A sense of unease has settled over the countrya shared anxiety fueled by headlines, social media, and persistent uncertainty about the future. From escalating conflicts in the Middle East to disturbing incidents of political violence here at home, Americans across the spectrum are grappling with instability and disruption. This isnt just partisan fatigue or angstits a broader disorientation about who we are as a nation and where were headed.As an avid scuba diver, I (Craig) have learned that when seasickness strikes, the best remedy is to focus on the horizon. In times of uncertainty, we need that same kind of long-range perspective.
America, while powerful, is relatively young. History is replete with examples of empires experiencing internal strife. Fareed Zakarias Age of Revolutions documents this phenomenon with precision. While historical parallels dont alleviate our present anxieties, they can offer a broader context.One reason this moment feels so disorienting is that theres often a gap between expectations and reality. Many of us grew up with a hopeful, sometimes idealized narrative of American progress and unity. Todays polarized discourse, political violence, and institutional tensions can challenge that view. But rather than disengage, we need to adaptand recommit.In moments of uncertainty, our instincts may be to fight, flee, or freeze. But when we try to do all three at once, we risk exhaustion and paralysis. Freezingtuning out or giving upfeels safe, but its unsustainable. Instead, we advocate for a balanced approach: fight and flight, both with intention.
Fight: Civic engagement as a steadying force
To fight is to stay constructively engaged. That means seeking out credible, fact-based news. It means voting and encouraging others to do the same. It means participating in civil dialogue and seeking to understand perspectives that differ from our ownempathy can bridge divides.
Leaders in business, nonprofits, and communities all have a role to play. Upholding the rule of law, supporting fair elections, and defending the institutions that sustain our economy and civic life arent political actstheyre commitments to stability and shared progress.
At Leadership Now Project[DA1] , weve mobilized business leaders from both parties to take action, supporting policies that protect democracy, engaging with policymakers, speaking out publicly, defending election officials, and recognizing courageous leadership. These efforts are grounded in principle, not partisanship, because a strong democracy is essential to a thriving economy.
Flight: Protecting peace isnt escapismits strategic
Flight doesnt mean tuning outit means stepping back to preserve focus and clarity. In an era of constant information overload, its easy to feel overwhelmed. But we cant let the noise drown out the signal.
This means prioritizing what truly matters: health, relationships, and purpose. It means limiting the distractions that drain us and being intentional about how we spend our energy.
Whether through mindfulness, service, or simple moments of joy, finding inner stability helps us stay grounded. Its what allows us to show up consistently, over the long term.Holocaust survivor and psychologist Viktor Frankl once wrote that while we cant always control our circumstances, we can choose our response. That mindsetanchoring in purpose and positivity even amid chaoscan help us move forward with clarity and resolve.
Find purpose
In short: Even in uncertainty, we can find purpose. Even amid division, we can choose to build. The storm may not pass quickly, but we are far from powerless.
When we anchor ourselves in valuescuriosity, leadership, accountabilitywe become more resilient. And when we come together across differences, we remind ourselves that the story of this country has always been written by people who chose to engage, to hope, and to act.
We are not alone. And the horizon is there to help us refocus.
Daniella Ballou-Aares is the founder and CEO of the Leadership Now Project. Craig Robinson is founding member of Leadership Now Project.
After 20 years working in sustainability, I thought I understood most levers companies could pull to drive impact. As a former CEO and longtime sustainability leader, I have spent my career trying to drive systems change by making businesses and supply chains more sustainable and resilient, advocating for transparency, championing responsible sourcing, and pushing for more equity in business.
In these roles, Ive thought about where companies banked, how 401(k)s were invested, and even how philanthropic dollars could fund this work. Climate finance came up in those contexts, often tied to investors, philanthropy, or policy. But I had never looked closely at insurance.
That turned out to be a major oversight but also a lightbulb moment.
Why insurance?
Insurance is one of the most powerful, least understood systems shaping business and risk. It doesnt just protect value, it influences where value flows in the first place. And once I began to see that, I couldn’t unsee it.
The scale is staggering. The industry collects about $8 trillion in premiums each year and manages around $35 trillion in assets. Underwriting decisions influence what gets built, what gets financed, and how companies prepare for risk. These decisions often happen behind the scenes, but they quietly define the boundaries of business.
