Stablecoins are the shiny new object on Wall Street. Once restricted to the niche world of crypto trading, stablecoins entered the mainstream of U.S. finance as Congress debated—and ultimately passed in July—a bill to legitimize them and expand their use. That has spurred a hype cycle as banks and Fortune 500 companies rush to explore the technology. 

Stablecoins, which are typically pegged to the U.S. dollar and backed 1:1 to a pool of reserves, have been around for a decade. But their soaring popularity has brought mounting questions over how their growth could impact the broader economy. Financial experts and government officials alike are grappling with the implications of giant stablecoin issuers Tether and Circle becoming some of the largest holders of U.S. Treasuries, rivaling countries like South Korea and Saudi Arabia. 

While crypto proponents argue that stablecoins will help extend dollar dominance across the globe, critics warn that they could lead to financial instability in the banking sector, even as they remain a tiny portion of overall markets. 

A new financial plumbing

To get a sense of stablecoins’ growing popularity, it’s worth noting that their transaction volume surpassed Visa in early 2024. While much of this activity occured in the context of crypto trading, it supported advocates’ case that stablecoins’ low fees and near-instantaneous speeds make them a superior vehicle to older technology like SWIFT, especially when it comes to moving money across borders. That argument has broken out of the crypto industry, with the fintech giant Stripe acquiring the stablecoin startup Bridge last year for $1.1 billion. 

In order to ensure a stablecoin maintains on par with a dollar, most issuers purchase large quantities of Treasury bills to serve as the bulk of their reserves. Tether, the largest stablecoin issuer, holds over $100 billion in T-bills, according to its latest attestation, which ranks it ahead of countries such as the United Arab Emirates and Germany. According to a July report from Apollo, the stablecoin industry as a whole is now the 18th largest external holder of Treasuries. 

To be fair, this is still a blip compared to the U.S. money market fund sector, which stands at around $7 trillion, mostly comprised of Treasuries. But, especially with July’s passage of the Genius Act, stablecoins are only likely to grow, with Apollo estimating that the sector could reach $2 trillion by 2028. The market cap of USDC, the second-largest stablecoin, has grown 90% over the past year to $65 billion. Its parent company, Circle, went public in June, delivering the largest two-day IPO pop in decades. 

At a time when longtime holders of U.S. Treasuries, including China and Japan, are signaling they will move away from the asset class, the emergence of stablecoin issuers as a new buyer of T-bills could serve as an escape valve for the U.S. government. “Having stablecoin issuers always be there is a massive boost in terms of giving confidence to the Treasury [Department] about where to place debt,” said Yesha Yadav, a professor at Vanderbilt Law School who wrote a recent paper on the relationship between stablecoins and the U.S. Treasury market. 

Crypto proponents go even further, arguing that the benefits could ripple across the U.S. economy and beyond. They say the growth of stablecoins could consolidate the dollar’s dominance as a method of payment for foreign payments, similar to the “eurodollar” (a term that signals dollar deposits held outside the U.S.), and could help the U.S. government enforce sanctions abroad. David Sacks, the White House’s AI and crypto czar, went so far as to argue that new demand for U.S. Treasuries from stablecoin companies could lower long-term interest rates.

Others—including Yadav and State Street’s global head of cash and digital asset, Kim Hochfeld—are more skeptical, especially given the nascent sector’s footprint. “There’s a lot of hype, and the numbers are still tiny compared to what we see in normal TradFi,” Hochfeld told Fortune. “While I don’t deny this is the start of a big trend, the numbers are still not enough to make us either super excited or super nervous.”

Some critics, including bank lobbying groups, have warned that stablecoins could siphon money away from bank deposits as customers shift holdings to stablecoins. Because deposits serve as necessary liquidity for lending, they argue, stablecoins could threaten the credit system. One stablecoin executive, who spoke with Fortune on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive industry relationships, described the argument as “politically expedient,” pointing out that bank lobbying groups have previously invoked the argument to resist the introduction of now commonplace financial instruments like money market funds. 

“There are trillions of dollars in money market funds,” said the executive, “Ultimately, it didn’t affect banks being able to make loans.”

Yadav said that stablecoins’ growth could still lead to unintended outcomes, especially as they hoover up short-term Treasuries, which many Wall Street institutions rely on for risk management and other forms of financial engineering. “What that means for the rest of the financial system as [stablecoins] become gargantuan is anybody’s guess,” she told Fortune. 

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

© Michael Nagle—Getty Images

Natural gas has always been the overlooked little brother to crude oil that drives the fossil fuel industry dating back to the famed Drake Well in 1859 in Pennsylvania, which launched the U.S. oil and gas industry.

The dynamics have changed now—especially in the heart of the gassy Marcellus Shale in Pennsylvania. Gas demand is beginning to boom thanks to the electricity feeding frenzy from data centers, skyrocketing liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports, and the ongoing retirements of aging coal plants being replaced by relatively cleaner-burning gas.

Many of the nation’s top gas producers, including Expand Energy, EQT, Range Resources, and Antero Resources, all have major Appalachian footprints and market cap values that have spiked by 25% to 75% the past 12 months.

Meanwhile, crude oil-weighted stocks are almost all down, mired in a prolonged slump of middling pricing, weaker demand growth, and surging OPEC production hikes.

“With the resource-rich potential in this [Marcellus] basin and the growing demand component for AI and data centers and power, it really is setting us up well to help shape this AI revolution that’s going to take place here in the United States,” Range Resources CEO and President Dennis Degner told Fortune.

A decade ago, the gas industry’s fortunes focused on seasonality and how cold each winter would prove, Degner said. “Now we’re talking about power and data centers and LNG essentially doubling over the next few years. Those are all big, diverse demand components that really get us excited about the durability of our business model.”

The Appalachian region—primarily the Marcellus and Utica shale plays in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Ohio—produces just over one-third of the nation’s gas—and very little oil—with proximity to Virginia’s growing Data Center Alley and, now, more AI infrastructure expected within Appalachia.

After a couple of decades during which U.S. power demand remained relatively stagnant, domestic electricity consumption is expected to surge by 25% from 2023 to 2035 and roughly 60% from 2023 to 2050, driven largely by AI and data centers, according to the International Energy Agency.

Likewise, record-high LNG exports will roughly double by 2030. Based on new construction underway or greenlit along the U.S. Gulf Coast, LNG exports are expected to rise from 15 billion cubic feet per day in 2024 to at least 30 billion daily by the end of 2030.

“It’s really night and day when you look at the gas names versus the oil names,” said Gabriele Sorbara, energy analyst at Siebert Williams Shank & Co. “The fundamentals for gas are very strong. You’re going to have massive tailwinds.”

Appalachia’s tech boom

Antero chairman and CEO Paul Rady said in his earnings statement that the industry now expects natural gas demand to soar 25% by 2030, led by LNG growth and then by data center power thirst.

That’s an astonishing jump for a U.S. sector that pumps out 107 billion cubic feet of gas per day—already double the amount since the nation’s shale gas boom kicked off 20 years ago.

The top gas producers are all exceeding their production estimates this year with goals to continue ramping up for at least the next two or three years. But they’re doing it without huge spending hikes because of the operational efficiencies gained through drilling and completing wells.

Range Resources, for instance, aims to grow its production 20% by the end of 2027. But Range is doing it while only operating two drilling rigs. For comparison, Big Oil giant and leading Permian Basin producer Exxon Mobil has at least 35 rigs operating in the huge West Texas oil basin.

“These [Marcellus] wells are just massive,” Sorbara said.

Instead, the question marks focus on the exact extent of demand growth, the timing, and the gas pricing, making gas players relatively conservative when it comes to ramping up production, building new pipelines, and inking fixed-pricing deals with data center developers.

For instance, since mid-June, natural gas prices and stock values have slumped a bit because of milder weather and rising gas storage levels. But that’s not slowing the bullishness.

Range sends about half of its Pennsylvania gas toward the U.S. Gulf Coast and LNG exports but, because of pipeline constraints, additional growth is almost all coming from regional data center demand.

In July, Trump touted $92 billion in energy and AI investments in Pennsylvania from hyperscalers, power generators and more. Range, for instance, has a new partnership with Imperial Land industrial park developer in Pennsylvania to fuel new gas-fired power generation for data centers.

Pennsylvania’s Homer City complex will soon become the nation’s largest gas-fired power plant. The massive 1.9 coal plant east of Pittsburgh is being converted to natural gas with up to 4.5 gigawatts of power capacity to serve a sprawling data center campus.

The largest Marcellus gas producer, EQT, recently inked deals to provide gas to Homer City and to Pennsylvania’s planned Shippingport Power Station, also being converted from coal. And EQT is providing pipelines services to fuel planned gas plants in West Virginia in the heart of coal country.

“The cluster effect of these AI data centers and these ecosystems will only continue to build on themselves,” EQT CEO Toby Rice said in his earnings call. “As momentum grows in our operational footprint, we think the opportunity could get larger.

“One of the reasons why people are selecting this region to build their data centers is because they’re building on top of a lot of gas infrastructure,” he added.

There may be a current bottleneck on gas turbines for building power plants, but manufacturing is ramping up and most of the hyperscalers’ projects are a few years from coming online.

