For Ron Sliter, getting a master's degree seemed like a path to job security. After spending nearly two decades in the military, including eight tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, he attended graduate school with the help of the GI Bill and landed a job in IT administration. He looked forward to climbing the corporate ladder and enjoying a long, successful career in the civilian world.

Then, in January 2023, he got laid off. Since then, he's applied to thousands of roles — to no avail. After more than two years, he's still unemployed. The whole experience, he says, feels like "being caught in the middle of 'The Texas Chainsaw Massacre.'"

"It's disheartening," he tells me. "They sell you on the dream, you fight for the dream, and you come back to take advantage of the dream that you fought for. And you realize it doesn't exist."

Sliter is part of a sudden spike in the number of highly educated professionals who are struggling to find a job — any job. According to government data analyzed by the economist Aaron Terrazas, professionals with advanced degrees who are looking for work find themselves stranded on the unemployment line for a median of 18 weeks — a jobless spell that has more than quadrupled over the past two years. And in a strange twist, job searches are now taking more than twice as long for educated elites than they are for workers who never went to college. At the moment, the higher your degree, the longer it will take for you to find a job.

It's not news that we're in the midst of a sharp downturn in tech and finance — one that has hit highly credentialed professionals especially hard. I've been calling it a white-collar recession, assuming that it's temporary. It's normal, after all, to experience dips in the job market. There have been plenty of times over the years when Ph.D. holders faced longer job searches than high school graduates. But whatever the ups and downs, education — particularly an advanced degree — has generally provided a good buffer against financial insecurity.

Lately, though, I've started to wonder if what we're seeing in the job market is a sign of something deeper. What if Sliter's protracted spell of joblessness is an early warning signal — an indication that the economy is undergoing a fundamental shift? What if, going forward, education no longer provides a path to economic security the way it once did?

"For 40 years, we've been talking about how more education leads to better labor market outcomes," says Terrazas, the former chief economist for Glassdoor. "Suddenly, that feels like it's changing." And the shift, he warns, could herald a profound "moment of dislocation" for today's white-collar professionals, just as blue-collar workers faced a seismic reckoning in the wake of globalization.

"What the early 2000s were for manufacturing workers, I worry that the mid-2020s are going to be for knowledge workers," Terrazas says. "American manufacturing workers were told they were highly productive until global trade opened up, and then suddenly that changed. I worry that we're in a comparable moment for knowledge workers. They were told they were the most productive workers in the world. Suddenly that's being undermined."

Education has long served as a ticket to a better, more secure life. But rarely has it mattered more than in recent decades, with the rise of robots and computers and the internet. The more schooling you had, the more likely you were to survive the sudden technological disruption. Between 1980 and 2009, the economists Daron Acemoglu and David Autor found, wages increased modestly for those with a bachelor's degree, soared for those with an advanced degree, and tumbled for high school dropouts. Economists gave the phenomenon an awkward name: skill-biased technological change. In plainspeak: Get more degrees or you're screwed. Education was the one thing that kept you safe in an increasingly cutthroat economy.

To secure their futures, an unprecedented number of young Americans enrolled in graduate schools, taking out big loans that they believed would yield even bigger payoffs down the road. Since 2000, the numbers of Americans with master's degrees and doctorates have more than doubled — while the ranks of those without a high school diploma shrank.

But then, over the past few years, the demand for super-educated professionals suddenly took a deep dive. A variety of factors have combined to alter the white-collar landscape. The first was the pandemic-driven shift to remote work. No longer limited by the constraints of geography, American companies realized they could hire abroad, giving them access to a larger and cheaper pool of highly trained professionals. Suddenly, homegrown computer scientists, product managers, and data scientists — long treated as rare diamonds worthy of their high salaries — seemed more like overpriced commodities compared with their counterparts overseas.

Another factor has been the big push among corporate recruiters to de-emphasize formal credentials in the hiring process, a trend known as "skills-based hiring." Some employers no longer list degree requirements in job postings; others have added the qualifier "or equivalent experience." That's giving people without the extra schooling a chance at landing the most coveted white-collar jobs — while undercutting the advantage long enjoyed by the advanced-degree holders.

And then there's AI. As I've written before, studies show that chatbots and other AI tools are already providing a boost to those with the least skill and experience, while doing little to help high performers — the very people who likely got an advanced degree to hone their skills. What's more, early estimates suggest that in the long run, AI is most likely to displace white-collar professionals, while leaving most blue-collar jobs intact. And besides, getting an MBA or some other advanced degree didn't exactly prepare anyone for the sudden emergence of ChatGPT. The faster technology changes, the faster your fancy degree is likely to feel outdated. Terrazas found that the median age for those experiencing long-term unemployment is now 37 — meaning you don't have to be a boomer to feel like technology has passed you by.

"What we think of as 'old' is a lot younger now," Terrazas says. "With the accelerated technical frontier, what it means to be out of date is creeping downward."

