SUCCESS

“It always baffled me how some people managed to retire with significant wealth.”

Scammers are spamming job candidates with emails and LinkedIn messages with offers that are too good to be true.

The White House has been working on a plan to create the first national AI regulator.

Before any of it went public, the president called one of the world’s most powerful tech executives to talk about it. The executive told him he was against it.

Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg told President Donald Trump during the week of Aug. 17 that he opposed a proposal to establish a new federal AI oversight body, according to people familiar with the call.

Trump placed the call. The exchange, which has not previously been reported, shows how directly the biggest names in tech are shaping AI policy through private conversations at the top, Politico reported.

What the proposed AI regulator would actually do

The proposal has been championed by Nobel Prize-winning Google DeepMind co-founder Demis Hassabis, who wrote a July essay arguing the U.S. should create a new AI standards body modeled after the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, or FINRA.

FINRA is the private, nonprofit body that writes and enforces rules for more than 3,000 brokerage firms and around 630,000 registered representatives. It is funded by member fees and operates under Securities and Exchange Commission supervision, with rule changes subject to SEC review.

More Mark Zuckerberg:

Mark Zuckerberg, Microsoft CEO just made major AI decision

Zuckerberg’s stock rebound made him world’s 5th richest at $222B

Mark Zuckerberg backs Elon Musk Silicon Valley decision

The proposed AI version would work similarly. It would review advanced AI models, test them for potential risks and create common criteria for assessing systems before they are deployed more broadly.

Hassabis briefed White House officials about the concept this summer. White House officials had separately previewed the plan with Trump and with major AI companies, including Meta, OpenAI and Anthropic, in mid-August.

Supporters of the idea argue it would bring in the technical talent needed to conduct meaningful evaluations. It would also establish unified standards that currently do not exist.

Critics, mainly on the industry side, worry that voluntary pre-release review could eventually become mandatory. A model held up in testing is a model not generating revenue.

What Zuckerberg told Trump and why it matters

When Trump called Zuckerberg, the Meta CEO said he opposed the proposal. He did not ask Trump to reverse course. But he did say that anyone appointed to such a body should reflect Trump’s own preference for a light-touch approach to AI, according to a person familiar with the conversation.

A Meta spokesperson declined to comment. A White House spokesperson said the administration “is committed to balancing innovation and security in AI policymaking.”

The call is the second time this year that a tech executive has used direct access to Trump to shape federal AI policy. In May, former White House adviser David Sacks called Trump on the morning of a planned signing ceremony and persuaded him to cancel a sweeping AI executive order, according to Politico.

In August, Zuckerberg published an essay arguing that any policy slowing an AI model’s release, even by a month, would meaningfully damage U.S. competitiveness against China. His public position and his private call with Trump point in the same direction.

Mark Zuckerberg says speeding up an AI model release is crucial in competing with China.COM & O / Getty Images

Why Sacks and Musk want a different model

Sacks, who served as Trump’s AI and crypto czar, has been openly critical of a government AI regulator. He has called the idea a “DMV for AI,” where models queue up waiting for approval.

His preferred alternative is a voluntary industry group modeled on the Motion Picture Association, which administers the film-rating system. Ratings like PG-13 and R are not laws. They are industry standards the studios adopted to head off federal content regulation.

“What the MPA did then was promote standards that then forestalled more intrusive, heavy-handed government action,” Sacks said on his All-In podcast in August.

Elon Musk has reportedly backed that approach as well. He did not respond to a request for comment.

On the other side, Anthropic co-founder Jack Clark posted favorably about the FINRA model on X in July. Anthropic declined to comment on its formal position. OpenAI and Google also did not respond to requests for comment.

What the debate means for Meta stock and AI investors

The regulatory question has real stakes for Meta specifically. The company has built its AI strategy around open-weight models, releasing the weights of its Llama systems publicly. A pre-release testing regime could complicate open-weight releases in ways that would not affect closed models from OpenAI or Anthropic the same way.

That commercial reality sits underneath Zuckerberg’s policy argument. He may be right that slower model releases hurt U.S. competitiveness against China. He also has a direct financial reason to prefer voluntary standards over a regulator with the authority to delay or block a release.

The proposal is still under active discussion in the White House. It has not been shelved because of Zuckerberg’s call. The White House has not indicated a timeline for a decision.

But the pattern is now clear. On AI regulation, the largest tech companies are not waiting for Washington to decide. They are calling the president directly to shape what gets decided.

That is a different policymaking process than the one described in civics textbooks. It is the one that appears to be operating.

Related: Mark Zuckerberg sends shocking message to Meta employees

Many parents eventually run into the same uncomfortable math.

The money you put aside for a child does the most work in the years when you have the least of it to spare. Time is the asset. Cash is the constraint.

A dollar deposited in a baby’s first year outruns several dollars deposited in that child’s teens. Almost nobody manages it, because the first year of a child’s life is also the most expensive one you have had so far.

Workplace benefits were never really built to solve that problem. Your 401(k) match helps you. Your health plan keeps your family upright. Your flexible spending account gets raided by December.

