Connect with us

Business

Trump’s Intel deal gambles with the perils of picking national champions

Published

on



Good morning. What just happened? Only 15 days after President Trump posted that Intel CEO Lip-Bu Tan “is highly CONFLICTED and must resign,” the two men had seemingly become best buds, and the U.S. sent Intel $8.9 billion in return for a 9.9% stake in the company. Then, yesterday, National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett told CNBC, “I’m sure that at some point there’ll be more transactions, if not in this industry, in other industries.” He likened the deal to a “down payment on a sovereign wealth fund.” 

But why? Why now? What’s next?

For answers, I spoke with three experts on government investments in companies. Three themes came through—though answers were harder to find.

This deal is like none other. “It is entirely unusual, if not unprecedented, for the United States government to take a significant ownership stake in a major company in the United States, particularly one in a strategic industry,” says Douglas Rediker, a lawyer and economist with long experience in global finance, sovereign wealth funds, global capital flows, and their impact on foreign policy. Luigi Zingales, a professor at the University of Chicago business school, says, “The thing that, to me, is shocking and unbelievable is that it starts as an attack to the CEO based completely on his potential self-dealing—which might be true, might not be true—but if that’s the problem, it cannot be solved by giving some stock to the U.S. government.”

The deal’s objective is far from clear. William Megginson, a professor at the University of Oklahoma business school, has researched the privatization of state-owned enterprises and sovereign wealth funds. He notes that the $8.9 billion paid to Intel is an advance of money earmarked for Intel in the Chips Act, so “the government is not bringing any new capital.” But then “what is the government bringing if it’s not bringing capital to catch up with Taiwan Semiconductor, which is probably going to invest something like $40 billion just this year—three or four times what Intel can spend?” Zingales says, “That is the biggest problem. If you have an objective, you can say it is right or wrong, feasible or not feasible. But without a clear objective, it’s kind of a mess.”

Intel’s competitors won’t like this deal, and they can’t know what to expect. “Are we now in an era in which the U.S. government is literally picking national champions, and if so, what does that say to other companies?” Rediker asks. “Does that mean Intel will now be given preferential treatment in, for example, government contracts? if you’re Intel’s competitors, you might be scratching your head and saying, Maybe we want to go in a different direction if we’re going to be compromised or disadvantaged because Intel is now the favorite son of the industry.”

If you’re a CEO, have worked for Intel in the past (or compete with them), I’d be particularly curious to hear your thoughts on the state of affairs. You can email me directly at Geoff.Colvin@fortune.com.

Top news

President Trump fires Fed Governor

President Donald Trump announced via Truth Social Monday night that he is firing Fed Governor Lisa Cook after she was accused of taking out two home loans in which she attested that both were her primary residence. Cook has not been accused of wrongdoing in any formal legal process. The move casts doubt over the Fed’s independence as Trump-appointed Fed governors would represent a majority on the Fed board if Trump appoints a replacement. Cook says she will not leave her post, setting up a legal conflict over whether the president has a right to remove a governor “for cause.” The NYT has a useful bio describing Cook’s career as an economist.

Wall Street is aghast

What they’re saying today: “This is an extraordinary act of aggression that violates the Fed’s independence,” Eswar Prasad, a professor at Cornell University, told the FT. “Trump has now declared open war on the US institutional framework, which underpins the dollar’s dominance in global finance.” … “This is unprecedented,” Lev Menand, a Columbia Law School professor said. “If this removal sticks . . .  it spells something close to the end of central bank independence in the U.S.” … “It’s an authoritarian power grab that blatantly violates the Federal Reserve Act, and must be overturned in court,” said Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.).

“They have to give us magnets”

President Trump has hit a wrinkle in his trade negotiations with China: China controls 90% of the supply of rare earth minerals that are crucial for electronics and military equipment that depend on high-powered magnets. “They have to give us magnets, if they don’t give us magnets, then we have to charge them 200% tariffs or something,” Trump said yesterday. The Economist has a good article about China’s export strategy here. The bottom line: China has what the U.S. needs and thus holds a strong hand in the tariff talks.

Canada and German pledge cooperation on mineral supply

Unsurprisingly, the E.U. and Canada are maneuvering around the U.S. and developing trade ties to increase the supply of minerals without involving the U.S. “For too long, Canada’s vast reserves of nickel, cobalt, and other critical minerals have been underdeveloped, allowing Russia and China to dominate the global market,” Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney said yesterday. “Canada is ready to be a reliable supplier for our allies — particularly Germany as Europe’s largest economy and Canada’s largest trading partner in the European Union.”

