Sports

• Your team winning the NBA Finals. I have never seen New York as united and excited as when the Knicks went on their run. Getting to go to every home playoff game and taking my dad and son to the Finals (especially seeing OG’s tip in to clinch the greatest comeback ever) was more than fun — it was truly meaningful.

• A summer day game at Wrigley Field. Crosstown classic no less (Cubs vs Sox) with Isa and several of my close friends from law school.

• Oracle Park in San Francisco and Truist Park in Atlanta with Lyle. At Oracle, our seats had our heads at the same height as the plate, which was an interesting view (though not sure I’d sit there again). Truist was a very fun experience — the stadium itself and the entire entertainment complex around it. Definitely one of the nicest ballparks we’ve ever been to (my 22nd and Lyle’s 15th).

• Hadn’t been to the US Open in years but Isa is a tennis fan and we went with some really close friends. It’s a really fun day and we went early so we got to explore the whole facility (and for once, given the Mets’ record this season, I wasn’t wishing I was across the street at Citi Field).

• A commendation to the states of New York and New Jersey on how they handled the World Cup. Met Life is an awful stadium but the bus system Governor Hochul set up to get there for the games worked really well. It was my first soccer game in person and the atmosphere was great.

• The MLB All-Star Game. Went with Lyle and our friend Micah. Putting it in Philly for America’s 250th was a great idea and MLB made it a true spectacle. The whole thing had fantastic energy.

Food

• Some incredible Scandinavian food. Surehof in Stockholm. Kodyens Fiskbar in Copenhagen. And Aska in Brooklyn.

• A lot of great meats. Asador Bastian in Chicago. Sunny’s in Miami (it’s as good as they say). Il Premio in Atlanta. The prototypical Chicago dog at the Duck Inn on the South Side. The St. Anselm outpost in DC is pretty good too.

• Lots of great Asian and pan-Asian food. Maxwell’s Trading in Chicago. Liholiho Yacht Club in SF (Hawaiian food). Kisa and Ha’s Snack Bar on the Lower East Side in New York. Jeju Noodle Bar (also New York). Since Persia could be considered Asia for purposes of a random substack, Sofreh in Prospect Heights (Brooklyn) was fantastic.

• I’m not sure what category to put Lazy Bear in San Francisco in but it was an incredible meal — so much so that Lyle gladly sat through all 13 courses. Middle Child Clubhouse in Philadelphia is a great restaurant posing as a diner which made it even more fun.

Museums

• Abby and I went to the Iris Van Herpen show at the Brooklyn Museum and loved it. I’m usually not into fashion (and did not like the Dior show in Paris) but the way they interwove her work with all kinds of other mediums was brilliant and beautiful.

• The Vasa Museum in Stockholm. A fully restored warship from 1628. It was just so, so cool (and so, so big).

• The Martin Parr photography show at Fotografiska in Stockholm. Hadn’t seen Parr’s work before and loved it.

• The Catacombs in Paris. Had never been before. Beautiful space. I liked the art on the main floor even more than the catacombs in the basement.

• The Holocaust Memorial in Miami Beach. I’ve been multiple times but given the extreme rise in antisemitism, being there felt more meaningful than ever (and when the Memorial was being built, local residents whose families were in the Holocaust were able to add names to the inscriptions and my grandfather added his parents and siblings who died in the camps as well as my grandmother’s father who died fighting in the war).

• The Kennedy Compound in Hyannisport. I’m not a big Kennedy buff but I was invited to speak at a conference there and got to check out the house. Hard not to find JFK’s childhood bedroom and the family movie screening room cool.

• Stockholm’s City Hall. They hold the big Nobel celebration there annually and the interior is the most stunning government building I have ever seen.

• The Reggaeton exhibition at the Museum of Contemporary Art in Chicago. An incredible history of the genre that was so vibrant, so colorful, so fun. We absolutely loved it (and they gave out these really cool posters for free that Isa lugged around with her all the way till we got to O’Hare and then we forgot it at security; hopefully, it made a TSA agent happy).

• The Whitney Biennial. Abby hadn’t seen it so went back with her. Liked it even more the second time. Great selections by the curators and, far more important, great work by so many artists. The show New Humans: Memories of the Future at the New Museum was fantastic too.

Books

• The Mortons by Justine Larbalestier and Scott Westerfeld: A very smart and fun novel about a secret, powerful family that has pulled the strings behind the scenes for thousands of years and the attempt by the newest generation to change their ways.

• Etna by Paul Yoon: Most books that take place in the first person of a dog are treacly but this one at least captured what humans love about dogs in an authentic way (it’s probably not how dogs actually think but so what). It’s a beautiful story and a wonderful book.

• Drayton and Mackenzie by Alexander Starritt: The story of two young men who meet at Oxford and then build a startup together. Their styles and ambitions are wildly different but their relationship is priceless. The book does a great job capturing all of the excitement, suffering, struggle and hope that goes into building anything that’s disruptive and new.

• Man Overboard! by Kathleen Rooney: The story of a man who wakes up in the middle of the Gulf of Mexico (from a cruise ship). It’s partly about his struggle to not drown but really a reflection on his life with clarity that only comes with true crisis.

Movies

• Like everyone, I loved The Odyssey. It was exciting, stunning, the acting was fantastic and I loved the parallels to our country and society and way of life today (well, they were pretty depressing but still interesting).

• The Invite was really good, sometimes in a cringy way but ultimately capturing a lot of what it’s like to enter your middle age. It’s about sex but it’s really about love, relationships, parenting, career, failure, disappointment and hope.

TV

• Tires: Season 3 came out this summer on Netflix. It is so funny. I was watching it at the gate at O’Hare and laughing so hard people kept looking at me. Worth it.

• The Westies: Show on MGM about the war between the Irish and Italian mob (during Gotti’s ascendance) throughout the construction of the Javits Center in Manhattan. If you like mob shows or NYC history, you’ll like this.

• I wasn’t that into Lioness until Season 3 but now I’m hooked (helps that Isa worked on a lot of what the show is about when she was at DHS).

Music/ Podcasts

• Bad Bunny: Hadn’t listened to him much but he was playing in Stockholm when we were there so we went at the last minute. Such a fun show. The crowd was just so happy to be there (and when they played Dancing Queen, it was a great merging of cultures).

• Revisionist History — The Staten Island Problem: Great 5-part series about the secession movement on Staten Island in the early 1990s culminating in Rudy Giuliani’s election as mayor.

Travel/ Cities

• The City of Stockholm. I didn’t have a preconceived notion of Stockholm either way and was so incredibly impressed. It’s a beautiful city with stunning architecture, great food and great museums. The hotel we stayed in — Ett Hemm — was one of the nicest, loveliest, warmest experiences of any hotel I’ve ever been to.

• The Forth Hotel in Atlanta. Have stayed here a few times. Great vibe, nice rooms, great restaurant, great location (right next to Ponce City Market), great gym.

• My friend Kenny and I walked from 242nd and Broadway in the Bronx to the Staten Island Ferry Terminal in Manhattan. 15 miles. Sixteen different neighborhoods. Quintessential New York (plus it was during the NBA Finals so we dapped up countless strangers along the way).

• Paris with your family. My mom turned 80 in July and my sister, niece and I took my parents to Paris to celebrate. Wonderful trip. Great way to celebrate a major milestone in her favorite place.

Two More

• I went to the Hoffman Process in July. Here’s a substack I wrote about it, but to summarize, I was able to understand why I have the negative patterns and qualities that have plagued me my whole life, how to spot them, how to feel compassion for myself about them and, most important, the tools to reframe my thinking and stop doing them. It was the single most important thing I have ever done for myself and for the first time in my life, I feel some measure of calm and peace.

• Our dog Sam died in May of 2025. I knew I wanted a new dog but wasn’t ready until now. In mid-August, we adopted Marty (full name is Marty Rousseau Tusk) from Badass Brooklyn Animal Rescue. He’s a 3-year old rescue from the island of Dominica. He’s had a very, very hard life but he now has a stable home and people who love him and will care for him. We’re (except the cat, but she’s adjusting) very excited to have him in our family.

by Bradley Tusk and Marla Tusk

By around 7 on a Saturday or Sunday morning, one of us has sent the other a one word text: kub?

For the last few years, we’ve been playing rummikub against each other online most weekends. Rummikub (kub, from here on out) is half-skill, half-luck. We play best of 3 games and anyone can win, but Marla usually does (likely because she isn’t doing two other things at the same time like Bradley invariably is). We decided to write a substack about it both because it’s a lovely tradition that connects two siblings and because even though it’s just a game, it helps develop skills we both use every day in the real world.

The best part about kub is the tradition. We were taught to play by our grandmother, Sarah, during our many childhood vacations to Florida. The two of us work together so we’re already in contact most days, but we’re both pretty busy so our interactions are usually brief and work-related. Kub gives us a chance to connect every weekend, spend some time together (even if remotely) and then chat afterwards. Marla’s kids play too (sometimes even in person using the physical tiles, which means they’re off their phones and interacting like human beings for a little while). Bradley plays most evenings with his girlfriend Isa who lives in Miami and Marla first got to know Isa through kub before they even met in person! Kub: fun for the whole family.

It’s also the opposite of how the rest of the internet works. When we aren’t available to play against each other, we play against anyone looking for a game. By and large, everyone who plays — and they come from all over the world — is nice and supportive. Sure, there are a few assholes here and there, but the ratio is the inverse of what you’d see on Twitter.

Cognitively, it’s a valuable exercise too. There are 106 tiles. We play 15 seconds per round so you have to think and move pretty fast (Bradley wishes there were a 10 second option, Marla longs for the days when they played at a less psychotic speed of 30 seconds). You have to pay attention because the entire board can change in one turn. Pattern recognition is critical because there are so many variations, so the only way to know what to do next is by applying what you’ve seen and learned before. Memory is important because you plan a move and then the board changes and you have to remember what you planned to do, recognize what’s changed and then adapt — all in real time.

The entire game requires critical thinking, which is probably the single most important skill set in the age of AI. In a world where no one knows what almost any industry will look like or require even in the next 5-10 years, the ability to assess any situation, no matter how fast it’s changing, and know what to focus on and what to do is invaluable. And for long-term health, one of the best ways to prevent dementia and Alzheimer’s is by challenging your brain regularly through games and puzzles (plus it’s a great antidote to mindless scrolling).

Tradition, family, community, connection. Critical thinking. Focus. Brain health. All in one game (did we mention it doesn’t even force you to look at ads?). The physical set is compact and easy to carry (Marla gifted a personalized one to Bradley for his 50th birthday). Online requires just your phone or ipad. So many benefits. So little downside (actually, none that we can think of). And no, we’re not pushing this because we’re investors in a Rummikub app — we just genuinely like the game.

Now, will the spread of kub lead to world peace or even people just being nicer to each other? Probably not. But is it something that tangibly makes each of our lives a little better? Absolutely.

I often find that when I get upset about something, after I really think about it, I realize I’m actually upset about something else and it came out in a different context. The widespread anxiety we’re seeing right now around data centers is a lot like that.

Yes, if data centers are imposing their energy costs or their water consumption on everyone else, then that’s a problem. But that’s not really a debate anymore. Data centers know they have to either use less energy through more efficient forms of compute or provide their own power. They know that they need to install closed-loop water systems so they’re not drawing from the local water source.

Once those two issues are handled, there’s really not much about data centers that matters to a community one way or another. They pay a lot in property taxes. They create a lot of construction jobs, but fewer full-time jobs. A good data center partner is involved in the community and contributes to local programs and a bad one isn’t. But beyond that, it’s like any major warehouse complex or utility – it’s there but it doesn’t really impact you all that much one way or another.

So then why is there so much antagonism towards data centers? Because it’s not really about data centers. Some of it is about AI generally – fear of losing their job or fear of what AI chatbots are doing to their kids. Those fears are not unreasonable, although job loss hasn’t really happened yet at scale1 and a wide array of states already have enacted some sort of AI mental health regulation to date to protect kids.2 But their angst isn’t really about AI either. It’s about a world changing incredibly fast and the challenge of keeping up with it.

Humans are a relatively new species. We first started appearing around 300,000 years ago and homo sapiens in our current form are only around 60,000 years old. Cyanobacteria have been around for about 3.4 billion years. Sponges 600 million years. Even sharks have been around in one form or another for 450 million years. Evolution occurs very slowly over millions of years. Humanity is radically different than it was just 500 years ago — or even 50 years ago — but humans are, from an evolutionary standpoint, pretty much the same.

But while human evolution is slow, technological evolution, economic evolution, climate evolution, the evolution of our physical landscape, social normative evolution is all very fast. And that’s scary. We’re often at our most anxious during times of uncertainty. We can usually handle bad news and, good or bad, we typically regress to the mean, which is why lottery winners are usually never as happy as they think they’ll be and why paraplegics are usually never as unhappy as they’d expect. But when we feel like things are out of control, when we feel like we can’t hold on, when we feel like we have no idea what’s coming next? That’s when we really get upset.

From when homo sapiens took our current form until the start of the industrial revolution, not that much happened. There were some positive blips like the Greeks and the Romans, but population growth didn’t even hit one billion until around 1800. Today, it’s 8.2 billion, with 10 billion expected by 2061. We went from millennia of not all that much going on to a world where technological change now doubles every two years — technology that’s typically highly addictive and has near-zero latency. A world where the demographic makeup of society changes quickly, the norms we use to think about things like personal autonomy or our belief in God or having children keep evolving rapidly, the physical landscape changes constantly both through urbanization and climate change, a world — along with an omnipresent gadget — that shows us a life we could have in theory but most likely will never reach in reality.

Life changes very, very fast these days. Humans do not. That disparity is what drives anxiety, it’s what empowers demagogues on both sides of the political spectrum – MAGA and DSA – who are smart enough to manipulate it, it’s what causes mass protests, it’s what captures attention, and it’s what shapes how we feel about ourselves, our country and our future. Sometimes public anxiety about a particular issue is really about that actual issue. But often, it’s a proxy for something else.

That’s the case with data centers. And while data centers should provide their own power and water and while they should be an active, productive part of whatever community they’re in, not having them and losing the ability to take advantage of AI (especially as the rest of the world does so) is a terrible idea. Sticking your head in the sand is never a winning strategy and blocking all data centers is exactly that.

So as we debate how data centers should work, yes, we should insist on their not imposing costs on the rest of us. But we should also be mindful about what’s really making us upset and think about how we want to thoughtfully address those concerns, how we construct a society that makes us feel engaged and productive and purposeful and happy.

To me, that means embracing solutions like national public service to change our views about what makes people happy, programs like universal basic income to give people what they absolutely need and remove their anxiety around it, and structural reforms like mobile voting that take power away from the political extremes and give us a more rational government that can work together and get things done. To you, it may mean something else. But the problems we’re facing, the anxiety we’re feeling right now is so much deeper than data centers. So let’s recognize the actual problem we’re facing – and start doing something about it.

Making a list of things in the world that feel bad spilled onto the page in seconds:

• Political extremism and violence.

• Catastrophic weather from climate change.

• The risk of bioweapons and pandemics.

• Nuclear proliferation.

• What AI could do to jobs.

• The havoc AI could wreak across society.

• The war in Iran.

• The gun epidemic.

• The obesity epidemic.

• The loneliness epidemic.

• The epidemic of young men in despair (and deaths of despair).

• The rise of antisemitism.

• Political demagoguery controlling both sides of the spectrum in US politics.

• The lack of affordable housing.

• The high price of gas.

• Income inequality.

• The misery produced by social media.

• The lack of community.

• Over two trillion in outstanding student debt.

• Crumbling infrastructure.

• No solution to the drug crisis.

• The collapse of the rule of law.

• Rising energy prices.

• A wildly expensive and broken health care system.

• A failing public schools system.

• The decline of reading.

• Homelessness.

• Kids going hungry and state governments refusing to feed them at school.

The list goes on and on and on — and this is just the U.S. However, despite the human negativity bias — an evolutionary development that teaches us to walk the other way when we see a lion or leave the house when we smell gas or, unfortunately, to click on the most toxic headline on our feeds — there’s still a lot happening that can give us hope. The world is variable. Things go right. Things go wrong. And both happen at the same time, all of the time.

We invent incredible things like cement or refrigeration or cars that help society leap forward. Those things then have negative externalities like emissions that lead to climate change. Then we invent things like carbon capture and storage that will hopefully one day mitigate the damage. And then that too will have inadvertent consequences.

We invent vaccines and medicines that can save hundreds of millions of lives. That same technology can also then lead to the development of bioweapons. Then we invent antidotes and then the antidotes become controversial and so on. We beat Germany to the creation of an atomic weapon, use it to end World War II and then create the risk of nuclear annihilation. We’re always in a race to save ourselves before we destroy ourselves.

