Mark Zuckerberg has named Shengjia Zhao, an artificial intelligence researcher who joined Meta Platforms Inc. from OpenAI in June, as the chief scientist for the social media company’s new superintelligence AI group.
Zhao was part of the team behind the original version of OpenAI’s popular chatbot, ChatGPT. He will help lead Meta’s high-profile group, which is aiming to build new AI models that can perform tasks as well as or better than humans. Zhao will report to Alexandr Wang, the former chief executive officer of Scale AI who also joined Meta in June as Chief AI Officer.
Meta has been spending aggressively to recruit AI experts to develop new models and keep pace with rivals like OpenAI and Google in the race for AI dominance. The company has been looking for a chief scientist for the group for months. Zhao is one of more than a dozen former OpenAI employees who have joined Meta’s AI unit in the past two months.
“Shengjia co-founded the new lab and has been our lead scientist from day one,” Zuckerberg, Meta’s CEO, wrote in a post announcing the news on Threads. “Now that our recruiting is going well and our team is coming together, we have decided to formalize his leadership role.”
Zhao was a co-author on the original ChatGPT research paper, and was also a key researcher on OpenAI’s first reasoning model, o1, which has helped popularize a wave of similar so-called “chain-of-thought” systems from labs such as DeepSeek, Google, and others. He was listed as one of over 20 “foundational researchers” on the project.
Yann LeCun, another AI researcher who has been at Meta for over a decade and holds the title of chief scientist, will continue to work at the company as chief scientist of an internal AI research group known as FAIR, according to a person familiar with the matter. He will report to Wang, they added.
A Southwest Airlines jet heading to Las Vegas from Southern California took a dramatic plunge shortly after takeoff Friday in response to an alert about a nearby plane, sending some passengers flying out of their seats and injuring two flight attendants.
The plane suddenly jolted shortly after takeover then felt like it was falling, said Stef Zamorano, who was flying to Las Vegas with her husband to celebrate his birthday.
In front of her, Zamorano saw a woman who wasn’t wearing her seat belt shoot up and out of her seat, her long hair flying in a tangled mess. The man seated next to her was clutching her arm, and she said the woman across the aisle was panicking.
“She was pretty much verbalizing how we all felt, saying, ‘I want to get off this plane. I want to be on the ground,’ ” Zamorano told The Associated Press.
Data from the flight tracking site FlightAware shows it dropped roughly 300 feet (91.44 meters) in 36 seconds.
The Federal Aviation Administration said the flight, Southwest 1496, was responding to an onboard alert about another aircraft in its vicinity. The FAA is investigating. Southwest said the crew responded to two alerts that required the pilot to climb then descend. The flight departed from Hollywood Burbank Airport just before noon.
Still in shock, Zamorano said she could hardly make out what the pilot was saying when he later addressed the passengers.
Another passenger, comedian Jimmy Dore, posted on X that the pilot mentioned a near miss.
“Pilot said his collision warning went off & he needed to avoid plane coming at us,” Dore posted.
The plane was in the same airspace near Burbank as a Hawker Hunter Mk. 58 just after noon local time, FlightAware shows. A Hawker Hunter is a British fighter plane. Records show it is owned by Hawker Hunter Aviation, a British defense contracting company. The company didn’t immediately respond to messages seeking comment.
Mike Christensen, an airport spokesman for Hollywood Burbank, said that neither the control tower nor the operations department, which tracks planes departing and arriving, have any record of the Southwest flight plunging in their airspace.
Southwest said the flight continued to Las Vegas, “where it landed uneventfully.” The airline said that it is working with the FAA “to further understand the circumstances” of the event.
This close call is just the latest incident to raise questions about aviation safety in the wake of January’s midair collision over Washington, D.C., that killed 67 people.
With this week’s FCC approval, the merger between Paramount Global and Skydance Media is expected to be completed in the coming weeks at a value of $8 billion. The question for the new company is whether the psychic cost is much higher.
Following the Federal Communications Commission approval Thursday, one of the triumvirate of current Paramount leaders, Chris McCarthy, said that he would be leaving the company. McCarthy has been in charge of fading cable properties like MTV, Comedy Central and Nickelodeon, expected to bear the brunt of an estimated $2 billion in cost cuts identified by Skydance leaders.
Skydance head David Ellison is expected to head the new company, and he has identified former NBC Universal executive Jeff Shell as the incoming president.
CBS News’ trajectory will be scrutinized
After the merger’s Aug. 7 closing date, the new leaders will be watched most closely for how they deal with CBS News, particularly given the $16 million paid in a settlement of Trump’s complaint that last fall’s “60 Minutes” interview was edited to make opponent Kamala Harris look good. Two news executives — News CEO Wendy McMahon and “60 Minutes” executive producer Bill Owens — resigned due to their opposition to the deal.
The appointment of respected insider Tanya Simon to replace Owens this week was seen as a positive sign by people at “60 Minutes.”
Days before the FCC’s vote, Paramount agreed to hire an ombudsman at CBS News with the mission of investigating complaints of political bias. “In all respects, Skydance will ensure that CBS’s reporting is fair, unbiased, and fact-based,” Skydance said in a letter to FCC Chairman Brendan Carr.
The role of an ombudsman, or public editor, who examines a news outlet’s work is often positive — if they are given independence, said Kelly McBride, an ethics expert who has had that role at NPR for five years. “You really want the person to have loyalty only to their own judgment and the journalistic mission of the organization,” she said.
Having the sole mission of examining bias could be problematic, however. To be fair, a journalist’s work should be closely studied before making that determination, not judged on the basis of one report or passage, she said.
Carr, in an interview with CNBC on Friday, said the role “should go a long way toward restoring America’s trust in media.” Anna Gomez, an FCC commissioner who voted to reject the deal on Thursday, interpreted the arrangement as a way for the government to control journalists.
“They want the news media to report on them in a positive light or in the light that they want,” Gomez told MSNBC. “So they don’t want the media to do their job, which is to hold government to account without fear or favor.”
How the merger could ripple out across Paramount properties
According to published reports, Ellison has explored purchasing The Free Press, a flourishing news site founded by Bari Weiss perhaps best known for a former NPR editor’s study of liberal bias in public broadcasting. An Ellison spokeswoman did not return a message seeking comment on Friday.
Colbert’s slow-motion firing — he’ll work until the end of his contract next May — was described by CBS as a financial decision given late-night television’s collapsing economics. Colbert’s relentless lampooning of Trump, and his criticism of the “60 Minutes” settlement, led to suspicion of those motives.
“Was this really financial?” comic Jon Stewart wondered. “Or maybe the path of least resistance for your $8 billion merger was killing a show that you know rankled a fragile and vengeful president?”
Stewart’s profane criticism on his own Paramount-owned show may provide its own test for Skydance. “The Daily Show” is one of the few original programs left on Comedy Central, and his contract ends later this year.
In an odd way, Comedy Central’s “South Park” buttresses CBS’ claim that the Colbert decision was financial, not political. Creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone delivered an episode this week that depicted a naked Trump in bed with the devil. Paramount just signed Parker and Stone to a new $1.5 billion deal that Skydance executives surely cleared; it makes the entire “South Park” library available for streaming on Paramount+. a platform where Colbert’s show doesn’t do nearly as well.
Figuring out what to do with others at Paramount’s cable networks, or even the networks as a whole, will be an early decision for Ellison, son of multibillionaire and Oracle co-founder Larry Ellison.
“There is a clear opportunity to improve Paramount’s growth profile by letting those assets go,” analyst Doug Creutz of TD Securities told investors Friday. “On the other hand, we suspect the Ellisons did not purchase Paramount in order to break it up for parts.”
The merger also brings together the Paramount movie studio with one of its most regular partners. David Ellison has been one of the industry’s top investors and producers since founding Skydance in 2006.
Ellison has a challenge here, too: Years of uncertainty over its future and modest investment in its movie pipeline has shrunk Paramount’s market share to last among the major studios. The Paramount+ streaming service has been a money-loser.
To revive Paramount, Ellison will look to revamp its streaming operations, leverage its franchises and try to bolster family content.
___
AP Film Writer Jake Coyle contributed to this report. David Bauder writes about the intersection of media and entertainment for the AP.
I’m going to start with a caveat from the top: This is not a formal product review. That’s not my background nor expertise, and if that’s what you are looking for, you are likely to walk away at least a little bit disappointed.
What this is, is a first impression based on hands-on experience with the new Alexa from someone who was once a consistent user of Amazon’s original voice assistant. Back then, I relied on Alexa for the kind of straightforward things many of us did every day: playing music, checking the weather, requesting sports scores, setting timers, and answering the types of questions that grade-school kids would get a kick out of (“Alexa, who would win a battle between a lion and a snow leopard?”). But over the years, Alexa’s performance seemed to deteriorate– it had more trouble understanding basic requests and definitely could not hold a conversation like popular AI chatbots could. Eventually, my family’s interest—and patience—waned.
So I’ve been waiting for a new and improved Alexa for quite some time, and when I recently received an invitation offering “early access” to the beta version of Alexa+, I was eager to take it for a verbal spin.
It’s worth noting that Amazon first announced what would become Alexa+ back in September of 2023, but the launch has been repeatedly held up amid “structural dysfunction and technological challenges,” as Fortune reported last June, and later by issues related to how slow the assistant was to respond to commands or complete actions. In February, Amazon finally unveiled details of Alexa+ at a splashy launch event, but did not launch the service widely at the time; instead, it’s been rolling out Alexa+ little by little, in a phased approach (Amazon says that millions of people now have access to Alexa+). Prime members don’t pay anything for the Alexa upgrade, but non-members will pay around $20 a month after the official launch, the company has said. For now, early access is free to Prime and non-Prime members alike. The company has not formally announced an official full public launch date.
I’ve spent some time over the last few weeks using Alexa+ for some of the same things we used its predecessor for, as well as trying out some of the new actions, like booking an Uber and restaurant reservation, that Amazon is pushing. My first impression, in short, is that the service is pretty good. If it had launched shortly after Amazon first announced an updated version of Alexa in the fall of 2023, I might have said it was very good. Its conversational abilities are real and mostly very fluid. Does it blow away voice modes from LLM-based AI assistants like ChatGPT and Perplexity? Not in my experience. But it is vastly superior in that way to the original Alexa so will likely come as a delightful surprise to those who haven’t spent much time with those competitor services. On several occasions, though, I had to re-prompt Alexa by name in the middle of a back-and-forth conversation—I thought I had just taken a normal, mid-speaking pause but Alexa thought differently. If such instances continue to occur at public launch, it might not be a deal breaker for regular usage, but would certainly frustrate me – and I assume some others too.
