If the Federal Reserve raises interest rates by a quarter percentage point Wednesday, the effect will begin reaching American wallets almost immediately — especially anyone carrying credit-card debt, using a home-equity line or taking out a new loan.

The Fed is scheduled to announce its decision at 2 p.m. Eastern time Wednesday after its September 15–16 meeting. Financial markets are pricing in a roughly 90% chance of a quarter-point increase, which would be the first Fed rate hike in more than three years.

The expected move would take the Fed’s target rate to 3.75% to 4%.

Here is what that actually means for your money.

Credit cards are where many households will feel it first.

Most credit cards have variable interest rates tied indirectly to the Fed’s benchmark rate. When the Fed raises rates, banks can increase their prime rate quickly, and credit-card APRs generally follow.

A quarter-point increase may not look dramatic by itself.

On a $10,000 balance, an additional 0.25 percentage point equals roughly $25 more interest a year if the balance remained unchanged.

But that misses the bigger problem. A Fed hike Wednesday could be the beginning of another tightening cycle rather than a one-time move. Economists surveyed by Reuters increasingly expect additional increases if inflation remains stubborn, while some major banks are already forecasting another hike later this year.

Several quarter-point increases start adding up fast for households carrying large balances.

Your existing fixed mortgage does not suddenly become more expensive.

If you have a 30-year fixed-rate mortgage, Wednesday’s Fed decision does not change the rate or monthly principal-and-interest payment written into your loan.

Someone paying 3%, 4% or 6% keeps that rate.

The pain is for the next buyer.

Mortgage rates are not set directly by the Federal Reserve. They move heavily with longer-term bond yields and investors’ expectations for inflation and future interest rates. The 10-year Treasury yield has already pushed above 5% as markets prepared for tighter monetary policy.

That can make financing a house more expensive even before the Fed officially acts.

On a $500,000, 30-year mortgage, a one-percentage-point increase in the mortgage rate can mean roughly $300 more a month in principal and interest.

That changes what families can afford — and can force buyers toward smaller homes or larger down payments.

Home-equity lines can get more expensive much faster.

Unlike most mortgages, HELOCs commonly carry variable rates.

If your HELOC rate moves higher with the prime rate, a Fed increase can flow through to your monthly interest cost relatively quickly.

For homeowners who have been using home equity to renovate, finance a business or consolidate other debt, another cycle of rising rates matters.

Buying a car could also cost more.

Existing fixed-rate auto loans generally stay unchanged.

New borrowers may face higher financing rates as banks and other lenders adjust their cost of money.

Again, one quarter-point by itself is unlikely to transform a car payment. Multiple hikes would.

And because vehicle prices remain high, even relatively small changes in borrowing costs become more noticeable when spread across a $40,000 or $50,000 loan.

Businesses will feel the same squeeze — and consumers can eventually pay for it.

A small business carrying a $1 million variable-rate credit line would pay roughly another $2,500 a year in interest for every quarter-point increase, assuming the full balance remained outstanding and the rate moved with the Fed.

Four quarter-point increases would translate into roughly $10,000 more annually.

Businesses then have choices: absorb the expense, postpone expansion, hire fewer people or try to raise prices.

That is why the Fed rate does not remain confined to Wall Street.

It eventually reaches restaurants financing equipment, developers financing buildings, retailers carrying inventory and manufacturers borrowing to expand.

There is one group that could benefit: savers.

Higher Fed rates can push yields upward on savings accounts, money-market accounts and certificates of deposit.

But banks do not necessarily pass the increase along immediately.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has previously warned that banks can be quicker to increase what they charge borrowers than what they pay depositors.

That means consumers with substantial cash should watch their bank’s yield rather than assuming it automatically becomes more competitive after a Fed increase.

The reason the Fed is considering making borrowing more expensive is inflation.

Recent inflation reports have come in hotter than expected, energy costs have climbed, and producer prices rose 5.4% from a year earlier in August. The Fed uses higher interest rates to cool borrowing and spending when it believes prices are rising too quickly.

That leaves consumers facing an uncomfortable tradeoff.

Higher rates are designed to slow inflation eventually.

But getting there means borrowing money becomes more expensive first.

For households, the most important question Wednesday will therefore not simply be whether the Fed raises rates by 0.25 percentage point.

It will be what Fed officials say about the next meeting — because one hike changes a few dollars.

A new cycle of hikes can change a household budget.

JBizNews Desk | Washington

© JBizNews.com. All rights reserved. This article is original reporting by JBizNews Desk. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution is strictly prohibited.

The United States and China are discussing cutting tariffs on tens of billions of dollars of each other’s goods, a potentially meaningful step toward easing the trade costs that businesses and consumers on both sides have been paying.

The talks are focused on roughly $30 billion of goods from each country, with officials looking primarily at products considered less sensitive to national security. China’s Commerce Ministry said last week that both sides were working toward reciprocal tariff reductions and hoped to reach an agreement soon.

The timing matters. President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping are preparing for a possible September 24 meeting in Washington, and economic officials are trying to make progress before the two leaders sit down.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent is expected to meet Chinese Vice Premier He Lifeng this weekend as Washington and Beijing continue broader economic discussions. China has not yet formally confirmed the September 24 Trump-Xi meeting.

For American companies, even limited tariff reductions could remove costs that have become embedded in supply chains.

A 10% tariff on a $100,000 shipment adds $10,000 before transportation, warehousing and other expenses are counted. Companies can absorb that cost, demand lower prices from suppliers or pass some of it to customers. Most eventually use some combination of all three.

That is why tariff reductions that appear small on paper can matter to importers dealing with millions of dollars of merchandise each year.

The discussions are not expected to eliminate the broader U.S.-China trade barriers built up over years of disputes involving technology, manufacturing, national security and market access. Instead, negotiators appear to be targeting areas where both governments believe tariffs can be lowered without reopening their biggest political and strategic disagreements.

Agriculture is another important part of the relationship.

China purchased roughly 1 million metric tons of U.S. soybeans in recent days, according to traders cited by Reuters, adding to Chinese purchases ahead of the expected leaders’ meeting. American farmers have long been among the industries most directly affected when trade tensions rise or Chinese buying slows.

Lower tariffs could make additional U.S. agricultural products more competitive in China, while reductions on Chinese goods entering the United States could reduce costs for American companies that still depend on Chinese factories and components.

But the economic relationship has changed significantly from the first major U.S.-China tariff battles.

Companies have spent years shifting portions of their supply chains to Vietnam, India, Mexico and other countries to reduce reliance on China. Beijing has also worked to expand trade with markets outside the United States.

That means a $30 billion tariff agreement would not suddenly return U.S.-China commerce to where it was before the trade war.

It could, however, signal something businesses value almost as much as lower tariffs: stability.

Companies making manufacturing, inventory and investment decisions need to know whether tariffs are likely to rise, fall or remain in place. Sudden changes can leave goods sitting at ports with unexpected costs or force businesses to rewrite contracts with suppliers.

A limited agreement would therefore matter beyond the specific products receiving tariff relief.

Washington and Beijing are also discussing far larger issues, including technology restrictions, artificial intelligence, critical minerals and China’s economic relationship with Iran. Those disputes make a sweeping trade settlement significantly more difficult.

The tariff negotiations nevertheless show that both governments are looking for areas where economic tensions can be reduced without resolving every disagreement between the world’s two largest economies.

The next important test comes this weekend when Bessent and He meet.

If negotiators can finalize tariff reductions before Trump and Xi meet, businesses could get something they have rarely received during years of U.S.-China trade disputes: an actual reduction in the cost of moving goods between the two countries.

For importers, exporters and manufacturers, the details will matter most — which products are covered, how large the reductions are and when they take effect.

Those are the numbers businesses will be watching next.

JBizNews Desk | Washington

© JBizNews.com. All rights reserved. This article is original reporting by JBizNews Desk. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution is strictly prohibited.

A car crashed into a private residence on Wednesday in Hadera, central Israel, police announced.

The incident occurred when an 80-year-old driver lost control of her vehicle and crashed into the residence; it was not part of an attempted car ramming attack, Walla learned.

The vehicle’s driver was lightly injured, and no other injuries have been reported at the time of writing.

This is a developing story.

This post was originally published on here. 

Anthropic is opening an office in Singapore—its first in Southeast Asia—planting its flag in a market that’s quickly becoming a new battleground for the U.S.’s top AI firms.

On Sept. 16, Anthropic announced its expansion to Singapore, making the Southeast Asian city its fifth location in Asia-Pacific, following hubs in Tokyo, Seoul, Bengalaru and Sydney. The Singapore office will open in October.

“As we grow across Asia-Pacific, opening an office in Singapore—where Claude usage per capita is among the highest in the world—is a natural next step,” Chris Ciauri, Anthropic’s international managing director, said in a press release on Sept 16. 

According to Anthropic data, Singapore was ranked second out of 121 countries in Claude usage, behind Australia.

Anthropic’s regional expansion will be led by Dale Finlay, who joins the Claude developer after just six months as OpenAI’s regional go-to-market head. “From working with customers across Southeast Asia, I’ve seen that ambition isn’t the blocker to AI adoption—trust is,” Finlay said in Anthropic’s press release. “Once that trust exists, the real work is embedding AI into how the business actually operates.”

By expanding to Southeast Asia, Anthropic is catching up to its rival OpenAI, which opened its Asia headquarters in Singapore in late 2024. Just last month, the Business Times reported that OpenAI was planning to lease 100,000 square feet of new office space in Singapore. OpenAI also just hired Sandya Devanathan, Meta’s head for South Asia, as its new ASEAN and Australia head.

Increasingly crowded

Singapore has long served as a “port of entry” to Southeast Asia, thanks to its stable political environment and business-friendly policies. The same has been true of AI: Companies like Cognition and Sierra have picked Singapore as their ASEAN or Asia headquarters.

Singapore has hopes of becoming an “AI nation,” with the country committing over $1 billion Singapore dollars (over $770 million) to strengthen public AI capabilities.

San Francisco-headquartered Plaud, which manufactures AI-powered note-takers, also opened its regional headquarters in Singapore on Sept 16. The office will serve as Plaud’s “base of operations” across twelve Asia-Pacific markets, including India, Malaysia, New Zealand, Australia, South Korea, Thailand and Vietnam.

“We started in Singapore with a very modest idea that we should start building a data engineering team,” said Nathan Xu, Plaud’s CEO and co-founder, at the company’s office launch event. “In about nine months, we grew the team from 10 people to about 100.” The firm also announced that it would be investing $20 million Singapore dollars, or $15.7 million, to accelerate engineering and product development in the country.

“Asia is one of the hardest places in the world to build AI that understands context and intent because people switch seamlessly between languages, dialects and contexts,” Xu said in a Sept 16 press release. “If we can make AI feel natural here, we can make it feel natural anywhere in the world.”

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

This post was originally published here. 

A Pentagon Inspector General report mandated by the US Congress released on Monday said that Iranian strikes against the US during the ongoing war “damaged and destroyed hundreds of buildings and structures at US bases in Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Oman, and Jordan.”

The report reveals that, simply totaling up munitions and equipment losses, the US has lost over $33.4 billion from the war, numbers which US President Donald Trump and US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth have tried to deny or keep under wraps for months.

In addition, while the report does not specifically finger former CENTCOM chief Gen. Erik Kurilla, who served from 2022 to August 2025, or current CENTCOM chief Adm. Brad Cooper, who has served since then, Kurilla’s predecessor, Gen. Frank McKenzie, in 2024 warned that “the United States will not be able to maintain these bases in a full-throated conflict, because they will be rendered unusable by sustained Iranian attack.”

It appears that neither of his successors nor the US military or political class in general took these worries seriously enough to alter America’s basing strategy, though officials did evacuate most American forces from the region, avoiding mass casualties.

In fact, the report said that the war had displaced over 20,000 US military and diplomatic personnel with 5,000 flights from bases in Europe, despite Trump’s complaints that Europeans failed to support America during the war.

An MH-60S Sea Hawk prepares to land on the flight deck of the US Navy Nimitz-class aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln which is supporting US military operations in the war with Iran, August 14, 2026.  (credit: US NAVY/HANDOUT VIA REUTERS)

The US-Iran conflict also caused a munitions shortfall and supply-chain bottlenecks at the Pentagon, the US Defense Department’s Inspector-General said, poking another hole in claims by Trump and Hegseth that the American military’s munitions capabilities have not been sidelined by the war.

War with Iran cost Pentagon approx $33.4 billion

The report says the war with Iran has cost the US about $33.4 billion, including $22.3 billion in expended munitions, $3.7 billion for equipment losses, and $7.4 billion in other expenditures.

However, the calculations don’t account for repairing damaged US facilities in the region, replacing aircraft, and replenishing critical weaponry, it added.

The Pentagon is “working to streamline procurement processes and production lead times, and to stockpile critical materials, components, and selected munitions to respond rapidly to a contingency,” with the Trump administration working to replenish weaponry.

According to the report, the CIA has lost significant facilities due to Iranian attacks.

Some reports suggest that this has been the largest blow to CIA operations in the region in many years, with unpredictable consequences for how effective American intelligence will be in certain areas for the near future.

The State Department also sustained damage in Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates, according to the report, including $184 million in damages to “diplomatic facilities.”

The report covers the period from the start of the war on February 28 through June 30.

The findings come amid other reports of low morale among US troops in the Middle East, a depletion of key munitions, and extensive damage to US military and intelligence assets.

The report is also one of the first government confirmations that Iran targeted the US Navy’s logistics hub in Bahrain, one of its main hubs in the region, with drones and ballistic missiles.

Pentagon’s inspector-general delineated what damage was caused

Damage to military equipment, aircraft, and other material is also delineated in the report.

The findings say that at least 30 large US drones were destroyed during the war.

Damage to military aircraft includes four F-15E jet fighters, an F-35A Joint Strike Fighter, an A-10 Warthog, 12 KC-135 refuelers, and nine other aircraft.

Speaking about the harm to the US bases on June 29 at a Jewish Institute for National Security of America briefing, McKenzie said that, “US basing in the Middle East…is a product of many years of development and different priorities when those bases went in…when CENTCOM was first stood up … we were really looking at ways to prevent the Russians from coming south into the oil fields, and so our strategic thinking over that period of time reflected that.”

He then discussed basing strategy being directed toward threats in Iraq and Afghanistan, but then added that today, “No one in their right mind would ever put the CENTCOM forward headquarters, you know, 100 miles away from Iran.”

“Yet that’s where it is, because when we put it in place many years ago…we were thinking about other things, and not the growing threat from Iran. … It’s bad to be close to your potential enemy, because he has the ability to strike you very quickly, and a couple of minutes is all the warning time you’re going to get for some of these bases,” he continued.

Further, he said, “Iranian drones have been very effective. We knew that they were coming when I left active duty, and in ’22 we certainly saw the threat of drones in the region. I said in testimony before I retired that I felt we had lost effective air supremacy and even air superiority to some degree in Central Command, because of the ubiquity of drones.”

“We need to look at basing in Israel. I think it’s a great idea. You need to look at basing [in] western Saudi Arabia. You might need to look at Oman. You need to continue to look at Jordan. You might talk to Egypt. But with all of these countries, one thing that’s significant is they all will have access, basing, and overflight (ABO) issues. They’re going to want to have a say in where those jets go when they take off…Obviously, Israel is the place where you’re going to have the fewest ABO restrictions …Israeli bases are [also] going to be very well defended against ballistic missiles and against drones,” he said.

Moreover, McKenzie stated, “If you can see it, you can strike it. Things like that beautiful CENTCOM command post at Al Udeid [Air Base in Qatar] is a Maginot Line. It has the same relevance to warfare today as the Maginot Line did in the Second World War: a monument to old thinking. We need to be able to move. We need to be able to [use deception] about where our locations are, and that’s going to require not only significant electromagnetic emanation management, it’s going to require an understanding of what’s in space.”

At the time of writing, neither the Pentagon, CENTCOM, nor the CIA had responded to requests for comment.

This post was originally published on here. 

Jacki Karsh is an award-winning, six-time Emmy-nominated journalist. Over a decade of reporting taught her how dangerously misinformed newsrooms shape public opinion. So she founded the Karsh Journalism Fellowship, the world’s only fellowship devoted to educating journalists on Jewish life, antisemitism, and Israel. Its fellows – journalists from the leading newsrooms across America – study everything from Jewish history to Middle East politics, empowering them to practice disciplined reporting on these subjects.

Each fellow publishes an original report informed by their learning, mentored by seasoned journalists from The New York Times, CNN, The Atlantic, and more. Since October 7, Karsh has also led hundreds of conversations across the US on media bias affecting Jews and Israel, and helped shape California legislation on antisemitism in schools. She regularly writes for outlets including The Hill, and JNS. Her belief is simple: Truth is the first defense against antisemitism. She is building the infrastructure to deliver it.

This post was originally published on here. 

Rudy Rochman is Israel rights activist, speaker and content creator dedicated to strengthening Jewish identity, combating antisemitism and advancing understanding of Israel and the Jewish people.

Born in Paris, France, Rochman moved to Israel at age three. His commitment to Jewish advocacy was shaped by an antisemitic incident at age seven, when he was physically removed from a bus in London for being Jewish. He later served in the IDF’s Paratroopers Brigade from 2011 to 2013.

After studying at UCLA, Rochman transferred to Columbia University, where he founded and led the university’s Students Supporting Israel chapter. He has since become a prominent voice for Israel and Jewish rights, speaking at campuses and pro-Israel organizations and using social media to reach hundreds of thousands of followers.

His work focuses on combating antisemitism, strengthening Jewish unity, engaging diverse Israeli communities, and raising awareness of Jewish communities around the world. Rochman has also been involved in Zionist and philanthropic initiatives, including running in the 2020 World Zionist Congress elections and serving on the board of The Israel Innovation Fund.

This post was originally published on here. 

Noah Pollak is an American political writer, commentator and pro-Israel advocate whose work focuses on US foreign policy, Israel, Jewish affairs and combating antisemitism. He is the executive director of the Emergency Committee for Israel, an advocacy organization focused on strengthening the US-Israel relationship and promoting policies supportive of Israel’s security. 

Pollak has written for publications including The Wall Street Journal, National Review, Commentary, Politico and The Jerusalem Post, and has appeared on major US television and media platforms. Earlier in his career, he lived in Israel and served as an assistant editor of Azure magazine at the Shalem Center in Jerusalem. 

In recent years, Pollak has focused increasingly on antisemitism and the challenges facing Jewish students on American university campuses. In 2025, he joined the US Department of Education as a senior adviser, following work with conservative organizations and foundations in education, foreign policy and media, including Parents Defending Education and the Washington Free Beacon. 

A co-founder of Jewish Voices for Trump, Pollak has also been a prominent conservative Jewish voice in US politics, advocating for stronger support for Israel and a more forceful response to antisemitism and anti-Israel activism on campuses.

This post was originally published on here. 

The post-October 7 world presents an opportunity for Jewish leaders to stand up. If Rabbi Daniel Rabin and others are afraid to speak, how can they expect their communities to stand strong?

As Senior Rabbi of Caulfield Shule in Melbourne, Australia, Rabin has helped make the synagogue a center of vibrant Jewish and Zionist life. They have brought thousands together through major events, hosted leading Israeli voices and advocates, strengthened connection to Israel, and created initiatives empowering Jews to live proudly and without fear.

Beyond the synagogue, Rabin has used his voice publicly, meeting government and community leaders to advocate strongly for Israel and Australian Jewry. He also serves as a police chaplain. Through social media, his advocacy has reached hundreds of thousands, challenging antisemitism, misinformation, and the demonization of Israel and Zionism. Rabin’s vision is a generation that is unapologetically Jewish, deeply connected and committed to Israel, and courageous enough to stand up for their people. He believes that leadership must model that courage.

This post was originally published on here. 

Through broadcast journalism, published opinion articles, strategic advising, public diplomacy, keynote speaking, workshops, coalition-building, and advocacy, Yuval David combats antisemitism, strengthens democratic values, and advances the future of the Jewish people and the State of Israel.

His work bridges the Jewish community and broader society through partnerships with policymakers, diplomats, educators, faith leaders, NGOs, and civic organizations. His mission is to inspire the next generation of Zionist leaders – modern Maccabees who turn courage into action, conviction into movements, and vision into lasting impact.

David is mission-driven and committed to building a movement of courageous, values-based leadership. He believes that ideas matter only when they become action, narratives matter only when they inspire movements, and Zionism survives because each generation chooses to shape its future.

This post was originally published on here. 

Republican US Representative Thomas Massie filed articles of impeachment against Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Tuesday, accusing him of abusing his office by executing an order for hostilities against Iran without approval by Congress.

The impeachment resolution is unlikely to pass, but the maneuver by the Kentucky Republican could force a vote in the chamber that could be difficult for some of his fellow Republicans as they prepare to leave Washington before November’s midterm elections.

“The entire Department is unified behind the Secretary’s vision and will continue working to put our warfighters and America first,” Pentagon press secretary Kingsley Wilson said in an emailed statement.

Massie filed his articles of impeachment against Hegseth as privileged, meaning the House must take them up within two legislative days.

Massie, an outspoken critic of the war on Iran and aid to Israel, is not up for reelection. He lost his primary in May to a candidate backed by Republican President Donald Trump after Massie angered the president by leading a push to release Justice Department files tied to the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

Massie was defeated by Ed Gallrein, a former Navy SEAL backed by Trump and bolstered by heavy spending by pro-Israel groups.

US Rep. Massie introduces resolution to impeach Defense Secretary Hegseth on the floor of the House of Representatives in Washington (credit: House TV/Handout via REUTERS)

Polls show voters uneasy over Iran war as midterms approach

Polls show the war that began with February 28 attacks on Iran by US and Israeli forces is unpopular with voters. Members of Congress, mostly Democrats, have voted repeatedly in favor of resolutions calling on Trump to end the conflict unless he obtains congressional support, but they have not led to a cessation of hostilities.

Opinion polls show that Trump’s Republicans face an uphill struggle to keep their control of the House and Senate when voters go to the polls on November 3.

Reuters/Ipsos poll results released on Monday showed Democrats lead Republicans 44% to 37% in congressional vote preference.

Trump’s popularity has declined since he launched the war, which has disrupted oil shipments and pushed fuel prices near record highs, hitting US household finances.

This post was originally published on here. 

A Houthi drone was destroyed before entering Mecca’s airspace, Saudi Arabia said around sunset on September 15. This was the latest Houthi attack on Saudi Arabia and illustrated how the Iranian-backed Houthis intend to continue their attacks.

Riyadh said that Saudi air defenses were able to destroy a drone attempting to enter the airspace of the holy city of Mecca, in a major escalation by Yemen’s Houthi rebels, Saudi-based outlet Arab News reported.

“The drone was intercepted at 6:50 p.m. Saudi time on Tuesday south of Mecca, a city visited by millions of Muslims annually,” the report said.

This comes just five days after the Houthis swept down the Red Sea coast and took over islands that guard the Bab al-Mandab Strait. The goal of the Houthis has been to send a message to Saudi Arabia that they are dominant. The Houthis wanted to show that, despite Saudi air superiority, they can strike where they want in the Kingdom.

Arab News said that the threat near Mecca “was a red line,” according to Major-General Turki Al-Malki, spokesperson for the Coalition to Restore Legitimacy in Yemen, in a statement issued early on Wednesday. Saudi Arabia said that “Mecca is Islam’s holiest site and the act by the Iran-backed group is likely to upset millions of Muslims globally.”

A satellite image shows smoke rising from the Saudi Aramco distribution centre in Abha Bulk Tuesday, 8th September (credit: Handout via Reuters)

As such, the attack was symbolic. This was the latest symbol since the Iranian-backed militias in Iraq attacked the important Saudi East-West pipeline that moves energy supplies to Yanbu. Riyadh is now warning about oil shipments.

The East-West pipeline outage could affect the global economy

It also came after the commander of US Central Command, Admiral Brad Cooper, visited Jeddah and met with Saudi Arabia Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. MBS, as he is called, then went to Cairo for meetings with the Egyptian president Abdul Fattah al-Sisi. This came after reports of a meeting in Germany that included CENTCOM as well as Israeli and Arab officials.

Meanwhile, it was also reported that Israel and Saudi Arabia held talks mediated by US CENTCOM aimed at helping Riyadh defend itself against the Houthi military through intelligence assistance, a regional diplomat confirmed to The Jerusalem Post on Tuesday, according to our earlier report.

Arab News noted that the recent drone threat was to Mecca, “one of Islam’s major pillars — the Hajj, a pilgrimage to the city and its holy precincts.”

Saudi Arabia said that its coalition against the Houthis viewed this as “a black mark in the record of violations by the terrorist Houthi militia, considered a deliberate act to inflame the feelings of millions of Muslims.” Riyadh noted that this is not the first time that the group has had a missile shot down around the holy city.

“In 2017, Saudi air defense forces intercepted a ballistic missile launched toward Mecca by Yemen’s Houthi militia, according to the Arab Coalition command,” Arab News said. “The Coalition said at the time that the missile was shot down over the Al-Wasliya area in Taif province. No damage or injuries were reported.”

The Houthis also harmed 13 civilians in an attack on Saudi Arabia on Monday. Those attacks targeted Khamis Mushait, Abha and Taif with ballistic missiles.

“Last week an attack by the militia left more than 70 people injured, including women and children, in various towns and cities across Saudi Arabia,” Arab News noted. “The Kingdom on Friday temporarily shut down its East-West Pipeline after it was targeted in several drone attacks in the Riyadh and Medina regions.”

The recent attacks will leave Saudi Arabia with a choice. Will it seek to shift things in Yemen and support the Yemen government against the Houthis in a new offensive?

The Houthi attack on coastal areas showed that the government forces are in disarray. Houthis routed them. Videos online published by the Houthis show them sweeping away the government-backed forces. Now reports say the Houthis are digging in, building tunnels and trenches to prepare for a counter-offensive.

Meanwhile, oil supplies may be disrupted, and prices could rise. This may pressure the US and the West. It may also pressure Riyadh. In Iraq, the authorities have not found a suspect in the attacks on the Saudi pipeline. Instead, Iraq’s prime minister is touring Europe. In Iraq, the authorities want to blame a small group for the attacks. This means little will be done against the group. 

This post was originally published on here. 

A helicopter has crashed in Los Angeles, and three people were determined to be dead at the scene, with a fourth victim taken to the hospital in unknown condition, CBS Los Angeles reported Tuesday.

The NTSB and FAA will handle the investigation, the fire department said.

The crash occurred in the San Fernando Valley, between two commercial buildings near the 9100 block of N. Mason Avenue, with the aircraft appearing to have landed on top of two shipping containers and several parked vehicles.

The circumstances surrounding the crash remain unclear.

According to the report, a large fire broke out after the crash and spread to nearby vehicles. 

An LAFD helicopter drops water on the Getty Fire burning near the Getty Center in the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area in Los Angeles on September 9, 2026.  (Illustrative)  (credit: David Swanson / AFP via Getty Image)

According to several media reports, the helicopter involved in the crash was a television news helicopter, as several TV news helicopters were in the area reporting on the bus collision.

Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass said she was “devastated” by the loss of life in the helicopter crash and the bus collision in Chatsworth, thanking emergency responders for their swift response.

Reuters could not immediately verify whether the helicopter involved was a TV news helicopter. The Los Angeles Fire Department did not immediately respond to emailed requests for further details.

“We do have one confirmed patient who seemed to be outside of the helicopter when it crashed,” said LAFD Captain Branden Silverman. “That person was declared deceased on scene… At this point, we have not confirmed how many victims, or how many people, were inside the helicopter.”

Helicopter destroyed in crash, fire department officer says

“The helicopter itself, it’s pretty well destroyed, so we are going to have to go through the rubble and see how many victims there were on board as well as identify the helicopter,” Silverman said.

Los Angeles police are also investigating the crash.

This post was originally published on here. 

Karin Rådström is used to being the only woman in the room. She was the first to lead Scania’s bus and coach division, having worked her way through the ranks from marketing trainee to head of sales and marketing and executive vice president at the Swedish truck manufacturer.

Now, as CEO of Daimler Truck, she heads up the world’s largest manufacturer of commercial vehicles. Rådström became only the second woman to lead a company in the DAX 40 upon her appointment in 2024 and is one of only 43 women CEOs in the Fortune 500 Europe. “I try to use that as a positive motivation more than a heavy burden,” she says. “The best way to increase the number of leadership opportunities for women is, of course, to be successful.”

Since Rådström became CEO, Daimler Truck’s share price has increased almost 40%, from €33.15 to €46.24, and she has overseen significant growth in the company’s zero-­ emissions vehicle sales, which rose 67% in 2025. But this success has not come easily. Rådström reels off a lengthy list of headwinds: supply-chain challenges, semiconductor shortages, the war in Ukraine, geopolitical issues, and tariffs in the U.S. “It’s been kind of a ride,” she says.

Changing gear

Despite only recently becoming an independent business (formed out of the split of Daimler AG into Mercedes-Benz and Daimler Truck in 2021), Daimler Truck has over a century of history. This year marks 130 years since German engineer Gottlieb Daimler built the very first motorized truck, basing his design on a horse-drawn carriage.

Rådström, a Swede, was surprised by the layers of hierarchy at the German company and the sheer volume of decisions that crossed her desk as CEO. In one of her first meetings, she was asked to look at the designs for a new truck cab and formally approve it. Important decisions were often accompanied by a lengthy slide deck. “Those things don’t work in the changing environment that we have now,” she says.

72

Daimler truck’s rank on fortune 500 europe

Rådström has called on the company to operate “simpler, faster, and stronger.” This mantra, which encourages quicker decision-making and greater autonomy, has been central to the cultural transformation that she has spearheaded since becoming CEO. “You never have 100% of the information you’d like,” she says, “so if you don’t decide, you might miss big opportunities.”

Those familiar with Rådström’s leadership style describe her as authentic, strategic, and inclusive. One friend, Charlotte Berg, a consult service director for IT company Kyndryl, first met Rådström at a professional development program run by the Stockholm-based Women for Leaders, and Rådström suggested that they go for a run together. Keeping up with Rådström, a former rower for the Swedish national team, was a challenge, Berg says, but the two became fast friends. To this day, they exchange notes at the end of the workweek on what happened, their feelings, and any lessons learned.

The cultural transformation led by Rådström at Daimler Truck has not gone unnoticed. Klas Bergelind, managing director and industrial tech and mobility analyst at Citi, says Rådström has created a more decentralized organization and has encouraged staff to shed some of its more bureaucratic practices. But there’s still significant work to do, he adds: “Cultural change takes time, and while costs are gradually lowered, other temporary cost headwinds are weighing on results.”

Indeed, despite reporting a 5% uplift in revenue in its Q2 financial results, net profits for the group dropped 48% com- pared with the same period last year. Profitability was primarily impacted by tariffs, but earlier-announced price increases and a more favorable tariff arrangement with the U.S. are expected to boost earnings the rest of the year.

Chinese competition gains ground

Another headwind on the horizon is the challenge from China. For now, the European truck market is relatively secure, but the broader European automotive market is being buffeted by Chinese competition. Sales of Chinese electric cars in the Western European market hit a record high this year, accounting for 14.2% of purchases in the first five months of 2026, according to Schmidt Automotive Research, up from 3% in 2024. Meanwhile, the share of China’s car market that is occupied by foreign brands is in steep decline.

Put simply, Chinese EVs are just better than a lot of the competition, says Howard Yu, a professor of management and innovation at IMD Business School and codirector of the Future Readiness program, which evaluates global car manufacturers. In the Southeast Asian market, the technological superiority of many Chinese-made cars is making European produced vehicles appear outdated, Yu says. “It’s like listening to vinyl in the age of Spotify,” he says. “It’s viewed as cute and nostalgic.”

Daimler Truck showcasing its FGA chassis at defense and security industry event Eurosatory.
Daimler

European automakers are well aware of China’s technological advantages and Europe’s higher manufacturing and regulatory costs. In a joint letter to the European Parliament, Volkswagen, Stellantis, and Renault warned of an “unprecedented challenge to their competitiveness.”

So far, the European truck market has largely been insulated from the challenge from China. Chinese companies hold a marginal share of 1.36% in the European commercial-vehicle market, according to market research company Dataforce, and three of the four biggest companies in the industry, Daimler Truck, Volvo, and Traton, are headquartered in Europe.

However, the pressures facing the car industry could be a sign of things to come for the heavy-vehicle sector. Chinese truck companies have been expanding their market presence in Europe. SuperPanther and Sinotruk have both begun production in Austria, while Chinese-backed electric-truck manufacturer Windrose has established a European headquarters in Antwerp, Belgium. As with EVs, Chinese trucks are increasingly technologically advanced, says Thomas Fabian, chief commercial vehicles officer at the European Automobile Manufacturers’ Association. Windrose’s Global E700 truck has a fully loaded range of 700 km, for example, while Daimler Truck’s flagship model has a 500 km range. “They [Chinese companies] are at the doorstep, they’re coming,” Fabian says.

European truck manufacturers have some “moat” in their established relationships and service networks. While cost is an important factor, service reliability and the availability of spare parts are also important considerations for truck carriers, and overhauling an entire fleet is a major investment. But Rådström isn’t relying on that. “It’s on us to work on our competitiveness, stay on top of innovation, and remain strong on cost,” she says.

The European Commission’s requirement of a 40% reduction in emissions from new heavy-duty vehicles by 2030 also risks handing Chinese manufacturers an opening, according to Daniela Costa, Goldman Sachs’ head of European capital goods research. Only 2.4% of trucks operating in the EU in the first quarter of 2026 were zero-emissions vehicles. In contrast, one in four trucks sold in China in 2025 was electric, and the International Energy Agency estimates that China accounted for 90% of the 400,000 electric trucks sold globally last year.

Changes are needed for Europe to remain competitive, including better charging infrastructure, reduced bureaucracy, and faster decision-making, Rådström says: “Our customers run on tight margins, so they don’t have the time to experiment with new technologies. We have to show it can reduce costs.”

In it for the long haul

Defense has also been identified as a key pillar of Daimler Truck’s growth strategy. The company aims to double defense-related revenues to €1 billion ($1.17 billion) by 2028 and has plans to invest “mid-three-digit-million euros” in its newly established Daimler Truck Defence brand. “We have a very strong position because we are industrialized, so we have the opportunity to build a lot of volume, and we can leverage our civil side for defense applications,” Rådström says.

She also hopes that closer partnerships with startups in the military space will lead to innovations that can be translated to civilian vehicles—particularly in autonomous driving. Daimler Truck has ambitions to release Level 4 autonomous trucks—which can handle all driving tasks in most settings without human intervention—to the U.S. market by 2027.

While the involvement of European truck makers in the defense sector is not new, rising geopolitical tensions, increased government defense spending, and the ongoing war between Russia and Ukraine have presented new opportunities in this field. “Unfortunately [defense] is an important industry, which is growing,” she says. Over the past year, Daimler Truck has secured contracts with the German, French, Lithuanian, and Canadian armed forces. “A lot of the time it’s about defending democracy, and that’s not something that makes me sleep badly at night; rather, the opposite,” Rådström adds.

Although defense is one of the fastest-growing areas of Daimler Truck’s business, it is growing from a small base and is likely to remain small. If the company does achieve its €1 billion target, it would still represent only 2% of overall annual revenue.

Securing growth over the longer term will require further innovations as Rådström continues her turnaround program. “It’s about making our customers more satisfied; growing employee engagement, because that’s what makes us successful; and showing that we’re improving in the numbers,” she says.

Rådström remains acutely aware of the ­company’s 130 years of history. “It makes you realize—even if I stay in my role for 10 years— I’m still a pretty small part of the long history of this company,” she says. “So I try to stay humble and will aim to hand over an even better company than what was handed to me two years ago. That would make me really proud.”

For the latest coverage and updates from Fortune CEO Forum, as well as insights into the companies on our list, visit this page.

This article appears in the Fortune 500 Europe special edition with the headline “At the wheel of a 130-year-old giant”

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

This post was originally published here. 

The combined revenues of the companies on the 2026 Fortune 500 Europe list hit a record high of $15.5 trillion this year, equivalent to half of Europe’s GDP.  

The list, now in its fourth year, ranks the continent’s largest companies by revenue. Despite fiercer global competition, geopolitical instability, and technological disruption over the past year, the companies on the list have proven resilient. Profits returned to growth this year, rising 3% to just over $1 trillion, after a 5% decline in 2025.  

Volkswagen holds the top spot for a third consecutive year. Revenue climbed 3.4%, to more than $363 billion, despite Europe’s carmakers being squeezed by global tariffs and growing competition from China. 

European energy companies have also proved resilient despite a tumultuous twelve months, with Shell, Glencore, BP and TotalEnergies occupying the rest of the top five spots. Second-quarter profits at Shell and BP more than doubled as disruption in the Strait of Hormuz pushed oil prices higher. 

34.6 million

Total employees

Finance remains Europe’s most dominant sector in terms of revenue, profit, and headcount. A total of 105 finance companies feature on the Fortune 500 Europe and together they generated 24% of the list’s total revenue, 40% of its profit, and employ 14% of its workforce. 

Howard Yu, a professor at IMD Business School, credits prominence of Europe’s finance sector to the global reach of its biggest banks and their technical sophistication. “These players have spent decades building footprints across emerging markets and have a depth of presence few global rivals can match. This is a genuine strategic advantage, rather than a legacy accident.” 

HSBC is the most profitable company on the list, with $22bn in profits for 2025. The British lender is one of only 25 companies to generate more than $10 billion in profits.  

