Meet America's Richest Self-Made Women. Plus: J.K. Rowling Is A Billionaire Again
This is this week's ForbesWomen newsletter, which every Thursday brings news about the world's top female entrepreneurs, leaders and investors straight to your inbox. Click here to get on the newsletter list!
Forbes
This week marked the release of our annual list of America's Richest Self-Made Women, Forbes' definitive accounting of the country's most successful female entrepreneurs, executives and entertainers as determined by net worth.
This is our 10th anniversary of producing this list, and a lot has changed since it debuted in 2015: There are 38 billionaires this year, with fortunes originating in everything from cars to cosmetics to Chardonnay. That's more than double the 18 we found in 2015.
As my colleague (and Forbes assistant managing editor) Kerry Dolan and I discussed in a recorded conversation about the list, tracking the net worths of America's female entrepreneurs is important because money is power. The women on this list are exerting their power by building companies providing essential goods and services; donating their wealth to political causes; investing in under-appreciated assets (like women's sports, which you can read more about below).
You can catch all the coverage of America's richest self made women through this link here—and I do hope you spend some time reading and appreciating the myriad ways women are shaping American consumption and culture!
Cheers!
Maggie
Billionaire Michele Kang has an ambitious goal: In the not-too-distant future, she believes, women's soccer teams will be trading for $1 billion or more—and she's willing to spend whatever it takes to make that happen. Between purchasing her three clubs (the NWSL's Washington Spirit, France's Première Ligue OL Lyonnes and the London City Lionesses, which were recently promoted to England's Women's Super League), seeding a handful of women-focused sports startups and donating $30 million to the U.S. Soccer federation, Kang entered the sports world with an ante of at least $200 million. And she's not done.
Speaking of rich women in sports, this week Forbes also released its ranking of America's richest female sports team owners, a list of 11 billionaires who control major pro franchises and are collectively worth $85 billion. At the top? The Mavericks' Miriam Adelson, worth a cool $29 billion.
Yet for all the momentum around women in sports, the French Open is coming under fire for (once again) failing to schedule a women's match in the (better-viewed) evening sessions. Tournament director Amelie Mauresmo has said 'it's complicated' to schedule both women and men's play at night… but stars like Ons Jabeur and Coco Gauff are also raising their voices about the issue.
The Harry Potter books transformed J.K. Rowling from a single mother on welfare to an author with a ten-figure fortune—but her massive charity initiatives dropped her from the ranks of billionaires. Now, thanks to new Potterverse books, movies, a play, and several theme parks—and in spite of her divisive social-media presence—Rowling is magically back in the three-comma club.
Following Taylor Swift's blockbuster announcement Friday that she has bought back the rights to her first six albums, streams of her entire catalog surged as much as 400% and some titles even reentered the Billboard 200.
Kristi Noem made headlines last month when a thief snatched her purse inside a Washington, D.C., restaurant and made off with $3,000 in cash, prompting a question: Exactly how much money does the homeland security secretary have? About $5 million, Forbes estimates, after analyzing property records and financial filings.
On Monday, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services unveiled its proposed budget for the National Institutes of Health, and that budget is facing cuts of up to 40% compared to 2025—a year that has already seen the slashing of thousands of grants used for medical research. Senator Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) joined ForbesWomen editor Maggie McGrath for a conversation about exactly what these continued cuts could mean for American public health.
1. Recognize your own red flags. We talk about 'red flags' in business partners and romantic partners, but can you identify your own patterns and flaws? The idea is not to become your biggest critic, but instead, start a process of reflection that, while uncomfortable, can improve how you handle conflict and set boundaries—personally and professionally.
2. Know when to take the first offer. Serial entrepreneur (and one of America's richest self-made women) Emma Grede recently sat down with ForbesWomen editor Maggie McGrath to discuss her career, why she leans into fear, and how she identifies when it's time to move from one project or company to the next. 'I think that sometimes your first offer is the best offer; you think that you need to wait and wait and wait for something better to come and it doesn't always come,' Grede said.
3. Take a microbreak. Microbreaks are short, intentional pauses taken throughout the workday to help reset your mind and body. They can be as brief as a few seconds or last several minutes. Read more on why and how you should incorporate these breaks in your day.
A multifaceted pop star, who has arguably been more well-known recently for her makeup and skincare lines, released a new No. 1 song this week—her first new hit in almost a decade. Who is it?