Can you hear the music playing?
I also had some issues with playing Spotify using the new Alexa, unless I specified that I wanted it played on the specific Alexa device in front of me. The gadget in question was an 8-inch Echo Show device (the Echo device with a screen) to test out Alexa+ because the technology isn’t available on some of Amazon’s older speakers, including the original Pringles-box-shaped Echo speakers, one of which still sits on a shelf in our dining room. (If you don’t have an Echo device, you’ll still be able to use the new Alexa+ from the Alexa app.)
Earlier versions of the Echo smart speaker looked like cylindrical Pringles chip boxes. The new Alexa+ is not compatible with some of those earlier versions.
Cayce Clifford/Bloomberg via Getty Images
The new Alexa told me Spotify was playing, when it actually wasn’t. I thought perhaps it was somehow playing on the old Pringles-tube Echo downstairs, but that wasn’t the case. A spokesperson recommended I change the default device for Spotify in the Alexa app but honestly, the Alexa app isn’t the most intuitive and I gave up after about 10 minutes. Considering that playing music is one of the basic and common tasks for a smart speaker, this didn’t inspire a lot of confidence, but I am not ruling out the possibility that I’m overlooking a setting that would fix the issue.
The other flaws I ran into ranged from comical to frustrating. An on-screen prompt on the Echo Show advertised that Alexa could help me choose a new lunch spot, but when I queried Alexa about it the first time, she claimed she couldn’t carry out that task.
I also made the mistake, apparently, of asking Alexa to slow down her speaking cadence at some point so I could take some hand-written notes. That simple command kicked off a minutes-long bizarro-world exchange in which I would ask Alexa to speed up or slow down her cadence, she’d reply that she had—but at a speed which was even more drastically opposite of what I had been asking. It took several minutes, but what felt like an eternity, to rectify.
On another occasion, Alexa got snippy with me when I seemed astonished that she had instructed me to simply unplug and then reconnect my Echo device to try to solve the aforementioned Spotify issue. “It’s your problem not mine” was essentially the gist of the response. Can an AI offend me? I mean, that’d be pretty silly. But the exchange was a bit off-putting, though admittedly mildly amusing as well.
On this point, Panos Panay, the longtime Microsoft executive who joined Amazon in late 2023 to head up Alexa and its broad array of devices from Echos to Kindles to Fire TV sticks, seemed intrigued.
“We’re testing a few of the boundaries,” he told me in an interview at the company’s New York City headquarters in early July. “Like, yeah, you want a little personality out of your assistant, and you want it to feel or be personal. I think that’s okay. Where is that boundary is an interesting question.”
Alexa’s new tricks
For my daughter, Alexa+’s ability to generate images and “paintings” based on voice commands was a treat. I also tried some of the advertised “actions” that Panay and Amazon believe will set Alexa apart from competitors and transform it into more of an agent than an assistant. I asked Alexa to book a reservation for me and my wife at a new local sushi restaurant we’ve been meaning to try – and finally could with our kids staying the weekend with a relative. Disappointingly, though, Alexa replied that she couldn’t make a reservation at that restaurant – the restaurant doesn’t use OpenTable for its reservations and that’s the only current partner that Alexa+ has in the space. Alexa instead simply offered me the restaurant’s phone number which….was not exactly what i was looking for. It’s possible that Amazon ends up cutting a deal with Resy, the restaurant reservation service that the restaurant in question uses. While Panay said more partnerships were in the works, neither he nor a spokesperson would confirm specifics.
That said, ordering an Uber by voice worked seamlessly (once I agreed to provide access to my Uber account), though I do wonder how often people will opt for this experience versus simply pulling out their phone. Browsing and homing in on the cheapest soccer tickets at a nearby stadium also worked quite well though, again, I wonder if talking out loud to a virtual ticket assistant for 4 minutes is actually any better or more efficient than searching for the tickets on my phone or computer.
Panay told me beta feedback so far is “overwhelmingly positive,” and that the “conversational aspect” of Alexa+ alone—versus the prompt and response mode of the original—is delighting customers. “It’s just a part of the kitchen conversation at this point,” he noted, emphasizing his point with an anecdote about his family settling debates or open questions by querying Alexa+ rather than pulling out a phone and falling prey to all the distractions that come with it.
“It’s the idea of being engaged with each other and having an ambient assistant there, where I’m not turning on my phone, I’m not opening an app, I’m not being distracted by whatever it is that is on my notifications,” he said.
One major caveat is that I wasn’t able to try out everything that Amazon is excited about. Panay stressed that while engagement with “traditional features” like playing music are increasing, household-management capabilities of Alexa+ are a hit with early users and he believes they’ll continue to be. In one example, he discussed giving Alexa access to a family’s calendar and then prompting it for the best weekend to get away. I haven’t tried that feature mainly because you can’t yet link work email accounts from Google or Microsoft to Alexa+, and because our kids’ sports calendars are spread across several apps that I’m frankly too lazy to consolidate (yes, embarrassing).
“Please don’t underestimate the power of this”
Amazon’s head of devices Panos Panay at the Alexa+ launch event in February 2025
Andrej Sokolow/picture alliance via Getty Images
Panay also highlighted shopping tools powered by Alexa+ that notify you when a certain product goes on sale. And he stressed the ease with which Alexa users who have outfitted their home with smart devices—think smart lights and smart locks —will be able to speak into existence complex routines.
“Alexa, every night at 8:30, start dimming the lights in the house and then lock the doors,” he said by way of example.
That’s four separate commands in one sentence, versus what would have taken at least a dozen and a half steps within the Alexa app previously, Panos said.
“Jason, please don’t underestimate the power of this,” Panay urged me.
One approach Amazon and Panay could take would be to set expectations a bit low and then overdeliver after such a long wait. After all, the introduction of the original Alexa occurred in a really understated way; it was buried within a larger announcement unveiling a surprise device called the Echo.
Panay, for his part, acknowledged that there is still work to do before the new Alexa is ready to be used by hundreds of millions of existing users. And after such a long wait—with Panay himself setting expectations high—it’s fair to wonder if “pretty good” is anywhere good enough in the new world that Amazon’s famed voice assistant is now reentering. Clearly, there’s more work to do.
Delta Air Lines is having a good 2025, reporting strong second-quarter earnings and reinstating its April profit guidance, leading to a substantial stock bump (up roughly 16% from June to July). True, its guidance is down from its January projections, but it’s weathering the storm of the tricky global economy well, maintaining its status as America’s leading premium airline. As Fortune‘s Shawn Tully reported in March 2025, it has somehow managed the trick of being America’s most profitable airline, while giving billions back to employees in the form of profit sharing.
At the start of the year, CEO Ed Bastian kicked off a celebration of Delta’s centenary by announcing “a new era in premium travel” with the opening of Delta One lounges, a step above its usual Sky Clubs. The Delta One locations will offer “amenities for the premium traveler” ranging from fine dining to spa-like wellness treatments and valet services. Bastian clarified that Delta will continue to invest in its Delta Sky Clubs, with more openings planned to come.
But there is more to the story for Delta, America’s leading premier airline. The Sky Clubs are coming off years of turbulence, with significant customer backlash following several of Delta’s attempts to improve a lounge experience that has become overcrowded. These problems date back several years, to the beginning of the “revenge travel” boom that accompanied post-pandemic reopening. Bastian told Fortune in 2022 that even he was shocked by the level of demand: “People talk about revenge travel, or pent-up travel—this is beyond anything that people can classify as truly pent-up,” he said, adding that his team calculated a whopping $300 billion burst of travel thirst. “That gap is $300 billion—with a B,” Bastian emphasized.
America’s leading premium airline has long offered a standard lounge experience through its Sky Clubs, with free wi-fi, buffets of cold snacks and heated steam trays, and a range of complimentary drinks. The Sky Clubs were no match for the burst of revenge travelers. Bastian’s efforts to fix these problems in 2023—barring Basic Economy passengers and capping the number of visits allowed for credit card holders—sparked backlash on customers’ part and soul-searching for Bastian. “We are victims of our own success,” he told Fast Company‘s Stephanie Mehta in 2024, as he explained changes to benefits including access to Sky Club lounges. “It’s hard to tell someone who’s been at a certain status for many years that what they’ve earned is no longer as valuable.”
That’s why the declining pleasure of the airport lounge resonates for a deeper reason: it’s a metaphor for the declining prospects of the upper middle class in an age of “elite overproduction,” which argues that certain societies grow so rich and successful that they produce too many people of premium education for the number of premium jobs—or premium experiences—that the economy can actually support.
The elites have been so overproduced that you can literally see them—in lines stretching out of airport lounges.
The elite lounge overproduction theory
Several factors make Delta’s overcrowding issue particularly severe, and they have to do with how Delta is really trying—and, as Bastian says, succeeding—in offering a premium service to a large, affluent customer base. Delta offers more comprehensive food and beverage options than many competitors, so travelers linger longer, compounding capacity issues. Indeed, when reached for comment, Delta confirmed that its SkyMiles program has seen “unprecedented engagement,” and its member satisfaction is higher than ever. Delta said it’s committed to continuous investment to further please customers, which includes “modernizing and expanding our lounges.”
Generous lounge access deals with American Express (including non-Delta-branded Platinum Card holders) have greatly expanded eligibility, overwhelming facilities. As more travelers achieve status or purchasehigh-tier tickets, both due to credit card spending and business travel rebounds, demand for lounge space has increased beyond what legacy facilities can handle.
Delta isn’t alone in its lounge struggles, as shown by its partner, American Express, which has tried to physically expand many of its Centurion Lounges. Those have gone from the epitome of exclusivity and comfort to another kind of crowded waiting room—albeit with arguably better snacks and Wi-Fi.
