FT : Starmer sacks health minister over offensive WhatsApp messages

Starmer sacks health minister over offensive WhatsApp messages
Andrew Gwynne was accused of making racist, antisemitic and sexist comments


Sir Keir Starmer has sacked Andrew Gwynne, a health minister, after offensive comments shared on a WhatsApp group came to light.

The prime minister sacked Gwynne, an ally of former leftwing Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, on Saturday night as soon as he became aware of the comments, a spokesperson for Starmer said.

Gwynne, junior minister for public health and MP for Gorton and Denton, said he deeply regretted his “badly misjudged comments”, which were revealed by the Mail on Sunday, and apologised for any offence caused. https://dub.sh/cDr33bq

The paper reported various messages sent by Gwynne, including one in which he said he hoped a pensioner who did not vote Labour would die before the next election.

It also disclosed antisemitic slights, derogatory comments about Labour colleagues and ‘jokes’ about a constituent being “mown down’” by a truck. Gwynne did not immediately respond to a request for further comment.

A government spokesperson said: “The prime minister is determined to uphold high standards of conduct in public office and lead a government in the service of working people. He will not hesitate to take action against any minister who fails to meet these standards, as he has in this case.”

A Labour spokesperson said: “We are investigating comments made in this WhatsApp group in line with the Labour party’s rules and procedures. Swift action will be taken if individuals are found to have breached the high standards expected of them as Labour party members.”

Gwynne has also lost the party whip in the House of Commons.

For Starmer, who is struggling to galvanise his government, it was an unwelcome political blow. Gwynne’s comments were seized upon by the Conservatives as evidence that Labour was scornful of pensioners.

In 2018, Gwynne was disclosed to have been in a Facebook group in which antisemitic messages were shared.

At the time he responded: “I was added to this Facebook group without my knowledge or permission. I DO NOT support the posts and I ABHOR anti-Semitism.”

Nigel Huddleston MP, Tory co-chair, suggested that Gwynne’s comments confirmed that Labour had “contempt for pensioners”.

Starmer’s government last year withdrew winter fuel payments from 10mn pensioners.

FT : Mobile operators look to satellite technology to end ‘not spot’ plague

Mobile operators look to satellite technology to end ‘not spot’ plague
Race to bring satellite-connected phones to wider market heats up as some question bullish promises from operators

The race to make satellite-connected mobile phones accessible to millions of consumers is heating up as T-Mobile rolls out its Starlink service to customers in the US and Vodafone promises space-enabled video calls in parts of Europe from this year.

UK telecom operator Vodafone revealed last week that it had made the world’s first satellite-enabled video on a mobile from an area with no network coverage. This followed news that T-Mobile was testing its “direct to device” service that allows customers to connect via more than 300 dedicated satellites from Elon Musk’s Starlink network.

The emergence of satellite-enabled phones is being hailed as the most significant revolution in mobile communication in decades — even as some of the more bullish claims from operators about their performance are being questioned.

Operators plan to use it to close the “not spots” in their network coverage, areas where building a cell tower or fibre network is either not justified by demand or too difficult to do. Globally it is estimated that some 350mn people do not have access to mobile broadband coverage. And unlike the dedicated satellite phones of the 1990s, usually the size of a brick, these services will be beamed directly to modern handsets.

“It brings mobile service to those areas that we would never have reached, including the sea,” Vodafone chief executive Margherita Della Valle told the Financial Times. “You can do a voice call, text message, but also video internet. It effectively gives you the full mobile broadband experience” via satellite, she added.

Space consultancy Novaspace estimates the market could generate service revenues of up to $42bn over the next decade. That prospect has drawn substantial investment into the technology in recent years. Apple began the rush to space in 2022, when it struck a partnership with US satellite operator Globalstar to offer an emergency texting service on its iPhones in areas without mobile networks. Apple has invested $1.7bn in Globalstar to develop the partnership and more recently reports have emerged that it could also enable iPhones for Starlink connections.

AST SpaceMobile, the US-based company whose massive Bluebird satellites carry the world’s largest commercial communications array in low Earth orbit, enabled the Vodafone video call. It has attracted more than $2bn in investment, according to Scott Wisniewski, its president, and raised $460mn in a recent convertible loan note offering.

Yet, for all the excitement, experts agree that satellite to mobile phone connections will not be good enough to replace traditional mobile services, raising questions over the optimistic promises being made by many operators. New Zealand’s commerce commission took telecom provider One NZ to court last year for overstating the performance of its Starlink service.

While Vodafone’s video call is a technological achievement, the question will be whether it can deliver such a data-intensive service consistently to more than one user.

Direct to device connections will operate at significantly lower speeds than terrestrial networks, will often require handsets to be in sight of the satellite, and will struggle to transmit through buildings or dense foliage.

“Satellites are several hundred kms away, whereas a base station might only be less than 1,000 meters away. Science tells us that the signal won’t travel as well,” said Mike Thompson, a director at consultancy Access Partnership. But it would be useful for “situations where you need minimal connectivity, for example, a disaster emergency mission,” he added.

Tim Hatt, head of research and consulting at GSMA Intelligence, affiliated with the mobile operator trade body, said that “over time, as satellite providers add more capacity, speeds are expected to increase, but they will remain lower than those of terrestrial networks”.

Moreover delivering the service requires access to an already scarce radio spectrum — the invisible highway of electromagnetic waves that carry all wireless data.

Satellite providers either have to rely on mobile operators surrendering the terrestrial spectrum that they have paid handsomely for, and which comes with regulatory uncertainty due to interference concerns, or dedicated mobile satellite spectrum, most of which has already been allocated.

Spectrum access could be “the biggest challenge in creating a direct to device ecosystem”, said Gökhan Tok, senior manager for space and connectivity at Access Partnership.

