White House envoy Steve Witkoff is expected to travel to Doha on Tuesday evening in an effort to broker a new hostage-release and ceasefire deal between Israel and Hamas, two U.S. officials said.

Why it matters: The talks would be the first since President Trump took office and since the original agreement between Israel and Hamas that established a 42-day ceasefire in Gaza in exchange for the release of 33 hostages in its first phase, which ended one week ago.

• Witkoff is expected to join Qatari and Egyptian mediators and negotiators from Israel and Hamas who will begin talks on Monday.
• The Trump administration is pushing for a deal that would lead to the release of all remaining hostages, extend the ceasefire until after the Muslim holy month of Ramadan and the Jewish holiday of Passover and possibly lead to a long-term truce that would end the war.
• Hamas is still holding 59 hostages in Gaza. The Israel Defense Forces have confirmed 35 are dead. Israeli intelligence believes 22 are still alive and the status of two others is unknown.
• Among the remaining hostages are five Americans, including 21-year-old Edan Alexander who is believed to be alive.

Driving the news: Axios reported earlier this week that Trump's envoy for hostage affairs Adam Boehler has been holding direct talks with Hamas officials. Their last meeting took place last Tuesday.

• During the talks, Boehler discussed the possible release of Alexander and the remains of four other American hostages as a way to launch a broader deal on the release of all remaining hostages and a long term truce.

State of play: Witkoff is expected to travel to Doha after participating in a meeting between U.S. and Ukrainian officials in Saudi Arabia on Tuesday.

• It is unclear if he is going to meet with Hamas officials or only with Israeli negotiators and Qatari and Egyptian mediators.
• A senior Israeli official said Witkoff wanted to get all the parties in one place for several days of intense negotiations in an effort to reach a deal.

A Hamas delegation held talks in Cairo on Saturday with the director of the Egyptian intelligence service about the Gaza ceasefire and hostage deal.

• Hamas said in a statement it urges all parties to implement their commitment to the original deal and begin negotiations over its second phase immediately. Israel has so far refused to seriously discuss the second phase of the deal.
• Hamas also said it stressed to the Egyptian officials that it is ready to form a committee of "national independent personalities" to govern Gaza until elections are held. Such a step would mean Hamas would give up its control over the civilian governance in Gaza.

What to watch: Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu held a meeting with a group of senior ministers and the heads of the security services on Saturday to discuss the next steps in the Gaza deal.

• "Israel has accepted the invitation of the mediators backed by the U.S., and will send a delegation to Doha on Monday in an effort to advance the negotiations," the Prime Minister's Office said in a statement at the end of the meeting.

Some Trump administration officials citing health concerns are looking to remove "junk food" from a federal food assistance program serving more than 41 million Americans.

The big picture: A ban on any foods in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program could be particularly paramount for recipients living in food deserts who don't have access to nutritious foods nearby.

• A ban would require action through Congress.
• Late last month, House Republicans voted to pass a budget resolution that sets the stage for $230 billion or more in cuts to agriculture programs, with a large chunk expected to come from SNAP.

State of play: The Food and Nutrition Act defines food for SNAP purposes as any food or food product for home consumption, with some limited exceptions like alcoholic beverages or hot foods for immediate consumption.

• In order to narrow that definition, either Congress would need to change the law or a state would need to propose and get approval for a demonstration project to test that, Katie Bergh, senior policy analyst at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, told Axios.
• "This is something that we've seen a handful of states request in the past, where they essentially are asking the Department of Agriculture to approve a request to restrict the foods that SNAP participants within their state can purchase in some form," she said.
• But no such requests has ever been approved under either Republican or Democratic presidents, including under the first Trump administration.

Catch up quick: Newly-confirmed Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins have indicated they're in favor of removing sugary drinks and processed foods from SNAP.

• "The one place that I would say that we need to really change policy is the SNAP program and food stamps and in school lunches," Kennedy said on Fox News last month. "There, the federal government in many cases is paying for it. And we shouldn't be subsidizing people to eat poison."
• Rollins echoed the sentiment, telling reporters at the White House, "When a taxpayer is putting money into SNAP, are they OK with us using their tax dollars to feed really bad food and sugary drinks to children who perhaps need something more nutritious?"

By the numbers: More than 41 million people in the U.S. received SNAP benefits in 2024.

• The average SNAP benefit per person in fiscal year 2025 is $6.16 per day, according to estimates from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

Zoom in: There are a number of risks with the proposal to cut foods from SNAP, including logistical and cost concerns, access in food desserts, equity issues and questions over how to measure success and behavioral changes among consumers.

• Anything that increases administrative burden affects other parts of the program at the state level, Gina Plata-Nino, SNAP Deputy Director at the Food Research & Action Center, told Axios.

Case in point: There would be a large impact on retailers. Those that are not large scale like Walmart, with resources to change markings on SNAP-approved foods, could decide not to operate the program at their stores at all.

• Deciding which foods to cut also presents questions on how to define and measure junk foods, Plata-Nino said, questioning whether it'll be through sodium or sugar content.
• Orange juice, for example, has a lot of sugar but is important for diabetics having medical issues, she noted. Cheese has a higher content of sodium than some chips, and milk has a higher fat content than other drinks.
• "Are we going to ban milk and cheese?" she questioned.

Food deserts are areas where residents have limited access to affordable and healthy food, particularly fresh fruits and vegetables.

• In such areas, individuals may be driving two hours each way to a grocery store and so they're unable to go as often, Gina Plata-Nino said.
• Because fresh produce doesn't last a month until they're able to go again, people there may buy food in bulk, processed items that last longer or opt for frozen options — foods that could potentially be cut under the proposal.

Between the lines: The diets of Americans across income levels are falling short of what experts recommend.

• Bergh said aside from feasibility and cost concerns, the premise of the junk food cutting effort is "fundamentally misguided."
• "Contrary to some of the claims that proponents of these efforts have been making, there's actually pretty extensive research linking SNAP participation to better health outcomes and lower medical costs," Bergh said, noting limited data on what SNAP participants buy.

What she's saying: The data available shows there's no meaningful difference in the types of foods people are purchasing with SNAP versus other payment methods.

• "So it's pretty troubling that the solutions being proposed here are ones that really only single out the lowest income Americans in a way that's really stigmatizing and burdensome for them," Bergh said.
• "Just as a basic principle, everyone should have the same ability to choose the foods that best meet their needs regardless of how I'm paying at the checkout line."

Go deeper: America's food aid gap, mapped

Tennessee was a crucial battleground in the early civil rights movement, influencing the late John Lewis' fight against Jim Crow before he helped lead the march in Selma.

Why it matters: Decades later, Tennessee is again at the center of a civil rights fight. Organizers and lawmakers warn that Tennessee is becoming a "testing ground for voter suppression" and that policies there could spread across the country.

