>>> TradeGate Pre-Market Indications

DAX:
  • Zalando (ZAL TH) -1.3%
MDAX:
  • RTL (RRTL TH) +1%
SDAX:
  • Springer Nature AG & Co KGaA (SPG TH) +6.2%
    • DBN: Springer Nature steigert bereinigten Betriebsgewinn um 9,2%
  • SUSS MicroTec (SMHN TH) -1.1%
  • Heidelberger Druck (HDD TH) -1.2%
  • Verve Group (VRV TH) -1.2%

The Information : War Doesn’t Belong to U.S. Weapons Startups Yet

War Doesn’t Belong to U.S. Weapons Startups Yet
Defense tech companies argue that warfare is changing rapidly—but the current conflict is using mostly traditional weapons.

The Takeaway
  • U.S. military relies on traditional weapons, not startup tech, in current conflict.
  • Defense tech startups raised $56 billion, secured only $4.3 billion in contracts.
  • Traditional defense contractors remain crucial, securing long-term business.

War focuses attention on the present. That was very clear from a week’s worth of conversations in Washington with leaders at defense tech startups, traditional military contractors and people close to the Pentagon.

Until the U.S. and Israel attacked Iran, buzz was building around startups such as Anduril and Saronic that promised to deliver AI-infused autonomous weapons quickly and economically. The U.S., meanwhile, has relied more in the current conflict on cruise missiles and bombs from its regular stable of traditional defense contractors.

“It’s not very different from how we would have fought a war a decade ago, two decades ago, in terms of munitions,” said Roger Zakheim, director of the national security–focused Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation and Institute.

That’s a reality check for the venture capital firms that have invested billions of dollars under the premise that warfare is changing rapidly and new defense tech can disrupt old-school contractors. But wartime typically requires only the best-tested weapons systems, and many of Anduril’s most notable offerings, like its autonomous fighter jet, are still just prototypes.

Instead, today’s war has illustrated the importance of prime contractors like RTX, which owns Raytheon, maker of Tomahawk cruise missiles, and Lockheed Martin, builder of fighter jets. Their equipment is in high demand, and restocking supplies will give them business for years.

Moved to the background are startups raising a growing pile of VC dollars to try to win new military programs, a total that reached $56 billion last year, up 83%, according to the Reagan Institute. But that number far exceeds the amount of money private defense tech companies earned in Pentagon contracts: $4.3 billion last year, less than 1% of that total.

The startups are trying to follow in the footsteps of companies such as SpaceX and Palantir, whose technology already permeates the Pentagon. Aside from Anduril, which aims to make autonomous fighter jets and other weapons, some of the best funded are Saronic Technologies, building autonomous naval boats; Shield AI, developing AI piloting software for autonomous aircraft; Neros, which makes drones; and Castelion, which is building hypersonic weapons.

These companies are trying to wedge their way into a defense budget that’s largely committed to existing programs, said Tara Murphy Dougherty, who runs Govini, a Bain Capital–backed software company that helps the Pentagon track its weapons arsenal. “We’re not gonna stop funding the fifth-generation fighter jet or nuclear submarines. You’re left with a much smaller [budget for startups] than people realize,” she said.

Some startups are aiming to fill niches made obvious by the war in Ukraine, including cheap drones that traditional contractors can’t build.

One company getting increased interest is Heven AeroTech, a Virginia-based startup making hydrogen-powered drones, valued at over $1 billion. Bentzion Levinson, a former Israeli military commander who is the startup’s CEO, said the military’s needs have changed. “Drones that can drop things or launch things or kamikaze drones are really the future of this ecosystem,” he said.

But it’s still a slog for startups to win the government’s trust. Levinson’s company announced a “basic ordering agreement” with the U.S. Army for its drone last week, a type of contract that doesn’t require the military to actually buy the drones but speeds up the process if it decides to.

The Iran war, meanwhile, has given the U.S. a glimpse of how adversaries are using cheap, autonomous weapons in battle. That includes Iran’s Shahed Aviation Industries, whose low-cost drones have become its crucial weapon. “It’s far more the adversaries’ Anduril than our Anduril,” said Zakheim, referring to Shahed.

