A new poll of college students found that half view the suspect in UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson's recent killing extremely or somewhat favorably, and nearly half believe the crime was justified.
81% of the students polled by Generation Lab said they have an extremely or somewhat negative view of Thompson, the victim.
Why it matters: There's a stark divide between how young people and older people view Thompson's killing. Polls and social media posts indicate that, among young people, there's lasting support for and fascination with a suspected killer — and disdain for the victim.
By the numbers: When asked with whom they sympathize more, 45% of respondents chose suspect Luigi Mangione, 17% chose Thompson, and 37% said neither.
48% said they view the killing as totally or somewhat justified.
Those findings chime with an Emerson College poll which found that 41% of voters under 30 found the killing "acceptable," far more than in any other age group.
Methodology: This poll was conducted December 19–23 from a representative sample of 1,026 college students nationwide from 2-year and 4-year schools. The margin of error is +/- 3.4 percentage points. The Generation Lab conducts polling using a demographically representative sample frame of college students at community colleges, technical colleges, trade schools and public and private four-year institutions.
President-elect Trump's highly unusual intervention in the Supreme Court'sTikTok case reads almost like a guy asking for a favor from an institution that still runs on formality.
The big picture:Trump's last-minute effort to give TikTok a stay of execution is one more twist in a case that already scrambles every ideological dividing line.
Driving the news: The court is set to hear oral arguments Friday over TikTok's future. A new, overwhelmingly bipartisan law requires the app's Chinese parent company, ByteDance, to either sell TikTok by Jan. 19 or shut it down within the U.S.
There's no simple partisan divisionon this one. Republicans in Congress supported the law, which President Biden signed, and GOP attorneys general have weighed in to help Biden defend the law in court.
Trump previously advocated for a ban, then flip-flopped. He filed an amicus brief on Dec. 27 urging the court to pause the law.
The actual parties in the TikTok case largely ignored Trump's filing, which is mostly about Trump, not the law.
Whether the justices give it more credence could say a lot about the overall direction of a conservative court that has handed Trump some enormous victories.
What they're saying: ByteDance and a group of TikTok users argue that the law violates the First Amendment, because it would shutter one of the country's most popular platforms for personal expression.
The Biden administration says the ban is rooted in national security concerns, and doesn't target any specific speech on TikTok. A new owner could still allow all the same content, it argues, so there's no First Amendment issue.
Between the lines: The conservative Supreme Court usually (but not always) sides with people making First Amendment claims. And it usually (but not always) sides with the federal government when the government says there's a national-security issue.
In this case, it won't be able to do both.
And then there's Trump. He has asked the justices not to let the law go into effect as scheduled on Jan. 19 — but his argument is not rooted in any of the First Amendment or national-security concerns at issue in the case. It takes no position on those issues.
"President Trump alone possesses the consummate dealmaking expertise, the electoral mandate, and the political will to negotiate a resolution to save the platform while addressing the national security concerns expressed by the Government," his brief says.
The argument is essentially that the court should ignore the deadline Congress and the president decided on, and defer instead to Trump's force of personality.
"President Trump is one of the most powerful, prolific, and influential users of social media in history. Consistent with his commanding presence in this area, President Trump currently has 14.7 million followers on TikTok," his brief says, arguing that he is uniquely well positioned to solve a social-media problem.
That may be a stretch, even for a court that has sided with Trump on any number of high-stakes issues.
He is, for now, still just an ordinary citizen with no formal role in this dispute, and there is a statutory deadline that was intentionally set before the next president would be sworn in.
But it's also a hard case, legally and politically, and any avenue that lets the justices avoid striking down a bipartisan law or banning a wildly popular app might have some appeal.
The devastating wildfires raging through Los Angeles are re-opening the debate about how to model and manage risk for the insurance industry, as climate change makes such destruction more inevitable.
Why it matters: California's insurance market is in the middle of major reforms to deal with the cost of fire, but they may not be fast enough given the billions of dollars at stake.
Some market experts warn the state may need to consider becoming a primary insurer for fire risk — much as it already did with earthquakes and Florida did with hurricanes.
The big picture: Climate change has made California vastly more susceptible to wildfires — previously in summer, now no matter the season.
That growing risk has made insurers wary of covering the state, and led many to pull out of the market altogether.
California FAIR Plan, the state's insurer of last resort for fire risk, is soaking up that demand — protecting homeowners, but squeezing other insurers and weakening its own financial condition.
"When the FAIR Plan takes on more customers, it causes traditional insurance companies to withdraw from certain areas, further increasing dependence on the FAIR Plan. This cycle can ultimately weaken the FAIR Plan's financial stability and limit consumer choice," state insurance commissioner Ricardo Lara wrote in a Sept. 2024 bulletin.
By the numbers: As of Sept. 2024, FAIR Plan's exposure to residential fire risk was $431.45 billion, up almost 60% from the year before.
