Retail sales rise 1.4% in March as shoppers stock up on big ticket items ahead of tariffs
Get Starting Point
A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday.
Enter Email
Sign Up
HIGHER EDUCATION
Advertisement
UMass Chan Medical School lays off or furloughs about 200 employees after NIH funding shortfall
Advertisement
UMass Chan Medical School has laid off or furloughed an estimated 200 employees, a spokesperson said Wednesday.
UMass Chan Medical School
UMass Chan Medical School has laid off or furloughed an estimated 200 employees, a spokesperson confirmed Wednesday. The cuts come after the school saw a $30 million funding shortfall from long delays in funding new research grants from the National Institutes of Health after President Trump took office in January, said Sarah Willey, the UMass Chan spokesperson. UMass Chan received $193 million from the NIH last year, Willey said, and is preparing for uncertain federal funding in the coming year. Under the Trump administration's proposed caps on indirect NIH funding, the school projects a $50 million loss in funding. The school has also paused faculty recruitment and significantly reduced the incoming class size of the Morningside Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences. All hiring and discretionary spending has also been paused, the spokesperson said. During a Tuesday visit to the school, which employs 6,000 people and contributes more than $2 billion annually to the economy, Governor Maura Healey highlighted the dangers of lost and unstable funding on the state's only public medical school. 'The funding cuts are very extensive, including supporting critical work in gene therapy, rare disease research, HIV research, digital medicine, neuroscience, and more,' Healey said. 'UMass Chan has held groundbreaking clinical trials of new genetic therapies for devastating conditions like ALS and so many other diseases. 'But this kind of progress is now at risk, and with that, hope is being stripped away from patients and families.' — MAREN HALPIN
ACQUISITIONS
Lyft to buy Freenow app for $197 million in global expansion
Lyft signage on a vehicle in New York.
Shelby Knowles/Bloomberg
Lyft Inc. agreed to buy the European taxi-hailing app Freenow for about $197 million, marking its first global expansion beyond the United States and Canada. Lyft will acquire the app from BMW Group and Mercedes-Benz Mobility in a cash transaction expected to close in the second half of 2025, according to a statement Wednesday. Freenow will continue operating in nine countries and more than 150 cities across Ireland, the UK, Germany, Greece, Spain, Italy, Poland, France, and Austria, Lyft said, but added that the two companies will be working on integration so riders can use either app 'seamlessly' across the Atlantic. Bloomberg reported last month that BMW and Mercedes were considering selling Freenow. While well known in the United States and Canada, Lyft currently doesn't operate outside of North America. In contrast, Lyft's much-larger ride-hailing rival, Uber Technologies Inc., operates in more than 70 countries globally. — BLOOMBERG NEWS
Advertisement
TECH
On the stand, Zuckerberg says TikTok is a major competitive threat
Mark Zuckerberg, the chief executive of Meta, left the federal courthouse in Washington on Wednesday.
TOM BRENNER/NYT
Mark Zuckerberg, the chief executive of Meta, took the witness stand in a landmark antitrust trial for a third day, saying on Wednesday that the video app TikTok has emerged as a serious competitor in social networking. In a friendly exchange led by lawyers for Meta, Zuckerberg said that the fast growth of the Chinese-owned app was 'probably the highest competitive threat for Instagram and Facebook over the last few years.' Zuckerberg's lawyers were trying to poke holes in the case, Federal Trade Commission v. Meta Platforms, which went to trial on Monday. The FTC has accused the social media company, which was previously known as Facebook, of acquiring Instagram and WhatsApp when they were tiny startups in a 'buy-or-bury strategy' to snuff out competition. Meta's core function is connecting friends and family, making Snapchat its only serious social media competitor, the FTC has said. Zuckerberg countered during his more than seven hours of testimony so far this week that Meta faces significant competition in the world of social networking, including from TikTok and Apple's iMessage. On Wednesday, he said Meta's addition of a short-video feature known as Reels to Instagram and Facebook was in large part a response to TikTok's rise. Users continue to engage more on TikTok than with his apps, he said. 'TikTok is still bigger than either Facebook or Instagram, and I don't like it when our competitors do better than us,' Zuckerberg said. — NEW YORK TIMES
Advertisement
FINANCE
Court scraps $8 credit card late fee limit, at Consumer Bureau's request
A shopper paid with a credit card at a farmer's market in San Francisco.
