The top priority for the CIA's new leadership is China, and in particular helping U.S. companies maintain "a decisive technological advantage" in areas like AI, chips, biotech and battery technology, Deputy Director Michael Ellis told Axios' Colin Demarest in a rare interview.
Why it matters: Ellis and CIA Director John Ratcliffe have pledged to restructure the agency and shift its priorities. Ellis offered insight into how exactly they plan to go about it.
Breaking it down: "China is the existential threat to American security in a way we really have never confronted before," Ellis said.
Russia will still be a challenge and a priority for intelligence collection, Ellis said, along with adversaries like Iran and North Korea.
But Ellis said the CIA will put much more emphasis on drug cartels, elevating the counter-narcotics division that had been something of an internal backwater.
Zoom in: Ellis also contended that the CIA's workforce and the tactics it employs need to evolve to fit the times and President Trump's priorities.
Cold War-era human intelligence techniques may still have some role, but they're getting much harder to use successfully due in part to adversaries' surveillance tech, Ellis said.
"We need more people with technical backgrounds," Ellis said. "More STEM grads."
The intrigue: Ellis mentioned inviting Elon Musk to visit the CIA, and said there were "a lot of efficiencies that we can gain" by learning from private sector leaders like him.
Ellis said looming staff cuts were "actually an opportunity in some ways" to "reshape" the workforce.
"We cannot have weaponization or politicization of the intelligence community," Ellis said, in an apparent reference to Trump's repeated claims that the "deep state" had been working against him.
It's time to "really get rid of the distractions and biases that I think may have existed in the past," Ellis said, without offering specific examples. Other senior officials like Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth have railed against "woke" ideology in their departments.
South African President Cyril Ramaphosa got the Zelensky treatment while meeting President Trump Wednesday, with added special effects.
The big picture: Visiting the White House is no longer just a coveted opportunity to earn goodwill with the president and credibility back home. Under Trump 2.0, it carries the risk of a presidential ambush.
The visit immediately evoked the disastrous Feb. 28 meeting in which Trump and Vice President Vance berated Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, shocking the world and setting a precedent.
Even leaders who avoid a public flogging face prolonged and unpredictable on-camera spectacles, with Trump taking questions from a mix of mainstream and MAGA media and holding the floor for up to an hour.
Trump's premeditated humiliation of Ramaphosa is likely to be on the minds of other leaders before they make plans to visit Washington.
Driving the news: Ramaphosa came to D.C. in need of an urgent reset.
Ramaphosa made clear that he hoped to reassure Trump on that topic and pivot to trade, with South Africa desperate to escape tariffs and renew a U.S.-Africa trade deal. Perhaps anticipating a Zelensky scenario, he brought South African golfing legends Ernie Els and Retief Goosento try to keep things friendly.
Ramaphosa may not have been reassured to see Musk in attendance, but the meeting started amicably enough. He lavished praise on Trump, while Trump described the South African president as well-respected "in some circles."
About 20 minutes in, after Ramaphosa said "listening to the stories" of South Africans would help Trump better understand the situation, Trump sprung his trap.
"Mr. President, I must say that we have thousands of stories... we have documentaries, we have news stories. Is Natalie here?" Trump said, turning to his staff with an apparent reference to aide Natalie Harp.
"I could show you a couple things, and it has to be responded to," Trump told Ramaphosa, whose eyes suddenly went wide before he shared a bemused laugh with his staff.
"Turn the lights down and just put this on," Trump said.
The lights went down, and the video began. "Kill... the.. white farmer."
Trump subjected Ramaphosa to a five-minute compilation involving incitement against whites by extremist politicians whom Ramophosa opposes, before flipping through a stack of news printouts describing such attacks.
The cameras kept rolling for another half hour, with Ramaphosa remaining determinedly upbeat and Trump firmly in control.
Unlike Zelensky, Ramaphosa was not ejected from the Oval.
When the press was finally ushered out, Ramaphosa's meeting with Trump officially began.
By then, all the headlines had already been written.
Zoom out: There are still potential upsides to visiting Trump's White House.
Several leaders, most recently Canada's Mark Carney, have managed to hold their own or score minor wins.
El Salvador's Nayib Bukele seemed to enjoy guest starring in the Trump show, while French President Emmanuel Macron and U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer tried a mix of flattery and persuasion to influence Trump on trade and Ukraine.
But while one Oval Office disaster could be a fluke, two is starting to look like a trend.
The bottom line: If Trump invites you into his office, enter at your own risk.
President Trump on Tuesday touted $25 billion in initial funding for the "Golden Dome" and put Space Force Gen. Michael Guetlein in charge of realizing the hemispheric missile shield.
The big picture: Golden Dome β previously dubbed Iron Dome, but separate from Israel's missile defense program β is a mammoth undertaking with enthusiastic backing from the president but many doubters in the national security community.
Trump said the project will cost around $175 billion and be built over the next three years, though those are both just estimates. The initial $25 billion will be included in the "big beautiful bill" working its way through Congress, Trump said.
Planning, building, operating and maintaining the Golden Dome, as well as paying for it, will require intense coordination between the Pentagon, Congress, current and future presidents, defense contractors and troops. Trump said Canada also expressed interest in being covered by the shield but would have to "pay their fair share."
Analysts have expressed doubts about the plausibility β and immense costs β of replicating Israel's air defense capabilities at a continental scale. Trump, however, remains bullish.
The latest: Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth discussed the envisioned countermeasures during a televised Oval Office meeting.
They said the missile shield will be designed to block hypersonic missiles, ICBMs and other projectiles, including nuclear weapons, whether they are launched from the earth's surface or from space.
Trump said President Reagan had wanted to build something similar during the Cold War "but they didn't have the technology." Now, he said, the U.S. has "super technology."
"This is very important for the success and even survival of our country. It's a pretty evil world out there," Trump said.
How it works: At the heart of Golden Dome is a mesh of sensors and spotters and space-based interceptors.
Zoom out: Defense companies have been jockeying for position since Trump signed an executive order in January to pursue it.
Lockheed Martin pitched its F-35 stealth fighter, Sentinel A4 radars, command-and-control networks and more as components. Chief operating officer Frank St. John told Axios the project will "require the best of every technology company."
Booz Allen Hamilton unveiled Brilliant Swarms, a nod to the Reagan-era Brilliant Pebbles. It envisions masses of satellites capable of detecting and smashing into missiles. "The longer you wait to kill an enemy ballistic missile, the harder your problem gets," executive vice president Chris Bogdan told Axios.
Meanwhile, Anduril Industries, Palantir Technologies and SpaceX were collaborating on dome-related plans, according to Reuters.
Ukrainian President Zelensky and five other European leaders joined a conference call with President Trump immediately after his call with Vladimir Putin on Monday hoping to hear that Putin had agreed to a ceasefire β or the U.S. would impose penalties on him for refusing to do so.
