All News (Page 307)

Joe Kent, the director of the National Counterterrorism Center, announced his resignation on Tuesday, citing his concerns about the justification for military strikes in Iran and saying he “cannot in good conscience” back the Trump administration’s war.

Kent said on social media that Iran “posed no imminent threat to our nation, and it is clear that we started this war due to pressure from Israel and its powerful American lobby.”

Kent, a former political candidate with connections to right-wing extremists, was confirmed to his post last July on a 52-44 vote. As head of the National Counterterrorism Center, he was in charge of an agency tasked with analyzing and detecting terrorist threats. His resignation reflects unease within Trump’s base about the war and shows that questions about the justification for the use of force in Iran extend to the right of President Donald Trump’s base and to senior members of the administration.

Trump has offered shifting reasons for the strikes and has pushed back on claims that Israel forced the U.S. to act. Earlier this month, House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., suggested that the White House believed Israel was determined to act on its own, leaving the Republican president with a “very difficult decision.”

A spokesperson for Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard did not immediately respond to questions about Kent’s resignation. The White House also had no immediate comment on Kent’s resignation.

Before entering Trump’s administration, Kent ran two unsuccessful campaigns for Congress in Washington state. He also served in the military, seeing 11 deployments as a Green Beret, followed by work at the CIA.

Democrats strongly opposed Kent’s confirmation, pointing to his past ties to far-right figures and conspiracy theories. During his 2022 congressional campaign, Kent paid Graham Jorgensen, a member of the far-right military group the Proud Boys, for consulting work. He also worked closely with Joey Gibson, the founder of the Christian nationalist group Patriot Prayer, and attracted support from a variety of far-right figures.

During his Senate confirmation hearing, Kent also refused to distance himself from a conspiracy theory that federal agents instigated the Jan. 6, 2021, attack at the Capitol, as well as false claims that Trump won the 2020 election over Democrat Joe Biden.

Democrats grilled Kent on his participation in a group chat on Signal that was used by Trump’s national security team to discuss sensitive military plans.

Still, Republicans praised Kent’s counterterrorism qualifications, pointing to his military and intelligence experience.

Sen. Tom Cotton, the GOP chair of the intelligence committee, said in a floor speech that Kent had “dedicated his career to fighting terrorism and keeping Americans safe.”

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

This post was originally published here

The idea sounds outlandish, if not downright impossible.

Leaders at the World Anti-Doping Agency are considering adopting a rule that could bar President Donald Trump and all U.S. government officials from attending major international events — even if they take place on American soil.

A few coming up are as big as they get: this summer’s World Cup; the LA Olympics in 2028; the Winter Games in Utah in 2034.

This is not a fight of Trump’s choosing, but rather one being pursued by WADA itself, which has been the subject of bipartisan and virtually universal disapproval in Congress, in the Trump and Biden administrations and in the offices of the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency for most of this decade.

The proposal, on the agenda for Tuesday’s meeting of the WADA executive committee, is the latest and most extreme maneuver in a yearslong exchange of rhetoric, threats and fighting between all parties. It stems from the U.S. government’s refusal to pay its annual WADA dues.

The U.S. has held back a total of $7.3 million over 2024 and 2025 in protest of WADA’s handling of a number of issues over the years, most recently, a case involving Chinese swimmers who were allowed to compete despite testing positive for a banned substance. WADA took Chinese regulators’ word that the athletes had been accidentally contaminated.

WADA spokesman James Fitzgerald said the rule, if passed, would “not (be) applied retroactively so World Cup, LA and SLC Games would not be covered.” However, the proposal, a copy of which was obtained by The Associated Press, does not include language to that effect.

Fitzgerald did not respond to a series of follow-up questions sent Monday, including one asking how a rule being considered for passage this year would not be applied retroactively to events that have not taken place. Fitzgerald did say last week that the final decision wasn’t due until November, after the World Cup, though correspondence between WADA and European officials indicated that decision could come sooner.

Here’s a look at how they got to this point and where they might go next.

What is WADA?

WADA came into existence in 1999 and was charged with writing the rules that governed anti-doping in sports and making sure they were executed correctly.

In recent years, with the onset of more troubling and complexdoping sagas, WADA has gotten more involved in investigating doping allegations — a function that has largely been handled by the dozens of organizations that oversee the use of performance enhancers in certain countries and sports.

WADA’s funding comes equally from two places — governments of countries that participate in the Olympic movement and the International Olympic Committee. Representatives on WADA’s key decision-making bodies are generally divided equally between sports and government.

