The list of no's is growing for House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), and time isn't on his side.

Why it matters: Flipping votes on a budget resolution isn't impossible, but it could force Johnson to delay bringing it to the floor.

• ⏰ That would further undermine the House's effort to get "one big, beautiful bill" over to the Senate by the end of April.
• 💥 Two current public "no" votes, Reps. Tim Burchett (R-Tenn.) and Victoria Spartz (R-Ind.), say the spending cuts aren't enough.
• 🙉 At least one other Republican is a private "no" vote, Burchett told reporters Monday evening.

Johnson and his leadership team are projecting public confidence they will be able to pass the resolution Tuesday evening.

• "There's a couple of folks who just have lingering questions," Johnson told reporters Monday, "but I think all those questions can be answered and we'll be able to move forward."
• "We'll see," Johnson told reporters when asked if the vote is still on for Tuesday night. "But it'll happen this week."

🚨Johnson says he won't negotiate ahead of a vote, including with moderates who are concerned by Medicaid cuts.

• "Everybody needs to understand that the resolution is merely the starting point for the process," Johnson said Monday, per Politico.

The big picture: Johnson sided with his most conservative lawmakers in building this budget package. Now they're threatening to leave him hanging.

• "If the Republican budget passes, the deficit gets worse, not better," Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) posted on X.

Zoom in: Johnson is trying to fuse together 218 votes with the unusual combination of a huge debt limit increase, deep spending cuts and Trump's wish list on tax cuts.

• Johnson has freaked out his moderates with the depth of the spending cut targets, which will be hard to hit without cuts to Medicaid and nutrition programs.
• That's for naught if conservatives tank the bill first.

Zoom out: Some senior Republicans remained optimistic that the current framework — which will also add up to $4.5 trillion in tax breaks if Congress cuts $2 trillion in spending — will eventually find enough votes for passage.

• "It's going to reduce the debt to GDP ratio," Budget Committee Chair Jodey Arrington (R-Texas) told reporters. "It's important to me and important to our president."
• "I don't expect it to change," he said. "I feel like we landed at a really good place."
• "We're going to be fine," Arrington told Axios.

The federal agency that sent out an email over the weekend asking workers what they accomplished last week can't fire those workers for not responding, claims an amended lawsuit filed Monday on behalf of federal employees.

Why it matters: It's the latest potential legal stumbling block for DOGE and Elon Musk's slash-and-burn workforce strategy.

Catch up fast: Over the weekend, at President Trump's prodding to be more aggressive, Musk announced that workers would get an email asking what they'd done in the past week. "Failure to respond will be taken as a resignation," he said.

• The email went out on Saturday to millions of workers — subject line "What did you do last week"? — causing confusion and an array of responses inside federal agencies, with many telling employees not to respond.
• Crucially, the email did not threaten workers with termination.

Where it stands: On Monday afternoon, President Trump appeared to back Musk's threat — if employees don't respond to that email, "you're sort of semi-fired or you're fired," he said, answering reporter questions during an event with French President Emanuel Macron.

• "A lot of people are not answering because they don't even exist."

Reality check: Musk and the White House have provided no evidence to back up that claim.

Zoom in: The Monday lawsuit amends an earlier complaint filed by a coalition of unions, including the AFL-CIO and American Federation of Government Employees.

• It challenges the legality of mass firings of probationary workers — those that have been employed in their current roles for only a short time. Tens of thousands of such workers have been terminated, per the suit.
• Only federal agencies have the ability to hire and fire their workers, the lawsuit says.

The Office of Personnel Management, the federal government's HR office, which sent out the email over the weekend, does not have that authority, the suit alleges.

• "In creating OPM and delegating duties to its Director, Congress did not authorize OPM or its Director to order the termination of employees at any other federal agency."

The intrigue: Several federal agencies have told their workers not to respond to the email request.

• If their agency does require a response, workers have until 11:59 pm Monday to do so.
• After that, it's up to federal agencies to decide next steps, a White House official told Axios Monday afternoon — before President Trump's "semi-firing" comment.

What to watch: Also on Monday, an independent federal oversight agency said that some of the administration's mass firings of probationary workers were unlawful, per a report in Government Executive.

The bottom line: It's a confusing time to work for the federal government.

Editor's Note: This story has been updated with additional reporting on the firings of probationary workers.

Justice Clarence Thomas issued a scathing dissent Monday after the Supreme Court declined to hear a case challenging free speech rights around abortion clinics, suggesting he wants to revisit the matter after the court ended the federal constitutional right to abortion in 2022.

The big picture: The high court's move marked a loss for abortion opponents who claimed their First Amendment rights are violated by laws that limit demonstrations near clinics.

• The Supreme Court majority did not explain their decision Monday in finding that the rules were in line with precedent set by Hill v. Colorado (2000). In that case, the high court held that the restrictions on speech-related conduct are constitutional because they regulate the places where some speech may occur, and not the speech itself.

Zoom in: Both Thomas and Justice Samuel Alito dissented, but only the former conservative justice filed writing explaining his reasoning.

• Thomas argued against the high court's decision not to revisit precedent set in Hill v. Colorado (2000), which upheld free speech in buffer zones around abortion clinics.
• "I would have taken this opportunity to explicitly overrule Hill," he wrote in his dissent.
• He argued the court erroneously treated the Hill case differently than others pertaining to the First Amendment because abortion was involved, writing, "Hill's abortion exceptionalism turned the First Amendment upside down."

State of play: The case in question on Monday, Coalition Life v. City of Carbondale, originated in Carbondale, Illinois, where local officials passed an ordinance prohibiting protesters from getting within 8 feet of patients at the clinic without consent.

• The ordinance, which reflected precedent upheld in Hill, was repealed last year but an anti-abortion group based in Missouri proceeded with a lawsuit against it, taking aim at similar laws across the country.
• Carbondale is located near Illinois' southern border and became a destination for people in nearby states that ban abortions.

Zoom out: In Hill, the high court upheld a state law "restricting peaceful speech" within 100 feet of abortion clinics, Thomas wrote in his dissent. He was on the high court at the time Hill was decided and dissented in the 6-3 decision.

