The first four months of the Trump administration have seen the largest destruction of our federal governments capacity in history, with the reckless and illegal dismantling of agencies, the arbitrary slashing of the workforce, and the elimination of countless programs and critical public services.
President Trump has literally set the house on fire, requiring a public response to this five-alarm emergency that shouldnt involve only the political process and the courts. The fight must involve foundations, philanthropists, nonprofits, and state and city governments, which either fund or become the home for the abandoned federal initiatives, services, and civil servants.
Theres no way, of course, to replace the depth and breadth of the federal governments brazenly and often illegally discarded work, but even saving some of the contents of the burning house will have value.
A number of efforts are already taking place to preserve the knowledge, expertise, and critical services and programs, but so much more needs to be done.
Several organizations, for example, have retrieved thousands of data files that the Trump administration purged from agency websites containing public health information, scientific research, environmental risk alerts, crime statistics, and mental health information.
Harvard University recently announced that its librarys Innovation Lab is making available 311,000 datasets retrieved from 2024 and 2025, representing a complete archive of federal public datasets linked by data.gov, while the National Security Archives Climate Change Transparency Project has published information on climate change and environmental justice that had been removed from agency websites. Even without any new data in the coming years, these efforts will preserve institutional knowledge for scientists, policymakers, and researchers, and provide a starting point for collecting important data again in the future.
Bloomberg Philanthropies and others have pledged to help cover the U.S. contribution to the U.N.’s climate change budget, filling a gap left by the Trump administration, while the Rhode Island Foundation announced it will award $3 million to local nonprofits that lost federal funding for a range of local services in areas such as healthcare, housing, education, and public safety.
Several colleges and universities, including Yale, Johns Hopkins, and Northwestern, are providing funding to temporarily support graduate students and faculty who have had research grants cut off by the Trump administration, while the MacArthur Foundation has committed an additional $150 million in funding in 2025 and 2026 for organizations that have lost federal aid and are involved in maternal health, climate, justice, and human rights.
Several former employees of the depleted Consumer Financial Protection Board have been discussing ways that state attorneys general, through umbrella organizations, might gather lawyers, advocates, and researchers for the shared purpose of helping victims of financial fraud.
In addition, a number of federal labor unions, legal entities, and nonprofits (including my own organization) recently launched a legal defense fund to help federal employees who were fired or are facing termination, and a number of state governments have been actively recruiting federal employees who were laid off by the Trump administration.
The opportunities for outside parties to act are far more plentiful than these few examples. My organization recently published a list100 Harms in 100 Daysof the damaging and senseless cuts dealing with veterans, education, public health, scientific and medical research, the environment, public lands, and agriculture. Even that breathtaking list just scratches the surface, but it does offer a starting place for those wondering what they can do to help. So ask yourself how you can help, perhaps through specialized expertise, financial resources, passion for a cause, a willingness to donate your time, or any number of other ways. We can all play a role.
The harsh reality is that we are watching the arson of our government. As I see it, those of us with the capacity to helpas individuals or organizations or bothhave two options: We can stand by and watch in horror as the Trump administration burns down our collective home, or we can try to save as much as we can from the indiscriminate destruction.
To be clear, this isn’t a permanent solution. No other entity can replace the scale and resources of the federal government. And the administration should not be superseding Congresss constitutional role and shuttering agencies, freezing appropriated dollars, and destroying the nonpartisan, expert civil service. This is about making sure we will be more ready to rebuild better when the time comes.
The business of college sports was upended after a federal judge approved a settlement between the NCAA and former college athletes on June 6, 2025.
After a lengthy litigation process, the NCAA has agreed to provide $2.8 billion in back pay to former and current college athletes, while allowing schools to directly pay athletes for the first time.
Joshua Lens, whose scholarship centers on the intersection of sports, business, and the law, tells the story of this settlement and explains its significance within the rapidly changing world of college sports.
What will change for players and schools with this settlement?
The terms of the settlement included the following changes:
The NCAA and conferences will distribute approximately $2.8 billion in media rights revenue back pay to thousands of athletes who competed since 2016.
Universities will have the ability to enter name, image, and likeness, or NIL, agreements with student-athletes. So schools can now, for example, pay them to appear in ads for the school or for public appearances.
Each university that opts in to the settlement can disburse up to $20.5 million to student-athletes in the 2025-26 academic year, a number that will likely rise in future academic years.
Athletes NIL agreements with certain individuals and entities will be subject to an evaluation that will determine whether the NIL compensation exceeds an acceptable range based on a perceived fair market value, which could result in the athlete having to restructure or forgo the deal.
The NCAAs maximum sport program scholarship limits will be replaced with maximum team roster size limits for universities that choose to be part of the settlement.
Why did the NCAA agree to settle with, rather than fight, the plaintiffs?
In 2020, roughly 14,000 current and former college athletes filed a class-action lawsuit, House v. NCAA, seeking damages for past restrictions on their ability to earn money.
