Oil and gas exports have sustained Russia’s finances throughout its war against Ukraine. But as the fourth anniversary of the full-scale invasion approaches, those cash flows have suddenly dwindled to lows not seen in years.
It’s the result of new punitive measures from the U.S. and the European Union, U.S. President Donald Trump’s tariff pressure against India, and a tightening crackdown on the fleet of sanctions-dodging tankers carrying Russian oil.
The drop in revenue is pushing President Vladimir Putin to borrow from Russian banks and raise taxes, keeping state finances on an even keel for now.
But those measures only increase strains in a war economy now plagued by slowing growth and stubborn inflation.
In January, Russian state revenues from taxing the oil and gas industries fell to 393 billion rubles ($5.1 billion). Thats down from 587 billion ($7.6 billion) in December and from 1.12 trillion ($14.5 billion) in January 2025. That’s the lowest since the COVID-19 pandemic, says Janis Kluge, an expert on the Russian economy at German Institute for International and Security Affairs.
A new approach to sanctions
To pressure the Kremlin to halt fighting in Ukraine, the Trump administration imposed sanctions on Russias two largest oil companies, Rosneft and Lukoil, from Nov. 21. That means anyone buying or shipping their oil runs the risk of being cut off from the U.S banking system a serious concern for any multinational business.
On top of that, on Jan. 21 the EU began banning fuel made from Russia crude meaning it could no longer be refined somewhere else and shipped to Europe in the form of gasoline or diesel fuel.
The head of the EU’s executive commission, Ursula von der Leyen, on Friday proposed a full ban on shipping services for Russian oil, saying sanctions offered leverage to push Russia to halt the fighting. We must be clear-eyed: Russia will only come to the table with genuine intent if it is pressured to do so,” she said.
The latest sanctions are a step beyond the oil price cap imposed by the Group of Seven democracies under the Biden administration. The $60 per barrel cap, enforced through insurers and shippers based in G-7 countries, was aimed at reducing Russias profits, not banning imports, out of concern over higher energy prices.
The cap did reduce government oil revenues temporarily, especially after an EU ban on most Russian seaborne oil forced Russia to shift sales to China and India. But Russia built a shadow fleet of aging tankers operating beyond the reach of the cap, and revenues rose again.
Pressure on India to stop Russian oil imports
Trump on Feb. 3 agreed to lower tariffs to 18% from 25%, saying Indian President Narendra Modi agreed to halt Russian crude imports, and on Friday removed an additional 25% tariff imposed over continued imports of Russian oil.
Modi hasnt commented. Foreign affairs spokesman Randhir Jaiswal said India’s strategy was diversifying our energy sourcing in keeping with objective market conditions. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov noted that Moscow was monitoring the statements and remains committed to our advanced strategic partnership with New Delhi.
In any case, Russian oil shipments to India have declined in recent weeks, from 2 million barrels per day in October to 1.3 million per day in December, according to figures from the Kyiv School of Economics and the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Data firm Kpler says India is unlikely to fully disengage in the near term” from cheap Russian energy.
Ukraine’s allies increasingly have sanctioned individual shadow tankers to deter customers from taking their oil raising the number to 640 among the U.S., U.K., and EU. U.S. forces have seized vessels linked to sanctioned Venezuelan oil, including one sailing under a Russian flag, while France briefly intercepted a suspected shadow fleet vessel. Ukrainian strikes have hit Russian refineries, pipelines, export terminals, and tankers.
Russian oil is trading at a steep discount
Buyers are now demanding bigger discounts on Russian oil to compensate for the risk of running afoul of U.S. sanctions and the hassle of finding payment workarounds that skirt banks reluctant to touch the transactions. The discount widened to about $25 per barrel in December, as Russia’s primary crude export, Urals blend, fell below $38 per barrel, compared with about $62.50 per barrel for international benchmark Brent crude.
Since Russias taxes on oil production are based on the price of oil, that cuts into state revenues.
“Its a cascading or domino effect, said Mark Esposito, a senior analyst focused on seaborne crude at S&P Global Energy. Including diesel and gasoline created a really a dynamic sanctions package, a one-two punch that are impacting not only the crude flow, but the refined product flow off of those barrels. … A universal way of saying, if its coming from Russian crude, its out.
Reluctance to take delivery has meant an inordinate amount about 125 million barrels has built up in tankers at sea. That has driven up costs for scarce capacity, with rates for very large oil tankers reaching $125,000 per day and thats directly correlated with the ramifications of the sanctions, said Esposito.
Slowing growth strains Russia’s budget
On top of that, economic growth has stalled as the boost from war-related spending reaches its limits and as labor shortages put a cap on potential business expansion. And lower growth means less tax revenue. Gross domestic product increased only 0.1% in the third quarter. Forecasts for this year range between 0.6% and 0.9%, down from over 4% in 2023 and 2024.
I think the Kremlin is worried about the overall balance of the budget, because it coincides with the economic downturn, said Kluge. And at the same time the costs of the war are not decreasing.