That's what happened to a millennial I'll call Tara. After earning her MBA from Cornell University in 2021, she was confident that all the hard work — and expense — was going to pay off. With a job offer from Amazon in hand, she moved across the country to Seattle, excited to live on her own for the first time and begin a brand-new career as a product manager. Whatever happened with the job, she figured there would always be plenty of companies eager to hire someone with a business degree from a top school.

Then Tara got laid off during the tech downturn in November 2023 — and hasn't been able to land a new role. Unemployed for 14 months and counting, she's applied to something like 650 jobs. "With every passing month, as my stress levels went up, my search criteria expanded," she tells me. "I'm stumped at just how hard it's been."

Professionals with advanced degrees aren't just mired in longer job searches — they're facing what feels like a vicious circle: The longer they're out of work, the more obsolete their skills become, which in turn makes it even harder to find a job. As they grow increasingly dejected, some opt for lower-paying roles; others give up altogether. Economists refer to this as "scarring," and it's one of the reasons they worry so much about long-term unemployment. It doesn't just hurt the people who can't find work. It also hurts the broader economy.

The prospects for educated elites are so bleak that some have taken to hiding the credentials they worked so hard to earn. Scott Catey, a policy director who has both a JD and a Ph.D., says he sometimes leaves out the doctorate in job applications, to avoid being viewed as overqualified. Michael Borsellino, who has a doctorate in urban studies, started listing his degree as being in "social sciences," to make it sound applicable to a wider range of jobs. The goal, he says, is "not to pigeonhole myself."

Ever since the Industrial Revolution, the modern economy has been dividing up the workforce into ever-narrower specializations. A driving force in higher education, in fact, was to cultivate the sort of hyper-niche expertise that the marketplace demanded. But Terrazas says we're now starting to see the darker side of becoming really, really good at one thing. "Specialization can create productivity-enhancing high returns," he says. "But it can also create obsolescence."

Borsellino, who eventually landed a role at LinkedIn after a nine-month search, doesn't think his Ph.D. proved to be an asset. "If it did help, I feel like I wouldn't have been unemployed for as long as I was," he says. "I don't know if it was a drain, but I don't think it was the end-all, be-all that I grew up believing it would be." If he were thinking about getting a doctorate today, he's not sure he'd do it. "I think we're at this point where experience is valued so much more that it's really, really difficult to justify doing the degree."

Advanced-degree holders, of course, continue to be the economy's overwhelming winners. Most of them are gainfully employed, with salaries that are typically far higher than anyone else's. And it's possible that the current hiring obstacles facing educated professionals will prove to be a temporary blip, just one more twist in a deeply strange pandemic-era economy that we've failed to understand time and time again.

But if I'm right, and this turns out to be the beginning of an enduring trend, it will force us to rethink our long-standing assumptions about education and employment. If even a Ph.D. can't keep us safe from economic catastrophe, what will? That's the question that I find deeply unsettling, especially as we face the uncertainty and upheaval of the AI revolution. Yes, it's always been unfair that those who can afford to keep going to school face better prospects than their less-educated peers. But at least there was some kind of road map to financial security, a rule of thumb that told you how to get to higher ground. There was comfort in that predictability.

Catey, the JD-Ph.D., counts himself among the lucky ones. While he continues his search for a full-time job, he's been able to land enough freelance work to get by. And he doesn't have to worry about paying off his student loans, because they were forgiven by the Biden administration. But being without a full-time job for almost a year wasn't exactly the life he envisioned back when he was slogging his way through grad school.

"Credentialing seemed to me a very solid way to make sure I had a reliable future of employment in front of me," he says. "That's not how it turned out."

Andy Kiersz contributed analysis.

Aki Ito is a chief correspondent at Business Insider.

• The Supreme Court is set to hear a case Tuesday that could expand prisoner access to jury trials.
• The case relates to the PLRA, a 1996 law requiring prisoners to pursue a prison grievance before filing suit.
• The petitioner says expanding access to juries would leave courts "inundated" with meritless suits.

When US lawmakers introduced legislation nearly 30 years ago to curb the "frivolous" prisoner lawsuits they said were inundating the courts, they insisted it wouldn't affect prisoners with legitimate claims.

That law, the 1996 Prison Litigation Reform Act, created something of a catch-22. Under the PLRA, any lawsuit, however serious the claim, can be dismissed if the prisoner didn't first exhaust their prison's internal grievance process. Yet prisoners say grievances can be stymied by the very guards they've accused of wrongdoing.

In these cases, a prisoner's claim of abuse or retaliation can be intertwined with their failure to properly file grievances.

The Supreme Court is expected to hear arguments Tuesday about whether prisoners have a right to argue these complex cases before a jury.

The case the justices will hear centers on a Michigan prisoner named Kyle Brandon Richards, who said in a legal complaint he filed in April 2020 that Thomas Perttu, a resident unit manager at the Baraga Correctional Facility, had "engaged in a pattern of prolific and repetitive sexual abuse." Richards said that when he tried to file written grievances reporting the abuse, Perttu retaliated against him by destroying them and threatening to kill him.