What gives WADA the power to ban Trump?

Part of sending teams to major international events, such as the Olympics and the World Cup, requires everyone involved to pledge to follow WADA’s rules, whether they’re directly related to doping or to administrative issues, the likes of which the latest proposal covers.

Sports organizations — for instance the IOC and the governing bodies of individual sports — are considered “signatories” to the WADA code.

Governments are tethered to WADA as part of an agreement they sign with the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) Like sports organizations, the UNESCO arrangement includes the governments agreeing to pay dues and follow WADA’s rules,.

Could WADA really prevent Trump from attending an event in his own country?

It’s hard to see how. Rahul Gupta — the drug czar during the Biden Administration who was every bit as critical of WADA as is his successor, Sara Carter — called the idea “ludicrous.”

Gupta said that’s not just because it would be logistically impossible to restrict where the U.S. president goes, but it would also send the wrong message to a host nation, which oversees the games and ensures the proper investments are made in security, venues and other infrastructure.

“That’s the responsibility of the government, not so much WADA,” Gupta said. “It’s clear that WADA attempting to propagate any rules-based system that interferes with a government, especially a host government — that would be a concern to any government.”

Trump’s people aren’t happy with this. What about other U.S. politicians?

While Trump has not weighed in on this specifically, Carter, his drug czar, said the U.S. government “will continue to stand firm in our demand for accountability and transparency from WADA to ensure fair competition in sport.”

WADA has had the rare effect of bringing together politicians from both sides of the aisle. A bill adopting the doping-fighting Rodchenkov Act, key parts of which were strongly opposed by WADA, passed without a dissenting vote in Congress six years ago.

More recent attempts to hold WADA accountable, which resulted in the dues being held up, have drawn bipartisan support in both houses of Congress.

After the latest news, Sen. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., said on social media that the proposal was “Further proof we’re doing the right thing by demanding accountability and defunding WADA.”

What is WADA’s reason for proposing such a rule?

WADA runs on a budget of around $57.5 million and the U.S. chunk is significant, though hardly the only payment that has gone missing over the years. One analysis of dues payments, obtained by the AP, showed that only 49% of African countries had paid their WADA dues for 2025.

But no country has been more critical of WADA than the United States, which has floated the idea of holding back dues since 2020 and finally followed through two years ago.

WADA says this idea is ‘nothing new.’ What does that mean?

That’s true.

WADA has been examining this idea since 2020 — around the time the threats from the U.S. started getting louder. In 2024, the idea actually came to the executive committee. Gupta was on that panel back then and led the move to reject it. The U.S. no longer has a representative on the executive committee.

So why is it coming up now?

WADA hasn’t provided answers to this one, other than to say the rule wouldn’t apply “retroactively” and that the World Cup, LA and Utah Olympics would not be impacted.

WADA says the next meeting of its foundation board – the group that would have to formally adopt any recommendation approved by the executive committee — isn’t until November, four months after the World Cup ends.

But in a Q&A with European officials about the rule, a copy of which was obtained by AP, WADA told the officials that such a rule “could be implemented without due delay.”

If this has already been rejected once, why try again?

The Europeans asked WADA that same question. The future of the rule had been delegated to a WADA “discussion group” that was supposed to report back to the executive committee but hasn’t done so yet.

WADA’s answer said that legal issues involving fining countries that don’t pay their dues have been resolved (the fine portions have been removed).

“Little meaningful progress was made in the latest meetings of the Discussion Group and there is no reason (given the foregoing) not to bring this matter to the ExCo as a decision-making organ of WADA,” it said.

___

AP Olympics: https://apnews.com/hub/2024-paris-olympic-games

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

This post was originally published here

The foil-embossed invitation for a destination wedding on a tropical island hits your mailbox, and the instinct is familiar: make an excuse, and quietly hope no one asks why. For tens of millions of Americans, that excuse has a name, and it’s not one they’re willing to say out loud.

Two-thirds of Americans have skipped at least one social commitment in the past two years because they just can’t afford it, according to a new survey from the CFP Board shared with Fortune. The events they’re missing out on aren’t always luxuries. They’re birthday dinners, concerts, holiday gatherings, as well as group vacations and weddings. 

But in most cases, people hide the real reason they can’t accept the invitation. Of those who declined invitations, 56% never told their friends or family that money was the reason why they couldn’t attend, according to the report. CFP Board, the professional body for personal financial planners, surveyed more than 1,100 Americans aged 25 to 64 in January for the study.