David Paul Morris/Bloomberg
A government-imposed $8 limit on most credit card late fees is the latest consumer protection regulation to be scrapped by President Trump's administration. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau adopted the fee cap last year, estimating that it would save households $10 billion a year. A coalition of banking and business trade groups immediately sued to block the rule, arguing that the bureau had exceeded its statutory authority, and won an injunction that prevented it from taking effect. On Tuesday, a federal judge in Texas vacated the fee limit at the joint request of the banks and the consumer bureau. Now under the leadership of Russell T. Vought, the White House budget office leader who is also serving as the bureau's acting director, the consumer bureau reversed its stance and said in court filings that it agreed with the banks that the fee limit illegally stretched beyond the agency's bounds. Banks and lenders, whose late fees typically average around $32, celebrated their victory. 'If the CFPB's rule had gone into effect, it would have resulted in more late payments, lower credit scores, higher interest rates and reduced credit access for those who need it most,' the lawsuit's plaintiffs said in a joint statement. The group included the American Bankers Association, the Consumer Bankers Association, and the United States Chamber of Commerce, along with three Texas business associations. Consumer advocates took the opposite stance. 'This decision will allow big banks to exploit consumers to the tune of $10 billion annually by charging inflated late fees that far exceed what late payments cost them to collect,' said Chi Chi Wu, a senior lawyer with the National Consumer Law Center. — NEW YORK TIMES
Advertisement
MEDIA
Don't like a columnist's opinion? Los Angeles Times offers an AI-generated opposing viewpoint.
The Los Angeles Times newspaper logo is seen at its headquarters in El Segundo, Calif.
Damian Dovarganes/Associated Press
In a colorful commentary for the Los Angeles Times, Matt K. Lewis argued that callousness is a central feature of the second Trump administration, particularly its policies of deportation and bureaucratic cutbacks. 'Once you normalize cruelty,' Lewis concluded in the piece, 'the hammer eventually swings for everyone. Even the ones who thought they were swinging it.' Lewis's word wasn't the last, however. As they have with opinion pieces the past several weeks, Times online readers had the option to click on a button labeled 'Insights,' which judged the column politically as 'center-left.' Then it offers an AI-generated synopsis — a CliffsNotes version of the column — and a similarly-produced opposing viewpoint. One dissenting argument reads: 'Restricting birthright citizenship and refugee admissions is framed as correcting alleged exploitation of immigration loopholes, with proponents arguing these steps protect American workers and resources.' The feature symbolizes changes to opinion coverage ordered over the past six months by Times owner Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong, who has said he wants the famously liberal opinion pages to reflect different points of view. Critics accuse him of trying to curry favor with President Trump. — ASSOCIATED PRESS
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Trump's palace coup leaves NASA in limbo
When President-elect Donald Trump nominated Jared Isaacman to become NASA administrator, it seemed like a brilliant choice. Business entrepreneur, private astronaut, Isaacman was just the man to revamp NASA and make it into a catalyst for taking humanity to the moon, Mars and beyond. Isaacman sailed through the confirmation process in the Senate Commerce Committee, chaired by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), by a vote of 19 to 9. He was poised to be confirmed by the full Senate when something so bizarre happened that it beggars the imagination. The White House suddenly and with no clear reason why, pulled Isaacman's nomination. After months of a confirmation process, NASA was back to square one for getting a new leader. Ars Technica's Eric Berger offered an explanation as to why. 'One mark against Isaacman is that he had recently donated money to Democrats,' he wrote. 'He also indicated opposition to some of the White House's proposed cuts to NASA's science budget.' But these facts were well known even before Trump nominated Isaacman. Trump himself, before he ran for president as a Republican, donated to Democrats and was close friends with Bill and Hillary Clinton. Berger goes on to say that a source told the publication that, 'with Musk's exit, his opponents within the administration sought to punish him by killing Isaacman's nomination.' The idea that Isaacman's nomination is being deep-sixed because of Musk runs contrary to the public praise that the president has given the billionaire rocket and electric car entrepreneur. Trump was uncharacteristically terse in his own social media post. 'After a thorough review of prior associations, I am hereby withdrawing the nomination of Jared Isaacman to head NASA,' he wrote. 