The Supreme Court issued a stay Thursday allowing President Trump's removal of two independent agency heads to remain in force for now — but suggested Federal Reserve officials have special protection based on the central bank's unique structure.

Why it matters: The ruling suggests that the court will ultimately vest the president with significant authority to remove the heads of agencies, even when Congress has structured them to be insulated from politics.

• But the decision's carve-out for the Fed will come as a significant relief to markets that were concerned about the central bank's independence.

Catch up quick: The court issued a stay Thursday night in a case involving Trump's move to fire members of the National Labor Relations Board and Merit Systems Protection Board.

• "The stay reflects our judgment that the Government is likely to show that both the NLRB and MSPB exercise considerable executive power," and that therefore it is within the executive authority of the president to remove them, the court's majority wrote.
• But is is not a final decision. The question of whether the NLRB and MSPB appointments fall under certain exceptions "is better left for resolution after full briefing and argument."
• The order was unsigned, and the three liberal justices dissented, arguing that a stay should be granted.

The intrigue: In issuing the stay, the majority noted a claim by the fired members that their case could have implications for the president's ability to remove members of the Fed's Board of Governors or Open Market Committee.

What they're saying: "We disagree. The Federal Reserve is a uniquely structured, quasi-private entity that follows in the distinct historical tradition of the First and Second Banks of the United States," the majority wrote.

Yes, but: A dissent by Justice Elena Kagan seemed impatient with the logic of the Fed carve-out.

• "The majority closes today's order by stating, out of the blue, that it has no bearing on" removal of Fed officials.
• "I am glad to hear it," Kagan writes, "and do not doubt the majority's intention to avoid imperiling the Fed."
• "But then, today's order poses a puzzle. For the Federal Reserve's independence rests on the same constitutional and analytic foundations as that of the NLRB, MSPB, FTC, FCC, and so on—which is to say it rests largely on" Humphrey's Executor, a 1935 case establishing the constitutionality of independent agencies.

Between the lines: From the moment Trump started removing agency commissioners earlier this year, analysts predicted the ultimate target might be more control over the Fed.

• But some hoped past court comments about the central bank as a unique entity might insulate it from such action.

Editor's note: This story has been updated with new details throughout.

Usually, there's at least one big group that stands to benefit from White House economic policy: businesses, workers or consumers.

Why it matters: In this moment, it's not exactly clear who wins from the current administration's triple play of raising tariffs, cutting workplace regulations, and cracking down on immigration.

State of play: President Trump lashed out at Walmart last weekend, after the company said it would be forced to raise prices to handle higher tariff costs.

• The retailer is the latest company to run into the buzzsaw of the White House trade agenda.

The big picture: The White House says its agenda spurs investments that benefit consumers and workers, but shifting trade policy, combined with other fast-paced changes, is creating uncertainty that's roiling almost all corners of the economy.

Zoom in: "We've been rocked very hard by the tariffs," says Jonathan Silva, co-owner of WS Game Company, an upscale board-game business that his father started 25 years ago.

• Since "Liberation Day" in April, Silva's raised prices for games, halted all shipments from China, taken a pay cut, and paused retirement benefit contributions for the Massachusetts-based company's 22 employees.
• Now that the most onerous China tariffs have been lifted, the race is on to ship inventory in the next 90 days before the holiday season. He's worried about shipping companies jacking up costs as demand spikes.
• "No matter what happens, the writing's on the wall that with an executive order, things can change on, you know, on just a random Monday."

Workers, meanwhile, haven't caught much of a break either. Small business employees, such as those working for Silva, are in a bad spot. Many more are concerned about holding on to their jobs.

• It's not just them. Tens of thousands of federal workers have been fired, with many more on deck. Those in unions are fighting to keep their right to collective bargaining.
• The harsher situation for public workers is also trickling down to the private sector, where management is newly emboldened to crack the whip, as Axios and the Wall Street Journal have reported.
• Other changes have hurt, too, like weakening agencies critical to worker protections and reducing the minimum wage for federal contractors.

As for consumers? Tariffs typically mean higher prices. The duties raise input costs for companies, making it more expensive to produce and sell goods, which means higher prices for working people.

• Nobody seems to benefit, former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers tells Axios, who says the likelihood is that the tariffs "are going to create fewer good-paying jobs."

Looking for winners

Reality check: For all the dire recession warnings, the overall hard data show the economy in good shape.

• The unemployment rate is still low, and inflation is easing.

Between the lines: The White House seeks to position itself as both pro-business and pro-worker.

• The coming "big beautiful" tax bill is getting positioned as a big win for businesses and working people, who may wind up with some nice new breaks, including no taxes on tips and a higher standard deduction.
• And those easier regulations are often a win for businesses. The share of executives who say they're concerned about labor regulations fell to 56% this year, down from 73%, per a recent survey from Littler Mendelson, the employment law firm.
• In a recent press release, the White House pointed to a Wall Street Journal story that reports some small and midsize U.S. manufacturers are actually seeing increased business due to tariffs.

For the record: "The Trump administration is slashing costly regulations, lowering energy prices, cutting Joe Biden's runaway spending that sparked inflation, negotiating better trade deals, and spurring trillions in historic investment commitments, including in sectors critical to our national and economic security," White House spokesman Kush Desai says.

• "Any 'economist' who can't understand how this agenda is benefitting American workers and industries, as the data proves is already happening, should find a new profession."

The bottom line: Critics argue the small pockets of victory don't seem to outweigh the downsides.

• Some pockets of businesses want certain tariffs in place, acknowledges Heidi Shierholz, the president of the liberal Economic Policy Institute.
• But there isn't a big constituency out there who wanted them to this scale.

The share of international job seekers looking to work in the U.S. has declined sharply this year, per a report from Indeed out Tuesday.

