In the spring of 2016, obstetrician Dr. Jesanna Cooper's practice hired a nurse-midwife to deliver babies at Princeton Baptist Medical Center, a hospital in Birmingham, Alabama. The nurse-midwife was the center's first in about 20 years.

The impact on care was transformative, said Cooper, who practiced at Princeton Baptist for nearly a decade. She learned to safely support far more vaginal deliveries, and the number of C-sections she performed soon plummeted, she said.

Cooper wasn't alone. Between 2018 and 2023, doctors at Princeton Baptist on average cut into fewer than one in six women with low-risk pregnancies, according to data analyzed by Business Insider. The hospital's average rate in those years was nearly half of Alabama's statewide average, and dramatically lower than all of Birmingham's other hospitals, according to Business Insider's analysis.

The success was bitterly won. Delivering more babies vaginally was a years-long, "all-out, knock-down fight" against the hospital's administrators and the momentum of the US medical system, Cooper said. It was a fight for more staff; a fight for more time and beds for laboring women; and a fight against a medical system that rewards a different metric: profit.

Though C-sections can be vital, often life-saving surgeries, they're a frequently overused major abdominal surgery. US doctors perform them at double the rate the World Health Organization says is "ideal" for maternal and infant health, and nearly twice the rate of Finland and Sweden.

Women aren't asking for more C-sections; 2.5% of US babies are born by elective C-section each year. Instead, experts say, C-sections are more lucrative and cost-effective than vaginal deliveries, and are perceived to be more protective in the event of an expensive malpractice lawsuit. Hospital systems looking to maximize revenues and keep operating costs low are indirectly incentivized to keep surgery rates high.

How each hospital is run dramatically impacts how many surgeries its doctors perform, and C-section rates can swing wildly from hospital to hospital.

To track this, Business Insider analyzed C-section rates at over 1,700 hospitals with an average of at least 100 births each year, from 29 states and Washington, DC.

At hundreds of hospitals in Business Insider's analysis, surgeons performed C-sections at far higher rates than doctors practicing at the nearest neighboring hospital, likely serving similar patient populations.

The data suggests that for-profit healthcare systems appear more susceptible to high rates.

Vijay Chaudhuri, a vice president of Hudson Regional Health, the parent company of Hudson Regional Hospital, now known as Secaucus University Hospital, told Business Insider that the hospital closed its labor and delivery department in April, 2023, and did not otherwise respond to Business Insider's reporting.

Dr. Manuel Alvarez, who oversees care at Palisades Medical Center, said hospital leadership made a concerted effort to lower C-section rates and safely support more vaginal births, which included routine monthly trainings, evidence-based care protocols, and promoting a workplace culture more supportive of vaginal deliveries.

"The rate of C-sections is something we have been addressing," a spokesperson for East Los Angeles Doctors Hospital's parent company said in a statement to Business Insider. The spokesperson said the hospital planned to close its obstetrics department in January 2026 "due to declining deliveries over the last year."

Spokespeople for Providence Memorial, Las Palmas Medical Center, Adventist Health White Memorial, and Merit Health Biloxi, now known as Memorial Hospital Biloxi, did not respond to Business Insider's queries by phone and email.

Doctors delivering babies make tough calls. The stakes are high, doctors told Business Insider, and a routine delivery can quickly turn into an emergency that requires immediate surgery.

Many providers also told Business Insider that C-sections are often performed because doctors fear the crushing expense, professional damage, and personal distress suffered in a malpractice lawsuit. C-sections are perceived to be more protective in the event of a lawsuit alleging injury to a baby. Obstetricians are among the doctors most likely to face a legal threat at least once in their career, a 2023 study found, and a lawsuit filed over the serious harm or death of a baby can result in tens of millions of dollars in jury awards.

Business Insider's reporting showed that C-section rates aren't intractable. Experts said that rates can safely come down at hospitals that prioritize making careful, evidence-based changes.

"Some providers say this is too big for me," Cooper said, "but some try to fight it."

At Princeton Baptist, Cooper and the labor and delivery team fought to safely support more women to deliver vaginally. For a while, they won.

The most common inpatient surgery in America

C-sections are the most common inpatient surgery in the country. More than 32% of all babies born in the US are delivered by C-section. Many could likely have been avoided, maternal health experts say. One large study estimates that up to 19% of all births should be C-sections to protect women and their babies, leaving as many as 13% possibly performed needlessly in the US.

That suggests that around one in 10 pregnant women in the US — as many as half a million women each year — undergoes a medically unnecessary C-section, leaving her at higher risk of blood clots, hemorrhages, infections, and more likely to develop dangerous complications in future pregnancies.

Not all hospitals perform these surgeries evenly. Cesarean surgery rates across US hospitals swing to extremes, dipping as low as 4% overall at a hospital in Alaska and as high as 62% overall at a hospital in Florida, according to Business Insider's analysis.

At Princeton Baptist in Birmingham, Cooper and her colleagues maintained one of the lowest rates of C-sections performed on women with low-risk pregnancies — those who are pregnant for the first time, are at full term, are not delivering twins, and whose babies are head-down rather than breech — of any hospital in Business Insider's analysis.

In many ways, it was an outlier.

The hospital is located in a low-income, Black-majority neighborhood of Birmingham, Alabama. Nationwide, Black women are more likely than other women to undergo medically unnecessary C-sections.

Cooper credited most of their success to working with midwives. Across the US, women with low-risk pregnancies cared for by midwives have better health outcomes and lower chance of undergoing a C-section, according to several recent studies.

Cooper also said she and other providers at Princeton Baptist had enough staff and available beds to support women in long vaginal deliveries.

"If you don't have enough nurses, you don't have enough beds, or you don't have space for women to labor," said Cooper, "you're going to do things that increase the risk of a section."

Dr. Manuel Alvarez, who also chairs obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive science at Hackensack University Medical Center and the Hackensack-Meridian School of Medicine, said his hospitals track individual and share provider C-section rates, hold routine monthly trainings on supporting vaginal deliveries for doctors and nurses, and implemented evidence-based protocols to ensure "women have the best chance of a vaginal delivery."

All doctors ordering a C-section must first consult with a nurse and another doctor, he said, which helps promote a workplace culture more supportive of vaginal deliveries.

Dozens of other hospitals maintained strikingly high C-section rates. Doctors at Valley Baptist Medical Center — Brownsville, a for-profit hospital in Brownsville, Texas, delivered over half of the 14,500 babies born at the hospital by C-section between 2018 and 2024, Business Insider's analysis showed. Of those, nearly 3,600 babies were delivered to women who underwent a C-section for the first time.

Experts look to prevent first-time C-sections, since they almost always result in more. At Valley Baptist, 99% of pregnant women with one or more prior C-sections underwent another over the same seven-year period.

Some hospitals treat women with high-risk pregnancies and may have a higher overall or first-time C-section rate to best protect the lives and safety of those women and their newborns. To better evaluate a hospital's potential for performing medically unnecessary C-sections, experts and federal health agencies look at the rate doctors perform C-sections on women with low-risk pregnancies, since they're the least likely to require surgery to safely deliver their babies.

