• Thomas Dohmke, the CEO of GitHub, said the "smartest" companies will hire more developers in the face of AI.
• Thomas Dohmke said in a podcast interview that AI makes engineers more efficient, not irrelevant.
• AI isn't yet capable of completely eliminating engineering workloads, he added.

The companies that best take advantage of AI won't be using it to replace human labor, said GitHub CEO Thomas Dohmke. Instead, they'll be upping their hiring of increasingly efficient engineers.

"The companies that are the smartest are going to hire more developers," Dohmke said on an episode of "The Silicon Valley Girl Podcast."

"Because if you 10x a single developer, then 10 developers can do 100x," he said.

Dohmke said that AI has made it that much easier to learn how to program, and simplified the process for those who are already professionals. As the technology continues to evolve, he added, so will the capabilities of engineers.

"The most frustrating thing when you're learning something is, you're stuck somewhere, and then you have nobody at home or in your family or friends that can help you with that, because they're all nontechnical," Dohmke said. "So, when we're saying AI is democratizing access, that's what we mean. Everyone who wants to learn it can learn it."

That doesn't mean there won't be a market for professionals, either, Dohmke said. Though people may be better equipped to leverage coding for personal ends, in the business sphere, a deeper knowledge of the craft will still be required to best utilize AI, the GitHub CEO said.

"I think the idea that AI without any coding skills lets you just build a billion-dollar business is mistaken," he said. "Because if that would be the case, everyone would do it."

Though some companies — particularly in the tech industry — are pumping the brakes on hiring or conducting layoffs while leaning into AI, Dohmke believes it's only a matter of time before they realize there's greater value in hiring more engineers.

"I think it's a temporary effect right now. This is the natural conclusion for the short term — we keep things stable and we're trying to figure out how the market develops," Dohmke said. "But very quickly, I think we're going to see people that say, 'Well, wait a second, if I have one more productive developer, why wouldn't I hire another one, and another one?'"

Dohmke said he still hasn't seen a company completely eliminate developer workloads, even as programmers use AI to move through projects with greater speed.

"AI has already added more work to the backlogs. I haven't seen companies saying, 'Well, we're draining all our backlog and we have almost nothing left,'" he said.

Dohmke also said it's the "most exciting time" to be a developer — and that the process of programming has ultimately been changed for the better.

"The dream of software development was always that I can take the idea that I have in my head on a Sunday morning, and by the evening, I have the app up and running on my phone," he said.

• Congress passed Trump's "big beautiful bill" on July 3.
• It includes major changes to student-loan repayment and caps on borrowing.
• It eliminates existing income-driven repayment plans, including SAVE, replacing them with just two options.

It could soon get harder for student-loan borrowers to get affordable monthly payments.

Congress passed President Donald Trump's "big beautiful bill" — a major spending package — on July 3, meaning a slew of proposals to change the way student-loan borrowers take out and pay off their debt is becoming law.

The bill eliminates existing income-driven repayment plans and replaces them with two less generous options, along with adding new restrictions on the types of loans parents and graduate students can take out. It also limits borrowers' abilities to place their loans on deferment if they're facing financial hardship.

Linda McMahon, Trump's education secretary, lauded the bill's passage in a post on X, saying that it "simplifies the overly complex student loan repayment system" and "reduces federal student loan borrowing amounts to help curb rising tuition costs."

"A truly beautiful bill for the American people," she said.

Borrower advocates and Democratic lawmakers said the bill will hurt Americans repaying their student loans. Sen. Elizabeth Warren said in a statement that student-loan payments will go up as a result of the legislation, and Natalia Abrams, president of the advocacy group Student Debt Crisis Center, said that "this dangerous bill abandons millions of borrowers, leaving them with few, often inaccessible repayment options and deepening their financial insecurity.

Here's how the bill will impact millions of federal student-loan borrowers.

A student-loan repayment overhaul

New student-loan borrowers will face fewer available repayment options as a result of the spending bill. The bill will eliminate existing income-driven repayment plans and replace them with two repayment options.

The first option is called the Repayment Assistance Plan. It would set borrowers' payments at 1-10% of their income, depending on their income levels, with a minimum monthly payment of $10. Unpaid interest is waived under this plan, and any remaining balance will be forgiven after 30 years.

It's less generous than former President Joe Biden's SAVE plan, which the bill eliminates. SAVE would have allowed borrowers with original balances of $12,000 or less to receive loan forgiveness after 10 years of payments, and it reduced payments on undergraduate loans from 10% to 5% of a borrower's discretionary income.

