Justice Samuel Alito spoke with President-elect Trump the day before the Republican leader's lawyers asked the Supreme Court to halt Friday's sentencing in his New York hush money case, the judge confirmed Wednesday.
What they're saying: Alito said in a statement first reported by ABC News that he agreed to take the call from Trump on Tuesday afternoon after his former clerk William Levi asked him to recommend him for a job in the incoming administration.
"We did not discuss the emergency application he filed today, and indeed, I was not even aware at the time of our conversation that such an application would be filed," Alito said.
"We also did not discuss any other matter that is pending or might in the future come before the Supreme Court or any past Supreme Court decisions involving the President-elect."
Why it matters: It's not unusual for justices to give job recommendations for former clerks, but the timing of the call, hours before the filing of an appeal against the conviction of what would be the first-ever criminal sentencing of a living president, drew criticism from advocates who've campaigned for more transparency in courts and raised ethics concerns.
What they're saying: Gabe Roth, executive director of the advocacy group Fix the Court, called the call "an unmistakable breach of protocol," per AP.
"No person, no matter who they are, should engage in out-of-court communication with a judge or justice who's considering that person's case."
Roth told the New York Times what made the call particularly problematic was recent ethical issues concerning the Supreme Court and especially Alito.
The other side: Carrie Severino, president of the conservative advocacy group JCN, on X called the reaction to Alito's call "the newest manufactured 'ethics' scandal over a simple reference check."
She added, "The Left is once again making up fake ethics rules as a way to smear a justice who they despise for authoring the Dobbs opinion and faithfully following the Constitution" — in reference to the Supreme Court's majority decision to overturn Roe v Wade and end federal abortion protections.
Representatives for Trump and the Supreme Court did not immediately respond to Axios' request for comment in the evening.
Two of the most powerful labor groups in the country are teaming up, with the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) rejoining the AFL-CIO after nearly 20 years apart.
Why it matters: Organized labor is consolidating power ahead of Donald Trump's return to office.
Where it stands: SEIU's 2 million workers will join 12.5 million represented by the AFL-CIO.
"We think we will be more powerful than ever as joint forces," AFL-CIO president Liz Shuler told Axios Wednesday afternoon.
This reunion has been in the works for nearly two years, SEIU president April Verrett said. The aim was to build enough power to organize workers and push for pro-labor policies.
"It's not a reaction to, or a statement about, Trump," she added. But with his return to the White House it is "an affirmation that we're doing the right thing and that now is the time."
Zoom in: SEIU represents many low-wage workers across its three branches — public sector employees, healthcare workers and those in building services (like janitors).
Many are immigrants, including some who are undocumented and at risk under Trump's proposed deportation policies.
"It's not just our undocumented or our immigrant workers that are worried about what a Trump administration can bring," says Verrett.
There are other issues. About half the union's members depend on Medicaid, she said. Republicans have reportedly been considering cuts to the health insurance program to pay for an extension of the 2017 tax cuts.
Zoom out: The AFL-CIO is a huge federation of unions that includes all kinds of workers, from screen actors to teachers to miners. The organization provides policy and politics support to its affiliates — so they can focus on organizing and bargaining.
Flashback: SEIU split off from the group 20 years ago, as the service sector was becoming a bigger part of the economy. The unions' leaders had a pretty tense break-up. (The Teamsters also left the AFL-CIO at the time and haven't come back.)
At the time, Democrats and union officials worried the schism would weaken the labor movement.
Though unions have seen a resurgence recently — and SEIU has had some big success, with Fight for 15 in particular — organized labor's power has diminished over the decades.
The share of the workforce that is unionized is at historic lows.
"This [reunion] means a more unified labor movement," says Patricia Campos-Medina, a former union organizer who is now executive director at Cornell's Worker Institute.
The big picture: During his campaign, Trump positioned himself as an ally to workers. Teamsters president Sean O'Brien spoke at the Republican National Convention, and he's had some influence on the transition team.
But both Shuler and Verrett were vocal supporters of vice president Kamala Harris.
"SEIU would probably have benefitted from a Harris victory, and probably feels more threatened by a Trump administration than most other unions," says John Logan, a labor historian at San Francisco State University.
Most union observers worry that the second Trump administration will follow the same sort of anti-labor roadmap as the first.
What's next: The unions will formally announce the move on Thursday afternoon in advance of a civil rights event in Austin.
Editor's Note: The headlines of this story have been updated to reflect details on the combination.
Fresh off their bruising 2024 losses, Democrats seem to more willing to engage with Republican legislation on issues like immigration and Israel.
Why it matters: The dynamic is putting some "messaging bills" that House Republicans passed in the previous Congress on a path to actually becoming law.
The Laken Riley Act is picking up votes from Senate Democrats needed to overcome the 60-vote filibuster threshold.
The bill would require the detention of undocumented immigrants arrested on theft-related charges and allow states to sue the federal government over crimes committed by immigrants.
The legislation received 48 Democratic votes in the House on Wednesday, up from 37 when it was voted on last year. Seven Democrats who previously voted against it flipped to voting for it this week.
What they're saying: "You know, some of us have been talking about this for years," Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-Texas) told Axios. He's a centrist, border-district Democrat who voted both times for the bill.
"I think after people saw what happened with the election, you definitely are seeing more people realize that what happens at the border is very important to the voters," Cuellar said.
Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.), who is co-sponsoring the bill in the Senate, said Wednesday in a Fox News interview that if the bill can't get the seven Democratic votes it needs to pass the Senate, "that's a reason why we lost."
Yes, but: The election results were not the only factor that drove increased Democratic support for the bill.
