Trump Says He'll Likely Name Temporary Fed Governor to Open Seat
'We're probably going to go with the temp and then a permanent,' Trump told reporters Wednesday at the White House. 'I think the temp is going to be named, I'd say, over the next two, three days, and then we're going to go permanent.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Entrepreneur
a minute ago
- Entrepreneur
What's Really Inside Your Supplements? This Founder Is Uncovering the Truth Behind the $180 Billion Industry
From creatine to NAD+, this company is uncovering the truth behind mislabeled, underdosed and overhyped products. Opinions expressed by Entrepreneur contributors are their own. I recently wrote about creatine and profiled Jeff Byers, co-founder of Momentous, for a reason: integrity matters. When it comes to what we put in our bodies, especially for entrepreneurs aiming to optimize energy, recovery and longevity, founders and consumers deserve transparency and truth. And yet, the supplement industry is booming with very little of either. We're in the middle of a health optimization gold rush. Creatine gummies, NAD+ capsules, sleep pills and brain-boosting stacks are everywhere. Scroll Instagram, walk into Erewhon or search Amazon, and you'll find thousands of options. The global supplement industry is growing fast and is expected to top $240 billion by 2028, yet many of these products do not contain what they claim to. You may be spending $30, $50 or $90 on a supplement and getting barely a trace of the active ingredient, or in some cases, nothing at all. Unlike pharmaceuticals, supplements don't require FDA approval before hitting the market. That creates a loophole where products can launch quickly, and claims, unless dangerously false, go largely unchecked. And it's not just obscure or small brands. Some of the top-selling supplements on Amazon are underdelivering, misleading or worse. That's where Steve Martocci and SuppCo come in. Martocci, best known for founding the music-tech platform Splice, is now on a mission to fix one of the most frustrating problems in wellness: a lack of transparency. SuppCo is a health tech startup that independently tests supplements and publishes public reports that give consumers one thing the industry often avoids: truth. CEO and Co-Founder, Martocci, struggled with his health for most of his life, reaching nearly 300 pounds despite playing three sports and training consistently. Martocci said to me, "Traditional medicine failed me. I remember being told my labs were on the 'low end of normal' and that nothing could be done. It was completely disheartening." After selling GroupMe to Skype, Martocci discovered functional medicine and began working with a doctor on a tailored supplement stack. He lost nearly 100 pounds over the next year and realized that even though supplements had become mainstream, there was no software actually to help people navigate this space. The supplement industry is a $180 billion market, yet it's filled with confusion, noise and a multitude of products that don't deliver what they promise. With SuppCo, Martocci is on a mission to transform how people discover, manage and optimize their supplement routines. Join top CEOs, founders and operators at the Level Up conference to unlock strategies for scaling your business, boosting revenue and building sustainable success. I was introduced to SuppCo's work through their recent Creatine Gummies Report. Creatine, which I personally take and have written about, is one of the most well-researched supplements for both brain and physical performance. But not all products are created equal. SuppCo tested five popular creatine gummy brands sold on Amazon. Only two passed. One contained less than 25% of the labeled amount. SuppCo recently published a report on NAD+ supplements, a trending ingredient in the longevity and cellular energy space, which tested nine products and was even more revealing. 4 passed (Double Wood, Rho Nutrition Liposomal, NatureBell and Thinbi), with Thinbi exceeding its claim at 103%. 5 failed, including Maripolio, which showed 0% of its claimed NAD+. Others tested at less than 3% of the listed amount on the label. NAD+ was the perfect follow-up to the creatine testing series because it represents everything confusing about the supplement space right now. Martocci explained that NAD+ is one of the fastest-rising compounds in longevity and biohacking, endorsed by scientists and influencers, but it's also one of the most confusing for consumers. Martocci said, "You can supplement with NAD+ itself or its precursors like NR and NMN, and most consumers don't understand the bioavailability differences between the three and that one of them is distinctly worse." When we see brands cutting corners on things we can measure, like certifications and testing transparency, they're usually cutting corners on things we can't see too, like what's actually in the bottle. As NAD+ continues to trend for its role in cellular repair and longevity, the gap between marketing and reality becomes even more concerning. Related: Why Top Entrepreneurs Are Swapping Beach Vacations for Longevity Retreats If you're a wellness founder, product integrity is not just a checkbox. It is the heartbeat of your brand. Jeff Byers' company, Momentous, invests in clinical research and testing not because it is required, but because it is what builds lasting trust. Byers told me, "That means showing the science, backing it up with testing, and being radically transparent with our consumers." The next generation of wellness brands will not win on hype. They'll win on data. Consumers are becoming smarter and more demanding, and they want to see the data. SuppCo has already rated over 700 brands and 22,000+ products, and their TrustScore has become remarkably predictive of testing. Now, quality brands are reaching out not just to request a TrustScore, but to get feedback on how to improve their quality practices. When choosing supplements, most people go wrong by treating supplements as if they were all the same. For example, they'll buy the