• GOP Rep. Nick LaLota wants to see top earners pay a higher tax rate.
• LaLota said Saturday that the idea would help push Trump's "big beautiful bill" forward.
• The GOP-led tax and immigration package — if it passes — could define Trump's second term.

A GOP congressman said on Saturday that raising the top tax rate for high earners could help President Donald Trump's massive tax and immigration package get the votes it needs.

"The One Big Beautiful Bill has stalled — and it needs wind in its sails," Rep. Nick LaLota said on X. "Allowing the top tax rate to expire — returning from 37% to 39.6% for individuals earning over $609,350 and married couples earning over $731,200 — breathes $300 billion of new life into the effort."

LaLota said that his proposal would be fiscally prudent and could be done "without raising taxes on the middle class." The New York congressman has suggested that the money generated from raising taxes on high earners could protect Medicaid and "fix" the cap on the so-called SALT deduction.

A SALT deduction allows taxpayers to deduct their state and local tax payments. Since 2018, however, there's been a $10,000 limit on those deductions. LaLota is among several New York Republicans who are seeking a higher limit so taxpayers can deduct more.

The GOP-led bill proposes raising the cap to $30,000 for taxpayers who earn $400,000 or less. LaLota wants to see the SALT cap set at $62,000 for single filers and $124,000 for joint filers.

Hardline conservatives on Capitol Hill, meanwhile, believe the tax bill should include more spending reductions, arguing that it doesn't go far enough in cutting into the nation's budget deficit.

On Friday, five Republicans on the House Budget Committee joined Democrats to tank a procedural vote that would have advanced the "one big beautiful bill."

House GOP leaders are working through the weekend to put together a deal that could pass in a Sunday night committee vote. They're still aiming to pass the bill on the House floor by Memorial Day, but the failed vote was a big setback for both Trump and House Speaker Mike Johnson.

On Friday, Trump urged GOP unity on the bill in a post on TruthSocial.

"Republicans MUST UNITE behind, 'THE ONE, BIG BEAUTIFUL BILL!'" he said. "We don't need 'GRANDSTANDERS' in the Republican Party. STOP TALKING, AND GET IT DONE!"

Conservatives have long advocated for tax cuts for higher earners. However, in recent weeks, Trump has seemingly opened the door to raising taxes on rich Americans to help fund the tax bill, a significant development for a GOP president.

Earlier in May, Trump said on Truth Social that he'd "graciously accept" a small increase on the top tax rate for millionaires but conceded it would present risks for his party.

"Republicans should probably not do it, but I'm OK if they do!!!" he said.

• Microsoft is cutting about 6,000 jobs to increase the span of control per manager.
• The move aligns with similar strategies used by other tech companies to flatten management layers.
• Microsoft is investing heavily in AI while trying to optimize workforce efficiency.

Microsoft is slashing thousands of jobs to try to increase what it calls "span of control," or the number of employees who report to each manager.

The software giant on Tuesday confirmed the cuts, which Business Insider first reported in April. Microsoft said about 3% of its global workforce, roughly 6,000 employees, will be affected.

Microsoft's attempt to flatten management layers follows similar announcements from big tech peers. Amazon has been trying to increase the ratio of individual contributors to managers. Google CEO Sundar Pichai in December told staff that the company cut vice president and manager roles by 10% as part of an efficiency drive.

Microsoft started notifying affected US employees on Tuesday. A spokesperson confirmed impacted US staff will stay on the payroll for 60 days, but that will vary globally based on local regulations.

'Too many levels and layers'

A half-dozen Microsoft insiders who spoke to BI about the changes generally consider the effort to flatten management layers as a good thing. One executive told BI there are a lot of managers who just aren't that great, while another Microsoft staffer said the company has too many levels and layers. These people asked not to be identified discussing sensitive matters.

The company ended up with many layers, the people explained, because it often tried to reward good engineers by promoting them to become managers, sometimes with as few as one or two reports. Often those engineers-turned-managers still spent most of their time in the codebase and weren't very effective as managers. Having so many layers of management also proved to be inefficient, these people said.

Microsoft doesn't have any centralized goals for span of control, or number of reports per manager, but some leaders have their own targets, according to people with direct knowledge of the situation.

Cloud + AI boss Scott Guthrie, for example, wants to increase the span of control in his organization to eight engineers per engineering manager, and seven project managers per manager, according to the people.

Microsoft Security chief Charlie Bell is going for nine reports per manager, though he hasn't separated goals for span of control of engineers and PMs, the people said. Bell has, however, set goals for the ratio of PMs to engineers, similar to the "builder ratio" at his previous company, Amazon, BI previously reported.

In response to a request about Bell's and Guthrie's span of control goals, Microsoft's spokesperson said there are no blanket ratio numbers.

Tuesday's job cuts also target non-coders, aiming to increase the number of coders on projects, which Microsoft internally calls its "PM ratio" BI previously reported.

Microsoft has no stated maximum for the number of reports per manager, the people familiar said, though it's generally believed that larger groups of direct reports work better with senior employees, who need less one-on-one time and can do more things in a group setting.

While some kind of flattening is generally regarded as necessary, there's uncertainty related to how Microsoft will collapse all of its management layers and make it work, the people added. One staffer told BI that managers are particularly concerned.

Why Microsoft is making cuts

The changes come as Microsoft tries to reduce costs amid significant investment in artificial intelligence.

Barclays analysts on Tuesday said the cuts are "a commitment to profitable growth and optimizing the company's workforce, particularly with AI becoming a more prominent and efficient tool within the organization."

Microsoft's culling of management layers comes after earlier performance-based cuts to its workforce this year. Microsoft beginning in January ousted 2,000 employees it deemed to be "low performers" and started a new performance improvement plan.

