• Dario Amodei has warned that his latest AI model, Mythos, was so powerful it posed a serious threat.
• The Trump administration just ordered Anthropic to block foreign access to Mythos.
• Anthropic responded by shutting down the model altogether.

Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei is famous for warning that his own products pose a threat.

In an essay published this month, Amodei cautioned that AI's power "has become undeniable." As an example, he pointed to Anthropic's latest model, Mythos, which he said presents "very real risks" to cybersecurity, the financial sector, critical infrastructure, and national security.

He then called for a more robust government intervention to address the risks.

On Friday, his warnings appeared to backfire when the US government suddenly intervened.

Anthropic cut off access to its Mythos 5 and Fable 5 after it said the Trump administration ordered it to block foreign access to the models. The Pentagon's chief information officer expressed support for the move in an X post, writing, "Some things are simply more important than revenue cycles, clickbait, and pre-IPO valuation."

The surprise development sent the tech industry into a tizzy.

Gary Marcus, the AI researcher and notorious skeptic, called the Trump administration's move "wildly overdramatic and also counterproductive."

Yann LeCunn, who is considered one of the godfathers of AI, blamed Amodei: "Dario Amodei's ridiculous fear mongering about Mythos/Fable (and AI in general) finally pays off," he wrote on X. "One reaps what one sows."

Amodei has long sought to position himself as the AI industry's adult in the room. Once an integral researcher at OpenAI, he left the company to start Anthropic over concerns that OpenAI CEO Sam Altman prioritized releasing products over ensuring their safety.

He has since issued a stream of statements that the things he is building and releasing to the general public, alongside OpenAI, Google, Meta, Amazon, and others, could upend life as we know it — for good as well as bad.

Amodei once warned that AI would eliminate half of entry-level white-collar jobs and cause unemployment to soar to levels not seen since the COVID-19 pandemic, and before that, the Great Recession in 2008.

While Amodei has softened his tone on jobs in recent weeks as his company gears up to go public, he and his company have not held back on other safety concerns.

"The cyber risks that Mythos-class models present will not be the last that we must face," he wrote in his June essay. "I believe that biological risks may soon follow, and that serious AI autonomy risks may not be far behind."

He wrote that concerns by lawmakers were out of step with AI's rapid progress.

Earlier this month, his company called for a temporary halt to the development of frontier AI models in a paper cautioning that the latest models are getting closer to improving themselves, which it said, "might increase the risks of humans losing control over AI systems."

"We believe it would be good for the world to have the option to slow or temporarily pause frontier AI development to enable societal structures and alignment research to keep up with the advance of the technology," Anthropic wrote.

That pause arrived on Friday, at least for Anthropic.

Qatar and Switzerland are set to meet in one of the opening-round matches of the 2026 FIFA World Cup, with the Group B showdown taking place on June 13 at Levi's Stadium in Santa Clara, California. We can show you where to watch it from anywhere, for free.

While Switzerland enters the tournament as a familiar knockout-stage contender, Qatar will be looking to build on its recent international experience and make an early statement in one of the tournament's most competitive groups.

Switzerland is the more established World Cup side, having advanced to the knockout stage in four of its last five appearances. Qatar, meanwhile, will be looking to prove it can compete on the sport's biggest stage after gaining valuable experience as host nation in 2022. With both teams hoping to secure an early advantage in their group, the match could have a significant impact on the race for a spot in the knockout rounds.

You can catch Qatar vs. Switzerland on FOX in the US, ITVX in the UK (for free), and SBS On Demand in Australia (also free). Read on for more streaming options for worldwide viewers. You can keep tabs on the rest of the tournament and learn how to catch your team in our where to watch the World Cup guide, or try your chance at scoring a seat with our guide to buying World Cup tickets.

*Availability for local channels, like FOX, varies by market on Sling TV

• See also: Where to buy World Cup tickets

Where to watch Qatar vs. Switzerland for free

Luckily for fans, there are plenty of ways to catch this match at no cost. In Australia, tune in via SBS On Demand; in the UK, via ITVX.

In the US, the best way to see it without incurring a fee is to sign up for a free trial of DirecTV, Fubo, or YouTube TV.

How to watch Qatar vs. Switzerland from anywhere

Found yourself away during the match? Don't sweat the details — you can access the Qatar vs. Switzerland match from anywhere in the world using a VPN (virtual private network). This simple app lets users change their device's location, granting access to their favorite free streaming service from anywhere. It's a helpful tool outside of just streaming the game, especially for avid travelers hoping to access their usual services from abroad and folks interested in cybersecurity or accessing free streaming options from overseas.

We recommend NordVPN, one of the top picks in our guide to the best VPNs, for catching the game. Fast, easy to use, and home to a variety of global servers, it'll have you covered for the whole tournament. Plus, it comes with a 30-day money-back guarantee.

Where to watch Qatar vs. Switzerland in the US

Just like the rest of the World Cup, the Qatar vs. Switzerland game will air on Fox in the US (some upcoming matches will be available through FS1). To tune into the channel, you'll need cable, an antenna, or a paid streaming subscription. For this game specifically, you can catch it for free by signing up for a free DirecTV, Fubo, or YouTube TV trial.

Interested in a streaming service to keep in the long term? You'll be covered for the full World Cup tournament with Fox One ($20 a month), which is also available as an add-on to Prime Video. Alternatively, a live TV package could be the right solution for your home, since it'll offer you more than just Fox — check out our guide to the best live TV streaming services to find your perfect fit.

If you've set your sights on DirecTV, we recommend DirecTV MySports, which carries Fox, FS1, and about 20 other popular sports channels ($65 a month). The package also includes ESPN Unlimited access at no additional cost.

Alternatively, Fubo Sports + News ($56 a month) is another great choice, offering Fox, FS1, and about 27 other channels. If you're hoping to find a more inclusive service, Fubo's pricier plans are a good choice with even more channels bundled in.

YouTube TV is another solid option. Plans cost $83 a month, but a special deal will knock your first five months down to just $68 a month. Fox and FS1 are also available in YouTube TV's cheaper Sports Plan. All YouTube TV plans come with a free trial for new customers.

We also recommend Sling TV, but you'll need to double-check that the service covers FOX in your ZIP code to ensure World Cup coverage. If it does, we suggest Sling Select ($25 a month) or Sling Blue ($51 a month), since both include FS1.

Peacock will best serve viewers looking for Spanish-language tournament coverage. Plans with sports streaming start at $11 a month.

Where to watch Qatar vs. Switzerland in the UK

ITVX and the BBC have split rights for the World Cup. The Qatar vs. Switzerland game will be free to stream via ITVX for UK viewers. You'll just need to create an account. The free tier is fine for this game and the channel's other World Cup games.

Where to watch Qatar vs. Switzerland in Australia

Australian viewers can catch the entire World Cup tournament via SBS On Demand. The free service requires account creation, but no payment.

Note: VPN use is illegal in certain countries, and using VPNs to access region-locked streaming content may constitute a breach of the terms of use for some services. Business Insider does not endorse or condone the illegal use of VPNs.

The FIFA World Cup is officially underway, almost four years since Argentina's victory, and Lionel Messi and his crew will attempt to defend their title against a stacked field. We've scoured the viewing options and rounded up everything you need to know about where to watch the World Cup, including free and global streaming options.

If you don't want to scroll any further, we've got you covered. You can live stream every game on FOX and FS1 via FOX One or a live TV service in the US, for free on SBS On Demand in Australia, and for free across BBC iPlayer and ITVX in the UK, among many other viewing options around the world (which we'll break down below). You can access your streaming options from anywhere with the help of a VPN. Keep reading to learn more about the tournament, whether you're hoping to watch from home or attend in person.

Where to watch the World Cup for free

Several countries around the world will offer free access to World Cup coverage. In Australia, all matches will be available for free on SBS On Demand. In the UK, all matches will be split across BBC iPlayer and ITVX.

Other regions offer select games for free, often focusing on their national team and major late-tournament matches, while the rest are available via a paid service. In Spain, select matches will be available for free on RTVE Play. In Italy, RaiPlay will offer free coverage of select matches. M6 offers some free matches in France. Tubi in the US also carried a couple of free matches, including Mexico vs. South Africa and USA vs. Paraguay.

Want to access some of these free World Cup viewing options from outside the above countries? We'll show you how to get around those geo-restrictions next.

How to watch the World Cup from anywhere

Football fans who are away from the location where their streaming service works during any notable matches can still access their free viewing options with the help of a VPN. Short for virtual private networks, VPNs are handy tech tools that let people temporarily change the virtual location on their electronic devices. They're popular among people looking to upgrade their cybersecurity and keep up with their usual websites and apps while traveling abroad.

NordVPN is our top recommendation and one of the best VPNs on the market. It's fast, offers a massive selection of global servers, and comes with a helpful 30-day money-back guarantee if you find that it's not helping you out.

Where to watch the World Cup in the US

All 104 World Cup games will air on either FOX or Fox Sports 1 (FS1) in the US. FOX offers a direct streaming counterpart, FOX One, for $20 a month with a three-day free trial. You can also sign up for the service as a Prime Video add-on. If you're looking for a service with additional channels or a longer free trial, one of the best live TV streaming services we've tested might be of interest.

DirecTV carries FOX, FS1, and around 20 other sports networks in its MySports genre pack. MySports also unlocks access to ESPN Unlimited at no extra cost. Subscriptions cost $65 a month, but new customers can get $15 a month off their first two months after a five-day free trial.

Fubo offers FOX and FS1 coverage in its Sports + News plan, along with 25+ other key channels. The streaming package also unlocks ESPN Unlimited access. Sports + News costs $56 a month, but new users can get $10 off their first month after a five-day free trial. FOX and FS1 are also available in the Pro and Elite plan.

YouTube TV is another live TV service with ample FOX and FS1 coverage. Until June 30, a special deal can help new users get $75 off YouTube TV for five months (that's $15 a month off each month over a five-month period). The sale brings the price of YouTube TV's main plan down from $83 a month to just $68 a month. There's also a sports plan with FOX and FS1, which costs $65 a month, but new users can get $10 a month off their first 12 months. The live TV service typically offers a free trial for new customers.

Sling TV also carries FOX and FS1 across several of its plans, with the cheapest being Sling Select. Sling Select starts at $20 a month for 10 channels (including FS1), but it jumps up to $25 a month when local channels (like FOX) are involved. However, Sling's local channel coverage varies widely by region, so check what's available in your area before signing up. Sling Blue also carries FS1 and FOX (when available). Plans start at $46 a month, but they go for $51 a month with local channels.

If you're looking for Spanish-language coverage, Telemundo has the broadcast rights in the US, and all 104 matches are available to stream on Peacock with Spanish commentary. Peacock's sports-friendly tiers start at $11 a month for Peacock Premium, but you'll be able to watch the first couple of days of the tournament with a pared-down Select plan as well.

Where to watch the World Cup in the UK

Every match at the World Cup will be available for free in the UK. Coverage is split across the BBC and ITV, meaning fans can live stream all matches via a combination of BBC iPlayer and ITVX. These are free streaming options that only require account creation to watch.

Where to watch the World Cup in Australia

It's good news in Australia. All 104 World Cup matches will be available in one place, through SBS, SBS Viceland, and SBS On Demand. That means that you can live stream all of the games via SBS On Demand, which just requires account creation if you haven't already made a login.

Where to watch the World Cup in Spain

RTVE will carry several World Cup matches in Spain. This means that fans will be able to live stream coverage for free on RTVE Play. You'll just need to create an account, and then you're all set to start watching. Coverage will favor games with Spain's national team, along with other marquee match-ups. Football fans in Spain hoping to watch every single World Cup match will need a paid subscription through DAZN.

Where to watch the World Cup in Germany

In Germany, select World Cup coverage will be available for free through ARD and ZDF. For full German coverage of the entire tournament, including all early group stage matches, fans will need a paid subscription to MagentaTV.

Where does the 2026 FIFA World Cup take place?

Typically, the FIFA World Cup is hosted by a single country, but the 2026 tournament will take place across Canada, Mexico, and the United States. In Canada, Toronto and Vancouver serve as host cities. In Mexico, host cities include Guadalajara, Mexico City, and Monterrey. US host cities include Atlanta, Boston, Dallas, Houston, Kansas City, Los Angeles, Miami, New York/New Jersey, Philadelphia, Seattle, and the San Francisco Bay Area.

Who is favored to win the FIFA World Cup?

Heading into the tournament, Spain is the favorite to win the FIFA World Cup. On DraftKings (at the time of writing), Spain leads at +450, followed by France (+475), England (+700), Portugal (+800), Brazil (+950), and Argentina (+950).

Previous FIFA World Cup winners

Argentina, led by Lionel Messi, won the 2022 World Cup. Previous winners include France (2018), Germany (2014), Spain (2010), Italy (2006), Brazil (2002), France (1998), Brazil (1994), West Germany (1990), Argentina (1986), Italy (1982), Argentina (1978), West Germany (1974), Brazil (1970), England (1966), Brazil (1962), Brazil (1958), West Germany (1954), Uruguay (1950), Italy (1938), Italy (1934), and Uruguay (1930).

When and where is the next men's World Cup?

The next men's World Cup tournament will take place in 2030. Most of the games will be hosted by Morocco, Portugal, and Spain, with one match each taking place in Uruguay, Argentina, and Paraguay. These South American games are in honor of the 100th anniversary of the first FIFA World Cup, which was held in Uruguay in 1930.

How do you get World Cup tickets?

Getting your hands on World Cup tickets has proven to be no easy task. The tournament is incredibly popular, and the initial FIFA ticket release was a bit confusing. Our team has found that some of the best prices and seating variety come from the resale market right now. You can learn more in our World Cup tickets guide.

2026 FIFA World Cup Schedule

Note: VPN use is illegal in certain countries, and using VPNs to access region-locked streaming content may constitute a breach of the terms of use for some services. Business Insider does not endorse or condone the illegal use of VPNs.

• My partner is 17 years older than me. I've been calculating how much time we have left together.
• Since my mom died at 69, I can't stop worrying about what our future might look like.
• Despite my fears, we recently moved to Italy together.

On New Year's Day, I sat crying alone on the sofa while my partner, Max, slept. I wished it were just the one too many glasses of cava I had the night before. But it was something worse: a sudden, panicky feeling that time had moved faster than I realized.

When we met in 2015, I was 29, and he was 46 — 17 years my senior. He looked so youthful that I assumed he was in his late 30s. If I'm honest, the age difference made me hesitate, but the connection between us was too strong to ignore. He made me feel seen and wanted in ways no one else had before, and after a few months of resisting, I gave in to my feelings.

After 11 years, I worry about things my friends don't think about yet

In the early days, he used to say, "I wish I were 10 years younger so I could have ten more years with you." It sounded so romantic to 29-year-old me, and 10 years seemed like an eternity. I wasn't prepared for how quickly they would pass.

Over a decade later, Max still has the same energy and drive he had when I met him. Now 57, he's not showing signs of slowing down anytime soon, despite a few health niggles. He regularly spins records as a DJ, indulging in his passion for music.

But while friends my age are raising children or focusing on their careers, I worry about things that feel like they belong to someone much older. Those thoughts have intensified since my mom died unexpectedly at 69.

Losing my mom made me start calculating our time together

I often find myself calculating how long we have left together, as he's now just 12 years younger than my mother was when she died.

Will I still be with the same energetic man in another 10 years? Or will I spend my 50s or 60s as a caregiver? Would I even be able to handle that responsibility if it fell to me? I picture hospital visits, me pushing a wheelchair, and the man I've come to depend on becoming dependent on me.

Other times, I jump further ahead and picture what might come after. Will I end up alone at 50 or 60? Will I meet someone else, or build a new life on my own? I call these calculations "grief math."

Awareness of time keeps me grounded in the present

When Max woke up, I didn't say anything. How do you tell someone you've been contemplating their death? But when he asked what was wrong, I confessed. He wasn't upset; instead, he told me I should always talk to him.

I still catch myself doing grief math from time to time. But when I do, something else happens: all the daily annoyances, like how he interrupts me when I'm talking, or lets the dishes pile up in the sink, just evaporate. I just want to hug him and hold onto the feeling forever. So I do.

We recently moved to his hometown in Italy to be near his aging parents, which felt like a deeper commitment to a future that scares me. But if my mother's death taught me one thing, it's that time is never guaranteed, and not always in the way grief maths assumes.

Max could live to 100. I could die first. We could have forty more years together. Obsessing over worst-case scenarios only guarantees I'll have wasted the time we definitely have now.

Update: The final stretch of the 2026 NBA Playoffs has arrived. The New York Knicks won the Eastern Conference and advanced to the NBA Finals for the first time in 27 years. The San Antonio Spurs won the Western Conference Finals, beating the reigning champions, the Oklahoma City Thunder. The NBA Finals are underway on ABC, which can be live streamed via services like ESPN Unlimited, DirecTV, and Fubo. The original article outlining streaming options for the 2025-2026 NBA season follows:

The NBA has officially returned for the 2025 to 2026 season, and the broadcast schedule has undergone quite a shakeup. We've done the extra work for you and highlighted everything you need to know about how to watch NBA games, including the cheapest ways to live stream all games and which services you can probably do without.

Among the major changes for the new NBA season is the loss of NBA on TNT. For the first time in 36 years, NBA games won't be broadcast on TNT on Tuesdays and Thursdays. Tuesdays and Thursdays are instead split between NBC (and Peacock) and Prime Video, which are also new to the NBA scene. The one constant is ABC and ESPN, which will broadcast games on Sundays and Wednesdays, respectively.

Even if you have the most comprehensive cable package on the market, fans looking to watch all nationally broadcast games this year will still need to sign up for a couple of streaming services since there are some streaming-exclusive games each week, especially as the season wears on. Prime Video has gotten into the mix, and Monday night games are only available through Peacock (not NBC). Both NBCUniversal and Amazon are under 11-year media agreements with the NBA, so these viewing options are here to stay for the foreseeable future.

Confused? We get it. We've broken down all the essential details below, including the cheapest combination of streaming packages that will allow you to watch all nationally broadcast/streamed games in one place. We'll also explain how NBA League Pass works (and why it might be worth skipping this year).

• See also: How to watch NFL games | How to watch NHL games | Where to watch Premier League

How to watch NBA games in the US

Nationally broadcast games from the 2025-2026 regular season will be available through ABC, ESPN, NBC, Peacock, and Prime Video in the United States. NBC games will also be available on Peacock, but not all Peacock games (especially those on Monday) will air on NBC, so you'll most likely need a streaming service even if you already have access to NBC. NBA TV doesn't play a big role this year; instead, it will serve mainly as a highlight reel of key games, functioning a bit like NFL RedZone for the NBA. However, there will be a few stray games on NBA TV.

For cord-cutters, the cheapest way to live stream all nationally broadcast/streamed games isn't through one live TV streaming service. Instead, you'll want to subscribe to ESPN Unlimited ($30 a month) to access ABC and ESPN games, Peacock ($11 a month) to get NBC and Peacock games, and Prime Video ($9 a month) for games exclusive to that service. In total, that will run you $50 a month, making it more affordable than a live TV streaming package. Below, you can find a weekly schedule of nationally available games and the cheapest streaming counterpart for the broadcasts.

Peacock plans start at $11 a month for the Premium plan, which should unlock access to all NBC and Peacock NBA games. We'll test this as the season starts and make sure it's still the case. If you're looking to unlock 24/7 NBA live streams or want to stream on-demand content without ads, then you'll need to get the Peacock Premium Plus tier for $17 a month. Our Peacock streaming service guide breaks down other sports you can watch through the NBCUniversal app.

ESPN Unlimited costs $30 a month and unlocks the full suite of live streaming content across ESPN properties, including the flagship network and ESPN on ABC content. While the cheaper ESPN Select tier unlocks some programming, you'll need Unlimited to watch the bulk of the NBA action. You can learn more in our ESPN streaming service guide.

The good news is that if you have an Amazon Prime membership, you're all set to start watching Prime Video's streaming exclusive games. Amazon Prime costs $15 a month, but if you're only interested in Prime Video, you can subscribe directly for $9 a month. Prime offers a 30-day free trial for new customers or those who haven't subscribed in over a year. You can learn more in our Prime Video guide.

Another solid live TV streaming option is DirecTV MySports, which has quickly catapulted itself to the top of our list when it comes to the best live TV streaming services we've tested. The genre pack carries NBC, ABC, NBA TV, and ESPN in its 20+ channel line-up (although you should double-check what's available in your area due to regional local channel variability). MySports also unlocks access to ESPN Unlimited. Subscriptions cost $70 a month, but you can get your first two for $60 a month after a five-day free trial.

NBA League Pass can be very helpful or not helpful at all, depending on your interests. League Pass shows all out-of-market games, except those available through a national broadcast or streaming option (ABC, ESPN, NBC, Peacock, Prime Video). So, you'll need cable or the above streaming options to watch most notable games this season. NBA League Pass subscriptions start at $17 monthly. You can also add League Pass to Prime Video or DirecTV MySports as an add-on, which will cost the same as subscribing separately. Doing so through Prime Video will give you a seven-day free trial.

We recommend League Pass as an additional streaming option for those interested in having access to every single NBA game this season (in conjunction with the above streaming services) or those who are diehard fans of a team located in a region where they don't reside. If you're a casual NBA viewer or loyal to your local team, League Pass probably isn't necessary, especially since so many games are now on Peacock and Prime Video.

For example, if you're like me (a Celtics fan who lives in Boston), League Pass isn't a good option since I won't be able to watch any Celtics games, in addition to the national broadcast/streaming blackouts. But if you live in Boston and you're looking to watch every single Knicks game this year, then League Pass will be able to help you fill in some of the gaps not covered by national broadcast and streaming options.

How to watch NBA games from anywhere

If you're traveling away from home and hoping to tune in while abroad, you can access your usual watch options with the aid of a VPN. Short for virtual private networks, VPNs are easy-to-use cybersecurity tools that let people alter their virtual locations so that their usual services work from almost anywhere in the world. They're also great ways to improve online privacy and day-to-day security. The services we've highlighted require US payment methods, so this option will work best for Americans who are simply traveling abroad at the moment.

If we could draft any VPN as our No. 1 pick, it would be NordVPN. The top-rated service comes with an impressive selection of cybersecurity features and international servers. You can learn more about why we recommend the service in our official NordVPN review.

Note: The use of VPNs is illegal in certain countries and using VPNs to access region-locked streaming content might constitute a breach of the terms of use for certain services. Business Insider does not endorse or condone the illegal use of VPNs.

• Six months after college, I moved to San Francisco, but was struggling to find potential roommates.
• Instead of living alone, I signed a lease with three strangers I met through Facebook groups.
• Moving in with people I didn't know was scary, but it's been easier than rooming with friends.

When I graduated from college in 2023, I knew I wanted to return to Northern California, where I was born and raised.

But after living with my parents in the Bay Area suburbs for six months, I accepted a job in San Francisco and needed to move closer to the city for work.

There was just one problem: I didn't know a single person in San Francisco. Although I grew up in the area, all my friends had scattered across the country.

I debated living alone, but ultimately, as a natural homebody, I wanted roommates to help push me outside my comfort zone and be more social. Having people to split bills with would be nice, too.

Desperate to live with someone I even vaguely knew, I tried to connect with a few distant friends of friends, but preferences never aligned, and nothing ever worked out.

So, I decided it was time to expand my options and turned to Facebook groups of people looking for roommates in San Francisco.

After hours of scrolling through posts and vetting people through Instagram and FaceTime calls, I found three women — three strangers — to live with.

Signing a lease and moving in with people I didn't know was terrifying at first, but now, nearly two years later, I can truly say my life in San Francisco wouldn't be as full without them.

In my case, living with strangers gave me built-in exploration buddies and made dividing up chores easier

All three of my roommates were from out of state, and like me, they didn't know anyone else in San Francisco. That meant all of us were equally motivated to get out, explore, and say yes to any adventure.

During the first few weekends of us living together, we bar-hopped across our neighborhood. It felt like being a freshman in college all over again, except our campus was now an entire city.

My roommates slowly transformed from strangers to friends after each excursion, from attending a running club together to buying tickets to attend the Outside Lands music festival on a whim,

Much to my surprise, my three roommates even showed up to cheer me on as I ran the San Francisco Marathon — my first-ever half-marathon — just a month after we moved in together.

It felt great to make new connections and step out of my comfort zone.

If I'd lived alone with friends I already had and knew well, I don't think I would've felt the need to explore and branch out. It would've been easy to stick with what's comfortable and familiar, like hanging out at home or visiting the same routine places, instead of trying new things.

Another perk of living with people I didn't already have relationships with was that I felt more confident I could voice my needs.

When I'd lived with friends before, there was always the fear of ruining the relationship in the back of our minds, so unspoken tensions grew, and chores remained unfinished.

Some of the friends I lived with would leave the kitchen and living room a mess for days, but I never felt comfortable speaking up because I didn't want to be seen as the "nitpicky one" in our group or potentially jeopardize a long-standing friendship.

I no longer have this problem now that I live with people I don't have a history with and who are roommates first.

If one of us doesn't clean, forgets to lock the door, or neglects to take out the trash, I always feel like I can be upfront and ask them to pitch in.

The arrangement isn't always perfect, but living with strangers has worked well for me

Yes, there are some setbacks about living with strangers that I would be remiss if I didn't mention, like the initial awkwardness that comes with getting to know new people and the possibility of having incompatible living styles.

I'm definitely glad I spent time thoroughly vetting my would-be roommates via video calls and messages before signing a lease, since that helped lessen awkwardness and ease some of my anxieties.

I'm also grateful that the process of searching for potential roommates helped me make new friends before I arrived in San Francisco. I still keep in touch with several people I met in those Facebook groups, even though living together didn't work out.

Regardless, I understand that moving in with strangers doesn't work for everyone, and I got really lucky.

I'm so glad I kicked off this new season of postgrad life by seeking out new people to live with. It's gone so well that we have no plans to move anytime soon.

But if I do ever relocate to a different city, I know I'll be right back on Facebook, scouring through groups of strangers in search of roommates, eager to once again share a home with unfamiliar faces.

• ChatGPT analyzed puppy potty logs to create actionable metrics for Oliver's training efficiency.
• AI-generated CSV files helped track Oliver's potty habits, revealing key accident patterns.
• Consistent potty schedules, as shown by AI, reduced Oliver's accidents significantly over time.

A recent AI experiment involved feeding weeks of handwritten puppy potty logs into ChatGPT. My wife and I tracked every pee, poop, walk, and accident for our puppy Oliver, creating a new breed of KPI: Key Potty Indicators.

ChatGPT extracted the data from our scribbled notes and turned it into a fully formatted CSV file. Then it went to town charting the heck out of these KPIs.

It came up with a host of fancy metrics, including ARR (Accident Reduction Rate), LTV (Longest Time Void-free), PTP (Poop-to-Pee) ratio, WAF (Weekly Accident-Free) rate, and DPV (Daily Potty Volume).

This chart was useful, showing how accidents correlate with how often we walk Oliver.

And the AI analysis found that accidents weren't random. They clustered in two predictable windows: midday (roughly noon to 3 pm) and late evening (8 pm to 10 pm), often following meals, naps, or play sessions.

The biggest takeaway: Success comes from reducing the gap between "need to go" and "opportunity to go." According to Oliver's KPI dashboard, consistency beats discipline, every accident is a training opportunity, and our puppy is becoming increasingly forecastable.

Sign up for BI's Tech Memo newsletter here. Reach out to me via email at abarr@businessinsider.com.

• President Donald Trump is reshaping Washington, DC, from the White House to federal buildings.
• His $400 million White House ballroom plan has sparked legal battles and backlash.
• A proposed 250-foot triumphal arch celebrating America's anniversary would be the world's largest.

A new ballroom, a 250-foot arch, a memorial garden, and now, a UFC fighting ring: During his second term, President Donald Trump is leaving an increasingly visible mark on Washington, DC, from department name changes to 30-foot-tall banners of his portrait.

To commemorate his 80th birthday and America's 250th anniversary, the president has now erected a ginormous, eight-sided fighting cage on the White House South Lawn in collaboration with the UFC, which will host a primetime event outside the executive mansion on Sunday.

The Trump administration's renovation of the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool was also completed this week. The $14.8 million project included sealing and painting the bottom of the pool "American flag blue."

They're the latest on Trump's long list of changes to America's capital. Reasons given for the projects include government efficiency, beautifying the city, and marking America's 250th birthday.

While many remain ongoing or in legal limbo, the changes the president has already made to the White House and its surrounding areas have altered the face of the nation's capital.

See some of the ways in which Trump has remodeled the White House, US government buildings, and beyond during his second term.

The shuttering of USAID was one of the first physical signs of the Trump administration's remodeling of the nation's capital.

Shortly after taking office, Trump's Department of Government Efficiency spearheaded a sweeping dismantling of the US Agency for International Development, or USAID.

The department froze the agency's foreign aid, slashed its staff and programs, and ultimately moved to dismantle much of the agency's operations and shift remaining functions to the State Department.

Former presidents Barack Obama and George W. Bush joined critics in condemning the move, with Obama calling it a "travesty."

Administration officials framed it as a cost-cutting and accountability effort, with Secretary of State Marco Rubio saying USAID had "strayed from its original mission" and that "the gains were too few and the costs were too high" around the time of its effective shuttering.

The agency, founded in 1961 to counter the influence of the Soviet Union during the Cold War, was housed in the Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center in DC, alongside other government agencies.

Following the agency's formal folding into the State Department on July 1, 2025, its staff, offices, and signage were removed from the building that once housed it.

In May 2025, the US Department of Agriculture debuted banners showing Trump alongside Abraham Lincoln.

By the first spring of his second term, Trump's portrait started appearing on government buildings, with the first being the US Department of Agriculture building, the Jamie L. Whitten Building, in the National Mall.

The 31-foot-tall banners, which were installed to honor USDA's 163rd birthday, cost the department an estimated $16,400, the Washingtonian reported.

They "acknowledge the vision and leadership of USDA's founder, Abraham Lincoln, and the best advocate of America's farmers and ranchers, President Trump," USDA's then-director of communications, Seth W. Christensen, told The Washington Post in May 2025.

There is little modern precedent for the banners, which raised concerns about the politicization of federal buildings. Instead, the norm is for presidential portraits to be displayed inside government buildings and updated between administrations.

The Department of Labor building also features portraits of Trump alongside Theodore Roosevelt.

In August, the US Department of Labor debuted its own Trump banners, initially to commemorate Labor Day but kept up throughout the nation's 250th anniversary celebrations after receiving a "tremendous positive response," a department spokesperson told The New York Times.

The Department of Labor's banners read "American Workers First" and depict the president alongside Theodore Roosevelt, who helped lay the groundwork for the modern Labor Department.

A September report by Sen. Adam Schiff of California also mentioned that the US Department of Health and Human Services had solicited 88-foot-tall banners promoting health secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr's "Make America Healthy Again" slogan for an estimated cost of $33,726.

In February, a similar banner was hung at the Department of Justice's building.

The latest federal department to showcase the president's portrait is the Department of Justice, which has traditionally operated somewhat independently of the White House to curb political influence.

The banner, hung in February, features the president's portrait and reads "Make America Safe Again."

Among its critics, Gov. Gavin Newsom called the display "beyond parody," while New Jersey Sen. Andy Kim wrote on X, "The Department of Justice is supposed to work for and represent you, not him."

A DOJ spokesperson said, "We are proud at this Department of Justice to celebrate 250 years of our great country and our historic work to make America safe again at President Trump's direction."

The Kennedy Center board voted in December to add Trump's name to the institution.

In December, the John F. Kennedy Memorial Center for the Performing Arts was renamed by its board to the Donald J. Trump and the John F. Kennedy Memorial Center for the Performing Arts.

The name change came after a unanimous vote by the center's board of trustees, which was largely reshaped by the president.

"I was honored by [the renaming]," Trump said in the days following the name change. "Its board, it's a very distinguished board, most distinguished people in the country. And I was surprised by it."

Renaming the center, created by Congress as a memorial to US President John F. Kennedy, requires congressional approval. The board's decision to rename it faced criticism at the time, including from some members of the Kennedy family. Some performers canceled booked appearances in the center, while legal battles emerged as Democratic members of Congress seek to block the name change.

In March, the center announced it would undergo renovations starting this summer, during which it would temporarily pause operations, with work expected to last two years.

But on May 29, a federal judge ruled that Trump's name had been added illegally to the center and blocked the planned summer closure.

A spokesperson for the Kennedy Center said that the administration would be "complying with the court's order while evaluating all legal options to preserve this revitalization and recognize President Trump's leadership," the Associated Press reported.

The US Institute of Peace building also had Trump's name added to it in December.

The US Institute of Peace was another DC institution that saw Trump's name added to it.

The Congress-funded, nonprofit think tank was renamed by the administration in a State Department announcement that described Trump as "the greatest dealmaker in our nation's history," per a social media announcement.

"Marco named it after me," the president said at a Board of Peace meeting in February, referring to Secretary of State Marco Rubio. "I had nothing to do with it, I swear I didn't. I swear. I had no idea."

Rubio showed his support on X, posting, "President Trump will be remembered by history as the President of Peace. It's time our State Department display that."

The president plans to build the world's largest triumphal arch.

In October, Trump first proposed the building of a monumental arch, dubbed the "Independence Arch," to commemorate America's 250th anniversary.

The arch, proposed to be 250 feet tall, would sit across the Potomac River from the Lincoln Memorial on the Memorial Circle roundabout near Arlington National Cemetery.

While construction on the arch has not yet begun, surveying of the land plot has started, even amid an ongoing lawsuit in which a group of Vietnam veterans sued to block the administration from building the monument.

The group argued that the structure "would dishonor their military and foreign service and the legacy of their comrades and other veterans buried at Arlington National Cemetery," per the lawsuit.

In response to a legal challenge from congressional Democrats, a White House spokesperson told The Washington Post of the structure, "It will enhance the visitor experience at Arlington National Cemetery for veterans, the families of the fallen, and all Americans alike, serving as a visual reminder of the noble sacrifices borne by so many American heroes throughout our 250 year history so we can enjoy our freedoms today,"

In May, the Trump-appointed US Commission of Fine Arts approved the arch's design, partly clearing the way for its construction.

The approved revised design for the arch — which some have nicknamed "Arc de Trump" — features a figure reminiscent of Lady Liberty atop the structure, gilded eagles, gold-lettering inscriptions, and a 360-degree observation deck open to visitors.

The arch, which would be nearly half as tall as the Washington Monument obelisk, would dwarf France's historic Arc de Triomphe, the world's most famous triumphal arch, and be the tallest triumphal arch in the world.

A preliminary assessment by the National Park Service, released on June 8, estimated that the project would require year-round, 20-hour-a-day construction to be completed within a three-year timeframe.

The demolition of the East Wing began to give the People's House a new face.

In October 2025, the White House's East Wing was demolished, leaving only rubble behind and clearing the way for the president's 90,000-square-foot, $400 million ballroom project.

Previously, the largest event space in the White House was the East Room, which had a capacity of around 200 people. For larger events, tents were erected on the South Lawn.

"For more than 150 years, every President has dreamt about having a Ballroom at the White House to accommodate people for grand parties, State Visits, etc.," Trump wrote on Truth Social in October. "I am honored to be the first President to finally get this much-needed project underway — with zero cost to the American Taxpayer!"

The president has said the project will be funded by private donors, including Big Tech companies and wealthy individuals.

The demolition of the wing, originally added in the early 20th century and expanded in 1942, altered the facade of the president's mansion and forced the relocation of the first lady's staff offices.

It was met with criticism from preservationists, who said the president needed to obtain congressional approval for the project.

"It's not his house. It's your house. And he's destroying it," former Secretary of State and presidential candidate Hillary Clinton wrote on X after photos of the demolition emerged.

Trump has defended the project by pointing to past presidents' renovations, expansions, and modernizations of the White House, and by emphasizing the ballroom's importance for hosting large events. The administration has also dismissed criticism of the construction as "manufactured outrage."

When completed, the president's proposed ballroom will further transform the White House.

The ballroom will be the largest change Trump has made to the White House — others include Rose Garden renovations, new marble floors, and gold embellishments. The new ballroom will also impede the South Lawn's historic driveway, making it no longer circular.

The project was temporarily blocked by a federal judge on March 31, who ruled that the president must seek congressional approval before proceeding with the renovation.

A federal appeals court later paused the judge's order, allowing construction to continue while the case proceeds.

As of May, the ballroom construction is projected to be completed by September 2028, the president told reporters.

Renovations to the Rose Garden have already changed the White House's exterior.

In July 2025, the president renovated the White House's Rose Garden, which is often used for press conferences and larger gatherings.

