the pressure on Russia during the Paris meetings.
• "The impression was that Rubio and Witkoff are under a lot of pressure from Trump and they are channeling it to the other players," a European diplomat said.

Reality check: Ukraine swiftly agreed to Trump's plans for a 30-day ceasefire, but Russia has slow-walked that proposal and argued they are winning on the battlefield and thus have a number of conditions for any peace agreement.

• As a result, it's unlikely the Kremlin would have particular concerns about Trump giving up on diplomacy.

State of play: The U.S. isn't out of the game yet.

• Rubio and Witkoff also presented a framework for a potential peace deal to end the war during Thursday's meetings in Paris, the State Department said.
• Rubio said he's now awaiting the responses from Kyiv and Moscow.

David Hogg's organization gave $100,000 to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee after angering House Democrats with plans to back primary challengers against their older incumbents, Axios has learned.

Why it matters: The donation addresses one of the central complaints of Hogg's detractors, particularly battleground district Democrats — that his efforts will draw resources away from the fight to retake the House.

• Hogg told the New York Times his group, Leaders We Deserve, will spend $20 million going after older House Democrats in solidly blue districts.
• Rep. Hillary Scholten (D-Mich.) previously told Axios: "I can think of a million better things to do with twenty million dollars right now."

Driving the news: Leaders We Deserve made the donation on Thursday, two days after its primary efforts were first reported, a source familiar with the matter told Axios.

• The gift was first reported by Politico, though Hogg disputed the notion that he is "trying to make nice" with House Democratic leaders.
• "This is not me playing nice. It is demonstrating my commitment to winning back the house and making Hakeem Jeffries the Speaker," the 25-year-old Democratic National Committee vice chair posted on X.

Zoom in: Hogg suggested he will continue to go full bore with his efforts to drive out House Democrats' oldest members.

• "We absolutely cannot wait for people to retire at their own leisure or to let them sit there and do nothing while the country is burning," he said in his social media post.
• Leaders We Deserve did not immediately respond to an email seeking comment on the donation.

Zoom out: The DCCC announced Friday that it raised $36.9 million in the first three months of 2025.

• That figure put them narrowly ahead of the National Republican Congressional Committee, which brought in $36.7 million during the same period.

The Trump administration is expected to announce Friday that it would move forward with mass firings of more federal workers under the auspices of a new rule, previously known as "Schedule F."

Why it matters: The plan will allow Trump to gut civil service protections from a large swath of federal workers, paving the way to replace them with loyalists.

The big picture: Beneath the layer of political appointees every president can nominate, the federal government is staffed by large numbers of civil servants in nonpartisan roles that come with protections that shield them from politically-motivated firings.

• During his first term, President Trump issued an executive order known as "Schedule F," which took aim at these protections.
• Even before Trump officially launched his second presidential run, reports abounded that he planned to resurrect Schedule F during his second term.
• During his campaign, Trump vowed to slash the size of the "deep state" federal government and fire "rogue bureaucrats and career politicians."

What is the new rule?

The new rule, dubbed "Schedule Policy/Career," will reclassify many career civil servants as "at will" employees, making them easier to remove from their posts.

• This new rule will impact workers involved in policymaking, two White House officials familiar with the plan told Axios.

Flashback: Weeks ahead of the 2020 election, Trump issued an executive order known as "Schedule F" that would have reclassified tens of thousands of federal workers whose roles involved policy-making functions.

• That new category made it easier to fire federal employees in civil servant positions and career posts who were considered disloyal to the president.
• Former President Biden rescinded the executive order after he took office.

Reinstating Schedule F

Plans for reinstating Schedule F to fire federal workers have been percolating for months.

• On his first day back in office, the Trump issued an executive order essentially reinstating Schedule F.
• In the order, Trump talked about the need to bring accountability to the federal workforce, arguing it is too difficult to fire underperforming workers with their current job protections.
• The Office of Personnel and Management (OPM) issued a memo in January that set deadlines for agencies to determine which workers might be subject to Schedule F reclassification.

Zoom in: Reinstating Schedule F was also a facet of Heritage Foundation's Project 2025, which Trump's allies touted as the administration's agenda.

Who could be impacted?

As many as 50,000 federal workers — about 2% of the federal workforce — could be affected by Schedule F reclassification.

• Reclassified employees would become at-will employees that are significantly easier to terminate.
• The OPM memo gave agencies until April 20 to submit recommendations for which career positions could be subject to reclassification.

Go deeper: How Trump could weaponize "Schedule F" in 2025

The Trump administration on Friday will announce that it's moving ahead with a new rule, previously known as "Schedule F," that will make it easier to remove federal employees it believes are undercutting President Trump's agenda.

Why it matters: By stripping civil service protections from about 50,000 people — roughly 2% of the federal work force — Trump is continuing his far-reaching effort to trim the federal bureaucracy and make it more answerable to him.

• The Office of Personnel Management's new rule — dubbed "Schedule Policy/Career" — will allow many career civil servants to be classified as "at will" employees, making them easier to remove.
• Trump aides argue they need greater flexibility to fire civil servants who are underperforming, engaging in misconduct or undermining Trump's policy plans.

Zoom in: Such civil servants in nonpartisan roles traditionally have had job protections that shielded them from the political whims of whoever was in the White House.

• But Trump and many of his backers have long believed that a "deep state" of Washington bureaucrats was undercutting his agenda.
• Toward the end of his first term, Trump signed an executive order establishing a Schedule F category for federal employees.
• President Biden rescinded the order after he took office, but after taking office again in January, Trump signed a new executive order reinstating and renaming it.

