News organizations including The New York Times, The Associated Press and the conservative Newsmax television network said Monday they will not sign a Defense Department document about its new press rules, making it likely the Trump administration will evict their reporters from the Pentagon.Those outlets say the policy threatens to punish them for routine news gathering protected by the First Amendment. The Washington Post, The Atlantic and Reuters on Monday also publicly joined the group that says it will not be signing. AP confirmed Monday afternoon that it would not sign.“Reuters is bound by its commitment to accurate, impartial and independent news,” the agency said in a statement. “We also steadfastly believe in the press protections afforded by the U.S. Constitution, the unrestricted flow of information and journalism that serves the public interest without fear or favor. The Pentagon’s new restrictions erode these fundamental values.”Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth reacted by posting the Times’ statement on X and adding a hand-waving emoji. His team has said that reporters who don’t acknowledge the policy in writing by Tuesday must turn in badges admitting them to the Pentagon and clear out their workspaces the next day.The new rules bar journalist access to large swaths of the Pentagon without an escort and say Hegseth can revoke press access to reporters who ask anyone in the Defense Department for information classified or otherwise that he has not approved for release.Newsmax, whose on-air journalists are generally supportive of President Donald Trump’s administration, said that “we believe the requirements are unnecessary and onerous and hope that the Pentagon will review the matter further.”Chief Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell said the rules establish “common sense media procedures.”“The policy does not ask for them to agree, just to acknowledge that they understand what our policy is,” Parnell said. “This has caused reporters to have a full blown meltdown, crying victim online. We stand by our policy because it’s what’s best for our troops and the national security of this country.”Hegseth also reposted a question from a follower who asked, “Is this because they can’t roam the Pentagon freely? Do they believe they deserve unrestricted access to a highly classified military installation under the First Amendment?”Hegseth answered, “yes.” Reporters say neither of those assertions is true.Pentagon reporters say signing the statement amounts to admitting that reporting any information that hasn’t been government-approved is harming national security. “That’s simply not true,” said David Schulz, director of Yale University’s Media Freedom & Information Access Clinic.Journalists have said they’ve long worn badges and don’t access classified areas, nor do they report information that risks putting any Americans in harm’s way.“The Pentagon certainly has the right to make its own policies, within the constraints of the law,” the Pentagon Press Association said in a statement on Monday. “There is no need or justification, however, for it to require reporters to affirm their understanding of vague, likely unconstitutional policies as a precondition to reporting from Pentagon facilities.”Noting that taxpayers pay nearly $1 trillion annually to the U.S. military, Times Washington bureau chief Richard Stevenson said “the public has a right to know how the government and military are operating.”Trump has applied pressure on news organizations in several ways, with ABC News and CBS News settling lawsuits related to their coverage. Trump has also filed lawsuits against The New York Times and Wall Street Journal and moved to choke off funding for government-run services like the Voice of America and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty.
David Bauder writes about the media for the AP. Follow him at http://x.com/dbauder and https://bsky.app/profile/dbauder.bsky.social
David Bauder AP Media Writer
I was asked to be the keynote speaker recently for an important conference at Rutgers Business School on the future of business education. I thought it would be helpful for business school leadership and students and for recruiters of business school graduates to recap my message in this Playing to Win/Practitioner Insights (PTW/PI) piece. It is called The Future[s] of Business Education: Two Strategy Paths. And as always, you can find all the previous PTW/PI here.
Audience participation
The conference attendees were mainly U.S. business school deans and other senior faculty members. The array of deans was quite impressive with deans from leading schools including Cornell, Goizueta, Haas, Kellogg, Stern, Ross, Tepper, Tuck, and Wharton.
I started with a bit of audience participation by asking all tenure stream academics from business schools to stand up. I then asked them to sit down if their school has in its MBA program a required statistics course that provides instruction on how to make an inference from a sample to the universe from which the sample is drawn. As I expected, 100% of the audience sat down. That is now completely standard fare.
I asked them to stand back up and then to sit down if their school seeks to convince MBA students that they should make their decisions based on rigorous data analysis. Again, as I expected, 100% sat down.
So, I got confirmation that business education universally teaches students both how to make inferences from data and that they should make data-based decisions.
{"blockType":"mv-promo-block","data":{"imageDesktopUrl":"https:\/\/images.fastcompany.com\/image\/upload\/f_webp,q_auto,c_fit\/wp-cms-2\/2025\/09\/martin.jpg","imageMobileUrl":"https:\/\/images.fastcompany.com\/image\/upload\/f_webp,q_auto,c_fit\/wp-cms-2\/2025\/09\/Untitled-design-1.png","eyebrow":"","headline":"Subscribe to Roger Martin\u0027s newsletter","dek":"Want to read more from Roger Martin? See his weekly Medium posts at rogermartin.medium.com.","ctaText":"Sign Up","ctaUrl":"https:\/\/rogermartin.medium.com\/","theme":{"bg":"#00b3f0","text":"#000000","eyebrow":"#9aa2aa","buttonBg":"#000000","buttonText":"#ffffff"},"imageDesktopId":91412496,"imageMobileId":91412493}}
Making inferences from data
I then dove into making inferences from data. As I have pointed out many times before and recently at Nudgestock in London, statistics teaches students that the only legitimate way to make an inference to the universe from which a sample is drawn is to ensure that the sample is representative.
