LONDON — In a seismic shift for one of the world’s most influential media outlets, the Rothschild family is preparing to divest its entire 26.7% stake in The Economist Group, valuing the storied publisher at up to £800 million ($1.07 billion) and marking the biggest ownership change since 2015. Led by British-American philanthropist Lynn Forester de Rothschild, the move—initially flagged for a partial sale—signals a broader portfolio reconfiguration for the banking dynasty, amid a resurgent appetite for premium journalism assets in an era of digital subscriptions and geopolitical flux.
The transaction, which kicked off formally in London on October 6, is being orchestrated by investment bank Lazard and targets a mix of U.S. and U.K. buyers, including family offices, high-net-worth individuals, and strategic investors committed to preserving the publication’s editorial independence. Sources close to the process, speaking to Axios and Bloomberg, indicate the family’s holding—encompassing about 20% of voting shares, the maximum allowed under The Economist’s governance safeguards—could fetch up to £400 million ($537 million). That implies a full valuation for the 182-year-old Economist Group, encompassing the weekly magazine, Economist Intelligence Unit, podcasts, and apps, at the high end of £800 million, down from the £1.1 billion implied in the 2015 deal but reflecting steady growth in its subscriber base.
Founded in 1843 as a bastion of free-market liberalism, The Economist has navigated digital disruption with resilience. Its latest annual report, for the year ended March 31, 2025, showed revenue climbing 2% to £368.5 million ($495 million), driven by a 3% rise in subscriptions to 1.25 million—66% digital-only, up from 44% in 2021. Operating profit held at around £48 million, with North America contributing 40% of revenue, followed by greater Europe (21%), the U.K. (20%), and Asia (14%). The group employs 1,540 staff across 26 countries, from its London headquarters to outposts in the U.S., China, India, and the UAE, underscoring its global footprint in an industry where print circulation has plummeted but premium content thrives.
The Rothschilds’ involvement dates to 2002, when they acquired the stake through E.L. Rothschild LLC, becoming key backers of the Economist Educational Foundation and its critical-thinking initiatives for students. Forester de Rothschild, who assumed a more prominent role after her husband Sir Evelyn’s death in 2022, has framed the sale as part of a strategic review of holdings spanning real estate, wealth management, and agriculture. A spokesperson for the family and the company emphasized their “long-term” commitment, noting ongoing collaboration to ensure a seamless transition that upholds the outlet’s independence, protected by a unique structure of ordinary, special (A and B), and trust shares policed by independent trustees.
Exor, the Agnelli family’s investment vehicle and the largest shareholder at 43.4%, is not involved in the sale, nor is the remaining 29.9% held by entities like the Cadbury and Schroder families and the company itself. The 2015 pivot, when Pearson offloaded its 50% stake for £469 million to Exor (with The Economist repurchasing the balance for £182 million), ended nearly six decades of the education giant’s stewardship and valued the group at £1.1 billion. That transaction cemented Exor’s influence while reinforcing safeguards against any single owner exceeding 20% voting control—a bulwark against corporate overreach that has kept The Economist free from advertiser sway or political meddling.
Interest in the stake is expected to be brisk, echoing recent high-profile acquisitions like Nikkei’s $1.3 billion purchase of the Financial Times in 2015, the $150 million sale of Fortune to Thai billionaire Chatchaval Jiaravanon in 2018, and Hong Kong’s Integrated Whale Media’s takeover of Forbes in 2014. In a fragmented media landscape, where ad revenues falter but subscriptions to trusted voices like The Economist surge—digital starts now comprise 85%—the asset offers rare entree to a brand synonymous with incisive global analysis. Potential buyers, per reports, prioritize those who will champion its ethos amid rising Asian demand for English-language outlets.
Neither the Rothschilds nor The Economist responded to requests for comment by press time, but the process is slated for completion by year-end, barring shifts in market dynamics. For the media sector, grappling with AI-driven content threats and audience fragmentation, this divestiture spotlights enduring value in editorial integrity. As one industry analyst noted on X, “In a post-truth world, The Economist’s stake isn’t just ink—it’s influence gold.” Whether it draws a media mogul or a discreet family office, the deal could redefine stewardship of a publication that has chronicled—and shaped—economic epochs for nearly two centuries.
In a bold move that’s got the liberal media establishment shaking in their boots, President Donald Trump unleashed a staggering $15 billion defamation lawsuit against The New York Times and publisher Penguin Random House on September 15, 2025, calling out years of what he describes as vicious, fabricated attacks designed to derail his America First agenda and sabotage the 2024 election.
This isn’t just another legal skirmish—it’s a full-frontal assault on the fake news machine that’s spent decades smearing Trump, his family, his businesses, and the patriotic movements like MAGA that have reshaped American politics. And despite a Florida judge’s temporary dismissal on technical grounds last Friday, Trump is already declaring victory, vowing to refile and hold these biased outlets accountable once and for all.
The suit, filed in U.S. District Court in Tampa, Florida, zeroes in on three hit-piece articles from the Times—including a pre-election editorial branding Trump “unfit for office”—and the 2024 smear-job book Lucky Loser: How Donald Trump Squandered His Father’s Fortune and Created the Illusion of Success, cooked up by Times reporters Russ Buettner and Susanne Craig and peddled by Penguin. Trump’s lawyers argue these publications are riddled with “repugnant distortions and fabrications,” maliciously aimed at tanking his reputation and inflicting billions in damage to his brand and future earnings.
In a fiery Truth Social post, Trump blasted the Times as “one of the worst and most degenerate newspapers in the History of our Country,” accusing it of becoming a “virtual mouthpiece for the Radical Left Democrat Party” and labeling their Kamala Harris endorsement as “the single largest illegal Campaign contribution, EVER.”
Make no mistake: This lawsuit exposes the deep-seated hatred the elite media harbors for Trump and everything he stands for. The complaint lays out how the Times operated with “actual malice,” knowingly pushing lies because their reporters couldn’t stand the sight of a successful businessman-turned-president who puts America first. It’s no secret the Times has been gunning for Trump since day one, and this book—masquerading as journalism—is just the latest in a long line of partisan hacks.As detailed in the filing, Lucky Loser peddles tired tropes about Trump’s inheritance and success, ignoring his undeniable track record of building empires and winning elections against all odds.
But the deep state sympathizers in the judiciary tried to throw a wrench in the works. On September 19, Judge Steven Merryday—a Bush-era appointee—tossed the 85-page complaint, calling it “decidedly improper and impermissible” for including too much “vituperation and invective” and self-praise for Trump’s accomplishments. Merryday griped that lawsuits aren’t “a megaphone for public relations” or a “podium for a passionate oration at a political rally,” but let’s be real: Trump’s filing was a necessary takedown of the media’s lies, and the judge’s nitpicking on length smells like another attempt to protect the establishment press. Still, in a huge win for Trump, Merryday greenlit a refiling within 28 days, limited to 40 pages—plenty of room to sharpen the knife and go after these defamers again.
