But on Monday morning, Trump reversed course. In an all-caps Truth Social post, he announced the U.S. and Iran had been having “very good and productive conversations” and that he would extend the deadline for a deal by five days.

Wall Street, for the first time since the war began, exhaled. Stocks rose. Brent crude plunged nearly 11%. Energy stocks—one of the few reliable winners of the conflict—sold off with oil.

The brokerage account in Trump’s name spent the day buying them.

A first look at a president’s trading

According to the 113-page periodic transaction report released by the Office of Government Ethics on May 14, Trump’s brokerage account spent that same day buying a sweep of petroleum and gas stocks, including Phillips 66, Exxon Mobil, and Chevron, along with defense and aerospace names like Lockheed Martin and General Dynamics: the companies that stood to profit if the war dragged on.

The day wasn’t an outlier. The filing, which covers January through March, shows a consistent posture through the Iran conflict: As Trump prosecuted the war and told Americans it would end “soon,” the account in his name was hedging it, buying gold, Treasuries, and cash.

A spokesperson for the Trump Organization, the family’s privately held conglomerate, told Fortune the brokerage accounts are operated by third-party financial institutions that have “sole and exclusive authority over all investment decisions.” Trades, the spokesperson wrote in a statement, are executed through “automated investment processes and systems administered by those institutions,” and neither Trump, his family, nor the Trump Organization “plays any role in selecting, directing, or approving specific investments.”

Davis Ingle, a White House spokesperson, told Fortune that Trump’s assets are in a trust “managed by his children” and that “there are no conflicts of interest.” Asked about the apparent tension between that statement and the Trump Organization’s claim that the third-party institutions have “sole” authority over the trades, Ingle told Fortune to “defer to Trump Org.”

There is nothing inherently illegal about a sitting president holding stocks—the criminal conflict-of-interest law that binds nearly every other executive branch official exempts the president.

But for more than half a century, presidents have voluntarily steered clear of the appearance of a conflict, using blind trusts, index funds, or, in Jimmy Carter’s case, liquidation. So what’s notable here isn’t that Trump holds securities, but that the account in his name has been actively trading them.

“It’s an unusual position for a president to be in,” Richard Painter, a securities law professor at the University of Minnesota and former chief White House ethics counsel under George W. Bush, told Fortune.

Trump’s new filing appears to offer the first public look in modern presidential history at an active public-markets portfolio in a sitting president’s name. The Office of Government Ethics report documents 3,642 individual trades made through the account in the first three months of 2026—between $220 million and $750 million in volume at a pace of roughly 60 trades per day. The filing doesn’t always specify whether a given transaction is a stock, bond, or ETF.

“I’ve gone through every president,” Painter said, “I don’t think we’ve had any president trade in the stock market.”

Since Lyndon Johnson pioneered the use of a presidential blind trust in 1963, every modern president has either placed their assets in a blind trust managed by independent trustees, held them in index funds and Treasuries, or, in Carter’s case, liquidated all their assets (notoriously, his peanut farm). None have actively traded individual securities while in office. Until recently.

In Trump’s first term, his assets were held in the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust, which controlled his business empire, and the periodic transaction reports it produced drew little attention. Through the first year of his second term, the account traded almost exclusively in municipal and corporate bonds.

But even before the stock trading began, the arrangement drew immediate backlash from federal ethics officials.

Walter Shaub, then the director of the Office of Government Ethics, called Trump’s original trust arrangement “not even halfway blind” in a January 2017 speech at the Brookings Institution. He resigned in July of that same year after clashing with Trump over the president’s refusal to divest from his businesses. 

Hedging the war he was prosecuting

The accumulation began the same day the war did. The disclosure reports trades only in ranges, not exact dollar figures, with purchases falling between $50,000 and $5 million depending on the position. 

Markets generally divide into two camps: the risk-on assets—U.S. stocks, growth, tech—that investors buy when they’re confident the economy will grow , and the safe havens—gold, Treasuries, cash—they retreat to when they’re not. Through the Iran war, the account moved steadily from the first camp to the second, even as Trump told Americans the conflict was nearly over.

