Despite his threats, Elon Musk can't simply fire federal employees for not responding to an email, attorneys and former senior federal officials tell Axios.

Why it matters: So far legal barriers haven't stopped Musk's DOGE purge, and in his latest effort he even has President Trump's explicit support — and yet Musk may be bumping up against a harder boundary.

• For the first time, federal agencies appear to be pushing back — and they're getting support from the executive branch, despite what Trump is saying publicly.

The big picture: It's too early to tell if agencies will hold the line and terminate workers for failing to reply to the email, sent from the federal Office for Personnel Management (OPM) on Saturday— subject line "What did you do last week"?

• The deadline to respond was Monday at 11:59 pm EST.
• Still, it's clear that some agency heads — who've been confirmed by the Senate, in contrast to Musk's more murky power — are flexing muscle against DOGE, said one former senior OPM official familiar with the agency's workings.
• OPM doesn't actually have the authority to reach into agencies and simply fire workers. That's in agency hands, and with Musk's latest move, "I think you're starting to see some of that tension playing out," the official said.

Where it stands: Many federal agencies, including the FBI, Defense Department and Homeland Security, have already told workers not to respond to the OPM email. Some have explicitly told workers to reply.

• Before OPM's message went out, the billionaire posted about it on X and said those who didn't respond would be terminated.
• The threat was echoed by President Trump on Monday. If employees don't respond, "you're sort of semi-fired or you're fired," he said.
• Musk doubled down Monday night. Responding to a post on X that called for anyone who didn't answer the email to be fired, he said "Subject to the discretion of the President, they will be given another chance. Failure to respond a second time will result in termination."

Yes, but: There's threats and there's action.

• The email that millions of federal workers received did not actually threaten anyone with termination.
• Perhaps more significantly, even after Trump's comments Monday, an administration official confirmed to Axios that it is up to agencies to decide what steps to take next regarding the "what did you do" email.
• In other words, notwithstanding Musk's threat or Trump's assertion, the federal government's own HR office is effectively saying no one has to face a penalty for not answering.

State of play: "Neither DOGE nor OPM has authority to fire these federal workers," says David Super, a professor at Georgetown Law school whose research focuses on administrative law.

• According to Tamara Slater, a shareholder at Alan Lescht & Associates, a Washington, D.C. law firm that represents federal employees, "I"m not aware of any authority that would allow OPM to direct an agency to fire somebody."

Between the lines: Even if agencies follow Musk's guidance, and try to fire employees for not responding, they would likely face challenges defending that move.

• "There are all of these limitations on the reasons why somebody can be fired," said Slater. "The idea that not responding to a single email is going to meet that standard is a legal question."
• It's hard to imagine such a firing would be upheld, she said.

Reality check: "DOGE has proven that it has the political power to force agencies to do pretty much anything that it chooses to do, whether legal or not," Georgetown's Super says.

• And answering that question — what did you do last week — for a lot of workers isn't as simple as you might imagine.
• Super notes that some workers are barred from actually sharing details of their work. For example, certain staffers at the SEC aren't supposed to disclose that information to guard against affecting stock prices. Other federal workers are dealing in classified information.
• Privacy and security are big concerns, too. "Assume that what you write will be read by malign foreign actors and tailor your response accordingly," Health and Human Services employees were told, per the Washington Post.

Facilities in Mississippi and Texas are holding the most detainees among the tens of thousands who've been rounded up across the nation during the ongoing crackdown on illegal immigration, according to newly released federal data.

The big picture: The data shed light on the housing arrangements federal officials have made for detainees at a time when the U.S. government's immigration centers are at near capacity — and the Trump White House is pushing for dramatically more arrests.

By the numbers: The Adams County Detention Center in Natchez, Miss., is holding the largest number of detainees for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), averaging 2,154 a day, according to the data collected by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC) and reviewed by Axios.

• The South Texas ICE Processing Center in Pearsall, Texas has the second-most ICE detainees (1,680 a day), followed by the Stewart Detention Center in Lumpkin, Ga. (1,531 per day).
• No state is holding more immigration detainees than Texas: Eight detention centers in the state were among the nation's top 20 facilities that each are holding at least 800 people for ICE, according to an Axios review of the data, which runs through Feb. 8.

Zoom out: Overall, ICE was holding 41,169 in detention at the various locations. Nearly 55% of those have no criminal record, and many more have committed only minor offenses such as traffic violations, TRAC found.

• Also in the immigration system are more than 188,000 individuals and families who were in the Alternatives to Detention (ATD) program as of Jan. 11.
• This group includes nonviolent detainees who usually are given wristbands or ankle monitors, or told to check in by telephone, so that authorities can monitor them until their immigration court dates.

The ICE detention statistics update, which TRAC said has missing and incorrect data, did not report or make any reference to the number of detainees at the U.S. naval facility at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.

How it works: Immigrants can end up in ICE detention after being arrested by ICE or the U.S. Border Patrol.

• Immigrants also can end up in detention after being arrested on criminal charges and released into ICE custody.
• Detention facilities can be run by the U.S. Federal Bureau of Prisons, state or local governments, private contractors, the U.S. Marshals Service or facilities ICE has for families.
• Mississippi's Adams County Detention Center is run by CoreCivic, a private prison company.

Between the lines: Holding immigrants in detention is by far the largest cost of the deportation process.

• A backlog of 3.7 million cases in immigration courts, where immigrants are entitled to make their case to stay in the U.S., means detained immigrants can wait months, even years, for a hearing.
• Undocumented immigrants facing criminal charges can't be deported immediately, as President Trump has suggested. Instead, they typically have to go through the criminal justice system, serve sentences if found guilty, then face deportation.
• To hold more people from a raid surge would require a mass building project of "soft detention" centers, or temporary facilities, to house immigrants beyond the system's current capacity of about 42,000 people.

President Trump sparked criticism and suspicion last week when he falsely blamed Ukraine for invading Russia. But his offhand remark reflected a belief his advisers say is real: that NATO helped "provoke" the conflict years ago.

Why it matters: Trump's view of Ukraine is key to understanding why he has turned 80 years of U.S. foreign policy on its ear by criticizing NATO, opposing its expansion there, and cutting European partners out of peace talks.

