ICEs occupation in Minnesota has lasted weeks, and until a couple of days ago, the states major corporations, quick to issue statements in wake of George Floyds shooting in 2020, had been largely silent. When Fast Company reached out to several heavy hitters in mid-January, including Target and Best Buy, there was no response.
Finally, on Sunday, 60 of the states major business leaders put out a response calling for “de-escalation.” But the statement has been criticized on social media and beyond, with some calling it spineless. It came over two weeks since federal agents fatally shot U.S. citizen Renee Good, and a day after federal agents also fatally shot U.S. citizen Alex Pretti.
For weeks, the Twin Cities have been awash in chaos and fear as ICE raids streets, shops, and schools, profoundly disrupting daily life, as well as economic activity. Roughly 80% of immigrant-owned businesses along main streets have closed, while restaurants and health care centers in some of the surrounding suburbs have had to cut hours because employees are afraid to come to work. Last Friday, there was an economic blackout as hundreds of businesses closed and over 75,000 protesters marched.
Given the loss of life and constant turmoil, it’s puzzling why Minnesotas business leaders were quiet for so long. For insight, Fast Company talked to Bill George, lecturer at Harvard Business School and former CEO of Medtronic, one of the worlds biggest medical tech companies, whose operations are based in Minneapolis.
This interview was conducted over two days and has been edited for length and clarity.
Fast Company: What do you think of the statement that businesses finally released?
Well, I think the statement itself is very significant. If you worked in a large company, you can’t believe how difficult it is to get not just one but 60 CEOs from a wide range of businesses to [do the same thing]. These people are very cautious about signing on anyone else’s statements. There are those that thought it didn’t go far enough.
But as Marshall McLuhan once said “the medium is the message.” I dont see CEOs or companies that were left off. So I think having all of them sign on may have taken a while, but it’s significant.
And I’d go further. Let me just say: I hope this will be the tipping point, and the businesses are sending a powerful signal to the White House that they are being harmed by this. No doubt it’s causing a loss of productivity and lots of issues. I hope this will be the turning point that will cause the White House to move on.
We did hear a huge outpouring of support after George Floyds death. What was different this time around?
They want to stay out of the news, and many of them feel they can work behind the scenes to get what they want. You see some of the deals that have been cut with Nvidia and Intel and Apple and others. But I think most companies don’t have that kind of access.
Its a different time than it was with George Floyd. And I think there is a very strong point of view that we should work behind the scenes and not do anything to provoke anyone in the governmentnot just the president, but any of the members of [Trumps] administrative team. The companies have to let ICE do their job, whether they like it or notbut I think that their employees need to know they have their support.
The public letter from the business leaders has gotten criticism on social media for not going far enough.
Well, the governor and the attorney general, who I’ve spoken with, are being investigated. So I don’t think any of these CEOs want to get between their interests and ICE or the federal government.
These CEOs are not very political. None of them are extreme left or extreme right. You might say that they’re slightly to the right center, but they’re quite independent in how they vote. Their primary concern is to run their business and stay out of politics.
How did Alex Prettis death trigger the timing of the statement?
This didn’t just get thrown together. These things don’t happen easily, sure; particularly when a lot of other companies are involved. Its hard enough to get a statement out of one company, much less 60. But I think these things are all having an impact: the protests in Minneapolis, [Prettis] death, the concern to people’s business, the fact that Minnesota companies are highly dependent upon being able to recruit people from all around the United States and all around the world.
What if the statement is not enough to get the administration to move on?
I’m not sure. I think it’s continuing discussions behind the scenes.
And what kind of leverage do the companies have behind the scenes?
I don’t think a lot. These are not companies that are making big promises that you’ve seen very publicly for the last year that I’m aware of, but people care about these businesses. The president himself is a businessman, and will recognize that.
One other thought is: what is the goal here? We have very few illegal immigrants in Minnesota. I can assure you, the companies on that list do not hire illegal immigrants. They hire immigrants. For example, at the Mayo Clinic, several of the physicians, including a CEO, were born outside the U.S. Thats great. Its great for the Mayo Clinic. Its great for Minnesota. If you were really looking for illegal immigrants, why wouldn’t you go to Florida, Arizona, or Texas?
What do the companies want?
They want to restore calm, and I’m sure they would like to see this all get settled. They’re hoping to get a peaceful situation and not provoke greater confrontation. They certainly don’t want to have the United States military sent in. They certainly don’t want to see martial law declared for Minnesota.
Whats the long-term impact of this corporate silence going to be on employees?
Employees are going to feel very disappointed, and they may feel a lack of loyalty to the company.
As a CEO, you have to keep innovation going. And to do that, youve got to attract people from all over the country and all over the world to come to Minnesota. From a longer term perspective, this could scare off people from coming. As a CEO, Id want to make sure people know we’ve got their backs, and we will provide the support they need.
If you have ever lifted a weight, you know the routine: challenge the muscle, give it rest, feed it, and repeat. Over time, it grows stronger.
Of course, muscles only grow when the challenge increases over time. Continually lifting the same weight the same way stops working.
It might come as a surprise to learn that the brain responds to training in much the same way as our muscles, even though most of us never think about it that way. Clear thinking, focus, creativity, and good judgment are built through challenge, when the brain is asked to stretch beyond routine rather than run on autopilot. That slight mental discomfort is often the sign that the brain is actually being trained, a lot like that good workout burn in your muscles.
Think about walking the same loop through a local park every day. At first, your senses are alert. You notice the hills, the trees, the changing light. But after a few loops, your brain checks out. You start planning dinner, replaying emails, or running through your to-do list. The walk still feels good, but your brain is no longer being challenged.
Routine feels comfortable, but comfort and familiarity alone do not build new brain connections.
As a neurologist who studies brain activity, I use electroencephalograms, or EEGs, to record the brains electrical patterns.
Research in humans shows that these rhythms are remarkably dynamic. When someone learns a new skill, EEG rhythms often become more organized and coordinated. This reflects the brains attempt to strengthen pathways needed for that skill.
