• Mark Zuckerberg sported a new timepiece at Saturday's UFC match in Las Vegas.
• Watch experts identified the watch as a Rolex Daytona "Le Mans" in solid gold.
• The Meta CEO has been seen with numerous expensive watches in recent months.

Mark Zuckerberg showed up with a Rolex timepiece at the UFC match on Saturday in Las Vegas, adding to the slate of major wrist candy he's been spotted with.

In his Sunday Instagram post and videos on X, the Meta CEO was seen wearing a shiny gold watch with a black dial and three white subdials.

He kept the rest of his outfit simple, with a black T-shirt, khaki cargo pants, black shades, and his new staple accessory — a thick gold chain.

Four watch experts told Business Insider the watch is likely a yellow gold Rolex Daytona "Le Mans."

Ng Yong Shen, a vice president at Re-Loved Luxury, a Dubai-based secondhand luxury retailer, said the watch has a resale value of up to $300,000.

Three other watch trading and authentication experts based in Italy, Switzerland, and the UK, confirmed the watch's model to BI.

In January, while announcing the end of his Meta's fact-checking partnerships in the US, Zuckerberg wore a Greubel Forsey Hand Made 1, which costs more than $900,000.

Greubel Forsey's website said it produces only two or three pieces of the watch annually.

In September, Zuckerberg was spotted wearing a rose gold De Bethune DB 25 Starry Varius during an interview with the business podcast "Acquired."

According to listings on watch retailers like The 1916 Company and The Hour Glass, the De Bethune watch costs between $90,000 and $95,700.

Shortly before the "Acquired" interview, he wore a Patek Philippe watch in an Instagram post, with his hand around his wife Priscilla Chan's shoulders. The model Zuckerberg wore — the Patek Philippe Grand Complications In-Line Perpetual Calendar 5236P-001 — retails for $141,400, per the watchmaker's website.

It's unclear when Zuckerberg first started collecting watches. But the Meta chief was interested in timepieces in March 2024, if his conversation with Anant Ambani at the latter's pre-wedding party is anything to go by.

In a video from the pre-wedding event circulated on social media, Zuckerberg and Chan were heard praising Ambani's Richard Mille watch.

"You know, I never really wanted to get a watch. But after seeing that, I was like, watches are cool," Zuckerberg said of Ambani's timepiece.

Zuckerberg's style evolution is not limited to watches. The tech leader has long ditched his work uniform, which used to consist of drab gray T-shirts and hoodies. Now, he's been known to wear shearling brown jackets, gold chains, and other statement pieces.

Joseph Rosenfeld, an image consultant based in New York, told BI in September that Zuckerberg's style shift, "shown by a love for premium watches and subtle luxury, suggests a shift."

"He's stepping into a role where his appearance reflects his position as a tech innovator," Rosenfeld added.

Representatives for Zuckerberg did not respond to a request for comment from Business Insider, sent outside regular business hours.

• Nolan Church shares tips for handling references when leaving a job on bad terms.
• Mending relationships before leaving can improve future reference outcomes and job prospects.
• Self-awareness and honesty in addressing bad references can demonstrate growth to recruiters.

This as-told-to essay is based on a conversation with Nolan Church, a 36-year-old former recruiter for Google and Doordash and now CEO of Continuum; from Salt Lake City. It has been edited for length and clarity.

Before opening Continuum, a talent marketplace for executives, I was a recruiter for Google and later the head of talent at DoorDash. Now, I advise and conduct executive searches for pre-IPO tech companies.

When it comes to hiring, I always called references and heavily weighed what they told me during the interview process.

There are usually two types of references: "front door references," which candidates tell the recruiter about, and "back door references," which the candidate didn't provide but are called anyway.

When looking for a job, you'll want to make sure you have some good references, but if you're leaving your old job on bad terms, four things can still help your chances of getting hired.

Before leaving, try to mend things

When leaving an organization, if you're in a disagreement with your manager, it can be beneficial to try to mend things if possible.

People love to hear, "I was wrong, and I'm sorry. Thank you again for all the time you spent with me."

While "sorry" doesn't mean they've forgotten or forgiven, it can help. In a world where a future employer calls that person with or without your knowledge, they're less likely to say negative things.

People remember moments like that. Oftentimes, wrapping things up professionally will be remembered more than your actual performance or the issues you had.

Don't proactively flag a bad reference, but be prepared

If you were terminated because of performance or maybe you didn't get along with your past manager, it happens. That said, don't flag the issue or lead with it — only bring it up if you're directly asked.

As a recruiter, I'd ask, "Is there somebody I shouldn't reach out to?" This typically opens the conversation for someone to say, "Oh, not my last manager."

This would be my way of seeing how self-aware the candidate is. The higher you go in your career, and the more you climb, not everybody will like you — that's just life. But do you have the self-awareness to know that, and can you professionally articulate why?

You might say something like, "In my last role, my manager and I had differing points of view on the best path to do XYZ, so that person is likely not going to be the best person to talk to, but here are the three people who are."

If you get a bad reference, be honest and self-aware

When calling references, there were times when red flags would come up, and the employer wouldn't give a positive review. So, I'd ask several follow-up questions to get the employer's side of the story.

After hearing them out, I would go back to the candidate to hear their side, too. I believe good recruiters should do that.

I'd then tell the candidate, "Hey, we were doing these references. Can you help me understand your point of view on what happened?" Most recruiters understand that disagreements happen, but how the candidate handles it is what matters.

A good response might be, "My past manager and I, our relationship ended badly. Here's what happened, here's how I could have done better, and here's what I learned."

When candidates were honest, self-aware, and professional, I often viewed them as somebody who was learning and growing and somebody I wanted to work with.

Front door references should be people who deeply know your work

If you can't list your latest manager, there are others you can list instead. Past colleagues and managers from previous roles are great, or those from your past leadership teams are too.

Another one people don't usually think of are customers. For example, if you work in sales and have a customer who raves about their experience with you— that's such a positive thing.

References should be people who deeply know your work.

No matter who your references are, make sure they know you're using them

I'd consider a direct report or a higher-up in the organization highly. For example, if the candidate worked at Doordash and listed the CEO as a reference, I'd think, oh, they mean business.

Still, no matter who you list as your reference, always check with that person first to make sure it's OK to use them. That's huge because if you don't ask and the recruiter does call them, they'll most likely answer and say, "Why are you calling me? I haven't talked to him in years."

As a recruiter, this shows me that you lack maturity, and it won't help you.

Finally, if you know someone is going to be a bad reference, don't put them down as a reference—that's just, in red words, stupid.

If you're a recruiter with job interview tips you'd like to share, please contact this editor, Manseen Logan, at [email protected].

States have long kept centralized databases to monitor prescriptions for potentially addictive drugs. Now, abortion pills are being monitored in the same way in some parts of the US.

