The media, our social media feeds and our most pessimistic friends fill us with doom and gloom stories. But by many measures, there's never been a better time to be alive in America.
Why it matters: Yes, bad people are always doing bad things for bad reasons. It's called life. This column focuses on the Good Stuff: the undeniable trends that reveal a distinct edge for America, young people and this moment.
When your boozy uncle goes dark today, remind him and others:
There's no better place to start a business and rise to unthinkable heights doing what you choose to do. We have the best hospitals, colleges and technology centers.
You can think, say and worship as you please without fear of imprisonment. Faith might be fading, but the ability to practice it is unfettered.
The United States has the world's strongest military. We enjoy peace with our neighbors and the protection of the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. Our military is both the most feared — and most sought-after by other nations for assistance.
We're blessed with abundant natural resources — we can produce enough energy from the ground and skies to power ourselves for generations. In just eight years, the U.S. "has rocketed from barely selling any gas overseas to becoming the world's No. 1 supplier" — bolstering the economy and strengthening American influence abroad. (N.Y. Times)
We're still the place where people want to risk their lives to come live, work and raise a family.
The greatest inventions come from the magical animal spirits of American capitalism: freedom and entrepreneurial zest — hardwired into our souls and our national story. We enjoy a massive early lead to build the next great technology: generative artificial intelligence.
And Jim's favorite: Most people are normal. They don't watch cable food fights, or dunk on people on X, or say or do nasty things to others. They work hard, volunteer, help you shovel in a storm.
The bottom line: We're blessed, this and every holiday season, to have smart, engaged, thoughtful readers who trust us — and remind us when we fall short. Enjoy your family. Enjoy the holidays. Enjoy America.
This week's epic fight over funding the government captures the power — and flaws — of the new information ecosystem.
Why it matters: Elon Musk and his followers on X proved they dominate the Republican media industrial complex — using a digital revolt to kill a spending bill, and open the door to a government shutdown. That revolt was powered by some false information, tweeted with total self-certainty.
"We aren't just the media here now. We are also the government," Donald Trump Jr. tweeted yesterday to his 13 million followers.
MAGA's online army now can assess "information rapidly & pressure our representatives to act in a manner that actually represents what we want," Don Jr. added. "They can't hide and do the bidding of swamp oligarchs anymore."
🖼️ The big picture: This reality highlights the difference between media (what people consume) and reporting (a set of standards for pursuing fact-based information). In the new world order, media and reporting are tossed together with a mix of truth, opinion, and nonsense.
This helps explain the confusion that engulfs almost every real-time topic, from drones in the New Jersey skies to whether billions were stuffed into a spending bill for a new D.C. football stadium. (The bill banned the use of federal funds for the stadium.)
💡 Truth bomb: This is your present and future, and little can be done to stop it. A fragmented media means fragmented truths and standards.
The winners are those who control the flow of information to the largest numbers of people — or the right people at the right moment on the right topic. Right now, Musk controls both for the incoming governing party.
This allowed Musk to tweetstorm (150+ posts) the defeat of the federal spending bill, while sharing some demonstrably false information — including the size of a proposed congressional pay raise (now dropped from the bill).
Musk also reposted a false claim that the bill included $3 billion for a new NFL stadium in D.C. But the provision, also now stricken from the bill, merely transferred the site of the old RFK Stadium from the federal government to the District of Columbia.
So when Musk tells X followers "You are the media," it's true they're part of his media. But that's different than declaring they're all reporters, trying to validate information before sharing it.
That puts even more pressure on you as a news consumer to discern what and who you can trust for reliable, actionable information. It demands skepticism and patience when hot news hits fast.
You need to be skeptical of people or sources unless you feel confident they routinely get it right. You need to be patient in not overreacting to — or oversharing — stories that hit your dopamine button.
A similar burden now falls on businesses, where big strategic decisions are shaped by evolving events. Discerning reality will get harder, as will discerning the scale of micro-movements that quickly become macro-movements — or disintegrate instantly.
Finally, as we've written before, it puts pressure on media companies like Axios to up our games by winning and keeping trust — offering clarity in moments of confusion, and reporting clinically not emotionally.
🛸 Case in point: New York Times columnist Zeynep Tufekci, a Princeton professor who wrote a book about Twitter and social movements, found a 70-year-old parallel with the New Jersey drone craze. In 1954, an epidemic of car owners in Washington state reported pits in their windshields that they feared could be caused by vandals ... or even H-bomb tests. The Seattle mayor sought presidential intervention.
The Seattle police crime laboratory determined that the damage reports stemmed from 5% "hoodlum-ism" and 95% "public hysteria."
"In the Seattle windshield panic," Tufekci wrote, "mainstream media outlets amplified people's panic. In the internet age, ordinary people can perform that service."
🗞️ Context: Newspapers long were the natural home of great investigative reporters. But the pandemic expedited cuts to newsrooms.
Axios Media Trends author Sara Fischer points out that as news organizations scrambled to survive, investments that would've gone to hiring more reporters went to establishing audiences on TikTok and other new platforms, or making content for streamers.
More local news outlets were forced to pull back or shutter, removing accountability coverage for thousands of U.S. counties.
Most places around the country that saw their newspapers shutter still haven't gotten replacements. Those communities are relying on TikTok for news. Studies have shown that when a local community loses a legitimate news source, there's a huge spike in wasteful government.
🔮 What we're hearing: Trump insiders tell us this week's X revolt was just the beginning.
"The problem Congress faces," a Trump transition source says, "is that Elon now has an army of people reviewing every word of every bill — and he's gonna amplify the crazy sh*t in there. So until they come up with a bill without a lot of crazy sh*t, the government will stay shut down."
Axios' Sara Fischer and Noah Bressner contributed reporting.
