Data: Milken Institute; Table: Jacque Schrag/Axios. Editor's note: This chart has been corrected to reflect that the rankings include metro areas with at least 275,000 residents (not 250,000).
Raleigh, North Carolina; Ogden, Utah and Salt Lake City, Utah are this year's best-performing big cities, according to an annual report ranking metros across a range of economic factors.
Why it matters: The Milken Institute's yearly rankings highlight U.S. cities with job growth, affordable housing, economic equality and other big draws.
The big picture: Cities have largely emerged from the tumultuous times of the COVID-19 pandemic and "remain at the center of economic activity," as the report puts it.
Driving the news: Raleigh moved up to the top spot this year after coming second in 2024 and third in 2023.
"It's been a long time coming for Raleigh, which has performed extremely well in our rankings for several years, without ever quite landing on top before this year," reads the report, which credits the city's job and wage growth and "thriving high-tech sector."
Utah is also a big winner, with Ogden and Salt Lake City taking the other two podium spots.
"Ogden's impressive rise from last year's ranking" — up 24 places — "stems from big improvements in its recent labor market performance."
Salt Lake, meanwhile, combines "a robust job market, a growing high-tech sector, and widespread access to economic opportunities."
Rounding out the top 10: Huntsville, Alabama; Colorado Springs, Colorado; Austin, Texas; Fayetteville, Arkansas; Olympia, Washington; Palm Bay, Florida and Boise City, Idaho.
Zoom in: Some smaller cities are growing thanks to lower housing costs and better economic equality, per the report, which highlights job and wage growth in places like St. George, Utah (near Zion National Park) and Auburn, Alabama.
How it works: The annual rankings from Milken — a nonpartisan, nonprofit think tank — are based on its Best Performing Cities index, which takes into account cities' labor markets, tech industry growth and economic access.
Reality check: The report doesn't explicitly look at other quality-of-life factors people may consider when picking a place to live, like traffic congestion, public transit access, park space, etc.
The bottom line: If you're searching for a booming city that isn't New York, Chicago or L.A., give this list a look.
President-elect Trump launched his own cryptocurrency overnight and swiftly appeared to make more than $25 billion on paper for himself and his companies.
Why it matters: The stunning launch of $TRUMP caught the entire industry off-guard, and speaks to both his personal influence and the ascendancy of cryptocurrency in his administration.
It also speaks to the nature of the crypto industry that someone could have $25 billion worth of something that literally did not exist 24 hours previously.
Catch up quick: Friday night, while Trump was reportedly hosting a "Crypto Ball" for the industry in Washington, the president-elect launched his own meme-linked cryptocurrency.
His website bills it as "the only official Trump meme."
By the numbers: According to CoinGecko price data, $TRUMP rose more than 600% overnight and was trading just over $32 as of 11 a.m. ET Saturday.
That gives the coin a fully diluted market capitalization just north of $32 billion.
The meme website says 80% of the supply is held by Trump Organization affiliate CIC Digital, and a CIC co-owned entity called Fight Fight Fight LLC. ("Fight fight fight" is what Trump said after being shot at a rally in July.)
They are subject to a three-year unlocking schedule, which means they cannot dump all of their holdings at once.
The intrigue: Trump has warmly embraced cryptocurrency as a concept and an industry, to the point that he is reportedly considering designating it a "national priority" as soon as this week, per Bloomberg.
💭 Brady's thought bubble: No politician has ever given their supporters a way to monetize that support -- until now.
This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.
Jake Sullivan — with three days left as White House national security adviser, with wide access to the world's secrets — called us to deliver a chilling, "catastrophic" warning for America and the incoming administration:
The next few years will determine whether artificial intelligence leads to catastrophe — and whether China or America prevails in the AI arms race.
Why it matters: Sullivan said in our phone interview that unlike previous dramatic technology advancements (atomic weapons, space, the internet), AI development sits outside of government and security clearances, and in the hands of private companies with the power of nation-states.
Underscoring the gravity of his message, Sullivan spoke with an urgency and directness that were rarely heard during his decade-plus in public life.
Somehow, government will have to join forces with these companies to nurture and protect America's early AI edge, and shape the global rules for using potentially God-like powers, he says.
U.S. failure to get this right, Sullivan warns, could be "dramatic, and dramatically negative — to include the democratization of extremely powerful and lethal weapons; massive disruption and dislocation of jobs; an avalanche of misinformation."
Staying ahead in the AI arms race makes the Manhattan Project during World War II seem tiny, and conventional national security debates small. It's potentially existential with implications for every nation and company.
To distill Sullivan: America must quickly perfect a technology that many believe will be smarter and more capable than humans. We need to do this without decimating U.S. jobs, and inadvertently unleashing something with capabilities we didn't anticipate or prepare for. We need to both beat China on the technology and in shaping and setting global usage and monitoring of it, so bad actors don't use it catastrophically. Oh, and it can only be done with unprecedented government-private sector collaboration — and probably difficult, but vital, cooperation with China.
"There's going to have to be a new model of relationship because of just the sheer capability in the hands of a private actor," Sullivan says.