Last May, Louisiana passed a law to monitor misoprostol and mifepristone, the two pills commonly used to induce abortions. The law reclassified the drugs as "controlled substances," a designation typically given to medications that carry the risk of abuse.

Bamboo Health, the company running Louisiana's prescription monitoring database, is ready to track the drugs.

As of March, Louisiana clinicians are required to log every mifepristone and misoprostol prescription they write in Bamboo's database, according to the New Orleans Health Department.

One former Bamboo employee told Business Insider that Bamboo announced its intention to monitor the drugs in an internal Slack channel last year, saying it was the company's legal obligation as Louisiana's prescription-monitoring vendor. The employee asked not to be identified discussing sensitive matters.

Texas, Indiana, and Idaho are considering similar measures for tracking these drugs. All three states work with Bamboo.

Bamboo Health CEO Jeff Smith told BI that the company's prescription monitoring platform must comply with state regulations. "They determine how that data is managed and accessed. That's how it gets treated in Louisiana and anywhere else it would occur," he said.

Misoprostol isn't just for abortions. It's also used to treat stomach ulcers, manage miscarriages, and stop excessive bleeding after childbirth, a leading cause of death for women on delivery day. With a controlled-substance designation, misoprostol's routine use faces restrictions and state scrutiny, with potentially negative consequences for patient care, according to multiple physicians and public health officials who spoke with BI.

Louisiana has required some manual reporting of these drugs since October, according to a lawyer with knowledge of the state's guidance. With Bamboo's electronic system rolled out, doctors are concerned about who will be able to access the data and what they'll use it for, said Dr. Jennifer Avegno, the director of the New Orleans Health Department.

Prescription monitoring programs, or PMPs, are routinely used to investigate doctors for wrongdoing. Crackdowns during the opioid crisis reduced prescriptions, but sometimes at the expense of much-needed care as doctors worried about being prosecuted for doing their jobs. Some experts worry reproductive medicine could share the same fate.

Rep. Jolanda Jones of the Texas House of Representatives, who sits on the House's public health committee, said she's concerned clinicians will hold back in prescribing mifepristone and misoprostol where medically necessary — or leave their jobs in the state entirely — if they're afraid of being jailed for providing adequate care.

"If I were a doctor, I'd be thinking, now I've got Big Brother looking into how I'm practicing medicine? Why?" she said. "It's going to have a chilling effect on medical care. We're already seeing it."

The federal government started funding states to set up PMPs in the early 2000s in response to the prescription opioid crisis. Most states now require doctors to check them before writing certain kinds of prescriptions. If a search shows that a patient is getting opioids from a laundry list of emergency rooms, that could be a sign that he's "doctor-shopping," or misleading physicians for pills.

The safeguard came with tradeoffs: If you've had a prescription for a controlled substance in your life, there are a lot of people who can view it in your state database.

Private health information is usually protected under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. But when controlled substance prescriptions are reported to the state, they lose HIPAA protections. Without those safeguards, third parties can access the data without patient consent.

PMP access can extend to a wide range of groups, including state licensing boards and health departments, parole and probation agencies, and medical examiners and coroners. Under various conditions, law enforcement can also access the prescription data.

The list of drugs that PMPs monitor, as well as the details they collect, has steadily grown.

The earliest PMPs collected limited patient information, and only about prescriptions with the highest risks of misuse, such as oxycodone and fentanyl.

As of 2024, however, 45 states monitor all controlled substances, and 37 track "drugs of concern," prescriptions that are not heavily regulated that the state deems risky for some individuals, according to research by health and law policy expert Jennifer Oliva.

The data collected for each prescription is extensive: the drug's name, strength, quantity, and dispense date; the doctor's and pharmacist's DEA registration numbers; along with the patient's name, address, ZIP code, gender, date of birth, and driver's license.

Managing this growing mountain of sensitive prescription data became a big business for Bamboo Health.

Bamboo was founded as Appriss in 1994 in Louisville, Kentucky. Its first product was a data-aggregation and notification tool that informed victims when their offenders were released from prison.

The tool became a $30 million business serving 48 states. The company's subsequent products helped law enforcement track sex offenders and monitor people who bought high quantities of Sudafed at pharmacies, which cops used to bust meth labs.

When the opioid crisis came to a head, Appriss was well-suited for the job. With its data prowess and close relationships with state governments — plus an early partnership with the National Association of Boards of Pharmacy, which advises state PMP decision-makers — the company gobbled up PMP contracts and cemented a dominant position in the market.

Bamboo Health is now an independent company separated from other business lines built long ago under the Appriss name. Smith, the CEO, said Bamboo works with 44 US states and territories to facilitate more than 7 billion prescription queries every year.

Today, PMPs earn money directly from states and, in some cases, hospitals themselves. Bamboo's PMP business makes up roughly half the company's revenue, according to a former employee with direct knowledge of the matter. Altogether, Bamboo Health is bringing in more than $100 million annually, per a February LinkedIn post by its recently departed senior vice president of commercial revenue. Smith declined to comment on the company's financials.

The business has attracted large investors. Private equity firms Insight Partners and Clearlake Capital have backed Bamboo and sit on its board of directors, according to federal filings.

In 2021, Appriss rebranded to Bamboo Health after buying PatientPing, a startup that collects data about patient admissions, discharges, and transfers, for about $500 million. The deal valued the combined company at more than $1.5 billion.

The vision, as Bamboo described it, was to combine the two companies' vast data feeds to equip providers with all the information they need during crucial moments of patient care.

Over the last several years, PMPs have assisted regulators in busting pill-mill networks and curbing severe prescribing patterns. Bamboo even helped the feds hold pharmaceutical distributors accountable for their role in the opioid crisis.

Still, it's not clear that PMPs have reduced patient harm overall. One study showed that tools such as PMPs might increase heroin-related deaths as prescription opioid abusers switch to illicit drugs.

Wired reported in 2021 that a key Bamboo product, which displayed "overdose risk scores" based on a patient's prescription history, was sometimes used to deny patients needed healthcare. Pharmacies, hospitals, and doctor's offices turned patients with high scores away, even when they had good reasons for taking opioids, such as endometriosis, a painful, chronic condition.

Two former employees told BI that after the criticism, Bamboo prioritized updating the design of the scores to add more context and explanation.

"Our point isn't to be the arbiter on who this person is and what they should get," one of the ex-staffers said. "It's just to equip somebody with some information to make a better decision."

Bamboo's newest directive to monitor abortion medications may test this hands-off approach. Some employees worry that tracking these drugs will harm doctors and patients, rather than advancing the company's goal of improving care.

