Latest news with #Axios'
Axios
12 hours ago
- Business
- Axios
X hires its third public relations lead in less than a year
Elon Musk's X has brought on a new head of U.S. public relations, its third in less than a year, Axios has learned. Why it matters: Both Musk and CEO Linda Yaccarino continue to downplay the value of traditional media and public relations. Driving the news: X has hired Rosemarie Esposito as senior manager, media strategy for the Americas and Victoria Gillespie as director, media strategy for EMEA/MENA/Africa. Between the lines: The social media platform continues to have a strained relationship with the media and advertisers, which was on full display this week at Cannes Lions. On Monday at an Axios event in Cannes, Yaccarino repeatedly dismissed a Wall Street Journal report that X was threatening to sue advertisers if they didn't buy ads on the platform. When Axios' Sara Fischer asked Yaccarino about this, she replied by slamming the WSJ, saying "Does anyone still read that publication?" "I saw on the beach that they were giving it away for free this morning. So that probably says something," she added. Yes, but: In January, Yaccarino brought on former Wall Street Journal editor John Stoll to lead its news partnerships. Catch up quick: X has been a revolving door for communication professionals. Esposito succeeds Dave Heinzinger — who departed the company after only three months — and Joe Benarroch, who led X's media and communications efforts until June of 2024. Details: Esposito joins X from Blue Origin, where she served three years as senior public relations manager. She held previous roles at Medidata, IBM, and Hotwire PR. Gillespie is the first communications hire outside of the U.S. since Musk gutted the function, shortly after taking ownership. She previously led communications for Snap Inc in the U.K. and supported corporate communications at Channel 4. The intrigue: Esposito does not appear to have an active X account, though she has a presence across Instagram, Threads and LinkedIn. Gillespie has not posted on the platform since 2021 — prior to Musk's takeover. What to watch: With these hires, plus Stoll's recent appointment, it appears as though X is looking to re-engage with traditional media while simultaneously questioning its influence.
Axios
a day ago
- Politics
- Axios
Americans largely disapprove of U.S. involvement in Israel and Iran war: Poll
A majority of Americans don't want the U.S. to get involved in the escalating war between Israel and Iran, a poll released this week found. The big picture: President Trump is slated to make a decision"within two weeks" on whether to join Israel in its effort to eliminate the Iranian nuclear program, the White House said Thursday. He's leaving the door open to a diplomatic solution in the coming days that could avert a major escalation in the Middle East, Axios' Barak Ravid reports. Zoom in: 60% of Americans think the U.S. military should not get involved in the conflict between Israel and Iran, according to an Economist/YouGov poll released this week. Only 16% support U.S. military action, and 24% are unsure. That largely holds up across party lines, with 65% of Democrats, 61% of independents and 53% of Republicans opposing U.S. military intervention in Iran. About as many people see Iran's nuclear program as a threat as those who oppose military intervention in the Israel-Iran conflict: 61% of Americans view Iran's nuclear program as either an immediate and serious or a somewhat serious threat to the U.S. Similarly, most Americans think the U.S. should engage in negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program — that's true across 58% of Democrats and 61% of Republicans. Zoom out: In a second poll, released Thursday by the Washington Post, 7 in 10 Americans believe Iran's nuclear program poses "an immediate and serious" or "somewhat serious" threat to the U.S. Republicans are more likely to say it is an immediate and serious threat than Democrats or independents, per the survey. The fine print: The Economist/YouGov poll was conducted among 1,512 U.S. adult citizens June 13–16, and the margin of error for the overall sample is approximately 3%. The Washington Post poll was conducted on June 18 among a random sample of 1,008 U.S. adults and has a margin of sampling error of ±3.6 percentage points.
Axios
2 days ago
- Entertainment
- Axios
Paris Hilton on building a business empire as the original influencer
Paris Hilton's evolution from reality TV to product partnerships and media ventures has relied on ensuring every new venture is authentic to her and her lifestyle, she told Axios' Sara Fischer in Cannes. Why it matters: Hilton was the original influencer and has continued to grow her brand and businesses over decades of fame. "I think everyone loves that I've always stayed true to myself. People first got to know me through 'The Simple Life' and the character I was playing, which was a lot of fun," Hilton said. Zoom out: Hilton has expaded her brand into new categories: Razr+ phone: She recently partnered with Motorola to launch a Paris Hilton edition of the iconic 00's flip phone she helped popularize. Hilton's 11:11 Media houses a portfolio of global media brands which span television, film, books, fragrances, fashion, skin care and more. The company did an animated series called " Paris and Pups" last year that will be published by Scholastic as a new children's book series. As a "sliving" mom — a portmanteau of "slaying" and "living your best life" she coined in 2019 — she has a kid's clothing line at Walmart and will be launching toys and products for children. Between the lines: After releasing the "This is Paris" documentary in 2020, Hilton said she's found "power in being vulnerable and being real and talking about things that are difficult." The documentary touches on childhood trauma, the reform schools she attended meant to curb her teenage rebellion and the glare of growing up in the spotlight. "That's the first time where I really peeled back the layers and showed that there was much more to me than this character, and now people are connecting with me in an even deeper way," she said. What's next: Besides launching new products, Hilton said she'll be following in her family's footsteps and getting into the hotel business.
Axios
2 days ago
- Business
- Axios
Texas Instruments announces two new chip plants in the U.S.