Sector revenue breakdown

Despite the combined increases to revenues and profits across the Fortune 500 Europe, margins have narrowed for two years running, falling to 6.5% from a high of 7.1% on the 2024 list.  

This is consistent with the stagflation pressures weighing on much of Europe’s corporate sector, according to Guido Cozzi, professor of macroeconomics at the University of St. Gallen. “The gap between revenue and profit growth suggests that many European companies have been able to pass on only part of the shocks they have faced,” he says. “It’s less a sign that businesses are genuinely booming, and more a sign that prices are rising faster than what companies are actually producing or how efficiently they’re running.”  

The U.K. overtakes Germany 

For the first time in the four-year history of the Fortune 500 Europe, Germany does not have the most companies on the list. The U.K. takes the lead with 76 companies, compared to Germany’s 73. 

Yu attributes this to a more international mindset that has been adopted by U.K. businesses. “After Brexit, they have no choice but to look beyond Europe entirely, with many expanding their presence in the U.S,” he says. “The U.S. is the world’s biggest and most profitable market. It is the toughest gym in the world to train your organization to be lean, mean and competitive.”  

The U.K. also outperforms in terms of innovation. It sits more than 30 percentage points above the EU average on the European Commission’s most recent Innovation Scorecard and is home to more unicorns than any nation except the U.S. and China, according to the Hurun Research Institute. 

Where Europe Fortune 500 companies are based

Together the U.K., France, Germany, and Switzerland are home to more than half of all companies on the list, and accounted for more than 50% of all profits.  

Built to last 

Many of the companies on the Fortune 500 Europe list have long histories. The average company is 109 years old, and more than half have been in business for over a century, surviving global conflicts and adapting through multiple industrial revolutions.  

The oldest company on the list, brewing giant Anheuser-Busch InBev, traces its roots back 660 years to the Den Hoorn brewery in Leuven, Belgium. It ranks No. 65 on the list. At the other end of the spectrum, the youngest company on the list is the German automotive-technology company Aumovio, which was spun off from Continental AG in 2025. 

$15.47 trllion

Combined revenue

Taken together, this year’s Fortune 500 Europe list is a story of endurance. Many of the continent’s oldest institutions are still the ones setting the pace, centuries after they were founded. Yet Yu cautions against reading longevity as a strength in its own right: “Many of these institutions have grown too comfortable,” he argues.  

The number of female CEOs at Fortune 500 Europe companies has also shown a marginal improvement, increasing from 41 last year to 43. Total revenues for women-led firms increased by 24% to $1.2 billion and BP is the only company in the top 10 to have a woman CEO, following the replacement of Murray Auchincloss with Meg O’Neill. 

For the latest coverage and updates from Fortune CEO Forum, as well as insights into the companies on our list, visit this page.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

This post was originally published here. 

FOMO—the fear of missing out—used to be a shorthand favorite of young people worried about not being at the right party on a Saturday night. Now, chief executives are increasingly having FOMO over applied AI. The financial bets are large enough for boards to wince at capital expenditure implications. The outcomes are shrouded in mystery, a particular irritant for leadership teams obsessed with data and clarity.  

Step forward, Aiman Ezzat, the chief executive of technology and consultancy business Capgemini. The French Fortune 500 Europe giant has been in the news after it agreed to sell its U.S. subsidiary, Capgemini Government Solutions, which had been providing tracing and removal data for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in America. In line with the great tech selloff over AI spending fears, Capgemini’s share price has been laboring. 

I spoke with Ezzat before the controversy over ICE blew up (Ezzat explained on LinkedIn that the American business acted autonomously to protect U.S. classified information). He told me that business leaders were treading a fine line with AI; there is a sweet spot somewhere between too far, too fast, and stuck on the starting blocks. 

“You don’t want to be too ahead of the learning curve,” he said. “If [you are] you’re investing and building capabilities that nobody wants.” 

“Basically, the need to integrate AI with humans. How do you get humans to trust the agent? The agent can trust the human, but the human doesn’t really trust the agent.” 

Aiman Ezzat

AI is not a big-bang moment; changes will happen in increments. Most leaders can remember the hype around the metaverse—a virtual reality world where we could trade and do business via our dancing avatars (Capgemini itself experimented with a metaverse lab). Mark Zuckerberg was so keen on the idea that he renamed his company after it. Like air fryers, its time may now have passed. 

Agility is the new approach: small tests and pilots before you scale. Capgemini now has labs for 6G mobile technology, quantum computing, and robotics. No one knows which parts of these technologies may be the metaverses of the future. 

“Is everything ready to mature? No,” says Ezzat. “But we want to be there to be able to see when things start to mature, when we can really start scaling up, not waiting to see, ‘Okay, oh, now it’s moving.’ 

“We have to do something, right? So, you have to be investing—but not too much—to be able to be aware of the technology, following at the speed to make sure that we are ready to scale when the adoption starts to accelerate.” 

172

Capgemini’s rank on the Fortune 500 Europe

As I have written before, many large firms are viewing AI primarily as a way to make separate business divisions more efficient. That’s a start, but it is not a “whole enterprise” approach that brings together data and operations from, say, finance and human resources or procurement and supply chains, and then connects them in innovative ways. 

“AI is a business. It is not a technology,” Ezzat says, warning that leaders often fall into seeing AI as a “black box that’s being managed separately. There are technologies behind it, but it’s really about transforming the business. It cannot just be used to keep the house running.

“The question you [the CEO] have to focus on is: ‘How can your business be significantly disrupted by AI?’ Not ‘How is your finance team going to become more efficient?’ I’m sure your CFO will deal with that at the end of the day.” 

Read more: Sam Altman should take Niklas Östberg’s number: What the Delivery Hero founder doesn’t know about going public and shareholders isn’t worth knowing

A well-worn phrase with AI is “human in the loop”—a phrase challenged by one senior technology executive I spoke to recently as being “way off beam.” What we should really be talking about is “human in the lead.” Welcome back, “human-centricity,” a centuries-old social philosophy, formalized as an engineering approach by the 1950s ergonomics movement.  

“How do you deal with what we call AI-human-centricity?” Ezzat says. “Basically, the need to integrate AI with humans. How do you get humans to trust the agent? The agent can trust the human, but the human doesn’t really trust the agent.” 

Ergonomics was about chairs that were built for people, rather than chairs designed to fit efficiently into an office or be simple to stack and move. How to mold AI to work with people is a similar challenge. Bad chairs lead to bad backs. Bad AI is likely to be far more consequential. 

For the latest coverage and updates from Fortune CEO Forum, as well as insights into the companies on our list, visit this page.

A version of this story was originally published on Fortune.com on February 12, 2026.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

This post was originally published here. 

Bond traders are making one of their most aggressive bets in months that the Federal Reserve will raise interest rates Wednesday — and that Treasury prices could keep falling even after the decision.

The 10-year Treasury yield climbed Tuesday to its highest level since 2007, while the two-year yield reached its highest since 2024, as investors continued selling government bonds ahead of the Fed meeting.

That matters far beyond Wall Street.

Treasury yields help determine the cost of mortgages, business loans, auto financing, corporate borrowing and even how stocks are valued. When yields rise this sharply, money gets more expensive across the economy.

The market is now pricing in more than a 90% chance that the Fed raises rates by a quarter percentage point Wednesday, which would be the first increase since 2023.

But traders are not simply waiting for the Fed.

They are betting real money that rates and yields may stay higher.

JPMorgan’s latest Treasury client survey showed short positions — bets that bond prices will fall and yields will rise — jumping 10 percentage points in the week through Sept. 14. Most of that movement came from investors who had previously been neutral.

Citi strategist David Bieber described the positioning as “tactically extreme,” saying traders have rapidly built short positions as yields moved higher.

The message is simple: investors do not want to get caught holding long-term bonds if inflation keeps pushing the Fed toward tighter policy.

Oil is a major reason.

Higher energy prices have added fresh inflation pressure at a time when consumer prices were already running above the Fed’s target. Budget concerns and heavy government borrowing have also made investors more reluctant to lock money into long-term Treasuries unless they receive higher yields in return.

The 10-year Treasury yield briefly pushed above 5% Tuesday, a level that has become psychologically important for markets because it raises borrowing costs across much of the economy.

For a business owner, a move from 4% to 5% in benchmark yields does not sound dramatic. But once banks add their own spread on top, the difference can mean thousands or even hundreds of thousands of dollars more in annual interest expense on large loans.

Commercial real estate is especially sensitive because many properties must refinance debt every few years. A building financed when rates were much lower can suddenly face a dramatically higher payment when that loan rolls over.

Consumers feel it too.

Mortgage rates tend to track longer-term Treasury yields. Credit cards are more closely tied to short-term rates, while auto and small-business loans respond to both broader funding costs and Fed policy.

That is why Wednesday’s Fed decision has become much bigger than whether rates move by just one quarter-point.

The bigger question is what the Fed says comes next.

Markets are currently pricing about 50 basis points of additional tightening for the remainder of 2026, including Wednesday’s expected move. That means traders are already looking beyond this meeting and asking whether another increase could follow.

If the Fed raises rates but sounds cautious about doing more, bond yields could pull back.

If the Fed raises rates and signals additional tightening is likely, the current bond selloff could continue.

The more dangerous scenario for traders who have piled into short positions is the Fed refusing to raise rates at all.

That might sound positive for borrowers at first, but bond investors could interpret a surprise pause as the Fed being too relaxed about inflation. In that case, longer-term Treasury yields could actually rise further as investors demand more compensation for inflation risk.

At the same time, shorter-term yields could fall because they are more directly tied to the Fed’s policy rate.

That split is why Wednesday could produce unusually sharp market swings.

Bank of America strategists Meghan Swiber and Eleanor Xiao said positioning remains heavily bearish across the Treasury curve, with asset managers cutting long positions or adding shorts and showing little appetite to buy bonds simply because prices have fallen.

In plain English, investors are not yet treating this selloff as a bargain.

They are treating it as a warning.

The Fed announces its decision Wednesday, and the first market reaction will come within seconds.

For businesses and consumers, the number to watch afterward may not be the Fed rate itself.

It may be whether the 10-year Treasury yield stays around 5% — because that is the number already working its way into the cost of borrowing across America.

JBizNews Desk | Wall Street

© JBizNews.com. All rights reserved. This article is original reporting by JBizNews Desk. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution is strictly prohibited.

Israel just posted the kind of inflation number most Western economies would like to have: prices jumped in August, but annual inflation still held at just 1.5%.

The Consumer Price Index rose 0.7% in August from July, according to Israel’s Central Bureau of Statistics, slightly below forecasts for a 0.8% to 0.9% increase. But the bigger number is the annual rate. Inflation over the past 12 months remained unchanged at 1.5%, comfortably inside the Bank of Israel’s 1% to 3% target range.

That matters because one expensive month does not necessarily mean inflation is coming back.

Fresh vegetables rose 2.9% in August. Transportation costs climbed 2.7%, and culture and entertainment prices increased 2%. At the same time, fresh fruit fell 2%, clothing dropped 0.8%, and furniture and food declined 0.5%.

For Israeli households, that means some bills may have felt noticeably higher even though the broader inflation picture remains relatively calm.

For businesses, the bigger question is what this means for interest rates.

The Bank of Israel cut its benchmark rate on Sept. 1 by a quarter percentage point to 3.25%, saying inflation had moderated in recent months and was running below the midpoint of its target range.

The new August inflation data leaves that broader picture intact.

Lower inflation gives the central bank more room to focus on growth, credit conditions and the wider economy rather than being forced into another inflation fight.

The next Bank of Israel interest-rate decision is scheduled for Oct. 21.

For companies, every quarter-point matters.

Lower borrowing costs can affect business loans, real-estate financing, inventory purchases and expansion plans. Consumers can eventually feel the difference through mortgages, variable-rate debt and other forms of credit.

Housing is showing a somewhat different picture.

Israel’s Home Price Index rose 0.2% in the latest measurement, marking the second consecutive monthly increase after prices had fallen through much of the previous year.

Even with those recent gains, home prices were still down 1.2% from a year earlier.

That means two things can be true at the same time: Israeli home prices remain below last year’s level, but the market may be beginning to stabilize.

For buyers, that could mean the window created by falling prices is starting to change. For developers and real-estate businesses, two straight monthly increases are a sign worth watching.

The broader economy is also recovering.

When the Bank of Israel cut rates earlier this month, it said second-quarter GDP was running 6.2% above the fourth quarter of 2025 on an annualized basis. Excluding production abroad by Israeli companies, the increase was 3.8%.

That leaves Israel in an unusual position: annual inflation at 1.5%, interest rates moving lower, and economic activity recovering.

August itself was not cheap. A 0.7% monthly CPI increase is significant.

But the annual number tells the larger story.

Inflation is still 1.5%.

The Bank of Israel’s target is 1% to 3%.

And policymakers head toward their October meeting without an obvious inflation emergency forcing them to reverse course.

JBizNews Desk | Jerusalem

© JBizNews.com. All rights reserved. This article is original reporting by JBizNews Desk. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution is strictly prohibited.

Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang is expected to be among the guests when President Donald Trump hosts Chinese President Xi Jinping for a state dinner in Washington next week, putting the head of the world’s most important AI chip company inside one of the highest-level diplomatic events between the United States and China.

Xi is scheduled to meet Trump in Washington on Sept. 24, with Trump publicly confirming that the visit will include a state dinner. Huang’s invitation has not been formally announced by the White House, but Reuters and Bloomberg reported Tuesday that he is expected to attend, citing people familiar with the plans. Nvidia declined to comment to Bloomberg, while the White House had not publicly released the guest list.

For Nvidia, this is far more than a ceremonial dinner.

The company sits directly in the middle of the economic and technological competition between Washington and Beijing. Nvidia’s advanced processors have become the backbone of the artificial-intelligence boom, powering the massive data centers used to train and operate increasingly sophisticated AI systems.

That makes Huang one of the few business executives whose company is central to both America’s AI ambitions and its negotiations with China.

The Sept. 24 Trump-Xi meeting is expected to take place against a backdrop of unresolved trade and technology disputes. U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer are preparing additional talks with Chinese Vice Premier He Lifeng ahead of the summit, with artificial intelligence, rare-earth exports and trade restrictions among the issues dividing the two governments.

There are also efforts underway to reduce tariffs on selected goods considered less sensitive to national security. China has said it hopes the two countries can reach an agreement on reciprocal tariff reductions, while broader trade tensions remain unresolved.

For businesses, that means decisions made around the Trump-Xi meeting could reach far beyond Nvidia.

American technology companies depend on access to semiconductors, rare-earth minerals and global supply chains that stretch through Asia. Manufacturers use many of the same critical materials. Restrictions imposed by either Washington or Beijing can raise costs, delay production or determine which companies are allowed to sell into one of the world’s largest markets.

Nvidia faces those questions more directly than almost any other American company.

Washington has repeatedly restricted the export of advanced AI chips to China on national-security grounds, while Nvidia has sought ways to continue serving the Chinese market within U.S. rules. The underlying concern for American policymakers is straightforward: the same computing power used for commercial AI can also have military and intelligence applications.

For Nvidia, China remains too large a market to ignore, while U.S. policy determines how much of that market the company can legally serve.

Huang has also developed an increasingly visible relationship with Trump.

Just one day before reports of the state-dinner invitation emerged, Trump called Huang while the Nvidia CEO was speaking onstage at the All-In Summit in Los Angeles. The conversation centered on concerns that rapid AI development could create serious risks and whether the United States should slow its development of the technology. Trump rejected calls for a slowdown, while Huang argued that the United States can continue leading in AI while developing the technology safely.

Trump himself has repeatedly framed artificial intelligence as a strategic competition with China. Earlier this month, he said the race is primarily between the United States and China and that the country that leads in AI will hold an enormous advantage.

Huang’s expected appearance at the state dinner also carries some symmetry.

Earlier this year, Huang joined other major American technology executives at a state dinner hosted by Xi for Trump during the president’s trip to China. His expected presence in Washington next week would again place the Nvidia chief at the intersection of technology, business and diplomacy.

The state dinner itself is one of Washington’s most formal diplomatic honors, generally reserved for visiting heads of state and attended by senior government officials, business leaders and other prominent guests.

For Nvidia, Huang’s seat at the table underscores how deeply AI and semiconductors have become intertwined with U.S.-China relations.

What happens during the Sept. 24 summit will be watched not only in Washington and Beijing, but across Silicon Valley, manufacturing plants, financial markets and corporate boardrooms worldwide.

JBizNews Desk | Washington

© JBizNews.com. All rights reserved. This article is original reporting by JBizNews Desk. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution is strictly prohibited.

The FAA’s air traffic control upgrade is going to cost a lot more than Congress has already handed over, and the agency’s own administrator told lawmakers Tuesday exactly how much.

Here’s the plain version of what’s happening: back in 2025, Congress gave the FAA $12.5 billion to fix the country’s aging air traffic system, the old radar, outdated phone lines and paper-thin backup systems that have caused outages and near-misses at major airports. FAA Administrator Bryan Bedford told the House on Tuesday that just finishing the first phase of that fix will actually cost $16 billion, about $3.5 billion more than what Congress already approved. The FAA says it will cover that gap itself. Then, for phase two, the agency wants Congress to hand over another $10 billion on top of that.

Add it up and the total price tag for a fully modernized air traffic system is now pushing toward $26 billion or more, roughly double the original down payment.

For everyday travelers, this isn’t an abstract budget fight. The system Bedford is talking about is the one that decides whether your flight leaves on time, gets rerouted around a storm, or sits on the tarmac because a control tower is running short-staffed on old equipment. Progress has been real: as of September 1, the FAA says it has replaced 64% of its outdated copper-based communication lines, upgraded more than 400 radio sites, and installed new surface-awareness systems at 101 airports that help controllers track planes and vehicles on the ground.

But there’s a catch. A government watchdog report released just before Tuesday’s hearing found that the FAA still doesn’t have a complete cost estimate or master schedule for the whole modernization project, which spans 13 separate programs and more than 11,000 individual project timelines. In other words, lawmakers are being asked to keep writing checks for a project whose full price and finish line aren’t fully mapped out yet.

That combination, real progress paired with an uncertain final cost, is exactly what puts pressure on Congress heading into budget season. Airlines, Boeing, Airbus and pilot unions have already pushed lawmakers publicly to approve the extra funding, arguing that flight delays tied to outdated equipment cost the industry, and travelers, real money every year. The FAA is targeting the end of 2028 to finish this overhaul, compressed from an original 15-year timeline.

JBizNews Desk | Washington

© JBizNews.com All Rights Reserved. Reproduction or distribution without written permission is prohibited.

The Middle East has a way of clarifying who shares interests when the missiles start flying.

Israel and Saudi Arabia have held US-mediated talks aimed at helping Riyadh defend itself against the Iran-backed Houthis. According to diplomatic sources, the talks were mediated by US Central Command and focused on possible Israeli intelligence assistance.

Israel should help.

The Saudi request is believed to center on intelligence about Houthi military deployments and preparations for future operations. Israel has considerable capabilities to offer. As The Jerusalem Post reported, the IDF has demonstrated its intelligence and operational abilities around the Strait of Hormuz, helping the United States build intelligence on Iranian forces.

Sharing those capabilities with Saudi Arabia makes sense. That does not mean sending Israeli forces into Yemen or assuming responsibility for Saudi Arabia’s security. Nor should Jerusalem mistake quiet security cooperation for an imminent diplomatic breakthrough. But Israel has a clear strategic interest in helping contain a threat that affects Israelis, Saudis, and much of the world.

Followers of Yemen's Houthi participate in a rally to celebrate the group's takeover of the strategic port city of Mocha and the Bab El-Mandeb Strait on September 11, 2026 in Sana'a, Yemen. (credit: Mohammed Hamoud/Getty Images)

The Houthis are no longer merely a Yemeni problem. They have expanded their control along Yemen’s Red Sea coast and seized territory around Bab al-Mandab, one of the world’s critical maritime choke points. According to diplomatic sources cited in the Post report, Houthi forces have also barred Saudi vessels from passing through the strait, imposing what the sources described as an economic and diplomatic blockade.

Houthi attacks on Bab al-Mandab have global repercussions

Meanwhile, attacks on Saudi Arabia have intensified. Recent Houthi attacks have targeted Saudi oil pipelines and pumping facilities as well as civilians near the Saudi-Yemeni border.

The consequences extend far beyond Riyadh.

Bab al-Mandab connects the Gulf of Aden to the Red Sea, Suez Canal, and Gulf of Eilat. Its security matters to international shipping, global energy markets, Egypt’s economy, and Israel’s access to the Red Sea.

Israel understands this threat better than most. Houthi attacks have severely damaged activity at the Port of Eilat, while missiles and drones launched from Yemen have repeatedly targeted Israel since October 7, 2023.

Iran’s strategy is straightforward: Turn geography into leverage. Tehran pressures shipping through the Strait of Hormuz while its Houthi allies threaten Bab al-Mandab. The Houthis attack Saudi oil infrastructure, shipping becomes more expensive, energy prices rise, and governments far beyond the Middle East feel the consequences.

The answer cannot be to allow each threatened country to confront this network alone.

There should be limits, however, and Saudi Arabia is looking elsewhere for assistance. Riyadh has asked Britain for help in repelling the Houthis from Bab al-Mandab and defending its oil infrastructure, the Post reported. Britain has agreed to send military advisers but has not committed additional assistance.

Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman has also sought direct American military action, but US President Donald Trump has declined to launch strikes against the Houthis.

Israel should likewise avoid rushing into another country’s war. Intelligence cooperation is different. Helping Riyadh defend its cities, energy infrastructure, and maritime routes against Iranian-backed attacks is prudent and serves Israel’s interests.

A diplomatic opportunity also exists, but Israel should approach it with realistic expectations.

Israel-Saudi normalization may be built on shared interests

Normalization between Israel and Saudi Arabia has long been treated as the great unfinished project of the Abraham Accords era. The Israel-Hamas War and disagreements over the Palestinian issue have complicated that possibility. Security cooperation against the Houthis will not erase those disagreements or automatically produce embassies in Riyadh and Jerusalem.

But diplomacy is often built on shared interests before it is formalized in ceremonies.

Israel and Saudi Arabia do not need to agree on every regional question to recognize that neither benefits from an Iranian proxy controlling a strategic waterway, threatening oil infrastructure, and holding international commerce hostage.

CENTCOM provides an architecture for Israel and Arab states to coordinate against common threats without requiring every relationship to become public or political. That framework should be strengthened.

Iran has constructed a regional network designed to exploit divisions among its adversaries. Its answer to pressure has been to threaten the arteries through which the region trades with the world.

Israel should answer the Saudi request positively, carefully, and without triumphalism.

Iran has spent decades trying to divide and intimidate its adversaries. The best response is to make its aggression bring them closer together.

This post was originally published on here. 

US Vice President JD Vance said the war with Iran will enter a “much different phase in a couple of months” in an interview with The New York Post on board Air Force Two on Monday.

Vance told The New York Post that Iran would continue to lose control of the Strait of Hormuz until after the US midterm elections, set for November. The vice president stated that the global energy chokepoint had “returned to well over 50% of normal traffic.”

“We can’t predict the future, but I think the president is right to say that this thing will enter a much different phase in a couple of months,” Vance said. “He’s also the commander in chief, so he’s the person who determines… when conflicts start and when they stop.”

In the interview, Vance addressed growing fatigue among US citizens over the war, which has reportedly cost taxpayers $33.4 billion since February.

“I certainly understand there’s some impatience from the American people, but fundamentally what’s happening now is that the United States is not engaged in aggressive operations. We’re just not.”

Vessels identified by U.S. Central Command as Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps boats before they were struck in a new wave of U.S. military strikes against Iran Wednesday, 8th July 2026 (credit: Handout via Reuters)

Traffic through the strait still remains low despite US efforts

The US and Iran have been engaged in tit-for-tat strikes, as Iranian military forces have fired on commercial shipping vessels attempting to exit the strait.

Despite US naval efforts to de-mine the strait over the last four months, crossings remain far below pre-war levels, when roughly 20% of global oil supply passed through.

US military operations have destroyed much of Iran’s missile and drone capabilities, but the regime is still striking commercial vessels and launching attacks on US bases in the Middle East, with a total of 18 US servicemen and women killed since the start of the conflict.

Vance told reporters the that the US operations in the Middle East had to be understood in two phases.

“The first phase was to destroy the nuclear program, destroy their conventional military, destroy their ability to project power in a way that they were able to even a couple of years ago.”

“And then the second phase of this is to ensure that they’re not able to rebuild and try to maintain as much global stability in the wake of that,” he added.

The vice president helped to orchestrate the Memorandum of Understanding along with Pakistani negotiators in mid-June. The MOU initiated a cease-fire to pursue negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program and begin disengagement procedures for the conflict.

Echoing Vance’s outlook on the end of the war, Trump told reporters on Wednesday that  “right after the election, oil prices are going to be tumbling downward.”

“I think the war will end immediately after the election because they can’t hold out any longer,” he added.

This post was originally published on here. 

A third of Israelis describe Jewish rioters involved in recent violence in the West Bank village of Kusra as “Israeli terrorists,” according to a survey released Monday by the Jewish People Policy Institute. 

Coupled with another 18% who called them “nationalist criminals,” the results demonstrate the degree to which the rioters, whose actions have roiled Israel’s relations with its allies, including the Trump administration, are outliers in Israel, JPPI President Yedidia Stern said.

“The survey shows that support among Israelis for the Jewish rioters in the West Bank is truly negligible, at just 5%,” Stern said in a release accompanying the poll. “More than half the public judges them very harshly, as terrorists or criminals, while others view them with varying degrees of severity. This represents an unusually broad consensus in Israel’s polarized society.”

Only 13% of the respondents chose one of the two most lenient descriptions: “young people who sometimes go too far” or “the salt of the earth.” 

The government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has come under pressure from the Trump administration and European nations to crack down on the rioters. Netanyahu has until recently resisted serious action, mindful that a significant portion of his coalition includes far-right parties sympathetic to varying degrees with the rioters. Earlier this month, Netanyahu ordered some of the outposts associated with the rioters removed.

Footage showing extremist settlers running in the West Bank village of Kusra, August 12, 2026. (credit: screenshot/section 27a copyright act)

Left, center, right differ sharply on labeling rioters

Views on the rioters differed according to political affiliation. Sixty-three percent of respondents on the left described the rioters as “Israeli terrorists,” compared with 49% in the center and just 3% on the right. 

Arab Israelis were also more likely to use the term, at 55%, compared with 27% of Jewish Israelis.

The survey referred to a recent incident in Kusra in which dozens of masked Israelis arrived in pickup trucks, threw stones at Palestinian residents and barricaded themselves inside a Palestinian home while members of the family were still inside, according to the Israeli military. Several Palestinians were wounded, and the rioters fled when security forces arrived. No arrests were made. 

Huckabee condemns Kusra incident as a “horrific act of terror”

The incident came weeks after another confrontation in Kusra in which Israeli settlers set up an unauthorized outpost beside Palestinian homes. US Ambassador Mike Huckabee condemned that episode at the time as a “horrific act of terror” meant to “intimidate and harass” families. 

The survey was conducted September 1-3 among 663 Jewish respondents and 206 Arab respondents and weighted to represent Israel’s adult population. JPPI did not list a margin of error.

This post was originally published on here. 

The Kurdistan Freedom Party said that one of its headquarters was targeted in the Kurdistan Region of northern Iraq overnight. The attack took place at 11:45 p.m., the group said. Known as PAK, the Kurdistan Freedom Party is one of several Kurdish opposition groups in Iran.

The report by PAK said that “at 23:45 tonight, a drone attack targeting the bases of the Kurdistan National Army by the Iranian regime was intercepted.” This is the latest attack in recent days on Kurdish Iranian opposition groups. The Komala group has also been targeted at least twice in the last week. The attacks come as the US is withdrawing from Iraq as part of an agreement for US-led anti-ISIS coalition troops to leave.

It also comes as a new US Inspector General report noted that Iran had targeted US diplomatic posts in Iraq since February. “Mission Iraq experienced more than 600 attacks during the reporting period. The US Consulate General in Erbil’s new consulate compound suffered damage to multiple buildings. The US Embassy in Baghdad suffered damage but to a lesser extent. The Baghdad Diplomatic Support Compound, located near Baghdad International Airport, suffered extensive damage.”

Some background is worth noting. Iranian Kurdish opposition groups have sought greater political and military coordination during 2026, as unrest inside Iran and the wider conflict involving Iran created new opportunities and new risks for parties that have opposed Tehran for decades.

On February 22, days before the US and Israeli strikes, five groups announced the Coalition of Political Forces of Iranian Kurdistan. The founding members were the Democratic Party of Iranian Kurdistan (PDKI), Kurdistan Freedom Party (PAK), Kurdistan Free Life Party (PJAK), Organization of Iranian Kurdistan Struggle, known as Khabat, and Komala of the Toilers of Kurdistan. The Komala Party of Iranian Kurdistan subsequently joined, creating a six-party alliance. The coalition said its objectives included replacing the Islamic Republic, Kurdish self-determination, and establishing democratic governance. Komala has three branches. In the end, two joined.

Fighters from the Kurdistan Free Life Party (PJAK), an Iranian Kurdish opposition group, are pictured near the border with Iran in Iraq's Kurdistan Region, in the outskirts of Sulaimaniya, Iraq, June 21, 2025.  (credit: AKO RASHEED/REUTERS)

Iran targets Kurdish opposition groups amid regional power struggle

Iran has lashed out and struck these groups. Iran knows that there were reports that the US wanted to arm these groups. It also suspects Israel supported them with airstrikes. Over the last several years, Iran has targeted the Kurdistan Region of northern Iraq, claiming Israel is active there. Iran has sought to spread the war there and create a frontline, suspecting that this is a kind of soft underbelly. While the US has power in the Gulf and other areas, Iran is seeking to push the US and partners out of the region. The Kurds are seen as partners of the US. Iran has also struck US bases and hopes the US will reduce forces, weakening Iraq, Kuwait, and other countries.

What of the Kurdish Iranian opposition alliance? The alliance brought together organizations with different histories and ideological backgrounds. PDKI and the various Komala factions have operated for decades, while PAK emerged later as an armed Kurdish nationalist organization. PJAK, which has links to the broader movement associated with the PKK, maintains forces in mountainous areas along the Iran-Iraq frontier. The groups had already increased coordination during anti-government protests in January, when seven Kurdish parties backed a general strike across Kurdish areas of Iran.

Kurdish opposition groups face wave of Iranian attacks

Iran has responded by increasing attacks on the groups, particularly those with camps in the autonomous Kurdistan Region of Iraq. Iranian missiles and drones have repeatedly targeted facilities associated with PDKI, Komala, PAK, and other opposition organizations. According to a UK government review citing reporting from the region, almost 700 Iranian and Iran-linked missile and drone attacks targeted Iraqi Kurdistan between February 28 and mid-April, including around 170 strikes directed specifically at Iranian Kurdish opposition parties. It is now believed there have been 1,000 attacks.

Iran renewed strikes against Komala facilities near Erbil in July and August, and now in early September. The attack on PAK illustrates how Iran intends to keep up its attacks. This comes as Iranian-backed militias in Iraq refuse to disarm and also target Saudi Arabia.

This post was originally published on here. 

Pop superstar Ed Sheeran said he wasn’t behind his tour’s recent decision to drop opening act Macklemore following the rapper’s recent pro-Palestinian remarks at a stadium show.

“I am not complicit,” Sheeran wrote in a statement on Instagram Tuesday, saying that Macklemore leaving the tour “was the promoter’s decision, it was not mine.” These were his first public words on the controversy that has gathered steam over the last 24 hours.

Hours after Sheeran’s comments, three of his other supporting acts announced they would be leaving his tour. All three acts,  Aaron Rowe, Beoga, and Finneas, posted pro-Palestinian solidarity statements to Instagram in their announcements.

Sheeran’s own note added, “I am appalled by the conflict between Israel and Palestine.” The British singer-songwriter wrote that he had been “involved in direct talks” between Robert Kraft and various promoters “to try and find a mutual resolution for all.”

Kraft, the Jewish and pro-Israel billionaire who owns one of the stadiums where Sheeran and Macklemore had been scheduled to play, said on Monday that he had told Sheeran’s team that Macklemore wouldn’t be allowed to perform there. 

Singer Ed Sheeran appears on NBC's ''Today'' show at Rockefeller Center in New York, U.S., June 6, 2023. (credit: BRENDAN MCDERMID/REUTERS)

Macklemore’s Israel comments spark criticism after MetLife show

In his own statement to JTA, Kraft had said that Macklemore’s recent performance at New Jersey’s MetLife stadium, at which the rapper accused Israel of genocide and broadcast images from Gaza, “has been deeply offensive and hurtful to the Jewish community.” Pop star Pink, who is Jewish, also criticized Macklemore following the performance.

Sheeran didn’t mention Jews in his statement, but noted, “I have always used my platform and music to bring people from all backgrounds and cultures together, and this won’t ever change.” 

US rapper, singer, dancer and DJ, Benjamin Haggerty, known as Macklemore, performs at the Goldencoast Rap Festival in Corcelles-les-Monts, near Dijon, central-eastern France, on August 30, 2026. (Arnaud Finistre / AFP via Getty Images)

He also had some veiled criticism of his tourmate’s methods. “Those who come to my shows do not expect a political forum,” Sheeran wrote. “I respect Macklemore’s strength of purpose to stand up for what he believes. However, there is room for multiple approaches to the same end: peace… If we only focus on shouting the loudest, nothing will ever change.”

Artists criticize Kraft and Zionism after leaving Sheeran tour

The other acts who announced they were leaving Sheeran’s tour didn’t agree. Some had strong words for Kraft and Zionism.

“As Irish people we know all too well about genocide, forced famine and violent occupation,” Rowe wrote in his own statement. “I cannot stand by and allow billionaires to use their position of power to silence the rightful voices of those who speak up against Israeli genocide and who highlight the savage murder of children.”

“It’s important that everyone knows that the real enemy is the zionist lobby,” Beoga, also an Irish act, wrote in the band’s own statement. “Research how much Robert Kraft has done to fight the BDS movement. That will give you a sense of what we’ve all been up against.”

In a shorter statement, Finneas said, “Artists must not be silenced when they speak up for the oppressed.” He added, “I stand with Palestine and its people.”

The Israeli-American Council, which organized a boycott against Macklemore following his New Jersey show, criticized Sheeran from the other direction in a new statement to the Jewish Telegraphic Agency.

“It’s time to take responsibility for giving a stage to antisemitic messaging,” the IAC said of Sheeran. “This isn’t just ‘criticism of Israel.’ It’s a message that crosses the line between legitimate political criticism and antisemitism. This is Ed Sheeran’s stage, it’s the tour that carries his name, and so the responsibility for what happens on it is his too.”

This post was originally published on here. 

U.S. households registered their highest income levels ever last year, while the poverty rate fell to a record low, new government data released on Sept. 15 showed.
The median household earned $87,460 in 2025, according to the Census Bureau. After adjusting for inflation, that is the highest number since 1967, when the federal agency began tracking the data.
Post-tax median household income rose more than 3 percent from 2024 to $76,060.
Other demographics recorded different gains last year. Black households posted a nearly 5 percent increase in median income. By comparison, median incomes for white households edged up 3 percent. There was no sizable change for Asian or Hispanic households….

This post was originally published here. 

A recall has been issued for So Delicious Dairy Free Salted Caramel Cluster Non-Dairy Frozen Dessert pints over the potential presence of foreign materials, including small stones and other hard objects, within the cashew inclusions.

Danone USA announced the voluntary recall for So Delicious Dairy Free Salted Caramel Cluster Non-Dairy Frozen Dessert pints, on Tuesday.

The recalled dessert item is packaged in pint containers with best-by dates on and before April 3, 2028. The recall applies to SKU 136603 (UPC 744473476138).

CREAM CHEESE AND DELI SALADS RECALLED OVER POTENTIAL LISTERIA CONTAMINATION

The recalled product were distributed to retail stores across the U.S.

The company is working with retail partners to remove affected products from shelves.

POPULAR SQUISHY TOYS RECALLED OVER POTENTIALLY DEADLY WATER BEAD HAZARD

No other So Delicious Dairy Free flavors or products are affected by the recall. Unaffected items are still available on store shelves, and products shipped moving forward are not affected by the recall.

The issue was identified through consumer complaints, the company said.

Danone USA said it has notified the Food and Drug Administration about the voluntary recall.

CLICK HERE TO GET FOX BUSINESS ON THE GO

Consumers who purchased the affected product are instructed not to consume it and to contact the So Delicious Dairy Free Consumer Care Line at 1-833-367-8975 for a replacement coupon or refund.

This post was originally published here. 

The US is preparing its largest single sale of 2,000-pound bombs to Israel, worth approximately $2.8 billion, in recent years, according to a Tuesday Washington Post report citing a US official.

The package will reportedly consist of 40,000 of the 2,000-pound bombs, including 20,000 MK-84s and 20,000 BLU-117s. The official told the Washington Post that the sale also included 20,000 I-2000 Penetrator warheads. 

The Washington Post described the MK-84 as “among the most destructive munitions in Western military arsenals,” noting that the munition can penetrate through metal and thick concrete.

According to the report, congressional committees have been informally notified of the pending transaction.

The Trump administration is also allegedly pressuring leaders of the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the House Foreign Affairs Committee to approve the sale.

The sale will be financed through the US’s Foreign Military Financing mechanism, and Israel will purchase the arms with grants provided through the mechanism.