• He argued that errors in the case "were numerous" and that the decision "contradicted more than a half-century of well-established First Amendment principles."
• He wrote: "This Court had never—and since Hill, has never—taken such a narrow view of content-based speech restrictions."
• Thomas said the Hill case "manipulated this Court's First Amendment jurisprudence precisely to disfavor 'opponents of abortion' and their 'right to persuade women contemplating abortion that what they are doing is wrong.'"

Between the lines: Thomas noted that he wants to revisit Hill in order to give clarity to lower courts, "who feel bound by it," particularly after Roe v. Wade was overturned in 2022.

• "Following our repudiation in Dobbs, I do not see what is left of Hill," he wrote.
• "Hill has been seriously undermined, if not completely eroded, and our refusal to provide clarity is an abdication of our judicial duty," Thomas wrote.

Go deeper: Abortion clinics brace for reinvigorated protests after Trump's pardons

President Trump and French President Emmanuel Macron agreed during a White House meeting on Monday to deploy European peacekeeping forces to Ukraine following a peace deal with Russia to end the war.

The big picture: While the meeting on the third anniversary of the Russian invasion of Ukraine was cordial, the peacekeepers deployment was about the only significant plan the two world leaders agreed during a bilateral meeting in the Oval Office.

What they're saying: Trump said during a briefing he believed the war could end "soon" and said he and his representatives had spoken with Russian President Vladimir Putin and "they want to do something."

• The war could end "within weeks... if we're smart," Trump told reporters. "If we're not smart, it'll keep going and we'll keep losing."
• Macron said: "We want peace, peace swiftly, but we don't want an agreement that is weak.
• "Peace must not mean a surrender of Ukraine, it must not mean a ceasefire without guarantees."

Meanwhile, Trump declined to call Putin a "dictator" after describing Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky as that last week and said he planned to meet with the Russian leader soon.

• Macron said Russia "is the aggressor" and noted "President Putin violated the peace."

Zoom in: At one point, Macron moved to correct Trump after the U.S. president said "Europe is loaning the money to Ukraine, they're getting their money back."

• Macron responded: "No, in fact, to be frank, we paid. We paid 60% of the total effort. It was like the US: loans, guarantees, grants."

More from Axios...

• Mapped: Control in Ukraine three years on from Russia's invasion
• U.S. votes against UN resolution condemning Russia for Ukraine invasion

Editor's note: This article has been updated with more comment from Presidents Trump and Macron from the briefing.

More than just "a big, beautiful Ocean," in President Trump's words, separates the U.S. from its European allies on the third anniversary of Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

The big picture: The Trump administration has cast a shadow of doubt not only across embattled Kyiv, but across an entire continent that has trusted the U.S. for decades as its most powerful protector and partner.

• Trump smearing President Zelensky as a "dictator without elections" brought the U.S.-Ukraine relationship to a new low — and the U.S.-Europe marriage to a fork in the road.
• The verbal spat followed U.S.-Russia talks on Ukraine in Saudi Arabia, with no seats at the table for Ukrainian or European voices.
• As the war enters its fourth year, the U.S. is no longer aligned with the Ukrainian cause or with its NATO allies, and European leaders are bracing for a post-U.S. alliance.

Driving the news: Friedrich Merz, the center-right leader poised to become Germany's new chancellor, said after Sunday's election victory that his "priority ... will be to strengthen Europe as quickly as possible" to "achieve real independence from the USA."

• A coalition of pro-European political parties in the European Parliament, in a joint statement issued Tuesday, attested that Europe can "no longer fully rely on the United States to defend our shared values and interests" and it is "high time for Europe to step up its own security."
• Those once-unthinkable statements from conservatives and progressives alike mirror calls from French President Emmanuel Macron, who is visiting Washington on Monday, for European "strategic autonomy."
• Many leaders in Europe didn't take that concept seriously in Trump's first term — but they are now, amid the largest-scale conflict in Europe since World War II.

State of play: Macron and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, who will also visit Trump this week, are among the several European leaders who have signaled they're prepared to boost defense spending as Trump steps back.

• Starmer has committed to putting boots on the ground if necessary to "guarantee Ukraine's security" — while noting that, "U.S. support will remain critical."
• European leaders have been discussing a potential post-war "reassurance force" to be deployed to Ukraine to deter against renewed Russian aggression, AP reported.
• U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth made clear U.S. troops would not take part in any such mission, but Trump expressed openness to the European security force idea in a call with Zelensky, Axios' Barak Ravid reported.

Yes, but: While that's a "plausible plan," the lack of clear messaging from Washington — and Trump's occasional parroting of Kremlin talking points — risks "torpedoing" hopes of a favorable deal to end the war, says Daniel Fried, the former US ambassador to Poland and assistant secretary of State for Europe.

• "Instead of arguing from a position of strength and forcing the Russians to step back, it starts to resemble some kind of deal by which Ukraine is subordinate to the US-Russian understanding," Fried contends.
• Trump has repeatedly attacked Zelensky, insisted there should be elections in Ukraine, and reportedly opposed a G7 statement that described Russia as the aggressor in Ukraine.
• On Monday, the U.S. was one of just 18 countries that opposed a UN resolution that referred to Russia as the "aggressor."

Between the lines: Led by Vice President Vance, the Trump administration has effectively accused Europe of freeloading on American strength for decades.

• They will welcome the idea of Europe investing more in its own security, though the growing transAtlantic divide is likely to produce tensions as well.

What to watch: European allies have conceded they will struggle to make up the gap in supplying Ukraine, let alone ensuring the security of the entire continent.

Go deeper: Zelensky warns Ukraine won't accept decisions made without them in peace talks

The new administration's policies appear to be weighing on purchasing plans, hiring intentions and hopes of lower inflation, according to recent survey data.

Why it matters: In the immediate aftermath of the election, markets rallied and businesses celebrated the dawn of a friendlier era for regulation. Now, tariff threats look to be putting a dent in the economic outlook of consumers and businesses.

• It's likely that signs would first appear in key surveys of businesses and shoppers — though it is still early and the pandemic recovery exposed the flaws of these measurements.

The big picture: Excitement about potential Trump-era deregulation and tax cuts drove consumer and executive sentiment higher right after the election. Now fears about trade war fallout might overshadow those business-friendly policies.

