• Several films that have been nominated at this year's Academy Awards used AI in some way.
• Whether they secure trophies at the Oscars could influence how Hollywood views AI moving forward.
• Some industry insiders say AI is here to stay and are calling for more transparency about its use.

Actors, directors, and filmmakers aren't the only ones with futures at stake at the Academy Awards.

The results of Sunday's Oscars ceremony could also further the industry's embrace — or distrust — of artificial intelligence. Several big-ticket movies up for golden statues this year were created in part with AI, sometimes provoking fierce criticism online.

"AI" has become a two-letter dirty word in Hollywood in recent years, provoking pushback from creative types who believe that movie magic should be the product of primarily human — not digital — brains. That extends across everything from scriptwriting to voice dubbing.

The technology survived the drubbing it endured during the dual strikes of 2023, however, and is now an uninvited guest at the industry's most glamorous night.

"Tonight's Oscars will be a turning point for AI use in Hollywood," said Warner Bailey, a former assistant at the Hollywood talent agency WME who has gone on to become a heroic figure for industry workers thanks to his popular Instagram meme account, Assistants vs. Agents.

"Whether it's entertainment or beyond, I think our industry specifically needs to establish clear guidelines" to safeguard "artistic integrity," he said in a phone interview with Business Insider ahead of the ceremony on Sunday. "AI," he added, "isn't going anywhere."

AI's role in some of this year's biggest films

AI helped bring some of this year's biggest films to life.

According to multiple reports, AI enhanced Karla Sofía Gascón's voice in "Emilia Pérez." An advanced form of machine learning is said to have helped give the Fremen their glowy, hypnotic blue eyes in "Dune: Part Two." AI was also involved in the post-production of "A Complete Unknown."

In January, Dávid Jancsó, the editor of "The Brutalist" — which follows a Hungarian-Jewish architect and Holocaust survivor — said that AI helped perfect the lead actors' accents in the film.

"I am a native Hungarian speaker, and I know that it is one of the most difficult languages to learn to pronounce," Jancsó told RedShark News, a publisher focused on film and television, in January. "We also wanted to perfect it so that not even locals will spot any difference."

His admission prompted scrutiny and online chatter, forcing the director to later clarify that AI was "used in Hungarian language dialogue editing only" and that the filmmakers strived to "preserve the authenticity" of the actors' performances.

These instances have generated enough noise that even the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences — the group behind the awards ceremony — is reportedly considering adding a requirement for filmmakers to disclose the use of such tools to its Oscars submission guidelines.

A representative for the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences did not immediately respond to a request for comment, but Variety reported that the Academy is expected to release its updated rules for the 2026 ceremony in April.

Robert Thompson, a professor and director of the Bleier Center for Television and Popular Culture at Syracuse University, told BI that AI's use in moviemaking could impact how films are judged.

"Whoever is doing nominations or voting in any organization that's giving out awards is going to have to figure out if they have a zero tolerance for artificial intelligence," Thompson said. "Or they're going to look at any performance that has artificial intelligence — which is going to be more and more as we go along — and make the judgment accordingly."

These are some of the reasons people like Bailey think the industry and moviegoing audiences need more transparency about AI use.

"There's a growing gray area in defining artistic contribution" as AI's use becomes more widespread, he said. "Disclosing when and how AI was used doesn't necessarily diminish a work's value, but it does provide clarity for audiences, industry professionals, and award committees, especially in the context of institutions like The Academy whose objective is to recognize excellence in the arts."

Why AI is different than other Hollywood tech

To be sure, Hollywood is no stranger to technology. Some of the most iconic moments in cinema have only been made possible thanks to greenscreens and computer-generated imagery, or CGI.

But that's different from AI, which doesn't require manual human inputs to create images or operate like CGI does. The ability of AI to supplant so many parts of the creative process was central to the 2023 actors' and writers' strikes — schisms that divided the entertainment industry and sent thousands onto the picket lines across Los Angeles and New York.

Even their historic efforts to put parameters around AI's use, however, haven't been enough to halt its march. So long as investors, financiers, and production companies see money-making potential, Hollywood probably isn't going to say farewell to AI.

Look at Lionsgate, the production company behind titles like "The Hunger Games" and "La La Land." Last year, it inked a partnership with Runway, an AI media company, to focus on the "creation and training of a new AI model, customized on Lionsgate's proprietary catalog," according to a 2024 press release.

So this year's Oscars might be less about whether Hollywood will embrace AI (that seems inevitable) — but more about how quickly.

Though perhaps a dark experiment, we decided to put the question to the world's most famous AI, ChatGPT. When asked whether it thinks AI will one day be involved in all moviemaking, it gave a reply with which people like Bailey would likely agree.

"AI is already playing a growing role in various aspects of filmmaking, and it's likely to be involved in nearly all movie productions in some capacity moving forward," ChatGPT said.

But, it continued, adding just one caveat: "Full automation of moviemaking is unlikely, as human creativity and artistic vision remain essential."

• Trump is a dealmaker. But his Ukraine deal is in limbo after a public blowup in the Oval Office.
• He and Volodymyr Zelenskyy had an extraordinary argument in front of cameras on Friday.
• BI asked negotiation and conflict-resolution experts what they thought of the unprecedented clash.

President Donald Trump styles himself as a dealmaker.

But a minerals deal with Ukraine is now in limbo after his public blowup with the country's president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, in the Oval Office.

The on-camera clash offered a rare public insight into leadership and strategy during one of the president's highest-stakes negotiations.

Negotiating tactics

"You're either going to make a deal or we're out," Trump said at the height of the heated exchange, apparently referring to US commitment to Ukraine's defense. "And if we're out, you'll fight it out. I don't think it's going to be pretty, but you'll fight it out."

Andrea Schneider, an expert on conflict resolution at the Cardozo School of Law, told BI that the ultimatum suggested Trump was not the "magical negotiator" some say he is.

"The last thing you do is give the other party all the cards," Schneider said. "In whatever the negotiation, why would Russia give Ukraine anything? Why would Russia give us anything? How is this possibly making the United States stronger?"

She said Trump's words had strengthened Russia's hand, "which is sort of mind-boggling."

Curtis Friedel, an associate professor and director of the Center for Cooperative Problem Solving at Virginia Tech, said the meeting was more about "ego" than nuanced negotiation or leadership.

"It appears to me, from a negotiation perspective, that stakeholders wanted a deal more than the leaders wanted a deal. Both parties thus ended up embarrassing themselves," Friedel said.

Zelenskyy ultimately left Washington without signing the deal, which would have given America access to Ukraine's mineral riches in exchange for "a long-term financial commitment to the development of a stable and economically prosperous Ukraine."

Zelenskyy's departure from Washington was so abrupt, it meant skipping a planned lunch.

"I would like to know if the White House chef was warned," Schneider said.

Playing by different rules

At one point in the meeting, Trump suggested Zelenskyy was an obstacle in the negotiations with Russia because of the "hatred he's got for Putin."

As the tensions escalated, Vice President JD Vance suggested the Ukrainian leader had not shown enough gratitude for US aid.

Eileen Babbitt, a professor focused on international conflict management at Tufts University, said she believed Vance's accusation and Trump's comment that Zelenskyy did not "have any cards to play" suggested the United States was "seeking to end the war on Putin's terms regardless of Ukraine's interests."