• Critics on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean accuse Trump of kowtowing to Russian President Vladimir Putin, embracing the dictator's disinformation, excusing his aggression and putting Ukraine in too much of a vise.

The big picture: Trump's approach to the war represents a rejection of the reflexively pro-European trans-Atlanticism of past presidents — especially Barack Obama, Joe Biden and George W. Bush. It's also rooted in Trump's longstanding desire to normalize ties with Russia.

• Another sign of how Trump is dramatically changing U.S. policy came Monday, when the U.S. broke with European allies by declining to support a United Nations resolution that condemned Russia and demanded it withdraw from Ukraine.
• Ukraine also is at the heart of strained relations between the U.S. and Russia. It was at the center of Trump's first impeachment in 2019, and played a key role in the investigation of ties between Russia and Trump's campaign that began in 2016.

Zoom in: Trump advisers, put on the defensive over his comment about who started the Russia-Ukraine war, privately have fumed that the media is focusing too much on Trump's misstatement and too little on how the West antagonized Putin in the years before he invaded Ukraine.

They point to two dates that shaped Trump's view of NATO and Ukraine:

• April 3, 2008: NATO declared that one day Ukraine would join the alliance. It troubled Putin, who sees the former "Near Abroad" Soviet republic as more of an extension of Russia. And he doesn't want it to be part of a military alliance that was formed in opposition to the Soviet Union.
• Feb. 22, 2014: Pro-Putin Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych fled for Russia after violent protests in Kyiv erupted as he was backing away from moving closer to the European Union. Five days later, Putin invaded and then annexed Crimea. To justify the aggression, his government had released a secretly recorded and embarrassing phone call between State Department officials that showed the depth of U.S. involvement in Ukraine.
• "When [Trump] is talking about who started the Ukraine war, this is what he was talking about," a senior adviser to the president said. "Yes, he got his wires crossed. The larger point still stands."

Trump's special envoy in the Russia talks, Steve Witkoff, obliquely referred to both of those dates Sunday in discussing the controversy.

• "The war didn't need to happen. It was provoked. It doesn't necessarily mean it was provoked by the Russians. There were all kinds of conversations back then about Ukraine joining NATO. The president has spoken about this. That didn't need to happen. It basically became a threat to the Russians," Witkoff told CNN's Jake Tapper.

What they're saying: The condemnation of Witkoff swiftly followed on social media.

• "How embarrassing for Witkoff to be forced to repeat old refuted anti-American leftist propaganda about NATO being a threat to Russia," Gary Kasparov, a Russian chess legend and leading anti-Putin activist, wrote on X. "Russia invaded Ukraine. By Putin's choice, under no threat at all from Ukraine or NATO."
• "Yes the war didn't need to happen. Putin didn't have to invade Ukraine. He most certainly was not provoked. So embarrassing to see a U.S. government official echoing this Putin propaganda," Michael McFaul, Ambassador to Russia during the first Russian invasion of Ukraine, said on X.

Trump's advisers are unmoved.

• They say his critics won't accept that Trump campaigned to end the war, that Putin isn't leaving the Ukrainian territories he has seized, and that Ukraine doesn't have the manpower to resist for much longer.
• "This is a longstanding problem inherited by Donald Trump," said Michael Caputo, a longtime Trump adviser and creator of "The Ukraine Hoax," a MAGA documentary. [He's no relation to this reporter.]
• "The Clinton-Bush-Obama-Biden foreign policy for years played Ukraine as a pawn against Russia in a globalist game that ended up in deadly war," Caputo said. "And the America First movement wants it over."

Reality check: Experts such as Gerard Toal agree with Putin critics that Russia's two invasions were unjust. But, Toal said, it's "a matter of reasonable debate" to accept the view of some academics who believe the West and Russia "co-created" the deterioration of relations, starting in 2008 with talk of NATO expanding closer to Russia.

• "That was a humiliation for Putin," Toal, author of a book about newly independent states near Russia, told Axios.
• "This was a red line for Putin and for the Russians ... this was on their border and was seen as a direct security threat to Russia."

Workers are likely to chat more with AI agents than with their human colleagues in the future, Slack chief marketing officer Ryan Gavin predicts.

The big picture: AI agents are joining the workplace whether workers want them or not.

Catch up quick: For the past year, companies have been pushing autonomous AI agents — chatbots with the ability not just to answer questions, but to act on users' behalf.

• Salesforce, which owns Slack, launched Agentforce in September with bots that serve as sales reps, service agents, personal shoppers and sales coaches.
• AI agent startup Sierra, founded by former Salesforce co-CEO Bret Taylor and former Google executive Clay Bavor, raised $175 million last year at a $4.5 billion valuation.
• According to The Information, OpenAI expects to triple its revenue in 2025, with nearly a third of that projected revenue will come from sales of its agent tools to SoftBank.

What they're saying: Gavin says AI agents will soon become as integral to the workplace as human co-workers, transforming the way teams collaborate.

• "I think that right now people are underestimating just how much the world of work is about to change," Gavin told Axios. "In just three or four or five years, I could be talking to agents as much, if not more than I'm talking to my human colleagues today."

Salesforce CEO Marc Benioff also believes in the human/bot workplace of the future.

• Benioff regularly refers to agents as the "limitless workforce." At Davos last month, he told Axios' Ina Fried that today's CEOs will likely be the last to "manage a workforce of only human beings."

Between the lines: Gavin sees AI agents as augmenting, not replacing, human workers — offering services that would otherwise be too costly.

• "What if every single employee had a human resources agent that sat right alongside them in Slack?" Gavin told Axios.
• Humans are expensive and hard to train. They ask for raises and advocate for better workplace conditions. Sometimes, they quit.

The other side: Humans like to interact with other humans.

• Whether they're working from home or back in the office, knowledge workers are lonely.
• "When you start to only interact with machines, verbal and non-verbal social behavior starts to atrophy," Thomas Plante, professor of psychology at Santa Clara University, told Axios.

Zoom in: Some professions have already been working alongside AI agents for years — though they haven't always called them that.

• Developers, for example, have always had help with coding, says Thomas Dohmke, CEO of GitHub. "We just had different names for them: workflows, pipelines, those kinds of things, right?"
• "We will have more complex agents that do more complex tasks," Dohmke told Axios. "But I don't think that it's a step change. I think it's a gradual evolution of something we've been on ever since the term DevOps was invented."

