A little more than a year ago, Ryan Sprankle welcomed President Donald Trump to one of the three grocery stores his family owns near Pittsburgh. Trump was on the campaign trail; they talked about high grocery prices, and the Republican nominee picked up a bag of popcorn.But these days, Sprankle would have a different message if Trump or any lawmakers visited his store. He wants them to know that delayed SNAP benefits during the government shutdown hurt his customers and his small, independent chain.“You can’t take away from the most needy people in the country. It’s inhumane,” Sprankle said. “It’s a lack of empathy and it’s on all their hands.
The Trump administration froze funding for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program at the end of October, impacting food access for some 42 million Americans. On Monday, the U.S. Senate passed legislation that would reopen the federal government and replenish SNAP funds, but the U.S. House of Representatives still must consider the bill. It’s unclear when SNAP payments might resume if the government reopens.In 2024, SNAP recipients redeemed a little more than $96 billion in benefits, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which administers the program. The majority 74% was spent at superstores and supermarkets, a category that includes big chains like Walmart and Kroger but also some independent stores like Sprankle’s.Around 14% was spent at smaller grocery and convenience stores, businesses often tucked into neighborhoods and more easily accessible to SNAP beneficiaries.
A stalled economic engine
Etharin Cousin, a former director of the United Nations World Food Program and founder of the nonprofit Food Systems for the Future, said the cutoff of SNAP benefits had immediate impacts on grocers and convenience stores of all sizes, most of which operate on slim profit margins of 1% to 2%.“SNAP isn’t just a social safety net for families. It’s also a local economic engine,” Cousin said. “SNAP benefits flow directly into neighborhoods, stores, regional distributors and community jobs.”Walmart declined to comment on the impact of the SNAP funding lapse but noted that it has been lowering prices and donating to local food banks. Kroger also declined to comment.Shoppers not receiving their food benefits affects all retailers but becomes “a big problem more quickly” at small chains, Sprankle said. His Kittanning, Pennsylvania, store gets 25% of its revenue from SNAP, but customers who don’t get government assistance also are worried about the shutdown, according to Sprankle. They’re spending less, trading down to cheaper goods or heading to food banks, he said.Sprankle said lower sales cut into the overtime he can offer to the chain’s 140 employees. Many are worried about losing their jobs, he said.“They have families to feed, they have kids for buy gifts for,” he said. “If I have to sell my truck, we’re going to give Christmas bonuses.”Liz Abunaw, the owner and operator of Forty Acres Fresh Market in Chicago, recently saw a customer putting back a full cart of groceries because she couldn’t afford them without SNAP.Abunaw opened the supermarket in September after years spent selling produce at pop-up markets and in delivery boxes. Only about 12% of Abunaw’s revenue comes from SNAP benefits right now, she said. But without it or if SNAP recipients spend less money in her store — it will slow Forty Acres’ growth and make it harder to pay the workers, suppliers and farmers who depend on her, she said.“SNAP is currency. I get money I then use in this economy. It’s not a food box,” Abunaw said. “The economic impact of SNAP is larger than the dollars spent.”
From neighborhood shops to food pantries
The suspended food aid also had an immediate impact on Kanbe’s Markets, a nonprofit that stocks produce in coolers at 110 convenience stores around Kansas City, Missouri. Kanbe’s distributes a mixture of donated food and food purchased from wholesalers to keep prices low, founder and CEO Maxfield Kaniger said.Kanbe’s also distributes free food to 50 food pantries and soup kitchens around the city.Kaniger said some of the convenience stores he works with saw their sales drop 10% in the days after Nov. 1, when SNAP benefits weren’t paid. At the same time, the food pantries he supplies asked for double or triple their usual orders.Because it’s giving away more food than usual, Kanbe’s has to spend more buying produce for the coolers it stocks. It’s frustrating for Kaniger, who must make decisions quickly before food spoils.“It should be enough that people are going without food. Period, end of sentence. People going without food is wrong,” he said.Babir Sultan sells berries, lemons, potatoes, bananas and other produce from Kanbe’s at his four FavTrip convenience stores in the Kansas City area. His stores are in food deserts, far from other groceries or big retailers, he said, so it’s important to him to stock fresh produce for those neighborhoods.Sultan said foot traffic at his stores fell 8% to 10% in early November after SNAP funding ceased. He decided to offer $10 of free produce to SNAP beneficiaries but said he’s also happy to help out other customers who might be struggling right now.“If you’re in need, just ask, we’ll take care of you,” Sultan said. “Everybody is affected whenever the customer is feeling the pinch.”