Your brain trains in zones too
For decades, scientists believed that the brains ability to grow and reorganize, called neuroplasticity, was largely limited to childhood. Once the brain matured, its wiring was thought to be largely fixed.
But that idea has been overturned. Decades of research show that adult brains can form new connections and reorganize existing networks, under the right conditions, throughout life.
Some of the most influential work in this field comes from enriched environment studies in animals. Rats housed in stimulating environments filled with toys, running wheels, and social interaction developed larger, more complex brains than rats kept in standard cages. Their brains adapted because they were regularly exposed to novelty and challenge.
Human studies find similar results. Adults who take on genuinely new challenges, such as learning a language, dancing, or practicing a musical instrument, show measurable increases in brain volume and connectivity on MRI scans.
The takeaway is simple: Repetition keeps the brain running, but novelty pushes the brain to adapt, forcing it to pay attention, learn, and problem-solve in new ways. Neuroplasticity thrives when the brain is nudged just beyond its comfort zone.
The reality of neural fatigue
Just like muscles, the brain has limits. It does not get stronger from endless strain. Real growth comes from the right balance of challenge and recovery.
When the brain is pushed for too long without a breakwhether that means long work hours, staying locked onto the same task, or making nonstop decisions under pressureperformance starts to slip. Focus fades. Mistakes increase. To keep you going, the brain shifts how different regions work together, asking some areas to carry more of the load. But that extra effort can still make the whole network run less smoothly.
Neural fatigue is more than feeling tired. Brain imaging studies show that during prolonged mental work, the networks responsible for attention and decision-making begin to slow down, while regions that promote rest and reward-seeking take over. This shift helps explain why mental exhaustion often comes with stronger cravings for quick rewards, like sugary snacks, comfort foods, or mindless scrolling. The result is familiar: slower thinking, more mistakes, irritability, and mental fog.
This is where the muscle analogy becomes especially useful. You wouldnt do squats for six hours straight, because your leg muscles would eventually give out. As they work, they build up byproducts that make each contraction a little less effective until you finally have to stop. Your brain behaves in a similar way.
Likewise, in the brain, when the same cognitive circuits are overused, chemical signals build up, communication slows, and learning stalls.
But rest allows those strained circuits to reset and function more smoothly over time. And taking breaks from a taxing activity does not interrupt learning. In fact, breaks are critical for efficient learning.
The crucial importance of rest
Among all forms of rest, sleep is the most powerful.
Sleep is the brains night shift. While you rest, the brain takes out the trash through a special cleanup system called the glymphatic system that clears away waste and harmful proteins. Sleep also restores glycogen, a critical fuel source for brain cells.
And importantly, sleep is when essential repair work happens. Growth hormone surges during deep sleep, supporting tissue repair. Immune cells regroup and strengthen their activity.
During REM sleep, the stage of sleep linked to dreaming, the brain replays patterns from the day to consolidate memories. This process is critical not only for cognitive skills like learning an instrument but also for physical skills like mastering a move in sports.
On the other hand, chronic sleep deprivation impairs attention, disrupts decision-making and alters the hormones that regulate appetite and metabolism. This is why fatigue drives sugar cravings and late-night snacking.
Sleep is not an optional wellness practice. It is a biological requirement for brain performance.
Exercise feeds the brain too
Exercise strengthens the brain as well as the body.
Physical activity increases levels of brain-derived neurotrophic factor, or BDNF, a protein that acts like fertilizer for neurons. It promotes the growth of new connections, increases blood flow, reduces inflammation, and helps the brain remain adaptable across ones lifespan.
This is why exercise is one of the strongest lifestyle tools for protecting cognitive health.
Train, recover, repeat
The most important lesson from this science is simple. Your brain is not passively wearing down with age. It is constantly remodeling itself in response to how you use it. Every new challenge and skill you try, every real break, every good night of sleep sends a signal that growth is still expected.
You do not need expensive brain training programs or radical lifestyle changes. Small, consistent habits matter more. Try something unfamiliar. Vary your routines. Take breaks before exhaustion sets in. Move your body. Treat sleep as nonnegotiable.
So the next time you lace up your shoes for a familiar walk, consider taking a different path. The scenery may change only slightly, but your brain will notice. That small detour is often all it takes to turn routine into training.
The brain stays adaptable throughout life. Cognitive resilience is not fixed at birth or locked in early adulthood. It is something you can shape.
If you want a sharper, more creative, more resilient brain, you do not need to wait for a breakthrough drug or a perfect moment. You can start now, with choices that tell your brain that growth is still the plan.
Joanna Fong-Isariyawongse is an associate professor of neurology at the University of Pittsburgh.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
The oil tycoon J. Paul Getty was rumoured to have said that his three rules for how to become rich were: Rise early. Work hard. Strike oil. Its one of those eminently quotable remarks because it captures something we all know to be true, that luck and chance have as much to do with success as anything else.
Yet we dont value people for their luck. We dont exalt those who win the lottery or walk away from a roulette table flush with cash. Instead, we praise talent, skill, and dedication. And that creates tension, because although luck plays a big role in outcomes, it is only the effort we put into developing our abilities that we can control.
That is the nature of what the French writer Albert Camus called existential rebellion. It is through our own efforts and actions that we find meaning in an indifferent universe, even if the rewards for those efforts have a significant random element. Believing in luck, then, is itself an act of defiance. To work, to strive, to build skill in such a world is not naveté but rebellion.
How Einstein became an icon
Although we remember him as an icon today, for a long time, Albert Einstein wasnt very popular, or even well liked, in the early twentieth century. He was German in the wake of World War I, Jewish in an age of heightened anti-Semitism, and so seemingly aloof and full of himself that he claimed that only a handful of people on earth could understand his strange theories.
That abruptly changed when Einstein first arrived in America on April 3rd, 1921 and a handful of journalists dutifully went to meet him. When they arrived at New York Harbor, they were amazed to find a crowd of thousands waiting for him, screaming with adulation and waving handkerchiefs. Surprised at his popularity, and charmed by his genial, off-kilter personality, the story of Einsteins arrival made the front page in major newspapers.