One House Democrat, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said some votes flipped because it "was not the same bill as last year" with the removal of language hammering the Biden administration for its immigration policy.
Rep. Brendan Boyle (D-Pa.), a staunch Biden ally, cited that as the reason for him changing his vote.
Still, the lawmaker who spoke anonymously also acknowledged: "Clearly the election will have some impact on how members see the world."
Zoom in: That dynamic could play out with a bill to sanction the International Criminal Court for issuing arrest warrants against Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and Defense Minister Yoav Gallant.
Several House Democrats told Axios it is possible the bill could get more Democratic votes than the 42 it received when it passed the House last June.
Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-Fla.) said there are "similar learning lessons for the Democratic Party" with each bill, noting that Democrats took a beating on Israel last year.
"I think there will be Democrats that will look at it differently now," he said. "If you're asking people to take a side between Israel and the ICC, I think there will be more people than maybe previously that will vote for this."
The bottom line: "These message bills are hard, because the people at home believe the title and don't understand what's in them," said one senior House Democrat.
"These are wedge issues, and we've got to really think about them ... it's all very complicated."
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) is privately pressing his senators to create fireworks when they question President-elect Trump's nominees in the coming weeks, Axios has learned.
Why it matters: "Republicans spent four years attacking the Democratic brand and we need to use the hearings to begin returning the favor," Schumer told his top committee Democrats in a meeting on Wednesday afternoon.
Schumer told the Democratic caucus in a lunch on Tuesday that they should grill Trump nominees on the MAGA agenda, and what they say it means for the American people.
The big picture: Schumer reminded senators that they have an opportunity to seize the narrative from a GOP that is convinced the public is on its side on the economy, the border and cultural issues.
The combative strategy is also an indication that Schumer has decided that there's more political upside in challenging the MAGA movement than finding common ground with it.
What to watch: Expect Democrats to zero in on some of Trump's most high profile nominees as they come through the Senate over the next few weeks.
That includes the likes of Pete Hegseth, Trump's pick to lead the Pentagon, and RFK Jr., the GOP nominee for HHS.
President-elect Trump is leaving the rest of his GOP trifecta hanging on their reconciliation stalemate.
Why it matters: Republican leaders on both sides of the Capitol have no interest in going against Trump. He has the power to quickly end this debate, but that's no closer after Wednesday's meeting with the Senate GOP.
Trump pitched the idea of a single "beautiful bill," Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) told reporters after the meeting. That's where the momentum is headed, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) said.
"[H]e heard from us that and from our leader that a two-bill strategy is very much still very interested in," Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) told reporters.
But Trump keeps making it clear: He really doesn't care about the process.
That apparent indifference on this key question will force the House and Senate to attempt to resolve their differences among themselves.
Inside the room: Trump went over some of his early executive order plans, two sources in the room told Axios.
Stephen Miller walked through the Day 1 immigration orders in detail, three sources told Axios.
About a dozen senators spoke during the meeting, with Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) giving the most passionate defense of the two-bill strategy, two sources told Axios.
Trump invited the senators and their spouses to Mar-a-Lago, but didn't name a date, two sources told us. Axios scooped his plans for a Senate bash last night.
The bottom line: If the one bill versus two question is hard, agreeing to a topline number should be a real treat.
P.S. Top Trump campaign staffer Alex Latcham will be executive director of the Senate Leadership Fund, with former Sen. Cory Gardner serving as CEO and chairman of the board, Axios scooped on Wednesday.
The multitrillion-dollar bond market is sending a message to President-elect Trump and the new Congress: There is no fiscal free lunch to be had.
Why it matters: A surge in longer-term borrowing costs over the last couple of months may reflect deepening concern about high fiscal deficits among global investors who buy U.S. government debt.
Regardless of the cause, it implies that as Republicans seek to extend Trump's tax cuts beyond this year, markets will pressure them to find spending cuts or other deficit-reducing offsets.
Driving the news: The yield on 10-year U.S. Treasury notes reached 4.71% Wednesday morning, up from 3.62% in mid-September.
Bloomberg cites evidence from futures markets that traders are positioning themselves for protection if rates were to rise further, to north of 5%.
The intrigue: This upward shift in longer-term rates has come despite a full percentage point of Fed interest rate cuts since September — with most Fed officials expecting a couple more rate cuts this year.
It is a reminder that while the Fed controls short-term interest rates, longer-term rates are set in the bond market based on the outlook for inflation, growth, deficits and more.
The details of why long-term rates are on the rise are important. This surge in rates has mostly not been driven by a changing inflation outlook, at least based on the relative prices of inflation-protected bonds.
What appears to be happening is a rise in the "term premium," the compensation investors demand for the risk of buying longer-term debt.
State of play: It is impossible to know for sure why the term premium moves as it does, and technical factors around supply and demand for bonds are likely in play. But investor wariness of looming deficits is a textbook reason.
Asked about the rise in yields at an event in Paris this morning, Fed governor Christopher Waller noted "more and more attention, concern about fiscal deficits."
Waller also affirmed that he expects further Fed rate cuts to be justified this year, and said he doesn't expect tariffs to have a "significant or persistent effect on inflation."
What they're saying: "The market is telling us something, and it is very important for investors to have a view on why long rates are going up when the Fed is cutting," writes Apollo's Torsten Slok, noting it is a "highly unusual" situation.
Between the lines: Regardless of exactly why yields have surged, the fact that they have points to a very different macroeconomic environment than the nation faced eight years ago, when Republicans passed sweeping tax cuts in the first Trump term.