Driving the news: Three Black women — state Sen. Charlane Oliver, Stand Up Nashville's Odessa Kelly and The Equity Alliance's Tequila Johnson — are helping lead the fight in Tennessee. They spoke with Axios before the 60th anniversary of the Selma march, a catalyst for the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

This year, there is a looming fear of a rollback on voting and civil rights. Civil rights leaders say the march should act as a renewed call to action.

Flashback: Before becoming a civil rights icon, Lewis trained in Nashville, where early sit-ins shaped his philosophy of nonviolent resistance.

• That foundation carried him through Selma and, ultimately, to Atlanta, where he spent decades fighting for voting rights in Congress.

"Tennessee is where John Lewis cut his teeth," Oliver said. "And now we're watching it become a testing ground for voter suppression."

The big picture: Oliver says that since the Supreme Court's 2013 Shelby County v. Holder ruling weakened the Voting Rights Act, Tennessee has seen a surge in restrictive voting laws.

• Laws like Tennessee's strict voter ID requirements, bans on college student IDs for voting, and polling place reductions in growing Black communities reflect a broader strategy to limit ballot access.
• The state ranks among the lowest in voter turnout and has some of the strictest disenfranchisement laws for formerly incarcerated individuals.
• Tennessee is the only state that requires child support payments before restoring voting rights. Oliver says she considers that a modern-day poll tax.

What they're saying: Johnson sees history repeating. She says these modern measures reflect Black voters' obstacles when trying to vote — counting bubbles in soap, guessing how many jellybeans are in a jar, or reciting the Constitution from memory.

State of play: The Trump administration's work to unravel successful diversity efforts adds gasoline to the fire, Johnson says.

• "This moment feels both familiar and unfamiliar," Oliver said. "The threats we face today are even more dire because of who is in the White House."
• "When John Lewis marched in Selma, they could at least pressure the administration to act. Now, we have leaders trying to take us back — not just pre-Civil Rights Movement, but to an era where Jim Crow was law."

Kelly shares that frustration.

• "I'm enraged," she said. "My parents were born in the '40s during Jim Crow, and to see the civil rights bill being torn apart bit by bit, it's heartbreaking. We have to rethink how we build and protect the community."
• "The policies that alarm people nationally? They were tested in Tennessee first," Kelly said. "We're seeing voter suppression laws, attacks on public education and corporate influence shaping policy in ways that harm marginalized communities."

Zoom out: The Supreme Court's weakening of voter protections makes it tougher to challenge suppression laws.

• "These laws aren't just happening in a vacuum," National Urban League president Marc Morial said. "Since Shelby, we've seen a flood of voter suppression bills designed to make it harder for people to vote."

Zoom in: Morial says the John Lewis Voting Rights Act is "essential to restoring the protections we lost and ensuring every American has the right to vote without obstruction."

The bottom line: Civil rights leaders say a new fight is beginning.

• "We are not backing down," Morial said. "We will challenge these policies in the courts, at the ballot box, and in the streets."
• "We can't wait until laws pass to fight back. We must anticipate these attacks and organize now," Johnson said.

Oliver agrees: "John Lewis showed us the way. Now it's on us to keep marching."

All week the crypto world was abuzz about who was and who wasn't going to be at the first Digital Asset Summit at the White House on Friday.

• Crypto and AI czar David Sacks and President Trump dropped their biggest announcement the night before, unveiling the Strategic Bitcoin Reserve by executive order, positioning bitcoin alongside classic reserves like gold.

Why it matters: Trump has vowed to be America's "first crypto president" and pledged to make the U.S. the "crypto capital."

• The executive order acknowledges bitcoin's "fixed supply" and maintains "there is a strategic advantage to being among the first nations to create a strategic bitcoin reserve."

By the numbers: Bitcoin began the week midway between $80,000 and $90,000, and for all the drama, that's where it ended too.

Zoom in: A still-unknown number of leaders in the crypto industry spent half the day at the White House Friday, followed by a reception hosted by Coinbase, the leading U.S. crypto exchange.

• During the public portion of the summit, the main thing attendees did was thank the president.

What they're saying: "The U.S. won the internet, and the U.S. should win crypto. So thank you for your leadership on this," Tyler Winklevoss, a co-founder of the crypto exchange Gemini, said at the summit.

• The president told his guests at the end of the meeting: "This is a very important day in your lives. I know you worked some of you very long, long before people really understood what was happening. And so I congratulate you.
• "Being in the White House is a big deal."

The bottom line: As the summit ended, the administration took a material step to roll back what's been referred to as Operation Chokepoint 2.0, with the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency ending the requirement that its banks seek permission to engage in common crypto activities.

House Republicans released a 100-page stopgap spending bill Saturday afternoon that will fund the government through the end of September at levels slightly below last year's.

Why it matters: The bill represents a coordinated effort by Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) and President Trump to avoid a shutdown after March 14. A vote is planned for Tuesday.

• "It is quite literally as clean as a CR as you can draft," a House Republican leadership aide told reporters.
• GOP leaders are talking about passing the spending bill with only Republican votes, which hasn't happened in recent memory.

Driving the news: House Democratic leaders hinted late Friday that they might oppose the legislation, setting up a showdown, with the prospect of a government shutdown hanging in the balance.

• "Medicaid is our redline," they wrote in a Dear Colleague letter.
• If the short-term legislation clears the House, Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) will need to find at least eight Democratic votes to pass the bill in that chamber.

Zoom in: The House legislation includes $892.5 billion for defense spending and $708 billion for non-defense spending. Those numbers are below the caps established in the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 and the money appropriated last year.

• "We are about $7 billion dollars below FY 2024 levels," the GOP aide told reporters.
• "Non-defense (spending) will decrease under the bill, but important stuff, like Veterans Healthcare is protected," the aid said.
• The bill also includes more money for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which GOP officials said the agency has been requesting since the Biden administration.
• The legislation does not include any "community projects" – a term of art (formerly known as earmarks) that refers to specific spending in a member's district.

Zoom out: The short-term funding bill only deals with discretionary spending and won't affect spending levels for Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, according to GOP leadership aides.

• But in the GOP's separate budget reconciliation package, lawmakers have instructed the Energy and Commerce Committee to cut some $880 billion, which will be very difficult to do if they don't touch Medicaid.

The bottom line: It was unclear if Friday's Democratic demands on Medicaid apply to the CR or the bigger tax and spending package that has yet to fully take shape.

• But both House leaders are signaling to their rank-and-file that they expect party loyalty on next week's vote.

Menopause is something every woman goes through, but doctors — even OB-GYNs — aren't required to learn much about it.

Why it matters: Millions of women don't get the care they need — and some are getting misinformation at the doctor's office.