Very little in a standard benefits package puts money into an account that belongs to your child, sits in an index fund, and does not get touched for 18 years.

That changed for a slice of American workers this summer, when a new federal savings account went live and roughly 50 companies lined up to pour money into it. This week it changed at the country’s largest airline by revenue.

Delta Air Lines (DAL) said Sept. 2 that it will match the federal government’s $1,000 opening deposit into Trump Accounts for eligible employees’ children, according to a statement on Delta News Hub.

What Delta is putting into eligible employees’ accounts

The mechanics are simple. Children born on or after Jan. 1, 2025 who qualify for the government’s $1,000 seed money get a second $1,000 from Delta, for a $2,000 starting balance before any family money goes in.

Delta framed the match as one line item inside a much larger number.

The airline expects to spend an estimated $18 billion on employees this year through its Total Rewards program, which also covers $1.3 billion in profit sharing paid in February and a 4% base pay raise that took effect in June, according to Delta News Hub.

“Delta people have made it clear they want to take advantage of every opportunity to build a solid financial foundation for themselves and their families,” said E.V.P. and Chief People Officer Allison Ausband, in the same statement.

Why 2 major airlines matched within 48 hours

American Airlines announced its own $1,000 match on Aug. 31, two days before Delta. Two of the four largest U.S. carriers committed to the same benefit inside a single week, which is not how airline benefits usually move.

The pattern started on Wall Street. Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley confirmed matches on July 2. By the weekend, dozens of employers — including BlackRock, Chipotle, Comcast, Intel, JPMorganChase, Micron, and Robinhood — had made similar commitments, reported CNBC.

That is the competitive read on Delta’s timing. Airlines fight over the same mechanics, pilots and flight attendants, and a benefit aimed at young families is a recruiting tool pointed squarely at the workers airlines are hiring most.

What $2,000 turns into if nobody adds another dollar

Here is where the number gets less impressive than the announcement suggests. This is the part I would want a Delta employee to understand before celebrating.

The White House Council of Economic Advisers projects that the federal $1,000 alone, with no further contributions, grows to roughly $5,800 by the time a child turns 18 under average U.S. stock market returns.

Doubling the seed doubles that outcome and nothing more. When I ran Delta’s match through the CEA’s own return assumption, the $2,000 starting balance lands near $11,600 at age 18. My analysis applies the same growth rate the administration used to twice the principal.

That is a used car, not a college fund.

The CEA’s eye-catching $303,800 figure assumes a family pays in the full $5,000 every single year for 18 years, which is the part of the projection that has drawn scrutiny from FactCheck.org.

The full contribution stack looks like this:

$1,000 one-time federal seed for U.S. citizen children born in 2025 through 2028 with a Social Security number, according to the IRS

$1,000 Delta match for eligible employees’ children, according to Delta News Hub

$2,500 annual cap on tax-free employer contributions under Section 128, according to the Federal Register

$5,000 total annual contribution cap from all sources combined, according to the Council of Economic Advisers

$5,800 projected age-18 balance from the federal seed alone, according to the Council of Economic Advisers

Delta said Sept. 2 it will match American Airlines’ $1,000 benefit for eligible employees’ children.d3sign / Getty Images

The payroll piece Delta has not announced yet

American Airlines paired its match with something Delta’s announcement does not mention. The carrier plans to let eligible workers route up to $2,500 a year of pretax pay into their children’s accounts starting in 2027, once Treasury finalizes its rules, as covered in TheStreet’s report on the American Airlines match.

That payroll feature is the one that actually compounds. A one-time $1,000 is a nice gesture. An automatic annual contribution is what closes the distance between $11,600 and a number worth planning around.

More Airlines & Aviation:

United CEO sends an alert on what’s coming for airfares in 2027

Another airline pressured to shut down, faces liquidation risk

American Airlines has good news for workers and their families

Delta has not said whether it will add one. The airline’s release describes the match alongside its Emergency Savings Program and profit sharing, with no reference to a payroll deduction option.

Critics have also argued the design favors workers who already have room to save, since employer matches concentrate at large, higher-paying firms, a concern TheStreet examined when the program launched.

Delta’s workforce of roughly 100,000 is broader than a bank’s, which makes it a more useful test of that argument than Goldman Sachs was.

What Delta parents should check before the money moves

None of this reaches your child automatically. The account is opt-in, and the federal deposit requires an affirmative election on IRS Form 4547, plus account activation through the Trump Accounts app or TrumpAccounts.gov, according to the U.S. Department of the Treasury.

An employer match cannot land in an account that does not exist. That is the failure mode I would watch for at a company with 100,000 employees spread across hubs and shift schedules, where benefits news competes with everything else in an inbox.

So the practical move for a Delta parent is unglamorous. Confirm the account is open and activated, confirm the pilot election was made, then ask human resources what the match requires and when it posts.

Then decide whether you are going to feed it. The $1,000 from Washington and the $1,000 from Delta are the only parts of this account somebody else pays for.

Everything after that is yours, and it is the part that decides whether your kid opens this thing at 18 and finds a down payment or a nice surprise.

