When President Donald Trump was elected president for the second time, many in the financial industry cheered, excited by the prospect of tax cuts and a friendlier regulatory environment. So the last few months have taken many in the industry by surprise, as the Trump administration has pursued policies like far-reaching tariffs and trade wars that have markets falling and a recession looking increasingly likely.

David Solomon, CEO of investment bank Goldman Sachs, says the business community is now dealing with a ton of uncertainty. But once it receives some clarity from the Trump administration—which Solomon expects over the next six months—the economy should be able to steady.

“The U.S. economy is in relatively good shape. It’s a huge, diverse, powerful economic engine that is much harder to set off track today than it might have been 30, 40, 50 years ago,” Solomon said Tuesday. “But there’s enormous policy uncertainty.”

In a wide-ranging conversation with Brittany Boals Moeller, Goldman’s region head for San Francisco private wealth management, Solomon touched on leadership, tariffs, and investor uncertainty.

The discussion was part of the Rising Leaders Forum, an invitation-only gathering for 20- and 30-something investors held by Goldman Sachs and New York City philanthropic organization Robin Hood. Other speakers throughout the day’s events included Maryland Gov. Wes Moore, Barry Sternlicht, co-founder and CEO of Starwood Capital Group, and basketball phenom Caitlin Clark.

Solomon reflected on his decades-long relationship with Robin Hood, telling attendees, which included around 150 entrepreneurs, startup founders, and wealth inheritors, that it’s imperative for them to start thinking about their legacies and how to build a better world. To that end, panels and informational sessions held throughout the day educated the professionals on maximizing their philanthropic impact.

This is the second year that Goldman has hosted the forum with Robin Hood. The event provides clients with information they need to think about their philanthropic efforts, but also paves a way for the next generation of ultra high-net worth investors and business leaders to make connections, says Goldman’s Boals Moeller.

Robin Hood’s goal is to get younger investors and philanthropists thinking about ways to get involved with and better their city, which the Rising Leaders Forum allows for, says CEO Richard Buery, Jr.

“It’s about getting people to focus, getting people to think about what it means for them and their futures if … this is not a place where everybody truly has the chance to succeed,” he says. “I don’t think that’s a hard pitch.”

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

Source link

Social psychologist and New York University professor Jonathan Haidt is the author of The Anxious Generation: How the Great Rewiring of Childhood Is Causing an Epidemic of Mental Illness, which has remained on the New York Times bestseller list since it was published one year ago. 

“It has struck a chord,” said Ezra Klein Show host Ezra Klein on Tuesday’s episode of the podcast, which featured Haidt as a guest for an hour-and-13-minute discussion on the endless parenting struggle of trying to keep kids off screens.

The wide-ranging interview expounded upon Haidt’s four golden rules for curbing screen use—no smartphones before high school, no social media before 16, far more unsupervised play and independence for kids, and phone-free schools—and celebrated the fact that the last recommendation, about schools, is seeing some traction in various states. 

But he also, in speaking with Klein, expanded on his four rules, warning that “modern parenting” appears to be hurting, not helping, the cause. Below, three of his most urgent messages to parents.

Stop spending so much time with your kids

Yes, you read that right. According to Haidt, the importance of “quality time” is a myth, and in fact does your child a disservice. He discussed this within the context of his rule about kids needing more unsupervised play, which is something too much screen time—as well as an omnipresent parent—robs. 

“It’s not the parent’s job to socialize the child all along. It’s the parent’s job to provide the right environment to provide certain kinds of moral frameworks,” Haidt explained. He noted that, in the 1950s, ’60s, ’70s, and ’80s, “women were not spending five hours a day parenting,” because kids were more often left to their own devices—playing and roaming for hours at a time with other kids, the younger ones learning from the older ones.

“Everyone before the millennials had this childhood,” he said, noting that it shifted in the 1990s, when fears of abduction and the like took over. 

“But the real work of brain development doesn’t happen when you’re with your parents. Your parents are home base—they’re your attachment figure,” Haidt continued. “When you feel securely attached, then you go off and explore…and that’s where the learning happens.”

It’s why, he added, “modern parenting is not good for the kids—and certainly not good for the adults,” particularly moms, who tend to bear the brunt of round-the-clock parenting.

But, Klein asked, what about the widely-held belief that spending lots of quality time with your kids is what makes a good parent?

“It’s definitely not true,” Haidt said. “You want to give your kids a quality childhood. You want to be a quality parent. But that doesn’t mean that you have to spend a lot of quality time with your kid. You need a warm, trusting, loving relationship. You need to provide structure and order and discipline.”

Too much time with a parent, he stressed, “is really bad for the kids because they don’t grow as much if their attachment figure is there.”

Understand that ‘the iPad is not like TV’

Something Haidt really wants parents to comprehend, he said, “is that the iPad is not like TV. TV is a good way of entertainment. TV puts out a story. But a touch screen is a behaviorist training device.”

When using a touch screen, he explained, “you get a stimulus, you make a response and then you get a reward, which gives you a little bit of dopamine and makes you want to do it again and again and again.” It can basically “train your child the way a circus trainer can train an animal,” he added. “So iPad or iPhone time for your 3-, 4- or 5-year-old is just not a good thing.” 

Still, there are ways that parents can distinguish between “a pretty good use of screens and a really bad use of screens.”

A pretty good use, Haidt said, is to put on a movie that’s at least 90 minutes long. That way, “they’re going to pay attention to a long movie about characters in a moral universe. There are issues of good and bad and norms and betrayal. It’s part of their moral training, their moral formation.” And ideally, he added, they’ll be watching it with another person—hopefully a parent, but a sibling or friend is also OK, he said, “because it’s social.”