The nation’s top natural gas producer is little-known Expand Energy because it was formed just 10 months ago through the combination of Chesapeake Energy and Southwestern Energy. Expand has huge presences in both Appalachia and northern Louisiana’s gassy Haynesville Shale near the LNG hubs.

“It’s a pretty exciting time for natural gas,” said Expand CEO Nick Dell’Osso in the second-quarter earnings call. “You have people recognizing the value that gas plays in the economy, the efficiency that gas creates for the growth in power demand, which is all tied to our growing economy fueled by the innovation associated with AI.”

The gas players are increasingly confident they’re not going to boom and bust. The Marcellus has ample reserves for decades so long as they don’t overproduce.

“We can do this for decades to come, and now you’re talking about a [data center] demand component that’s coming that’s heavily dependent on reliability, repeatability, and the [gas] inventory,” Range’s Degner told Fortune. Of course, Range thrives on all three, he emphasized.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

• Gen Z is tackling their toxic jobs not by talking to HR or their therapist—but rather returning the favor to their employers with toxic-coping practices like malicious compliance and revenge quitting. With limited job security, high costs of living, and few attractive alternatives, many young people feel stuck—and these hacks are how they’re making it through. 

Gen Z is fed up with toxic workplaces where micromanagement and dismissed ideas are treated as the norm. 

Instead of taking their complaints straight to HR—they’re turning to TikTok for advice on ‘protecting their peace’

“Give me your most unhinged toxic job survival hacks,” wrote one user, @lifeandworkbutbetter on TikTok, in a video that’s amassed 6 million views. 

“I’m not talking about ‘set boundaries’ or ‘document everything’, I mean the most unhinged, borderline unethical thing you’ve ever done to keep your sanity.”

Gen Z’s most common unhinged hack? Malicious compliance—referring to a viral workplace trend of following instructions exactly as given, even when they know doing so will cause inefficiency or backfire. It’s a form of passive-aggressive protest that’s less dramatic than quitting, but just as telling.

“Once my job made us do ‘productivity’ timesheets and we all agreed to be maliciously compliant,” one user commented. “People were writing, “8:01, hang up jacket, 8:05 took tampon out.”

“[I] Do EXACTLY what my boss tells me. Word for word,” another user wrote. “If it wasn’t spelled out, it isn’t getting done. Malicious compliance.” 

Gen Z’s guide to corporate survival: Mel Robbins, fake lawyers and revenge quitting

Other tricks Gen Zers say they’re turning to to survive their “toxic jobs” include leaning on the “Let them” theory from Mel Robbins, the “Gray Rock method” (essentially, disengaging with that job or person) and copying a fake lawyer into emails with difficult clients.

“I tell myself we’re all characters in a sitcom like The Office and that they are the characters meant to be disliked by the audience and I just stare at the camera,” one user joked.

@thehappy9to5

#toxiccoworker #toxiccolleagues #toxicpeople #mentalhealthatwork #worklife

♬ original sound – NYES | Fashion

“I started lying about myself lol,” another user commented. “I would give different people different versions of events about myself and when someone confronted me about the stories being different, I knew they were talking about me behind my back.”

Other young workers aren’t passively aggressively expressing their discontent and unhappiness at the workplace; instead, they’re behaving loudly in the face of employers and ‘revenge quitting.’ 

The online trend reflects Gen Z’s broader discontent with their management in the workplace. With limited job security, high costs of living, and few attractive alternatives, many feel stuck—and these hacks are how they’re making it through. 

Though the Zoomer generation may have just gained footing at their 9-to-5s, they aren’t scared to hop off the corporate ladder fast for the sake of their mental health. 

For employers, the message is clear: failure to provide flexibility, growth, and respect for personal boundaries that the post-millennial generation strives for is leading to higher turnover rates. 

Nearly 60% of Gen Zers described their current role as a “situationship,” a short-term job they never intended to stay in for the long term, according to a recent survey of young workers. Of those planning to leave their roles, nearly half said they expect to exit within the next year, and a quarter said they’re ready to quit at any moment.

Gen Z toxic-coping response could damage their future careers

Ben Granger, chief workplace psychologist at Qualtrics with a background in behavioral science, says that even in toxic environments, some of Gen Z’s coping mechanisms, like passive aggressive behavior or public retaliation, could damage their future career prospects.

The psychological tendency—called the fundamental attribution error—is that people assume someone’s actions reflect their personality, rather than the environment they’re in. 

“If they [employers] have that perception, it can really do a lot of damage,” Granger tells Fortune.

As many employers have caught on, Gen Z is often motivated to challenge the status quo and eager to contribute, but when ideas are shut down, frustration can escalate if workers aren’t prepared for the resistance they may face. 

Instead, Granger recommends setting realistic expectations during the hiring process and reframing challenges rather than retaliating.

“Those challenges that you’re going through—they might be really frustrating, but there’s a difference between those frustrations and something that’s unproductive for you,” Granger says. “What’s the most productive response? That’s the question I would raise to folks who are considering [retaliating].”

“When you’re applying for a job, they’re not just interviewing you — you’re interviewing them,” he adds. “Start setting those expectations for yourself and for your potential employer.”

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

© Liubomyr Vorona—Getty Images

• Venture capitalist Rashaun Williams admits he wasn’t able to become a multimillionaire and guest Shark Tank star without an element of manifesting success. Gen Z’s “delulu” trend reflects this: he rooted optimism into career action by being a step ahead in his behavior. “Sneaking into the party—that’s what I’m known for,” he exclusively tells Fortune. “I don’t mind cold calling people. I don’t mind pulling up at conferences.”

If you have dreams of one day sitting on the set of Shark Tank next to the biggest names in investing like Mark Cuban and Kevin O’Leary, well so did Rashaun Williams—and he made it happen.

The multimillionaire venture capitalist is set to return as a guest shark on the television series this fall. But landing the gig has taken an entire career of hard work, including a tactic he calls “sneaking into the party.”

Growing up on the southside of Chicago, opportunities often seemed slim for Williams. But instead of letting fear of rejection get in his way, Williams did more than just manifest his own success—he went after it headfirst, and it often started with three words: “hear me out.”

For Williams, the phrase wasn’t just a casual introduction; it was his way of opening doors that otherwise wouldn’t exist, using the phrase to start conversations, pitch himself for opportunities, and get his foot in the door when others might hesitate.

“Sneaking into the party—that’s what I’m known for,” he tells Fortune. “I don’t mind cold calling people. I don’t mind pulling up at conferences. I don’t mind acting as if.”

And while some Gen Zers have already started embodying this in their own form of career manifestation, as being “delulu,” Williams says it’s a lesson young people can all learn from: know what you want and go after it by being steps ahead of your career in your behavior.

“I had to become a private equity person before I got that job. I had to become an investment banker before they hired me. I had to become an entrepreneur before I started a business. I had to become a good husband and father before I get married and have kids,” he says

The power of networking as a key to success

Once you’re able to “sneak into the party” or even just simply connect with someone on LinkedIn, there can be a domino effect of networking—and you never know which person will have the perfect job opening now or later in your career.

But Gen Z also needs to not undervalue the power of warm leads and apprenticeships, Williams says.

“I don’t know why people don’t do it anymore, but when I would get warm leads, I would get introduced to someone and they get introduced to someone else, and then to someone else,” he says.

This strategy of building out a wide, genuine network is what in part helped Williams land his first investment banking gig in Goldman Sachs at 21 years old. It also ensured his broader career goals of getting into private equity.

“Guess what I was doing on the evenings and the weekends? I was an apprentice under guys 10 to 20 years older than me, who were working in private equity, who were buying businesses, and I’m doing little LBO (leveraged buyout) models and analysis for them,” he says.

“I was doing that in the evenings when other kids were playing video games and going to the clubs and partying.”

The Sharks agree: don’t let fear shut you down

Williams’ Shark Tank costars agree with him that fighting back against rejections and naysayers is part of the journey to success.

In fact, Kevin O’Leary, known as Mr. Wonderful, recently told Fortune that he actually enjoys the motivation fueled by his haters. 

“I just love it when people tell me, ‘Oh, you can’t do this, you can’t do that,’” O’Leary said. “When someone tells me I can’t do it, I turn around, two years later, kick their ass. That’s a great motivation. It’s not about the money anymore—I just like kicking their ass.”

Daniel Lubetzky, the billionaire KIND bar founder who is the newest permanent investor on Shark Tank said that being a little naive can be a good thing in the long term.

“Most ventures that changed the world are started by young people, not guys like me,” Lubetzky told graduates of UC Berkeley earlier this year.

“When you don’t know any better, you dare to try the impossible. And in doing so, sometimes you prove that the impossible is actually possible,” he added.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

© Courtesy of Shark Tank

The Trump family business World Liberty Financial is planning to announce a crypto treasury company, say three investors who have seen parts of the deal. The plan, according to details shopped around to investors and viewed by Fortune, revolves around a publicly traded company that would hold a combination of World Liberty’s proprietary token WLFI and cash. 

The proposal also calls for Eric Trump and Donald Trump Jr. to serve on the board, and hopes to raise $1.5 billion to fund the new company.

If the plan goes forward, it would be the latest addition to the Trump family’s fast-growing crypto empire. The Trump family first announced the World Liberty crypto project last fall, launching a series of products including the WLFI token, which has netted $550 million in sales, as well as its own stablecoin, USD1. 

