• The U.S. and Russian presidents met in Alaska on Friday to discuss a ceasefire for the Ukraine war. It’s the first such meeting since Russia invaded Ukraine in early 2022 and lasted almost three hours. Putin said the two leaders reached an agreement to “pave the path to peace in Ukraine” without giving details, while Trump said there are still outstanding issues.

The highly anticipated meeting between President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin ended Friday night without a clear agreement to end the war in Ukraine.

After talking for nearly three hours, the two leaders held a news conference, where Putin began by saying they reached an agreement to “pave the path to peace in Ukraine” but didn’t offer any details. He added the “root causes” of Moscow’s concerns in Ukraine must to be addressed before a full deal can be reached. 

“I expect that today’s agreements will become a starting point not only for resolving the Ukrainian problem, but also for restoring businesslike, pragmatic relations between Russia and the United States,” Putin said.

Trump followed those remarks and suggested some outstanding issues remain unresolved, but also didn’t go into any specifics.

“There were many, many points that we agreed on—most of them I would say—a couple of big ones that we haven’t quite gotten there,” he said. “We’ve made some headway. So there’s no deal until there’s a deal.”

Trump added that he will confer with the leaders of NATO and Ukraine.

“I’m going to start making a few phone calls and tell them what happened,” he said. “We had an extremely productive meeting, and many points were agreed to and there are just a very few that are left. Some are not that significant. One is probably the most significant, but we have a very good chance of getting there. We didn’t get there, but we have a very good chance of getting there.” 

Trump closed his remarks by saying “we’ll speak to you very soon and probably see you again very soon.”

After the opening statements, the news conference ended without either president taking any questions from reporters.

Ian Bremmer, president of political risk research and consulting firm Eurasia Group, said on X that Putin has gained time and conceded nothing, calling the summit a win, for now, for Russia.

“Putin treated as an equal by president trump, which the Russian president was clearly pleased about,” he added.

Ahead of the meeting, Trump described it as “setting the table,” and told Fox News earlier on Friday that if it goes well, then another meeting would follow soon. Otherwise, he suggested he won’t hold “any more meetings at all, maybe ever,” adding that he’ll be upset if there isn’t “some form of a ceasefire.”

“You have to weave and bob and you don’t know what’s going to happen,” Trump said. “But we’re going to go and find out. I’d like to see a ceasefire.”

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, who may be included in a future round of talks, said before the Trump-Putin meeting that the U.S. can end the war.

“We count on a strong American position,” he said in a video address from Kyiv. “Everything will depend on this.”

Earlier in the week, Zelensky rejected a suggestion from Trump that any ceasefire agreement would require Ukraine and Russia to swap some territory.

On Wednesday, Trump warned that there will be “very severe consequences” if Putin doesn’t agree to stop his war on Ukraine. But that’s after Trump backed off an earlier threat to impose secondary sanctions on countries that import Russian oil. Instead, he agreed to meet Putin in Alaska.

On Friday after his meeting with Putin, Trump didn’t announce or threaten any new sanctions on Russia despite the lack of a deal.

With existing sanctions on Russia and potentially new ones at stake, the eventual outcome of the Trump-Putin summit will create winners and losers in the energy space.

Peace means lower fuel prices for consumers, even as a bearish oil sector turns increasingly pessimistic about the months and year ahead. On the other hand, continued fighting could mean increased sanctions against Russia and buyers of Russian oil, adding pain at the pump while potentially reinvigorating a languishing oil industry and driving higher revenues.

Oil and gas revenue, which tumbled 27% in July from a year ago, is also the main source of the Kremlin’s funds, and Russia is running out of financial resources as the war-related spending deepens its budget deficit.

The National Wealth Fund, a key source of reserves, has dwindled from $135 billion in January 2022 to just $35 billion this past May and is expected to run out later this year.

“Russia’s economy is fast approaching a fiscal crunch that will encumber its war effort,” economist and Russia expert Anders Åslund wrote in a Project Syndicate op-ed last week. “Though that may not be enough to compel Putin to seek peace, it does suggest that the walls are closing in on him.”

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

© Andrew Caballero-Reynolds—AFP via Getty Images

Despite presidential proclamations, Social Security’s financial outlook is more troubled than ever.

A new report from the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB) warns that as Social Security turns 90, it’s “racing towards involvency,” with its retirement trust fund projected to become insolvent by late 2032, just seven years from now. For a typical dual-earner couple retiring just after insolvency, this would mean an $18,400 reduction in annual benefits.

Prior to Trump’s tax cuts, program trustees estimated insolvency around 2034. With the new tax changes, several independent analyses, including by the CRFB, now suggest the trust fund could run dry as early as 2032. When this happens, all beneficiaries would face an immediate and automatic benefit cut of around 24%, unless Congress acts to shore up the system.

Eliminating federal income taxes on Social Security benefits reduces program revenues by approximately $1.05 trillion to $1.45 trillion over a 10-year period (2025–2035). The lower figure is a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimate; the higher end comes from Penn Wharton.

Why the urgency? Social Security faces multiple long-term challenges:

• Demographic crunch: Fewer workers support more retirees. The worker-to-retiree ratio has plunged from 16.5:1 in 1950 to 2.7 as of 2023, straining payroll tax inflows.
• Longer lifespans: Americans are living longer, collecting decades of benefits.
• Declining birthrates and slowing immigration: Both trends reduce future payroll tax contributions.
• Political stalemate: Lawmakers repeatedly deadlock on fixes like raising payroll taxes, increasing the retirement age, or trimming benefits.

What Americans need to know

The headlines about reducing Social Security taxes offer short-term relief, but Americans should also consider the long-term arithmetic. Social Security is not at risk of vanishing outright — payroll taxes will keep partial payments flowing — but absent reforms, retirees could see sharp benefit cuts within a decade. The changes Trump signed will put more money in seniors’ pockets now, but may worsen the program’s finances for their children and grandchildren.

Key takeaways:

• Seniors will pay less (often no) federal tax on Social Security, starting now.
• The solvency crisis is now likely to arrive sooner — with potential benefit cuts by 2032 unless new revenue or reforms are enacted.
• Younger Americans may face higher payroll taxes, later retirement ages, or both, to sustain future benefits.
• The political fight over a permanent fix has just begun, and voters should watch closely for real solutions, not just campaign slogans.

While Social Security remains a safety net for approximately 70 million Americans, it stands at a crossroads — and despite the presidential optimism, its long-term stability depends on tough choices that Washington, so far, has chosen to avoid.

For this story, Fortune used generative AI to help with an initial draft. An editor verified the accuracy of the information before publishing. 

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

© Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

The nation’s capital sued to block President Donald Trump’s takeover of its police department in court on Friday, hours after his administration escalated its intervention into the city’s law enforcement by naming a federal official as the new emergency head of the department.

Washington’s police department chief said that a Trump administration order installing a federal official as its head would upend command structure and be a “dangerous” threat to law and order. Police Chief Pamela Smith’s statement came in a court filing as the city seeks to block the federal takeover of its police department in court.

Washington’s top legal official sought an emergency restraining order in federal court blocking a Trump administration move to put a federal official in charge of its police. District of Columbia Attorney General Brian Schwalb argues the police takeover is illegal and threatens to “wreak operational havoc.”

The lawsuit comes after U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi said Thursday night that Drug Enforcement Administration boss Terry Cole will assume the police chief’s duties and approval authority for any orders issued to officers. It was unclear where the move left the city’s current police chief, Smith, who works for the mayor.

Schwalb argues the new order goes beyond Trump’s authority and implementing it would “sow chaos” in the Metropolitan Police Department. “The administration’s unlawful actions are an affront to the dignity and autonomy of the 700,000 Americans who call D.C. home. This is the gravest threat to Home Rule that the District has ever faced, and we are fighting to stop it,” Schwalb said.

The Justice Department declined to comment on the district’s lawsuit, and a White House spokesperson did not immediately respond to messages seeking comment Friday morning.

The police takeover is the latest move by Trump to test the limits of his legal authorities to carry out his agenda, relying on obscure statutes and a supposed state of emergency to bolster his tough-on-crime message and his plans to speed up the mass deportation of people in the United States illegally.

It also marks one of the most sweeping assertions of federal authority over a local government in modern times. While Washington has grappled with spikes in violence and visible homelessness, the city’s homicide rate ranks below those of several other major U.S. cities, and the capital is not in the throes of the public safety collapse the Trump administration has portrayed.

Chief had agreed to share immigration information

Schwalb had said late Thursday that Bondi’s directive was “unlawful,” arguing it could not be followed by the city’s police force. He wrote in a memo to Smith that “members of MPD must continue to follow your orders and not the orders of any official not appointed by the Mayor,” setting up the legal clash between the heavily Democratic district and the Republican administration.

The district’s attorney general is an elected position and the city’s top legal officer. It’s separate from federal U.S. attorney appointed by the president to serve in Washington, a role now filled by former Fox News Channel host and judge Jeanine Pirro. Trump also appointed Bondi as U.S. attorney general, the nation’s top law enforcement official.

Bondi’s directive came even after Smith had told MPD officers hours earlier to share information with immigration agencies regarding people not in custody, such as someone involved in a traffic stop or checkpoint. The Justice Department said Bondi disagreed with the police chief’s directive because it allowed for continued enforcement of “sanctuary policies,” which generally limit cooperation by local law enforcement with federal immigration officers.

Bondi said she was rescinding that order as well as other MPD policies limiting inquires into immigration status and preventing arrests based solely on federal immigration warrants. All new directives must now receive approval from Cole, the attorney general said.