A recent internal email sent to Microsoft managers, viewed by BI, said this new plan was "globally consistent" with "clear expectations and a timeline for improvement."

Have a tip? Contact this reporter via email at [email protected] or Signal at +1-425-344-8242. Use a personal email address and a nonwork device; here's our guide to sharing information securely.

Danielle Beckman moved to the United States from Brazil in 2017 to further her research on Alzheimer's.

Eight years later, she's making plans to leave.

"I wanted to make my home here. I wanted to become a professor in the US and have my own lab here. I wanted to make my life here," the scientist at the University of California, Davis, who is now also researching long-COVID, told Business Insider. "So it's just this feeling that, at the same time that we see so many people sick and have hope with our research, the government doesn't think our research is important anymore."

Beckman received notice last month that her 5-year, $2.5 million grant from the National Institute of Health would not be reviewed for renewal because it contained the word "COVID," which was flagged to lose funding under President Donald Trump's crackdown on research grants at higher education institutions.

She said she didn't see how her lab's work could continue without that funding. She accepted an offer for a new job in Germany, where she plans to continue her research. She's also exploring additional opportunities in France that would allow her to receive more funding.

"I still think I can contribute a lot. It's just that there is no opportunity here anymore, and I don't want to waste my time," Beckman said. "It's not worth staying here."

Over the past couple of months, the Trump administration has cut billions of dollars in funding to universities that do not comply with its demands, such as eliminating diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives. Some scientists told BI that the cuts will fuel a brain drain out of the US, and countries abroad are already capitalizing on the opportunity by promoting programs to attract US researchers.

Madi Biedermann, deputy assistant secretary for communications at the Department of Education, told BI that "researchers have many reasons to prefer working on campuses that have not seen their operations consistently disrupted by vile antisemitic encampments, violence, and harassment."

"That is just one of the reasons the reforms the U.S. government is advocating are so important," Biedermann said. "American universities that are committed to their academic mission, protect students on campus, and follow all federal laws have no problem accessing generous taxpayer support for their programs. We expect they will continue to attract and support academic talent in the years to come."

Beckman said that some of her colleagues in other fields of science are leaving, and she said that it'll be a major loss for the US.

"I feel like my research is actually important, and it matters for other places; it just doesn't matter for the US government," Beckman said. "I was recruited from Brazil, and suddenly, I'm not useful to this country."

'I'd be on a plane tonight'

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen recently unveiled a $566 million funding package to attract scientists worldwide.

"Science holds the key to our future," she said. "Because as threats rise across the world, Europe will not compromise on its principles."

British Columbia's health minister, Josie Osborne, also said during a recent press conference that "uncertainty and chaos happening south of our border" presents an "unprecedented opportunity to attract skilled healthcare workers interested in moving to Canada."

Another US researcher told BI that he checks the job boards every day for opportunities abroad.

"I'd be on a plane tonight," the researcher, who is still employed at a US university, told BI. He said that he has applied for a few opportunities in Europe, and while he has not landed a job yet, he would move in a heartbeat. He recognizes others may not have that kind of flexibility.

"For the most part, people I've talked to are just kind of resigned to it and just hoping to ride it out," the researcher said. "I'm just in an extremely privileged position to even be able to consider that because it's such an expensive, time-consuming process, and it's very competitive to immigrate somewhere else."

Some scientists facing funding cuts have filed lawsuits instead of moving abroad. BI previously spoke to Peter Lurie, a scientist who received NIH funding for HIV research that was cut because the grant mentioned transgender people.

"The US and the NIH, in particular, have been the envy of the world when it comes to medical research. And what is already starting to happen is that the United States is starting to slip," Lurie said. "It means that there will be people who will go elsewhere for support. It means that there are people who will leave the country for lack of support."

'I'm glad that we're leaving'

Alyssa Adams works for a lab based in Japan that studies artificial intelligence and artificial life. Adams said she has been going back and forth between the US and Japan for the past two and a half years, and she is planning to move to Japan permanently in a month.

"It feels like we're jumping ship and it's awful, but I'm glad that we're leaving, honestly," Adams said.

While Trump's funding cuts have not directly affected her research, the indirect impacts have been significant. Adams said the lab still applies for some grants based in the US, and Trump's funding cuts are putting the lab's future funding avenues at risk. As a result, Adams said the lab is looking to move the US nonprofits it works with to Japan to ensure certainty surrounding its research funding.

"It's definitely impacted how we feel about being in the United States generally because it was fine having one foot in Japan and then one foot in the United States for a while, but especially within the last year, there's been a really big shift and feeling like this is not the place where you could do science and feel comfortable with it," Adams said.

Adams also said that she has seen firsthand the wave of US scientists seeking to move abroad. She said that at her lab in Japan, there has been "a huge wave of applications" from people within the US, both from scientists who have had their research pulled and from those who have not yet been affected but don't feel comfortable staying in the US.

The funding cuts have already displaced hundreds of researchers. Columbia University President Claire Shipman recently announced that the university would terminate 180 employees who received federal grants affected by the cuts.

"We do not make these decisions lightly," Shipman said. "We are deeply committed, at Columbia, to the critical work of invention, innovation, and discovery."

Adams said it'll take a long time for the US to bounce back from these losses.

"We're still doing our research, we're still advancing the march of discovery and doing everything that we can as researchers in a normal way," Adams said. "We're just doing it in places where we feel more welcome and where we feel like we can be ourselves. And unfortunately, these days it's not the United States."

Have a tip or a story to share? Contact this reporter via email at [email protected] or Signal at asheffey.97. Use a personal email address and a nonwork device; here's our guide to sharing information securely.

• Trump said on Friday that the GOP "should probably not" raise taxes on the rich.
• He argued that if they did so, Democrats would use it against them.
• Democrats have long supported raising taxes on the wealthy.