Elon Musk is arguably the most powerful person in business, the most powerful man in media and, at least at this moment, the most powerful man in politics.
Why it matters: This much power, across this many pillars of society, is without precedent. Musk yesterday single-handedly, his voice amplified by his daylong bombardment of scores of tweets on his X platform, sank a 1,547-page, bipartisan House spending bill aimed at preventing a government shutdown at 12:01 a.m. Saturday.
It's a breathtaking preview of the new power centers that will rewire Washington beginning with Trump's inauguration 32 days from now.
A Trump source told us this is the new playbook: Republican lawmakers got "instant and overwhelming feedback. Before, it had to be slowly funneled through conservative press ... [N]ow there is a megaphone."
Former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), who's friends with Trump and Musk, told us: "Both men never give up, and follow through even if it seems impossible. You should never bet against Trump or Elon."
Now, the two are a combined force blanketing culture, media and governance.
Zoom in: The number of lawmakers genuflecting to Musk on X was astonishing. "My phone was ringing off the hook," said Rep. Andy Barr, R-Ky. "The people who elected us are listening to Elon Musk."
If the government shuts down, Musk can take credit or blame. Twelve hours after Musk lit the match with a 4:15 a.m. tweet (now with 37 million views) saying the 3-month spending bill must die, Trump and Vice President-elect Vance upped the ante with a statement saying Congress must raise the nation's debt ceiling now instead of waiting, as expected, until next year. Vance was at the Capitol, participating in closed-door negotiations.
"Republicans must GET SMART and TOUGH," Trump and Vance said. "If Democrats threaten to shut down the government unless we give them everything they want, then CALL THEIR BLUFF."
House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), whose speakership looked secure after Republicans kept the House, could lose his gavel after yesterday's revolt — which Musk inspired and stoked.
Behind the scenes: Musk flexed his intimacy with Trump last night by reportedly joining the table with his rival, Jeff Bezos and his fiancée, Lauren Sanchez, as they dined with Trump at Mar-a-Lago.
The big picture: Not too shabby for a guy who barely dabbled in politics until the past year or so. Now, Musk is a full-time policy advocate, government cost-cutter, and omnipresent Trump adviser — while running four companies.
Trump dominates politics, and will do so without peer once in office. But even Trump found himself responding to Musk's crusade to tank the package, which would have extended existing government programs and services at their current levels through March 14.
But it included disaster relief, assistance for farmers, a new stadium provision for the Washington Commanders — "a true Christmas tree of a bill, adorned with all manner of unrelated policy measures in the kind of year-end catchall that Republicans have long derided," as the New York Times put it.
Vivek Ramaswamy — co-leader with Musk of Trump's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) — joined the online barrage. "We the People won," Ramaswamy tweeted at dinnertime. "That's how America is supposed to work."
Between the lines: Remember that Musk is a private citizen, and Trump isn't in office yet.
X is now the world's most powerful information tool, with Musk as the architect.
How it happened: "Any member of the House or Senate who votes for this outrageous spending bill deserves to be voted out in 2 years!" Musk tweeted in early afternoon, in a post that got 27 million views.
"THIS CRIMINAL BILL MUST NOT PASS," he added fifteen minutes later.
Ten minutes after that: "Please call your elected representatives right away to tell them how you feel! They are trying to get this passed today while no one is paying attention."
After the compromise bill was dead, Musk tweeted at 11:23 p.m.: "The will of the people prevailed."
Trump swooped in yesterday after Musk had softened the ground. "Sounds like the ridiculous and extraordinarily expensive Continuing Resolution, PLUS, is dying fast," Trump gloated on Truth Social at 6:27 p.m.
Trump then denigrated efforts to push through a stripped-down version of the bill. "If Republicans try to pass a clean Continuing Resolution without all of the Democrat 'bells and whistles' that will be so destructive to our Country,' he wrote, "all it will do, after January 20th, is bring the mess of the Debt Limit into the Trump Administration, rather than allowing it to take place in the Biden Administration. Any Republican that would be so stupid as to do this should, and will, be Primaried."
Reality check: Musk's tweetstorm included a number of misleading or false claims, as Politico pointed out.
For instance, the bill doesn't include "a 40% pay increase for Congress," as Musk asserted in a tweet with 26 million views. The maximum raise for members of Congress, whose last pay raise was in 2009, would be 3.8%.
A Trump transition source insisted Musk's power flows only from the president-elect. "There are things Elon doesn't agree with us on that he ain't getting," the source said.
The Creators are charged with stoking a booming, AI-enabled economy, including a low jobless rate — the "golden age of America" that Trump promised after he won.
The Destroyers are the more controversial picks — wired to disrupt existing institutions, and acting on smoldering grievances against the organizations they've been picked to lead.
Why it matters: This creators-plus-destroyers dynamic dominates the behind-the-scenes jockeying for jobs and influence. Expect jarring swings between popular, pro-growth moves and ruthless government gutting and payback. It's the Trump Way.
🧱 The Creators are concentrated on Trump's economic team, including Treasury nominee Scott Bessent, a hedge-fund veteran with Wall Street cred.
Trump wants to spur economic growth via lower taxes and pro-business policies. Howard Lutnick — chair & CEO of the Wall Street firm Cantor Fitzgerald, and co-chair of Trump's transition — was named to a souped-up version of Commerce secretary, as leader of Trump's tariff and trade agenda. Kevin Hassett, who'll be director of the National Economic Council — in Trump I, he chaired the Council of Economic Advisers — is popular on the Hill. Trump's trade representative will be Jamieson Greer, who was chief of staff to Robert Lighthizer — the pro-tariff, China-hawk trade representative in Trump I.
Trump needs a massive surge in energy production, and greater capacity in adjacent businesses. His pick for Interior secretary, North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum, will also chair a new National Energy Council, with purview over "ALL forms of American Energy." Joining him on the council will be his choice for Energy secretary, Chris Wright, a Denver-basedenergy entrepreneur and fracking proponent.