cheapest magnesium without realizing that magnesium oxide has terrible bioavailability compared to magnesium glycinate. Or they'll choose a multivitamin based on how many vitamins are crammed into it, not whether those forms and doses actually work together. Jenna Stangland, co-founder of A4 health and Dietitian for the Minnesota Timberwolves and Minnesota Wild, explains how important it is to ensure that a supplement is tested and validated, as most likely, the dose on the label may not match what is in the bottle and even worse, it could be contaminated. Stangland personally takes NAD+ regularly to support her own energy and help her body adapt to stress and inflammation as she's on airplanes and traveling with teams multiple times per week. Having only tested the creatine and NAD+ categories, SuppCo is just getting started. The company plans to test every major supplement category where there's confusion or questionable quality. This includes protein, magnesium, pre-workouts and nootropics — anywhere consumers are making decisions based on incomplete information, their aim is to bring transparency. Related: Are Your Employees Stressed? You Need to Embrace Transparency. A big milestone they hit recently is the launch of SuppCo Pro, a premium subscription that unlocks deep personalization features. They have received strong user response to their Personal Nutrient Plan, which creates tailored supplement recommendations based on a user's specific goals, as well as their Product Optimizer, which suggests higher-quality, better-value alternatives to what a user is currently taking. This is where the real magic happens, as they can offer truly personalized guidance. I personally appreciate how easy it is to understand their public reports. On the app, you can quickly see whether a product passed or failed, and why. They even launched a browser extension that flags whether the supplement you're browsing has been independently tested. For those of us who care deeply about healthspan, recovery and long-term performance, this kind of transparency is a game-changer.
Fast Company
a minute ago
- Fast Company
Spirit's survival hinges on finding more cash
NEWS Without a cash boost, the budget airline's comeback could stall out. [Photos: David Sypher /Unsplash, Yeti Studio/Adobe Stock] BY Spirit Airlines can't seem to reach its cruising altitude. The budget airline issued a warning late Monday that if it doesn't find an infusion of cash, its business is poised to fail. Spirit expressed the dire state of its financials in its quarterly earnings report, filed late Monday. The report comes less than six months after the beleaguered airline emerged from bankruptcy with a plan to right its business and pursue profitability. 'Management has concluded there is substantial doubt as to the Company's ability to continue as a going concern within 12 months from the date these financial statements are issued,' the company wrote in the filing, citing a scenario in which the company fails to hold the liquid assets needed to meet its debt obligations and keep its credit card processor. To steer itself out of the crisis, Spirit is pursuing 'liquidity enhancing measures' that could include selling some of its aircraft or real estate and offloading some of its extra airport gate capacity. 'While it is the Company's goal to execute on these initiatives, there can be no assurance that such initiatives will be successful,' the company wrote. Spirit cut 200 jobs back in January as part of its plan to slash $80 million in costs. Last year, the company sold 23 Airbus planes – more than 10% of its fleet – to drum up emergency cash. 'As you all know, we're facing significant challenges with our business, which is why we've been focused on taking actions to optimize our organization and create more efficiencies,' Spirit CEO Ted Christie told staff in an internal memo early this year. 'The bottom line is, we need to run a smaller airline and get back on better financial footing.' Recent problems, Frontier bailout Spirit filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy late last year in light of mounting losses, a pile of debt and failed merger negotiations. The airline continued to operate during that time frame, which coincided with the busy holiday travel season. 'The most important thing to know is that you can continue to book and fly now and in the future,' the company wrote in an open letter to customers at the time. Spirit was in talks with JetBlue to combine the two airlines back in 2023, but the ill-fated merger faced stiff opposition. The Justice Department sued to block the $3.8 billion deal over antitrust concerns and ultimately a federal judge sided with the government, sounding the merger's death knell. Earlier this year, Spirit rejected a different merger offer from fellow budget carrier Frontier. Frontier revised the offer, but Spirit declined to move forward with the deal, which would have been worth around $2.16 billion. At the time, the company insisted that going it alone and pursuing its post-bankruptcy restructuring plan would benefit shareholders more than doubling up with another airline. The airline industry is in a strange transitional phase in 2025. Normal U.S. carriers are looking to rebrand themselves as 'lifestyle' airlines while credit card companies double down on luxe travel perks designed to make air travel more bearable. The industry's already wafer-thin margins are threatened by Trump's endless parade of tariffs and the economic chaos they sow. Meanwhile, a spate of U.S. aviation disasters has led to tanking trust in air travel and calls for a national overhaul of the air traffic control system that undergirds the whole industry. How – and if – budget airlines fit into the future of travel is an open question, but it's one Spirit needs to answer if it plans to survive. Unfortunately for the troubled airline, time is running out. The early-rate deadline for Fast Company's Most Innovative Companies Awards is Friday, September 5, at 11:59 p.m. PT. Apply today. ABOUT THE AUTHOR Taylor Hatmaker is a writer and photographer based on the West Coast. She was previously a Senior Editor at TechCrunch, where she specialized in social media, gaming and online culture. More