The renovation paved over the grass with light-colored stone while keeping the garden's namesake rose bushes, citing the foot traffic during events as the main reason for the project.

It wasn't the first time the Rose Garden had changed looks, as it famously did under the Kennedy administration, when roses, magnolia trees, and other perennial and annual flowers were added.

In 2020, Melania Trump oversaw a garden renovation that included the addition of limestone walkways along the open lawn.

In the Potomac River's Tidal Basin, Trump has pushed changes to the East Potomac Golf Links.

Also on the riverside, alongside the Potomac River, is the East Potomac Golf Links, a public golf course that the president has also set his eye on for a potential takeover.

In December 2025, the Trump administration issued the National Links Trust — a nonprofit that operates and maintains public golf courses in Washington, DC, under a 50-year lease with the National Park Service — with a termination notice, The Athletic reported.

The National Links Trust said it was "devastated" by the decision, saying it "has consistently complied with all lease obligations as we work to ensure the brightest possible future for public golf in DC."

Of Trump's involvement with public golf courses, White House spokesperson Taylor Rogers told Golf Digest, "As a private citizen, President Trump built some of the greatest golf courses in the world, and he is now extending his unmatched design skills and excellent eye for detail to D.C.'s public golf courses."

In May, the Trump administration and the National Links Trust reached a deal keeping the nonprofit in charge of DC's three municipal golf courses while clearing the way for the renovations at East Potomac, Golf Digest reported.

During the demolition of the White House East Wing and the construction of the new ballroom, locals have reported that the park has been turned into a dump for construction rubble and debris.

A lawsuit filed in February sought to restrict Trump's takeover of the golf courses. It said that dumping the rubble on the course grounds is "unlawful and possibly hazardous" due to the possible presence of asbestos.

Testing results later released by the National Park Service found that the debris dumped on the fields contained harmful chemicals like lead, chromium, PCBs, pesticides, and petroleum byproducts.

Directly north of the White House, Lafayette Square was fenced off in January for a renovation project.

Lafayette Square, a 7-acre public park directly north of the White House, has also seen changes during the second Trump administration.

The park is a popular attraction for visitors thanks to its views of the People's House, but in recent months it has undergone a makeover.

In late January, the Washington Post reported that the park had been fenced off as part of an improvement project and that it had been designated a National Historic Landmark since 1970.

The work, initially expected to last through May, will focus on fixing fountains, sprinklers, benches, and curbs. It is part of a broader initiative undertaken by the National Park Service to "beautify," restore, and upgrade public parks in the nation's capital.

The New York Times also reported that the president was interested in replacing the park's brick walkways with granite to prevent protesters from removing bricks and throwing them.

By April 21, local news outlet DC News Now reported that the park's fountain was back in operation.

A statue garden dedicated to American heroes is planned to take over West Potomac Park.

West Potomac Park, located just west of the Jefferson Memorial along the Potomac River, serves as a public multipurpose field, where locals often organize sports and other events.

Trump's Garden of Heroes, a planned 250-statue monument commemorating American icons, is another of the president's many projects around Washington, DC.

In May, the president announced that the riverside park would soon be the location of the Garden of Heroes, despite lingering questions about project approval, timeline, and costs.

Trump described the existing park as a "totally BARREN field of Prime Waterfront Real Estate along our Mighty Potomac River" on a post on Truth Social.

A sudden repainting of the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool also raised legal concerns.

In April, the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool, which stretches between the Lincoln Memorial and the World War II Memorial, started undergoing a makeover that was completed in June.

The renovation involved resurfacing the pool, which has long had leaks and algae blooms, with a waterproof compound and painting the formerly gray pool an "American flag blue," as the president described the color.

The administration defended the renovation as an expedited repair ahead of America's 250th anniversary celebrations, with a Department of the Interior spokesperson saying that the blue surface "will enhance the visitor experience by making the pool reflect the grand Lincoln Memorial and Washington Monument."

There have been questions about the cost and process of the project, reportedly awarded under a no-bid contract. The Cultural Landscape Foundation, a DC-based preservation nonprofit, sued the administration days after the project began, alleging that the renovation was conducted without completing the proper reviews required under federal preservation law.

The renovation, initially described as a $1.8 million project, was later reported by The Associated Press to cost at least $14.8 million in contracts.

An Interior Department spokesperson told the Times that the higher price tag "reflects the effort necessary to expedite the timeline of completing the leak prevention coating project — more people, more materials, more equipment, and longer hours ahead of our 250th."

By June, the project was complete, and the updated color could be seen in satellite images (above).

A UFC fighting cage has transformed the White House South Lawn — for now.

A 4,000-seat arena was erected on the White House South Lawn for a UFC fighting event. The structure was built to host the "UFC Freedom 250" event on June 14, commemorating the nation's 250th anniversary and Trump's 80th birthday.

The 30-foot-wide, 600-ton steel cage features a 92-foot canopy — nicknamed "The Claw" — covering the fighting octagon ring.

An additional stage with large screens was also built in the adjacent Ellipse, a park south of the White House, where over 120,000 members of the public are expected to attend, organizers said. That's on top of the anticipated 4,000 spectators surrounding the ring, which will include at least 1,200 active-duty members of the armed forces as well as administration officials and other VIP guests.

A lawsuit filed by two Virginia residents against the National Park Service sought to block the event, alleging the administration's use of the South Lawn was unlawfully authorized by the agency.

Over $60 million has been spent by UFC and affiliated groups on funding the event and building the structure. The National Park Service court filing added that seven federal agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security, had also "allocated significant resources and manpower."

Trump later compared the fighting cage to France's Eiffel Tower, which was constructed as a temporary installation for the 1889 World's Fair and has remained in place since.

"We're building something in front of the White House that's quite attractive to a lot of people," the president said on a video posted to his TikTok account. "And I'm looking at it, and maybe we'll never ever take it down."

• After my millennial cousin convinced me to try mahjong, I'm hooked.
• It keeps me off my phone and engaged with my friends and family.
• Now I understand how people can spend hours around a mahjong table without getting bored.

A few months ago, if you'd asked me what I knew about mahjong, I probably would have said it's a game older women play, like my grandma, and that I was definitely not interested in learning.

Then I got hooked.

After my cousin moved closer to where I live, she told me she wanted to learn to play mahjong and asked if I'd teach her. My first thought was that if my cousin, a millennial, was interested, I (a Gen Zer) probably wouldn't be the only young person learning. Plus, I'd heard plenty of praise for the game from my mom's friends over the years.

Before long, my mom and our family friend wanted to learn, too, so the four of us signed up for classes together.

Mahjong, which has roots in mid-19th-century China, is seeing a surge in popularity as people seek out more face-to-face social activities — and after playing, I can see why.

Now, I spend multiple evenings a month gathered around a table with them, shuffling tiles, debating strategy, and trying to remember which discards will come back to haunt me.

Learning how to play

Mahjong arrived in the US from China in the 1920s, eventually developing into a variant known as American mahjong. When I sat down to play, the learning curve was much steeper than I expected.

At first, the colorful tiles looked interchangeable, and every game felt like controlled chaos. There seemed to be endless rules, strategies, and combinations to memorize. For the first couple of classes, I was completely overwhelmed.

There were moments I considered giving up. I couldn't understand how anyone kept track of everything happening on the table.

But after a few sessions, patterns began to emerge. The strategy became more intuitive. Instead of seeing random tiles, I began to recognize opportunities. The game slowly began to make sense.

Now, I completely understand why people can spend hours around a mahjong table without getting bored.

The best part isn't the game

Like many people my age, I wasn't just looking for another hobby when I started playing mahjong — I was looking for a reason to spend less time staring at a screen and more time interacting with people face-to-face.

My days are usually spent online. I work on a computer, communicate through Slack and email, scroll social media, and unwind by watching TV. Even many of my social interactions happen through text.

However, unlike these modern hobbies, mahjong demands your full attention. The pace of the game requires players to stay engaged, watch what everyone else is doing, and react in real time.

For a few hours, notifications disappear into the background.

The game has also created a social routine that feels increasingly rare: a few hours where everyone is actively participating in the same thing.

Younger players are picking up mahjong

The more I've played, the more I've realized that mahjong's growing popularity among younger people makes sense.

It fits into the larger trend of growing interest in activities that offer real-world connections — running clubs, book clubs, pickleball leagues, dinner parties — as players flock to clubs for a sense of community, as PBS reported. Yelp data showed searches for mahjong clubs and lessons grew by 4,000% last year, PBS reported.

Many mahjong clubs across the US have seen increased interest from younger players. San Francisco's Youth Luck Leisure Mahjong Club, for example, draws crowds of up to 200 people, often with waitlists, the Associated Press reported in 2025, while New York's Green Tile Social Club is popular with younger players hoping to connect with their cultural heritage, The New York Times reported in 2024.

Vogue also reported that younger players are heading to stylish mahjong clubs and themed events, and buying designer game sets, helping transform the game into a fashionable social activity.

Ironically, I probably wouldn't have started playing mahjong without seeing it pop up more frequently online, but what has kept me playing is the exact opposite of what most online platforms offer.

I've learned that mahjong rewards patience instead of instant gratification. It encourages real-life conversation over scrolling. And it gives me a reason to put my phone away for a few hours and focus fully on the people sitting across from me.

• Anthropic says the Trump Administration ordered it to block foreign access to two powerful AI models.
• In response, the company cut off all access to Fable 5 and Mythos 5.
• The tech world reacted swiftly and with surprise.

Anthropic's announcement that the Trump Administration ordered it to block foreign access to Fable 5 and Mythos 5 — prompting the company to completely cut off access to those AI models — sent a shock wave across the tech world.

Here are some reactions on social media to the latest skirmish in the hostilities between the White House and Anthropic.

Dean W. Ball, senior fellow at the Foundation for American Innovation

"If this is true, it is just baffling. An administration whose posture is that we should export advanced AI chips to China, which also wants to ban… Britain (and every other non-American on Earth)… from using our best models? I have no words.

"I can't tell if this is lawfare against Anthropic in particular or extreme national-security hawkery. Regardless, it is simply cartoonish."

Peter Girnus, senior threat researcher at Zero Day Initiative

"Two things are true at once.

"First: Anthropic spent months marketing Mythos as too dangerous to release. Sam Altman said it was 'incredible marketing to say we have built a bomb. The Commerce Department has now formally agreed it is a bomb. If you describe your product as a munition in every press release, eventually a government takes you at your word. They wrote the legal predicate themselves and called it a brand.

"Second: we have run this experiment before. In the 90s the government classified encryption as a munition under ITAR. Activists defeated it by printing PGP's source code as a book, because books are protected speech and floppy disks were arms exports. A t-shirt with three lines of RSA Perl was legally a munition. The controls collapsed because math does not stop at customs.

"The new wrinkle is the 'deemed export' rule: showing controlled technology to a foreign national inside the US counts as exporting it abroad. Which is why Anthropic's own foreign-national employees are now locked out of the model they built. The munition is in the building and the people who made it are not allowed to look at it."

Marc Andreesen, partner at Andreessen Horowitz

Chris McGuire, senior fellow for China and emerging technologies at the Council on Foreign Relations

"I actually think targeted export controls on model access are prudent. But across the board controls on all countries on a single model, without any warning, is highly questionable. Imposing equally broad deemed export controls, which also restrict access to foreign nationals, is just absurd—and obviously will result in the model being pulled from distribution, as just happened.

"Export controls are a critical tool, and an extremely powerful one. Used correctly, they have the potential to massively extend the US lead in AI. Used incorrectly, they will stifle AI development. The Department of Commerce's export control strategy has been completely incoherent and sabotaging. It is sending powerful AI chips to China, not enforcing controls that would prevent Chinese smuggling, creating massive loopholes that allow AI chips to be sent to China, and preventing US AI companies from releasing their own models.

"This has to stop. We urgently need a smart export control strategy that applies robust export controls to deny our adversaries access to advanced technology, while advantaging US companies. Commerce and BIS are consistently doing the opposite. If BIS doesn't understand how to use its authorities or what the implications are of its actions, then it needs to find some new personnel who can actually execute a competent export control strategy. The current one is incoherent and self-defeating."

Matthew Pines, CEO of Physical Superintelligence

"this is gonna send shockwaves through every lab and neolab… U.S. export control laws operate under a strict liability standard… they are a very sharp blade…"

Dan Shipper, CEO of Every

"my take on this situation currently is that they'll unban it in a few days and the net effect will be increased demand for Fable

"however this kind of thing is extremely disruptive and distracting for people inside of the company. the only comparable scenario i can remember is Sam Altman's firing which was resolved relatively quickly. even though things went back to the way they were, i do think that disrupted their momentum for a while

"hoping for a good outcome here!"

Josh Pigford, founder of Baremetrics

"Anthropic has not done theirselves ANY favors with their hyperbole over the past 6-12 months. But I also guarantee this has zero to do with national security."

Peter Barnett, researcher at Machine Intelligence Research Institute

"If it's true that USG export controlled Fable because another company said they could jailbreak it, then we might be stumbling into a regime where AI companies red team each others' models before the USG allows deployment."

Yusuf Mahmood, director of AI policy at the America First Policy Institute

"The US government just ordered Anthropic to suspend all foreign-national access to Fable 5 and Mythos 5, inside or outside the US. As a reminder, huge percentages of technical employees at all the frontier AI labs (including Anthropic) are likely foreign nationals."

Jeremy Howard, cofounder of fast.ai

"I disagree with this decision and I don't like it.

"But also...

"HOW DID ANTHROPIC NOT SEE THIS COMING‽

"It is the obvious response to 'this is too dangerous for anyone except us to use', since that relies on a premise ('we are uniquely good') that almost no-one agrees with."

Ryan Brewer, member of technical staff at OpenAI

"Eventually you will only be able to access frontier intelligence in a small set of buildings in the Bay Area if the US govt continues in this direction. Shame"

Ketan Ramakrishnan, Yale Law professor

"The federal government is going to regulate AI developers aggressively. The question is whether this regulation will be done intelligently or not; whether Congress and public deliberation will have a role or just opaque executive action; etc"

Yann LeCun, executive chairman of AMI Labs

"Dario Amodei's ridiculous fear mongering about Mythos/Fable (and AI in general) finally pays off:

"The US government bans its use by non Americans, including by foreign employees in the US

"One reaps what one sows."

Peter Harrell, visiting scholar at Georgetown Law School

"I find it ridiculous and un-American for the government to tell me, as an American, I cannot use an advanced AI model because of a vague and non-public alleged security threat. We should regulate AI, but based on transparent and impartial rules, and not 5pm on a Friday diktats."

Alan Rozenshtein, research director at The Lawfare Institute

"This may become the first big First Amendment AI case."

Aaron Levie, CEO of Box

"This is a big turning point for AI regulation.

The government is starting to deem some models too powerful for certain uses, which creates a precedent for a range of possible controls in the future.

I'm in the camp that this is unnecessary and we should be primarily regulating the use of AI, as opposed to the underlying models. But, equally, there are plenty of people that actually prefer this outcome.

Either way, it's unlikely that we're going back to a world where the government doesn't have far more meaningful involvement in the rate of AI progress."

Gary Marcus, AI researcher

"Commerce's shocking decree this afternoon — which effectively shuts down Anthropic by cutting off access to Mythos 5 and Fable 5 for many of their own employees — seems both wildly overdramatic and also counterproductive for the US AI industry.

Perhaps it does China a favor, though. Certainly every Chinese person working in a US AI company (and there are many) will consider returning to the competition in China ASAP.

And investors will start to wonder whether American AI companies can thrive in this atmosphere.

If you want an example of an AI regulation that can stifle innovation, this is it."

Timnit Gebru, founder of the Distributed AI Research Institute

"Lol Anthropic made such a big deal about their model being 'dangerous' because they thought the only result was gonna be hype + something something preventing China from something."

• As a solo traveler who's visited over 50 countries, some have left a lasting impact on me.
• I'll never forget my time in Guatemala, where I saw a volcano erupt right before my eyes.
• Uzbekistan is one of my favorite places for incredible cuisine and breathtaking scenery.

I'm a solo traveler from Australia who dreams of visiting every country in the world, and so far, I've checked over 50 off my bucket list.

After traveling to so many different destinations, I often get asked which ones I'd recommend most. Even though I've visited so many memorable places in Asia, Central America, and Europe, it's challenging to pick my favorites.

But if I had to narrow it down, these are the seven countries I haven't been able to stop thinking about.

Mongolia is unlike any other place I've visited.

When I arrived in Ulaanbaatar, the capital of Mongolia, I was completely in awe of the architecture, specifically the mix of modern buildings and Buddhist temples.

Besides the unique architectural designs in the capital, however, the part of my trip that stood out to me most was visiting the Gobi Desert, where I spent weeks living off the grid with nomadic families.

Here, I experienced a dramatic range of weather conditions: extreme winds, dry heat, snow, and temperatures dropping below negative 5 degrees Fahrenheit.

Despite the unpredictable climate, spending time with these families and disconnecting from the rest of the world made my trip to Mongolia one of my favorites.

Plus, the lack of crowds and very intermittent cell reception in the desert truly allowed me to live in the moment.

In Bolivia, every moment was full of variety.

Bolivia kept me on my toes constantly: One minute, I was backpacking on foot, the next, I was riding cable cars high above the city — an experience I'll never forget, despite my fear of heights.

I was also blown away by the traditional Bolivian fashion, specifically the big, layered skirts, shawls, and bowler hats.

Overall, Bolivia — specifically the administrative capital of La Paz — felt so raw, colorful, and unlike anywhere else I'd been to in South America.

The landscapes in Ethiopia took my breath away.

Ethiopia quickly became one of my favorite places to visit, as it's home to some of the kindest and most generous locals I've ever met, and offers the most incredible hikes I've ever undertaken.

During my time there, I climbed a 1,000-foot-high cliff — without a harness or shoes — to reach Abuna Yemata Guh, a centuries-old rock-hewn church.

When I reached the top of the cliff, I could see for miles across the Ethiopian landscape.

Another standout spot was the Danakil Depression, often called "Mars on Earth." With a slew of active volcanoes and average temperatures consistently reaching nearly 90 degrees Fahrenheit, it's considered one of the most hostile places on Earth.

Regardless of the warm weather, these yellow-green and neon-orange landscapes are so beautiful and vibrant that photos don't do them justice.

Hiking in Guatemala is an experience I'll never forget.

Guatemala is filled with some of the most incredible landscapes I've ever seen.

After a long hike, I was able to see Volcán de Fuego — one of Central America's most active volcanoes — erupt right in front of me. It was a moment I'll never forget.

During my trip, I also traveled to Lake Atitlán, a stunning body of water surrounded by three volcanoes.

The peaceful scenery, which is surrounded by small towns full of yoga retreats and delicious food, was the perfect place to recover after one of the most intense hikes I've ever done.

I think visiting Nepal should be on everyone's bucket list.

As soon as I arrived in Kathmandu, Nepal's capital, I was greeted by pouring rain.

In spite of the weather, the city was so beautiful, with vibrant clothing and colorful stores brightening every street.

During my time in the country, I hiked to the Annapurna Base Camp, a multiday trek offering stunning views of the Himalayan peaks.

I was worried I wouldn't be able to see the peaks due to cloud coverage and poor weather, but I remained positive throughout the hike, and after six days, I was met with blue skies, a gorgeous sunrise, and breathtaking views.

I think South Korea is the perfect place for solo travelers.

As a female solo traveler, I felt very safe during my visit to South Korea, and I was amazed by how clean the streets were.

Plus, the shopping and food in this country are on another level.

I'm still dreaming about my iced latte from Malic Coffee in Seoul and am obsessed with the skincare and makeup at Olive Young, South Korea's leading beauty retailer.

Another highlight of my trip was visiting the Starfield Library, an open-concept reading area that houses roughly 50,000 books and is one of the most spectacular sites I've seen.

Uzbekistan offers a cultural diversity unlike any other country I've visited.

As soon as I stepped into Tashkent, the capital of Uzbekistan, I felt pieces of Asia, the Middle East, and Russia blending into this one place.

What stood out to me the most was Uzbekistan's wide range of cuisines. I could find everything from Russian Borscht and Middle Eastern pilaf to lagman, a hand-pulled noodle dish influenced by Uyghurs.

Besides the cuisine, another highlight of my trip was traveling down the Silk Road, which was full of breathtaking squares and towns that felt like stepping onto a film set.

• My husband and I moved to Portugal, and then we were both laid off.
• We decided to start a business together even though I was nervous about it ruining our marriage.
• But we used the skills we learned in our relationship to build our business.

"Do you think we should get a work divorce?" I asked Cody, furiously scribbling in my notebook about a client meeting.

"What do you mean?" he said as he flushed and looked up at me. "Honey, we literally just got the LLC paperwork filed with the IRS. We can't quit now."

It was April 2025, and Cody and I were still living out of suitcases after moving to Lisbon.

Both of us had recently been let go from our previous jobs within days of each other. In a fit of sweat and panic, we decided to really make a go of being entrepreneurs of our own micro-marketing agency. I'd bring nearly 15 years of experience in content and brand development and strategy, and he'd bring his project management skills, as well as manage the business's finances. We'd be an unstoppable CMO/COO team.

It didn't take long for the cracks to show.

I wondered if we would work well together

I had my doubts about working together from the outset; Cody knew this.

When we had full-time corporate jobs in the US, we'd run to each other to complain about things that would happen at work, as partners do. Something awkward happened in a meeting? I'd spill the tea to Cody at dinner. Weird conversation with a boss? We'd chuckle about it on the weekend.

At the end of the day, we were each other's safe space. We would delight in what was happening in each other's professional worlds without the pressure of needing to be part of it.

I loved that balance. We kept work at work, and when work was over, it was all about us.

When we decided to move to Lisbon and start fresh, it was as partners who had built a decade-long marriage on a foundation of sharing everything but work.

We started building our business anyway

When we found ourselves jobless mere weeks after moving our entire lives across an ocean, we decided to bet on ourselves.

Most companies in the US wouldn't hire us in another country, so we set up our LLC and website. We then started letting close folks know we were available for hire.

We looked like a real business to the public, but inside, we were operating like fish flapping about on the forest floor.

This man, who before could read my every thought and finish my sentences, now didn't know how to handle all the requests we were getting. I hadn't a clue how to do taxes in two countries, and looked at him blankly whenever he asked me anything to do with numbers.

After 10 years, we knew our way around conflict as a couple. But owning our own business had us biting our tongues. Honestly, we hadn't a clue how to work together.

But we eventually found that the tools we'd used in our marriage actually work for building a business together. Primarily: communication — about what we needed, about the tasks we hated doing that the other person was better at, about the burdens we didn't want to name that we needed help with.

Once we figured out how to leverage each other's strengths in the business, as we did in our relationship, things really began to click.

Not giving up gave us a new spark

My husband and I were comfortable American DINKS: a dual-income, no-kid couple who'd worked for nearly a decade to climb into tech, allocating nearly 3k a month to pay off six-figure student-loan debt for our degrees. We'd take those salaries, invest as our financial planner advised, allocate a hefty percentage to local orgs, and, of course, travel.

But we'd still close our laptops at the end of the day and immediately grab our smaller screens, for two to three hours spent passively glancing at a larger screen after dinner.

Today, we're aware we'll never see those salaries again. I'm not a "director" of anything. He's not a "manager" of anyone. Instead, we're entrepreneurs. We're making less than half of what we made before, and even if we wanted to re-enter the search for full-time jobs in our fields, the job security we thought we had is no more. Layoffs have seemingly decimated the industries we previously worked in.

But what we get instead of those salaries is peace of mind in a new country as we create a deeper quality of life, plus the pleasure of seeing one another blossom into entirely new professional people, together.

Today, Cody and I have had 10 consecutive months of record revenue. Today, I serve as a fractional CMO for (two!) brands, and we both support four more on retainer and build brands for solopreneurs, too. We take every Friday off. We work from pubs in London and cafés in Paris.

Most importantly, we've learned to never let the pressures of work dull the shine of a hard-fought, beautiful marriage that we've been investing in from the very beginning. He's the only coworker I've ever loved, and I'm so proud of us.

• I took an 11-hour overnight train from Venice to Vienna in 2023 and booked a private cabin for $200.
• I took a 53-hour Amtrak train from Chicago to California in 2026 and booked a bedroom for $2,200.
• While the overnight train rides were completely different, both were worth the price.

One was a means to an end. The other was a destination in itself. I'm talking about two overnight train journeys I took three years apart.

In the fall of 2023, I spent 11 hours in a private cabin on a European sleeper train traveling from Venice to Vienna for $200. Then, in the winter of 2026, I took a 53-hour train journey from Chicago to Emeryville, California, in an Amtrak bedroom for $2,200.

While I had a room to myself on both rides, my experiences on each couldn't have been more different.

First, I took an 11-hour Nightjet train from Venice to Vienna.

In November 2023, I took an OBB Nightjet, a train that travels after hours between 25 countries, from France to the Netherlands.

Then I took a 53-hour Amtrak trip from Chicago to California.

I took the full route of Amtrak's California Zephyr, the longest rail journey in the US. It's a scenic ride through seven states. My three-day, two-night trip was on the Superliner, a double-decker train.

On the Nightjet train, I paid $200 for a 30-square-foot private cabin with three bunks.

I booked a sleeping car accommodation: a private cabin with an in-room sink and vanity, sleeping up to three people in top, middle, and bottom bunks.

It was a mid-tier option, offering more privacy than a bunk in a shared room or a seat in a standard seating carriage, but fewer amenities than the sleeping car plus, which includes a private full bathroom.

I thought the cabin was spacious enough to move around in as a solo traveler, but I imagine it would have felt cramped for three.

On the Amtrak train, I paid $2,200 for a 50-square-foot bedroom with two bunks and a full bathroom.

The Amtrak train had coach seating, roomettes (25-square-foot cabins for two), bedrooms (twice the size of a roomette and with private bathrooms), and larger family bedrooms that sleep two adults and two kids. I booked the bedroom, and again, I traveled solo.

I instantly noticed the room felt larger than my cabin on the Nightjet train. For a ride nearly five times as long, I was grateful for the extra space.

Both cabins had wash basins and vanities with toiletry storage.

On the Nightjet train, the sink and vanity were behind a set of double doors across from the lower bunk. One of the doors had shelving inside.

The sink and vanity were also across from the lower bunk in the Amtrak bedroom, though they were exposed. A cabinet next to the mirror had space for small toiletries.

Both mirrors were brightly lit, and I appreciated being able to brush my teeth without leaving my room.

But I only had a private bathroom on the Amtrak train.

Both trains had shared bathrooms and showers in the sleeper cars. But having my own toilet and shower on the Amtrak train was a game changer for a three-day ride. Sure, the toilet and shower were squeezed into a tight space, but at least it was my space.

The Nightjet train also has cabins with private bathrooms, according to the train line's website. None were available when I booked, but since my trip was only 11 hours, it didn't feel necessary to splurge anyway. I skipped a shower and only used the bathroom a couple of times, so I didn't mind going without this amenity.

Only the Amtrak bedroom had a daytime setup.

In the bedroom, there was a seat, a foldout table, a pullout couch, and an upper bunk that pulled down from the ceiling. I appreciated the flexibility to switch up my cabin on the three-day ride. It was like having a living room and a bedroom at the same time.

While my Nightjet room didn't have a table or couch, some of the train line's newer accommodations do. The new-generation Nightjet, which debuted in December 2023 and operates on select routes, features cabins with tables and wall cushions above the beds.

The beds on the Amtrak train were more comfortable.

Both beds were quite comfortable, but the Amtrak bunks felt thicker and cushier. However, while both had cozy blankets, I preferred the Nightjet bedding because it had a thick comforter.

A Nightjet representative told Business Insider that bunks on the newer trains are about 4 inches longer than those on the train I rode.

I slept well on both rides.

My Nightjet train ticket included a basic breakfast.

About a half hour before my train arrived in Vienna, a train attendant came by my cabin with my breakfast tray. There were two hard rolls with butter, jelly, and Nutella on the side. I also had a cup of strawberry yogurt and a hot coffee. It filled me up for my morning in Vienna.

My Amtrak ticket included six meals.

All meals were included with my ticket for the 53-hour Amtrak journey, and passengers could eat in the dining car. There were a variety of dishes, from French toast breakfasts to steak dinners. I was surprised by how delicious the dishes were, given that they were prepared on a train.

Only the Amtrak train had communal spaces to hang out.

The dining and lounge cars were great places to get to know other passengers and break up the days on the Amtrak journey. There was a sense of community on the train because it felt like almost everyone was on vacation and appreciating the dramatic views of the wild American West.

It's important to note that these cars are typically only on long-distance Amtrak routes, where many passengers might spend multiple days on board.

The Nightjet train, however, is designed specifically to get passengers from one city to another while they sleep. There are no communal cars, and to me, they didn't seem necessary. I was only there to rest on my way to Vienna.

Both were worth the price for the experiences they provided. And I would take both rides again.

I thought $200 was a fair price for a private cabin on an 11-hour train ride. All I wanted from this trip was to fall asleep in Italy and wake up in Austria. The Nightjet room was comfortable enough for me to do so.

For $2,200, my Amtrak trip was a cozy adventure. In addition to getting from Illinois to California, I had an exciting experience from the comforts of a moving hotel room with nonstop views.

• Alexandria Belton started looking for a home in 2025 and feels she missed the boat because of AI.
• Belton's budget rose from $1.2M to $1.5M, yet homes are still selling far above asking prices.
• She feels like she can't compete with buyers right now, but hopes the AI mania blows over.

This as-told-to essay is based on a conversation with Alexandria Belton, 33, who is in the market for a home in the Bay Area. She's been priced out mainly due to the AI boom. The following has been edited for length and clarity.

My fiancé and I started looking to buy a home around October 2025.

A lot of people opt for a condo just because, A, single-family homes are very expensive, and B, people like city life, and you can sometimes get a little bit more of it with a condo.

But for me, my apartment already serves that purpose, and if I'm going to buy something, I'd like to buy a single-family home with a yard and be suburb-adjacent.

Also, with the condos, the return on investment is not very great. We've noticed in this market that all the condos are selling at or below list price, whereas everything else is selling well above list price. If we're going to invest in something in the Bay Area, we want to have a good return on investment.

I currently live in a two-bedroom, two-bath in the Marina District, a pretty sought-after, expensive neighborhood, and I moved here in 2020 when I learned that rents were dropping.

At the time, it was priced at $3,695. In fall 2025, they sent us a letter saying that they were going to retroactively raise the rent. Now it's $4,378.

My fiancé is in construction, so we like the idea of a heavy fixer-upper. We started our budget at around $1.2 million; it's kind of unattainable in the city, which we were aware of — even before the AI boom or whatever's going on right now. But we did our research and saw that, within the last year, there were a lot of fixers on the market.

We thought that would be a good strategy for us, but we looked at some fixers, and the last fixer we saw was our final straw. We decided to expand out of the city, and found a fixer listed for around $700,000 or $800,000.

It was only 800 square feet, and it looked horrible, but we saw the vision. It sold for $1.3 million or so, and that was before any work was done.

We were shocked by that, since that was not reflective of what we saw happening last year.

I've expanded my budget, and it's still not enough

Basically, we learned very quickly not to trust the list price. At minimum, it would go for $300,000 over asking. We've seen a house sell for over $1 million over the asking price.

So we adjusted our search accordingly, and that's how our budget slowly crept up because we realized that $1.2 million wasn't going to get us anything, even if it was a fixer.

Now we're at $1.5 million, and that's after expanding our search outside the city. We started looking at an area called Marin, which is north of the Bay.

It's still the Bay Area, about a 15-minute drive from the city, but it has its own charm. It has nice downtown restaurants and shops, which was our same goal: not to be too far away from stuff like that when we were in the "suburbs."

We got a new agent who was more experienced in Marin, and we told her our experience in San Francisco, and she's like, "Oh yeah, you're not going to see that here in Marin. Things usually go for about asking, sometimes even below."

She said we weren't going to experience this craziness we've been seeing, and then, immediately, the first house we put a bid on was listed for I think $1.1 million and sold for $1.9 million. I think it was only 1,200 square feet and needed a lot of work done.

Our agent was like, "Unfortunately, now we are starting to see the things that are happening in the city as people are probably having the same idea as you to expand their search."

I have spoken to people who've said they experienced something similar to the AI boom, and eventually it bursts. Whether it's the tech boom or the AI boom, home buyers are able to spend an insane amount of money because they have to live in the city.

I don't really know what to make of it. It feels like it came out of nowhere. Still, I'm hopeful that there's an end in sight. I hope it's a phase.

I'm hoping this all blows over soon

I think we've put in like 10 bids at this point, and we did get close on a house in Marin, but in our gut, it already felt like we were overpaying for what the house was on paper. We didn't want to make an irresponsible decision just to get the house.

Ultimately, we've crunched so many numbers and spent a lot of time trying to figure out what budget makes sense for us, where we're not going to feel house poor, and where we're able to still do other stuff in life.

Funny enough, we used AI to help us with that, but $1.5 million is the maximum. We can't just add another $50,000. That's another couple of hundred dollars to the mortgage when we're already at our absolute most.

It's definitely exhausting mentally and very discouraging. I feel like on paper, we both make really good money. We can afford the 20% down payment, and we have all of our ducks in a row.

The competition feels unfair. It feels like we don't really stand a chance. I do think we definitely missed the boat.

Still, I don't think it's over for me.

• Deleting Instagram helped me feel more present and less distracted.
• I returned to slower rituals like postcards, wandering, and offline connection.
• Leaving social media changed how I relate to my children and my work.

On a recent trip, my sister asked her 14-year-old son if he wanted to send a postcard. "Why? I have Snapchat, TikTok, Instagram," he responded, listing all his social media apps.

When she shared this story with me, we laughed, but I felt a lingering sadness. Before everything became instant and shareable, connection required effort, time, intention, and the willingness to be alone with your thoughts.

When I turned 16, my parents gave me a bike trip through France. I vowed to keep in touch. I bought postcards, wrote them in cafés, and mailed them home, hoping they would arrive before I did.

I used Instagram as a gallery for my photography

I joined Instagram at age 36.

I was excited to have a digital platform to promote my work. As a professional documentary family photographer, the app became a marketing tool.

My friend Chantel, with over 24,000 followers, told me how to succeed: post three times a week, at optimal hours, only show my best work, and write captivating captions under 25 words. I didn't feel right sharing client images even with their permission; instead, I posted images of my children during their most quotidian moments — brushing their teeth, doing homework, practicing the piano. I agonized for hours deciding what to post and who liked it, distracting me from what I really loved, taking photos. My followers increased, but it rarely translated into more business. I stopped posting.

But I stayed on the app. I followed other artists. I took an interest in painting and collage and began following those accounts for inspiration. I was no longer seeing posts from people I followed as the algorithm bombarded me with tutorials, fashion, home design, art, nightlife, and products I didn't know I wanted.

I set time limits on the app, but I overrode those settings and stayed on too long. I fell for ads, like a pair of fuzzy loafers that never arrived, and ended with me canceling my credit card.

My kids joined the app as soon as they could

My two older children had permission to join Instagram when they were 13, and I gave up with the youngest; he joined at 12. The kids sent me clips: the dog they wanted, the things they wanted me to buy, the life they wanted us to live. The algorithm now fed me information for my teenagers: how to study better (15-minute intervals), how to become successful (make your bed every morning). I was feeding the machine — and rotting all of our brains in the process.

I was nauseated. At 49, I wanted my time back. I didn't need a stranger's recipe for success. I needed to be more present. First, I hid the app from my home screen, but I knew it was still there, and the lure was too compelling. The solution was to permanently delete it. I still wanted to know what my kids were up to, so I relied on my brother to send me screenshots of their IG feed.

Six months after deleting the app, my daughter was studying in Paris for a semester. My boys and I went to visit her. It was our first family trip since my divorce five years earlier. I bought postcards again and wrote them in cafés. When we were hungry, we wandered until we found a charming place to eat. I practiced speaking French and took recommendations from the waiter, not an influencer. I was prone to expectations, and everything felt like a discovery.

I had more meaningful connections

When my 21-year-old daughter came home from college, we spent an afternoon strolling through SoHo, shopping for her spring formal. We took fashion advice from the salesperson, not a bot. While eating lunch, we saw a group of preteens recording a TikTok dance. We smiled, agreeing we did not need to see the final version. Watching them try, fail, and laugh was enough.

A week later, when my daughter was back at school, I received a postcard from her. Written on the back in her meticulous printed handwriting, "Thinking of you, Mom. Had a great visit. I love you." That message is still taped to my fridge.

Without Instagram, my mind is quieter, and my material desires have softened. I am returning to what is important to me. I keep up with fewer people, and my clients don't seem to mind. I am experiencing the beauty of life the way I used to and the way I want to.

