It's a buyer's market in real estate — if you can afford it: There are nearly 500,000 more home sellers than buyers in the U.S. housing market, Redfin estimates.

Why it matters: That's the widest gap on record — and a big reversal from just a few years ago, when home buyers were desperate to find a place to live, sending prices into the stratosphere.

By the numbers: There are 33.7% more sellers than buyers now. At no other point since Redfin began tracking in 2013 have sellers outnumbered buyers by this large a percentage.

• A year ago, sellers outnumbered buyers by just 6.5%, and two years ago, buyers outnumbered sellers.
• Redfin counted sellers as the number of active listings in a given area and created a model to estimate the number of buyers.

Where it stands: The one-two punch of still-high home prices and high mortgage rates is making it hard for buyers, especially first-timers, to find a place they can afford.

• Add to that, the extreme economic uncertainty of 2025. Tariff news, layoff fears and, for many federal workers, layoff realities, are tamping down buyer demand.

The other side: For home sellers "the mortgage rate lock-in effect is easing," per Redfin. "For most people, it's not realistic to stay put forever; job changes, return to office mandates and divorce force people to move."

• Higher mortgage rates are also becoming normalized. "The idea of taking on a higher mortgage rate also isn't as shocking as it was when rates first skyrocketed in 2022."

Between the lines: Buying a home is still far out of reach for most Americans, as the National Association for Realtors pointed out in a recent report.

• The median price of a home sold in the U.S. in the first three months of this year was $417,000, per federal data — 33% more than it was during the same period in 2019, before the housing market went haywire, outpacing inflation and incomes.

What to watch: Historically, when sellers outnumber buyers, prices drop. And in some markets, prices have already started falling.

• Home prices fell in 11 of the top 50 most populous U.S. metro areas in the four weeks ended April 20, per Redfin. That includes Austin; Oakland, California; and Tampa, Fla.
• Redfin believes prices will dip 1% by the end of the year (not exactly a huge sale, to be sure).

The bottom line: "The balance of power in the U.S. housing market has shifted toward buyers, but a lot of sellers have yet to see or accept the writing on the wall," said Redfin senior economist Asad Khan in the report.

New White House hiring guidelines sent out to federal agencies last week include what looks like a presidential loyalty test, say current and former federal employees and Trump administration critics.

Why it matters: Meant to serve as guidelines to focus hiring on merit, the memo is the latest move from the Trump administration to politicize the civil service, eroding, more than a century of law and tradition meant to insulate career employees from politics, critics say.

Where it stands: Candidates for civil service jobs — including janitors, nurses, surgeons, engineers, lawyers and economists — are to be asked four questions on their level of patriotism and support for the president's policies.

• They are to answer in essay form, at a maximum of 200 words, and certify that they did not use help from artificial intelligence.

How it works: "How would you help advance the President's Executive Orders and policy priorities in this role?" reads the third question, which is garnering a lot of attention.

• It continues: "Identify one or two relevant Executive Orders or policy initiatives that are significant to you, and explain how you would help implement them if hired."

Zoom out: These questions have nothing to do with a candidate's merit or skills, says Jeri Buchholz, a former chief human capital officer who led HR at NASA and ran HR at other federal agencies for decades.

• "When you're doing hiring, traditionally by law, you have to focus on the knowledge, skills and abilities required for the position," she says.
• The questions "are philosophical. They're not even aptitude related. And I'm very unclear how you score that."

Dealing with these questions could slow the hiring process, running counter to the stated intent of the guidelines to speed it up, Buchholz says.

• Taken together these plans "will make it more difficult to hire, not less," a current federal HR official told Government Executive.
• "A merit-based civil service that took generations to build is being dismantled via memo," writes Stanford University political scientist Adam Bonica in a Substack post on Sunday.

The other side: An official from the Office of Personnel Management defended the questions as legal and within the bounds of presidential authority.

• "The President has the power of superintendence over the Executive Branch and clear statutory authority to ask these questions of prospective employees. He is not imposing a loyalty test by doing so," they say.
• The law requires those who work for agencies to act consistently with the president's lawful executive orders and policy priorities, they say, making it reasonable to ask for examples that candidates are excited about.
• Agencies will decide whether and how to use the questions.