Stanley Renshon, a political science professor at the City University of New York Graduate Center, said that Trump's perspective in the meeting appeared to have been on the "large picture," while Zelenskyy was focused on the immediate goal of defending his country.

"The result is a clash of perspectives that is hard, if not impossible, to reconcile," Renshon said.

Deal or no deal

Zelenskyy later said he hoped a deal could still be made and stressed that US support had been vital to Kyiv continuing its fight.

On Saturday, he received a warmer welcome in London from UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer, who reaffirmed his "unwavering" support for Ukraine.

Speaking to the BBC on Sunday, Starmer said he felt "uncomfortable" watching the events in the Oval Office, adding, "Nobody wants to see that."

The prime minister said he was now focused on acting as a bridge between Zelenskyy and Trump and that he would work with France and Ukraine on a cease-fire plan to present to the United States.

Zelenskyy met with European leaders in London on Sunday, including Starmer, French President Emmanuel Macron, and Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, as they gathered for crisis talks to discuss support for Kyiv.

• Universal basic income was once thought politically impossible. Then came Andrew Yang and COVID-19.
• Basic income programs are now gaining traction, offering payments to struggling families.
• Many Democrats and Republicans, however, are engaged in a political tug-of-war over the programs.

While the idea of a universal basic income is gaining traction in the United States, the politics around it remain divided.

A universal basic income is when the government cuts a check to the entire population — with no strings or limitations attached — to support (but not replace) their income.

It's not a new concept, but the feasibility of a universal basic income became more apparent during the pandemic when the government sent several payments to most of the population, known as "stimulus checks." The idea has also been heavily promoted by tech industry leaders, who anticipate possible job losses with the onset of artificial intelligence. Outside the United States, there are already some countries with universal basic income and guaranteed basic income programs.

While a national UBI program may still be a long way off in the United States, communities on the city and state levels have begun experimenting with a version called a guaranteed basic income.

In these programs, money is given to participants who comprise smaller population groups, like low-income people or mothers, for a limited time. Those residents can still spend the money however they want.

Even these localized basic income programs, however, are coming up against political opposition.

Here's a look at the politics driving the debate about universal and guaranteed basic income programs.

The rise of basic income programs

In the last decade, UBI has edged its way into the national vernacular.

Entrepreneurs and tech executives like Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg voiced support for UBI in 2016 and 2017, respectively, citing the impact automation would have on the job force. Meanwhile, Joe Biden, then the vice president, wrote in 2017 that there was "a better way forward" than "some type of guaranteed government check with no strings attached."

During the 2020 presidential election campaign, Democratic candidate Andrew Yang, a tech entrepreneur, raised eyebrows when he proclaimed that, if elected, his administration would provide a universal basic income of $1,000 a month for every adult, a policy he called "The Freedom Dividend." Yang said this was necessary to support American workers threatened by automation and inequality.

At the time, many dismissed Yang's predictions as a pipe dream at best and fear-mongering at worst. His candidacy quickly faded.

Then, a few years later, the COVID-19 pandemic forced most Americans home and many of them out of work. Suddenly, Yang's idea for a universal basic income became less outlandish.

"Certainly I never imagined that I would suspend my campaign in February and then we would agree to pay $1,000 a month to Americans in March," Yang told Politico in March 2020 after the Trump administration announced it intended to disperse stimulus checks.

The federal government, first under President Donald Trump and then President Joe Biden, sent three stimulus checks ranging from $600 to $1,400 for adults and additional payments for each child in a family. Over $800 billion in funds were disbursed from 2020 to 2021, lifting some 3 million children out of poverty.

The apparent success of the stimulus checks inspired advocacy groups and local and city governments to begin trying them on a smaller scale, giving rise to the numerous guaranteed basic income programs in the United States seen today.

One of the largest of these programs was funded in part by OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, who has advocated for some kind of basic income to alleviate the threat of artificial intelligence to US workers. The program distributed $1,000 a month to 1,000 people and $50 a month to another 2,000 (the control group) across multiple states over the course of three years.

Those who received the cash payments reported "greater agency to make decisions that worked best for their lives," including their living situations, healthcare decisions, and savings.

The political challenges to basic income programs

Not everyone, however, is on board with the small-scale basic income programs.

Basic income programs are often accompanied by studies that examine their success. Many participants report improved housing and food security during the program and say they can find better jobs or pursue a higher level of education as a result.

Yet opposition to universal and guaranteed basic income has been fierce in some places. Post-pandemic, the resistance to UBI has been mostly spearheaded by Republicans, while Democrats have typically been among UBI's most ardent supporters.

Republicans who talk about the cons of universal basic income often mention the cost of running the programs and the precedent they set for workers. Some conservative lawmakers have criticized the programs as "socialist" handouts and expressed concern that they could discourage recipients from working.

Last year, Republicans in Arizona voted to ban basic income programs in the state, and similar opposition efforts gained traction in Iowa, Texas, and South Dakota. Lawmakers in several states have argued that the checks, though distributed only for a limited time, would increase reliance on the government.

"This is socialism on steroids. This is a redistribution of wealth. This is an attack on American values," Iowa State Rep. Steve Holt said in 2024 while advocating for a statewide block to guaranteed basic income programs.

Some critics also point to the targeted nature of the payments, some of which have been used to support specific populations based on race or identity.

A conservative group last year sued to stop a San Francisco basic income program from sending payments to 55 vulnerable trans residents. The initiative accepted trans, nonbinary, gender nonconforming, and intersex applicants and prioritized those who are Black, Indigenous, or people of color. Judicial Watch, a conservative legal activist group, said in its lawsuit that the program violated the equal protection clause of the California constitution.

Another conservative lawsuit targeted the Abundant Birth Project, a basic-income program also in San Francisco that gave pregnant Black women $1,000 a month, calling it discriminatory because it used taxpayer money to provide the payments based on unlawful classifications, including race.

• Former Gov. Andrew Cuomo has announced his candidacy for New York City mayor.
• Cuomo is challenging Mayor Eric Adams.
• Cuomo resigned as governor in 2021 after several sexual harassment allegations.

Former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo has launched a bid for New York City mayor.

"Our city is in crisis. That's why I am running to be Mayor of New York City," Cuomo said in a social media announcement on Saturday. "We need government to work. We need effective leadership."

New York elected Cuomo governor in 2011. He served a decade before resigning in 2021 after he was accused of sexual harassment.

In a 17-minute video posted on X, Cuomo outlined his concerns about New York City, which he said feels "threatening, out of control, and in crisis."

"We know that today, our New York City is in trouble. You feel it when you walk down the street and try not to make eye contact with a mentally ill homeless person, or when the anxiety rises up in your chest when you're walking down into the subway," Cuomo said, speaking over soothing piano music. "You see it in the empty storefronts, the graffiti, the grime, the migrant influx, the random violence."

Cuomo blamed all this on the "lack of intelligent action by many of our political leaders."

His announcement comes after New York City's current mayor, Eric Adams, was federally charged with bribery and conspiracy in September. Adams has since faced calls to resign but has so far resisted.

Cuomo's resignation in 2021 followed an inquiry from New York Attorney General Letitia James. An investigation from her office found that Cuomo had harassed 11 women, including some of his own staff.

Cuomo's decision to step down cleared the way for then-Lt. Gov. Kathy Hochul to become the first female governor of New York, a position she still holds.

