The White House asked a judge Monday to allow it to continue barring the Associated Press from some press events, arguing in an new court filing that access to the president is at his discretion and not a constitutional right.

Why it matters: The filing — hours before a hearing on the matter scheduled later on Monday — states that just because the AP "may have long received special media access to the president does not mean that such access is constitutionally compelled in perpetuity."

Driving the news: "This case is about the Associated Press losing special media access to the President—a quintessentially discretionary presidential choice that infringes no constitutional right," the filing reads.

• "Presidents historically provided this special access to the Associated Press, but that discretionary choice does not create a constitutional right."

Catch up quick: The Associated Press named White House deputy chief of staff Taylor Budowich, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt and White House chief of staff Susie Wiles in their suit filed last week in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

• The AP accused the White House of violating its First Amendment rights, after the outlet's reporters were barred from attending some events, like Oval Office meetings and Air Force One press pools, following the AP's decision to use Gulf of Mexico rather than Gulf of America.

The big picture: The White House is targeting AP because of the preeminent role it plays in shaping mainstream news media language and therefore coverage though its influential stylebook.

• Republicans believe it has become institutionally geared toward the left.
• AP says its style guide is non-biased and is continually updated to provide accurate, fair and neutral information.

The other side: The White House Correspondents Association, an almost 800-member independent press group, filed an amicus brief on the AP's behalf.

• It argues that the free speech and integrity of not just the plaintiffs is at stake.
• The brief says that the administration's actions "will chill and distort news coverage of the President to the public's detriment" — a harm that extends beyond just the AP.
• The WHCA also argues that the independent pool system — a rotation of the association's member reporters who follow the president — is a key part of coverage on the White House beat, calling it the "first draft of history of events of domestic and global importance."

What to watch: A hearing is scheduled for later on Monday over the lawsuit.

Go deeper: AP sues Trump officials over Oval Office ban, citing First Amendment

Editor's note: This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.

French far-right leader Jordan Bardella canceled planned remarks at CPAC Friday, after ex-Trump adviser Steve Bannon made a "gesture referring to Nazi ideology," according to a statement to French news agency Agence France-Presse.

Why it matters: Bardella's change of plans is the strongest rebuke yet of Bannon, who, during his remarks at the annual conservative conference made a gesture that appeared to mimic a Hitlergruß, or Nazi salute.

• "This is a lie … It's a wave … I acknowledged a crowd after the best speech @ CPAC," Bannon told Axios.
• Bannon added that he sees Bardella as "gutless ... not tough enough to be a leader of France — he's a spokesmodel."
• A CPAC representative did not respond to a request for comment Friday.

Driving the news: "At this forum, (Thursday), while I was not present in the room, one of the speakers allowed himself, out of provocation, a gesture referring to Nazi ideology," Bardella said in a statement to AFP.

• "As a result, I have taken the immediate decision to cancel my speech scheduled for this afternoon at the event."

The big picture: The Bannon incident comes about a month after Trump-ally Elon Musk also made a hand gesture that drew comparisons to a Nazi salute.

• Despite blowback, Musk dismissed the criticisms, writing on X: "Frankly, they need better dirty tricks. The 'everyone is Hitler' attack is sooo tired."

Go deeper: ADL condemns Musk's Nazi "jokes" after salute controversy

Axios' Alex Isenstadt contributed reporting.

With a compliant Republican-led Congress virtually in President Trump's pocket, the courts appear to be the main guardrail for his push to remake government and boost his presidential power.

Why it matters: Trump's most sweeping executive orders have drawn a series of legal challenges — which his administration has vowed to fight, even as it sends mixed signals over whether it will abide by court decisions.

• More than 70 lawsuits now have been filed against aspects of Trump's agenda, and more than two dozen court rulings have paused some of Trump's executive orders.
• Trump already has filed an appeal to the Supreme Court in a dispute over whether the president can fire the head of an independent agency. It's the first of what's likely to be many challenges that will wind up at the doorstep of the nation's highest court.
• Last summer, the high court granted presidents broad immunity for "official acts" they carry out.

Driving the news: Trump's actions related to the major parts of his presidential agenda — immigration, DOGE, federal workforce changes and trans rights — have drawn the bulk of the legal challenges.

• Three federal judges have ordered a freeze on Trump's Day 1 executive order to end birthright citizenship.
• A judge on Tuesday kept the order paused, rejecting a bid from Trump to halt one of several federal injunctions against it, per Bloomberg Law.

Elon Musk's role in transforming the government has come under scrutiny in recent legal filings, as unions and private citizens seek to block the billionaire SpaceX founder's access to potentially private information.

• In a win for Musk, a federal judge on Tuesday declined, at least for now, to block DOGE from firing federal employees or gaining access to certain government databases.
• A different federal judge this month temporarily blocked DOGE's access to data systems at the Treasury Department.
• Some cases over Musk and his team's access to different databases are pending.

Other aspects of the Trump administration's efforts to upend the federal government workforce also have drawn legal challenges, including some still awaiting a judge's decision.

• Judges have temporarily blocked Trump's decision to put thousands of employees at the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) on leave and freeze funding for some government programs.
• A different judge, meanwhile, has let stand Trump's offer to pay federal employees through Sept. 30 if they resign.

Trump's efforts to roll back rights for transgender people also have drawn legal challenges, increasing the chances that a high-profile suit ends at the Supreme Court.

