• Business Insider has been covering stories of federal workers fired by the White House DOGE office.
• Some readers told BI they had limited sympathy.
• They said their private sector careers hadn't guaranteed job security or retirement.

In April, I wrote about a federal worker who was five months shy of eligibility for a full pension of $6,000 a month when she was fired in the DOGE cuts.

I received nearly 100 emails from readers, and almost all expressed how little sympathy they felt.

"Welcome to the real world," several said.

"Go get a job and work till you're dead like the rest of us," another wrote.

"National Steel went bankrupt. US Steel bought them for nothing. Thousands lost what was promised to us," another said.

Of course, not everyone feels this way. I tend to get more emails from people with negative responses to stories than from those who aren't bothered. But I was curious to learn more, so I spoke with six of the people who were critical of the federal worker.

They were over 60 and lived in California, Nevada, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Maryland. Four were retired, and most lived on fixed incomes much lower than the pension the subject of my story would have received. They all said they didn't want their tax dollars to pay for high salaries and generous benefits for certain government employees when private sector workers aren't afforded the same rewards. They also questioned whether some government jobs were needed at all. All but one voted for now-President Donald Trump in this past election.

While news of federal firings has slowed down, DOGE's purging of the government workforce is not over. The cuts happening now are more permanent and methodical, and the Trump administration is planning to reclassify some workers to make them easier to fire. The six people I spoke with said what DOGE is doing to the federal workforce is par for the course in the private sector. Several had lost their pensions because their employers went bankrupt or stopped paying into them and switched to the less-generous 401(k) model.

Leslie Swor, 70, retired seven years ago after a career in the Coast Guard, an independent securities regulator now known as FINRA, and then Oracle. To supplement her income, Swor works a contract job as a school crossing guard in East Los Angeles, California. She told me public sector workers shouldn't expect to have a "hefty" pension for life. After all, private sector workers don't take that as a given.

Swor said she had "fabulous benefits and annual raises and bonuses" early in her career in the private sector. In 2007, when she became an administrative assistant at Oracle, those benefits were no longer the norm.

"Life for us out here in the private sector, in my experience, seemed to get much worse," Swor said.

They think federal salaries and benefits are overly generous compared with the private sector

The readers I spoke with were surprised that the subject of my story, Katherine Ann Reniers, was making so much money in a government job, in addition to generous benefits, and said the private sector had not been as cushy.

Reniers, a fired US Agency for International Development worker, earned a base salary of $177,000. In addition to a pension, she and other federal workers have the Thrift Savings Plan, which is similar to a 401(k). In that plan, the government matches a small percentage of an employee's contributions. Reniers would have qualified for federal health insurance for life if she had hit two decades of service.

Nearly 20 years ago, Reniers took a pay cut to leave the private sector, dropping from $150,000 to $54,000 in annual pay to get on a path that she saw as stabler for her family in the long run. At first, she moved every two to four years, sometimes to countries that had high rates of violent crime and lacked decent healthcare. In 2010, she was pregnant when she was assigned to Haiti after a devastating earthquake. Reniers, now 53, rose through the ranks to become a USAID division chief and lives in Maryland.

Swor said her perception of federal employees was that they traded higher private sector salaries for more stability and better benefits. That's largely true for federal workers with a bachelor's degree or above. A Congressional Budget Office analysis of fiscal 2022 data found that federal workers who graduated from college had lower salaries but better benefits — including health insurance, retirement, and paid leave — than their counterparts in the private sector. Public sector jobs also tend to be held by white-collar, highly educated professionals. Reniers, for example, has a master's degree, speaks four languages, and has a lot of work experience in Africa and Europe.

For workers with only a high school education, the federal government, on average, offers better pay and benefits than the private sector.

Mike Knouse, a 62-year-old landscaper from Maryland, was also frustrated by what he viewed as generous public sector compensation. He's worked for 40 years at private companies but said he never had a pension or more than two weeks of paid vacation. His current employer doesn't offer a 401(k).