On March 2, the first trading day of the war, the account bought Newmont, the gold miner, for $50,000 to $100,000. On March 4, the day Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz, it bought the iShares US Treasury Bond ETF for $250,000 to $500,000. The next day, it bought $500,000 to $1 million of the iShares Gold Trust.

The buying continued even as Trump publicly insisted the war was under control. On March 7, he announced that Iran had “apologized and surrendered.” On March 10, the account bought a sweep of international and emerging-markets exposure: Europe, Japan, Canada, and, in its largest single move of the day, an emerging-markets ETF in the $500,000 to $1 million band.

The next day, Trump told Axios the war would end “soon” because there was “practically nothing left to target,” and that it would end “any time I want it to end.”

The next week, the account bought cash worth $1 million to $5 million. The Strait of Hormuz has still not opened as of time of writing.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

“The sectors that are most exposed to AI right now are seeing the most growth in terms of demand for those jobs,” Gudell recently said onstage at Fortune’s Workplace Innovation Summit.

The executive at the hiring platform uses software developers as an example. As advanced tools have evolved to write code, traditional developers are having a harder time finding jobs—yet within that same industry, AI-fluent developers are experiencing a renaissance. Software development job postings on Indeed increased 14% year-over-year in April 2026, and more than 47% of those postings now mention AI, suggesting the growth is concentrated in roles that require working alongside the technology rather than competing with it. Employers, Gudell says, are also willing to splurge on professionals trained to thrive in the AI era.

That premium is emerging against an otherwise sluggish backdrop. The U.S. unemployment rate sits at 4.3%, with fewer than one job opening per unemployed worker, and overall job postings are barely above their pre-pandemic baseline. Yet postings mentioning AI have surged more than 130% over the same stretch—a divergence that has effectively split the labor market into AI-adjacent winners and everyone else.

“AI is creating a whole bunch of new jobs, and interestingly enough, if you are an AI software developer, things are looking quite good for you,” Gudell continued. “There’s a wage premium on your skills right now.”

Meanwhile, Gudell is also honest about the flip side. Workplaces won’t be the same in the AI era, and many employees are handwringing over the fate of their careers as mundane work tasks are automated, organizational charts are reimagined, and hiring slows. Roles such as sales representatives, historians, data scientists, and personal financial advisors are among the most affected by generative AI, according to Microsoft. And some employers, like Block and Cisco, have cited AI as the reason for their headcount reductions. The information sector’s layoff rate has doubled over the past year to 2.4%—the sharpest increase of any industry, which Indeed attributes in part to AI. 

Gudell has crunched the numbers, and the verdict is in: all roles across all industries will be affected by advanced tech. However, AI still isn’t capable of taking over every job just yet—and humans working in AI-exposed fields may actually be the best off in the shift. Indeed’s 2025 AI at Work report found that while 26% of jobs could be “highly” transformed by generative AI and another 54% “moderately” transformed, fewer than 1% of work skills can currently be performed by AI without human involvement.

“Our own research actually shows that AI will touch every single job out there,” the chief economist explained. “Every job will be touched by AI—some more so than others—but at least currently, with today’s technology, not a single job can be completely done by AI. You still need the human in the loop.”

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

“But now I would like to come back as the bond market,” he said. “You can intimidate everybody.”

Indeed, in the late spring of 2026, bond investors seem to be throwing an early 1990s-style fit again as the 30-year Treasury yield has hit its highest point since before the Great Recession: 5.198%. 

It’s tempting, analysts say, to paint another narrative like that of the 1993s, when bond investors drew yields higher on fears that Bill Clinton would let the deficit go wild. But this isn’t Carville’s bond market, Guy LeBas, chief fixed income strategist at Janney Montgomery Scott, told Fortune. 

“I get that the sort of story, of a couple guys in a room saying inflation is going to go higher, we’re going to fight back against the government, I get why that’s like an ongoing narrative,” LeBas said. But that group—the so-called “bond vigilantes,” a phrase coined by economist Ed Yardeni—”doesn’t exist”, according to LeBas.