For decades, college athletics primary governing body, the NCAA, permitted universities whose athletics programs compete in Division I to provide their athletes with scholarships that would help cover their educational expenses, such as tuition, room and board, fees, and books. By focusing only on educational expenses, the NCAA was able to reinforce the notion that collegiate athletes are amateurs who may not receive pay for participating in athletics, despite making money for their schools.
A year later, in 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled in a separate case, Alston v. NCAA, that the NCAA violated antitrust laws by limiting the amount of education-related benefits, such as laptops, books, and musical instruments, that universities could provide to their athletes. The ruling challenged the NCAAs amateurism model while opening the door for future lawsuits tied to athlete compensation.
It also burnished the plaintiffs case in House v. NCAA, compelling college athletics governing body to take part in settlement talks.
What were some of the key changes that took place in college sports after the Supreme Courts decision in Alston v. NCAA?
Following Alston, the NCAA permitted universities to dole out several thousand dollars in whats called education benefits pay to student-athletes. This could include cash bonuses for maintaining a certain GPA or simply satisfying NCAA academic eligibility requirements.
But contrary to popular belief, the Supreme Courts Alston decision didnt let college athletes be paid via NIL deals. The NCAA continued to maintain that this would violate its principles of amateurism.
However, many states, beginning with California, introduced or passed laws that required universities within their borders to allow their athletes to accept NIL compensation.
With more than a dozen states looking to pass similar laws, the NCAA folded on June 30, 2021, changing its policy so athletes could accept NIL compensation for the first time.
Will colleges and universities be able to weather all of these financial commitments?
The settlement will result in a windfall for certain current and former collegiate athletes, with some expected to receive several hundred thousands of dollars.
Universities and their athletics departments, on the other hand, will have to reallocate resources or cut spending. Some will cut back on travel expenses for some sports, others have paused facility renovations, while other athletic departments may resort to cutting sports whose revenue does not exceed their expenses.
As Texas A&M University athletic director Trev Alberts has explained, however, college sports does not have a revenue problemit has a spending problem. Even in the well-resourced Southeastern Conference, for example, many universities athletics expenses exceed their revenue.
Do you see any future conflicts on the horizon?
Many observers hope the settlement brings stability to the industry. But theres always a chance that the settlement will be appealed.
More potential challenges could involve Title IX, the federal gender equity statute that prohibits discrimination based on sex in schools.
What if, for example, a university subject to the statute distributes the vast majority of revenue to male athletes? Such a scenario could violate Title IX.
NCAA President Charlie Baker, who has served in his role since 2023, has overseen major changes in conference governance and athlete compensation. [Photo: David J. Griffin/Icon Sportswire via Getty Images]
On the other hand, a university that more equitably distributes revenue among male and female athletes could face legal backlash from football athletes who argue that they should be entitled to more revenue, since their games earn the big bucks.
And as I pointed out in a recent law review article, an athlete or university may challenge the new enforcement process that will attempt to limit athletes NIL compensation within an acceptable range that is based on a fair market valuation.
The NCAA and the conferences named in the lawsuit have hired the accountancy firm Deloitte to determine whether athletes compensation from NIL deals fall within an acceptable range based on a fair market valuation, looking to other collegiate and professional athletes to set a benchmark range. If athletes and universities have struck deals that are too generous, both could be penalized, according to the terms of the settlement.
Finally, the settlement does not addresslet alone solveissues facing international student-athletes who want to earn money via NIL. Most international student-athletes visas, and the laws regulating them, heavily limit their ability to accept compensation for work, including NIL pay. Some lawmakers have tried to address this issue in the past, but it hasnt been a priority for the NCAA, as it has lobbied Congress for a federal NIL law.
Joshua Lens is an associate professor of instruction of sport and recreation management at the University of Iowa.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
President Donald Trumps idea of a Golden Dome missile defense system carries a range of potential strategic dangers for the United States.
Golden Dome is meant to protect the U.S. from ballistic, cruise and hypersonic missiles, and missiles launched from space. Trump has called for the missile defense to be fully operational before the end of his term in three years.
Trumps goals for Golden Dome are likely beyond reach. A wide range of studies makes clear that even defenses far more limited than what Trump envisions would be far more expensive and less effective than Trump expects, especially against enemy missiles equipped with modern countermeasures. Countermeasures include multiple warheads per missile, decoy warheads, and warheads that can maneuver or are difficult to track, among others.
Regardless of Golden Domes feasibility, there is a long history of scholarship about strategic missile defenses, and the weight of evidence points to the defenses making their host country less safe from nuclear attack.
Im a national security and foreign policy professor at Harvard University, where I lead Managing the Atom, the universitys main research group on nuclear weapons and nuclear energy policies. For decades, Ive been participating in dialogues with Russian and Chinese nuclear expertsand their fears about U.S. missile defenses have been a consistent theme throughout.
