Measles cases continue to rise in the United States nearly two and a half decades after the virus had been declared eliminated in the country. Currently, the epicenter of the U.S. measles outbreak is in Texas, where one child has now died from the disease. Heres what to know about the outbreak, how far it has spread, and the symptoms to watch out for.
Measles U.S. outbreak map
As of the time of this writing, there are more than 130 cases of measles across two states alone, reports Reuters. Those states are Texas and New Mexico. However, while Texas has garnered the headlines due to it having the majority of cases, the disease has been found in other U.S. states since the beginning of this year.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), measles cases have been reported in eight states. The CDCs Measles Cases and Outbreaks page has an interactive map and charts that show the current locations at a range of the number of cases.
The CDC updates its outbreak page with new data every Friday, but as of its last update on February 20, 2025, the states with outbreaks reported this year are:
Alaska: 1-9 cases
California: 1-9 cases
Georgia: 1-9 cases
New Jersey: 1-9 cases
New Mexico: 1-9 cases
New York (city): 1-9 cases
Rhode Island: 1-9 cases
Texas: 50-99 cases
As of the pages last update, the CDC says the total known number of cases of measles in the United States since the beginning of the year was 93. The true number is now much higher, with over 130 cases in just New Mexico and Texas alone.
Measles sees a steady rise in the United States
In 2000, measles was officially declared eliminated from the United States, which was defined as there being no continuous transmission of the disease in the country for more than a year, notes Reuters. Its elimination was a major public health milestone for the country.
Of course, in the years since then, people who live in the United States did contract measles, yet nearly all of them caught the disease outside of the country and brought it back home with them. But ever since the COVID-19 pandemic and the rise of the anti-vaccine movement, measles has returned to the United States.
The CDC says that in 2024 alone, there were 285 cases of measles in the United States. Forty percent of those cases required hospitalization, and more than half of those cases occurred in children under 5 years of age. What’s more, 89% of individuals with measles in the United States in 2024 were either unvaccinated or had an unknown vaccination status.
With more than 130 cases of measles in just two states this year, its looking likely that the number of measles cases in 2025 may surpass the total number of cases in 2024. The 93 cases confirmed by the CDCs February 20 update shows that 30% of them occurred in children under the age of 5, and 52% of them occurred in those aged just 5 to 19 years old. Unvaccinated individuals or individuals whose vaccination status is not known made up 95% of the cases.
In all of 2023, there were just 59 cases in the United States.
Measles symptoms
Measles is a highly contagious disease that spreads via the air, according to the CDC. The virus can linger in the air for up to two hours after an infected person has been there. It can also survive on surfaces. If a person touches those surfaces and then their eyes, nose, or mouth, the virus can be introduced to their system.
The CDC says that symptoms of measles start to show about 7-14 days after infection. Initial symptoms include:
High fever (may spike to more than 104°)
Cough
Runny nose (coryza)
Red, watery eyes (conjunctivitis)
The agency also notes that about 23 days after symptoms appear, the infected may begin to show Koplik spots inside their mouth. Koplik spots are tiny white marks. Then, 35 days after symptoms appear, the infected will usually get a rash, first beginning at their hairline and on their face, and then extending down the body.
Is measles deadly?
Yes, it can be. As Reuters reports, one child has already been confirmed to have died from the disease in Texas. It is the first U.S. death from measles in a decade. The child was known to be unvaccinated.
Besides the potential to be fatal, measles can also have long-lasting or permanent complications. These include pneumonia; encephalitis (which can leave the person deaf or intellectually disabled); complications during pregnancy; and Subacute sclerosing panencephalitis (SSPE), a fatal disease that affects the nervous system.
Those most at risk from measles are children under the age of 5, pregnant women, adults older than 20, and people with weakened immune systems.
How can I protect myself from measles?
The CDC says the best way to protect yourself from measles is by getting vaccinated.
There are two measles vaccines available in the United States:
The MMR vaccine protects against three diseasesmeasles, mumps, and rubellaand is given in two doses.
The MMRV vaccine protects against four diseasesmeasles, mumps, rubella, and varicella (chickenpox)and is given in two doses.
U.S. President Donald Trump on Wednesday said that Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin is planning to cut 65% of his agency’s workforce, a move that came as a surprise to agency staff.
Trump revealed the potential EPA staff reduction at the first meeting of his cabinet, where his downsizing czar Elon Musk pledged that he would move quickly to slash federal spending.
“I spoke with Lee Zeldin, and he thinks he’s going to be cutting 65 or so percent of the people from environmental [sic],” Trump said. “And we’re going to speed up the process too at the same time.”
The EPA did not specify the details of the potential workforce reduction figure that Trump mentioned, but said the agency is focused on cutting federal grants, “reassessing” its real estate footprint and “delivering organizational improvements to the personnel structure.”
President Trump and EPA Administrator Zeldin are in lock step in creating a more efficient and effective federal government,” an EPA spokesperson said.
News of the 65% target that Trump cited caught agency staff off guard, with its union leadership saying it had not been given advance notice or any detail of the desired cuts.
“Mr. Zeldin stated during his confirmation testimony that he pledged ‘to enthusiastically uphold the EPAs missionfoster a collaborative culture within the agency, supporting career staff who have dedicated themselves to this mission,” Joyce Howell, executive vice president of AFGE Council 238 representing EPA employees, told Reuters.
“So which is it? Upholding the EPA mission or imposing a reduction in force that makes upholding the EPA mission an impossibility?”
So far, the EPA terminated nearly 400 probationary employees and placed nearly 200 employees on leave who worked on environmental justice issues at the agency.
A memo released ahead of the cabinet meeting called for a “significant reduction” but did not specify how many workers should be laid off, beyond the 100,000 of the nation’s 2.3 million civilian federal workers who have already taken a buyout or been fired.
The unprecedented government overhaul has so far fired more than 20,000 workers, frozen foreign aid, and disrupted construction projects and scientific research, though it has not slowed spending so far.