 The reason why, he said, is that the bond market have become far too large and too dominated by non-discretionary buyers like pension funds for a handful of participants to engineer a message.  The cleaner explanation, in his telling, is basically automatic: momentum-driven funds that buy when prices rise and sell when they fall, going into a thin week with the stock market near all time highs. 

However, not all analysts are dismissing that news that quickly. Close bond watchers could have predicted this last week, when the Treasury auctioned off 30-year T-bills at a 5% interest rate; an amazing deal for investors, where you can loan the government money for 30 years and get approximately 5% back a year. It sounds like free money, but investors shied away; demand was “middling,” the FT reported.

That weak auction, with Tuesday’s record-high yield, pointed in the same direction: investors expect inflation to slowly eat their returns over the long end. It’s not a proximate cause, but something deeper, said Eric Leeper, a University of Virginia economics professor and expert on monetary-fiscal interaction.

“Wow,” Leeper responded to this Fortune reporter reading him the current 30-year yield. “It’s got to be some serious uncertainty about future inflation.”

The bond market has agitated over recent weeks, climbing higher as it became clear to markets that the Strait of Hormuz closure was going to last further than a few weeks as Iran and the U.S. struggled towards a peace deal. Now,  about two-thirds of investors think that the 30-year could rise above 6% in the next year, according to Bank of America Research’s global fund manager survey. 

The rout could spur Trump into getting a peace deal—any peace deal—done with Iran before it rains on the parade of the months-long AI rally that has broken records. The last time the 10-year-treasury yields went above 4.6% Trump backed out of his Liberation Day tariffs after it caused a mass selloff. 

But there’s an even more immediate trigger investors could blame: Kevin Warsh. Trump’s pick to chair the Federal Reserve isn’t distrusted so much as unknown.

The fear is that Warsh, in an attempt to appease his boss, cuts into an inflationary, energy-shocked economy, and markets are demanding extra yield as insurance against exactly that.

“It’s not so much that people have no confidence in Warsh,” Leeper said. “It’s that they’re not sure what they’re getting.”

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

“He’s been choosing to be so positive, he’s radiated gratitude,” Stelter recently said in a panel at Fortune’s Workplace Innovation Summit with editor Indrani Sen, adding that Colbert has operated under the mindset that “‘I’d rather be grateful for the time I had on air than be angry that it’s ending.’”

Colbert took over The Late Show in September 2015, replacing David Letterman, who had hosted the CBS franchise for 22 years, and has anchored the 11:35 p.m. slot ever since. Over more than a decade behind the desk, he became the No. 1 host at 11:30 p.m. for nine straight years, and his run was capped by a long-elusive industry honor: In September 2025, The Late Show won its first Emmy for Outstanding Talk Series, beating Jimmy Kimmel Live! and The Daily Show—the first broadcast late-night show to win the category since it was created in 2015.

The victory came after CBS announced in July 2025 that the 2025–26 season would be the last for The Late Show—not just with Colbert as host, but for the franchise altogether—with the network citing financial pressures amid a broader collapse in late-night ad revenue. Colbert’s final episode is scheduled to air Thursday, May 21, 2026, at 11:35 p.m., closing out an 11-season run.

Stelter, whose book Top of the Morning inspired the hit Apple series The Morning Show, has firsthand knowledge of how emotions can run high in the workplace. And the analyst and TV producer admires just how well Colbert was able to take his show’s dissolution on the chin, despite the tensions surrounding it. 

Stelter says that the entertainment icon likely believes that he’s the “victim of a political hit” and that there are other issues behind the scenes. The late-night show’s network, CBS, said the cancellation was “purely a financial decision,” just as parent company Paramount was seeking the Trump administration’s approval for its multibillion-dollar merger with Skydance. 

However, Stelter notes that Colbert still approached his departure with grace, showing his appreciation for leading the show for 11 seasons. It’s a leadership lesson the CNN analyst is emulating in his own career and bringing back to his workplaces across news and entertainment.

“I really admire that, and I found myself wanting to lift that up in my reports, because we need those kinds of role models,” The Morning Show producer continued. “You need role models in every phase of your career, phases of your life, about how to go about living a certain way. 

“I’m thinking about Colbert as exactly what you want to be, as opposed to…people who are fearful, who are acting out of fear, who are acting out of self-protection.”