"What exactly that model looks like, whether it takes more the form of guardrails and regulation, and some forms of support from the government —or whether it involves something more ambitious than that — I will tell you that some of the smartest people I know who sit at the intersection of policy and technology are working through the answer to that question right now."
This is beyond uncharted waters. It's an unexplored galaxy — "a new frontier," in his words. And one, he warns, where progress routinely exceeds projections in advancement. Progress is now pulsing in months, not years.
Between the lines: Sullivan leaves government believing this can be done well — and wants to work on this very problem in the private sector.
"I personally am not an AI doomer," he says. "I am a person who believes that we can seize the opportunities of AI. But to do so, we've got to manage the downside risks, and we have to be clear-eyed and real about those risks."
The big picture: There's no person we know in a position of power in AI or governance who doesn't share Sullivan's broad belief in the stakes ahead.
Regardless of what was said in public, every background conversation we had with President Biden's high command came back to China. Yes, they had concerns about the ethics, misinformation and job loss of AI. They talked about that. But they were unusually blunt in private: Every move, every risk was calculated to keep China from beating us to the AI punch. Nothing else matters, they basically said.
That said, AI is like the climate: America could do everything right — but if China refuses to do the same, the problem persists and metastasizes fast. Sullivan said Trump, like Biden, should try to work with Chinese leader Xi Jinping on a global AI framework, much like the world did with nuclear weapons.
There won't be one winner in this AI race. Both China and the U.S. are going to have very advanced AI. There'll be tons of open-source AI that many other nations will build on, too. Once one country has made a huge advance, others will match it soon after. What they can't get from their own research or work, they'll get from hacking and spying. (It didn't take long for Russia to match the A-bomb and then the H-bomb.)
Marc Andreessen, who's intimately involved in the Trump transition and AI policy, told Bari Weiss of The Free Press his discussions with the Biden administration this past year were "absolutely horrifying," and said he feared the officials might strangle AI startups if left in power. His chief concern: Biden would assert government control by keeping AI power in the hands of a few big players, suffocating innovation.
Sullivan says a conversation he had with Andreessen struck a very different tone.
"The point he was trying to register with me, which I thought was actually a very fair point, is: I think about downside risk; that's my job," Sullivan told us. "His point was: It should also be my job as national security adviser to think about how AI applications running on American rails globally is better than AI applications running on some other country's rails globally."
What's next: Trump seems to be full speed ahead on AI development. Unlike Biden, he plans to work in deep partnership with AI and tech CEOs at a very personal level. Biden talked to some tech CEOs; Trump is letting them help staff his government. The MAGA-tech merger is among the most important shifts of the past year.
The super-VIP section of Monday's inauguration will be one for a time capsule: Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, Tim Cook, Sam Altman, Sundar Pichai and Mark Zuckerberg — who's attending his first inauguration, and is co-hosting a black-tie reception Monday night. The godfathers of tech are all desperate for access, a say, a partnership.
A fight might await: Steve Bannon and other MAGA originals believe AI is evil at scale — a job-killer for the very people who elected Trump. But for now, Bannon is a fairly lonely voice shouting against AI velocity. Trump and the AI gods hold the stage.
The bottom line: There's a reason our Behind the Curtain column writes obsessively about AI and its collision with government. We believe, based on conversations with AI's creators and experts, this dynamic will reshape politics, business and culture beyond most imaginations.
Treasury secretary Janet Yellen, in one of her final major acts in office, warned Congress late Friday that the Treasury will need to begin "extraordinary measures" on Tuesday to avoid hitting the debt limit.
Why it matters: The first full day of the Trump 2.0 presidency will see the government scrambling to move money around, increasing the urgency of the problem he's demanded Congress address.
Driving the news: Yellen warned Congress about three weeks ago that measures would be necessary sometime this month unless they acted to raise or suspend the debt ceiling.
On Friday, she indicated those measures were now necessary as of Jan. 21.
The debt limit was suspended by legislation in 2023, but went back into effect on Jan. 1 of this year.
President-elect Trump wants the debt limit abolished entirely, but equally wanted that done before he took office.
Zoom in: Yellen outlined a variety of steps the Treasury would take, including freezing certain investment activities for civil service and postal retiree benefits and suspending debt issuance.
What she's saying: "The debt limit does not authorize new spending, but it creates a risk that the federal government might not be able to finance its existing legal obligations that Congresses and Presidents of both parties have made in the past," she wrote.
"I respectfully urge Congress to act promptly to protect the full faith and credit of the United States."
Between the lines: The Treasury deploying a toolkit of extraordinary measures to avoid the debt ceiling is nothing new.
But every time it happens, it amplifies the long-running debate and raises the pressure on Congress to act.
The intrigue: House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) said this week he wants to raise the limit through the end of Trump's presidency, floating the prospect of tying it to LA wildfire aid.
Because so many House Republicans are fundamentally opposed to raising or eliminating the debt limit, that may require Johnson to make a deal with Democrats to get it passed - and they are vehemently opposed to conditioning fire aid.
Years of debate, months of procrastination and weeks of panic have brought the U.S. to the brink of banning TikTok — a bipartisan achievement that top politicians suddenly want nothing to do with.
Why it matters: On the eve of his inauguration, President-elect Trump is facing an enormous challenge to his popularity, his executive power and his word. He has vowed to save TikTok — but failed to explain how he can do so without violating U.S. law.
