When you walk outside, you might be concerned about how a nearby idling car or a faraway factory are polluting the air you breathe. But when youre inside, the products you use to make your home smell goodlike wax melts, air fresheners, or diffuserswarrant the same worries. These products create nanoparticles that pollute your indoor air, at times even making the air inside your home more polluted than the urban outdoors.
Researchers at Purdue University have been studying how everyday products create air pollution inside our homes. In a lab that resembles a tiny housecalled the Purdue zero Energy Design Guidance for Engineers (zEDGE) labthey study the emissions that come from cleaning products, essential oil diffusers, air fresheners, scented wax melts, disinfectants, and even deodorant and hair care products.
Though you might burn some wax melts or use an essential oil diffuser as a way to mimic the fresh, clean air of a forest or a field of flowers, its actually those fragrances that cause pollution. These scented household products emit volatile organic compounds that can then react with the indoor air, including with oxidants like ozone.
The result are nanoparticles that, though just a few nanometers in sizeor even as small as 1 nanometercan impact your health. (A human hair, for contrast, is about 80,000 nanometers). These tiny particles can penetrate deep into our lungs and move to other organs; breathing nanoparticles has been associated with health impacts on respiratory, cardiovascular, and neurological systems.
This tiny house lab, which sits outside of Purdues Delon and Elizabeth Hampton Hall of Civil Engineering, allows researchers to comprehensively study indoor air quality. [Photo: Kelsey Lefever/Purdue University]
People spend 90% of their time indoors, yet indoor air pollution remains largely unregulated and understudied, Nusrat Jung, an assistant professor in Purdues Lyles School of Civil and Construction Engineering, said via email. Jung and Brandon Boor, also a civil engineering professor, have been working in the zEDGE lab together to study the formation of these tiny particles indoors and compare them to outdoor air.
Scientists have been studying indoor air more frequently, especially during the pandemic; gas stoves have become the most prominent culprits of indoor air pollution, along with other types of combustion. But Jung and Boors work shows that we need to pay attention to other sources of indoor particulate matter, too. Our research shows that indoor nanoparticles can form and grow at rates much faster than those observed outdoors, largely due to the significant release of reactive fragrances from scented household products, Boor says.
Purdue University engineers Nusrat Jung, left, and Brandon Boor study the impact of everyday products and activities on a homes air quality. [Photo: Kelsey Lefever/Purdue University]
In their latest study, published earlier this month, they looked specifically at wax meltswhich are often touted as a safer, cleaner option than candles and incense, the burning of which produces pollutants. But even though wax melts are flame-free, they still release nanoparticles in concentrations comparable to candles, gas stoves, and diesel engines.
This emphasizes Jung and Boors general findings that scented household products release pollution, often exceeding levels found in heavily polluted outdoor environments, Jung says. Those pollution levels even occur with ostensibly natural products like plant-based cleaners or essential oils. Theyve found that using citrus-scented air fresheners, essential oil diffusers, wax warmers, and terpene-based cleaners can elevate indoor nanoparticle concentrations by 10 to 1,000 times above typical urban outdoor levels, she adds.
The inside of Purdues tiny house lab has various sensors and equipment to accurately and precisely measure pollutant emissions from common household activities in real time. [Photo: Kelsey Lefever/Purdue University]
Proper ventilation is key. But if youre opening a window to dilute your indoor air pollution, you could also be adding in more outdoor ozone, which then reacts with those fragrances to generate even more nanoparticles. Instead, air purifiers could help reduce pollution levels. Choosing fragrance-free products could also reduce indoor air pollution.
Jung and Boor say they will continue to research how everyday scented products impact our indoor air quality. They also hope to better understand what specific ingredients are causing those nanoparticles to form, aswell as what role is played by ventilation, air circulation, and other chemicals already in our air.
The findings from our Purdue zEDGE test house are not just academic; they have real implications for building design, ventilation strategies, consumer product formulations, and public health guidelines, Jung says. As we continue to push the boundaries of indoor air quality research, our goal is to empower people with the knowledge and tools to create healthier indoor environments. Because the air we breathe inside should be just as much of a priority as the air outside.
Members of a Senate committee grilled Labor secretary-designate Lori Chavez-DeRemer on Wednesday about her past support of pro-union legislation, her position on raising the federal minimum wage and her willingness to disagree with President Donald Trump.
Democrats sought assurances during the nominee’s confirmation hearing that Chavez-DeRemer would protect private data held by the Department of Labor. Republican members of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor & Pensions asked if she still backed a bill that would have made it easier for workers to unionize.
Union leaders have described Chavez-DeRemer, a former Republican member of Congress from Oregon and former mayor of a small city on the edge of liberal-leaning Portland, as a friend of organized labor. But workers’ rights advocates question if she would be able to uphold that reputation in an administration that has fired thousands of federal employees.
We are moving toward an authoritarian society where one person has enormous power. Will you have the courage to say, Mr. President, thats unconstitutional, thats wrong? Vermont independent Bernie Sanders asked in his opening remarks.
The tension between the relatively pro-union record from her one term as a congresswoman and the current White House priorities had Chavez-DeRemer walking a fine line during the hearing, sometimes repeating answers or deflecting by saying shes not a lawyer and no longer serves as a House lawmaker.
Senator Bill Cassidy, a Republican from Louisiana who chairs the committee, said the Trump administration had an opportunity to enact a pro-American agenda. He said business owners were concerned about Chavez-DeRemers past support in Congress of the Protecting the Right to Organize Act. A section of the PRO Act would have overturned state right to work laws that give employees the right to refuse to join a union in their workplace.
During her opening statement, Chavez-DeRemer described the proposed law as imperfect. When Cassidy asked her if she still supported it, she declined to give a yes or no answer.