Women with low-risk pregnancies may still be obese, be older, or have other complications, such as preeclampsia, which may mean delivering their babies by C-section is safest. Still, dozens of experts told Business Insider that low-risk pregnancies are the most useful metric for evaluating the quality of a hospital's maternal care.

At Valley Baptist, doctors performed C-sections on half of all women with low-risk pregnancies, on average, over seven years. That's double the low-risk C-section rate of the next closest hospital, less than 5 miles away.

Valley Baptist's spokesperson did not respond to Business Insider's queries by phone and email.

Large swings in low-risk C-section rates underline the dramatic influence a hospital has on women in its care. Controlling for a constellation of factors — hospital obstetric care levels, delivery volume, urban or rural location, maternal age, race, health, and income — multiple studies show one of the biggest risks for undergoing a medically unnecessary C-section is the hospital a woman delivers in.

Our first-of-its-kind map allows users to search hospitals across these regions and makes C-section rates publicly available to compare across nearby hospitals.

'That all goes back to money'

In the American medical system, money dominates care. Most US hospitals operate as "fee-for-service," meaning they bill and garner reimbursements for each service they provide. Each baby they deliver nets reimbursable fees.

A C-section performed by an obstetrician is more highly reimbursed than a vaginal delivery. In 2020, the surgery averaged around $17,000 in insurance reimbursements, compared to just under $11,500 for vaginal birth, according to a 2022 study.

The surgery is also more cost-effective. Hospitals maximize reimbursements from labor by keeping delivery volume high, according to former hospital administrators and recent industry analysis. The more babies delivered, the higher the collective payout.

For hospitals and providers looking to increase delivery efficiency, it's simple math. A vaginal delivery can take days, while a C-section takes less than an hour.

Those indirect incentives appear most acute at for-profit hospitals motivated to deliver higher shareholder returns. Across nearly all states in Business Insider's analysis, surgeons at for-profit hospitals perform C-sections at higher rates, on average, than other hospitals. Overall, for every 1000 women with low-risk pregnancies, around 289 will undergo a C-section at for-profit hospitals, compared with 254 women at all other hospitals — a 14% increase.

Acceptable outcomes, acceptable cost

There are proven, evidence-based strategies for hospitals to safely reduce unnecessary C-sections.

In April 2025, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommended that hospitals safely lower low-risk C-section rates by fostering a workplace culture more supportive of vaginal birth. This means hospital leadership commits to standard, evidence-based protocols for common diagnoses that lead to C-sections, like when labor has "failed to progress," or interpreting electronic fetal heart rate monitors, which decades of research show can trigger unnecessary C-sections when misread.

Hospital staffing also matters. C-section rates were 11% lower in hospitals with enough staff to assign at least one nurse to care for every woman in labor, according to one large study. Many hospitals don't employ enough nurses to reach that benchmark. Nurse salaries are among a hospital's most significant costs, making up around 30% of all facility expenditures. Hospitals hoping to trim staff overhead may cut nursing staff first. For-profit hospitals employ markedly fewer nurses for every patient in their care than other hospitals, according to a 2025 study.

In 2020, Newsweek and US News & World Report named Princeton Baptist one of the top maternity hospitals in the country, one of only two hospitals in Alabama to achieve the distinction.

That quality of care didn't balance the cost.

Princeton Baptist saw a 70% increase in the number of babies doctors delivered there between 2018 to 2022. To generate even more revenue, Cooper said she brought in significantly more pregnant women with private insurance to increase reimbursements.

It still wasn't enough. To avoid C-sections, Cooper said, she needed available hospital beds and enough nursing staff to support a woman as she labored for up to three days. That's far more hospital overhead for a vaginal birth that's ultimately less lucrative than a C-section that takes less than an hour.

"There is so much systemic pressure to get more people delivered so you can get the next person in," Cooper said. "And that all goes back to money." Ultimately, the price was too high.

In 2023, Tenet Healthcare, one of the largest for-profit medical systems in the US and then Princeton Baptist's majority owner, closed the hospital's labor and delivery department. Nationwide, more than 500 hospitals have closed their labor and delivery departments since 2010.

Tenet diverted all remaining deliveries to nearby Brookwood Medical Center, a much larger hospital that delivered five times the number of babies as Princeton Baptist each year.

Doctors at Brookwood performed low-risk C-sections at double the rate, on average, as Princeton Baptist, Business Insider's data showed. In 2024, Brookwood doctors operated on nearly one in three women with low-risk pregnancies — among the highest low-risk C-section rates in the state.

David McKinney, the spokesperson for Orlando Health, the parent company of Brookwood and Princeton Baptist as of late 2024, referred Business Insider's questions to Tenet. Multiple Tenet spokespeople did not respond to Business Insider's queries.

In the end, the fight overwhelmed Cooper. Exhausted and burned out, she left the practice in late 2022, less than a year before Princeton Baptist closed the labor and delivery department's doors.

"It's hard to be an outsider in your own field," she said. "It's a hard enough field to be in anyway."

Without intervention, hospital C-section rates almost always rebound to meet the demands of the US medical system, said Dr. Steven L. Clark, an obstetrician at Baylor College of Medicine in Texas, who has studied the US C-section rate over decades.

It's economics, Clark said: "This is the rate which gives the American population acceptable outcomes for acceptable cost."

In most states, hospitals are not required by law to participate in initiatives aimed at safely lowering C-section rates. When left to themselves, hospitals rarely prioritize reducing medically unnecessary cesareans, more than a dozen healthcare providers and two former hospital administrators told Business Insider. Most default to concern for their bottom lines.

But not always.

States including California, Iowa, and New Jersey have successfully supported more vaginal deliveries at hospitals participating in state-led initiatives to improve maternal care.

At the beginning of 2025, dozens of Alabama hospitals volunteered to participate in a state-led initiative to safely lower their collective first-time C-section rate by 20% by 2027. Brookwood, under new management by Orlando Health, is among them. The hospital with the highest low-risk C-section rate in the state is not.

Have a tip? Contact Hannah Beckler via email at hbeckler@businessinsider.com or Signal at hbeckler.72. Use a personal email address and a nonwork device; here's our guide to sharing information securely.

• AI can do amazing things. It also fails at basic stuff, all the time.
• That's not a temporary state of things. We'll be dealing with that dichotomy for a long time.
• Which makes predictions about what AI is going to do to work, and everything else, very hard to make.

Sometimes I use ChatGPT and it seems stunningly obvious that AI is going to have a transformative effect on my life. I use it more every day.

And other times I find myself yelling at ChatGPT in ALL CAPS, because it can't do basic, simple tasks — ones I could reasonably farm out to a 5th grader. Or even worse: It can't do basic tasks but won't tell me it can't do them, and tries to fudge a result instead. And that makes me wary of using it again.

Does this sound familiar?

It turns out that the AI business has a great term for this dichotomy: "The jagged frontier," coined in a 2023 research paper. Here's another way of putting it, via Reuters:

"It might be a Ferrari in math but a donkey at putting things in your calendar," said Anastasios Angelopoulos, the CEO and cofounder of LMArena, a popular benchmarking tool."

That quote comes from a report looking at the struggles various businesses have had implementing AI in their work. It's a theme we've been hearing a lot about over the last few months, like the MIT study that found that 95% of companies were getting "zero return" on their AI investment.