It was all a bit of a mistake. The people in the crowd werent there to see Einstein, but Chaim Weizmann, the popular Zionist leader that Einstein was traveling with to raise funds for Hebrew University (and who the WASPy science reporters didnt recognize). Nevertheless, thats how Einstein gained his iconic status, which would overshadow the other great lights, such as Bohr, Heisenberg and Schrödinger, in the golden age of physics.
From there, the Matthew effect (or what network scientists call preferential attachment) took over. Because Einstein was now so well-known, newspapers wanted to report about him and ask him about the other scientific breakthroughs of the day. Just as the rich get richer, the popular get more popular. Einstein became more than a scientist, but a cultural touchstone.
Yet Einstein didnt study physics for fame. In fact, it was his failure to follow convention that mired his early career in misery, unemployment, and poverty. And, although his groundbreaking work was behind him when he entered New York Harbor, he continued to work on physics until his death in 1955, long after he had become, as Robert J Oppenheimer put it, a landmark, not a beacon.
The Wunderkind almost lost to history
On a January morning in 1913, the eminent mathematician G.H. Hardy opened his mail to find a letter written in an almost indecipherable scrawl. It began inauspiciously:
I beg to introduce myself to you as a clerk in the Accounts Department of the Port Trust Office at Madras on a salary of 20 per annum. I am now about 23 years of age. I have had no university education but I have undergone the ordinary school. I have been employing the spare time at my disposal to work at Mathematics.
Inside, he found what looked like mathematical nonsense, using strange notation and purporting theories that scarcely seemed possible. Much of it was incomprehensible, except for one small section that directly refuted a conjecture Hardy himself had made just months earlier. Assuming it was some sort of elaborate prank, he threw the letter in the trash.
Throughout the day, however, Hardy found the ideas gnawing at him and he retrieved the letter. That night, he took it over to his longtime collaborator, J.E. Littlewood. By midnight, they realized that they had just stumbled upon one of the greatest mathematical talents the world had ever seen: a destitute young man in India named Srinivasa Ramanujan.
Living in extreme poverty and largely self-taught, Ramanujan had come across an advanced text as a teenager, devoured it, and began filling notebooks with theorems and proofs. He showed his work to local mathematicians, but no one quite knew what to make of it. With the help of friends, Ramanujan sent letters to three prominent professors at Cambridge. The first two ignored him. Hardy was the third.
It is doubtful that Ramanujan was the first aspiring mathematician to send his work to famous professors. Most, like his first two letters, were lost to history. But Ramanujan gave it a shot, got a little lucky, and were all better off for it. Even now, more than a century later, his notebooks continue to be widely studied by mathematicians looking to glean new insights.
Hardy, a genius by any measure, was one of the most important mathematicians of his time. But when asked to name his greatest discovery he replied, without hesitation, Ramanujan.
The miracle cure we almost missed
In 1891, Dr. William Coley had an unusual idea. Inspired by an obscure case in which a man who had contracted a severe infection was cured of cancer, he deliberately infected a tumor on his patients neck with a heavy dose of bacteria. Miraculously, the tumor vanished, and the patient remained cancer-free even five years later.
Looking to repeat his success, he created a special brew of toxins designed to jump-start the immune system. Unfortunately, he was never able to replicate his initial results consistently. His idea was met with skepticism by the medical community ad, when radiation therapy was developed in the early twentieth century, Coleys research was largely forgotten.
Dr. William Coley was unlucky.
Yet his daughter, Helen Coley Nauts, refused to let the idea die. With a $2,000 grant from Nelson Rockefeller, she founded the Cancer Research Institute in 1953 to study immunological approaches to cancer. While mostly dismissed by the medical community, it did inspire a small cadre of devotees to keep looking, albeit mostly in vain.
A little luck came in 1996, when a researcher named Jim Allison, following a hunch, published a landmark paper suggesting that there may be some merit to Coleys idea after all. Using a novel approach, he was able to show amazing results in mice. The tumors just melted away, Jim would later tell me.
Excited, he rushed to pharmaceutical companies, hoping to secure funding. Instead, he was turned away. Drugmakers had already investedand lostbillions on similar ideas. Hundreds of trials had failed. It was depressing, Jim recalled. I knew this discovery could make a difference, but nobody wanted to invest in it.
Nonetheless, he persevered. He collected more data, pounded the pavement, and made his case. It took him three years, but eventually he found a small biotech company, Medarex, that agreed to back him and his work. The drug that resulted would open the floodgates and make cancer immunotherapy a viable treatment. Jim would win the Nobel Prize in 2018.
Becoming an existential rebel
Camus believed our existence was absurd. He compared the human condition to Sisyphus, the mythical Greek king condemned to roll a boulder uphill, only to watch it roll back down again, for eternity. Incredibly, Camus imagines Sisyphus, returning to his labors at the foot of the mountain, as happy, having found meaning in his task.
That is the nature of existential rebellion: to create meaning for yourself in a universe that provides none. In two decades researching innovation, transformation, and change, one constant I have found is that you cant control your luck. Anything can happen. Sure things often fail while low-probability events occur all the time.
We can easily imagine a world in which Einstein remained a clerk in a patent office, doing physics in his spare time; Ramanujan died an anonymous pauper, his genius never recognized; and William Coleys vision of a revolutionary cancer cure remained a pipe dream. But each persevered against an indifferent universe, and were all better off for it.
We cant control our luck, but we can decide for ourselves how we seek meaning. Einstein spent the final decades of his life in Princeton, NJ, working on theories that would never pan out. On his deathbed, Ramanujan defined a new class of mathematical function and the number that bears his name. Dr. Coley, now recognized as the father of cancer immunotherapy, died surrounded by his loving family who were dedicated to his legacy.
And, like Sisyphus, we can imagine each of them happy, and maybe hoping for a little luck.