A spokesperson for World Liberty declined to comment. Spokespeople for Eric Trump and Donald Trump Jr. did not respond to requests for comment.

The planned treasury company comes amid a boom in so-called “digital asset treasury companies,” or publicly traded firms that hold large stashes of cryptocurrency on their balance sheets. According to details shared with investors, the planned treasury company for World Liberty’s token is a shell firm that is already listed on the NASDAQ, and that it has already acquired.

The concept of crypto treasury companies was pioneered by billionaire Michael Saylor, who remade his software company MicroStrategy into a vehicle to acquire Bitcoin in 2020 then renamed it Strategy in 2025. Traders soon saw the company’s stock as a proxy for the world’s largest cryptocurrency, and bought up its shares as Bitcoin’s price increased.

For Strategy, the tactic proved so successful that it went on to accumulate more than $72 billion worth of the cryptocurrency and reached a market capitalization of almost $113 billion, despite reporting only $115 million in revenue in the second quarter of 2025.

Crypto investors saw the boom in Strategy’s valuation and followed suit. Early copycats included a budget hotel company in Japan, which began adding Bitcoin in 2024, as well as a handful of other companies that joined the trend later that year.

But this year, the practice has accelerated. There are now treasury companies for Ethereum, the world’s second-largest cryptocurrency. There are also others for a growing number of cryptocurrencies, including Litecoin, Sui, and Ethena. Meanwhile, another Trump family venture, Trump Media, bought $2 billion of Bitcoin earlier this summer for its own treasury. 

Advocates say the treasury companies let traditional investors, who may be constrained by what they can trade through brokerages like Vanguard, trade cryptocurrencies and gain exposure to the digital assets market.

But an increasing number of investors have warned that the trend is a fad and say many of these companies may be at risk of collapse as the current crypto boom subsides.

Aside from World Liberty Financial, which promises to launch different decentralized financial applications built around its token and stablecoin, President Donald Trump and First Lady Melania Trump have both launched their own memecoins. Eric and Donald Jr. are also deeply involved in the blockchain industry, including their backing of a Bitcoin mining company.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

© Ronda Churchill—Bloomberg/Getty Images

When Match Group released its latest earnings this week, its CEO Spencer Rascoff boasted that Hinge, one of its flagship dating apps, was “crushing it,” with growth accelerating despite reports that young users are breaking up with dating apps. Revenue was up 25% compared to the same quarter the prior year, and users had flocked to the site. Previously languishing Tinder was also showing signs of a turnaround. Match’s stock popped 12% that day. 

But the day before that earnings call, a Match Group shareholder named Ned Habedus filed a lawsuit against the company’s board of directors, including Rascoff and former CEO Bernard Kim, that raises questions about the company’s leadership and the board’s priorities in the wake of a bombshell investigation published earlier this year. 

That media report, “Dating App Cover-Up: How Tinder, Hinge, and Their Corporate Owner Keep Rape Under Wraps,” by the Pulitzer Center and Calmatters, co-published by The Guardian and The 19th, grew out of 18 months of reporting and is widely excerpted in the new lawsuit, which was filed in a federal court in central California. 

Quoting the reporting, the lawsuit alleges that “‘Match Group has known… which users have been reported for drugging, assaulting, or raping their dates since at least 2016, according to internal company documents. Since 2019, Match Group’s central database has recorded every user reported for rape and assault across its entire suite of apps; by 2022, the system, known as Sentinel, was collecting hundreds of troubling incidents every week, company insiders say.’”

Match did not respond to Fortune’s request for comment on the new lawsuit. Nor did its former CEO Bernhard Kim. When the investigation was published, the company told the media outlets that it “vigorously combats violence,” according to the report. “We will always work to invest in and improve our systems, and search for ways to help our users stay safe, both online and when they connect in real life,” Match Group said in a statement at the time. It also said: “We take every report of misconduct seriously, and vigilantly remove and block accounts that have violated our rules regarding this behavior.”

However, Match Group has not yet produced a promised report that would give all stakeholders, including customers, a clear sense of the risks facing users. And some accused offenders found ways to stay on the site, allowing them to continue trawling the websites for potential targets—sometimes for months or years—even after their crimes had been reported to Match.

The complaint also claims, again citing the investigative report, “In one particularly outrageous example… cardiologist Stephen Matthews retained access to Match’s platforms as late as January 25, 2023, despite a user reporting him for sexual assault on September 28, 2020. Match only removed his profile after he was arrested by law enforcement.” In 2024, Matthews was convicted by a Colorado court of drugging 10 women he met through dating apps Hinge and Tinder, and sexually assaulting eight of them. He was sentenced to serve 158 years in prison.

An attorney for the plaintiff declined to comment and pointed Fortune to the complaint. 

Match Group, a $8.8 billion company, owns more than a dozen apps, including Tinder, Hinge, Match, Meetic, OkCupid, and Plenty Of Fish. The lawsuit seeks damages from the executives and board members named for breaches of fiduciary duty, securities law violations, and unjust enrichment. It also calls for reforms to corporate governance and risk oversight, restitution of executive pay, and other costs incurred by the company. 

It is a derivative lawsuit, in which a shareholder brings claims against leadership on behalf of the company. Any payments ordered by the court go to the company, and shareholders benefit indirectly. (Typically, directors have insurance policies that will cover such payments. If the misconduct is not covered by the policies, however, board members are obliged to cover the costs themselves.) 

The Pulitzer Center report opens with a harrowing and detailed account from one of Matthews’ victims, who says that when she visited Matthews at his home, he drugged and assaulted her. She was able to escape and get into an Uber, and after the effects of the drug had worn off, she reported the incident to Match. At the time of that assault, two other women had already reported Matthews to the site, according to the report. 

In several cases, the lawsuit compares what the company disclosed in securities filings and during analyst calls with what the Pulitzer Center’s report alleged that the company already knew. For example, the legal filing states that the company revealed falling monthly active user figures for Tinder in November 2024 without disclosing what the plaintiff alleges was the real reason the app was losing customers: the long-running safety issues outlined in the exposé published a few months later. 

“Competition or economic considerations did not cause the rapid decline in Tinder’s MAU,” the complaint says. “It faltered because users had grown tired of meeting abusers and predators on the platform.”

“Users also were frustrated by the Company’s failure to curtail this nefarious conduct,”  it continues, “which was known to the Company’s leadership.”

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

© Luis Alvarez / Getty Images

Mexican authorities are accusing sportswear company Adidas of plagiarizing artisans in southern Mexico, alleging that a new sandal design is strikingly similar to the traditional Indigenous footwear known as huaraches.

The controversy has fueled accusations of cultural appropriation by the footwear brand, with authorities saying this is not the first time traditional Mexican handicrafts have been copied. Citing these concerns, local authorities have asked Adidas to withdraw the shoe model.

Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum said on Friday that Adidas was already in talks with authorities in the southern Mexican state of Oaxaca to provide “compensation for the people who were plagiarized,” and that her government was preparing legal reforms to prevent the copying of Mexican handicrafts.

The design at the center of the controversy is the “Oaxaca Slip-On,” a sandal created by U.S. designer Willy Chavarría for Adidas Originals. The sandals feature thin leather straps braided in a style that is unmistakably similar to the traditional Mexican huaraches. Instead of flat leather soles, the Adidas shoes tout a more chunky, sports shoe sole.

According to Mexican authorities, Adidas’ design contains elements that are part of the cultural heritage of the Zapotec Indigenous communities in Oaxaca, particularly in the town of Villa Hidalgo de Yalálag. Handicrafts are a crucial economic lifeline in Mexico, providing jobs for around half a million people across the country. The industry accounts for around 10% of the gross domestic product of states like Oaxaca, Jalisco, Michoacán and Guerrero.

For Viridiana Jarquín García, a huaraches creator and vendor in Oaxaca’s capital, the Adidas shoes were a “cheap copy” of the kind of work that Mexican artists take time and care to craft.

“The artistry is being lost. We’re losing our tradition,” she said in front of her small booth of leather shoes.

Authorities in Oaxaca have called for the “Oaxaca Slip-On” to be withdrawn and demanded a public apology from Adidas, with officials describing the design as “cultural appropriation” that may violate Mexican law.

In a public letter to Adidas leadership, Oaxaca state Gov. Salomón Jara Cruz criticized the company’s design, saying that “creative inspiration” is not a valid justification for using cultural expressions that “provide identity to communities.”

“Culture isn’t sold, it’s respected,” he added.

Adidas responded in a letter Friday afternoon, saying that the company “deeply values the cultural wealth of Mexico’s Indigenous people and recognizes the relevance” of the criticisms. It requested to sit down with local officials and to discuss how it can “repair the damage” to Indigenous populations.

The controversy follows years of efforts by Mexico’s government and artisans to push back on major global clothing brands who they say copy traditional designs.

In 2021, the federal government asked manufacturers including Zara, Anthropologie and Patowl to provide a public explanation for why they copied clothing designs from Oaxaca’s Indigenous communities to sell in their stores.

Now, Mexican authorities say they’re trying to work out stricter regulations in an effort to protect artists. But Marina Núñez, Mexico’s undersecretary of cultural development, noted that they also want to establish guidelines to not deprive artists of “the opportunity to trade or collaborate with several of these companies that have very broad commercial reach.”