"Providing monitoring of mifepristone and misoprostol, in support of limiting the use of and access to those drugs, is acting in direct contradiction of that mission," said one former employee who was working at Bamboo when the company internally announced plans to monitor the drugs. The person asked not to be identified because they were not authorized by Bamboo to speak to the media.

"It's a dangerous thing when a healthcare company is not making decisions based on the best interest of the patient, but on, perhaps, opportunities for near-term revenue," the former employee said.

When asked how Bamboo has responded to employee pushback about the company monitoring abortion pill prescriptions in Louisiana, Smith said as Bamboo has expanded its focus to patients with high-need conditions in areas like behavioral health, it's sought out new employees with expertise in those areas.

"It's really important that we have the right people on the team to help us execute on that vision and mission," he said. "Not everybody's going to be on the same page, as we look to expand our charter and where we're going."

Some states have aggressively enforced abortion bans, putting new pressure on some doctors. Texas and Louisiana have sued and indicted at least one doctor for prescribing abortion pills to state residents via telehealth services. Idaho and Texas let private citizens sue virtually anyone who performs or assists with an abortion. These so-called bounty-hunter laws award $10,000 or more to successful plaintiffs.

Under the Trump administration, states will be even more emboldened to use all the tools at their disposal to restrict access, Randi Seigel, a lawyer specializing in healthcare at the firm Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, told BI.

Pregnant individuals in Louisiana are not subject to criminal prosecution for obtaining and using these drugs for self-managed abortions. But the doctors and pharmacists involved are another story. In these cases, somebody who's suspicious about why a patient was given mifepristone could report it to law enforcement and trigger an investigation. Officials could then seek access to PMP data for that investigation, per Seigel.

Abortion regulations are already getting in the way of necessary medical care: Several women have died from preventable complications after they couldn't access timely treatment in states with abortion bans, ProPublica has reported. Although certain legal exceptions are supposed to protect the life of the mother, some doctors may wait too long to intervene out of fear that, if the patient isn't clearly dying, their use of the drugs could be questioned, Seigel explained.

She's concerned that tracking misoprostol and mifepristone prescriptions could have a similar effect on doctors' decisions. If doctors are concerned they may be accused of triggering an abortion while providing legal and medically necessary services, they might delay giving that care, she said.

"One could imagine somebody coming in who's having a miscarriage — and this is appropriate for miscarriage management — and somebody saying, 'Well, wait, we have to wait a little longer to make sure you are really having a miscarriage,'" she said.

In Louisiana, which has one of the highest maternal mortality rates in the country, the new regulations are already causing problems.

Previously, obstetrician-gynecologists often carried misoprostol in their pockets for emergencies. Now, the medicine must be stored in locked cabinets.

Avegno told BI that clinicians across Louisiana have been running "time trials" to test how quickly they can retrieve misoprostol from those locked cabinets, bring it back to the patient, and administer it. In the case of severe postpartum hemorrhaging, mere minutes could be the difference between life and death.

Some outpatient pharmacies have decided to stop stocking the pills altogether, Avegno added. Others are going beyond what's required by the law, including calling doctors to confirm what they've written on the prescriptions, slowing down access for patients.

These pharmacists are often confused about the law and afraid of liability, Avegno said: "If I fill this prescription and somebody uses it to secretly have an abortion, am I going to be held liable?"

The introduction of mifepristone and misoprostol monitoring via Bamboo's database could add to that fear.

"Let's say I'm an OB. I have a busy clinic. I'm putting in IUDs all the time, I'm managing miscarriages, and I'm doing hysteroscopies, all of which might require me to write misoprostol prescriptions. And that's now going to be tracked in the PMP," Avegno said. "So is somebody going to be able to look at my list and say, 'Oh my gosh, Jen Avegno wrote 20 prescriptions last month? That's too many. Let's investigate her.'"

Do you have a tip about Bamboo Health that you want to share? Contact Rebecca Torrence (+1 423-987-0320) using the encrypted app Signal. Here are other tips on how to safely communicate with Business Insider reporters.

• The Trump administration recently cut the flow of military support to Ukraine.
• Ukrainian soldiers told BI that they were upset with the decision but would keep fighting.
• "We are on our own land, and we want to defend it," said a soldier in an air defense unit.

KYIV, Ukraine — Ukrainian soldiers are grappling with the weight of President Donald Trump's decisions to cut support as they continue to defend their homeland against the Russians.

Soldiers serving in a mobile air defense unit just outside Kyiv shared their thoughts on the situation with Business Insider on Friday. Asking to be identified only by their first names for security reasons, they said they were disappointed but would find a way to keep up the fight.

Oleksiy, one of the Ukrainian soldiers, said that he doesn't see developments as the decision of the American people but rather that of one man. "It is a pity, but we will fight."

Trump directed a pause in military aid to Ukraine on March 3 as Washington sought to pressure Kyiv to engage in an expedited peace process with Russia on unfavorable terms.

In the following days, the US cut intelligence sharing with Ukraine and restricted access to critical satellite imagery; the extent is unclear. These three moves left Kyiv vulnerable to an emboldened Russia on and off the battlefield.

Some Ukrainian officials have said that Russia is advancing right now, Kyiv is unable to use some of its best weapons, and there are concerns about ammunition, according to recent reports.

Officials told BI that the full effect of the pause in military aid remains to be seen, but the impact could very much be felt throughout Kyiv's armed forces.

Air defense soldiers with Ukraine's Territorial Defense Forces said the pause could end up affecting the truck-mounted .50 caliber M2 Browning machine gun that they use to shoot down explosive-packed Russian drones.

"If we run out of ammunition for the American machine gun, we will use other guns," Oleksiy said, adding that "even if they are of a smaller caliber, we will still do our job."

The deputy air defense unit commander, whose name is also Oleksiy, said Ukrainian lives depend on US military support. "We hope this issue will be resolved in the near future," he said. "We are on our own land, and we want to defend it."

Trump said during a very heated Oval Office meeting in late February — which set the reduced US support in motion — that he did not believe that Ukraine was winning the war against Russia.

There is uncertainty about what could happen without more US assistance. Some Ukrainian officials and lawmakers are hopeful that Ukraine can get by relying on its booming defense industry and support from European countries, but some of the American support — specifically on air defense — is critical.

Serhiy Rakhmanin, a member of Ukraine's parliamentary committee on national security, defense, and intelligence, told BI earlier in the week that Ukraine could manage without American support for tactical operations at and near the front lines, but US involvement is crucial for more strategic efforts.

"It's hard to say; we'll see what happens," said Svitlana, the only woman in the air defense unit.

Other Ukrainians have put more weight on the US decision and warned that it could have serious consequences. Oleksandr Markushyn, a TDF commander and the mayor of Irpin, a city on the outskirts of Kyiv, told BI that he had been surprised by Trump's decisions so far.

