Whether you’ve been in the workforce for a few years or a few decades, odds are you’ve tolerated a toxic boss; 71% of U.S. workers have had at least one such supervisor in their career, a 2023 Harris Poll showed. As with other ruinous relationships, toxic bosses are difficult to escape and any number of reasons, such as being unable to afford quitting your job, may keep you putting up with them. New research, however, offers an underlying reason for some employees’ willingness to work under an abusive leader.

Do you view your toxic boss as successful? This perspective makes you more likely to label their abuse as “tough love,” according to a study published last year in the journal Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. Researchers at the Ohio State University Fisher College of Business also found that employees tended to think a high-performing boss could boost their own career—reproachful behavior notwithstanding.

“If someone is a good performer, we almost have this halo effect, or you assume that they have all these other positive traits particularly associated with leadership, which goes directly in the face of an abusive leader,” lead study author Robert Lount, PhD, an Ohio State professor of management and human resources, tells Fortune. “We were trying to reconcile these issues and how that might help understand when abusive behavior might not necessarily be encoded as abusive.”

In one part of the study, Lount and his colleagues surveyed nearly 600 full-time U.S. workers spanning an array of industries and positions, who had worked for their current supervisor for an average of five years. They used a pair of established scales—a 15-point measure of abusive supervision and a four-point measure of leader performance—that asked participants to evaluate statements such as “My boss ridicules me” and “My boss is superior to other bosses that I have worked with before.” Two weeks later, respondents further evaluated supervisors’ abusive or tough-love behaviors, reacting to language such as “I think my boss abuses team members” and “I would describe my boss as stern but caring.” Another two weeks after that, participants answered questions about their career expectations and hostility toward superiors.

While the workers polled projected their supervisors’ perceived success onto their own career ambitions, there’s no evidence those things are actually linked, Lount stresses.

“Just because sometimes people look at [abusive bosses] as tough-love bosses doesn’t suggest that being an abuser is going to be good or beneficial,” Lount says. “There are all sorts of other leader behaviors that are far more developmental and far more valuable than working under an abusive boss, which has been found time and time again to have really negative psychological consequences for employees.”

Such impudent workplace behavior spells trouble for employers, according to Donald Sull, DBA, a professor of the practice at the MIT Sloan School of Management. He also directs the MIT Sloan Management Review’s Culture 500, a database created in partnership with Glassdoor that ranks corporations on cultural values including integrity and respect. 

“People often think that high performance is an excuse for abusive behavior—they confuse disrespectful and bullying behavior for maintaining high standards,” Sull tells Fortune via email. “But it’s possible to set the bar for performance high without berating or bullying people. And to the extent these toxic managerial behaviors drive high performers out of the organization, the abusive behavior undermines performance.”

Sull adds, “The sharpest test of whether a corporate culture truly respects employees is how senior leaders deal with managers who hit their numbers but abuse their teams.”

It’s not you, it’s your boss—especially if they’re a psychopath

A leader’s top priority should be understanding and developing the people they manage—that’s what Bill Becker, PhD, a professor of management at the Virginia Tech Pamplin College of Business, teaches his MBA students. Yet not enough people in charge are equipped with the emotional and psychological skills to be in high-pressure positions and shepherd subordinates, he tells Fortune.

“Most bosses don’t come to work and say, ‘How can I be the biggest jerk today?’” Becker says, noting that when overwhelm is the probable cause of your supervisor’s unpleasant behavior, there’s opportunity for both of you to grow. “If you can be the bigger person and manage it and actually make things better, they’ll recognize that oftentimes [and] you’ll stand out.”

Anyone can succeed under a great boss, Becker says, but if you can find a way to flourish under a challenging one, you’ll be ahead of the curve. Even so, a fine line separates a thorny supervisor from a psychologically dangerous one.

“If you have a difficult boss, it’s more about them and it’s not about you,” Becker says. “Don’t see their behavior as a reflection of you and your worth and your value.”

It’s also well within the realm of possibility that your abusive boss could be a psychopath. No, that doesn’t mean they’re a serial killer; psychopathy is a common spectrum disorder that, in its most severe form, manifests in 1 in 100 people, according to the nonprofit PsychopathyIs. Adult psychopathic behaviors include frequent bragging, skilful lying, superficial charm, and trouble maintaining relationships.

In a 2021 Fortune commentary, Simon Croom, PhD, a professor of supply chain management at the University of San Diego Knauss School of Business, discussed the prevalence of corporate psychopathy: “My colleagues and I found in our research that 12% of corporate senior leadership displays a range of psychopathic traits, which means psychopathy is up to 12 times more common among senior management than among the general population.” 

Unrecognized psychopathy in senior management, Croom wrote, could have disastrous financial and ethical consequences for businesses, employees, and customers—not to mention society at large.

“It’s just their modus operandi to manipulate people and abuse people, and do whatever it takes to gain power over them or get them to do what they think needs to be done,” Becker tells Fortune. If that sounds like your boss, “there’s just no changing a psychopath, there’s no managing a psychopath. All you can do is insulate yourself as best as possible, and that might be the time when you really want to look to at least move out from underneath that leadership.”

How do I recognize workplace abuse?

Abuse takes many forms and can morph across employment environments. It’s also subjective.

“People bandy about terms like ‘toxic’ and ‘abusive’ to cover a lot of behavior that they don’t like,” Sull says. “What one person might view as abusive, another might see as candid.”

Sull’s own research, based on more than a million Glassdoor reviews, suggests egregious behavior such as outright harassment is rare. Nevertheless, a supervisor’s abuse doesn’t have to be overt to evoke negative reactions in employees, he says.

“Managers who are disrespectful, noninclusive, or undermine others qualify as toxic even if they don’t exhibit the extremes of abusive behavior,” Sull says.

The antibullying advocacy group End Workplace Abuse breaks up such mistreatment into verbal abuse, sabotage, and mobbing. The following are just a few of the organization’s examples of each:

• Verbal abuse
  • Blaming or guilt
  • Discounting and minimizing
  • Excessively harsh criticism or reprimands
  • Jumping to conclusions about what you think
  • Unwillingness to engage in a dialogue
• Sabotage
  • Blocking requests for training, leave, or promotion
  • Exclusion from meetings, social events, and conversations you should be involved with
  • Micromanaging
  • Vague unsatisfactory work performance reviews or accusations without factual backup
• Mobbing
  • An escalation of bullying that happens when you report abusive behavior, only to discover higher-ups are prioritizing avoiding liability over your well-being
  • Your employer doesn’t remove the bully or change your work environment

What can I do if I have a toxic boss?

If you have the means to do so, leaving your job is the best way to free yourself from an abusive supervisor, according to Ben Tepper, PhD, coauthor of the study and professor of management and human resources at Ohio State. If you can’t, notify HR as soon as possible so they can begin to ameliorate the situation on their end while you get to work on coping strategies, he tells Fortune. This includes documenting negative interactions with your boss. In addition, behave like a formidable opponent, so to speak.

“People who engage in abusive boss behavior, they pick their targets very strategically. They don’t do it to everybody,” Tepper says. “They go after people who come across as weak and vulnerable, and so it’s in the interest of the individual who has been targeted to present themselves as a bad target. And you do that by being good at your job, by being confident, by activating your social network—surrounding yourself with other individuals who are competent and capable.”

Tepper also recommends reading a pair of books by Robert Sutton, PhD, a professor emeritus of management science and engineering at Stanford University: The No Asshole Rule: Building a Civilized Workplace and Surviving One That Isn’t and its successor, The Asshole Survival Guide: How to Deal with People Who Treat You Like Dirt. 

Becker advises journaling about abusive incidents with your boss and returning to your entries with a fresh perspective. Once the heat of the moment has passed, you’ll be able to more objectively assess whether you and your supervisor have butted heads here and there or recognize a clear pattern of toxic behavior.

When in doubt, “I’m a big fan of therapy,” Becker says.

A version of this story originally published on Fortune.com on July 12, 2024.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

© JGI/Jamie Grill/Getty Images

X Corp., the social media platform owned by Trump adviser Elon Musk, is challenging the constitutionality of a Minnesota ban on using deepfakes to influence elections and harm candidates, saying it violates First Amendment speech protections.

The company's federal lawsuit filed this week also contends that the 2023 state law is preempted by a 1996 federal statute that shields social media from being held responsible for material posted on their platforms.

“While the law's reference to banning ‘deep fakes’ might sound benign, in reality it would criminalize innocuous, election-related speech, including humor, and make social-media platforms criminally liable for censoring such speech," the company said in a statement. “Instead of defending democracy, this law would erode it.”

Minnesota's law imposes criminal penalties — including jail time — for disseminating a deepfake video, image or audio if a person knows it's fake, or acts with reckless disregard to its authenticity, either within 90 days before a party nominating convention, or after the start of early voting in a primary or general election.

It says the intent must be to injure a candidate or influence an election result. And it defines deepfakes as material so realistic that a reasonable person would believe it's real, and generated by artificial intelligence or other technical means.

“Elon Musk funneled hundreds of millions of dollars into the 2024 presidential election and tried to buy a Wisconsin Supreme Court seat," said the law's author, Democratic state Sen. Erin Maye Quade.

"Of course he is upset that Minnesota law prevents him from spreading deepfakes that meant to harm candidates and influence elections. Minnesota’s law is clear and precise, while this lawsuit is petty, misguided and a waste of the Attorney General Office’s time and resources,” her statement said.

Democratic Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison's office, which is legally obligated to defend the constitutionality of state laws in court, said in a statement that it's “reviewing the lawsuit and will respond in the appropriate time and manner.”

The Minnesota law was already the subject of a constitutional challenge by Christopher Kohls, a content creator, and GOP state Rep. Mary Franson, who likes to post AI-generated parodies of politicians. That case is on hold while they appeal to overturn a judge's denial of their request to suspend the law.