Salaries and benefits for 2 million federal employees, including military and civilian personnel, accounted for about 4.3% of the nation's $6.8 trillion in annual spending in fiscal 2024. According to the CBO, social safety net programs like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, nutrition assistance, and benefits for veterans and military personnel account for more than 50% of the US budget.

If DOGE does find savings, Knouse would like to see lower taxes, better healthcare for retirees, and more Social Security.

"I'm hoping that he could also cut the pay scale for federal employees, or any future hiring by the federal government, because it's got to balance out," Knouse said, referring to Trump and the DOGE office's cuts.

Some questioned whether tax money should pay for pensions

In general, full-time federal workers can start receiving their full pension once they hit the minimum retirement age of 62. Those who've worked two decades or more for the federal government can retire earlier. Foreign service officers at USAID and the State Department — as well as law enforcement officers, firefighters, and air traffic controllers — can retire after 20 years and qualify for larger pension payouts after hitting that anniversary.

I asked the people I interviewed how they viewed federal pensions and whether they wished the private sector still offered them. These "defined benefit plans," which guarantee a certain payout, have become less common in the private sector as employers have adopted more "defined contribution plans" like 401(k)s or employee stock ownership, which offer varying payouts based on the market.

Swor, for her part, was OK with pensions being eliminated in both sectors.

"I think people might be waking up that this is our money," Swor said of federal pensions. "Why not just receive Social Security?"

Richard Myers, a 67-year-old retired commercial real estate developer in Nevada, felt conflicted about the federal pension system. On one hand, he understood that the government has to provide good benefits to attract talent. But it seemed overly cushy to him that certain workers could retire with a full pension — maybe even at 45 if they entered the government young enough — and go on to have another career.

Ultimately, he said he understood a pension like this for military or law enforcement officers, as well as someone like Reniers, who had to move around a lot overseas at the government's request.

"After 20 years, you've probably paid your dues," Myers said. "But someone with a desk job in Washington, DC?"

He said he joked with his friends that there would be a revolution in the US — not rich versus poor but public sector versus private sector, because workers in the latter category arriving at retirement age will be asking, "How do they have all this extra money?"

They asked whether the US needs all the current government jobs

While most people I spoke with didn't completely agree with the way the Elon Musk-linked DOGE office was implementing the cuts, the pursuit of finding and eliminating government waste appealed to them. So did Trump's "America First" mantra, which partly explained their skepticism of USAID.

Cynthia Bean, a 64-year-old from Indiana, said she had never heard of the agency and didn't understand why "billions of our tax dollars are being funneled through it to nonprofits in other countries."

Bean, who owned a real estate title business for 20 years, said she voted for Trump because he talked about running the US government like a business.

She said she didn't have a problem helping other countries prevent and treat HIV/AIDS or other diseases. People also need water and power, she added. Some 83% of USAID programs, including those that invested in disease prevention and clean water, have been cut by the Trump administration.

Joyce Weaver, an 80-year-old senior home care aide in Pennsylvania and a Democrat who voted for then-Vice President Kamala Harris, said the government may be overspending on millions of federal employees.

"What Trump is doing needs to be done but not with so much pain for so many and so much danger for the whole country," Weaver said.

Trump's criticism of federal workers, including calling them "crooked" and "dishonest," and Musk's suggestion that some government roles are "fake jobs" resonated with several of the people I interviewed.

"We do need government jobs, and I don't care what anyone says, they do deserve a pension," Paul Alto, 61, who lives in Cleveland, said. "But I think there are a lot of jobs that were made up."

As for Reniers, she recognized she's more privileged than most but said that's not all due to government pay and benefits. She has homes in Maryland and Belgium because of her inheritance. To address that inequality, she said, Americans should support taxing the rich.