Russian President Vladmir Putin and Chinese leader Xi Jinping have already warned that Golden Dome is destabilizing. Along with U.S. offensive capabilities, Golden Dome poses a threat of directly undermining global strategic stability, spurring an arms race, and increasing conflict potential both among nuclear-weapon states and in the international arena as a whole, a joint statement from China and Russia said. While that is a propaganda statement, it reflects real concerns broadly held in both countries.
History lessons
Experience going back half a century makes clear that if the administration pursues Golden Dome, it is likely to provoke even larger arms buildups, derail already-dim prospects for any negotiated nuclear arms restraint, and perhaps even increase the chances of nuclear war.
My first book, 35 years ago, made the case that it would be in the U.S. national security interest to remain within the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, which strictly limited U.S. and Sovietand later Russianmissile defenses. The U.S. and the Soviet Union negotiated the ABM Treaty as part of SALT I, the first agreements limiting the nuclear arms race. It was approved in the Senate 98-2.
The ABM Treaty experience is instructive for the implications of Golden Dome today.
Why did the two countries agree to limit defenses? First and foremost, because they understood that unless each sides defenses were limited, they would not be able to stop an offensive nuclear arms race. If each side wants to maintain the ability to retaliate if the other attacks (Dont nuke me, or Ill nuke you), then an obvious answer to one side building up more defenses is for the other to build up more nuclear warheads.
For example, in the 1960s and 1970s, the Soviets installed 100 interceptors to defend Moscow, so the U.S. targeted still more warheads on Moscow to overwhelm the defense. Had it ever come to a nuclear war, Moscow would have been even more thoroughly obliterated than if there had been no defense at all. Both sides came to realize that unlimited missile defenses would just mean more offense on both sides, leaving both less secure than before.
In addition, nations viewed an adversarys shield as going hand in hand with a nuclear sword. A nuclear first strike might destroy a major part of a countrys nuclear forces. Missile defenses would inevitably be more effective against the reduced, disorganized retaliation that they knew would be coming than they would be against a massive, well-planned surprise attack. That potential advantage to whoever struck first could make nuclear crises even more dangerous.
Post-ABM Treaty world
Unfortunately, President George W. Bush pulled the United States out of the ABM Treaty in 2002, seeking to free U.S. development of defenses against potential missile attacks from small states such as North Korea. But even now, decades later, the U.S. has fewer missile interceptors deployed (44) than the treaty permitted (100).
The U.S. pullout did not lead to an immediate arms buildup or the end of nuclear arms control. But Putin has complained bitterly about U.S. missile defenses and the U.S. refusal to accept any limitation at all on them. He views the U.S. stance as an effort to achieve military superiority by negating Russias nuclear deterrent.
Russia is investing heavily in new types of strategic nuclear weapons intended to avoid U.S. missile defenses, from an intercontinental nuclear torpedo to a missile that can go around the world and attack from the south, while U.S. defenses are mainly pointed north toward Russia.
Similarly, much of Chinas nuclear buildup appears to be driven by wanting a reliable nuclear deterrent in the face of the U.S.s capability to strike its nuclear forces and use missile defenses to mop up the remainder. Indeed, the Chinese were so angered by South Koreas deployment of U.S.-provided regional defenseswhich they saw as aiding the U.S. ability to intercept Chinese missilesthat they imposed stiff sanctions on South Korea.
Fuel to the fire
Now Trump wants to go much further, with a defense forever ending the missile threat to the American homeland, with a success rate very close to 100%. I believe that this effort is highly likely to lead to still larger nuclear buildups in Rusia and China. The Putin-Xi joint statement pledges to counter defenses aimed at achieving military superiority.
Given the ease of developing countermeasures that are extraordinarily difficult for defenses to overcome, odds are the resulting offense-defense competition will leave the U.S. worse off than before, and a good bit poorer.
Putin and Xi made clear that they are particularly concerned about the thousands of space-based interceptors Trump envisions. These interceptors are designed to hit missiles while their rockets are still burning during launch.
Most countries are likely to oppose the idea of deploying huge numbers of weapons in space, and these interceptors would be both expensive and vulnerable. China and Russia could focus on further developing anti-satellite weapons to blow a hole in the defense, increasing the risk of space war.
Already, there is a real danger that the whole effort of negotiated limits to temper nuclear arms racing may be coming to an end. The last remaining treaty limiting U.S. and Russian nuclear forces, the New START Treaty, expires in February 2026. Chinas rapid nuclear buildup is making many defense officials and experts in Washington, D.C., call for a U.S. buildup in response.
Intense hostility all around means that for now, neither Russia nor China is even willing to sit down to discuss nuclear restraints, in treaty form or otherwise.
A way forward
In my view, adding Golden Dome to this combustible mix would likely end any prospect of avoiding a future of unrestrained and unpredictable nuclear arms competition. But paths away from these dangers are available.
It would be quite plausible to design defenses that would provide some protection against attacks from a handful of missiles from North Korea or others that would not seriously threaten Russian or Chinese deterrent forcesand design restraints that would allow all parties to plan their offensive forces knowing what missile defenses they would be facing in the years to come.