• My neighbor and I often help each other with cleaning during visits, which makes things easier.
• We planned to help each other with a dedicated deep-clean.
• Our plan fell through, but another friend was up for it, and it saved us time and money.

My neighbor entered my house one afternoon, greeted by the laundry mound on the family room floor. As her three kids scurried off in different directions to find mine, she plopped down next to me in the epicenter of clothes and picked up a tea towel to fold.

"You don't have to help," I said apologetically. "You're a guest."

"Nonsense, we're a community," she replied. "This is what we do."

I didn't disagree, grateful for the help. And when I was at her house next and discovered her laundry pile, I reciprocated.

Some people might be insulted by a guest inserting themselves like this, or particular about how cleaning is executed. But I've always appreciated friendships like these that lean into the belief that life is better when we enter into each other's messes and help bring a little order.

My neighbor and I already clean together

Neither of us can currently afford a house cleaner, thanks to replacing A.C. units and exorbitant dental bills. We both live in modest houses with three kids and have admitted that we feel overwhelmed at times trying to keep up with it all.

So last week, while I scrubbed her kitchen alongside her during a visit, we made a plan: One day soon, we'd spend time cleaning each other's homes. At first, we thought it would be novel to swap homes for a few hours, but then we decided half the fun was having someone to chat to while we worked. So, we resolved to do it together and give each home one or two hours of our dedicated attention.

It seemed like a win-win. We'd each walk away with a cleaner home — without having to pay anyone. My neighbor is more organized than me, so I'd have her dedicate her time to my craft closet.

Then life happened. My neighbor wasn't feeling well and had a busy week. Even though she needed to postpone our house swap, I still wanted to try it out, so I called another close friend, told her about our idea, and asked if she'd be willing to give it a try.

She was up for it.

We cleaned my friend's house, then she came to mine

I have a difficult time keeping up with everything. Life is busy, and the house often gets neglected and deprioritized due to our schedules. Besides, I do clean — all the time — but with kids it just never seems to stay that way.

I felt a little embarrassed at first that my friend would be taking a deeper look at my space and seeing how grimy some things were. She, in turn, worried I wouldn't like her slow, methodical cleaning style.

The day she came to help me, I'd started a new job and had neglected my house for a few days. I was overwhelmed by the clutter that had built up. We set a timer and cleaned with great focus and energy for an hour.

Neither of us really chatted as we worked.

At first, I felt self-conscious assigning my friend tasks, but she was willing to do whatever I needed done, so I got over myself and asked if she'd be willing to tidy the toys and craft closet. On her own, she also wiped down surfaces and swept.

I couldn't believe how much we could tackle in an hour with such dedicated focus. It looked like a whole new house. On my own, I would've never completed that much.

Then we went to her house and wiped the windows, the bathrooms, and vacuumed. Her house was tidier than mine to start, but she said cleaning together still gave her the motivation to get chores done that she'd been ignoring.

We liked the process so much that we agreed to try it again soon. And when my neighbor is better, I want to try it with her too, though I enjoy our impromptu cleaning sessions just as much.

As they say, many hands make light work — and this switch definitely lightened my load.

• Ukraine's arms makers have to split their work across multiple sites as Russia targets them.
• They don't want to create one large target that Russia can spot and hit.
• They say European firms need to start doing the same to be ready for a future war.

The Russian threat is real, and it's time for European defense companies to start copying Ukraine and break up production across multiple sites, a Ukrainian official and multiple defense firms told Business Insider.

Russia's drone and missile attacks are so widespread that weapons companies working in Ukraine typically can't afford to work in large factories and warehouses that are more easily detected and struck. Factories in Ukraine, including those of US firms, have been hit. It has pushed many companies to split their sites up and go underground, though that makes their work producing weaponry harder and more expensive.

Davyd Aloian, the deputy secretary of Ukraine's National Security and Defense Council, told Business Insider that the threat Russia poses to Europe is such that some allies need to start doing the same. "Some countries definitely should," he said.

This is standard practice for many Ukrainian defense manufacturers. The CEO of Ukrainian-Estonian technology and defense company and ground drone maker Ark Robotics told Business Insider that his company had to do it despite the drawbacks, and it should become the norm for European defense manufacturing.

The CEO, who asked to go by the pseudonym Achi out of concern for his safety, said his company's main strategy "is what we call distributed manufacturing: Breaking things up so that different components are made at different sites. It's necessary, but it's not ideal."

"We try to avoid building a gigafactory. I would love that to be honest, I think this is literally the best way to do it. You build a huge factory, everything is in there."

"We try to be smart about it and not create a big enough target for it to attract too much attention or to disclose where our operations are happening," the CEO said.

The company, headquartered in Estonia and with its R&D center in Kyiv, makes drones, ground robots, and software that enable thousands of different autonomous vehicles to work together.

It has more than 50 engineers and specialists across Europe, including teams in Ukraine that design communication software and test ground drones, including near the front lines, and engineers in Estonia who test and design electronics and electrical systems for drones and robots.

The company is branching out production into other parts of Europe due to "just insane amounts of destruction" in Ukraine, the CEO said. Attacks mean he worries about his staff, too: "It's really hard to even sleep with that. You know that you have tens of people working there constantly under danger, and you don't know when the strike is coming."

Nor are a company's risks limited to its physical sites. A NATO official confirmed that Russia plotted to kill the CEO of the leading German arms maker, Rheinmetall, which has produced weapons for Ukraine.

Other European countries are far safer from Russian missiles, as attacking them could spark a much wider war that Russia, at least for now, is not instigating. But Achi said that, to be ready for a potential future war, defense manufacturers need to prepare.

Dispersed production should be the "default for defense-based manufacturing going forward," he said. Even for any future sites his company has abroad, "we don't want to build a huge factory."

He said, "We believe one of the key lessons from Ukraine is that resilience cannot depend on a single site, a single supplier, or a single geography. Modern defense requires distributed capabilities that can continue operating under pressure."

Enduring the loss of a site

Mykyta Rozhkov, the chief business development officer at Ukrainian drone and weapons maker Frontline Robotics, told Business Insider that European companies "absolutely" need to start spreading things out. He said some European firms have asked his company for advice on changing their manufacturing.

He said his company has adapted so it "can endure the loss of any site." Any loss is still "painful," but the company can survive. And everything is set up so it's "as easy as possible to move."

But that makes the work harder: "It's all constantly moving parts and holding it all together demands a new approach." The company, which makes aerial drones and autonomous remote weapon turrets, has more than 400 employees, and its gear is used by more than 60 Ukrainian units. It operates teams of engineers, specialists, drone instructors, and warehouse staff in multiple locations in Ukraine, and is starting to produce in Germany with the German company Quantum Systems, forming a joint venture called Quantum Frontline Industries.

Estonian company Krattworks, which makes drones used by Ukraine, agreed. Karmo Saar, the head of sales, told Business Insider that in a war with Russia, if European companies don't disperse more, "I think we're going to be punished."

Some of Ukraine's major drone makers operate across more than 15 sites, he said, even though working out of a single large facility would be "a lot more economical, cheaper, and better."

Other Ukrainian companies have described breaking up their facilities. Misha Rudominski, the CEO of Himera, a secure communications systems firm, told Business Insider that his company has split its manufacturing across multiple sites and keeps its stock in another location to avoid becoming a big target that's "worth it" for Russia to hit.

He said that many companies split production into "5, 10, 15 locations" that often only have a few dozen people at each. He said bigger options are rare unless they are underground.

Aloian, the Ukrainian official, said that a challenge for much of Europe in doing this is the smaller size of many nations compared to Ukraine. Some European countries that border Russia and feel most threatened, such as the Baltic states, are among the continent's smallest.

He said that means they lack the "strategic depth" Ukraine has, with fewer regions and space to truly spread out and hide manufacturing. He said some could spread out manufacturing across multiple countries to solve this.

The West needs to disperse

The warnings for defense companies come as Western officials, Ukrainian officials, and analysts warn that the air threat has grown so much that Western militaries need to start breaking up and moving other strategic assets after decades of not having to do so.

Sir John Stringer, NATO's deputy supreme allied commander Europe, told Business Insider that Ukraine shows that after decades of relying on big air operations centers to plan its aerial missions, that is "no longer viable."

The change makes operations more difficult, but means there are fewer big targets that could be taken out in devastating blows.

Taras Berezovets, the head of the military cooperation department of Ukraine's Territorial Defense Forces, said the West must learn from Ukraine that drone units and command centers must be mobile or underground, because they are priority targets.

Western allies are also studying Ukraine's flexible strategy of dispersing its aircraft and often landing at different bases than they launch from — tactics that have kept their smaller air force from being wiped out.

• I balance multiple jobs and have four kids.
• Lately, things have been even more stressful than usual.
• I needed a break, and a solo trip helped me reset.

As a working mom of four, life is often stressful. I balance multiple jobs, and it seems like someone in the family is either sick, has a school project due, or is going through teenage travails, which makes it difficult to find a cadence that provides balance and calm. I normally handle the daily stressors of life by drinking too much coffee and binging mindless reality TV after the kids go to sleep.

However, over the past few months, life has been more stressful than usual. One of my children is dealing with a serious medical issue, and I am swamped with deadlines that require me to work longer hours, even later into the night. Plus, summer is looming. Although I am looking forward to spending more time with my children, I dread having even less time to accomplish everything that needs to get done.

My husband suggested taking a trip to focus on myself

The stress started to take its toll. I tried the typical suggestions: going to bed earlier, deep breathing, taking walks outside, and saying "no" more often. However, none of these techniques helped, and most were difficult to implement in daily practice.

When I wore a dress inside out for an entire day and then left the house a few days later with a shirt on backward, my husband noticed that I was barely holding it together. I was simply going through the motions of life, rushing from one obligation to another, while trying to keep the house running, and it was showing. My husband suggested that I take a few days away to reset. I wasn't sure how I would work time away into my schedule, but I was committed to making it happen.

I traveled to a bucket-list destination for a trip that was all about me

Although I travel frequently with my children, I rarely have the opportunity to plan a trip based solely on my interests and desires. This time, I planned a trip to connect with my roots, explore pop culture, and enjoy unparalleled relaxation, all things I love.

Although it's far from my home in Washington, DC, I chose to take a three-day trip to Romania. I had always wanted to visit because my grandmother immigrated to the United States from the Eastern European country. Romania also held another draw for me. I am a huge fan of horror and wanted to see Transylvania. Plus, it's home to Europe's largest bathhouse, where I planned to do some serious relaxing. Planning the trip felt indulgent, but it was just what I needed.

The trip helped me reset

Although it felt like a guilty pleasure, I loved everything about my time on my own. I slept in and spent a few leisurely hours at a coffee shop, sipping a caffeinated drink made with locally grown cherries. Although I still worked during my trip, knowing I had unlimited time to myself helped me rediscover joy in my job rather than feeling like I was in a sprint to check off one task before moving on to the next.

During my trip, I also got to tap into the old-world country of my grandmother. I watched traditional Romanian dancers at a restaurant dating back to 1899, a time when my grandmother still lived there. Although it's unlikely my grandmother visited the same restaurant, eating cabbage and other Romanian specialties nevertheless helped me feel connected to her.

Then, I spent a day exploring Transylvania. I was positively giddy wandering through Bran's Castle, where Dracula is said to have once lived. I pretended to enroll in Nevermore Academy from Netflix's "Wednesday" while visiting Cantacuzino Castle, which is the setting for the infamous school for outcasts.

Finally, and possibly the best part of my trip, was spending time at Therme, the world's largest thermal spa. There, I experienced a range of wellness offerings, from saunas to mineral baths and thermal waters, all under one roof. I loved immersing myself in European bathhouse culture. I saw a traditional Afguss performance, an interactive dance performed in a sauna, that was unlike anything else I have experienced. I felt my mind quiet and slow in a pink-salt sauna, where I was forced to put my phone away.

Although it's hard to leave my family, they did fine without me, and the experience not only gave me the reset I needed but also gave me a better sense of myself and a newfound commitment to making myself a priority.

Although I only had three days in Romania, the trip was effective. Putting my own oxygen mask on first is something I forget to do too often, and it's not good for me or anyone around me. I returned with a clear mind and a fresh start, much better for the experience.

• Disney wants its tech employees to use AI more often to boost productivity and speed.
• However, employees shouldn't be wasting AI tokens, a product executive recently said.
• Tech companies are scaling back on so-called "tokenmaxxing," and some are setting up monthly quotas.

Disney is encouraging streaming staffers to embrace AI while warning against wasteful token usage.

Streaming leaders at the Mouse House have recently been pushing employees to boost their velocity and productivity by using AI, two senior tech employees told Business Insider.

"The No. 1 thing is to increase velocity," or the pace of output, a high-level, AI-focused employee said.

However, Disney doesn't want its employees to be "tokenmaxxing," Andre Rohe, Disney's EVP of product engineering, said in a Wednesday meeting, according to two tech staffers in attendance. "Tokenmaxxing" refers to maximizing AI token usage, regardless of its impact on productivity.

One software engineer shared their three main takeaways from what Disney streaming leaders said on the call:

• AI token tracking is meant to identify inefficient usage
• Disney wants to increase velocity when shipping features or delivering code
• Disney is focused on code quality and product resiliency, not just speed, and hopes to minimize AI-coded products that fail after their release

Disney has warmed to AI in the last year, providing employees with coding tools like Claude and Cursor while creating an AI Adoption Dashboard for staffers to track token usage. Some managers have sent check-in messages to software engineers who don't use AI.

Disney has also made clear that employees should be intentional about their AI usage. For example, a person familiar with the company's strategy said the AI dashboard isn't meant to incentivize high usage but rather to help staffers use AI tools efficiently and effectively.

Other major US companies, including Microsoft, are trying to limit unchecked AI token usage. Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella recently called tokenmaxxing "addictive." Firms are realizing that burning through AI tokens can be wasteful and may not incentivize the right projects.

One of Disney's Hollywood rivals, Paramount Skydance, informed tech staffers on Wednesday that it would implement "per-user monthly spend limits" on AI tokens. A Paramount exec said the cap would have a "high limit," though.

Out with the OpenAI deal, in with agentic armies and AI affection

Disney surprised the media industry by inking a billion-dollar deal with OpenAI in December that would have licensed its iconic characters to the now-defunct Sora AI video app, while opening the door to put AI-generated videos on Disney+.

The Mouse House got a shock of its own in March when OpenAI canceled its Disney deal and shut down Sora, less than a week into Disney CEO Josh D'Amaro's tenure.

While D'Amaro hasn't struck a major AI deal since its OpenAI arrangement fell apart, Disney spoke with "more than a dozen partners" about ways to implement AI, The Wall Street Journal reported in March.

Disney isn't sitting on its hands and waiting for an AI partner. Its top software engineers are using armies of AI agents to knock out coding projects, allowing them to accomplish far more than they could on their own.

Jason Cox, Disney's executive director of AI research and development and engineering, created an AI assistant he calls his "son" and said, in blog posts, that it had captured his "affection." It's unclear if Cox uses his AI chatbot for his work at Disney.

• Ukrainian company Wild Hornets initially designed its interceptor drone for higher speeds.
• During development, engineers decided to trade the drone's speed for increased loitering time.
• The interceptor is now one of the best-known in Ukraine's arsenal.

KYIV, Ukraine — At first, it was only a faint whine somewhere in the distance. Then the sound sharpened, swelled, and suddenly the drone was overhead, a high-pitched scream piercing the air as it flew past.

The aircraft was Sting, a Ukrainian interceptor drone purpose-built to hunt Russian Shahed-type attack drones. It tore over the ground-control station, an unassuming van loaded up with screens, before its pilot brought it around for a few more passes and landed it in the grass.

Business Insider observed the Sting in action during a rare visit to a training site at an undisclosed location near Kyiv last month.

Made by the Ukrainian company Wild Hornets, Sting is among the country's best-known interceptors, credited with shooting down some 1,500 Russian Shahed-style drones in April alone.

The screaming sound is a testament to its high speeds; Sting can reach nearly 175 mph. Early designs envisioned a weapon faster than that; however, Wild Hornets realized speed isn't everything and decided to dial it back to strengthen other characteristics.

Wild Hornets tested the first Sting prototype in late 2024 as Ukraine searched for solutions to strengthen its air defenses against worsening Russian drone attacks. By spring 2025, the interceptor had its first Shahed kill.

Sting's profile changed heavily during the research and development phase before it went into mass production, a Wild Hornets spokesperson told Business Insider. They spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive industry developments.

Engineers initially focused on speed; Sting had a different shape and could reach over 200 mph — significantly faster than Russia's propeller-driven Geran-2 drone (a top speed of 72 mph) and roughly as fast as its first jet-powered variant, the Geran-3.

However, after combat testing and consultations with the Ukrainian military, Wild Hornets discovered that the higher speeds compromised Sting's loitering time, and that wasn't necessarily the right solution.

The military said "speed is not always the main thing. Time in the air is also important," the Wild Hornets spokesperson recalled in an interview. The lower speeds also increase Sting's reliability in combat and make it easier to prepare for missions.

Even with that trade-off, speed remains what separates Sting from more common battlefield drones. And there are, of course, moments where high speeds are optimal, such as when chasing Russian jet-powered drones.

Nazar, a Wild Hornets instructor who goes by his call sign for security reasons, told Business Insider that the biggest difference between an interceptor drone and a common first-person-view (FPV) drone is how fast the former moves.

That speed changes the way pilots have to fly the interceptor, but the training pipeline can be short. Nazar said pilots who already know how to fly an FPV drone — a skill that can take up to a month to learn and effectively apply in combat— can learn to use Sting in about a week. A quick reaction time helps, he said.

The current Sting iteration can remain airborne for more than 20 minutes, depending on speed, altitude, and pilot skill. The drone can reach an altitude of roughly 23,000 feet, though it performs better closer to 16,000 feet.

One Sting unit costs less than $2,000 — a fraction of the price tag of a Shahed, usually worth tens of thousands of dollars, and significantly less expensive than an interceptor missile.

Ukrainian military feedback is informing other Sting upgrades; for instance, Wild Hornets developed variants with different cameras for various light conditions, as well as for daytime and nighttime operations.

Russia has also added cameras to its Shaheds for greater situational awareness, along with other modifications in recent months to make the drones more maneuverable — and survivable — when pursued by Ukrainian interceptors.

The Wild Hornets spokesperson said Sting has become more effective over time. Interception rate ultimately depends on experience and weather, but some teams can manage above 90%.

In March, the company announced a new remote-control technology, "Hornet Vision," that allows interceptor operators to pilot Sting hundreds of miles from the launch point in safe locations, away from Russian targeting, in a major breakthrough for Ukrainian air defense.

The Wild Hornets spokesperson said this development is significant. "It allows experienced pilots — the best pilots — to control a larger number of weapons systems, to use a greater number of drones, over longer distances," they said.

• This post originally appeared in the BI Today newsletter.
• You can sign up for Business Insider's daily newsletter here.

When the dress code is team spirit

It only takes a few glances around New York City's Financial District, where Business Insider's offices are located, to see how the city has gotten in on team spirit.

Whether it's the New York Knicks or their favorite World Cup soccer team, many professionals aren't confining their sports gear to the games; they're bringing it to the office.

However, there's a right way and a wrong way to show your allegiance, so you can still get the job done. I reached out to Alison Bruhn, an executive stylist for more than a decade, for advice on how to do this properly if you can't help but grab that jersey.

"Business is still going as usual, you're still meeting with important clients," she said, adding that wearing jerseys can often feel out of place in industries such as finance, banking, and the legal field.

For men, she advised grabbing "a quarter zip up that has a discreet logo or even a tie." And for women, Bruhn, who runs executive presence and image advisory firm The Style That Binds Us with her daughter, Delia Folk, suggested wearing a cashmere sweater in the team's colors or a polo top with a subtle team logo.

When I told Bruhn that I saw some professionals around FiDi sneaking in team pride through tennis shoes in the team's colors, she said that was understandable given how many offices are moving away from dress codes. Ultimately, Bruhn said, your company culture will help determine how much you can get away with.

"What I tell all of my clients is know your audience. Know where you work," she continued. "Work is work. You don't want to be a distraction."

Walmart is bringing back its weeklong Walmart Deals event from June 22 through June 28, offering shoppers an early-summer sale overlapping with Amazon Prime Day. The event will feature hundreds of deals across tech, home, beauty, and more, making it a can't-miss opportunity for deal hunters.

One of the biggest draws is that the sale is open to everyone, but Walmart+ members get a few extra perks. This year's event introduces member-only early access to select high-demand hot deals, giving Walmart+ subscribers a 24-hour head start on some of the most sought-after products before they're released to the general public. Shoppers without a membership can still access the broader sale from day one, an enticing angle for shoppers not interested in Prime or Walmart Plus.

What to expect from Walmart's Prime Day sale

It's not the first time Walmart has kicked off its own competing Prime Day sale to overlap with Amazon's event. In my years covering the summer extravaganza, I've gathered a good read on Walmart's promotions and expect this year won't deviate much from the past.

While yes, this sale promises an earlier start and later end, most likely the best deals will pop during Amazon's Prime Day sale between June 23 and 26. That'll be the sweet spot for scoring the deepest discounts on major brands like Apple, Ninja, Samsung, LG, and more. If you're worried the deals won't be as good as those locked to Prime members, you might be right about some products, but I expect we'll see a lot of price matching between the two retail giants.

While a Walmart Plus membership isn't necessary, I suggest signing up for a $1 trial before the sale if you're interested. It unlocks free shipping for your deal event purchases along with other sweet perks.

Early Walmart Prime Day deals

If you can't wait until June 22 for the sale to kick off in earnest, here are some great deals you can score right now from Walmart.

See more: Prime Day discounts worth waiting for | How to tell if a Prime Day deal is good | Is Prime Day the best time to buy a TV?

Follow our Instagram and WhatsApp channels for more deals and buying guides

• I took out student loans, believing public-service work would eventually make the debt manageable.
• Years of low wages, health issues, and unstable repayment policies left me in debt.
• Changes to the federal repayment SAVE program are making it even harder for me to achieve stability.

Student loans were supposed to be my ladder out of poverty. Instead, they are an anchor.

I did not have a stable or secure childhood, but thankfully, my parents emphasized the importance of education.

At 20, I left home, determined to build a stable future. I moved from the Catskills to Brooklyn and into an apartment I shared with six other women. I quickly found a full-time job.

Using Pell Grants and scholarships, I attended community college four nights a week and Sunday mornings while working 40 hours a week.

After five years, I transferred to Touro University in New York because its schedule and scholarship opportunities allowed me to continue working while earning my bachelor's degree.

At graduation, I had $14,000 in student debt. That felt manageable, but my debt ballooned after graduate school.

Graduate school was different

I worked temporary jobs for a year before enrolling at another NYC school, Fordham University, to earn a degree in social work and eventually become a social worker.

Trusted financial advisors told me that the loans I took out over two years would be manageable with the help of student-loan forgiveness programs.

Still, a two-year graduate program became a four-year program after a disastrous field placement experience forced me to redo months of work.

I left graduate school with $300,000 in student loan debt.

Like many borrowers, I took out my loans in good faith. I believed what I was told: Work hard, earn a degree, enter public service, and the debt would eventually become manageable.

That promise has not matched reality. Instead, I'm still in debt and struggling.

Student-loan debt has shaped my family's future

Since graduating from graduate school in 2021, I have worked with New York's homeless population, addicts who were also dealing with the penal system, and treated people struggling with trauma, domestic violence, ADHD, and severe mental illness.

Like most provisionally licensed therapists, I get paid only when clients come in. Due to epilepsy, a neurological disorder that includes seizures, I cannot drive, and a client's no-show means a negative cash flow.

There's only one bright spot to my low pay: I currently don't have to pay a monthly minimum on my student loans thanks to the SAVE program, which bases monthly payment on a borrower's salary.

I got married later in life, at 38. A few months after we married, my husband took on a second job to help improve our financial situation. We also used savings toward fertility treatments, which were successful, and I had a baby at 40.

We have savings, but nearly $300,000 in student-loan debt prevents us from being truly financially secure.

Repayment changes are increasing uncertainty

Recently, it was announced that the SAVE repayment plan would end, leaving me uncertain about what my future payments could look like.

That means my repayments can range from $0 to $10 a month to $4,000 a month, depending on the determination after I complete new forms required by the government.

For my family, these changes affect how we think about childcare, housing, medical expenses, and savings.

The debt I took on to become a therapist is difficult to reconcile with my current earning potential.

I'm trying to come up with a plan

At the moment, I need to get ahead of my student loan debt for when the SAVE program is repealed.

I have had many interviews that were promising until the companies insisted I come into an office at least twice a week, which burdens our family, as I cannot drive due to epilepsy.

I am focusing on non-clinical roles that will allow me to work from home and make money.

The loans I took out were my means of escaping poverty. Instead, they are a burden I may carry for decades.

• At 49, triathlete Dave Nitsche experienced sudden vision loss in one eye.
• He was diagnosed with stage 4 lung cancer and told he had a maximum life expectancy of 2 years.
• At 57, he surpassed the prognosis, thanks to treatment and a high VO2 max from his lifestyle.

At 49, Dave Nitsche was the picture of great health.

A project manager for a Toyota subsidiary, he spent his free time competing in ultra-running and triathlon events, such as Ironmans, and hiking in Calgary, Alberta.

"It was just a very active lifestyle — nothing unusual," Nitsche, 57, told Business Insider. Then, a few days before his 50th birthday, "everything changed — the engine light turned on."

Nitsche's vision suddenly became blurry in late 2019. Straight, vertical objects like telephone poles appeared wavy. He contacted his optometrist and was scheduled for an appointment a few days later. By the time he showed up, he had fully lost vision in the eye.

Three weeks later, he would learn that he had stage 4 lung cancer, which had metastasized to his eye, bones, liver, kidneys, and brain.

The optometrist, thinking Nitsche had a detached retina, had sent him to the hospital for ultrasounds. Nitsche had so much fluid buildup and pressure behind his eye that he would never regain his vision. His eye was removed and replaced with a prosthetic, and the fluid was biopsied.

Nitsche was sent to the hospital nearly every day to get bone scans and, eventually, to a lung specialist. That was when he was diagnosed.

"It was definitely a shock," Nitsche said, as he had never smoked a day in his life and had no family history of lung cancer.

Even more shocking was his doctor's prognosis: a 1- to 2-year life expectancy, despite Nitsche otherwise feeling normal.

To this day, "it's always in the back of my mind," Nitsche said. "'What do you do with the rest of your life in 1 or 2 years?'"

'No chance' with traditional treatments

Upon hearing the news, Nitsche's ex-wife, who came to the appointment with him, suggested he move back in with her. He started to get his finances and will in order.

Because his cancer had spread so far into his lungs, Nitsche was told he had "no chance" with traditional treatments such as chemotherapy or radiation at that point.

He could, however, try targeted therapies, which block specific molecules, genes, or cellular pathways that drive cancer growth, based on the specific EGFR mutation in his form of lung cancer.

First, he went on Gilotrif (afatinib), an oral medication that inhibits cell growth signaling in tumors. He went on another medication, Tagrisso (osimertinib), which targeted tumors in his brain. It works by binding to mutated proteins to stop them from signaling cancer cell division.

Nitsche remained on Tagrisso far longer than his expected survival date — six years. He's since had radiation to treat a small cancer area in his brain, and is now on Rybrevant (amivantamab), a targeted antibody therapy that blocks cancer growth signals and helps the immune system attack cancer cells. Because he lives in Canada, all of his treatments have been covered by national health insurance.

"The timing of all these drugs was great," he said. "As it turns out, I'm seven years in, so it's been a ride, that's for sure."

The most common form of lung cancer is often diagnosed late

In 2024, Susan Wojcicki, the former CEO of YouTube, died at the age of 56.

Like Nitsche, she had non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). She, too, had never smoked tobacco in her life and was super active — running, eating well, and getting good sleep. Wojcicki had no obvious symptoms and was ultimately diagnosed at 54 when she started experiencing hip pain.

NSCLC is the most common category of lung cancers, accounting for 85% of all cases.

Unlike in small cell lung cancer (SCLC), the cancer cells in NSCLC generally appear larger. Because common symptoms, like coughing, chest pain, or fatigue, can be mild, this form of lung cancer can be missed until it progresses to stage 3 or 4, when it's harder to treat.

While smoking still remains the biggest risk factor, other risks include exposure to radon, asbestos, metal and mineral dust, air pollution, and radiation therapy, as well as some infections and diseases, like HIV/AIDS and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

There are currently no annual lung cancer screening recommendations for non-smokers, as low-dose CT scans involve a small amount of radiation. In the US, the CDC recommends annual screenings for asymptomatic adults ages 50—80 who have a 20-pack-year history and either currently smoke or quit within the past 15 years.

He's stayed very active throughout treatment

Nitsche said the medications he's been on have been working very well. A recent CT scan showed that the tumors have shrunk significantly, with some nodules resolving and being replaced by scar tissue.

So far, the side effects have been manageable compared to those associated with chemotherapy, Nitsche said. Mostly, he's experienced skin issues such as acne and fingernail infections.

It's made it easier for him to keep up his active lifestyle. Nitsche, who is now retired, bikes 20 minutes each way to his appointments. "A lot of people meditate," he said. "A lot of people meditate. I go out on my bike and ride."

Nitsche believes physical activity helped in his recovery process. From the very beginning, his oncologist told him that he had higher than average VO2 max levels, or the amount of oxygen the body can use during aerobic exercise. While a high VO2 max can't prevent or reverse lung cancer, some research shows it can signify stronger heart, lung, and muscle function, potentially making it easier to endure cancer treatments.

"It's definitely helped me in this journey, for sure," he said.

To Nitsche, who lives with his ex-wife and their dog, his cancer experience shows the importance of perseverance and taking things day by day. He's currently training for his second BC Epic 1000, a bike race that spans nearly 700 miles across British Columbia.

"I joke that I live three months at a time, between scans and MRIs and CTs, but three months is better than no months," he said.

In the long run, those months have added up. "It's kind of surreal: You get past that first year and go, 'Oh, well, prove them wrong,'" he said. "Then you get past the two years and go, 'Oh, I'll prove them wrong again.'"

• Celina Tolbert threw a fantasy-themed 30th birthday at a French chateau for $2,500.
• Guests' costumes and the party's decorations followed a "magical fantasy forest" theme.
• Celina celebrated with 21 friends, and saw the party as her version of a wedding.

This as-told-to essay is based on a conversation with Celina Tolbert, 31, a social media manager from North Carolina who is based in Paris. This piece has been edited for length and clarity.

It started off as a joke. I'm not rich, so I didn't think I'd be able to afford to host a 30th birthday at a French chateau.

Then I started browsing Airbnb and realized there are hundreds of small chateaux throughout France, some of which were pretty affordable to rent.

So, in February 2025, I decided to spend about $2,500 hosting a three-night fantasy-themed birthday celebration for 21 friends at a chateau about 80 miles southeast of Paris.

I thought: if I can afford it, why wouldn't I?

I had a budget of 2,000 euros for the chateau

I'm a whimsical person who has always loved fantasy. I have a collection of fun costumes, and for my 30th birthday I wanted to do something just for me, as an act of self-love. That meant putting on a silly fantasy costume and renting out a chateau.

When I started looking at chateaux on Airbnb, I knew I didn't want to spend more than 2,000 euros, or about $2,301, on the property itself. But finding something in my price range that could accommodate more than seven people was a challenge.

Expanding my search beyond the Paris region helped. Eventually, I found a chateau accessible by train from Paris that could accommodate up to two dozen people for 1,318 euros.

I was surprised that for under 2,000 euros, I could find somewhere that hit the sweet spot: affordable, beautiful, and big enough for everyone.

I then spent roughly 800 euros more on food, alcohol, and decorations, bringing the total to a little over 2,100 euros.

I saw it as my version of a wedding

I justified the expense by thinking of it as the kind of money other people my age might spend on a wedding or kids.

I don't plan to have kids. My partner and I had a civil union instead of a wedding because he doesn't believe in marriage, and I have my own hangups around it. In 2023, we held a small celebration at his parents' house. At the time, we couldn't afford to hire a venue, but I still had this itch to one day rent an entire place and throw a big celebration.

By 2024, I realized I could either spend the money I'd saved on something like a really expensive dog, or on renting a chateau. I chose the chateau.

The theme was 'magical fantasy forest'

The chateau had two dining rooms, a ballroom, and a living room.

The theme was "magical fantasy forest," so a friend and I decorated it with glitter, moss, leaves, and wooden details.

For our guests' arrival, we set up a make-your-own potion station, a pre-party playlist of medieval covers of modern music, and laid out food on a table my friend had beautifully tablescaped.

Guests wore chainmail, and several of my friends were excited to finally have an excuse to buy cute corsets.

Throughout the weekend, we partied, drank Champagne, and danced. I'm a pretty simple girl at heart. I love snacks, drinks, and dancing with my friends.

I'm really happy I spent my money on this birthday party. My only regret is not paying a local to take better photos. I couldn't afford a professional photographer or videographer, but I wish I'd at least hired someone nearby to capture the weekend properly.

It was a magical experience, and I would 100% do it all over again.

• Compensation coach Sara Perelli-Minetti advises job seekers to use live calls to get context about an offer.
• Perelli-Minetti said candidates should then follow up with an email when making their ask.
• Job seekers should never accept an offer over the phone without full context, she said.

If you've ever frozen mid-salary negotiation, you're not alone.

Sara Perelli-Minetti, who leads executive compensation coaching firm Hellos & Goodbyes, told Business Insider that receiving an offer call is one of the "most critical moments in a negotiation," and many candidates feel overwhelmed and pressured in the moment.

"For so many people, it goes wrong," she said.

Perelli-Minetti, who previously worked as an HR leader at Wayfair and Capital One, said that while recruiters often add a sense of urgency for candidates to say "yes" in the moment, job seekers should never accept an offer over the phone without full context. Even if a number sounds good, it may not be fair for the role, she said.

She said the live calls should be used to gather context, but candidates should make their asks in a written follow-up. The coach said that job seekers are in a better spot if they make a request in writing, given that recruiters have significantly more experience negotiating in the moment.

"Laying things out in writing makes it much easier for you to be clear-headed, stand firm, and negotiate holistically," Perelli-Minetti said in a follow-up email.

Key questions

Perelli-Minetti recommends starting with two questions: "How did you arrive at this offer for me?" and "Where does this base salary fall in the range for this role?" She said salary ranges listed in job postings are often broader than the actual budgeted range. She said these two questions — especially the first — are helpful to ask live.

She said the way an employer responds to these questions says a lot about them. If it feels awkward or if there isn't rapport, she suggests asking follow-up questions over email instead.

Candidates should also get clarity on incentive compensation, if offered. Perelli-Minetti said many people hear about a "$50,000 bonus" without asking whether that figure represents the target bonus or the ceiling.

She said they should always ask if the number is the target and there's a floor or ceiling. She also suggests asking about the payout history for any company portion, saying they want a grounded expectation of what compensation realistically looks like.

To better understand how bonuses work, Perelli-Minetti said candidates should ask questions like, "How is my bonus determined?" That can help clarify whether compensation is tied to individual performance, company performance, or both, she said.

She added that it's equally important to understand how equity compensation works, including vesting schedules and how stock grants are refreshed for employees receiving RSUs.

Candidates should also ask about benefits packages, as they reflect the company's overall compensation approach. Candidates at the VP level and above should discuss non-compete agreements and exit packages, both of which may be negotiable, she said.

"If you're going to negotiate any given element of your comp package, make sure you understand the whole darn thing," Perelli-Minetti said.

Striking a balance

The goal is to return with a thoughtful, strategic counteroffer that focuses on three to four terms most important to the job seeker, she said.

Perelli-Minetti added that recruiters may not want to answer in writing and may ask to get on a call and have a follow-up conversation. In those scenarios, candidates should send questions in advance to keep the conversation organized. Then, candidates should stay neutral on the phone and close out the call by saying thank you and providing a timeline for their response.

"Don't let the recruiter's need for instant gratification get in the way of your thoughtful negotiation," Perelli-Minetti said.

In both formats — phone and email — Perelli-Minetti said candidates should approach negotiation conversations collaboratively. She said many people go wrong by coming in with the mindset that the negotiation i's a fight. They should also have a mindset of curiosity and seeking to understand.

"One of the first things I say is for a job-offer negotiation: These are your future colleagues," Perelli-Minetti said.

• Retail traders were watching the fireworks as SpaceX began trading on Friday.
• Despite catering to the retail crowd ahead of the IPO, not all day traders seemed wooed by the mega-deal.
• The cohort seems divided on the company, the valuation, and the trajectory of the stock.

SpaceX made its historic debut on the Nasdaq on Friday, popping 30% in early trading and vaulting the company above a $2.2 trillion market cap.