Most Americans are skipping social events to save money—and staying silent about it

The silence is telling, and it’s only making Americans lonelier and anxious about sharing their financial status with friends and family.

“Lately I’ve been turning down invites to hang out because I just can’t afford it, and it’s starting to make me feel guilty,” a Reddit user posted late last year. “I don’t want my friends to think I don’t care about them but even small things like dinner or drinks add up too much right now.”

The problem is so widespread that personal finance creators have even posted guides to politely declining invitations for this very reason.

“You guys know that when you get invited to a wedding or a bachelorette, you can say no,” SoFi’s chief of financial empowerment, Vivian Tu, posted in an October 2025 TikTok video. 

@yourrichbff No, you don’t actually have to go to every single bachelorette party you get invited to! Here’s how to decline an invite without sacrificing a friendship. #money #finance #financialfreedom #podcast #bachelorette ♬ original sound – Vivian | Your Rich BFF

“One in three people are going into debt for their friends’ weddings,” Tu continued, referencing a New York magazine story about bridesmaids going into debt. She suggests being open and honest about the reasons you have to decline the invitation.

She suggests saying: “Congratulations on your engagement, friend! I’d be honored to be your bridesmaid. But I need to be transparent that I’m paying off my credit card bill and saving for a down payment on a home.”

“And my budget is XYZ,” she continued. “But I don’t want your vision for your special day and big events to be restricted by me, so it’s completely okay if I come as a guest and support you in other ways.”

How financial stress is making America’s loneliness epidemic worse

The U.S. was already grappling with what health officials have called a loneliness epidemic, and the cost-of-living crisis has only intensified it. A November 2025 poll from the American Psychological Association shows more than six in 10 U.S. adults say societal division is a significant source of stress in their lives.

“This year’s findings show that people across the nation are not just feeling divided, they’re feeling disconnected,” Arthur C. Evans Jr., PhD, and CEO of APA, said in a statement. “Research tells us that a sense of isolation and social fragmentation can have real consequences for our ability to manage stress and stay healthy.” 

And a May 2025 study from the University of Southern California found financial strain is directly linked to higher rates of anxiety and loneliness, and those effects compound over time.

“Because this strain is based on how people perceive their financial stability, not just how much they earn or what degrees they hold, it may better reflect the lived reality of daily stress and coping capacity,” said psychologist Deborah Finkel, a research scientist at USC Dornsife’s Center for Economic and Social Research who led the study.

Gen Z and millennials can’t afford their social lives—and it’s getting worse

For younger Americans, the math is especially brutal. A Harvard Kennedy School poll from 2025 found 42% of Americans under age 30 say they’re “barely getting by” financially, and a Bank of America study found more than half of Gen Z says they don’t feel as if they make enough money to live the life they want. 

The new CFP Board data illustrates just how far the social fallout from financial constraints extends. The events Americans are missing include group trips or vacations, dining out with friends, concerts or sporting events, family holiday gatherings, and weddings. Single Americans are more likely to keep quiet about it, with 63% saying they hid the financial reason for their decline, compared with 55% of married people.

CFP Board deems this phenomenon as financial FOMO. It’s not just about missing a good time, it’s about feeling “out of sync” with their friends’ spending, including on housing, travel, career, progress, and debt payoff. Nearly half say the financial situations of people close to them have significantly shaped how they view their own money.

Despite this, the CFP Board also found that financial conversations are still taboo. More than 80% of Americans intentionally avoid at least one money topic with those close to them. A July 2025 AMFM Healthcare survey also found 79% of Americans say money worries have worsened, straining relationships and costing sleep.

But some Americans have recognized the need for more transparency to avoid social isolation.

“I’ve started being honest about it and suggesting stuff like ‘hey, let’s just hang at someone’s place instead’ or go for walks,” another Reddit user posted. “Real friends get it, and the ones who don’t probably aren’t worth stressing over anyway.”

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

This post was originally published here

As of 9 a.m. Eastern Time today, oil is trading at $102.98 per barrel, based on the Brent benchmark we’ll explain in a bit. That’s 84 cents above yesterday morning’s level and more than $31 higher than where it stood a year ago.

Will oil prices go up?

No one can say for sure where oil prices will go next. Many forces shape the market—but at the core, it’s still about supply and demand. When risks like a potential recession or war ramp up, oil prices can change direction quickly.