Why it matters: The labor market is slowing down, and stricter immigration policy — beginning with the Biden administration and accelerating under President Trump — is further cooling demand for American jobs.

By the numbers: Clicks from job seekers outside the U.S. started climbing in mid-2021 as the job market boomed in the pandemic recovery. They peaked in August 2023, at 2.4% of all postings, and declined to 1.7% by March 2025.

The big picture: Certain industries, like health care and construction, rely heavily on workers from outside the country.

• The share of workers who are born outside the U.S. has been rising for years, as more native-born Americans age out of the workforce than enter it.

The intrigue: Immigrants make up 40% of home health aides and 26% of physicians and surgeons, according to data cited by the Niskanen Center. These are jobs that will still be in demand, regardless of an economic downturn.

• Employers are worried about the possibility of more staffing challenges as immigration restrictions tighten in the Trump administration.

How it works: The job site Indeed tracks clicks on U.S. jobs from those with IP addresses outside the country.

• They also examined clicks on jobs in Australia, Canada and Germany from outside those countries — each saw drops in interest as well, lining up with tighter immigration policies and cooling labor markets there, too.

Between the lines: It's not clear from the Indeed data if the job market is possibly following a pattern seen in the tourism industry — where folks are less eager to come to the U.S. because of a rise in hostility to foreigners.

The bottom line: There's less incentive for people to look for jobs abroad, because there are fewer positions and immigration policies are getting much stricter.

The popular no-tax-on-tips provision and another carve-out for overtime pay are both in the "big, beautiful" tax bill unveiled by House Republicans Monday.

Why it matters: Exempting tipped income and overtime from taxes was a big priority for President Trump, who campaigned on the policies.

The big picture: The 389-page bill released Monday afternoon is expected to kick off marathon negotiations over tax breaks and spending cuts within the GOP.

Zoom in: Per the text of the bill, any cash tips received by an individual in an occupation that traditionally and customarily received tips would be eligible for the no-tax provision.

• Such language would presumably prevent higher-paid professionals from somehow classifying regular income as fees — think accountants, lawyers or others who charge fees for service.
• These tax breaks would start in 2025 and expire after 2028, and can be claimed by independent contractors, like Uber drivers, per the WSJ.

Follow the money: The bill does not include a tax exemption for Social Security income. Instead, Americans age 65 and older, who don't itemize, get a $4,000 bonus tacked on to their standard deduction.

• The benefit is for individuals earning less than $75,000 and $150,000 for couples.

Zoom out: The breaks are a key part of the president and Republicans' effort to appeal to more working-class voters.

Yes, but: Overall the draft benefits wealthier Americans, keeping in place all the cuts of the 2017 tax bill, and adding some new goodies, too — like an increase in the tax break for pass-through income.

• The bill would raise the cap on the SALT deduction to $30,000, largely benefiting higher-income homeowners in the wealthy blue state suburbs.

What's next: Lawmakers will debate the bill Tuesday afternoon.

Editor's note: This article has been updated with more details on the bill.

So much for taxing the rich: House Republicans late Sunday unveiled $880 billion in Medicaid cuts, the cost-saving center of their hotly anticipated tax legislation.

• That follows a preliminary partial draft released earlier in the weekend from the House committee that oversees taxes, with cuts for the upper-middle class and wealthy.

Why it matters: There is still much to be decided and negotiated, but these drafts provide clues about who's to benefit from the coming "big beautiful" bill.

• The Medicaid cuts include work requirements that will likely lead to higher hurdles for folks on the program. It's a way to reduce benefits without outright eliminating them.
• Republicans want to extend the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which is set to expire, and do some additional cuts. But the realities of their slim majority are not going to make it so simple.

Zoom out: The idea of taxing the rich seemed to be on the table last week, but there's no sign of it in the draft.

• It includes some goodies for the rich, as well as a few things that would benefit more modest earners, but those are temporary.

What's in it: The draft legislation would extend the cuts in the 2017 tax bill, and it adds on some more breaks.

• Some will benefit the wealthiest, including a permanent increase to the deduction for pass-through income to 22% from 20%, plus a hike for the estate tax exemption, which would shield more inheritances from taxes.
• Others are more targeted for the middle- and upper-middle class. Notably, the draft would boost the standard deduction for four years to $16,000 for individuals from $15,000, and $32,000 for married couples from $30,000.
• It would also temporarily raise the child tax credit from $2,000 to $2,500 per child. That will not do anything for families who already too poor to take advantage of the full tax break, an issue targeted temporarily in 2021.
• This proposed increase effectively leaves out 17 million children, per an estimate from Bobby Kogan, senior director of federal budget policy at the left-leaning Center for American Progress.

The intrigue: The increase in the child tax credit comes with a big hitch.

• To claim it parents must have Social Security numbers, meaning the U.S. citizen children of undocumented parents would not receive the break.
• 4.5 million U.S. citizen kids would likely lose out, per a recent estimate.

Between the lines: President Trump has proposed eliminating taxes on tips, overtime pay and Social Security benefits. None of this is mentioned in the draft.

• It also does not mention the state and local tax deduction, better known as SALT. The current cap on SALT has been one of the most hotly contested tax breaks among Republicans.
• More details on these items could drop as soon as Monday, observers say.

What they're saying: Republican lawmakers framed the Medicaid changes as a way to target "fraud and abuse" and preserve the program for those who are unable to work.

• Rep. Brett Guthrie (R-Ky.) wrote in a Wall Street Journal opinion piece on Sunday that "Washington can't afford to undermine the program further by subsidizing capable adults who choose not to work."

As it stands, the draft released would add $5 trillion to the primary deficit through 2034, according to a weekend analysis from the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, close to $2 trillion more than current policy.