Check your answer.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
30 minutes ago
- Yahoo
AI Can't Replace Education
Credit - Tingting Ji—Getty Images As commencement ceremonies celebrate the promise of a new generation of graduates, one question looms: will AI make their education pointless? Many CEOs think so. They describe a future where AI will replace engineers, doctors, and teachers. Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg recently predicted AI will replace mid-level engineers who write the company's computer code. NVIDIA's Jensen Huang has even declared coding itself obsolete. While Bill Gates admits the breakneck pace of AI development is 'profound and even a little bit scary,' he celebrates how it could make elite knowledge universally accessible. He, too, foresees a world where AI replaces coders, doctors, and teachers, offering free high-quality medical advice and tutoring. Despite the hype, AI cannot 'think' for itself or act without humans—for now. Indeed, whether AI enhances learning or undermines understanding hinges on a crucial decision: Will we allow AI to just predict patterns? Or will we require it to explain, justify, and stay grounded in the laws of our world? AI needs human judgment, not just to supervise its output but also to embed scientific guardrails that give it direction, grounding, and interpretability. Physicist Alan Sokal recently compared AI chatbots to a moderately good student taking an oral exam. 'When they know the answer, they'll tell it to you, and when they don't know the answer they're really good at bullsh*tting,' he said at an event at the University of Pennsylvania. So, unless a user knows a lot about a given subject, according to Sokal, one might not catch a 'bullsh*tting' chatbot. That, to me, perfectly captures AI's so-called 'knowledge.' It mimics understanding by predicting word sequences but lacks the conceptual grounding. That's why 'creative' AI systems struggle to distinguish real from fake, and debates have emerged about whether large language models truly grasp cultural nuance. When teachers worry that AI tutors may hinder students' critical thinking, or doctors fear algorithmic misdiagnosis, they identify the same flaw: machine learning is brilliant at pattern recognition, but lacks the deep knowledge born of systematic, cumulative human experience and the scientific method. That is where a growing movement in AI offers a path forward. It focuses on embedding human knowledge directly into how machines learn. PINNs (Physics-Informed Neural Networks) and MINNs (Mechanistically Informed Neural Networks) are examples. The names might sound technical, but the idea is simple: AI gets better when it follows the rules, whether they are laws of physics, biological systems, or social dynamics. That means we still need humans not just to use knowledge, but to create it. AI works best when it learns from us. I see this in my own work with MINNs. Instead of letting an algorithm guess what works based on past data, we program it to follow established scientific principles. Take a local family lavender farm in Indiana. For this kind of business, blooming time is everything. Harvesting too early or late reduces essential oil potency, hurting quality and profits. An AI may waste time combing through irrelevant patterns. However, a MINN starts with plant biology. It uses equations linking heat, light, frost, and water to blooming to make timely and financially meaningful predictions. But it only works when it knows how the physical, chemical, and biological world works. That knowledge comes from science, which humans develop. Imagine applying this approach to cancer detection: breast tumors emit heat from increased blood flow and metabolism, and predictive AI could analyze thousands of thermal images to identify tumors based solely on data patterns. However, a MINN, like the one recently developed by researchers at the Rochester Institute of Technology, uses body-surface temperature data and embeds bioheat transfer laws directly into the model. That means, instead of guessing, it understands how heat moves through the body, allowing it to identify what's wrong, what's causing it, why, and precisely where it is by utilizing the physics of heat flow through tissue. In one case, a MINN predicted a tumor's location and size within a few millimeters, grounded entirely in how cancer disrupts the body's heat signature. The takeaway is simple: humans are still essential. As AI becomes sophisticated, our role is not disappearing. It is shifting. Humans need to 'call bullsh*t' when an algorithm produces something bizarre, biased, or wrong. That isn't just a weakness of AI. It is humans' greatest strength. It means our knowledge also needs to grow so we can steer the technology, keep it in check, ensure it does what we think it does, and help people in the process. The real threat isn't that AI is getting smarter. It is that we might stop using our intelligence. If we treat AI as an oracle, we risk forgetting how to question, reason, and recognize when something doesn't make sense. Fortunately, the future doesn't have to play out like this. We can build systems that are transparent, interpretable, and grounded in the accumulated human knowledge of science, ethics, and culture. Policymakers can fund research into interpretable AI. Universities can train students who blend domain knowledge with technical skills. Developers can adopt frameworks like MINNs and PINNs that require models to stay true to reality. And all of us—users, voters, citizens—can demand that AI serve science and objective truth, not just correlations. After more than a decade of teaching university-level statistics and scientific modeling, I now focus on helping students understand how algorithms work 'under the hood' by learning the systems themselves, rather than using them by rote. The goal is to raise literacy across the interconnected languages of math, science, and coding. This approach is necessary today. We don't need more users clicking 'generate' on black-box models. We need people who can understand the AI's logic, its code and math, and catch its 'bullsh*t.' AI will not make education irrelevant or replace humans. But we might replace ourselves if we forget how to think independently, and why science and deep understanding matter. The choice is not whether to reject or embrace AI. It's whether we'll stay educated and smart enough to guide it. Contact us at letters@