This issue is core to the "Is AI a bubble and when will it pop?" question, of course. Which is a very important question, with some $2 trillion in investment in play.

But I think it's not the only question: The tech isn't going away, so many of us are unquestionably going to be using AI in all kinds of ways, no matter what.

So a more practical question is: What kind of tasks can AI do reliably well today — reliably enough that businesses (and the rest of us) can use it day in and day out — and which ones are going to take a while to sort out? And which ones may never be something we can hand over to AI?

This is a pretty good summary of the ongoing experiments we're working out in real time, right now.

• Amy Smith faced unemployment and depression after losing her HR management job at 57.
• She struggled financially, relying on food stamps and selling belongings to make ends meet.
• Persistence led her to a new HR role, teaching her resilience and appreciation for stability.

This as-told-to essay is based on a conversation with Amy Smith, a 59-year-old HR professional based in the Kansas City metro area. It's been edited for length and clarity.

I had spent the majority of my career in HR when I got laid off from my six-figure management job.

Over the next year and a half, I went from living in an apartment with all the bells and whistles, not even thinking about money, to going on food stamps, selling my belongings, and moving into a friend's basement — all because I couldn't find a job. At 57, I couldn't help but feel like my age was working against me in the market.

The rejections took a toll on me, and I fell into a depression. I just had this feeling that everything was closing in on top of me. Some days, it even felt hard to breathe.

After 20 months of job searching, I landed a role as an HR generalist that I love. If I could go back, I'd tell myself one thing to make my unemployment experience easier: Just get up.

The job hunt felt hopeless for months

In September 2023, I received a call from my boss saying he bank where I worked was restructuring, and my role would be eliminated the following month. I felt extremely disappointed, but I had been restructured from a previous role at the start of the pandemic, and it took me a few months to find a new job. I figured this time around it would take me at most 60 days.

I applied to any HR position I could find, even entry-level coordinator roles on job boards like LinkedIn and Indeed. The response was rejection after rejection. I even hired a professional résumé writer for help. It was $450 that I didn't have, but I was striking out so much on my own that I thought I'd give it a try.

It was another kick in the gut when I sent the new résumé to my recruiter friend, and she took one look at it and said, "You got taken, honey." She told me my original résumé was better.

When I would get interviews, I often made it through the initial screening and the phone interview, but it seemed like once I got to the in-person phase, I would get a call saying they went with another candidate. I'm not a spring chicken, so that's where I believe ageism came in.

The rejections were taking me lower and lower. I deleted the spreadsheet where I tracked my applications because I couldn't take looking at it anymore.

I fell into a depression and struggled to get out of bed

By the end of the year, I couldn't afford to buy my grandbabies any Christmas presents, and I was devastated.

I stopped changing my clothes. I'd stay in my pajamas all day and maybe run a brush through my hair. Most nights, I would sit in the dark and just stare — no TV, no lights, nothing. I didn't want to look at my computer, answer my phone, or even climb out of bed.

Once February 2024 came around, my unemployment ran out, and I had to apply for food stamps. I remember bawling to myself. I just had this overwhelming feeling that I didn't know what to do.

Then a point came when I thought to myself, "This isn't you." I told myself, "Get up, brush your teeth, brush your hair, and walk outside." I started forcing myself to leave the apartment every day. At first, it was just to grab the mail, then I started walking around outside my apartment complex to get some fresh air. It was about finding the determination to crawl out of that hole of depression, even just for five seconds at a time.

I took on odd jobs and sold household items, but it wasn't enough to save my apartment

The next month, I started looking for work in my area and got hired to sell used cars. I had to sell cars that I knew weren't good quality, so on top of battling depression, I felt like I was taking advantage of customers. After a few months, I couldn't emotionally take it anymore, so I quit. I worked a few other odd jobs, including at a convenience store and another car dealership.

In August of 2024, I started selling any items I could on Facebook Marketplace, from furniture to my CPAP machine, to make rent. It wasn't enough, and I ended up getting turned over to collections for the rent a month before my lease ended.

I packed up whatever I could fit in my SUV and moved to Florida to stay with family for a few months before coming back to Kansas City to live with some friends in the mother-in-law's quarters in the basement, which is where I am now. I'm forever grateful for them and their support, but I still battle with the fact that I'm now 59 and don't have my own home.

I appreciate everything so much more after finding a new job

A few months after moving back to Kansas City, I applied to an HR position at a health insurance company and went through a few rounds of interviews. I thought it went great, but I heard crickets.

I followed up multiple times and was clear that I wanted the job. Eventually, I got hired. The CEO told me it was my persistence throughout the interview process that won him over. It's been fantastic since I walked in the door.

I didn't feel it at the time, but the man upstairs has a plan for everything. This tough period of unemployment led me to where I am today, and I learned a valuable lesson in humility. I appreciate everything I have now, and I'm motivated to work even harder to get back the things that are important, such as my savings and retirement funds, my own place, and even my self-worth.

Here's what I would tell myself if I could go back

If I could talk to the version of me that was struggling most, I'd tell her to get out of bed, brush your teeth, and get out of your pajamas, even if it's just to put on a t-shirt and some jeans. Pushing myself to do something every day is what helped shake me out of my depression.

Take a deep breath and know that at the end of the day, you've got it and you're strong enough to get through anything that's coming at you. Don't give up on yourself because you're worth it.

Do you have a story to share about navigating long-term unemployment? If so, please reach out to the reporter at tmartinelli@businessinsider.com.

Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella views AI as an existential threat, a once-in-a-generation opportunity, and a chance to cement his legacy at the top of the tech industry.

The mission is both personal and professional for the Nadella, who is pushing the company to rethink how it operates at every level. That's according to internal Microsoft documents obtained by Business Insider, and interviews with leaders, managers, and other employees at the software giant.

Sweeping organizational shifts include high-profile executive changes and mandates for teams to work faster and leaner — all designed to consolidate power around AI leaders and radically reshape how the company builds and funds its products.

"Satya is pushing on intensity and urgency," one Microsoft executive told Business Insider. That's putting pressure on some Microsoft veterans to decide whether they want to stay and commit to the mountain of work it's going to take to complete Nadella's AI revolution.

"You've gotta be asking yourself how much longer you want to do this," this executive added.

Nadella is having conversations with executives to sign on for the transformation, or leave, people familiar with the matter said. Many of these people asked not to be identified discussing sensitive matters, although one top executive spoke openly with Business Insider about the CEO's overhaul and Microsoft's AI future.

Nadella's new technical focus

Nadella this year appointed a new CEO of Microsoft's commercial business to free up time to focus on the technical work necessary for his AI ambitions.

According to an internal memo, Nadella also started a weekly AI accelerator meeting and corresponding Teams channel to speed the pace of AI work and get more ideas from across the company.

Executives do not present in these new meetings. Instead, lower-level technical employees are encouraged to speak and share what they're seeing from the AI trenches. This is designed to avoid top-down AI leadership, and is intentionally a bit messy and chaotic, according to people familiar with the new approach.

Other major executive changes are looming. Three Microsoft executives told Business Insider that longtime Office and Windows boss Rajesh Jha has been mulling retirement. Insiders are also chattering about the possibility that Charlie Bell, who runs Microsoft cybersecurity, could retire.