I do not believe the secretary of Labor should write the laws. It would be up to Congress to write the law, she said.
She later said she supports states’ right to work laws, which allow employees to refuse to join a union in their workplace. A provision of the PRO Act sought to overturn such laws.
Sanders, the committee’s ranking member, asked Chavez-DeRemer if she would be a rubber stamp for the administration or stand with workers.
If confirmed, my job will be to implement President Trumps policy vision,” Chavez-DeRemer said. “And my guiding principle will be President Trumps guiding principleensuring a level playing field for businesses, unions, and, most importantly, the American worker.
Some political observers surmised that Trump picked Chavez-DeRemer to be his Labor secretary as a way to appeal to voters who are members of or affiliated with labor organizations. She is the daughter of a Teamster member.
If confirmed, Chavez-DeRemer would be in charge of the Department of Labors nearly 16,000 full-time employees and a proposed budget of $13.9 billion in fiscal year 2025. She would set priorities that impact workers wages, ability to unionize, and health and safety, as well as employers rights to fire employees.
But it’s unclear how much power she would be able to wield as Trump’s Cabinet moves to slash U.S. government spending and the size of the federal workforce. During his first month in office, the president froze trillions of dollars in federal funding and offered buyouts to most federal workers.
His administration last week started laying off nearly all probationary employees who had not yet gained civil service protection. Billionaire Elon Musk, who leads Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency, has called for getting rid of entire agencies.
“Its quite possible that no matter what the secretary of Labor stands for, the billionaire embedded in the Trump administration, who is so keen on destroying the institutions, will be interested in gutting the Department of Labor, said Adam Shah, director of national policy at Jobs with Justice, a nonprofit organization that promotes workers’ rights.
In January, Trump fired two of three Democratic commissioners serving on the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, a federal agency that enforces civil rights in the workplace. He also fired the acting chair of the National Labor Relations Board, Gwynne Wilcox, the first Black woman to serve as an NLRB member, as well as Jennifer Abruzzo, the boards general counsel.
The firings left both independent agencies without the quorum needed to take actions. Asked Wednesday whether the EEOC and NLRB should have enough members to carry out its mission to protect workers, Chavez-DeRemer answered yes.
Senators also sought assurance that Chavez-DeRemer would protect sensitive data. Democratic Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut asked if she would deny Musk or his representatives access to information about competitors or labor violations at the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Musks companies are the subject of several OSHA investigations.
Chavez-DeRemer said the decision belonged to Trump. I work for the president of the United States, if confirmed, and I will serve at the pleasure of the president on this issue, she said.
The answer did not satisfy Murphy.
You have the ability to disagree with the president. You certainly serve at his pleasure, but that doesnt mean that you have to take actions that you believe to be unethical, Murphy said. If the president asks you to give access to information that benefits a friend of his who has pending investigations, you wouldnt say no?
I would certainly consult with the Department of Labor solicitors. I would certainly consult with the White House and their attorneys. But until I am confirmed and in the Labor Department, I would not be able to say, specific to this, without having the full picture, Chavez-DeRemer said.
Fourteen Democratic states have challenged the Musk-led DOGE from accessing government data systems or participating in worker layoffs, including at the Labor Department. A federal judge on Tuesday refused to grant a restraining order to block the access.
Many major unions, including the AFL-CIO and the United Auto Workers, endorsed Trumps Democratic opponent in the presidential race, former Vice President Democrat Kamala Harris. The International Brotherhood of Teamsters declined to endorse a presidential candidate, but the union endorsed Chavez-DeRemers nomination.
During her committee testimony on Wednesday, Chavez-DeRemer said Trump had carried off the “single greatest political achievement of all time by attracting votes from working-class Americans, many of whom traditionally voted for Democrats, and from rank-and-file union members.
By Cathy Bussewitz, Associated Press
Associated Press writer Matt Brown contributed to this report.
Hunters were once the greatest human threat to the countrys only unique wolf species. Today, its motorists.
That fact was brought home last June, when red wolf breeding male No. 2444 was struck and killed on U.S. 64 near Manns Harbor, North Carolina. His death likely meant five pups he’d been providing for died, too.
We were hoping the mother would return and resume care, but she never did, Joe Madison, head of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s red wolf recovery program, said during a recent visit to the site.
For decades, conservationists have pushed for changes to U.S. 64, a busy two-lane highway to the popular Outer Banks that runs straight through the Alligator River National Wildlife Refugeone of just two places in the world where red wolves run free.
They may finally be getting their wish.
In late December, the Federal Highway Administration awarded the first grants under a new $125 million Wildlife Crossings Pilot Program. Unless the grants are somehow undone by President Donald Trump, part of the money will help state agencies and nonprofit groups rebuild a 2.5-mile section of the highway with fencing and a series of culverts, or small underpasses, to allow red wolvesas well as black bears, white-tailed deer, and other animalsto pass safely underneath traffic.
When you build wildlife bridges or underpasses, you reduce human-wildlife conflict, said Duke University ecologist Stuart Pimm, who studies wildlife migrations but is not directly involved in the project. There is increasing awareness that reducing traffic collisions is smart for wildlife, smart for people too.
Other agency grants will support new bridges and underpasses for mule deer in Idaho, pronghorn antelope in New Mexico, and cougars and bears in Oregon, among other projects.
But whats notable about the U.S. 64 project is that the goal is twofold: reducing dangerous collisions and roadkilland saving a critically endangered species. There are thought to be fewer than 20 red wolves left in the wild; besides Alligator River, the other remaining habitat is in the nearby Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge.
Madison calculates that No. 2444 represented 7% of the known wild red wolf population. So, every time you get a mortality, thats a significant hit, he said.
Reducing roadkilland saving a species?
