A wildfire in California's San Luis Obispo County exploded in size Thursday, triggering evacuation orders and sending smoke plumes southeast into Santa Barbara and Ventura counties.
The big picture: The Madre Fire had grown to 35,530 acres on Thursday afternoon — surpassing January's destructive Los Angeles-area fires to become California's largest this year, as much of the state faces hot, dry conditions that raise the wildfire risk ahead of the Fourth of July holiday.
The Madre Fire erupted in size in California yesterday and last night, becoming the state's largest wildfire so far this year.
Officials warn that the smoke impacts of the blaze that's one of several wildfires burning in the state will be "far-reaching."
Zoom in: The Madre Fire was burning at 5% containment in a wilderness area of central California near State Route 166 after igniting on Wednesday afternoon, per Cal Fire.
Part of the highway was closed due to the blaze, per a San Luis Obispo County Office of Emergency Services Facebook post.
Evacuation orders and warnings were in effect for communities in San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara counties near the highway as the blaze burned toward Carrizo Plain National Monument, a region some 125 miles northwest of LA that's known for its grasslands and spring wildflowers.
Between the lines: Research shows hot, dry and windy weather that helps wildfires spread is becoming more common across much of the U.S. amid climate change, per Axios' Alex Fitzpatrick.
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security says it arrested Mexican boxer Julio César Chávez Jr., and he's being processed for expedited removal from the U.S. due to an active arrest warrant in Mexico.
Why it matters: Chávez is the son of Mexican boxing legend Julio César Chávez and just lost against Jake Paul by unanimous decision in a 10-round cruiserweight subpar bout this weekend.
The big picture: This appears to be the first time the Trump administration is seeking to remove a high-profile athlete from the country amid stepped-up immigration enforcement.
And the detainment came a year before the U.S. serves as one of the countries hosting the World Cup, which is already drawing scrutiny from civil rights and labor groups over the U.S. government's immigration policies.
Driving the news: DHS posted on X on Thursday that it had detained Chávez and was placing him for fast-track removal.
"This Sinaloa Cartel affiliate has an active arrest warrant in Mexico for his involvement in organized crime and trafficking firearms, ammunitions and explosives," the department posted.
The department also alleged that Chávez was a "criminal illegal alien" and said he had previously been arrested in the U.S. on DUI and weapons charges.
A district judge in 2023 also issued an arrest warrant for Chávez on charges related to organized crime.
Chávez's attorney, Michael Goldstein, told ESPN that the boxer was picked up by federal agents while riding a scooter near his home in Studio City, California.
Goldstein didn't know where Chávez was being detained, but said they were due in court on Monday for his criminal charges.
Zoom in: DHS stated that Chávez entered the country legally in August 2023 with a B2 tourist visa, which was valid until February 2024.
He then filed an application for Lawful Permanent Resident status in April 2024, the department said.
"Chávez's application was based on his marriage to a U.S. citizen, who is connected to the Sinaloa Cartel through a prior relationship with the now-deceased son of the infamous cartel leader Joaquin 'El Chapo' Guzman," the department said.
Axios could not independently verify the claim.
State of play: The Biden administration allowed Chávez to reenter the country in January and paroled him into the country at the San Ysidro port of entry, the Trump administration said.
"Following multiple fraudulent statements on his application to become a Lawful Permanent Resident, he was determined to be in the country illegally and removable on June 27, 2025," the department said.
What they're saying: "It is shocking the previous administration flagged this criminal illegal alien as a public safety threat, but chose to not prioritize his removal and let him leave and COME BACK into our country,"said DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said in a release.
"Under President Trump, no one is above the law—including world-famous athletes."
The Big, Beautiful Bill, passed Thursday by Congress, dramatically increases funding for immigration enforcement in accordance with President Trump's policy priorities.
Why it matters: The funding will allow the Trump administration to approximately double immigrant detention capacity, significantly bolster immigration enforcement personnel and potentially exacerbate backlogs in the court system.
The big picture: The bill, which will go to Trump's desk by his July 4 goal, allocates more than $100 billion to ICE and border enforcement through September 2029.
While the funding runs until 2029, federal departments are not required to spend the money evenly each year.
The legislation makes ICE the largest federal law enforcement agency, per the Brennan Center.
Zoom out: The existing annual budget for ICE was about $8 billion.
Context: Trump's immigration enforcement policies have put ICE under financial strain.
As of last month, ICE was $1 billion over budget, by one estimate, with more than three months left in the fiscal year.
The funding crisis is exacerbated by Trump's demands that agents arrest 3,000 immigrants per day — an unprecedented, and still unreached, pace.
Read more about some of the bill's immigration funding allocations:
Border wall
$46.5 billion will go toward border wall expenses including construction, installation, improvement, access roads, cameras, lights and other detection technology.
Zoom out: Border crossings earlier this year plunged to the lowest level in decades as Trump began implementing and broadcasting his immigration crackdown.
Detention capacity
$45 billion is for single adult detention and family residential centers.
The detention standards will be under the discretion of the Secretary of Homeland Security, the bill says.
State of play: This could fund an increase in ICE detention to at least 116,000 beds, according to a July 1 report from the American Immigration Council said.
Personnel and facilities
$29.9 billion is set to fund hiring, training and retention of ICE officers, agents, investigators and support staff as well as ICE technology, transportation and fleet modernization.
$5 billion was apportioned for the lease, acquisition, construction, design or improvement of facilities and checkpoints owned or operated by Customs and Border Protection.
$4.1 billion will support hiring and training Border Patrol agents, Customs and Border Protection field support personnel, Air and Marine Agents and others.
An additional $2 billion will go toward retention, hiring and performance bonuses.
Immigration court
$3.3 billion for hiring immigration judges, attorneys and support staff; combatting drug trafficking; prosecuting of immigration matters.
Effective November 2028, the Executive Office for Immigration Review is limited to staffing 800 immigration judges and their support staff.
Providing a small sum to immigration courts while increasing funding for immigration arrests and detention "will likely dramatically increase already high immigration court case backlogs particularly for people held in detention facilities," per the American Immigration Council.
