Elon Musk brushed off a New York Times report about his alleged drug use while joining the Trump campaign in a Friday press conference marking the end of the billionaire's days with the Department of Government Efficiency.
The Times on Friday, citing more than a dozen people who knew or worked with him, reported that Musk was allegedly taking so much ketamine — on top of other drugs — that it was affecting his bladder.
Musk in the past had said he was prescribed ketamine for mental health issues.
Driving the news: Asked about the report Friday, Musk railed against The New York Times "for their lies about the Russiagate hoax" and added "let's move on."
The Times reported that it's "unclear" if Musk used drugs while serving in the government.
Zoom out: President Trump, during an often rambling opening to the press conference, said Musk is "really not leaving" and was "going to be back and forth."
Musk said he would continue to visit as a "friend" and adviser to the president.
Catch up quick: Musk and DOGE set out with an audacious goal of cutting $2 trillion in federal spending.
That didn't happen. And the savings DOGE claims it did find have been hotly contested because the math backing up the initiatives' tallies was marred with errors.
But Musk on Friday maintained he still expects to achieve a trillion dollars in cuts over time.
Flashback: In a memorable February appearance, Musk joined Trump in the Oval Office to defend DOGE's cuts, saying Americans "voted for major government reform and that's what the people are going to get."
Since then, DOGE purged thousands of government workers and contracts — though Musk's legacy with DOGE remains ensnared in several ongoing lawsuits.
President Trump has gone scorched earth on the architect of his own judicial legacy, disavowing Leonard Leo, the Federalist Society and any judge who stands in the way of the MAGA agenda.
Why it matters: Trump's alliance with the conservative legal movement powered his takeover of the Republican Party, helping him win over skeptical GOP elites by promising — and delivering — a roster of judges that united the right behind his presidency.
Three Supreme Court justices and hundreds of judicial appointees later, Trump now claims he was naive — and that the federal bench he shaped is now conspiring against him.
What they're saying: "I was new to Washington, and it was suggested that I use The Federalist Society as a recommending source on Judges," Trump wrote in a furious Truth Social post Thursday night.
"I did so, openly and freely, but then realized that they were under the thumb of a real 'sleazebag' named Leonard Leo," he continued, claiming that the conservative legal activist "probably hates America."
"I am so disappointed in The Federalist Society because of the bad advice they gave me on numerous Judicial Nominations. This is something that cannot be forgotten!"
"Where do these initial three Judges come from? How is it possible for them to have potentially done such damage to the United States of America? Is it purely a hatred of 'TRUMP?'" the president wrote.
It's the latest example of Trump and his aides claiming a "judicial coup" is threatening democracy by reining in his executive authority.
Flashback: Few figures shaped Trump's first-term legacy more profoundly than Leo, whose guidance helped stock the federal bench with conservative judges for a generation.
"We're going to have great judges, conservative, all picked by the Federalist Society," Trump promised during his first campaign in March 2016.
All three of Trump's Supreme Court justice nominees — Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett — came from a list personally curated by Leo, according to NPR.
Between the lines: The wildly effective conservative alliance ultimately couldn't survive MAGA's bedrock principle: absolute loyalty to Trump, a condition that has doomed countless GOP relationships.
For Trump, the notion of judicial independence from his personal and political goals is a sign not of a healthy constitutional republic — but of betrayal by allies who owe their power to him.
The other side: "I'm very grateful for President Trump transforming the Federal Courts, and it was a privilege being involved," Leo told Axios in a statement.
"There's more work to be done, for sure, but the Federal Judiciary is better than it's ever been in modern history, and that will be President Trump's most important legacy."
"We're not going to be using the Federalist Society to make judicial nominations at all going forward," White House official Stephen Miller told CNN, condemning "rogue judges" and bad vetting.
The bottom line: Trump is taking no prisoners in his assault on the federal judiciary, accusing any judge who stalls his agenda — even the ones he appointed — of siding with "the radical left."
But that doesn't mean he won't treat favorable rulings — such as the Supreme Court's immunity ruling that helped keep him out of prison last summer — as total vindication.
The Trump administrationcan for now end a program that gave temporary protections to more than 500,000 immigrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela, the Supreme Court said Friday."?
The big picture: In a strongly worded dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote that the high court "plainly botched" its assessment and undervalued the "devastating consequences of allowing the Government to precipitously upend the lives and livelihoods of nearly half a million noncitizens" amid pending legal claims.
Catch up quick: A federal judge in April temporarily blocked the Trump administration from revoking the Biden-era protections under the under the CHNV program.
The parole programs had granted the immigrants temporary legal protections after they fled violence in their home countries.
In a January order, Trump instructed the Department of Homeland Security to "[t]erminate all categorical parole programs" that he said were "contrary to the policies of the United States" established in his orders, including CHNV.
Driving the news: The order from the court noted that Jackson and Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented from granting the application for a stay on the lower court's order.
Jackson argued the government failed to satisfy its burden of demonstrating harm, saying ending the program will have "devastating consequences. "
"While it is apparent that the Government seeks a stay to enable it to inflict maximum predecision damage, court-ordered stays exist to minimize—not maximize—harm to litigating parties," she wrote.