The big picture: The White House has already fired or pushed out more than 100,000 federal workers, chasing away a lot of talent from the government.

• Now it looks like they'll be replacing those folks with partisans, says Max Stier, president of the nonprofit Partnership for Public Service.
• "They're emptying the shelves of the existing nonpartisan expert civil servants, and they're restocking with the loyalists," he says.

The bottom line: Trump bristled at the pushback he received from "deep-state" federal employees in his first term, and a focus this term is ensuring that does not happen again.

Read the full 30 page memo from the Office of Personnel Management.

U.S. trade policy is making China great again — at the United States' expense, per an analysis from Morning Consult that looks at global favorability ratings, and finds China's rising while America's falls.

Why it matters: The drop in America's reputation is already costing the country economically — through a fall in foreign visitors turned off by White House policies, and even the decline of the dollar.

The big picture: There's potential for more damage:

• "As views of the United States worsen, trade and investment opportunities for American firms doing business overseas may also diminish as consumers shun the products and job opportunities they provide," writes Jason McMann, head of political intelligence at Morning Consult.
• There's also concern about a specific provision buried in the Republican tax bill that could reduce demand for U.S. assets, plus worries over losses from banning foreign students studying in the country.

The latest: America's favorability started edging up a smidge after the president agreed to slash tariffs on China earlier in May (see the chart above).

• But on Friday, Trump said China "totally violated the deal," all but blowing up the fragile detente.

By the numbers: As of the end of May, China had an 8.8 net favorability rating, compared to -1.5 for the U.S., according to favorability data for last month provided exclusively to Axios by Morning Consult.

• In January 2024, the U.S. rating was above 20 and China was in negative territory.

How it works: The data tracks net favorability ratings, or the share of respondents with a positive view of a country minus those with a negative view.

• Morning Consult surveyed adults in 41 countries including Canada, France, Japan, Russia and the U.K.

Zoom out: The U.S. had a largely positive reputation last year — but it dropped sharply after President Trump took office.

• "Since January 2025, the overwhelming majority of countries simultaneously exhibit worsening views of the United States and improving views of China," McMann writes.
• "Only in Russia have views of America meaningfully improved."

Meanwhile, China's rating has been negative going back to October 2020, when Morning Consult first began tracking; it started trending into positive terrain after election day last year.

• But most of the country's improvements have come since March — including a sharp tick up after Trump's "Liberation Day" tariff announcements.
• "The reputational damage done by the "Liberation Day" tariff announcements has now sealed the deal," per the report.

What to watch: The president's Truth Social feed.

At a press conference Wednesday, President Trump had a very unhappy reaction to being asked about the "TACO trade" — a shorthand for Trump Always Chickens Out.

Why it matters: Traders have been using TACO to describe the belief that the president will back off on a big tariff threat if the markets sink in response.

• It happened after "Liberation Day," and more recently last weekend when the president threatened 50% tariffs on the European Union. The market dropped — only to recover after the president said he'd give the EU more time to negotiate.
• TACO is a catchier version of what Wall Street had been calling the Trump put, which investors relied on in the president's first term.

State of play: Trump was asked about a spate of TACO-related headlines while taking questions in the Oval Office Wednesday.

• "I've never heard that, you mean because I reduced China from 145%," he said, then detailing how he stepped down that threat, as well as the higher rate on the EU.
• "But don't ever say what you said. That's a nasty question."

Zoom out: Financial Times columnist Robert Armstrong felt some dread about the whole thing, he told Axios later in the day.

• Armstrong, who writes the FTs Unhedged newsletter, came up with the term TACO a few months ago.
• "I needed a shorthand way in my newsletter to describe this pattern, because it was an important pattern in markets. And perhaps I was hungry, too, and so I came up with the acronym TACO."
• It didn't take off at first.
• "It was definitely not becoming a thing, but I kept using it because it had utility for me, and then it sort of started to appear in brokers notes. And, you know, people started mentioning it to me, and then it shows up in a New York Times headline, and today, somebody is putting a question to the president."

Friction point: Apparently, sometimes the markets don't need TACO. The courts intervene instead.

• Wednesday night, a panel of judges at the U.S. Court of International Trade blocked most of the tariffs the Trump administration has put in place — ruling he didn't have the authority to implement them.