In January 2017, the 10-year yield was a mere 2.4%.
Borrowing costs are now meaningfully higher than forecast in the Congressional Budget Office's most recent projections. CBO's June budget forecasts assumed the 10-year yield would be 4.1% in 2025 and lower thereafter.
The bottom line: With rates higher, any given deficit-expanding policy will come at a higher cost — in terms of interest expense and higher rates — than it did when Trump was last in the Oval Office.
Federal Reserve officials are worried that President-elect Trump's trade and immigration policies will stoke inflation, according to minutes from their latest policy meeting released on Wednesday.
Why it matters: Higher tariffs and mass deportations could make America's bumpy battle against inflation more difficult. In that scenario, the Fed could keep interest rates higher for longer — and put the central bank on a collision course with Trump.
What they're saying: Fed officials agreed during a two-day policy meeting last month that inflation would continue to decline toward its 2% target. But the process might take longer than previously thought.
Progress in bringing inflation down has already stalled and Trump's policies look more inflationary than not.
"As reasons for this judgment, participants cited recent stronger-than-expected readings on inflation and the likely effects of potential changes in trade and immigration policy," the minutes say.
Officials also said supply chain disruptions from geopolitical events, strong consumer spending and quicker home price increases were other potential reasons why inflation might be harder to beat.
The big picture: The Fed lowered interest rates by a quarter percentage point at the end of its Dec. 17-18 meeting. But new economic projections released alongside that decision showed the median Fed official expected just two rate cuts in 2025 — half as many as anticipated just three months earlier.
The projections also showed higher inflation for a longer period than previously thought. At a press conference, Fed chair Jerome Powell told reporters that some officials had factored potential impacts from Trump's policies into those projections.
The minutes released on Wednesday don't mention Trump by name, but they do show the extent to which officials fretted over the upside risks to inflation — even as details about potential trade and immigration policies remain fuzzy.
All Fed officials agreed that "uncertainty about the scope, timing, and economic effects of potential changes in policies affecting foreign trade and immigration was elevated."
Notably, a few officials said it could be hard to assess whether any upward pressure on inflation will be fleeting or stick around.
"[I]t might be difficult to distinguish more persistent influences on inflation from potentially temporary ones, such as those stemming from changes in trade policy that could lead to shifts in the level of prices," the minutes show.
The other side: One Fed governor, Christopher Waller, said in a speech on Wednesday that he expects further rate cuts in 2025 and that tariffs wouldn't notably stoke inflation.
"If, as I expect, tariffs do not have a significant or persistent effect on inflation, they are unlikely to affect my view of appropriate monetary policy," Waller said.
The bottom line: Trump said interest rates were too high at a press conference on Tuesday — reminiscent of his Fed criticism during his first term.
No one knows how Trump's policies will weigh on the economy. For now, inflation is no longer on the back-burner for the Fed as it was when the central bank first started cutting rates.
Why it matters: The response, using a troubled history of the U.S.-Mexican War in 1846-8, signaled that the Sheinbaum administration would not be intimidated by Trump's antics and threats.
The big picture: Sheinbaum's playful reaction came as Mexico has sent serious messages that it will defend the human rights of Mexicans in the U.S. who may be abused during Trump's planned mass deportations.
Other Latin American leaders such as Panamanian President José Raúl Mulino have also rebuked Trump for social media posts about the Panama Canal and migration.
Zoom in: During a press conference Wednesday, Sheinbaum stood in front of a 1607 map showing the territory of northern Mexico and part of the present-day United States mixed together.
Sheinbaum said without prompting from reporters that the joint region that used to belong to Mexico should be called "América Mexicana," or "Mexican America."
"Why don't we call it "Mexican America?" It sounds nice, right? Since 1607, the Constitution of Apatzingán was of Mexican America. So, let's call it that."
Context: Trump said during Tuesday's press conference that the Gulf of America "has a beautiful ring."
His remarks, which raise questions about how the renaming process would work, are the latest example of Trump flexing his power on the global stage before he takes office.
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) later said she plans to introduce legislation renaming the Gulf of Mexico the "Gulf of America."
Yes, but: Sheinbaum said that the Gulf of Mexico is registered by international institutions, and many countries recognize its name.
She asked José Alfonso Suárez del Real, a historian and political advisor, to explain the origins of the name Gulf of Mexico.
"Between Florida and Yucatán, the Mexican Gulf is recognized as a fundamental nautical point for navigation from the 17th century onwards," he said.
The historian also pointed out that the name "Mexican America" existed before the first group of British colonists arrived in present-day Virginia.
Flashback: Much of the present-day American Southwest and West used to be territory under New Spain and later Mexico until the U.S. invaded in 1846 to seek more land for slavery.
The 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo — which ended the U.S.-Mexico War — greatly expanded U.S. territory and made unkept promises to its new Mexican American citizens.
They instead faced racial discrimination and racial violence and have for decades used the treaty as a tool to seek civil rights.
The intrigue: Some conservatives and white supremacists have promoted the "reconquista theory," claiming Mexican Americans wanted California, New Mexico and other swaths of the region to be given to Mexico.
They have equated migration from Mexico to "an invasion," which is what Trump also has repeated.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has launched a new multimedia campaign in southern border states highlighting the stories of asylum seekers who have fled Mexico, El Salvador and Cameroon.
Why it matters: Immigrant rights and civil liberties groups are preparing a public relations and court challenge blitz ahead of President-elect Trump'smass deportation plan in hopes of slowing down immigrant removals.
The ACLU — the nation's largest civil liberties organization — has the reach to mobilize activists, with chapters in many states and the ability to rally less-funded grassroots groups.