• A federal judge has temporarily blocked Trump's order that would transfer incarcerated transgender women to men's prison facilities, and would block them from receiving medical treatments for gender transitions.
• A judge has not yet issued a ruling on lawsuits challenging Trump's orders saying the U.S. government would recognize only two sexes, male and female, and ban transgender people from serving in the military.

What to watch: As the courts become the battleground for challenges to Trump's sweeping executive orders, Trump has said he'll follow court orders — though some of his top allies have cast doubt on that.

• Vice President Vance said this month that "judges aren't allowed to control the executive's legitimate power," a sentiment that has since been echoed by Musk and other Republicans.
• Democrats on Capitol Hill are bracing for Trump to flout a major court ruling — and they're meeting with state attorneys general, top lawyers, litigation firms, constitutional experts and advocacy organizations to prepare their response, Axios' Andrew Solender reported.

Go deeper: Tests of Trump's power on fast tracks to the Supreme Court

President Trump told Axios' Marc Caputo on Tuesday that he will continue to restrict the Associated Press' access to the White House "until such time as they agree that it's the Gulf of America."

Why it matters: Trump has targeted the AP, which has said it will continue to use the 400-year-old Gulf of Mexico instead of Trump's preferred Gulf of America, as part of longstanding Republican complaints about the AP Stylebook's language guides around race, gender, and immigration.

• Trump has limited AP reporters' access to the White House and Air Force One over the dispute.

Driving the news: "The Associated Press just refuses to go with what the law is and what has taken place, it's called the 'Gulf of America' now," Trump told Axios during a press conference at Mar-a-Lago on Tuesday.

• "It's not called the Gulf of Mexico any longer. … We're going to keep them out until such time they agree that it's the Gulf of America."

What they're saying: AP spokesperson Lauren Easton said in a statement addressing Trump's comments "this is about the government telling the public and press what words to use and retaliating if they do not follow government orders."

• Easton said the White House "has restricted AP's coverage of presidential events because of how we refer to a location."
• She added: "The Associated Press has provided critical and independent coverage of the White House for over 100 years," Easton added.

Between the lines: Axios reported Monday that one of the main reasons the Trump White House is limiting AP reporters' access is because of what aides see as liberal bias in the wire's influential stylebook, a characterization that the AP rejects.

Go deeper: Scoop: Why Trump targets AP

Editor's note: This story has been updated with comment from AP spokesperson Lauren Easton additional details.

Every Arizona swing voter in our latest Engagious/Sago focus groups said they approve of President Trump's actions since taking office — and most also support Elon Musk's efforts to slash government.

Why it matters: Public opinion can constrain presidents when Congress does not. But these 11 voters — all of whom backed Joe Biden in 2020 but switched to Trump last November — said they're good with Trump aggressively testing disruptive, expansionist expressions of presidential power that are piling up in court challenges.

• It's needed to "get America back on track," one participant said.

What we're watching: One notable area of disagreement with Trump: The idea of the U.S. displacing Palestinians and taking over and redeveloping Gaza. These swing voters want Trump to stick with Americans' needs inside the U.S.

• Some would like to see him do more, sooner, to rein in consumer costs. But several said they don't mind that Trump's early actions haven't primarily focused on inflation — even when that was their top issue in the election — and said they can be patient if prices don't come down for a while.
• Several doubt the warnings that tariffs may translate to long-term price increases for American consumers.
• Several expressed views that "waste, fraud and abuse" are so prevalent that government agencies can be slashed or eliminated without hurting services on which they depend.

How it works: The voters participated in two online focus groups, conducted Feb. 11. They included 11 Arizonans who backed Trump last year, after rejecting Trump for Biden in 2020. Eight were independents, two were Republicans and one was a Democrat.

• While a focus group is not a statistically significant sample like a poll, the responses show how some voters are thinking and talking about current events.

What they're saying: "I agree we need the Constitution and we need rules and procedures," said Courtney L., 34. "But at the same time, how are we going to make big changes? If someone like Trump [is] being unconventional, we need him to be doing these things, to be making these executive orders and making these big changes for big changes to happen."

• "I like how he's cleaning house in the government," said Jonas G., 55.
• "I approve because I believe he's transparent, and we haven't had that for the last four years," said Ann B., 54.
• Other respondents were supportive of Trump's executive orders on immigration and efforts to eliminate diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives.

Seven of the 11 voters rejected that the president is trying to deliberately "flood the zone" to dilute attention on any one action.

• Trump "has to get started early on as soon as he gets elected into office, get to work," said Melvin G., 30.
• "He said he was going to do this, this, this and this, and this is what he is starting to get done," said Ann B.

Eight of the 11 respondents also said they approve of Musk's efforts in the administration.

• Few had concerns Musk is motivated by personal gain — or that his status as the world's richest man, who controls companies with billions of dollars in government contracts and faces investigations and regulatory hurdles, presents conflicts of interest.

The big picture: The number of executive orders that Trump has issued in his first weeks in office is unprecedented, a strategy that has overwhelmed Democrats trying to mount any semblance of a resistance. But Trump's rapid changes to government have already hit numerous legal roadblocks — and many of these challenges could eventually end up at the Supreme Court.

• Vice President JD Vance and other prominent Republicans this week expressed the sentiment that "judges aren't allowed to control the executive's legitimate power."
• This view has raised concerns from Democrats and even some GOP lawmakers that the Trump administration could flout an eventual court ruling.