You cant ask a sample of men what they want in their Electric Vehicle (EV) and infer what consumers want in their EV because men are not representative of all consumers. The same would hold for a sample of women or young consumers or east coast consumers. Statistics teaches that you can legitimately use a sample of men only if you are trying to determine what male EV buyers wantbecause that sample is representative of the universe. In addition, the sample must be big enough to be statistically significant.
However, it is important to realize that 100% of all data that we use in such statistical analysis is from the past. We never have data from the future.
Hence, when we use data analysis to tell us what to do, we are implicitly assuming that the future is identical to the past. Otherwise, the sample wouldnt be representative and business school statistics class tells us that we shouldnt be using it. Yet our marketing, strategy, finance, operations, and HR classes tell students to make decisions based on rigorous data analysis.
The Aristotelian distinction
I then explained the Aristotelian distinction about which I have written before. Greek philosopher Aristotle was the father of science and his Analytica Posteriora the most important work in the history of science. While he created the scientific method, which was formalized in the Scientific Revolution 2000 years later, he did not prescribe its use everywhere.
He made a critical distinction between two parts of the world. In one part, things cannot be other than they are. For example, anywhere on the earths surface, gravity has always and will always cause objects to accelerate toward the ground at 32 feet/second2because when it comes to gravity, things cannot be other than they are. But when it comes to smartphones, there were zero in the world in 1999 and probably (the estimates are all over the place) over seven billion now. Smartphones exist in the part of the world where things can be other than they are. That world changed dramatically with the introduction of the BlackBerry in 2000 and has changed pretty much every year since.
Aristotle did more than make this distinction. He encouraged the use of his scientific method in the part of the world where things cannot be other than they are but warned against ever using it in the part of the world where things can be other than they are. The father of science was crystal clear and modern-day statisticians would affirm his logic. In essence, he was warning against the use of unrepresentative samples.
For business educators this calls for an assessment of the degree to which business is in the cannot part or the can part of the world. The whole business obsession with VUCA (i.e., volatility, uncertainty, complexity, and ambiguity) suggests businesspeople see the future of business as constantly shiftingi.e., can, not cannot. Of course, there are exceptions. Plastic cools at a certain rate in an injection molding machine. But that phenomenon represents a tiny, tiny fraction of the business world. Consumers change, competitors change, technology changes, regulations change, and so on. The future is routinely different than the past.
The business school schism
Therein lies the fundamental business school schism. Business schools teach two things that cant coexist in business. Businesspeople live in a world in which the future is routinely different than the past. But they are educatedand universally so as demonstrated by my audience participationto use methods appropriate only for a world in which the future is identical to the past.
This leaves business school students with a choice. On one hand, they can ignore their business education, bt that begs the question: why spend time and money on something that you subsequently ignore? On the other hand, they can embrace their education and become terribly flawed technocratsfollowing the analysis despite its inherent logical inconsistency.
I think they are choosing a bit of both. On one hand, they are actually doing more than ignoring their business education: they are skipping it entirely, especially at the MBA level. I pointed out in a 2013 speech at the Academy of Management that U.S. students applying to U.S. MBA programs was in secular decline and from what I can see, the decline has continued. On the other hand, the MBA is still the second biggest volume graduate degree in America (after one-year Master of Educationwhich has a built-in demand because teachers get an automatic salary bump with one). So, many are still embracing it.
Two strategy paths
This leaves two strategy paths for business schools. On one hand, they can keep teaching fundamentally flawed, logically inconsistent content and watch business education continue to decline for two reasons. First, many prospective students will take a pass on business education because they dont want to be trained to be data technocrats. Second, the business world has only a limited appetite for absorbing data technocrats.
On the other hand, they can do what I recommended in my speech. That is to teach the Aristotelian distinction and equip students to follow Aristotles instruction in the part of the world that can be other than it is, which is the dominant part of business. That entails teaching business students to imagine possibilities and to understand the logic of possibilities well enough to choose the one for which the most compelling argument can be madewhich means focusing more on developing students logic capabilities than their analytical prowess.
The business school reaction
Sadly, I dont come out of the conference feeling that business education will choose the second path. In business education (and probably any other kind of tertiary education), when convention is challenged it is attacked, which is what Thomas Kuhn described in The Structure of Scientific Revolutionsand it is exactly what happened at the end of my talk. The first audience question wasnt a question; it was an assertion from a dean (dont know who he was but I think he said his name was Bruce): That was a lot of arm-waving.
My immediate reaction, which I verbalized, was that this was why I was delighted to have left the academy six years ago and havent thought a single day about going back. This is what the academy does. When it doesnt like something because it challenges convention, somebody takes responsibility for launching an attack. And since they know behavioral economics, they know that the rest of the audience will anchor on the attack, and the challenger will be destroyed by brute force. Childish but true.
I didnt take the bait and instead of defending, I simply asked what in my talk constituted arm-waving? He didnt like that much and mumbled around for a while then asked me to put up slide 13 and pointed to the second point and said I hadnt explained it much. So, not explaining one point on one slide as thoroughly as he wished meant that the entire talk could be dismissed as arm-waving. Suffice it to say, he didnt get the satisfaction he was looking forand I think I can give myself credit for not eviscerating him. Twenty years ago, I would have. But I realize now that this is theater, and he was just playing his assigned role.