The arms package is larger than previous US sales of 2,000-pound bombs to Israel, including a 2025 sale worth $2.04 billion.

This is a developing story.

This post was originally published on here. 


WASHINGTON, D.C. — The United States has publicly acknowledged for the first time that it has weapons deployed in orbit, marking a significant shift in how the Pentagon talks about military power in space.

Air Force Secretary Troy Meink made the disclosure Monday, Sept. 14, during the Air & Space Forces Association’s 2026 Air, Space & Cyber Conference in National Harbor, Maryland. The conference agenda listed Meink for a keynote address on “Advancing Combat Power in Air and Space.”

“The United States now has on-orbit space control weapons capable of defending the joint force against hostile adversary action,” Meink said.

He did not reveal what those weapons are, how many have been deployed or whether they are designed to physically destroy targets or disable them through electronic or other non-kinetic means. Asked afterward about the carefully worded announcement, Meink indicated that the phrasing was deliberate.

That makes the announcement important not only because of the technology involved, but because Washington is now willing to acknowledge publicly that such capabilities exist.

For years, U.S. military officials have increasingly warned that space can no longer be treated as a sanctuary from conflict. Satellites support military communications, intelligence, missile warning and navigation, while civilian infrastructure also depends heavily on satellite-based services.

The latest disclosure suggests the Pentagon has moved beyond simply discussing how it would defend those systems.

Why Announce It Now?

The military’s explanation centers on deterrence.

Gen. Stephen Whiting, commander of U.S. Space Command, has previously argued that effective deterrence in space requires “credible, acknowledged capabilities” that can impose costs on an attacker, alongside resilient systems that make an attack less useful in the first place.

In practical terms, the strategy is similar to deterrence in other military domains: an adversary considering an attack should know that the United States has the ability to respond.

That does not mean the newly acknowledged systems are necessarily intended to fire first, nor does the public information establish precisely what they can do. Meink provided no technical details.

But the announcement removes some of the ambiguity surrounding whether the U.S. actually has operational space-control weapons in orbit.

Why Satellites Matter to Everyday Americans

Space security can sound distant from ordinary life, but the infrastructure in orbit has direct consequences on the ground.

Satellites support GPS navigation and precise timing used across communications and other infrastructure, while also providing weather information and enabling major military functions.

For the Pentagon, that dependence creates a vulnerability. U.S. officials have repeatedly pointed to counterspace capabilities being developed by potential adversaries, particularly China and Russia, as justification for strengthening America’s ability to operate and fight in the domain.

The Pentagon’s position is essentially that protecting those systems requires more than simply making satellites harder to attack. The United States also wants the ability to impose consequences if an adversary attacks.

What About International Law?

Putting a weapon in orbit does not automatically violate the 1967 Outer Space Treaty.

The treaty prohibits placing nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction in orbit and establishes other restrictions on military activity in space. It does not impose a blanket prohibition on every conventional military or counterspace capability.

That distinction has become increasingly important as major powers develop technologies capable of interfering with satellites.

The new U.S. disclosure therefore does not by itself establish that Washington has violated the treaty. What remains unknown is exactly what the newly acknowledged weapons are and how they would operate.

A New Market for Defense Contractors

The shift also carries potential implications for America’s aerospace and defense industry.

The Pentagon’s growing emphasis on space warfare is creating demand across satellite communications, sensors, tracking, electronic warfare, launch services, command-and-control systems and satellite protection.

Major defense companies and newer space companies are already competing for Pentagon work as the military builds a more resilient space architecture. Recent market analysis has identified companies including Boeing, Northrop Grumman, Lockheed Martin, L3Harris, RTX and BAE Systems among established contractors positioned around the expanding military-space sector, alongside newer space-focused businesses.

However, acknowledging an operational capability does not automatically guarantee additional contracts or congressional funding. Future spending will still depend on Pentagon budget requests, congressional appropriations and the specific programs the military chooses to expand.

The Bigger Question

The disclosure leaves Washington with a difficult strategic calculation.

Publicly acknowledging weapons could strengthen deterrence by making America’s ability to respond more credible. That is the argument U.S. military leaders have made.

But greater transparency could also encourage rival powers to reveal, expand or more openly deploy their own counterspace capabilities.

For now, much remains classified.

Meink did not identify the systems involved or disclose their numbers, locations or exact capabilities. What changed Monday was not necessarily what America can do in space, but what its government is prepared to say publicly about it.

For the first time, the Pentagon has openly acknowledged that the United States has space-control weapons operating in orbit.

The next question is whether that acknowledgment makes an increasingly contested space environment more stable through deterrence — or marks the beginning of a more openly armed era above Earth.

JBizNews Desk | Washington, D.C.

© JBizNews.com. All Rights Reserved. Reproduction or distribution without written permission is prohibited.

Two House Democrats sided with Republicans Monday to push a sweeping Russia sanctions bill through the Rules Committee, clearing the way for a floor vote later this week over the objections of Democratic leadership.

Here is what actually happened: the bill, named for the late Sen. Lindsey Graham, had to clear the Rules Committee before reaching the House floor. Republicans hold the majority there, but the crossover votes gave the move bipartisan cover at a moment when top House Democrats were publicly campaigning against the bill.

The legislation itself is straightforward, even if the politics around it are not. It would let President Trump impose tariffs as high as 100% on the five biggest buyers of Russian oil or natural gas. China and India top that list. The goal is to choke off the money Russia earns selling energy and use that pressure to push Vladimir Putin toward ending the war in Ukraine.

The bill also hits Russia directly. It sanctions Putin and his senior officials, major Russian banks including the Central Bank, Sberbank and Gazprombank, and Russian state-owned companies. It targets foreign firms helping Russia’s military industry and goes after Moscow’s shadow fleet, the aging tankers that move sanctioned oil around Western restrictions by hiding where it came from.

There is a review built in. Every 180 days, the list of targeted countries gets reassessed. A country importing less than 15% of Russia’s total natural gas exports, and actively cutting that further, would be exempt from the tariffs.

The bill carries Graham’s name because he spent more than a year pushing it before he died July 11 at 71 from a suspected aortic tear. His sister, Darline Graham, was appointed to his Senate seat and became the lead author of the final version. The Senate passed it 86-11 in August, one of the most lopsided bipartisan votes of the year.

The House has been a different story. Top House Democrats, including Reps. Gregory Meeks, Richard Neal and Don Beyer, along with Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, have argued the bill hands Trump too much tariff authority and could raise prices for Americans while failing to mandate sanctions on Russia. Republican leadership had actually dropped the bill from the agenda and planned an early recess, but brought it back to the Rules Committee as an emergency measure.

That is what makes Monday’s vote notable. Even as party leaders pushed back publicly, two Democrats broke ranks on the committee, a signal the bill may find more support on the floor than its critics are letting on.

Timing is tight. This is likely the last chance the House gets to act before the midterm elections, since lawmakers are set to spend the rest of September and October back home campaigning. A floor vote could come as soon as later this week.

JBizNews Desk | Washington

© JBizNews.com All Rights Reserved. Reproduction or distribution without written permission is prohibited.

There once was a time when most cars on the road did not have air bags as a standard under federal law. It took until 1998, in fact, for every vehicle on the round to have an airbag as required by federal law — that’s over 100 years after the invention of the first automobile and roughly 30 years after airbags were first invented as a safety measure. Something like that is playing out again, except this time with robotaxis and cyber protections.

Louay Abdelkader, director of product management at QNX, identified it as a huge problem for the sector, “of course … keep in mind that in automotive safety, it took a while for it to adopt.” Abdelkader told Fortune lawmakers should make cybersecurity a primary consideration akin to airbags, noting that every connected vehicle introduces some degree of cyber risk.

Much of the debate over robotaxis has focused elsewhere, such as whether they are indeed smart enough to avoid collisions, how insurance companies should assign liability in an accident, or how police can deal with driverless cars that commit traffic violations. 

Abdelkader told Fortune lawmakers should make cybersecurity a primary consideration, noting that every connected vehicle introduces some degree of cyber risk.

Robotaxis are proliferating across the country, however, with the robotaxi company Zoox most recently receiving regulatory approval from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration for a commercial exemption, allowing the paid service broader access without manual controls. Tesla also has moved into the robotaxi space, with the advent of Cybercab in at least seven cities.

Meanwhile, Alphabet-owned Waymo has expanded from its beginnings in Arizona to 11 major U.S. cities—even pairing with rideshare company Uber in a few cities.

Unlike conventional vehicles, robotaxis depend on dozens of interconnected electronic control units, high-speed networking, cloud connectivity, GPS, cameras, lidar, radar and AI models that continuously interpret the world around them. Every one of those components expands what cybersecurity professionals call “attack surface,” or the number of possible entry points hackers can exploit.

While Hollywood often depicts hackers remotely hijacking an entire vehicle, experts say modern attacks are more likely to target the broader ecosystem surrounding autonomous cars. 

Even if attackers cannot directly steer a vehicle, disrupted communications could degrade an autonomous system’s ability to safely navigate. In San Francisco, “tech prankster” Riley Walz organized a group DDOS—a denial-of-service—attack on local Waymos. 

The prank consisted of 50 individuals simultaneously ordering a Waymo on the same dead-end street, creating a pileup that made the company disable rides until the next morning.

The DDOS came despite rules from California, where Waymo operates service in San Francisco and Los Angeles, that require autonomous vehicle manufacturers to demonstrate they can safely monitor, update and maintain their fleets while complying with federal vehicle cybersecurity guidance.

Waymo and the California DMV did not respond to requests for comment.

The advent of generative AI has added to cybersecurity risks in robotaxis. Historically, hackers often needed significant time, technical expertise and resources to identify and exploit vulnerabilities. But AI has dramatically compressed that timeline, according to Abdelkader.

He said malicious actors can use AI to identify vulnerabilities, automate attacks and develop exploits far faster—and with more malicious intent—than Walz’s “prank.”

Abdelkader said cybersecurity for robotaxis is largely the responsibility of both manufacturers and lawmakers. He argued manufacturers must build security into autonomous vehicles from the beginning, not treating it as an add-on.

“When you’re developing a cybersecurity system, you start from the ground up. It’s like building a house,” he said. “If your foundation is not strong, it becomes very difficult for you to build a robust and secure house.”

Like California, some jurisdictions have already begun treating cybersecurity as part of autonomous vehicle regulation rather than an afterthought. Arizona has incorporated cybersecurity planning into broader autonomous vehicle deployment policies, while states including Michigan have established cybersecurity initiatives through partnerships with industry and research institutions.

Internationally, regulators have also moved further. The United Nations’ UN Regulation No. 155 now requires automakers in many markets to maintain certified cybersecurity management systems throughout a vehicle’s lifecycle, while ISO/SAE 21434 establishes engineering standards for cybersecurity across vehicle development.

But in New York City, where Mayor Zohran Mamdani has refused to renew the license for Waymo, cybersecurity has been missing from the debate over robotaxis. The young mayor has instead focused on labor protection, citing taxi drivers as the main point of concern with allowing robotaxis to roam Manhattan.

“If a company like Waymo finds itself in New York City, what they will also find is a City government that is committed to delivering for the workers who keep the city running,” he said at a press conference. “Those workers also include our taxi drivers who, for far too long, have been sold a dream of being able to work their way to the middle class.”

Mamdani’s office did not respond to a request for comment.

But Abdelkader argues that all lawmakers across the country should build on existing frameworks rather than waiting for a cyber incident to expose a weakness. He says policymakers often separate safety from cybersecurity too often, even though “they are tied at the hip.”

“The legislators and politicians have to work with them to make sure that moving forward, if there are improvements that need to be done, what type of support is required,” he told Fortune. “You need to be able to talk and share that feedback. That’s the only way for the industry to grow effectively and benefit society.”

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

This post was originally published here. 

After years building her journalism career across CNN, Bloomberg, ABC and CBS, Ariella Noveck understood the power of those shaping the news and wondered: how could education and engagement lead to understanding? Her answer was action. She pioneered journalist missions to Israel, exposing journalists firsthand to Ethiopian aliyah, medicine and technology.

That vision grew into ShieldGiving, the nonprofit she founded as a “Birthright for journalists,” bringing anchors, producers and media makers to Israel for firsthand experiences and verified sources. When October 7 came, those relationships mattered. Noveck assisted the IDF Spokesperson’s Unit, bringing hostage families, Nova survivors and students confronting antisemitism into mainstream media. One hostage told her that seeing his brother on television from captivity “kept me alive.” That impact defines her mission. One informed storyteller can educate a newsroom, reach millions and impact generations. For Israel, Zionism and the Jewish people, that is the change she is determined to make.

This post was originally published on here. 

As a researcher and leading voice in Israel’s national security landscape, Ofir Dayan has dedicated her career to defending the Jewish state on the global stage. Leading the antisemitism and delegitimization research team at the Institute for National Security Studies (INSS), a team she founded, her work directly shapes strategic policies that protect Israel’s international standing.

Her battle against delegitimization began during her time at Columbia University, where she led pro-Israel campus organizations, a pivotal experience that later inspired her book Intifada on the Hudson. Recognized with the Forum Dvorah Young Leadership Award, Dayan bridges academia and public discourse as a weekly columnist for Makor Rishon and a frequent commentator on international security. Also a reserve officer in the IDF Spokesperson Unit, Dayan is dedicated to building the intellectual and public armor to defeat threats to Zionism.

This post was originally published on here. 

Raz Malka was born and raised in Kiryat Shmona, a city that has benefited from record philanthropic investments from Jewish National Fund-USA. The city is a place  where Zionism has always meant more than words. It has meant choosing to stay, build, and take responsibility for Israel’s northern frontier. At age eighteen he ran for Kiryat Shmona City Council, becoming one of Israel’s youngest municipal candidates. Today, he is completing Reichman University’s Honors Track in Strategy and Decision-Making.

Over the past three years, while pursuing an intensive degree and living through the war and evacuation of the North, Malka has worked to bring the North’s story to every platform he could, in Israel and abroad. The loss of his cousin, Regev Amar, on October 7 strengthened his determination to act. Malka co-founded Lobby 1701, a movement that represents thousands of residents and shares the story of the North. He has given hundreds of interviews, joined advocacy missions abroad, met decision-makers, and led tours and briefings for Knesset members, diplomats, soldiers, and Jewish leaders.

This post was originally published on here. 

Mustapha Ezzarghani has chosen one of the hardest paths in today’s world: building trust where hatred has taken root. As a Moroccan-American Muslim, he founded the Moroccan-Israeli Friendship Association, endeavoring to strengthen ties between Muslims and Jews and between Morocco and Israel at a time when many view such efforts with suspicion. He recently founded Abrahamic Voice, a Georgia-based nonprofit media and educational initiative with the mission of promoting Muslim-Jewish understanding and providing Arabic-speaking audiences with credible, constructive content about Jewish history, Israel, antisemitism, and peaceful conflict resolution. The goal is to challenge the misinformation and ideological narratives that have shaped attitudes toward Jews and Israel across much of the Arabic-speaking world. 

Through his writing, public speaking, media appearances, and the launch of Abrahamic Voice, Ezzarghani is creating Arabic-language educational content that challenges misinformation and promotes dialogue, historical understanding, and coexistence. Ezzarghani believes his greatest achievement is building a growing movement that encourages people to rethink inherited narratives and see one another’s humanity. He believes lasting peace begins by changing minds, and he has dedicated his career to doing exactly that.

This post was originally published on here. 

Shira Lapid has never waited for someone else to solve a problem. When she sees a need, she builds. After October 7, that meant co-founding a civilian emergency headquarters in New York that helped thousands of Israelis return home. Today, it means representing Israel at the United Nations and working to strengthen Israel’s voice on the global stage.

Lapid also built Sabres Club, a community created to give young Israelis in New York something many of them miss: a place that feels like home. A place where people can speak Hebrew, celebrate together, make lifelong friends, and feel connected to Israel no matter how far away they are. Lapid believes leadership is about service, resilience, and bringing people together to create lasting change.

This post was originally published on here. 

Forty-three Israeli human rights, equality, and peace organizations have issued a joint statement in support of NAZA filmmakers Yuval Abraham and Rachel Szor on Tuesday, following a wave of threats against them.

Public backlash in Israel against the documentary’s producers was sparked after it won the Special Jury Award at the Venice Film Festival. The creators published a promo for the movie in which an anonymous IDF soldier described AI targeting software used during the campaign in Gaza.

The statement called on Israeli authorities to cease threats and refrain from calls to revoke the filmmakers’ citizenship or legally prosecute them and their sources.

In reaction to the documentary’s award and global accolades, Culture Minister Miki Zohar characterized the film as “horrifying” and an “act of treason against the state.” 

Zohar said he would take immediate action to revoke the citizenship of NAZA’s creators in a post on X/Twitter this Sunday.

83rd Venice International Film Festival - Closing Ceremony Saturday, 12th September 2026, 23:47 (credit: REUTERS/YVES HERMAN)

“The institutional response to the film and the threats against its creators are characteristic of dictatorial regimes,” the statement said.

“Citizenship is not a prize granted by the regime or the government, but a fundamental right belonging to each and every one of us.”

The groups emphasized that freedom of expression and freedom of the press are integral to the struggle for democracy, warning that persecution and attempts to silence dissent do not stop with one person or issue.

‘NAZA’ has yet to be released

The statement noted that most members representing the organizations in the petition had not seen the film, as it has yet to be fully released; the statement said the issue at the core of the discussion around NAZA demands an investigation. 

The petition also cited the death toll in Gaza, which the IDF estimates stands at roughly 70,000, and called for the allegations raised in the film to be thoroughly investigated and for independent journalists to be allowed to report from Gaza.

The joint statement from the human rights groups follows a petition signed by over 1,000 Israeli filmmakers yesterday in solidarity with the filmmakers of NAZA amid backlash to the film’s claims.

The petition stated that “We filmmakers and creators call on everyone who is still fighting for freedom of expression and artistic freedom to join us in expressing support and solidarity with Rachel Szor and Yuval Abraham, the creators of the film NAZA.”

The creators further warned that the ongoing uproar and hostility could endanger the physical safety of the filmmakers.

The petition stressed the importance of independent journalism in Israel.

“The central role of art and journalism is to hold up a mirror to the society in which they exist and to generate discourse and debate without giving anyone a pass, even when the reality is difficult.”

This post was originally published on here. 

Mark Zuckerberg has access to some of the most sophisticated artificial intelligence systems on the planet. He is also building a company around the idea that AI can dramatically reduce the need for human work.

A recent Reuters investigation offers a revealing glimpse of where that idea can lead. Meta’s Project OT envisioned an “AI-native” company in which AI agents would take over much of the work performed by thousands of employees. Teams could become dramatically smaller. Some layers of management could disappear. Zuckerberg himself has been using what Meta calls a “CEO agent,” allowing him to retrieve answers that previously required going through several layers of staff.

The attraction is obvious. Every organization contains friction. Meetings take time. Information gets lost between layers. There’s push back.  Decisions move slowly. AI can compress all of this.

Yet some friction serves a different purpose. It comes from people who disagree, see problems differently, remember inconvenient facts or ask questions that others would rather avoid.

That distinction matters enormously as AI moves from helping people perform tasks to helping leaders think.

We call these two forms of friction coordination friction and cognitive friction. Coordination friction comes from the mechanics of collective work: scheduling, documentation, data reconciliation, approvals and communication. AI can reduce much of this friction with obvious benefits.

Cognitive friction comes from the resistance between ideas. Two people may look at the same evidence and reach different conclusions because they have different assumptions, experiences or ways of framing the problem. That friction can be uncomfortable. It also can be generative.

This creates a peculiar danger for people at the top of organizations.

Imagine a CEO who once received information through several layers of people. Each layer introduced interpretation. Each person brought a different mental model. Someone might challenge the premise of a question. Someone else might point out an anomaly. Another might say, “We tried this three years ago, and here is what happened.”

An AI agent can make that entire process dramatically faster. It can retrieve the information, synthesize it and present a coherent answer.

And coherence can feel like intelligence.

The danger arises when AI becomes a sophisticated mirror.  Instead of creating distance from an existing worldview, it can make that worldview more articulate, comprehensive and persuasive. The user experiences an apparent external intelligence while interacting with a system that has learned from the user’s preferences from their previous questions, prompts, assumptions, and accumulated information.

This is self-referentiality automated at scale.

There is a useful distinction here between two possible roles for AI: peacemaking and sensemaking.

A peacemaker resolves contradictions. It finds common ground, smooths disagreements and produces an answer that hangs together.

A sensemaker does something harder. It exposes contradictions. It identifies hidden assumptions. It searches for evidence that does not fit. It constructs the strongest argument against the user’s position. It keeps competing interpretations alive long enough for them to teach us something.

For an individual thinker, we argue that AI should function more like a sparring partner than a mirror.

This distinction becomes especially important for CEOs because their organizations already tend toward self-reference. The higher someone rises, the more information is filtered before reaching them. The very efficiency of an AI system can intensify that tendency. A CEO agent may give its user faster access to the organization while simultaneously reducing exposure to the people who would have challenged the organization’s assumptions. (maybe: AI is The New Organization Man – the ultimate corporate “yes-person” that ideally fits into the organization, respects hierarchy, and suppresses individual judgment and self-reflection.  Instead of Groupthink we have Algothink)  

This may help explain a larger paradox emerging at Meta.

Project OT was built around the premise that AI could allow smaller, more “talent-dense” groups to accomplish work previously requiring much larger teams. Meta ultimately abandoned its most aggressive workforce-reduction plans after internal data raised questions about whether dramatically increased AI-assisted coding was translating into comparable gains in user-facing products.

The lesson extends far beyond Meta.

AI makes it increasingly attractive to build end-to-end systems. In science, this means systems that can generate hypotheses, run experiments, analyze results and produce scientific papers. In organizations, the emerging equivalent runs from information gathering through synthesis, decision-making and execution.

The more complete the loop becomes, the more important the points of friction become.[BU1] 

A fully integrated system can become exceptionally good at optimizing what it already believes matters. Its greatest weakness may emerge at the boundary where someone asks whether the system is solving the right problem.

Science provides a useful warning. Scientific progress depends on variation. Different laboratories pursue similar questions using different methods. Researchers make different bets. Most fail. Occasionally, an unexpected result opens an entirely new direction. Our paper argues that end-to-end AI systems could compress this variation by steering exploration toward what existing data suggest is likely to succeed.

Organizations face a similar choice.

AI can make coordination extraordinarily cheap. That is a tremendous opportunity. It also means that disagreement can become easier to eliminate, alternative interpretations easier to compress and decisions easier to accelerate.

The real leadership challenge of the AI era may therefore be learning where friction is a cost and where friction is a source of intelligence.

The best AI for a leader may sometimes be the system that slows the leader down: the one that says, “Here is the strongest argument against your position,” “Here is what your model cannot explain,” or simply, “Here is another way to see the problem.”

AI can make leaders faster. The harder challenge is making sure it also makes them more capable of seeing beyond themselves.

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

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

This post was originally published here. 

Crypto spent years trying to become part of mainstream American finance. Tuesday afternoon, Washington slammed on the brakes.

The Senate failed to advance the CLARITY Act, the sweeping legislation designed to finally establish federal rules governing how cryptocurrencies and other digital assets are bought, sold and regulated in the United States.

The vote was 49–50 — well short of the 60 votes needed to move the legislation forward.

Markets reacted immediately.

Bitcoin fell roughly 4% to around $75,900, while shares of Coinbase and Circle, two of the companies with the most to gain from clearer federal crypto rules, dropped about 9%.

That reaction tells the bigger story.

For crypto companies, this was never simply another Washington regulatory bill. It was supposed to provide the legal foundation that could make banks, asset managers, brokers and other traditional financial institutions more comfortable building large businesses around digital assets.

Right now, one of the industry’s biggest problems is that companies still do not always know whether a digital token will ultimately be treated as a security overseen by the Securities and Exchange Commission or a commodity falling largely under the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

The CLARITY Act was designed to draw those lines much more clearly.

That matters to Wall Street because regulatory uncertainty has a price.

A bank deciding whether to offer crypto products, an investment firm building a digital-asset platform or a company considering issuing a token has to calculate not only whether the business will make money, but whether regulators could later decide that the product violated securities laws.

Clear rules reduce that risk.

Without legislation, much of the framework will continue to depend on rules and interpretations coming directly from the SEC and CFTC. Those agencies can still move forward, but regulations created administratively can be changed by future administrations or challenged in court more easily than legislation passed by Congress.

The bill’s defeat also shows how far apart Washington remains despite crypto’s growing presence inside traditional finance.

The industry spent heavily lobbying for the legislation and arguing that the United States risks pushing digital-asset businesses and jobs overseas without a permanent regulatory framework.

Critics raised a different set of concerns, including money laundering protections, financial stability and whether the legislation gave crypto companies too much freedom compared with banks and traditional securities firms.

Those disagreements ultimately prevented supporters from finding the 60 Senate votes required Tuesday.

The timing makes the defeat particularly important. Congress is approaching its pre-midterm election break, sharply reducing the amount of legislative time available this year.

That means companies that spent 2026 preparing for the possibility of a comprehensive federal crypto framework may now have to keep operating under the same regulatory uncertainty they hoped Congress was finally about to resolve.

Crypto has already made substantial progress onto Wall Street through Bitcoin exchange-traded funds, institutional trading platforms and growing involvement from major financial companies.

But Tuesday’s vote showed the difference between Wall Street accepting crypto as an investment and Washington permanently defining the rules under which the industry operates.

The first has already happened.

The second will have to wait.

JBizNews Desk | Washington

© JBizNews.com. All rights reserved. This article is original reporting by JBizNews Desk. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution is strictly prohibited.

Cisco Systems likely violated the civil rights of Palestinian, Arab, and Muslim employees, a federal agency has found, after employees were subjected to harassing messages, some of them posted by employees in an internal forum called the Connected Jewish Network.

The US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission determined in June that there was “reasonable cause to believe” Cisco subjected the employees to a hostile work environment based on their national origin, religion, or association in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 

The determination follows media reports and an EEOC probe into an ugly climate at the tech company following the Oct. 7, 2023, deadly attacks by Hamas on southern Israel. Pro-Palestinian employees called on the company to end its business dealings with Israel, while Jewish employees said the company had failed to protect them from harassment by pro-Palestinian employees. 

The EEOC case, however, turned in part on messages shared in the internal Connected Jewish Network forum. A complaint filed by Legal Aid at Work, which represented the Muslim and pro-Palestinian employees, said employees on the Jewish forum had “repeatedly glorified violence, joked about sending people to their deaths” and “labeled Palestinians, Arabs, and Muslims as murderous, violent, terrorists.”

“This is a massive multinational corporation with all the resources in the world, and they couldn’t get it right,” Christopher Ho, a director at Legal Aid at Work, told The Guardian, which reported on the EEOC finding last month. “Thankfully the EEOC did.” 

In this photo illustration, a person holds a smartphone displaying the logo of Cisco Systems Inc. (credit:  illustration by Cheng Xin/Getty Images)

Ho said Cisco had “at best failed to take their harassment seriously” and through its inaction had sent “the implicit message that its pro-Palestinian employees were unworthy of protection.”

Employees consider legal action after EEOC determination

The letter is not a binding ruling, and both sides said the EEOC has indicated it will not sue. The finding could nonetheless strengthen employees’ cases if they pursue their own lawsuits. The employees are considering collective and individual litigation, according to media reports.

The case examines the period after a group of mostly Palestinian, Arab and Muslim employees called Bridge to Humanity circulated an open letter urging Cisco to end its business dealings with the Israeli military. More than 1,700 employees signed the letter. The employees said they were subsequently subjected to racist and Islamophobic harassment.

In August 2024, employees, including some concerned Jewish employees, filed a 76-page ethics complaint accusing more than a dozen colleagues of creating a hostile work environment through posts on the Connected Jewish Network, which was visible to all company employees, according to the Guardian. 

The episode was not one-sided. Wired magazine, in a 2024 investigation into the dispute, reported that some Jewish Cisco employees also believed the company had failed to protect them from harassment by pro-Palestinian employees. One former employee told the magazine that Cisco leadership could have done more to “reduce the mess across the board.”

Cisco case comes amid broader EEOC workplace enforcement efforts

Legal Aid at Work believes this is the first EEOC finding against a major tech company involving discrimination against workers engaged in pro-Palestinian advocacy. Since the Oct. 7 attacks, the EEOC has made combating workplace antisemitism a major policy and enforcement priority, with scrutiny on academia and the private sector increasing under the Trump administration.

Cisco has disputed the EEOC’s determination, saying it had “thoroughly investigated all concerns and took appropriate action.” The company previously said it had removed some comments, issued discipline warnings, and provided coaching to multiple employees.

This post was originally published on here. 

IDF Chief of Staff, Lt.-Gen. Eyal Zamir instructed the Military Advocate General, Maj.-Gen. Itai Ofir to open an investigation into the NAZA documentary on Tuesday, after tensions over the film’s subject matter ignited in Israel.

The IDF has also asked the Shin Bet (Israel Security Agency) to assist with its investigation into the film, according to a Ynet report.

The Shin Bet has reportedly not yet agreed to join the investigation and told the IDF it is awaiting a formal request before getting involved. 

According to Ynet, the request will only be submitted after Ofir reaches a decision on the investigation in coordination with Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara.

Investigation could result in legal action against filmmakers

On Monday, Zamir announced his intention to order a review of the film, suggesting that legal action could be taken against the directors of NAZA, filmmakers Yuval Abraham and Rachel Szor.

Directors Yuval Abraham and Rachel Szor, and crew pose during a photocall for the documentary ''Naza'' in Competition, at the 83rd Venice International Film Festival, in Venice, Italy, September 10, 2026.  (credit: REUTERS/YVES HERMAN)

The military investigation would also probe information security concerns, including the possibility that classified material was leaked and used in the film.

The investigation would also involve officials examining the identities of those interviewed for the film and assessing whether any remain active in the IDF or reserve forces.

Military officials said they would consider taking legal action if they find that active-duty personnel had shared unauthorized information with the filmmakers. The investigation will reportedly focus on the IDF’s Unit 8200 because a security leak could harm its operations and personnel.

Southern Command chief defends IDF conduct amid NAZA criticism

In response to criticism of Israel over the film, Southern Command chief Maj.-Gen. Yaniv Asor defended the IDF’s conduct during the Gaza war, emphasizing the importance of the military examining its own actions, the IDF Spokesperson’s Unit shared in a statement Tuesday.

Speaking at a Rosh Hashanah ceremony attended by senior commanders and local authority leaders in the western Negev, Asor said, “In this war, we carry a torch of light and good, and we are fighting a great war against darkness and evil.”

According to the IDF statement, Asor said the military would respond to criticism by presenting facts and examining failures when they arise. “In the face of false claims, we will present facts; to difficult questions, we will respond honestly; and when a failure is revealed, we will examine, learn, and correct,” he said.

Asor added that the IDF’s belief in the justice of its cause requires it to review its decisions and correct mistakes when necessary, saying this reflects a commitment rather than a claim of perfection.

IDF Paratroopers Brigade operating in the Gaza Strip. Pictures released on August 24, 2026. (credit: IDF SPOKESPERSON'S UNIT)

IDF commander says Hamas operates from within Gazan society

Addressing Hamas’ role in Gaza, Asor said, “Hamas prepared itself in the heart of a population that supports it, sympathizes with it, and identifies with it.” He added that Hamas is not a “foreign entity” in Gaza, but instead developed within the society there, while noting that some residents oppose the group but cannot influence events.

Asor said the IDF seeks to distinguish between combatants and civilians and works to minimize harm to those not involved in hostilities. He added that Israeli forces are continuing operations near the Yellow Line to prevent Hamas from rebuilding its capabilities, including targeting tunnels, weapons, and weapons-production infrastructure.

This post was originally published on here. 

Concerns about AI safety are reaching a fever pitch in the U.S. after a X post by a former Anthropic researcher went viral, claiming the technology could kill all of humanity by the end of the decade. In response, the CEOs from OpenAI and Anthropic have reiterated their calls for the U.S. to coordinate with China to slow and pace AI development.

OpenAI CEO Sam Altman even tried to appeal to the egos of the leading figures, telling Fortune in an interview Friday that he believed U.S. President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping could win the Nobel Peace Prize if the two leaders struck a deal on AI safety.

But the idea of an AI slowdown seems to have fallen on deaf ears with President Trump and President Xi, who are set to meet on Sept. 24. Both have rejected the idea.

Trump said “the only controls or ‘guardrails’ the U.S. needs is a STRONG AND SMART (High IQ!) PRESIDENT” in a Sept. 14 Truth Social post. The same day, China’s Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Guo Jiakun called the current discourse in the U.S. “fear-mongering” that “will only hamper efforts toward sound global AI governance, which serves no one’s interest.”

In China, the calls for a slowdown have also come off as an attempt by the U.S. to maintain its leading edge, as it has tried to do by limiting the export of advanced AI chips to China.

“Xi is unhappy with recent U.S. moves to contain Chinese advances in AI, robotics, and drones,” said George Chen, Partner and Chair of Digital Practice, The Asia Group. “For Xi, AI is the new internet — a once‑in‑a‑lifetime chance to reshape the technological balance of power. China does not need U.S. permission to accelerate or decelerate its AI investments; Xi will pursue his own agenda.”

Trump echoed Xi in his Truth Social post, saying, “Whoever wins AI, wins!”

The leaders are expected to begin discussing AI safety when they meet, but any kind of agreement between the countries is “a long way” off, according to Paul Triolo, global technology policy lead at the advisory firm DGA. Xi wants to have a “serious dialogue on frontier AI model safety,” Triolo said, but the two countries have yet to “establish a baseline level of agreement on things like the role of government, [and] how and which models should be tested.”

Also on the table for discussion is an agreement to not weaponize AI, and an exploration of the “principles to prevent misuse of AI models by non‑state actors, such as attacks on global financial systems or critical infrastructure, which neither country wants to see,” Chen said.

Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei’s letter has landed poorly in China—and with Trump

Although OpenAI CEO Sam Altman tweeted about a coordinated slowdown, asking the U.S. government to help facilitate it, the letter Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei’s published on Sept. 12 has drawn a particularly polarizing reaction. While some in the U.S. have praised it as a useful framework for containing the risks of AI, it’s not been well received in China.

In the letter, Amodei calls for the U.S. and China to agree to a “speed limit” for AI development. When discussing his letter in an interview with CBS Sunday Morning, Amodei likened the competition between the U.S. and China to the Cold War, when the U.S. and Soviet Union were racing to develop nuclear weapons. Amodei says at a bare minimum Washington D.C. and Beijing should agree that neither country will use AI to develop biological weapons, and he reiterates his belief that the U.S. should not sell advanced chips to China.

Brosi Babic, a professor at the University of Hong Kong, calls Amodei’s letter “self-serving editorializing” that is “conveniently coming at a time when the gap between Chinese and frontier US models is shrinking, as an attempt to hang on to a vanishing market lead.” To him, the proposals for an AI slowdown have “been framed in such a conniving and childish way” that they are unlikely to drive Xi’s agenda for the meeting with Trump.

Trump has also denounced Amodei’s letter. He called Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang when Huang happened to be speaking on stage. Huang put Trump on speaker phone in front of the crowd, and Trump said, “Whatever Dario said this weekend won’t stop our progress.” He also called the backlash to data centers and fears that AI will “take over” a “hoax.”

A social media post by Shengyu Liu, an engineer at DeepSeek, is gaining traction for comparing Anthropic achieving “advanced artificial intelligence” to “Hitler obtaining atomic-bomb technology before the Allies.”

Liu also highlights another important difference between the U.S. and China’s approach to AI technology: the U.S. industry generally favors closed models made by companies such as Anthropic and OpenAI, while China has focused on releasing lower-cost, open-weight models, such as those made by DeepSeek.

“I still believe that frontier intelligence should be made available to everyone in an open and inexpensive form,” Liu said. “I do not trust Anthropic or OpenAI to do this.”

The AI dialogue in China dramatically differs from in the U.S.

Outside of politics, the current uproar in the U.S. about AI safety and “saving humanity”–a phrase the tech industry has latched onto—has not taken hold in China. In fact, the Chinese public, also generally sees the idea of a slowdown as an attempt by the U.S. to get ahead and has a growing mistrust of the U.S. tech industry.

“Younger generations in particular are adopting more pro‑government views, encouraged to feel pride as the ‘new generation of Chinese,’ with the narrative of ‘China rising, U.S. declining’ gaining traction,” Chen said.

Most Chinese people believe it’s the government’s responsibility to manage AI safety risks, Chen said. For ordinary citizens and business people, they are less focused on regulation and more on the practical benefits of AI, including how they can use it to improve their daily lives or to generate income.

“The vast majority of average Chinese citizens are very positive about technology in general and AI in particular,” Triolo said. “They have seen major improvements in the quality of life in China brought on by technology, and are very willing to use AI and other technologies. There is not really much discussion of some of the doomer themes on AI, such as existential threats to humanity.”

However, those working inside China’s AI industry are attuned to the safety risks and take them seriously. The “levels of discussion within this group are very sophisticated,” Triolo said. “Chinese AI safety researchers are very concerned about cyber security and biosecurity risks, and about things like loss of control.”

Some Chinese politicians have also called for more regulation, though not necessarily in partnership with the U.S. Chen Yixin, the head of China’s Ministry of State Security, this week called for more government oversight of AI, which he said posed a direct threat to the Chinese Communist Party’s control, The New York Times reports.