Washington Mayor Muriel Bowser pushed back Thursday, writing on social media that “there is no statute that conveys the District’s personnel authority to a federal official.”

The president has more power over the nation’s capital than other cities, but D.C. has elected its own mayor and city council since the Home Rule Act was signed in 1973.

Trump is the first president to exert control over the city’s police force since it was passed. The law limits that control to 30 days without congressional approval, though Trump has suggested he’d seek to extend it. Schwalb argues the president’s role is narrow under the law, limited to requiring the mayor to provide police services for federal purposes.

Residents are seeing a significant show of force

A population already tense from days of ramp-up has begun seeing more significant shows of force across the city. National Guard troops watched over some of the world’s most renowned landmarks and Humvees took position in front of the busy main train station. Volunteers helped homeless people leave long-standing encampments — to where was often unclear.

Department of Homeland Security police stood outside Nationals Park during a game Thursday between the Washington Nationals and the Philadelphia Phillies. DEA agents patrolled The Wharf, a popular nightlife area, while Secret Service officers were seen in the Foggy Bottom neighborhood.

Bowser, walking a tightrope between the Republican White House and the constituency of her largely Democratic city, was out of town Thursday for a family commitment in Martha’s Vineyard but would be back Friday, her office said.

The uptick in visibility of federal forces around the city, including in many high-traffic areas, has been striking to residents going about their lives. Trump has the power to take over federal law enforcement for 30 days before his actions must be reviewed by Congress, though he has said he’ll re-evaluate as that deadline approaches.

Officers set up a checkpoint in one of D.C.’s popular nightlife areas, drawing protests. Troops were stationed outside the Union Station transportation hub as the 800 Guard members who have been activated by Trump started in on missions that include monument security, community safety patrols and beautification efforts, the Pentagon said.

Troops will assist law enforcement in a variety of roles, including traffic control posts and crowd control, National Guard Major Micah Maxwell said. The Guard members have been trained in de-escalation tactics and crowd control equipment, Maxwell said.

National Guard troops are a semi-regular presence in D.C., typically being used during mass public events like the annual July 4 celebration. They have regularly been used in the past for crowd control in and around Metro stations.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

© Kayla Bartkowski/Getty Images

The jobs market is kind of going through it right now. The July jobs report stunned Wall Street with a massive downward revision of payrolls in May and June, prompting President Donald Trump’s controversial firing of Erika McEntarfer, the public servant responsible for the data.

Not only did payrolls grow by just 73,000 in July, below Wall Street estimates, but the revisions also showed that the spring had two consecutive months of growth below 20,000. The unemployment rate edged up to 4.2% from 4.1%, as the labor force shrank. Added to this sluggish cocktail is new data showing a remarkable surge in layoffs in July as well.

Employment consultancy Challenger, Gray & Christmas publishes a monthly “job cut” report and the July edition makes for some reading. According to the data, employers across the U.S. announced 62,075 job cuts last month—a 29% increase from June but a stunning 140% surge over July 2024 and a decisive end to the typical midsummer lull in workforce reductions. “Technological updates,” including automation and AI implementation, have led to 20,219 job cuts throughout all of 2025 to date, with another 10,375 explicitly attributed to AI, the report finds, “suggesting a significant acceleration in AI-related restructuring.”

The report says these cuts are “well above average for this month since the pandemic,” and one of the highest July pullbacks in the past decade, evidence that deep, technology-driven changes are rippling through the labor market. For perspective, the average number of job cuts announced in July from 2021 to 2024 was just 23,584. Even against the broader decade’s average of 60,398, this year’s total is notably higher.

Headlines, including in Fortune, have linked surging layoffs to increasing adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) in the enterprise, and Challenger Gray agrees, partially. A bigger impact is cutbacks in government employment as a result of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), previously with Elon Musk in an ambiguous advisory role. A big part of the DOGE cuts, of course, is to encourage increasing AI adoption within the government. “We are seeing the Federal budget cuts implemented by DOGE impact non-profits and healthcare in addition to the government,” said Andrew Challenger, Senior Vice President and labor expert for Challenger, Gray & Christmas. “AI was cited for over 10,000 cuts last month, and tariff concerns have impacted nearly 6,000 jobs this year.”

The AI effect

Beyond the more than 10,000 jobs in July that were eliminated specifically due to AI adoption, an additional 20,219 cuts were attributed to “technological updates” including automation and new software workflows. Challenger Gray said this suggests “a significant acceleration in AI-related restructuring.”

While AI’s influence dominates headlines, federal budget cuts—known as the “DOGE Impact”—are another pillar driving this year’s wave of layoffs. The government sector has announced 292,294 job cuts this year, most at the federal level, as courts greenlight sweeping reductions. These have affected not just direct government roles, but also non-profits and healthcare through downstream funding losses, totaling an additional 13,056 layoffs.

Other economic stressors remain ever-present: Market and economic conditions have accounted for 171,083 cuts year-to-date, inflation and weaker demand have shuttered stores and plants (120,226 layoffs), while restructurings and bankruptcies contributed 66,879 and 35,641 cuts, respectively.

Where the layoff storm is hitting

Job cuts are distributed unevenly across the U.S. The East Coast has seen the most dramatic year-over-year increase, rising 219%, spurred by federal agency reductions in Washington, D.C., as well as steep jumps in states like New Jersey (+362%) and New York (+43%). Out West, California has also been roiled by 114,676 layoffs (+50%). In the South, job cuts climbed 34% overall, with Georgia and Florida seeing spikes of over 70%.

The tech sector tops private-sector losses, with 89,251 cuts year-to-date—a 36% jump from last year—reflecting AI’s disruptive role and ongoing work visa uncertainty. Retail has announced 80,487 layoffs so far in 2025, up 249% from a year ago, as inflation and tariffs push more stores to downsize or close their doors. Non-profit job cuts are up 413%, with mounting operational costs compounded by lost federal support. While the automotive sector’s year-to-date layoffs fell 31% from 2024, July alone saw nearly 5,000 jobs lost due to new tariffs, its most affected month since late last year.

Announced hiring plans provide little relief: just 86,132 new jobs have been planned by U.S. employers through July; this has consistently remained well below pre-pandemic levels. Technology hiring continues to slump, down 58% year-over-year with only 5,510 tech positions announced so far in 2025.

[The headline and text of this report have been corrected with regard to the surge in job cuts related to technological updates and AI, which initially conflated the annual figure with the monthly figure.]

For this story, Fortune used generative AI to help with an initial draft. An editor verified the accuracy of the information before publishing. 

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

© Getty Images

• Tech industry leaders are not usually thinking about the long-term consequences of AI when developing the technology, computer scientist and Nobel laureate Geoffrey Hinton told Fortune. They are instead concerned with immediate research outcomes and short-term profits. Hinton, known as the “godfather of AI,” has long warned about the consequences of AI development without intention and guardrails.

Elon Musk has a moonshot vision of life with AI: The technology will take all our jobs, while a “universal high income” will mean anyone can access a theoretical abundance of goods and services. Provided Musk’s lofty dream could even become a reality, there would, of course, be a profound existential reckoning.

“The question will really be one of meaning,” Musk said at the Viva Technology conference in May 2024. “If a computer can do—and the robots can do—everything better than you … does your life have meaning?” 

But most industry leaders aren’t asking themselves this question about the endgame of AI, according to Nobel laureate and “godfather of AI” Geoffrey Hinton. When it comes to developing AI, Big Tech is less interested in the long-term consequences of the technology—and more concerned with quick results.

“For the owners of the companies, what’s driving the research is short-term profits,” Hinton, a professor emeritus of computer science at the University of Toronto, told Fortune.

And for the developers behind the technology, Hinton said, the focus is similarly on the work immediately in front of them, not on the final outcome of the research itself.

“Researchers are interested in solving problems that have their curiosity. It’s not like we start off with the same goal of, what’s the future of humanity going to be?” Hinton said.

“We have these little goals of, how would you make it? Or, how should you make your computer able to recognize things in images? How would you make a computer able to generate convincing videos?” he added. “That’s really what’s driving the research.” 

Hinton has long warned about the dangers of AI without guardrails and intentional evolution, estimating a 10% to 20% chance of the technology wiping out humans after the development of superintelligence.

In 2023—10 years after he sold his neural network company DNNresearch to Google—Hinton left his role at the tech giant, wanting to freely speak out about the dangers of the technology and fearing the inability to “prevent the bad actors from using it for bad things.”

Hinton’s AI big picture

For Hinton, the dangers of AI fall into two categories: the risk the technology itself poses to the future of humanity, and the consequences of AI being manipulated by people with bad intent.

“There’s a big distinction between two different kinds of risk,” he said. “There’s the risk of bad actors misusing AI, and that’s already here. That’s already happening with things like fake videos and cyberattacks, and may happen very soon with viruses. And that’s very different from the risk of AI itself becoming a bad actor.”

Financial institutions like Ant International in Singapore, for example, have sounded the alarms about the proliferation of deepfakes increasing the threat of scams or fraud. Tianyi Zhang, general manager of risk management and cybersecurity at Ant International, told Fortune the company found that more than 70% of new enrollments in some markets were potential deepfake attempts. 

“We’ve identified more than 150 types of deepfake attacks,” he said.

Beyond advocating for more regulation, Hinton’s call to action to address AI’s potential for misdeeds is a steep battle because each problem with the technology requires a discrete solution, he said. He envisions a provenance-like authentication of videos and images in the future that would combat the spread of deepfakes. 

