California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) said Thursday he'll sue the Trump administration over the reported DOGE-driven dismantling of the Americorps service program.

The big picture: This is Newsom's second lawsuit announcement against the administration this week after saying Wednesday that he'd sue over President Trump's sweeping global tariffs.

Driving the news: AmeriCorps placed most of its federal staff on paid administrative leave Wednesday, per America's Service Commissions (ASC), a nonprofit representing state service commissions, and multiple news reports.

• The agency's National Civilian Community Corps, which oversees volunteerism and service work, told volunteers Tuesday they'd leave the program early "due to programmatic circumstances beyond your control," per AP, which cited an email Americorps email it obtained.
• The Golden State "will both challenge the illegal action in court and accelerate recruitment for the California Service Corps program — already the largest service corps in the nation, surpassing the size of the Peace Corps," per a statement from the state governor's office.
• The statement noted that "AmeriCorps members were on the ground, distributing supplies and supporting families" during the climate-change related wildfires that devastated much of Los Angeles earlier this year.

By the numbers: Some 2,200 18- to 26-year-olds serve for 10-11 months on projects with FEMA, nonprofits, the U.S. Forest Service or community groups, per the agency's site.

What they're saying: "We've gone from the New Deal, the New Frontier, and the Great Society to a federal government that gives the middle finger to volunteers serving their fellow Americans," Newsom said in a statement Thursday. "We will sue to stop this."

• Newsom's chief service officer Josh Fryday said in a statement the action of DOGE, which the world's richest person Elon Musk is the face of, "aren't about making government work better — it's about making communities weaker."

The other side: "A White House official said the Trump administration questioned using taxpayer money for the program," per AP.

• Representatives for the White House and Americorps did not immediately respond to Axios' request for comment in the evening.

Go deeper: AmeriCorps pledges aid to tribal-led climate solutions

Virginia's bare-breasted state flag, and a lesson about the Commonwealth of Virginia, has been banned for some students in a Texas school district.

The big picture: Lamar CISD, a school district around 30 minutes from Houston, last fall removed a section about Virginia from its online learning platform used by 3rd-5th graders, Texas Freedom to Read Project co-director Anne Russey tells Axios.

• The reason: The bare breast on Virginia's flag, a picture of which was included in the lesson, violated the district's recently adopted ban on any "visual depictions or illustrations of frontal nudity" in elementary school library material.
• That's according to what the Lamar district confirmed to Russey in a Freedom of Information Act request.

The district did not respond to Axios' request for more information.

Zoom out: The Texas district, like some in Virginia, uses the educational website PebbleGo Next as one of its online learning platforms for elementary-age students, per the district's website.

• PebbleGo's lesson about Virginia does, in fact, include an image of the state's flag, as well as a picture of the state seal, which also shows the breast.
• The lesson notes that the state's seal and flag depict the Roman goddess Virtus standing over a "defeated tyrant," along with the state's motto, "Sic semper tyrannis."
• That motto, the lesson tells students, means "Thus Always to Tyrants."

Google wants employees to focus on their work and not fret about the company's loss of "parts of" its online advertising monopoly case, it said in a memo to employees Thursday.

Why it matters: The court's ruling, which Google said it would appeal, could fundamentally reshape the giant's advertising business, depending on the remedies, or penalties, the judge determines.

• Advertising represents the vast majority of Google's revenue. It fuels the company's ability to invest in new technologies, like AI and cloud servers.

Zoom in: In a note to staff, Google VP of regulatory affairs Lee-Anne Mulholland said it's important for employees to"continue to focus on our users and customers by building amazing products that help people around the world."

• Google, she noted, plans to appeal the ruling, arguing it "incorrectly suggests a company like ours has a legal obligation to do business with competitors."
• "This is contrary to past Supreme Court decisions," she asserted.

Between the lines: Mulholland also sought to clarify the outcome of the case by noting that the court delivered a mixed ruling.

• "It rejected key parts of the DOJ's case," she said. "The court found our advertiser tools don't harm competition and our acquisitions of DoubleClick and AdMeld were not anticompetitive. But it agreed with the DOJ's claims about one of our publisher tools. In other words, we won half, lost the other half."

Go deeper: Here's the full text of Google's memo:

Today, a U.S. district court issued a mixed decision in our advertising technology case with the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). We asked Lee-Anne Mulholland, VP of Regulatory Affairs, for her thoughts.

Give us an overview of the court's decision today. The court delivered a mixed ruling in the DOJ's lawsuit focused on some of our ad tech. It rejected key parts of the DOJ's case: The court found our advertiser tools don't harm competition and our acquisitions of DoubleClick and AdMeld were not anticompetitive. But it agreed with the DOJ's claims about one of our publisher tools. In other words, we won half, lost the other half.

For those unfamiliar, what's the focus of this case? This case is focused on the tools we provide to advertisers and publishers for third-party display advertising on the web. While these tools are valuable for those customers, they represent a narrow part of our advertising business — separate from Search and YouTube ads. Specifically, it looked at whether some of our advertising technology — tools that connect advertisers (like retailers) and ad sellers (typically website owners) — violated antitrust law; as well as whether our acquisitions in this space were anticompetitive.