Trump needs to juice the AI boom to super-boost growth — and provide more wiggle room for other economic policies. He's creating the new role of AI and crypto czar for David Sacks, who became a tech-bro hero as one of the four "Besties" on the "All-In" podcast.
The working theory: Remember, Trump treats the markets as his approval rating. To have the leverage to carry out his economic plans, he needs markets to continue booming, as they have under President Biden.
So the most savvy companies are finding ways to show how they help Trump boost growth — while keeping quiet on his harder-edged moves.
💣 The Destroyers are out for revenge — sometimes for Trump, sometimes for themselves, sometimes born of ideology. Then they'll rebuild in MAGA's image. These are picks where Trump has gone with this gut.
Trump is hellbent on retribution against the FBI for investigating him. Thus the aggressive pick of hardliner Kash Patel for FBI director.
Trump would be happy to return the Pentagon, the biggest bureaucracy of them all, to its roots — center it around the needs of warfighters, and tear down and rebuild a broken procurement system. A transition source says Trump told Pete Hegseth, his choice for SecDef: "I expect you to do more with less. They're spending too much money, and we're not getting anything for all that money."
So Trump fought back when Hegseth's confirmation chances looked shaky after a series of damaging articles last month. But a ferocious operation by Trump's inner circle now has Hegseth on track for confirmation, barring damaging new information.
You can see Trump's deep mistrust of the intelligence community in his selection of former Democratic congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard for director of national intelligence.
Trump is stacking destroyers in some jobs that don't need Senate confirmation. These include two hard-line appointees announced over the weekend: Ric Grenell, a presidential envoy to world hot spots, and former House Intelligence Chair Devin Nunes, who'll chair the President's Intelligence Advisory Board while remaining head of Trump's Truth Social.
Between the lines: Some of Trump's picks have been given the delicate charge of both creating and destroying. Hegseth, for instance, is expected both to shake up the "defense industrial complex," while building up a "powerful military that the president can use as a tool for deterrence," a second transition source said.
John Ratcliffe, who has been tapped for CIA director, is expected to both destroy what Trump sees as "the Deep State" lurking within the agency, while also building an intelligence apparatus that "won't be caught off guard," and will "give the president the best intelligence in the world," the source said.
What we're hearing: Trump is sticking with his destroyers because they're his people. We're told that this time around, he's vastly less inclined to second-guess his instincts when senators or advisers warn him to be more cautious.
Trump controls the party. Republicans are only going to pick so many fights — and Trump's likely to get his way most of the time.
Transition sources tell us that if a senator votes against more than a nominee or two, that lawmaker or their allies could wind up with a Trump-backed primary opponent.
What we're watching: Now that once-skeptical senators are signaling they'll vote to confirm Hegseth, the most vulnerable nominees are Gabbard, who faces skepticism on the Senate Intelligence Committee, and Kennedy.
RFK's past support for abortion rights is an increasingly clear danger zone with Republican senators who have been strongly anti-abortion for their whole careers.
So Trump insiders are quietly wondering whether the anti-abortion movement will flex its muscle to try to sink Kennedy's nomination.
By contrast, Trump's natural allies haven't been voicing concerns about Patel.
The intrigue: RFK Jr. had pushed his daughter-in-law, former CIA officer Amaryllis Fox Kennedy, for deputy CIA director, as Axios first reported. We also scooped that RFK Jr. wanted her in the job partly to get to the bottom of whether the CIA was involved in the assassinations of his father and uncle.
We're told Fox Kennedy has been ruled out for the CIA job because of opposition on the Senate Intelligence Committee. But she could well wind up in another administration job — perhaps as part of Gabbard's team, or in a White House position.
The bottom line: A Mar-a-Lago source tells us that after last week's spree of adulation from tech moguls and his victory lap at the New York Stock Exchange, Time's Person of the Year is feeling "unassailable."
Governance, media, business and global geopolitics are all being reordered at breakneck speed — all simultaneously.
It's the Great Upheaval.
Why it matters: We're witnessing more change ... across more parts of life ... at more speed ... than ever before.
This means opportunity — and new threats or surprising shifts — pop up faster and faster. Anticipating change is tougher than ever, CEOs tell us.
There are several causes: a global populist surge, an AI arms race, shifting political alliances globally and domestically, and radical changes in how people worldwide get and share information.
President-elect Trump's governing plans are designed to exploit this emerging phenomenon — and speed it up, his advisers tell us. Elon Musk routinely tells Trump this will be the most dramatic transformation of business, governance and culture since the nation's founding. It's classic Musk salesmanship, as we've seen with cars: Promise vast, immediate change — regardless of feasibility.
Musk, newly appointed White House AI and crypto czar David Sacks, and many others see explosive change hitting energy, space, new technologies, crypto and tangential businesses.
The new Trump team believes government needs to be an accelerant, not a deterrent. This means making agencies leaner, at least in decision-making, and more biased toward pro-business action.
The risk: The shifts benefit the architects more than the general public. Musk, Sacks, the Trumps and many incoming leaders are super-wealthy, and deeply invested in the areas set to take flight.
This upheaval benefited Trump, but it very much transcends him and the coming four years of governance. The forces set in motion are bigger than one moment, or one man, or one nation.
Eric Schmidt, the former chairman and CEO of Google, told us: "I think the most important thing people don't know is that tech is now working at mega scale — 'everything everywhere all at once.'"
Schmidt, who just released a book on AI, "Genesis," with Craig Mundie and the late Henry Kissinger, added: "This is largely due to scale computing (huge computational and network resources) and the application of AI to everything."