Yes, but: OpenAI launched its first two agents (Operator and Deep Research) over the past two months, and both are underwhelming right now, though they show promise.

• "The biggest challenges with AI agents in the workplace stem from their fundamental differences with traditional software — they are not deterministic so they do not work the same way every time," Tatyana Mamut, co-founder and CEO of Wayfound, a platform designed to "manage" agents, told Axios via email.
• Mamut said she and her team have been working alongside 25 AI agents for a year. "It feels a lot like managing a team of interns who are book-smart but still make frustrating mistakes on the job once in a while," she said.
• "AI agents are inconsistent and sometimes misremember things," she told Axios.

Mamut says this inconsistency is a feature, not a bug.

• "Just like AlphaGo's move 37, when an AI created a completely new way to play the game of Go and started to play the game better than any human, AI agents have the potential to achieve superhuman results through their creativity," Mamut said.

Most of the fear surrounding agents is the prospect that they might replace many human workers.

• "A lot of jobs of today will be gone tomorrow, as all of this starts to unfold," Plante says. "People are always worried about their jobs, but the reality is that throughout history, jobs come and go based on technological developments."
• "The world changes and we sort of adapt or die."

Mars once featured sun-soaked, sandy beaches with gentle, lapping waves from an ancient ocean, a new study suggests.

Why it matters: The research marks the "clearest evidence yet" that the Red Planet once contained a major body of water and a more livable environment for life, per a statement from study co-author Benjamin Cardenas, assistant professor of geology at Pennsylvania State University.

• "When we look back at where the earliest life on Earth developed, it was in the interaction between oceans and land, so this is painting a picture of ancient habitable environments, capable of harboring conditions friendly toward microbial life," Cardenas said.

Driving the news: A team of Chinese and U.S. researchers identified hidden layers of rock under Mars' surface that strongly suggested the presence of a past northern ocean while analyzing data from the China's Zhurong Mars rover, according to the study, published Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

• Zhurong sent back data in 2021 while searching for signs of ancient water or ice after landing in an area known as Utopia Planitia.

What they found: The scientists discovered "extensive dipping deposits in the subsurface" of this area, the study notes.

• Analysis of radar data indicated "foreshore deposits" similar to beaches on Earth with sediments.
• The research indicates the presence of "coastal sedimentary deposits formed by ancient ocean waves and possibly composed of sand and pebble gravels transported by tidal currents," per the study.
• Cardenas said this "stood out to us immediately because it suggests there were waves, which means there was a dynamic interface of air and water."
• Contributing author Michael Manga, a University of California, Berkeley, professor of earth and planetary science, said in a statement the reseach showed "classic indications of sloping, sandy beaches lining an ocean."

Zoom in: Manga said the "sand that's on those beaches is coming in from the rivers, and then it's being transported by currents in the ocean and continually being transported up and down the beaches by the waves coming and going up and down the beach."

• He noted that Mars has many features that resemble ancient rivers. "So there must have been rivers transporting sediment to the ocean, though there's nothing in the immediate vicinity that would have disturbed these beach deposits," Manga added.

The bottom line, via Cardenas: "We're finding places on Mars that used to look like ancient beaches and ancient river deltas.

• "We found evidence for wind, waves, no shortage of sand — a proper, vacation-style beach."

Between the lines: Aaron Cavosie, a planetary scientist at Curtin University in Australia, said the find marked an "extraordinary contribution" to research into water on the Red Planet, per the Australian Broadcasting Corporation.

• "There is abundant evidence from orbital images and mineral mapping that surface water was present during the Noachian period from 4.1–3.7 billion years ago," added Cavosie, who was not involved with the study.
• "Its origin and duration continue to be debated."

Go deeper: Setting up the next scientific era on Mars

A government watchdog who oversees federal workers' whistleblower reports said Monday his office is seeking to halt some of the Trump administration's mass firings of federal workers.

The big picture: Hampton Dellinger, who's suing the administration after President Trump tried to remove him from his role leading the Office of Special Counsel, said he's requested that the firing of six probationary agency workers be halted due to concerns the action may violate the law — and he indicated he may intervene in more cases.

Driving the news: Dellinger filed a request on Friday for a 45-day stay in the probationary workers' firings "across various executive branch agencies" with the independent agency the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), which reviews the Office of Personnel Management actions, per a statement from the special counsel's office.

• "Firing probationary employees without individualized cause appears contrary to a reasonable reading of the law, particularly the provisions establishing rules for reductions in force," Dellinger said in a statement.
• "I believe I have a responsibility to request a stay of these actions while my agency continues to investigate further the apparent violation of federal personnel laws," he added, citing a Congressional direction for watchdogs to protect government employees from prohibited personnel practices.
• "The Special Counsel believes other probationary employees are similarly situated to the six workers for whom he currently is seeking relief. Dellinger is considering ways to seek relief for a broader group without the need for individual filings."

Zoom in: Dellinger recommended halting the firings following a class complaint brought by advocacy group Democracy Forward and the Alden Law Group seeking to reinstate federal workers, Government Executive first reported Monday.

Zoom out: Dellinger sued the Trump administration after Trump moved to fire him on Feb. 7 and a federal judge issued a temporary restraining order temporarily blocking his dismissal.

• Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris called the judge's action an "unprecedented assault on the separation of powers," but the U.S. Supreme Court declined to weigh in on the matter until the judge's order expires this Wednesday.

Meanwhile, MSPB chair Cathy Harris was also removed from her role by Trump before filing a lawsuit against the administration and being reinstated after a federal judge issued a temporary restraining order.

• Representatives for the Trump administration did not immediately respond to Axios' request for comment in the evening.

Go deeper: Supreme Court delays Trump's firing of agency head

Editor's note: This article has been updated with more context.

Stellantis is calling its upcoming Ram 1500 extended-range Ramcharger the Goldilocks of pickup trucks — an electric truck with a backup gas-powered generator good for nearly 700 miles of worry-free driving.

Why it matters: Extended-range EVs, already popular in China, are a bridge technology for consumers who aren't ready to commit to a fully-electric vehicle whether because of cost, charging access or other concerns.

• And, because they use a much smaller battery, they're also thousands of dollars cheaper than a fully-electric equivalent model.
• The Ramcharger will be the first extended-range pickup for sale in the U.S.