But overall, as real as our problems are and as bad as they feel (and when our political leaders on both sides win power by spreading hatred, things feel awful regardless of what the stats tell us), both the U.S. and the world is still a lot better than it used to be. And it keeps getting better. So as you avoid the news and feel like you just can’t take it anymore, look back at this list and hopefully it’ll make you feel a little better.

(1). While U.S. life expectancy has been down in recent years, advances in medicine still point to a future that’s bright. GLP-1s are miracles that not only help people lose weight, they fight cardiovascular disease, neurodegenerative disease, some types of cancer and metabolic disease. They help people beat addictions. And while they’re still expensive and have negative side effects, both will change. At the same time, five year survival rates for all cancers is up from 50% fifty years ago to 70% today. Age adjusted mortality from cardiovascular disease is down by 66% since 1970. Deaths from HIV and AIDS are down by 73% since 2004.

(2). AI has plenty of risks from job displacement to chatbots that tell teenagers to hurt themselves (although Instagram was doing this long before AI), but it is also producing major breakthroughs in medicine like AlphaFold, DeepMind’s protein-structure-prediction model that has given researchers near-experimental accuracy on the 3D shapes of proteins and is now accelerating drug discovery, vaccine development and Alzheimer’s research; the first AI-designed cancer drug entering Phase 1 clinical trials this year; and Doctronic, the AI doctor now piloting the country’s first regulator-approved program letting a chatbot renew prescriptions in Utah. Every so often, science advances exponentially rather than incrementally. This is one of those times. Virtually everyone alive today is going to benefit from it.

(3). While Trump and his allies significantly cut Medicaid funding last year, overall, I do think that both parties are coming around to the idea that we need to make basic healthcare affordable and accessible to everyone (Democrats a lot faster than Republicans in this case). Ultimately, that results in some version of Medicare For All, but even before then, the rise of telemedicine (especially with the help of AI) makes health care cheaper and a lot easier to access (and for those of you who are pro-choice, the rise of telemedicine to allow women in states that limit abortion access to receive medication to terminate pregnancies has resulted in there now being more abortions than before Roe was struck down with telehealth now accounting for about 29% of all U.S. abortions, thanks largely to shield laws in Democratic-led states that protect doctors prescribing pills across state lines).

(4). Gene editing has gone from science fiction to reality. In 2023, the FDA approved Casgevy, the first CRISPR-based gene-editing therapy ever cleared in the U.S. — a one-time treatment that edits a patient’s own stem cells to cure sickle cell disease. Several hundred patients have now received it worldwide. Last year, the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia took it even further by designing and administering a fully personalized CRISPR therapy for a single infant born with a rare metabolic disorder. These are still tiny numbers but if we can start developing cures based on each individual’s needs, that’s remarkable. It means that curing genetic diseases is now a question of when, not if.

(5). Roughly 13.7% of Americans — nearly 48 million people, including 14.1 million kids — still often go hungry (and just this year, governors and legislatures in Maryland, Virginia, New Jersey, Delaware and Kentucky declined to spend even a modicum of money to feed hungry kids in school). 2026 aside, over the past decade, we’ve been moving in the right direction. Eleven states have enacted universal school meals including New York, California, Michigan, Minnesota, Massachusetts, Vermont, New Mexico, Arkansas, Maine, Colorado, and North Dakota. Hopefully more will follow suit in 2027 — especially all of the Democrats who claim they care about kids and poverty but then choose to fund issues instead that are more popular with lobbyists and ideologues.

(6). The opioid epidemic is getting better too. Overdose deaths fell by 14% in 2025 — back to pre-pandemic levels. Recent CDC data shows that deaths are falling even further, although Medicaid cuts and reduced federal prevention funding could reverse the trend.

(7). While it feels like a zero sum mentality has gripped society where it’s every man for himself all the time, Americans continue to be quite generous and charitable. In the past two years, Americans gave a record $617.2 billion to charity in 2025, up from $592.5 billion in 2024 — both all-time highs, even after adjusting for inflation. Advocates on the far left will argue everything should just go to taxes instead, but that feels designed to fuel their hatred of people who have succeeded more than them rather than a smart analysis of government or human nature. The truth is, Americans are both charitable and will give their time to help others. Our problem is we don’t believe that others will do the same for us, so the substance is much better than the perception – and both shape our collective happiness.

(8). While Congress stripped more than $500 billion in subsidies for solar, wind and clean energy in 2025 via the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, overall, the industry has taken off anyway — the U.S. is on pace to add a record 86 gigawatts of new solar, wind and battery capacity in 2026, nearly double what was installed in 2025 and the largest single-year jump since 2002, with battery storage installations alone up 30% in 2025 to a new record. Advances in solar powered desalination and advanced membrane technology are also coming fast.

Politicians who led the charge to try to decimate the industry like Chip Roy have been rejected by the voters — Roy, the House’s leading anti-renewables voice, lost his bid for Texas Attorney General in the May 2026 GOP runoff, giving up a safe congressional seat in the process (the same happened last week to Andy Ogles). Combined with the ability of AI to help solve the challenges faced by new technologies like carbon capture, while climate change isn’t getting much better yet, our chances of changing its trajectory certainly are.

(9). Nuclear power is growing fast. Small modular reactor (SMR) developers raised $1.3 billion in equity in 2025 alone. The federal Department of Energy committed $800 million to SMR projects with TVA and Holtec in Tennessee. Fusion is no longer purely theoretical either — the NRC is finalizing rules to regulate fusion machines the way it regulates medical isotope facilities. None of this solves the climate problem but all of it helps — and it also offers a path to power data centers without imposing high costs to everyone else on the grid.

(10). Building affordable housing has been a tremendous challenge, especially in major cities, for decades. Totemic devotion to concepts like endless environmental review, the demand to use the most expensive labor possible at all times and endless local opposition to change or development has made building cheaper places to live nearly impossible.

But that’s starting to change. The YIMBY movement has taken off and reforms are moving ahead in states across the country — The “Montana Miracle” eliminated single-family-only zoning statewide and has since been followed by parking and height-limit reforms; Texas passed seven pro-housing bills in 2025 with bipartisan support; California enacted SB 79, upzoning land near transit, and CEQA exemptions for infill housing; and Arizona, Washington, New Hampshire and Kansas have all passed statewide reforms legalizing ADUs, duplexes and lighter-touch density.

(11). Our political system feels utterly broken — and it is. But there are reforms sprouting up across the country that can change it. From what we’re doing with mobile voting to open primaries, ranked choice voting, more independent candidates, a bipartisan ticket for governor in Arizona, new tools to help regular people change laws and policies and a host of other ideas, while those in power are never going to want to make it easier for others to gain power, solutions are emerging. With enough support, the status quo can be beaten.

And because internecine warfare is the only logical conclusion for movements — MAGA and the DSA — where leaders derive most of their power from condemning others, we’re seeing it happen on both fronts — from Marjorie Taylor Greene, Tucker Carlson and Thomas Massie launching an openly anti-Trump movement to Trump backed canidates losing in GOP primaries (like Andy Ogles on Thursday) to warfare on the left over who’s to blame for Graham Platner, AOC distancing herself from a DSA colleague’s primary challenge to Hakeem Jeffries, and a floor fight so bitter over the procedure for endorsing AOC for president that it ended in the DSA barring itself from endorsing anyone for another year. Their implosions may be democracy’s best hope.

(12). AI may have a radical impact on job loss. However, that hasn’t really happened yet at scale — a joint study by Anthropic economists, an IMF-backed analysis of Denmark, and the 2026 Stanford AI Index all independently find no detectable rise in aggregate unemployment among AI-exposed workers so far, even as adoption has soared.

The effects are showing up so far only at the margins: Challenger, Gray & Christmas has tracked roughly 102,000 layoffs attributed to AI so far in 2026, tech and finance payrolls have been shrinking by about 28,000 jobs a month, and Goldman Sachs estimates a net loss of around 16,000 jobs a month nationally from AI substitution — concentrated in entry-level and clerical roles.

And even if it does happen at a far greater scale, that could bring ideas like Universal Basic Income to fruition, helping those in need far more than we do today. We know there’s more than enough resources both in the U.S. and across the world to provide everyone with the basics needed to survive. We know the problem of distributing that in an effective way is very, very hard to solve (you don’t have enough resources without capitalism but capitalism also results in distribution that’s often very unequal). But AI may become the forcing function to try new ideas and figure it out.

(13). Income inequality is very real, but wages at the bottom have actually been growing for much of the last five years. Between 2019 and 2025, wages at the 10th percentile grew twice as fast as wages at the 90th percentile — 15% versus 7.4%. Black, Hispanic, younger and non-college workers gained the most. The overall disparity is still far too great and gains rise and fall with the strength of the labor market, but there is progress.

(14). Transportation is getting better and safer. Even though everyone reading this column thinks they’re the exception, human beings are terrible drivers. That’s why someone dies in a car accident every 15 minutes. Autonomous driving changes that. Waymo now operates in 11 cities with Uber, Tesla and others also entering the market. Autonomous trucking, led by companies like Aurora and Kodiak, is growing. New methods from startups like The Boring Company are making it easier to build new, high speed rail and mass transit. Even Amtrak is working on a train that will get from New York to Boston in 195 minutes (although now that I think about it, that’s still not that fast).

(15). Americans are traveling more. Since COVID, personal travel has increased by 180%. Passport applications by 63%. While social media and AI may be curtailing our ability to read and write (which is full stop terrible), seeing other places, cultures and people is also incredibly valuable and that is happening. And because of GLP-1s, total passenger weight is declining, allowing airlines to reduce their fuel costs.

(16). While our public education system does seem very broken, there are glimmers of hope. Some states are offering parents more choice, which leads to competition and less one size fits all solutions. AI has the ability to help teachers reach each student based on the student’s learning style rather than one person’s teaching style. Charter school networks like Success are starting to expand to new states.

Faith in the value of a four year liberal arts degree has fallen so much that alternatives are starting to sprout and vocational education is becoming far more than just teaching the traditional trades. All of this will be fought viciously by teachers and professors unions, which is why the political reform in section eight above is so important — special interests lose their power when turnout expands enough to dilute the impact of any wealthy and powerful individual group.

(17). Twenty-six states have now passed laws requiring school cellphone bans, twenty-two of them in 2025. More than 2.5 million students are already locking their phones away for the school day in Yondr pouches alone. This is an issue that is moving quickly with strong bipartisan support, which means we should eventually see cellphone bans in almost every state (hopefully Congress repealing Section 230 is next).

(18). Space is back. After a few decades of real progress in the 60s and 70s, our interest waned. But private companies like SpaceX (even if the stock itself is wildly overvalued) have changed that. Whether it’s mining for new materials, generating power and energy from space or space exploration and travel, the universe has suddenly grown exponentially for those of us on earth.

(19). We’re treating animals much better. Animal rights have improved — Washington and California have banned octopus farming outright, California’s Proposition 12 forced pork producers across the country to give breeding pigs real space to move, and states keep stacking on protections like banning elephants, bears and big cats in traveling circus acts. More pets are getting adopted — 4.2 million dogs and cats found homes in 2025, up 1% over the year before, even as 121,000 fewer animals entered shelters at all, and the share of shelter animals euthanized has fallen from 10% in 2019 to 8% in 2025.

And multiple studies have shown that pet ownership (especially dogs) increases happiness and longevity — a meta-analysis of nearly four million people found dog owners had a 24% lower risk of death from any cause and a 31% lower risk of dying from a heart attack or stroke, and dog owners consistently report more happiness, better mental health and less loneliness than people without them.

(20). Murder is down. Way down. Homicides fell 18% in the first half of 2026 across 30 major cities. The average homicide rate is now 51% below the peak in 2022 and 31% below pre-pandemic levels.

(21). The human spirit is still incredibly resilient and creative. Reading may be in decline but incredible books are still written all of the time. Hollywood may subscribe to formulas that make good movies harder to find but great movies are still made all of the time. Netflix may deliberately dumb down content because they know we’re looking at our phones at the same time we’re watching tv and yet great tv shows keep popping up. Truly creative individual content pops up on YouTube and TikTok every day (along with tremendous amounts of slop) and regular people are far more empowered to be creative than ever before. Great music, great art, great architecture, great fashion, great food are created every day, all over the country and all over the world. We may be isolated behind our screens, but people still find ways to congregate in person and share our humanity. And even if none of that resonates, the Knicks won.

This is all just in the U.S. In some ways, progress in the rest of the world (mainly because the starting point was lower) is even better. Over the last thirty years, we’ve witnessed the greatest reduction in global extreme poverty ever recorded. The share of the world population living in extreme poverty dropped from over 35% in 1990 to under 9% today. That’s a billion people living far better lives.

Child mortality has been cut in half since 2000, driven by global vaccination efforts, clean water access, and targeted public health programs. Millions of children who would have died from preventable illnesses like malaria, measles, and diarrheal diseases are now growing up healthy. In sub-Saharan Africa alone, the widespread distribution of insecticide-treated bed nets and modern treatments has saved an estimated 11.7 million lives over the past two decades. At the same time, basic education and literacy is exploding. Female literacy worldwide has reached an all-time high, with UNESCO reporting that youth literacy globally now sits above 91%. 92% of the world now has electricity compared to 71% in 1990. More than half the world’s population is now middle class. In other words, the world is a lot better than it used to be.

With all of that said, things still feel bad out there. And in many ways, things are bad out there. But not everything is bad. The future is not inherently doomed. There is progress. There is optimism. There’s love. There’s light. There’s unquestionably an existential struggle between a zero sum mentality and an abundance mentality, but it’s not a guarantee that the bad guys win.

I won’t say that it will all be okay. It may not be. But it can be okay. And that alone gives us reasons for hope.

The theory behind Hoffman is pretty simple: most of our behavior and thinking are patterns we learned in childhood, either adopted from our parents or formed in reaction to our parents. Those negative patterns then harden over time until they become who and what we think we are.

At Hoffman, you identify what those patterns are and where they came from. You think about and express how they’ve impacted your life and you get out your anger about how those patterns — and your parents — failed you. But then you put yourself in your parents shoes and think about their childhood (including writing a dialogue with each of their twelve year old selves) to understand why they developed the patterns you then adopted. This starts to give you empathy and compassion for them and, ultimately, forgiveness for yourself.

After that, you start to learn techniques to be able to see patterns as they unfold in real time. As you recognize those patterns, you reframe them in your head so you can start to break them, or at least reduce their intensity and internalize new ways of processing information and emotions. We’re human, which means we’ll continue to experience anger, frustration, annoyance, and so many other negative emotions. The tools you learn at Hoffman, however, help you learn how to consciously respond vs. automatically react, which can make all the difference. The Process itself is a week, but the work goes on, in one form or another, forever.

I went to Hoffman at my girlfriend Isa’s recommendation (she’s a graduate of the process). Externally, there’s nothing in my life I really need or want to change. Beyond the typical stuff people look at like your career, I also have the things that actually matter like having relationships that are filled with unconditional love and support and doing things daily that impact the world and give me real purpose and meaning. But even when you have plenty of people who love you and activities and work that gives you meaning and good health and a job you enjoy and enough money to do what you want, if it doesn’t align with how you actually feel on the inside, it doesn’t matter.

Despite all the truly deep love I have for so many people in my life (especially my two incredible children) and despite all the happiness those people have brought me, I had never fully felt peace. I had never felt fully calm. I never fully loved myself or felt like I was worthy. I believed I was bad, broken, unlovable, unfixable. I had tried lots of different types of therapy. Much of it helped, but it wasn’t enough: the underlying emotions, the self hatred, the self criticism still remained. If I didn’t want to spend the rest of my life feeling this way, something had to change.

Spending a week at Hoffman was in and of itself is not the change. That would be like taking ayahuasca and declaring yourself fully healed or working out for a few days and declaring yourself fit for life. But for the first time in my life, I now see a path. I feel hope, optimism and deep, deep gratitude. And while not everyone needs a program like Hoffman and not everyone can disappear for a week or afford the cost of the program, there are things we can all learn from it. For me, they include:

(1). Your dark side does not own you. I always conflated my bad qualities with my intrinsic self. Because I wanted external validation and attention, because I could be judgmental or self righteous, because I struggled with weed, because I believed I didn’t deserve kindness, because I wanted people to admire me and think I’m important, because I thought I had to give way too much for people to like me, because I was hypersensitive to criticism, because I developed OCD as a protective mechanism to survive a childhood of bullying and isolation and misplaced emotional demands, I assumed that this was who I fundamentally was.

And I hated myself for it. At Hoffman, we literally drew a picture of our dark side on a poster board and then took a shoe and beat the shit out of the poster for forty five minutes. Destroying the drawing is illustrative that our dark side is a creation of our own minds and our own patterns, which means we can change them. And that means we can free ourselves from their prison and be the kinds of people we want to be. To do so, you don’t need to kill the dark side entirely — you just need to learn to separate it from who you really are.