Instead, Trump said Putin had agreed to negotiate, stressed the U.S. wouldn't be involved in those negotiations, and pushed back against the idea of imposing sanctions on Putin at the current time, two sources who were on the call and a third source briefed on the call told Axios.
Why it matters: Trump gave the impression he was getting closer to withdrawing from the issue altogether.Some leaders on the call seemed "surprised" or "shocked," the sources said.
"I think something's going to happen. And if it doesn't, I just back away and they're going to have to keep going. Again, this was a European situation, and should have remained a European situation," Trump told reporters in the Oval Office several hours after his calls.
How it happened: Trump and Zelensky had a brief call Monday morning, and Trump asked his Ukrainian counterpart what he should tell Putin, the sources said.
Zelensky was happy Trump called him to consult. He requested that Trump demand an immediate ceasefire, threaten new sanctions against Russia, and offer no concessions to Putin without consulting Ukraine, the sources say.
Behind the scenes: When the call with Putin ended, Trump called Zelensky again. This time the leaders of Germany, France, Italy, Finland and the European Commission were also on the line.
"The second call was longer and of a different character than the first one," Zelensky said later.
While a European source on the call told Axios it was "constructive," another source said Zelensky felt it was "bad."
Trump told the leaders that Putin agreed to start direct negotiations on a ceasefire immediately. A source on the call said there were a few seconds of puzzled silence.
Zelensky then pointed out that Putin had previously agreed to negotiate, and the first round of ceasefire talks took place on Friday in Istanbul. Trump didn't directly respond, the sources said.
The sources said Zelensky and several other leaders on the call told Trump it had been his idea to start the peace talks with an immediate 30-day ceasefire.
A White House official told Axios Trump "never agreed" that a ceasefire should be a prerequisite for negotiations and never said Zelensky can decide what the conditions for negotiations will be.
Friction point: Other European leaders on the call asked about the possibility of U.S. sanctions against Russia, but Trump said he didn't think was a good idea and stressed that he thought Putin wanted a deal.
Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni jumped in to ask why there couldn't be a ceasefire for at least two weeks heading into the talks, while German Chancellor Friedrich Merz asked what concessions Russia was willing to make, the sources said.
Trump told the group Putin would present a "peace memo" with his terms for a ceasefire and for ending the war. A source on the call said Trump told Zelensky and the European leaders he asked Putin to present "something people can agree to" and not a proposal that will be rejected immediately.
Zelensky said previous rounds of negotiations with Putin, including last week, didn't produce anything and stressed that if Trump doesn't push, Putin won't move, the sources said.
The White House official said that for months Russia had refused to present a document with its vision of how to end the war and the fact Putin agreed to do it was a significant step forward.
Between the lines: Leaders on the call seemed surprised that Trump seemed relatively content with what he heard from Putin, and presented it as a new development, even though the Russian leader did not seem to have changed his position at all, the sources said.
What to watch: Trump told the group that Russia and Ukraine should conduct bilateral direct negotiations without any third party mediators because the parties best understand all the details of the conflict.
Meloni and Merz said the U.S. and European countries need to be involved in the negotiations. "Someone needs to be a judge," Meloni said. Merz proposed holding a meeting with all the parties present.
Where it stands: On the call, Finland President Alexander Stubb asked Trump what the next steps were. "I don't know. Someone has to come out and say whether the negotiations are going well or badly, and then we'll decide what to do," Trump said.
This story was updated with comments from a White House official.
The enduring legacy of President Trump's trip to the Gulf may be the transformation of the Middle East into a global artificial intelligence powerhouse, despite massive risks to the U.S.
Why it matters: The Biden administration saw the Gulf as a backdoor for China to gain access to the computing power needed to advance AI. President Trump and the tech CEOs who joined him in the Middle East see a chance for multibillion-dollar deals.
Driving the news: In deal after deal announced over the week, Trump opened the door for the Gulf to obtain the world's most advanced AI chips.
In Saudi Arabia, Trump and tech leaders from AMD, Amazon and other companies announced AI-related partnerships worth billions of dollars with a new Saudi-state-backed AI infrastructure startup called Humain. Nvidia said it will ship 18,000 of its cutting-edge AI chips for a 500-megawatt data center being built by Humain.
In the UAE, Trump and Emirati President Mohammed bin Zayed said the two countries will partner to build the largest AI data center outside the U.S., in Abu Dhabi.
What they're saying: Trump's AI czar, David Sacks, called the deals a "game-changer in the global AI race" that will "help to cement American technology as the global standard β before our competitors can catch up."
"The alternative to this framework was to exclude critical geo-strategic, resource-rich friends and allies from our AI ecosystem. This was the Biden policy, and it was foolish in the extreme," Sacks added.
The White House says last week's announcement by Saudi Arabia, Qatar and UAE are part of a "Trump Effect" bringing the U.S. "a surge of private and foreign investment."
The big picture: The UAE and Saudi Arabia have leaders desperate to make their kingdoms high-tech powers, and deep pockets and abundant energy needed to develop AI. Now, with Trump's help, they'll also have the chips.
Some experts working on AI heard Trump's pronouncements and envisioned the world's biggest AI data centers sprouting not in the U.S., but in the Gulf.
Perhaps more pressingly, current and former U.S. officials worry China's biggest AI players β or even its military β will be able to access advanced AI chips they can't legally import into China by deepening partnerships in Gulf states, where Beijing enjoys extensive economic and security ties.
The other side: A group of Democratic lawmakers argued on Friday that Trump announced the deals "to export very large volumes of advanced AI chips to the UAE and Saudi Arabia without credible security assurances to prevent U.S. adversaries from accessing those chips."
"These deals pose a significant threat to U.S. national security and fundamentally undermine bipartisan efforts to ensure the United States remains the global leader in AI. Rather than putting America first, this deal puts the Gulf first," the statement adds.
The bipartisan House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party introduced new legislation "to stop advanced U.S. AI chips from falling into the hands of adversaries like the Chinese Communist Party."
The flipside: The White House insists it can safeguard U.S. tech while pursuing these multibillion-dollar deals.
In announcing the U.S.-UAE partnership, the Department of Commerce β which will have to approve some of the deals β said the tech cooperation will meet "robust U.S. security standards and other efforts to responsibly deploy AI infrastructure, both in the UAE and globally."
Between the lines: Some policymakers and firms like Nvidia and Microsoft have argued overly arduous restrictions risk ceding the field to China, undercutting U.S. AI preeminence rather than bolstering it.
Under Biden, those business considerations were often trumped by security concerns. The White House asserts the U.S.-UAE AI agreement ensures "U.S. security interests and dominance in AI while extending the American tech stack to an important strategic partner."
What they're saying: Biden administration veterans who spoke with Axios raised questions about Trump's motivations but grudgingly saluted his boldness.
"Gosh, I wish I could work for an administration that could move that quickly," one admitted.
"He does all this, and it's kind of silence, it's met with a shrug," says Ned Price, a former senior State Department official under President Biden. "He has the ability to do things politically that previous presidents did not, because he has complete unquestioned authority over the Republican caucus."