Protests could put pressure on Democratic-controlled states and cities to refuse to assist the Trump administration's mass deportation push.
Driving the news: The ACLU'sBorder Humanity Project unveiled Tuesday its "Letters to America" campaign that uses the voices and images of immigrants who have escaped violence in their former countries.
A video previewed by Axios shows an immigrant mother telling her story by reading a letter to the U.S. public, ending with pleas not to force her and her daughter to return to a violent village overrun by gangs.
The video spots will run on digital sites in California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas.
Jonathan Blazer, director of border strategies at the ACLU, tells Axios the campaign seeks to humanize immigrants beyond the caricatures and stereotypes politicians use.
"There've been falsehoods and lies that are most easily dispelled when you actually meet and hear directly from people about their stories and why they come," he said.
Blazer says the immigrants tell Americans they were not coming to cause harm but to contribute and give back.
State of play: Trump has repeatedly and falsely blamed the jump in violent crime during the pandemic on immigrants.
He and his surrogates have said mass deportations will begin with removing immigrants with the most violent criminal past — something the Biden administration is already doing.
The newly installed House on Tuesday passed the Laken Riley Act, which would require the detention of undocumented immigrants arrested for certain non-violent crimes such as theft.
Reality check: Less than 0.5% of the 1.8 million cases in immigration courts during the past fiscal year — involving about 8,400 people — included deportation orders for alleged crimes other than entering the U.S. illegally, an Axios review of government data found.
Immigrants arrested for homicides also accounted for less than 1% of "at-large" arrests by Immigration and Customs Enforcement over the last six years, another Axios review found.
New data released last month by the Brookings Institution suggests that the homicide surge of 2020 was primarily driven by men and teen boys who were either laid off or saw their schools close during pandemic shutdowns.
The intrigue: The ACLU last month released details of its "Firewall for Freedom" initiative, which advises cities, states, and district attorneys on how they can limit collaboration with federal immigration authorities.
The plan suggests that governors and legislatures can protect immigrant communities through legal assistance funds, pardon processes and new laws.
The bottom line: The federal government can't enact any large-scale deportation of an estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants without the cooperation of state and local law enforcement.
To get that support, the incoming Trump administration will need broad public backing in blue states like New Mexico and California and major blue cities like Los Angeles and Houston.
Attorney General Merrick Garland in a court filing on Wednesday said the Justice Department plans to release publicly special counsel Jack Smith's findings on Donald Trump's alleged efforts to subvert 2020 election results.
Why it matters: Trump's federal 2020 election case was dropped after his presidential victory, and he has relentlessly fought any effort to release information about the investigation's findings.
Garland in the Wednesday court filing said that the department will not release the investigation into Trump's handling of classified documents, as to "avoid any risk of prejudice" to Trump's co-defendants in the case, Walt Nauta and Carlos De Oliveira, whose cases are still pending.
Garland said that "for the time being," the report over Trump and his co-defendants' handling of classified documents will be "made available for in camera review" by the chair and ranking members of House and Senate Judiciary Committees.
Editor's note: This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.
President-elect Trump is asking the Supreme Court to halt Friday's sentencing in his New York hush money case, according to a new court filing.
Why it matters: If the high court intervenes, it could hand Trump another legal win by delaying the hearing or blocking the lower court from proceeding with levying a punishment for his historic felony conviction.
Catch up quick: Trump's legal team made the request to the Supreme Court after Judge Juan Merchan denied his latest bid to halt his sentencing. An appeals judge rejected his request to dismiss his conviction, as well.
Merchan has said he does not intend to sentence Trump to jail time — but the president-elect's legal team is demanding to have his sentencing stopped altogether.
Trump is scheduled to be sentenced just days before his presidential inauguration.
Editor's note: This is a breaking news story. Check back for updates.
Tens of thousands of people evacuated, some having run on foot to flee oncoming flames.
The big picture: The wildfires are the result of an unheard-of combination of factors at this time of year — the worst high wind event in Southern California since 2011, plus some of the driest conditions on record for early January.
Downtown LA has received just 0.16 inches of rain since May 6 of last year, making it the second-driest period on record for May 6 to Dec 31, according to the National Weather Service.
January is typically during the region's wet season.
Bone-dry conditions in Southern California contrast with the northern parts of the state, where atmospheric rivers have squelched fire risks.
Even worse, the region had an unusually hot summer that dried out vegetation even further.
Whipped by powerful Santa Ana winds gusting up to 99 mph, particularly in hilly terrain, the fires forced chaotic evacuations in parts of the area, particularly related to the Palisades Fire.
High winds are affecting the wildfires, with gusts of 50 to 70 mph and higher in some lower elevations. Burbank Airport, for example, gusted to 84 mph.
Near the Palisades Fire, winds have reached 98 mph, with 90 mph winds not far from the Eaton Fire near Altadena, Calif.
UCLA climate scientist Daniel Swain referred to the high winds as an "atmospheric blow dryer" for its effects on trees and other vegetation.
Context: Climate change is intensifying hydroclimate extremes, both wet and dry, including weather whiplash events where California see-saws between the two.
With dry conditions lasting later into the fall, that means Southern California is more vulnerable to dry high wind events, Swain noted.
"Climate change is increasing the overlap between extremely dry vegetation conditions later in the season and the occurrence of these wind events," he said in an online briefing.
What they're saying: Alex Hall, also with UCLA, said the hydroclimate situation plus the strong winds have suddenly created a precarious situation.
"Southern California has experienced a particularly hot summer, followed by almost no precipitation during what is normally our wet season," he said.