The root of the problem is the same: too many people now have access. The proliferation of premium credit cards, airline status programs, and paid day passes has democratized lounge entry, eroding the exclusivity that made these spaces desirable in the first place.It is unclear if Delta expanded too far, too fast, or if it was surprised by the number of lounge lovers in its clientele.UBS Global Wealth Management has noted a surprising trend in the upper middle class: the rise of the “everyday millionaire,” or people whose assets fall between $1 million and $5 million. These are exactly the kind of people who would see themselves as lounge-worthy, and likely frustrated to find their small-M millionaire status doesn’t go so far.
The consequences for travelers are palpable. Social media and travel forums are rife with stories of travelers paying hundreds of dollars in annual fees only to find long lines clogging, say, New York’s JFK terminals on a daily basis. The proof is abundant on TikTok.On the other hand, expectations are heightened. Travel research firm Airport Dimensions has conducted an “airport experience report” for over a decade and found in 2024 that airport lounges are a contradiction: the definitive democratic travel luxury.
This widespread expectation—and dissatisfaction—is not just a matter of comfort. For many, the lounge was a symbol of having “made it”—a reward for loyalty, status, or financial success. Its decline has become a source of frustration and even embarrassment, especially for those who remember a more exclusive era. There’s an emotional trigger behind an unpleasant lounge experience.
The theory behind the malaise: elite overproduction
The overcrowding of airport lounges is more than a logistical headache—it’s a microcosm of a broader societal phenomenon. University of Connecticut professor emeritus Peter Turchin has developed a controversial theory of “elite overproduction” which posits that frustration and even instability result when a society produces more people aspiring to elite status than there are elite positions. It’s an unorthodox theory from an unorthodox academic: Turchin is an emeritus professor at UConn, research associate at the University of Oxford and project leader at the Complexity Science Hub-Vienna, leading research in a field of his own invention: Cliodynamics, a type of historical social science.
The catch with Turchin’s theory is that his own type of complexity science takes on a pseudo-prophetic quality, similar in some ways to William Strauss and Neil Howe’s “Fourth Turning.” And Turchin has foreseen that the United States has reached a stage repeated in civilizations throughout history, when it has produced too many products of elite education and social status for the realistic number of jobs it can generate. Decline and fall follows, Roman Empire-style. The Atlanticprofiled Turchin in 2020, warning “the next decade could be even worse.” Several writers have expanded on his ideas since then, approaching it from their distinctive and different sensibilities.
Ritholtz Wealth Management COO Nick Maggiulli posted to his “Of Dollars and Data” blog on the subject of airport lounges specifically, writing that the “death of the Amex lounge” simply shows that “the upper middle class isn’t special anymore,” although he did not specifically link this to the concept of elite overproduction. “There are too many people with lots of money,” he concluded.
In the context of airport lounges, the “elite” are not just the ultra-wealthy, but the vast upper middle class—armed with a combination of higher degrees, status, and premium credit cards—now jostling for the same perks. But what if much of society has been turning into some version of an overcrowded airport lounge?
In an interview with Fortune Intelligence, Turchin said this theory makes sense and fits with his thesis when presented with the similarities. “The benefits that you get with wealth are now being diluted because there are just too many wealth holders,” he said, citing data that the top 10% of American society has gotten much wealthier over the past 40 years. (Turchin sources this statement to this working paper from Edward Wolff.)
Turchin said lounges are not by definition restricted from expansion in the same way that political offices are, with a core element of his thesis being there are too many sociopolitical elites for the number of positions open to them, but “it’s the same thing” in light of the difficulties many providers have in expanding lounge access. “There is a limited amount of space, but many more elites now, so to speak … low-rank elites.” Turchin said these low-rank elites, or “ten-percenters,” don’t have the status typically associated with elite status. “The overproduction of lower-ranking elites results in decreased benefits for all.”
When asked where else he sees this manifesting in modern life, Turchin said “it’s actually everywhere you look. Look at the overproduction of university degrees,” he added, arguing that declining rates of college enrollment and high rates of recent graduate unemployment support the decreasing value of a college diploma. “There is overproduction of university degrees and the value of university degree actually declines. And so the it’s the same thing [with] the lounge.”
Noah Smith argues that elite overproduction manifests as a kind of status anxiety and malaise among the upper middle class. Many find themselves struggling to afford or access the very symbols of success they were promised—be it a prestigious job, a home in a desirable neighborhood, or, indeed, a peaceful airport lounge. He collects reams of employment data to show that Turchin’s theory has significant statistical support from the 21st century American economy.
Freddie DeBoer largely agrees, framing the issue as “why so many elites feel like losers.” He focuses more on the creator economy than Smith, but asserts that he sees “think many would agree with me about “a pervasive sense of discontent among people who have elite aspirations and who feel that their years toiling in our meritocratic systems entitles them to fulfill those aspirations.”
Delta’s plan to restore status
In its lounge strategy, Delta is trying to walk a fine line: Offering a premium service to a class of consumers that is becoming more and more mass-market. CEO Ed Bastian acknowledged as much on the company’s latest earnings call. While touting the fortunes of Delta’s target customers, households making $100,000 or more a year, Bastian noted the income cutoff “is not, by the way, an elite definition—that’s 40% of all U.S. households.”
Beginning February 2025, Delta implemented new caps on annual lounge visits for American Express cardholders, setting a maximum of 15 visits per year and requiring exceptionally high annual spending ($75,000+) to re-unlock unlimited access. Basic Economy passengers, meanwhile, are permanently excluded from lounge access, further tightening entry. Travelers can only enter lounges within three hours of their flight’s departure time, discouraging extended stays and unnecessary early arrivals.
Delta is opening and upgrading lounges in key markets: New Delta One Lounges in Seattle, New York-JFK, Boston, and Los Angeles feature larger spaces, exclusive amenities, and new design concepts for premium passengers. Major expansions are under way in hubs like Atlanta, Orlando, Salt Lake City, and Philadelphia, with multiple new or enlarged clubs opening between spring and late 2025—some over 30,000 square feet in size, making them among the largest in the network. Renovations to existing lounges (e.g., Atlanta’s Concourses A and C) are aimed at maximizing capacity and improving guest experiences. Delta is also exploring emergency overflow options and flexible staffing to address unpredictable surges, especially during weather and operational delays.
Delta executives are optimistic. They predict that by 2026, most crowding issues—aside from extreme disruptions—will be resolved on “almost all days.” Continued investments in larger, better-designed lounges, coupled with tighter access controls, are expected to restore the premium experience customers expect.
However, critics note that crowding still occurs at peak times, especially in flagship locations, and design/layout flaws occasionally undermine even the newest clubs. The success of Delta’s fix-it agenda is being closely watched by both rivals and loyal travelers.
But Delta may be overmatched in rehabilitating the overcrowded airport lounge as a potent symbol of this broader malaise. What was once a marker of distinction is now a crowded, noisy, and often disappointing experience. The democratization of luxury, while laudable in some respects, has left many feeling that the rewards of success are increasingly out of reach—or at least, not what they used to be.
As airlines grapple with how to restore the magic of the lounge, they are also confronting a deeper truth: in an age of elite overproduction, the promise of exclusivity is harder than ever to keep.
For this story, Fortune used generative AI to help with an initial draft. An editor verified the accuracy of the information before publishing.
EXCLUSIVE: Tony Cheng rose up the corporate ladder at Reinsurance Group of America by embracing challenging roles early and credits his steady, decades-long career growth to continual learning, humility, and a willingness to take on responsibility. His leadership helped expand RGA’s presence in Asia and beyond, encouraging individuals looking to lead companies to always be open to continued growth.
It’s rare to be offered a big promotion and turn it down, but it’s even rarer to warn superiors you don’t feel prepared for the role and be appointed anyway.
Yet that’s precisely what happened to Reinsurance Group of America boss, Tony Cheng, in his early years with the business. Cheng has worked his way up the ranks of RGA over the past three decades, helping grow the company to its current position of $3.9 trillion of reinsurance covering active policyholders.
In 2025, RGA announced a landmark $1.5 billion deal with Equitable to reinsure $32 billion worth of life insurance policies, securing its place as an industry leader and expected to boost earnings for quarters come.
Sitting down for an exclusive interview with Fortune this summer, Cheng reflected on that all-important promotion to CEO, and the value of staying humble even in the C-suite.
The following has been condensed and edited for clarity.
Tony, in an era where job-hopping is often seen as the fast track to career growth, you’ve chosen a different tactic—working up through RGA since 1997. Where did your work ethic come from, and what’s inspired your long-standing commitment to the company?
I was born in Hong Kong, and my parents—both teachers—felt for the future of their four kids (of which I was the youngest) Australia would provide the Western education they wanted. So I grew up in Australia from nine months to the age of 20 and didn’t travel overseas much.
My parents worked incredibly hard. Mom looked after the four kids and Dad unfortunately had to give up his love for teaching because it just wouldn’t pay the bills. Eventually they opened up small businesses and then we, the four kids, on the weekend would go work there—12 hour days—and didn’t think otherwise. That really bred in the sacrifice of the parents, the hard work, all things I’d wish to pass onto my kids.
Growing up as many of us in a Western country but very Asian family do, I think I went to Asia once in my life, so [I took] an opportunity to join RGA in 1997 in Malaysia.
Between 1999 and 2002 you returned to the States to earn an MBA while working for RGA, before leaving to head up the Hong Kong office. When you arrived, you had a team of 10. The Asia Pacific region now has more than 1,000 employees and revenues of $4 billion. Are there untapped career opportunities in emerging markets as opposed to progressing in established regions?
We had a very small operation, but we were actually covering about 500 million people. It was Hong Kong and Southeast Asia so Malaysia, Thailand, all those countries. I went there as the actuary, and a year and a half later they promoted me to be the CEO of that business. It was daunting, right?
The first time I was asked to take it by my boss, I sort of said, ‘No, I’m too young.’ At the time I was 29. He ignored that.
The equation in my mind was I’ve probably got a 10% chance of success—and that would be great—or a 90% chance of failure, but hey, I’m gonna learn a hell of a lot. I had no mortgage, no kids, so just wanted to learn. Maybe that instinct, that desire and drive to keep learning was from my parents being teachers.
In its latest financial results RGA reported revenues of $22.1 billion. How has the start-up mentality you learned in Asia helped grow the business globally?
