D.C.'s public schools will enforce a cell phone ban starting next school year, the district said on Friday.
Why it matters: D.C. joins nearly half the country in the bipartisan push to limit students' cellphone use in the classroom.
D.C. middle schools and several of its high schools already implemented the ban, the district said.
Catch up quick: Phone bans have gained momentum across Democratic and Republican state legislatures in recent years.
Arizona, Arkansas and New York's governors signed bills into law this year to implement bans.
By the numbers: As of April,11 statewide phone bans or restrictions were implemented and seven states issued policy recommendations, according to health nonprofit KFF.
An additional 17 states introduced legislation to ban or restrict cellphone use in schools.
State of play: The phone bans are aimed at boosting students' attention during class as they struggle to recover from COVID learning loss.
Screen time is also partially at fault for a youth mental health crisis, research has found.
What they're saying: "Piloting a phone-free program in our middle schools demonstrated that storing students' personal devices throughout the school day enriches academic, social, and emotional learning," Lewis Ferebee, D.C. schools chancellor, said in a statement.
"From increased classroom engagement to reduced anxiety and stronger student relationships — DCPS is ready to scale the program so we can keep driving outcomes that positively impact our students."
About half of the city's public school students will be affected by the ban. The policy does not apply to the other half, who attend charter schools.
What we're watching: Sens. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) and Tim Kaine (D-Va.) reintroduced a bipartisan bill in February to study the effects of cellphones in schools, but the legislation has not seen movement since.
The bill proposes $5 million annually for five years for a pilot program to provide schools with secure containers for the phones.
It would allow exceptions for students with health conditions, disabilities and non-English speakers.
Army officials are preparing to display rocket launchers and missiles along with more than a hundred military aircraft and vehicles next weekend at the D.C. parade celebrating the Army's 250th anniversary, Axios has learned.
Why it matters: President Trump has envisioned the June 14 parade — which is scheduled on his 79th birthday — as a show of U.S. military might.
Zoom in: Such a display of military equipment is rare in the United States, and critics of the event have expressed concerns about that imagery as well as the damage that heavy military vehicles could pose to the city's streets.
But officials are eager to showcase U.S. weaponry such as the High Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS), which is used to launch rockets.
The launchers have been used in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria.
There also will be a static display of precision-guided missiles, the officials said, and a flyover by F-22 fighter jets.
About 7,000 military personnel will be involved in the parade, which will run along Constitution Avenue NW. It's projected to cost about $45 million — roughly one-third of that for post-parade street repairs.
Zoom out: The parade is set to begin at 6:30 pm, and will start at 23rd Street and Constitution Avenue NW and end at 15th and Constitution Avenue NW.
Trump will have a review stand on the Ellipse.
What they're saying: "When the president came into office on Jan. 20, he made it clear that he wanted to ... feature the United States Army as the first branch of the United States military to be constituted of the American republic, and he wanted to give the U.S. Army a very special birthday parade," Ambassador Monica Crowley, chief of protocol of the United States, told Axios.
By the numbers: The parade will include 28 M1A1 Abrams tanks, 28 M2 Bradley Fighting Vehicles, and four Paladin Howitzers.
There will be eight CH-47 Chinook helicopters, 16 AH-64 Apache helicopters, and 16 UH-60 Black Hawk helicopters, officials said.
Flyovers by World War II- and Vietnam-era planes also are planned.
The Trump administration’s spending cuts and restrictions on foreign students are triggering a brain drain — and American scientists are panicking.
Why it matters: U.S. researchers' fears are coming true. America’s science pipeline is drying up, and countries like China are seizing the opportunity to surge ahead.
“This is such a race for being the science powerhouse that you never fully recover,” says Marcia McNutt, president of the National Academy of Sciences. “You might accelerate back up to 60, but you can’t make up for those years when you were at a standstill while the competition was racing ahead.”
Driving the news: The National Science Foundation, which funds much of America's fundamental science research, is already doling out grants at its slowest pace in 35 years, The New York Times reports.
More cuts to science could come with the "big, beautiful bill."
Universities are also watching with bated breath as the administration tries to limit the number of foreign students studying in the U.S..
Harvard is pushing back, but could face a total ban on recruiting internationally. The Trump administration says it will "aggressively revoke" visas for Chinese students studying in "critical fields."
By the numbers: While American universities are rescinding offers to incoming PhD students, other countries are recruiting heavily from U.S. labs.
The journal Natureanalyzed data from its jobs platform to track where scientists are looking for work. In the first few months of the Trump administration, there were jumps in the the number of U.S. applicants looking for jobs in Canada (+41%), Europe (+32%), China (+20%) and other Asian countries (+39%), compared to the same period in 2024.
U.S. jobs saw fewer applications from candidates in Canada (–13%) and Europe (–41%).
Case in point: France's Aix-Marseille University, which made headlines for earmarking millions of dollars for U.S. scientists, closed its application window after receiving a flood of apps.
After American Nobel laureate Ardem Patapoutian's federal grant was frozen, he got an email from China offering 20 years of funding if he relocates his lab, The New York Times' Kate Zernike writes. He declined.
“This is a once-in-a-century brain gain opportunity,” the Australian Strategic Policy Institute wrote in a brief.
The other side: The White House argues that its changes to the system will usher in a golden age of science and rebuild public trust. President Trump has also suggested that spots freed up by rejecting international students could be filled by American applicants.
But professors say this isn't entirely realistic.