This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.

• Mark Zuckerberg performed in a sparkly blue jumpsuit at his wife's 40th birthday.
• Zuckerberg copied singer-songwriter Benson Boone's Grammy appearance with the performance.
• Zuckerberg tagged Boone and the singer's new release in a series of Instagram posts and stories.

Mark Zuckerberg pulled out all the stops at the birthday party for his wife, Priscilla Chan.

In a Friday Instagram post, the Meta CEO revealed that he donned a Benson Boone-style jumpsuit and performed onstage at Chan's 40th birthday party.

"Your wife only turns 40 once! Shoutout to @bensonboone for the jumpsuit and new single," Zuckerberg wrote alongside a video of him taking the stage in a dark dress suit only to have two people pull it off, revealing the sparkly blue jumpsuit underneath.

Boone's new release — "Sorry I'm Here For Someone Else," which came out late Thursday — played over the video. Zuckerberg's singing could not be heard, but the sound of a cheering audience was prominent.

Like Boone at the Grammys, Zuckerberg also jumped off a piano, though it should be noted that Boone front-flipped from a piano, a stunt that Zuckerberg did not attempt in the video he shared.

Boone replied to Zuckerberg's video with "I can't believe my eyes," adding on his Instagram story, "@zuck you're wild for this."

It wasn't immediately clear if Zuckerberg wore Boone's exact jumpsuit or a replica. The Meta CEO did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

In his stories on Instagram, Zuckerberg shared a picture of the jumpsuit on a hanger and tagged Boone.

"Ok I get it… it's pretty snug," Zuckerberg wrote in another story where he appeared to be wearing the jumpsuit under a dress suit.

This isn't the first sign of the Zuck-Boone bromance

Boone and John Cena appeared in a promotional video for Meta Ray-Bans over the summer. In the video, Boone performed stunts around the Meta campus while filming with the smart glasses.

After Boone's performance at the Grammys, Zuckerberg congratulated him on Threads.

Around that time, in an interview, Zuckerberg talked about his appreciation for Boone's music.

"Priscilla and I, we call him the musical Harry Potter because he grew up not knowing he had a gift," Zuckerberg said.

• With much hype, the Department of Justice released documents in the Jeffrey Epstein investigation.
• Pundits were seen at the White House carrying binders that said "declassified."
• Though AG Pam Bondi said "a lot" would be released, little, if anything, is new to the public.

The saga of Jeffrey Epstein continues.

The Department of Justice under the Trump administration promised to release documents related to the Epstein investigation. Its first delivery left some disappointed, however. Most, if not all, of the information was already known to the public.

Attorney General Pam Bondi told Fox News this week that flight logs and "a lot of names" would be released. On Thursday, multiple conservative political commentators were seen at the White House with binders that read "The Epstein Files" and "declassified."

Hours later, the DOJ published a series of redacted files, saying that the release "largely contains documents that have been previously leaked but never released in a formal capacity by the US Government."

A redacted contact book named Mike Bloomberg, Alec Baldwin, Michael Jackson, Mick Jagger, David Koch, several Kennedys, and dozens upon dozens of other prominent business and cultural figures. Many of them — including those named above — were never accused of misconduct related to Epstein.

A list of 254 "masseuses" was fully redacted to "protect potential victim information," the files said.

Epstein was accused of sex trafficking women and girls for more than a decade.

Despite the fanfare, the files released by the Department of Justice did not include any new bombshells, which frustrated some who seemed to be waiting for watershed revelations.

Republican Rep. Anna Paulina Luna posted on X that the release was a "complete disappointment."

The DOJ release came years after Business Insider obtained and authenticated one of Epstein's little black books in 2021. A woman found the book lying on a Manhattan sidewalk in the 1990s.

It also wasn't the only Epstein little black book. In 2020, BI compiled a previous little black book — which was discovered in 2009 court proceedings and made public in 2015 — into an exclusive searchable database.

Over the years, additional names of associates have come out through unsealed court documents. In one unsealed set of documents containing over 200 names, fewer than a dozen were accused of wrongdoing in the case.

With ties to some of the world's most well-connected business and cultural figures, Epstein's case has drawn international intrigue and conspiracy theories. Among those named in Epstein's books are former President Bill Clinton, President Donald Trump, and Prince Andrew.

It was August 2019 when Epstein, the disgraced financier who was facing sex trafficking charges, was found dead in his cell at Manhattan's Metropolitan Correctional Center. A medical examiner ruled he died by suicide.

• Boycotters are planning an economic blackout on February 28 to protest corporate corruption.
• The People's Union USA wants people to avoid major retailers and call out from work if possible.
• It remains unclear how many are engaged in boycotting and what the impacts may be.

On February 28, protestors aligned with a grassroots organization called the People's Union USA plan to hold an economic blackout targeted at corporations.

"Corporations and banks only care about their bottom line," the People's Union USA website said. "If we disrupt the economy for just ONE day, it sends a powerful message."

For the whole day on February 28, the organization calls on people to refuse to make purchases online or in-store from major retailers or spend money on gas or fast food. If spending is necessary, the People's Union suggests buying from small businesses only and using cash.

"For one day," the website said," we show them who really holds the power."

The effort is spearheaded by John Schwarz, who described himself on the website as "just a man who has lived through struggle, seen the truth, and decided to do something about it."

"The system is designed to keep all of us trapped," Schwarz wrote. "That is why I started this organization. Because I believe we deserve better. Because I believe it is possible to break free from a system built to exploit us."

Schwarz did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The People's Union USA also plans longer and more focused boycotts down the road, including a weeklong boycotts against Amazon, Nestle, and Walmart in March and April. The organization also called on people to take Friday off from work, if they are able to do so without risking their jobs.

It remains unclear how many people are committed to boycotting the economy on Friday and what kind of impact it may have.

Historically, some boycotts have had short-lived or even counterintuitive effects. When there were calls to boycott Goya after the company's CEO praised President Donald Trump in 2020, the company later said sales actually increased thanks to Trump supporters initiating a counter-movement called a "buycott" that encouraged people to buy from Goya.

An analysis from the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University found that the "buycott effect overwhelmed the boycott effect," temporarily raising the company's sales.

That said, other boycotts may have been more effective depending on the cause that mobilized people to boycott. In 2023, Bud Light faced fierce conservative backlash after a brief branding stint with a transgender influencer. Well over one year later, sales for Anheuser-Busch, which makes Bud Light, remained down.

• A lawyer for Charlie Javice told jurors JPMorgan Chase didn't do enough to vet her startup.
• Prosecutors said Javice defrauded JPMorgan Chase before it bought Frank.
• In openings, prosecutors painted her as a fraud. Her lawyer called her an "incredible young woman."

Prosecutors told a federal jury Thursday that Frank's founder Charlie Javice and her second in command, Olivier Amar, earned millions by defrauding JPMorgan Chase.

The bank purchased the company in 2021 for $175 million after the then-executives said Frank had more than 4 million users.

Prosecutors say that those numbers were dramatically inflated.

"They had nothing close to that," US Attorney Rushmi Bhaskaran said on Thursday. "Through these lies, the defendants became multimillionaires."

Bhaskaran added that the duo "made up fake data" to bolster their user base and then tried to cover it up.

Attorneys for Javice and Amar, who were charged separately, painted a different picture.