President Donald Trump has strong-armed many of Americas biggest trading partners into pledging trillions of dollars of investment in the United States. But a study out Tuesday raises doubts about whether the money will actually materialize and questions how it would be spent if it did.
How realistic are these commitments? write Gregory Auclair and Adnan Mazarei of the Peterson Institute for International Economics, a nonpartisan think tank that supports free trade. The short answer is that they are clouded with uncertainty.
They looked at more than $5 trillion in investment commitments made last year by the European Union, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Switzerland, Liechtenstein and the Persian Gulf states of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates.
Trump used the threat of punitive tariffsimport taxesto pry concessions out of those trading partners, including the investment pledges.
The White House has published an even higher investment figure – $9.6 trillionthat includes public and private investment commitments from other countries. Trump himself, never one to undersell his achievements, has put the number far higher$17 trillion or $18 trillionthough Auclair and Mazarei note that the basis for his claim is not clear.
All the numbers are huge. Total private investment in the United States was most recently running at a $5.4 trillion annual pace. In 2024, the last year for which figures are available, total foreign direct investment in the United States amounted to $151 billion. Direct investment includes money sunk into such things as factories and offices but not financial investments like stocks and bonds.
The pledged amounts are large, Auclair and Mazarei write, but their time horizon varies, and the metrics for measuring and thus verifying the pledges are generally unclear. They note, for example, that the European Unions pledge to invest $600 billion in the United States carries no legally binding commitment.
The report also finds that some countries would strain to meet their pledges. For the Gulf countries, the commitments are large relative to their financial resources, the researchers write.
Saudi Arabia appears capable of meeting its targets, with some difficulty. The United Arab Emirates and Qatar would find it even harder and might have to finance the investments by borrowing. In all three cases, the commitments are nonbinding, and investments from these countries could fall well below headline numbers, they write.
Moreover, these agreements have been reached under duress, Mazarei, a former deputy director of the International Monetary Fund, said in an interview. Its not necessarily being done willingly.
So trading partners could look for ways to escape their commitmentsespecially if the Supreme Court strikes down the tariffs Trump used to negotiate the one-sided agreements. A ruling is expected as early as February. Other countries may find a way to wiggle out, Mazarei said.
Still, the Trump administration can turn to alternative tariffs if the justices rule the current tariffs illegal.
President Trump agreed to lower tariffs on countries we have trade deals with in exchange for investment commitments and other concessions,” White House spokesman Kush Desai said. The president reserves the right to revisit tariff rates if other countries renege on their commitments, and anyone who doubts President Trumps willingness to put his money where his mouth is should ask Nicolas Maduro and Iran for their thoughts.
U.S. troops overthrew and arrested Venezuelan President Maduro early this month, and Trump ordered the United States to join Israel in bombing Iran last year.
Auclair and Mazarei agree that the investment Trump lands could end up creating jobs, spurring economic growth, and making supply chains more secure by bringing production to America.
Trump, they note, is in some ways taking a similar approach to Biden, using government industrial policy” to encourage more manufacturing in the United States.
But Biden tapped taxpayer dollars to finance infrastructure projects and incentives for companies to invest in green technology and semiconductors. Trump is using the tariff threat to get foreign countriesand their companiesto pick up the tab. And he has dropped the push to encourage clean energy, focusing instead on promoting fossil fuels.
In their report, the Peterson researchers worry about how the investment decisions would get made and whether they would reflect sound economics. This approach may yield real investments and jobs, they write, but it raises familiar industrial policy concerns: opaque projection selection, weak accountability, and the risk that political criteria crowd out economic efficiency.
Paul Wiseman, AP economics writer
The greatest financial danger in retirement isn’t always the stock market. It’s the constant, nagging fear of running out of money. This anxiety causes many people to underspend and worry, even when their finances are sound.Here are eight ways to replace that worry with lasting security.
Determine your spending baselineWorry often starts with the vague question, “Am I spending too much?”Instead of operating on gut feeling, work with an advisor to determine your personal sustainable withdrawal rate (often between 3% and 5%). Once you know your lifestyle is covered by a responsible withdrawal rate, you can stop guessing and start living confidently.
Make adjustments when neededMany retirees treat their spending plan like an all-or-nothing system. This rigidity creates panic during market downturns.Instead, adopt a dynamic spending strategy. Slightly reduce or delay discretionary spending in poor market years. By reducing your withdrawal rate by just 10% when your portfolio is down, you dramatically reduce the risk of permanent capital depletion, allowing the assets time to recover.
Realize your spending will naturally declineThe high level of discretionary spending you need at age 65 will likely not be the same at age 85, especially once you have long-term care coverage (see No. 7).Expenses for travel, hobbies, dining out, and maintaining multiple homes typically decrease as you age. Knowing that your major risk (long-term care) is insured, you can trust that your remaining costs will naturally ease over the next two decades. Your money is working harder when you’re younger and enjoying it most, and your needs will taper off as your capital naturally draws down.
Create a recession buffer (the ‘anti-panic’ fund)The greatest tactical threat to longevity is experiencing a large market crash early in retirement and having to sell depressed assets to pay for basics such as groceries. To protect yourself, maintain a six- to 12-month cash cushion outside of the market.This “recession buffer” allows your growth assets (equities) to sit untouched and recover during a market downturn, preventing you from locking in losses. This separation between your living money and your long-term growth money is the most direct way to eliminate panic during volatility.
Buy out the risk of surprise taxesFuture, unknown tax rates and large required minimum distributions from traditional retirement accounts are a major source of financial uncertainty.What can you do? Eliminate the tax uncertainty by creating a tax-free bucket.By using targeted Roth conversionsusing up lower tax brackets to recharacterize traditional IRAsyou ensure a significant portion of your savings is shielded from all future tax increases. Having a large tax-free account gives you maximum flexibility to control your taxable income every year, protecting you from future legislation and eliminating the anxiety of surprise tax bills.