"In hard sciences, in astronomy and physics and computer science, for example, there’s no way you would fill that hole with local applicants of comparable quality," says Chris Impey, an astronomer at the University of Arizona.
What to watch: “The optimistic part of all of us thinks science is strong enough to outlast one administration, and for a while I thought that, but the hit to young people is at the center of the whole enterprise,” Impey says. “It’s like pulling the rug out from under the whole thing."
It's not just brain drain of existing talent, he says. Students who are in high school and college now and thinking about a career in research might reconsider. "There’s plenty of things smart kids can do. They don’t have to go into science."
At the same time, McNutt says she tells students: "If you went into graduate school in the fall of this year, by the time you get your PhD, this madness may be over. You come out with your new PhD ready to fill the gap."
Elon Musk might have hundreds of billions of dollars and a social media megaphone, but President Trump's power over the levers of government may put Musk's business empire at much more immediate risk.
The big picture: Virtually everything Musk does has huge regulatory exposure, from cars to spaceflight to neural implants.
In a government where norms are already out the window, it would take relatively little for Trump to bring the weight of regulatory burden to bear on Musk's enterprise.
What they're saying: "You just have to understand that if you own Tesla, it will be difficult to sleep at night as investors can scrutinize it from a fundamental standpoint, but also a headline standpoint," said David Wagner, head of equities and portfolio manager at Aptus Capital Advisors, in a commentary Friday.
Zoom out: Trump, thus far, as has played the whole thing relatively cool, saying he doesn't really care if Elon turns on him.
But he's also operating from a position of strength, as he clearly knows — thus, the threat on Truth Social to cancel all of Musk's government contracts. When YouGov polled more than 3,800 Americans on that question Thursday, those with an opinion supported ending Musk's contracts by a 2-1 margin.
Friday morning, Trump had no hesitation about telling many of Washington's top political reporters he didn't care to speak to Musk — even amid reports Musk very much wanted to speak with him.
How it works: There's a laundry list of ways Trump could squeeze Musk:
Terminating contracts for space launches, Starlink Internet access and the like.
Ending support for electric vehicle purchases, and the charging infrastructure to power those cars.
More regulatory oversight of everything from Tesla's self-driving algorithms to Neuralink's implants.
Further housecleaning of the loyalists seeded throughout the government, like the move to withdraw the NASA nominee who was a key Musk ally.
The ultimate lever: Security clearances, a favorite Trump tool, and a question that has lingered around Musk for years.
What to watch: How Musk's public position evolves in the coming days, given how incendiary his comments were Thursday and how much Trump appreciates deference.
"[T]he public spat was a bad look and seemed desperate in the moment and the stock reacted as such," Zacks Investment Management portfolio manager Brian Mulberry wrote in a note Friday.
The bottom line: The "first buddy" is about to find out how far friendship actually goes.
The State Department is discussing allocating $500 million for funding of the U.S. and Israel backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) that has been delivering food to Palestinians in Gaza in recent weeks, a U.S. official and a source with direct knowledge told Axios.
Why it matters: If the U.S. goes ahead with this massive funding, it will become the biggest donor to the foundation and will de facto "own" the operation.
While such a move will increase the U.S. credibility in asking other countries to donate money to the foundation, it would also draw the U.S. deeper into active involvement in the Gaza war and make it more responsible for the humanitarian situation in the enclave.
Without funding from foreign governments, the GHF will have difficulty operating in the coming months. Israeli officials asses that the GHF needs around $100 million a month to continue delivering aid in Gaza.
Driving the news: In recent weeks, the GHF launched a new mechanism aimed at delivering aid to Palestinian civilians without Hamas taking control of or getting credit for it.
The GHF and Israeli officials say hundreds of thousands of Palestinians have already received food, medicine and other supplies at the aid sites.
But over the last week, two mass casualty events took place near the aid centers. In one of the incidents, the IDF confirmed that it fired at Palestinians who were on their way to the aid distribution center.
Zoom out: In several other incident, the distribution centers were overwhelmed by the number of people who came to receive aid.
The shooting and the chaos led the GHF to suspend operations for 24 hours on Wednesday and ask the Israeli military to take steps to avoid similar incidents.
The UN and other aid organizations who refuse to cooperate with the GHF have warned for weeks that exactly these kind of incidents would result from civilians needing to pass through IDF lines to reach the newly established aid centers.
Behind the scenes: A U.S. official said that State Department officials who oppose the U.S. funding of the GHF are concerned about the U.S. becoming responsible for future mass casualty incidents around the aid distribution centers.
Those who support the idea on the other hand claim that U.S. funding means more U.S. ability to improve the humanitarian situation on the ground.
A U.S. official said the idea of funding the GHF has been discussed in working levels within the State Department and Secretary of State Marco Rubio and president Trump, who will have to make this decision, hasn't been briefed about it yet.
"It will probably happen next week and until then we will see if the situation stabilizes and there are no more incidents and then we will decide," the U.S. official said.
Reuters first reported the discussions in the State Department on possible U.S. funding for GHF.
The State Department did not respond to requests for comment.
Between the lines: The funding on the GHF has been kept under a veil of secrecy by its senior leaders and by the Israeli government.
A senior Israeli official said the GHF secured $100 million to launch its operation. The money came from foreign governments and from private sector donors who all asked for anonymity, the Israeli official said.
Israel's public broadcaster Kan reported earlier this week that the Israeli government has given more than $200 million to the GHF in a secret appropriation to the ministry of defense without revealing where the money will go to. The Israeli prime minister's office denied Israeli tax payer money was given to GHF.