Yahoo
31 minutes ago
- Yahoo
How a multibillion dollar defence bank could help Canada increase its military spending
A new multilateral defence bank aims to help Canada and its allies build their militaries to meet looming threats in an increasingly hostile world while also giving Canadian industry a leg up when it comes to producing weaponry and military kit to tackle those threats head on. And its Canadian president is hoping it will have a major presence in Toronto. Announced this past spring, the new Defence, Security and Resilience Bank could solve financial problems for countries, including Canada, that are under pressure to increase military spending beyond two per cent of their gross domestic product (GDP). Some estimates peg the more likely target as five per cent of GDP as Russia and China grow increasingly belligerent on the world stage. 'We have to use our capital markets of allied nations for overwhelming force against our foes,' Kevin D. Reed, the new bank's president and chief operating officer, said in a recent interview. The theory is the bank would allow Canada and other countries to re-arm, said Reed, who has helped start nine companies including Equity Transfer & Trust. 'Hopefully that acts as a form of deterrent against big conflicts.' The United Kingdom 'has emerged as the lead candidate to take this on,' according to Reed. 'That being said, we've … advocated to our Canadian government that there's a window here for Canada to take a co-leadership role with the U.K.' Reed would like to see a branch of the bank located in Toronto. If Canada chose to be the bank's host nation, or to co-host with London, 'you're probably looking at 2,500-3,500' banking jobs in Toronto, he said. The bank would be owned by member nations, including NATO and Indo-Pacific countries. 'They would capitalize the bank, we would get a triple-A rating, and we would take it to the bond market to raise money,' Reed said. 'If we have all 40 nations in, we would expect about $60 billion of equity into the bank over time, and then subject to the bond markets we would seek to raise $100 billion at first, taking that up to about $400-500 billion over time.' For countries that don't have a triple-A credit rating, it would mean a lower cost to capital, he said. It would also allow nations in immediate need of more defence dollars to tap the bank for money, rather than waiting for annual budget cycles. 'The real driver in this is that it would provide credit guarantees to commercial banks to lend into the defence sector,' Reed said. 'Most commercial banks … unless you're a big prime (like Boeing), if you're a number two or three or four in the supply chain, you're almost unbankable, historically, because of ESG (an investing principle that prioritizes environmental and social issues, as well as corporate governance) and just a view of defence.' The Defence, Security and Resilience Bank would be similar to Export Development Canada, a Crown corporation that provides financial and risk management services to Canadian exporters and investors, 'but way bigger,' Reed said. It would offer large banks such as RBC and BMO credit guarantees 'that would loosen up capital so they could offer lines of credit, trade finance, you name it, but we can grow the industrial base a lot faster,' Reed said. That would, in turn, speed up military procurement, he said. 'It takes nine years to get a jet or seven years to get a shoulder-fired rocket launcher,' Reed said. 'It's because the industrial base just isn't big enough. It's been constrained. So, this would push liquidity into the commercial banks.' Sovereign countries could also 'enhance procurement' by borrowing from the Defence, Security and Resilience Bank on the promise that they 'have to execute within two years,' Reed said. 'We want to foster that rapid-fire procurement that we know has been a problem for all member nations.' Right now, it takes 16 years for startups to go from selling the Department of National Defence on their products to procurement, he said. 'Companies just can't live in that — they call that the Valley of Death,' Reed said. 'That is a problem. If you want to invent a new bullet … in your garage, you're going to wait a long time.' Rob Murray, NATO's inaugural head of innovation and a former U.K. army officer, started writing the blueprint for the bank about five years ago. But, at the time, interest rates were flat, Russia hadn't launched its full-scale war in Ukraine, and U.S. President Donald Trump was not in power. You do not attract first rate people with third rate infrastructure. And right now, you go to any garrison, any base, any wing across Canada and the infrastructure is crumbling When the Ukraine war began, interest rates started climbing and people started recognizing 'threat levels are changing around the world,' Reed said. Then Trump came to power in his second term and started 'forcing the hand of many NATO nations' to increase their defence spending, Reed said. Murray published his blueprint last December. 