For instance, Schmidt is the lead investor in Samaya AI, which is building a financial AI platform designed to leverage AI agents for complex, high-value tasks. "Businesses will make more money and be more efficient if they move quickly to adopt these AI agents," he said.
The big picture: This is a global phenomenon and intensifies — and raises — the stakes of the U.S. vs. China cold war for international dominance.
"China and the United States are winners," says geopolitical strategist Ian Bremmer, president and founder of Eurasia Group and GZERO Media, "since they're the countries most dominating the new technologies and relevant supply chains."
But there's broad agreement the Great Upheaval is hitting everyone, everywhere. This is just a small snapshot of the tectonic plates shifting at once:
AI arms race. This is the fixation of the most powerful people at the most powerful companies in the most powerful nations. The sheer magnitude of intellectual and financial investment guarantees massive disruption, even if it never meets the epic expectations. Bremmer tells us this is making tech leaders "geopolitical actors in their own right."
AI-adjacent surge. These technologies eat up unfathomable energy and data, driving everyone from Musk to Meta to invest billions in new sources of both. Much of this is U.S. investment, which will impact state economies and politics. "We need much more electricity in the U.S. to power these data centers," Schmidt says. "We can use foreign data centers but they are less secure."
Space war. Another AI adjacent boom. The future of warfare is robots, drones and satellites — not boots on the ground. The nearly trillion-dollar defense budget will shift in this direction. Think about the consequences: Oceans will no longer protect against invasion. A nation's tech will matter more than its conventional military might.
Information wars. We used to get most of our information from "the news." Now, the information in our life pours in from a host of random inputs: a podcast ... someone tweeting ... a Substack ... a snippet of video — the sum of all the noise in our day and on our phone.
What to watch: Pay attention to the info flows to particular populations. Our new information cascade is easier to manipulate than the traditional sources of rigorous reporting we all grew up on.
Our information diet is blowing up before our eyes, as attention shatters into scores of pieces based on location, job, wealth and politics. This dynamic is true around the globe, and is enhancing the power of authoritarian regimes.
The incoming Trump administration will give Silicon Valley moguls unprecedented federal power, with tech-friendly officials and policies intertwined throughout government.
Why it matters: The tech economy's most aggressive disrupters want to apply their ethos and thinking to government. AI, crypto and move-fast, break-things thinking will be at the center of the new Washington agenda — with America's technological lead over China in the balance, and vast fortunes at stake.
A stunning alignment of people, power and momentum are all suddenly enlarging tech's tentacles:
President-elect Trump tapped David Sacks — a member of the "PayPal Mafia" of early executives, who became famous as part of the "All-In" podcast ensemble — for the new position of White House AI & crypto czar, with a mandate of "making America the clear global leader in both areas."
Elon Musk — who has been living at Mar-a-Lago and accompanied Trump to Paris for his return to the world stage — will be the second most powerful man in the world. He was this election cycle's biggest donor (and the biggest in at least the last four presidential cycles) — and is now co-architect with Trump of the new government, pushing relentlessly for "radical change" in government spending, mission and personnel.
Marc Andreessen, one of the original internet moguls, and other tech leaders have literally been in the Trump transition offices in West Palm Beach, interviewing potential top appointees for the Pentagon, State Department and HHS, The New York Times reports.
Peter Thiel — the conservative venture capitalist and PayPal Mafia co-founder who was a mentor to Vice President-elect JD Vance — has allies in top Trump positions, including Jim O'Neill, former CEO of the Thiel Foundation, who has been named to be deputy HHS secretary.
Even Jeff Bezos, Musk's rival in the race to Mars, is sounding Trumpy. Bezos said at last week's New York Times DealBook conference that he's "actually very optimistic" about Trump's plans: "He seems to have a lot of energy around reducing regulation. ... If I can help him do that, I'm gonna help him."
What they're saying: Joe Lonsdale — a venture capitalist and Palantir co-founder who advised the Trump transition on job candidates — told us: "This is a very optimistic administration, bringing in the talent that is willing to confront the waste, and figure out solutions — people who believe that despite the typical cynicism and nihilism of so many in D.C. that they can change things and that it matters."
"[M]any of my friends — some who have exited companies after working hard for years and want to give back more — plan to serve and work hard for free to support the efforts," Lonsdale added.
"I think a lot of people haven't properly understood that there's a huge difference between 'big tech' and 'the most competent builders in the innovation world.' The legacy [media] line is this is tech or Silicon Valley coming in. But most of these guys don't get along with [the] big tech crowd — these are many of our top builders."
Between the lines: Huge federal contracts will stem from Trump's disruption of government, many of which could benefit Musk and his buddies.
Defense acquisition is one of the arms of government that tech startups are eying most eagerly. Ramaswamy told Mike during an onstage interview at the Aspen Security Forum last week that he wants the Pentagon to move money away from legacy programs, and into disruptive technologies — investing more in drones and hypersonic missiles, "rather than in a wide range of other expenditures for new kinds of fighter jets or whatever that aren't the highest ... use of the dollar to even protect the best interests of the United States or to protect the United States itself."
HHS and the Department of Veterans Affairs are potential gold mines for contracts to modernize patient records.
Context: Silicon Valley also had tons of influence in the Obama administration, particularly early. But it was a very different crowd, including legendary venture capitalist John Doerr.
Now, a small but loud group of tech stars is coming to D.C. — with a libertarian ethos that doesn't always reflect the Valley as a whole.
What we're hearing: Trump has promised a "golden age of America." So anything that stokes market metrics will appeal to him — including cryptocurrencies. Oil and gas, financial services, private prisons and crypto are all part of the booming "Trump trade" by investors bullish on the new administration.
Trump took credit when the price of a single Bitcoin surged to a record high last week, with a Truth Social post saying: "CONGRATULATIONS BITCOINERS!!! $100,000!!! YOU'RE WELCOME!!!"