• "So far this costly bill appears to double down on trickle down, with huge tax cuts that will further enrich the rich and not much for the rest of us," Amy Hanauer, the executive director of the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, said in a statement over the weekend.
• "The top 0.1% of Americans get more from this tax bill than the bottom half of America combined," Kogan, a former Office of Management and Budget staffer, told Axios over the weekend.

What's next: The full committee is set to debate and advance legislation on Tuesday.

The clock started ticking on a financial time bomb this week for student loan borrowers — those in default will now be referred to debt collections.

Why it matters: Because of the messy state of the student loan world, the economic fallout could be far more widespread than anticipated, hitting some who typically would be able to pay back loans.

• It also comes amid recession fears, worries over higher inflation, and a slowdown in hiring.

By the numbers: The 5.3 million who already are in default could see the federal government garnish their wages, Social Security benefits or tax refunds.

• Many more are in limbo. Some 20% of borrowers are in delinquency, but not yet at the default line — more than 270 days past due — according to a report earlier this week from credit agency TransUnion.
• That's up from 11.5% in February 2020, when the federal government stopped asking people to pay on their loans.

Between the lines: Before 2020, typical defaulters, and those most at risk for default, were more likely to be older, low-income, people of color, those who attended for-profit schools or had dropped out of school.

• Now because of policy chaos, more at-risk borrowers are outside those confines, says Constantine Yannelis, a financial economics professor at the University of Cambridge, who's been studying student loans for more than a decade.
• "I'm most worried about young people who are just going to be tremendously confused by the student loan system," he says, especially "given the complete disarray that we're seeing in public institutions these these days."

Zoom out: Many of these people would normally be able to avoid default, and work out a payment plan. But the mechanisms meant to help them navigate the process are in shambles.

• The White House gutted the Department of Education, which manages student loans. It is trying to do the same to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which helps folks navigate the financial system.

"This feels very much like it needs to be an all hands on deck effort, but they have dramatically cut the number of hands they have available," says Sarah Sattelmeyer, project director in the Higher Education initiative at New America.

For example: Earlier this year, Eva Steege, an 83-year-old pastor in hospice care, joined a lawsuit against the Trump administration over its CFPB policy. The agency had been helping get her loan forgiven, a process interrupted by the administration's changes.

• Steege died March 15. Her "fear of leaving her surviving family members saddled with her student loan debt came to pass," federal judge Amy Berman Jackson wrote soon afterwards, in a ruling on the case.

Yes, but: This isn't a mess the current White House started.

• The roots of the problem started in 2020, when the government told borrowers they no longer had to make payments. The Biden administration extended that grace period for three years.

Plus: The program was poorly implemented and overly generous from the start, says Tomasz Piskorski, a finance professor at Columbia Business School, who wrote a major study on debt forbearance in COVID, published by Brookings.

• It was different from other kinds of pandemic debt relief programs, like for mortgage holders, who had to apply (and few did).
• For student loan borrowers, everyone got a pass. That's created a bigger problem.

The bottom line: Getting out of this situation is going to be ugly for a lot of people at a not-great time for the economy — or higher education.

• Says Piskorski: "This is kind of the worst time to ask people to pay back debt."

A federal judge in San Francisco temporarily blocked the White House from firing hundreds of thousands of government employees in a ruling late Friday night.

Why it matters: It's the latest and broadest setback for President's Trump and DOGE's chainsaw efforts to radically slash and burn the federal government.

• The ruling pauses for two weeks firings that would block critical services for millions of Americans, including Social Security help, occupational safety and pre-school for poor children.

State of play: In her 42-page ruling, Judge Susan Illston, a Clinton appointee, explained that the president does have the right to change the executive branch, but must do so lawfully, and with the cooperation of Congress.

• "Federal courts should not micromanage the vast federal workforce, but courts must sometimes act to preserve the proper checks and balances between the three branches of government."

Zoom in: The judge issued a two-week pause, seeking to block immediate terminations, considering the stakes in the case.

• The 21 agencies affected include the Department of Agriculture, Department of Energy, Labor Department, State Department, the EPA, VA and more. (NPR has a full list.)

Catch up quick: A huge coalition of unions, nonprofits and states filed the lawsuit late last month, challenging the White House's massive reorganization of the federal bureaucracy — announced by executive order in February — alleging that it is unconstitutional.

• "We are gratified by the court's decision today to pause these harmful actions while our case proceeds," the coalition said in a statement late Friday.

The other side: The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Saturday morning.

• In court, the administration's lawyer said the plaintiffs waited too long to file their case after the February executive order, per NPR.
• The government also said personnel issues like these don't belong in the federal courts.
• The Trump administration has said repeatedly that the president is entitled to hire and fire anyone in the executive branch.

Where it stands: Federal agencies are in the midst of carrying out massive so-called reductions-in-force, with federal employees who are still in their jobs on constant alert for the next shoe to drop.

The ruling cites examples from the plaintiffs' sworn declarations to illustrate the stakes, like the termination of critical services that had been authorized by Congress, including:

• The order to fire 221 of 222 employees at The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, who research health hazards faced by mineworkers.
• The abolishment of the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, which ensures that federal contractors do not violate federal discrimination law.
• A threat to cut 7,000 employees from the Social Security administration, which is already seeing long wait times, problems with its website and difficulty making in-person appointments.
• Layoffs at the federal office of Head Start, which led to job losses at a childcare and early learning program for 1,200 infants and preschoolers.

"The irreparable harm that plaintiffs will suffer in the absence of injunctive relief outweighs any burden placed on the government by this two-week pause," the judge wrote. "In the context of a dynamic situation, the Court's temporary order seeks to preserve the status quo and protect the power of the legislative branch."

What's next: There's a hearing on another injunction on May 22.

Are you a federal worker facing the threat of layoffs? Or that's been fired? We'd like to hear your story. Reach out to EmilyRPeck.71 on Signal.