Jose Baez, one of Javice's attorneys, said JPMorgan didn't do enough due diligence before purchasing Frank, calling it a "business deal that went wrong."

He called Javice an "incredible young woman" who, at age 28, was savvy enough to secure a one-on-one meeting with Jamie Dimon, JPMorgan's CEO.

Baez added that the acquisition was more about acquiring Javice herself than Frank's users.

"They saw something in Charlie, a young female CEO breaking the glass ceiling," Baez said. "That's what JPMorgan negotiated for, and that's what they got."

Meanwhile, Amar's attorney, Jonathan Cogan, referred to his client as an "innocent man" who was dragged into his boss' problems after the prosecution "lumped them together."

Amar, who appeared stoic through much of the proceedings, nodded subtly while Cogan reminded the jury that he's innocent until proven guilty.

"Sometimes, our government gets it wrong," Cogan said. "Sometimes, prosecutors can be overzealous. Sometimes, innocent people get swept up."

Opening statements in the lower Manhattan trial came after nearly two days of jury selection.

Before being selected, jurors were questioned at hushed sidebars about their personal lives, including whether they had ever worked in finance, been a victim of fraud, or had close personal or business relationships with people such as Dimon.

Some prospective jurors were excused after saying that they worked for JPMorgan or other banks. Another was excused after saying she enjoyed watching shows about scams and thinking about the psychology that motivates fraudsters.

"This is not an easy procedure. It was difficult. It took longer than I expected," District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein said after the 12 jurors and 4 alternates were selected Thursday.

The jury and its alternates include people who told the judge they worked in sales management or IT, as well as some who worked for the city of New York. Others worked in healthcare or had no job.

Throughout the voir dire process, Javice — dressed in a blouse and pencil skirt — smiled in the direction of jurors and took frequent notes. She appeared personable and chatted with the attorneys on each side of her, playing with her hair while talking.

The trial of Javice and Amar continues Friday.

Correction: February 21, 2025 — Due to an editing error, an earlier version of this story misspelled the name of a defendant. Olivier Amar is on trial, not Oliver Amar.

• The Trump administration says tariffs on Mexico and Canada will curb fentanyl flow into the US.
• A harm reduction expert warns that tariffs may increase overdoses by disrupting drug supply.
• Canada plans retaliatory tariffs, targeting goods from Trump's political base.

President Donald Trump introduced tariffs on Mexico and Canada as part of an effort to fight drug trafficking, but a harm reduction advocate says that stopping the regular flow of drugs could make overdoses spike.

Trump announced on February 1 that he planned to place 25% tariffs on Mexico and Canada. Trump said at the time that the tariffs were intended to crack down on drug and border policy, particularly to stop the flow of fentanyl into the US.

Trump paused the tariffs for 30 days on February 3 after both countries agreed to tougher border control measures, but he still promised "reciprocal tariffs" on goods imported from any country that levies tariffs on the US.

In posts on Truth Social, Trump has maintained that "drugs are pouring into our Country, mostly through Mexico, at levels never seen before."

Laura Guzman, the executive director of the National Harm Reduction Coalition, told Business Insider that Trump's tariffs could make drug overdoses go up if they are successful in slowing the flow of illegal drugs into the country. Harm reduction generally refers to policies and practices that aim to minimize the negative health, social, and legal effects of drug abuse.

"The biggest fear I had when I saw the negotiation to postpone the tariffs, immediately, my reaction was, 'that is not going to be good for the folks that are impacted by both the war on drugs, but also by this tainted drug supply,'" Guzman told BI.

Guzman said that while slowing the rate of fentanyl entering the country is a good idea, there is still a large amount of fentanyl that is produced inside the US that ends up on the streets. She said that disrupting the flow of drugs can create a situation where addicts are mixing drugs that they don't normally use, which can lead to health risks and death. She said mixing drugs can lead to drug contamination where people might take drugs they aren't familiar with or are unaware that they are taking.

"What happens is more dangerous, because then the mixes, the kind of mixes, what it gets mixed with, puts people at risk of not just opiate overdoses, but also increase sedation that results in death," Guzman said.

Guzman said that it is common for harm reduction workers to see spikes in overdose deaths in cities after local police do heavy drug takedowns.

"They do an interdiction, they start arresting, they say how much fentanyl have confiscated, and we very soon start seeing spikes of overdose deaths," Guzman said.

Putting "all the eggs on interdiction"

She was also critical of Mexico, saying that government needs to do more to recognize the ongoing fentanyl crisis impacting both countries. Guzman said that there is "a denial" from Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum's administration of "the influx of fentanyl from the border."

Sheinbaum said in a statement on February 3 that Mexico rejected claims by the Trump administration that Mexico colluded with criminal organizations.

"If the United States government and its agencies wanted to address the serious consumption of fentanyl in their country, they can combat the sale of narcotics on the streets of their main cities, which they don't do," Sheinbaum said.

Naloxone, a drug that is used to reverse opioid overdoses, is a controlled substance in Mexico, where it is considered a psychoactive drug. Guzman said the country's refusal to recognize naloxone as a life-saving drug shows that it is "putting all the eggs on interdiction and denies the fact that fentanyl is also taking lives on the other side of the border."

Even as the Trump administration leans into fentanyl trafficking as a leading reason for its new tariffs, they have sometimes struggled to defend it.

On NBC's "Meet the Press" on February 2, Kristin Welker asked Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem why Canada had been hit with more severe tariffs than China.

"Why is the United States punishing Canada, one of its closest allies, more than China, where fentanyl originates?" Welker said.

"We have sent a message this week that we're not just going to enforce our southern border," Noem said. "We're going to put extra resources at that northern border as well. So Canada needs to come to the table."

US Customs and Border Protection seized more than 21,000 pounds of fentanyl at the Mexican border last year, according to the agency. The agency seized 43 pounds of fentanyl at the Canadian border.

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau also announced retaliatory tariffs if Trump's tariffs go into effect. Some tariffed goods target Trump's political base, covering items like Florida oranges and Kentucky bourbon.

The White House did not immediately return a request for comment from Business Insider.

• Egg prices are high due to the bird flu.
• Avocados, already more pricy this year, may follow suit thanks to potential tariffs.
• Consumers are facing higher breakfast prices as a result.

Savor the taste of that avocado toast with eggs because it is about to get more expensive.

From avian diseases to tariffs, there are multiple forces at work driving the price increases on your breakfast.

In January, the price of eggs hit a record high at an average of $4.95 for a dozen, according to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics. The price of eggs rose in part because of the bird flu outbreak that has spread to dairy cattle and, in some cases, to humans. As a result, millions of birds have been killed, making eggs not just more expensive but also harder to find on the shelves.

Avocados are likely about to follow suit, though for different reasons.

Some 90% of the avocados consumed in the US come from Mexico, a nation that President Donald Trump hit with a 25% tariff on February 1. He later announced the tariffs would be delayed by a month, after which he may still impose them.

Tariffs are taxes on foreign goods imported to the US, and they prompt importers to raise their prices to compensate for the added tax and cover their bottom line. As a result, the consumer usually bears the brunt of the price increase.

Even pre-tariff, avocados, at an average of $0.91 each, were already 17% more expensive in the first week of February than they were during the same period last year, according to the US Department of Agriculture.

Gary Williams, an emeritus professor of agricultural economics at Texas A&M, said avocados are elastic goods, so people will buy them regardless of the price.