I spent last Thursday at a national security conference held by the Reagan Institute, a more establishment affair sandwiched between the VC-oriented defense tech conferences put on this month by leaders at Andreessen Horowitz and Founders Fund. Instead of Palantir’s fiery CEO, Alex Karp, who headlined Andreessen’s American Dynamism Summit, the Reagan Institute featured Michael Duffey, the low-key undersecretary of war for acquisition and sustainment.

Duffey called for more private investment in defense, but said the money should go to build more factories, finance component makers and fund supply chain resilience, even if “it’s not as headline grabbing as a new prototype and technology.” The institute gave out grades for how the U.S. was meeting its national security goals. (The quality of new defense tech startups got one of the highest grades, A–, but overall “defense modernization” received a D and manufacturing capacity received D+.)

The good news for at least some prominent newer defense firms and their investors is that military leaders want to help defense tech startups succeed. “How do we get barriers out of the way to find pathways forward for the Saronics, Anduril, Shield AI to get access to those opportunities?” Duffey said.

Anduril, for instance, won what could become its largest contract to date last week. The deal to provide software and other products to the U.S. Army could reach up to $20 billion over 10 years, although the money isn’t fully committed. Getting more such deals would support Anduril’s projections of hitting $16 billion of annual revenue by 2030, up from $2.2 billion last year.

But the vast majority of defense startups won’t “punch all the way through” to become large sellers of technology to the Pentagon, acknowledged Alex Moore, a defense tech investor at 8VC and a board member at Palantir. He said traditional defense contractors would buy struggling upstarts for “pennies on the dollar,” but purchasing those startup failures was in the national interest.

He told the audience on a panel that I moderated at the institute: “You’ll have a lot of VCs that lose a lot of money and you get a lot of free [intellectual property] on the back end that keeps us safe.”

What could save some of the investments would be the Department of War changing more quickly how it buys technology. Chip Walter, a general partner at defense investment firm Marlinspike, which has invested in Anduril, told me the Pentagon needs a “two-track approach” to buy traditional military technology both for the “high-end fight” and the low-cost approach many startups are taking.

In the meantime, “we need to stop vilifying the [prime contractors],” said Walter, who was a former director at Northrop Grumman. “We wouldn’t be doing what we’re doing in Iran without the primes.”

WSJ : OpenAI to Cut Back on Side Projects in Push to ‘Nail’ Core Business

OpenAI to Cut Back on Side Projects in Push to ‘Nail’ Core Business
A top leader urges staff not to be distracted by ‘side quests’ as the company plans shift of resources to coding, enterprise businesses

  • OpenAI is finalizing plans for a major strategy shift to refocus on coding and business users, deprioritizing other areas.
  • The shift comes amid pressure from rival Anthropic, which dominates the business AI market with its Claude Code and Cowork offerings.
  • OpenAI’s previous “do everything” approach created a lack of focus and complicated its organizational structure, employees said.

OpenAI’s top executives are finalizing plans for a major strategy shift to refocus the company around coding and business users, recognizing that a “do everything all at once” strategy has put them on the defensive.

Fidji Simo, OpenAI’s CEO of applications, previewed the changes to employees in an all-hands meeting, telling them that top leaders including CEO Sam Altman and chief research officer Mark Chen were actively looking at which areas to deprioritize. They expect to notify staff about the changes in the coming weeks.

“We cannot miss this moment because we are distracted by side quests,” Simo told staff last week, according to remarks reviewed by The Wall Street Journal. “We really have to nail productivity in general and particularly productivity on the business front.”

Last year, OpenAI announced an array of new products including the video-generator Sora, a web browser called Atlas, a new hardware device, and e-commerce features for ChatGPT. Altman has previously likened this approach to “betting on a series of startups” inside OpenAI, and the strategy helped burnish the company’s reputation as the pioneer of the AI era. News Corp, owner of The Wall Street Journal, has a content-licensing partnership with OpenAI.

OpenAI is under growing pressure from rival Anthropic, which has become the dominant AI provider for businesses thanks to the viral success of its Claude Code and Cowork offerings. These products, which include so-called agents that can autonomously carry out complex tasks for users, have become all the rage in Silicon Valley, and even sparked a global stock-market selloff last month.

Anthropic has placed fewer product bets than OpenAI, focusing its efforts on the enterprise and coding market. The company has so far avoided image and video generation products, for example.

OpenAI and Anthropic have taken steps toward public listings that could take place as soon as this year, plans that have added extra urgency to the ferocious competition between the two companies. Neither company has disclosed specific timing, but in some discussions, OpenAI raised the prospect of an initial public offering in the fourth quarter of this year, The Wall Street Journal has reported.