While he was out of office, Trump and his allies laid the groundwork for a new administration stocked with loyalists. Schedule F was a significant part of that plan

• Many of the Trump allies who pushed for Schedule F now have key roles in the administration, including Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller and Management of Budget Director Russ Vought.
• "They are making decisions and those decisions should be in line with the president's agenda. Unelected career bureaucrats should be held accountable to the agenda Americans vote for," said a White House official.

Between the lines: The new rule will impact workers involved in policymaking, according to two White House officials familiar with the plan.

• About 50,000 people are likely to be reclassified as "at will" employees, according to an OPM estimate.
• Critics have said that Trump's broadly worded executive order could put far more civil servants in jeopardy of losing their jobs.
• Earlier this month, some federal agencies started making recommendations for which positions should be reclassified under the new rule, according to a White House official.

The big picture: The wave of firings expected to be the fallout from the successor to Schedule F comes as the administration, largely through Elon Musk's DOGE team, continues to make huge cuts in government personnel and funding.

• Critics say those cuts have threatened the functioning of the government, set back government health, education and research efforts, and threatened access to crucial programs such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

The other side: Trump's plans to implement the rule has drawn aggressive pushback from labor groups.

• The American Federation of Government Employees and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) filed a lawsuit against the administration in February, alleging that it overstepped its authority in reversing Biden's regulation protecting civil servants.
• "Schedule F is a shameless attempt to politicize the federal workforce by replacing thousands of dedicated, qualified civil servants with political cronies," AFSCME President Lee Saunders said then.

Two top Israeli officials had an unannounced meeting in Paris on Friday with White House envoy Steve Witkoff to discuss the U.S.-Iran nuclear talks, three Israeli sources familiar with the meeting tell Axios.

Why it matters: Ron Dermer and David Barnea, Israel's strategic affairs minister and the director of the Mossad intelligence agency, slipped into Paris for the low-profile meeting with Witkoff to try to influence the U.S. position ahead of the second round of talks in Rome on Saturday, the officials said.

• Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is concerned the U.S. will reach a deal with Iran that's similar to the one the Obama administration signed in 2015, and President Trump himself abandoned.
• The Israeli Prime Minister's Office and a spokesperson for Witkoff declined to comment.
• Witkoff was in Paris for meetings on Russia and Ukraine before traveling to Rome for the Iran talks.

Between the lines: During those meetings, Witkoff stressed that the Trump administration's goal on Iran is to resolve the nuclear crisis with through diplomatic means and ensure Iran will no longer enrich uranium.

• Netanyahu and other hawks want a deal to eliminate Iran's nuclear program entirely — or else a strike on Iran's nuclear facilities.
• Trump, who initially set a two-month deadline for the negotiations, said on Thursday that he is in no rush to move forward with a military strike because he believes Iran "wants to talk."

The other side: Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, Witkoff's counterpart in the talks, will arrive in Rome on Friday after a visit to Moscow, during which he met with President Vladimir Putin and discussed the negotiations with the U.S.

• Although Russia is not directly involved in the talks, the Iranians are seeking Russian support, including potentially to press their case with Trump. "We hope Russia will play a role in a possible deal," Araghchi said Friday.
• Araghchi added that the U.S. showed seriousness in the first round of talks, but said Iran hears "conflicting messages" from the U.S. in public and in private. "What's said at the negotiating table is what matters," he stressed.
• Araghchi added that a deal can be reached if the U.S. doesn't present "unrealistic demands." One of those demands, Araghchi said, was that Iran completely halt uranium enrichment.

What to watch: The second round of talks on Saturday will be held at the Omani embassy in Rome. They are expected to start around 5am ET and last at least five hours.

• The U.S. wants the second round of talks to end with a framework for the next steps in the negotiations.

Go deeper: Trump team's stark Iran divide

Democratic National Committee vice chair David Hogg's plan to spend $20 million to primary older Democratic incumbents in Congress has sparked intense anger from some lawmakers.

Why it matters: House Democrats told Axios that, while Hogg is not targeting battleground-district members, they believe he will divert attention and resources away from their races and the fight to retake the House.

• "What a disappointment from leadership. I can think of a million better things to do with twenty million dollars right now," swing-district Rep. Hillary Scholten (D-Mich.) told Axios.
• "Fighting Democrats might get likes online, but it's not what restores majorities," she added.
• Another vulnerable House Democrat, speaking on the condition of anonymity to offer candid thoughts about a top party official, called the plan "very counterproductive and counterintuitive" and said "it would sure be nice to have some of that financial support."

State of play: Hogg told the New York Times that his outside group, Leaders We Deserve, will spend $20 million to elect younger primary challengers to older incumbents in safely Democratic districts.

• The 25-year-old gun control activist described a "culture of seniority politics" that has made the Democratic Party less effective.
• He also attempted to front-run some of the criticism he said he expected to face, predicting a "a smear campaign against me" that would aim to "destroy my reputation and try to force me to stop doing this."
• Axios did not receive a response to a request for comment to Leaders We Deserve.

What we're hearing: Democrats' anger boiled over in private this week, with several venting that Hogg is putting his own interests above those of the party.

• "I think this is a mistake," said a second House Democrat who spoke anonymously. "Now, are people pissed? ... I don't know a single person who is happy about it."
• A third told Axios it "seems inappropriate for a DNC vice chair to threaten sitting Dems."
• A fourth said they are "totally dumbfounded" that "instead of focusing on [winning], we're focusing inward in a circular firing squad."