"A tariff on avocado imports is basically a tax on US avocado consumers and most tariff revenue would be paid by US consumers," Williams told BI.

Price hikes on breakfast ingredients are already impacting consumers.

In New York City, customers are paying more for their breakfast sandwich, the beloved bacon, egg, and cheese. Waffle House customers, meanwhile, will face a $0.50 surcharge for each egg they order.

Though it's uncertain how long disease outbreaks and trade wars will last, one thing is certain: some of our favorite breakfasts may soon feel more like luxuries than daily staples.

• Sam Altman says OpenAI's ChatGPT 4o is the "best search product on the web."
• Altman had a cheeky exchange Saturday with Aravind Srinivas, CEO of AI search startup Perplexity.
• Altman added that ChatGPT 4o, which was recently updated, would "get much better" soon.

Sam Altman, the CEO of OpenAI, said the company's latest update to ChatGPT 4o makes it the "best search product on the web."

ChatGPT 4o is "pretty good" and is "soon going to get much better," Altman said in a post on X on Saturday. He retweeted posts complimenting the chatbot's writing skills as "unbelievably good" and "human like."

The GPT-4o model (with an "o" that stands for omni) was initially released in May and impressed users with its ability to handle text, audio, and images as inputs and outputs.

OpenAI recently touted GPT 4o's "smarter model" that offers "more relevant, current, and contextually accurate responses, especially for questions involving cultural and social trends."

It wasn't immediately clear if Altman was referring to a new ChatGPT 4o update or the one outlined by the company on January 29. OpenAI did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Altman's comments about GPT 4o's search capabilities came during a cheeky exchange with Aravind Srinivas, the founder and CEO of Perplexity, a search-focused AI startup.

Srinivas, who previously worked at OpenAI, replied to Altman's post about a GPT 4o update, saying, "sorry what's the update?"

Altman responded that "among many other things, it's the best search product on the web" and suggested Srinivas "check it out."

Srinivas replied that his company had just released a deep research agent.

In Altman's response, he told Srinivas to "keep cooking out there," and that he was "proud."

ChatGPT's search market share rose from June to November 2024, challenging Google's dominance in the lucrative space, according to research from Evercore ISI.

• US President Donald Trump has called for reciprocal tariffs on other countries.
• Trump recently ordered 25% tariffs on steel and aluminum and an added 10% tariff on Chinese goods.
• Economists warn Trump's tariffs may raise inflation and hurt US consumers.

President Donald Trump has called for "reciprocal tariffs" on countries that impose such levies on American goods.

"On trade, I have decided, for purposes of fairness, that I will charge a reciprocal tariff, meaning whatever countries charge the United States of America, we will charge them. No more, no less," Trump said from the Oval Office on Thursday.

He added that other countries have been "charging us vastly more than we charge them, but those days are over."

In similar remarks on Wednesday teasing the tariffs announcement, Trump said the "world has taken advantage of the US for many years."

"If they are charging us 130% and we're charging them nothing, it's not going to stay that way," Trump had said on Monday.

Trump's new directive comes just as Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi lands in the US on Wednesday for a two-day visit.

Trump has called India a "tariff king" in his first term and has repeatedly complained about the country's levies on imports.

India's average tariff is above 10%, compared to the US's average tariff of 2.3% in 2023.

Since taking office, Trump has been widening his trade war against trading partners.

On Monday, Trump imposed 25% tariffs on all steel and aluminum imports. The tariffs, which are set to take effect on March 12, could contribute to price hikes in construction, cars, and travel.

Earlier this month, Trump also placed a 10% tariff on imports from China. In response, Beijing announced retaliatory tariffs on coal, crude oil, agricultural machinery, and some vehicles.

Shortly after taking office, Trump imposed a 25% tariff on most goods from Canada and Mexico. He later announced that those tariffs would be delayed 30 days after he reached a deal with both countries to strengthen border security.

Economists and analysts are grappling with the impact of Trump's tariffs, which are expected to increase inflation.

John Veroneau, a former deputy US trade representative, said Trump should clarify his trade agenda.

"Tariffs will not increase US manufacturing: technology, rather than trade, has been primarily responsible for the fifty-year decline in manufacturing jobs," wrote Veroneau, who is a partner in the Covington & Burling law firm, in a February 11 post on the Council on Foreign Relations website.

Instead, employment has declined as factories can operate with more machines and fewer people, he added.

"Tariffs hurt American consumers and export-oriented manufacturers who lose sales when US trading partners impose their new tariffs in response," wrote Veroneau.

• Three weeks into Donald Trump's second term, the makeup of Elon Musk's DOGE staff is becoming clearer.
• BI saw a list of about 30 White House DOGE staffers; nearly all are early- or mid-career professionals.
• They include tech advisors, a former Clarence Thomas clerk, and a former McKinsey consultant.

Software developers. Former Supreme Court clerks. An ex-McKinsey consultant. Corporate financiers.

Three weeks into the second Trump administration, the composition of Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency team is becoming clearer.

White House records seen by Business Insider show about 30 people now work for the White House's DOGE office. At least four of the names haven't been previously reported. Among them are Kendall Lindemann, 24, who worked for a healthcare firm founded by the senior DOGE official Brad Smith, and Adam Ramada, 35, an investor whose firm took a stake in a SpaceX supplier last year.

Other new names are Kyle Schutt, 37, a tech startup worker who was most recently employed at an AI interviewing software company, and Austin Raynor, 36, a lawyer who clerked for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. Raynor was interviewed on NTD news in November, outlining how Trump could challenge birthright citizenship.

Since January 20, the DOGE team has moved quickly to dismantle federal agencies, reduce staff, slow down enforcement, and gain access to the digital systems that help shepherd trillions of taxpayer dollars. While the US DOGE Service is part of the White House Office, the White House hasn't released details about its inner workings or staff; the list seen by BI helps shed light on the powerful young squadron tasked with remaking the federal government.

Most of the more than two dozen people on the White House DOGE staff are early-career professionals in their 20s and 30s. They have backgrounds primarily in tech but also in finance, law, and politics. BI confirmed their backgrounds through public records, including social media profiles and legal filings.

The records categorize nearly all of the DOGE staffers as volunteers. Wired earlier reported that the DOGE engineer Luke Farritor — who is also on the list seen by BI — posted to Discord looking for software engineers. He said the position would be "paid," but not by whom, according to the outlet.

The records seen by BI don't include the names of some DOGE affiliates who have appeared in legal filings and news reports as working for other agencies, such as the Treasury employees Tom Krause and Marko Elez. Elez resigned from the Treasury Department last week after The Wall Street Journal reported on racist social media posts from an account linked to him; Musk said on X one day later that he would rehire him.

Beyond the gates of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, the executive order behind DOGE called for agencies to create their own "DOGE Teams," and people linked to Elon Musk have popped up in employee directories at the Treasury Department, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the Department of Education, and other agencies, news reports say. Some of the people listed as White House DOGE staff are also employees of other agencies.

The White House didn't reply to a request for comment.

Here's a breakdown of the DOGE team.

Tech

Tech workers make up the largest chunk of the DOGE team on the list reviewed by BI.

Some are veteran software engineers. Schutt was most recently the chief technology officer at Kerplunk, an AI interviewing software startup, and has a Ph.D. from Virginia Tech.