The latest: The Supreme Court on Friday upheld the law passed by Congress last year that forces Chinese parent company ByteDance to divest from TikTok by Jan. 19, or else face a ban in the U.S.
The decision was unanimous, with all nine justices shrugging off a brief from Trump asking the court to delay the ban so that his administration could "pursue a negotiated resolution."
President Biden, who signed the TikTok bill into law, will not enforce the ban — saying in a statement Friday that "actions to implement the law simply must fall" to the Trump administration, given the timing.
TikTok, meanwhile, said the app "will be forced to go dark" on Sunday unless the Biden administration "immediately provides a definitive statement to satisfy the most critical service providers assuring non-enforcement."
State of play: Trump is now in a serious bind.
It was his administration that spearheaded the initial push to ban TikTok via executive order in 2020, citing the national security threat posed by Beijing's potential influence over the app and its user data.
Trump became a defender of TikTok once he realized how powerful it could be as a campaign messaging tool, especially among young people.
Now, for many of the platform's 170 million American users, Trump's first day in office threatens to be overshadowed by — or worse, forever tied to — the disappearance of TikTok from app stores.
Screenshot via Truth Social
What to watch: Trump is considering an executive order delaying enforcement of the TikTok ban to give the administration time to find a U.S. buyer, despite ByteDance's refusal to sell for the past eight months.
It's unclear how the executive order could bypass the letter of the law, and app stores run by Google and Apple could face fines and liability risk if they ignore the Supreme Court's ruling.
The intrigue: One of the biggest obstacles to Trump's salvation mission is his own party.
Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), the chair of the Intelligence Committee, blocked Democrats' attempt to extend the deadline for the ban on Thursday.
"Let me be crystal clear: there will be no extensions, no concessions, and no compromises for TikTok," Cotton said, echoing the hawkish language typical of most Republicans before Trump's change of heart.
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), Trump's nominee for secretary of state, was among the very first lawmakers to raise the alarm about TikTok in October 2019 — though he has indicated he will now defer to Trump.
Between the lines: In many ways, the dynamics around banning TikTok are a microcosm of the broader debate over the U.S.-China competition.
"Decoupling" the two economies may sound like the shrewd national security approach, but the practical consequences — and potential for public backlash — are staggering.
In the days leading up to the ban, hundreds of thousands of self-described "TikTok refugees" have downloaded the Chinese app RedNote — its name believed to be a reference to Mao Ze Dong's "Little Red Book."
OpenAI CEO Sam Altman revealed Friday that Democratic senators had sent him a letter alleging "he has a clear and direct interest in obtaining favors" from Donald Trump and is using his donations "to cozy up" to the incoming administration to avoid regulatory scrutiny.
Why it matters: Altman was one of several tech titans who donated $1 million to Trump's inauguration. In a statement to Axios in response to the senators' letter, an OpenAI spokesperson said: "Sam believes that President Trump will lead our country during a pivotal moment for AI and American innovation, and looks forward to working with him and his administration."
Altman posted the letter on X, adding: "funny, they never sent me one of these for contributing to democrats."
Driving the news: The letter from Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) stated that "million-dollar gifts" to Trump's inaugural fund by Altman and tech firms like Google, Meta, Microsoft and Uber, "raise questions about corruption and the influence of corporate money" on the Trump administration.
Altman was one of a few tech CEOs who donated personally, rather than via their companies. Apple CEO Tim Cook did the same, as Axios scooped.
Representatives for Warren and Bennet didn't immediately respond to requests for comment.
What they're saying: In the letter, lawmakers said that "the industry's efforts suggest that Big Tech companies are trying to curry favor and skirt the rules."
The letter includes a list of questions, with a Jan. 25 deadline for Altman to respond. They include: "What is your rationale for these contributions?" and "When and under what circumstances did your company decide to make these contributions to the Trump inaugural fund?"
In his response, Altman noted that he'd made a personal contribution and thus "i am confused about the questions given that my company did not make a decision."
Flashback: Altman told Fox News in December he would donate $1 million to Trump's inaugural fund, saying he was "eager to support" Trump's efforts to "lead our country into the age of AI."
He's changed his tune since 2016, when he stated in a post on X that "I am voting against Trump" as "he is unfit to be President and would be a threat to national security."
Between the lines: Trump has vowed to repeal President Biden's AI executive order from 2023 that outlined the steps companies and the government will be directed to take to foster responsible AI.
Senate Majority Leader John Thune notched his first big win Friday by clearing the filibuster on the Laken Riley Act. It'll almost certainly pass Monday with ease.
Why it matters: It's a specific, popular, bipartisan bill. But it also hands Thune a chance to prove he's serious about promises made during the GOP leadership election.
Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) told Axios: "What we can feel good about is we're having a lot more conversations about what we're doing." Scott ran against Thune for leader.
Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) told Axios that Thune "says what he means and means what he says when he talks about having a more open amendment process." Lee wants a more open process and backed Scott in November.
Zoom in: Thune spent dayshaggling with Minority Leader Chuck Schumer over the bill, which requires ICE to detain immigrants charged with or convicted of theft.