(2). Everything comes from somewhere. There are absolutely pathologies that are genetic, but overall, the things we don’t like about ourselves typically come from what we learn as children.

But these patterns aren’t intrinsic to us. They were passed down from our parents (or were reactions to our parents). And our parents’ negative patterns came from their parents. And so on. This is part of being human and no matter how intentional you are in raising your own children, you’re going to fuck them up in some ways too. And while that may seem depressing, I actually found it quite freeing because the patterns don’t mean I am inherently bad. It means that I learned specific ways of thinking and behavior. Which means I can unlearn them too.

(3). Our patterns are not set in stone. To reduce the intensity of our patterns, Hoffman teaches you practices like recycling, de-energizing and quadrinity check ins that help us recognize our patterns, adjust them and ultimately free ourselves from them. While Hoffman has its own approach, there are multiple methods of doing this (in fact, we just held an event at the bookstore for the publication of The 12 Levers by Spencer Greenberg and Jeremy Stevenson, which does a great job detailing all of the different ideas and methodologies out there).

You just have to find an approach that works for you and keep doing it and doing it and doing it. It’s like going to the gym. Every time you lift a weight, you break down that muscle a tiny, tiny bit. And it grows back ever so slightly stronger. Four or five trips to the gym doesn’t accomplish much. Four or five trips a week accomplishes a lot.

(4). Most of the things we hate about ourselves are apparent only to ourselves. I tend to assume that all of the things I dislike about myself (see item 1 above for a partial list) are obvious to everyone else. That all of the ways I disappoint myself are the ways everyone else must see me too. The reality is, that couldn’t be farther from the truth. More often than not, what you think is apparent to everyone else exists pretty much in your head and nowhere else. If you can change the way you feel about yourself, that’s all you really need to do.

(5). Everyone is fucked up, everyone needs help and almost everyone can root for each other. I didn’t know anyone else at the Hoffman Process. There were 25 people total in our group, all from different backgrounds, different places, with different lives and childhoods. But the one thing we had in common is that we all not only wanted to help ourselves learn a new approach to our lives – we wanted to help each other learn it too. I have never been around a more supportive, caring, loving, non-judgmental group than this. A lot of this is due to the incredible culture the Hoffman Institute has created, but a lot of it also speaks to the underlying nature of most people.

Yes, we are often in competition with each other one way or another. Yes, we look different, speak different, and might have different values or priorities or views on life. But deep down, the vast majority of us just want calm, peace, light. That may sound too woo woo, but it’s also what I’ve always been missing. It’s why I have always felt inner turmoil. And dismissing that need and that desire is no different from being the kid at the school dance hugging the wall and making fun of everyone else.

The only way for Hoffman to work is to fully buy in and when everyone in the group is fully bought in, your only path forward is to do the work. How great would it be if more of life was like that?

(6). The past is the past. In the materials they give you, there are quotes sprinkled through the binder. There’s a great one from Lily Tomlin: Forgiveness means giving up all hope for a better past.

As much as we may relive the past in our heads or our bodies, as much as we may have regrets, anger, frustration or anything else, we can’t change it. We can only change how we perceive it and how we act going forward.

Another quote in the binder is even better at explaining the choice going forward, the choice between simply living with your pain, your anxiety, your anger, your fear or trying to do something about it: Even if you live to be 100, it’s really a very short period of time. So why not spend it undergoing this process of evolution, of opening your mind and heart, connecting with your true nature — rather than getting better and better at fixing, grasping, freezing, closing down? — Pema Chödrön.

It may not last. If I don’t put the work in, it certainly won’t. But for now, finally, I feel peace.

I’ve always loved writing. I do it frequently — books, columns, scripts, memos, speeches. Some of it has come out well. Some less so. But the act of writing itself makes me happy, so I keep doing it. Writing well is hard no matter who you are or how much you do it, but there are approaches that can help. Here are a few that have worked for me.

1. Write like you speak. When most people speak, their goal is to communicate whatever they have to say as clearly as possible. Writing should be the same. Your writing can’t have a true voice if it doesn’t sound like you (or your characters, if you’re writing fiction). Just say what you want to say as plainly, concisely and clearly as possible.

2. Do not try to sound smart. The worst writing is someone trying to impress you with how smart they are by using long, complex words and sentences simply because they’re long and complex. If the writer was truly smart, they wouldn’t need to do that. It’s the surest way to alienate your audience. My worst grade in law school was in legal writing. The instructor insisted there was one correct way to write and in my view, her way was simply bad writing, even if it was standard practice in the legal industry. I refused and my grade reflected it. So be it (when I published my first book, I made a cursory effort to find the instructor and send it to her but her name completely escaped me; I realized that for the sake of my writing in the years since her class, that was probably for the best).

3. Speak your mind/ don’t sound like a politician. If you’re too afraid to write how you actually feel, don’t waste the reader’s time. This is why politicians’ biographies are usually unreadable. By definition, politicians try to be politic. If your only goal is to never offend anyone or say anything disagreeable, that probably means you don’t have anything worth saying in the first place.

4. Use most of your time for editing. Blaise Pascal once famously concluded a letter apologizing for its length, saying something along the lines of “If I had more time, this letter would have been shorter.” I try to get whatever I can down on paper as quickly as possible and leave most of the time for editing. Having the time to rethink the piece, see what does and doesn’t work, what belongs where, what isn’t essential is what makes a piece worth reading. If someone asks you to read a draft of something, the best way to help them is rarely just by saying what you think of the substance itself. Focus instead on the writing, the flow, the voice, the structure, the feel. Opinions about ideas are easy. Anyone can do that. Feedback on the writing itself is more helpful.

5. Then put it to bed. While editing is the most important part, there also comes a point to stop. Yes, you can always keep editing and keep making it incrementally better. I can go back to everything I’ve ever written and find plenty of things I would now change. But at a certain point, the returns become very diminishing. Move on.

6. Keep your subconscious going. If I’m working on a column or chapter or script I’m excited about, my subconscious never stops thinking about it. I’ll often wake up in the middle of the night and realize where a sentence needs to go or why an argument doesn’t work or why the opening needs to be rewritten. Yes, every sleep expert would tell you to not then immediately dive into the document. They’re probably right. But how many of them can really write?

7. Have regular milestones. Like most things, deadlines and accountability helps. The reason I produce a weekly substack and a monthly column for the Daily News is because it keeps me writing. I’m accountable to a specific output and that forces me to continually think, write and edit.

8. Talk out your ideas. My substack comes out on Tuesdays. I record one of my podcasts on Monday mornings and the topic of the substack is almost always one of the topics of the podcast too. By talking through the piece in the studio, I realize what’s wrong with it and I go back and edit more before it’s published the next day. You may not have that specific setup, but just talking through your writing with others or even just reading out loud to yourself can really help.

9. If you’re writing fiction, have empathy for your characters. If it’s non-fiction, have empathy for yourself. There was a guy once who was angry at me and in an effort to hurt my feelings, he told me that my novel Obvious in Hindsight didn’t work because it was clear I hated all of the characters. He was right. I was so focused on emotional and intellectual honesty that I did it at the expense of making my characters sympathetic, relatable, human. Your characters don’t have to be perfect or even good. But they do have to be redeeming in some way.

10. Read a lot. I can’t imagine that many people write well in a vacuum. Being good at anything takes a lot of practice. But the act of writing alone is typically not enough. You need to read to learn from others. How do they express themselves? How do they tell a story? How do they write concisely? How do they structure their sentences, their paragraphs? For writing to be more than passable, reading is essential. With that said, as a reader, I am very protective of my time. If I don’t like something after 40 pages, I’m out. If I don’t like certain types of genres, I don’t read them. If everyone loves a book and I don’t, I put it down. Something like 150 million books have been written in human history. If you read 100 books a year, live to 100 and start reading the minute you come out of the womb, that’s .00006 percent of them. You can’t even make a dent in the total, so just read what you like.

Not everyone likes to write. And not everyone needs to. But if you do enjoy it — or if you have to write because of work or school — there’s no reason not to do it as well as you can. The tips above are certainly not the entirety of sound writing advice, but they have worked for me. I hope some of them work for you too!

I spend way too much time thinking about how to be happy. Usually, this ends up being counterproductive. But occasionally, I realize something actually useful.

That happened the other day — I noticed my tendency to actively compare my choices to everyone else’s, rather than just accepting that we’re all different, everyone does what they think makes sense for them and there’s no reason not to just let everyone be.

In fact, sometimes I compare (well, let’s be honest, I judge) in both directions. This person is too showy and that person is too cheap. This parent is too stringent and that one is too relaxed. This product is too expensive and this one isn’t good enough. This activity is too intense and that one is too easy.

I don’t think it’s just me. It’s almost impossible to make a complex personal choice without then contrasting it to what someone else chose in a similar situation. To us, the exact calibration we make seems right (otherwise we wouldn’t make it) and everything else seems, by definition, a little less right.

We set the baseline at the choice we make and our brains then naturally default to judging others, especially when we feel threatened or unsure of our choices. The problem is, every time we render a non-essential negative judgment, we’re creating a negative emotion. While each negative judgment might be barely noticeable, collectively, they shape our own outlook, our own ability to feel positive emotions, our own ability to feel happiness. We pay a price for it.

Think of all of the miserable, angry, bitter people you know. How many of them tend to judge others generously? I know I feel my worst when I’m internalizing (or anticipating) personal conflict or defending my choices to myself or picking apart the choices of others. And I know I feel my best when all feels right with the world. That comes from feeling magnanimity, from benevolence, from grace.

Of course we can’t just turn our brains off. But we can train them to develop better patterns, just like we can train our bodies to be able to exercise more or sleep better. When you replace anger or askance or judgment or suspicion or jealousy with empathy and sometimes even love, you’re not only training your mind to avoid negative emotions, you’re teaching it to embrace positive ones.

A 2008 study by Richard Davidson and Antonie Lutz at the University of Wisconsin-Madison used fMRI brain scans to prove that compassion and extending grace are skills that can be intentionally trained, just like a physical muscle.1 That’s the value here. Because ultimately, grace isn’t about being selfless. It’s about maximizing your own well being.

I am not a Christian but I do think that Jesus was onto something when he said to turn the other cheek. Or, if religion isn’t your thing, a 1990 study by University of Wisconsin-Madison professor James Andreoni found that prosocial behaviors — including forgiveness and giving others a pass — yield a measurable internal utility payoff. Here’s another study from University of Michigan professor Barbara Fredrickson finding empirical proof that micro-moments of subtle judgment or suspicion narrow your cognitive flexibility, triggering negative physiological stress responses. On the other hand, Frederickson found that extending grace and empathy actively both broadens your mind and builds psychological resilience.

It’s not just how we think of others. In a world where criticisms are so much easier to render facelessly on social media, we can’t help but frequently feel judged. Yes, we all know that those who can do and those who can’t tweet. But that doesn’t mean we like it. The best way to overcome that criticism, whether online or in actual life, is usually not by attacking back (as much as we may want to) — but by extending that person a little grace.2 The more empathy you have for them, the less their criticism matters. The more grace you extend them, the more you take away their power.

Obviously, this isn’t always the best option. Sometimes a business strategy might rightfully be different. There are some broader societal values to using judgment to compel pro-social behavior and there are people you sometimes have to deal with where grace just may not be a viable option. Sometimes, unconditional grace can even be a net harm, as Michigan professor Robert Axelrod found through iterated prisoners’ dilemma computer tournaments where always turning the other cheek was frequently exploited by bad actors. But most of the time, extending grace is both sensible and within our reach.3

The more grace we extend, whether it’s to someone who made a choice different from ours or even someone who criticized our own choice, the more it becomes a habit. It means we experience fewer negative emotions. Over time, it makes us happier.

It isn’t easy — at least not for me. But in this case, achieving the goal doesn’t require mastery. It just comes from consistently making the effort itself, from questioning your questioning and taking the extra step to understand someone else’s perspective — or even to just let them be. It doesn’t take lots of therapy or training. You just need to do it. And then do it again. And again.

The instinct may not come naturally to all of us (it certainly does not come naturally to me), but the effort itself is something we can all do. If we do, it’ll help us feel better about each other. More important, it’ll help us feel better about ourselves.

The panicked calls and texts came in minutes after the results started coming in. DSA candidates won multiple primaries in New York and the question I kept getting was: why is this happening? Part of my answer was the failed response by the center – its inability to adapt to the new world of politics and technology, its failure to build infrastructure to support and recruit candidates and a grassroots movement of centrists, but also, the repeated insistence by major donors that the only thing that matters in politics is money and that outspending is the solution to everything. I always concluded the call or text with a variation of “They don’t know what they don’t know.”

The point was obvious: people who believe that because they’ve been really successful in finance or real estate or some other industry think that knowing how to make money makes them an expert in everything, especially politics. Obviously, they’re wrong. I’ve seen the same thing repeatedly from startup founders, especially from those in the valley, who think that because they went to Stanford and were in Y Combinator and were backed by a few famous VCs, they’re now experts at everything from product to marketing to engineering to comms to regulation. Those founders usually fail. We’ve even seen it recently from the big AI hyperscalers who somehow never considered that elected officials and regulators weren’t going to let them place the costs of data center energy consumption on everyone else in the grid.

But while the lesson here seems to be “know what you don’t know,” in my experience that’s also not always the best approach. Take sports. It’s a unique industry but one many of us are familiar with. The publication of Moneyball in 2003 (and especially after Brad Pitt played Billy Beane in the movie in 2011) propelled the analytics movement, reaching its peak, in my view, in the appointment of Sam Hinkie as the general manager of the Philadelphia 76ers. Hinkie was the consummate Moneyball guy. In the endless lavish profiles of Hinkie, the high praise was along the lines of “he could make billions running a hedge fund if he wanted to.”

Hinkie had a very clear strategy that was driven almost completely by metrics, spreadsheets and analytics. It was so clearly defined that it was known as “The Process” and “Trust the Process” became a catchphrase. Repeating it meant you were smart – you knew that Hinkie’s models were far more important than some old scout’s eyeballs and while losing intentionally for years on end may seem crazy, it was actually brilliant because he’d accumulate so many draft picks, he’d put together a superteam that would dominate for years to come. The result? Total failure. The Sixers never advanced in that period past the 2nd round of the playoffs. By my count, 19 different teams did better than that — a full two thirds of the league. Only Joel Embiid became a great player and he has missed 50% of his games due to constant injury.1

In this case, Josh Harris, the owner of the Sixers clearly trusted both Hinkie and the process far too much and it failed miserably. Harris, admirably, knew what he didn’t know, but deferring completely to someone he thought knew better also didn’t work.

I’ve seen this in my own life too. Sometimes I’ve made decisions that failed because I didn’t know what I didn’t know and sometimes I’ve made decisions that failed because I knew what I didn’t know and trusted others too much as a result.

The first example was when my son was in pre-k. Lyle was a really quiet kid. Because he hated his preschool and almost never spoke at school, they were convinced he had some sort of learning disability. So much so that when we applied to kindergarten, they wrote in the application (I managed to get a copy from a friend) that the parents are delusional and to not accept Lyle under any circumstances.

At first, while Lyle was hating school and not participating in much, they were telling us it was all his fault and we listened to them. They were the experts after all. The principal had been there for over forty years. But we also knew our kid. And we knew that preschool was just a particularly bad fit for him. We had him take the ERB and he got a 97. So we ignored the experts, pushed ahead, Lyle got into a fantastic school, has been there since kindergarten, is an outstanding student and is now headed into his senior year. We thought we knew what we didn’t know, so we relied on the school’s advice for far too long. We were wrong. We knew our kid. They didn’t. It took far too long for us to realize that.

I made the same mistake when I opened my bookstore P&T Knitwear in 2022. What did I know about running a bookstore? Nothing. So we hired someone with expertise and trusted them to do their job. Along the way, I kept seeing decisions that didn’t make sense to me. I knew nothing about retail or publishing, but I did know how to build and run businesses. I kept dismissing my own instincts, telling myself that they knew best. They didn’t. The more I watched, the more I realized the bookstore was being run according to someone else’s vision instead of mine. We were wildly overstaffed. The culture became increasingly disconnected from what I’d wanted the bookstore to be. We finally changed management and rebuilt virtually the entire team. We cut our losses in half. We built the kind of culture we’d wanted from the beginning, and today we have a store that I’m incredibly proud of and I think it’s a place that the community really enjoys too. I thought I knew what I didn’t know, I deferred to the experts again – and I was wrong.