The Kremlin responds by raising taxes and borrowing
The Kremlin has resorted to higher taxes and borrowing to fill the gap left by dwindling oil revenues and by slower economic growth. The Kremlin-controlled parliament, the Duma, raised value-added tax paid on consumer purchases at the cash register to 22% from 20% and increased levies on car imports, cigarettes, and alcohol. The government has increased its borrowing from compliant domestic banks. And a national wealth fund still has reserves to patch budget holes.
So the Kremlin has money for now. But raising taxes can slow growth even more. And borrowing risks worsening inflation, brought down to 5.6% through interest rates of 16% from the central bank, down from a peak of 21%.
“Give it six months or a year, and it could also affect their thinking about the war, said Kluge. I dont think they will seek a peace deal because of this, but they might want to lower the intensity of the fighting, focus on certain areas of the front and slow the war down. This would be the response if its getting too expensive.
David McHugh, Associated Press
Were still in the earliest days of artificial intelligence. It was just November 2022 when OpenAI released ChatGPT, and the world changed. However, enough time has passed for us to have a sufficient perspective to categorize AI and autonomous agents into three distinct eras.
Introduction2024: In the initial shockwave, there was more novelty and hype than practicality around the possibilities of AI. Businesses and leaders understandably struggled to understand what was barreling toward them.
Evaluation2025: There was a reality check for organizations as they began testing, experimenting with, and piloting AI projects in their search for use cases that created value. For various reasons, businesses often failed to achieve the results they expected or sometimes even saw their efforts completely stall.
Production2026: The coming year is when we begin to see a real payoff from business investments as innovative organizations take what theyve learned and seriously embrace AI, embedding agents throughout their operations to realize value.
Its an absolute certainty that AI activation will become the story of business. Were witnessing a profound shift from pilots to production agents embedded in real business processes, and its going to explode exponentially as AI adoption enters the mainstream enterprise and delivers measurable ROI. And the stakes will be incredibly high for businesses to get it right.
TIME TO SEPARATE HYPE AND ACTIVATION
Two things can be true at the same time. We can observe heightened speculation about AI alongside the on-the-ground emergence of agentic capabilities in real-world environments.
The massive investments in power generation, data centers, and chip innovation are unlike anything weve ever witnessed. The market cap of hyperscalers is reaching vertigo-inducing heights. Jamie Dimon, the CEO of JPMorgan Chase, frequently references this as a picks-and-shovels moment in a modern gold rush because its the infrastructure that will enable the innovation that comes next.
Much of the conversation today focuses on whether were in an AI bubble. That speculation will likely continue, but the real story is what comes next. Were not spending enough time imagining the world that will emerge on the other side of this period of intense innovation, whatever form that transition takes.
From a historical perspective, there have been many boom-and-bust cycles that, over the long run, proved beneficial. Ive been in the software industry for nearly three decades, which means I know bubbles firsthand. I began my business career in the 1990s, at the dawn of the Internet era, and experienced the dot-com boom and the subsequent crash. The market disruption was profound and painful.
Fast forward to today. Can anyone imagine if we couldnt order a sandwich on our phones and have it delivered in 15 minutes or less? There was an incredible payoff, but that only became apparent over time. Many of the innovations and infrastructure built in that era laid the groundwork for the world we live in today. We need to focus on the long game because AI will improve our lives immeasurably.
In moments of rapid technological change, the broader environment typically undergoes significant shifts as innovation accelerates. Whats unmistakable, however, is that the future belongs to companies that view AI not simply as a tool, but as a game-changing intelligence thats omnipresent in everything they do as they deliver for their customers.
Its why I remain so optimistic about the impact AI will have on all of us.
PREDICTIONS FOR 2026
This will be the most productive year in history, as concerns about AI replacing humans fade and the technology instead augments people, enabling them to perform their jobs more effectively and improving their lives.
Trust in AI. The level of confidence businesses place in AI to help them run their organizations will increase as they adopt measures that emphasize greater governance and data accuracy.
AI translates to ROI. This relates directly to trust. Weve already begun to see it, but the growth in real business value (substance, not hype) will happen as we move beyond simplistic AI co-pilots to agentic solutions that become integral to making businesses and people more productive. As more agents enter production, it will inevitably lead to sprawl. A mindset shift toward agent governance will be crucial to delivering the greatest return.
Race toward AGI. We will reach peak intensity in the development of artificial general intelligence. I expect well see announcements and investments that advance ambitious research initiatives across the field.
Flood of mergers and acquisitions. As the pressure to adopt AI intensifies, companies that havent kept pace with innovation will be forced to explore new ways to advance their technology roadmaps. We can expect to see more organizations pursuing partnerships and selective acquisitions to strengthen their AI position.
Its going to be a busy year.
WHAT WILL DEFINE 2026
Weve reached the long-heralded moment of divergence between the AI natives and the AI nots. There will be a gap. It will be wide. And it will become painfully clear which category businesses fall into this year.