"It's hard not to be simultaneously terrified at the thought of the damage he can cause with such power, and awed by his willingness to brazenly shatter so many harmful taboos," says Rob Malley, who held senior posts in three Democratic administrations, including handling Iran talks under Presidents Obama and Biden.
Zoom out: On issue after issue, Trump is taking steps no recent president would have even considered.
He abandoned the unified Western position to back Ukraine "as long as it takes" by negotiating directly with Vladimir Putin and declaring that Kyiv will never get Crimea back and must cut a deal now.
He inserted himself directly in the recent Kashmir crisis, something past administrations have avoided so as not to antagonize India.
He endorsed direct talks with Iran and shrugged off hawks at home and abroad who tied the Obama and Biden administrations in knots. It helps that many of them, like Israel's Benjamin Netanyahu, are loath to cross Trump.
Zoom in: On Syria, Trump's own State Department had espoused a policy similar to the Biden administration's before it β sanctions relief might be possible if militant-turned-statesman Ahmed al-Sharaa's government met a number of criteria, such as suppressing extremist groups.
That meant that, somewhat perversely, the new administration was being strangled by sanctions imposed on the dictator they toppled. But it was also just the way these things work, until Trump decided it wasn't.
"It's so clearly the right decision," said Ben Rhodes, a national security aide to President Obama, on the "Pod Save the World" podcast. "I don't know why Joe Biden didn't do this."
"I don't like Trump's motivations for lots of things he does," Rhodes continued, "but one thing you will say is he's not tied to this constant fear of some bad faith right-wing attacks or stupid Blob-type, 'we don't do this, we must leverage the sanctions for blah blah blah.' No! Sometimes you just have to try something different."
Perhaps most shocking to veterans of previous administrations, Trump authorized direct talks with Hamas last month that Israeli officials only learned about through espionage (or by reading Axios).
Driving the news: This week, Trump's envoy-for-everything Steve Witkoff used backchannel talks to negotiate the release of Israeli-American hostage Edan Alexander, undercutting Israel's own negotiating tactics.
"I suspectΒ Witkoff doesn't have to look over his shoulder as much as others have. His predecessors have had to make sure the secretary of defense is on board and the secretary of the Treasury is on board, and the head of the CIA is on board. He just does it," the former Biden official said.
Flashback: The Biden administration considered but ultimately rejected opening direct talks with Hamas.
"This is not about President Biden, this is about President Trump and the advantage that he has with Bibi [Netanyahu]," Price said. "If the Biden administration had done something like this, Bibi would have gone out guns blazing."
Now, even with the daylight between him and Trump growing more glaring, Netanyahu is keeping uncharacteristically quiet.
The flipside: Trump has also not pushed back hard as Netanyahu cut off all aid to Gaza, refused to budge in ceasefire negotiations, and announced a military operation to flatten and occupy the enclave.
Price argues that's the more nefarious side of Trump's a-la-carte "America First" approach.
"Unfortunately, we have a real-life experiment going on right now where we see exactly what happens when an administration abdicates that concerted pressure on the Israelis."
Between the lines: All the former Democratic officials who spoke to Axios questioned Trump's motives, even for policies they personally agreed with, noting that he's not just breaching norms to make peace, but also to sell cryptocurrency, expand his real estate portfolio or obtain a $400 million jet.
The Syria announcement notably came at the urging of Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and Turkish President Recep Tayyip ErdoΔan, two leaders fluent in Trump-style transactionalism.
On everything from international diplomacy to personal business, hostage negotiations to investment deals, Gulf countries are President Trump's partners of first resort.
Why it matters: Trump, who arrived in Saudi Arabia on Tuesday, is spurning traditional democratic allies in favor of Gulf monarchies β drawn by their wealth, deal-making and growing global clout.
Breaking it down: Each of Trump's ten most recent predecessors made their first international trips to Canada, Mexico, the U.K. or NATO HQ in Brussels.
Trump chose Saudi Arabia twice (though he did attend Pope Francis' funeral first this time around).
He'll also stop this week in Qatar and the UAE, with all three legs of the trip expected to focus on huge investment commitments for AI, aircraft, weapons and more.
Zoom in: Trump's personal business empire in the Gulf is also growing, with projects under development in all three countries he'll be visiting.
Trump has hosted the Saudi-backed LIV golf tour at his U.S. properties, and his son-in-law Jared Kushner's private equity firm received $2 billion from the kingdom's Public Investment Fund.
In recent weeks, the Trump Organization has revealed plans to build luxury properties in both Dubai and Doha.
The Trump family's crypto venture also announced that an Emirati-backed investment firm would use its new stablecoin to complete a $2 billion transaction β drawing massive outcry from Congress.
Behind the scenes: Officials from all three countries have an unusual level of access in Washington, where Gulf money has long bankrolled an army of lobbyists, influencers and think tanks.
The Qatari prime minister and the Emirati national security adviser were both granted dinners with Trump on recent visits despite not being heads of state.
Qatar's influence in Trumpworld has been a source of particular concern among pro-Israel Republicans, who accuse the Gulf nation of financing Hamas and other Islamist groups. Qatar denies that.
The big picture: Trump has been looking to the Gulf states for more than just their checkbooks.
While that meeting hasn't happened, and Trump has now floated the idea of a summit in Istanbul, the kingdom has built ties with both warring countries and the White House and remains a key player in the diplomatic efforts.
That's new for a country that's long been a power within the Arab world, but not beyond it.
The Qataris and Emiratis are more experienced international intermediaries, and Trump has leaned on both repeatedly.
Qatar has mediated the release of Americans detained in Afghanistan, Venezuela, and Gaza β most recently American-Israeli Edan Alexander, who was freed by Hamas on Monday after 584 days in captivity. Qatar is also a mediator in the Gaza ceasefire process.
The UAE coordinated the release of Russian-American ballerina Ksenia Karelina from a Russian prison last month, as it had with basketball star Brittney Griner in 2022. The Emiratis have also been involved in coordinating a "day after" strategy for Gaza with the U.S.
Between the lines: The Biden and Obama administrations also turned to Qatar and the UAE in similar situations. Call it continuity with Trumpian twists β like Qatar's "gift" of a Boeing 747-8 to be used as the new Air Force One.
For Gulf rulers, Trump offers something his predecessors didn't: fewer lectures, more arms deals and a direct line to U.S. power insulated from Congress.
The intrigue: The U.S. first went to the Emiratis to help bring Iran to the table for nuclear talks, but Tehran made clear they preferred to work with another small oil-rich Gulf state: Oman.
Oman is still mediating those talks, and White House envoy Steve Witkoff also turned to them to mediate a truce with the Houthis in Yemen.
Friction point: The Iran talks, the Houthi deal and the chumminess with Qatar are all happening with very little input from another key U.S. partner in the region, Israel β to the irritation of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
The bottom line: If there's a crisis breaking out, or money to be made, Trump is likely to look first to the Gulf states.
