Source
Axios
Axios (website)
Axios is an American news website based in Arlington, Virginia. It was founded in 2016 and launched the following year by former Politico journalists Jim VandeHei, Mike Allen, and Roy Schwartz. The site's name is based on the Ancient Greek ἄξιος.
From Wikipedia ↗, text under CC BY-SA 4.0; logo from Wikimedia Commons
- Type
- News outlet
- Lean
- Left-leaning
- Left-Center−2.8 of ±10
- High0.9 of 10 (lower is better)
- High
- Website
- axios.com ↗
- Feed
- RSS ↗
- Articles stored
- 1,042
- Tracked since
- Aug 15, 2026
Down: MBFC factual reporting score, 0 most factual to 10 least.
Bias and credibility ratings by Media Bias/Fact Check.
Axios on MBFC ↗Publishing rhythm
How many articles Axios published over the last 14 days, by publication time, and at which hours of the day.
Top keywords
All keyword charts for Axios →The people, places, organizations and topics Axios covered most that day, by the share of its stories that mention them. Article counts are shown for context.
No keywords that day yet.
Latest articles
President Trump has conceded that the Iran war cost Republicans dearly in the midterms . Now he must decide whether to cut his losses and reach a deal — or double down and go back to bombing. Why it matters: All of Trump's options are problematic: The first is to strike. But going back to war would be highly unpopular — keeping gas prices high and probably not yielding a better military result. Another is to negotiate. But if Iranian officals refuse to make concessions — or, sensing weakness after the president's political loss, up their demands — Trump will have a hard time reaching a deal. The third is to "strangle," as aides put it. This would mean sticking with the status quo — the naval blockade coupled with crippling economic sanctions that leave the Iranian regime to "rot" — while continuing to test its appetite for a deal. This path, however, could take months to show progress. The big picture: The president has said for weeks he would end the war one way or another after the election. One of his former advisers told Axios: "It's one thing to lose the midterms. But Trump doesn't want to look like a loser twice." That's left even his closest aides unsure what he's going to do next. The intrigue: Vice President Vance, in an extraordinary statement Wednesday morning, bluntly blamed the war for the GOP's midterm drubbing. It added a new political calculation to Trump's decision. "The reason we lost is the war," Vance wrote on X . "The president himself said so last night. If you'd like to argue it was worth it, that losing the Senate for the next 6 years was worth it, then do so. ... But everyone knows why we lost. And any honest conversation about where we go from here must start there." Vance also cited the U.S. relationship with Israel as a serious liability for Republicans. Trump told reporters on Wednesday that Vance's analysis was "largely true" because the war drove gas prices up. But Trump said he'd do it again if he had to: "We had no choice. You can't let Iran have a nuclear weapon." Asked when he's going to end the war, Trump responded: "Whenever I wanted to. But it's got to be done right, because they can't have a nuclear weapon." Behind the scenes: In recent months, Vance has led a faction within Trump's inner circle advising him to reach a deal with Iran to end the war. He privately accused Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of "being wrong on everything" regarding Iran, sources said. Vance warned that the war was highly unpopular and could cost Republicans the election, the sources said. Most senior officials around Trump have shared Vance's views. But Trump still leaned toward resuming the war. At one point, he considered launching strikes before the midterms, as Netanyahu was pressing him to do. Trump decided to wait. But against the advice of his top advisers, he still endorsed Netanyahu in Israel's election last week. State of play: The U.S. military is finishing preparations for a possible resumption of major combat operations in Iran, including sending more assets to the region, American officials say. At the same time, Qatari mediators are working to secure U.S. and Iranian support for a draft agreement to head off a return to battle and possibly resume direct talks in the coming days, regional sources say. The mediators asked White House officials before the election what Trump would do if he lost. The president's advisers couldn't vouch either way, a source with knowledge said. "We told everybody that we want to see first how the elections turn out for us," a U.S. official said. The other side: Iranian officials celebrated Trump's electoral defeat, saying it showed they're winning the war. "The Iranian nation handed Trump a strategic defeat on the battlefield and in the Hormuz — and a POLITICAL DEFEAT in Washington," Iran's Supreme National Security Council Secretary Mohsen Rezaei wrote on X. "Meanwhile, Americans got stuck with the bill for his war. Anyone who takes on Iran will pay the price — from the battlefield to their own doorstep." Diplomats involved in the mediation efforts, Trump advisers and Middle East experts said Iran's gloating could make the president more likely to return to war. "Tehran's temptation is likely to mistake Trump's political weakness for military weakness and overplay its hand, when the smarter move is to bank a deal while Washington still wants one," Ali Vaez , deputy program director for the Middle East and North Africa at the International Crisis Group, told Axios. Yes, but: Trump could opt to maintain the "no war, no deal" status quo. CIA Director John Ratcliffe, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and other advisers want Trump to let the naval blockade and economic pressure campaign play out longer, tightening the screws on Iran. The bottom line: There's no tidy way for Trump to "finish the job" in Iran.