President Donald Trump says he'd be fine raising taxes on rich people like him, but he's still warning his party not to do it.

In a Truth Social post on Friday morning, Trump said that Republicans "should probably not" increase taxes on the wealthy, but said he's "OK if they do!!!"

Trump's missive came one day after multiple outlets reported that he had urged House Speaker Mike Johnson to create a new tax bracket for those making more than $2.5 million per year, raising the rate they pay from 37% to 39.6%.

Republicans on Capitol Hill are currently working on a sweeping bill that will include changes to the tax code and cuts to government spending.

Trump suggested that Democrats would try to make Republicans pay politically for a tax hike on the rich, despite the fact that Democrats have generally long supported increasing taxes on the wealthy.

The president referenced President George H.W. Bush's 1988 pledge not to raise taxes, which he ultimately broke during a budget negotiation with Congress in 1990.

"The Radical Left Democrat Lunatics would go around screaming, 'Read my lips,' the fabled Quote by George Bush the Elder that is said to have cost him the Election," Trump said, adding: "NO, Ross Perot cost him the Election!"

The European Commission has launched a new initiative to attract researchers and scientists to the European Union—especially those from the United States. The Choose Europe for Science program, backed with more than half a billion dollars, is designed to offer an alternative to researchers who have been forced to seek new opportunities following cuts in scientific funding imposed by President Donald Trump’s administration.

The program will invest €500 million ($568 million) between 2025 and 2027 to recruit specialists in various fields of knowledge to come and work in Europe. The initiative also includes a target for member states to allocate 3 percent of their GDP to R&D projects by 2030.

“The role of science in today’s world is questioned,” warned Ursula von der Leyen, president of the European Commission, in a statement on Tuesday. “What a gigantic miscalculation. I believe that science holds the key to our future here in Europe. Without it, we simply cannot address today’s global challenges—from health to new tech, from climate to oceans.”

Read full article

Comments

• Europe launched a $566 million fund to lure scientists as Trump slashes research budgets.
• Its Commission President called the rollback of scientific support a "gigantic miscalculation."
• Researchers told BI that federal cuts could trigger a brain drain with long-term negative consequences.

Europe is making an aggressive play for global scientific talent, and is actively aiming at US researchers.

Speaking at the Sorbonne University in Paris on Monday, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen unveiled a $566 million funding package designed to turn Europe into a global hub for scientific research. French President Emmanuel Macron promoted the initiative on LinkedIn last month.

The move comes just weeks after the Trump administration froze or slashed billions of dollars in federal funding for US universities and research institutions, triggering hiring freezes, layoffs, and fears of a long-term brain drain.

Without naming the US or Trump, von der Leyen took direct aim at cuts to research budgets, calling the rollback of scientific support "a gigantic miscalculation."

"Science holds the key to our future," she said. "Because as threats rise across the world, Europe will not compromise on its principles. Europe must remain the home of academic and scientific freedom."

The new "Choose Europe" initiative includes "super grants" for top-tier scientists through the European Council Research, longer contracts and expanded incentives for early-career scientists, and doubled relocation bonuses for researchers who choose the EU as their base.

"To every researcher, at home or abroad, to every young girl and boy who dreams of a life in science," von der Leyen said, "our message is clear: Choose Science. Choose Europe."

American researchers, scientists, and education policy experts told BI last week that Trump's freezing of billions of federal dollars could trigger a brain drain, weakening the US position as a global science leader.

The National Institutes of Health, which was one of the organizations to have funding cut, has supported 174 Nobel Prize-winning scientists. Many fear that those kinds of breakthroughs are now at risk.

Shutting off funding so abruptly "absolutely endangers the United States' position as the global leader in medical research," said Peter Lurie, a researcher suing the Trump administration for cutting National Institutes of Health funding for various projects, including research on Alzheimer's, reproductive health, cancer, and diabetes.

"And for that, we will pay," Lurie told BI last week.

The Trump administration has already frozen $2.3 billion in federal funding to Harvard University, suspended dozens of federal research grants at Princeton University, and signed an executive order to dismantle the Department of Education.

Glenn Altschuler, a professor of American studies at Cornell University, told BI last week that the cuts' long-term impact on US scientific innovation could be devastating.

"It'll take a very long time to come back," he said.

• Microsoft has a new, two-year rehire ban on employees who are ousted due to performance issues.
• It's also embracing an infamous Amazon approach that treats some employee attrition as "good."
• The tech industry in general is moving toward stricter performance management and reduced perks.

Microsoft is embracing two controversial management approaches that suggests the software giant is getting tougher on employees.

When the company ousts employees due to performance issues, it will now put them on a two-year block list that bars them from being rehired, according to an internal document viewed by Business Insider.

In addition, Microsoft will count these job cuts as "good attrition," according to the document. This means the company is shedding staff that it's happy to see leave.

These two tools are new for Microsoft and they're part of a broader effort by the company to change its performance-management process to shed low performers faster and keep them out.

There are no goals for this "good attrition" metric at present — or at least BI has not uncovered any yet. However, this is already being reviewed at the executive level and appears to be becoming more of a focus as the company dials up performance expectations, two Microsoft managers told BI. They asked not to be identified discussing internal matters. A Microsoft spokesperson declined to comment.

Good attrition is similar to an infamous "unregretted attrition" metric at Amazon, which gives a goal to organizations for the percentage of employees they want to lose every year.

Microsoft's new two-year block list is also similar to an approach used by other tech companies. Meta, for example, maintains internal lists barring some former employees from rejoining the company through systems that track rehire ineligibility, including a "non-regrettable attrition" designation and a "do not rehire" flag, as BI previously reported.

Overall, the industry overall is shifting toward more rigorous performance expectations and less coddling. Performance-based cuts are becoming more of a regular occurrence as tech companies get tougher on employees.