Related: Why Delta trades less like an airline and more like a loyalty business

Americans have become value-driven when it comes to what goes into their shopping carts at grocery chains.

“Consumers aren’t necessarily buying less. They’re becoming more strategic. With 75% indicating that they’re stressed about grocery bills (up from 73% last year), it makes sense that shoppers are looking for ways to maximize value from every trip,” according to Algolia’s The state of grocery shopping: inflation.

The survey showed that many consumers, but not a majority, have been willing to trade down.

Forty-two percent (42%) have switched to private labels to save money (up from 40% last year).

Thirty-six percent (36%) have traded their favorite brands for cheaper alternatives.

Forty-one percent (41%) have cut back on premium cuts of meat/seafood, and 39% have purchased fewer non-essential food items, like snacks and treats.

That value-seeking behavior puts traditional grocery chains such as Kroger, Publix, and Albertsons under pressure from lower-priced competitors including Walmart, Aldi, Lidl, and Costco.

Location is no longer driving grocery purchases

When I was a kid, my mother shopped at the Star Market closest to our house. No other grocery chain was convenient, so the choice was clear.

At our current home, Publix is the closest grocery option, but Walmart and Target are only a little farther away, and there’s an Aldi nearby, as well as a Whole Foods and Trader Joe’s.

Now, with more choices readily available to more Americans, value has, in many cases, trumped convenience.

“That value-seeking mindset extends to where and how consumers shop. Forty-four percent (44%) don’t necessarily have a go-to grocery store,” wrote Algolia exec Piyush Patel.

“Instead, 28% compare prices across multiple retailers to maximize value. Sixteen percent (16%) compare prices across multiple retailers before picking one grocer with the best prices overall. Twenty-eight percent (28%) have a preferred grocer but still compare prices across brands and products before deciding what to buy. Just 6% say they’ll stick with their favorite brands even when they cost more,” he added.

Loyalty is a problem for grocery chains

GlobalData Managing Director Neil Saunders thinks there’s a very clear reason why shoppers have become less loyal.

“Among mainstream grocers, the reason there’s a lack of loyalty is because there’s a lack of differentiation. A Kroger is basically replaceable by an Albertsons, which is replaceable by a Hannaford,” he wrote on RetailWire.

He noted that among traditional grocery chains, price is rarely a differentiator, as competitive prices are table stakes.

“The loyalty rates for Wegmans, H-E-B, Aldi and so forth — all players that are strongly differentiated — tell you all you need to know. But, even then, the idea that loyalty rates will return to where they were a decade or so ago is fanciful: Grocery trips are too fragmented, and consumers have too many digital comparison tools to allow for that,” he added.

More Kroger:

Kroger makes a pricing move Costco and Walmart will love

Kroger hit by 19 million egg recall over serious health risk

Kroger supermarkets add exclusive LTO Sprite soda

Cathi Hotka, a retail consultant, thinks that price is not the only way to differentiate your brand.

“Whole Foods and Trader Joe’s have clearly differentiated themselves from the competition and enjoy loyal customers as a result. Aldi too. Create an identity, figure out how to present it, and let customers find you. Avoid being middle of the road,” she posted on RetailWire.

Kroger’s CEO made it clear that his company needs to offer better value. Shutterstock

Kroger CEO sees the pricing problem

Kroger’s new CEO Gregory Foran admitted his company has a pricing problem

“Over time, our promotions have gotten too complicated, and our price position has not kept pace where it needed to,” he said during Kroger’s first-quarter earnings call.

His feelings on price, however, focused on lowering the gap between Kroger’s various nameplates and their rivals.

“Let me be clear on what this means. We do not need to be the lowest-priced retailer. We need to be more competitive, more consistent, and easier for customers to understand,” he added.

That’s an important admission in a market where Kroger is fighting to win more of the spend, even from customers who enter its stores. That’s because many people aren’t looking to do all their shopping in one location.

“In an effort to fulfill their unique definitions of value, consumers visit more than five separate grocery store banners on average per month despite growing omnichannel grocery shopping trends,” FMI CEO Leslie Sarasin said in The Association’s (FMI) U.S. Grocery Shopper Trends 2026 report, which was released in May.

RTM Nexus CEO Dominick Miserandino believes that Foran is right to focus on overall value, but also worries that Kroger simply can’t give some shoppers the prices they need.

“Consumers don’t make decisions exclusively [based on] price; it’s a number of factors. So he’s not entirely wrong, but the worse the economy gets, the more pricing does become a factor,” he told TheStreet.

ALSO READ: Walmart lands Starbucks rival’s exclusive coffee, energy drinks

Humanoids need to get better at retaining information and learning from their mistakes. Memory technology will be key to future breakthroughs.

“I’d rather leave my estate to people who spent time with me because they genuinely valued my company.”

Trump’s Venezuela oil deal uses U.S. law, courts and capital to make Venezuelan oil investable again. Critics’ objections are real, but every one of them can be fixed.

The Atlanta Braves made a surprising catcher signing shortly after a roster cut.