Yes, but: Some lawmakers, particularly progressives, are defending his plan, arguing that the party needs an effective core in order to appeal to voters.

• "He makes some good points. We do have some ranking members who should step aside," said Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.),
• McGovern, the ranking member of the House Rules Committee, added that Democrats also "have some long term members who are terrific."
• A fifth House Democrat who spoke anonymously said Democrats "should have the most effective members right now. Competition is not a bad thing," though they argued age shouldn't be the only criteria.

Between the lines: Hogg's efforts touch on a sore spot for congressional Democrats.

• The party engaged in a three-week fight in 2024 over President Biden's candidacy that ended with the then-81-year-old dropping off the ticket.
• Democrats' generational divide poured into the post-election period with the ousters of several of their septuagenarian House committee leaders.
• Now congressional Democrats are bracing for a deluge of primary challenges from younger insurgents who say older and more established incumbents aren't effective foils to President Trump.

Zoom in: Some lawmakers also argued that Hogg's efforts could have a less-than-devastating effect, depending on who he targets.

• "Money matters," said Rep. George Latimer (D-N.Y.), who defeated former Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-N.Y.) in an expensive primary last year.
• But, he added, "A representative who is active locally, knows their people, is accessible and energetic, is far less vulnerable to the 'we need change' argument generated from a source outside that local area."
• Several lawmakers also told Axios that some targeted incumbents are expected to retire anyway: "That's gonna happen naturally," said one.

What to watch: House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.), in keeping with his longstanding policy, is standing behind his incumbents.

• "Leader Jeffries will continue to strongly support all of his colleagues in the House Democratic Caucus, while working to flip the majority by defeating Republican incumbents in Congress," said spokesperson Justin Chermol.

The Trump administration's informal end-of-April deadline for Russia to agree to a ceasefire in Ukraine is drawing near without any commitments from the Kremlin.

Why it matters: U.S.-Russia talks have shown little clear progress and President Trump's promise of a swift peace deal appears nowhere near fruition. Still, he insisted Thursday that a ceasefire was getting closer and that he'd be "hearing from Russia this week."

Driving the news: Secretary of State Marco Rubio said Friday that Trump was prepared to abandon peace talks altogether within a "matter of days."

• "We're not going to continue to fly all over the world and do meeting after meeting after meeting if no progress is being made," Rubio said.
• He did not blame either side or say whether the U.S. would impose any costs before walking away.
• In response, the Kremlin argued that progress had already been made but said no further contacts with the U.S. were planned for this week.

Behind the scenes: White House envoy Steve Witkoff met Russian President Vladimir Putin for more than four hours last Friday in St. Petersburg.

• Witkoff said he emerged with a clearer idea of Putin's demands for a peace settlement.
• But he didn't get Putin's approval for a 30-day ceasefire plan Trump has been pushing for six weeks as a first step toward longer-term peace, and which Ukraine has signed off on.

State of play: Rubio spoke on Thursday with his Russian counterpart Sergei Lavrov and stressed Russia needs to commit to the U.S. ceasefire framework.

• U.S. officials have described the end of April as an informal deadline, after which Russia could face fresh sanctions.
• But while Putin launched the war and is the biggest barrier to a ceasefire, Trump continues to put much of the blame on Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.
• "You don't start a war with someone 20 times your size and then hope people give you some missiles," Trump said of Zelensky earlier this week.

Split screen: Rubio, Witkoff and Trump's Ukraine envoy Keith Kellogg held a marathon of meetings in Paris on Thursday with French President Emanuel Macron and senior officials from Ukraine, Germany and the U.K.

• "It was the first peace negotiation meeting on Ukraine that brings all together Europeans, Americans, and Ukrainians around the table," a French official said.
• The French official said the discussions focused on plans for a comprehensive ceasefire, including on the front line, and also on the parameters for a deal that could end the war.
• "The participants expressed support to President Trump's objective to put a swift end to the war and agreed on the need of a ceasefire as quickly as possible," the official said.

The other side: When Rubio called Lavrov after the meeting, the Russian foreign minister said Moscow was ready to work with the U.S. "with the aim of reliably eliminating the root causes of the Ukrainian crisis," according to Moscow's readout.

• The statement didn't mention a ceasefire.

The big picture: Another round of talks between U.S., European and Ukrainian officials is expected to take place next week in London.

• A European official said these talks represent a positive shift in the way the U.S. has been willing to discuss the Ukraine-Russia issue with its European allies.
• A European official said the talks represent a positive shift in the Trump administration's dealings with its European allies over Ukraine, and that the gathering in Paris was the first substantive discussion of the issue between the sides.

What to watch: While the ceasefire efforts are still stuck, Trump said the U.S. and Ukraine will sign a long-awaited minerals deal next Thursday.

This story was updated with Rubio's comments and the Kremlin response.

In his first 100 days, President Trump has declared more national emergencies — more creatively and more aggressively — than any president in modern American history.

Why it matters: Powers originally crafted to give the president flexibility in rare moments of crisis now form the backbone of Trump's agenda, enabling him to steamroll Congress and govern by unilateral decree through his first three months in office.

• So far, Trump has invoked national emergencies to impose the largest tariffs in a century, accelerate energy and mineral production, and militarize federal lands at the southern border.
• Paired with his assault on the judiciary, legal scholars fear Trump is exploiting loosely written statutes to try to upend the constitutional balance of power.