Ahead of the offering, SpaceX made a point to court retail traders, setting aside more shares than usual at the IPO price in a bid to get regular folks excited about getting in early on a stock with the potential to soar.

Recent data shows that retail traders have been selling many of their favorite stocks across AI and chips sectors, building a cash pile ahead of SpaceX and other expected mega-offerings this year. But, not every retail trader is rushing to start buying.

Here's some of the highlights from retail traders Business Insider connected with around the internet.

Noor Al, WallStreetBets moderator

Al, known on r/WallStreetBets as u/opinionisunpopular, has been helping moderate the popular trading forum since before the Gamestop short squeeze of 2021.

He was upbeat when reached by Business Insider, saying that he had a good feeling about the stock as trading got underway on Friday.

"I've never seen an IPO generate this much discussion and excitement... and hate," he said. "Despite all odds, I have a feeling this is going to be great trade for those successful in getting IPO allocation because there is every incentive for this to go well. We are truly in unprecedented times."

"Elon Musk is a modern PT Barnum"

Elon Musk's has become a more divisive figure in retail circles in the past few years. While he still has his superfans, others aren't sure about his lofty promises, like human robots or data centers in space.

A user posting on Reddit, who revealed his name to be Aaron, compared Musk to PT Barnun, often remembered as a talented showman as well as a politician and a perpetrator of various hoaxes.

"Elon Musk is a modern day PT Barnum. He has actually put maybe 4 viable products on the table (a few cars and a rocket that can get to orbit and land, and a C-tier AI that nobody wants)."

"I see no downside in investing in a monopoly"

There were bulls on the forums though, as well.

Some said that they are "all in" on the SpaceX IPO, adding that they're trading "purely off vibes," and that they simply like rockets.

"I see no downside in investing in a monopoly which SpaceX currently has on rockets," retail trader Casey Dyer, who goes by u/BIGpoppaPUMP42069 on Reddit told Business Insider. "The untapped market of data centers in space, they aint going away anytime soon and I would much rather see them orbiting earth than sucking up resources here on earth."

Bailing out the original investors

Reddit user u/Dangerous-Quality-79 raised the concern that investors who already had SpaceX equity through investments in X or xAI will take the opportunity to offload it, ultimately compromising the IPO momentum.

"The retail play is to hope that the Elon stans have enough dry powder to bail out the original investors and give retail a nice profit while smiling knowing they will make a fortune once data centers in space are operational (sometime after Tesla releases the roadster)," the user shared in a comment on r/SpaceXBets.

"Here to see if this is the Hindenburg we think it'll be"

Some of the most bearish voices said they were following along simply to watch if the stock cratered.

"Honestly, many of us wouldn't touch this with a ten foot pole but we're here to see if this is the Hindenburg we think it'll be," a user who goes posts under u/msnrcn, said.

Another user, u/datrnerd, responded to their comment, adding: "Not touching the stock. Discouraged family and friends from considering it for portfolios."

• Vintage Coach briefcases are having a moment.
• Anne Hathaway carried one in "The Devil Wears Prada 2," and Coach fans are bringing them to work.
• Shoppers say the bags, which can be 40 years old, are timeless, practical, and of superior quality.

Simone Chavoor was tired of walking into work with an "ugly backpack from Amazon" on her shoulders.

So the 43-year-old media professional went looking for an upgrade on eBay. She found one in a vintage Coach Beekman briefcase in the British tan colorway.

It wasn't perfect, by any means. Its leather was dry, and its hardware had become dull. The "project bag," as collectors would call it, needed work. But Chavoor — who said she bought the bag for "less than a dinner for two at a mid-range restaurant" — was happy to take it on.

In the end, Chavoor got more than a bargain. "Now I look more put together and professional," she told Business Insider.

And she's not the only one. Coach's resurgence, paired with shifting workwear trends, has collectors and office workers alike scouring secondhand sites for decades-old briefcases from the brand.

The history of Coach briefcases

Between the 1950s and 1980s, briefcases were the "it" bag of the workplace. In the earliest days of the trend, attaché cases — or rigid, box-like briefcases — were the desired style.

Coach took a different approach. The Metropolitan bag, released in 1986, was the brand's first foray into briefcases. The messenger-style bag had a long shoulder strap, a flap-over design, a top handle, and the brand's signature brass hardware. A similar — but more refined with a rounded flap — briefcase called the Beekman was introduced in 1991.

Over time, these pieces began to lose their appeal. Laptops replaced stacks of papers, and more casual dress codes made backpacks the go-to work bags.

Now, workwear trends are shifting again. Even as some office dress codes remain relaxed post-pandemic, workers are seeking ways to add more polish to their wardrobes without sacrificing comfort and practicality. Briefcases are one way to do that.

Coach's resurgence among Gen Z and millennials in recent years has made its vintage briefcases especially appealing. The brand's parent company, Tapestry, reported a 19% revenue rise in Q3, which it said was led by gains from Coach.

The brand sells a modern version of its Metropolitan bag for $595, but it's often sold out. Vintage versions of both briefcases also sell on secondhand sites for upward of $150 each.

On TikTok, shoppers are sharing their secondhand briefcase finds from thrift stores and Facebook Marketplace. Some are even seeking vintage briefcase styles and their modern counterparts to compare.

The 'Devil Wears Prada' effect

A spokesperson for Lyst recently told The New York Times that demand for women's purses was "down 5.5% in April 2026 compared to April 2025."

Searches for briefcases, however, were up 14%, and Coach remained on its "Hottest Brands" list for Q1 2026. Briefcase searches also rose on Google in May of this year.

The latter is likely, at least in part, the result of Anne Hathaway carrying a Coach Metropolitan briefcase in "The Devil Wears Prada 2," which was released that same month.

For Ryan Newhouse, a 32-year-old office manager from New York, seeing Hathaway carry the Coach bag was validating. He got his first Coach bag — a brown 1999 Beekman briefcase — about 10 years ago. It was gifted to him by a friend who was clearing out items left behind by her ex-boyfriend.

Newhouse was just starting his career and thought the vintage bag would be the perfect addition to his wardrobe, even if it had some wear and tear. Three years ago, Newhouse finally restored the bag to its former glory (with the help of TikTok tutorials). Now he carries it to work at least twice a week.

Newhouse said he loves seeing Coach in pop culture, though his love for the brand's briefcases goes beyond any TV show or movie that features them.

Newhouse and Chavoor both said that carrying a briefcase from the brand instantly helps them feel more confident and professional, elevating their outfits.

"Coach is so timeless," Newhouse said. "And with the pricing being so affordable, you really can't beat it."

Chavoor also said she appreciates the sustainability aspect of vintage Coach briefcases.

"I have really fallen in love with the quality, the leather, and the history of these bags," she said. "We should be moving away from fast fashion."

"Social media has accelerated our trends cycle, but if you have a nice piece and you take care of it, it'll last for ages. You can always make it look fresh," Chavoor continued.

Maybe most importantly, though, this new era of briefcases might shift the accessory's cultural significance.

"Briefcases are so gendered; we expect to see men carrying them," Chavoor said. "But I kind of like that masculine energy and reclaiming it as a woman."

"I'm in a professional setting. I'm a woman, and I'm wearing a dress, but also, I have this badass briefcase because I mean business," she added.

• The dietitian Josie Porter only takes supplements if and when she needs them.
• Porter was no longer working out to failure so reasoned she didn't need to supplement creatine.
• She advocates for "sensible" supplement use and shifts her stack when her routine changes.

Josie Porter is always reassessing her supplement stack.

The dietitian and author of "How Not To Take Supplements," which promotes a food-first approach to health, takes them as needed.

That's why she stopped taking creatine around three years, when she started going to the gym less around a year ago.

Creatine, once a secret weapon of athletes and bodybuilders, has gone mainstream in recent years as strength training has overtaken cardio as the workout du jour. The body naturally produces creatine, a building block of the molecule ATP that gives our cells energy. We can also get creatine from eating protein, like red meat and seafood. Creatine is one of the most well-studied supplements, and research suggests that, if taken correctly, it can help the body find the energy needed to do an extra rep or two in the gym, leading to bigger gains.

As a supplement, it typically comes in the form of a white powder. For it to work, research suggests you need to take 5mg a day for four weeks, and maintaining that daily dose to see the benefits.

"The idea is that you want to saturate your muscles if you're taking it for gym-related benefits," Porter told Business Insider.

Porter loves strength training, but is currently prioritizing flexibility in her workout schedule over optimization due to some mental health struggles. "I'm trying to remove pressure where I can," she said.

"Often the benefits come from when people are really having big bursts of energy and hitting that one-rep max," Porter said of creatine. "I'm not really doing so much of that lately, so I just figured there wasn't really a need to take it."

Emerging evidence suggests that creatine offers health benefits beyond the gym. Early-stage studies have found that taking the supplement at higher doses could boost brain health and cognition, but Porter doesn't feel the evidence is strong enough yet to warrant her taking it daily if she's not focusing on building muscle.

"Until I start training differently, I probably won't bring it back in, but I do think it's got some good evidence behind it," she said.

• Rank-and-file SpaceX employees are about to get very rich thanks to the company's blockbuster IPO.
• But massive liquidity events are not without their pitfalls.
• Here's what wealth advisors suggest SpaceX's new millionaires do — and what to avoid.

If you work at SpaceX, or ever have, congratulations. You're about to get very rich.

On Friday, Elon Musk's Space and AI company debuted on the public markets in the largest initial public offering in history, with the rocket company's valuation surpassing $2 trillion.

While mom-and-pop investors are just getting in on the action, SpaceX employees already have a piece. The company puts "heavy emphasis on equity compensation to provide employees with a financial stake in our business and an ownership mindset," it said in its S-1 securities filing.

For employees who have held on to their shares, it's paid off. Andrew Benson, the founder of pre-IPO trading platform Hill Markets, estimated the SpaceX IPO will mint 4,400 new millionaires; 400 of those will be centimillionaires.

"You're going to have the single largest wealth event potentially in the history of the world," Matthew Fleissig, the CEO of investment advisory Pathstone, told Business Insider.

That's good news, of course, but don't expect a new fleet of superyachts or private jets with SpaceX employees at the helm.

Once lockup periods are out of the way and employees can sell their shares, nice homes, charter flights, and luxury vacations are more common and smarter ways to spend the money, wealth advisors told Business Insider.

"The biggest mistakes we see is people spending down their money," Fleissig, who has guided clients through major liquidity events, said. "We have seen plenty of scenarios where a client tried to build a home with 13-foot-thick cement walls for a nuclear bomb, and it might have had a waterfall for the batcave, and it ended up costing $40 million to $50 million, and it got out of control."

Mo money, mo problems

Wealth advisors told Business Insider that sudden liquidity can come with several pitfalls. There are wealth advisement fees, taxes, and, of course, the sirens' call of shiny toys.

"You get this unbelievable sticker shock when you get new wealth that it's actually really expensive to be wealthy," Fleissig said. His firm has a program for pre-liquidity clients, including "a nice amount" of SpaceX, Anthropic, and OpenAI employees and investors.

One point they hammer home: Everything involving money is about to cost more.

Wealth managers charge clients a fee, typically 0.5% and 1% of the money they manage. Some SpaceX employees are trying to get ahead of that, with an employee group negotiating favorable terms with one Chicago wealth management firm, two sources familiar with the plans told Business Insider.

Taxes, too, are about to become more complex and expensive — and not just the total paid to Uncle Sam. Someone used to uploading a tax form to TurboTax may now spend $25,000 on an accountant to navigate a return involving various types of investments.

Then there's the impulse to blow the new cash.

"The minute people identify you as being somebody that is a SpaceX centimillionaire, everybody's going to be coming at you," Michael Cole, a former wealth advisor and the cofounder of R360, a membership group for centimillionaire and billionaire families, told Business Insider.

When it comes to big-ticket items, advisors say: buyers beware.

Yachts are infamous money pits, with annual maintenance costing about 10% of their new-build price, according to industry standards.

On the low end, private planes can cost $1 million a year to maintain. Francis advises clients not to spend more than 10% of their net worth on a private aircraft and to do their homework on the seller and operating crew.

"You need 1,500 hours of experience to be a barber," he said. "The training you need to become an aircraft sales broker, an aircraft charter broker is zero."

'Slow down to speed up'

When it comes to liquidation events — SpaceX had several ahead of its IPO — Cole's motto is "slow down to speed up."

The first thing to do is diversify, he said, and the next is to think.

"It makes really good sense to start to liquidate a concentrated holding because your risk is all of your wealth is in one stock," Cole said. "The markets can be fickle around different things, and right now SpaceX is the flavor of the month."

Put that money into short-term treasuries, he said, and take six months to make a plan that takes into account risk tolerance, taxes, objectives, and time horizons.

Beyond investments, wealth can open a new way of seeing your life.

Fleissig suggests clients ask themselves how they want to spend their time, whether that be with their families, on vacation, or taking up hobbies.

Of course, life can very well involve a little luxury. There's nothing wrong with upgrading your home or splurging on a sports car or a new watch.

"You may want to buy a plane, you may want to buy a yacht, those can all be really fun," Cole said. "Take your time."

• In 2002, Elon Musk founded a dark-horse company to make rockets reusable, and thus more affordable.
• That company, SpaceX, went public on Friday at a $1.8 trillion valuation, with shares popping out of the gate.
• BI pieced together some of SpaceX's most iconic — and visual — moments since its founding.

Nearly 25 years ago, a mariachi band played at a SpaceX party while Elon Musk posed for a photo. The rocket company's head count was single digits back then. Today, it's over 22,000.

SpaceX started with two long-shot goals: make rockets cheaper to launch and, eventually, send mankind to Mars.

More than two decades later, Elon Musk's space company has decisively accomplished the first, and went public on Friday at a historic $1.8 trillion valuation. The trading milestone followed years of fiery explosions, reusable-rocket breakthroughs, astronaut flights, and the rise of Starlink, its golden goose satellite-internet business.

From the scrappy startup days to fiery launches (and plenty of explosions) and catching a returning rocket in giant mechanical pincers, these photos and videos show SpaceX's rise to IPO juggernaut.

2002: SpaceX is born

Using part of the fortune he made from PayPal, Musk founded SpaceX in 2002 in an El Segundo, California, warehouse. The company sought to challenge entrenched players in the rocket industry — including Lockheed Martin and Boeing — and make space travel less expensive.

Those dreams had a meager beginning.

"SpaceX was less than 10 people back then," Musk wrote on X. "We didn't even have office furniture."

2002-2006: building the Falcon 1

SpaceX developed its first space-bound rocket, the Falcon 1, between 2002 and 2006. It cost about $100 million for the company to design and build.

2003: A Washington DC display

SpaceX trucked its first Falcon rocket across the country and displayed it outside the National Air and Space Museum in Washington, DC, in December 2003.

The rocket display on Independence Avenue was one of the first stunts that introduced the fledgling startup to federal lawmakers.

2006-2008: The first three launches fail

The Falcon rocket's maiden voyage in March 2006 ended in failure because a fuel-line leak caused an engine fire. The ill-fated flight lasted around one minute.

The Falcon's next two attempts also failed at liftoff, pushing the company to the brink of collapse.

2008: First successful Falcon launch

On September 28, 2008, Falcon 1 became the first privately developed liquid-fueled rocket to reach orbit. SpaceX flew Falcon 1 once more, successfully launching RazakSAT on July 14, 2009, its final Falcon 1 mission.

2010: Falcon 9 and Dragon

SpaceX followed Falcon 1 with the much larger Falcon 9 rocket and Dragon, a spacecraft developed first to carry cargo to orbit and later adapted to carry astronauts.

2012: Dragon reaches ISS

SpaceX's Dragon spacecraft reached the International Space Station on May 25, 2012, becoming the first commercial spacecraft to rendezvous with and berth at the orbiting laboratory.

2015: First successful landing of a Falcon 9 after an orbital launch

SpaceX landed a Falcon 9 first-stage booster at Cape Canaveral in December 2015 after launching satellites to orbit.

2016: Falcon 9 explosion

A Falcon 9 rocket exploded on a Florida launchpad during a preflight test in September 2016, when methane propellant was ignited. The blast destroyed the rocket and its payload, including satellites from Facebook.

2016: First successful drone ship landing

SpaceX had already proven it could land a Falcon 9 booster back on solid ground. In April 2016, it pulled off a harder trick: landing one on a floating platform in the Atlantic Ocean after launching a Dragon cargo spacecraft toward the International Space Station.

The landing on the drone ship Of Course I Still Love You showed SpaceX could recover boosters, even on missions where the rocket did not have enough fuel left to return to land.

2018: Falcon Heavy and Starman

The Falcon Heavy rocket tugged a Tesla Roadster carrying a driver-side mannequin nicknamed "Starman" (named after the David Bowie song) into space.

The cherry-red 2010 Roadster was once Musk's daily driver before it was launched out of Earth's atmosphere.

2019: Starlink satellite launch

SpaceX launched its first large batch of Starlink satellites in May 2019, sending 60 internet-beaming spacecraft into orbit aboard a Falcon 9 rocket.

2019: Starship reveal

In September 2019, Musk first revealed a towering stainless-steel Starship prototype in Boca Chica, Texas. Starship, paired with its Super Heavy booster, was designed to be a fully reusable transportation system.

SpaceX hopes the vehicle is capable of carrying people and cargo to orbit, the moon, Mars, and beyond.

2020: First crewed launch

SpaceX hurled NASA astronauts Bob Behnken and Doug Hurley to the International Space Station in May 2020, marking the first time the company had sent people to orbit.

The Demo-2 mission also restored NASA's ability to launch astronauts from US soil for the first time since the space shuttle retired in 2011.

2021: First private SpaceX customers go to space

In September 2021, SpaceX launched Inspiration4, a three-day orbital mission crewed entirely by private citizens. Billionaire Jared Isaacman (now the NASA administrator) commanded the flight, joined by Sian Proctor, Hayley Arceneaux, and Chris Sembroski aboard a Crew Dragon capsule.

The mission circled Earth. You can watch their journey in the Netflix documentary "Countdown: Inspiration4 Mission to Space."

2024: Move to Texas

Musk, increasingly frustrated with California politics, moved his rocket company to Texas in 2024.

The announcement underscored how central South Texas had become to SpaceX's future. What began as a remote testing ground for Starship had grown into the company's main hub, with launch towers, production facilities, and a rapidly expanding local footprint.

2024: Starship booster catch

In one of SpaceX's most audacious moves yet, the company caught a returning Super Heavy booster with the launch tower's mechanical arms for the first time in October 2024.

Seriously, watch the video for this moment — it's worth it.

2026: SapceX acquires xAI

Earlier this year, SpaceX acquired xAI, Musk's artificial-intelligence startup. The move folded several major pieces of his business empire — also including X, formerly known as Twitter — into the rocket company.

May 2026: Starship's first V3 test flight

SpaceX launched Starship Flight 12, the upgraded version of its Starship spacecraft and Super Heavy booster, from Starbase, Texas, on May 22, 2026. The test marked the first test flight of the company's V3 vehicles and Raptor 3 engines. SpaceX describes Starship as the world's most powerful launch vehicle ever developed.

The flight showed SpaceX was continuing to push toward a fully reusable giant rocket system. The Starship upper stage reached space and completed a controlled splashdown in the Indian Ocean.

Still, the flight had problems. The Federal Aviation Administration required SpaceX to conduct a mishap investigation after an issue involving the Super Heavy booster during its return over the Gulf of Mexico after stage separation. A return to flight depends on the FAA determining that any system, process, or procedure related to the mishap does not affect public safety. The FAA said there were no reports of public injury or damage to public property.

June 2026: SpaceX IPO

The once-nearly bankrupt SpaceX hit the public market with a valuation of $1.8 trillion.

"It is certainly hard to believe that a little company that started in a warehouse in El Segundo is now going public with the largest IPO ever," he said during a speech on Friday. "If people had told me this was going to happen, I was like, 'Man, you must be smoking some really good crack, because I think this company is going to fail.'"

He said he gave SpaceX a less than 10% chance of succeeding.

• Dollar General is adding more $1 items to its shelves.
• It's part of the retailer's strategy as inflation picks up steam again.
• I went to a Dollar General store to see what kind of groceries I could buy for $1 apiece.

Dollar General is going back to its roots.

The discount retailer is leaning into its selection of $1 items, from potato chips to trash bags, to draw in customers as fuel prices have risen this year. It harkens back to the chain's early years, when everything on its shelves was $1.

Customers are responding to the move. Those on limited budgets are buying more $1 items, CEO Todd Vasos said on the company's latest earnings call earlier this month.

"I can't emphasize this enough, that $1 price point has turned out to be a real savior for our core customer," the CEO said.

The strategy helped push Dollar General's net sales 3% higher to $10.8 billion in its most recent quarter that ended May 1.

The price point is also attracting more affluent customers who have been shopping at Dollar General more often over the last few years, Vasos said.

Rival Dollar Tree, meanwhile, has gone in a different direction. In 2021, it raised its base price point to $1.25 and has since started charging more for some items.

Dollar General said it carries about 2,000 items that cost $1 or less. More are coming to stores, Vasos said on the earnings call, including an entire freezer door with food options priced at $1 each.

I wanted to see Dollar General's $1 selection for myself. I was curious about whether I could buy most of what I needed for my weekly grocery haul, aside from fresh items like meat and produce, since most Dollar General stores don't carry them.

Dollar General has been expanding its grocery selection. The chain grew its share of grocery visits between 2019 and 2025, according to foot-traffic data from Placer.ai.

It also operates some DG Market stores, which sell produce and other fresh foods, though they represent a small fraction of the chain's roughly 21,000 locations.

I visited a Dollar General store in the Washington, DC, metro area to find out. Here's what I saw.

Do you have a story to share about Dollar General? Contact this reporter at abitter@businessinsider.com or via encrypted messaging app Signal at 808-854-4501. Use a personal email address, a nonwork WiFi network, and a nonwork device; here's our guide to sharing information securely.

I visited this Dollar General store in Hyattsville, Maryland.

Located in a strip mall, this Dollar General is next to an independent grocery store and two fast-food restaurants — a McDonald's and a Popeyes.

The front of the Dollar General was filled with products that cost more than $1 each.

I saw two-liter bottles of soda that cost between $2 to $3, bags of chips, and other grocery items as I walked in the front door.

I started finding $1 items toward the back of the store.

This store didn't have a full freezer section of $1 items, but I found a few at that price, such as these chicken pot pies.

Some $1 items were stocked next to name-brand equivalents.

Lots of dry groceries, such as these jars of spices, were $1 each. Often, they were from Dollar General's own Clover Valley store brand and stocked next to more expensive name-brand versions, such as the $2.50 jar of Lawry's chili powder.

Others were part of an entire aisle dedicated to $1 items.

Dubbed "Value Valley" by Dollar General, this aisle included everything from rubber cleaning gloves to potato chips.

There was a lot of signage advertising the $1 price point.

I saw lots of useful items here, especially cleaning supplies. There were air fresheners, scrubbing brushes, rubber gloves, sponges, and lots of other cleaning tools — each costing $1.

The selection varied from Epsom salts…

Some $1 items weren't store-branded, such as these Yardley Epsom salts.

… to bags of flavored popcorn.

Snacks were one of the product areas with a variety of $1 options.

In general, though, there wasn't as wide a selection of food as I expected. Maybe Dollar General's expanded frozen food selection hasn't arrived at this store yet.

Dollar General did not respond to a request for comment.

In other aisles, I saw full-priced versions of many $1 items.

These Glad trash bags were almost $6 a pack at Dollar General and were in a separate aisle from the $1 trash bag alternatives.

There was a wide selection of sweet snacks for $1 a bag.

If you're a fan of sweet treats, such as Sour Patch Kids or coconut macaroons, there was quite a selection at this Dollar General.

Overall, I didn't see enough $1 stuff to fulfill my weekly grocery haul.

Overall, there was a reasonable selection of store-brand household goods, frozen foods, and dry groceries available for $1 each. That might make Dollar General a decent place to shop for consumers on a budget.

I could see stopping by regularly for a few pantry staples and some cleaning supplies. As long as there were other grocery options nearby, though, I probably wouldn't go out of my way to make it a stop on my weekly grocery run.

This store didn't quite have everything most people would need on a weekly basis — at least, not without buying a lot of items above $1 each.

And, of course, there was no fresh food, though I didn't expect it at this store.

The $1 price point seems to function as a loss leader for Dollar General.

From the frozen pot pies to trash bags, many of the $1 items at this Dollar General were located toward the back of the store, meaning that you had to walk past full-priced equivalents to get there.

That made me think that $1 items act as a loss leader for the chain. Supermarkets have done this for years by putting essentials like milk toward the rear of their stores and pricing them competitively. The theory is that you'll stop by for cheap milk — then pick up other, full-price items as you walk there and back.

The same could be true at Dollar General. The $1 items seem to be a draw for many shoppers, but they're not the only items most shoppers buy.

This as-told-to essay is based on a conversation with Wolfgang Puck, a 76-year-old chef based in Los Angeles. The following has been edited for length and clarity.

I've spent more than 60 years building my restaurant business after coming to the US from Europe and opening Spago in West Hollywood in 1982.

I oversee more than 100 fine dining and casual eateries around the world, from Beverly Hills and Las Vegas to London, Singapore, Istanbul, and Shanghai.

Even now, as we work on new projects in places like Abu Dhabi and Malibu, I still spend most nights in my restaurants — tasting food, talking to guests, and paying attention to the smallest details.

Here's a day in my life.

I wake up around 6:30 a.m. each morning

Beyond my wakeup time, no two weeks really look the same. One week, I'm home in LA every day. The next week, I'm flying to New York, London, Istanbul, Budapest, Singapore, or Shanghai.

No matter where I am, though, my mornings usually start with a double espresso.

Then I go for a 45-minute to hourlong walk. If I'm home in LA, my two dogs come with me. After that, I work out with weights, stretching, and the elliptical.

For years, my mornings also included driving my younger children to school. One of my sons started listening to the same music I love — Pink Floyd, Led Zeppelin, all the old rock bands — and those drives became one of my favorite parts of the day. I miss them now.

I have a light breakfast around 8:30 a.m.

Right now, we have great fruit in LA — peaches, nectarines, cherries, blueberries, and strawberries.

I also love yogurt with olive oil, salt, and pepper with toasted whole-grain or seeded bread from Spago. Sometimes I'll make avocado toast with jalapeño, mustard, and an egg sautéed in olive oil.

Another important part of my mornings is reading the newspaper. I get printed versions of The New York Times, Financial Times, Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times, and California Post, and I flip through the pages and read the opinion sections with my coffee.

I usually head to my office at the Pacific Design Center around 10 a.m.

Sometimes I stop at the farmers market in Santa Monica or the fish market first because I still enjoy seeing ingredients in person. I always tell my chefs that if I can still go to the fish market, they can, too.

At the office, I spend time reviewing financials. It's not the most exciting part of the restaurant business for me, so I'm having Byron, my son who works with me, handle more of the financial calls these days.

When I made Byron president of the company in June 2025, I knew some people around me probably imagined they might get that role themselves because many of them had worked with me for decades. Over time, though, people saw how seriously he took the work. He works from morning until night, listens well, leads by example, and holds people accountable.

I've learned that if you want great people to stay, you have to share your success with them. I've given longtime chefs and partners stakes in restaurants because I want them to feel ownership, too. To me, we're building something together, not working for one person.

I eat a simple lunch from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m.

Sometimes Byron and I eat together at the office — maybe a sandwich or soup — but I generally eat more in the evening.

I also keep a big bag of Valrhona 80% dark chocolate in my office that gets me through the workday — and coffee, naturally.

My afternoons are usually full of phone calls. I talk with chefs and managers from restaurants around the world about menus, staffing, food quality, and new ideas. I don't enjoy emails very much. I like talking to people directly. I think you understand people better that way.

I finish work at the office by 4 p.m. and visit the restaurants to see what's going on

What frustrates me most is when people stop paying attention to details. In restaurants, the smallest things matter.

I get frustrated when things don't get done properly because it often comes down to laziness. I can't stand when chefs don't taste the food before serving it.

I always tell my teams that you have to taste everything. If you don't taste the pasta before it leaves the kitchen, how do you know if it has enough or too much salt?

I still spend most nights in restaurants

When the kids were younger, we used to have dinner together around 6 p.m., before I headed out to my restaurants. Now, I'll spend an hour or two at home with my wife, Gelila, before stopping by CUT or Spago later in the evening.

Even after 60 years in restaurants, I still love being there at night. The restaurants give me energy. I'll check in with chefs, talk with guests, and sometimes sit down with friends or Byron for a glass of wine and a few small dishes the chefs prepare for us.

Most nights, I'm out until 11 or 11:30 p.m., and then I head home

Travel is constant. Recently, I traveled to Las Vegas, New York, Washington, and Beverly Hills for a series of dinners with Byron alongside Austrian winemakers.

At night, if I'm not tired yet, I'll read before bed and take a melatonin spray. I mostly read nonfiction and biographies because I want to understand what makes people do what they do. It could be books about Elon Musk, Mick Jagger, Abraham Lincoln, or famous French chefs. I'm always curious about how successful people think, build things, and lead others.

I go to sleep around 1 a.m.

Family became more important as I got older

When I was younger, I could spend every night in a restaurant and think only about work. Over time, I realized balance matters much more. I watched people in the restaurant business lose relationships with their families because they never made time for anything outside work.

I still spend plenty of time in restaurants, but I also make time for my family. Every summer, I try to take at least one month off to travel through Europe with them.

Recently, I also started taking painting lessons because I enjoy the creative process and the focus it requires. I never really think about retirement because I never wake up thinking, "I have to go to work."

Being optimistic helps. I've always been an optimist. Even now, when people ask me why I'm still opening restaurants or taking risks in my 70s, I don't spend much time thinking about the downside. New projects and new ideas are what keep me excited.

The Japanese have a word called Kaizen, which means continuous improvement. If you think you've already arrived, then you stop growing. I still want to learn new things and hopefully open more restaurants for many more years.

• Joby, Archer, and Beta are racing to make flying cars a reality, each with unique aircraft designs.
• They envision eVTOLs one day regularly carrying people to airports or to work.
• Flying taxis face hurdles like certification, infrastructure, and public acceptance.

Three US aerospace startups are in a high-stakes race to bring the "Jetsons'" dream of flying cars to life — and each has a different vision of what that future looks like.

Aerospace companies Joby Aviation, Archer Aviation, and Beta Technologies have spent the past few years showcasing their flying taxi prototypes at industry events around the world. They're pitching them as an environmentally cleaner, cheaper alternative to helicopters.

I've seen all three — either on static display or in flight. I've gotten a glimpse of how these vertical takeoff and landing aircraft, or eVTOLs, could be used on a regular commute or skip traffic to the airport.

The wide-winged, trunky aircraft are quieter than fuel-powered planes and helicopters, and they fly surprisingly smoothly. How would they work? Imagine a web of low-altitude air taxi corridors connecting airports, neighboring towns, conferences, and events like the Olympics.

Still, none have been certified by aviation authorities, so they'll not be regularly carrying passengers just yet. Joby and Archer aim to launch commercial service as soon as this year; Beta's timeline is several years out. They're all actively participating in a US Department of Transportation program that would aim to integrate electric air taxis into the national airspace system as quickly as possible.

And each is demonstrating a markedly different approach, with distinct aircraft designs, certification strategies, and business models. Each is publicly traded in the US: Joby had a recent market capitalization of around $9 billion; Archer and Beta are each around $4 billion.

The companies are facing tough sledding so far this year: Their stocks are down between 30% and 40% since January. Wall Street analysts have said investors are shifting their focus away from technological milestones toward proof of certification and commercialization. In other words, they want these things to get off the ground.

Air taxis indeed still face myriad hurdles, including securing those regulatory approvals, raising capital, building out infrastructure, and convincing the public to embrace a new type of aircraft. Affordable fares and vast infrastructure changes are likely to be needed to achieve even a modest future of traveling around a city for errands or work.

Here's a closer look at how Joby, Archer, and Beta's futuristic flying taxis compare — and what potential commuters might expect if these aircraft reach commercial service.

Each eVTOL use its rotors differently.

Joby's "S4" and Archer's "Midnight" eVTOLs share a similar design approach, with six tilting rotors mounted above the aircraft that transition to support both vertical and forward flight. Midnight also has six additional fixed lift propellers used only during takeoff and landing.

Beta's "Alia 250" uses four fixed vertical-lift propellers and a rear pusher propeller for forward flight. None tilt. Clark says the design is simpler with fewer moving parts.

All 3 are building custom engines. Beta's has the most range.

In general, each eVTOL is powered by rechargeable batteries that supply energy to multiple electric motors, with redundancy built in so the aircraft can continue flying safely even if a component fails.

Beta's Alia 250 has the longest range at about 250 miles per charge and can reach 176 mph. Joby's aircraft can fly up to about 200 mph over roughly 150 miles, while Archer's Midnight reaches speeds of around 150 mph with a range of about 100 miles.

The companies have completed public demos.

I recently saw Joby demonstrate a passenger shuttle flight from New York's JFK to downtown Manhattan. The 10-minute trip was barely audible as it cruised up the Hudson River, only becoming louder on approach to the vertiport.

I also saw Beta's eVTOL fly over Burlington, Vermont, during a media day in June, showcasing its quiet profile, stability, and vertical flight performance.

Separately, Business Insider's Lloyd Lee observed Archer and Joby flights over California in October, describing both as little more than a faint hum overhead.

Joby and Archer have fewer passenger seats.

In theory, more seats help spread operating costs and could translate into lower fares. The startups have said their eVTOLs cost just a few dollars per passenger mile, with Joby and Archer saying their fares would be roughly in line with Uber Black car service.

But the economics remain uncertain, with pilot costs, maintenance, and other operational expenses also factoring into future fares. Even if eVTOL fares are cheaper than helicopter fares, that doesn't mean they'll be affordable for the average traveler or convenient for their needs.

Beta has a longer certification timeline.

The startups aim to begin commercial air taxi flights by the end of the year, though any certification hiccups or delays could push that to 2027.

Beta president and CEO Kyle Clark said the Alia 250 is looking at a few more years. Its slower timeline reflects the company's stepwise certification approach based on its cTOL, the Alia CX300.

All 3 have secured support from big-name airlines.

In 2021, United Airlines placed a $1 billion order for up to 200 Midnight aircraft. Joby made a $60 million deal with Delta Air Lines in 2022 to operate codeshare airport transfers to the airline's hubs.

UPS has placed an order for up to 150 of Beta's eVTOLs. Beta also secured orders from Air New Zealand for its cTOL.

Beta and the airline already demonstrated the Alia CX300's real-world application, with test pilots flying cargo to a dozen airports across the islands, covering about 7,000 miles.

The ultimate goal is autonomous air taxis.

Eventually, the US startups hope to create autonomous versions that can fly without a pilot — essentially the Waymo of the skies.

It's an ambitious long-term goal that raises questions regulators would need to address before approval, including safety, certification, cybersecurity, and public perception. Labor unions are also likely to strongly oppose efforts to allow pilotless passenger aircraft into the national airspace.

Still, China proved it can be possible. In late 2023, the nation certified a fully autonomous two-seater eVTOL from the Guangzhou-based UAM company EHang, which is now being used for sightseeing tours.

• OpenAI CEO Sam Altman said he thought AI would have impacted entry-level white-collar jobs more.
• "I'm delighted to be wrong about this," Altman recently said.
• Altman isn't the only AI leader shifting how they talk about job displacement, with Microsoft's AI boss clarifying a viral remark.

AI CEOs and tech leaders are trying to find the right way to talk about the labor market.

Increasingly, they are moving beyond the sweeping statements about a white-collar job wipeout that may have fueled the growing AI backlash.

"I'm delighted to be wrong about this," OpenAI CEO Sam Altman said at a recent event hosted by the Commonwealth Bank of Australia. "I thought that there would have been more impact on entry-level white-collar work jobs being eliminated by now than it's actually happened."

The OpenAI CEO said his views began to change when he briefly tried to let AI write emails and Slack messages for him, an experience he said was "dehumanizing" to watch.

"It's the human part of the roles, and it really in both positive and negative ways updated me to thinking that the jobs picture is likely to be very different than we thought," he said. "I don't think we're going to have the kind of jobs apocalypse that some of the companies in our space advocate or talk about."

Altman may be the most direct, but he's far from alone in trying to turn the page on warnings about significant white-collar unemployment.

"I think that people are scared because it's poorly defined and it's often framed as an inevitable, threatening gray cloud over people's heads," Microsoft AI CEO Mustafa Suleyman recently told The Verge's "Decoder" podcast.