Earlier this year, Microsoft fired 2,000 employees deemed underperformers without severance and started a new performance improvement plan. A recent internal email sent to Microsoft managers, viewed by BI, disclosed that this new plan is "globally consistent" with "clear expectations and a timeline for improvement."

The new process gives employees an option to enter the PIP or quit and accept a "Global Voluntary Separation Agreement (GVSA)," according to another email that BI viewed. Another document, also viewed by BI, shows the agreement includes a payout equal to 16 weeks pay.

Have a tip? Contact this reporter via email at [email protected] or Signal at +1-425-344-8242. Use a personal email address and a nonwork device; here's our guide to sharing information securely.

• Trump took to Truth Social Friday morning to again call on the Fed to cut rates.
• Trump claimed there's "no inflation," but prices are still rising.
• Consumer prices rose 2.4% year-over-year in March, per the latest inflation data.

President Donald Trump says there's "no inflation," but the latest data shows the battle against rising prices is still going on, and they're rising faster than the Federal Reserve would like.

In a post on Truth Social on Friday morning, the president pointed to inflation, gas prices, and mortgage rates all being down, and reiterated calls for the Fed to cut interest rates.

"Gasoline just broke $1.98 a Gallon, lowest in years, groceries (and eggs!) down, energy down, mortgage rates down, employment strong, and much more good news, as Billions of Dollars pour in from Tariffs," Trump wrote, emphasizing that the economy was only in a "TRANSITION STAGE" after he rolled out his slate of tariffs last month. "Consumers have been waiting for years to see pricing come down. NO INFLATION, THE FED SHOULD LOWER ITS RATE!!!," he added.

Trump's comments came shortly after the April jobs report, which showed that hiring was better than expected last month. His post nodded to cooling prices, but consumer prices have still been rising, and were up 2.4% year-over-year in March. That's above the Fed's 2% target.

• Elon Musk told reporters DOGE had been "effective" but "not as effective as I'd like."
• He was speaking to reporters in the White House on Wednesday.
• DOGE has saved $160 billion and cut 1% of the workforce, but faced resistance, he told reporters.

Elon Musk is tempering expectations for his cost-cutting DOGE initiative, acknowledging it hasn't lived up to his $2 trillion ambition.

"In the grand scheme of things, I think we've been effective. Not as effective as I'd like. I think we could be more effective. But we've made progress," Musk told reporters during a Q&A session in the White House on Wednesday.

Several outlets reported the comments, including the Associated Press, USA Today, and Axios.

He said that so far, DOGE — short for the Department of Government Efficiency — has cut $160 billion in federal spending and eliminated 20,000 government jobs, or about 1% of the federal workforce.

But Musk said resistance from within the administration, public backlash, and protests, including vandalism against his EV company Tesla, have made the initiatives difficult to execute.

"Being attacked is not super fun," Musk said. "Seeing cars on fire is not fun."

While DOGE was initially planned to end in 2026, Musk told reporters it may run through the end of Trump's term in 2028.

"I think so," Musk said of a potential extension. "It's up to the president."

Musk, who has faced criticism for splitting his time between Washington and his companies, told Tesla investors last week he plans to scale back his time at the White House to one or two days a week after his EV maker's earnings per share plunged 71% year over year in the first quarter of 2025.

Yet, Musk maintained he believes DOGE's long-term savings potential could still hit $1 trillion.

"It can be done," he said. "But it requires dealing with a lot of complaints."

"DOGE is a way of life, like Buddhism," he said. "Buddha isn't alive anymore. You wouldn't ask the question: 'Who would lead Buddhism?'"

• Silicon Valley is shifting from perks to performance, emphasizing rewards and consequences.
• Google, Microsoft, and Meta are adopting stricter performance management to drive excellence.
• Tech firms are focusing on efficiency amid AI growth and Wall Street's demand for productivity.

In Silicon Valley, the message is clear: The era of cushy perks and low accountability is over.

Big Tech is undergoing a cultural reset, combining generous rewards for high performers — the "carrots" — with increasingly sharp consequences for those who don't meet expectations — the "sticks."

At Google, Microsoft, and Meta, performance management has become both an incentive engine and a weeding tool, which reflects the broader industry shift toward leaner, more intense workplaces.

Google: More rewards for the exceptional

As my colleague Hugh Langley scooped this week, Google is nudging employees toward higher performance by sweetening the pot for top contributors. The company recently updated its performance review system, allowing more employees to qualify for higher performance ratings, which come with bigger bonuses and equity grants.

But these changes are "budget-neutral," meaning increased rewards for high performers will come at the expense of those rated in lower tiers — reinforcing the push for excellence with some consequences for those who might be planning to rest and vest.

Microsoft: Opt out or be managed out

Microsoft, meanwhile, is rolling out a more aggressive "stick" policy. The company now offers underperforming employees a choice: Take a 16-week payout and leave voluntarily, or enter a formal performance improvement plan with defined expectations and deadlines.

Those who enter the PIP and fall short may be ousted, and they won't get the payout. They will also be blocked from being rehired for two years.

This approach is similar to Amazon's controversial "Pivot" program and signals Microsoft's intent to eliminate ambiguity around performance standards. Earlier this year, Microsoft terminated 2,000 employees deemed low performers, without severance, underscoring its no-nonsense shift.

Amazon: Revamped incentives

Amazon is overhauling its employee compensation system to better reward those who consistently perform at the highest level, while tightening payouts for others.

According to internal documents obtained by BI's Eugene Kim, employees who earn a "Top Tier" rating for four straight years can now receive 110% of their pay band, up from the previous cap of 100%. First-time Top Tier recipients, however, will now get just 70%, down from 80%.