We built that business up with incredible hard work. I’d joke internally that once every month or so pest control would come in, and that meant we could go home at 5 o’clock because what else were we going to do with ourselves? That was the spirit. In the early days, you solve problems. I’d say to the team: ‘Let’s just try. We know it’s really hard, but let’s just try.’
In the U.S., people usually don’t create new products or create new things because the market’s so big, a lot of it’s already played out and it’s been created. Any good idea has been thought of, and that’s truly okay.
It’s actually more connecting the dots in the U.S., but with a drive to not just settle on: ‘Hey, here’s the market, we want a share of it’ it’s a drive to create new things or a new combination of things so that we [can] increase the pie and share in that greater value creation. That’s always been in the company spirit, it was just really about bringing that out again to the forefront.
Like a lot of other Fortune 500 CEOs we speak to, you clearly have a love for learning. In a world where AI is expected to disrupt the labor market, what are the skills you’re looking for in new talent?
I can only think of what I advise my son, who’s in his second year of college. As the younger generation already knows, AI is gonna accelerate, and therefore number one they’ve absolutely got to be able to use it and partner with it.
Ultimately AI, one would think, is gonna replace whatever is mathematically easier to replace. Had a conversation at one of the town halls with some risk professionals in the U.S. last week and I said all those soft skills really matter, you’ve still got to learn the hard skills, you’ve got to understand your subject matter expertise regardless of technology, but increasingly all those abilities to interact, to communicate, to join the dots, to be able to understand information, communicate it, and just put those dots together is the stuff that’s gonna be obviously harder for AI to replicate.
Maybe it will one day, but then you’ve just got to keep elevating yourself. So, what is that a lesson of? It is a lesson of continually adapting, continually learning, a bit like a sports person. When they’ve lost their passion to play and fight, it’s time to retire.
For me, when I’ve lost that passion to learn and grow, you’re probably not gonna give it your full go, hence maybe the learning really just keeps me going. It’s not like I ever said, ‘Hey, I want to be the CEO of the company.’ I was so far away, I just wanted to be treated right and enjoy the journey and the growth,
So the lesson to individuals is you’ve just got to keep learning, you’ve got to be humble. If you’re not humble, you’re not gonna listen to yourself or your failings, you’re gonna blame them on something else as opposed to, ‘Well, what was my role in that?’ so I can learn.
Recent studies show that unemployment rates for men aged 22 to 27 with or without college degrees are nearly identical. Younger generations are also finding it harder than in previous years to secure jobs, so they are turning to content creation. Fortune talks to a professor about how to build a successful career as a content creator without a traditional college path.
When Gen Alpha dreams about the future, fewer and fewer are imagining the white lab coat or briefcase wishes of their parents. Instead, they see ring lights and “Get Ready With Me” videos.
In fact, the top two career aspirations among Gen Alpha across the U.S. are YouTuber and TikTok creator, according to a 2024 Whop survey. And many young people are already turning their dreams into reality, including 19-year-old Katie Fang.
The recent high school graduate boasts 6.4 million followers on TikTok and is most known for her popular videos showcasing how she starts her mornings, as well as showcasing brand-deal trips and her recent move to New York City from Vancouver, Canada.
Even though she’s already seemingly gotten a jump-start on her career, Fang is set to attend New York University in the fall, where she will focus on upgrading her digital marketing skills. Fang told Fortune that pursuing a college education will help her think more critically and creatively, especially when crafting content and understanding how platforms like TikTok’s algorithm work.
“I think I’ve always known that I was going to stay in school. I never really took a break—I was online for two years, so it kind of felt like I wasn’t in school, but I was,” Fang told Fortune. “I wanted to go to NYU for the longest time. Just because I started social media, and it became my full-time career, doesn’t mean that dream ever faded.”
Fang’s long-term goal is to start a business after college and to continue to build a personal brand.
“I think the most important thing is just don’t rush to have it all figured out, because especially when you’re so young, you’re not going to know everything,” Fang said.
Since starting her TikTok account in Canada, Fang hasn’t earned revenue directly from her videos. Instead, the majority of her income comes from brand partnerships with companies like Glow Recipe, The Ordinary, and Kosas.
“What I enjoy most is probably how creative everything is,” Fang said. “It’s crazy how you can make the most random video that makes no sense, and that ends up being the one that gets millions of views.”
Fang is just one example of how young people have been able to turn a passion project into a runaway for a high-paying career, where they are their boss.
This comes as a growing number of Gen Zs are questioning the value of a degree to begin with. Recent data shows the unemployment rate for men aged 22 to 27 is almost the same regardless of whether they have a college degree.
Gen Alpha and Gen Z want to follow in the footsteps of MrBeast
The mastermind behind these social phenomena is 27-year-old Jimmy Donaldson, better known as MrBeast, who also holds the crown as the most-subscribed creator on the platform.
A self-made YouTuber whose net worth now exceeds $1 billion, Donaldson began creating and sharing content at just 13 years old. He later dropped out of East Carolina University in 2016 after just a few weeks of courses to pursue content creation full time. Since its launch in 2012, MrBeast’s channel has skyrocketed in popularity thanks to breakout hits like “Squid Game in Real Life,” which racked up over 845 million views.
In a recent episode of The Diary of a CEOpodcast, Donaldson told host Steven Bartlett that he discovered his motivation to pursue content creation on YouTube when he found out creators were making a high income a year. Growing up without much financial stability, he was driven by a desire to support his mother and family.
“This is what I love doing, I’ve never had as much joy doing something as I do this,” Donaldson said. “I just never give up. There’s no world where I would ever quit. When I was 11, I just said I’m going to be a YouTuber, and I’m going to die trying, and I meant it. Even if there were no one still watching my videos to this day, I would still be going. I’m just the most competitive, stubborn person you’ll ever meet.”
At first, Donaldson’s mother did not want her son to pursue a career in social media because she wanted him to be successful and encouraged him to pursue a college degree instead.
“When people tell me I can’t do something, it makes me want to do more,” Donaldson said. “If you tell me I shouldn’t do something, that’s fine, but if you tell me I can’t, then everything in my body just wants to go.”
Donaldson is not alone in using social media as a source of income and as a career. According to social commerce platform Whop, 42% of US teens are actively earning money online through their digital channels.
Another content creator who did not go through the traditional college pathway is Olajide Olayinka Williams, better known as KSI. He is a 32-year-old British influencer, professional boxer, musician, and entrepreneur. He also founded businesses such as Prime Hydration, Lunchly, and Misfits Boxing, and has a net worth of $100 million.
Joining YouTube in 2009 and initially posting videos of himself playing games, Williams built a following of over 50 million across all his platforms. Unlike his peers, Williams decided not to pursue college at all in favor of his blossoming content creation career — in part after realizing how much he was earning before attending university.
“I remember I asked a teacher, this is how I made this month, it was about £1,500, and I remember him telling me ‘that’s more than I make’,” Williams told the BBC in 2020. “I looked at it and I thought, that’s it, YouTube is the one, it is the goldmine. I need to push and push because I know I can become something and make my parents proud.”
How to be a successful content creator without a college degree
It’s becoming easier than ever to start a career as a content creator and make a living without a college degree. After all, all you need is a phone to get started.
Successful content creators who didn’t go through a traditional educational pathway all share a common trait: building a community so highly engaged that they can rely on their continued support for exposure, said University of Southern California communication professor Freddy Nager.
“It’s important that you try to cultivate your fan base. Otherwise, the only way to reach your own followers is to boost your posts and buy ads,” Nager told Fortune. “A lot of people didn’t become creators to spend money. They wanted to make money, but the platforms want to make money.”
Many creators build their email lists so they can directly notify followers when a new video is released, often encouraging them to watch and leave a comment. He also suggested that creators interact with followers in the comment section, something that is favorable to algorithms.
“You want your users to comment on your posts, because if they do, it means they really care,” Nager said. “Now, the comment could be negative. They could hate your video. Nonetheless, the algorithm reads it that if you’re willing to take the time to comment on the video, not just liking it. So this means that your content must provoke comments. Sadly, that means that a lot of influencers become controversial on purpose.”
This type of collaboration is a key strategy for building influence and trust without a degree requirement. Nager also advised new creators to partner with others, regardless of their fame, emphasizing that exposure to each other’s audiences helps both grow.
In addition, he said that to stand out, creators need two key traits: personality and perspective. They must be relatable yet aspirational, offering a unique voice and sharing their human side to form real connections. Otherwise, they risk being replaced by generic content.
While a formal education isn’t required to break into the industry, Nager said, it offers key advantages.
“I think you need an education to learn from your mistakes, without suffering. We can all learn from suffering, but let’s avoid it. Let’s learn how to analyze data,” he explained.
And while ultimately content creators can and have succeeded without degrees, Nager said more education can also expand one’s worldview and creativity outside of your path.
“Can you be educated without college? Possibly, if you love to read,” he said. “But college lets you explore courses outside your field—take astronomy if you’re a writer, or music if you’re a scientist. It doesn’t mean that you’re going to become a musical expert, but something about music may change the way that you think about chemistry and performance.”
Stocks climbed to more records on Wall Street. The S&P 500 rose 0.4% Friday, setting an all-time high for the fifth time this week. The Dow Jones Industrial Average rose 0.5%, and the Nasdaq composite added 0.2% to its own record set the day before. Deckers helped lead the way with a gain of 11.3%. The company behind Ugg boots and Hoka shoes reported stronger profit and revenue than analysts expected. That helped offset a sharp drop for Intel, which sank 8.5% after saying it would cut thousands of jobs as it tries to turn around its struggling fortunes.
THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. AP’s earlier story follows below.
NEW YORK (AP) — U.S. stocks are rising toward more records on Friday and coasting toward the close of another winning week.
The S&P 500 was 0.5% higher in late trading and on track to close at an all-time high every day of this week. The Dow Jones Industrial Average was up 221 points, or 0.5%, with less than an hour remaining in trading, and the Nasdaq composite was adding 0.4% to its own record set the day before.
Deckers, the company behind Ugg boots and Hoka shoes, jumped 12.3% after reporting stronger profit and revenue for the spring than analysts expected. Its growth was particularly strong outside the United States, where revenue soared nearly 50%.