Durbin reported from Detroit. Associated Press data journalist Kasturi Pananjady in Philadelphia contributed to this report.
Dee-Ann Durbin, AP Business Writer
Circle Internet Group released its third-quarter earnings on Wednesday, November 12, announcing a 66% jump in revenue and reserve income year-over-year (YOY). The $740 million figure stemmed, in large part, from a 97% increase YOY of average USDC in circulation.
USDC, Circles flagship cryptocurrency stablecoin, is pegged to the U.S. dollar. Its also one of the largest stablecoins in the world. In August, Circle announced Arc, a public blockchain designed specifically for stablecoins, such as USDC.
In the earnings report, Circle claimed that over 100 companies are taking part in the launch of Arc public testnet.
Jeremy Allaire, cofounder, CEO, and chairman at Circle, said the test was met with extraordinary enthusiasm from partners across traditional and digital financeevidence of the deep and diverse ecosystem forming around open, programmable money.”
Furthermore, Circle reported a net income of $214 million, a 202% improvement YOY. Notably, this is only Circles second earnings report after going public in June.
All YOY figures are reported by Circle based on private earnings during quarter three 2024.
CRCL takes a tumble in premarket trading
Despite impressive revenue and net income growth, Circle shares (NYSE:CRCL) still took a tumble. After already closing 5.57% down on Wednesday, the drop continued in premarket trading on Thursday, falling more than 5%.
One factor could be Circle raising its expected 2025 adjusted operating expenses from between $475 million and $490 million to $495 million and $510 million.
Circle blamed the updated outlook on growing investment in building our platform, capabilities and global partnerships to meet the accelerating market interest and opportunity, as well as higher payroll taxes anticipated from option exercises.
New York-based Circle Internet Groups IPO was one of the most high-profile listings of the year. After shares were priced at $31, they reached a high of close to $300 less than a month after their market debut.
But the stock price has swung wildly since then. It’s down roughly 28% over the last month as of Tuesday’s close.
The longest government shutdown in history could conclude as soon as Wednesday, Day 43, with almost no one happy with the final result.Democrats didn’t get the heath insurance provisions they demanded added to the spending deal. And Republicans, who control the levers of power in Washington, didn’t escape blame, according to polls and some state and local elections that went poorly for them.The fallout of the shutdown landed on millions of Americans, including federal workers who went without paychecks and airline passengers who had their trips delayed or canceled. An interruption in nutrition assistance programs contributed to long lines at food banks and added emotional distress going into the holiday season.The agreement includes bipartisan bills worked out by the Senate Appropriations Committee to fund parts of governmentfood aid, veterans programs, and the legislative branch, among other things. All other funding would be extended until the end of January, giving lawmakers more than two months to finish additional spending bills.Here’s a look at how the shutdown started and is likely to end:
What led to the shutdown
Democrats made several demands to win their support for a short-term funding bill, but the central one was an extension of an enhanced tax credit that lowers the cost of health coverage obtained through Affordable Care Act marketplaces.The tax credit was boosted during the COVID-19 pandemic response, again through President Joe Biden’s big energy and health care bill, and it’s set to expire at the end of December. Without it, premiums on average will more than double for millions of Americans. More than 2 million people would lose health insurance coverage altogether next year, the Congressional Budget Office projected.“Never have American families faced a situation where their health care costs are set to doubledouble in the blink of an eye,” said Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer, D-New York.While Democrats called for negotiations on the matter, Republicans said a funding bill would need to be passed first.“Republicans are ready to sit down with Democrats just as soon as they stop holding the government hostage to their partisan demands,” Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-South Dakota, said.Thune eventually promised Democrats a December vote on the tax credit extension to help resolve the standoff, but many Democrats demanded a guaranteed fix, not just a vote that is likely to fail.Thune’s position was much the same as the one Schumer took back in October 2013, when Republicans unsuccessfully sought to roll back parts of the Affordable Care Act in exchange for funding the government. “Open up all of the government, and then we can have a fruitful discussion,” Schumer said then.