The pressure will grow on CEOs and the board of directors to make AI activation their top technology investment priority. That means stopping experimentation and expecting production results. Businesses cant afford to fall so far behind that they cant catch up.
The question for you in 2026 is this: What kind of foundation are you building in your business so that AI becomes a competitive advantage?
Steve Lucas is the chairman and CEO at Boomi.
In 2023, the science fiction literary magazine Clarkesworld stopped accepting new submissions because so many were generated by artificial intelligence. Near as the editors could tell, many submitters pasted the magazines detailed story guidelines into an AI and sent in the results. And they werent alone. Other fiction magazines have also reported a high number of AI-generated submissions.
This is only one example of a ubiquitous trend. A legacy system relied on the difficulty of writing and cognition to limit volume. Generative AI overwhelms the system because the humans on the receiving end cant keep up.
This is happening everywhere. Newspapers are being inundated by AI-generated letters to the editor, as are academic journals. Lawmakers are inundated with AI-generated constituent comments. Courts around the world are flooded with AI-generated filings, particularly by people representing themselves. AI conferences are flooded with AI-generated research papers. Social media is flooded with AI posts. In music, open source software, education, investigative journalism, and hiring, its the same story.
Like Clarkesworlds initial response, some of these institutions shut down their submissions processes. Others have met the offensive of AI inputs with some defensive response, often involving a counteracting use of AI. Academic peer reviewers increasingly use AI to evaluate papers that may have been generated by AI. Social media platforms turn to AI moderators. Court systems use AI to triage and process litigation volumes supercharged by AI. Employers turn to AI tools to review candidate applications. Educators use AI not just to grade papers and administer exams, but as a feedback tool for students.
These are all arms races: rapid, adversarial iteration to apply a common technology to opposing purposes. Many of these arms races have clearly deleterious effects. Society suffers if the courts are clogged with frivolous, AI-manufactured cases. There is also harm if the established measures of academic performancepublications and citationsaccrue to those researchers most willing to fraudulently submit AI-written letters and papers rather than to those whose ideas have the most impact. The fear is that, in the end, fraudulent behavior enabled by AI will undermine systems and institutions that society relies on.
Upsides of AI
Yet some of these AI arms races have surprising hidden upsides, and the hope is that at least some institutions will be able to change in ways that make them stronger.
Science seems likely to become stronger thanks to AI, yet it faces a problem when the AI makes mistakes. Consider the example of nonsensical, AI-generated phrasing filtering into scientific papers.
A scientist using an AI to assist in writing an academic paper can be a good thing, if used carefully and with disclosure. AI is increasingly a primary tool in scientific research: for reviewing literature, programming, and for coding and analyzing data. And for many, it has become a crucial support for expression and scientific communication. Pre-AI, better-funded researchers could hire humans to help them write their academic papers. For many authors whose primary language is not English, hiring this kind of assistance has been an expensive necessity. AI provides it to everyone.
In fiction, fraudulently submitted AI-generated works cause harm, both to the human authors now subject to increased competition and to those readers who may feel defrauded after unknowingly reading the work of a machine. But some outlets may welcome AI-assisted submissions with appropriate disclosure and under particular guidelines, and leverage AI to evaluate them against criteria like originality, fit, and quality.
Others may refuse AI-generated work, but this will come at a cost. Its unlikely that any human editor or technology can sustain an ability to differentiate human from machine writing. Instead, outlets that wish to exclusively publish humans will need to limit submissions to a set of authors they trust to not use AI. If these policies are transparent, readers can pick the format they prefer and read happily from either or both types of outlets.
We also dont see any problem if a job seeker uses AI to polish their resumes or write better cover letters: The wealthy and privileged have long had access to human assistance for those things. But it crosses the line when AIs are used to lie about identity and experience, or to cheat on job interviews.
Similarly, a democracy requires that its citizens be able to express their opinions to their representatives, or to each other through a medium like the newspaper. The rich and powerful have long been able to hire writers to turn their ideas into persuasive prose, and AIs providing that assistance to more people is a good thing, in our view. Here, AI mistakes and bias can be harmful. Citizens may be using AI for more than just a time-saving shortcut; it may be augmening their knowledge and capabilities, generating statements about historical, legal, or policy factors they cant reasonably be expected to independently check.
Todays commercial AI text detectors are far from foolproof.
Fraud booster
What we dont want is for lobbyists to use AIs in astroturf campaigns, writing multiple letters and passing them off as individual opinions. This, too, is an older problem that AIs are making worse.
What differentiates the positive from the negative here is not any inherent aspect of the technology; its the power dynamic. The same technology that reduces the effort required for a citizen to share their lived experience with their legislator also enables corporate interests to misrepresent the public at scale. The former is a power-equalizing application of AI that enhances participatory democracy; the latter is a power-concentrating application that threatens it.