The attorney general's office argues in that case that deepfakes are a real and growing threat to free elections and democratic institutions, that the law is a legitimate and constitutional response to the problem, and that it contains important limitations on its scope that protect satire and parody.

X, formerly known as Twitter, said it's the only social media platform challenging the Minnesota law, and that it has also challenged other laws it considers infringements of free speech, such as a 2024 California political deepfakes law that a judge has blocked.

X said in its statement that its “Community Notes” feature allows users to flag content they consider problematic, and that it's been adopted by Facebook, YouTube and TikTok. The company's lawsuit said its “Authenticity Policy” and “Grok AI” tool provide additional safeguards.

Alan Rozenshtein, a University of Minnesota law professor and expert on technology law, said in an interview Friday that it's important to separate the free-speech issues from whatever one thinks about the controversial Musk.

“I'm almost positive that this will be struck down,” Rozenshtein said.

There's no exception under the First Amendment for false or misleading political speech, even lies, he said. And the potential for criminal penalties gives social media companies like X and Facebook “an incentive to take down anything that might be a deepfake. ... You're going to censor a massive amount to comply with this law.”

Deepfakes aren't good, but it would be nice to get evidence that they're causing actual problems before imposing such limits on free speech, the professor said. And while it's easy to focus on the supply of misinformation, the large demand for it is the problem.

“People want to be fooled, and it's very bad for our democracy, but it’s not something I think can be solved with a deepfakes ban," he said.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

© AP Photo/Alex Brandon

• Stock markets rose for the fourth consecutive day as tech companies saw gains and investors interpreted President Donald Trump's Friday comments on tariff negotiations.

Stock markets rose slightly Friday on the back of gains in tech stocks like Alphabet and Nvidia as well as conflicting messages from President Donald Trump on tariffs. The S&P 500 was up 0.75%, the Dow Jones was flat, and the tech-heavy Nasdaq jumped 1.25%.

Alphabet, the parent company of the search giant Google, beat analysts’ predictions for its first quarter and grew its topline year-over-year in Q1 by 12% to $90.2 billion. From market close Thursday to Friday afternoon, its stock rose 1.5%. AI chip manufacturer Nvidia saw an even bigger jump of 4.3% after an executive said Thursday that the tech giant hasn’t seen a pullback in demand for its chips.

Meanwhile, in a wide-ranging interview with Time published on Friday, Trump promised potential relief to investors when he said he’s made “200 deals” on tariffs. He declined to say which countries and promised that initial negotiations would end in three to four weeks.

Conversely, in what could be a bearish signal for global markets, he stated that he would consider it “total victory” if tariffs on foreign imports were anywhere between 20% and 50% in one year.

The small Friday surge in the stock market follows three days of positive jumps as markets look to regain their losses after Trump’s “Liberation Day.” On April 2, the president unveiled a base 10% tax on all countries' exports and targeted China through a crescendo of tariffs, which culminated in a 145% tax on Chinese exports. Trump’s tariff plan prompted markets to tank amid investor fears of an all-out trade war.

Xi Jinping, the president of China, retaliated against the U.S. with reciprocal tariffs, and Trump has since broadcast that taxes against the People’s Republic will “come down substantially.” In his interview with Time, Trump said that he’s been in touch with Jinping. Chinese officials, however, have repeatedly denied that they’ve been in negotiations with the Trump administration and have recently exempted some U.S. imports from its own retaliatory tariffs.

Markets have also closely tracked Trump’s comments on the Federal Reserve, the U.S. central bank. The president has repeatedly criticized Jerome Powell, the Chair of the Fed, for not cutting interest rates quickly enough. Trump’s criticisms reached a boiling point when he suggested last week that he had considered firing Powell, undercutting the Fed’s longstanding independence from the executive branch. The 47th president has since walked back his rhetoric and said he had “no intention” of firing the Fed chair.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

© TIMOTHY A. CLARY—AFP/Getty Images

Jerome Powell’s determination to ensure any jump in prices stemming from Donald Trump’s tariffs don’t spread through the economy has earned him the moniker “Mr. Too Late” from the president. For the Federal Reserve chair, that’s better than being Mr. Wrong.

Only a few months ago, Powell was steering his colleagues and the economy toward a so-called soft landing, a scenario where inflation and interest rates glide lower while unemployment remains low. Trump’s sweeping tariffs have upended the outlook, raising expectations for weaker economic growth and higher inflation this year.

That has prompted Fed officials to shift their strategy to one that might best be described as plotting a late rescue for the economy — hold rates steady for long enough to keep inflation contained, but be ready to lower them just in time to keep the labor market from crashing.

“They prefer to be late than wrong,” said Aditya Bhave, senior U.S. economist at BofA Securities. “They’re going to wait and see how things play out on both mandates.”

Fed officials are expected to leave rates unchanged when they next meet for their two-day policy meeting May 6-7 in Washington. 

In recent weeks, Powell and his colleagues have warned that the inflationary impact of the president’s import duties could be more persistent than expected, and emphasized the Fed’s job is to make sure that any pickup in prices is limited. That means maintaining a tight posture on interest rates to keep expectations about prices under control, and holding rates steady absent a substantial rise in unemployment.

“Our obligation is to keep longer-term inflation expectations well anchored and to make certain that a one-time increase in the price level does not become an ongoing inflation problem,” Powell said at the Economic Club of Chicago on April 16.

Those remarks prompted swift criticism from the White House, with Trump urging Powell to lower interest rates now to head off an economic slowdown.

Waiting comes with risks: Once the jobless rate starts to rise, it typically moves up quickly and the economy tips into recession. But lowering interest rates too soon could allow price pressures to build again, something officials are unwilling to do after the post-pandemic inflation surge.

Pulling off a late rescue, say some Fed watchers, could be the ultimate test of Powell’s policy leadership, economic insight and timing.

“This is a new test for him,” said Claudia Sahm, chief economist at New Century Advisors. “You have both sides of the mandate going off track in a way where they will have to make a choice.”

Personal Mission

Securing a soft landing after a burst of post-pandemic inflation became a personal mission for Powell. He called the peak of the Fed’s rate-hiking cycle in December 2023, having cooled but not crashed the expansion. Inflation at that time was less than a percentage point above the Fed’s 2% goal, down from a four-decade high of 7.2% in 2022.

When it came time to lower rates in September, Powell persuaded his colleagues on the Federal Open Market Committee to join him in an aggressive half-point cut to keep the labor market strong. They ended up cutting rates by a percentage point over three meetings before holding this year as inflation seemed to settle above their target.

Trump had reclaimed the White House by then, and at the Fed’s March meeting, it was clear that the threat of tariffs would keep prices elevated — leading officials to signal expectations for higher inflation and slower growth.

Trump’s tariff plans arrived at a sensitive time, with the previous five readings on core inflation coming in surprisingly hot. The Fed’s preferred gauge of underlying inflation stood at 2.8% in February, and economists expect it eased to 2.6% in March — still well above the central bank’s target. 

“They did not reinstate price stability,” and may have eased too aggressively, said Lindsey Piegza, chief economist at Stifel Financial Corp. “I am concerned about inflation stability with or without the tariffs. We are at risk.”

Those fears extend beyond Fed watchers. Consumer inflation expectations surged in April, according to a report earlier Friday from the University of Michigan, and economists surveyed by Bloomberg this month contend that the trade war makes the odds of a U.S. recession a coin flip.

A downturn would undoubtedly provoke even greater hostility from the White House. Trump has already hinted at firing Powell, though subsequently backed away from the threat when it roiled financial markets.

But a central bank that fails again to control inflation after being above target for four years could, indeed, lose credibility.

“We were so close to nailing the soft landing,” said Diane Swonk, chief economist at KPMG. “The biggest mistake the Fed could make would be to instill additional inflation as the economy weakens.”

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

© Bonnie Cash/Getty Images

President Donald Trump can't stop contradicting himself on his own tariff plans.

He says he's on a path to cut several new trade deals in a few weeks — but has also suggested it's “physically impossible" to hold all the needed meetings.

Trump has said he will simply set new tariff rates negotiated internally within the U.S. government over the next few weeks — although he already did that on his April 2 “Liberation Day,” which caused the world economy to shudder.

The Republican president says he's actively negotiating with the Chinese government on tariffs — while the Chinese and U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent have said talks have yet to start.

What should one believe? The sure bet is that uncertainty will persist in ways that employers and consumers alike expect to damage the economy and that leave foreign leaders scratching their heads in bewilderment.

And the consequences of all this tariffs turmoil are enormous.

Trump placed tariffs totaling 145% on China, leading China to retaliate with tariffs of 125% on the U.S. — essentially triggering a trade war between the world's two largest economies with the potential to bring on a recession.

Trump's negotiating trade deals with himself

The president told Time magazine in an interview released Friday that 20%, 30% or 50% tariffs a year from now would be a “total victory,” even though a financial market panic led him to temporarily reduce his baseline import taxes to 10% for 90 days while talks take place.

“The deal is a deal that I choose,” Trump said in the interview. “What I’m doing is I will, at a certain point in the not too distant future, I will set a fair price of tariffs for different countries.”

If that is confusing for the nation's trading partners, it's also sowing anxiety at home.

The Federal Reserve’s beige book, a compilation of anecdotes from U.S. businesses prepared eight times a year, on Wednesday reported a huge spike in uncertainty among American companies that has caused them to pull back on hiring and investment in new projects. The word “uncertainty” cropped up 80 times, compared with 45 in early March and just 14 in January.

Beyond the idea that Trump plans to keep some level of tariffs in place, the world finance ministers and corporate executives who gathered this past week in Washington for the International Monetary Fund conference said in private discussions that the Trump administration was providing no real clarity on its goals for substantive talks.