How oil prices translate to gas pump prices

When you buy gas at the pump, you’re covering more than the cost of crude oil. You’re also paying for every step in the process, including refineries, wholesalers, taxes, and the markup your local gas station adds.

Even so, crude oil has the biggest influence on what you pay, often making up more than half the cost per gallon. When oil prices jump, gas prices usually climb right along with them. But when oil falls, gas prices often slip much more slowly—a pattern sometimes called “rockets and feathers.”

The role of the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve

If an emergency hits, the U.S. keeps a backup supply of crude oil called the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. It’s mainly there to protect energy security during crises, such as sanctions, catastrophic storm damage, even war. It can also help cushion the blow when supply shocks send prices soaring.

It’s not meant to solve long-term problems. Instead, it provides quick relief for consumers and helps keep vital parts of the economy moving, like essential industries, emergency services, and public transit.

How oil and natural gas prices are linked

Oil and natural gas are two of the world’s primary energy sources. A big change in oil prices can affect natural gas by extension. For example, if oil prices increase, some industries may swap natural gas for some segments of their operations where possible, which which increases demand for natural gas.

Historical performance of oil

When looking at how oil performs, two main benchmarks stand out:

• Brent crude oil is the main global oil benchmark.
• West Texas Intermediate (WTI) is the main benchmark of North America.

Of the two, Brent gives a better picture of global oil performance because it prices a large share of the world’s traded crude. It’s also the go-to for tracking oil’s historical trends. In fact, even the U.S. Energy Information Administration now relies on Brent as its primary reference in its Annual Energy Outlook.

If you look at the Brent benchmark over several decades, oil has been far from stable. It has experienced sharp rises tied to wars and supply cuts, along with steep drops linked to global recessions and oversupply (called a “glut”). For example:

• The early 1970s delivered the first major oil shock when the Middle East slashed exports and placed an embargo on the U.S. and others during the Yom Kippur War.
• Prices fell in the mid-1980s due to lower demand and an influx of non-OPEC oil producers joining the market.
• Prices surged again in 2008 as global demand grew, but then crashed alongside the global financial crisis.
• During the 2020 COVID lockdown, oil demand plummeted like never before—pushing prices below $20 per barrel.

To sum up, oil’s historical performance has been anything but smooth. Again, it’s heavily influenced by wars, recessions, OPEC whims, shifting energy policies, and much more.

Energy coverage from Fortune

Looking to stay up-to-date regarding the latest energy developments? Check out our recent coverage:

• The next energy superpower will make its own fuel
• A market correction of 10% could be on the cards as consumer psychology shifts due to gas prices
• With Iran still in control of Hormuz, Trump threatens NATO and oil hits $106

Frequently asked questions

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

This post was originally published here

On May 8, Instagram will be able to read your DMs again. Meta is ending support for end-to-end encrypted direct messages — reversing a feature it introduced just two years ago — and reopening the door to automated content scanning, AI-powered moderation, and easier compliance with law enforcement requests. TikTok, meanwhile, confirmed it never offered the protection at all. Together, the moves signal that the era of unconditional privacy promises on social media is over.

In the span of two weeks, two of the world’s largest social media platforms have signaled they are done treating privacy as an unconditional promise. Together, the moves mark a decisive reckoning with what private messaging on social media actually costs—and who pays the price.

A TikTok spokesperson told Fortune that the company’s approach to messaging has not changed. “Direct messages on TikTok are secured using industry-standard encryption in transit and at rest,” the spokesperson said, comparing the technology to what Gmail uses. “People’s messages are private and protected. Access to message content is strictly limited, subject to internal authorization controls, and only available to trained personnel with a demonstrated need to review the information as part of safety investigations, legal compliance, or other limited circumstances.” In other words: not end-to-end encrypted, but far from an open book.

The distinction matters. The TikTok spokesperson said the design is deliberate—and that the lack of end-to-end encryption is itself a safety feature. “Messaging on TikTok is not end-to-end encrypted,” they said. “This helps make our platform undesirable for those who would attempt to share illegal material.” Meta had not yet responded to requests for comments.

When Instagram’s encryption sunsets in two months, Meta will regain the technical ability to scan and act on the content of users’ DMs. Right now, under the opt-in encrypted system, even Meta’s own servers cannot see message content. That changes May 8, reopening the door to automated content moderation, AI-powered scam detection, and easier compliance with law enforcement requests.