The House passed President Trump's "big, beautiful bill" Thursday, clearing the way for Trump to sign it by his July 4 deadline.
Why it matters: It's a massive victory for Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), who was able to flip dozens of members who had initially threatened to vote "no" — as well as for Trump and Senate Republicans.
The bill passed 218-214. Reps. Thomas Massie (Ky.) and Brian Fitzpatrick (Pa.) were the only Republicans to join all Democrats in voting against the measure.
Moderates and conservatives demanded adjustments after the Senate made significant changes to the House version — but ultimately none were made.
The big picture: Several key holdouts flipped following meetings with the president at the White House, but a group of hardliners needed more persuading.
Johnson and other leaders shuffled in and out of a room tucked off the House floor where House Freedom Caucus members camped out during negotiations.
Trump "was directly engaged" throughout the evening in the ongoing effort to sway lawmakers, who "wanted to hear certain assurances from him about what's ahead, what the future will entail, and what we're going to do next," Johnson told reporters.
The House narrowly approved its own version of the bill in May with the commitment from leadership that members would see improvements.
Zoom in: House GOP leadership had to hold open what was meant to be a five-minute procedural vote for hours Wednesday as they worked to whip the remaining "no" votes.
Another vote to start debate on the bill was left open for nearly 6 hours.
Between the lines: The House floor again came to a standstill overnight while House leaders continued negotiations.
A resolution setting the terms for floor debate on the reconciliation package was eventually adopted — at about 3:30am Thursday.
In the end, Fitzpatrick was the only Republican to vote with all Democrats in opposition to the rule resolution.
The intrigue: And after GOP leaders finally secured the votes to pass the bill, Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa.) caused yet another delay.
Perry had returned to Pennsylvania to get a "fresh change of clothes," according to Johnson.
Conservatives demanded House leaders wait for him to return to Washington to cast his vote.
Johnson said he even offered to loan Perry clothes, but Perry refused the offer.
Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) held the floor for close to nine hours Thursday to protest the proposal, setting a new record.
But Democrats ultimately could only delay and not block the plan.
The details: The bill makes permanent Trump's 2017 tax cuts and adds additional tax benefits, including eliminating taxes on tips and overtime and giving a temporary tax deduction for those 65 and older.
It makes significant changes to Medicaid, including imposing work requirements and reducing federal cost-sharing with states.
It raises the debt ceiling by $5 trillion, and provides $175 billion for border security as well as $150 billion for defense.
It temporarily raises the cap on state and local tax (SALT) deductions to $40,000 before reverting to the current $10,000 cap after 5 years.
By the numbers: The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the bill would add roughly $3.3 trillion to the national debt over the next 10 years.
The White House disputes the analysis, arguing it would instead decrease the deficit by over $5 trillion when combined with other growth efforts.
CBO also estimates the changes to Medicaid would result in nearly 12 million fewer people with health insurance over the next decade.
What's next: Johnson is already eyeing another reconciliation package for later this year.
"The plan is to do one in the fall for FY26 budget year, and we can also squeeze in a third one for FY27 before this Congress is up," Johnson said on Fox Tuesday.
"Speaker Johnson has been really good about talking long-term, that this is not the only tool at the disposal of Congress," Rep. Dusty Johnson (R-S.D.) told reporters.
He added: "There are a number of other things that can be done legislatively in the months to come to more fully deliver conservative priorities."
Data: USDA, U.S. Census Bureau; Note: Share calculated using July 2024 population estimates; Map: Kavya Beheraj/Axios
President Trump's massive tax and spending bill, which is advancing through the House after surviving its Republican push through the Senate, would slash food benefits for thousands.
The big picture: It would mark a historic cut to the social safety net that Republicans claim weeds out waste, fraud and abuse — but experts say the restructuring of assistance programs could leave more people hungry and uninsured.
Context: Trump's signature policy bill adjusts work requirements for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, the country's largest nutrition assistance program.
In order to keep their benefits under the Senate-passed version of the bill, parents of children aged 14 or older would have to meet work requirements. The bill also bumps the work requirement age up to 64.
Currently, SNAP's requirements for able-bodied adults without dependents apply to those between 18 and 54.
It could also force some states to shoulder more benefit costs, the rate of which would be set by a state's percent of erroneous payments. Benefits are currently 100% federally funded, though states share administrative costs.
Threat level: Medicaid and food aid cuts could also lead to job losses and hits to state GDPs, Axios' Alex Fitzpatrick writes.
Zoom out: In March 2025, more than 42 million Americans participated in SNAP, according to initial USDA data.
The program provides crucial support for families with low-paying jobs, low-income older adults, people with disabilities and others.
According to a CBPP analysis of FY 2024 USDA data, more than 62% of SNAP participants are in families with children, and more than 38% are in working families.
New Mexico has the largest share participating in SNAP, with some 21% of the population helped by the program, according to preliminary March data.
By the numbers: The bill would reduce nutrition funding, which includes SNAP, by around $186 billion between 2025 and 2034.
While analyst's projections have fluctuated as the legislation's provisions are tweaked, analysts have indicated millions of people could be cut from SNAP under the work requirement provisions.
CBPP points to a CBO indication that more than 2 million people would be cut from SNAP under the work requirement provision.
While the CBPP notes that revised legislation released June 25 slightly modified several SNAP provisions in the reconciliation plan, it still says more than 5 million people live in households at risk of losing at least some food assistance.
Driving the news: The stablecoin company Circle, fresh off its $18 billion IPO, confirmed on Monday that it had applied with the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) to establish a national trust bank, First National Digital Currency Bank, N.A.
The cryptocurrency firm Ripple announced Wednesday that it too had also applied for a national banking license.
And others are seeking approval too, including Fidelity's digital assets business.
The big picture: The sudden rush comes as stablecoin legislation, which defines new requirements for issuers in the U.S., moves closer to President Trump's desk.
Large issuers will need the imprimatur of the OCC to run a compliant dollar-backed stablecoin if Congress passes the GENIUS Act this year.
A national charter would also smooth the path for digital asset firms to expand their business lines, setting them up to offer custody services, tokenized assets and payment infrastructures.