Thune and Schumer agreed Wednesday to allow two votes on amendments. One passed, which would require ICE to detain immigrants who attack law enforcement.
Senators will vote Monday on another amendment from Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) that would add to the detention list immigrants who commit crimes resulting in death or bodily injury. It's likely to pass.
Because of the change, the House will have to pass the bill again before it reaches President-elect Trump's desk.
Zoom out: Nearly a quarter of Senate Dems proved they're willing to help break a filibuster for GOP priorities.
Schumer privately told Democrats they were free to engage with the GOP on the bill, before he publicly opposed it once it was clear that substantive changes weren't happening.
His defectors included new Sens. Ruben Gallego of Arizona and Elissa Slotkin of Michigan.
Schumer also lost Georgia's Jon Ossoff, Arizona's Mark Kelly, Michigan's Gary Peters, Nevada's Catherine Cortez Masto and Jacky Rosen, and New Hampshire's Maggie Hassan and Jeanne Shaheen.
Why it matters: The procedural and budgetary gambit will free Republicans from the burden of finding the $4 trillion in spending cuts. But deficit hawks, including member of the House Freedom Caucus, haven't completely signed off on the novel approach.
Zoom in: Scott Bessent, Trump's nominee for Treasury secretary, has privately indicated to senators that he's sympathetic to their view that the cost of extending the 2017 tax cuts should be zero, according to people familiar with the matter.
By the numbers: Under a "current law baseline," extending Trump's personal and estate tax cuts will cost $4 trillion over 10 years.
The tax cuts expire at the end of 2025, and the Congressional Budget Office has to score how much revenue the Treasury will miss if Congress passes it for another 10 years.
But what if Congress runs the numbers from a different starting point, and considers "current policy"?
Current policy has the tax cuts in place (at least until the end of the year). Among friends, say Republicans, what if we use current policy as the baseline? Then extending the tax cuts will cost … zero.
Between the lines: This fall, while still in the minority, Senate Finance Chair Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) started talking about using a current policy approach.
That strategy appears to be gaining momentum, especially in the Senate. House Ways and Means Chair Jason Smith (R-Mo.) is also on board.
The two Budget Committee chairs, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Rep. Jodey Arrington (R-Texas) haven't tipped their hands on their preferred approach.
The bottom line: Republicans are seizing on the "current policy" paradigm in 2025, but plenty of Obama officials (including Jeff Zients, President Biden's current chief of staff) were for it in 2013.
President-elect Trump sent shockwaves through Capitol Hill on Friday by announcing that his inaugural ceremonies will take place indoors, leaving members of Congress guessing about their plans.
Why it matters: Monday's proceedings will now take place in the Capitol rotunda — an extremely limited space — meaning many lawmakers will likely not be able to attend.
When Ronald Reagan was inaugurated in the rotunda in 1985, only 96 people were invited, according to contemporaneous reports.
That's significantly fewer than the 435 House members and 100 senators — not to mention Trump's family members, Cabinet and staff appointees, Supreme Court justices and other invited VIPs.
Driving the news: Trump wrote in a post on his social media app Truth Social that there is an "Arctic blast sweeping the Country" that "could take temperatures into severe record lows" in Washington, D.C. on Jan. 20.
"Therefore, I have ordered the Inauguration Address, in addition to prayers and other speeches, to be delivered in the United States Capitol Rotunda," he said.
The Capital One Arena, a downtown D.C. stadium with a capacity of 20,000, will screen the swearing-in live and host the presidential parade, Trump said.
What we're hearing: Lawmakers and staffers told Axios that the move to the rotunda throws their plans into serious doubt.
Several House members who had planned to attend said Friday afternoon that they were trying to get more information.
"We are still trying to figure out what this announcement means," said Rep. Becca Balint (D-Vt.), noting that there is "definitely not enough room" in the rotunda.
Rep. Troy Nehls (R-Texas) acknowledged he will likely not be in the rotunda but may be at the arena, telling Axios: "I have 46 guests attending the Inauguration and I will remain with them throughout."
Between the lines: The move comes as a relief for some Democrats who had been experiencing heartburn over whether to attend the inaugural ceremony of a man they revile.
Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), who had not decided whether to go, told Axios: "Reminds me of Aaron Burr's rejoinder to Ben Franklin's admonition to 'never put off until tomorrow that which you can do or decide today.'"
"Burr said, 'Never decide today that which you can put off until tomorrow because something may happen in the meantime to make you regret your premature action.'"
President-elect Trump's inaugural ceremony Mondaywill take place inside the Capitol Rotunda due to the weather forecast in Washington, D.C., he posted on Truth Social.
The big picture: Ronald Reagan's 1985 presidential swearing-in was the last to move indoors because of cold temperatures.
Driving the news: Trump wrote on Truth Social that the decision to adjust the ceremony's plans was a safety consideration.
"I don't want to see people hurt, or injured, in any way," Trump wrote, noting that the temperature lows could pose "dangerous conditions" for law enforcement personnel and spectators.
Instead, Trump said he had ordered much of the proceedings moved to the Capitol Rotunda and that Washington, D.C.'s Capitol One Arena would be opened to spectators to watch the ceremony live.
Trump added that he would join the crowd at the arena after his swearing-in.