The bottom line: "I want to be famous for my dumb joke, definitely, but I also don't want the president to ruin the U.S. economy," Armstrong says. "And so I'd like to have both of those things, if at all possible."

A buried provision in the "big beautiful bill" effectively penalizes single parents who receive SNAP, or food stamps, as compared to households headed by married couples.

Why it matters: The provision is part of new stricter SNAP work requirements included in the bill, which are the first of their kind.

• Advocates for the disadvantaged say these proposed changes to the program will result in millions of Americans losing vital assistance.

How it works: Basically, parents of children ages 7 to 17 must work 80 hours a month in order to qualify for SNAP benefits.

• But in households where parents are married, only one has to work.
• That means single parents with kids as young as 8 must work, while people who are married to a working adult don't have to.
• 80% of single-parent households are headed by mothers, per census data.
• Homeless people, veterans, pregnant women and those under 18 or over 64 are also exempt from the work requirements.

What they're saying: "Subjecting a single mom to having to go work while the mom who's married down the street doesn't have to, really shines the light on how inequitable and unfair this is," says Ed Bolen, a senior policy analyst at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

• The provision seems to acknowledge that some parents are not able to work while taking care of school-age kids, says Carolyn Vega, associate director of policy at nonprofit Share Our Strength, but only extends that understanding to a certain type of parent.
• "If you're married, then you could have one person in the couple as a stay-at-home parent, and only one person has to work," she says. "But if you're in any other kind of household arrangement, then everyone needs to be meeting the work requirements."

Zoom out: If a parent loses food benefits, their children still would receive SNAP, but that doesn't mean kids escape unscathed from this provision.

• If an adult loses SNAP, food benefits still drop for their entire household.

Between the lines: The White House is trying to find ways to encourage more parents to stay home to raise children. The vast majority of parents who stay home are women.

• In a recent Mother's Day message, President Trump said he would work "to ensure that families can enjoy the highest standard of living on Earth on a single income."
• It's easier said than done for many, as in most families these days, both parents need to work to make ends meet amid rising child care costs.

For the record: "By restoring commonsense work requirements and implementing cost-sharing measures with states, the One, Big, Beautiful Bill is saving over $300 million to strengthen SNAP for all families who need it," White House spokeswoman Anna Kelly said in an email.

• "President Trump is also delivering tax cuts for families, raising the child tax credit, and creating savings account for babies."

The bottom line: Single parents will have to work to receive food benefits under the "big beautiful bill" while some married parents won't.

Editor's note: This story has been updated with White House comment.

The White House is terminating $400 million in funds for states meant to modernize their unemployment insurance systems.

Why it matters: These systems fell apart when unemployment soared in the pandemic, leading to rampant fraud and delays for beneficiaries.

• Without updates, similar problems could be on tap for the next recession.

Zoom out: Congress authorized the money in the $1.9 trillion coronavirus relief bill passed in 2021. Congress allocated $2 billion for the efforts, later cutting that funding in half.

• Those funds were wasted on equity projects, but only a fraction of the money appears to have been devoted to such measures, according to the Labor Department, which sent a notification letter to Congress last week to let lawmakers know "these grants are being terminated."
• About 28% of the funds granted to states, $219 million, were used specifically for equity, as outlined in a Labor Department report.
• In this case, "equity" is a term meant to describe efforts to make the unemployment insurance system easier for people to use and access, perhaps not what is typically considered DEI.
• Efforts to promote equitable access to unemployment insurance "include eliminating administrative barriers to benefit applications, reducing state workload backlogs, improving the timeliness of UC payments to eligible individuals, and ensuring equity in fraud prevention, detection, and recovery activities," according to the report.

Follow the money: $204 million was awarded for IT modernization, $134 million for fraud detection, and $93 million for system integrity, such as combating fraud and strengthening ID verification.

• The IT funds have been spent more slowly while states get projects underway, says Andrew Stettner, who led the modernization efforts during the Biden administration.
• "When I left in December, states had spent about $100 million of the $219 million specifically for equity but only $2 million of the $204 million for IT," says Stettner, who is now director of economy and jobs at the Century Foundation. 18 states are working on updates to their systems, he says.