I believe that Trump should temper his Golden Dome ambitions to achieve his other dream of negotiating a deal to reduce nuclear dangers.
Matthew Bunn is a professor of the practice of energy, national security, and foreign policy at Harvard Kennedy School.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
How did Crunchyroll become the powerhouse of the anime world?
In this episode of FC Explains, we dive deep into how Crunchyroll transformed from a small streaming service to the global leader in anime distribution. Discover how it helped push anime into mainstream pop culture, influenced the global perception of Japanese media, and changed the entertainment landscape forever.
Every year, massive data breaches harm the public. The targets are email service providers, retailers and government agencies that store information about people. Each breach includes sensitive personal information such as credit and debit card numbers, home addresses, and account usernames and passwords from hundreds of thousandsand sometimes millionsof people.
When National Public Data, a company that does online background checks, was breached in 2024, criminals gained the names, addresses, dates of birth, and national identification numbers such as Social Security numbers of 170 million people in the U.S., U.K., and Canada. The same year, hackers who targeted Ticketmaster stole the financial information and personal data of more than 560 million customers.
As a criminologist who researches cybercrime, I study the ways that hackers and cybercriminals steal and use peoples personal information. Understanding the people involved helps us to better recognize the ways that hacking and data breaches are intertwined. In so-called stolen data markets, hackers sell personal information they illegally obtain to others, who then use the data to engage in fraud and theft for profit.
The quantity problem
Every piece of personal data captured in a data breacha passport number, Social Security number, or login for a shopping servicehas inherent value. Offenders can use the information in different ways. They can assume someone elses identity, make a fraudulent purchase, or steal services such as streaming media or music.
The quantity of information, whether Social Security numbers or credit card details, that can be stolen through data breaches is more than any one group of criminals can efficiently process, validate, or use in a reasonable amount of time. The same is true for the millions of email account usernames and passwords, or access to streaming services that data breaches can expose.
This quantity problem has enabled the sale of information, including personal financial data, as part of the larger cybercrime online economy.
!function(){"use strict";window.addEventListener("message",(function(a){if(void 0!==a.data["datawrapper-height"]){var e=document.querySelectorAll("iframe");for(var t in a.data["datawrapper-height"])for(var r,i=0;r=e[i];i++)if(r.contentWindow===a.source){var d=a.data["datawrapper-height"][t]+"px";r.style.height=d}}}))}();
The sale of data, also known as carding, references the misuse of stolen credit card numbers or identity details. These illicit data markets began in the mid-1990s through the use of credit card number generators used by hackers. They shared programs that randomly generated credit card numbers and details and then checked to see whether the fake account details matched active cards that could then be used for fraudulent transactions.
As more financial services were created and banks allowed customers to access their accounts through the internet, it became easier for hackers and cybercriminals to steal personal information through data breaches and phishing. Phishing involves sending convincing emails or SMS text messages to people to trick them into giving up sensitive information such as logins and passwords, often by clicking a false link that seems legitimate.
One of the first phishing schemes targeted America Online users to get their account information to use their internet service at no charge.
Selling stolen data online
The large amount of information criminals were able to steal from such schemes led to more vendors offering stolen data to others through different online platforms.
In the late 1990s and early 2000s, offenders used Internet Relay Chat, or IRC channels, to sell data. IRC was effectively like modern instant messaging systems, letting people communicate in real time through specialized software. Criminals used these channels to sell data and hacking services in an efficient place.
In the early 2000s, vendors transitioned to web forums where individuals advertised their services to other users. Forums quickly gained popularity and became successful businesses with vendors selling stolen credit cards, malware, and related goods and services to misuse personal information and enable fraud.
One of the more prominent forums from this time was ShadowCrew, which formed in 2002 and operated until being taken down by a joint law enforcement operation in 2004. Their members trafficked more than 1.7 million credit cards in less than three years.
Forums continue to be popular, though vendors transitioned to running their own web-based shops on the open internet and dark web, which is an encrypted portion of the web that can be accessed only through specialized browsers like TOR, starting in the early 2010s. These shops have their own web addresses and distinct branding to attract customers, and they work in the same way as other e-commerce stores. More recently, vendors of stolen data have also begun to operate on messaging platforms such as Telegram and Signal to quickly connect with customers.
Cybercriminals and customers
Many of the people who supply and operate the markets appear to be cybercriminals from Eastern Europe and Russia who steal data and then sell it to others. Markets have also been observed in Vietnam and other parts of the world, though they do nt get the same visibility in the global cybersecurity landscape.
The customers of stolen data markets may reside anywhere in the world, and their demands for specific data or services may drive data breaches and cybercrime to provide the supply.
The goods
Stolen data is usually available in individual lots, such as a persons credit or debit card and all the information associated with the account. These pieces are individually priced, with costs differing depending on the type of card, the victims location and the amount of data available related to the affected account.
Vendors frequently offer discounts and promotions to buyers to attract customers and keep them loyal. This is often done with credit or debit cards that are about to expire.