Simo told staff Anthropic’s success should serve as a “wake-up call” for the company, and that it had to regain the lead among software developers and enterprise customers.

Current and former employees said that last year’s “do everything” approach sometimes created a lack of focus, and that it was at times difficult to understand OpenAI’s strategic direction. That is a problem in many organizations, but the stakes are higher at OpenAI and other frontier labs, where the central issue is how to spend and allocate scarce computing capacity between projects.

Computing resources often shifted from one team to another at the last minute, and the company’s organizational structure grew complicated, the employees said. For example, OpenAI’s Sora team was housed under the research division, even though it was responsible for launching one of the company’s most high-profile products, they said.

OpenAI launched its stand-alone Sora app last September, pairing its AI video generator with a new social-media app similar to TikTok. It briefly secured the top spot in Apple’s App Store, but usage flatlined in the months that followed. The company is now looking to integrate video-generation features into its main ChatGPT app.

Meanwhile, Anthropic solidified its lead in the fast-growing coding segment, upgrading Claude Code with a more advanced version of its AI model last fall. Many coders spent their holiday breaks on a so-called “Claude bender,” testing out the product’s capabilities, and it has become the tool of choice for the legions of software engineers working inside tech companies.

Altman brought on Simo last August to serve as the company’s chief of applications, a wide-ranging role where she oversees everything from product to finance. Simo has pushed the company to more tightly integrate its research and product teams, and intends to unify the company’s longer-term bets, including its hardware device, around improving productivity for users.

In coding, OpenAI regained some ground after releasing a new version of its Codex app last month, as well as an updated model called GPT 5.4, which is tailored to professional work. Simo recently tweeted on X that Codex now has more than two million weekly active users, up nearly four times since the start of the year.

The company has sought to deploy engineers with consulting firms and business partners, an effort to accelerate AI adoption throughout many industries. Business usage of AI is a core facet of the AI boom as OpenAI and others seek to finance continued expansions.

OpenAI is also benefiting from its continued dominance in the consumer market, and from the Pentagon’s decision to designate Anthropic a supply-chain risk, which has made some businesses more hesitant to buy its technology. Anthropic is suing the U.S. government over the decision.

“We are very much acting as if it’s a code red,” Simo told staff in the all-hands. “I don’t think necessarily declaring codes for everything makes a ton of sense.”

WSJ : The Blowup That Exposed How America’s Banks Are Entangled in Private Credi

The Blowup That Exposed How America’s Banks Are Entangled in Private Credit
Western Alliance vs. Jefferies fight exposes risks to bank backing for private credit

Western Alliance sued Jefferies Financial, alleging a subsidiary didn't repay part of a loan tied to bankrupt auto-parts supplier First Brands Group.
Investor concerns over banks’ private credit exposure have affected bank stocks, with the Nasdaq KBW Bank index down nearly 10% in 2026.
The lawsuit highlights how banks use special-purpose vehicles to fund private credit, a common setup regulators view as less risky.

One lending blowup is showing how America’s banks helped fuel the private-credit boom, and what could happen in its unraveling.

Traditional lenders, which have been losing market share to investment firms that make riskier loans in exchange for higher interest rates, have touted their efforts to get a slice of Wall Street’s newest action. But the details of the exposure are murky, and investors have grown skittish about banks’ connections to private credit this year.

A dispute between Southwest bank Western Alliance WAL -0.44%decrease; red down pointing triangle and investment bank Jefferies Financial Group JEF 1.16%increase; green up pointing triangle that spilled into the open this month gives fresh clues to how banks are tied to the type of nonbank lending known as private credit and how messy it might be if trouble gets worse.

Western Alliance sued for breach of contract and alleged a Jefferies subsidiary didn’t pay back part of a loan connected to now-bankrupt auto-parts supplier First Brands Group, one of the companies that helped set off a wave of concerns. Western Alliance said it would charge off $126.4 million on the loan, out of the $337 million initially borrowed.

Western Alliance alleged Jefferies and its asset-management subsidiary had knowledge of First Brands’ issues, because it had done its own due diligence on the company, but its subsidiary still proceeded with a new lending agreement with the bank. The suit argues that Jefferies is liable for repaying the debts.