Until recently, I had not considered insurance as a climate lever. Now I see it as an important and underutilized tool to accelerate resilience and impact.
Insurance doesnt just reflect risk. It prices it. And pricing influences behavior. When insurers begin to recognize climate-smart practices and reward resilience, they do more than react to a changing world. They help shape it.
Insurance and climate
That is what led me to join Premiums for the Planet.
We work with companies that want to reduce risk, lower costs, and build long-term resilience. Some are vocal about their sustainability goals. Others are making progress quietly, especially in todays political climate, where public conversations around climate and sustainability have become more polarized. But across the board, the work is still happening and insurance can help it go further.
Because this is no longer just about climate commitments. It is about business fundamentals and how we can transform business as usual.
Insurance is something every company needs and already buys. But few think about how it could be doing more for both their business and the planet. When companies begin to see insurance as a strategic tool, not just a budget line item, they start asking better questions.
Are we covered for the risks we are truly facing in a rapidly evolving climate? Do insurers see the investments we have made in sustainability? How can smarter risk management improve our terms or help fund what comes next?
Each of these questions opens up opportunities. Companies that explore them often uncover ways to save money, strengthen coverage, and align their insurance strategy with long-term goals.
In the short term, insurance can uncover savings and plug gaps. In the medium term, it can enhance business resilience in a warming world and reduce the risks that often go unaccounted for. In the long term, it has the potential to transform an industry that is long overdue for change.
That transformation matters. Insurers have the ability to influence entire markets. Their decisions can help slow harmful sectors like fossil fuels and unsustainable land use. Just as importantly, they can help accelerate the growth of renewables, regenerative agriculture, climate technology, and resilient infrastructure by de-risking their development, rewarding their performance, and making them more investable.
Insurers as partners
Insurers do not need to be cast as villains. The real opportunity is to bring them in as partners. These are institutions that have spent decades pricing risk. They understand long-term exposure. And they are well positioned to help define what a more stable and sustainable economy looks like.
But no one company can shift this system on its own, something Ive long believed and know from first-hand experience to be true. The insurance industry is too massive, too interconnected, and too entrenched to move for any single player, no matter how large or committed. Change requires coordination. It takes businesses acting together, sending consistent signals, and demanding better alignment between insurance and climate goals.
We often talk about invisible systems. Insurance is one of them. And like any system, it can evolve.
At a time when government regulation is either too slow or a barrier to real change, this is a lever that business can pull now. Quietly or publicly. Through bold messaging or internal changes. Either way, it counts.
We need to broaden our view of climate finance. That means connecting sustainability and risk teams. It means bringing together operations, procurement, legal, and finance. And it means recognizing that insurance is not just a protective layer. It is a tool for change.
The companies that lead in the next decade will not only be more sustainable. They will also be more insurable.
Amina Razvi is chief development and operations officer for Premiums for the Planet.
In the last decade, the buzz around design has captured global attention. People everywhere are increasingly interested in design and seem to recognize how it impacts nearly every facet of our lives. Popular culture also places a high value on design, yet the corporate C-suite too often walks a different path.
Leading companies such as Apple, IBM, Nike, and PepsiCo have historically understood the transformative power of design. Recognizing that design is not just about aesthetics, theyve leaned on design as a business driver to differentiate their brand, create customer loyalty, and deliver market value. Apple is a perfect case study. Its rise from the early 2000s to become one of the worlds most valuable companies is often credited to its focus on beautiful products and intuitive interfaces, from the iPod to the iPhone, making design part of everyday conversation.
For a time, organizations across industries seemed to understand design as a strategic advantage. But today, in an era marked by what Ive heard called a “design-cession, many companies seem to have lost track of this insight, marking design as a cost center to manage. Moreover, theres an alarming absence of designers at the highest levels of corporate decision making. Even in companies that claim to be design-led, or in the management consultancies who have gobbled up small to mid-sized innovation and branding agencies, we rarely see designers in the boardroom. I keep wondering, why not? And how do we fix this?
The problem
The obvious question is: Why are designers so underrepresented in places where key strategic decisions are being made? After all, design is not just about products, packaging, or digital platforms; its about creating innovative user experiences, improving services, and designing better ways of working within organizationstransforming the mundane into the extraordinary.