Friction point: Solicitor general D. John Sauer argued in his request to the Supreme Court that Immigration and Nationality Act grants Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem authority to revoke parole and that District Judge Indira Talwani overstepped in her order.
Talwani wrote in her April order that terminating legal status early for noncitizens who complied with DHS programs and lawfully entered the country without any case-by-case justification "undermines the rule of law."
Flashback: Under former DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, the program allowed migrants to fly into the U.S. if they had a sponsor and passed security checks.
Those who entered through the program could stay for up to two years.
Zoom out: Earlier this month, the court allowed the Trump administration to strip deportation protections from some 350,000 Venezuelan immigrants.
The massive Republican budget bill working its way through Congress has mostly drawn attention for its tax cuts and Medicaid changes.
But it would also take steps to significantly roll back coverage under the Affordable Care Act, with echoes of the 2017 repeal-replace debate.
Why it matters: The bill that passed the House before Memorial Day includes an overhaul of ACA marketplaces that would result in coverage losses for millions of Americans and savings to help cover the cost of extending President Trump's tax cuts.
It comes after a growth spurt that saw ACA marketplace enrollment reach new highs, with more than 24 million people enrolling for 2025, according to KFF. The House's changes would likely reverse that trend, unless the Senate goes in a different direction when it picks up the bill next week.
Driving the news: The changes are not as sweeping as the 2017 effort at repealing the law, but many of them erect barriers to enrollment that supporters say are aimed at fighting fraud.
Brian Blase, president of Paragon Health Institute and a health official in Trump's first administration, said Republicans are focusing on rolling back Biden-era expansions "that have led to massive fraud and inefficiency."
The CBO estimates the ACA marketplace-related provisions would lead to about 3 million more people becoming uninsured.
Cynthia Cox, a vice president at KFF, said while the changes "sound very technical" in nature, taken together "the implications are that it will be much harder for people to sign up for ACA marketplace plans."
What's inside: The bill would end automatic reenrollment in ACA plans for people getting subsidies, instead requiring them to proactively reenroll and resubmit information on their incomes for verification.
It would also prevent enrollees from provisionally receiving ACA subsidies in instances where extra eligibility checks are needed, which can take months.
If people wound up making more income than they had estimated for a given year, the bill removes the cap on the amount of ACA subsidies they would have to repay to the government.
Some legal immigrants would also be cut off from ACA subsidies, including people granted asylum and those in their five-year waiting period to be eligible for Medicaid.
What they're saying: In a letter to Congress, patient groups pointed to the various barriers as "unprecedented and onerous requirements to access health coverage" that would have "a devastating impact on people's ability to access and afford private insurance coverage."
The letter was signed by groups including the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, American Diabetes Association and American Lung Association.
Between the lines: A last-minute addition to the bill would also make a technical but important change that increases government payments to insurers in ACA marketplaces.
That would have the effect of reducing the subsidies that help people afford premiums and save the government money, by reducing the benchmark silver premiums that are used to set the subsidy amounts.
Democrats are concerned that if Congress also allows enhanced ACA subsidies to expire at the end of this year, the combined effect would be even higher premium increases for enrollees next year.
Insurers that already are planning their premium rates for next year say the Republican funding changesare throwing uncertainty into the mix.
"Disruption in the individual market could also result in much higher premiums," the trade group AHIP warned in a statement on the bill.
The big picture: Blase said changes like ending automatic reenrollment are needed to increase checks that ensure people are not claiming higher subsidies than they're entitled to.
"I think what happened during the Biden years led to massive fraud and improper spending, and that needs to be rolled back," he said.
Cox said another way to address fraud would be to target shady insurance brokers, rather than enrollees themselves. She estimated that marketplace enrollment could fall by roughly one third from all the changes together.
"The justification for many of these provisions is to address fraud," she said. "The question is, how many people who are legitimately signed up are going to get lost in that process?"
If you need smart, quick intel on health care policy for your job, get AxiosProPolicy.
President Trump on Friday blasted China and accused it of violating the trade truce the two countries signed earlier this month.
Why it matters: Just as courts hollow out Trump's tariff campaign, he's re-escalating on other fronts.
Catch up quick: On May 12 the U.S. and China, following talks in Switzerland, announced a 90-day deal to lower tariffs on each other while they negotiated on trade.
The pact lowered U.S. tariffs on Chinese goods from 145% to 30% — essentially moving from a full trade embargo to a painful levy.
Driving the news: In recent days there have been reports the detente was not going well,with Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent describing talks as "a bit stalled" Thursday night.
Trump blew it all up Friday morning.
What they're saying: "Because of this deal, everything quickly stabilized and China got back to business as usual. Everybody was happy! That is the good news!!!" Trump wrote on Truth Social.
"The bad news is that China, perhaps not surprisingly to some, HAS TOTALLY VIOLATED ITS AGREEMENT WITH US. So much for being Mr. NICE GUY!"
By the numbers: The stock market immediately dropped on Trump's post.
S&P 500 futures, which had been roughly flat, dropped about 0.5%.
The index is up almost 5% since the China deal was struck, continuing a rally that started after Trump paused most other tariffs in April.
What to watch: It's not clear what action Trump could take against China next.
The tariff reduction is supposed to last until August 12.