Barak Ravid ·
House Democrats channeled anti-Trump fury into a landslide victory over Republicans. Now comes the hard part: Figuring out what to do with their huge majority . Why it matters: That question is already igniting a power struggle between Democrats' ideological factions as they lay out contradictory visions for what the next two years of governing looks like. This story is based on interviews with more than a dozen sitting and incoming House Democrats from across the political spectrum. "Last night was a rebuke of the status quo," progressive Rep. Delia Ramirez (D-Ill.) told Axios, adding that "for the left it was an affirmation and a validation that we are on the right track." There is "absolutely no excuse," Ramirez said, for House Democrats not to do "the most over the next two years, and as quickly as possible." Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D-N.J.), a centrist, said Tuesday was a "gigantic night for the middle ground," and that the mandate is far more modest: "We need to crush high costs and corruption." State of play: House Democrats are on track to win more than 250 seats, which would give them a comfortable majority of dozens of votes. That blows up the plans of a cohort of incoming progressives known as the "Bloc" to demand concessions from leadership in exchange for voting with the party. The potential concessions included changes to House rules, plum committee assignments and votes to enact Medicare-for-All , defund ICE and cut off U.S. aid to Israel. What we're hearing: The left's new tactic is to try to convince the Congressional Progressive Caucus to, as one sitting House Democrat put it, "assert its authority in a way it has never done before." "That should definitely be part of the game plan," an incoming Bloc member told Axios, "we've got so many members of the CPC and I think we're adding 25 more." Said Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), a former CPC chair: "We have certainly used our power many times ... and we will do that again." The CPC is currently around 100 members, though not all are pugnacious ideological brawlers. The new strategy also involves aggressively recruiting incoming House Democrats from battleground districts, a group that hasn't traditionally been at the core of the CPC's membership. The left is hopefully eyeing the "Bernie Dogs": Populist candidates from working class backgrounds who won red districts with support from both progressives and centrists. They are also taking a close look at the "wave babies": Candidates who won upset victories in districts that weren't even on the party's radar and whose politics are largely unknown on Capitol Hill. What they're saying: CPC chair Greg Casar (D-Texas) argued in an interview that it may not be such a fight to pass a progressive agenda, noting that House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) has called for "dramatic change." "Americans delivered a demand for bold change, and progressives are excited to deliver it," Casar said, adding that Medicare-for-All is "overwhelmingly popular" and that Democrats "should move that kind of legislation forward." Jayapal told Axios: "We will be driving an agenda that truly is big and bold and looking for [Jeffries'] leadership to make sure that is what we deliver." The former CPC chair said she is "100% down" for the items on Jeffries' 100-days agenda but "I just don't think there's any way we can stop there. ... We have to pass a living wage bill, we have to pass universal childcare." The other side: Rep. Adam Gray (D-Calif.), a leader of the centrist Blue Dog Coalition, told Axios, "The most extreme elements ... want to do messaging bills and yell and scream and point the finger." "There's time for that, let's just not make it the majority time," he continued, "and I think you're going to find a lot of people ... agree with me on this." Rep. Marc Veasey (D-Texas), an ally of Jeffries, said the results were a "victory for common sense, not any extremist ideology" and that Jeffries "understands what last night was all about and he will lead accordingly." Jeffries is being characteristically taciturn about how he will govern. "We're going to have a conversation as a caucus upon our return about what the agenda looks like," he told reporters at a press conference on Wednesday. Asked about marking up Medicare-for-All, Jeffries said House Democrats will have a "family conversation" about what health care measures to pass beyond renewing expired Affordable Care Act tax credits and reversing the GOP's cuts to Medicaid. The bottom line: "Medicare-for-All is not going to happen in the next two years and everybody knows that," said progressive Rep. Jared Huffman (D-Calif.), a co-sponsor of Medicare-for-All. "I hear all of this jockeying, and frankly I find it tedious," he told Axios. "We're going to have a huge majority to navigate these issues and it's all going to be fine. ... We're mostly on the same team here." Said another House progressive: "With this big of a majority, honestly, the Bloc has way less influence, but the good news is so do the members who buy Depends by the carton." "On balance, this is a center-left caucus," a third House Democrat said.
Andrew Solender ·
Democrats' midterm tsunami obscured a major polling miss: Surveys correctly anticipated a blue wave, but failed to capture its full force. Why it matters: Pollsters appear to have underestimated Democrats by a wider margin than they underestimated Republicans in 2016 or 2024 — even if they got the headline outcome right this time. By the numbers: Democrats are on track to win the national House popular vote by roughly 13 points, compared with a final Silver Bulletin polling average of 8.9 points, according to an initial analysis by The Argument's Lakshya Jain . That roughly 4-point gap is similar to the 2020 polling miss that underestimated Republicans and larger than the average partisan errors in 2016 and 2024, though comparisons to presidential years are imperfect. The big picture: Pollsters entered the 2026 midterms having underrated Trump's support in three consecutive presidential elections. Their central challenge was accounting for Republican voters who might be missing from their surveys. Many polling organizations have sought to compensate by weighting results based on party affiliation or how respondents voted in previous elections. A Pew analysis found that nearly 70% of national polls used such political weighting in 2024. In an October analysis , The Washington Post warned that a collapse in turnout among Trump voters could cause polls calibrated to the 2024 electorate to underestimate Democrats. Tuesday's results raise questions about whether the industry's efforts to correct past polling misses contributed to a new one. Reality check: Some of the pollsters that projected the largest Democratic margins appear to have come closest to the final result. AtlasIntel placed itself first in a ranking of final national House polls based on its projection of the popular-vote margin. It's the second straight election where the pollster stood out for its accuracy. AtlasIntel's final poll showed Democrats leading by 14.1 points, just 0.3 points from the firm's projected final margin of 13.8. Tufts University, New York Times/Siena, Change Research and RMG Research rounded out the top five in AtlasIntel's rankings.
Neal Rothschild ·
Efforts to keep the LIV Golf league alive have collapsed. Why it matters: LIV filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in September after its Saudi investors confirmed plans to withdraw funding after the 2026 season. Driving the news: BC Partners — which had tentatively agreed to invest in a "LIV 2.0" league — is walking away, a source familiar with the matter confirmed Wednesday. The investment was always predicated on an unspecified number of players signing on — and at least 30 ultimately indicated interest in doing so, the person said. But economic terms remained a sticking point with some of their representatives. But the league was unable to secure enough support in time to meet the deadlines set in the bankruptcy case. LIV had also lost several stars in recent weeks, including Jon Rahm and Sergio Garcia, compromising its commercial appeal. What's next: People involved in the case expect LIV to pivot to a liquidation. Spokespeople for LIV and BC Partners were not immediately available for comment. Catch up quick: The Public Investment Fund — Saudi Arabia's sovereign wealth fund — confirmed in April that it was withdrawing support for the league after the 2026 season. PIF — which ultimately plunged more than $5 billion into LIV, according to Money in Sport — decided to ditch LIV after President Trump's war in Iran scrambled geopolitics in the Middle East and jolted energy prices. The fund said in a statement that the "substantial investment required by LIV Golf over a longer term is no longer consistent with the current phase of PIF's investment strategy." Friction point: Critics of LIV and the players who joined it said the league amounted to " sportswashing " as the Saudis sought to redirect attention from allegations of human rights abuses. Defenders — including LIV member and former PGA superstar Phil Mickelson — said the league would help grow the game on a global scale. What to watch: What the league's biggest star, Bryson DeChambeau, does next.