The SAVE plan is blocked in court pending a final legal decision, and with the bill's passage, the 8 million borrowers enrolled in SAVE have between July 2026 and July 2028 to enroll in a new plan.

The second option is a new standard repayment plan, which sets fixed payments for 10-25 years based on the borrowers' original balance. While existing standard plans typically have a fixed repayment period, this new plan's repayment period would vary based on the original amount borrowed.

Along with fewer repayment plans, the bill eliminates borrowers' ability to defer their student-loan payments in the event of economic hardship and unemployment, leaving standard forbearance as the only option to delay payments.

It also eliminates the graduate PLUS program, which allowed borrowers at graduate and professional schools to borrow up to the full cost of attendance for their education. The bill retains the parent PLUS program, which allows parents to take on student loans for their kids' educations, but places a $65,000 lifetime cap.

In addition to repayment changes, the bill takes on college accountability: It ensures that programs in which graduates don't earn more than the median high school graduate in their state will lose federal student-loan eligibility. The legislation also extends the Pell Grant to shorter-term programs, which McMahon has previously pushed for.

• CEOs need an AI strategy now to avoid falling behind competitors, PwC's Dan Priest said.
• Generative AI is reshaping industries, challenging leaders to adapt and innovate quickly.
• Priest emphasized investing in AI tools, reskilling employees, and maintaining human oversight.

Many corporate leaders are embracing artificial intelligence in theory but falling short when it comes to execution, according to Dan Priest, who was named PricewaterhouseCoopers' first chief AI officer a year ago.

With generative AI radically reshaping how everything from accounting and human resources to sales and marketing gets done, CEOs' leadership skills are being put to the test. How they go about their AI strategy today, warned Priest, will likely mean the difference between achieving greater cost savings and faster growth in the next few years versus falling behind the curve.

"It is a disruptive journey that needs to be managed," he told Business Insider.

Consider, for example, a PwC survey of approximately 4,700 CEOs last year found that four out of 10 expect their business models to no longer be viable in the next decade if AI continues to develop at its current rate. Priest said this suggests companies will need to come up with new — and likely AI-powered ways — of generating revenue, which can be difficult.

Given how fast generative AI has been evolving, Priest stressed the importance of CEOs investing in AI tools and strategic planning around them now, if they haven't already, to set their businesses up for success. But he conceded that the task is challenging.

For one, leaders need to find ways to distinguish their companies from others using AI if they want to stand out from competitors, said Priest. Most use cases today are merely setting a new standard for table stakes.

"If AI is ubiquitous and everybody's got it, it can't be your differentiator alone," he said.

Leaders also need to figure out which job functions will be aided by AI and to what extent, and which ones will become obsolete, said Priest. Further, they should determine where new skills are needed, invest in helping employees develop them, and assess where talent may need to shift to other areas of the business.

"If you believe that people are an important part of your success in the future, you should invest in their reskilling," he said.

Workers aren't all using AI tools in the same way, added Priest.

"Early-career-stage team members are more likely to turn over the thinking too much to AI," he said. "Late-stage-career team members are probably too reticent to use it consistently."

One tip Priest has for anyone using AI to write memos or other text is to only rely on the technology for a second draft. People should produce a first and last version on their own, he said.

"You want the thinking to be yours. That's why the first draft is so important," Priest said. "You want the benefit of the edit and you want the final draft to be in your voice."

This is also an example of why he believes humans should be at the center of companies' AI-related initiatives.

"The shiny new object is AI, but I don't know a single AI agent that is changing a business," he said. "It's the humans combined with those AI agents that change the business."

For a decade, Indiana businessman Bob Hamilton has operated six fireworks pop-ups in the weeks leading up to July 4. Most years, it's a great business — he says he brings in about $200,000 for a few weeks of work.

But the trade war with China has meant that this year has been anything but normal. And anyone hoping to buy fireworks at the last minute — whether from Hamilton or from pop-ups scattered across the country — is likely to see higher prices and, in some cases, empty shelves.

In the first half of the year, Hamilton watched as the tariffs on Chinese goods went from 10% to 145% and then back down to 30%. Around 95% of fireworks are made in China, so there wasn't another major market to turn to.

Hamilton played it safe. He bought the bulk of his inventory in April — just before the 145% tariffs took effect — to lock in a better price. He borrowed space from one of his other businesses, a commercial flooring company, to store his merchandise. Assuming that higher prices would mean fewer sales, he leased just four storefronts. "By the time we figured out how to navigate this tariff thing for this year, it was a little bit too late in the game," he says.