Just as printers added names to their works after the advent of the printing press hundreds of years ago, media sources will similarly need to find a way to add their signatures to their authentic works. But Hinton said fixes can only go so far.

“That problem can probably be solved, but the solution to that problem doesn’t solve the other problems,” he said.

For the risk AI itself poses, Hinton believes tech companies need to fundamentally change how they view their relationship to AI. When AI achieves superintelligence, he said, it will not only surpass human capabilities, but have a strong desire to survive and gain additional control. The current framework around AI—that humans can control the technology—will therefore no longer be relevant. 

Hinton posits AI models need to be imbued with a “maternal instinct” so it can treat the less-powerful humans with sympathy, rather than desire to control them.

Invoking ideals of traditional femininity, he said the only example he can cite of a more intelligent being falling under the sway of a less intelligent one is a baby controlling a mother.

“And so I think that’s a better model we could practice with superintelligent AI,” Hinton said. “They will be the mothers, and we will be the babies.”

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

© JONATHAN NACKSTRAND—AFP/Getty Images

In a potentially dramatic shift for corporate America and U.S. industrial policy, the Trump administration is actively considering a plan to buy a direct stake in Intel, one of the world’s largest and most strategically important chipmakers and the recent target of fierce criticism from the president himself. These revelations, first reported by Bloomberg, triggered an immediate surge in Intel’s stock—jumping by as much as 8.9% in late Thursday trading as investors responded to the possibility of government intervention and support for the beleaguered firm.

This kind of direct government investment in a tech giant marks a notable departure from the more hands-off approach favored by nearly all previous U.S. administrations. Traditionally, federal support for chipmaking came mainly in the form of grants or subsidies, such as those allocated under the CHIPS Act. Trump’s approach appears to favor direct equity stakes, echoing recent White House moves in other sectors, such as the federal government taking a “golden share” while allowing Nippon Steel to acquire U.S. Steel, and the Department of Defense buying $400 million in preferred shares in MP Materials, a miner of rare-earth minerals.

Motivations and political context

The rationale for this move centers on strengthening U.S. technological independence, with Intel being the only major semiconductor company producing advanced chips at scale inside the U.S. Its planned mega-plant in Ohio—originally announced in 2022 as a $20 billion investment—has faced repeated delays amid struggles to compete with global leaders such as TSMC and Samsung.

The semiconductor sector is increasingly seen as crucial for everything from smartphones to weaponry. Trump’s critics often cite “state capitalism,” but supporters argue direct support for Intel is essential for national security, technological leadership, and economic growth, especially as China, Taiwan, and South Korea pour resources into their own chip industries.

The current situation at Intel

Intel has been reeling from a series of setbacks. In 2024, its stock lost 60% of its value—the sharpest drop in its history. The company missed key opportunities in AI chips, and its foundry business, aimed at producing chips for other firms, is reportedly struggling to win major clients.

Intel’s new CEO, Lip-Bu Tan, was named after the board ousted Pat Gelsinger last year in an effort to accelerate a turnaround. Tan has already scaled back ambitions for the Ohio plant, deferring expansions and taking a cautious, demand-driven approach. His past investments in Chinese semiconductor firms drew pointed criticism after a bombshell Reuters investigation in April—so much so that President Trump publicly called for his resignation last week over allegations that Tan was “highly conflicted” with his ties to Chinese entities. Tan has since held a meeting with Trump at the White House, which Trump called “very interesting,” adding that Tan has “an amazing story.” People familiar with the matter told Bloomberg that the current investment plan stems from those crunch talks.

Previous to Trump’s statement, four former directors of Intel published a commentary exclusive to Fortune, saying the company was likely to retreat as America’s chips champion. After the president’s statement, they advocated for a separation of Intel’s essential foundry business that’s so core to national security.

Former Intel CEO Craig Barrett has since provided a commentary to Fortune about how to save the company, calling Intel “cash poor” and unable to afford “investments in the capacity needed in the future to replace [semiconductor rival] TSMC or even a reasonable fraction of TSMC capacity.” Barrett added that Intel probably needs a cash infusion of roughly $40 billion to be competitive. “Realistically that investment is 100% of the [CHIPS] Act capital grants so unlikely the [U.S. government] is the savior.” Bloomberg subsequently reported that the Trump administration was considering using funds from the CHIPS Act to at least partially fund the purchase of an equity stake in Intel, citing people familiar with the matter.

The White House and Intel did not respond to Fortune’s requests for comment.

For this story, Fortune used generative AI to help with an initial draft. An editor verified the accuracy of the information before publishing. 

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

© Alex Wroblewski—Bloomberg/Getty Images

When Terrence Dwyer received a knock on his door and a flyer for a solar panel system small enough to fit on his deck, he was quickly sold. Solar systems that plug into regular wall outlets have been popular in Europe for years and are gaining traction in the U.S. for their affordability and simple installation.

“We thought absolutely, let’s do this right away,” said Dwyer, who lives in Oakland, California.

These small-scale solar systems could become attractive to more homeowners now that President Donald Trump’s sweeping budget-and-policy package will scrap residential rooftop solar tax credits and may shift interest to cheaper alternatives. Even before the GOP bill passed, manufacturers of the smaller systems known as plug-in or balcony solar were seeing increased demand and other positive signs such as a new Utah law streamlining regulations for homeowners to buy and install them. The systems about the size of a door haven’t been as widely adopted in the U.S. as in Europe because of lack of awareness, patchwork utility rules and limited availability.

The $2,000 plug-in solar system installed on Dwyer’s backyard deck in March consists of two 400 watt panels, an inverter, a smart meter and a circuit breaker. It saves him around $35 per month on his power bill because he is consuming less energy from the grid, but he said reducing his carbon footprint was his primary motivation.

“We like the environmental benefits of solar and wanted to engage with solar in some fashion,” Dwyer said.

Had Dwyer opted for rooftop solar, he would have paid $20,000 for the system and $30,000 to upgrade his roof to support the panels.

Installing a plug-in solar system requires some homework. What power companies let customers do with energy-generating equipment varies, which is why prospective purchasers should check their utility’s policies first. Building permits might be required depending on the municipality. Some systems can be self-installed, while others may require an electrician. For example, some kits have meters that must be wired into a home’s circuit breaker.

Removing hurdles for plug-in solar

Dwyer bought his system from Bright Saver, a nonprofit company in California that advocates for plug-in solar. In addition to the type Dwyer bought, the company also offers a smaller model costing $399 that recently sold out in six days.

“The interest and demand have been overwhelming,” said Cora Stryker, a founder of Bright Saver. “It is clear that we are hitting a nerve — many Americans have wanted solar for a long time but have not had an option that is feasible and affordable for them until now.”

Kevin Chou, another founder of Bright Saver, said wider adoption of the systems in the U.S. has been hindered by utility policies that create uncertainty about whether they’re allowed and a lack of state and local policies to make clear what rules apply.

Some utilities contacted by The Associated Press say plug-in solar systems require the same interconnection applications as rooftop panels that send electricity back to the wider network. But Steven Hegedus, an electrical engineering professor at University of Delaware, said he doesn’t understand why a utility would need to require an interconnection agreement for plug-in solar because, unlike rooftop systems, they are designed to prevent energy from flowing to the grid.

Still, if in doubt, a customer should follow their utility’s policy.

During the early days of plug-in solar’s growth, some opposition from utilities is likely since customers are buying less energy, said Robert Cudd, a research analyst at the California Center for Sustainable Communities at the University of California, Los Angeles.

“Utilities really prefer everyone being a predictable and generous consumer of the electricity they sell,” Cudd said.

This year, Utah enacted a novel law supporting plug-in solar by exempting certain small-scale systems from interconnection agreements and establishing safety requirements such as being certified by a nationally recognized testing organization such as Underwriters Laboratories. It appears to be the only state that’s passed legislation supporting plug-in solar, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

Republican state Rep. Raymond Ward, who sponsored the legislation, said the smaller systems allow people to better manage where their energy comes from and what they pay.

“Europe has these things. You can go buy them and they work and people want them. There is no reason why we shouldn’t have them here in the United States,” Ward said.

Bright Saver says they are lobbying other states for similar legislation.

Alexis Abramson, dean of the University of Columbia Climate School, also applauded Utah’s move.

“We actually need more localities, more states putting in allowances for this type of equipment,” she said.

Plug-in solar availability and savings potential

Some questions remain about how much customers could save. Severin Borenstein, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley’s Haas School of Business, said the cost of some portable solar systems in the U.S. would make it hard for customers to come out ahead on their utility bills over the time they own them. He estimates the price of a $2,000 system in the U.S. works out to paying about $0.20 a kilowatt-hour over a 25-year period, which only saves people money if they have high utility costs. By comparison, Borenstein said the cost of systems sold in Europe, typically around $600, is equivalent to paying about $0.05 or $0.06 per kilowatt-hour over 25 years.

Baltimore resident Craig Keenan said saving money was only part of why he installed one of the smaller Bright Saver models on his balcony in July.

“I’m interested in renewable energy because the amount of carbon emissions that we produce as a species is very, very unsustainable for our world,” he said.

He said he expects the system will save him about $40 per year on utility bills, so it would take him about 10 years to recoup the cost of the kit.

Keenan, a mechanical engineer, said installation took him 10 to 15 minutes.

“I think anyone can install this,” he said. “It’s not complicated. It doesn’t require a technical degree.”