The Michigan Department of Corrections declined to comment on the claims against Perttu and did not confirm whether he still worked at the prison, citing the pending litigation. Michigan's attorney general's office, which represents Perttu, did not respond to queries.

A judge dismissed Richards' lawsuit over his failure to exhaust Baraga's grievance process under the PLRA. An appeals court reversed course. A panel of 6th Circuit judges found that because Richards' First Amendment retaliation claims against Perttu were intertwined with a factual dispute over whether he'd properly exhausted the grievance process, those contested facts should be decided by a jury, not a judge, under the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial.

Perttu appealed, and the question of whether prisoners in these situations have a right to a jury trial will now be heard by the Supreme Court.

"Holding that the Seventh Amendment requires a jury decision on this question would be significant," said Michael Mushlin, an emeritus professor at Pace University's law school, who wrote an amicus brief with law professors in support of Richards' claims. "It's not earth-shattering, but it's significant in trying to soften the horrible blow of the PLRA."

A contested law

Though the PLRA was pitched as a common-sense reform to curb trivial lawsuits, Business Insider found, in a six-part series published in December, that the law has largely stymied prisoner lawsuits claiming serious harm — including retaliatory beatings, stabbings, sexual assaults, and egregious forms of medical neglect.

Exhausting an internal grievance system before filing suit, as the PLRA requires, is often a convoluted ordeal.

In one case BI uncovered that was dismissed by a judge over the failure to exhaust, a New Jersey prisoner said he'd been beaten by prison guards while he was in restraints and then missed a grievance deadline while in solitary confinement. In another, a Virginia prisoner who said he was sexually abused by a prison psychologist filed a grievance that was not considered specific enough. In Indiana, a prisoner who said he attempted suicide after a guard told him to "go for it" lost in court because his grievance didn't contain the guard's full name.

In Richards' case, he argued that he was unable to meet the PLRA's exhaustion requirement because Perttu had destroyed his grievance forms — the same set of circumstances at the heart of his retaliation claim.

"The disputed facts," said Lori Alvino McGill, a lecturer at the University of Virginia's law school who is representing Richards before the Supreme Court, "will be critical to both the retaliation claim and to whether administrative remedies were available."

The PLRA has faced intense criticism since it was first enacted. Members of Congress have tried to reform the law and failed. And the Richards case is not the first time the Supreme Court has been asked to review aspects of the law.

Margo Schlanger, a law professor at the University of Michigan who is a leading researcher on the PLRA's effects and who helped guide BI on its research methodology, said that if the justices decide in favor of Richards, it would mean, at the very least, "a few more cases" filed by prisoners would make it before juries.

BI found that such outcomes are unusual. Of nearly 1,500 Eighth Amendment prisoner cases BI analyzed for its series — including every appeals court case that reached a decision over a five-year period — only 2% were decided by a jury.

Plaintiffs who got a jury trial fared far better than those who did not: Less than 1% won their cases before a judge, while 18% of plaintiffs whose cases reached a jury prevailed.

ACLU, Cato, counties weigh in

Richards' case has attracted support from the ACLU and the Cato Institute, the libertarian think tank, which both filed amicus briefs on Richards' behalf. Groups including the National Sheriffs' Association and the International Municipal Lawyers Association filed briefs supporting Perttu.

The Cato Institute argued in its brief that the constitutional right to a civil jury trial is "fundamental to American liberty."

"For Richards, and those similarly situated to him," Cato's Clark Neily III wrote, "a jury trial at the exhaustion stage is essential to ensure that their claims are fairly heard."

According to Jennifer Wedekind, a senior staff attorney at the ACLU's National Prison Project who was an author of the ACLU's brief, credibility determinations often come down to an officer's word against a prisoner's. "Those are precisely the type of determinations that juries are supposed to be making," she told BI.

The Supreme Court could decide broadly that every incarcerated plaintiff is entitled to a jury trial when there are disputes over exhaustion. Or the justices could rule more narrowly, as Mushlin expects — granting access to a jury trial only to plaintiffs in cases in which the factual discrepancies over exhaustion are inseparable from the substantive issues of the case.

Perttu's lawyers argued that if the justices uphold the circuit court's decision, federal courts will be "inundated" with "meritless lawsuits that they must allow to go to a jury" and effectively "erase nearly 30 years of progress in reducing frivolous lawsuits."

A brief filed by the International Municipal Lawyers Association and the National Association of Counties echoed those points, arguing that the 6th Circuit ruling "undermines the PLRA's goal of saving costs by reducing the volume of frivolous inmate suits."

BI found that claims of a tide of frivolous lawsuits were largely a myth. While a few dozen of the claims in BI's sample appeared to center on minor matters, the vast majority clearly involved claims of substantive harm. The effects of the law have been dramatic: Of the roughly 1,400 federal prisoner cases that BI examined filed by people who were imprisoned — rather than by former prisoners or their families — 27% failed because of the PLRA's requirements. Among cases decided in district courts, 35% failed because of the law.