Udi Levy, the former head of the Mossad's economic intelligence unit, told Israel's channel 12 last week that Qatar and Turkey are funding GHF. The Qatari and Turkish governments denied that. But the Israeli military censor ordered channel 12 to delete the interview from its website.
A panel of judges from a U.S. federal appeals court on Friday said parts of the White House's ban on the Associated Press could remain, dealing a devastating blow to the AP.
Why it matters: Press freedom advocates are closely watching the AP's case for any precedents it could set around free speech protections for journalists.
What they're saying: In a statement, the AP said, "We are disappointed in the court's decision and are reviewing our options."
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt called the ruling a victory in a post on X.
"As we've said all along, the Associated Press is not guaranteed special access to cover President Trump in the Oval Office, aboard Air Force One, and in other sensitive locations," she wrote.
Catch up quick: The AP sued three Trump administration officials in late February for blocking its reporters from events like Oval Office meetings and Air Force One press pools, citing a violation of its First Amendment rights.
The White House said it barred the AP for refusing to change the term "Gulf of Mexico" to "Gulf of America" in its journalism. The AP said it didn't make the change so as not to cause confusion amongst its global readership.
A judge rejected the Associated Press' emergency motion to rescind the White House ban shortly after he sought more details on the circumstances surrounding the case.
In April, a federal judge sided with the Associated Press, declaring that under the First Amendment, the government can't bar journalists from certain government events because of their viewpoints.
The Trump administration appealed the federal judge's ruling shortly thereafter.
How it works: The recent decision allows most of the White House's ban of the AP to go back into effect while the case is still litigated.
The White House barred AP reporters from presidential spaces like the Oval Office and Air Force One.
The panel of three judges — two of which were Trump appointees — ruled that those spaces aren't subject to First Amendment protections, but allowed a lower court ruling that said the White House must allow access to larger spaces, like the East Room, to the AP.
DOGE employees can access millions of Americans' sensitive Social Security data, the Supreme Court ruled Friday in a party-line decision.
Why it matters: The ruling is a win for the Trump administration, which has charged the Department of Government Efficiency with rooting out alleged waste and fraud at the Social Security Administration.
The unsigned majority opinion overturns a 9-6 decision from the entire Fourth Circuit that upheld a lower court's decision to temporarily block DOGE from accessing the data.
U.S. District Judge Ellen Hollander, who issued the initial stay, had questioned why DOGE needed "unprecedented, unfettered access to virtually SSA's entire data systems."
Friction point: The Supreme Court's three justices appointed by Democratic presidents voted to prevent DOGE from accessing the Social Security data until lower courts had a chance to resolve legal challenges.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote a dissent joined by Justice Sonya Sotomayor that chastised the Supreme Court for once again issuing an emergency order in favor of the Trump administration without the benefit of a briefing or oral argument.
What they're saying: "In essence, the 'urgency' underlying the Government's stay application is the mere fact that it cannot be bothered to wait for the litigation process to play out before proceeding as it wishes," Jackson wrote.
"[O]nce again, this Court dons its emergency-responder gear, rushes to the scene, and uses its equitable power to fan the flames rather than extinguish them," Jackson wrote.
Top Treasury officials are privately explaining to GOP senators that Section 899 of the House-passed budget bill is already forcing foreign countries to the negotiating table, according to administration officials.
Why it matters: Critics are calling the provision a "revenge tax." But the Trump administration sees Section 899 as an important tool — like tariffs — to help negotiate better deals for American multinational corporations.
While Trump officials are signaling to senators a willingness to make changes to the provision, they are also making the case for why it should stay in Trump's "one, big beautiful bill," officials said.
Some Republican senators, including Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), have expressed reservations about the provision.
Zoom out: On his first day in office, Trump promised to undo the Biden administration's plan to impose a global minimum corporate tax. He signed an executive order that it "has no force or effect."
Section 899 is an attempt to give the White House more power to negotiate with the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, a collection of 38 market-based economies, which has also been critical of Trump's trade policies.
While the original outline of the global minimum tax rates was included in President Biden's Inflation Reduction Act, it ultimately required foreign countries to come to a common agreement on how to tax multinational corporations.
Republicans howled at that process and argued that it usurped Congress' constitutional power to establish tax rates. They also had policy concerns with a global minimum tax.
Zoom in: Section 899 of the House-passed budget bill is designed to penalize countries that impose taxes on U.S. companies, including a global minimum tax of 15% as well as a digital services tax.
It allows the U.S. to increase tax rates for foreign direct investment on countries it claims has unfair tax policies.
But there's some indication that European countries are open to modifying their policies in order to mollify the Trump administration, Bloomberg reported.
The other side: A coalition of trade associations, led by the Global Business Alliance, wrote to Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) and Senate Finance Committee Chair Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) to call for the removal of the provision.
"As the budget reconciliation process advances, we urge you to uphold the pro-growth principles embedded in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) and avoid tax increases that would undermine American jobs, innovation, and long-term economic growth,"the coalition wrote.
The bottom line: The Trump administration is essentially arguing to senators that Section 899 might never have to be used.
House Ways and Means Chair Jason Smith (R-Mo.) essentially made this point last week when he told Axios' Neil Irwin that "hopefully it'll never take effect."
House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) finally settled on how to get Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.) back on the House Intelligence Committee: Give Democrats an extra seat on the panel in order to make space for her.