What are the next steps? On this case, there is a ways to go; this is definitely not the final word. We will next go to trial to decide the remedies in this case, and then we will appeal the decision. We believe we're strongly positioned to appeal based on established Supreme Court precedent, the facts of our case, and the findings of the court today:

• The ruling doesn't align with how the Supreme Court has previously viewed multi-sided markets like ours, which involve advertisers, publishers, platforms, and users.
• The ruling incorrectly suggests a company like ours has a legal obligation to do business with competitors. This is contrary to past Supreme Court decisions.
• The court recognized that our advertising tools operate in a competitive market, alongside major players in social media and beyond.
• The ruling found that our acquisitions in this space (DoubleClick and Admeld) did not harm competition.
• Publishers have tons of options and they choose Google because our tools are simple, affordable, and effective.

Is there anything else you want Googlers to know? There's been a lot of interest by regulators in our ad tech products around the world for many, many years so this scrutiny isn't new! We've long invested in ad tech because it goes back to our mission of making information universally accessible and useful. Ad tech helps online publishers, content creators, and bloggers make money—which in turn keeps the internet free and open to use for all of us.

We're deeply committed to providing solutions to a wide array of publishers and advertisers in a highly competitive sector. The Regulatory Affairs team will keep working to challenge this case through the appeals process. It's important for Googlers to continue to focus on our users and customers by building amazing products that help people around the world.

Former top Pentagon spokesperson John Ullyot "was asked to resign," a Defense Department official said in an emailed statement on Thursday evening.

Why it matters: Despite this announcement, Ullyot maintains he offered his resignation, telling Axios late Thursday that "DoD officials who hide behind anonymous statements clearly resent that they did not have the access or relationship to Secretary [Pete] Hegseth that I enjoyed under President Trump's leadership."

• He added in his emailed statement: "Their sour-grapes anonymous spin is as inaccurate as it is laughable." Representatives for the Pentagon did not immediately respond to a request for comment in the evening on Ullyot's statement.
• Ullyot's resignation comes during a staffing overhaul at the Pentagon that saw three politically appointed senior aides to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth placed on administrative leave during in an investigation into Defense Department leaks.

The big picture: Politico first reported on Wednesday that Ullyot would leave the Pentagon on Friday and AP first reported on Thursday's announcement and the former Pentagon press secretary's denial that he was asked to resign.

• Ullyot oversaw responses to outrage at the Defense Department's removal — and subsequent restoration — of webpages related to baseball and civil rights legend Jackie Robinson and the Navajo Code Talkers as part of a Trump administration crackdown on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI).
• The Marine veteran also held senior roles in the first Trump administration and served in a top communications role during the president's 2016 campaign.

Read former top Pentagon spokesperson John Ullyot's resignation letter that he shared with AP, via DocumentCloud:

Editor's note: This article has been updated with comment from former Pentagon press secretary John Ullyot and further context.

Sen. Chris Van Hollen met with Kilmar Armando Ábrego García, a Maryland resident who was mistakenly deported to El Salvador, per social media posts by the country's president and the Democrat .

Why it matters: Van Hollen said he was twice denied requests to visit Ábrego García at the high-security Salvadoran prison for terrorists where the legal U.S. resident is being held as the Trump administration evades courts' orders to facilitate his release, despite conceding that he was deported in an "administrative error."

• The Trump administration has repeated unsubstantiated claims that Ábrego García is a member of the Mara Salvatrucha gang, commonly known as MS-13.
• Ábrego García has never been convicted of being a member, and the claim appears to have come from an anonymous tip that was never proven.

Driving the news: "I said my main goal of this trip was to meet with Kilmar. Tonight I had that chance," Van Hollen said in posts to his social media accounts.

• "I have called his wife, Jennifer [Vasquez Sura], to pass along his message of love. I look forward to providing a full update upon my return."

The intrigue: It was not immediately clear why El Salvador's government relented and allowed Van Hollen to meet with Ábrego García.

• Before Van Hollen posted his photo with Ábrego García, Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele posted photos on X of the pair meeting.
• "Kilmar Abrego Garcia, miraculously risen from the "death camps" & "torture", now sipping margaritas with Sen. Van Hollen in the tropical paradise of El Salvador!" Bukele posted on X. "I love chess," he wrote in another post.
• Bukele also reposted supportive posts from conservative supporters and pinned one, writing, "Now that he's been confirmed healthy, he gets the honor of staying in El Salvador's custody."

Now that he’s been confirmed healthy, he gets the honor of staying in El Salvador’s custody 🇺🇸🤝🏼🇸🇻 https://t.co/2xVt4SNOGn

— Nayib Bukele (@nayibbukele) April 18, 2025

What they're saying: Vasquez Sura said in an emailed statement Thursday night that her family's prayers had been answered as she thanked Van Hollen for the visit.

• "The efforts of my family and community in fighting for justice are beng heard, because I now know that my husband is alive," she said. "God is listening, and the community is standing strong."