Pulling this aid will be devastating for the states just getting started on these projects. "States were in the middle of all the planning and procurement. Now they're really holding the bag for finishing," Stettner says.

The other side: The grants were "squandered" on "bureaucratic and wasteful projects that focused on equitable access rather than advancing access for all Americans in need," the Labor Department says in an emailed statement to Axios.

• "We're committed to ensuring our unemployment system is free from fraud and abuse, and we look forward to partnering with state workforce agencies on real solutions that meet the needs of American workers."

The bottom line: In an effort to combat fraud, the Labor Department has pulled back money from states meant to help combat fraud.

President Trump may paint China as the enemy, but lately he's been awfully fond of their command-economy playbook.

Why it matters: Trump's extraordinary interventions — which dovetail with what some critics have labeled "MAGA Maoism" — are rattling businesses, consumers and investors, and throwing global markets into turmoil.

The big picture: Trump has already stretched the power of the presidency to remake the government in his image. Now he's trying to do the same with Corporate America.

• Trump spooked markets on Friday by threatening Apple with huge financial risk if it doesn't move iPhone manufacturing to the U.S. — later expanding his threat to Samsung and other phone makers.
• He has demanded Walmart absorb the cost of his tariffs to avert price hikes for consumers, warning on Truth Social: "I'll be watching."
• He's ignored a law that was supposed to ban TikTok in the U.S. if its Chinese parent company did not divest, embracing the app after it proved useful to his 2024 campaign.
• He's even told parents to buy fewer cheap toys from China amid the threat of supply chain shortages, saying that "maybe the children will have two dolls instead of 30 dolls."

Reality check: Politicians routinely use their bully pulpit or pull policy levers to control prices of critical goods.

• The difference is that Trump was the one who directly set the price hikes in motion by raising tariffs.

Between the lines: Trump has not been shy about using his presidential authority to control the economy.

• In an interview with Time magazine, Trump compared the U.S. market to "the biggest department store in history" and said he would determine the price of entry with tariffs.
• "[O]n behalf of the American people, I own the store, and I set prices, and I'll say, if you want to shop here, this is what you have to pay."

Yes, but: The White House says the administration is making an effort to help the free market lower prices, as distinct from traditional notions of "price controls."

• "Our full suite of supply-side reforms — rapid deregulation, domestic energy production, and tax cuts — along with our America First trade policies have now delivered multiple below-expectation inflation reports, robust jobs reports, trillions in historic investment commitments, and a UK trade agreement that opened up billions of dollars in export opportunities for American producers, with many more custom-tailored trade deals to come," White House spokesman Kush Desai said this week.

Flashback: There's plenty of history of presidents and other top government officials jawboning the market.

• Biden urged grocery stores to lower prices and took credit when Target did, albeit in limited fashion.
• That was nothing compared to Nixon, who in 1971 froze prices and wages for 90 days to push inflation down. It was "economically ineffective and politically disastrous," Politico wrote last year.

The intrigue: Since Nixon's failed experiment, price controls and other command-like economic moves have been kryptonite to conservatives.

• Now the tides have shifted.
• Trump and his supporters have argued that Americans should act in the national interest at their own personal and corporate cost.

And if not? Watch out for a not-so-veiled threat on Truth Social, which risks quickly turning into something bigger (as China itself can attest).

The bottom line: The U.S. may be a capitalist democracy, but Trump wouldn't mind a little more direct control over the economy.

The cost of child care in the U.S. just keeps climbing — a new report finds that prices rose 29% from 2020 to 2024, outpacing overall inflation.

Why it matters: Rising child care costs put a huge financial strain on families, forcing some parents — typically women — to either ratchet back their working hours or leave the labor force entirely.

• For single parents, the calculus can be even more painful.
• It's also a drag on economic growth overall.

By the numbers: The average annual cost of daycare tuition nationwide for two children — one toddler and one infant — rose to $28,168 last year, according to data from Child Care Aware, an advocacy group.

• That's about 35% of median household annual income in the U.S., based on Census data released in 2024.

Zoom in: The percentages are no less brutal in states with higher incomes.

• The cost of care for two children in Massachusetts is $47,012 — 44% of the median household income in that state.

Zoom out: The U.S. doesn't have publicly funded universal childcare.