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

Speaking at the Fortune Workplace Innovation Summit in Atlanta, Georgia, on Tuesday, two former chief diversity officers weighed in on why DEI remains important despite criticism from the current administration. 

Diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) refers to a set of organizational practices aimed at building workforces that reflect a range of backgrounds, ensuring fair access to opportunity, and fostering workplace cultures where employees from different demographics can contribute fully. In practice, this can take the form of inclusive recruiting and hiring processes, mentorship and sponsorship programs, pay equity audits, employee resource groups, supplier diversity initiatives, and management training designed to reduce bias in performance reviews and promotions. 

Ray Dempsey, a former chief diversity officer at BP and Barclays and now the founder of Dempsey Inclusion Group, said corporate America’s pivot toward stigmatizing the acronym “DEI” has been led by people who don’t understand it. While DEI’s standing has floundered, the work behind it has nothing to do with a label, he added. Instead, the efforts behind DEI are really meant “to create value for the business.” 

The companies that have continued to emphasize DEI understand that, he said. 

“They understand that it actually is not just a good thing to do or the right thing to do, it’s not just a social imperative, it’s a genuine business imperative,” Dempsey said. 

That’s not to say the landscape in DEI hasn’t changed. Following the killing of George Floyd in 2020, corporate leaders rushed to implement DEI policies and hire staff to oversee them. Between 2019 and 2022, the percentage of chief diversity officers increased by 169%, according to a LinkedIn study.

That growth, though, has now tapered off. Between 2021 and 2022, the percentage of chief diversity officers hired fell by about 4%, according to the LinkedIn study. Dempsey said he has experienced the retreat from DEI in real time.

After he retired as chief diversity officer at Barclays in 2024, he said he had struggled to find as many opportunities to serve on corporate boards as he expected.

“The chief diversity officer title is not nearly as valuable for corporate board nominees as it was just a few years ago,” he said. 

In the years following Floyd’s murder, companies tried to be “all things to all people” and the line blurred between activism and advocacy in organizations, which may have contributed to the retreat from DEI, said Jarvis Sam, the former chief diversity officer at Nike and now the CEO of DEI firm, The Rainbow Disruption. 

The antagonism of the current administration has also contributed. In the first days of his second term, Trump signed a flurry of executive orders addressing DEI. He eliminated positions across the federal government involved in DEI efforts, eliminated DEI goals for agencies, and revoked a previous executive order requiring federal contractors to maintain affirmative action programs. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has also sued companies, including the New York Times and Nike, as the chair, Andrea Lucas pursues cases of “unlawful DEI-motivated race and sex discrimination.“

Despite this pressure, Dempsey noted that the same act that drove DEI efforts and created the EEOC, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, has not changed: “It will still guide the choices and the activities, and it’ll shape the way we manage and mitigate risk around talent,” he said.

The push around DEI may have shifted in the U.S., but not internationally, added Sam. In Europe, regulations related to affirmative action are still in place. For instance, Germany mandates gender diversity targets for corporate boards. Under the European Union’s Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive, which started being implemented in 2024, select companies also need to report their policies addressing discrimination, diversity and inclusion, and human rights.

Pivoting completely on DEI, therefore, opens companies up to risk, said Sam. 

While critics often frame DEI as a purely social or political project, a substantial body of research has linked diverse and inclusive workplaces to stronger business outcomes. McKinsey’s long-running “Diversity Matters” series has consistently found that companies in the top quartile for ethnic and gender diversity on executive teams are more likely to outperform their peers on profitability, with its most recent installment reporting a 39% greater likelihood of financial outperformance for the most diverse companies. 

Other studies, including research from BCG and the Harvard Business Review, have associated diverse leadership teams with higher innovation revenue and better decision-making, while Gallup has tied inclusive cultures to measurable gains in employee engagement and retention—two metrics directly linked to productivity and bottom-line performance.

Dempsey said he is optimistic about the future of DEI and believes it will continue to be a priority for many companies in the future. He said organizations that have demonstrated they are committed to attracting diverse workforces and adapting their strategies to an increasingly diverse America and world will ultimately win in the marketplace, although the same can’t be said for those that don’t take DEI seriously.