Other companies selling plug-in solar kits include Texas-based Craftstrom. It has sold about 2,000 systems in the U.S. since 2021, mostly in California, Texas and Florida. The company’s basic kits contain a solar panel that can fit in a backyard or other sunny space, along with equipment to maintain and regulate the flow of energy including an inverter and smart meter.

Kenneth Hutchings, Craftstrom’s chief revenue officer, said their U.S. sales rose this year even before the passage of the GOP tax bill, and he expects demand for plug-in solar to increase further as federal rooftop solar credits expire.

The company advises customers to notify their power company before installation, but it has “never had any pushback from any utility,” said Michael Scherer, one of the founders of Craftstrom.

China-based EcoFlow plans to begin selling plug-in solar systems in Utah and expand to other states if supportive legislation is passed, said Ryan Oliver, a company spokesperson.

“This is an example of where technology is sort of ahead of the regulators,” Oliver said, adding: “As this rolls out to more of a nationwide product, we expect it will become more mainstream as people understand it better.”

___

Associated Press video journalist Mingson Lau in Baltimore contributed to this report.

___

The Associated Press’ climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

© AP Photo/David J. Phillip

A library book has been returned nearly 82 years after it was borrowed from the San Antonio Public Library. It came with a letter noting that “Grandma won’t be able to pay for it anymore.”

The book is “Your Child, His Family, and Friends” by marriage and family counselor Frances Bruce Strain. It was checked out in July 1943 and returned this past June from a person in Oregon, the library said in a news release.

“After the recent death of my father, I inherited a few boxes of books he left behind,” the person wrote in a letter that was shared by the library on Instagram and signed with the initials P.A.A.G.

The book was a guide for parents on helping their children navigate personal relationships. It was checked out when the person’s father was 11 years old.

“The book must have been borrowed by my Grandmother, Maria del Socorro Aldrete Flores (Cortez),” the person wrote. “In that year, she transferred to Mexico City to work at the US Embassy. She must have taken the book with her, and some 82 years later, it ended up in my possession.”

The book had received write-ups in various newspapers at the time. The Cincinnati Enquirer described it in June 1943 as a “complete guidebook to the personal relationships of the child with his family and the outside world.” The New York Times noted a month later that Strain was a psychologist and mother of two who was “best known for her wise, sensitive, but unsentimental presentation of sex education.”

The person who returned the book wrote in the letter: “I hope there is no late fee for it because Grandma won’t be able to pay for it anymore.”

The library said in a news release that it eliminated overdue fines in 2021. The inside cover of the book was stamped with the warning that the fine for overdue books was three cents a day. Not accounting for inflation, the penalty would amount to nearly $900.

Three cents in July 1943 amounts to 56 cents in today’s money, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Inflation Calculator. That would add up to more than $16,000.

The library noted that the book is in “good condition.” It’ll be on display in the city’s central library through August. It will then be donated to the Friends of San Antonio Public Library and sold to benefit the library.

Eight decades may seem like a long time for an overdue library book, but it’s nowhere near the record. Guinness World Records says the most overdue library book was returned to Sidney Sussex College, University of Cambridge, England, in 1956.

It was borrowed in 1668, some 288 years earlier. No fine was extracted.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

© Getty Images

• President Donald Trump’s tariffs haven’t hiked prices as much as expected, so far, but inflation in the U.S. is still ticking higher, representing an obstacle for highly anticipated rate cuts from the Federal Reserve. Meanwhile, the effect of the tariffs on the rest of the world could be slightly disinflationary, according to Capital Economics.

As American consumers and the Federal Reserve grapple with President Donald Trump’s tariffs and their effect on inflation, the rest of the global economy may actually see some price relief.

In the U.S., tariffs haven’t raised prices as much as anticipated, so far, but inflation is still ticking higher, representing an obstacle for highly anticipated rate cuts from the Federal Reserve.

The latest consumer price index (CPI) increased at an annual rate of 2.7% in July, below forecasts for a 2.8% gain and flat versus June’s pace. But the core CPI still accelerated to 3.1% from 2.9%, and Capital Economics expects the impact of tariffs to gradually ramp up during the remainder of the year.

Outside the U.S., however, the picture looks different.

“We doubt that U.S. tariffs will significantly affect inflation in the rest of the world, but if anything, the effect could be mildly disinflationary,” Capital Economics’ Simon MacAdam and Ariane Curtis wrote in a note on Wednesday.

That’s because most countries have not retaliated against Trump’s tariffs with duties of their own on U.S. goods, they explained. And in some cases, levies on U.S. imports have actually come down.

For example, in the trade deal Trump negotiated with Indonesia, the Southeast Asian country agreed to eliminate tariffs on nearly all U.S. goods. But the U.S. has imposed a 19% duty on Indonesian imports.

“What’s more, the hit to global demand should dampen price pressures, at the margin, while a redirection of Chinese exports away from the U.S. to other markets could reduce import prices,” Capital Economics added.

By contrast, more inflationary pressure looks headed for American consumers. While companies haven’t been passing on much of the tariff-related costs, that can’t last much longer, MacAdam and Curtis warned.

Retailers have been willing to absorb the initial cost of tariffs by sacrificing their margins, and surveys indicate U.S. companies have seen significant cost hikes—unlike in the rest of the world.

“With many trade deals agreed, there is now greater certainty about where tariffs will end up, which should allow retailers to finally raise their prices,” they added.

Deflation in China

Not all economies will experience tariffs the same way. In fact, China will suffer a more severe impact as U.S. tariffs on Beijing are steeper than on most other countries.

That represents a deflationary shock for the world’s second largest economy, according to Robin Brooks, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and former chief economist at the Institute of International Finance.

China’s economy is already flirting with deflation, as consumer prices have been anemic while producer prices have been falling. The trade war should worsen the situation.

China’s exports to the U.S. have plunged in recent months while they have jumped elsewhere, Brooks wrote in a Substack post last month. He thinks China is using nearby countries that face lower duties to transship goods to the U.S. while also ramping up exports to other non-U.S. markets as a final destination.

Both put deflationary pressure on China. Transshipping exports via third countries adds to transportation costs and lowers profits for Chinese companies. Meanwhile, exporting more goods to other markets requires prices to come down to generate demand.

“In either case, the profitability of Chinese exporters is adversely hit,” Brooks explained. “For a country like China, which is massively export-dependent and already teetering on deflation, that’s a worrying prospect.”

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

© Getty Images

• Billionaire OpenAI CEO Sam Altman has a message for new Gen Z graduates struggling to gain a footing in the entry-level job market: “This is probably the most exciting time to be starting out one’s career, maybe ever.” But as the class of 2025 scrolls through LinkedIn for new postings, they’re facing a tougher reality—AI has stolen most of their opportunities to kick-start their nine-to-fives. 

In what seems like a dumpster fire of an early career job market for Gen Z—filled with ghost jobs and AI agents—Sam Altman said it’s actually “the most exciting time to be starting out one’s career, maybe ever.”  

“I think that [a] 25-year-old in Mumbai can probably do more than any previous 25-year-old in history could,” Altman said on an episode of the People by WTF podcast with Nikhil Kamath.

“I felt the same way when I was 25, and the tools then were not as amazing as the tools we have now … A 25-year-old then could do things that no 25-year-old in history before would have been able to, and now that’s happening in a huge way.”

But Gen Z isn’t experiencing the same exciting job market as Altman describes. Entry-level positions are decreasing for ambitious, fresh-faced graduates, as employers expect rookies to come in fully skilled. ChatGPT and AI agents are taking over junior staffers’ beginner skills that Gen Zers use to kick-start their journey up the corporate ladder, and the dream of landing a six-figure tech job after college is becoming a distant reality. Some Gen Zers are even seeking their first jobs at Chipotle instead. 

As a result of skyrocketing tuition costs and a depressing white-collar job market, Gen Z’s situation is so dire that 4.3 million young people are now NEETs: not in education, employment, or training. 

Altman even says he’s envious of Gen Z’s career options today 

Even though many young job-seekers are in despair, the tech leader said he’s envious of young people because his early career jobs will look “boring” by comparison. Comparatively, he said, Gen Z will be exploring the solar system and lock down jobs with sky-high salaries. 

“If I were 22 right now and graduating college, I would feel like the luckiest kid in all of history,” he added.

The billionaire cofounder compared the current AI revolution to how computers changed the world of work when he was growing up. 

“People are now limited only by the quality and creativity of their ideas,” the OpenAI CEO said, adding that advances in AI are transforming programming, accelerating scientific discovery, and enabling entirely new kinds of software.

But still, in a job market where the first rung of the ladder is disappearing thanks to AI, Altman’s optimism is a reminder that Gen Z’s success will be determined by how they integrate the tools into their next role.

The split of tech founders on AI 

Altman isn’t alone in his optimism about AI. Billionaire Microsoft cofounder Bill Gates said using AI to improve productivity in the workplace could open up more jobs in the future, despite there being some career “dislocation” for entry-level graduates.

In addition, AMD CEO Lisa Su doesn’t believe AI is out to cause massive job losses, but admits anxiety around the technology’s innovation is a natural feeling. 

On the flip side, other tech leaders have warned of AI’s threat to entry-level roles and the white-collar job market altogether. Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei said AI could wipe out roughly 50% of all entry-level white-collar jobs within five years, causing unemployment to spike as high as 20%. 

LinkedIn’s chief economic opportunity officer Aneesh Raman also echoed that sentiment. Raman said that AI is increasingly threatening the types of jobs that historically have served as stepping stones for young workers who are just beginning their careers. 