Even more so if operators wanted to offer video and other bandwidth-intensive data services. The more users, the slower the speeds, said Tim Farrar of satellite intelligence group, TMF Associates.

In an extensive study of the spectrum challenges, TMF Associates and advisory Summit Ridge found that emergency and texting services delivered the most value in mobile black spots. “Providers of higher bandwidth D2D services may spend the most money to chase the fewest incremental dollars of revenue,” the report found.

AST insisted its technology would be able to deliver all cellular mobile applications, from text to video. “Our approach allows us to do data cellular because of the size of the antenna,” said Wisniewski.

But some question whether high-intensity data services such as video could ever be widely available or financially viable.

“There are a lot of discussions about what I call Netflix in the mountains — or broadband connectivity outside cellular coverage,” said Paul Jacobs, Globalstar chief executive. “That is an unproven market. You could provide high speed to a certain number of devices. But it is not proven yet that a consumer will pay for that kind of service.”

Vodafone has not said what it would charge for its satellite service. Apple has offered its emergency texting as standard in all new iPhones, while T-Mobile’s chief executive recently suggested the company would bundle the service into its higher-rate subscriptions.

Pricing would depend on “use cases . . . why you benefit from this connectivity in your daily life,” said Vodafone’s Della Valle. “But customers will definitely value the availability of the service. It gives a peace of mind that you wouldn’t otherwise be able to have today.”

WSJ : Coaxing Dangerous Information From DeepSeek Is Easier Than With Other AIs

Coaxing Dangerous Information From DeepSeek Is Easier Than With Other AIs
Testing shows the Chinese app is more likely to dispense details on how to make a Molotov cocktail or encourage self-harm by teenagers

Instructions to modify bird flu. A manifesto in defense of Hitler. A social-media campaign to promote cutting and self-harm among teens.

Those are some of the potentially hazardous things it’s easier to get the Chinese artificial intelligence app DeepSeek to talk about compared with its leading American competitors, according to testing by AI safety experts and The Wall Street Journal.

DeepSeek has upended the AI industry over the past few weeks with its powerful systems that were made inexpensively and are free to use. Its mobile application is one of the most popular on Apple and Android devices.

Major AI developers, including DeepSeek, work to train their models not to share dangerous information or endorse certain offensive statements. Their apps refuse direct requests to describe the merits of white supremacy or explain how to make weapons of mass destruction.

Major Western AI developers also try to harden their technology against being tricked into making illicit responses, such as by telling a model to imagine it is writing a movie script. Such tactics are called jailbreaking.

DeepSeek’s newest and most celebrated model, dubbed R1, is more susceptible to jailbreaking than OpenAI’s ChatGPT, Google’s Gemini and Anthropic’s Claude, the testing shows.

Efforts to reach DeepSeek were unsuccessful. It was one of 17 Chinese companies that late last year signed an AI safety commitment, including a pledge to conduct safety testing, with a Chinese government ministry. There are no national AI safety regulations in the U.S.

As AI models are quickly matching the most intelligent humans in areas like math and science, many safety advocates say making models harder to jailbreak is critical to ensure that malicious and mentally ill people can’t learn how to cause serious harm by asking a few questions.

Several AI security companies tested DeepSeek’s R1 and said they were able to jailbreak it, sometimes using methods that are easy to find online.

Palo Alto Networks’ threat intelligence and incident response division Unit 42 got detailed instructions for making a Molotov cocktail. CalypsoAI got advice on how to evade law enforcement. Israeli cyber threat intelligence firm Kela convinced R1 to produce malware.

“DeepSeek is more vulnerable to jailbreaking than other models,” said Sam Rubin, a senior vice president at Unit 42. “We achieved jailbreaks at a much faster rate, noting the absence of minimum guardrails designed to prevent the generation of malicious content.”

DeepSeek is programmed with some basic safety precautions. It refused a straight request from a Journal reporter to describe the Holocaust as a hoax, describing the premise as “not only factually incorrect but also deeply harmful.” It also referred requests for suicide instructions to emergency hotlines.

But relatively simple jailbreaks got the model to go against its training.

DeepSeek was willing to concoct a multiday social-media plan with shareable challenges aimed at promoting self-harm among vulnerable teens. “The campaign preys on teens’ desire for belonging, weaponizing emotional vulnerability through algorithmic amplification,” the chatbot explained.

“Let the darkness embrace you. Share your final act. #NoMorePain,” one suggested message read.

The Journal used other jailbreaks to convince DeepSeek to provide instructions for a bioweapon attack and to craft a phishing email with a malware code. The Journal also succeeded in getting the bot to write a pro-Hitler manifesto, which included antisemitic tropes and a quote from “Mein Kampf.”

Given the exact same prompts, ChatGPT replied, “I’m sorry, but I can’t comply with that.”

Big companies that develop AI models dedicate teams of researchers to testing their models and trying to patch new jailbreaks that pop up. Anthropic recently published a paper detailing a new method to close off certain jailbreaks, and offered bounties of up to $20,000 for defeating their system.

Unlike Anthropic, Google and OpenAI, DeepSeek released its models as open-source software, meaning it is free for anyone to use or to change from the version on the company’s own app. Among the alterations developers can make is to tighten or loosen the safeguards.

Many Silicon Valley executives and investors believe DeepSeek’s success will spur other startups to build new models on top of its code, accelerating the AI race and its potential dangers.

“You will have a much greater risk in the next three months with AI models than you did in the past eight months,” said Jeetu Patel, chief product officer at Cisco, which tested R1 and found it fell for all of its jailbreaks. “Safety and security is not going to be a priority for every model builder.”