Schutt didn't respond to a request for comment.

Others on the list are relatively junior. Edward Coristine is 19, and Farritor, 23, a former SpaceX intern, was a senior at the University of Nebraska when he was named a Thiel Fellow last year.

Two close associates of Musk are also on the list. Steve Davis, who was trained as an aerospace engineer, now leads The Boring Company, Musk's tunneling company; Jehn Balajadia has been described as Musk's assistant. The New York Times reported that she was also listed as a Department of Education employee.

Davis and Balajadia didn't respond to requests for comment.

Finance

Some White House DOGE staff have corporate finance and management backgrounds.

Lindemann graduated from the University of Tennessee's business college in 2022. She worked for McKinsey for about two years, according to her LinkedIn profile, and in 2024 left for Russell Street Ventures, the health industry investment firm run by Smith, the senior DOGE official. Smith worked at the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services in the first Trump administration. Lindemann worked at Russell Street Ventures as a venture associate, an entry-level job in the venture capital industry.

Lindemann, Davis, McKinsey, and Russell Street Ventures didn't respond to requests for comment.

According to campaign finance records, the White House DOGE staffer Ramada is a Miami venture capitalist who donated more than $1,000 to Republican fundraising committees last year. One of his companies, Spring Tide Capital, invested in Impulse Space, which was founded by a SpaceX employee and has contracted with SpaceX.

Ramada and Spring Tide Capital didn't respond to a comment request.

Law

There are five lawyers listed as part of the DOGE White House staff, and the majority have clerked for conservative Supreme Court justices.

Raynor, a graduate of the University of Virginia's law school, clerked for Justice Clarence Thomas for the Supreme Court term that started in October 2016 and spent time as an associate at Sullivan & Cromwell. During Trump's first term, he served as an assistant to the solicitor general. He has argued in front of the Supreme Court at least eight times. He was most recently a senior attorney and special counsel for the Supreme Court practice at the Pacific Legal Foundation, a libertarian organization.

Raynor's November TV segment and Trump's executive order to end birthright citizenship used similar language, though Raynor wasn't the first person to make such arguments.

Raynor declined to comment when reached by BI.

Other names on the list, which have been previously reported, include Jacob Altik, Keenan Kmiec, and Stephanie Holmes. Altik was selected to clerk for Justice Neil Gorsuch for the term starting in October 2025, while Kmiec clerked for Chief Justice John Roberts, as well as for Samuel Alito while Alito was still a federal circuit judge. James Burnham, who ProPublica described as DOGE's general counsel, clerked for Justice Neil Gorsuch and was previously a partner at the law firm Jones Day.

Politics

Of the list of White House DOGE staffers, only one appears to have previously worked in politics. Chris Young, who Musk hired as an advisor over the summer to help his get-out-the-vote work, was most recently a senior political advisor at PhRMA, a trade association that advocates on behalf of pharmaceutical companies. He was previously a national field director for the Republican National Committee. He didn't respond to a request for comment.

Have a tip? Know more? Reach Jack Newsham via email ([email protected]) or via Signal (+1-314-971-1627). Do not use a work device.

• President Donald Trump's executive orders have faced a slew of legal roadblocks.
• Judges have blocked orders on birthright citizenship, transgender inmate rehousing, and spending.
• Trump's tariff plans for Canada and Mexico were paused after negotiations.

Some of President Donald Trump's boldest moves during his new administration's seismic first three weeks have been grounded before ever taking flight.

The administration and its Department of Governmental Efficiency, led by Elon Musk, the world's richest man, promised a list of swift-moving changes to the US government's operations. While some of those plans have progressed, others were put on hold, either in the courts or by the administration itself.

The White House says this is all part of a long game that Trump, ultimately, will win.

"Each executive order will hold up in court because every action of the Trump-Vance administration is completely lawful," Harrison Fields, the principal White House deputy press secretary, told BI on Friday.

And as for Trump's walked-back plans to hit our closest neighbors with tariffs — that was an all-out victory, said another White House spokesman, Kush Desai, who said Trump changed course on Mexico and Canada after "critical concessions" from both countries.

Still, much of Trump 2.0 remains on ice for now.

For those who haven't been able to keep up with the firehouse of actions announced by the White House and DOGE, here are the key ones that have been held up — for now.

A 'fork in the road' resignation offer

A federal judge in Massachusetts delayed Trump's plan to root out federal employees with buyout offers.

On January 28, the Trump administration gave just over two million government workers the chance to resign and maintain full pay and benefits until September 30. The so-called "fork in the road" resignation offer was a strategy straight out of Musk's playbook.

US District Judge George O'Toole Jr. on Thursday extended the buyout deadline until at least Monday, just hours before the actual deadline. The order came in response to a lawsuit brought by labor union groups. A Trump administration official told BI that over 40,000 federal workers had taken the buyout as of Wednesday.

Musk's DOGE and the Treasury

The White House launched another fiscal bombshell on February 3 when Trump told reporters he had given Treasury data access to Musk, whose DOGE is tasked with cutting government spending.

The idea that DOGE would have access to the personal information of millions of Americans — including anyone who had ever paid taxes, taken a federal loan, or collected Social Security — resulted in another legal challenge.

On Thursday, a federal judge in California set strict interim limits on the Treasury data, banning DOGE from accessing it directly.

Then, Saturday morning, another federal judge temporarily blocked a slew of people — including special government employees (like Musk), political appointees, and government employees not assigned by the Treasury — from accessing the Treasury's payment systems. The judge also ordered those who had gained new access to the systems to destroy all copies they may have made of materials and records they downloaded.

In the order, US District Judge Paul Engelmayer cited the risk of "disclosure of sensitive and confidential information" and the "heightened risk that the systems in question will be more vulnerable than before to hacking."

A freeze on federal spending

On January 27 — the first full Monday of Trump 2.0 — Trump budget officials dropped a bombshell memo ordering the temporary freezing of "all federal financial assistance" beginning 5 p.m. the following day, so that the spending could be reviewed. In an instant, the future of billions of dollars in federal funding was thrown into question.

The shockwaves were just as swift, even in the hours before the freeze was to take place. Medicaid portals used by states to access federal reimbursement quickly shut down across the country. Head Start funds were frozen in some states. Officials in California wondered if FEMA wildfire assistance was at risk.

Judges presiding over two hastily-drafted lawsuits issued separate injunctions blocking the freeze, including a federal judge in DC whose order came down minutes before the 5 p.m deadline.

The next day, Matthew Vaeth, director of the Office of Management and Budget, sent out a second memo. It said that the first memo is no longer in effect.

Backing off from tariff threats

Trump touted his plans to impose new 25% tariffs on imports from Canada and Mexico, and they were set to go into effect on Tuesday.

The announcements were met with retaliatory plans from both countries, where leaders said they'd enforce their own tariffs on American products.

The expected trade war rattled the markets. On Monday, stocks and crypto tumbled, while the US dollar and oil climbed.

In the end, though, these tariffs that left American investors scrambling were put on hold.

Trump and Mexico's president, Claudia Sheinbaum, struck a deal on border policy, delaying the expected tariff on Mexican imports for 30 days. Similarly, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau negotiated a pause until March for that set of tariffs.

A similar threat of 25% tariffs on goods from Colombia was put on hold after the country agreed to accept all deportation flights from the US.