• However, the federal government does put money into the system for low-income kids through block grants to the states, as well as Head Start, the decades-old federal program that provides childcare, nutrition assistance and other services to the nation's poorest families
• There were worries that the White House would stop funding Head Start, but the administration has said that won't happen.

Yes, but: President Trump's budget proposals look to keep federal funding levels for child care flat next year — that's effectively a cut given inflation, says Anne Hedgepeth, senior vice president of policy and research at Child Care Aware.

• "Level funding in the current environment is essentially a cut, and that is really concerning," she says.

The poorest kids in the country miss out on the full benefits of the expanded child tax credit in the "big beautiful bill."

Why it matters: The bill now making its way to the Senate provides more tax breaks to higher earners than those at the bottom.

By the numbers: The Republican bill raises the maximum child tax credit to $2,500 per child from $2,000 for three years.

• 20 million children would not fully benefit from the increase, according to an analysis from the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), since their parents don't earn enough income to get the maximum amount.

"A majority of those children get nothing from the proposed expansion," says Kris Cox, director of federal tax policy at the CBPP.

• 17 million children as of now do not receive the full benefit from this tax credit, per the CBPP. None of them will get anything from the expansion.

How it works: Under current law, families need upward of $30,000 a year to receive the full tax credit amount, explains Joe Hughes, senior analyst at the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy.

• Parents who are poor and don't owe income taxes can only claim up to $1,700 per child, known as the "refundability cap." It's a number which adjusts annually for inflation.
• The new bill didn't raise the refundability cap. Instead, it only increases the maximum that parents, earning less $400,000 a year, can claim.
• A married couple filing jointly would need to earn $48,550 to receive the full tax credit under the new bill, per CBPP estimates. Under current law, a married couple has to earn $36,800.

Zoom out: The new bill widens the gap between what's available to kids in higher income families and those who need help most.

For example: A married couple with two children earning $400,000 a year, the max income allowed to claim the credit, would get an additional $1,000 tax credit.

• A single parent with two children, earning $24,000 a year, would get nothing, Cox explains in a recent Bluesky post.
• The parents who miss out on the full benefit are those working in low-paying jobs like cashiers, home health aids and housekeepers.

Presumably a few of these parents are tipped employees who could benefit from the no-tax-on-tips provision of the bill. However, just as with this the child tax credit, many earn too small an income to benefit.

The other side: The standard defense here is that low-income Americans don't pay very much in taxes. Their tax burden is low, so they shouldn't get the full credit because they don't need the tax relief.

• White House spokesman Kush Desai says wealth inequality decreased after the 2017 tax bill, and the new bill would lock that success in place.
• He adds that it builds on that success "by eliminating taxes on tips and overtime in addition to rewarding American manufacturing with full equipment and factory expensing to turbocharge America's economic resurgence."

Between the lines: This big bill faces big hurdles ahead in the Senate — and the bond market — and it's not clear what will eventually make it through.

The intrigue: The legislation also blocks another 4.5 million children from benefiting from the child tax credit because now to claim it, both parents, if they are filing jointly, must have their own Social Security numbers.

• Under current law, parents who don't have Social Security numbers can claim the credit if their child has one. So, for instance, a parent who is a non-citizen immigrant and files taxes with an ITIN number can claim it.
• Before 2017, any parent filing taxes could claim the credit. But when Congress changed the law in the first Trump tax bill, 1 million citizen children lost out, Cox says.

State of play: The child tax credit provisions are a stark 180 for the House.

• Just last year, the House passed a bill, with 169 Republican votes, that would have made the credit more equitable. (It failed in the Senate.)

The bottom line: An expanded child tax credit benefits a lot of middle and upper-middle class parents, but the poorest don't catch a break.

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.

Driving the news: 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.

Catch up quick: Trump fired Gwynn Wilcox, a Democratic member of the NLRB, back in January, kicking off a string of terminations at federal agencies.

• Previously, it was understood that appointees at quasi-independent executive agencies could only be removed for cause.
• Wilcox filed suit in February, alleging that the move was "unprecedented and illegal."
• The case has gone back and forth in the lower courts; last month a federal appellate court blocked her firing and the White House appealed, leading to Thursday's stay.

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 background on the case.

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.