Democratic leaders under pressure
The first year of President Donald Trump’s second term has seen more than 200,000 federal workers leave their job through firings, forced relocations or the Republican administration’s deferred resignation program, according to the Partnership for Public Service. Whole agencies that don’t align with the administration’s priorities have been dismantled. And billions of dollars previously approved by Congress have been frozen or canceled.Democrats have had to rely on the courts to block some of Trump’s efforts, but they have been unable to do it through legislation. They were also powerless to stop Trump’s big tax cut and immigration crackdown bill that Republicans helped pay for by cutting future spending on safety net programs such as Medicaid and SNAP, formerly known as food stamps.The Democrats’ struggles to blunt the Trump administration’s priorities has prompted calls for the party’s congressional leadership to take a more forceful response.Schumer experienced that firsthand after announcing in March that he would support moving ahead with a funding bill for the 2025 budget year. There was a protest at his office, calls from progressives that he be primaried in 2028, and suggestions that the Democratic Party would soon be looking for new leaders.This time around, Schumer demanded that Republicans negotiate with Democrats to get their votes on a spending bill. The Senate rules, he noted, requires bipartisan support to meet the 60-vote threshold necessary to advance a spending bill.But those negotiations did not occur, at least not with Schumer. Republicans instead worked with a small group of eight Democrats to tee up a short-term bill to fund the government generally at current levels and accused Schumer of catering to the party’s left flank when he refused to go along.“The Senate Democrats are afraid that the radicals in their party will say that they caved,” House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-Lousiana, said at one of his many daily press conferences.
The blame game
The political stakes in the shutdown are huge, which is why leaders in both parties have held nearly daily press briefings to shape public opinion.Roughly 6 in 10 Americans say Trump and Republicans in Congress have “a great deal” or “quite a bit” of responsibility for the shutdown, while 54% say the same about Democrats in Congress, according to the poll from the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research.At least three-quarters of Americans believe each deserves at least a “moderate” share of blame, underscoring that no one was successfully evading responsibility.Both parties looked to the November 4 elections in Virginia, New Jersey, and elsewhere for signs of how the shutdown was influencing public opinion. Democrats took comfort in their overwhelming successes. Trump called it a “big factor, negative” for Republicans. But it did not change the GOP’s stance on negotiating. Instead, Trump ramped up calls for Republicans to end the filibuster in the Senate, which would pretty much eliminate the need for the majority party to ever negotiate with the minority.
Damage of the shutdown
The Congressional Budget Office says that the negative impact on the economy will be mostly recovered once the shutdown ends, but not entirely. It estimated the permanent economic loss at about $11 billion for a six-week shutdown.Beyond the numbers, though, the shutdown created a cascade of troubles for many Americans. Federal workers missed paychecks, causing financial and emotional stress. Travelers had their flights delayed and at times canceled. People who rely on safety net programs such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program saw their benefits stopped, and Americans throughout the country lined up for meals at food banks.“This dysfunction is damaging enough to our constituents and economy here at home, but it also sends a dangerous message to the watching world,” said Sen. Jerry Moran, R-Kansas “It demonstrates to our allies that we are an unreliable partner, and it signals to our adversaries that we can’t work together to meet even the most fundamental responsibilities of Congress.”
Follow the AP’s coverage of the federal government shutdown at https://apnews.com/hub/government-shutdown.
Kevin Freking, Associated Press
President Donald Trump boasts that his tariffs protect American industries, lure factories to the United States, raise money for the federal government, and give him diplomatic leverage.Now, he’s claiming they can finance a windfall for American families, too: He’s promising a generous tariff dividend.The president proposed the idea on his Truth Social media platform Sunday, five days after his Republican Party lost elections in Virginia, New Jersey, and elsewhere largely because of voter discontent with his economic stewardshipspecifically, the high cost of living.The tariffs are bringing in so much money, the president posted, that “a dividend of at least $2,000 a person (not including high income people!) will be paid to everyone.”Budget experts scoffed at the idea, which conjured memories of the Trump administration’s short-lived plan for DOGE dividend checks financed by billionaire Elon Musk’s federal budget cuts.“The numbers just don’t check out,” said Erica York, vice president of federal tax policy at the nonpartisan Tax Foundation.Details are scarce, including what the income limits would be and whether payments would go to children.Even Trump’s treasury secretary, Scott Bessent, sounded a bit blindsided by the audacious dividend plan. Appearing Sunday on ABC’s This Week, Bessent said he hadn’t discussed the dividend with the president and suggested that it might not mean that Americans would get a check from the government. Instead, Bessent said, the rebate might take the form of tax cuts.The tariffs are certainly raising money$195 billion in the budget year that ended September 30, up 153% from $77 billion in fiscal 2024. But they still account for less than 4% of federal revenue and have done little to dent the federal budget deficita staggering $1.8 trillion in fiscal 2025.Budget wonks say Trump’s dividend math doesn’t work.John Ricco, an analyst with the Budget Lab at Yale University, reckons that Trump’s tariffs will bring in $200 billion to $300 billion a year in revenue. But a $2,000 dividendif it went to all Americans, including childrenwould cost $600 billion. “It’s clear that the revenue coming in would not be adequate,” he said.Ricco also noted that Trump couldn’t just pay the dividends on his own. They would require legislation from Congress.Moreover, the centerpiece of Trump’s protectionist trade policiesdouble-digit taxes on imports from almost every country in the worldmay not survive a legal challenge that has reached the U.S. Supreme Court.In a hearing last week, the justices sounded skeptical about the Trump administration’s assertion of sweeping power to declare national emergencies to justify the tariffs. Trump has bypassed Congress, which has authority under the Constitution to levy taxes, including tariffs.If the court strikes down the tariffs, the Trump administration may be refunding money to the importers who paid them, not sending dividend checks to American families. (Trump could find other ways to impose tariffs, even if he loses at the Supreme Court; but it could be cumbersome and time-consuming.)Mainstream economists and budget analysts note that tariffs are paid by U.S. importers who then generally try to pass along the cost to their customers through higher prices.The dividend plan “misses the mark,” the Tax Foundation’s York said. “If the goal is relief for Americans, just get rid of the tariffs.”