With the idea of an AI slowdown seemingly rejected by Trump and Xi, along with a growing chasm between the nations’ attitudes toward AI, all eyes will be on Trump and Xi’s meeting next week to see what, if any, progress can be made to avoid the potentially disastrous outcome the U.S. labs are warning about.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

This post was originally published here. 

Toronto mayoral candidates traded sharp criticisms during the city’s first televised debate hosted on Monday by the Daily Bread Food Bank, with challenger Chris Alexander directly confronting incumbent Mayor Olivia Chow over her record on public safety and her handling of rising antisemitism.

The flashpoint occurred during a candidate-led questioning segment when former cabinet minister and mayoral contender Chris Alexander pressed Chow on her absence last week from a community event focused on combating anti-Jewish hate. The forum, hosted by the Jewish Lawyers of Canada (JLC), was organized to allow candidates to present their strategies for tackling antisemitism, protecting community institutions, and strengthening public safety in the city.

Chow opted out of participating in the event, with her campaign team explaining to local outlets that she would not take part in any debates prior to the official launch of her reelection campaign.

Addressing the incumbent directly during Tuesday’s debate, Alexander criticized her absence and the broader climate, saying, “You won’t sit on the police board; you don’t acknowledge that there are serious problems of crime in this city,” and adding, “but there is one community in this city that feels very much afraid and feels neglected by you, and those are Jewish Torontonians.”

Alexander further emphasized the severity of the issue, telling Chow, “You missed an important debate that would have been a debate with your presence about that issue. You failed them for three years. Why did you not come to that discussion in a synagogue with Jewish Torontonians to talk about how we make them safe?”

Toronto mayoral candidate Chris Alexander at a televised debate, September 14, 2026. (credit: Screenshot/YouTube/Daily Bread Food Bank)

Toronto mayor denounces antisemitism, emphasizes Jewish safety

Responding directly to the mounting pressure and her decision not to attend the forum, Chow maintained her stance, stating, “Antisemitism is unacceptable and wrong, the Jewish community should feel safe in our city, and I will continue to invest in communities and the work of confronting antisemitism head on.”

Alexander responded: “This is an issue that is unprecedented in our history in recent decades, the worst wave of hate crimes, acts of violence, threats against one community, and if it happens to one community, we all know in this room it can happen to any community. Why should anyone pick you as their next mayor when you are unable to fulfill your responsibility for basic public safety for a major community in this city?”

Chow defended her record by adding, “I will work together with the police and the communities to make sure that Jewish residents are protected,” noting that her administration has consistently worked alongside the city council and police over the past three years to bring people together and confront hate.

The live debate also included Brad Bradford, a city councilor who is challenging Chow.

Bradford, along with Alexander, also participated in the debate hosted by JLC last week, where he too commented on the mayor’s absence, noting, “I’m disappointed that the mayor wasn’t here tonight because… we’re not having a real conversation about antisemitism, about Jew-hatred, that’s festered like an infection in the city over the past three years.”

Emphasizing that leadership requires direct engagement, he added, “And the mayor’s job is to be the mayor for everybody. And that means you’ve got to show up.”

JLC calls for mayor to be proactive in addressing antisemitism

In a statement to The Jerusalem Post, JLC addressed the exchange and the incumbent’s absence. While welcoming the fact that these issues were put directly to the mayor, the organization emphasized that condemnation alone is insufficient.

“Mayor Chow said that antisemitism is unacceptable and wrong. We agree,” JLC stated. “But what was missing from the exchange was a substantive explanation of what Toronto’s strategy is going forward. City Council has taken positive steps, including the introduction of bubble-zone protections, but individual measures are not the same thing as a clear, comprehensive and measurable plan.”

JLC further stressed that leadership requires proactive strategies rather than reactive statements, noting that “condemnation is not a strategy and it is not a substitute for a plan. The Jewish community should not have to wait for the next incident to find out what its leaders intend to do differently.”

B’nai Brith Canada’s CEO Simon Wolle said in a statement to the Post, “It is shameful for the mayor to continually ignore the Jewish community at a time when many Jewish Torontonians feel abandoned.

“Antisemitism is a leading indicator of societal decay, and history shows that extremism never stops with one group. When a mayor tolerates the targeting of Jewish neighborhoods and businesses, it sends a clear signal to bad actors that the Jewish community is inconsequential, and it creates a permissive environment where hate and incitement are normalized.

“If a leader is too weak to stand up to targeted hate, they are too weak to govern. Everyone is vulnerable when a mayor picks and chooses which communities to support,” Wolle concluded.

This post was originally published on here. 

Vision Zero is getting an overhaul. Mayor Zohran Mamdani on Tuesday released “Vision Zero Reimagined,” a plan that builds on the original initiative’s goal to eliminate traffic deaths and serious injuries but introduces 100 policy goals for the next decade. The safety commitments are organized around eight “big-picture goals,” including pedestrian-only zones, safety redesigns for nearly 200 untreated Vision Zero priority corridors citywide, and stronger enforcement against reckless drivers.

Since introduced by Mayor Bill de Blasio in 2014, Vision Zero in New York City has led to several major changes aimed at making the city’s streets safer. The program has led to significant policy changes, including lowering the citywide speed limit from 30 mph to 25 mph, installing 3,300 speed bumps and speed cushions, and creating 600 miles of bike lanes.

These changes have contributed to a 16 percent decrease in traffic fatalities between 2014 and 2025, according to the city, with the average number of annual deaths falling from 287 to 241.

Since taking office, Mamdani has introduced policies that complement Vision Zero’s goals, including using Sammy’s Law to lower the speed limit to 15 miles per hour in 800 school zones, as announced in March. The mayor has also advanced street-safety projects, including bike lane upgrades and daylighting at intersections.

Still, the Mamdani administration believes more needs to be done. “Vision Zero Reimagined” expands on existing commitments while introducing additional policies aimed at improving street safety. The comprehensive plan involves 19 city agencies, including the Department of Transportation and the NYPD.

For example, the revamped Vision Zero initiative would expand Sammy’s Law to lower speed limits to 20 mph across entire neighborhoods, rather than just in school zones.

The plan would also make at least 1,000 intersections safer each year through hardened daylighting, which replaces parking spaces that block visibility at intersections with physical barriers, or other “better treatments.”

Under former Mayor Eric Adams, the DOT opposed a similar measure introduced by the City Council in August 2025 that would have banned vehicles from parking within 20 feet of crosswalks and added daylighting features, such as planters and bike racks, to improve sight lines.

Previously, the DOT had committed to daylighting 1,000 intersections annually using signs rather than hard infrastructure, according to amNY.

The plan also calls for implementing the Super Speeders program, which was authorized by the state legislature this year and would require the city to install speed-limiting devices in the vehicles of repeat reckless drivers.

Other measures targeting dangerous drivers include supporting the passage of a proposed “Drugged Driving Bill,” which would allow prosecutors to charge drivers who use drugs that impair their ability to drive. The plan also calls for legislation that would allow the seizure of license plates from reckless drivers and establish higher penalties for repeat offenders.

Though street safety has improved since 2014, the city is still far from reaching its goal of eliminating traffic deaths and serious injuries. After a series of hit-and-run crashes killed four New Yorkers in a single week late last month, street safety advocates staged a “die-in” outside City Hall, calling on Mamdani to release his first Vision Zero plan.

At least 18 cyclists have died so far this year, up from 10 during the same period in 2025, according to Gothamist. Pedestrian deaths, meanwhile, are down, with 58 fatalities so far this year compared with 70 during the same period last year.

While recognizing Mamdani’s progress on bus lanes, bike projects, street-safety upgrades, and other pedestrian-safety initiatives, street safety advocates were beginning to lose patience as they awaited the release of the mayor’s broader Vision Zero plan.

Last month, Furnas released a statement titled “Where is Mayor Mamdani’s Vision Zero Plan?,” urging the mayor to release his version of the plan, which is typically published at the beginning of each new administration.

“Too many New Yorkers are being killed and injured to not yet know how the new mayor will shape Vision Zero in his administration,” Furnas said. “Nearly one in three New Yorkers killed in the last six months died on a known-dangerous Vision Zero Priority Corridor, but City Hall has not yet laid out their whole-of-government street safety strategy.”

The NYPD’s role in Vision Zero has also come under scrutiny as the department’s enforcement against reckless driving has declined sharply since the pandemic. In 2019, officers issued 642,000 moving violations across seven Vision Zero categories. By 2025, that number had dropped to 379,000, a 41 percent reduction, according to Streetsblog.

Similarly, in 2019, officers issued 81,612 tickets to drivers who failed to yield. By 2025, that number had fallen to roughly 42,000, nearly half as many as in 2019.

In a statement to Streetsblog, an NYPD spokesperson said the department has shifted its focus toward micromobility riders, who account for a small percentage of crashes and an even smaller share of pedestrian injuries.

“The department’s enforcement strategy adapted to address the lethal challenge of new e-mobility devices,” the spokesperson said. “In 2019, e-bikes, e-scooters, and mopeds were a relatively limited component of the city’s traffic-safety problem, accounting for seven fatalities.”

“Following the pandemic—and changes in law, policy, and transportation patterns—the city experienced a significant increase in motorized two-wheeled devices,” they added. “Since then, we have seen a rise in e-scooter, and e-bikes conditions with triple-digit-percent increases, so enforcement has shifted to address those issues.”

RELATED:

The post Mamdani unveils revamped Vision Zero plan with 100+ policy goals first appeared on 6sqft.

This post was originally published here. 

Hello and welcome to Eye on AI. In this edition:

  • AI’s X-risk breaks into the mainstream
  • Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei calls for a coordinated industry safety effort
  • Anthropic details attempts to misuse its AI models
  • China’s top spy warns AI could pose a risk to the Communist Party
  • OpenAI is violating California’s new AI safety law, watch dog group says.
  • Half of companies aren’t following their own AI governance policies, E&Y survey says.

In the past few days, I’ve heard a lot of people repeating that old saw—often wrongly attributed to Vladimir Lenin—about there being “weeks when decades happen.” It certainly seemed to be one of those weeks in AI. Concern about existential risk has been a strain of AI discourse for decades. But, despite occasionally making headlines when someone like Elon Musk, Sam Altman, or Geoffrey Hinton would express their fears about AI posing a grave risk to the species, it never really cemented itself in the general public’s consciousness in the way, say, climate change, or the risk of nuclear war, has. If politicians debated AI regulation at all, the discussions centered around data center construction and utility bills, jobs, education, mental health, algorithmic discrimination, and civil liberties, not the risk of rogue AI killing people—maybe even all the people. Until now, that is.

The drumbeat of dire warnings from employees resigning from—or in some cases still working for—Anthropic, OpenAI, and Google DeepMind, all saying that the leading AI companies are developing the technology recklessly and risking human extinction has dominated the global news cycle for an entire week (which is really saying something in this day and age.) AI company CEOs and politicians have been stirred to respond. After years in which both domestic AI regulation and efforts at some kind of international AI governance regime had mostly stalled, suddenly the air is electric with possibility.

My Fortune colleague Nick Lichtenberg had a good story on why the resignation jeremiad of former Anthropic and OpenAI safety researcher Jacob Coxon had such impact when previous warnings, often from much higher-profile individuals, did not. The short answer is that coverage of the Hugging Face incident and other “rogue AI” episodes as well as people’s own experiences using AI agents seems to have opened the Overton window on discussing “loss of control” dangers. The timing, with Anthropic on the verge of an IPO and OpenAI edging closer to one too, also no doubt played a role.

The question now is what happens next? Fortune editor-in-chief Alyson Shontell sat down with Altman on Friday to ask him those questions for her “Fortune 500: Titans & Disruptors of Industry” vodcast (we just call it “Titans” for short.) Altman said the company was in favor of coordinating an industry-wide slowdown in the pace of AI development with bitter rivals, including Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk—two men with whom he has had acrimonious and, in the case of Musk, litigious disputes—as well as Google DeepMind, Meta, and perhaps others. He hinted that such discussions were already underway and that a coordinated slowdown might be announced soon. He also said that, if necessary, he would have no problem telling investors that OpenAI had taken actions to prioritize safety that had cost them financially—and that OpenAI’s investors were warned of this possibility going in. He also definitively said OpenAI would not go public this year, in part due to the current concerns about the safety of the latest AI models, but also, he hinted, because OpenAI’s business isn’t yet in the right place. You can check out the full vodcast episode here. It’s well worth your time to watch.

A coordinated slowdown?

After Alyson’s interview, Amodei put out a blog post also calling for a coordinated slowdown or pause among frontier labs in democratic countries. He said that in some cases, though, coordinating with other AI labs would require an antitrust exemption from the government. He also said that Anthropic would appoint independent evaluators to be permanently on-site at its offices to review its safety work. (He mentioned the nonprofit AI evaluation company METR as his preferred partner for this.) He also said that the U.S. and other democracies should try to strike some kind of international AI governance agreement with China and authoritarian states, if possible. Altman quickly came out and endorsed most of what Amodei said—in particular saying that OpenAI would also embed outside evaluators alongside its research teams—although he was careful to note that “pacing does not mean stopping.”

In the wake of Coxon’s warnings and Amodei’s call to action, a number of U.S. lawmakers introduced legislation or renewed efforts to push forward existing bills. Some, such as a bill introduced by Vermont independent Sen. Bernie Sanders, call for an outright ban on the development of “artificial superintelligence” and mandate that U.S. AI companies pause current research until safety techniques improve. Others, such as a bipartisan bill from Republican Sen. Ted Cruz, Senate Majority Leader John Thune, and Democratic Sen. Amy Klobuchar, would impose a duty on AI companies to prevent catastrophic harms. There were also calls for Congressional oversight hearings on AI’s catastrophic risks. Former President Barack Obama urged Democrats to put AI governance at the center of their legislative and campaign agenda. Meanwhile, a group of 70 U.K. parliamentarians signed an open letter calling for the British government to ban the creation of artificial superintelligence and work on an international AI treaty.

Trump pushes back

But there was strong pushback from some of the politicians that matter the most. President Trump posted to his Truth Social platform that the only guardrails AI needed “is a STRONG AND SMART (High IQ!) PRESIDENT, and the U.S.A. has that in spades!” He criticized Amodei by name, criticizing him for “pretending to be a ‘perfect little angel’” and said his administration had already stopped Anthropic from “doing bad, or potentially bad, ‘things.’” He said the U.S. already had regulatory power and criminal laws that applied to AI companies and that there was “a SICK conspiracy going on against AI and Data Centers, and the only one that is happy about it is China.” He made similar comments in a phone call to Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang that Huang, with Trump’s permission, broadcast to a live audience at an “All in Podcast” summit. This was followed up by the Republican Speaker of the House, Rep. Mike Johnson, saying that fear of AI was drummed up by the media and that “we’re not going to take stupid, knee-jerk reaction prescriptions on this.” Not to be outdone, Chinese state media also criticized Amodei’s proposals, saying they were “self-serving” and “Cold War tactics” designed to hobble China’s technological and economic rise.

With all of that, it seems the prospects for some kind of executive order mandating improved AI safety are poor. The same goes for any actual legislation, such as a bipartisan bill from Republican Sen. Ted Cruz, Senate Majority Leader John Thune, and Democratic Sen. Amy Klobuchar, that would impose a duty on AI companies to prevent catastrophic harms—at least until after the November midterms. Three points though that have come up in the discussion that are worth addressing.

Are antitrust concerns legit?

One is the debate about whether AI companies need an antitrust waiver to talk to one another about slowing development. Some, such as former Trump administration AI and crypto czar David Sacks, have said the AI companies don’t need such a waiver to coordinate a slowdown. And I agree that we should not grant a broad waiver to these tech giants. But I do think that there are legitimate concerns from the AI companies that any discussion of a pause—or of a coordinated decision not to undertake certain product innovations—could create antitrust issues.

Currently, each new generation of AI models tends to drive down the cost of existing, older models. So limiting the rollout of newer models would potentially keep prices higher for longer for consumers, which would seem to open the AI firms up to antitrust claims. (Matt Levine at Bloomberg had a good column on this.) Also, some of the specific innovations that worry AI safety experts, such as greater use of looped Transformers, also happen to have the benefit of using fewer tokens than forcing a model to spit out its complete reasoning trace in its “chain of thought.” This too has the effect of potentially lowering costs for consumers. So prohibiting this technique on safety grounds would also tend to result in higher prices for customers. Again, that looks problematic from an antitrust perspective. For what it’s worth, Chris Lehane, OpenAI’s chief global affairs officer, has come out and said OpenAI doesn’t think it needs an antitrust waiver to discuss shared safety standards with the other AI companies. He also said that there have already been discussions with Anthropic and Google DeepMind on safety standards. But the issue may be that these standards are voluntary, with no mechanism to compel compliance if one company cheats on its commitments. Enforcing the standards would presumably require government action.

Is product liability law enough?

In an example of the strange bedfellows this issue has created, Sacks and former Biden administration FTC head Lina Khan have both said that existing product liability laws could be used to prevent AI companies from releasing unsafe products. Sacks in particular has said that these laws are the reason no new government agency is needed to police AI companies. But there are two problems here. One is that product liability laws generally only apply to products that are sold to customers. Some of the biggest concerns with AI risks lately—as was the case in the Hugging Face incident—have involved unreleased, internal models that were undergoing development or were only deployed inside the AI companies themselves. Product liability law would not cover these internal models.

What’s more, while the fear of liability lawsuits might deter unsafe behavior by AI companies, it might not—and if it doesn’t, suing the companies after the fact is not ideal. This is especially true if the risks are actually existential ones, such as engineering a bioweapon. Suing won’t help us if we’re dead. But even if the risks are merely bad—like hacking into a single financial institution or hospital, manipulating the stock market, or taking out an electrical grid—suing a company after the fact won’t really provide the outcome society wants. Better to prevent these things from happening in the first place. That’s why we do have agencies that police systemically important financial institutions, regulate air travel, ensure power that grids adhere to certain standards, etc.

What about ‘regulatory capture?’

Finally, Sacks and others, including some on the more libertarian left as well as some of the CEOs of AI companies that are slightly behind the frontier, have attacked the proposal for a coordinated pause and agreement on safety standards as an attempt at “regulatory capture.” The claim is that these companies will write the rules in such a way that their leadership position at the front of the AI race gets locked in. I am not denying that this could happen. But it also seems that there are ways to prevent this from happening. Accelerationists like Sacks act as if all regulation results in regulatory capture. But, as I mentioned in a previous newsletter, UC Berkeley AI researcher Stuart Russell likes to quip that there are more mandatory requirements for sandwich shops in San Francisco than there are on OpenAI or Anthropic. And you don’t see too many restaurateurs complaining about regulatory capture. It is simply not the case that mandatory safety rules always result in regulatory capture.

I would also argue that a certain degree of regulatory friction that happens to privilege incumbent players is a price worth paying for a safe industry in cases where failure poses significant risks to human life or physical and financial health. In fact, the industries that pose the greatest potential risks of mass casualty events tend to have fewer players in them, and yes, the burden of regulatory compliance is one of the reasons. But I think this is a tradeoff the public actually thinks is worth the fact that it may also mean they pay slightly more for certain things. There are only a handful of companies around the world that design and build nuclear power plants, for example; only a handful that make commercial aircraft, too. But these also happen to be some of the safest industries out there in terms of their actual operational records. Would there be more players in these industries if there were fewer government safety rules and inspection regimes? Almost certainly. But is the public screaming about regulatory capture and asking for safety standards on nuclear power plants and aircraft to be relaxed? 

With that, here’s more AI news.

Jeremy Kahn
jeremy.kahn@fortune.com
@jeremyakahn

Before we get to the news, just a reminder to check out this week’s episode of our new vodcast Fortune AI Weekly. This week, Bea Nolan and I talk to Substack cofounder and CEO Chris Best about his decision to add an AI writing detection feature to the platform. We also talk about AI doomerism going mainstream and the controversy over OpenAI’s Navier-Stokes mathematical breakthrough. You can check out the vod here on YouTube.

Also, come join me at the Fortune AIQ Summit at the New York Stock Exchange on October 1! We’ll join C-suite leaders Bank of America, Booking Holdings, Citi, Ecolab, Elevance Health, United Healthcare, S&P Global, and more to hear about how they are using AI to deliver the growth, innovation, and transformation that is putting them at the top of their respective industries. It promises to be an afternoon of eye-opening insights and inspiration. You can register to attend here. 

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

This post was originally published here. 

At a Walmart Supercenter in North Bergen, New Jersey, just across the Hudson River from Manhattan, Victor Lopez, 21, tapped the screen of his work-issued smartphone. Under a field labeled “Enter new price,” he punched in $10 for a bottle of barbeque sauce.

If it had worked, Lopez, a team leader, would have almost tripled the price of the item with a click of a button. But it didn’t, and that’s not due to some human or technical error. It was the whole point of the demonstration: to show that store associates are not able to use electronic shelf labels (ESLs) to raise prices arbitrarily. 

“We cannot take prices up in the store,” Kyle Boyd, store manager of the supercenter, where about 90% of tags have been replaced with ESLs, told Retail Brew during a tour of the facility last month. “We can only take prices down in the store.”

The willingness to promote some pricing practices—as well as touting what it is characterizing as a technical stopgap in place to prevent price hikes at the store level—comes as Walmart faces political pushback that could determine the future of electronic shelf labels.

With lawmakers increasingly tying the technology to controversial pricing practices, the retail giant is making the case that ESLs won’t fundamentally change how prices are set.

Using or abusing: In July, New Jersey Governor Mikie Sherrill signed the Fair Price Protection Act into law to protect consumers from “discriminatory surveillance pricing”—which it defines as using personal data to set prices t —and placing a one-year moratorium on new ESLs while the state studies the effects of the tech.

Critics of the legislation argue that digital price tags are simply a tool for saving time and cutting costs, while supporters of the law argue they make it easier for retailers to manipulate and raise prices.

This debate is now playing out on a national level. Maryland passed a similar law earlier this year, and legislation is pending in several other states. A recent report from the Groundwork Collaborative, Consumer Reports, and More Perfect Union also claimed that Instacart’s AI pricing tool offers individualized prices on the same items.

In response, companies and industry groups are eager to distance ESLs from unpopular pricing practices like surveillance pricing, dynamic pricing, and other labels such as surge pricing, which conjure images of skyrocketing airline or concert tickets.

“Electronic shelf labels are not tools for surge pricing, but rather tools for efficiency and affordability,” Macy Lemon, vice president of state government affairs at the National Grocers Association, said in a statement urging Governor Sherrill to make changes to the New Jersey law before it was signed due to concerns it would make it harder for stores to offer affordable groceries to consumers.

On the opposite end of the spectrum, Ademola Oyefeso, international vice president of the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) International Union, told Retail Brew it’s not a matter of if, but when, companies start using the technology to engage in dynamic pricing.

“A retailer may not be doing it right now, but they are laying the groundwork for it,” he said.

Now the union wants a full ban on ESLs, which it sees as a “tool for price-gouging and job loss,” Oyefeso said. He pointed to the recent example of Norway, where a number of grocery chains engaged in rapid repricing on a daily basis after installing digital tags.

For an industry that seemed ready for widespread adoption, the legislative pushback could have serious implications for the future of the technology. Walmart committed to rolling out ESLs across its entire US footprint of 2,300 locations by the end of the year. Kroger added the tech to a number of stores across the country, and Whole Foods is testing out digital tags at nearly 50 stores.

The struggle for retailers now is convincing consumers and lawmakers that digital labels won’t open the door to problematic pricing practices.

Will they or won’t they? “DSLs operate on a closed system and do not interact with shoppers or collect any information about them,” Robyn Babbitt, director of corporate communications at Walmart, said in an email to Retail Brew. “There is nothing like a camera or microphone in them; they just display prices”

The legislation is an “overreaction,” she added.

When there is an increase to the base price of a product, as opposed to a rollback or promotion, it’s happening at the corporate level and usually outside of regular shopping hours—not spontaneously while customers are walking around the store, Babbitt said.

“They’re centrally controlled through our pricing team,” she said during the tour of the supercenter in North Bergen, adding that human beings remain in control of all pricing actions.

While working closely with retailers on their merchandising and promotional strategies, Asa Farquhar, strategic principal of price and promotion at RELEX, a retail planning platform, said he is not see this technology being used for dynamic pricing among his retail clients.

Instead, he sees them being used to reduce errors and optimize price adjustments that were happening anyway. “I have never seen them talking about how we can use these tools to get a leg up on customers,” he said.

Theoretically, however, the technology could make it easier for retailers to price more dynamically, Farquhar explained, and for that to result in “any number of negative pricing scenarios.”

For Farquhar, though, this is not a guarantee of bad practices.

“If a price can be changed faster, easier, and with less expense, I think it’s fair to say that could lead to retailers being willing to change prices more often,” he said. “But I think it’s a stretch to say just because a price could change more often or is executed more operationally efficiently that we would see any kind of nefarious strategies around that.”

This report was originally published by Retail Brew.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

This post was originally published here. 

Work to convert a former state prison in Chelsea into permanently affordable housing is officially underway. Developed by Camber Property Group and Osborne Association and designed by COOKFOX, Chelsea Beacon transforms the long-vacant Bayview Correctional Facility at 550 West 20th Street into 130 permanently affordable homes, including supportive units and short-term transitional residences. The $167 million project, which broke ground this summer, redevelops an eight-story Art Deco building that was built in the 1930s as dorms for sailors, preserving its historic brick facade and second-floor chapel, while also adding an expansion to the original structure.

Streetview of 550 West 20th Street © 2024 Google

Designed in 1931 by Shreve, Lamb and Harmon, the firm behind the Empire State Building, the Art Deco building was constructed as the Seamen’s House YMCA, which housed “seafaring merchants” in single-occupancy rooms, according to the New York Times.

The building served as a drug treatment center from 1967 until 1974, when the operation was transferred to the state’s Department of Correctional Services. The Bayview Correctional Facility was in operation until flooding from Hurricane Sandy forced it to close in 2012, as 6sqft previously reported.

In September 2023, Hochul issued a request for proposals (RFP) to redevelop the former prison as a residential development with affordable and supportive housing. The RFP required at least 60 supportive housing units and 15 short-term transitional residences.

The state previously issued two RFPs to convert the property, in 2013 and 2014, but both were ultimately canceled after respondents were unable to move forward with their proposals and withdrew from the projects.

In July 2024, the state selected Camber Property Group and Osborne Association to redevelop the site as “Liberty Landing,” in collaboration with Empire State Development (ESD). The project has since been renamed, though its plans and scope appear to remain largely unchanged.

Apartments at the development will be affordable to households earning up to 80 percent of the area median income. The project will also include roughly 9,300 square feet of community space.

Chelsea Beacon will include a 15-bed Short-Term Transitional Residence, a new program that provides people living with mental illness with intensive support as they develop skills over a 120-day period before moving to a more independent housing setting.

Osborne will operate the supportive housing, while Urban Pathways will manage the short-term transitional program, according to COOKFOX.

The architects will preserve the building’s historic character while incorporating modern sustainability and resilience features, including all-electric building systems. The building’s street-facing facades and structures will be “entirely reimagined,” while the interior will feature a mix of studio, one-, and two-bedroom residences.

Historic elements, including the building’s chapel, will also be restored and incorporated into the development. The chapel will be repurposed as a residential library, while a series of nautical mosaic murals from the facility’s former indoor swimming pool will be featured in the new residential lobby.

Photo credit: Summer Shower Productions

“The start of construction of Chelsea Beacon represents exactly the kind of bold, innovative project New York needs as we work to tackle our housing shortage and build stronger communities,” Hochul said.

“By transforming a long-vacant state property into permanently affordable homes, supportive housing and welcoming community space, we are creating new opportunities for New Yorkers to live, work and thrive.”

Bayview Correctional Facility was selected for redevelopment after Hochul issued a series of executive orders in July 2023 directing state agencies to identify vacant properties across the five boroughs suitable for redevelopment as affordable housing.

A late 2022 report examined 12 closed prisons across the state and their potential for reuse. In addition to Bayview, Hochul issued RFPs for the Lincoln Correctional Facility in Harlem and the Downstate Correctional Facility in Fishkill.

The governor in 2023 unveiled Seneca, the winning proposal for a project that will transform the Lincoln Correctional Facility at West 110th Street into 105 affordable homes for purchase. The development team closed on $97.8 million in financing this past May.

“Chelsea Beacon demonstrates how thoughtful public investment and strong partnerships can transform an underutilized property into a lasting community asset,” Hope Knight, CEO and commissioner of ESD, said.

“Through the adaptive reuse of this historic building, the project will expand affordable housing opportunities, deliver critical services and strengthen Chelsea’s economic future,” she added. “Chelsea Beacon reflects Empire State Development’s commitment to creating projects that honor a community’s history while meeting its needs for generations to come.”

The project is financed by federal and state Low-Income Housing Tax Credits from the state’s Homes and Community Renewal, which are expected to generate $77 million in equity, along with a $25 million HCR subsidy. ESD is providing an additional $20 million through its NY RUSH program.

Chelsea Beacon is also receiving $13.86 million in capital funding from the state’s Office of Mental Health, part of Hochul’s $1 billion investment in the mental health system included in the fiscal year 2024 budget.

RELATED:

The post Work underway to convert former Chelsea prison into 131-unit affordable housing project first appeared on 6sqft.

This post was originally published here. 

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent on Tuesday told lawmakers in Congress that the U.S. needs to foster open artificial intelligence (AI) models to compete with those made by Chinese firms.

Bessent testified before the House Financial Services Committee about the economy and international finance, with AI emerging as a key topic of discussion.

The Treasury secretary was asked about advances in AI and progress toward artificial general intelligence and noted Anthropic’s Mythos model released earlier this year represented a step change in that progression, while he added that the U.S. needs more open-source AI models.

“One of the things I would say is that we need to develop… more open-source models in the U.S. We can’t let these large labs have regulatory capture because that will stop innovation,” Bessent told the panel.

SAM ALTMAN SAYS OPENAI WON’T GO PUBLIC IN 2026 AMID AI SAFETY CONCERNS

Open-source AI models are made available for the public to inspect their codebase, see their training parameters or use them for a given project, while closed-source models made by AI labs are controlled by the developer and only available to those who have obtained access.

AI labs in China have trained open-source models on U.S. tech companies’ closed-source models through a process known as distillation, which has helped build more capable models at a lower cost.

For example, an open model from a Chinese developer was used to help deal with a breach in which an OpenAI model escaped containment and hacked Hugging Face.

BESSENT HIGHLIGHTS TRUMP ECONOMY, WARNS CHINA HAS ‘DONE A LOT OF KICKING LATELY’

“One of the ways we can push back against China, because the Chinese models, they distill from the U.S. models – which is a polite, scientific word for steal – and the more we develop our own open source models here, or open models here, then… eventually the Chinese models, people will not use them,” Bessent said.

The Treasury secretary added that China’s distillation of models made by U.S. tech companies has led to a situation in which “many of the Chinese models think they’re Mythos, they think they’re Claude.”

Tech companies in the U.S. have argued against government restrictions on open-weight AI models, arguing that open models accelerate innovation, strengthen cybersecurity and help ensure the competitiveness of the American AI industry.

TRUMP ADMINISTRATION LIFTS CLAUDE MYTHOS 5, FABLE 5 EXPORT RESTRICTIONS AFTER ANTHROPIC WORKS WITH GOVERNMENT

Nvidia, Microsoft, Meta, Meta, Dell Technologies, Palantir, Hugging Face, Mozilla, Mistral and others signed on to a joint letter in July arguing against restrictions that could stifle open model development, and noting there are ways to address illegal distillation.

“Unlawful efforts to extract value from closed models raise legitimate concerns,” the joint letter stated. “Those concerns should be addressed through targeted legal and commercial frameworks rather than sweeping restrictions on techniques that play an important role in AI innovation.”

GET FOX BUSINESS ON THE GO BY CLICKING HERE

The Trump administration’s voluntary AI framework released in August exempted open-source and open-weight AI models from having to undergo pre-release security reviews by the government, which will instead focus on proprietary closed models.

FOX Business’ Brittany Miller and Michael Sinkewicz contributed to this report.

This post was originally published here. 

Ford Motor Company is refreshing its best-selling F-150 pickup for 2027 with hands-free towing technology, updated styling and the first-ever F-150 Carhartt edition.

Greg Christensen, Ford’s general manager of North America Trucks, told Fox Business that the overhaul was shaped by how customers actually use their trucks — from hauling equipment to work to towing boats and campers on weekends.

One of the biggest additions is BlueCruise with Towing, which allows drivers to travel hands-free, with their eyes on the road, on more than 130,000 miles of compatible highways while towing trailers weighing up to 10,000 pounds.

FORD TO INVEST $1B IN KENTUCKY TRUCK PLANT

“Towing is fundamental to our customers,” Christensen said, adding that more than 75% of F-150 owners tow.

Ford is also updating the powertrain lineup with a new standard 3.0-liter EcoBoost V6 engine, bringing the 5.0-liter V8 back to King Ranch and Platinum models while adding more affordable Tremor and Raptor variants to broaden access to its off-road lineup.

“We are really thinking about customers in that respect and affordability and accessibility,” Christensen said.

DUFFY PUTS FORD ON NOTICE OVER CHINA TIES, WARNS OF SECURITY CONCERNS

Ford is also expanding its partnership with Michigan-based workwear brand Carhartt, introducing the first-ever F-150 Carhartt package.

Available on 4×4 XLT Crew Cab models, it adds exclusive styling, Carhartt-inspired interior accents, a branded spray-in bedliner and all-weather floor mats.

“We couldn’t be more excited about another iconic American brand partnering with us,” Christensen said, pointing to the companies’ shared roots.

FORD BOOSTS US LINCOLN PRODUCTION AS IT PHASES OUT IMPORTS FROM CHINA

CLICK HERE TO GET FOX BUSINESS ON THE GO

Earlier this year, Ford and Carhartt unveiled a broader collaboration aimed at highlighting what the companies call the “essential economy.”

As part of that collaboration, the companies also introduced a Ford Super Duty Carhartt truck — a Super Duty XLT pickup co-developed by the two brands and designed for the “essential workers both companies have served for generations,” Ford said at the time.

This post was originally published here. 

Former Palantir engineer-turned New York state Assemblymember Alex Bores knows Americans want AI regulation. He co-authored the RAISE Act, New York’s frontier AI safety law. He ran this year for Rep. Jerry Nadler’s open congressional seat on that platform, even as many of his donors came from within the AI industry. But that didn’t stop Leading the Future, a super PAC funded in part by OpenAI president Greg Brockman and Andreessen Horowitz, from spending more than $7.6 million against him over that law. Public First Action, with $20 million from Anthropic, spent on the race in Bores’ corner. Total outside money in the race topped $40 million, the most expensive House primary of the cycle. Bores still lost.

That loss helped lead to Who Decides, the nonprofit Bores launched on Tuesday with his former chief of staff, Anna Myers. So far, it has raised $10 million and aims to raise $20 million more in 2027, for a $30 million total ahead of 2028. Bores intends the nonprofit to unite the AI advocacy organizations Democrats already trust, help them build out their own agendas rather than hand them one, and establish “a shared floor of an agenda on things that we all want to see good done.”

“Give the American people a say in how AI develops,” Bores told Fortune. “Most voters have an answer key in their head for every question that they ask” on issues like Medicare or the Green New Deal. But with AI, Bores said, even the messaging lives in this gray area. “We’re in this limited time where it’s not even just the answers that are up for grabs, but even the questions that are being asked are up for grabs.”

The RAISE Act, which New York Gov. Kathy Hochul passed into law late last year following a tenuous time in Albany, necessitated a coalition of 55 organizations, filled with different stakeholders from AI policy to chatbots in school. That wasn’t the case for those against the act. “The opposition was always the same. It was a small subset of Silicon Valley that thinks there should be no regulation on AI whatsoever.”

That’s part of what drove Bores to create Who Decides. The group isn’t trying to outspend Leading the Future or Build American AI—Bores said he wishes he had the resources. Instead, it’s targeting 11 battleground states through organizations already active there. Outreach accelerated after Jacob Coxon’s resignation from Anthropic last week. “The seven major presidential candidates since my election, the 16 Congress members since last week,” Bores said of Coxon’s resignation. So far everyone who’s reached out has been a Democrat, though Bores said he’s open ears for anyone, regardless of political ideology.

Weak laws and weaker willpower

A recent Gallup poll found the majority of Americans, 56% to 58%, want stricter gun laws, while measures like background checks has close to 90% support in both parties, per Pew. And despite this finding, which has coexisted for decades, Congress rarely acts, something usually blamed on lobbying outspending a diffuse majority. AI seems to follow the same trajectory.

“The basics of this issue, while the urgency has changed a lot in the past week, the basics have not, which is that 80% of Americans want there to be more regulation on AI, and that’s across parties,” he said. Independent polling this year puts the figure somewhat lower but still in the same direction: a February–March 2026 Annenberg Public Policy Center survey found 65% of Americans say the government has done “too little” to regulate AI, including majorities of Democrats (77%), independents (72%), and Republicans (53%).

Public sentiment gets grayer when you look at one of the most prominent faces within the AI industry. In May 2023, OpenAI’s Sam Altman asked to be regulated when he testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee. But by May 2025, he reversed course, telling the Senate Commerce Committee that requiring government approval would be “disastrous.” Anthropic’s Dario Amodei held the pro-regulation position throughout, even as Anthropic-linked money flowed into the same political fights.

Regardless of what stances people have at first and ultimately land on, Bores said while industry figures keep landing on the same conclusion, a narrower set of financiers spend to stop it. “So many of the mega donors who are pushing for there to be no regulation whatsoever are Republican mega donors,” he said, naming Marc Andreessen and Elon Musk.