President Trump is half-heartedly floating the idea of raising taxes on rich people, creating a new tax bracket for those individuals earning more than $2.5. million.

Why it matters: This isn't as meaningful as it looks — the few high-income people it affects won't likely feel too much pain from the proposal, and other tax cuts under consideration would help offset any increase for them.

• But it's still surprising and extraordinary that the GOP, which has been cutting income taxes on rich people since the 1980s, is proposing anything like this at all.

The big picture: Republicans have been actively working to be seen as a working class party, not the party of the super rich.

• "This is to pay for working- and middle-class tax cuts that were promised, and protect Medicaid," an administration official told Axios' Hans Nichols.

How it works: Under the Trump idea, the tax rate on ordinary income past $2.5 million for an individual, or $5 million for a married couple, would rise 2.6 percentage points.

• That would create a new top tax bracket of 39.6% — exactly what the top tax bracket was back in 2017, before Congress passed Trump's first tax bill.

Yes, but: Back then the top tax bracket covered individuals earning more than $418,400 — this year the top bracket starts at $626,350 for an individual or $751,600 for a married couple.

• With this new proposal, all income between $626,350 and $2.5 million would still be taxed at 37%, a lower rate than the top tax rate in 2017 before Trump's first tax bill passed.
• The tax hike would only apply to ordinary income — but the incomes of the rich disproportionately come from capital gains. Those tax rates wouldn't change.

By the numbers: The proposal would impact about 0.1% to 0.2% of all taxpayers, estimates chief economist Josh Bivens of the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute, who a few years back floated the idea of levying a 10% surtax on those with incomes above $2 million — a far more painful measure.

• Those folks bringing home these jumbo paychecks likely include a lot of high-paid doctors, some professional athletes and executives.

For the record: "The President has said he himself, personally, would not mind paying a little bit more to help the poor in the middle class and the working class in this country," White House press secretary Karoline Karoline Leavitt said on Friday.

• But, she added "these negotiations are ongoing on Capitol Hill."

The bottom line: The Trump idea would likely raise under $30 billion a year, Bivens estimates. That's $300 billion for ten years — compared to $5 trillion cost of the tax cut extension.

• The Tax Policy Center at Brookings estimates that about 80,000 households would be impacted if there's a new bracket that starts at $2.5 million for individuals — that would raise $8.2 billion in 2025.
• "This proposal is better than nothing, but it's really weak tea," says Bivens.

The Trump administration is ramping up its efforts to crack down on what it calls "anti-Christian bias," telling federal workers to report any instances of such discrimination they've seen or experienced.

Why it matters: The move reflects a persistent claim by President Trump's campaign as he courted evangelicals — that Christians are under attack in the U.S. — and is part of an ongoing push by conservatives to inject more religion into government.

Zoom in: The administration's message is drawing criticism from federal workers and some Christian faith groups.

• They say it's confusing and possibly problematic for people — including Christians — who don't identify with the type of evangelicals the White House is trying to support.
• Some worry, for example, that those who don't observe Christmas could be accused of anti-Christian bias.
• Critics also point out that Title VI of the Civil Rights Act already prohibits religious discrimination in federal programs.

The big picture: The movement to put more religion in public settings and institutions is unfolding as the percentage of white Christians in the U.S. continues to decline, and an increasing share of Americans identify with no religious affiliation.

• Trump and many conservative Republicans have seized upon those societal and religious shifts to raise alarms within their loyal, white evangelical base.
• "The entire project of so-called anti-Christian bias is simply a play to [the administration's] white evangelical base," says Robert P. Jones, president and founder of the nonpartisan Public Religion Research Institute.

Catch up quick: The White House and the conservative-led Supreme Court both appear to be willing to give religious groups, particularly Christian ones, special consideration under the law.

• Last week, Trump issued an executive order on religion, creating what he called a commission on religious liberty. He'd already announced a Faith Office and a plan aimed at "eradicating anti-Christian bias" that cited alleged anti-Christian activity by the Biden administration.
• Trump ordered up a task force on anti-Christian bias led by the Justice Department, with agency heads as members. They met for the first time in April.

State of play: The order for federal workers to report any "anti-Christian bias" came after that meeting.

• VA Secretary Doug Collins sent a department-wide email last month asking employees to "submit any instance of anti-Christian discrimination."
• He said examples would include "any retaliatory actions taken in response to religious holiday observances," and "any observations of mistreatment for not participating in events or activities inconsistent with Christian views."

The VA is still figuring out what happens next.

• The agency is "staffing the anti-Christian bias task force and developing a framework for handling issues flagged by VA employees," VA Press Secretary, Pete Kasperowicz said in an email to Axios.
• "If there is bias, we want to find it, we want to make it right," a White House official told Axios.
• At the State Department, a few "concerning allegations" surfaced, the official said.

What they're saying: The VA used to send out official emails to staff that would highlight all kinds of religious holidays and traditions, one agency employee told Axios, requesting anonymity out of fear of retaliation.

• That all stopped after the anti-DEI push following Trump's inauguration. "It's just very clear who is and is not welcome right now," the employee said.
• "Asking employees to report unlawful bias is not, by itself, unlawful. If done honestly it is a good thing," said David Super, a Georgetown Law School professor whose research focuses on administrative law.
• But administration officials "seem to be making little effort to explain or define what anti-Christian bias is," he said. "I fear that some people will think that Jews, Muslims or others who do not celebrate Christian holidays will be reported for anti-Christian bias."
• Critics also point out that Title VI of the Civil Rights Act already prohibits religious discrimination in federal programs.

Any notion that such efforts are biased toward Christians is a misunderstanding, the White House official said.

• "President Trump has raised the face of faith in America to the highest level," the official said, adding that the faith office "gives a prominence to all people of faith."
• There will be other religion-oriented task forces, including one on anti-Semitism, the official said.