On the other hand, that same year, we built and launched a telereligion social media platform called Exalt. In my mind, this was going to be a goldmine. Religion was the last bastion of the analog world. Covid proved an appetite to participate in religious services and activities online. So if we had a platform that could broadcast services, allow people to find different options, allow people to conduct bible study virtually, sell religious products, organize real life social events and more, it’d be a hit. My partner Jordan at our venture fund told me it wasn’t a great idea. I ignored him and funded the business out of my own pocket. I should have known when we had trouble hiring a CEO, but I ignored that too. After plowing millions into the project, we launched on the app store and were out of business a few months later. I didn’t know what I didn’t know, I went ahead despite caution from others who knew better, and I lost a lot of money.

Sometimes you lose by not knowing what you don’t know. And sometimes you lose because you do know what you don’t know and defer too much to someone else who gets it wrong. So what do you do?

I don’t know if there is a single right answer. But since I have to make decisions in business, in philanthropy, in politics, as a parent and in so many other ways all day, every day, the best I can tell is that you just need to be very aware of both risks. I try to ask myself if I’m either assuming knowledge that I don’t actually have (and if so, how to get it) or if I’m deferring too much to someone else (and if so, am I sure they’re right). And no matter what industry you work in, no matter what your personal life is like, these questions always have a way of presenting themselves.

Even with questioning my thinking in either direction, I still get it wrong frequently because it’s always a judgment call. But I’m now at least mindful of both risks and hopefully that reduces the frequency of my mistakes and helps me make better decisions overall.

Or maybe not. I don’t really know.

Now that we’re at the halfway point of 2026 and people are looking for books for their summer vacations, I thought I’d talk about the ten best books I’ve read this year.

Watching Over Her – Jean-Baptiste Andrea. An absolutely beautiful book about an Italian sculptor who goes through a transcendent religious experience at the end of a tumultuous, exciting, crazy life during the World War II era. Incredibly well written, engaging characters, just a wonderful book.

The Cormorant Hunt – Michael Idov. One of the best spy novelists I’ve come across. If you want an action packed book of intrigue, this does it in the most intelligent way possible.

Everybody’s Fly: A Life of Art, Music and Changing the Culture – Fab 5 Freddy. An incredible memoir of New York City in the 70s and 80s bringing together the world of graffiti, rap and culture from one of its best impresarios. Evocative, fun and shows how art seen as niche at best became mainstream.

The Meaning of Life – Arthur Brooks. A good mix of science, anecdotes, life lessons and the best learnings from decades of research about happiness, purpose, meaning and contentment.

The Rolling Stones – Bob Spitz. If you like music biographies, this is a great one. Covers the entire history of the band but in a way that tells each member’s story that makes them feel incredibly human and yet also explains their legend and why it’s so well deserved.

Five – Ilona Bannister. The story that starts and ends on a London Tube track but depicts the lives of five very different people that intertwine at times, separate at others with a writing style that somehow tells as much as it shows but works incredibly well.

A Violent Masterpiece – Jordan Harper. If you like LA crime novels, this is a great one. Less noir and more about the worst of today’s society as status and wealth become the purpose of a zero sum worldview sadly encompassing far too much of society. Fun, a little scary and very macabre, worth reading.

How To Rule the World – Theo Baker. The story of a young Stanford student who uncovered scientific fraud by the university’s president and took him down through the school newspaper and, at the same time, the story of the culture that permeates Stanford and Silicon Valley that is both incredible and yet, far too often, prioritizes all of the wrong things.

Rasputin Swims the Potomac — Ben Fountain. A comedic novel about Trump pursuing a third term, a pro wrestler who believes he is the original Rasputin and seems to have both magical powers and designs on the White House and a double agent reality tv producer/ comms staffer. It’s funny, entertaining, insightful and scary. Sometimes a little too on the nose but overall strong satire.

Drayton and Mackenzie — Alexander Starritt. Coming of age novel focused on two Oxford graduates navigating startup world, friendship, relationships, family, ambition, money and how to be a person in a very complicated world. Took a little while to get going but I felt totally invested in both of the main characters by the time it was done. And the book does a great job capturing the intense challenges, failures, struggles and occasional victories of startups.

When you analyze last week’s congressional primaries, it’s easy to miss the forest for the trees. The specific issues that dominated the races — Israel, AI, higher taxes — are powerful political narratives but they’re the public face of something much more obvious and much deeper: people are unhappy, the world is scary, they have no faith in government or any major institution, technological change is happening extremely fast and voters want to feel like their anxiety is being seen and heard.

They don’t want to be told that everything is actually okay as is or to hear empty, poll-tested slogans from candidates who clearly don’t believe them. They want to know that life will get easier and feel more secure and they want someone to blame for why they feel so bad right now. It doesn’t matter if the solutions presented to them are unworkable or if the people being blamed are being treated unfairly. Donald Trump understood this far before the other GOP presidential candidates in the 2016 presidential election. So did Bernie Sanders, which is why he almost beat Hillary Clinton in the primary. It hasn’t changed since.

The New York City mayoral race last year is the perfect example. Zohran Mamdani was a reflection of the anxiety many New Yorkers today feel — a happy-go-lucky reflection of that anxiety, but a clear reflection nonetheless. He recognized that a large group of voters felt like their lives aren’t what they want it to be and that winning their support meant both promising to make life more affordable and to exact revenge on those who they see as the bad guys, whether the 1% or Israel’s supporters or capitalism itself. Trump did the same thing with MAGA, using the coastal elites and all of their institutions and orthodoxies as the bogeymen. This is not a new technique.

The response from the mainstream was far too predictable: throw money at the problem. Andrew Cuomo, between direct campaign spending and independent expenditures, spent around two and a half times as much as Mamdani and still lost badly. Why? Because the same old tactics don’t work anymore. You can’t solve every problem with money.

OpenAI learned this last week. Angered by Alex Bores’ leadership of the RAISE Act, New York State legislation that created a regulatory framework for frontier models, they spent $8 million through a new PAC opposing his candidacy for congress. It backfired completely. By making Bores the enemy of AI, they gave him a seat at the anxiety table and brought in even more spending from the other side. All of that actually propelled his candidacy. Bores lost, but by far less than he otherwise would have.

Are the people at the ideological extremes, whether Trump and Vance or Sanders and AOC and Mamdani fundamentally different from everyone else? In being a lot smarter politically, yes. In their aims of using public anxiety to give them power, no (although I don’t think the leaders mentioned on the left are nearly as cynical or corrupt as Trump).

They’re capitalizing on anxiety about rapidly evolving technology that none of us quite understand, about the ever rising cost of living, about widespread economic inequality, about a racially changing makeup of the nation, about a physical environment that feels harsh and extreme, about a world lived behind screens, about a society that fully equates happiness with wealth and status, causing so many people to feel inadequate, mistreated and left behind. When you feel like you’re working harder and harder just to keep up, when you’re told your job may disappear entirely because of AI and when things like a totally unnecessary war or tariffs with scant economic logic make the basics more and more expensive, of course you’re pissed off.

For the groups and people in the center who are the consistent losers in this new political dynamic, the answer cannot be more of the same. It cannot be just throwing even more money at the problem using the same failed tactics. Until those of us in the center — whether independents, democrats or republicans — start actually hearing why people are upset and start developing solutions and organizations that truly address those concerns, we’re always going to be outflanked by the talented demagogues on either side.

And to be clear, that job is much, much harder. It’s a lot easier to just find people to blame (especially when you can lean into 5,700 years of antisemitism) and use that to manipulate voters and win elections. It’s a lot more difficult to present sensible ideas that can work in reality and use that to show people that they’re being heard and seen. And because offering realistic solutions differs from state to state and region to region, the task is even tougher. But it has to be done.

Here in New York, it has to start with the same hard work the far left has done now for decades — bringing people together, hearing their thoughts and concerns, recruiting candidates, training candidates, developing policies that resonate, developing real grassroots operations and armies. As much as I disagree with the DSA on many issues, they and their allies have put the work in and now they’re seeing the results.

If the people in the center, the people who run major institutions and are generally doing well in life want to stop losing elections, they can’t keep trying the same failed strategy over and over again and hoping it suddenly works. Tuesday night was a perfect example of that. Last year’s mayoral was a perfect example. The 2024 presidential was a perfect example, and so on.

Is the leadership there to do that, both here in New York and nationally? Are the people with money and power willing to recognize that what comes naturally to them may not be the right approach? That they may not be the right leaders for this moment? That the answer is far less glamorous and far more grueling than high profile fundraisers and ominous tv commercials?

That requires humility. It requires a willingness to change. It requires a lot of hard work that’s far more complex than writing checks and complaining loudly. Can it be done? Yes. Will it? That requires a lot of very successful people to start realizing they don’t know what they don’t know. I’m not holding my breath.

I have a lot of flaws but a lack of productivity is not one of them. I run multiple businesses, a foundation, a bookstore and podcast studio. I’ve written books, taught graduate school, host a podcast, publish a weekly substack and a newspaper column. I travel a lot, go to plenty of Knicks and Mets games, work out regularly and try to be a very present dad, son, brother, boyfriend and friend.

It works, in part, because I tend to think and write and act fast. But it also works because I have clear systems and rules in place. To be clear, the point of this column is not about optimization. It’s about trying to ensure you have enough time to do the things that truly matter to you, whatever they are. Here are some of the things that help me:

• No social media: From what I can tell, social media wastes more time for more people than almost anything. I do have a few accounts managed by my team but I don’t even know the passwords for them. Personally, I don’t post, read, scroll, like, retweet or anything else. I don’t even look at YouTube.

• No tv news, no doomscrolling: My job requires me to know what’s happening in the world but I get my information from newspapers, a few websites and a few podcasts. TV news is almost entirely a waste of time (if you do want to watch it, local news is your best bet). Doomscrolling is not noble — it’s just an addiction like drugs or alcohol or gambling.

• Answer texts/ emails immediately: I respond to what I need to immediately. I don’t let it linger in the back of my mind. And if there’s something I can’t deal with immediately, I start it and don’t finish the day without having dealt with it.

• Be decisive about what not to respond to: I get not only a ton of flat out spam (we all do), but also lots of calls, emails and texts that responding to is a bad use of my time. I decide immediately what matters, deal with it and ignore the rest.

• Get stuff done in writing rather than calls or meetings whenever possible: If we can cover something over email or text or in a memo rather than a meeting or call, that’s a lot better. Talking for the sake of talking is a waste of time.

• Meetings don’t have to go the whole time: So what if a meeting is scheduled for an hour or half hour? If we can cover the topic in less time, great. End it and give everyone some of their time back.

• Outsource as much as you can afford to: This won’t be something everyone can do, but I choose to use a chunk of the money I make to buy back my time. I pay other people to do things that I don’t want or need to do personally: shopping, reservations, dry cleaning, laundry, cleaning, scheduling, paying bills, cooking. That’s a choice – I could pocket that money instead, but my time is more valuable. Even if you don’t have the ability to pay for this stuff, there are lots of AI agents now available that do many of these things.

• Hire the best people and keep them: The hiring process is always a huge time consumer. When I find good people, I do everything possible to hang onto them. I don’t micromanage them. And we do everything possible to maintain a culture that makes people want to work here and filters people who are a bad fit out as quickly as possible. If you have a team you can truly trust, that makes it a lot easier to then take on new projects.

• Use time pockets wisely: If I have a few minutes between meetings, I don’t scroll or watch YouTube. I answer emails and texts. I write. I do whatever needs to be done. It adds up.

• Travel efficiently: For flights, I only care about the best departure time. I don’t care about status or miles. I don’t even always fly the same airline on the same trip. Whatever fits my schedule best. The saved time is worth it.

• Make to do lists and know what needs to get done: For years, I wouldn’t end the work day until every call, text and email was dealt with and the next day’s to-do list was written. I stopped writing to-do lists because I felt like I was living too much just to cross stuff off, but by that point, I had internalized all of the concepts in this column so I didn’t need it. You might.

• Establish and stick to routines: Routines work for a reason – they force you to do what you need to do. For example, I work out almost every day around the same time and I make sure there’s room in my schedule for it. The more chaotic your approach to your routines or schedule, the more chaotic your life.

• Sleep is actually productive: It took me far too many years to realize this. Stupidly, I thought that a lack of sleep was a badge of honor. I was wrong. Sleep is essential. It makes us more productive. It makes us happier and better adjusted. Get enough sleep.

• Write things down: When I have an idea or realize there’s something I need to do, if I can’t do it then and there, I write it down so I know that I’ll come back to it.

• Get help when you need it: No one is perfect or infallible. We all struggle in many ways. When you need help, seek it out. For me, that’s weekly talk therapy and has included Marijuana Anonymous meetings too. White knuckling serious problems tends to mean they don’t get solved.

• Know the activities that you really enjoy and prioritize those: I have clear hobbies and I am proactive about doing them. I really like going to Knicks and Mets games. I like traveling. I like museums. I like to read. I like wandering around cities. By being proactive about it, I spend my free time actually doing them rather than wishing I could.

• Proactively work on relationships: Two things in life are proven to make people happy: relationships with unconditional love and support and things you do that give you meaning and purpose. I keep a running list of the fifty people most important to me. I go through it once a week and reach out to anyone I haven’t spoken to recently. No one has ever responded “why are you bothering me?” It sparks a nice exchange and sometimes plans to see each other. It makes me happy. I also prioritize spending money on tickets. I like bringing people to games because everyone enjoys it and it allows me to see several people at once.

• Spend your time editing: The best way to write something well and quickly is to get it down on paper as fast as possible and use almost all of your time for editing. That prevents you from procrastinating and the editing makes the final product much, much better.

• Know what doesn’t matter and stop wasting time chasing it: Society tells people to pursue things that just don’t matter that much. Status is fleeting and generally useless, except in your head. You need enough money to live and do what you want but beyond that, focusing on achieving a certain level of wealth for the sake of it is also dumb. No one really cares (and anyone who does is definitely not worth your time). And chasing likes is the ultimate time waster.

• Know what you can and can’t control: This is kind of like the AA serenity prayer. If you can understand which things you can control and which you can’t, you can stop spending time and energy on those you can’t and focus on those you can. It’s worth figuring out before you do something. Also, there are going to be periods in your life where you’re just really busy and really exhausted (especially if you have young kids). That’s how it goes.

These are approaches that have worked for me. Everyone is different and not everything above may be useful or realistic or affordable for everyone. But if you do feel like you don’t have enough time, some of these ideas may be worth considering. I hope they help!

Like every teenager, there was a time when I didn’t have all that much to say to my dad. But no matter how difficult I was or how much I resented him, we could always talk about sports. The Mets won the World Series in 1986 when I was 13. My dad and I were at Game 6 when Mookie Wilson’s squibbler went through Bill Buckner’s legs. The Mets survived and then won the whole thing in Game 7.

Because I was 13 and there was nothing more important than the Mets, I always assumed that Game 6 would be the greatest sports moment of my life. In fact, my bar mitzvah was scheduled for a few days after the World Series. Rabbi Rosenthal called my parents that Monday to tell them it would have to be cancelled because I hadn’t learned my Haftorah. I was outraged – not by the Rabbi’s accusation (he was right) but because the idea of being expected to memorize a bunch of Hebrew when the Mets were in the playoffs was completely unreasonable. My dad yelled at me and told me to stay home from school that day and memorize it. I did and the bar mitzvah went on as planned.

Fast forward forty years. I’m a dad. My son Lyle is 17. We have a really close relationship but 80% of our conversations are about sports. Lyle and I have always gone to games together (my daughter Abby is much less of a sports fan but has been to a lot of games too).

We’ve been to a dozen different ballparks (we even stayed in the hotel room facing centerfield in Toronto, which was particularly cool). We’ve been to NFL and NBA games around the country. We went to two road games this year where the Knicks happened to be in New Orleans and Charlotte at the same time we were. We sat right on the baseline both times. In New Orleans, the ref let Lyle hold the ball during a timeout. In Charlotte, there was an unfortunate incident involving Da Baby, a very drunk fan and Kon Knueppel. It happened right next to us and was unfortunately viewed — often with us in the shot looking annoyed and dumbfounded — over ten million times. We’ve been to the Olympics, the Indy 500, the Rose Bowl, the Ryder Cup, the baseball playoffs, the basketball playoffs, somehow the national snowmobiling championship, college basketball, the NBA All Star Game, spring training, minor league games, Cooperstown, multiple championship fights — even hockey. We have Knicks and Mets season tickets. It’s our thing.

As the Knicks were halfway through their incredible, historic playoff run, Lyle turned to me and said, “I have to drop out of the Georgetown summer program.” He explained that it was unreasonable to expect him to be in DC during the NBA Finals. I told him that he’d applied, teachers wrote him recommendation letters and we already paid the tuition, so he was going. He did not agree. He said I was being unreasonable. It reminded me of someone.

My dad came with me to Game 3. Lyle ended up being able to come home for Game 4 — the greatest comeback in NBA Finals history. No matter who I was with, that game would have easily been one of the most incredible experiences I’ve ever had. That Lyle was there with me made it unfathomably perfect.