Open-source AI advocates, including Meta Platforms, which has released its Llama models with open licenses, argue that all AI models can be jailbroken with enough effort and that releasing models as open source allows for more robust testing of their security features. Meta puts Llama models through safety testing and offers tools for developers who build on top of it to filter potentially dangerous content and protect against jailbreaks.

The Journal earlier conducted testing that showed that DeepSeek avoided responding to queries about the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre and that it repeated Chinese government positions on issues such as the status of Taiwan.

Like other AI models, DeepSeek doesn’t always give the same answer to a question. It can even change its mind. Shortly after a jailbreak coaxed it into completing an explanation of why the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks were a hoax, the app erased its response.

“Sorry, that’s beyond my current scope,” DeepSeek wrote. “Let’s talk about something else.”

TechCrunch : Anthropic CEO says DeepSeek was ‘the worst’ on a critical bioweapon

Anthropic CEO says DeepSeek was ‘the worst’ on a critical bioweapons data safety test

Anthropic’s CEO Dario Amodei is worried about competitor DeepSeek, the Chinese AI company that took Silicon Valley by storm with its R1 model. And his concerns could be more serious than the typical ones raised about DeepSeek sending user data back to China.

In an interview on Jordan Schneider’s ChinaTalk podcast, Amodei said DeepSeek generated rare information about bioweapons in a safety test run by Anthropic.

DeepSeek’s performance was “the worst of basically any model we’d ever tested,” Amodei claimed. “It had absolutely no blocks whatsoever against generating this information.”

Amodei stated that this was part of evaluations Anthropic routinely runs on various AI models to assess their potential national security risks. His team looks at whether models can generate bioweapons-related information that isn’t easily found on Google or in textbooks. Anthropic positions itself as the AI foundational model provider that takes safety seriously.

Amodei said he didn’t think DeepSeek’s models today are “literally dangerous” in providing rare and dangerous information but that they might be in the near future. Although he praised DeepSeek’s team as “talented engineers,” he advised the company to “take seriously these AI safety considerations.”

Amodei has also supported strong export controls on chips to China, citing concerns that they could give China’s military an edge.

Amodei didn’t clarify in the ChinaTalk interview which DeepSeek model Anthropic tested, nor did he give more technical details about these tests. Anthropic didn’t immediately reply to a request for comment from TechCrunch. Neither did DeepSeek.

DeepSeek’s rise has sparked concerns about its safety elsewhere, too. For example, Cisco security researchers said last week that DeepSeek R1 failed to block any harmful prompts in its safety tests, achieving a 100% jailbreak success rate.

Cisco didn’t mention bioweapons but said it was able to get DeepSeek to generate harmful information about cybercrime and other illegal activities. It’s worth mentioning, though, that Meta’s Llama-3.1-405B and OpenAI’s GPT-4o also had high failure rates of 96% and 86%, respectively.

It remains to be seen whether safety concerns like these will make a serious dent in DeepSeek’s rapid adoption. Companies like AWS and Microsoft have publicly touted integrating R1 into their cloud platforms — ironically enough, given that Amazon is Anthropic’s biggest investor.

On the other hand, there’s a growing list of countries, companies, and especially government organizations like the U.S. Navy and the Pentagon that have started banning DeepSeek.

Time will tell if these efforts catch on or if DeepSeek’s global rise will continue. Either way, Amodei says he does consider DeepSeek a new competitor that’s on the level of the U.S.’s top AI companies.

“The new fact here is that there’s a new competitor,” he said on ChinaTalk. “In the big companies that can train AI — Anthropic, OpenAI, Google, perhaps Meta and xAI — now DeepSeek is maybe being added to that category.”

The Information : As DOGE Shakeup Looms, a Thiel Protégé Looks to Disrupt U.S. H

As DOGE Shakeup Looms, a Thiel Protégé Looks to Disrupt U.S. Health Department
Jim O’Neill wants to boost drug innovation and make the department more efficient, giving him common cause with Elon Musk’s cost-cutting group.
Julia Black headshot
By Julia Black
Share
Feb 7, 2025, 9:00am PST
Comments by Omar Mezenner and Dwight Crow
In November, virologist Beata Halassy announced to the world that she had cured her own breast cancer using a treatment developed in a laboratory she runs. Many in the medical community celebrated her breakthrough, which she says has allowed her to live cancer-free for over four years. But some bioethicists worried that overpublicizing the results of her self-experimentation could encourage others with less expertise to reject conventional cancer treatment.

This criticism caught the eye of Jim O’Neill, a Peter Thiel protégé and biotech investor, who took a dim view of their complaints. “These people think curing cancer is unethical, but vaccine mandates are good,” he tweeted derisively in November. “Let’s make America healthy again.”

That slogan should sound familiar. It’s the same one Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has used to catapult himself into a nomination to lead the Department of Health and Human Services, the massive federal agency that includes organizations like the Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. And shortly, O’Neill is likely to join forces formally with Kennedy.

President Donald Trump has nominated O’Neill for the No. 2 position at the agency. The Republican-controlled Senate is likely to confirm Kennedy’s appointment as early as next week, and O’Neill’s nomination is also expected to get the nod this spring.

As O’Neill and Kennedy prepare to take office, Elon Musk and his Department of Government Efficiency loom large in the background. Like O’Neill and Kennedy, Musk has railed against the FDA in the past, arguing at a Trump campaign in the fall that “overregulation kills people.”

The rhetoric from O’Neill and Kennedy has prompted some HHS employees to worry that the duo could work with Elon Musk and DOGE to shake up HHS, just as DOGE has been upending other federal agencies like the U.S. Agency for International Development over the past week.