“Those who have sent the signals that that’s not important, that’s not a priority, they are going to lose,” he said.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

Pizza Hut franchisee Chaac Pizza Northeast—which operates more than 110 Pizza Huts across New York, New Jersey, Maryland, Washington, D.C., and Pennsylvania—filed a lawsuit in Texas Business Court earlier this month claiming that its franchiser’s Dragontail Artificial Intelligence system gave outsized visibility of operations to third-party delivery drivers, enabling them to prioritize certain orders, slowing delivery times and throttling customer satisfaction. The litigation was first reported by Restaurant Dive.

Chaac is seeking $100 million in damages for lost business and enterprise value. 

Yum! Brands, Pizza Hut’s parent company, did not respond to Fortune’s request for comment but told Restaurant Dive it did not comment on ongoing litigation.

“We are in the process of reviewing the claim and will respond through the appropriate legal channels,” a spokesperson said in a statement.

The allegations are the latest manifestation of the simmering tension between workers and employers, and even franchisees and licensees, over automation and productivity across jobs. This is particularly felt in restaurants, where staff shortages and frequent turnover have pushed fast-food businesses to turn to AI systems and robots in an effort to reduce labor costs, ballooning global restaurant automation into a $28 billion market this year. Ironically, the unintended consequences of this particular example seem to have empowered gig workers to take back some autonomy, allegedly using AI to coordinate deliveries for their schedule, and racking up losses for the franchisee at the other end.

Labor economists are skeptical of widespread automation in restaurants, warning productivity benefits are often modest compared to the cost of the new technology, and that truly unlocking benefits of AI in the industry requires a complete overhaul of operations.

“To really get the benefit of robots or artificial intelligence, you need to redesign the whole system, rather than just including one robot to do a particular thing,” Ajay Agrawal, professor of entrepreneurship at the University of Toronto’s Rotman School of Management, previously told Fortune.

Chaac’s alleged AI headaches

According to Chaac, Yum! Brands may have fallen prey to a similar unintended consequence of automation. The conglomerate finalized its acquisition of Dragontails in September 2021, touting the platform’s ability to optimize kitchen flow and driver dispatching by assisting workers with the timing and sequencing of orders, as well as planning optimal delivery routes.

But combined with the fallout of Dragontail, Pizza Hut also minted a national contract with DoorDash, giving Dashers greater access to Chaac’s kitchen operations and order timing. As a result, Dashers allegedly began waiting to accept orders in order to batch them together, which led to longer wait times and slower deliveries. 

Chaac alleged drivers waited 15 minutes to pick up orders, resulting in a longer period of pizza sitting out of the oven waiting to be delivered. The lawsuit also claimed other drivers could see tip amounts for orders, disincentivizing them from claiming certain orders. Pizza Hut allegedly did not properly train operators to use the system or fulfill requests for support.

“With the intention to improve efficiency and service to the customer, Dragontail did the exact opposite; it caused significant delays and pummeled consumer satisfaction,” the complaint said.

Chaac alleged that prior to Dragontail’s 2024 deployment in New York, the franchisee was among Pizza Hut’s best-performing operators in delivery times, customer satisfaction, and sales growth. According to the lawsuit, Chaac managers previously manually input orders into DoorDash tablet software that processed delivery orders, as well as allow an operator to prevent Dashers with lower ratings from accepting orders. The franchisee claimed “more than 90% of pizza orders at Chaac’s were delivered within thirty (30) minutes.” 

Chaac’s stores at one time accounted for 15% of DoorDash’s Pizza Hut volumes from its Drive Program, despite the franchisee’s locations accounting for fewer than 2% of Pizza Hut’s U.S. stores, the complaint stated.

AI’s mixed results in fast food

While Yum! Brands has continued to thrive by leaning on its chains like Taco Bell, Pizza Hut has struggled to grow. The pizza chain reported a 4% drop in same-store sales last quarter, offset by stronger international same-store sales that ultimately resulted in flat sales globally. 

Beyond Dragontail, the conglomerate has leaned into AI to increase operational efficiency. Last year, the conglomerate announced a partnership with Nvidia to deploy AI to take drive-thru and call orders in 500 locations.