"There’s not a coherent strategy at the moment on what the tariffs are supposed to achieve," said Josh Lipsky, senior director of the GeoEconomics Center at The Atlantic Council. “My conversations with the ministers and governors this week at the IMF meetings have been they don’t understand completely what the White House wants, nor who they should be negotiating with.”

Other countries trying to get talks going

Swiss President Karin Keller-Sutter, in an interview with broadcaster SRF released Friday, said after a meeting with Bessent that Switzerland would be one of 15 countries with which the United States plans to conduct “privileged” negotiations. But she said a memorandum of understanding would have to be reached for talks to formally begin.

She was happy to at least know whom to talk to, saying that “we have also been assigned a specific contact person. This is not easy in the U.S. administration.”

Nations are deploying various negotiating tactics.

The South Korean officials who met with their U.S. counterparts this week say they specifically asked for the tariffs to be lifted with the goal of working toward an agreement by July. The European Union has pushed for cutting tariffs to zero for both parties, though Trump objects to European countries charging a value-added tax, which is akin to a sales tax that he says hurts U.S. goods.

Trump continues to radiate optimism that negotiated deals with other countries will occur despite his claims that he will set his own deals and a lack of clarity about how the process goes forward.

“I’m getting along very well with Japan,” Trump told reporters on Friday. “We’re very close to a deal.”

As part of a deal with Japan, the Trump administration has publicly called on the Japanese government to change its auto safety standards that put a greater focus on pedestrian safety. But the steering wheels on autos sold in Japan are on the right-hand side, while U.S. automakers put their steering wheels on the left.

“I don’t think left-hand drive cars sell in Japan,” Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba told a parliamentary session this week.

“We want to make sure we aren’t seen as being unfair,” Ishiba said, suggesting a possibility of reviewing Japanese car safety standards.

Higher prices and shortages are likely

As Trump continues to make conflicting statements about tariffs, companies are actively looking at higher prices, lower sales and possibly bare shelves in stores due to fewer shipments from China.

Ryan Petersen, CEO of Flexport, a supply chain company, said on the social media site X: “In the 3 weeks since the tariffs took effect, ocean container bookings from China to the United States are down over 60% industry wide.”

Consumers are getting notices via email and social media from retailers that lamps, furniture and other housewares will now include tariff-related charges.

The showerhead company Afina on Wednesday reported on a test to see if people would buy an American-made product that cost more than an import. Their Chinese-made filtered showerhead retails for $129, but to manufacture the same product domestically would take the price up to $239.

When customers on the company's website were given a choice between a showerhead made in the USA or a cheaper one made in Asia, there were 584 purchases of the $129 model made abroad and not one sale of the domestically produced showerhead.

Ramon van Meer, Afina's founder, concluded in his written analysis: “If policymakers and pundits want to rebuild American industry, they need to grapple with this truth: idealism doesn’t always survive contact with a price tag.”

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

© Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

Merck is following Johnson & Johnson’s lead and reporting an expected financial hit from tariffs imposed by the Trump administration.

In an April 24 earnings call, executives said they expect $200 million in tariff-related costs in 2025. Merck lowered its full-year profit expectations from $8.88–$9.03 per share to $8.82–$8.97 per share.

The news comes a week after J&J executives said they expect $400 million in tariff-induced expenses in 2025.

Robert Davis, Merck’s chairman and CEO, said during the earnings call that the impact will primarily come from existing tariffs implemented “between the US and China, and to a lesser degree, Canada and Mexico.”

Although the threat of pharmaceutical tariffs looms following the Department of Commerce’s announcement on April 14 that the Trump administration is investigating the national security implications of pharmaceutical imports, Davis didn’t seem particularly worried.

“With respect to potential additional tariffs by the US specifically on pharmaceuticals, our global supply chain and current inventory levels put us in a good position to navigate potential near-term impacts,” he said.

When asked during the earnings call how Merck is preparing for potential pharmaceutical tariffs, Davis said the company has identified ways to “reposition” its manufacturing, including changing the priorities of existing plants, bringing on external manufacturing, and building internal manufacturing.

Merck has invested $12 billion in US-based manufacturing since 2018 and plans to invest an additional $9 billion through 2028, Davis said, adding that the company’s investments “are leading to more of our products for US patients being manufactured in the US as well as more opportunities for export.”

Zoom out. Merck isn’t the only drugmaker highlighting US investments.

J&J executives in March said the company plans to invest $55 billion in US manufacturing over the next four years. And in February, Eli Lilly executives said the company will invest at least $27 billion to open four new US-based plants over the next five years.

All three drugmakers have said their decisions to expand US manufacturing were due to the 2018 Tax Cut and Jobs Act, which lowered the domestic tax rate for pharmaceutical companies.

Tax policy, rather than tariffs, is a “very effective tool to be able to build manufacturing capacity here in the US, both for medtech and pharmaceuticals,” J&J CEO Joaquin Duato said during the company’s earnings call.

A quick rundown. Merck’s worldwide sales for Q1 2025 were $15.5 billion, down 2% from Q1 2024.

Despite lowering 2025 profit expectations, the company said it still expects worldwide sales to fall between $64.1 billion to $65.6 billion this year.

Merck is also preparing for its blockbuster cancer drug Keytruda, which single-handedly accounts for more than 45% of the drugmaker’s global drug sales, to face patent expiration in 2028. Keytruda sales rose 4% during the quarter to $7.2 billion, up from $6.9 billion in the same quarter last year, though senior research analyst Daina Graybosch wrote in a note following Merck’s earnings call that this was just slightly below Leerink Partners’s expectations.

This report was originally published by Healthcare Brew.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

© Getty Images—Bloomberg

It’s no secret that managers are not doing well. They’re toiling under heavier workloads, burnt out from spending their days putting out fires, and the very existence of their roles is under renewed scrutiny. But some groups of bosses are suffering more than others. 

Manager engagement in general fell from 30% to 27%, according to a recent Gallup report based on data from more than 200,000 people from April through December of 2024. Young managers and female managers in particular reported the steepest declines—engagement levels for bosses under 35 years old fell by five percentage points, while that number for women declined by seven percentage points. 

Bosses overall have had to deal with an array of business disruptions over the past few years, including an uptick in post-pandemic retirements and turnover, disrupted supply chains, and the AI revolution. “In an era where executives and employees seem farther apart than they have been in years, managers are handed an almost impossible task of making it all work in the real world,” the report states. 

It’s not clear why there was such a steep drop in engagement levels for younger managers, but their rank-and-file brethren are also feeling unmoored. Younger employees in general reported higher disengagement levels than older generations, according to a Gallup report from last year. And when it comes to even trying to secure more senior roles, many young people are ambivalent. For instance, around 72% of Gen Z workers say they’d rather stay independent contributors than take on middle management roles, according to a recent survey from recruiting firm Robert Walters.  

The engagement drop among women managers is particularly troubling given the existing barriers this group faces when it comes to securing leadership roles. Women are getting promoted or hired into roles that would lead to management at a lower rate than their male counterparts, according to LinkedIn data from 2024. And those barriers can have major ripple effects—today, only around 11% of Fortune 500 CEOs are women.  

Disengaged managers in general can also have major repercussions for companies—this group can be the “linchpin” when it comes to solving worker engagement issues. Around 70% of team engagement is attributable to managers, according to previous Gallup research.  “If managers are disengaged, their teams are, too,” the report reads. 

But there are some steps that organizations can take to improve the manager experience. Bosses who get training report only half the disengagement levels of those who do not, according to the most recent Gallup report. Teaching this group effective coaching techniques is also critical, and can boost their performance by up to 28%. And finally, making sure this investment continues is key: ongoing development increased manager well-being by 32%. 

“When we consider the additional influence of great managers on their teams, manager training and development may be one of the most effective ‘well-being initiatives’ employers can invest in,” the report reads. 

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

© Getty Images / Galina Zhigalova

Luigi Mangione pleaded not guilty Friday to a federal murder charge in the killing of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson as prosecutors formally declared their intent to seek the death penalty against him.

Mangione, 26, stood with his lawyers as he entered the plea, leaning forward toward a microphone as U.S. District Judge Margaret Garnett asked him if understood the indictment and the charges against him.

Mangione said, “yes.” Asked how he wished to plead, Mangione said simply, “not guilty" and sat down.

Mangione’s arraignment for the killing last December attracted several dozen people to the federal courthouse in Manhattan, including former Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning, who served about seven years in prison for stealing classified diplomatic cables.

Mangione, who has been held in a federal jail in Brooklyn since his arrest, arrived to court in a mustard-colored jail suit. He chatted with one of his lawyers, death penalty counsel Avi Moskowitz, as they wanted for the arraignment to begin.

Late Thursday night, federal prosecutors filed a required notice of their intent to seek the death penalty.

That came weeks after U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi announced that she would be directing federal prosecutors to seek the death penalty for what she called “an act of political violence" and a “premeditated, cold-blooded assassination that shocked America.”

It was the first time the Justice Department said it was pursuing capital punishment since President Donald Trump returned to office Jan. 20 with a vow to resume federal executions after they were halted under the previous administration.

Mangione’s lawyers have argued that Bondi’s announcement was a “political stunt” that corrupted the grand jury process and deprived him of his constitutional right to due process. They had sought to block prosecutors from seeking the death penalty.

Mangione’s federal indictment includes a charge of murder through use of a firearm, which carries the possibility of the death penalty. The indictment, which mirrors a criminal complaint brought after Mangione’s arrest also charges him with stalking and a gun offense.

Mangione, an Ivy League graduate from a prominent Maryland real estate family, faces separate federal and state murder charges after authorities say he gunned down Thompson, 50, outside a Manhattan hotel on Dec. 4 as the executive arrived for UnitedHealthcare’s annual investor conference.

The state murder charges carry a maximum punishment of life in prison.

Surveillance video showed a masked gunman shooting Thompson from behind. Police say the words “delay,” “deny” and “depose” were scrawled on the ammunition, mimicking a phrase commonly used to describe how insurers avoid paying claims.