Valerie Volcovici, Reuters
President Donald Trump vowed to fight government abuse and introduce more transparency, a stance that might align him with a little-known agency charged with watching over the U.S.s powerful spying programs. Lately its investigated and critiqued the intelligence communitys secret terrorist watchlist, its fight against domestic extremism, and its warrantless searching of Americans emails. The agency, the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, is also central to a hard-won agreement that allows U.S. companies like Meta and X to handle Europeans data.
None of that stopped Trump from firing the boards three Democratic members on his second day in office, effectively hobbling one of the few independent watchdogs over the worlds most powerful spying apparatus. On Monday two of those members fired back in a lawsuit, calling the move illegal and asking a court to reinstate them.
The Presidents actions strike at the heart of the separation of powers, Travis LeBlanc and Ed Felten, the former members, said in their suit, which was filed Monday in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Not only do [Trumps] removals eradicate a vital check on the infringement of ordinary Americans civil liberties, they also hobble an agency that Congress created to assist it with oversight of the executive branch.
Travis LeBlanc, an attorney nominated by President Trump to the PCLOB, was sworn in by Vice President Harris. He and Ed Felten sued Trump on Monday [Screenshot: The Biden White House]
LeBlanc and Felten were both nominated by Trump during his first term, and each had at least another year to serve. They were fired along with Sharon Bradford Franklin, who was appointed by President Joe Biden to be the boards full-time chairwoman, and who was expected to step down anyway when her term ended on January 29.
The White House did not ask the boards only Republican member, Beth Williams, to resign; a fifth seat is currently vacant. Without a quorum of three members, the boards staff cannot start new reportsthe bulk of the agencys workor complete existing ones.
The move went largely unnoticed amid a barrage of firings, but raised alarms among civil liberties advocates on both sides of the Atlantic, especially given the prospect of the White House pursuing its political opponents. New FBI director Kash Patel, who has sought to downplay an enemies list he created in 2023, said this week that the agency would investigate its former director and Trump nemesis James Comey. Attempts by Elon Musks DOGE to access sensitive government databases have raised separate privacy concerns.
The Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board is one of the only independent watchdogs over government surveillance with the power to alert Congress and the public about abuses of government power, said Senator Ron Wyden, D-Ore., a member of the intelligence committee. Given Donald Trumps attempt to fire the Democratic members of the board and weaponize intelligence agencies with extreme partisan Republicans and MAGA loyalists, a functioning, independent PCLOB has never been more important.
Since taking office, the Trump administration has pushed hard to consolidate presidential control over agencies that have typically acted independently. In addition to eighteen inspectors general, responsible for preventing waste, fraud, and abuse at various federal agencies, Trump fired the heads of other independent agencies, including the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the National Labor Relations Board. Trump also fired the governments top ethics official responsible for enforcing anti-corruption laws in the White House, and removed the chair of the agency that protects federal workers, though the courts have paused those dismissals.
The administration has also removed other officials tasked with protecting security and privacy, including all members of the Deparment of Homeland Securitys advisory boards. They included the AI Safety and Security Board and the Cyber Safety Review Board, which is responsible for reviewing cyberattacks and making concrete recommendations to government and industry. It had previously issued a report on the 2023 Microsoft hack, and was still investigating the China-backed hack of U.S. telecoms, which one senator called the worst telecom hack in our nation’s history.
At the privacy and civil liberties boardknown in Washington as PCLOBthe firings have stalled a number of ongoing investigations into U.S. surveillance programs.
There are several projects right now that the PCLOB is actively working on that do keep me up at night and make me concerned, LeBlanc told journalist Brian Fung at the State of the Net conference this month.
The board was created after September 11 to provide an added layer of oversight of the executive branchs counterterrorism policies and to, Congress wrote, protect the precious liberties that are vital to our way of life. Led by a group of Presidential-appointed legal experts who are given security clearances and subpoena power, the agency advises the President, Congress, and the public about risks to Americans’ civil liberties.
One big focus is Section 702, the law that controversially allows the FBI and other federal intelligence agencies to do backdoor searches of intercepted foreign communications for Americans data without a warrant. The law is up for reauthorization next year.
The boards last report on the program, in 2023, said that FBI agents had performed 5 million warrantless searches for Americans between 2020 and 2023. Among them were tens of thousands of baseless searches for Americans including the improper searching of political leaders, such as members of Congress, social advocates, religious community leaders, and even individuals who had provided tips or were victims of crimes.
In one period alone, non-compliant queries related to civil unrest numbered in the thousands, Leblanc said last year during a public briefing. Thousands of U.S. persons, exercising their first amendment rights on domestic issues.
More recently, the agency has been helping assure protections for European Union citizens, too, as part of the agreement struck in 2023 after almost a decade of negotiations and court battles over data flows. (At one point Meta threatened to pull Facebook and Instagram out of Europe.) Just as Congress ruled that TikTok could not operate in the U.S. in part due to concerns user data could flow to China, EU lawmakers agreed that U.S. companies, including Google, Meta, Amazon and X, can only process EU data with certain assurances. Those requirements include the PCLOB.
Datenschützer warnten, nun wird es ernst: Erste Schritte von #Trump gegen das #Datenschutz-Aufsichtsgremium #PCLOB gefährden das EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework. Unternehmen drohen Unsicherheiten beim Datentransfer in die USA: https://t.co/8Xx6Veefb2 #PrivacyShield pic.twitter.com/TP2Oo6IWSf— datenschutzticker.de (@ds_ticker) January 29, 2025
The importance of the board to the EU agreement was underscored one night in October 2020, when Congress rushed three new board members through a last-minute confirmation hearing; they had to be in Brussels the next day for an important meeting with regulators.
Its clear that this [board] is a big deal to [the European Commission], says a person close to the agency who asked for anonymity to speak candidly. I don’t know that this was thought of by the Trump White House, and I can’t predict what they were thinking at all on this. I’m just telling you that that is a big, big deal.