The other side: "Chris Van Hollen has firmly established Democrats as the party whose top priority is the welfare of an illegal alien MS-13 terrorist," said Kush Desai, a White House spokesperson, in a statement emailed Thursday night.

• "It is truly disgusting. President Trump will continue to stand on the side of law-abiding Americans."

Context: Ábrego García has had no communication with anyone outside Centro de Confinamiento del Terrorismo (CECOT) since he was "illegally abducted," the senator previously said at a press conference.

• "This ability to communicate with his lawyers is in violation of international law," Van Hollen said, adding that El Salvador is party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Catch up quick: The Supreme Court said last week the U.S. must "facilitate" Ábrego García's release, but the Trump administration has resisted court orders to return him.

• The Justice Department argued in legal filings that courts don't have the power to dictate specific steps to the executive branch. So, effectively, no one can initiate this process.

Zoom out: Ábrego García's wife defended him Wednesday after the U.S. Department of Homeland Security posted on X a temporary protective order she filed against him in 2021.

• Vasquez Sura said in a statement that she "acted out of caution after a disagreement with Kilmar by seeking a civil protective order" after "surviving domestic violence in a previous relationship."
• "Things did not escalate, and I decided not to follow through with the civil court process."

The Department of Homeland Security posted on X on Wednesday the protective order Vasquez Sura filed in 2021.

• "According to court filings, Garcia's wife sought a domestic violence restraining order against him, claiming he punched, scratched, and ripped off her shirt, among other harm," officials wrote in the post.

Go deeper: Timeline: The case of a Maryland man mistakenly deported to El Salvador

Editor's note: This article has been updated with new details throughout.

The Trump administration must work to return a wrongly deported Maryland man, a federal appeals court said Thursday, rejecting a request to block a lower court's order requiring his return.

The big picture: The administration is resisting court orders to return Kilmar Armando Ábrego García from a notorious Salvadorian prison, despite conceding that the legal U.S. resident was deported in an "administrative error."

• The U.S. government has accused Ábrego García, a Salvadorian national legally living in Maryland, of being a member of the MS-13 gang. He has not been charged with gang-related crimes.

Driving the news: The unanimous ruling from the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals upholds U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis' decisions outlining the next steps for Ábrego García's return.

• "The government is asserting a right to stash away residents of this country in foreign prisons without the semblance of due process that is the foundation of our constitutional order," the ruling said.
• "While we fully respect the Executive's robust assertion of its Article II powers, we shall not micromanage the efforts of a fine district judge attempting to implement the Supreme Court's recent decision," the order states.

Context: Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem had asked the appeals court to temporarily halt enforcement of a lower court's orders requiring Ábrego García's return.

• The Trump administration has argued that courts don't have the power to dictate specific steps to the executive branch — so, effectively, no one can initiate the process to return Ábrego García.
• The Supreme Court ruled last week that the U.S. must "facilitate" his release. But the Trump administration argued that simply means if El Salvador asks to send him back, the U.S. has to help.
• "'Facilitate' is an active verb. It requires that steps be taken as the Supreme Court has made perfectly clear," the appeals court said.
• El Salvador President Nayib Bukele said he can't return Ábrego García to the U.S., nor will he release him within El Salvador.

Zoom in: "The federal courts do not have the authority to press-gang the President or his agents into taking any particular act of diplomacy," the government argued in its filing to the appeals court.

• Rather, they argued, the courts only have the authority to order the executive branch to "facilitate" a return.
• "As that term has long been understood and applied, that means the Executive must remove any domestic barriers to the alien's return; it does not, and constitutionally cannot, involve a directive to take any act upon a foreign nation," the filing said.

More from Axios:

• Timeline: The case of a Maryland man mistakenly deported to El Salvador
• Senator again denied entry to El Salvador prison to visit mistakenly deported man
• Judge in deportation case threatens Trump admin with contempt of court
• Mistakenly deported man will be removed from U.S. if he manages to return: DOJ

The Trump administration threatened to revoke Harvard University's eligibility to host foreign students, tightening its squeeze on the school after campus leadership refused to cave in to its demands.

The big picture: The heightened pressure comes after the Trump administration cut $2.2 billion in grants and $60 million in contracts to the university amid a broader campaign against elite higher education institutions.

• Trump said earlier this week that Harvard should lose its tax exempt status, accusing the Ivy League school of pushing politics and ideology.

Driving the news: Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem warned Harvard that its certification to enroll foreign students is "contingent upon" it complying with federal immigration rules, in a Wednesday letter to the university obtained by the New York Times.

• Noem wrote, "It is a privilege to have foreign students attend Harvard University, not a guarantee," and accused the university of creating "a hostile learning environment" for Jewish students.
• U.S. schools that host international students must be certified by the federal Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP).

If the school fails to respond to record requests she made concerning student visa holders by April 30, "SEVP will automatically withdraw the school's certification," Noem wrote, noting the withdrawal will not be subject to appeal.

• Noem demanded information on student visa holders' known "illegal activity," "dangerous or violent activity" and "known threats to other students or university personnel," among other data.
• She also sought information "regarding each student visa holder's maintenance of at least the minimum required coursework to maintain nonimmigrant student status."