Jefferies said that it believes the lawsuit is without merit and that Jefferies has no obligation to repay the loan. In a public letter, executives said the claim that Jefferies couldn’t pay back its debt was “false and absurd.”

Banks have piled more money into backing the industry in the past year, and analysts say that the industry had exposure to private credit of nearly $300 billion as of last year.

That backing can take a number of shapes, including lending directly to funds, to specific investments or to limited partners in the funds.

Bank stocks have been hammered in recent weeks on investor concerns over the exposure, alongside fears that the war in the Middle East could dent economic growth and reignite steeper inflation. The Nasdaq KBW Bank index is down nearly 10% from the beginning of 2026, compared with a 2% drop in the S&P 500.


“The concerns are because it’s such a black box,” said Bobby Reddy, a professor of corporate law and governance at the University of Cambridge.

At the heart of the Western Alliance and Jefferies fight is a common setup. Western Alliance had a loan to an entity Jefferies created to fund First Brands known as a special-purpose vehicle, or SPV. The SPV then paid the auto-parts retailer to acquire its expected payments, a type of lending known as factoring, court filings show. When First Brands’ customers pay the bills, the money is sent to the SPV.

First Brands collapsed under its borrowing, which lenders now allege included the company double-pledging such account receivables.

Western Alliance says Jefferies is supposed to pay it back because it fully controlled and was effectively the same as the SPV. Jefferies says it isn’t liable itself and is protected by the SPV.

Western Alliance and Jefferies shares have fallen nearly 16% and 17%, respectively, since the lawsuit was filed March 6.

Special-purpose vehicles are supposed to allow banks to easily see what is backing the loan and calculate the risk, as opposed to underwriting a whole company or fund. They also are seen as less risky by regulators who generally require banks to hold less capital against an SPV loan than, say, a loan directly to First Brands.

Now investors and analysts are watching the Western Alliance fight to see how protected banks and private lenders seem to be with this common setup.

“Banks are at the center of this system even when they appear not to be,” said Patrick Corrigan, a law professor at the University of Notre Dame. “And SPVs are the legal architecture that make all of this work.”

>>> US After Hours Summary: Very large number of NVDA-related announcements from

After Hours Summary: Very large number of NVDA-related announcements from various companies; SMTC -1.8% lower on earnings

After Hours Gainers:

Companies trading higher in after hours in reaction to earnings/guidance: PLBY +9.5%, GDOT +6.9%, BALY +3.6%

Companies trading higher in after hours in reaction to news: KLTR +9.4% (to acquire PathFactory, also reports earnings), NUAI +8.8% (names new CFO), PENG +4.8% (OriginAI factory platform delivers optimized performance for AI Inference), FLR +2.1% (signs notice to proceed with TeraWulf large-scale data center project), SIMO +2% (showcases SSD controllers and PCIe NVMe Boot Drive aligned with NVIDIA AI ecosystem), STM +1.8% (accelerates global adoption and market growth of Physical AI with NVIDIA), LYFT +1.6% (to make rides smarter and more efficient through Agentic AI, accelerate AV future with NVIDIA), PL +1.5% (to build world's first GPU-Native AI engine for planetary intelligence with NVIDIA), SEI +1.2% (closes two transactions), FROG +1% (new JFrog Agent Skills Registry validated through early integration with NVIDIA), MU +0.9% (high-volume production of HBM4; also co and Leopard Imaging accelerate robotics with NVIDIA module), FG +0.7% (authorizes new $100 mln share repurchase program), HYMC +0.7% (extends high-grade silver at Brimstone), CAAP +0.7% (Feb traffic), SLG +0.6% (to sell 7 Dey Street), DELL +0.5% (provides update on FY26 headcount in 10-K filing; also First to Ship NVIDIA GB300 Desktop for Autonomous AI Agents; also AI Data Platform with NVIDIA Supercharges Enterprise AI), FLEX +0.3% (architecture will integrate protection from the Falcon platform with NVIDIA), ETN +0.3% (collaborates with NVIDIA to unveil the Eaton Beam Rubin DSX platform), SMCI +0.3% (reveals DCBBS with new NVIDIA Vera Rubin NVL72 and more), TMUS +0.3% (NVIDIA, T-Mobile and partners integrate physical AI applications), HSAI +0.3% (joins NVIDIA Halos AI Systems Inspection Lab), NVTS +0.3% (debuts 800 V--6 V Power Delivery Board), DSGR +0.3% (confirms offer from LKCM Headwater), HPE +0.2% (unveils AI factory and supercomputing advancements with NVIDIA; also helping customers advance sovereign AI initiatives), AVAV +0.1% (acquires Empirical Systems Aerospace), DIS +0.1% (sets leadership team for expanded Disney entertainment segment)