The Arizona swing voters rejected concerns Trump could subvert the judiciary.

• "That wouldn't happen. I'm not even thinking about it," said Jonas G., when asked about the hypothetical of Trump rejecting a Supreme Court decision.
• Ann B. said it's "fearmongering."

The bottom line: "These swing voters are delighted by Musk's Trump-endorsed government housecleaning," said Rich Thau, president of Engagious, who moderated the focus groups.

• "The prospect of a looming constitutional crisis is completely inconceivable to them."
• Trump, Vance and Musk "should be ecstatic" about the 11 swing voters' feedback "and Democrats should be scared to death."

Go deeper: Tracking Trump's executive actions by category

The House Budget Committee released a budget blueprint Wednesday proposing $2 trillion in spending cuts.

Why it matters: The House is going bigger and bolder than the Senate with its proposed budget resolution to implement President Trump's legislative agenda — but they're also a step behind.

• The blueprint follows days of stalled negotiations between GOP hard-liners and leadership over how deep spending cuts should go. The budget panel is set to vote on it Thursday.
• The draft dropped as the Senate Budget Committee convened to vote on its own narrower bill on the border, energy and defense.

Driving the news: The blueprint calls for at least $4.5 trillion in tax cuts and a $4 trillion debt limit increase.

• Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) called the proposal "a key step to start the process in delivering President Trump's America First agenda."
• "This resolution reflects our collective commitment to enacting the President's full agenda—not just a part of it," Johnson wrote Wednesday on X.
• "There's still much work to be done, but we are starting on the right path."

State of play: House Republicans have been facing pressure to finalize a budget resolution, setting up a de facto game of chicken between the two chambers.

• Senate Republicans want two bills — an initial one addressing border security, energy and defense, and another addressing tax cuts.
• But their House counterparts prefer one bill, resulting in an escalating standoff.
• Johnson said Tuesday he would not bring Senate Budget Chair Lindsey Graham's version of a budget reconciliation bill to the House floor.

Zoom out: Graham, meanwhile, contends that the White House prefers the narrower approach he's embraced.

• Two Trump officials urged GOP senators Tuesday to fast-track $175 billion in new border money, Axios' Stef Kight reported.
• "The best evidence yet of where the White House is is that briefing we had," Graham told reporters Tuesday. "Why would they come over ... begging for money if they didn't want to move?"
• "I'm just asking the House to listen to these guys," he added.

Editor's note: This story has been corrected to reflect that Mike Johnson is a Republican (not a Democrat) and updated with additional reporting.

Every one of President Trump's most sweeping executive orders is now being challenged in court by multiple lawsuits.

Why it matters: They're setting the stage for historic Supreme Court showdowns that could test Trump's push to remake the federal government — and increase his power.

• They also could provide roadmaps for how to stop him.

The big picture: Less than four weeks into Trump's term, the Justice Department is already defending signature parts of his agenda in more than 50 lawsuits.

• Judges have temporarily stopped several of his top priorities from taking effect — at least for now.
• But in many cases the White House is purposely pushing its legal limits, inviting this tsunami of legal challenges — signaling the administration's confidence that the conservative-led Supreme Court will back Trump when the time comes.

State of play: Three big pieces of Trump's agenda — immigration, trans rights and slashing the federal bureaucracy — seem particularly likely to make it to the high court, which last summer granted presidents broad immunity for "official acts" they carry out.

Immigration

Three federal judges — in New Hampshire, Maryland and Washington state — have ordered a freeze on Trump's Day 1 executive order to end birthright citizenship, including one who called it "blatantly unconstitutional."

• At least 22 states and other organizations have sued over Trump's order.
• Legal analysts mostly agree that Trump is likely to lose this one in the end.

With so many active cases on the matter, it's too soon to say which lawsuit is most likely to land on the Supreme Court's docket. But because it's such a sweeping policy — and because birthright citizenship is a constitutional question — the issue will be ripe for the court's review.

The federal workforce

Trump's effort to slash federal programs and the federal workforce has run into some snags in court, but it's an area on which legal experts believe he's likely to have the Supreme Court on his side.

• Some of the myriad challenges to Trump's various cuts are very specific, and will only pertain to certain employees or programs.
• But others raise bigger questions about the president's authority to fire federal workers. The Supreme Court already has taken an expansive view of that power.

Where it stands: Judges have temporarily blocked Trump's "buyout" deadline for federal workers and his decision to put thousands of employees at the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) on leave.

• As long as the administration keeps cutting workers one tranche at a time, there will be virtually no end to lawsuits challenging the moves.

What we're watching: When a case focuses on the details of how the White House carried out a spending cut, Trump could take some losses — at least temporary ones, analysts said.

• But the more the Justice Department can turn this universe of litigation into a big-picture referendum on the president's power over the federal workforce, the more likely it is to win — and win big.

Transgender rights

The Supreme Court seems likely to rule later this year that states can ban gender-affirming care for minors — a potential signal that Trump's moves to roll back federal protections for trans people probably will fare well.

• But they'll be some of the highest-profile suits the Justice Department will have to defend.

Where it stands: A federal judge temporarily blocked Trump's order that would transfer incarcerated transgender women to men's prison facilities, and would block them from receiving medical treatments for gender transitions.