• The University of Michigan's measure of consumer sentiment fell about 10% this month relative to January, the second consecutive decline.
• Buying conditions for large-ticket items plunged almost 20% in February, a sign that consumers anticipate tariff-related price increases.
• Meanwhile, expectations for inflation in the year ahead surged a full point to 4.3%, above the range seen in pre-pandemic times.

What they're saying: "Consumers broadly anticipate that tariff hikes will lead to higher inflation, but policy uncertainty means that their views are subject to change," UMich's Joanne Hsu said in a statement, adding that 40% of consumers surveyed spontaneously mentioned "tariffs" — up from 27% last month.

They're not alone in their anxiety: Small businesses — the economy's biggest hiring machine — are marking down capital investment plans, according to an index from the National Federation of Independent Business, a lobbying group.

• Headline sentiment remains above the historical average, but a measure of uncertainty is the third-highest on records going back almost 40 years.

S&P Global's preliminary purchasing managers' indices suggested a sharp slowdown.

• An output index across goods and services fell 2.3 points in early February to the lowest in 17 months, signaling "a steep deceleration in the pace of economic growth over the past two months from a buoyant rate seen late last year," according to a statement.
• Companies said "tariffs were widely cited as a key cause of higher prices in the manufacturing sector."

Of note: "Despite fearmongering by Democrats and the media over President Trump's trade policies — that did not drum up inflation during his first term — the Trump administration remains committed to delivering economic relief for everyday Americans and restoring American Greatness," White House spokesperson Kush Desai tells Axios.

Surveys of businesses and consumers may have become less reliable as early indicators of how the economy will perform in this highly polarized age.

The intrigue: In the Biden era, there was a mismatch between tanking sentiment and strong economic activity — a factor that might have been influenced by politics. That phenomenon may extend into the Trump years.

• For instance, depressed sentiment and higher inflation expectations in February were concentrated among Democrats and independents, according to UMich.
• UMich's sentiment index dropped 14 points among Democrats and roughly half as much for independents.
• Among Republicans, sentiment held at the highest level since the 2020 election. Democrats' sentiment hasn't been this low since April 2020.
• "Consumers are feeling gloomier, but the post pandemic economy has taught us attitudes don't always drive spending decisions," Nationwide financial market economist Oren Klachkin wrote in a client note.

Between the lines: More and more surveys about economic conditions appear not to offer independent information about peoples' plans to spend money or buy a car, but rather whether they do or do not like the person in the White House.

The bottom line: Survey-based data offer early warning signs of trouble, but it's what people do, not what they say, that will determine how the Trump economy turns out.

The U.S. voted against a UN resolution Monday condemning Russia's invasion of Ukraine, siding with Moscow and other non-democratic countries like North Korea, Belarus and Sudan.

Why it matters: The Trump administration has found itself increasingly isolated on the world stage as it seeks to broker peace on the third anniversary of the war in Ukraine.

State of play: The three-page resolution presented by Ukraine condemned Russia's "aggression" and called for the complete and unconditional withdrawal of Russian forces from Ukrainian territory.

• The U.S. was one of just 18 countries to vote against the resolution, pitting the Trump administration against 93 member states, including much of the European Union.
• It was the first time since the Russian invasion began that the U.S. voted against a resolution backed by Ukraine.
• 65 member states, including China and Iran, abstained from the vote.

Driving the news: In recent days, the Trump administration had been trying to pressure Ukraine to back off from presenting the resolution — the latest in a series of diplomatic moves critical of Kyiv.

• When these efforts failed, the U.S. started pushing numerous countries to instead support a rival resolution that mourned the loss of life and called for a "swift end to the conflict."
• The U.S.-backed resolution, which was just three paragraphs, did not blame Russia for starting the war.
• "A simple, historic statement from the General Assembly that looks forward, not backwards. A resolution focused on one, simple idea: Ending the war," acting UN ambassador Dorothy Shea said in a speech urging member states to adopt the resolution.

The intrigue: During the UN general assembly meeting on Monday, several European countries proposed amendments to the U.S. text that explicitly mentioned the Russian invasion and Ukraine's territorial integrity.

• The European amendments were then adopted with the support of 93 member states — forcing the U.S. into the awkward position of abstaining from its own draft resolution.
• "I would rather not explain it now, but it's sort of self evident I think," Trump told reporters Monday when asked why the U.S. opposed Ukraine's resolution.

Dan Bongino, newly appointed deputy FBI director, is a former Secret Service agent who's more recently gained prominence as a conservative podcaster with a background on Fox News.

Why it matters: Bongino is a staunch ally of President Trump, who has set out to overhaul the Justice Department in alignment with his agenda.

• "I've spent my life in public service, beginning with the NYPD and continuing through my time as a Secret Service agent, working under both Republican and Democrat administrations," he said in a statement.
• He's also spread conspiracy theories about the FBI's role in the 2016 and 2020 presidential elections and questioned the integrity of its investigations into the assassination attempts targeting Trump, Axios previously reported.

State of play: The deputy FBI director role doesn't require Senate confirmation and typically goes to a senior career agent. Kash Patel, one of Trump's most controversial mega-MAGA picks, was confirmed by the Senate 51-49 last week as director.

• The FBI deputy director is responsible for overseeing domestic and international investigative and intelligence activities, per the agency's website.

Conservative media pundit

Bongino is one of many Trump appointees and Cabinet members with previous ties to Fox.

• His podcast "Dan Bongino show" aims to debunk "both liberal and Republican establishment rhetoric," per the show's description. It's ranked by Spotify as the No. 56 podcast in the U.S.
• He hosted a Fox News show, "Unfiltered" but left the network in 2023 after they couldn't agree on a new contract.
• YouTube permanently banned Bongino in 2022 for violating the platform's COVID misinformation policy.

Secret Service career

Bongino joined the U.S. Secret Service's Presidential Protection Division in 2006 during former President George W. Bush's administration, after joining the agency in 1999.

• He stayed in the role during the transition to former President Obama's administration.
• In 2010, after the presidential appointments, he transferred to the Baltimore Field Office. He originally started at the Secret Service as a special agent in the New York Field Office investigating federal crimes.