The new model prioritizes an employee's longer-term performance history over one-time gains and places more weight on Amazon's "Overall Value" ratings.

Meta: Performance cuts and block lists

Meta has recently embraced performance-based culling, too. Its intense review process is now designed to cut about 5% of Meta's workers, the ones deemed its lowest performers.

An internal memo obtained by Business Insider earlier this year suggested that the company wanted to make performance-based layoffs an annual thing, under a policy of "non-regrettable attrition."

Adding to the harshness is Meta's use of internal "block lists," which bar certain former employees from being rehired. Even high performers laid off during earlier rounds have found themselves inexplicably blocked from returning, despite support from hiring managers.

The broader shift: Pressure, not perks

These strategies reflect a wider recalibration in tech culture. As AI investment surges and Wall Street demands efficiency, companies are pressuring workers to "do more with less."

Tech leaders, from Google to Meta, have explicitly linked success to intensity and ruthless execution. Performance ratings are now a make-or-break proposition, not just a career checkpoint.

The "carrots" are richer than ever for top-tier employees. But the "sticks" are sharper, more frequent, and often final.

• UPS said it would cut 20,000 jobs this year as it overhauls its US network to boost efficiency.
• The shipping giant plans to shutter 73 facilities and save $3.5 billion as demand remains soft.
• The cuts are linked to the "changing trade environment," UPS CEO Carol Tomé said.

UPS plans to slash 20,000 jobs this year as part of a cost-cutting drive amid the shifting global trade landscape triggered by President Donald Trump's tariffs.

The move comes as the shipping giant grapples with soft demand, especially from its largest customers. UPS said it would also look to close 73 facilities by the end of June.

"With our action, we will emerge as an even stronger, more nimble UPS," the company's CEO, Carol Tomé, said in a statement on Tuesday.

Tomé said that the transformation would help UPS adapt to "a changing trade environment" and better position it for long-term growth.

The company said it would save $3.5 billion in 2025 through the cuts.

UPS made the announcement alongside its first-quarter 2025 earnings report, which showed a slight revenue dip to $21.5 billion — down 0.7% from the same period last year — while its adjusted operating profit inched up 0.9% to $1.7 billion.

The parcel giant also pulled its financial guidance for the year, saying that uncertainty around the impact of Trump's tariffs meant it could not provide forecasts.

"Given the current macro-economic uncertainty, the company is not providing any updates to its previously issued consolidated full-year outlook," the company said.

Its supply chain business suffered the most last quarter, with revenue plunging nearly 15%, primarily due to the divestiture of Coyote Logistics.

The cost-cutting drive comes after UPS told investors earlier this year it would reduce its Amazon business by 50% by mid-2026, citing profitability reasons.

"This was not their ask," Tomé said on an investor call in January. "This was us. This was UPS taking control of our destiny."

On Tuesday, UPS said the restructuring could expand depending on further network review. In the first quarter, it said it made $80 million in savings and booked $23 million in related costs.

• The US is a leader in scientific research, with over 400 Nobel Prizes, much of it government-funded.
• Researchers said funding cuts might mean people will take their talents to other countries.
• They said aspects of research funding need overhauling, like transparency into spending.

When Peter Lurie learned that President Donald Trump had cut federal funding for his HIV research, he was shocked.

But he said he quickly realized why.

"You can see exactly how they identified the grant that I was on as a target," Lurie told Business Insider. "There is some mention of trans people, and that apparently is enough to kill off research."

Lurie is in a group of researchers suing the Trump administration for cutting National Institutes of Health funding for various projects, including research on Alzheimer's, reproductive health, cancer, and diabetes. He was on a two-year NIH grant of nearly $300,000 that Trump terminated on March 21. As a result, "certain answers that might actually stem the HIV epidemic, for example, will not be found," Lurie said.

Researchers, scientists, and education policy experts told BI that Trump's abrupt freezing of billions of federal dollars might do more than block progress in scientific research. It could result in fewer Nobel Prizes, more brain drain, and a handcuffing of AI innovation. They said the US could lose its edge as students and scientists take their talents to other places, like China and Europe, that would fund their research.

The Trump administration has said that universities that do not comply with its demands, including axing diversity, equity, and inclusion practices, are subject to funding cuts. The NIH issued a statement on April 21 saying that it would pull medical research funding from schools with DEI programs and those boycotting Israeli goods.

Some researchers said there's room for improvement in the higher education funding system, including a closer look at the burdensome process to receive funding and more transparency on where taxpayer dollars go. But, Lurie said, shutting off funding so abruptly will do more harm than good.

"The US and the NIH, in particular, have been the envy of the world when it comes to medical research. And what is already starting to happen is that the United States is starting to slip," Lurie said. "It means that there will be people who will go elsewhere for support. It means that there are people who will leave the country for lack of support. So I think that it absolutely endangers the United States' position as the global leader in medical research. And for that, we will pay."

The White House, the NIH, and the Department of Education did not respond to a request for comment.

'Once you lose your edge in this area, it's very difficult to come back'

The US has won nearly 400 Nobel Prizes in physics, chemistry, and medicine, the highest number in the world. One hundred seventy-four scientists who worked on 104 of the prizes were funded by the NIH.

Robert J. Lefkowitz is one of them — he won a Nobel Prize in chemistry in 2012 for contributing to the discovering of a family of receptors that bind to about half of all medications today. He told BI that "a good part" of his funding over his years of research came from the NIH.

"The biomedical research enterprise in the United States is by far the leading one in the world, and the NIH is undoubtedly the biggest supporter of that," Lefkowitz said. And while the cuts themselves are a cause for concern, the uncertainty with the future of affected programs is leaving universities scrambling to figure out their next steps, he added.

He also said that as a result of the cuts, students and trainees wouldn't be able to participate in ongoing research, which could lead them to seek employment elsewhere — including outside the US — to receive funding.