After Hours Losers:

Companies trading lower in after hours in reaction to earnings/guidance: MVST -20.8%, CWCO -12.8%, AP -9.6%, CMTL -9.6%, FF -8%, NGS -7.8%, SMTC -1.8%, AGRO -1.5%, GETY -1.4%, BNC -1.2% (also CEO to step down), FINV -0.5% (also increases dividend)

Companies trading lower in after hours in reaction to news: LNSR -23.1% (LNSR and ALC terminate merger), RYTM -6.1% (topline results from Phase 3 EMANATE trial), TBRG -5.9% (postpones Q4 earnings), BHP -1.9% (RIO and BHP joint venture completes a land exchange, unlocking next phase of one of the world's largest untapped copper deposits), KDK -1.9% (scales autonomous driving with NVIDIA DRIVE Hyperion), CTMX -1.5% (commences $250 mln stock offering; also files mixed securities shelf offering), ATR -1.5% (nasal delivery system being utilized in LTR Pharma Limited's Phase II clinical study of SPONTAN), SDRL -1.5% (contract extension in Angola), PCOR -1.2% (accelerates construction of AI factories with NVIDIA), RIO -1% (RIO and BHP joint venture completes a land exchange, unlocking next phase of one of the world's largest untapped copper deposits), INTU -1% (founder and execs terminate stock sales plans; co reiterates intent to substantially accelerate repurchases), AKAM -0.7% (launches AI Grid Intelligent Orchestration), IPGP -0.6% (unfavorable decision from German court, but affects less than 1% of sales), PI -0.6% (partial repurchase of convertible notes), ALB -0.5% (files mixed securities shelf offering), CRWV -0.5% (advances AI-Native platform), NVDA -0.4% (makes a series of announcements, including launches space computing, rocketing AI into orbit an CSCO expands AI factory), NTAP -0.2% (accelerates momentum in AI leadership with NVIDIA), AMZN -0.2% (collaborates with NVIDIA on advanced AI assistants for cars), PBR -0.2% (to acquire 50% interests in Tartaruga Verde and Espadarte), CSCO -0.1% (major expansion of its Secure AI Factory with NVDA), NXPI -0.1% (delivers new innovations for advanced physical AI with NVIDIA), NBIS -0.1% (teams with NVIDIA to build cloud for robotics and physical AI)

WSJ : SEC Prepares Proposal to Eliminate Quarterly Reporting Requirement

SEC Prepares Proposal to Eliminate Quarterly Reporting Requirement
Trump and others have said public companies should have to report earnings only twice a year

The Securities and Exchange Commission is preparing a proposal to eliminate the requirement to report earnings quarterly and instead give companies the option to share results twice a year, according to people familiar with the matter.

The details
The regulator could publish the proposal as soon as next month, the people said. In preparation for the proposal, regulators have been talking to officials at the major exchanges to discuss how they may need to adjust their rules.

Once the proposal is published, it will be subject to a public comment period. After that period, which typically lasts at least 30 days, the SEC will vote on it. There are no guarantees it will ultimately happen.

The rule is expected to make quarterly reporting optional, not eliminate quarterly reports altogether.

The context
The push for semiannual reporting gained steam late last year. The Long-Term Stock Exchange petitioned the SEC to eliminate the quarterly earnings report requirement, The Wall Street Journal reported in September. Within days, President Trump and SEC Chairman Paul Atkins both said they supported the idea.

Publicly traded companies in the U.S. have reported results every three months for the past 50-plus years. Trump briefly explored the idea of moving to semiannual earnings reports during his first term, but the effort went nowhere.

Those in favor of less-frequent reporting requirements believe a switch could help boost the shrinking number of public companies in the U.S. Among the reasons companies cite as to why they remain private is the time-consuming and costly clerical work required to list and maintain publicly traded shares.

Any change is likely to face opposition from investors who rely on the transparency of regular disclosures.