He began his career working for the NYPD in 1995 as a police cadet and became a full-time police officer in 1997.

• He has master's degrees in psychology and business administration from the City University of New York and Penn State University, respectively.

Congressional races

Bongino has launched three unsuccessful bids for Congress in multiple states.

• He ran to represent Florida's 19th congressional district in 2016 but was defeated in the Republican primary.
• In 2014, he won the Republican primary to represent Maryland in the House but lost to the incumbent candidate in the general election.
• In 2012, he also lost to the incumbent in a bid to serve as a senator representing Maryland.

Family and personal life

Bongino was diagnosed with Hodgkin's lymphoma in 2020. In an interview with Megyn Kelly last year, he said he had been in remission for two years.

• In 2023, he published a book called "The Gift of Failure" with personal stories.

He and his wife, Paula Bongino, have two daughters.

Go deeper:

• Trump names Dan Bongino deputy FBI director
• Trump's loyalty-first FBI

The U.S. and Ukraine are closing in on minerals agreement worth hundreds of billions of dollars under which the U.S. would express its desire to keep Ukraine "free, sovereign and secure," according to a draft obtained by Axios.

Why it matters: The Trump administration sees the agreement as a way to get a return on U.S. investment in Ukraine, which has vast untapped mineral wealth. Ukrainian officials see the deal as a way to halt the deterioration of relations with the Trump administration and establish a longer-term partnership with the U.S.

• A Ukrainian official told Axios a deal is close and could be signed as soon as Monday. The official said the document Axios has reviewed is the most recent version, but could still be amended.
• Ukrainian Deputy Prime Minister Olga Stefanishyna confirmed in an X post Monday that the sides were close to a deal, and said signing it would "showcase our commitment for decades to come."

The latest: President Trump wrote on Truth Social after a G7 virtual meeting on Monday marking three years since Russia's invasion of Ukraine that he "emphasized the importance of the vital Critical Minerals and Rare-Earths Deal between the United States and Ukraine, which we hope will be signed very soon!"

• He added that the deal will help "the American people recoup the Tens of Billions of Dollars and Military Equipment sent to Ukraine, while also helping Ukraine's economy grow as this Brutal and Savage War comes to an end."

Driving the news: The draft agreement calls for the establishment of a "Reconstruction Investment Fund" that will be co-managed by the U.S. and Ukraine.

Key quote: "The Government of the United States of America intends to provide a long-term financial commitment to the development of a stable and economically prosperous Ukraine," the draft says.

• It adds that the fund will be designed "so as to invest in projects in Ukraine and attract investments to increase development," including in areas like mining and ports.
• But it also suggests the U.S. will recoup some of its expenditures related to "defending, reconstructing, and returning Ukraine" to its pre-war GDP.

Between the lines: Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky infuriated Trump by rejecting an initial U.S. proposal, but said Monday at the G7 leaders meeting that he hoped to sign an agreement in Washington soon.

• He told reporters Sunday that the U.S. side had dropped a demand that it receive $500 billion from Ukrainian minerals projects — a sum Zelensky noted was far more than the U.S. had contributed to Ukraine.
• Zelensky rejected the idea of treating aid to Ukraine as a debt that must be repaid, and added that the agreement must include U.S. military support for Ukraine.

The intrigue: The draft seen by Axios expresses a desire that Ukraine remain free, but does not specify any U.S. military commitment.

• It also stipulates that Ukraine must contribute $500 billion to the fund — and that Ukraine's contributions must be double the U.S contributions — but it does not call for that sum to be paid to the U.S.
• The draft calls for 50% of Ukraine's revenues (minus operating expenses) from "extractable materials" — including minerals, oil and gas — be paid into the fund.
• Bloomberg first reported on aspects of the proposed deal.

Worth noting: The text contains a provision referring to projects in areas "temporarily occupied by the Russian Federation, in the event such areas are de-occupied."

• Much of Ukraine's mineral wealth is in the war-torn east.

What's next: The draft seen by Axios calls for the U.S. Treasury and Commerce Departments, along with Vice President Vance's office, to work out the details of the arrangement with Ukraine's Economy Ministry after the initial framing document is signed.

• At the bottom, the document has spaces for the signatures of Secretary of State Marco Rubio and his Ukrainian counterpart, Andrii Sybiha.
• Sources on both sides have told Axios a deal is looking increasingly likely, and could be announced soon.

A judge on Monday rejected the Associated Press' emergency motion to rescind the White House ban against its access to some press events, as he sought more details on the circumstances surrounding the case.

Why it matters: It's a win for the White House — at least for now — as they seek to restrict the AP's access, following the news organization's decision to use Gulf of Mexico rather than Gulf of America.

Driving the news: In a hearing on Monday afternoon, Judge Trevor McFadden requested more details about the events that the AP has been barred from and the number of reporters allowed into larger events.

• McFadden didn't find any reason to immediately stop the administration's ban, but he said that case law seems to be against it.

The big picture: The ruling comes after the White House asked the judge to allow it to continue barring the AP from some press events. It argued in a court filing on Monday that access to the president is at his discretion and not a constitutional right.

• The filing said that just because the AP "may have long received special media access to the president does not mean that such access is constitutionally compelled in perpetuity."
• The White House hailed the judge's order, saying in a statement, "asking the president of the United States questions in the Oval Office and aboard Air Force One is a privilege granted to journalists, not a legal right."

The other side: "We look forward to our next hearing on March 20 where we will continue to stand for the right of the press and the public to speak freely without government retaliation," AP spokesperson Lauren Easton said in a statement.

Catch up quick: The Associated Press named White House deputy chief of staff Taylor Budowich, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt and White House chief of staff Susie Wiles in their suit filed last week in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

• The AP accused the White House of violating its First Amendment rights after the outlet's reporters were barred from attending some events, like Oval Office meetings and Air Force One press pools, after the AP's continued use of Gulf of Mexico in its reporting.

The big picture: The White House is targeting AP because of the preeminent role it plays in shaping mainstream news media language via its influential stylebook and, therefore, how other outlets report on the president and his administration.