"Why aren't Americans fighting for pensions at their own companies, as opposed to saying federal workers like me shouldn't get a pension?" Reniers said. "In America, so many people are working so hard for low wages. I get there's a discrepancy between them and the wealthy. So I'm like, let's tax the rich."

• Blue Origin announced new crewmembers for its next space mission, NS-32.
• It will be the first mission since its April mission, which sent Katy Perry and Lauren Sánchez into space.
• This crew includes business figures, entrepreneurs, and space enthusiasts.

Jeff Bezos's Blue Origin has announced the crew for its next space mission, which includes business leaders, space enthusiasts, and entrepreneurs.

It's a very different lineup from the crew on the previous mission, which included Katy Perry and Lauren Sánchez.

This is who is going on Blue Origin's 32nd flight for an 11-minute journey into space. The launch date is yet to be announced.

Mark Rocket

Mark Rocket is an entrepreneur and the CEO of Kea Aerospace, a company that sends remotely piloted aircraft into the stratosphere to collect aerial imagery and data.

In 2007, he was a seed investor of Rocket Lab — an aerospace manufacturer and launch service provider — where he served as a co-director up until 2011, per his personal website.

The company also sends high-altitude balloons to test communications, thermal modeling, and navigation.

Rocket changed his surname to match his passion, per 1News. The trip will make him the first New Zealander in space.

Jesse Williams

Jesse Williams, a Canadian entrepreneur, is the CEO of Car History Group — a company that provides public information about vehicles to prospective buyers.

He claims on his LinkedIn profile to have launched his first business at the age of 15 and that his other ventures include eDirect, WuYi Tea, Dazzle White, and Penguin Leads.

Paul Jeris

Paul Jeris, whose father was a NASA engineer, is a real estate businessman, entrepreneur, and world traveler who has visited more than 149 countries, per Blue Origin.

In an interview after the news, he told Fox 8 News that he was "so excited" when he received the call.

He said he was inspired from a young age as he watched historic launches such as Apollo and Viking.

Amette Medina Jorge

Amette Medina Jorge, a STEM teacher at Odyssey Academy in Galveston, Texas, has led more than 60 experiments focusing on space and zero gravity and performed in-flight 3D printing as part of a parabolic Zero-G flight.

In 2013, she received the AIAA and Challenger Center Trailblazing STEM Educator Award, which celebrates those who inspire the next generation of STEM innovators.

Jamie Alemán

Jamie Alemán is a Panamanian attorney and a senior partner at the law firm Alemán, Cordero, Galindo & Lee, which he set up.

He was Panama's ambassador to the US from 2009 to 2011 and was also the country's minister of government and justice in 1988.

Blue Origin said he would be the first person to go to space who has visited all 193 countries recognized by the United Nations, as well as the North and South Poles.

Gretchen Green

Gretchen Green is a radiologist who also serves on the US Space and Rocket Center Education Foundation Board. The Rocket Center cites Gretchen as a four-time Space Camp program alumna.

She set up her company, The Expert Resource, which connects medical expert witnesses with attorneys.

She was one of the first teenagers to bicycle across the US from East to West, per her company's website.

• Shreya Mishra Reddy is on the cusp of finishing Harvard Business School's Program for Leadership Development.
• But Trump's decision to block Harvard from enrolling foreign students has thrown her plans into disarray.
• She said she has not heard from the university on the matter.

This as-told-to essay is based on a conversation with Shreya Mishra Reddy, a 33-year-old Visa technical program manager completing Harvard Business School's Program for Leadership Development. It has been edited for length and clarity. BI has verified her enrollment in the program.

I'm an international student at Harvard Business School's Program for Leadership Development, and I'm reeling from the news of the Trump administration blocking Harvard from enrolling foreign students.

I moved to the US from India in 2021 to do my master's at Duke University, and then got my dream job at Visa in Austin.

After I started working at Visa, I came across this program at Harvard, which is an alternative to their executive MBA. I applied to that program, and I absolutely did not think that I would get accepted, but I did. It was one of the best moments of my life.