Mary T. Costigan, an attorney at Jackson Lewis, said in a memo earlier this month that organizations that rely on their DPF certification for transatlantic data transfers should consider developing a contingency plan to prevent potential disruption to the transfer of essential personal data.
The uncertainty about the board adds to ongoing tensions between Washington and Brussels over the EUs tech regulations. Trump has attacked EU fines on U.S. giants, echoing complaints by Musk and Mark Zuckerberg over regulations like the Digital Services Act.
EU Commission spokesperson Markus Lammert said last month that while the data rules remain applicable irrespective of the members of the PCLOB, the Commission is continuously monitoring all adequacy decisions. Earlier this month, Javier Zarzalejos, chair of the commissions committee on civil liberties, asked the EUs justice chief whether the firings affect the adequacy of the data privacy agreement. One of the issues are the competences of the PCLOB, he wrote.
A PCLOB spokesperson, Alan Silverleib, declined to comment on the impact of the firings on the DPF. But he tells Fast Company that even if the full board cannot issue new reports, the agency’s research continued, with its single part-time board member and a staff of around 30 lawyers, policy experts and technologists. He said the board’s remaining member and its staff could still issue their own reports.
The Board looks forward to moving ahead on additional projects formally following the nomination, confirmation, and appointment of new Members, he said in a statement.
The White House hasnt indicated whenor ifit will nominate new members to the PCLOB, who must be a mix of Democrats and Republicans and be approved by the Senate, in a process that would likely take months. A White House spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment.
With a paltry budget of around $14 million and a staff of about 30, PCLOB was already one of the smallest federal agencies, especially relative to its sweeping mandate. (its nickname, meanwhile, is widely understood to be one of the worst shortened names in Washington, Williams quipped recently, and thats quite a feat.) Still, privacy advocates have called the boards behind-the-scenes investigations valuable, especially when it comes to Section 702, the surveillance law Congress will vote on when it expires next year.
In its last report on the program, the board agreed that its databases were critical for national security but diverged over the additional protections needed when the FBI searches them for Americans. The three Democratic members urged Congress to make a significant change: require the F.B.I. to get warrants first, with exceptions for emergencies and consensual searches. (In December, a federal district judge in a terror-related case agreed that there should be a warrant requirement, calling 702 a tool for law enforcement to run backdoor searches that circumvent the Fourth Amendment.)
The Democratic members’ recommendation put them at odds with the Biden White House, but in line with some Democratic civil libertarians and Republican MAGA members of Congress, as well as some Trump allies. Trump previously signed a reauthorization of Section 702 into law in 2018, but has remained a critic. Last year Congress reauthorized the program for two more years, amid last minute objections by Trump himself, who has complained that it was used to spy on his 2016 campaign. (The FBIs surveillance of Trump campaign aide Carter Page was not conducted under Section 702, but to many in Trumpworld the case has remained a symbol of the agency’s corruption.)
Tulsi Gabbard, Trumps pick for Director of National Intelligence, previously called for the full repeal of Section 702, which she described as overreach. More recently, she told senators that he supports the law, but said that Congress and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court should decide whether warrants are required for data on U.S. persons. (In 2015, Gabbard, then a Democrat in the House of Representatives, also joined Sen. Wyden in sponsoring a bill that would have strengthened the PCLOB.)
Kash Patel, himself a target of FBI surveillance, has also recently argued against a “warrant requirement” for Section 702 searches. To go through the foreign surveillance data “in real time is just not comported with the requirement to protect American citizenry, he said during his confirmation hearings.
John Ratcliffe, Trumps CIA director, also told the Senate he opposes a warrant requirement. Still, he added, it’ll be incumbent on me . . . both within the administration and outside . . . [to] make sure that people understand and to dispel false narratives about how [the surevillance law] is being misused or can be misused.
The firings at PCLOB were hardly the only dismissals to sharpen fears about abuses of power or retribution under the Trump White House. At the Justice Department, the acting attorney general fired more than a dozen prosecutors who worked on the criminal investigations into Trump for the special counsel, as well as more than a dozen prosecutors in the U.S. Attorneys Office who had been hired to investigate the Jan. 6 riot. The Justice Departments leaders also asked for the names of the thousands of agents involved in the Trump and Jan. 6 investigations at the FBI, where at least nine high-ranking officials have also been removed.
Last week a court stalled Trump’s dismissal of the governments top ethics official, Hampton Dellinger, who leads the Office of Special Counsel, in what has become the first major test of the new administration’s effort to consolidate control over independent agencies. On Monday Dellinger announced that his office would seek to pause the mass firings of many of the estimated 200,000 federal workers who are on probation.
The cases will be reviewed by the Merit Systems Protection Board, another independent agency, which on Tuesday paused the firing of six probationary workers. That agency, too, has been targeted by the White House: its chairwoman, Cathy Harris, was recently reinstated after she sued, prompting a federal judge to temporarily block her firing.
While PCLOB has previously had vacancies that kept it from issuing new reports, no president has previously fired a board member. The lawsuit on Monday challenges the legality of that move. PCLOBs structure and functions confirm that Congress intended to prevent the President from removing its members without cause, the suit alleges, insisting that the White House must also consult with Congress first. (The case will be heard by Senior U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton, who drew criticism last year when he took the rare step of giving a TV interview decrying the rise of threats, spurred by Trump, against federal judges and their families.)
The legal complaint points to critical changes made to the boards statute by Congress in 2007. Originally stood up under the Executive branch, the PCLOB was re-established that year as an independent agency amid concerns about its impartiality.
The new law, the 9/11 Commission Act, deleted language from the original statute that said it serves at the pleasure of the President and that [t]he Board shall perform its functions within the executive branch and under the general supervision of the President. Its statute also requires that the board be nonpartisan, that its members be selected on nonpolitical grounds, and that the President may remove a member of the Board only for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.