Publicly listed European companies are no longer required to report quarterly financial results after a 2013 rule change. The U.K. also ended quarterly reporting requirements about a decade ago, though many companies still report quarterly.

WSJ : When Miracle Weight-Loss Drugs Lose Their Edge

When Miracle Weight-Loss Drugs Lose Their Edge
Some people taking GLP-1s experience a return of food noise and start putting pounds back on

Cyndy Dowling struggled with her weight for decades until she found what she thought was a lifelong solution: a monthly injection of one of the popular new weight-loss drugs.

The 69-year-old easily lost 60 pounds in the span of a year and a half. But in early 2025, something changed.

The food noise started creeping back. Her weight began edging up. She had to start “dieting” again. Here’s the twist: She never stopped taking Wegovy, one of the so-called GLP-1 drugs.

A year later, Dowling has regained 10 pounds and is back to relying on protein shakes for some meals, all while continuing her weekly injections. “I’m fighting it as much as I can,” says the retired government employee. “I feel like I’m trying to hold the reins on something I can’t really control.”

We’ve all heard that stopping taking a GLP-1 medication for weight loss—such as semaglutide (marketed as Wegovy) and tirzepatide (sold as Zepbound)—often leads to rapid weight gain, with people returning to baseline in as little as 18 months.

What you might not have heard: For some people, the return of hunger and thoughts of food come back leading to potential weight gain—even while they are still taking the drug, which mimics naturally occurring gut hormones, suppressing appetite and making people feel full faster.

Most obesity doctors say they’ve seen patients in this boat. They say it’s not that the weight-loss medications become less effective. Rather it’s that the body’s biological pressure to regain weight kicks in.

People taking GLP-1s typically lose weight most rapidly in the first four to six months, with weight plateauing nine to 18 months after starting treatment, says Dr. Fatima Stanford, an obesity-medicine physician at Mass General Brigham and associate professor of medicine and pediatrics at Harvard Medical School.

“Obesity is a chronic, relapsing, biologically defended disease,” says Stanford. “The body defends its highest sustained weight. So when weight decreases, compensatory mechanisms intensify. GLP‑1s blunt these signals, but they do not eliminate them entirely.”

It’s not that the medication is less effective, agrees Dr. Amanda Velazquez, director of obesity medicine at the Cedars-Sinai Center for Weight Management and Metabolic Health in Los Angeles. Rather, the body works to counteract the effects of the drug, and that intensifies over time.

The degree of biological pressure varies among people, says Velazquez. Some could start to feel it after a few years on the medication. Others might never experience it at all.

The longer it’s been since you’ve lost weight, the greater the likelihood of the body’s push to get back to the weight it’s used to being at, according to Velazquez. Those who have struggled with obesity longer and have more obesity-related health conditions tend to experience it more, she says.

And the more weight loss, the harder the body will fight to try to put it back on.

Even with bariatric surgery, patients sometimes experience weight regain after two to five years, notes Dr. Caroline Apovian, co-director of the Center for Weight Management and Wellness at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.

GLP-1s override some of the satiety hormones, so people get full more quickly. But there are other pathways counteracting that, so eventually you might start to gain some weight back, says Apovian. “That is your body not wanting you to starve to death.”

Dr. Michelle Hauser, director of obesity medicine at Stanford Lifestyle and Weight Management Center at Stanford Health Care, says she more commonly sees patients on semaglutide who report experiencing weight gain and food noise returning. “It’s pretty frequent,” she says.

Often switching to tirzepatide at a higher dose will resolve the issue, she says, because it’s available at higher doses than semaglutide. The highest available dose of Wegovy is 2.4-milligram injections and that “just isn’t cutting it for a lot of people,” says Hauser.

A spokeswoman for Novo Nordisk, maker of Wegovy, said its clinical trial program showed patients’ weight plateaued about 60 weeks after treatment started.

The company in November filed for regulatory approval of a higher-dose Wegovy injection, at 7.2 milligrams.

Other doctors say it might just be a matter of tirzepatide being more effective overall. On average, people taking tirzepatide lose more weight than those taking semaglutide so it might take them longer to plateau.

What to do if you regain weight while still taking a GLP-1? Doctors advise several things.

First, don’t go off the drug. “I emphasize that stopping the medication is very likely to result in further weight regain,” says Dr. Stanford.