Since the designated attack dog hadnt succeeded, the rest of the audience questions were mild and not unfriendly. But I am quite convinced that nothing is going to change on this front. Business schools will continue to teach the schismthough perhaps they will do it more sheepishly.
Practitioner insights
Paradigms die hardper Kuhn. The paradigm of business education teaching students to make rigorous data-based decisions is well entrenchedsuper well-entrenched. The standard approach of the people who depend on the continuation of the dominant paradigm is to fight any attempt to challenge itwhether they have any useful argument or not. That is where business education is todayand it isnt going to change from within.
My advice then is for two kinds of practitionersbusiness school students (prospective or actual), and companies that recruit from business schools.
For students, lower your expectations, though it is a bit different for undergraduate business versus MBA education.
For undergrads, you will pick up a language system for business and learn some useful business concepts. One way or another, you will have to do thatand this is one plausible way. But protect yourself. Understand that they are teaching across a schism, and it doesnt make sense. Just ignore them. You cant be a useful businessperson making rigorous data-based decisions the way it will be taught to you.
For MBAs, think carefully. Your opportunity costs are much higher than for undergrads in business because the average full-time MBA has 45 years of business experienceand they give up two years of an already attractive salary to take a full-time MBA. You share some of the undergrad reasons for attending, but at a far higher opportunity cost. Many of you should take a pass. This isnt an institution that is learning and getting better. It is entrenched in an agenda that isnt helpful to the worldor you.
For employers, it makes sense to recruit there. The biggest value of business education programs is selectivity. It is hard to get into a quality business program, so the schools have presorted for you. The second value, in the case of MBAs, is commitment due to the high opportunity cost they pay. They must have high commitment to personal improvement to incur the out-of-pocket and opportunity costs to get their education. So, it is a high-value cohort from which to recruit.
But you need to recognize that you will have to deprogram many of them who will graduate believing that they need to make all their decisions entirely based on rigorous data analysisbecause that is what they are taught. You will have to deprogram them for them to be useful to you. But if you understand that and have a system for deprograming, you will get human capital that it is worth recruiting.
{"blockType":"mv-promo-block","data":{"imageDesktopUrl":"https:\/\/images.fastcompany.com\/image\/upload\/f_webp,q_auto,c_fit\/wp-cms-2\/2025\/09\/martin.jpg","imageMobileUrl":"https:\/\/images.fastcompany.com\/image\/upload\/f_webp,q_auto,c_fit\/wp-cms-2\/2025\/09\/Untitled-design-1.png","eyebrow":"","headline":"Subscribe to Roger Martin\u0027s newsletter","dek":"Want to read more from Roger Martin? See his weekly Medium posts at rogermartin.medium.com.","ctaText":"Sign Up","ctaUrl":"https:\/\/rogermartin.medium.com\/","theme":{"bg":"#00b3f0","text":"#000000","eyebrow":"#9aa2aa","buttonBg":"#000000","buttonText":"#ffffff"},"imageDesktopId":91412496,"imageMobileId":91412493}}
When Apple’s AirTag came out four years ago, one of the most obvious uses for it was for luggage.
On my long trips to Asia, I always breathe a sign of relief when I glance at my phone and find that my checked suitcase has been loaded onto the aircraft. And I often wish I had one in my carry-on suitcase, especially when the overhead bins run out of space and the flight attendant checks my bag at the gate.
July, a fast-growing Australian startup, has become the first luggage brand to incorporate AirTags directly into its suitcases. The technology was made in partnership with Apple and Google, so the tags are integrated with both Apples Find My and Googles Find Hub networks.
On October 14, July unveils this new feature, which will eventually be incorporated into its full line of carry-ons and suitcases. Cofounder Athan Didaskalou believes trackers will soon become standard in all suitcases, but it is still important to him for July to be first to market with this technology. “We have a team of industrial designers on hand, and we like making things,” Didaskalou says. “The only way to stand out today is by continuing to innovate.”
[Photo: July]
The Ubiquitous Roller Suitcase
Step into an airport today, and you’ll see virtually every traveler pushing wheeled luggage. Didaskalou points out that each element in the now-ubiquitous roller suitcase was the result of a breakthrough in design. In 1987, an airline pilot developed the concept of a wheeled suitcase with a telescoping handlea vast improvement over having to carry your suitcase like a briefcase. By the 1990s, most suitcase brands had shifted to this design.
In recent decades there have been incremental improvements. After September 11, 2005, the Transportation Security Administration imposed a new regulation that all luggage locks had to have a keyhole that agents could access. Soon after, it became standard for all suitcases to have TSA locks. And a decade ago, brands began incorporating phone chargers into their suitcases so travelers could charge their phones on the go. (The TSA now forbids phone chargers in checked luggage, so chargers in suitcases must be removable.)
[Photo: July]
The global luggage market is enormous: It was $38.8 billion in 2023, according to Grand View Research, and its projected to grow to $61.49 billion by 2030. Given that most suitcases today have the same set of standard features, brands often end up competing with each other based on aesthetics.
Samsonite dominates the industry, owning a fifth of the market with its many brands, which include American Tourister and Tumi. Samsonite generated $3.68 billion in 2023. But there are many other players.