Trump, ever the fighter, brushed off the dismissal like the minor speed bump it is. During an Oval Office event, when ABC’s Jonathan Karl tried to gloat over the ruling, Trump shot back: “I’m winning, I’m winning the cases.” He then turned the tables, slamming ABC as a “terrible network” and Karl as “guilty” of unfair reporting. And he’s right—Trump’s racking up victories left and right. Just look at his July $10 billion suit against The Wall Street Journal over bogus Epstein smears, or the fat settlements he extracted from CBS ($16 million for deceptively editing a Kamala Harris interview) and ABC ($15 million over George Stephanopoulos’ false rape claims tied to E. Jean Carroll). These aren’t flukes; they’re proof that when Trump fights back, the fake news folds.
The Times, predictably, whined that the suit is “an attempt to stifle and discourage independent reporting,” while Penguin called it “meritless.” But “independent“? Give us a break. This is the same rag that’s been a Democrat cheerleader for years, pushing hoaxes from Russia collusion to COVID fearmongering. A Pew survey earlier this year showed Republicans overwhelmingly agree the media’s been too critical of Trump, while Dems think he’s too hard on them—classic liberal bias.
As of September 24, 2025, Trump’s team is gearing up to refile, with a spokesman affirming: “President Trump will continue to hold the Fake News accountable through this powerhouse lawsuit.” On X, supporters are rallying, with posts slamming the Times as a “mouthpiece” and cheering Trump’s stand against media tyranny. This fight isn’t just about one man—it’s about restoring truth in journalism and protecting conservative voices from the left’s smear machine. Trump’s not backing down, and neither should we. MAGA forever.
Joe Biden, the doddering architect of America’s near-collapse under socialist policies and endless scandals, is now reaping what he sowed in the form of a post-presidency that’s as bankrupt as his administration’s border strategy. Eight months after handing the White House back to a resurgent Donald Trump, Biden finds himself persona non grata among the elite circles that once propped him up. Corporate boards won’t touch him, speaking gigs are evaporating faster than his poll numbers, and donors are treating his presidential library like a toxic asset. This isn’t just bad karma; it’s a market correction on a failed leader whose unpopularity and the looming shadow of Trump’s retribution have turned “Diamond Joe” into fool’s gold.
Let’s face it: Ex-presidents typically glide into golden parachutes, cashing in on their Oval Office stint with seven-figure speaking fees, cushy board seats, and memoir deals that could fund small nations. Bill Clinton turned influence-peddling into an art form, raking in $200 million post-White House. Barack Obama? He and Michelle scored a $60 million book bonanza and Netflix gigs while hobnobbing with billionaires. Even George W. Bush paints his way to quiet millions. But Biden? At 82, battling a severe prostate cancer diagnosis that’s metastasized, he’s reduced to haggling over scraps. The Wall Street Journal lays it bare: No corporate sinecures for old Joe, thanks to his glaring cognitive decline—evident in that fateful 2024 debate that sealed his fate—and the baggage of a presidency marred by inflation, crime waves, and foreign policy blunders.
Speaking fees? Sure, he’s quoting $300,000 to $500,000 a pop, but the invites are scarce, and bookers are lowballing him like a yard sale find. Why? Fear of Trump’s wrath. With the 47th president vowing to drain the swamp deeper than ever, companies dread audits, investigations, or lost contracts if they align with the man who weaponized the DOJ against conservatives. As one insider whispered to The Journal, “Who’s going to risk it for Biden?” Instead of jet-setting on private planes—avoiding those pesky “unsavory flight logs” à la Epstein—Biden’s slumming it in coach on American Airlines or breaking Amtrak quiet car rules with his endless chatter. His Fourth of July? Holed up in a luxury trailer in Malibu, courtesy of Hunter’s pal Moby. Nice, but hardly the Hamptons elite circuit where real power brokers summer.
The real kicker is the Biden Presidential Library—or lack thereof. NBC News reports a donor drought that’s turned the project into a punchline. John Morgan, the Florida lawyer who funneled $800,000 to Biden’s doomed reelection, scoffed: “I don’t believe a library will ever be built unless it’s a bookmobile from the old days.” Another top bundler? A flat “Me? No way.” Over a dozen major Democratic funders are sitting on their wallets, blaming Biden’s ego-driven refusal to bow out gracefully, which gifted Trump a landslide. The projected $200-300 million price tag? Forget it; they’re saving for the party’s post-Biden rebuild. Contrast that with Trump’s library plans, already flush with MAGA millions and set to be a monument to American greatness in Florida.
Biden’s not destitute—far from it. His $250,600 presidential pension, plus $166,000 from Senate and VP annuities, keeps the lights on. A $10 million Hachette book deal for his memoirs will pad the nest, though it’s a pittance next to the Obamas’ haul—ego bruise alert. But obligations mount: He’s bankrolling Hunter’s post-pardon legal circus (despite the get-out-of-jail-free card, debts linger) and supporting Ashley amid her divorce woes. Then there’s the $800,000 mortgage on his Rehoboth Beach mansion, compounded by a 20% property tax spike this year. For a guy whose “lifestyle” screams modest (read: boring), these hits sting, especially as Trump’s economy booms, lifting all boats except Biden’s leaky dinghy.
This financial flop isn’t misfortune; it’s market justice. Biden’s presidency was a disaster: Skyrocketing costs from “Bidenomics,” an open border inviting chaos, and a foreign policy that emboldened adversaries from Beijing to Tehran. Voters rejected it resoundingly, and now the donor class is following suit. Trump’s shadow looms large—his promises of accountability have executives thinking twice about associating with the Biden brand, synonymous with corruption and incompetence. As the Journal notes, even universities are wary after the Penn Biden Center’s classified docs fiasco. The cold shoulder? It’s conservatives’ quiet revenge, proving that in Trump’s America, failure has consequences.
Biden’s diminished twilight serves as a cautionary tale for the left: Peddle radical agendas, ignore the will of the people, and watch your legacy evaporate. While Trump builds empires and rallies crowds, Biden fades into irrelevance, a footnote in the history of American resurgence. If he’s lucky, that bookmobile library might tour nursing homes—fitting for a president who put the nation to sleep.
The swift hammer of accountability is falling hard on left-wing radicals who dared to celebrate the cold-blooded assassination of Charlie Kirk, as dozens of American workers—from pilots and teachers to media hacks and corporate drones—face the consequences of their vile social media rants. In a nation reeling from the murder of the 31-year-old conservative icon, employers are finally drawing a line in the sand against the toxic hatred that fueled Tyler James Robinson’s execution-style shooting of Kirk last Wednesday at Utah Valley University.
This isn’t cancel culture run amok; it’s righteous pushback against an assassination culture cultivated by the left, and it’s reshaping workplaces by forcing bosses to choose between decency and defending the indefensible.
Kirk, the dynamic co-founder of Turning Point USA and a relentless warrior for American exceptionalism, youth empowerment, and traditional values, was gunned down mid-sentence during his “American Comeback Tour” in Orem, Utah. The graphic video of the attack—Robinson firing point-blank while Kirk discussed mass shootings—spread like wildfire, but so did the depraved glee from anti-conservative corners. Robinson’s manifesto, railing against “right-wing fascists,” exposed the deadly fruits of years of leftist incitement, from campus radicals to MSNBC echo chambers.