“While the technology sector is feeling the first waves of change, reflecting AI’s mass adoption in this field, the erosion of traditional entry-level tasks is expected to play out in fields like finance, travel, food, and professional services, too,” he said.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

© Justin Sullivan—Getty Images

The electrical grid is the backbone of modern America. It powers everything from homes and hospitals to data centers and electric vehicles. But according to a detailed analysis from Bank of America Institute, the grid is straining under the pressures of surging demand, chronically aging infrastructure, and a growing East-West divide, leaving 31% of transmission lines and an even more alarming 46% of distribution infrastructure “beyond its useful life.” The implications are stark: more outages, higher prices, and a heightened risk of dysfunction at both ends of the grid.

The most alarming fact from BofA’s deep dive is just how much of the grid is overdue for replacement. In 2024, 67% of utility spending on transmission and distribution—$63 billion—went to replacements and upgrades, dwarfing the $32 billion allocated to new lines and substations. This lopsided investment signals a network fighting to keep up, not just with basic maintenance, but with the exponential strain of new users and devices.

The consequences are already being felt by everyday Americans: Power outages are occurring more frequently, with transmission failures climbing steadily.

Data from the North American Electric Reliability Corp. (NERC) points to a clear decline in grid reliability, leaving many consumers with a system less dependable than the one their parents knew at the start of the millennium. Put simply, BofA says, “Grid reliability is worse today than in the early 2000s.”

A surge in demand—from EVs to AI

Why is demand rising so sharply? The BofA report identifies four main forces pushing load growth into uncharted territory, projecting that overall U.S. electrical demand will grow at a 2.5% compound annual rate through 2035, far outpacing the 0.5% annual growth seen in the previous decade.

First is building electrification. As cities across states such as California, Massachusetts, and Colorado ban fossil fuels in new construction, homeowners are using far more electricity for heating and hot water.

Second is the boom in data centers, supercharged by the thirsty AI sector. In a world driven by cloud computing, artificial intelligence, and streaming services, data centers are emerging as “super-consumers” of energy. These facilities already account for up to 2% of global electricity, but BofA projects them growing into the 15% to 23% range annually by 2030.

Third, after years of offshoring, American manufacturing is in comeback mode. Driven by state and federal policy support, construction spending on factory infrastructure hit $234 billion in 2024—a 21% jump over the prior year, and double the average of previous years.

Finally, electric vehicles are changing the game for both residential and public grid demand. Nearly 5 million EVs are already on American roads, a figure that represents 2% of the total passenger vehicle fleet. BofA notes EVs were 9.7% of new vehicle sales in 2024, and even if this figure remains flat, the number of EVs in use will rise at a roughly 15% compound annual growth rate to 22 million on the road by 2030. Not only are these vehicles likely to be charged in residential areas, which have little spare capacity at substations, but BofA notes more public EV charging stations will be needed, and “that will require significant grid investments.”

If every U.S. household went “all-electric”—replacing gas-powered heating, hot water, and vehicles—the monthly consumption would triple, from 875 kWh to 2,803 kWh. Such a seismic shift would overwhelm large swaths of the existing grid without massive upgrades.

Geography matters: West makes, East takes

A less-discussed but critical issue is the split in production and consumption between the East Coast, the West Coast, and the Southwest. While the grid is a national asset, its parts don’t always match up with population centers. Most renewable energy is generated in states including Texas, California, and Oklahoma, and their neighbors. These “energy-producing states” deliver over half the country’s wind and solar power, yet the consumption hot spots are overwhelmingly on the East Coast.

This geographic mismatch means long-distance transmission lines are under mounting pressure. Many are aging, and few are being replaced at the pace required. Long-distance, high-voltage transmission lines—already old and unreliable—must bridge this gap, compounding the strain as demand grows.

Outages and reliability: Why Americans should care

The net result of all these factors? More outages and less reliability. Even as utilities invest almost $100 billion a year in basic infrastructure, BofA’s analysis shows customer satisfaction is likely to hit new lows if the current pace of replacement and expansion isn’t accelerated. Transmission outages have become more frequent, and the resiliency of the grid—especially against weather events or cyberattacks—is declining.

Notably, the Department of Energy’s National Transmission Needs Study warns U.S. transmission capacity must grow 64% by 2040 to meet “moderate” load forecasts, assuming the country continues targeting ambitious clean energy adoption.

While national prices for electricity have stayed mostly stable after inflation adjustments, California offers a glimpse of what happens when infrastructure stress meets rising costs. Over the past seven years, retail electricity prices in the Golden State have soared by 68%, now averaging nearly twice the national norm. This has led to a 5% drop in demand as consumers and businesses adjust, highlighting the real-world elasticity of energy use in response to price spikes and reliability concerns.

The political response: Deregulation vs. investment

Policymakers are keenly aware of the tightrope the grid is now walking. On the first day of his term, President Trump declared a national energy emergency, aimed at streamlining infrastructure permitting and accelerating grid modernization—especially for traditional energy projects like natural gas. While this marked a pivot from the climate-focused policies of the previous administration, funding for the grid remains bipartisan, in BofA’s view: The Grid Deployment Office, formed under President Biden, awarded $14.5 billion in grants through 2023 and 2024, matched by $36.9 billion in private investment.

Artificial intelligence, which powers everything from chatbots to autonomous vehicles, poses a unique challenge. The International Energy Agency estimates that AI servers used around 63 TWh of electricity in 2024, or 15% of total data center demand—a number anticipated to surpass 300 TWh by 2030 as the technology scales. But most data up to now has been used on AI training, whereas running models, also known as “AI inference,” or Gen Z’s well-known love of talking to their chatbots all day as a kind of intimate companion, is projected to overtake it in coming years.

The verdict from BofA’s research is clear: Without sweeping upgrades and expansion, America’s grid will buckle under the weight of growing demand and obsolete hardware. “Gigawatt-scale growth” will necessitate increased investment not just in new capacity, but in modernizing transmission and distribution channels. Until then, expect more outages—and a widening gap between where power is produced and where it’s needed most.

For this story, Fortune used generative AI to help with an initial draft. An editor verified the accuracy of the information before publishing. 

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

© Getty Images

U.S. stocks are hanging around their record levels on Friday as Wall Street heads toward the finish of another winning week.

The S&P 500 edged down by 0.1% from the all-time high it set the day before, but it’s still on track to close its fourth winning week in the last five. The Dow Jones Industrial Average was up 86 points, or 0.2%, as of 10:10 a.m. Eastern time, and flirting with its record set in December. The Nasdaq composite slipped 0.2%, hurt by losses for tech stocks.

The U.S. stock market set records this week as expectations built that the Federal Reserve will deliver a cut to interest rates at its next meeting in September. Lower rates can boost investment prices and the economy by making it cheaper for U.S. households and businesses to borrow to buy houses, cars or equipment, but they also risk worsening inflation.

A disappointing report about inflation at the U.S. wholesale level on Thursday made traders pare back bets for coming cuts to interest rates, but they’re still overwhelmingly expecting them. Such anticipation has sent Treasury yields notably lower in the bond market, and they held there following a mixed set of updates on the economy on Friday.

One said shoppers boosted their spending at U.S. retailers last month, as economists expected, while another said that manufacturing in New York state unexpectedly grew. A third said industrial production across the country shrank last month, when economists were looking for modest growth.

Another report suggested sentiment among U.S. consumers is worsening because of worries about inflation, when economists expected to see a slight improvement.

“Overall, consumers are no longer bracing for the worst-case scenario for the economy feared in April,” when President Trump announced his stunning set of worldwide tariffs, according to Joanne Hsu, director of the University of Michigan’s surveys of consumers. “However, consumers continue to expect both inflation and unemployment to deteriorate in the future.”

On Wall Street, UnitedHealth Group jumped 11.4% after famed investor Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway said it bought nearly 5 million shares of the insurer during the spring, valued at $1.57 billion. Buffett is known for trying to buy good stocks at affordable prices, and UnitedHealth’s halved for the year by the end of July because of a run of struggles.

Berkshire Hathaway’s own stock added 0.1%.

On the losing end of Wall Street was Applied Materials, which fell 11.7% even though it reported better results for the latest quarter than analysts expected. The focus was on the company’s forecast for a drop in revenue during the current quarter.

Its products help manufacture semiconductors and advanced displays, and CEO Gary Dickerson pointed to a “dynamic macroeconomic and policy environment, which is creating increased uncertainty and lower visibility in the near term, including for our China business.”

Sandisk fell 3.7% despite reporting a profit for the latest quarter that blew past analysts’ expectations. Investors focused instead on the data storage company’s forecast for profit in the current quarter, which came up short of Wall Street’s.

In stock markets abroad, Japan’s Nikkei 225 jumped 1.7% after the government said its economy grew at a better-than-expected pace in the latest quarter.

Stock indexes rose 0.8% in Shanghai but fell 1% in Hong Kong after data showed China’s economy may have slowed in July under pressure from uncertainty surrounding Trump’s tariffs.

“Chinese economic activity slowed across the board in July, with retail sales, fixed asset investment, and value added of industry growth all reaching the lowest levels of the year. After a strong start, several months of cooling momentum suggest that the economy may need further policy support,” ING Economics said in a market commentary.

European stock indexes were mixed ahead of a meeting later in the day between Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin, which could dictate where the war in Ukraine is heading.