Between the lines: National trust banks aren't traditional Main Street banks, and can't accept customer deposits or make loans.
Circle said that, if approved, First National Digital Currency Bank would manage the reserve assets backing its stablecoin, USDC, and offer custody services to institutional customers.
State of play: One crypto company has had such a charter since 2021: Anchorage Digital. It declined to comment on its stablecoin plans.
Paxos, another stablecoin issuer, which oversees Paypal's PYUSD, sought a charter previously, but the application expired in 2023.
Paxos declined to comment about whether or not it would renew its application.
The American labor market keeps hanging on, even as signs of weakness crop up.
Why it matters: Hiring is solid, defying expectations that the worrisome macroeconomic backdrop — huge uncertainty about trade, immigration, and the fiscal outlook — would keep more employers on the sidelines.
But Thursday's Bureau of Labor Statistics report stops well short of giving an "all-clear" for the economy.
Beyond the headline, labor supply is dwindling and demand for workers is narrowing. These issues could plague the labor market in the months ahead.
By the numbers: Employment increased by 147,000 last month, surpassing the gain of 115,000 jobs forecasters anticipated. The unemployment rate edged down a tick to 4.1%.
The government revised up payroll figures for April and May, noting that employment in the prior two months was higher by a combined 16,000 than initially forecast.
The report showed that 80.7% of the prime-age population — those aged 25-54 — was employed, just 0.2 percentage point shy of the peak seen in this economic cycle.
Zoom in: Conditions look less cheery beneath the surface. The private sector added just 74,000 jobs in June, almost half as many as the previous month.
Jobs growth was overwhelmingly concentrated in state and local government, with less impressive gains in the most cyclical sectors — that is, those most exposed to the weakening economy.
State and local government added 73,000 jobs, offsetting the continued declines in federal government (-7,000) from DOGE-related layoffs. The other big gainer was health care, which added 39,000 jobs.
While the number of unemployed Americans fell, the labor force also continued to shrink for the second consecutive month, helping keep downward pressure on the unemployment rate. Another 130,000 workers exited the workforce in June.
What they're saying: "There are real weaknesses in the market — including concentrated job gains, slowing wage growth, and falling participation — that have persisted for months, and there are scant signs of those concerns fading anytime soon," Indeed economist Cory Stahle wrote Thursday morning.
The big picture: Stahle compared the current labor market to a sturdy tent, but one that is "increasingly held up by fewer poles."
Among those poles are structural forces, including a shortage of workers from America's aging population and the immigration crackdown.
There is also an "ongoing reluctance among employers so far" to layoff workers in masse, a scarring effect of the pandemic when it was impossible to find and train staff.
Yes, but: There are profound economic changes underway that look set to supersede those factors; the adoption of AI is already shifting employers' hiring plans.
President Trump is ending the era of free trade, making it more costly for businesses to get goods from overseas — a dynamic that will force a reckoning among companies about their other expenses, including labor.
The bottom line: "Even well-staked tents can collapse when the wind shifts hard enough," Stahle says.
The overwhelming consensus on Capitol Hill was that House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) would only delay President Trump's "big, beautiful bill" by about an hour. By midday Thursday, he had broken the record for the longest House speech in history.
Why it matters: For months, the Democratic base has been demanding their party's leaders "fight harder" and use every tool at their disposal to stymie the GOP agenda. In the eyes of many lawmakers, this is Jeffries delivering.
"The base wants to see certain things and we have to show them those things, otherwise they don't believe we're fighting hard enough," one House Democrat told Axios.
Jeffries blasted the GOP's marquee tax and spending bill as an "immoral document" in his speech, vowing to "stand up and push back against it with everything we have on behalf of the American people."
At 1:26pm ET, Jeffries surpassed then-Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy's (R-Calif.) record-breaking, 8-and-a-half hour speech to delay the Build Back Better vote in 2021. He wrapped up about 15 minutes later, after a total of eight hours and 44 minutes.
What we're hearing: One of Jeffries' central motivations, numerous Democratic sources told Axios, was to ensure that Republicans were forced to pass the bill during daylight hours and not in the dead of night.
Jeffries said in his speech: "I ask the question, if Republicans were so proud of this one big, ugly bill, why did debate begin at 3:28am in the morning?"
"This is about fighting for the American people ... forcing it into the daylight and telling some stories about the real impacts," House Democratic caucus chair Pete Aguilar (D-Calif.) told Axios.
Zoom in: Jeffries spoke with House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) ahead of the speech to warn him about his plans, two sources familiar with the discussion told Axios on the condition of anonymity to share details of a private conversation.
The House Democratic leader communicated that he was "just going to do an hour," one of the sources said, but that it "may be longer now."
Another source said Jeffries made that decision "when he learned [Johnson] was going to stay all night until he got the votes."
Multiple lawmakers told Axios that his plans were fueled by Republicans' own record-breaking delay tactics: "Part of it was all the bulls*** that happened last night, all the delays," said Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.).
What he's saying: "Budgets are moral documents, and in our view ... budgets should be designed to lift people up," Jeffries said in his speech.
"This reckless Republican budget that we are debating right now on the floor on the House of Representatives tears people down ... and every should vote 'no' against it," he said.
Jeffries was consistently surrounded by dozens of House Democratic colleagues, who raucously applauded him throughout his speech.
Yes, but: The Democratic leader did face a bit of frustration from his caucus for leaving even his inner circle in the dark about his plans.
"No one is upset Hakeem wanted to do this, but to not tell members, 'be prepared, book multiple flights, be flexible,'" a second House Democrat who spoke on the condition of anonymity vented, grumbling that it is particularly hard to rebook flights around the July 4 holiday.
A third House Democrat fumed that a "heads up would have been nice."
Between the lines: Jeffries' marathon speech comes after Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) delivered a 25-hour filibuster in April that earned him plaudits from the Democrats' grassroots as a resistance hero.
Later that month, Jeffries and Booker held a day-long sit-in on the Capitol steps in protest of Republicans' fiscal plans.
The bottom line:"I've done 12 town halls in my district, and the common theme is not only 'fight back,' but 'fight harder' and 'use your voice' and use every tool that is available to you,'" said McGovern.