Computer scientist Ed Felten was nominated by President Trump to the PCLOB in 2018 [Photo: Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board/Wikimedia Comons]
Even if Trump hopes to appoint loyalists to the board, the law still requires that members, typically prominent legal experts, come from different political parties. The White House could also opt to keep the board perpetually under quorum, or after appointing new members, could also choose to fire them again.
In a letter to Congressional leadership last month, a group of 27 civil liberties groups said that the firings had already set a dangerous precedent.
The White House could kill any reports or findings from PCLOB it does not want issued, firing Board members to halt the release of information the White House wants covered up, the groups, led by the Center for Democracy and Technology, wrote. Even the mere threat of firings would chill PCLOB from properly performing its duties, with members seeking to stay in the good graces of the White House rather than acting as a vigilant watchdog.
Speaking at the State of the Net conference last month, Beth Williams, the sole remaining member, was asked if the firings would affect the board’s ability to be independent and effective going forward. I don’t think it’s appropriate for me to comment on the President’s personnel decisions, she said.
She also downplayed the impacts of the firings. The board is open for business, she said, citing a recent policy that gives the board more leeway to continue operating without a quorum.
During a separate appearance at the conference, LeBlanc questioned the boards efficacyWilliams serves onl part timeand its independence. The implications of his firing and others could cost the country more than civil liberties and transatlantic data flows, he said.
Where independent agencies get their strength is not because theres someone at the top that somebody else trusts, said LeBlanc. It is that both sides, both parties, all feel like their views are aired, and that trust in and of itself is what gives them power.
Gutting the agency to a single member means you only get one stream of information and communication, and that calls into question whether youre getting the true story, and calls into question the credibility of the ultimate decisions or recommendations that are coming out of the agency.
He pointed to other heavily regulated industriestransportation, elections, energy, consumer financial productsthat could be undermined by regulatory instability.
If independent agencies no longer exist in this country, if everyone ultimately ends up serving at the pleasure of the current administration, he said, we lose the benefit of expertise.
Although discussions about hybrid and remote work ,and forcing workers back to office full time, should be seen through the lens of data and evidence, this is rarely the case.
In fact, much like DEI, remote work has become a highly political and polarizing topic. Which is why rational arguments and objective examination of the facts are generally eclipsed by emotional, intuitive, or ideological opinions. Sadly, this also means nuances are far less common than categorical or extreme positions.
Consider the recent meltdown by JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon, one of the corporate pioneers of ditching working from home policies to bring people back to the office. He cursed at his staff during a town hall in reaction to the news that they were signing a petition against the full-time return to the office: Dont waste time on it, he told his staff, I dont care how many people sign that f**king petition, according to a recording obtained by Reuters. Dont give me the sh*t that work from home Friday works.
To be sure, JP Morgan (like any other company) has the right to decide whichever working modality or approach they like, and employees can decide whether they object or not. Ultimately, those who dont wish to put up with it, or anything else at the company, should feel free to go elsewhere, not least since many organizations (including in banking and finance) still offer hybrid work, which most employees prefer. Likewise, any CEO or business owner should obviously decide on how and where people work, which is a key part of the job characteristics and organizational culture for employees to consider.
RTO mandates as a power play
Furthermore, it is plausible that back-to-the-office mandates are partly intended as a trigger to get demotivated workers to quit, or at least test their commitment, motivation, and work ethic. In this sense, back-to-the-office mandates could exert some kind of Darwinian or evolutionary pressure whereby unmotivated or demotivated workers quit, leaving career-obsessed, hyper-committed, and ultra-loyal employees inside the tent whats not to like?
To be sure, maverick CEOs and executives, from Jamie Dimon to Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos, project such an aura of power, vision, status, and invincibility, that they have a cult-like influence on their followers (to the point that employees are more like followers than workers). It is not something that can be emulated by everyone, at least not without adverse consequences: like plummeting morale, engagement, and trust.
Trust is the critical issue leaders ought to consider before emulating Dimon with back-to-the-office mandates. And there is already a crisis of trust, with recent Edelman reports suggesting that 68% of people distrust their managers/leaders (up from 56% in 2021), and various indicators highlighting a big gap between employees self-perceived performance, and their managers expectations. As Microsofts CEO Satya Nadela recently noted, 85% of employees feel overworked, yet 85% of managers feel their employees are slacking.
What happens when you force employees to do something
To be sure, there is something illogical about the assumption that those same employees who are assumed to be too demotivated to be productive when working from home will somehow become really engaged and productive if you force them into the office, against their will. One certain outcome if you do that, is that, if those workers dont quit (which will depend partly on the strength of the market, the economy, and alternatives) they will try very hard to pretend to work, and fake productivity, when they are forced back to the office full-time.
Ideally, decisions about remote, hybrid or in-office work should be based on facts, evidence, and data. Not external data from independent scientific studies, but organizations own internal data: after all, most organizations are awash with data on productivity, which should allow them to compare and contrast productivity differences between people who spend more or less time at the office, and ideally focus on output rather than input.
Sure, it is plausible that being in the office can provide people with a stronger connection with the culture, learn from others, bond and collaborate more effectively but then this should result in measurable improvements in what people deliver and achieve.
Failing that, any mandate will be more reflective of the ego and power of the boss than an intention to help people to achieve and deliver their best, and be part of a culture that treats them like rational and mature human beings.
Many of us want to get promoted at work, but dont often stop to consider what that means. Moving into the executive ranks often means leading the very people you once worked alongside. And while you might attract attention with stellar performance, it’s not enough to secure your success as a leader.
As a CEO and C-Level coach, let me tell you that I, nor any of my most successful clients, would risk elevating a leader to the next level if it would lead to a systemic risk of losing talent or momentum. In those cases, Id wait to ensure that this high performer is making an effort to work on leadership quality, including their peer relationships.
Leadership requires a new skill set and, just as importantly, the respect and trust of your peers. Your colleagues’ opinions can hurt or help your ability to rise to the next level. Many professionals overlook their peer relationships, focusing instead on managing up to satisfy their boss or managing down to lead their teams performance. The reality is: If your colleagues don’t trust or support you, your promotion might never materialize. Worse, it might falter due to their feedback.