In recent years, companies have grown increasingly risk-averse, unsure how to navigate an unpredictable future. The COVID-19 pandemic forced many businesses to take shortcuts to survive, particularly in areas deemed nonessential like design. Even as conditions stabilized, this mindset lingered, often leaving design excellence deprioritized. The rise of AI has further complicated the role of design in business and culture. While many companies now lean on artificial intelligence for speed and efficiency, human designers have been further pushed from the equation, despite that AI lacks the creativity and empathy to understand human needs unless guided by human input. At the same time, a troubling gap exists between business and design education, with little overlap in training or collaboration.
All this to say, despite general awareness, consumer passion, and decades of telltale research showcasing how the intangibles of brand and design drive corporate value, too many companies now see design as a cost to work around rather than a key contributor to innovation and profitability. As Uli Becker, a friend and mentor of mine and the former CEO of Reebok said to a room full of design leaders recently: If you all dont do your jobs well, I have nothing to sell.
The undervaluation of design is not only detrimental to business, but to our world as a whole. Good design relies on research to define problems, ideate solutions, prototype, and test. It serves as a valuable tool for addressing some of the worlds most complex challenges, from climate change to inequality. I firmly believe that design matters.
The solution
As an MBA who has spent most of her career at the intersection of business and design, I often ask myself where are all the designers? Despite consistent evidence showing that companies that embrace human-led design tend to outperform their competitors, why do business leaders still insist on seeing design as a soft skill versus the competitive advantage it is?
In 2015, the Design Management Institute published a study with Microsoft, revealing that design-led companies outperformed the S&P 500 by an astonishing 211% over a 10-year period. In 2019, McKinsey released a report showing that design-driven companies saw an increase in both revenue and shareholder returns at nearly twice the rate of their industry peers. From this data, one clear fact emerges: Design is not only a differentiator; it is a critical driver of financial performance.
So how can the worlds companies ensure they utilize the power of design? The answer is simple: Re/introduce designers into the boardroom. In the words of Beth Comstock, then SVP of GE, “What business needs now is design. What design needs now is making it about business.” Its a two-way problem and a holistic solution.
Heres what needs to give:
Companies need to invest in design. This means committing to the ongoing leadership training of designers across all levels, and providing learning and development opportunities to bring more designers into senior leadership roles.
Designers need to learn and design schools need to teach business fundamentals. If designers of all levels could speak the language of businessROI, gross margin, net profit, market share, brand equity, etc.then perhaps their voices will be louder and more confident, their contributions taken more seriously, and their paths to the C-suite made more obvious.
Public and private sector investments should be made in secondary and university education to nurture the next generation, to understand the value of good design and why it matters to all of us. It would that ensure young people will be more properly equipped to help solve tomorrows challenges. Meanwhile, business and design schools can partner to provide future leaders with hands-on experience. My alma mater, INSEAD (Singapore) did this with ArtCenter (Pasadena); while I may be biased, it was one of the best courses offered.
Smart, future-focused companies understand the need for strategic design. It is neither a luxury nor a cost to cut. It is a core component of successful business strategy and contributor to the continuous improvement of human life. As we confront myriad present and future uncertainties, we need design to help us navigate complexity. Designers must have a seat at the decision-making table, but they must be equipped to speak the language of business to communicate clearly with those already there.
Companies that embrace this paradigm and invest in design(ers) are the ones that will end up on topjust like they always have. This is a good outcome for us all, because in the end, design is an act of optimism. It creates something that looks forward and helps propel humanity towards tomorrow. And ultimately, isn’t that what life is all about?
Lisa Gralnek is global head of sustainability and impact for iF Design, managing director of iF Design USA Inc., and creator/host of the podcast, FUTURE OF XYZ.
AI-generated models have now made their way into the hallowed pages of Vogue.
In the August print edition of the magazine, a Guess advertisement features an almost-too-perfect model wearing a striped dress and a floral playsuit from the brands summer collection. In very small print, there’s a note saying that she was created using AI.
While Vogue states the AI model was not an editorial decision, the fashion magazine has still faced considerable backlash online. Some critics have gone so far as to call it the downfall of Vogue.
the downfall of vogue. their covers are trash. no creativity. and now using AI. https://t.co/BAyKAcUqB0 pic.twitter.com/8lgJZOFXWy— (@streetlightsdy) July 24, 2025
One X user posted: Had to end the Vogue magazine subscription Ive had for years because the latest magazine used AI models ??? In Vogue? AI models in Vogue?