Microsoft's spokesman Frank Shaw said the company does not expect any changes in the short term to its senior leadership team, of which Bell and Jha are both members.

Althoff's rise

Microsoft recently promoted Judson Althoff, its longtime sales chief, to an expanded role as CEO of the company's commercial business.

Althoff's promotion is intended to give Nadella and the company's engineering leaders more time to focus on AI, according to an internal memo viewed by Business Insider, which described this moment as "a tectonic AI platform shift."

Nadella has shifted to saying the company is in the "middle innings" rather than the "early innings" of AI, a cricket term, and started saying he wants to see the game through, one of the people said.

"This will also allow our engineering leaders and me to be laser focused on our highest ambition technical work — across our datacenter buildout, systems architecture, AI science, and product innovation — to lead with intensity and pace in this generational platform shift," Nadella wrote.

Practically, that's meant Althoff is spending more time as the face of Microsoft at events such as the recent Ignite conference, the first one in Nadella's tenure when the company CEO didn't deliver the keynote.

One executive told Business Insider the move seems to be paying off so far by giving Nadella "extra bandwidth to really lead the company in learning, leveraging, and building AI."

"Satya is 100% engaged with leading the company to learn and embrace AI," this person said. "The Judson move was brilliant. It actually allows Satya more time to advance the company in its AI journey. Satya spends a good amount of time in meetings you could characterize as AI learning, product, and engineering."

New marching orders

Nadella recently announced new marching orders for executives in another Teams channel, this one exclusively for Microsoft corporate vice presidents and above. The CEO said the company is at a turning point at least as significant as the shift to cloud computing and needs to completely rethink its business model.

"We all have to work and act like ICs in our own orgs, constantly learning and unlearning," Nadella wrote, referring to Individual Contributors, someone who is focused on technical work rather than managing people.

"I chuckle a bit each time someone sends me a note about talking to a friend at an AI start-up, about how differently they're working, how agile, focused, fast they are," the CEO added. "The reality is that this work is also happening right here at Microsoft under our noses! It's our jobs as leaders to seek this out, empower it, cultivate it, and learn from our own early in career talent who are reinventing the new production function!!"

Production function, explained

Asha Sharma, Microsoft CoreAI product president, who joined in 2024, said the company has shifted its operations dramatically in her short tenure. Nadella's new "production function" is about using AI to radically change how the company creates, builds, and delivers products and services.

When she joined, the AI industry would crank out a big new foundation model roughly every six months. Then, releases happened every six weeks. Today, AI is changing so quickly that it's forcing Microsoft to rethink not just its products but the entire way software is made, Sharma said in an interview arranged by the company.

For decades, software development has worked like an assembly line. You take a set of inputs — people, time, resources — and transform them into output. Scaling production required scaling those inputs.

"AI breaks that relationship," she said.

AI agents, data, and intelligence now act as a new type of scalable unit that can generate software, insights, and decisions without a corresponding increase in engineering hours or budget. That means the marginal cost of creating something new drops dramatically, Sharma explained, and teams can now spend more on "judgment, taste, and problem-solving."

Leadership evolution

With so much changing, it's natural that leadership evolves — and Microsoft insiders expect more changes at the top.

Jha, a veteran executive who oversees famous Microsoft products such as Office and Windows, has been mulling retirement, according to three executives who spoke to Business Insider.

Still, one of these executives noted that Jha has a newfound excitement about the company's AI potential, so he could stick around for Nadella's new intense era.

If Jha leaves, LinkedIn CEO Ryan Roslansky might succeed him, these executives said. Roslansky has been running LinkedIn since 2020 and Microsoft recently expanded Roslansky's role to include Outlook, Word, Excel, PowerPoint, and the Microsoft 365 Copilot application, according to an internal announcement from Nadella in June.

Roslansky started reporting to Jha for his new duties as executive vice president of Office, and to Nadella in his capacity as LinkedIn CEO, according to organizational charts viewed by Business Insider.

Charles Lamanna, president of the business and industry Copilot group responsible for building AI tools like low-code applications, also moved to report to Jha at the time, and is taking on a bigger profile within the company, the people said.

Have a tip? Contact this reporter via email at astewart@businessinsider.com or Signal at +1-425-344-8242. Use a personal email address and a nonwork device; here's our guide to sharing information securely.

• Troops are scrubbing their social media amid fears over a Pentagon crackdown on political speech.
• "I had to take my pronouns off my LinkedIn," a Marine sergeant told Business Insider.
• Pentagon leaders have said their moves are intended to depoliticize the military.

Pentagon leadership's intensifying scrutiny of speech that is critical of conservatives and the Trump administration is fueling anxiety in the ranks and has some service members scrambling to protect their careers.

In interviews with Business Insider, troops and legal advisors detailed how behavior has changed amid the recent crackdown, which has some facing administrative actions that can end a career without a court-martial.

• A service member deleted his social media post that called the US attacks on boats in the Caribbean lawless after someone at his command saw it.

• A field-grade officer deactivated their Facebook and avoids responding to colleagues who text news articles, worried about being baited into criticizing the Trump administration.

• An enlisted Marine says a mentor warned her to erase any public-facing support for progressive causes.

"I had to take my pronouns off my LinkedIn. I've scrubbed everything that has ever mentioned or supported" LGBTQ causes, the Marine sergeant told Business Insider. She said her mentor warned that Pentagon officials may be looking for "anything that could be construed as contrary to the vision that the current administration has."

These individual acts of self-censorship mirror a broader chill sweeping the ranks, especially as the crackdown has burst into the open at the highest levels. Tensions flared again this week as the Defense Department said it was launching a command investigation of Democratic Sen. Mark Kelly after a preliminary review of his video urging troops to defy unlawful orders.

The Trump administration says it has a prerogative to police speech it deems offensive or inappropriate, and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has said the administration's policies are intended "to rip out the politics" from the services. Some experts on military law say the scrutiny and its repercussions are an abuse of the military's authority.

One of the flashpoints has been the September murder of conservative activist Charlie Kirk. Top Pentagon leaders have said it's "unacceptable" for troops "to celebrate or mock" the killing.

After Kirk's killing, some service members said things online like "glad he's dead." Others criticized his rhetoric or, more broadly, complained about Trump administration policies or conservatives. In one case, a colonel was suspended for lamenting to friends the angry arguments that followed Kirk's death.

More than 120 service members have been investigated for political comments since Kirk's death, according to a tally reported by The Washington Post.

Nearly a dozen military-law experts told Business Insider the punishments generally wouldn't hold up in a military courtroom because they lack the elements of speech crimes, such as "contemptuous" words against an elected leader, or because the comments were unrelated to the military and not said in uniform.

"What we're seeing now is abuse of speech restrictions," said Rachel VanLandingham, a Southwestern Law School professor and retired Air Force JAG who is an expert on military speech.

"Our service members understand that their rights are more restricted within the military. Now they're being chilled into giving up the rights they actually do have," she said. "It's unprecedented."

A wide range of allegations

Military leaders have disclosed that they are tracking "unprofessional" social media use. An October message from the Navy secretary encouraged sailors and Marines to "refrain from social media engagement" about official government or military policies.