Paul Wiseman, AP Economics Writer
Jonathan Haidt, author of ‘The Anxious Generation,’ breaks down the psychology behind Gen Zs social media addiction and what digital dependance actually does to a young person’s brain.
It shouldnt be much of a surprise that an AI-powered tool called Oz is heading out of, or near, the Emerald City.
On November 12, Microsoft and Land OLakes announced that the two companies have co-developed an AI-powered agricultural science tool called Oz, designed to help farmers and agricultural operations. Specifically, farmers are facing some very serious problems: labor shortages and lower yields associated with changing climates. Further, costs for fuel, fertilizer, equipment, and tools, not to mention international trade issues, have put agricultural operations in an even tighter vise.
Oz was built to help agronomists and farmers do more with what they have, tapping into Land OLakess vast reams of agricultural data and insights, previously available only in a bound, 800-page book. Oz itself is an AI application that is accessed and used on a mobile device, tapping into Land OLakess intellectual property to offer guidance and information on the fly.
Were putting 20 years of data into [farmers] hands, says Leah Anderson, who serves as SVP of Land OLakes and president of its crop inputs and insights business, WinField United. Oz is designed to be put into the hands of an agronomist, or an agricultural scientist, she says, who can then offer the farmer on the ground insight and guidance about what to plant, where to plant it, and whenalong with myriad other things, such as weather insights, pest and pesticide information, and more.
What were doing with AI . . . is using the structured, high-quality, standardized data from over the past 20 years and feeding it into Oz. That cuts out the noise, Anderson says, noting that it also helps farmers trust that the data source was correct.
In other words, using Oz as an AI assistant or tool to ask questions about a given farming operation should be more trustworthy and less prone to hallucination than a broader AI tool, such as ChatGPT, which is trained on the entire internet. Oz, instead, generates insights from only one source, which is known and trusted by farmers.
Oz is currently in beta testing and is in the hands of numerous retailers across the country, with plans for further expansion this year. Its also been in the works for a whilethe product of a now five-year-long partnership between Land OLakes and Microsoft.
Lorraine Bardeen, corporate vice president of AI transformation at Microsoft, says she has worked at the tech giant for more than two decades in numerous departments, from finance to the Xbox team. But she decided to work on the project with Land OLakes because it was a chance to get AI tech into the fieldliterally.
The first major waves of our partnership were about digitally transforming American agriculture, bringing a lot of workloads and capabilities to the cloud, she says. Over the last five years, Land OLakes has really established itself as an innovator in American agriculture.
Farming on the brink
The timing is critical, too, because the agriculture industry is in crisis. A June 2025 study published in Nature finds that even if farmers adapt to a changing climate, staple crops will be 24% lower by the end of the century than they are today. This year, farmers are facing an estimated $44 billion in crop losses due to rising costs, low crop prices, and international trade issues. Farmers are also struggling to find workers, a problem exacerbated by the Trump administrations immigration raids.
Unchecked, these issues could compound, leading to less food production, higher prices, and even shortages.
While a tech tool cant help on the trade war front, it may be useful when deciding how much or little to water certain crops, when weather patterns are expected, what types of fertilizer may be the most effective given specific soil compositions, and more. In all, it could help replace lost manpower and make better decisions with materials on hand in order to reduce waste and costs. Again, all the suggestions and insights that Oz generates draw on data that Land OLakes has compiled over many years.
Land OLakes has created this really rich set of intellectual property, Bardeen says. But its historically been brought to bear in an 800-page tome. It brings incredible value, information, and insights to farmers. Oz shifts everything from a literal, static book to a dynamic, AI-powered coach.