In the meantime, a federal court ruled the tariffs Trump imposed on China were illegal anyway, a ruling that's been stayed for now.
The Chinese embassy in Washington did not immediately respond to an email for comment on Trump's post.
America's government and technology giants are fusing into a codependent superstructure in a race to dominate AI and space for the next generation.
Why it matters: The merging of Washington and Silicon Valley is driven by necessity — and fierce urgency.
The U.S. government needs AI expertise and dominance to beat China to the next big technological and geopolitical shift — but can't pull this off without the help of Microsoft, Google, OpenAI, Nvidia and many others.
These companies can't scale AI, and reap trillions in value, without government helping ease the way with more energy, more data, more chips and more precious minerals. These are the essential ingredients of superhuman intelligence.
The big picture: Under President Trump, both are getting what they want, as reported by Axios' Zachary Basu:
1. The White House has cultivated a deep relationship with America's AI giants — championing the $500 billion "Stargate" infrastructure initiative led by OpenAI, Oracle, Japan's SoftBank, and the UAE's MGX.
Trump was joined by top AI executives — including OpenAI's Sam Altman, Nvidia's Jensen Huang, Amazon's Andy Jassy and Palantir's Alex Karp — during his whirlwind tour of the Middle East this month.
Trump sought to fuse U.S. tech ambitions with Gulf sovereign wealth, announcing a cascade of deals to bring cutting-edge chips and data centers to Saudi Arabia and the UAE.
Trump and his tech allies envision a geopolitical alliance to outpace China, flood the globe with American AI, and cement control over the energy and data pipelines of the future.
2. Back at home, the Trump administration is downplaying the risks posed by AI to American workers, and eliminating regulatory obstacles to quicker deployment of AI.
Trump signed a series of executive orders last week to hasten the deployment of new nuclear power reactors, with the goal of quadrupling total U.S. nuclear capacity by 2050.
Energy Secretary Chris Wright told Congress that AI is "the next Manhattan Project" — warning that losing to China is "not an option" and that government must "get out of the way."
The House version of Trump's "One Big, Beautiful Bill," which passed last week, would impose a 10-year ban on any state and local laws that regulate AI.
AI companies big and small are winning the U.S. government's most lucrative contracts — especially at the Pentagon, where they're displacing legacy contractors as the beating heart of the military-industrial complex.
Between the lines: Lost in the rush to win the AI arms race is any real public discussion of the rising risks.
The risk of Middle East nations and companies, empowered with U.S. AI technology, helping their other ally, China, in this arms race.
The possibility, if not likelihood, of massive white-collar job losses as companies shift from humans to AI agents.
The dangers of the U.S. government becoming so reliant on a small set of companies.
The vulnerabilities of private data on U.S. citizens.
Zoom in: The Great Fusing has created a new class of middlemen — venture capitalists, founders and influencers who shuttle between Silicon Valley and Washington, shaping policy while still reaping tech's profits.
Elon Musk could become the government's main supplier of space rockets, satellites, internet connectivity, robots and other autonomous technologies. And with what he's learned via DOGE, Musk's xAI is well-positioned to package AI products and then sell them back to the U.S. government.
David Sacks, Trump's AI and crypto czar, acts as the premier translator between the two worlds — running point on policy, deals, and narrative through his government role, tech network, and popular "All-In" podcast.
Marc Andreessen, whose VC firm Andreessen Horowitz has stakes in nearly every major AI startup, has been a chief evangelist of the pro-acceleration doctrine at the core of Trump's AI agenda.
Reality check: The Great Fusing has been led more by Silicon Valley iconoclasts (Musk) than the incumbent stalwarts (including Mark Zuckerberg), who have rushed to align with the emerging gravitational pull.
Tech-education nexus: Silicon Valley, facing a new race for AI engineers, cheered during the campaign when Trump floated automatic green cards for foreign students who graduated from U.S. colleges. But so far, tech moguls have been relatively quiet as Trump halted all student visa interviews and tried to ban international matriculation to Harvard.
New defense reality: Palantir, Anduril and other advanced defense tech companies have more Pentagon traction than ever, robotics companies are surging and entire industries are being born — including undersea drones and space-based weapons.
Axios' Dan Primack and Zachary Basu contributed reporting.
Go deeper: "Behind the Curtain: A white-collar bloodbath."
At any moment, a Truth Social post — and now a courtruling — can upend the global trade system.
Why it matters: The world economy has never seen anything like this. The tariff legal fight injects new uncertainty into what was already a historically unpredictable situation.
Businesses are in limbo about what it will cost to bring goods into the country.
Foreign officials see new leverage in trade talks that could drag out even longer.
The billions in tariff revenueexpected to help offset the cost of Trump's tax bill could all but vanish.
What they're saying: "One day it makes sense to ship and the next day it doesn't," a port official tells Axios.
The big picture: Economists expected front-loading on steroids — businesses would take advantage of a tariff halt and rush to import goods, which could push off the risk of shortages and consumer price hikes.
Never mind all that now.
Driving the news: The Court of International Trade issued a late-night ruling on Wednesday that blocked many of Trump's sweeping tariffs.
Another shocker came less than 24 hours later. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled the import levies could remain, as it reviews arguments from both sides.