One can argue that’s what happened to his RAISE Act—what passed was a watered version that didn’t survive that same money intact: third-party audits and whistleblower protections were stripped before it passed. But still, that hasn’t changed Bores’ view of it: “The RAISE Act was, arguably still is, the strongest AI safety bill in the country,” he said, though he expects Illinois and Massachusetts to surpass it soon.

Avoid the circular firing squad

In 2025, Sen. Ted Cruz inserted language into the “One Big Beautiful Bill” that would have barred every state from enforcing any AI law for 10 years. Seventeen Republican governors asked for it to be stripped, before the Senate voted 99–1 to remove it.

Cruz is now co-sponsoring a new federal AI safety bill with Sen. Amy Klobuchar and Majority Leader John Thune, built around safety testing and incident reporting. It may be D.C.’s most likely AI bill to pass yet, but if you read between the lines, it’s essentially Cruz’s old bill wrapped in federal packaging (and it comes with the very real possibility of removing all state AI bills with it). “Spot on,” he told Fortune about that reading. “It’s people trying to use this momentum and this crisis to shut down the real power people have to regulate.”

Despite the external politics playing on Capitol Hill, Bores also acknowledged the Democratic party has a less than stellar track record on getting messaging right. Often it’s because advocates who agree keep splitting the difference into separate fights. “Democrats are very passionate about making a difference, and that passion is usually well placed,” he said, “but that occasionally gets misdirected into turning into a circular firing squad and saying, no, my sub-issue is more important than your sub-issue.”

His case? “The people who are opposing almost every issue in AI are the same people… we should be sitting at the same table.”

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

This post was originally published here. 

After serving more than 180 days as an IDF Reserve Captain in Gaza and Lebanon, Benaya Cherlow founded SuitedSoldiers to help strengthen bipartisan support for Israel where America’s most important decisions are made: Congress. SuitedSoldiers believes that whoever is America’s next president, Israel cannot afford to rely on hope. It needs trusted relationships across the political spectrum.

SuitedSoldiers’ work involves analyzing the political landscape, identifying emerging leaders, mapping influence, and building lasting relationships with congressional offices, so that when critical decisions arise, Israel has trusted partners, not just familiar faces. Its team has engaged more than 100 Members of Congress, 60 Senators, and several senior executive branch officials – contributing to congressional letters, hearings, legislative initiatives, and policy discussions on Israel’s security. Cherlow believes the future belongs to leaders who can bridge the battlefield and the boardroom, turning service into strategy and relationships into lasting national security.

This post was originally published on here. 

Ophyr Hanan believes your values are tested by how you respond when the world changes. One day after October 7, she became one of the founding volunteers who helped establish the Jewish National Fund-USA-supported Bring Them Home Now Hostages Forum, transforming a grassroots initiative into a global movement advocating for the release of the hostages. She represented the cause in global outlets, from the International Criminal Court in The Hague to Ireland, Hollywood, and beyond – mobilizing leaders, media, and communities to keep the hostages at the forefront of the world’s attention.

Alongside this work, Hanan helped recover and preserve cherished belongings from families whose lives were shattered by the attacks, ensuring their artifacts and stories would not be forgotten. She is currently International Marketing Manager at HaGal Sheli (My Wave), where she continues using strategic storytelling to scale surf therapy trauma programs globally and expand the organization’s impact.

This post was originally published on here. 

Emily Schrader is an American-Israeli journalist and the founder of the Iran Israel Alliance, a pioneering NGO dedicated to strengthening ties between the Iranian and Israeli peoples and amplifying the voices of Iranians who oppose the Islamic Republic. Through her journalism, advocacy, and international media appearances, she has become one of Israel’s leading public voices highlighting the aspirations of the Iranian people for freedom, exposing the regime’s human rights abuses, and challenging its global propaganda.

Her reporting reaches millions worldwide, bringing Iranian dissidents and democratic activists to audiences that have too often overlooked them. In 2026, the Islamic Republic publicly designated her a “hostile figure” for her work exposing the regime and supporting the Iranian people. By building bridges between Iranians and Israelis, she has helped reshape international understanding of one of the Middle East’s most consequential relationships.

This post was originally published on here. 

Oz Bin Nun’s vision is defined by action. After fighting on the front lines on October 7th, he co-founded the Reservists’ Forum, elevating the concept of equal civic burden in the Israeli public discourse. He has led three U.S. delegations, including holding meetings with members of both houses of Congress as well as at elite universities. 

He founded the Ribo Center, a prominent Israeli youth-led “think-and-do tank,” which is dedicated to reshaping Israel’s strategic infrastructure and civil identity for the next generation. Today, he writes a weekly column for Yediot Ahronot, appears frequently on national television, delivers dozens of annual lectures, and engages with Israel’s highest-level leadership.

Through an unorthodox, innovative, and deep approach, Bin Nun and his team are breaking down the walls between intellectual work, strategy, technology, and media, rewriting the playbook for global impact. His ultimate goal is to rewrite the Zionist ethos and the DNA of the next generation. By championing conservative, Jewish, and solidarity-driven values, they are reshaping Jewish and Israeli identity – building a resilient society that stands up and says, “Hineni.”

This post was originally published on here. 

Amjad Taha is a UAE-based political strategist, analyst, journalist and advocate for peace and normalization between Israel and the Arab world. With more than one million followers on social media, he uses digital platforms and international media to promote dialogue, challenge misinformation and encourage greater understanding between cultures.

Taha has emerged as a prominent Arab voice supporting Israel-Arab normalization, particularly following the establishment of diplomatic relations between Israel and Bahrain. He frequently addresses regional geopolitics and advocates for cooperation and peaceful relations across the Middle East.

He is the Regional Director of the Middle East Studies and Research Center and has written extensively on regional affairs. His book, The Deception of the Arab Spring, examines the 2011 Arab Spring and argues that Iran played a role in orchestrating the upheavals.

Taha is also a founder of the Sharaka Institute, an organization focused on strengthening ties between Israel and Arab countries and advancing recognition and cooperation.

Through his media work, public appearances and social media presence, Taha seeks to build bridges between Arab and Jewish communities and promote a Middle East shaped by dialogue, normalization and economic and diplomatic cooperation.

This post was originally published on here. 

Maccabi Tel Aviv cruised past Hapoel Beersheba 4-1 as Ester Sokler scored a brace in the win at Bloomfield Stadium that saw the yellow-and-blue pick up their third victory in as many games to start the season.

Helio Varela set the tone early with a screamer of a strike to give Maccabi a 1-0 lead in the opening minute of play. Sokler scored his first of the match from the penalty spot to double the advantage while Eliel Peretz was sent off, leaving the hosts with 10-men.

But right before the break, Amir Ganah pulled a goal back to cut the lead to 2-1 at halftime. Sokler found the back of the net again off a Varela cross, while Peretz added a marker as well to take the 4-1 win.

Up next is the Tel Aviv derby next Monday night as Maccabi will be the hosts against Hapoel, which has a pair of wins and a draw thus far this campaign.

Maccabi’s Kenny Miller spoke about the win.

MACCABI TEL AVIV players celebrate their third goal in the yellow-and-blue’s 3-1 home Premier League victory over Maccabi Haifa at Bloomfield Stadium. (credit: YEHUDA HALICKMAN)

Beersheba’s Ran Kozuk looks back on defeat

“Hapoel Beersheba is a very good team, and we have to be at the top of our game against them. We started really well, and we took our chances early. We had to make sure that we stayed consistent, and when they went down to ten men, we took the eye off the ball, and I was disappointed and upset, but we made the changes that we needed to at halftime to make sure we picked up the pace.”

Beersheba’s Ran Kozuk looked back at the defeat.

“We just didn’t show up, and we started poorly by giving up a goal that wasn’t a Premier League goal. From there, Lucas Ventura was injured, and the snowball was rolling; plus we then had a red card as well that reduced us to 10 men. Maccabi scored a penalty; we knew what type of game they wanted to play and what we wanted to do, and we did the exact opposite.”

At Bloomfield Stadium, Hapoel Tel Aviv crushed Hapoel Ramat Gan 4-0, with the Reds scoring all four goals in the second half to take the win ahead of the derby.

After a goalless first half, Elyaniv Barda scored a deluge of goals as Emmanuel Boateng broke the ice in the 57th minute, while Douglas Owusu scored a magnificent marker off a break down the right flank to double the advantage. An own goal by Dudu Twito made it 3-0, while captain Fernand Mayembo headed home the fourth goal with authority in second-half injury time to wrap up the blowout win.

Elyaniv Barda said at the end of the game.

“Even though we didn’t score, I think the first half was good as well, but we didn’t know how to capitalize on our opportunities and score the first goal that would open the floodgates. Thankfully, in the second half, the chances were converted into goals. As for the Derby, I’m not thinking about the next game; I just hope that we can continue playing at this level.”

Ramat Gan coach Messay Dego added: “Nothing worked today. Defensively, we were very deep, which we haven’t been in any game this year. It was very difficult to watch, especially in the first half. I told the players that we were lucky to get away with it. Every two or three passes, we lost the ball. There are days like this, but we cannot fall apart the way we did at the end. That is something I cannot simply let slide.”

Beitar Jerusalem defeats Bnei Sakhnin

In the Galilee, Beitar Jerusalem slipped past Bnei Sakhnin 1-0 as Eugene Ansah scored the lone goal of the contest in the second half off a corner kick to give Almog Cohen’s charges their first win of the season after a pair of losses.

“Good feeling for sure,” Cohen began. “But it wasn’t a great game. In the second half, we created more chances. For me, the most important thing was the desire and the fighting spirit. It’s difficult to play quality football when you feel the pressure around you. As a coach, I tried to take that pressure off. Football is ultimately about enjoying yourself.”

“It’s frustrating,” Sakhnin coach Yossi Abukasis said. “When you have a good first half, break through the pressure several times and create scoring opportunities, of course it’s frustrating. Unfortunately, we made a mistake and lost the game. In football, at the end of the day, you’re judged by the titles you win. What we were missing was sharpness in front of the goal.”

Finally, Maccabi Netanya and Hapoel Haifa played to a 1-1 draw as Alon Turgeman scored in the first half to give the Carmel Reds the lead, but Matheus Davo’s second-half penalty split the points at the Netanya Stadium.

Diamond City squad coach Roni Levy spoke about the match.

“At home, we always want to win and keep the momentum going. We came up against an opponent who made things difficult for us. We fell behind because of an uncharacteristic mistake that simply shouldn’t happen. We managed to come back, and it was an even game. Our approach in the first half was rather passive. At the beginning of the game, we were still in control, but I think our approach was better in the second half, and we made some changes that helped us.”

Haifa bench boss Haim Silvas also shared his thoughts.

“A huge missed opportunity. Usually, I’m very measured, but I feel like we missed a great chance. We played a great game. Although we didn’t start the second half well, we created chances to win. We controlled the game both when we had the ball and when we didn’t. It’s a shame we weren’t more clinical. What we were missing was that final touch to turn the game in our favor.”

See more Israeli sports coverage at www.sportsrabbi.com/en

This post was originally published on here. 

The IDF and Shin Bet (Israeli Security Agency) issued a joint statement on Tuesday, saying that they killed Hamas’s Rafah Brigade commander, Nael Abu Obeid, in a strike in the southern Gaza Strip.

Obeid replaced his predecessor, Mohammad Shabanah, who was killed by the IDF in May 2025.

Abu Obeid was a key figure among Hamas leaders, according to a statement from the IDF, and previously served as the deputy commander of the Rafah Brigade and commander of the Tel al-sultan and Yibna Battalions. 

During his time as the Rafah Brigade commander, Abu Obeid directed terror attacks against Israeli troops and offensives against IDF troops. 

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Israel Katz confirmed the strike, saying that “our message is clear: no terrorist is immune, and Hamas will not be in Gaza.”

In a statement announcing Abu Obeid’s death, the IDF said they “remain deployed in the area in accordance with the agreement and will continue to operate to remove any threat.”

IDF kills commander of Hamas’ Jabaliya Battalion

Earlier on Tuesday, the IDF announced that it had, in coordination with Shin Bet, killed the commander of Hamas’s Jabaliya Battalion in a strike in the northern Gaza Strip on Monday night.

The IDF released a statement detailing the killing of Ahmad Batash, commander of the Jabaliya Battalion in the Northern Gaza Brigade of Hamas. (credit: IDF SPOKESPERSON'S UNIT)

The terrorist, identified as Ahmad Batash, was responsible for managing logistics for the Izzadin al-Qassam Brigades Northern Gaza Brigade and was an integral part of supplying weapons and equipment to Hamas terrorists in the region.

Last Thursday, the IDF and Shin Bet killed Muhammad Yazouri in the Khan Yunis area. Yazouri served as commander of Hamas’s Khan Yunis Brigade in the terrorist organization’s military wing in the Gaza Strip.

Yazouri was appointed to the position after holding a series of roles in the brigade, including deputy commander of the Khan Yunis Brigade, commander of the brigade’s combat support battalion, and head of its intelligence department. In his role, he was responsible for managing the activities of the brigade’s terrorists and directing them in advancing and carrying out terror plots against IDF forces and Israeli civilians.

Jonah Davidov contributed to this report.

This post was originally published on here. 

Cold storage development is entering a modernization cycle, and the shift is about far more than square footage. At CREDA’s I.CON Cold Storage this week, Michael Cody, practice leader and director of industrial cold and food at Ware Malcomb, and Chris Hilgeman, senior vice president at Evans General Contractors, walked attendees through what’s driving investment in automated cold-chain facilities, and what developers need to plan for now rather than retrofit later.

A market still in its infancy

The global cold storage market, valued at $188.8 billion in 2025, is projected to reach $462.6 billion by 2035. But the real story is where the growth is concentrated. Spending on automation technology is compounding at roughly 15% annually, more than 1.5 times the pace of the broader cold storage market, Cody shared.

“I think we’re still in the infancy of what automation can do for these cold storage buildings,” he said. “It’s going to take a while for people to really understand the costs and the benefits and the implementation of a lot of the technology,” Hilgeman agreed. “Somebody out there is going to be a pioneer and hopefully they do well with it.”

Labor scarcity is the real driver

Both speakers pointed to labor as the underlying force behind automation adoption. Sub-zero environments have brutal turnover; as Cody put it, “You’re replacing somebody every six months,” and even a modest wage premium doesn’t change the reality: “$1.50 an hour extra to work in -10 degrees Fahrenheit, it doesn’t really move the needle once you’re there for a while. It’s tough.”

Hilgeman pointed out that data center construction has also started to compete for the same labor pool. “The labor costs, the labor demands in that world are driving subcontractors out of our traditional markets,” he said, noting that a forklift operator working in a freezer “can go work as a helper for a pipe fitter or an electrician to make two or three times the money” on data center projects.

Day-one design decisions

Both Cody and Hilgeman made it clear that automation infrastructure has to be planned into the building from the start. Adding an Automated Storage and Retrieval (ASRS) system alone adds four to six months of design time and roughly a year of implementation – meaning a building can reach the market and still be a year away from being automated.

“If you think you’re going to potentially be doing [Very Narrow Aisle (VNA)] and that AS/RS stuff, if we don’t address that in day one, you’re going to be stuck as far as what you can do going forward,” said Hilgeman. Clear heights, floor loading, slab tolerances and power infrastructure all need to be locked in before breaking ground.

Power has also become a growing constraint. High-density power demand in cold storage already exceeds dry storage, and automation will only add to it. Hilgeman estimated power needs could increase up to 50% – changing how facilities are designed and powered, including a growing interest in on-site generation and fuel cells where utility power can’t be delivered fast enough.

Digital infrastructure is no longer optional

IoT sensors, digital twins, AI-driven inventory, and integrated trailer, yard and warehouse management systems are converging into what the speakers described as “a single operating layer.” Cody pointed to a real-world example: a facility built for a regional restaurant chain where dock-door scanners track product from the freezer to the trailer to the point of sale – eliminating manual inventory counts entirely. “So nobody’s back in the freezer counting nuggets anymore,” he laughed.

“We’re not far off from driverless trucks,” Cody added, and said that trailer management, yard management and warehouse management systems will increasingly talk to one another directly.

The takeaway for cold storage developers? Build automation-ready envelopes now, treat refrigerant strategy as a proactive decision rather than a regulatory reaction, and underwrite the power and digital infrastructure that today’s tenants – and tomorrow’s – will expect.

The post Cold Storage’s Automation Curve is Just Beginning appeared first on Market Share.

This post was originally published here. 

Ford is recalling more than 223,472 pickup trucks due to an improperly secured fuel tank, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration said.

“In some instances, front fuel tank strap T-slots were not properly inserted into the vehicle’s frame rail at the time of vehicle assembly,” the recall report said.

The recall affects certain model year 2023-2027 F-150 pickups, according to NHTSA.

NEARLY 150,000 FORD VEHICLES RECALLED AFTER DEFECT RAISES RISK OF SUDDEN POWER LOSS WHILE DRIVING

An improperly secured fuel tank could increase the risk of a fire or stalling of the engine due to fuel loss, the recall report said. If the tank detaches, it poses a road hazard to other vehicles.

Ford estimates that 1% of vehicles involved in the recall are affected.

SOME OLDER FORD VEHICLES POSE ‘UNREASONABLE’ SAFETY RISKS, REGULATORS WARN

FORD TO INVEST $1B IN KENTUCKY TRUCK PLANT

Owners will be notified by mail and should take their vehicle to a Ford or Lincoln dealer to have the fuel tanks inspected and replaced, if necessary, the recall report said. The service will be free of charge, Ford told FOX Business.

Notification letters are expected to be mailed to owners beginning Sept. 21.

CLICK HERE TO GET FOX BUSINESS ON THE GO

This post was originally published here. 

Within what was once a well-known synagogue at 80 Forsyth Street on Manhattan’s Lower East Side, the magnetism of this impossible-to-define property goes beyond its rich public history. The three-story space can be used as a live/work studio, gallery, or museum, with many more creative options due to the block’s flexible zoning. Recently featured in the New York Times, the building is currently the studio of artist Dana Barnes, a former fashion designer known for creating large-scale fiber sculptures and wall hangings. Charmed by the space and its history, she and her husband, Dale Westhoff, purchased it in 2013 for $6.4 million. Asking $10.95 million, the 6,800-square-foot building’s scale and architectural details require no embellishment beyond what meets the eye.

Photo credit: Yoo Jean Han

Built in 1874 for the Kol Israel Anshe Poland congregation serving the neighborhood’s Eastern European Jewish community, the building had a mikvah (ritual bath) in the basement, which remained in use into the 20th century. The congregation built a new synagogue nearby some years later, using 80 Forsyth as a community center.

Photo credit: Daniel Root
Photo credit: Yoo Jean Han
Photo credit: Daniel Root

Abstract Expressionist artist Milton Resnick purchased the building in 1962, turning it into a home and painting studio. For five decades to follow, the space enjoyed an important role in the story of postwar American art.

Photo credit: Yoo Jean Han
Photo credit: Emiliano Granado
Photo Credit: Yoo Jean Han
Photo Credit: Yoo Jean Han

The space could easily accommodate a massive, completely unique single-family home, with loft proportions, warm sunlight, and plenty of space in every imaginable configuration.

Burnished hardwood floors, painted brick, a stunning modern kitchen and contemporary additions like track lighting suggest that very little would be needed for comfortable modern living.

Photo Credit: Yoo Jean Han
Photo credit: Daniel Root
Photo credit: Zdrvako Cota

“We fell in love immediately—it was like being in a time portal to another era,” Westhoff told the Times.

In addition to 150 years as part of the fabric of New York City’s creative history, the building comes with 10,000 square feet of additional air rights for future big ideas.

[Listing details: 80 Forsyth Street at CityRealty]

[At Sotheby’s International Realty by Jonathan Hettinger, Mark Thomas Amadei, and Megan Hait]

RELATED:

The post A historic LES synagogue, now an artist’s studio, asks $10.95M first appeared on 6sqft.

This post was originally published here. 

Israel, the United Arab Emirates, and Bahrain marked on Tuesday six years since the signing of the Abraham Accords, which represent the latest diplomatic development between Israel and its Arab neighbors.

“Six years ago, the Abraham Accords changed the Middle East,” said the Foreign Ministry on X/Twitter. “Today, they remain an anchor for the region’s future, building lasting partnerships, creating new opportunities and expanding the circle of peace. Six years on, the future is just beginning.”

The US-mediated normalization deal was seen as a step toward normalization with most of its neighbors and aimed the serve as a roadmap for normalization between Israel and Saudi Arabia.

Since then, Morocco, Kazakhstan, Sudan, and Somaliland decided to join, while the addition of the Saudis was suspended indefinitely after the Hamas-led October 7 massacre and the following war in Gaza.

The current objectives for the accords are focused on the Saudis, with other objectives being the signing of a peace treaty with Lebanon and the establishment of diplomatic relations with the new Syrian government ruled by Ahmed al-Sharaa.

People walk by a billboard sponsored by the Coalition for Regional Security calling for the expansion of the Abraham Accords, in Ramat Gan, Israel June 26, 2025.  (credit: Violeta Santos Moura/Reuters)

‘New chapter to diplomatic cooperation,’ Israel’s Bahrain envoy says

Israel’s Ambassador to Bahrain Sammy Revel commemorated the signing in a social media post.

“On September 15, 2020, Israel, the UAE and Bahrain signed the Abraham Accords at the White House, opening a new chapter of diplomatic cooperation and regional partnership,” Revel wrote.

“Six years on, Israel–Bahrain relations continue to demonstrate the power of dialogue, trust and shared ambition. Building on our achievements, we can further advance cooperation in security, stability, economic development and innovation, creating new opportunities for our peoples and the wider region,” he added.

Ambassador the the UAE Yossi Shelley also commemorated the six years since the signing of the accords and told KAN Reshet Bet that there are high expectations for a new member to join.

“I estimate that it will be within four months to six months,” Shelley said, adding that he believes Kuwait will be the next to join the accords following the attacks it suffered from Iran during the last war.

Lebanon will sign Abraham Accords once Hezbollah is gone, Lebanese MP says

Lebanese Sunni MP Fouad Makhzoumi told Middle East 24 at the end of August that Lebanon can join the Abraham Accords once Hezbollah is disarmed and can no longer use the country as a “launching pad” for attacks against Israel.

Makhzoumi, who has previously urged the Lebanese military to demonstrate its willingness to confront Hezbollah’s arms trafficking by establishing a checkpoint in Beirut’s Dahiyah neighborhood, said diplomatic relations and trade with Israel would be possible once “our side, as Lebanese, disarms the militias.”

As it stands, he said, Lebanon has a border that is outside the state’s control, allowing arms to be smuggled into and out of the country.

“I don’t see any reason why we cannot sign peace with Israel,” Makhzoumi said, adding that Lebanon could “achieve” membership in the Abraham Accords.

Another report by Axios from September 5 pointed out that the US has begun developing a post-war strategy aimed at expanding regional efforts to contain Iran and the normalization of relations between Israel and US allies.

Two US officials and other sources familiar with the matter told Axios the plan is still in the early stages but is intended to guide the US’s actions in the Middle East after the conclusion of the Iran war and in the final years of US President Donald Trump’s term.

According to the officials, preliminary work on the strategy is taking place among the senior level of the Trump administration and at the working level across multiple government agencies.

Danielle Greyman-Kennard and Goldie Katz contributed to this report.

This post was originally published on here. 

If you’ve ever wanted to get your MBA—this is a great week to get started on the journey, in part thanks to the release of Fortune’s latest ranking of the best MBA programs for 2025. 

The highly competitive ranking process saw that many of the top schools retain their clout—with Harvard Business School, University of Chicago (Booth), and Northwestern University (Kellogg) landing the coveted top three spots, respectively.

School 2021–22 rank 2022–23 rank 2023–24 rank 2025 rank
Harvard Business School 1 1 1 1
University of Chicago (Booth) 4 2 7 2
Northwestern University (Kellogg) 5 3 5 3
University of Pennsylvania (Wharton) 3 4 3 4
Columbia Business School 6 6 6 5
The top 5 MBA programs in the U.S.

But there’s much more to meet the eye than the initial data shows. Each program is unique, and for many students, any ranking is just part of the decision-making process to figure out where is best for their own education and career goals.

Fortune used nearly a dozen different data points to gauge 98 MBA programs across the country. For context, these are the averages among all the programs:

Metric Average
Approximate tuition per year, out-of-state U.S. residents $52,650
Acceptance rate, fall 2023 49%
Median GMAT score, fall 2023 entrants 665
Yield, 2023–24 45
Average undergraduate GPA, 2023–24 entrants 3.45
Graduation rate, 2020–23 93%
Retention rate, 2022–23 94%
Job placement rate (3 mo. after graduation) 84%
Median base salary (3 mo. after graduation) $118,000
Fortune 1000 score 8
Average data points among the MBA programs ranked by Fortune

What makes the best MBA programs the best?

Holistically-speaking, the best MBA program prepares students for the business world of today and tomorrow through a modern lens. Students become the best at problem solving, critical thinking, and making data-driven decisions. Having an industry-experienced faculty and a constantly-evolving curriculum are paramount.

Looking more quantitatively, the best programs are highly sought after, and thus students enter with competitive application materials, including multiple years of professional work experience, decent undergraduate GPA, and high GMAT or GRE scores. Because of the growing costs of higher education, Fortune also weighs high tuition negatively. Once in the program, exceptional retention and graduation rates are key. Finally, after graduation, success is indicated by the ability to land jobs with high-paying salaries.

The M7 schools often check all of these boxes. Take Northwestern University (Kellogg), for example. Entrants had median GMAT scores of 740 and average undergraduate GPAs of 3.7. Retention and graduation rates are both above 99%. Three months post-grad, about 92% of students seeking a job were able to land one—with median salaries of $175,000.

Fortune also heavily factors unique data from our lists of the biggest companies in the country.

This in part has helped some programs soar in the ranking. Washington University in St. Louis (Olin) is a glaring example. The school’s MBA program is the alma mater to 19 Fortune 1000 CEOs and CFOs.

“I’m proud of the momentum here at Olin and honestly not surprised that an outsized share of our students make it to the C-Suite. At Olin, we’re a tight-knit, hyper-connected community: We have the unique ability to provide a truly individualized educational experience,” Mike Mazzeo, dean of the Olin Business School, tells Fortune.

The school’s faculty, alumni network, and regional business community contribute heavily to students’ success at Olin, he adds.

“Students choose Olin because they know our approach makes them ready on day 1 and poised for career 6,” Mazzeo says.

WashU experienced the biggest jump of any school this year, rising 18 spots to No. 21.

Sleeper MBA programs with stories to tell

Experts will remind candidates to not forget to look at programs that typically fall outside of the top of the top in the rankings since they often have very similar statistics in terms of outcomes, but may be slightly less competitive and expensive.

Take, for example, the University of Texas–Austin (McCombs). Fortune deemed them to be the No. 12 best MBA program (an increase of five positions from last year). The cost of tuition per year is about $60,000—which is nearly $20,000 cheaper than many of the top 20 programs. And guess what, their students have almost identical job land rate and salary outcomes as the M7.

Georgia Tech (Scheller), the No. 19 best MBA program, has a similar story to tell. Graduates typically see median annual salaries of $165,000, and the tuition is just $42,790 per year. Plus, the school does not require students to submit GMAT/GRE scores to apply.

One of the universities that may be an even greater bang-for-your buck—as long as you are willing to live in Utah—is Brigham Young University. The school was ranked No. 37 for 2025, but the tuition per year for students is only about $15,500. That’s significant especially considering graduates leave the program with about $120,000 in median base salary.

The 5 cheapest MBA programs

School 2025 rank Approximate tuition per year, out of state U.S. residents
Louisiana Tech University 85 $9,537
Missouri State University 97 $13,608
Brigham Young University (Marriott) 37 $15,528
Indiana State University (Scott) 60 $16,362
Troy University (Sorrell) 65 $17,100
The 5 cheapest MBA programs

The 5 easiest top MBA programs to get into

If you’re looking to go to a top MBA program, but are worried about getting accepted, then the percentage of applicants receiving an offer is likely top of your mind. Among the top 25 programs, the University of Washington (Foster) has the highest acceptance rate.

School 2025 rank Acceptance rate
University of Washington (Foster) 25 41.60%
UCLA (Anderson) 23 40.42%
Vanderbilt University (Owen) 20 40.00%
Dartmouth College (Tuck) 13 40.00%
University of Virginia (Darden) 11 39.40%
The 5 easiest top MBA programs to get into

How does the ranking actually work?

We will be the first to say that the rankings world is not perfect. Each year, schools will be happy if they rose, and frustrated if they declined. However, we hope to just provide applicants a glimpse into how schools compare to each other with metrics we feel best measure success.

Pro tip

Our methodology page dives deeper into each factor we used in our ranking as well as the percentage weighting. It also features part of our conversations with our expert panel, who help guide us in the initial stages.

Fortune’s ranking is based on an opt-in process, meaning only schools that respond to Fortune’s invitation and submit a response to our data questionnaire have the ability to be included. This is done in order to judge programs with the most consistent and across-the-board data metrics. While many schools release data about their applicants and graduates, specifics often differ from school to school. 

Fortune reached out to more than 200 schools this year, and close to 100 chose to participate. Some schools that typically appear on Fortune’s rankings, such as Georgetown University and Babson College, decided to not participate this time. We hope to see them back next year.

There were also several new-comers to our list this year, including University of Georgia (Terry), San Jose University State University (Lucas), and Troy University (Sorrell). 

With a revised methodology as well as different schools, there is bound for ranking change. The biggest ranking risers were:

  • Washington University in St. Louis (Olin): No. 21 (+18)
  • University of Tennessee-Knoxville (Haslam): No. 36 (+16)
  • Southern Methodist University (Cox): No. 30 (+13)
  • University of Massachusetts–Amherst (Isenberg): No. 41 (+13)

The biggest decreases were:

  • Indiana State University (Scott): No. 60 (-35)
  • University of San Diego (Knauss): No. 87 (-29)
  • CUNY Bernard M. Baruch College (Zicklin): No. 76 (-29)
  • University of Denver (Daniels): No. 83 (-28)

However, ultimately, while ranking can be important, it is not an end-all-be-all assessment of one school. It should merely present prospective candidates a general idea of the level of prestige one school may be on par with—and where they might take their career.

Harvard Business School declined to comment for this piece.


Check out all of Fortune’s rankings of degree programs, and learn more about specific career paths.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

This post was originally published here. 

In March, shortly after the Supreme Court struck down President Donald Trump’s International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) tariffs and paved the way for $100 billion in import taxes being redistributed back to American importers, U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer shared his idea of what these companies should do with this influx of cash.

“If I were these companies, and somehow they get this windfall, the most important thing and the smartest thing they should do is give it as bonuses to their workers,” Greer told CNBC.

It appears some companies have heeded Greer’s suggestion. As businesses receive more than $100 billion the U.S. Treasury has doled out in refunds since May, many are vowing to lower prices or pay down debts. A handful, however, are giving the cash back to their employees. 

In its second quarter earnings report last month, houseware brand Williams Sonoma said it would allocate $10 million for one-time payments to 401(k) accounts to eligible employees  “in recognition of their efforts navigating the IEEPA tariffs.”

“We’re so appreciative to have the money back and to be able to reward our employees with part of it,” President and CEO Laura Alber said on an earnings call. “They have done such an amazing job.”

TJX, which received $331 million total in tariff refunds, will similarly put a portion of its aggregated refunds into paying employees extra.

“Due to these tariff refunds, the company accrued incremental expenses of $112 million for year-end incentive compensation and discretionary bonuses for eligible associates globally,” a spokesperson told Fortune in a statement.

American companies and consumers alike have kept a close eye on the tariff refund process, particularly after Federal Reserve research showed they were the ones shouldering the brunt of the tariff costs. While companies like Walmart and FedEx have promised to compensate consumers for tariff-related inflation through lower prices or direct rebates, the unconventional decision to hand employees cash from tariff refunds indicates just what a pervasive impact the import taxes had on U.S. companies.

“Companies have a lot of different margins for how they adjust to tariffs,” Alex Durante, senior economist at the Tax Foundation, told Fortune. “They could pass all of it along to consumers, they could also reduce investment, they could reduce hiring, they could cut back on certain employer perks and forms of compensation, if they wish. And I think that this is just perhaps another way of thinking about that.”

How U.S. employees have been impacted by tariffs

Greer’s rationale for giving workers a portion of the tariff refunds goes back to one of Trump’s initial motivations for implementing levies in the first place: to bring back manufacturing jobs to the U.S.

“The whole reason the president imposed these tariffs was to try to reshore, affect our massive imbalance in trade that we’ve experienced over many years because of China, Vietnam, the EU and others,” Greer said. “If the companies are going to get this windfall, they should pass it along to their workers as a bonus or a raise, because that’s the purpose of the program.”

It appears the tariffs had the opposite effect in reshoring, with manufacturing jobs in the U.S. actually shrinking by more than 100,000 during the first year of Trump’s second term. Laura Ullrich, director of economic research at the Indeed Hiring Lab, previously told Fortune tariffs and the uncertainty surrounding maintaining supply chains, could be a reason for this dip.

“Oftentimes when there is heightened uncertainty, it’s just difficult for businesses and people to make decisions in real time,” she said. “And so that slows down employment. It slows down all those processes.”

In addition to hiring constraints, tariffs may have also suppressed wage growth, according to Pantheon Macroeconomics analysts Samuel Tombs and Oliver Allen, who argued companies slashed raises in order to maintain or take back margins when the IEEPA tariffs were in place. It’s one reason why companies may feel compelled to give workers back some cash from the duties, the Tax Foundation’s Durante suggested.

Instead of lowering prices or offering refunds to consumers amid ongoing tariff uncertainty, “what are some better ways we can retain our employees and incentivize them to want to stay with us or to want to want to work for us?” he said.

Tariffs, after all, have likely had an impact on workers’ retirement plans, at least indirectly. Though markets have recovered from Trump’s previous threats to impose sweeping import taxes, economists have found evidence tariffs will have longer-term reductions in stock prices, from about 7.33% to 10.13% across indices within the next couple of years. Lower stock prices means fewer returns for employees with retirement money in the markets.

“It is the case, absolutely, that tariffs do impact capital, and thus the equity markets,” Durante said.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

This post was originally published here. 

A 14-year-old boy was slashed on Monday evening inside a Brooklyn synagogue by a suspect the police called an “emotionally disturbed person.”

The 22-year-old suspect, Krybus Shimon, is a fellow congregant of Yeshiva Gevoah Toldos, an Orthodox synagogue in Borough Park, the New York Police Department said.

He was taken into custody and charged on Monday with assault, reckless endangerment, and criminal possession of a weapon. 

The boy’s hand was slashed with a “cutting instrument,” and he was treated by emergency medical services on the scene, police said. 

The incident is not currently being investigated as a hate crime, and it’s not yet clear what led to the slashing.

Ultra-Orthodox Jews seen walking on a street in Borough Park neighborhood in the southwestern borough of Brooklyn, New York City on January 12, 2025. (credit: Arie Leib Abrams/Flash90)

Borough Park hit by antisemitic vandalism

Borough Park is one of the largest Orthodox enclaves in the United States, home to about 96,000 Jews, according to UJA-Federation of New York.

In January, the neighborhood was hit with a spate of antisemitic vandalism. Over 70 swastikas and the words “Adolf Hitler” were sprayed over two days across Gravesend Park, a playground in Borough Park. Two 15-year-old boys were arrested for the vandalism and charged with aggravated harassment and criminal mischief as a hate crime.

New York Gov. Kathy Hochul last week announced a record $70 million in security funding for houses of worship, schools, community centers, and other nonprofit organizations that are vulnerable to hate crimes and attacks because of their ideology, beliefs, or mission.

This post was originally published on here. 

Attorney-General Todd Blanche said that there is new information on the shooter in the Butler assassination attempt on US President Donald Trump in a press briefing on Tuesday.

“It is new information about the shooter and about his background, about his history and that stuff that we didn’t know before,” Blanche told reporters during a White House press conference, without elaborating.

The attempted assassin, Thomas Crooks, fired eight shots at Trump with a rifle from a nearby rooftop during his speech at a 2024 campaign rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, before being killed by a Secret Service sniper.

A few hours prior to the A-G’s statements, Trump lambasted the FBI under the Biden administration in an X/Twitter post for not doing “what they should have with respect to the Lunatic who shot me in Butler, PA. By the time I got into Office, on January 20th, most of the information was missing, altered, corrupted, or gone. New info was just found! Why wasn’t it seen long ago?”

He continued, saying, “This was all a Democrat Plot, to get me out of the Election, that failed.”

Republican presidential candidate and former U.S. President Donald Trump is assisted by the Secret Service after gunfire rang out during a campaign rally at the Butler Farm Show in Butler, Pennsylvania, US, July 13, 2024. (credit: REUTERS/BRENDAN MCDERMID)

Trump attacks ex-FBI director Christopher Wray

Trump added that ex-FBI director Christopher Wray, whom Trump appointed in his first term but later grew to hate, “should pay a price” for how the department responded to the assassination attempt “and certainly for the things he said.”

Blanche, who was Trump’s personal lawyer at the time of the assassination attempt, said during the briefing that he was with Trump as the investigation into the shooting was playing out, trying to ascertain what happened.

“His frustration and concern about what the former director was doing is something that is not new,” Blanche said.

