OpenAI recently hit $10 billion in annual recurring revenue, nearly doubling from $5.5 billion last year and serving over 500 million weekly active users along with 3 million paying business customers, according to CNBC. This explosive growth, just two and a half years after launching ChatGPT, showcases how mainstream AI adoption has become in both consumer and enterprise settings. Yet, OpenAI is still investing heavily—burning billions annually to hire talent and maintain the infrastructure needed to support these AI breakthroughs. Their ambitious goal is to reach $125 billion in revenue by 2029, highlighting just how fast the AI ecosystem is expanding and monetizing.
What stands out is how scaling these advanced AI services requires balancing rapid growth with staggering operational costs, a challenge many startups in AI and cloud infrastructure will face. This isn’t just about building a great product; it’s about maintaining the capacity and quality at enormous scale while paving the way to profitability.
How are you approaching the tension between growth and sustainability in your AI or tech ventures? What strategies have proven effective to manage the costs and infrastructure demands of scaling cutting-edge technology?
HUAWEI'S LAUNCHES
Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has taken the extraordinary step of firing the expert panel that advises the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on immunizations, saying the action is needed to restore faith in vaccines.
“A clean sweep is needed to re-establish public confidence in vaccine science,” Kennedy said in an op-ed published Monday afternoon in the Wall Street Journal.
Proponents of vaccines have feared that Kennedy, who is openly skeptical of vaccines and has long been critical of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, might take such a step. ACIP studies vaccines in the regulatory pipeline and ones that have recently been licensed by the Food and Drug Administration, advising the CDC on who they should be offered to once they have been approved.
Appointing replacement members to the advisory panel would give Kennedy broad latitude to reshape the government’s childhood immunization schedule and other vaccine advice. New members haven’t yet been named, but it would appear they may have been selected, because a statement from Kennedy’s department said that a meeting scheduled for late June will take place. In normal times, ACIP candidates go through a vetting process that can take upwards of a year.
.webp)
“We have just demonstrated that politics will overrun science in this administration. It scares me to think of what’s ahead,” said Michael Osterholm, director of the University of Minnesota’s Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy.
One of the members of the committee, who spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of reprisals, was floored by the move. The committee members were not informed in advance, the individual said. Later in the day, they received an unsigned email informing them of their immediate termination. “We appreciate your prior service and commitment,” it concluded.
The committee member predicted upheaval in vaccination policy going forward.
“Providers are no longer going to follow the CDC [vaccination] schedule,” the individual predicted. “The CDC has lost credibility in the vaccination space…. It adds a lot of uncertainty for care for children and adults.”
Bill Cassidy, the Republican chair of the Senate’s health committee, expressed grave concerns about Kennedy’s anti-vaccine positions during his confirmation hearing, before ultimately voting to confirm him. He said on the social media site X that he’d spoken with Kennedy on Monday and is working to ensure the panel won’t be filled with people “who know nothing about vaccines except suspicion.”
Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) called the decision to purge ACIP “excessive.”
“I think these vaccines and other advisory committees are very helpful to the public in providing guidance,” she said. “So to cancel all of the people… that raises serious questions.”
The ACIP meets three times a year — more often during emergencies like the Covid pandemic — to review data on vaccines and recommend how they should be used. Their recommendations must be approved by the CDC director — the position is currently unfilled — or the HHS secretary to go into practice. Kennedy has not signed on to three recommendations the ACIP made at its last meeting in April.
Richard Hughes, a lawyer with the firm Epstein Becker Green, warned that a science-based vaccination policy appears to be on the verge of becoming a thing of the past.
“This upends 64 years of thoughtful, evidence-based decision-making,” Hughes, who worked for a time at the vaccine manufacturer Moderna, told STAT in an email. “At a minimum, it means the involvement of new members will introduce misinformation into what has been a science-based forum.”
Bruce Gellin, a former director of the HHS Vaccines Program Office, shared that concern.
“What we learned in Epidemiology 101 about confirmation bias was better said by John Steinbeck in “The Winter of Our Discontent” — ‘You know how advice is — you only want it if it agrees with what you wanted to do anyways,’” Gellin said. “All eyes will be on the advice the new advisory committee members provide.”
Paul Offit, a former member of the committee and one of the developers of a vaccine that protects against rotavirus infection, said the committee’s work over the decades has markedly improved the health of children and adults in this country. “They should be given an award, not fired,” said Offit, an infectious diseases pediatrician at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.
“RFK Jr. has for 20 years shown you who he is. And nothing has happened since he’s been secretary of HHS to make you feel any differently,” Offit added.
Many public health officials expressed deep concern about what ACIP will become and what the decision will mean for the credibility of vaccine recommendations that emerge from the CDC. Tom Frieden, a former director of the CDC, was among them. “We’ll look back at this as a grave mistake that sacrificed decades of scientific rigor, undermined public trust, and opened the door for fringe theories rather than facts to guide the recommendations that doctors rely on to protect patients,” he said in a statement.