"As the courts now play a larger role in the outcome of Trump's tariffs, trade policy uncertainty will only become more entrenched, stifling business investment and consumer spending on durable goods," Bernard Yaros, an economist at Oxford Economics, wrote in a note.
The intrigue: Europe's trade delegation was in Washington this week, just as it became clear courts could kill many of the tariffs that brought them to the negotiating table in the first place.
"It makes no sense to negotiate about that," Bernd Lange, a key European Parliament lawmaker leading the trade delegation, told Axios, referring to the "Liberation Day" tariffs that might ultimately be illegal.
"I guess now we have a better position for negotiation," Lange said just minutes before the appeals court issued its stay — a sign of how quickly dynamics can change.
Lange admitted that he has started waking up a half-hour earlier since Trump was inaugurated "to follow the news coming from the United States." He is on Truth Social.
The other side: The economic threat of steep tariffs still lingers.
The Trump administration could still impose tariffs under the same authorities officials previously used on to impose levies on steel, aluminum and autos.
Those powers require more processes to activate, though Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick has said he is moving in "Trump time" to carry them out.
While the Court of International Trade said Trump did not have unlimited tariff powers, the ruling was more ambiguous about whether he could impose some tariffs, Ilya Somin, one of the lawyers who represented small businesses in the case, said.
The bottom line: Economic uncertainty was already at peak levels.
Elon Musk bemoaned President Trump's signature legislative effort in an interview with CBS News this week, saying he was "disappointed to see the massive spending bill," which is projected to add trillions to budget deficits.
Why it matters: Musk and his businesses were walloped by backlash to his leadership of DOGE. Now the fruit of those efforts — more government savings — are at risk of being washed away by Trump's "One, Big Beautiful Bill."
The big picture: Elon Musk claims that his DOGE team saved $175 billion in taxpayer spending, though an outside analysis estimates the verified savings are closer to $16 billion.
The "One Big, Beautiful Bill," which passed the House this week, is projected to add $3 trillion to 5 trillion to budget deficits over the next 10 years.
Even using Musk's most generous estimate, those DOGE savings would amount to just 6% of the projected increase to the deficit from the bill.
Between the lines: The primary driver of deficits in the bill is the extension of Trump's 2017 tax cuts, which Republicans aim to partially offset with cuts to Medicaid, green energy tax breaks and other programs.
The bill also includes significant new spending on border security and the military.
The White House argues the bill will reduce the deficit by $1.6 trillion, claiming that tax cut extensions shouldn't count as new costs — and that Trump's policies will supercharge economic growth.
Businesses are racing to replace people with AI, and they're not waiting to first find out whether AI is up to the job.
Why it matters: CEOs are gambling that Silicon Valley will improve AI fast enough that they can rush cutbacks today without getting caught shorthanded tomorrow.
While AI tools can often enhance office workers' productivity, in most cases they aren't yet adept, independent or reliable enough to take their places.
But AI leaders say that's imminent — any year now! — and CEOs are listening.
State of play: If these execs win their bets, they'll have taken the lead in the great AI race they believe they're competing in.
But if they lose and have to backtrack, as some companies already are doing, they'll have needlessly kicked off a massive voluntary disruption that they will regret almost as much as their discarded employees do.
Driving the news: AI could wipe out half of all entry-level white-collar jobs — and spike unemployment to 10-20% in the next one to five years, Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei told Axios' Jim VandeHei and Mike Allen this week.
Amodei argues the industry needs to stop "sugarcoating" this white-collar bloodbath — a mass elimination of jobs across technology, finance, law, consulting and other white-collar professions, especially entry-level gigs.
Yes, but: Many economists anticipate a less extreme impact. They point to previous waves of digital change, like the advent of the PC and the internet, that arrived with predictions of job-market devastation that didn't pan out.
Other critics argue that AI leaders like Amodei have a vested interest in playing up the speed and size of AI's impact to justify raising the enormous sums the technology requires to build.
By the numbers: Unemployment among recent college grads is growing faster than among other groups and presents one early warning sign of AI's toll on the white-collar job market, according to a new study by Oxford Economics.
Looking at a three-month moving average, the jobless rate for those ages 22 to 27 with a bachelor's degree was close to 6% in April, compared with just above 4% for the overall workforce.
Between the lines: Several companies that made early high-profile announcements that they would replace legions of human workers with AI have already had to reverse course.
Klarna, the buy now, pay later company, set out in 2023 to be OpenAI's "favorite guinea pig" for testing how far a firm could go at using AI to replace human workers — but earlier this month it backed off a bit, hiring additional support workers because customers want the option of talking to a real person.
IBM predicted in 2023 that it would soon be able to replace around 8,000 jobs with AI. Two years later, its CEO told the Wall Street Journal that so far the company has replaced a couple of hundred HR employees with AI — but increased hiring of software developers and salespeople.
Zoom out: Every modern era of technological transformation has disrupted the labor market, from the Industrial Revolution of the early 19th century to the assembly-line automation of the early 20th and the container ship-driven globalization of the millennium.
The transitions have often been rough, but economies emerged bigger and with more jobs, not less.
Some AI experts fear the change could be so much faster with AI that there will be no time to adapt. Others view AI as a fundamentally different kind of tech that will force society to invent new approaches to jobs and salaries, like the notion of a universal basic income.