But fast food giants have seen mixed success integrating AI into their operations. Wendy’s drew criticism after an announcement of an AI-powered digital menu over concerns it would lead to surge pricing, which the company denied. McDonald’s has invested in AI firms since at least 2019 to speed up orders, but ended a two-year partnership with IBM in 2024. The change came after customers took to social media about incorrect orders they received from the fast-food joint, including nine sweet teas and 260 McNuggets.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

The optics at Monday’s event were unmistakably awkward. This is a man Trump called “weak and pathetic,” a “loser,” and “a total non-athlete” on Truth Social during the 2024 campaign. That’s the same campaign in which Cuban stumped hard for Harris and told Vivek Ramaswamy that Trump was “unethical.”

On Monday, when a reporter noted how remarkable it was to see the two of them sharing a stage, Trump turned to Cuban and said, “Well, he made a mistake. It was a big mistake.”

Cuban laughed, then said, “I’m not going into my politics at all” when asked about his 2024 positioning. Asked what his message was to Democrats surprised to see him at the White House, he said, “Democrats want cheaper medications, too. The goal is the goal.”

Cuban’s actions on Monday resonate with someone quite unlike the person who stood beside him: someone who swallowed his pride in the hopes of reaching the goal. In fact, it’s something Cuban himself predicted in September 2025, when he wrote in an X post, “If that happens, Trump gets all the credit and it will be deserved. But right now, everything I’ve seen lets them work around their PBMs. They are still more afraid of PBMs than Trump,” he said, in regards to pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) playing middle manager and driving up drug prices.

How expensive drugs became the norm

Cuban has spent years building Cost Plus Drugs around the argument that the system is rigged by middlemen, and TrumpRx, whatever its flaws, just put his company’s prices in front of 10 million site visitors and counting. The unlikely alliance reflects how deep the drug cost crisis runs. Prescription drugs in the U.S. cost nearly three times more than in other developed countries, and the frustration crosses party lines.

A major culprit is pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs), the intermediaries between manufacturers, insurers, and pharmacies. The three largest now manage roughly 80% of all prescriptions filled in the U.S. They were supposed to negotiate lower prices, but their incentives have warped: PBMs receive rebates based on a drug’s list price and keep a portion rather than passing savings to patients, which incentivizes them to favor higher-priced drugs. Rebates and fees captured by PBMs now account for 42% of every dollar spent on brand medicines.

Cuban’s Cost Plus Drugs attacks this system head-on: Buy generics directly from manufacturers, charge the acquisition cost plus a 15% margin, a dispensing fee, and shipping. The cancer drug Imatinib costs more than $2,000 at conventional pharmacies but lists at roughly $17 on Cost Plus.

Cuban, in an email to Fortune when we first reported about the partnership, credited the Trump administration for bringing on “great people” to lead TrumpRx.

​​”I think it could be impactful,” Cuban told Fortune in an email in October 2025. “Their challenge is going to be who has more power and influence over the industry: the PBMs/insurance companies and the contracts they have with brand manufacturers, or the president. That has not been determined yet.” 

Real savings, real limits

For uninsured or underinsured patients juggling multiple prescriptions, the expanded site offers genuine help, like comparison-shopping across discount providers in one place, where even modest per-drug savings compound over a year.

In a February 2026 commentary on this subject, Jeffrey Sonnenfeld, the Yale School of Management Lester Crown Professor of Leadership Practice, wrote along with his coauthors that the TrumpRx program doesn’t truly provide any meaningful discounts for people who already have insurance coverage. Many brand-name drugs on the site were cheaper through traditional insurance or existing discount programs. And the site’s prices aren’t as low as claimed internationally: The New York Times found TrumpRx prices were in some cases twice as high as those in other wealthy nations.

The drugs that generate the most public anger, like expensive brand-name and specialty medications, remain largely outside this expansion. At least 350 branded medications saw price increases at the start of 2026, even as the administration struck deals with individual manufacturers. Cuban’s model continues to prove that the gap between manufacturing cost and pharmacy price is often absurd.