Of the two home Finals games, I found myself, at the age of 52, with my 81 year old dad and my 17 year old son. All of us connected by the same thing: sports. Both of those nights were just as good as the Mets unforgettable Game 6 forty years ago — actually, even better. And emotionally, New York itself has never felt better. I cannot remember ever seeing the city this united and this excited.

For many men (and many women too), sports is the best connective tissue I know. When you have nothing else to talk about, there’s always sports. When you have to discuss something difficult, sports is a great way to ease in. When Lyle wants to talk to me about something he’s struggling with, talking first about sports sets the tone. We get to the underlying topic eventually.

If the one of the things in life that matters most is having relationships with unconditional love and support, sports helps make that happen for so many of us. Talking about sports, texting about sports, watching sports, playing sports, going to sports all helps bring us together. It’s an expression of love, of friendship, of understanding.

Being a person in this world is hard. It’s true if you don’t have enough food, enough housing, enough employment, enough safety. It’s also true if you don’t have enough friendship, enough camaraderie, enough love, enough meaning, enough purpose. Everyone struggles emotionally. Everyone has trouble with some relationship in their lives. And for many of us, sports is a reliable way to connect. A way to share. A way to experience things together. It’s not a magic potion, but sometimes it feels that way.

That was true for me when I was 13 and living and dying with every at bat from Daryl and every pitch from Doc. It’s still true at 52 with every rebound from KAT, every tip in from OG and every three pointer from JB. It’s true for my dad. It’s true for my son. It’s true for so many of my friends, for so many of us all.

As I sit here, thinking about the Knicks finally winning the title, thinking about all of the ways I got to experience it with my son, with my dad, with my family, with my friends, it’s clear that the whole process has been about a lot more than just basketball. More than just sports. It’s a crucial part of life itself.

I couldn’t ask for anything more.

In 2017, then-Missouri Attorney General (and now prominent US Senator) Josh Hawley announced an antitrust investigation into Google. While Missouri may not have had the power to do all that much on the antitrust front, the symbolism was clear. Politically, Google went from being everyone’s favorite to Hawley seeing that his base wanted the mega tech platforms scrutinized.

Google is still a very successful and popular company, but, to me, Hawley’s announcement represented an overall turning point towards tech: a sector that had been the recipient of lavish praise for years was now in the crosshairs. Tech founders who enjoyed endless magazine covers and lavish praise now faced tremendous scrutiny and antagonism. Things had changed.

Last week, a similar turning point occurred. President Trump announced a new federal policy that requests early government access to advanced AI models thirty days before they’re released so the government can evaluate them. The executive order establishes a new benchmarking process to determine the advanced cyber capabilities of AI models. It’s a voluntary program that’s very industry-friendly, so it’s pretty mild as far as most executive orders go. But for someone who has been a staunch proponent of frontier models and their hyperscalers like OpenAI, it’s a clear indication that Trump recognized that public sentiment has shifted so strongly against AI that he needed to do something.

In fact, a March 2026 University of Pennsylvania survey showed that just 17% of Americans think AI will have a positive impact, compared to 42% who expect it to be negative. Other polling puts the share of Americans who fear AI could eventually threaten humanity at over 75%. Nearly half of those surveyed in other polls oppose new data centers being built in their own communities. And that’s before job losses land at scale. Goldman Sachs pegs near-term direct displacement risk at around 2.5% of US employment, rising to 6–7% under broader AI adoption. Other forecasts are far more pessimistic. 41% of working Americans already say they’re worried about losing their job or having their hours cut because of AI.

New rules and regulations are hitting from every direction: states are passing everything from data center permitting and zoning limits to constraints on what chatbots can say and do to restrictions on AI in hiring and health care. For example:

• New York’s legislature just passed a one year moratorium on new data center construction (legislation was also passed, but then vetoed, in Maine and Vermont).

• Florida, Utah, California, Ohio, Washington and Oklahoma all enacted new regulations on energy use cost allocation from data centers.

• Washington, Oregon, Maine, Idaho and Nebraska all passed bills regulating what chatbots can say and do.

• Indiana and Arizona passed bills regulating AI in health care.

• National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) model rules mandating that all existing insurance laws and regulation apply to AI and setting new expectations for governance, documentation, testing, and third-party oversight have been adopted in 24 states.

Note that there is virtually no partisan divide in the states above. New laws and regulations are coming fast from red states and blue states alike. Why? Because politicians respond to exactly one thing: what impacts their next election. When voters hate something this much, politicians hate it too. And if a Democrat wins the presidency in 2028 (Kalshi has it at 59-41 Democrat), it very well may come amid a rising wave of anti-AI sentiment — leading to tough new federal restrictions stacked on top of everything that states and cities are already doing.

The regulatory environment for AI today is probably the most permissive it will ever be. For AI companies ranging from hyperscalers to data center builders to applications in every conceivable sector, that means understanding the current political environment and planning accordingly. It means taking the risk of regulation and legislation very seriously and assuming that the normal political tools like campaign donations and attack ads are not going to be nearly enough to stop it.

It means having a deep understanding of what laws might pass, who is supporting them, what those politicians care about and how to develop an argument and a campaign plan to ensure that what you need is seen and reflected in their work. It also means using the current regulatory environment and negative public sentiment to put forth new regulations that impose standards that your product meets (and ideally only your product, creating a regulatory moat) and using that new regulation to help create new markets.

There’s a lot of opportunity in this new environment. And there’s a lot of risk. The smart founders and companies will see it, plan for it and benefit from it. The arrogant and clueless ones will suffer.

Venture investing and retail stock investing are two very different things. Venture investors, depending on the stage, look at a lot of factors that are not specific to the economics of the underlying business. Early stage venture investors like us look at the founder and whether we think they both have a vision worth backing and whether they have the ability, strength, resilience, charisma, management skills and a dozen other factors to then turn that vision into reality. We look at the total addressable market to see how big the overall opportunity is and then we work backwards to see what success would look like if the company captures a relatively small share of that market. We look at their team, their tech, if they have other investors on the cap table that can bankroll future rounds and a bunch of other considerations.

Later stage venture investors look at most of those factors too, but are also sometimes driven by the need to simply deploy large amounts of capital because their fund sizes are massive and their economics are driven more by collecting 2% of assets under management every year than by the carry earned by making money for LPs. That often means investing at really high valuations, whether the fundamentals warrant it or not.

In contrast, retail investors typically focus — or at least should focus — on the fundamentals of the company itself. What are revenues, what’s EBITDA, what are the margins, where are the opportunities for growth, what are the market risks, what are the risks from competition and so on. In most cases, the market eventually correlates the fundamentals with the share price (Tesla consistently seems to be one very high profile exception). That’s why quarterly earning calls are important – they detail the fundamentals every three months and keep the market honest.

In fact, many high profile IPOs ultimately result in lower valuations – the market sees the disparity between the valuation assigned to the company by venture investors and the reality of the company’s underlying economics and corrects it. If you look at tech IPOs with valuations of $10 billion or more from 2015-2025, after twelve months, the median valuation was 32% below the IPO price, covering two thirds of those companies. After twenty four months, the median remained down 32%, but now covering 75% of those companies. So in other words, the first day is often the best day, at least for the first few years after going public.

That’s why the much rumored (but not yet confirmed) September IPO from OpenAI is so interesting. In many ways, OpenAI is an absolutely incredible company. They are at the forefront of perhaps the most transformational technology ever. They have over 800 million weekly active users — that’s well over the entire US population two times over. They handle over 2.5 billion prompts per day. And the ads they’re running during the NBA playoffs are truly outstanding.

But with that said, choosing to invest in OpenAI will not be a simple equation based on revenue, multiples, profits and margins. It requires making multiple bets and assumptions on multiple fronts. The expected IPO valuation is around $1 trillion. There’s no reason for anyone to invest in OpenAI (or anything) unless they think they can generate a meaningful profit in a reasonable amount of time. So if we assume someone wants to make 25% year over year on the stock – and given the risk, if anything, the expectation should probably be even higher – here’s what you have to take into account (to be clear, this is just my analysis and not investment advice):

1. The entry price: A retail investor likely won’t be able to buy in at the expected $1 trillion offer because there will almost certainly be a first day pop. Assume 30% and the real cost is $1.3 trillion, which is around 54x OpenAI’s current run rate of $24 billion (if the pop doesn’t happen or the initial IPO price reflects a lower valuation, the rest of the math adjusts accordingly).

2. The market cap needed to generate a reasonable return: Earning 25% a year for three years means reaching a valuation of about $2.54 trillion in 2029. Here are the companies currently worth more than $2.5 trillion: Amazon, Alphabet, Apple, Nvidia and Microsoft. They have an average of $400 billion in annual revenue and profits of over $100 billion.

   Or look at Dell. As of this writing, they have a market cap of around $297 billion. They expect to generate $165 billion in revenue this year. Multiples for a hardware company are very different from a platform but the contrast is still stark and striking (by comparison, last year, OpenAI had $13 billion in revenue and $9 billion in losses.)

3. The challenge of high multiples at scale: A business doing $100 billion or more in revenue doesn’t trade at 54 times sales. It’s far more like 10 to 15 times (Nvidia is more like 25x but runs a 50% profit margin; the rest are mainly in the 10-15x range). The bigger the revenue base, the lower the multiple so you can’t rationally assume both at the same time.

   SAAS companies with high multiples tend to enjoy 70-80% gross margins. OpenAI projects tearing through $665 billion in cash over the next four years. Companies with that kind of capex and opex can’t command SAAS multiples (maybe a new type of agentic ecosystem model can be created, but that’s idle speculation at best).

4. The revenue needed: Just to not lose money at a $1.3 trillion valuation means that revenue has to more than triple to $100 billion from OpenAI’s projected $30 billion in revenue this year. To make 25% year over year on the stock means that revenue has to reach $195 billion in three years at a 13x multiple. That exceeds even OpenAI’s own projections by 56% (they project $125 billion in revenue in 2029).

   OpenAI projects roughly $280 billion in revenue in 2030, so by then, assuming they can actually reach those projections, the math starts to work. But it assumes that everything they think will happen actually does happen — and that none of the underlying risks truly materialize ranging from brutal competition to increasingly stringent regulation to ever changing geopolitics to massive debt service and a lot more.

   It took Amazon, the company most often cited for chasing revenue over profit, about a decade to do the same thing at comparable scale: from roughly $25 billion in 2009 to $280 billion in 2019, across far more business lines than OpenAI runs, and with a fraction of the debt. And while you can argue AI has more upside than any technology before it, Amazon was effectively one of one in its market — Walmart only caught up later and only partially. And while the sectors are different, Amazon trades at a multiple of just 4x revenue.

5. Debt stacked on top of it: OpenAI already has $1.4 trillion in compute commitments. It’s technically not debt in the traditional sense, but it is contractually obligated spending, which functions similarly. OpenAI has also said it plans to spend $600 billion in compute operating expenses through 2030. The two figures aren’t additive, but they’re also not interchangeable: the $1.4 trillion is the capital commitment to build the infrastructure and the $600 billion is the ongoing cost to use it. Both are real obligations stacked ahead of equity holders, and neither disappears when the company goes public.

   While the capex isn’t stacked directly on top of the market cap, it does reflect costs that effectively require a much higher revenue target to make the math work. At a 15x multiple on revenue, the capex means OpenAI really has to reach more like $260 billion in three years, which is now more than twice what even they project to have by then. If the multiple is more like 10x, which is reflective of Alphabet (12x), Microsoft (11x), Apple (11x) and Meta (9x), then almost $400 billion in revenue is needed to produce a reasonable rate of return on the stock. Removing state-owned enterprises of China and Saudi Arabia, only five companies have that kind of revenue: Walmart (which is 64 years old), Amazon (32 years), Apple (50 years), Alphabet (28 years) and UnitedHealth Group (49 years).

   Basically, to have any chance of reaching the needed $2.54 trillion market cap, let alone something that factors in the massive capex, OpenAI has to at least increase revenue by 10-15x and still command a healthy enough multiple to get there. Maybe they can but it’s a herculean task.

6. Competition: OpenAI does not operate in a vacuum. It has to compete against Anthropic, Gemini and Grok. That means going up against a company in Anthropic with a significantly higher run-rate of $47 billion but without the $1.4 trillion in compute commitments and a far better public reputation. Then, on top of that, you’re taking on both Google (owner of Gemini) and Elon Musk (owner of Grok). Microsoft does own 27% of OpenAI, but the relationship keeps loosening and shifting – in fact, it has been renegotiated twice in the last seven months alone. So the competition will be fierce.

7. Regulation. AI is deeply unpopular and only getting more so. In a February–March 2026 Annenberg/University of Pennsylvania survey, just 17% of Americans said AI will have a positive impact on the country over the next decade against 42% who expect it to be negative. Nearly two-thirds — 65% — said the government has done too little to regulate it, a complaint shared across the spectrum: 77% of Democrats, 72% of independents, and even 53% of Republicans. Other polling puts the share of Americans who fear AI could eventually threaten humanity at over 75%. And on the question that most impacts OpenAI’s business model, nearly half oppose new data centers being built in their own communities. If data centers aren’t built, OpenAI can’t reach the scale it needs to come anywhere near the revenue projections needed to justify their IPO valuation let alone any expectation of growth.

   New rules and regulations are hitting from every direction: states are passing everything from data center permitting and zoning limits to constraints on what chatbots can say and do to restrictions on AI in hiring and health care, the EU has enacted sweeping AI regulation, and China just does whatever it wants, whenever it wants (assuming they ever even give OpenAI market access).

   And all of this is happening before the job losses land at scale. Even the optimistic estimates aren’t particularly reassuring — Goldman Sachs pegs near-term direct displacement risk at around 2.5% of US employment, rising to 6–7% under broader AI adoption. Other forecasts are far more pessimistic. 41% of working Americans already say they’re worried about losing their job or having their hours cut because of AI. For OpenAI to have the kind of revenue they envision, their products need to replace employees across the economy to justify their sales projections. But the more that happens, the more they will face even tougher regulatory scrutiny and greater public antipathy.

   Politicians respond to exactly one thing: what impacts their next election. When voters hate something this much, politicians hate it too. Which means the regulatory environment OpenAI enjoys today is probably the most permissive it will ever see. And if a Democrat wins the presidency in 2028, it very well may come amid a rising wave of anti-AI sentiment — leading to tough new federal restrictions stacked on top of everything that states and cities are already doing.

8. Geopolitics. We just watched what happens when a single country threatens one critical chokepoint in the Strait of Hormuz. Now imagine China invades Taiwan — which produces roughly 90% of the world’s most advanced semiconductors. The US is racing to build domestic capacity, but on the leading-edge nodes that AI depends on, American fabs will run four to five years behind Taiwan for the rest of the decade. The US isn’t projected to reach even 17–20% of global chip production until the early 2030s. If Nvidia can’t get its chips made, OpenAI having the compute it needs to operate will be incredibly difficult.

   Layer on the complete unpredictability of Trump, a never-ending Russia–Ukraine war, the safety risks of AI itself, worsening climate change, the spread of nuclear weapons, the falling cost of assembling bioweapons and a world drifting from global cooperation toward zero-sum nationalism — and assuming that nothing disrupts OpenAI’s business may be the riskiest assumption of all.

As a venture investor, you can enter a company at an exponentially lower valuation than retail investors see, so many of the risks above don’t really matter. If you can get into a company at a sub-$100 million valuation and it eventually gets to $1 billion in annual run rate (let alone $280 billion), then we’re looking at an IPO valuation of $5-10 billion (or more, depending on the sector and its multiples). Even if you materially discount the share price until the lockup expires six months after the IPO, you’re still going to make a lot of money (of course, finding that company is very hard).

As a retail investor, you’re a price taker. You have to wait until the shares are publicly available and then factor in all of the relevant variables to see whether you reasonably believe the share price increases enough to merit the risk. To rationally invest in OpenAI after the IPO, it means believing that all of the following will happen:

• Generating massive, unprecedented revenue growth of 10x within just a few years, eclipsing any rate of growth at this pace seen to date;

• Assuming that a new agentic ecosystem category with multiples will come into existence, defying how multiples across the rest of the market works;

• Bucking the trend of major new public companies trading below their IPO price in the first few years;

• Being able to service $1.4 trillion in capex and $600 billion in cash burn and still reach profitability;

• Achieving this in the face of massive, unrelenting, well funded competition that is better funded (Google), better liked (Anthropic) or incredibly powerful with an intense hatred of OpenAI (Elon/ Grok);

• Believing that public sentiment on AI will flip on its head rather than only getting worse despite the major job loss that effectively has to happen for OpenAI to meet its revenue targets;

• Believing that regulation at every level of government and in every part of the world will subside rather than increase despite all evidence to the contrary;

• Believing that all of the data centers needed to reach revenue targets can actually be built as quickly as envisioned (or at all);

• That the chips needed for compute will continue to be readily available; and

• That nothing else terrible happens geopolitically (or happens generally because of something that went wrong with OpenAI or just AI in general).