The number of policies in force rose 123% in four years, the agency says.
One of the biggest risk areas in the state is the currently burning Pacific Palisades, with $5.89 billion in exposure due in large part to high property values.
FAIR Plan does have a mechanism to share its burden with insurers in the state if its solvency is at risk, but insurers now have the ability to pass those assessment costs onto their customers.
Between the lines: The California Department of Insurance (CDI) moved in recent years to implement a "Sustainable Insurance Strategy," changes that traded more flexibility for insurers for more coverage of at-risk areas.
Lara issued new regulations letting insurers pass along some of their reinsurance costs to their customers, and letting them use "catastrophe modeling" to project possible future losses instead of simply relying on historical data.
Those changes were controversial, as opponents said they would cause rates to rise faster than coverage would expand.
The Insurance Information Institute, a clearinghouse for the industry, says the regulations are having a positive effect, prompting more insurers to write more coverage.
This week's fires may have complicated matters, though.
What they're saying: "I think that California is being progressive in a lot of ways in the insurance market," says Jeremy Porter, head of climate implications research at risk modeling firm First Street.
"The downside of that is, there's a correction that has to be made. There's what I call a climate debt," Porter says. "All of those fees, all of those insurance premiums, they're all going to adjust upward as we talk about risk."
In other words, Californians have to accept they're going to pay more if the risk of fires is modeled properly and insured in a sound manner.
What's next: It's far too soon to say what kind of losses this week's fires will generate, for FAIR Plan or the industry. But the evident damage is enough to get people thinking about outcomes.
"Things could still break for the positive, but it is seeming more likely that the losses from tonight's fires could push insurance markets over the brink in California — despite all the good work CDI and stakeholders have done over the past few years to stabilize the situation," Michael Wara, a senior research scholar at the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment, posted on X.
"I am beginning to think that we need to be having a much bigger conversation about the structure and assumptions that underlie this rate regulated industry. The current model may just not be sustainable," Wara wrote, pointing to the difficulties in Florida, which has a strained state-run insurer for hurricanes.
A fresh Los Angeles wildfire that ignited in the Hollywood Hills on Wednesday night is threatening homes and iconic L.A. landmarks, and it's prompted authorities to issue expanding evacuation orders.
The big picture: The rapidly growing Sunset Fire that's threatening Hollywood landmarks along with homes was one of multiple fires burning out of control across Los Angeles County into Thursday morning.
Five deaths were confirmed in one of the blazes which have razed at least 2,000 structures, including the homes of Hollywood actor Billy Crystal and media personality Paris Hilton, and forced tens of thousands of residents to evacuate.
State of play: The Sunset Fire started at 5:57pm local time and by 9:25pm had grown to an estimated 60 acres at 0% containment near Runyon Canyon, only a few miles from the Hollywood Boulevard and the Hollywood Walk of Fame.
Video from the scene showed heavily congested roads in the densely populated area as residents raced to flee the blaze.
L.A. Mayor Karen Bass said on X she's "deploying LAPD officers to respond to Hollywood to help alleviate evacuation traffic" and officials were "working urgently to close roads, redirect traffic and expand access for LAFD vehicles to respond to the growing fire."
The number of those affected by evacuation orders is estimated to be over 100,000.
The Hollywood Bowl confirmed on X that the iconic amphitheater and public park was among those impacted by evacuation orders.
Context: The fires began on Tuesday as powerful Santa Ana winds moved in, reaching hurricane intensity in many places. While winds weakened on Wednesday evening.
The National Weather Service's L.A. office said on X firefighters tackling the Sunset Fire were facing north winds of 8 to 15 mph with gusts to 25 mph early Wednesday evening, decreasing to 6 to 9 mph after midnight.
What they're saying: Los Angeles Fire Department spokesperson Margaret Stewart said while it's normal for the region to have Santa Ana winds, the "strength of the winds is much higher" than the usual 30 to 50 miles per hour.
"These are 50 to 80 some over 100 miles an hour," she said in a phone interview Wednesday.
Los Angeles City Fire Chief Kristin Crowley said at a Wednesday briefing: "We knew there was a potential for significant threat to our constituents due to the weather event. High, high, high winds. I've never seen the winds in my 25-year career."
Los Angeles Police Chief Jim McDonnell added: ""What we saw here in the last 24 hours is unprecedented. I've never seen anything like this."
UCLA climate scientist Daniel Swain said in a Wednesday evening livestream that "multiple studies" suggest the Santa Ana winds will become much drier in a warming climate, associated with lower relative humidity.
"We've certainly seen some record breaking low relative humidity during Santa Ana events recently, so that extremely low humidity will continue for a couple more days, and actually the Santa Ana winds will pick back up again," said Swain, who noted this should be a "more traditional, moderate," event once again primarily confined to the mountains and the valley.
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. On his list is reimplementing Title 42, the pandemic-era rule that allows for the rapid expulsion of migrants at the border.
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.