But the chaos seems to have wiped out some of Hamilton's competition. This week, when he placed another order to restock his shelves, the cost factored in the 30% tariff. "How much of that do we eat to keep our customers happy?" he says. Hamilton ultimately decided to split the difference with his customers.

From fireworks to backyard barbeques, President Donald Trump's America First tariffs are getting in the way of America's birthday bash. While the biggest impact has fallen on the fireworks industry, the higher tariffs — coupled with stubbornly high consumer prices and a historic low in the American cattle supply — have jacked up the cost of beef, ice cream and other Independence Day staples.

This year's price hikes and shortages could preview an even bigger impact on next year's celebrations, when Americans will mark the nation's 250th birthday. Industry watchers say there's a real risk of product shortages and significantly higher prices in 2026.

"Trump has called them the America First tariffs," says Julie Heckman, the Executive Director of the American Pyrotechnics Association. "The bitter irony is that the tariffs are raining on the most iconic celebration of America."

The question leading into 2026 is largely one of capacity: Will orders come in soon enough, and will there be enough time for producers in China to meet the American demand for pyrotechnics?

Chinese manufacturers are making up lost time from last year, and — in advance of America's 250th — the APA expects next year's demand for fireworks from American consumers to surge by 40 to 50%.

Uncertainty in the US market after high tariffs took effect meant that Chinese manufacturers "lost several months of vital production time," says Heckman. "That's what's really going to impact 2026."

Fireworks are constructed by hand and take up to two days to make, so delays have a meaningful impact. "It's a very laborious and dangerous process," says Heckman. "Think of papier mache layers over a sphere, like wrapping a basketball, gazillions of times." Before the firework is finished, it's placed in the sun to dry.

Stacy Schneitter Blake, president of the National Fireworks Association and co-owner of Schneitter Fireworks & Importing in St Joseph, Missouri, echoes Heckman's concerns.

The brief window of 145% tariffs this spring "severely disrupted" the supply chain, she says. "Thousands of containers were canceled or delayed, municipal displays were downsized or cut entirely, and companies across the country are absorbing unrecoverable losses."

Industry watchers say China's strong domestic market for fireworks and a strong European market also mean that Chinese manufacturers aren't dependent on American buyers.

"There's only so long that companies can kind of dance around these tariffs and figure out clever ways to adjust for them, to prevent the price increases from flowing through to consumers," says Martha Gimbel of the Budget Lab at Yale, a non-partisan policy research center. "To paraphrase the classic Christmas song, 'Have yourself a merry little Fourth of July,' because it may be your last without price increases."

Hamilton, who says he supported Trump for president, says he's OK with all the uncertainty — for now — especially if it means Americans will get a better deal in the long run. "Do we all wish we weren't paying these extra tariffs? Absolutely," he says. "But I'm willing to sacrifice if I need to, for the greater good."

"The question I'm looking at is, what does this look like next year, the year after?" he says. "Is this going to correct itself?"

Fireworks are the symbol of Independence Day celebrations. But most popular way to mark Americans' second favorite holiday, after Christmas, is with a cookout, according to Northwestern University's Medill Spiegel Research Center, which tracks consumer behavior.

This year, those researchers predict a 5% drop in Independence Day celebrations, largely due to higher prices.

Andrew Lokenauth is among those who are cutting back.

For 15 years, Lokenauth has gone all-out for the Fourth of July. The barbecues that he and his wife host in their Tampa, Florida backyard include fireworks, a professional sound system, and mountains of food for 150 guests.

"My signature move was always smoking these massive briskets — started them at 3 a.m. to get them perfect by party time," says Lokenauth, who's 38 and works as a financial educator. "And the spread, man, the spread. We'd have everything from pulled pork to grilled chicken. Plus, all these sides my wife makes that everyone fights over."

The party was reliably "the highlight of summer for our friends and family," he says.

But a few weeks ago, Lokenauth discovered that the price of everything from fireworks to that brisket was way up, and he calculated he was $2,000 over his usual budget.

Lokenauth and his wife now plan to host a much smaller party, and make it a potluck. "After 15 years of going all out, it wasn't an easy decision," he says. "It felt like cutting off my right arm."

Natalie Flynn, who lives in Washington, DC, can relate.