"It's a bad situation, and I have the perspective of having been in the game for roughly 60 years. I've never seen anything to rival this," Lefkowitz said.

For years, Trump has proposed and enacted policies that he says would put America at the top, summed up catchily with his campaign slogan, "Make America Great Again." His administration has said that freezing funding at universities that do not comply with the administration's demands to limit campus activism and DEI practices reflects the administration's goals to put America first.

Trump suggested in an April 15 post on Truth Social, for example, that he would consider removing Harvard's tax-exempt status if it continued to fund what he called a "political, ideological, and terrorist inspired/supporting 'Sickness?'"

Columbia University agreed to Trump's demands to preserve the $400 million in federal funding it receives, but other universities, including Harvard, are holding the line. Glenn Altschuler, a professor of American studies at Cornell University, told BI that as Trump continues to escalate his funding threats, the US could lose critical talent keeping the country a leader in scientific innovation.

Altschuler said it's likely that other countries, like China, would soon start trying to attract American researchers by offering to pay for their labs, travel, and research. "And those scientists, at least some of them, depending on what their life circumstances are, may find that a very attractive option. So whereas for decades and decades and decades, the brain drain operated to the advantage of the United States, now the brain drain may operate to the detriment of things," he said.

That's already starting to take shape — French President Emmanuel Macron recently promoted on LinkedIn a project to attract international scientists to conduct their research in France.

"Here in France, research is a priority, innovation is a culture, and science is a boundless horizon," Macron wrote.

Altschuler said the US would probably not realize the impact of Trump's funding freezes for years, and at that point, it could be too late to repair the damage.

"We may lose a significant next generation of important researchers in medicine and in science. And what I would emphasize is, we'll never know, ever, what discoveries were not made," Altschuler said. "We'll never know what advances in technology were never made. And once you lose your edge in this area, it's very difficult to come back. It'll take a very long time to come back."

'It should concern everybody when those dollars are being cut'

Changing the way colleges receive federal funding isn't a bad idea, Beth Akers, a senior fellow at the conservative think tank American Enterprise Institute, told BI.

"I think it's fair to ask, what is the appropriate amount of federal funding? And I think there is a sense that maybe the amount of funding for research that institutions have become accustomed to might be overly generous," Akers said. "We may be funding some things that if taxpayers understood where their money was going, they might not be thrilled about."

Still, Akers said the abruptness of university funding freezes has made them "more of a wasteful and destructive process than is really necessary." She added that had there been conversations over time with universities regarding funding cuts, researchers on ongoing projects would've had the opportunity to make plans to shut down their work or transfer it elsewhere.

"A lot of stuff that will have begun will have to be abandoned," Akers said.

And it's not just science — technology is on the line as well. Rebecca Willett, a professor of statistics and computer science at the University of Chicago, told BI that Trump's funding cuts were putting artificial intelligence innovation at risk. While federal spending on AI is fairly low, Willett said, the industry has already made a significant mark through projects like ChatGPT and using AI to advance biomedical research. Cutting more funding would stifle those advancements.

"These are investments in areas that are really going to help advance society and be of real value to the taxpayers who are supporting this work," Willett said. Cuts to those programs will not only lead the US to "miss out on important discoveries," Willett said, but also impact workforce development, as students will not have the resources to be properly trained to develop the next generation of technology tools.

For an administration that's so focused on keeping America at the top, it doesn't add up, Willett said.

"Having taxpayer dollars help support and advance science is important for the long-term success and prosperity and security of the United States," Willett said. "And I think that's the way we should look at federal research dollars, and it should concern everybody when those dollars are being cut."

Have a tip? Contact this reporter via email at [email protected] or Signal at asheffey.97. Use a personal email address and a nonwork device; here's our guide to sharing information securely.

Federal scientists responsible for monitoring the health of West Coast fisheries are cleaning office bathrooms and reconsidering critical experiments after the Department of Commerce failed to renew their lab’s contracts for hazardous waste disposal, janitorial services, IT, and building maintenance.

Trash is piling up at the Northwest Fisheries Science Center, part of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, staffers told ProPublica. Ecologists, chemists, and biologists at Montlake Laboratory, the center’s headquarters in Seattle, are taking turns hauling garbage to the dumpster and discussing whether they should create a sign-up sheet to scrub toilets.

The scientists—who conduct genetic sampling of endangered salmon to check the species’ stock status and survival—routinely work with chemicals that can burn skin, erupt into flames, and cause cancer. At least one said they’d have to delay mission-critical research if hazardous waste removal isn’t restored.

Read full article

Comments

• TikTok is letting go of some US staff on its e-commerce team, five employees told BI.
• The cuts are hitting its governance and experience team, which handles Shop marketplace safety.
• TikTok made cuts to its global trust and safety team earlier this year.

TikTok is letting go of some US e-commerce staff today as part of a restructuring of its governance and experience team, five employees at the company told Business Insider.

E-commerce governance and experience, called GNE for short, is a global team that handles marketplace safety for users, sellers, and creators within TikTok Shop. The group manages tasks like seller compliance, monitoring product listings, and protecting intellectual property.

Business Insider wasn't able to immediately learn the scale of the job cuts.

A TikTok spokesperson declined to comment.

TikTok's broader US e-commerce team has been under pressure from global leadership this year after failing to meet performance expectations in 2024. The organization's top executive, Bob Kang, called out the team during a company all-hands meeting in February, BI previously reported. Some employees in the group received low scores during annual performance reviews in March, leading to performance-improvement plans and, in some cases, exits with severance.

This month's layoffs follow a February round of cuts to TikTok's global trust and safety team, which Reuters first reported. This group handles tasks like content moderation on a broader set of user videos that don't necessarily involve shopping.