• Trump also signed executive orders saying the U.S. government would recognize only two sexes, male and female, and ban transgender people from serving in the military.
• Lawsuits have been filed against both orders, but no judge has issued a ruling.

Between the lines: As congressional Democrats try to mount their resistance against Trump administration actions, they're likely to begin filing amicus briefs to support challenges.

• "We will be involved in all of them, and we're of course doing everything we can to speak up and to give heart and courage to the judges who are doing it," Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) the ranking member on the House Judiciary Committee, told reporters last week.

What to watch: As the courts become a battlefield for challenges to many of Trump's orders, some of the president's most vocal allies are questioning whether judges have authority of judges over many of the president's actions.

• Vice President Vance said Sunday that "judges aren't allowed to control the executive's legitimate power."
• Vance's comment, which has been echoed by Elon Musk and other Republicans, foreshadow what's likely to be a tense battle in courtrooms nationwide over Trump's norm-breaking changes to government.

Go deeper: Court rulings test limits of Trump's power

Joe Biden has left Washington, but he still seems to be living rent-free in Donald Trump's mind.

Why it matters: Trump has brought his grievance-laden playbook against Biden to the White House and frequently derides his Democratic rival — in speeches, executive orders, off-the-cuff comments and social media posts.

• Trump's criticisms follow a strategy he's used since he first took office in 2017: Accuse his predecessor of doing a terrible job (then it was Barack Obama, now Biden) and blame them for any problems or setbacks.

Driving the news: This time it began moments after Trump was sworn in on Jan. 20. With Biden sitting just a few feet away, Trump said in his inaugural speech that the outgoing president had left the country in "decline."

• Since then, Trump has issued dozens of executive orders, many of which he cast as remedies for problems he claimed Biden or his administration created.
• As investigators began looking into the deadly in-air collision near Reagan National Airport last week, Trump — without evidence — blamed the Biden administration's diversity programs for the crash.
• In a Truth Social post Sunday, Trump took aim again, announcing that he'd ordered airstrikes against the Islamic State in northern Somalia and accusing "Biden and his cronies" of not acting quickly enough to "get the job done."

That's just a sample of Trump's darts at Biden.

• He also trashed Biden's border policies as "stupid," and cast the former president as weak on everything from relations with China to disaster response and inflation.

Zoom in: It's not just Trump. His allies have made a sport of criticizing the Biden White House.

• Press secretary Karoline Leavitt last week attributed the increase in egg prices during Trump's first week in office to the Biden administration's "mass killing of more than 100 million chickens" amid concerns about bird flu.
• She also cast Biden as a president who slept on the job.
• Democrats counter that Trump's moves dismantling the federal government in D.C. threaten to become far more destructive than beneficial.

Between the lines: Trump and Biden, who was Obama's vice president, have had a bitter rivalry for years.

• Trump blames his many legal troubles on Biden and his administration's Justice Department.
• Even after Biden dropped out of the 2024 presidential race and was replaced on the Democratic ticket by Kamala Harris, Trump continued to bash Biden.

What they're saying: "Anything bad that happens on your watch, you try to find someone else to blame, and Donald Trump has a good foil in Joe Biden," Arizona-based Republican political consultant Barrett Marson told Axios, referring to Biden's low favorability ratings.

• "Trump is untethered to facts and ... will blame Biden and Democrats for anything that goes wrong," Marson said.
• But he added that with Republicans' in full control of the federal government and the rapid pace at which Trump is dismantling many Biden administration policies, "he's going to run out of that excuse quickly."

Go deeper: Trump gets a jump on his presidency — with Biden's help

Ken Martin was elected on Saturday to serve as the next chair of the Democratic National Committee, putting him at the helm of a party trying to rebuild its image after a disappointing 2024 cycle.

Why it matters: Martin, the longtime chair of the Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party, wants to help the party get "back to basics" with a revamped messaging strategy aimed at winning back working-class voters who have drifted to the right.

• Martin, considered a favorite heading into the Saturday vote, beat out fellow midwesterner Wisconsin Democratic Party chair Ben Wikler and half a dozen other candidates.
• Martin won 246.5 votes from the DNC's 448 voting members, multiple outlets reported.

Driving the news: In the crowded race for DNC chair, Martin's pitch zeroed on his winning record as chair of the Minnesota DFL. In the 14 years in charge, his party did not lose a single statewide race, giving him a 25-0 record.

• Martin wants to take his winning state record to the national level, a message that clearly resonated with Democrats still reeling from losses up and down the ballot on Nov. 5.
• "My record is unrivaled and unmatched in terms of winning elections and building power around the issues we care about," Martin told the Minnesota Reformer.
• Martin demonstrated his strong fundraising prowess as DFL chair, a skill that he'll now need to leverage at the national level. Fundraising is one of the biggest jobs for the DNC chair.

Between the lines: As a longtime party leader and DNC vice chair, Martin locked up support among party officials across the country but bigger names were split over who to support.

• Wikler drew the public backing of former Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other big names like Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer.

The big picture: The race for DNC chair comes after an election cycle that put President Trump in the White House and Republicans in control of both houses of Congress.

• As DNC chair, Martin will help lead the party's strategy and messaging, including by appearing on media himself to represent the party.
• He will also have influence over setting the order for the 2028 Democratic primary, which could see Minnesota moving up its spot in the calendar.