What they're saying: A Harvard spokesperson confirmed in a statement to Axios that the university is aware of the DHS letter.

• The letter, coupled with other actions against the school, "follows on the heels of our statement that Harvard will not surrender its independence or relinquish its constitutional rights," the spokesperson said. "We continue to stand by that statement."

Zoom out: In a Wednesday release announcing Noem's "scathing letter demanding detailed records on Harvard's foreign student visa holders' illegal and violent activities," DHS also said it revoked two grants totaling over $2.7 million to Harvard.

Catch up quick: Other American higher education institutions have complied with Trump administration demands in recent weeks.

• But Harvard's president, Alan Garber, turned the administration down, saying Harvard is committed to fighting antisemitism but that no government should stifle academic freedom.
• In its Friday letter to Harvard, the Trump administration outlined a series of demands, which included reforming governance and leadership, shuttering DEI offices and adjusting international admissions to "prevent admitting students hostile to the American values and institutions."

Go deeper: Trump's pressure campaign against universities hits a Harvard-sized snag

Luigi Mangione was indicted by a New York grand jury Thursday on four federal charges, including murder through the use of a firearm, which could make him eligible for the death penalty.

The big picture: Mangione is facing both federal and state charges in connection to the killing of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson last year. Attorney General Pam Bondi earlier this month directed the Justice Department to seek the death penalty in the case.

Driving the news: Mangione is charged in the federal indictment with two counts of stalking, one count of murder through use of a firearm and one count of a firearms offense.

• A federal complaint against Mangione was unsealed in December but he had not been indicted on those charges until Thursday.

Zoom in: Mangione has pleaded not guilty to murder and terrorism charges in New York.

• He faces the federal charges of murder and stalking, but has yet to enter a plea.

Context: Thompson was shot and killed on the morning of Dec. 4 outside a midtown Manhattan hotel while in the city for a UnitedHealthcare investor meeting.

• Mangione was arrested in December at a McDonald's in Altoona, Pennsylvania, on separate charges after a manhunt following Thompson's killing in New York.
• His attorney is pushing to have those firearms and forgery charges dismissed.

Editor's note: This is a breaking news story. Please check back for updates.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average fell 527 points on Thursday, despite the fact that 20 of its 30 components actually rose in price. The culprit: UnitedHealth Group, whose $131 fall was singlehandedly responsible for an 805-point decline.

Why it matters: A single highly-priced stock, if it falls far enough, can now create a greater point drop in the Dow than the 508-point plunge that triggered panicked headlines around the world in 1987.

Follow the money: S&P Dow Jones Indices confirmed to Axios that the fall on Thursday represents the largest point impact for the DJIA on record.

Between the lines: The Dow is a weird beast, being an average and not an index. As such, a stock like UnitedHealth, which trades for more than $400 per share, has a significantly higher weighting than much more valuable companies like Apple or Nvidia.

The bottom line: If you care about what the stock market did Thursday, look to the S&P 500 (+0.1%) — and not to the Dow (-1.3%).

At least two Republican House members and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem have toured the same Salvadoran prison that turned away a Senate Democrat seeking to speak with a mistakenly deported constituent.

Why it matters: CECOT in Tecoluca, El Salvador, has become the symbol of President Trump's immigration crackdown after he sent hundreds of Venezuelan immigrants there with little or no due process.

• Trump has repeatedly raised the prospect of sending American citizens to prisons in El Salvador, recently telling President Nayib Bukele to "build about five more places" during an Oval Office visit.

What we're watching: Democrats in both chambers of Congress are working to organize delegations to El Salvador, including Reps. Delia Ramirez (D-Ill.), Robert Garcia (D-Calif.) and Maxwell Frost (D-Fla.) and Sen Cory Booker (D-N.J.).

• "Given that the Administration's use of CECOT for illegal and unconstitutional deportations is rife with 'administrative errors' ... I urgently request a CODEL to conduct oversight," Ramirez wrote on Wednesday.

Yes, but: House Republican committee chairs have refused to authorize Democrats' requests to lead official congressional delegations to El Salvador.

• House Homeland Security Committee chair Mark Green (R-Tenn.) said he wouldn't grant Ramirez's request.

Van Hollen tries to contact Ábrego García

Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) said on Wednesday and Thursday his requests to see or speak to Kilmar Ábrego García, his mistakenly deported constituent, were denied.

• Ábrego García was deported to El Salvador in what the Trump administration later said was an "administrative error."
• The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that Trump must "facilitate" Ábrego García's return, but Bukele said he wouldn't return or release him.

Context: Bukele in 2022 ordered the prison be built as part of a response to surging gang violence in El Salvador, per NPR.

• Each cell can fit 65 to 70 prisoners, and the prison has a capacity of 40,000 inmates.
• The deported Venezuelan migrants are living in the same conditions as convicted gangsters, prison director Belarmino García told CNN.
• Visitation, recreation and education are not typically allowed the terrorism confinement center.

Republican politicians at CECOT

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem visited the prison in March.