End-to-end encryption isn’t keeping people safe

Brian Long, CEO and co-founder of Adaptive Security, a firm that trains organizations to defend against AI-powered attacks, including deepfakes and voice cloning, says the calculus both companies are making reflects a necessary course correction. “It’s a challenging place, because on the one side, I think a lot of these companies have leaned into privacy,” Long told Fortune. “But on the other hand, it’s also led bad actors to do anything from run scams in the background to attack consumers. What they’re recognizing is that as great as it sounds for everything to be encrypted, it’s giving a lot of runway to bad actors.”

The regulatory pressure is accelerating that shift. The Take It Down Act, signed into law last year, requires platforms to remove non-consensual intimate imagery—including AI-generated deepfakes—within 48 hours of a valid request, with enforcement beginning May 19, just eleven days after Instagram’s encryption cutoff. Long said that end-to-end encryption had made that kind of compliance nearly impossible. “If it’s all encrypted and they can’t see the messages, it gets harder for them to actually police those actions,” he said. “They’re going to be accountable under the law.”

Beyond legal deadlines, Long argues that internal safety teams and not law enforcement are the first and most important line of defense, and encryption had effectively neutralized them. “The safety team can jump in and flag messages to the consumer before they fall for a scam,” he said. “When everything is protected by encryption, the safety team really can’t do anything. A lot of this stuff should be handled by the company before it hits law enforcement. Otherwise, law enforcement would just be completely overwhelmed.”

Last year, over a million seniors fell victim to fraud, costing them more than $81 billion in estimated losses, according to an FTC report. AI-powered attacks, from deepfakes, voice cloning, and year-long romance scams, are growing at an estimated 17 times year over year. “The scale of the attacks, especially on alternate messaging channels, is something we’re hearing consistently from customers,” Long said. “Those channels where you had encryption historically were particularly ripe for this issue.”

For privacy advocates, lifting encryption is still a serious concession, and one that opens user data to platform surveillance alongside the safety benefits. But for scam prevention professionals, it’s the right call. “I think companies are recognizing there are some potential serious downsides to privacy,” Long said. “At the end of the day, this correction is probably needed in order to stop more of the bad actors. And if privacy is the biggest priority, there are applications available that people can go use.”

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

This post was originally published here

Amazon said Tuesday that it has started offering faster U.S. deliveries of selected products for a fee, including pantry staples, clothing, over-the-counter medications, cleaning supplies and electronics.

The e-commerce colossus said customers in more than 2,000 cities, towns and suburban areas can now choose to have orders from its speedy-shipment inventory of 90,000 items delivered in three hours. The charge is $4.99 for Amazon Prime members and $14.99 for nonmembers.

One-hour delivery slots are available in hundreds of places, including major metropolitan areas like Los Angeles, Chicago and Washington, and smaller cities such as Des Moines, Iowa and Boise, Idaho, the company said. Prime members will get charged $9.99 for the service, which costs nonmembers $19.99, Amazon said

The Seattle-based company said it started testing the express delivery service late last year and expanding it this month.

“We saw an opportunity to use our unique operational expertise and delivery network to help make customers’ lives a little easier while unlocking even more value for Prime members,” Udit Madan, senior vice president of worldwide operations at Amazon, said in a statement.

Amazon launched its Prime program in 2005, offering members free two-day delivery on a selection of 1 million items, primarily DVDs, CDs, and books. Prime members now have access to over 300 million items across 35 categories, and tens of millions of products are available for free same-day or next day deliveries.

The company has used robotics and artificial intelligence technology to speed up order fulfillment. Regionalizing its U.S. delivery network into eight areas also has helped reduce delivery times, Amazon said.

Amazon is testing an ultra-fast service for deliveries in 30 minutes or less. Amazon Now is available in various cities in India, Mexico and the United Arab Emirates and is being tested in several communities in the U.S. and the United Kingdom, according to the company.

Rival retailer Walmart has focused on faster deliveries too. The Bentonville, Arkansas-based company says it offers same-day deliveries in under three hours to 95% of the U.S. population, compared to 76% three years ago.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

This post was originally published here

Twice on Monday, President Donald Trump said he’d wrangled a confession of sorts from an Oval Office predecessor who he said had expressed regret in a private conversation about not attacking Iran the way Trump has been doing for more than two weeks.

But there’s just a little problem: Representatives for the four living former presidents — three Democrats and one Republican — said none have been in touch with Trump recently.