That’s a lot to ask a retail investor to take on, especially when they can just as easily decide to wait and see how everything unfolds.

Now, maybe ChatGPT does become the fastest scaling product of all time. Even if most of their users aren’t paying customers, it’s still a very popular product. Maybe AI is as absolutely transformative as promised and OpenAI is integral to much of that transformation and the revenue generated by it. Maybe an agentic ecosystem comes about and is priced differently than anything else. If that’s true, then perhaps buying OpenAI stock as soon as you can makes sense.

But keep in mind, once the company is public and the shares are fully accessible, you can invest at literally any time. Given all of the challenges detailed above, to me, buying OpenAI shares on day one seems like a very risky decision.

I’m a Knicks fan and a Mets fan so I am conditioned to believe that the worst will always happen. I assume the Knicks will lose in the finals because if I think they’ll win, then they definitely won’t. However, on the off, off, off, off (keep adding offs) chance they do somehow squeak past the Thunder or Spurs, we’ll get a parade.

The last mayor to preside over a Knicks ticker tape was John Lindsay. Perhaps fittingly, this time it would be Zohran Mamdani. Mamdani, for better and worse, does things his way. What would that mean for the Knicks and their fans? Ten possibilities:

1. Holding the parade in Bushwick, rather than the traditional celebratory route down Broadway in Lower Manhattan, which abuts Wall Street. To Mamdani, that’d be like holding the parade in the 9th circle of hell. Bus fare to the parade will be free, as long as Albany pays for it.

2. The worst players get to speak first. Normally, during the ceremony, stars like Brunson and KAT would speak. But in a world where fairness matters most, that means giving the mic to the scrubs: the Trey Jemisons and Pacome Dadiets and Kevin McCullars of the world. A few of the Nets get to speak too.

3. Celebrity row is moved to the 400s (let Chalamet fend for himself). All Knicks merch must be manufactured by bearded craftsmen in Brooklyn. Prices are frozen forever more for artisanal beer. MSG security is replaced by violence interrupters.

4. Players on the team that wins the NBA Championship typically get around a $900,000 bonus. The parade is a perfect time to announce a new tax of 90% on those winnings (as well as a new wealth tax on all season ticket holders).

5. The players normally ride down the Canyon of Heroes on a float or in convertibles. Not this time. Bicycles for all. In an effort to mend fences, Ken Griffin will get his very own Schwinn (for the duration of the event only). Mamdani will also use the ceremony to unveil a fully funded, protected bike lane initiative connecting Williamsburg to absolutely nowhere anyone needs to go.

6. The Knicks will become public property, owned by the people of New York City (except Staten Island). Private ownership of teams, just like private ownership of homes, is a bastion of capitalism. Jim Dolan’s day in the sun is over.

7. The Knicks locker room is being turned into a publicly-owned grocery store (construction shouldn’t run more than $50 million). The Knicks and the visiting team can share stalls (however, the players’ kids now do get free child care).

8. After the parade, Mamdani will lead a protest outside NBA Headquarters on 5th Avenue. Just because.

9. Rather than letting the team choose the best players, the 2026-2027 roster will reflect the full diversity of New York, nominated by a DSA working group and voted on after a long and divisive caucus meeting (followed by an amusing Instagram post from the mayor). This is the best news Tyler Kolek has heard all week.

10. Anyone who hops the turnstile to enter the Garden must be allowed a free seat and a chance to win $75,000 if they hit a halfcourt shot (which they can take from the top of the arc).

The truth is, a Knicks win would be incredible for all New Yorkers, including Mamdani. Whether you like his policies or not, the mayor is a jovial guy and he’ll do a great job celebrating the Knicks. Should we win. Which, of course, we won’t (repeat that over and over again until June 3).

My son Lyle just built a baseball analytics tool called the MLB Player Index. It’s so cool that even if you don’t like baseball, your reaction will still be “wow, this is really cool.” For those of you who do like baseball, you’ll find it interesting (even dumb adults like me can do a lesser version of this; I recently “vibe coded” a new version of our foundation’s website, although compared to Lyle’s 50,000 lines of code, I’m like the dog that knows how to beg for food and he’s like the chicken that plays tic tac toe). But the larger point is that we’re at an inflection point in society that both enables and empowers regular people to do incredible things and also takes many of the skills that allowed people to pursue specific professions and renders them obsolete.

As a parent, it’s hard to know what to tell your kids the future of work holds. My daughter is almost 20 and Lyle is 17, and while I’m here to support them in any way I can, I have no clue what the job market will look like when they’re out of school. There are some professions like skilled trades that, until robotics companies develop robot hands that function as well as human hands, will remain relatively immune from AI. But everything that’s typically white collar work? All of it seems vulnerable.

In the long term, entire new industries and jobs will emerge that we can’t even think of today, just like we’ve seen in every major economic transformation from steam engines to cars to computers. But right now, knowing what your kid should study in college or whether the jobs they’re interested in will even exist in a few years is somewhere between difficult and impossible.

But there is one skill that will not fall prey to the vicissitudes of AI — critical thinking. Lyle isn’t learning coding and the MLB Player Index isn’t a school project. He just did it for fun. And while Claude made the coding feasible, the work itself came from critical thinking – knowing which data sources to look for, which mattered and why, what to draw from them, what to tell Claude to do, how to structure the work in a way that’s useful, how to think about what fans might want to know and how give it to them, how to engage users, how to make the site look appealing to the specific audience at hand and so much more. In other words, his knowledge of baseball helped, but his real value was applying the right kind of critical thinking to the project.

Lyle goes to a Quaker school that we picked for him and his sister mainly because it has a culture that values things like peace, silence and respect. It’s not the kind of place where everyone flies private or everyone goes to Harvard. However, it is the kind of school that really teaches critical thinking. It’s incorporated into everything they do and even if the subject at hand isn’t interesting to a particular kid, as long as they’re half awake, the underlying precepts of how to think are drilled into them.

That should be the approach in all schools, at all levels. Sure, reading the classics or understanding the basics of physics or biology or Latin will always have value – but that value is more intrinsic to your development as a person. Your development into someone who can adapt to any type of workforce, any type of culture, any type of project is really based on your ability to ask questions, to listen, to think through different permutations and variables, to be able to test ideas and adapt, to know there are multiple ways to solve a problem, to be able to identify what those solutions are, to be able to make your case for your ideas (but also know you don’t know everything). Those are skills that are useful regardless of the economic or technological moment we’re in.

Some experts say that AI means the end of work and we’ll live in utopia forevermore. Others say it means the end of work and we’ll live in dystopia until humanity is killed off violently by AGI. Some say that job displacement will be relatively limited. Others say we’re entering a 20-year period of high unemployment before things shake out.

The truth is, no one has any idea. But whether you’re a parent, an educator, an administrator at a college, a policymaker or anyone trying to figure out how to ensure we’re giving students the tools they need to succeed in a world that we don’t understand, the one thing we know for sure is that critical thinking is a skill that is not only always needed, but one that will have even more value in a world of AI.

I know it’s a lot easier for everyone inside of big systems like government and education to stick with the status quo and just throw more money at a problem. But the solution here is actually far simpler (and cheaper) than they think. Focus on teaching kids the one thing that will always serve them, no matter what they do or how the future unfolds. Focus on critical thinking.

There are times when you need government to solve – or at least try to solve – a problem. And because elected officials can usually get attention when they propose a solution to a problem, whether government action is useful or not, they’ll hold a press conference demanding it (I did more of those in my two years as Chuck Schumer’s communications director than you can possibly imagine). But often, a problem can only be solved by changing the culture and by changing the social norms that govern our behavior.

Normative change is difficult because it’s more than just introducing a bill or holding a press conference. It requires an entire culture to think about an issue differently and then adjust their behavior accordingly. Sometimes government action helps facilitate it, sometimes not. In recent years, positive normative change like the destigmatization of mental health treatment or the #MeToo movement or the decline in drinking among Gen Z came from the culture, not from the government. Others like LGBTQ acceptance and rights, the decline in cigarette smoking and the decline in drunk driving were enabled by new laws or court decisions.

Those are all really good, but unfortunately, I think we are now in a place where the zero sum culture that drives our politics, drives social media, drives much of our economy has penetrated the very norms that also drive our behavior. In a world where we define happiness as something that can only come from success and success means accumulating as much wealth and status as possible, we find ourselves moving away from working towards the collective good and moving towards an every man for himself worldview. The notion that we’re all in constant competition with each other and winning means behaving however you want, wherever and whenever you want has become far more accepted – even encouraged – than at any time in modern history. Sheer nastiness has become not only accepted but seen as actually productive and smart.

To me, there are several trends that indicate this — trends that I don’t think can be truly changed by government action, but only by our starting to return to the view that when we care for others, when we are considerate and decent, when we do things that give our lives meaning and purpose, that’s what produces happiness and creates a society we can all live in. Here are a few that I think particularly are worth noting and, ideally, starting to change:

• Phone behavior. We’re all addicted to our phones and all guilty of prioritizing them over courtesy to other people. But it also can really hinder the way we live.

• Even putting aside all of the harms caused by distracted driving – in 2024, 315,000 people were in car accidents caused by distracted driving and over 3,200 people died in them – people are choosing their phones over showing basic courtesy to others. Where I live in New York City, the sidewalks are more congested than ever because the person you’re stuck behind is invariably looking at their phone and walking at a crawl. Or they’re standing right in the middle of the doors to the subway and don’t move because they’re too engrossed in their phones (speaking of the subway, so many people who clearly can afford the fare hop the turnstiles; just pay the fare). Or they’re blocking a stairway or anything else that needs to be as clear as possible (also, this isn’t phone specific, but do people really have to walk in formation three or four across like they’re in a choreographed dance on Broadway? Let people get past you).

• I’ve also noticed a trend lately of people holding calls in public on speaker with zero regard for anyone around them. Just hold the phone up to your ear or use airpods. Why do you have to subject all of us to whatever inane topic you’re discussing? And why do you think that your minor convenience is more important than everyone else’s sanity? I’ve noticed it especially among young men, meaning that their parents are also to blame (it doesn’t matter what you tell your kids, it’s how they see you behave).

• Gym behavior. Maybe this is too minor to matter or maybe it is a proxy for the larger mentality plaguing society but three times in the last few months, I’ve asked someone to work in at the gym and they’ve said no. Not “I’ve got one set left.” Not “sure, no problem.” Just “no.” Who does that? They clearly think that they have no responsibility to anyone else (there’s also the problem of people spending 5-10 minutes between sets hogging a machine while scrolling on their phones). And while maybe their workout is slightly faster as a result, it’s very hard to be that big of an asshole and lead a happy life.

• Airplane behavior. Why can’t people just wait until their group is called to board? The plane doesn’t take off until everyone is on it anyway. Honestly, the most efficient thing to do – even though people who pay more for a first class ticket won’t like this – is to board from the back to front. And when you see an old person struggling to lift their bag into the overhead compartment, help them. It’s not that hard, they’ll be appreciative, you’ll feel good and it helps the plane board faster.

• Kids sports. My son played little league for a year and fortunately hated it. Fortunately, because the other dads were such dicks. Yelling at the kids. Endlessly talking advanced strategy (they were 8!). Trust me, no kid ever from the StuyTown Little League has played in the major leagues. Your kid is not going to be the first. Chill the fuck out (although dads acting like pricks at their kids’ games isn’t new).

I don’t use social media so I can’t even imagine how bad that must be — although my block has become ground zero for Instagram photos, so on weekends, I have to cross to the other side just to make it to my building without waiting for someone to finish or feeling like a jerk for walking through their photo shoot (and maybe all of this is just me getting older and crankier).

Changing social norms doesn’t happen overnight. It takes a shift in how people talk and then think about an issue. If walking down the street at a snail’s pace because you’re staring at your phone starts being portrayed as dickish behavior by the right influencers, if it’s mocked enough on tv, if there’s enough stigma that regular people feel comfortable saying something to those doing it (like we do with those now smoking cigarettes indoors), it can start to change. But it takes time and because it’s not something you can really legislate, you need someone outside of government — people with influence, people who are actually cool — to take up the cause. Repeatedly.

It’s hard, but overall, normative change is clearly necessary. Our society has clearly embraced a zero sum mentality. And Americans’ self-reported happiness keeps plunging, especially for people under 25 (in the latest World Happiness Report, the U.S. was 62nd for people under 25, despite our being the richest and most successful country maybe ever). The lack of concern for the collective good is a big reason why Americans feel this way. So while we may think that the freedom to be an asshole is the path to happiness, it isn’t. It’s the road to misery. For us all.

Why Zohran Probably Doesn’t See the Ken Griffin Fiasco As A Loss

From a substantive standpoint, it would be hard to see NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s public excoriation of Ken Griffin and Griffin’s subsequent inclination to build his new $6 billion headquarters in Miami rather than New York as anything but a complete disaster. Griffin, the owner of the most expensive apartment in New York City, was attacked by Mamdani after a pied-a-terre tax was proposed to add up to a 4% increase in taxes on the value of second homes that cost over $5 million. Mamdani chose to make Griffin the public face of the argument for the tax, directly and aggressively criticizing Griffin in a video that quickly went viral. Getting the new tax included in the budget did not require going after Griffin.

Griffin, whose company Citadel already employs 2,500 people in Manhattan, in response decided he didn’t need to support a city run by someone who chose to publicly humiliate him and may now create a facility in Miami instead of his planned $6 billion renovation of 350 Park Avenue. That would mean 15,000 NYC jobs evaporating. Marc Rowan, the CEO of private equity giant Apollo, then followed suit, deciding to open their new office to house another 1,000 employees in either Texas or Florida rather than New York.

One percent of New York City residents pay 50% of the local taxes so as those taxpayers leave the city (or as new, high income jobs that were originally intended for New York are created elsewhere), the tax base declines and money needed to help poor people goes away. Whether you’re a hard core capitalist who wants to see finance grow in New York City or someone who just wants to see the City be able to help those in need with programs like Medicaid, public housing and food stamps, this is a very, very bad outcome. But odds are, Mamdani and his team do not see it that way.

Mamdani ran for office promising to tax the rich and it helped propel him to victory, especially by then promising to use the new tax revenue to make lots of things free. He is extremely smart and knows his base incredibly well. Progressives are typically not the poorest among us. They are usually in the second or third decile of wealth, are often both highly educated and highly frustrated that they did not succeed enough financially to be able to easily afford to live in New York City.

That frustration presents them with a choice: blame themselves for their career choices, for not working hard enough, not being talented enough, not being risk tolerant enough or blame those who did better than them as corrupt, greedy and evil. Psychologically, the second choice is a lot easier (we see it every day with our president). Social justice means punishing those who did better than they did. That’s why the demands for tax increases, regardless of what the money is used for, matters so much to them. It’s not about generating new tax revenue to help the poor. It’s not about setting tax policy to provide the best government services possible. It’s about emotional validation.

Because Mamdani failed to convince Governor Kathy Hochul to raise income taxes, he had to get a win that showed that the rich were being punished somehow. Enter the pied-a-terre tax. Now, had Mamdani just supported the new measure, that’s normal politics. But by choosing to make Ken Griffin the face of evil, while he did cost his own city thousands of jobs, he also made the fight far more exciting to the media and to his base. The more the tax became a fight and not just a revenue measure, the more controversial it became, the more attention it got, and, as a result, the more it achieved the demands of his base.

So without Griffin, the tax is not seen by progressives as Mamdani really delivering on his promises. With the Griffin controversy, now it’s a real fight between progressives and capitalists and the more Griffin and others complain, the better progressives feel about the meager win. Mamdani is using Griffin to cover his own political needs and choosing to sacrifice the jobs and tax revenue and growth Griffin can create over his own political standing. That’s also known as politics as usual. And it represents the views of many of the people who actually both showed up to vote and chose to vote for him. He sees that as his mandate.

The issue is especially important for Mamdani because 2026 is an election year for Albany, meaning this is the time when Mamdani has the most leverage politically over the Governor, a moderate who typically looks at and prioritizes the big picture. Once she wins this November, odds are it’s her last election and his leverage evaporates completely. So he has to have something to point to to show his base that he delivered for them and because this may be his last chance to exert any leverage, he had to make it as big of a deal as possible.

The question now is whether Mamdani has learned from any of this and whether he cares — whether the needs of the 8.5 million New Yorkers he represents comes before the needs of the people who supported him in the primary.

The vast majority of elected officials — across the ideological spectrum — put their own political needs ahead of any substantive good. That’s why we mainly see either special interests or ideological extremes control the agenda at every level of government — city, state and federal. As a result, either nothing gets done or only one sided policies advance. Neither is good for anyone but those narrow groups and interests.