• "If you come to our country illegally, this is one of the consequences you could face," Noem said in a video standing in front of a packed cell of prisoners.

Rep. Jason Smith (R-Mo.) on Tuesday shared photos of himself at the prison.

• In a statement, he praised President Trump for the deportations and detentions.

Rep. Riley Moore (R-W. Va.) similarly shared photos on Tuesday, including one of him standing in front of a cell posing with thumbs up.

• "I leave now even more determined to support President Trump's efforts to secure our homeland" he wrote on X.

Five other GOP members visited El Salvador, per a photo shared by the U.S. Embassy in El Salvador. However, it doesn't say whether they visited the prison.

• Those lawmakers are Reps. Claudia Tenney (NY), Mike Kennedy (Utah), Carol Miller (W. Va.), Ron Estes (Kansas) and Kevin Hern (Okla.), per journalist Marisa Kabas.
• A spokesperson for Miller did not respond to direct questions about the trip. The other representatives' offices did not immediately respond to Axios' request for comment.
• The embassy's post, written in Spanish, said the delegation was "visiting the country to strengthen bilateral ties and discuss initiatives that promote economic development and mutual cooperation."

Go deeper:

• Inside Democrats' scramble to travel to El Salvador
• Timeline: The case of a Maryland man mistakenly deported to El Salvador

House Republican committee chairs are refusing to authorize Democrats' requests to lead official congressional delegations to El Salvador, Axios has learned.

Why it matters: Democrats want to go to the Centro de Confinamiento del Terrorismo to visit Kilmar Abrego Garcia, an erroneously deported Maryland man who the Supreme Court has ordered returned to the U.S.

• Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), who was able to go on an official CODEL to the country, said he was denied access to CECOT by El Salvadorian officials.

Driving the news: House Homeland Security Committee chair Mark Green (R-Tenn.) said in a statement he will not grant Rep. Delia Ramirez's (D-Ill.) request to lead an official CODEL.

• "If Democrats care so much about defending this individual, they can use their own personal credit cards—not taxpayers' money—to virtue-signal to their radical base," he said in a statement.
• Reps. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.) and Maxwell Frost (D-Fla.), who made the same request of Oversight Committee chair James Comer (R-Ky.), have not received a response, a source familiar with the matter told Axios.
• A spokesperson for Comer did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The intrigue: Reps. Jason Smith (R-Mo.) and Riley Moore (R-W.Va.) both posted photos on social media of themselves at CECOT this week.

• They were there as part of a CODEL led by Smith, the chair of the House Ways and Means Committee, a source familiar with the matter told Axios.
• Both Republicans expressed support for President Trump's deportation policies, with Moore saying he left the prison "even more determined to support President Trump's efforts to secure our homeland."
• Smith's office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

What to watch: Garcia previously signaled to Axios that he and Frost may go ahead with an informal trip without Comer's sign-off, though a CODEL would afford more investigative resources and security.

• Another House Democrat hoping to travel to El Salvador told Axios that he may try to join the trip Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) is planning.
• "If Cory Booker's going and he's official — going with someone who's official would be the best way to go," the lawmaker said.

President Trump's trade war is inspiring the latest TikTok trend — Chinese manufacturers encouraging shoppers to buy direct and pay less.

Why it matters: The trend highlights American consumers' desperation to avoid massive price increases on Chinese-made goods as Trump's tariffs take effect.

• The idea is that, tariffs or not, Western brands are applying big price markups when they add their labels to goods manufactured cheaply in China.
• That realization is fueling discourse on TikTok that what consumers are really buying is the brand name.

What's happening: Chinese manufacturers and influencers are taking American buyers inside warehouses where they say popular products are made.

• This viral post from @mr.loong.laundrypods shows viewers inside a laundry detergent pod factory and claims that each pod is only five cents.
• Another viral post from @lunasourcingchina claims that pricey leggings made for Lululemon are "five to six bucks" when they come straight from the factory.

However, a number of companies including Lululemon have pushed back against these videos, claiming they're not showing authentic products.

• Even if the products are real, it's often unclear from the videos how to make a purchase.

Reality check: As attractive as it might sound to avoid markups, it's often not advisable or not possible to buy directly from Chinese factories.

• The Washington Post reports that buying products directly from Chinese manufacturers — which generally ship in bulk — is likely to be challenging if not impossible, particularly at the low per-unit prices that retail chains pay.
• Other potential obstacles include communicating with customer service and avoiding scammers.
• Instead of attempting to buy directly from manufacturers, some American shoppers are seeking out Chinese apps like DHgate or Taobao to get cheap dupes of brand name products.

The intrigue: These creators are using a Chinese app to openly mock Trump's tariffs on China, all while the president continues to save TikTok from being banned.

The bottom line: Even if you can figure out how to buy straight from the source, it's unlikely to save you from the tariffs.

The Supreme Court will hear arguments next month over President Trump's efforts to restrict birthright citizenship.

Why it matters: The move represents an escalation in the legal battle over the Trump administration's bid to upend the the Constitution's 14th Amendment, which automatically confers citizenship to people born on U.S. soil.