Markushyn, speaking through a translator in a separate interview on Saturday, warned that if the US does not help Ukraine, then after it, Russia might move to take over other European countries. He led Ukraine's defense of Irpin during the early weeks of Russia's invasion as Moscow's forces tried to take Kyiv.

"The United States is a powerful country," Markushyn said. "And if not the United States, no one will stop Russia."

The White House did not respond to a request for comment from BI on how they see recent decisions and the effects on Ukrainian soldiers.

It is unclear how long the pause in military aid could last. Trump has routinely suggested that he is not satisfied with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy's approach to the US efforts to end Russia's grinding full-scale invasion, which just recently passed the three-year mark.

Conflict analysts at the Institute for the Study of War, a DC-based think tank, said Russia will likely take advantage of the pause in US support for Ukraine and intensify its missile and drone attacks against the country.

Ukrainian officials said Russian strikes over the weekend killed more than two dozen people, wounding scores more.

The pandemic upended America's housing market, delivering wins for homeowners and roadblocks for those still dreaming.

Why it matters: Sky-high home prices, elevated mortgage rates and a shortage of houses for sale are pushing homeownership out of reach for many.

In the past five years, here are five ways the market transformed and what could come next.

1. Home prices skyrocketed

Cheap borrowing costs and remote work unleashed a homebuying frenzy early in the pandemic — and sent prices soaring.

By the numbers: The median U.S. home price in January was $418,000, up around 45% from $289,000 five years ago, according to Redfin.

• Those who own their houses sit on a mountain of wealth.

The big picture: A stubborn housing shortfall is keeping prices high, even as buyers have retreated, with 2024 sales hitting a nearly 30-year low.

2. Rates surged, buyers stalled

Mortgage rates surged after falling to the lowest levels on record in 2021.

• Higher monthly payments are sidelining many home shoppers, especially first-timers.

What we're hearing: "It's very sad to be priced out of our communities," says Kylie Carpenter, a Seattle teacher who tells Axios it feels almost impossible to buy a house nearby.

Between the lines: Rates are now hovering near 7% and are unlikely to drop much soon, experts say.

In pricey Portland, Oregon, aspiring homebuyer Jake Turner tells Axios this year actually feels like a good time to jump in since there's less competition.

• "My wife and I will just buy less of a home with 20% down and work responsibly with the expensive housing payment."

3. Inventory dried up

Those who scored ultra-low mortgage rates during the pandemic are hesitant to sell, locking up supply.

Yes, but: That's starting to change as homebuyers adjust to higher rates.

• Roughly 83% of U.S. homeowners with mortgages have a rate below 6%, down from around 88% a year ago, according to a recent Redfin analysis.
• And in 15 of the 50 largest metro areas, including Denver, San Antonio and Dallas, inventory in February topped pre-pandemic norms, per Realtor.com.

What they're saying: "This is my forever home," says Ben Kolb, one of many homeowners who refinanced when rates dropped.

• A retired veteran with a disability, Kolb tells Axios he "would never be able to afford" the mortgage on his Columbia, Missouri, house if he bought it now.
• In suburban Minneapolis, Mark and Joann Shockey say they're glad they sold when the market was hot, downsizing to a townhouse and nabbing "a very small 10-year mortgage at a low rate."

Others feel stuck. The benefit "of having an affordable mortgage has locked us out of even considering selling and moving closer to where we both work" in Seattle, says Sean Bucknam, who moved to Tacoma with his wife as remote setups took off.

• Now, she's being called back into the office.

4. Builders ramped up, then pulled back

Buyers flocked to newly built homes, searching for options and deals, too.

• Construction boomed in parts of the South and Sunbelt, helping to cool competition and runaway prices.

Reality check: Homebuilding has slowed since then, partly due to elevated interest rates and steep construction costs.

What we're watching: Builders have warned that President Trump's pledged tariffs (some that have since been paused) on imports could make construction more expensive and drive up home prices.

Meanwhile, mayors across the country are sounding the alarm about the housing crunch.

• Several have pushed to loosen construction restrictions, despite some proposals sparking local backlash.

What we're hearing: "The big concern in the housing market today is cooling new construction," Zillow senior economist Orphe Divounguy tells Axios.

5. Cash-rich people jumped in

Cash buyers, many of them investors, snapped up homes at record speeds during the pandemic.

The latest: They've taken a step back, though the share of purchases made in cash remains historically high.

• It fell to just under one-third in 2024, the lowest since 2021, Redfin research shows.

The bottom line: Wealthier people are those most likely to buy homes in this expensive housing market.

Anyone who thinks President Trump's mesmerizing hold over the GOP will slip if his poll numbers slide is missing one of his biggest innovations in American politics:

• The creation of a cash-flush political operation that has raked in around a half-billion dollars — about the same amount the GOP's House and Senate campaign arms spent during the entirety of the last midterm campaign.

Why it matters: It's unheard of for a president not running for reelection to raise that kind of money. But the cash is just one piece of a bigger power play that's arguably the most powerful, well-funded political apparatus ever.

• The day after Election Day, Trump — at a time most presidents-elect are scrambling to get their transitions rolling — started calling major donors to start building an enforcement machine for his agenda.
• "Right now, there's a huge price to pay by crossing Donald Trump," said Republican strategist Corry Bliss, who formerly led the Congressional Leadership Fund super PAC. "When you combine a 92% approval rating among Republican voters with unlimited money, that equals: 'Yes, sir.' "

Zoom in: Two Trump-aligned outside groups, MAGA Inc. and Securing American Greatness, are poised to play big in 2026, including by helping Republicans expand their congressional majorities. The groups also have another focus: Reward Republicans who support Trump — and punish those who don't.

• Elon Musk has his own super PAC, America PAC, which he can use to target Republicans who cross Trump.

The big picture: Trump lacked a well-funded political operation after the 2016 election, hampering his ability to put pressure on Republicans who waffled over backing his agenda and to support or oppose candidates of his choosing. Trump advisers say that won't be the case this time.

• Now, combine Trump's super PACs with Musk's resources, then toss in Musk's control of X plus Trump's control of Truth Social. Any GOP skeptics or critics could instantly face a dangerous primary challenge — and unending waves of critical messaging.

How it works: Chris LaCivita and pollster Tony Fabrizio, who held top roles in Trump's '24 campaign, are spearheading the effort.

• MAGA Inc. and Securing American Greatness are closely aligned with the White House political team, which is led by Chief of Staff Susie Wiles and Deputy Chief of Staff James Blair. The groups were founded during the campaign by Taylor Budowich, now a White House deputy chief of staff.
• Trump team hasn't dipped into its war chest yet, but it's prepared to. It cut ads aimed at pressuring Republican senators to confirm Pete Hegseth, Trump's then-nominee for secretary of defense. But once it became clear Hegseth had the support he needed, the ads were sidelined.