Wildlife crossings have proliferated across the U.S. in the past 20 years with broad nonpartisan support. Most often, the objective is safety. One congressional report estimated that dangerous highway collisions with large animals kill hundreds of people and cost more than $8 billion each year.
Researchers have learned a lot about what works for different species.
Pronghorn dont want to go through tunnels or close spaces, so they avoid underpasses and need bridges, said Arthur Middleton, an ecologist who studies animal migration at the University of California, Berkeley. Whereas deer will go under or over.
Gray wolves and coyotesand, presumably, red wolveswill also use underpasses, or culverts, of 6 or 8 feet in diameter. Fencing is critical to funnel the animals to the structures.
Along U.S. 30 in Wyoming, seven small underpasses and fencing cut mule deer collisions by 81%. In Canada, a series of overpasses and underpasses along the Trans-Canada Highway in Banff National Park reduced collisions with hooved animals by 94%.
But whether wildlife crossings can help prevent extinctions is a harder question to answer.
Conservation was always a part of the story, but now were seeing crossings increasingly pop up that have conservation as a primary rationale, said Ben Goldfarb, author of the book Crossings: How Road Ecology is Shaping the Future of Our Planet.
Some of the most ambitious crossings for conservation have just been built, and it will take time to assess the results.
Outside Los Angeles, a wildlife crossing over 10 lanes of U.S. 101 is expected to open in 2026. The primary aim is to help connect the habitat of mountain lions, which need to cross the freeway to find suitable mates. Inbreeding among mountain lions in the L.A. region has already led to genetic mutations and decreased fertility.
In Brazils Rio de Janeiro state, construction of a wildlife bridge spanning BR 101 was finished in 2020, then native seedlings were planted in a soil bed. Once those trees mature, researchers will study if the target speciesan endangered monkey called a golden lion tamarinuses the bridge regularly. Experts say the trees are necessary for creatures like monkeys or sloths to move across the bridge. Species that scamper on the ground, including foxes, anteaters, and armadillos, are already crossing.
Hope at the end of the tunnel underpass for red wolves?
While its not certain that a wildlife crossing can save the last red wolves, scientists say that doing nothing will almost certainly hasten their demise.
Canis rufus, often called America’s wolf, once roamed from central Texas to southern Iowa and as far east as Long Island, New York. After being declared extinct in the wild, red wolves were reintroduced in North Carolina in 1987.
For about 20 years, the population grew steadily to reach around 120 animals. Then their numbers crashedwith vehicle collisions a primary culprit. One study found that vehicle strikes had killed about 5% of the red wolf population each year between their reintroduction and 2022.
Marcel P. Huijser, a study coauthor and a research ecologist at Montana State Universitys Western Transportation Institute, warned that the cost of doing nothing, “including losing a wild species, can be far higher than the cost of implementing effective mitigation.
In North Carolina, Fish and Wildlife biologists have tried other measures to prevent crasheslike flashing road signs and reflective collarswithout much success.
Following No. 2444s death, conservation groups like the Wildlands Network and the Center for Biological Diversity pushed for another solution.
In September, the North Carolina Department of Transportation submitted a grant application for the Red Wolf Essential Survival Crossings Under Evacuation Route, or RESCUER, project.
Plans for the U.S. 64 wildlife crossing call for a series of underpass structuresseveral of them big enough for wolves and other large mammals to pass throughand the accompanying fencing. The exact number and size of the underpasses has yet to be determined, said Travis W. Wilson, eastern habitat conservation coordinator for the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission.
The estimated total cost for the project is about $31.5 million, including $4 million in private donations raised by conservation groups and an anonymous donors matching grant.
This is one of the most important wildlife connectivity projects in the country, said Beth Pratt, founder of the nonprofit The Wildlife Crossing Fund, which raised funds for the project. Critically endangered red wolves will disappear if we do nothing.
By Allen G. Breed and Christina Larson, Associated Press
The Associated Presss Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institutes Science and Educational Media Group and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. AP’s climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. The AP is solely responsible for all content.
A push to ban sugary drinks, candy, and more from the U.S. program that helps low-income families pay for nutritious food has been tried beforebut it may soon get a boost from new Trump administration officials.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the newly confirmed health and human services secretary, and Brooke Rollins, the new agriculture secretary, have both signaled that they favor stripping such treats from SNAP, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.
Kennedy has been most vocal, calling for the government to stop allowing the nearly $113 billion program that serves about 42 million Americans to use benefits to pay for soda or processed foods.
The one place that I would say that we need to really change policy is the SNAP program and food stamps and in school lunches, Kennedy told Fox News host Laura Ingraham last week. There, the federal government in many cases is paying for it. And we shouldn’t be subsidizing people to eat poison.
In one of her first interviews after being confirmed, Rollins said she looked forward to working with Kennedy on the issue.
When a taxpayer is putting money into SNAP, are they okay with us using their tax dollars to feed really bad food and sugary drinks to children who perhaps need something more nutritious? Rollins said. These are all massive questions we’re going to be asking and working on in the coming months and years.
But removing certain foods from SNAPknown for years as food stampsisn’t as simple as it sounds.
The program is run by the USDA, not HHS, and is administered through individual states. It is authorized by the federal Food and Nutrition Act of 2008, which says SNAP benefits can be used for any food or food product intended for human consumption, except alcohol, tobacco, and hot foods, including those prepared for immediate consumption.
Excluding any foods would require Congress to change the lawor for states to get waivers that would let them restrict purchases, said Katie Bergh, a senior policy analyst for the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a nonpartisan research group. Over the past 20 years, lawmakers in several states have proposed stopping SNAP from paying for bottled water, soda, chips, ice cream, decorated cakes, and luxury meats like steak.
None of those requests have ever been approved under either Republican or Democratic presidents, Bergh said.