• Republicans believe the AP has become institutionally geared toward the left.
• Trump advisers say AP's photographers were blocked as well, thereby depriving the organization of the revenue it earns from selling pictures on its news wire.
• AP says its style guide is non-biased and is continually updated to provide accurate, fair and neutral information.

The intrigue: Ed Martin, the interim U.S. attorney for D.C., falsely referred to his office as "President Trumps' lawyers" [sic] in a post on X on Monday. Martin wrote that his team is "vigilant in standing against entities like the AP that refuse to put America first."

• Martin is not a personal lawyer for Trump. As a U.S. attorney for D.C., he is the top prosecutor for the city, with a big portfolio, including white collar and national security investigations and nearly all street-level crime, Axios' Cuneyt Dil reported.
• Per the office's website, "The United States Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia is committed to ensuring the fair and impartial administration of justice for all Americans."

Between the lines: Trump has installed loyalists at all levels of U.S. government. He's repeatedly promised to use Justice Department officials to seek retribution against his perceived enemies.

• His administration's recent demand that charges against New York City mayor Eric Adams be dismissed led several top prosecutors in New York and D.C. to resign.

The other side: The White House Correspondents Association, an almost 800-member independent press group, filed an amicus brief on Sunday on the AP's behalf.

• It argues that the free speech and integrity of not just the plaintiffs is at stake.
• The brief says that the administration's actions "will chill and distort news coverage of the President to the public's detriment" — a harm that extends beyond just the AP.
• The WHCA also argues that the independent pool system — a rotation of the association's member reporters who follow the president — is a key part of coverage on the White House beat, calling it the "first draft of history of events of domestic and global importance."

Go deeper: AP sues Trump officials over Oval Office ban, citing First Amendment

Editor's note: This story has been updated with additional developments.

Russia's invasion of Ukraine upended global petro-flows — maybe forever — but the effects on low-carbon transition are tougher to parse.

Why it matters: Monday marks three years since the launch of the attack. Here are some effects within energy circles ...

Climate crosscurrents. There was plenty of chatter when the war started that it would speed energy transition in Europe and perhaps beyond.

• Yes, but: It also put the spotlight on U.S. LNG as shipments to Europe grew, while then-President Biden in 2022 urged U.S. oil producers to boost supply.
• Driving the news: The Atlantic Council's new global survey of energy experts — from industry, academia, government and more — is mixed on this question.
• What they found: 38% see the conflict slowing the process toward net zero, 31% see an accelerant, while the remainder see no effect. And just 25% see a major impact in either direction.

It's a new map. Europe's efforts to shun Russian oil and pipelined gas have redirected shipments, deepening Kremlin energy ties with China and India.

• Zoom in: China's oil imports from Russia rose to 2.4 million barrels per day last year, per IEA data. India's increase has been stunning, rising from roughly 100,000 barrels per day in 2021 to roughly 2 million in 2023 and 2024, per IEA.
• State of play: Europe vastly curbed imports of gas from Russia, once its dominant supplier, thanks to cutting pipelined supply. LNG shipments from its eastern neighbor have risen, but overall Russia now has just a small fraction of its prior 40% share of European gas imports.

Real but limited economic pushback on the Kremlin. Russia's "shadow fleet" of tankers has stymied the effects of oil sanctions and the G7-led price cap.

• The big picture: Volumes have declined slightly, but Russian oil has been an "enduring" presence, said Landon Derentz, senior Atlantic Council energy analyst. The conflict has not deterred a "meaningful portion of Russian oil flows from reaching the market," he said.

What we're watching: U.S. talks with Russia over ending the war.

• U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has raised the prospect of tougher oil sanctions to force talks, and easing restrictions as an incentive.
• Meanwhile, there's chatter about what once sounded far-fetched: resumption of large-scale Russian pipeline gas flows to Europe, which is grappling with high prices, if the war ends.

President Trump named bombastic MAGA podcast star Dan Bongino as deputy FBI director — a role that doesn't require Senate confirmation, and typically goes to a senior agent.

Why it matters: With loyalist Kash Patel confirmed as FBI director, the bureau can function effectively as Trump's private security force.

• Announcing the appointment on Truth Social last night, Trump said Patel "will be the best ever Director" and said of Bongino: "Working with our great new United States Attorney General, Pam Bondi, and Director Patel, Fairness, Justice, Law and Order will be brought back to America, and quickly."

Catch up quick: Bongino served in the NYPD before joining the Secret Service and working in the Presidential Protective Division during the administrations of Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama.

• The FBI Agents Association wanted an active-duty agent as deputy. So the pick could intensify "mistrust among the rank-and-file," the N.Y. Times reports.

Flashback: Talking in 2018 about the confirmation battle for Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, Bongino said: "My entire life right now is about owning the libs."

Go deeper: YouTube permanently bans Fox News host Dan Bongino

Apple on Monday morning announced plans to invest more than $500 billion in the U.S. and hire 20,000 people over the next four years, with expansion and construction planned from coast to coast.

• The new jobs will focus on research and development, silicon engineering, software development, and AI and machine learning.
• Apple plans to greatly expand chip and server manufacturing in the U.S., plus skills development for students and workers across the country.

Why it matters: Apple's announcement — which the company calls its "largest-ever spend commitment" — is precisely the kind of win President Trump has been looking for with his push to move manufacturing back to the U.S.

• Apple's new investment — much of it in red states — lets Trump say to other companies: Apple can do it. Why can't (or won't) you?

Apple CEO Tim Cook said in the announcement: "We are bullish on the future of American innovation, and we're proud to build on our longstanding U.S. investments with this $500 billion commitment to our country's future."

• "From doubling our Advanced Manufacturing Fund [from $5 billion to $10 billion], to building advanced technology in Texas, we're thrilled to expand our support for American manufacturing," Cook added. "And we'll keep working with people and companies across this country to help write an extraordinary new chapter in the history of American innovation."

The backstory: Trump met with Cook on Thursday in the Oval Office. Then Trump got so excited that he revealed the plans prematurely, saying on-camera while meeting with governors that Cook is "investing hundreds of billions of dollars. I hope he's announced it — I hope I didn't announce it, but what the hell? All I do is tell the truth — that's what he told me. Now he has to do it, right?"