The Vatican's veil of secrecy is beginning to lift, shedding light on how 133 cardinals from around he world unexpectedly coalesced behind Chicago native Robert Prevost, now Pope Leo XIV.
The big picture: Prevost benefitted from being the "least American" of the U.S. cardinals, from being an acolyte of Pope Francis' but not a "photocopy," and from his reputation as a good listener and quietly effective administrator, his fellow cardinals revealed on Friday.
The quiet American
Prevost was hardly mentioned in pre-conclave media coverage and was a non-factor in the betting markets β but he was the subject of intense interest among his fellow cardinals in the days between their arrival in Rome and the start of the conclave.
"I was surprised at how many of my colleagues asked me... 'do you know this Roberto Prevost?'" Timothy Dolan, the Archbishop of New York, said at a press conference alongside fellow North American cardinals.
The truth was Dolan knew very little about Prevost, who spent most of his adult life away from the U.S. β much of it as a missionary and later bishop in Peru, where he gained dual citizenship.
When the American cardinals posed for a photo ahead of the conclave, Prevost wasn't even in it.
But when it came to Prevost, the fact that he was an American was "almost negligible in the deliberations of the conclave, surprisingly so for me," said Robert McElroy, the archbishop of Washington.
The cardinals gather for the conclave. Photo: Francesco Sforza/Vatican Media/Getty Images
Francis' heir, but his own man
Prevost only became a cardinal in 2023, but Pope Francis made him one of the senior-most figures in the Catholic hierarchy earlier this year by elevating him to the rank of cardinal-bishop.
He was seen as close to his predecessor both personally and in terms of outlook, but somewhat more moderate in temperament and on some ideological questions than the more fiery Francis.
That made him a continuity candidate but also a plausibly acceptable choice for some who had quibbles with Francis.
The chatter among the electors ahead of the conclave was "we're looking for someone following in the pathway of Francis, but we're not looking for a photocopy," McElroy said.
"He runs a great meeting"
Francis made Prevost the head of the powerful Curia department responsible for appointing bishops, bringing him into closer contact with senior figures in the church, including some who later elevated him to the papacy.
Dolan said one of the first pieces of insight he picked up about Prevost was "he runs a great meeting, which not everybody does."
Multiple cardinals said they saw Prevost as a good listener and an effective administrator, while others were impressed by their interactions with him ahead of the conclave.
"It wasn't that he got up and made this overwhelmingly convincing speech that just wowed the body," reflected Cardinal Wilton Gregory. "But I do believe he engaged quite effectively in the smaller group conversations."
North American cardinals holding a press conference today. Photo: Alberto Pizzoli/AFP via Getty
"A mad dash to unity"
The cardinals are sworn to secrecy about what happened inside the conclave itself, but it's clear that momentum shifted strongly in Prevost's favor during the three rounds of voting on the second day.
"There was a great movement on the second day β a great movement within the body that was there, and it could be nothing other than the grace of God moving us toward this consensus that I thought it would take a lot more time to get to," McElroy said.
The swift arrival of white smoke led some to speculate the winner was Francis' deputy and the betting markets' favorite, Pietro Parolin. But reports in the Italian press suggest Parolin fell victim to the old adage that "he who enters as pope leaves as cardinal."
The Corriere Della Serra newspaper claimed β sprinkling in many grains of salt β that Parolin was still leading Prevost on the third ballot, but stepped aside when it became clear he couldn't reach the necessary two-thirds majority.
"We have a pope." Photo: Alberto Pizzoli/AFP via Getty
"Accepto"
Dolan was sitting directly behind Prevost as votes were counted during the fourth and final ballot, and saw the soon-to-be pope drop his head as his name was repeated over and over again.
When he crossed the threshold of 89 votes "there was great ovation in the Sistine Chapel," Dolan told SirusXM's "Catholic Channel."
It was then up to Parolin, as the senior-most cardinal elector, to stand before Prevost and ask whether he would accept the role being entrusted to him. "Accepto," Prevost replied.
Then Parolin asked by what name the new pope wished to be called. After a brief pause he answered: "Leo."
Black smoke billowed over the Vatican on Wednesday to signal that no candidate received the required two-thirds majority of cardinal electors to become the next pope.
The big picture: White smoke is probably not far off. Most modern conclaves have typically lasted two or three days. Pope Francis was elected on the second day of the 2013 conclave.
How a pope is elected
While just a single vote will be held on the opening day of the conclave, four rounds are expected on subsequent days (two in the morning, two in the afternoon).
If no candidate is selected after the third day, the voting is paused for a day of prayer before resuming.
The field is narrowed to two candidates if no pope is selected after 21 rounds of voting, but every conclave in more than a century has wrapped up long before then.
The conclave is closed off to the world, with cardinals turning in their phones and taking a vow of secrecy at the risk of excommunication if they break it. The chapel is even swept for bugs to ensure the proceedings remain secret.
The cardinals proceed from the Vatican apartments at Casa Santa Marta β where they are housed during the conclave β to the Sistine Chapel to cast their votes.
The ancient ceremony has changed little in some 800 years, with cardinals writing their choice on a slip of paper, folding it, reciting an oath, and using a plate to slide it into a chalice.
The smoke in the chimney comes from burning the ballots, with chemical compounds added to make it black or white.
Infographic: Maura Losch/Axios
Who is eligible to vote for the pope
While 135 cardinals are under the age of 80 and therefore eligible to vote, two are not participating do to ill health. That means any candidate needs 89 votes to be elected.
The pope doesn't technically need to be a cardinal, but every pope for nearly three centuries has been.
Pope Francis elevated 108 of the 135 eligible electors and brought more geographical diversity to the College of Cardinals.
When white smoke appears above the Sistine Chapel, people will rush to St. Peter's Square to catch a glimpse of the new pope.
The senior cardinal will declare "Habemus Papam" β we have a pope β from the balcony of St. Peter's basilica and reveal the papal name the new pope has chosen.
Francis' successor will then emerge onto the balcony to offer his first blessing as pope.
Pope Francis emerges onto the balcony after being elected in 2013. Photo: Peter Macdiarmid/Getty Images
President Trump is putting China's economy through a trillion-dollar stress test, and he may not like the result.
Why it matters: Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent insists China is far more reliant on the U.S. than vice-versa, and thus has no choice but to blink first.
But Chinese President Xi Jinping's disinclination to rush to the table suggests he thinks time is on China's side.
We're about to get some indications of who is right.
The big picture: China says it sent around 15% of its exports, worth $525 billion,to the U.S. last year β about 3x what flowed in the opposite direction. (U.S. data differs on the total value by nearly $100 billion, but the ratios are about the same.)
But Bessent has claimed China would be hit far harder, potentially losing 10 million jobs just in the near-term.
"I believe that it's up to China to de-escalate, because they sell five times more to us than we sell to them, and so these 120%, 145% tariffs are unsustainable," he told CNBC.
China's inflation and retail sales data in the coming weeks should provide the first insights into whether the country could really outlast the U.S. in a prolonged trade war.