Cuban’s partnership with Trump, though it may come as a surprise to some, has a common end goal. In Cuban’s case, he has worked for years now to bring prescription drug costs to a more manageable level—as shown when he paid for a lifesaving flight for a baby after her parents’ insurance company said it wasn’t medically necessary. Cuban’s actions in the White House on Monday show someone willing to grit his teeth as long as it advances his agenda.

The scene recalled the long-rumored, later confirmed quote from Michael Jordan and why he rarely got political during his basketball career: “Republicans buy sneakers, too.”

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

The initiative could expand—eight airports have been approved for TSA’s “straight to gate” pilot program. But for now, it’s just being tested at a location in Framingham, MA, that’s ~25 miles from Logan and less than a mile from three Dunkin’ spots. And initially, it will only be for Delta or JetBlue passengers departing Logan between 5:30am and 4pm. Here’s how it will work:

• Once you check in and clear security, a $9 shuttle will take you to the airport. The last 45-minute shuttle (or longer in rush hour) is at 11am. Parking at the off-site facility is $7 per day.
• You and your checked bags will be dropped beyond all the suckers who are still on line at security and can’t yet get their hands on an Auntie Anne’s pretzel.

Is this the future? David Sunde, the CEO of Landline, the company that runs the shuttles, sure thinks so. He told The Points Guy that with airports running out of room to build, off-site screening is becoming more necessary.—DL

This report was originally published by Morning Brew.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

“Personal update: I’ve joined Anthropic,” Andrej Karpathy wrote on X on Tuesday, in a post that drew nearly 3 million views within one hour. He said the next few years at the frontier of LLMs would be “especially formative” and that he was eager to get back to research. He started this week on the pretraining team.

The decision suggests that Karpathy, whose writing on AI is followed by nearly 2 million people on X, has decided to put his stake in the AI race. He was first a founding member of OpenAI in 2015, left to run AI at Tesla, came back in 2023, and left only a year later to start his own education company, Eureka Labs.

Karpathy has been well-known in AI for a decade, but the thing—or phrase—that etched him into AI legend was a tweet from last year. In February 2025, he posted that there was a “new kind of coding” that he called vibe coding: Describe what you want plainly and let the model do the work. 

The phrase escaped the industry and infected the business world, which turned its back against software companies and raced to develop its own bespoke agents, touching off the much-debated “SaaSpocalypse” in its wake. (What wasn’t debated is that tens of billions of dollars in stock valuations evaporated as firms tried to vibe code their own solutions.) Collins Dictionary named it Word of the Year. The model he cited in that original tweet was Anthropic’s.

As an Anthropic employee, Karpathy will be building on the work from another viral post. In March, he wired up an AI coding agent, handed it a single small language model, and let it run unsupervised for two days, testing and tweaking the training code on its own. After 700 experiments and 20 self-found optimizations, he said the same tweaks applied to a larger model cut training time by 11%. This, he said, was called autoresearch: “Part code, part sci-fi, and a pinch of psychosis” he wrote with a smiley face. The method would come to be known as “the Karpathy Loop.”

Teaching that method looks, more or less, like his new job. According to Anthropic, Karpathy will be starting a team focused on using Claude to accelerate pretraining research, the large-scale training runs that give Claude its core knowledge and capabilities. He sits on a team led by Nick Joseph. 

Long before any of this, though, Karpathy was famous for something else: his Rubik’s Cube skills. He ran a YouTube channel called “badmephisto,” where a generation of competitive cubers learned to “speedcube” by seeing the cube as 26 individual “cubies” rather than 54 colored stickers. By sticking to the small structure, he could move the whole thing. He solved a Rubik’s Cube in about 17 seconds.

Certainly the puzzles for Karpathy got harder—neural nets and then language models—but the method never really changed. Get a small enough system fully under control, and you can move something much bigger.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

Groupe SEB USA (the maker of T-Fal and All-Clad) and Meyer Corporation (Farberware, Rachael Ray, Anolon) filed suit against Caraway Home on Feb. 13 in the Southern District of New York, accusing the ceramic cookware brand of false advertising, commercial disparagement, trade libel, and unjust enrichment.