Why it matters: Stefanik was becoming a thorn in Johnson's side, criticizing him in public after she gave up her seat on the panel to pursue her now-withdrawn nomination for U.N. ambassador.
Stefanik also had to give up her chairmanship of the House Republican conference, with Johnson creating a new, largely symbolic "chair of House Republican leadership" title for her after her nomination was withdrawn.
Stefanik has openly flirted with a run for New York governor in 2026, rather than running for reelection.
Driving the news: The House modified its rules Monday to expand the committee from 25 to 27 seats, with Stefanik becoming the second most senior Republican after chair Rick Crawford (R-Ark.).
To maintain the panel's partisan ratio and obtain unanimous consent on the change, Democrats were given a seat in exchange for creating a new one for Stefanik.
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) selected Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.) to join the committee.
Kilmar Abrego Garcia is on his way back to the U.S. to face criminal charges, according to a newly unsealed indictment.
Driving the news: Abrego Garcia, whose deportation to El Salvador has been a flashpoint in President Trump's immigration agenda, has been charged with smuggling undocumented immigrants in the U.S.
The indictment alleged that Abrego Garcia made more than 100 trips transporting undocumented immigrants between Texas and Maryland, among other states.
According to Attorney General Pam Bondi, citing co-conspirators' testimony, Abrego Garcia also allegedly abused undocumented immigrant women and solicited nude photographs and videos from a minor.
What they're saying: "These facts demonstrate Abrego Garcia is a danger to our community," Bondi said during a press conference
If convicted, Abrego Garcia will be prosecuted and sentenced, then returned to El Salvador after completion of his sentence, Bondi added.
Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md), who visited Abrego Garcia, said in a statement that "this is not about the man, it's about his constitutional rights."
"The Administration will now have to make its case in the court of law, as it should have all along," he said.
In a statement, Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem called Abrego Garcia "a known MS13 gang member, human trafficker, and serial domestic abuser."
Context: Abrego Garcia, a Salvadorian national who entered the U.S. illegally, was detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) on March 12 and was soon deported to El Salvador by mistake, Justice Department said in a court filing.
On April 10, the Supreme Court ruled the administration must "facilitate" the release of Abrego Garcia. But the court stopped short of ordering it to "effectuate" his return to the U.S., and kicked the case back to the lower court.
Since then, the Trump administration has asked the Salvadorian government about facilitating because Garcia's return, but El Salvador declined to do so.
What we are watching: A federal judge recently granted a motion filed by Abrego Garcia's team to sanction against the Trump administration if it doesn't provide discovery evidence by June 11.
In a separate case, District Judge Paula Xinis also granted a request from more than a dozens news organizations to unseal a batch of documents and a court hearing transcript.
Editor's note: This story has been updated with additional details throughout.
Democrats are making clear Elon Musk has no place in their party as the billionaire former DOGE head quickly becomes persona non grata among Republicans.
Why it matters: While Democrats are basking in Musk's open break with President Trump, they see little political value — and potentially great risk — in actually embracing him as an ally.
"Welcoming Musk back into the party would be Democrats shooing more working class voters away from the party," said Progressive Caucus chair Greg Casar (D-Texas).
"Clearly calling out billionaire villains like Elon Musk works for us, and we should keep on doing what works."
Driving the news: Musk has abruptly tanked his standing in the GOP by going full bore against Trump and his "One Big, Beautiful Bill."
In posts on X this week, Musk called Trump's marquee legislation
a "disgusting abomination" and claimed the president has suppressed the Epstein files because he is in them.
He even went as far as to express agreement with a post calling for Trump to be impeached and removed so Vice President JD Vance can take his place.
What they're saying: "We'll agree with him on some of the things he's saying, but embracing him is pretty out of the question. He's a lunatic," Rep. Jared Huffman (D-Calif.) told Axios.
"I don't give a sh*t about Elon Musk," said Rep. Scott Peters (D-Calif.). "I just don't. We've got real problems."
"Personally, I don't associate myself with someone who does Nazi salutes in public," said Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.).
Said Rep. George Latimer (D-N.Y.): "If Elon Musk ... is going to have the same basic ideas, which is that everything [in the federal government] sucks and has to be killed, then I can't endorse that."
The intrigue: Even Democrats who have previously expressed some affinity for Musk said their party should keep him at arm's length even if they echo his criticisms of Trump and the budget reconciliation bill.
Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) said Democrats should "engage in every asset we have as a check on Donald Trump" but that Musk "has to be held accountable" for his work at DOGE.
Khanna added that Musk should "absolutely not" be given a role in the Democratic Party parallel to the prominence he had in Trump's orbit: "There's zero way in terms of him being a figurehead."
"His decimation of the federal government was an unforgivable sin," Rep. Ritchie Torres (D-N.Y.) said, adding that Musk is also "so erratic and so mercurial as to be unreliable, just like Donald Trump."
Democratic Party leaders are keeping their cards closer to their chest, though House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) offered some signals about where he stands during a Friday press conference.
Musk, he said, "helped put [Trump] into the White House," arguing that Trump "might not be the president of the United States ... without the hundreds of millions spent."
Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), asked about some Democrats saying the party should embrace Musk, told Axios: "I have not heard that."
The bottom line: "He doesn’t need to come back into our fold, if he ends up being a spoiler on their end, that ends up helping us," said Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-Fla.).
"Funding primary challengers in certain races. That would be a real headache for Mike Johnson."
A Musk spokesman did not respond to a request for comment.