How it works: The president can declare a national emergency at any time, for almost any reason, without needing to prove a specific threat or get approval from Congress.

• The National Emergencies Act of 1976, which unlocks more than 120 special statutory powers, originally included a "legislative veto" that gave Congress the ability to terminate an emergency with a simple majority vote.
• But in 1983, the Supreme Court ruled that legislative vetoes are unconstitutional — effectively stripping Congress of its original check, and making it far harder to rein in a president's emergency declarations.

The big picture: Since then, presidents have largely relied on "norms" and "self-restraint" to avoid abusing emergency powers for non-crises, says Elizabeth Goitein, senior director of the Brennan Center's Liberty and National Security Program.

• That precedent was broken in 2019, Goitien argues, when Trump declared a national emergency in order to bypass Congress and access billions of dollars in funding for a border wall.
• President Biden stretched his authority as well, drawing criticism in 2022 for citing the COVID-19 national emergency to unilaterally forgive student loan debt.
• But Trump's second-term actions have plunged the U.S. firmly into uncharted territory — redrawing the limits of executive power in real time, and fueling fears of a permanent emergency state.

Zoom in: Trump's justification for his tariffs cites the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which can be invoked only if the U.S. faces an "unusual and extraordinary threat" to its national security, foreign policy, or economy.

• According to the White House, America's decades-old trading relationships — including with tiny countries and uninhabited islands — qualify as such threats.
• As a result, a 1977 law originally designed to target hostile foreign powers — and never before used to impose tariffs — is now being deployed to rewrite the global economic order.

What they're saying: "Troubling times call for serious responses. The previous administration left President Trump a nation in decline — financially vulnerable, with unsecured borders and dangerously unfair trade deals. The President is leveraging every tool the Constitution provides to Make America Great Again," White House spokesman Harrison Fields said in a statement.

Between the lines: Trump's affinity for extraordinary powers extends beyond just the National Emergencies Act.

• He has invoked the wartime Alien Enemies Act of 1798, for example, to deport Venezuelan migrants who his administration claims are participating in an "invasion" of the United States.
• The ACLU recently raised alarms over Trump's flirtation with the Insurrection Act of 1807, which would allow him to deploy National Guard troops on domestic soil without state consent.
• "You would hope to see authorities like these used sparingly and reluctantly, as the last resort in an actual crisis situation, because they are a real departure from the constitutional norm," Goitien told Axios.

The bottom line: Trump campaigned on "saving America" — framing his return to power as an urgent, existential mission. Now that he's back in Washington, the sirens never stop.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) said Thursday he'll sue the Trump administration over the reported DOGE-driven dismantling of the Americorps service program.

The big picture: This is Newsom's second lawsuit announcement against the administration this week after saying Wednesday that he'd sue over President Trump's sweeping global tariffs.

Driving the news: AmeriCorps placed most of its federal staff on paid administrative leave Wednesday, per America's Service Commissions (ASC), a nonprofit representing state service commissions, and multiple news reports.

• The agency's National Civilian Community Corps, which oversees volunteerism and service work, told volunteers Tuesday they'd leave the program early "due to programmatic circumstances beyond your control," per AP, which cited an email Americorps email it obtained.
• The Golden State "will both challenge the illegal action in court and accelerate recruitment for the California Service Corps program — already the largest service corps in the nation, surpassing the size of the Peace Corps," per a statement from the state governor's office.
• The statement noted that "AmeriCorps members were on the ground, distributing supplies and supporting families" during the climate-change related wildfires that devastated much of Los Angeles earlier this year.

By the numbers: Some 2,200 18- to 26-year-olds serve for 10-11 months on projects with FEMA, nonprofits, the U.S. Forest Service or community groups, per the agency's site.

What they're saying: "We've gone from the New Deal, the New Frontier, and the Great Society to a federal government that gives the middle finger to volunteers serving their fellow Americans," Newsom said in a statement Thursday. "We will sue to stop this."

• Newsom's chief service officer Josh Fryday said in a statement the action of DOGE, which the world's richest person Elon Musk is the face of, "aren't about making government work better — it's about making communities weaker."

The other side: "A White House official said the Trump administration questioned using taxpayer money for the program," per AP.

• Representatives for the White House and Americorps did not immediately respond to Axios' request for comment in the evening.

Go deeper: AmeriCorps pledges aid to tribal-led climate solutions

Virginia's bare-breasted state flag, and a lesson about the Commonwealth of Virginia, has been banned for some students in a Texas school district.

The big picture: Lamar CISD, a school district around 30 minutes from Houston, last fall removed a section about Virginia from its online learning platform used by 3rd-5th graders, Texas Freedom to Read Project co-director Anne Russey tells Axios.

• The reason: The bare breast on Virginia's flag, a picture of which was included in the lesson, violated the district's recently adopted ban on any "visual depictions or illustrations of frontal nudity" in elementary school library material.
• That's according to what the Lamar district confirmed to Russey in a Freedom of Information Act request.

The district did not respond to Axios' request for more information.

Zoom out: The Texas district, like some in Virginia, uses the educational website PebbleGo Next as one of its online learning platforms for elementary-age students, per the district's website.

• PebbleGo's lesson about Virginia does, in fact, include an image of the state's flag, as well as a picture of the state seal, which also shows the breast.
• The lesson notes that the state's seal and flag depict the Roman goddess Virtus standing over a "defeated tyrant," along with the state's motto, "Sic semper tyrannis."
• That motto, the lesson tells students, means "Thus Always to Tyrants."