The Trump administration's immigration crackdown is sparking employer worries over workplace raids and staffing challenges, a new survey of executives out Wednesday finds.

Why it matters: A drastic reduction in immigration could lead to labor shortages, especially in some critical roles — building houses, taking care of the growing elderly population, or staffing farms and meatpacking plants.

• There's the potential for a longer-term slowdown in economic growth, as well.

By the numbers: 75% of executives surveyed by the employment law firm Littler said the administration's immigration policies were among their top concerns — the only other topic that drew more worry was diversity, equity and inclusion policy.

• 70% of executives said they expect immigration enforcement actions from ICE and DHS will have a significant or moderate impact on their workplaces over the next 12 months.
• 58% expressed concern that Trump's immigration policies will create staffing challenges. Companies in manufacturing and hospitality expressed even more worries.
• Littler surveyed 349 executives at U.S. firms from late February to mid-March — 60% in-house lawyers, and the rest HR or others in the C-suite. Nearly three-quarters of the execs surveyed are at companies with more than 1,001 workers.

"I was just flabbergasted by how high the concern was among our clients," said Jorge Lopez, a shareholder at the firm who chairs its immigration and global mobility practice group.

• The results show you where the mindset is for American companies, he says.
• Businesses aren't simply worried about their own employees, but also ripple effects (like citizen workers who have family members deported).

The other side: "Over one in ten young adults in America are neither employed, in higher education, nor pursuing some sort of vocational training. There is no shortage of American minds and hands to grow our labor force, and President Trump's executive order to modernize workforce training programs represents this Administration's commitment to capitalizing on that untapped potential," White House spokesman Kush Desai said in an emailed statement

The big picture: There's little doubt that the immigration crackdown will hit certain sectors and companies, but whether or not it affects employment growth is an open question that hinges on the state of the overall economy.

• If the U.S. falls into recession later this year, as many economists fear, then it would mitigate the impact of a smaller labor force — there would literally be fewer jobs to fill.

That doesn't mean we're out of the woods. There would still be issues in more recession-proof sectors — the need for home health care aides, for example, doesn't much slow down with the economy.

• A recession "is simply a factor that will mitigate things. It won't make the issue go away," says Wendy Edelberg, a senior fellow in economic studies at the Brookings Institution.

The bottom line: The White House has radically reshaped the country's approach to immigration, touching many aspects of Americans' lives.

• The workplace is no exception.

The White House's budget proposes enormous cuts to federal spending — some of which, if enacted, would put millions of the poorest Americans in a bad spot.

Why it matters: The proposal is just a starting point, but it's a dark one, say advocates for the disadvantaged.

The big picture: The budget would cut 10% from last year's level of discretionary spending — things the government does excluding mandatory programs like Social Security and Medicare.

• But the White House wants to increase spending for border security and defense, so the bulk of the cuts are on non-defense programs, like health care, education, and housing.

The proposal comes just as recession fears are spiking, and worries are growing that tariffs will raise the prices of everyday goods — a bitter pill to swallow for those living paycheck to paycheck.

By the numbers: The cuts would bring non-defense discretionary spending to its lowest level in modern history — less than 2% of GDP, compared to an average 3.1% over the past 40 years, per an analysis from Bobby Kogan, a senior director of federal budget policy at the liberal Center for American Progress.

• "They are calling for something that is extreme, objectively, and even by Trump standards," adds Kogan, who worked at the Office of Management and Budget during the Biden administration.

The other side: The White House says the cuts are a way to move certain programs, particularly education, back to the states, and eliminate "radical gender and racial ideologies that poison the minds of Americans."

Zoom in: Housing advocates were stunned by a nearly $27 billion cut to housing assistance for low-income Americans.

• Those cuts come after huge spikes in rents coming out of the pandemic. Their impact will be "inhumane and devastating," said Rachel Fee, Executive Director of the New York Housing Conference, in a statement.
• "This plan will drive more people into homelessness."

Another hit: Trimming $4 billion by eliminating the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, or LIHEAP, which assists poor people in paying for heat in the winter and cooling in the summer. It is critical in states with harsh winters — both senators from Maine have pushed for it.

• The White House says it duplicates state programs. Instead of providing help with energy bills, low-income individuals will be supported "through energy dominance, lower prices, and an America First economic platform," the budget document says.
• An administration official pointed to a 2010 GAO audit that found 9% of households receiving benefits contained invalid identify information — some "likely due to simple errors." The report says its recommended security fixes had been implemented.
• "Seniors and low-income [people] also will not go without utilities as states have their own policies to help with utilities, including severe weather no-disconnection policies, lessening the need for this program at a federal level," an administration official tells Axios in an email.

Also cut: $4.5 billion in Title I education assistance, which is money meant for poorer school districts.

Caveats: A president's budget is just a wish list; Congress doesn't simply put it through.

• This is just a partial proposal, it doesn't discuss Trump's plans for tax breaks. Some of those, like no taxes on tips, could theoretically help lower earners.
• It also doesn't cover Medicaid, the federal health insurance program for lower-income Americans. That's reportedly on House Republicans' chopping block.

The bottom line: These cuts, if enacted, would be devastating for some of the country's poorest families — just as recession fears are rising.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is holding on to its status as the little agency that could, this week surviving yet another court challenge over layoffs that would effectively gut the agency.

The big picture: The CFPB is a relatively small operation tasked with fighting big businesses on behalf of consumers.

• This case, filed by the National Treasury Employees Union and advocacy groups, is essentially the CFPB's kind of fight, but this time it's their own hides on the line.

Where it stands: After a ruling from a federal appeals court earlier this week, the White House is for now prohibited from carrying out a drastic layoff that would've gotten rid of 90% of the agency's employees.