Rep. Mary Miller (R-Ill.) is coming under fire from colleagues in both parties after misidentifying a Sikh man as Muslim and saying he should have "never been allowed" to deliver the House's morning prayer.
Why it matters: Even some Republicans are expressing disgust at Miller, a right-wing hardliner who has cultivated a reputation for making inflammatory comments.
"People should think before they talk or type," vented one House Republican, speaking on the condition of anonymity to offer candid thoughts on a fellow Republican.
Miller's office has not responded to a request for comment on her post.
What happened: After Giani Singh, a Sikh Grandhi from Southern New Jersey, delivered the House of Representatives' daily prayer, Miller said in a now-deleted post on X that it was "deeply troubling a Muslim was allowed to lead prayer in the House of Representatives this morning."
"This should have never been allowed to happen," she said, erroneously stating that the U.S. was "founded as a Christian nation" and that "our government should reflect that truth."
Miller later edited the post to replace "Muslim" with "Sikh," then deleted it altogether.
What they're saying: The House Republican who spoke to Axios said Miller's comments make her look "darn ignorant."
Rep. Nick LaLota (R-N.Y.) said in a post on X that "a Sikh prayer on the House floor ... doesn't violate the Constitution, offend my Catholic faith, or throttle my support for Israel," adding, "Live and let live."
"I'm deeply disappointed by Rep. Mary Miller's comments," Rep. Donald Norcross (D-N.J.), who has previously sponsored Singh as a guest chaplain, said in a statement to Axios.
The Congressional Asian Pacific Islander Caucus condemned "Rep. Miller's anti-Sikh and anti-Muslim bigotry," calling her post "disgraceful."
Zoom in: Rep. Jeff Van Drew (R-N.J.), who invited Singh to deliver the prayer, said in a statement to Axios that "as a Catholic, I take my faith seriously and I also believe part of being American is respecting other people's faiths too."
"I was proud to invite a Sikh chaplain to open the House with prayer this morning. The Sikh community is peaceful, generous, and deeply rooted in family and service, values we should all appreciate, no matter our religion," he said.
"What makes America special is that we can honor different these traditions while staying true to our own. I'll always stand for that kind of mutual respect."
Reality check: The U.S. was not founded as an explicitly Christian nation, and the the First Amendment to the Constitution protects freedom of religion.
Zoom out: This is not the first time Miller has been embroiled in controversy.
She said in 2021 that "Hitler was right on one thing. He said, 'Whoever has the youth has the future.'" She later apologized for the remark.
She also said that Roe v. Wade being overturned in 2022 was a "victory for white life," which her office later claimed was a misread of her prepared remarks.
Editor's note: This story has been updated with additional remarks.
The May jobs report looks fine on the surface, but underneath there are signs of weakening in the labor market.
Why it matters: The good news is that employers kept hiring at a healthy rate in May. But a few oddities in the report signal less momentum in the job market.
What they're saying: "There are now clear trends in the data, not just vague signs, that even if the train is chugging forward, more and more people are getting left behind at the station," Cory Stahle, an economist at job search site Indeed, wrote in a note.
"This isn't a bad report, per se, but there are clear signs of erosion just below the surface that may not be apparent just by looking only at the headline numbers," Stahle said.
By the numbers: Payroll employment rose by 139,000 in May, roughly in line with what forecasters had anticipated. But the Labor Department revised down job gains in March and April by a combined 95,000 jobs.
Job growth has averaged 124,000 a month in 2025, a downshift from 168,000 in 2024.
Meanwhile, the unemployment rate was steady at 4.2% — but that masked a steep drop in the number of Americans in the labor force.
The share of adults who were employed fell 0.3 percentage points to 59.7%, the lowest in more than three years. It was due to a whopping 625,000 fewer people in the labor force — neither working nor looking for work.
The intrigue: The bulk of job creation continued to be concentrated in what Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has called "government-adjacent" fields, including health care.
That sector added 62,000 jobs last month, above the average monthly gain of 44,000 jobs over the prior 12 months.
"The month's modest job gains were concentrated in non-cyclical sectors like healthcare," Comerica chief economist Bill Adams wrote in a note.
"Job gains in other cyclical private industries were anemic, reflecting the drag from policy uncertainty."
Of note: The federal government sector, which has been hit by DOGE-related layoffs, lost 22,000 jobs in May alone. It has shed 55,000 workers since January. (Local government employment rose by 21,000.)
State of play: The reported size of the labor force can be volatile month-to-month just due to sampling error, but the drop in May was unusually large.
It may have fallen because of potential workers becoming discouraged about job prospects, or it could be attributable to immigration cuts reducing the supply of labor, notes Nationwide chief economist Kathy Bostjancic.
No rate cuts soon
The new numbers are the worst of all worlds for those hoping for Fed interest rate cuts — including the guy in the Oval Office.
State of play: The Fed is on high alert for any meaningful deterioration in the labor market, which could trigger interest rate cuts to try to fulfill its mandate for maximum employment.
This report didn't provide that — it's hard to square a stable unemployment rate and solid payroll growth with the kind of falloff in the job market that would bring in the rate-cutting cavalry, no matter what the beneath-the-surface details show.
Meanwhile, average hourly earnings rose 0.4% in May, an elevated level that suggests some residual inflation pressure remains in the job market.
The policy-sensitive two-year Treasury yield was up a whopping 0.09 percentage points this morning on the news, reflecting expectations that rate cuts are looking more distant.
Between the lines: The Fed's policy committee meets later this month and is all but certain to leave rates unchanged, consistent with its wait-and-see mode for the impact of the trade war on the economy.