In general, we believe writing and cognitive assistance, long available to the rich and powerful, should be available to everyone. +The problem comes when AIs make fraud easier. Any response needs to balance embracing that newfound democratization of access with preventing fraud.
Theres no way to turn this technology off. Highly capable AIs are widely available and can run on a laptop. Ethical guidelines and clear professional boundaries can helpfor those acting in good faith. But there wont ever be a way to totally stop academic writers, job seekers, or citizens from using these tools, either as legitimate assistance or to commit fraud. This means more comments, more letters, more applications, more submissions.
The problem is that whoever is on the receiving end of this AI-fueled deluge cant deal with the increased volume. What can help is developing assistive AI tools that benefit institutions and society, while also limiting fraud. And that may mean embracing the use of AI assistance in these adversarial systems, even though the defensive AI will never achieve supremacy.
Balancing harms with benefits
The science fiction community has been wrestling with AI since 2023. Clarkesworld eventually reopened submissions, claiming that it has an adequate way of separating human- and AI-written stories. No one knows how long, or how well, that will continue to work.
The arms race continues. There is no simple way to tell whether the potential benefits of AI will outweigh the harms, now or in the future. But as a society, we can influence the balance of harms it wreaks and opportunities it presents as we muddle our way through the changing technological landscape.
Bruce Schneier is an adjunct lecturer in public policy at Harvard Kennedy School.
Nathan Sanders is an affiliate at the Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Layoffs are at an all-time high since 2009, and we’re also experiencing the lowest hiring on record in the job market. But AI spending is also reaching all-time highsespecially among Big Tech companies, who are on an extravagant spending spree. As I recently reported, Alphabet, Meta, Microsoft, and Amazon are forecast to drop a staggering $650 billion on AI in 2026 alone.
And while many companies are pouring a lot of that moneywe’re talking hundreds of billionsinto building massive data centers, hoping to establish a long-term strategic advantage in the AI arms race, many are still hiring workers for jobs that utilize AI skills.
So, what are those skills? While many people assume the most in-demand AI skill is coding, according to a new report, it’s actually not. Here’s a look at what recruiters and companies are looking for right now.
The most in-demand AI skills
A recent report from online freelance marketplace Upwork found that the AI skill for which hiring is growing fastest is AI video generation and editing (a type of design and creative work). Demand for that skill is up over 329% year over year (YoY).
That refers to the ability to use AI tools to cut down on time by generating and editing video content from text, images, or audio.
Some of the other AI skills that are most in demand include the following (by category):
Coding and web development: Artificial intelligence integration is up 178%.
Data science and analytics: Data annotation and labeling is up 154%.
Customer service and admin support: E-commerce management is up 130%.
Design and creative work: AI image generation and editing is up 95%.
Job skills are foundational, not replaceable
“While the World Economic Forum estimates that 39% of workers skills will be transformed or become redundant by 2030only a small share of complex tasks can be fully automated by todays AI,” according to the report.
While workers are increasingly concerned about being displaced by AI, Upwork’s findings show companies still rank talent acquisition and retention as their top strategic priority (consistently ahead of innovation and technology adoption). This means that instead of replacing workers with AI, businesses are still prioritizing adaptable and agile learners slightly ahead of those who can build or understand AI tools (at least, for now).
The 2026 FIFA World Cup will be the largest in history, and it’s meeting a growing American soccer fanbase on home turf for the first time since the ’90s. With companies paying millions to reach these fans, the challenge is standing out from the noise.
On this episode of FC Explains, Fast Company Senior Staff Editor Jeff Beer explores what he’s learned from Men in Blazers co-founder Roger Bennett about how brands can leverage compelling storytelling and authentic fan culture, which sometimes matter more than the action on the field. Beer also shares insights from executives at major brands like Verizon and Anheuser-Busch about their World Cup marketing strategies to build lasting fan connections through global league sponsorships and tournament partnerships, while avoiding the “cultural wallpaper” effect that often happens at major sporting events.
BMW has issued a recall of 87,394 vehicles over a defect that could cause the engine to overheat and start a fire.
The recall, issued on Jan. 30, covers models made between 2021 and 2024. It includes nine BMW models, as well as one Toyota model, which shares similar structures and parts. The recalled BMW vehicles include: Toyota Supra, 2021-2023, BMW 5 Series, 2021-2024, BMW Z4, 2021-2022, BMW 2 Series Coupe, 2022-2023, BMW 4 Series Gran Coupe, 2022-2024, BMW 4 Series Convertible, 2021-2024, BMW 4 Series Coupe, 2021-2023, BMW 3 Series, 2021-2024, BMW X4, 2021-2023, and BMW X3, 2021-2024.
In a blog post, BMW said the defect involves “unexpected wear on an internal component” which may “cause the starter to stop working properlysometimes surfacing first as a no-start conditionbut the higher-stakes concern is heat.” It continued, “NHTSAs report says that ‘in an extreme case, the issue could cause a thermal event or fire when starting the engine, or while the engine is running.”
