• Meta previously announced it will cut 10% of its staff next month.
• Meta's HR chief told staff in a meeting that she can't promise further layoffs won't happen.
• She added that the business is strong and acknowledged that morale has been affected at Meta.

Meta plans to lay off around 10% of its staff next month, and it told staff it's not ruling out deeper cuts.

That's what Janelle Gale, Meta's chief people officer, told employees in an internal meeting on Thursday, according to three sources on the call.

"Will there be more layoffs? The question always comes up. I'd love to say that there are no more layoffs, but I can't say something we can't deliver," Gale said during the meeting. "While the business is strong, priorities change, competition is fierce, and we will continue to manage our costs responsibly."

She said this means that Meta will "continue to evolve teams as needed" and "try to redeploy talent." She pointed to how Meta is investing in its Applied AI organization.

Gale added that some organizations would be more affected by layoffs than others, though she did not specify which.

Meta leaders also said during the meeting that AI token usage would not be considered as a factor for the layoffs.

Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg also addressed the layoffs at the meeting, saying that AI automation is not the driving factor behind them. He said that AI has made small teams far more efficient.

During the call, Zuckerberg also addressed Meta's plan to monitor employees' keystrokes and mouse movements to improve its AI models. He said humans are not actually watching what the staff are doing and that this data is abstracted and used to improve AI.

Meta AI Chief Alexandr Wang also appeared at the meeting, sporting a camouflage-pattern T-shirt featuring multiple deer, according to a photo seen by Business Insider. During the Q&A, he praised Meta's latest AI prowess, notably the recent release of its Spark model.

Meta declined to comment for this article.

Reuters reported in March that Meta plans to cut about 20% of its total staff this year.

Given the looming layoffs, Gale said at the meeting that they hit morale at Meta, and the company tries to make tough situations like that "the best version possible." She added that Meta has tripled COBRA healthcare coverage to 18 months.

Meta CFO Susan Li previously said during its first quarter earnings call on Wednesday that she "doesn't really know" the ideal size of the company's head count, which runs at above 77,000. Meta announced that its infrastructure spend, largely for AI, is doubling this year, to a range of $125 billion to $145 billion.

Have a tip? Contact Charles Rollet via email at crollet@businessinsider.com or on Signal and WhatsApp at 628-282-2811. Contact Hugh Langley via email at hlangley@businessinsider.com or Signal at 628-228-1836. Use a personal email address and a non-work device; here's our guide to sharing information securely.

• Maine Gov. Janet Mills vetoed a bill that would have paused new data center projects until late 2027.
• Mills cited her support for an existing project and said she wanted to study data center impacts.
• Lawmakers in at least 12 states have tried and failed to ban data centers as local resistance grows.

Another state-level effort to ban new data center development just failed, this time in Maine.

Maine Gov. Janet Mills on Friday vetoed a bill that would have put a pause on data centers in the state until late 2027. Mills said she supports a moratorium on data center projects but that the bill, which passed the state House and Senate his month, did not include an exemption for a project already underway.

"A moratorium is appropriate given the impacts of massive data centers in other states on the environment and on electricity rates," Mills said in a letter to the state legislature. "But the final version of this bill fails to allow for a specific project in the Town of Jay that enjoys strong local support from its host community and region."

A statement shared by her office said the $550 million data center redevelopment project was needed in Jay, where a paper mill closure in 2023 "eliminated hundreds of good-paying jobs and dealt a significant blow to the local economy."

The governor said she would have signed the bill had there been a carve-out for the project, which she said is expected to create over 800 construction jobs and at least 100 high-paying permanent jobs in addition to generating property tax revenue.

Mills, a Democrat who is running for US Senate in 2026, said she plans to issue an executive order to create a council to look at the impact of data centers in Maine.

"I believe it necessary and important to examine and plan for the potential impacts of large-scale data centers in Maine, as the use of artificial intelligence becomes more widespread," she said.

Lawmakers in at least 11 other states have also tried and failed to pass legislation that would temporarily ban new data center development, Business Insider previously reported.

The data center boom, fueled by Big Tech's AI ambitions, has sparked pockets of local resistance across the US amid concerns about energy consumption and impact on energy costs as well as the environment.

A Business Insider investigation found Maine had two data centers in the state as of last year.

• Meta told staff on Thursday that it planned to eliminate 10% of its workforce.
• Inside the company, employees are bracing for weeks of limbo as they wait to find out who will be cut.
• Meta employees responded internally with a mixture of questions, concerns, and jokes.

Welcome to "28 days of hell."

That's how one Meta employee characterized the tech giant's announcement that thousands of jobs will be cut on May 20. Employees flooded internal forums with similar posts, many of which were filled with anxiety, dark humor, and questions as they wait to learn who will be out of a job.

"How are you motivating yourself to work for the next 1 month with layoffs confirmed?" one person posted on the anonymous workplace app Blind, in a section just for Meta employees.

Someone else replied, "I'm motivating myself to do stuff that I can put on my resume for my next job lol."

In a memo sent to staff on Thursday, Meta said it shared some layoff details earlier than usual because the news had already leaked. The company plans to cut around 10% of employees next month and close 6,000 open roles.

"I know this leaves everyone with nearly a month of ambiguity, which is incredibly unsettling," wrote Meta's chief people officer Janelle Gale.