'I will soon announce a new nominee who will be mission aligned, and put America First in Space. Thank you for your attention to this matter!' CNN reports that Isaacman's ouster was the result of a palace coup, noting that a source said, 'Musk's exit left room for a faction of people in Trump's inner circle, particularly Sergio Gor, the longtime Trump supporter and director of the White House Presidential Personnel Office, to advocate for installing a different nominee.' The motive seems to be discontent about the outsized influence that Musk has had on the White House and a desire to take him down a peg or two. Isaacman was profoundly gracious, stating in part, 'I am incredibly grateful to President Trump @POTUS, the Senate and all those who supported me throughout this journey. The past six months have been enlightening and, honestly, a bit thrilling. I have gained a much deeper appreciation for the complexities of government and the weight our political leaders carry.' The idea that a man like Isaacman, well respected by the aerospace community, who was predicted to sail through a confirmation vote in the full Senate, could be taken down by an obscure bureaucrat in White House intrigue, motivated by petty spite, is mind boggling. Even Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), who has not been fond of Trump's space policy, was appalled. He posted on his X account that Isaacman 'ran into the kind of politics that is damaging our country.' 'Republicans and Democrats supported him as the right guy at the right time for the top job at NASA, but it wasn't enough.' NASA is in for months more of turmoil and uncertainty as the nomination process gets reset and starts grinding its way through the Senate. The draconian, truncated budget proposal is certainly not helpful, either. Congress, which had been supportive of Trump's space policy, is not likely to be pleased by the president's high-handed shivving of his own nominee. Whoever Trump chooses to replace Isaacman as NASA administrator nominee, no matter how qualified, should face some very direct questioning. Trump's NASA budget proposal should be dead on arrival, which, considering the cuts in science and technology, is not necessarily a bad thing. China must be looking at the spectacle of NASA being mired in political wrangling, a leadership vacuum and budget uncertainty with glee. Beijing has its own space ambitions, with a planned crewed lunar landing by 2030. It's possible that the Chinese will steal a march on NASA, with all the damage that will do to America's standing in the world. It didn't have to be this way. Isaacman could be settling in as NASA administrator, deploying his business acumen and vision to lead the space agency to its greatest achievements. Instead, America's space effort has received a self-inflicted blow from which it will be long in recovering, Mark R. Whittington, who writes frequently about space policy, has published a political study of space exploration entitled 'Why is It So Hard to Go Back to the Moon?' as well as 'The Moon, Mars and Beyond,' and, most recently, 'Why is America Going Back to the Moon?' He blogs at Curmudgeons Corner.
San Francisco Chronicle
4 hours ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Letters: He overdosed after being turned away by S.F. drug treatment center. Mother seeks answers
Jonathan Martin, my son, overdosed after he was turned away from HealthRight360's detox facility on Aug. 27, 2024. Jonathan was desperately ill and seeking help. He died alone early the next morning. Jonathan's death was the subject of a Chronicle story ('He overdosed waiting for help. Why did S.F.'s largest drug treatment center provider turn him away?' San Francisco, Feb. 27). When the story was published, I sent a letter to Mayor Daniel Lurie, District Attorney Brooke Jenkins, the chiefs of the Department of Public Health and relevant agencies, HealthRight360 CEO Vitka Eisen and every member of the Board of Supervisors, hoping to find out why my son was turned away. I wanted to understand what prevented him from receiving the services he so urgently needed. I have still not received a single response, explanation or even a note of condolence from any of these officials. If the people who oversee drug treatment in the city will not answer a grieving mother, who will give my family answers? Citizens of San Francisco: You voted these people into office. Is this how you want your loved one to be treated while trying to seek help? The silence from those in power is deafening. Our family demands answers. Carolyn Stueve-Martin, Tulsa, Okla. Don't hide Pride I empathize with her desire for concealment, misdirection or camouflage during a time of danger. My wife is trans, and this is a scary time for us. But I am afraid that Judd is missing the purpose of Pride entirely. Pride is not about shame. It's not about showing off our most socially acceptable community members in the hopes that bigots will leave the rest alone. It is the bigots who should be ashamed. A Pride celebration that is ashamed of its trans and genderqueer members — who are, as Judd wrote, just people trying to live their lives openly and freely — is no Pride at all. Amanda Seyfer, Oakland Big Brother rising Technology has always been a double-edged sword. Fire can provide warmth and light, but it can also be used to burn down an enemy village. IBM's punch cards helped make Social Security possible, but also enabled Hitler's destruction of European Jewry. Today, a shadowy Bay Area company called Palantir is coalescing federal government information on Americans into a database that would allow it to target anyone who dissents from its autocratic policies or has characteristics that it does not favor. We need our representatives (or the courts) to block this monstrous machine before it rolls over us and makes this country a new Reich just like the old Reich.
