Smart brevity news covering politics, business, technology, and more. Get essential news efficiently.
The US Supreme Court has rejected a push by President Trump to throw out a jury's findings of sexual assault
The Supreme Court on Monday cleared the way for President Trump to freely fire officials from the Federal Trade Commission and most — though not all — agencies that have long been politically independent. Why it matters: It is a historic unraveling for agencies that have long been shielded from politics. The ruling will vastly expand presidential power and influence. The big picture: The ruling overturns Humphrey's Executor, a nearly century-old precedent that says independent agency commissioners cannot be fired without specific cause. What they're saying: "If anything more is left of Humphrey's, we overrule it," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court. Trump celebrated the ruling on Truth Social, calling it a "BIG WIN" that confirmed he had the power to remove officials. "It is such an Honor to be the sitting President who won this Historic and Unprecedented Ruling, one of the most important ever given with respect to Presidential Powers." Yes, but: The 6–3 ruling came with a carve-out for the Federal Reserve, in line with earlier signals that Supreme Court sees the central bank in a different light. The ruling was released alongside a separate 5–4 decision blocking Trump from immediately firing Fed governor Lisa Cook.Roberts emphasized the ruling does not necessarily apply to the Federal Reserve, citing the central bank's "distinct historical tradition." Zoom out: The case centers on Trump's firing of two Democratic appointees, Rebecca Slaughter and Alvaro Bedoya. Trump said that allowing Slaughter to remain at the regulatory agency would be "inconsistent with my Administration's policies," according to the letter that announced the firing. Zoom in: With no Democrats set to return to the Republican-led agency, regulatory decisions will be made without real pushback or checks within the building. Democrats had a minority at the FTC to start with, but historically, dissents from the minority over major decisions were a transparent way to peek into decision-m
Both the House and Senate on Thursday rejected legislation to renew a controversial section of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, with some lawmakers citing concerns over Bill Pulte, who has been serving as acting DNI
'This regime hobbles what the Second Amendment protects: the right of Americans to carry arms for self-defense as they go about their daily lives,' wrote Justice Alito
A federal judge on Thursday ordered the U.S. Department of Justice to release additional unredacted Jeffrey Epstein records or explain by July 2 why it can't. Why it matters: The ruling could force the DOJ to release previously withheld Epstein records or publicly explain why they remain sealed. Driving the news: U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan in D.C. gave the DOJ until July 2 to comply with a preliminary injunction in media legal analyst Katie Phang's lawsuit alleging the department failed to comply with last year's Epstein Act. The department has already released 3.5 million pages under the law, but Phang argues it still improperly withheld or redacted additional material.Phang alleges in her suit against acting Attorney General Todd Blanche that the department nevertheless violated the Epstein Act for several reasons. Zoom in: In his opinion granting the preliminary injunction, Sullivan noted that Phang alleges the DOJ redacted the names of senders and recipients in "at least eight email exchanges" with Epstein regarding a "torture video" and alleged sexual activity involving young women, including minors. She accuses Blanche of "redacting the names of co-defendants in a draft indictment, the names of individuals identified as 'co-conspirators.'"Phang also alleges that Blanche withheld 36 materials mentioning President Trump, specifically, "notes from FBI interviews with a victim who has alleged that in the 1980s, when she was about 13 years old, Epstein introduced her to Trump, who in turn assaulted her." State of play: The DOJ said in a filing this month that Phang can't sue because she should have made a Freedom of Information Act request, but the journalist's lawyers argued that she had been denied FOIA requests related to the Epstein files, CBS News reported. Trump has denied wrongdoing in relation to Epstein allegations and he hasn't been charged with a crime in connection with them.Representatives of the DOJ did not immediately respond to Axios' Thursd