The killing and ensuing five-day search leading to Mangione’s arrest rattled the business community, with some health insurers deleting photos of executives from their websites and switching to online shareholder meetings. At the same time, some health insurance critics have rallied around Mangione as a stand-in for frustrations over coverage denials and hefty medical bills.

Prosecutors have said the two cases will proceed on parallel tracks, with the state case expected to go to trial first, but Mangione lawyer Karen Friedman Agnifilo said his defense team would seek to have the federal case take precedent because it involves the death penalty.

Mangione was arrested Dec. 9 in Altoona, Pennsylvania, about 230 miles (about 370 kilometers) west of New York City and whisked to Manhattan by plane and helicopter.

Police said Mangione had a 9mm handgun that matched the one used in the shooting and other items including a notebook in which they say he expressed hostility toward the health insurance industry and wealthy executives.

Among the entries, prosecutors said, was one from August 2024 that said “the target is insurance” because “it checks every box” and one from October that describes an intent to “wack” an insurance company CEO. UnitedHealthcare, the largest U.S. health insurer, has said Mangione was never a client.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

© Steven Hirsch/New York Post via AP

When experts recommend the best diets for healthy aging, heart health, or to help prevent cancer and chronic disease, they often emphasize fruits and vegetables, legumes, and lean proteins like chicken or fish. And while dietary recommendations are increasingly shifting more plant-based, chicken is still considered one of the healthier meat options—and Americans love it: On average, Americans consume over 100 pounds of chicken per year. But eating that much chicken may not be as healthy as once thought, according to a recent study published in the journal Nutrients.

In the study, researchers investigated the connection between poultry consumption, gastrointestinal cancers, and early death. Poultry refers to all forms of birds, including chicken, turkey, duck, and game birds like quail and pheasants. Examining data from 4,869 middle-aged Italian participants over 19 years, who answered surveys about their food and beverage consumption, researchers found that white meat consumption (rabbit and poultry) was highest among those who died of gastrointestinal cancers—colon, liver, pancreatic, stomach, esophageal, and rectal cancer, for example—with poultry intake accounting for 33% of their white meat intake.

People who consumed over 300 grams of poultry per week—about 3.5 three-ounce servings—had a 27% higher mortality rate from all causes. For men in particular, that rate jumped to 61%. For gastrointestinal cancer specifically, they found that consuming 100 to 200 grams of poultry per week was associated with a 65% increased risk of death from gastrointestinal cancer compared to other cancers, while participants who consumed over 300 grams of poultry every week were 127% more likely to die from gastrointestinal cancer, with this risk even greater at 161% for men.

How much chicken should you eat?

According to the study, the less poultry consumed the better. While the Dietary Guidelines for Americans recommends that adults should eat 26 ounces per week of lean meat and poultry (in a 2,000-calorie diet), following the study’s guidance of less than 300 grams per week would mean consuming no more than 10.5 ounces of chicken per week.

“Our results show that consumption of more than 100 grams per week of poultry was associated with an increased risk of death both from all causes and from gastrointestinal cancer,” the study authors wrote. As poultry consumption increased, so did mortality risk—and the results were even more pronounced for those who consumed higher portions of red meat.

Study participants, who at age 83, consumed less than 100 grams of poultry per week had half the mortality risk from gastrointestinal cancer than those who consumed more than that. 

Researchers also suggested that the way chicken is cooked may affect how it impacts your health. White meat cooked at higher temperatures—like grilling or barbecuing—or for long periods in a stew could form high levels of agents that cause genetic mutation, which could influence the development of gastrointestinal cancers.

Pay attention to overall meat consumption

Researchers found that overall meat consumption plays a substantial role in mortality risk—even when following one of the most recommended diets for overall health. 

Participants who died of non-gastrointestinal cancers had diets where red meat accounted for over 65% of their total meat intake, as compared to 56% and 58% among those who died of gastrointestinal cancers and other causes, respectively. Over half of cancer-related deaths occurred in people who consumed over 400 grams of meat every week—even when on the Mediterranean diet. 

“We believe it is beneficial to moderate poultry consumption, alternating it with other equally valuable protein sources, such as fish,” the authors wrote. “We also believe it is essential to focus more on cooking methods, avoiding high temperatures and prolonged cooking times.”

For more on diet and health:

• The healthiest agers followed this diet, according to a sweeping 30 year longevity study
• The 4 best diets for heart health, and 1 to avoid
• The number one diet change to lower your cancer risk, according to experts
• Just one simple dietary change could help you fight back against cancer and heart disease

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

© Getty Images

Once upon a time, “my doctor” was the only answer a person would give if asked who they trusted when making personal health decisions. And while that still remains the most popular answer, it’s far from the only one—especially when it comes to those ages 18-34, or Gen Z and younger millennials, who put almost as much trust in friends, family, and even social media. 

People in that age group are also most likely to drop a medical provider or lose trust in one over political differences, according to the eye-opening findings of a new special report from global communications firm Edelman, released on Thursday.

It represents a “transformation” in the way healthcare is viewed, writes Edelman U.S. health chair and global health co-chair Courtney Gray Haupt in an analysis of the report. “Traditional health authorities are not disappearing, they’re being supplemented,” she says. “Influencers, peers, patients and social creators are now key players in the health narrative.”

Among the key findings about generational beliefs in the Edelman’s Trust Barometer Special Report: Trust and Health include:

• Doctors aren't special: 45% of the Gen Z and young millennial respondents believe that the average person who has done their own research can know just as much as a doctor—as compared with 38% of those ages 35-54 who believe that and 23% of those 55 and older. 
• Politics matter in health care: 47% of those ages 18-34 are likely to drop a medical provider or lose trust in one over political differences—compared with 38% of those ages 35-54 and 22% of those 55 and older.
• Friends and social media are sometimes more trustworthy: In the past 12 months, 45% of those 18-34 have disregarded a provider’s medical guidance in favor of advice from friends or family, while 38% have instead trusted social media—more than twice as much, on each count, as the Gen X/baby boomer group. 
• Vaccine skepticism is alive and well: Only 54% of Gen Z and young millennials gave or would give their child all routine vaccinations. That’s compared with 63% of those 35-54 and 69% of those 55 and older.
• Medical credentials aren't everything: In response to the statement, “People without formal medical degrees or health credentials have a big influence over my health decisions,” 45% of the youngest group agreed, while only 34% and 22% of those 35-54 and 55 and over, respectively, agreed.

“We are navigating a generational transition in how health is understood, trusted and shared,” Haupt notes. “This is not a trend—it’s a structural reorientation. Organizations must recalibrate their approach to reflect a world where trust is local, expertise is diversified, and emotional authenticity is a key currency.”

Speaking directly to healthcare organizations, she advises that, to lead in this new era, they must “meet all generations, but especially our youth, where they are—on the platforms they use, in the styles they speak and through the voices they already trust. Empathy isn’t just an ethical compass—it’s a business strategy and an imperative for the healthcare community globally.”

Much of the new attitudes around this “parallel health ecosystem” for younger generations, believes Edelman CEO Richard Edelman in his own analysis of the findings, have emerged within the context of COVID.

“Nearly seven in 10 young adults report that their lives were disrupted by COVID guidelines, from missing school to working from home,” he says, citing an earlier special report on the impacts of the pandemic. “They feel left behind and discriminated against as a result of the pandemic.” 

It all led, he believes, to what were the main revelations of the report—that young adults have become self-reliant when it comes to medical information, that they put equivalent amounts of trust on various sources for medical advice, and that they are avid sharers of health-related news items, with nearly 60 percent of young people sharing such stories, compared to 24 percent of those 55 and older. 

“The clear message to the healthcare community,” Edelman writes, “is that COVID has changed the game for communicators from inside out to outside in. Specifically, the elites are no longer in control of information, whether public health authorities or scientific institutions. Personal experiences cataloged on social media now carry enough weight to rival the believability of data provided by Government or even healthcare providers.” 

Correcting misinformation and disseminating scientific facts, he concludes, “is the true public health emergency that must be treated with urgency.”

More on Gen Z:

• Gen Z and millennial workers would accept lower salaries in exchange for this one thing from their employers
• Gen Z and Millennials are ‘doom spending’ their way to a life of debt unless they make 4 changes
• Gen Z’s anxiety is spilling into the workplace. Here’s how to effectively manage the ‘anxious generation’

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

© Getty Images

The global trade ecosystem has been overturned. President Donald Trump imposed 104% tariffs on China on Wednesday, a week after levying a host of tariffs ranging from a minimum of 10% on imports generally to 20% on EU goods and 46% on ones from Vietnam—levels not seen for nearly a century. China quickly retaliated, announcing today it will raise tariffs on American goods to 84% starting tomorrow. The White House then announced that, aside from the 10% tariff, there would be a 90-day pause on some of the higher tariffs—but not for China.

However the drama continues to unfold, we’re facing what promises to be a prolonged period of trade instability that few organizations are prepared to weather.

Many executives are justifiably worried about the direct financial implications—the immediate cost increases on imported materials and components from direct suppliers. However, that’s just the tip of the iceberg. There will be a cascading effect as tariffs impact second- and third-tier vendors as well. Businesses need to plan for not just increased costs for their business, but also lean inventories and the potential for failing due to costly errors, penalties, and reputational damage due to inaccurate reporting or regulatory non-compliance. The complexities introduced by tariffs demand a fundamental shift in how businesses approach supply chain management.

The permacrisis era

Tariffs are just the most recent example illustrating the uncertainty about economic policy and extreme volatility of business risks and the challenges they pose. I’ve written extensively about permacrisis—that perpetual state of navigating simultaneous and ongoing crises—and how our conventional risk management frameworks were simply not architected for today's complicated trade realities. These new tariffs introduce specialized regulatory complexities that few organizations possess the internal expertise to navigate successfully.