Edwards Lifesciences rose 4.3% after likewise topping Wall Street’s expectations for profit in the latest quarter. It said it saw strength across all its product groups, and it expects profit for the full year to come in at the high end of the forecasted range it had given earlier.
They helped offset a drop of 9.3% for Intel, which fell after reporting a loss for the latest quarter, when analysts were looking for a profit. The struggling chipmaker also said it would cut thousands of jobs and eliminate other expenses as it tries to turn around its fortunes. Intel, which helped launch Silicon Valley as the U.S. technology hub, has fallen behind rivals like Nvidia and Advanced Micro Devices while demand for artificial intelligence chips soars.
The pressure is on companies to deliver solid growth in profits in order to justify the rallies in their stock prices to record after record in recent weeks. Wall Street has zoomed higher on hopes that President Donald Trump will reach trade deals with other countries that will lower his stiff proposed tariffs, along with the risk that they could cause a recession and drive up inflation. Trump has recently announced deals with Japan and the Philippines, and the next big deadline is looming on Friday, Aug. 1.
Besides potential trade talks, next week will also feature a meeting by the Federal Reserve on interest rates. Trump again on Thursday lobbied the Fed to cut rates, which he has implied could save the U.S. government money on its debt repayments.
Fed Chair Jerome Powell, though, has continued to insist he wants to wait for more data about how Trump’s tariffs affect the economy and inflation before the Fed makes its next move. Lower interest rates can help goose the economy, but they can also give inflation more fuel.
Lower rates also may not lower the U.S. government’s costs to borrow money, if the bond market feels they could send inflation higher in the future. In that case, lower short-term rates brought by the Fed could actually have the opposite effect and raise the interest rates that Washington must pay to borrow money over the long term.
The widespread expectation on Wall Street is that the Fed will wait until September to resume cutting interest rates.
In the bond market, Treasury yields held relatively steady following Trump’s latest attempt to push Powell to cut interest rates. Trump also seemed to back off on threats to fire the Fed’s chair.
“To do that is a big move, and I don’t think that’s necessary,” Trump said. “I just want to see one thing happen, very simple: Interest rates come down.”
If Trump fired Powell, he’d risk freaking out financial markets by raising the possibility of a less independent Fed, one unable to make unpopular choices necessary to keep the economy healthy.
The yield on the 10-year Treasury eased to 4.38% from 4.43% late Thursday. The two-year Treasury yield, which more closely tracks expectations for what the Fed will do, held steady at 3.91%, where it was late Thursday.
In stock markets abroad, indexes slipped across much of Europe and Asia.
Stocks fell 1.1% in Hong Kong and 0.3% in Shanghai. U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has said he will meet with Chinese officials in Sweden next week to work toward a trade deal with Beijing ahead of an Aug. 12 deadline. Trump has said a China trip “is not too distant” as trade tensions ease.
___
AP Writers Teresa Cerojano and Matt Ott contributed.
Australia announced it will reduce restrictions on U.S. beef imports in a move U.S. President Donald Trump’s administration claimed as a major victory over “non-scientific trade barriers.”
Agriculture Minister Julie Collins said Thursday that relaxing the restrictions designed to keep Australia free of mad cow disease, also known as bovine spongiform encephalopathy or BSE, would not compromise biosecurity.
“Australia stands for open and free trade — our cattle industry has significantly benefited from this,” Collins said in a statement.
Trump celebrated the announcement with a post on Truth Social that said: “Now, we are going to sell so much to Australia because this is undeniable and irrefutable Proof that U.S. Beef is the Safest and Best in the entire World.”
U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Brooke L. Rollins responded to Australia’s announcement by congratulating Trump on a “major trade breakthrough that gives greater access to U.S. beef producers selling to Australia.”
“This is yet another example of the kind of market access the President negotiates to bring America into a new golden age of prosperity, with American agriculture leading the way,” she said in a statement.
Australia has allowed imports of beef grown in the United States since 2019. But Australia has not allowed imports from the U.S. of beef sourced from Canada or Mexico because of the disease risk.
But the U.S. has recently introduced additional movement controls that identify and trace all cattle from Mexico and Canada to their farms of origin.
US cattle import controls satisfy Australian authorities
Australian authorities were “satisfied the strengthened control measures put in place by the U.S. effectively manage biosecurity risks,” Collins said.
The timing of the new, reduced restrictions has not been finalized.
Trump attacked Australian import restrictions on U.S. beef when he announced in April that tariffs of at least 10% would be placed on Australian imports, with steel and aluminum facing a 50% tariff.
“Australia bans — and they’re wonderful people, and wonderful everything — but they ban American beef,” Trump told reporters then.
“Yet we imported $3 billion of Australian beef from them just last year alone. They won’t take any of our beef. They don’t want it because they don’t want it to affect their farmers and, you know, I don’t blame them, but we’re doing the same thing right now,” Trump added.
Lawmaker fears appeasing Trump endangers Australian cattle industry
Opposition lawmaker David Littleproud suspected the government was endangering Australia’s cattle industry to appease Trump.
“I want to see the science and it should be predicated on science. I’m suspicious of the speed at which this has been done,” Littleproud told reporters.
“We need to give confidence to the industry, but also to you (the public): this is not just about animal welfare, this is about human welfare, this is about BSE potentially coming into this country and having a human impact, so I think it’s important the government’s very transparent about the science and I don’t think it’s even beyond the question to have an independent panel review that science to give confidence to everybody,” he added.
Around 70% of Australian beef is exported. Producers fear that the export market would vanish overnight if diseases, including mad cow or foot-and-mouth disease, infected Australian cattle.
Will Evans, chief executive of Cattle Australia, who represents more than 52,000 grass-fed beef producers across the nation, said he was confident the agriculture department had taken a cautious approach toward U.S. imports.
“The department’s undertaken a technical scientific assessment and we have to put faith in them. They’ve made this assessment themselves. They’ve said: ‘We’ve looked at this, we’ve looked at the best science, this is a decision that we feel comfortable with,’” Evans said.
“When you have a $75 billion (Australian $50 billion) industry relying on them not making this mistake, I’m sure they’ve been very cautious in their decision-making,” he added.
US beef prices rise because of drought and a domestic cattle shortage
Beef prices have been rising in the U.S. due to factors that include drought and shrinking domestic herd numbers.
The average price of a pound of ground beef in the U.S. rose to $6.12 in June, up nearly 12% from a year ago, according to U.S. government data. The average price of all uncooked beef steaks rose 8% to $11.49 per pound.
Australian demand for U.S. beef is likely to remain low for reasons including a relatively weak Australian dollar.
Australia’s opposition to any U.S. tariffs will be high on the agenda when Prime Minister Anthony Albanese secures his first face-to-face meeting with Trump.
Albanese and Trump were to hold a one-on-one meeting on the sidelines of a Group of Seven summit in Canada last month, but the U.S. president left early.
Albanese expects the pair will meet this year, although no date has been announced.
The two countries have had a bilateral free trade deal for 20 years, and the U.S. has maintained a trade surplus with Australia for decades.
Intel CEO Lip-Bu Tan sent a memo to employees Thursday informing them of significant ongoing layoffs and other cost-cutting measures. The company has struggled to maintain a competitive edge amid ongoing financial losses and strategic setbacks in the AI and semiconductor markets.
“There are no more blank checks,” Tan wrote in a memo to employees, published by Reuters. “Every investment must make economic sense. We will build what our customers need, when they need it, and earn their trust through consistent execution.”
The memo directly addresses …
A reduction of about 15% (over 25,000 jobs) via layoffs and attrition
Operational streamlining to “drive greater efficiency and increase accountability at every level”
Cancellation of new factory projects in Germany and Poland, and a slowdown in Ohio facility construction, adjusting spending to actual market demand
Relocation of manufacturing operations from Costa Rica to Asia, while maintaining select engineering functions in Costa Rica
“We are making hard but necessary decisions to streamline the organization, drive greater efficiency, and increase accountability at every level of the company,” wrote the CEO, who took over in March.
Intel’s stock jumped early in 2025 as optimism built around new leadership, but shares fell over 9% after Thursday’s Q2 earnings and layoff announcement, threatening to erase most yearly gains.
Intel has lost ground to Nvidia in the AI sector and to AMD in the traditional computing market. Unlike other Silicon Valley giants, it doesn’t have booming AI or cloud businesses to offset its losses.
Microsoft, IBM, and Google have also shed thousands of workers this year. CEOs, including Meta’s Mark Zuckerberg and Microsoft’s Satya Nadella, have said they are cutting staff to streamline operations and free up capital to invest billions in AI.
For this story, Fortune used generative AI to help with an initial draft. An editor verified the accuracy of the information before publishing.
President Trump has suggested that as part of his tariff policy, he would consider sending out rebate checks or tariff refund checks to Americans, funded by the revenue collected from the tariffs imposed on imported goods. “We have so much money coming in, we’re thinking about a little rebate for people of a certain income level,” Trump told reporters Friday outside the White House. “A little rebate for people of a certain income level might be very nice.”
The rebate would be drawn from the significant amount of tariff revenue collected by the U.S. government—over $100 billion in the first half of 2025 alone, according to Treasury data.
Trump’s remarks about these rebate checks perhaps being targeted to Americans “of a certain income level” suggest they would likely be means-tested, but Trump offered few details about the exact income thresholds or amount of the rebate.
The stated purposes of the rebate are to compensate Americans who may have faced higher prices as a result of the tariffs and to potentially provide a small economic stimulus, which gives new meaning to Trump’s remarks about businesses “eating the tariffs,” with much economic debate over who is really footing the bill for them.
Any such rebate policy would likely require congressional approval, and lawmakers like Sen. Josh Hawley have indicated support for legislation that would deliver rebate checks to working Americans, but no bill text or timetable has been specified. If enacted, the administration would need to establish eligibility rules, application or automatic distribution methods, and payment logistics. This could resemble past stimulus check programs, but that is just theoretical at this point.
The rebate concept is distinct from legal or administrative tariff refunds to importers, which have been considered or mandated following court rulings questioning the legality of some tariffs. In such cases, refunds would go to the companies that paid the import duties, not directly to end consumers.
Is this legal?