"This is more than just policing manners," said Frank Rosenblatt, a professor at the Mississippi College School of Law and a retired Army JAG. "A wider muzzling of the military seems to really serve what they're trying to do — identify these deep state people who are not politically trustworthy."

The Uniform Code of Military Justice imposes some restrictions on troops, criminalizing speech that disrespects officers and civilian leaders, or that undermines the obedience necessary to carry out orders. Troops retain many First Amendment protections; hate speech, for instance, is lawful unless it has a military connection, such as if it was uttered on a base or warship.

The hunt for speech crimes is fueling suspicion and distrust among some. The field-grade officer who shut down her Facebook said she now worries that a casual remark could brand her as liberal and thus politically suspect.

She has begun scrutinizing parts of her career she never imagined — where her office is located, who works nearby, whether to respond to articles shared in group chats, and even whether to travel with coworkers she doesn't know well.

"It just takes one person to flag you as disloyal to end your career — or worse," said the officer, who asked for anonymity to avoid official retaliation.

'You better be careful'

Don C. King, a civilian defense attorney, said he got a call recently from a worried service member. They'd written a social media post critical of the Trump administration's lethal attacks on suspected drug-smuggling boats near Venezuela. Someone at their command saw it and told them, "'Hey, you better be careful with your social media.'"

"I've been in the military my entire adult life, over 30 years, and I've never seen any of the services or DoD scout social media for what it considers to be inappropriate speech," said King, who retired as a Navy JAG in 2022 and owns the King Military Law firm specializing in military clients.

The allegations against rank-and-file troops are unfolding in the military's administrative system, which can discipline troops and end careers outside of public court proceedings.

"These cases are early, and both the government and the affected individuals are figuring out how they want to fight," said Eugene R. Fidell, an influential military law expert and senior research scholar at Yale. "The simple wear and tear of having to defend and try to overturn one of these administrative sanctions is itself a punishment."

First Amendment restrictions on troops stem from the military's apolitical role and its reliance on obedience to orders. Officers can face criminal penalties for "contemptuous" words about the president, as can all personnel for disrespecting a senior officer. However, troops can comment politically, donate to a campaign, or display bumper stickers. Their protections are strongest when their comments are in a personal capacity, made out of uniform and without any hint of official endorsement.

Social media can amplify a service member's comments far beyond a bumper sticker, regardless of intention. That poses higher risks that the military as an institution could be seen as backing a political party or objective, said Peter Feaver, a professor of political science at Duke University who authored a 2023 book, "Thanks For Your Service," about how high confidence in the military has depended on beliefs about its competence and its avoidance of partisan politics.

"The military is becoming combatants in the culture wars," he said. Part of the way to change that, he said, "requires the military not to sound like they're culture warriors."

"So you may have a right to say it, but it wouldn't be right to say it," he added.

Military law criminalizes conduct that disgraces an officer or damages good order and discipline; however, case law has set a high bar when the conduct at issue is purely private speech otherwise protected by the First Amendment.

Brent Sadler, a defense expert at a leading conservative think tank, said speech monitoring is justified to enforce the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

"The issue is more about professionalism and protecting any appearance of the military interfering with political-civil control," said Sadler, a retired Navy captain and senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation.

"I do think numerous conservatives in the military have been persecuted legally and professionally," he said, pointing to the 8,000 troops kicked out for refusing the COVID vaccine mandate before the Pentagon rescinded it in 2023.

Mark Jensen, a former Army JAG who retired earlier this year, said the Pentagon's policing has expanded over the past few months from "despicable" speech about Kirk, to rebukes of his politics, to advocacy for transgender people, to criticism of the Trump administration.

Jensen represents four military clients and a civilian who face punishment for their speech. The fact that some of the allegations are public is the result of an anti-"woke" online army that publishes hearsay and leaked comments on sites like X.

On top of being "smeared," Jensen said, these troops undergo the stress of an investigation, a relief if they're in leadership, a poor evaluation, a reprimand by a general, and face a review that can reduce their rank.

"It's like a 1-2-3-4-5 punch," Jensen said. "All of it with minimal due process."

Kelly is not the only veteran to unexpectedly face punishment. In one recent case, an ex-soldier on the inactive reserve — a roster of those who can be reactivated in a national emergency — told a civilian attorney he was investigated by military officials for a private social media post, the attorney said.

"Even when people are in the normal reserves, the regulations are pretty clear that conduct in a civilian capacity shouldn't be punished in a military capacity," said Cody Harnish, a private defense attorney and former Army JAG who specializes in UCMJ cases.

"They're way out of their depth here."

Staff writer Kelsey Baker contributed to this report.

• Health insurance costs are expected to rise for Americans in 2026.
• ACA subsidies may expire, increasing marketplace prices for middle and low-income households.
• Here's what to know about employer- and government-based health insurance coverage.

As 2025 comes to a close, Americans are decorating for the holidays and agonizing over which health insurance plan to choose.

The decisions are complex and personal, as enrollees think about which plans best fit their income and medical needs. And, regardless of whether they have private or public coverage, most households are budgeting for higher costs.

Here's what to know about insurance plans, enrollment deadlines, and policy changes in the new year.

When are the health insurance enrollment deadlines?

Most Americans have private, employer-sponsored health insurance or a government-based plan. Nearly all of these programs have active enrollment, meaning that people need to sign up for insurance every year — even if they don't intend to switch providers.

For Affordable Care Act plans, the enrollment deadline was December 15, with some options to make changes until January 15 for a later coverage start date. The Medicare enrollment deadline for older Americans was December 7. Most coverage begins January 1.

Deadlines for employer-based plans vary, but open enrollment tends to start November 1 and close in late November or early December, with coverage beginning on January 1.

Once Americans select their 2026 healthcare plan, they generally aren't able to change their coverage until the next open enrollment cycle. Missing open enrollment means you will need to wait until next year to sign up for insurance.

People with qualifying life events, however, can adjust their plan if they file necessary paperwork with the government or their employer at any time throughout the year. Qualifying life events include a marriage, divorce, new baby, move, job loss, or major change of income.

Medicaid rules are different from other insurance plans because it is income based. Americans can enroll in the program on a rolling basis throughout the year if they meet the qualifying criteria.

How are Medicare and Medicaid different?

Both Medicare and Medicaid are government-based health insurance plans, though they serve different demographics.

Medicare is typically for Americans age 65 and older, many of whom also receive Social Security — though some people with disabilities are also eligible. The program has four main plan types: Parts A and Part B are standalone insurance that cover inpatient and outpatient care; Medicare Advantage allows older Americans to join private plans governed by Medicare rules and out-of-pocket caps; and Part D is supplemental insurance that covers prescription drugs and basic provider visits.

Medicaid is federally-funded health insurance for low-income households. The qualification threshold varies slightly by state, but tends to be based on the poverty line — which is $32,150 for a family of four. Most states have cutoffs between 138% and 260% of that level. These plans typically cover preventative visits, inpatient and outpatient care, and prescription drugs.

It's possible for low-income older adults to enroll in Medicare and Medicaid at the same time.

Some families and pregnant women who earn above the Medicaid threshold but not enough for private insurance can also enroll in The Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP). The requirements are different in every state, but are usually between 170% and 400% of the federal poverty line.

Does marketplace insurance have income limits?

There are no income limits to enroll in marketplace insurance.