Every year, she squeezes around 30 guests into her 600-square-foot Washington, DC, apartment. Her bathtub becomes the cooler for beer and cocktails, while she grills hot dogs and hamburgers from her building's roof. She makes almost everything from scratch — her homemade ice cream sandwiches are a reliable favorite. At around 8, she hands out sparklers and leads her guests on a walk to the National Mall, where they watch fireworks go off over the Lincoln Memorial. "It's this moment of just joy and jubilance," he says.

But a couple of weeks ago, Flynn was taken aback when she noticed that the 5.5 pound bag of Belgian chocolate chips she uses for her ice cream sandwiches are $76 this year, up from $53. Flynn, who's 36 and works two jobs, realized that her particular salute to Uncle Sam was suddenly outside her budget.

Flynn's party will now also be a potluck, and there will be fewer sparklers to pass around. "Stuff's not going to get cheaper, so I have to be more mindful of how I spend," she says. "The feast has gotten too expensive."

Both Lokenauth and Flynn say they hope this year counts as a blip and that they'll get back to hosting massive Fourth of July parties again soon.

"I've always believed the beauty of America is how we can disagree but still fire up the grill together," says Lokenauth. "I've got friends who voted Trump sitting next to folks who voted Harris — and they're both reaching for the same plate of brisket."

"These tariffs that were supposed to put America first are making it harder for Americans to celebrate America," he says.

Cari Shane is a freelance writer.

Dominick Reuter is a senior retail reporter for Business Insider.

• "Jurassic World Rebirth" is now out in theaters.
• Here we look back on the entire "Jurassic" franchise to rank its entries from worst to best.
• See where "Rebirth," "Jurassic World," and (of course) the original "Jurassic Park" all land.

Audiences seemingly can't get enough of the "Jurassic" franchise.

Five years after the close of the "Jurassic World" trilogy with 2022's "Jurassic World: Dominion," moviegoers are now given "Jurassic World Rebirth," which is set decades after "Dominion."

1993's "Jurassic Park," based on the book by Michael Crichton, revolutionized visual effects as Steven Spielberg's stunning dinosaurs looked so lifelike. It launched the craze for VFX blockbusters that we watch today (legend has it, George Lucas was so taken by the effects in "Jurassic" it convinced him he could make his "Star Wars" prequels).

Six sequels since, grossing over $6 billion worldwide (not counting the revenue from amusement park rides, video games, and animated spinoffs), it's not slowing down.

Here we rank all the movies from worst to best.

7. "Jurassic Park: Dominion" (2022)

With dinosaurs and humans now living together following the events of "Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom," the climax to the "World" trilogy brings back the cast from the previous "Jurassic" movies to set everything straight.

Despite the fun nostalgia that Sam Neill, Laura Dern, and Jeff Goldblum bring to the story, the movie itself is a mindless journey from one action sequence to the next. And don't even get us started on the giant locust subplot.

6. "Jurassic World" (2015)

The "Jurassic Park" franchise is essentially about humans not being able to let go of the past, and the horrifying consequences of what happens when that gets out of control. Let's call it weaponized nostalgia.

In "Jurassic World," that concept gets very meta, but not in a cool, self-aware kind of way: 22 years after the events of the first movie, humans have created a dino theme park. Both Jurassic World the park and "Jurassic World" the movie are cash-grabbing, nostalgia-exploiting efforts that made millions of dollars off of humanity's failure to not learn from our past.

Chris Pratt's half-commitment to an accent is more genuine than this movie, but we'll admit we were entertained throughout.

5. "Jurassic Park III" (2001)

"Jurassic Park III," directed by "Captain America: The First Avenger" director Joe Johnston, has some memorable, redeeming qualities. The Spinosaurus is a menacing alternative to the overused T. rex and the entire "bird cage" sequence is actually riveting.

But it can never escape the fact that it probably shouldn't exist in the first place: Sam Neill's Alan Grant is coerced into returning to a dinosaur island and, shockingly, nothing goes according to plan.

The ending is rushed — as if everyone involved in this movie wanted to escape it faster than the characters wanted to get off the island — and the disappointing, terribly CGI'd Spinosaurus vs. T. rex fight was not worth the Rock 'em Sock 'em-style toy we owned growing up.

Also, there was a missed opportunity to explore what PTSD could look like for someone who almost got eaten by dinosaurs, but the movie would rather just show Grant hallucinating a velociraptor that calls his name.

4. "Jurassic World Rebirth" (2025)

It had all the elements to be great. Producers brought back screenwriter David Koepp, who penned the first two movies, and they hired "Rogue One" director Gareth Edwards. But by the time the end credits roll on "Rebirth," you have the feeling of what could have been.