Research by Schlanger found that within five years of the PLRA's passage prisoner suits dropped by 43% even as the prison population grew. The filing rate, she later found, never rebounded.

In BI's sample of prisoner suits, plaintiffs prevailed less than 1% of the time — indicating a near evisceration of protections for this country's 1.2 million prisoners, thanks to the combined impact of the PLRA and a set of legal standards established by the Supreme Court at the height of the war on drugs.

"Recent reports from Business Insider show that many prisoners have been denied their basic legal rights," Rep. Jan Schakowsky of Illinois said in response to BI's series. "Any abuse that happens inside our prisons must be allowed to reach the light of day."

A hot startup that grew overnight into a billion-dollar behemoth is racing with established tech giants for supremacy in a new market that everyone expects will unlock a future of abundance and profit.

Flashback: That sounds like a description of OpenAI vs Google et al., but it's actually an account of the "browser wars" at the dawn of the web 30 years ago — when Netscape vied with Microsoft to control the software people would use to access the internet.

Why it matters: In 1996 or 1997, a couple years after forward-looking tech leaders first realized that "owning" the web browser would be a prize, Google — the company that would ultimately win the race — didn't even exist.

Today, as AI giants and challengers vie to build a better chatbot and seize mindshare and market share, there is similarly a good possibility that the winning bot (assuming there is only one) has not yet been invented, and the company that will make it has yet to be founded.

That's why tech's superpowers, despite their immense wealth and influence, have been running scared.

• It's also why VCs continue to pour money into new startups like Mira Murati's Thinking Machines Lab and Ilya Sutskever's Safe Superintelligence.

It can be baffling to watch the proliferation of these companies in a market that's already led by the likes of OpenAI's ChatGPT, Google's Gemini and Anthropic's Claude — with well-funded competitors like Elon Musk's xAI, open-source offerings like Meta's Llama and new contenders like China's Deepseek also thronging the AI space.

The space's crowding leads some observers to see today's AI splurge as a bubble, and it almost certainly is. Many or most of these companies and products will fail — indeed, culling has already begun.

• But the logic of venture capital assumes that, even as most companies will fail, a few investors will hit the jackpot by getting an early piece of a company that grows unfathomably profitable the way Google or Facebook/Meta, did.

No one knows how this will play out in AI.

• The jackpot company could be one of today's market leaders like OpenAI. It could be a dark horse that's still a back-of-a-napkin sketch on some founder's dining-room table. Or maybe one of today's established giants will end up owning the market.

The browser wars make an instructive parallel.

• In the '90s, Netscape was in the OpenAI position — it kicked off the new market with fast updates of its free Navigator browser and wowed the world with a skyrocketing initial public offering in 1995.
• Microsoft fought back with the introduction of the competing Internet Explorer, a flop at first that gradually improved and won users thanks to its integration with Microsoft's dominant operating system.
• Microsoft won the first battle — triggering a massive antitrust lawsuit by the Justice Department. But over the following decade IE lost ground to more innovative competitors like Mozilla.

Google didn't even introduce Chrome until 2008, and today it's by far the most popular browser in the world.

• But by that time, the victory didn't seem to matter as much. The smartphone revolution was underway, and apps were taking on much of the "gateway to the internet" role from browsers.

The bottom line: Tech's platform shifts may feel high-velocity, but they take a long time to unfold — and you should never feel too sure you know who is going to own the future.

• Kayla Barnes-Lentz is 33 but says biohacking has helped her reverse her biological age by 11 years.
• She views sleeping and red light therapy as biohacks, and says they are her favorite.
• Many of Barnes-Lentz's longevity treatments are experimental.

Kayla Barnes-Lentz wants to live to 150.

And, according to her calculations of her "biological age," she's making good progress. The 33-year-old longevity clinic owner and podcaster, based in Los Angeles, told Business Insider that biohacking has helped her reverse her biological age by 11 years.

In contrast to chronological age, biological age is a measure of how healthy cells, tissues, and organs appear to be. However, the idea is contested because we don't know how bodies "should" look at any given age.

Barnes-Lentz has a lengthy list of experimental treatments she does to optimize her health and try to live longer — from taking cold plunges to standing on vibration plates to breathing in hydrated air — which means she's essentially biohacking most of the day.

But of all her biohacks, she has two favorites.

Sleep

"Sleep is the foundation of health," Barnes-Lentz said. "Going to bed early and getting high-quality sleep is a game changer for energy levels, focus, motivation, and overall feeling."

She and her husband, Warren Lentz, wind down for the night by watching TV and cuddling. They go to bed at 8:30 p.m. most nights.