Between the lines: China has been endeavoring for years to reduce its reliance on exports to the U.S., and the hunt for alternative markets has taken on a new urgency.
E-commerce sales for low-cost Chinese retailers have started to tick up in Europe, though the degree to which other markets can replace the U.S. will likely depend on the product.
The government has been offering vouchers and subsidies directly to consumers, including rebates to trade in old cars and appliances.
It announced additional measures last month to "vigorously boost consumption" across a range of industries.
The government is also rallying citizens and corporations with a nationalistic message that China is being unfairly targeted.
Zoom in: If Chinese consumers start spending and absorbing some originally U.S.-bound goods, authorities in Beijing have a lot more room to stand their ground.
Reality check: While China's economy may prove more adaptable than Bessent hopes, many ordinary Chinese will undoubtedly be hurt by the trade war, just as many Americans will.
While it's unclear which side will be hit harder, "Chinese leaders have sort of committed themselves to rolling out stimulus, depending on the economic conditions," according to Tianchen Xu, senior economist at The Economist Intelligence Unit.
"For example, if the export sector is really struggling and it leads to a substantial rise in unemployment and social stability risks, then I think they will be quite decisive in terms of providing more support."
What to watch: The tariff pain is more likely to translate to immediate political pressure in the U.S. than in China, both because of the nature of the two political systems and because people on both sides know it was Trump, not Xi, who chose this fight.
The Trump administration has quietly been holding discussions and consulting outside experts as it considers options for potentially restarting dialogue with North Korea, a senior U.S. official and three additional sources familiar with those discussions tell Axios.
Why it matters: North Korea has made alarming nuclear advances since President Trump and Kim Jong-un held two dramatic but ultimately failed summits. While nothing appears imminent, Trump has made clearhe'd like to reconnect with Kim β perhaps face-to-face β and his national security team is preparing for that scenario.
State of play: North Korea is relatively low on Trump's priority list for now, but the world's newest nuclear power rarely stays off the international agenda for long.
"We are convening agencies to understand where the north Koreans are today. A lot has changed in the last four years. We are evaluating, diagnosing and talking about potential avenues, including engagement," the senior U.S. official said.
The "closed-door discussions" involving think tank experts and current and former U.S. officials "suggest the Trump administration is sizing out different scenarios for another Trump-Kim meeting," said Andrew Yeo, a senior fellowβ―at the Brookings Institution. Trump's "many positive statements" about Kim over the past six months suggest he's interested in that path, Yeo added.
A former senior U.S. official said members of the administration were doing some "initial planning," knowing that it might only take "one flowery letter" from Kim to catch Trump's attention, "then you're off to the races."
Behind the scenes: The Swedish ambassador to North Korea, who represents U.S. interests in the country, visited Washington last weekfor consultations with U.S. officials and experts
One source familiar with the visit said it was mostly about taking the temperature in Washington on engagement with Pyongyang.
Officials from the State Department and National Security Council have also taken part in multiple roundtable discussions with outside experts on North Korea.
One of the topics raised in those closed-door meetings was who the North Korean interlocutors are likely to be if talks do start, one of the sources said.
The intrigue: Almost every North Korean official involved in diplomacy with the U.S. during the first Trump administration β including the two summits β appears to have been purged or forced to undergo reeducation.
"The North Koreans don't seem to have named a new special envoy for U.S. diplomacy, and they haven't expressed interest in negotiations for a long time," says Jenny Town, director of the Korea program at the Stimson Center.
"Their position has been less negative about the prospects for negotiations lately, although they haven't said anything positive either," she says.
Between the lines: The former senior U.S. official told Axios the regime's willingness to engage would depend on the nature of the conversation.
While past talks have focused on denuclearization, Kim is unlikely to seriously entertain that idea at this point, the former official says. North Korea's status as a nuclear power has been enshrined in the country's constitution and in the Kim family lore.
If the conversation were about arms control, recognizing North Korea as a nuclear weapons state, "they'll have those talks all day," the former official says.
Reality check: Trump will also find it hard to generate the kind of leverage he had over Kim the first time around given North Korea's nuclear advances and stronger diplomatic position.
Chinese pressure on Pyongyang played a crucial role in Trump 1.0, but Beijing has made clear its not interested in squeezing Kim again on Trump's behalf.
The bottom line: "We are in a much worse situation today," the senior U.S. official acknowledged, blaming the Biden administration for Kim's nuclear advances, though some also came on Trump's watch.
President Trump declared that Volodymyr Zelensky has "no cards to play" in a stinging rebuke after the Ukrainian president rejected his framework for peace.
Why it matters: The U.S. presented Ukraine with its "final offer" for peace last week, which includes U.S. recognition of Crimea as Russian territory and no possibility of NATO membership for Ukraine. But Zelensky rejected that proposal on Wednesday.
The intrigue: Trump is accusing Zelensky of blocking the peace plan while suggesting an agreement with Russia is "very close."
White House envoy Steve Witkoff is expected to meet Russian President Vladimir Putin on Friday, a U.S. official tells Axios.
What they're saying: "Ukraine will not legally recognize the occupation of Crimea," Zelensky told reporters. "There is nothing to talk about. It is against our constitution."
Ukraine's constitution also commits the country to working toward NATO membership.
However, as Trump pointed out in his response, the document does not actually state that Ukraine recognize Russian control of Crimea, only that the U.S. will.
Driving the news: Trump called Zelensky's statement "very harmful to the Peace Negotiations with Russia," in a lengthy Truth Social post, arguing that Ukraine was not actually fighting for Crimea and that it was "lost years ago."
"It's inflammatory statements like Zelenskyy's that makes it so difficult to settle this War. He has nothing to boast about! The situation for Ukraine is dire β He can have Peace or, he can fight for another three years before losing the whole Country," Trump continued.
"I have nothing to do with Russia, but have much to do with wanting to save, on average, five thousand Russian and Ukrainian soldiers a week, who are dying for no reason whatsoever."
"The statement made by Zelenskyy today will do nothing but prolong the "killing field," and nobody wants that! We are very close to a Deal, but the man with "no cards to play" should now, finally, GET IT DONE."
Vice President Vance said earlier Wednesday that the U.S. proposal would "freeze" the conflict along the current front lines and called on both parties to "either say yes or for the U.S. to walk away."
Reality check: There's no sign a deal is actually close, particularly since Ukraine has rejected Trump's plan and top U.S. officials skipped talks in London on Wednesday in which they had been expected to discuss Trump's proposal with the Ukrainians.
Between the lines: A source close to the Ukrainian government told Axios that Kyiv sees Trump's proposal as heavily biased toward Russia, with Moscow getting clear-cut wins and Kyiv only vague promises.
Another source told Axios that Secretary of State Marco Rubio pulled out of Ukraine talks taking place in London on Wednesday when it became clear that Ukraine wanted to discuss Trump's previously proposal of a 30-day ceasefire rather than his new peace framework.