• In court, lawyers for the White House argue it is merely rightsizing the CFPB and making it more efficient. Even after cutting 90% of the staff, it will be able to fulfill its statutory duties, they say.
• Outside the court, administration officials have been more candid. Elon Musk posted "CFPB RIP" earlier this year. The current acting head of the CFPB, Russ Vought, was the principal author behind Project 2025, which includes plans to abolish the agency.

How it works: Current and former CFPB employees have filed dozens of declarations to the court, detailing how their work fulfills the duties mandated by Congress, contrary to the White House argument.

• "The employees have been at the core of the success of this litigation so far," says Jennifer Bennett, a partner at law firm Gupta Wessler who represents the plaintiffs. "It's very hard to imagine how this litigation would have gone without that."

The White House has "kicked a hornets nests of lawyers, statisticians and economists who are trained on fighting just these kinds of battles," a current CFPB employee tells Axios, speaking on the condition of anonymity for fear of retaliation.

• CFPB acting leadership has also put a halt to much of the agency's work, leaving many of these folks with time on their hands.
• "What a dumb idea to tell a bunch of lawyers and economists and PhD statisticians and career bureaucrats and extremely smart people to stop working. Now all of a sudden they have all this energy to work on things like fighting back," the current employee says.

For example: Matthew Pfaff, the chief of staff for the agency's Office of Consumer Response, filed one such testimonial last week.

• His office is responsible for fielding consumer complaints, and there have been more than 5 million so far this year, he says.
• The office wouldn't be able to function if the proposed firing happened, reducing staff to 16 employees from 125, he says.

Zoom in: The CFPB's worker union and its highly active Slack group have been key. When the initial round of terminations came in February, union leadership and membership knew the full extent within 30 minutes.

• That rapid response enabled workers to move fast and file their case.
• Their lead lawyer Deepak Gupta is a former CFPB attorney, another person who understands how the agency operates.

For the record: The White House and OMB did not respond to emailed requests for comment, but acting Trump appointees have defended their actions across multiple court filings.

Reality check: It's still early days in this lawsuit.

• Plus, there are other threats. House Republicans just pushed a measure forward to cut the CFPB's budget that would also cripple the agency.

The bottom line: For an agency that's already faced two Supreme Court challenges, it's just another day at work.

A group of Christian leaders is denouncing a new White House task force aimed at rooting out "anti-Christian bias" at a time when the Trump administration is going after liberal Christian groups that help immigrants and the poor.

Why it matters: It's the latest example of divisions between moderate and conservative Christians who are at odds over the administration's free speech and immigration policies.

Zoom in: In a letter signed by two dozen leaders and scholars, the group of leaders say they reject the idea that there is widespread persecution of Christians in the United States — a popular claim among white evangelicals.

• The leaders say they fear that the "anti-Christian Bias Task Force" will be weaponized to privilege one tradition within Christianity over others, creating anti-Christian bias even as it claims to combat it.
• "We are also aware of how claims of 'anti-Christian bias' are shown to provide cover for white supremacy," the letter says.
• The letter was signed by Rev. Paul Brandeis Raushenbush, CEO and president of the Interfaith Alliance, and Rev. Liz Theoharis, co-chair of the Poor People's Campaign, among others.

State of play: In February, President Trump signed an executive order "establishing a task force to end the anti-Christian weaponization of government and unlawful conduct targeting Christians."

• It fulfills a promise Trump made to white evangelicals — who were among his strongest supporters — to prevent the federal government from requiring them to provide reproductive care to employees or protect the rights of transgender people.
• Last week, Attorney General Pam Bondi held the task force's first meeting and took comments from evangelicals who alleged the Biden administration had targeted them.

What they're saying: The groups critical of the task force are telling the White House that the messages from many Christians "are very clear: You're not speaking for us," Raushenbush tells Axios.

• He's been a Christian minister for more than 25 years, but says he doesn't feel protected by the White House.
• The administration's efforts seem meant to "only protect a certain sector of Christianity that is pre-approved by this government," he added.
• Raushenbush pointed to Trump's harsh words for the Rev. Marianne Budde over her plea for mercy at an inaugural prayer service.

The other side: "The Trump administration is committed to rooting out anti-Christian bias and protecting religious freedom for all people of faith," said White House Assistant Press Secretary Taylor Rogers.

• "We finally have a president that is bringing faith back to America and is using his executive power to protect our God-given rights. Combating anti-Christian bias is not only important to the 140 million Americans who are Christians, but also, the Christians around the world who look to us as the beacon of religious freedom."

By the numbers: 78% of Americans oppose the establishment of a task force focusing on anti-Christian bias, according to a survey out this week from the nonpartisan Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI) .

• Six in 10 Americans disagree with the notion that discrimination against Christians and white Americans has become as big of a problem as discrimination against other groups, the poll found.

The intrigue: The leaders called out the administration for targeting groups such as the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and Lutheran Family Services, which historically have helped immigrants and refugees.

• "We are appalled by the hypocrisy of the Trump administration in shutting the door on our siblings in Christ who are attempting to flee real Christian persecution around the world," they wrote.
• The Trump administration is aggressively going after such groups amid its push for mass deportations and crackdown on student visas.

Between the lines: Some religious leaders, such as Gabriel Salguero, president and co-founder of the National Latino Evangelical Coalition, have said Scripture calls on Christians to help immigrants, known as the "stranger" in the Bible.

• Meanwhile, polls indicate white evangelicals are among the strongest supporters of Trump's mass deportation policies.

The backstory: Progressive Christian leaders say the Gospels indicate Jesus was a refugee.

• In the Gospel of Matthew, Joseph is told through a dream that King Herod is sending soldiers to kill Baby Jesus over fears that he was the new King of the Jews.
• Joseph then gathers Mary and Jesus in the dead of night to flee to Egypt, making them refugees who are escaping persecution.
• They return to the land of Judea only after King Herod has died.

