Third Way, the well-connected center-left Democratic think tank, today will launch an 18-month Signal Project, including polling, to identify Trump administration actions "that are most relevant to key voters and how best to frame those issues."
Why it matters: Anything "that seems performative will be tuned out or backfire," Third Way says. "It is a painful irony that while our very democracy is at stake, a focus on 'democracy' (and the trashing of democratic norms) simply won't save it."
In unveiling the project, Third Way says: "Shuttering USAID, using government power to attack political opponents, firing indiscriminately, degrading the civil service, releasing J6ers, or blaming Ukraine for the Russian invasion all are a combination of unwise, unethical, illegal, or unconstitutional. But none resonate much with key voters."
So as an opening frame,the project will focus on "Risking Americans' Safety and Security."
Between the lines: Matt Bennett, a Third Way co-founder, told Axios that there's "real concern among Democrats that the Trump/Musk attacks were coming so fast and so arbitrarily that the opposition was having trouble with a coherent response.
"The things we believe to be important — like foreign aid, or Trump actions that violate the law — don't always line up with voters' concerns," Bennett added. "We can fight back effectively ... but only if we are creating a singular narrative that is simple, memorable, and resonant. If we do that, Trump's allies will feel the heat."
🐘 The other side: Tony Fabrizio and Chris LaCivita, who run Trump's outside political operation, told us in response to the Third Way plan that "no matter the approach, Americans know that for the last four years their safety — economically and physically — has been put in jeopardy."
"One glaring flawin their strategy: What happens when President Trump's policies work and deliver the change voters voted for? Once again, the Democrats — much like the Harris campaign — will be left having no position or a positive agenda for America."
Hackers already have the AI tools needed to create the adaptable, destructive malware that security experts fear. But as long as their basic tactics — phishing, scams and ransomware — continue to work, they have little reason to use them.
Why it matters: Adversaries can flip that switch anytime, and companies need to prepare now.
Driving the news: The looming threat of autonomous cyberattacks was a top talking point at the inaugural HumanX conference in Las Vegas this week.
"You know that phrase, 'Keep your powder dry'? That's what attackers are doing right now," James White, chief technology officer at AI security startup CalypsoAI, told Axios, implying that bad actors are ready for battle.
The big picture: Cyber leaders have long feared generative AI would enable autonomous cyberattacks, making current security tools ineffective.
These attacks could involve AI agents carrying out hackers' bidding or malware that adapts in real time as it spreads.
Between the lines: A few years into the generative AI revolution, experts are split on how imminent these threats are.
Some say we're less than two years away from seeing agentic malware in nation-state cyber warfare.
Others argue hackers have little incentive to change tactics as they continue to profit from simple scams, phishing and ransomware.
Threat level: Even though AI-powered malware has yet to flood the zone, companies can't rest easy.
"The rate of acceleration is insane," Evan Reiser, CEO of email security company Abnormal Security, told Axios. "You don't have to be a total science fiction nerd, like me, to imagine where this can go in one year, two years."
AI will speed up attacks, leaving defenders with little time to react.
Meanwhile, most organizations are still behind on basic security measures, Reiser said, noting that the typical company is focused on setting up two-factor authentication. Abnormal Security works with about 20% of the Fortune 500.
Reality check: Startups selling AI security tools have an interest in hyping potential threats.
Mandiant says it has yet to respond to an attack involving truly autonomous AI or adaptable malware.
"I'm actually not worried about any of that right now," Charles Carmakal, CTO at Mandiant, told Axios.
Mandiant has mostly seen adversaries using AI for basic tasks like crafting phishing emails or researching targets.
The intrigue: Companies hiring cybersecurity vendors are beginning to understand that the best way to fight AI attacks is with AI security tools, said Itai Tevet, CEO of Intezer, a startup that offers an autonomous security operation center.
"It's dramatically different between 2023 and today," Tevet told Axios. "In the past, we needed to evangelize on why technology can do the same job. Today, all CISOs are getting asked by their board, 'How do you leverage AI?'"
Zoom in: AI agents can also help threat intelligence teams review the pile of notifications they receive about new vulnerabilities, phishing emails and other malicious activity, Steve Schmidt, chief security officer at Amazon, said in a fireside chat with Axios.
Amazon currently doesn't let agents make decisions or act on their own, but they can review the threat intelligence coming in to determine what needs to be prioritized.
"We've ended up significantly improving the lives of the security engineers, making them more efficient at what they have to do," Schmidt said.
Most Michigan swing voters in our latest Engagious/Sagofocus groups said that although they voted for President Trump in November, they have objections, frustrations and fears about his behavior since he returned to power.
Driving the news: Ten of 13 participants from this battleground, auto-industry state bordering Canada said what they're seeing isn't what they thought they were voting for — and they're worried Trump's approach may hurt their pocketbooks.
"Erratic," "frightening," "disruptive" and "dictator" were among the words they used to describe their concerns.
Zoom in: A focus group is not a statistically significant sample like a poll, but the voters' reactions suggest that Trump risks overplaying his mandate to reshape government, trade and international alliances.
The online panels, conducted Tuesday night, were made up of Michigan voters who backed former President Biden in 2020 but switched to Trump last November. Eight were self-described independents, four were Republicans and one was a Democrat.
The big picture: The voters' responses stand in stark contrast to last month's focus group with Arizona swing voters, all of whom said they approve of Trump's earliest actions.
The Michigan voters felt differently after more exposure to Elon Musk, DOGE, large-scale federal worker firings, tariffs and no relief on prices.