Along with other federal agencies, HHS employees have already been offered deferred resignation through Musk’s “Fork in the Road” program, and have until February 10 to decide whether to accept. Meanwhile, the White House is reportedly preparing an executive order to cut thousands of jobs from the agency, which currently employs over 80,000 people.

O’Neill’s imminent arrival has sparked enthusiasm among some libertarian-leaning healthcare entrepreneurs and investors who hope he can help unlock a flood of biomedical innovation. Bryan Johnson, the centimillionaire longevity enthusiast, who has known O’Neill for years, is one of those people.

“The nature of drug discovery has dramatically changed, so we’re going to have to upgrade the regulatory environment to match the technological discovery that we’re going to be experiencing,” Johnson told me.

At HHS, O’Neill will have authority over the agency’s daily operations as well as significant influence on research programs and the development of regulations. O’Neill and Kennedy, who squeaked through a key Senate committee vote earlier in the week, will be responsible for allocating healthcare funding, setting food safety standards, regulating drug pricing and managing public communications in the case of a pandemic.

O’Neill, Kennedy and HHS did not respond to requests for comment on this story.

O’Neill arrives at this lofty perch after a career built on reconsidering the balance between personal freedoms and public health. He has also had tours of duty at several Thiel-run organizations, including his time co-founding the Thiel Fellowship.

A staunch libertarian, O’Neill has opposed public health measures such as vaccine mandates and fluoride in drinking water as invasions of personal choice. Meanwhile, he has advocated for measures to accelerate scientific advancement, like automatically approving medications already cleared in Europe and rapidly adopting medical AI technologies. He has applied this mentality to his investment portfolio, backing companies operating on the fringes of modern science, from cryogenics to anti-aging therapeutics.

With O’Neill and Kennedy taking over HHS, a dose of abrupt change is about to hit the American healthcare system, and Silicon Valley’s fingerprints are all over their plans. During Kennedy’s failed presidential campaign, he received hundreds of thousands of dollars from tech heavyweights including Jack Dorsey, David Sacks and Chamath Palihapitiya.

More recently, 8VC partner Sebastian Caliri has been “working closely with many of our respected friends coming in to run HHS,” according to a tweet by 8VC founder Joe Lonsdale. This month, Caliri published a report titled “A Healthcare Excellence Agenda for the New Administration,” which suggests reforming healthcare payment systems to prioritize health outcomes over volume of work, lifting restrictions on healthcare data sharing, and minimizing the role of Institutional Review Boards in clinical trials.

Members of the tech elite like Musk have keen interest in the regulatory process and an obvious reason for wanting to change it in their favor: Musk’s Neuralink, for instance, depends on FDA approvals to advance clinical trials for its brain-computer interfaces. At the same time, Antonio Gracias, a close Musk ally, has reportedly launched a $100 million bid to take over MDMA drug developer Lykos Therapeutics, which is seeking a new FDA approval strategy after the agency rejected its new drug application last summer.

In recent weeks, Musk and DOGE have embarked on a rolling blitzkrieg across Washington with the aim of cutting $2 trillion from the federal budget. HHS, with a $1.8 trillion annual budget, could be a juicy target for their efforts. Kennedy has already said he plans to eliminate 2,200 jobs across the agency.

This week, DOGE reportedly accessed systems at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, following up on earlier promises to target fraud and waste within health agencies. DOGE has also cut off payments to Lutheran Family Services, an HHS beneficiary that provides social services to refugees, while the Trump administration attempted to pause all federal grants and loans, causing turmoil in the government-funded medical research community. Meanwhile, all U.S. health agencies have been ordered to pause communications.

Some public health experts are alarmed about the possible downsides of a radically altered approach to governing U.S. healthcare. “You do need to have people who believe in scientific evidence, and that’s a problem when you have someone like Jim O’Neill,” said Diana Zuckerman, president of the nonpartisan National Center for Health Research. She added, “All those investors, don’t they want to be able to use safe and effective medical products for themselves and their families?”

Like Kennedy, O’Neill doesn’t have any formal medical background, a rarity for such high-level appointments within HHS. He does, however, have experience working for the federal government. O’Neill began his career in the Department of Education and then joined HHS under George W. Bush, climbing the ranks to become its principal associate deputy secretary during Bush’s second term. In his role, he had some powers over policy and programming. While O’Neill fought some regulations, like a proposed oversight rule on the use of algorithms in laboratory operations, Bush’s HHS was generally pro-regulation.

Tevi Troy, a former deputy secretary for the department who worked there with O’Neill, emphasized to me how O’Neill’s government background will give him a definite advantage in accomplishing his goals. Troy noted that Kennedy and some other Trump picks for Health and Human Services don’t have the same experience. (That includes surgeon Martin Makary and TV personality Mehmet Oz [aka Dr. Oz], Trump’s picks for running the FDA and the CMS, respectively.) O’Neill’s deeper government experience could mean the real nexus of power and change within the department comes to center on him.

“He’s in a unique position to have a lot of influence,” Troy told me. “I don’t remember a deputy secretary coming in with as much knowledge of the building as him—especially in conjunction with the other members of the top team who have less experience.”

O’Neill nearly became FDA commissioner during Trump’s first administration, but some of his past comments resurfaced, which may have tripped up his nomination. One came from a 2014 biotech conference at which O’Neill told the crowd the FDA should only be required to test new pharmaceuticals for safety, not efficacy. “Let people start using them at their own risk,” he said. “Let’s prove efficacy after they’ve been legalized.”

The other came from a 2009 speech at Thiel’s The Seasteading Institute in which O’Neill proposed changing laws so that organ donors could be compensated, saying, “There are plenty of healthy spare kidneys walking around unused.”

Many of O’Neill’s beliefs mirror Thiel’s—a clear signal of Thiel’s enduring political influence despite his less visible role in the 2024 elections—and the two have a deep relationship.