Trump’s proposed tariff refund checks—rebates funded by tariff revenue and distributed directly to American consumers—would almost certainly require explicit legislation from Congress to be legally valid, given that the U.S. Constitution gives Congress—not the president—the power to levy tariffs and appropriate federal funds.
The president can impose certain tariffs under delegated statutory authorities, but courts have repeatedly found that the sweeping use of these powers under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) is not legal. Multiple recent court rulings (including a unanimous U.S. Court of International Trade decision) have blocked Trump’s broad tariffs for lacking legal basis under the IEEPA, yet the tariffs remain in place pending appeal and, theoretically, a Supreme Court ruling.
Trump’s busy July
The suggestion of tariff rebate checks or refund checks is another new policy suggestion from Trump in a July that has been full of them, as Washington, D.C., has been roiled by a metastasizing scandal involving disgraced deceased pedophile Jeffrey Epstein. Trump’s Justice Department is facing bipartisan criticism for its decision not to release the so-called Epstein files, which the Justice Department has said do not exist. The Wall Street Journal has published a series of scoops about Trump’s past closeness to Epstein, including Trump’s name being mentioned in the files.
In July, Trump said he had reached an agreement with Coca-Colato bring real sugar back into the Coke formula, which the company partially confirmed days later. He also demanded the Washington Commanders football team revert to their former “Redskins” name, threatening political obstruction for their stadium project if they did not comply. He announced the release of 230,000 files related to Martin Luther King Jr. And he escalated his feud with the Federal Reserve and Chair Jerome Powell, visiting the in-process office renovations in a hard hat and engaging in a bizarre, comedic argument with Powell about cost overruns on live television.
For this story, Fortune used generative AI to help with an initial draft. An editor verified the accuracy of the information before publishing.
Federal regulators on Thursday approved Paramount’s $8 billion merger with Skydance, clearing the way to close a deal that combined Hollywood glitz with political intrigue.
The stamp of approval from the Federal Communications Commission comes after months of turmoil revolving around President Donald Trump’s legal battle with “60 Minutes,” the crown jewel of Paramount-owned broadcast network CBS. With the specter of the Trump administration potentially blocking the hard-fought deal with Skydance, Paramount earlier this month agreed to pay a $16 million settlement with the president.
Critics of the settlement lambasted it as a veiled bribe to appease Trump, amid rising alarm over editorial independence overall. Further outrage also emerged after CBS said it was canceling Stephen Colbert’s “Late Show” just days after the comedian sharply criticized the parent company’s settlement on air. Paramount cited financial reasons, but big names both within and outside the company have questioned those motives.
In a statement accompanying the deal’s approval, FCC Chairman Brendan Carr hailed the merger as an opportunity to bring more balance to “once-storied” CBS.
“Americans no longer trust the legacy national news media to report fully, accurately, and fairly. It is time for a change,” Carr said.
While seeking approval, Skydance management assured regulators that it will carefully watch for any perceived biased at CBS News and hire an ombudsman to review any complaints about fairness. In a Tuesday filing, the company’s general counsel maintained that New Paramount will embody “a diversity of viewpoints across the political and ideological spectrum” — and also noted that it plans to take a “comprehensive review” of CBS to make “any necessary changes.”
The FCC approved the merger by a 2-1 vote, and the regulator who opposed it expressed disdain for how it all came together.
“After months of cowardly capitulation to this administration, Paramount finally got what it wanted,” FCC Commissioner Anna Gomez said in a statement. “Unfortunately, it is the American public who will ultimately pay the price for its actions.” Gomez was appointed by former President Joe Biden.
Paramount and Skydance have said they wanted to seal the deal by this September, and now appear to be on a path to make it happen by then, if not sooner.
Over the past year the merger has periodically looked like it might fall apart as the two sides haggled over terms. But the two companies finally struck an accord that valued the combined company at $28 billion, with a consortium led by the family of Skydance founder David Ellison and RedBird Capital agreeing to invest $8 billion.
Signaling a shakeup would accompany the changing of the guard, Ellison stressed the need to transition into a “tech hybrid” to stay competitive in today’s entertainment landscape. That includes plans to “rebuild” the Paramount+ streaming service, among wider efforts to expand direct-to-consumer offerings in a world with more entertainment options and shorter attention spans.
Ellison, who is poised to become CEO of the restructured Paramount, is the son of Larry Ellison, technology titan and co-founder of Oracle. Besides possessing an estimated $288 billion fortune, Larry Ellison has been described as a friend by Trump.
While Paramount sweated out regulatory approval of the merger, one of TV’s best-known and longest-running programs turned into a political hot potato when Trump sued CBS over the handling of a “60 Minutes” interview with his Democratic Party opponent in last year’s presidential election, Kamala Harris. Trump accused “60 Minutes” of editing the interview in a deceptive way designed to help Harris win the election. After initially demanding $10 billion in damages, Trump upped the ante to $20 billion while asserting he had suffered “mental anguish.”
The case quickly became a closely-watched test of whether a corporation would back its journalists and stand up to Trump. Editing for brevity’s sake is commonplace in TV journalism and CBS argued Trump’s claims had no merit. But reports of company executives exploring a potential settlement with Trump later piled up, particularly after Carr — appointed to lead the FCC by Trump — launched an investigation earlier this year.
By the start of July, Paramount agreed to pay Trump $16 million. The company said the money would go to Trump’s future presidential library and to pay his legal fees, but maintained that it was not apologizing or expressing regret for the story.
The settlement triggered an outcry among critics who pilloried Paramount for backing down from the legal fight to increase the chances of closing the Skydance deal. U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass, said that the deal “could be bribery in plain sight” — and called for an investigation and new rules to restrict donations to presidential libraries.
Concerns about editorial independence at CBS had piled up even in the months before the deal was announced — with Paramount overseeing “60 Minutes” stories in new ways, as well as journalists at the network expressing frustrations about the changes on an award-winning program that has been a weekly staple for nearly 57 years
In April, then-executive producer of “60 Minutes” Bill Owens resigned — noting that it had “become clear that I would not be allowed to run the show as I have always run it.” Another domino fell in May when CBS News CEO Wendy McMahon also stepped down, citing disagreements with the company “on the path forward,” amid speculation of Paramount nearing a settlement with Trump. CBS has since appointed Tanya Simon as the top producer at “60 Minutes” — elevating a respected insider in a move that could be viewed as a way to calm nerves leading up to the changes that Skydance’s Ellison is expected to make.
Headline U.S. inflation jumped to 2.7% in June, its steepest rise in five months, according to the latest consumer price data. UBS Global Wealth Management took a look under the hood, writing in its monthly letter that “it’s quiet … a little too quiet.”
Chief investment officer Mark Haefele appealed to the cinephiles in his audience: “Movie fans will know that feeling of tension when the hero steps into supposedly dangerous new territory only to find nothing there.” The TACO traders are waiting for the next shoe to drop, tariffs are at their highest since the 1930s, and the Federal Reserve’s independence is threatened, he writes. Yet global stocks are at record highs, rate volatility is down, and credit spreads are tightening.
Haefele looked under the hood of headline inflation to isolate the reading for “core goods” in June, arguing that this is where the tariff impact is being revealed, as its June increase showed a two-year high. Much of the recent acceleration reflects price hikes in goods most exposed to the new tariffs—household furnishings, appliances, electronics, apparel, and toys. There’s also a lag between when tariffs are announced, when importers stockpile goods, and when stores finally pass those costs on to shoppers, meaning this should increase in coming months.
The highest spike in core goods in two years.
UBS Global Wealth Management
All about the lag
UBS Global Wealth Management notes that data in the weeks and months ahead will be key to determining whether core goods truly are surging, reflecting the impact of tariffs. Indeed, industries that rely heavily on imports are feeling the pinch first. Retail sales in categories such as electronics and home furnishings have dropped by 2% and 1.1%, respectively, once adjusted for inflation, as households begin to curb spending in response to higher prices. Conversely, overall retail sales volumes are still up 0.4% month over month, and consumer spending remains relatively resilient.
Who bears the burden?
A central question remains on tariffs: Who pays for them—exporters, importers, or consumers? Haefele cautions that it’s unclear how exporters, importers, or consumers will divide the economic costs. The split will likely differ by industry, product, and market position.
Some companies, such as General Motors, have already reported a direct hit: GM’s second-quarter earnings took a $1.1 billion loss as a result of tariffs, leading to a 32% decline in core profit. The automaker is responding with a mix of price increases, cost-cutting, and supply-chain adjustments, but warns that a continued tariff environment could further squeeze margins or eventually force higher prices onto buyers. Across the wider business community, company executives are now addressing tariffs in earnings calls.
Haefele said UBS will closely watch retail sales, inflation, and consumer spending data, while listening for comments in the ongoing second-quarter earnings season about who will truly be “eating the tariffs,” to paraphrase President Donald Trump.
Policy offsets and Fed dilemmas
Some fiscal offsets may be on the way. The recent “One Big Beautiful Bill,” which contains extended and new tax cuts—partly funded with tariff revenue—could help stimulate the economy. But the amount of that revenue is unclear.
Risks tilt in both directions. If tariffs fuel a larger-than-expected inflation surge, consumer spending may slow and the Federal Reserve could be forced into a tough policy corner, balancing price stability against economic growth. Alternatively, if companies absorb more costs to maintain market share, profits could slump, further weighing on investment and labor markets.
For now, the lagged nature of tariffs means their full effect is only beginning to show up beneath the surface of headline inflation. Economists and policymakers will be closely monitoring core inflation, retail sales, and corporate margins in the months ahead. The only certainty, it seems, is that tariffs are no longer an abstract policy debate: They are beginning to hit home—one price tag at a time.
For this story, Fortune used generative AI to help with an initial draft. An editor verified the accuracy of the information before publishing.
U.S. median rent has risen from about $824 in 2008 to more than $1,300 in 2025. As rent has increased faster than wages, Americans are spending much more of their income on housing. On average, it now takes an entire week’s worth of pay to afford monthly rent.
It’s hard to imagine today, but about 17 years ago, rent for Americans was less than $1,000 per month. In 2008, the median rent was just $824 per month; today it’s more than $1,300—and many major metropolitan areas like New York City and Los Angeles dwarf that figure. Between 2022 and 2025 alone, rents jumped nearly 6%.