What they're saying: "I don't feel like he was this aggressive last time because I don't think anyone would've voted for him if they expected to see what we're seeing now," said Shannon B., 27, of Livonia, Mich.
Sheryl M., 44, of Chesterfield, said of Trump: "He's so erratic, and it's getting to the point where I'm almost scared to watch the news. I mean, it's a little bit frightening 'cause each day is something new, so you get a little anxious."
"I mean, Canada? When have we ever had issues with Canada?" asked Phil L., 45, of Dearborn Heights. "We barely have a border. You can go in and out of the country and a lot of places, a lot of states. I think we're just barking up the wrong tree with this."
Another voter, Therese L., 55, of Commerce Township, bristled at the viral image of a crowned Trump, the president's "long live the king" comment and or Trump saying, "He who saves his country doesn't violate any law. "
"He is acting like a dictator," she said.
One participant who does home remodeling, worried about tariffs raising the price of wood and causing clients to drop their remodeling plans.
Another voter, who owns a health and weight loss business, said most of her clients are in the auto industry — ; if they're hit it could devastate her. One said she works in the auto industry and just got furloughed because "we are not building any cars right now."
Michael L., 43, of Commerce Township, said Trump "campaigned on lowering prices and making things more affordable for working-class people. He's moving in the opposite direction." He conceded that Trump had previewed tariffs during the campaign, but said "we didn't necessarily think it would be this much, this fast."
"I was voting for him based off of the economy the first time around and I'm seeing a significant decline," said Samantha S., 31, of Birmingham.
"I was expecting him to do things to better our country and I'm not seeing that," said Katelyn D., 26, of Woodhaven.
Several of the voters said they want Congress to push back.
Malea H., 34, of Clinton Township, said she fears "that this will eventually turn into a dictatorship... if the people that we elected to be his checks and balances don't check and balance him, then what are they there for?
They disagreed with Trump freezing out Associated Press journalists from coverage in the Oval Office and Air Force One because the independent news organization hasn't gone along with his insistence that the Gulf of Mexico should be called the Gulf of America.
"It's just so childlike," said Shannon B.
On the other hand: Only of one the 10 Trump voters-turned-critics said they'd choose Kamala Harris for president if they could do it over.
"Trump, we've gone through four years with him before — and it's just kind of just grin and bear it for another four," said Malea H., 34, of Clinton Township.
"Just because these swing voters discovered they don't like the taste of wheatgrass juice, it doesn't mean they long to swallow castor oil," said Rich Thau, president of Engagious, who moderated the focus groups.
The three voters who did approve of Trump's earliest actions say that while they may not agree with him on everything, on balance they at least feel he is getting things done.
"He said that he would get busy as soon as he got in office, and I feel like he has," said Kara B., 39, of DeWitt.
The agency charged with carrying out President Trump's mass deportation promises has warned Congress it is short a whopping $2 billion for this fiscal year, Axios has learned.
Why it matters: Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) repeatedly has faced significant budget shortfalls in recent years. Trump's immigration plans — which include deporting "millions" of unauthorized immigrants — would rack up costs even more.
Congress would send ICE an extra $500 million in the stop-gap spending bill that passed the House and is being debated in the Senate.
But that wouldn't come close to covering the nearly $2 billion the agency told Congress it needs just to keep up the work it's doing through the end of September, two sources familiar with the communications told Axios.
Add to that the expense of fully implementing Trump's plans —which will include hiring hundredsof people, more than doubling ICE detention space to 100,000 beds and adding many more planes for deportation flights.
Zoom in: Not all of that is addressed in the bill now before Congress, which means the additional money ICE says it needs is unlikely to land anytime soon.
The Department of Homeland Security may have to pull money from its other agencies — such as FEMA or the Coast Guard — and direct it to ICE.
A report from the Government Accountability Office on budgets from 2014 to 2023 found that ICE regularly overspent and had to grab funds from other agencies within DHSto cover its costs.
What they're saying: The spending plan now before Congress is "not going to be sufficient to be able to cover the entire need for what they're covering" at ICE, said Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.).
"Just the bed space alone becomes very significant. And to just be able to detain people for a couple of days while they're processing, and then to be able to move out flights ... is exceptionally expensive."
"What we've been told is there would be a shortfall, a significant one, by the end of the year," said Sen. Katie Britt (R-Ala.).
After Congress approves a temporary spending plan, Britt said, lawmakers will have to "make those adjustments moving forward in FY26 so we can continue the good work being done."
The big picture: Trump's executive orders and directives for ICE to ramp up arrests have contributed to significantly lowering the numbers of migrants crossing the southern border — and led to some high-profile criminal arrests for the administration to tout.
Trump has leaned on the military to help DHS with some immigration enforcement, tapped the federal Bureau of Prisons and local governments to help detain more migrants, and is now looking to get help from the State Department.
For weeks, Trump border czar Tom Homan has been telling reporters that immigration agencies would need more funds.
The White House and DHS did not responded to requests for comment.
The intrigue: Congress is planning to provide tens of billions of more dollars for immigration efforts as part of a sweeping budget reconciliation package. Reconciliation allows the Senate to bypass the 60-vote filibuster.
But that will take time, especially as lawmakers haggle over significant tax policy changes that also would be included in the bill.
"While ICE backfills are well-intentioned and desperately needed, the clock is ticking on the [budget] reconciliation front. Every delay lets Biden's chaos fester," said RJ Hauman, founder of National Immigration Center for Enforcement, an organization that advocates for lowering immigration levels.