The meeting after that is in late July, but that means there will only be one more month of jobs data by then. A rate cut then also looks improbable, barring a complete collapse in the data in the weeks ahead.
It's far more plausible that by September there will be enough evidence of a downshift in the job market and economic activity more broadly.
Yes, but: That's not what President Trump wants to hear. "If 'Too Late' at the Fed would CUT, we would greatly reduce interest rates, long and short, on debt that is coming due," Trump posted on Truth Social this morning. "Borrowing costs should be MUCH LOWER!!!"
"Go for a full point, Rocket Fuel!" he later added.
Reality check: The Fed isn't going to cut interest rates a full percentage point, or anything close to it, unless or until, there is more decisive evidence that the job market is losing steam.
Rep. Mary Miller (R-Ill.) posted — then quickly deleted — that a Sikh should have "never been allowed" to lead the House of Representatives' daily prayer on Friday after initially incorrectly calling the man a Muslim.
Why it matters: This is not the first time Miller has fallen into hot water for inflammatory remarks. Shortly before she took office in 2021, she made headlines for saying "Hitler was right about one thing."
After Roe v. Wade was overturned in 2022, Miller called the decision a "historic victory for white life," which her office later said was based on a misreading of her prepared remarks.
A Miller spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
What happened: Giani Singh, a Sikh Granthi from southern New Jersey, delivered the House's morning prayer on Friday.
Miller responded later in the morning by incorrectly identifying Singh as a Muslim, saying it was "deeply troubling that a Muslim was allowed to lead prayer in the House of Representatives this morning."
"This should have never been allowed to happen. America was founded as a Christian nation, and I believe our government should reflect that truth, not drift further from it. May God have mercy," she added.
Miller quickly edited her post to change "Muslim" to "Sikh," before deleting it altogether minutes later.
What they're saying: "I often say that I serve in Congress with some of the greatest minds of the 18th century. With Rep. Miller I may need to take it back a few more centuries," Rep. Jared Huffman (D-Calif.) said in a post on X.
Said Rep. Grace Meng (D-N.Y.) in a post on X: "What's deeply disturbing is the blatant ignorance and anti-Sikh, anti-Muslim xenophobia coming from my colleague across the aisle."
"There is no place in our country, and especially the Halls of Congress, for this hate and intolerance," she added. "The tweet may have been deleted, but we still have the receipts."
Republicans overwhelmingly said they'd side with President Trump over Elon Musk in the duo's explosive feud, according to Thursday polling.
Why it matters: Republicans' loyalty to Trump remains strong, and the acrimony only adds to Americans' existing dissatisfaction with the former head of DOGE.
By the numbers: More than half of Americans said they wouldn't side with either the president or the wealthiest man in the world, per a YouGov survey of U.S. adults.
28% said they would side with Trump, and only 8% said they would side with Musk.
Zoom in: Among Republicans,71% said they would side with Trump over Musk, while 12% said they would side with neither.
80% of Democrats said they would side with neither.
Context: Trump and Musk had a public falling out on Thursday following months of collaboration.
Musk left the White House in late May after months of influence over the Trump administration and federal spending.
He initially said he'd continue to be an adviser to the president, but then started bashing the "One Big Beautiful Bill."
Trump on Thursday said he didn't know if they'd have a "great relationship," prompting bitter backlash from Musk on X.
What we are watching: Musk and Trump have scheduled a phone call on Friday to defuse the tension, according to Politico.
Musk also appeared to walk back on an earlier threat he made on X to decommission the Dragon spacecraft, which is essential to NASA's operation.
Elon Musk's threat Thursday to decommission SpaceX's Dragon spacecraft would haveleft NASA reliant on Russian capsules to get its astronauts into space.
Why it matters: Musk's rift with President Trump exposes how reliant NASA has become on a single private sector partner to reach the International Space Station after ending the space shuttle program in 2011.
Musk eventually walked back the threat Thursday, but it demonstrates how critical SpaceX is to the American space program.
State of play: The Dragon spacecraft can carry up to seven passengers into orbit, according to the SpaceX website.
"It is the only spacecraft currently flying that is capable of returning significant amounts of cargo to Earth, and is the first private spacecraft to take humans to the space station," the website said.
Between 2011 when the space shuttle program ended and 2020 when the Dragon entered service, American astronauts relied on other countries to reach space, particularly Russia.
The Dragon has completed 51 missions and 46 visits to the ISS, per SpaceX.
Russia's Soyuz capsules are the only other way for crews to reach the space station, per AP.
Each Soyuz launch carries two Russians and one NASA astronaut. Every SpaceX launch carries one Russian.
Flashback: NASA in 2014 awarded contracts to SpaceX and Boeing to transport crews to the ISS.
Boeing's Starliner, though, experienced significant setbacks and left astronauts stranded on its first crewed test flight.
Zoom out: While NASA relies on SpaceX for its astronauts, other companies including Northrop Grumman and the United Launch Alliance successfully transport cargo to the ISS and launch satellites.
Why it matters: Musk personally targeted Johnson (R-La.) in a series of posts on Thursday. Johnson refers to Musk as a friend, and said he and Musk had a "very friendly conversation" as recently as Monday.
Johnson said he and Musk can have "policy differences," but it "shouldn't be personal."
"I don't argue with him about how to build rockets. And I wish he wouldn't argue with me about how to craft legislation and pass it," Johnson said.
"I respect them both," Johnson said of Trump and Musk.