Anchor your essentials with guaranteed incomeRetirement is worry-free when your core, non-negotiable needs (housing, food, utilities) are covered by income sources shielded from market volatility.Social Security is your primary source of inflation-adjusted, government-backed income. While claiming at full retirement age is a safe minimum, aiming to delay Social Security until age 70 maximizes your lifetime benefit.If a gap exists between your guaranteed income and your essential expenses, you can buy a single premium immediate annuity. This annuity converts a lump sum of savings into an unbreakable income stream throughout your lifetime, closing the gap and securing your basic lifestyle.
Buy protection against catastrophic care costsLong-term care is the single largest threat to a lifetime of savings. Getting a quality long-term care insurance policy protects your nest egg from being wiped out by nursing home or in-home care costs. Once that risk is contained, you no longer need to worry about a seven-figure expense appearing unexpectedly.
Use home equity as your ultimate backstopHome equity is your parachute, a huge, flexible reserve.In an extreme situationsuch as severe market crashes or unforeseen emergenciesaccessing this capital through a reverse mortgage, a line of credit, or eventually downsizing and selling provides an unparalleled safety net, allowing you to invest your remaining liquid portfolio with more confidence.You are now equipped with multiple strategies to build financial security. Feel better?
This article was provided to The Associated Press by Morningstar. For more personal finance content, go to https://www.morningstar.com/retirement.Sheryl Rowling, CPA, is an editorial director, financial advisor for Morningstar.Related Links
3 Big Changes for Retirement Planning in 2026https://www.morningstar.com/retirement/3-big-changes-retirement-planning-2026
The State of Retirement Income for 2026https://www.morningstar.com/business/insights/research/the-state-of-retirement-income
A Hidden Trend Is Changing 401(k) Plans. Here’s What It Means for Investorshttps://www.morningstar.com/funds/hidden-trend-is-changing-401k-plans-heres-what-it-means-investors
Sheryl Rowling of Morningstar
It’s more obvious than ever why recording encounters with federal agents matters: without bystander videos, it would be much harder to disprove the governments Orwellian lies about how Alex Pretti was killed last Saturday.
But there are also risks when you pull out your phone to take a video at a protest or if you see an ICE agent abducting, say, a 5-year-old child. Heres what to know about how to protect your technology and yourself.
The First Amendment gives you a right to record
It’s really important to start with the fact that individuals have a First Amendment right to record police officers and law enforcement, says Maria Villegas Bravo, counsel at the nonprofit Electronic Privacy Information Center. If you’re lawfully allowed to be somewhere, you are legally allowed to record law enforcement in the course of their duty.
Some ICE agents seem to have missed that in their training. A recent video from Maine shows an agent telling a legal observer that now she’s considered a “domestic terrorist” for filming him. Then he took a photo of her license plate and told her that she would be added to a database. Federal agents have targeted people taking photos at protests, including a professional photographer who was tackled and pepper-sprayed and tossed his camera to another photographer to save it.
Everyone has to judge the risks for themselves, but the more people who record, the harder it is for authorities to erase what actually happened.
Minneapolis, January 11, 2026. [Photo: Victor J. Blue/Bloomberg/Getty Images]
Consider leaving your phone at home
Your phone is obviously filled with data about younot just all of your photos and messages and apps, but location data for everywhere you’ve been. Google, for example, “can track you really granularly,” says Villegas Bravo. “Their location tracking can get you within three meters and it can also pinpoint what floor of a building that you’re on.”
If you’re arrested and your phone is confiscated, law enforcement needs a warrant before it can legally look at the contents. But after there’s a warrant, forensic extraction technology can make a complete copy of your phone’s contents, Villegas Bravo says. Then agents can search through it, either manually or with AI.
If you’re going to a protest, consider leaving your phone at home (leave your smartwatch and other digital devices at home, too). “You can’t have data extracted from a phone that you don’t have on you,” says Bill Budington, a senior staff technologist at the Electronic Frontier Foundation. “Bringing a secondary device, one that can capture footage in high quality, for instance, is a good suggestion.”
Consider bringing a burner phone to take video. An old-school digital camera with no internet connection could also be an option. (In theory, you could quickly pop an SD card out of a camera if you think the camera’s about to be taken away.) There are trade-offs with different choices: a camera doesn’t give you the option to upload a video after taking it, and the videos and photos can’t be encrypted like they could be on a phone.
Burner phones can also have trade-offs, since you probably won’t have a new model with the best security and updates. “There’s an arms race of forensic extraction devices versus the Apples and device manufacturers in the world that are trying to protect against [extraction],” Budington says, and the newest phones have the most protection. But you should have little data on a burner to steal.
To avoid being targeted for filming, some observers are using less obvious technology, like smart glasses or very tiny cameras. One downside: they’re often expensive. The data isn’t always secure; small cameras may have an SD card and lack encryption. Some smart glasses and cameras can stream to a phone in your pocket, so the video will be as secure as the phone is.
Make your phone more secure
Of course, you might not have the chance to plan in advance if you suddenly need to document something happening in your neighborhood. Or you may decide to take the risk of bringing it to a demonstration. In either case, it’s possible to take steps to make your phone more secure.
First, change your settings so that your phone can’t be unlocked with biometrics like your fingerprint or facial recognition. Right now, courts have said that law enforcement can force you to unlock your phone this way. Traditional passcodes have more protection.
Keep your phone locked. You can access your camera without unlocking the phone; on an iPhone, for example, just swipe left from the home screen. You can also temporarily change the settings on your phone so it’s only possible to access one app. (On an iPhone, this is called guided access; on Android devices, you can turn on “app pinning” in your settings.)
Make sure that your phone is encrypted. On an iPhone, check under the settings for Face ID and password to make sure that it says data protection is enabled. On Android phones, look under security settings for encryption and encrypt your phone. Android phones also have the option to add the Graphene operating system, which is designed to make the devices more secure.
To stop your phone from tracking you, turn off location services and keep it in airplane mode. And when you text friends about anything sensitive, it’s better to use an app like Signal with end-to-end encryption.