Had to end the Vogue magazine subscription Ive had for years because the latest magazine used AI models ??? In Vogue? AI models in Vogue? pic.twitter.com/vVZMiPEHkX— julius LORDE SUMMER (@WEBBYMCGEE) July 23, 2025
Although the AI-generated model appeared in an ad campaign rather than a fashion editorial, for many, thats beside the point. Note to publications doing things like this: It makes you look cheap and chintzy, lazy and hasty, desperate and struggling, another user wrote.
Note to publications doing things like this: it makes you look cheap and chintzy, lazy and hasty, desperate and struggling. A successful enterprise has no need to do things like this; we need to reinforce these optics https://t.co/Zh5w5g8Gu4— Charles Bramesco (@intothecrevasse) July 24, 2025
This isnt the first time an AI model has appeared in Vogue. The June 2024 Vogue Portugal issue featured an AI-generated model on its cover, while the May 2023 edition of Vogue Italia used artificial intelligence to create the background of a cover featuring Bella Hadid.
As AI becomes increasingly embedded in our daily lives and workflows, its now infiltrating both digital and analog media. Fast Company previously reported that one in three Gen Z consumers now makes purchasing decisions based on recommendations from AI-generated influencers, according to research from Whop, a marketplace for digital products. Could the same apply to AI-generated models?
Seraphinne Vallora, the agency behind the ad, created the AI model after being approached by Paul Marciano, Guesss cofounder, via Instagram DMs. The company’s Instagram page, which has over 225,000 followers, features hundreds of similar AI-generated supermodelsall conforming to the same Eurocentric beauty standards, devoid of human flaws or unique features.
The founders told the BBC that theyve attempted to feature more diverse models, but those posts failed to gain traction. (Fast Company has reached out to Vogue, Guess, and Seraphinne Vallora for comment.)
As one X user wrote: As if beauty standards havent become unrealistic enough, now girls will be competing with and comparing themselves to women who arent even real. Incredible work, everyone.
In Silicon Valley, it seems that everyone’s aspiration is to “Be A Founder.” I chatted with Jon Westenberg, who thinks that most people should focus on building a small business instead of chasing the startup dream.
Why do you think Silicon Valley culture encourages startups over small businesses?
JW: Silicon Valley lives and breathes on VC money, and no fund is able to justify investment without the promise of a 100x return. I don’t have any real criticism of that process or system. The angle that I come from is that while every VC firm needs to be funding high growth companies, not every entrepreneur should be trying to build one.
Do you think there are general differences entrepreneurs who aspire to be founders and those who want to be business owners?
JW: I think founder is a title that people want because it has connotations, it has prestige and it has that “cool” factor. We’ve reached a point in entrepreneurship where startups are mainstream now. It’s like a reality TV singing contest. This is an example I use all the time. When you read about the wannabes who go on X Factor or Idol, they’ll always say that their life long dream is to be a singer. They never say their dream is to sing. And this is because what they really want is the success and the lifestyle and the glamour of being a singer. That’s why they’re jumping in front of a camera. If what they really wanted was to sing – they’d be out there every night playing gigs and building an audience and doing what they love.
Even though you’d advise most people to focus on building a small business, are there any situations when you believe that they should pursue a startup instead?
JW: I think if you want to achieve success in certain verticals, you can’t operate as a small business. Uber, for example, are a sticky growth company that needed huge levels of funding to build their user base among drivers and riders. Facebook, Twitter, Vine – platforms like that can’t grow as small businesses.
So, the first thing you’d consider is whether or not the business needs to scale in order to succeed.
JW: Starting a big, huge, fancy, sweating tech company isn’t the be-all and end-all, and choosing not to do that doesn’t make anyone stupid. In fact, going in the opposite direction is likely to make you happier, healthier, wealthier and a [lot] wiser.
I don’t disagree that startups are the cause of a lot of heartbreak but you’ll have to walk us through what you mean by “it’ll make you happier.”
JW: You Can Focus On Simplicity:You’re literally building something small, within clear limits and boundaries. There’s no giant pressure to add features, meaning you have the freedom to focus on the smaller things that matter deeply to you and your users.