The efficiency-driven supply chain models that dominated pre-pandemic thinking have left businesses particularly vulnerable. The pursuit of "lean" operations—minimal inventory buffers and concentrated supplier relationships—has created structural fragilities that tariff disruptions will mercilessly expose. What once represented operational excellence now constitutes existential vulnerability.

Anticipate the damage

For weeks, executives have been gathering in board rooms scrambling to understand what the tariff “end game” will look like and what the tariffs mean for them. The tariffs may feel like a shock to the system for executives, but I would advise against being blinded by the initial flash of lightning from the tariff news. Executives need to anticipate what might come next—such as potential rollbacks, and more likely, retaliatory moves. Planning for various scenarios and quantifying the financial and operational impact of each will help them understand potential outcomes and develop response and contingency strategies.

Address your supply chain and compliance

Next, you want to be prepared to address the repercussions that may come down the pipeline from these new tariffs. This will involve conducting a fundamental reassessment of your supply chain strategy, beginning with comprehensive network mapping. This means looking beyond your immediate suppliers to understand the complete ecosystem supporting your business operations. Which of your suppliers' suppliers face direct tariff exposure? How will these costs transmit through your supply network? Where are the critical chokepoints? Real-time visibility and data-driven decisions are critical for survival.

Equally crucial is developing specialized expertise in tariff classification and customs compliance. The complexity of international trade regulations creates significant exposure to compliance failures, misclassifications, and documentation errors—each carrying substantial financial penalties. This expertise gap must be addressed, whether through internal capability building or strategic external partnerships.

Organizations must also embrace scenario planning with renewed vigor. Modeling various tariff escalation scenarios and their operational impacts provides critical insights for strategic decision-making. What happens when key components face 25% cost increases? How will currency fluctuations compound these effects? Which alternative sourcing strategies might mitigate these impacts?

Build operational resilience

When you have done the assessments of your company’s downstream risks from the tariffs, and taken action to minimize the immediate effects, you should take action to build operational resilience to protect the business when other operational threats arise. There are a number of tactical measures that companies should adopt to increase resilience for the future, specifically:

• Diversify suppliers, increase inventory buffers, and enact robust contingency plans
• Conduct comprehensive contract reviews with suppliers and customers to understand tariff-related cost allocation mechanisms and renegotiation opportunities
• Explore specialized trade programs including Foreign Trade Zones, duty drawback provisions, and bonded warehousing arrangements that may provide meaningful relief
• Reconsider inventory policies for critical components, potentially increasing strategic buffer stocks
• Implement advanced supply chain visibility technologies enabling real-time monitoring and rapid response capabilities
• Investigate product engineering modifications that reduce dependence on heavily tariffed products

The organizations that successfully navigate this environment will be those recognizing that tariffs aren't merely a finance department concern—they represent a fundamental enterprise risk requiring coordinated cross-functional responses. Legal, supply chain, finance, enterprise risk management, internal audit, and operations must collaborate with unprecedented alignment. Adopting a connected risk approach will break down siloes and enable more successful problem solving and risk mitigation.

Prepare for the future global trade landscape

We’re in the early stages of unprecedented uncertainty with regard to global trade, what I’m calling the “fog of tariff wars.” Forward-thinking leaders should prepare for a future where global commerce increasingly fragments along geopolitical fault lines.

The competitive advantage will belong to organizations that embed adaptability into their operational DNA. This means developing not just responses to today's tariffs but building systems capable of rapidly reconfiguring as conditions evolve. It requires viewing your supply chain not as a fixed asset but as a dynamic network that can flex and transform in response to shifting trade realities.

Businesses are not just navigating economic uncertainty, they’re facing a systemic overhaul of how goods move across borders. Companies that move with urgency to understand and mitigate the risks and adapt their organizations to the new reality will find strategic advantages where others perceive only disruption. The time to act isn’t tomorrow—it’s right now, before the full impact of the new tariffs reshapes the global trade landscape.

The opinions expressed in Fortune.com commentary pieces are solely the views of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and beliefs of Fortune.

This essay has been updated to include the Trump admin's 90-day pause.

Read more:

• Small businesses want to thrive, not just survive. That’s where the tariffs uncertainty hurts the most 
• A $5 million Idaho company that sells on Amazon shows how China tariffs will crush ‘Main Street’ U.S. firms—while Chinese rivals, and Amazon, will be fine
• Trump puts a 90-day pause on most tariffs after global market mayhem—except China, which gets 125% for ‘lack of respect’

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

© Photo by Yu Fangping/VCG via Getty Images

• President Donald Trump said in an interview published Friday by Time he would actually “love” a tax on millionaires. This comes amid strong opposition from much of the GOP and contradicts other public statements he’s made this week about taxing the wealthy.

Being a billionaire himself, it’s no surprise President Donald Trump has been against higher taxes on the wealthy. But in an interview published Friday by Time, Trump appeared to change his tune. 

When asked whether he supports the millionaires tax, Trump said he “certainly [doesn’t] mind having a tax increase,” but the only reason he wouldn’t support it is out of fear he’d lose an election.

“I saw Bush where they said, where he said ‘Read my lips’ and he lost an election,” Trump said in the Time interview. “He would have lost it anyway, but he lost an election. He got beat up pretty good.” (President George H.W. Bush actually won the 1988 election after he said “Read my lips: No new taxes” during his campaign. There was subsequently a massive deficit, and he agreed to tax increases, therefore breaking his promise. He lost his re-election bid to President Bill Clinton in 1992). 

Meanwhile, Trump’s inner circle as of this week was reportedly weighing whether the White House should support raising taxes on Americans who make more than $1 million per year, which is part of the GOP’s 2025 tax legislation, according to The Washington Post. But Trump and House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) on Wednesday said the complete opposite. 

“I think it would be very disruptive, because a lot of the millionaires would leave the country," Trump told reporters. "The old days, they left states. They go from one state to the other. Now with transportation so quick and so easy, they leave countries."

But in Trump’s interview with Time, he said he'd be “honored” to pay more taxes, but with one caveat.

“But I don't want to be in a position where we lose an election because I was generous, but me, as a rich person, would not mind paying and you know, we're talking about very little,” Trump said. “We're talking about one point. It doesn't make that much difference, and yet, I could just see somebody trying to bring that up as a subject, and, you know, say, ‘Oh, he raised taxes.’”

Since taxing the rich more is typically associated with the Democratic Party, many of Trump’s allies have openly disagreed with a move by the GOP to tax the rich. Trump advisers including Newt Gingrich, Steve Moore, and Larry Kudlow argue the plan goes against the president’s promise to lower taxes, according to The Washington Post. Johnson and GOP Sens. Dave McCormick and Ted Cruz have also noted their opposition. 

The other side of the argument is that raising taxes on the wealthy would help the middle class, which voted for Trump in droves. 

“I'd be raising [taxes] on wealthy to take care of middle class,” Trump said. “And that's—I love that. I actually love the concept, but I don't want it to be used against me politically, because I've seen people lose elections for less, especially with the fake news.”

Raising taxes on the wealthy would also help fulfill Trump’s “big, beautiful bill” to fund the government with trillions of dollars in tax breaks and federal program cuts. 

“The current system we have is not sustainable,” former chief strategist for the first Trump administration Steve Bannon said at Semafor’s World Economy Summit on Wednesday. “You have to go to an alternative. I think the alternative is budget cuts. And … it has to be tax increases on the wealthy.”

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

© Getty Images—SAUL LOEB / AFP

Elon Musk’s X Holdings Corp. is evolving from a social media platform powered by mainstream advertisers to one betting on dollars generated from artificial intelligence and subscriptions — a change that appears to have buoyed its revenue lately.

The platform, formerly known as Twitter Inc., posted $91 million in revenue tied to data licensing and subscriptions in February, a 30% increase from a year earlier, according to materials shared with investors related to a new debt sale. Advertising revenue also grew, though at a more modest 4% clip, the materials show.

A representative for X declined to comment.

It’s a contrast from when Musk bought X nearly three years ago. The platform was heavily reliant on ads from conventional blue-chip companies, but saw that kind of revenue erode under his leadership as the billionaire implemented severe changes to its business model.

Ad revenue has since stabilized, albeit at a lower level, while revenue from data licensing and subscriptions has grown, according to the materials shared with investors. Meanwhile, Musk’s decision to combine X with his artificial intelligence company xAI last month only further reshaped its focus.

Twitter posted advertising revenue of $4.5 billion in 2021, its final full year as a publicly traded entity before Musk’s acquisition. It is projected to generate $2.26 billion in global ad sales this year, up 16.5%, according to Emarketer, Bloomberg previously reported.

Still, with X’s revenue on the mend, its costs sharply lower and its leader tied closely to US President Donald Trump, investors have been feeling more optimistic. Morgan Stanley launched a sale on Thursday of the final bits of debt related to Musk’s 2022 buyout of the company after a sharp turnaround in sentiment about its prospects.

In its financial disclosures, X boasted nearly $1.5 billion in annual earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization, a common earnings metric known as “Ebitda” on Wall Street.

Its improving metrics allowed the company to raise almost $900 million in a new equity round from Musk and other investors that valued the company at $44 billion — around the same valuation he bought it at — Bloomberg previously reported.

X’s balance sheet is improving as well, according to the financials recently shared with investors. The company now has almost $1.1 billion of cash on hand, up from the roughly $120 million to about $320 million it maintained during the year through January. It expects to use some of those funds to either repay the $12.5 billion in expensive debt it still owes or else fund tech investments and use it for other purposes.

Debt Costs

Debt is still weighing on Musk’s firm.

In March alone, X paid about $200 million in debt-servicing costs related to its buyout, said people familiar with the matter who were not authorized to speak publicly. The firm’s annual interest expense by the end of 2024 was more than $1.3 billion, they added.