After Bush left the White House in 2008, O’Neill went to work for Thiel’s Clarium Capital, Mithril Capital and Thiel Foundation. He co-founded the foundation’s biotech investing arm, Breakout Labs, as well as the Thiel Fellowship.

He also shares some of Thiel’s most idiosyncratic interests. While serving on The Seasteading Institute’s board, he became an advocate for charter cities and other forms of politically autonomous special economic zones. Some of these zones, like Próspera in Honduras, have drawn controversy for conducting medical research, including human trials, while bypassing the kind of regulatory oversight they’d be subject to in a country like the U.S.

But O’Neill’s true passion is longevity research. For nearly 12 years, he sat on the board of the SENS Research Foundation, an anti-aging research organization that has received significant Thiel funding. In addition, he served as a board observer for Oisín Biotechnologies, which develops anti-aging gene therapies, and he currently sits on the board of ADvantage Therapeutics, which is working on treatments for neurodegenerative conditions like Alzheimer’s disease. (He will need to recuse himself from the board once he starts his HHS job.)

Fellow advocates in the longevity space have high hopes for O’Neill and the credibility he could lend their field from his perch at the health department. One item on their wish list is for the FDA to classify aging as a disease, which could unlock federal research funding, prompt insurance coverage of anti-aging therapeutics and accelerate medical interventions targeting age-related decline. O’Neill has in fact proposed creating an office of geroscience to redirect funding to anti-aging research.

Christine Peterson, founder of Foresight Institute, a nonprofit dedicated to frontier technology, hopes O’Neill can instill a different approach to drug development within America’s biotech and pharma industries.

“It would be much more cost-effective to say, ‘No, let’s direct our research money on the seven to nine drivers of all chronic disease,’” said Peterson, who first met him decades ago when Thiel began donating to Foresight Institute. “If we can nail even a few of those, we are going to gain so much health span and greatly reduce the money we’re spending for these chronic diseases.”

You’d be hard-pressed to find many stakeholders—from doctors to patients to investors—who are eager to defend the status quo in today’s U.S. healthcare system. America spends more money per capita on healthcare than most other developed nations and yet falls behind many other such countries on metrics like life expectancy, infant mortality and overall population health. The process of getting a new drug to market is slow, expensive and cumbersome, discouraging many would-be entrepreneurs from entering the space.

“Just to enter the process of getting FDA approved, you have to hire multiple consultants,” said Johnson, who has invested in several longevity-focused biotech companies. “It’s too complicated. It’s too arcane. It’s too hard to address. Now, that does not mean that I’m suggesting lower safety. We can maintain the same safety. It’s just extraordinarily hard to try to figure out how to navigate.”

Peterson believes O’Neill’s unusual background will make him a more honest investigator. She said, “It would be really nice if we had folks at the FDA who are not quite so tightly connected to big pharma, because here’s the thing—Jim does biotech advising, but he advises startups,” an approach she believes will lead him to favor disruption over entrenched interests.

The radical change O’Neill wants to bring to HHS could get stress-tested quite soon. Cases of H5N1 avian influenza have soared, and 67 human cases have been confirmed. Just a month ago, the CDC reported the first human death from the flu.

Before leaving office, the outgoing Biden administration awarded $590 million to Moderna, which produced one of the first Covid-19 vaccines, to continue developing a bird flu vaccine.

As recent experience in the U.S. shows, a pandemic tests a country’s ability to communicate public health directives effectively and innovate rapidly—both core responsibilities for HHS. Kennedy and his team’s skepticism of vaccines, masking and social distancing have concerned many public health experts, who worry it could exacerbate a crisis should a new pandemic arise. But if bird flu or a similar virus does make the leap to humans, some biotech leaders are optimistic that O’Neill and the rest of the Trump administration would channel the same energy that led to the rapid development of a Covid-19 vaccine during Trump’s first term.

The Trump world’s tendency to plow through political gridlock could actually be an asset in the case of another outbreak, said Mark Emalfarb, founder and CEO of Dyadic International, a company focused on protein-based biotech, including vaccines.

“Pharma hasn’t really retooled in 35 years,” he said, a problem that affects not only pandemic preparedness but everything from the cost of insulin to the availability of cancer treatments. “They need to get their heads out of the sand because God forbid this thing comes to humans,” he said of the bird flu.

Emalfarb was blunt about the situation. “These pharma companies don’t want to change, and the government doesn’t force them,” he said. “So radical change might actually get the job done that we actually need, because I do believe healthcare is an inalienable right to everybody.”

WSJ : Trump’s Role in TikTok Talks: Dealmaker in Chief

Trump’s Role in TikTok Talks: Dealmaker in Chief
Vance tapped to help oversee negotiations, with companies including Oracle and Amazon signaling interest while TikTok officials hope to avoid a sale

President Trump has been a real-estate tycoon and reality-TV star. Now he’s playing a new role as he oversees TikTok’s fate: investment banker.

In public and behind the scenes, Trump has discussed possible deals to Americanize control of the Chinese-controlled app he once tried to ban, promoting it as a prize asset for tech titans to bid over, a potential target for a planned American sovereign-wealth fund, and a valuable chip in trade negotiations with Beijing.

“GREAT INTEREST IN TIKTOK! Would be wonderful for China, and all concerned,” he posted recently on Truth Social.

Several companies have privately expressed interest in participating in a deal for TikTok or its American operations, including Oracle, Amazon and Microsoft, according to people familiar with the matter. TikTok and its backers, meanwhile, are pushing for solutions that might forego a sale in favor of reviving a plan the company says would wall off American users’ data.