Our thought bubble: Predicting employment levels has always been tough because there are so many complex variables to consider.
Even if Amodei is right and AI cuts a devastating swath among office workers, there are other demographic forces at work that could make it harder for businesses to find the human workers they still need.
For instance: The largest generation in history is retiring as boomers age out of the workforce. The Trump administration is working overtime to limit immigration. Other black-swan crises will erupt that could boost or limit unemployment.
What we're watching: The sociopolitical skews of AI's workforce impact are volatile and hold a great potential for splitting coalitions and dividing allies.
The populist wing of Trump's MAGA movement is likely to resist AI-driven change even as the president's tech-insurgent allies push for more investment and weaker regulation.
More broadly, Americans overall say that, unlike impatient CEOs and China-fearing office-holders, they want to see AI introduced with more care and less haste, per the 2025 Axios Harris 100 poll.
Editor's note: This story has been corrected to say Klarna hired additional workers (not rehired workers it cut) as it backed off from using AI (not reversed course) to replace human workers.
A federal appellate court on Thursday temporarily stayed a ruling that effectively wiped out most of President Trump's tariffs.
Why it matters: The intervention will deepen the chaos around the Court of International Trade's Wednesday order, which threatens to upend global commerce.
Catch up quick: The trade court ruled that Trump did not have the authority under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose sweeping reciprocal and retaliatory tariffs.
The administration immediately appealed, and suggested Thursday it could go straight to the Supreme Court to seek relief if other courts did not act quickly.
Driving the news: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued an order Thursday staying the trade court's ruling while it considers motions from both sides.
It ordered the plaintiffs in the case to file a response by June 5, and the government to reply by June 9.
What they're saying: "The ruling by the U.S. Court of International Trade is so wrong, and so political! Hopefully, the Supreme Court will reverse this horrible, Country threatening decision, QUICKLY and DECISIVELY," Trump said in a Truth Social post on Thursday evening.
The other side: "The administrative stay issued today simply gives the Court of Appeals more time to consider the important issues presented in our case," said Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield (D), whose office is leading the states' suit, in a statement posted to X.
The White House is awaiting Hamas' response to the new Gaza hostage and ceasefire deal proposal President Trump's envoy Steve Witkoff presented on Wednesday night, but U.S. officials are sounding less optimistic about an imminent breakthrough than 24 hours earlier.
Why it matters: White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said Israel signed off on the proposal before Witkoff submitted it to Hamas. But some in the militant group believe that rather than meeting in the middle, Witkoff's offer included new concessions to Israel.
"Discussions are continuing and we hope a ceasefire in Gaza will take place so that we can return all the hostages home. ... If a ceasefire comes into effect you will hear about it directly from me, from the president or from special envoy Witkoff," Leavitt said.
Hamas said in a statement that it was still studying the proposal. But members of the group have expressed serious concerns about the lack of clear guarantees that Israel won't again unilaterally end the ceasefire, as it did in March, according to two sources with direct knowledge.
Breaking it down: The new proposal for a 60-day ceasefire — under which President Trump would guarantee Israel's compliance — doesn't differ much from previous propositions.
It involves the release of 10 live hostages and 18 deceased hostages held in Gaza — half on the first day and half on day 7 of the ceasefire.
In exchange, Israel would release 125 Palestinian prisoners serving life sentences in Israel, another 1,100 Palestinians detained by the Israel Defense Forces in Gaza after Oct. 7, 2023, and the bodies of 180 Palestinians allegedly killed during attacks on Israelis.
The IDF would redeploy its forces in Gaza in two phases, with the exact details to be negotiated by the parties ahead of the temporary ceasefire.
Humanitarian aid to Gaza would be resumed through the UN and the Red Crescent. It's unclear what this means for the controversial new aid mechanism launched earlier this week.
Behind the scenes: Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told hostage families on Thursday that Israel is ready to move forward with a hostage and ceasefire deal in Gaza on the basis of Witkoff's proposal, according to a source who was in the meeting.
Witkoff's new proposal was fully coordinated with Israel and was a result of his meeting with Netanyahu's confidant Ron Dermer at the White House on Tuesday, an Israeli official and a source with knowledge tell Axios.
Zoom in: Witkoff's proposal includes a commitment that Trump would personally announced the temporary ceasefire and work to ensure that during those 60 days "good faith negotiations take place until a final settlement is reached."
Those negotiations would focus on the number of Palestinian prisoners to be released in exchange for the remaining Israeli hostages, the terms of Israel's withdrawal from Gaza, and security arrangements and post-war governance in Gaza "with each side presenting its positions."
The document says the parties must reach an agreement for a permanent ceasefire within 60 days. If an agreement is reached, the remaining hostages will be released. If not, the ceasefire can be extended by mutual consent.
Friction point: While the proposal says the U.S., Qatar and Egypt would all guarantee serious negotiations take place for a permanent ceasefire, Hamas wanted much stronger guarantees from the U.S. that Israel wouldn't walk away again.
Hamas officials saw those elements of the document as a shift in the U.S. position in Israel's favor, according to the two sources with direct knowledge.
Hamas officials were also angeredby the fact that the proposal didn't clearly state that Israeli forces must withdraw to the same lines as before the pervious ceasefire collapsed in March, the sources said.