• These efforts are part and parcel of a the administration's broader immigration crackdown.

The big picture: In an order issued Thursday, the Supreme Court said it would hear oral arguments over the case on May 15.

• Trump signed an executive order on his first day in office that sought to end birthright citizenship for children born to undocumented immigrants or foreign visitors in the U.S.
• The order was quickly met with legal challenges, which resulted in temporary blocks on the order's enforcement. Last month, Trump asked the Supreme Court to overturn those lower court orders.

Zoom in: The Supreme Court deferred acting on Trump's request pending the oral arguments next month.

State of play: Birthright citizen was added to the Constitution in the 14th Amendment after the Civil War to guarantee newly-freed slaves' citizenship.

• The right was affirmed by the Supreme Court in the 1890s, cementing birthright citizenship for children born in the U.S. to parents who are not citizens.

Go deeper: Trump signs executive order aimed at ending birthright citizenship

President Trump on Thursday said Federal Reserve chair Jerome Powell would be "out of there real fast" if asked to leave the post.

Why it matters: Trump is ratcheting up political pressure on Powell to cut interest rates and hinting at possible intentions to remove the nation's top economic policymaker, a move that is legally dubious and unprecedented.

• Trump's comments come one day after Powell said that the administration's tariffs would likely harm the economy.

What they're saying: "I don't think he's doing the job. He's too late, always too late," Trump told reporters in the Oval Office.

• "I'm not happy with him. I let him know it, and if I want him out, he'll be out of there real fast, believe me," he added.
• Trump did not say whether he planned to fire or remove Powell.

Flashback: In a news conference in November, Powell — whose term as Fed chair expires in May 2026 — was asked whether he would step down if Trump asked him to resign. Powell gave an unusually blunt answer: "No."

• He later said that the removal or demotion of top Fed officials was "not permitted under the law."
• Powell was initially nominated by Trump in 2017, and appointed to another four-year term by President Biden in 2022.

The Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. will produce 30% of its most advanced chips in Arizona when its six Phoenix plants are operational, the company announced on an earnings call Thursday.

Why it matters: Chairman and CEO CC Wei told investors the scope of the company's Phoenix investment will create "an independent leading-edge semiconductor manufacturing cluster in the U.S."

• This is part of TSMC's efforts to diversify its semiconductor manufacturing footprint outside of the political volatility in Taiwan and supports the bipartisan U.S. national security push to increase domestic chips production and accelerate the AI economy.

The big picture: TSMC, the world's leading chips manufacturer, has committed $165 billion to its Arizona operation.

State of play: TSMC's first Phoenix semiconductor factory began production late last year and construction on the second fab is now complete, Wei said on the call.

• The company plans to begin construction on its third plant — the first in the U.S. that will utilize its most-advanced process technologies — later this year, the CEO added.
• TSMC will then build three additional semiconductor manufacturing plants, two advanced packaging facilities and a major research and development center in Arizona. The timeline for those projects has not yet been released.

The intrigue: Wei said TSMC is not discussing a joint venture or technology sharing agreement with any companies — an apparent dismissal of ongoing rumors of a deal with Intel, which also operates in Arizona.

What we're watching: Wei said U.S. tariffs have not yet impacted its customers' behaviors and the company remains bullish on its revenue forecast for 2025.

President Trump's efforts to more directly control the Fed are coming at a perilous time, given the details of this economic moment.

The big picture: Trump wants the Fed to cut rates, but paradoxically, the more he succeeds at limiting its independence, the greater the risk of inflation expectations and long-term interest rates shooting higher.

• The central policy question right now is whether the Fed should view inflation spurred by tariffs as a one-time shock or one that fuels longer-lasting price pressures.
• If it's a one-time adjustment, the Fed can feel confident cutting interest rates to combat economic weakness — if the central bank maintains its credibility that it will do whatever it takes to keep inflation low in the long run.
• This month, Treasury bonds have sold off amid doubts about the U.S. government's volatile trade policies. If Fed independence came into serious question, it would likely fuel further selling, causing long-term interest rates to rise — contrary to Trump's stated goals.

State of play: Besides Trump's latest social media posts, the Supreme Court is weighing a case that questions the constitutionality of independent agencies like the Fed.

• The Federal Reserve Act states that Fed chair Jerome Powell and other governors cannot be fired except for cause — not over mere policy disagreements.
• The Trump administration is arguing that the president has the authority to fire leaders of similarly structured agencies, including the National Labor Relations Board and Federal Trade Commission.
• Administration lawyers are asking the Supreme Court to overturn a 90-year-old precedent that found the FTC's structure to be constitutional and that the president could not fire an FTC commissioner.

Yes, but: There are some reasons to think that, even if the Supreme Court rules in Trump's favor on the core constitutional question, it could find a way to carve out protection for Fed independence.

• In a case about agency funding last year, for example, Justice Samuel Alito called the Fed "a unique institution with a unique historical background" and that its funding mechanism should be seen as "a special arrangement sanctioned by history."

Flashback: The Fed, created in 1914, was the culmination of America's long wrestling with whether to have a central bank.