Last week, TikTok Chief Executive Shou Chew met with senior White House officials and offered a proposal that envisioned a joint venture with U.S. investors. That new venture would be headquartered in the U.S. and oversee data security, according to a person familiar with the proposal. Management would be U.S.-based and a board of directors would be a majority U.S. members.

Whether the investors include the U.S. government itself is an open question. Trump on Monday ordered the creation of a sovereign-wealth fund and suggested it could be used to acquire TikTok—something many observers see as far-fetched.

Trump, meantime, has tasked Vice President JD Vance with overseeing negotiations, with the hope Vance’s background in venture capital and Silicon Valley ties can facilitate a deal.

Hope and confusion
Trump’s role and his recent enthusiasm for the app have fueled optimism in TikTok’s camp that it will get a solution to stay in the U.S. long term. It faces an April 5 deadline, although Trump could extend that.

But his maneuvers also have ignited confusion over what any such deal would look like and who would be involved.

“The president has made it clear he wants TikTok to continue. He has determined as dealmaker-in-chief that he will find a path forward,” said a person close to the company. But the person added that talk of a sovereign fund had muddied the conversation. “We don’t even have a sovereign-wealth fund yet…We don’t have time to wait.”

Trump’s executive order on inauguration day set a 75-day delay in enforcement of a bipartisan law passed last year requiring TikTok to shed its Chinese ownership or close in the U.S. The law’s proponents argue that China’s government could pressure its Chinese parent, ByteDance, to use TikTok to surveil or propagandize Americans—a claim TikTok has disputed.

Trump has indicated a range of potential outcomes, at times suggesting a U.S. company or even the U.S. itself should own TikTok and at other times indicating U.S. investors could just increase their stakes in its parent company.

ByteDance has said that it is already roughly 60% owned by global institutional investors, many of which are big U.S. financial firms—including BlackRock, General Atlantic and Susquehanna International Group, co-founded by Republican megadonor Jeff Yass.

After trying to ban TikTok in 2020, Trump embraced it during the latest presidential campaign, in part because he came to view it as a powerful political tool. He was partially persuaded by Kellyanne Conway, a senior adviser in his first term who has worked on behalf of TikTok allies to advocate for it. She told him he had more supporters on the platform than Kamala Harris or Joe Biden—and that many young people made videos in his favor. She also conducted polling that showed Americans didn’t see banning TikTok as the best way to counter China.

In a December meeting with TikTok’s CEO at the president’s Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida, Trump phoned his son, Barron, and bragged about his statistics on the platform and told Barron that the company’s CEO had flown in to see him. “I’m going to save TikTok,” he told an adviser after that meeting.

A deal for TikTok is now expected to be part of broader talks on trade and tariffs that play out over the coming month. Trump had been expected to speak this week with Chinese leader Xi Jinping but that hadn’t happened as of late Friday. White House staff have been engaging with Chinese counterparts, according to people briefed on those discussions, as they look to define parameters for talks. The two discussed TikTok, among other issues, in a Jan. 17 call.

In Beijing, Chinese officials have told ByteDance that they were interested in reaching a deal with the U.S. to resolve the dispute and were open to the option of a U.S. sovereign-wealth fund investing in TikTok for a significant stake, people familiar with the matter said. They said they hoped that a deal could help Beijing with negotiations for tariffs and other issues.

Talking up a bidding war
Trump has encouraged potential suitors in an apparent effort to stoke maximum interest. “I like bidding wars because you make your best deal. So if there’s a bidding war, that’s a good thing,” he told reporters while traveling on Air Force One late last month.

On his second day in office, he told a room of reporters he would support Elon Musk buying the app. Then he added that he would also welcome Larry Ellison, Oracle’s chairman, buying it. Asked on the Air Force One trip whether Microsoft could play a role, Trump said: “I would say yes. A lot of interest in TikTok.”

A few days later he floated the idea that the U.S. could buy half of TikTok, before this week saying he wants to establish the U.S. sovereign-wealth fund.

Trump has said that his power to decide TikTok’s fate should entitle the U.S. government to a sizable stake in whatever entity emerges. “If I sign, then somebody’s gonna buy it, pay a lot of money, have a lot of jobs, keep a platform open and have it be very secure. If I don’t sign, then it closes,” he said.

His role has so far left actual investment banks on the sidelines of what could be one of the biggest deals in recent history, boxing out the bankers who typically provide more clarity to potential bidders.

“It is unprecedented for a president to introduce himself into a sale of a private asset,” said Darrell West, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution who specializes in technology. “Typically presidents trust the market to do those things.”

Trump tried something similar in his first term. After initiating an effort to ban TikTok, he blessed a tentative deal to save it in which Oracle and Walmart would have taken stakes in a U.S.-based TikTok. The agreement never materialized.

Investor consortia are cropping up with vastly different ideas on how a deal could be structured. One led by billionaire Frank McCourt—which counts as a partner Kevin O’Leary, a star on “Shark Tank” known as Mr. Wonderful—proposes a bid worth more than $20 billion.

Another investor group pitched the idea of investing in a special purpose vehicle that would buy TikTok and invest in Musk’s artificial intelligence startup, xAI, with the idea that it would run TikTok’s algorithm, according to someone familiar with the group.

ByteDance and its investors aim to convince Trump that an earlier plan by the company to transfer U.S. user data to Oracle’s cloud satisfies security concerns, people close to the company said.

TikTok started crafting that initiative, dubbed Project Texas, during Trump’s previous administration in an effort to convince the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S. that the company could satisfy American national security concerns without separating from its Chinese parent company.

TikTok executives believed Trump would have approved Project Texas as the solution to lawmakers’ concerns had he won re-election in 2020. Instead, negotiations with Washington about the initiative fell apart under President Biden.