An additional 10% tariff on imports from China did go into effect Tuesday, and was quickly matched by retaliatory tariffs on US exports to that country.

Bid to end birthright citizenship

Trump's executive order seeking to abolish the constitutional right of birthright citizenship has been indefinitely blocked by two separate federal judges.

A judge in Washington state issued a nationwide preliminary injunction against the order on Thursday, just a day after a Maryland judge did the same. The order — one of the first signed by Trump after he was sworn into office — has been challenged in the courts by more than 20 Democratic-run states and immigrant rights advocates who have argued it violates the 14th Amendment.

Judge John Coughenour of the US District Court for the Western District of Washington temporarily halted the order on January 23, calling the move to end automatic citizenship to US-born children of parents who are in the country illegally "blatantly unconstitutional."

Coughenour issued his Thursday ruling following the decision by Maryland US District Judge Deborah Boardman. Boardman wrote that Trump's order "conflicts with the plain language of the 14th Amendment, contradicts 125-year-old binding Supreme Court precedent, and runs counter to our nation's 250-year history of citizenship by birth."

Dropping USAID into the 'wood chipper'

A federal judge on Friday temporarily blocked the Trump administration from placing 2,200 USAID employees on paid leave.

The workers, some of whom are overseas, were set to go on leave just before midnight Friday.

Musk said in an X post on Monday that he had "spent the weekend feeding USAID into the wood chipper."

The American Federation of Government Employees and the American Foreign Service Association, however, filed a lawsuit against the administration's USAID cuts on Thursday, arguing that the moves to dismantle it were made without congressional authorization.

Constitutional law experts told Business Insider that dismantling the agency without congressional approval is indisputably illegal.

Forcing transgender women inmates into men's prisons

Trump's Day One order to house transgender women into men's men's facilities at federal prisons has also been blocked in the courts.

The order says the attorney general and Homeland Security secretary shall "ensure that males are not detained in women's prisons" and calls to end gender-affirming care for transgender inmates. It was challenged in two lawsuits brought by a handful of transgender women in prison.

US District Judge Royce Lamberth in Washington, DC, granted the plaintiffs' request for a temporary restraining order on Tuesday. In his order, Lamberth wrote that the plaintiffs "have straightforwardly demonstrated that irreparable harm will follow" if the restraining order request was denied.

Lamberth's order followed a separate ruling by US District Judge George O'Toole in Massachusetts, who also issued a temporary restraining order on January 26.

• Super Bowl star Travis Kelce said it would be a "great honor" to have Donald Trump at the game.
• In response, Trump called Kelce the "absolute best tight end in football."
• Trump earlier said he hates Taylor Swift, Kelce's popstar girlfriend.

President Donald Trump has a history of "Bad Blood" with Taylor Swift, but that isn't stopping Travis Kelce, Swift's boyfriend, from laying down the welcome mat for the president ahead of Super Bowl weekend.

The Kansas City Chiefs tight end said it would be "awesome" and a "great honor" for the president to attend the Super Bowl in New Orleans this Sunday, when the Chiefs will face off against the Philadelphia Eagles.

"No matter who the president is, I know I'm excited because it's the biggest game of my life," Kelce said on Wednesday. "Having the president there — you know, it's the best country in the world, so it will be pretty cool."

It will be the first time a sitting president has attended the Super Bowl. Trump said on Truth Social that he planned to give an interview before the game.

Trump called Kelce the "absolute best tight end in football (Ever!)" in a post on Truth Social on Friday morning, adding that it will be a "great game."

The warm exchange between Trump and Kelce, however, comes months after the president announced his dislike of Swift, who endorsed Kamala Harris before the presidential election.

"I HATE TAYLOR SWIFT!" he wrote in a Truth Social post in September.

Swift has been a regular presence at Kelce's games and is widely expected to attend the Super Bowl on Sunday, putting the president and the popstar on a possible collision course.

A spokesperson for Swift did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

• Evangelical leaders are pushing back on President Donald Trump's cuts to foreign aid.
• Trump and Elon Musk have targeted USAID in their sweeping cost-cutting efforts.
• Some of the actions have been "damaging and wasteful," a leader of an evangelical organization said.

"Let's bring God back into our lives," President Donald Trump said Thursday morning.

While most evangelical leaders would agree with the spirit of Trump's comments at the National Prayer Breakfast in Washington, some have begun to push back on his recent executive actions.

At a press panel following the event, a group of faith leaders, including members of the evangelical community that has long been a base of support for Trump, said they were concerned about the president's recent moves to dismantle the US Agency for International Development as part of his cost-cutting efforts.

"We affirm that there are aspects of our foreign aid programs that should be ended and others that could be reformed for greater effectiveness," Galen Carey, the vice president of government relations at the National Association of Evangelicals, said. "However, this review and reform can be achieved without the wholesale disruption of the many programs that are working well and saving lives."

Founded in 1942, the National Association of Evangelicals represents millions of people from over 40 denominations. As a nonpolitical religious group, it participates in advocacy work but does not endorse politicians.

"We affirm the goal of eliminating wasteful spending throughout government but caution against hastily pursued measures that will prove costly. The abrupt closure of many effective aid programs will mean that some of the money already spent will have been wasted," Carey said. "Commodities will be lost and food will rot, medicines expire. Other supplies may be stolen or misappropriated because the staff and the partners are not allowed to receive them."

Trump campaigned on the promise to reduce government spending and has appointed Elon Musk and the new Department of Government Efficiency to spearhead changes that they say could save the government as much as $2 trillion.

Musk has highlighted departments, agencies, and expenses that he says are a "crazy waste" of taxpayer dollars.

While legal experts told Business Insider that some of the cuts may not be lawful and some of Trump's executive orders have been shut down by the courts, many of the changes have left some nongovernment organizations that rely on federal aid reeling.

Emily Chambers Sharpe, the director of Health and Nutrition at World Relief, a Christian humanitarian organization, said the "stop-work orders have made things really challenging for us in the last few weeks."

Carey said there is an "urgent need" for clarity around the announcements.

"Indiscriminate stop-work orders issued with little or no advanced notice have created chaos and confusion on the ground. This is damaging and wasteful," Carey said. "Some of our members and partners are experiencing crippling cashflow crises, necessitating mass layoffs and abrupt termination of services with no time for responsible transitions."

Gabriel Salguero, the National Latino Evangelical Coalition president, said he has seen how US foreign aid saves lives.

"The President just finished saying he wants to be known as a peacemaker and as a person who builds bridges, and we think that foreign aid and PEPFAR are two key instruments or two key tools to contribute to that legacy," he said, referring to the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief. The long-running foreign aid program former President George W. Bush launched in 2003 is also on the chopping block.

Carey said the drastic actions may sour how other nations view the United States.

"Community relationships will suffer, and it'll be hard to rebuild organizations that are destroyed in this way. Much goodwill toward the US and gratitude for our assistance may be lost," he said. "We urge the administration to rethink the assumption that effective international assistance does not benefit our national security, peace and prosperity."

• Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency is working to remake the federal government.
• Musk wants to reduce spending, which includes reducing the number of federal workers.
• A group of unions is pushing back.

Some of the world's largest unions are organizing to counter Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency.

In an opposition campaign called the "Department of People Who Work for a Living," the AFL-CIO said it sought to hold DOGE accountable.