Driving the news: Amid slowing demand for electric pickups, Stellantis in December shuffled its product plans, pulling the Ramcharger ahead of the Ram 1500 REV, its first battery-electric truck.

• The Ramcharger will be available for sale in the second half of 2025, while the fully-electric version is pushed to 2026.

Zoom in: The Ramcharger's 92-kw battery is good for 145 miles of pure electric driving, after which a 3.6-liter gasoline engine kicks on to power an onboard generator.

• Total range is expected to be up to 690 miles.
• The truck only runs on electricity; the engine powers the generator, but not the wheels.

Between the lines: One of the complaints about electric pickup trucks is that the driving range drops significantly when towing or hauling, or climbing up a steep grade.

• The advantage of the backup generator is that performance doesn't suffer, Stellantis said.
• The Ramcharger can tow 14,000 pounds and carry more than 2,600 pounds of cargo.
• "There are absolutely no downsides," Ram brand CEO Tim Kuniskis said.

What to watch: Pricing has yet to be announced.

• In a briefing for reporters Monday, Kuniskis floated a hypothetical price of $69,995.
• That's higher than a typical gasoline pickup, but would be $8,000 to $14,000 below a fully electric model with a larger battery, he said.

Denny's is temporarily adding an egg surcharge at some of its restaurants because of the nationwide egg shortage and increased prices, the chain confirmed to Axios Monday.

Why it matters: The bird flu has ravaged the nation's supply of eggs, leading to shortages and higher prices at grocery stores and restaurants.

• Avian influenza has affected at least 18.9 million birds in the last 30 days, according to USDA data.

State of play: Denny's would not say how many of its 1,500-plus restaurants are adding the "surcharge to every meal that includes eggs" and how much the fees are.

• "Our pricing decisions are being made market-by-market, and restaurant-by-restaurant due to the regional impacts of the egg shortage," Denny's said in a statement.
• "We understand our guests' desire for value, and we will continue to look for ways to provide options on our menu, including our $2 $4 $6 $8 value menu, while navigating these rapidly changing market dynamics responsibly," the company said.

The big picture: Restaurants are starting to crack under the weight of the nation's egg crisis.

• The Waffle House became the first national restaurant chain to add a temporary surcharge earlier this month. Its fee is 50 cents per egg.
• Smaller, more local chains and individual restaurants have also added surcharges for eggs, said Amanda Oren, a vice president at supply-chain platform RELEX Solutions.
• Many stores have instituted limits on how many eggs consumers can buy each day, including Trader Joe's, Costco and Sam's Club.

More from Axios:

• Crafts retailer Joann going out of business; 19,000 jobs lost
• Starbucks menu cuts starting soon, layoffs announced
• Dunkin' joins Starbucks in dropping nondairy milk fee

The list of no's is growing for House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), and time isn't on his side.

Why it matters: Flipping votes on a budget resolution isn't impossible, but it could force Johnson to delay bringing it to the floor.

• ⏰ That would further undermine the House's effort to get "one big, beautiful bill" over to the Senate by the end of April.
• 💥 Two current public "no" votes, Reps. Tim Burchett (R-Tenn.) and Victoria Spartz (R-Ind.), say the spending cuts aren't enough.
• 🙉 At least one other Republican is a private "no" vote, Burchett told reporters Monday evening.

Johnson and his leadership team are projecting public confidence they will be able to pass the resolution Tuesday evening.

• "There's a couple of folks who just have lingering questions," Johnson told reporters Monday, "but I think all those questions can be answered and we'll be able to move forward."
• "We'll see," Johnson told reporters when asked if the vote is still on for Tuesday night. "But it'll happen this week."

🚨Johnson says he won't negotiate ahead of a vote, including with moderates who are concerned by Medicaid cuts.

• "Everybody needs to understand that the resolution is merely the starting point for the process," Johnson said Monday, per Politico.

The big picture: Johnson sided with his most conservative lawmakers in building this budget package. Now they're threatening to leave him hanging.

• "If the Republican budget passes, the deficit gets worse, not better," Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) posted on X.

Zoom in: Johnson is trying to fuse together 218 votes with the unusual combination of a huge debt limit increase, deep spending cuts and Trump's wish list on tax cuts.

• Johnson has freaked out his moderates with the depth of the spending cut targets, which will be hard to hit without cuts to Medicaid and nutrition programs.
• That's for naught if conservatives tank the bill first.

Zoom out: Some senior Republicans remained optimistic that the current framework — which will also add up to $4.5 trillion in tax breaks if Congress cuts $2 trillion in spending — will eventually find enough votes for passage.

• "It's going to reduce the debt to GDP ratio," Budget Committee Chair Jodey Arrington (R-Texas) told reporters. "It's important to me and important to our president."
• "I don't expect it to change," he said. "I feel like we landed at a really good place."
• "We're going to be fine," Arrington told Axios.

The federal agency that sent out an email over the weekend asking workers what they accomplished last week can't fire those workers for not responding, claims an amended lawsuit filed Monday on behalf of federal employees.

Why it matters: It's the latest potential legal stumbling block for DOGE and Elon Musk's slash-and-burn workforce strategy.

Catch up fast: Over the weekend, at President Trump's prodding to be more aggressive, Musk announced that workers would get an email asking what they'd done in the past week. "Failure to respond will be taken as a resignation," he said.

• The email went out on Saturday to millions of workers — subject line "What did you do last week"? — causing confusion and an array of responses inside federal agencies, with many telling employees not to respond.
• Crucially, the email did not threaten workers with termination.

Where it stands: On Monday afternoon, President Trump appeared to back Musk's threat — if employees don't respond to that email, "you're sort of semi-fired or you're fired," he said, answering reporter questions during an event with French President Emanuel Macron.

• "A lot of people are not answering because they don't even exist."

Reality check: Musk and the White House have provided no evidence to back up that claim.

Zoom in: The Monday lawsuit amends an earlier complaint filed by a coalition of unions, including the AFL-CIO and American Federation of Government Employees.

• It challenges the legality of mass firings of probationary workers — those that have been employed in their current roles for only a short time. Tens of thousands of such workers have been terminated, per the suit.
• Only federal agencies have the ability to hire and fire their workers, the lawsuit says.