Research suggests that getting less than seven to eight hours of sleep a night is associated with a higher risk of chronic diseases, such as type 2 diabetes, heart disease, and depression, as well as issues with focusing and reacting. But 36.8% of Americans get less than seven hours sleep a night, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Some biohackers spend thousands on sleep hygiene products and tech that isn't proven. Barnes-Lentz uses an Oura ring to track her sleep quality, but otherwise, she keeps things simple: she gets eight hours a night and never uses her phone in bed.

Business Insider previously reported on how to get the best sleep possible.

Red light therapy

Barnes-Lentz's favorite tech-based biohack is red light therapy. Her at-home sauna has an in-built red light, so she can do both at the same time.

She said red light therapy improves the functioning of the mitochondria, or the parts of cells that produce energy, which she hopes will increase her energy levels. In a 2024 study published in the Journal of Biophotonics, researchers found that red light appeared to improve the performance of mitochondria in the body — but there's no proof this leads to overall better energy levels.

Barnes-Lentz has also posted on Instagram about how she uses red light therapy to reduce skin aging and inflammation.

It has shown some potential for improving the appearance of skin, such as reducing scars, acne, and wrinkles, but more research is needed to guarantee that it's effective, according to the Cleveland Clinic.

Some people buy $150,000 red light therapy beds or do red light therapy treatments at spas or medical centers. Barnes-Lentz combines red light therapy with time in her sauna, which she does every morning.

• The 31st SAG Awards were held at the Shrine Auditorium in Los Angeles on Sunday.
• Celebrity couples, like Jonathan Scott and Zooey Deschanel, made a splash on the red carpet with their outfits.
• Adrien Brody and Georgina Chapman opted for matching monochromatic looks.

On Sunday, some of Hollywood's biggest stars showed up at the Shrine Auditorium in Los Angeles for the 31st Screen Actors Guild (SAG) Awards.

While the event was filled with couples dressed in their best outfits, Kristen Bell — the host — left her husband, Dax Shepard, at home to look after the kids. "We don't have very many babysitters who are ever available," she told People.

Nonetheless, the show must go on; Here's a look at some of the best-dressed couples of the night.

Jeff Goldblum and Emilie Livingston

Jeff Goldblum and his wife, Canadian dancer Emilie Livingston, arrived at the event hand in hand.

Goldblum wore a dark suit with a bowtie and a green scarf, while Livingston opted for a bejeweled silver gown.

Jonathan Scott and Zooey Deschanel

Jonathan Scott and Zooey Deschanel are a match made for the red carpet. The couple showed up in coordinated black-and-white outfits with bowties.

Adrien Brody and Georgina Chapman

Adrien Brody, who was nominated for best male actor for his role in "The Brutalist," and his partner Georgina Chapman opted for matching monochromatic looks for the red carpet.

Brody wore a black tuxedo with a bowtie, while Chapman was in a sculptural strapless gown from her own clothing label, Marchesa.

David and Emma Gyasi

David Gyasi wore a simple black suit with a high-neck white shirt, while his wife, Emma Gyasi, nearly stole the spotlight from him in a stunning red gown.

William Jackson Harper and Ali Ahn

William Jackson Harper and Ali Ahn stood out from the crowd in their outfits.

Harper looked dapper in his embossed navy-colored suit, while Ahn wore a cream gown with feathered shoulder details.

Zoe Saldaña and Marco Perego

Zoe Saldaña, who won best supporting actress for her role in "Emilia Pérez," looked stunning in her black velvet gown with bejeweled ruffled detailing.

Her husband, Marco Perego, an Italian film producer, opted for a more subdued gray suit with an olive-colored polka dot shirt.

Leighton Meester and Adam Brody

Leighton Meester and Adam Brody were both decked out in earth tones as they hit the SAG Awards red carpet together.

Meester wore a strapless dark green gown with cut-out details, while Brody wore a brown suit with a black tie.

• Alibaba has shifted its focus to artificial general intelligence, or AGI.
• The Chinese tech giant recently reported an 8% rise in quarterly revenue, boosting its stock price.
• Alibaba plans to invest $53 billion in AI and cloud over the next three years as it competes with US tech giants.

Hot stock Alibaba has set its sights beyond AI to focus on artificial general intelligence, or AGI.

"We aim to continue to develop models that extend the boundaries of intelligence," said Eddie Wu, Alibaba's CEO, on Thursday. He called the pursuit of AGI the company's "first and foremost goal."

AGI is AI technology that mimics human intelligence to the point that it can achieve complex cognitive tasks involving logic and reasoning.

US-based companies working toward AGI include OpenAI, Google, Meta, and Microsoft. Masayoshi Son, the CEO of major AI investor SoftBank, said earlier this month that he expects AGI to arrive "much earlier" than his late-2024 forecast of two to three years.

Wu's statement came after Alibaba released blockbuster results on Thursday. For the quarter ending in December, Alibaba posted an 8% rise in revenue, to 280.2 billion yuan, or $38.6 billion. Profit rose to 48.9 billion yuan, beating analysts' expectations.