In the past, Agriculture Department officials rejected the waivers, saying in a 2007 paper that no clear standards exist to define foods as good or bad, or healthy or not healthy. In addition, the agency said restrictions would be difficult to implement, complicated, and costly. And they might not change recipients food purchases or reduce conditions such as obesity.
Anti-hunger advocates point to research that shows SNAP recipients are no more likely than other low-income Americans to buy sugary drinks or snack foods. And they say that limiting food choices undermines the autonomy and dignity of people who receive, on average, about $187 per monthor about $6.16 per day, according to the latest figures.
This is just another way to cut benefits, said Gina Plata-Nino, a deputy director at the Food Research and Action Center, a nonprofit advocacy group. It’s like, how do we restrict people more? How do we stigmatize them more?
Bills are pending in Congress and in several states to restrict SNAP benefits from paying for soda, candy, and other items.
Representative Josh Breechan, an Oklahoma Republican, sponsored the Healthy SNAP Act.
If someone wants to buy junk food on their own dime, thats up to them, he said. But what were saying is, dont ask the taxpayer to pay for it and then also expect the taxpayer to pick up the tab for the resulting health consequences.
One SNAP recipient said she uses her monthly $291 benefit to buy necessities such as meat, oil, milk, and coffee. Martina Santos, 66, of New York City, supplements those foods with fresh vegetables and fruits from a pantry run by the West Side Campaign Against Hunger, where she’s also a volunteer. Because she has diabetes and other health conditions, she said she understands the importance of using the benefits only for nutritious options.
For me, SNAP is to be used toward healthy food to get people to avoid all the disease theyre having around right now: obesity, diabetes, high blood pressure, Santos said.
In Kansas and elsewhere, bills that would ban soft drinks and candy highlight some of the challenges of such changes.
Several pending bills seek to keep SNAP from paying for soft drinks, but they would continue to allow drinks containing milk, milk alternatives like soy or almond milk, or drinks with more than 50% vegetable or fruit juice. Candy is characterized as any unrefrigerated, flourless preparation of sugar, honey, or other natural or artificial sweeteners in combination with chocolate, fruits, nuts, or other ingredients or flavorings in the form of bars, drops, or pieces.
By that definition, Kit Kat and Twix bars, which contain flour, wouldn’t be banned. And juices that contain high amounts of sugar but are more than half fruit juice by volume would be allowed.
Such conundrums have stymied changes to the SNAP program for decades. But this moment could be different, said Dr. Anand Parekh, chief medical officer of the Bipartisan Policy Center, a think tank based in Washington, D.C.
The momentum behind Kennedy’s Make America Healthy Again movement could spur a new focus on solutions to poor diets that account for leading risk factors for early disease and death.
When we talk about the SNAP program, we have to remind people that the N stands for nutrition, Parekh said. It’s about time that both parties can come together and see what are the innovations here to improve diet quality and nutrition.
By Jonel Aleccia, AP health writer
Associated Press video journalist Mary Conlon contributed to this report.
The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institutes Science and Educational Media Group and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for all content.
Frustration is a common emotion. It’s a close cousin to anger, because both deal with your reaction to an obstacle that is preventing you from achieving your goals. Where they differ is that anger is (usually) directed outward at an external obstacle. The energy and rage that anger generates may be useful for trying to influence that external obstacle physically.
Frustration is often directed at an internal or systemic obstacle that you cant do much about. You may be frustrated because you dont have the capability or time to do something, or may feel like some aspect of your company (or society) prevents you from accomplishing a goal.
But frustration is often unproductive, because it gets you energized around something you cant really fix. You may actually think less clearly if you get too energized and that might make it harder to move forward. Here are a few things you can do to handle frustration effectively, especially when it comes up in the workplace:
Take a step back
Research going back almost 120 years shows that there is a sweet spot for the amount of mental energy you need to operate effectively. When you have a low level of energy, you dont think effectively, because you’re simply not engaged with the situation. As you get more energized, you get more effective in your thinking up to a point. However, additional energy will actually create too much arousal. At that point, you have a hard time staying focused.
A little frustration can be helpful, because it may actually get you to pay attention to something that might otherwise escape your notice. However, when a situation creates more extreme frustration, youre going to have trouble addressing it effectively.
You need to develop strategies to dissipate that energy. Ideally, you would take a little time to disengage from the situation. Some physical activity can help. Taking a brisk walk or doing a workout can leave you calmer afterward. Techniques for calming yourself can also be valuable. Deep breathing exercises, yoga, and mindfulness meditations are options. Some of these techniques (particularly deep breathing) are also helpful when you cant completely disengage with the situation.
Understand the root of your workplace frustration
When youre feeling workplace frustration, it may not always be obvious what’s causing that emotion. That is, you may have the overwhelming feeling that you’re stuck without knowing why. It is valuable to think more about the nature of the obstacle and what would be required to overcome it.
In what ways do you feel unprepared to take on the task youre doing? If you need assistance from someone else or an opportunity build your skills, then develop a proposal you can bring to a supervisor to be more effective in the future.
To what extent are there organizational structures that are getting in your way? Perhaps there is someone else making it difficult to complete your work. Perhaps you need permission from someone to move forward and cant get the go-ahead.
A conversation with your supervisor can be helpful here, as well. If you’re not sure where the barrier is coming from, they may be able to help. If you do know the cause of the problem, they may also be able to clear it away. Bringing these sources of organizational frustration to the attention of a supervisor is also valuable, because if youre having a problem, chances are there are other colleagues who are as well.
Get help
Occasional frustration is part of everyones personal and professional life. Developing strategies to deal with excess energy that I mentioned earlier help a lot. But, if you find yourself frustrated at work frequently, consider seeing a therapist or career coach.