In the Gospel of Luke, Joseph is forced to take a pregnant Mary to Bethlehem to register for the required Roman Empire census.

• She gives birth to Jesus and places him in a manger because "there was no room for them in the inn."
• Bible scholars say the Holy Family's dire situation — in poverty, forced to travel by order of the government — is echoed in many of today's immigrants.

President Trump rejected any blame for the stock markets's slide this year in a post Wednesday morning: "This is Biden's Stock Market, not Trump's. I didn't take over until January 20th," he wrote on Truth Social.

• But in January 2024, when the market was doing well, but he wasn't even president yet, he had a different take: "THIS IS THE TRUMP STOCK MARKET BECAUSE MY POLLS AGAINST BIDEN ARE SO GOOD THAT INVESTORS ARE PROJECTING THAT I WILL WIN, AND THAT WILL DRIVE THE MARKET UP."

Why it matters: It's typically tricky to tie a U.S. president's actions to stock market performance — equities move for all kinds of reasons –  but Trump's connection to the ups and downs of U.S. indexes this year is pretty clear cut.

Zoom in: After Trump was elected and into his inauguration, investors were giddy at the thought of a Republican administration that would relax regulation and lower taxes. Stocks rose.

• Tariff reality hit after "Liberation Day," when the president announced broad and high levies on imports from every country in the world. The S&P 500 declined sharply afterwards.
• Since then, the markets have seen historic volatility — rising and falling in connection with news coming out of the administration.

How it works: Stocks go up when it looks like tariffs will be eased, as in recent days.

• The market also fell after Trump suggested he'd fire Federal Reserve chair Jerome Powell, then rose last week when he backed off.

By the numbers: The S&P 500 is down 3.8% since just before the election, 6% for the year to-date — and nearly 10% since inauguration day.

• "On again, off again White House policy announcements have fueled volatility," writes Lisa Shalett, chief investment officer at Morgan Stanley Wealth Management.

In his post Wednesday, Trump said things would get better. "Tariffs will soon start kicking in, and companies are starting to move into the USA in record numbers," he wrote.

• "Our Country will boom, but we have to get rid of the Biden "Overhang." This will take a while, has NOTHING TO DO WITH TARIFFS, only that he left us with bad numbers, but when the boom begins, it will be like no other. BE PATIENT!!!

Reality check: Biden left office with a fairly strong economy, though under the hood in late 2024 there were signs of weakening, as Axios' Neil Irwin wrote last month.

The bottom line: If investor faith in Trump was enough to usher in a "TRUMP STOCK MARKET" 15 months ago, then the declining faith of those same investors is what the "Trump stock market" is now, in April 2025.

The dollar has fallen nearly 10% in President Trump's first 100 days, the steepest drop for a new administration this century.

Why it matters: The start of the second Trump administration has upended America's economic standing in the world.

By the numbers: The U.S. Dollar Index in Trump's first 100 days fell 9.5%, compared to a 2.1% drop in the first 100 days of his first term.

• The value of the greenback increased 4.5% in George W. Bush's first 100 days, when the country was headed into a recession. It also rose slightly for both Barack Obama and Joe Biden.

Zoom in: Investors used to buy the dollar in good times and bad, making it a "safe haven," as Axios' Felix Salmon recently explained.

• Now as recession fears rise, primarily due to tariff uncertainty, investors are shedding greenbacks.
• "Investors stopped treating the dollar as a flight to safety currency and started treating it as a risk currency, a risk asset," Steve Kamin, a former Federal Reserve economist now at the American Enterprise Institute, told Axios earlier this month.

The big picture: Trump's policies, particularly those broad and constantly changing tariffs, have eroded "American exceptionalism."

• That's the notion, reinforced by the nation's post-pandemic comeback, that the U.S. economy could consistently outperform its peers.
• "There in my view remains little to like about the greenback, with the 'US exceptionalism' narrative stone dead," Michael Brown, a senior research strategist at Pepperstone, wrote in a note on Tuesday. The dollar is "the most exposed asset of all to the ongoing trade uncertainty," he wrote.

Between the lines: Part of what made America an exceptional place for investors in the past was certainty that the rule of law would be followed, that economic policy would be clearly messaged and put in place, and that we had close economic ties with allies.

• Events of the last 100 days have led to uncertainty along all those lines.

For the record: "The Trump administration is committed to protecting the strength and power of the U.S. dollar," White House spokesman Kush Desai said in an emailed statement.

• He added, "Trillions in historic investment commitments since President Trump was elected from industry leaders including TSMC, Apple, and Roche demonstrate resounding confidence in the U.S. economy and dollar under this administration."

A hearing Tuesday in federal court in Washington could determine the fate of the embattled Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

The big picture: Dismantling the agency puts the stability of the financial system at stake, former officials and consumer advocates say.

• The CFPB is responsible for key pieces of the mortgage lending process, which ensure the smooth functioning of the housing market.
• Without the agency, Americans will have less protection from financial fraud.

Catch up quick: Earlier this month, the White House fired about 90% of the agency's workforce, effectively gutting it.

• The move was challenged in federal court, and Judge Amy Berman Jackson blocked layoffs ahead of the hearing.
• Some of the Trump administration's other actions targeting the CFPB had already been knocked back by Jackson.

Where it stands: Both sides of this case filed a flood of documents over the weekend that led her to postpone the hearing to Tuesday from Monday.

• Mark Paoletta, the chief legal officer at the CFPB, defended the Trump administration's actions: "An approximately 200 person agency allows the Bureau to fulfill its statutory duties."

The other side: The plaintiffs, represented by the National Treasury Employees Union, filed 19 declarations from CFPB employees, who say it is not possible for 200 people to fulfill the agency's statutory duties.