"And all of this comes on the heels of two very rainy years, which means there is plenty of fuel for potential wildfires."
What's next: More wind-driven wildfires may yet erupt before this event is over.
President Biden insisted in a new interview out Wednesday that he could have beaten President-elect Trump in the 2024 election, even as he admitted he was unsure that he had the stamina for another term.
Why it matters: Since Democrats' defeat, Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris' teams have reportedly blamed each other for the outcome.
Many Democrats have expressed anger at Biden's decision to seek reelection initially despite polls showing voters across the political spectrum expressing concerns about his age.
What he's saying: "It's presumptuous to say that, but I think yes," Biden told USA Today when asked if he believed he could have won.
Biden added that his belief was based on polling he had seen.
However, Biden was more circumspect when asked if he had the vigor to serve another four years in office, admitting: "I don't know."
"Who the hell knows? So far, so good. But who knows what I'm going to be when I'm 86 years old?" the president added in the interview, which was conducted Sunday.
Flashback: Biden has been defiant about his decision to drop out of the race.
Zoom out: Biden covered a wide range of topics in his USA Today interview, including the fact that he is still considering whether to issue preemptive pardons for figures like former Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) and former health adviser Anthony Fauci, whom could be targeted by Trump.
Biden said the decision would come down to who Trump appoints to key administration roles, but noted that he had urged Trump during their Oval Office meeting to not "go back and try to settle scores."
Trump, he added, had complimented some of the Biden administration's economic achievements. "He thought I was leaving with a good record," Biden said.
Data: Esgauge, Conference Board. Note: Includes proposals for employer information report disclosures and diversity in workplace, board and executive. Chart: Axios Visuals
Anti-DEI shareholder proposals have surged over the past few years.
Why it matters: These measures are a somewhat obscure but important piece of the pushback against corporate diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) efforts — programs meant to broaden a company's hiring pool of candidates and make employees from different backgrounds feel more welcome.
The big picture: Corporate diversity efforts are quickly falling out of fashion, especially as President-elect Trump heads back to the White House.
Companies, like Meta, that used to tout their diversity efforts are now rapidly running away from them.
Zoom in: Anti-DEIproposals typically ask public firms to scrutinize their DEI policies to see if they pose legal, financial or reputation risks.
There were 13 anti-DEI proposals at Russell 3000 firms last year, according to research provided to Axios by yhe Conference Board.
The number of anti-DEI proposals is still a fraction of the pro-DEI proposals, but has more than tripled since 2020.
The companies targeted were biggies like Alphabet, Apple, Coca-Cola, Starbucks and Boeing, which dismantled its DEI department last year.
Their opposition got a huge boost in 2023, after the Supreme Court overturned affirmative action at the university level.
After the ruling came down, scrutiny of company programs grew, and some groups began filing lawsuits against corporations for, effectively, discriminating against white people in hiring.
Of 70 senior executives recently surveyed by the Conference Board, 69% said the ruling negatively affected their DEI efforts.
State of play: Over the holidays, Costco grabbed headlines when it put out a robust defense of its DEI efforts, in response to one of these proposals from a conservative think tank called the National Center for Public Policy Research.
"Our efforts at diversity, equity and inclusion remind and reinforce with everyone at our Company the importance of creating opportunities for all," Costco's board of directors wrote.
"We believe that these efforts enhance our capacity to attract and retain employees who will help our business succeed."
The other side:Stefan Padfield, executive director of the Free Enterprise Project, part of the group that filed the Costco proposal, claimed the company's DEI program institutionalizes racism.
He called Costco's diversity efforts "neo-racism."
Where it stands: These proposals almost always get voted down, but the point isn't to win votes, says Andrew Jones, senior researcher at the Conference Board.
The idea is to "bring scrutiny to DEI and amplify broader opposition," he says. Those efforts appear to be working.
Earlier this week, McDonald's was the latest major company to announce it was scaling back its DEI efforts.
Shares in the ultra-hot quantum computing sector plunged on Wednesday after Nvidia's CEO said useful quantum computers were decades away.
Why it matters: Quantum computing stocks have been on a ferocious run, with some names rising almost 20x in the last year.
Driving the news: Nvidia held a Q&A with Wall Street analysts on Tuesday, during which CEO Jensen Huang was asked about the growth path for the still-nascent technology.
"And so if you kind of said 15 years for very useful quantum computers, that'd probably be on the early side. If you said 30 is probably on the late side. But if you picked 20, I think a whole bunch of us would believe it," Huang said.
Nvidia's dominance in AI computing gives Huang's technology forecasts outsized impact — and his comments tend to move stocks.
By the numbers: Shares in Rigetti Computing plunged 46% in early trading Wednesday. Before that collapse, the stock had risen more than 1,800% in just one year.
Shares in Quantum Computing Inc. also fell 45%, while shares in IonQ dropped more than 42%.
Together, the losses exceeded $4 billion in market capitalization.
Context: Quantum computing is bleeding-edge stuff, applying the principles of quantum mechanics to perform computing tasks far too difficult for traditional computing.
As MIT scientists describe it, traditional binary computers use electrical signals that can be either 0 or 1. Quantum computing uses subatomic particles that can be both simultaneously. It sounds like a small difference but the power is exponential.
Google said last year its new quantum computing chip, code named Willow, did computations in five minutes that would take today's supercomputers 10 septillion years.
But as Google itself points out, Willow's achievement is little more than a "convincing prototype" that offers a "strong sign" quantum systems can be built at scale.
Editor's note: This report has been updated with early Wednesday trading levels for stocks.