Minneapolis, January 13, 2026. [Photo: Octavio Jones/AFP/Getty Images]
Sharing videos
When you share videos, consider the privacy of others. Immigration nonprofits don’t recommend livestreaming immigrants’ encounters with ICE. If you upload a video after a protest, the best practice is to blur out the faces of fellow protesters. Law enforcement agencies sometimes use facial recognition on images to arrest protesters after the fact.
The ACLU previously offered an app called Mobile Justice that automatically uploaded videos of encounters with law enforcement in real time, but took the app down last year, citing that it wanted to “ensure compliance with a growing number of consumer privacy laws and the ACLUs own privacy policies.” While it’s possible to upload a video to store it in the cloud yourself while you’re at an eventas a backup in case your phone is confiscated or damaged in a scuffleit may be difficult if there’s a crowd and limited bandwidth. The best option may be to make your phone as secure as possible.
Despite the challenges, it’s critical to get the footage. “This is a really dangerous time,” says Villegas Bravo. “And I think it’s really important to continue recording law enforcement and creating this chain of evidence to keep the government transparent and accountable.”
French lawmakers approved a bill banning social media for children under 15, paving the way for the measure to enter into force at the start of the next school year in September, as the idea of setting a minimum age for use of the platforms gains momentum across Europe.The bill, which also bans the use of mobile phones in high schools, was adopted by a 130-21 vote late Monday. French President Emmanuel Macron has requested that the legislation be fast-tracked and it will now be discussed by the Senate in the coming weeks.“Banning social media for those under 15: this is what scientists recommend, and this is what the French people are overwhelmingly calling for,” Macron said after the vote. “Because our children’s brains are not for sale neither to American platforms nor to Chinese networks. Because their dreams must not be dictated by algorithms.”The issue is one of the very few in a divided National Assembly to attract such broad support, despite critics from the hard left denouncing provisions of the bill as infringement on civil liberties. Weakened domestically since his decision to dissolve parliament plunged France into a prolonged political crisis, Macron has strongly supported the ban, which could become one of the final major measures adopted under his leadership before he leaves office next year.The French government had previously passed a law banning phone use in all primary and middle schools.The vote in the assembly came just days after the British government said it will consider banning young teenagers from social media as it tightens laws designed to protect children from harmful content and excessive screen time.The French bill has been devised to be compliant with the European Union’s Digital Services Act, which imposes a set of strict requirements designed to keep internet users safe online. In November, European lawmakers called for action at EU level to protect minors online, including a bloc-wide minimum age of 16 and bans on the most harmful practices.According to France’s health watchdog, one in two teenagers spends between two and five hours a day on a smartphone. In a report published in December, it said that some 90% of children aged between 12 and 17 use smartphones daily to access the internet, with 58% of them using their devices for social networks.The report highlighted a range of harmful effects stemming from the use of social networks, including reduced self-esteem and increased exposure to content associated with risky behaviors such as self-harm, drug use and suicide. Several families in France have sued TikTok over teen suicides they say are linked to harmful content.The French ban won’t cover online encyclopedias, educational or scientific directories, or platforms for the development and sharing of open-source software.In Australia, social media companies have revoked access to about 4.7 million accounts identified as belonging to children since the country banned use of the platforms by those under 16, officials said. The law provoked fraught debates in Australia about technology use, privacy, child safety and mental health and has prompted other countries to consider similar measures.
Samuel Petrequin, Associated Press
Nike isnt the only household corporate name to announce significant layoffs this week. Just a day after the sporting goods giant announced layoffs, citing a further embrace of automation, social media giant Pinterest has announced it will cut jobs. The driving factor here? Artificial intelligence.
Heres what you need to know about the Pinterest layoffs.
Whats happened?
On Tuesday, the image-sharing social media platform Pinterest announced it plans to lay off around 15% of its workforce. The company made the announcement in a Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).
In that filing, Pinterest said that its board of directors had approved a global restructuring plan for the company. As part of that plan, Pinterest will pare its workforce back by less than 15%. In addition, the company will also reduce its office space.
When reached for comment, Pinterest told Fast Company that it had around 5,200 employees as of December 2025. A 15% reduction then would result in approximately 780 jobs being lost. The company says the restructuring charges resulting from its plans will cost the company between $35 million and $45 million.
Pinterest said that its restructuring plan is expected to be completed by the end of its third quarter, which finishes on September 30. It is unknown whether the layoffs will take place immediately or be spread over the period from now until September.
Why is Pinterest cutting jobs?
When reached for comment, a Pinterest spokesperson told Fast Company that it was making organizational changes to further deliver on our AI-forward strategy, which includes hiring AI-proficient talent. As a result, weve made the difficult decision to say goodbye to some of our team members.
In its Form 8-K, the company elaborated on the AI shift that is occurring with the layoffs, stating that it plans to reallocate resources to AI-focused roles and teams that drive AI adoption and execution while prioritizing AIpowered products and capabilities.
While Pinterest boasts 600 million monthly active users, that number is well below the billions its main competitor, Meta, has across Facebook and Instagram, as well as TikTok. Users now use all four platforms for shopping to some degree, making them all attractive to advertisers.
However, while Facebook and TikTok wasted no time embracing AI to improve their user experience and the tools and technologies powering their ad business, Pinterest has been slower to adopt AI. Yet that began to change significantly last year with the rollout of its AI chatbot, Pinterest Assistant, which lets users get personalized style and shopping recommendations.
With todays announcements, Pinterest is clearly signaling that it plans to accelerate its AI adoption going forward.
How has Pinterests stock price reacted?
Pinterest, Inc. shares (NYSE: PINS) are currently down heavily in early-morning trading. As of the time of this writing, PINS shares have fallen over 8.5% since the market opened, to $23.68.
Todays fall means PINS stock is now negative around 8.2% for the year so far. Over the past 12 months, Pinterest shares have fallen by over 29%.
In its Q3 2025 earnings report in November, Pinterest reported 17% year-over-year earnings growth of just over $1 billion.