"Whenever [ICE is] coming up against a period of budget negotiations, they tend to do this thing where they overspend so that they can justify an ever ballooning budget," said Setareh Ghandehari, advocacy director at Detention Watch Network, which opposes immigrant detention.
Deprived of all levers of federal power, and with their party's popularity at rock bottom, some Democrats are taking a polarizing new tack: Engaging with the enemy.
Why it matters: Backlash against cultural elitism — and a reluctance to take risks — fueled the party's loss in 2024. Ambitious Democrats are reckoning with the need to reach beyond their base as they try to claw out of the wilderness.
Driving the news: None have been as daring as California Gov. Gavin Newsom, who has rankled the Democratic base by hosting a trio of hardline MAGA voices for the first three episodes of his new podcast.
Other party favorites are itching to take the fight to Republicans on their home turf, sensing opportunity as President Trump's honeymoon fades and DOGE cuts grow more unpopular.
The intrigue: Far from staging combative debates, Newsom — who's widely expected to run for president in 2028 — struck a conciliatory tone and sought middle ground in his debut podcast episodes.
In a discussion with MAGA activist Charlie Kirk, Newsom broke with his party on trans athletes and owned up to "the dumbest bonehead move of my life" — dining maskless indoors at a French restaurant during COVID.
With former Trump strategist Steve Bannon, Newsom was cordial and polite while giving Bannon ample time to promote his economic populist views — and his false claims that Trump won the 2020 election.
Between the lines: Other prominent liberals have ventured into the belly of the beast with a different mindset — engage in fierce but respectful debate with the goal of publicly exposing MAGA's flaws.
A YouTube debate series by Jubilee Media — featuring titles such as "20 Trump Supporters Take on 1 Progressive" — routinely produces viral fireworks.
Clips from this week's performance by left-wing commentator Sam Seder racked up tens of millions of views — hard currency in the war for online attention that's dominated by MAGA influencers.
The big picture: Most Democrats have kept conservative media at arm's length, shunning the biggest MAGA platforms and personalities to avoid "normalizing" fringe rhetoric such as election denialism.
Former President Biden never appeared on Fox News while in office, and the Democratic Party rejected the network as a primary debate host in 2020.
"I think Democrats are afraid to talk to Trump voters," Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.), whose victory was one of the party's few bright spots in 2024, told the New York Times.
"I think Democrats are afraid to talk to people that are going to criticize them."
What to watch: With little to lose and a lot of ground to make up, that's beginning to change — for podcasters and politicians alike.
Pod Save America's Jon Lovett welcomed Bill Maher, who challenged the left's prevailing support for transgender rights and gender-affirming care. His colleague Tommy Vietor went on Fox News with Jesse Watters.
Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.), a Fox News regular along with Buttigieg, has joined Truth Social, appeared on "The Joe Rogan Experience" and criticized the Democratic "Resistance" against Trump.
The bottom line: The right has built some of the country's most potent megaphones. Now Democrats are using them to try to climb their way out of a deep political hole.
House Democrats erupted into apoplexy Thursday night after Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said he would support Republicans' stopgap government funding measure.
Why it matters: House Democrats feel like they "walked the plank," in the words of one member. They voted almost unanimously against the measure, only to watch Senate Democrats seemingly give it the green light.
"Complete meltdown. Complete and utter meltdown on all text chains," said the member, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to offer sensitive details of members' internal conversations.
A senior House Democrat said "people are furious" and that some rank-and-file members have floated the idea of angrily marching onto the Senate floor in protest.
Others are talking openly about supporting primary challenges to senators who vote for the GOP spending bill.
Driving the news: Schumer said in a floor speech Thursday that while the GOP measure is "very bad," the possibility of a government shutdown "has consequences for America that are much, much worse."
"A shutdown would give Donald Trump the keys to the city, the state and the country," Schumer said.
The comments likely clear a path for at least eight Senate Democrats to vote for the bill — enough for Republicans to overcome the upper chamber's 60-vote filibuster threshold.
Zoom in: All but one House Democrat voted against the bill earlier this week, in large part because it lacks language to keep the Trump administration from cutting congressionally approved spending.
"There were many battleground Dems in the House ... that were uncomfortable, semi-uncomfortable, with the vote," said one House Democrat. "The Senate left the House at the altar."
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.), in remarks to his House colleagues at their annual retreat Thursday, lauded them for standing up to President Trump by voting against the bill, according to multiple sources.
When he praised House Democrats' votes, he received a standing ovation. When he mentioned Senate Democrats, members booed.
What we're hearing: House Democrats' text chains lit up Thursday night with expressions of blinding anger, according to numerous lawmakers who described the conversations on the condition of anonymity.
"People are PISSED," one House Democrat told Axios in a text message.
Several members — including moderates — have begun voicing support for a primary challenge to Schumer, floating Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and Dan Goldman (D-N.Y.) as possible candidates, three House Democrats said.
One lawmaker even vowed at the House Democratic retreat to "write a check tonight" supporting Ocasio-Cortez, said the senior House Democrat.
Another Democrat told Axios the ideation has gone a step further: "There is definitely a primary recruitment effort happening right now ... not just Schumer, but for everyone who votes no."
What they're saying: Plenty of members have also gone public with their dismay at their Senate colleagues.
"I know I speak for so many in our caucus when I say Schumer is misreading this moment. The Senate Dems must show strength and grit by voting no," said Rep. Becca Balint (D-Vt.).