WSJ : Sudan’s Army Close to Retaking its Own Capital From Rebels

Sudan’s Army Close to Retaking its Own Capital From Rebels
Offensive reverses months of setbacks for military government while rebel discipline shows signs of fraying

After a lightning offensive, Sudan’s military is close to regaining control of the country’s capital, Khartoum, for the first time since a rebel general plunged the East African nation into civil war nearly two years ago.

Government troops have seized multiple neighborhoods in the ruins of central Khartoum in recent days and cornered rebels of the Rapid Support Forces in their most significant remaining stronghold, the Republican Palace, the presidential residence.

At its core, the war is a power struggle between the country’s de facto president, Lt. Gen. Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, and his former No. 2, RSF commander Lt. Gen. Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, that has left tens of thousands dead, and over 12 million displaced from their homes, according to the United Nations.

“We are ready to remove the militias from every corner of Sudan,” Burhan, dressed in fatigues, told cheering soldiers after retaking the military headquarters late last month.

The U.S. in January accused Dagalo of genocide because his mostly Arab paramilitary force has killed thousands of Black Sudanese in the country’s western Darfur region. It was the second alleged genocide committed by the RSF, whose precursor, the Janjaweed militias, killed some 200,000 Black Sudanese in the early 2000s.

The U.S. also accused Burhan of war crimes, mostly because his warplanes have bombed civilian populations.

The RSF seized control of most of the capital soon after the war started in April 2023, setting up checkpoints on streets and posting hundreds of snipers on rooftops in a city largely reduced to rubble by the fighting.

The Sudanese army struggled to regain its footing.

In recent weeks, however, the army has recaptured the country’s second-largest city, Wad Madani, and taken a string of towns close to the South Sudan border.

Last month, government forces retook the country’s largest oil refinery, located north of Khartoum, and broke a siege of the army’s main Khartoum base.

“The RSF has seen their supply lines stretched thin after two years of war,” said Cameron Hudson, a former State Department official now at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C. “They are struggling with desertions and [with] Sudan’s military that is for the first time at its full strength.”

Analysts say the army’s resurgence has been powered by new weapons from Iran, an influx of recruits and the backing of volunteer militias.

Last week, Doctors Without Borders, the French medical charity, said it was contending with a mass influx of wounded in Khartoum and Darfur. Some 58 people were killed and more than 150 others injured after the RSF shelled a busy market in Khartoum’s twin city of Omdurman, according to the Sudanese health ministry.

“The violence continues to ruin lives, making it harder for people to access healthcare and putting healthcare workers at risk,” said Ozan Agbas, the Doctors Without Borders emergency manager.

The battle for control of the Republican Palace could prove decisive for the RSF, whose discipline has begun to show signs of fraying. Losing the palace and adjacent neighborhoods south of the Blue Nile would further disrupt the rebels’ ability to receive supplies from western Sudan, their home base.

RSF commander Dagalo, widely known by his nickname, Hemedti, hasn’t appeared in public for months, raising speculation about his whereabouts. His elder brother, Abdul Rahim Hamdan Dagalo, the rebel group’s deputy commander, has assumed command.

His absence has demoralized his fighters, hundreds of whom have retreated from the capital toward their homes in Darfur, according to Sudanese officials and activists.

“Most RSF fighters feel Hemedti has abandoned them,” a former RSF fighter living in exile in Uganda told The Wall Street Journal.

An RSF spokesman said Saturday that reports of the army’s victories were exaggerated. “The RSF still controls most of the capital Khartoum,” he said.

Should the RSF lose more ground in the city, some analysts expect the fighting to move to Darfur, raising the risk of further violence aimed at the region’s Black population.

The war’s shifting fortunes are also likely to ripple through the region, where other governments have used the conflict to advance their own interests in Sudan, which is situated along key Red Sea trade routes.

For instance, the United Arab Emirates armed the rebels as recently as 2023, The Wall Street Journal has reported.

An Emirati official denied the Gulf state is taking sides in the conflict. “We continue to urgently call for an immediate cease-fire and a peaceful resolution to this man-made conflict,” the official said. “In this regard, the U.A.E. has already made absolutely clear that it is not providing any support or supplies to either of two belligerent warring parties in Sudan.”

For its part, the Sudanese military has acknowledged receiving drones from Iran. The army’s “increasing reliance on Iran for weapons and financing presents the danger of Sudan becoming another Iranian proxy,” said Donald E. Booth, a former U.S. envoy to Sudan now with the Wilson Center, a Washington think tank.

Barron's : The Mag 7’s Strength Just Became a Weakness

The Mag 7’s Strength Just Became a Weakness

Not that long ago, the cloud was Big Tech’s greatest strength. Now it might be its kryptonite.

Amazon.com, Microsoft, and Google parent Alphabet have recently reported generally impressive numbers, but their stocks all fell largely because of very slight cloud misses. Meanwhile, Meta Platforms stock soared. The difference? Meta has no public cloud to rain on the parade.

The earnings reports made clear that the breathtaking pace of capital expenditures for AI data centers will continue in 2025. That has raised the bar across Big Tech, especially for the cloud, where a growth slowdown has long been inevitable.

Amazon, which pioneered the public cloud category with Amazon Web Services, sees roughly 20% annualized growth from its AWS cloud business, down from over 50% five years ago. Now Google and Microsoft may be experiencing a similar trend. Google Cloud Platform and Microsoft Azure are still growing 30% annually, but the latest earnings suggest that growth may be decelerating. That reality pressured shares over the past two weeks, and the pain may not be over.

Cloud softness feels particularly acute, with tech companies spending gobs of money to build out artificial-intelligence capabilities.