"The pursuit of AGI can contribute immense business value," said Wu, citing studies indicating that AGI — when achieved — could replace or achieve 80% of human capabilities. He said about 50% of global GDP comes from wages for blue- and white-collar work.

"If AGI can be achieved, then that could have a tremendous impact in terms of the restructuring industry around the world. It could have a significant influence on or even replace 50% of global GDP," he said.

On Monday, Alibaba announced that it's planning to invest at least 380 billion Chinese yuan, or $53 billion, in cloud computing and AI infrastructure over the next three years.

The company is in a crowded global race for AI supremacy.

Chinese tech companies have come into the spotlight following the dramatic rise of DeepSeek, a startup that released a new cost-competitive AI model last month.

The development stoked investor concerns about the massive investment in AI in the West and turned investor focus toward China's tech companies, which have also been investing in AI.

US-listed Alibaba shares are up 70% this year to date, thanks to the boost from DeepSeek and after Alibaba announced that it was working with Apple to incorporate its AI into iPhones in China.

The upswing marks a major turnaround after Beijing's yearslong Big Tech regulatory crackdown, when cofounder Jack Ma's tech empire came under intense scrutiny.

Last week, Chinese leader Xi Jinping met with the country's top tech leaders — including Ma — in a sign that the country's private sector is now back in favor again.

The market is viewing the meeting as a possible end of the crackdown. The Chinese government is seemingly working to revive an economy disrupted by a pandemic, regulatory crackdowns, and a real estate crisis, wrote Deutsche Bank analysts in a note last week following the event.

On Monday, Hong Kong-listed Alibaba shares were 2.5% lower by midday after recent gains and as Asian stocks were broadly pressured by sharp losses in the US markets on Friday.

Germany's CDU/CSU conservative alliance won Sunday's general election election and the Elon Musk-endorsed far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) party came second, preliminary results show.

The big picture: Friedrich Merz, of the center-right Christian Democratic Union (CDU), is set to Germany's chancellor and he's indicated that Europe's biggest economy and the largest EU member intends to move away from the U.S. once coalition talks have concluded.

By the numbers: While preliminary results show CDU/CSU won 28.6% of the vote and AfD 20.8%, the conservative alliance has ruled out working with the anti-immigration AfD, as did all other major parties.

• Outgoing chancellor Olaf Scholz's Social Democrats won 16.4% of the vote and the Greens secured 11.6%, per the preliminary results.

Driving the news: Merz singled out the U.S. in claiming victory, days after Vice President JD Vance accused the Munich Security Conference of not allowing far-right and far-left politicians to attend the annual event in a speech that criticized European allies.

• "My impression over the last few days is that Russia and America are finding common ground — over the heads of Ukraine, and consequently over those of Europe," said the 69-year-old former lawyer Merz, who's previously worked for U.S. law firms, on X.
• "Therefore, everyone is turning their attention to Germany. How quickly are the Germans going to form a government after this complicated election result? For me, this is now a priority."

Zoom in: Merz said on a TV show that his "absolute priority will be to strengthen Europe as quickly as possible so that, step by step, we can really achieve independence from the USA," according to a translation.

• President Trump's statements on Ukraine last week as the U.S. pushes for talks with Russia at the latest make it "clear that the Americans, at least this part of the Americans, this administration, are largely indifferent to the fate of Europe," Merz said.
• "I am very curious to see how we are heading toward the NATO summit at the end of June," he added. "Whether we will still be talking about NATO in its current form or whether we will have to establish an independent European defense capability much more quickly."

What he's saying: Trump on Truth Social called the CDU/CSU win a "great day for Germany," saying: "Much like the USA, the people of Germany got tired of the no common sense agenda, especially on energy and immigration."

• Representatives for the White House did not immediately respond to Axios' request for comment in the evening.

Go deeper: Trump's first month turns U.S. foreign policy upside down

• Uber's CEO wants to work with Tesla on robotaxis. But Tesla wants to go it alone.
• Uber partners with Waymo in Austin and will compete with Tesla's autonomous vehicle platform.
• Analysts suggest Tesla may need Uber or Lyft to scale its robotaxi operations.

Uber's CEO, Dara Khosrowshahi, said he wants to work with Tesla on robotaxis — even though the electric vehicle maker isn't interested.

Speaking at the Future Investment Initiative conference in Miami on Friday, Khosrowshahi said he has discussed the topic with Tesla CEO Elon Musk.

"I've had conversations with him. At this point, they want to build it alone," Khosrowshahi said. "Life is long, but we would love to partner with them."

Khosrowshahi added that Uber and Alphabet-owned Waymo, who partner in Austin, will compete with Tesla in the autonomous vehicles market when they launch in the city.

Musk has long envisioned forming a standalone network of autonomous Teslas that would compete with ride-hailing companies like Uber.

Earlier this month, Uber said it was opening an "interest list" for Austin users who want to be the first to try Waymo robotaxis on the Uber app. Tesla unveiled its robotaxis, called Cybercabs, in October. They are expected to launch in June in Austin.