Prominent Republicans and gun rights advocates helped elicit a White House turnabout this week after bristling over the administration’s characterization of Alex Pretti, the second person killed this month by a federal officer in Minneapolis, as responsible for his own death because he lawfully possessed a weapon.The death produced no clear shifts in U.S. gun politics or policies, even as President Donald Trump shuffles the lieutenants in charge of his militarized immigration crackdown. But important voices in Trump’s coalition have called for a thorough investigation of Pretti’s death while also criticizing inconsistencies in some Republicans’ Second Amendment stances.If the dynamic persists, it could give Republicans problems as Trump heads into a midterm election year with voters already growing skeptical of his overall immigration approach. The concern is acute enough that Trump’s top spokeswoman sought Monday to reassert his brand as a staunch gun rights supporter.“The president supports the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding American citizens, absolutely,” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters.Leavitt qualified that “when you are bearing arms and confronted by law enforcement, you are raising the risk of force being used against you.”
Videos contradict early statements from administration
That still marked a retreat from the administration’s previous messages about the shooting of Pretti. It came the same day the president dispatched border czar Tom Homan to Minnesota, seemingly elevating him over Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and Border Patrol chief Greg Bovino, who had been in charge in Minneapolis.Within hours of Pretti’s death on Saturday, Bovino suggested Pretti “wanted to massacre law enforcement,” and Noem said Pretti was “brandishing” a weapon and acted “violently” toward officers.“I don’t know of any peaceful protester that shows up with a gun and ammunition rather than a sign,” Noem said.White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller, an architect of Trump’s mass deportation effort, went further on X, declaring Pretti “an assassin.”Bystander videos contradicted each claim, instead showing Pretti holding a cellphone and helping a woman who had been pepper sprayed by a federal officer. Within seconds, Pretti was sprayed, too, and taken to the ground by multiple officers. No video disclosed thus far has shown him unholstering his concealed weapon - which he had a Minnesota permit to carry. It appeared that one officer took Pretti’s gun and walked away with it just before shots began.As multiple videos went viral online and on television, Vice President JD Vance reposted Miller’s assessment, while Trump shared an alleged photo of “the gunman’s gun, loaded (with two additional full magazines!).”
Swift reactions from gun rights advocates
The National Rifle Association, which has backed Trump three times, released a statement that began by casting blame on Minnesota Democrats it accused of stoking protests. But the group lashed out after a federal prosecutor in California said on X that, “If you approach law enforcement with a gun, there is a high likelihood they will be legally justified in shooting you.”That analysis, the NRA said, is “dangerous and wrong.”FBI Director Kash Patel magnified the blowback Sunday on Fox News’ “Sunday Morning Futures With Maria Bartiromo.” No one, Patel said, can “bring a firearm, loaded, with multiple magazines to any sort of protest that you want. It’s that simple.”Erich Pratt, vice president of Gun Owners of America, was incredulous.“I have attended protest rallies while armed, and no one got injured,” he said on CNN.Conservative officials around the country made the same connection between the First and Second amendments.“Showing up at a protest is very American. Showing up with a weapon is very American,” state Rep. Jeremy Faison, who leads the GOP caucus in Tennessee, said on X.Trump’s first-term vice president, Mike Pence, called for “full and transparent investigation of this officer involved shooting.”
A different response from the past
Liberals, conservatives and nonpartisan experts noted how the administration’s response differed from past conservative positions involving protests and weapons.Multiple Trump supporters were found to have weapons during the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. Trump issued blanket pardons to all of them.Republicans were critical in 2020 when Mark and Patricia McCloskey had to pay fines after pointing guns at protesters who marched through their St. Louis neighborhood after the police killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis. And then there’s Kyle Rittenhouse, a counter-protester acquitted after fatally shooting two men and injuring another in Kenosha, Wisconsin, during the post-Floyd protests.“You remember Kyle Rittenhouse and how he was made a hero on the right,” Trey Gowdy, a Republican former congressman and attorney for Trump during one of his first-term impeachments. “Alex Pretti’s firearm was being lawfully carried. He never brandished it.”Adam Winkler, a UCLA law professor who has studied the history of the gun debate, said the fallout “shows how tribal we’ve become.” Republicans spent years talking about the Second Amendment as a means to fight government tyranny, he said.“The moment someone who’s thought to be from the left, they abandon that principled stance,” Winkler said.Meanwhile, Democrats who have criticized open and concealed carry laws for years, Winkler added, are not amplifying that position after Pretti’s death.
Uncertain effects in an election year
The blowback against the administration from core Trump supporters comes as Republicans are trying to protect their threadbare majority in the U.S. House and face several competitive Senate races.Perhaps reflecting the stakes, GOP staff and campaign aides were reticent Monday to talk about the issue at all.The House Republican campaign chairman, Rep. Richard Hudson of North Carolina, is sponsoring the GOP’s most significant gun legislation of this congressional term, a proposal to make state concealed-carry permits reciprocal across all states.The bill cleared the House Judiciary Committee last fall. Asked Monday whether Pretti’s death and the Minneapolis protests might affect debate, an aide to Speaker Mike Johnson did not offer any update on the bill’s prospects.Gun rights advocates have notched many legislative victories in Republican-controlled statehouses in recent decades, from rolling back gun-free zones around schools and churches to expanding gun possession rights in schools, on university campuses and in other public spaces.William Sack, legal director of the Second Amendment Foundation, said he was surprised and disapointed by the administration’s initial statements following the Pretti shooting. Trump’s vacillating, he said, is “very likely to cost them dearly with the core of a constituency they count on.”
Associated Press writer Kimberlee Kruesi in Providence, Rhode Island, contributed to this report.
Bill Barrow and Nicholas Riccardi, Associated Press
Yahoo may not be the most headlined company in tech anymore, but its reach cant be denied. With nearly 250 million monthly users across the country and 700 million globally, its still the second most popular email client in the world, and the third most popular search engine in the U.S. (even though that search engine has technically been powered by either Bing or Google since 2009).