At the high end, there’s Rimowa, known for making durable suitcases with distinct grooves. Over the past decade, a wave of startups has popped up with sleeker and more colorful designs at an affordable price point of $200 to $300 for a carry-on. Direct-to-consumer startups like Away, Monos, Béis, and Floyd all create trendy cases that target the millennial and Gen Z traveler.
But it’s a crowded, competitive market, and some brands have struggled. Paravel, for instance, tried to create an eco-friendly suitcase, but it filed for bankruptcy in May of this year, and was acquired by the British suitcase brand Antler. Another luggage brand, Baboon to the Moon, was struggling to grow its revenue and was acquired by turnaround firm the Hedgehog Co. in 2023.
[Photo: July]
Improving the Design of a Suitcase
July was founded in Australia in 2019. Its sleek, colorful suitcases have become very popular in Australia and across the Asia Pacific region, which North American brands like Away and Monos have been slower to enter. Didaskalou wants July to stand out from competitors by rethinking the design of its suitcases in a more fundamental way.
Over the past few years, the brand has been playing with the configuration of suitcases. It was among the first brands to launch the trunk format, where the suitcase doesn’t open in the middle, but rather toward the top. “Some people want depth when they’re packing,” he says. “It can be awkward to open your luggage in the middle and try to balance it on the luggage stand at your hotel.”
When Apple and Google opened up the API for the AirTag, it occurred to Didaskalou that luggage tracking was the next frontier of suitcases. Many consumers were already putting AirTags in their suitcases, but it was not a seamless solution. “They might need to move the AirTag from one suitcase to another, or take it out to use it for something else,” he says. “Or they might forget to use it altogether. It’s just another thing to worry about when you’ve already got a lot on your mind.”
[Photo: July]
July’s designers spent months trying to figure out how to incorporate AirTags seamlessly into suitcases. They ended up putting them into the strip of plastic at the top of the suitcase, right next to the TSA lock. When you first get the suitcase, you pull on the plastic tab that separates the battery from the AirTag to activate it. Then you press a button on the strip to activate it, to see your luggage in your Apple Find My or Google Find Hub app on your smartphone.
Didaskalou says that while the experience is simple for consumers, it was complex to design. It was important to make the underside of the AirTag accessible to change its battery. However, the AirTag is on the same strip as the TSA lock. “We needed to have access to the AirTag but not expose the TSA lock,” he says. “We also needed everything to be very tightly secured, because things bounce and move when you travel.”
July has patented some aspects of this AirTag component, but Didaskalou believes many other luggage brands will soon realize that consumers now expect to be able to easily track their luggage. So they will soon begin incorporating AirTags or other trackers directly into their suitcases. But he believes they will only become widespread in the next year or so.
And ultimately, Didaskalou believes that it’s the larger luggage makers that are more likely to update their suitcases first. In many ways, he’s looking to compete with Samsonite, an innovator with roughly 20% of the market share. “Samsonite has always been first to come up with new materials and manufacturing processes,” Didaskalou says. “We’re proud because this is the first time we’ve beat them.”
Shares in Americas Quantum Four quantum computing companies surged again yesterday. D-Wave, IonQ, Quantum Computing, and Rigetti all saw their stock prices jump by double-digit percentages.
But why? The Quantum Fours big stock price gains had nothing to do with radical new quantum computing breakthroughs. Instead, investors can thank banking giant JPMorganChase for the gains. Heres what you need to know.
Why did quantum computing shares surge yesterday?
Yesterday, Americas four most prominent quantum computing companies saw their stock prices surge by double-digit percentages. But the genesis behind these soaring share prices wasn’t directly related to news about the companies.
Instead, the upward movement in the Quantum Fours share prices was largely due to financial giant JPMorganChase.
On Monday, the investment bank announced a Security and Resiliency Initiative to invest in industries critical to Americas national economic security interests.
This initiative will see JPMorganChase invest $1.5 trillion in select industries over the next 10 years.
And the first wave of this fundingto the tune of up to $10 billionhas already been decided upon. The banking giant announced it will invest the 11-figure sum via direct equity and venture capital investments in companies operating across four key areas, which include:
Supply Chain and Advanced Manufacturing
Defense and Aerospace
Energy Independence and Resilience
Frontier and Strategic Technologies
For quantum computing investors, its that last areafrontier and strategic technologiesthat matters. Included in that grouping are companies in the AI, cybersecurity, and quantum computing space.
It has become painfully clear that the United States has allowed itself to become too reliant on unreliable sources of critical minerals, products, and manufacturingall of which are essential for our national security, JPMorganChase CEO Jamie Dimon said in a press release announcing the initiative.
He added, This new initiative includes efforts like ensuring reliable access to life-saving medicines and critical minerals, defending our nation, building energy systems to meet AI-driven demand, and advancing technologies like semiconductors and data centers. Our support of clients in these industries remains unwavering.
However, it is worth noting that Dimon did not specify which quantum computing companies would receive investments from the bank.
In an accompanying chart, the bank merely said that strengthening capabilities in quantum computing and other areas, including AI and cybersecurity, could directly translate into higher GDP and create military, intelligence, biotech, and cyber resilience benefits.
Yet despite not name-dropping any of the Quantum Four, their stocks surged.