New York, San Francisco and Honolulu are home to the country's slowest driving, a new report finds.
Why it matters: Drivers want to get where they're going — fast. But public transit and pedestrian advocates might point to these numbers as evidence that some cities are overwhelmed by cars and need to get serious about alternatives.
What they found: In the heart of the Big Apple, it took an average of about 30 minutes to drive 6 miles in 2024, according to TomTom's annual Traffic Index, released Tuesday. That's 2.3% longer than in 2023.
New York drivers spent a staggering 94 hours a year driving in rush hour on average, based on a twice daily six-mile trip. That's nearly four days of bumper-to-bumper misery.
San Francisco drivers took nearly 26 minutes to cover 6 miles (+1.9% longer than 2023), while those in Honolulu took nearly 20 minutes (+0.6% longer).
The other side: Richmond, Virginia, is a veritable autobahn by comparison, with drivers making a six-mile trip in under 10 minutes on average.
Reality check: New York is walkable, bikeable and boasts one of the country's best public transit systems — meaning you're not necessarily stuck driving, as you might be in so many other U.S. cities.
The latest: Drivers entering the most crowded parts of Manhattan are now being tolled under a "congestion pricing" plan meant to reduce vehicle traffic and raise money for public transit.
Between the lines: Lots of factors go into how quickly you can drive 6 miles in a given city, including traffic congestion, construction and weather.
How it works: TomTom's report is based on a representative sample of data collected by "over 600 million devices" and "over 61 billion anonymous GPS data points around the world," the company says.
The numbers above are based on city centers — "the densest areas that capture 20% of all trips within the city-connected area," per TomTom.
The bottom line: If we're meeting in New York, I'm taking the subway.
State Departmentofficials told the Trump administration transition team there could be a humanitarian "catastrophe" in Gaza when a new Israeli law barring contact with the UN refugee agency for Palestinians takes effect at the end of the month, three U.S. officials told Axios.
Why it matters: The UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) is the primary aid agency operating in Gaza. U.S. officials say there's no serious backup plan for providing humanitarian supplies and services to Palestinians.
After more than a year of war, the UN and other aid organizations warn Gaza is close to uninhabitable. Tens of thousands of houses have been destroyed. Nearly two million Palestinians are displaced and dependent on aid for food, water and medical services.
The Israeli law will take effect a few days after President-elect Trump's inauguration, when the new administration will be faced with mounting world crises.
Biden administration officials told Axios they initiated the briefing about UNRWA because they wanted the new administration to be aware of the looming crisis.
Catch up quick: In late October, the Israeli parliament passed two bills that would significantly limit UNRWA's ability to continue operating in Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem.
The first bill bars UNRWA from operating in Israeli territory, and is most relevant to UNRWA's activity in East Jerusalem. But it also affects the aid agency's operations in the West Bank that are run from Jerusalem.
The second bill bars any Israeli government official from having contact with UNRWA, and strips all UNRWA workers of their diplomatic privileges and immunity.
Israel has long opposed UNRWA — and since the war began in Gaza, has claimed some of the agency's staff were involved in the Oct. 7 Hamas terrorist attack on Israel. UNRWA fired nine staff members following a UN investigation, but has repeatedly denied allegations that the agency has widespread links to Hamas.
During Trump's first term, his administration gradually cut all U.S. assistance to UNRWA. The Biden administration later resumed U.S. aid to the agency and supported its budget with hundreds of millions of dollars. But Congress passed a law in March that bans the U.S. from funding UNRWA until at least 2025.
What they're saying: UN officials said they're concerned that after the laws come into effect, UNRWA staff won't be able to move between Gaza and Israel, and the agency won't be able to carry out deconfliction arrangements with the IDF. It's also not clear if the IDF will treat the agency's facilities as part of the UN, which can't be targeted by Israeli forces under international law.
That will put the ability of UNRWA to continue working in Gaza in jeopardy, UN officials said.
A senior UNRWA emergency officer told The Guardian that social order in the Strip would likely collapse.
Behind the scenes: Last week, State Department officials briefed Joel Rayburn from the Trump transition team on the UNRWA situation, and raised "deep concern" about the new laws' implications for the humanitarian situation in Gaza, U.S. officials said.
Rayburn, an experienced Middle East expert who is a former U.S. envoy to Syria, is expected to be named the incoming administration's Assistant Secretary of State for Near East Affairs.
"We wanted them to know what is going to happen 10 days into their presidency," a U.S. official told Axios. "We thought it was the responsible thing to do. It's a catastrophe waiting to happen."
Zoom in: U.S. officials told Axios that neither Israel nor the UN has made any serious plans for what happens next.
UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres refused over the last two months to engage in a discussion with Israel about alternative UN agencies that could take on some of UNRWA's roles, U.S. and Israeli officials said. A spokesperson for Guterres declined to comment.
The Israeli government conducted several consultations about the UNRWA issue. But hasn't made any decision about what to do in Gaza after the laws come into force, a senior Israeli official told Axios.
"Both sides are playing chicken, waiting for some magical solution — and thinking that if they do nothing, it will solve itself out," a U.S. official said. "But it won't."
In a letterto the members of the UN General Assembly in December, Guterres wrote that the cessation of or restrictions on UNRWA activities in Gaza and the West Bank would have "devastating consequences" for Palestinian refugees.
"There is currently no realistic alternative to UNRWA which could adequately provide the services and assistance required," he wrote.
UNRWA Director of Communications Juliette Touma told Axios the agency isn't going to shut down its operations on Jan. 31 when the law takes effect.