That also means Americans are spending much more of their monthly income on housing. Although it’s generally recommended not to spend more than a third of one’s income on housing, many Americans are shelling out much more than that. That’s largely due to rent prices rising faster than wage growth in the U.S.
A recent Self Financial analysis of housing data from the U.S. Census, Apartment List, Bureau of Labor Statistics, and the Federal Reserve illustrates how many hours worth of work Americans are spending on housing each month.
On average, Americans need to work 38.3 hours to cover their monthly rent, which works out to the average work week. But there’s a decent spread on the number of work hours needed to pay for rent across the U.S.
Vermont residents need to work 60.2 hours per month to meet the average monthly rental costs, the highest of any state, according to the Self Financial analysis. People living in South Dakota need just 27.6 hours to cover rent, placing them in the lowest spot. Unsurprisingly, New York City residents need to work the most hours to pay rent at 90.2 hours.
These are the five U.S. states with the highest number of hours required to cover the average monthly rent:
Vermont: 60.2 hours
Hawaii: 59.9 hours
California: 52.4 hours
New Jersey: 50.4 hours
Maryland: 50.3 hours
And these are the five U.S. states with the fewest number of hours required to cover the average monthly rent:
Maine: 32.3 hours
North Dakota: 32.2 hours
Alabama: 31.4 hours
Arkansas: 31.1 hours
South Dakota: 27.6 hours
See the heat map below, which shows the number of hours required to cover the monthly rent in each state. To see the number of hours, hover over each state. Deeper red indicates a higher number of hours.
While this may appear to be a grim outlook for rental housing in the U.S., there is a small glimmer of hope. As of May, median U.S. asking rent had actually dropped about 1% year-over-year, according to Redfin. That’s because apartment construction is hovering near a 50-year high, Redfin economists said.
“Even though renter demand is strong, it’s not keeping pace with supply,” said Sheharyar Bokhari, Redfin senior economist. “Many units are sitting vacant for months, which means renters have power to negotiate concessions and landlords have less leeway to keep rents high.”
Meanwhile, it’s still much cheaper to rent than to buy a home in the U.S. thanks to sky-high mortgage rates nearing 7% and home prices that are 55% higher than at the beginning of 2020, according to the Case-Shiller U.S. National Home Price Index.
Take Austin, Texas, for example. “Many people in Austin are finding that it’s a lot cheaper to rent than buy,” Austin real-estate agent Andrew Vallejo recently told Fortune. “You could buy a home and have a monthly mortgage payment of $3,200, but the same home will rent for $1,900. Unless the buyer has a good amount of money for a down payment, renting is way less expensive.”
The American new home market is cooling, with softer sales, higher inventory, and falling prices reflecting the current slowdown.
The latest New Residential Sales report (June 2025) from the U.S. Census Bureau shows that the U.S. housing market is experiencing a slowdown in new single-family home sales, while inventory and supply have increased, and prices are declining.
As buyers balk at high home prices and mortgage rates that continue to approach 7%, a recent Oxford Economics report predicts more pain ahead. Concerns about the economy and job security mean many would-be new purchasers are opting to make do with modest home improvements instead.
Increased new home sales often indicate strong consumer confidence, greater employment, and accessible financing. Conversely, declines suggest waning buyer interest, affordability issues, or economic stress.
“There’s no question that in many of pockets of the Sun Belt—the epicenter of U.S. single-family homebuilding—buyers have gained a considerable amount of leverage this year and the market has softened,” ResiClub editor-in-chief Lance Lambert told Fortune Intelligence.
“In order to keep sales volumes steady, big homebuilders have compressed margins further and done bigger incentives or outright price cuts. Lennar is spending the equivalent of 13.3% of final sales price on incentive, like mortgage rate buydowns,” Lambert noted, up from 1.5% at the height of the Pandemic Housing Boom in the second quarter of 2022. In normal times, Lambert pointed out, Lennar spends 5% to 6% on buyer sales incentives. (Lennar is ranked no. 129 on the Fortune 500.)
Key points from the report:
New home sales: Sales were at a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 627,000 in June 2025. This is only 0.6% higher than May 2025, but 6.6% lower than June 2024, indicating a notable year-over-year decline in buying activity.
Inventory: At the end of June, there were 511,000 new houses for sale, a 1.2% increase from May 2025 and an 8.5% increase from June 2024. This rise in inventory suggests that homes are staying on the market longer.
Months’ supply: The supply of homes relative to the sales rate is now at 9.8 months, up from 9.7 months in May 2025 and 8.4 months in June 2024. A higher months’ supply figure generally indicates a slower market with more supply than demand.
Prices: The median sales price for new homes in June 2025 was $401,800, which is 4.9% lower than May 2025 and 2.9% lower than June 2024. The average sales price was $501,000, down from the previous month but slightly higher than a year ago. This points to downward pressure on prices, likely due to rising inventory and decreased demand.
What it means:
The combination of dropping sales, rising inventory, and declining prices indicates a market with weaker demand and increased supply.
These conditions are often seen when buyers are constrained (e.g., by high mortgage rates or economic uncertainty), or homebuilders have ramped up production in anticipation of higher demand that didn’t fully materialize.
The elevated months’ supply metric—at almost 10 months—suggests a buyer’s market, where purchasers have more negotiating power and sellers may need to lower prices to attract buyers.
A new home is defined by the U.S. Census Bureau as a single-family house that is being sold for the first time. Since new home sales are recorded early in the sales process, trends in new home sales can signal coming shifts in the broader housing market, forecasting changes before they appear in existing home sales data.
For this story, Fortune used generative AI to help with an initial draft. An editor verified the accuracy of the information before publishing.
The S&P 500 has become a lopsided index, with the Magnificent Seven significantly increasing risk exposure for investors, according to Apollo chief economist Torsten Sløk. As the paths of the Magnificent Seven begin to diverge and the AI bubble swells, Sløk argues it’s time to begin questioning which AI companies to invest in.
It’s time to question the soundness of continued zealous investment in the Magnificent Seven, one top economist warns.
The S&P 500 has become “extremely concentrated,” with the top 10 stocks contributing 54% of market returns since January 2021, Apollo chief economist Torsten Sløk said in a Friday blog post. With the cluster of tech stocks at the top beginning to unravel, he is pouring cold water on continued aggressive investment in the index and in the Magnificent Seven.
“The textbook idea that the S&P 500 gives you a diversified exposure to risk is just simply no longer the case,” Sløk told Fortune. “You are very focused and concentrated in a small group of names, in particular in tech, making up such a significant share of your overall risk exposure.”
The top 10 companies in the S&P 500 now prop up 40% of the index’s market capitalization—more than 30% of which is from the Mag Seven—meaning the fortune of the markets has become increasingly reliant on investor optimism about AI. Alphabet’s AI rally not only helped mint CEO Sundar Pichai as a billionaire, for example, but the Google parent’s earnings beat gave the S&P 500 its fourth consecutive record close on Thursday.
But as the AI bubble swells larger than the IT bubble a quarter-century ago, as Sløk has previously noted, the extreme hype around the technology risks creating even broader economic consequences than the dotcom crisis. To protect one’s individual investments, now is the time to reconsider pouring money into the Mag Seven, Sløk argued.
“One should have some exposure to the S&P 500 and should certainly also have some exposure to AI,” Sløk said. “But it’s very clear that [owing to] the market’s extreme focus and concentration on this story, this is the time to have a conversation around, What are the things I should be doing with my money?”
The Magnificent Seven becomes Six, becomes Five
Mounting concerns over the ramifications of a growing AI bubble coincide with the unraveling of the Magnificent Seven stocks.
“We’re beginning to have conversations about the ‘Magnificent Six,’ maybe it’s only five,” Sløk said. “This is also just telling you that the Magnificent Seven are seven very, very different companies that have very different businesses.”
Popularized in 2023 by Bank of America analyst Michael Hartnett, the “Magnificent Seven” term acknowledged a group of companies alike in their goal of pushing toward an AI future, but these seven firms, once in lockstep, are beginning to diverge in their levels of success and areas of investment.
Tesla has meanwhile failed to deliver on promises of autonomous driving, continuing this week its streak of sales misses and disappointing quarters. Tesla’s stock has fallen nearly 15% in 2025 as investor confidence in CEO Elon Musk continues to be tested.
Nvidia this month became the first publicly traded company with a more than $4 trillion valuation as its stock price surged by approximately 1,460% over the past five years. The company is expected to see strong sales growth, despite increasing competitive pressures.
Ahead of next week’s earnings reports for Meta, Apple, and Microsoft, analysts are continuing to scrutinize the pricing of these companies’ stocks, assessing if there are other options in the tech sector worth buying into.
“AI will continue to have a dramatic impact on all our lives,” Sløk wrote in his blog post. “But the question remains whether the Magnificent Seven are correctly priced, and if they will even be the best AI investments over the next five to 10 years.”
President Donald Trump’s trade deals are illegal, Piper Sandler flatly declares in a new research note. The investment bank analyzed ongoing court battles and legislative authority, and concluded that Trump’s reliance on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose wide-ranging tariffs and cut bilateral deals far exceeds the powers granted by Congress.
It’s not a new opinion from Piper, necessarily—the bank laid out its reasoning in April, shortly after Trump’s “Liberation Day” announcement of universal tariffs under the IEEPA. Then, as now, it sees a 9–0 ruling in the Supreme Court against Trump as more likely than a Trump win.
The reason that the Piper Sandler team of Andy Laperriere, Don Schneider, and Melissa Turner is revisiting the subject is that oral arguments in these and similar cases are scheduled through September. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit will hear oral arguments on whether Trump truly has unlimited authority under the IEEPA to impose tariffs on Thursday, July 31. Piper Sandler forecasts that appellate courts will issue rulings over the next several months.
“Trump will probably continue to lose in the lower courts, and we believe the Supreme Court is highly unlikely to rule in his favor,” the bank said. Here’s why.
Stiff resistance
Trump’s trade policy has encountered stiff resistance as lower courts push back against the administration’s sweeping claims of executive authority. On May 28, the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) ruled unanimously against Trump’s use of the IEEPA for tariffs, calling the administration’s arguments unconvincing. The decision is now under appeal.