President Trump, who lowered flags to half-staff and decried the “evil” behind the killing, has vowed to eradicate such threats, and the grassroots response is proving his America First spirit alive and kicking.
The firings have been nothing short of a purge, triggered by a coordinated conservative campaign that’s doxxing these hatemongers and flooding their employers with evidence. A site called “Expose Charlie’s Murderers”—anonymously registered and boasting nearly 30,000 submissions by Saturday—has become the digital guillotine, archiving posts that revel in Kirk’s death as a “victory” or quip that he “spoke his fate into existence.” Though the site went dark Monday, its impact lingers, with Canadian journalist Rachel Gilmore publicly terrified of “far-right fans” after her neutral post drew threats— a stark reminder that even mild criticism now invites scrutiny in this post-assassination climate.
Far from vigilantism, this is community justice against those who normalized violence against conservatives, a far cry from the unchecked leftist mobs that targeted Trump supporters for years.
Aviation took the first hits, with Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy blasting American Airlines pilots “caught celebrating” the murder. “Immediately grounded and removed from service,” Duffy posted, demanding firings because “glorifying political violence is COMPLETELY UNACCEPTABLE!” American Airlines confirmed it had “initiated action,” stressing that “hate-related or hostile behavior runs contrary to our purpose.” Delta Air Lines suspended multiple employees for posts “well beyond healthy, respectful debate,” with the carrier warning that social media breaches could end careers.
Microsoft, under fire from Tesla CEO Elon Musk for Blizzard employees “trashing” Kirk, announced Friday it’s reviewing “negative remarks” by staff, a nod to the tech giant’s need to clean house amid conservative pressure.
Schools and universities, long bastions of leftist indoctrination, are crumbling under the weight of their own hypocrisy. Republican Sen. Marsha Blackburn called out a Middle Tennessee State University staffer for her “ZERO sympathy” post, leading to an “effective immediately” termination.
GOP Rep. Nancy Mace targeted a South Carolina public school teacher, who was quietly shown the door by her district. Idaho’s West Ada School District fired an employee over an “inappropriate video,” vowing to “address harmful actions thoughtfully.” In Oregon, a middle school science teacher resigned after boasting on Facebook that Kirk’s death “brightened up” his day. Clemson University suspended a worker pending investigation for undisclosed posts, while nationwide, over a dozen educators—from California to New York—have been axed or sidelined for gloating like “Another one bites the dust.”
Healthcare providers aren’t sparing the rod either. The University of Miami Health System canned an employee for “unacceptable public commentary,” affirming that while “freedom of speech is a fundamental right,” endorsements of violence violate core values.
Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta fired a staffer for “inappropriate comments,” declaring such rhetoric a breach of social media policy. Even law firm Perkins Coie—infamous for its ties to George Soros and anti-Trump ops—booted a lawyer for Kirk-bashing posts, as reported by the Wall Street Journal.
Media and entertainment faced their own reckonings. MSNBC’s Matthew Dowd was unceremoniously dumped after implying on-air that Kirk’s “awful words” invited “awful actions.” Network president Rebecca Kutler labeled it “inappropriate, insensitive, and unacceptable,” despite Dowd’s whiny Substack defense claiming a “right-wing media mob” forced the decision. DC Comics yanked its new “Red Hood” series after author Gretch Felker-Martin snarked, “Hope the bullet’s OK,” in deleted tweets—a rare win against Hollywood’s woke brigade.
Corporate cleanups abound: Nasdaq fired a staffer for posts “condoning or celebrating violence.” Office Depot terminated a Michigan employee who refused to print Kirk flyers, calling it “completely unacceptable.” The Carolina Panthers axed a PR flack for his remarks, insisting employee views don’t reflect the team. Freddy’s Frozen Custard & Steakburgers condemned a worker’s Satanic Temple donation plea and “Another one bites the dust” post, confirming the individual is gone. As one HR consultant told NPR, “This is very different from past political controversies at work”—no more kid gloves for anti-conservative venom while right-leaners got the boot.
This wave of terminations—over 50 confirmed cases and counting—is a seismic shift, proving that in Trump’s resurgent America, tolerance for leftist assassination cheerleading has zero runway. The left’s cries of “doxxing” and “retaliation” ring hollow after years of silencing conservatives; now, the mob they unleashed is turning inward. Kirk’s legacy endures not just in policy but in this cultural firewall against hate. Employers who act aren’t caving—they’re leading, ensuring workplaces prioritize patriotism over poison.
Donald Trump flies into Britain on Tuesday evening for a three-day state visit, with the US and UK promising to boost financial ties, including by exploring closer alignment of their capital markets.
UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer wants to use Trump’s visit to showcase Britain as an inward investment hotspot, with US private equity company Blackstone pledging to invest £100bn in British assets over the next decade. US officials said there would be at least $10bn of investment deals in the technology sector, an agreement on nuclear co-operation and an exploration of “how the deep connections between our leading financial hubs can be maintained into the future”. But Trump’s arrival could throw up problems for Starmer.
The US president is unpopular in Britain and his schedule has been designed to shield him from any public or political protest. Trump will not address the UK parliament and is expected to travel by helicopter from the US ambassador’s residence in London to Windsor Castle and later to Starmer’s country retreat at Chequers. Trump has not yet finalised a deal, agreed with Starmer in May, to exempt British steel exports from US tariffs, although they do benefit from lower 25 per cent levies compared with the 50 per cent applied to other countries.
British officials were in Washington on Monday holding urgent talks with US trade officials to try to conclude a deal that would exempt Scotch whisky from a 10 per cent tariff imposed on other UK exports.
A senior US official said the White House was not “tracking” any announcement to reduce US tariffs on whisky, in a sign that an agreement was unlikely. But the official suggested it may well be discussed. Meanwhile, US officials would not be drawn on whether Trump would endorse Tommy Robinson, a far-right activist who is admired by figures on the American right and who organised a “Unite the Kingdom” rally in London on Saturday, attended by between 110,000 and 150,000 people.
Asked whether he would speak out in support of Robinson, whose real name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, or even meet him, a US official said: “I don’t have anything on that right now.” For Trump, the highlight of the visit is expected to be a stay with King Charles and Queen Camilla at Windsor Castle, where he will be feted with a fly-past by military jets, a carriage procession and a state banquet.
But Starmer will try to use the visit to focus on financial, tech and nuclear co-operation, in an attempt to bolster his claims to have a “growth agenda” and to move on from a series of scandals that have rocked his government. Starmer is facing a wave of anger among Labour MPs and questions over his judgment after sacking his US ambassador Lord Peter Mandelson last week over his links to the convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein.
Trump is likely to be grilled over his own connections to Epstein at a press conference on Thursday, his last official business before returning to the US.