President Biden on Friday shortened the sentences of nearly 2,500 people convicted of nonviolent drug offenses — setting a record in a single presidential term for the most pardons and sentence commutations.
Why it matters: Public attitude on criminal justice and prosecutions for non-violent crimes has shifted dramatically in recent decades. While much of Biden's legacy is set to be eroded by President-elect Trump, his use of presidential clemency power could be remembered.
Context: The thousands pardoned on Friday were "serving disproportionately long sentences compared to the sentences they would receive today," Biden's statement said.
In 2022, Attorney General Merrick Garland issued a memo to federal prosecutors to end sentencing disparities that led to the disproportionate incarceration of Black people in cases involving crack and powder cocaine.
State of play: After Biden in a shocking move pardoned his son Hunter last year following his conviction on federal gun charges, Democratic and Republican lawmakers re-upped pardon requests.
The White House is reportedly considering "preemptive pardons" to current and former public officials who could be targeted by President-elect Trump's administration, like former Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) and Anthony Fauci.
As of early December, Biden had issued 26 pardons, a record low, and commuted 135 sentences.
Later that month, he commuted the sentences of 1,500 Americans in a single-day record.
What they're saying: Criminal justice advocacy organizations applauded Biden's action on Friday.
"Cruel and excessive prison sentences that have overwhelmingly harmed Black communities have been the cornerstone of federal drug policy for generations," Kara Gotsch, executive director of the Sentencing Project, said in a statement.
"Today's commutations from President Biden are a welcome relief for countless families who have endured punishments for their loved ones that far exceed their utility."
"Too often, our criminal justice reforms only apply to the law going forward, leaving behind the very people and injustices that moved us to change," said a statement from FWD.us, an immigration and criminal justice reform organization.
Zoom out: Presidents tend to hand out more pardons during their final weeksin office.
President-elect Trump, during his first term, quadrupled his number of pardons in his last few weeks in office, including to some allies, like his former chief adviser Steve Bannon.
Biden's Friday statement said he'd continue to review additional commutations and pardons.
President Biden on Friday said he believes the Equal Rights Amendment is the "law of the land" as the U.S. Constitution's 28th Amendment — though with only days left in his term, his power on the issue is not immediately clear.
Why it matters: The measure proposed more than a century ago would guarantee equal rights, legally, regardless of sex. The president claims it has met the standards to become part of the constitution, which would require the National Archivist to formally publish or certify it.
The Biden administration did not immediately respond to Axios' request.
Last month, the U.S. Archivist Colleen Shogan said that the ERA could not be certified because of "established legal, judicial and procedural decisions" and called on new action from Congress.
"The underlying legal and procedural issues have not changed," a spokesperson for the National Archives said in a statement to Axios.
What he's saying: "I have supported the Equal Rights Amendment for more than 50 years, and I have long been clear that no one should be discriminated against based on their sex," Biden said in a Friday statement.
"We, as a nation, must affirm and protect women's full equality once and for all."
The American Bar Association said the amendment has passed all hurdles to be formally added to the Constitution, Biden said on Friday.
Context: Reproductive rights organizations and advocates have backed the ERA to establish sexual health protections as GOP states limit abortion access, and especially after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022.
In 2020, Virginia became the 38th state to ratify the measure. Proposed amendments become part of the Constitution after being ratified by at least 38 states.,
Between the lines: Just before Virginia ratified the amendment, the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel during President-elect Trump's first term issued a memo claiming it considered the ERA expired since a 1982 ratification deadline was missed.
The same office affirmed that decision in 2022 in another opinion.
Congress first passed the amendment in 1972 with a 7-year ratification deadline in its preamble (The deadline was extended by three years). By 1982, only 35 stated had ratified the ERA.
President Biden plans to write a book after leaving office, the White House confirmed to Axios, giving him an opportunity to try and shape the narrative around his presidency and the tumultuous weeks leading to his historic withdrawal from the 2024 race.
Why it matters: There's a glut of reporting coming out on Biden's fateful decision to run again in 2024 and ultimately step aside after his disastrous debate with President-elect Trump — most of it unflattering to the 82-year-old president.
Biden's own version of those events has hardly registered, beyond his contentious claims that he could have beaten Trump.
If the book project comes to fruition, it will be a chance for Biden to lay out, in full, his views on what he accomplished and why he handled the 2024 cycle the way he did.
NBC News first reported that Biden was planning a book. A White House spokesperson confirmed the plans but did not provide additional details.
Between the lines: Biden was remarkably successful at holding his party together and passing consequential legislation during most of his term. He continues to contend that history will look kindly upon his four years in office.
But he's leaving under a cloud, and handing power back to the man he vanquished in 2020 and condemned as a danger to American democracy.
A widespread belief has set in among Democrats that by clinging on for too long, Biden helped doom his party — and the country — to a second Trump presidency.
Biden, his family members, and some of his longtime aides disagree. He told USA Today last week that he still thinks he would have beaten Trump, while conceding he's not certain he could have handled the rigors of the presidency for four more years given his age.
The big picture: The court unanimously rejected TikTok's claims that the law violates the First Amendment.