From the "Jaws"-like boat scenes to all the nostalgic hat tips to "Jurassic Park," the movie felt like it was following the usual blockbuster formula, though it gets points for at least telling a stand-alone movie.

You just have to think: If this movie had come out a decade from now instead of three years after "Dominion," would it have worked better?

3. "The Lost World: Jurassic Park" (1997)

The first "Jurassic" sequel, "The Lost World," gets a bump for once again being directed by Steven Spielberg — some critics even argue that while it's nowhere near as good as the first movie, it's actually better directed.

That direction keeps the tension mounting throughout the movie, until the infamous San Diego-set ending. Bringing back Jeff Goldblum and adding Julianne Moore to the mix helps things, as well, and by all accounts, this movie should have been a masterpiece. But a terrible script ensured our disappointment before the cameras even began to roll. 

2. "Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom" (2018)

The problem with the "Jurassic" sequels is that none of them can quite justify their existence. It's easy to regurgitate the same concept over and over again, but it's actually hard to make it worthwhile.

But "Fallen Kingdom" is the most self-aware of all of the "Jurassic" sequels: people are really dumb, we keep getting ourselves into the same situations, and that's the point. The movie brings that to its natural conclusion and is probably the only sequel that actually raises the stakes by the end of the movie.

That makes it not only better than its predecessor but the best sequel in the franchise (even if that's not saying much).

While the movie thinks it's way smarter than it actually is (dinosaurs are a metaphor for global warming and civil rights and other social issues!), it at least tries to tap into some of those ideas. The logical question arises from that: do these movies need to be that cognizant? But we'd rather they were somewhat mindful of the world they inhabit than mindless.

1. "Jurassic Park" (1993)

Do we even have to explain ourselves?

Spielberg's original film is classic blockbuster entertainment with the heart and smarts to match. 

The movie didn't just push the envelope in what was possible on the big screen but opened the door for how the blockbuster movie would be made for decades to come.

Travis Clark contributed to a previous version of this post.

• Ursula von der Leyen said it was "impossible" to cut a trade deal with the US by July 9.
• The European Commission president said there would be an "agreement in principle" by that date.
• She said the high EU-US trade volume made fast-tracking a detailed deal difficult.

Ursula von der Leyen, the president of the European Commission, said it was "impossible" to reach a detailed trade deal by President Donald Trump's July 9 deadline.

Von der Leyen said the US and European Union were aiming for a July 9 "agreement in principle" trade deal, which would be light on details.

She was speaking at a press conference in the Danish city of Aarhus on Thursday, at a European Union summit to mark the start of Denmark's six-month-long EU presidency.

"It's a huge task because we have the largest trade volume globally between the European Union and the United States, 1.5 trillion euros, very complex and a huge quantity," she said.

She added, "Indeed, what we are aiming at is an agreement in principle. Because I mean, such a volume in 90 days, an agreement in detail, impossible."

The European Union was one of the hardest hit by the slew of tariffs Trump announced on April 2, seeing a tariff rate of 20%.

Responding to the tariffs, Von der Leyen said in an April statement on X that Trump's tariffs were a "major blow to the world economy" with "dire" consequences for millions of people.

Trump later issued a 90-day pause to allow for trade negotiations, and all of the US's trade partners were subject to an interim 10% tariff rate.

In February, months before the April 2 tariffs, Trump ordered a 25% tariff on all steel and aluminum imports, and the EU retaliated with tariffs on 26 billion euros, or $28.4 billion, worth of US goods.

In May, he floated raising the EU's tariff rate to 50% from June 1, saying the group was "very difficult to deal with" and the US's trade negotiations with the EU were "going nowhere."

However, Trump retracted the threat after a call with Von der Leyen. He said she had requested an extension on the June 1 deadline.

"I agreed to the extension — July 9, 2025 — It was my privilege to do so," Trump wrote on Truth Social on May 25.

On May 26, Paula Pinho, a spokeswoman for the European Commission, said in a press conference that Von der Leyen and Trump had "agreed both to fast-track the trade negotiations and to stay in close contact."

Representatives of the European Commission and the White House did not respond to requests for comment from Business Insider.

• Meta has been aggressively poaching AI talent from rivals like OpenAI, Google, and Anthropic.
• But a former OpenAI board member said "it'll be difficult" for Meta to succeed with its new hires.
• Helen Toner, who left OpenAI in 2023, said companies will also try to woo Meta's new hires.

Helen Toner, a former OpenAI board member, said Meta could start seeing other companies trying to poach back their newly brought in AI talent.