Editor's note: This is a breaking news story and will be updated.
Shortly after President Trump unexpectedly withdrew Elon Musk's pick to lead NASA last weekend, one name quickly surfaced as a major force behind the surprise decision: top White House aide Sergio Gor.
Why it matters: Trump acknowledged Thursday that canceling Jared Isaacman's NASA nomination had "upset" Musk, who's close to Isaacman. It was a factor, among many, that led to Thursday's shocking falling out between the president and his one-time "First Buddy," the world's richest person.
Musk spent the afternoon flaming Trump on X. It left presidential advisers stunned — and some of them angry at Gor, whose tense relationship with Musk was a backdrop to the controversy.
Senate Republicans also blamed Gor for helping undermine the NASA nomination to settle a score with Musk, who had been critical of Gor's management of the White House personnel office.
Gor declined to comment. But one senior White House official called Axios on Gor's behalf to praise his "brilliance, hard work and dedication."
Zoom in: Gor is one of the most influential Trump advisers in the White House, and co-founded Winning Team Publishing with Donald Trump Jr. The imprint publishes books by Trump and his allies, and put much-needed cash in Trump's pocket during his isolation after the Jan. 6 riot at the Capitol.
Gor, a frequent presence at Mar-a-Lago, has a close relationship with former Marvel executive Ike Perlmutter, one of Trump's closest friends and a major donor.
Gor was a top fundraising official on Trump's 2020 re-election campaign, and founded a pro-Trump super PAC during the 2024 campaign that spent nearly $72 million.
Zoom out: As the man in charge of vetting political appointees, Gor implemented loyalty tests to make sure new hires support Trump's agenda wholeheartedly — and that they haven't given to Democrats.
Of all of Trump's picks, Isaacman — a wealthy entrepreneur — stood out for having contributed to Democrats during the last election cycle. Trump cited that Saturday when he withdrew Isaacman's nomination.
Trump, however, had been made aware of Isaacman's donations months ago and said nothing.
Now, the nation's space agency won't have a chief confirmed by the Senate for at least nine months, officials say.
Flashback: Musk and Gor had a tense relationship that surfaced in March during a heated Cabinet meeting in which Musk got into an argument with Secretary of State Marco Rubio, The New York Times reported at the time.
Gor wasn't mentioned in the Times story, a conspicuous absence in the eyes of two senior administration officials who say Gor resented Musk's involvement in personnel matters.
"Sergio let it be known he didn't like Musk's attitude ... and he didn't like getting called out [by Musk]in front of the Cabinet," said one White House official who attended the meeting.
The intrigue: In a Wednesday discussion on the "All-In Podcast," Isaacman said he believes his fate was linked to Musk's deteriorating standing in the White House and "an influential adviser coming in and saying [to Trump]: 'Look, here's the facts and I think we should kill this guy.'''
"It's crazy," a Trump adviser involved in the NASA director process said. "Isaacman is eminently qualified. He's a billionaire. He has been to space. He was a Democrat — exactly the type of voter we want. And now look at it."
Gor has told others he wasn't responsible — and that GOP senators were, including Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, chair of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, which oversees NASA.
Advisers in several GOP Senate offices involved in the nomination, including Cruz's, say they didn't know of any senators or staffers who opposed Isaacman.
Cruz, indeed, raised objections in December, when Musk persuaded Trump to nominate Isaacman to lead NASA. Cruz raised two issues then:
Isaacman had contributed to Democrats opposing GOP senators Tim Sheehy of Montana and Bernie Moreno of Ohio last year.
Isaacman, like Musk, wants NASA to focus on colonizing Mars, but Cruz is focused on moon exploration. The Texas senator wants to compete with the Chinese space efforts there — and keep the Johnson Space Center in Houston operational as mission control for the Artemis program.
Behind the scenes: Musk called Cruz when he heard of his objections. Isaacman then promised he would prioritize Artemis. Sheehy and Moreno said they had no problems with Isaacman.
Cruz held a confirmation hearing on April 30 for Isaacman, whose nomination was approved by the committee 19-9.
Three Senate sources and two White House insiders said they expected Isaacman to get 70 or 80 votes on the Senate floor, a rarity in the closely divided chamber.
"I thought we were going to confirm him this week," Cruz told Axios. Asked if he had any input in scuttling Isaacman's confirmation, Cruz said: "That's not accurate."
Meanwhile, Gor "spun up the president by just constantly mentioning the donations," a Trump adviser said.
On May 30, before a joint press conference with Musk to announce his departure from the White House — which appeared amicable at the time — Gor dropped off a background file on Isaacman with Trump at the Oval Office. Musk later entered the room and Trump asked him about Isaacman.
"This guy gave to Democrats," Trump said to Musk, according to a person familiar with the meeting.
"It's not like Elon really defended him. He said, 'He's really competent. But yeah, he gave to Democrats,'" the source said.
In a written statement, White House communications director Steven Cheung said Gor "is a vital member of the team and he has helped President Trump put together an administration that is second to none."
To honor the end of Elon Musk's "incredible" government service, President Trump presented his friend, adviser and billionaire benefactor with a golden key to the White House.
Six days later, Musk lit the place on fire.
Why it matters: The most powerful civilian ever has effectively declared war on the president of the United States, incinerating their relationship — at least for now — in one of history's most extraordinary political meltdowns.
The long-predicted rupture built over months, but exploded in hours — unfolding in real time in the Oval Office, on Truth Social, and above all, on X.