The wildly popular app was on course to disappear for U.S. users as soon as Sunday, but President-elect Trump has said he would delay enforcement of that ban. TikTok's long-term future is still unclear.
Driving the news: The bipartisan law President Biden signed in April requires ByteDance, TikTok's Chinese parent company, to either sell TikTok or shutter it inside the U.S. on Jan. 19.
The justices said that because the primary responsibility falls on a foreign company, and because all of the speech that's currently on TikTok could still be there under new ownership, the First Amendment does not apply.
What's next: Trump had asked the court not to let the ban take effect as scheduled, one day before his inauguration.
Finding a way to keep TikTok alive may not seem like an emergency, but the app's sheer popularity will make it a top concern in the early days of Trump's new term.
Only a few potential buyers could put together enough money to even make a serious offer for the dominant social-media platform. Bloomberg reported that the Chinese government was considering selling TikTok to Elon Musk, though ByteDance flatly denied that.
But all sale discussions are in their early stages — in the months since the law took effect, ByteDance and TikTok have been more focused on avoiding the Jan. 19 deadline than finding a way to comply with it.
President-elect Trump spoke Friday with Chinese President Xi Jinping by phone just days before the U.S. presidential inauguration.
Why it matters: Trump said last month he exchanged messages with Xi after winning the election but didn't confirm they spoke. The president-elect has promised to implement aggressive tariffs on imports from China and could also be forced to determine the fate of TikTok upon taking office.
The call took place several hours after the Chinese foreign ministry announced that Xi is sending his vice president Han Zheng to Washington, D.C., to attend the inaugural ceremony Monday.
President Biden has said he won't enforce the TikTok ban that's supposed to take effect Sunday, the AP reported.
According to the Chinese state news agency, Trump requested the call.
What they're saying: "I just spoke to Chairman Xi Jinping of China. The call was a very good one for both China and the U.S.A. It is my expectation that we will solve many problems together, and starting immediately," Trump said in a post on his truth Social account.
He said they discussed balancing trade, fentanyl, TikTok and "many other subjects."
"President Xi and I will do everything possible to make the World more peaceful and safe!" Trump added.
Per the Chinese state news agency, Xi told Trump: "China and the U.S. have extensive common interests and broad space for cooperation. They can become partners and friends, achieve mutual success, prosper together, and benefit both countries and the world."
Trump and Xi discussed Taiwan, Ukraine and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Xi asked Trump to handle the Taiwan issue "with caution."
It reported Trump told Xi he looks forward to meeting him "as soon as possible."
State of play: According to a bipartisan law passed last year, the Chinese-owned TikTok needs to be sold to an American company or shut down operations in the U.S. by Jan. 19, due to national security concerns.
Trump has said he wants to take measures to "preserve" the wildly popular app in the U.S. despite the new law, his incoming national security adviser, Rep. Michael Waltz (R-Fla.), said Thursday.
Trump asked the Supreme Court last month to pause the TikTok ban, cementing his flip-flopping after he advocated to ban the app during his first term.
The high court is set to rule as soon as Friday on whether to uphold the law, which justices seemed inclined to do during oral arguments last week.
Editor's note: This story has been updated with additional developments.
Hostages and Palestinian prisoners held in Gaza will be released on Sunday following Israeli cabinet approval Friday of a hostage and ceasefire deal.
Why it matters: Cabinet approval, after seven hours of deliberations, was the final hurdle before the deal could be implemented, beyond a 24-hour period to allow for legal challenges.
When it came time to vote, 24 ministers voted in favor and 8 ministers voted against, an Israeli cabinet member told Axios.
The Qatari government and the IDF announced the ceasefire will begin on Sunday 8:30am local time (1:30am ET).
Under Israeli law, Palestinian prisoners can't be released from prison without a government vote and a 24-hour period for the public to appeal to the courts.
Zoom in: The IDF has already started redeploying some forces in Gaza moving them outside on the enclave or east towards the buffer zone on the Gaza-Israel border ahead of the ceasefire.
The release of hostages and Palestinian prisoners will begin on Sunday, 4pm local time (9am ET), the Israeli prime minister's office said.
Three Israeli women being held as hostages will be released by Hamas and 90 Palestinian women and teenagers will be released from Israeli prisons.
Yes, but: An Israeli official told Axios on Saturday that Hamas has not yet delivered the list of the three women.
"Qatar's prime minister must ensure that Hamas abides by the agreement and provides the list of the hostages today," the official said.
Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu said Israel will not move forward with the hostage and ceasefire deal until we receive the list of hostages to be released, as agreed.
"Israel will not tolerate violations of the agreement. The sole responsibility is on Hamas," Netanyahu said.
Context: To get to a ceasefire deal, a cabinet meeting was moved up from Saturday night at the urging of the director of Israel's Shin Bet intelligence agency, Ronen Bar, according to an Israeli official.
By the numbers: According to the Israeli cabinet decision, 33 Israeli hostages will be released over 42 days of ceasefire.
In return Israel will release 737 Palestinian prisoners and detainees in addition to 1167 Palestinians from Gaza who were not involved in the October 7 attack but have been detained by the IDF in Gaza since October 8.