In February, Suleyman told the Financial Times, "White-collar work, where you're sitting down at a computer, either being a lawyer or an accountant or a project manager or a marketing person — most of those tasks will be fully automated by an AI within the next 12 to 18 months."

Suleyman told the "Decoder" that his quote was misunderstood and that he's not actually changing his view. He said he was talking about the tasks workers do, like reading emails, not the job of actually being a lawyer.

"Sending an email, having a conversation with a colleague, putting together a PowerPoint — sub-tasks will increasingly become digitized, automated, and we can basically generate more and more of them," he said. "That does not necessarily mean that the role goes away at all."

The shifting tone and clarifications come at a pivotal moment in AI. On Friday, SpaceX made its Nasdaq debut. OpenAI and Anthropic have both confirmed they are taking steps toward their own IPOs.

At the same time, political backlash is growing. Data centers are quickly becoming a hot-button issue.

In June, Seattle passed a one-year moratorium on new data centers. Overall, the industry is grappling with a stark reality that the technology they say is one of the biggest advancements in human history is massively unpopular in the US. A May Economist-YouGov poll found that 71% of Americans think the pace of AI development is moving too quickly.

Microsoft President Brad Smith called the recent booing of speakers who talked about AI at prominent college commencements "a powerful wake-up call for the tech sector."

In a lengthy blog post, Smith wrote that AI "will displace some jobs," but the compressed timeline for some predictions would be unlike that of similar technological breakthroughs.

"There are some who look at the power of AI and predict its massive diffusion in just a few years," Smith wrote. "It's always possible that this time will be different, but the world has never previously seen technology diffusion at that pace."

Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei has become the industry's leading voice on AI job displacement. Last year, he warned that AI could wipe out up to half of all entry-level white-collar jobs over the next 1 to 5 years. Amodei said there's a reason he's sounded the alarm.

"I have warned about job displacement in interviews and essays because I want both policymakers and the private sector to have the best chance to adapt and respond, not because I am trying to be a 'prophet of doom,'" Amodei wrote in an essay published on Wednesday.

At the same time, Amodei said, "AI will enable a number of new economic opportunities."

"I've predicted that AI will enable single individuals to create billion-dollar companies, and we're already seeing teams of only a few people build businesses with hundreds of millions in revenue," he wrote.

• Investors say the SpaceX IPO could become a "watershed moment for the space industry."
• Those who made fortunes in SpaceX's IPO are expected to invest some of their windfall in the next generation.
• Here's Business Insider's list of 18 startups helmed by SpaceX employees-turned-founders.

After eBay acquired PayPal in 2002, the PayPal mafia went on to reshape Silicon Valley. Now, after Musk's blockbuster SpaceX IPO, employees and investors who made fortunes are expected to redeploy some of their massive windfalls into the new wave of space companies, many of them founded by the so-called SpaceX mafia.

"Many of today's leading technology investors and entrepreneurs, including Elon Musk, Peter Thiel, and David Sacks, came out of the PayPal ecosystem and went on to shape the next generation of technology companies," Justus Parmar, CEO of Fortuna Investments, a venture capital firm that invested in both SpaceX and Tesla, told Business Insider.

"A SpaceX IPO could become a similar watershed moment for the space industry."

Members of the SpaceX Mafia have raised funding from top venture capital firms such as Andreessen Horowitz, 8VC, and Founders Fund. A handful also passed through Y Combinator, Silicon Valley's famed funding and mentorship program for nascent startups.

Thousands of former SpaceX employees have been waiting for the IPO for years.

"The SpaceX IPO will trickle down to the SpaceX mafia startups in a variety of ways," Jamie Gull, a former SpaceX engineer turned deep tech investor, told Business Insider.

"The most obvious way is providing liquidity for angel investing into SpaceX peers," he said, referring to the thousands of employee millionaires the IPO has created who can soon write checks to other employees for their nascent startups.

Spencer Jackson, another former SpaceX engineer, says he is not sure going public was the right decision for SpaceX. Still, he hopes it will boost startups like the one he founded in 2024, Critical Energy, which is making modular power plants that convert heat into electricity.

"The space industry and every startup in it has benefited heavily from SpaceX's rising star, with incredible amounts of capital flowing into the space and a willingness to take big risks," Jackson told Business Insider. "That will only accelerate if the IPO goes well."

Collectively, SpaceX Mafia companies have already raised billions in venture capital funding, according to data from analytics firm PitchBook and the founders. Here's Business Insider's list of 18 startups helmed by SpaceX-employees-turned-founders, first published in December, in alphabetical order by company name.

Nikita Ermoshkin, cofounder, CEO, and CTO of Airhart Aeronautics

Total raised: $5.06 million, according to PitchBook

Founding date: May 2022

Key investors: Y Combinator, Liquid2 Ventures, Soma Capital, and angel investors

Number of employees: 8, according to the company

Role at SpaceX: Ermoshkin was at SpaceX for three years and last served as an avionics systems responsible engineer.

Airhart Aeronautics says it is building an easy-to-fly personal airplane to "give everyone the freedom of flight."

"At SpaceX, I learned the value of extreme ownership," Ermoshkin said. "As a responsible engineer, I was expected to understand and drive every part of a project — from early design through production and launch. That experience was instrumental in preparing me to be a founder and CEO."

Max Benassi, cofounder and CTO of Apex Space

Total raised: More than $500 million, according to the company

Founding date: September 2022

Key investors: Andreessen Horowitz, Interlagos, Point72 Ventures, 8VC, XYZ Ventures, Toyota Ventures.

Number of employees: Over 230, according to the company

Role at SpaceX: Benassi worked at SpaceX for six years, and last served as a senior propulsion engineer for Raptor turbomachinery and dynamic balancing.

Apex mass-manufactures satellite platforms that can serve a wide range of customers.

"It was an intense training ground where we tackled the most difficult problems by breaking them into manageable parts," Benassi said of his tenure at SpaceX. "My advice to engineers: Think harder, go faster, challenge requirements, simplify first, optimize next."

Robert Carlisle, Ryan Carlisle, and Kirby Carlisle, cofounders, Argo Space

Total raised: Over $10 million, according to the company

Founding date: 2022

Key investors: Crosslink Capital, Boost VC, Type One Ventures, Stellar Ventures

Number of employees: 22, according to the company

Roles at SpaceX: Robert Carlisle, director of commercial launch sales and national security sales (five years); Ryan Carlisle, director of engineering (nine years); Kirby Carlisle, integration and test engineer (four years)

The Carlisle brothers cofounded Argo Space, which is working on technology that could use water from the moon to propel space transportation. "My time at SpaceX showed me real value is created not by the incremental advances most companies pursue, but by paradigm change," Robert Carlisle said. "My cofounders and I also learned firsthand the myriad benefits of aggressively and urgently getting to hardware build and operation, which we're applying at Argo."

Laura Crabtree, cofounder and CEO of Epsilon3

Total raised: $18.92 million, according to PitchBook

Founding date: February 2021

Key investors: Lux Capital, MaC Venture Capital, Moore Capital Management, Y Combinator, Village Global, Stage Venture Partners.

Number of employees: 27, according to the company

Role at SpaceX: Crabtree was at SpaceX for nearly 11 years, last serving as a senior missions operations engineer.

Epsilon3 builds software for managing engineering, assembly, and testing, primarily in the space industry.

"At SpaceX in the early days, you were given a problem to solve, without much direction on how to solve it," she said. "That environment helped people develop a scrappy attitude and a low ego when it came to doing whatever was needed, no matter the task."

"We're also incredibly loyal," she added. "There are many people I've worked with in the past who are now using Epsilon3 at the companies they started (or joined) after SpaceX."

Karan Talati, cofounder and CEO, First Resonance

Total raised: $32 million, according to the company

Founding date: 2019

Key investors: Blue Bear Capital, Craft Ventures, Third Prime, Fika Ventures

Number of employees: 45, according to the company

Role at SpaceX: Software and manufacturing engineer (three years)

Talati now runs First Resonance, a Los Angeles-based startup that makes manufacturing software for hard-tech companies building things like air taxis and nuclear reactors. Talati found that SpaceX's unique talent pool and hard-charging disposition led to results. "The mindset wasn't if something could be done, but when," he said.

Tom Mueller, founder and CEO of Impulse Space

Total raised: $525 million, according to the company

Founding date: 2021

Key investors: Linse Capital, DFJ Growth, Valor Equity Partners, Founders Fund, Lux Capital, RTX Ventures, DCVC, Airbus Ventures, Spring Tide, First Principles Group, Balerion Space Ventures, Tamarack Global, Trousdale Ventures.

Number of employees: More than 350, according to the company

Role at SpaceX: Mueller was at SpaceX for nearly 19 years and last served as propulsion CTO.

Impulse Space builds spacecraft that move satellites and other cargo between different orbits.

SpaceX paved the way for many innovations in the space industry today, Mueller said. Among the lessons he learned: "the importance of building a great team and the value of an optimistic mindset — being willing to push beyond what people think is possible is the best way to break new ground and advance the industry."

Neel Kunjur, cofounder and CTO of K2 Space

Total raised: $450 million, according to the company

Founding date: June 2022

Key investors: Altimeter Capital, Lightspeed Venture Partners, First Round, Alpine Space Ventures, Redpoint, T. Rowe Price

Number of employees: 200, according to the company

Role at SpaceX: Neel Kunjur worked at SpaceX for about 5 ½ years, mostly recently as a senior avionics systems engineer for Dragon 2.

K2 Space builds large satellites that can operate across multiple orbits. Neel Kunjur cofounded the company with his brother, Karan.

"In many ways, SpaceX was an 'engineering bootcamp' where I was able to rapidly take on more responsibility than I ever thought possible," Neel Kunjur said. "That level of ownership translates well to being a founder, and the exposure to extremely high-caliber engineers helps with building talented teams."

Josh Clemente, cofounder and CEO of Levels

Total raised: $57 million, according to the company

Founding date: 2019

Key investors: a16z, Trust Ventures, Shrug.

Number of employees: 42, according to the company

Role at SpaceX: Clemente worked at the company for about 5 ½ years as a lead life support systems engineer.

Levels lets users track their metabolic health with real-time glucose monitoring, labs, and personalized coaching.

SpaceX ingrained a mindset of accountability, said Clemente. "The zero-jargon environment encouraged clarity of thought and communication, so people at every layer can follow context and contribute."

Harry O'Hanley, founder, chairman, and president of Long Wall

Total raised: $500 million, according to the company

Founding date: 2017

Key investors: Venrock, Lockheed Martin, Lynett Capital, T. Rowe Price, Fidelity, and others.

Number of employees: About 75, according to the company

Role at SpaceX: O'Hanley was at SpaceX for about four years and last served as manager of Falcon 9 integration and test.

Long Wall builds missile defense systems. The company started out as ABL, and was focused on commercial launch before pivoting to missile defense in 2024, O'Hanley said.

"The takeaway I appreciate most from SpaceX was learning to be a live player and quickly take on large challenges I'd never seen before," he said. "By constantly being put in this position, you develop a framework, intuition, and disposition to do so confidently. Building a company is exactly this — continuous novel challenges that you can't always anticipate."

Jonny Dyer, cofounder and CEO of Muon Space

Total equity raised: $136.2 million, according to the company

Founding date: 2021

Key investors: Congruent Ventures, Activate Capital, Radical Ventures, Acme Capital, Costanoa Ventures, Space Capital, ArcTern Ventures.

Number of employees: Around 200, according to the company

Role at SpaceX: Dyer was an engineering intern at SpaceX in the early 2000s.

Muon Space builds satellite fleets to collect and deliver data about the Earth, including climate and security data.

"When I was there in the super early days (2003, 2004) it really was existential for the company and we didn't know if we'd make it," Dyer said of his time at SpaceX. He added that the team was "executing violently to try and make it."

"As a founder, you're constantly context-switching, whether it's hardware, software, team dynamics," he continued, "and SpaceX helped train me to be fluent in all of it."

Troy Astorino, cofounder and CTO of PicnicHealth

Total raised: More than $100 million, according to the company

Founding date: 2014

Key investors: Amplify, Felicis, B Capital, Y Combinator.

Number of employees: About 100, according to the company

Role at SpaceX: Astorino was at SpaceX for about five months, working as a software engineer on guidance, navigation, and control.

PicnicHealth centralizes medical records, helping patients manage their care and also providing life-science companies with anonymized data for research.

"It's hard to pinpoint exactly what makes [SpaceX] uniquely successful — rapid build-test cycles, first-principles thinking, relentless efficiency, and obsessive focus come to mind," Astorino said. "It's a north star for how I think about PicnicHealth. Healthcare is notoriously hard to change, but so is getting to space."

Nathan Silvernail, cofounder and CEO, and Huade Tan, cofounder and CTO, Plantd

Total raised: $42 million, according to the company

Founding date: 2021

Key investors: American Family Ventures

Number of employees: 70, according to the company

Role at SpaceX: Silvernail, engineering manager for crew and Cargo Dragon (seven years); Tan, senior life support systems engineer (five years, 10 months)

Plantd is a startup in North Carolina that turns perennial grasses into building materials that the company says are carbon-negative and rival traditional plywood.

"SpaceX was basically when school really started," Silvernail said. "In university, you really only get to learn fundamentals with some hands-on stuff that you do in your free time. SpaceX gave me the opportunity to focus on developing my engineering skills while getting a massive amount of responsibility right off the bat."

Sunghyun Park, cofounder and CEO of Rebellions

Total raised: About $460 million, according to the company

Founding date: September 2020

Key investors: Arm, Samsung, Kindred Ventures, Top Tier Capital Partners, Saudi Aramco (via Wa'ed Ventures), SK Hynix, SK Telecom, Pavilion Capital, Korea Telecom, and others.

Number of employees: More than 270, according to the company

Role at SpaceX: Park worked at SpaceX for over a year as a Starlink ASIC design engineer.

Rebellions makes energy-efficient chips and software to run AI systems.

"At SpaceX, I learned the value of being uncompromising when it comes to engineering excellence and ambition," Park said, adding that "we believe real progress starts with those willing to take on what others avoid."

Robert Rose and Juerg Frefel, CEO and CTO, Reliable Robotics

Total raised: $134 million, according to the company

Founding date: 2017

Key investors: Coatue Management, Eclipse Ventures, Lightspeed Venture Partners

Number of employees: 150, according to the company

Role at SpaceX: Rose, director of flight software (5½ years); Frefel, senior hardware development manager (about 9½ years)

Reliable Robotics makes software that automates aircraft flight, from taxi and takeoff to landing. Rose says his experiences working on government certification processes at SpaceX and Tesla taught him to operate in highly regulated industries.

"Reporting directly to Elon," he said, "taught me a lot about business and management, but it really was my extended time spent navigating a complex government bureaucracy (and enjoying it) that uniquely qualified me for starting Reliable."

Ryan Westerdahl, cofounder and CEO, Turion Space

Total raised: $57 million, according to the company

Founding date: 2020

Key investors: Washington Harbour Partners, Giant Step Capital, Forward Deployed Venture Capital, Veterans Ventures, Aurelia Foundry, Y Combinator

Number of employees: 125, according to the company

Role at SpaceX: Dynamics engineer (eight years)

Turion Space makes micro-satellites with seniors to monitor objects in space. The company has been awarded a $15 million contract from the US Space Force. At SpaceX, Westerdahl learned to "be like water, learn fast, operate hardcore — and to keep going."

Will Bruey, cofounder and CEO of Varda Space Industries

Total raised: $329 million, according to the company

Founding date: January 2021

Key investors: Founders Fund, Also Capital, Natural Capital, Shrug Capital, Caffeinated Capital, Lux, Khosla Ventures.

Number of employees: More than 170, according to the company

Role at SpaceX: Bruey worked at SpaceX for almost five years, and last served as a spacecraft operator and systems officer.

Varda is a space manufacturing company that takes advantage of the benefits of microgravity to process materials in orbit — including pharmaceuticals and fiber optic cables — then brings them back to Earth.

"It is helpful to think of your company as a living organism," Bruey advised other aspiring founders, adding that "you don't control every aspect of its nature or environment, and it needs the nurture and guidance to be healthy, happy, and effective."

Robert Pinkerton, cofounder and CTO, Vori

Total raised: $27.9 million, according to the company

Founding date: 2019

Key investors: Greylock, South Park Commons, YCombinator

Number of employees: 55, according to the company

Role at SpaceX: Vehicle systems engineer (one year)

Vori makes software that manages analytics for small- and mid-sized supermarkets.

Launching the demo of the Falcon Heavy rocket and deploying 21 satellites at SpaceX taught Pinkerton "what a focused, mission-driven team can achieve when the bar is set extremely high," he said.

Brian Manning, cofounder and CEO, Xona Space Systems

Total raised: Over $150 million, according to the company

Founding date: 2019

Key investors: Craft Ventures, Future Ventures, Trimble, Toyota Ventures

Number of employees: 69, according to PitchBook

Role at SpaceX: Responsible engineer, thrust structure (two years)

Xona Space Systems makes hyper-precise satellite navigation software. In June, the company raised $92 million in a Series B round led by Craft Ventures.

SpaceX challenges commonly-held assumptions that limit progress, Manning said. "That mindset stuck with me. The most impactful companies are able to take things that seem impossible and change the world's perception to believing it is not only possible but inevitable."

New York City's swag (democratic) socialist renaissance has arrived.

Mayor Zohran Mamdani unveiled an affordable Big Apple-themed World Cup jersey — going for about $50 while FIFA's are topping $150 — this week, and people lined up for it in the thousands. Available only at the city-government-run NYC City Store location in Manhattan on June 12, residents woke up at dawn, played hooky from work, and spent hours outside for a chance at the merch. Most were also fans of the mayor.

"Our computers are kind of overheating," Colleen Litchfield, a 30-year-old actor who works in the theater industry, told Business Insider while they waited in line Friday morning. Litchfield and their coworker, Cameron Wycoff, 23, had been in line since 7:45 a.m. The two held their laptops in their hands and took customer service calls, using the fans City Hall gave out to cool down their computers — and themselves — in the nearly 90-degree weather.

Peter Bowman, 26, got to the line relatively "late," a little after 10 a.m. In his tote bag, he's got his work computer, ready to clock in to his software marketing gig at any minute. He described himself as a pop-up "veteran," used to waiting in long lines around the city, and then showed off his new Oura Ring, which he got at a recent pop-up.

Making ends meet in New York City is "tough," Bowman said, but there's opportunity. Maybe, just maybe, if you get in line at the right time, you can get hold of something you ordinarily couldn't afford.

The long, humid wait for a piece of the NYC World Cup

In true New Yorker spirit, LizaBanks Campagna, a content creator and tour guide for the city's Metropolitan Museum of Art, was unfazed by the line. She got in line around 7 a.m. on Friday, and it took three hours to claim her jersey. She took a photo in her new jersey with her line mates, whom she'd met that morning, adding that the "vibes were immaculate."

The line wrapped around the block hours after the store opened at 9 a.m. A security guard managing the line estimated it could have been thousands of people in total. At around 11 a.m., we spotted at least four people with open laptops attempting to work remotely. Several people tried to cool off with soccer-themed paper fans, while others pulled out sun umbrellas and reapplied sunscreen. City employees handed out water.

Designed by local artist Arsh Raziuddin and manufactured in a Brooklyn factory by Mazzi Sports, the jerseys were produced on a limited run — with only 1,500 total available. There are 500 of each colorway, a red-and-blue, black-and-white, and black-and-yellow version, all with the signature NYC World Cup logo on the chest and a "26" on the back. The primary color palette and font style is strikingly similar to the branding on Mamdani's videos, social media, and posters.

Several of the jerseys have since been posted on resale websites for $900 or more. A bundle of two was listed for $1,400.

"Jerseys represent more than just the team you support," the mayor said in a press release. "They are about pride in where you come from and who you are." He added that "nobody is priced out."

Robin Blosvern-Ruddy, a native New Yorker, was pretty far back in the line when Business Insider spoke with her: "I would have gotten here earlier, but I had to drop my kids off."

Two women who were lucky enough to get jerseys each arrived shortly after 7 a.m. Jessica Nguyen — who picked the black-and-yellow jersey — said she could wait in line for so long because she didn't have a work call until the afternoon. Her friends, who joined her in line, had to re-arrange their work schedules, she said.

"We are all really privileged to work from home," Nguyen, a 34-year-old who works in biotech, said. "Maybe he'll do another drop that feels a little more equitable," she added, hoping that Mamdani offers up another chance for New Yorkers to get jerseys, perhaps on a weekend.

The other lucky line-waiter, Saku Gopinath, 28, left with two red and blue jerseys for her and a friend, feeling ecstatic. "It feels good to actually walk away with something," she said, adding that she's waited in lines before only to be told there's nothing left.

After scoring a jersey, Gopinath said she was off to her work shift.

Beyond the merch, City Hall has made efforts to make the World Cup more accessible to residents and visitors. Last month, Mamdani announced the release of 1,000 $50 game tickets through a lottery system. Bowman, who said he voted for Mamdani and is an avid soccer fan, didn't get his hands on World Cup tickets, but said he was "glad" City Hall was "doing that."

Mamdani has been all-in on fitting NYC's sports summer into his broader affordability agenda and messaging. He has worked with local businesses to organize free programming, pick-up games, and watch parties around the five boroughs. It comes alongside ongoing efforts by the mayor's team to organize free NBA Finals watch parties for Knicks fans in parks and centralized streets.

"Affording New York? That's an oxymoron," one 24-year-old New Yorker — who didn't share her full name because her job didn't know she was clocking in from the line — told Business Insider.

She was a long way from the front, but held on to hope.

"If the Knicks can come back from 30 points, anything's possible," she said, referring to the historic 29-point comeback in Game 4 of the Finals on Wednesday.

• Mayor Zohran Mamdani launched COGE, New York's new government efficiency effort.
• The commission is hosting hearings where New Yorkers can testify on city spending.
• Attendees in Brooklyn spoke about AI, benefit programs, the local job market, and their affordability concerns.

Jessica Ariel-Wamala told representatives from New York City's government that she's used to sitting in traffic. She typically rises early and rushes to feed her daughter breakfast before driving to a Brooklyn preschool, but they always end up waiting in the same jam.

The 30-something said it's because a crowd of her neighbors must line up at their local civic office each morning, spilling into the street as they wait to prove their SNAP eligibility.

The city recorded tens of thousands of cases last year in which missed calls or incorrect contact information caused a family to lose access to SNAP — a situation that is sometimes best rectified with in-person meetings. "Sitting in traffic has become a monument to this inefficiency every single day," Ariel-Wamala told NYC's new Commission on Government Efficiency. Ariel-Wamala argued that administrative issues like this, which she believes can be prevented by AI, are causing people to go hungry.

In a Brooklyn Law School lecture hall, she was among about four dozen New Yorkers gathered at one of the hearings that COGE — which Mayor Zohran Mamdani created last month to reduce the city's "outdated bureaucratic barriers"— is hosting across the five boroughs. Forums like this have become a signature of the Mamdani administration, with the mayor also encouraging tenants to testify at "Rental Ripoff" and housing authority "In Your Neighborhood" hearings.

The commission asked attendees their opinions on government operations and how the city should be spending its money. Those attendees, living in a place where childcare costs rival rent payments and affordability is a top concern, wanted to know their tax dollars are being allocated thoughtfully — and efficiently.

New Yorkers spoke lots about efficiency, less about cuts

In three-minute testimonies, Brooklynites of all ages told COGE leaders their thoughts on AI, the job market, the budget, land use, and wasteful spending. Many took notes and nodded along as others spoke. A few suggested streamlining the city's contract process with private companies, spoke about ways to improve local elections. There were AI evangelists, skeptics, and naysayers.

One attendee said the city should be fully running its own websites and digital infrastructure: "Every licensing fee paid to an external software company is a dollar diverted from more critical services," she said. Another said that some of the police department's funding should be diverted to harm reduction and rehabilitation programs, adding that "My neighbors and I deserve to be able to call for medical help without fearing a misunderstanding by the police."

A third said the government should only hire for positions that directly fit into five-year policy goals — which might look like "title combination reforms and hiring process and management reforms."

Mamdani doesn't want people to confuse COGE with DOGE, the White House's now-defunct efficiency effort that sparked widespread firings and funding cancellations across the federal government. Leader Elon Musk "used that as a justification to simply slash and burn so many of the city services that Americans rely on," he said. Earlier this year, the Mayor's Office asked all city departments to appoint savings officers and suggest concrete ways to cut costs. Agencies suggested downsizing office space, reevaluating leases, and upgrading outdated technology.

Savings so far are a drop in the bucket for a city with an annual operating budget of over $116 billion. But Mamdani hopes that — aside from dollar savings — an efficiency push in NYC will give residents stronger faith in their government.

At Thursday's three-hour hearing, a handful of the speakers were policy advocates or government employees. But most were completely outside politics. They were parents, small business owners, college students, teachers, and artists who care about NYC.

"I'm inspired that you are as excited about a chapter of the city charter as some of us are about the Knicks," a commission leader joked after one testimony. "It's a really cool thing."

Still, despite dozens of passionate testimonies from residents about everything from AI applications to benefit access, one hallmark of efficiency (and the DOGE mission) was noticeably missing. There wasn't much talk about actually slashing spending — a point one of the last speakers clocked.

"We won't have COGE unless we talk about cuts," the man said. He spoke for just two minutes. "In the spirit of efficiency, I will yield my time."

• The 2026 World Cup comes after a decade of diplomatic maneuvering and FIFA intrigue.
• The US lost a 2010 bid to host soccer's biggest event.
• Trilateral dealmaking has brought the World Cup to North America.

In June 2018, the architects of the United Bid gathered for the last time in London, which a month earlier had become the base for their campaign to sell the world on the first-ever World Cup shared by three countries. The following morning, they would hand over their cellphones as a security precaution before boarding a flight to Moscow, where the 211 members of FIFA were primed to vote on whether to place its 2026 tournament jointly in Mexico, Canada, and the United States.

Eight years earlier, soccer's governing body had voted to award its 2022 showcase to Qatar — a tiny desert nation with not a single stadium ready for World Cup play and summer temperatures exceeding 100 degrees — over the favored United States. The result stunned American soccer executives and triggered years of bitterness, suspicion, and eventually federal investigations that helped bring down much of FIFA's old leadership structure.

In a private room at the River Cafe on the north bank of the River Thames, those who had spent years plotting an American comeback participated in a ritual that carried the feel of a closing dinner before a decisive battle. Over plates of Italian food and wine, they reflected on what would be at stake in Moscow — a referendum on the United States' place in the world of soccer.

"We didn't know for sure what the outcome was going to be," said Neil Buethe, then-chief communications officer at the US Soccer Federation. "We felt strongly that if North America hosted 2026, we would put on the biggest and best World Cup ever, but we didn't know for certain if the rest of the world thought the same."

Now, eight years after that dinner in London, FIFA has kicked off a tournament far larger than any it has ever hosted before — a 48-team, three-country competition that is stretching from Guadalajara to Vancouver to the Meadowlands.

The decadelong maneuvering to bring the World Cup back to the United States represented a venture in trilateral cooperation just as other relations with Mexico and Canada were growing more fractious than they had been in recent memory. The unlikely success of that collaboration transformed the internal politics of FIFA, became a defining aspect of President Donald Trump's second term and may permanently change the way the US government participates in sporting mega-events.

This insider account of the long road to the 2026 World Cup is drawn from interviews with organizers and government officials, some of whom were granted anonymity to discuss private deliberations, along with internal documents and contemporaneous notes reviewed by POLITICO, which is, along with Business Insider, part of the Axel Springer Global Reporters Network. This is the story of how the US government broke FIFA and then helped build the organization back into something bigger and more politically powerful than before.

Death in Zurich

The Americans were optimistic as they trekked through snow to enter the Messe Zurich convention center on December 2, 2010. The two dozen members of the US bid team took their seats in bleachers from which they would watch a consequential vote that would determine the trajectory of the sport for years to come.

Days earlier, a delegation — including executives from the US Bid Committee, the US Soccer Federation, and Major League Soccer — had presented the American case to FIFA's leadership in the auditorium of the organization's dungeon-like headquarters. There were four other countries in the competition, all from soccer's Asian region: Australia, Japan, South Korea, and Qatar.

The bid was the result of two years' work by the American bid committee, which had selected 18 US cities that had the stadium facilities as prospective hosts. The bid's technical advantage was never in doubt: The United States had shown it could stage a successful World Cup in 1994, and possessed a surfeit of the large stadiums and big-city hotel rooms along with the headquarters of many of FIFA's leading corporate sponsors. The Americans were so confident with their chances that they arrived in Zurich already having booked a celebration venue, a restaurant bar within walking distance of the luxury Baur au Lac hotel, which served as FIFA's de facto headquarters when foreign soccer officials were in town.

The decision rested with FIFA's executive committee, a collection of 24 power brokers elected or appointed by their respective continental federations who would make the choice via secret ballot. It was a structure that critics had long alleged made vote trading and corruption easy. In fact, two of the committee's members had already been suspended from the 2022 vote after a London newspaper reported allegations that they had solicited bribes in exchange for their votes in the World Cup selection process.

The US Bid Committee treated its presentation as a show of political force. Former President Bill Clinton, who was in office during the last World Cup in the US, led the delegation as non-executive chair, joined by Attorney General Eric Holder. The 88-year-old former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, a huge soccer fan who had played a crucial role promoting the 1994 tournament, was honorary chair of the bid. (He did not travel to Zurich for the final vote, but spoke of wanting to attend the 2022 tournament at almost 100.) Then-President Barack Obama had written to then-FIFA President Sepp Blatter with childhood memories of playing soccer while living in Indonesia as a way of expressing support for the US to again host.

When Blatter opened the envelope with the results of the executive-committee vote that had been taken earlier in the day at FIFA headquarters, some members of the US team thought they had misheard him. Celebratory screams came immediately from the Qatari delegation seated nearby.

A shocked US delegation decamped to the restaurant where they had planned to celebrate because the alcohol had already been purchased. Then Clinton and actor Morgan Freeman went to a smaller group dinner at the Savoy Hotel.

"It was so sad. It was like a death," said Buethe. "Nobody was really talking at first."

It was hard to know where the US bid had gone wrong. Obama received a courtesy call a few days before the vote and was told the US was likely to lose, according to a FIFA insider's memoir, but the result caught most of the bid team by total surprise. All the Americans knew was that they had lost 14 votes to 8.

"I was undecided with whether I never wanted to see these people ever again, because we had a pretty good idea of what had happened," said US Soccer President Sunil Gulati. "Or if I want to start bidding the next hour."

The rat in Trump Tower

Events over the next year would feed American suspicions that the vote to award the 2022 tournament had never been fully on the level. In June 2011, one of the architects of Qatar's bid was booted from FIFA's presidential elections after whistleblowers alleged he had attempted to bribe 24 Caribbean delegates for their votes, offering unmarked brown envelopes containing $40,000 cash each.

The revelations opened up a wide-ranging probe of corruption in global soccer. FIFA Vice President Jack Warner resigned in 2011, threatening a "tsunami" of revelations and was later accused of receiving $1.65 million from Asian Football Confederation President Mohammed bin Hammam, which Warner denied influenced his vote.

FIFA responded by establishing a series of governance initiatives intended to restore confidence in the organization. Between 2011 and 2013, the organization created committees, task forces, and an Independent Governance Committee, but the core power remained concentrated around Blatter and the Executive Committee. US officials criticized the narrow set of reforms that were implemented as cosmetic.

The United States made reform a litmus test during the next campaign for FIFA's presidency, making it clear the United States would put itself forward as a World Cup host again only if there were changes that made the process more transparent and accountable. Gulati, a former World Bank economist, pushed for commitments that would oblige FIFA to abide by its technical standards on issues like stadium capacity, along with public disclosure of how each country voted.

In May 2015, American soccer officials threw their support behind a challenge to Blatter. Carlos Cordeiro, then a vice president of the US Soccer Federation, worked for the campaign of Jordanian Prince Ali bin Al-Hussein.

"We knew it would hurt us going against the favorite," Gulati said of his federation's decision to support Al-Hussein rather than Blatter. "There are some things more important than hosting a World Cup." Blatter would not remain in office long. In the early morning hours of May 27, 2015, Swiss police arrived at the Baur au Lac, where top FIFA officials had gathered for the organization's annual congress. Guests awoke to flashing lights outside the lakeside hotel as plainclothes officers escorted bleary-eyed soccer executives through the lobby and into waiting vehicles.

The police were, it soon became clear, working at the behest of the US government. Later that day, at a Brooklyn press conference, Attorney General Loretta Lynch released a 47-count indictment against 14 defendants, accusing senior FIFA-linked officials of racketeering, wire fraud, and decades of systemic bribery tied to marketing rights and international tournaments. The key to the five-year Eastern District of New York investigation was Chuck Blazer, a longtime American soccer executive who occupied two Trump Tower apartments, one reportedly just for his cats. After coming under scrutiny for tax evasion and financial misconduct, he pleaded guilty in 2013 and became an FBI informant as they probed world soccer's financial workings.

Blazer covertly recorded conversations with fellow soccer officials, helping prosecutors expose a culture in which bribes and backroom deals were treated as routine business. While the initial US indictment announced by Lynch the day of the Zurich raid focused largely on marketing and media-rights corruption, subsequent probes — including one initiated by Swiss authorities — came to focus on the process FIFA used to choose World Cup host countries.

Blatter went on to win reelection for FIFA president that Friday, May 29, before resigning the following Monday, as it became clear the investigation would continue and even widen. Blatter's resignation set up a wide-open race for FIFA's presidency early the next year.

Subsequent indictments revealed that executive-committee votes to award the 2018 World Cup to Russia and the 2022 tournament to Qatar had been tainted by vote-buying. Within days of the raid, FIFA suspended the 2026 World Cup bidding process, arguing that it was impossible to proceed with another host-selection process while the process was under such scrutiny.

In December 2015, FIFA's Reform Committee issued a 12-page blueprint for overhauling the organization, including by replacing the Executive Committee with an expanded FIFA Council. Over the next year, the organization fundamentally reshaped the World Cup bidding process. The 2026 host would be chosen by all 211 member associations, replacing a system in which a small group of executives made the decision. The logic was simple: Influencing the larger, more diverse electorate would be far more difficult than swaying a handful of insiders. Bid requirements became more rigorous, while disclosure, transparency, and ethics rules were tightened.

"FIFA underwent deep-rooted governance and management reforms over the last decade with a clear focus on transparency and on its mandate to develop football all around the world," the organization said in an emailed statement.

Gianni Infantino, a Swiss-Italian lawyer who had helped lead soccer's European confederation, used his work on the Reform Committee as a launchpad for a run to succeed Blatter. The United States went into the February 2016 vote again backing Prince Ali, but he finished a distant third in the first round. The US then threw its support to Infantino, triggering a stampede from other countries in the hemisphere, helping deliver a conclusive 115-vote majority. A fourth candidate, former French diplomat Jérome Champagne, attributed Infantino's victory to "a strong alliance between Europe and North America and the Anglo-Saxon world."

One of Infantino's earliest moves was leading the newly created FIFA Council to block European and Asian confederation members from bidding again so soon after Russia was awarded the 2018 World Cup and Qatar the 2022 tournament. The move eliminated half the potential host countries and dramatically tilted the odds in favor of the World Cup returning to North America.

A coalition of the willing

In May 2016, FIFA gathered in Mexico City for its first annual congress under Infantino's leadership. For the Americans, whose interest in seeking the tournament again had been satisfied by FIFA's reforms, the Mexico City gathering represented a chance to cultivate support for an entirely different theory for how to win hosting rights.

"We knew we could host it alone, but a combined bid would be stronger," Gulati later acknowledged.

Joining with Canada and Mexico had both a practical and symbolic logic. Given the potential importance of regional blocs under the new voting system, three federations would have a stronger chance together than if they competed against one another. There also could be something powerful about seeing the United States partnering with its neighbors at a time then-presidential candidate Donald Trump was questioning whether the country should even bother with NATO, the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal, or Paris Climate Agreement.

That case was made by Canadian Soccer Association President Victor Montagliani, who argued that a multi-country bid would be more politically attractive to FIFA than a purely American one. There was some opportunism to the argument: Canada lacked the capacity to mount a competitive bid for a men's World Cup of its own, and a partnership with the United States was likely the only route to getting one in the near future.

"Victor's comments, which pulled some truth, literally was: 'Listen, you guys aren't particularly liked around the world,'" said Gulati. "Canada, on the diplomatic level, was more well-liked."

The Mexicans had different considerations. Gulati's negotiating partner, Emilio Azcárraga Jean, was chair of the powerful mass-media company Televisa, and he had a patrimony that spoke to Mexico's experience around the World Cup. Azcárraga's father had served as local organizing committee chair for two World Cups, and Azcárraga sat atop the company that owned Estadio Azteca, the Mexico City stadium that had hosted Pelé's Brazil team in 1970 and Diego Maradona's "Hand of God" goal in 1986.