We're told to expect him to promote crypto-friendly regulations — starting with his choice of a crypto advocate and industry adviser, Paul Atkins, to chair the Securities and Exchange Commission, which oversees U.S. markets.
Part of Trump's charge to Sacks as emerging tech czar is to work on a "legal framework so the Crypto industry has the clarity it has been asking for."
The backstory: Crypto companies contributed one-third of all direct corporate contributions to super PACs in this election, "60 Minutes" found. In House races, industry donors had an 85% win rate among the 29 Republicans and 33 Democrats they backed.
Fifty days before the election, Trump launched a family cryptocurrency venture, World Liberty Financial.
What to watch: Trump "is going to be very focused on the price of Bitcoin," a top transition source told us.
"It's another stock market for him," the source explained, adding that Trump would love for Bitcoin to hit $150,000 early in his presidency.
The bottom line: Andreessen — co-founder of the iconic venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz — tweeted Sunday that "political power >> financial power every day of the week."
President Biden's post-presidency now looks as bleak as his brutal final months.
Some top Democrats tell us they're so furious about Biden's abrupt, clumsy pardon of his son Hunter that they're threatening to withhold donations from his future presidential library.
"If they had their sh*t together, they would have been doing the work on this over the summer — right after he announced he was stepping aside," one well-wired Democrat told us. "Now, it's just too late. Hopefully they are rightsizing their expectations and budget!"
Why it matters: Biden, 82, will limp away from the limelight — widely disliked by the public, and now loathed by many Democrats who blame him for twin sins of selfishness: running again, then pardoning Hunter after repeatedly saying he wouldn't.
Some in Biden's family have been shocked by the number of Democrats trashing his Hunter decision on the record, sources tell us. They expected some blowback — not a wicked backlash.
But even Biden's best friends think it was nuts to pardon Hunter as a solo act on the same evening he left for a long-promised three-day trip to Africa.
Zoom in: As cover, the president could have pardoned President-elect Trump at the same time — or pardoned Hunter along with dozens of people whose convictions appear to result from injustices.
The White House is considering "preemptive pardons to a range of current and former public officials who could be targeted" by the incoming Trump administration — potentially including Liz Cheney and Anthony Fauci, Politico's Jonathan Martin reported Wednesday.
White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierretold reporters on Air Force One, en route to Angola, that they can expect more pardons and clemencies "at the end of this term."
A snap YouGov poll found 64% of Democrats approve of the pardon — a reversal of earlier Democratic sentiment. And Biden loyalists believe history will also credit Biden with his authentically historic legislative accomplishments, including gains on climate and other issues that Democrats had long fought for.
But the pardon uncorked the real rage that had been brewing among many powerful Democrats: his decision to wait so long to step aside. That kept Democrats from stress-testing potential nominees, and left Vice President Harris with a tiny window to make her case.
Axios is told two very close aides — deputy chief of staff Annie Tomasini and Anthony Bernal, First Lady Jill Biden's top adviser — will take the lead on planning for a presidential library, likely in Delaware.
A person familiar with post-presidency planning told us about potential backers closing their wallets: "No, that sentiment hasn't come up in a single donor conversation, and work is well underway."
Former President Obama, as a two-termer, announced a foundation to raise money and plan for a library three years before leaving office.
What we're hearing: Some longtime Biden defenders just want his administration to end as soon as possible. They understand the party's anger — but also have sympathy for "the boss," as aides often call him.
The timing of Hunter's pardon frustrated Democrats. Biden could have waited until closer to the inauguration. But he spared Hunter from going through sentencing for his convictions that had been scheduled for mid-December.
The long game: Democrats with potential presidential ambitions — including California Gov. Gavin Newsom and Colorado Gov. Jared Polis — used the pardon to start distancing themselves from Biden.
Some Democrats believe that by 2028, presidential aspirants will be running away from Biden's legacy rather than embracing it.
The other side: Eric Holder, who was attorney general under Obama, tweeted just over half an hour after the Hunter Biden pardon was announced that no U.S. attorney "would have charged this case given the underlying facts. ... Pardon warranted."
Former President Clinton defended Biden yesterday at the New York Times DealBook Summit: "I think that the president did have reason to believe that the nature of the offenses involved were likely to produce far stronger adverse circumstances for his son than they would for any normal person ... I wish he hadn't said he wasn't gonna do it. I think it does weaken his case."
Rep. James Clyburn (D-S.C.) said on CNN that he urged Biden two weeks ago to issue the pardon: "He seemed to be a bit reticent about it."
What they're saying: Andrew Bates, White House senior deputy press secretary, told us that Biden "continues to deliver historic progress every day, and his legacy will benefit the American people for generations."
Bates said that includes "leading us out of COVID with a steady hand, bringing American manufacturing home from overseas, taking the most significant action to fight climate change in human history, beating Big Pharma so Medicare can negotiate lower drug costs, saving lives with the most comprehensive gun reform in 30 years, and rebuilding our nation with the biggest infrastructure package in 70 years."
The bottom line: A Biden friend said the president seems older by the day — slower in walk, more halting in talk. White House aides working with him daily on implementing the agenda dispute that characterization.
But to some Biden loyalists, his decline is a sad metaphor for his presidency: He started strong but will finish diminished.
This column by Axios CEO Jim VandeHei first appeared in our nightly newsletter, Axios Finish Line:
Trust in journalism fell far and fast. Elon Musk and millions more argue it is — and should be — buried forever.
They say anyone with unrestrained speech — anyone on X — can easily replace a discredited media. "You are the media now," Musk repeatedlytells his 206 million followers.
Why it matters: My response, in a speech at the National Press Club that went shockingly viral, was: "Bullshit!" I argued that an America without clinical, fair, deep and fearless reporting will perish.