Just months ago, BMW issued a similar recall. In October, the company recalled 145,000 vehicles over a starter defect that could overheat and spark a fire. Prior to that, it recalled 200,000 vehicles for the same reason.
Still, BMW is not the only car company to appear plagued by recalls as of late. At the end of last year, Ford recalled over 270,000 electric and hybrid vehicles over a parking function issue. Porsche recalled over 173,000 vehicles over a problem with the rearview camera image. Earlier in 2025, the NHTSA also issued similar recalls of Hyundai Motor America, Ford Motor, Toyota Motor, and Chrysler vehicles.
The recall notice indicates that BMW is not aware of any accident or injuries, for both the BMW vehicles, as well as the Toyota Supra vehicles, due to the issue. It also noted that dealers will replace the engine starter at no cost to owners. Notification letters are expected to be mailed to vehicle owners on March 24, 2026.
I dont care if you own a car, SUV, minivan, pickup truck, private jet, or one of each. This essay isnt a judgment on consumerism. Its about how the forces shaping our automotive obsession ripple into land use policy, infrastructure funding, government subsidies, and every facet of urbanism.
Once upon a time, did Americans flock to dealerships out of pure needor were they herded by subversive forces? Was it free will or predestination?
The automobile’s rise was a master class in what the military would call a psychological operation, a psy-op. In a flash, the “household automobile” became the “personal automobile,” thanks to advertising genius that turned utility into aspiration.
{"blockType":"creator-network-promo","data":{"mediaUrl":"","headline":"Urbanism Speakeasy","description":"Join Andy Boenau as he explores ideas that the infrastructure status quo would rather keep quiet. To learn more, visit urbanismspeakeasy.com.","substackDomain":"https:\/\/www.urbanismspeakeasy.com\/","colorTheme":"blue","redirectUrl":""}}
The godfather of modern PR
At the heart of this shift was Edward Bernays, Sigmund Freud’s nephew and the godfather of modern public relations. Bernays didn’t sell cars; he sold dreams, using emotional triggers to link vehicles with individualism, prestige, and progress. His tactics transformed cars from practical tools into must-have symbols of self-expression. Drawing from Uncle Freud, Bernays targeted subconscious desires.
Early- and mid-20th-century ads were dry, like user manuals highlighting features. Bernays led the marketing pivot to allure. Chevrolet’s 1950s “See the USA in Your Chevrolet” campaign painted cars as portals to adventure and family memories. Manufacturers introduced annual model updates, rendering last year’s ride obsolete, a strategy Bernays tested for GM after Henry Ford dismissed it as sleazy. It worked brilliantly, birthing “planned obsolescence” and embedding perpetual consumption into our culture.
Edward Bernays ca. 1981 [Photo: Bettmann/Getty Images]
Ford’s Model T was pitched as the universal car, bridging class divides. GM segmented its market with Chevrolets for practical families and Buicks for status seekers.
Its funny that people today want to dismiss the consumerism psy-op as conspiracy theory, even though Bernays documented and openly bragged about his methods in TV and radio interviews over his 103-year life.
Cars: A timeline
Here’s a snapshot of some of the auto industry’s milestones:
1900-1910: From 8,000 registered cars in 1900 to over 400,000 by 1910, fueled by early hype.
1908-1916: Henry Ford’s assembly line dropped the Model T’s price from $825 to $360, marketed as “the car for everyman” to symbolize modernity.
1920s: Automakers spent the equivalent of $2 billion in todays dollars on ads that shifted from facts to feelings.
1920s-1950s: GM’s yearly changes cut car lifespans from five years to two to three, creating upgrade culture.
1950s: More than $300 million spent on ads emphasizing freedom and status; car ownership ranked second only to homes as a status symbol.
1960s-1970s: 80% of cars bought on credit, with ads focused on lifestyle, then pivoted to “green” virtue-signaling amid environmental concerns.
21st Century: Auto ads remain a top-10 spender for a population of buyers that is predominantly completely on personal cars to get around.
Emotional forces
The best advertisers understand that humans are feeling creatures who sometimes think, as opposed to thinking creatures who sometimes feel. Cereal, shoes, carsit all preys on the same impulses. The auto industrys success defied logic because even as saturation hit, demand surged. They were and are enjoying the outcomes of a culture that believes everyone 16 and up needs their own personal car.
Im a car owner, and Ill be the first to tell you motor vehicles are incredible inventions. The more I learn about human behavior and our decision-making process, the more examples I see in my own life where my behavior was nudged by outside forces tugging my emotional strings.
If youre interested in changing how the built environment is planned, designed, and maintained, understanding the power and tools of persuasion will help you immensely. So much of culture is downstream from propaganda.
{"blockType":"creator-network-promo","data":{"mediaUrl":"","headline":"Urbanism Speakeasy","description":"Join Andy Boenau as he explores ideas that the infrastructure status quo would rather keep quiet. To learn more, visit urbanismspeakeasy.com.","substackDomain":"https:\/\/www.urbanismspeakeasy.com\/","colorTheme":"blue","redirectUrl":""}}
When U.S. Border Patrol agents entered a Target store in Richfield, Minnesota, in early January, detaining two employees, it marked a new chapter in the relationship between corporate America and the federal government.