The state visit will be preceded on Tuesday by talks in Downing Street between UK chancellor Rachel Reeves and US Treasury secretary Scott Bessent over closer financial co-operation.
By aligning UK standards more closely with the US, Reeves would be hoping to increase access to the world’s deepest and most liquid financial markets, as well as attract greater American investment into Britain.
Stock Widget
The push follows a period of intense political anxiety over an exodus of London-listed companies to the New York Stock Exchange and Nasdaq, as businesses seek higher valuations on the other side of the Atlantic. Trump will bring leading figures from Big Tech including OpenAI’s Sam Altman and chipmaker Nvidia’s NVDA +2.45% ▲ Jensen Huang on his delegation, while companies such as Rolls-Royce RYCEY +1.80% ▲, GSK GSK +1.35% ▲ and Microsoft MSFT +1.95% ▲ will attend a business roundtable at Chequers.
US officials did not indicate to what extent Trump would press Starmer on Britain’s Online Safety Act, which has been a source of tension between Washington and London as some US tech companies have decried it as censorship.
“How that may or may not play into the bilateral discussion that will take place with the prime minister is yet unknown. It may well arise, but it may not,” a senior US official said. “Free speech in the UK, but free speech elsewhere, is something that we in this administration are very much focused on,” they added.
Stock Widget
Blackstone BX +2.65% ▲ is making its commitment to Britain as part of a broader $500bn investment push across Europe, which co-founder Stephen Schwarzman told The Financial Times aimed to profit from economic reforms and a revival of growth. Blackstone’s top leaders like Schwarzman and president Jonathan Gray have long considered the UK a key market for the $1.2tn in assets investment group, and they have strong ties with Downing Street.
Blackstone is already one of the largest foreign investors in the UK, with billions put into digital infrastructure and ecommerce warehouses, among other things. It also has large corporate investments including Merlin Entertainments, the owner of Legoland, and was a major shareholder in the London Stock Exchange’s parent company until fully divesting its shares last year.
In the high-stakes world of American healthcare, where billions of dollars in federal funds hang in the balance, UnitedHealth Group Inc. UNH -2.45% ▼ is pulling out all the stops to navigate a storm of regulatory scrutiny and policy shifts under the Trump administration. The nation’s largest health insurer, grappling with criminal investigations into its lucrative Medicare Advantage business and looming threats to its billing practices, has turned to a time-tested Washington strategy: leveraging connections to former President Donald Trump’s inner circle. From high-level meetings with Justice Department officials to dinners with Medicare overseers and a surge in lobbying expenditures, UnitedHealth is working overtime to plead its case directly with the powers that be.
This aggressive outreach comes at a pivotal moment for the Minnetonka, Minnesota-based giant. UnitedHealth’s Medicare Advantage segment, which generated over $100 billion in revenue in 2023 according to Medicare data, has long been the crown jewel of its operations. These private plans, which manage federal benefits for seniors and disabled individuals, have been a boon for insurers, offering higher reimbursements than traditional fee-for-service Medicare. But recent changes to federal payment rules under the Biden administration, coupled with ongoing probes, have eroded profitability and wiped out nearly 40% of the company’s market value since April.
The company’s troubles intensified in May when The Wall Street Journal first reported that the Justice Department’s criminal fraud unit had launched an investigation into UnitedHealth’s Medicare practices. Shortly thereafter, UnitedHealth secured an unusual meeting with senior Justice Department officials, including Chad Mizelle, the attorney general’s chief of staff. According to people familiar with the meeting, the discussion touched on the probes targeting the company—a move that former prosecutors described as atypical for a firm in the early stages of a criminal inquiry.
“You don’t typically see companies under investigation getting face time with top brass like that,” said Barbara McQuade, a former U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan and a legal analyst who has followed similar cases. “The goal in investigations is to maintain independence and avoid any perception of favoritism or leaks. This kind of access raises eyebrows.”
UnitedHealth’s CEO, Stephen Hemsley, who returned to the role in May after serving as chairman and previously as CEO, has been at the forefront of these efforts. Hemsley, a veteran of the company since the 1990s, recently met with White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles to discuss Medicare policy and other healthcare issues, though government investigations were not on the agenda, according to a White House official. Earlier in the summer, Hemsley dined with Chris Klomp, the official overseeing Medicare at the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), where they delved into topics like Medicare-plan billing policies and the supplemental benefits offered through private plans, sources familiar with the matter said.
These engagements underscore a broader playbook in Washington: direct access to decision-makers. UnitedHealth has also sought meetings with President Trump himself, though it has not yet secured one, according to people close to the discussions. The company is particularly focused on resolving the ongoing investigations, which include not only the criminal probe but also civil and antitrust inquiries.
The backdrop to these maneuvers is a company in recovery mode. UnitedHealth’s stock has shown some tentative signs of stabilization since Hemsley’s return, but the Washington overhang persists. The insurer was already reeling from the tragic public murder of Brian Thompson, CEO of its UnitedHealthcare insurance unit, in December 2024—an event that shocked the industry and added to operational disruptions. Amid this, Hemsley has outlined a recovery plan emphasizing cost controls, operational efficiencies, and advocacy in policy circles.
Financially, the hits have been hard. Changes to Medicare billing rules implemented by the Biden administration began impacting results in earnest this year, squeezing margins in the Medicare Advantage business. Investors are now laser-focused on how the Trump administration will handle these practices. Mehmet Oz, Trump’s nominee for CMS administrator and a high-profile television personality turned public health advocate, has vowed a crackdown on certain insurer tactics, including those employed by UnitedHealth. “We’re going to root out waste, fraud, and abuse in Medicare,” Oz said during his confirmation hearings earlier this year, signaling potential further reimbursement cuts or stricter oversight.
To counter these threats, UnitedHealth has ramped up its Washington presence dramatically. In the first half of 2025, the company spent $7.7 million on lobbying—roughly double the amount from the same period in 2024, according to its own disclosure filings with the Senate. This surge outpaced rivals: Humana Inc. and Cigna Group saw only modest increases in their lobbying budgets during the same timeframe.
A key part of this strategy involves hiring influencers with deep Trump ties. UnitedHealth brought on Brian Ballard, a prominent fundraiser for the president and founder of Ballard Partners, as its top outside lobbyist. Ballard’s firm, which started representing UnitedHealth in 2024, has become the company’s highest-paid external advocacy group, per disclosure records. Ballard, known for his access to the White House and Capitol Hill, has been instrumental in facilitating connections.
The company also enlisted Jesse Panuccio, a former senior Justice Department official from Trump’s first term who now partners at Boies Schiller Flexner LLP. Panuccio played a role in arranging the meeting with Justice Department officials, including Mizelle, sources said. Additionally, in a shareholder lawsuit filed against the company, UnitedHealth in July replaced its legal team from WilmerHale—a firm criticized by Trump—with Robert Giuffra, the president’s personal lawyer and a securities litigator at Sullivan & Cromwell, along with his colleagues.