It’s natural to think that the workplace frustration you experience signals a problem with the organization youre working for. You might think the organization is poorly run, that your manager is a problem, or that you are just a bad fit for your current role. And, it’s entirely possible these are a big source of the problem. A good therapist or coach can help you to identify the source of the significant frustration youre feeling.
An important reason to work with someone else, though, is that it is also possible that you are helping to make that sense of frustration worse through your own reactions to things happening at work. Perhaps you interpret other peoples actions in a way that makes them feel like obstacles when they are not intended that way. Perhaps you are overestimating your own abilities, and that puts you in situations that are ultimately overwhelming. You might want to please others and so you take on more work than you can handle. A therapist or coach may help you to see the ways that you are contributing to your feelings of frustration.
That is important, because you might think that changing jobs will alleviate your workplace frustration. But, if your actions or reactions are contributing to your sense of frustration, those wont go away just by moving from one job to another.
The Fast Company Impact Council is a private membership community of influential leaders, experts, executives, and entrepreneurs who share their insights with our audience. Members pay annual membership dues for access to peer learning and thought leadership opportunities, events and more.
Virgin lithium mining is a focal point for the U.S. and is necessary for the nations growth in the critical minerals market. Yet, there is another primary source to secure key battery materials (lithium, nickel, cobalt, and manganese), and that is recycling end-of-life and scrap batteries. Domestic sourcing is crucial to expanding our manufacturing efforts, and its imperative that recycling and mining complement one another if we want to succeed in our supply chain stabilization efforts.
Currently, the U.S. produces black mass (the output recycling lithium-ion batteries metals that can be put back into the supply chain). We will have a large supply of this material in the next few years that will be readily available to the domestic market. Whats also important is that well have increased refining capacity to extract critical materials contained in the domestically available black mass to enable cathode producers to manufacture cathode powder for cell manufacturers.
The global critical minerals industry is on a growth trajectory, and there is a tremendous opportunity to recover these metals within our borders and reuse them to produce new materials including energy storage systems, technological advancements, consumer products, and defense applications. Now is the time to strengthen the U.S.s critical materials strategy and global competitiveness with a focus on key factors:
Accelerating access to domestically sourced critical minerals
Becoming a leading critical minerals producer
Committing to increased raw battery material manufacturing in the U.S.
Global impact
Battery recycling refinement industry challenges are similar to other growth industries, with a lot of new entrants not fully understanding the investments needed for market success. The key is experience and understanding this complex web of interconnectedness that streamlines the workflow to offer useable domestic material. Other factors such as inflated material acquisition costs will need to be reset much lower for the industry to succeed. And with todays metal prices on the London Metal Exchange, expectations should focus on a return on invested capital to produce these critical minerals.
Enabling domestic sourcing that prioritizes onshore capabilities in the critical materials space, with a specific focus on refinement, is the path to stability. Once these materials are within our border, we need to keep them here. We can achieve this through a closed-loop system. When consumers and original equipment manufacturers have a battery at end-of-life or scrap, they should coordinate with a certified recycler to safely transport, sort, disassemble, process, and extract critical materials into battery-grade salts to be put back into domestic supply chains. By activating this proven model at a larger scale, we can increase access and capacity domestically, however it has to be profitable.
Becoming a critical minerals production leader would enhance the new administrations commitment to U.S. manufacturing, national security, global competitiveness, and strengthening our supply chains.
Onshore manufacturing
To ensure there is sustainable investment throughout the critical minerals supply chain, the entire supply chain needs a profitable business model that can deliver a return on the required investment. Also, the U.S. can be a leading critical minerals producer and powerhouse by onshoring manufacturing to further the national defense stockpile sources, reducing the nations mineral reliance on foreign entities of concern and supporting the priority of accelerated access to domestically sourced critical minerals.
By recycling and recovering these materials, we can start to enhance our supply chains in the short term, ultimately working towards ensuring that the U.S. secures critical materials for long-term viability.
David Klanecky is CEO and president of Cirba Solutions.
The Fast Company Impact Council is a private membership community of influential leaders, experts, executives, and entrepreneurs who share their insights with our audience. Members pay annual membership dues for access to peer learning and thought leadership opportunities, events and more.
The future of AI is bright, yet its continuous evolution and an uncertain regulatory environment cloud its reality for many businesses. The new year has begun with a more relaxed stance on AI policy and DeepSeeks supposed better mousetrap, giving CIOs pause on which direction to go.
But these are good reminders for organizations to proactively establish best practices for AI implementation. Doing so will ensure future compliance while effectively leveraging AI for transformation and growth.
How regulation may impact innovation
In the U.S., California legislation has taken a first stab at defining guardrails domestically, following the footsteps of the EU Artificial Intelligence Act. However, these early regulation attempts will take time to enact and be vetted for successes, failures, and inevitable adjustments.
We expect AI to be governed differently according to three broad categories:
AI creators: OpenAI and hyperscalers creating AI models from scratch. These entities face unique regulatory challenges related to responsible and demonstrable data sourcing.
AI adapters: Fine-tuners of the creators models that embed them along with retrieval-augmented generation and similar technologies, adapting them for specific business application development. Enterprises must ensure they are sourcing models that can be attested to on intellectual property (IP) infringement or have some sort of protection against IP infringement.
AI consumers: Most businesses taking advantage of the adapters AI applications in their day-to-day operations. These organizations must ensure their data sets are cleansed and compliant with regulations.
The perils of AI missteps
Weve seen a lot of enthusiasm from CIOs trying hundreds of different uses for generative AI. But two years in, theyre still largely lost on how to scale and monetize it.
Enterprises need to get back to the basics, treating AI initiatives like traditional IT application development rather than uncharted territory. Narrowing the scope to two or three projects can make innovation more manageable and bring demonstrable value. That means asking fundamental questions like: How do we vet the use case? How will we validate it? How will we support it once its built?