Postal services, parcel shippers drop deliveries to the U.S.

The “de minimis” exemption to Trump’s tariffs (which allows small businesses and individuals  to send parcels to the U.S. worth less than $800 tariff-free) comes to an end this week and at least 19 countries in Europe are pausing or dropping service to the U.S. as a result. Asian services are following suit, Axios reports.

Tesla rejected $60 million deal before losing $243 million case

Tesla rejected the opportunity to settle a lawsuit over a fatal crash involving Tesla Autopilot for $60 million, before losing a jury verdict that awarded $243 million in damages against the company. The verdict, if upheld on appeal, threatens to impose massive, long-term liabilities on Tesla in car crashes involving the company’s driver assistance software. Tesla said it would appeal.

CBO: Tariffs will cut $4 trillion from federal deficit

The Congressional Budget Office believes that the Trump Administration’s tariffs will cut federal deficits by $4 trillion over the next decade. In June, the nonpartisan agency put savings at just $4 billion. 

Coinbase CEO’s AI mandate

In a recent appearance on the Cheeky Pint podcast with Stripe cofounder and president John Collison, Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong noted that he mandated every engineer at the company to use AI coding assistants within a week’s time and fired those without a good reason for ignoring the mandate. “Even as CEO, by the way, I use it a lot,” Armstrong also said.

More Epstein documents subpoenaed

The House Oversight Committee has demanded documents from Jeffrey Epstein’s estate in hopes of discovering more about the “birthday book” given to Epstein that reportedly contained a warm message from Trump to his former friend. (Trump denies he wrote it.) The DOJ has already delivered thousands of pages that it held on Epstein. Here’s a list of likely names inside the book.

The markets

S&P 500 futures were down 0.13% this morning, premarket, after the index closed down 0.43% yesterday. STOXX Europe 600 was down 0.71% in early trading. The U.K.’s FTSE 100 was down 0.52% in early trading. Japan’s Nikkei 225 was down 0.97%. China’s CSI 300 was down 0.37%. The South Korea KOSPI was down 0.95%. India’s Nifty 50 was up 0.72% before the end of the session. Bitcoin fell to $110.2K.

Around the watercooler

Millions of Gen Zers are jobless—and unemployment is mainly affecting men by Emma Burleigh

New Zealand has the best work-life balance in the world—here’s what works by Jessica Coacci

Kind’s billionaire founder says he still picks up pennies off the street because ‘ego is the only thing more powerful than greed’ by Dave Smith

You won’t get more money from quitting in this economy, BofA says, as job-hopping freezes in white-collar America by Nick Lichtenberg

CEO Daily is compiled and edited by Joey Abrams and Jim Edwards.

This is the web version of CEO Daily, a newsletter of must-read global insights from CEOs and industry leaders. Sign up to get it delivered free to your inbox.



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

US vaccine advisers end decades-long recommendation for all babies to get hepatitis B shot at birth

Published

on



A federal vaccine advisory committee voted on Friday to end the longstanding recommendation that all U.S. babies get the hepatitis B vaccine on the day they’re born.

A loud chorus of medical and public health leaders decried the actions of the panel, whose current members were all appointed by U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. — a leading anti-vaccine activist before this year becoming the nation’s top health official.

“This is the group that can’t shoot straight,” said Dr. William Schaffner, a Vanderbilt University vaccine expert who for decades has been involved with the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices and its workgroups.

Several medical societies and state health departments said they would continue to recommend them. While people may have to check their policies, the trade group AHIP, formerly known as America’s Health Insurance Plans, said its members still will cover the birth dose of the hepatitis B vaccine.

For decades, the government has advised that all babies be vaccinated against the liver infection right after birth. The shots are widely considered to be a public health success for preventing thousands of illnesses.

But Kennedy’s advisory committee decided to recommend the birth dose only for babies whose mothers test positive, and in cases where the mom wasn’t tested.

For other babies, it will be up to the parents and their doctors to decide if a birth dose is appropriate. The committee voted 8-3 to suggest that when a family elects to wait, then the vaccination series should begin when the child is 2 months old.

President Donald Trump posted a message late Friday calling the vote a “very good decision.”

The acting director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Jim O’Neill, is expected to decide later whether to accept the committee’s recommendation.