By contrast, he noted, “Here’s what’s really bad: iPad time by yourself,” specifically YouTube. “Because that’s exactly the opposite. It’s solitary. They’re not consuming stories—or, if they are, they are 15 seconds long and either amoral or really immoral—disgusting, degrading things, people doing terrible things to each other.”

That does a number on attention span, Klein added, who recalled finding the “endlessness of YouTube” to be “terrifying” when his kids were little. “My kids would never even watch a full thing, because they were always hitting the next thing under it. Because there’s always something more interesting.”

Assume the worst about AI

Haidt feels certain that 2025 is the year regulators and parents and anyone else with an interest in protecting kids from screens need to “move quickly,” he explained. “This is really our last year before A.I. really has a big impact on life.”

That’s because society is moving “from the idea that A.I. enables you to know everything” to the idea that “A.I. allows you to do everything.” Now A.I. agents “are going to give us omnipotence,” he warned. “And that would be horrible for children.”

That includes the ability to create friends to your specific likings. 

“The way we adapt is by preventing kids from having these friendships,” he urged, referring to AI chatbot relationships—such as the romantic one that led to the suicide of a 14-year-old last year. 

“I think we have to stop. This is not even about the content. We have to stop saying: Oh, we just need better content moderation. No, we don’t,” he said. “We need to realize kids have to go through a childhood in the real world with other kids within a moral universe where they experience the consequences of their own actions. And they have to learn how to deal with real people who are frustrating.”

If we give our kids A.I. companions that they can order around and will always flatter them, he continued, “we are creating people who no one will want to employ or marry. So we’ve got to stop.” 

Haidt is hopeful that it’s not too late to put the genie back in the bottle—because unlike social media, AI is not yet fully enmeshed in our lives. 

“A.I. is not yet entangled. A.I. is just coming in,” he said. “And in two or three years it will be entangled.”

And what’s vital to remember before then, Haidt said, is that “Silicon Valley has a horrible track record at living up to its promises, especially for kids. They claimed that social media is going to connect everyone. No, it actually disconnected everyone.”

And while there are amazing uses for A.I., some of which Haidt appreciates, it’s important to understand that “children are not adults,” he said. “And given the track record so far, we have to assume that these A.I. companions will be very bad for our children.” So approach it with a skeptical eye, he advises. 

“Start by assuming it’s harming your kids,” he said, “and then you can bring in some uses where it’s not.”

More on screen time and kids:

• 68% of parents with children under 6 say their kids need a ‘detox’ from technology. Here’s why that’s scary, say experts
• TikTok introduces tighter controls for kids and teens—but experts still have a warning for parents
• Is teen social media use a crisis or moral panic?

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

• President Donald Trump told the Cabinet that world’s richest man Elon Musk will leave his administration post “soon,” specifically within the coming weeks, according to a Politico report. Musk’s involvement in the government has caused public sentiment around his company’s to deteriorate; a departure from the executive branch would allow him to return to his businesses. The White House publicly rejected the reports, calling the news “fake.” 

President Donald Trump has alerted those in his inner circle, including some members of the Cabinet, that Elon Musk will be stepping away from his role as the figure-head of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) within weeks, according to a report by Politico.

While Trump emphasized that he was pleased with Musk and the efforts of DOGE, both have reportedly mutually decided that it was time for Musk to transition into a supporting role in Washington so he can return to his businesses, according to three anonymous Trump insiders. 

“I think he’s been amazing, but I also think he’s got a big company to run…And at some point he’s going to be going back. He wants to,” Trump told reporters Monday.

Musk, categorized as a special government employee (SGE), has been busy slashing federal spending and is slated to end his stint in the White House in late May, when he reaches the 130-day SGE working caps. The report comes more than a month after a senior political advisor close to Trump told Politico that Musk was “here to stay,” and would exceed his 130-day timeline. 

One senior administration official told Politico it’s likely that Musk will hold an informal advisory position and continue to make occasional appearances at the White House. Another said in the same report anyone who believes Musk will leave Trump’s eye is “fooling themselves.”

Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said in an X post Wednesday the Politico report was “garbage,” and the two have agreed that Musk will leave the White House as a special government employee when he completes his work with DOGE.

Additionally, White House spokesman Harrison Fields told Fortune the report is “fake news.”

“This is exactly why President Trump and DOGE have terminated millions of dollars in wasteful, government contracts to so-called news organizations that have diminished their credibility with the American people,” Field said, referencing Politico’s ties to USAID budget cuts.

Musk has sparked frustration among those close to and within the Trump administration who view the world’s richest man as a political liability. Most notably, Musk publicly backed and bankrolled a conservative judge who lost a bid for a Wisconsin Supreme Court seat by a wide margin Tuesday, indicating public sentiment around the billionaire. 

Last week, Trump began paving the way for Musk’s exit from Washington, telling Cabinet members Musk would be beginning his transition out of the executive branch, according to an insider who was not in the meeting, but briefed on what was said.

Throughout Musk’s political endeavors, his businesses have taken a toll, specifically Tesla. Last month, Musk publicly admitted that he was running his businesses with “great difficulty,” while juggling his federal duties. 

After the Politico report came out, however, the EV maker’s stock jumped, signaling that Musk could turn his focus back to Tesla after the company endured a tough stretch.

Tesla has been the chief victim of Musk’s political activism, and while his departure from DOGE likely won’t do much to boost demand in Europe, it should help put a floor under demand in the U.S.

Tesla stock has dropped more than 5% over the past month, and plunged more than 31% year-over-year. Additionally, shares fell 36% in the first quarter, its largest quarterly slip since 2022.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com