Across the Twin Cities, federal immigration enforcement operations have turned businesses into sites of confrontation with agents in store parking lots rounding up day laborers, armed raids on restaurants, and work authorization inspections conducted in tactical gear.
Some retailers report revenue drops of 50% to 80% as customers stay home out of fear. Along Lake Street and in East St. Paul, areas within the Twin Cities, an estimated 80% of businesses have closed their doors at some point since the operations began.
Then came the killing of U.S. citizens Renee Good and Alex Pretti, the latter of which came a day after widespread protests and a one-day business blackout involving over 700 establishments.
The response of corporate America to those killings was instructive both for what was said and left unsaid. After the Pretti killing, more than 60 CEOs from Minnesotas largest companies Target, 3M, UnitedHealth Group, U.S. Bancorp, General Mills, Best Buy and others signed a public letter organized by the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce. The letter called for peace, focused cooperation among local, state and federal officials, and a swift and durable solution so that families, workers and businesses could return to normal.
What it didnt do was name Pretti, mention federal immigration enforcement or criticize any specific policy or official. It read less like moral leadership and more like corporate risk management.
As a researcher who studies corporate political engagement, I think the Minnesota CEO letter is a window into a broader shift. For years, companies could take progressive stances with limited risk activists would punish them if they remained silent on an issue, but conservatives rarely retaliated when they spoke up. That asymmetry has collapsed. Minneapolis shows what corporate activism looks like when the risks cut both ways: hedged language, no names named, and calls for calm.
A shifting pattern
In 2022, after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, corporate America was remarkably quiet compared with its vocal stances on LGBTQ+ rights or the war in Ukraine.
The explanation: Companies tend to hedge on issues that are contested and polarizing. In my research with colleagues on companies taking stances on LGBTQ+ rights in the United States, Ive found that businesses frame their stances narrowly when issues are unsettled focusing on workplace concerns and internal constituencies like employees rather than broader advocacy. Only after issues are legally or socially settled do some companies shift to clearer activism, adopting the language of social movements: injustice, moral obligation, calls to action.
By that logic, the Minnesota CEOs caution makes sense. The Trump administrations federal immigration enforcement policy is deeply contested. Theres no clear legal or social settlement in sight.
But something else has changed since 2022 something that goes beyond any particular issue.
For years, corporate activism operated under a favorable asymmetry that allowed them to stake out public positions on controversial topics without much negative consequence.
That is, activists and employees pressured companies to speak out on progressive causes, and silence carried real costs. Meanwhile, conservatives largely subscribed to free-market economist Milton Friedmans view that the only social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. They generally didnt demand corporate stances on their issues, and they didnt organize sustained punishment for progressive corporate speech.
That asymmetry has collapsed
During the Black Lives Matter protests of 2020, corporations rushed to declare their commitments to racial justice, diversity, and social responsibility. Many of those same companies have since quietly dismantled diversity, equity, and inclusion programs, walked back public commitments, and gone silent on issues they once called moral imperatives. It appears that their allegedly deeply held values were contingent on a favorable political environment. When the risks shifted, the values evaporated.
The turning point may have been Disneys opposition to Floridas Dont Say Gay law in 2022. The company faced criticism from employees and activists for not doing enough and then fierce retaliation from Floridas government, which stripped Disney of self-governing privileges it had held for 55 years.
In other high-profile examples, Delta lost tax breaks in Georgia after ending discounts for National Rifle Association members following the Parkland shooting. And Bud Light lost billions in market value after a single social media promotion that featured Dylan Mulvaney, a transgender influencer.
Conservatives learned to play the game that progressive activists invented. And unlike consumer boycotts, government retaliation carries a different kind of weight.
Minneapolis reveals the new calculus
What makes Minneapolis distinctive is that the federal government isnt a distant policy actor debating legislation in Washington. Its a physical presence in companies daily operations. When federal agents can show up at your store, detain yor employees, raid your parking lot, and audit your hiring records, the calculation about whether to criticize federal policy looks very different than when the worst-case scenario is an angry tweet from a politician.
Research finds that politicians are less willing to engage with CEOs who take controversial stances even in private meetings regardless of local economic conditions or the politicians own views on business. The chilling effect is real. As one observer noted, Minnesota companies communicated through industry associations specifically to avoid direct exposure to possible retaliation.
De-escalation, then, has become the corporate buzzword of choice because, as one news report in The Wall Street Journal noted, it sounds humane while remaining politically noncommittal. It points to a process goal reduce conflict, restore order rather than a contested diagnosis of responsibility.
This is the triple bind facing businesses in Minneapolis: pressure from the federal government on one side, pressure from activists and employees on the other, and the economic devastation from enforcement itself comparable in some areas to the COVID-19 pandemic crushing them in the middle. Its a situation that rewards silence and punishes principle, and most companies are making the predictable choice.