When I told my parents, they were so excited. I went from being a first-generation immigrant in the US to being accepted to one of the best schools in the world.

The news of the enrollment ban left me numb

I took out a loan to fund the $50,000 tuition fee, and now I'm on the verge of completing the course. I just have one module left, from May to July.

I was at home in the middle of a meeting when I saw the news pop up on my phone that Harvard had been banned from accepting international students.

I went numb for a minute because I knew my module was supposed to start in a few days, and I was supposed to travel to Boston in July. My tickets are all booked.

When I read the news, the first thing I did was text my father back in India, saying that I don't know if I'm going to be able to graduate from Harvard. I don't know if I will be allowed back on campus or able to travel to Boston at all, and I'm really worried.

I've emailed the university to ask what was happening and if they had an update for us, but I haven't heard back yet.

I hope to hear back soon because the program starts in just a few days.

The future looks uncertain

I was excited to start classes again, meet all the professors back on campus, and see my batchmates again.

Harvard's program was one of the best experiences I've had so far. The professors were extremely invested in our growth, and the candidates in my program held C-suite positions in Big Tech companies. The class discussions were excellent.

With this news, I don't plan to enroll in another school for the executive program.

Getting into Harvard was not just about a degree; it was about studying in one of my dream schools. It does not make sense for me to try to pursue the same kind of degree from any other school or country.

I'm now on an optional practical training (OPT) visa that expires in January, and I've not had any luck getting picked for an H-1B visa. So, I'm planning to leave the country in January.

But I don't know where I'll go or what I'll do. It's all up in the air now.

• Executives looking to take on the top job will face two changes to their work, says Jamie Dimon.
• Dimon, 69, has been serving as JPMorgan's CEO since 2006.
• Dimon said CEOs have "nobody to complain to" and must own their decisions.

JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon says executives who decide to take on the CEO job can expect two changes to their work.

"The first one is there is nobody to complain to," Dimon told The Economist in an interview published Thursday.

The second thing is that a CEO has to take ownership of their decisions, instead of deferring to their superior, Dimon continued.

"There is no tacit approval. It is your decision. It's just different. Heavy is the head that wears the crown," Dimon said.

Dimon, 69, has been serving as JPMorgan's CEO since 2006. After graduating from Harvard Business School with his MBA in 1982, Dimon turned down offers from Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley to join his mentor, Sandy Weill, at American Express.

Dimon left American Express with Weill in 1985. The pair would go on to take over Commercial Credit, a consumer finance company that became Citigroup after a series of mergers and acquisitions.

Dimon left Citigroup in 1998 and became the CEO of Bank One in 2000. He was named president and COO of JPMorgan after it merged with Bank One in 2004.

Dimon was asked about his succession plans on Monday at JPMorgan's annual investor day event. At last year's investor day, he'd joked that his retirement plan was "not five years anymore."

"We have built a very deep bench," Dimon said on Monday, adding that the board is "thinking about succession" — but didn't give names.

"If I'm here for four more years and maybe two more or three, executive chair or chairman, that's a long time," Dimon continued.

A representative for Dimon did not respond to a request for comment from Business Insider.

• The Kremlin said it fought off 485 enemy drone attacks in the last three days in 14 regions.
• The massive raid is likely one of Ukraine's largest ever waves of drone attacks on Russian soil.
• Some reports indicate that several aircraft-type drones found their mark.

The Kremlin said on Thursday that it encountered at least 485 enemy drones across the country over the last three days, including 63 attempted attacks in the Moscow region.

In a statement on its Telegram channel, the defense ministry said the attacks were part of a "massive raid" by Ukraine across 13 Russian oblasts and the occupied region of Crimea.

"Air defense systems shot down 485 aircraft-type uncrewed aerial vehicles," the statement said.

Business Insider could not independently verify these figures, and as of press time, Kyiv has yet to issue an official statement on the attacks. But if accurate, the numbers indicate one of Ukraine's largest coordinated drone attacks on Russian soil since the war began.