Google wants employees to focus on their work and not fret about the company's loss of "parts of" its online advertising monopoly case, it said in a memo to employees Thursday.

Why it matters: The court's ruling, which Google said it would appeal, could fundamentally reshape the giant's advertising business, depending on the remedies, or penalties, the judge determines.

• Advertising represents the vast majority of Google's revenue. It fuels the company's ability to invest in new technologies, like AI and cloud servers.

Zoom in: In a note to staff, Google VP of regulatory affairs Lee-Anne Mulholland said it's important for employees to"continue to focus on our users and customers by building amazing products that help people around the world."

• Google, she noted, plans to appeal the ruling, arguing it "incorrectly suggests a company like ours has a legal obligation to do business with competitors."
• "This is contrary to past Supreme Court decisions," she asserted.

Between the lines: Mulholland also sought to clarify the outcome of the case by noting that the court delivered a mixed ruling.

• "It rejected key parts of the DOJ's case," she said. "The court found our advertiser tools don't harm competition and our acquisitions of DoubleClick and AdMeld were not anticompetitive. But it agreed with the DOJ's claims about one of our publisher tools. In other words, we won half, lost the other half."

Go deeper: Here's the full text of Google's memo:

Today, a U.S. district court issued a mixed decision in our advertising technology case with the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). We asked Lee-Anne Mulholland, VP of Regulatory Affairs, for her thoughts.

Give us an overview of the court's decision today. The court delivered a mixed ruling in the DOJ's lawsuit focused on some of our ad tech. It rejected key parts of the DOJ's case: The court found our advertiser tools don't harm competition and our acquisitions of DoubleClick and AdMeld were not anticompetitive. But it agreed with the DOJ's claims about one of our publisher tools. In other words, we won half, lost the other half.

For those unfamiliar, what's the focus of this case? This case is focused on the tools we provide to advertisers and publishers for third-party display advertising on the web. While these tools are valuable for those customers, they represent a narrow part of our advertising business — separate from Search and YouTube ads. Specifically, it looked at whether some of our advertising technology — tools that connect advertisers (like retailers) and ad sellers (typically website owners) — violated antitrust law; as well as whether our acquisitions in this space were anticompetitive.

What are the next steps? On this case, there is a ways to go; this is definitely not the final word. We will next go to trial to decide the remedies in this case, and then we will appeal the decision. We believe we're strongly positioned to appeal based on established Supreme Court precedent, the facts of our case, and the findings of the court today:

• The ruling doesn't align with how the Supreme Court has previously viewed multi-sided markets like ours, which involve advertisers, publishers, platforms, and users.
• The ruling incorrectly suggests a company like ours has a legal obligation to do business with competitors. This is contrary to past Supreme Court decisions.
• The court recognized that our advertising tools operate in a competitive market, alongside major players in social media and beyond.
• The ruling found that our acquisitions in this space (DoubleClick and Admeld) did not harm competition.
• Publishers have tons of options and they choose Google because our tools are simple, affordable, and effective.

Is there anything else you want Googlers to know? There's been a lot of interest by regulators in our ad tech products around the world for many, many years so this scrutiny isn't new! We've long invested in ad tech because it goes back to our mission of making information universally accessible and useful. Ad tech helps online publishers, content creators, and bloggers make money—which in turn keeps the internet free and open to use for all of us.

We're deeply committed to providing solutions to a wide array of publishers and advertisers in a highly competitive sector. The Regulatory Affairs team will keep working to challenge this case through the appeals process. It's important for Googlers to continue to focus on our users and customers by building amazing products that help people around the world.

Former top Pentagon spokesperson John Ullyot "was asked to resign," a Defense Department official said in an emailed statement on Thursday evening.

Why it matters: Despite this announcement, Ullyot maintains he offered his resignation, telling Axios late Thursday that "DoD officials who hide behind anonymous statements clearly resent that they did not have the access or relationship to Secretary [Pete] Hegseth that I enjoyed under President Trump's leadership."

• He added in his emailed statement: "Their sour-grapes anonymous spin is as inaccurate as it is laughable." Representatives for the Pentagon did not immediately respond to a request for comment in the evening on Ullyot's statement.
• Ullyot's resignation comes during a staffing overhaul at the Pentagon that saw three politically appointed senior aides to Hegseth placed on administrative leave amidst an investigation into Defense Department leaks.

The big picture: Politico first reported on Wednesday that Ullyot would leave the Pentagon on Friday and AP first reported on Thursday's announcement and the former Pentagon press secretary's denial that he was asked to resign.

• Ullyot oversaw responses to outrage at the Defense Department's removal — and subsequent restoration — of webpages related to baseball and civil rights legend Jackie Robinson and the Navajo Code Talkers as part of a Trump administration crackdown on diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI).
• The Marine veteran also held senior roles in the first Trump administration and served in a top communications role during the president's 2016 campaign.

Read former top Pentagon spokesperson John Ullyot's resignation letter that he shared with AP, via DocumentCloud:

Editor's note: This article has been updated with comment from former Pentagon press secretary John Ullyot and further context.

Sen. Chris Van Hollen met with Kilmar Armando Ábrego García, a Maryland resident who was mistakenly deported to El Salvador, per social media posts by the country's president and the Democrat .

Why it matters: Van Hollen said he was twice denied requests to visit Ábrego García at the high-security Salvadoran prison for terrorists where the legal U.S. resident is being held as the Trump administration evades courts' orders to facilitate his release, despite conceding that he was deported in an "administrative error."