"One of those tools is our voice," he added. "Hakeem is actually reading real-life stories [of people who would be affected by the bill] ... and I think that's powerful."
Said the first House Democrat who spoke anonymously: "So much of politics has turned into showtime, and so we do showtime."
Editor's note: This story has been updated with additional reporting.
White House envoy Steve Witkoff is planning to meet Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi in Oslo next week to restart nuclear talks, according to two sources familiar with the discussions.
"We have no travel announcements at this time," a White House official told Axios.
The Iranian mission to the UN declined to comment.
Behind the scenes: Witkoff and Araghchi have been in direct contact during and since the 12-day war between Israel and Iran, which ended in a U.S.-brokered ceasefire, according to the sources.
Omani and Qatari officials have also been involved in mediating between the two sides.
In the immediate aftermath of the war, the Iranians were reluctant to engage with the U.S., but that position has gradually softened.
Israel's Channel 12 was the first to report on the planned meeting.
What to watch: A key issue in any future talks will be Iran's stockpile of highly enriched uranium, which includes 400 kilograms enriched to 60%.
Israeli and U.S. officials say the material is currently "sealed off from the outside world" inside the three nuclear sites attacked during the joint strikes: the enrichment facilities at Natanz and Fordow, and the underground tunnels at the Isfahan site.
Iran is unable to access the stockpile for now due to damage from the strikes, but it could be recovered once the rubble is cleared.
State of play: Iran announced earlier this week that it has begun implementing a new law passed by parliament that suspends all cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
Araghchi wrote on X Thursday that Iran remains committed to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and its Safeguards Agreement.
"In accordance with the new legislation by [parliament], sparked by the unlawful attacks against our nuclear facilities by Israel and the U.S., our cooperation with the IAEA will be channeled through Iran's Supreme National Security Council for obvious safety and security reasons," he wrote.
The Supreme Court will hear two cases over state laws barring transgender athletes from participating in women's sports in its fall term, the court announced Thursday.
Why it matters: The cases have the potential to enshrine that Title IX, which prohibits sex discrimination in education programs, does not mean transgender athletes can compete in sports that align with their gender expression.
The court took up two cases over transgender athlete ban laws in Idaho and West Virginia.
Flashback: In 2024, the court shot down former President Biden's attempt to use Title IX to protect LGBTQ+ students.
The court also ended its term in June with a decision that allows parents to opt their children out of school activities with LGBTQ+ characters or themes that might offend religious sensibilities.
Manufacturing and defense companies stand to win from the "big, beautiful bill," while wind and solar fare worse and hospitals could be hit hard.
Why it matters: Investors welcome the certainty of the bill, but are also nervous about heavily exposed sectors.
The big picture: Companies will get expanded provisions on itemization and expenses, including 100% bonus depreciation, which allows business to deduct expenses immediately rather than over three years.
Henrietta Treyz of Veda Partners says this could benefit manufacturers, although the stimulative effects of the bill could be muted by tariffs on things like steel and aluminum.
"The John Deeres and Caterpillars of the world benefit from a 100% bonus depreciation" historically, she says.
Defense spending also benefits, as armed services spending is set to increase by $150 billion under the bill.
Couple that with the administration's push to grow the defense budget to over $1 trillion annually and it's a boost in spending that "markets do not appreciate…at all," says Terry Haines, founder of Pangaea Policy.
Palantir, an AI-focused defense contractor with ties to Donald Trump, is still among the top five best-performing stocks in the S&P 500 this year.
The other side: While a proposed tax on wind and solar projects was taken out of the bill, tax credits are still set to be removed.
Tax credits are key to the economics of solar installation investments, and "for many in that sector, this bill would represent their fears confirmed," per a statement from John Gimigliano, principal in charge of federal tax legislative and regulatory services at KPMG U.S.
The removal of a $7,500 electric vehicle tax credit is set to be a headwind for EV sales, which could be another pain point for Tesla (though its stock recently rallied even after soft delivery numbers.)
Hospitals have "just gotten absolutely smoked, so much so that quite frankly there's no way that these cuts go into effect," according to Treyz.
The Congressional Budget Office has estimated $1.1 trillion in health care cuts from the bill. This could weigh on hospital REITs that benefited from that government spending.
The loss of social safety nets for millions of Americans could be an additional pressure point to the broader economy over time.
The bottom line: Winners and losers aside, at least the market has a better handle on what's coming now.
"Whatever you think of the bill, these folks have created a lot more certainty in the markets," Haines at Pangea says.
The "big, beautiful bill" featuresa new tax break for older Americans who pay taxes on Social Security income. But there's a significant catch.
Why it matters: The break leaves out the poorest seniors, and the very rich ones, too.
How it works: Both the House and Senate bills include an increased tax deduction for tax filers age 64 and older. In the Senate version, the new deduction is $6,000 for individuals and $12,000 for couples.
The deduction starts phasing out for those who earn over $75,000 ($150,000 for couples), and phases out completely at $175,000 for individuals and $250,000 for couples, in the Senate version.
The break expires in 2028 when President Trump leaves office, as do a few other White House priorities in the bills, including no tax on tips, no tax on overtime, and no tax on auto loan interest.
What they're saying: "This amounts to the largest tax break in American history for our nation's seniors," per a report out earlier this week from the White House Council of Economic Advisers.
Yes, but: Most seniors — 64% of them — don't pay taxes on Social Security, according to the White House's own analysis.
Those who can't afford the taxes already don't pay. This break targets most, but not all, of the rest.
Between the lines: Trump promised to eliminate taxes on Social Security income. Lawmakers couldn't pull that off entirely, given the constraints of passing a reconciliation bill and changing Social Security law.
This break comes close. After adding the recipients of the new tax break, 88% of seniors wouldn't pay Social Security tax, per the White House.
"The One Big Beautiful Bill delivers on President Trump's promise of no tax on Social Security," White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson says in a statement, noting the analysis by the Council of Economic Advisers.
Zoom out: For those upper-middle class folks who pay taxes on retirement benefits, this is a "substantial tax break," says Marc Goldwein, senior policy director for the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a nonpartisan group that advocates for fiscal responsibility.