Catch up quick: In 2002, research from the Women's Health Initiative found hormone therapy increased a woman's risk of heart disease and breast cancer, upending conventional medical recommendations about the treatment.

• But in recent years, the research was put into context: the risks weren't as great as originally thought and the data was weighted toward women 60 and older. The average age of a menopausal woman is 51.
• Since then, researchers and health professionals have tried to correct the messaging, noting the benefits of hormone therapy for women younger than the age of 60, including treating hot flashes and preventing bone loss.
• Even some women over 65 can benefit from hormone therapy, new research suggests.

"It's such an uphill battle to not just teach people about it, but to undo all the damage of the last 20+ years," Deborah Gomez Kwolek of Mass General Women's Health and Sex and Gender Medicine Program tells Axios.

Stunning stat: Only about 7% of OB-GYN residents reported feeling adequately prepared to manage menopause, according to a 2019 survey published in Mayo Clinic Proceedings.

• More than one in five OB-GYN residents (about 20%) reported receiving no menopause lectures during residency.
• About a third said they wouldn't offer hormone therapy to a symptomatic, newly menopausal woman without contraindications (or warnings).

Symptoms vary widely. Perimenopause, the phase leading up to menopause, can begin 6-10 years earlier and trigger all sorts of hormonal chaos. Menopause is officially marked after a woman has gone one year without a period.

• Primary care physician and Elektra's chief medical officer, Nora Lansen, has a message for perimenopausal patients: "You're not crazy."
• "There are so many different symptoms and they manifest in different ways and at different times of life. So it could be: 'I can't remember my kid's teacher's name' this year but then, two years from now, it's, 'My libido's tanking.'"
• Recent research from UVA Health and the women's health app Flo suggests these symptoms could show up as early as age 30.

Between the lines: Required medical school curriculum dedicated to menopause and hormone therapy is limited and, when it is offered, it is often folded into broader courses.

• "Most continuing education courses have an hour on menopause, like in a weeklong course, or even some of the OB-GYN and the women's health courses have one hour on menopause hormone therapy," Kwolek said. "That's really not enough."

What they're saying: "There is no room in the medical school curriculum for menopause," says Stephanie Faubion, medical director for The Menopause Society and a longtime advocate for better education on the topic. Her daughter, a fourth-year medical student at Mayo, is seeing this gap firsthand.

• The Menopause Society has worked to fill this void, offering educational resources and establishing a competency exam in 2002 for health care professionals to earn a Menopause Society Certified Practitioner credential.

What's next: Businesses are stepping in where doctors aren't. Millennials, the generation that currently includes the most women in America, are heading into the menopause years. Celebrities are launching telehealth companies and saying "women deserve better." Influencers are pushing products, which may or may not have scientific backing.

• And even that's not meeting demand.

Case in point: Kwolek's menopause clinic has a yearlong waiting list.

• To meet demand, she's working to equip more physicians with necessary training.
• This month, Kwolek is directing a five-day menopausal treatment course organized by Mass General Brigham and designed by national and Harvard Medical School experts.

The bottom line: "Women don't have to suffer," Faubion said, but they have to find a physician who knows enough to help.

Iran's supreme leader Ali Khamenei said on Saturday that his country will not accept the demands of "bullying countries".

Why it matters: Khamenei's comment seemed to refer to President Trump's claim he sent a letter to the Iranian leader about a possible nuclear deal.

• Khamenei didn't mention Trump by name and didn't confirm he received a letter from the U.S. president.

What they are saying: "Some bullying countries insist on talks not to resolve issues but to impose their demands...we will certainly not accept their demands", the Iranian leader said in a meeting with senior officials.

• Khamenei said Iran will not accept demands to cap Iran's defensive capabilities by limiting the production of weapons or its missiles' range.
• He also said Iran won't agree to demands to cut ties with other groups in the region.

Driving the news: President Trump said an interview with Fox Business Maria Bartiromo that will air in full on Sunday that he sent a letter on Wednesday to Iran's supreme leader Ali Khamenei and stressed that he wants to reach a deal on the country's nuclear program.

• The president told reporters in the Oval Office on Friday that the coming days "will be interesting" when it comes to Iran.
• "We are down to final strokes with Iran. We are down to the final moments. We can't let them have a nuclear weapon. Something is going to happen very soon. I would rather have a peace deal than the other option but the other option will solve the problem," he said.

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

President Trump's dismantling of the U.S.-led global order has injected deep uncertainty — and perhaps fresh opportunity — into China's timeline for a potential invasion of Taiwan.

Why it matters: U.S. officials have long been fixated on 2027 as the year Xi Jinping would be ready to move on Taiwan, citing military modernization goals tied to the 100th anniversary of the People's Liberation Army.

• Trump — while acknowledging that a Chinese invasion would be "catastrophic" — has been purposely opaque about whether the U.S. would defend Taiwan in such a scenario.
• "I never comment on that," Trump said this week when asked if it was his policy that China will never take Taiwan by force. "I don't want to comment on it because I don't want to ever put myself in that position."

Driving the news: Beijing has stepped up its saber-rattling toward Taiwan, pledging at the annual National People's Congress this week to "firmly advance the cause of China's reunification" and boost defense spending by 7.2%.

• Next week marks the 20th anniversary of China's Anti-Secession Law, which explicitly authorizes the use of military force if Taiwan declares independence or if peaceful "reunification" becomes impossible.
• In a sign of mounting tensions, China's embassy in the U.S. warned this week that "if war is what the U.S. wants, be it a tariff war, a trade war or any other type of war, we're ready to fight till the end."

The big picture: U.S. presidents have had a long-running policy of "strategic ambiguity" on the question of military intervention to protect Taiwan. But under Trump 2.0, it has become a true mystery.

• For starters, Trump's approach toward Ukraine has dispelled the notion that he would defend Taiwan solely for the sake of shielding a democracy from authoritarian aggression.
• He has openly questioned America's commitment to NATO and sided with Russia, sending allies scrambling to remake Europe's security architecture after 80 years of stability.

Between the lines: Forget alliances or idealism. The only thing Trump cares about on the global stage is core U.S. interests.

• "Taiwan should pay us for defense," Trump told Bloomberg last summer. "You know, we're no different than an insurance company. Taiwan doesn't give us anything."
• And whether it's Russia or China, Trump prefers to negotiate superpower-to-superpower — leaving allies in the cold, even when their sovereignty or security is at stake.

Zoom in: Unlike Ukraine, Taiwan plays a pivotal role in the global economy, with its crown jewel chip-maker, TSMC, manufacturing more than 90% of the world's most advanced semiconductors.

• Global dependence on TSMC has long been considered a powerful deterrent against Chinese aggression, but Trump has treated the company's dominance as a personal affront.
• "Taiwan took our chip business away," Trump told reporters last month. "We had Intel, we had these great companies that did so well. It was taken from us. And we want that business back."