The Morgan Stanley-led debt offering kicked off on Thursday is intended to refinance a final, expensive part of X’s buyout financing that carries a 14% interest rate. Banks are marketing the debt with a 9.5% fixed coupon, which would help cut costs for the company. X expects to reduce its annual interest expense by $43 million, the people said.

X’s heavy debt load has been an issue not just for the company, but for the banks that helped Musk buy out the company. The lenders had held onto about $12.5 billion of that debt, unable to sell it to investors until January and February of this year, when they offloaded about $11.2 billion’s worth across three sales. 

A month ago, Musk said xAI, Musk’s artificial intelligence startup, had acquired X.

Information shared with investors shows that he created a holding company, dubbed XAI Holdings, that owns both X and xAI. In earlier debt sales, banks and company management had touted X’s relationship with Musk’s startup as a sweetener to spur investor interest. 

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

© Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

During my tenure in Congress, I observed a fundamental truth about American democracy—when Americans vote for change, they vote because of their wallets. It's that simple.

The pattern of anti-incumbency across three consecutive presidential cycles underscores this reality. Americans have repeatedly rejected sitting administrations not so much because of ideology or partisan loyalty, but because of their lived economic experience. Forget the Dow; when voters feel the pinch at the grocery store or the gas pump, they demand change.

The public has now given a second chance to a Trump-led Republican administration, whose campaign messaging of building a stronger and more thriving economy resonated with voters.

Trump will need to substantively boost the economy if he and Republicans want to maintain power. The upcoming showdown over renewing the 2017 Trump tax cuts provides an opportunity for stimulus provisions to supercharge two key pillars of the economy: small businesses and housing.

Retroactive R&D expenses fix—a stimulus boost for jobs and GDP

Over the past three years, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, or TCJA, has increased taxes on many small businesses by substantial margins, specifically the businesses that are making improvements to their products or experimenting with ways to be more efficient.

That’s because under Section 174 of the act, businesses are forced to amortize certain technical expenses over multiple years instead of deducting them all at once. For example, if you designed an update to a product, you normally could take a 100% deduction of all the costs associated with that update. Under the TCJA, you would pay tax on 90% of those costs in the first year instead.

While it may seem like an esoteric tax issue, the reality is that there are tens of thousands of businesses across the country seeing anywhere from 300% increases in tax to outright bankruptcy. Smaller businesses are feeling the pain the most, as they do not have the capital reserves to survive massive tax hikes.

A small steel fabrication company I know went from paying $35,000 in tax to owing $1.3 million, only because they employed engineers. This was not the intended policy. To add insult to injury, China offers a deduction 20 times that of the U.S. for the same expenses.

Retroactively fixing Section 174 would be a massive stimulus package for small businesses. The fix has widespread bipartisan support (the previous solution, H.R. 7024, passed the House 357 votes to 70), but the current legislation only fixes it on a go-forward basis, meaning only starting January 2025. If businesses can recoup their older tax overpayments, even just for 2024, it would immediately infuse the economy with tens of billions of dollars.

More importantly for Trump, it’s money that would be available to U.S. businesses in 2025 well before the midterms and would further endear him to a crucial segment of voters who are praying this gets fixed.

Fighting inflation with low-income housing

I learned in Congress that a high-flying economy is no match for a sagging housing market. Since the pandemic, we’ve seen the largest increases in rents since we’ve been keeping records. Mortgage rates have leveled off but are still locking millions out of the American dream of homeownership. Skyrocketing inflation across insurance, labor, and supply costs are putting intense pressure on homeowners, landlords, and working American families in nearly every state.

When we say we have an inflation problem, what we really mean is that we have a housing cost problem. The relative importance of housing costs within the Consumer Price Index (CPI), which measures the change in prices for consumer goods and services, represents a 35% share of all items. The cost of shelter, including rent and mortgage payments, has increased for 57 consecutive months. To put it another way, if shelter were excluded from the CPI, overall inflation would have been at or below the Fed’s 2% target level in 16 of the last 20 months.

Here, again, changes to tax policy can power a transformation in housing costs, lowering bills for millions of families. Since 1986, the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) has been a trusted mechanism for stimulating economic growth while building and preserving attainable, affordable homes. The LIHTC works by subsidizing development costs of low-income housing by allowing those that invest in qualified projects to take up to a 9% tax credit against the cost of construction. It gives decision-making to the states, incentivizes private capital and management, and does not rely on big bureaucracy. The enormity of this incentive has resulted in 4 million affordable homes for 9,280,000 families over the last 30 years.

Republicans and Democrats have put forward legislation to expand and strengthen the tax credit, which would boost housing supply at a critical moment. Again, this is overwhelmingly supported by both parties. A 12.5% increase to the allocation to each state’s Housing Credit ceiling, alongside a bevy of other enhancements, was also included in the aforementioned H.R. 7024. If Trump champions this change, it would result in approximately 200,000 additional affordable homes over the next decade than what would have otherwise been possible.

Realizing Trump’s economic promise

Looking ahead, the administration's success will be measured by its ability to translate policy into pocketbook results for everyday Americans. The window of opportunity is clear but finite; while the proposed employment initiatives and tax reforms provide a framework, their success depends entirely on execution that impacts kitchen-table economics.

With a clear mandate for change and a comprehensive economic playbook, the Trump administration now faces its defining challenge: creating an economy that delivers tangible benefits across all segments of American society. Championing these two provisions would tell the American people that Congress and President Trump care about the real economy and the Americans who make it hum.

The opinions expressed in Fortune.com commentary pieces are solely the views of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and beliefs of Fortune.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

© Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images

CENTRAL ISLIP, N.Y. (AP) — Disgraced former U.S. Rep. George Santos, who lied about his life story and defrauded donors, arrived Friday at a federal court to face sentencing.

The New York Republican, who served in Congress for barely a year before his House colleagues ousted him in 2023, pleaded guilty last summer to federal wire fraud and aggravated identity theft.

He admitted to deceiving donors and stealing the identities of nearly a dozen people, including his family members, to fund his winning campaign. As part of a plea deal, Santos has agreed to pay roughly $580,000 in penalties in addition to prison time.

The 36-year-old didn't respond to reporters' shouted questions as he walked into a Long Island courthouse, but he told The Associated Press on Thursday that he’s resigned to his fate.

“I’m doing as well as any human being would be doing given the circumstances,” Santos wrote in a text message on Thursday, adding that he was “ready to face the music.”

Prosecutors are seeking seven years in federal prison for Santos, arguing in recent court filings that he “remains unrepentant” and has not shown genuine remorse, despite what he claims.

They cite recent comments Santos has made on social media in which he casts himself as a victim of prosecutorial overreach.

In a letter to the court this week, Santos stressed that he remains “profoundly sorry” for his crimes but said prosecutors' proposed sentence is too harsh.

Santos’ lawyers have called for a two-year prison stint, which is the mandatory minimum sentence for aggravated identity theft.

They argue such a penalty is comparable to sentences handed to former U.S. Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. and other political figures convicted of similar financial crimes.

Santos was elected in 2022, flipping a wealthy district representing parts of Queens and Long Island for the GOP.

Soon after, it was revealed that the political unknown had fabricated much of his life story, painting himself as a successful business owner who worked at prestigious Wall Street firms and held a valuable real estate portfolio.

In reality, Santos was struggling financially and even faced eviction. The revelations led to congressional and criminal inquiries into how he had funded his campaign.

As his sentencing approached, Santos was reflective in social media posts, thanking his supporters and detractors alike.

“I learned that no matter left, right or, center we are all humans and for the most part Americans (LOL) and we have one super power that I cherish and that is compassion,” he wrote Thursday on the social platform X. “To the trolls… well you guys are an impactful part of how people shape themselves, and y’all made me much stronger and made my skin thicker!”

He also made one final plug for his Cameo account, where he records personalized video messages for $100.

“Think ahead and of any celebration or event coming up later this year. Book them today,” Santos wrote, ending the post with a series of heart emojis.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

© Yuki Iwamura / Bloomberg—Getty Images

• Citi initially hired 27 junior bankers to work at its beachside office on Spain’s Costa del Sol in 2022, promising less pay but a softer schedule than the 80-to-100 -hour weeks common in the industry. The program’s closure, however, signals how leverage may be shifting from junior talent back to employers. 

Young investment bankers have long been faced with a trade-off: Work punishing hours for big money. Amid the post-COVID battle for talent, though, Citigroup tried something different, offering some junior analysts a softer schedule and a post on Spain’s famous Costa del Sol. 

On Wednesday, however, Citi announced it was shuttering its beachside office in the Andalusian city of Málaga as part of a continued push to “simplify the firm” and improve operations. It could also signal how economic headwinds might spur a wider push for efficiency across the industry, forcing young bankers to focus on job security rather than maintaining a semblance of work-life balance.

It's a dynamic that plays out continuously, Benjamin Granger, chief workplace psychologist at online survey tool Qualtrics, told Fortune. During the pandemic, it was often said, “The war for talent is over, and talent has won.” Employers have seemingly gained much of that leverage back, though, a trend that could continue if the economy weakens and borrowing costs are slow to come down.

“It’s more of an ongoing tug-of-war,” Granger said.

Hoping to battle employee burnout and attrition, Citi initially hired 27 analysts from more than 3,000 applicants in 2022 for the Málaga program, according to the Financial Times. At the time, their pay was about half the $100,000 starting salary received by peers in major hubs like New York, London, or Frankfurt. Instead of the 80-to-100-hour weeks common in the industry, however, they were promised work-free evenings and weekends.

Citi said six employees from the Málaga office would be leaving the firm, though the more than 220 people working at its primary Spanish location in Madrid will not be affected.

“Our emphasis on fostering colleague mobility efforts and integrating our hubs is evident in the successful applications by many of our colleagues from Málaga for positions in our London and Paris hubs,” the firm said in a statement provided to Fortune.