Anderson adds that farmers have more to look forward to from the Land OLakes-Microsoft partnership. American farmers are under incredible pressurewe see the stress on their faces, she says. For those farmers, its about reducing uncertainty, and nobody knows more about that than we do. What were doing with Oz is really the tip of the iceberg as to what were going to be able to do with AI.
Growing up, WNBA star Paige Bueckers says she was huge on sports memorabilia. She collected items across a range of sports from her favorite players, including their posters, autographs, and jerseys. Today, shes having a full circle moment: Bueckers just announced an exclusive, multi-year deal with Fanatics, which will make the sports apparel juggernaut the sole provider of her memorabilia and collectibles.
The Paige Bueckers Fanatics collection pulls from both her collegiate career with the UConn Huskies (which she led to four Big East Tournament wins, four Final Four appearances, and a National Championship title) and her current professional career as a guard on the Dallas Wings, and includes autographed and inscribed basketballs, jerseys, photos, shoes, and select game-used equipment. The collection is currently live across Fanatics network of sites, including Fanatics.com and WNBAStore.com.
Bueckers, who graduated from the University of Connecticut in 2024, was one of the first college athletes to benefit from the Supreme Courts 2021 ruling allowing amateurs to profit off of their own name, image, and likeness (NIL) rights. She became a trailblazer in using strategic NIL deals to expertly market her own brand, racking up an estimated $1.5 million net worth by her final 20242025 NCAA season.
Now, with this Fanatics partnership, shes bringing that honed business savvy into her pro careerand using her own visibility to uplift her fellow athletes.
Paige Bueckers [Photo: Fanatics]
Inside the new Paige Bueckers Fanatics collection
Prior to this deal, Bueckerss likeness was already a sales hit for Fanatics. After being selected first overall in the 2025 WNBA draft by the Wings, Bueckers became this years Rookie of the Year and an All-Star player. According to a Fanatics press release, Her jersey and other merchandise was an immediate hit and flew off the shelves all season long, with sales on draft night becoming the second best by a WNBA player in league history.
For Fanatics, this partnership is part of a larger plan to become the Amazon of sports, as Fast Company put it in a 2023 feature. The brand is currently the single biggest manufacturer and distributor of sports fan apparel in the U.S., sitting at a valuation of an estimated $31 billion as of 2022. Still, its set its sights on growing even further by expanding intoand eventually dominatingthe collectibles market.
Bueckers says Fanaticss incredible reach will also help her connect with as many young fans as possible, echoing her own early memories of collecting memorabilia of her favorite athletes. Beyond that, the Fanatics deal is a recent example of how Bueckers leverages brand partnerships to give back to young athletes.
[Image: Fanatics]
Dominating on the court and in the brand world
Bueckers is no stranger to brand deals. In fact, shes something of a leader in a new era of financial empowerment for emerging athletes.
In 2021, Bueckers became the first college athlete to sign with Gatorade mere months after the implementation of NIL. During the remainder of her college career, she penned deals with major names including Bose, Intuit, Verizon, Madison Reed, Google Chrome, and Epic Games. Just before her pro debut, she joined DoorDash as its first-ever athlete creative director. And, this June, she partnered with Nike and Levis on a sporty, denim-centric apparel collection.
In short, Bueckers has expertly curated a portfolio of some of the most recognizable brand partners in the sports world, despite entering college with what shes described as very limited experience managing her own finances. Still, she says, the most important lesson that she learned after being cast into the deep end of sports sponsorships during college was to only work with brands that align with her values.
Having a team that understands that and negotiates that in every single one of my deals was really important, Bueckers says. Continuing to give back was the most important thing of all, because you can easily make NIL about yourself only.
A few years ago, when I was working at a traditional law firm, the partners gathered with us with barely any excitement. “Rejoice,” they announced, unveiling our new AI assistant that would make legal work faster, easier, and better. An expert was brought in to train us on dashboards and automation. Within months, her enthusiasm had curdled into frustration as lawyers either ignored the expensive tool or, worse, followed its recommendations blindly.
That’s when I realized: we weren’t learning to use AI. AI was learning to use us.
Many traditional law firms have rushed to adopt AI decision support tools for client selection, case assessment, and strategy development. The pitch is irresistible: AI reduces costs, saves time, and promises better decisions through pure logic, untainted by human bias or emotion.
These systems appear precise: When AI was used in cases, evidence gets rated “strong,” “medium,” or “weak.” Case outcomes receive probability scores. Legal strategies are color-coded by risk level.
But this crisp certainty masks a messy reality: most of these AI assessments rely on simple scoring rules that check whether information matches predefined characteristics. It’s sophisticated pattern-matching, not wisdom, and it falls apart spectacularly with borderline cases that don’t fit the template.