Putin has reportedly offered to freeze the current front lines in order to reach a deal, though he has previously rejected other elements of the U.S. framework, such as a peacekeeping force on Ukrainian territory.
European officials continue to doubt that Putin is serious about peace.
State of play: Andriy Yermak, Zelensky's chief of staff, met on Wednesday in London with senior diplomats from the U.K., France and Germany to discuss the U.S. peace plan.
The U.S. didn't participate in the meeting. Yermak said after the meeting that Ukraine is committed to Trump's peace efforts and stressed "Russia continues to reject an unconditional ceasefire, dragging out the process and trying to manipulate negotiations."
The latest: Yermak met in London separately with Trump's Ukraine envoy Keith Kellogg and told him Ukraine won't make any concession regarding its sovereignty and territorial integrity, and that an unconditional ceasefire must be the first step for any peace deal, according to a statement posted to his X account.
Kellogg described that meeting as "positive" and said it was "time to move forward on President Trump's UKR-RU war directive: stop the killing, achieve peace, and put America First."
Members of the College of Cardinals younger than 80 will gather at the Sistine Chapel Wednesday to elect Pope Francis' successor.
By the numbers: Out of the 135 cardinals eligible to vote, Pope Francis elevated 108. That means 80% of votes will be cast by cardinals who owe their position to Francis.
22 were selected by his conservative predecessor, Benedict XVI, and five by John Paul II.
The conclave is also more geographically diverse. When Francis was picked in 2013, a slight majority of the voting cardinals was European. This time around, Europe comprises 39% of the body β while 17% of voting cardinals come from Asia, 15% from North America, and 13% each from South America and Africa.
Breaking it down: The question is whether those cardinals will pick a successor aligned with Francis' modernizing worldview or perhaps coalesce around a more conservative pontiff.
In recent history, the cardinals have often opted for continuity (such as selecting Benedict XVI to replace John Paul II). But they've also made more radical shifts, such as from Benedict to Francis.
While Francis elevated some cardinals seen as fellow progressives, others may have been chosen for reasons other than ideology, like geographic diversity.
Still, Francis diluted the voting power of the conservative wing of the church over his 12 years as pope.
The intrigue: Most popes have been Italian, and nearly all have been European. Multiple Italian cardinals β including Francis' deputy Pietro Parolin β are seen as possible successors.
But there are also contenders from sub-Saharan Africa and East Asia who, like Francis, would be historic firsts for their regions.
Some analysts have noted many of the cardinals Francis elevated are based in locations far from Rome and don't interact regularly, potentially making it harder to form coherent voting blocs.
Hours after Harvard University officialssaid they wouldn't roll over to the Trump administration's demands, an education task force announced it would freeze $2.2 billion in federal funds to the Ivy League institution.
Why it matters: The Trump administration's response to Harvard rejecting its litany of demands shows what may be in store for colleges under scrutiny for diversity, equity and inclusion practices and alleged antisemitism.
Harvard is one of several elite universities whose federal research grants and other program funding are under review by the Trump administration.
While that effort is officially about fighting antisemitism, university president Alan Garber wrote earlier Monday that the demands are really about imposing "direct governmental regulation" of higher education.
Driving the news: The university rejected the Trump administration's proposal to keep $9 billion in federal funds flowing, per Garber's letter to the Harvard community.
University officials were responding to an April 11 letter from the Trump administration, requesting multiple audits over hiring, admissions and college practices.
Following the letter's publication, the Trump administration's Joint Task Force to Combat Antisemitism said it would freeze the funds and up to $60 million in multi-year contracts.
What they're saying: "Harvard's statement today reinforces the troubling entitlement mindset that is endemic in our nation's most prestigious universities and colleges β that federal investment does not come with the responsibility to uphold civil rights laws," the task force said in a statement Monday night.
When asked for comment on the Trump administration's action, Harvard referred Axios to Garber's letter, in particular the paragraph that states: "For the government to retreat from these partnerships now risks not only the health and well-being of millions of individuals, but also the economic security and vitality of our nation."
The warning refers specifically to the potential consequences of pulling funding for research into diseases like Alzheimer's and Parkinson's, as well as critical technologies such as AI and quantum computing.
The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
State of play: Several universities have been negotiating with the government to avoid funding cuts.
Columbia University has complied with several of Trump's demands and is still negotiating an agreement that could give the government considerable influence over the university, per the NYT.
Harvard is the most prominent example of a university outright rejecting the demands.
The intrigue: Garber's letter was amended after publication to change a line stating that Harvard "will not negotiate over its independence or constitutional rights" to Harvard "will not surrender its independence or relinquish its constitutional rights."
A Harvard spokesperson declined to comment on the record about the reason for the change.
In a separate letter to Trump administration officials, lawyers representing Harvard said the university was "open to dialogue" but would not accede to demands that go beyond the government's "lawful authority."
Driving the news: Garber argued the administration's demands violated Harvard's First Amendment rights.
"No government β regardless of which party is in power β should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue," he wrote.
Zoom in: The Trump administration's April 11 letter to Garber included a series of demands, including a third-party audit of each Harvard department for "viewpoint diversity."
Other demands include ensuring hiring, promotion and admissions decisions are merit-based and not based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin; rejecting international applicants who are "hostile to American values"; getting a third-party audit of various Harvard schools for antisemitism; and submitting quarterly reports to the federal government through 2028 showing they're implementing the reforms listed in the letter.
Cambridge officials and residents rallied Saturday, calling for Harvard to reject the federal government's demands, the Boston Globe reported.
Editor's note: The headline and text of this article were edited to reflect the removal of the "will not negotiate" language from Garber's letter. The story has also been updated throughout with additional details and context.
President Trump once again accused Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky of starting the war with Russia on Monday, saying "you don't start a war with someone 20 times your size and then hope people give you some missiles."
Why it matters: Trump's comments come a day after a "60 Minutes" interview in which Zelensky suggested the Trump administration was operating in an "altered reality" in terms of the origins of the war.
Trump later said that he also blames Russian President Vladimir Putin and former President Biden.
What he's saying: "When you start a war you got to know you can win the war," Trump said of Zelensky.
"You have millions of people dead. Millions of people dead because of three people. ... Let's say Putin number one, but let's say Biden, who had no idea what the hell he was doing, number two, and Zelensky. And all I can do is try and stop it," he said.
Trump said the U.S. was "making progress" in its ceasefire push, which has produced no concrete results in the past several weeks.
Asked if he plans to impose more sanctions on Russia, Trump said: "I already have sanctions on Russia."
The other side: In the "60 Minutes" interview, Zelensky said "I don't want to engage in the altered reality that is being presented to me."
"First and foremost, we did not launch an attack," said Zelensky, referring back to Trump's past claims that he had started the war and to his combative Oval Office meeting with Trump and Vice President Vance.
"It seems to me that the vice president is somehow justifying Putin's actions," Zelensky said of Vance.