Go deeper: Minnesota DFL chair Ken Martin in the running to lead DNC

Axios' Torey Van Oot contributed reporting.

Editor's note: This story has been updated with the vote total.

Former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg swiftly shot back against President Trump's criticisms of him during a Thursday press conference, less than a day after a deadly plane collision outside Washington D.C.

Why it matters: Buttigieg's comments represent one of his strongest public rebukes of Trump since he took office last week.

• Buttigieg, an outspoken Democratic surrogate during the 2024 campaign, is widely considered a 2028 presidential contender.

Driving the news: Buttigieg defended his record as Transportation Secretary, saying, "we put safety first, drove down close calls, grew Air Traffic Control, and had zero commercial airline crash fatalities out of millions of flights on our watch."

• "As families grieve, Trump should be leading, not lying," Buttigieg said.
• Buttigieg also said that "one of [Trump's] first acts was to fire and suspend some of the key personnel who helped keep our skies safe."
• "Time for the President to show actual leadership and explain what he will do to prevent this from happening again," he added.

State of play: During his first press conference after the fatal plane crash, Trump expressed his condolences for the lives lost before skewering his political rivals and the FAA's diversity, equity and inclusion programs.

• Trump took specific aim at Buttigieg, saying: "A real winner. Do you know how badly everything has run since he's run the Department of Transportation? He's a disaster."

Between the lines: Buttigieg drew heightened scrutiny during his time as Transportation Secretary, as he navigated multiple transportation crises.

• Republicans repeatedly criticized Buttigieg over his handling of the crises, often trying to paint him as underqualified.

Go deeper: Trump touts national unity over air disaster before bashing Biden and Obama

The Democratic Party is the most unpopular it's been in polling that dates back to 2008, according to a new survey from Quinnipiac University.

Why it matters: Democrats are struggling to repair their image with voters after a bruising 2024 election that put President Trump in the White House and Republicans in control of both houses of Congress.

• Democratic lawmakers are grappling — and in some cases, experimenting — with how best to respond to Trump's rapid, sweeping changes in the early days of his administration.

By the numbers: 57% of registered voters have an unfavorable opinion of the Democratic Party, the highest percentage since Quinnipiac started asking the question in 2008.

• 45% of voters have an unfavorable opinion of the Republican Party.

43% of voters have a favorable opinion of the Republican Party, the highest since 2008.

• By contrast, 31% of registered voters have a favorable opinion of the Democratic Party.
• That's the largest favorability advantage the GOP has had over the Democratic Party since 2008, according to Quinnipiac.

Between the lines: Democrats face an uphill climb. A CNN poll conducted by SSRS earlier this month found that 70% of U.S. adults would describe themselves as disappointed with today's politics.

• The same CNN poll found that 58% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents say that the party needs major changes or to be completely reformed.

Reality check: The Republican Party had worse numbers during much of the first year of Trump's first term than what Democrats are seeing now.

• The percentage of voters with an unfavorable view of the Republican Party hovered around 60% in 2017, with a peak of 67% in August, according to Quinnipiac.

Go deeper: Dems warm to conservative media after rough 2024

The Justice Department (DOJ) on Wednesday moved to dismiss former special counsel Jack Smith's case against Walt Nauta and Carlos De Oliveira, President Trump's former co-defendants in his classified documents case.

Why it matters: It's the latest sign that the Justice Department is moving swiftly to wipe any proceedings in connection with the criminal cases that had involved Trump.

The big picture: The cases against Nauta and De Oliveira were still pending, even as the criminal case against Trump had already been tossed out.

• The Justice Department in a Wednesday court filing requested a dismissal of an appeal that would have reinstated the charges against Nauta and De Oliveira.

State of play: The Justice Department after the 2024 presidential election moved to wind down the criminal cases against Trump to comply with a longstanding policy that sitting presidents can't be prosecuted.

• After Smith dismissed the two criminal cases against Trump following his election win, it was unclear if the special counsel would release the report on the classified documents case.
• Former Attorney General Merrick Garland, however, had said that he would not release the report because Nauta and De Oliveira's cases were still pending at the time.

Go deeper: Judge dismisses Trump's federal classified docs case

Editor's note: This story was updated with additional context.

A potential constitutional crisis erupted Tuesday over the Trump administration's surprise federal funding freeze, jolting Democrats into action after months of strategic paralysis.

Why it matters: For the first time since President Trump won the election, the so-called Resistance is showing signs of life.

Senate Democrats moved with rare dexterity to block a GOP-led bill in one of the few places where they have real leverage, and blanketed social media with panicked reports from their constituents.

• House Democrats called an emergency meeting for Wednesday to plot a "comprehensive three-pronged counteroffensive" — targeting appropriations, litigation and communications.

Nonprofits — later joined by Democrat-led states — stormed the federal court system with lawsuits, leading a judge to temporarily halt the funding freeze at 5pm ET Tuesday.

What they're saying: "This is cruelty, this is lawlessness, this is a heist done on a national scale," Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) told reporters in one of several press conferences by top Democrats, vowing to "fight this every way we can."

• "We need Democrats to use every procedural maneuver to grind things to [a] stop and use every media tool to raise alarm and allow public pressure to build," Ezra Levin, co-founder of progressive group Indivisible, said in a statement.
• "Shut down the Senate, refuse to allow them to steamroll, and take this fight to every town hall, courtroom, and news outlet."