They also objected to the fact that the proposal didn't say that aid would be delivered exclusively through the previous channels and not through the newly launched Gaza Humanitarian Fund.
What to watch: Hamas officials in Doha expressed frustration about the new proposal with several of them pushing to reject it. Other Hamas official argued the group should accept the proposal with additional conditions.
President Trump and Chinese leader Xi Jinping may need to hold a phone call to overcome stumbling blocks in trade negotiations, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said Thursday.
The big picture: Bessent helped the U.S. strike a deal with China following a summit in Switzerland earlier this month that saw the world's two largest economies agree to slash tariffs for 90 days.
Officials in China welcomed the U.S. Court of International Trade's blocking most of Trump's sweeping tariffs on Wednesday, which a federal appeals court temporarily stayed a day later.
What they're saying: "I would say that they are a bit stalled," Bessent said of the negotiation situation on Fox News. "I believe that we will be having more talks with them in the next few weeks."
Bessent told Fox News' Bret Baier the U.S. and Chinese leaders may, at some point, have to hold a call.
"Given the magnitude of the talks, given the complexity ... this is going to require both leaders to weigh in with each other," he added.
"They have a very good relationship. And I am confident that the Chinese will come to the table when President Trump makes his preferences known."
Two top officials at Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) have been ousted from leadership as the White House ramps up the pressure on the agency to arrest an unprecedented number of immigrants, five sources familiar with the situation tell Axios.
Why it matters: The changes come a week after top Trump aide Stephen Miller and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem demanded that ICE seek to arrest 3,000 people a day — triple what agents were arresting in the early days of the administration.
Driving the news: The ousted officials are Kenneth Genalo, ICE's enforcement and removal director, and Robert Hammer, the Department of Homeland Security's investigations director who has handled particularly complex cases involving criminal immigrants.
Genalo is retiring but will still serve as a special government employee, sources said. Hammer is being reassigned to a different leadership position.
In the week since Miller and Noem called on ICE officials to step up arrests, ICE has failed to reach 3,000 daily arrests. Agents did bring in 1,600 the day before the leadership changes — a substantial rise but not close to Miller and Noem's goal, people familiar with the agency's internal data said.
Several sources told Axios the leadership changes reflect higher-ups' frustration with the arrest numbers at a time when the White House is focused on President Trump's goal of deporting a million unauthorized immigrants.
But one source said the arrest statistics weren't considered in decision making and that conclusions were being drawn from last week's meeting with Miller.
Flashback: It's not the first shakeup at ICE, which has been under increasing pressure over the White House's deportation ambitions.
Earlier this year Noem reassigned ICE's director and deputy director.
They were replaced with ICE veteran Todd Lyons and Madison Sheehan, who was previously a political staffer of Noem's. Some insiders believe Lyons' job might also be at risk now.
ICE has not had a Senate-confirmed director since Barack Obama was in the White House.
What they're saying: "I think there's great leadership at ICE. Todd Lyons, I've known him for years. He was probably the best field director we had," Trump border czar Tom Homan told Axios on Thursday.
"There are 25 field office directors across the country and they all respect Todd. Todd's the right guy to be the director," Homan added.
Homan declined to comment on the leadership changes, saying he was unaware of the reasons behind the reassignments.
Homan, an acting director of ICE during Trump's first term, said it helps agents across the country to have a director who has risen through the agency's ranks.
"They're just looking for guidance, and they're looking for cover," Homan said. "So when they're out there arresting illegal aliens, and the press comes after them, the NGOs come after them or the ACLU comes after them, you got a leader that's going to support them."
The State Department plans to create an "Office of Remigration" in a sweeping reorganization drive tied to the Trump administration's efforts to deport millions of immigrants, a department official told Axios Thursday.
The big picture: The proposed new office would signal the State Department's shift from helping refugees to removing immigrants, even as it employs the term "remigration" — a concept that critics say has a troubled history in Europe, where it's used by far-right groups.
Driving the news: The State Department on Thursday announced a proposed overhaul that would cut various programs and staff.
The Office of Remigration would be part of the Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration, a State Department official said.
The proposal calls for an even deeper cut to domestic staffing than the 15% reduction that was floated in April.
The department also intends to eliminate several divisions overseeing America's 20-year presence in Afghanistan, including an office responsible for resettling Afghan allies who supported U.S. military operations.
Context: In Europe, the concept of remigration calls for the mass deportation or coerced repatriation of non-white immigrants and their European-born descendants.
It's a term that's been used by far-right politicians, such as Austria's Herbert Kickl and Germany's Alternative for Germany (AfD) party leader, Alice Weidel.
Liberal and moderate critics in Europe say "remigration" has historically been used as a euphemism for ethnic cleansing. The term was popularized by Martin Sellner, a millennial influencer of Europe's far-right.
Yes, but: "The way that it worked before, Population Refugee Migration was basically an entire bureau dedicated to bringing people into the United States," said the State Department official, who spoke on condition of anonymity.
"It had the migration function — it's in the name — we're just reversing the flow of migrants who shouldn't be here to go out of the country."
Zoom in: A more detailed proposal sent to Congress proposes prioritizing migration and border issues over refugee resettlement.
The Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration's "existing migration functions will be consolidated into three new functional offices under a (Deputy Assistant Secretary of State) for Migration Matters."
"Reflecting core administration priorities, these offices will be substantially reorganized to shift focus towards supporting the Administration's efforts to return illegal aliens to their country of origin or legal status," the document said.
The Office of Remigration would be one of these new "functional offices" and is described as a "hub for immigration issues and repatriation tracking."
What they're saying: "Over the past quarter century, the domestic operations of the State Department have grown exponentially, resulting in more bureaucracy, higher costs, and fewer results for the American people," Rubio said in a statement.
"The reorganization plan will result in a more agile department, better equipped to promote America's interests and keep Americans safe across the world."
Rubio didn't mention the Office of Remigration in his statement, and the office is not listed on a new chart on the department's website.
Faizan Zaki won the 2025 Scripps National Spelling Bee on Thursday by correctly spelling "éclaircissement" on the 100th anniversary of the event.
The big picture: It's a remarkable comeback for the 13-year-old 6th-grader from Dallas, who came second in last year's competition.
Screenshot: Merriam Webster/Scripps National Spelling Bee/X
Zoom in: Zaki, a self-confessed "linguistics nerd" who's currently learning French, is a four-time Spelling Bee competitor, per a post on the contest's site.
"I was amazed when I won my first school bee. Then I just kept winning," Zaki said, per the Spelling Bee.
State of play: The first Spelling Bee featured just nine contestants and was won in 1925 by 11-year-old Frank Neuhauser, of Louisville, Kentucky, who correctly spelled "gladiolus."
A hundred years later, "243 spellers earned their spots as national competitors by advancing through regional spelling bees," per a Spelling Bee post.
This year's contestants competed against students "representing all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and Department of Defense Schools in Europe," according to the post.
"Spellers also will represent five countries outside the U.S.: the Bahamas, Canada, Ghana, Kuwait and Nigeria."
The White House moved Thursday to correct false citations and other errors in a high-profile report from a panel led by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., HHS confirmed.
The big picture: The Make American Healthy Again commission report that that blamed factors including bad diets and unnecessary medication for causing chronic illness in children cited hundreds of studies and sources, some of which didn't exist, NOTUS first reported.
The White House on Thursday afternoon uploaded an updated version.
What they're saying: "I understand there were some formatting issues with the MAHA report that are being addressed and the report will be updated," Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said during a press briefing Thursday.
"But it does not negate the substance of the report, which, as you know, is one of the most transformative health reports that has ever been released by the federal government."
HHS spokesperson Andrew Nixon said in an email that was shared to outlets including Axios that "minor citation and formatting errors have been corrected, but the substance of the MAHA report remains the same — a historic and transformative assessment by the federal government to understand the chronic disease epidemic afflicting our nation's children."
Zoom in: The report was developed in little more than three months and contained mainstream ideas combined with highly controversial elements, including doubts about the current childhood vaccine schedule.
Epidemiologist Katherine Keyes, who was listed as author of a study on adolescent anxiety, told NOTUS she didn't write the paper that was referenced and was surprised to hear of the citation.
Kennedy didn't detail who wrote the report but the 14-member commission is supposed to craft a strategy for how the federal government should respond under an executive order President Trump issued in February.
Editor's note: This article has been updated with HHS comment.
The Justice Department's decisionto charge a sitting House lawmaker after a scuffle with ICE officers has launched her on the fast track to stardom in Democratic politics.
Why it matters: First-term Rep. LaMonica McIver (D-N.J.), 38, suddenly has a national profile and status among the Democratic base as something of a hero of the anti-Trump resistance.
But it has also come at a cost: In addition to the financial burden and risks posed by her legal battle, McIver's office has been deluged by furious calls and messages, including many threats.
The vitriol has risen to the point that her office has assigned a staffer to monitor Fox News for segments that will precipitate a new flood of angry calls, a source familiar with the matter told Axios.
State of play: The Justice Department has charged McIver with assaulting law enforcement based on a scuffle she and other Democratic lawmakers had with a group of ICE officers.
The Department of Homeland Security has pointed to body cam footage of McIver elbowing an officer; McIver has said she was the one who was assaulted and cast the charges as politically motivated.
The lawmakers were at the Delaney Hall Detention Center in Newark to protest its use as a migrant holding facility.
Driving the news: In the days after McIver was charged, she went from a virtually unknown member of Congress to a household name.
Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) featured her in fundraising emails. So did the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and the Pennsylvania Democrats.
That dynamic is typically only seen with some of the biggest names in Democratic politics: Think Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi or Jamie Raskin.
Fundraising emails from Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the Pennsylvania Democratic Party and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. Screenshot: Andrew Solender
Zoom out: Several Democratic lawmakers have fast-tracked their careers by positioning themselves as Trump's most truculent foes in Congress.
Such was the case with Raskin, a former Trump impeachment manager and Jan. 6 committee member who now leads Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee.
Adam Schiff, another Trump impeachment and Jan. 6 committee veteran, leveraged his anti-Trump bona fides to help him win a U.S. Senate seat.
What they're saying: "They've targeted her in a very unprecedented way, and so a lot of people are going to know about her and her story because we're all uplifting her and it's taken over the country," Rep. Maxwell Frost (D-Fla.) told Axios.