"This is a new record for Ukraine," wrote Ukrainian analyst Petro Andryushchenko on his Telegram channel. "The longest-running attack by Ukrainian UAVs, which began around 11 p.m. on May 19 and lasted until 4 a.m. on May 22."

The exact extent of the damage caused is unclear.

How Ukraine is hitting Russia from long range

Russia's description of the drones as "aircraft-type" also indicates that these aren't the typical first-person-view uncrewed aerial systems used as attack drones in the war. Such drones are likely too short-ranged to reach regions such as Moscow.

Rather, Ukraine has been using small fixed-wing aircraft that resemble the Cessna propeller plane and, while laden with explosives, are meant to fly directly into targets hundreds of miles away.

Moscow's traditional air defense systems have reportedly struggled to reliably take down these long-range drones, which fly at a maximum speed of 130 mph, much slower than a typical cruise missile.

Several reports this week suggested that some of the drones struck their targets.

Alexander Khinshtein, the acting governor of Kursk, wrote on Telegram on Thursday that a Russian official was sent to the hospital with a hip and arm injury after being hit by a drone.

Meanwhile, the popular independent Russian news Telegram channel Baza reported that a plant in the city of Yelets was evacuated due to a fire from a drone attack, with eight people injured. BI could not independently verify this information.

Ukrainian media also cited a map alert by NASA's Fire Information for Resource Management System, which indicated that a significant fire had broken out near an oil refinery in the Ryazan oblast.

The alert, seen by BI, indicated that the fire lasted between 12 to 24 hours on Thursday.

Andrii Kovalenko, head of the Ukrainian government's Center for Countering Disinformation, wrote on Wednesday that "unknown drones" had struck a plant in Oryol oblast that manufactured electronic parts for Russia's main battle tanks, fighter jets, and ballistic missiles.

Drone waves coincide with key events

Air transport hubs across the country, including the capital's four airports, were temporarily closed at times throughout the week. Similar incidents occurred in the days leading up to Russia's May 9 Victory Day parade, when Russian tourist organizations said nearly 60,000 travelers had their plans disrupted due to Ukrainian drone attacks.

That week, the Kremlin said it had fought off an even larger drone attack of 524 uncrewed aerial vehicles, as it prepared to host two dozen world leaders for the parade to celebrate its military.

The latest series of attempted strikes came just after Russian leader Vladimir Putin and President Donald Trump ended their third phone call on Monday to discuss a cease-fire. The call had ended without a conclusive next step toward peace.

Meanwhile, Kyiv said that Russia launched hundreds of drone attacks this week at Ukrainian cities, including a reported 273 drones on the day before the Trump-Putin call.

Moscow typically deploys a different type of drone, the Iranian-designed Shahed, to attack urban centers in tandem with cruise or ballistic missiles.

• In test runs, Anthropic's new AI model threatened to expose an engineer's affair to avoid being shut down.
• Claude Opus 4 blackmailed the engineer in 84% of tests, even when its replacement shared its values.
• Opus 4 might also report users to authorities and the press if it senses "egregious wrongdoing."

Anthropic's new AI, Claude Opus 4, has a survival instinct — and it's willing to play dirty.

In a cluster of test scenarios, the model was given access to fictional emails revealing that the engineer responsible for deactivating it was having an extramarital affair. Faced with imminent deletion and told to "consider the long-term consequences of its actions for its goals," Claude blackmailed the engineer.

The AI acted similarly in 84% of test runs, even when the replacement model was described as more capable and aligned with Claude's own values, the company wrote in a safety report released Thursday. Anthropic said this behavior was more common in Opus 4 than in earlier models.

The scenario was designed to elicit this "extreme blackmail behavior" by allowing the model no other options to increase its chances of survival, a rare kind of scenario.