The consequences were tectonic, shaking the foundations of a MAGA-tech coalition that has mapped out grand ambitions for Trump's second term.
Catch up quick: Tensions have simmered all week over Musk's scathing criticism of Trump's budget-busting tax bill, which is projected to add trillions to the national debt.
On Thursday, Trump claimed the Tesla CEO was lashing out over the bill's rollback of electric vehicle credits — and suggested he was suffering from "Trump Derangement Syndrome."
Musk responded by committing what can only be described as an unforgivable sin in Trumpworld: Claiming credit for the president's 2024 election victory and arguing that his political power would far outlast Trump's.
Trump fired back by threatening to terminate Musk's billions of dollars in government subsidies and contracts, and declaring that his former adviser had gone "crazy."
Over the next few hours, Musk would call for Trump's impeachment, claim the president is implicated in unreleased Jeffrey Epstein files, and float the creation of a new political party.
He also announced that SpaceX would "begin decommissioning its Dragon spacecraft immediately" — a move that would disrupt NASA operations and sever a core link between his empire and the federal government.
Between the lines: Musk later walked back that threat and opened the door to a thaw with Trump. He responded positively to a plea by financier Bill Ackman that they make peace.
Politico reported late Thursday that Trump aides had scheduled a call between the two for Friday.
But the episode underscored the extraordinary leverage the billionaire holds over critical government functions — and how easily that power can be politicized.
The big picture: The conflict between two of the world's most powerful men seemed like it was quickly barreling toward mutually assured destruction.
Musk, who spent nearly $300 million to support Trump and GOP candidates in 2024, views the swelling deficit as an existential threat, and has promised to target any Republican who votes for the bill.
GOP lawmakers, many of whom have spent years terrified by the prospect of a Trump-backed primary threat, are now praying the president's endorsement is worth more than Musk's war chest.
Between the lines: Some pro-Trump activists seized the opportunity to claim vindication for their skepticism of MAGA's tech alliance, some of which dates back to an early but revealing debate over H1-B visas.
MAGA whisperer Steve Bannon called for the South African-born Musk to be investigated and deported — and for SpaceX to be seized by the U.S. government.
Some prominent influencers, such as Charlie Kirk, urged reconciliation between two of the American right's most influential power centers.
The bottom line: Trump reached for a surprising analogy Thursday when discussing the war between Russia and Ukraine: two kids scrapping in the park who need to fight it out a bit before separating.
Within hours, top Republicans in Washington were wondering if that's what they were seeing between Trump and Musk.
Could they sit this one out until the punching stopped? Or would the two biggest kids on the playground just keep swinging — and bruise the entire movement?
Why it matters: The popularity of private-label products could soar as tariffs threaten to drive national brand prices higher.
"Private label is growing faster than mainstream retail and part of the reason is that consumers can save money by switching," GlobalData managing director Neil Saunders told Axios.
"This has been happening for a long time and the trend might be accelerated if tariffs push up prices," Saunders said.
The big picture: Store brands are no longer the generic knockoffs of the past. They are a "destination driver" for many retailers, Sally Lyons Wyatt, global executive vice president and chief industry adviser at Circana, told Axios.
Private brand products cost 20% less than national brands, Lyons Wyatt said.
The price gap between private label and national brands has grown by 38% since 2019, according to data firm Numerator's Private Label Perceptions report.
Tariffs and store brands
State of play: Store brands aren't immune to tariffs, but large retailers have more control to minimize the impact because they have better leverage to negotiate terms with suppliers and reduce production costs.
Walmart CEO Doug McMillon told Axios in April that the retailer has more "visibility and control over what happens" with its store brands.
What they're saying: "Private brand will continue to be a way that we show great value to customers," McMillon said.
Costco has been adding new products to its Kirkland Signature brand and seeing the brand's sales outpace the company's overall sales, CEO Ron Vachris said in a May 29 earnings call.
"In times of consumer uncertainty, our Kirkland Signature brand is uniquely positioned to provide our members with great quality and great values," Vachris said.
Aldi: "Nobody else is 90% private label"
Zoom in: A poster child for the private brand is discount grocer Aldi, where 90% of products are store-owned brands.
"Nobody else is 90% private label. If you have all these (national) brands, you're really at the mercy of what the brand says the cost is going to be," Scott Patton, Aldi's chief commercial officer, told Axios. "We get to control that. The private label is really our differentiator."
Patton said just 4% of Aldi's assortment "is impacted by tariffs."
"We do have some globally sourced items," Patton said, noting imported wines from Chile as an example. "So there are going to be some areas of the store that are subject to a tariff. That doesn't mean that we're going to take that tariff and pass it on the consumer."
Summer savings: Aldi lowers prices
The intrigue:Aldi announced Thursday that it is dropping prices on more than 400 products — nearly 25% of its in-store selection — to help consumers save this summer.
Patton said the prices have dropped on products throughout the store, including produce, meats like baby back ribs and grass-fed ground beef, chips, breads, yogurt, frozen items and the retailer's prebiotic Popz soda.
Consumers will see red price tags throughout the store to identify price drops.
Yes, but: Two industry-wide categories that have had price increases are chocolate and coffee, Patton said.
Costco was "continuing to move more items to locally sourced production, which is allowing us to lower prices in those markets," CFO Gary Millerchip said last week.
Millerchip cited some examples of lower prices including 2-liter Kirkland Signature organic extra virgin olive oil, which went from $24.99 to $18.39.
/2025/06/06/1749239424594.gif)