This shift in legal representation highlights the personalized nature of influence-peddling in the Trump era. “Lobbying spending often ticks up year over year, but 2025 is on track to shatter records,” said Anna Massoglia, a researcher at OpenSecrets.org, a nonpartisan group that tracks money in politics. “With the administration’s inner circle so accessible, companies are going all-in on direct relationships. It’s more nuanced now—you can court the president, his family, and allies outright.”
UnitedHealth’s disclosures paint a picture of an all-hands-on-deck approach. The company has increased its roster of lobbyists and lawyers with Trump-era credentials, aiming to shape policies on Medicare payments, supplemental benefits, and regulatory relief. In a statement to reporters, UnitedHealth emphasized its proactive stance: “Public policy shapes healthcare across America, and it’s our responsibility to engage with the administration and Congress at all levels to improve patient access and affordability,” a spokesman said. “This is especially true now as critical decisions are being made.” The spokesman added that lobbying expenditures fluctuate annually based on needs.
Executives have been candid with Wall Street about these efforts. In a recent earnings call, Hemsley told analysts that the company has been “engaged and collaborative with the administration,” providing management with “a seat at the table,” according to notes from a Morgan Stanley investor briefing last week. This engagement yielded a tangible win in August, when the Justice Department cleared UnitedHealth’s long-stalled $3.3 billion acquisition of home-health provider Amedisys Inc. after the company agreed to divestitures. The deal, first announced in 2023, had been bogged down in antitrust reviews.
The White House has downplayed any special treatment. “The Administration routinely meets with insurers to deliver on the President’s mandate of improving healthcare and lowering costs for everyday Americans,” said Kush Desai, a White House spokesman, in response to inquiries about UnitedHealth’s outreach.
Yet, the investigations remain a thorn in UnitedHealth’s side. When the Journal broke the story of the criminal probe in May, the company initially stated it had not been formally notified and robustly defended its Medicare Advantage integrity. “We have full confidence in our practices,” a spokesman said at the time. But by July 24, in a securities filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, UnitedHealth disclosed that it had proactively reached out to the Justice Department and was complying with formal criminal and civil requests. The filing reiterated the company’s commitment to cooperation.
The probe, led by the Justice Department’s criminal fraud unit, is examining potential overbilling and other practices in Medicare Advantage, sources familiar with the matter confirmed. It remains active, with no resolution in sight. Civil investigations by the Department of Health and Human Services and antitrust scrutiny of mergers add layers of complexity.
Former Justice officials like McQuade stress the rarity of such high-level interventions. “You don’t want to give anyone a heads-up,” she said, referring to the risks of discussing active cases. Panuccio, who helped orchestrate the meeting, did not respond to requests for comment.
For UnitedHealth, the stakes couldn’t be higher. Medicare Advantage accounts for a significant portion of its $371 billion in total 2024 revenue, and any adverse policy changes could derail its growth trajectory. The company serves about 8 million enrollees in these plans, making it the market leader with a roughly 30% share. Rivals like Humana, which derives even more of its business from Medicare Advantage, are watching closely, though their lobbying increases have been more measured.
Broader industry dynamics are at play. The Trump administration has promised to overhaul healthcare, with Oz’s CMS nomination signaling a focus on efficiency and fraud reduction. Insurers fear this could mean clawbacks on prior payments or caps on supplemental benefits like dental and vision coverage, which have driven enrollment surges. Enrollment in Medicare Advantage plans hit 33 million in 2025, up from 29 million the prior year, per CMS data.
UnitedHealth’s pivot to Trump allies reflects a sea change in corporate advocacy. In Trump’s first term, industries from tech to energy hired former administration officials to navigate deregulation. Now, with a second term underway, the trend is accelerating. “Companies are figuring out how to win over the new guard,” Massoglia said. “It’s not just about money—it’s about relationships.”
As UnitedHealth pushes forward, the outcomes of these efforts will shape not only its fortunes but the future of privatized Medicare. For now, Hemsley and his team are betting on personal diplomacy to turn the tide. Whether it pays off remains to be seen, but in Washington, access is everything.
LONDON – In a move that has sparked fresh debates over British economic sovereignty, Sainsbury’s, the iconic high street supermarket chain, has confirmed it is in advanced talks to offload its subsidiary Argos to JD.com, one of China’s burgeoning e-commerce behemoths. The potential deal, announced on Saturday, comes at a time when UK businesses are under increasing scrutiny for their vulnerability to foreign acquisitions, particularly from state-influenced enterprises in Beijing.
Sainsbury’s, a cornerstone of British retail for over 150 years, acquired Argos in a £1.4 billion deal back in 2016 as part of a strategy to bolster its non-food offerings and compete in the digital age. Now, just eight years later, the company appears poised to hand over the keys to what it describes as the UK’s second-largest general merchandise retailer. Argos boasts the third most visited retail website in the country and operates more than 1,100 collection points, making it a vital player in everyday British shopping habits.
In an official statement released over the weekend, Sainsbury’s emphasized its commitment to Argos’ future while framing the potential sale as a strategic accelerator. “Sainsbury’s is committed to delivering the strongest and most successful future for Argos customers and colleagues and the group’s ‘More Argos, more often’ transformation strategy is delivering solid progress,” the statement read. It went on to highlight the purported benefits of partnering with JD.com: “A transaction with JD.com would accelerate Argos’ transformation. JD.com would bring world-class retail, technology and logistics expertise and invest to drive Argos’ growth and further transform the customer experience.”
The statement also included assurances about protections for stakeholders, noting that “the terms of any possible transaction would include commitments from JD.com in relation to Argos for the benefit of customers, colleagues and partners.” However, Sainsbury’s was quick to temper expectations, adding that “no deal has currently been struck and there is no certainty at this stage that any transaction will proceed.”
Critics from the conservative wing of British politics have already voiced alarm, viewing the talks as symptomatic of a broader erosion of UK control over key retail assets in the post-Brexit era. With China’s economic footprint expanding aggressively across Europe, there are fears that JD.com’s involvement could expose sensitive consumer data and supply chains to Beijing’s oversight. “This isn’t just a business deal; it’s a question of who controls the high street,” said one Tory MP speaking off the record. “We fought for sovereignty outside the EU, only to watch it slip into the hands of a regime that doesn’t play by the same rules.”
JD.com, founded in 2004 and listed on the Nasdaq in 2014 as the first major Chinese e-commerce firm to do so, positions itself as a “leading supply chain-based technology and service provider which integrates traditional industry features with cutting-edge digital technology and capabilities,” according to its official website. The company has grown into a formidable rival to Alibaba, boasting a vast logistics network and investments in AI-driven retail innovations. Yet, its ties to the Chinese Communist Party—through mandatory state collaborations and data-sharing requirements—have long raised eyebrows among Western regulators.
For Sainsbury’s, the sale aligns with a broader pivot under CEO Simon Roberts, who has been steering the company toward a food-first focus amid slumping profits in general merchandise. Argos has been integral to Sainsbury’s digital expansion, with in-store collection points driving foot traffic and online sales surging during the pandemic. But with e-commerce giants like Amazon dominating the market, the retailer may see JD.com’s expertise as a lifeline—albeit one that comes with geopolitical strings attached.