As Azcárraga stood next to Gulati on the pitch of one of the most iconic venues in soccer history, he mentioned to Gulati that he wanted any jointly hosted tournament's opening match to take place there. Gulati jokingly threatened to walk away from the entire bid, leaving the Mexicans to coordinate with the Canadians alone, if Azcárraga insisted again. "You guys can do it together," Gulati recalled telling Azcárraga, "but you can't use American airspace either."

The three countries still had to determine the internal balance of power between them in a joint bid. Gulati, Montagliani, and Mexican Federation President Decio de María — who had taken over for Azcárraga as his country's point person in the negotiations — debated how many matches would take place in each country. During the only other jointly hosted World Cup, in 2002, Japan and South Korea split the schedule evenly.

Over the next few months, on the sidelines of soccer-governance meetings in Zurich, Hawaii, and Aruba, representatives of the three countries came to an agreement: Three-quarters of the tournament matches would go to the United States, including all decisive contests in the quarterfinals and beyond. In April, the countries' soccer officials decided they were ready to tell the world that the United States, Mexico, and Canada would jointly pursue the 2026 World Cup.

They scrambled to secure a venue for an event that would give the appearance of a carefully orchestrated international announcement. But the off-stage politics were more complicated, especially as Trump entered 2017 planning to withdraw from the primary vehicle for cooperation between the US and its neighbors — the quarter-century-old North American Free Trade Agreement — and spent the year sparring with Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. A single negative comment from Trump about partnering with them on the World Cup could easily torpedo the bid.

Gulati asked Boston sports executive Bob Kraft, a Trump friend, to make introductions to White House staff so he could brief the administration on the intention to mount a joint bid. Gulati explained that the bid process was more transparent under FIFA's new leadership and stood a greater chance of success than the effort to win the 2018 cup had. The White House designated Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner to serve as its point person on the effort, and the bid committee began to prepare monthly updates on its progress to the White House. "The president of the United States is fully supportive," Gulati declared from a stage on the 102nd-floor observatory of One World Trade Center days later. "He is especially pleased that Mexico is a part of this bid, and in the last few days, we've gotten further encouragement on that. We are not at all concerned about some of the issues that other people may raise. We looked at bidding alone and decided in the end, we wanted to bid with our partners in North America, and we have strong encouragement from President Trump to that end."

Campaign kickoff

Veterans of the failed bid for the 2018 tournament returned to the Midtown Manhattan headquarters of Major League Soccer to begin the process of preparing a new bid. They were under a far more grueling timeline than the previous effort, which had taken more than two years to prepare. It had generated tens of thousands of contracts, thousands of pages of technical documents, and countless political negotiations.

This time, there would be just eight months, the result of an "expedited" bidding process imposed by FIFA as it expanded the tournament in search of greater revenue opportunities: increasing the number of teams from 32 to 48, doubling the number of required venues from eight to 16.

The North Americans named their project the United Bid. The ultimate product it would present to FIFA would be a prospectus known as a "bid book" — a sales and marketing pitch for the three-country project filled with data addressing FIFA's technical requirements around issues like transportation infrastructure and stadium accessibility.

For months, the United Bid proceeded without any competition. Then, on the August 2017 date that FIFA set as a deadline for countries to express interest, that changed. Morocco entered the fray, and while the country would go months without disclosing much about its plans, the North Americans knew it would rely on promises of ambitious stadium construction and new infrastructure plans they did not intend to match.

For John Kristick, who had been managing director of the bid in 2010, memories of losing out to Qatar had never fully passed. He had moved on to a successful career at WPP, the global advertising giant, where a copy of the 2022 bid book sat on a shelf in his office. Photographs from the experience still hung on the walls.

"They taunted me every day," he recalled.

The team working on the bid resembled a presidential campaign crossed with an Olympic organizing committee. Former FIFA competitions executive Jim Brown became managing director, an Al Gore speechwriter named Brian Reich took charge of communications, and the former manager of stadium operations for the 1994 World Cup, Tim Larkin, led on stadiums. Around them grew an ecosystem of lawyers, lobbyists, communications operatives, stadium consultants, and city officials. One internal presentation described the operation as encompassing more than 750 people across dozens of cities, who had to commit as prospective hosts before the bid book itself could be drafted. "The democracy that we live in required us to essentially marshal that out across the federal government. It's not like any one signature. It's a series of commitments, and we had to do the same in Canada and Mexico," Cordeiro said.

After losing the 2022 World Cup to Qatar, many of the people involved in the American bid assumed it would be difficult to persuade cities to sign up. The failed campaign had consumed years of work. Mayors had held press conferences. Sports commissions had spent money. Local organizers had rallied business leaders and stadium owners. Then they had all watched FIFA hand the tournament to Qatar.

Kristick worried that many cities would simply refuse to go through the process again. It was a weariness matched among United Bid strategists whose lingering distrust of FIFA led them to wonder whether anyone in Zurich would actually care about the hotel-occupancy rates detailed in their bid book.

"We didn't trust the competence or the process," recalled a senior participant in the bid. "I didn't think their reforms were serious reforms."

One moment stuck with that person, who traveled to FIFA headquarters in Zurich as preparations for the 2026 process slowly took shape. At one meeting, FIFA officials proudly introduced outside auditors sitting at the end of the table who were supposedly monitoring the integrity of the process.

Then the meeting broke for coffee and a smoke break.

"And the auditors disappeared for a break, too," the person recalled. "The whole thing was so obviously window-dressing."

The 'idiot' ratio

Kristick's first call was to Dallas, which had hosted matches at the Cotton Bowl in 1994. He was surprised by the speed with which Monica Paul, the longtime executive who led the city's sports commission and had been part of the failed 2022 effort, said, "We're in."

The response repeated itself across North America, with more than 50 cities across the continent expressing preliminary interest in hosting matches, an enthusiasm that reflected how much the sport had changed since 2010. Major League Soccer had grown significantly, through television audiences and attendance in dedicated stadiums across the country. Soccer finally felt like a sport of the American present, rather than of its perpetual future, and the World Cup no longer a speculative investment.

Representatives from 32 candidate cities, a mix of sports administrators and city managers, descended on Houston in November 2017 for a host-city conference, in which United Bid staffers laid out a set of contractual requirements that FIFA treated as rigid and nonnegotiable. (The documents outlining those standards had arrived from Zurich later than expected, compressing an already impossible schedule.)

Cities had to commit to sweeping legal guarantees, transportation obligations, stadium modifications, and security arrangements, while indemnifying FIFA against potentially enormous liabilities. In other words, if something went wrong during the tournament, FIFA wanted cities to absorb much of the risk. "It was sort of take it or leave it with FIFA," one person involved in the process said.

The cities wanted to know what was in the contracts and whether they should sign them, cycling through a conference room in a series of hourlong meetings with United Bid personnel that another participant likened to "speed dating." "We were the intermediary between the cities on the one hand and FIFA on the other," said Michael Kuh, the bid's top attorney, who now leads the sports practice at Simpson Thacher & Bartlett. "I just kept telling the cities that if they wanted to participate, they would have to take a leap of faith, which is advice lawyers only reserve for rare occasions."

Three of the five finalists for the 2024 Olympics, whose countries had already spent millions to get that far, abandoned their bids before the final selection was made, in two cases (Hamburg and Budapest) once voters expressed their disapproval in referenda. Already, American candidate city Boston had withdrawn after activists aroused popular opposition.

Municipal officials returned to their cities from Houston having to sell elected officials on why they should buck that trend. Some simply struggled to explain why taxpayers should assume enormous risks without a clear guarantee of financial return. Over time, some cities dropped out. Others revolted at the terms.

Chicago, which carried scars from another failed international bid, did both. In 2009, the city had mounted an expensive campaign to host the 2016 Summer Olympics. Obama had personally lobbied the International Olympic Committee to bring its games to his hometown. Nonetheless, the city was eliminated in the first round of voting. Years later, Chicago officials remained skeptical of global sporting organizations and the promises they made.

Chicago had sent its representatives to Houston, where they offered assurances that the city would join the bid. But when the contractual documents were returned to the United Bid office, they included handwritten caveats next to Mayor Rahm Emanuel's signature.

"Chicago would take all the risk, and FIFA would get 60 percent of the reward," said Emanuel, who served as Obama's chief of staff in 2009 before becoming mayor. "Only idiots do transactions with those ratios."

FIFA disputes the characterization that host cities were asked to shoulder disproportionate risk. A FIFA spokesperson said host cities were responsible for a defined set of obligations, and noted that host cities in all three host countries received government assistance. The spokesperson added that FIFA is covering expenses, including stadium and venue rentals, temporary infrastructure, power requirements, broadcasting operations, private security, and venue operations. FIFA also emphasized that, unlike many previous World Cups, the 2026 tournament requires little new infrastructure investment because existing stadiums are being used largely in their current configuration.

When Emanuel was told that such changes would not pass muster with FIFA, he eventually withdrew the city from the process, releasing a public statement that criticized the bid and FIFA. United Bid strategists worried about the potential precedent: If one city publicly rejected FIFA's terms, others might follow, throwing the entire bid into jeopardy.

"We were only as strong as our weakest link," said Kristick, who assuaged the anxieties of another US city that considered withdrawing after Chicago did. Kristick declined to name the city.

Vancouver, which had withstood an organized left-wing opposition to its decision to host the 2010 Winter Olympics, had its own qualms. The provincial government of British Columbia, which controlled the BC Place stadium, worried about exposure to financial risk. Vancouver asked for an extension, and got one.

Vancouver promised the paperwork was coming, but nothing made it to New York. As the late January deadline approached to finalize the 1,000-page bid book, officials printed out two different versions: one including Vancouver as a host city and one without.

A bid official was relieved to finally find a package from Vancouver arrive by mail. But when he opened it, every document was unsigned. Months of negotiations had ended with a box full of blank paperwork.

"It wasn't just that they declined to participate," the official recalled years later. "It felt like a real 'fuck you.'"

The bid book, sans Vancouver, was organized along with other necessary components of the United Bid submission. One was a letter from the U.S. State Department authorizing visa access in compliance with requirements set by FIFA, which Secretary of State Rex Tillerson had signed and dated on March 12. By the time it arrived, via FedEx, the next morning in New York, Tillerson had been fired by Trump via Twitter.

The battle against Morocco

The American play to become a soccer power was derailed by an on-field defeat. The men's national team lost to Trinidad and Tobago in their final match of the World Cup qualifying campaign in October 2017, denying the United States a spot at the sport's leading tournament for the first time since 1986.

The shock result caused a leadership crisis at US Soccer, the nonprofit federation that serves as the sport's governing body in the United States. Facing criticism for the team's failure, Gulati — who had served as the federation's president since 2006 and had spent years laying the groundwork for the 2026 bid — decided not to seek reelection.

A wide-open race to be US Soccer's top official loomed, featuring a number of retired players who promised a break from the status quo. Cordeiro, who had served on the US Soccer board since 2007, was the establishment candidate in an election dominated by reformers promising to blow up the system. When he won the presidency in February 2018, he inherited responsibility for the World Cup bid.

Cordeiro, a former Goldman Sachs executive, knew that the early days of his presidency would be measured by the success of the bid and approached the bid like a high-stakes corporate merger.

"There was an intensity shift," a person working on the bid said of the change in leadership from Gulati to Cordeiro. "Carlos came in, and this was going to be his thing. It was helpful in a sense — new energy, new ideas — but it was also a lot."

The day after winning the presidency, Cordeiro flew from Orlando to New York for meetings at Major League Soccer's offices and onward to Bratislava, where European soccer officials were gathering for a UEFA meeting. There, Cordeiro heard something that startled him: The United Bid was in trouble.

North American officials felt that they possessed a stronger technical case than Morocco could offer. The United States, Mexico, and Canada had stadiums, airports, training sites, hotels, transportation networks, and corporate infrastructure — strengths that FIFA's own revamped process was supposed to reward.

"Everybody knew that the infrastructure was going to be very good. All the stadiums were there, all the facilities to train were there, all the hotels were there," said de María.

Morocco represented serious competition, in part due to geographical advantages. The new process meant that the 2026 vote would be decided by more than 200 national federations rather than a select group of FIFA insiders. Morocco had substantial support from across the more than 50 members of the Confederation of African Football — CONCACAF, which includes North America, had just over 40 — and a foothold in the Middle East.

Morocco also seemed to be making inroads in Europe, through appeals based on ties of language, culture, and colonial history. France had become one of Morocco's most important sporting allies in Europe, Cordeiro believed, because French architects, engineers, and construction firms stood to benefit from Morocco's need to build or renovate stadiums and transportation infrastructure.

"Europe was the toughest," Cordeiro recalled. "France was not supporting the US for one particular reason: They saw a unique opportunity to get all the business that would follow had Morocco won."

Cordeiro wanted the bid team to be more proactive in its outreach to the 211 federations that would have a say in who was awarded the World Cup. They started a tracking sheet based on where each country stood: likely United Bid supporters in green, persuadable targets in yellow, and likely Morocco backers in red.

The vote would be won, Cordeiro believed, in Asia, Europe, and the Middle East, with crucial swing votes from the former Soviet bloc split across the regional confederations.

The North Americans could argue that their tournament would generate more revenue than any World Cup in history, producing larger distributions for FIFA member nations. They also knew they could not rely on technical superiority alone, outlined through facts in the bid book.

To assuage members who could be worried about the impact of Trump's policies — especially the travel ban on majority-Muslim nations upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in December 2017 — the United Bid asked Kushner to extract a commitment from Trump about free travel around the World Cup. Over three letters addressed to Infantino, Trump vowed that foreign teams, officials, and fans from qualifying countries would face no restrictions entering the United States for the tournament.

Trump's increasing enthusiasm for securing the World Cup also risked generating backlash. "The U.S. has put together a STRONG bid w/ Canada & Mexico for the 2026 World Cup," he wrote in an April 26, 2018, social media post. "It would be a shame if countries that we always support were to lobby against the U.S. bid. Why should we be supporting these countries when they don't support us (including at the United Nations)?"

FIFA responded by obliquely pointing out that Trump had likely defied its bidding rules, which are supposed to keep the process immune from external political influence. One member of Morocco's 2026 bid committee told CNN, "I think the Donald Trump factor is helping Morocco."

If they were going to sell the world on awarding its tournament to Trump's America, they needed to launch FIFA's first global political campaign.

The three amigos

The campaign had to acknowledge the reality of the Trump era, Cordeiro concluded upon his return from Europe. He envisioned one major messaging shift: The bid that had launched at an iconic New York location would no longer present itself as a U.S.-led effort supported by its smaller neighbors, but as a North American partnership. The three countries would campaign as equals.

"We elevated Canada and Mexico presidents to co-chairs as equals with me to demonstrate to the world that this was a truly joint bid," Cordeiro said.

From then on, the bid's lobbying teams traveled in threes whenever possible: one representative from the United States, one from Mexico, and one from Canada. Cordeiro believed the visual mattered, showing skeptical federations that the bid was not simply the United States asking for the World Cup again.

"What we were putting together was a North American face in which the three countries can work together," said de María.

The campaign set up its headquarters in London, where strategists tailored regional approaches from the color-coded list. Cordeiro asked Brown, a former FIFA executive with African relationships, to look for places where the United Bid could pick off votes from Morocco on its home continent. In the Maghreb and Francophone Africa, Morocco's support was locked down, but Brown saw a plausible opening beyond: English-speaking southern Africa, Portuguese-speaking countries, and Spanish-speaking Equatorial Guinea.

"Get us 10 to 15 votes," Cordeiro recalled telling Brown. "That's all we need."

In Europe, where the bid team had to work beyond France's sphere of influence, the bid officials tried to get in front of all 55 members of the continental confederation UEFA to make their case. A vote from Montenegro or Malta counted exactly the same as one from Germany.

"There was a collective effort not to ignore anybody," Buethe said. "No one was too small."

For nearly a month, the bid's leadership team used London as the hub of a global lobbying campaign, dispatching delegations across continents for whirlwind meetings that often lasted just a day before the next flight. At one point, one team met with representatives from four countries in a single day. In Belarus, the delegation arrived without visas and was barred from leaving the airport, so federation officials came to them instead, gathering in a VIP lounge for an impromptu pitch session. The campaign soon became a blur of red-eye flights, hotel conference rooms, and federation headquarters, with staffers sometimes learning their next destination only hours before departure.

"We'd come back to London and regroup," Buethe recalled. "Then we'd find out where we were going next."

Personal familiarity with the United States was a huge source of advantage. Foreign officials who had attended American universities reminisced about bars in Washington. Latvian federation president Kaspars Gorkšs, a former captain of the country's national team, recalled watching the 1994 World Cup as a young player. When Gorkšs invoked Alexi Lalas, the defender who was among the most recognizable members of the US team, Buethe promised to introduce them.

The United Bid made its first major breakthrough in the Nordic bloc. In the spring of 2018, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, and Finland convened a meeting near the Copenhagen airport to hear from both campaigns."The fact that the US was prepared to share the World Cup with its two neighbors during a time of heightened political tension was very well received," Cordeiro said.

The Scandinavians endorsed the United Bid, which began a rush of favorable announcements. England was supportive, and Germany was, too. As the June 13 vote approached, bid strategists were confident of backing from a majority of the 211 voting members. But after their experience in 2010, they worried about the possibility that some federations would change their vote at the last minute, triggering a rush away from the frontrunner.

"You lose a few dozen votes and all of a sudden it's a tie game," Cordeiro said. In London, the United Bid delegation prepared for a trip to the FIFA Congress in Moscow, which would take place as Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation intensified its focus on the role of Russian security services in the 2016 U.S. election. Security advisors walked delegation members through the process of using burner phones, laptops, and hard drives, a routine demand complicated by the large file size of the bid materials themselves.

The team, whose members had been spread across the continents, gathered for their farewell dinner the night before they would fly together to Moscow. Cordeiro arrived at River Cafe with a version of deal toys — soccer-themed Hermès ties. He handed one to each of the three federation presidents, who would dress for the FIFA Congress in identical ties but for different national colors: de María in green, Cordeiro in blue, and Montagliani in red.

The final pitch to the FIFA Congress reflected the United Bid's delicate navigation of the moment's politics. Instead of showcasing the countries' elected leaders — who were then frequently sparring over issues from a border wall to dairy and aluminum tariffs — the presentation featured three young players, one from each country.

This time, when Infantino read out the name of the winning bid, there were no surprises: The United Bid carried 134 votes to Morocco's 65. (In Washington, Kushner's allies quickly claimed credit for his contributions to winning over Persian Gulf countries, including Saudi Arabia and Bahrain.)

It was not lost on any members of the bid team — who were delighted when The Washington Post editorial page approvingly called it "the NAFTA World Cup" — that their undertaking represented the type of cross-border venture that Trump's vow to sever the continent's free-trade pact could make a thing of the past. "Prior to this project, Mexico and Canada and the U.S. had the NAFTA agreement, so we worked together for many years with the U.S. and Canada on a commercial basis," reflected de María. "What we were putting together was a North American face in which the three countries can work together to put together their abilities to handle an event like this."

Trump takes the field

Later that summer, Infantino made the first of what would be many trips to the Oval Office. He presented Trump with a referee's red card and a soccer jersey emblazoned TRUMP 26, even though it was then unimaginable that Trump would be in office during the year when the tournament took place.

Nonetheless, it was clear from the zest with which Trump brandished the red card for the cameras and associated himself with the bidding process — "it only took one call because when I heard 'World Cup,' I wanted to do it," he recounted — that he was ready to claim the tournament as his own. It was a dynamic that would repeat itself just two weeks later, when the 2028 Summer Olympics were formally assigned to Los Angeles.

FIFA turned its attention to the 2022 tournament in Qatar, which had to be staged under pandemic conditions (and in the winter due to the country's hot climate). Meanwhile, North American cities jostled for the right to be one of the 16 that would get to host matches in 2026. In 2022, Montreal withdrew from contention after the provincial government refused to fund stadium renovations, allowing FIFA to replace it with Vancouver, which was also Montagliani's hometown. (Washington, DC, also dropped out of contention as a solo city during this period, merging its bid with Baltimore.)

While both Mexico and Canada have sports ministries, the United States does not have a major federal office set up to coordinate the country's participation in global competitions. In 1994, a single national committee run out of the U.S. Soccer Federation served as the domestic organization responsible for actually putting on the World Cup, leasing stadiums and selling tickets. For the 2026 tournament, FIFA changed its approach. Each of the 11 U.S. cities selected by FIFA in June 2022 to host matches developed an individual contractual relationship with the organization, managed through a so-called host city committee. The set-up gave FIFA, which opened a Miami office to oversee tournament planning, more control and access to match revenue.

That left open the question of who would serve as a point of contact for both FIFA and the cities on nationwide policy concerns that were sure to affect tournament planning, touching on security, infrastructure, and immigration. Then-President Joe Biden designated Secretary of Cabinet Affairs Evan Ryan to lead an interagency working group that would consider what role there was for the federal government to play. FIFA gingerly attempted to build relationships with Biden, hiring former administration staffers at the lobbying firm Foley & Lardner to help navigate Washington.

"There were very early discussions about visas, for example, and how would you go from one country to another country and come back in here," said Cordeiro, who, after resigning from the US Soccer foundation in 2020, joined FIFA as a senior advisor to Infantino and his primary liaison to the US government.

When US voters decided to send Trump back to the White House in 2024, Cordeiro saw an opening for a different relationship with the federal government. Infantino joined the trail of world leaders to Mar-a-Lago during the transition period, where he told Trump about the first-ever FIFA Club World Cup that would come to the United States in the summer of 2025 as something of a logistical dry run for the World Cup a year later. The night before Trump's inauguration, Infantino sat in the audience for a rally in Washington where Trump mentioned him by name five times. During the swearing-in ceremony the next day, Infantino sat a few rows behind Trump, the rare foreigner visible to television cameras during the transfer of American power.

A decade after plans for it were first hatched, the 2026 World Cup would be Trump's tournament.

Meet me at the Meadowlands

In March 2025, Trump welcomed Infantino back to the Oval Office, calling him "the king of soccer." This time, Infantino was not there just for pleasantries: He had already secured the White House's commitment on FIFA's first major procedural demand of his administration.

Infantino, who had overseen tournaments in Russia and Qatar, was used to dealing with a strong central authority in World Cup host countries rather than 11 different private-sector entities in communities as different as Boston, Miami, and Kansas City. When Infantino asked Trump in early 2025 to establish a body within the White House that would lead the federal government's role in World Cup preparations, the president immediately agreed.

Trump appointed Andrew Giuliani — a former pro golfer, failed New York gubernatorial candidate, and son of former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani — to lead the White House Task Force on the FIFA World Cup. The body included Cabinet secretaries from the departments of state, transportation, and homeland security, where it set up an office to coordinate efforts across government at all levels.

"I think it's really helpful that the decision-makers in that room are also task force members," Giuliani told POLITICO in January of the complexities of preparing to welcome millions of visitors with global conflicts going on.

The task force ensured that host cities could access the $625 million in security funding in Trump's "One Big Beautiful Bill" through a grant program managed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. It worked with the Pentagon to organize tabletop exercises anticipating security threats and FBI on counter-drone training for local law enforcement officials.

"The task force did one thing for us," said a FIFA official, "which was it gave us a credibility that we didn't have and a visibility that we didn't have before this administration."

Infantino, meanwhile, embarked on his own efforts to win over the American political class. Repeating the mantra "You have to be local to be global," he set off on a campaign-style tour barnstorming governors' mansions, city halls, and tribal authorities, pledging donations to their causes along the way.

He used last summer's FIFA Club World Cup as an occasion to raise his public profile. He hosted Trump during the tournament's final at MetLife Stadium, in New Jersey's Meadowlands, with the two men sitting together during the match and Infantino leading Trump out on the field at its conclusion. Some members of London-based Chelsea were visibly confused to find themselves sharing the winner's platform with an American politician.

Infantino's sustained attention remained on the man in the White House. (The World Cup host committees abandoned their Democratic-led lobbying team in favor of one headed by former Minnesota Sen. Norm Coleman that specialized in outreach to Republicans.) Infantino appeared more frequently in public with Trump than any other world leader over the course of 2025, with the two men seeming to genuinely enjoy each other's company. In December, Infantino appeared to program the lottery draw that set the World Cup's match schedule with Trump foremost in mind, booking the Village People to perform "Y.M.C.A." as a finale.

Most notably, Infantino used the occasion at Washington's Kennedy Center to present Trump with a novel confection known as the FIFA Peace Prize, without first consulting the FIFA Council that is supposed to set policy, as POLITICO reported at the time. At least three of FIFA's eight vice presidents publicly or privately expressed their concerns about the lengths Infantino was willing to go to please Trump.

"I have a great relationship with President Trump. I'm very happy about that. I got to know him during his first mandate, and we have been working very closely together now in his second term," Infantino said at a pre-tournament press conference in Mexico City on Wednesday. "Without his engagement and his involvement, I think it would have been impossible — simple as that — it would have been impossible to organize a World Cup in the United States. He understood immediately the magnitude of the World Cup, the impact of the World Cup and instructed as well, of course, the administration to help and assist."

Infantino and Trump are likely to be back together in the Meadowlands next month, when the World Cup wraps up with its final match on July 19. At that point, both men are likely to consider themselves winners. Infantino will likely be able to claim he has staged the most lucrative single event in sports history, with estimated tournament revenues of $9 billion to his nonprofit. Trump will have been able to preside over one of humanity's great uniting cultural pageants, a worldly complement to the United States' 250th birthday celebrations and precursor to the 2028 Olympics.

Yet for all of Infantino's highly personalized political outreach, he has remarkably little to show for it. The run-up to the tournament has been marred by distractions caused by Trump's policy choices and FIFA's financial priorities. Politicians of both parties are alleging that high prices to attend the World Cup are a function of FIFA's manipulative and opaque ticket-selling procedures, while the global soccer establishment has been aghast to see players, team support staff, and referees denied entry to the United States due to immigration rules.

"We are not the kings of the world who can rule over governments and police forces," Infantino said in Mexico City, one of the rare instances where he has faced adversarial questioning. "We are a sports organization. We do our best with the means that we have to do as much as possible."

Lost on the road to the 2026 World Cup was the dream that animated the original architects of the United Bid: a truly North American experience. The World Cup has begun to resemble three separate tournaments played in parallel, due to national policy choices that FIFA has been unable to smooth out.

After the United States could not negotiate security assurances for Iran's delegation — the first time a country has played in a World Cup while at war with its host — Mexico scrambled to set up a training camp in Tijuana, from which the team will fly to U.S. cities where they are legally forbidden from staying the night under the terms of their limited visas. When a Somali referee was turned away this week by border officials at the Miami airport without clear explanation, the BC premier said he was welcome to officiate a match in Vancouver.

The only time Trump has appeared together with the neighboring heads of state was at the lottery draw in December. While the event began with the three leaders sharing a photo op as equals, it ended with Trump dancing to his favorite song.

Shia Kapos contributed to this article.

This story originally appeared on POLITICO and is courtesy of the Axel Springer Global Reporters Network, which harnesses the resources of the company's newsrooms to publish ambitious scoops, investigations, interviews, opinion pieces, and analysis. It allows journalists — including those from POLITICO, Business Insider, WELT, BILD, Onet, and Fakt — to collaborate on major stories for an international audience of hundreds of millions across platforms.

• Young entrepreneurs are turning to restaurant franchising as a path to business ownership.
• Millennials and Gen Z value franchise stability and guidance over the risks of independent startups.
• Social media-savvy young franchisees boost engagement and bring fresh ideas, benefiting brands.

When Kugan Suppiah was 24, he wasn't thinking about climbing the corporate ladder. He was thinking about cookies.

The University of Oklahoma graduate spent months persuading his parents to invest with him in a Bang Cookies franchise in Oklahoma City after becoming convinced the gourmet cookie chain could succeed there.

Now 25, Suppiah is already scouting locations for a second store, though he doesn't necessarily see baked goods as his end goal.

"I've always been business-minded, so this was something that I've always wanted to get into," Suppiah said. "I'm definitely interested, down the line, in opening something of my own."

For now, he sees franchising as a way to get there.

He's part of a growing group of young entrepreneurs turning to restaurant franchising as a middle ground between traditional corporate careers and the risks of launching an independent startup.

Franchise brands say they're seeing increased interest from millennials and Gen Z buyers who want the freedom and ownership that come with running a business but value the training, support, and established customer base that the corporate connection provides.

Young entrepreneurs are buying into franchising

"A lot of Gen Z is less focused on following one traditional path and more interested in creating opportunities for themselves," said Ashleigh Ewald, a 23-year-old public policy graduate student and entrepreneur. "The appeal is really about independence and ownership."

At the sandwich and salad chain Chicken Salad Chick, executives say it's seeing a surge in younger franchise candidates, who frequently cite stability, structure, and built-in support as key reasons for exploring ownership. Gong Cha, a bubble tea franchise, said it has also seen growing interest from younger prospects. At 16 Handles, executives for the frozen yogurt chain say more than half of current and incoming franchisees are millennials, including two 30-year-old finance professionals in Brooklyn who opened a location last summer while keeping their day jobs and are already preparing to open a second store.

Andrew Titus, president of United Franchise Group, said the shift is noticeable. Historically, many franchisees were in their 40s or 50s. These days, Titus said he increasingly encounters owners closer to his own age, 29.

"I've definitely seen more and more millennials, Gen Zs getting into business ownership," Titus said. He underscored that franchising offers a level of certainty many younger entrepreneurs find appealing because franchisees receive support, training, and a proven playbook for operating the business.

A lower-risk path to business ownership

For many younger entrepreneurs, franchising is less about avoiding work than avoiding unnecessary risk.

The model offers the opportunity to own a business, build equity, and make independent decisions without having to build a brand, operating system, and customer base from the ground up. For some, franchising is the next step in an entrepreneurial journey that started long before they signed a franchise agreement.

Amaan Bhanji, now 22, began planning his Graze Craze franchise during his senior year of high school. After two years spent finding a location, coordinating a buildout, and completing franchise training, he opened the Arlington, Virginia, business in 2024.

"I knew in my gut that I needed to build something of my own," Bhanji said. "Attending university and working for someone else just did not appeal to me."

Bhanji said franchise ownership offered something he felt he lacked at the time: structure.

"I had no experience with building, opening, and launching a successful business," Bhanji said, adding that collaborating with United Franchise Group, which owns and manages the charcuterie board franchise Graze Craze, offered him the tools and hands-on training to support his venture.

That desire for guidance and support is a recurring theme among younger franchisees. For many, the appeal of franchising is not simply ownership — it's learning how to operate a business while still having the opportunity to shape it.

Suppiah said he was drawn to Bang Cookies not only because he liked the product but because the brand was still young enough for franchisees to influence its direction. He pitched adding a curbside pickup window to his Oklahoma City store; the executives loved it, and Suppiah worked with them to refine its design and marketing strategy.

That kind of involvement can also benefit franchisors. Several executives told Business Insider that younger operators often bring fresh ideas around social media, community engagement, and customer engagement. At 16 Handles, executives said millennial and Gen Z franchisees have been particularly effective at turning online buzz and viral menu items into store traffic.

The next generation of franchise owners

Industry executives say younger franchise candidates are also gravitating toward brands that feel authentic, community-driven, and culturally relevant. Still, there are significant barriers to entry.

Ewald said many of her peers are interested in entrepreneurship, but startup costs remain a major obstacle.

Titus said the high startup costs associated with larger, household-name chains such as McDonald's often put them out of reach for first-time operators, instead pushing many younger entrepreneurs toward smaller, faster-growing concepts with lower barriers to entry and more opportunities to help shape the business.

Bhanji used savings from jobs he'd held since middle school, support from family members, and financing to launch his Graze Craze franchise. It was worth the risk, he said, to have a proven framework to follow while learning how to run a business.

Suppiah sees franchising similarly. Running his Bang Cookies location has given him a crash course in operations, marketing, site selection, hiring, and securing an SBA loan — skills he hopes to apply to future ventures, including potentially launching a Malaysian-inspired concept rooted in his family's background.

Like Suppiah, Bhanji sees franchise ownership as a beginning rather than an endpoint.

"I have many aspirations and am open to continuing with franchise ownership as well as other ventures," Bhanji said. "I'm not closing any doors."

In a generation often associated with side hustles, creator businesses, and multiple income streams, franchising is increasingly being viewed not as a retirement plan or a fallback career, but as an entry point into entrepreneurship.

• Fable 5 and Mythos 5 are Anthropic's latest top AI models, released this month.
• Anthropic said a US order bars any foreign entities or individuals from using its models.
• The company said the "net effect" of the order is to abruptly disable the models for all customers.

Anthropic said it would disable access to its latest top AI models, Fable 5 and Mythos 5, following a government export control that would bar foreign individuals and entities from using the products.

The company said in a blog post on Friday evening that it had received a letter from the US government at around 5:21 p.m. ET, citing national security concerns regarding Anthropic's models.

Anthropic said the government's order included any foreign national inside or outside the US, "including foreign national Anthropic employees," and that the "net effect" of the order is to disable the models for everyone to ensure compliance.

The company added that the letter "did not provide specific details of its national security concern."

Anthropic said it believes the government's concern is a potential way to "jailbreak" Fable 5, but disputed the issue's severity. The company said the technique appeared narrow, not universal, and involved known vulnerabilities that could be identified by other publicly available models.

The move marks the latest escalation in Anthropic's clash with the Trump administration over AI safety, national security, and the extent of government control over frontier AI models.

In February, the Pentagon moved to designate Anthropic as a supply chain risk after the startup sought limits on its AI model for certain defense applications.

Anthropic sued the Defense Department over the designation. Two lawsuits related to the government's supply-chain risk label remain pending.

A White House spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The Pentagon's chief information officer expressed support for the move in an X post, writing, "Some things are simply more important than revenue cycles, clickbait, and pre-IPO valuation."

Anthropic said it was complying with the order but disagreed with the government's finding. An Anthropic spokesperson did not say when exactly the company would disable access.

Access to Anthropic's other models will not be affected, the company said.

• SpaceX broke the market record by raising $75 billion in the largest IPO ever.
• The market may be expecting some sizable IPOs in 2026, including those of OpenAI and Anthropic.
• Here are the 10 largest IPOs in history aside from SpaceX's record-breaking debut.

SpaceX soared in its first day of trading.

The rocket company began trading on the Nasdaq under the ticker SPCX on Friday, opening at $150 per share before jumping as much as 30% to $176.52. Shares later pared gains and closed at $160.95, up 19%.

SpaceX's record-breaking market debut raised $75 billion, making it the largest initial public offering ever. The IPO valued CEO Elon Musk's rocket company at roughly $1.77 trillion.

After Friday's jump, SpaceX's market capitalization vaulted above $2 trillion, making it one of the most valuable publicly traded companies in the world.

The offering also pushed Musk's net worth past $1 trillion. SpaceX began trading at $150 per share, above the roughly $141-per-share level needed to make Musk the world's first trillionaire.

The public market may be expecting sizable IPOs in 2026, including those of OpenAI and Anthropic, both of which have confidentially filed to go public.

Here are 10 IPOs that SpaceX's record-breaking public debut blew out of the water, ranked in increasing order of proceeds.

10. Enel

Industry: Gas and Electric

Date of IPO: November 1999

Amount raised during IPO: $17.4 billion

9. Visa

Industry: Payments

Date of IPO: March 2008

Amount raised during IPO: $17.9 billion

8. NTT DOCOMO

Industry: Telecommunications

Date of IPO: October 1998

Amount raised during IPO: $18.4 billion

7. General Motors

Industry: Automotive

Date of IPO: November 2010

Amount raised during IPO: $20.1 billion

6. AIA Group

Industry: Insurance

Date of IPO: October 2010

Amount raised during IPO: $20.5 billion

5. SoftBank

Industry: Finance and telecommunications

Date of IPO: December 2018

Amount raised during IPO: $21.3 billion

4. Industrial and Commercial Bank of China

Industry: Banking

Date of IPO: October 2006

Amount raised during IPO: $21.9 billion

3. Agricultural Bank of China

Industry: Banking

Date of IPO: July 2010

Amount raised during IPO: $22.1 billion

2. Alibaba

Industry: E-commerce

Date of IPO: September 2014

Amount raised during IPO: $25 billion

1. Saudi Aramco

Industry: Energy

Date of IPO: December 2019

Amount raised during IPO: $25.6 billion

• Julius Mondragon is "Computah." He goes around "programming" people on the streets of Chicago.
• His TikTok videos have gone viral. They've made him a local hero.
• It's one of the few good use cases I've seen for Meta's Ray-Bans.