The job cuts arrive at a moment of flux for TikTok as it reckons with a 2024 law that required its owner ByteDance to divest from its US app. After ByteDance failed to comply, TikTok briefly shut off in the country. President Donald Trump has since directed his attorney general not to enforce the law.

Trump said this week the company was close to reaching a deal to address the divestment requirements, but it fell apart after the US levied new tariffs on China. The Chinese government, like the Trump administration, would need to approve the deal. TikTok may become a bargaining chip amid broader trade negotiations.

A ByteDance spokesperson told BI on Friday that it was in discussions with the US government regarding a potential solution for TikTok in the US, but an agreement had not been executed, and any agreement would be subject to approval under Chinese law.

• Microsoft is discussing job cuts that could happen as soon as next month.
• The cuts would aim to improve metrics such as "span of control" and "PM ratio."
• Microsoft earlier this year ousted 2,000 employees it deemed low-performers.

Microsoft is considering another round of job cuts that could come as soon as May, according to people familiar with the matter.

Leaders on some Microsoft teams are specifically discussing cuts to middle managers, and how to increase the ratio of coders versus non-coders on projects, the sources told Business Insider.

Some Microsoft organizations want to increase their "span of control," or the number of employees who report to each manager, these people said.

The sources, who hold senior positions at the company, asked not to be identified discussing sensitive topics that are still in the planning stages. It's unclear how many jobs will be cut, but one of the people said it was a significant portion of their team. A spokesperson for Microsoft declined to comment.

In the tech industry, there's already a culling of middle managers underway. Amazon has been trying to increase the ratio of individual contributors to managers. And in December, CEO Sundar Pichai told staff that Google cut vice president and manager roles by 10% as part of an efficiency drive.

Inside Microsoft, the discussions focus on decreasing the "PM ratio" on some teams, which is the ratio of product managers or program managers to engineers.

Charlie Bell, Microsoft's security boss, brought this concept from Amazon, where he was a cloud pioneer. There, it's called the "Builder Ratio," and tracks the ratio of software engineers to "non-builders," such as program managers and project managers.

Microsoft is considering increasing these targets in some organizations. For example, Bell's security organization right now is around 5.5 engineers to one PM, and his goal is to reach 10:1, according to a person familiar with Bell's plans.

One of the people familiar with the matter said this ratio is basically a proxy for how many people code. Under discussion are not only cuts that would require managers to meet a certain budget, but to meet a specific team-based ratio, too, the person explained.

Earlier this year, Microsoft ousted about 2,000 employees it deemed low-performers.

The potential cuts coming in a month or so could also include lower performers. At least some Microsoft leaders are considering terminating those who received an "Impact 80" or lower score in performance reviews for two consecutive years, one of the people said.

Microsoft evaluates employees on a scale of 0 to 200 called the "ManageRewards slider." Those ratings influence how much an employee receives in stock awards and cash bonuses.

The middle of the range is 100, while 0, 60, and 80 are lower performers and 120, 140, and 200 are higher performers. "Impact 80" gives employees 60% of their normal stock award and 80% of their maximum bonus.

Have a tip? Contact this reporter via email at [email protected] or Signal at +1-425-344-8242. Use a personal email address and a nonwork device; here's our guide to sharing information securely.

• Harvard faces a federal review, which could jeopardize $8.9 billion in funding.
• The review follows funding cuts at Columbia, leading to the university conceding to federal demands.
• Several teacher's unions have sued Trump's attempt to cut funding for crucial research programs.

Harvard University just became the latest institution to come under federal scrutiny by the Trump administration.

The Department of Health and Human Services announced on Monday that a "comprehensive review" of Harvard's federal funding is underway, putting more than $8.9 billion in contracts and grants at risk.

The Joint Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism is spearheading the review to "ensure the university is in compliance with federal regulations, including its civil rights responsibilities."

The review of Harvard came after the same task force recently cut $400 million from Columbia University. The institution agreed to a set of conditions set by the administration, which included stricter protest regulations, an expanded campus security presence, and increased oversight of its Middle Eastern, South Asian, and African Studies Department, in an attempt to restore funding. The university's interim president also resigned shortly after the concession.

Since Hamas' October 7, 2023, attack against Israel, and Israel's ongoing war in Gaza, which has claimed at least 50,000 lives combined, some of the nation's most prestigious colleges have faced allegations of antisemitism following a wave of pro-Palestinian protests that spread across the country.

The Trump administration is also seeking to deport pro-Palestinian activists who are permanent residents, several of whom are students of Columbia, which sparked First Amendment concerns.

Although Monday's announcement did not detail the administration's exact demands on Harvard, Education Secretary Linda McMahon criticized Harvard for jeopardizing its reputation by "promoting divisive ideologies over free inquiry."

"Harvard can right these wrongs and restore itself to a campus dedicated to academic excellence and truth-seeking, where all students feel safe on its campus," McMahon said in a statement on Monday.

Funding cuts from schools typically need to go through a lengthy process via the Department of Education. The American Association of University Professors and the American Federation of Teachers have sued the administration for holding funding hostage, saying that the cuts have terminated grants for fetal health, Alzheimer's, and cancer research at Columbia.

As of the end of March, Columbia did not receive assurance that funding would be restored.

Alan M. Garber, the president of Harvard University, said in a statement that the university will "engage with members of the federal government's task force to combat antisemitism" and that he had "experienced antisemitism directly, even while serving as president."

"In longstanding partnership with the federal government, we have launched and nurtured pathbreaking research that has made countless people healthier and safer, more curious and more knowledgeable, improving their lives, their communities, and our world," Garber added.

Harvard's endowment was $53.2 billion in 2024, and its fiscal year operating expenses were $6.4 billion.