Start with a clear understanding of the business problem, create requirements, and ensure the solution will generate a measurable advantage, such as increased productivity or cost savings. Its also crucial to follow a structured development lifecycle that includes cost controls, security measures, and governance.
Build from where you already have good utilization metrics. For example, you might run a call center and know that your customer service representatives handle 10 calls per hour. If you deploy a tool that allows them to handle 15 calls, thats easily measurable. The key is to find opportunities within your organization that you can optimize and deliver a smarter process.
6 practical steps to AI
There are several ways in which your organization can establish a solid AI standard:
First look inward: Focus on internal applications to optimize workflows, automate processes, and reduce risks. They are easier to identifyand safer because you’re not exposing yourself to external vulnerabilities. Starting here also allows organizations the grace to learn and adapt before expanding to applications that impact more stakeholders, including customers. You can scale outward once you understand a solutions full implications like security concerns, legal ramifications of how the models were trained, how theyre really licensed, and your operating costs.
Ensure data integrity and compliance: Data integrity and compliance are critical for all three AI use case categories. For creators, ensuring responsible sourcing of data is essential. Adapters need to cleanse and comply with data sets, while consumers must vet software-as-a-service providers and confirm proper data management.
Follow the lead: Learning from state-level regulations, such as Californias, can offer insights about future federal frameworks. Businesses should learn from how others adapt accordingly.
Adopt ethical AI: Implementing responsible practices is imperative to navigate the regulatory landscape. Business leaders and technologists should prioritize transparency, data privacy, compliance, and continuous learning in their AI programs, along with flexibility to adapt to new or changing regulations and technologies.
Surround yourself with knowledgeable teams: Leaders should surround themselves with knowledgeable teams to navigate AIs complexities and understand their businesss true needs. AI projects success rely on a cooperative effort from cross-functional teams, including business functional areas addressing specific challenges, development, data science, IT, and FinOps. Establishing an AI center of excellence unites them.
Avoid past mistakes: The current rush to adopt AI mirrors past technology adoption cycles, such as the rush to adopt cloud services without proper planning. Avoid being swayed by the allure of new technology without assessing its implications. Instead, methodically approach AI as you would any other enterprise tool.
Our industry is at a leaping point from abstraction and conceptual thinking to tangible AI implementation. The goal is to find the real value in the challenges it can solve for your business.
For AI to generate new revenue streams and streamlined operations, prioritize practical solutions over grand innovations. Focus first on the unsexy work that frees your employees from the mundane tasks that no one loves.
Moving beyond merely trying AI to doing AI requires starting with sound processes and practical applications that not only will insulate your organization from future uncertainties, but drive it forward. Returning to IT fundamentals is the key to making AI a reality.
Juan Orlandini is CTO, North America of Insight Enterprises.
Social Security has been considered among the most efficient, cleanest government programs in the country. For instance, a study by the Inspector General of the Social Security Administration, published in July, found that from 2015-2022, the government had made $25 billion in Social Security overpaymentstypically payments that went out after someone had already died.
But a good chunk of those payments was recouped, so the total amount lost to improper Social Security payments over those eight years was around $2 billion a year, a minuscule sum relative to the Social Security Administration (SSA)s budget (which is now well over a trillion dollars).
Yet, to hear Elon Musk and President Trump tell it, Social Security may well be the site of what Musk called the biggest fraud in history. While Musks so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) was rummaging around in the SSAs various databases, it found one in which more than 19 million people who are 100 years old or older had no official death date recorded. In other words, as far as the database was concerned, they were still alive.
Musk posted a table of the living centenarians, broken up by age, and then suggested that these people might be getting Social Security payments, joking, Maybe Twilight is real, and there are a lot of vampires collecting Social Security.
Over the next couple of days, the Trump administration amplified this idea. First, press secretary Karoline Leavitt said during a TV appearance that Musk and DOGE suspect there are tens of millions of deceased people who are receiving fraudulent Social Security payments. Then, last night, Trump himself said that we have millions and millions of people over 100 years old in Social Security, and that if we took them all off the payment rolls, all of a sudden we have a very powerful Social Security.
If these claims were true, they would, of course, be an absolutely staggering revelation. And fixing them would, as Trump suggested, put Social Securitys finances back on a healthy trajectory.
However, the claims are false and are, in fact, absurd.
Social Security is not sending out checks to tens of millions, or hundreds of thousands, of dead people, and there was never any reason to suspect that this was the case. What happened here was pretty simple: Elon Musk didnt understand what the table he was looking at represented, and apparently, rather than ask someone who might know (or even just google the subject), he leapt to the conclusion that he and DOGE might have uncovered the biggest fraud in history.
Ghosts in the machine
What Musk was looking at was data from whats called the Numident database, or “Numerical Identification System,” which is a database of every Social Security number issued. And its true: There are millions of people in that database who are dead, and not receiving fraudulent checks, but for whom the SSA has no official death date.
In most cases, thats because these people died before the SSA had systematized the collection of death dates (which is trickier than you might think since death certificates are recorded on the state level, not the federal). In other cases, its because the death date was entered in the payment-records database (which is separate), but not in Numident.
The important point, though, is that the Numident database is not the database of people who are getting Social Security checksas Musk and now Trump erroneously seem to think. Thats a separate database, and all those millions and millions of people over 100 years old that Trump referred to are not on the active database of people receiving Social Security checks.
We know this because we can check the correct database of how many people ages 99 and older received their regular Social Security checks in December (the last month for which data is available): 89,106 people ages 99+ collected Social Security benefits. Thats a long way from tens of millions, and its also fewer than the estimated number of centenarians in the U.S.