• "He is investing hundreds of billions of dollars and others, too," Trump continued. "We will have a lot of chipmakers coming in, a lot of automakers coming in. They stopped two plants in Mexico that were ... starting construction. They just stopped them — they're going to build them here instead, because they don't want to pay the tariffs. Tariffs are amazing."

The big picture: Apple says it now supports nearly 3 million jobs across the U.S. through direct employment, work with suppliers and manufacturers, and developer jobs in the iOS app economy.

• Apple already works with thousands of suppliers across all 50 states, including 24 factories in 12 states.
• Apple's U.S. Advanced Manufacturing Fund has supported projects in 13 states, helping build local businesses and train workers.

Reality check: Apple made a similar announcement four years ago. In 2021, Apple committed $430 billion in U.S. investments and 20,000 new jobs across the country over five years — including a new campus in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, where development was paused last year.

• Apple says it has worked with North Carolina Gov. Josh Stein (D) and the North Carolina Department of Commerce to extend the project's timeline. Apple says it continues to grow its teams in the Tar Heel State — both at corporate offices in Raleigh and at a data center in Catawba, where the company has exceeded planned investments.

Zoom in: Here's a rundown of Apple's new expansion plans:

• Texas: New advanced AI server manufacturing factory near Houston. The 250,000-square-foot server manufacturing facility, slated to open in 2026, "will create thousands of jobs," Apple's announcement says. "Previously manufactured outside the U.S., the servers that will soon be assembled in Houston play a key role in powering Apple Intelligence, and are the foundation of Private Cloud Compute, which combines powerful AI processing with the most advanced security architecture ever deployed at scale for AI cloud computing. The servers bring together years of R&D by Apple engineers."
• Michigan: New Apple Manufacturing Academy in Detroit. "Apple engineers, along with experts from top universities such as Michigan State, will consult with small- and medium-sized businesses on implementing AI and smart manufacturing techniques," the announcement says. "The academy will also offer free in-person and online courses, with a skills development curriculum that teaches workers vital skills like project management and manufacturing process optimization."
•  California: Construction of a state-of-the-art campus is underway in Culver City, an entertainment enclave in L.A. County. In San Diego, a 4,000-member team will continue to grow.
• Arizona: Apple-designed Apple Silicon will be produced at TSMC's Fab 21 semiconductor plant in Phoenix.
• Washington state: Apple has doubled the number of team members in Seattle over the past three years to 2,400+, and will keep growing.
• Operations will expand in Mesa, Arizona ... Reno, Nevada ... Prineville, Oregon ... and Maiden, North Carolina (outside Charlotte).

Go deeper: Apple announcement.

Who's going to be left holding the $400 billion bag? That's the ultimate question that undergirds the debate over the future of the post office.

Why it matters: The U.S. Postal Service suffers under a system of pension obligations that is seen at no private company and in no other government department.

• But there's also historically been no appetite in Congress to fix this longstanding problem.

Driving the news: The White House on Friday denied a Washington Post report that President Trump intended to dissolve the USPS board and take control of the Post Office — but Trump did say that he wanted some kind of Commerce Department "merger" that would ensure the agency "doesn't lose massive amounts of money."

The big picture: Per a comprehensive report that was released last year by the USPS inspector general, the Post Office ended fiscal year 2022 with pension and healthcare liabilities of $409 billion — against assets of just $290 billion.

• Retirement costs alone make up about 12% of the USPS's total expenses — but the Post Office has no control over where that money goes, how it's invested, or how it's disbursed.

By the numbers: The Post Office has more than 700,000 retirees and survivors collecting benefits — and employs more than 500,000 people who will collect pensions in the future.

• The agency pays $10 billion per year into federal pension programs it doesn't control.
• That money is invested extremely conservatively, with a 100% allocation to Treasury bonds. As a result, the funds actually lost money, in real terms, in both the 2021 and 2022 fiscal years.
• According to the inspector general's report, the $155 billion deficit in the Post Office's retirement funds at the end of fiscal 2021 would have been a $963 billion surplus if that money had been invested in a standard portfolio of 60% stocks and 40% bonds since inception.

The intrigue: Other federal agencies receive money from Congress to make required employer contributions; the Post Office doesn't.

• Private pension plans, and even some government plans, including the National Railroad Retirement Investment Trust and the Retirement System for Tennessee Valley Authority, are allowed to invest their money in stocks and other assets that provide higher long-term returns than Treasury bonds. The Post Office isn't.

The bottom line: More than a million workers have some kind of Post Office pension. Who's going to pay them that money, and where it's going to come from, will ultimately determine the fiscal viability of the Post Office as a business.

Three years into Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Russia is making only small-scale advances on the battlefield but has the upper hand both militarily and diplomatically.

The big picture: Russia has superior manpower and firepower, particularly with U.S. military support in question. President Trump has further tightened the vise with his initial approach to peace talks.

• Trump ruled out NATO membership or a U.S.-led peacekeeping mission for Ukraine, falsely claimed Ukrainian "dictator" Volodymyr Zelensky started the war, and excluded Ukraine from a first round of peace talks with the Russians.
• Trump has claimed Russia's Vladimir Putin could take "the whole country" on the battlefield if he wished — though Putin only managed to take around 1% of Ukraine's territory in 2024.
• The battle lines haven't shifted all that much since 2022 despite heavy casualties on both sides, with Russia occupying around one-fifth of the country altogether.

How control of Ukrainian territory has shifted

Flashback: Russia began a three-front lightening offensive on Feb. 24, 2022 but failed in its primary objective of taking Kyiv and was also rebuffed in the south and east (see second map).

• Zelensky became an international icon by remaining in Kyiv and rallying the nation. As Russian forces pulled back, horrific war crimes were uncovered in places like Bucha.
• Ukraine liberated vast swathes of the Kharkiv, Kherson and Mykolaiv regions in a fall, 2022 counteroffensive (third map).

Turning point: Ukraine's much-heralded 2023 counteroffensive failed. A war of attrition set in, with both sides taking heavy losses and Russia making small-scale advances.