And here’s the kicker: AI systems often replicate the very biases they’re supposed to eliminate. Research is finding that algorithmic recommendations in legal tech can reflect and even amplify human prejudices baked into training data. Your “objective” AI tool might carry the same blind spots as a biased partner, it’s just faster and more confident about it.
And yet: None of this means abandoning AI tools. It means building and demanding better ones.
The Default Trap
“So what?” you might think. “AI tools are just that, tools. Can’t we use their speed and efficiency while critically reviewing their suggestions?”
In theory, yes. In practice, we’re terrible at it.
Behavioral economists have documented a phenomenon called status quo bias: our powerful preference for defaults. When an AI system presents a recommendation, that recommendation becomes the path of least resistance. Questioning it requires time, cognitive effort, and the social awkwardness of overriding what feels like expert consensus.
I watched this happen repeatedly at the firm. An associate would run case details through the AI, which would spit out a legal strategy. Rather than treating it as one input among many, it became the starting point that shaped every subsequent discussion. The AI’s guess became our default, and defaults are sticky.
This wouldn’t matter if we at least recognized what was happening. But something more insidious occurs: our ability to think independently atrophies. Writer Nicholas Carr has long warned about the cognitive costs of outsourcing thinking to machines, and mounting evidence supports his concerns. Each time we defer to AI without questioning it, we get a little worse at making those judgments ourselves.
I’ve watched junior associates lose the ability to evaluate cases on their own. They’ve become skilled at operating the AI interface but struggle when asked to analyze a legal problem from scratch. The tool was supposed to make them more efficient; instead, it’s made them dependent.
Speed Without Wisdom
The real danger isn’t that AI makes mistakes. It’s that AI makes mistakes quickly, confidently, and at scale.
An attorney accepts a case evaluation without noticing the system misunderstood a crucial precedent. A partner relies on AI-generated strategy recommendations that miss a creative legal argument a human would have spotted. A firm uses AI for client intake and systematically screens out cases that don’t match historical patterns, even when those cases have merit. Each decision feels rational in the moment, backed by technology and data. But poor inputs and flawed models produce poor outputs, just faster than before.
The Better Path Forward
The problems I witnessed stemmed from how these legacy systems were designed: as replacement tools rather than enhancement tools. They positioned AI as the decision-maker with humans merely reviewing outputs, rather than keeping human judgment at the center.
Better AI legal tools exist, and they take a fundamentally different approach.
They’re built with judgment-first design, treating lawyers as the primary decision-makers and AI as a support system that enhances rather than replaces expertise. These systems make their reasoning transparent, showing how they arrived at recommendations rather than presenting black-box outputs. They include regular capability assessments to ensure lawyers maintain independent analytical skills even while using AI assistance. And they’re designed to flag edge cases and uncertainties rather than presenting false confidence.
The difference is philosophical: are you building tools that make lawyers faster at being lawyers, or tools that try to replace lawyering itself?
I see this different approach playing out in immigration services, where the stakes of poor decisions are particularly high. Consider a case where an applicant’s employment history doesn’t neatly match historical approval patterns, perhaps they’ve had gaps, career shifts, or worked in emerging fields. A traditional AI tool would flag this as “non-standard,” lowering approval probability and becoming the default recommendation. A judgment-first system does something entirely different: it surfaces the exact factors that make the case atypical, explains why precedent might or might not apply, and explicitly asks the immigration officer, “What do you see here that the algorithm misses?” The officer remains the decision-maker, armed with both AI efficiency and the cognitive space to apply nuanced expertise. The tool didn’t replace judgment; it enhanced it. That’s the difference between AI that makes professionals dependent and AI that makes them sharper.
Taking Back Control
None of this means abandoning AI tools. It means using them deliberately:
Treat AI recommendations as drafts, not answers. Before accepting any AI suggestion, ask: “What would I recommend if the system weren’t here?” If you can’t answer, you’re not ready to evaluate the AI’s output.
Build in friction. Create a rule that important decisions require at least one alternative to the AI’s recommendation. Force yourself to articulate why the AI is right, rather than assuming it is.
Test regularly. Periodically work through problems without AI assistance to maintain your independent judgment. Think of it like a pilot practicing manual landings despite having autopilot.
Demand transparency. Push vendors to explain how their systems reach conclusions. If they can’t or won’t, that’s a red flag. You’re entitled to understand what’s shaping your decisions.
Stay skeptical of certainty. When AI outputs seem suspiciously confident or precise, dig deeper. Real-world problems are messy; if the answer looks too clean, something’s probably being oversimplified.