State of play: The White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) sent shockwaves through Washington on Monday night with a memo directing agencies to "temporarily pause" grants, loans and federal financial assistance programs to ensure they align with Trump's priorities.

• "This is not a blanket pause," White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt stressed as she was bombarded with questions about the freeze in her first press briefing Tuesday.
• "Social Security benefits, Medicare benefits, food stamps, welfare benefits, assistance that is going directly to individuals will not be impacted by this pause," she said.

Leavitt then told reporters she would check into whether Medicaid — the nation's largest health insurance program, covering 72 million mostly low-income Americans — would be affected.

• In the meantime, reports flooded in from all 50 states about Medicaid reimbursement systems being inaccessible — prompting the White House to issue a statement acknowledging an online "outage."
• "We have confirmed no payments have been affected — they are still being processed and sent. We expect the portal will be back online shortly," Leavitt said.

The big picture: For more than a week, Trump has overwhelmed his critics with an unrelenting flood of executive orders, government purges and bureaucratic maneuvering.

• On Tuesday alone, Trump offered to buy out any federal employees who resign by Feb. 6, and signed an executive order aiming to restrict youth gender-affirming care — diverting headlines from the funding freeze.
• Some of Trump's moves have pushed the lines of legality, including his mass firing of government watchdogs and purging of pro-worker influence at the National Labor Relations Board.
• But nothing has broken through like the funding memo, which sent state governments, nonprofits, schools, emergency workers and even some GOP officials scrambling to determine whether they'd be affected.

Between the lines: Besides billions of dollars in federal funding, something far more fundamental could be at stake in the coming legal battle — Congress' power of the purse.

• Trump and his nominee for OMB director, Russ Vought, have argued that the Impoundment Control Act — a Nixon-era law that restricts presidents from withholding funding passed by Congress — is unconstitutional.
• An FAQ sheet distributed by the OMB Tuesday claims Trump's "temporary pause" doesn't constitute an "impoundment." But that hasn't satisfied Democrats, given Vought's defense of the impoundment power in his confirmation hearing.
• "What happened last night is the most direct assault on the authority of Congress, I believe, in the history of the United States," Sen. Angus King (I-Maine) warned Tuesday.

Every voter in our latest Engagious/Sago swing-voter focus groups said both President Trump and former President Biden went too far with their presidential pardons — and that future presidents should be reined in.

Why it matters: Trump's pardons of roughly 1,500 defendants charged in connection with the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, and commutations of 14 defendants' sentences, is testing the faith of voters who took a chance on him to offset the pain of inflation or better secure the border.

• Biden's pardons, meanwhile, further diminished his legacy with some former supporters.

The pardons backlash was a top takeaway from our first swing-voter focus groups on governance in the Trump 2.0 era.

• 10 of the 12 Georgia voters who participated in the sessions opposed all of Trump's pardons. Two opposed just his pardons of defendants who committed violent crimes.
• All 12 said they would support a theoretical constitutional amendment to curb presidential pardon power.

How it works: The two online sessions conducted Jan. 21 included women and men from Georgia who backed Trump in November after voting for Biden in 2020. Panelists included seven independents, four Republicans and one Democrat.

• While a focus group is not a statistically significant sample like a poll, the responses show how some voters are thinking and talking about current events.

What they're saying: "If you did the crime, you need to do the time," said respondent Chris F., 40.

• "I think it's setting a bad example that people can do all this criminal activity and get away with it," said Leah A., 41.
• "Forgiving the one who committed such a crime because they supported you back then is not a right choice," said Nive P., 39.

The swing voters also disapproved of Biden's decision to pardon members of his family on Monday in the final moments of his presidency. One questioned why a president should have that power when other citizens don't. Another said Trump couldn't be expected to resist his pardon flex given Biden's actions.

• Biden "hasn't really done much for the American people," Gretchen S., 49, said, adding, "Then just, well, 'Let me take care of my family and my friends on the way out because there's nothing else for me here.'"
• Biden on his last day in office also pardoned former NIAID Director Anthony Fauci, members of the House Jan. 6 committee and retired U.S. Army Gen. Mark Milley.

Rich Thau, president of Engagious, who moderated the focus groups, said that "considering how emphatically Georgia swing voters disapproved of Trump's and Biden's Inauguration Day pardons, there's a chance 'pardon reform' could be an issue in 2028 if a candidate embraces it."

Between the lines: Democrats and Republicans each tried to paint the other party leader's pardons as presidential overreach. But these Georgia voters saw little distinction between the pardon actions.

What we're watching: The participants, most of whom said they voted for Trump this time around because of economic issues, said they hope that will be his focus now that he's back in power.

• "The best thing that Trump could do for us this year is make our economy stronger," said Jimmy P., 47.
• "The worst thing President Trump can do this year would be a continuation of disrespecting the people of America like he did before," said Chris F.

Go deeper: Behind the Curtain: The new judge and jury

The House on Wednesday passed the Laken Riley Act, sending the immigration bill to President Trump's desk for his signature.

Why it matters: The measure, which would require the detention of undocumented immigrants arrested for some crimes, is poised to be the first bill Trump signs into law during his second term.

• The legislation is named for a 22-year-old nursing student who was killed on the University of Georgia campus. Its passage hands Trump an early win on a key campaign priority.

Driving the news: The bill passed the House 263-156, with 46 Democrats voting for it.