The decision marks a return to a health strategy abandoned more than three decades ago

Asked why the newly-appointed committee moved quickly to reexamine the recommendation, committee member Vicky Pebsworth on Thursday cited “pressure from stakeholder groups,” without naming them.

Committee members said the risk of infection for most babies is very low and that earlier research that found the shots were safe for infants was inadequate.

They also worried that in many cases, doctors and nurses don’t have full conversations with parents about the pros and cons of the birth-dose vaccination.

The committee members voiced interest in hearing the input from public health and medical professionals, but chose to ignore the experts’ repeated pleas to leave the recommendations alone.

The committee gives advice to the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on how approved vaccines should be used. CDC directors almost always adopted the committee’s recommendations, which were widely heeded by doctors and guide vaccination programs. But the agency currently has no director, leaving acting director O’Neill to decide.

In June, Kennedy fired the entire 17-member panel earlier this year and replaced it with a group that includes several anti-vaccine voices.

Hepatitis B and delaying birth doses

Hepatitis B is a serious liver infection that, for most people, lasts less than six months. But for some, especially infants and children, it can become a long-lasting problem that can lead to liver failure, liver cancer and scarring called cirrhosis.

In adults, the virus is spread through sex or through sharing needles during injection drug use. But it can also be passed from an infected mother to a baby.

In 1991, the committee recommended an initial dose of hepatitis B vaccine at birth. Experts say quick immunization is crucial to prevent infection from taking root. And, indeed, cases in children have plummeted.

Still, several members of Kennedy’s committee voiced discomfort with vaccinating all newborns. They argued that past safety studies of the vaccine in newborns were limited and it’s possible that larger, long-term studies could uncover a problem with the birth dose.

But two members said they saw no documented evidence of harm from the birth doses and suggested concern was based on speculation.

Three panel members asked about the scientific basis for saying that the first dose could be delayed for two months for many babies.

“This is unconscionable,” said committee member Dr. Joseph Hibbeln, who repeatedly voiced opposition to the proposal during the sometimes-heated two-day meeting.

The committee’s chair, Dr. Kirk Milhoan, said two months was chosen as a point where infants had matured beyond the neonatal stage. Hibbeln countered that there was no data presented that two months is an appropriate cut-off.

Dr. Cody Meissner also questioned a second proposal — which passed 6-4 — that said parents consider talking to pediatricians about blood tests meant to measure whether hep B shots have created protective antibodies.

Such testing is not standard pediatric practice after vaccination. Proponents said it could be a new way to see if fewer shots are adequate.

A CDC hepatitis expert, Adam Langer, said results could vary from child to child and would be an erratic way to assess if fewer doses work. He also noted there’s no good evidence that three shots pose harm to kids.

Meissner attacked the proposal, saying the language “is kind of making things up.”

Health experts say this could ‘make America sicker’

Health experts have noted Kennedy’s hand-picked committee is focused on the pros and cons of shots for the individual getting vaccinated, and has turned away from seeing vaccinations as a way to stop the spread of preventable diseases among the public.

The second proposal “is right at the center of this paradox,” said committee member Dr. Robert Malone.

Some observers criticized the meeting, noting recent changes in how they are conducted. CDC scientists no longer present vaccine safety and effectiveness data to the committee. Instead, people who have been prominent voices in anti-vaccine circles were given those slots.

The committee “is no longer a legitimate scientific body,” said Elizabeth Jacobs, a member of Defend Public Health, an advocacy group of researchers and others that has opposed Trump administration health policies. She described the meeting this week as “an epidemiological crime scene.”

Republican Sen. Bill Cassidy, a liver doctor who chairs the Senate health committee, called the committee’s vote on the hepatitis B vaccine “a mistake.”

“This makes America sicker,” he said, in a post on social media.

The committee heard a 90-minute presentation from Aaron Siri, a lawyer who has worked with Kennedy on vaccine litigation. He ended by saying that he believes there should no ACIP vaccine recommendations at all.

In a lengthy response, Meissner said, “What you have said is a terrible, terrible distortion of all the facts.” He ended by saying Siri should not have been invited.

The meeting’s organizers said they invited Siri as well as a few vaccine researchers — who have been vocal defenders of immunizations — to discuss the vaccine schedule. They named two: Dr. Peter Hotez, who said he declined, and Dr. Paul Offit, who said he didn’t remember being asked but would have declined anyway.