Tesla has had a tumultuous few weeks and is now at a tipping point. Business Insider spoke with employees, investors, analysts, and Tesla owners to understand some of the company's challenges.

• Amazon CEO Andy Jassy wants to reduce management layers and bureaucracy.
• He told employees that building a giant team and fiefdom wouldn't help them get promoted.
• He also encouraged staff to act like owners and stay aware of industry competition.

Amazon CEO Andy Jassy really wants to reduce management layers.

During a recent internal all-hands meeting, Jassy reiterated his commitment to de-layering, a move he thinks will cut bureaucracy. Amazon previously announced a plan to increase the ratio of individual contributors to managers by 15% by the end of March.

At the Tuesday meeting, the CEO said Amazon is actively changing how it thinks about promotions. He stressed the best leaders are those who "get the most done with the least amount of resources required to do the job," according to a recording of the meeting obtained by Business Insider.

Jassy added that "every new project shouldn't take 50 or more people to do it," and reminded employees that some of AWS's most successful products initially started with teams of about a dozen.

"The way to get ahead at Amazon is not to go accumulate a giant team and fiefdom," Jassy said. "There's no award for having a big team. We want to be scrappy about us to do a lot more things."

Jassy's comments were in response to a question about his intention to run Amazon like "the world's largest startup." In addition to the manager shake-up, Jassy underscored the need to build a culture of speed and meritocracy.

Amazon hasn't shared how exactly it is reducing management layers. Some managers were told to increase their number of direct reports, make fewer senior hires, and cut pay for certain employees, BI previously reported.

In an email to BI, an Amazon spokesperson said the company has now completed this process, which impacted a "relatively small subset of employees." The spokesperson added that Amazon combined teams and moved managers to individual contributor roles to reach its goal, and this "did not equate to eliminating 15% of manager roles."

"In September 2024, we shared with employees that we set a goal to increase the ratio of individual contributors to managers by 15% across our organizations because it was the right time to bring us closer to customers and reinforce our culture of ownership. There are a number of ways to achieve that increase. We've now reached that goal, which we believe will allow our teams to move even faster as they innovate for customers," the spokesperson said.

Meritocracy over bureaucracy

In September, Amazon also created a "No Bureaucracy" email alias, where employees could report unnecessary processes that needed to be fixed.

Jassy said during the Tuesday meeting that he's read every single one of the over a thousand emails he's received so far and that the company has made more than 375 changes as a result.

"We are, as a team, committed to getting rid of the bureaucracy," Jassy said.

When companies grow, it's natural to put more processes in place, Jassy added. But companies often make the mistake of focusing too much on adding more people and managing them versus improving the customer experience, he said.

"It's not how charismatic you are. It's not whether you're really good at managing up or managing sideways," he said. "What matters is what we actually get done for customers. That is what we reward. It's a meritocracy."

'It is your company'

Jassy also urged employees to "move fast and act like owners."

He said big companies tend to become slow and indecisive. This is a particularly big risk for Amazon, given the intense competition it faces. Competitors include the "most technically able, most hungry" companies in the world, including startups "working seven days a week, 15 hours a day," he said.

"One of the strengths of Amazon over the first 29 years is that we've hired really smart, motivated, inventive, ambitious people who have been great owners," Jassy said. "What would I do if this was my company? And by the way, it is your company. This is all of our company."

Another point Jassy made during the meeting was to be "hyper-aware" of what's going around Amazon. That means keeping track of not just Amazon's own goals, but other technology and companies that can be inspiring, he said.

"Great companies, startups who have that real missionary zeal and succeed are always looking around," Jassy said. "When you're inventing, you need that blind faith that you're building something maybe others haven't thought of, but you got to keep checking in to make sure it's the best solution available for people."

Have a tip? Contact this reporter via email at [email protected] or Signal, Telegram, or WhatsApp at 650-942-3061. Use a personal email address and a nonwork device; here's our guide to sharing information securely.

• The Federal Reserve held interest rates steady on Wednesday.
• It comes amid economic uncertainty with Trump's trade policies.
• The Fed is still expected to cut interest rates later this year.

Americans aren't getting any more interest-rate cuts just yet.

On Wednesday, the Federal Open Market Committee announced that it would hold interest rates steady for the second time this year, falling in line with market predictions.

It follows the latest consumer price index data, which found that inflation increased 2.8% year-over-year in February, below January's 3% rate. It marks a step closer to achieving the Federal Reserve's 2% inflation target. CME FedWatch, which estimates interest-rate changes based on market moves, projected a 99% chance the Fed would hold rates steady since the inflation data release.

Fed Chair Jerome Powell told reporters during a January press conference that even with positive inflation readings, the central bank is still "very much in the mode of waiting to see" how President Donald Trump's policies will impact the economy.

"We'll patiently watch and understand and not be in a hurry to get to a place of understanding what our policy response should be until we see how it plays out," Powell said.

Since taking office, Trump has both implemented new tariffs and used them as tools to achieve policy goals. On March 12, his 25% tariff on steel and aluminum imports went into effect, a day after he eased off of his threat to double the 25% tariff on those metals from Canada until the country agreed to pause its tax on electricity exports to the US.

The back-and-forth nature of the tariffs so far has made it difficult for the Fed to determine how Trump's trade policy will impact the central bank's interest rate decisions, Powell said in January.

"We don't know what's going to be tariffed. We don't know for how long or how much, what countries. We don't know about retaliation. We don't know how it's going to transmit through the economy to consumers. That really does remain to be seen," Powell said.

The FOMC penciled in two interest-rate cuts in 2025, but the Fed could change course depending on how the economy takes shape over the rest of the year. Greg McBride, chief financial analyst at Bankrate, said in a statement that "stubborn inflation and recent economic uncertainty will make them ever more data-dependent in the coming weeks and months."