Texas Instruments on Wednesday announced plans for two new chip factories, widening its ongoing U.S. chip manufacturing expansion. Why it matters: The U.S. has been scrambling to ramp up chip production capacity after the pandemic exposed the country's over-reliance on imports as a national security issue. Driving the news: TI plans to add two new semiconductor fabrication plants — or fabs — at its "megasite" in Sherman, Texas, "to support future demand." It was not immediately clear whether the U.S. government would provide additional incentives for the projects after the Biden administration awarded up to $1.6 billion in Chips Act funding to the company in December. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick recently told Axios' Mike Allen that the Trump administration wants to squeeze more investments out of companies that received those incentives. Lutnick issued a statement Wednesday hailing the announcement: "Our partnership with TI will support U.S. chip manufacturing for decades to come." Context: TI has been expanding chip manufacturing in the U.S. for several years. The company's first new fab in Sherman will begin production in 2025 after three years of construction. A second fab already underway there recently completed its exterior. The two new fabs announced Wednesday will follow those. Separately, TI is ramping up production at a second fab in Richardson, Texas. And it's moving along with a wafer lab in Lehi, Utah, while also continuing construction on a second fab there. What they're saying: Apple, Ford, SpaceX, Medtronic and Nvidia executives said in a statement that they're each partnering with TI in their respective capacities.
Axios
3 days ago
- Politics
- Axios
Health care, citizenship and LGBTQ+ rights: Five Supreme Court cases to watch
As the Supreme Court justices prepare to retire their robes for recess, several key cases with massive implications for health care, citizenship and education have yet to be decided. Why it matters: The court has not yet weighed in on a case stemming from President Trump 's effort to redefine birthright citizenship and judges' power to check the president, among other key cases on gender-affirming care, LGBTQ+ materials in schools and health care access. Amid the early months of Trump's second term, lower court judges have erected a number of roadblocks to his administration's sweeping actions — many of which have ended up in the high court's hands. The big picture: The conservative-majority court is poised to release a flurry of opinions ahead of its summer recess. Nationwide injunctions for birthright citizenship One of the biggest cases before the Supreme Court concerns whether Trump can push forward with his attempt to rewrite birthright citizenship, a right guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and affirmed by the Supreme Court in 1898. The case before the court is not over whether Trump's policy, which challenges the court's precedent on birthright citizenship protections, is constitutional. Rather, the justices heard May arguments over whether a single district court can freeze a whole federal policy. The Justice Department says no, arguing that courts' rulings should apply only to the parties before them. The court's conservative majority seemed inclined to rein in the orders that have disrupted Trump's agenda, Axios' Sam Baker reported. However, it seemed divided over the proper way to do it. The other side: Liberal Justice Elena Kagan questioned what would happen if the high court decided that lower courts couldn't freeze the citizenship policy nationwide — but then later deemed it illegal. In that time, thousands of children could be denied citizenship. Ultimately, Baker reported, questioning did not paint an especially clear image of how the court will likely rule. Gender-affirming care The highly anticipated decision in U.S. v. Skrmetti could have major repercussions for transgender youth nationwide. It questions whether Tennessee unconstitutionally banned gender-affirming care for minors, but its implications could stretch far past the Volunteer State's borders as the Trump administration and Republican politicians across the country pursue restrictions on trans rights. Since 2021, more than two dozen states have passed laws seeking to restrict youth access to gender-affirming care. Multiple leading medical groups support gender-affirming care for minors diagnosed with gender dysphoria, but the Supreme Court in December arguments appeared inclined not to overrule state bans. LGBTQ-themed books in schools The Supreme Court will decide whether parents can opt their children out of school curricula that involve LGBTQ+ storylines. Friction Point: The case stems from the addition of LGBTQ-inclusive children's books to a Maryland school district's curriculum. Parents in Montgomery County were initially offered an opt-out, but that policy was later changed. A group of parents sued, arguing their religious freedom was violated because they couldn't opt their children out. During oral arguments for the case, the court appeared likely to back the parents. Planned Parenthood and Medicaid access At the center of the first abortion-adjacent case since Trump's second term began is whether Medicaid patients can choose their provider for services. The case stemmed from South Carolina's push to block Planned Parenthood and other abortion clinics from receiving funds through the state's Medicaid program. Medicaid funds can't generally cover abortions, but Planned Parenthood provides other medical services. The state is arguing that Medicaid enrollees don't have the right to sue a state to enforce their ability to see their preferred health provider. Zoom in: The decision will have implications for Medicaid enrollees' ability to freely choose their health provider for any service. But it would have a particularly acute impact for Planned Parenthood, since a large part of the providers' funding comes from Medicaid reimbursement. The Affordable Care Act's preventive services mandate The Supreme Court's decision over the Affordable Care Act's preventive services mandate will mark the culmination of years of legal battles. Context: The ACA requires most private health care plans to cover specific services that the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, which is made up of volunteer experts, recommends. That gives millions access to no-cost cancer screenings, vaccinations and more. A federal appeals court ruled that the task force is unconstitutionally imposing coverage requirements because its members aren't politically appointed. The federal government argues that the HHS secretary has appropriate oversight over the task force. If the court sides with companies challenging the requirement, private health care plans could charge beneficiaries co-pays or deductibles for services that were recommended after the ACA was signed, Axios' Maya Goldman reported.