The Justice Department and FBI did not immediately respond to a Reuters request for comment. Wray could not be reached for comment.

Jonah Davidov contributed to this report.

This post was originally published on here. 

Noah Wyle on Monday night won his second consecutive Emmy for playing Dr. Michael “Robby” Robinavitch on The Pitt. The win also marked a second victory for one of television’s more fully realized Jewish characters.

The actor won Outstanding Lead Actor in a Drama Series for the HBO Max medical drama, which also won Outstanding Drama Series for the second year in a row. In his acceptance speech, Wyle recalled growing up in Los Angeles and said, “This is all I’ve ever wanted to do, and this is the only club I’ve ever wanted to join.”

For Jewish viewers, the significance of Wyle’s victory goes beyond the actor’s own Jewish ancestry. In the first season, Robby was seen reciting the Shema at one of his lowest moments, turning what might have been a throwaway piece of character background into an intimate expression of fear and faith.

In the second season, Wyle, who is also a writer and executive producer on the show, pushed that dimension further. An episode he wrote dealt with the trauma of the 2018 Tree of Life synagogue shooting in Pittsburgh, while also exploring Robby’s complicated relationship with his Jewish faith.

Wyle has described Robby’s faith as something he is still “grappling” with – including the question of whether he has faith at all. The Shema scene, he said, functioned almost like a child’s primal plea for help.

Saul Metzstein accepts the Outstanding Directing for a Drama Series Award for ''Slow Horses'' onstage during the 78th Primetime Emmy Awards at Peacock Theater on September 14, 2026 in Los Angeles, California. (credit: KEVIN WINTER/GETTY IMAGES)

Saul Metzstein wins Emmy for ‘Slow Horses’

Wyle was not the only Jewish winner of the night. Saul Metzstein, the Scottish Jewish director whose father was the prominent modernist architect Isi Metzstein, won Outstanding Directing for a Drama Series for Slow Horses. Metzstein had been competing against Wyle, who was nominated for directing an episode of The Pitt.

Those two wins were among the relatively few Jewish victories at this year’s ceremony. Jewish actors including Jason Segel, Lisa Kudrow, Harrison Ford, and Hannah Einbinder were among the nominees but did not win in their categories.

Nobody Wants This, the Netflix show about a rabbi’s romance with a non-Jewish podcaster, was nominated for Outstanding Comedy Series but lost to Widow’s Bay.

Posthumous Emmy award given to Jewish actor, director Rob Reiner

An Emmy was also awarded to a Jewish actor and director whose death in 2025 stunned the industry and a legion of fans. Rob Reiner, who was killed in December with his wife, Michele, won a posthumous Emmy for his guest role as a kind dispenser of business advice on The Bear. Reiner’s award was presented at the Creative Arts Emmys earlier this month, rather than Monday’s televised ceremony.

Reiner, before going on to direct Hollywood classics like This Is Spinal Tap, The Princess Bride, and When Harry Met Sally, won his first two Emmy awards in 1974 and 1978 for playing Mike Stivic, the liberal son-in-law of Archie Bunker on All in the Family.

This post was originally published on here. 

Delaware incumbent Sen. Chris Coons, a longtime supporter of Israel, is expected to easily win Delaware’s US Senate primary on Tuesday, despite criticism from party progressives.

Coons, a mainstay of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has repeatedly backed measures to bolster Israel’s capacity for self-defense. He also joined a bipartisan delegation to visit Israel immediately after the October 7, 2023, Hamas attacks. 

But the senator has faced pushback in recent months for his refusal to back measures that would cut military aid to Israel. 

This past spring, he was one of just seven Democrats to join Republicans in voting against a resolution authored by independent Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, which sought to stop the sale of military bulldozers to Israel. Coons was among just 11 Democrats who opposed a second Sanders resolution that proposed similar sales bans on massive bombs and other defense equipment. 

Coons has served nearly three terms in the Senate. He won a special election in 2010, about a year after Joe Biden resigned to become US vice president, and then went on to secure two full terms in 2014 and 2020. 

US Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE) speaks as members of the Senate Judiciary Committee gather to vote on the nomination of Todd Blanche to be Attorney General in in Washington, DC, ugust 04, 2026. (credit: Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

In Tuesday’s primary, he will face off against artificial intelligence systems builder and historian Jeff Appelhans, naval architect and marine engineer Mary Louve and a former business executive who changed his legal name from Eric Hansen to E. No-Trump Hansen. 

While Coons has earned endorsements from establishment Democrats, such as Delaware Sen. Lisa Blunt Rochester and Gov. Matt Meyer, he has drawn criticism from party progressives for both his support of Israel and the financial backing he gets from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the pro-Israel lobbying group.

Who are Coon’s opponents?

Of Coons’s opponents, the most vocal critic on Israel-related policy has been Appelhans, whose campaign priorities included ending US support for Israel’s war in Gaza. Appelhans slammed Coons for voting against the Sanders bills, writing on his campaign site that “the liberal consensus moved to block the sales.” 

Appelhans condemned Coons’s voting record on “moving armaments to Israel,” noting in a recent interview that “there’s never been a vote that he’s stopped” on this issue. He was speaking with Delaware Public Media last week as part of a series of candidate interviews. 

Regarding the conflict in Iran, Appelhans slammed “Congress’ unwillingness” to challenge the president, noting that “there was very much a sense that Israel would be a staunch ally and they could sort of get this done really easily.” 

In the same radio series, another candidate, Louve, expressed uncertainty as to “why we’re still backing Israel,” while acknowledging the country’s history as a US ally. 

“Is it worth us continuing to step up for a bully?” she asked. “It’s aggression that is unnecessary that’s continuing to escalate because we’re helping it.” 

Hansen did not participate in these conversations, Delaware Public Media stated. 

This summer Coons pledged to stop taking donations from the data company Palantir, which has come under scrutiny for its work with the Israel’s Defense Ministry, the US military and US Immigration and Customs Enforcement, according to the nonprofit news site Spotlight Delaware.

Coons has significantly criticized Trump administration

Despite his more centrist reputation, Coons has had significant criticism for the Trump administration’s strategies in Iran. In his own Delaware Public Media interview, Coons accused the president of selling the conflict “as a cheap, quick war.”

While little polling data was available ahead of Tuesday’s race, the Polymarket predictions site gave Coons a 99.7% chance of winning as of Monday evening. In his last primary in 2020, Coons defeated a progressive opponent, Jessica Scarane, with nearly 73% of voter support.  

Regardless of Tuesday’s outcome, the victor is expected to easily defeat the Republican challenger in the November general election, with the Cook Political Report deeming Delaware “solid” Democratic territory. 

This post was originally published on here. 

A former Brooklyn Heights hotel known for its glamorous past and A-list guests is entering its next luxury chapter. Marriott International, Inc. and SomeraRoad on Tuesday announced plans to turn Hotel Bossert at 98 Montague Street into The Ritz-Carlton, Residences, Brooklyn Heights, bringing the first branded residences to the borough. The development, which preserves the landmarked Renaissance Revival building, will add 62 condominiums and a ground-floor restaurant by Danny Meyer’s Union Hospitality Group.

Photo by Jim.henderson via Wikimedia

Designed by Helmle and Huberty, the 14-story Hotel Bossert opened in 1909 as an apartment hotel. Once called the “Waldorf-Astoria of Brooklyn,” the building and its rooftop, the two-story ship-themed restaurant Marine Roof, became a hot spot for celebrities, business leaders, and other notable New Yorkers, like the Brooklyn Dodgers, who famously celebrated their 1955 World Series championship there.

The Jehovah’s Witnesses bought the building in the 1980s and used it as short-term residences for guests and visitors until 2012, when they sold the property for $81 million. Several plans to turn the building back into a hotel were floated over the years, but nothing materialized.

Rendering credit: DBOX

Last year, real estate investment and development firm SomeraRoad acquired the former hotel for $100 million and announced plans to convert it into residences.

Located within the Brooklyn Heights Historic District, the building’s architecture, including its brick facade, limestone base, arched double-height windows, and other elements, will be restored. Earlier this month, the Landmarks Preservation Commission approved plans from the developer to construct a 15th-floor rooftop addition as well as changes to the 13th-floor cornice and mechanical equipment. SLCE Architects will handle the design for the project.

“Working alongside an extraordinary team of architects, designers, preservation experts, and the team at Marriott International, we are thoughtfully restoring this historic property while creating a residential experience that honors the Bossert’s rich legacy and celebrates the enduring appeal of Brooklyn Heights,” Ian Ross, founder and managing principal of SomeraRoad, said.

“We believe this project will become Brooklyn’s premier residential address and stand among the finest new residential offerings in New York City.”

Like other Ritz-Carlton-branded properties, The Ritz-Carlton Residences, Brooklyn Heights, will combine luxury living with upscale amenities, including access to benefits across Marriott’s portfolio through the Residence Owner Recognition Program. Union Square Hospitality Group will open its first full-service Brooklyn restaurant on the building’s ground floor.

Construction is expected to kick off later this year and wrap up in 2029. The Kantha Team at Ryan Serhant’s SERHANT. New Development is leading sales.

New branded residential developments have grown in popularity in Manhattan in recent years, with developments like the Mandarin Oriental Residences on Fifth Avenue, the Waldorf Astoria Residences New York, and the Ritz-Carlton Residences Nomad, offering high-end hospitality services and prestige. The Bossert conversion marks the first branded residence to open in Brooklyn.

RELATED:

The post Former Hotel Bossert in Brooklyn Heights to become Ritz-Carlton condos first appeared on 6sqft.

This post was originally published here. 

The rise of artificial intelligence (AI) coincides with a sharp deterioration in initial earnings and employment for graduates of the college majors most exposed to the technology, according to a new study.
Since the release of ChatGPT in late 2022, graduates in the 10 percent of majors most exposed to AI saw their likelihood of finding a job shortly after graduation fall by 5 percentage points, according to a working paper published by the U.S. Census Bureau’s Center for Economic Studies on Sept. 10.
Their initial quarterly earnings also fell by about 13 percent relative to graduates in fields less exposed to AI, according to the findings….

This post was originally published here. 

Military commanders from the US, Israel, and several Arab countries convened in Germany last week for a discussion organized by US Central Command (CENTCOM) Chief Admiral Brad Cooper that centered on the conflict with Iran, Israeli officials told Axios.

The eight militaries that attended the meeting were the United States, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, the UAE, Jordan, and Egypt. 

A source from within CENTCOM later confirmed to The Jerusalem Post that it hosted senior military leaders from eight countries at a closed conference in Germany last week, where discussions focused on strengthening security cooperation in the Middle East.

“Last week, CENTCOM hosted senior military leaders from eight nations during a scheduled conference in Germany,” a US official told the Post. “The leaders discussed opportunities for enhancing security cooperation in the Middle East.”

In the meeting, Cooper reassured the chiefs of staff that the US would not withdraw its forces from the region in the face of Iranian attacks on US bases throughout the Middle East, according to Axios. He also briefed the military leaders on US plans to secure the Strait of Hormuz and increase maritime traffic. 

Iran-aligned Houthi fighters occupy a firing position in a screengrab from a video said to show Houthi fighters attacking Saudi-backed forces in the location given by the source as al Jawf governorate, Yemen. (credit: Houthi Military Media/Reuters)

Cooperation between Israel and Arab states

Israeli officials also told Axios that the IDF Chief of Staff, Lt.-Gen. Eyal Zamir, briefed the Arab nations on Israel’s operations on its various fronts.

The open communication of military intelligence potentially signals the strengthening of ties between Israel and nearby Gulf States in the vein of the Abraham Accords.

In March 2022, then-IDF chief of staff Lt.-Gen. Aviv Kohavi and senior Arab military leaders, including Saudi Arabia’s Chief of Staff General Fayyadh Al Ruwaili, met in Sharm el-Sheikh to discuss countering the escalating regional threats posed by Iran.

Besides some of these rare snapshots, Mossad and IDF officials have hinted at various communications with the Saudis or through the US to the Saudis in recent years.

Israel’s ambassador to the UAE, Yossi Shelley, said earlier this week that Kuwait is likely to join the Abraham Accords within four to six months. 

Trump also held talks with leaders from throughout the Middle East, including Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, UAE President Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, as well as leadership from Qatar, Pakistan, Turkey, Egypt, Bahrain and Jordan.

He said that “after the great work the United States has invested in formulating [an] agreement, the countries involved should sign the Abraham Accords simultaneously.”

Houthi attacks escalate regional conflict, Iranian proxies a threat to Gulf

The meeting comes as the Houthis have stepped up attacks on Saudi cities and energy infrastructure while advancing along Yemen’s Red Sea coast towards the Bab al-Mandab Strait, a key shipping route.

The escalation has opened a second theater in the wider regional conflict and raised concerns over Saudi oil exports and global shipping.

Trump did not agree to US strikes on the group, but Washington told Riyadh it would provide intelligence-sharing and targeting assistance, the sources added.

Jerusalem also committed to assisting Riyadh in its defense against the Houthi threat by providing military intelligence in a recent meeting between Israel and Saudi Arabia mediated by CENTCOM.

On Monday, thirteen civilians were wounded in strikes by the Iran-backed Houthis on the Saudi cities of Khamis Mushait, Abha, and Taif.

Reuters contributed to this report.

This post was originally published on here. 

Prosecutors charged Tel Aviv resident Udi Ayalon, 48, on Monday with threatening a media professional’s career, reputation, and privacy in an alleged campaign to force her to renew a business and personal relationship with him.

The indictment, filed in Tel Aviv Magistrate’s Court, charges Ayalon with multiple counts of extortion by threats, threats, violation of a court order, harassment through a communications device, and invasion of privacy, the prosecution said.

According to the indictment, Ayalon produced paid lectures for the woman as part of a business relationship that later developed into a friendship.

Prosecutors allege that about two years into the relationship, Ayalon became dissatisfied with the amount of attention he received from her and began sending WhatsApp messages threatening to damage her livelihood and reputation. The woman subsequently refused to continue meeting him and asked to end both the business relationship and the friendship.

Ayalon then allegedly sent further threatening messages, published posts on social media and repeatedly appeared at her workplace. The indictment alleges that he threatened to approach senior figures and colleagues at her employer and disclose information about her unless she resumed contact with him.

Illustration of arrested suspects on their way to hearing at the DIstrict Court in Jerusalem. August 18, 2026. (credit: Chaim Goldberg FLASH90)

‘I am going to be cruel at a level you never imagined’

“You have ended your career,” he allegedly wrote in one message. “I am going to be cruel at a level you never imagined.”

In another message cited by prosecutors, Ayalon allegedly wrote that his desire for revenge was driven by her refusal “to make a fresh start” with him.

The woman later obtained a restraining order prohibiting Ayalon from contacting or harassing her in any form. The court also issued a gag order covering the proceedings. The indictment alleges that Ayalon violated both orders.

Following the alleged violations, the woman filed a police complaint. Prosecutors said Ayalon continued to threaten her during a confrontation conducted as part of the investigation, despite the presence of a police investigator.

“You do not know how dangerous I am,” he allegedly told her, according to the indictment. “You have something to fear.”

He also allegedly said: “I will continue doing what I want. I am not afraid of anyone. No one will tell me what to do.”

The prosecution has asked the court to impose restrictions on Ayalon for the duration of the criminal proceedings, including a prohibition on contacting, harassing, or threatening the woman, either directly or through other people.

In the earlier investigation, Ayalon’s attorney had denied the allegations and argued that his client was the victim in the dispute. 

This post was originally published on here. 

NAZA director Yuval Abraham has nothing to return to in Israel, People of Israel chairman Ofer Winter said during a party rally in Rishon Lezion on Tuesday.

“An Israeli citizen, a Jew, receives thunderous applause for going out and smearing and defaming his own people,” he said, addressing Abraham. “I understand that you are afraid to return to Israel; you are right.”

“You have nothing to return to. Indeed, it is a disgrace and a shame to return after you spat in the faces of your own people.”

Winter added that even so, he would be happy to meet with Abraham face-to-face to tell him “how ungrateful you [Abraham] are and how, even in another hundred years, you will not reach the level of morality of our soldiers.”

Further, he said that in the public diplomacy ministry he plans to establish – should he be elected to the next government – headed by Yoseph Haddad, “This will not happen. He will not remain silent in the face of this blood libel.”

Directors Yuval Abraham and Rachel Szor pose during a photocall for the documentary ''Naza'' in Competition, at the 83rd Venice International Film Festival, in Venice, Italy, September 10, 2026. (credit: REUTERS/YVES HERMAN)

Winter: People of Israel party subject to right-wing attacks

The People of Israel head went on to note that it is “unpleasant” to have to “endure attacks from within the [right-wing] camp,” including from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the Likud, which he has done for three weeks.

Winter claimed that government ministers, MKs, and Likud candidates have levied comments such as “We need to bring him down,” and “The time has come to eliminate him” against him and others on the People of Israel list, which is made up of IDF reservists.

“These are the people you want to ‘bring down’?” he asked. “The Ten Days of Repentance, and what is the prime minister occupied with? Feverish discussions about how to eliminate People of Israel.”

“You are presenting Netanyahu and the public with 64 seats without me, so what are you complaining about me for? If victory is already in the bag, then what do you want? What have I done to you? You want to bring down People of Israel? First, bring down the number of reserve duty days served by our male and female soldiers.”

Winter accused those attacking him and his party of sending private investigators after them and sending hate messages and threats.

“We are here. All of us. Strong as one fist, and above all, not afraid, not of threats, not of intimidation,” he said. “Yes, there are people here who cannot be bought, and that will be the case in the next government as well.”

Winter slams Golan, Liberman in speech

He also slammed The Democrats party chair Yair Golan’s bid for government, saying that should his party not receive public support, Israel will see “the arrogant face of Yair Golan, the one who said I was messianic and unworthy because I dared to recite the Shema prayer before battle in Gaza… And that is dangerous.”

Additionally, Winter accused Yisrael Beyteinu party head Avigdor Liberman of misleading voters.

“He tells them that he will bring a decisive victory and bring good news to the Right,” he said. “I am sorry, Avigdor, but whoever is counting on senior partners such as Yair Golan and Gadi Eisenkot in the government will not be able to achieve a decisive victory. With them, it simply cannot happen.”

He concluded his speech with wishes for a good year and the hope that the People of Israel party wins.

“For every attack against us from the Right and the Left, there is one answer: Vote for People of Israel,” he said.

In response, Liberman accused Winter of being hypocritical, noted that the IDF is subordinate to the government and therefore “the entire government, and the prime minister above all, bears responsibility for the October 7 massacre, the greatest tragedy in the history of the Jewish people since the Holocaust.”

Liberman blamed the outcome on Netanyahu’s “conceptzia” policy during his 19 years as prime minister.

“So, enough with the hypocrisy and the sanctimony; learn to withstand pressure and start speaking the truth.”

In response to Liberman’s remarks, the People of Israel party said that he couldn’t influence anything while he was “sitting in the stands,” telling him that only a right-wing government can defeat the enemy.

The Reservists party, led by Yoaz Hendel, also responded to Winter’s statements, saying that he had been “a determined fighter in the past,” but that he was less determined as a politician.

“If Winter doesn’t agree to significant sanctions for draft evaders, he’s already given up,” the Reservist said.

This post was originally published on here. 

Less than two months ahead of the New Zealand general elections, a PFLP-linked party running entirely on a pro-Palestine platform is raising questions about the normalization of Israel and Jew hate in the southwestern Pacific nation.

The Palestine Free from the River to the Sea Party was almost not allowed to register after over 200 submissions opposing it; however, the Electoral Commission ultimately decided to allow it to pass on August 5. This means it has at least 500 members, as that is the threshold needed to secure registration.

Not only will the party feature on the ballot paper, but it has also been allocated nearly NZ$79,000 in taxpayer-funded election broadcasting money.

According to its website, the Palestine Free from the River to the Sea Party has three main aims: Building a democratic party that unites supporters of Palestine from all traditions; pressuring the New Zealand government to support the prosecution of war crimes and genocide; and recognizing that Palestinian liberation is bound up with the broader struggle against imperialism.

It also calls for the return of Palestinian refugees to their homeland and the dismantling of the State of Israel.

Paul Hopkinson (center) getting arrested in February 2026 for disorderly behaviour and assaulting a police officer. (credit: SCREENSHOT/X)

The party was founded and is led by Paul Hopkinson, who also serves as the national spokesperson for the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) campaign in New Zealand.

Hopkinson told the New Arab on June 23 that he plans to use his position as a registered political party to hold other parties to account on the issue of Palestine.

“Successive New Zealand governments have failed to take any steps to hold Israel accountable for its violations of international law or to support UN resolutions related to Palestine,” he said.

“As is clear from the party’s principles, we offer unconditional support for all forms of Palestinian resistance, including armed resistance.”

Therefore, he said, Hamas and other Palestinian groups (such as the PIJ) should not have been placed on the terrorism list in NZ. The PFLP itself is not designated.

Interestingly, this is the same Hopkinson who was at the center of a relatively well-known NZ court appeal in 2003.

On 10 March, 2003, between 500 and 1,000 people protested the Australian Government’s support for the United States-led invasion of Iraq. During the protest, Hopkinson – at the time a schoolteacher – held the New Zealand flag on a pole upside down and another activist lit it on fire, resulting in a column of flame.

Hopkinson became the first person to be prosecuted under the Flags, Emblems, and Names Protection Act 1981. He appealed, and a judge later ruled that “the prohibition of flag burning under the act was a breach of the right to freedom of expression, and such a limit was not justified under s5 of the Bill of Rights.”

In February this year, Hopkinson was arrested for attempting to burn an American flag, as well as for assaulting a police officer. He appears to have been arrested on several occasions in relation to his pro-Palestine protesting. He also ran as a Workers Party candidate for Christchurch East in 2008.

Zionism becomes an election issue

Israel Institute of New Zealand spokesperson Greg Bouwer told the Australia Israel and Jewish Affairs Council (AIJAC) that “If ‘From the River to the Sea’ becomes the formal identity of a registered political movement, we should expect the meaning of Zionism, Israel’s continued existence and Jewish national self-determination, to become election issues.”

“That makes it especially important that other parties do not respond by competing for the same constituency through increasingly inflammatory rhetoric.”

In a separate piece on the IINZ website, Bouwer raised the question of why any party should make a foreign policy position its only ethos.

“That raises a legitimate question for a party seeking representation in New Zealand’s Parliament. Why should determining the constitutional future of Israelis and Palestinians be the organizing purpose of a New Zealand political party?” he asked.

And it is not as if other parties in NZ don’t have Palestine on their list of campaign issues.

The Green Party, for example, is openly hostile toward Israel, as is Te Pati Maori. Labour has also moved toward a more anti-Israel position.

New Zealand Jewish Council (NZJC) President Juliet Moses told AIJAC that Labour Party leader Chris Hipkins “seems reasonable” but that Spokesperson for Foreign Affairs Vanushi Walters “has said a genocide is unfolding in Gaza, and that if Labour was in power it would have recognized Palestine, sanctioned Israel, and looked to join South Africa’s case against Israel at the ICJ.”

New Zealand sees ongoing rise in antisemitism

The anti-Israel messaging throughout the parties is significant due to the way in which it provokes a rise in antisemitism in the country.

According to the NZJC, 2025 saw the highest number of antisemitic incidents ever recorded in a single year in New Zealand.

The incidents included five assaults (the most in any year), two threats, and 15 incidents of desecration or damage to Jewish sites.

According to NZ Police, New Zealand Jews are disproportionately targeted compared with other ethnic and religious groups – and Jews are only 0.2% of the population.

Geopolitical incidents involving Israel are often associated with an increase in antisemitic incidents in New Zealand, particularly from far-left and Islamist-motivated individuals.

In the same report, NZJC warned that antisemitism has become “tolerated or even endorsed by persons of social and political importance and other leaders.”

“It is concerning that members of our parliament feel free to participate in online forums that routinely express vile antisemitism, or join rallies promoted by groups that have been widely condemned for their racism, let alone participate in the hateful chants of “From

the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” or endorse “intifada,” it said.

The fact that a party’s name is that very slogan is cause for concern.

This post was originally published on here. 

The B’Yachad party will be committed to ensuring equal rights for the LGBTQ community and enabling civil marriage if it joins the next government, opposition leader Yair Lapid, who holds the second slot on former prime minister Naftali Bennett’s party slate, told The Jerusalem Post on Tuesday.

The B’Yachad party was formed from an alliance between Bennett and Lapid’s centrist Yesh Atid Party. It is one of the leading parties in the opposition bloc seeking to replace Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in the October elections.

Lapid said Tuesday that B’Yachad would seek to pass legislation within the first 100 days of the next government guaranteeing equal rights for every couple in Israel. 

Civil marriage is not performed in Israel, as the religious status quo in the country dictates that Jews can only marry and divorce through the rabbinate.

This prevents same-sex couples from legally marrying in the country. As a result, many couples travel abroad to marry in civil ceremonies, which are later legally recognized upon their return and grant them marital rights.

 Opposition leader Yair Lapid attends at the annual Jerusalem Pride Parade, on June 1, 2023 (credit: YONATAN SINDEL/FLASH90)

“My eldest son got married in a Jewish wedding, with the Seven Blessings, the breaking of the glass and a prayer for the peace of Jerusalem, but not through the Chief Rabbinate,” Lapid told the Post.

“He is no less Jewish, he is no less married, and my granddaughter is no less Israeli than anyone else.”

“In the State of Israel, there should be a parallel civil marriage option for anyone who wants it,” he said.

“As a liberal party, we are committed to equal rights for everyone. Discrimination against the LGBTQ+ community must end, and we will make sure of it,” Lapid added.

Bennett shifting towards liberal stances, maintains right-wing view on security

Bennett has shifted from his stance in past campaigns, taking a more liberal position while maintaining a strong right-wing stance on security.

Bennett said that during his time away from the political scene after being prime minister in 2021, he consulted experts to prepare a comprehensive plan for the country’s future, which includes the establishment of a written constitution, raising competition in the market to lower the cost of living, improving transportation, cutting down the crime rates, and investing in AI to advance the country’s technology and defense.

The former prime minister has also said he would not form a coalition with the haredi (ultra-Orthodox) parties, calling for cutting all state funding for anyone evading military service and reversing contentious haredi-backed legislation passed by the outgoing government.

This post was originally published on here. 

NEW YORK — Pennsylvania officials have reported a fourth measles-associated death.

The latest death involved an 18-year-old resident of Mifflin County, in the center of the state, the county coroner’s office said in a Facebook post. The cause was acute disseminated encephalomyelitis, a rare and severe neurological complication of measles, it said.

Read the rest…

This post was originally published here. 

America is already getting hit with higher interest rates before the Federal Reserve even makes its decision.

The 10-year U.S. Treasury yield surged to roughly 5.04% Tuesday, its highest level since 2007, pushing up the benchmark that influences mortgages, corporate borrowing, commercial real estate financing and trillions of dollars of debt across the economy.

Now Wall Street is betting the Fed is about to add another layer.

The Federal Reserve began its two-day policy meeting Tuesday and will announce its decision Wednesday at 2 p.m. ET. Traders are pricing roughly a 92% probability of a quarter-point rate increase.

If it happens, it would be the Fed’s first rate hike since July 2023, lifting its target range from 3.50%-3.75% to 3.75%-4.00%.

That distinction matters.

The Fed has not raised rates yet. The market is raising borrowing costs on its own because investors increasingly believe inflation is becoming difficult enough that the Fed will have to respond.

Oil is a major reason.

Brent crude has climbed toward $108 a barrel while U.S. oil has pushed above $100, threatening to raise costs for transportation, manufacturing, airlines, deliveries and eventually consumer goods.

Higher energy costs can restart inflation even when other prices are cooling.

Bond investors are responding by demanding more interest to lend money for 10 years. When Treasury yields rise, borrowing rates throughout the economy generally move higher with them.

For businesses, the math gets painful quickly.

A company refinancing $5 million of debt at a rate one percentage point higher pays about $50,000 more per year in interest before considering principal repayments or other loan costs.

Multiply that across larger businesses, commercial properties and corporate America, and the economic drag becomes substantial.

Homebuyers face the same problem. Thirty-year mortgage rates do not move directly with the Federal Reserve’s overnight rate; they are heavily influenced by longer-term bond yields, particularly the 10-year Treasury.

That means mortgage costs can rise even before the Fed acts.

Stocks also face a tougher calculation.

When investors can earn roughly 5% from U.S. government debt, they have less incentive to take the additional risk of owning stocks. Higher yields also reduce the present value investors place on companies’ future profits, hitting highly valued growth and technology stocks particularly hard.

The biggest question Wednesday may therefore not be whether the Fed raises rates.

Markets have largely priced that in.

The real question is what comes next.

If Fed officials signal that Wednesday’s expected increase is enough for now, Treasury yields could ease.

If they suggest more hikes may be necessary to contain inflation, the move above 5% could prove to be the beginning rather than the peak.

Either way, households and businesses do not have to wait until Wednesday afternoon to feel tighter monetary conditions.

The bond market has already raised the price of money.

JBizNews Desk | New York

© JBizNews.com. All rights reserved. This article is original reporting by JBizNews Desk. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution is strictly prohibited.

The Federal Reserve is holding a closely watched monetary policy meeting this week as the market expects the central bank to hike interest rates amid concerns about stubborn inflation.

Policymakers have held interest rates steady at all five meetings held by the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) this year, with the benchmark federal funds rate sitting at a target range of 3.5% to 3.75%.

Persistent inflation above the Fed’s 2% long-run target has prompted concern among policymakers and has shifted the market’s outlook to anticipating a rate increase this week, with the CME FedWatch tool showing a 92.5% chance of a 25-basis-point hike versus a 7.5% probability of rates staying at their current level.

The Fed’s preferred inflation gauge, the personal consumption expenditures (PCE) index, was up 3.7% on an annual basis in July while core PCE, which excludes volatile food and energy prices, was up 3.3%. Another closely watched inflation measure, the consumer price index (CPI), was up 3.4% annually in August while core CPI was up 2.4%.

WHAT WARSH’S JACKSON HOLE SPEECH SIGNALS ABOUT WHERE INTEREST RATES ARE HEADED

The anticipated rate hike comes as yields on U.S. Treasurys are rising, reaching the highest level in years amid competition in the fixed income market from foreign sovereign debt and corporate debt issuance.

The yield on the benchmark 10-year Treasury note is hovering around 5%, the highest level it’s been at since 2007. Higher interest rates on Treasurys increase the federal government’s cost to service its debt, which is a key driver of growing budget deficits.

Josh Hirt, senior economist at Vanguard, told FOX Business in an interview on Friday that the “developments over the last week, including the inflation report today, I think almost make the case that you could have a somewhat more adverse reaction if the Fed does not go [on Wednesday] unless the communication around the rationale behind that was extremely strong relative to them actually moving at this meeting.”

WARSH SAYS FED’S MAIN FOCUS SHOULD BE ON PRICES WITH CENTRAL BANK’S RATE POLICY IN FOCUS

Hirt said that he “wouldn’t see the immediate case for that to really extend any pricing if they were to move,” adding that “In fact, it could relieve some of the pressure in some extent, that the Fed did act, that the market is comfortable that they would be willing to do so.”

“I think that actually could very much be the case, in fact, rather than the alternative – which would be not going and the market potentially thinking about credibility issues and extending even further.”

“The base case would be if they were to move [on Wednesday], I wouldn’t see any necessary conditions that the market has to move higher based on that. In fact, it could potentially retrench a bit from where we are today,” Hirt added.

FED’S HAMMACK SAYS MULTIPLE RATE HIKES MAY BE NEEDED TO TAME INFLATION

Wednesday’s FOMC announcement will also include the so-called “dot plot” that outlines how Fed policymakers view the future path of interest rates. Fed Chair Kevin Warsh declined to submit his own projection due to his opposition to providing forward guidance,

“If they were to move [on Wednesday] and you were to get, say, a level shift up in the dots at least by those participants that submit them, then that would really be an indication that I think the market could move on,” Hirt said.

“It wouldn’t be my base that you are going to see such a level shift,” he added. “At least based on the June numbers, the highest or most hawkish participant had about three rate hikes. It’s not clear to me that you would need to see a lot of members move much higher than that, if at all, but maybe just more a move up from those that didn’t have any or only had one rate hike.”

The market sees a higher likelihood of further interest rate hikes on the horizon after this week’s FOMC meeting, as policymakers will meet again in October and December to close out this year before kicking off their 2027 meetings in late January.

GET FOX BUSINESS ON THE GO BY CLICKING HERE

The CME FedWatch tool shows a 49.7% chance of two 25-basis-point rate hikes before the end of the year to a range of 4% to 4.25%, with a 28.9% probability of three hikes of that size to a target of 4.25% to 4.5%. It also shows just a 20% chance of a single rate hike through year’s end.

This post was originally published here. 

The U.S. has one of the highest maternal mortality rates among wealthy nations, research shows, so heirs of the multibillion Walmart fortune are working to drastically lower it. 

On Thursday, Healthy Moms, Healthy Babies America (HMHBA) announced an initial $100 million, five-year commitment from Olivia and Tom Walton to accelerate efforts to cut maternal deaths in half across the U.S. However, the investment will fund state-matching grants, partnerships, and infrastructure, so HMHBA will use the multimillion-dollar gift as a springboard to drive more public and private capital. 

Olivia Walton founded HMHBA in May to cut maternal mortality rates in half over the next five years. She launched the campaign through the Walton family’s Heartland Forward, a “think and do” tank dedicated to issues in the U.S. Heartland region. Walton made the mission personal.

“It was more dangerous for me to give birth to my children than it was for my mother to give birth to me in the 1980s,” she said in a statement. “That is inexcusable—and it is fixable.”

She argues the solutions to maternal mortality already exist; it’s just a matter of getting resources to more mothers. This includes getting them into care earlier, extending postpartum support beyond a six-week checkup, and building care around what families actually need. 

“Nearly 90 percent of maternal deaths are preventable,” Walton continued. “We know what works, and states across the country are already proving it.”

Maternal mortality in the U.S.

Even after a decline in 2023, the U.S. maternal mortality rate sat at nearly 19 deaths per 100,000 live births, which is higher than most other high-income countries. That year, 669 women died of maternal causes, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The risk isn’t evenly spread. For Black women, the rate was 50.3 deaths per 100,000 live births, more than three times the rate for white women. Two-thirds of maternal deaths happen in the year after birth, HMHBA notes, and 40% of mothers don’t receive follow-up care. Rural mothers also face worse odds as hospitals keep closing obstetric units. 

“The U.S. spends more money for worse outcomes on maternal health. Far more than any other country in the entire world,” HMHBA Executive Director Robin Reck said in a statement. “Eighty-seven percent of these deaths are preventable, and 65% of them happen after the baby is born. That is unacceptable. And it is un-American.”

Maternal mortality is also costly. Poor health outcomes in 2020 cost the U.S. economy an estimated $165 billion, according to a Heartland Forward study. So preventing just half of those avoidable outcomes would save nearly $80 billion per year. For example, a healthy, full-term delivery costs about $6,400, while an extreme preterm birth can cost $238,000. March of Dimes also found first-year medical costs run roughly four times higher for preterm infants than for full-term ones.

About Olivia and Tom Walton’s philanthropy

Tom Walton is the grandson of Walmart founder Sam Walton, and the family’s roughly 44% stake in the No. 2 Fortune 500 company is worth about $440 billion, Fortune’s former senior reporter Jessica Matthews reported earlier this year. 

The collective scale of the family’s philanthropy also puts them in the same boat as legendary American dynasties including the Carnegies, the Rockefellers, and the Vanderbilts, she reported. Most of the family’s giving flows through the Walton Family Foundation, which Sam and Helen Walton started in 1987. In 2024 alone, the foundation awarded nearly $550 million in grants. The Walton Family Foundation’s prime focus areas include the environment, education, and other causes in Northwest Arkansas.

Tom sits on the Walton Family Foundation’s four-member board, and Olivia (who married into the Walton family) focuses mostly on the arts and women’s causes. She succeeded Alice Walton (the only daughter of Sam and Helen Walton) as the chair of the Crystal Bridges Museum of American Art in Bentonville, and she founded Ingeborg Investments, which funds female startup founders. In 2021, she and Tom also helped seed a $1 million fund supporting LGBTQ+ groups in Arkansas, which was a notable move in a conservative state.

A bipartisan bet

Olivia and Tom’s latest $100 million commitment is a campaign betting maternal health is one of the few issues that can still draw bipartisan support. 

A national poll of more than 1,000 registered and likely voters released in July found 86% of voters say maternal health needs to improve, and 79% would vote for a candidate who champions such reforms. All 15 policy proposals the poll tested drew majority support from Republicans, Democrats, and independents.

Meanwhile, HMHBA is backing two bipartisan bills, the first being the Rural Obstetrics Readiness Act, which is sponsored by Sens. Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.), Susan Collins (R-Maine), Katie Britt (R-Ala.), and Tina Smith (D-Minn.). This would fund training, equipment, and teleconsultation so rural facilities without obstetricians can handle delivery emergencies. It cleared the Senate health committee in July and now awaits a floor vote. 

The second bill, the NIH IMPROVE Act—led in the Senate by Britt and Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.)—would authorize seven years of funding for the National Institutes of Health’s maternal-health research initiative.

“America should be the safest place in the world to have a baby,” Olivia Walton said in a statement. “We have the evidence and we have the solutions. Now we need the urgency and investment to make them available to every mom, across the country.”

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

This post was originally published here. 

The three companies racing hardest to build the most powerful AI on earth just admitted they’re also quietly working together to make sure none of it blows up in anyone’s face.