Income does come into play when deciding whether or not enrollees will receive tax credits that make their marketplace coverage more affordable. Between 2021 and 2025, Americans had access to enhanced Affordable Care Act subsidies. These credits lowered care and premium costs for low- and middle-income households based on their proximity to the federal poverty line.

Marketplace insurance will still be available to Americans regardless of income in 2026, though it's likely that Congress will not extend the subsidies beyond their December 31 expiration date. Republican and Democratic senators are meeting this week to discuss the issue and plan to make a final announcement before they leave office on December 18. If the subsidies aren't renewed, it could make the cost of marketplace insurance skyrocket for many low- and middle-income enrollees and some may be priced out of coverage.

What are EPO, PPO, and HMO plans?

EPO plans are often the cheapest option for private coverage, with low or nonexistent premiums. Americans may choose this coverage because it's more affordable to maintain, though the plans tend to be restrictive about care. Enrollees are required to see only in-network providers and may also need to seek in-network emergency care. If someone on an EPO plan sees an out-of-network provider or pharmacist, they're likely to be fully responsible for cost out of pocket.

PPO plans have more flexibility but a higher price tag. The in-network coverage available to enrollees offers more doctor, clinic, and pharmacy options, and allows people to go out of network when needed. Though premiums are more expensive, these plans tend to be a better fit for Americans with chronic health conditions or ongoing prescription needs.

HMO plans usually have a low monthly premium, but enrollees are limited to in-network providers except in emergency situations. These plans are best for older Americans who need preventative care, but don't have chronic conditions and rarely need to see a specialist. These plans are also common among older Americans with Medicare Advantage.

Americans aren't able to change their health coverage between EPO, PPO, or HMO plans once open enrollment ends, except if they have a qualifying life event.

How will health insurance costs change in 2026?

Costs for both private and public health insurance are expected to rise in the new year. This is due to a combination of factors: ACA subsidies are set to expire for marketplace plans, President Donald Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act is set to limit Medicaid funding, and the price of private health insurance is rising for companies — a burden that many are partially passing to employees.

Though actual cost changes will vary widely, it's likely that Americans will experience higher premiums and deductibles for care going forward.

When Gbenga Ajilore thinks about America's job market, a few things keep him up at night: The slowing demand for entry-level talent, tariff chaos, and high interest rates.

ChatGPT isn't one of them.

"There is going to come a point where AI is just a part of everything that we do, but we're not there yet," Ajilore, who is chief economist at the left-leaning Center for Budget Policy and Priorities, said, adding, "The economy is paralyzed."

The labor market is showing clear signs of weakness. Long-term unemployment has been trending upward, and the share of Americans looking for work recently eclipsed the number of available roles. Alongside a steady drum of layoff headlines, unemployment ticked up more than expected last month to 4.6%. Young people are having trouble breaking in, older workers are hesitant to retire, and with the "flattening" of many companies, the middle rungs of the career ladder are crumbling. Only healthcare and construction showed substantial growth. It's been called the white-collar recession, an unwelcome awakening for Americans who hoped their college degree would translate to long-term stability and a comfortable salary.

Given the timing, it's easy to villainize artificial intelligence. C-Suite leaders across industries have said they're "all in on AI," often to the dismay of rank-and-file employees. The tech is quickly reshaping how workers are assessed on the job and how companies define productivity. It's even shaking up the hiring process: My colleagues have talked to job seekers who submitted hundreds of résumés without landing a role, as HR departments are swamped by AI-assisted applications. Economists and investors can't agree if chatbots are the future of the workforce or a vastly overblown bubble.

But, in shouldering the blame for America's job market woes, AI has become a scapegoat for something else: The economy itself is deteriorating. Years of higher interest rates and stubborn inflation, along with slowing wage growth and restrictive trade policies, have created an environment where businesses are slashing budgets and the middle class is living paycheck to paycheck.

If you're frustrated by a lower-than-expected raise or the inability to land a new gig, don't blame the robots. Blame Jerome Powell.

There is no better example of the AI-is-wrecking-the-job-market fears than the so-called "Scariest Chart in the World." The chart has popped up in X and Bluesky posts, news reports, and a thick stack of Substack newsletters. The simple, two-line chart tracks two pieces of data: the S&P 500 and the number of US job vacancies since 2015. The two run closely together for the first couple of years, but there is a decided break in 2022 — the stock market continues to soar, and the number of available jobs begins to decline. AI doomers are quick to point out that the date those two lines diverged corresponds to the public launch of OpenAI's ChatGPT. The implication being that the explosion of large language models immediately began replacing thousands of jobs while pouring money into Wall Street.

As chatbots and AI tools make employees more productive — drafting emails, writing code, and streamlining administrative tasks — and employers more profitable, the thinking goes, there will be less need for hiring human workers. There's plenty of anecdotal evidence from high-profile companies to support the idea. Nvidia wants employees to use AI "for every task possible," Microsoft is "rethinking" its business model for the AI age, Big Law is hoping AI can make its services faster and cheaper, and top banks and consulting firms are transferring some tasks from people to bots.

But is AI already replacing a bunch of jobs? Probably not.

Ajilore thinks the AI-sparked white collar downturn is "overblown." Many companies are "using AI as a cheat code as opposed to something that makes them more efficient," he said, "With the cheat code, you actually end up making mistakes and cutting corners." He believes that both chatbots and Corporate America's tech strategy have a long way to go before AI truly disrupts the workforce.

Even Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, the most powerful economic policymaker in the world, isn't sold on AI's effects on the current job market. When asked about the technology during the Fed's December meeting, Powell said AI "is part of the story, but it's not a big part of the story yet."

There's also an important piece of context missing from "The Scariest Chart in the World": the federal funds rate. Decided eight times a year by Powell and his colleagues on the all-important (and dully-named) Federal Open Markets Committee, the Fed funds rate is the key interest rate that anchors all types of loans. For banks and businesses, the number determines how easily and cheaply they can borrow money. For consumers, Fed rates impact everything from home prices to auto loans and credit card rates.

When interest rates are low, businesses can access debt more affordably, which helps them fuel growth and hiring. As the fed fund rate increases, however, the price of borrowing rises too. This can help keep inflation in check, but higher rates make it more expensive for companies to operate, meaning that many are seeking other areas to cut costs — often at the expense of employees.

It's true that the S&P 500 and job openings began to diverge right as ChatGPT launched, but that's also when interest rates started to climb. Between early 2022 and late 2024, federal funds jumped by over 5 percentage points. This was a reshaping of monetary strategy meant to curb soaring prices and cool off a too-hot economy, and it was a major break with nearly a generation of previous policy. The Fed originally slashed interest rates to zero in 2008 to address the fallout from the financial crisis, and in the following 12 years, the benchmark interest rate never rose above 2.4%. Following the emergency measures of the early pandemic, the dramatic hikes of 2022 were a sign that the zero-interest-rate era of the 2010s had officially come to an end.