"I tried to explain, 'You can't look for something in the middle. There is an aggressor and there is a victim. The Russians are the aggressor, and we are the victim,'" he added.
Between the lines: Trump's Oval Office comments on Monday, and an earlier Truth Social post in which he blamed Zelensky and Biden for starting the war are at least in part a response to Zelensky's interview.
Trump was clearly irritated by Sunday's "60 Minutes" and wrote on Truth Social that the FCC should "impose the maximum fines and punishment" against CBS.
Chinese President Xi Jinping has no shortage of pressure points to ensure Americans feel the pain from President Trump's superpower trade war.
The big picture: China on Friday increased its tariffs to an eye-watering 125% in response to Trump's 145% levies. And ever since trade war 1.0, Beijing has also been developing a wider array of tools that it's now putting to use.
Here are seven ways China can punch back as Trump continues to dial up the pressure.
1. Hit consumers in the wallet
Xi doesn't even need to lift a finger to ensure Americans are hurt by the trade war β Trump's own tariffs may take care of that.
China's factories produce the vast majority of the toys, cell phones and many other products Americans buy. From fast fashion to gaming consoles, things will get more expensive.
Between the lines: Trump has claimed the tariffs will produce a U.S. manufacturing boom that eliminates the reliance on made-in-China products. Even if that's plausible, consumers are likelyin for years of pain in the meantime.
However, Trump has also suggested he's open to negotiations with Xi, which could lead to a trade truce much sooner.
Xi certainly has incentives to seek a deal, given the havoc the tariffs will wreak on China's already vulnerable economy. But a long-term trade war could arguably pile more political pressure on Trump than on him.
2. Punish the farmers (and more)
Any American whose livelihood depends on selling into the Chinese market is likely panicking right now β whether the product in question is oil, airplanes or soybeans (three of the top U.S. exports).
Flashback: Trump had to bail out American farmers to the tune of $28 billion during trade war 1.0, when tariff levels were far lower.
Now, theworld's largest market for soybeans is already turning away from the U.S. and toward Brazil.
What to watch: Much the same can be expected for other products. While China exports more to the U.S. than vice-versa, China is still the #3 export market for U.S. products.
The inability to compete in China will damage or doom a broad range of U.S. companies if the trade war drags on.
3. Target individual U.S. companies
China added twelve U.S. firms to an export control list this week β restricting what they can ship out of China β and added six defense tech and aviation firms to an "unreliable entity list" that bans them from doing business in China.
Beijing also announced an antitrust investigation into chemicals giant DuPont. That follows previous announcements of probes into other blue-chip American companies like Google and Nvidia.
China has honed that toolkit β export controls, blacklists and investigations β to target individual U.S. firms over the past several years.
Many of America's biggest companies are deeply reliant on the Chinese market. If Beijing ramps up those tactics, Trump can expect to hear from CEOs nervous about being cut out of China.
4. Cut off supplies of rare earth minerals
China last week further restricted exports of rare earths β a sector it dominates β in response to Trump's tariffs.
The Trump administration is scrambling to source minerals from elsewhere. But for now, the U.S. is heavily reliant on China for key inputs for products ranging from semiconductors to missiles to wind turbines.
Friction point: Banning the export of certain rare earths outright could cripple production in critical industries.
However, like almost everything in this trade war, it would hurt China too by eliminating demand and causing shortages of products (like high-end chips) that China also needs.
5. Selling U.S. debt
On the topic of things that would hurt the U.S. but also ricochet back onto China, there's the "nuclear option" of dumping the $761 billion in U.S. bonds held by Beijing.
Most economists doubt Xi would pull that lever given the risks to the Chinese and global economies, but even having that capability gives him leverage.
6. Devaluing the yuan
Another potential economic lever is a sharp devaluation of China's currency, which would help boost China's exports and further diminish the ability of U.S. firms to compete in the Chinese market.
For now, though, Beijing has indicated it wants to keep the yuan stable β and to press countries to conduct more trade in yuan, rather than dollars.
7. Freezing out Hollywood
China is a key market for U.S. films, sports leagues, and other entertainment products, and Beijing hasn't been shy about using that leverage to influence what public figures say or what appears on screen.
China's film administration said Thursday that it will "moderately reduce" approvals for Hollywood films. There's also chatter among influential Chinese bloggers about a full ban, according to Bloomberg.
Shares in U.S. entertainment companies are sinking on those reports.
The bottom line: Trump knows that ratcheting up the trade war will squeeze China's economy, which remains heavily reliant on the U.S. But Xi knows it's a two-way street, and has plenty of options for ensuring Americans feel the squeeze, too.
This story was updated with the news China had increased its tariffs to 125%.
President Trump said Monday that the U.S. had been holding "direct talks" with Iran and that a "very big meeting" involving "very high-level" officials will be taking place this Saturday.
Why it matters: The surprise announcement from Trump follows his repeated warnings that Iran must sign a new nuclear deal or face military strikes.
The latest: Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said the talks would take place in Oman and confirmed they would be "high-level."
While Trump insisted the talks would be "direct," Araghchi claimed they would be" indirect." In diplomatic terms, that means mediators pass messages between the sides.
Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei ruled out direct talks with the U.S. so long as Trump kept his "maximum pressure" policy in place.
"It is as much an opportunity as it is a test. The ball is in America's court," Araghchi said.
What they're saying: "I think everyone agrees that doing a deal would be preferable to doing the obvious. And the obvious is not something that I want to be involved with, or frankly, that Israel wants to be involved with, if they can avoid it," Trump said, speaking from the Oval Office alongside Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
"So we're going to see if we can avoid it. But it's getting to be very dangerous territory, and hopefully those talks will be successful. And I think it would be in Iran's best interest if they are successful."
Later in the back-and-forth with reporters Trump said: "I think if the talks aren't successful with Iran, I think Iran is going to be in great danger. And I hate to say it, 'great danger,' because they can't have a nuclear weapon. You know, it's not a complicated formula. Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon. That's all there is."
Trump did not say who had handled the outreach to Iran up to now or which officials would take part in Saturday's talks. Trump envoy Steve Witkoff is likely to play a role.
Between the lines: Netanyahu believes the chances of a U.S.-Iran nuclear deal are extremely low, but intended to present what "a good deal should look like" during Monday's meeting with Trump, a senior Israeli official said.
"Netanyahu wants the Libya model. Full dismantling to the Iranian nuclear program," the official said. Iran denies it wants a bomb, but rejects the idea of shutting down its nuclear program.
The official added Netanyahu wants to reach an understanding with Trump about striking Iran's nuclear facilities when diplomacy fails.
Trump rebuffed Israel over the main purpose of Netanyahu's visit: Trying to reduce or eliminate the 17% tariffs he imposed.
A bipartisan consensus on how to compete with China that took shape in President Trump's first term has exploded at the start of his second.
Why it matters: Nearly everyone in Washington agrees that to win the battle for the 21st century, the U.S. needs to strengthen its alliances in Asia, shift supply chains to friendlier countries, and convince the world Washington is a more dependable partner than Beijing. Nearly everyone, that is, except Donald J. Trump.