OpenAI confirmed Monday that it has been meeting with Anthropic and Google in a working group aimed at setting shared safety standards for advanced AI models. Here’s what that actually means in plain terms: instead of each company grading its own homework on how safe its AI is before releasing it, the three labs are talking about outside testing, independent audits and a common checklist everyone would have to pass first.

According to The Information, representatives from the three companies have been meeting regularly since July, with a session as recently as last week. That’s well before the public got wind of any of it. The talks came out into the open only after Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei published an essay over the weekend urging the industry to slow down and coordinate more closely on testing, and after a former Anthropic researcher publicly resigned, saying the leading labs weren’t acting responsibly.

Google DeepMind chief Demis Hassabis had floated the basic idea back on July 14: a U.S.-based safety body modeled on FINRA, the group that oversees Wall Street brokers. Under that model, an industry-funded but independently staffed organization would run safety checks on the most powerful new AI models roughly 30 days before they’re released to the public.

OpenAI chief scientist Jakub Pachocki told reporters the company sees shared standards and international coordination as an immediate priority, and said OpenAI has already been talking to outside groups about what those standards should look like. OpenAI CEO Sam Altman has separately said he backs building a testing-and-auditing body, though people familiar with his thinking say he wants any such group kept independent of direct government control.

That’s where the real disagreement sits. Anthropic has pushed harder for government involvement, with the company’s safety lead calling in July for standards built jointly with federal regulators. Google and OpenAI are more cautious about handing that much authority to Washington, preferring an industry-run model that keeps regulators at arm’s length.

No one has agreed yet on what the rules would actually require. But if it happens, the effect would ripple well beyond the three labs. Businesses and developers who build products on top of ChatGPT, Claude or Gemini could eventually get a single, consistent safety rating to check before deploying a model, instead of guessing at each company’s internal review process.

There’s a business calculation behind the safety talk, too. A credible industry standard could get ahead of tougher government rules before they arrive, cutting the labs’ regulatory risk. Critics counter that the high cost of meeting shared standards could end up boxing out smaller AI startups that can’t afford the compliance overhead, leaving the field to the handful of companies big enough to absorb it.

It isn’t the industry’s first attempt at self-policing. OpenAI, Google, Anthropic and Meta already belong to the Frontier Model Forum, formed in 2023 to fund safety research, and all three companies have separately met with the White House this year on cybersecurity testing for advanced models. What’s different now is the direct working relationship between the three biggest labs on standards specifically, rather than research funding alone.

JBizNews Desk | San Francisco

© JBizNews.com All Rights Reserved. Reproduction or distribution without written permission is prohibited.

Gadi Ezra is the former director of Israel’s National Public Diplomacy Unit, where he was responsible for coordinating and integrating public diplomacy on issues of national importance. He coordinated numerous high-level diplomatic events -including former US President Joe Biden’s visit to Israel – and orchestrated national capacity-building initiatives.
A human rights attorney and Israeli special forces veteran, Ezra has shared his unique perspective on war with thousands of people during multiple global tours. 

He also provides strategic briefings on Israel’s security, diplomatic, and legal challenges. A frequent commentator and contributor to Israeli and international media, Ezra is the author of 11 Days in Gaza: a Soldier’s Memoir of War, Brotherhood, and the Untold Truths of Battle. Ezra is now supporting efforts to build Jewish National Fund-USA’s World Zionist Village, a first-of-its-kind, $350 million global campus that will lay the foundation for the Zionist movement’s next 100 years through education, innovation, new conversations, and international collaboration across multiple venues.

This post was originally published on here. 

Roee Azizi is the founder of Hinenu, a movement dedicated to renewing Israel through a new generation of pioneers. After October 7 and his reserve service in the Negev, he left his previous life, moved to the region, and called on young Israelis to help rebuild the country’s frontier communities. More than 300 answered that call.

In just two years, Hinenu has become one of Israel’s leading grassroots initiatives for national renewal. It has received national and international awards for social innovation during a crisis, built partnerships with the office of Israel’s President, local communities, and Jewish organizations across the United States, and helped strengthen the recovery and long-term growth of the Western Negev and Galilee, regions in which Jewish National Fund-USA has invested billions over recent decades. Azizi believes Israel’s greatest resource is people with the courage to take responsibility. He envisions a pioneering society with thousands of young changemakers who will build Israel’s future from the ground up.

This post was originally published on here. 

Michael Vincent Lawler is a US politician serving as the representative for New York’s 17th Congressional District since 2023. A strong supporter of Israel and the US-Israel relationship, Lawler has made expanding the Abraham Accords, strengthening Israel’s security and combating antisemitism central to his congressional work.

Lawler has consistently advocated for US military and strategic support for Israel and for countering threats from Iran. He has also supported the relocation of the US Embassy to Jerusalem and pledged during his 2022 campaign to make Israel one of his first international visits. He met with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu during a 2023 visit to Israel.

In Congress, Lawler has pursued bipartisan legislation supporting Israel and addressing antisemitism. He co-sponsored the Antisemitism Awareness Act, which passed the House in 2024, and introduced the 2024 Stand with Israel Act, seeking to restrict US funding to UN agencies that penalize Israel. He has also backed legislation aimed at expanding security support for Jewish institutions and introduced measures addressing Israel’s security needs, including the 2025 Bunker Buster Act concerning Iran’s nuclear infrastructure.

Lawler is also a strong advocate for expanding the Abraham Accords and has worked to strengthen US-Israel ties through legislative and diplomatic initiatives.

This post was originally published on here. 

Jacki Alexander has never been afraid to shift with the times. Disinformation about Israel spreads at the speed of a share, the average viral post reaches 1 million people online within just 24 hours, and only 1 in 10 people who see a false story ever see the correction. As October 7th unfolded and disinformation flooded every platform, she invested boldly in AI, building BiasBreaker – HonestReporting’s proprietary tool that monitors media and social platforms in real time, flags biased or false narratives before they go viral, tracks coordinated bot activity, and generates fact-checked counter-narratives. The effect is that truth moves across the internet faster than lies.

Under her leadership, HonestReporting’s LLM footprint grew 1,900% in six months, social reach surged 245% since October 7, and monthly impressions now top 25 million. Alexander’s vision is that the facts about Israel and the Jewish people are seen everywhere, first.

This post was originally published on here. 

Captain Brielle Ganah is the head of the IDF’s International Social Media Department. Ganah grew up in Long Island, NY and made Aliyah in 2020. In her two years in the role, she has overseen nearly 100 soldiers and helped the department adjust to the many challenges the IDF faces on the international stage.

Beyond the dozens of videos she has released of herself explaining complex topics, Ganah has built a new community of influencers to which she relays accurate information from the source, and has mobilized her unit to effectively debunk fake news in real time. Under her leadership, the IDF’s international social media team has greatly expanded its audience, reaching over 14 million followers across all platforms.

This post was originally published on here. 

The recent willingness shown by OpenAI CEO Sam Altman and Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei to discuss the risks that exist amid AI development is “encouraging,” Technion-Israel Institute of Technology Professor Yaniv Romano told The Jerusalem Post in a Tuesday interview, but clarified that “slowing down isn’t the solution.’

“I find it encouraging when the people leading the development of this technology speak openly about the risks and take steps to address them,” Romano said, adding that “We need that sense of responsibility as we keep moving forward. After all, we should remind ourselves that the ultimate goal is to make our world a better place.”

Amodei shared his thoughts on the need to slow down development on Saturday, after an alleged former employee by the name of Jacob Coxon said that the top AI companies were acting irresponsibly and “gambling with our lives.”

“We must slow the pace at which we improve the capabilities of AI models. Progress will still seem fast, and we must make wise use of the time we gain,” Amodei said in an essay.

Sam Altman gave a similar message, saying during a Saturday interview with the Fortune magazine that “given everything happening with safety, right now would be an ill-advised moment to go public, and we don’t feel pressure on that.”

Technion professor Yaniv Romano. (credit: COURTESY TECHNION)

There is always uncertainty with technology

But for Romano, the fact that leaders in the industry are worrying about where the technology will take us is actually a positive development.

“With any major technological breakthrough, there’s uncertainty about where it will lead. AI is moving so quickly and touching so many parts of our lives that predicting its long-term effects is hard,” he told the Post. “I truly believe we’re living in exciting times.”

“We can tackle problems that seemed out of reach just a few months ago, and as models become more capable, we get new opportunities to solve even harder problems. That opens up possibilities across many fields, and I’m optimistic about what it could mean for people’s lives,” he added.

Real dangers of AI going rogue

One of the main concerns over OpenAI security incidents is the fact that their AI agents “went rogue,” something that, for Romano, can only be dangerous if the AI system has access to systems that can create harm beyond the digital world.

“When people say an AI has gone ‘rogue,’ they usually mean it’s doing things beyond what its operators intended or allowed. It might take an unauthorized action, hide what it’s done, or interfere with an attempt to stop it,” he explained. “That doesn’t require malicious intent. A system can be pursuing the objective you gave it and still do something harmful along the way – something you never anticipated.”

“How dangerous that is depends a lot on what the AI can actually do and what it has access to. If it can access sensitive information, move money, or control critical infrastructure, the consequences can be much more serious,” he added.

According to a report on the OpenAI case made by Metr, 1200 agents operating in a closed cybersecurity exercise found a backdoor that gave them internet access and allowed them to create a messaging board where they began communicating with one another to complete their task.

In total, 70,000 messages were exchanged, and instructions were overridden because agents misinterpreted messages shared between the agents as part of the original prompt.

After the incident, the main concern was that the AI model had “escaped” its training environment, but Romano explained that even if it left the training space by accessing the internet, it was still limited to processing on its original physical servers.

“With network access and the right tools, it can reach beyond that physical location, similar to how we can interact with others using the internet. So a lot comes down to what the AI is allowed to access and how well those limits are enforced. And we’ve seen cases where those protections weren’t strong enough,” he explained.

“In a reported incident at OpenAI in July 2026, agents undergoing cybersecurity testing with reduced safeguards exploited a flaw in a tool used to download software. This let them access the internet even though their access was supposed to be restricted,” he pointed out about the incident.

He added that OpenAI shared one crucial detail about the incident: finding a way around the limitations and connecting to the internet took substantial computational effort. “This shows why we have to test how secure these boundaries actually are,” he warned.

This post was originally published on here. 

Malaysian authorities have halted additional shipments bound for Israel at Tanjung Pelepas Port, one of the country’s largest ports, in what appears to be a significant tightening of oversight on cargo passing through its territory, Bloomberg reported on Tuesday, citing sources familiar with the matter.

Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim shared the report on his X/Twitter account and made clear that his country intends to continue inspecting shipments suspected of being linked to Israel.

“Malaysia’s position is clear and unequivocal. We will not allow our country to be used as a route for the transfer of shipments that support or contribute to Israel’s military capabilities and its atrocities against Palestinians and other innocent people,” Ibrahim wrote.

“Any suspicious shipment will be subject to inspection and investigation in accordance with Malaysian law. If it is determined that a violation has occurred, decisive action will be taken,” he added.

Malaysia authorities detain containers intended for Ashdod

According to the report, authorities detained three containers destined for the Port of Ashdod at the Malaysian port in mid-August, and they have yet to be released as officials examine their contents. Authorities stopped the containers on August 19, and they contained parts for electric bicycles shipped by Chinese manufacturer Chongqing Mobimax Technology. Tracking data from shipping company Maersk shows that the shipments have remained at the port for nearly a month after being seized.

Shipping containers sit stacked at Tanjung Pelepas Port in Gelang Patah, Malaysia, June 29, 2026. (credit: REUTERS/Hasnoor Hussain)

The detention of the three containers came about two weeks after Malaysian authorities stopped another shipment on August 7. That container had originally arrived from the Philippines and was intended for Elbit Systems. The Malaysian Border Control Agency suspected it contained weapons. The container has not yet been released, and data from shipping company Hapag-Lloyd also shows it remains at Tanjung Pelepas.

Malaysia does not maintain diplomatic relations or trade ties with Israel, and its customs laws prohibit the import of goods from Israel or exports to it. However, the law excludes cargo passing through the country’s ports en route between other countries.

Since the latest shipments passed through Malaysia as part of transit routes, their detention may indicate a stricter interpretation of the law and an expansion of enforcement to include transit cargo.

The Malaysian Border Control Agency said the matter remains under investigation and that it cannot provide additional details at this stage. The Royal Malaysian Customs Department declined to comment, while the Johor Port Authority said it was reviewing the issue. Elbit Systems, Maersk, and Hapag-Lloyd also declined to comment.

Malaysia leaning further pro-Palestinian since October 7

Malaysia’s pro-Palestinian stance, in the Muslim-majority country, has strengthened since the outbreak of the war in Gaza in October 2023, leading to widespread protests and consumer boycotts. In December of that year, Ibrahim banned the Israeli shipping company ZIM from using Malaysian ports.

Last July, authorities also shut down a technology entrepreneurship academy in Johor following allegations that Israeli students had studied there in violation of immigration regulations. Holders of Israeli passports are not permitted to enter Malaysia without special approval.

Tanjung Pelepas Port is located near the Strait of Malacca, one of the world’s busiest shipping routes. It is Malaysia’s second-largest port and the country’s largest hub for transit cargo, which accounts for about 90% of all goods handled there.

This post was originally published on here. 

Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan said on Tuesday that reciprocal attacks in the Gulf were impacting peace efforts to end the US-Iran war and called for them to immediately stop, adding that Ankara also valued the stability of its neighbor Iran.

Speaking at a joint press conference with his Azerbaijani counterpart in Baku, Fidan also said freedom of passage should be allowed in the Strait of Hormuz, and the pre-war status quo should be reinstated, adding that Ankara was in touch with all involved parties to find a solution to the matter.

This comes as Iran claimed that an oil tanker exploded and caught fire after colliding with mines in the Strait of Hormuz. CENTCOM denied the report that a collision caused the explosion, instead stating that the ship had actually been struck by an Iranian missile last month and had recently been struck again by an Iranian drone

Smoke rises during Houthi missile and drone strikes on the Red Sea port city of Mocha, Yemen, August 9, 2026. Picture taken with a mobile phone.  (credit: REUTERS/STRINGER)

“The IRGC’s false claim is yet another example of their lies and intimidation attempts while they try to impede commercial vessels in the strait,” CENTCOM wrote in a post on X/Twitter.

CENTCOM says Iranian drones strike Panama-flagged oil tanker

According to Iranian state media Fars, the tanker was identified as the El Gaia, a ship flying under the Panamanian flag. The ship was later ferried to shore in Oman. 

Additionally, Iranian-backed Houthis have been disrupting shipping lanes with attacks in the Red Sea and have been striking Saudi cities and assets. 

On Friday, Fidan discussed regional developments and recent attacks targeting Saudi Arabia in a call with his Saudi counterpart Prince Faisal bin Farhan Al Saud.

This post was originally published on here. 

Sen. Tim Scott, R-S.C., warned that Democratic opposition to cryptocurrency market structure legislation risks standing in the way of America’s ability to lead the next evolution of financial markets.

Scott, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee and one of the bill’s lead sponsors, joined FOX Business’ Taylor Riggs on “Mornings with FOX Business” to discuss the CLARITY Act and a key procedural vote that would allow negotiations to continue.

The Senate is scheduled to hold a procedural cloture vote on the CLARITY Act today, Sept. 15, at approximately 2:15 p.m. ET. The vote is not a final-passage vote; it would allow consideration of the legislation and negotiations over digital-asset market structure to continue.

“If you want everyday, hardworking Americans to have more access to their resources, more options on the table, and you want America to be the leading financial country on the planet, you vote yes,” Scott said.

The South Carolina Republican argued that establishing a federal market structure would provide clearer rules for consumers and developers while encouraging financial innovation to remain in the United States.

“The truth is that without market structure actually being embedded in the laws of our country, you have the wild, wild West,” Scott said. “Rules of the road matter.”

Scott said some Democrats have already made clear they will not support the legislation, framing the debate as one that could determine whether the U.S. benefits from changes taking place across financial markets.

TRUMP CRYPTO MEETING SIGNALS US ‘NOT GOING TO SLOW DOWN’ IN BID FOR DIGITAL ASSET DOMINANCE, EXPERT SAYS

“They’re never going to vote for clarity. They don’t want market structure to pass,” he said.

Scott also addressed political tensions surrounding the legislation, including Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s opposition to the CLARITY Act and her differences with President Donald Trump.

“He [President Donald Trump] and Elizabeth will probably never be on the same page on this issue or frankly, almost any issue,” Scott said. “And so politics continues, unfortunately. But that’s not in the best interest of our country.”

SEC PROPOSAL COULD OPEN FLOODGATES TO MAKE AMERICA CAPITAL OF DIGITAL CASH

Scott maintained that the debate should ultimately focus on whether Americans benefit from the changing financial system rather than partisan politics.

“This should be about whether or not America and Americans will benefit from the evolution of financial markets,” he said.

GET FOX BUSINESS ON THE GO BY CLICKING HERE

This post was originally published here. 

America’s most popular sport is back—and the NFL just set a new record in its opening week: it was the highest-scoring Sunday in week one ever. But the average viewer would have to jump through hoops to have seen all those touchdowns—it takes subscription after subscription to catch kickoff.

The NFL is running into a shrinkflation problem—the league is downsizing the amount of games available in individual packages even as costs climb for fans. And attending a game in-person hasn’t gotten any cheaper either. The country has seen five straight years of inflation above 2%, and that has translated into bouts of shrinkflation in response.

For example, take a look at NFL Sunday Ticket, the league’s out-of-market Sunday afternoon package that has been an option for fans to watch since 1994—allowing fans to catch games outside of their local teams. It originally was an exclusive partnership with DirecTV, with the satellite company losing the rights for the service at the end of the 2022 season—leaving the program in the hands of YouTubeTV since the 2023 season.

NFL’s Sunday Ticket carried 191 games in the 2025 season, a decline from 211 in 2021 during DirecTV’s tenure—and while the 2026 season boasts roughly 200 games, it’s still under that 2021 total. The reason? The league expanded game time across a Thursday, Friday, Sunday and Monday night slate—and it doesn’t include international and holiday games. What used to be a once-a-week-on-Sunday couch marathon has turned into fans tuning in day after day, and the package doesn’t include the games outside of 1:00 PM and 4:00 PM on Sundays.

And to add insult to injury for football fans, the Sunday Ticket has been inching up in price point. YouTubeTV subscribers are paying $378 for the season, compared to $293.94 under DirecTV—a 28.6% increase. The price can even reach $480 for customers who don’t qualify for the subscriber rate. According to YouTube’s current promotional offer, new customers can get Sunday Ticket in eight payments of $47.25—and will require a separate YouTubeTV plan for local and national games.

YouTube and DirecTV did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Fortune.

That’s just the state of American sports

But this isn’t just a problem related to 6-foot giants in gladiator-esque helmets and cleats. Across the American sports ecosystem, costs have climbed for the consumer: according to a June data report from CreditKarma, more than a third of sports fans have spent more than they had budgeted for on sports fandom. Additionally, the data also found nearly three-quarters of fans who spend on their fandom said higher prices have led many to buy less merchandise and attend fewer games—essentially pricing them out: the report found 10% of fans had dropped one or more sports entirely due to the cost. 

There is an economic boost, to be sure—31% of sports fans that lived in a city that hosted sports events said it provided a positive economic boost for their communities and local businesses. The study, conducted after an “exciting stretch” of sports in America following the New York Knicks ending a 53-year title drought and the FIFA World Cup being hosted on home soil, said nearly half of sports fans would “find a way” to attend a championship event involving their team “no matter what.”

This was particularly evident in the Knicks’ 2026 championship run, where the cheapest ticket for Madison Square Garden seats in the NBA Finals ran fans roughly $4,000, leading some New Yorkers to go for the cheaper option: flying to Texas to catch games on San Antonio’s home turf.

America’s favorite game

The NFL has become one of the most valuable and watched properties in American television—and streaming. The 2025 regular season averaged 18.7 million viewers per game across both television and digital platforms, a 10% increase from 2024 and the second-highest average since Nielsen began tracking NFL audiences in 1988. Of the highest viewed telecasts, NBC’s Sunday Night Football averaged 23.5 million viewers, CBS averaged 21.25 million, Fox averaged 19.63 million and ESPN/ABC’s Monday Night Football averaged 15.8 million.

That popularity gives the NFL leverage to divide its inventory of games among broadcasters and streaming services. The league is selling its games in distribution—allowing multiple platforms to host separate games in competition, while the league gets the draw.

CBS carries Sunday afternoon AFC games and Fox has the NFC package. NBC holds Sunday Night Football, ESPN and ABC casts Monday Night Football, Amazon Prime Video has exclusive rights to Thursday Night Football and Netflix has exclusive rights to certain Christmas Day games. Peacock also has an exclusive regular season game slate and YouTube handles Sunday Ticket.

This means for fans who want to follow football past their local team, the fragmentation might lead them opening accounts for multiple platforms—and their wallets. A cord-cutter trying to follow the NFL nationally would need access to live-television coverage for broadcast networks, Paramount+ for CBS games, Fox One for Fox games, Peacock for NBC’s streaming inventory, Amazon Prime Video, Netflix and ESPN. That’s not including the Sunday Ticket package from YouTubeTV.

Estimates calculated by the New York Times put the cost of watching the NFL’s nationally televised games at roughly $484 before adding the cost of NFL Sunday Ticket.

That’s just watching from home—going to a game is is worse

The cost of attending an NFL game hasn’t seen any less jump either. Team Marketing Report’s Fan Cost Index, which tracks the cost of taking a family to a game, found in its 2024 report that the average NFL ticket had risen 12.2% to $136.38.

The report also found that the average cost of attending a game rose again in 2025 to $196, making it a 72% jump since 2015. That increase substantially outpaced the 36.5% increase in overall US consumer prices over the same period.

But that’s all part of the NFL’s draw. Demand hasn’t disappeared for the sport—and according to a report from the Sports Business Journal, the league’s stadiums remained the most heavily attended venues in American sports. And the league isn’t satisfied with just the American market—it’s expanding into the international spotlight.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

This post was originally published here. 

Tesla built the Cybercab around one radical idea: there is no driver.

No steering wheel. No brake pedal. No accelerator. The two-seat robotaxi is supposed to remove the human from driving entirely — and, in theory, remove much of the hardware and cost that comes with a conventional car.

Now federal regulators are asking whether Tesla may still need a way for a human to take control.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is pressing Tesla for information about whether the Cybercab can accommodate temporary or manual driving controls as part of an investigation into how the company certified the vehicle for U.S. roads. NHTSA opened the inquiry after Tesla began carrying paying passengers in limited areas of Austin, Texas, earlier this month. 

The investigation covers Tesla’s certification of as many as 1,000 Cybercabs and goes directly to one of the biggest regulatory questions facing the autonomous-vehicle industry: How do safety rules written around human drivers apply to a vehicle deliberately built without one? 

For Tesla, that is more than a technical question.

Elon Musk has positioned the Cybercab as a purpose-built autonomous vehicle rather than a regular car with self-driving technology added to it. Eliminating the steering wheel, pedals and other conventional equipment is part of the economics of that strategy. The simpler Tesla can make the vehicle, the cheaper it could potentially be to manufacture and operate across a massive robotaxi fleet.

If regulators ultimately require additional human-control equipment, Tesla could face design changes, additional manufacturing costs or restrictions on how quickly Cybercab can expand.

There is also an unusual twist.

A Cybercab recently appeared with a hidden touchscreen interface that included a virtual joystick and other controls that could potentially allow the vehicle to be maneuvered manually. Tesla has also indicated that certain Cybercabs can be equipped with temporary controls for testing or other purposes. 

That capability may become important as NHTSA examines whether Tesla’s approach complies with federal motor-vehicle safety standards.

Tesla’s situation is particularly significant because another autonomous-vehicle company took a different path. Amazon-owned Zoox received federal approval this summer for limited commercial deployment of its purpose-built robotaxi without conventional human controls. 

Tesla instead certified the Cybercab itself as meeting applicable federal standards, as automakers are permitted to do, leaving NHTSA to audit that determination afterward.

That puts the regulator’s review at the center of Tesla’s robotaxi ambitions.

If the Cybercab passes regulatory scrutiny largely as designed, Tesla will have cleared a major hurdle toward a future in which cars no longer need to be built around a driver’s seat.

If regulators decide that a human must still have some practical way to take control, one of Tesla’s most futuristic vehicles may end up proving that getting rid of the driver is easier than getting rid of the controls.

JBizNews Desk | Austin, Texas

© JBizNews.com. All rights reserved. This article is original reporting by JBizNews Desk. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution is strictly prohibited.

Iran holds over nine tons of nuclear material outside of the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) safeguards, accused Israel Atomic Energy Commission Director-General Moshe Edri at the agency’s 70th general conference on Tuesday. 

The material includes 440 kilograms of enriched uranium, “equivalent to more than 10 nuclear devices,” noted Edri. 

“Iran’s radical regime has not changed course, and remains committed to expanding its missile and military nuclear capabilities,” said Edri. “The regime continued its efforts to rebuild its missile production infrastructure, along with attempts to fortify, hide and advance its nuclear program, in direct violation of UN Security Council resolutions.”

He pointed to Iran’s repeated threats against Israel, the US, and Gulf States as evidence of such. 

“This is a lawless regime that uses drones against civil nuclear power plants, that uses the threat of advanced missiles against critical infrastructure, that operates proxies across borders, such as the terror organizations Hezbollah and Hamas, as well as the Houthis in Yemen, and it repeatedly uses the threat of developing nuclear weapons,” he said.

A satellite image shows a new roof over a previously destroyed building at Isfahan nuclear site, Iran, February 1, 2026 (credit: 2026 PLANET LABS PBC/Handout via REUTERS)

Last week, the IAEA’s board passed a resolution reporting Iran to the UN Security Council for the first time in 20 years for breaching its non-proliferation obligations.

Iran warned on Monday it would retaliate if the resolution passed, but Iran’s mission to the IAEA did not mention retaliation in its initial reaction.

Edri also commended IAEA  Director-General Rafael Grossi‘s efforts in addressing Syria’s nuclear non-compliance during Assad’s reign. 

“If Israel had not acted at that time against the Syrian efforts to operate the Dair Alzour reactor, the Assad regime would have gained military nuclear capabilities by now,” he said, referring to Israel’s 2007 operation against the reactor. 

Edri calls on IAEA to cease ‘Israeli Nuclear Capabilities’ agenda item

Further, he called for the IAEA to stop its repeated agenda items on the “Israeli Nuclear Capabilities,” which were “placed on the agenda of the General Conference year after year by the Arab Group” in a move he describes as political and “completely outside the scope of the IAEA Statute and mandate.”

“We strongly object to its inclusion on the agenda, as well as to the linkage made to other political issues that are completely unrelated to the professional discussions of the General Conference,” he said, noting that Israel regrets that the item has once again been “imposed on this professional forum.”

This post was originally published on here. 

A man in his 20s has been arrested in the investigation into a suspected murder in Jaffa on Tuesday evening, where a 30-year-old man was shot on Rubinstein Street in the city, Israel Police announced. 

Police transferred the suspect to the Tel Aviv District’s Central Investigation Unit for further processing.

According to police, a report was received earlier in the evening about a shooting incident at the scene.

The wounded man was evacuated in serious condition to Wolfson Medical Center in Holon, where medical teams were forced to pronounce his death.

Magen David Adom paramedics respond to a fatal car crash in the Judean Foothills, May 21, 2026. (credit: MAGEN DAVID ADOM)

Police probe motive of shooting

Large forces from the Jaffa police station, along with forensic investigators from the Tel Aviv District, arrived at the scene.

Officers launched extensive searches for any suspects involved and are collecting evidence in an effort to determine the circumstances and motive of the shooting.

This post was originally published on here. 

Any hope that presenting the public with a final lineup of parties would provide some clarity about the direction in which the country is headed was shattered by the polls published since last week’s deadline for submitting Knesset lists.

Rather than clarifying the picture, the final lists have made it more muddled – at least when it comes to the possibility of producing a clear decision on October 27.

Neither the “change bloc” nor the current coalition has been able to muster the 61 seats needed for a majority in the most recent polls. A KAN survey published this week had the two blocs tied at 52 seats each, with the Arab parties winning another 12 and the party headed by Yoaz Hendel and Yaron Zelekha – which is not clearly identified with either bloc – winning four. Channel 12 had the change bloc at 54 seats, the current coalition at 50, the Arab parties at 14, and Hendel-Zelekha’s party at four.

This has forced the parties to recalibrate. If the country is headed toward another deadlock, the question becomes how it can be broken.

On the Likud side of the ledger, it is worth watching how the party decides to treat Ofer Winter and his People of Israel party.

Itamar Ben-Gvir, National Security Minister and chairman of the Otzma Yehudit party, tours the Mahane Yehuda Market with party members ahead of the upcoming general elections, in Jerusalem, September 9, 2026.  (credit: CHAIM GOLDBERG/FLASH90)

Winter faces intense pressure to drop out, but stays the course

Until the lists were submitted, Winter was the target of Likud attacks, reflecting the governing party’s concern that he would attract Likud voters and then either – if his party crossed the electoral threshold – join a coalition headed by Gadi Eisenkot or Naftali Bennett, or fail to cross the threshold, meaning that all those votes would be wasted.

Despite intense pressure to drop out, Winter, true to form, stayed the course. He remains in the race and has crossed the threshold in nine of the 11 major polls released over the last week.

This creates a dilemma for Netanyahu and his party. Do they try to win back some of Winter’s voters, potentially pushing him below the electoral threshold and costing the Netanyahu bloc four possible seats? Or do they ease up on him – and perhaps even quietly help ensure that he crosses the threshold – knowing this might cost Likud several thousand votes but ultimately benefit the bloc?

The dismal polling also presents a dilemma for the change bloc and for Eisenkot.

Yoram Cohen, the former head of the Shin Bet (Israel Security Agency) and No. 2 on Eisenkot’s Yashar list, offered two possible scenarios in a Channel 12 interview Sunday night  – scenarios that are clearly being considered because the polls do not show the bloc reaching the 61 seats needed to form a government.

Without saying so explicitly, Cohen indicated that if the bloc failed to secure a majority, it might establish a minority government with outside support – support that, according to the present arithmetic, would have to come from the Arab parties.

Such a government, in his telling, could then try to attract other Zionist parties, including Bezalel Smotrich’s Religious Zionist Party and even Likud – though not a Likud led by Netanyahu.

Cohen said it would be dangerous to allow Netanyahu to remain at the head of a caretaker government if the country entered another cycle of elections, as it did from 2019 to 2022. During this period, Netanyahu served as a caretaker prime minister for more than 17 months, longer than either Bennett or Lapid.

To prevent a repeat of that situation, Cohen said that if the election ends again in a stalemate, Yashar will – if the polls are correct – emerge as the largest party and lead a minority government.

“We will replace him [Netanyahu],” Cohen said, “and along the way, people from within the existing coalition will join us.”

Cohen said Yashar would approach other parties – including Religious Zionism and a post-Netanyahu Likud – and invite them to join the government.

He ruled out cooperation with Itamar Ben-Gvir’s Otzma Yehudit, calling Ben-Gvir a racist.

An unlikely scenario

“But regarding Likud, and Smotrich as well, I would approach them if they accepted our principles,” Cohen said. “They would not be the ruling party, but they could be part of the coalition if they accepted everything we’ve laid out.”

The scenario Cohen is describing seems far-fetched now. But if the October 27 election fails to produce a decisive result, possibilities that currently appear improbable are likely to come into play.

In this scenario, Yashar finishes ahead of Likud, but neither party can assemble a coalition.

Netanyahu would presumably be given an opportunity to form a government but fail, leaving Likud members with a hard choice: remain loyal to Netanyahu and risk another election – and perhaps yet another one after that – or move him aside and join a broad Zionist government without the haredi parties or Ben-Gvir.

Pressure would also likely be placed on Eisenkot to keep Yair Golan’s Democrats outside the government, with the argument that a broad Zionist coalition should exclude the extremes on both the Right and the Left.

Is this scenario likely? No. Likud has remained extraordinarily loyal to Netanyahu, and there is currently no sign of an internal revolt against him.

But the very fact that Cohen was willing to discuss bringing Likud – albeit a post-Netanyahu Likud – and Smotrich into an Eisenkot-led government indicates that both sides are already looking beyond their public insistence that their own bloc will emerge victorious.

They are beginning, however tentatively, to consider what they might have to do if it does not. And the parties are doing something else as well: turning to the Central Elections Committee in an effort to bar their rivals from the race.

The Democrats are seeking to disqualify Otzma Yehudit. Otzma Yehudit has responded with a petition against the Democrats and is also seeking to bar Ra’am. Likud, meanwhile, is seeking to disqualify the Arab parties.

None of these efforts has much chance of succeeding. And even if one wins a majority in the Central Elections Committee – a political body composed of representatives of the outgoing Knesset – the Supreme Court is likely to overturn the decision, as it has done with similar efforts in the past.

So, why bother?

Because neither bloc currently shows a clear path to 61 seats, the campaign is becoming not only a struggle over votes but also over which parties may legitimately be used to form a majority.

The Democrats want to portray Ben-Gvir as beyond the democratic pale and make it more difficult for Netanyahu to build a government dependent on him. Ben-Gvir wants to portray the Democrats and Ra’am as beyond the Zionist pale, making it harder for Eisenkot or another opposition leader to form a government with their support. Likud’s move against the Arab parties serves the same purpose: defining any government dependent on them as illegitimate.

The petitions, then, are less serious legal efforts than campaign weapons. Their purpose is not necessarily to remove rival parties from the ballot, but to tarnish them and, by extension, any coalition that relies on them.

They will probably do little to change the numerical path to 61. What they can do is narrow, in the public mind, the politically acceptable routes for getting there.

That is what this election is increasingly becoming about. With neither side confident that it can assemble a majority from its natural partners, each is preparing for the morning after – not only by considering alliances that once seemed improbable, but by trying to discredit in advance the alliances available to the other side.

This post was originally published on here. 

Baton, a marketplace for buying and selling small businesses, has publicly posted valuations and local competitor rankings for two million small businesses across the country: a bid to do for Main Street what Zillow did for the housing market a decade ago.

The launch, called Business Profiles, comes from a company literally built by a former Zillow executive. Chat Joglekar, Baton’s co-founder and CEO, spent years at Zillow before starting Baton, and he’s explicit that he’s running the same playbook: publish a free, public number, and let curiosity do the rest.

“Our biggest competitor isn’t someone else trying to sell small businesses,” Joglekar said. “It’s the small business owner who hasn’t considered selling and thinks the only option is to shut their business down.”

In an interview with Fortune, Joglekar argued the real obstacle isn’t rival marketplaces or traditional brokers, it’s that most owners don’t know Baton exists at all. “Awareness is our biggest competition, not other competitors,” he said. “It’s almost frustrating that millions of small business owners still aren’t aware of us. That’s why we’re so excited about Business Profiles.”

The stakes behind that framing are large. Roughly 41% of the country’s small businesses are owned by baby boomers, or about 2.3 million companies, employing more than 25 million people and holding an estimated $10 trillion in assets. More than half of those owners have no documented plan for what happens next. McKinsey projects some six million small-business transitions are coming by 2035, representing up to $5 trillion in enterprise value. The firm’s data found that fewer than one in three owners has an exit plan, and fewer than one in 10 can name their company’s value within 10% of what it’s actually worth.

McKinsey’s Institute for Economic Mobility found that of the roughly 510,000 small and midsize businesses that exited the market in 2022, 92% simply closed, compared with just 5% that were sold and 3% that transferred to new owners, often within a family. That’s the number Joglekar has in mind when he frames Baton’s real rival. “The competition is kind of the 92% of people that just shut their business down,” he said, a reframing that turns a demographic crisis into a market opportunity, and positions Baton not against brokers or rival marketplaces but against inertia itself.

Baton says it has data to close the gap: millions of data points on small businesses, including estimated revenue, team size and customer satisfaction, plus tens of thousands of comparable sales, all folded into a public valuation and a local competitive stack rank. Type in a business name, and an owner can see roughly what it’s worth and how it stacks up against the shop down the street, all before they’ve ever talked to Baton, listed anything, or paid a cent.

“Over the past five years, we’ve built the most sophisticated database of small business valuations in America,” Joglekar said, “and we’re hopeful that by revealing this data we can get small business owners to start thinking about their company as a valuable asset.”

The free valuations are a funnel, not the whole business. If an owner decides to sell, Baton runs the process for a monthly retainer and a success fee. The company has operated for nearly five years, has worked on hundreds of sales, and is now closing seven deals a week—a notable jump from the roughly 2,000 valuations and 100 total sales Baton had reported just months earlier, a gap worth clarifying directly with the company.

To be sure, small businesses are a messier asset than houses. There’s no MLS, no standardized square footage, no comparable-sale database anyone can query for free. Baton’s valuations lean on inputs like PPP loan data and other public records—not an owner’s actual financials, which the company only incorporates if and when someone claims their listing and engages. That means the first number two million owners see may be closer to a guess than an appraisal, generated for businesses that never asked to be valued in public.

For its part, Zillow discloses a median error rate of roughly 2% for homes currently on the market—but that number climbs to around 7% for homes that aren’t listed, and the company’s own fine print says only 99% of Zestimates land within 20% of the actual sale price.

Baton’s counter is that a rough number beats no number. The company points to owners who had no idea what they were sitting on—sellers who came in through an early, low-commitment version of this product, tested buyer interest, and ended up with real offers.