The Office of Personnel Management, the federal government's HR office, which sent out the email over the weekend, does not have that authority, the suit alleges.

• "In creating OPM and delegating duties to its Director, Congress did not authorize OPM or its Director to order the termination of employees at any other federal agency."

The intrigue: Several federal agencies have told their workers not to respond to the email request.

• If their agency does require a response, workers have until 11:59 pm Monday to do so.
• After that, it's up to federal agencies to decide next steps, a White House official told Axios Monday afternoon — before President Trump's "semi-firing" comment.

What to watch: Also on Monday, an independent federal oversight agency said that some of the administration's mass firings of probationary workers were unlawful, per a report in Government Executive.

The bottom line: It's a confusing time to work for the federal government.

Editor's Note: This story has been updated with additional reporting on the firings of probationary workers.

Justice Clarence Thomas issued a scathing dissent Monday after the Supreme Court declined to hear a case challenging free speech rights around abortion clinics, suggesting he wants to revisit the matter after the court ended the federal constitutional right to abortion in 2022.

The big picture: The high court's move marked a loss for abortion opponents who claimed their First Amendment rights are violated by laws that limit demonstrations near clinics.

• The Supreme Court majority did not explain their decision Monday in finding that the rules were in line with precedent set by Hill v. Colorado (2000). In that case, the high court held that the restrictions on speech-related conduct are constitutional because they regulate the places where some speech may occur, and not the speech itself.

Zoom in: Both Thomas and Justice Samuel Alito dissented, but only the former conservative justice filed writing explaining his reasoning.

• Thomas argued against the high court's decision not to revisit precedent set in Hill v. Colorado (2000), which upheld free speech in buffer zones around abortion clinics.
• "I would have taken this opportunity to explicitly overrule Hill," he wrote in his dissent.
• He argued the court erroneously treated the Hill case differently than others pertaining to the First Amendment because abortion was involved, writing, "Hill's abortion exceptionalism turned the First Amendment upside down."

State of play: The case in question on Monday, Coalition Life v. City of Carbondale, originated in Carbondale, Illinois, where local officials passed an ordinance prohibiting protesters from getting within 8 feet of patients at the clinic without consent.

• The ordinance, which reflected precedent upheld in Hill, was repealed last year but an anti-abortion group based in Missouri proceeded with a lawsuit against it, taking aim at similar laws across the country.
• Carbondale is located near Illinois' southern border and became a destination for people in nearby states that ban abortions.

Zoom out: In Hill, the high court upheld a state law "restricting peaceful speech" within 100 feet of abortion clinics, Thomas wrote in his dissent. He was on the high court at the time Hill was decided and dissented in the 6-3 decision.

• He argued that errors in the case "were numerous" and that the decision "contradicted more than a half-century of well-established First Amendment principles."
• He wrote: "This Court had never—and since Hill, has never—taken such a narrow view of content-based speech restrictions."
• Thomas said the Hill case "manipulated this Court's First Amendment jurisprudence precisely to disfavor 'opponents of abortion' and their 'right to persuade women contemplating abortion that what they are doing is wrong.'"

Between the lines: Thomas noted that he wants to revisit Hill in order to give clarity to lower courts, "who feel bound by it," particularly after Roe v. Wade was overturned in 2022.

• "Following our repudiation in Dobbs, I do not see what is left of Hill," he wrote.
• "Hill has been seriously undermined, if not completely eroded, and our refusal to provide clarity is an abdication of our judicial duty," Thomas wrote.

Go deeper: Abortion clinics brace for reinvigorated protests after Trump's pardons

President Trump and French President Emmanuel Macron agreed during a White House meeting on Monday to deploy European peacekeeping forces to Ukraine following a peace deal with Russia to end the war.

The big picture: While the meeting on the third anniversary of the Russian invasion of Ukraine was cordial, the peacekeepers deployment was about the only significant plan the two world leaders agreed during a bilateral meeting in the Oval Office.

What they're saying: Trump said during a briefing he believed the war could end "soon" and said he and his representatives had spoken with Russian President Vladimir Putin and "they want to do something."

• The war could end "within weeks... if we're smart," Trump told reporters. "If we're not smart, it'll keep going and we'll keep losing."
• Macron said: "We want peace, peace swiftly, but we don't want an agreement that is weak.
• "Peace must not mean a surrender of Ukraine, it must not mean a ceasefire without guarantees."

Meanwhile, Trump declined to call Putin a "dictator" after describing Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky as that last week and said he planned to meet with the Russian leader soon.

• Macron said Russia "is the aggressor" and noted "President Putin violated the peace."

Zoom in: At one point, Macron moved to correct Trump after the U.S. president said "Europe is loaning the money to Ukraine, they're getting their money back."

• Macron responded: "No, in fact, to be frank, we paid. We paid 60% of the total effort. It was like the US: loans, guarantees, grants."

More from Axios...

• Mapped: Control in Ukraine three years on from Russia's invasion
• U.S. votes against UN resolution condemning Russia for Ukraine invasion

Editor's note: This article has been updated with more comment from Presidents Trump and Macron from the briefing.

More than just "a big, beautiful Ocean," in President Trump's words, separates the U.S. from its European allies on the third anniversary of Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

The big picture: The Trump administration has cast a shadow of doubt not only across embattled Kyiv, but across an entire continent that has trusted the U.S. for decades as its most powerful protector and partner.

• Trump smearing President Zelensky as a "dictator without elections" brought the U.S.-Ukraine relationship to a new low — and the U.S.-Europe marriage to a fork in the road.
• The verbal spat followed U.S.-Russia talks on Ukraine in Saudi Arabia, with no seats at the table for Ukrainian or European voices.
• As the war enters its fourth year, the U.S. is no longer aligned with the Ukrainian cause or with its NATO allies, and European leaders are bracing for a post-U.S. alliance.

Driving the news: Friedrich Merz, the center-right leader poised to become Germany's new chancellor, said after Sunday's election victory that his "priority ... will be to strengthen Europe as quickly as possible" to "achieve real independence from the USA."