According to the Israeli cabinet decision, Palestinian prisoners who were convicted of murder, production of weapons that were used for murder or initiated an attack that resulted in murder will be released only to Gaza or abroad and will not be allowed to go back to the West Bank or to Israel for at least three years.
During the cabinet decision the heads of the Israeli intelligence services and the IDF said they support the deal, Israeli national security adviser Tzachi Hanegbi said.
Israeli foreign minister Gideon Saar and Minister for strategic affairs Ron Dermer told the cabinet that implementing the deal would improve relations with the U.S. — it will end relations with the Biden administration on a positive note and start relations with the Trump administration on the right foot, Saar told Axios.
Driving the news: The Israeli security cabinet convened on Friday morning local time, ahead of the full cabinet meeting, and was briefed on the Gaza hostage and ceasefire deal.
Netanyahu said during the meeting that he received guarantees from both the Biden administration and the Trump administration that if negotiations over the second phase of the ceasefire and hostage deal fail, and Israel's security demands are not met, Israel would be able to resume the war in Gaza with U.S. backing, an Netanyahu aide tells Axios.
Behind the scenes: Netanyahu's remarks at the security cabinet meeting came after ultranationalist Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich said he and the cabinet members from his party would vote against the deal but not leave Netanyahu's coalition.
Sources in Smotrich's party claimed he received assurances from Netanyahu that the war would resume after the initial 42-day ceasefire and the humanitarian aid delivery system for Gaza would be changed to prevent Hamas from controlling the aid.
Meanwhile, Netanyahu's ultranationalist minister of national security, Itamar Ben Gvir, held a press conference on Thursday and announced he would resign and his party would leave the coalition if the deal was approved. He said he would be ready to rejoin the coalition if Israel were to resume fighting in Gaza after the 42-day ceasefire in the first phase of the deal.
Both Smotrich and Ben Gvir voted against the deal at the security cabinet meeting, but it still passed easily.
State of play: Ahead of the cabinet meeting Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz signed an order to release all Israeli settlers who were under administrative detention for allegedly committing and planning terror attacks against Palestinians.
An Israeli security official who was alarmed by the decision said Katz made it for domestic political considerations and without consultation with the Shin Bet.
"The decision gives backwind for terrorism and will destabilize the security situation in the West Bank," the official warned.
If capitalism without bankruptcy is like Christianity without hell, as former astronaut and Eastern Airlines CEO Frank Borman famously put it, then the U.S. over the past decade or so has been a joyous church indeed.
Why it matters: We're now beginning to see signs that the days of very few bankruptcies might be coming to an end, thanks in large part to the Fed.
How we got here: The financial crisis of 2008 to 2009 saw a sharp rise in bankruptcies, as you'd expect.
It also caused the Fed to cut interest rates to zero and to keep them there for many years.
It led bank regulators to get stricter about the amount of risk they allowed banks to take on, even as borrowers also started to get worried about the consequences of having too much debt.
The result was a years-long decline in bankruptcy filings, as smaller debts became easier to refinance in an easy-money era.
Where it stands: A recent uptick in the numbers suggests that era might have ended with the Fed rate hikes of 2022. As CEA chair Jared Bernstein tells Axios, "we know this variable is pretty highly elastic to rate rises."
The big picture: Bankruptcy — a process that wipes out debts and allows fresh starts — is a necessary part of any dynamic economy.
Fewer bankruptcies isn't always a good thing. It can be a sign of excessive risk aversion on the part of both lenders and borrowers, a paucity of what John Maynard Keynes characterized as "animal spirits."
As University of Illinois law professor Robert Lawless notes, bankruptcy filings are not a good measure of the health of the economy. "Note how bankruptcies declined as the economy went into recession in the early 2000s," he said of the chart above.
By the numbers: Bankruptcy filings by companies with assets or liabilities greater than $2 million if they're public (or $10 million if they're private) rose to 694 in 2024. That's up 9% from 2023 and up a whopping 87% from a record low of 372 in 2022, per S&P Global.
Overall, business bankruptcies in U.S. courts rose to 22,762 in 2024, up 33% from 2023 and up 73% from 2022.
Those numbers are less precise than they seem, since the default setting on most bankruptcy-filing software is "consumer" rather than "business" and many business filers don't check that box.
Meanwhile, many large corporate bankruptcies involve simultaneous filings from hundreds of subsidiaries, which can result in the numbers being exaggerated.
Yes, but: The absolute number of bankruptcies is still low, even after the recent increases.
In 1997, for instance, there were 54,252 business bankruptcy filings, and 6.1 million business establishments in the U.S., for a ratio of 0.9%.
By 2024, that ratio had fallen to 0.3%.
The bottom line: When rates rise, they bite harder. But an economy with more bite isn't always a bad thing.
A majority of Americans across nearly all demographic groups said DEI initiatives have made no impact on their personal careers, according to a newly released Harris Poll/Axios Vibes survey.
Why it matters: Republican lawmakers and activists have vilified DEI, a term for diversity, equity and inclusion policies used by employers. Companies have responded by rolling back programs.
Yet Americans — and businesses — have a generally positive to at least indifferent view on the subject.
On balance, most demographic groups were more likely to say DEI benefited their career than hindered it.