This sudden interest rate rise was a turning point many businesses. «tweaked the wording here since it was similar to a sentence in the graf above Hiring boomed in the early pandemic: Job openings skyrocketed to record highs as tech and business fields scrambled to snap up new talent. The Beige Book — a collection of quotes and insights gathered from business owners across the country by the various regional Federal Reserve banks — provides a valuable window into the thinking of hiring managers and executives during this period. Labor market commentary across 2021 and 2022 Beige Books tend to reference "modest to strong" job growth, robust hiring demand, and a shortage of workers, with very few mentions of interest rates. This changed when the Fed started hiking rates. One note in the November 2022 edition of the Beige Book said that "Interest rates and inflation continued to weigh on activity," another said "labor demand weakened overall," pointing to layoffs in tech, finance, and real estate. Both blue-collar and white-collar sectors felt the brunt of interest rates that year, citing steep borrowing costs as a central reason they're not hiring. Americans, meanwhile, stopped quitting their jobs as vacancies dried up, and the job market saw its biggest layoff spike since the 2020 shutdown.

Corporate America began to lean into "efficiency" rhetoric alongside rising rates. Reduced bureaucracy and red tape, along with a smaller workforce, were sold by the C-Suite as a profit panacea in the face of higher financing costs. Leaders at Meta, Amazon, Google, Microsoft, and others spoke about hiring freezes and job cuts as a productivity bet versus a financial issue.

The trend continued: An October 2023 Beige Book note said many sectors "reduced hiring plans" and were "rightsizing" their budgets because of rising rates. Fast forward to today, and businesses are still grappling with the increased cost of funding, even as Powell and the Fed have moved slowly to lower their benchmark rate. In October's Beige Book, businesses big and small mentioned layoffs and attrition more so than new hiring. Beige Book reports over the past year suggest that AI is contributing to hiring softening in certain areas, such as call centers and accounting firms, but not widespread job displacement. Instead, "uncertainty" and "tariffs" were two of the most frequently mentioned words by companies such as Tesla, JPMorgan, and Whirlpool during earnings calls.

But saying the need for layoffs is the result of a long-term change in the cost of financing isn't very sexy. Better to point to AI as both an excuse for layoffs and a way to give investors hope for the future. Chen Zhao, head of economics research at the real estate firm Redfin, said many companies are struggling to balance profits with the steep cost of borrowing money. This is especially true in the housing sector, she said, because it's sensitive to the federal funds rate. She said fields like tech are similarly vulnerable.

"I think that what's happening is just simple economics," she said, adding, "But when you say that you're going to do layoffs or you're not going to be hiring as much, it doesn't sound very good to investors. It sounds a lot better if you say that you're seeing all these productivity enhancements because of AI."

Each recent technological development — computers, cellphones, the internet — has reshaped the job market and the workplace, but people tend to underestimate the timeline. Economists said it will take years, possibly decades, before we have concrete evidence that AI is replacing jobs on a large scale. And AI may create thousands of jobs as it makes others obsolete.

"I think the overall evolution of the technology is going to be a lot slower than both the optimists and doomers think," said Scott Lincicome, vice president of economics and trade at the right-leaning Cato Institute. AI has developed rapidly, and while it can perform basic tasks, it is still a long way from replacing human judgment, creativity, and decision-making. "There will certainly be disruptions, that's inevitable," he said. "But it won't be cataclysmic."

The job market is in a rut — but chatbots aren't the sole, or even the main, culprit.

Despite the weakening job market numbers, the Federal Reserve has cut rates three times this year, a cautious policy stance brought on by economic precarity. Recent Fed reports show that trade policy and inflation are keeping Powell and company from cutting rates at a faster pace, even as the employment outlook weakens. It has also sparked division within the central bank itself: The December meeting saw the highest number of Fed members disagreeing with the interest rate committee's final decision since 2019. Economic projections also show the median committee member expects one rate cut in 2026, less than projected at this time last year. The moves signal an economic situation that isn't catastrophic, so long as Powell plays his cards carefully.

A pattern of cuts could start bringing relief for borrowers, but it will take time for the economy to recover — and there are still steep headwinds. Fast-changing tariffs are exacerbating the impact of high rates, making many businesses hesitant to invest or spend money. As Lincicome put it, "Tariff uncertainty is really a drag on the job market because companies are saddled with millions, if not billions, of dollars in additional taxes and tariff costs."

Declining immigration due to Trump's deportation policies is also part of the equation: Fewer immigrants in the workforce is contributing to a slowing labor force participation rate. Ajilore also said that the sweeping cost-cutting strategy of DOGE for the federal workforce added fuel to the corporate world's "efficiency" crusade. It all adds up to some extremely valid job anxiety for workers.

Economists expect the market to grow and adapt alongside new technology — and the AI takeover forecast is far less grim than most people realize. The chatbot revolution may come someday. But, for better or worse, the real headliner is the federal funds rate.

Allie Kelly is a reporter on Business Insider's Economy team. She writes about social safety nets and how policy impacts people.

• New data shows Gen Z lags older generations in their comfort level with saying they're not drinking.
• Younger adults drink less than previous generations, but their rates of consumption are increasing.
• Their split approach to drinking is forcing bars to rethink their strategies and menu offerings.

Gen Z drinks less than the generations before them, but the awkwardness they feel talking about alcohol is starting to transform where they go out, what they order, and how bars are built for them.

Younger consumers say they feel more awkward than older consumers when explaining why they aren't drinking, new research from Heineken shows. While an increasing percentage of Americans feel comfortable declining an alcoholic drink with a simple "no thanks" (72%) or opting for a non-alcoholic alternative at parties (86%), only about half of Americans under 35 are comfortable drinking low or no-alcohol drinks in public.

They're also more likely to expect someone will question them, and more likely to feel they need an excuse for not drinking — a paradox, given that Gen Z drinks less overall.

As younger adults pull back from drinking while still worrying about how to justify it, nightlife operators are rebuilding their menus, spaces, and social experiences around a generation that wants to go out without having to explain what's in their glass.

Laura Fenton, a research associate at the University of Sheffield's School of Medicine and Population Health who studies youth drinking behavior, said the tension around talking about drinking likely stems from social expectations. Even for Gen Z consumers, she said, "drinking together can be really important to friendship and to negotiating kind of a sense of belonging."

A Danish study she cited found that young people feel like they have to give a good reason when they don't drink or when they turn down alcohol with their friends, because "drinking is kind of a demonstration of reciprocity."

"So if you're going to not be on the same level, you have to have a good reason," Fenton said.

Gen Z's approach to alcohol is also shaped by a notable anxiety about health concerns and other risks associated with drinking, as well as an aversion to the high costs. With cocktails priced at $15 or more in most cities, many young adults opt for soda, coffee, or mocktails, perceiving them as offering better value than booze.

"They're just a much more conscious consumer," Marten Lodewijks, president of the beverage market data firm, IWSR, told Business Insider. "It's not that they just don't want to drink. They enjoy it, and they enjoy it as much as other generations. It's just that they're conscious that it's not good for them, and so they don't do it as frequently."

Bars are revamping their strategies as Gen Z makes alcohol optional

Operators say the shift isn't theoretical; they're seeing it in real time.

Michelin-starred chef David Chang said in a November interview with TBPN talk-show hosts John Coogan and Jordi Hays that the decline in Gen Z's drinking is a "real existential threat" to restaurants if they don't pivot, given the industry's already thin margins.

Sober bars are cropping up across major metropolitan areas — and one operator told Business Insider in January that every bar will have to expand its non-alcoholic offerings to stay competitive.