Behind the scenes: Trump made his first fundraising call the day after he won the election — and directed his team to ask donors to his 2024 campaign for another round of checks, according to a person with knowledge of the conversations.

• Two weekends ago, Trump hosted a dinner for major contributors at Mar-a-Lago. Minimum cost of entrance: $1 million. The dinner was attended by Republican mega-donor Miriam Adelson, who spent more than $100 million to bolster Trump last year.
• Trump had to woo donors during the 2024 campaign, but now many are flocking to him in hopes of winning access.

Musk's political operation functions independently of Trump's, but is expected to work aggressively to bolster the president's agenda.

• America PAC, a super PAC that Musk loaded with more than $250 million in 2024, last week ran a TV ad praising Trump for "saving the American dream."

The bottom line: Jason Thielman, a former National Republican Senatorial Committee executive director, said Trump's outside political operation "is a juggernaut that will be one of the most dominant forces in modern elections."

• Emmett Shear was Twitch's CEO from 2011 to 2023.
• He was also OpenAI's interim CEO for three days in November 2023 when Sam Altman was fired.
• Shear shared the career advice he used to give to his interns at Twitch in a thread on X.

Emmett Shear, the former CEO of streaming platform Twitch, said he had a piece of career advice that he gave every batch of interns at the company.

In a thread on X on Saturday, Shear said that he'd give each intern batch a presentation on Twitch's origins, followed by a Q&A session.

He said one question he was always asked during Q&A was: "Where should I work and what job should I get, or should I start a company?"

The answer varies from person to person, Shear said.

He outlined his advice and the thought process behind it in his X thread.

People pursue careers for different reasons, such as money, prestige, power, and advancement opportunities, Shear wrote. But there were downsides to each of these reasons, he added.

Money is a top reason, Shear wrote, but has "diminishing returns."

Prestige, meanwhile, is "mostly a trap, for the same reason designer clothing brands are bad deals," Shear said. While a prestigious job "might make some less discerning people think better of you," it will not "actually make you better or better off," he said.

Shear added that jobs promising power only offer you "borrowed power," especially if one has just begun their career.

"So if they're pitching you on power it's usually a trick of some kind. They're trying to convince you to accept less compensation in other ways by offering a mirage," Shear added.

Shear said some people may be attracted to "tracked jobs" that offer advancement opportunities, like becoming partners at a law firm. Such jobs may work for people who enjoy competing with their peers.

On the other hand, people could pick careers based on the work itself, Shear said. Work can be "intrinsically rewarding" when one learns and grows at their job — and that growth makes workers "more valuable in the future," Shear said.

Ultimately, choosing one's career path comes down to knowing yourself, Shear said.

"But in general it seems clear ppl should satisfice for cash, optimize for learning/growth, and ignore everything else," Shear wrote.

"If you love economy-sized pain and feel like you have no other option, consider starting something. But don't say I didn't warn you about the suck," he added.

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

Shear served as Twitch's CEO from 2011 to 2023 and is a prolific user of X. In addition to dispensing advice on careers and running start-ups, Shear has commented on topics ranging from his experience interning at Microsoft to whether a CEO's job can be automated.

When OpenAI's CEO Sam Altman was fired in November 2023, Shear was named interim CEO of the ChatGPT maker.

His tenure lasted less than 72 hours. Altman was reinstated as CEO after several days of chaos at OpenAI.

"I am deeply pleased by this result, after ~72 very intense hours of work. Coming into OpenAI, I wasn't sure what the right path would be. This was the pathway that maximized safety alongside doing right by all stakeholders involved," Shear wrote in an X post in November 2023. "I'm glad to have been a part of the solution."

Some Democrats are starting to publicly second-guess the party's stances on transgender rights and DEI programs — positions they've long embraced on principle, but now see as potential political liabilities.

Why it matters: The issues are creating a divide among some of the most powerful people in the party, including California Gov. Gavin Newsom and a few others widely seen as potential 2028 candidates for president.

• Newsom sent ripples through the party last week during a podcast interview with MAGA influencer Charlie Kirk. Echoing a GOP talking point, Newsom said he believed transgender women and girls playing in women's sports was "deeply unfair."

The big picture: The remark by Newsom, a former San Francisco mayor and longtime supporter of LGBTQ causes, stung many progressives as a betrayal.

• Whether it represented a true shift in belief or a move of political convenience, it reflected a growing argument between Democrats — whether they should be more pragmatic on some social issues, or stand on principle at a critical moment.
• The backdrop for the debate is how Democrats — namely presidential nominee Kamala Harris — struggled last year to respond as Republicans spent tens of millions on ads bashing transgender women and girls in sports, and declaring that "Kamala is for they/them, Donald Trump is for you."

Some Democrats quietly agree with Newsom. Others say emphatically that the party should support transgender people and others now targeted by Trump administration policies.

• The Human Rights Campaign, a prominent LGBTQ+ advocacy group, said in a statement: "Our message to Gov. Newsom and leaders across the country is simple: The path to 2028 isn't paved with the betrayal of vulnerable communities. It's built on the courage to stand up for what's right, and do the hard work to actually help the American people."

Asked if Newsom supports any changes in the law to address fairness in women's sports, the governor's office declined to specify any.

• On his podcast, Newsom also criticized how some Democrats introduce themselves with their pronouns. "I had one meeting where people started going around the table with the pronouns," he said. "I'm like: 'What the hell? Why is this the biggest issue?'"

Rahm Emanuel — former Chicago mayor and U.S. ambassador to Japan, who has played coy about a 2028 White House run — told Axios: "Some kids in the classroom are debating which pronouns apply, and the rest of the class doesn't know what a pronoun is. That's a crisis."

• Emanuel has said Democrats in power should focus on the historic decline in children's reading abilities in the aftermath of the pandemic.
• Democrats "can't be a party that believes in equity and allows two-thirds of your kids who can't read," he said last week in a speech at the Economic Club of Chicago.

Former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, a 2028 presidential contender who's openly gay, removed his pronouns from his profile on X in recent months, according to the Internet Archive.

• A Buttigieg spokesperson didn't respond to Axios' request for comment.

Zoom in: Democratic lawmakers also are fracturing about their positions on DEI programs and how to talk about race.

• Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.), the ranking Democrat on the House Armed Service Committee, told The New Yorker that some DEI programs go "off the beam, to my mind, when they imply that racism, bigotry and settler colonialism is the unique purview of white people. ... You don't need to imply that all white people are racists, and that all white people are oppressors."
• Newsom told Kirk that "not one person ever in my office has ever used the word LatinX."

Between the lines: The term "woke" went mainstream during Black Lives Matter protests in 2014 and through Trump's first term, signifying a person who was alert to prejudice and discrimination that much of society didn't acknowledge.