The intrigue: Under the threat of tariffs, TSMC announced a $100 billion investment in U.S chip production this week — pleasing Trump, but alarming Taiwanese who fear it could make the island more vulnerable.

• "It's a great question, actually," Trump said when asked whether having TSMC production in the U.S. would "minimize" the impact of China invading Taiwan.
• "I can't say 'minimize.' That would be a catastrophic event, obviously," Trump mused. "But ... we would have a very big part of it in the U.S. So, it would have a big impact if something should happen with Taiwan."

The other side: Many top Trump officials have called for the U.S. to draw down its presence in Europe and the Middle East to focus on China's threat to Taiwan, seeing it as far more important than Ukraine.

• Elbridge Colby, a leading voice on the issue nominated for a top Pentagon role, told senators this week that Taiwan falling to China "would be a disaster for American interests."
• Colby — who previously has advocated for "disabling or destroying" TSMC factories if China invades — called for Taiwan to boost its defense spending from 2.5% to 10% of its GDP.
• Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, meanwhile, told CNBC Friday that Trump is "confident" Xi will not invade Taiwan during his presidency.

The bottom line: Europe so far has borne the brunt of Trump's highly transactional foreign policy, but China, Taiwan and the rest of the Indo-Pacific are watching closely.

• In the words of Singapore's defense minister last month, America's image in the region "has changed from liberator to great disruptor to a landlord seeking rent."

Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller is setting policy from inside the White House, but a legal group he co-founded is shaping policy from the outside, through legal complaints and lawsuits against corporations and even the Trump administration itself.

Why it matters: The group — America First Legal — is the latest example of how Miller has amassed power in the new administration.

• The law group is a key part of Miller's larger mission to make diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs illegal across the country — based on the argument that they violate the civil rights of white people.

Driving the news: In recent weeks America First Legal has been aggressively filing complaints and lawsuits to try to make the federal bureaucracy comply with the new president's executive orders.

• The group has become a private enforcement arm of the White House's assault on DEI — or as it has billed itself, a right-wing version of the ACLU.

In early February, the group petitioned the Department of Education to investigate five school districts in Virginia for allegedly not complying with Title IX, which does not allow sex-based discrimination.

• Citing Trump's executive order on Jan. 29 that focused on K-12 schools, America First Legal argued that allowing transgender students who identify as girls to use girls' bathrooms would violate others' civil rights.
• Less than two weeks later, the Civil Rights office of the Education Department announced it was opening an investigation into the school districts.

Late last month, America First Legal petitioned the Labor Department to investigate whether outside federal contractors were in compliance with Trump's executive order banning federal contractors and subcontractors from "allowing or encouraging ... workforce balancing based on race, color, sex, sexual preference, religion, or national origin."

• The group singled out contractors such as Lyft, Meta, Paramount, Twilio and others.

Zoom in: America First Legal also has been filing and threatening lawsuits against corporations — including Apple — over their DEI policies.

• Several large tech companies, including Meta and Amazon, quickly backtracked after Trump's victory.

Apple and its CEO Tim Cook have been an exception — so far the company has stood firm.

• In February, the company fought a shareholder proposal aimed at its DEI policies.
• Cook has acknowledged the legal landscape could result in some changes but that "we'll continue to work together to create a culture of belonging where everyone can do their best work."

In response, America First Legal sent Apple a letter threatening that the company's role as a federal contractor could be in jeopardy.

• "If Apple continues to proceed with its DEI policies without disclosing the potential risks of lawsuits and market backlash to its shareholders, Apple could face significant liability in the future," the group wrote in a letter to Cook.
• "It is in the interest of Apple, its Board, and its shareholders to vote to abolish its DEI policies."

Zoom out: Miller isn't the only presence America First Legal has inside the Trump White House.

• His co-founder, Gene Hamilton, joined the White House as senior counsel. And Reed Rubinstein, America First Legal's senior vice president, has been nominated to be the State Department's legal adviser.
• Hamilton worked in the Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security in the first Trump administration.

Asked whether Miller and Hamilton were still coordinating with the legal group, a White House spokesperson did not respond.

• America First Legal has received $27 million in donations in recent years from the Bradley Impact Fund, a group that sends money to conservative organizations.

The other side: The group has been adept at filing complaints and lawsuits that make for good headlines, but it also has been rebuked in court for making frivolous arguments.

• In late February, an Arizona judge dismissed one of America First Legal's many voting rights suits, saying its claims were "unsupported by facts or rely on convoluted readings of the election statutes."

President Trump is ship obsessed.

• He's texting about rust into the wee hours of the morning, according to John Phelan, his pick to be Navy secretary.
• And he's sprung the idea of a White House shipbuilding office, spanning both commercial and military sectors.

Why it matters: Amid years of American atrophy — shuttered shipyards, workforce woes accelerated by the pandemic, abandoned guns and schedule overruns — China has cornered the market.

• Beijing's capacity is hundreds of times larger than Washington's by some estimates.
• That spells trouble in the Indo-Pacific, a watery region where military leaders and Beltway diviners believe a war over Taiwan could erupt as soon as 2027.

Driving the news: Trump in a combative nationwide address said he would "resurrect the American shipbuilding industry."

• "We used it to make so many ships," he said. "We don't make them anymore very much, but we're going to make them very fast, very soon."
• But details on the office — exactly how it would work and how far it would reach — are scarce. The president did mention tax incentives.

By the numbers: The Navy would need to spend tens of billions of dollars a year for three decades to satisfy its expansion goals, according to a roundup from the Congressional Budget Office.

• The service tallied 296 battle force ships (aircraft carriers, submarines, surface combatants, amphibious ships, and logistics and support ships) in December.
• It's eyeing 381.
• That doesn't include the many unmanned assets key to the hybrid fleet envisioned by former chiefs of naval operations Adms. Lisa Franchetti and Michael Gilday.

Flashback: The U.S. built thousands of cargo ships during World Wars I and II, according to a 2023 congressional report.

• "In the 1970s, U.S. shipyards were building about 5% of the world's tonnage, equating to 15-25 new ships per year."
• "In the 1980s, this fell to around five ships per year, which is the current rate of U.S. shipbuilding."

What they're saying: The shipbuilding office "can only help," Roger Wicker, the Mississippi Republican who heads the Senate Armed Services Committee, said Wednesday at a Ronald Reagan Institute event. "How it will work, I do not know."

• "We are producing 1.2 attack submarines a year. We need to produce 2.7, or we need to produce almost three, a year," he added. "The way to get started doing it is to say we're going to get started."

Support also rolled in from industry.