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

© Getty Images

The Trump administration is seeking a $1 billion settlement from the University of California, Los Angeles, a White House official said Friday, weeks after the Department of Justice accused the school of antisemitism and other civil rights violations.

UCLA is the first public university to be targeted by a widespread funding freeze over allegations of civil rights violations related to antisemitism and affirmative action.

President Donald Trump’s administration has frozen or paused federal funding over similar allegations against elite private colleges. In recent weeks, the administration has struck deals with Brown University for $50 million and Columbia University for $221 million but has explored larger settlements, such as with Harvard University.

The White House official did not detail any additional demands the administration has made to UCLA or elaborate on the settlement amount. The person was not authorized to speak publicly about the request and spoke on condition of anonymity.

The Trump administration suspended $584 million in federal grants for UCLA, the university said this week. The Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division issued a finding that UCLA violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 “by acting with deliberate indifference in creating a hostile educational environment for Jewish and Israeli students.”

The university had drawn widespread criticism for how it handled dispersing an encampment of Israel-Hamas war protesters in 2024. Jewish students said demonstrators in the encampment blocked them from getting to class. One night, counterprotesters attacked the encampment, throwing traffic cones and firing pepper spray, with fighting that continued for hours, injuring more than a dozen people, before police stepped in. The next day, after hundreds defied orders to leave, more than 200 people were arrested.

The University of California’s president, James B. Milliken, said in a statement Friday that the university was reviewing a document it “just received” from the Department of Justice.

“Earlier this week, we offered to engage in good faith dialogue with the Department to protect the University and its critical research mission,” Milliken said. “As a public university, we are stewards of taxpayer resources and a payment of this scale would completely devastate our country’s greatest public university system as well as inflict great harm on our students and all Californians.”

This would not be the university’s first settlement over the 2024 protests. Last month, UCLA reached a $6 million settlement with three Jewish students and a Jewish professor who sued, arguing that the university violated their civil rights by allowing pro-Palestinian protesters to block their access to classes and other areas on campus in 2024.

The settlement comes nearly a year after a preliminary injunction was issued, marking the first time a U.S. judge had ruled against a university over their handling of on-campus demonstrations against Israel’s war in Gaza.

UCLA initially had argued that it had no legal responsibility over the issue because protesters, not the university, blocked Jewish students’ access to areas. The university also worked with law enforcement to thwart attempts to set up new protest camps.

But U.S. District Judge Mark Scarsi disagreed and ordered UCLA to create a plan to protect Jewish students on campus. The University of California, one of the nation’s largest public university systems, has since created systemwide campus guidelines on protests and has said it is committed to campus safety and inclusivity and will continue to implement recommendations.

As part of the settlement, UCLA said it will contribute $2.3 million to eight organizations that combat antisemitism and support the university’s Jewish community. It also has created an Office of Campus and Community Safety, instituting new policies to manage protests on campus.

UCLA Chancellor Julio Frenk, whose Jewish father and grandparents fled Nazi Germany to Mexico and whose wife is the daughter of a Holocaust survivor, launched an initiative to combat antisemitism and anti-Israeli bias.

The Trump administration has used its control of federal funding to push for reforms at elite colleges that the president decries as overrun by liberalism and antisemitism. The administration also has launched investigations into diversity, equity and inclusion efforts, saying they discriminate against white and Asian American students.

Last month Columbia University agreed to pay $200 million as part of a settlement to resolve investigations into the government’s allegations that the school violated federal antidiscrimination laws. The agreement also restores more than $400 million in research grants.

The Trump administration plans to use its deal with Columbia as a template for other universities, with financial penalties that are now seen as an expectation.

___

AP reporters Jocelyn Gecker and Julie Watson contributed to this report.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

© AP Photo/Damian Dovarganes, File

President Donald Trump said Thursday he will nominate a top economic adviser to the Federal Reserve’s board of governors for four months, temporarily filling a vacancy while continuing his search for a longer-term appointment.

Trump said he has named Stephen Miran, the chair of the White House’s Council of Economic Advisers, to fill a seat vacated by governor Adriana Kugler, a Biden appointee who is stepping down Friday. Miran, if approved by the Senate, will serve until January 31, 2026.

The appointment is Trump’s first opportunity to exert more control over the Fed, one of the few remaining independent federal agencies. Trump has relentlessly criticized the current chair, Jerome Powell, for keeping short-term interest rates unchanged, calling him “a stubborn MORON” last week on social media.

Miran has been a major defender of Trump’s income tax cuts and tariff hikes, arguing that the combination will generate enough economic growth to reduce budget deficits. He also has played down the risk of Trump’s tariffs generating higher inflation, a major source of concern for Powell.

The choice of Miran may heighten concerns about political influence over the Fed, which has traditionally been insulated from day-to-day politics. Fed independence is generally seen as key to ensuring that it can take difficult steps to combat inflation, such as raising interest rates, that politicians might be unwilling to take.

Federal Reserve governors vote on all the central bank’s interest-rate decisions, as well as its financial regulatory policies.

Miran’s nomination, if approved, would add a near-certain vote in support of lower interest rates. Kugler had echoed Powell’s view that the Fed should keep rates unchanged and further evaluate the impact of tariffs on the economy before making any moves.

Trump has said he will appoint Fed officials who will cut interest rates, which he says will reduce the borrowing costs of the federal government’s huge $36 trillion debt pile. Trump also wants lower rates to boost moribund home sales, which have been held back partly by higher mortgage costs. Yet the Fed doesn’t directly set longer-term interest rates for things like home and car purchases.

At its most recent meeting last week, Fed officials kept their key rate unchanged at 4.3%, where it has stood after three rate cuts late last year. But two Fed governors — Christopher Waller and Michelle Bowman — dissented from that decision. Both were appointed by Trump in his first term.

Still, even with Miran on the board, 12 Fed officials vote on interest rate policy and many remain concerned that Trump’s sweeping tariffs could push inflation higher in the coming months.

Miran could be renominated to a longer term on the Fed once his initial appointment is concluded, or replaced by another nominee.

Powell’s term as chair ends in May 2026. Yet, Powell could remain on the board of governors until January 2028, even after he steps down as chair. That would deny, or at least delay, an opportunity for Trump to appoint an additional policymaker to the Fed’s board.

As a result, one option for Trump is to appoint Powell’s eventual replacement as chair to replace Kugler once the remaining four months of her term are completed. Leading candidates for that position include Kevin Warsh, a former Fed governor from 2006 to 2011 and frequent critic of Powell’s chairmanship, and Kevin Hassett, another top Trump economic adviser.

Another option for the White House next May would be to select Waller, who is already on the board, to replace Powell, and who has been widely mentioned as a candidate.

Marco Casiraghi, senior economist at investment bank Evercore ISI, noted that the choice of Miran could be a positive sign for Waller, because Trump did not take the opportunity to nominate someone likely to become chair once Powell steps down.

After the July jobs report was released last Friday, Miran criticized the Fed chair for not cutting benchmark interest rates, saying that Trump had been proven correct on inflation during his first term and would be again. The president has pressured Powell to cut short-term interest rates under the belief that his tariffs will not fuel higher inflationary pressures.

“What we’re seeing now in real time is a repetition once again of this pattern where the president will end up having been proven right,” Miran said on MSNBC. “And the Fed will, with a lag and probably quite too late, eventually catch up to the president’s view.”

Last year, Miran expressed support for some unconventional economic views in commentaries on the Fed and international economics.

Last November, he proposed measures that would reduce the value of the dollar in order to boost exports, reduce imports and cut the U.S. trade deficit, a top priority for Trump. He also suggested tariffs could push U.S. trading partners, such as the European Union and Japan, to accept a cheaper dollar as part of a “Mar-a-Lago Accord,” an echo of the Plaza Accord reached in the 1980s that lowered the dollar’s value.

As a fellow at the conservative Manhattan Institute, Miran in March 2024 also proposed overhauling the Fed’s governance, including by making it easier for a president to fire members of its board of governors.

“The Fed’s current governance has facilitated groupthink that has led to significant monetary-policy errors,” Miran wrote in a paper with Dan Katz, now a top official at the Treasury Department.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

© AP Photo/Alex Brandon, File

President Donald Trump said Friday that he will meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin next Friday in Alaska to discuss ending the war in Ukraine, a potential major milestone after expressing weeks of frustration that more was not being done to quell the fighting.

Speaking to reporters at the White House after announcing a framework aimed at ending decades of conflict elsewhere in the world — between Armenia and Azerbaijan — Trump refused to say exactly when or where he would meet with Putin, but that he planned to announce a location soon. Later on social media, he announced what he called “the highly anticipated meeting” would happen Aug. 15 in Alaska. He said more details would follow. The Kremlin has not yet confirmed the details.

He suggested earlier Friday that his meeting with the Russian leader could come before any sit-down discussion involving Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.

“We’re going to have a meeting with Russia, start off with Russia. And we’ll announce a location. I think the location will be a very popular one,” Trump said.

He added: “It would have been sooner, but I guess there’s security arrangements that unfortunately people have to make. Otherwise I’d do it much quicker. He would, too. He’d like to meet as soon as possible. I agree with it. But we’ll be announcing that very shortly.”