• 48 Democrats voted for the bill earlier this month, before the Senate added two amendments.
• Those included one from Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), requiring ICE to detain undocumented immigrants who attack law enforcement, Axios' Stephen Neukam and Stef Kight reported.
• The other, from Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa), adds those who commit crimes that cause death or bodily harm.

Zoom out: The Senate passed the measure earlier this week 64-35, with 12 Democrats voting for it.

Go deeper: Laken Riley Act clears critical Senate hurdle

Editor's note: This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.

The top Democrat on the DOGE subcommittee is ready to "fight back" against any attempts to dismantle federal agencies and programs like Social Security and Medicare, she told Axios on Tuesday.

Why it matters: Rep. Melanie Stansbury (D-N.M.), a former OMB staffer, is very skeptical that DOGE will live up to its public billing.

• "All you need to do is see that they put [Rep.] Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) in charge of the committee to know that this is likely going to be very much a political committee," she said.

Driving the news: Stansbury was named the ranking member of the DOGE Subcommittee on Oversight, the congressional arm of the Elon Musk-led government department.

• Stansbury said that there are "a lot of good government, bipartisan solutions" that she supports, including modernizing federal agencies and spending federal resources more efficiently.
• She said that she has not yet spoken to her GOP counterpart since being named as the Democratic ranking member earlier on Tuesday.

Zoom out: Stansbury said that she will "fight back against efforts to dismantle federal agencies, to take away critical programs like Social Security and Medicaid and Medicare, we'll fight back against the dismantling of environmental programs."

• She also said that she will "be on watch" to make sure that Musk, the billionaire founder of SpaceX, does not use his role in government to benefit his private companies.

The bottom line: Stansbury highlighted a number of executive orders that Trump signed on his first day in office, including reinstating his first-term Schedule F executive order and dismantling government diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives within 60 days.

• "These are the kinds of things that I'm prepared to fight back against and to lead Democrats in the battle to make sure that we're protecting the American people," she told Axios of her role with the new subcommittee.

Go deeper: Inside House Democrats' DOGE-curious bloc

President Trump signed an executive order on Monday granting a "full, complete and unconditional pardon" to the vast majority of Jan. 6 defendants charged with participating in the Capitol riot four years ago.

Why it matters: Among the roughly 1,500 pardoned and 14 others whose sentences were commuted were leaders of the extremist groups Proud Boys and Oath Keepers who were convicted of the seditious conspiracy for their roles in the attack.

• Trump made pardoning Jan. 6 rioters a key campaign pledge, repeatedly extolling them as "patriots" and "hostages" of the justice system and claiming they'd been treated unfairly.
• It's a far cry from former President Biden's denouncement of the "violent insurrectionists" who threatened U.S. democracy in storming the Capitol.

Driving the news: Trump commuted the sentences of 14 defendants and issued pardons for all other "individuals convicted of offenses" connected to Jan. 6, according to the executive order.

• "These are the hostages, approximately 1,500 for a pardon, full pardon," Trump said from the Oval Office, as he signed a slew of other executive orders on his first night as president.

Zoom in: A lawyer for Henry "Enrique" Tarrio, who was sentenced to 22 years in prison after a jury found him guilty of seditious conspiracy over the deadly Capitol riot, confirmed to media that the former leader of the right-wing extremist Proud Boys group was among those pardoned by Trump.

• Among the rioters whose sentences Trump commuted was Stewart Rhodes, the founder of the far-right militia group Oath Keepers, to 18 years in prison after a jury found him guilty of seditious conspiracy.

Context: Seditious conspiracy is defined as when two or more people conspire to overthrow, destroy, seize the property of or levy war against the U.S. government, or to prevent the execution of any American law.

By the numbers: At least 1,583 people had been charged to date in connection with the insurrection, per Department of Justice data ahead of the Capitol riot's fourth anniversary.

• More than 1,000 defendants have pleaded guilty or been convicted at trial.
• The charges faced by the defendants have ranged from misdemeanors, like trespassing, to felony charges, like assaulting law enforcement officers or engaging in seditious conspiracy.

Zoom out: Pardoning insurrectionists convicted of crimes, including violent felonies, defies the GOP's image as the party of law and order. Future perpetrators of political violence could also expect to be met with clemency.

• Since 2021, multiple criminal and congressional investigations have sought to sift through the events of the attack and Trump's role in it.
• Trump was indicted in 2023 as part of special counsel Jack Smith's investigation into his alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election. After Trump won the 2024 election, the case was dismissed.

State of play: During the campaign and transition period, Trump repeatedly promised to quickly pursue pardons for Jan. 6 rioters upon assuming the presidency.

• As recently as January, Trump vowed "major pardons" were coming for Jan. 6 defendants.
• In 2022, before he announced another run for office, Trump publicly promised pardons and said the defendants were being treated unfairly.

Over the years, he gave limited details about how broad the potential pardons would be.

• In an interview with NBC News' "Meet the Press" in December, Trump said there could be "some exceptions" for the pardons in cases where the defendant was "radical, crazy," but did not elaborate.
• He also told Time magazine he would determine the pardons on a "case-by-case" basis, but that the "vast majority" of defendants "should not be in jail."

What we're watching: In pardoning Jan. 6 defendants convicted of crimes, Trump is testing the limits of public opinion.

• A Washington Post-University of Maryland national poll released in December found that 66% of Americans opposed Trump's plan to issue pardons for the rioters.