And yet the situation within companies is also full of internal tensions, whether theyre companies headquartered in Minnesota or not. At tech company Palantir, which holds contracts with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, employees took to internal Slack channels after Prettis death to express that they felt not proud to work for a company tied to what they described as the bad guys. Similar sentiments could be seen elsewhere, where rank-and-file employees expressed far more vocal outrage than their bosses.
What comes next
The Minnesota CEO letter is what corporate political engagement looks like when the risks run in every direction: no injustice framing, no attribution of blame, no names named just calls for stability and cooperation.
As a local Minneapolis writer put it in an op-ed: Stand up, or sit down because the Minnesotans who are standing up? We dont recognize you.
Its not cowardice, exactly. Its what the research predicts when an issue is contested and the costs of speaking cut both ways.
But it does mean Americans shouldnt expect corporations to lead when government power is directly at stake. The conditions that enabled corporate activism on LGBTQ+ rights an asymmetry where speaking out was relatively low-risk dont exist here.
Until the political landscape shifts, the hedged statement and the cautious coalition letter are the new normal. Corporate activism, it turns out, might always have been more about positioning than principle.
Alessandro Piazza is an assistant professor of strategic management at Rice University.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Comparing social media platforms to casinos and addictive drugs, lawyer Mark Lanier delivered opening statements Monday in a landmark trial in Los Angeles that seeks to hold Instagram owner Meta and Google’s YouTube responsible for harms to children who use their products.Instagram’s parent company Meta and Google’s YouTube face claims that their platforms addict children through deliberate design choices that keep kids glued to their screens. TikTok and Snap, which were originally named in the lawsuit, settled for undisclosed sums.Jurors got their first glimpse into what will be a lengthy trial characterized by dueling narratives from the plaintiffs and the two remaining defendants.Meta lawyer Paul Schmidt spoke of the disagreement within the scientific community over social media addiction, with some researchers believing it doesn’t exist, or that addiction is not the most appropriate way to describe heavy social media use.Lawyers representing YouTube will begin their opening statement on Tuesday.
‘Addicting the brains of children’
Lanier, the plaintiff’s lawyer, delivered lively first remarks where he said the case will be as “easy as ABC” which stands for “addicting the brains of children.” He said Meta and Google, “two of the richest corporations in history,” have “engineered addiction in children’s brains.”He presented jurors with a slew of internal emails, documents and studies conducted by Meta and YouTube, as well as YouTube’s parent company, Google. He emphasized the findings of a study Meta conducted called “Project Myst” in which they surveyed 1,000 teens and their parents about their social media use. The two major findings, Lanier said, were that Meta knew children who experienced “adverse events” like trauma and stress were particularly vulnerable for addiction; and that parental supervision and controls made little impact.He also highlighted internal Google documents that likened some company products to a casino, and internal communication between Meta employees in which one person said Instagram is “like a drug” and they are “basically pushers.”At the core of the Los Angeles case is a 20-year-old identified only by the initials “KGM,” whose case could determine how thousands of other, similar lawsuits against social media companies will play out. She and two other plaintiffs have been selected for bellwether trials essentially test cases for both sides to see how their arguments play out before a jury.
Plaintiff grew up using YouTube, Instagram
KGM made a brief appearance after a break during Lanier’s statement and she will return to testify later in the trial. Lanier spent time describing KGM’s childhood, focusing particularly on what her personality was like before she began using social media. She started using YouTube at age 6 and Instagram at age 9, Lanier said. Before she graduated elementary school, she had posted 284 videos on YouTube.The outcome of the trial could have profound effects on the companies’ businesses and how they will handle children using their platforms.Lanier said the companies’ lawyers will “try to blame the little girl and her parents for the trap they built,” referencing the plaintiff. She was a minor when she said she became addicted to social media, which she claims had a detrimental impact on her mental health.Lanier said that despite the public position of Meta and YouTube being that they work to protect children, their internal documents show an entirely different position, with explicit references to young children being listed as their target audiences.The attorney also drew comparisons between the social media companies and tobacco firms, citing internal communication between Meta employees who were concerned about the company’s lack of proactive action about the potential harm their platforms can have on children and teens.“For a teenager, social validation is survival,” Lanier said. The defendants “engineered a feature that caters to a minor’s craving for social validation,” he added, speaking about “like” buttons and similar features.