Said Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.): "I don't know where Schumer is coming from. ... It doesn't look good for the leader."
What to watch: Members have spent the day frantically texting and calling their home-state senators, hoping to persuade enough of them to vote against the bill to block it. That outreach has continued late into Thursday night.
Said one member: "Folks are still working the phones tonight with their senators. We have not given up."
Some House members, in turn, have gotten an earful from constituents. "I have also never had so many people from home personally texting me—ANGRY," said another House Democrat.
"I don't think they knew who Chuck Schumer was before today," the lawmaker said. "But they know now and they hate him."
Editor's note: This article has been updated with comment from a senior House Democrat.
Lawyers for Mahmoud Khalil, a Columbia graduate and legal resident from Syria, are asking a federal judge to order U.S. immigration authorities to immediately release him and find his detention in violation of the First Amendment.
The big picture: Court documents filed late Thursday show that Khalil's lawyers intend to aggressively challenge the Trump administration's use of a rarely used law that gives the secretary of state the authority to revoke visas from foreigners deemed to be a threat.
Zoom in: Khalil's expanding legal team, which now includes the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), is asking U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman to set aside the determination by U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio that resulted in Khalil's arrest.
Lawyers want Furman to declare efforts to target noncitizens "advocating for Palestinian rights" unlawful — something President Trump hinted could be more common soon.
Catch up quick: Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents arrested Khalil on Saturday after he returned from dinner with his wife.
The Department of Homeland Security has been investigating him and gathered evidence that he was actively supporting Hamas, but not materially supporting the terror group, a White House official said.
Rubio was presented with evidence from the DHS review and determined that Khalil acted against U.S. foreign policy positions, the official said.
Context: U.S. law allows the secretary of state to deport a green card holder if that person is deemed to have "potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States" — but it's been rarely used outside of the Cold War or serious crimes, experts told Axios.
Rubio posted on X last week that the U.S. has "zero tolerance for foreign visitors who support terrorists."
He added that "violators of U.S. law — including international students — face visa denial or revocation, and deportation."
Reality check: Khalil, a legal resident with a green card, has not been charged or accused of any crimes.
Zoom out: That case has drawn international attention and generated protests nationwide.
Nearly 100 people were arrested after protesters gathered at Trump Tower in Manhattan Thursday to demand the release of Khalil.
What they're saying: "This is a clear attempt by President Trump to make an example out of Mr. Khalil and silence dissent across the country," Brett Max Kaufman, senior staff attorney with ACLU's Center for Democracy, said in a statement.
"No matter what your views are on Israel and Palestine, we should all be terrified of a government incarcerating its residents for their political opinions."
"With today's filing, we are making it crystal clear that no president can arrest, detain, or deport anyone for disagreeing with the government," said Donna Lieberman, executive director of the New York Civil Liberties Union, another group that joined the legal team.
For the record: Furman on Wednesday halted ICE from deporting Khalil, who is in a detention facility in Louisiana.
Representatives for the White House, State Department and ICE did not immediately respond to Axios' request for comment in the evening.
What we're watching: Lawyers for the Trump administration are expected to submit their response toKhalil's attorneys on Friday.
They are likely to invoke the broad authority the secretary of state has to deem foreigners a threat to the nation's foreign policy.
The legal challenge toKhalil might ultimately come down to the Supreme Court, which would decide how far the secretary of state can determine whether a permanent resident can be removed for speech.
Photos captured around the world late Thursday show a bright and illuminating Moon.
North Rhine-Westphalia, Solingen: The almost fully illuminated Moon shines in the night sky over Solingen, Germany. For places in Central Europe, the moon sets during the eclipse, even before the moon has fully entered the umbra. Photo: Gianni Gattus/picture alliance via Getty Images
What time is the Blood Moon?
The Moon appears red or orange during the lunar eclipse because "any sunlight that's not blocked by our planet is filtered through a thick slice of Earth's atmosphere," NASA said.
"It's as if all the world's sunrises and sunsets are projected onto the Moon," NASA said.
What we're watching: The Moon will appear coppery red during the lunar eclipse's totality phase for a little less than an hour, according to NASA's timeline.
This phase begins at 2:26am EDT Friday, 11:26pm PDT and 6:26 UTC.
Totality ends at 3:31am EDT, which is 12:31am PDT and 7:31 UTC.
The moon is seen as the umbral eclipse begins during the Blood Moon Lunar Eclipse above Los Angeles, California. Photo: Frederic J. Brown/AFP via Getty Images
The Blood Moon is seen behind the silhouette of the Glorieta de Las Mujeres que Luchan monument in Mexico City, Mexico prior to the lunar eclipse. Photo: Yuri Cortez/AFP via Getty Images
The full moon appears in the evening over Duhok, Iraq on March 13, 2025. Photo: Ismael Adnan Yaqoob/Anadolu via Getty Images
The full Moon rises over Tegucigalpa, the capital of Honduras on March 13. Photo: Orlando Sierra/AFP via Getty Images
The Full Worm Moon rises behind the U.S. Capitol dome at dusk on March 13 in Washington, DC. Photo: J. David Ake/Getty Images
Full Moon to appear full through Saturday
March's full Moon, also known as the "Worm Moon," is officially full at 2:55am EDT Friday, NASA said.
It will appear full for about three days — from Wednesday evening into Saturday morning.
The Trump administration must reinstate thousands of fired probationary federal workers, a judge said in a temporary restraining order on Thursday.