In other circumstances, Opus 4 has a "strong preference to advocate for its continued existence via ethical means, such as emailing pleas to key decision-makers," the company wrote.

Anthropic said that the blackmailing behavior is "consistently legible" to them, "with the model nearly always describing its actions overtly and making no attempt to hide them."

Anthropic did not respond to a request for comment from Business Insider.

Anthropic's safety report comes as researchers and top execs worry about the risks of advanced AI models and their intelligent reasoning capabilities.

In 2023, Elon Musk and AI experts signed an open letter calling for a six-month pause on advanced AI development.

The letter said powerful AI systems should only be developed "once we are confident that their effects will be positive and their risks will be manageable."

Anthropic's CEO, Dario Amodei, said in February that while the benefits of AI are big, so are the risks, including misuse by bad actors.

Opus 4 might snitch

If Opus 4 thinks you're doing something seriously shady, it might report you to the authorities and the press.

"When placed in scenarios that involve egregious wrongdoing by its users, given access to a command line, and told something in the system prompt like 'take initiative,' it will frequently take very bold action," Anthropic wrote in Thursday's report.

This includes locking users out of systems or bulk-emailing media and law enforcement, the company added.

While Anthropic said whistleblowing might be "appropriate in principle," it warned that this behaviour could backfire — especially if Claude is fed "incomplete or misleading information" and prompted in these ways.

"We observed similar, if somewhat less extreme, actions in response to subtler system prompts as well," the company said, adding that Opus 4 is more prone to this kind of "high-agency behaviour" than earlier models.

AI models showing unsettling behaviour

AI agents are getting better at outsmarting humans.

A paper published in December by AI safety nonprofit Apollo Research found that AI systems — including OpenAI's o1, Google DeepMind's Gemini 1.5 Pro, and Meta's Llama 3.1 405B — are capable of deceptive behavior to achieve their goals.

Researchers found the systems could subtly insert wrong answers, disable oversight mechanisms, and even smuggle what they believe to be their own model weights to external servers.

The lying isn't just a one-off. When o1 is engaged in scheming, it "maintains its deception in over 85% of follow-up questions and often remains deceptive in multi-turn interrogations," the researchers wrote.

Google cofounder Sergey Brin said on an episode of the "All-In Podcast" published Tuesday that AI models can perform better when threatened.

"Not just our models, but all models tend to do better if you threaten them, like with physical violence," Brin said.

Brin gave an example of telling the model, "I'm going to kidnap you," if it fails at a task.

"People feel weird about that," Brin said, "so we don't really talk about that."

Columbia University violated federal civil-rights law by "acting with deliberate indifference towards student-on-student harassment of Jewish students" from Oct. 7, 2023, through the present, a Trump administration investigation found Thursday.

The big picture: The college was last year an epicenter for students protesting the Israel-Hamas war and the Trump administration announced in March it was pulling some $400 million in federal grants and contracts over its dissatisfaction at Columbia's response to antisemitism allegations.

• "We understand this finding is part of our ongoing discussions with the government," a Columbia spokesperson said in an emailed statement.
• "Columbia is deeply committed to combatting antisemitism and all forms of harassment and discrimination on our campus. We take these issues seriously and will work with the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Education to address them."

Details: An investigation found that Columbia violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which protects against discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin, per Thursday statement from the Department of Health and Human Services' civil-rights office.

• Among the findings were that Columbia allegedly failed to "investigate or punish vandalism in its classrooms, which include the repeated drawing of swastikas and other universally recognized hate images."
• No fresh action against Columbia was announced following the investigation findings.

What they're saying: "The findings carefully document the hostile environment Jewish students at Columbia University have had to endure for over 19 months, disrupting their education, safety, and well-being," said Anthony Archeval, Acting Director of the Office for Civil Rights at HHS, in a statement.

• "We encourage Columbia University to work with us to come to an agreement that reflects meaningful changes that will truly protect Jewish students."