• For millions of Americans, Trump and Republicans have turned "woke" into an insult — and a political dog whistle.
• "Our country will be woke no longer," Trump said in his address to Congress.

Zoom out: Trump has tried to put Democrats on the defensive on these issues in his first weeks in office.

• He signed several executive orders aimed at transgender and DEI policies implemented by President Biden, schools and businesses.
• One order banned transgender women and girls from competing in girls' and women's sports, prompting the NCAA to change its policy on transgender athletes.

During last week's address, Trump highlighted the story of a high school volleyball player who suffered brain damage when a transgender girl hit the ball hard onto her head.

• "From now on, schools will kick the men off the girls' team or they will lose all federal funding," Trump said. "We've ended the tyranny of so-called diversity, equity and inclusion policies all across the entire federal government."

Republicans in Congress have been forcing Democrats to take votes on legislation focused on transgender people.

• Republicans last week brought up legislation to prohibit schools receiving government funding from allowing transgender women and girls to participate in women's sports.

Democrats unanimously opposed the measure in the Senate. But privately, they're workshopping their future responses to GOP attacks on transgender rights, Axios' Stephen Neukam and Hans Nichols report.

• Some Democratic lawmakers have disagreed with the GOP-led legislation, but not the issue.

"I support fair play and safety and do not support transgender athletes competing in girls' and women's sports when it compromises those principles," Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.) said in a statement after the vote.

• But Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.), who has voted against his party on various issues, voted no and wrote on X: "The small handful of trans athletes in PA in a political maelstrom deserve an ally, and I am one."

• Starting this fall, schools in Beijing must provide at least eight hours of AI instruction.
• AI education will be mandatory for students from elementary school through high school.
• The move comes as China powers ahead in the AI race.

China's capital, Beijing, is making AI education compulsory for students — including elementary schoolers.

Starting this fall, schools in the city must provide at least eight hours of AI instruction per academic year, the Beijing Municipal Education Commission said in a statement on Friday. Schools can teach AI as a stand-alone course or integrate it into existing courses like science and information technology.

Under the new plan, elementary schoolers, typically ages six to twelve, would take hands-on courses to kick-start their understanding of AI. Those in middle school would learn how to apply AI in schoolwork and daily life, while high schoolers would focus on strengthening AI applications and innovation, the agency said.

In China, compulsory education consists of six years of elementary school, three years of middle school, and three years of high school.

The commission said the initiative is meant to create a "teacher-student-machine" learning model and integrate AI ethics.

Beijing isn't alone in pushing for AI education in schools. Last year, California passed a law requiring its education board to consider AI literacy in school curricula. Reuters reported in September that Italy would begin testing AI-powered tools in 15 classrooms as part of a broader effort to enhance students' digital skills.

China pushes on in the AI race

Beijing's decision to make AI education mandatory comes as China powers ahead in the AI race, with its homegrown startups gaining global attention.

Earlier this year, AI startup DeepSeek made headlines after unveiling a low-cost reasoning model that shook up the AI industry and the US stock market. The company said its model rivals top competitors, like ChatGPT's o1, at a fraction of the cost.

Last week, Alibaba's stock surged 8% over two days after the company launched its latest open-sourced AI model, which it said used less data than its rival DeepSeek.

Other Chinese AI stocks, including Tencent, have also seen gains amid excitement for newly announced technology, while top US-based AI stocks, like Nvidia, have faced losses.

For America's managers, 2025 is shaping up to be the Year of the Low Performer.

When Mark Zuckerberg laid off some 4,000 employees last month, he said the goal was to "move out low-performers" and "make sure we have the best people on our teams." Around the same time, Microsoft axed scores of employees with low performance ratings. And Elon Musk has been firing thousands of federal workers he claims have failed to meet performance standards. Never mind that many of the targeted employees turned out to have high ratings. Bosses all across the country are sending the same message: Raise your performance, or you're next.

"They're trying to create more accountability," says Adam Grant, an organizational psychologist and professor of management at the Wharton School. "They're worried that people are a little too comfortable and complacent. They're hoping that some people will even opt out, because they realize they can't live up to the performance standard."

There's only one problem with cracking down on low performers: It doesn't work.

As decades of rigorous research have demonstrated, aggressive efforts to "raise the bar" on performance, as Zuckerberg put it, tend to backfire with remarkable consistency. CEOs may think they're creating a meritocracy, but in reality they're marching their companies straight into a trap of sunken morale, high turnover, depressed profits, and reduced innovation.

"In the short run, you might be creating some heightened performance standards and some accountability," says Grant, who serves as the chief work-life expert at Glassdoor. "In the long run, you may be shooting your organization in the foot." The evidence on making employees fear for their jobs, he adds, is clear: "They're very shortsighted decisions."

What motivates workers to do their best? It's a question managers have been wrestling with for as long as managers have been around. Back when America was first industrializing, the prevailing belief was that the best tool for driving employees was fear. The influential management theorist Frederick Taylor argued that workers were inherently lazy and in need of constant supervision. Swooping into factories, he set brutally high productivity standards — and summarily fired anyone who fell short. Everyone else had no choice but to buckle down and grind, no matter how unsafe the new standards might be, or how much misery they provoked.

As Taylorism swept the country, it made things worse rather than better, contributing to a wave of strikes that left factories idle for long stretches. By the 1950s, many companies were trying out a kinder, gentler philosophy of management. Instead of using fear to drive workers, they drew on a host of other motivating forces identified by organizational psychologists: a sense of connection and community, interesting and varied tasks, the desire to be useful. But in the early 1980s, as globalization began to erode American competitiveness, management by fear came roaring back. At General Electric, Jack Welch famously ordered his managers to rank 20% of their employees as A players, 70% as B players — and the remaining 10%, many of whom were fired for low performance, as C players. The practice, which came to be known as "rank and yank," spread throughout corporate America.

As a management philosophy, it proved to be a disaster. Take what happened at Microsoft, where the rank-and-yank system was known by another name: stack ranking. By the early 2010s, the once dominant company had watched its market cap plunge by more than 50%. One of the primary culprits? Its Welchian management system, which treated performance as a zero-sum game. If you wanted to succeed, someone else had to fail.

"Staffers were rewarded not just for doing well but for making sure that their colleagues failed," the journalist Kurt Eichenwald found. "As a result, the company was consumed by an endless series of internal knife fights. Potential market-busting businesses — such as e-book and smartphone technology — were killed, derailed, or delayed amid bickering and power plays." By 2013, when Microsoft finally abandoned stack ranking, much of corporate America had as well — including GE, where it all started.