Why it matters: In the second such order to reinstate fired workers on Thursday, U.S. District Judge James Bredar ruled that the lawsuit brought by state attorneys general against 18 agencies was likely to succeed in showing the mass firings "were unlawful."
Driving the news: In the latest case, the Obama-appointed judge said in his order in Maryland the agencies gave "no advance notice" for the mass layoffs.
"It claims it wasn't required to because, it says, it dismissed each one of these thousands of probationary employees for 'performance' or other individualized reasons," Bredar wrote.
"On the record before the Court, this isn't true. There were no individualized assessments of employees. They were all just fired. Collectively," he added.
The big picture: The lawsuit was filed against agencies including the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development, Interior, Labor, Transportation, Treasury and Veterans Affairs, along with their secretaries.
A federal judge in California earlier on Thursday ordered six government agencies to offer fired probationary federal workers their jobs back.
Representatives for the Trump administration did not immediately respond to Axios' request for comment in the evening.
Set an alarm and reminders to look at the sky for the rare chance to see a Blood Moon total lunar eclipse late Thursday night and early Friday morning.
All of the phases of the eclipse are expected to last around six hours.
North America and South America are expected to get the best views of the eclipse, but it will be visible across the Western Hemisphere.
Total lunar eclipse and Blood Moon
A lunar eclipse occurs when the Sun, Earth and Moon align so the moon passes into Earth's shadow, according to NASA.
Total lunar eclipses occur when the Moon passes into the dark shadow of the Earth.
Lunar eclipses are sometimes called "Blood Moons" because the Moon will turn a reddish and copper hue, NASA said.
What time does the lunar eclipse start tonight?
When to watch: The hours for when the lunar eclipse will be visible vary by time zone.
The initial phase of the eclipse, called the penumbral eclipse, begins at 11:57pm EDT and 8:57pm PDT Thursday, NASA said in its timeline.
The partial eclipse begins at 1:09am EDT Friday, which is 10:09pm PDT Thursday, and as the Moon moves into the umbra "it looks like a bite is being taken out of the lunar disk."
Totality begins at 2:26am EDT Friday or 11:26pm PDT Thursday. In totality, the Moon is "tinted a coppery red."
What time does the total lunar eclipse end?
Totality ends at 3:31am EDT/12:31am PDT.
The partial eclipse ends when the Moon has set in 4:47am EDT or 1:47am PDT.
The penumbral eclipse ends when the Moon has set in 6am EDT or 3am PDT.
How to see the total lunar eclipse live
What we're watching: Unlike a solar eclipse, anyone with a view of the Moon during a lunar eclipse will be able to see it as it occurs, NASA said. Special equipment isn't needed to observe a lunar eclipse.
"Binoculars or a telescope will enhance the view," NASA said, noting a "dark environment away from bright lights makes for the best viewing conditions."
Timeanddate.com will have a live stream of the lunar eclipse starting at 1am EDT Friday.
March full Moon is the "Worm Moon"
The Moon, known as the "Worm Moon," will be full early Friday morning at 2:55am EDT, NASA said.
It will appear full for about three days — from Wednesday evening into Saturday morning.
NASA said the Maine Farmers' Almanac began publishing Native American names for full moons in the 1930s and called the March full Moon the Crow, Crust, Sap, Sugar or Worm Moon.
Why the Moon appears red during total lunar eclipse
How it works: The Moon appears red or orange because "any sunlight that's not blocked by our planet is filtered through a thick slice of Earth's atmosphere," NASA said.
"It's as if all the world's sunrises and sunsets are projected onto the Moon," NASA said.
President Trump opened the door Thursday for Senate Republicans to find cost savings in Medicaid as they hunt for ways to pay for his border, defense and tax priorities, Axios has learned.
Why it matters: Trump has been emphatic that Medicaid benefits won't be "touched," but he endorsed looking for "waste, fraud and abuse" and even imposing new work requirements.
On Thursday, Trump and some top White House officials met with Republican senators on the Finance Committee, which includes Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) and GOP Whip John Barrasso (R-Wyo.).
Zoom in: Trump indicated to senators he is open to cutting "waste, fraud and abuse" from any mandatory spending — including Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security, multiple senators in the meeting told Axios.
Social Security can't be dealt with in reconciliation.
Trump expressed openness to work requirements for Medicaid and discussing ways to reduce the rate of growth of some health care programs which could be counted as potentially hundreds of billions of dollars in savings.
He was also clear he wants Congress to deal with raising the debt ceiling in the reconciliation package and supports making his 2017 tax cuts permanent by using a "current policy" maneuver to make the cost $0.
"It became clear that [Trump] wanted to be bold," one senator told Axios, requesting anonymity to speak candidly.
What they're saying: "The President wants to make sure that we do eliminate waste, fraud, abuse, and, you know, there are a number of scams going on right now with Medicaid," Barrasso told Axios.
"There is money laundering being done with regard to Medicaid, and the American taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for that," Barrasso said.
What to watch: The group also discussed an idea of codifying DOGE cuts with a big rescission package, which could be passed with a simple majority in the Senate — rather than needing Democrats to break the filibuster.
Johns Hopkins University said Thursday it's axing more than 2,200 jobs in the U.S. and overseas due to the Trump administration ending over $800 million in USAID funding.
Johns Hopkins said the cuts have forced it to "wind down critical work" in Baltimore and internationally.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced this week the Trump administration was canceling 83% of USAID programs.