Some vendors also offer distinct products such as credit reports, Social Security numbers and login details for different paid services. The price for pieces of information varies. A recent analysis found credit card data sold for $50 on average, while Walmart logins sold for $9. However, the pricing can vary widely across vendors and markets.
Illicit payments
Vendors typically accept payment through cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin that are difficult for law enforcement to trace.
Once payment is received, the vendor releases the data to the customer. Customers take on a great deal of the risk in this market because they cannot go to the police or a market regulator to complain about a fraudulent sale.
Vendors may send customers dead accounts that are unable to be used or give no data at all. Such scams are common in a market where buyers can depend only on signals of vendor trust to increase the odds that the data they purchase will be delivered, and if it is, that it pays off. If the data they buy is functional, they can use it to make fraudulent purchases or financial transactions for profit.
The rate of return can be exceptional. An offender who buys 100 cards for $500 can recoup costs if only 20 of those cards are active and can be used to make an average purchase of $30. The result is that data breaches are likely to continue as long as there is demand for illicit, profitable data.
This article is part of a series on data privacy that explores who collects your data, what and how they collect, who sells and buys your data, what they all do with it, and what you can do about it.
Thomas Holt is a professor of criminal justice at Michigan State University.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
What does the future hold for business leaders and entrepreneurs? With a rapidly changing world, how does one navigate a path to success? To get a better sense of where we are heading, I caught up with Futurist Joana Lenkova of Futures Forward, who shares insight on how leaders should be thinking about the future of their business.
Q: Tell me a little bit about yourself and what a futurist does?
Joana Lenkova: I have a background in brand, strategy, innovation, and foresight within large corporations like The Walt Disney Company and now the LEGO Group. In 2019, I founded Futures Forward, my own consultancy, which allows me to work not only with corporations but also with nongovernmental organizations, start-ups, and governmental institutions to imagine better futures for them.
Q: How should business leaders and entrepreneurs be thinking about AI and the tools available to them now?
Lenkova: For me the more interesting question isnt which tools we are using, its what these tools are enabling us to do. We live in an age of radical accessibility. Entrepreneurs and professionals today have easy access to low or no-code platforms, AI assistants, a global freelance talent pool, and direct-to-consumer distribution platforms. I think the real shift is in speed, access, autonomyand with AI its agency. What used to require full teams and big capital can now be prototyped by one person over a weekend.
Q: What about people who are about to start a company now? What advice would you give them as they consider using all this new technology?
Lenkova: I have been thinking a lot about that because we tend to get enamored by technology. But what is the one thing that is as important today as it was in the past? Even though these tools have evolved, what really matters hasn’t changed. It’s still about having a clear vision, the ability to adapt, and to solve something meaningful.
So, somebody launching a business now, you should really ask yourself, what is the real human need that I’m going to be serving? A lot of times businesses start from a technology, you know, let’s develop this and let’s experiment and prototype and see where it takes us. But in the end, it will be successful if it can be a solution for a meaningful future need.
Q: How should business leaders and startup founders be thinking about building teams as many roles are now aided or replaced by AI?
Lenkova: I think starting with the problem and not with the technology you use. Perhaps choose to hire versatile hybrid thinkers instead of deep specialists, especially when you need innovative solutions and quick adaptability as a business. Of course, the context is important.
But that’s exactly how futurists thinkwe look for cognitive diversity. There is interesting work from Scott Page, whose research shows that diverse groups of people can outperform homogenous groups of experts.
Leaders sometimes tend to hire people who confirm their own biases unconsciously, but that’s not healthy. You need people who can shine a light on your blind spots, not those who agree with you.
Q: Do you think we are living in a time where we will witness the first solopreneur who utilizes technology and AI to become a billionaire?
Lenkova: I wonder if we already have. With creators like MrBeast, for example, who are building these personal media brands in such a different way, creating new IPs, licensing, content, and product lines. Solopreneurs are super enabled today to reach vast global audiences and it can happen overnight using the available tools smartly.
But the more interesting thing to me is that there is a shift in values. I really wonder if the next generation of founders are going to aspire to be billionaires in terms of dollarsor maybe this is just a hopeful scenario that I’m living in, that they would want to measure their success by impact or by freedom. So maybe the first billionaire solopreneur will choose not to be one in the traditional sense.
Q: Do you think we are heading in a direction where everyone will eventually need to become an entrepreneur or self-employed?
Lenkova: Not necessarily, but we are in a world where entrepreneurial thinking is essentialeven inside large companies. I think there definitely will be more experiments in new forms of governance.
On one hand the change will manifest in a stronger connection to purpose, keeping the commercial organization structure but looking to generate value across people and planet in addition to profit. I see this in the future as a hygiene factor. Think regenerative systems.
On the other hand, we’re also seeing more importance placed on community-led brands, experiments with decentralized forms of governance, etc. But to allow for these changes, you have to remember that the legacy systems and ways of incentivizing governance boards and employees will have to change as well.