Hotez, of the Texas Children’s Hospital in Houston, declined to present before the group “because ACIP appears to have shifted its mission away from science and evidence-based medicine,” he said in an email to The Associated Press.



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Jamie Dimon on AI: ‘maybe one day we’ll be working less hard but having wonderful lives’

Published

on



JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon reiterated a nuanced and overall upbeat view about the effect of artificial intelligence on the economy.

In an interview with Fox News’ Sunday Morning Futures, the head of the world’s biggest bank acknowledged businesses have been cautious about hiring lately but said it’s not related to AI and doubted that the technology will dramatically reduce jobs in the next year.

“For the most part, AI is going to do great stuff for mankind, like tractors did, like fertilizers did, like vaccines did,” he said. “You know maybe one day we’ll be working less hard but having wonderful lives.”

Dimon added that AI still needs proper regulation to mitigate the downside risks, just like other innovations throughout history.

He also repeated his earlier warning that AI will eliminate jobs, but urged people to focus on uniquely human skills like critical thinking, emotional intelligence, and communication.

If AI sweeps through the economy so quickly that workers can’t adapt to new roles in time, Dimon suggested the public sector and private sector have roles to play.

“We—government and we the companies, society—should look at how do we phase it in a way that we don’t damage a lot of people,” he explained. “We should have done a little bit more on trade assistance years ago when you had a town that got damaged by the closure of a plant. And that you can do: you can retrain people, relocate people, income assistance, early retirement.”

Meanwhile, AI is also creating jobs in the near term as new infrastructure requires more construction and fiber optics, he pointed out.

The comments were his latest on AI in recent months. In November, Dimon predicted AI will help the developed world transition to a shorter workweek of just three and a half days sometime in the next 20-40 years.

And at the Fortune Most Powerful Women Summit in October, he said governments and companies must plan for an AI future to avoid a social backlash.

“It will eliminate jobs. People should stop sticking their heads in the sand,” he warned.



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

This pastor fills up arenas by not sugarcoating the Bible

Published

on



After Atlanta pastor Philip Anthony Mitchell stopped dwelling on growing his congregation about three years ago, its attendance surged. Now, lines packed with young adults snake outside 2819 Church, some arriving as early as 5:30 a.m. to secure a spot for Sunday worship.

Christian rap and contemporary music blast like a block party as volunteers cheer into megaphones for around 6,000 weekly churchgoers — up from less than 200 in 2023, the church reports. Inside the sanctuary, the atmosphere turns serious. Many drawn to 2819’s riveting worship are hungry for Mitchell’s animated intensity and signature preaching: No sugarcoating the Bible.

After spirited prayers and songs leave many crying, Mitchell ambles onstage in his all-black uniform, sometimes in quiet contemplation or tears, before launching into a fiery sermon. His messages, unpolished and laden with challenges to revere God and live better, often spread quickly online. A recent prayer event drew far more people than State Farm Arena could handle, with many flying in.

Crying, shouting, storming across the platform and punching the air, Mitchell preaches with his whole body — and an urgency to bring people to faith before they die or what he calls Jesus’ impending return to Earth.

“It is life or death for me,” Mitchell told The Associated Press, comparing preaching to the front lines of war. “There are souls that are hanging in the balance. … I think about the fact that in that room somebody might hear the Gospel, and that might be their last opportunity.”

The church — whose name references Matthew 28:19, a Bible verse commanding believers to go “make disciples of all the nations” — is nondenominational and theologically conservative, with beliefs opposing abortion and in support of marriage only between a man and a woman.

The congregation’s growth has attracted people of many races and ages, but it’s predominantly young Black adults. Their youth is notable since Americans ages 18 to 24 are less likely than older adults to identify as Christian or attend religious services regularly, according to Pew Research Center.

Sharp sermons and moving worship

Warren Bird, an expert on fast-growing churches, believes the right leader is key to a church’s growth — along with God’s help — and described Mitchell as “speaking a language” that connects with young people who other pastors haven’t reached.

Churchgoers say Mitchell’s message resonates because he carefully walks them through scripture and talks candidly about his spiritual transformation, including his past dealing drugs, paying for abortions and attempting suicide.

“I’m still a little rough around the edges, right? I still got a little hood in me,” said Mitchell, who still speaks with a regional New York accent.

Many at 2819 want more than motivational speeches and say Mitchell’s sermons are counterweights to the feel-good American preaching he criticizes.