"We plan to stay in Gaza and work as long as wecan until we can't. It will be a disaster if the bill is implemented," Touma said. "Who is going to do the work?"
Distinguishing truth from falsehood is frustrating, endless, thankless work — and now Mark Zuckerberg is walking away from it.
The big picture: Facebook's latest content-moderation pivot looks like part of a plan to win over Donald Trump as he takes power again. But the field Zuckerberg is abandoning is one he never wanted to play on in the first place.
State of play: The founders of social media giants like Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and TikTok didn't expect to end up in what the industry came to call the "content moderation" business — and what many critics, and now Zuckerberg himself, denounce as "censorship."
Policing online speech costs a fortune to do right. It's impossible to make everyone happy. You're bound to make mistakes. And users' wishes keep changing.
The whole effort is a distraction from what's always been Facebook/Meta's top priority — boosting engagement to sell more ads.
Meta faces huge challenges this year, particularly an April trial in the Federal Trade Commission's suit to unwind its decade-old acquisition of Instagram and WhatsApp. The new Trump-friendly approach to content moderation is one of many efforts to win over the new administration, which is open about rewarding friends and punishing enemies.
Zuckerberg staked out a free-speech position in a 2019 speech at Georgetown. A few months later, he said that social media networks shouldn't try to be "arbiters of truth" — but at the same time Facebook was ramping up its truth arbitration.
After taking blame for spreading misinformation during the 2016 election and violating users' privacy during the Cambridge Analytica scandal, Facebook was under enormous pressure to clean up its act, and the company made big investments in expanding its moderation efforts.
It was also in 2019 that Facebook started a program using third-party fact-checking organizations from a variety of political perspectives to help it identify and limit the spread of potentially dangerous misinformation.
The fact-checking program has drawn fire throughout its existence.
The kinds of topics it confronted — controversies over climate science, COVID-19 and vaccines, charges of election fraud — are often both matters of fact or science and also flashpoints for partisan rage.
Believers in fact-checking insist that there's value to society in telling the public what is — and isn't — authoritative information, grounded in vetted research and verifiable records, in fields like medicine and public affairs.
Critics say there's always another point of view that deserves to be heard, and blocking any perspective is a form of censorship.
Between the lines: Facebook tried to solve some of its content moderation headaches by setting up the independent Oversight Board.
The company handed the Oversight Board hundreds of millions of dollars beginning in 2019 to build a kind of Supreme Court for user complaints.
It's been particularly effective in sorting out complex issues beyond U.S. borders.
But it hasn't insulated Zuckerberg and Meta from criticism by American conservatives and Congressional committees.
Notably, Meta's announcements Tuesday failed to mention the Oversight Board at all.
Zoom out: Zuckerberg calls Meta's new approach a "back-to-our-roots" embrace of free expression. But there's never been any medium where absolute free speech reigned.
Platform owners have legal obligations to governments of countries they operate in to obey the law.
In the U.S. that means dealing with laws governing what Zuckerberg describes as "legitimately bad stuff" like "drugs, terrorism, child exploitation."
A second category where platform owners have generally felt an obligation to intervene is speech that could cause imminent harm.
That might include death threats, violent conspiracies, or even plans to attack the U.S. Capitol.
Then there's the category of hate speech.
It bedevils social-media owners, because it's constantly shifting and varies across cultures. But in any given time and place there are some slurs that violate public norms, and a global public platform can't just ignore them.
Along with the company's other new content policies, Meta has now updated its Community Guidelines on "hateful conduct" specifically to allow "allegations of mental illness or abnormality when based on gender or sexual orientation." A variety of other changes in its rules appear to significantly loosen the knot around what many users will consider hate speech.
A final category of content moderation — most relevant to fact-checking — is misinformation (widely shared but inaccurate info) and disinformation (misinformation with deliberate bad intent).
Zuckerberg and other social media owners hate playing content cop in this realm and would rather let users sort such issues out for themselves.
His plan is for Meta to copy X's Community Notes approach, which lets users flag other users' posts for inaccuracies.
What we're watching: When Elon Musk rewrote Twitter's old content rules for X, the platform's never-decorous conversations deteriorated further. Today you don't have to look far on X to find posts espousing racism and anti-semitism or deriding LGBTQ people.
Musk is proud of what he's done with X, but it hasn't helped turn around his business.
We don't yet know how Zuckerberg's version of "more free speech" will play out, but if Meta's platforms get nastier and uglier, too, advertisers could be spooked — and users who aren't on the MAGA side of the fence could flee.
Our thought bubble: Decades of human experience online shows that running any kind of community platform is like gardening — if you let the weeds go wild, the flowers will choke.
Los Angeles County saw multiple wildfires erupt as "extremely critical fire weather" from dry conditions and Santa Ana winds threatened Southern California into Wednesday, and the National Weather Service warned the worst was yet to come.
State of Play: The biggest blaze was the uncontained Palisades Fire. It triggered mandatory evacuations for at least 30,000 people in the Pacific Palisades area as it threatened multiple structures across at least 2,921-acres between Malibu and Santa Monica, where evacuation orders were issued Tuesday evening.
More evacuation orders were issued as more fires erupted in L.A. County as the onslaught of the strongest Santa Ana winds arrived Tuesday.
Other notable wildfires included the Eaton Fire near Pasadena, where evacuation orders were in effect as the blaze swelled to 1,000 acres at 0% containment in the Eaton Canyon area as of early Wednesday.
Sylmar residents were evacuated from the Hurst Fire late Tuesday after the blaze ignited near where Interstate 5 and the 14 and 210 freeways meet about 10:29pm local time. It had grown to 100 acres as of 12:36am.