Khosrowshahi's Friday remarks came about a week after he said that he hoped Tesla would work with Uber.

In an interview published on February 14, Khosrowshahi said, "No one wants to compete against Tesla or Elon, if you can help it."

Tesla did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Door open for Tesla

Musk has previously said Tesla would create its own ride-hailing platform — a cross between Uber and Airbnb apps — for riders to call a driverless car. While a portion of the fleet would be owned by Tesla, individual Tesla customers would also have the option to add their vehicles.

Despite these plans, Khosrowshahi's Friday remarks suggested he was willing to keep the door open for a partnership with Tesla.

"It makes a lot of economic sense" for Tesla drivers to use Uber as a platform, he said. "What we bring is demand to the AV ecosystem when demand often is quite variable."

Analysts have stressed this, too.

In a note published on the day the Cybercab was unveiled, Jefferies analysts wrote that Tesla may struggle without a partner like Uber or Lyft.

Tesla "potentially underappreciates the obstacles to scaling a robotaxi fleet" such as the technology, asset ownership, regulation, fleet management, and demand required to run an operation at scale, the analysts wrote. "We also believe TSLA could struggle to scale fleet operations without offering access to demand via Uber/Lyft."

Independent analyst Dan O'Dowd, a previous Musk critic, said that the contrast between Tesla and robotaxi competitors like Waymo was "stark."

"Until Tesla robotaxis are transporting 100,000 paying customers a week around major American cities like Waymo does, Tesla robotaxi is nothing more than the latest work of fiction to come out of the Warner Bros. Studio," he said in a note at the time.

Investor pressure

Uber has faced pressure from investors to ramp up its autonomous vehicle strategy, and shareholders have been closely monitoring developments with self-driving competitors.

In December, Uber's stock plunged 10% after Waymo announced its expansion to Miami — without mentioning Uber.

In some cities, like Austin, Phoenix, and Atlanta, Waymo rides are only available on the Uber app. In Los Angeles and San Francisco, Waymo is available on its own booking platform.

Days after the Waymo expansion news, Uber's stock fell nearly 6% when its AV partner, Cruise, announced it was shutting down operations.

Following the Cruise news, the ride-hailing platform's chief financial officer, Prashanth Mahendra-Rajah, tried to quell investor concerns. He said the company was well positioned to be a demand aggregator for AVs and that it still believes AVs are critical for its growth.

Besides Waymo, Uber has self-driving partnerships with Tesla's biggest competitor, Chinese EV maker BYD, and with AV company Aurora Innovation.

Uber's stock is up over 30% so far this year.

• The 31st SAG Awards were held at the Shrine Auditorium in Los Angeles on Sunday.
• Many celebrities weren't afraid to show up in bold ensembles, some featuring elements like feathers and fringe.
• Danielle Deadwyler, Demi Moore, and Anna Sawai all wore sculptural gowns that turned heads on the red carpet.

The 31st Screen Actors Guild (SAG) Awards took place on Sunday at the Shrine Auditorium in Los Angeles.

Unlike other awards, such as the Oscars or the Golden Globes —which also honor directors, writers, musicians, and production teams — the SAG Awards are dedicated exclusively to recognizing actors.

Before the ceremony, which was hosted by Kristen Bell, some of Hollywood's biggest celebrities posed for the cameras on the red carpet.

Here are some of the most daring looks from the night.

Danielle Deadwyler

Danielle Deadwyler, who was nominated for best supporting actress for "The Piano Lesson," made a bold statement at the SAG Awards in a custom Louis Vuitton gown.

To complement her look, she wore bright red eyeshadow and matching red pumps.

Cynthia Erivo

Cynthia Erivo made a dramatic entrance in a vintage Givenchy gown designed by Alexander McQueen.

Her dress, made from a textured metallic fabric, featured fringe details at the neckline and sleeves.

Jamie Lee Curtis

Jamie Lee Curtis — who was nominated for best supporting actress for her role in "The Last Showgirl" — channeled showgirl energy at the SAG Awards with her black sequinned gown with a feathered top.

Jane Fonda

Jane Fonda, the recipient of this year's SAG Life Achievement Award, turned heads on the red carpet in a custom Armani Privé dress.

The peach-colored ensemble, which featured a wavy black pattern and a fringe skirt, was a departure from her usual menswear-inspired outfits.

Anna Sawai

Anna Sawai stunned on the red carpet with a custom Armani Privé strapless gown.

Her dress featured red crystals on the front with sheer side panels and a black velvet back.

Timothée Chalamet

Timothée Chalamet, who won best male actor for his role as Bob Dylan in "A Complete Unknown," wore a leather suit with a neon green shirt to the ceremony. To complement his look, he accessorized with a bejeweled bolo tie.

The actor's stylist, Taylor McNeil, seemingly drew inspiration from Dylan himself, posting a reference photo of the musician in a similar outfit on his Instagram story.

Fran Drescher

Fran Drescher, the president of the SAG-AFTRA actors' union, went for a menswear-inspired look.