• A seminal early Supreme Court case, McCulloch v. Maryland in 1819, was over whether Congress could create a national bank.
• The core domestic issue of Andrew Jackson's populist presidency was a fight over whether to shutter the Second Bank of the United States.
• The Fed's unwieldy structure — with presidentially appointed governors in Washington and 12 countrywide reserve banks with their own boards of directors — was the result of an elaborate compromise balancing many interests: big banks and small banks, agriculture and manufacturing, democratic accountability and dispersed power.

The bottom line: "Fed independence is more important than ever at a time when there is risk to underlying inflation and inflation expectations ... and global portfolio reallocation out of the U.S.," wrote Evercore ISI analysts.

The Trump administration has created a lose-lose situation for many of America's educational institutions, as it pressures universities to meet its demands or risk losing funding and tax-exempt status.

Why it matters: Universities have two options — capitulate or push back — both of which could ignite backlash and damage higher education's already flailing reputation.

Catch up quick: This week, Harvard became the first university to reject the administration's demands tied to its federal funding.

• In response, the Trump administration is freezing more than $2 billion and the IRS is taking steps to revoke the university's tax-exempt status.
• This comes after Columbia regained $400 million in federal grants and contracts the administration had pulled from the university after it agreed to meet some demands.
• Funding for Cornell, Northwestern, Brown and Princeton is also on the chopping block.

Meanwhile, Inside Higher Ed reports that over 1,300 international students and recent graduates from 210 American colleges and universities have had their legal status changed by the State Department.

• This has forced many universities to weigh in on the issue of immigration and the policies of President Trump's Federal Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism.

What they're saying: The student visa issue reversals prove more challenging than the funding battle, says one longtime higher education communications adviser who asked to speak on background.

• "The international visa issue is in some aspects much more ominous, because it affects students, faculty and colleges from across the country. It's not just some elite Ivy League problem," the adviser told Axios.
• "It's also much trickier in that there's a lot less you can do about it, frankly. Some schools are creating easy pathways for students to get access to legal help. They're providing some funding in case students are dislocated, but there's not a whole lot more to be done."

The big picture: Universities are particularly vulnerable to these socio-political attacks given their declining reputations due to student loan debt, the high cost of tuition, and the issues of diversity, equity and inclusion, along with free speech and campus safety.

• Confidence in higher education has plummeted across all demographic groups, per a Gallup poll.
• Plus, the competing agendas of university stakeholder groups — students and prospective students, faculty, alumni and community members — make these institutions even more susceptible to backlash.

In response, several prominent institutions have expanded the comms remit to include public policy, crisis communications and issues management.

• Communication and public affairs firms have also launched dedicated higher education practices to meet the demand.

What's next: Harvard's response could either galvanize more universities to push back harder or it could lead them to conclude Harvard should fall on the sword as it is the oldest and most well-funded university in the U.S.

• Of note, administrators from Stanford and Princeton have commended Harvard for its response. Former President Obama and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) also applauded the pushback.

Zoom out: This moment of crisis also presents academic institutions with the opportunity to articulate their contributions and what Trump's cuts could mean for everyday Americans.

• "The area that is ripe for discussion is the impact these cuts could have on scientific research that might enhance national defense, chip technology or medical research," says Phil Singer, CEO of Marathon Strategies.
• "What are the areas that are at risk here that could have a material impact on ... the economy, national security and health?" he added.
• Johns Hopkins University has launched a "Research Saves Lives" campaign that aligns with this premise, while Harvard launched a "Research Powers Progress" campaign.

The bottom line: "The communication goal [for these institutions] is to constantly reassure the very nervous, and in some cases angry or upset, stakeholders while also maintaining a competitive position during such a very disruptive time," the higher ed comms adviser said.

What to watch: A congressional hearing on these matters seems inevitable.

More on Axios:

• Trump's pressure campaign against universities hits a Harvard-sized snag
• Higher ed hires up on strategic communications support

Google's dominance of the online advertising and ad-tech markets violates U.S. antitrust laws, a federal court ruled Thursday, in a decision that could scramble the massive digital ad universe.

Why it matters: It's the second major recent antitrust loss for Google, after a different court ruled last year that the giant has abused its dominance of the search market online.

How it works: The federal government and 17 states who brought the suit seek to force Google to sell off its "network" ad business, which sells ads on other publishers' inventory.

• That accounts for roughly 12% of Alphabet's overall business. Google argues spinning it out would actually hurt publishers, because it would force them to buy ads through more expensive rival networks.

Between the lines: Forcing Google to give up its ad tech arm would be punitive but wouldn't fundamentally change Google's business.

• The company still makes mountains of money selling ads alongside its own YouTube videos and search results.
• But a forced divestiture would almost certainly impact Google's top-line enough to force it to recalibrate its spending on new areas of investment, such as its AI and cloud businesses. Google largely relies on ad revenue to fuel its new bets.

Yes, but: The court drew a distinction between the markets for advertising exchanges and ad servers, where it found Google has an illegal monopoly, and the general market for display ads online, where it found Google does not.