The discussions come against a backdrop of heightened UK-China tensions, including recent blocks on Chinese investments in critical infrastructure and ongoing probes into tech transfers. If the deal proceeds, it would likely face rigorous scrutiny from the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) and possibly the National Security and Investment Act, which empowers the government to intervene in foreign takeovers deemed risky.
As Britain grapples with balancing economic growth and national interests, the fate of Argos could serve as a litmus test for how far Conservative policymakers are willing to go in protecting domestic icons from overseas predators. For now, Sainsbury’s insists the talks are exploratory, but the mere prospect has reignited calls for tougher safeguards on British assets.
In a blow to U.S. industrial self-sufficiency and national security, U.S. Magnesium LLC, the nation’s sole primary producer of magnesium metal, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection on September 10, 2025. The filing, lodged in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, stems from escalating regulatory disputes with the state of Utah over alleged environmental pollution from its Rowley facility along the shrinking Great Salt Lake. With assets and liabilities estimated between $100 million and $500 million, the company—wholly owned by billionaire Ira Rennert’s Renco Group Inc.—is seeking to restructure through a going-concern sale, warning that its collapse could force America to rely almost entirely on adversarial nations like China and Russia for critical minerals essential to defense and high-tech manufacturing.
U.S. Magnesium’s predicament highlights the fragile intersection of environmental regulation, economic viability, and geopolitical strategy. Operating since 2002, the facility extracts magnesium, lithium, and other chemicals from the Great Salt Lake’s brine, supplying industries from aerospace to electric vehicles. But years of operational setbacks, including global price crashes, equipment failures, and the COVID-19 pandemic, have compounded tensions with Utah regulators. The state’s Division of Forestry, Fire & State Lands recently moved to terminate the company’s leases, citing persistent pollution linked to a 2017 academic study that implicated the refinery in up to 25% of the Salt Lake Valley’s notorious winter “brown clouds.”
In a statement released shortly after the filing, U.S. Magnesium emphasized its role as a vital domestic supplier. “This decision, reached after careful consideration, reflects our ongoing commitment to responsibility, integrity, and long-term sustainability as we navigate an accumulation of significant challenges,” the company said. It plans to use the bankruptcy process under Sections 363 and 365 of the Bankruptcy Code to resolve disputes, facilitate a sale, and “preserve the value of our business, honor our commitments to employees and partners, [and] continue our longstanding commitment to environmental stewardship while being a key domestic supplier of critical minerals for many years to come.”
The bankruptcy filing arrives amid a heated standoff with Utah authorities, who accuse U.S. Magnesium of exacerbating air quality issues in the densely populated Wasatch Front region. The controversy traces back to a 2017 study by the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES), a joint University of Colorado Boulder and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) program. Conducted during a severe winter inversion episode, the research modeled emissions from the Rowley refinery and found that chlorine and bromine—halogenated compounds released during magnesium production—contributed 10-25% of the fine particulate matter (PM 2.5) forming the persistent brown clouds that blanket Salt Lake City.
PM 2.5, microscopic particles smaller than 2.5 microns, pose severe health risks by penetrating deep into the lungs and bloodstream, potentially causing respiratory diseases, heart problems, and premature deaths. The study noted that winter pollution levels in the Salt Lake Valley exceed national air quality standards on an average of 18 days per year, with the refinery’s plume playing a “significant” role. Lead author Carrie Womack, now with NOAA, confirmed in recent interviews that chlorine emissions have shown “no significant decline” over the past five years, despite company claims of mitigation efforts.
Utah officials, citing the aging report and ongoing monitoring, argue the facility’s operations threaten public health and the ecologically fragile Great Salt Lake, which has lost over 50% of its volume since 1980 due to drought and diversions. In August 2025, the state demanded the company halt massive water pumping—up to 400,000 acre-feet annually—from the lake, further straining relations. Environmental groups like Friends of Great Salt Lake have long criticized U.S. Magnesium for noncompliance with water and air protection laws, including potential contamination of groundwater with heavy metals.
U.S. Magnesium counters that the 2017 data is outdated and doesn’t reflect upgrades, including a $400 million investment in lithium production infrastructure. The company idled its magnesium operations in 2020 due to force majeure from COVID and a major customer closure (Allegheny Technologies’ Rowley plant), pivoting to lithium carbonate—the first such plant in the U.S.—using advanced direct lithium extraction (DLE) technology. However, an 80% plunge in lithium prices since 2022, coupled with operational hurdles and regional water policies, forced a pause in lithium output in late 2024.
The bankruptcy filing, a voluntary petition, lists Renco as the 100% equity holder. Renco, which has poured over $400 million into the venture without dividends for a decade, pledges to recapitalize the buyer and assume environmental liabilities. “We’re not walking away—we’re buying the assets and assuming environmental liabilities to rebuild,” the statement reads, hoping the process fosters “constructive dialogue” with Utah to avoid inheriting cleanup costs.
The Strategic Imperative: Magnesium and Lithium as National Security Linchpins
U.S. Magnesium’s plight extends far beyond Utah’s borders, striking at the heart of America’s push for mineral independence. Magnesium, designated a critical mineral by the U.S. Geological Survey in 2022, is indispensable for national defense and economic resilience. As the lightest structural metal, it alloys with aluminum to create high-strength, lightweight components used in military aircraft, missiles, helicopters, and vehicle armor—reducing weight by up to 30% for better fuel efficiency and maneuverability.
The Pentagon has repeatedly flagged magnesium’s vulnerabilities: The U.S. imports over 54% of its needs, with China dominating 85% of global production. Russia, another key supplier, faces sanctions that could disrupt flows amid ongoing conflicts. Without domestic capacity, supply chains for F-35 jets, submarines, and munitions become precarious. “Magnesium is one of the identified critical minerals… very much come to the forefront with all of the geopolitical froth,” said Barry Baim, director at West High Yield Resources, underscoring demand from government and industry.
Former President Donald Trump echoed these concerns in a 2020 executive order, declaring reliance on “hostile foreign powers” an acute threat to national and economic security. The Biden administration’s Inflation Reduction Act and Defense Production Act investments further prioritize onshore production, with magnesium essential for electric vehicles (enhancing EV range), wind turbines, and lithium-ion batteries—where U.S. Magnesium’s dual expertise in magnesium and lithium positions it uniquely.
Lithium, another critical mineral, powers the green energy transition and defense electronics. U.S. Magnesium’s mothballed plant, developed with partners like International Battery Metals (IBAT), aimed to produce 5,000 metric tons annually using modular DLE on waste brines— a first for the U.S. But idling it amid low prices (down 80% since peaks) and water restrictions has left a void, as domestic lithium supply lags behind surging EV demand.
Experts warn of dire consequences if the sale falters. “If U.S. Magnesium fails, the United States would need to buy key products from China and Russia,” amplifying risks from trade wars, tariffs, and sanctions. The Defense Logistics Agency lists magnesium among strategic materials, and GAO reports highlight seawater and brine extraction as potential alternatives—but scaling them could take years.