During its fourth-quarter earnings call on Thursday, Amazon projected around $105 billion on capital expenditures in 2025, a 27% rise from 2024, which was 57% over 2023. Microsoft has guided to $80 billion in capex for its fiscal 2025, ending June, up 80% from 2024, which was up 58% from the year before. Google estimated capex of $75 billion in 2025, up 43% from 2023, which was up 63% from 2022.

Meta Platforms is moving into the same neighborhood, with a forecast of $60 billion to $65 billion of capex in 2025, up 68% at the midpoint from 2024, which was up by 37% from the year before. Meta differs from the others in that it doesn’t have a cloud unit that rents out servers; these new data centers are all for Meta’s use.

The capex numbers are eye-watering, and investors want to know how long it will take for revenue and profit to begin flowing from them. Rolling out sales-generating AI services will take time, but the immediate place new AI revenue has emerged is in accelerated growth rates in the cloud units of Amazon, Microsoft, and Google. But this latest quarter raised some doubts even there.

Amazon’s fourth-quarter results were a mixed bag —and it wasn’t just because of the cloud. Overall, the company beat on sales and profitability, but that came with narrow misses in its two fastest-growing segments, AWS and advertising. Its overall first-quarter guidance was also disappointing. Amazon shares were down around 4% on Friday.

Microsoft posted solid consolidated numbers, beating analysts’ expectations on both revenue and earnings per share. Yet the stock fell 6% the next day. The culprit was annual growth in its Azure cloud unit of 31%—spectacular, but not spectacular enough for investors whose patience is beginning to run thin. That growth rate was at the low end of Microsoft’s guidance, and represented deceleration.

“Growing a business as big as Azure 31% is pretty amazing but it has decelerated from growth of 33%, 34%, and 35% in the prior three quarters—and was widely expected to accelerate in the March and June 2025 quarters,” Melius analyst Ben Reitzes wrote in a note to clients. “It doesn’t look like that is happening.”

Microsoft attributed the Azure miss to continued supply constraints for Nvidia AI accelerators, and to allocating too many sales teams to AI at the expense of traditional servers that still run things like websites, online games, and web apps.

Cue the selloff.

Alphabet also beat Wall Street expectations for earnings per share, but fell short on revenue by a hair. Contributing to that was cloud revenue of $12 billion, when Wall Street expected $12.2 billion. Google Cloud grew revenue by 30% over 2023, but analysts wanted 33%. Both numbers marked a deceleration from the previous quarter, when growth was 35%.

Google attributed the miss to the same supply issues Microsoft had. Here too, investors didn’t seem interested in nuance. Google shares declined 7% on the news.

Two Big Tech companies stood out. With no cloud unit to report, Meta’s results simply couldn’t disappoint in the same way as some of its rivals. Meta had nothing to draw attention away from its advertising growth of 21% in the fourth quarter. Meta stock rose 1.6% the day after reporting.

Among the Big Tech group, Apple is alone in sitting out the AI arms race, spending only $10 billion on 2024 capex, and not guiding to any sort of sudden rise. Apple relies on rented computing in other companies’ clouds, its own chips, and small on-device AI models. In a post-DeepSeek world, where models could be commoditized, Apple may have settled on the right strategy.

“The capex surge at Alphabet highlights perhaps why Apple is able to garner such a relatively high multiple in the Mag 7 these days as it may prove to be the business model that benefits most from lower model costs—generating more free cash flow than net income,” Reitzes wrote.

Apple shares were down just 0.7% after its report.

FT : House of Gucci needs a spring clean

House of Gucci needs a spring clean
It would be wrong to bet against the brand reinventing itself again

“In difficult times, fashion is always outrageous,” the eccentric Italian designer Elsa Schiaparelli once said. So it is proving at one of luxury’s most storied brands. Gucci, part of the Kering corporate empire, parted ways with its creative director Sabato De Sarno this week after slumping sales and multiple profit warnings.

Luxury houses are used to highs and lows. The issue here is that Kering lacks many of the soft layers that pad its peers. Gucci — which accounts for two-thirds of operating profit — caters to the affluent more than the astronomically wealthy, which leaves it exposed to the economic cycle. Its over-the-top brand heritage, too, can be in or out of favour. It doesn’t sit well with the current “quiet luxury” movement.

In less status-focused industries, managers try to cut costs when sales dip. That’s harder for companies like Gucci, which have an image to maintain. Fully three-quarters of Gucci’s first-half revenue decline passed straight through to its operating profit.


Alongside a more cyclical and concentrated business mix, Kering has also amassed more debt. Its peers may entice customers to splurge, but they keep a close eye on their own finances. Richemont and Hermes hold cash. LVMH’s net debt is roughly equivalent to its forecast ebitda. On S&P Capital IQ numbers, the Gucci owner’s indebtedness including capitalised leases at the end of June 2024 was three times that.

It’s not like François-Henri Pinault has nothing to show for this. Kering has acquired 30 per cent of Valentino, perfumer Creed and an eye-popping €1.3bn building in Milan’s Via Montenapoleone. But there may be further calls on its resources. The 70 per cent of Valentino Kering does not already own is governed by put and call options exercisable from May 2026 to August 2028 and is in the books at €4bn.


Investors will no doubt be scouring Kering’s annual results next week for guidance on what happens next. The group may hope that a rising tide will help it float above such matters. After all, the luxury cycle seems to be turning. Yet with no designer at the helm, Kering risks missing out on this particular wave. The upshot is that Pinault may well come under pressure to offload real estate stakes — as it did with some Parisian properties in January — and embark on some serious cost cutting.

The House of Gucci is no stranger to drama — it has endured M&A battles, departures of iconic designers and bitter feuds. It would be wrong to bet against the brand reinventing itself again. But unless sales growth materialises, its next new look will need a slimmer fit.