People Matter More: When you stay small, you can spend more time with the people who really matter in your business. A small business is about people.
Keeping Things Personal Is Easier: I love seeing a personal touch in every business and every product. You can take the time to ensure that your users and customers are given a little magic every time.
Small Doesn’t Mean Poor: Small means lower overheads, lower cash burn rate–and the chance to keep all profits within your own company and your own pocket.
You Don’t Have To Stay Small Forever: If you do want to grow, you’ll have a much better chance of doing it from a position of power with a successful, profitable smaller company.
If you’re just talking about being profitable enough that you don’t need investors, then that’s called bootstrapping.
JW: I don’t think that necessarily captures it. To me, bootstrapping just means funding a company yourself. Starting a small business means funding a company, setting boundaries and limits, understanding your product or service and what you want it to accomplish and working to a plan of meeting your limits. If you do that, you’re not going to be a billionaire. But you could be a very happy millionaire. And to me, that’s a pretty good option.
By Cynthia Than
This article originally appeared on Fast Company’s sister publication, Inc.
Inc. is the voice of the American entrepreneur. We inspire, inform, and document the most fascinating people in business: the risk-takers, the innovators, and the ultra-driven go-getters that represent the most dynamic force in the American economy.
The European Union’s trade deal with the United States could cost the pharmaceutical industry between $13 billion and $19 billion as branded medicines become subject to a tariff of 15%, analysts said on Monday.
The added costs could raise prices for consumers unless pharmaceutical companies take action to mitigate the impact of the tariffs, one of the analysts said.
Pharmaceuticals had historically been exempt from duties. Medicines are the largest European exports to the United States by value, and the EU accounts for about 60% of all pharmaceutical imports to the U.S.
On Sunday, European officials said that a bilateral trade deal for an across-the-board 15% tariff included pharmaceuticals, except for some generic drugs, which would be subject to no tariffs.
The U.S. has been conducting a national security investigation into the pharmaceutical sector, and the industry has been bracing for separate sectoral tariffs. President Donald Trump said earlier this month, before negotiating the bilateral deal, that pharmaceutical tariffs could be as high as 200%.
Some Wall Street analysts said that they do not expect additional tariffs on the EU as a result of the investigation, but others cautioned that the deal was not yet signed and that several questions remained unanswered.
UBS analyst Matthew Weston said that he expects details of the trade deal to include protective measures for EU pharma exports from the U.S. investigation, especially since such measures are being discussed in negotiations with the United Kingdom and Switzerland.
ING analyst Diederik Stadig also said that while tariffs on top of the 15% were not expected, even after the conclusion of the national security investigations, nothing is completely clear “until a trade deal is inked.”
Stadig estimates that these levies could add $13 billion to industry expenses without any mitigation strategies, and some of that could be ultimately borne by the consumer.
Bernstein analyst Courtney Breen puts the additional expenses at $19 billion for the industry, but she notes that companies might be able to absorb some of the costs with the measures they have been implementingsuch as stockpiling of drug products and new deals with contract researchers.
Earlier this month, Sanofi said it will sell a manufacturing facility in New Jersey to Thermo Fisher, where the French drugmaker’s therapies will continue to be manufactured. Roche’s CEO Thomas Schinecker said last week that the company was increasing its U.S. inventories to avoid any immediate disruption from tariffs.
UBS’s Weston said that it was not immediately clear which generic drugs were exempted from duties under the deal, but any impact for generic drugmaker Sandoz for this year should mostly be manageable.
Shares in pharmaceutical companies Sanofi, Roche, and Sandoz Group all closed up between 0.5% and 1% on Monday.
By Bhanvi Satija, Reuters
President Donald Trump is asking a federal court in Florida to force Rupert Murdoch to give a deposition for the president’s lawsuit against The Wall Street Journal within 15 days, citing the media mogul’s age and physical condition.
Trump sued The Journal, owned by Murdoch, in U.S. District Court in southern Florida on July 18 for its story reporting on the Republican president’s ties to Jeffrey Epstein, the financier and alleged child sex trafficker who died in a New York jail in 2019 before trial.
The president’s motion to the court on Monday noted Murdoch is 94 years old, is believed to have suffered several health scares in recent years, and is presumed to live in New York.