Several lawmakers said they believe the move has backfired on the administration by only further encouraging Democrats to visit ICE facilities.
Said Rep. Delia Ramirez (D-Ill.): "People are doubling down and saying, 'This is the kind of courage we want to see from every single Democrat.'"
The Trump administration on Thursday stepped up its attacks on judges whose rulings have hindered the president's agenda, in an escalating battle with the courts.
Driving the news: Stephen Miller, Trump's top policy adviser, shared a post Thursday with images and biographies of three judges who ruled that the president doesn't have the authority to impose sweeping global tariffs.
"We are living under a judicial tyranny," Miller wrote in the post on the judges, who were appointed by Reagan, Obama and Trump.
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt on Thursday said that ruling was marred by "judicial overreach," alleging the three judges "brazenly abused their judicial power."
She said there's "a troubling and dangerous trend of unelected judges inserting themselves into the presidential decision making process," adding that presidents can't have "their sensitive diplomatic or trade negotiations railroaded by activist judges."
State of play: Federal district judges have issued injunctions and restraining orders to halt a number of the administration's sweeping federal actions.
"President Trump had more injunctions in one full month of office in February than Joe Biden had in three years," Leavitt noted Thursday.
At the same time, the Trump administration has defied court orders, particularly on immigration.
The administration has also targeted law firms that have employed or represented people he regards as critics. Federal judges have so far blocked the administration from sanctioning three law firms that Trump named in executive orders and a fourth case is awaiting a ruling.
Why it matters: Wednesday's surprise decision threw the rules of global commerce into chaos, adding urgency into the appeals process.
The administration filed a notice of appeal just minutes after the ruling.
Driving the news: Leavitt called Wednesday's decision "judicial overreach" during a press briefing Thursday, saying, "The courts should have no role here."
"There is a troubling and dangerous trend of unelected judges inserting themselves into the presidential decision making process," she said. "America cannot function if President Trump, or any other president for that matter, has their sensitive diplomatic or trade negotiations railroaded by activist judges."
She added, "But ultimately, the Supreme Court must put an end to this for the sake of our Constitution."
Context: The three-judge panel — made of Reagan, Obama and Trump appointees — blocked almost all of Trump's levies to date with their summary judgment that threw out the tariffs he imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA.
The 1977 law — which can be invoked only when the U.S. faces an "unusual and extraordinary threat" to national security, foreign policy, or the economy — had never been used to impose tariffs.
Those tariffs were a cornerstone of the Trump administration's fiscal plan, which has now been cast into even more uncertainty.
The ruling does not affect tariffs imposed under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 or Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974.
The big picture: DOGE-driven cuts wreaked havoc on federal workers, prompting a litany of lawsuits seeking to rein in Musk's chainsaw. As the billionaire departs, judges across the country could still unravel key parts of the effort for which he became the face.
Musk, who arrived in D.C. as a political outsider with unprecedented power, will depart the capital with his boasts of government savings contested, his favorability ratings deflated and his brands battered, Axios' Zachary Basu writes.
How history remembers his turbulent tenure could in part be determined by the courts.
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt thanked Musk for his service and for "getting DOGE off of the ground" in a Thursday briefing.
Asked if a new DOGE leader would be taking Musk's place, she said: "Again, the DOGE leaders are each and every member of the President's Cabinet and the President himself, who is wholeheartedly committed to cutting waste, fraud and abuse from our government."
Driving the news: Ongoing legal battles over record transparency, firings at the U.S. Institute of Peace and various federal agencies, budget cuts to the National Endowment for the Humanities, and access to sensitive personal information — among others — could hobble DOGE's reach long after Musk's departure.
The latest: On Tuesday, a federal judge allowed a lawsuit filed by more than a dozen Democratic state attorneys general accusing Musk and DOGE of illegally exerting power over government operations to move forward.
The states alleged Musk holds "virtually unchecked power" over the executive branch.
As he closes the door on his time at DOGE, the remnants of that power remain — though not everything went to plan during Musk's roughly four-month tenure.
By the numbers: Musk started with an audacious goal to find $2 trillion in savings through DOGE, which was originally set to sunset July 4, 2026.
According to the most recent update to DOGE's website, the cost-cutting initiative claims only $175 billion in savings — though it's backtracked on its claims in the past.
That estimate includes workforce reductions, which have seen more than 120,000 federal employees laid off or targeted for layoffs, per CNN's count. Those cuts have rocked D.C.'s economy and massively stressed the bureaucracy.
Catch up quick: Musk on Wednesday thanked President Trump for "the opportunity to reduce wasteful spending" as his time as a special government employee comes to its end.
The mission of DOGE, he wrote, "will only strengthen over time as it becomes a way of life throughout the government."
What we're watching: The White House plans to send a $9.4 billion rescissions package to Congress next week, an administration official told Axios' Hans Nichols, to give lawmakers the chance to codify some of the cuts identified by DOGE.
Republicans in Congress could then help fortify DOGE's legacy of spending cuts.
But Musk's malleable legacy, at least in part, is in the court's hands.
/2025/05/27/1748367153626.gif)
/2025/05/29/1748558085631.gif)