Meta pushes back
In his opening statement representing Meta, Schmidt said the core question in the case is whether the platforms were a substantial factor in KGM’s mental health struggles. He spent much of his time going through the plaintiff’s health records, emphasizing that she had experienced many difficult circumstances in her childhood, including emotional abuse, body image issues and bullying.Schmidt presented a clip from a video deposition from one of KGM’s mental health providers, Dr. Thomas Suberman, who said social media was “not the through-line of what I recall being her main issues,” adding that her struggles seemed to largely stem from interpersonal conflicts and relationships. He painted a picture with KGM’s own text messages and testimony pointing to a volatile home life of a particularly troubled relationship with her mother.Schmidt acknowledged that many mental health professionals do believe social media addiction can exist, but said three of KGM’s providers all of whom believe in the form of addiction have never diagnosed her with it, or treated her for it.Schmidt emphasized to the jurors that the case is not about whether social media is a good thing or whether teens spend too much time on their phones or whether the jurors like or dislike Meta, but whether social media was a substantial factor in KGM’s mental health struggles.
A reckoning for social media and youth harms
A slew of trials beginning this year seek to hold social media companies responsible for harming children’s mental well-being. Executives, including Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, are expected to testify at the Los Angeles trial, which will last six to eight weeks. Experts have drawn similarities to the Big Tobacco trials that led to a 1998 settlement requiring cigarette companies to pay billions in health care costs and restrict marketing targeting minors.A separate trial in New Mexico, meanwhile, also kicked off with opening statements on Monday. In that trial, Meta is accused of failing to protect young users from sexual exploitation, following an undercover online investigation. Attorney General Raúl Torrez in late 2023 sued Meta and Zuckerberg, who was later dropped from the suit.A federal bellwether trial beginning in June in Oakland, California, will be the first to represent school districts that have sued social media platforms over harms to children.In addition, more than 40 state attorneys general have filed lawsuits against Meta, claiming it is harming young people and contributing to the youth mental health crisis by deliberately designing features on Instagram and Facebook that addict children to its platforms. The majority of cases filed their lawsuits in federal court, but some sued in their respective states.TikTok also faces similar lawsuits in more than a dozen states.Ortutay reported from Oakland, California. Associated Press Writer Morgan Lee in Santa Fe, New Mexico, contributed to this story.
Kaitlyn Huamani and Barbara Ortutay, AP Technology Writers
Shares in Spotify Technology SA (NYSE: SPOT), the worlds largest music streamer, are surging this morning.
As of this writing, the Swedish companys stock price is up 18% to above $489 per share after the company reported blowout fourth-quarter fiscal 2025 earnings. Heres what you need to know.
Spotifys Q4 2025 surpasses expectations
On Tuesday, Spotify reported its Q4 2025 earnings, which outpaced investor expectations. Here are the music streamers most salient metrics for the quarter, which ended on December 31:
Monthly Active Users (MAUs): 751 million (up 11% year over year)
Premium Subscribers: 290 million (up 10% year over year)
Total Revenue: 4.531 billion (up 10% year over year on a constant currency basis)
Diluted earnings per share (EPS): 4.43
Whats significant about these numbers is that they not only beat most analyst expectations, but Spotifys own expectations as well. As CNBC notes, LSEG analysts expected Spotify to report an EPS of 2.74. The company easily beat that by 1.69 per share.
Spotify was expected to report 4.52 billion in revenue; the company beat slightly with 4.531 in revenue.
Analysts also expected Spotify to report around 745 million MAUs. The company beat that by 6 million users.
Spotify itself originally forecast 745 million MAUs for the quarter and 289 million premium subscribers, both of which it beat.
Spotify Wrapped contributed to premium subscribers beat
Premium subscribers are among Spotify’s most valuable, because of the recurring monthly revenue they generate and their loyalty to the brand.
And this time, the premium subscriber growth for Q4, which rose 10% year over year, can be partly attributed to the companys wildly popular year-end Wrapped roundup.
Speaking on the companys financial call after Spotifys results were announced, co-CEO Alex Norstrom revealed that the companys most recent Wrapped, which went live in December 2025, was also the most successful, calling Wrapped 2025 record-breaking.
While we saw impressive engagement back in 2024, we also got feedback on the user experience. So this year, we turned up the dial, and the response was redeeming, Norstrom said, according to a PitchBook transcript of the call. At the end of the campaign, more than 300 million users engaged, which was up 20%, and we saw more than 630 million shares across social media, which is up 42%.
He added that “day one of Wrapped marked the highest single day of premium subscriber intake in Spotify history.
Given Wrappeds 2025 success, its a safe bet the company will double down on it when the next iteration launches this December.
The SPOT stock surge isnt enough to erase its recent decline
Despite Spotifys stock price surging in early morning trading today, the impressive gains arent enough to get SPOT out of the broader slump its been in lately.
SPOT stock currently sits at around $489 a share after gaining 18% this morning. However, even with todays gains, SPOT shares are still down more than 17% year to date. Spotifys stock price fell dramatically in early February amid a broader tech selloff.
Over the past year, SPOT shares also remain in the red, down nearly 25%. At around $489 per share, SPOT shares are currently well below their peak of $785 in June of last year.
Looking forward, Spotify says it expects to add another 8 million monthly active users during its current Q1 2026. Likewise, it expects to add another 3 million premium subscribers during the same period. The company expects total revenue for the quarter to be 4.5 billion.