"We will hold DOGE and Elon Musk accountable because we are certain that the people who keep our food and medicine safe know more about how to make government efficient than an outsider whose companies benefit from the very agencies he is infiltrating," Liz Shuler, the president of the AFL-CIO, a federation that represents nearly 15 million people in over 60 national and international unions, said in a press release on Wednesday.

Tensions over Musk's effort to cut federal spending, which includes reducing the federal workforce, are on the rise. Protesters, including Democratic leaders, rallied outside the Treasury Department on Tuesday. They accused the department of giving DOGE unlawful access to sensitive information. On Monday, three federal employee unions sued the Treasury Department.

For its part, DOGE sees the reductions as necessary to reign in government spending and lower the deficit.

"DOGE is saving the Federal Government approx. $1 billion/day, mostly from stopping the hiring of people into unnecessary positions, deletion of DEI, and stopping improper payments to foreign organizations," DOGE said in a post on X in January.

Musk is no stranger to union ire. The billionaire has said that he disagrees "with the idea of unions" and as Tesla's CEO, Musk has resisted unionization efforts.

Trump and Musk are also working to overhaul the US Agency for International Development, which is set to put nearly all of its staff on administrative leave beginning on Friday.

"Working people have seen this movie before: so-called efficiency experts who come into the workplace without background knowledge and cut the workforce to make more profit," AFL-CIO said in its press release. "That model might work in the private sector, but government services aren't lines on a spreadsheet — they have real-world impacts on actual people in communities across the country."

• Delaware Gov. Matt Meyer says things may 'need to change' as companies threaten to incorporate elsewhere.
• Elon Musk has led the charge to leave Delaware after a court rejected his Tesla pay package.
• Delaware remains a top destination to incorporate, especially among Fortune 500 companies.

Some corporations — led in part by Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk — are threatening to abandon Delaware and incorporate elsewhere.

Delaware's newly-inaugurated Gov. Matt Meyer, however, says he intends to lure them back.

"The fact is Delaware is the best location in the world for a company to incorporate, and that's thanks to our legal expertise dating back to 1792. But let's be clear: If any entity leaves Delaware, we're going to work to win them back," Meyer told Business Insider.

Nearly 2.2 million entities — "more than ever," Meyer said — are registered in Delaware, including two-thirds of all Fortune 500 companies, according to the state's Division of Corporations.

Meyer said it remains a "competitive environment," though, and that his state needed to take challenges to its corporate laws seriously.

"Any company thinking about leaving, we're actively reaching out, we're talking to them, we're understanding what the issues are and understanding what ways we can do better," he said. "And for those entities that have already made the decision to leave, we're going to continue to work hard to earn their trust and hopefully to have them come back."

Musk called on corporations to re-incorporate elsewhere after a Delaware court rejected his $55 billion Tesla pay package. Both Tesla and SpaceX left Delaware last year, reincorporating in Texas.

Bill Ackman, the billionaire CEO of Pershing Square Capital Management, said in an X post on Saturday that he planned to move his management company out of Delaware to reincorporate in Nevada or Texas.

"Any lawyer still recommending incorporation in Delaware at this point should be sued for malpractice," Musk posted on X in reference to Ackman's statement. "Texas or Nevada actually respect shareholder rights."

Meyer said that issues like the balance of shareholder and management rights need to be addressed.

"It's really important we get it right for Elon Musk or whoever the litigants are in Delaware courts," he said. "We're cognizant that there may be some things that need to change. We're going to work on them."

Though he's been in office for less than two weeks, Meyer said he has already met with "leading corporate legal brass" and state government leaders to chart a path forward.

"I think within the coming weeks you're going to see some things rolled out that will help move our state forward and bring us into 2025 and beyond to make sure we're protecting and growing the corporate franchise," he said.

"It certainly beats going to Vegas and rolling the dice," he added.

A spokesperson for Delaware Courts declined to comment.

• Billionaire hedge fund manager Bill Ackman says he is moving his management company out of Delaware.
• It follows similar statements from companies like DropBox, Meta, and SpaceX.
• Some corporations are turning against Delaware, historically considered a business-friendly state.

Bill Ackman, the billionaire CEO of Pershing Square Capital Management, says he will move his management company out of Delaware to reincorporate in Nevada.

His announcement, which came in a post on X on Saturday morning, was in response to news that DropBox was making a similar move. "We are reincorporating our management company in Nevada for the same reason. Top law firms are recommending Nevada and Texas over Delaware," Ackman said.

Pershing Square Capital Management declined to comment further.

Other high-profile public companies have also announced their exit from Delaware, former President Joe Biden's home state, over the last year as some corporations turn against the historically business-friendly state.

Tesla CEO Elon Musk spent much of 2024 encouraging companies incorporated in Delaware to leave after a judge repeatedly struck down his $55 billion Tesla compensation package, which a shareholder lawsuit argued was excessive. The decision prompted Musk to move SpaceX to Texas.

Much of the concern for these established public companies is a series of recent Delaware court rulings, including the one on Musk's pay package, that further empower shareholders to challenge executive decisions.

Meta, which maintains a corporate structure that gives CEO Mark Zuckerberg near total control, is also considering leaving Delaware to reincorporate in Texas or another state, The Wall Street Journal reported on Friday.

A Meta spokesperson declined to comment on whether it was considering reincorporating outside of Delaware, saying only that it had no plans to move its headquarters to California.

Billionaire CEOs like Ackman, Zuckerberg, and Musk hope that courts in other states, such as Texas or Nevada, will be less permissive of lawsuits from shareholders and boards of directors.

Correction: January 25, 2025 — The Wall Street Journal reported that Meta Platforms is discussing moving its incorporation from Delaware, citing people familiar with the matter. An earlier version of this article reported that Meta itself said it was considering such a move.

• Costco and the Teamsters union have reached a tentative deal to avoid a strike.
• Costco Teamsters represents 18,000 workers nationwide who were ready to walk off the job.
• The deal will now be presented to the union's membership for a vote, a Teamsters spokesperson told BI.

Costco and the Teamsters union have reached a tentative agreement to avoid a strike, the union told Business Insider.

The union said the deal would now go to its membership for a vote and that further details would follow.

Costco Teamsters represents 18,000 workers nationwide who were ready to walk off the job after their contract expired at 11:59 p.m. PT Friday.

On January 19, Costco's unionized workers "overwhelmingly" voted in favor of a strike in their strike authorization vote, which received 85% support among those who voted. In a press release at the time, Costco Teamsters accused the company of failing to "bargain constructively" and propose a contract that "reflects the company's record-breaking profits."

"The Costco Teamsters National Negotiating Committee has reached a tentative agreement for a new contract. Additional details will be shared soon. The tentative agreement will be presented to the membership for a vote," the union, Teamsters, said in a statement.

Matt McQuaid, a Teamsters spokesperson, told BI on Friday morning that the outstanding issues at the bargaining table were wages, pensions, and increased protections of union rights.

"The Teamsters are committed to securing a fair and reasonable agreement but are prepared to take action if the wholesale giant fails to deliver," the union previously said in a social media post.

Ahead of Friday's strike deadline, Costco announced in a memo that its next Employee Agreement, which is set to go into effect in March and covers nonunion workers for three years, would include successive pay raises that push compensation to over $30 an hour for workers at the top of its pay scale.

Costco did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Business Insider, which was made outside regular working hours.