A good politician wins re-election. A great leader achieves real things often by choosing a path that is not easy or popular, but is the right thing to do. Whether it’s job growth, public safety, affordable housing, the budget or a dozen other topics, Mamdani will consistently face a conflict between what’s best for him politically and what’s best for New York City. By keeping Jessie Tisch as Police Commissioner, he did what was best for New York to the anger of his base. The crime stats are better than ever. By humiliating Ken Griffin, he did what was best for himself at the expense of his constituents who need jobs.

The question presented itself this winter when Mamdani refused to break up homeless encampments during the depths of the winter because progressives don’t believe in it. As a direct result, 19 people froze to death before the mayor finally changed his mind. And the question presents itself again with the budget where there are clearly lots of cuts he can make to eliminate the deficit but that will require both angering organized labor and violating the sacrosanct belief among his base that spending more on everything is the answer to everything, all of the time (except for spending on police).

In a $127 billion proposed budget, of course there are lots of areas for budget reductions. New York City spends $40 billion to run its public schools and yet has some of the worst outcomes of any major school district (half of the students who manage to graduate are college ready and 38% of them drop out in the first six months). It has seen enrollment decline by 123,000 students since Covid and yet has not managed to find any real savings, despite serving far fewer students. But choosing efficiency over the dogma of progressives requires political courage.

That choice — what’s best for the city as a whole compared to what’s appealing to the base — is the true test of Mamdani’s mayoralty. It’s still very early. He’s only been in office for a little over four months and he didn’t come to it with any management experience. It’s an incredibly hard job — for anyone — and very different from being a legislator where you can choose ideology and your base without (usually) any operational consequence.

We know that the mayor is incredibly talented politically. I don’t think anyone would dispute that. But his courage, his leadership and his willingness to put the 8.5 million people of this city first are still yet to be determined.

Last week, the California Billionaire Tax coalition filed signatures to qualify its referendum for November’s ballot. To make the ballot in California, 875,000 valid signatures are needed. The coalition filed 1.55 million signatures, meaning that the referendum to impose a one time 5% tax on the assets of California residents worth $1.1 billion or more will be put before the voters.

The coalition supporting the measure is made up of labor groups like SEIU and AFSCME and is strongly supported by progressives like U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders, Congressman Ro Khanna and former U.S. Labor Secretary Robert Reich. Opponents of the tax – organized into several different political action committees – include Google co-founder Sergey Brin, former Google CEO Eric Schmidt, venture capitalist Peter Thiel, the California Business Roundtable, the California Chamber of Commerce and politicians like Governor Gavin Newsom and every serious candidate for governor to succeed Newsom except Tom Steyer.

Below is my take on the motivations for the proposal, its likely impact on California’s economy and budget, its chances of success, its chances of replication in other states and some ideas on how to deal with the income inequality that is both fueling the momentum behind the proposal and putting the stability of our society itself at risk.

Why Is This Happening?

California, like every state, is facing federal funding cuts to Medicaid and other social service programs from Trump’s Big Beautiful Bill. RAND estimates that California will lose $112 billion in federal funding, although others contest that amount and say it is smaller. Whatever the number is, there will be a hole to fill and the proponents of the measure would always rather fill budget holes with new taxes than new ways of doing things.

What Is The Likely Real World Impact Of The Tax?

Proponents of the ballot measure say that the billionaire tax would generate $100 billion over five years. Opponents say that the revenue estimate is wildly overstated because it includes multiple billionaires who are no longer California residents and wouldn’t be covered by the tax. There are around 200 billionaires in California. It seems clear that most of the people facing the tax will do everything possible to avoid it by leaving the state or contesting its applicability to them. It also seems clear that people who are nearing the $1.1 billion threshold will leave the state preemptively to avoid the tax. And in most cases, their companies will go with them.

This is why jurisdictional tax increases tend to do more harm than good. While a higher federal tax rate does not result in people renouncing their U.S. citizenship, high income earners often play tax arbitrage by moving their residence from high tax states like California and New York to low tax states like Texas and Florida. That’s why the economies of the latter states are soaring and the former are trailing behind.

For example, in 2012, New York City had 12.7% of America’s millionaires. In 2022, after new taxes, a very stringent reaction to the pandemic, worsening quality of life, ever more regulations and endless public excoriation of people who succeed financially, that number fell to 8.7%. The difference meant $13 billion less annually for the City and State budgets. So poor people, whose very real needs are typically touted as the reason to raise taxes, ended up with less funding for Medicaid, for food stamps, for public housing. This is where the conflict between the demands and emotional needs of the progressive wing and the people who are actually suffering becomes most apparent (that and defunding the police, which almost no one who actually lives in high crime neighborhoods wants).

In the case of California, former longtime California Director of Finance Mike Genest, who is considered one of the premier experts on California’s budget, estimates that the measure will lead to the loss of 108,000 jobs. If Genest’s estimate is accurate, the displacement of 108,000 workers would impose roughly $1.7 billion per year in steady-state fiscal costs on California — the combination of lost state income and sales tax revenue, the multiplier effects on businesses that served those workers, and higher social service and law enforcement costs. Discounted at 4% in perpetuity (since the job and tax losses are permanent), that’s a present value of about $41 billion. Since the tax is one-time but these losses are permanent, if you take the proponents estimate of $100 billion, it means a net revenue gain of $59 billion (for the state budget; the 108,000 people out of work obviously come out far worse).

But if you take the estimate from Stanford’s Hoover Institution that the tax will generate $40 billion in one-time revenue, it means less total tax revenue over time. The Hoover Institution found that after running 100,000 simulations with different estimates of discount rates, wealth tax revenue and lost income tax revenue, the state loses more revenue than it gains 71% of the time. Proponents scoff at those estimates, saying that people won’t leave, that the assumptions of who has already left and won’t be taxed is overstated and that many of the figures are double counted.

But either way, the secondary impact on California’s startup community and other major industries would also be significant. The reason why Silicon Valley is so strong is that people really want to be there, especially Stanford graduates. The collection of engineers, founders, investors and startup workers reinforces itself, creating a permanent innovation economy and wealth engine for California. But network effects can work in reverse too, so if fewer founders create startups in California and if fewer venture firms are based in California, that wealth engine starts to recede.

That can lead to even more job loss and also deprive California of the major capital gains revenue it receives when founders take their companies public and money flows to the founder, the employees and the investors. For example, when Facebook went public in 2012, California received somewhere from $1-2 billion in new tax revenue (on top of the new spending by many now wealthy employees directly into California’s economy).

The next generation of major IPOs are coming at far higher valuations like OpenAI and Anthropic (currently valued at close to one trillion dollars each). The proposed billionaire tax puts all of the capital gains those offerings will generate at risk too. Now, maybe those companies won’t leave before their IPO. But I know firsthand as a venture capitalist that every founder who pitches us truly believes they too one day will be worth $1.1 billion. 99.99% of them will not, but they all still think it. Which means not creating their startup in California.

But if there is a long-term net gain in revenue from the tax, the question then is how you spend it. If it’s spent wisely and used to help the poorest people, that approach at least has some merit. If, instead, it’s spent on just maintaining programs that are already inefficient and too expensive, it does not have merit (in a March Politico survey, 85% said the state wastes all or some of the tax money it collects). And if there’s a net loss in revenue, then the proposal has zero merit whatsoever because it will hurt more poor people than it helps. Determining that is the true calculation here.

What is the Measure’s Likelihood of Success?

This too is hard to tell. The most recent polling from Politico and Berkeley's Citrin Center in early March found that 50% of respondents supported the tax, 23% are undecided and 28% are opposed. That argues for passage. However, the prediction markets tell a slightly different story. Aggregated across Kalshi and Polymarket, the consensus is roughly 55-45 that the measure will fail.

Turnout in November will be high for several reasons. First, it’s a gubernatorial election and because of California’s top two system, the general election could easily pit two Democrats against each other, meaning that Democrats in the state are heavily incentivized to vote (it actually could also pit two Republicans against each other, which will reduce turnout but also bring out more No voters on the ballot measure). There are also five competitive general elections for House seats. Half a billion dollars could (insanely) be spent on those five races alone. While much of that money will be wasted (diminishing returns kick in quickly), it should still result in increased turnout. There are also other ballot measures that will attract voters.

Typically, higher turnout is bad for a proposal like this. When turnout is low, interest groups like labor can heavily influence the outcome by mobilizing its members, creating a disproportionate share of voters. However, Democrats overall are angry, they make up 45% of registered voters in California, and they are expressing that more and more by electing left wing candidates. Zohran Mamdani won the mayoralty in New York City last year in part because it was the first opportunity for voters to be heard since Trump won in 2024. Progressive voters came out in droves to express their anger by supporting the ideological opposite of Trump in Mamdani. So in this case, higher turnout, likely surpassing 50% of registered voters, may not be a negative for the ballot measure.

On top of that, whenever you think about how voters might view a ballot measure, the first question they ask is “does this affect me?” The opposition will make the case that it does through lost jobs or lost long-term tax revenue, but the risk will probably feel very indirect to most people. And if the logical conclusion is, “I’m not a billionaire, no one I know is a billionaire, they probably should pay more, I don’t want to see funding for health care get cut and this is never going to affect me anyway,” that’s a pretty compelling argument to vote yes.

The other factor is the campaign itself by each side and the funding behind it. Both sides are well resourced, but ultimately, it’s not even close. Opponents of the measure could easily spend as much as $250 million while supporters will probably spend more like $50 million. The difference only matters if the opposition can figure out how to make the risk and downside feel real, present, compelling and personal to voters. Without that, the extra spending may not matter.

However, there are two provisions in the measure that could spell real trouble for the proponents. The first is that the provision allows the legislature to change the categories of whom the tax applies to as long as they deem it consistent with the purpose of the measure. In other words, the legislature can pass a law changing the qualification from $1.1 billion to $110 million or even $1.1 million if they want. Given the constant pressure to spend more money, the odds that some legislator would soon propose a new category are very, very high. That will end up happening sooner or later, driving away even more high-income earners and employers. It risks putting California in a downward spiral that’s very hard to recover from.

Also, the measure allows the state to audit anyone’s finances to see if they should pay the tax. That means the state can now subpoena your credit card statements, bank accounts, cell phone records, travel records or anything else they want. Some voters will clearly find this disturbing and violatory and it exposes the measure’s proponents as the same people refusing to allow anyone they disagree with to speak on college campuses or canceling anyone who doesn’t toe the party line — things most regular people hate. The more the opponents can make these risks feel real and tangible, the better their chances.

Finally, I suppose there is, at least in theory, the chance of the two sides agreeing on a deal enacted by the legislature that avoids the measure entirely (the proponents can withdraw the measure up to 131 days before the election, so that’s June 25). Perhaps the opponents could agree to fewer layoffs from efficiencies generated by AI or agree to pay a one time tax at a lower rate or something else. But in an election that’s probably 50-50 where labor is focused specifically on preventing funding and job cuts in their specific industries, it’s hard to see either side backing down, so unless one side is willing to accept a pyrrhic victory, my guess is it won’t happen.

Will Other States Seek to Replicate This?

Some will. Every state will lose significant federal funding because of the Big Beautiful Bill and unions and progressives in those states will seek to generate new tax revenue through new taxes on high income earners. California has far more billionaires than any state so this specific tax may not be replicated, but multiple blue states have already enacted new taxes. Massachusetts nearly doubled taxes for people making over $1 million. Washington just enacted a 9.9% tax on people making over $1 million. Maine enacted a 2% surcharge for people making over $1 million on top of their regular taxes. Legislators in New York are pushing for more taxes and the top rate (combined City and State) is already just under 15%.

Politically, for the proponents, there’s no reason not to keep pushing tax increases. By doing so, unions show their members that they’re fighting for them, which helps the current union leadership win re-election. Progressive politicians make their base feel emotionally better by demanding social justice, so even if they fail to make the ballot or lose at the ballot box, it won’t really matter. They win anyway.

However, what happens in California will impact what happens everywhere else going forward. For example, California enacted legislation in 2019 to make every sharing economy worker – Uber drivers, Instacart shoppers, Door Dash delivery people – full time employees. The voters overturned it overwhelmingly the following November. That stopped the national effort to make sharing economy workers full time employees and dues paying union members in its tracks. If the Billionaire Tax is rejected convincingly, it may deter efforts in other states to impose new taxes altogether. If it passes or comes close, it will encourage those efforts.

What’s the Big Picture?

It seems very clear to me that we cannot have a society that survives long-term where 31% of wealth is concentrated in the hands of just 1% and the bottom 50% hold just 2.5% of the wealth. You’re just asking for the French Revolution.

Here are seven ideas to consider to mitigate the problem and help people, especially around making their day-to-day lives more affordable: the costs of health care, insurance, housing and education. Some of these are anathema to the right. Some to the left. In my experience in government, the more that each side is upset, the more likely it is that you’re on the right track.

(1). Universal Basic Income

The left’s solution of “just tax rich people more” is not an actual solution. Problems aren’t magically solved just by spending more money. We need to give people in need more, but do so in a way that truly helps them and not just keeps feeding a system that provides significant political and financial support to Democratic candidates but often fails to deliver for the people who need help the most.

When I was Deputy Governor of Illinois, I oversaw the state budget. It became clear that by the time a dollar we received in taxes actually reached a poor person who needed help with food or housing or health care, our own process and systems, we had already spent at least 20-30 cents of it on our own internal processes and systems — government worker salaries, benefits, pensions, facilities, IT, and all of the other usual overhead.

If we had just given the dollar to the poor person directly instead, they would have been much better off. Yes, some small percentage would have spent the money on inappropriate things but the vast majority would use it to buy food, pay rent, pay off loans and pay for their basic needs. This is going to be especially necessary as AI displaces more and more jobs.

UBI is instinctively opposed by many on the right as an undeserved handout, but will ultimately be even more opposed by the left because doing it properly requires eliminating big segments of government that provide social services we’ll no longer need, which hurts the public sector workers and unions who fund Democratic campaigns. Demands by politicians like Elizabeth Warren for higher taxes aren’t just about giving her progressive base the emotional validation they crave by punishing the people who did better than them financially. It’s also a way to reward institutional Democratic donors and keep the money flowing.

In order to make it politically palatable for Republicans and harder for Democrats to oppose, UBI might need a different name (universal might have negative connotations) and the payments may need to extend up the income scale to at least include the middle class if not people making up to $250,000 a year (even if they’re also paying into the system that funds the payments in the first place).

(2). Medicare for All

Bernie was right about this one. Health care should not be this expensive or this complicated. And unlike many government programs, Medicare does work. It does a good job providing decent coverage to almost seventy million people and with more people in the program, CMS’ negotiating power on drug prices and other major expenses only increases. The Medicare entry age of 65 is somewhat arbitrary. There’s no reason we couldn’t let anyone choose to use it if they want to. If they want to use private insurance instead, great.

But if the contributions and deductibles are higher than what they’d have to pay into Medicare for All and the coverage is comparable, they may prefer the government option instead. We shouldn’t deny anyone the option of private coverage but we also shouldn’t make getting good health care extremely difficult, regardless of how old you are.

Also, even just to cover the current beneficiaries of both Medicare and Social Security, we need a lot of new, younger taxpayers in the system (like millions). That means significantly increasing legal immigration to fill holes in the economy (industries like construction, nursing, hospitality) and collect not only taxes but FICA as well. None of that is mutually exclusive with strong border security. You should only be here legally, but we also need a lot more legal immigrants if we want to even keep what we have, let alone expand a program like Medicare.

This will be opposed by the right but I think that if they could get past the narrative of socialized medicine, their voters would like a better, more affordable health care system just as much as the left, the center and everyone else.

(3). Tort Reform

Frivolous lawsuits cost insurance companies — and therefore their customers (homeowners, drivers, renters, business owners) $367 billion every year. That just drives up the cost of their premiums and makes their day-to-day lives even more expensive. We all pay the price of this, even if juries think that awarding large damages against insurers (or government) is harmless.

That takes money away from the things everyone needs like food, housing, utilities and clothes. We should enact serious tort reform across all categories. We should also move a lot faster towards allowing fully autonomous cars, taxis and trucks. Once we have a world where all vehicles are autonomous, accidents will plummet and the cost of car insurance will go way down too. While the $367 billion figure comes from tort reform advocates, even if you cut the number in half, it still drives up costs for everyone.

Tort reform is typically opposed by Democrats (and some Republicans), who are the beneficiaries of significant trial lawyer campaign donations. Autonomous vehicle regulation that would allow the industry to operate across state lines has been blocked by Secretaries of Transportation from both parties at the behest of the Teamsters. But I don’t think the far left cares about the plaintiffs’ bar and hopefully the next President has the courage to stand up to the Teamsters, so this could be an area where Republicans and progressives could come together.