• Matthew Paxton, president of the Shipbuilders Council of America, said companies are "ready to answer the call to design and build America's commercial and military fleets."
• Fincantieri in a statement to Axios said it welcomed the creation of the office, "which will empower us to further expand the U.S. industrial base by creating hundreds of additional jobs in the" immediate term.

What's next: Sens. Mike Lee and John Curtis, both Utah Republicans, want the option to build warships and major components overseas, in NATO countries and friendly Indo-Pacific areas (think Japan or South Korea).

Go deeper: Saronic, now valued at $4 billion, wants its own futuristic shipyard

At first glance, it seems like DOGE's work to slash the federal workforce mainly impact the solidly Democratic areas in the Washington, D.C. metro area. Then you dig a little deeper.

Why it matters: Of the 60 congressional districts with the most federal workers, a slight majority are actually represented by Republicans — many of whom are publicly cheering on Elon Musk's hack-and-slash efforts.

• House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) is on the list. So is Rep. Andy Harris (R-Md.), who leads the ultra-conservative Freedom Caucus, and Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.), the chair of the House Appropriations Committee.
• Several of their endangered GOP incumbents — including Reps. Jen Kiggans (R-Va.) and Juan Ciscomani (R-Ariz.) — are on there as well.

By the numbers: According to a 2024 Congressional Research Service report, nearly all of the 10 districts with highest proportions of federal workers are in D.C., Virginia or Maryland.

• As Axios' Cuneyt Dil recently noted, D.C. is essentially a company town where the factory is the vast federal government bureaucracy. Many of its workers live in D.C.'s surrounding suburbs and exurbs.
• Once you get past the top 10, ruby red states like Oklahoma, Alabama and Texas start to show up more.

Zoom in: Beyond D.C., the Defense Department — which isn't being spared DOGE's wrath — accounts for high concentrations in some districts.

• Kiggans and Cole both represent districts with large military installations that have long been major employers for their constituents.
• Rep. Nick Begich (R-Alaska) has a large military constituency, but agencies like the Interior Department, FAA and Postal Service also have significant presences, according to the Anchorage Daily News.

Between the lines: Even as they have applauded DOGE's cuts in public, some Republicans have privately expressed pause at Musk's ruthless tactics.

• "It would be more helpful if some of those DOGE folks showed more sensitivity to the people who are being terminated this way ... who didn't do anything wrong," one House Republican told Axios last month.
• Another said Musk is "more liked by people in the White House than anyone here [in Congress] because we have to deal with the ramifications of what he says."

Advocates are gathering in Selma, Alabama, this weekend to mark the 60th anniversary of "Bloody Sunday" amid fears of a rollback on voting and civil rights.

Why it matters: The commemoration comes just days after President Trump gutted nearly all federal affirmative action programs while ordering agencies to dismantle diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives.

• Meanwhile, the once-routine reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act — a law initially inspired by the brutal beatings of protesters at the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma 60 years ago — remains stalled in Congress with little hope of passage under GOP control.
• A Trump executive order "ending radical indoctrination" in K-12 schools and new state laws limiting classroom discussions on race also make it unclear if teachers, even in Alabama, can even discuss events in Selma that led to one of the most dramatic moments of the Civil Rights Movement.

Zoom in: "The Annual Pilgrimage to Selma," a yearly reenactment of the 1964 crossing of Edmund Pettus Bridge for voting rights, is expected to draw tens of thousands of people Sunday.

• The event is sponsored by the nonprofit Bridge Crossing Jubilee, which will also host workshops, lectures and performances. Another group, Salute Selma, will host events on Black women and HBCUs.

Context: On March 7, 1965, future Congressman John Lewis and 600 other civil rights demonstrators crossed the bridge from Selma for a planned march to Montgomery to protest voting discrimination against Black Americans.

• State troopers violently attacked the unarmed demonstrators with batons and tear gas — images that shocked the nation and prompted President Lyndon Johnson to give an emergency address to Congress.
• The Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. followed up with a three-day march from Selma to Montgomery under the protection of the Alabama National Guard, which was under federal control.
• Five months later, Johnson got Congress to pass the Voting Rights Act.

State of play: Civil rights advocates and Black elected leaders tell Axios the mood at the gathering this year likely will be a mixture of fear, dejection, defiance and renewal.

• "This moment feels both familiar and unfamiliar," Tennessee state Sen. Charlane Oliver tells Axios.
• "The threats we face today are even more dire because of who is in the White House."

NAACP President Derrick Johnson warns that fundamental rights and economic protections are being eroded — threatening hard-fought civil rights gains. He sees this moment as a pivotal test for democracy.

• "Selma was never just about the past," he said. "It's about the future — about whether we will protect what so many fought and died for."
• "The fight for voting rights was never just about ballots — it was about dignity. And today, policymakers are seeking to steal that dignity, whether by defunding essential programs or undermining our democracy."

Southern Poverty Law Center president and CEO Margaret Huang tells Axios this year's Jubilee feels like a commemoration and a call to action.

• "For the first time in years, there will be no federal participation in Jubilee. That's a signal about where civil rights and our legacy sit in this country."
• "This year, it's not just looking back. We're in it — right now."

The White House did not immediately respond to questions about whether anyone from the administration would attend the Selma gathering.

• Presidents Clinton, Obama and Biden have attended annual events in Selma.

The intrigue: On Wednesday, just days before the march across the Edmund Pettus Bridge, House Democrats reintroduced the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, sponsored by U.S. Rep. Terri Sewell (D-Ala.).

• The legislation seeks to restore and modernize the Voting Rights Act of 1965 protections, addressing challenges that have arisen since the Supreme Court invalidated key provisions in its 2013 decision in Shelby County v. Holder.
• Sewell tells Axios that in recent years, state lawmakers have introduced over 300 restrictive bills — more than 20 of which became law — slashing polling places, cutting early voting, eliminating mail-in ballots, and tightening ID rules.

Between the lines: Since the events in Selma, the number of Black Americans elected in the U.S. has shot up from just a few in 1964 to about 9,000.

• Most Black Americans are aligned with the Democratic Party, but Black Republicans have won high-profile races in Kentucky, New Mexico and California.

The semi-annual changing of the clocks is this Sunday when most of the country will "spring forward" into daylight saving time after more than four months in standard time.

Why it matters: Lawmakers' attempts to get rid of the twice-yearly time changes and switch to permanent daylight saving time haven't gained traction.

Catch up quick: President Trump said Thursday it's "hard to get excited" about changing daylight saving time and called it a "50-50 issue."

• Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) reintroduced the Sunshine Protection Act in January to "lock the clock" and "make Daylight Saving Time the year-round standard."
• Rep. Vern Buchanan (R-Fla.) introduced companion legislation in the House.

When to change clocks for spring forward 2025

The big picture: The official time switch is 2am local time on Sunday, March 9 — clocks are set forward one hour meaning we "lose" an hour — as daylight saving time.