In the bond market, the yield on the 10-year Treasury was holding at 4.29%, where it was late Thursday. The two-year Treasury yield, which more closely tracks expectations for Fed action, eased to 3.72% from 3.74%.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

© Daniel Zuchnik—WireImage

After shepherding through President Donald Trump’s ambitious blockchain agenda, the 29-year-old Bo Hines announced last week that he was stepping down from his senior White House position after almost seven months. Not surprisingly, private sector companies are now jostling to add Hines to their ranks.  

In an interview with Fortune from a Times Square hotel, where Hines was staying as he traversed New York City for a day of meetings and job interviews, the former Yale wide receiver said that he’s already received more than 50 job offers since he officially vacated his role last Friday. He is seriously considering five, all in the crypto sector, with no immediate plans to return to a political career, he said. 

At the White House, Hines helped notched an array of accomplishments, including a stablecoin bill signed into law and a series of blockchain-related executive orders, but his decision to leave marked an abrupt end to his short-lived tenure in the Trump administration.

“Coming out of a public servant role, I care deeply about still positioning the U.S. to be the leader here,” Hines said. “Entering back in the private sector, I feel as if I can still have a large impact on how all this unfolds over the course of the next decade.”

The crypto capital

Before Hines started as the new administration’s executive director of the President’s Council of Advisers on Digital Assets back in January, Hines was a relative unknown on the national political scene. 

He had unsuccessfully run as a Republican candidate for Congress in North Carolina twice and cofounded an investment firm called Nxum Capital with his father, Todd Hines, and another partner. Bo Hines steered the operation’s political unit, leading one of its investments—an “anti-woke” media organization called Today is America that partnered with get-out-the-vote efforts for the Trump campaign. Nxum also donated $1 million worth of billboard advertisements to MAGA Inc., one of the largest Trump-supporting super PACs.  

Though Hines dabbled in crypto, an interest he picked up after playing in the college football 2014 Bitcoin St. Petersburg Bowl, he became one of the highest-profile figures in the industry following Trump’s appointment. The new president had promised to implement a blockchain-friendly agenda, choosing Hines and venture investor David Sacks to lead the initiative. 

In his role, Hines met with dozens of blockchain leaders from companies like Andreessen Horowitz, Ripple, and Bank of New York Mellon, serving as a bridge between the private sector, Congress, and various agencies. Speaking from the Midtown Manhattan hotel at 10 a.m. with a lemon-lime Celsius in hand, Hines joked that the energy drink fueled the White House’s crypto agenda, which has already produced new stablecoin legislation and a Bitcoin strategic reserve.

“My number one objective was to deliver on the president’s promise to make the U.S. the crypto capital world,” Hines told Fortune. “I think for the most part, we’re there.” 

Still, he acknowledged that the work is not yet done. Congress is still debating wide-ranging legislation that would establish further regulations for how crypto markets operate. (He declined to give a percentage chance that it would pass, saying he thought “they will get it done.”) Patrick Witt, who played quarterback at Yale before Hines started at the university and served as Hines’ deputy in the White House, is taking over his role. 

Next steps

Given his high-profile Trump administration role, Hines will have his pick of jobs coming out of the public sector. He told Fortune he’s not planning to return full-time to Nxum Capital, though he remains on the cap table and will “contribute when necessary.” He also ruled out running for a North Carolina Senate seat after Republican Thom Tillis announced he would not seek reelection, noting that Trump is already supporting Republican National Committee chair Michael Whatley. 

While Hines will stay on in the White House as a special employee—a part-time role—he will only focus on artificial intelligence and not touch crypto. That allows him to pursue a career in the sector. He declined to name the companies he’s considering working for, only adding that he’s hoping to have “clarity” in the next week or so and is pursuing executive-level roles. 

For now, he’s planning to spend more time in his home in Charlotte, North Carolina, with his wife and young son and keep a less chaotic schedule. “I can now actually exercise again,” he joked to Fortune, “instead of just intermittent fasting all day.” 

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

© Kent Nishimura—Bloomberg/Getty Images

• The tooth fairy is paying 14% less than they did last year, marking the biggest decline in 27 years. The average child received $5.01 per tooth in the U.S., which was the lowest amount of any tracked country.

Times are tight for the mythical beings of childhood. Santa Claus will likely be bringing fewer toys this holiday season, as tariffs and economic uncertainty make his helpers more budget conscious. Now, even the tooth fairy is cutting back.

Delta Dental, for the past 27 years, has been tracking how much the tooth fairy leaves under children’s pillows as they lose teeth. And the most recent study shows an average price per tooth of $5.01 in the U.S. That’s a 14% decline from last year’s $5.84—the biggest on record.

In addition, the tooth fairy isn’t giving additional gifts as frequently. Last year, 21% of kids said they’d received “something else” along with the cash. This year, that number has fallen to 16%.

“Since 1998, Delta Dental has tracked Tooth Fairy giving as a timely reminder for families that good oral health is an essential part of a child’s overall well-being,” Delta Dental wrote in a press release.

The 2025 drop also means that for the first time since 2000, the S&P index has outperformed the Tooth Fairy Index (of rises and drops in the amount left per tooth). This marks the first year the real-world market has outperformed the tooth fairy.

Tooth prices have still seen big gains in the 21st Century. In 2000, a tooth went for a little less than $2, meaning it has seen a gain of more than 150% in that time.

Curious what the tooth fairy pays in other countries? (Spoiler: Kids in other countries are doing better than American children.) Here’s the current average.

Japan – ¥ 752 ($5.12)

Ireland – € 4.80 ($5.62)

Spain – € 4.80 ($5.62)

England – £ 3.97 ($5.39)

Canada – $ 7.13 ($5.17)

Brazil – R$ 28.68 ($5.31)

Costa Rica – ₡ 2535.44 ($5.02)

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

© Elva Etienne—Getty Images

The security firm of former U.S. Navy Seal Erik Prince will soon deploy nearly 200 personnel from various countries to Haiti as part of a one-year deal to quell gang violence there, a person with knowledge of the plans said Thursday.

The deployment by Vectus Global is meant to help the government of Haiti recover vast swaths of territory seized in the past year and now controlled by heavily armed gangs, said the person, speaking to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity to discuss the plans.

The company, which provides logistics, infrastructure, security and defense, is run by Prince, a major donor to U.S. President Donald Trump. Prince previously founded the controversial security firm Blackwater.

The deployment was first reported by Reuters.

Vectus Global also will assume a long-term role in advising Haiti’s government on how to restore revenue collection capabilities once the violence subsides, the person said.

In June, Fritz Alphonse Jean, then-leader of Haiti’s transitional presidential council, confirmed that the government was using foreign contractors. He declined to identify the firm or say how much the deal was worth.

Romain Le Cour Grandmaison, head of Haiti Observatory at the Global Initiative Against Transnational Organized Crime, said the operations would violate U.S. law unless the U.S.-based private military company had permission from the U.S. government to work in Haiti.

“In the absence of a coherent, jointly led Haitian and international strategy, the use of private firms is more likely to fragment authority and sovereignty than to advance resolution of the crisis,” he said.

A Trump administration official said the U.S. government has no involvement with the hiring of Vectus Global by the Haitian government. The U.S. government is not funding this contract or exercising any oversight, said the official, who requested anonymity to discuss the situation.

The office of Haiti’s prime minister did not return a message for comment, nor did members of Haiti’s transitional presidential council.

The private contractors, which will come from the United States, Europe and other regions, are expected to advise and support Haiti’s National Police and a U.N.-backed mission led by Kenyan police officers that is struggling to suppress gang violence.

The U.N.-backed mission has 991 personnel, far less than the 2,500 envisioned, and some $112 million in its trust fund — about 14% of the estimated $800 million needed a year, according to a recent U.N. report.

The upcoming deployment of private contractors comes after the recent appointment of André Jonas Vladimir Paraison as the country’s new police director general.

Paraison once served as head of security for Haiti’s National Palace and was involved in a new task forced created earlier this year made up of certain police units and private contractors. The task force has operated outside the oversight of Haiti’s National Police and employed the use of explosive drones, which some human rights activists have criticized.

Diego Da Rin, an analyst with the International Crisis Group, said that while there’s an obvious need for more anti-gang operations, “there is a risk of escalating the conflict without having enough personnel to extinguish the fires that Viv Ansanm can ignite in many places.”

Viv Ansanm is a powerful gang federation created in September 2023 that saw the merging of gangs, including G-9 and G-Pèp — once bitter enemies. The United States designated it as a foreign terrorist organization earlier this year.

The gang federation was responsible for coordinating a series of large-scale attacks early last year that included raids on Haiti’s two biggest prisons that led to the release of some 4,000 inmates. Viv Ansanm also forced the closure of Haiti’s main international airport for nearly three months, with the violence eventually prompting then-Prime Minister Ariel Henry to resign.

Jimmy Chérizier, a leader of Viv Ansanm and best known as Barbecue, recently threatened Paraison.

“Viv Ansanm has a military might that they don’t always show,” said Da Rin, the analyst.

At least 1,520 people were killed and more than 600 injured from April to the end of June across Haiti. More than 60% of the killings and injuries occurred during operations by security forces against gangs, with another 12% blamed on self-defense groups, according to the United Nations Integrated Office in Haiti.

Gang violence also has displaced some 1.3 million people in recent years.

___

Associated Press writer Joshua Boak in Washington contributed to this report.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

© Agencia Press South—Getty Images

• Atari cofounder Nolan Bushnell turned down his former employee, the late Steve Jobs, when he was offered to buy a third of Apple for $50,000 in the 1970s. With the iPhone titan now standing at $3.1 trillion, the video gaming pioneer missed out on making $1 trillion from his relatively small investment. But he isn’t troubling himself with regret, reasoning he might not be as happy—and Apple may not have been as successful—if he accepted the deal. 