'On the back of that he was invited down to brief the president elect down at Mar-a-Lago,' Reed said, 'and Rob's world just started to expand rapidly with proposed member nations seeking him out, asking how would this work? How can we get involved?' Murray asked Reed to step in as the bank's president in early February 'to help stitch together the coalition of governments' needed to bring the idea to fruition. 'Every European nation has been briefed,' Reed said. 'And we did the briefing for Canada right after the election' with senior people in Prime Minister Mark Carney's office, the Privy Council Office, and departments including National Defence, Finance, Global Affairs and Treasury Board. Reed also briefed officials in Singapore last week and plans to do the same in Japan, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand this week. 'We're trying to drive this around a consensus of a dozen anchor nations,' he said. NATO figures from last June suggest Canada spent just 1.37 per cent of its GDP on defence in 2024. The Liberals have said they expect it to reach two per cent by 2030 'at the latest.' But that's not fast enough for Trump, who has complained repeatedly about Canada piggybacking on the U.S. for military protection. 'While I don't like what he's saying, I see this as an opportunity to get ourselves going,' Reed said. 'We have not done our job in a long time. We've not fulfilled our commitments, and this a kick in the pants to say who are we, and what do we stand for?' Later this month, Reed expects NATO countries to accept a new spending minimum of 3.5 per cent of GDP for defence and 1.5 per cent for border security. 'To go from our base today … it's another $100-110 billion a year to ramp up to that,' he said of Canada. 'And that's not in future dollars. That's in last year's dollars. So, any available mechanism that can help grow the industrial base and get them towards those NATO soon-to-be targets is going to be well received.' Founding members of the bank will start meeting in the fall to hammer out details. Reed anticipates standing up the bank next year. 'I like the idea of another mechanism, and a very powerful and large one, and I think a very influential one, that can help us do more in the defence and security domain in Western democracies,' said retired general Rick Hillier, Canada's former top soldier, who has joined the Defence, Security and Resilience Bank's board of directors. He predicts Canada is going to need 'a revolution in defence and security procurement' to solve the Canadian Forces' equipment woes. More money could accelerate the acquisition of new aircraft, warships and submarines, he said. 'The component I'm most worried about is the army,' Hillier said. 'The army is broken. We're down people. Our bases and our infrastructure are in very sad condition. And we lack every kind of capability that a force needs in the kind of areas where we would find ourselves fighting right now. If things go south in Eastern Europe and (Vladimir) Putin and Russia get into some kind of thing they can't extract themselves from and start heading into Lithuania and Latvia, where there are several thousand Canadians, our sons and daughters, we are ill-prepared to insure that they're ready to look after themselves.' The army lacks self-propelled artillery pieces, air defence systems, technology that can detect, track, and neutralize drones, and equipment to remove minefields, Hillier said. 'We need to focus a huge amount of that defence spend on the army.' Canada has also been lagging in spending to defend our north, he said. 'We've got to know what's going on in the Arctic, to be able to see what's going on specifically, to be able to communicate what's going on and then to be able to respond to what's going, whether its air, land, or depending on the time of year, sea forces. Right now, we can only do a very small part of that.' The country needs satellites and ultra-long endurance drones to cover the north, Hillier said. Bases should be built in Inuvik, Rankin Inlet, and Iqaluit, he said. 'Then you have to connect … those spots by upgrading the airfields across the north.' The military also needs billions of dollars to repair and replace old buildings, Hillier said. Canada's military has a shortfall of about 15,000 people right now, Hillier said. 'You do not attract first rate people with third rate infrastructure. And right now, you go to any garrison, any base, any wing across Canada and the infrastructure is crumbling.' At CFB Trenton, the military's hub for air transport operations in Canada and abroad, people can't even drink the water on the base 'because it's contaminated,' Hillier said. At CFB Petawawa, 'the fire hall they've been trying to replace for years floods in any kind of a rainstorm,' he said. 'As soon as it shuts down, you shut down operations in that training area, in that garrison, for the brigade, for the helicopter squadron and for the special forces training centre.' Hillier believes the Defence, Security and Resilience Bank could help alleviate all of these problems. 'There's an enormous amount of momentum because the inherent good in it is evident to most people as soon as they sit and think about what it could achieve,' he Two ways to boost Canadian defence spending and minimize Trump's tariff threats Canada's boutique military: 'Should we not be able to defend ourselves?' Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark and sign up for our daily newsletter, Posted, here.
New York Times
32 minutes ago
- New York Times
Oilers won't dwell on missed chances after close Game 2: ‘What's it going to do?'