For the several million senior citizens who live in poverty, and already don't pay taxes on Social Security, this doesn't help.
The bill would also accelerate Social Security and Medicare insolvency by a year, to 2032, per an analysis from the group.
The bottom line: Seniors in the U.S. overall are doing great financially right now, sitting on assets that have soared in value in recent years.
"As a whole seniors in this country are the wealthiest cohort in the history of the known universe," Goldwein says.
If this bill passes, they'll get to keep a little bit more.
Mark Zuckerberg — in an unprecedented, multibillion-dollar talent raid — has dramatically reset the market for blue-chip AI builders, and further complicated the government's ability to stack its own technology bench.
Why it matters: The Meta CEO is trying to lure talent from OpenAI and other tech companies with offers that can top $100 million in total compensation for the first year alone — beyond most star athletes' pay.
Top-tier pay packages being offered by Meta for AI researchers can reach up to $300 million over four years, WIRED reports.
A tech-news feed on X used a baseball card motif to portray an OpenAI researcher being "TRADED" to Meta.
The talent derby has sent compensation soaring across AI, as rivals scramble to keep top talent and entice others not to flirt with Meta and other suitors.
It's partly a continuation of an ongoing recruiting war — OpenAI built its lab with the help of some massive comp packages.
Zuckerberg unveiled his dream team this week as Meta Superintelligence Labs (MSL), after meeting personally with potential recruits at his homes in Palo Alto and Lake Tahoe.
The big picture: America has witnessed staggering valuations for startups. But never before have we seen company-valuation-sized salaries for people, rather than ideas or enterprises.
That's injecting a new layer of drama and next-level economics for the biggest companies — many the size of nation-states — racing to win the AI wars.
Collateral damage: The U.S. government is already struggling to recruit top researchers and scientists. A remotely talented AI specialist can now assume that riches in the tens of millions are attainable. So why sacrifice to serve in government?
China, by contrast, can command top talent to work on government projects. A front-page Wall Street Journal story on Wednesday, "China Is Quickly Eroding America's Lead in the Global AI Race," said AI models from Chinese companies, including DeepSeek and Alibaba, are becoming popular in Asia, Europe, the Middle East and Africa.
Zoom in: Zuckerberg's biggest single bet was investing $14 billion in Scale AI, and bringing co-founder Alex Wang to Meta as chief AI officer. Former GitHub CEO Nat Friedman will lead Meta's work on AI products and applied research.
Eleven other new AI star hires were listed in Zuckerberg's internal memo announcing Meta Superintelligence Labs.
Altman hit back at Zuckerberg's spree this week, telling OpenAI researchers in a Slack message that Meta "has gotten a few great people for sure, but on the whole, it is hard to overstate how much they didn't get their top people and had to go quite far down their list," WIRED reports.
"I am proud of how mission-oriented our industry is as a whole; of course there will always be some mercenaries," Altman added. "Missionaries will beat mercenaries."
Between the lines: Tech investors tell us that until very recently, the revenue outlook for AI models was unclear, and there was a debate about the return on capital spending. Now it's apparent that leading AI companies will do hundreds of billions in revenue per year.
OpenAI is enjoying rampaging growth: The company said last month that it has $10 billion in annual recurring revenue, just 2½ years after the launch of ChatGPT — up from $5.5 billion last year. OpenAI has projected for investors that, fueled by AI agents and other new products, sales could total as much as $125 billion in 2029 and $174 billion in 2030, according to documents seen by The Information.
Anthropic — a rival AI company led by Dario Amodei, an OpenAI alumnus — has hit a pace of $4 billion in revenue annually, up almost four times from January, The Information reported this week.
At those rates of growth, you can see what Zuckerberg is seeing — and why he's suddenly pouring massive spending into making sure Meta remains a dominant AI player.
The backstory: Zuckerberg is repeating a winning playbook. By 2012, he realized Facebook was behind on the mobile web. He famously redirected the entire company toward catching up.
Facebook bought Instagram for $1 billion and later WhatsApp for $16 billion — racing ahead in areas where others had innovated. But this time he's betting on individuals, rather than successful enterprises.
Reality check: Meta has spent a fortune on Llama, its large-language model (LLM), in an effort to develop a frontier model that can compete with OpenAI's ChatGPT, Anthropic's Claude and Google's Gemini. In a splashy story about "The List" of AI geniuses Zuckerberg is courting, the Wall Street Journal said Meta's "laggard history in generative AI has made some recruits hesitant."
Bubbles can burst. AI salaries and data-center costs won't be sustainable without the ultimate payoff being unimaginably huge. And the more these companies spend, the bigger that payoff needs to be. As uncovered by a survey Axios reported last month, many small businesses using AI aren't even paying for it.
The other side: Altman, noting that OpenAI has built "a culture that is good at repeatable innovation," said last month on a podcast hosted by Jack Altman, his younger brother, that Meta was making "giant offers to a lot of people on our team — like $100 million signing bonuses" and more than that in annual compensation.
"We're set up such that if we succeed ... then everybody will do great financially," Sam Altman said. "[I]t's incentive-aligned with mission-first, and then economic rewards and everything else flowing from that."
The bottom line: The bidding war is the most public manifestation of the secret race among AI giants — all betting that the technology will bring trillions of dollars in productivity gains. For them, the timeline is the biggest question.
Axios' Scott Rosenberg, Ben Berkowitz and Zachary Basu contributed reporting.
Go deeper ... "Behind the Curtain: An AI Marshall Plan."
The demise of a controversial proposal in Republicans' budget bill that blocked state-level regulation of artificial intelligence is fueling fresh pressure for federal action, advocates told Axios Wednesday.
Why it matters: Congress' reluctance to set national AI rules for privacy, safety and intellectual property rights has left states to forge ahead with their own rules.
Driving the news: Some senators fought until the last minute to keep an industry-backed 10-year ban on state-level regulation in the budget bill.
Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and some of his allies in the administration fought until the last minute to keep an industry-backed 10-year ban on state-level regulation in the budget bill. They failed — for now.