A battle against burnout

Manolo Falcó, Citi’s global co-head of investment banking, had previously insisted the program in Málaga was no gimmick.

 “We suffer from a lot of churn like the rest of the industry,” he told the Financial Times in 2022. “We lose talent to private equity and tech, so we are eager to understand if we can stop that by offering a better work-life balance.”  

But efficiency is also in focus, especially as tariff uncertainty threatens the rebound in M&A and IPOs many expected in the early days of the Trump administration. Global investment banking revenue has fallen 6% year-to-date to $26.2 billion, according to preliminary data from Dealogic, compared to $27.9 billion in the same period last year. The data showed fees collected by Citi, however, jumping from $1.25 billion to $1.36 billion.

Unlike competitors that have pushed stringent return-to-office mandates, Citi permits most employees to work a hybrid schedule with at least three days per week in the office. CEO Jane Fraser has reportedly said the company’s tolerance of remote work could serve as a competitive advantage and recruiting tool.

Still, concerns about industry working conditions have been underlined by recent tragedies. Last year, ex-Army Green Beret Leo Lukenas III died of a blood clot following several 100-hour plus weeks as an associate at Bank of America. Then in January, Carter Anthony McIntosh, a 28-year-old associate at Jefferies, died from a suspected drug overdose after reportedly working similar hours.

In 2024, an annual survey of more than 500 bankers conducted by Wall Street Oasis found first-year analysts clocked an average of 74 hours per week.

When Citi opened its Málaga office in 2022, some argued it was far from a true solution to the daunting schedule facing many junior bankers.

“If I worked at Citibank I wouldn’t go anywhere near such an offer,” Molly Johnson-Jones, a former investment banker, wrote in a letter to the Financial Times in 2022. “Perhaps if more firms embraced genuinely flexible working and based pay on output rather than working location or hours, people could work on their own terms—and firms wouldn’t have to resort to such desperate measures to prevent burnout.”

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

© John Keeble—Getty Images

President Donald Trump is badgering the Federal Reserve to cut interest rates, but even if the Fed gave in to the pressure, it wouldn't necessarily lead to lower borrowing costs for consumers.

In fact, economists say, Trump's ongoing attacks on Fed Chair Jerome Powell and his tariff policies could keep the longer-term interest rates that matter for consumers and businesses higher than they otherwise would be. A less-independent Fed can lead, over time, to higher borrowing costs, as investors worry that inflation may spike in the future. As a result they demand higher yields to own Treasury securities.

Trump has repeatedly urged Powell to cut the short-term interest rate that the central bank controls. The Fed typically reduces its rate during an economic downturn to encourage more borrowing and spending, and raises it to cool the economy and fight inflation when prices rise.

But long-term rates on things like mortgages, auto loans, and credit cards are largely set by market forces. And in recent weeks, fears that Trump's sweeping tariffs could raise inflation, along with the administration's threats to the Fed's independence, have led markets to push those longer term rates higher. It's not clear that the Fed can fully reverse those trends by itself.

“It’s not automatically true that even if the Fed were to cut rates, that you would see a measured decline in long-term interest rates,” Francesco Bianchi, an economist at Johns Hopkins University, said. “This kind of pressure on the Fed might backfire...if markets don't believe the Fed has inflation under control."

Trump renewed calls on Wednesday and Thursday for Powell to reduce the Fed's short-term rate, telling reporters that the chair is “making a mistake” by not doing so.

And last week, Trump suggested he could fire Powell, while a top aide said that the White House was “studying” whether it could do so.

Stock markets plunged in response, the yield on the 10-year Treasury bond rose, and the dollar fell, an unusual combination that suggested investors were selling most American assets. Markets recovered those losses after Trump said on Tuesday that he had “no intention” of firing the Fed chair.

Still, the threats to the Fed's independence unnerved Wall Street investors, because they see a Fed free from political pressure as critical to keeping inflation in check. An independent Fed can take unpopular steps, such as raising rates, to fight inflation.

“Threatening the Fed doesn’t soothe markets — it spooks them,” said Lauren Goodwin, chief market strategist at New York Life Investments. “And the result is often the opposite of what any administration wants to see: higher rates, weaker confidence, and more market turmoil.”

Since Trump began imposing tariffs in early March, when he slapped duties on Canada and Mexico, the 10-year Treasury yield has risen from 4.15% to about 4.3%. The yield is a benchmark for mortgage rates and other borrowing. Mortgage rates, in turn, have increased during that time, from 6.6% to 6.8%.

While Trump says he is negotiating over tariffs with many countries, most economists expect some level of duties to remain in place for at least this year, including his 10% duties on nearly all imports.

The 10-year yield did fall Thursday when two Federal Reserve officials said that rate cuts are possible as soon as this summer, should the economy falter and unemployment rise.

Yet last fall, longer-term interest rates also fell in anticipation of rate cuts, but then rose once the Fed cut in September and then continued to rise as the central bank reduced its rate again in November — two days after the election — and in December. Mortgage rates are now higher than they were when the Fed cut.

A range of factors can affect longer-term Treasury rates, including expectations for future growth and inflation, as well as the supply and demand for government bonds. Bianchi worries that stubbornly high government budget deficits — which are financed by trillions of dollars of Treasurys — could also lift long-term rates.

Should the Fed cut rates now, llonger-term borrowing costs “would move in the opposite direction, absolutely,” Goodwin said, “because the threat of inflation is so palpable -- that move would call their credibility into question."

Trump said in a social media post this week that there is “virtually No Inflation” and as a result, the Fed should lower its key rate, from its current level of about 4.3%. Many economists expect the central bank will do so this year. But Powell has underscored that the central bank wants to evaluate the impact of Trump's policies before making any moves.

Inflation has fallen in recent months, dropping to 2.4% in March, the lowest level since last September. Yet excluding the volatile food and energy categories, core inflation was 2.8%. Core prices often provide a better signal of where inflation is headed.

A key issue for the Fed is that the economy is very different now than it was during Trump's first term. Back then inflation was actually below the Fed's target. At that time, it was a “no-brainer” to cut rates, Bianchi said, if there was a threat of a recession, because inflation wasn't an issue.

But now, tariffs will almost certainly lift prices in the coming months, at least temporarily. That raises the bar much higher for a Fed rate cut, Bianchi said.

Still, once there are clear signs the economy is deteriorating, such as a rising unemployment rate, the Fed will cut rates, regardless of what Trump does, economists said.

Trump on Monday accused Powell of often being “too late” with his rate decisions, but ironically the Fed may move more slowly this time because of the threat of higher prices from tariffs. Without clear evidence of a downturn, Fed officials would worry about being seen as giving in to political pressure from Trump if they cut.

“Powell knows the irreparable damage that would occur if it was perceived that he cut because he was forced to by Trump,” said Tom Porcelli, chief U.S. economist at PGIM Fixed Income.

The Fed now “will be even more delayed because I think you’re going get more of an inflation lift initially, before you get the more pronounced slowing in growth," Porcelli said.

Either way it may take more than a Fed cut or two to bring down longer-term borrowing costs, Bianchi said.

“To really lower long-term rates you need to provide a stable macroeconomic environment, and right now we are not there yet," he added.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

© Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

Why not tax the millionaires?

As Congress begins drafting a massive package for President Donald Trump’s “big, beautiful bill” with trillions of dollars in tax breaks and federal program cuts, it’s a question that won’t seem to go away.

Trump himself has mused he'd “love” to tax wealthier Americans a little bit more, but the Republican president has also repeatedly walked it back. This week, the president dismissed a tax hike as “disruptive” when asked about it at the White House.

But still it swirls.

And it’s setting up a potential showdown between the old guard of the Republican Party, which sees almost any tax hike as contrary to the GOP goal of slashing government, and its rising populist-nationalists, who view a millionaire's tax as championing working-class voters who helped deliver the White House.

“Bring it, baby,” said former Trump strategist Stephen Bannon on his podcast.

Think of it as Bannon on the one side, versus Newt Gingrich, anti-tax crusader Grover Norquist and others on the other — a debate that once seemed unfathomable for Republicans who have spent generations working to lower taxes and reduce the scope of the federal government.

“I don’t think we’re raising taxes on anybody,” House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., said this week on Fox News Channel.

Johnson said there have been lots of ideas thrown out but the Republicans are working against the idea of a tax on millionaires. “I’m not in favor of raising the tax rates because our party is the group that stands against that, traditionally,” he said.

This spring and summer, the Republican-led Congress is determined to make progress on the package, which is central to the party’s domestic policy agenda. It revolves around extending many of the GOP tax cuts that Congress approved in 2017, during Trump’s first term, but are expiring later this year.

As it stands, the top individual tax rate is now 37%, on annual incomes above $611,000 for single filers and $767,000 for married couples. If Congress fails to act, that rate is set to revert to what it was before the 2017 tax law, 39.6%, on top filers.

It seems impossible that Republicans in Congress will purposefully wade into the debate. They are striving to keep all the existing tax brackets in place, while adding new tax breaks the president campaigned on during the 2024 election — including no taxes on tips, Social Security income, overtime pay and others. It's a potentially $5 trillion-plus package.

But the Bannon wing is working to force the issue, saying it’s time to raise that top rate on the wealthier households, at least $1 million and above.

Sounding at times more like progressive Democrats, Bannon's flank sees a tax hike as a way not only to ensure wealthy Americans pay their fair share but to generate federal revenue. With federal debt at $36 trillion, they say it can help counter annual deficits that cannot be offset by budget cuts alone.

“The current system we have is not sustainable,” Bannon said at Semafor’s World Economy Summit on Wednesday in Washington. “You have to go to an alternative. I think the alternative is budget cuts. And … it has to be tax increases on the wealthy.”

That’s drawing fierce blowback from the traditional tax-cutters, who have gone into overdrive, warning of nothing short of a political shattering of GOP orthodoxy, and the party itself, if Republicans entertain the idea.