Zoom out: The current enmity for DEI was on display this week in the congressional hearings for President-elect Trump's Cabinet nominees.
At Pete Hegseth's hearing, the Defense secretary nominee railed against DEI, as did some lawmakers.
DEI is "race essentialism," Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-Mo.) said. "I think the American people have spoken loudly and clearly about this."
Trump's opposition to anything DEI-related is well known.
By the numbers: While 41% of those surveyed said they support efforts to roll back diversity initiatives, the majority — nearly six in 10 — either oppose those efforts or are unsure about them.
57% said DEI initiatives have had no impact on their career, while 16% explicitly said they have been hindered.
39% of Democrats said they have benefited from DEI, compared to 26% of Republicans.
At least half of all demographic groups — including people of different races, ethnicities and sexual orientations — said DEI had no impact on their personal careers.
51% of respondents said DEI is primarily a symbolic gesture, while the rest said it is essential for equality.
"With all the backlash to DEI, you'd expect a public mandate to do so. But Americans are telling us they see the benefits of diversity, even if their support is more mild than passionate," John Gerzema, CEO of the Harris Poll, told Axios.
The big picture: There is broad support for the idea of diversity inside companies.
61% of those surveyed said diverse employees have a positive impact on organizations, and 75% agreed that more needs to be done to guarantee everyone is advancing.
Between the lines: Even as they feverishly cut programs, business leaders appear to have good feelings about DEI, according to a separate survey out this week.
Nearly three-quarters of 3,200 global CEOs and business leaders said initiatives tied to social issues — such as diversity and inclusion — have had a positive impact on their company's economic performance, per the AlixPartners Disruption Index.
94% of executives whose companies lead their industries in growth and profitability view diversity and inclusion as a competitive advantage.
The bottom line: There is a big disconnect between political rhetoric and reality.
Just about all the biggest names in tech will be in Washington on Monday for President-elect Trump's inauguration — a much different scene than the beginning of his first term.
Where it stands: TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew is the latest addition to the Big Tech guest list for Trump's swearing-in.
Alphabet CEO Sundar Pichai, Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, Apple CEO Tim Cook, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg and OpenAI CEO Sam Altman are also planning to attend, according to media reports.
Elon Musk will be there, too.
Most of those CEOs, or their companies, also donated money for Trump's inauguration. And Zuckerberg is co-hosting a black-tie reception Monday evening, according to The New York Times.
The number of public electric vehicle chargers doubled over the last four years, driven by a combination of increased private investment and a surge in government funding under the Biden administration.
Why it matters: EVs and charging have been a chicken-and-egg-problem that's now getting a little easier.
People won't buy an electric car unless they're confident they have somewhere to charge it.
Companies won't invest in charging infrastructure without enough EV owners to plug in.
By the numbers: There are more than 207,000 publicly available EV charging ports in the U.S. today — up from around 95,000 when Biden took office in January 2021.
That figure tracks with what Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm told a House committee last May. Republicans earlier had complained about delays.
It includes 38,000 new chargers — both DC fast-chargers and slower, Level 2 chargers — that were turned on in 2024, according to the U.S. Joint Office of Energy and Transportation.
Yes, but: Charging might be getting easier — but the U.S. is still far short of the estimated 1.2 million public chargers that a National Renewable Energy Laboratory report says will be needed by 2030 to support expected EV sales.
The big picture: Spurring a switch from gasoline-powered cars to battery-electric vehicles has been a key part of President Biden's climate agenda.
He pushed a variety of policies — consumer EV tax credits, manufacturing incentives for carmakers and tougher tailpipe emissions laws — with the intent to make EVs account for 50% of new car sales by 2030.
He also targeted 500,000 public chargers by 2030 — a goal supported, in part, by $7.5 billion allocated by Congress under the bipartisan infrastructure act.
Reality check: Electric vehicles sales are growing, but far off the expected pace.
Only 8.1% of new car sales in 2024 were EVs, according to Cox Automotive. Still, that's a record 1.3 million EVs sold.
Momentum was stronger in the second half, with EVs accounting for 8.7% of total sales.
A flood of new, more affordable models could help keep that going — even if President-elect Trump kills the consumer tax credits as expected.
GM Energy, for example, has opened more than 2,500 fast-charging stalls in partnership with EVgo and Pilot Flying J, and recently announced plans to add 500 more with ChargePoint by the end of this year.
Electrify America added 600 new chargers in 2024, and replaced 1,000 others, bringing its network to more than 4,700.
Taxpayer-funded chargers have been slow to open, but the snags are mostly due to state and local issues like permitting, utility upgrades and in some cases, politics.
The federal government has already shelled out $4.5 billion to support about 25,000 chargers, but only 200 have opened so far.
Since that money's already been allocated to the states, the rest are still expected to open in the next year or two, even if Trump slows down Biden's EV policies.
Where it stands: As of Oct. 31, drivers in 61% of the most heavily trafficked corridors could access a charger every 50 miles, up from 38% in 2021, Deputy Energy Secretary David Turk told Axios Pro Energy Policy. (subscribe here)
Data: U.S. Joint Office of Energy and Transportation; Map: Alex Fitzpatrick/Axios
Editor's note: Cox Automotive and Axios are both owned by Cox Enterprises.