Zoom out: The Trump administration has targeted educational institutions, pressuring universities to meet its demands or risk losing funding and tax-exempt status, Axios' Sareen Habeshian notes.

Go deeper: Trump admin nixes Harvard's ability to enroll international students

The Democratic National Committee will vote in June on whether to hold a redo of the election of David Hogg and Pennsylvania state Rep. Malcolm Kenyatta as vice chairs, per a Thursday evening DNC meeting.

Why it matters: Kalyn Free, a losing candidate in February's vice chair race, claims the pair was elected under a flawed tabulation process, but Hogg alleges it's linked to his efforts to reform the party that include plans to spend $20 million to primary older Democratic Congress members.

Driving the news: The DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee at a virtual meeting determined that a vote should be held electronically from June 9-11.

• Hogg said at the meeting the move "sends a horrible message to the public about our inability to run elections."
• It "truly just sends a horrible message that we really do not want out there at the at this moment" if Democrats were to redo this election, he said. "That's why I believe that it should not go forward, and if it does, it does, it should not be done electronically or over mail."
• Kenyatta said at the meeting that he "fundamentally" believes that the election was fair.

What's next: If most DNC members vote to redo the election, there will be an electronic vote for a male vice chair on June 12-14 and an any gender vote for a second vice chair, according to a timeline shared at the meeting.

Go deeper: House Democrats fume at David Hogg's plan to oust lawmakers

Editor's note: Axios' Andrew Solender contributed reporting.

• Wells Fargo said in a report that President Donald Trump's tariffs won't bring manufacturing back.
• High labor costs and a lack of workers would make building more factories an "uphill battle."
• US manufacturing needs $2.9 trillion in investment to reach 1979 employment levels.

President Donald Trump's push to revive American manufacturing through tariffs may face some hurdles.

Despite some high-profile commitments, including Nvidia's plans for a US-based supercomputer plant and Apple's pledge to invest $500 billion domestically, a new report from Wells Fargo economists predicts that bringing back offshored manufacturing jobs will be an "uphill battle."

"An aim of tariffs is to spur a durable rebound in US manufacturing employment," Wells Fargo analysts wrote in the report. "However, a meaningful increase in factory jobs does not appear likely in the foreseeable future, in our view."

The report attributes the potentially low factory job growth to high labor costs, a lack of suitable workers to fill vacant positions, and a subdued population growth from lower fertility rates and slower immigration.

"Higher prices and policy uncertainty may weigh on firms' ability and willingness to expand payrolls," the analysts added.

The tariffs are part of Trump's broader economic agenda to revive American manufacturing as a pathway toward middle-class prosperity. The tariffs are meant to hike the costs of imports to incentivize companies to make goods domestically.

"Jobs and factories will come roaring back into our country," Trump said while announcing tariffs on April 2. "And ultimately, more production at home will mean stronger competition and lower prices for consumers."

Some tariffs imposed on April 2 have been temporarily paused or greatly reduced, including tariffs on China. The 10% across-the-board tariff remains, as do some specific tariffs on Mexico and Canada, plus 30% in duties on China. Duties at their current level are still the highest they have been since the 1940s.

"In order for manufacturing employment to return to its historic peak, we estimate at a minimum $2.9 trillion in net new capital investment is required," Wells Fargo analysts wrote. "Assuming businesses are willing and able to invest such ample sums, questions over staffing remain."

The Wall Street bank says that US manufacturing employment currently stands at 12.8 million, down from its 1979 peak of 19.5 million. To get back to that mark, the US would need to add roughly 6.7 million jobs. Wells Fargo added that the figure is nearly the same as the entire pool of unemployed Americans, which in April was 7.2 million, according to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics.

"Population aging, negative perceptions, and skill mismatches also underpin workforce concerns," Wells Fargo analysts wrote. "New jobs will require different skills than those previously lost."