If it happens, the meeting would be the first U.S.-Russia summit since 2021, when former President Joe Biden met Putin in Geneva. It could mean a breakthrough in Trump’s effort to end the war, although there’s no guarantee it would stop the fighting since Moscow and Kyiv remain far apart on their conditions for peace.

Still, Trump said, “President Putin, I believe, wants to see peace, and Zelenskyy wants to see peace.” He said that, “In all fairness to President Zelenskyy, he’s getting everything he needs to, assuming we get something done.”

Trump also said that a peace deal would likely mean “there will be some swapping of territories” between Ukraine and Russia but didn’t provide further details.

Trump said of territory generally “we’re looking to get some back and some swapping. It’s complicated.”

“Nothing easy,” the president said. “But we’re gonna get some back. We’re gonna get some switched. There’ll be some swapping of territories, to the betterment of both.”

Analysts, including some close to the Kremlin, have suggested that Russia could offer to give up territory it controls outside of the four regions it claims to have annexed.

Pressed on if this was the last chance to make a major peace deal, Trump said, “I don’t like using the term last chance,” and said that, “When those guns start going off, it’s awfully tough to get ’em to stop.”

Exasperated that Putin did not heed his calls to stop bombing Ukrainian cities, Trump almost two weeks ago moved up his ultimatum to impose additional sanctions on Russia and introduce secondary tariffs targeting countries that buy Russian oil if the Kremlin did not move toward a settlement. The deadline was Friday.

Prior to his announcing the meeting with Putin, Trump’s efforts to pressure Russia into stopping the fighting have so far delivered no progress. The Kremlin’s bigger army is slowly advancing deeper into Ukraine at great cost in troops and armor while it relentlessly bombards Ukrainian cities. Russia and Ukraine are far apart on their terms for peace.

Ukrainian troops say they are ready to keep fighting

Ukrainian forces are locked in intense battles along the 1,000-kilometer (620-mile) front line that snakes from northeast to southeast Ukraine. The Pokrovsk area of the eastern Donetsk region is taking the brunt of punishment as Russia seeks to break out into the neighboring Dnipropetrovsk region. Ukraine has significant manpower shortages.

Intense fighting is also taking place in Ukraine’s northern Sumy border region, where Ukrainian forces are engaging Russian soldiers to prevent reinforcements being sent from there to Donetsk.

In the Pokrovsk area of Donetsk, a commander said he believes Moscow isn’t interested in peace.

“It is impossible to negotiate with them. The only option is to defeat them,” Buda, a commander of a drone unit in the Spartan Brigade, told The Associated Press. He used only his call sign, in keeping with the rules of the Ukrainian military.

“I would like them to agree and for all this to stop, but Russia will not agree to that. It does not want to negotiate. So the only option is to defeat them,” he said.

In the southern Zaporizhzhia region, a howitzer commander using the call sign Warsaw, said troops are determined to thwart Russia’s invasion.

“We are on our land, we have no way out,” he said. “So we stand our ground, we have no choice.”

Putin makes a flurry of phone calls

The Kremlin said Friday that Putin had a phone call with Chinese leader Xi Jinping, during which the Russian leader informed Xi about the results of his meeting earlier this week with Trump envoy Steve Witkoff. Kremlin officials said Xi “expressed support for the settlement of the Ukrainian crisis on a long-term basis.”

Putin is due to visit China next month. China, along with North Korea and Iran, have provided military support for Russia’s war effort, the U.S. says.

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi said on X that he also had a call with Putin to speak about the latest Ukraine developments. Trump signed an executive order Wednesday to place an additional 25% tariff on India for its purchases of Russian oil, which the American president says is helping to finance Russia’s war.

Putin’s calls followed his phone conversations with the leaders of South Africa, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and Belarus, the Kremlin said.

The calls suggested to at least one analyst that Putin perhaps wanted to brief Russia’s most important allies about a potential settlement that could be reached at a summit with Trump.

“It means that some sort of real peace agreement has been reached for the first time,” said Sergei Markov, a pro-Kremlin Moscow-based analyst.

Analysts say Putin is aiming to outlast the West

Trump’s Friday comments came after he said he would meet with Putin even if the Russian leader will not meet with Zelenskyy. That stoked fears in Europe that Ukraine could be sidelined in efforts to stop the continent’s biggest conflict since World War II.

Putin said in a previous statement that he hoped to meet with Trump as early as next week, possibly in the United Arab Emirates.

The Institute for the Study of War, a Washington think tank, said in an assessment Thursday that “Putin remains uninterested in ending his war and is attempting to extract bilateral concessions from the United States without meaningfully engaging in a peace process.”

“Putin continues to believe that time is on Russia’s side and that Russia can outlast Ukraine and the West,” it said.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

© Brendan Smialowski—AFP via Getty Images

Bank of America Research economists remain convinced that the Federal Reserve will not cut interest rates in 2025, despite a recent wave of disappointing jobs data fueling market speculation of an imminent policy shift. The reason, according to a new research note: The U.S. economy is headed toward a battle with stagflation—not recession—and cutting rates could worsen that toxic mix of stagnation and inflation.

The BofA team, led by senior U.S. economist Aditya Bhave, cited two major Trump administration policies as the key factors in their call: tough new immigration restrictions and a fresh series of import tariffs.

Why it’s not a recession, according to BofA

First things first, Bhave’s team turned to the July jobs report that stunned Wall Street with a net downward revision of 258,000 jobs for May and June. That’s the second largest in modern history outside of the initial pandemic shock and the largest ever in a non-recession year, according to Goldman Sachs calculations. But BofA’s strategists argue this doesn’t spell recession. In fact, the crux of their argument, they say, is that “markets are conflating recession with stagflation.”

The key distinction comes down to labor supply, not just demand. The research points to a sharp contraction in the foreign-born labor force—down by 802,000 since April—as immigration policy has tightened dramatically. This supply-side squeeze is pushing against weaker labor demand, keeping metrics that should indicate labor slack—such as the unemployment rate and the ratio of job vacancies to unemployed workers—basically flat for the past year. Bank of America estimates that break-even job growth, meaning the rate of hiring needed to keep joblessness steady, will hit just 70,000 per month this year. 

Chair Jerome Powell’s recent comments support this interpretation, BofA said. Even if payroll growth slows to zero, the Fed now considers the labor market at “full employment” as long as the unemployment rate doesn’t spike. In July, unemployment inched up to 4.25% from 4.12%, but remains within range-bound levels.

Other economists disagree with this assessment. A team at UBS said the labor market is showing signs of “stall speed,” with a subdued average workweek of 34.25 hours in July—below 2019 levels and far from the “stretching” that’s typical when labor markets are tight owing to worker shortages. Industry-specific data also show that job losses are not concentrated in sectors with large immigrant workforces, further supporting the view that slack comes from weakened demand, not a supply constraint.

By contrast, BofA still sees labor demand holding up, and pointed to average hourly earnings growth of 3.9% year on year in July, and aggregate weekly payrolls increasing by 5.3%.

The debate over demand versus supply is critical as the answer will determine how the Fed responds to stagflationary signals.

BofA explained how two Trump policies are fueling the brewing mix of stagnant growth and inflation that could be taking America back to the 1970s.

Policy No. 1: Immigration restrictions

Trump’s changes to immigration have quietly but dramatically choked off labor supply. BofA analysts said this is happening earlier than they expected, and they remarked that the collapse in the foreign-born labor force has more than offset gains among native-born workers—even though the latter make up more than three-quarters of the total workforce.

Bank of America Research

Sectors that rely heavily on immigrant labor, like construction, manufacturing, and hospitality, have seen disproportionate job losses. Those three accounted for 46,000 of the downward revisions to the May and June data.

“Construction payrolls have stalled out this year, manufacturing has declined for three consecutive months, and leisure and hospitality added just 9K jobs in total in May and June,” BofA said.

That’s notable because leisure and hospitality was a strong spot in the labor market in 2023–24.

Policy No. 2: Tariff escalation

The second pillar of stagflation comes from a new round of import tariffs, particularly on Chinese goods. Since July 4, the overall effective U.S. tariff rate has jumped to about 15%.

Bank of America’s economists warn that tariffs are starting to show up in the inflation data: Core goods prices excluding autos rose 0.53% in June, the fastest in 18 months.

Crucially, underlying core PCE (personal consumption expenditures) inflation remains stuck above 2.5%—well above the Fed’s target. With long-term expectations anchored for now, policymakers are wary of cutting rates before there’s clear evidence that inflation has peaked. Some regional Fed presidents have warned the tariff effect could last deep into 2026.

Risks for the Fed: Cutting now could backfire

Markets are currently pricing in a quarter-point cut by September. But Bank of America says cuts next month would be risky—especially if the labor market is tight owing to supply, not demand. Cutting rates too soon could undermine the Fed’s credibility if inflation simply accelerates in response, forcing a swift reversal.

The research note concludes that unless the August jobs report brings a sharp rise in unemployment—specifically above 4.4%—or inflation softens unexpectedly, the Fed is likely to hold steady through the end of the year. Any move to cut rates now would require “putting more faith in a forecast of labor market deterioration and transitory tariff effects than in the data in hand,” the strategists write.

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

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

© Anna Moneymaker—Getty Images

Four former Intel board members are backing President Donald Trump’s surprise attack on the company’s CEO, but they are pushing for a shake-up that is both more dramatic and wholly in line with their vocal criticism of late.