Q: Anything youd like to share with people launching a business right now?
Lenkova: Yesdont just build a product, build a worldview, have a purpose. It isnt enough to sell products, you really have to make positive change to humans, to the planet, to the community. Think about regenerative practices and look at multiple future scenarios. Think about what the world may look like, what youd like the world to look like, and make it happen. Think about the future needs of your stakeholders and build solutions for those. What do you believe about the future that others dont yet see? Let that be your compass.
Maureen Brown is co-founder and CEO of Mosie Baby.
Butler/Till was introduced to the idea of becoming a B Corp in 2015 when we acquired a small marketing consultancy that did a lot of work in the energy space. Being a B Corp was really important to those employees, and with just a little bit of homework, we realized that the values involved in the certification process were the same values wed woven into our DNA since our founding.
The B Corp designation has become a kind of shorthand for a purpose-driven company that balances profits with people and the planet. The designation is not 100% altruistic, nor should it be. B Corps are for-profit companies that believe you can do business for good and that your employees, your clients, and your business all benefit when you do.
We are just finishing up the recertification process, which is required every three years. While it can be a challenging process, it pushes us to reevaluate our commitment to corporate social responsibility across five areas: community, governance, customers, environment, and workers. At Butler/Till, this is not a top-down process; it is spearheaded by a dedicated committee of employees who want to ensure we stay true to our values every day.
The problem with B Corp certification
In recent years, B Corp certification has come under fire from within the community. In 2022, a group of B Corp organizations sent an open letter to B Lab, the nonprofit organization behind the process, protesting the certification of a multinational company with a history of child labor issues and anti-environmental practices. The letter pointed out flaws in the certification process, suggesting it had become susceptible to exploitation for greenwashing purposes and demanding changes. In response, B Lab acknowledged these concerns and published a set of new rules in April to rectify the situation.
While the rewriting of these rules took longer than expected, Dr. Bronnersone of the companies that signed the letter in 2022decided not to wait. Earlier this year, the company publicly announced it would be relinquishing its B Corp status when it expires near the end of 2025 and that it would be taking the B Corp logo off of its products. The founders explained, Sharing the same logo and messaging regarding being of benefit to the world with large multinational CPG companies with a history of serious ecological and labor issues, and no comprehensive or credible eco-social certification of supply chains, is unacceptable to us.
I applaud their conviction for a just and sustainable planet, but I think their decision to denounce the system rather than stay and fix it is shortsighted. The letter pointed to other highly successful companies committed to justice and sustainability, notably Patagonia and Ben & Jerrys, as examples of those doing it right. The not-so-subtle message here is that the 8,000+ companies that have invested the time and resources to become certified B Corps are not doing it right or not doing enough.
Work together to do good
This you cant be us message is the opposite of the inclusivity organizations seek when they commit to becoming a B Corp. Were in a moment in this country when companies face backlash for DEI efforts, and the need for corporate social responsibility of any kind is being questioned. This is not the time to give up on efforts to do business in a better way. If anything, employees need us to lean in more than ever.
The B Corp values of working together to do good are engraved into our ethos. We make a conscious effort to create an environment where people get to do their best work, feel fulfilled, acknowledged, and respected, and earn a good living doing it.
We are also a 100% ESOP (Employee Stock Ownership Plan), meaning that the company is fully employee-owned. This keeps us independent and allows us to make decisions that are truly in the best interest of our clients and also happen to be in the best interests of our employee-owners. Weve also committed to spending a certain portion of our dollars with like-minded, minority-owned, women-owned businesses, including other B Corps and other ESOPs.
Social good is ingrained in everything we do. B Corp certification helps us solidify and display that commitment to our employees, our clients, our partners, and our community. Giving that up because the process is not perfect would be steps backward versus forward.
Throwing away certification isnt the answer
Its easy to call people outits practically all anyone does on social media these daysbut purity tests arent useful. B Labs process may certainly be flawed. Companies are scored in each area, and then the results are averaged. This means a low score in one area, like customers or governance, could be essentially ignored if the scores in other areas were high enough. I certainly hope that B Lab’s new rules fix this glaring error in calculation, but throwing the certification away entirely is not the answer.
The truth is that most companies do not meet the existing metric. Isnt it better to call them in versus out and give them something to strive for than to declare that theres a small club of pure companies out there that they can never belong to, even if they try?
Kimberly Jones is CEO of Butler/Till.
The loudest voices may seem like they rise above the clamor. But success and sustained growth in business and in life takes people strong enough to listen.
As the president of Chubb Life Hong Kong and head of North Asia for the past three years, Ive embraced a business strategy centered around agility, diversity, and yesproactive listening and learningfrom the key stakeholders affected by my decisions. That includes the community that surrounds me, and from the deeper ties that bind us all.
Here are four key lessons Ive learned along the way:
#1: Life is full of taboos. Confront them.
Diversity is an ongoing action, not a checklist item to be ticked off. In our recent PR, marketing campaigns, and product launches, weve taken on calculated risks head-on and dared to be inclusive by confronting societal taboos in Hong Kong and beyond.