Many people may be kicking themselves for not buying Bitcoin or investing in Nvidia stock sooner—but few will have missed out on a bigger deal than Atari cofounder Nolan Bushnell, the first Silicon Valley boss of the late Steve Jobs. 

A young Jobs offered the gaming mogul an eye-popping deal: buy a third of Apple for just $50,000. What might come as a shock to many is that Bushnell turned it down.

Apple has since grown into a $3.1 billion sensation with over a billion iPhones sitting in people’s back pockets, and over 100 million Mac users worldwide—and if Bushnell had taken the deal, his cut would have made him $1 trillion today. 

But Bushnell isn’t crying over the missed opportunity 

Bushnell first witnessed Jobs’ potential as a businessman in the 1970s, when the college dropout joined Atari as a technician and games designer before moving into entrepreneurship. 

Jobs was an essential engineer “solving problems in the field” at Atari, Bushnell recalled, but his leadership mentality also meant some tension at the office. The Atari cofounder strategically employed Jobs during nightshifts, knowing that Wozniak would also join and help out on projects like the brick-breaking game “Breakout.” But Jobs would also barge into his office to tell Bushnell that the other employees weren’t good at soldering, offering to instruct them. Bushnell recognized that Jobs was a genius—albiet, a complicated one. 

“He was a difficult person,” Bushnell told ABC News in 2015. “He was very smart. Often he was the smartest person in the room, and he would tell everybody that. It’s generally not a good social dynamic.”

But years later, the tech pioneer isn’t quietly simmering over his choice to reject the offer.

“I could have owned a third of Apple computer for $50,000, and I turned it down,” Bushnell said in the interview. “I’ve got a wonderful family, I’ve got a great wife, my life is wonderful. I’m not sure that if I had been uber, uber, uber rich that I’d have had all of that.”

In fact, Bushnell even thinks Apple may not have been so successful if he had taken the deal. And his potential payout may not have soared to that trillion-dollar height.

“I’m still an Apple fan and you know I think that hindsight is 20/20,” he told Tech Radar in 2013, when asked about his decision to say no. “I can go through a thread very easily which, by me turning Steve down led to me introducing him to Don Valentine, and he introduced him to Mike Markkula who is as responsible for Apple’s success as Steve Woz[niak] and Jobs.”

He’s not the first tech boss to have missed out on billions 

Bushnell isn’t the only one who missed out on critical business opportunities that would launch them into billionaire status—there are even others who blew it on big deals with Apple.

Ronald Wayne, the lesser-known third Apple cofounder, was also working at the electronics company Atari when he stepped up as Jobs’ friend to help convince Wozniak of formalizing Apple’s launch. Wayne even typed up the contract, penning that he would receive a 10% share in the tech company, while Jobs and Wozniak would each be awarded a 45% stake. 

However, less than two weeks after drafting up the document, Wayne sold his stake for just $800, also reaping $1,500 to forgo any claim to the company. Looking back, it’s a massive misstep as his 10% share could now be worth between $75 billion and $300 billion today. His wasted opportunity isn’t as stark as Bushnell’s—and the decision mainly came from a desire to have financial stability in his life. 

“Jobs and Woz didn’t have two nickels to rub together,” Wayne told Business Insider in 2017. “I, on the other hand, had a house, and a car, and a bank account—which meant that I was on the hook if that thing blew up.”

YouTube’s cofounders, Chad Hurley, Steven Chen and Jawed Karim could also be sitting in a sizable nest egg today if they didn’t sell their company so early.

The YouTube creators sold their popular video platform to Google for $1.65 billion in fall 2006—each receiving millions of dollars worth of stock. Hurley got company shares worth around $345 million, according to The New York Times, while Chen accepted about $326 million worth. Karim, who left the business early to go back to school, got $64 million of shares. They were ecstatic about the deal in the beginning, but the buyer’s remorse would potentially creep up less than 20 years later. 

Today, YouTube is valued at $550 billion—333 times higher than its market cap from nearly two decades prior, adjusted to inflation. If Hurley and Chen accepted the same stock deal today that they did in 2006, each could have more than $100 billion in their bank accounts.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

© Justin Sullivan / Staff / Getty Images

• 1.3 million people tuned into the first hour of Taylor Swift’s podcast appearance. That’s nearly twice the number of those who initially tuned into Trump’s appearance on Joe Rogan’s podcast. Trump, who had a nine-month head start, has more overall listeners, but Swift’s appearance is catching up quickly.

Back in May, President Trump took to social media to declare Taylor Swift was “no longer ‘HOT.’” He might want to rethink that position.

The pop star’s appearance on the New Heights podcast this week attracted 1.3 concurrent million viewers in its first hour. That’s just shy of twice the number of those who tuned into The Joe Rogan Experience last October, when Trump was a guest. Trump’s appearance brought in 800,000 viewers in its first hour.

Swift’s appearance also led to a massive boost in subscribers for the Travis and Jason Kelce podcast, with the total jumping from 2.85 million to 2.91 million people. The appearance was such an event that it overwhelmed YouTube. An hour and 44 minutes into the podcast, the live premiere cut to black. The show’s official account on X/Twitter posted minutes later that the stream “will be back shortly” once technical issues were corrected.

In the longer run, Trump’s appearance still has more overall views. To date, it has been watched 59 million times in the past nine months. Meanwhile, as of Friday morning, the YouTube version of the New Heights podcast had hit 15 million viewers. Swift could catch up swiftly, though. On Thursday, Spotify said the New Heights episode, where she announced her new album and gave fans insight into her life, was one of its most popular podcasts of the past year, increasing the average number of listeners by 3,000%.

Trump has had something of a one-sided feud with Swift since 2020, when she endorsed Biden in the presidential race. He attempted to revive that in May and then again early August, calling the singer “woke” and claiming: “Ever since I alerted the world as to what she was by saying … that I can’t stand her (HATE!). She was booed out of the Super Bowl and became, NO LONGER HOT.”

Swift has not replied to Trump’s taunts.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

© Kansas City Star/Getty Images

Michael Saylor has built a career on testing how far conviction can bend markets—part financier, part preacher. Now the Strategy Inc. chairman is betting that same belief on what may be his riskiest financing experiment yet. 

Over the years, Saylor has urged followers to pour their savings into Bitcoin, mortgage their homes, even “sell a kidney.” To admirers, he’s a prophet with a balance sheet; to skeptics, a showman with an obsession. Either way, he’s turned a once-obscure software company into the world’s largest corporate holder of Bitcoin, playing the markets with a conviction most executives would never dare.

Now, Saylor is asking for a different kind of leap of faith: embracing an unorthodox financing instrument— perpetual preferred stock—to shift away from common stock sales and convertible bonds that helped build a $75 billion Bitcoin war chest. The twist: these securities never mature and some can skip dividend payments, making them flexible for the issuer but unnerving for investors.

Branded “Stretch,” the latest issuance pays dividends with a variable rate and offers no voting rights. This kind of security is neither debt nor common equity, but Saylor hopes it combines advantages of both, giving him fresh cash to keep buying Bitcoin without heavily diluting shareholders. Over the next four years, he plans to retire billions in convertible notes, curtail common stock sales, and issue more preferred offerings as his main funding source. 

The gamble is audacious: to create, as the firm puts it, a “BTC Credit Model,” where a volatile asset underpins a stream of income securities. If there’s big demand, he speculates it could even raise “$100 billion… even $200 billion” in theory. If not, Strategy, as MicroStrategy now calls itself, could be left juggling payouts with no buyers. Selling Bitcoin is a near-taboo, given Saylor’s ‘hold on for dear life’ gospel that coins are sacred. Supporters see the preferreds as a clever way to keep crypto buying; critics warn that the payouts are costly and could become a burden if Bitcoin’s price turns.

So far this year, the company has raised around $6 billion across four perpetual preferred offerings. The latest, a $2.5 billion “Stretch” tranche, ranked among the largest crypto capital raises this year, eclipsing Circle’s high-profile IPO. Nearly a quarter of the sale went to retail buyers, per a firm presentation, cementing Saylor’s devoted following as a key funding source.

“I have no past knowledge of any company doing this the way that MicroStrategy has just to capitalize on the retail fervor,” said Michael Youngworth, head of global convertibles and preferred strategy at Bank of America.

That retail tilt stands out in the corporate preferred market, dominated by investment-grade utilities and banks. Strategy is unrated, making its preferreds junior in the structure and outside the comfort zone of many fixed-income investors. If retail appetite fades, Saylor would need to win over insurers and pensions—the buyers he says he hopes to attract—or risk falling short of his blockbuster-fundraising ambitions.

Since the start of 2024, Saylor has raised over $40 billion through a mix of stock and bonds—$27 billion from common equity sales, $13.8 billion from fixed-income securities—transforming Strategy into a Bitcoin proxy for Wall Street. Part of the pivot is practical: the convertibles market excludes retail. 

Strategy CEO Phong Le framed the shift as a way to build a more resilient capital structure—a contrast to 2022’s “crypto winter,” when the company was burdened by a Bitcoin-backed loan from Silvergate and other debt. “Over time, we may not have convertible notes,” he said, “we will be relying on perpetual preferred notes that don’t ever come due.”