Driving the news: "We can confirm that the elimination of foreign aid funding has led to the loss of 1,975 positions in 44 countries internationally and 247 in the United States in the affected programs," the university said in an emailed statement Thursday evening.
"An additional 29 international and 78 domestic employees will be furloughed with a reduced schedule."
The university said it's proud of the work at places impacted by the cuts.
Cuts affected Jhpiego, a recognized expert in maternal health; the Bloomberg School of Public Health, the oldest and largest such school in the U.S.; and the School of Medicine.
It works "to care for mothers and infants, fight disease, provide clean drinking water, and advance countless other critical, life-saving efforts around the world," the university added in the statement.
What's next: U.S. based workers are being given at least 60 days of advance notice before the reductions or furloughs take effect, per Johns Hopkins.
The university said it is providing "support with additional benefits, assistance, and resources to help employees navigate this transition and explore new opportunities."
"For international employees, we will be complying with local employment laws."
A federal judge on Thursday ordered six government agencies to offer fired probationary federal workers their jobs back.
Why it matters: At least 30,000 probationary workers have been fired in DOGE's sweeping remaking of the government. A few federal agencies have called their people back, but most are still not working.
Zoom out: The order is effective immediately, ruled Judge William Alsup, a Clinton appointee who presides in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
Alsup said the Office of Personnel Management's order and the firing process was basically a "sham," noting that some probationary workers had been told that they were fired based on their performance.
"It is sad, a sad day," said Alsup. "Our government would fire some good employee, and say it was based on performance. When they know good and well, that's a lie."
Zoom in: The agencies ordered to re-hire workers include the Department of Agriculture, Department of Defense, Department of Energy, Department of the Interior, Department of Treasury, and Veterans Affairs.
Notably the Treasury Department includes the IRS. The tax agency has been hit hard by job cuts in recent weeks.
The big picture: The order comes just as agencies are set to undertake even more firings, or "reduction in force" in federal jargon.
These reduction memos from each agency are due Thursday and are expected to detail as many as 250,000 job cuts.
Alsup's decision comes on top of a ruling last week from the Merit Systems Protections Board, a federal agency that reviews worker complaints, ordering the reinstatement of 6,000 workers at the USDA.
Where it stands: In his ruling, Alsup made clear that it is within an agency's right to conduct a reduction in force, as long as it complies with the law.
"This case is really an attempt to do a reduction in force, but to force it through the OPM," Alsup said.
OPM argued that it did not order these firings — but the judge read from agency letters that made clear that the firings had been ordered by OPM.
He also pointed to the firing of an employee of the U.S. Forest Service, who had just months earlier received a positive performance review but was told in her termination letter that she was being fired due to poor performance.
The firing process, he said, "was a sham in order to try to avoid statutory requirements."
What they're saying: The White House "will immediately fight back against this absurd and unconstitutional order," press secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a statement Thursday.
"A single judge is attempting to unconstitutionally seize the power of hiring and firing from the Executive Branch," she said. "If a federal district court judge would like executive powers, they can try and run for President themselves. "
Catch up quick: The lawsuit was filed by unions representing federal workers, as well as several advocacy groups, including the Coalition to Protect American's National Parks.
The plaintiffs argued that the Office of Personnel Management didn't have that authority to order these firings, and in an initial ruling last month Alsup agreed.
Earlier this week, lawyers for the White House retracted testimony from the acting chair of the Office of Personnel Management, Charles Ezell, rather than comply with Alsup's request that he testify or be deposed.
Alsup was not pleased about that — nor with the government's attempt to use press releases to argue that the firings were something agencies did on their own.
"I want you to know that I've been practicing or serving in this court for over 50 years, and I know how that we get at the truth," Alsup said. "And you're not helping me get at the truth. You're giving me press releases. Sham documents."
Of note: As the hearing came to a close, Alsup apologized for getting worked up.
"I want to make it clear that I don't think counsel for the government has done anything dishonorable. I've given him a hard time," he said. "He's doing the best he can with the case he's got. Thank you for your service in the Justice Department."
Editor's Note: This story has been updated to remove an erroneously attributed statement.
Senate Democrats are prepared to vote Friday to keep the government open, with not much to show for it.
Why it matters: The outcome will spark the fury of many Democrats and the grassroots of the party, who have lobbied this week for the lawmakers to block the short-term funding bill.
Schumer privately told his colleagues Thursday he plans to help break the filibuster on the GOP-led government funding bill, sources told Axios. The New York Times was first to report on his comments.
Zoom in: "While the CR bill is very bad, the potential for a shutdown has consequences for America that are much, much worse," Schumer said Thursday on the Senate floor.
"A shutdown would give Donald Trump the keys to the city, the state and the country," Schumer said.
"The shutdown is not a political game. Shutdown means real pain for American families."
Between the lines: Most of Schumer's colleagues will vote against him. But Senate Democrats only need to provide eight votes to help keep the government open.
Democrats are expected to get amendment votes on the bill, which will give the party members some cover in voting for the package.
The GOP expects the Democratic votes it needs will come from senators up for tough 2026 races as well as those who are retiring, as we told you last week.
Schumer and Senate GOP leader John Thune (R-S.D.) will need a time agreement to speed up the vote.
The other side: Their House colleagues aren't buying it.
"Those games won't fool anyone. It won't trick voters, it won't trick House members. People will not forget it," Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) wrote Thursday on X about a 30-day CR amendment vote.
"Senate Republicans should back down from screwing over their own constituents," said Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas). "Democrats were elected to fight for working people, not put up a fake fight."