• Sunrise and sunset will be about one hour later on Sunday than on Saturday.
• Many devices such as smartphones will automatically change time, and for devices that don't change, it's best to reset them before going to bed Saturday night.

Daylight saving time used to run from April to October, but the Energy Policy Act of 2005 extended it.

• It now runs from the second Sunday in March to the first Sunday in November.

Lose an hour Sunday with time change, health effects

Friction point: The time change isn't about just losing one hour of sleep for one night. The downstream effects of the time change can harm your health.

• Right after the clocks shift in March, there's a "spike in workplace accidents, road accidents and medical errors due to sleep deprivation and cognitive impairment," James Rowley of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine told Axios' Carly Mallenbaum last year.
• Health groups and sleep experts prefer sticking with standard time year-round over daylight saving time because they say it's more aligned with our body clocks.
• The time changes also affect sleep schedules and can make it hard for kids and their parents to adjust.

By the numbers: 54% of Americans say they would prefer standard time year-round over daylight saving time, according to a new Gallup poll.

• 40% of U.S. adults say they are in favor of daylight saving time, while 6% are uncertain.
• In 1999, 73% favored daylight saving time, Gallup said.

Why do we have daylight saving time in the U.S.

Flashback: The U.S. first adopted daylight saving time in 1918 as a way to conserve energy.

• In the 1970s, the last time Congress made daylight saving time permanent, the decision was reversed in less than a year because the early morning darkness proved dangerous for school children, and public sentiment changed.

States push to get rid of time changes

At least 31 states have considered or are considering 67 bills or resolutions related to daylight saving time in 2025, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures' tracker.

• The legislation is divided between state lawmakers advocating permanent standard time and those who would enact year-round standard time.

Between the lines: Federal law says states can unilaterally move to standard time but must have the approval of Congress to adopt year-round daylight saving time.

Which states don't observe daylight saving time

Hawaii and most of Arizona do not observe daylight saving time, except the Navajo Nation in northeastern Arizona.

• U.S. territories, including Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa and the Virgin Islands, observe permanent standard time.

Fall forward 2025: Next time change

What's next: If federal legislation is not approved, clocks will "fall back" to standard time on Sunday, Nov. 2.

More from Axios:

• Target CEO: Tariffs will cause food prices to rise in "next couple of days"
• Dunkin' spring menu launches, nondairy surcharge removed
• Tooth fairy payouts drop to lowest rate in years

President Trump has shut the door to asylum for migrants worldwide. But he's holding it open for white South Africans because of its controversial new law aimed at countering the lingering impact of apartheid.

Why it matters: Trump's offer last month to "resettle" white South Africans in the U.S. — and his moves to cut aid to South Africa — are signs that an Afrikaner group that has promoted a debunked "white genocide" conspiracy theory has Trump's ear.

State of play: The new law in question is South Africa's Expropriation Act, which allows the government to take some land and redistribute as part of a long-running effort to lessen the economic disparities created by apartheid.

• Under apartheid, which ended in 1994, South Africa's white minority government prevented Blacks from owning land or enjoying basic rights for nearly a half-century.
• Three decades later, South Africa's president and many other leaders are Black. But white people make up 7.3% of South Africa's population while owning 72% of the farmland, a disparity that continues to ripple through the economy.
• South Africa's new law is designed to work something like eminent domain in the U.S.: It allows the government to take land from private parties if it's in the "public interest," and allows for it to be done without compensation — but only if negotiations for a reasonable settlement fail.

The backstory: South Africa's apartheid generated college protests in the U.S. during the 1980s and 1990s and calls for boycotts of businesses that operated in South Africa at the time.

• Then-President Reagan and other white conservatives in the U.S. remained supportive of the apartheid regime over fears the country could turn communist.

Zoom in: Trump, whose assault on diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs are rooted in the notion that affirmative action-type policies unfairly affect whites, has falsely accused South Africa of unfairly seizing Afrikaners' agricultural property and allowing attacks against white farmers.

• Trump's executive order said the U.S. would "prioritize humanitarian relief" and resettlement for "Afrikaners in South Africa who are victims of unjust racial discrimination."

Reality check: The Democratic Alliance, South Africa's most popular white-led political party, is made up of multiethnic voters and is challenging the land law.

• There's no evidence that white farmers are experiencing a spike in violence despite a few high-profile cases.
• A South African court dismissed claims of a "white genocide" as "clearly imagined and not real," in a ruling that blocked a bequest to an organization described in court documents as a white supremacist group, per The Washington Post.

Meanwhile, the nation's leading farmers' union says there've been no land confiscations since the expropriation law was passed.

• South African President Cyril Ramaphosa has said he wants to resolve the dispute over his country's land policy. But he hasn't said what that might involve.
• The White House didn't respond to a request for comment.

Between the lines: The Trump administration's moves on South Africa are in line with Trump reinterpreting Civil Rights-era laws to focus on "anti-white racism" rather than discrimination against people of color.

• The Afrikaner trade union publicly declined Trump's offer for resettlements in the U.S.
• Other South Africans have widely ridiculed Trump for his offer and statements about the new law.

But South African-born Elon Musk, a top Trump adviser, has peddled conspiracy theories that his native country is "pushing for genocide of white people."

• That belief is closely linked to a once-fringe idea called "white replacement theory," which imagines a plot to change nations' racial composition by enacting policies that reduce whites' political power.
• Some U.S. conservatives have repeated conspiracies about white replacement in South Africa. In 2018, Trump tweeted false information about South African land seizures and farmer killings after segments on Fox News.

What they're saying: "It's outright racist," Paul S. Landau, a University of Maryland historian and South African expert, says of allegations that whites there are under attack and of Trump's offer to resettle white South Africans.

• "The biggest people who face dispossession from their land rights in South Africa's history are Black women."
• Landau said there hasn't been any meaningful land reform since the fall of apartheid.
• He added that wealthy white South Africans such as Trump friends Musk and golfer Gary Player could visit and migrate to the U.S. during apartheid, while Black South Africans were forbidden from leaving.

The same year COVID-19 shut down the world, TikTok became the most downloaded app.

Why it matters: Trends that went viral in 2020 still shape user experiences today — from dancing to recipe-sharing to storytelling.

Here's a look back on some of the biggest trends, creators, sounds and moments on TikTok during 2020:

Top viral videos

🐝 "M to the B, M to the B"

🛹 Vibing with Cran-Rasberry

🖥️ Relatable Zoom meetings

🥕 Is it carrots or bacon?

Biggest memes and challenges

🏠 #BoredInTheHouse and I'm in the house board

👫 Have you ever seen #TwoPrettyBestFriends?