Scientific American
a minute ago
- Scientific American
Trump Order Gives Political Appointees Vast Powers over Research Grants
US President Donald Trump issued an expansive executive order (EO) yesterday that would centralize power and upend the process that the US government has used for decades to award research grants. If implemented, political appointees — not career civil servants, including scientists — would have control over grants, from initial funding calls to final review. This is the Trump administration's latest move to assert control over US science. The EO, titled 'Improving Oversight of Federal Grantmaking', orders each US agency head to designate an appointee to develop a grant-review process that will 'advance the President's policy priorities'. Those processes must not fund grants that advance 'anti-American values' and instead prioritize funding for institutions committed to achieving Trump's plan for 'gold-standard science'. (That plan, issued in May, calls for the US government to promote 'transparent, rigorous, and impactful' science, but has been criticized for its potential to increase political interference in research.) Impacts might be felt immediately: the latest order directs US agencies, such as the National Institutes of Health (NIH), to halt new funding opportunities, which are calls for researchers to submit applications for grants on certain topics. They will be paused until agencies put their new review processes in place. On supporting science journalism If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today. Trump's EO comes after the US Senate — which, along with the House, ultimately controls US government spending — has, in recent weeks, mostly rejected his proposals to slash the federal budget for science, totalling nearly US$200 billion annually. The White House did not respond to questions from Nature about the EO. Negative reaction Trump, a Republican, has previously used EOs, which can direct government agencies but cannot alter existing laws, to effect policy change. In January, on his first day in office, he signed a slew of EOs with wide-ranging effects, from pulling the United States out of the Paris climate agreement to cutting the federal workforce, which had included nearly 300,000 scientists before he took office. Scientists and policy specialists have lambasted the latest EO on social media. 'This is a shocking executive order that undermines the very idea of open inquiry,' Casey Dreier, director of space policy for the Planetary Society, an advocacy group in Pasadena, California, posted to Bluesky. Also on Bluesky, Jeremy Berg, a former director of the NIH's National Institute of General Medical Sciences, called it a 'power grab'. Speaking to Nature, he said: 'That power is something that has not been exercised at all in the past by political appointees.' In a statement, Zoe Lofgren, a Democratic member of the US House of Representatives from California, called the EO 'obscene'. It could lead to political appointees 'standing between you and a cutting-edge cancer-curing clinical trial', she said. The EO justifies the changes to the grant-awarding process by casting doubts on past choices: it accuses the US National Science Foundation (NSF) of awarding grants to educators with anti-American ideologies and to projects on diversity, equity and inclusion, which are disfavoured by the Trump team. It also points to senior researchers at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and Stanford University in California who have resigned over accusations of data falsification. To 'strengthen oversight' of grants, the EO imposes several restrictions, including prohibiting grants that promote 'illegal immigration' and prohibiting grant recipients from promoting 'racial preferences' in their work or denying that sex is binary. In some cases, the restrictions seem to contradict Congressional mandates. For instance, the NSF has, for decades, been required by law to broaden participation in science of people from under-represented groups — an action that takes race into consideration. In addition to these broader restrictions, the EO directs grant approvals to prioritize certain research institutions, such as those that have 'demonstrated success' in implementing the gold-standard science plan and those with lower 'indirect costs'. As part of its campaign to downsize government spending and reduce the power of elite US universities, the Trump administration has repeatedly tried to cap these costs — used to pay for laboratory electricity and administrative staff, for instance. It has proposed a flat 15% rate for grants awarded by agencies such as the NSF and the US Department of Energy, but federal courts have so far blocked such policies. Some institutions with the highest indirect-cost rates are children's hospitals, Berg told Nature. 'Does that mean they're just not going to prioritize research at children's hospitals?' he asks. Out for review At the heart of the grant-awarding process is peer review. Project proposals have typically had to pass watchful panels of independent scientists who scored and approved funding. 'Nothing in this order shall be construed to discourage or prevent the use of peer review methods,' the EO notes, 'provided that peer review recommendations remain advisory' to the senior appointees. The EO worries many researchers, including Doug Natelson, a physicist at Rice University in Houston, Texas. 'This looks like an explicit attempt to destroy peer review for federal science grants,' he says. Programme officers at agencies, who have been stewards of the grant-review process, are similarly alarmed. 'The executive order is diminishing the role of programme officers and their autonomy to make judgments about the quality of the science,' says an NSF employee who requested anonymity because they are not authorized to speak with the press. 'That's disheartening, to say the least.'