Quantum stocks soared by double digits
In the United States, there are four prominent publicly traded quantum computing companies: D-Wave, IonQ, Quantum Computing, and Rigetti. All four companies saw their stock soar yesterday after JPMorganChases announcement.
D-Wave Quantum (NYSE: QBTS): up 23% to $40.62
IonQ (NYSE: IONQ): up 16% to $82.09
Quantum Computing (Nasdaq: QUBT): up 12% to $21.46
Rigetti Computing (Nasdaq: RGTI): up 25% to $54.91
In addition to Americas Quantum Four, shares in the United Kingdoms Arqit Quantum (Nasdaq: ARQQ) also jumped 20% to close at $58.27.
Despite Mondays price surges, all Quantum Four stocks and the U.K.s Arqit are currently down in premarket trading on Tuesday morning, as of the time of this writing.
The drops arent large: QBTS is down less than 3%, IONQ and QUBT are down around 4%, RGTI is down just over 3%, and ARQQ is down just under 3%.
These modest declines suggest that some investors are engaging in profit-taking after yesterday’s share price surge.
Still, many quantum investors are likely buoyed by the notion that one of Americas biggest investment firms thinks quantum computing will be critical to national security in the years ahead. If that conjecture is correct, companies operating in those spaces have a lot to gain.
Shares in the Quantum Four have had a great year
While the real-world benefits of quantum computing, which uses the properties of quantum mechanics to solve computational problems that classical computers couldnt hope to, are likely still years away, the companies operating in the nascent space have seen tremendous returns over the past year.
When it comes to the Quantum Four, all have had incredible returns both year-to-date (YTD) and over the past twelve months (12/m), as of yesterdays stock market close:
D-Wave Quantum (NYSE: QBTS): up 383% YTD, up 4,087% (12/m)
IonQ (NYSE: IONQ): up 96% YTD, up 670% (12/m)
Quantum Computing (Nasdaq: QUBT): up 29% YTD, up 3,001% (12/m)
Rigetti Computing (Nasdaq: RGTI): up 259% YTD, up 6,629% (12/m)
These are gains that many investors are hoping will continue well into the future.
Headaches continued for U.S. travelers over the weekend as a combination of bad weather and impacts from the ongoing government shutdown ensnarled many would-be fliers.
Flight delays and cancellations piled up over the three-day holiday period, with flight-tracking service FlightAware showing nearly 30,000 delays in, within, and out of U.S. airports from Sunday of last week through Monday. Here’s the latest on the situation at U.S. airports and what travelers need to know:
How bad have flight delays been?
Delays and cancellations at many airports have grown progressively worse since the U.S. government shut down on October 1. With no end in sight to the political impasse in Washington that brought us here, the shutdown will enter its third week tomorrow.
FlightAware data shows there were 7,928 delays in, within, and out of U.S. airports yesterday, along with 592 cancellations.
Saturday and Sunday were roughly the same, with 5,007 delays and 114 cancellations on Saturday and 7,981 delays and 271 cancellations on Sunday.
window.addEventListener("message",function(a){if(void 0!==a.data["datawrapper-height"]){var e=document.querySelectorAll("iframe");for(var t in a.data["datawrapper-height"])for(var r,i=0;r=e[i];i++)if(r.contentWindow===a.source){var d=a.data["datawrapper-height"][t]+"px";r.style.height=d}}});
Airlines for America, a trade group representing U.S. airlines, had warned before the weekend that shutdown-related shortages in air traffic controllers could create travel headaches at a number of airports, although the group insisted that flying remains safe, as CNN reported.
Bad weather, including a nor’easter that made its way up the East Coast, contributed to the chaos, causing delays at Northeast airports including New York’s John F. Kennedy International Airport and Newark International Airport in New Jersey.
Will delays continue this week?
As of early Tuesday morning, FlightAware data showed significantly fewer delays and cancellations so far, but the numbers were significantly rising by the hour.
As of 9 a.m. ET, the site reported 771 delays and 42 cancellations, up from roughly 499 and 26 an hour earlier. Only time will tell what the future has in store.
Meanwhile, Republicans and Democrats on Capitol Hill remain deadlocked over key sticking points. Most crucially, Democrats want to extend Affordable Care Act (ACA) tax credits that are set to expire this year.
According to estimates from KFF (formerly the Kaiser Family Foundation), the loss of the credits would lead to significantly higher healthcare premiums for millions of Americans.
This story is developing…
Data centers have become the starting blocks in the global race for AI supremacy. Tech giants like Meta, Alphabet, and OpenAI have committed hundreds of billions of dollars collectively to building more of them. States are offering incentives for their development, and President Donald Trump signed an executive order in July cutting regulations to speed up construction.
For all the breakthroughs they promise, the environmental toll of these facilities is already staggering: According to the International Energy Agency, U.S. data centers used roughly 185 terawatt-hours of electricity in 2024more than all of Pakistans 248 million people used that year. To keep hot servers cool, a typical 100-megawatt hyper-scale data center consumes as much water per day as 6,500 homes. And, as with the factories and railroads that powered previous technological revolutions, the impact on surrounding communities can be especially profound.
This premium story, accompanied by original photography commissioned by Fast Company, documents:
Why one of Metas data center neighbors says, “I haven’t drank my water in years.”