Reality check: You're right to dunk on biased, sloppy, lazy coverage. I hate it, too: It undercuts the hard work of every on-the-level reporter working their beats — whether at the White House or in my hometown of Oshkosh, Wisconsin.
But we need to distinguish between "the media" and honest reporting. I try to avoid junk food — not all food. I'd starve.
The backstory: Angry emails I received after the speech show how many lump all parts of "the media" together, sweeping in anyone who's paid to talk or type or report. I read every one. To say a lot of people on X hate "the media" is a gross understatement. My inbox confirms this emphatically.
Axios is very much not the legacy media, which has done plenty to undermine its own credibility. I have helped build two media companies — Politico and Axios — based on my own frustrations with legacy media. Journalists too often write for each other or awards committees. They're too slow to own up to mistakes, and too quick to pop off on social media in ways that betray bias or righteousness.
So 18 years ago, I left The Washington Post to help start Politico — aiming to build a more direct, authentic relationship between readers and reporters. Eight years ago, I left Politico to help start Axios, grounded in an "audience first" mentality. We'll never have an opinion section. And our audience "Bill of Rights" promises: "We will go the extra mile to earn your trust. All employees are asked to refrain from taking/advocating for public positions on political topics."
Maybe it's masochistic. But I want to take you inside a world with no trust in the sort of journalism that adheres to rigorous standards.
I also want to remindfellow journalists of the very legitimate concerns of our critics. Make no mistake: This is a war to restore faith in our work. And we're losing — decisively.
Between the lines: The American miracle rests on untamed democracy, the animal spirits of capitalism, the magic of unrestrained innovation, and the soft power of a vigilant and vibrant free press. I'm a believer in — and beneficiary of — all four.
I'm also, on balance, a fan of our increasingly scattered information ecosystem. I'm smarter today about health because of podcasters like Peter Attia, and exposed to new people and ideas because of Joe Rogan and a lot of smart people on X and other platforms.
But I also believe strongly and immovably that reporting and journalistic standards are vital for the American system, and the emerging information ecosystem, to prosper. Hell, I would find X a snore if it didn't surface and feed off reported news.
Too many seem ready to dismiss anything produced by what they call legacy media. We're playing with fire here. Torch all networks, all newspapers, all news sites with trained reporters, and you're left with little to police government, the powerful, the corrupt, or foreign wars. Random tweeters aren't equipped to invest the time, money or meticulous care to reveal:
What The Boston Globe did with a monumental investigation of sexual abuse by priests in the Catholic Church abuse scandal — courageous reporting that led other denominations to root out molestation of kids.
What the Anchorage Daily News and ProPublica did with their "Lawless" series, exposing rampant sexual assault in Alaska's rural communities. Many citizens now have police protection and newfound safety.
What Eric Eyre, then of the Charleston (W.Va.) Gazette-Mail, did by overcoming well-funded opposition and exposing the superhighway of opioids to depressed towns in coal country. "Follow the pills and you'll find the overdose deaths," his series began.
State of play: Musk argues on X that legacy media "forgot that honesty really is the best policy," and has become a "click-maximizing machine, not a truth-maximizing machine!" This school of thought argues that citizens posting on social media are superior to legacy reporters, who can be corrupted by groupthink, corporate profits and misguided trust in "experts."
But X isa massive part of ... the media! It's easily the most powerful platform for Trump's MAGA movement, which just swept full control of Washington. But that doesn't turn its users into reporters, any more than my owning a Ford F-150 makes me an automaker.
What you can do: I advise my friends — or critics — who are skeptical of Axios or legacy media to try out a publication for a few weeks. Decide for yourself if that organization seems to be trying to get to the closest approximation of the truth, and achieves it the vast majority of the time.
Notice the standard isn't perfection. It's intent and results. Based on your clear-eyed appraisal of the totality.
One bad story — or dumb headline, or clumsy phrase that gets screenshot and lit up — does not a failed publication, or industry, make. But we in "the media" need to do better. That's where critics are right.
What we can do: As an industry, we have been too ...
Quick to trust establishment experts: You've especially seen this during wars and COVID. Our job is to be skeptical until we learn otherwise. If something seems head-scratching — like medical experts speaking with total certainty about a novel coronavirus — it probably is.
Slow to admit error: We're so much stronger when we confidently and clearly admit what we get wrong — and explain why. Not with ass-covering explanations, but bluntness. We'd all benefit from a tad more humility.
Condescending, and not incurious: Reflect on how you, or your organization, covered Donald Trump and his followers. Did you try to understand the voters, the roots of their concerns or fears, and why they flocked to Trump? Did you come at it with preconceived ideas about people who live in small towns, or carry guns, or wear MAGA hats? Curiosity is the antidote to condescension. It's also the gateway to understanding.
Fearful: It takes courage to question the status quo, write unpopular stories or argue internally when coverage is drifting into groupthink. It will take courage to do your job when critics pile on — or try to discredit you in the years ahead.
The bottom line: This historic war for truth is just beginning. The coming years will reorder everything we know and think about news and information and opinion. Shame on us if reported truth is the biggest casualty.
Go deeper: "Shards of glass: Inside media's 12 splintering realities."
Two seemingly unrelated behind-the-scenes Mar-a-Lago dramas capture the shock soon to pound Washington:
Elon Musk, the most powerful and persistent voice in President-elect Trump's ear, has been relentless in pushing "radical reform" of, well, almost everything. As he sits next to Trump discussing administration picks, Musk often asks if the person embodies "radical reform" — massive cuts and blow-it-up-to-rebuild instincts.
Trump has been telling friends he denied Robert Lighthizer — his pro-tariff, China-hawk U.S. trade representative in the first term — a Cabinet role because he's "too scared to go big." He's loyal but too timid to take big, risky swings, Trump contends.