🧑‍🏫 #YouHaveTo learn videos

🤣 #DontLeaveMe puns

Biggest rising stars

💃 Charli D'Amelio

👩🏾‍🍳 Tabitha Brown

💸 Chriselle Lim

🕺 Noah Beck

✨ Addison Rae

Celebrities who joined the app

🎤 Jason Derulo

💄 Kylie Jenner

🪩 Lizzo

🎸 Charlie Puth

Popular recipes and snacks

🫑 Cream cheese and bell peppers

☕ Whipped coffee

🍞 Banana bread

🥞 Pancake cereal

Top 10 songs

1. "Savage Love" (Laxed — Siren Beat) — Jawsh 685 & Jason Derulo
2. "Savage" Remix — Megan Thee Stallion
3. "OUT WEST" (feat. Young Thug) — Travis Scott
4. "WAP" (feat. Megan Thee Stallion) — Cardi B
5. "Say So" — Doja Cat
6. "Tap In" — Saweetie
7. "The Box" — Roddy Ricch
8. "Rags2Riches" (feat. ATR Son Son) — Rod Wave
9. "Supalonely" (feat. Gus Dapperton) — BENEE
10. "What You Know Bout Love" — Pop Smoke

Fashion and style moments

🦋 How to make a butterfly dress

👠 How to dress high fashion

💄 Makeup transformations

👕 Quick change edits

Top niche communities

🖤 #AltTikTok

📖 #WitchTok

🧙 #DracoTok

🌷 #CottageCore

🖼️ #RugTikTok

President Trump's tariff flip-flop, escalating tensions with Panama, and a controversial pause on aid to Ukraine dominated headlines this week.

Here's our recap of key developments.

Trump tariffs sweep

Trump's shifting position on tariffs rattled U.S. markets this week and incited a global trade war.

• By some estimates, the president's tariffs on America's closest trading partners could cost the average U.S. household $830 a year. And that's before factoring in the cost of anticipated retaliatory tariffs.

The president on Tuesday imposed 25% tariffs on most imports from Mexico and Canada. He increased tariffs on China from 10% to 20%.

• By Thursday, he reversed himself and paused tariffs on Mexican and Canadian imports covered by a North American trade agreement until April 2.

Go deeper: Trump stares down early economic potholes

Trump's many words to Congress

Trump's first congressional address on Tuesday lasted nearly 100 minutes, making it the longest of its kind in recent history.

• It felt like a typical stump speech from the president. He boasted about the executive order blitz that's upended American life and the nation's position on the world stage and touched on immigration, sports, DEI and foreign policy.
• Elon Musk, current and former Supreme Court justices and members of Trump's Cabinet attended.

The Democrats' response to the speech sparked its own mini-news cycle.

• Democratic Rep. Al Green (Texas) was ejected from the chamber early in the evening for heckling Trump. Other House members either walked out, held signs or wore pink. House leadership and Democrats didn't widely embrace the moves.
• Axios' Hill team scooped that Democratic leadership privately scolded some members who defied orders not to make themselves the story. Ten Democrats joined every House Republican in a Thursday vote to censure Green.
• Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.) delivered her party's rebuttal,

Go deeper: Behind the Curtain: Trump, on steroids

Trump pauses aid to Ukraine

The caustic relationship between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky entered the next phase of volatility this week after a tense and televised meeting between the two last Friday.

• Trump on Monday halted—at least temporarily—military assistance the U.S. pledged to Ukraine until a date is set for peace negotiations with Russia.
• Zelensky agreed to a partial ceasefire on Tuesday, and Trump during his address to Congress, softened his tone on the Ukrainian president.

Negotiating with Hamas

The Trump administration is, for the first time, in direct talks with Hamas about the release of U.S. hostages held in Gaza and a wider deal to end the war, Axios' Barak Ravid reported exclusively on Wednesday.

• Israel announced on Sunday it is halting humanitarian aid and fuel deliveries to Gaza after a ceasefire agreement with Hamas ended.
• Trump told Hamas he would authorize additional Israeli military strikes on Gaza unless the group releases its remaining hostages.

Separately, Secretary of State Marco Rubio is launching an AI-fueled "Catch and Revoke" effort to cancel the visas of foreign nationals who appear to support Hamas or other designated terror groups, senior State Department officials told Axios' Marc Caputo.

Trump on Panama Canal

Panamanian President José Raúl Mulino accused Trump of "lying again" when he claimed Tuesday his administration will be "reclaiming" the Panama Canal.

• "I reject in the name of Panama and all Panamanians this new affront to the truth and our dignity as a nation," Mulino said Wednesday in a post on X translated from Spanish.
• The U.S. president's comments follow BlackRock's agreement to acquire two ports serving the canal from a Chinese group, CK Hutchison, as part of a larger $22.8 billion deal.

Go deeper: BlackRock buying two Panama Canal ports from China's Hutchinson

More from Axios:

• White House firings continue despite speed bumps
• White House now says firing probationary workers up to agencies
• Tracking Trump: Press pool takeover, Zelensky and the Musk effect

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) and his leadership deputies said Friday they will not lend their support to the stopgap spending bill being proposed by Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.).

Why it matters: Democrats are holding out for language that will restrict President Trump and DOGE from being able to slash government programs already authorized and funded by Congress.

• House Democrats from across the party's ideological spectrum have argued the onus of averting a government shutdown falls squarely on Republicans, who control Congress and the White House.
• Johnson will likely need Democratic votes to pass any government funding measure. Even if he manages to pass a GOP-only bill, Democrats can block it in the Senate.

What they're saying: With a week until the March 14 government shutdown deadline, Jeffries, House Minority Whip Katherine Clark (D-Mass.) and Democratic caucus chair Pete Aguilar (D-Calif.) wrote that the continuing resolution Republicans are expected to put forth is "not acceptable."

• "Republicans have decided to introduce a partisan continuing resolution that threatens to cut funding for healthcare, nutritional assistance and veterans benefits through the end of the current fiscal year," they said.
• The Democratic leaders said they would "enthusiastically support a bill that protects Social Security, Medicare, veterans health and Medicaid," but that "Medicaid is our redline."

Between the lines: Democrats have been fighting for language that constricts DOGE's ability to get around the funding guidelines passed by Congress.

• Republicans so far have declined to accede to that as they largely cheer on DOGE's cuts, and as such funding talks have stalled.
• That leaves the federal government hurtling towards a shutdown.

The other side: "House Democrats admitted they wanted a government shutdown, and now they're following through," said National Republican Congressional Committee spokesperson Mike Marinella.

• "They're deliberately making our country less safe and less prosperous just to score political points. House Democrats will always put politics over people."

Americans are missing their car payments at the highest rate in decades, according to Fitch Ratings data.

Why it matters: Car costs, including loans and insurance, have soared in an economy where consumers are showing mounting signs of stress.