The legal professionals who thrive with AI aren’t those who defer to it blindly or reject it entirely. They’re the ones who leverage its efficiencies while maintaining sharp human judgment, and who insist on tools designed to enhance their capabilities rather than circumvent them.
Left unchecked, poorly designed AI assistants will train you to make terrible decisions. But that outcome isn’t inevitable. The future belongs to legal professionals who demand tools that genuinely enhance their expertise rather than erode it. After all, speed and convenience lose much of their appeal if they compromise the quality of justice itself.
Glassdoor Economic Research has released its Worklife Trends report for 2026. A key theme highlighted throughout is the growing disconnect between workers and their leaders.
A notable contributing factor is that smaller, regular layoffswhich the report dubs as “forever layoffs”are becoming more common than less frequent mass layoffs.
Rolling layoffs are among several reasons why many employees feel anxious and less secure in the workplace. Let’s review the report findings.
‘Forever layoffs’ are becoming the norm
Layoffs are back to pre-pandemic levels. And smaller, more frequent job cuts are now common.
Glassdoor refers to these mini, rolling layoffs as “forever layoffs.”
Glassdoor reviewed Bureau of Labor Statistics Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey (JOLTS) data from 2015 to August 2025. After a layoff spike in spring 2020 and historically low layoff levels in 2021 and 2022, the number of full-time workers laid off each month has crept back up to pre-pandemic levels:
The average number of workers that were laid off or discharged each month from 2015 to 2019 was around 1.8 million.
Meanwhile, around 1.7 million workers were laid off or discharged in August 2025.
Glassdoor also examined Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act layoff notifications (excluding notices for company closings) for further insight. The WARN Act is a federal law that requires most employers with 100 or more workers to provide advance notice before a plant closing or mass layoff.
Layoffs affecting fewer than 50 people accounted for 38% of WARN notices in 2015.
51% of layoffs affected fewer than 50 people in 2025.
It’s worth noting, however, that the WARN Act doesn’t require filings for layoffs of fewer than 50 workers. Filings may not give a complete picture of the number of smaller layoffs.
Glassdoor reviews give insight into how workers feel
Company layoffs impact employee morale and job satisfaction. Many workers are feeling less secure in their jobs.
“Rolling layoffs may give companies a way to reduce headcount without making headlines, but they create cultures of anxiety, insecurity, and resentment at companies,” the report says.
Glassdoor examined 3.3 million Glassdoor reviews from current employees working remote and hybrid roles. The following related terms have surged in Glassdoor reviews in the last year:
Misaligned (149%)
Miscommunication (25%)
Hypocrisy (18%)
Distrust (26%)
Industries with a noticeable decline in trust in leadership include management and consulting, media and telecommunication, and technology.
Remote workers feel dissatisfied as confidence in leadership declines
Overall ratings are falling for employees who use the words “remote” or “hybrid” when listing workplace pros. Here are some key findings:
Remote employees are seeing fewer career opportunities. The average career opportunity ratings on Glassdoor have fallen from 4.1 in 2020 to 3.5 in 2025.
Confidence in senior leadership is weakening. Ratings of senior leadership are now well below pandemic levels. For reviews that mention senior leadership or management, the share of reviews mentioning “disconnect” increased by 24% from 2024 to 2025.
Many workers still give high ratings for work-life balance. Work-life balance ratings are still higher for workers who list hybrid or remote work as a pro, but ratings have declined since 2020.
More workers are feeling more pressure to RTO
Return-to-office (RTO) mandates have pushed workers back into the office. But thats not the only reason more employees are likely to return to in-person work in 2026.
Fewer opportunities for career growth also contribute to job dissatisfaction. Many employers are prioritizing in-person workers for promotions and career opportunities.
Some remote and hybrid workers may feel pressure to trade in flexibility for more access to career advancement opportunities.
Workers feeling the need to take whatever job offer comes their way, and AI adoption are other factors that contribute to the disconnect between employees and leaders.
Average early-career earnings are rising
Heres one positive trend highlighted by the report: Early-career workers are on track to surpass pre-pandemic earnings levels in 2026.
Real wage growth was down 4.1% for early-career workers from 2020 to 2022. But earnings started recovering in 2023 and are expected to surpass 2020 levels next year.
Something is going on with Marjorie Taylor Greene that’s making Americans furrow their brows and say, “What in the MAGA universe is going on?” The thing is, the Republican representative from Georgia, known as MTG, is a suddenly making more senseeven to her detractors.