Threat level: Rare, late-season, "Particularly Dangerous Situation" red flag warnings are in effect as the region faces a life-threatening, destructive and widespread windstorm after months of dry weather that could produce hurricane-force gusts of up to 100 mph in some areas, per an advisory from the NWS' Los Angeles/Oxnard office.
The NWS said on X an"extremely dangerous situation is unfolding in southern California tonight." The forecast was for widespread "DAMAGING WIND and EXTREME FIRE WEATHER for most of Los Angeles/Ventura Counties," the NWS said.
"Time period of greatest concern: Tonight-Wednesday afternoon," it added. "Widespread N/NE gusts 50-80 mph, Isolated 80-100 mph mountains/foothills with scattered downed trees and power outages likely."
University of California, Los Angeles, climate scientist Daniel Swain said on Bluesky that the situation was the worst since a destructive event in 2011 that saw fires in Pasadena and the surrounding areas.
There's a "much greater wildfire risk" this time "due to far drier vegetation," Swain said.
In another sign of the seriousness of the situation, the Storm Prediction Center designated parts of the L.A. area as being in its highest risk category of "extremely critical" for Wednesday and Thursday.
By the numbers: The NWS' Los Angeles office has already recorded wind gusts at or exceeding 70 mph.
These include Deer Creek Canyon (80 mph), Boney Mountain (76 mph), Corral Canyon Park (75 mph), Sandstone Peak (73 mph), Castro Peak (71 mph) and Rancho De Cielo (70 mph).
The big picture: President Biden said in a Tuesday night statement that he was being "frequently briefed on the wildfires in west Los Angeles" and his administration "will do everything it can to support the response."
California Gov. Gavin Newsom proclaimed a state of emergency in response to the Palisades Fire on Tuesday. He and Cal Fire deployed resources to SoCal areas expected to be impacted by this windstorm and extreme fire risk due to high winds and low humidity, per Monday evening statements.
Southern California Edison spokesperson Jeff Monford said in a Monday evening phone interview the utility had notified 411,000 customers that a public safety power shutoff could affect them on Tuesday and Wednesday.
The utility's power safety shutoffs affected 22,236 customers in Los Angeles County and another 2,968 in Ventura County as of 7:30pm local time amid powerful winds, per the company's outage tracker.
Monford said the issue was "not that the grid is vulnerable to wind," it's that objects could potentially become airborne and hit a power line and "cause a spark and because the vegetation on the ground an is so dry, that could be hazardous."
Context: Swain in a video briefing on Monday afternoon said parts of SoCal were "going on nine or 10 months now without meaningful rain. ... it's been the driest start to the season on record in some parts of Southern California, also the driest nine-month period on record in some of those same places."
Between the lines: Evidence suggests climate change is "increasing the overlap between extremely dry vegetation conditions later in the season and the occurrence of these wind events," said Swain during his briefing.
That's because "if we'd gotten three or four inches of rain" before this event, "we wouldn't really be talking about the wildfire risk, about the wind damage potential."
There's evidence that climate change "has already affected and will continue to accentuate changes in seasonal hydro climate, but not so much evidence, it's really affecting the winds themselves, or that it will necessarily in the future," Swain added.
What to expect: The strongest winds with gusts of 50 to 80 mph were expected into early Wednesday afternoon.
Red flag warnings were coming into effect elsewhere in California on Wednesday, including in San Diego County from the morning through 6pm.
Areas impacted by red flag warnings will face increased risks of extreme fire behavior and large fires with "VERY RAPID" spread, the NWS said.
House Republicans are already laying down potential dealbreakers for the massive fiscal legislation President-elect Trump and House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) are planning.
Why it matters: The chamber is set to have a roughly two-vote majority when the package is voted on, meaning just a handful of GOP defections could sink the entire initiative.
Republican factions — both in the House and Senate — are already at each others' throats on whether the package should consist of one bill or two, with Trump wavering on the topic.
State of play: Republican leadership could run into an issue with its fiscally conservative wing if it tries to advance one sprawling bill that includes a measure to raise the debt ceiling.
"I heard that there are three people that will not vote for a debt ceiling lift, which already kills the bill," said Rep. Rich McCormick (R-Ga.).
Two House Republicans — Reps. Andy Biggs of Arizona and Tim Burchett of Tennessee — have never voted to increase the debt ceiling.
Zoom in: The overall price tag of the measure could also create a dilemma for deficit hawks.
The bill is set to include an extension of Trump's 2017 tax cuts that could cost as much as $5 trillion over 10 years, in addition to funding for border security and an immigration crackdown.
It will also likely include spending cuts, but the kind of discretionary cuts that Republicans have been floating may amount to peanuts compared to the debt and deficit implications of the package.
What they're saying: "I'm not going to say I'm going to create a 'red line' per se, but in general I came up here to cut spending. That's my whole personal goal, to right-size government," said Rep. Eric Burlison (R-Mo.).
Burlison said Republicans have historically been "bad at" pairing meaningful spending reductions with their tax cuts.
"Everybody has something that somebody's whispering in their ear that they need for [their district], so spending is always a hang-up for Congress and we have never, ever been able to bring that in," said McCormick.
Zoom out: It's not just the GOP's right flank that leadership has to worry about.
Rep. Mike Lawler (R-N.Y.) told reporters Tuesday he's "been very clear from the start that I will not support a tax bill that does not lift the cap" on the state and local tax deduction.
That's a provision several blue-state Republicans have pushed for — even though it is unpopular with many Republican lawmakers.