The number of homes that could be powered with the electricity consumed by one Meta data center
How much the area’s light pollution has increased since 2020
What the ongoing data center boom is doing to electricity prices in states like Georgia
What does the cloud look like? For Beverly Morris, its hulking, windowless buildings, bright lights, and literal clouds of dust.
The Stanton Springs Industrial Park in Newton County, Georgia, is home to one of Metas largest data centers, a sprawling 2.5 million-square-foot complex. [Photo: Peter Essick]
In 2020, two years after Beverly and husband Jeff Morris bought their home in Mansfield, Georgia, construction crews began clearing the way for what would turn out to be one of Metas largest data centers, a sprawling, 2.5 million-square-foot complexlarger than the states largest shopping malljust 1,000 feet from their front door.
With no official notice to Morris from Meta or surrounding Newton County representatives, the oak forest across her dirt road was felled; eventually, a white glow from a row of perimeter spotlights flooded their home nightly. Nature was run out of there completely, Morris says.
By 2022, during busy construction days, thick plumes of red dust would storm across their property. After a particularly bad onslaught, Morris called the phone number she found on a construction sign; a crew soon showed up with power washers to hose down her house.
There was a red river running off of my roof, she says. It was such a spectacle that one of the workers insisted on capturing it on his phone. She now wishes shed obtained the video. Everything was covered in red.
The massive Meta data center was built just 1,000 feet from the Mansfield, Georgia, home of Beverly and Jeff Morris. [Photo: Peter Essick]
The new factories
The cloud has never been a very helpful description of the global infrastructure of the internet, but as the global race for AI supremacy ramps up, a new, more apt metaphor has emerged.
I think everybody should stop saying data centers, interior secretary Doug Burgum told a conference in D.C., where in July, Trump signed an executive order cutting regulations to speed up data center construction. Burgum cited the term used by the CEO of Nvidia: It’s not data centers. It’s AI factories.
But these giant warehouses arent factories in the traditional sense. Even the most compute-intensive data centers employ few full-time workers. Most of the work in a data center is done by automated systems and software that manage the infrastructure, while the core computation of training and inference is powered by energy-hungry chips, often made by Nvidia.
In the first half of 2025, spending on data centersincluding big investments from Meta, Alphabet, OpenAI, Amazon, and xAI contributed as much to U.S. GDP growth as household consumer spendingan unprecedented economic shift.
But tremendous cash isnt the only cost, and tech companies arent the only ones shouldering the burden.
In Mansfield, Morris says the impact of all the digging and blasting to build Metas data center, known as Stanton Springs, eventually extended to her well water. By 2023, the pipes in her house were clogged with sediment, wrecking appliances and slowing faucets to a drip. I havent drank my water in years, says Morris, who estimates shes spent about $5,000 on repairs so far. She said a July appraisal found that her propertys value had cratered.
The Meta data center creates a dome of artificial light visible from miles away. [Photo: Peter Essick]
The extent to which the construction of the data center contributed remains unclear. A Meta spokeswoman told The New York Times that the company had recently commissioned a well study on the Morrises property and said it was unlikely that its data center affected the supply of groundwater in the area.
Though the studya copy of which was reviewed by Fast Companyassessed the impact of the facility’s construction and operations on local groundwater and nearby wells, Morris says “Neither Meta nor anyone else came on my property to do a groundwater study. Meta declined repeated requests for comment on this story.
It has changed the way that I live here, she says. And they really accept no responsibility for it. And they’re big enough to do that.
How AIs power needs affect everyone
Tax breaks and relatively cheap power have turned the Atlanta area into the countrys fastest-growing hyper-scale data center market. Demand is so high that the Peach State has delayed closing several coal-fired power plants.
Only a few years ago, Big Tech touted bold carbon targets. Now Bob Sherrier, a staff attorney in the Southern Environmental Law Centers Georgia office, says the data center blitz will deepen our reliance on dirty, volatilely priced methane gas and coal for decades. (Stanton Springs consumed 968,000 megawatt-hours of electricity in 2023, according to Metas most recent numbers, enough to power about 90,000 average homes.)
Nationally, Morgan Stanley estimates that forecasted data center demand will require an additional 45 gigawatts, or about 10% of all current U.S. generation capacityequivalent to 23 Hoover Dams. The data center build-out also means that all the cheap power thats drawn developers to states like Georgia isnt actually that cheap: Nationally, the cost of building out new transmission lines and substations to power the AI push is contributing to surging electricity rates for customers across the country. In Georgia, our rates have gone up six times, Morris says.
A late evening thunderstorm passes over the Meta data center in Social Circle, Georgia. [Photo: Peter Essick]
Power is only part of the equation: Keeping chips cool means withdrawing and consuming immense amounts of water, and developers prioritize places that are hot and dry, where power tends to be cheaper, meaning most data centers are being built in areas with high water stress.
According to the local water authority, the Stanton Springs facility guzzles about 10% of Newton Countys daily water supply. In Newton County, demand is rising so fast that residents could face a water deficit by 2030, according to a 2024 report.