Several federal judges had also opposed Trump's plan to issue pardons for the rioters.

• U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols, a Trump appointee who has handled Jan. 6 cases, said in November that "blanket pardons for all January 6 defendants or anything close would be beyond frustrating and disappointing."
• While sentencing a member of the Oath Keepers militia last month, U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta said that the prospect of the group's founder Stewart Rhodes receiving a pardon "is frightening and ought to be frightening to anyone who cares about democracy in this country."

Go deeper: Trump downplays Jan. 6: "You had a peaceful transfer of power"

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

President Biden preemptively pardoned five family members on Monday, minutes before turning the office of the presidency over to Donald Trump.

Why it matters: Biden said the pardons protect his family against political attacks motivated "solely by a desire to hurt me."

• It's an extraordinary move that shields members of the Biden family from any efforts by the new administration to prosecute them.
• Follow Axios' live Inauguration Day coverage here.

Driving the news: Biden pardoned his brothers, James and Francis Biden, his sister, Valerie Biden, and their spouses.

• "The issuance of these pardons should not be mistaken as an acknowledgment that they engaged in any wrongdoing, nor should acceptance be misconstrued as an admission of guilt for any offense," Biden said in a statement.

What he's saying: "My family has been subjected to unrelenting attacks and threats, motivated solely by a desire to hurt me—the worst kind of partisan politics," Biden said in the White House announcement.

• "Unfortunately, I have no reason to believe these attacks will end."

Zoom out: Biden earlier on Monday issued preemptive pardons for former NIAID Director Anthony Fauci and members of the House Jan. 6 committee, including former Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) and Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.).

• Biden also pardoned retired Army Gen. Mark Milley earlier on Monday.

Flashback: Joe Biden pardons Hunter Biden

Editor's note: This a breaking news story. Please check back for updates.

President-elect Trump's inaugural ceremony Monday will take place inside the Capitol Rotunda due to the weather forecast in Washington, D.C., he posted on Truth Social.

The big picture: Ronald Reagan's 1985 presidential swearing-in was the last to move indoors because of cold temperatures.

Driving the news: Trump wrote on Truth Social that the decision to adjust the ceremony's plans was a safety consideration.

• "I don't want to see people hurt, or injured, in any way," Trump wrote, noting that the temperature lows could pose "dangerous conditions" for law enforcement personnel and spectators.
• Instead, Trump said he had ordered much of the proceedings moved to the Capitol Rotunda and that Washington, D.C.'s Capital One Arena would be opened to spectators to watch the ceremony live.
• Trump added that he would join the crowd at the arena after his swearing-in.

Zoom out: Air temperatures Monday are expected to hit the low- to mid-20s, with wind chills that could register between 12ºF and 14ºF.

• Though inaugurations have been held in colder weather, Trump's will be the coldest in several decades.

Go deeper: Abnormally cold weather forecast for Trump's inauguration

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

Eight years ago, Donald Trump took office with a dark message about "American carnage" — a nation ravaged by crime, poverty and drugs. As he returns to the White House on Monday, his team is stressing "unity" and "light."

Why it matters: It's unclear whether Trump's inaugural message will resist his typical doomsday rhetoric about the America he's inheriting, but the inauguration festivities he's planning do suggest a cheerier tone.

Zoom in: The schedule of inaugural events in Washington this weekend reflects that optimism.

• There's a "One America, One Light" prayer service for Trump donors and a "Candlelight Dinner," also for donors. One of the three main inaugural balls will be called the "Starlight Ball."
• "Light signifies hope, it signifies a new beginning, it signifies a pathway forward. It's really something that has been a theme for the inaugural, yes, but also a guiding principle for our team over the past couple months," a person familiar with Trump's inauguration plans told Axios.

Between the lines: In a December interview with NBC News, Trump — who has suggested he'd seek retribution against his political enemies if he were elected president again — said "unity" would the major message of his inaugural address.

• "I think success brings unity, and I've experienced that," he told NBC's Kristen Welker. "... Basically it's going to be about bringing our country together."
• Trump likely wants to use his address to "make sure people know he is a president for all Americans," the person familiar with the planning said.

Some of Trump's inauguration guests also have touted such optimism. Singer Carrie Underwood, who'll perform "America the Beautiful" at the swearing-in ceremony, said her decision to participate in the inauguration was "in the spirit of unity."

Zoom out: Trump also called for national unity after surviving an assassination attempt at a campaign rally in Pennsylvania last summer, just before the Republican convention.

• In his speech at the convention — his first since the shooting — he began with a reflective, positive tone about unity.
• But after several minutes of that, Trump pivoted to an hour or so of the fiery, often grievance-filled rhetoric he was known for on the campaign trail.
• During the final weeks before the Nov. 5 election, Trump tapped into increasingly dark rhetoric. He called his political foes everything from "enemies" of the U.S. to "mentally disabled," and said the U.S. was an "occupied country" that must be "liberated" from criminal migrants who have "bad genes."
• Since winning reelection, Trump has continued to blast his adversaries and Biden administration policies.

The bottom line: The person familiar with the planning said they didn't want to speak for Trump, but he likely "does want to come out and be seen as a unifying force."

• "But ... that doesn't mean he's going to compromise on ... the policy necessarily, or campaign promises."

Go deeper: Trump picks historically young group of top officials