Dan Primack, Nathan Bomey ·
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) formally launched his bid for speaker of the House on Wednesday in a letter to colleagues obtained by Axios. Why it matters: Jeffries is widely expected to secure the speaker's gavel after House Democrats' landslide midterm win. He would make history as the first African American to serve in the role. Jeffries, who was first elected to Congress in 2012, has led the House Democratic caucus since former Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) stepped down in 2022. What he's saying: "I write to humbly request your support in connection with my candidacy to serve as the next Speaker of the House of Representatives," Jeffries wrote. "We must now deliver the dramatic change the American people are demanding in the majority," he continued. Jeffries wrote that "every single member of our majority will play a meaningful role" and that his goal is to empower House Democrats to "act decisively in three key areas: (1) Affordability (2) Accountability and (3) American Values." Between the lines: While some incoming progressive and red-district Democrats have declined to commit to supporting Jeffries for speaker, he is not expected to face any serious opposition for the role. The big majority House Democrats won on Tuesday will further help to insulate him from any would-be rebels in his caucus. Zoom out: Jeffries' senior leadership team is similarly expected to run uncontested: Minority Whip Katherine Clark (D-Mass.) for majority leader. Democratic Caucus chair Pete Aguilar (D-Calif.) for majority whip. Democratic Caucus vice chair Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) for Democratic caucus chair. Assistant Leader Joe Neguse (D-Colo.) for assistant speaker. Read the letter in full, via DocumentCloud : Editor's note: This story has been updated with additional details throughout.
Andrew Solender ·
Republicans barely had time to absorb their sweeping midterm losses before President Trump returned to a familiar comfort zone: D.C. construction projects. Why it matters: Voters just delivered an overwhelming rebuke of the administration, demanding that politicians focus on the cost of living, yet the president remains fixed on remaking the nation's capital in his image. Driving the news: Trump hosted reporters at the White House on Wednesday for a previously unscheduled event to update them on the East Wing ballroom's construction, marking his first remarks to the White House press pool since the election. He spent the majority of his remarks discussing planned architectural changes around D.C., including a proposed Triumphal Arch, the National Garden of American Heroes and a planned expansion of a publicly owned golf course that would likely eliminate popular running and biking paths. His remarks came after a pre-election appearance Monday, during which he praised the new pipes installed at the Reflecting Pool and a proposed promenade from the Lincoln Memorial to the Potomac River. What they're saying: Trump addressed criticism he sometimes receives for working on his construction projects, saying he was "doing it because the White House is the ultimate symbol of America, and it's got to be pristine." "It's got to be perfect. And if you take a look at it, that's what it is right now. You have no idea how much work we had to do." He also noted that he spends "very little time" working on the White House, but said he does it because "it's relaxing …I love construction." Catch up quick: Democrats outperformed expectations in Tuesday's midterms, flipping the Senate before the night was over and then the House a few hours later, according to the AP. Democrats have gained complete control of at least five previously divided state governments while ending Republican trifectas in several other states. In ruby-red Texas, the white whale of potential pickups, Democrats flipped the governor's mansion, a Senate seat and now control the state House. Zoom in: "President Trump's commitment to restoring our Nation's treasured landmarks should be celebrated and does not distract from his work to lower costs, strengthen our economy, and improve the lives of American families," a White House spokesperson told Axios in an emailed statement. "While making our Nation's capital safe and beautiful again as he promised to do, President Trump remains focused on lowering costs, driving down inflation, creating good-paying jobs, reshoring our manufacturing industry, unleashing American energy dominance, securing new investment, securing our borders, deporting dangerous illegal criminals from our communities, and enforcing tough-on-crime policies." Zoom out: Trump also briefly discussed his immigration policies and efforts to lower crime around D.C. during his Wednesday speech. He later took questions from reporters, during which he reiterated that Republicans would have won had he been on the ballot. Go deeper: Blue tsunami breaks MAGA: 5 takeaways from a blowout midterm election
Josephine Walker ·
Republicans woke up "in shock" Wednesday morning after they got hit with the biggest midterms wave in 50 years. Within hours, that shock was turning into rage. Why it matters: The battle for control of what's left of the Republican conference — headlined by Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) and Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan (R-Oho) — is the first salvo in a quest to bring GOP lawmakers back from the political wilderness. Johnson set the tone Wednesday morning, when he took himself out of the running for leader, citing the toll the job has taken on his family. A key outstanding question is the extent to which Republican finger-pointing leads to a wholesale shake-up of the party's leadership ranks, versus a slight readjustment. Driving the news: The intra-party blame game quickly hit a fever pitch. "Dear Republican Senate and House "Leadership," No, the polls were not wrong. You were. Even with record amounts of money at your disposal, you managed to get absolutely annihilated," Rep. Greg Steube (R-Fla.) wrote on X Wednesday morning. "Please do us all a favor and step aside so new leadership can take a truly conservative direction," Steube added. "When you have the worst defeat in modern history, you need a new playbook," another GOP lawmaker told Axios. State of play: The fallout is rippling across the entire House GOP leadership team, with every top position facing a contested race. Minority leader: Scalise and Jordan are squaring off in a rematch of their bitter 2023 battle for the speakership. Minority whip: Tom Emmer faces a challenge from Rep. August Pfluger (R-Texas). NRCC Chair: Rudy Yakym and Brian Jack will face off for the post. Current NRCC Chairman Richard Hudson (R-N.C.) is on track to lose his own reelection bid. Zoom in: Behind the leadership infighting, Republicans are reckoning with what went so disastrously wrong on Election Day, with some blaming the Trump administration's policies for their losses. "Iran, Iran, Iran ... we should have never done the war before the midterms," one GOP lawmaker told Axios. Another pointed to "Iran, ICE, inflation, fuel prices, lack of focus on pocketbook issues" as factors in the defeat. "Iran and the vanity of putting your name on things like the Kennedy Center," another GOP lawmaker said. What's next: House Republicans are scheduled to elect their next leadership team this coming Tuesday. The winner needs a majority of House Republicans in a secret-ballot vote.