Toner, who left OpenAI's board in November 2023, said in an interview with Bloomberg on Thursday that Meta will need to show they are "moving fast enough" in the field to retain their new AI hires.

Toner added that Meta "will be getting attempts to poach them back to other companies starting on day one."

Meta has been stepping up its AI recruitment efforts amid a wider industry search for AI talent.

Last month, Meta said it had made a $15 billion investment in data-labeling firm ScaleAI. ScaleAI's founder and CEO, Alexandr Wang will also be joining Meta as its Chief AI Officer as part of the investment.

Wang will also co-lead Meta Superintelligence Labs with Nat Friedman, the former CEO of Github. The rest of Meta's new team comprises former researchers from OpenAI, Google, and Anthropic.

Toner, however, told Bloomberg that "it'll be difficult" for Meta to achieve success with its new AI hires.

"There's a lot of organizational politics at play," she continued.

Toner said the challenge Meta faced was not just about procuring resources but also managing egos.

"That takes a lot of willingness to stare down powerful people inside your company, who maybe don't want to lose and tell them that you actually don't want them to do what they want," Toner said.

"The question will be, in part, can Mark Zuckerberg, if this is his big personal project, is that enough to change their organizational dynamics," she added.

Toner isn't the only one who has criticized Meta's recruitment efforts.

Sam Altman, the CEO of OpenAI, said he found it "crazy" that Meta offered his employees $100 million signing bonuses to leave.

"The strategy of a ton of upfront guaranteed comp and that being the reason you tell someone to join, like really the degree to which they're focusing on that and not the work and not the mission, I don't think that's going to set up a great culture," Altman said in an episode of the "Uncapped with Jack Altman" podcast that aired last month.

Toner had previously voted to fire Altman as OpenAI's CEO in November 2023. At the time, OpenAI's board said Altman "was not consistently candid in his communications" with them but did not provide further details. Altman eventually returned as CEO just days later.

Toner said in her interview with Bloomberg on Thursday that she has not "actually interacted" with Altman since his brief ouster from OpenAI.

"I'm sure at some point soon we will wind up at the same event. The AI world is pretty small, and I'm sure that we will both be happy to shake each other's hand, but don't have another chance yet so far," Toner said.

Representatives for Toner and Meta did not respond to requests for comment from Business Insider.

• Amal Clooney says she has a no-phone rule for house guests.
• "I now have a phone basket that I use to take everyone's phones away," she said.
• The human rights lawyer says the rule is meant to foster real connections and to protect her kids' privacy.

Visitors at Amal Clooney's house better be ready to unplug — because phones are off-limits.

In an interview with Glamour published on Thursday, Clooney spoke about the value of privacy and the boundaries she sets to protect it.

"Creating private moments and spaces is becoming increasingly difficult. But that's also why we entertain a lot at home. I now have a phone basket that I use to take everyone's phones away," Clooney told Glamour.

The human rights lawyer added that it was important to create a space where people feel like they can have "a safe and frank exchange" with their loved ones.

Keeping phones at bay is also about protecting her children's privacy, she said. She and her husband, George Clooney, welcomed twins Alexander and Ella in 2017.

"And I would say becoming a parent means you're more troubled by some of the intrusions. So we do the best we can to minimize any impact on our children," Clooney said.

That commitment to privacy extends to keeping her kids entirely out of the public eye.

"We don't put our children out there, we've never put their photo out there or anything like that," she said.

The Clooneys are famously protective of their kids.

In November 2021, her husband, George Clooney, wrote an open letter to the media, urging outlets to avoid publishing photos of their kids due to her line of work.

"The nature of my wife's work has her confronting and putting on trial terrorist groups and we take as much precaution as we can to keep our family safe," he wrote.

In an August interview with GQ, George Clooney discussed the pitfalls of fame and reiterated his point about shielding his kids from the limelight.

"So I have a goal of trying to protect, I don't want pictures of my kids. We deal in very serious subject matters, with very serious bad guys, and we don't want to have photos of our kids out there," he said.

The Clooneys are among several public figures who've spoken out about the challenge of protecting their privacy while living in the spotlight.

In 2022, Eva Mendes said she won't share photos of her and Ryan Gosling's daughters until they give her consent.

Lindsay Lohan said in May that parenting in Dubai feels easier than in Los Angeles, thanks to the UAE's strict photography laws.

"I get the privacy, I get the peace, I get the space. I don't have to worry there; I feel safe," Lohan said.

A representative for Clooney did not immediately respond to a request for comment sent by Business Insider outside regular hours.