House Democrats were almost unanimous in opposition on Tuesday. Only Rep. Jared Golden (D-Maine) voted for the bill.
The bottom line: Schumer ensured he'll be the main Democratic villain of this week's drama. But he'll spare his party the pain of a shutdown and the political consequences no one can predict.
Rep. Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.), a giant of the progressive wing of the Democratic Party, died Thursday due to complications from his cancer treatment, his office announced. He was 77.
What they're saying: "Rep. Grijalva fought a long and brave battle. He passed away this morning due to complications of his cancer treatments," the Arizona Democrat's staff said in a statement.
The former chair of the House Natural Resources Committee was diagnosed with cancer last April.
Wholesale egg prices are starting to drift lower amid signs that the bird flu is easing, but don't expect to find lower prices at grocery stores yet.
Why it matters: Even as President Trump is claiming victory, his administration is acknowledging that the upcoming Easter holiday could cause prices to jump again.
The big picture: The highly pathogenic avian influenza has led to tens of millions of chickens being culled, triggering shortages and price spikes.
Trump on Wednesday took credit for falling prices, saying "we did a lot of things that got the cost of eggs down, very substantially."
But while wholesale prices have started to tick down, grocery shoppers are still paying more than ever for a dozen eggs.
When are egg prices coming down?
Wholesale egg prices fell by $1.20 to $6.85 per dozen last week, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture's March 7 report.
The department noted that flu outbreaks had slowed over the past two weeks and been "localized, which is providing producers in unaffected regions with an opportunity to make progress in reducing the egg deficit problem the market has been experiencing."
The latest: The price of Midwest large eggs was $5.23 per dozen on Thursday, down 39% from its peak two weeks earlier, according to Karyn Rispoli, managing editor for eggs in the Americas for price-reporting service Expana.
Yes, but: The price consumers are actually paying still rose 10% from January to February, according to the latest Consumer Price Index released Wednesday.
Egg prices were up 59% from February 2024 to February 2025.
The USDA said in a recent report that egg prices are expected to rise by 41.1% this year.
Between the lines: Consumers often don't see wholesale price drops reflected at the grocery store — at least not immediately.
"There's usually (at least) a two-to-three-week lag between wholesale and retail pricing, and since the market only started correcting last Monday, shoppers haven't seen the impact of these lower prices at the grocery store just yet," Rispoli said Thursday.
"The main driver behind this drop is weakened demand, largely due to widespread purchasing restrictions and elevated shelf prices," she said. "Right now, consumers are still experiencing the peak of the market in terms of what they're paying at checkout."
Easter could cause egg prices to soar
State of play: Easter is traditionally one of the highest demand periods for eggs with eggs playing a big part of Easter traditions and the Jewish holiday of Passover.
This year, Easter is April 20, the latest date since 2019. Passover starts April 12.
"We're going into Easter season. This is always the highest price for eggs," Agricultural Secretary Brooke Rollins said Tuesday. "We expect it to perhaps inch back up."
What they're saying: Kevin Bergquist, Wells Fargo Agri-Food Institute sector manager, said in a new report that egg prices "will likely remain highly variable for the near future, but at a higher-than-usual level."
"In the short term, we will likely see a continuation of high egg prices," Bergquist said. "The Easter season is just around the corner, and the demand for eggs is not abating."
The bottom line: If egg prices are still high for Easter, expect families to turn to alternatives like painting and hiding potatoes, an idea that sprouted in 2023 because of high prices.
A new documentary on the Columbia University student Palestinian rights movement featuring now-detained graduate Mahmoud Khalil will be released at a film festival later this month.
Why it matters: The film, months in the making, gives more insight into the plight of Khalil's family from Palestine during the 1948 Nakba to decades in refugee camps in Syria and his role in 2024 encampment protests.
The big picture: Khalil remains detained at an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facility in Louisiana amid a legal battle to prevent his deportation from the U.S. after the Trump administration ordered his removal.
He was arrested last week after the Department of Homeland Security concluded he was actively supporting Hamas but not materially supporting the terror group, a White House official said.
His detention has sparked national student protests around the country.
Zoom in: Watermelon Pictures announced Thursday that it has completed "The Encampments," a documentary chronicling the Columbia University encampments and the international wave of student activism they ignited.
"The film ensures the students in (the) U.S and Gaza are heard, their actions are remembered, and the fight for Palestinian liberation continues," Grammy Award-Winning rapper Macklemore, a co-producer, said in a statement.
Khalil is one of the main protagonists in the film.
"I was born in a Palestinian refugee camp in southern Damascus in Syria. My family's history in Palestine actually goes back as long as my grandparents can trace it," Khalil says in the documentary.
Khalil talks about how his grandparents were violently forced off their land during the 1948 war and became refugees.
Context: Until now, reporters have been trying to piece togetherKhalil's biography and determine why the Trump administration targeted him first amid a promised crackdown on immigrants who voice support for the Palestinians.
ICE records show Khalil is a Syrian national and a citizen of Algeria.
He was one of the most visible activists in the Columbia protests and served as a student negotiator.
Khalil finished his master's degree in public administration at Columbia's School of International and Public Affairs in December and now holds a green card after he married his wife, a U.S. citizen.
Zoom out: Secretary of State Marco Rubio was presented with evidence from the DHS review and determined that Khalil acted against U.S. foreign policy positions, the official said.
U.S. law allows the secretary of state to deport a green card holder if that person is deemed to have "potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States."