During executive coaching engagements, I often find leaders realize that they need to start paying attention to their cross-functional relationships. Then they often ask, how do I take such initiative? Where do I start?
Below are the steps that you might want to take.
Map your landscape
Start by listing all the colleagues who are critical to your teams mission and your success as a leader. Think horizontally, like your peers who report to the same manager and cross-departmental collaborators at a similar level. List them, and for each of them, consider rating the relationship based on the following factors:
How vital is it to your mission? Identify the level at which their support is critical to your KPIs, to advancing your teams agenda and your own professional success.
How frequently are you communicating? Think about how often you have a chance to talk, email, or formally meet.
What’s the quality of your communication? Determine if your interactions are purely transactional or if youve built actual rapport. Think about how productive each interaction is and what follow-up occurs.
What is the level of trust between you both? Reflect on how both parties may feel about the honesty of the exchange, the commitment to what youve discussed, and the level of political gesturing that might or might not have been present.
Once youve thought about these ratings, take it a step further. Relationships don’t evolve by accident. They require consistent effort, thoughtful communication, and mutual understanding. Use your empathy to reflect upon things like:
What drives their business agenda? Reflect on their business mission and goals. Ensure that you understand how to help them.
What seems to motivate their engagement? Thinking about a time when theyre highly engaged. Thats a peek into what motivates them and how to get the best out of them. For example, some people are motivated by public recognition, but others arent.
What tends to demotivate their engagement? Think about when that person exhibited anger, frustration, disappointment, or did not reply at all. That might be a sign that you need to modify your behavior or communication style.
Identify your sponsors and anti-sponsors
Once you create the list of people and go through this process, youll quickly realize that there are key people that you havent built relationships with. Start with those people.
Youll also realize that there are peers that will be naturally inclined to support you (sponsors) and those who might work against you (anti-sponsors). Instead of avoiding detractors, take the opportunity to address their concerns.
Reflect on why some peers may resist your rise. A client of mine once discovered that an “anti-sponsor” was frustrated by being left out of critical project discussions. Inviting them into conversations and acknowledging their expertise turned a skeptic into an advocate.
Take radical ownership
The strength of your relationships often mirrors your own behaviors. If a colleague is disengaged or resistant, consider how your actions influenced the situation. Have you been overly competitive? Dismissive of their ideas? Too focused on your own outcomes?
Leadership starts with accountability. I learned long ago the only behavior I can truly change is my own. If I wanted to improve a relationship, I had to initiate it. For example, start by saying, Something seems off in our working relationship. Can you share what it is? Maybe theres something I can do to change it. Honesty often paves the way for better collaboration.
Radical ownership involves recognizing your impact and taking action to improve, not assigning self-blame.
Step into their shoes
Empathy is your most powerful tool. Put yourself in your colleagues’ positions and consider the key pressures that they face, the resources that they have access to, and ways that you can make their lives easier. Consider what would matter to you if the roles were reversed. A simple question like, “What can I do to support you?” can open doors to meaningful dialogue.
Once, as a young leader in a fast-moving tech company, I pushed hard for more support from my marketing peers. My aggressive approach, however, only generated resentment. When I took the time to understand their pressures and resource limitations, I adjusted my requests. By expressing empathy and remorse, we found a productive path forward and collaborated successfully.
Play the long game
Building strong peer relationships requires a long-term commitment to earning respect and trust over time rather than focusing on quick wins. When you consistently demonstrate authenticity, reliability, and a commitment to shared goals, your peers will naturally see you as a leader they want to follow.
Remember, leadership isn’t about being in charge. It’s ultimately rooted in inspiring others to follow willingly. Win the trust of your peers, and you’ll not likely secure your promotion, but equally thrive in the new role with their support.
Since its launch in 2018, Olipop has been a bit of a Cinderella story in the oft-unforgiving beverage game. The prebiotic, fiber-laden soda designed to be healthier than the category classics is currently thriving: It just closed a $50 million Series C and announced a $1.85 billion valuation. Last year, it surpassed $400 million in revenue. Its reps cite it as the No. 1 nonalcoholic brand in dollar and unit growth, outpacing legacy giants like Coca-Cola, Dr. Pepper, and Red Bull. Its now sold in nearly 50,000 stores and is even outselling Coke at one major national retailer (though they wont disclose which one, per that retailers regulations).
Which is all to say: Theres no way cofounder and CEO Ben Goodwin still formulates all of the brands cult-fave flavors in his laundry room himself, as he did back in the day.
. . . Right?
People would be shocked. Established flavor chemists, if they walked into my little laundry room lab, their heads would explode, he says with a laugh. I have my own kind of differentiated way that I approach formulation. And from there, it’s all about my nose and its about my senses and my vision for the formula. And it’s all I need.
In lieu of Cinderella, Goodwin has been described as the Willy Wonka of soda. And, well, that tracks.
[Photo: Olipop]
Oli and Microbiology
Goodwin grew up in Monterey, California, in a low-income family with food instability and food insecurity. As a result, he says he suffered from weight issues and anxietybut he realized at 14 that better health would yield a better life in the long run. So, he actively pursued just that through a variety of means, notably nutrition and adopting a vegetarian diet.
Ben Goodwin [Photo: Olipop]
It was a very powerful interpersonal awakening for me [that] also affected my emotional stability, my cognitive function, he says. It was like a paradigm shift for me as a person, and it’s also part of what then led me to have this really deep passion about how poor nutrition and poor health outcomes can undermine society’s well-being on all levels at scale.
Goodwin went on to study environmental science in college, but didnt want to emerge saddled with debt. After reading about successful entrepreneurs, he dropped out of college in the early 2000s. He says he felt drawn to the beverage industry, and went to help out a friend who had launched Kombucha Botanica . And thats when he began to go down the rabbit hole of microbiomes.