• A coalition of pro-European political parties in the European Parliament, in a joint statement issued Tuesday, attested that Europe can "no longer fully rely on the United States to defend our shared values and interests" and it is "high time for Europe to step up its own security."
• Those once-unthinkable statements from conservatives and progressives alike mirror calls from French President Emmanuel Macron, who is visiting Washington on Monday, for European "strategic autonomy."
• Many leaders in Europe didn't take that concept seriously in Trump's first term — but they are now, amid the largest-scale conflict in Europe since World War II.

State of play: Macron and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, who will also visit Trump this week, are among the several European leaders who have signaled they're prepared to boost defense spending as Trump steps back.

• Starmer has committed to putting boots on the ground if necessary to "guarantee Ukraine's security" — while noting that, "U.S. support will remain critical."
• European leaders have been discussing a potential post-war "reassurance force" to be deployed to Ukraine to deter against renewed Russian aggression, AP reported.
• U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth made clear U.S. troops would not take part in any such mission, but Trump expressed openness to the European security force idea in a call with Zelensky, Axios' Barak Ravid reported.

Yes, but: While that's a "plausible plan," the lack of clear messaging from Washington — and Trump's occasional parroting of Kremlin talking points — risks "torpedoing" hopes of a favorable deal to end the war, says Daniel Fried, the former US ambassador to Poland and assistant secretary of State for Europe.

• "Instead of arguing from a position of strength and forcing the Russians to step back, it starts to resemble some kind of deal by which Ukraine is subordinate to the US-Russian understanding," Fried contends.
• Trump has repeatedly attacked Zelensky, insisted there should be elections in Ukraine, and reportedly opposed a G7 statement that described Russia as the aggressor in Ukraine.
• On Monday, the U.S. was one of just 18 countries that opposed a UN resolution that referred to Russia as the "aggressor."

Between the lines: Led by Vice President Vance, the Trump administration has effectively accused Europe of freeloading on American strength for decades.

• They will welcome the idea of Europe investing more in its own security, though the growing transAtlantic divide is likely to produce tensions as well.

What to watch: European allies have conceded they will struggle to make up the gap in supplying Ukraine, let alone ensuring the security of the entire continent.

Go deeper: Zelensky warns Ukraine won't accept decisions made without them in peace talks

The new administration's policies appear to be weighing on purchasing plans, hiring intentions and hopes of lower inflation, according to recent survey data.

Why it matters: In the immediate aftermath of the election, markets rallied and businesses celebrated the dawn of a friendlier era for regulation. Now, tariff threats look to be putting a dent in the economic outlook of consumers and businesses.

• It's likely that signs would first appear in key surveys of businesses and shoppers — though it is still early and the pandemic recovery exposed the flaws of these measurements.

The big picture: Excitement about potential Trump-era deregulation and tax cuts drove consumer and executive sentiment higher right after the election. Now fears about trade war fallout might overshadow those business-friendly policies.

• The University of Michigan's measure of consumer sentiment fell about 10% this month relative to January, the second consecutive decline.
• Buying conditions for large-ticket items plunged almost 20% in February, a sign that consumers anticipate tariff-related price increases.
• Meanwhile, expectations for inflation in the year ahead surged a full point to 4.3%, above the range seen in pre-pandemic times.

What they're saying: "Consumers broadly anticipate that tariff hikes will lead to higher inflation, but policy uncertainty means that their views are subject to change," UMich's Joanne Hsu said in a statement, adding that 40% of consumers surveyed spontaneously mentioned "tariffs" — up from 27% last month.

They're not alone in their anxiety: Small businesses — the economy's biggest hiring machine — are marking down capital investment plans, according to an index from the National Federation of Independent Business, a lobbying group.

• Headline sentiment remains above the historical average, but a measure of uncertainty is the third-highest on records going back almost 40 years.

S&P Global's preliminary purchasing managers' indices suggested a sharp slowdown.

• An output index across goods and services fell 2.3 points in early February to the lowest in 17 months, signaling "a steep deceleration in the pace of economic growth over the past two months from a buoyant rate seen late last year," according to a statement.
• Companies said "tariffs were widely cited as a key cause of higher prices in the manufacturing sector."

Of note: "Despite fearmongering by Democrats and the media over President Trump's trade policies — that did not drum up inflation during his first term — the Trump administration remains committed to delivering economic relief for everyday Americans and restoring American Greatness," White House spokesperson Kush Desai tells Axios.

Surveys of businesses and consumers may have become less reliable as early indicators of how the economy will perform in this highly polarized age.

The intrigue: In the Biden era, there was a mismatch between tanking sentiment and strong economic activity — a factor that might have been influenced by politics. That phenomenon may extend into the Trump years.

• For instance, depressed sentiment and higher inflation expectations in February were concentrated among Democrats and independents, according to UMich.
• UMich's sentiment index dropped 14 points among Democrats and roughly half as much for independents.
• Among Republicans, sentiment held at the highest level since the 2020 election. Democrats' sentiment hasn't been this low since April 2020.
• "Consumers are feeling gloomier, but the post pandemic economy has taught us attitudes don't always drive spending decisions," Nationwide financial market economist Oren Klachkin wrote in a client note.

Between the lines: More and more surveys about economic conditions appear not to offer independent information about peoples' plans to spend money or buy a car, but rather whether they do or do not like the person in the White House.

The bottom line: Survey-based data offer early warning signs of trouble, but it's what people do, not what they say, that will determine how the Trump economy turns out.

The U.S. voted against a UN resolution Monday condemning Russia's invasion of Ukraine, siding with Moscow and other non-democratic countries like North Korea, Belarus and Sudan.

Why it matters: The Trump administration has found itself increasingly isolated on the world stage as it seeks to broker peace on the third anniversary of the war in Ukraine.

State of play: The three-page resolution presented by Ukraine condemned Russia's "aggression" and called for the complete and unconditional withdrawal of Russian forces from Ukrainian territory.

• The U.S. was one of just 18 countries to vote against the resolution, pitting the Trump administration against 93 member states, including much of the European Union.
• It was the first time since the Russian invasion began that the U.S. voted against a resolution backed by Ukraine.
• 65 member states, including China and Iran, abstained from the vote.

Driving the news: In recent days, the Trump administration had been trying to pressure Ukraine to back off from presenting the resolution — the latest in a series of diplomatic moves critical of Kyiv.