Driving the news: It's not that Trump is taking it easy on China. He just increased tariffs on Chinese goods to a staggering 54%.
But this time, the trade war is global and so is the backlash.
"China is on the move, and they're going to press their advantage and try to appear as the stable, pro-trade, pro-globalization global power," says Elizabeth Economy, a China expert at the Hoover Institution and former Commerce Department official.
Breaking it down: "Trump helped create the bipartisan consensus on China but was never really part of it β even in his first term," argues Rush Doshi, a key architect of former President Biden's China strategy.
Trump's first administrationlaid the foundation Biden built upon:Β tariffs, export controls on critical technologies, pressing allies to take stronger action on China and leaning on platforms like the Quad (U.S., Australia, Japan and India).
But Trump returned to office with a different team and a clearer sense of his own foreign policy powers and priorities.
He's trying to unravel the CHIPS Act β which subsidized domestic production of key tech like semiconductors that are at the heart of U.S.-China competition β and has broken with his own party on everything from banning TikTok to standing with Taiwan.
He demolished USAID, which officials including then-Senator Marco Rubio had seen as a key lever for countering China's influence. Ditto for Voice of Americaand Radio Free Asia. He's withdrawn the U.S. from international institutions like the World Health Organization and ripped up trade rules the U.S. largely set.
Trump's abandonment of soft power is by design, but it also cedes the field to China, Economy argues. "If we're not in the game, we certainly can't win."
The intrigue: While his national security team has signaled continuity in some areas, like export controls, Trump's personal commitment to those policies is uncertain. He's suggested everything could be on the table in negotiations for a potential "grand bargain" with Beijing.
The other side: A White House official claimed that as a result of Trump's policies, "our allies and partners are raising their commitments to better compete with China" by spending more on defense and tightening trade and technology controls.
The official said Trump's tariffs would bring "fairness to our trade relationships," including the "imbalanced" relationship with China.
Trump's policies, the official argued, will "reshore our manufacturing base, especially strategic industries and supply chains β semiconductors, pharmaceuticals, critical minerals, autos, and steel and aluminum."
However, the tariffs are also sending those allies and partners into a tailspin. Consider Vietnam, a major beneficiary of the recent trend β strongly encouraged by U.S. policymakers β of companies shifting production out of China.
While allowing the U.S. to reduce its dependence on China and strengthen strategic relationships in the region, that trend also ballooned bilateral trade deficits.
Trump's unorthodox tariff math means Southeast Asian countries now face some of the highest tariff rates in the world. Vietnam's is a crippling 46%.
The tariff shock gives U.S. partners in the Indo-Pacific an urgent need to hedge away from the U.S. economically, says Patricia Kim, a China expert at Brookings. "They're going to be looking towards each other and towards China. I mean, that's a given."
Trump is certainly ignoring what recently departed ambassador to China Nicholas Burns said this week was his most important advice: "Be nice to allies."
Burns noted that the U.S. and China are peers in terms of economic, military and technological power β but the U.S. and its allies together are far stronger. If they stay together, that is.
Ahead of Trump's tariffs announcement, Japan and South Korea held a trilateral meeting to discuss deeper economic integration β with China.
Beijing is "enthusiastically" courting countries caught up in the tariff crossfire, Kim says. Xi will travel this month to Vietnam, Malaysia, and Cambodia.
What to watch: Xi's heavy-handed foreign policy has also led to friction with countries in the region and around the world in recent years.
"We are essentially now depending on Xi Jinping to score own goals to keep the United States reputation and position afloat," says Economy.
Several members of President Trump's embattled National Security Council have been fired,a U.S. official and a second source familiar told Axios on Thursday.
Why it matters: The firings come a day after conspiracy theorist Laura Loomer visited the Oval Office and pressed Trump to fire specific NSC staffers. Axios has not confirmed whether the firings were directly linked to that incident, but the source familiar said they were "being labeled as an anti-neocon move."
Driving the news: In a conversation with reporters on Air Force One on Thursday, Trump confirmed the firings at the National Security Council.
"We're always going to let go of people β people we don't like or people that take advantage of [us] or people that may have loyalties to someone else," he said.
Trump praised Loomer and said "she makes recommendations ... and sometimes I listen to those recommendations ... I listen to everybody and then I make a decision."
Trump said Loomer recommended some people for jobs at the White House but denied she had anything to do with the firings.
Behind the scenes: The U.S. official said Loomer was furious that "neocons" had "slipped through" the vetting process for administration jobs, referring to hawkish foreign policy views commonly associated with the Bush administration.
"She went to the White House yesterday and presented them with her research and evidence," the official said. Loomer's visit was reported earlier by Status and The New York Times. The official suspected that the firings were linked to Loomer's visit but was not certain.
The U.S. official named three senior NSC members who had been fired, and said it was shaping up to be a "bloodbath." Axios is seeking additional confirmation before naming those people.
The source familiar said several people had been fired, possibly as many as 10, including senior directors. An NSC spokesperson declined to comment.
State of play: Axios has not confirmed whether any of the individuals let go were in any way connected to the separate controversy about the use of Signal and private email accounts by national security adviser Michael Waltz and NSC staff to discuss sensitive information.
Waltz had accidentally added The Atlantic's editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg, whom Trump allies have labeled a "neocon," to a Signal chat about military strikes in Yemen.
Trump considered firing Waltz at the height of the "Signalgate" scandal but ultimately decided to keep him and deny his critics a scalp, Axios' Marc Caputo and Mike Allen reported.
Editor's note: This story has been updated with President Trump's comments on Thursday.
President Trump unveiled tariffs of at least 10% Wednesday on virtually the entire world, with one notable exception: Russia.
The intrigue: Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told Axios Wednesday that Russia was left off because U.S. sanctions already "preclude any meaningful trade." However, the U.S. still trades more with Russia than with countries like Mauritius or Brunei that did make Trump's tariffs list.
Even remote island territories like Tokelau (pop. 1,500) in the South Pacific and Svalbard (pop. 2,500) in the Arctic Circle β territories of New Zealand and Norway, respectively βwere listed for tariffs.
However, Leavitt noted that Cuba, Belarus and North Korea were also not included because existing tariffs and sanctions on them are already so high.
Breaking it down: The value of U.S.-Russia trade plummeted from around $35 billion in 2021 to $3.5 billion as of last year due to sanctions imposed over Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
Russia has asked Trump to lift some of those sanctions as part of the U.S.-mediated ceasefire talks, which have largely stalled.
Trump threatened Russia with secondary tariffs on oil earlier this week. He also said he was "pissed off" at Russian leader Vladimir Putin over his recent comments about Ukraine.
Leavitt noted that Russia could still face "additional strong sanctions."
Worth noting: The other two major economies excluded from Trump's otherwise exhaustive list were Canada and Mexico. Leavitt confirmed that was because Trump already imposed 25% tariffs on both.