• While it has primarily been Russia on the offensive since then, Ukraine launched a cross-border incursion last August and occupied parts of the Kursk and Belgorod regions.
• Russia has reclaimed much of that territory and is making slow advances in multiple zones of eastern Ukraine (fourth map).

Driving the news: Russia is also continuing its attacks on civilian infrastructure, and launched its largest drone attack of the war on Saturday.

By the numbers: Troop and civilian casualties

Ukrainian troop casualties: Zelensky said recently that more than 46,000 Ukrainian soldiers had been killed and over 390,000 wounded. Other estimates are considerably higher.

Russian troop casualties: Russia has not released casualty numbers for its troops since 2022. Estimates vary widely, but most put Russia's losses somewhat higher than Ukraine's.

• A Mediazona-BBC News project to track Russian troop fatalities has recorded 93,641 deaths.
• The Ukrainian military claimed on Thursday that Russia had suffered more than 800,000 "battlefield losses," presumably including those captured or severely wounded.
• Kyiv also claims around 3,000 North Korean troops fighting in Ukraine have been killed.

Civilian casualties: The UN reported over 12,340 civilian deaths in Ukraine as of late 2024, and noted the true total was likely "much, much higher."

• Tens of thousands of civilians likely died in the 2022 siege of Mariupol alone, AFP notes.
• Around 63,000 Ukrainians have been reported missing, according to a government database.

The scale of destruction in Ukraine

The Kyiv School of Economics puts the destruction Russia has inflicted on Ukraine at $155 billion, by replacement cost.

• The majority of those losses are to housing and infrastructure. Russia has targeted Ukraine's energy infrastructure in particular, causing rolling blackouts in Kyiv and other cities around the country.
• An NYT analysis last year found 210,000 buildings leveled across Ukraine. That includes hundreds of schools, hospitals and government buildings.
• Some towns in eastern Ukraine have been entirely destroyed and emptied of civilians. Conditions for the civilians remaining in areas occupied by Russia are often dreadful.

What to watch: Prospects for peace

For a peace deal to be possible, Putin and Zelensky would both have to soften their irreconcilable positions.

Putin claimed four Ukrainian regions as part of Russia in 2022, despite the fact that significant portions of those areas remain in Ukrainian hands. He has said they must remain part of Russia.

• He has also demanded that Ukraine "demilitarize" and abandon its goal of NATO membership.

Zelensky continues to lobby for admission to NATO, despite Trump's position that it's "impractical."

• He had long insisted Ukraine's full territorial integrity must be restored, but has more recently acknowledged that's unlikely in the near term.
• He is unwilling to countenance "demilitarization" and insists on robust security guarantees for Ukraine as part of any deal, to prevent Russia from resuming its invasion when the time is ripe.

While the Trump administration has said U.S. troops will not take part, Trump told Zelensky a European peacekeeping force could make sense, Axios' Barak Ravid reports.

• Zelensky also told Trump that Putin is only pretending to want peace.

The Trump administration's big cuts to the federal government are hitting one group particularly hard — the country's veterans.

Why it matters: Many of those who've served in the military derive a sense of purpose and belonging from their government work — viewing it as a way to serve their country and help their peers outside of active duty.

The big picture: It's not yet clear how many military vets have been fired, or will be. Last year veterans made up 28% of the federal workforce, per federal data — a far bigger share than the 5% in the private sector.

• About 36% of the vets working in civil service, more than 200,000 in total, are disabled or have a serious health condition, per federal data.

"This is the largest attack on veteran employment in our lifetime," says William Attig, executive director at the Union Veterans Council, a labor group that represents many of these workers.

• Attig, who was deployed in Iraq from 2003 to 2009, has been talking to newly unemployed members, trying to get a tally of everyone who's lost a job.

Zoom in: Some veterans, still holding on to their jobs for now, are waiting for the hammer to drop.

• "We're being smeared as leeches, but I just want to serve my country and provide for my family," an employee at the Department of Defense who is a disabled veteran, and requested anonymity because he didn't want to put his job further at risk, told Axios.
• He was thrilled to land his job just a few months ago, but is anxiously waiting to see if he'll be one of the more than 5,000 workers the Pentagon said it would fire next week.

Between the lines: Privately, GOP lawmakers are growing uneasy with cuts that impact veterans, Politico reports, adding that vets have been "disproportionately affected" by the firings.

For the record: The White House did not say how many veterans have been fired. At least one department, Interior, has reportedly carved out an exception for them.

• "President Trump has consistently stood up for our brave men and women in uniform – delivering crucial reforms that improved VA healthcare, decreased Veteran homelessness, and enhanced education benefits," said White House spokesperson Anna Kelly in an email.

Zoom out: There are a few reasons government work attracts vets. The federal government has a "veterans preference" — put simply, when deciding among a group of qualified candidates, they're first in line.

• "You'd have to jump through a lot of hoops to not hire a veteran," said a former federal official who worked in human capital.
• With more veterans working in government, more feel welcomed to work among people who understand them. Others are drawn to the retirement benefits — years of military service counts towards your federal pension.

Plus, many of these folks feel drawn to mission-driven employment. "Most veterans feel like they're putting on another uniform," says Attig.

• These jobs are a crucial piece of the puzzle in post-military life, he says, adding that it's also a key part of suicide prevention for this at-risk group.
• "One of the most important things you can do for veterans is to find them a job."

A hot startup that grew overnight into a billion-dollar behemoth is racing with established tech giants for supremacy in a new market that everyone expects will unlock a future of abundance and profit.

Flashback: That sounds like a description of OpenAI vs Google et al., but it's actually an account of the "browser wars" at the dawn of the web 30 years ago — when Netscape vied with Microsoft to control the software people would use to access the internet.

Why it matters: In 1996 or 1997, a couple years after forward-looking tech leaders first realized that "owning" the web browser would be a prize, Google — the company that would ultimately win the race — didn't even exist.

Today, as AI giants and challengers vie to build a better chatbot and seize mindshare and market share, there is similarly a good possibility that the winning bot (assuming there is only one) has not yet been invented, and the company that will make it has yet to be founded.

That's why tech's superpowers, despite their immense wealth and influence, have been running scared.

• It's also why VCs continue to pour money into new startups like Mira Murati's Thinking Machines Lab and Ilya Sutskever's Safe Superintelligence.