She sees whether a dose adjustment is needed and whether protein intake and resistance training are at high enough levels. She also assesses sleep, stress and other lifestyle factors that can influence diet.

Some doctors like Velazquez say they might add another medication for patients to take in conjunction with the GLP-1. Others encourage patients to ensure they are sticking to a healthy diet and to step up their exercise program.

One important step: Avoid ultraprocessed foods, which are more likely to be eaten in large quantities.

It remains unclear what will happen long-term for people taking GLP-1 medications. It’s possible a subset of people will regain all the weight they lost after a certain amount of time, some doctors say.

Dowling says she’s unsure what she should do now. Should she stop taking Wegovy because it doesn’t seem to be working for her and costs $500 a month? Should she try another weight-loss medication?

“I am so frustrated,” she says. “It is feeling more like another temporary fix to me.”

FT : Belgium’s prime minister calls for EU to normalise ties with Russia

Belgium’s prime minister calls for EU to normalise ties with Russia
Rightwing nationalist Bart De Wever challenges full support for Ukraine in quest for lower energy prices

Belgium’s prime minister has called for the EU to “normalise relations with Russia” to access cheap energy, a rebuff to the bloc’s agreed strategy of maximum support to Ukraine as it seeks to battle Moscow’s four-year invasion.

“We must normalise relations with Russia and regain access to cheap energy. That is common sense,” said Bart De Wever, a rightwing Flemish nationalist who has previously challenged wholehearted EU support for Ukraine. He was speaking in an interview with the Belgian newspaper L’Echo.

“In private, European leaders agree with me, but no one dares to say it out loud. We must end the conflict in the interest of Europe, without being naïve towards Putin,” De Wever said in an interview published at the weekend.

Ever since Russian President Vladimir Putin launched his full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, the EU has provided hundreds of billions of euros in financial and military aid to Kyiv while imposing economic sanctions on Moscow.

Ending oil and gas imports from Russia — previously one of the continent’s most important suppliers — is a central plank of that strategy.

But the US-Israeli war with Iran has triggered sharp increases in oil and gas prices, provoking discussions across Europe about energy supplies and how to reduce costs for households and businesses.

EU foreign ministers will discuss the war in Ukraine and the Middle East conflict at a meeting in Brussels on Monday.

De Wever, who last year blocked a Berlin-backed European Commission plan to use Russian sovereign assets frozen in Belgium to fund a loan to Ukraine, said in the interview that the approach of providing military support to Kyiv while trying to undermine Moscow’s economy was not feasible without full support of the US.

“Given that we are unable to pressure Putin by sending weapons to Ukraine, and cannot suffocate his economy without US support, only one method remains: making a deal,” the prime minister added.

De Wever’s statement was criticised by his foreign minister Maxime Prévot, of the centre-left francophone party Les Engagés.

“Should we engage in dialogue with Russia? Yes. That is what diplomacy is: talking, including to those with whom you disagree,” Prévot said. “But dialogue is not the same as normalisation. And that is a crucial distinction.”

Prévot added: “Today, Russia refuses a European presence at the table. It maintains maximalist demands. As long as that is the case, talking about normalisation sends a signal of weakness and undermines the European unity we need now more than ever.”

He also said Belgium’s “support for Ukraine remains unchanged. The prime minister has not said otherwise. Nor has he called for an easing of sanctions. Before any potential peace agreement, that is not on the table.”

In comments late on Monday, De Wever appeared to clarify his position. “I am not defending a different line than my government,” he told Belgian newspaper Le Soir. “It is perfectly obvious that we cannot talk about normalising relations as long as there is a war of aggression against Ukraine. I am talking about a possible scenario, after the war, after a peace agreement that is acceptable to both Ukraine and Europe.”

“The only thing I wanted to say is that the current situation, where Europe is not at the negotiating table but is paying for the war, is not comfortable. We are not going to abandon Ukraine.”

Asked about De Wever’s earlier comments, EU energy commissioner Dan Jørgensen said: “We’ve decided in the European Union that we do not want to import Russian energy. Before Christmas we made it into law.”

“It would be a mistake for us to repeat what we did in the past. In the future we will not import as much as one molecule from Russia,” he added.