• The Trump administration has repeated unsubstantiated claims that Ábrego García is a member of the Mara Salvatrucha gang, commonly known as MS-13.
• Ábrego García has never been convicted of being a member, and the claim appears to have come from an anonymous tip that was never proven.

Driving the news: "I said my main goal of this trip was to meet with Kilmar. Tonight I had that chance," Van Hollen said in posts to his social media accounts.

• "I have called his wife, Jennifer [Vasquez Sura], to pass along his message of love. I look forward to providing a full update upon my return."

The intrigue: It was not immediately clear why El Salvador's government relented and allowed Van Hollen to meet with Ábrego García.

• Before Van Hollen posted his photo with Ábrego García, Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele posted images on X of the pair meeting.
• "Kilmar Abrego Garcia, miraculously risen from the "death camps" & "torture", now sipping margaritas with Sen. Van Hollen in the tropical paradise of El Salvador!" Bukele posted on X. "I love chess," he wrote in another post.
• Bukele also reposted supportive posts from conservative supporters.

Now that he’s been confirmed healthy, he gets the honor of staying in El Salvador’s custody 🇺🇸🤝🏼🇸🇻 https://t.co/2xVt4SNOGn

— Nayib Bukele (@nayibbukele) April 18, 2025

What they're saying: Vasquez Sura said in an emailed statement Thursday night that her family's prayers had been answered as she thanked Van Hollen for the visit.

• "The efforts of my family and community in fighting for justice are beng heard, because I now know that my husband is alive," she said. "God is listening, and the community is standing strong."

The other side: "Chris Van Hollen has firmly established Democrats as the party whose top priority is the welfare of an illegal alien MS-13 terrorist," said Kush Desai, a White House spokesperson, in a statement emailed Thursday night.

• "It is truly disgusting. President Trump will continue to stand on the side of law-abiding Americans."

Context: Ábrego García has had no communication with anyone outside Centro de Confinamiento del Terrorismo (CECOT) since he was "illegally abducted," the senator previously said at a press conference.

• "This ability to communicate with his lawyers is in violation of international law," Van Hollen said, adding that El Salvador is party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Catch up quick: The Supreme Court said last week the U.S. must "facilitate" Ábrego García's release, but the Trump administration has resisted court orders to return him.

• The Justice Department argued in legal filings that courts don't have the power to dictate specific steps to the executive branch. So, effectively, no one can initiate this process.

Zoom out: Ábrego García's wife defended him Wednesday after the U.S. Department of Homeland Security posted on X a temporary protective order she filed against him in 2021.

• Vasquez Sura said in a statement that she "acted out of caution after a disagreement with Kilmar by seeking a civil protective order" after "surviving domestic violence in a previous relationship."
• "Things did not escalate, and I decided not to follow through with the civil court process."

The Department of Homeland Security posted on X on Wednesday the protective order Vasquez Sura filed in 2021.

• "According to court filings, Garcia's wife sought a domestic violence restraining order against him, claiming he punched, scratched, and ripped off her shirt, among other harm," officials wrote in the post.

Go deeper: Timeline: The case of a Maryland man mistakenly deported to El Salvador

Editor's note: This article has been updated with new details throughout.

The Trump administration must work to return a wrongly deported Maryland man, a federal appeals court said Thursday, rejecting a request to block a lower court's order requiring his return.

The big picture: The administration is resisting court orders to return Kilmar Armando Ábrego García from a notorious Salvadorian prison, despite conceding that the legal U.S. resident was deported in an "administrative error."

• The U.S. government has accused Ábrego García, a Salvadorian national legally living in Maryland, of being a member of the MS-13 gang. He has not been charged with gang-related crimes.

Driving the news: The unanimous ruling from the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals upholds U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis' decisions outlining the next steps for Ábrego García's return.

• "The government is asserting a right to stash away residents of this country in foreign prisons without the semblance of due process that is the foundation of our constitutional order," the ruling said.
• "While we fully respect the Executive's robust assertion of its Article II powers, we shall not micromanage the efforts of a fine district judge attempting to implement the Supreme Court's recent decision," the order states.

Context: Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem had asked the appeals court to temporarily halt enforcement of a lower court's orders requiring Ábrego García's return.

• The Trump administration has argued that courts don't have the power to dictate specific steps to the executive branch — so, effectively, no one can initiate the process to return Ábrego García.
• The Supreme Court ruled last week that the U.S. must "facilitate" his release. But the Trump administration argued that simply means if El Salvador asks to send him back, the U.S. has to help.
• "'Facilitate' is an active verb. It requires that steps be taken as the Supreme Court has made perfectly clear," the appeals court said.
• El Salvador President Nayib Bukele said he can't return Ábrego García to the U.S., nor will he release him within El Salvador.

Zoom in: "The federal courts do not have the authority to press-gang the President or his agents into taking any particular act of diplomacy," the government argued in its filing to the appeals court.

• Rather, they argued, the courts only have the authority to order the executive branch to "facilitate" a return.
• "As that term has long been understood and applied, that means the Executive must remove any domestic barriers to the alien's return; it does not, and constitutionally cannot, involve a directive to take any act upon a foreign nation," the filing said.

More from Axios:

• Timeline: The case of a Maryland man mistakenly deported to El Salvador
• Senator again denied entry to El Salvador prison to visit mistakenly deported man
• Judge in deportation case threatens Trump admin with contempt of court
• Mistakenly deported man will be removed from U.S. if he manages to return: DOJ

The Trump administration threatened to revoke Harvard University's eligibility to host foreign students, tightening its squeeze on the school after campus leadership refused to cave in to its demands.