The step followed reporting from STAT on Sunday that revealed that four members of the 19-person panel had received termination notices because their special government employee contracts had lapsed.
Kennedy’s move appears to fly in the face of commitments he made to Cassidy when being confirmed to lead HHS. At the time, Kennedy promised to maintain ACIP recommendations without creating a new safety system, Cassidy said then.
“If confirmed, he will maintain the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices without changes,” Cassidy said in a floor speech.
.webp)
Asked by a reporter on Monday about this commitment, Cassidy responded that Kennedy promised not to touch “the process” of vaccine approval.
Writing in the Journal, Kennedy argued that he was acting to restore confidence in America’s public health leadership, saying the Biden administration stacked the committee and portrayed the group as a rubber stamp for approvals riddled with conflicts of interest.
The Biden administration approved eight new candidates to the committee just before leaving office, with some former officials saying the move was intended to keep the Trump administration from removing mainstream scientific expertise. The HHS statement about Kennedy’s decision cited that aim as a reason for firing all sitting members.
And though some outside experts say ACIP could have stronger conflict of interest policies, they have said Kennedy’s assessment is incomplete at best. In announcing the ACIP firings, Kennedy said the committee members aren’t necessarily corrupt. “The problem is their immersion in a system of industry-aligned incentives and paradigms that enforce a narrow pro-industry orthodoxy,” he wrote.
Kennedy’s critics have pointed to the conflicts he brings to the discussion about vaccines. He’s spent years leading a nonprofit that argued — without evidence — that vaccines are linked to autism, signed book deals to question the safety and efficacy of shots, and received fees for referring plaintiffs who say they were injured by vaccines. (Kennedy pledged to withdraw from his previous business dealings when taking the helm of HHS, though he refused to promise to not sue vaccine manufacturers after his tenure.)
His history could make boosting trust in the CDC difficult. Even Kennedy’s allies have acknowledged that trust can only be restored if the vast majority of Americans, including those who disagree with him, believe the systems are not being changed for political reasons. The move to remake ACIP will weaken trust in the system, public health leaders said.
The president of the American Medical Association, Bruce Scott, said the action “undermines that trust and upends a transparent process that has saved countless lives. With an ongoing measles outbreak and routine child vaccination rates declining, this move will further fuel the spread of vaccine-preventable illnesses.”
The MAHA PAC run by Kennedy allies, which is pouring money into state races and issues, tweeted, “The MAHA Revolution is finally here…The truth about vaccines is about to be EXPOSED.”
Children’s Health Defense, the vaccine-criticizing nonprofit Kennedy founded, and the anti-vaccine activist Sherri Tenpenny were similarly upbeat about the news. “This is unprecedented. And long overdue. The foundation is shaking. Keep your eyes open,” Tenpenny posted on X, alongside a link to a news article.
“Hope the good news continues,” CHD responded. The group has for years alleged that conflicts of interest, such as grant funding from companies that make vaccines, skewed ACIP recommendations toward approving certain shots. Tenpenny, an osteopathic physician who had her license revoked and then reinstated during the pandemic, has been named in at least one of Kennedy’s books as a hero for “medical freedom.” She, like others, pushed back on vaccination mandates and alleged that COVID-19 vaccines make people magnetic (they do not).
Critics of Kennedy’s aggressive anti-vaccine stands have been readying themselves for something of this nature. Osterholm’s center, CIDRAP, recently launched what it has called the Vaccine Integrity Project, led by high-level figures including former Food and Drug Administration commissioner Margaret Hamburg and Harvey Fineberg, a former president of the Institute of Medicine (now the National Academy of Medicine).
“We take up the Vaccine Integrity Project as a precautionary step,” the two wrote in an opinion piece published in STAT in April. “Should ACIP or FDA processes or scientific evaluation become compromised, America cannot afford to be left without any organized systems to ensure that evidence grounded in science continues to guide decisions about the use of vaccines.”
Plans to divide Warner Bros. Discovery into two separate companies could have big implications for entertainment and represent a moment of truth for CEO David Zaslav. He orchestrated the mega-merger that created WBD in 2022, and since then, the company's market value has declined by $40 billion amid several strategic reversals. Zaslav is set to lead the streaming and theatrical entity, which Bloomberg notes could be "an opportunity, perhaps even a final chance" to transform the company.
MORE DEALS
The leaders of a sex-focused women’s wellness company that promoted “orgasmic meditation” have been convicted of federal forced labor charges.
A Brooklyn jury on Monday found Nicole Daedone, founder of OneTaste Inc., and Rachel Cherwitz, the California-based company’s former sales director, guilty after deliberating for less than two days following a five-week trial. The two each face up to 20 years in prison when sentenced later.
Prosecutors had argued the two women ran a years-long scheme that groomed adherents, many of them victims of sexual trauma, to do their bidding.