Kate Santaliz ·
Data: The Downballot , Ballotpedia , AP ; Chart: Erin Davis/Axios Republican mapmakers thought they were drawing at least a dozen comfortably red districts to protect their House majority. Why it matters: They weren't red enough . In the seven states where Republicans redrew congressional boundaries, the GOP is on track to lose as many as eight seats — rather than gain the 15 it had hoped to pick up. With two exceptions — TX-32 and TN-09 — the pickups Republicans penciled in never materialized. Then there was a bloodbath in North Carolina. Zoom in: At the heart of the GOP's miscalculation was a bet that the 2026 electorate would look like 2024's. Instead, voters behaved more like they had in 2020 — or even 2018. TX-34: Republicans made an already Trump-leaning district significantly redder, shifting it from Trump +4 to Trump +10. Democratic Rep. Vicente Gonzalez still won by nearly 16 percentage points. TX-23: Republicans made an already red district slightly less Republican, shifting it from Trump +16 to Trump +15. Democrat Katy Padilla Stout won by eight points. TX-15: Rep. Monica De La Cruz's district remained essentially unchanged at Trump +18. She lost by 25 points. Between the lines: The GOP's heaviest losses came in Ohio and North Carolina districts that Republican mapmakers barely touched. Rather than shore up districts Trump had won by double digits, Republicans concentrated on making two Democratic-held seats in Ohio and one in North Carolina redder, betting they would flip in a normal election year. But 2026 was anything but normal. The bottom line: Perhaps the clearest example of a dummymander — when mapmakers spread their own voters too thin in pursuit of additional seats — came in Tennessee's 4th District . Republicans redrew TN-04 from Trump +44 to Trump +24, sacrificing much of its enormous GOP cushion. Democrat Victoria Broderick appears to have won by just 280 votes.
Hans Nichols ·
Data: Financial Modeling Prep ; Chart: Ben Geman/Axios Oil prices fell sharply Wednesday as traders weigh signs — including a widely circulated post by Vice President JD Vance — that the midterm election will add pressure on the White House to find an offramp from the Iran conflict. Why it matters: Elections have consequences. Wednesday's price drop — around $8 per barrel — deepened after Vance posted on X that "everyone knows" the war is why Republicans got pummeled and "any honest conversation about where we go from here must start there." Sen. Chuck Schumer (D), the likely Senate majority leader in the next Congress, vowed that Democrats will push to end the war. "This crude price drop is entirely about the U.S. election and the belief that Trump will de-escalate rather than escalate on Iran. JD Vance's statement amplified that sentiment," Ben Cahill, a nonresident senior fellow with the Atlantic Council, told Axios via email. What they're saying: Pavel Molchanov, an analyst with Raymond James, said in remarks circulated to reporters that Vance's post was a "key catalyst" for today's oil price plunge. "The market is saying that Congress and members of his own administration are likely to start acting as a constraint on President Trump's war in Iran," Seb Barker, a strategist with the hedge fund, Marshall Wace, tells the Financial Times. Catch up quick: Oil prices were already falling to start the week on signs of new U.S.-Iran diplomacy. What we're watching: "[I]t remains unclear whether Vance's comments signal a more dovish stance toward Iran," Molchanov said. "For oil prices to sustainably move lower, a durable off-ramp is needed," he added.
Ben Geman ·
Tuesday's election was great for Democrats. It was bad for Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and some of the White House's most ambitious national security projects. Why it matters: Surprise wins across the map for Democrats — including in the Deep South — complicate a lot for the Trump administration. Republicans have relied on a simple-majority funding mechanism known as reconciliation to pay for marquee projects like Golden Dome . That option is now a long shot over the next few months, and impossible after that. Outrage over the Iran war, well beyond the half-year mark, is sure to turbocharge a long list of congressional inquiries. And lawmakers on both sides of the aisle, including Reps. Pat Ryan (D-N.Y.) and Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), have suggested impeaching Hegseth. Follow the money: Defense analysts agree prospects for the administration's full $1.5 trillion defense budget look grim. A Wednesday note from TD Cowen's Washington Research Group warned "Trump 'branded' projects are dead." Golden Dome, Golden Fleet and "other signature efforts," it added, "will be curbed." Meanwhile, Todd Harrison, an American Enterprise Institute defense budget expert, said it's unlikely the lame-duck congressional session will pass reconciliation and instead will keep the defense budget operating under a continuing resolution into next year. "They're all at risk," Harrison said of reconciliation-backed programs. "My base expectation is nothing happens on the defense budget." The other side: The Pentagon did not respond to a request for comment. Between the lines: Some of the most powerful Republican lawmakers on defense matters were defeated or are on pace to lose. Sen. Susan Collins, the appropriations chairwoman, lost to Troy Jackson in Maine . Sen. Darline Graham, also on appropriations, lost to Annie Andrews in South Carolina . Rep. Jen Kiggans, a member of the armed services and veterans affairs committees , lost to Elaine Luria in Virginia . And as of Wednesday afternoon, Reps. Rob Wittman of Virginia, Mike Turner of Ohio, Scott DesJarlais of Tennessee and Jeff Crank of Colorado all trailed their Democratic challengers. What they're saying: Hegseth himself may be on the hot seat. "Secretary Hegseth's chaotic and incompetent leadership has made America weaker and less safe, and now he will be forced to answer for it," Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), a member of the appropriations, armed services and intelligence committees, told Axios. "We owe it to our service members, our military families and the American people to make sure that" Hegseth and the broader Trump administration "are held fully accountable," she added. Yes, but: President Trump told reporters he's not considering replacing Hegseth. "No, I think he's doing a very good job," he said. The bottom line: "People do expect there will be investigations and there will be oversight and all that, and certainly that will have an impact," VJ Sahi, a partner at strategic advisory firm Clark Street Associates, told Axios. But the "degree of the impact," he added, remains "TBD." Go deeper: When defense and marketing departments meet
Colin Demarest, Thomas Novelly ·
Democrats' sweeping statehouse gains Tuesday have opened a path to effectively replacing the Electoral College with a national popular vote in time for the 2028 presidential election — without needing to amend the Constitution. Why it matters: The results could give Democrats the legislative power to fundamentally change how America picks its president, potentially ending the possibility of winning the White House while losing the national popular vote. Driving the news: Democrats have won control of the governorship and both legislative chambers in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Arizona, Wisconsin and Nevada, enough to push an agreement called the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact beyond the 270-vote threshold required to take effect. The compact has been enacted by 18 states and Washington, D.C. since launching in 2006, representing 222 electoral votes so far. The agreement only kicks in when participating states collectively control at least 270 electoral votes. The five new Democratic trifectas could bring the total to 283. How it works: Americans don't directly elect the president. Instead, they actually cast ballots to choose electors, whose votes determine the winner every four years. Nearly every state awards all its electoral votes to the statewide