“Madness,” Gingrich, the former Republican House speaker, told Fox News’ Larry Kudlow.

Gingrich warns of a George Bush-style political implosion similar to his “Read my lips: No new taxes” pledge, which contributed to his failed 1992 presidential reelection bid.

“It would be a disaster,” Gingrich said.

Trump appears to be weighing the arguments, sending mixed messages about what he prefers.

“Newt is quite possibly right on this,” the president said in a note Gingrich said he received from the president and reposted Tuesday on social media.

“While I love the idea of a small increase,” Trump said in the note, “the Democrats would probably use it against us, and we would be, like Bush, helpless to do anything about it.”

Trump went on to counsel that if they can do without it, they're probably better off. “We don't need to be the ‘READ MY LIPS’ gang who lost an election,” he posted.

Asked about a tax hike on millionaires Wednesday in the Oval Office, Trump was more definitive.

“I think it would be very disruptive,” he said, suggesting wealthy Americans would simply leave the country, rather than pay the higher tax, and end up costing in lost revenues.

Yet in a Time magazine interview posted Friday, Trump said of a millionaires' tax: “I actually love the concept, but I don’t want it to be used against me politically.”

As Republicans in Congress work behind the scenes crafting the tax bill — and at least $1.5 trillion in government spending cuts to help cover the lost revenues — it seems highly unlikely enough of them would agree to a tax hike.

Most of the congressional Republicans have signed a no-taxes pledge from Norquist's Americans for Tax Reform group, even as others signal some interest.

With Democrats prepared to oppose the package altogether because of its expected steep cuts to federal programs, the Republicans will need to keep all their lawmakers in line if they hope to pass the bill through the House and the Senate with their narrow majorities.

Yet, as Republicans are scrounging for ways to pay for their tax bill, they face potential resistance within their own ranks to reductions in Medicaid, food stamps or other federal programs.

Even an accounting measure preferred by the Senate Republicans, which would count the 2017 tax breaks as current policy rather than a new one requiring an offset, still comes up short for covering the full price tag of the new package, which could swell beyond $5 trillion over 10 years.

Setting the new top rate at about 40% for those earning $1 million or above would bring in some $300 billion in revenue over the decade, analysts have said.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

© Brendan SMIALOWSKI / AFP

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump’s handling of immigration remains a point of strength as he takes wide-ranging actions to ramp up deportations and target people in the U.S. illegally, according to a new poll.

The survey from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research finds that 46% of U.S. adults approve of Trump’s handling of immigration, which is nearly 10 percentage points higher than his approval rating on the economy and trade with other countries.

While Trump’s actions remain divisive, there’s less of a consensus that the Republican president has overstepped on immigration than on other issues. Still, there’s little appetite for an even tougher approach. About half of Americans say he’s “gone too far” when it comes to deporting immigrants in the U.S. illegally. They’re divided on the deportation of Venezuelan immigrants who are accused of being gang members to El Salvador, and more oppose than support revoking foreign students’ visas over their participation in pro-Palestinian activism.

Here’s what the poll shows about how Americans are viewing the Trump administration’s actions on immigration.

Immigration is a point of strength for Trump, particularly with Republicans

Immigration was a major factor for voters in last November’s election, particularly for Trump’s supporters, and they were more open to tough stances on the issue than they’d been four years earlier. And even though many of Trump’s immigration enforcement efforts are currently mired in battles with federal judges, it’s remained an issue of relative strength in the court of public opinion.

Similar to an AP-NORC poll conducted in March, nearly half of Americans approve of Trump’s immigration approach, while about 4 in 10 approve of how he’s handling the presidency.

This higher approval on immigration comes primarily from Republicans. About 8 in 10 Republicans approve of Trump’s handling of immigration, higher than the roughly 7 in 10 Republicans who approve of how he’s handling the economy or trade negotiations with other countries.

Other groups are less enthusiastic about Trump’s approach. About 4 in 10 independents and only about 2 in 10 Democrats approve of Trump on immigration.

Relatively few Americans are concerned they’ll know someone who is directly affected by increased immigration enforcement, according to the poll. About 2 in 10 Americans say they are “extremely” or “very” concerned that they or someone they know will be directly affected.

Democrats are more likely than Republicans to worry they’ll be affected, and Hispanic adults are more likely than white or Black adults to be concerned.

About half say Trump has ‘gone too far’ on deportations

About half of Americans say Trump has “gone too far” when it comes to deporting immigrants living in the U.S. illegally. About one-third say his approach has been “about right,” and about 2 in 10 say he’s not gone far enough.

They’re unhappier, generally, with how he’s approaching trade negotiations. About 6 in 10 say he’s “gone too far” in imposing new tariffs on other countries.

There is not a strong desire for more aggressive action on immigration, though, even among the people who approve of what’s Trump doing. Among the Americans who approve of how Trump is handling immigration, about 6 in 10 say his approach has been “about right,” and roughly 3 in 10 say he hasn’t gone far enough.

Americans are split on sending Venezuelans to El Salvador but oppose revoking student visas

There is a deep divide on whether and how the Trump administration should undertake large-scale deportations, according to the survey, which was conducted in mid-April, while Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., was on a trip to El Salvador to demand the release of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who was mistakenly deported there in what officials later described as an “administrative error.”

The poll found that 38% of Americans favor deporting all immigrants living in the U.S. illegally, down slightly from an AP-NORC poll conducted just before Trump took office in January. About the same share of Americans are opposed, and about 2 in 10 are neutral.

The findings are very similar for Trump’s policy of sending Venezuelan immigrants in the U.S. who authorities say are gang members to a prison in El Salvador.

But the public is more opposed, broadly, to revoking foreign students’ visas over their participation in pro-Palestinian activism, which has emerged as another flashpoint.

About half of U.S. adults oppose this, and about 3 in 10 are in support. This action is particularly unpopular among Americans with a college degree. About 6 in 10 strongly or somewhat oppose it, compared with about 4 in 10 Americans who aren’t college graduates.

___

The AP-NORC poll of 1,260 adults was conducted April 17-21, using a sample drawn from NORC’s probability-based AmeriSpeak Panel, which is designed to be representative of the U.S. population. The margin of sampling error for adults overall is plus or minus 3.9 percentage points.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

© Jacquelyn Martin—AP Photo

• Alphabet and Google CEO Sundar Pichai remembers his manta when making tough choices: making a decision is the most important thing you can do, but oftentimes they're inconsequential. Melinda French-Gates, Jeff Bezos, and Oprah Winfrey have their own methods to deal with stress—from bathroom cool-downs to attacking problems head-on.

Tasked with navigating economic turmoil, making tough calls, and quelling company friction, CEOs have the weight of their companies on their shoulders—and when it all becomes too much, Google’s chief exec Sundar Pichai remembers two things.

“One is: making that decision is the most important thing you can do. You're breaking a tie and it unlocks the organization to move forward,” Pinchai said at Stanford’s Business School in 2022, adding that the former Intuit CEO Bill Campbell taught him that while studying at the elite college. 

“The second is, with time you realize most of those decisions are inconsequential.”

“It might appear very tough at the time. It may feel like a lot rides on it, [but] you look later and you realize it wasn't that consequential. There are few consequential decisions, and judgment is a big part of leadership.”

Essentially, most of us aren’t surgeons saving lives at work—that font colour or PowerPoint presentation you’re worrying about probably won’t matter in 10 years' time.

Making decisions gets harder at the top—but it can be 'fun' too

Pichai has come a long way since roaming the halls of Stanford in the 1990s as an engineering student. Starting out at Google as a project manager in 2004, he spent the next decade working his way up through the company before taking the reins as CEO in 2015. 

Now, helming the eighth largest business on the Fortune 500—there’s a lot riding on every move he makes as CEO. The gravity of every choice feels greater.

“It took me a while to realize…the higher up you are in an organization, the easy decisions don't come to you,” Pichai said at the event.

But by leaning on his mantra—that not every choice is make-or-break—he’s able to distance himself mentally from the weight of every sign off and weather the stress that comes with steering a $2 trillion operation and.

“Thinking through both helps me think about it as it's just another normal day in the office, and so you keep going through it,” Pichai added. 

While the prospect of running a tech giant as huge as Google is nail-biting to the average person, Pichai says he has overcome any fears over the enormity of his choices by reminding himself: “You're really helping the company, and so that makes it a bit more fun.”

Other ways leaders handle the stress of the job

Being put under immense stress comes with the territory of being a leader—and each has their own method of getting through it. Billionaire philanthropist Melinda French Gates received some words of wisdom from her hedge fund mentor on how to keep her head above water. 

“Like if I get tough on myself about philanthropy, I remember what Warren Buffett said to us originally, which is, ‘You’re working on the problems society left behind, and they left them behind for a reason,” French Gates recently said in an interview with the Wall Street Journal. “‘They are hard, right? So don’t be so tough on yourself.’”

Other leaders, like Amazon executive chairman Jeff Bezos, take a more aggressive approach by confronting their anxiety head-on. 

“Stress primarily comes from not taking action over something that you can have some control over,” the former Amazon CEO said in an interview with Academy of Achievement. “I find as soon as I identify it, and make the first phone call, or send off the first e-mail message…The mere fact that we’re addressing it dramatically reduces any stress that might come from it.”

Meanwhile, iconic TV personality Oprah Winfrey finds zen in the chaos; she said she’s not someone to scream to let the anxiety out. When she’s overwhelmed, a restroom stall can become her oasis. 

“Some days, I want to scream out loud when dealing with the complexities of getting good shows on the air. But one thing I know for sure: I’m not a screamer,” Winfrey wrote in her book, What I Know for Sure. “I usually go to a quiet place. A bathroom cubicle works wonders. I close my eyes, turn inward, and breathe.”

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

© Justin Sullivan / Getty Images