"We hope that this unequivocal rebuke to the idea of saying that states can't regulate AI is a lot of political motivation for the folks who do want to regulate AI on Capitol Hill," said Eric Kashdan, Campaign Legal Center's senior legal counsel for federal advocacy.
Catch up quick: The Senate early Tuesday voted nearly unanimously to remove the proposed moratorium on state-level AI regulations from the budget bill.
It would have prevented states that want certain government grants from enforcing legislation on AI regulation.
"The reconciliation package was the best possibility for something this bad to get through," said Alix Fraser, the vice president of advocacy for Issue One.
The House passed a version of the budget bill that included the state AI moratorium, but the Senate's version, which dropped it, now faces resistance from some House Republicans.
Friction point: PresidentTrump's aides and advisers were split on the moratorium.
While many have favored a light hand with AI to bolster U.S. efforts to keep ahead of China, others are concerned that the moratorium rules would also make it harder for states to regulate social media, particularly around protecting kids.
Former Trump adviser Steve Bannon helped fuel opposition, the Wall Street Journal reported, and many in the MAGA movement still believe Big Tech has stifled conservative voices.
"Bannon has never been a fan of this sort of techno utopia that a lot of Silicon Valley-ites desire, and the idea of a moratorium was antithetical to that approach," Fraser said.
Zoom out: More than 20 Democratic- and Republican-led states have passed AI regulation legislation.
An April Pew study found the public is worried the government won't go far enough in regulating AI.
Most Americans support a national AI standard and think a patchwork of state laws will make it harder for the U.S. to compete with China, according to a June Morning Consult and TechNet poll.
"There's a huge public demand for AI to be regulated, a bipartisan demand for AI to be regulated," Kashdan said. "And not only will they give up on trying to start states from stepping up but they'll recognize that this means they really need to get their act together and pass federal AI regulations."
Yes, but: Congress has always had a hard time passing laws regulating tech, and the mood in Washington right now is favoring innovation over regulation
Efforts to regulate AI at the federal level are unlikely to go as far as consumer protection measures in the states.
What's next: The battle over a moratorium is not over, said Chris MacKenzie, vice president of communications for Americans for Responsible Innovation.
Advocates expect standalone legislation to try to preempt state AI laws.
Data: Dallas Fed; Note: Firms limited to those located or headquartered in the Federal Reserve's eleventh district; Chart: Axios Visuals
President Trump wants to "drill baby drill." But many producers in the heart of the oil patch have other plans — and some say Trump's trade policies are discouraging drilling.
Why it matters: Many things affect gasoline prices. But producers' caution about growing output could limit how much prices at the pump might fall by helping avoid a large market glut of oil.
Driving the news: The Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas on Wednesday released its latest quarterly survey of execs in its region that includes the prolific Permian Basin.
These anonymous surveys are hot commodities for anyone seeking the industry pulse.
Threat level: "The Liberation Day chaos and tariff antics have harmed the domestic energy industry," one executive told the Fed.
"Drill, baby, drill will not happen with this level of volatility. Companies will continue to lay down rigs and frack spreads," said the exec, one of several who criticized the tariffs.
State of play: The poll of exploration and production (E&P) firms and drilling contractors showed overall activity contracting slightly in Q2, and production dipping slightly.
Looking ahead, the poll's average of price forecasts is $68 per barrel over the next year for WTI, the benchmark U.S. grade, roughly where it's at now.
"Almost half of executives surveyed expect to drill fewer wells in 2025 than they planned at the start of the year," it states.
Large producers (10,000+ barrels per day) were more likely to see drilling "significantly" fall.
What we're watching: Prices and input costs.
If they drop to $60 per barrel and stay there, 61% expect their production to fall slightly over the next 12 months, while 9% see a big drop (see above).
Twenty-seven percent of execs say the recent steel tariff hike will mean slightly fewer wells drilled, and 5% expect significantly fewer.
Flashback: The Q1 survey showed that on average, firms say they need oil at $65 to profitably drill new wells.
The latest outlook from the Energy Department's independent stats arm projects a slight drop in the second half of this year, and a slight annual decline in 2026.
Yes, but: A White House spokeswoman said Trump is making drilling easier by rolling back "stifling" Biden-era regulations.
"The One, Big, Beautiful Bill's tax cuts and full equipment expensing will further turbocharge growth and investment by oil and gas companies — another reason Republicans need to get this bill across the finish line and onto the President's desk," Taylor Rogers said in a statement.
The big picture: U.S. output is already at record levels and the country is by far the world's largest producer.
Trump's "dominance" agenda includes more drilling access in offshore areas and Alaska. But those are very long-term projects.
Today's economic picture, combined with shale producers' focus on capital discipline and shareholder payouts, is working against near-term growth.
What's next: The global market sways domestic drilling decisions, and OPEC+ will meet July 6 to decide on its next tranche of output increases.
Press freedom advocates are sounding the alarm following Paramount's $16 million settlement with President Trump, arguing the deal sets a dangerous new precedent, particularly for smaller outlets with fewer legal resources.
Why it matters: A steady decline in media trust, coupled with enormous financial challenges, has made the press more vulnerable to political pressure campaigns than ever before.
Between the lines: The deal has drawn outrage from critics who believe Paramount could have won what they believe is a frivolous lawsuit.
Democratic Sens. Ron Wyden and Elizabeth Warren both called the settlement "bribery."
The Knight Institute said Paramount's legal exposure was "negligible," and argued it should've fought the case in court.
PEN America, another press freedom group, said Paramount "caved to presidential pressure" and "chose appeasement to bolster its finances."
Reality check: The Wall Street Journal editorial board on Wednesday noted that this moment feels like a turning point for press freedom.
"President Trump has taunted the media for years, and some of his jibes are deserved given the groupthink in most newsrooms. What's happening now, though, is different: The President is using government to intimidate news outlets that publish stories he doesn't like. It's a low move in a free country with a free press," it wrote.
Zoom out: The settlement comes as the administration ramps up its efforts to target the press.
Most recently, President Trump and Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem have endorsed the idea of prosecuting CNN for its critical coverage of U.S. strikes in Iran and its immigration reporting.