winner. Maine and Nebraska also award electors based on congressional district results. But the Constitution explicitly gives states power to appoint electors "in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct." Under the compact, participating states would instead award their electoral votes to the national popular-vote winner once the agreement reaches 270 electoral votes. Yes, but: The five states would still need to enact the compact, and it's not clear if it will be a priority for the new Democratic states. The Electoral College would formally remain in place, and the compact could face constitutional challenges, including over whether congressional approval is required. Michigan failed to enact it during its previous Democratic trifecta from 2023 to 2024, and Nevada's then-Democratic governor vetoed the compact in 2019, warning it could diminish his state's influence over presidential elections. Notre Dame law professor Derek Muller has argued that the compact would be unconstitutional without congressional approval, which he contends is required under the Constitution's Compact Clause. What to watch: Whether and how legislators in the new trifecta states move forward. Lawmakers in all five states have previously introduced legislation to join the compact.
Andrew Pantazi ·
Women candidates won enough races Tuesday to set a new record for Democratic women's representation in the U.S. House — among other historic firsts in Congress and governor's races nationwide. The big picture: The spike for Democratic Women's Caucus members in the House alone marks an increase of more than 60% since 2016. At least 100 Democratic women and 16 Republican women have won House seats as of Wednesday morning, according to the Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers University. The total is expected to climb for candidates across both parties, with dozens of races still uncalled. What they're saying: "Despite Republican attempts to silence us and take away our rights, we have built a coalition in Congress that is bigger and more powerful than ever," DWC Chairwoman Teresa Leger Fernández (D-N.M.) said in a statement. "We smashed through a glass ceiling," she added. "Because of the hard work of so many, Congress will look more like America." The intrigue: Women veterans are poised to make gains in Congress after 38 ran in Tuesday's general election — up from 21 in 2024, per civic organization With Honor Action . Several Democratic women veterans are leading in competitive House races that could flip Republican-held seats. In South Carolina , retired Navy Vice Adm. Nancy Lacore, who was removed as chief of the Navy Reserve under Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, leads Republican Jenny Costa Honeycutt in the race for former Rep. Nancy Mace's seat. In Arizona, Marine veteran JoAnna Mendoza leads Republican Rep. Juan Ciscomani. In Ohio, Air Force veteran Kristina Knickerbocker leads Republican Rep. Mike Turner. The AP had not called any of the three races as of Wednesday morning State of play: Democratic women could gain powerful committee chair positions as control of Congress shifts. Currently, just one woman chairs a standing House committee: Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.), who leads the powerful Rules Committee. She's locked in a razor-thin reelection race against Democrat Chuck Hubbard. Among those already likely positioned for gavels: Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) and Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) on their chambers' Appropriations committees, which oversee federal spending. Rep. Katherine Clark (D-Mass.), currently Democrats' minority whip, could become the first woman to serve as majority leader, two decades after Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) become the first woman speaker of the House. Zoom out: Women are also taking over governor's mansions across the nation. Progressive, pro-women EMILYs List said Wednesday that a record-high number of Democratic women governors are poised to serve in 2027. That includes Keisha Lance Bottoms , who boxed Republicans out in Georgia and will become the first Black woman governor in U.S. history. Deb Haaland , who won New Mexico's gubernatorial election, has become the first Indigenous woman elected governor of a U.S. state, per AP . There were also historic firsts for Republican women: Republican Julia Letlow is Louisiana's first Republican woman elected to the Senate. Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) will be Tennessee's first woman governor. What we're watching: There's still plenty of dust still to settle in the wake of a massive midterms shakeup . But one thing is clear: A historic coalition of women is headed to Capitol Hill. Go deeper: Hakeem Jeffries gets the majority of his dreams
Avery Lotz ·
Democrats wasted no time gloating and warning the Trump administration about a pending flood of subpoenas and investigations once the 2026 midterm blue wave became clear. Why it matters: Democrats are eager to exercise their oversight powers over the president and his allies, but they must navigate that while addressing Americans' No. 1 election concern — the high cost of living. Driving the news: Before the AP even called the House for Democrats, expected House Oversight Chair Robert Garcia (D-Calif.) said in a statement that the president's allies should "[l]awyer up." He seconded the sentiment in a Wednesday post to X. Sen. Ron Wyden posted on X Tuesday night, "[s]ubpoenas." In response to a post from former Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, who said the Trump administration was "too successful" during its first year, Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.) responded, "[w]ant to say that under oath?" The big picture: Voters aren't necessarily asking Democrats to choose between the cost of living and accountability. They want action on both. About half of voters said the high cost of living and government corruption were "crucial" to their votes for Congress, per the AP's Voter Poll. Roughly four in 10 voters said the economy was the top issue facing the country, compared with three in 10 who said it was democracy. Seven in 10 said Congress isn't doing enough to check presidential power. What they're saying: When asked about Wyden and Garcia's comments in an interview Wednesday morning, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) — the overwhelming favorite to become House Speaker — told TODAY that the "American people clearly don't want us to try and get even." "They want us to get things done to make their life more affordable. At the same period of time, what we have seen is unprecedented corruption unleashed on America, the likes of which we have never seen before." "And when you have people in high office who are so focused on enriching themselves, their family members, their friends, and their donors, it's clear to the American people that that means you have a Congress or White House or Supreme Court not focused on actually addressing the needs of working class folks." The White House didn't immediately respond to Axios' request for comment. Zoom in: Democrats have already laid out some of their main priorities for investigation. Garcia vowed Tuesday that House Dems would focus on probing Trump's family businesses, alleged corporate corruption and government contracts. He also said he'll investigate DHS and ICE misconduct allegations, as well as the Jeffrey Epstein files and the administration's handling of them. Other reporting has suggested Democrats might also probe the DOGE effort, or its de facto former leader, tech billionaire Elon Musk. President Trump said on Monday he's open to pardoning his allies and staff if Democrats target them. Reality check: Some legislative priorities Democrats want could also be easily blocked by the president's veto power. Democrats are not currently projected to win the 2/3 majority needed to override such a move on their own. A presidential pardon only erases liability in a federal case; it does not shield a recipient from civil or state-level charges or investigations. What we're watching: Whether Democrats truly pursue an effective oversight agenda and whether Democratic leadership can walk the tightrope of bringing costs down while doing so. Go deeper: Trump vows to protect Musk, floats pre-emptive staff pardons