Path Forward: Restructuring Amid Uncertainty
The Chapter 11 process offers U.S. Magnesium breathing room to operate while marketing its assets. With 186 employees laid off in 2024 during the lithium idle, the filing prioritizes payroll and vendor obligations. Renco’s commitment to bid signals intent to retain operations, potentially resolving Utah’s lease termination threat—valued positively by the state as it avoids cleanup burdens estimated in the tens of millions.
Yet, challenges abound. Global magnesium oversupply and “offshore dumping” have depressed prices to historic lows, while equipment woes and the 2016 Allegheny closure eroded revenue. Utah’s evolving water policies, including a 2025 plan to curb Great Salt Lake diversions, add pressure. A conciliatory tone in the statement aims to “catalyze constructive dialogue,” but environmental advocates remain skeptical, pushing for stricter oversight.
For the broader economy, the stakes are high. Reviving U.S. Magnesium aligns with federal incentives under the CHIPS and Science Act, potentially injecting capital for restarts. As one analyst noted, “This is an opportunity to finalize agreements… continuing to produce critical minerals in the United States, as the administration has been urging as a national priority.”
U.S. Magnesium’s saga underscores the tensions in America’s quest for secure supply chains: Balancing environmental imperatives with industrial needs in a resource-scarce world. If the restructuring succeeds, it could bolster domestic resilience; if not, it risks deepening U.S. vulnerabilities to foreign powers.
In the cozy ritual of unwinding after a long day—perhaps curling up with an episode of The Last of Us or bingeing a classic like The Sopranos—streaming services like HBO Max have become a sanctuary for millions. These platforms offer more than mere entertainment; they provide escapism, education through documentaries, and a sense of community around beloved stories. Yet, as the streaming wars rage on, the comfort of affordable access may soon be disrupted. Warner Bros. Discovery WBD -1.85% ▼, the powerhouse behind HBO Max, is signaling significant changes that could hit subscribers’ wallets and habits hard. CEO David Zaslav’s recent comments at a high-profile investor conference have ignited concerns about impending price hikes and a tougher stance on password sharing, potentially reshaping the user experience for the service’s 125.7 million global subscribers.
HBO Max, which reverted to its original name from “Max” in July 2025 after a brief rebranding experiment, remains a titan in the streaming landscape. According to FlixPatrol data, it ranks as the fourth most-subscribed platform worldwide, trailing only Netflix, Amazon Prime Video, and Disney+. This popularity stems from its prestige content—think Emmy-winning dramas like Succession and Euphoria, blockbuster franchises from the DC Universe, and a vast library of timeless films and series. A Reddit thread from late 2024, still buzzing with activity nine months later, captures the fervor: Subscribers rave about the “high-quality/prestige content,” the “rich library of older and favorite shows/movies,” exclusive originals, and solid value for money. One user summed it up: “It’s the only service where I feel like I’m getting premium TV without the cable bill.”
But not all feedback is glowing. Some users gripe about technical glitches like buffering on certain devices, an overload of reality TV, and the occasional removal of older exclusives. These pain points, while minor compared to the praise, highlight the platform’s imperfections in a hyper-competitive market. Now, with Zaslav’s bold assertions, the focus is shifting from content quality to cost—and how WBD plans to extract more revenue from its loyal base.
Zaslav’s Price Hike Tease: A Bet on Premium Content
Speaking at the Goldman Sachs Communacopia + Technology Conference in San Francisco on September 11, 2025, Zaslav painted an optimistic picture of HBO Max’s trajectory while dropping hints that could spell trouble for users. “People are really starting to love HBO Max. That’s the key,” he said, emphasizing the platform’s “differentiated offering” outside the U.S. and the influx of top-tier talent like Chuck Lorre (The Big Bang Theory), Bill Lawrence (Ted Lasso), and Mindy Kaling (The Mindy Project). This creative firepower, Zaslav argued, gives WBD “real optional leverage” to keep hits in-house or license them elsewhere, bolstering its negotiating power.
The CEO didn’t mince words on pricing: “We think we’re way underpriced.” He recalled the days when consumers shelled out $55 monthly for traditional cable packages, contrasting that with today’s streaming fees, which he views as a bargain despite the proliferation of services. “We’re going to take our time, because we’re really growing now and people are spending more and more time with us. But we think that there’s real upside to that. And it’s hard to replace quality content that people love,” Zaslav stated, according to a Seeking Alpha transcript. This comes on the heels of the last price adjustment in June 2024, when tiers saw modest increases amid broader industry trends.
Current HBO Max plans, as listed on the company’s website, include:
Plan
Monthly Price
Annual Price (16% Savings)
Key Features
Basic with Ads
$9.99
$99.99
HD streaming, 2 devices, ads during content
Standard
$16.99
$169.99
Ad-free (except sports/live), 2 devices, Full HD, downloads
Prices exclude taxes, and live sports streaming is limited to two concurrent streams on Standard and Premium tiers. While these rates already position HBO Max as pricier than rivals—Netflix’s ad-supported plan starts at $6.99, Disney+ at $7.99—Zaslav believes the prestige factor justifies hikes. Analysts note that competitors like Peacock and Apple TV+ raised prices by $3 in recent months, setting a precedent. However, in a market where the average household subscribes to four services and spends about $160 monthly on entertainment (per a TiVo survey), further increases risk subscriber churn.
WBD’s streaming segment is already profitable, posting $293 million in Q2 2025 earnings, a turnaround from last year’s loss. This financial health, coupled with content investments, emboldens Zaslav’s strategy. Yet, critics argue it’s tone-deaf amid economic pressures; one Slashdot commenter quipped, “Your service is not a necessity… worth exactly how much people are willing to pay.”
Growth Projections: 150 Million Homes by 2026
Zaslav’s confidence extends to subscriber forecasts. He projected HBO Max reaching “over 150 million homes next year,” building on Q2 2025’s addition of 3.4 million users to hit 125.7 million globally—mostly from international markets, with just 200,000 domestic adds. In regions like Europe and Latin America, HBO content dominates viewing on platforms like Sky, where it accounts for 50% of non-sports consumption. Fans there are clamoring for returns like Euphoria, The Gilded Age, and The Last of Us Season 2, all branded as HBO.
This expansion aligns with WBD’s broader ambitions. The company, which merged WarnerMedia and Discovery in 2022, is set to split into two entities by Q2 2026: one focused on studios and streaming (led by Zaslav, including HBO Max and DC Studios), the other on linear networks. Streaming profitability is expected to top $1.3 billion in 2025, driven by global rollouts and bundled offerings like the Disney+/Hulu/HBO Max package at $16.99 (ad-supported) or $29.99 (ad-free). As of May 2025, combined Max and Discovery+ subs stood at 122.3 million, per Wikipedia data, underscoring steady growth despite U.S. saturation.