On a chilly winter day, Julius Mondragon stepped into a half-empty car on the Metra train line in Chicago.

"Computah, activate hyperspeed typing," he commanded a random woman typing away on her laptop. "Computah, make these two guys friends forever," he said to two men sitting together, as they looked up, smiling.

"Computah, make sure this man feels confident and sexy at all times of the day," he instructed. "Computah, make sure this woman has a wonderful day."

Before opening the door between cars, heading off in his Meta Ray-Ban glasses to find the next group of unsuspecting commuters, he announces: "You've been programmed!"

Mondragon has been "programming" people all over Chicago — and beyond. The 26-year-old has gone viral on TikTok while summoning his weirdly accented "Computah" character, wearing Meta's Ray-Ban glasses and recording people's reactions to his bot-like commands.

I think it's the best use of Meta's Ray-Bans that I've seen, so I asked to meet up when he was in New York this week so I could see the "Computah guy" in action.

Meeting 'Computah' in real life

I met up with Mondragon in a Harlem café near the hotel where he was staying. Unlike the bizarre persona in his videos, he's genial and soft-spoken. (The voice he does in his videos is a fake accent based on an imitation of a character in "The Sopranos" dreamed up by him and his roommates.)

This is where the Meta Ray-Bans come in: Mondragon got a pair this past Christmas. He started posting videos recorded by the glasses to TikTok in January. The "Computah" idea initially came from an Eric André sketch where André, wearing a black leotard with electronic parts glued to it, pretends to be Google as he approaches strangers on the street.

"When I got the Metas, I was coming up with ideas," Mondragon told me. "What if I'm Meta and I'm pretending I'm just an AI and I can transform anything in my surroundings?"

That's where "Computah" came from.

Mondragon grew up in the Chicago suburbs and currently lives on the South Side of Chicago. For the last few years, he's been a music producer — something he still pursues — while working a day job in retail. He has recently been able to quit his day job at Foot Locker thanks to the money he's earned through social media. He told me that Cameo, where he charges $40 to send a personalized message to fans, has also been particularly helpful in getting him to a financial position where he can pursue "Computah" full-time.

Along the way, he's become something of a Chicago star. He was profiled in the Chicago Tribune and appeared on the local TV news. In his videos, it's clear people are recognizing him, leading to funny interactions where they mimic his catchphrases and tactics, like saying "Firewall up!" to block his "programming."

The Meta Ray-Bans are something of a reverse Clark Kent for Mondragon — people only recognize him when he puts on the glasses.

Meta Ray-Ban glasses make the surveillance state funny

These smart glasses are not without controversy. From their launch in 2021, there has always been some concern about people using them as "creep glasses" to record people surreptitiously.

Since then, Meta's glasses have sold decently. In 2025, Meta said it sold more than 7 million pairs — triple the amount it sold in 2024.

Presumably, people use them for private photos and videos, but some of the footage that gets posted onto social media tends to fall into two buckets: trolls who make videos harassing service workers, and men making videos of themselves trying to pick up women on the street. Neither is a particularly positive outcome for the technology.

"My feed is mostly Meta [videos]. It's just mainly pickup artists and people trying to ragebait people," Mondragon said. "I knew when I started, I didn't want to do that. Obviously, I'm looking to get a reaction, but I'm not looking to mess up this person's day. I didn't want it to be like, this person leaves this interaction feeling shitty about themselves or anything."

When asked about "Computah's" popularity, Meta spokesperson Andy Stone told Business Insider: "Local hero wears Ray-Ban Metas is a great story!"

And "Computah" is funny.

It's hard to explain why something is funny other than just pointing out, "This is funny." I mean, you all get the joke. But I'll try to explain what I think makes it work so well: Doesn't it feel like we're all being "programmed" somehow by some unseen computer? That our worldview and the trajectory of our days, and even our bodies, are being shaped by some unfeeling algorithm? Sure it does!

Mordragon sees a deeper meaning to it beyond just being funny. "It's like a pattern interruption," he said. "That's really what I'm trying to go for."

'Computah' has one weird catch phrase that's caught on

A particular "Computah" phrase has become a meme in its own right.

One of Mondragon's catch phrases has been a lighthearted command: "Computah, make these guys super gay and horny!" (He made sure to tell me he means this in the spirit of fun, not as something antigay.)

Another TikToker made a catchy song using the lyric over and over.

Mondragon told me he wasn't really sure why that particular phrase has caught on so much, or why girls seem to have latched onto it. Personally, I think it hits something in the gender and sexuality zeitgeist that simply just works in 2026.

On the day we met this week, the comedian and YouTuber Druski announced a rally for the New York Knicks in Washington Square Park.

Mondragon and I took the subway downtown together from Harlem. Just before our final stop on the train, he donned his Meta Ray-Bans and started to program the people in the car. As you might expect from typical New Yorkers, they didn't react much to the man speaking loudly and saying strange things on the subway.

When we reached the rally, where a few hundred young men had gathered to chant various permutations of "Knicks in four," we hung on the outskirts of the crowd.

Suddenly, someone recognized him: "Hey, it's Computah!" and excitedly shook his hand.

A young couple visiting from Florida, Amanda Rivera and her boyfriend, Diego Casanova, approached "Computah" and asked him to program them. Casanova told me that he was inspired by Mondragon to buy his own pair of Meta glasses. (He was wearing the frames with clear lenses while I chatted to him. I didn't even realize he was wearing them until he mentioned it. His recording light was on, but he didn't seem to realize he'd been recording our interaction.)

Mondragon started programming the Florida visitors, and heads turned.

More cheers erupted as people recognized him, and a crowd formed. The people who showed up to a spontaneous gathering for a social media comedian were the perfect chronically online cohort who had also all seen Mondragon's antics on TikTok and Reels.

While he might slip by on city streets unnoticed, in this crowd, he was a star.

• Paramount Skydance got the US Department of Justice's approval to acquire Warner Bros. Discovery.
• "The transaction is not likely to result in harm to competition or American consumers," the DOJ said.
• Buying WBD's studio and streaming assets would make Paramount a Hollywood superpower.

David Ellison's Paramount Skydance just got the official green light to buy Warner Bros. Discovery from President Donald Trump's Department of Justice.

The US government signed off on Paramount's $111 billion mega-deal on Friday, removing a major obstacle for Ellison's media company as it tries to build a Hollywood superpower. However, Paramount could still face regulatory challenges abroad or lawsuits by US states.

"The transaction is not likely to result in harm to competition or American consumers" in streaming, traditional TV, or film production and distribution, the US DOJ said in a statement.

The DOJ also said that "substantial evidence does not suggest a likelihood of reduction in output" in creative output.

"We are grateful for the Department of Justice's thorough review of this transaction, as well as the work of the other agencies that have completed their reviews and provided clearance to date," a Paramount spokesperson said in a statement.

Paramount has said it's aiming to acquire WBD by the end of September. It's agreed to pay WBD shareholders a so-called "ticking fee" of about $7 million per day that the deal isn't closed, starting September 30.

WBD had originally agreed to sell its studio and streaming assets, including the Warner Bros. studio and HBO Max, to Netflix for $27.75 per share. Paramount responded by offering $30 per share for the entire company, including its TV assets like CNN, HGTV, and TruTV.

Both Paramount and Netflix argued that they had the more favorable regulatory path and were offering more value to WBD's investors.

WBD's board decided in February that the Paramount offer was better than Netflix's.

A proper pair of walking shoes can make a major difference in your health. I've easily racked up 20,000 steps in a single day without any protest from my feet, and it's all because I had the right sneakers on.

According to podiatrist Elizabeth Daughtry, DPM, FACFAS, women are more prone to developing stress fractures. So by wearing proper sneakers, you could actually be saving yourself from a torn tendon or muscle strain.

No matter what, you should look for supportive shoes with cushioned midsoles and flexible footbeds. But your choice should also depend on your specific foot structure — overall, I found the best pair for most people are the Asics GEL-Nimbus 28s. They're one of the few shoes that don't leave my arches aching after a long day of walking.

For this guide, I tested over 30 pairs of sneakers on walks totaling over 50 miles. These long-distance trials let me gauge which pairs felt the most comfortable and durable, whether I was hiking trails with my dog, speed-walking through errands, or exploring a new city.

For an excellent under-$100 pick, I suggest Rykä's Devotion X — they're reliably comfy and surprisingly affordable. Style editor Gabrielle Chase wore hers on a trip to Europe, where they held up over four 7-mile days in a row.

The top walking shoes for women, at a glance:

How I tested the best walking shoes for women

I'm a fitness gear expert covering fitness topics ranging from orthopedic footwear to running watches. Over the past two years, I've personally tested over 30 pairs of sneakers and 10 walking sandals. Each pair I wore on at least three walks (though many have seen dozens more) on surfaces like sidewalk asphalt, concrete flooring, dirt and gravel trails, and airport corridors. To test shoes with technical elements like waterproofing or all-terrain lugs, I walked in rainy conditions near my home in Colorado.

I also consulted a board-certified podiatrist, Elizabeth Daughtry, DPM, FACFAS from the Foot & Ankle Specialists of the Mid-Atlantic, for tips on what to look for. Ultimately, the criteria for choosing the best walking shoes for women differs across members of our team.

I myself have semi-wide feet and high arches, but cumulatively, our team has tested a total 40 pairs made for narrow, wide, flat, and petite sizes.

Initial comfort and shape: The right fit for your foot shouldn't feel like it's rubbing anywhere or like it's tight in the toe box or on the top of your foot (called foot volume), and your heel should feel snug and secure in the back. I chose walking shoes that were comfortable right out of the box. Most of our team members have medium to wide width feet, with medium to high arches. The best shape for any foot will have a wide base and roomy toe box to let your toes spread naturally. This shoe shape will help distribute your body weight more evenly and avoid any muscle strains in your foot.

Arch support: Women with higher arches usually need more support in their shoes or more stability in the midfoot area to prevent excessive flattening of the foot and arch, Daughtry says. I myself have high arches, so I walked at least three miles in each shoe to gauge for achiness.

Stability: Cushioning level and heel counter stiffness were easy to feel early on: More cushioning gives a plush, walking-on-air feel, while a firm heel counter adds feels more rigid under the back of your foot, and provides ankle support over time.

Weight: I tested shoes that weigh between 8 and 13 ounces, which is the ideal range to feel light on long walks and slow foot fatigue. Two of the lightest pairs we recommend are the Merrell Morphlites and On Cloudtilts.

Durability: Some insoles can flatten after consistent pounding on pavement, which weakens the shoes' shock absorption. After testing the shoes on a long walk, I took out the insoles and held them at eye level to see whether they looked deflated in any areas.

Traction: For the majority of the shoes, I walked in each pair for at least 2 miles, both outdoors on pavement and indoors. I used a treadmill or my walking desk. I felt for whether their tread felt slippery on smooth surfaces, versus how well it grips onto rough terrain. For outdoor-oriented shoes (trail runners, winter walking shoes), I tested the traction by wearing the shoes on icy, snowy, and loose trail surfaces in wet and muddy weather, and gauged which shoes offered the most secure footing.

Breathability: I chose walking shoes with wide toe boxes and mesh uppers that allowed for more airflow, an attribute that's pretty clear after just one mile. If my feet felt swollen and hot, or the shoes were damp with sweat after my walk, I nixed them from this list. Leather shoes like dress sneakers were the only exceptions.

Learn more about how the Reviews team tests shoes at BI.

Our top sneaker picks compared:

Best overall: Asics GEL-Nimbus 28

While the GEL-Nimbus 27s were my go-to walking shoe for nearly two years, the new GEL-Nimbus 28s are the most comfortable version yet.

Weighing in at 9.8 ounces, this model is slightly lighter than its predecessor. Even after spending 6 hours walking on concrete floors, my arches, calves, and knees still felt supported and fresh (well, as fresh as can be expected) by the end of the day.

I'm conscious of highly cushioned shoes that end up feeling packed down or "muddy" after long walks. And while these are slightly less stiff than my previous pair, their 2mm of FF Blast Plus foam in the midsole area gives them a supportive, structured feel.

In addition, there's a gel heel counter to help limit movement in the foot's tendons (which is why they're some of the best shoes for plantar fasciitis, in fact). The new knit uppers are also better at holding their shape snugly and firmly, while still allowing my toes to splay naturally.

If you don't like a high-cushion, adaptive technology shoe because you have ankle issues or super flat feet, you may be happier in the Adidas Ultraboost Lights. But ultimately, I say the GEL-Nimbus 28s are the best walking shoes for most people, thanks to their perfect balance of support and cushioning.

• Join our WhatsApp channel on mobile for more articles like this

Best budget: Rykä Devotion X

Rykä's sneakers are proof that you don't have to spend big to find supportive shoes for your feet. For just $80, the Devotion Xs have all of Daughtry's must-haves: a roomy knit upper for breathability on long, hot miles; responsive cushioning for shock absorption; an EVA proprietary foam that provides soft cushioning, including built-up cushioning in the midfoot for stability and arch support; and a padded heel. They even boast the Seal of Acceptance by the American Podiatric Medical Association.

These are one of the few shoes on our list designed specifically for walking, which means they don't have a meta-rocker or any unnecessary design features that come with some running shoes.

After a 3-mile walk, I found these shoes to be incredibly comfortable. The knit upper is very soft and formed to my foot shape, so these shoes felt like a light hug but not at all tight. They were also extremely breathable and kept my feet from building up heat after multiple miles.

"The Devotion X sneakers have been my preferred walking shoes for about two years now," writes senior associate style editor Gabrielle Chase. Most recently she wore them on a 10-day trip across central Europe, walking an average seven miles a day. "They're perfectly cushioned and light, and made my ankles feel supported even as I navigated uneven cobblestone streets."

"By far my favorite feature of these is the layers of foamy padding on the outsole," adds style editor Samantha Crozier. "It actually feels like walking on pillows — and each step is so bouncy these are downright buoyant."

The design isn't revolutionary so these shoes won't earn you a ton of compliments, but they're not noticeably unattractive. 

The main downsides are that if you underpronate (supinate), the stability design for these shoes might throw off your biomechanics. Also, while the construction matches the price point here, these shoes aren't the most durable with minimal reinforcements in the knit upper, so if you wear through your shoes quickly, a budget option might not equal value for you.

Read more in our full Rykä shoes review.

Best arch support: Hoka Gaviota 6

I've tried all the best Hokas that have come out over the past decade. After walking in the Gaviota 5s for years and testing the Hoka Gaviota 6 for a few months, I can confirm this update is indeed an upgrade. This new version is the perfect blend of comfort, support, and arch support, with a more plush collar, highly breathable mesh uppers, improved traction, and a wider overall design. Plus, the new Gaviota 6s weigh about a half ounce less than their predecessor. They also come in a Wide or X-Wide option for those who need more toebox space.

Stability shoes like these are helpful if your foot rolls inward as it strikes and pushes off the ground (also known as "overpronation"). Hoka's enhanced stabilizing H-Frame helps level out your foot while keeping the shoe lightweight. This in turn can help you avoid pain and collapsed arches in the long run.

You can't feel the H-frame when you run, but it keeps your foot feeling firm and controlled with your arches supported. At the same time, the Gaviota 6 is designed with a softer, EVA foam to give a plush and forgiving ride underfoot akin to their popular Bondis.

The Gaviota 6s are constructed with a new, breathable engineered upper, which I found to be more flexible and durable than the jacquard upper of the Gaviota 5s. I also really like the addition of an internal ghillie lacing system, which makes them feel more locked in and secure.

If you need arch support, prefer solid cushioning underfoot, and have a wider-than-average foot like I do, you'll love the fit and ride of the Gaviota 6. And if you stand or walk a lot all day, you'll love their flexible, breathable feel.

Best cushioned: Puma Magnify Nitro 3

Highly cushioned walking shoes are great for anyone with extra high arches, a tendency to overpronate, or achy knees. Puma's Magnify Nitro 3 has the thickest piece of foam among the brand's entire lineup. Yet they're still very lightweight, at just 8 ounces overall.

During testing, I found these shoes to be far less stiff and more comfortable across the entire foot on long-distance walks, compared to the high-cushion competitors I tested (like Hoka's Bondis).

In fact, I would describe them as a super lightweight and bouncy ride, thanks to the premium PEBA-based Nitro foam, which is much softer and springier than the foam used in past iterations of the Magnify Nitro I've tested.

The knit upper is highly breathable, forms to the foot, and feels very durable, as it's reinforced with Puma's proprietary seamless tape so your toes won’t bust through over time. The molded heel collars felt especially comfortable on long, hot walks. In my opinion, Puma has expertly inserted highly-engineered features, all within a light, streamlined package.

It’s worth noting the heel-to-toe drop in the Magnify Nitro 3 is quite high (10 mm), which may be too much stress on the knees or hips for some people’s biomechanics. Also, the overall fit of the shoe runs narrow in the forefoot and midfoot. If you have even slightly wide feet, opt for the well-cushioned Asics GEL-Nimbus 28 instead.

Best for standing all day: On Cloudtilt

After testing the best shoes for standing all day, I found that the On Cloudtilts strike a perfect balance between cushioned and supportive. On's signature technology, CloudTec, builds the midsole out of firm foam cutouts, or "clouds," to provide structured support. These clouds are organized in a sequential collapse pattern, so they compress gradually in a way that offers just the right amount of give. This allows for better balance and disperses the impact of walking all day, thereby reducing fatigue in your legs.

The Cloudtilts use a knit upper made from 100% recycled polyester that feels more elastic and forgiving — especially if your feet tend to swell. It hugs your foot like a sock without trapping heat. One downside: The sock-like upper means you lose some structure and lateral stability, so it's not ideal if you pivot a lot on the job.

Priya Parthasarathy, DPM, is a Maryland-based podiatric surgeon with Foot Ankle Specialists of the Mid-Atlantic. She told me finds lace up shoes are more supportive for standing and walking all day compared to one-size-fits-all slip ons. That said, sometimes you want a shoe that slips on and off easily. I love that this lace system lets you tighten across the top of the foot as needed, but has enough stretch and a simple stopper knot. This way you can slip them off without having to untie and re-tie every time.

Most stylish: Bared Footwear Stork

As anyone who travels or lives in a city knows, the struggle to find good-looking sneakers that are actually supportive after hours and hours of walking is all too real. Bared Footwear is a unicorn brand: They make stylish footwear with contoured, supportive, and swappable footbeds designed by a podiatrist to provide support and structure for all day on your feet.

I've worn the Stork sneakers everywhere from touring the city all day to dinner out with friends, and they are one of those sneakers that look good with everything. They do take a handful of wears to break in (they're leather, after all), but I found them to be incredibly supportive for my feet and lower body even after walking in them for over 6 hours.

The shoe itself is designed to optimize your natural biomechanics. There's a slight incline on the heel to relieve pressure from your calves, an internal steel shank for rigid stability, and slip-resistant rubber soles.

All Bared Footwear sneakers come with a footbed engineered for support, contoured in four keyt areas to reduce pressure in the ball of your foot, stabilize your gait, provide arch support, and cushion your heels from shock.

The real kicker — and what sets Bared Footwear apart — is that each of their shoes comes with a complimentary Fit Kit made up of a thinner footbed and forefoot padding, so you can tweak the shoe's fit if you need more or less room. This kind of personalized fitting is what really dials a shoe in to be comfortable for hours of wear.

Best for travel: Reef Neptune

Any pair good of walking shoes should feel lightweight, but especially so when you're packing for a trip. Sneakers with heavy cushioning are often too clunky to fit neatly in a weekender bag, but travel writer Emily Hochberg found the Reef Neptunes' slim design and soft knit uppers easy to tamp down flat.

She's walked hundreds of miles in these travel sneakers, noting their easy-to-style silhouette you can wear with your airport cozies or as you explore a new city. Either way, their cushioned insoles can support you on the long haul.

"Simply put, I've never worn a more comfortable sneaker," she says. "The fact that these shoes look good with everything, pack down ultra light, and remain comfy through miles of walking, has made them a true VIP in my closet (and suitcase)."

The women's size 8 Neptunes weigh 11.7 ounces — another testament to their packability. You do sacrifice some arch support and ankle stability with these, but their stretchiness and soft padding makes them ideal for all the waiting around that comes with travel.

Best waterproof: Hoka Transport GTX

These waterproof sneakers are my choice for a lightweight alternative to rain boots. I wore them on multiple walks and hikes and found them to be very comfortable. The Transport GTX isn't as cushioned as other Hokas —more balanced than plush — but the EVA midsole felt comfortable for 1- to 3-mile walks.

Most of all, the waterproofing is a 10/10: I tromped through a pile of snow on one early spring testing walk and, where my husband's feet were soaked in normal sneakers, mine remained bone dry. That's because the upper is treated with GORE-TEX, which notably does cost you some breathability. But I loved that the upper was mesh for a roomy fit, while also being strategically reinforced to last against the elements. 

I really liked the functionality of these shoes. The main laces are a pull-tab design so they're easy to secure or loosen, but unlike a lot of other similar designs, Hoka's quick-toggle lace neatly tucks away so the tail isn't flopping around. I also love that the shoes come with traditional laces, in case you don't like the quick-toggle design.

Note that these shoes have neutral stability, so they may not be supportive enough for people with high arches. And if you like a plush walking shoe, these might be too stiff on you.

Best lightweight: Adidas Ultraboost Light

True to the name, the Adidas Ultraboost Light are one of the lightest shoes on our list weighing just 9.2 ounces. But they're also incredibly well designed and kept my feet cool and supported walking for hours at a time.

The Ultraboost Light have a soft, textile upper, which Daughtry says is crucial in a great walking shoe as it offers more space and breathability for your foot.

The midsole is well-cushioned, which Daughtry also highlights to help with shock absorption and minimize added stress. After walking all day in these shoes, my feet felt pain-free and well-supported. The BOOST technology in the midsole offers a little bounce with every step. Though they are technically a neutral shoe, my high arches felt well-supported on long miles, so they seem to be a good fit for all pronation types.

The weight and more minimal design of these shoes make them great for packing to travel — and it's a bonus that they're good-looking. They're also made from at least 20% recycled materials, sometimes more depending on which color you buy.

I know some people with wide feet who've found the plastic lace closures in this shoe dig into the top of their foot since that upper isn't rigid, but my feet are on the regular-to-wide side of the spectrum and I didn't find any issue with this.

Read more in my full Adidas Ultraboost Light review.

Best pull-on: OOFOS Oomy Zen

During testing, I appreciated not only how fatigue-fighting Oofos' shoes are — the support feels incredibly rejuvenating on tired feet — but also that all of their styles, from slides to sneakers, are really easy to slip on and off.

"Oofos are unlike any other sneaker I've tried. The shock-absorbent foam outsole makes for the bounciest, squishiest bottom of all. They feel like what I imagine Moon Shoes, the springy early 2000s product that was constantly featured on commercials, might feel like to wear.

The bowed shape of the footbed also puts a pleasurable pressure on the arch of your foot, which is the source of many of the shoe's exercise-recovery benefits. But even as someone who isn't running long distances each day, I love slipping these on to help my feet recover from wearing heels.

The only drawback with Oofos is that they aren't the most fashion-forward footwear. The slip on sneaker passes the function test with flying colors, but I'd love to see the same footbed on a trendier silhouette in the future." — Samantha Crozier, style editor, Insider Reviews

"I agree with Sam: these laceless shoes are pretty swagless, but they're so comfy to wear on long city walks that it's forgivable. They fit true to size with an extra wide toe box. Thanks to their seamless upper, I can pull them on and they fit as snugly as a sock. The foam footbeds have a meta-rocker design that propels you as you walk, but I don't feel wobbly when I'm at a standstill because it flexes with my foot.

If you have a really high arch and weak ankles, these are probably not the walking shoes for you. They engage your heels more than anywhere else. Still, I find them really bouncy and light, and noticed my feet don't get fatigued as easily, even after miles of stepping on concrete." — Gabrielle Chase, senior associate style editor, Insider Reviews

Best dress sneaker: Frankie4 Nat III

"When you imagine a classic low-top, cap-toed sneaker, you probably think of Chuck Taylors. But most Converse sneakers are simply not comfortable to walk in. They have zero arch or heel support, their soles are rock hard, and their toe boxes too narrow for most people. Instead, here's a similar style that's actually made for prolonged wear.

The Nat III's gussets are elastic, so they allow you to forgo laces if you rather wear them as slip-ons, as I do. You can also choose from a set of podiatrist-approved insoles in the included "Sole Saver Pack," which each have different levels of padding in the forefoot and heels.

I have high arches, so I was thankful for their supportive, spongy padding when I broke them in on a long neighborhood walk. Their shock absorption is leagues ahead of most flat-soled sneakers. And if you have weak ankles, these have high heel counters and collars to help stabilize you.

I could actually wear these comfortably without socks because the leather interior is so padded and smooth. I also liked how the toe boxes, though slightly narrow, became more flexible the more I broke them in. I got them in a size 8 and they fit true to size. They were stark white, but this summer I've roughed them up on the city sidewalks." — Gabrielle Chase, senior associate style editor, Insider Reviews

Best trail hybrid: Merrell Morphlite

I could not be more thrilled with the performance, fit, and purpose of this dark horse shoe. Merrell has long been a leader in the hiking shoe space, but in 2022, the brand renewed its place in the trail shoe category. The Morphlite is an incredibly lightweight, comfortable shoe that felt so good on long walks, I only wanted to keep wearing them.

These shoes are technically a road-to-trail shoe, which means their centers have shorter lugs for road running, and their perimeters have slightly-deeper lugs (2mm) to grip slippery trails. If you often walk from pavement to dirt or gravel trails like I do living in a Colorado mountain town, this shoe is wonderfully comfortable and balanced on both surfaces.

While wearing a true trail shoe on concrete can often feel like a cleat, I found the Morphlite's lugs are short enough to not clomp on hard ground, and also just toothy enough to have some grab on less-technical trails. The proprietary foam midsole has a nice, balanced plushness between lightly foamy and firm that helps to offer light cushion underfoot.

After an hour of walking in these shoes, I did feel a bit of strain in the back of my arch and front of my heel, so they probably aren't ideal if you have extremely high arches or plantar fasciitis. But for the average foot, they're very comfortable.

The Morphlite's Jacquard recycled knit upper encases the foot for a very close fit. I like that this knit is strategically reinforced for harder trail wear. But if you have a high-volume foot, they might be too snug.

How to pick the best walking shoes for women

What to avoid

Even though most of us walk in whatever sneakers we already have on hand, there are certain categories of shoes that, according to Daughtry, you shouldn't wear walking more than 10 minutes:

• Fashion sneakers: Most stylish sneakers are designed with a more narrow toe box and low to no cushioning or support for better aesthetics. But the trade-off is zero shock absorption and more strain on your foot when walking.
• Certain running sneakers: Rocker-design running shoes tend to have higher heel drops. This design gives better propulsion and bounce when running but disrupts the natural stride while walking. Daughtry explains that a good walking shoe is less bouncy and gives a more natural cadence to your stride during the gait cycle.

What to look for

• Cushioning: This is the most important aspect of a walking shoe, Daughtry says. Sufficient cushioning will absorb the shock from repetitive pounding that our feet undergo with every step. If you know you have tender heels, see our guide to the best shoes for plantar fasciitis.
• Arch support: If you have high arches, you'll want a shoe with extra arch support to maintain ideal biomechanics (and avoid achy arches at the end of the day). Technically, you can add inserts to any shoe, but that can change the way the shoe fits overall, so often it's best to just opt for a shoe with great arch support from the start.
• Your gait: The way your feet strike the ground, or "pronate," influences where you need extra support in a shoe, as the goal is to have even pressure across your foot with each step. See our FAQ section below to learn what your shoes' wear pattern means.
• Support and stability: All shoes should feel supportive, but this is relative to whether you overpronate or remain neutral. If you overpronate, look for a stability shoe versus a neutral shoe.
• Tread: Most people are wearing a walking shoe on pavement, so any level traction will work. If you're looking for a walking shoe to wear on trails, look for one with more tread.
• Ventilation: A mesh upper is great in a walking shoe, as it offers more space and breathability compared to rigid leather. 

Meet the experts behind this guide

Rachael Schultz is a fitness gear expert and style contributor based in Colorado, and formerly the Health Editor at Insider Reviews. Based on her conversations with medical professionals and several months personally testing over 30 pairs of the internet's top-rated sneakers, she knows how to spot a well-designed walking shoe. With a stylish approach to comfort, she focused on brands that specialize in sensible footwear and determined how well their designs fit into the modern woman's wardrobe.

Dr. Elizabeth Daughtry is a podiatrist board-certified by the American Board of Foot and Ankle Surgery in Foot Surgery, recognized for her expertise in foot-friendly footwear and foot health.

Dr. Priya Parthasarathy is a Maryland-based podiatric surgeon with Foot Ankle Specialists of the Mid-Atlantic and a spokesperson for the American Podiatric Medical Association.

FAQs on the best walking shoes for women

What should women look for in walking shoes?

Women should look for walking shoes with plenty of cushioning to absorb shock, solid arch support, and a supportive-yet-breathable design that matches their gait and the surface they'll be walking on. A secure, stable, and breathable fit are the most important factors to minimizing fatigue.

Which walking shoes are best for flat feet?

According to our podiatrists, people with flat feet need more support through the arch and possibly some form of motion control to prevent pronation. We recommend the Hoka Gaviota 6s, which have great arch support and stabilizing H-Frame technology to keep your foot from rolling inward as you walk.

What's the difference between neutral and stability walking shoes?

A stability shoe is built with technology inside the shoe (usually strategic padding) to keep your foot from rolling inward, or overpronating, as you walk or run, which can help minimize injuries and aches (you can find more shoes for overpronators in our guide to the best shoes for standing all day, where we tested sneakers such as the popular Brooks Ghost 16s). A neutral walking shoe doesn't interfere with the way your foot lands and works better for those with neutral gaits.

Are running shoes good for walking?

It depends on the running shoe — you shouldn't walk in shoes with a rocker design and high heel drop, because these mechanisms propel your feet forward in an unnatural way. A good walking shoe should be less bouncy and follow your natural foot-strike cadence when walking, Daughtry says.

What is supination vs. overpronation?

Pronation is a bio-mechanical term that describes the way your feet roll and distribute impact as you step. There are three ways your foot may strike the ground: overpronation, supination, and neutral. Overpronators step with their heels rolled inward at a severe angle (putting them at a higher risk for twisted joints). Those who supinate, or underpronate, step without any significant inward roll of the heels, putting more pressure on the legs. People with neutral gaits hit the ground at a flat angle and should wear a stabilizing shoe that supports the midsoles.

How do I know if I supinate or overpronate?

Take a look at the soles of your most-worn shoes. Wherever they're the most faded, that's where you want extra cushioning in a walking shoe. If you overpronate, you'll see the tread is mostly rubbed off around the inner heels and edges. If you supinate, they'll be most worn down around the outer heels and perimeter of the soles. Neutral pronation shows the most wear at the ball of the foot and center of the heels.

Are Hokas worth it?

Yes, and our guide to the best Hokas lists all the top styles from the last decade that we've found worth the spend. For example, the best Hokas for those who need extra stability are the Gaviota 6s. They're especially comfortable for overpronators with wide feet. Another top recommendation from this guide is the ultra-cushioned Bondi 9s, which also come in wide sizes and work great for people who spend most of their day on their feet.

• Zohran Mamdani called out Elon Musk's trillionaire status on Friday.
• Mamdani said it was the trillionth reason to tax the rich.
• Musk became the world's first trillionaire after the SpaceX IPO.

New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani used SpaceX's historic IPO — and founder Elon Musk's newly minted status as a trillionaire — to push policy.

"Reason #1,000,000,000,000 why we should tax the rich," Mamdani wrote on X in response to Musk becoming the world's first trillionaire on Friday.

Musk reached the financial milestone after SpaceX stock popped upon hitting the market on Friday, trading at $150 per share, above the company's initial offering of $135.

Already the world's richest man, the windfall put Musk leagues ahead of the next richest person, Google's Larry Page, who now has a quarter of Musk's wealth.

Mamdani's response was in line with his politics. The progressive New York City mayor campaigned on taxing the rich, and the city's new pied-à-terre tax on multimillion-dollar second homes sparked backlash from some rich residents.

Musk has spoken out against Mamdani and backed his challenger, Gov. Andrew Cuomo, in the New York mayoral race last year.

Mamdani has said that he and Musk share one goal: focusing on efficiency and eliminating waste. Mamdani last month announced he was launching a Commission on Government Efficiency, essentially New York City's answer to the Musk-led DOGE office in the White House.

If you've been waiting for Prime Day to finally upgrade your indoor air quality, close that Amazon tab right now.

In our comprehensive testing of more than 40 models, the Coway Airmega AP-1512HH Mighty earned top spot as the best air purifier for most homes. While it regularly sees modest discounts on Amazon, Coway is currently running a massive direct-to-consumer flash sale, so you can score 37% off our favorite air purifier and more Coway best-sellers. Use code COWAYDAY1 at checkout to drop the price of the Airmega from $239.99 to $151.20. That is a massive 37% discount (a savings of $88.79) and one of the lowest prices we have ever tracked for this product.

Why the Coway Airmega Mighty is our top pick

After years of testing, the Coway Airmega AP-1512HH Mighty remains our favorite air purifier. That's not because it has the flashiest design or the longest feature list. It's because it consistently outperforms models that cost two, three, and sometimes four times as much.

The Mighty uses a four-stage filtration system that includes a washable pre-filter, an activated carbon filter for odors, and a True HEPA filter designed to capture 99.97% of airborne particles as small as 0.3 microns. More importantly, it delivers results you can actually measure. Here's why it continues to earn the top spot in our buying guide:

It cleaned the air faster than anything else we tested: In our controlled incense smoke tests, the Coway was the clear winner at removing both particulate pollution and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Plenty of air purifiers promise cleaner air. This one is backed by the fastest real-world performance we've recorded in our testing.

It's energy saving features actually makes sense: The built-in air quality monitor changes color in real time as conditions improve. Once the air remains clean for 30 minutes, Eco mode automatically shuts the fan off to conserve energy. The result? Lower power consumption than any other heavy duty purifier, we tested

It's surprisingly powerful for its size: Air purifiers tend to get bigger and bulk gear as performance improves. The co-somehow avoids that trade-off. Its compact footprint makes it easy to tuck into a bedroom, living room, or home office, yet it can effectively clean space is up to 361 square feet.

The longer we test, air purifiers, the more impressive the co-staying power becomes. New competitors arrive every year with bigger marketing, budgets and more ambitious claims. The Mighty keeps winning for the same reason it always has: it works exceptionally well for the price.

More deals on air purifiers we recommend

If you have gift cards to burn at another retailer or prefer to use your Amazon Prime shipping perks, several other top-tested models from our air purifier buying guide are seeing early discounts ahead of Prime Day.

faIf you want to avoid the ongoing costs of buying replacement filters, which can easily run $70 to $100 each, the Shark NeverChange Air Purifier Max is the solution. In our testing, it earned top spot for the longest-lasting filter because it is engineered to run up to five years before needing to be replaced. You'll save money twice if you buy it at this price.

Another great option we tested from Coway. The 250 was one of the best removers of particulate matter. It also used minimal electricity, thanks to the fan that adjusts based on the air quality. However, it didn't perform well at removing VOCs from the air.

This value-priced air purifier is compact and tabletop-sized and features a built-in air quality indicator. It did an average job of getting rid of particles but struggled to decrease VOCs. It uses more energy than others, and the annual filter replacement cost can stretch to over $150.

This smart air purifier is whisper-quiet on its lowest setting and can purify rooms up to 400 square feet nearly five times in an hour, but it struggles to lower VOCs. It also features Plasmawave technology, which is technically an ionizer, but you can turn that feature off and operate it without it.

Why trust me

As a Los Angeles transplant, I quickly learned that a high-quality air purifier isn't just a purchase for wildfire season. It's a non-negotiable part of everyday life to combat urban smog, traffic pollution, and endless dust. (Not to mention pet hair and dander.)

To write this article, I relied on the rigorous, testing-driven picks of the Business Insider Reviews team. We have hands-on tested more than 40 leading models in real-world environments, measuring how quickly they clear particulate matter and VOCs from the air, calculating ongoing filter replacement costs, and tracking daily energy efficiency to confidently crown the absolute best air purifiers for your home.

• A group of protestors gathered at JPMorgan's HQ as Elon Musk became the world's first trillionaire.
• The organization, Stop Funding Billionaires, is pushing unions and pensions to not invest in SpaceX.
• The protest featured three pro-trillionaire "counterprotesters" toasting with fake champagne.