Josephine Walker ·
A recurring subplot of President Trump's term has been a desire to replace Biden appointees to the powerful Federal Reserve Board of Governors — even ahead of their terms ending — with allies. That effort now looks dead in the water. Why it matters: Even if Trump succeeds in his efforts to fire governor Lisa Cook , or to oust any of the other three Biden-era holdovers on the seven-member board, a Democratic Senate will likely block any replacements it views as insufficiently independent from the administration. State of play: The president seeks to fire Cook — whose term runs through 2038 — for alleged mortgage fraud, an effort that has been blocked so far by the courts. The White House plans a hearing over the allegations next month. Former chair Jerome Powell has remained on the board as a governor, a term that ends in January 2028. Michael Barr, whom Biden appointed as top financial regulator, has remained in place as a governor in a term that extends to 2032. Philip Jefferson's term as vice chair ends this coming September, though his term as a governor extends to 2036. Between the lines: It would break with current precedent for those officials to stick around to the end of their terms. In recent decades, Fed governor spots have turned over much more regularly, particularly after their time as chair or vice chair ends. Powell, Barr and Jefferson may feel greater comfort relinquishing their roles as governors before the end of their terms if they are confident the Senate will block any replacements who don't respect the tradition of central bank independence. Of note: Sen. Elizabeth Warren is set to chair the Senate Banking Committee that must advance Fed governor nominees, and she has assailed chairman Kevin Warsh for being a "sock puppet" of the administration. Only one Senate Democrat, John Fetterman, voted to confirm Warsh.
Neil Irwin ·
World leaders are reacting to Democrats' comprehensive midterm wins, which saw them retake the Senate and flip the House on Tuesday night. Why it matters: The results could reshape President Trump's final two years in office, with major implications for U.S. relations with allies and adversaries alike. Zoom in: As Trump faces competing calls over whether to resume military action in Iran, Iranian officials supported the Democratic victories as a sign of opposition to the war. Iran's Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf wrote on X , "Conscience or the cost of living, Americans said NO TO WAR, and we endorse this message." Prior to the election, regional mediators led by Qatar were trying to reach a diplomatic deal to restart negotiations between the U.S. and Iran to avoid reentering the war, three U.S., Israeli and regional sources said, but renewed fighting remains on the table. But while Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu wants to resume fighting in Iran, his political future remains uncertain, with neither bloc securing the 61-seat majority needed to form a government in Israel's recent election. Zoom out: Trump's second-term decisions have significantly strained relationships with U.S. allies and partners, leading countries to increasingly view Washington as unreliable, self-interested and less committed to global cooperation , according to Pew Research Center data. But Tuesday's election results appear to have infused renewed hope about relations from international leaders. Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez applauded Americans for voting "against policies that only make people poorer," and against "hate," "sexism," "climate denial" and "elite privilege," in a post on X ." South African President Cyril Ramaphosa told reporters he believes Democratic control of Congress will "introduce a new era in world relations," adding that he hopes for improved collaboration on geopolitics, trade and investment, Bloomberg reported. Trump, who has repeatedly criticized Ramaphosa, and prioritized South Africans for refugee admissions in fiscal year 2026, citing debunked " white genocide " claims — which falsely allege that white Afrikaners face racial violence by the country's majority Black population. The other side: Moscow signaled little optimism about the change in power, warning that Democratic control could further strain U.S.-Russia relations, particularly with tensions in Ukraine. Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov told RIA Novosti news network that Democrats' "approach to relations with Russia is extremely negative." Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Mao Ning struck a measured tone, saying China hopes to "build a constructive relationship," and continue working with the U.S. Still, the U.S. Army Pacific is closely watching for a potential Chinese invasion of Taiwan in 2027 and beyond, which could quickly devolve into a bloodbath. Yes, but: Some leaders are also questioning how much progress Washington can make amid such deep political splits. Theo Francken, Belgium's Minister of Defense and Foreign Trade, said on X that governing in the U.S. will be "quasi impossible in the coming years with so much internal division and polarized power bastions." European Parliament Vice President Christel Schaldemose said she's "cautiously optimistic on Europe's behalf" and how it could benefit Ukraine and global relations. Go deeper: Blue tsunami breaks MAGA: 5 takeaways from a blowout midterm election
Rebecca Falconer, Julianna Bragg ·
The Iran war was the reason for the Democrats' blue tsunami that stunned Washington, Vice President Vance said in an X post Wednesday morning. Why it matters: The VP offered a surprisingly blunt assessment of why the GOP got crushed Tuesday night — and started to put at least a little daylight between himself and President Trump as the 2028 cycle begins. Vance's comments come hours after Trump admitted the Iran war partly played a role in pushing Democrats over the edge. Driving the news: "The reason we lost is the war. The president himself said so last night," Vance wrote on X . "If you'd like to argue it was worth it, that losing the Senate for the next 6 years was worth it, then do so. Argue it was a worthwhile cost to pay. Agree or disagree, that's at least honest." Vance's comments align with Trump, who told the Wall Street Journal: "Iran was a piece of it," though he did not say he regrets the war. What they're saying: Vance wrote on X that the "Democrat blowout" came despite optimism from within the White House about turnout and people "showing up." But, Vance said, "many people who voted for Trump/Vance in 2024 voted for Democrats in 2026" instead. The White House and vice president's office did not immediately respond to requests for comments Wednesday morning. Zoom in: Vance said Trump 2024 voters were angry with the administration and chose to embrace Dems. The GOP has to do four things to bring them back, he said: End the Iran war, focus on inflation, "put America First," and "change our relationship to Israel." "To the people who are just pissed at the results, you should be. Let's take that anger and get back to the work of saving our country," Vance wrote. Yes, but: Voters had other grievances in the election Tuesday night. Cost of living and government corruption were the two top issues in this year's election, per exit polls from AP . Gas prices and grocery costs have skyrocketed amid the Iran war and the president's tariff policies. Trump was also labeled "corrupt" and "dangerous" by majorities of registered voters in a poll prior to the election. The bottom line: Vance's candid response comes ahead of a potential 2028 presidential run. The vice president is already being watched by the pre-Trump Republican faction that never embraced Trump's takeover of the party, which might require him to distance himself from the president's policies. Editor's note: This story has been updated with new detail throughout.