The big picture: The heightened pressure comes after the Trump administration cut $2.2 billion in grants and $60 million in contracts to the university amid a broader campaign against elite higher education institutions.

• Trump said earlier this week that Harvard should lose its tax exempt status, accusing the Ivy League school of pushing politics and ideology.

Driving the news: Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem warned Harvard that its certification to enroll foreign students is "contingent upon" it complying with federal immigration rules, in a Wednesday letter to the university obtained by the New York Times.

• Noem wrote, "It is a privilege to have foreign students attend Harvard University, not a guarantee," and accused the university of creating "a hostile learning environment" for Jewish students.
• U.S. schools that host international students must be certified by the federal Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP).

If the school fails to respond to record requests she made concerning student visa holders by April 30, "SEVP will automatically withdraw the school's certification," Noem wrote, noting the withdrawal will not be subject to appeal.

• Noem demanded information on student visa holders' known "illegal activity," "dangerous or violent activity" and "known threats to other students or university personnel," among other data.
• She also sought information "regarding each student visa holder's maintenance of at least the minimum required coursework to maintain nonimmigrant student status."

What they're saying: A Harvard spokesperson confirmed in a statement to Axios that the university is aware of the DHS letter.

• The letter, coupled with other actions against the school, "follows on the heels of our statement that Harvard will not surrender its independence or relinquish its constitutional rights," the spokesperson said. "We continue to stand by that statement."

Zoom out: In a Wednesday release announcing Noem's "scathing letter demanding detailed records on Harvard's foreign student visa holders' illegal and violent activities," DHS also said it revoked two grants totaling over $2.7 million to Harvard.

Catch up quick: Other American higher education institutions have complied with Trump administration demands in recent weeks.

• But Harvard's president, Alan Garber, turned the administration down, saying Harvard is committed to fighting antisemitism but that no government should stifle academic freedom.
• In its Friday letter to Harvard, the Trump administration outlined a series of demands, which included reforming governance and leadership, shuttering DEI offices and adjusting international admissions to "prevent admitting students hostile to the American values and institutions."

Go deeper: Trump's pressure campaign against universities hits a Harvard-sized snag

Luigi Mangione was indicted by a New York grand jury Thursday on four federal charges, including murder through the use of a firearm, which could make him eligible for the death penalty.

The big picture: Mangione is facing both federal and state charges in connection to the killing of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson last year. Attorney General Pam Bondi earlier this month directed the Justice Department to seek the death penalty in the case.

Driving the news: Mangione is charged in the federal indictment with two counts of stalking, one count of murder through use of a firearm and one count of a firearms offense.

• A federal complaint against Mangione was unsealed in December but he had not been indicted on those charges until Thursday.

Zoom in: Mangione has pleaded not guilty to murder and terrorism charges in New York.

• He faces the federal charges of murder and stalking, but has yet to enter a plea.

Context: Thompson was shot and killed on the morning of Dec. 4 outside a midtown Manhattan hotel while in the city for a UnitedHealthcare investor meeting.

• Mangione was arrested in December at a McDonald's in Altoona, Pennsylvania, on separate charges after a manhunt following Thompson's killing in New York.
• His attorney is pushing to have those firearms and forgery charges dismissed.

Editor's note: This is a breaking news story. Please check back for updates.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average fell 527 points on Thursday, despite the fact that 20 of its 30 components actually rose in price. The culprit: UnitedHealth Group, whose $131 fall was singlehandedly responsible for an 805-point decline.

Why it matters: A single highly-priced stock, if it falls far enough, can now create a greater point drop in the Dow than the 508-point plunge that triggered panicked headlines around the world in 1987.

Follow the money: S&P Dow Jones Indices confirmed to Axios that the fall on Thursday represents the largest point impact for the DJIA on record.

Between the lines: The Dow is a weird beast, being an average and not an index. As such, a stock like UnitedHealth, which trades for more than $400 per share, has a significantly higher weighting than much more valuable companies like Apple or Nvidia.

The bottom line: If you care about what the stock market did Thursday, look to the S&P 500 (+0.1%) — and not to the Dow (-1.3%).

At least two Republican House members and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem have toured the same Salvadoran prison that turned away a Senate Democrat seeking to speak with a mistakenly deported constituent.

Why it matters: CECOT in Tecoluca, El Salvador, has become the symbol of President Trump's immigration crackdown after he sent hundreds of Venezuelan immigrants there with little or no due process.

• Trump has repeatedly raised the prospect of sending American citizens to prisons in El Salvador, recently telling President Nayib Bukele to "build about five more places" during an Oval Office visit.

What we're watching: Democrats in both chambers of Congress are working to organize delegations to El Salvador, including Reps. Delia Ramirez (D-Ill.), Robert Garcia (D-Calif.) and Maxwell Frost (D-Fla.) and Sen Cory Booker (D-N.J.).

• "Given that the Administration's use of CECOT for illegal and unconstitutional deportations is rife with 'administrative errors' ... I urgently request a CODEL to conduct oversight," Ramirez wrote on Wednesday.

Yes, but: House Republican committee chairs have refused to authorize Democrats' requests to lead official congressional delegations to El Salvador.

• House Homeland Security Committee chair Mark Green (R-Tenn.) said he wouldn't grant Ramirez's request.

Van Hollen tries to contact Ábrego García

Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) said on Wednesday and Thursday his requests to see or speak to Kilmar Ábrego García, his mistakenly deported constituent, were denied.