Drescher rocked a baby pink satin pantsuit at this year's red carpet event — an outfit that looked similar to the one she wore to the 2022 Directors Guild of America Awards. This time around, she opted for open-toed wedges instead of pointed-toe shoes.

Demi Moore

Demi Moore, who won best female actress for her role in "The Substance," wore an edgy, drop-waist Bottega Veneta leather gown.

She styled her long black hair in loose waves and kept her makeup simple, but accessorized with a statement necklace and bracelet from Tiffany and Co.

Carl Clemons-Hopkins

Carl Clemons-Hopkins, known for his role as Marcus on "Hacks," turned heads on the red carpet in a black jumpsuit with oversized sleeves.

Tyler James Williams

Tyler James Williams, who plays Gregory Eddie in "Abbott Elementary," wore a red oversized suit with a cinched waist on the red carpet.

Banita Sandhu

Banita Sandhu, known for her role as Sita Malhotra in "Bridgerton," wore a sculptural metallic dress on the red carpet.

Conservative commentator Dan Bongino was named deputy FBI director, President Trump announced on Sunday night.

The big picture: The "Dan Bongino Show" podcast host will serve in the role that doesn't require Senate confirmation under newly confirmed FBI director Kash Patel, a fellow Trump loyalist.

• The appointment comes as Trump seeks to test the limits of presidential authority and expand the powers of law enforcement.

Background: Bongino lacks FBI experience, but he has previously served in the New York Police Department (NYPD) before joining the U.S. Secret Service and working in the Presidential Protective Division during the administrations of Presidents George W. Bush and Obama.

What they're saying: Bongino thanked Trump on X as he shared the president's original post praising the former Fox News host as "a man of incredible love and passion for our Country."

Go deeper: What to know about Kash Patel, Trump's pick for FBI director

Editor's note: This article has been updated with further context.

Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelensky said Sunday he's "ready" to "give up" his leadership in exchange for peace in his nation or Kyiv becoming a member of NATO.

The big picture: Zelensky made the comments on the eve of the third anniversary of Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine, as U.S. and Russian officials hold talks on the war ahead of a possible summit between President Trump and Russian leader Vladimir Putin.

What he's saying: "If to achieve peace you really need me to give up my post — I'm ready," said Zelensky, who was democratically elected in 2019, in response to a question during a briefing Sunday.

• "I can trade it for NATO membership, if there are such conditions," he added.
• Zelensky shrugged off Trump's claims that that Ukraine's leader is "a dictator without elections" — in reference to Kyiv postponing going to the polls in 2024.
• "I wasn't offended, but a dictator would be," Zelensky said. "I am focused on Ukraine's security today, not in 20 years, I am not going to be in power for decades."

Context: Ukraine's Constitution "does not allow national elections during martial law, which was introduced in 2022 and remains in place" due to Russia's war on Ukraine, per the Atlantic Council think-tank.

Between the lines: Ukraine's possible membership of NATO has been a source of tension between the Kyiv and Moscow officials for years.

• Putin used the matter in part to try and justify his forces' invasion of Ukraine, while Zelensky sees NATO membership as an essential guarantee of his country's long-term security.
• Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has said Ukraine joining NATO would not be a "realistic outcome of a negotiated settlement" with Russia.

Go deeper: Trump puts Ukraine in a vise

Editor's note: This article has been updated with further context.

• The Pentagon is telling employees to "pause any response" to DOGE's request for a work report.
• Federal employees were told this weekend to list five tasks they achieved last week by Monday night.
• But the Defense Department has instead said it would be the authority to review its employees.

The Pentagon told employees on Sunday not to respond to an instruction from the White House DOGE office to list their work accomplishments.

"For now, please pause any response to the OPM email titled 'What did you do last week,'" the Defense Department wrote in a statement to civilian employees that was posted on X.

"The Department of Defense is responsible for reviewing the performance of its personnel and it will conduct any review in accordance with its own procedures," said the statement, posted on behalf of Darin S. Selnick, the acting defense undersecretary for personnel and readiness.

It added that the Pentagon would handle responses to the email request.

Selnick was referring to an email sent through the Office of Personnel Management, which asked federal employees to respond by 11:59 p.m. EST on Monday with five tasks or accomplishments they achieved over the last week.

"Please do not send any classified information, links, or attachments," said the DOGE email, which was sent to employees in federal agencies across the US.

It came just after President Donald Trump publicly wrote on Saturday that he wanted Elon Musk to "get more aggressive" in cutting workers and expenses from the federal bureaucracy.

Musk, who oversees the DOGE team, also announced the email on social media and said that a "failure to respond will be taken as a resignation."

The Defense Department did not respond to a request for comment sent by Business Insider outside regular business hours.

Other security-related government departments — including the Department of Homeland Security, the National Security Agency, and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence — did not respond to requests for comment from BI.

Representatives for the State Department and the FBI declined to comment on the DOGE emails.