The long history of management by fear has given scholars a lot of data to scrutinize. So what has all the research found? For starters, using terror to motivate your staff works in the short run: When their jobs are hanging in the balance, employees work harder and faster. But the initial surge in productivity, studies have shown, comes at the expense of quality. As workers rush to keep up, their output is inevitably shoddier, and riddled with mistakes.

What's more, work in the performance pressure cooker becomes less innovative. Take a study that took place in the 1990s, at a Fortune 500 tech company with more than 30,000 employees. After a series of layoffs, the remaining high performers became less creative and generated fewer new ideas for inventions. Organizational psychologists call this a "threat-rigidity response" — our tendency to respond to fear by clinging to the familiar. The anxiety generated by job insecurity becomes so overwhelming, studies suggest, that it actually impairs people's cognitive functioning. That might not matter so much when you're completing routine tasks, but it's debilitating when it comes to problem-solving.

"People focus very narrowly on protecting their jobs," says Grant. "They stop taking risks and thinking creatively and innovating, which is exactly what you need them to do in a turbulent environment."

Making employees fear for their job security also causes them to flee: One study estimated that laying off just 1% of a workforce would, on average, lead to a 31% spike in voluntary turnover. That might not sound so terrible for a company that's trimming its head count, but the departures aren't random. High performers, who have the most options, leave in far larger numbers than mediocre employees. Creating a culture of fear also makes it harder to recruit high performers. In one study, businesses that conducted layoffs slid in Fortune's rankings of the most admired companies. The more you slash your low performers, the fewer high performers you'll wind up with.

Pretty much every study that has ever crunched the numbers has found the same thing: Contrary to what leaders like Zuckerberg and Musk believe, instilling fear in employees actually hurts a company's profitability in the long run. That effect is particularly large in R&D-intensive, high-growth industries like tech. The feelings of uncertainty that job cuts engender end up paralyzing businesses instead of turbocharging them.

"It's a destructive practice," says Sandra Sucher, a professor at Harvard Business School who studies layoffs. "If Mark Zuckerberg thinks that this is inspiring to people to do a better job, he needs a primer on how it is that people are motivated. Most people aren't sufficiently motivated by fear to actually do better."

That's not to say that CEOs should run their companies like Montessori preschools. There were a lot of things that Taylor got right a century ago: setting high standards, monitoring employee output, rewarding people who do well. Those remain the cornerstones of good management today. During the pandemic, some companies may have swung a little too far to the gentle side, suspending performance reviews altogether. It was an expression of empathy that recognized the extraordinary stresses of the crisis — but it left some managers with no idea what their employees were doing, let alone how well they were doing it. High performers weren't getting recognized and rewarded, and low performers weren't getting the help they needed. Many bosses blamed the chaos on remote work, and ordered everyone back to the office. But the real problem was the lack of a properly functioning system of performance management.

"There's a big difference between being demanding and being demeaning," says Grant. "Demanding is about saying: 'Look, we have extremely high expectations. We hired you because we believe you're capable of meeting them. Here are your goals. Let's talk through what I can do to help you achieve them.' Then, if somebody is not pulling their weight, you give them feedback — you let them know what they need to change. If they're not willing or able to change it, yes, of course, at some point you let them go."

The demeaning way? It's basically the approach being taken by Zuckerberg and Musk. Setting arbitrary quotas of the number of employees who should get cut. Forcing managers to fire people who were consistently told they were meeting and exceeding expectations. Publicly labeling them as "low performers," which hurts their chances of landing a new job. And above all, failing to recognize that an employee who isn't working out isn't just a failure of the individual. It's also a failure of management.

"Unfortunately," Grant says, "what seems to be in vogue right now is a more demeaning approach to leadership."

Given the overwhelming evidence against management by fear, it's puzzling why Silicon Valley is trying to revive it. The tech industry, after all, was founded on the belief that everything should be dictated by data. Grant blames ignorance. "When I talk with CEOs, many of them are just unaware of the evidence," he says. "They haven't thought through the unintended consequences of their decisions."

Surely, though, it shouldn't be difficult for a company like Microsoft to remember just how poorly things went the last time it went after low performers — and how much better it did once it replaced stack ranking with Satya Nadella's softer approach of "model, coach, care." Microsoft post-2013 is one of the great success stories of the past decade — an ailing giant that actually managed to become relevant again. The tech industry boomed, in no small part, because starry-eyed startups motivated their coders and product managers and salespeople with the promise that they were changing the world. Eager millennials were happy to devote their nights and weekends to make that mission a reality, and they turned their underdog employers into some of the largest businesses in history.

"It's hugely frustrating, because we become smart for a while and then we become stupid," says Sucher, the Harvard Business School professor. "But if you've been in business for a long time, which I have now, you get used to the fact that it goes in cycles like this."

Perhaps using performance-based cuts to instill fear in their employees is just the CEO version of a threat-rigidity response. In the 1980s, the threat was global competition. Today, it's the winner-takes-all war over AI. Under siege, history teaches us, bosses behave the same way employees do: They keep reverting to the same tired methods that just don't work, no matter how many times they try it.

Even the famously cutthroat Jack Welch, toward the end of his life, repudiated the rank-and-yank phrase that had become synonymous with his name. Low performers, he said, should never be surprised when the conversation turns to dismissal. And they should never be "summarily shown the door." Instead, he said, their managers should "help them find their next job with compassion and respect." Today's low performers, it turns out, may not be the employees who are being laid off, but the CEOs who are firing them based on an outdated — and counterproductive — system of management.

Aki Ito is a chief correspondent at Business Insider.

• Shelley Janek, 70, is looking for a job because Social Security isn't enough to cover her essentials.
• Janek moved from California to Wyoming to save money on housing and other expenses.
• BI has heard from roughly 4,000 older Americans, many of whom are living on Social Security without savings.

Shelley Janek, 70, hoped to retire with a strong nest egg at her age. Instead, she's paying bills with Social Security and looking for a job.

Janek is one of millions of retirees navigating the rising cost of living in the US. Business Insider has heard from roughly 4,000 older Americans who are struggling to make ends meet on Social Security and dwindling savings. Some, like Janek, told BI that they are unable to retire or are trying to reenter the job market to boost their income, while others are scrambling to cut their expenses.

With just over $2,000 a month in Social Security income, Janek said she is unable to afford most essentials, like groceries and rent. She recently moved from Sonoma County, California — where she lived for 34 years — to Casper, Wyoming. She's living with a friend to save money and applying for jobs, with no luck yet.

"Everything is just climbing so dramatically that I think seniors are going to be in some real trouble in the future," she told BI.

We want to hear from you. Are you an older American comfortable sharing your retirement outlook with a reporter? Please fill out this quick form.

Looking for work at 70 because Social Security isn't enough

Janek spent her career in various roles in finance, computer programming, and environmental conservation. She said she felt financially comfortable for most of her life, but never made enough money to buy her own home in Sonoma County, where median home prices are nearly twice the national average — per the real estate platform Redfin.