Herb Scribner ·
Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) will announce his bid to lead House Republicans on Wednesday, a person familiar with his plans told Axios, as his party begins to regroup from stunning midterm losses that cost them their congressional majorities. Why it matters: Scalise's announcement sets up a potentially bruising battle for the minority leader post, with Judiciary Committee Chair Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) also being floated as a potential contender. It's Scalise's second attempt at the top House Republican job. Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) told staff that he will not run for minority leader on a Wednesday morning call, a person familiar with his plans said. Driving the news: Scalise pitched himself as a leader positioned to bring Republicans back into the majority "He is a proven and tested leader who is ready on day one. He's spent his career unifying Republicans and he is prepared for the big legislative and oversight battles ahead. The conference knows him, how he fights, and that he's a trusted leader," the person familiar with his plans said in statement. Catch up quick: Scalise defeated Jordan in the Republican conference's secret-ballot vote to nominate a speaker in October 2023, but withdrew a day later after failing to secure enough support on the House floor. Johnson ultimately emerged as speaker after weeks of Republican infighting. State of play: A Scalise-Jordan race would pit two of the House GOP's most prominent figures against each other. Scalise enters the contest with more than a decade of experience in leadership, while Jordan could draw support from the party's conservative wing. But the scale of the loss on Tuesday night has prompted calls for an entirely new leadership slate — a potential stumbling block for Scalise. Three House Republicans previously told Axios that a major midterm defeat could fuel calls for an entirely new leadership team The intrigue: Majority Whip Tom Emmer, meanwhile is making calls to lock down support from him to stay on as whip in the minority, a person familiar with his plans told Axios. Emmer (R-Minn.) told Axios in September that he intends to remain in his current role rather than seek a higher leadership position. That could leave the losing candidate in a Scalise-Jordan matchup without an obvious fallback spot in the top leadership ranks. What's next: House Republicans are scheduled to elect their next leadership team on Nov. 10, with candidates facing a Friday deadline to declare their intentions. The winner needs a majority of House Republicans in a secret-ballot vote. Trump could play a pivotal role in determining the next top House Republican, and GOP lawmakers are watching closely to see whether he throws his support behind a candidate.
Kate Santaliz ·
Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) plans to step down as the House's top Republican after his party's epic midterm election losses wiped out their majority, according to a person familiar with his plans. Why it matters: Johnson's exit touches off a potentially contentious scramble to replace him with Republicans days away from choosing their next leaders. Johnson told staff that he will not run for minority leader on a Wednesday morning call, the person familiar with his plans said. Driving the news : House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) and Judiciary Committee Chair Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) have been floated as potential successors, setting the stage for a bruising leadership battle. Johnson's political future remains uncertain, with questions swirling over whether he will remain in Congress or leave the House altogether after three years as speaker. The Louisiana Republican had spent months traveling across the country and raising millions of dollars in a last-ditch effort to preserve the GOP's majority. Flashback Johnson ascended to the speakership in October 2023 as a little-known lawmaker after weeks of GOP turmoil following Kevin McCarthy's historic ousting . Johnson spent much of his speakership navigating razor-thin Republican majorities, managing persistent GOP infighting and repeated conservative rebellions that brought legislative business to a standstill. But he also emerged as a prolific fundraiser and close Trump ally, helping shepherd the president's legislative agenda through a fractious Republican conference. Yes, but: Johnson had publicly insisted he intended to remain in Republican leadership even if the GOP lost control of the House. After suggesting to Fox News , that he could return to Shreveport and start a lawn care business if Republicans lost the majority, Johnson told CBS News in October that he planned to remain the top House Republican regardless of the election's outcome. His political future had become the subject of private speculation among Republicans, with many lawmakers skeptical he would run for minority leader after a GOP loss. What's next: House Republicans are scheduled to hold leadership elections Nov. 10, with candidates facing a Friday deadline to declare their intentions. The race will be decided by a secret ballot of Republican members, requiring only a majority of the conference to win. Trump could play a pivotal role in determining Johnson's successor, and Republicans are watching closely to see whether he throws his support behind a candidate.