Taken together, these factors weigh heavily in determining that Murdoch would be unavailable for in-person testimony at trial, Trump’s request to the court said.
A spokesman for Murdoch’s News Corp. did not immediately return a request for comment. Trump’s motion said that, in a telephone conversation, Murdoch’s lawyer indicated he would oppose the effort.
Firefly Aerospace, the first commercial company to successfully land on the moon, just announced the target per-share pricing for its proposed initial public offering (IPO).
In a filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) today, the Texas-based company shared that it applied to list its common stock on the Nasdaq exchange, with an offer of 16.2 million shares, each priced between $35 and $39 per sharea launch that could raise as much as $631.8 million for Firefly.
The company plans to trade its stock under the ticker symbol FLY.
According to Firefly, net proceeds from the IPO would be used to repay outstanding borrowings under its credit agreement, pay any accrued and unpaid dividends on certain series of its preferred stock, and for general corporate purposes.
If the IPO is approved by the Nasdaq, it will be the latest in a series of tech-focused listings that have drawn renewed investor interest this year, a group that includes fintech company Chime, stablecoin issuer Circle, and digital health platform Hinge Health.
Firefly has not announced an expected date for the listing, but said in a press release on Monday that it has launched its “road show.” Fast Company has reached out for more information on the timing.
What is Firefly Aerospace?
Firefly Aerospace is a private company focusing on building small- to medium-lift launch vehicles, lunar landers, and orbital vehicles from its headquarters in Cedar Park, Texas. Its proposed IPO comes just months after the company landed on the moon for the first time through a partnership with NASA.
The Blue Ghost Lunar Lander Mission 1, dubbed Ghost Rider in the Sky, was a collaboration between Firefly and NASAs Commercial Lunar Payload Services (CLPS) initiative, which offers fixed contracts to commercial partners.
In all, CLPS awarded Firefly $101 million to craft a four-legged lander that could deliver 10 NASA payloads (weighing 340 pounds) to the moons surface. These payloads were designed to study topics like the behavior of lunar dust, the moons internal structure, and the Earths magnetosphere. The mission launched on January 15 and successfully touched down on March 2.
It just shows that the private industry, the commercial world, has a lot of affordable, responsive technology and systems that could provide NASA a frequent means to go to the moon and carry out all these high-stakes critical-science missions for lower cost, as well as do it sustainably, Firefly CEO Jason Kim told Fast Company in January.
Currently, Firefly is gearing up to complete two more missions for NASA in 2026 and 2028.
The companys success, alongside the growing prominence of other players like Elon Musk’s SpaceX and Jeff Bezos’s Blue Origin, shows that private companies are becoming increasingly powerful in todays space racea trend that may make FLY stock a valuable asset to potential future investors.
The Trump administration’s so-called “Big, Beautiful Bill,” which the president signed into law on July 4, could have some unwelcome impacts on U.S. grocery storesespecially those that are independently owned or in low-income neighborhoods.
The bill slashed government spending on items like Medicare and Medicaid and gave massive tax cuts to corporations and the wealthiest Americans. But it also cut Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits, a federal program which at least 41.7 million received last year.
According to the National Grocers Association (NGA), which represents independent community grocers across the U.S., as well as their wholesalers, roughly 12% of grocery store payments come from SNAP. In some rural and low-income neighborhoods, closer to 70% of sales are made using the assistance program. That means that neighborhood stores in those areas will almost undeniably see dwindling sales.
In May, the Center for American Progress identified at least 27,000 grocery retailers that were likely to be the hardest hit by the bills cuts. “The impacts of cuts to SNAP are likely to be felt most strongly in areas with the highest rates of SNAP participation,” the report noted. “In these communities, even if a family doesnt personally see their budget for food reduced, community residents could see their local grocer close.”
Amid economic challenges that were present before the bill’s passing, even major chains have been attempting major moves to stay competitive. Last year, grocery store giants Kroger and Albertsons attempted to merge. The move, which would’ve been the largest supermarket merger in history, was blocked by a judge after the FTC sued.