Rep. Dan Goldman (D-N.Y.) was unseated in his Democratic primary Tuesday night by former New York City comptroller Brad Lander, according to the Associated Press. Why it matters: Lander's victory — fueled in part by support from New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani — represents the latest in a string of victories for the left in Democratic congressional primaries. Progressives from California to Maine have harnessed liberal grassroots anger towards the Democratic establishment to topple party-backed foes and incumbent House Democrats.Despite being a Progressive Caucus member, Goldman came under fire in his left-leaning district for his staunch support of Israel. Zoom out: Lander ran for New York mayor last year but failed to gain traction, instead becoming part of Mamdani's orbit after cross-endorsing the then-state legislator in an effort to defeat former Gov. Andrew Cuomo. Lander channeled the resultant goodwill from the left into a run against Goldman, touting himself as a liberal Zionist who will be more critical of the Jewish state in Congress. Between the lines: The race pit Mamdani against House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.), who supported Goldman as part of his policy of generally supporting his incumbents. Goldman is the third Democratic House incumbent unseated in a primary this year after Reps. Al Green (D-Texas) and Julie Johnson (D-Texas).He may not be the last, however, with numerous older and more moderate incumbents facing primaries from younger or more left-leaning insurgents
Data: Factset; Chart: Danielle Alberti/Axios Brexit is the real-world test of what happens when a major economy voluntarily raises trade barriers, restricts the free flow of workers and generates years of policy uncertainty — all at once. A decade since the vote to leave the European Union, the results are largely in. Why it matters: The economic drag came from overlapping effects. Businesses held off on investment as uncertainty dragged on, executives spent years consumed by Brexit logistics, and the firms most integrated with European markets were often the ones hit hardest. By the numbers: Since the Brexit referendum, the U.K. economy has grown about 13% — less than half the American pace over the same period, according to FactSet calculations. But even that growth gap might understate the cost of Brexit. A paper updated this month from economists at Stanford, the Bank of England, King's College London and the University of Nottingham estimates that by the end of 2025, Brexit had made the U.K. economy between 6% and 8% smaller than it would have been had the country voted to remain. The authors estimate business investment was between 12% and 13% lower than the counterfactual, a gap that widened gradually over the full decade.Both employment and productivity were as much as 4% lower than they otherwise would have been, the authors estimate. The intrigue: Economists who predicted Brexit's costs before the vote were roughly right in the first five years — but few understood how much the damage would keep piling up over a full decade, the authors note in the paper. The bottom line, via Axios' Zach Basu: Britain remains marooned in a low-growth cycle: saddled with trade friction, high prices, strained public services and a hyper-sensitive electorate that tolerates virtually no political failure. Go deeper: Britain's lost decade
Vance said Israeli leaders shouldn't attack "the only powerful ally" it has "left in the entire world"
The triumph of a democratic socialist in the D.C. mayoral race is the latest sign that younger urban voters are turbo-charging candidates who promise to go big on affordability and take on President Trump. Why it matters: While Washington joined New York and Seattle as the latest big city to elect a democratic socialist, Janeese Lewis George's victory was less about her political label than about punishing prices and anger at the president. State of play: Lewis George, who handily defeated a moderate in the Democratic primary, marks a break from decades of business-friendly politicians running the nation's capital. Three trends explain her rise: Unhappiness with the city's direction stood at the highest level (55%) since Marion Barry's reign 28 years ago, per a Washington Post-Schar School poll. A lot of that disaffection was driven by Trump, but there was also a shout for change after three terms of Mayor Muriel Bowser.Washington's influx of white residents, who tend to be younger and more progressive, made winning that vote even more important, and Lewis George ran up the score in neighborhoods where they've settled. She also proved critics wrong by winning in majority-Black, working-class communities — the only place she lost was the city's wealthiest enclave, Northwest's Ward 3. Nearly half of D.C.'s registered Democrats have a favorable view of socialism, per the poll — so it's not a turnoff. Three other progressives led D.C. Council races, giving the presumptive mayor powerful allies. Zoom in: Lewis George appears to have broken through by: Echoing New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, she made the cost of living her No. 1 issue. Her rival, Kenyan McDuffie, ran on public safety and called her soft on crime, even as violence was fading as a top issue. Assembling a potent get-out-the-vote machine that encompassed almost every major local union plus the Democratic Socialists of America's local chapter, which helped knock on what she says were 200,000 doors.Crafting