Green card holders can be removed from the U.S. for many other reasons, like breaking U.S. law. Khalil has not been charged with any crime.
President Trump praised the Khalil arrest this week, promising it's the first of "many to come."
The intrigue: In an interview with NPR on Thursday,Troy Edgar, the deputy secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, struggled to explain what Khalil did to face deportation.
"I think you can see it on TV, right? This is somebody that we've invited and allowed the student to come into the country, and he's put himself in the middle of the process of basically pro-Palestinian activity," he said.
But he declined to say what specific actions Khalil committed to amount to removal.
What we're watching: The legal challenge toKhalil might ultimately come down to the Supreme Court, which would decide how far the secretary of state can determine whether a permanent resident can be removed for speech.
Russian President Vladimir Putin said in a press conference in Moscow on Thursday that he needs more clarifications before Russia agrees to a ceasefire with Ukraine.
Why it matters: The U.S. and Ukraine both endorsed an unconditional 30-day ceasefire on Tuesday that calls for all air and artillery strikes to stop and fighting to cease all along the front lines. Putin raised doubts about that idea and said any ceasefire should also be part of a process that addresses the "root causes of this crisis."
He noted that his troops had been retaking occupied territory in Russia's Kursk region in recent days and advancing along the front lines in Ukraine, and asked, "What would happen during those 30 days?"
Specifically, Putin raised the fate of the Ukrainian soldiers still in Kursk, asking, "Would it mean that everybody there would leave? Should we release them after they committed serious crimes against civilians?"
But Putin also thanked President Trump for his efforts and took a less hardline position than his senior aide, Yuri Ushakov, who said earlier on Thursday that Trump's proposal was "nothing other than a temporary timeout for Ukrainian soldiers."
"The idea is good and we absolutely support it, but there are issues we need to discuss, and I think we need to negotiate with our American colleagues," Putin said.
What's next: White House envoy Steve Witkoff arrived in Moscow on Thursday to meet with Putin about the ceasefire proposal.
Ushakov said Putin and Witkoff would meet privately on Thursday night.
This is a developing story. Check back for updates.
A coalition of 21 Democratic attorneys general on Thursday sued the Trump administration over its plan to dismantle the U.S. Department of Education.
Why it matters: President Trump's Education Secretary, Linda McMahon, confirmed the mass layoffs this week were the first step toward shuttering the department.
Driving the news: The attorneys general argue that the recent mass layoff of department staff was "illegal and unconstitutional. They're seeking a court order to stop further disruption.
The lawsuit asserts that "only Congress may abolish an agency it created." McMahon did acknowledge this week that Congress would have to be involved in disbanding the department.
McMahon has the authority to "modestly restructure" the department, but her permissions are limited, the lawsuit said.
However, it noted, "She is not permitted to eliminate or disrupt functions required by statute, nor can she transfer the department's responsibilities to another agency outside of its statutory authorization."
The big picture: The mass layoffs will cause loss or delays in funding or support "impacting nearly every aspect of K-12 education" in the states that sued, the lawsuit said.
Impacts will include teacher shortages and a loss in professional development and salaries for specialists who work with students with disabilities, the attorneys general said.
The cuts "will result in lost educational opportunities for students that cannot be recovered or remedied," they wrote.
The recent layoffs will acutely hurt low-income and disabled students, who rely on supports provided via federal funding, New York Attorney General Letitia James said in a statement.
Zoom in: The attorneys general participating in the lawsuit are from Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington, Wisconsin, Vermont, and the District of Columbia.
Democratic attorneys general have launched challenges to several of the Trump administration's actions and executive orders.
On Thursday afternoon, the case was assigned to a Magistrate Judge Page Kelley in the U.S. District Court of Massachusetts.
Alcohol appears to be one of the earliest casualties of President Trump's trade war, one he escalated Thursday with a threat to impose massive levies on European wine and Champagne.
Why it matters: The alcohol industries may not have had the same influence in the tariff fight so far as automakers, but there's still billions of dollars in revenue and thousands of jobs at stake.
Driving the news: On Wednesday the U.S. imposed 25% tariffs on steel and aluminum, prompting retaliation from top trading partners like Canada and the European Union.
The EU quickly reimposed previously suspended counter-measures, including 50% tariffs on American whiskey as of April 1.
On Thursday, Trump responded, threatening a 200% tariff on European wine and Champagne if the whiskey levy wasn't removed.
"This will be great for the Wine and Champagne businesses in the U.S.," Trump posted on Truth Social.
Yes, but: Historically, it's not.
In 2020 the U.S. Wine Trade Alliance begged Trump to suspend a previous set of retaliatory tariffs on EU exports that had been imposed in 2019, citing their significant impact on the hospitality industries.
By the numbers: The U.S. imports more than $6.7 billion worth of wine a year, per the American Association of Wine Economists, with about two-thirds of that coming from France and Italy.
What they're saying: "We urge President Trump to secure a spirits agreement with the EU to get us back to zero-for-zero tariffs, which will create U.S. jobs and increase manufacturing and exports for the American hospitality sector," the Distilled Spirits Council of the United States said in a statement.
"We want toasts not tariffs."
💭 Thought bubble, from Axios economics reporter Courtenay Brown: The EU is quickly learning the risk of trying to hit Trump where it hurts, like red-state industries.
He doesn't back down, he doubles down. "If you make him unhappy, he responds unhappy," as Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick told Bloomberg TV Thursday.
The bottom line: To paraphrase FDR, what America needs now is a drink — but not if it costs 200% more.