“I’m preaching without watering that down, without filtering out things that we think might be too controversial,” said Mitchell, who wants people to mature spiritually and insists they can’t deal with sin and its consequences without Jesus.

“I think that there is a generation that is gravitating towards that authenticity and truth,” he said. “As a result of that, we are seeing lives being radically transformed.”

Christian podcaster Megan Ashley said she brought a friend to 2819 who had stepped away from her faith, and Mitchell had an impact. The friend told Ashley, “When he speaks, I believe him.”

The tougher messages might hurt some people’s feelings, said Donovan Logan, 23.

“But that’s what it’s supposed to do. If you don’t come to church and want to change, then that’s not the church you’re supposed to be going to,” Logan said.

Elijah McCord, 22, said Mitchell’s sermons about sin touch on what’s happening around him in Atlanta, and Mitchell’s story shows that “there’s life in what God has commanded.” He also values Mitchell’s pleadings to wait until marriage to have sex.

“He biblically talks about sin and repentance and how there’s actually hope in the Gospel,” McCord said.

Churchgoers say 2819’s draw goes beyond Mitchell. It’s the entire worship experience.

Passing the dancing greeters, the Sunday crowd enters the dark auditorium. It’s permeated with prayer and bold instrumental music before the service, which 2819 calls a gathering, officially begins, with hands already lifted amid shouts of praise. Tissue boxes sit at the end of aisles, ready to aid those moved to tears.

“The worship is crazy. The Holy Spirit is just there. Like, tangible presence. You feel it!” said Desirae Dominguez, 24.

Mitchell feels ‘ill-equipped’ to lead 2819

Mitchell spent 10 years preaching, racking up unfruitful notes from church growth conferences, and eventually started struggling with depression. During that time, he took a transformative trip to Israel where he said encounters with God and other Christians changed him. Then, in 2023, he changed the church’s name to 2819.

Mitchell, who has spent three years preaching just from the Book of Matthew alone, said God told him to preach without bringing prepared notes onstage. Although he attended Bible college, he sometimes doubts himself because of his past.

“I shed a lot of tears because I feel often ill-equipped, undeserving,” said Mitchell. “I would not have called me if I was God to steward something like this, and sometimes I don’t know why my preaching is reaching (people). … I’m still shocked myself.”

When preparing to preach, “I’m thinking about the brokenness of the people in the room, the troubled marriages, the one who is suicidal. I’m thinking about the young lady who’s battling crippling insecurities and don’t know that she has a father up there that loves her more than any man she’s going to find down here.”

When not preaching, Mitchell’s demeanor is quieter. He and his staff are “here to serve,” he often says.

His large online platform exposes him and sometimes his family to public critique, pushback, and even threats. Some accuse him of self-righteousness or say he’s too harsh. He also issued a public apology earlier this year for comments in a sermon about obeying authority that were seen as dismissive of police brutality.

At times, he says he is deeply affected by criticism and said he repents for some of what critics decried. But Mitchell also finds solace in better understanding Jesus by enduring it.

Staff constantly adjusts for growth

The church recently moved into its own building, having outgrown the charter school where they held the services, and added a third one. On the first two Sundays at the new location, they added an impromptu fourth gathering because so many people came.

The staff faced similar conundrums at Access, the church’s October prayer event that drew an estimated 40,000 people. State Farm Arena was filled to capacity, as was an overflow space in a nearby convention center, leaving thousands outside, the church reported.

“We’re constantly tinkering. We’re constantly fixing things,” said Tatjuana Phillips, 2819’s ministries director.

Logistical challenges, such as packed parking lots and swamped staff, are common at fast-growing churches, said Bird, the church growth expert.

Despite its size, the church encourages community through its small groups, called “squads,” that give about 1,700 people a place to discuss sermons and support each other’s personal growth. Staff also engage with about 75,000 people weekly who watch gatherings online.

The long lines also yield friendships. Ashley Grimes, 35, said that’s where she’s “met so many brothers and sisters in Christ that I now get to do life with.”

Many of those new friends can be found shuffling into the church’s auditorium on Sundays while volunteers, called servant leaders, pray over each seat before Mitchell preaches.

On a recent Sunday, Mitchell told the crowd that they can turn to Jesus regardless of what they’ve done. It worked for him. God, he said, “used failure to transform my life.”



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © Miami Select.