By the numbers: 6.6% of of subprime auto borrowers were at least 60 days past due on their loans as of January 2025.

• This is the highest level since the agency began collecting data. The fall and winter of 2024 saw the next highest subprime delinquency rates.
• Prime borrower scores are faring better than subprime, with 0.39% 60-day delinquencies in January 2025, up from 0.35% in January 2024.

Threat level: "Subprime auto loans face a deteriorating outlook for 2025," a Fitch report said.

Driving the news: Multiple factors have increased the cost of car ownership, per Cox Automotive executive analyst Erin Keating, Axios' Joann Muller reports.

• Vehicle prices are higher, averaging just under $50,000, and high loan rates (over 9% for new cars and almost 14% on used cars) are translating to steep monthly payments.
• Plus, car insurance rates are up 19% year over year, while repair and maintenance costs have risen 33% since 2020.

State of play: Other metrics, like consumer confidence and credit card delinquencies, are showing warning signs, too.

• The number of credit card holders only making minimum payments rose to a 12-year high, per the Philadelphia Federal Reserve.
• In the third quarter of 2024, the number of 30-day delinquencies rose to 3.52%, which marked double the rate from the pandemic low in 2021.

Zoom in: Delinquencies typically increase in January and February after the holidays, Mike Girard, Fitch's senior director for asset-backed securities in North America told Bloomberg.

• Low-income borrowers, though, will continue to be affected this year because of inflation and interest rates, he said.

Go deeper: America might have reached "peak truck"

Nearly 100 U.S. immigration court professionals are resigning or retiring, on top of the around 30 immigration judges and senior staff recently fired by the Trump administration, a union for immigration judges said Friday.

Why it matters: The staff reduction will likely add to the historic backlog of cases and slow President Trump's mass deportation plan, even as he asks Congress for more resources.

• The nation's immigration court system is how immigrants can make their case to stay in the U.S.

The big picture: The Department of Justice said in a memo last month it is moving to consider all immigration judges at-will employees without any federal employee protections.

• That's putting immigration judges and the Trump administration on a collision course likely to slow down the record pace of cases immigration courts heard as President Biden left office.

Zoom in: About 85 immigration court professionals are resigning or retiring, the International Federation of Professional Engineers (IFPTE),  the union representing the country's roughly 700 immigration judges, says.

• This follows the firing of 29 judges and senior staff by the Trump administration. The union said no cause was given for the firing of judges.
• The past week, one additional probationary immigration judge has been fired, the union said.

The White House didn't directly address the reduction in immigration court staff to Axios but said President Trump will "use every lever of executive and legislative power" to fulfill his promises.

• "President Trump received a historic mandate from the American people to secure our border, mass deport illegal immigrants, and put American citizens first, White House Spokesman Kush Desai tells Axios.
• A DOJ spokesperson tells Axios the backlog of "cases was only increasing prior to this administration, which is now in position to hire more judges to work towards reducing this backlog."

State of play: The union estimates that the loss of judges and members of judge teams will add 24,000 cases to the courts' backlog in 2025.

• Immigration courts were on pace to rule on 852,000 deportation cases from Oct. 1, 2024, to Sept. 30, 2025, according to an analysis of case data by the nonpartisan Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC).
• If that pace had continued, immigration judges would have ruled on more deportation cases in 2025 than in any previous year.
• The current backlog of 3.7 million cases in immigration courts means detained immigrants have to wait months, even years, for a hearing.

What they're saying: "Donald Trump ran for office promising to boost deportations, but as president his administration's policies are actually decreasing the number of immigration judges," IFPTE President Matt Biggs says.

• The administration is making the backlog worse and is being hypocritical in asking Congress for more resources for deportations, he added.

Context: The Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA) during the first Trump administration stripped the immigration judges of their bargaining and union power in 2020 after the administration called judges "managers" who weren't eligible for union representation.

• The International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers, which represents 90,000 public-, private- and federal-sector workers in the U.S. and Canada, is trying to get the immigration judges' union back.

Between the lines: Almost all immigrants suspected of being in the country illegally and arrested have a right to due process in the country's civil immigration court system.

• There, an immigration judge hears the case, sometimes in less than 30 minutes, and issues a ruling.

Yes, but: One of the executive orders signed by Trump seeks to deny some asylum seekers hearings as required by current law.

• The Trump administration also issued a new rule that dramatically expands expedited removal of immigrants who can't prove they've been in the U.S. for at least two years without full court hearings.
• The ACLU and two of its chapters are suing to halt that rule, which seeks to expand "fast-track" deportations.

The Federal Reserve is poised to leave interest rates steady, as it aims to separate "signal from noise" in the Trump administration's big changes to U.S. economic policy, chair Jerome Powell said Friday.

Why it matters: Amid fast-moving changes to trade and other policies, volatile markets, and slumping consumer sentiment, the central bank is looking to offer a sense of patience, as it waits for more decisive evidence of how the economy is changing.

• It implies the Fed's interest rate target will remain unchanged at its current level of 4.25% to 4.5% until clear changes in the economic backdrop emerge.

What they're saying: Powell noted that the Trump administration is implementing significant changes across trade, immigration, fiscal policy and regulation.

• It is the "net effect of these policy changes" that matters to the Fed, Powell will say at the Clark Center for Global Markets' monetary policy forum, according to a prepared text.
• "While there have been recent developments in some of these areas, especially trade policy, uncertainty around the changes and their likely effects remains high," he will say.
• "As we parse the incoming information, we are focused on separating the signal from the noise as the outlook evolves. We do not need to be in a hurry, and are well-positioned to wait for greater clarity," he adds.

Of note: Powell acknowledged recent survey evidence of greater economic angst, but suggested that those survey measures of the economy should not trigger policy adjustments.

• He noted that "recent surveys of households and businesses point to heightened uncertainty about the economic outlook."
• "It remains to be seen how these developments might affect future spending and investment. Sentiment readings have not been a good predictor of consumption growth in recent years," Powell said.

Between the lines: The cross-currents of Trump policies create a potentially volatile mix, and Powell and the Fed are looking for greater clarity on how it will all shake out before adjusting interest rate policy further.

• Restrictive immigration policy and tariffs tend to lower the economy's supply potential, fueling inflation. Deregulation, by contrast, could enhance the economy's supply potential.
• Federal spending cuts could, in the near term at least, slow business activity, raise unemployment and slow consumer demand.
• Some of those developments would point to higher interest rates, others to lower rates — so in the absence of clear evidence of which proves more powerful, the Fed is looking to stand pat.

"Our current policy stance is well-positioned to deal with the risks and uncertainties that we face in pursuing both sides of our dual mandate" of maximum employment and steady prices, Powell said in the speech.

What's next: The policy-setting Federal Open Market Committee concludes its next meeting March 19 and is set to leave rates unchanged.