They said Daedone, 57, of New York, and Cherwitz, 44, of California, used economic, sexual, and psychological abuse, intimidation, and indoctrination to force OneTaste members into sexual acts they found uncomfortable or repulsive, such as having sex with prospective investors or clients.
The two told followers the questionable acts were necessary in order to obtain “freedom” and “enlightenment” and demonstrate their commitment to the organization’s principles.
Prosecutors said OneTaste leaders also didn’t pay promised earnings to the members-turned-workers and even forced some of them to take out new credit cards to continue taking the company’s courses.
“The jury’s verdict has unmasked Daedone and Cherwitz for who they truly are: grifters who preyed on vulnerable victims by making empty promises of sexual empowerment and wellness only to manipulate them into performing labor and services for the defendants’ benefit,” said Joseph Nocella, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York.
Daedone’s defense team cast her as a “ceiling-shattering feminist entrepreneur” who created a unique business around women’s sexuality and empowerment.
Cherwitz’s lawyer, Celia Cohen, argued that the witnesses who testified weren’t forced to do anything. When they didn’t like the organization anymore or wanted to try other things, she said, they simply left.
“No matter what you think about OneTaste and what they were doing, they chose it. They knew what it was about,” she said in her closing statement last week. “The fact that they are regretting the actions that they took when they were younger is not evidence of a crime.”
Lawyers for the defendants said their clients maintain their innocence and intend to appeal.
“We are deeply disappointed in today’s verdict,” the lawyers said in a statement Monday. “This case raised numerous novel and complex legal issues that will require review by the Second Circuit.”
Daedone co-founded OneTaste in San Francisco in 2004 as a sort of self-help commune that viewed female orgasms as key to sexual and psychological wellness and interpersonal connection.
A centerpiece was “orgasmic meditation,” or “OM,” which was carried out by men manually stimulating women in a group setting.
The company enjoyed glowing media coverage in the 2010s and quickly opened outposts from Los Angeles to London. Portrayed as a cutting-edge enterprise that prioritized women’s sexual pleasure, it generated revenue by providing courses, coaching, OM events, and other sexual practices for a fee.
Daedone sold her stake in the company in 2017 for $12 million — a year before OneTaste’s marketing and labor practices came under scrutiny.
The company’s current owners, who have rebranded it the Institute of OM Foundation, have said its work has been misconstrued and the charges against its former executives were unjustified.
They maintain sexual consent has always been a cornerstone of the organization. The company didn’t immediately respond to an email seeking comment.
Amazon is continuing its investments in artificial intelligence and cloud computing infrastructure, putting $20 billion toward data centers in Pennsylvania. It plans to build two complexes, one of them next to a nuclear power plant. Amazon and other tech giants have been looking to alternative energy sources to keep up with the demands of AI. The company expects to create 1,250 high-skilled jobs in the state and recently announced a similar investment in North Carolina.
💼 Executive presence.
What does that actually mean — and who gets to define it? 🤔
I had a great conversation recently that got me thinking about how often women are told to “have more executive presence,” but rarely told what that looks like.
Is it about tone? 🗣️ Posture? Confidence? Clothing? Not apologizing when you speak? Is it about being quieter or louder? 🔈🔊
And should men be asking themselves the same questions — or are we just operating inside an outdated playbook 📖 of what leadership “should” look like?
So here's what I'm sitting with:
How do we actually develop executive presence in a way that’s authentic — not performative? 🎭✨
Would love to hear what this means to you — or the moments where you felt like you had it, or maybe when you were told you didn’t. 💬
Second-worst ever. That’s how health conditions for the 2025 U.S. winter wheat crop were described last autumn.
RAIN, RAIN, GO AWAY
Writing by Karen Braun; Editing by Matthew Lewis
President Trump warned U.S. companies to “eat the tariffs,” but the majority of businesses do not plan on heeding that directive. Companies expect to pass along about half of their increased costs to consumers.
That’s according to new data from the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, which polled 640 businesses as part of its monthly Business Inflation Expectations Survey. Only about 10 percent of businesses indicated they would pass along no cost increases to customers. On average, businesses said they expected to pass through 51.1 percent of a 10 percent cost increase and 47.3 percent of a 25 percent cost increase without hurting current levels of demand.
Atlanta Fed researchers noted that this marks a significant change from President Trump’s first term, when companies passed along nearly all of the cost increases they incurred from the White House’s tariff policy. “Our results suggest many firms believe their customers are price-sensitive enough this time around (perhaps owing to the recent inflationary surge that isn’t too far in the rearview mirror),” wrote survey director Kevin Foster, economic research analyst Aaron Jalca, and economist Brent Meyer in an online post about the findings published last week.
Still, the survey found 19 percent of companies indicated they planned to pass along all of a 10 percent increase to consumers. How a company decided to respond to cost increases from tariffs seemed to come down to revenue growth. On average, businesses with stronger sales planned to pass along more of the cost increases, compared with businesses reporting weaker than normal sales.