Growing AIs footprintand impact
Some of the worlds biggest projects are emerging in neighboring Louisiana. In Memphis, a supercomputer for Elon Musks xAI has been relying on dozens of unpermitted temporary gas turbines, exacerbating health issues in the surrounding community. In Richland Parish, a plan to build 2 gigawatts worth of gas turbines for a Meta data center project was recently approved by planning authorities, despite local objections that the process was rushed and lacked transparency. But the scale of the project is no secret: Just one of these covers a significant part of the footprint of Manhattan, CEO Mark Zuckerberg wrote on Facebook.
Not to be outdone, OpenAI and Oracle are building an 800-acre data center in Texas that will form part of the Stargate project, a partnership with the Trump administration to create a nationwide backbone for training ever-larger AI models. Backed by a $100 billion investment from Nvidia (much of it to be spent on its own chips), the five-data-center project could demand upwards of 10 gigawattsabout as much energy as consumed by all of New York City.
Morris, who grew up in Georgia, misses the fireflies that used to surround her house, which glowed until the data center showed up.
Even with the spotlights switched off, the facility, now operational, still creates a dome of light visible from miles away. (The areas Bortle score, a measure of light pollution, shows a 25% increase in artificial brightness since 2020.)
The sounds of construction have been replaced by a constant electric hum, periodic alarms, and the intermittent buzz of diesel generators.
Morris admits to feeling powerless, but has found some comfort onlineeven on Facebookconnecting with others across the state who are pushing back against new data center development. I know Im not the only one now, she says.
And shes right. Last month, the city council for the nearby city of Social Circle unanimously enacted a 90-day moratorium on new data centers.
A version of this story appears in the latest issue of Fast Company magazine.
For the past five years, Fast Company’s Next Big Things in Tech awards have celebrated technological breakthroughs that are changing the way we work and live. This years awards include 137 honors for innovations impacting everything from applied AI to telecommunications to agriculture.
Arriving at that cadre of winners from a pool of 1,200 applicants requires many hours of work sifting through applications, scrutinizing projects, and deciding which achievements rank at the top. Here is a peek into how our small army of editorial staffers make it happen.
Methodology
Our team of editors and writers assessed each application based on factors such as:
Relevancy: What pressing problem does the technology solve?
Ingenuity: How novel is the technology?
Progress and potential: In what ways has the technology already proven itself? Is it positioned for long-term viability and scalability?
Impact: What kind of impactfrom economic to culturalmight the technology have over the next five years?
Each winner is chosen after multiple rounds of evaluation and conversation between judges about its performance on the above criteria, a monthslong process.
With Next Big Things in Tech, our aim is to honor projects based not only on what theyve already achieved but where theyre poised to go, says Fast Company global technology editor Harry McCracken. Whether honorees are still in the lab or already on the market, theyre driving progress in tangible ways on an array of fronts.
Meet the team
JudgesAdam Bluestein, Morgan Clendaniel, Yasmin Gagne, Connie Lin, Maia McCann, Harry McCracken, Steven Melendez, Chris Morris, Jared Newman, Alex Pasternack, Rob Pegoraro, Adele Peters, Ross Rubin, Mark Sullivan, Marty Swant, Max Ufberg, Mark Wilson
CoordinatorShealon Calkins
Design/PhotoJeanne Graves, Anne Latini, Daniel Salo, Mike Schnaidt, Amy Wong
Development Bryan Cuellar, Heda Hokschirr, Cayleigh Parrish
Across both white-collar and blue-collar settings, productivity depends on how well information is organized and communicated. DataSnipper uses AI to help auditors quickly surface relevant details in lengthy legal documents, while Sharebite streamlines employee meal programs for the hybrid workplace. Tines has developed a unified AI platform to manage a wide range of workplace software, and Weavix has reimagined the shop-floor radio for modern communication needs.
DataSnipperFor helping rapidly sift through lengthy financial documentsAuditors often need to extract dates and financial details from dense documents such as leases, loan agreements, and meeting minutestasks too complex for a simple Ctrl+F search. DataSnipper automates this work directly within Excel, using AI to respond to written prompts and link results back to their source for quick verification. Launched in April 2025, the tool is already credited by audit firms with reducing document review time by 25%.
SharebiteFor taking the hassle out of employee meal programsFeeding employees has become more complex in the hybrid-work era. Sharebites Passport program provides workers with a Visa card that employers can configure to work only at specific times and locations, encouraging in-office attendance. The companys Stations service simplifies group ordering for central pickup at the office. For every meal purchased, Sharebite donates a meal to people in need through its charity partners.
TinesFor building one unified AI system to command workplace cloud softwareWhile many workplace tools now feature AI assistants, Tines has developed a system that can coordinate across multiple cloud platforms, from trouble-ticketing systems to IT management services. Launched in September 2024, Tines Workbench connects securely to a wide range of software and converts plain-language instructions into precise, preapproved actions. The technology has gained traction quickly, helping Tines raise a $125 million Series C funding round in February 2025.
WeavixFor building the future of two-way radio communicationWorksite radio communication has evolved far beyond the analog walkie-talkie. Weavixs Walt Smart Radio System adds features such as Slack-style departmental channels, AI-powered translation, and geofencing for security. The radios support voice, text, and photo messages, making them useful in settings like manufacturing plants. Designed for tough environments, they can be operated while wearing gloves or other protective gear, and badge-tap authentication makes handoffs simple at shift changes.