• When these efforts failed, the U.S. started pushing numerous countries to instead support a rival resolution that mourned the loss of life and called for a "swift end to the conflict."
• The U.S.-backed resolution, which was just three paragraphs, did not blame Russia for starting the war.
• "A simple, historic statement from the General Assembly that looks forward, not backwards. A resolution focused on one, simple idea: Ending the war," acting UN ambassador Dorothy Shea said in a speech urging member states to adopt the resolution.

The intrigue: During the UN general assembly meeting on Monday, several European countries proposed amendments to the U.S. text that explicitly mentioned the Russian invasion and Ukraine's territorial integrity.

• The European amendments were then adopted with the support of 93 member states — forcing the U.S. into the awkward position of abstaining from its own draft resolution.
• "I would rather not explain it now, but it's sort of self evident I think," Trump told reporters Monday when asked why the U.S. opposed Ukraine's resolution.

Dan Bongino, newly appointed deputy FBI director, is a former Secret Service agent who's more recently gained prominence as a conservative podcaster with a background on Fox News.

Why it matters: Bongino is a staunch ally of President Trump, who has set out to overhaul the Justice Department in alignment with his agenda.

• "I've spent my life in public service, beginning with the NYPD and continuing through my time as a Secret Service agent, working under both Republican and Democrat administrations," he said in a statement.
• He's also spread conspiracy theories about the FBI's role in the 2016 and 2020 presidential elections and questioned the integrity of its investigations into the assassination attempts targeting Trump, Axios previously reported.

State of play: The deputy FBI director role doesn't require Senate confirmation and typically goes to a senior career agent. Kash Patel, one of Trump's most controversial mega-MAGA picks, was confirmed by the Senate 51-49 last week as director.

• The FBI deputy director is responsible for overseeing domestic and international investigative and intelligence activities, per the agency's website.

Conservative media pundit

Bongino is one of many Trump appointees and Cabinet members with previous ties to Fox.

• His podcast "Dan Bongino show" aims to debunk "both liberal and Republican establishment rhetoric," per the show's description. It's ranked by Spotify as the No. 56 podcast in the U.S.
• He hosted a Fox News show, "Unfiltered" but left the network in 2023 after they couldn't agree on a new contract.
• YouTube permanently banned Bongino in 2022 for violating the platform's COVID misinformation policy.

Secret Service career

Bongino joined the U.S. Secret Service's Presidential Protection Division in 2006 during former President George W. Bush's administration, after joining the agency in 1999.

• He stayed in the role during the transition to former President Obama's administration.
• In 2010, after the presidential appointments, he transferred to the Baltimore Field Office. He originally started at the Secret Service as a special agent in the New York Field Office investigating federal crimes.

He began his career working for the NYPD in 1995 as a police cadet and became a full-time police officer in 1997.

• He has master's degrees in psychology and business administration from the City University of New York and Penn State University, respectively.

Congressional races

Bongino has launched three unsuccessful bids for Congress in multiple states.

• He ran to represent Florida's 19th congressional district in 2016 but was defeated in the Republican primary.
• In 2014, he won the Republican primary to represent Maryland in the House but lost to the incumbent candidate in the general election.
• In 2012, he also lost to the incumbent in a bid to serve as a senator representing Maryland.

Family and personal life

Bongino was diagnosed with Hodgkin's lymphoma in 2020. In an interview with Megyn Kelly last year, he said he had been in remission for two years.

• In 2023, he published a book called "The Gift of Failure" with personal stories.

He and his wife, Paula Bongino, have two daughters.

Go deeper:

• Trump names Dan Bongino deputy FBI director
• Trump's loyalty-first FBI

The U.S. and Ukraine are closing in on minerals agreement worth hundreds of billions of dollars under which the U.S. would express its desire to keep Ukraine "free, sovereign and secure," according to a draft obtained by Axios.

Why it matters: The Trump administration sees the agreement as a way to get a return on U.S. investment in Ukraine, which has vast untapped mineral wealth. Ukrainian officials see the deal as a way to halt the deterioration of relations with the Trump administration and establish a longer-term partnership with the U.S.

• A Ukrainian official told Axios a deal is close and could be signed as soon as Monday. The official said the document Axios has reviewed is the most recent version, but could still be amended.
• Ukrainian Deputy Prime Minister Olga Stefanishyna confirmed in an X post Monday that the sides were close to a deal, and said signing it would "showcase our commitment for decades to come."

The latest: President Trump wrote on Truth Social after a G7 virtual meeting on Monday marking three years since Russia's invasion of Ukraine that he "emphasized the importance of the vital Critical Minerals and Rare-Earths Deal between the United States and Ukraine, which we hope will be signed very soon!"

• He added that the deal will help "the American people recoup the Tens of Billions of Dollars and Military Equipment sent to Ukraine, while also helping Ukraine's economy grow as this Brutal and Savage War comes to an end."

Driving the news: The draft agreement calls for the establishment of a "Reconstruction Investment Fund" that will be co-managed by the U.S. and Ukraine.

Key quote: "The Government of the United States of America intends to provide a long-term financial commitment to the development of a stable and economically prosperous Ukraine," the draft says.

• It adds that the fund will be designed "so as to invest in projects in Ukraine and attract investments to increase development," including in areas like mining and ports.
• But it also suggests the U.S. will recoup some of its expenditures related to "defending, reconstructing, and returning Ukraine" to its pre-war GDP.

Between the lines: Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky infuriated Trump by rejecting an initial U.S. proposal, but said Monday at the G7 leaders meeting that he hoped to sign an agreement in Washington soon.

• He told reporters Sunday that the U.S. side had dropped a demand that it receive $500 billion from Ukrainian minerals projects — a sum Zelensky noted was far more than the U.S. had contributed to Ukraine.
• Zelensky rejected the idea of treating aid to Ukraine as a debt that must be repaid, and added that the agreement must include U.S. military support for Ukraine.

The intrigue: The draft seen by Axios expresses a desire that Ukraine remain free, but does not specify any U.S. military commitment.

• It also stipulates that Ukraine must contribute $500 billion to the fund — and that Ukraine's contributions must be double the U.S contributions — but it does not call for that sum to be paid to the U.S.
• The draft calls for 50% of Ukraine's revenues (minus operating expenses) from "extractable materials" — including minerals, oil and gas — be paid into the fund.
• Bloomberg first reported on aspects of the proposed deal.