In other words, there is no evidence of fraud at all.
Even beyond the question of the very elderly, theres no reason to think Social Security fraud is a meaningful problem. Some 51.8 million people over the age of 61 collected retired-worker Social Security benefits (what we think of as traditional Social Security) in Decemberout of a population of well over 60 million people ages 62 and older. If the SSA were paying loads of dead people, the number of old people collecting benefits would not be smaller than the number of old people overall.
One other part of the story thats worth noting: The issue of having a database with all these dead people without recorded official death dates is one that the SSA has, obviously, been aware of for a long time.
In 2023, in fact, the Inspector General did a report on the subject, recommending that the SSA take steps to fix it as much as possible. The challenge is that would take millions of dollars and lots of work hours to track down death dates from all over the country, most of them from between 50 and 80 years ago.
The question is whether it’s worth doing, given that the actual costs of not having the death-date info are trivial, since these people are not getting checks. The point, in any case: This is not a new issue that DOGE has uncovered, but one thats been discussed for many years.
More important, the way Musks misunderstanding of a table of numbers quickly turned into the president of the United States making baseless insinuations of fraud about the Social Security Administration is no way to run a government, or any kind of business, for that matter. But now having that erroneous information and baseless claims of fraud out there, courtesy of the misinformed Musk and Trump, can understandably erode peoples confidence in this reliable and most valuable federal program, creating a climate of unnecessary, and inadvertent, anxiety and distrust.
Musk and DOGE have been given a tremendous amount of power in this administration. They need to use that power responsibly.
The Fast Company Impact Council is a private membership community of influential leaders, experts, executives, and entrepreneurs who share their insights with our audience. Members pay annual membership dues for access to peer learning and thought leadership opportunities, events and more.
Healthcare navigation was supposed to be the ultimate guidea GPS for the healthcare maze. Instead its more like an old paper map with half the roads missing. What was meant to simplify care has become just another layer of complexity, dressed up as concierge support but too often steering people based on cost, not quality.At a time when AI, telehealth, and integrated care models are merging and transforming how people experience healthcare, navigation as we know it is becoming obsolete.
The riseand fallof Navigation 1.0
Navigation started with a clear, patient-first mission: Remove barriers to care. The concept was pioneered by doctors to improve cancer outcomes for underserved patients who struggled with delays in diagnosis and treatment. The original vision was simple: Get people to high-quality care, faster.But then the industry lost the plot.As digital health took off, the market became flooded with big vision front doorsslick apps that promised convenience but ultimately led nowhere. These platforms were entryways without hallwaysflashy introductions to healthcare that failed to connect people to integrated clinical expertise or personalized support. Instead of providing a pathway to better health, they left people stranded.Then insurers stepped in.They highjacked navigation, repackaging it as a cost-control tool rather than an independent, patient-first service. The incentivesand the experiencewere not the same. Instead of guiding people to the best possible care, insurer-led navigation steered them toward lower-cost providers with little regard for quality or fit. What should have been an unbiased clinical advocate became just another mechanism for network steering.The result? People arent just underserved; some are actively led away from quality care, facing more barriers, more frustration, and worse outcomes. Navigation was supposed to help people get to and through the system, but instead, it became a roadblock.Lets not forget, weve seen this before. Like with the first wave of telehealth, Navigation 1.0 has become an add-on to a fragmented system rather than a real solution. And just like Telehealth 1.0, too many navigation services are now commodity, or more specifically low-value check-the-box offeringsutilization management in disguise.
What comes next: A more integrated, person-centric model
If Navigation 1.0 is dying, what replaces it?A smarter, all-in-one healthcare modelone that doesnt just point people in a direction, but actually gets them the right care at the right timeproactively, ongoing, and when called upon. Navigation was always meant to simplify healthcare, but that only happens when clinical expertise, advocacy, and technology work together and are deeply integrated to eliminate friction, improve access, and drive better health outcomes. Heres what that looks like:
Advocacy, not just guidance
People dont need another appthey need someone in their corner. True advocacy means:Fighting billing errors and helping people understand and resolve insurance denials.Connecting people with high-quality doctors, not just network-preferred ones. Helping people navigate treatment decisions and medication costs. Its not about pointing people in the right direction; its about walking beside them.
AI + EQ: Smarter, more empathetic care
AI assistants and guides are hot topics, but technology alone isnt enough. What people want is AI + EQ = the efficiency of AI-driven experiences combined with real human expertise and empathy.In healthcare, AI should either free up humans to focus on tasks that only humans can accomplish, or provide guidance to humans to help them perform uniquely human roles more effectively. If a system isnt human-centered, its just another version of the problem.
At this point in the game, integration cant be vision
Navigation without deep clinical expertise, system-wide connectivity, and personalized visibility into an individuals benefits, history, and preferences is about as useful as a tour guide whos never been to the cityhelpful on the surface, but not when you drill down for trusted, known, and proven guidance.For navigation to be effective, it must provide direct access to clinical expertise as part of an integrated teamnot just for finding a doctor. It should go even further to holistically support people across mental and physical health, administrative, financial, and social needs. It must include addressing the unexpected too, such as medication support, in-home care, and a broad range of social determinants of health issues.
Smarter, cost-conscious care (not just the latest trend)
The GLP-1 drug boom (Ozempic, Wegovy) is a case study in why smarter healthcare decision making matters.These drugs are breakthrough treatments for diabetes and weight lossbut theyre also so expensive that if prescribed indiscriminately, they could bankrupt the system and individuals too.Thats why Navigation 2.0 must be evidence-based, guiding people toward treatments that work, are clinically appropriate, and are informed by a persons benefits and based on what a person can afford short term and ongoing.Better healthcare isnt just about access; its about making smart, data-driven decisions with and for people.