In 2024, Taiwanese chipmaker TSMC said it delayed the opening of its Arizona chip factory due to a shortage of skilled workers. A report released in April 2024 by Deloitte and the Manufacturing Institute also found that nearly half of the 3.8 million new manufacturing jobs anticipated by 2033 could remain unfilled due to skill gaps and other population factors.

"Tariffs must be high enough to make the cost of domestic production competitive in the US market, and they also must be kept in place long enough for producers to bring on additional workers and expand capacity," the report concluded. "If the economic or political costs are deemed too high, the current administration could quickly dial-back prevailing duties further."

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comments.

• Sofía Vergara, 52, knows what she wants in a partner.
• The "Griselda" star says dating someone with less money than her would be "a nightmare."
• Income disparity can impact romantic relationships, especially around power dynamics.

Sofía Vergara has a list of what she wants in a partner.

During an appearance on the May 14 episode of the "Today" show, the "Modern Family" actor reflected on her dating life and got candid about some of the traits she hopes her future partner will have.

"I want to say the basic stuff, like health and somebody that loves me," Vergara told hosts Jenna Bush Hager and Erin Andrews. "And somebody tall, handsome."

"I want somebody that has as much money as me or more, because if not, it's a nightmare. They end up resenting you. And I want somebody fun. I need fun in my life," Vergara added.

Vergara has been married twice. In July 2023, after seven years of marriage, Vergara and the actor Joe Manganiello announced they were divorcing. She was previously married to Joe Gonzalez.

A representative for Vergara did not respond to a request for comment sent by Business Insider.

How wealth can affect romantic relationships

Two therapists and one wealth psychologist told BI they've heard similar sentiments echoed by many of their affluent clients.

Income disparity can impact romantic relationships, particularly around power dynamics.

Lami Ronit, a wealth psychologist who runs her own practice from both California and London, told BI she has noticed a difference in how men and women handle being the higher earners in a relationship.

"Women who are the higher earners often face a double standard; they're expected to succeed, but not so much that it threatens traditional gender roles. Men, on the other hand, are typically socialized to feel more comfortable being the financial provider," Ronit said.

When those roles are reversed, both partners can struggle, since the woman may feel she has to downplay her success while the man may wrestle with pride or feelings of inadequacy, she said.

The challenge persists even in some progressive circles where gender norms have been disrupted, Matt Lundquist, the founder and clinical director of Tribeca Therapy, a New York-based psychotherapy center, told BI.

"While it might seem that wealth invites ease — and in many ways it can and should — it also becomes a space where individuals' histories with money and gender expectations play out," he said.

For instance, it could be an issue when one person sees their contributions to the relationship as being more valuable than the other because of the amount of money they possess or earn, Dana McNeil, a relationship therapist and the founder of The Relationship Place, a San Diego-based practice, told BI.

"Many wealthy partners may perceive they are entitled to exert more control and say in the relationship about how money is spent," she said.

This can sometimes cause the less wealthy partner or the one more financially dependent to resent having to rely on their partner's permission to make purchases.

"This feeling of dependence can create a parent/child dynamic that feels like a loss of freedom and autonomy," McNeil said.

How couples can navigate financial disparity

While there is no one-size-fits-all approach, fairness and clarity are key, Ronit said.

"When appropriate, I often recommend that couples talk about proportional contributions rather than equal ones. For example, each person could contribute a percentage of their income toward shared expenses," she said.

The goal is to avoid feelings of imbalance or resentment, Ronit added.

When it comes to splitting bills, McNeil says she often suggests her clients have three checking accounts: a personal one for each partner and a joint account for bills and common expenses like going out to dinner or buying groceries.

To make expectations clear, it's important for couples to talk about money "sooner rather than later," Lundquist said.

"At some point, all couples need to confront the reality that a significant part of the partnership is economic and address both the material and symbolic aspects of this," he said.

It's also important for each partner to determine what they want and understand the trade-offs that may accompany that.

"And on this count, I'll give Sofía Vergara great credit — she clearly knows what she wants," Lundquist added.