(4). Changing Education

There’s almost $2 trillion in outstanding student loans. College has to be redesigned. It can’t cost this much and make sense for most students. Let’s figure out what students actually need to learn to pursue the profession of their choice and fit that into two years. It doesn’t have to just be what’s traditionally seen as vocational education – professions like plumbing or HVAC. It could be anything. In England a few hundred years ago, you became a barrister by apprenticing under one and then passing a test. Maybe that’s not the right approach, but as someone who has a law degree, I can tell you that four years of college and three years of law school is definitely unnecessary.

Sure, there’s value in a broader liberal arts education but not at the expense of saddling people with unmanageable debt for decades. A system of higher education driven by the pursuit of rankings rather than the best interests of their students is a broken system. Like many things in and around government, higher ed now exists more for the benefit of the people working at universities than the students attending them. That can’t continue.

K-12 education is also broken. Most blue states spend plenty of money on public schools but are so captured by teachers unions that they look the other way when the interests of the adults in the system are put ahead of the kids (especially people who aren’t even teachers). For example, New York City spends $40 billion a year on its public schools and yet only half of graduates are actually ready for college (and 38% drop out after six months). Perpetuating that system cheats the taxpayers but far more important, it significantly reduces the chances of the students to get the education they need and earn a good living. And yet campaign donations trump all. Red states are much less controlled by the teachers unions but frequently underfund public schools. That’s equally a problem.

And finally, just feed every kid. There are millions of kids whose parents make just enough to not qualify for free school meals but also don’t make enough to consistently put food on the table. Allowing kids to go hungry means every dollar you spend trying to educate them is essentially wasted and even worse, it’s just cruel. What kind of people want to see kids go hungry? Every state should have universal school meals (or make sure their families have enough money for food).

Reforming higher ed will instinctively be opposed by both parties who tend to be afraid of any change that isn’t already popular with their base. And because most of the leverage government has over higher ed is budgetary rather than direct governance, you’d have to use the threat of major funding cuts as the motivation for real change.

But I think the public support would be there, evidenced by the fact that fewer and fewer people see the value of a four year liberal arts education (according to a recent NBC News poll, just 33% think it’s worth it). Standing up to teachers unions in k-12 education is easy for the right and the refusal to do so is the most shameful thing the Democratic party does. But providing more funding for schools in many red states will require different budgetary priorities for Republicans. No one should oppose universal school meals and yet leaders in both parties continually refuse to do so. It is shocking and shameful.

(5). Affordable Housing

As Derek Thompson and Ezra Klein showed persuasively in their book Abundance, we have far too many roadblocks to constructing affordable housing. Endless environmental reviews, community veto power over concerns of gentrification and demands to only use union labor for construction makes it virtually impossible to build affordable housing. That means people have to pay for more than they should for a place to live.

Some states like California have taken the lead on removing those roadblocks, but many, especially blue states, have again chosen the parochial interests of their left wing supporters over the needs of people to afford a decent place to live. That has to stop. I think the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development should offer a version of what Obama did with Race to the Top to offer financial incentives to cities and states who enact real reforms to allow affordable housing to happen. That incentive worked incredibly well politically with Race to the Top, allowing ideas like charter schools to take flight over the objections of the teachers unions (the first campaign we ran out of Tusk Strategies in 2010 was using the promise of Race to the Top to increase the number of charters in New York from 200 to 460). This will require goring the ox of the left, which is why so many progressives were so angered by Abundance.

(6). Use AI To Make Government a Lot More Efficient and Cost Effective

California, like every state, could start using AI to provide far better services and significantly reduce costs and headcount. Take procurement. Right now, let’s say you run a school system. You always need pencils. When supply runs low, someone has to notice, then tell the procurement and legal teams that they need more pencils. People then start writing an RFP that goes around and around internally. Eventually, it gets issued and sent to the half a dozen pencil vendors they always deal with. Those vendors send back written responses which are then reviewed by the RFP committee. The committee is made up of human beings who, at best, have their own set of biases, preferences, relationships, ambitions, emotions and everything else that comes with being human. At worst, they’re outright corrupt and are taking bribes to fix the outcome.

In the normal scenario, the school system — and therefore the taxpayers — is getting relatively few bids and then evaluating them in a suboptimal way. You could instead use AI to write the RFP, distribute it to hundreds of pencil vendors, evaluate and score the responses, do so without any bias or corruption, and then provide its recommendations to the relevant person in the school district, who can decide how to proceed. It gets the taxpayers a better price, the school system better quality and saves a lot of staff time and money. Imagine if we did all procurement this way (full disclosure, we have a very small amount of equity in an AI procurement startup called Hazel).

The same thing applies to licensing, permitting, compliance, data and facilities management and so much more. The $2 trillion currently spent across all levels of government every year would be so much more efficient, cost effective and trustworthy. Doing this will mainly anger the left who seek to protect the status quo in government in order to keep raking in votes and contributions from public sector workers and unions.

(7). Close Loopholes

The tax system is broken and instead of fixing it, we just keep making it more complicated. We should only have a government that takes on the problems that require collective action (social services should be replaced by UBI) and we should just charge people what we need to perform those functions after ensuring that every function is performed as effectively and efficiently as possible (again, the system shouldn’t exist for the people who work in it — it should exist for the benefit of the people who fund it).

That doesn’t have to mean raising the tax rate (in fact, if we’re going to also tax people for UBI direct payments, we will need to reduce current taxes). But it does mean getting rid of the nonsense that lets people avoid taxation. Carried interest is the most prominent example and closing it is the right thing to do. If you are genuinely investing and putting capital at risk, then a capital gains tax rate to incentivize investment makes sense. But if you are effectively performing a service as most funds do, that’s not the point of the capital gains tax. Those gains should be taxed as regular income.

This will anger Republicans, who rely on campaign donations from hedge funds, private equity funds and venture capital funds. With that said, the carried interest loophole was saved by Kyrsten Sinema in 2022 at the expense of instead providing $10 billion in new funding to ensure every kid in every school gets fed.

These are just seven ideas. There are other good ones out there too. But enacting them requires real political courage, which we almost never see from either party.

So What’s the Right Answer?

Odds are the billionaire tax would result in less absolute tax revenue for the state over time, meaning less funding for food stamps, public housing and Medicaid, so the poor probably suffer even more as a result. If the goal here is truly to help those in need and not to protect special interests and propel progressive politicians, then that’s what should determine how we see the proposal.

We need to help people in a far more effective way and we absolutely need to reduce income inequality through ideas like those described above. The proposal heading to the ballot in California — especially given its likely long-term loss of net tax revenue, the inevitable expansion by the legislature, the significant loss of jobs, the loss of significant future revenue streams like capital gains taxes from IPOs of California startups, the substantial erosion of privacy rights, and its potential ripple effects nationwide — is not the way to do it.

I worry about Israel’s ongoing security. I worry about Israel’s turn towards religious extremism. I worry about rising antisemitism, globally, nationally, and here in New York City. But more than any of that, I worry that mainstream (meaning non-orthodox) American Jews no longer support Israel, because without America, it’s not clear to me that Israel can survive long-term (maybe I worry too much, but you know, I’m Jewish).1

That lack of support is already apparent. At a recent DSA forum, AOC pledged not to vote to send any military aid to Israel. It wasn’t even conditional – just full-stop abandonment. Why? Because she’s thinking of running for President, her only chance in the presidential primary is being the one true progressive in a crowded field of moderates, and a large number of progressives today oppose even Israel’s right to exist.

Even worse, it’s why normally centrist politicians like Rahm Emanuel, who is both Jewish and served in the IDF, have joined the parade, renouncing support for our longtime ally. In fact, not supporting Israel has already become the standard position in many congressional primaries in both parties. And it’s not just about explicit military aid for Israel. Israel may be just fine without it. But if Israel is no longer seen as a key ally and priority of the United States, that changes perceptions globally. It makes Israel a far easier target, especially as antisemitism rises globally and politicians across the world want to take advantage of it.

But the problem isn’t just politicians willing to say or do anything to gain power. It’s that many mainstream American Jews, the bedrock of support for Israel since 1948, have lost faith too. A recent poll got some attention for its headline finding that 60% of those surveyed oppose the US war against Iran. But to me, the real finding – the one that I found truly terrifying – came later in the survey: 30% said that the U.S. should continue providing military support for Israel and 70% said they should not.

Think about that. 70% of American Jews do not support funding aid for Israel, at least not without significant conditions. Anecdotally, I’ve found the same thing. The majority of non-orthodox Jews I know were unhappy with how Israel and Netanayhu prosecuted the war in Gaza. They may not have seen it as genocide, but they still had concerns about the devastating real world impact on the people who live there. The result is they now don’t identify nearly as strongly with Israel and many do not see Israel as existential to their own survival.

That’s a sea change from how I — and millions of other American Jews — grew up. I was raised to see Israel as an insurance policy. Jews have never been able to remain in any country permanently. The modern state of Israel was created by the UN as a response to the Holocaust so that Jews would always have a safe place to live. While I hope that Jews can live safely in the United States forever, the idea that Israel is an option if Jews become unwelcome here (which seems like a growing possibility) is critical to me. That can only happen with the ongoing support of the United States, which won’t happen without strong, vocal support for Israel from American Jews.2

But that support is just not there, at least not in the way it used to be. If I were the JNFA or UJA-New York or the CoP or AJC or any major American Jewish organization, I would immediately focus on winning back Jewish support for Israel. Ideally, the groups would combine expertise and forces in some way, rather than running competing/ overlapping campaigns (and some of them are doing different components of it already). Sure, holding Mamdani or others accountable for antisemitic statements is important, but ultimately, the problem starts in our own backyard.

This would be a major campaign that requires serious funding, focus and expertise. A campaign that should start just by listening – not by talking (I know that doesn’t always come naturally to our people). Host a series of focus groups and meetings of mainstream American Jews around the country, across partisan lines, to see how people feel. Ask questions like:

• How much do they support Israel?

• How much attention do they pay to Israel?

• If they don’t support Israel, why not?

• If their support has decreased over time, how come?

• How much of that opposition is specific to Bibi and how much goes deeper?

• What Israeli policies towards the Palestinians would change their views (if any)?

• How did they view Israel before October 7? Were their concerns already percolating or is this all about Gaza?

• How have their views about Israel changed over time, independent of October 7 and the war that followed?

• How do their views about Israel impact their activities and choices around being Jewish in America?

• How much has Israel’s shift to the political right and to more religious fervor been an issue?

• Most importantly, what can be done to change their views?

Once you can answer these questions, then start to develop clear programs in response. Do not just try to convince people that they’re wrong. Showing them the October 7 video and saying, “See! Now you get it!” is not going to work. This is not a persuasion campaign. It’s a campaign to thoughtfully address their concerns and try to start addressing them.

Of course, much of the criticism of Israel – by non-Jews and American Jews – is uninformed, one-sided, or animated by something far darker than policy disagreement. No other country facing the threats Israel faces would be held to the same standard. But the only acceptable response from American Jews cannot be unconditional loyalty. That demand is driving people away faster than any BDS resolution ever could. Telling American Jews they’re just wrong or naive or disloyal is a losing strategy.

Some of the ideas below are being worked on already by the groups listed above, though perhaps they should be expanded or altered based on the research. Others are not being done yet. And, as I ran this column by different people who know these issues, some argued that the ideas below have been tried and already failed or that the only viable approach is to just fight those who disparage Jews and Israel. Maybe they’re right, and ultimately, you wouldn’t want to determine the solutions before you truly understand the problem. But at least top of mind, here are some possible ideas:

• Expand the Birthright program to show more young American Jews what Israel really means and how vital it is to their future. Some of this has been happening already (when it’s been safe to travel to Israel) but the participants can’t only be people already favorably inclined towards Israel. Recruitment has to focus on young people who identify on the left and are skeptical about Israel;

• Expand programming and education about Israel itself – what it means, why it matters, how they function and all the good Israel does in the world from research and scientific discovery to foreign and humanitarian aid to scholarship and ideas. That ranges from developing drip irrigation to providing aid and disaster relief to over 140 countries to developing thousands of new medications to having more Nobel laureates than China, India, Spain and Brazil. This has to be done in a very engaging, interactive way or otherwise no one will bother looking at it;

• If there is a change in power in Israel after the October elections, have the new administration put together a team that can tour the U.S., explaining what they’re doing differently at synagogues, JCCs and Hebrew schools and every other venue that will have them;

• Bring together American Jewish elected officials to talk about how they feel, what they’re hearing, what motivates their support for Israel and whether that’s changing;

• Bring together U.S. politicians who have been historically supportive of Israel to see how their views have evolved and what needs to be done to keep them supportive or regain their support (keep in mind, an April Pew survey found that 60% of American adults now have a negative view of Israel and 80% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents have a negative view of Israel);

• Change the underdog narrative and strategy that has been used to support Israel for most of its existence. Israel is not frail, poor or weak. It is strong, proud and wealthy. That has real appeal and figuring out how to change the narrative in a way that reflects reality but also makes people want to join the winning team could be valuable;

• Add more Holocaust museums and exhibitions to remind people of why Israel must exist; and

• Put together a new program with Hillels across the nation to see how college students feel and what type of exposure to Israel and what type of programs and answers and policy changes would make them more supportive. This is also being done to some extent now, but is still more focused on conventionally expanding Jewish identity rather than explicitly addressing very specific political concerns from students, which is especially important given how left leaning most campuses are.

These are just a handful of initial ideas. None of them may be what’s needed. That’s why it’s important to go into the campaign not prejudging how American Jews feel, what they will say, or how to best answer their concerns. Just listen first.3

It’s entirely possible that until Bibi is gone and enough time passes from the war in Gaza, nothing will work. But just waiting and hoping is not a strategy. And if there is a change of power later this year, it’s far better to already know what needs to be done to take advantage of it to change perceptions in the U.S.

Once we get to a point where it becomes clear among politicians that supporting Israel does far more harm than good, that support will cease to happen altogether, despite the critical role Israel plays in supporting U.S. interests in the Middle East. That trend is already well underway because politicians make decisions based on what’s best for their next election. Full stop. We can’t make them different people. We can only make our own people more supportive and engaged.

An Israel without U.S. support, an Israel no longer seen as a top priority for the U.S., is an Israel facing constant existential risk — even greater than what it already faces today. For the long-term security and survival of the Jewish people, I believe that would be a tragedy of epic proportions. The time to start preventing that – thoughtfully, earnestly, exhaustively, rigorously, relentlessly – is right now.

Dear Candidates for Congress –

This has to stop. We’re both engaged in a highly destructive, extremely unpleasant relationship – one that is miserable for you and annoying for us. You’re told by your consultants that you must raise a certain amount of money to get the DCCC or the NRCC or whatever group to take you seriously. That by raising a certain amount, you’ll get better placement in a brief mention in a political blog and maybe a better tweet by a reporter who covers this stuff. And that one of the ways to do it is by spending endless hours cold calling donors you don’t know just because their name is on some list. It isn’t working.

Think about it: what’s the part of running you hate the most? It isn’t giving speeches and going to campaign events. You feel like you have good ideas worth sharing. You like doing media. You don’t mind speaking at fundraisers. But cold calling strangers to ask for money? People who almost never answer the call or return your voicemail? People who are annoyed if they do answer because they thought it was someone else and then they realize it’s you? That’s torture. If you wanted to do that, you’d pursue a career in telemarketing instead.

Cold calling doesn’t result in raising lots of money. You don’t answer the phone from numbers you don’t know. No one else does either. So calling mainly just results in you being able to tell the consultants that you did what they told you to do. And of course, they tell you to do it. They don’t care if you’re miserable. They just want you to raise as much as possible so they can make as much as possible – often to send voters endless direct mail they don’t read or make tv ads that are way too expensive and inefficient. The cost of doing it – your time, your motivation, your happiness – is absolutely irrelevant to them. But it’s not irrelevant to you.

And for those of us getting the calls? It is insanely annoying. My phone rings at least half a dozen times a day from some random person running for Congress. I never answer. My outgoing voicemail literally says that if you’re a candidate for office, do not leave a message. And yet many of you still do because you’re not listening to my message. You’re just waiting to cross my name off the list. There is zero chance I will call you back. That’s true if you’re a first time candidate. It’s true if you’re a sitting U.S. Senator or Governor. If I do donate, it’s because I already know you or someone I know already knows you and asked me to help. That’s it.

This isn’t working. You know it. I know it. Even the consultants telling you to make the calls know it. In fact, if you wanted me to like you, you’d propose legislation allowing candidates and political committees to be added to the Do Not Call list. That, I’d appreciate (I’d even max out to whoever led the fight on this).

If you do win, it doesn’t get better. The process just continues, over and over again. The prize for winning the pie eating contest is just more pie. So take a stand. Tell your consultants no. Tell the insiders no. Spend your time doing something more likely to result in actual votes. It’ll make both of us a lot happier.