President Trump also suggested he could demand journalists reveal their sources in light of the Iran intel leak. In April, the Justice Department repealed protections for journalist-source confidentiality
The White House has already banned the AP over its editorial standards. It's also pushing Congress to gut funding for public media. The FCC has launched investigations into Comcast/NBCU and Disney/ABC for their DEI policies.
The big picture: The Paramount settlement is the latest in a slew of recent examples that show just how desperate media companies are to survive political and economic pressure.
Disney, Warner Bros. Discovery, Paramount, Gannett and other major media companies have all rolled back diversity, equity and inclusion policies to mirror the administration's new mandate on DEI.
The vast majority of America's largest newspapers by circulation are no longer doing presidential endorsements.
PBS member WNET cut 90 seconds from a documentary last month, in which the film's subject, author and cartoonist Art Spiegelman criticized Trump, per The Atlantic.
ABC News dropped longtime correspondent Terry Moran after he criticized President Trump and top aide Stephen Miller in a since-deleted tweet, drawing swift criticism.
What to watch: Those concessions are happening amid a historic drop in trust of mainstream media, making it harder for newsrooms to rally public support.
Only 31% of Americans say they have a great deal or a fair amount of trust in the mass media, down from 50% 20 years ago and 40% a decade ago, according to a Gallup survey.
House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) said early Thursday morning he believes he has the votes to get President Trump's "big, beautiful bill" across the finish line in the coming hours, "right when everyone is waking up to have their coffee."
Why it matters: Johnson is racing against the clock to meet Republicans' self-imposed deadline to pass the marquee tax and spending bill, which they hope will get to the president's desk by July 4.
That deadline is at threat of slipping as right-wing hardliners and moderates dig in against the bill over aspects they find unsavory.
Republicans on Thursday broke the record for the longest House vote as they held open a procedural vote for an astonishing seven hours and 24 minutes as they tried to cajole GOP holdouts.
Johnson continued to huddle with holdouts off the House floor past midnight, and Trump has been working the phones in coordination with Johnson, the speaker said on Fox News.
State of play: Shortly after concluding their record-breaking vote, Republicans moved to advance the bill to a final vote on the House floor.
But that key vote was being stymied by GOP defectors as of early Thursday morning, with nearly half a dozen Republicans voting with Democrats against advancing the bill — enough to kill it.
Another group of around eight Republicans — mostly right-wing hardliners upset at how much the Senate version of the bill increases the deficit — hadn't voted yet as of Thursday morning.
A group of key holdouts left the House floor just after 1:00am and headed back to their offices, including Rep. Tim Burchett (R-Tenn.), who told reporters "don't take a nap" yet. Burchett has still not voted on the rule.
What they're saying: "There's no cracking of skulls ... this is part of the process. We're tying up loose ends," Johnson told Fox News host Sean Hannity in an appearance late Wednesday night.
The speaker said he "might keep [the vote] open a little while" because "among those 'no' votes I've got a couple of folks that are actually off-site right now, had to attend family affairs or events this evening, and so some of them are on the way back."
That includes Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.), the sole centrist "no" vote on the procedural motion, who rushed out of the House chamber shortly after voting.
Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) who doesn't typically vote down the rule, switched his vote from yea to nay last minute, and has stayed firm in his opposition.
Between the lines: Rep. Victoria Spartz (R-Ind.) posted on X that she intends to support final passage of the bill, but voted against the procedural measure because of Johnson's "broken commitments."
It's not typical for a member of the majority party to vote down the rule, and even more abnormal to vote down the rule but support final passage.
Some members, like Spartz, are notorious for saying they're a no but voting yes.
Rep. Ralph Norman (R-S.C.) vowed to vote no on Wednesday, but then voted yes on the rule.
Kilmar Ábrego García alleged in an amended complaint Wednesday that he "was subjected to severe mistreatment" while detained in the El Salvador mega-prison CECOT after being mistakenly deported to the country.
The big picture: The U.S. resident who spent nearly three months in CECOT is now detained in Tennessee after being returned to the U.S. and is awaiting trial on human smuggling charges, to which he has pleaded not guilty.
A federal judge had last week ordered his release from prison, but another judge ruled on Monday that Ábrego García should remain in jail for now over concerns from his legal team that he could be deported if freed while awaiting trial.
Driving the news: Lawyers for Ábrego García alleged in a Wednesday filing that the father, who is originally from El Salvador, "was subjected to severe mistreatment upon arrival at CECOT, including but not limited to severe beatings, severe sleep deprivation, inadequate nutrition, and psychological torture."
Zoom in: Among the allegations outlined in the filing to the District Court of Maryland are that Ábrego García and 20 other Salvadorans were "forced to kneel" in a cell from 9pm to 6am "with guards striking anyone who fell from exhaustion."
It adds, "During this time, Plaintiff Abrego Garcia was denied bathroom access and soiled himself. The detainees were confined to metal bunks with no mattresses in an overcrowded cell with no windows, bright lights that remained on 24 hours a day, and minimal access to sanitation."
Ábrego García allegedly suffered a significant deterioration in his physical condition during his first two weeks at CECOT and his weight dropped from about 215 pounds to 184lb, according to the filing.
The lawyers allege that Ábrego García and four others were transferred in April "to a different module in CECOT, where they were photographed with mattresses and better food — photos that appeared to be staged to document improved conditions."
What they're saying: The Trump administration has accused Ábrego García of being a criminal and a member of the MS-13 gang, which his attorneys have denied.
Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin doubled down on this assertion in a Wednesday evening statement.
McLaughlin also called him an "alleged human trafficker, and a domestic abuser" — in reference to allegations made by his wife, who said she sought a "civil protective order" out of caution after "surviving domestic violence" in a previous relationship.
"The media's sympathetic narrative about this criminal illegal gang member has completely fallen apart, yet they continue to peddle his sob story," McLaughlin said. "We hear far too much about gang members and criminals' false sob stories and not enough about their victims."
Representatives for the Justice Department and Customs Enforcement did not immediately respond to Axios' request for comment on Wednesday evening.
The "big, beautiful bill" is a dense, 940-page bill put together last minute.
The big picture: Experts agree the breakneck speed of deliberation over what's in the bill leaves plenty of minutia and changes to sift through.