Why it matters: Trump advisers are running out of words to describe what's coming in January. They say he feels empowered and emboldened, vindicated and validated, and eager to stretch the boundaries of power.
He's egged on by Musk and others — and picking trusted brawlers for the toughest, most controversial tasks.
You got a big taste of this yesterday:
Trump named real estate developer Charles Kushner — father of Trump's son-in-law, Jared — as ambassador to France. During the final month of his first term, Trump pardoned Charles Kushner, who had served federal time after being prosecuted by Chris Christie for preparing false tax returns, witness retaliation and making false statements to the FEC.
Less than six hours later, Trump announced he picked Kash Patel, one of the hardest of his first-term hardliners, as FBI director. That means the incumbent, Chris Wray, who's just over seven years into a 10-year term (so the job could transcend any one presidency), will resign or be fired. A transition insider told us the Patel pick is a "personal message to the left that was cheering on Jack Smith" — the special counsel who was prosecuting Trump, and plans to step down before Trump can fire him.
Between the lines: Many in Trump's inner circle are gleeful at the aggressiveness of the Cabinet picks — former Fox News co-host Pete Hegseth, a decorated Army veteran who now faces questions about his treatment of women, to lead the Pentagon ... RFK Jr. to head HHS ... and former Democratic congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard as director of national intelligence.
All of them want to disrupt the organizations they've been picked to lead. Patel told podcaster Shawn Ryan: "I'd shut down the FBI Hoover Building on Day 1, and reopen the next day as a museum of the Deep State." Patel told MAGA podcast warrior Steve Bannon last year: "We're going to come after the people in the media who lied about American citizens who helped Joe Biden rig presidential elections. We're going to come after you, whether it's criminally or civilly."
The transition insider told us Trump "no longer listens to people, usually senators, who tell him 'that's not how it's done' or 'it doesn't work that way.' He no longer accepts that rationale."
"Every day is Christmas Day," Steve Bannon told us during an early flurry of announcements. "We are fixed bayonets on these nominations."
Bannon called Patel, who sells pro-Trump merch with "K$H" logos, his "One AND Only!!" choice to lead the FBI.
After yesterday's announcements, Bannon texted us, as if he were dictating old-school headlines: "Wildest Dreams — Now to Darkest Nightmare as the Established Order Goes Scorched Earth to Defeat the President During Confirmation ... MAGA Best @ Scorched Earth Battles."
Behind the scenes: Chemistry with Trump is a huge factor in the most controversial picks. "These are people that get him and understand him," a longtime Trump confidant told us. "Last time, there were lots of people who didn't understand the vision or buy into the vision."
Another transition source tells us Patel was close to being named deputy FBI director, which would have been much less confrontational. But the former frontrunner for the job, Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey, flunked his Mar-a-Lago meeting with Trump. Bailey "looked the part" but "just didn't have the presence in the room," we're told.
The big picture:A tweet by Musk this past week captured the Mar-a-Lago vibe. "It's this time or never," he said about structural reform of the federal government.
Musk, who said in 2018 that he was sleeping on a Tesla factory floor to stay on top of a production problem, has made Mar-a-Lago his new factory floor. He says the incoming administration is working "7 days a week."
We're told Musk is pressing to instantly upend agencies by keeping the fewest possible people — like he did when he bought Twitter, now X.
What they're saying: Trump confidants tell us their plans are radical only compared to the status quo. "We're looking for a return to normalcy," the insider said. "Nothing radical. Used to be common sense in this country (and every country) that you take care of your people first before getting generous with others."
"There are a million examples of things that need to be taken care of at home before we look past our shores, and we're gonna focus on those things," the insider added.
"Current and former law enforcement officials," The New York Times notes, "have worried that a second Trump term would feature an assault on the independence and authority of the F.B.I. and the Justice Department, and for many of them, Mr. Patel's ascension to the director's role would confirm the worst of those fears."
Why it matters: Lost in the noise of Trump's most controversial picks is the simple, undebatable fact that this might be the most ideologically diverse cabinet of modern times.
As Axios' Zachary Basu told you, Trump's Cabinet increasingly resembles a European-style coalition government, staffed with a dizzying array of ideological rivals united — for now — by a grand MAGA vision.
Between the lines: It's Trump's team of (ideological) rivals.
The team represents the Trump worldview: Traditional conservatism is dead — and its biggest, lifelong advocates neutered to the point of irrelevance.
A Trump transition source told us most of the picks are "a version of Trump in their thinking and approach":
"They're fearless disrupters who can walk into these buildings, and know they have a mandate for reform and change."
What we're hearing: Trump's earlier hostile takeover of the Republican establishment is now morphing into a fast-forward "hostile takeover" of the federal bureaucracy.
Trump insiders tell us they're confident RFK will get confirmed — possibly with the help of at least one Democratic senator.
The big picture: In just under a decade, Trump, once a donor to Democrats, has transformed the GOP of George W. Bush, John McCain and Mitt Romney into a populist party with radically different views on trade, immigration and spending.
In policy, tone and personnel, this is the MAGA Party — not a GOP that any of the party's past legends would recognize.
"The GOP establishment is now Trump's team of populists," a behind-the-scenes Republican power broker told us. "The old Bush establishment are the outsiders."
Zoom in: This phenomenon was apparent in last night's fusillade of transition announcements, when Trump announced nine major picks in 66 minutes, starting at 6:55 p.m. ET. They included:
For Treasury, Scott Bessent will bring deep knowledge of bond and currency markets and a close relationship with Trump — as well as a surprising connection to hedge fund manager George Soros, megadonor to liberal causes and bogeyman to the political right.Go deeper with Axios' Neil Irwin & Courtenay Brown
For Labor, Rep. Lori Chavez-DeRemer (R-Ore.), who lost her reelection bid this month, has a pro-labor record that unions like. She backed the PRO Act, a President Biden priority that would make it easier to unionize on a federal level. Go deeper.