Worth noting: The text contains a provision referring to projects in areas "temporarily occupied by the Russian Federation, in the event such areas are de-occupied."

• Much of Ukraine's mineral wealth is in the war-torn east.

What's next: The draft seen by Axios calls for the U.S. Treasury and Commerce Departments, along with Vice President Vance's office, to work out the details of the arrangement with Ukraine's Economy Ministry after the initial framing document is signed.

• At the bottom, the document has spaces for the signatures of Secretary of State Marco Rubio and his Ukrainian counterpart, Andrii Sybiha.
• Sources on both sides have told Axios a deal is looking increasingly likely, and could be announced soon.

A judge on Monday rejected the Associated Press' emergency motion to rescind the White House ban against its access to some press events, as he sought more details on the circumstances surrounding the case.

Why it matters: It's a win for the White House — at least for now — as they seek to restrict the AP's access, following the news organization's decision to use Gulf of Mexico rather than Gulf of America.

Driving the news: In a hearing on Monday afternoon, Judge Trevor McFadden requested more details about the events that the AP has been barred from and the number of reporters allowed into larger events.

• McFadden didn't find any reason to immediately stop the administration's ban, but he said that case law seems to be against it.

The big picture: The ruling comes after the White House asked the judge to allow it to continue barring the AP from some press events. It argued in a court filing on Monday that access to the president is at his discretion and not a constitutional right.

• The filing said that just because the AP "may have long received special media access to the president does not mean that such access is constitutionally compelled in perpetuity."
• The White House hailed the judge's order, saying in a statement, "asking the president of the United States questions in the Oval Office and aboard Air Force One is a privilege granted to journalists, not a legal right."

The other side: "We look forward to our next hearing on March 20 where we will continue to stand for the right of the press and the public to speak freely without government retaliation," AP spokesperson Lauren Easton said in a statement.

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

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

The big picture: The White House is targeting AP because of the preeminent role it plays in shaping mainstream news media language via its influential stylebook and, therefore, how other outlets report on the president and his administration.

• Republicans believe the AP has become institutionally geared toward the left.
• Trump advisers say AP's photographers were blocked as well, thereby depriving the organization of the revenue it earns from selling pictures on its news wire.
• AP says its style guide is non-biased and is continually updated to provide accurate, fair and neutral information.

The intrigue: Ed Martin, the interim U.S. attorney for D.C., falsely referred to his office as "President Trumps' lawyers" [sic] in a post on X on Monday. Martin wrote that his team is "vigilant in standing against entities like the AP that refuse to put America first."

• Martin is not a personal lawyer for Trump. As a U.S. attorney for D.C., he is the top prosecutor for the city, with a big portfolio, including white collar and national security investigations and nearly all street-level crime, Axios' Cuneyt Dil reported.
• Per the office's website, "The United States Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia is committed to ensuring the fair and impartial administration of justice for all Americans."

Between the lines: Trump has installed loyalists at all levels of U.S. government. He's repeatedly promised to use Justice Department officials to seek retribution against his perceived enemies.

• His administration's recent demand that charges against New York City mayor Eric Adams be dismissed led several top prosecutors in New York and D.C. to resign.

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

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

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

Editor's note: This story has been updated with additional developments.

Russia's invasion of Ukraine upended global petro-flows — maybe forever — but the effects on low-carbon transition are tougher to parse.

Why it matters: Monday marks three years since the launch of the attack. Here are some effects within energy circles ...

Climate crosscurrents. There was plenty of chatter when the war started that it would speed energy transition in Europe and perhaps beyond.

• Yes, but: It also put the spotlight on U.S. LNG as shipments to Europe grew, while then-President Biden in 2022 urged U.S. oil producers to boost supply.
• Driving the news: The Atlantic Council's new global survey of energy experts — from industry, academia, government and more — is mixed on this question.
• What they found: 38% see the conflict slowing the process toward net zero, 31% see an accelerant, while the remainder see no effect. And just 25% see a major impact in either direction.

It's a new map. Europe's efforts to shun Russian oil and pipelined gas have redirected shipments, deepening Kremlin energy ties with China and India.

• Zoom in: China's oil imports from Russia rose to 2.4 million barrels per day last year, per IEA data. India's increase has been stunning, rising from roughly 100,000 barrels per day in 2021 to roughly 2 million in 2023 and 2024, per IEA.
• State of play: Europe vastly curbed imports of gas from Russia, once its dominant supplier, thanks to cutting pipelined supply. LNG shipments from its eastern neighbor have risen, but overall Russia now has just a small fraction of its prior 40% share of European gas imports.

Real but limited economic pushback on the Kremlin. Russia's "shadow fleet" of tankers has stymied the effects of oil sanctions and the G7-led price cap.

• The big picture: Volumes have declined slightly, but Russian oil has been an "enduring" presence, said Landon Derentz, senior Atlantic Council energy analyst. The conflict has not deterred a "meaningful portion of Russian oil flows from reaching the market," he said.

What we're watching: U.S. talks with Russia over ending the war.

• U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has raised the prospect of tougher oil sanctions to force talks, and easing restrictions as an incentive.
• Meanwhile, there's chatter about what once sounded far-fetched: resumption of large-scale Russian pipeline gas flows to Europe, which is grappling with high prices, if the war ends.

President Trump named bombastic MAGA podcast star Dan Bongino as deputy FBI director — a role that doesn't require Senate confirmation, and typically goes to a senior agent.

Why it matters: With loyalist Kash Patel confirmed as FBI director, the bureau can function effectively as Trump's private security force.

• Announcing the appointment on Truth Social last night, Trump said Patel "will be the best ever Director" and said of Bongino: "Working with our great new United States Attorney General, Pam Bondi, and Director Patel, Fairness, Justice, Law and Order will be brought back to America, and quickly."

Catch up quick: Bongino served in the NYPD before joining the Secret Service and working in the Presidential Protective Division during the administrations of Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama.

• The FBI Agents Association wanted an active-duty agent as deputy. So the pick could intensify "mistrust among the rank-and-file," the N.Y. Times reports.

Flashback: Talking in 2018 about the confirmation battle for Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, Bongino said: "My entire life right now is about owning the libs."

Go deeper: YouTube permanently bans Fox News host Dan Bongino