In a nod to Hong Kongs shifting population demographics and rapidly evolving definition of family, our Every Way of Legacy campaign called for a new definition of legacy: one based on each individuals unique path and values rather than rote social expectations. We brought this ethos to the fore with innovative products like the citys first insurance plan to offer legacy planning for LGBTQ+ couples.
#2: Difficult conversations are waiting. Start one.
Life insurance as an industry is rife with possibility and rich with meaning. Its also a minefield for conversations that many people find difficult.
However, Ive found that the most challenging dialogues are often the most rewarding. In HK, death is something we just dont talk about. Responses from our early marketing research surveys show that 71% of Hong Kongers have yet to talk about death and end-of-life planning with their loved ones. Therefore, last year we painted the question Whats your wish? quietly on the streets across Hong Kong to ignite the conversations and built a series of events and social media campaigns around this.
As a grand finale of the campaign, we presented Conversations of Life: Every Wish Lasts at Art Basel Hong Kong 2025, an immersive experience that encouraged participants from all walks of life to open up about what they hoped to leave behind for the next generation. By asking guests to think about their final wishes, we were actually challenging them to dream up brighter futures for themselves and their loved onesand start living out those values today.
#3: Companies are part of communities. Join them.
At its heart, business is about connectionfrom our clients to the communities that surround us. Growth is never possible without acknowledging where you live, where you came from, and where youre headed next.
Weve immersed ourselves fully in local and international communities. From sponsoring Coleman Wongthe first Hong Kong tennis player to win a match at the ATP Masters 1000to backing events like a YouTube music event, Ultimate Song Chart Awards, special screening for the blockbuster movie The Last Dance, launching Chubb Life Art Gallery, supporting the exhibition Picasso for Asia: A Conversation at M+, and Art Basel, weve sought to embrace our brand philosophy, enabling Every Way of Life by materially supporting the artists who tell our collective stories.
#4: Every voice counts. Count them.
When I joined Chubb Life Hong Kong in 2022, a key priority was enhancing staff retention. By opening up a two-way dialogue and meeting our employees needsfrom an agile, collaborative workspace to improved benefits centered around holistic well-being and work-life balancewe were able to cut that rate nearly in half within just a year.
The principle of the power of listening extends far beyond the workplace. We recently overhauled our underwriting efforts by leveraging insights from our focus groups. These opinions also served as a springboard for our recent array of product launches (with eight released in 2024 alone and two in Q1 2025, including a digital-only product). By considering our clients unique pain points and needs in an ever-changing world, weve been able to tailor our solutions to themnot the other way around.
After all, the boldest moves and best paradigm shifts dont start with the loudest voices; they start with listening ears.
Belinda Au is president of Hong Kong and head of North Asia for Chubb Life.
Recent tariff announcements have caused significant disruption across global markets and economies. Subsequent changes and postponementsincluding negotiations between major economies like China and the U.S.offer a welcome step towards resolution. But the initial uncertainty has already prompted impacted countries to diversify their trade partnership from long-standing trade allies in order to reduce dependence on a single market.
In the short term, this volatility has created a significant headache for business leaders grappling with the costs and pricing of goods and services. However, this very uncertainty also presents unique opportunities, especially for emerging markets, particularly in Africa, to forge new trade relationships and strengthen their economic positions.
A rare opportunity for Africa to forge its own path
On one hand, escalating trade restrictions could further marginalize developing economies. On the other hand, they present a rare moment for Africa to forge its own path and build a future anchored in the open flow of trade, ideas, innovations, cross-border collaboration, and digital empowerment within its borders.
Fortunately, private and public sector leaders on the continent have been actively putting in place measures to further grow trade within itself, both as a powerful engine for economic expansion and as a vital strategy to protect against external shocks such as tariffs. With the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) now gaining momentum and a growing digital economy taking shape, the continent has the tools to chart its own course. The AfCFTA has already significantly increased intra-continental trade since its official commencement on January 1, 2021.
According to Afreximbanks Africa Trade Report 2024,[1] intra-African trade rose to $192.2 billion in 2023, a 3.2% increase from the previous year, despite global economic challenges. The United Nations Economic Commission for Africa anticipates a 35% increase[2] in intra-African trade by 2045, after AfCFTA is fully implemented.
Challenges to increasing intra-African trade
Despite the promise of AfCFTA, significant barriers continue to hinder robust intra-African trade, whether through traditional channels or digitally enabled transactions. These challenges include fragmented payment systems, inconsistent regulatory frameworks, and complex cross-border logistics. This has contributed to Africa’s historically low intra-African trade, which was about 18% of its total trade in 2022, compared to 59% for Asia and 68% for Europe.[3]
Payments are trades lifeblood
Africa must be able to trade with itself quickly, affordably, and securely. When payments move across borders with ease, so do goods, ideas, services, opportunities, and people. This is not just about convenience or merely advocating for fintech adoption; it is about the transformation of how we trade.