For FDA, Dr. Marty Makary, a surgeon and author who gained prominence on Fox News for his contrarian COVID views. Go deeper.
For HUD, Scott Turner, a Texan who is the highest-ranking Black person Trump has yet selected for his administration. Turner — a motivational speaker and former NFL cornerback for Washington, San Diego and Denver — ran the White House Opportunity and Revitalization Council during Trump's first term. Go deeper.
Elon Musk has persuaded President-elect Trump that government has grown so big, bloated, slow and sclerotic ... only a wrecking ball can fix it.
Soon, that ball will slam into hard reality: Politicians like to giveth, not taketh away.
Why it matters: Trump is more fixated on a "deep state" blocking his ambitions, than cost savings, advisers tell us. But he has bought into the Musk concept of using AI and lean-business thinking to try to dramatically shrink a government he helped grow, they say.
The wrecking-ball theory holds that only a massive shock to the system will break a lifetime of build-up.
Musk wants to be Trump's wrecking ball. Musk has vowed to cut $2 trillion from the federal budget — about 30% of annual government spending. But as this column will show you, that may be harder than Musk's signature mission of planting human life on Mars.
How it works: Trump announced this week that Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, a Trump primary opponent, will head a new Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE — like the cryptocurrency).
Sources tell us Musk wants to use AI and crowd-sourcing to hunt for waste, fraud and abuse. But DOGE isn't actually a government department: We're told Musk and Ramaswamy plan to set up a nongovernmental entity to try to pull off the entrepreneurial approach to government that Trump envisions.
Trump aides are looking for ways the White House could bypass Congress and unilaterally adopt DOGE proposals, which "could trigger a constitutional showdown over a bedrock aspect of the federal government, the power of the purse," The Washington Post's Jeff Stein reports.
Behind the scenes: We're told Musk has been free-associating with Trump at Mar-a-Lago at just how deep the fat in the federal workforce runs. (Remember, this is the guy who vowed to cut 80% of Twitter employees.)
DOGE already has its own X handle, with 1.5 million followers. A DOGE tweet seeks "super high-IQ small-government revolutionaries willing to work 80+ hours per week on unglamorous cost-cutting. ... Elon & Vivek will review the top 1% of applicants."
The big picture: Talk to anyone in government, and they'll bemoan how process, habit, special interests and innate human fear of change have left us with a wildly inefficient bureaucracy.
In an era of AI, a race for space and growingly complex cyber fears, the inefficiencies become threats.
But changing it is so hard that both parties stopped trying years ago. During the campaign, Trump and Vice President Harris didn't even pretend they wanted to shrink it, if you take their policy proposals seriously.
Mandatory spending programs — Social Security Medicare, Medicaid, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) — are governed by laws laying out formulas for how benefits are paid, Axios chief economic correspondent Neil Irwin pointed out to us.
Legally, Elon can't just stop cutting checks. Trump would have to get changes through Congress in which he is going to have only a modest majority in the Senate and a minuscule majority in the House.
Plus Trump, attentive to his huge base of older voters, opposes entitlement reform.
So DOGE will have few viable targets. The biggest will be so-called "nondefense discretionary" programs — money Congress approves annually for programs not mandated by existing laws, including Social Security.
Chris Krueger, a Washington expert for TD Cowen, warns lobbyists: "This will require attention & focus — and compete with the Appropriations Committees. Every budgetary sacred cow will now likely hire an additional lobbyist."
Even on the discretionary side, Congress has the power of the purse. Each of the agencies and functions that survive year after year have important constituencies — many of them part of the Trump coalition. Farm interests won't be too happy if you slash the USDA, and its many subsidies, for example.
By the numbers: Stare at the budget numbers and you see how little room Musk has to maneuver.
In fiscal year 2023, the federal government spent just over $6 trillion, equating to $18,406 per person.
The easiest money to cut is the discretionary spending we mentioned above. But it's less than 30% of the total budget — and half of it goes to defense, which members of Congress would rush to protect.
Lots of people over the years have identified absurd spending or bureaucratic walls — but presidents and Congress simply let them stand. AI might help. But reality is the biggest obstacle. The vast majority of spending goes to:
Social Security: This popular program eats up 20-25% of total federal spending. It supports retirees, disabled individuals, and survivors. Trump has promised to never cut it. In fact, he wants to eliminate taxes on benefits, which would increase the deficit.
Health care: Think Medicare (for seniors) and Medicaid (for low-income individuals). This is another 25% of the budget. Trump has promised to protect Medicare and a lot of his working-class base benefits from these programs.
Defense: The Defense Department and related military spending constitute about 13-15% of the federal budget. Republicans typically want more defense spending, not less. And it's hard to see the shift to space-based warfare costing less.
Interest on the national debt: This one sucks the most for America because you get nothing in return. Interest payments are growing rapidly, now around 8-10% of federal spending. The only way to save money here is to radically cut the debt. Trump's agenda does the opposite.
Safety-net programs: Programs like food benefits (SNAP), unemployment insurance and housing assistance collectively make up about 10%. Trump won with the support of people who get these benefits, so cuts could be a hard sell.
Case in point: The expense for entitlement programs goes almost entirely to the benefits themselves, not any administrative bloat involved in issuing checks. For example, the administrative cost of Social Security is only about 0.5% of outlays, $7.2 billion last year, Neil Irwin points out.
So even if somehow you magically cut that in half, you've only cut $3.6 billion in spending — trivial in the context of the federal budget.
And if that streamlining resulted in even a few seniors not getting their monthly benefits, there'd be holy hell to pay politically.
What to watch: The aspiration of trillions of dollars of savings will run headlong into the unspoken governing theory of both parties: It's easier and more popular to give than to take away.