The connectivity occurred for me of, Oh, wow, this is probably what I activated as I went through my own nutritional journeyand so that really then became the center of my focus.
After a few years at the company, he spent half a decade freelancing in product development, but eventually found himself pulled back to the beverage industry. He took what he had learned about fermentation at Kombucha Botanica and worked with a microbiologist to develop Obi Probiotic Soda, which was made from non-dairy kefir. He realized he could go the natural product route, or he could meet soda customers where they truly were in the mainstream and think biggersomething that would prove critical for Olipop down the line.
[Soda] is arguably the most deleterious nonalcoholic drink in all of human history, he says. So, if I want to make the most impact, here’s where I can make the most impact.
He met ex-Diageo innovation head David Lester as he was working on the product, and the two launched Obi together in 2013. The brand eventually folded a few years later due to what Goodwin dubbed partnership issues on the investor side, but the pair had witnessed something critical: potential.
We learned that there was a real opportunity here around this healthy soda concept, he says. When Obi came to its conclusion in late 2016, my passion for the mission was not only not diminishedit was actually enhanced.
[Photo: Olipop]
A Sodastream and a Dream
After Obi folded, Goodwin says he and Lester took $100,000 they had made from the brand and immediately went back into the soda game. For Goodwin, that meant formulating. He was focused on fiber, prebiotics, and nutritional diversityand, of course, flavor. From a makeshift lab in his California kitchen, he started working on the first three Olipop varieties: Cinnamon Cola, Strawberry Vanilla, and Ginger Lemon. The first was the most soda-like, but while cola traditionally contains cinnamon, people assumed it would be spicyso they changed the name to Vintage Cola, which Olipop drinkers know today. Ginger Lemon, meanwhile, was intended for health-focused kombucha consumers, and Strawberry Vanilla was an innovation test flavor inspired by one of Goodwins favorite candies as a kid.
Goodwin still formulates flavors much the same way today, despite running a company worth billions of dollars. He is the chief formulator, and his lab is now in the laundry room of his Washington-state home by virtue of convenience. Theres a sink, and he can put a metal table in there. Its an otherwise deceptively simple rig consisting of a couple scales, a Vitamix, pipettes and measuring devices, and a Sodastram.
[At our headquarters] we’ve got a much more sophisticated setup with an Alpha MOS mass spectrometer and all that kind of stuff. But when I’m in what I would call the artistic phase, I don’t want any of that stuff interfering with my process.
He says he knew he had a knack for formulating back at Obi, and enters a flow state when hes working. He spends a lot of time up front thinking about the architecture of the flavor he wants to create: Whats the story he wants it to tell? Whats the mouth-feel? The acidity? The resolution as you drink it? Critically, he says he always tries to create something that has a nostalgic anchor, but is innovative and ownable at the same time.
As the flavor progresses, he breaks out a yellow legal pad to jot down his formulas. He has cupboards filled with these notebooksin total, he has created more than 50 flavors over the past seven years, and has brought 22 of them to the market, including favorites like Crisp Apple, Tropical Punch, Cherry Cola, and Cream Soda.
Olipop’s flavors have the essence of traditional soda drinks, but they don’t taste exactly like a Coca-Cola or a Dr. Pepper. Rather, they look to channel a similar vibe using sweeteners like stevia, cassava syrup, and fruit, alongside botanicals, plant fiber, and prebiotics (the stuff that feeds the good bacteria in your stomach).
Something I love about formulating: It’s a proper blending of science and art. And I’m still growing as a formulator every time I formulate, he says. I take craftsmanship extremely seriously, and it’s like the formulas that I create have the least distance between me and the Olipop customer of anything I will ever do. It is my most direct and unfiltered communication tool.
[Photo: Olipop]
Olipops can design is perhaps the ultimate mirror to his formulation strategy. Its clean, thanks to the brand name set in the Ano typeface and the accompanying minimalist illustrations; its warm and nostalgic, owing to each flavor name set in the friendly Windsor; and ultimately it harkens back to a more innocent time when we didnt know traditional soda was terrible for us. (As for the healthiness of Olipop and its competitors, with fewer calories and added sugars than traditional soda, and no high-fructose corn syrup to speak of, they’re indeed a healthier choice than cracking a Coke. But the Cleveland Clinic and others have written that while they can be a good occasional supplement, it’s still best to get prebiotic fibers naturally from eating whole foods.)
[Photo: Olipop]
Olipop pops off
When Goodwin and Lester were trying to get Olipop off the ground, they approached the distributor Dairy Delivery, which Goodwin says agreed to launch the brand if they could get 100 stores on board. Olipop managed to net 40 or 50 accounts, and Dairy Delivery got them into some small chains in Northern California.
Goodwin says Olipop has always had robust organic traction, experiencing triple-digit growth every year since launching in 2018; 2020 was particularly critical, with 960% growth. Influencers and TikTok played a big role, and at a time when the world receded from groceries, Olipops in-store sales were strong, indicating people were picking it up as an essential item in their strategic grocery runs. The companys DTC sales (which today account for less than 5% of the business) were an added bonus on top of it all.
That was actually my first clue that something really different was happening with this brand than what is even remotely typical, Goodwin says of Olipop’s COVID-era sales surge.
Olipop has a lot of flavors compared to most bev brands. While Crisp Apple is the company’s top seller, Goodwin says none of the brand’s kaleidoscopic cans have ever really been a failure, so Olipop walks a careful line of skew effectiveness and the right cadence of novelty.
It’s a great problem to have, but it does add to the complexity in terms of what choices we make, he says. It’s always a tension between supply chain going, Guys, you’ve got enough SKUs, you’re going to kill us, and sales saying, We want more SKUs, we want to go sell more product.
Of course, the behemoth brands have been watching. What does he make of Coke joining the category last week with the launch of Simply Pop, with Pepsi also reportedly prepping its own response?