The companies and individuals behind these technologies are among the honorees in Fast Companys Next Big Things in Tech awards for 2025. Read more about the winners across all categories and the methodology behind the selection process.
This years wellness and fitness honorees encompass innovations in sleep, fitness, and mental well-being. They help users chill out, de-stress, and take concrete actions to reduce their chronic disease risk. Sure, some of these may seem over the top. But as technologies improve and reach scale, whats over the top now could become a basic necessity tomorrow.
AmmortalFor building the ultimate rejuvenation machineThe Ammortal Chamber may be the ultimate self-care flex at the moment. The fully immersive wellness experience combines red light therapy for cellular regeneration, vibro-acoustic sound therapy to harmonize the nervous system, pulsed electromagnetic fields to reduce inflammation and accelerate recovery, molecular hydrogen to combat oxidative stress, and guided breathwork and visual meditation for deep mental relaxation. After rolling out to luxury hotels and some two dozen wellness centers earlier this year, its now available for consumers who arent stressed out by the $160,000 price tag.
iFutureLabFor making sleep more restorativeAutonomous furniture? Why not? iFutureLabs Heka AI Mattress combines artificial intelligenceits TrackR AI Sleep Chip Systemwith an array of biomedical sensors to sense and release body pressure and adjust lumbar support based on body position. Since launching in 2018, the company has opened more than 630 experience centers worldwide and reached 200,000 users.
Molecular YouFor tracking the metrics of healthy longevityUnlike traditional blood tests, which focus on a limited set of biomarkers for a few conditions, Molecular You measures more than 280 proteins and metabolites from a single blood draw, identifying presymptomatic signals of dozens of chronic conditions, including Alzheimers disease, heart and liver disease, autoimmune disorders, and diabetes. The results include targeted suggestions for addressing patient concerns. The Vancouver-based healthy longevity company launched its $1,100 test in Canada in 2023 and is now available in the U.S. market through a partnership with lab-testing company HealthQuest Esoterics. It raised a $5 million Series A in August, bringing total funding to $29 million.
SauconyFor giving running shoes a “non-Newtonian” bounceSauconys latest technological advance in footwear engineering sounds more like an advance in quantum engineering: Its new proprietary IncrediRUN foam exhibits non-Newtonian behavior. It softens under light impact and stiffens under force, offering significant improvements in cushioning, energy return, and durability compared to the three main foams used in most running footwear. The materials responsiveness springs from its novel polyester elastomer (TPEE) and Sauconys advanced foaming process. Fine-tuned through mechanical testing, athlete feedback, and material engineering in Sauconys Human Performance and Innovation Lab, IncrediRUN debuted in Sauconys Endorphin line of training shoes in March 2025.
The companies and individuals behind these technologies are among the honorees in Fast Companys Next Big Things in Tech awards for 2025. Read more about the winners across all categories and the methodology behind the selection process.
Our honorees in the new tech visionaries category are executives who applied new thinking to pressing problems. One is working to take cellular broadband places its never gone before. Another aims to make the tech industry less dependent on the risky business of mining rare earth materials. And the third is applying AI to the thorny challenge of defending against ever-smarter missiles and drones.
Abel Avellan, CEO, AST SpaceMobileFor sending cellular broadband to spaceFounded in 2017 by chairman and CEO Abel Avellan, AST SpaceMobile has launched six of its BlueBird satellites into low Earth orbit, with plans to have 60 more in orbit by the end of 2026. The goal is to deliver the worlds first satellite-based cellular 4G/5G broadband to unmodified smartphones, soaring past the technological limitations that have kept reliable high-speed cellular delivered through other means from reaching nearly half the worlds population. Under Avellans leadership, the company has signed more than 50 wireless providers as strategic partners and raised $2 billion-plus from investors such as AT&T, Google, Rakuten, Verizon, and Vodafone.
Ahmad Ghahreman, Cyclic MaterialsFor giving rare earth materials a new lease on lifeRare earth materials such as neodymium and dysprosium are critical to everything from consumer electronics to data centers to energy production. But mining them is saddled with issues relating to geopolitics (China dominates the market), human rights, and climate change. Cyclic Materials CEO and cofounder Ahmad Ghahreman oversaw the invention of CC360, a process that recycles these materials99% of which currently go to landfillfrom disk drives. Among those working to help the company commercialize its technology are Amazon, BMW, Hitachi, and Microsoft, all of which participated in its $55 million Series B funding round.
Amy Gilliland, General Dynamics Information TechnologyFor using AI to defend against missiles and dronesAn $8.5 billion unit of defense giant General Dynamics, GDIT is led by president Amy Gilliland. The company worked with Amazon Web Services to develop an AI platform for the U.S. Department of Defense called Defense Operations Grid-Mesh Accelerator, or DOGMA. It helps protect against attacks by highly maneuverable missiles and drones by ingesting data from a network of sensors, analyzing it, and notifying the right operators on the groundall swiftly enough to evade any attempts to jam communications systems. During tests at the DoDs Technology Readiness Experimentation (T-REX) event in 2024, DOGMA reduced the time necessary to make decisions from 30 minutes to 30 seconds.
The companies and individuals behind these technologies are among the honorees in Fast Companys Next Big Things in Tech awards for 2025. Read more about the winners across all categories and the methodology behind the selection process.