The Hill
4 hours ago
- The Hill
Endangered species deserve a home, too
The elusive Northern Spotted Owl. The majestic Whooping Crane. Charismatic Florida panthers and beloved Monarch butterflies. These and many other endangered species now face even graver threats in the wake of two recent developments in the world of conservation. On Apr. 7, the billion-dollar biotech firm Colossal announced the 'de-extinction' of the dire wolf, a canine species that vanished in the Late Pleistocene (approximately 13,000 years ago). And on Apr. 17, the Trump administration revealed its intention to weaken decades-old endangered species protections by redefining a key word: harm. This narrower definition effectively rescinds protection of an endangered species' habitat, limiting harm to actions that 'directly' harass, injure or kill organisms. What these two developments have in common is a disregard for the vital connection that exists between species and the places they call home. Habitat refers to the place where an organism naturally or normally lives. Removal of habitat protection opens the door to logging, development and extraction of oil and minerals. The proposed definition of harm could convert fragile wetlands into farmland, migration corridors into freeways and nesting sites into beachfront property — and none of this would qualify as harm to the creatures who live there. A habitat includes the specific resources and conditions that a given species needs to survive — the plants or animals it feeds on, and particular features of topography, soil, climate and water. Some species are especially vulnerable to extinction because they require a very rare or specific type of habitat. Others are at risk because they range across several. Many butterfly species, for example, are reliant on a single host plant for every stage of their life cycle — mating, laying eggs and feeding their young. Even plants closely related to the host plant cannot replace these vital functions, however indistinguishable they may appear to the human eye. Migratory creatures, meanwhile, depend upon many habitats in far-flung geographic locations. A recent study found that approximately half of all migratory species are in decline. Annually, billions of migratory birds crisscross state and national boundaries, with varying degrees of legal protections for the places where they nest, feed or rest. Further erosion of habitat protection could be the death knell for these and other vulnerable species. Were species not so intimately tied to their environments, it might make sense to regard lab-created or genetically engineered organisms, like the recently unveiled dire wolves, as suitable replacements for endangered or extinct species. Conservation would be akin to curating museum or zoo specimens, with living representatives of endangered species, or mere samples of their genetic material, maintained in artificial environments. Disregard for the importance of habitat is evident in the fanfare over Colossal's so-called dire wolves — more accurately, grey wolves with dire wolf DNA spliced into their genome. Consider that in their original Pleistocene environments, true dire wolves preyed upon large herbivorous megafauna that are now extinct: sloths, mastodons, giant bison and camels. By contrast, Remus, Romulus and Khaleesi, the telegenic trio of fluffy white wolves created by Colossal, will live their entire lives in a highly secured, undisclosed site, subsisting on a hand-fed diet of ground meats and kibble. In short, the same flawed logic lies behind the dire wolf 'de-extinction' and the Trump proposal to redefine harm: Both treat species as if they live in a vacuum. Doug Burgum, the Trump-appointed secretary of the Interior, exemplified this sort of thinking when he took to social media to hail de-extinction as the 'bedrock' of future conservation, arguing simultaneously for re-think of endangered species protections: 'It has been innovation—not regulation—that has spawned American greatness,' he said. Citing Colossal's breakthrough, Burgum questioned the need for an endangered species list. Ten days later, the administration moved to weaken endangered species regulation by excluding habitat from the definition of harm. Yet, habitat loss remains the primary culprit of species endangerment and extinction. While these losses can occur naturally through periodic events like fires or earthquakes, the vast majority of habitat degradation, fragmentation and loss stems from human activity: land development, deforestation, large-scale agriculture, air and water pollution, and human-caused climate change, among other factors. Even amid intensified political polarization, endangered species protection is wildly popular, with 84 percent of Americans supporting the Endangered Species Act. In the past month, some 350,000 members of the public weighed in to protest changes to the act. Many offered the commonsense argument that destroying the home of any living being, human or nonhuman, clearly constitutes harm, as surely as a gun pointed to the head. Innovation in conservation science, including cutting-edge genetic techniques aimed at saving species on the brink of extinction, is welcome and should be encouraged. But innovation is no substitute for regulation, any more than a laboratory or zoo is a substitute for the places where animals naturally live. Endangered species face a barrage of threats from human activities. We owe them a place to call home. Lisa H. Sideris is a Public Voices fellow of The OpEd Project and the University of California. Santa Barbara, where she is professor and vice-chair of the Environmental Studies Program.