Kate Santaliz ·
Democrats' big night gives them a chance to turn voter anger over high energy prices into legislative action and congressional oversight, but divisions within the party could complicate their plans. Why it matters: This was an energy election . High gasoline prices, record diesel costs, and rising power bills fueled discontent with President Trump and his party. Voters' rebukes of data centers could slow the buildout of power-hungry AI infrastructure. The latest: Stunning Senate wins in red states and House wins nationwide propelled Democrats to control of both chambers, and flipped several governor's mansions. Energy costs were prominent in key races, such as Democrats hitting GOP rivals over farmers' bills in Iowa, Kansas and Ohio. Texas Governor-elect Gina Hinojosa (D) bashed Greg Abbott (R) over his prior embrace of data centers in the state where developers are planning big projects. The data center backlash also featured in Ohio and Pennsylvania, where Sherrod Brown defeated Sen. Jon Husted (R) and Paige Cognetti unseated Rep. Rob Bresnahan (R). Both Republicans faced criticism over their support for data centers. State of play: A detailed Democratic energy agenda hasn't emerged, but there are early clues. Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer tied Republicans to electricity costs in his first comments after returns came in. Likely Speaker-in-waiting Hakeem Jeffries has vowed to quickly push an affordability agenda, with energy as a key pillar. He tasked Reps. Nikki Budzinski (D-Ill.) and Mike Levin (D-Calif.) with leading a "Gas and Utilities Affordability Working Group" that crafted ideas, though they remain under wraps. Another potential source of ideas: Hundreds of proposals backed this year by the 100-plus member House Sustainable Energy and Environment Coalition. Some could gain bipartisan backing, like support for advanced nuclear power. But other areas would be largely symbolic, like restoring some IRA tax credits. Catch up quick: In the Senate, Schumer has offered broad areas of focus around grid development, affordability and consumer protections, and clean energy. He has vowed to restore clean energy tax credits, while pledging "systematic protection for consumers from rising prices." Other ideas include more support for energy efficiency and greater transparency in utility bills. The intrigue: Democrats did not make climate change a midterm messaging focus. Watch whether progressives push to revive an explicitly climate-focused agenda. My thought bubble: Don't expect Democrats to bring back their select committee on climate change, which Republicans disbanded after winning House control in 2022. There has not been a decision announced. But the party's shift away from messaging focused on climate is reason to be doubtful, even as global warming marches on. What's next: The most immediate thing to watch is how the results may affect the politics of the bipartisan permitting deal in the lame duck. Some House progressives have argued that Dems could get a permitting deal more to their liking next year. But backers of the current bill see almost no chance of a political opening to craft a more liberal bill that Trump would sign or could even clear the Senate. The permitting fight has also opened rifts within the Democratic coalition, with multiple unions and the clean energy industry backing the bill, while many environmentalists are undecided or flatly opposed. The debate also highlights broader divisions between the "abundance movement" and progressives who want a harder line against fossil fuels Those divisions could extend well beyond the lame duck permitting fight, influencing future legislative priorities and the policy agendas of presidential hopefuls as 2028 jockeying begins in earnest. The bottom line: One thing already clear is that Democrats are lining up energy-focused oversight of Trump's diesel agreement with Moscow, offshore wind policies and much more. Sign up here for Axios' Future of Energy newsletter.
Ben Geman ·
Democrats will be able to take plenty of messaging votes on health care after their blowout wins Tuesday — but they'll face too many limits and internal disagreements to force all of the big policy changes they want. Why it matters: They'll have a tough time repealing Medicaid cuts or restoring enhanced Affordable Care Act subsidies while President Trump is still in office, and their own divisions will hold them back on other issues. And Medicare for All ? Last night gave the idea a big boost, but don't hold your breath. Friction point: With control of both the Senate and House, Democrats will have powerful new leverage — but that leverage will also expose fault lines. Until now, progressives backing Medicare for All and centrists favoring more incremental changes were united in opposing Trump administration policies and blaming the president and the Republican Congress for the health affordability crisis. They'll try to use their power in the next Congress to promote sweeping changes with an eye toward the 2028 elections while also advancing more piecemeal policies, hoping to force some deals with Republicans. But they'll still face divisions over how to expand the federal government's role in the health system, or how to bend the steep health cost curve. Driving the news: House Democrats have already signaled their opening moves with a 100-hour/100-day agenda agenda that prominently features health policies like reinstating the enhanced ACA tax credits that expired at the end of 2025. There will also be votes to roll back the steep cuts to federal Medicaid spending that Republicans included in their "One Big Beautiful Bill," per an 84-page memo from a health care working group to Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.). Other near-term agenda items include expanding Medicare drug price negotiations to private insurance, restoring withheld National Institutes of Health research funding and ending the use of AI in authorizing certain services in traditional Medicare. Within the first year, the blueprint also envisions votes on Medicare for All, a government-run public insurance option and plans to let many Americans under 65 buy into Medicare. There will also be a heavy dose of oversight, with multiple committees intent on using their subpoena power to examine details of Trump's drug pricing deals and Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s vaccine policies. Reality check: Little of this would reverse the rising cost of care. And Democrats could spend a lot of energy next year playing whack-a-mole trying to target various expenses, like hospital spending, insurance premiums and the cost of insulin. Some policies, like site-neutral hospital payments , could generate billions in new savings to pay for coverage expansions, and even generate some bipartisan support at a time when more lawmakers are fed up with hospital consolidation and prices. There's also growing interest in how surprise billing disputes are driving up costs. But Democrats won't be the only ones looking for fixes. An aggressive Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services under administrator Mehmet Oz is sure to continue pursing fraud and waste in federal health programs and cutting federal spending on subsidies. Between the lines: The biggest winner Tuesday may be the progressive wing of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.). Strengthened by the Senate victory of left-wing Democrat Abdul El-Sayed in the critical swing state of Michigan, the progressives can make a national case for Medicare for All — though the definition may be squishy. Expect many lawmakers to offer assurances that Americans can keep their health care if they want it, with a consensus likely forming around compromises like a Medicare buy-in. Actual dealmaking will largely be driven by big legislative vehicles, like bills to keep the government funded and address the debt ceiling, that could be magnets for health policy changes. There also are certain must-do's, like a "doc fix" to shield physicians from scheduled Medicare reimbursement cuts and a reauthorization of Food and Drug Administration user fees to fund new product reviews. The latter could also be a way for Democrats and Republicans to respond to growing concerns about China challenging U.S. dominance in drug development. What we're watching: Whether a "govern from the center, message from the left" strategy binds a caucus that isn't truly aligned on health care, or whether it quickly exposes rifts between establishment Democrats and the ascendant populist wing.
Adriel Bettelheim ·