As a privately owned company since 2021 (once worth $125 billion, but purchased for a mere $5 billion at the time), its CEO Jim Lanzone says that the last few years have been about getting the house in order. But now, he promises, this is one of the biggest turnarounds people have tried in internet history.
Lanzone says that turnaround begins with Yahoo Scout, which launches today in beta. In short, Yahoo Scout is a new, free AI search engine (its also an omnipresent button across Yahoo verticals like Finance, Sports, and Mail) that’s there to summarize the performance of a business or break down the key moments of a game.
In one mode, it’s essentially Yahoo’s version of Claude or ChatGPT. (Yahoo Answers for the AI era!) In the other, it’s an AI-translate button accompanying Yahoo’s editorial content, boiling down articles into takeaways. It will even summarize the sentiment of the comments on stories you read across Yahoo.
We [arent] the first to market here, but in evaluating whether we should keep outsourcing or build the AI layer ourselves, it just became clear that we could do this best for our users, says Lanzone. We had a lot of unique assets to do that. And so in that context, timing is almost irrelevant, right? Because this is about Yahoo users on Yahoo, searching on Yahoo, versus what they were getting before.
[Image: Yahoo]
Led by Eric Feng, SVP & general manager of the Yahoo Research Groupwho is best known for recruiting and leading the technical team that created Huluits powered by a combination of Yahoos knowledge graph, Anthropics Claude, and Bings open web APIs. (Yahoo says that user data is kept internally and does not train Claude or Bing.)
Yes, that means Yahoo is still relying on external partners, but the team says that search will feel like Yahoo because its so based within the Yahoo ecosystem. Specifically, Yahoo Scout can answer a question with everything Claude knows within its LLM (and gosh, does Yahoo Scout love to build a table breaking down information!) And it can also search the web itself as well as Bing.
But the team insists that Yahoos own knowledge graph provides a lot more on top of Claude and Bing today, and it promises even more into the future. Specifically, Yahoo publishes 30,000 pieces of licensed stories and other content each day that are at its fingertips, and users create 18 trillion events across its services each year. Every event you get just makes the overall totality of the experience smarter, says Feng.
Even if its something as simple as searching for the score of your favorite team, thats actionable data for Yahoo in the short term, but even more so in the medium to long term as it shifts Scout from a generalized AI search engine or summarizer to more of a personal AI.
Just to be direct about it, you will see the roadmap include personalization [of AI], says Lanzone. Thats certainly where the category is headed, and it is a unique asset to Yahoo to be able to already have that built in. You know, we’re not trying to acquire an audience to start to build that up from scratch. We actually have all that knowledge and that relationship to dip into then layer this on top of.
The experience of Yahoo Scout, and what that means for publishers
Yahoo Scout lives as a responsive website and also as a standalone app.
As a search engine, Scouts white search bar is accompanied by an ever-changing rotation of animated clipart (yeehaw, its quite a cute cowboy hat), bringing back some of the brands original quirk.
The rest of the experience will be pretty familiar to anyone who has used an LLM, as every query is less a collection of blue links than an explanation of an idea.
From a demo I watched, it really does have a bias to break searches down into comparative tables (which may be useful or cloying, depending how often that approach is taken). But its also less text heavy than many LLMs, because it makes liberal use of thumbnails listing news stories and products to buy.
That penchant for prominent, colorful linking isnt coincidence. Publishers are amidst a 30-year mass extinction event, spurred on most recently by AI search tools that mine their reporting and present it to a public that no longer needs to click through to the actual story. Lanzone argues that prominent linking is key to protecting the health of the publishing industrypublishers that Yahoo relies upon for its core media aggregation business.
Our No. 1 job is to bridge the gap for publishers . . . [with] a beautiful UI that’s very rich and intuitive but still leans into linking out without cluttering the page, he says. Well see if this is the exact version of where we wind up, but from day one, that’s a priority for us. And then [priority] two is, can we bring search advertising along as well?
Speaking from two decades in digital publishing, I know that what Yahoo has shown thus far is certainly not enough to protect publishersand I challenged Lanzone on this point. Yahoos design may improve clickthrough rates a hair, but not nearly enough to support the publishing industry. Cloudflare research on search engine referrals demonstrates just how dire this moment is: For every 70,900 times Anthropic bots scraped information off a website, users clicked through only once. Much like McDonalds couldnt survive if Uber Eats began distributing its hamburgers for free, reported news cant live on if search engines are snatching their insights without meaningful compensation.
“It’s not in version one, but we are also passionate about the idea that search advertising was really effective for both publishers, search engines, and advertisers. And there should be a way to cross the chasm, and to bring that model along with generative AI search engines says Lanzone. I don’t know. It won’t wind up exactly where it was, but it can be a lot closer to it than we’ve seen to date. And we are actually working on versions of that. It’s just going to be very hard to scale nine-step agentic processes where you get paid downstream, and it’s just a very difficult model to really scale up.
And make no mistake, Yahoo is advertising with Yahoo Scout. While Anthropic has yet to introduce ads and OpenAI is only starting to, Yahoo is including ads in Scout searches from day one. Those ads appear in traditional paid links in the feed (think Google Adwords). Its also monetizing its shopping referrals (thanks to an AI shopping platform Vetted it acquired late last year). These are just the beginning of Yahoos extensive advertising roadmap, which will be realized with more intricacy later this year.
Outside search, though, Yahoo believes that Scout living across Yahoo services will offer indirect benefit to monetization. If you are on Mail, Finance, or Sports, we want the technology that we’re providing to make that experience better, and then we get more engagement, says Feng. We get those users sticking around longer, and then those properties are able to better monetize.
For now, Yahoo believes that monetization will be significant enough that it justifies keeping Scout free. That said, even Yahoo cannot resist the allure of subscription service revenue, and suggests that a premium paid version of Scout could live somewhere in the future.
Look, we have subscription products of finance and sports and places, and you can definitely see a version of that coming here, says Lanzone. But 100% of our effort [for launch] has been the evolution of Yahoo search into Yahoo Scout. And we have the luxury of doing that because we have a really good business search already.