In a separate May 29 ruling, D.C. District Judge Rudolph Contreras found that the IEEPA does not enable the president to impose tariffs at all and ordered an immediate reversal of certain duties—though that order is currently stayed pending appeal.
According to Piper Sandler, the heart of the matter is congressional intent. As it did in April, the firm argues that the IEEPA, enacted in 1977, was designed to give the president certain emergency economic powers, but not blanket authority to set tariffs. Courts have consistently rejected the idea that the statute includes such sweeping power.
Even recent bilateral deals, such as Trump’s agreement with Japan, do not cure the underlying legal flaw. Congress, not the president, holds the ultimate authority to impose tariffs and approve international trade agreements. Piper Sandler stresses, “Making a deal with another country has no bearing on the legality of Trump’s tariffs,” highlighting that executive-led deals absent congressional approval lack legal standing. “If Trump does not have the authority to impose tariffs he is claiming, it doesn’t matter whether he makes a deal with Japan or anyone else.”
Billions and bilateral deals at stake
If the Supreme Court rules against Trump, all trade deals and announced tariff changes made under the IEEPA—including minimum 10% import rates and threatened reciprocal tariffs—would be declared instantly illegal. Refunds could flow to companies and individuals who have paid unlawfully imposed tariffs, if they file claims with the CIT.
The massive, headline-grabbing $550 billion Japanese investment pledge is cited by Piper Sandler as an example of economic promises lacking clarity, specifics, or legal durability.
“Our trading partners and major multinationals know Trump’s tariffs are on shaky ground,” the Piper team writes. “It’s notable the promise of $550 billion in Japanese investments in the U.S. is accompanied by no details. It’s not clear where the money will be coming from, who will decide how it is allocated, and over what period the $550 billion will be spent.”
Despite all these reasons the tariffs are clearly illegal, Piper insists that the tariffs are likely to go up from this point and “remain at record levels for the next many months.” Here’s why.
Will tariffs go away soon?
Piper Sandler’s analysts caution that tariffs are likely to remain in place in the near term, supported by administrative stays and the slow judicial process. Even if reciprocal tariffs are struck down, Trump could pivot to other statutes, such as Section 232 (covering steel, aluminum, and cars), though these have even stricter legal guardrails and could invite further litigation. Trump is on “strong legal ground” in using Section 232 to impose tariffs on steel, aluminum, and cars, the bank says, but he may try to stretch that authority as he has done with other trade statutes. “The base case is there will be years of legal battles over tariffs.”
The research note details at least eight ongoing lawsuits from a diverse range of plaintiffs—including states, tribes, and small businesses—all challenging Trump’s use of the IEEPA. Court dockets now stretch across several federal circuits, signaling that “years of legal battles” may follow, even if Trump loses at the Supreme Court.
Piper Sandler emphasizes that major multinational corporations and foreign governments see U.S. trade policy as unstable. The result, the bank argues, is reluctance to invest heavily in the U.S. until the legal landscape becomes clearer—a situation that may persist for months, if not years, irrespective of any immediate court ruling.
Piper Sandler’s analysts express confidence that recent judicial skepticism of the executive branch’s unchecked statutory interpretations will carry over to the Supreme Court. The bank finds the conservatives on the court likely to vote just as they did in a series of recent cases, in which they “lined uniformly against the Executive Branch pulling out an old statute and asserting far-reaching, never-before-used authority nowhere found in the text of the statute.” The liberals are also not likely to grant unlimited authority to Trump.
Still, with Trump’s well-known litigious nature, and the legal calendar ahead, Piper concludes: “Instability surrounding trade is likely to last a lot longer.”
For this story, Fortune used generative AI to help with an initial draft. An editor verified the accuracy of the information before publishing.
President Donald Trump displays a signed executive order imposing tariffs on imported goods during a “Make America Wealthy Again” trade announcement event in the Rose Garden at the White House on April 2, 2025, in Washington, D.C.
Hulk Hogan’s Real American Beer was bidding to buy Hooters before his death. It’s now unclear if that offer will continue. Hogan died Thursday, reportedly of cardiac arrest.
The death of Hulk Hogan (real name Terry Bollea) Thursday marked the end of an era in the wrestling world, but it could put the future of a national restaurant chain at risk as well.
Bollea’s Real American Beer brand had launched a bid to acquire Hooters just last month. After initially bidding only for the company’s intellectual property, it expanded that bid to acquire all of Hooters of America, including the over 400 locations across the world.
Hooters filed for bankruptcy in June, abruptly closing dozens of locations. Management at the time said the company wasn’t “going anywhere” and that “by optimizing our business in support of our long-term goals, Hooters will be well-positioned to continue our iconic legacy under a pure franchise business model.”
That didn’t stop bidders from emerging. Real American Beer found itself in competition with a proposal led by Hooters Inc., which oversees some franchised Hooters locations. The company’s cofounder was a part of that group.
“Real American’s bid is different,” the company said at the time of its bid. “It’s about rebuilding Hooters from the ground up, with a fresh operational model, new revenue streams (merchandise, partnerships, experience-first locations), and a cultural strategy designed to reengage diners in their 20s and 30s. This isn’t about preserving nostalgia. It’s about unlocking Hooters’ next chapter, with real investment, real leadership, and a real plan to win.”
Great American Beer did not reply to Fortune‘s request for comment about the state of the acquisition offer following Hogan’s death.
If the bid is approved, Great American Beer would need to launch a separate entity to own Hooters, since liquor laws in the U.S. prohibit alcohol brands from owning restaurants.
Hooters and Hogan’s beer have a history, however. The chain was one of the first to agree to serve the lager last June.
Google has launched a tool to let you virtually try on clothes online. Available now, the tool lets users upload a picture of themselves to see how the outfit would look on them. AI components account for how materials fold or stretch across people’s bodies.
Buying online clothes is always something of a crap shoot. What looks good on the webpage could look ridiculous on you in person (or worse, entirely too tight).
A few months ago at its I/O 2025 event, Google unveiled an AI-powered tool that could prevent those fashion disasters, letting you upload a full-body picture of yourself to virtually try on clothing found online. Now, that tool is finally available to users in the U.S.
To use the tool, just tap on any product listing across Google or an apparel product result on Google Images and hit the “try it on” icon. From there, you’ll upload a full-length photo and see what you’ll look like in the outfit.
The tool works on laptop, desktop and mobile devices.
Google says it has also updated its price alert feature, so you can track prices and grab the top, dress or shorts when it falls into your price range.
The tool doesn’t just overlay the clothing on top of the image you upload. Google used an AI image generation model to account for how materials fold or stretch across people’s bodies.
Later this year, Google will bring shopping features like this to its AI Mode, including one that lets people explore (and purchase) outfit and decor ideas directly from the chatbot.
One heads-up about this tool: While it does a good job of showing you what the clothes will look like on you, it does not account for body size, so it’s not currently useful as a guide to whether an outfit will fit you well. In our own tests, the tool shaved several pounds off of us to showcase the clothes. And while that was a nice fantasy, the reality would likely look a bit different.
In fairness, the tool does warn users “Fit and appearance won’t be exact.”
YouTube sold to Google in 2006 for $1.65 billion, with cofounders Chad Hurley and Steven Chen splitting over $650 million worth of stock shares. And while their wealth increased exponentially with the acquisition, estimates put today’s value of YouTube at $550 billion—a 333x increase. Few could imagine YouTube’s eventual media dominance at the time, making it a classic example of the high-stakes decisions founders must weigh.
YouTube may have started as a site to share home videos, but now it’s one of the most powerful platforms in the world: From entertainment to advertising, it’s spawned billion-dollar careers and birthed a global creator economy, turning individuals like MrBeast into household names.
But when its founders sold the popular video platform to Google for $1.65 billion in fall 2006, not even they could have predicted just how massive it would become—or how much more they could have made.
At the time of sale, each cofounder—Chad Hurley, Steven Chen and Jawed Karim—received millions of dollars worth of stock: Hurley, YouTube’s CEO at the time, received shares worth some $345 million by the time the Securities and Exchange Commission documents were released a few months later, according to The New York Times. Chen its CTO received some $326 million worth and Jawed Karim, who left the venture early to go back to school, got $64 million worth.
“This is great,” Hurley said in a video posted when the sale was announced. “Two kings have gotten together. The king of search, the king of video have gotten together. We’re going to have it our way.”
YouTube’s sale price to Google is just a fraction of its estimated $550 billion value today, according to a MoffettNathanson research note reported by Variety. That’s a 333x increase (unadjusted for inflation) from nearly two decades prior. While it’s difficult to pinpoint exactly, had Hurley and Chen received the same percentage of the sale today as they did in 2006, each could have walked away with more than $100 billion each.
Hindsight is 20/20 when it comes to selling
Last year, YouTube brought in some $54.2 billion in revenue, and this year, it is expected to surpass Disney to become the largest media company by revenue in the world, Variety reported. YouTube’s record-setting successes highlight how Google was able to overcome issues that the video platform’s founders struggled with early on—including operating losses and copyright lawsuits—and its paid off dividends.
But YouTube’s masterminds are far from the only business leaders that have seen their company soar after exchanging ownership.
During the first two weeks of Apple’s existence, the company’s lesser-known third cofounder Ronald Wayne checked out and sold his 10% stake—netting him $800 at the time, plus $1,500 to forfeit any claim to the company for good. However, his 10% share could now be worth between $75 billion and $300 billion, thanks to the company’s now $3.2 trillion market cap.
These stories also exist outside of tech. For example, the founder of iconic pasta brand Chef Boyardee sold the company in 1946 for $6 million. Over the decades, the company exponentially grew its operations, expanding to multiple lines of canned and microwavable goods. And just this year, the brand, including its over 500-person strong factory, was sold to private equity for $600 million—a 10,000% increase in value.
And in the case of Chef Boyardee and YouTube, it’s unclear whether such massive growth would have been achieved without the backing of larger corporate owners. For the founders, it means weighing up selling early and leaving future billions on the table—or holding on and risking the company never reaching its full potential.
YouTube’s cofounders could all be part of the billionaire club alongside Google's Sundar Pichai had they kept the business—it’s grown some 333x since they cashed out.
Login