• Ábrego García was deported to El Salvador in what the Trump administration later said was an "administrative error."
• The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that Trump must "facilitate" Ábrego García's return, but Bukele said he wouldn't return or release him.

Context: Bukele in 2022 ordered the prison be built as part of a response to surging gang violence in El Salvador, per NPR.

• Each cell can fit 65 to 70 prisoners, and the prison has a capacity of 40,000 inmates.
• The deported Venezuelan migrants are living in the same conditions as convicted gangsters, prison director Belarmino García told CNN.
• Visitation, recreation and education are not typically allowed the terrorism confinement center.

Republican politicians at CECOT

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem visited the prison in March.

• "If you come to our country illegally, this is one of the consequences you could face," Noem said in a video standing in front of a packed cell of prisoners.

Rep. Jason Smith (R-Mo.) on Tuesday shared photos of himself at the prison.

• In a statement, he praised President Trump for the deportations and detentions.

Rep. Riley Moore (R-W. Va.) similarly shared photos on Tuesday, including one of him standing in front of a cell posing with thumbs up.

• "I leave now even more determined to support President Trump's efforts to secure our homeland" he wrote on X.

Five other GOP members visited El Salvador, per a photo shared by the U.S. Embassy in El Salvador. However, it doesn't say whether they visited the prison.

• Those lawmakers are Reps. Claudia Tenney (NY), Mike Kennedy (Utah), Carol Miller (W. Va.), Ron Estes (Kansas) and Kevin Hern (Okla.), per journalist Marisa Kabas.
• A spokesperson for Miller did not respond to direct questions about the trip. The other representatives' offices did not immediately respond to Axios' request for comment.
• The embassy's post, written in Spanish, said the delegation was "visiting the country to strengthen bilateral ties and discuss initiatives that promote economic development and mutual cooperation."

Go deeper:

• Inside Democrats' scramble to travel to El Salvador
• Timeline: The case of a Maryland man mistakenly deported to El Salvador

House Republican committee chairs are refusing to authorize Democrats' requests to lead official congressional delegations to El Salvador, Axios has learned.

Why it matters: Democrats want to go to the Centro de Confinamiento del Terrorismo to visit Kilmar Abrego Garcia, an erroneously deported Maryland man who the Supreme Court has ordered returned to the U.S.

• Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), who was able to go on an official CODEL to the country, said he was denied access to CECOT by El Salvadorian officials.

Driving the news: House Homeland Security Committee chair Mark Green (R-Tenn.) said in a statement he will not grant Rep. Delia Ramirez's (D-Ill.) request to lead an official CODEL.

• "If Democrats care so much about defending this individual, they can use their own personal credit cards—not taxpayers' money—to virtue-signal to their radical base," he said in a statement.
• Reps. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.) and Maxwell Frost (D-Fla.), who made the same request of Oversight Committee chair James Comer (R-Ky.), have not received a response, a source familiar with the matter told Axios.
• A spokesperson for Comer did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The intrigue: Reps. Jason Smith (R-Mo.) and Riley Moore (R-W.Va.) both posted photos on social media of themselves at CECOT this week.

• They were there as part of a CODEL led by Smith, the chair of the House Ways and Means Committee, a source familiar with the matter told Axios.
• Both Republicans expressed support for President Trump's deportation policies, with Moore saying he left the prison "even more determined to support President Trump's efforts to secure our homeland."
• Smith's office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

What to watch: Garcia previously signaled to Axios that he and Frost may go ahead with an informal trip without Comer's sign-off, though a CODEL would afford more investigative resources and security.

• Another House Democrat hoping to travel to El Salvador told Axios that he may try to join the trip Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) is planning.
• "If Cory Booker's going and he's official — going with someone who's official would be the best way to go," the lawmaker said.

President Trump's trade war is inspiring the latest TikTok trend — Chinese manufacturers encouraging shoppers to buy direct and pay less.

Why it matters: The trend highlights American consumers' desperation to avoid massive price increases on Chinese-made goods as Trump's tariffs take effect.

• The idea is that, tariffs or not, Western brands are applying big price markups when they add their labels to goods manufactured cheaply in China.
• That realization is fueling discourse on TikTok that what consumers are really buying is the brand name.

What's happening: Chinese manufacturers and influencers are taking American buyers inside warehouses where they say popular products are made.

• This viral post from @mr.loong.laundrypods shows viewers inside a laundry detergent pod factory and claims that each pod is only five cents.
• Another viral post from @lunasourcingchina claims that pricey leggings made for Lululemon are "five to six bucks" when they come straight from the factory.

However, a number of companies including Lululemon have pushed back against these videos, claiming they're not showing authentic products.

• Even if the products are real, it's often unclear from the videos how to make a purchase.

Reality check: As attractive as it might sound to avoid markups, it's often not advisable or not possible to buy directly from Chinese factories.

• The Washington Post reports that buying products directly from Chinese manufacturers — which generally ship in bulk — is likely to be challenging if not impossible, particularly at the low per-unit prices that retail chains pay.
• Other potential obstacles include communicating with customer service and avoiding scammers.
• Instead of attempting to buy directly from manufacturers, some American shoppers are seeking out Chinese apps like DHgate or Taobao to get cheap dupes of brand name products.

The intrigue: These creators are using a Chinese app to openly mock Trump's tariffs on China, all while the president continues to save TikTok from being banned.

The bottom line: Even if you can figure out how to buy straight from the source, it's unlikely to save you from the tariffs.