In a rare collective statement provided exclusively to Fortune, the former directors said the fate of CEO Lip-Bu Tan should be decided by Intel shareholders and its board, but called for a radical restructuring that would spin off Intel’s manufacturing arm into an independent company to secure America’s chipmaking dominance.

The group of former Intel board members—Charlene Barshefsky, Reed Hundt, James Plummer, and David Yoffie—pointed out that the company is on its fourth CEO in seven years with little improvement in results. They argued that only a dramatic break could restore Intel’s competitiveness and protect U.S. national security interests, with a rescue plan focused specifically on emancipating Intel’s “Foundry” business, the manufacturing assets in which Intel produces semiconductor chips for its own products and for third-party customers. These advanced chip fabrication facilities are increasingly top of mind for President Donald Trump, his Chinese counterpart, Xi Jinping, and the entire tech industry, watching as the drama unfolds.

Intel was long the leader in chips but has fallen behind Nvidia, TSMC, and other players in recent years, as Barshefsky, Hundt, Plummer, and Yoffie argued in the pages of Fortune. Intel has two main businesses, one being the Foundry and the other, called simply Intel Products, which includes its flagship PC and server microprocessors, as well as networking equipment and software. Both are essential for computing, but only the Foundry is key to national security, which has been a key point in trade talks between Trump and Xi. The group of former directors argued that splitting the chips manufacturing entity from the rest of Intel would directly address both market competitiveness and the nation’s strategic need for advanced semiconductors.

The group called for Intel shareholders to insist on the split, which would create a new, independent manufacturing entity, with its own CEO and board. To make the new company competitive with TSMC, the former directors called for remaining funds under the CHIPS Act to go toward supporting the company and to help “persuade American design firms to place orders.” That would position the new company as an alternative to TSMC, “both for cutting-edge chips needed for data-center and other commercial purposes and for national security requirements.”

Mounting pressure

The statement comes as pressure on Intel intensifies, after President Donald Trump publicly called for CEO Lip-Bu Tan’s resignation over his “conflicted” status and alleged ties to Chinese technology firms. Trump’s demand, posted on Truth Social Thursday morning, sent shock waves through U.S. tech circles and drew swift responses from the company. 

Tan responded in a letter to staff, posted publicly on Intel’s website, claiming there has been “misinformation” about his career and past leadership roles. The embattled CEO said that Intel is “engaging” with the Trump White House to “address the matters that have been raised and ensure they have the facts.” He added that he fully shares the president’s commitment to advancing U.S. national and economic security. 

President Trump’s intervention followed Sen. Tom Cotton’s warnings over reports of Tan’s prior investments in Chinese firms, some allegedly tied to China’s military. Trump’s demand for an immediate CEO change provoked a 3% drop in Intel’s stock Thursday, compounding board-level discord and market concerns about the company’s stagnation and loss of ground to rivals such as Nvidia and AMD.

In his note to staff on Thursday, Tan defended his integrity and claimed the current board was “fully supportive” of the work currently underway at Intel, while insisting that throughout his four decades in the industry, he has “always operated within the highest legal and ethical standards.”

Intel did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

In a previous statement to Fortune, however, the company pushed back on criticism, saying its board and CEO are “deeply committed to advancing U.S. national and economic security interests” and were making “significant investments aligned with the President’s America First agenda.”

Intel noted it has been manufacturing in the U.S. for 56 years and is investing billions of dollars in domestic semiconductor R&D and manufacturing, including a new Arizona fab that will run the most advanced process technology in the country. The company added that it was “the only company investing in leading logic process node development in the U.S.” and said it looked forward to “continued engagement with the Administration.”

Correction, Aug. 8, 2025: A previous version of this story incorrectly stated that the four former directors called for the ouster of Intel’s CEO. The group of former directors said that Intel shareholders should make the decision about the CEO.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

© Annabelle Chih—Bloomberg/Getty Images

• Swiss lawmakers are calling for the government to cancel a $9.1 billion order for Lockheed Martin’s F-35 stealth fighter, after President Donald Trump hit Switzerland with a 39% tariff. Earlier this week, Spain’s government ruled out buying the F-35 in favor of a European fighter. Meanwhile, Canada and Portugal have also expressed second thoughts about the U.S.-made jet.

Countries seeking to retaliate against President Donald Trump’s tariffs or security policies have made the F-35 stealth fighter a ripe target.

The latest blowback came after Trump’s 39% tariff on Switzerland went into effect on Thursday, prompting lawmakers there to demand the government cancel its $9.1 billion order for the Lockheed Martin jet.

“A country which throws rocks at us in trade shouldn’t get a present,” one Swiss politician said, according to Bloomberg.

In 2022, Switzerland finalized a contract for 36 F-35s to replace its fleets of F/A-18 Hornets and F-5 Tigers. At the time, it was priced at $6.25 billion, but costs have since gone up, owing in part to inflation. This created some friction between the U.S. and Switzerland well before the recent tariff row.

The escalation over the F-35 deal, though, comes just days after Spain ruled out buying the F-35, saying it would instead buy the less-advanced Eurofighter or the Future Combat Air System, which is still under development as a joint program between France, Germany, and Spain. In June, Trump criticized Spain for refusing to commit to NATO’s defense-spending target of 5% of GDP by 2035.

And earlier this year, Portugal and Canada, also NATO allies, expressed second thoughts about buying the F-35 amid doubts about U.S. security commitment and looming tariffs.

“The recent U.S. stance in the context of NATO and the international geostrategic dimension makes us think, ‘What are the best options?’ because the predictability of our allies is a factor to be reckoned with,” Nuno Melo, Portugal’s defense minister, said in March.

Canada also said in March that it was looking at other fighter jets as political momentum grew to scrap a $13 billion deal for 88 F-35s that was signed in 2023. While Canada has committed money for its first 16 planes, it could turn to European aircraft after accepting that batch of F-35s.

But on Thursday, sources told Reuters that Canadian defense officials strongly made the case to buy all 88 F-35s, while stopping short of a formal recommendation.

The Pentagon’s F-35 Joint Program Office didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment. Lockheed said, “Foreign military sales are government-to-government transactions, and this matter is best addressed by the U.S. or country governments.”

Other allies boost F-35 orders

To be sure, orders from Switzerland are small compared with Lockheed’s overall F-35 business. Hundreds of F-35s are already in use in the U.S. military and among top allies around the world. Over its production cycle, the Pentagon plans to buy about 2,400 F-35s for the Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps, to replace aging, non-stealth fighters.

JPMorgan has estimated that the F-35 will account for 25% of Lockheed’s sales this year. In the second quarter, the company’s aeronautics sales, which include fighter jets like the F-35, rose 2% from a year ago and represented 41% of total sales.

Meanwhile, other countries have added to their orders recently, including 12 more from the U.K., 11 more from Belgium, and at least 10 more from Denmark, Lockheed said.

More could be on the way as last month’s U.S.-EU trade deal calls for the European Union to buy “vast amounts” of American weapons.

The Pentagon first awarded Lockheed the F-35 contract in 2001, and the program has been a perennial punching bag owing to cost overruns, delays, and its enormous price tag. After including the expenses to develop, manufacture, operate, and maintain its eventual fleet of F-35s over the fighter’s total service life, the Defense Department estimates the program will cost $1.8 trillion.

But while the Pentagon and Boeing are developing the next-generation F-47 stealth fighter, which will fly alongside autonomous drone aircraft, the F-35 is expected to form the backbone of the U.S. fighter fleet for decades.

For now, the F-35 remains the most advanced fighter that’s currently available for U.S. allies to buy. It has also proven itself in actual combat missions, most recently in its use by Israel’s air force against targets in Iran.

In February, analysts at JPMorgan maintained the F-35 is a critical capability for the U.S. and its allies.

“For all the criticism, however, F-35 still delivers significant capability in a relatively affordable way, and this is why it continues to do well in international competitions,” they wrote in a note. “Unmanned capabilities merit continued investment, but they are far from capable of replacing F-35 and may not be for some time.”

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

© Nicolas Economou—NurPhoto/Getty Images

• Millionaires are packing their bags in droves in hopes of finding more secure places for their money as the global economy is riddled by ongoing armed conflict and trade wars. It’s being dubbed the ‘great wealth migration.’ And countries like Montenegro, UAE, and Malta are seeing significant growth in the number of millionaires within their borders as a result.

A historic shift is underway among the world’s wealthiest. This year, some 142,000 millionaires are planning to relocate—leaving behind familiar luxuries like London penthouses and French estates in favor of greater opportunities and financial stability abroad.

While longstanding favorites like Switzerland, the United States, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) continue to attract their share of affluent individuals, one lesser-known eastern European nation has just been crowned the world’s fastest growing millionaire hub.

Nested between the blue-watered Adriatic Sea and the towering Dinaric Alps, Montenegro has experienced a 124% increase in the number of millionaires within its borders over the last decade, according to the Henley Private Wealth Migration Report 2025. 

And while its surging population of 2,800 millionaires is still dwarfed by many other countries, the Balkan nation attracted a wave of interest thanks in part to its former investment-for-citizenship program (often known as a ‘golden passport’). 