What they're saying: "Google has violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act by willfully acquiring and maintaining monopoly power in the open-web display publisher ad server market and the open-web display ad exchange market, and has unlawfully tied its publisher ad server (DFP) and ad exchange (AdX) in violation of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act," Judge Leonie Brinkema of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia ruled in a 115-page opinion.

The other side: "We won half of this case and we will appeal the other half. The Court found that our advertiser tools and our acquisitions, such as DoubleClick, don't harm competition. We disagree with the Court's decision regarding our publisher tools. Publishers have many options and they choose Google because our ad tech tools are simple, affordable and effective." Lee-Anne Mulholland, Google's vice president for regulatory affairs, said in a statement.

What's next: The ruling means that the judge will move on to a phase in the trial that considers what sort of penalties or remedies to impose.

• The search case is now in that phase as well. There, the government is seeking to force Google to divest its Chrome search engine.
• It's also possible Google will be forced to give up its lucrative search partnership deals with device-makers like Apple as a result of that case.

President Trump's latest social media tirade against Fed Chair Jerome Powell is raising the possibility of an unprecedented — and experts say prohibited — use of executive power.

Why it matters: Trump may want to remove the country's most powerful economic policymaker, but it won't be as easy as telling him, "You're fired!" He'd likely need an assist from the Supreme Court — one some of its conservative justices have already signaled they're open to providing.

Catch up quick: Trump took to Truth Social Thursday to blast Powell, a day after the Fed chairman warned Trump's tariff regime could reignite inflation.

• Powell's assessment was a "typical, complete 'mess!,'" Trump wrote, adding, "Powell's termination cannot come fast enough!"

Context: The Federal Reserve Act, which established the Fed more than a century ago, spells out that the central bank's governors are to serve 14-year terms. They can only be dismissed for cause, which courts have generally interpreted to mean malfeasance, not policy disputes.

• Powell, whose term runs through May 2026, has said removal of top officials from the independent central bank is "not permitted under the law."

Here is what to know about removing a Fed chair:

Can presidents remove members of independent agencies?

Scholars often point to a 1935 Supreme Court decision they say backs the Federal Reserve Act's cause for termination clause, the Wall Street Journal reported.

• In the case, Humphrey's Executor v. United States, the high court blocked then-President Franklin D. Roosevelt from booting a commissioner off the Federal Trade Commission.
• That precedent prohibits commissioners at independent agencies from being fired at will.

State of play: The Supreme Court will soon hear a case that could alter or undermine that protection, Axios' Courtenay Brown reported. However, Powell doesn't believe that case will apply to the Fed.

• "Generally speaking, Fed independence is very widely understood and supported in Washington — in Congress, where it really matters," Powell said Wednesday.

Yes, but: Trump's Justice Department signaled earlier this year that it would seek to overturn the Humphrey's Executor precedent, which would significantly expand the executive branch's power.

• Andrew Ferguson, Trump's new FTC chair, told Axios in February that he agreed the precedent was "wrongly decided, is deeply anti-democratic, and ought to be overruled."

Flashback: In 2020, the Supreme Court ruled the president could fire the head of the the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau at will.

• Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch said at the time they would have overturned Humphrey's Executor entirely, calling it "erroneous precedent."

What if Trump tries to fire Powell?

Cue the court fight.

• If a legal battle ensues, the Supreme Court would likely have to clarify whether Humphrey's Executor applies to the chair of the Fed's Board of Governors.
• In that scenario, Powell could stay on the Fed's Board through the appeals process and until the high court issued its final opinion, per Brookings.

What to watch: If Trump signals he will move to fire Powell, the Fed chair could technically resign and forgo a legal battle by truncating his term, according to Brookings.

Go deeper: Trump fires two board members from credit union regulator, raising fears about the Fed's independence

House Democrats are pressing the Social Security Administration's inspector general to open a probe into DOGE's tinkering with the agency, Axios has learned.

Why it matters: Social Security is an extremely sensitive issue that touches upon the financial security of millions of older Americans — a particularly politically active group.

• As such, congressional Democrats have already homed in on the topic in ads going after their Republican counterparts.

Driving the news: House Oversight Committee ranking member Gerry Connolly (D-Va.), in a letter first obtained by Axios, cited new whistleblower allegations that DOGE is "putting SSA benefits and Americans' sensitive data at risk," including by:

• Making changes to the agency's staff and technology that have "already degraded operations, leaving beneficiaries unable to access basic services and potentially disrupting Social Security payments."
• Planning a "massive overhaul" of the agency's IT systems called "SSA 2.0" with "almost no advanced planning or transparency."
• And building "a massive database using data from SSA" and other agencies, including the IRS and the Department of Health and Human Services.

What he's saying: Connolly asked the agency's assistant inspector general for audit, Michelle L. Anderson, to investigate whether they are prepared for these changes and taking the "necessary steps to protect sensitive information."

• The probe, he said, should include an accounting of virtually all of DOGE's actions related to Social Security to date.
• Spokespeople for the Trump administration and the Social Security Administration's office of inspector general did not immediately respond to requests for comment.