Trump declined to name the former president when reporters asked who it was, saying he didn’t want to “embarrass him.”

The Republican president first told the story during extended remarks about the Iran war as he opened a meeting of the board of trustees of the Kennedy Center. Trump is chairman of the board and held the meeting at the White House.

He repeated that Iran had been a threat to the United States for decades but said he is the only president who had the courage to do something about it.

“Look, for 47 years, no president was willing to do what I’m doing, and they should have done it a long time ago,” he said. “It would have been a lot easier. There’s no president that wanted to do it.

“And yet every president knew. I’ve spoken to a certain president, who I like, actually, a past president, a former president. He said, ‘I wish I did it, I wish I did,’ but they didn’t do it. I’m doing it,” Trump continued.

Asked which former president he’d spoken to, Trump said: “I can’t tell you that. I don’t want to embarrass him. It would be very bad for his career, even though he’s got no career.”

Representatives for each of former Presidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack Obama and Joe Biden said they had not spoken with Trump recently. The individuals spoke on condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to discuss the former presidents’ private conversations.

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment after being informed that none of the former presidents said he had spoken with Trump recently.

Trump and all four past presidents were last together in the same space for his inauguration on Jan. 20, 2025 — well before the war.

He has been extremely critical of Biden and Obama, often saying Biden is the “worst president in the history of our country” and accusing Obama of negotiating a “horrible deal” with Iran over its nuclear weapons. Trump withdrew the U.S. from that agreement the first time he was president.

But the Republican recently offered sympathetic comments about Clinton, saying it “bothers” him that the former president had been called to give a deposition to Congress about his friendship with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

“I liked Bill Clinton. I still like Bill Clinton,” Trump said in a Feb. 4 interview with NBC News. “I liked his behavior toward me. I thought he got me, he understood me.”

Trump repeated his story about discussing Iran with a former president later Monday in the Oval Office, where he announced that Vice President JD Vance will lead a task force that was created to eliminate fraud in federal benefit programs.

“Was it George W. Bush?” a reporter asked.

“No,” Trump said.

“Was it Bill Clinton?” the reporter asked.

Trump said: “I don’t want to say. I don’t want to say,” then added that “it’s somebody that happens to like me. And I like that person, who’s a smart person. But that person said, ‘I wish I did it,’ OK, but I don’t want to get into who, OK. I don’t want to get them into trouble.”

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

This post was originally published here

Good morning. Could the next generation of tech giants fit in a single office?

In the coming years, some of the most valuable companies in the world will have “sub-100 employees,” Daniel Nadler, the founder and CEO of OpenEvidence, predicted during a panel session at Nvidia’s GTC 2026 summit on Monday. “I think the world’s not prepared for that,” Nadler said.

OpenEvidence is an AI‑powered medical information and clinical decision support company used by physicians. In January, the startup closed a $250 million Series D funding round, co‑led by Thrive Capital and DST Global, which doubled its valuation to approximately $12 billion.

“Take OpenEvidence, we have sub-100 employees, yet 300 million Americans will be treated this year by a doctor who used OpenEvidence in the loop,” Nadler said. Each employee in his company is indirectly supporting millions of patients, he estimated.

“The scale is unfathomable, and that’s directly a result of what Jensen and Nvidia, and these tools and the people who develop on top of that technology have enabled as the new starting point,” he said, adding, “I think the world economy—and certainly the tech economy—is going to look unrecognizable.”

Leaders across tech are beginning to echo the idea that companies could be built and run by smaller teams. For example, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman has emphasized that AI acts as a collaborator that lets individuals and small teams achieve results that once required much larger organizations, amplifying productivity and creativity. Block recently announced it would cut 40% of the fintech company’s headcount because of gains in AI. The decision was part of a longer transformation, Block CFO and COO Amrita Ahuja recently told me. “This is a two-year journey for us,” she said. “This was not an overnight decision.”

The rise of ultra-efficient, AI-driven teams could require a fundamental restructuring of the workforce, according to new research from McKinsey. To capture the full value of AI, organizations need to go beyond “a piecemeal approach, and push for a double transformation—both technical and organizational—that includes reimagining how work gets done across functions and workflows,” according to the report. It will likely take a lot of work and preparation, along with training and upskilling for employees whose roles may be redefined.

While AI can dramatically increase productivity, fully realizing its potential is a complex and demanding challenge for companies of all sizes.

Sheryl Estrada
sheryl.estrada@fortune.com

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

This post was originally published here