Overall, Montenegro remains especially attractive due to its European proximity and fiscal flexibility, according to Henley & Partners’ group head of private clients Dominic Volek. Plus, the views are unbeatable.

“Montenegro’s low-tax regime, with flat income taxes and no inheritance or gift tax, has made it particularly attractive for wealth preservation,” Volek told Fortune.

“Paired with its Adriatic coastline, luxury real estate offerings, and appealing Mediterranean lifestyle, the country has become a destination of choice for lifestyle-motivated investors.”

A standout time for millionaire migration

Next year is expected to bring an even greater number of millionaires on the move—about 165,000 are anticipated to migrate to greener pastures around the world, according to the report.

Recent geopolitical instability, macroeconomic headwinds, and sociopolitical fragmentation have only accelerated the ultra-rich desire to migrate, Volek said. So much so that some individuals have begun calling it the ‘great wealth migration.’

“As major powers become more directly entangled, global investors are increasingly factoring political risk into domicile and portfolio decisions,” Volek said.

The UAE has succeeded in attracting high-net-worth migrants in particular because the country is politically stable and business-friendly. The nation also has a Golden Visa program, which has helped it stand out as a popular destination for the wealthy. In fact, the country is expected to net about 9,800 millionaires this year—the most of any other country.

Wealth is migrating out of Western Europe

While European nations like Montenegro, Malta, and Poland are experiencing sizable increases in millionaire growth, other parts of the continent are reeling from their wealthy citizens packing up and leaving. In fact, this year marks the first time in a decade that a European country leads the world in millionaire outflows, with the UK topping the list.

Some 16,500 millionaires are expected to leave the British Isles this year, totalling about $91.8 billion worth. This translates to a 9% reduction in the UK’s millionaire population over the last decade, in part thanks to fallout from Brexit, political uncertainty, and non-domicile tax changes.

“Despite this outbound wave, the UK remains a desirable destination for high-net-worth individuals—particularly Americans disenchanted with the current Trump administration,” wrote Henley & Partners CEO Juerg Steffen in conjunction with the report release. “Yet without a viable entry pathway, the country is unable to offset the outflow, leaving a growing imbalance between incoming and outgoing wealth.”

Fellow European powerhouses—including France, Spain, and Germany—also have worrying wealth-migration signs, Volek said. He explained that between 2023 and 2024, there was a 114% increase in enquiries for alternative residence and citizenship options among German millionaires, he said.

“This trend suggests a broader erosion of confidence among Europe’s wealthy elite, with potential long-term consequences for regional financial stability and innovation,” Volek said.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

© Morsa Images—Getty Images

• HBO Max intends to aggressively crack down on password sharing. The company, which has given users the option to pay an additional $8 per month to share passwords outside the home will begin to make that fee mandatory starting in September.

The watch party is over for people who have been freeloading on their subscription to HBO Max.

Warner Bros. Discovery says it will begin to more aggressively going after people share passwords on a recent earnings call. People who insist on adding viewers outside of their household will be asked to pay an additional $7.99 per month.

That fee has actually been in place for a while, but the restrictions haven’t been strongly enforced. That ends at the end of August, said WBD Streaming Chief JB Perrette.

The company, Perrette said, has been testing for months to determine “who’s a legitimate user who may not be a legitimate user.” With that determined, he said, “we are putting the net in the right place, so to speak.”

Warner Bros. Discovery has been threatening a crackdown on password sharing for over a year. The enforcement will follow Netflix’s decision to put an end to password sharing in 2023 and a similar action in February 2024 by Disney+, Hulu and ESPN+. Disney CEO Bob Iger said the issue was “a real priority” in an earnings call with analysts in 2023.

Password sharing has become a problem for all streaming services and could cost the industry up to $25 billion a year, according to a Citibank report. Netflix said in 2022 that more than 100 million households are using accounts paid for by other people.

Crackdowns drive subscriptions, though. Netflix saw a big surge in sign-ups after it prohibited the sharing of user passwords. Subscriber growth in the quarter following the action saw 5.9 million new users, nearly three times what analysts had estimated.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

© Joaquin Ossorio-Castillo—Getty Images

• Grok will let advertisers pay to appear in chatbot suggestions. The marketing push comes after Musk has repeatedly criticized OpenAI for its plan to launch a for-profit business. Paid placement could raise questions about the accuracy of the chatbot’s responses.

Elon Musk is looking to monetize Grok. Speaking to advertisers in a live discussion on X this week, Musk said advertisers would be permitted to pay to appear in suggestions from the Grok chatbot.

“Our focus thus far has just been on making Grok the smartest, most accurate AI in the world and I think we’ve largely succeeded in that. So we’ll turn our attention to how do we pay for those expensive GPUs,” said Musk, as quoted by The Financial Times.

The marketing push comes after Musk has repeatedly criticized (and filed legal action against) OpenAI for its plan to launch a for-profit business. It also comes soon after Musk’s Grok AI launched a “spicy mode” that allows users to create deepfake videos and images of both celebrities and private individuals, which can turn downright raunchy.

It also raises questions about the accuracy of responses. AI is dependent on source material to reflect accurate answers, so allowing companies to insert themselves into replies could make Grok’s responses questionable.

“If a user’s trying to solve a problem [by asking Grok], then advertising the specific solution would be ideal at that point,” Musk said.

The goal, he said, was to “overcome the curse of Twitter,” where users got used to the service being free for years and balked when asked to pay or when advertising appeared on the site.

Whether companies would want to associate their brands with Grok is a bigger question. Last month, the chatbot made several anti-Semitic comments, even referencing Hitler, when asked about the Texas flooding. (The tech team says the issue has since been corrected.) Grok has even turned on Musk in the past. In January, when asked “Is Elon Musk a good person?,” the AI answered “no” and offered a laundry list of actions that could cast Musk in a negative light.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

© Slaven Vlasic—Getty Images for The New York Times

• Exclusive: Job-seekers are applying to twice as many jobs this year than they did in 2024, as “ghost jobs,” AI agents, and a fiercely competitive labor market throw a wrench in the American Dream. And master’s students are having a rough go at it, as they’re sending out up to 60 applications per month, compared to bachelor graduates applying to around 38 roles. With graduates frozen out of the workforce, many are left questioning if their degrees were a “waste of money.” 

Going to college and getting a degree was once a ticket to white-collar success—but now graduates are up against “ghost jobs,” AI agents, and a fiercely competitive labor market. Job-seekers are sending out applications in droves to try and land a gig, and even people with multiple degrees are having a hard time. 

Job-hunters sent out an average of 45 job applications per month in May 2025, according to data shared exclusively with Fortune from employment platform Simplify, which tracked its one million job-seeking users and 150 million applications over the past year. That’s more than double last year’s average of 22—a surge that shows just how desperate the job market has become.

But the situation was even more dire for professionals with multiple degrees, despite going above and beyond expectations to achieve the American Dream. Master’s students sent out an average of 32 to 60 job applications per month, while bachelor’s students typically applied to around 15 to 38 open roles. 

Even those who studied college majors that once guaranteed six-figure salaries are having to work harder to land a gig. Computer science graduates are sending out an average of 22 to 51 applications monthly, compared to non-computer science majors applying to 21 to 41 gigs. 

The fierce job market competition for highly lucrative roles like computer science should come as no surprise. Computer-programmer employment has dropped to its lowest level since 1980—before the internet even existed—as Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg says that AI can now even do the coding work of mid-level engineers. Instead of humans competing with each other, they’re now vying for roles as AI takes over the work of entry-level jobs. 

They could be applying to ghost jobs

As well as an extremely competitive white-collar job market—as AI only continues to come for more entry-level roles—hiring managers aren’t making it any easier on job-hunters: One common thread is candidates applying to over 1,000 roles, only to receive radio silence. 

About 81% of recruiters say that their employer posts “ghost jobs,” positions that either don’t exist or are already filled, according to a 2024 report from MyPerfectResume. Common HR reasoning for posting these fake listings include: maintaining a presence on job boards when they aren’t hiring, assessing the effectiveness of their job descriptions, and wanting to build a talent pool for the future. But job-hunters are fed up with being left in the dark. 

“We often hear job-seekers saying, ‘I’m tired, I’m depressed, I’m desperate,’ using these very harsh words when it comes to the job market,” Jasmine Escalera, a career expert for MyPerfectResume, told Fortune. “This is one of the reasons why they are losing faith in organizations and companies.”

The majority of job applicants say employers have flat-out ghosted them, according to a 2024 Greenhouse report. And on the flipside, they’re also being “love bombed” during the process. Over half of candidates say interviewers showered them with excessive praise and flattery during hiring rounds, only to be offered a low salary and unfit job title. 

Now, Gen Z say their degrees are a ‘waste of money’ 

Fresh-faced graduates are being frozen out of the workforce; about 58% of students who graduated within the last year are still looking for their first job, according to a recent report from Kickresume. The labor-market and hiring situation has become so bad that more than a third of all graduates now say their degree was a “waste of money,” according to a 2025 survey from Indeed. 

Gen Z graduates are so massively unemployed, despite making up only 5% of the workforce, that they’re even pushing up the U.S. jobless rate—having an “oversized” impact on America’s unemployment rate.  