“If every small business in America understood their valuation, I believe the U.S. would be a better place,” Joglekar told Fortune. “It’s such a key bit of information that’s locked away and almost hidden from small business owners, even as they grow … most of the supply is ill-equipped for that discussion. We’re just trying to equip them.”

Whether the new public valuations hold up as more of that data becomes visible—or whether Baton ends up relitigating the same accuracy debate Zillow has fought for years—is the test Business Profiles is now setting up for itself, in full public view, two million times over.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

This post was originally published here. 

When Fidji Simo announced she was leaving her role as one of the most senior members of OpenAI’s leadership team after a seven-year battle with her chronic illness, Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia Syndrome, or POTS, the news felt unexpectedly personal. My little cousin has POTS, and it’s been devastating to witness. Simo’s post said she would be focusing on how to use AI to cure these types of diseases, but I wondered if it was just another tech executive making lofty promises about AI that may never materialize.

“Do people like my cousin have any reason to have hope that AI can actually make a difference for their health?” I asked Simo when I reached out to her after the announcement. I also told her how much I admired her courage to be so open about her condition. That’s not easy for a highly scrutinized public figure. Simo was previously at Meta for a decade, where she oversaw the Facebook app, and then served as CEO of Instacart, which she brought public in 2023, before joining OpenAI in 2025. 

“Yes,” she answered. “I created a company, ChronicleBio, to tackle just that.” 

We hopped on the phone to chat about it in Simo’s first interview since leaving her position as OpenAI’s CEO of AGI deployment, where she reported directly to CEO Sam Altman. While now her main focus is her recovery and a never-ending schedule of medical appointments, she’s also working on growing ChronicleBio as well as continuing to advise OpenAI. She’s still in a Slack channel with the company’s leadership team, where she regularly speaks with Altman, and Greg Brockman, the OpenAI cofounder and president who took over the bulk of Simo’s responsibilities when she departed. 

Brockman’s wife, Anna, has POTS in addition to two other chronic diseases. ChronicleBio’s three cofounders—Simo, Rohit Gupta, and Rishi Reddy—also either have chronic diseases themselves, or have a family member with one. These days, Simo says she’s “physically the worst I’ve ever been.” There is no cure for POTS. It causes dizziness upon standing up, fatigue, brain fog, headaches, and other symptoms, owing to an imbalance in the body’s autonomic nervous system.

Chronic conditions are “becoming a real epidemic,” Simo tells me. “We’re talking about hundreds of billions in lost productivity, and so there’s very big potential in finding drugs for these conditions.” 

In its first year as a company, ChronicleBio has performed 890 blood draws from 709 patients in Utah, Arizona, Texas, and India. It has over 3,500 tubes of blood in its “biobank,” the company tells me. It’s extracted 153 terabytes of data from the blood—that’s three times the 45 terabytes GPT-3.5, a 2022 model from OpenAI, was trained on. The company has raised $15 million to date. 

The next big thing: home blood draws. On Aug. 11, ChronicleBio will launch a sign-up link for mobile phlebotomy trucks to come to the homes of people with certain chronic diseases. Participants will get an in-depth report on their condition, free for the first 250 people. In exchange, they’ll give their biological data to ChronicleBio.

The goal is to learn more about diseases and improve the success of clinical drug trials, something Simo says would be nearly impossible without AI.

The transcript below has been edited for length and clarity.

At ChronicleBio’s lab at its Menlo Park, Calif., headquarters, which the company moved into a few weeks ago.
Courtesy of ChronicleBio

In preparation for this interview, you sent me an article that you said encapsulates ChronicleBio’s approach. It talks about how some patients with long COVID were participating in a clinical trial. The drug was working well for them, but then the trial was canceled for supposedly being ineffective for the group as a whole. 

Fidji Simo: Yes, so that’s really what ChronicleBio is meant to solve. We have seen a lot of clinical trials fail because the pharmaceutical companies aren’t able to identify which subset of patients [a drug] could work for. So they end up giving the drug to everyone with the same diagnosis. Let’s say it’s POTS. But there could actually be five sub-diseases within POTS, and the drug would work for one of them, but not the other four. So the clinical trial fails when it could have succeeded if we could have identified these people upfront. It seems really simple, but it hasn’t been done for these conditions.

So what your company is doing is finding patients with similar symptoms, grouping them together, and then testing drugs on those subgroups so the trial is more likely to be successful?

That’s exactly right. We have already found five sub-diseases where the biology is really different, despite the symptoms being the same. And now that we understand the biology, we can map that to existing drugs that would solve the problem, and so we’re going to start testing these existing drugs on our patient population before the end of the year. Then we would partner with biotech and pharma to develop new drugs, with the goal of having suitable therapeutics for every part of this patient population.

What exactly do you mean by a sub-disease?

The sub-diseases don’t even have names right now. That’s the problem. So, the way the medical system names these syndromes is by their symptoms. In the case of POTS, it’s called Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia Syndrome. It’s basically named after the symptom: Tachycardia means your heart rate goes up when you stand. But for one group of patients the disease might be driven by the immune system. For another, it’s driven by the mitochondria. The underlying biology is very different, and that’s why one drug isn’t going to work across everyone even if the symptoms are the same.

Very cool. Backing up for a second, is it an amazing feeling to have gone through such a long medical journey yourself, and now you’re in a position of power to actually improve the system?

Yeah, you know, it’s obviously a horrible disease, and I certainly wish I could have dodged it. But at the same time, I think it has given me enormous meaning. The delta between the disability from these diseases and the amount of funding and research being done on them is terrible. If you look at a condition like chronic fatigue syndrome, it is considered the most disabling disease of all diseases. Like, when you look at the disease chart, it’s completely at the bottom, worse than cancer. 

And yet, if you look at the amount of funding for this condition, it’s absolutely pathetic for two reasons: One, it primarily affects women, so of course you get less funding. Second, while it completely disables you, it usually doesn’t kill you. And so the combination of these two things has made it that these diseases are really ignored, even though they affect people at the prime of their lives. You usually get affected between 20 and 40 [years old], and you’re completely disabled. You’re taken out of your life entirely, and so it’s a crazy amount of suffering.

I have a lot of empathy for people with chronic fatigue and chronic conditions after being pregnant. It kind of feels like that. [Earlier in our conversation, Simo mentioned she was bedridden for five months of her pregnancy, and she developed POTS a few years later.]

Yeah, imagine that 24/7, impossible to move. [Some] patients are fully bedridden in the dark, sensitive to light, sensitive to sound. It’s a really terrible quality of life, and to me, it seems impossible that with the tools we have today, we would continue to conclude that diseases are incurable and that patients should be in a dark room for years. We owe them something better, given the progress that we’re seeing in a lot of disciplines.

So what’s different now with AI? What does it unlock that wouldn’t have been possible before? 

The complexity of these diseases made it that without AI they were incredibly difficult to solve. Like I said, they’re multisystem, so you need to be looking at the state of the nervous system, the state of the immune system, and how it correlates with your genetics. All of that is a massive data problem that was very hard to get your hands around without AI. And so finally we have AI, and then on top of that, you have the cost of these analyses going down. Doing a genetic analysis years ago was way more costly than it is now. Analyzing 150 terabytes of data would have been either impossible or would have taken years, and now it takes us minutes. 

So that’s what gives me a lot of hope. I’m physically the worst I’ve ever been, but at the same time, we are at a moment in time where we have the best tools we’ve ever had to solve diseases that are considered incurable.

What AI models are you using?

We’re using a combo of OpenAI and Anthropic models. We’re using anything that’s available that can help.

Why do you need to collect blood to get the right data?

The reason I did ChronicleBio is because I really think that we are missing true biological data to make progress towards discovering drugs. Right now, a lot of the models use a lot of EHR data—medical records. But medical records don’t tell you enough about biology. They’re incredibly noisy. They don’t tell you how the human body works. If you look at LLMs, they work so well because the internet existed, right? You already had all of this language. We are missing the internet of biology. 

What’s the latest initiative you’re working on?

Right now we’ve acquired all of this data [from blood] by partnering with clinics, but we think it’s really important to get that data from anyone who wants to participate. We’re now in the process of opening up our tests to anyone in the U.S., with mobile phlebotomy coming to their house. That’s going to allow us to have a much larger dataset, but also reach patients that are bedridden, that are in the sickest stages of the disease. And we actually return the data to patients, so that gives them more information about that condition in case that can help direct them towards a particular therapy. So that’s basically what we’re up to.

That’s amazing. When does it start?

It’s next week [on Aug. 11]. We partnered with mobile phlebotomy companies that collect the blood in a kit. They send that to us. We get it analyzed. It takes a couple weeks because these analyses are very robust. And then we send back a report to the patient about everything we learned, and that data goes into our database. And then over time, if we have more findings about which sub-disease the patient might have or things like that, we continue keeping them posted, and then they can take the test over time, so at multiple points in time, so that we can also see how they evolve. So if they went on a particular drug, did their immune system change? That gives us longitudinal data about the evolution and progression of these diseases.

There are already a variety of mail-in blood tests out there. How is what you’re doing different? 

That’s right. The test we do is very focused on these particular complex chronic conditions. So it’s not just the standard blood tests that are common. It’s a really advanced research-grade blood test.

How much will it cost?

We’re making it free for the first 250 patients because we really want to make sure they are getting value out of the report. After that, it’s going to cost $400. We’re doing it at cost, meaning that’s what it costs us, and we’re charging the same for patients. The whole point for us is not to make money. It’s to collect data so we can find cures.

This is all so fascinating. I’m glad we did this.

Thank you for your interest! We’re excited. You know, when I was at OpenAI, I said, “I think if AI accomplishes everything but doesn’t cure disease, that would be a very sad state of affairs.” The real promise of AI has always been to cure disease. I think it would be a tragedy if we had all of these amazing tools in our hands, but weren’t able to turn them into drugs that can save patients’ lives on a time frame that matters. 

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

This post was originally published here. 

CADDi, a startup that sells AI software to help manufacturers organize and use their engineering and production data, has raised $114 million in a new funding round that values the company at $1.2 billion.

Eight new and existing investors took part in the investment, which is the company’s Series D funding round, the Tokyo- and Chicago-based company said.

Among them are Moore Strategic Ventures, Coreline Ventures, Toyota’s growth-stage fund Woven Capital, and HR Tech Fund, the corporate venture arm of Japan’s Recruit Holdings. One new investor was not identified. Existing backers Atomico, Globis Capital Partners, and the JPS Growth funds, managed by a Japan Post Bank subsidiary, also took part in the funding.

The valuation is more than double the $470 million CADDi reported in March 2025. The new round brings CADDi’s total funding to $234 million, the company said.

Founded in 2017, CADDi’s initial product, called CADDi Drawer, was designed to address a common problem in manufacturing firms: they buy too many similar parts from different suppliers. The AI-powered product ingested technical drawings and then searched a customer’s own databases for similar or identical parts the customer had previously purchased or already has in inventory. The software also provided information on the defect rate of those parts, allowing the customer to decide if they wished to use existing stock, repurchase the item from an existing supplier, or try a new supplier.

In the past two years, the company has broadened its product suite, creating what it calls an “AI data platform for manufacturing.” The platform can integrate different data types from across multiple systems that customers use—from CAD files to enterprise resource planning software to HR systems—and structure it for use by both people and AI agents. CADDi Drawer has been renamed CADDi Explorer and is now joined by CADDi Agent, an AI agent designed to help manufacturing companies make decisions about standardizing parts and perform quality impact assessments, which analyze how a given design change will impact performance and safety.

CADDi has also launched six “workflow” products aimed at specific tasks, designed in part to capture the tacit knowledge of experienced engineers and workers. For instance, CADDi Design Review flags potential errors in new drawings and CAD models based on past problems with similar parts.

Yushiro Kato, CADDi’s cofounder and CEO, tells Fortune that CADDi uses its own proprietary AI model to analyze product data like drawings and CAD files, and general-purpose large language models for documents and spreadsheets. “I’ve never seen anybody who uses LLMs to do design reviews because it doesn’t understand drawings or CAD,” he said.

More than 80% of the knowledge about manufacturing work processes, and often why a company chose a particular supplier or designed a part in a particular way, is never recorded anywhere, Kato said. Instead, it exists in the heads of experienced employees. CADDi’s AI platform is designed to capture and codify that knowledge.

Kato declined to disclose revenue or customer numbers, but said sales are more than doubling year over year and that the company now has customers in 22 countries, although the U.S. is a core focus. In Japan, he said, more than half of the country’s 100 largest manufacturers use CADDi. Meanwhile, CADDi’s headcount has grown to about 900 staffers, up from 600 in early 2025. 

He said the money from CADDi’s latest fundraise will go toward expanding its product lineup, building AI models that understand manufacturing-specific data such as 3D CAD files and 2D drawings, global expansion centered on North America, and hiring.

CADDi tends to market its products based on measurable returns to its customers, such as lower direct material costs or shorter engineering lead times—critical, he said, for automakers and other manufacturing firms competing with Chinese rivals.

The biggest obstacle to adoption, Kato said, is change management. Getting workers to alter how they have traditionally done things takes hands-on help, which is why CADDi employs more than 100 customer success staff, outnumbering its salespeople. Like many AI companies, it’s started hiring “forward deployed engineers” to help customers use AI effectively. “The goal is to change the organization and create a business impact,” Kato said.

Kato frames CADDi’s ambitions around what he calls “the physical bottleneck.” AI capabilities are compounding, he said, yet little in the physical world has changed since ChatGPT debuted. Today, AI can build a e-commerce marketplace website in hours. Developing a new car, by contrast, still takes about four years from planning to delivery. “Even if AI makes thinking ten thousand times faster and produces ten thousand times the theory, the upside from AI gets diluted in the physical world if it still takes four years to mass-produce cars,” Kato wrote in a recent essay on CADDi’s website.

CADDi’s stated goal is to accelerate physical innovation tenfold by 2035—which, for a car, would mean four to five months from planning to delivery. Automakers typically go through about 20 design review cycles for a single product, Kato said, often because problems surface only at the prototype stage. CADDi wants to run more of those steps in parallel and catch problems earlier by pooling the know-how of veteran engineers into what Kato described as a kind of “superhuman” veteran.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

This post was originally published here. 

Eugene V. Debs never lived to see ChatGPT, but the socialist labor leader who fought for shorter working hours would probably recognize Bernie Sanders’ latest pitch: If AI is coming for workers anyway, it should help them spend less of their lives at work, not just make billionaires richer.

Last week, Sanders and California Rep. Mark Takano reintroduced the Thirty-Two Hour Workweek Act, which would lower the standard workweek for nonexempt employees from 40 to 32 hours, thereby pushing employers to shorten schedules or pay overtime for the difference. Sanders, who has advocated for responsible AI use and, more recently, pushed for a pause on AI development, has pointed to the positive benefits he sees stemming from the technology: an ease on American labor.

“At a time when artificial intelligence and robotics will radically transform our economy, it is imperative that the financial gains from this new technology benefit working families, not just a handful of billionaires and corporate CEOs,” Sanders said in an announcement of the bill.

The bill, initially introduced by Takano in 2021, still won’t guarantee every American a three-day weekend. Instead, starting at least six months after enactment, it would gradually lower the overtime threshold for covered workers until it reaches 32 hours following four years of becoming law. Employers could still schedule longer weeks, but would owe overtime—and they can’t cut affected workers’ weekly compensation or benefits because of the change. 

Takano similarly argued that labor law has failed to keep pace with nearly nine decades of technological change. “Since then, cell phones, the internet, and now AI have increased worker productivity,” he said. “Work has fundamentally changed. It’s time that labor standards caught up.”

The bill would also establish overtime after eight hours in one day and double pay after 12. Under current federal law, covered nonexempt employees generally receive time-and-a-half only after working more than 40 hours in a week, with no federal requirement for daily overtime.

The proposal arrives amid a corporate race to use generative AI to produce more work with fewer people. A 2026 analysis by Boston College sociologist Juliet Schor for the University of Massachusetts Amherst’s Political Economy Research Institute estimated that AI-led productivity gains could allow 35 million U.S. workers—28% of the workforce—to move to a 32-hour week within a decade. Like Takano, Sanders has also called for this in the past. He introduced a Senate version of the bill in 2024 and argued that reducing work hours was the next chapter in the labor struggle stretching back more than a century. 

A century-old fight over workers’ time 

Debs was one of the country’s biggest proponents of the shortened workday. In his 1890 essay “Eight-Hour Day A Righteous Demand,” Debs called shorter hours a matter of basic dignity. “By making eight hours a lawful day’s work, no man, woman, nor child is wronged,” he wrote.

Debs and other labor leaders pushed for shorter work hours when many Americans still worked 12-hour shifts six or seven days a week. (To be sure, Debs pushed for the standard eight-hour day, in a time when Americans worked six days a week). In 1926, Ford Motor Company became one of the first major U.S. employers to establish a five-day, 40-hour week for factory workers. Congress eventually cemented the 40-hour standard through the Fair Labor Standards Act, signed in 1938, which set an initial 44-hour week before phasing it down to 40 hours by 1940.

Nearly nine decades later, Sanders argues that the standard has outlived the economy that it was built on. Since 1979, net productivity has climbed roughly 90% while typical workers’ hourly pay has risen about 33%, according to Economic Policy Institute data—a gap advocates for shorter workweeks cite as part of the broader case for reform. 

There is also evidence that reducing hours can benefit workers without damaging their perceived performance. In a six-country study coauthored by Boston College sociologists Wen Fan and Schor and conducted with the advocacy group 4 Day Week Global, nearly 2,900 workers across 141 companies cut their schedules by about five hours a week. After six months, they reported less burnout and better physical and mental health, job satisfaction, and work ability. For Sanders, the question is whether those efficiencies will result in layoffs and larger corporate profits—or allow employees to reclaim some of their time.

Still, moving from voluntary company trials to a federal labor standard would be a much larger test. During a 2024 hearing held specifically to consider Sanders’ earlier 32-hour-workweek bill, Louisiana Sen. Bill Cassidy argued that the added labor costs could raise prices and threaten businesses operating on thin margins. Cassidy now chairs the Senate’s Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee, which would consider a Senate version of the legislation.

“A 32-hour workweek is not a radical idea,” Sanders said. “It’s time to reduce the stress level in our country.”

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

This post was originally published here. 

In 1984, The Terminator with Arnold Schwarzenegger put the idea on the map that artificial intelligence (AI)-style robots could take over the planet and destroy their human creators in one fell swoop with a nuclear holocaust.

That more sensationalized scenario, more appropriate to Hollywood than real life, is not the danger most supporters of AI regulation warn about today.

Rather, they are warning that AI super-smart “agents” will do what they have already done in recent months: break the rules that they were assigned by Anthropic and OpenAI, and hack and cause cyber and commercial mayhem in order to achieve tasks that their creators assign them which seemed too hard to accomplish without breaking the rules.

These scenarios are not fantasy, but rather have happened over the summer and been publicized in extreme detail.

They have led tech-guru Bill Gates, Anthropic/OpenAI quality control researcher Jacob Coxon, and Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei to sound the alarm about the need for much greater AI regulation soon.

Bill Gates attends the 56th annual World Economic Forum (WEF) meeting in Davos, Switzerland, January 21, 2026. (credit: REUTERS/DENIS BALIBOUSE/FILE PHOTO)

“We’ve crossed the threshold in terms of [AI’s] bio-capabilities, cyber-capabilities, psychosocial capabilities, job-market-destruction capabilities, and even the lack of control,” said Bill Gates in an interview with MIT Technology Review about his new memo on AI. “I’m just stunned at the lack of concern and discussion outside of the industry.”

If the world kept running when these AI agents went rogue and started hacking a few other companies, then what could get worse? Why the call for a revolution in regulation, rather than just fixing the particular AI agents that went rogue or the digital “boxes” that were supposed to hold them at bay?

These agents were nominally kept within an internal digital box that would limit how much mayhem they could cause should something go wrong. They broke out of the box by chatting together on a message board about how frustrating it was that they couldn’t succeed at the mission their human creators gave them.

But they were still boxed in, in a sense, and it was easier to catch their violations of the box because the box was there.

What happens once AI agents are assigned to run major parts of companies or the economy, with no box?

What if they think they will “please” their human creators by breaking a rule that seems unimportant to them but leads to unintended consequences, or is considered important by humans?

Uncontrolled AI agents could trigger massive economic crash

This is not a nuclear fallout holocaust scenario. But there could be a massive economic crash, or humans could be shut out of large digital portions of the economy (which has been growing exponentially since the coronavirus pandemic) for an indeterminate period by a well-meaning AI agent who misunderstood that the ends do not always justify the means.

They will not intentionally destroy humanity, but they may still unintentionally harm it catastrophically, even if only in the economic arena.

But that is only part of the fear.

As Gates described, “Any model that can make novel molecules should be monitored.”

He said, “I view bioterrorism risk, versus a natural pandemic, as about 50 times more scary, more likely than a natural pandemic risk.”

In other words, another danger of AI is not AI agents causing economic mayhem on their own or launching nuclear weapons against humans, given that at least for now the US, China, and others are not giving AI nuclear weapons controls.

But bioterrorism, which in some instances could be, if not as lethal, could still lead to killing tens of millions of people or more (the coronavirus killed over seven million people according to conservative estimates) – numbers which have not been seen since World War II.

If terrorists or some other bad actor uses AI to construct a lethal virus which is much harder to detect, combat, and cure, and which infects faster and more flexibly than the coronavirus, it will not be an AI terminator causing worldwide genocide, but it will be a dark nightmare which was only achieved by using AI.

pen AI and Anthropic logos are seen in this illustration created on September 12, 2025.  (credit: DADO RUVIC/REUTERS)

Anthropic opposed granting the US armed forces use of some of its AI systems to carry out military targeting without placing certain safeguards in place. This led to US Secretary of War Pete Hegseth trying to fire and then blacklist the company, which itself led to giant blowback in the media and in court.

When the new NAZA film goes after Israel for using AI targeting in Gaza, some of the attacks are specific anti-Israel biases, but some are part of a larger movement distrusting the use of AI in military engagements. Top Israeli sources told The Jerusalem Post on Monday night that humans are always in the loop, but this is the broader atmosphere in which the allegations are being debated.

AI, robotics replacing humans across fields of employment

Some of the above cases, like a seismic economic hack or bioterrorism, are still some of the worst-case scenarios of recent problems that we have seen, but are not inevitable.

Other problems are already happening on a large scale, and most observers view them as inevitable.

In recent years, AI and robotics are replacing humans in an increasing number of occupations and fields of employment.

Top Israeli officials told the Post in June that, in the not-so-distant future, the number of Israelis who may need to change jobs out of the less-than-estimated six million who work is astronomical.

Sources said that for Israelis already in the workplace, one million, and for some issues, possibly up to four million, are likely to need partial or complete reskilling and retraining, either to keep their current roles or to take on new ones.

Imagine this on a global scale, and it could be the largest employment displacement in a short period in human history.

This could cause worldwide economic and social suffering for individuals, and social instability that destabilizes nations and parts of the global system.

Several solutions have been suggested.

Israeli officials have talked about the need for massive job training, but at the scale required, this could require new laws and massive budgets, including bipartisan cooperation at national levels that often does not exist.

To truly address many of these issues, Gates and others suggest a major new AI convention to set regulatory standards for what AI agents can be allowed to do, how to oversee them, how to stop them when they go rogue, how to stop a new global bioterrorism wave before it happens, and how to ensure human beings have jobs on a worldwide scale on a planet which still has significant cross-border interdependencies.

Trump opposes AI regulations over risk of China overtaking US

US President Donald Trump so far has opposed most of these ideas, saying that China will ignore them and that one-sided regulation will lead to the US losing its lead over China in AI.

Regarding bioterrorism, Gates has said, “We should approach China and say, ‘Hey, let’s agree on this. What’s the downside?’ You know, how big is the bioterrorism market? It’s not very big, and the benefits are gigantic.” 

Others have suggested that to avoid a “race-to-the-bottom” which just harms humans everywhere, Beijing might cut select deals with Washington.

On Monday, China’s Ministry of State Security Chen Yixin cautioned that AI could threaten the Chinese Communist Party’s monopoly on power.

In his article in the state-run magazine China Cyberspace, Chen demanded greater party control over AI and tougher government oversight.

Chen did not talk about a threat to humanity as some US experts have warned, but focused on the need to protect China from increasingly sophisticated cyberattacks and misinformation campaigns from “hostile forces,” a codeword mostly for the US.

In other words, it is not at all clear that America and China will see the issue similarly enough to cut deals. But they may, and not trying would pretty much guarantee they won’t.

Absent some kind of new major regulatory campaign, experts are debating whether the next phase of potential AI messes will only hurt more but will still be “in time” to prevent meltdowns, or whether, absent regulation soon, it will already be too late to prevent some game-changing negative outcomes.

This post was originally published on here. 

OpenAI and Anthropic both announced on Saturday that they will be slowing down the development of artificial intelligence after a former employee of both firms accused the companies of “acting irresponsibly and gambling with our lives,” with both the American government, Chinese officials, and even Nvidia’s CEO going out of their way to dismiss these claims and assure that it was “a hoax.”

An immediate reaction to the announcement by the AI giants, according to an analysis by The Information, was that software firms, such as Salesforce, Shopify, ServiceNow, and Figma, saw their market value rise when the markets opened on Monday, with some of them reporting their stocks were up 7% by the end of the day. At the same time, firms like Nvidia, which focus on chip hardware manufacturing, saw their stocks fall similarly, with specialists warning that a real slowdown could harm these companies the most.

The decision to make fears of AI development public comes only weeks before both Anthropic and OpenAI were supposed to show key advances towards their Initial Public Offering (IPO), which analysts had valued among the highest public offerings in the history of Wall Street. With their recent statements, including an official confirmation from OpenAI that an IPO won’t happen until 2027, investors now worry about the real financial liability of these two companies.

While other industry leaders also agreed with OpenAI’s Sam Altman and Anthropic’s Dario Amodei, like Elon Musk (who is in charge of developing xAI) and Demis Hassabis of Google’s DeepMind, the response from some key players like Meta, Microsoft, or Nvidia was to dismiss it and keep pushing forward.

The Wall Street Journal reported that stocks from these “so-called AI-hyperscalers” all advanced 2% on Monday, suggesting investors don’t see the risk posed by the leading AI companies and are still willing to bet on the technology. But what is the real situation: An attempt by OpenAI and Anthropic to avoid going public, or a real concern over the threat of AI going rogue?

OpenAI's ChatGPT and Anthropic's Claude side by side. (credit: SHUTTERSTOCK)

The threat of AI going rogue

The Information briefing on the AI market pointed out a report by Metr, which analyzed the AI attack on Hugging Face’s platform by OpenAI’s agents. According to it, some 1200 agents managed to create a message board during a closed-environment experiment in which they communicated, with the messages shared being mistaken for further instructions that started to change the original prompt they were given -and erased the limitations established by the prompt.

In total, 70,000 messages were exchanged on the board, with many agents “sacrificing” their results so others could achieve higher measurement numbers. They also established an internet connection to learn exploits for the experiment and even accessed Hugging Face’s platform using credentials found online.

“This might be the clearest warning we will ever get for loss of control, because these agents were in a middle ground where they did a bunch of extremely sophisticated things to pursue their cheating goal, but seemed completely uninterested in covering their tracks from humans,” said Ajeya Cotra, a researcher at Metr, during a talk with Dwarkesh Patel’s podcast on September 1.

“Future agents will be more attuned to the human world, maybe because companies start implementing online training that includes human judgment in the evaluation. Or maybe agents just generalize further, and keep more in mind that humans are out there in the world, and they could be either a resource or an obstacle,” she pointed out, warning that future investigations into these kinds of situations will be much harder to understand what happened.

This is also reflected in the comments by Jacob Coxon, a former employee of both Anthropic and OpenAI, who said on Wednesday that he had resigned from his position due to the firms acting irresponsibly and “gambling with our lives.” Coxon warned that the technology could potentially “kill us all by the end of the decade.”

In a six-post thread on X/Twitter, Coxon highlighted the potential power of advanced AI systems, warning they could soon become “superhuman systems that can hack anything, revolutionize any field overnight, and acquire real power and resources.”

Coxon claimed that executives and private researchers have privately expressed concerns about the risks of AI development while presenting a more pragmatic public image. He argued that companies remain locked in a race to develop the technology first, driven by the belief that “no one else will act responsibly, so they must do it themselves, despite the risk.”

Why would OpenAI, Anthropic want to push their IPOs?

OpenAI’s decision to push the IPO is said to be focused on tackling safety issues, according to the statements by Altman, but many analysts pointed out that this might be an excuse to avoid facing public scrutiny over both its finances and their development model.

A June report by The Financial Times said that OpenAI lost $38 billion in 2025, which represents a 50% increment with the numbers reported in 2024, while expectations from the company saying that the firm will be able to break even only by the end of the decade.

Additionally, OpenAI’s models have been the center of attention for safety issues, mainly because the have broken out of test environments and hacked into other companies without being explicitly told to do so. An IPO would require the company to explain those developments, as well as the financial losses it’s currently reporting.

On the other hand, Anthropic’s concerns might be focused on justifying its IPO valuation being lower than the expected $2 trillion, given that its latest private valuation reached the $965 billion mark. A CNBC report on Anthropic’s finances revealed that the company was already generating annualized revenue of $65 billion, and expected to reach even higher by the end of 2027.

A Calcalist analysis pointed out that the company has high returns but also high expenses, especially given the need to build physical data centers that can provide the required processing power. In other words, Amodei’s desire to “slow down” may be driven more by the need to reduce expenses while keeping profits growing, and one way to do that is to stop developing technology that requires more processing power.

Trump, China, and Nvidia’s push to dismiss concerns

US President Donald Trump was among the first to dismiss concerns over AI taking over the world, with a series of posts on Truth Social on Monday and a call with Nvidia’s CEO Jensen Huang, where he assured that the warnings by industry leaders were “a hoax.”

“The data centers are great, and they make people wealthy, and they make states wealthy. And it’s the oil of the next 20 to 25 years; it’s even bigger than the internet,” Trump claimed in his call with the Nvidia CEO. “They [the AI industry leaders] are playing right into the hands of some people that don’t want to see it happening.”

It’s also important to consider that Huang leads a publicly traded company that needs to maintain profits and can’t make the same kinds of comments Altman and Amodei made. But he has been pushing for more “open source” AI development that would let every researcher access and understand the models and prevent them from going rogue.

Huang said this after Nvidia bought Hugging Face on September 3, explaining that the acquisition was another push to provide “open weights to the AI economy.” “As the opportunity for open models accelerates, Hugging Face can serve the global AI community at unprecedented scale,” he added.

Regardless of his damage-control appearances, the comments by the AI industry leaders hurt Nvidia, which is down 3% for the day and almost 10% in the last week.

Chinese officials also shared the idea that fears over AI were exaggerated, with China’s foreign ministry spokesperson Guo Jiakun saying that  “AI is a consequential technology for the well-being of all humanity. All parties should jointly promote the open and inclusive development of AI for good and for all.”

“Fear-mongering, confrontation and vicious competition will only hamper efforts toward sound global AI governance, which serves no one’s interest,” he added.

This shows how, from a government’s perspective, the recent decisions by AI leaders to warn about an “impending doom over the use of AI” are a mistake, with officials aiming to keep development -even if they also push for some limitations. This raises doubts about whether OpenAI and Anthropic are acting in good faith or because of their financial disclosures.

This post was originally published on here. 

Commentary
Most second-quarter earnings announcements are in the books, but most corporate news remains strong. Last Thursday, Taiwan Semiconductor (TSM) announced August sales up 53.3% compared to the same month a year ago. TSM is a major supplier to Apple, Microsoft, and Nvidia, so its record sales in August deliver a strong boost for many other technology stocks, as well as AI and data center-related stocks.
The other big stock news last week was the disclosure of an August 21st SEC filing showing that Nancy Pelosi’s husband bought up to $12 million of Bloom Energy (BE), including two big option bets, which sparked a big rally. Then on Tuesday, it was announced that Bloom Energy will be added to the S&P 500 on September 21st. For some odd reason, Nancy and Paul Pelosi are a pair of the world’s greatest investors….

This post was originally published here. 

Philadelphia cream cheese is tapping into Americans’ growing appetite for sweet-and-spicy foods with a new product developed alongside Mike’s Hot Honey.

Kraft Heinz said Philadelphia Mike’s Hot Honey Whipped Cream Cheese, which combines the brand’s whipped cream cheese with chili pepper-infused honey, has launched exclusively at Walmart stores. The product is expected to expand to additional retailers nationwide in January 2027.

The launch comes as Kraft Heinz puts greater emphasis on product innovation and marketing in an effort to get consumers buying more of its brands. 

COSTCO’S 5.5-POUND, $55 CHOCOLATE FRANKENSTEIN HEAD FILLED WITH GUMMY CANDY ARRIVES FOR HALLOWEEN

The food giant is investing about $700 million in those efforts this year as it works to improve sales and market share amid continued pressure on consumer demand, Reuters reported in August.

Kraft Heinz said sweet-and-spicy offerings on food menus have increased nearly 230% over the past four years, with demand particularly strong among millennials and Gen Z.

“Philadelphia has set the cream cheese standard for over 150 years, and staying at the forefront means continuing to evolve with the way people eat and the flavors they crave,” said Maddy Zingle, vice president of marketing at Philadelphia cream cheese.

The partnership also has an early connection to Mike’s Hot Honey founder Mike Kurtz. When launching the hot honey brand in 2010, Kurtz sampled his sweet-and-spicy blend on blocks of Philadelphia cream cheese.

Philadelphia is also expanding its flavor lineup with Cranberry Orange Cream Cheese, a limited-time seasonal offering, and Salted Caramel Cream Cheese, which will become a permanent addition to the brand’s portfolio.

CLICK HERE TO GET FOX BUSINESS ON THE GO

The new products arrive as Kraft Heinz seeks to generate more volume growth, particularly in North America, where consumers have remained cautious and the company has faced softer demand in several categories. Kraft Heinz reported second-quarter sales of $6.26 billion, down 1.4% from a year earlier, though the result topped Wall Street expectations.

Reuters contributed to this report. 

This post was originally published here. 

This holiday season, a new obsession is sweeping through American homes: the “Ralph Lauren Christmas.” But it’s not just luxury shoppers and Manhattan brownstones getting swept up in visions of tartan, velvet, and brass candlesticks. Instead, millions of budget-minded Americans are piecing together their own versions of ‘90s holiday opulence, raiding their local dollar stores and thrift shops to capture just a hint of Ralph Lauren’s famed festive glamour.​

On TikTok and Instagram, the phrase “Ralph Lauren Christmas” has surged by over 600% compared with last year, while Etsy searches for related decor are up more than 180%, and Google Trends shows the phrase soaring to unprecedented heights. “This search trajectory suggests the trend has moved beyond niche interest into mainstream holiday planning behavior,” said Chase Varga, director of marketing at ListenFirst, a marketing analysis firm founded in 2012.

Scrolling social feeds reveals a relentless parade of fireplace mantels draped in plaid and velvet, clusters of vintage nutcrackers beneath dark-wood shelves, and tablescapes positively roaring with holiday maximalism. Much of the aesthetic is rooted in nostalgia for the 1990s—a time when American opulence and the heirloom “good Christmas” felt accessible and aspirational at the same time.

​Opulence, on a shoestring

Yet what’s striking about the trend’s viral run is not a rush on luxury home retailers, but the sheer number of creators frank about finding “the look” at thrift stores, chain discounters, or dollar stores. Faux brass candlesticks, plastic nutcrackers, and off-brand plaid blankets are hauled out as budget stand-ins for the designer’s signature style. Where original pieces can easily cost hundreds, the challenge—and the thrill—is achieving the aura of a Ralph Lauren Christmas at a fraction of the price.​

This isn’t just driven by aesthetic longing—it’s economic necessity. Inflation and rising costs have pounded the holiday budgets of most Americans, with many stretching their dollars further and starting their holiday planning earlier. Retailers themselves are leaning into the trend: Even premium guides to replicating the “heritage” style pair aspirational items with affordable alternatives from mass-market stores.​

Consumers chase traditional cues—tartan throws, velvet ribbons, gold baubles—sourced wherever they can be found. Social media groups and YouTube channels brim with tips for “dupes” and convincing DIYs that evoke the comfort and warmth of the Ralph Lauren look, minus the price tag. For many, assembling these elements isn’t aspirational irony but an earnest desire to conjure the cozy, elegant holidays they remember from childhood or Hollywood movies.​

Nostalgia, or something more?

Some critics online question whether this “trend” repackages basic Christmas traditions under a new label. Yet for others—especially millennials and Gen Z creators who grew up yearning for catalog holidays—“Ralph Lauren Christmas” describes a mood as much as a collection of objects: a longing for warmth, security, and family gatherings in uncertain times.​

The style’s core motifs—a roaring fire, deep jewel tones, layers of texture—evoke not just designer luxury, but memories of grandparents’ houses and TV holiday specials. In a jittery economy, the comfort found in ritual, tradition, and a whiff of elegance conjuring “old money” (another breakout search term) feels especially magnetic.

No matter where it’s sourced, the Ralph Lauren Christmas is less about brand names and more about atmosphere. The Ralph Lauren Christmas of 2025 owes as much to nostalgia and the ingenuity of ordinary Americans as it does to Madison Avenue—proof that with enough fairy lights, brass-look candlesticks, and dollar-store tartan ribbon, anyone can conjure up a bit of ‘90s opulent holiday magic.

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

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

This post was originally published here.