“This historic win protects millions of Americans across the country from higher prices for essential groceriesfrom milk, to bread, to eggsultimately allowing consumers to keep more money in their pockets,” the FTC said in a statement at the time. “This victory has a direct, tangible impact on the lives of millions of Americans who shop at Kroger or Albertsons-owned grocery stores for their everyday needs, whether thats a Frys in Arizona, a Vons in Southern California, or a Jewel-Osco in Illinois.”
While SNAP recipients and grocers may suffer due to the massive cuts, some republicans have pointed to an alleged uptick in fraudulent SNAP payments as a reason for the SNAP cuts. House Speaker Mike Johnson cited a USDA statistic, which says SNAP transactions jumped 55% between the last quarter of FY2024 and the first quarter of FY2025. Those fraudulent charges, however, arent from SNAP beneficiaries themselves, but from scams that target recipients who rely on the program.
Tesla has signed a $16.5 billion deal to source chips from Samsung Electronics, a move that could bolster the South Korean tech giant’s unprofitable contract business but is unlikely to help Tesla sell more EVs or roll out robotaxis more quickly.
Tesla CEO Elon Musk said late on Sunday that Samsung’s new chip factory in Taylor, Texas would make Tesla’s next-generation AI6 chip. This could re-energize Samsung’s project, which has faced long delays because the company had trouble retaining and attracting major clients.
Samsung shares on Monday closed up 6.8% on hopes that this deal would help the world’s top memory chip maker in the race to produce artificial intelligence chips, where it trails rivals such as TSMC.
With production still years away, the deal is unlikely to help Tesla address immediate challenges, including ongoing declines in its EV sales and efforts to scale its emerging robotaxi service. Tesla shares still rose 4.2% on Monday.
Musk has said that future AI inference chips, including AI6, would be deployed in self-driving vehicles and its Optimus humanoid robots, though he has noted the substantial computing power could enable broader AI applications. Inference chips are used to run AI models and make real-time decisions.
“Samsung agreed to allow Tesla to assist in maximizing manufacturing efficiency. This is a critical point, as I will walk the line personally to accelerate the pace of progress. And the fab is conveniently located not far from my house,” Musk said in a post on X on Monday.
“The $16.5B number is just the bare minimum. Actual output is likely to be several times higher,” Musk said in another post.
It was unclear whether the deal is related to ongoing trade talks between South Korea and the U.S. Seoul is seeking U.S. partnerships in chips and shipbuilding amid last-ditch efforts to reach a trade deal to eliminate or reduce potential 25% U.S. tariffs.
A South Korean trade ministry official told Reuters he had not heard that the specific deal was part of the trade negotiations.
According to a senior analyst at NH Investment & Securities, Ryu Young-ho, Samsung’s Taylor factory “so far had virtually no customers, so this order is quite meaningful,” although the deal may represent a small portion of its logic chip revenue annually.
In October, Reuters reported that Samsung had postponed taking deliveries of ASML chipmaking equipment for its Texas factory as it had not yet won any major customers for the project. It has already delayed the plant’s operational start to 2026.
Production timeline
While no timeline was provided for AI6 chip production, Musk has previously said that next-generation AI5 chips will be produced at the end of 2026, suggesting AI6 would follow. Musk confirmed during Tesla’s earnings call last week that AI5 chips would enter “buying production” by the end of next year.
Lee Dong-ju, an analyst at SK Securities, expects production in 2027 or 2028, but Tesla has a history of missing its targets.
Samsung currently makes Tesla’s AI4 chips, which power its Full Self-Driving (FSD) driver assistant system, while TSMC is slated to make the AI5, initially in Taiwan and then Arizona, Musk has said.
Samsung, the world’s top memory chip maker, also produces logic chips designed by customers through its foundry business. The Texas project is central to Samsung Chairman Jay Y. Lee’s strategy to expand beyond its bread-and-butter memory chips into contract chip manufacturing.
It holds just 8% of the global foundry market, far behind TSMC, which has a 67% share, data from market researcher Trendforce show.
Pak Yuak, an analyst at Kiwoom Securities, said the deal would help reduce losses at Samsung’s foundry business, which he estimates exceeded 5 trillion won ($3.6 billion) in the first half of the year.
($1 = 1,378.7000 won)
Heekyong Yang, Hyunjoo Jin, Wen-Yee Lee, Jack Kim, Akash Sriram, and Chris Kirkham, Reuters
Additional reporting by Jihoon Lee.