It can be baffling to watch the proliferation of these companies in a market that's already led by the likes of OpenAI's ChatGPT, Google's Gemini and Anthropic's Claude — with well-funded competitors like Elon Musk's xAI, open-source offerings like Meta's Llama and new contenders like China's Deepseek also thronging the AI space.

The space's crowding leads some observers to see today's AI splurge as a bubble, and it almost certainly is. Many or most of these companies and products will fail — indeed, culling has already begun.

• But the logic of venture capital assumes that, even as most companies will fail, a few investors will hit the jackpot by getting an early piece of a company that grows unfathomably profitable the way Google or Facebook/Meta, did.

No one knows how this will play out in AI.

• The jackpot company could be one of today's market leaders like OpenAI. It could be a dark horse that's still a back-of-a-napkin sketch on some founder's dining-room table. Or maybe one of today's established giants will end up owning the market.

The browser wars make an instructive parallel.

• In the '90s, Netscape was in the OpenAI position — it kicked off the new market with fast updates of its free Navigator browser and wowed the world with a skyrocketing initial public offering in 1995.
• Microsoft fought back with the introduction of the competing Internet Explorer, a flop at first that gradually improved and won users thanks to its integration with Microsoft's dominant operating system.
• Microsoft won the first battle — triggering a massive antitrust lawsuit by the Justice Department. But over the following decade IE lost ground to more innovative competitors like Mozilla.

Google didn't even introduce Chrome until 2008, and today it's by far the most popular browser in the world.

• But by that time, the victory didn't seem to matter as much. The smartphone revolution was underway, and apps were taking on much of the "gateway to the internet" role from browsers.

The bottom line: Tech's platform shifts may feel high-velocity, but they take a long time to unfold — and you should never feel too sure you know who is going to own the future.

Germany's CDU/CSU conservative alliance won Sunday's general election election and the Elon Musk-endorsed far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) party came second, preliminary results show.

The big picture: Friedrich Merz, of the center-right Christian Democratic Union (CDU), is set to Germany's chancellor and he's indicated that Europe's biggest economy and the largest EU member intends to move away from the U.S. once coalition talks have concluded.

By the numbers: While preliminary results show CDU/CSU won 28.6% of the vote and AfD 20.8%, the conservative alliance has ruled out working with the anti-immigration AfD, as did all other major parties.

• Outgoing chancellor Olaf Scholz's Social Democrats won 16.4% of the vote and the Greens secured 11.6%, per the preliminary results.

Driving the news: Merz singled out the U.S. in claiming victory, days after Vice President JD Vance accused the Munich Security Conference of not allowing far-right and far-left politicians to attend the annual event in a speech that criticized European allies.

• "My impression over the last few days is that Russia and America are finding common ground — over the heads of Ukraine, and consequently over those of Europe," said the 69-year-old former lawyer Merz, who's previously worked for U.S. law firms, on X.
• "Therefore, everyone is turning their attention to Germany. How quickly are the Germans going to form a government after this complicated election result? For me, this is now a priority."

Zoom in: Merz said on a TV show that his "absolute priority will be to strengthen Europe as quickly as possible so that, step by step, we can really achieve independence from the USA," according to a translation.

• President Trump's statements on Ukraine last week as the U.S. pushes for talks with Russia make it "clear that the Americans, at least this part of the Americans, this administration, are largely indifferent to the fate of Europe," Merz said.
• "I am very curious to see how we are heading toward the NATO summit at the end of June," he added. "Whether we will still be talking about NATO in its current form or whether we will have to establish an independent European defense capability much more quickly."

What he's saying: Trump on Truth Social called the CDU/CSU win a "great day for Germany," saying: "Much like the USA, the people of Germany got tired of the no common sense agenda, especially on energy and immigration."

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

Go deeper: Trump's first month turns U.S. foreign policy upside down

Conservative commentator Dan Bongino was named deputy FBI director, President Trump announced on Sunday night.

The big picture: The "Dan Bongino Show" podcast host will serve in the role that doesn't require Senate confirmation under newly confirmed FBI director Kash Patel, a fellow Trump loyalist.

• The appointment comes as Trump seeks to test the limits of presidential authority and expand the powers of law enforcement.

Background: Bongino lacks FBI experience, but he has previously served in the New York Police Department (NYPD) before joining the U.S. Secret Service and working in the Presidential Protective Division during the administrations of Presidents George W. Bush and Obama.

What they're saying: Bongino thanked Trump on X as he shared the president's original post praising the former Fox News host as "a man of incredible love and passion for our Country."

Go deeper: What to know about Kash Patel, Trump's pick for FBI director

Editor's note: This article has been updated with further context.

Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelensky said Sunday he's "ready" to "give up" his leadership in exchange for peace in his nation or Kyiv becoming a member of NATO.

The big picture: Zelensky made the comments on the eve of the third anniversary of Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine, as U.S. and Russian officials hold talks on the war ahead of a possible summit between President Trump and Russian leader Vladimir Putin.

What he's saying: "If to achieve peace you really need me to give up my post — I'm ready," said Zelensky, who was democratically elected in 2019, in response to a question during a briefing Sunday. "I can trade it for NATO membership, if there are such conditions."

• Zelensky shrugged off Trump's claims that Ukraine's leader is "a dictator without elections" — in reference to Kyiv postponing going to the polls in 2024.
• "I wasn't offended, but a dictator would be," Zelensky said. "I am focused on Ukraine's security today, not in 20 years, I am not going to be in power for decades."

Context: Ukraine's Constitution "does not allow national elections during martial law, which was introduced in 2022 and remains in place" due to Russia's war on Ukraine, per the Atlantic Council think tank.

Between the lines: Ukraine's possible membership of NATO has been a source of tension between the Kyiv and Moscow officials for years.

• Putin used the matter in part to try and justify his forces' invasion of Ukraine, while Zelensky sees NATO membership as an essential guarantee of his country's long-term security.
• Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has said Ukraine joining NATO would not be a "realistic outcome of a negotiated settlement" with Russia.

Go deeper: Trump puts Ukraine in a vise

Editor's note: This article has been updated with further context.