EDMONTON – Should-haves, could-haves, an almost or two and some what-ifs. The Edmonton Oilers were so close to winning their second consecutive game at home to start the Stanley Cup Final. That would have put them in control against the Florida Panthers as the series shifts to the other side of the continent. Advertisement Instead, Panthers winger Brad Marchand scored the decisive goal on a breakaway at 8:05 of double overtime of Game 2 to hand the Oilers a 5-4 loss on Friday night and even the matchup. The goal came after Oilers defenseman Mattias Ekholm missed the net on a one-timer from the top of the circle to facilitate the clear-cut chance. It also came after Leon Draisaitl backchecked vigorously to obstruct Marchand's stick, which, despite his best efforts, might have inadvertently contributed to the puck squeaking through goalie Stuart Skinner's legs. 'It's a tough one to swallow, but it's not supposed to be easy,' veteran Oilers winger Corey Perry said. 'They played hard tonight. They got their chances, and they capitalized on that one. That's the difference.' Shots favored Edmonton 46-42 in a game that lasted nearly four and a half periods. It was evenly played, with Natural Stat Trick tracking the high-danger chances at five-on-five at 16-15 in favor the Oilers. Kasperi Kapanen had the Oilers' best chance in extra time. The Oilers would have been in a much more jovial mood if his tip of a Viktor Arvidsson pass had beaten Sergei Bobrovsky in the second overtime, 55 seconds before Marchand's winner. 'The chances missed, you can think about it, dwell on it. But what's it going to do?' Perry said. 'It's not going to do anything for you now.' Perry's goal with 17.8 seconds left in the third period put the Oilers into next-goal-wins territory. He outmuscled the Panthers' Eetu Luostarinen to get to a rebound and beat Bobrovsky to get the latest game-tying goal in Stanley Cup Final history. He also gave the Oilers a chance at their eighth third-period comeback in the playoffs, which could have matched an NHL single-year record. An eighth comeback victory would have equaled the franchise playoff marks set in 1987 and 1991. Advertisement Instead, the Oilers lost their first overtime contest this spring after claiming the first four — on three goals from Draisaitl and another from Kapanen. It was also the first time they've ever lost an extra-time game in the Cup Final. They'd previously won all four of their attempts, with Jari Kurri (1987), Petr Klima (1990), Fernando Pisani (2006) and Draisaitl (Game 1 this year) netting the pivotal goals. 'There's going to be some disappointment,' Oilers coach Kris Knoblauch said. 'But we've had the mentality, no matter what happens — bad game, close game, overtime, heartbreaking, easy, whatever it is – we put it behind us and we get ready for the next one. 'You learn in the playoffs, things don't always go your way. Sometimes it works in your favor, sometimes it doesn't.' Friday night provided a contrast to Game 1, when the Oilers overcame a two-goal deficit, tied the score in the third and got a goal from Draisaitl on a power play in the last minute of the first overtime period. 'Each game could've went either way,' Knoblauch said. 'When you win the first one, you're disappointed you don't follow up and win the second one. But we're going there with a split and that's fine with us.' They're fine with it, but they're not thrilled with it. Aside from the missed chances, there were other factors the Oilers will want to address. The power play was 1-for-6 and allowed a Panthers goal when Marchand, the overtime hero, scored on another breakaway, which gave the Panthers a 4-3 lead in the second period. They'll also have to improve when it comes to dealing with pesky Panthers forwards around their net. In Game 1, Sam Bennett fell into Skinner after some contact from defenseman Brett Kulak, and a shot hit him and went in. The Oilers challenged for goaltender interference and were unsuccessful, and the Panthers scored on the subsequent power play. Advertisement In Game 2, Bennett was in Skinner's kitchen again, toppling into him midway through the first period after a nudge from Ekholm. This time, Bennett was penalized as Skinner remained down and needed some attention from Oilers head athletic therapist T.D. Forss. Then, in the second period, longtime nemesis Matthew Tkachuk was guided into Skinner as a point shot from former Oiler Dmitry Kulikov headed toward the net. The puck beat Skinner, and the Oilers opted not to challenge. 'We know they have players that want to drive the net,' Oilers defenseman John Klingberg said. 'It comes to us trying to box out earlier. But we're trying to drive the net, too. 'They're a high-shooting volume team and, if you are that, they're bringing people to the net as well.' There are things to clean up. Things that could have been better. Factors that might have led to a better result. 'It's very close out there. It's not a lot of room and ice out there,' Klingberg said. 'But we battled back, scoring that goal got some momentum, had some good chances in overtime as well as them. It's a bounce here and there.' The Oilers easily could have improved to 14-2 in their last 16 games and taken a stranglehold on this series. Instead, they'll have to take solace in a split. 'At this time of year, you've got to move on,' Draisaitl said. 'There's no time (spent) thinking about it too long. It stings right now, but we have to move on.'