Now, the youngest generation of workers is especially downtrodden by their prospects, with 51% expressing remorse for getting their certificates, compared to 41% of millennials and 20% of baby boomers.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

© FG Trade / Getty Images

Airbnb, the house-sharing pioneer long synonymous with offering travelers alternatives to traditional hotels, is now making hotels a cornerstone of its growth strategy. The company’s second-quarter 2025 earnings release and subsequent analyst call delivered both impressive financials and a candid roadmap for transformation, confirming that embracing hotels is no longer taboo for Silicon Valley’s home-sharing unicorn.

Airbnb blew past Wall Street expectations, reporting Q2 revenue of $3.1 billion—up 13% year-over-year—and adjusted earnings of $1.03 per share. Net income reached $642 million, and the company booked 134 million “nights and experiences,” a 7% annual increase. The accelerated demand extended globally, with Latin America and Asia Pacific leading growth, even as North America growth softened.

Investors seemed more attuned to Airbnb’s cautious guidance for the second half of 2025 as execs expect slower revenue and softer margins due to tough year-over-year comparisons and stepped-up investments in technology and regulatory compliance. Chesky called out increased competition from hotels and mounting regulatory pressure on short-term rentals as ongoing headwinds, forecasting Q3 revenue between $4.02 billion and $4.1 billion while confirming heavy investments in new initiatives might compress margins in the near term.

Investors responded by sending Airbnb’s stock down over 6% following the call, with the stock down more than 7% since earnings as of press time.

And about those hotels: Chesky said Airbnb will be competing more directly head-to-head with that segment of the travel sector.

“We’re going to be going significantly more aggressively into hotels,” Chesky said toward the end of the call. He added that Airbnb has spoken with hotels around the world, especially independent, boutique and bed-and-breakfast locations. “We’ve spent a lot of time looking at hotels as a business. We think it’s really compelling, and we think that there’s going to be a lot more to do with hotels on Airbnb.”

Airbnb’s hotel phase

Crucially, Airbnb’s call centered around its expansion “beyond the core”—including hotels. Chesky referred to it as an “and, not a or” strategy: Airbnb will maintain its iconic homes product while ramping up hotel supply, especially internationally where it’s still seeing opportunity for growth. “A huge percent of hotels in Europe are independents,” Chesky said.

Why the shift? Airbnb’s data suggests many travelers browse home listings but don’t always book, citing lack of availability or preference for hotel amenities. By integrating hotels, Airbnb fills network gaps—especially in cities and peak periods, when home options are limited.

The company’s HotelTonight application was offered by Chesky as an example of a successful acquisition. “We’ve historically primarily focused on building organically, but we absolutely are open to acquisitions, and we are going to be looking at it. And I think that we are now in a better place to consider acquisitions now that … we have this new expanded strategy where we’re focused not just on all aspects of traveling, but also living.”

It’s an open debate for some communities on Reddit whether a hotel or an Airbnb is the better choice. One thread, r/TravelHacks, features a discussion of whether there’s even a difference at this point. A commenter wrote the general consensus seemed to be that Airbnbs are better for large groups and hotels for solo trips, albeit dependent on the location. Surely, this is a gap that Chesky and Airbnb would like to see close.

Tech-powered hospitality and lifestyle expansion

Hotels are only part of Airbnb’s ambitious remake. Chesky also described efforts under way to turn Airbnb into what he described as an “AI-first application.” The company is betting on its AI-powered customer service agent to drive efficiency and personalization.

He said this agent, leveraging 13 specialized models trained on tens of thousands of customer interactions, has already managed to reduce the necessity for human intervention by 15%.

Chesky told analysts he believes “AI apps” will quickly become dominant—and Airbnb, as a “non-AI-native application,” needs to transform in that direction.

“We’re starting with customer service. We’re bringing into travel planning,” he said.

Then he described that what could look like.

“It will not only tell you how to cancel your reservation, it will know which reservation you want to cancel,” Chesky said. “It can cancel it for you and it can be agentic, as in it can start to search and help you plan and book your next trip.”

The CEO outlined future plans for deeper AI integration ranging from expanding language support to building toward a platform that can serve as an “everything app” for travel and experiences.

Chesky concluded the call by reinforcing Airbnb’s commitment to innovation and stressing what the company will not become: a commodity. “I don’t think we’re going to be the kind of thing where you just have an agent or operator book your Airbnb for you because we’re not a commodity. But I do think it could potentially be a very interesting lead generation for Airbnb.”

Earlier in the call, Chesky said Airbnb is probably the biggest travel brand in the U.S. and that the company’s current moves are about growing beyond that.

“What we’re trying to do is build a platform, a platform that has homes, services, experiences, hotels, of course, and much more. And we’re going to try to be expanding this platform and continue to [launch] new businesses over and over again.”

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

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

© Gerald Matzka—Getty Images for Airbnb

As millions of Americans rely on Social Security for their monthly income, new reports indicate the program’s finances are at a critical juncture. Here’s what every current or soon-to-be recipient should understand about the future of Social Security, the risks to your benefits, and what steps Congress could take to keep the program strong.

When will Social Security “run out of money”?

The latest 2025 Social Security Trustees Report finds the program’s main reserve fund—the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) Trust Fund—will be depleted in 2033. That’s just eight years from now.

At that point, unless Congress acts, the system will only have enough payroll tax revenue coming in to pay about 77% of scheduled benefits—triggering an automatic across-the-board cut of around 23% for all recipients.

• What does this mean for you?
  • If you’re already receiving or about to receive Social Security, a typical monthly benefit check of $2,000 could drop to about $1,540 if Congress does not address the funding shortfall.
  • For a dual-earning couple, that could mean losing as much as $18,000 per year in benefits—potentially doubling the poverty rate among America’s seniors.

Why is this happening?

For decades, Social Security collected more in taxes than it paid out, building up a trust fund that earned interest. But the math flipped in 2021: America’s aging population means there are fewer workers paying into the system for each retiree drawing benefits. Recent tax changes and new laws have accelerated the shortfall, moving up the date of potential cuts.

What needs to happen to prevent cuts?

Congress needs to act within the next few years to prevent automatic benefit reductions. Lawmakers have several options—most likely, a combination of them will be required:

• Raise the payroll tax cap: In 2025, earnings over $176,100 are not taxed for Social Security. Proposals would have higher earners pay more by lifting or removing this cap.
• Increase the payroll tax rate: Even a gradual increase above the current 12.4% could address a significant chunk of the gap.
• Raise the full retirement age: The age for full benefits is already moving to 67 for those born in 1960 or later and will likely go higher for younger generations.
• Adjust the benefit formula: Lawmakers might change how initial benefits are calculated, perhaps favoring lower-income retirees with higher replacement rates while curbing benefits for high earners.
• Invest in the markets: A bipartisan Senate proposal seeks to fund a new sovereign wealth fund—essentially investing part of Social Security’s reserves in stocks and bonds to seek higher returns, but this involves risk and is not a guaranteed fix.
• Direct federal funding: Some plans call for one-time or ongoing federal cash injections, though this would add to the national debt.

What should recipients do now?

• Stay informed: Congress has a long history of fixing Social Security before benefit cuts occur—but there are no guarantees this time.
• Watch for updates: Changes to COLA (Cost-of-Living Adjustment), retirement age, and tax rates are possible, but none will affect checks overnight.
• Consider advocacy: Many organizations representing older Americans are urging Congress to act now to preserve benefits for current and future retirees.

The Bottom Line: Social Security will not “run out of money” entirely; it will always have payroll taxes coming in. However, if Congress does not shore up the trust fund by 2033, automatic benefit cuts of approximately 23% will occur under current law. Most experts and lawmakers believe a fix is likely, but recipients should watch closely.

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

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

© Thurtell/Getty Images

• The U.S. Air Force is looking to buy two Cybertrucks to use as missile targets. The trucks do not need to run, but the body, glass, and mirrors must be intact.

While consumers are losing interest in Tesla’s Cybertruck, the armed forces is on the hunt for a few.

The War Zone, a news site that covers the defense industry, reports the Air Force is planning to buy two Cybertrucks to use as targets for “live missile fire testing.” The testing is set to take place at the White Sands Missile Range (WSMR) in New Mexico (an Army base the Air Force also uses).

Typically, when the armed forces collect vehicles to practice blowing them up, they don’t seek out specific brands. And while the Trump administration and Tesla CEO Elon Musk have been sniping at each other on social media for the past couple of months, this brand name exception is more due to expected actions by the nation’s enemies.

“In the operating theater, it is likely the type of vehicles used by the enemy may transition to Tesla Cybertrucks as they have been found not to receive the normal extent of damage expected upon major impact,” the Air Force wrote in a justification document supporting the purchase order. “Testing needs to mirror real world situations. The intent of the training is to prep the units for operations by simulating scenarios as closely as possible to the real world situations.”

The Air Force notes the trucks they’re looking to buy do not need to run, but the body, glass and mirrors must be intact, with little to no damage. It’s a safe bet that officials won’t be buying them from the company.

Not a lot of people are these days. Tesla sold just 4,300 of the trucks in the second quarter of the year, a 51% drop.  Last year, Tesla sold just 39,000 of the vehicles, a number it’s unlikely to match this year.

In addition to the Cybertrucks, the Air Force is looking for 31 other cars, including sedans, bongo trucks, pickups and SUVs, all of which will likely be blown up.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

© Jim West / UCG / Universal Images Group—Getty Images