As SpaceX started trading on the public markets, a group of about 30 protesters in front of JPMorgan's new headquarters chanted "No billionaires, no trillionaires" and held a banner that said "Stop Elon. No Trillionaires."

A few minutes later, organizer Jonathan Westin broke the news to the protesters that SpaceX founder Elon Musk had become a trillionaire to a chorus of boos, and the crowd broke out into chants like "SpaceX sucks."

The group was gathered outside to protest a planned party at JPMorgan's headquarters celebrating the IPO. JPMorgan declined to comment on the protests.

Westin told the crowd that while bankers were inside enjoying champagne, regular people were struggling with higher costs and being pushed into what he said was an overhyped investment.

"Our grocery prices are rising, our utility bills are going up, our rent is going up, and these billionaires are toasting champagne in this Death Star headquarters at JPMorgan," Westin said, describing the recently opened JPM headquarters.

Behind the chants is a more targeted campaign: Stop Funding Billionaires, a coalition of unions and organizers like New York Communities for Change, is organizing to stop big institutional investors, such as pension funds and unions, from putting workers' retirement money into SpaceX and similar businesses.

"We're out here to ring the alarm that we shouldn't be putting workers' retirement funds at risk over what, essentially, we feel is a cash grab by Elon Musk," Westin told me.

Follow the money

The group on Thursday sent a letter to over a dozen organizations in New York, including the comptrollers of New York City and New York state, asking them not to invest in SpaceX. The firm is talking to unions and other institutional investors to ask them to avoid investing.

Natalia Renta, associate director of corporate governance and power at the Americans for Financial Reform Education Fund, told me that not only does SpaceX's lack of profit concern her, but it's the amount of total control Musk has over the company and the lack of accountability to shareholders.

"Elon Musk is really pushing the boundaries of how much control one person could have over a public company," Renta said.

And while the group is putting pressure on organizations like public and union pension funds with some semblance of democratic member control, Renta explained that the risk for financial professionals is much wider.

She highlighted a memo from law firm Gupta Wessler LLP arguing that, just because index-tracking funds typically follow whatever Nasdaq or S&P 500 adds to their indexes, it doesn't mean advisors don't have a fiduciary duty to investors. In other words, just because you're following the index doesn't mean you won't be on the line if the company goes bust.

On the ground

The protest, set up in front of the headquarters Park Avenue entrance, lasted about 30 minutes in the 90-degree weather. During the protest, building security instructed workers attempting to enter through that entrance to go around the corner to the other side of the building.

Three "counterprotestors" dressed in ostentatious clothing with fake money stashed in their pockets toasted the crowd with some fake champagne. The three told me their names were Belle D'Ball, Angus Beefsteak the Third, and William Bentley Everrich, or Will B Everrich for short, and that they were happy to have Elon join them as trillionaires. (Musk is the first-ever trillionaire).

"The plight of the wealthy doesn't get enough attention in this society, so we want to make sure that our voices are understood," said Beefsteak, chewing on a fake cigar.

The group then gave a speech before announcing they were departing to "go upstairs" and drink champagne with the bankers.

While the group chanted, some passersby stopped to take it in. One man, wearing a dress shirt and holding a suit jacket, joined in with the crowd and held up a folder with the name of Argentine bank Banco de Tierra del Fuego written on it as if it were a sign. It seemed to be a joke, as his companions pointed, laughed, and took a picture of him.

A group of young finance bros types walked by, with one saying, "You're in the wrong spot, you're in front of the wrong headquarters." (While JPMorgan was a top bank involved with the underwriting effort, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley were the leads.) As the protest died down, the sparse police presence actually increased, seemingly in preparation for the sure-to-be swanky JPMorgan party, with SpaceX-branded tomahawk steaks on the menu.

The protesters were trying to stop retirees' money from flowing to billionaires. The vibe at JPMorgan, where delivery workers were shuffling in red and yellow balloons, was a little more: Let them eat steak.

• SpaceX has finally gone public in the biggest IPO in history.
• Two of Business Insider's editors and newsletter authors sat down for a live Q&A to discuss the historic IPO.
• They talked about the first day's price action, Elon Musk's role in the company, and what comes next in a year of mega-IPOs.

SpaceX, Elon Musk's aerospace, satellite, and AI company, has finally gone public. Shares were priced at $135 each Thursday afternoon, making it the biggest initial public offering in history. The stock's early price bump on its first day of trading helped cement Musk as the world's first trillionaire.

Joe Ciolli, executive editor and First Trade newsletter author, and Dan DeFrancesco, deputy executive editor and author of the Business Insider Today newsletter, sat down for a live Q&A to talk about the record-breaking IPO on the first day of trading.

They discussed the fairness of the company's valuation, if there is a "right" time to buy, Musk's influence, retail involvement, and what this IPO means for Tesla, OpenAI, Anthropic and the market in general.

This transcript has been lightly edited and condensed for clarity.

Dan DeFrancesco: Hey, good morning, good afternoon, good evening, wherever you're tuning in from. Thanks for being here. My name is Dan DeFrancesco, author of the BI Today newsletter.

Happy SpaceX Day. The historic IPO is now in the books, and Elon Musk's rocket company is officially trading after raising $75 billion in a historic IPO at a $1.77 trillion valuation. It's officially hit the public markets. Popped about 20% when it first started trading a little bit less than an hour ago.

We have a lot to unpack today, so I wanted to bring on my colleague Joe Ciolli, author of the First Trade newsletter, who's going to help me talk through a lot of your questions and comments. Joe, thanks so much for being here on this historic day.

Joe Ciolli: Yeah, thanks for having me. I'm pumped to talk about this with you.

SpaceX IPO: Is it a buy or a bust?

Dan DeFrancesco: Let's start with the initial market debut: a 20% pop, which for those that don't know, is about the sweet spot for where you want to be for an IPO. What are your initial reactions as it's trading within the first hour?

Joe Ciolli: I think with the 20% pop roughly, the bankers on this deal earn their money, they earn their fee. It's perfect, because you want the stock to go up something, because you want the existing shareholders to get a nice jump off the first day, but you also don't want it to go up 100% because that means that you priced it too low, you left money on the table, you left proceeds out there that you could have raked in. So it's not too cold, not too warm. It's nice Goldilocks position right there at about 20% higher today.

Dan DeFrancesco: Yeah, it's also interesting when you consider the uniqueness of this. First of all, it's the size: largest IPO ever. Second of all, it's the fact that there was not really price discovery for this, as far as with the road show. Elon just comes out and says this is the number I want, so there's that factor.

And then there's, and we'll get into more of this a little bit later, the retail factor. The factor that 30% of the shares were allocated to retail investors, a much larger number than typically. So all that considered, it basically hit its mark. I'm looking now, it's still trading about 22% of a pop. Pretty impressive, I'd say. Right now, early days, so far a success.

Joe Ciolli: I totally agree. There was a lot of worry about that retail allocation. They offered 30% to day traders, and there was other stuff like Fidelity lowering its minimum account requirement to $2,000 from $100,000, like they really wanted retail to get into this trade.

I think a lot of the fear going — at least from retail traders on the internet and from skeptics, including those that have written into us — is that maybe these retail traders are just kind of being set up to hold the bag for all of the longer term shareholders that are going to mint their money and hop out as quickly as possible.

That hasn't happened yet, but you know it's still early innings, we're still only public for the last 60 to 90 minutes, so there's no guarantee that today the moves are going to hold. Or maybe we'll go up 100%, but it's still early innings, but you know, so far looking good.

And just a couple numbers to recap how unprecedented this is. We have a chart that shows that this is the biggest IPO ever. It's raised the most proceeds, $75 billion, that's roughly triple the next closest, which was Saudi Aramco several years ago, so that's pretty monumental. And then when you look at the actual market cap that it entered the market at, $1.77 trillion, that is the most ever, again exceeding Saudi Aramco. And with this 20% spike, we're actually north of $2 trillion. So SpaceX is now 90 minutes old, and also the seventh most valuable company in the world. So not bad, Elon.

Dan DeFrancesco: Not bad for 90 minutes work. Yeah, no, it's really incredible, and that's why we're so excited to talk through all this.

So we're gonna start with the big question that everyone had coming into this, and people maybe still have is: If they would buy the IPO, if they would buy the stock.

So we put up a LinkedIn poll, almost 2,600 of you voted, and most, 69%, said no, versus 31% said yes. But the beauty of this company, of the CEO, is that regardless of which side you fall on, your opinions are probably pretty strong, which makes it a fun discussion.

Let's start with the valuation, which is the big topic that a lot of this is coming around. We have two schools of thought.

Joseph in Boston writes: "Meta at IPO was a 28x PS; SpaceX at $1.75T is close to 90x. I'm never the smartest man in the room but I'm okay sitting this one out."

And then on the other end, you have a reader in California says: "Yes, it's not profitable, but SpaceX is lifting 83% of satellites into orbit, reusable rockets making each lift cost-effective. Starlink, energy producer, robotics equals great potential for the Musk conglomerate."

So that I think, in a nutshell, is the two arguments there, Joe. I'm curious, if you have thoughts right off the bat about this remarkable valuation, and whether it's fair or foul.

Joe Ciolli: Yeah, the first person to write in really said it all. This company isn't profitable, and it's the only company in the upper echelon of market cap in the world that isn't profitable.

But to the other point, this is an Elon Musk property that we're talking about, Tesla, which is right now about the 10th most valuable company in the world. It wasn't profitable until very recently, and it achieved massive valuations without profitability, and eventually the people that stuck it out held the stock through those unprofitable years. They have been paid out pretty nicely.

So that's the age-old conundrum. Are you investing in Elon and his vision for 10 or 15 years down the road, for putting people on Mars, and transforming AI, or are you just, looking at this expensive stock that doesn't make any money and just saying, maybe I'll wait til they start making money, so that's the dichotomy that we see, and both points are very fair. If I knew the answer of which way it was going to go, I'd probably be trying to run a hedge fund somewhere, not talking to you right now. So let's let the market tell us what the price is, and how and whether this company is fairly valued.

Dan DeFrancesco: The thing I will say on the valuation bit, though, is I definitely appreciate why people's palms get a little bit sweaty seeing that number, especially for a company that's not profitable. But if you look down the pipeline of what's coming, and the two big ones are OpenAI and Anthropic, those numbers aren't going to be any better either. So people, and at least SpaceX, is a little bit more mature as far as its rocket business and Starlink, so not here trying to carry water for anyone, but I am saying, we're kind of entering this new era where people are investing incredible high amounts into capex. They're having a tough time turning profitability.

I'm not saying it's a bubble or it isn't a bubble, but this is a little bit of the new reality. So, to point at that number, fair, but then you also have to realize this is kind of a little bit of the new name of the game for a lot of the new players that are coming in.

Is there a 'right' time to buy?

Dan DeFrancesco: I want to pivot to another point that has come up a lot, which is the "right" time to buy. So, Hunter from Atlanta writes: "Like most IPOs, unless you're in pre-IPO levels, then it's not worth bidding for the day of. Most of these tech stocks lose at least 10% value in the first week. That's when I will make the decision on whether or not to invest. Maybe even after that point."

Sam in NYC says: "Not at IPO but definitely will be down the road. Mars, robots, autonomous cars equals the future."

So I think it touches on an interesting point that I've seen a lot, I'm sure you've heard a lot from people you're speaking with, is I don't like it at IPO. I do like it in the long run. I just got to time it right, which I mean, story of every investor's life. Good luck. I don't know what's your sense on the "right" time to buy.

Joe Ciolli: Yeah, the main thing that's looming over people that want to wait is the lockup period for people that the insiders that own shares, you know, the people that have worked at the company forever and are one of those thousands of millionaires that are going to be minted today on this pricing. So yeah, I think that there's definitely a consideration.

I also, think that, once you once you think about, Elon Musk can't sell for a year, and he's someone that isn't really going to decide, you know, what I'm going to take half my money out of this, like he'll sell at predetermined intervals, but I think it's just that intermediary period, you know these staggered like 30, 70, 100 day windows, and people are worried that if they do buy in now, that as soon as the people that inside the company that have, already kind of seen their, their net worth rise on paper to astronomical levels, like who's to say those people aren't just going to sell, quit their jobs, and you know, go buy an island or something. Because there's a lot of them, and so that's what they're worried about.

So then it's like, do you wait until the full year is up, do you wait until the first two rounds, and that's that's a tough question, and I think to the point of like, if you're someone that's gonna buy and hold SpaceX for 10 years, or you really believe in the people on Mars thesis that's behind a lot of this, it might not make a huge difference whether you buy now or in six months in the grand scheme of things, with the upside that you're imagining might exist in the stock.

So it's really just a matter of personal preference. We've thrown around the saying, you know, trying to catch a falling knife. We talked about that, and I think that, like, the stock has to drop for it to be a falling knife. But I mean, that's that's also risky. If you're trying to bottom, you know, bottom hunt and find when this stock is going to be attractively valued. You might either be waiting a while, or you might just get that timing wrong, and I think it's just as penal to, like, buy too late as it is to buy too early, right?

Dan DeFrancesco: You hit the nail on the head there on a couple points, but specifically the concept of if this is a company you believe in in the long term. Okay, sure, there's going to be some volatility, like, when you talk about Elon Musk and what that comes with investing with him or in his companies, but ultimately, if you believe in the mission and you believe the direction that SpaceX is heading, and you think it's a good long-term bet, do you really want to wait a month, two months?

Because, you know, Skip in Georgia talked about, he said never buy until after the expirations, which is something you touched on, but it's a little bit unique here, as far as there's the staggered release schedule of when employees can sell shares.

So a lot of it comes around the first earnings report that SpaceX will have, which should be the late summer, and then depends on the stock performance, more can be released. And then to your point, like this, these, this concept of over the next couple, you know, whether it's 70, 90, 105 days, and then as far as some of the strategic investors in Elon, it's an entire year, so it's not like there's this drop off point, this cliff, where it's like: oh, all bets are off now, everybody can go, it's going to be staggered throughout, so you might not necessarily see that massive drop to your point that knife that you can catch, and if you sit it out and you believe in this company, you're going to miss on some big returns that you can get in, potentially.

Joe Ciolli: Yeah, and a lot of times, like on these IPOs, we had one of our readers say, IPOs have been falling 10% in the first week, and I think that's been relatively true.

We did see a really successful tech IPO, Figma, last year. We've seen Cerebras, which was a cybersecurity stock that had previously the best IPO of the year. So we've seen a couple data points, very small sample size, but to show that maybe that that decline isn't going to happen.

But, of course, SpaceX is a unicorn, it's sort of its own deal. It's done everything kind of unconventionally, so I wouldn't expect it to follow any traditional pattern. So, it's really anyone's guess how this early going goes. But there is a very real possibility that this stock doesn't drop down to the level that it priced at for a while if the euphoric retail investor phase continues like it is now.

Dan DeFrancesco: Yeah, I mean, we're holding firm right now, a little bit over 23%.

In the YouTube chat, Stupid Smart asked, to buy now or wait for those planning on holding for 10 plus years.

Again, I think if this is your long-term play, this is something that's just gonna sit in your portfolio, and again, and you believe in SpaceX as a company in Elon. I don't know if trying to price it out over the next couple months is really going to be beneficial to you, but I think you mentioned it's not traditional.

The one comparison we had some of our reporters make, was the Facebook IPO, which, already to be clear, this is going way better than the Facebook IPO went way back when. But maybe talk through about like that volatility, and how in the long run for people that were invested in long run, it ended up being fine, even though they had to grin and bear it for a bit.

Joe Ciolli: The Facebook IPO, we thought it was gonna be a parallel that could play out, but it tanked right away. I think the overwhelming consensus was that bankers got too ambitious with what they were trying to raise, or the price they were trying to target, and that was really like a turning point for tech IPOs broadly.

I think it was almost sort of like their financial crisis moment, not that it was that bad, but it was something that re-dictated the calculus for every tech IPO after that, and made things more conservative, and put more controls in place, so that couldn't happen again.

So that was in 2012 so this is over 10 years ago, and then there was also technical issues with the exchange that it went public on, and it's been 14 years, so we've got much faster internet, much better technology, and doesn't seem like there's any snafus with the plumbing of this offering. So that's good, and then for Facebook, it went down. It was, you know, in the doldrums for months, and it didn't really overtake its where it priced for several months, and the people that got in at the IPO and waited it out on the dip and wait back on the way back up.

I mean, look at Meta now, it's just absolutely astronomical over the last 15 years. So, it's been a good bet. Does it really make a difference whether you caught that falling knife at the very bottom, or you just kind of like picked it up somewhere else on the curve? In the grand scheme of how much Meta has gone up, not really. So that's again, there's good and bad takeaways and parallels to be made to what's happening today.

What role does Elon Musk play?

Dan DeFrancesco: Well, there's the saying, pinch a penny, lose a pound, you know? If you're in it for the long haul, I think you just got to kind of buckle up.

But a viewer in the UK asks: "What if something happens to Elon?"

The "key man" risk factor of Elon. So, I think we can have a broader discussion now about Elon. First of all, congrats to him, he's now the world's first trillionaire, which it blows your mind to think about. But beyond just the key man risk.

We also have this question from Susan in Overland, Kansas, who says she made her decision because of Elon Musk. That's all she said, which I kind of love, because it's unclear if she made that because she's going to invest in it or not invest in it because of Elon Musk. But it's a valid point, and it brings up this wider discussion of this polarizing figure that is Elon Musk. Plenty of people have gotten very wealthy backing his companies. Plenty of people don't like him. I think off the top, how much, especially with the increased political activity, I'll say, that we've seen from Elon over the past couple years, how big of a factor does he play into this entire investment decision for our viewers.

Joe Ciolli: I think he's the factor, especially with an innovative company that's still not profitable, that's still probably 10-15 years from really achieving its final vision or form. You're really making a bet on the person, and, like you said, betting on Elon in the past has been an extremely lucrative proposition, whether you got in on Tesla in the 2010s at some point. If you did, you know, I hope your yacht is nice. Good to see you. And then you know, if you just like kind of wait out any dip in Tesla, it almost inevitably retakes it within several months, and reaches new heights, and it's happened continuously for over a decade now.

But as for the reader question: What happens if something happens to Elon? Well, we kind of got a dry run up, and when I say something happens, like he went and worked for the government for several months, and he seemed to be focusing all his attention on DOGE and optimizing the government's finances, and all that stuff that we covered breathlessly here at BI. It was a huge national story. Well, during that time, Tesla stock didn't do very well, and a lot of it had to do with, you know, Trump and Elon butting heads after a harmonious relationship.

At the beginning, they started butting heads. All of a sudden, Trump's saying, "I'm going to do stuff that's going to mess with Tesla," and the stock is getting hit, and people are saying: who's driving the bus if Elon's in Washington, who's making our cars, who's doing Robotaxi, does this guy have time for this company that's worth a trillion dollars? And so they were worried, they saw a big stock slump. Then wouldn't you know it, right when Elon was like, "I'm out of the government, guys, I'm going back to Tesla," stock went back up, rest is history.

So, you know, Elon needs to be at the helm, he needs to be running the show. People want him to be sleeping in the warehouses, they want him to be on the front lines at these facilities, being the master engineer that he is. So, he is everything, I would say.

Dan DeFrancesco: Yeah, and look, ultimately, you have a gun to your head: do you want to be investing with the world's richest man, or do you want to not be investing with the world's richest man? I mean, I think most people would say they'd want that guy on, or that person on their side. I will also say, not to discount the work of SpaceX COO Gwynne Shotwell, who's done a fantastic job, and as Elon has worn the million different hats that he has, Shotwell has done a really good job of continuing to keep the company moving forward. But I think it is a real consideration that everyone needs to discuss.

What about purchasing shares in partner companies?

Dan DeFrancesco: Another question we have from David in Dallas, mentioned: "I selected a few shares via Robinhood. Another option is to purchase shares in partner companies today, before the IPO. Echostar, Firefly, Rocket Lab, and others."

Joe, as a market expert, do you think that strategy holds? It's like I want exposure to SpaceX, but maybe I don't want to go full in. What are your thoughts about kind of playing with the players that do play with SpaceX and kind of riding off its coattails?

Joe Ciolli: It's a great idea. It's a great diversifier. If you're going to own SpaceX stock, I think it's a good idea to own these other ones as well.

But here's the thing, the cat's out of the bag. Everyone knows that these companies are linked to SpaceX, and everyone has known that SpaceX is going to be going public for several weeks or months, and the moves affiliated with SpaceX have been priced into these stocks already.

They went supernova when we found out that this thing was going to be hitting the public market, and really, with any new valuation round or any new positive news around SpaceX historically, these stocks have been proxies for that. They've gone up. So, is no one looking at this? Are you going to find a steal in the bargain bin on these stocks? No. But are they a good option for diversifying and hitching your wagon to SpaceX-exposed investments? Absolutely. Just don't, don't think that you're the first person to have that idea, and I'm not saying you are, but like it's, it's definitely a known trade, but one that could still make you a lot of money.

Dan DeFrancesco: As the wonks say, they're not a ton of alpha there, necessarily. Right, it's not this hidden gem. I'd also say, and look, not financial advice, don't take this. We should have disclosed this upfront. We're not financial advisors, but I would say, if you're bullish on SpaceX, right, why not just bet on SpaceX? If you're betting on the partners, there's the risk that something specifically would happen.

The partners talk about Elon, maybe he has a falling out with the vendor, you know, whatever reason there's the downside risk of that stock, and the upside is already going to be built in with just investing in SpaceX.

I don't see it as much of a play, like if you're that bullish on SpaceX, why not just back SpaceX, but again, not a financial advisor, so do as you see, do as you see fit.

Why did SpaceX open the IPO to retail investors?

Dan DeFrancesco: We talked about the retail, right? 30%. SpaceX President Shotwell also mentioned on CNBC that the demand from the regular people pushed the company to go public. You wrote about this in the First Trade newsletter, which is a must-subscribe if you haven't already. There was a lot of discussion about the retail involvement and allocation in this IPO.

Was it Elon democratizing finance and letting the little person get a shot, or was it institutional? We got to fill the void somehow. Let's get the dumb money involved.

Joe Ciolli: I'll give you the PR answer, and then I'll give you what I think is probably the right answer.

The one that I think is the prevailing narrative online. The PR answer is, yeah, we're democratizing finance, we see all of our legions of Musk fans out there that have backed Tesla during lean times, and we want to throw you a bone, give you an opportunity for generational wealth, hitching your wagon to this great company that sounds awesome, you know. I'm sure people really appreciate that. Anyone who wanted to buy the stock on the IPO had a much greater opportunity to do so. So, yeah, that's one piece of it.

But then, if you do look at online chatter, there's been a little bit of cynicism, and maybe not a little bit, a lot of cynicism around why this is happening. I guess the logic is, why would a company just give something away as a favor? Is there something more nefarious going on with institutional demand? Is it not as strong as what we thought? Are they basically trying to supplement that demand with retail traders? And so, yeah, it's been unclear, you know, which one it is, but people are cynical about it. Still, the stock's up, so if you bought it on the IPO, you've made 20% today, you're looking good.

Dan DeFrancesco: But even more now we're up to where you've eclipsed 25% closing in on 26%. That's the beauty of doing this live, you get it right here.

I see both sides. I see it on the one hand of a famous saying: I would never be a member of a club that would have me. Like, if you are trying to actively, aggressively give me something, especially on Wall Street, something's probably up. You know, I'm probably being sold a bad bill of goods.

The counterargument, right, is that this is a company that's been private for a very long time. It's raised a lot of money from institutional investors, and they just might feel like: Look, we are already extremely overexposed to it. We do like it as a company, right, but we've already pretty heavy in it.

And this is, I don't mean to, again, like carry water on the PR side of it, but that's the flip side of it. But to your point, we're a couple hours in now, and stocks performing pretty well, so those who did end up jumping in, are ending up on the good side of it, so far.

Tesla: How will this affect Musk's 'old toy?'

Dan DeFrancesco: I want to talk about the other Elon company, Tesla. So I think this is super interesting. In the S-1 for SpaceX, there was a mention of potential mergers or acquisitions. A lot of people naturally pointed to Tesla.

You mentioned Tesla before. It's another trillion dollar giant. It's huge, has a very strong retail base. You know, I was watching it earlier today. It dropped a little bit more than 2% at one point when SpaceX started trading, now it's back up. It's basically flat.

I find it a really interesting thought process, you know. One, if they stand alone, what happens to those two stocks? If we see SpaceX continue to perform, do the Elon fan boys just go, "Well, this is the old toy, now we want to go to the new toy?" Is there a potential for an acquisition, and then we get into this idea of an even more of a Frankenstein Elon conglomerate company? But what's your takeaway on the SpaceX-Tesla sibling rivalry?

Joe Ciolli: That's a really good question, and I think it's something that is still yet to play out. Tesla is basically flat now, it's been notable that it's not like getting any sort of huge boost. There's no Elon trade that one one thing goes up and they all go up, apparently.

So, and I think the old toy analogies is a good one. If Tesla has historically been a bet on Elon and there's a fresher bet on Elon, and there's honestly more stuff under the hood of SpaceX then you could say of Tesla, because it has the space business.

But it's mostly going to be an AI company eventually, that has a $28 trillion expected addressable market. Eventually $26 trillion of that is going to be AI and like $600 billion will be space and so it's gonna be an AI company. It'll be more of a pure-play AI company than Tesla, because it has xAI under the hood.

So let's, let's imagine that happens, Tesla starts to fall out of favor, maybe people are even funding their SpaceX purchases by selling Tesla. We definitely saw retail investors leading up, kind of trying to create dry powder for themselves by selling other AI stocks, so it's very much within the realm of possibility.

But I'm gonna drop the hammer here, and I'm just gonna say, what if they merge? What if there's one big Elon conglomerate that's Tesla and SpaceX combined? I'm not, that's not just me, you know, saying BS, like that's definitely something that's been on the ether, it's something that's been rumored, and I think it would really address a lot of this, like this risk that you're seeing if there's two separate entities that kind of are both pegged to Elon.

Dan DeFrancesco: Yeah, I mean, look, there's only so much money these Elon fans have to invest, so ultimately they have to make a decision, and I think in a lot of ways it makes sense that the SpaceX trajectory as an AI company is very much in line with Tesla's trajectory. Like we've heard on the earnings call, he's not pitching it as an EV company anymore, he's pitching it as an AI company, he's talking about robotics and all these different things. So in that sense, there is a lot of synergy, and to your point, like just making it Elon Inc., right, and letting everyone buy in on SpaceX. I think that makes a lot of sense.

The flip side is, I think this is a lot of the criticism heading into for the potential Tesla merger, is that it becomes this kind of Frankenstein company, right, where you have all these different things: you're doing social media, you're doing satellites, you're doing rockets, you're doing AI, you're doing EV, you're doing robotics, and sometimes investors don't like that. They want a pure play, they want to understand this is the space I'm in, because on the one hand, while it gives you diversity, it also gives you a lot of risk, because if one of these things, a lot of these things couldn't work out, and you're spending a lot of money.

So I do see it, not to be middleman Dan here, I do see both sides of it, and I think it's, it's really interesting, and will be fun to watch, if nothing else.

OpenAI and Anthropic: What does the SpaceX IPO mean for them?

Dan DeFrancesco: I guess the other question I had for you, Joe, but now that, again, not to call things early, but we're in, we're now up to 27% almost 28%, What do you think the folks at OpenAI and Anthropic are thinking as they're watching this? Again, those are more pure AI plays, but they've filed paperwork privately, they're eyeing this. What's your sense of how they're viewing this, and what are their thoughts on entering the market?

Joe Ciolli: I think they're pumped. They're popping the bubbly over there. They're, they're like, you know what? We're gonna get what we want. We're gonna get the proceeds, those huge proceeds. And the market is revved up for these things associated with AI and for, you know, these innovation companies going public this year. So yeah, I think that they're, they're clinking their glasses.

I think there's probably a race to see who can get out first. Because, you know, we talk about retail investors having limited dry powder or, needing to make, make selective allocations as to which stocks they're gonna own. I have to think there's a first mover advantage there.

Anthropic did confidentially file its S-1 first, then OpenAI did it second. I think that it was kind of viewed that OpenAI was winning and then Anthropic leapfrogged it. So, and that's kind of Anthropic's vibe. They're like very confrontational with OpenAI. Like they run commercials about Claude that are very confrontational. So it's gonna be awesome. And as a markets reporter, I can't wait for them to go public and reshape the market and how tech trades.

My mouth is watering at the prospect of an Elon Musk Frankenstein entity. But, that's neither here nor there. I think it's a really exciting time. Silicon Valley — and we've written about this across Business Insider, across our tech team — it's gonna be reshaped entirely. Like there's a ton of people that are coming into a lot of money all of a sudden, and they're not the people that had it before. So how is that gonna tilt the scales in the Bay Area, or in Austin or other tech hubs? It's gonna be really cool to watch and we're gonna be all over it.

Dan DeFrancesco: Yeah, lots of discussion about what this means from a market structure perspective, from a real estate perspective, from a corporate culture perspective. You know, the other thing you see with a lot of these types of events is there's a big IPO, a bunch of people make money and then they go out and start their own companies. I mean, that was Elon's origin story, coming from the PayPal mafia.

How will this affect the Nasdaq and S&P?

Dan DeFrancesco: You mentioned the market structure thing. I want to touch on that too because, you know, SpaceX got fast-tracked to get in some major indices. Other ones said no, but that is a big piece of this puzzle. The fact that because it's coming in at such a large size, there's gonna be forced buyers. And we talked before, should I buy, should I not, you might not have a choice in your portfolio, in your pension and your 401k, you might already very soon, within the next couple months, be a buyer of SpaceX because of the ETFs or whatever else you're invested in is forced to buy SpaceX,

Joe Ciolli: So the one that's gonna be most immediately impacted is the NASDAQ 100. It's fast-tracked SpaceX, it's gonna be in there in 15 days, that's really, really soon. And, so I mean, Invesco, QQQ, the ETF, if you watch basketball, they advertise it on the score scores box, you know it's out there and it's got major assets under management and a lot of people own it.

And it's been doing really well because tech stocks have been doing really well. A lot of people own the Q's. So the Q's are just gonna get completely thrown on their head because this is a $2 trillion company at the moment, and it's gonna suddenly come in here and take a commensurate weight in that index.

There's only a hundred stocks in there. It's gonna start pushing it around the same way that we see all the other major AI companies, other major tech companies, like Alphabet, Microsoft, Apple, Meta. It's right up there in that elite rung. And I think we're gonna need a new acronym because we call these things MAG seven, we've called them FANG stocks, like what's the new acronym that includes these new companies? I think that's maybe a job for us, Dan.

I'm not gonna start brainstorming live on the air here, but that's something we need to do. But then the S&P 500 is not gonna have SpaceX in it until the normal waiting time of a year. So that really creates a situation where you have two major indexes that normally traded a certain way. The NASDAQ usually trades it probably two or three times, the S&P on the way up, on the way down, it's just kind of got a higher beta to the market.

So if that thing has this huge company coming in fast-tracked, and assuming that the other two, Anthropic and OpenAI are gonna get in there eventually, and those things aren't in the S&P for, you know, 11 and a half months, those two indexes are gonna start trading in an uncorrelated way that we've never seen. I can't predict what that's gonna look like, but it's gonna be very interesting to see, like if there's any arbitrage opportunities between the S&P and the NASDAQ going forward.

Anything else that stands out?

Dan DeFrancesco: I'll be honest, I've just been trying to think about acronyms now that we can use and, and shorthand. I just love it. But yeah I totally agree. I think this is a historic moment, not just because of the size, because of what it signals for the future of the stock market.

I just wanted to read off some other comments that we're getting from LinkedIn.

Joe in Australia: "Yes, as a long-term investment," so then sides with, you know, this is my long-term bet.

Joseph in Grand Rapids says: "Overvalued. Every big IPO drops after people are allowed to sell," you know, in hashtags after the lockout period.

We also have Carl and Sweden: "Overpriced, overhyped, and the top management fails on all KPIs. "

Tom in West Virginia: "And I'll flip it really quick, it's just a big bag of Elon hype. I mean, there is value there, just not at these ridiculous numbers for the long term. So get in fast, get out fast, but under no circumstances, hold the stock. Just like at a Vegas blackjack table. Take your winnings and then run for the door."

I don't win much when I'm at the blackjack table. So I don't know what that is like, Tom in West Virginia, but let's definitely hang out.

I do like this reader from Ghana. I think it had the most salient point, and it's a good one: "$1.75 trillion valuation for a company that isn't profitable yet? That's either visionary or bonkers maybe both. The hype is real, but so are the risks. I'm curious to see if retail investors go all in on the Musk magic or take a wait-and-see approach. Personally? I'd probably let the first few days of volatility settle before jumping in."

I mean, that's it in a nutshell. This could be the best bet ever. It could, you know, crash and burn right now. It's looking pretty good. We're almost at 29% up for the day. By and large, I think, so far obviously a pretty successful IPO.

Is there anything else, Joe, before we let our viewers go, that you're really interested now in the aftermath? I mean, certainly we'll see how it continues to trade in next week, but anything else that really stands out to you?

Joe Ciolli: Yeah, well, I guess first off, I think we should probably just keep going. It seems like the stock's just been going up since we started talking. Should we just talk this thing up to a hundred? Like how far can we push this thing? I mean, we're almost at 30, so I think we're a good luck charm.

In terms of my final thought, I think that retail is the story here. One of the bear arguments that I've heard is that because of the huge retail allocation early on, because 30% of shares were given to them, and just because everyone that wanted to get in really had the chance to, it wasn't like anyone was locked out.

A lot of people got in now, so are they gonna buy more in a week or two weeks? What's next? Like, are they gonna do what one of our last readers just said and just pop in, pop out, take your profit, walk away from the blackjack table? I don't know. So one of the bear arguments is that because they essentially went so big on retail right off the bat, that retail might not be able to sustain this groundswell of interest over a longer period of time.

Of course, retail is not the only game in town. There was really strong institutional demand for this. One of the stats that I saw from the Wall Street Journal was that BlackRock put in for $5 billion, and that is almost as much as Cerebras, the previous biggest IPO of the year, raised in its entire offering.

So that just gives you an idea of the scale of the SpaceX IPO and also the fact that there was institutional interest and maybe the demise of that was greatly over exaggerated. So yeah, I'd say keep an eye on retail. There's various research firms that track the retail interest, and it can be a leading indicator. Like if retail starts to get cold feet, then that could permeate through and because of the huge chunk of shares allocated to them could end up being market moving.

So yeah, watch out for that, but yeah, it's an exciting time. Congrats on Elon on his trillion, and think big everyone. He certainly has and look at what, how it's paid off.

Dan DeFrancesco: It's paid off. Well, we're just shy of 30% now. Just real quick on the the retail point. I feel like a lot of people like to pick on retail traders. They point to Wall Street Bets and things like that, and they say, oh, it's the dumb money.

And, and look, there is some evidence of that at times. But retail traders, as things have kind of opened up, as the market has opened up, they become pretty sophisticated in a lot of ways and very smart sometimes in holding.

So I think the, the, the immediate stereotype or the immediate knock on, well, it's a ton of retail money, and that's dumb money, and they're just gonna sell and, and they're gonna hold the bag for everyone else. I think in cases that has been correct, but at other times they have turned out pretty well, and they've done well. And certainly a lot of times with Elon, they've invested in the long run. So I think to immediately cross this off as well, because a ton of retail has been invested, this is dead, and we need to wait till it drops as we're seeing now, it's not necessarily turning out. I mean, we're just, we're just shy now of that 30%.

Joe Ciolli: Yeah, I think you're right. And, I think retail is gonna continue to be the story. Retail and its relationship with Elon is kind of at the heart of all of Elon's properties and at the heart of all of his prowess in the market over time. And you know, I think that you're right. Like it's not really dumb money anymore.

Hedge funds scrape online forums for sentiment data. They use retail traders as an input to make their professional investment decisions because they realize there's something going on there that's worth paying attention to, and that these people are more sophisticated than they used to be. So that's absolutely true. Team retail, they've definitely grown into their shoes a bit, and this is a big moment for them. And I'm happy for anyone who, you know, bought in and is seeing this nice 30% spike today.

Dan DeFrancesco: I saw we touched 30%, so that feels like a good time to end it. Joe, as always, I appreciate you coming on and riffing on all this stuff. So thanks so much for taking the time. To you, the viewer, thanks so much for tuning in. Subscribe to BI Today, subscribe to First Trade, let us know what you think in the comments. And until next time, thanks so much.

Elon Musk's rocket company went public in a blockbuster IPO, skyrocketing the CEO's net worth above $1 trillion. How will the SpaceX IPO impact markets? Where does the company go from here? Business Insider's Dan DeFrancesco and Joe Ciolli have the answers to these questions and more in a live Q&A.