I gotta tell you, there is kind of no bigger compliment, Goodwin says. Back in 2010, [I said], I think this is important. I wonder how this will do. And now in 2025 to have the biggest soda brands in all of human history decide that they agree, putting their money where their mouth is and launching products . . . it’s incredible.
For some time, meme coins have occupied a peculiar space in online culture. While there are people who have struck it rich trading these joke-based cryptocurrencies, the landscape is riddled with scams, rug pulls, and market manipulation. Beneath the fun, there are systemic issues that demand attention.
Crypto coins are often cons. And now theyre a matter of life and death.
Streamer MistaFuccYou died by suicide on an X livestream after allegedly losing his last $500 to a meme coin scam. In a desperate bid for attention, he played Russian roulette on camera, seemingly to promote his own meme coin. His final post on X read: Before you crash out and throw your life away ask your self [if] it really matters.”
Reports suggest the entire incidenthis financial loss, the deadly stuntmay have been part of an extreme marketing ploy for another crypto coin that spiraled out of control. Regardless of intent, the aftermath was chilling. Within minutes of his death, crypto tokens bearing his name were launched, their value spiking before an inevitable crash. Opportunistic traders saw a chance to cash in on tragedy, mirroring the same exploitative cycle that may have led to his demise.
The crypto sector, already battling a reputation for scams, now faces an even darker association: the human cost of financial manipulation. While cryptocurrency is often touted as an alternative to traditional banking, meme coinsdesigned for viral hype rather than real utilityare particularly prone to fraud. Rug pulls lure in investors, artificially inflate prices, and then leave them bankrupt when creators cash out and vanish.
Yet, despite mounting concerns, crypto continues to gain political backing. President Donald Trump has positioned himself as a champion of digital currencies, picking venture capitalist David Sacks as his crypto czar and appointing Paul Atkins, a pro-crypto advocate, to lead the Securities and Exchange Commission. These moves signal growing legitimacy for the industry, even as financial regulators in the U.S. and U.K. warn that meme coin investors risk losing everything.
Meme coins have long been dismissed as harmless fun, a gamified entry point into crypto speculation. But the reality is starker. Theyre not just vehicles for financial losstheyre now entangled with life-or-death consequences.
In January 2022, when my book The Success Factor was published, I hosted a virtual book launch party. It was a celebration that brought together friends, family, and some of the high achievers I had interviewed for the bookastronauts, Nobel Prize winners, Olympians, and more.
Just before the event, one of the astronauts texted me with an unexpected question: Will [a prominent physician-scientist at the forefront of the COVID-19 pandemic] be there? I chuckled and responded, Omicron just hit; I think hes a bit busy dealing with that right now. But this Nobel Prize winner will be there.
The astronauts reply floored me: Wow, a Nobel Prize winner? Now thats a high achiever.
I was baffled. This was coming from an astronautsomeone whod gone to space, which only a select few will ever achieve. When I later shared this exchange with the Nobel Prize winner, he wasnt surprised. I know most of the other Nobel Prize winners in the sciences, he said casually. Its a small world. We see each other often. To him, being a Nobel laureate, while extraordinary to the rest of us, was simply normal in his sphere.
The same was true for the astronaut. For him, being surrounded by other astronauts had normalized what is objectively an extraordinary achievement. This experience revealed a profound truth: our baseline for what we consider normal is shaped by the people around us.
The rising baseline effect: redefining normal
When everyone in your immediate circle has a doctorate, it can feel like an expectation rather than an extraordinary accomplishment. Yet, less than 2% of the worlds population holds a terminal degree. This phenomenon, where we normalize exceptional achievements, is what I call the rising baseline effect.
If you want to elevate our own standards and achievements, you need to surround yourself with high achievers. Now, this doesnt mean you must accomplish what they have, but being in their orbit can shift your perspective on what’s possible and lets you imagine yourself achieving more.
The spillover effect: proximity to excellence
Even if you dont mirror the accomplishments of those around you, research shows that close proximity to high performers can positively impact your own performance. This phenomenon, known as the spillover effect, underscores the power of your environment.
Its not just your five closest friends who influence your character. A study found that employees sitting within a 25-foot radius of high performers experienced a 15% boost in productivity. High achievers radiate curiosity, innovation, and motivationqualities that ripple and touch colleagues nearby.
The danger of the toxic employee
Unfortunately, the proximity principle also applies to underachievers. A single toxic employee can infect their organization with their negativity. And they often have a much bigger influence than their high performing peers. Their behaviors, less than stellar output, and pessimistic views can diminish productivity, disintegrate morale, and stifle innovation across teams. This is why its not enough to add high achievers to your circle. Its also important to minimize your exposure to toxic individuals
How to build a high-achieving network
If you want to intentionally curate a network that elevates your baseline and leverages the spillover effect, consider these steps:
Identify and engage with high performersSeek out opportunities to connect with people who excel in their fields. Attend industry conferences, join professional groups, and engage with thought leaders on platforms like LinkedIn. By starting to engage and emulate their mindset, youll start to move closer into the circle of high achievers .
Learn through observationHigh achievers often model behaviors and mindsets that lead to success. Pay attention to their mindsets, decision-making processes, and ways of thinking. When you adopt even a fraction of their approach, it can create significant improvements in your own performance. Just by taking action, you are doing what most wont.
Embrace mentorshipYou dont need to be in the same room as Nobel Prize winners or astronauts to benefit from the rising baseline effect. Surround yourself with peers and mentors who challenge and inspire you, and reciprocate by sharing your own knowledge and expertise.
Eliminate toxicityBe vigilant about the influence of negativity in your network. Limit interactions with individuals who drain your energy or stifle your growth, and prioritize relationships that uplift and inspire. If they enter the break room when youre there, give yourself permission to leave. If they want to stop by your office to chat, tell them youre preparing for a meeting. Give them a reason to leave.
Elevating your normal
By intentionally surrounding yourself with high achievers, you can recalibrate your baseline for whats possible. Whether its in the workplace or your personal lives, the people you spend time with profoundly shape your mindset, aspirations, and ultimately your outcomes.