In recent months, the conservative Trump devotee, from whom Americans have come to expect off-the-cuff and often crude commentary, has been undeniably good natured, coming across as astoundingly reasonable during a number of appearances on CNN, Tucker Carlson Tonight, and elsewhere.
But if that weren’t enough to cast aside doubts about a major pivot with the congresswoman (who once harassed a school shooting survivor and chased a fellow member of Congress down a hallway), then a November 4 appearance on The View definitely did the trick.
On the ABC daytime talk show, Greene was perhaps the most respectful version of herself that we’ve seen. She was calm, poised, and even kind, more upstanding politician than insulting-slinging firebrand.
Cohost Sunny Hostin thanked MTG for showing up ready to converse, rather than fight. In response, Greene took the opportunity to do something we’ve rarely (if ever) heard her do before: say she didn’t want to fight.
No, I didnt want to do that today, because I believe that people with powerful voices, like myself and like you, and especially women to women, we need to pave a new path,” Greene told the cohosts. “This country, our beautiful country, our red, white, and blue flag, is just being ripped to shreds. And I think it takes women to have maturity to sew it back together.
In a comment that felt like an early 2028 presidential campaign slogan, Greene added, Im with women, so I feel very comfortable saying this. Im really tired of the pissing contest in Washington, D.C., between the men.”
The View cohosts were clearly floored.
In addition to her more focused and practical demeanor, MTG’s positions have seemed more centrist than ever, too. As of late, she has been critical of President Trump on domestic policy, and on the government shutdown, calling it “an embarrassment.”
Greene also criticized House Speaker Mike Johnson, who she said she had words with over his “complete and utter failure” in regard to the shutdown.
Not to mention, Greene has been consistently fighting, alongside Democrats, for the release of the Jeffrey Epstein sex trafficking client list. She even had kind things to say about Nancy Pelosi, the former House speaker and a longtime foil to congressional Republicans, who recently announced her retirement from Congress.
It’s all a bit mind-blowing. But perhaps one of Greene’s most compassionate and unexpected positions (especially given her previous Islamaphobic rhetoric) is her stance on Palestine.
MTG has been an outspoken voice for the people of Palestine, especially children who are the victims of Israel’s ongoing siege, making her one of the only congressional Republicans to speak out against the slaughter.
“It’s the most truthful and easiest thing to say that October 7 in Israel was horrific and all hostages must be returned, but so is the genocide, humanitarian crisis, and starvation happening in Gaza,” Greene wrote in a July 2025 social media post.
Critical of party leadership and policies
Its been hard to miss MTGs pivot, and Trump certainly hasn’t. He told reporters Monday that the congresswoman is now catering to the other side and that he’s “surprised at her.” Still, Greene herself has seemed to dismiss the idea that she’s rebranding.
In a July 16 post on social media, Greene wrote, “My blind loyalty and faith is ONLY in God and Jesus Christ my savior. That is what will guide my decisions, actions, and votes.”
And last week, she told the ladies of The View that she is her own personthat she’s always criticized both sides of the aisle. “Here’s something you may not know about me. I think a lot of people on the left are learning that when I ran for Congress in 2020, I ran criticizing Republicans and democrats. Equally.”
It’s hard to know what exactly is going on with MTG. Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York (aka AOC) has speculated on social media that Greene is on a “revenge tour” against Trump.
Still, it seems like something bigger is at play, most logically, perhaps, a 2028 bid for the presidency.
Fast Company reached out to Greenes team but did not hear back by the time of publication.
Organic or carefully curated?
Experts say that it would not be unusual for politicians to change their positions or reign themselves in when gearing up for a campaign.
Kevin Mercuri, who teaches public relations at Emerson College and is the CEO of Propheta Communications, says it’s “apparent” that MTG is working with professionals to “soften her persona in preparation for a presidential run.”
It’s notable, Mercuri says, that she has been distancing herself from Trump in an effort to show she’s a “more moderate Republican,” in addition to opposing other Republican stances.
However, when it comes to MTG, Mercuri says the congresswoman has her work cut out for her.
“The question is, can MTG’s past outrageous behavior be easily discarded? Her claims of ‘Jewish space lasers,’ QAnon beliefs, and painful reframing of 9/11 as a ‘false flag’ event will be hard for voters to forget.”
(Greene has said that she regrets some of the things she was allowed to believe, including conspiracy theories.)
Either way, we’ve seen political rebrands happen hundreds of times before. Candidates gearing up for big elections work to distance themselves from previous statements they’ve made or show that they’ve grown.
Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom of California has seemingly been attempting a brand pivot of his own. Still, with MTG, given just how brazen she’s been in the past, the shift is anything but subtle. Even if shes suddenly making sense, rather than screaming into the void