CIA Director John Ratcliffe told President Trump and other senior officials that evidence gathered by U.S. intelligence agencies raises serious doubts about Iran's willingness to make the nuclear concessions the U.S. is seeking in any final deal, according to three sources familiar with those discussions. Friction point: Ratcliffe isn't the only skeptic in Trump's top team. In internal discussions, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth both expressed concerns and raised questions about the memorandum of understanding (MOU) announced Sunday, while Vice President Vance and U.S. envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner advocated for it, according to two of the sources. Behind the scenes: There were a series of high-level meetings about the deal between Trump and his advisers in the lead-up to Sunday's announcement. During those meetings, Trump and his team discussed intel gathered by several U.S. intelligence agencies that showed that the way Iranian officials were discussing the deal among themselves was inconsistent with what they were telling the mediators and the U.S., two sources said.Ratcliffe and Rubio said that based on that intel, they doubted the Iranians would agree to take the nuclear steps the U.S. was seeking, according to two sources."The intelligence reflects that the Iranian intentions are not in line with their commitments under the deal," a source said. What they're saying: "President Trump listens to all opinions on any given issue — but everyone understands he is the final decision-maker," a White House official said in response to questions for this story. "This MOU meets all of the redlines that the administration has long articulated by ensuring that Iran can never possess a nuclear weapon, they cannot keep their highly enriched uranium, and they cannot hold the world's energy supply hostage," the official said, adding that Trump would only agree to a "good" final agreement.The CIA and the State Department declined t
Like its AI policy, the Trump administration's AI team is taking shape on the fly. Why it matters: Departures among key White House officials, combined with rapid advances in technology, are shaking up who's taking the lead on AI policy in the administration. The big picture: Silicon Valley figures David Sacks and Siriam Krishnan have served as key architects of the administration's AI agenda. But with Sacks stepping back from day-to-day involvement and Krishnan preparing to leave, influence is shifting inside the White House to a broader group of officials and aides. Here's who's running the show — for now. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick. Lutnick's signature was on the letter that sparked the latest confrontation between Anthropic and the administration, ultimately leading to the takedown of the company's Fable and Mythos models. Last week, Lutnick imposed export controls on Anthropic, effectively creating a licensing regime that could eventually impact other AI labs.He is now leading meetings on the sidelines of the G7 to discuss expanding access to advanced AI models and standing next to President Trump during his summit press conference. While Lutnick brokers abroad, Chris Fall at Commerce's Center for AI Standards and Innovation has been holding technical meetings in D.C. Zoom in: Lutnick was once said to be on the outs for going off message in TV interviews and not having a solid handle over his department's jurisdiction, sources familiar with the matter said. But last week's Anthropic fallout put him back in the game and it's now Lutnick's moment."He's fixing a problem. He's not being a problem. And he's doing a great job," said one senior administration official following the letter imposing export controls. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent. Bessent does not directly oversee AI testing. Yet he was the point of contact when Amazon raised concerns about Anthropic safety issues and was among the few cabinet members flanking the president during a G7 press co
Israel struck Beirut's southern suburbs Sunday in retaliation to a Hezbollah missile attack on northern Israel, Israeli officials said. Why it matters: Iran threatened last week to launch a missile attack against Israel if it attacks Beirut, while the U.S. has backed Israel's right to self-defence. Such a move could unravel U.S.–Iran negotiations and reignite the war. Israel notified the Trump administration before the strike, a U.S. official and two other sources with knowledge tell Axios."The United States supports Israel's right to self-defense and stands with the legitimate Government of Lebanon as it works to deliver a better future for its citizens," a U.S. official tells Axios. Hezbollah "must stop firing immediately and allow these agreements to take effect." Driving the news: Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said the strike answered Hezbollah missiles fired at northern Israel earlier Sunday, which the Israeli military says it intercepted. Israeli officials said the Beirut strike targeted a Hezbollah command center in Dahieh — a Shia district known as a Hezbollah stronghold. At least two people were killed and a dozen wounded, according to Lebanon's state news agency. Threat level: Senior Iranian lawmakers publicly threatened retaliation. Ebrahim Rezaei, a member of the Iranian parliament's national security committee, wrote on X that Iran "will give a decisive and painful response to the Zionist regime's attack on Dahieh."He told followers to "watch the skies" over Israel tonight.Iranian speaker of parliament and chief negotiator Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf echoed that.Ghalibaf wrote on X: "They neither adhere to the ceasefire nor believe in dialogue, and with the naval blockade and violation of agreements on Lebanon, they showed that they only understand the language of force. The naval blockade against the Iranian nation and today's U.S. green light to the Zionist regime turn American and regime bases and assets in the region into legitimate targets