The 34-page complaint takes issue with Caraway’s marketing, which characterizes PTFE-coated cookware (the dominant non-stick material used by both plaintiffs) as “toxic,” cancer-causing, and laced with “forever chemicals.”

The lawsuit’s core

SEB and Meyer allege that Caraway, which launched in 2019, built its brand from day one on a “false premise:” that PTFE-coated cookware makes consumers sick.

Among the specific advertisements cited include social media posts labeling competitors’ pans as “toxic cookware” that will “fill the air in your home with harmful, toxic fumes and forever chemicals that you ingest, such as PFAS and PTFE;” emails urging consumers to “toss your toxic pans;” and a website claim about traditional non-stick pans releasing “dangerous chemicals” that “enter our body and take decades to leave, potentially causing health risks like cancer or respiratory issues.”

The plaintiffs argue these claims are not only false but knowingly so, pointing to a 2025 ruling by the National Advertising Division (NAD) of the Better Business Bureau, which concluded that Caraway “did not meet its burden of providing a reasonable basis for claims that competing non-stick cookware is toxic.”

Caraway agreed to comply with the NAD’s recommendation to pull certain ads, but according to the complaint, many remained live and new ones appeared in January, just weeks before the suit was filed.

The complaint also argues that PTFE is “chemically inert, practically insoluble, non-bioavailable, and non-toxic;” that the FDA authorizes its use in food-contact coatings; and that PTFE degradation cannot even theoretically occur below 500° Fahrenheit—a temperature unachievable in normal cooking. The Consumer Product Safety Commission has likewise rejected calls for warning labels on PTFE-based cookware.

The complaint claims a hyperlink on Caraway’s website labeled “American Cancer Society” did not actually go to the ACS at all, but to an unrelated American Academy of Pediatrics press release that “nowhere suggests that PTFE-coated pans cause cancer.” The real ACS, the complaint notes, “states that there are no proven risks to humans using PTFE cookware.”

“This complaint is based on years of examples of false advertising used to scare consumers with misleading information when it is well known that non-stick cookware is safe and poses no health risks under normal conditions,” said Carmine Zarlenga, a partner with Mayer Brown. “We will present these facts to a jury to end these unfair and deceptive marketing practices.”

“As a global leader in cookware, Groupe SEB has deep expertise across all major coating technologies, including ceramic, PTFE, and stainless steel,” read a statement from Groupe SEB. “In this context, we cannot accept that some companies rely on fear-based marketing or misleading claims to promote their products, particularly when such practices have already been subject to NAD rulings. We believe that fair competition should be driven by innovation, quality, and clear, fact-based information for consumers.”

What Caraway says

Jordan Nathan, Caraway’s founder and CEO, said it’s “a meritless lawsuit” and characterized it as “a tale as old as time, really a business tactic to regain market share.”

“The funny, or hypocritical, thing we see in the suit is, if you look at their ceramic claims or marketing, they actually say the same stuff that we do,” Nathan told Fortune. “They call it healthy, made without PFAS.”

He added that Caraway has “never called out any of their brand names” in advertising, describing the suit as a “bullying attempt” to slow a challenger brand that has eroded market share.

“As you look across a number of categories, whether it’s moving to organic within food or removing sulfates from shampoo or switching from polyester to organic cotton, this is what the consumer wants today.” Six U.S. states have moved to ban PFAS in cookware, over 20 have moved to enact protocols regarding its use.

“I think for us, we really want to shine a light on how big cookware is trying to hold back progress within the category,” Nathan said.

What’s at steak

The plaintiffs are seeking an injunction barring Caraway from making further claims that PTFE-based cookware is toxic, corrective advertising, and disgorgement of Caraway’s profits.

They argue the reputational damage to PTFE-based products may already be irreversible: “A sizable portion of the public has been permanently convinced of the fictitious dangers of PTFE-coated cookware and bakeware,” the complaint states.

Nathan, for his part, says the company is launching a campaign this week to fight against the claims. “This is a lot bigger than Caraway itself,” he said. “We just want to provide customers with the information for them to make their own decisions.”

This article has been updated with Groupe SEB’s and Meyer’s comments.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com