Remember, you dont achieve success in isolation. You nurture it in environments that challenge you to aim higher, dream bigger, and perform better. So, choose your inner circle wisely. Your future self will thank you.
The nonprofit Environmental Working Group just released an update to its Tap Water Database, finding that nearly half of the American population is drinking water containing PFAS, otherwise known as forever chemicals.
The EWG is a research advocacy group dedicated to monitoring agricultural subsidies, toxic chemicals, and drinking water pollutants. It’s been creating a Tap Water Database for nearly two decades, with the last report issued in 2021. To create its latest database, the EWG audited water quality data from nearly 50,000 American water systems between 2021 and 2023. It identified 324 contaminantslike nitrate, arsenic, and disinfection byproductsin drinking water across the country, with detectable levels in almost all community water systems.
In many cases, the report notes, these detectable levels fall below the legal limits set by the Environmental Protection Agency, but they nevertheless exceed the health-based standards established by the EWG itself. And, despite recent federal efforts to regulate PFAS in tap water, the group found that a large portion of Americans are consuming forever chemicals on a daily basis.
“The reason we publish this database is so people are aware that, one, there are contaminants in their drinking water, and two, even at perfectly legal limits, in most cases contaminants are present at concentrations that are linked to health harm,” says Sydney Evans, senior science analyst at the EWG.
What are the forever chemicals in tap water?
PFAS, or perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, are a class of synthetic chemicals commonly used in consumer goods like nonstick pans and stain resistant fabrics. In recent years, PFAS have been linked to increased risk of cancer, developmental delays, decreased fertility, and other health impacts. To make matters worse, these chemicals are persistent: They last for thousands of years at a time, are difficult to destroy, and are already present in the blood of most Americans.
Last April, the EPA finalized the first-ever federal limits on six types of PFAS in drinking water. As The Conversation noted at the time, The limits . . . are less than a drop of water in a thousand Olympic-sized swimming pools, which speaks to the chemicals toxicity. Public water systems have until 2027 to complete monitoring for PFAS, and removing them is a laborious process thats expected to require billions of dollars each year.
As of right now, the EWG found, PFAS are present in the drinking water of over 143 million Americans. Overall, the concentration of PFOS in the national water supply has risen over time: While the EWG’s 2021 Tap Water Database showed PFOS in 28 states (929 utilities, serving 28 million people), it’s now in 45 states (4,486 utilities, serving 104 million people.) These numbers are expected to increase as testing continues.
The more that we test for PFAS, the more places that were finding it, Tasha Stoiber, a senior scientist at EWG, told the publication Heatmap. Its being addressed in a patchwork way.
How can I test and filter my water?
The fate of PFAS regulation in tap water is now relatively murky, given that several of President Donald Trumps recent EPA appointees have a history of opposing PFAS regulations. In addition, the conservative Project 2025 agenda includes language that appears to call for fewer chemical regulations.
“As a result of the new administration, a lot of these drinking water protections are under threat,” Evans says. “There’s potential that [the federal PFAS] limits could be raised, or that [the regulations] could be pulled back, which we think would be a huge step backward for such a big win that we’ve seen for environmental health over the past few years.”
While systemic change will require continued federal intervention, there are a few steps that individuals can take to make sure their water is safe. To start, the EWGs Tap Water Database allows users to search by local water system to discover any reported contaminants, and the site will recommend an appropriate water filter based on the results. The EWG has also tested a number of water filters to suggest the best options for removing PFAS. Filters using activated carbon, ion exchange resin, and reverse osmosis are all potential options that have shown to be effective.
Ultimately though, Evans says, the responsibility for PFAS should rest with the systems that create and regulate them, not with everyday Americans. “It shouldn’t be on the individual to guarantee that their drinking water is safe,” she says.
It’s lights out for the signage at the Washington, D.C., headquarters of the U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB).
Footage shows lettering spelling out the consumer watchdog agency’s name and window decals of its seal have been stripped from the building earlier this month after mass firings gutted the bureau and remaining staff was ordered to stop their work. Though some fired CFPB attorneys are suing to keep their jobs and President Donald Trump’s administration says it intends to keep the agency open in a new, diminished form, from the outside looking in, things don’t look good for the bureau, literally.
The Federal Government founded CFPB in 2011 in response to the financial crisis that preceded the Great Recession, with the objective to offer consumers financial protections from fraud and scams. It’s provided more than $21 billion in monetary compensation, canceled debt, and consumer relief as of last year. And as of one of the nation’s youngest federal agencies, it has a surprisingly modern and communicative logomark, courtesy the design and consulting firm IDEO. Amid the agency’s attempted takedown, it’s also a deft reminder of its purpose.
[Image: cfpb.gov]
The all lowercase CFPB mark, by designers Annessa Braymer, Elle Luna, and Gaston Yagmourian, uses the opening of the letter c to evoke a flashlight, with a soft beam of light emanating to light up the rest of the logo. According to the CFPB, the logo, which is still on the agency’s website, “was designed to symbolize vigilance, transparency, and a consumer focus.” This mark is in addition to the agency’s more traditionally designed seal.
“Consumers are the foundation and focus of our mission and our logo reflects that,” the agency’s brand guide states. “A soft beam of light symbolizes our efforts to illuminate the financial landscape and foster transparency in the marketplace.”
The CFPB’s visual identity uses a green primary color palette to indicate at-a-glance that it deals with monetary issues. In its guides for photography and illustrations, the agency emphasizes the importance of imagery that’s clear, relatable, and politically and socially neutral.
Though White House budget director Russ Vought said in a motion the CFPB will continue on as a “more streamlined and efficient bureau,” Senate Democrats say thousands of consumer complaints have gone unanswered this month, citing a slowdown in complaints uploaded to its database.
The extent to which the CFPB’s work continues is an open question, but for an agency whose brand was designed to communicate transparency, the empty facade speaks volumes.