• They say the White House and DOGE did not take care in engineering these cuts, that senior leaders were not consulted about the impact of terminations, and that if the job cuts had not been paused their offices would not have been able to do their work.

Zoom out: Eliminating the bureau has been a goal of conservatives for some time, explicitly delineated in Project 2025.

• The principal author of that plan, Russell Vought, heads the Office of Management and Budget and serves as the CFPB's acting director.
• The agency's legitimacy was upheld by the Supreme Court in a case decided a little less than a year ago.

What to watch: The Senate has put off a vote to confirm President Trump's nominee to lead the agency, Jonathan McKernan.

• By the time he takes that role, there may be a lot less work for him to do.

As many as 2,000 fired federal probationary workers who filed complaints with the Office of Special Counsel have had their cases dismissed as lacking merit, a source familiar with the dismissals tells Axios.

Why it matters: These workers are among the tens of thousands caught in limbo after being fired — followed by a series of court rulings reinstating them, and then staying those reinstatements.

Catch up quick: Thousands of fired probationary workers filed complaints about their termination with the OSC, a federal office whose role includes investigating "prohibited personnel practices" in the federal workforce.

• They were a subset of the tens of thousands who were fired across the government. Those terminations are the subject of multiple lawsuits.
• OSC is, for now, being led by Jamieson Greer, who is also the Trump administration's U.S. Trade Representative. (The prior head, Hampton Delinger, was fired by Trump in February, and eventually lost a court challenge to his dismissal.)

What they're saying: "This is a devastating letdown to the civil service and to the principle that government should serve the public, not political interests," said Rob Shriver, managing director of Democracy Forward's Civil Service Strong initiative, in a statement.

• The group has been actively litigating against the various federal worker terminations since Trump took office.

What to watch: The workers whose cases were dismissed by OSC could still potentially bring their complaints before another federal agency, like the Merit Systems Protection Board.

• The White House has been re-making that panel as well.

Editor's note: This story has been updated with a statement on the OSC action.

A Trump administration budget proposal calls for eliminating programs like Head Start, funding for community mental health clinics and initiatives aimed at preventing teen pregnancy in fiscal 2026.

Why it matters: The 64-page document, called a budget passback, reveals the breadth and deep extent to which the Trump administration is eyeing cuts to the federal health bureaucracy.

• The Office of Management and Budget document is just a proposal but offers a preview of what President Trump's spending priorities are. Congress has the final say in how discretionary funds are allocated.
• The document was first reported by the Washington Post.

Zoom in: The proposal calls for about $20 billion appropriated to a new agency within Health and Human Services called the Administration for a Healthy America. HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced last month that he planned to combine several existing agencies into this new entity.

• The document also requests $500 million to be allocated by the HHS secretary for activities that support the administration's so-called "Make America Healthy Again" initiative, per the document.

In all, about $40 billion, or one-third of the HHS discretionary budget, would be cut under the proposal compared with fiscal 2024 levels.

• The document suggests eliminating programs for rural health care providers, HIV treatment efforts, health care workforce initiatives and childhood lead poisoning. It does not say whether or how the work done by these programs would continue.
• Some offices that the document suggests could be eliminated, including the Administration for Preparedness and Response, have existing legal authorities, with officials confirmed by the Senate.

Reality check: No final funding decisions have been made yet, OMB communications director Rachel Cauley told Axios.

Zoom out: There had been earlier reports that Head Start, a storied program created as part of President Johnson's War on Poverty, was on the chopping block.

• That was an aim of Project 2025.
• Ending the program, which provides early childhood education, nutrition and health care help to nearly 800,000 kids and their families, would have "catastrophic" consequences for some of the poorest people in the U.S. — with outsized impacts in rural communities.
• "I had a very inspiring tour [of a Head Start program]," Kennedy said last month. "I saw a devoted staff and a lot of happy children. They are getting the kind of education and socialization they need, and they are also getting a couple of meals a day."

Go deeper: Advocates worry over possible cuts to Head Start

The nation's home builders are less than thrilled with the Trump economy thus far.

Why it matters: The headwinds for the companies that build single-family homes are multiplying, a bad sign for a country facing a shortage of affordable homes.

By the numbers: The National Association of Home Builders Housing Market Index ticked up a scant one point to 40 in April from the previous month, but that was before the recent mortgage-rate increase registered. (Any number below 50 indicates negative sentiment.)

• 60% of builders said their materials costs have gone up by an average of 6.3% this year, adding $10,900 per average single-family home.
• Meanwhile: U.S. homes are selling at their slowest pace in 6 years, per real estate site Redfin's data. The typical home that went under contract in March sat on the market for about 1.5 months (47 days). Double what it was during the frenzied pandemic market.
• A bright spot for buyers: Home prices are growing at the slowest pace in a year and a half, up 2.5% in March from last year. But that's hardly good news for home builders.

The big picture: It's not only that tariffs raise the cost of building a house.

• The drastic "Liberation Day" rollout sparked a Treasury bond selloff that's pushed mortgage rates higher, just as they were starting to cool. The average 30-year-mortgage rate is hovering right below 7% now, according to Mortgage News Daily, after spiking last week. (It's still below January levels, though.)
• Rising rates and economic uncertainty dampen demand for houses. Meanwhile, the threat of an immigration crackdown hangs over an industry that relies heavily on undocumented labor.

What they said: "You have to be crazy to start a new home project right now!'" a home builder told HFE Economics, per a note the ADJ GROUP sent out Wednesday.

• "The prices of materials over the next three months seem sure to rise, but no one knows by how much," HFE writes. "Tariff risks pose a huge threat to profit margins in this industry and to the prices of everything overall."
• They point out that if, say, the price of Canadian lumber goes up that would likely lead to U.S. producers to raise prices, too.

The bottom line: There was lots of campaign talk about easing the housing shortage with less regulation, but federal policies around trade are making it harder to build homes.