"This is not normal," said Harris Eppsteiner, associate director of economic analysis at the Yale Budget Lab. "This pace of legislating is not what you would expect to see of a careful, well-thought-out set of policies that are designed to grow the economy, help people save and help people invest."
"I have never seen something like this, to be honest," said Ignacio González, co-director of the Institute for Macroeconomic and Policy Analysis at American University.
Here's what economic and policy experts said people should watch out for with the "big, beautiful bill" as it heads to President Trump's desk.
How BBB impacts gambling
Context: The new bill puts the amount gamblers can deduct from their winnings equal to 90% of their losses for a tax year. This rule would be permanent and start in 2026, said Garrett Watson, director of policy analysis at the Tax Foundation.
This means that a hypothetical gambler who won $100,000 but lost $100,000 would have to pay taxes on $10,000 of income.
What they're saying: "Even if you break even, you'll still have a tax liability under this proposal," Watson said. "There could be scenarios where folks have a tax liability that matches or exceeds the amount that they earn."
Pro poker player Phil Galfond said on X this amendment "would end professional gambling in the US and hurt casual gamblers."
Charitable giving
What to know: Under current law, taxpayers who itemize their deductions can receive deductions from charitable donations, Watson said. The new bill allows those who take the standard deduction to deduct up to $1,000 (single) or $2,000 (joint).
Most Americans don't itemize their tax deductions, Watson said, but this gives people the chance to benefit.
"Many people give at least some things during a year that could qualify," Watson said. "They can take that and then take that deduction from their taxes and it reduces their taxable income, reduces their tax liability at the end of the day. "
Car loan interest and the BBB
The current version includes an auto loan interest deductible, which includes provisions that expire in 2028. Some taxpayers could deduct up to $10,000 of annual interest on new auto loans, according to Watson.
Loans for used cars would not qualify under the Senate version, Watson said, and the benefit only applies to new autos assembled in the United States.
Reality check: Jonathan Smoke, chief economist at market research firm Cox Automotive, downplayed the benefits of it, saying a new loan would see roughly $500 in savings.
"The interest payment on an average loan being closer to $3000 in interest in a calendar year and declining over time," he said in an earnings call in June. "So when you factor in what that really means to your taxes of taking the credit, it essentially is not even what a single monthly payment turns out to be."
(Disclosure: Cox Automotive is owned by Cox Enterprises, which also owns Axios.)
Rising electricity bills due to BBB
Context: The bill phases out tax credits for solar and wind projects — meaning that development will slow and consumers will face higher prices.
This is happening at a time when electricity demand has risen given its needed for artificial intelligence and data centers.
"They're going to face higher electricity" rates, said Natasha Sarin, president and co-founder of the Budget Lab at Yale.
Energy economists and others have been predicting prices will rise. Republicans argue that over time, as more generation is added, prices will level out and eventually drop.
Consumer protections targeted in BBB
Funding for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, a small operation that fights big businesses on behalf of American consumers, has been slashed by about half in the new bill.
The CFPB has already been limping along after layoffs and legal troubles.
The severed funding could lead to hundreds of job cuts and severely disarm a group that has returned billions to American consumers for more than a decade, according to AP.
"Consumers will be more likely to fall victim to shady financial industry practices, hidden fees, and other scams because of this devastating budget cut," said Chuck Bell, advocacy program director at Consumer Reports, in a statement.
President Trump's asylum ban at the U.S.-Mexico border enacted in an emergency immigration proclamation on his first day in office is "unlawful," a federal judge ruled Wednesday.
Why it matters: Although U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss postponed his order from taking effect for 14 days to allow for appeal, the processing of asylum claims at the border would resume immediately if the ruling is not overturned.
Trump administration officials have already said they'll appeal Moss' ruling that found the president exceeded his authority in a Jan. 20 proclamation that denied asylum protections at the border.
The case seems likely headed for the Supreme Court, which last week in a majority ruling imposed new limits on lower courts' abilities to freeze federal policies.
Driving the news: The proclamation that's titled "Guaranteeing the States Protection Against Invasion" states the Immigration and Nationality Act "provides the President with certain emergency tools" that have enabled Trump's action.
Immigration groups including the American Civil Liberties Union and multiple people seeking asylum filed a class action lawsuit in February challenging the legality of the proclamation, calling the "invasion" declaration unlawful and false.
"[N]othing in the INA or the Constitution grants the President or his delegees the sweeping authority asserted in the Proclamation and implementing guidance," Moss wrote. "An appeal to necessity cannot fill that void."
The Constitution doesn't give a president authority to "adopt an alternative immigration system, which supplants the statutes that Congress has enacted and the regulations that the responsible agencies have promulgated," according to the Obama-appointed D.C. judge.
Between the lines: The attempted asylum changes are among many immigration enforcement reforms the Trump administration is trying to make via executive order or rule changes without going to Congress.
The Trump administration issued a new rule in January that dramatically expands expedited removal to immigrants who cannot prove they have been continuously living in the U.S. for over two years.
The Trump administration also is trying to make immigrants previously granted humanitarian parole eligible for expedited removal, and that's also facing a legal challenge.
What they're saying: ACLU of Texas legal director Adriana Piñon said in a statement Moss' rejection of the Trump administration's "efforts to upend our asylum system" was "a key ruling" for the U.S.
"This attempt to completely shut down the border is an attack on the fundamental and longstanding right to seek safety in the U.S. from violence and persecution."
Keren Zwick, director of litigation at the National Immigrant Justice Center, which also brought the suit, said in a statement that no president "has the authority to unilaterally block people who come to our border seeking safety."
The other side: "A local district court judge has no authority to stop President Trump and the United States from securing our border from the flood of aliens trying to enter illegally," said Abigail Jackson, a spokesperson for the White House.
"This is an attack on our Constitution, the laws Congress enacted, and our national sovereignty," she said of the ruling. "We expect to be vindicated on appeal."
White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller on X claimed the order was trying to "circumvent" last week's Supreme Court ruling and that it declared undocumented immigrants as "a protected global 'class' entitled to admission into the United States."