Yet the plan depends on paying large, ongoing dividends in perpetuity, using an asset—Bitcoin—that produces no income and has historically lost half its value in months. If Bitcoin prices fall and investors lose interest, the company could be stuck with big bills and no easy way to raise fresh cash. 

Perpetual preferreds don’t mature, and in some cases, dividends can be deferred without triggering default. Under current terms, Strategy can pay some obligations in cash or shares and certain payouts are non-cumulative, meaning missed payments don’t have to be made up. For now, payouts are financed largely by selling common stock through its at-the-market program—a stream Saylor has vowed to slow, but not shut off entirely. Still, the company has said it could sell shares even below its typical 2.5 net asset-value threshold, if needed to cover debt interest or preferred dividends.

Perpetual preferreds never have to be repaid, unlike convertibles, which either dilute shareholders if they convert or must be repaid in cash if they don’t. That matters because one of Strategy’s quietest advantages has been its ability to sell stock at prices well above the value of its Bitcoin holdings. It’s a gap Saylor himself dubbed the “mNAV premium” – a multiple of net asset value, helping Saylor raise cash and buy Bitcoin at a discount.

“With their mNAV premium compressing in recent weeks, I think management is rightfully concerned about creating too much dilution,” said Brian Dobson, managing director for disruptive technology equity research at Clear Street.

Still, the funding model brings its own hazards. “These are high-yielding instruments,” said Youngworth. “Paying coupons of 8% to 10% in perpetuity could be quite challenging.” Liquidity, a concern for any company with little operating revenue beyond security sales, could tighten sharply in a Bitcoin downturn.

To short seller Jim Chanos, the non-cumulative variety of preferreds are “crazy” for institutions to buy — perpetual, non-redeemable, with dividends paid only at the issuer’s discretion. “If I don’t pay the dividends, they are not cumulative. I don’t have to pay them back,” he told Bloomberg TV in June. Chanos says Strategy’s effective leverage has plateaued and sees the preferred push as another way to juice it. He’s suggested shorting the stock while long Bitcoin, betting the premium will collapse.

In Strategy’s capital structure, these units sit above common stock but are subordinate to convertible bonds, lacking the protections of regular debt. Wall Street managers have tended to favor those convertible bonds, which are easier to hedge through market-neutral trades. The preferreds are typically harder to hedge, and retiring convertibles would remove a popular arbitrage vehicle.

The whole approach works only if Bitcoin stays valuable and investor confidence holds. If he’s right, Bitcoin could inch closer to being treated as mainstream financial collateral. If he’s wrong, his balance sheet will be a cautionary tale: what happens when you try to turn a volatile asset into an income stream—and the market stops believing.

Still, the danger may come from the broader market as digital-asset treasury companies pile on risk. 

“I think there are some indications of a bubble in crypto treasury companies,” said Yuliya Guseva, who directs Rutgers Law School’s blockchain and fintech program. “If the market appetite dries up, then the model will no longer persist.”

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

© Ronda Churchill—Bloomberg/Getty Images

Shoppers spent at a healthy pace in July, particularly at the nation’s auto dealerships, as they shrug off President Donald Trump’s tariffs, which are starting to take a toll on jobs and lead to some price increases.

Retail sales rose 0.5% last month, a slowdown from a revised 0.9% in June, which was revised upward, according to the Commerce Department’s report released Friday. The pace in July matched economists’ estimates.

The increases followed two consecutive months of spending declines — a 0.1% pullback in April and a 0.9% slowdown in May.

Excluding auto sales, which have been volatile since Trump imposed tariffs on many foreign-made cares, retail sales rose 0.3%.

Auto sales rose 1.6%. They appear to have returned roughly to normalized spending after a surge in March and April as Americans attempted to get ahead of Trump’s 25% duty on imported cars and parts and then a slump after that, according to Samuel Tombs, chief U.S. Economist at Pantheon Macroeconomics.

The data showed solid spending across many retail sectors. Business at clothing stores was up 0.7% while online retailers saw a 0.8% increase. Business at home furnishings and furniture stores rose 1.4%.

However, at electronics stores, sales were down 0.6%. And business at restaurants, the lone services component within the Census Bureau report and a barometer of discretionary spending, fell 0.4%, however as shoppers are focusing on eating at home to save money.

Still spending appears to be holding up even as Trump’s tariff are resulting in a slowdown in hiring and rising prices for shoppers.

Earlier this month, the Labor Department reported that U.S. hiring is slowing sharply as Trump’s trade policies paralyze businesses and raise concerns about the outlook for the world’s largest economy. U.S. employers added just 73,000 jobs last month, the Labor Department reported Aug 9, well short of the 115,000 expected.

Another government report, issued Tuesday, on U.S. inflation showed that inflation was unchanged in July as rising prices for some imported goods were offset by declining gas and grocery prices, leaving overall prices modestly higher than a year ago.

Consumer prices rose 2.7% in July from a year earlier, the same as the previous month and up from a post-pandemic low of 2.3% in April. Excluding the volatile food and energy categories, core prices rose 3.1%, up from 2.9% in June. Both figures are above the Federal Reserve’s 2% target.

On a monthly basis, prices rose 0.2% in July, down from 0.3% the previous month, while core prices ticked up 0.3%, a bit faster than the 0.2% in June.

The new numbers suggest that slowing rent increases and cheaper gas are offsetting some impacts of Trump’s sweeping tariffs.

Many businesses are also likely still absorbing much of the cost of the duties. The consumer price figures likely reflect some impact from the 10% universal tariff Trump imposed in April, as well as higher duties on countries such as China and Canada.

But that may change. U.S. wholesale inflation soared unexpectedly last month, signaling that Trump’s taxes are pushing costs up and that higher prices for consumers may be on the way.

The Labor Department reported Thursday that its producer price index — which measures inflation before it hits consumers— rose 0.9% last month from June, biggest jump in more than three years. Compared with a year earlier, wholesale prices rose 3.3%. The figures were much higher than economists had expected.

The report comes as major retailers like Walmart and Target are slated to report their fiscal second-quarter earnings reports starting next week. Analysts will stud the reports to see how much retailers are absorbing the costs and how much they’re passing on to shoppers. They’ll also want to get insight into the state of consumer behavior heading into the critical fall and winter holiday seasons.

In May, Walmart, the nation’s largest retailer, warned t hat it had increased prices on bananas imported from Costa Rica from 50 cents per pound to 54 cents, but it noted that a large sting for shoppers wouldn’t start to appear until June and July. The retailer’s chief financial officer, John David Rainey, told The Associated Press that he thought car seats made in China that were selling for $350 at Walmart would likely cost customers another $100.

But a growing list of companies including Procter & Gamble, e.lf. Cosmetics, Black & Decker and Ralph Lauren told investors in recent weeks that they plan to or have already raised prices.

Some, like eyewear retailer Warby Parker, are trying to be selective and are trying to focus on raising prices on just their premium products as a way to offset the higher costs from tariffs.

Warby Parker has been shifting production away from China, where it plans to bring the percentage of all cost of goods sold by year-end under 15%. But it’s also having to deal with higher tariffs costs in other countries.

Warby Parker told analysts last Thursday that it plans to keep its $95 option. But it’s increasing prices on select lens types. It also wants to cater more to older shoppers who need more expensive progressive lens. Warby Parker said that progressives, trifocals and bifocals make up roughly 40% of all prescription units sold industrywide. But just 23% of Warby Parker’s business now is made up of progressives. Company executives said progressives are its highest priced offering and offer the highest profit margins.

“We were able to quickly roll out select strategic price increases that have benefited our growth,” Neil Blumenthal, co-chairman and co-founder and co-CEO of Warby Parker, told analysts last week.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

© Getty Images

A federal judge has ordered the Trump administration to restore millions of dollars in National Science Foundation grants it has withheld from the University of California, Los Angeles, saying they were made in violation of her earlier court ruling.

U.S. District Judge Rita F. Lin ruled late Tuesday that the NSF must reinstate the research grants that were suspended for reasons she had already ruled “arbitrary and capricious,” and gave the administration until Aug. 19 to show compliance or explain why it hasn’t restored the money.

It was not immediately clear how much funding could be returned to UCLA. The school’s chancellor said last week that the Trump administration has pulled $584 million in federal grants from various federal agencies. The judge’s ruling applies specifically to NSF grants.

UCLA’s money as been frozen as part of a wider pressure campaign targeting universities that Trump says are out of step with his political agenda.

University of California researchers challenged the cuts as “abrupt and unexplained” and won a preliminary injunction in June from Lin, who ruled that the NSF and other agencies could not terminate grant funding without specifically explaining why.

But on July 30, the NSF sent out a new round of letters that Lin described as “en masse, form letter funding cuts.” One said the awards “no longer effectuate program goals or agency priorities.” Another cited allegations of racism, antisemitism and policies around transgender athletes at UCLA. It did not elaborate.

The administration argued in a Tuesday hearing that the UCLA funding cuts were “suspensions” rather than “terminations.” Lin dismissed this as semantics.

“NSF’s indefinite suspensions differ from a termination in name only,” and the reasons the agency provided are based on “the same type of deficient explanations as the original terminations,” she ruled.

The university issued a brief statement praising the decision, saying that “restoration of National Science Foundation funds is critical to research the University of California performs on behalf of California and the Nation.”

UCLA also faces a Trump administration demand to pay $1 billion to settle antisemitism allegations. UCLA became the first public university to be targeted as the administration seeks to dominate academic institutions around the country.

___

The Associated Press’ education coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

© AP Photo/Damian Dovarganes, File