WSJ : Tesla’s ‘Cybercab’ Name Hits a Roadblock: A French Beverage Company

Tesla’s ‘Cybercab’ Name Hits a Roadblock: A French Beverage Company
Ahead of the launch of its Cybercab vehicle, Tesla accuses Unibev of fraud and trademark squatting

  • Tesla is in a legal battle with French beverage wholesaler Unibev over the “Cybercab” trademark, potentially curtailing its international marketing.
  • Tesla claims Unibev is a “bad-faith trademark squatter” whose co-owner filed for “Cybercab” six days after Elon Musk first used the term.
  • The Patent Office suspended Tesla’s application due to Unibev’s earlier French filing, and Unibev previously secured other seemingly Tesla-related trademarks.

Tesla TSLA 1.64%increase; green up pointing triangle has made a pitch for a radical new era of “amazing abundance” in which its driverless Cybercabs ferry people around town while humanoid robots do most of the work.

The biggest hurdles, it seemed, were technological. That is, until a tiny French beverage wholesaler joined the conversation.

Tesla is in a legal battle against an obscure drink wholesaler called Unibev that has claimed the rights to the term “Cybercab.” The fight coincides with the launch of Tesla’s Cybercab, which is seen as key to the company’s autonomous vehicle and robotics ambitions. If the case drags on, Tesla’s ability to market the Cybercab internationally could be curtailed.

In a 167-page filing with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Tesla described its adversary as “a bad-faith trademark squatter, who started as a Tesla fan,” and described the French company’s attempt to trademark the Cybercab moniker as fraudulent.

Unibev’s co-owner, a Corsican resident named Jean-Louis Lentali, is a regular on Tesla’s quarterly earnings calls, and often comments on Chief Executive Elon Musk’s posts on X, according to the filing. In recent years, Lentali has congratulated Musk on company news, and even invited him to the French island to eat “local fish and spiny lobster.”

There is no indication that Unibev, based in the scenic island capital of Ajaccio, has ever made a vehicle before. In its trademark application, however, it said it aims to use the name “Cybercab” for its own vehicle, possibly a car, boat or plane.

“It seems likely that they are doing it to troll Tesla,” said Jessica Litman, a professor of trademark law at the University of Michigan, who thinks Tesla has a strong case to win the trademark back if it can prove that Unibev hasn’t made a car.

The companies are preparing to go to trial before the Patent Office, which could make a decision as late as 2027.

If the matter takes that long to resolve, it could leave Tesla in a trademark limbo at a sensitive time.

Tesla plans to start production on the Cybercab in April and could start selling the vehicle by the end of the year. Litman said the company can still sell its product in the U.S. without the trademark, but Unibev’s claim could make an international launch more challenging, and that might motivate Tesla to try to find a way to buy the trademark rights.

“The bottom line is this makes some legal headaches,” Litman said. “The legal headaches might be annoying enough that Tesla might want to buy the other company off.”

Representatives for Tesla didn’t respond to requests for comment. Anthony Lupo, Tesla’s outside counsel on the dispute, declined to comment through a representative. Unibev’s U.S. attorney didn’t respond to requests for comment, nor did people listed as the company’s directors.

At the heart of the dispute is when Tesla filed a trademark claim for the Cybercab.

“We will be showcasing our purpose-built robotaxi or cybercab in August,” Musk said during an earnings call on April 23, 2024, his first public use of the term. Six days later, Lentali filed his application in France to trademark the Cybercab name. Tesla didn’t file its trademark application in the U.S. for another six months, shortly after it unveiled the vehicle in October 2024.

Months later, in April 2025, the Patent Office told Tesla that its application was suspended because Unibev’s French application from April gave it priority under international trademark law.

Unibev was already well-known as a thorn in the side of Tesla’s trademark lawyers. The beverage company had been granted more than two dozen trademarks around the world for phrases that appeared connected to Tesla and Musk, such as “Cyber Diner” and “With a Touch of Musk.”

The companies are scheduled to make their cases to the Patent Office over the next few months. If Unibev wins its case, Tesla can either negotiate with the beverage company to use the name outside of the U.S. or change the name of its new vehicle in international markets. If Unibev loses, Tesla can move ahead with its plans. The automaker has made no indication that it intends to change the Cybercab name.

A few years before the Cybercab applications, Unibev had managed to wrangle another trademark out from under Tesla for a novelty beverage called Teslaquila. It used the name to sell a beer with a label featuring an image of the inventor Nikola Tesla.

Lentali didn’t hesitate to bring his legal victory to Musk’s attention.