That change is already taking place: mocktails now appear on menus not as afterthoughts but as full-fledged offerings that look, feel, and cost like traditional cocktails, Stacy Molnar, a designer who has worked on restaurant and bar concepts for more than 30 years, told Business Insider.

"At the end of the day, it's about revenue per seat," said Molnar. "If someone wants to order a $15 mocktail instead of a $15 cocktail, great — it makes them feel included, and the operator still hits their numbers."

Heineken USA's Chief Corporate Affairs Officer, Anne de Graaf, told Business Insider that "Zebra Striping," which is when people choose to alternate between alcohol and non-alcoholic drinks, is also on the rise.

But it's not just the drink list that's changing; it's the overall bar experience.

Younger consumers want something to gather around when they go out, such as board games, trivia nights, themed environments, Instagrammable bathrooms, striking focal points, and distinctive décor.

In other words, Molnar said, they want atmosphere.

"They're not going to a bar just to sit," Molnar, who has two Gen Z kids of his own, said. "They want an activity. They want a vibe."

From all-pink cafés trending on TikTok to bars built around entertainment, the industry is shifting away from alcohol as the main draw. Instead, it's centering aesthetic experiences that make socializing feel low-stakes — and alcohol optional.

"This isn't just about alcohol," Fenton, the youth-drinking researcher, said. "It's about what young adults want from social life. If you think about it, for young adults, drinking is a social behavior, and it's largely geared toward forming and maintaining social bonds."

Bars that succeed with younger customers aren't just offering alcohol-free options; they're de-emphasizing alcohol altogether. They're transforming into multi-experience spaces where friends can hang out without feeling judged, pressured, or out of sync with the group, Molnar said.

So, what comes next? Expect to see more bars that are less about booze and more about belonging — and more spaces where saying "I'm not drinking tonight" doesn't require a speech.

• Ukraine said that one of its interceptor drones just reached 400 kmph, making it faster than F1 cars.
• Mykhailo Fedorov said the speed was achieved with a motor, meaning it uses propellers to fly.
• Kyiv has been pushing its interceptors to go faster as Russia develops more advanced Shahed drones.

A small Ukrainian drone built to chase down and intercept other aerial systems has recently achieved a speed of 400 kmph, or 248.5 mph, Kyiv's digital transformation minister said on Tuesday.

"400 km/h — that's the speed reached by an interceptor drone powered by a motor from Motor-G, a member of Brave1UA," Mykhailo Fedorov wrote in a social media post. Brave1 is Ukraine's defense innovation platform.

Such a velocity means that the interceptor can beat the official speed record for Formula 1 racing, achieved by Valtteri Bottas in 2016 at 231.46 mph.

A speed of 248.5 mph also allows the drone to nearly match the fastest high-speed trains in the world. The Shanghai Maglev, for example, reached speeds of 280 mph during tests in October, but is commercially operated at 186 mph.

And a motor-powered interceptor would be doing so with propellers, rather than the jet engines or high-thrust combustion systems that propel other vehicles to extreme speeds. Because interceptor drones are designed to destroy other drones at a low cost, Ukraine's manufacturers typically price them below $6,000 each.

It's another sign of how quickly the war is transforming the local weapons industry, which has turned hobbyist drones into some of the fastest yet cheapest aircraft on the battlefield. Four months ago, another Ukrainian interceptor drew widespread attention for reaching 195 mph in flight.

Ukraine is now ramping up ambitions to export such war technology, saying that its locally built missiles, drones, and anti-air systems have been tried and tested against Russia.

A video posted by Fedorov on Tuesday said that producing drone motors in Ukraine "seemed impossible" just two years ago, but that Motor-G is now making 100,000 motors a month.

"Today, more and more drones are flying on motors made in Ukraine," the minister wrote.

Kyiv has been particularly focused on increasing the speed of its interceptors because Russia has been developing its own versions of the Iranian Shahed, which are long-range attack drones.

The most commonly used models of these loitering munitions fly at roughly 115 to 180 mph, and are often released in large numbers to overwhelm Ukrainian air defenses. The Russian tactic created the urgent need for Ukraine to develop cheap ways to destroy the Shaheds, which led to the rise of interceptor drones.

However, Moscow has been repeatedly reported to be experimenting with smaller waves of new jet-powered Shaheds, which are believed to reach speeds of 230 mph.

Their emergence at the start of the year initially sparked fears in Ukraine that they would be too fast for interceptors to catch, though recent reports and war footage indicate that Ukrainian manufacturers have managed to close the gap.

One jet-powered Shahed, for example, was filmed being approached by a Ukrainian interceptor from behind in late November.

• Sanctions have forced Russia to lean heavily on China to keep its economy afloat.
• China ships high-tech goods to Russia and buys its oil cheap — a combo that boosts Beijing's leverage.
• Russia's role has shrunk to junior partner as China gains economic influence.

Moscow's wartime pivot to Beijing has helped keep Russia's economy afloat under the weight of sweeping Western sanctions — but at a cost.

What looks like a lifeline today may lock Moscow into a long-term role as Beijing's junior economic partner. Russia is now heavily dependent on China for key manufactured goods and advanced inputs blocked by Western sanctions, according to a report from the Atlantic Council, a think tank, published on Friday.

"Economically and politically, Russia's relationship with China is simultaneously deeply asymmetrical and mutually beneficial," wrote Elina Ribakova, a nonresident senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, and Lucas Risinger, an economic analyst and nonresident research fellow at the Kyiv School of Economics Institute.

China buys up Russian oil at volumes that offset lost European customers — at a discount — while Russia buys machinery, vehicles, and electronics from the East Asian giant amid Western boycotts and sanctions.

"This is a complete and embarrassing reversal in the relationship compared to the 2000s, when Russia exported higher value-added goods to China," wrote the analysts.

Since Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, the Kremlin has steered the country's economy into a wartime footing. Heavy defense and government spending help sustain topline resilience, despite sanctions and export restrictions.

But cracks are emerging as energy export revenues have fallen sharply in a low oil-price environment. Consumer demand has also weakened amid still high inflation.

Russia needs China far more than China needs Russia

China now accounts for a large share of Russia's imports, and the vast majority of its trade with China is settled in the Chinese yuan.

Russia became China's top crude oil supplier in 2023, but the country accounts for just one-fifth of China's imports of the commodity. Meanwhile, oil and gas revenues account for a substantial one-third of Russia's budget inflows.

To be sure, China needs global buyers for its massive manufacturing sector, and Russia has become one of them. Still, the gains are "far more important to Russia than to China," since Beijing doesn't rely on Moscow the way Europe relied on Russian energy, wrote the analysts.

Furthermore, "from an economic point of view, China is not a better trading partner for Russia than the European Union was. It buys oil and gas at lower prices, it invests far less in Russia, and its products are often technologically inferior," they added.

This skewed relationship gives Beijing substantial leverage in negotiations and transactions. China purchases Russian oil at steep discounts, knowing Moscow's alternatives are limited.

"While Moscow has not become Beijing's vassal — at least not to the extent that it would attack NATO purely to distract the Alliance from a war for Taiwan — Russia is certainly the junior partner in the 'no limits' partnership," the analysts wrote.