The Password Sharing Crackdown: No More Free Rides
Compounding the price concerns is WBD’s renewed push against password sharing, a scourge costing the industry an estimated $25 billion annually—a 2022 Citi report pegged Netflix alone at $6.25 billion in losses. Zaslav admitted at the conference that HBO Max “hasn’t been pushing” on this yet, prioritizing user engagement first. “We want them to fall in love with our content,” he said, echoing strategies from Netflix’s 2023 crackdown, which netted 5.9 million new subs post-enforcement.
The groundwork is laid. During the August 2025 earnings call, Global Streaming and Games CEO JB Perrette detailed months of data refinement to identify “legitimate users.” Starting September 2025, messaging will turn “more aggressive,” requiring extra-household sharers to pay a $7.99/month “Extra Member Add-On” or face lockouts. “We’ve spent a lot of the last several months… making sure that our data sets on figuring out who is a legitimate user… [are] in the right place,” Perrette said, per an Insider Monkey transcript. Full impact is eyed for Q4 2025 and 2026 financials, potentially converting sharers into paying users.
This follows softer nudges earlier in 2025, including profile transfers and voluntary add-ons. HBO Max defines a “household” as the account owner and cohabitants, with enforcement via IP addresses and device tracking—methods that have sparked privacy debates but boosted rivals’ revenues. For users, it means no more mooching on a friend’s login for House of the Dragon; expect prompts to subscribe independently or pay extra.
Subscriber Backlash and Broader Implications
These moves arrive amid a maturing streaming market plagued by “subscription fatigue.” Antenna research shows specialty services like HBO Max grew 12% year-over-year in 2025, but churn rates hover around 8% quarterly as costs rise. Reddit threads already buzz with frustration: “Another hike? I’ll rotate with Netflix,” one user posted. WBD stock, up 52% year-to-date to $16.17, reflects investor optimism, but consumer sentiment tells a different story. Zaslav’s $50 million-plus compensation package has also drawn ire, especially after content purges for tax benefits.
On the flip side, HBO Max’s strengths—its 4K offerings, offline downloads, and exclusives—could retain loyalists. Bundles and student deals (Basic with Ads at $4.99/month via UNiDAYS) offer relief. As WBD eyes 150 million subs by 2026, the challenge is balancing profitability with accessibility. For now, Zaslav’s vision positions HBO Max as a premium powerhouse, but at what cost to its devoted fans?
Tesla’s TSLA -4.75% ▼ 2025 has been forgettable, to say the least.
Deliveries dropped hard in Q2, tanking nearly 14% year-over-year, marking Tesla’s worst quarterly sales drop in over a decade.
Also, the U.S. EV market share dropped to 38% in August, the first time it has fallen below 40% since 2017, with legacy automakers and new players closing in.
Moreover, the stock has been on a rollercoaster.
After its market cap peaked near $1.24 trillion in February, Tesla’s market cap plunged to $916 billion by March, erasing a whopping $300 billion in value before clawing back. Also, shares remain flat year-to-date, lagging broader market gains in the tech space.
Then there’s the incredible reputational damage. Political firestorms, product delays, and a stream of high-level exits continue to test investor patience.
Now, another senior executive is out, and his exit has been far from quiet. His blunt criticism of leadership sharpens concerns that Tesla’s challenges aren’t just cyclical, but also structural.
Senior engineer’s exit adds to Tesla leadership strain
Tesla’s leadership churn just had another spotlight moment.
Senior engineer Giorgio Balestrieri, who joined the EV pioneer in 2017 and was involved in its Autobidder energy-trading platform, announced his departure on LinkedIn this week, putting Elon Musk squarely at the center of it.
Balestrieri wrote on LinkedIn:
“All this being said, I do need to address the elephant in the room: The main reason I’m leaving is that I think Elon has dealt huge damage to Tesla’s mission (and to the health of democratic institutions in several countries).
“Beyond that, Elon’s leadership and decision making seem seriously compromised. Given his huge (and growing, inexplicably) stake in Tesla, I can’t convince myself anymore that this is the right place to be.”
For context, after his stake dipped to 12.7% to 13% post-Twitter sales, Tesla’s August stock award of a whopping $29 billion could lift his holding to over 15%.
Additionally, the board also floated a “$1 trillion” performance package, which could potentially boost his voting power toward 25% over time.
Tesla’s stock has weathered a ton of criticism from Musk, but steady departures of long-tenured engineers raise a ton of questions for investors.
Leadership credibility matters critically in advanced energy platforms, and when insiders question it, the cost of capital and talent retention become major long-term issues.
More exits pile up as the Tesla brand takes a hit
The Balestrieri departure isn’t an isolated event.
Over the past year, we’ve seen at least eight senior leaders walk, spanning sales, software, robotics, and service.
Some of the recent high-profile exits over the past 12 months include:
Troy Jones, VP sales/service/delivery (North America): Left July 15, 2025
Piero Landolfi, director of service (North America): Departed Aug. 11, 2025
Omead Afshar, head of sales & manufacturing (NA/EU): Exited late June 2025
Milan Kovac, head of Optimus (humanoid robot): Announced his exit on June 6, 2025
David Lau, VP of software engineering: Stepped down in April 2025
Also notable in 2025 were key exits of personnel such as Vineet Mehta in batteries, David Imai in design, and Pete Bannon, who led Tesla’s Dojo supercomputer project.
These developments should be troubling for Tesla investors, as this isn’t just about swapping nameplates. It involves losing institutional memory across sales, service, and next-gen platforms.
In markets where talent and trust are paramount, frequent senior departures slow recruiting flywheels, denting a company’s reputation in the process.
These effects rarely show up in a single quarter, but are likely to compound over time in valuation multiples.
Cookie Consent
We use cookies to improve your experience on our site. By using our site, you consent to cookies.
Contains information related to marketing campaigns of the user. These are shared with Google AdWords / Google Ads when the Google Ads and Google Analytics accounts are linked together.
90 days
__utma
ID used to identify users and sessions
2 years after last activity
__utmt
Used to monitor number of Google Analytics server requests
10 minutes
__utmb
Used to distinguish new sessions and visits. This cookie is set when the GA.js javascript library is loaded and there is no existing __utmb cookie. The cookie is updated every time data is sent to the Google Analytics server.
30 minutes after last activity
__utmc
Used only with old Urchin versions of Google Analytics and not with GA.js. Was used to distinguish between new sessions and visits at the end of a session.
End of session (browser)
__utmz
Contains information about the traffic source or campaign that directed user to the website. The cookie is set when the GA.js javascript is loaded and updated when data is sent to the Google Anaytics server
6 months after last activity
__utmv
Contains custom information set by the web developer via the _setCustomVar method in Google Analytics. This cookie is updated every time new data is sent to the Google Analytics server.
2 years after last activity
__utmx
Used to determine whether a user is included in an A / B or Multivariate test.
18 months
_ga
ID used to identify users
2 years
_gali
Used by Google Analytics to determine which links on a page are being clicked
30 seconds
_ga_
ID used to identify users
2 years
_gid
ID used to identify users for 24 hours after last activity
24 hours
_gat
Used to monitor number of Google Analytics server requests when using Google Tag Manager