A trader in Nairobi selling goods to customers in Accra must be able to receive payment as easily, if not easier, than if they were in London or New York. Similarly, a major multinational looking to tap into Africa’s young and growing consumer base needs payment systems that handle complex, high-volume transactions just like in their home markets. The future of intra-African trade depends on our ability to make such transactions as intuitive and reliable as the click of a button.
When paying and getting paid for intra-African trade becomes seamless, we will see faster growth of regional value chains, a more efficient distribution of locally manufactured goods, and the emergence of more African brands competing globally. Essentially, with the necessary support for an open economy in Africa, we increase not just the volume but also the value of trades within Africa, building economic resilience for shared prosperity.
What we must do
First, we must ensure payment system interoperability so that businesses can transact seamlessly across borders, without the hindrance of friction or currency barriers. This is critical because, while African countries have developed efficient local payment networks tailored to their needs, these systems do not interact well across borders, limiting our potential to trade more internally and withstand global economic shocks.
Second, we need to align policies across governments to create an environment where innovation thrives and cross-border commerce flows effortlessly. This includes, but is not restricted to, a review of policies on customs and barriers to trade, and logistics (inter-country shipping, freight, and flights). Lastly, a critical step involves significant investment in physical infrastructure, particularly in addressing inadequate transportation networks (roads, rail, and ports) and resolving unreliable energy supplies.
Together, these efforts will reduce the continents external dependency, making it easier for businesses to grow within Africa and beyond, creating an economic firewall that protects us from external shocks. Now is the time to double down on openness, not retreat from it; Africas future depends on it.
Olugbenga “GB” Agboola is CEO of Flutterwave.
YouTube is reportedly giving creators more leeway about what they say in videos, easing up on some of the rules it has set in the past.
The user generated video platform owned by Alphabet has adjusted its exception rule, which will allow videos that might have been removed nine months ago for promoting misinformation to remain on the platform. The New York Times reports that if a video is considered to be in the public interest or has EDSA (educational, documentary, scientific, artistic) context, up to 50% of it can be in violation of YouTubes guidelines for misinformation or showing violence, versus 25% before the policy change.
That change, which was reportedly made about a month after Donald Trump was elected, but was not publicly announced, followed pandemic-era rules that saw a video of Florida Governor Ron DeSantis that shared some Covid misinformation removed from YouTube.
The new rule change could benefit creators whose videos blend news and opinion. YouTube’s spokesperson Nicole Bell, in a statement, told Fast Company, “These exceptions apply to a small fraction of the videos on YouTube, but are vital for ensuring important content remains available. This practice allows us to prevent, for example, an hours-long news podcast from being removed for showing one short clip of violence. We regularly update our guidance for these exceptions to reflect the new types of discussion and content (for example emergence of long, podcast content) that we see on the platform, and the feedback of our global creator community. Our goal remains the same: to protect free expression on YouTube.”
Free expression is the reason other social media companies have given in relaxing or eliminating their content moderation programs in recent months. X long ago handed over the responsibility of flagging inaccurate content to its users. Meta eliminated its fact-checking program in January, shortly after Trump took office.
Trump and other conservatives have long accused social media sites of “censoring” conservative content, saying content moderation, as practiced by social media companies, was a violation of their First Amendment rights to free speech.
YouTube said it regularly updates its Community Guidelines to adapt to content on the site. Earlier this year, it sunsetted all remaining COVID-19 policies and added new ones surrounding gambling content. Changes, it said, are reflected in its Community Guidelines Transparency Report.
The new rules largely revolve around content that is considered in the public interest. This is defined as videos where the creators discuss a number of issues, including elections, movements, race, gender, sexuality, abortion, immigration, and censorship.
The Times reported it had reviewed training material that gave examples of videos that might have been flagged and taken offline in the past that are now allowed. Included among those was one that incorrectly claimed COVID vaccines alter people’s genes, but mentioned several political figures, increasing its “newsworthiness.” (That video has since been removed for unclear reasons.) Another video from South Korea involved a commentator saying they imagined former president Yoon Suk Yeol turned upside down in a guillotine so that the politician can see the knife is going down.
The training material said the risk for harm was low because the wish for execution by guillotine is not feasible.
The policy change is, in some ways, a big shift for YouTube, which less than two years ago announced a crackdown on health information. That same year, though, it also said it would stop removing misinformation about past elections, saying the policy could have the unintended effect of curtailing political speech.”
YouTube has been criticized in the past for not doing enough to curb the spread of misinformation, ranging from everything from 9/11 “truthers” to false flag conspiracy theories tied to mass shootings. Some reports have even suggested its algorithm can lead some users down a rabbit hole of extremist political content.
YouTube says it still actively monitors posts. In the first quarter, removals were up 22% compared to the year prior, with 192,856 videos removed for violating its hateful and abusive policies. The number of videos removed for misinformation was down 61% in the first quarter, however, in part because of the removal of COVID-19 policies.