In 2021, Janek said she had to retire earlier than she expected and claim Social Security due to a health condition. She spent most of the money she saved for retirement on bills and caring for her mother.

Janek said it's been challenging to land a new job at her age. At some companies, she never hears back after submitting her application. At others, she doesn't pass the interview stage. She said she hasn't been able to land a full-time job, and is unable to work in retail or the service industry because she can't stand for long periods of time.

Last summer, Janek said she moved to Wyoming in an effort to cut her living costs. She said that utilities and gas are cheaper in Casper, and she saves on rent because she is staying with a friend, but there are fewer healthcare options than she had on the West Coast. Janek said she would qualify for some low-income housing, but she has been on waiting lists in California, Wyoming, and neighboring states for years without a placement.

"It's depressing to realize that there's very few places I can afford to live," she said. "And the few places I could afford to live are not places I really want to live. It's looking like I may have to leave the country."

Moving again could make Janek's life more affordable, but she said it comes at the expense of her community. Relocating has already been lonely, and she said it's been difficult to reestablish care with new doctors and meet new friends.

Janek isn't sure what she will do next but she said it helps to know that she isn't alone: many older Americans are struggling with finances in retirement.

"I think there are a lot of people in my situation," she said.

• Elon Musk said he doesn't plan to shut down Starlink's terminals in Ukraine.
• "We would never do such a thing or use it as a bargaining chip," Musk said.
• SpaceX sent thousands of Starlink terminals to Ukraine during the early days of the war.

Elon Musk said on Sunday that he will never turn off Starlink's terminals in Ukraine.

"To be extremely clear, no matter how much I disagree with the Ukraine policy, Starlink will never turn off its terminals," Musk wrote in an X post on Sunday.

"We would never do such a thing or use it as a bargaining chip," Musk added.

Musk's remarks came after Poland's foreign minister, Radosław Sikorski, wrote in an X post on Sunday that his country "will be forced to look for other suppliers" of satellite internet services if SpaceX "proves to be an unreliable provider."

Poland was spending about $50 million a year on Starlink's services for Ukraine, Sikorski wrote.

"Be quiet, small man. You pay a tiny fraction of the cost. And there is no substitute for Starlink," Musk replied to Sikorski on Sunday.

Sikorski's post also drew a response from Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who said on Sunday that Sikorski was "just making things up."

"No one has made any threats about cutting Ukraine off from Starlink. And say thank you because without Starlink Ukraine would have lost this war long ago and Russians would be on the border with Poland right now," Rubio wrote in an X post.

Musk's position on Ukraine

Musk was initially supportive of Ukraine when it fought back against Russia in the early days of the war.

In June 2022, Musk said SpaceX had delivered 15,000 Starlink terminals to Ukraine after Russia's invasion began in February that year.

In 2022, Musk also challenged Russian leader Vladimir Putin to single combat over Ukraine and suggested the president could "bring his bear" to their man-on-man fight.

But Musk's pro-Ukraine stance has shifted.

In October 2022, he posted a peace plan to end the Ukraine war on X. The plan, which called for Ukraine to recognize Russia's annexation of Crimea, was praised by the Kremlin.

During a 2024 X Spaces event with GOP senators, Musk said he thought there was "no way in hell" Putin would lose the war in Ukraine.

"This spending does not help Ukraine. Prolonging the war does not help Ukraine," Musk said in February 2024 while calling for the US to stop funding Ukraine.

On Sunday, Musk said he was "sickened" by "years of slaughter in a stalemate that Ukraine will inevitably lose."

"Anyone who really cares, really thinks and really understands wants the meat grinder to stop," Musk wrote on X.

Last week, the Trump administration paused all military aid and intelligence sharing with Ukraine.

"The President has been clear that he is focused on peace. We need our partners to be committed to that goal as well. We are pausing and reviewing our aid to ensure that it is contributing to a solution," a White House official said in a written statement to Business Insider.

Musk and the State Department did not respond to requests for comment from BI.

• Palmer Luckey's startup Anduril scored a $642 million deal for anti-drone tech in Marine Corps bases.
• The 10-year contract is meant to help fight smaller drones like the exploding ones in Ukraine.
• The Defense Department said Anduril was chosen out of 10 total bids.

Defense startup Anduril clinched a $642 million contract on Friday to help the US Marine Corps fight smaller drones at its bases.

Anduril's new deal is for the Marine Corps Installation-Counter small Unmanned Aircraft Systems program, which is essentially a network of anti-drone defenses for bases and facilities.

The announcement comes after Anduril scored a separate five-year $200 million agreement in November to bring counter-drone tech to the Marine Air Defense Integrated System. This mobile air defense system can be mounted on vehicles like Humvees.

Like with the MADIS, Anduril's offering for this new contract is to fight smaller drones, which the US military classifies as Group 1 and Group 2.

Such drones are typically no heavier than 55 pounds and fly at a maximum altitude of about 3,500 feet, like the exploding commercial drones used in the war in Ukraine.

When the Corps first opened its contract in April 2024, it warned of a "security capability gap" for dealing with these smaller drones at its bases.

"The sUAS threat poses unique challenges to military installations when compared to those of operational forces," the Corps wrote.

The Defense Department said on Friday that 10 companies had submitted proposals for the contract, but did not name them.

With Anduril scoring the deal, the department said that 80% of the work until 2035 would be done in Costa Mesa, California, home to Anduril's headquarters. The rest is expected to be performed in Washington, D.C., and other Marine Corps facilities.

The announcement did not specify what type of product or how many systems Anduril will deliver.

Press teams for Anduril and the Marine Corps did not respond to requests for comment from Business Insider outside regular business hours.

One of Anduril's main offerings for fighting smaller drones, Anvil, features a quadcopter that flies out from a portable storage box to track and crash into enemy systems. It can also be fitted with explosives to attack bigger targets.

Additionally, the company sells electronic warfare jammers called Pulsar, which it's already providing to the Pentagon as part of a $250 million deal from October.

Anduril, founded in 2017 by Oculus creator Palmer Luckey, has become a rising star in the defense industry as it emphasizes ready-made designs that can be produced at scale. In that sense, it hopes to reuse the same design to bid for multiple contracts instead of creating each one specifically for a single deal.

The firm is also working with ChatGPT-maker OpenAI and runs its products on an AI software called Lattice to survey the battlefield and identify threats.

One of its biggest scores so far is a $22 billion contract with the US Army to provide soldiers with mixed-reality goggles. The contract was originally awarded to Microsoft but later ceded to Anduril.

The firm hopes to expand quickly. In August, Anduril raised $1.5 billion to build a 5 million-square-foot factory in Ohio that it said would "hyperscale" production.