The future: Personalized all-in-one healthcare
Navigation 1.0 was about helping people wayfind. The next era is about creating a fully connected, advocacy-driven experience that actually improves health, lowers costs, and removes complexity.At Included Health, we call this personalized, all-in-one healthcare. Its not just a replacement for navigationits a new category altogether, one that finally delivers on the original promise of making healthcare simpler, better, and more human.Healthcare navigation, as it exists today, is dying. RIP.Owen Tripp is cofounder and CEO of Included Health.
U.S. President Donald Trump and billionaire Elon Musk, one of his closest advisers, have mounted a sweeping campaign to slash the size of the 2.3 million-strong federal workforce, firing more than 10,000 employees in an unprecedented effort that shows no sign of slowing.
The layoffs were primarily aimed at workers who have been in their current jobs for less than a year, who have fewer job protections than longer-tenured staffers. In addition, about 75,000 workers have accepted buyouts from the Trump administration.
The Trump administration has yet to give a total number of how many people it has fired.
Here are details on some of the layoffs at federal departments and agencies gleaned by Reuters reporters so far.
Department of the Interior
Around 2,300 workers were laid off from the Interior Department, sources said, including about 800 people from the Bureau of Land Management, which manages millions of federally owned acres for uses ranging from oil and gas development to timber harvesting, recreation and cultural preservation.
Overall, the department employs more than 70,000 people and oversees 500 million acres (202.3 million hectares) of public lands, including dozens of national parks.
Department of Energy
About 700 workers have been laid off at the Department of Energy, the agency said on Wednesday. Sources have told Reuters that as many as 2,000 workers have been informed they were being laid off and that managers were told to provide evidence for why some of those should be re-hired.
On Friday, sources said 325 workers had been sent notice that they had been laid off from the National Nuclear Security Administration, an Energy Department office that manages the U.S. nuclear weapons arsenal and secure dangerous nuclear materials around the world.
But after a public uproar and a scramble by the administration to hire back some of these employees, fewer than 50 workers from the agency were ultimately purged, the Energy Department said on Sunday.
Overall, the Energy Department has about 14,000 employees and 95,000 contractors.
Department of Agriculture
The U.S. Department of Agriculture said on Tuesday that it accidentally fired several employees working on the federal government’s response to the H5N1 avian flu outbreak and that it was attempting to rescind those layoffs.
The U.S. Forest Service, a division of the Agriculture Department, which manages millions of acres of national forests and grasslands, is firing 3,400 probationary employees, equal to 10% of its workforce, people familiar with the plans said.
Workers at the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, which supports agricultural science and technology research, and the Economic Research Service, which produces reports and data on the farm economy, have also been fired, sources said.
The extent of layoffs across the Agriculture Department, which employs nearly 100,000 people, remained unclear.
Department of Health and Human Services
About 45% of recently hired employees still considered probationary at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention were laid off, a source told Reuters.
The Associated Press reported that nearly 1,300 CDC staff members had been fired, comprising one-tenth of the agency’s workforce.
At the National Institutes of Health, 1,165 people, mostly probationary employees, were laid off, according to an internal email seen by Reuters.
Workers at the Food and Drug Administration were also let go, STAT News reported. The exact number of FDA staff members who lost their jobs was unclear.
The Department of Health and Human Services, which oversees the CDC, NIH, FDA as well as Medicare and Medicaid, has more than 80,000 employees. Around 5,200 of them have lost their jobs, STAT News reported.
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
The independent Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), which is responsible for consumer protection against banks, debt collectors and other companies in the financial sector, has been largely shuttered after the Trump administration ordered it to halt all activity.
Roughly 140 to 200 of the agency’s probationary and so-called term employees have been fired, people familiar with the matter said.
Department of Veterans Affairs
More than 1,000 workers were let go from the Department of Veterans Affairs, which provides health and other benefits to millions of military veterans. The department employs more than 450,000 people and oversees more than 1,500 healthcare facilities.
Office of Personnel Management
All probationary employees at the Office of Personnel Management, which handles human resources for the U.S. government, were fired on Thursday in a group call that included around 100 people, sources said.
Small Business Administration
At least 45 probationary employees at the Small Business Administration were fired in a letter seen by Reuters. The agency, which employs several thousand people, provides support for small businesses and entrepreneurs.
Department of Education
At least 160 recent hires at the Department of Education have been notified of their termination, according to a letter seen by Reuters. Trump has called for the dissolution of the entire department and its 4,400 employees, though Congress would need to approve.
While local and state governments hold sway over most educational issues in the United States, the federal department provides billions of dollars in student loans and grants for higher education as well as funding for students with disabilities and economically disadvantaged students. The department also enforces civil rights laws.
General Services Administration
About 100 employees at the General Services Administration received termination letters, according to sources. The independent agency, which manages the government’s real estate portfolio and oversees most government contracts, has more than 12,000 workers.
Internal Revenue Service
Senior executives at the Internal Revenue Service have identified roughly 7,500 out of 17,000 total probationary employees who could be dismissed as part of the administration’s efforts, according to a person familiar with the matter. No layoffs have occurred so far.
The 7,500 target excludes workers deemed essential for tax filing season, as well as some employees involved in criminal investigations and security roles, the person familiar with the matter said.
Overall, the tax-collecting agency has about 100,000 employees.
Federal Aviation Administration
The FAA fired more than 300 employees out of its workforce of 45,000, Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy said on X, as questions rise around air traffic safety amid a spate of recent plane accidents.
Environmental Protection Agency
The Environmental Protection Agency has fired 388 probationary employees. The agency, which enforces laws like the Clean Air Act and works to protect the environment, said the job cuts were made after “a thorough review of agency functions in accordance with President Trump’s executive orders.”
Joseph Ax, Reuters