For some Meta employees, the fact that company leadership acknowledged layoffs brought some relief. The layoffs had been so widely discussed internally that the announcement helped ease some uncertainty, according to one employee who declined to be named due to the sensitivity of the matter.

One of the top comments under Gale's internal Meta post was a picture of an elephant, a reference to leadership addressing the elephant in the room. Reuters first reported Meta was planning sweeping layoffs in March, and employees have been speculating on the extent of the cuts in the weeks since.

"elephant addressed!" commented another employee. Another posted a picture of an envelope that read: "Addressed to: "ELEPHANT."

Others said that having to wait almost a month to find out who would be affected created anxiety. One person posted that this was their first week at the company. "It might be goodbye for me," they wrote.

Another employee told Business Insider that the announcement added pressure for them to deliver results over the next month because it's unknown which teams will be affected by the cuts.

"I'm a little stressed about making impact in the next month," they said.

Despite a sense of added pressure, it's not the employee's first go-around with cuts at the company. The worker said they're going to continue working as usual, assuming the worst while trying to make the most of the next month as they wait for further updates.

"I assume I'm always two months away from being laid off, no matter what leadership says, so I'm going to continue to operate as usual," the employee said.

Employees also commented on Gale's internal post with questions.

One person asked if Meta staff would receive their August 15 stock payouts, which are part of some employees' compensation packages. Gale said that impacted employees would have a termination date prior to the August vest and would therefore not receive it.

"Because of the timing of the notifications, we will have just had the May 15 vest. There are some instances, based on work location, where people will remain employed through the August 15 vest," Gale wrote. Another employee thanked Gale for the clarification.

Another employee asked if travel would be restricted the week of May 20. "We are not restricting travel company-wide. VPs will share team-specific guidance," Gale responded.

'I feel more anxious about surviving'

On the Meta employee section of Blind, some users asked why Meta couldn't offer voluntary buyouts. Microsoft on Thursday offered one-time early retirement buyouts to thousands of its long-time employees, and Google has extended the same offers to staff across some orgs.

Many posts were from users asking others for information about which groups might be affected.

In a longer post, one user said the downside might be surviving the cuts.

"I feel more anxious about surviving this layoff," they wrote, recalling several rounds of layoffs at the company since 2022.

"Because we all know it's just gonna get worse for those of us who are left behind and have to absorb even more work, amongst other declining factors in this sad fearful company," they wrote.

• A large division within Meta Reality Labs is undergoing an overhaul to become fully "AI-native."
• The unit is now organized into "pods" made up of "AI builders" and "AI pod leads."
• This new push and the latest layoffs at Reality Labs are unrelated, Meta said.

Meta is rebranding some employees as "AI builders" and organizing them into AI-native "pods," according to a leaked memo obtained by Business Insider.

The memo described an overhaul of roles, titles, and team structures across a 1,000-employee team within Meta's Reality Labs. It's part of a broader, aggressive push by Meta to adopt small teams and use AI.

The pilot program was announced last month within the Reality Labs team that builds developer tools. Everyone in the division will now have one of three titles: AI Builder, AI Pod Lead, or AI Org Lead. That's to encourage a shift toward a flatter organization, a structure that Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg has advocated.

"Our ultimate goal is to drive a step change in engineering productivity and product quality," the memo reads. "To achieve this, we're fundamentally rewiring how we operate, how we are structured, and how we support each other."

When asked for comment, Meta referred Business Insider to comments earlier this year from Zuckerberg that 2026 is the year AI will begin to "dramatically change the way we work," with projects that once required large teams potentially handled by one, "very talented" person.

According to the memo, each pod consists of a small group of AI builders focused on specific outcomes, often working across disciplines. For example, engineers could take on design work, depending on the task. Some Meta employees have already begun referring to themselves as AI builders on LinkedIn, Business Insider previously reported.

These pods are led by Pod Leads, who oversee day-to-day operations. They are, in turn, overseen by Org Leads, who also manage performance reviews and oversee promotions — processes that will be supported by unspecified "AI systems."

The memo said that the overall team size will remain the same under the new structure.

Meta laid off hundreds of staff on Wednesday, and this cut affected staff in Reality Labs, among other teams. A Meta spokesperson said the reorganization is not related to the cuts.

Have a tip? Contact Charles Rollet via email at crollet@businessinsider.com or on Signal and WhatsApp at 628-282-2811. Use a personal email address, a nonwork WiFi network, and a nonwork device; here's our guide to sharing information securely.

• Meta and YouTube were found negligent in a landmark social media addiction trial.
• The case centered on a woman who said social media harmed her mental health from a young age.
• The case is viewed as a key test of how juries may see dozens of similar pending lawsuits.

Meta and Google were found negligent in a social media addiction trial in Los Angeles on Wednesday, potentially setting the stage for dozens of similar lawsuits that have been brought against Big Tech companies.

The case centered on a 20-year-old woman, identified as KGM, who said her use of social media from a young age was detrimental to her mental health and accused the companies of knowingly engineering their products to addict kids.

After nine days of deliberation, the jury found Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, and Google, which owns YouTube, negligent. In a 10-to-2 vote, the jury also ruled that the two companies knew their design was "dangerous" but failed to warn the plaintiffs.

The jury awarded the plaintiff $6 million. That's $3 million in compensatory damages and an additional $3 million in punitive damages.

The jury determined Meta was responsible for 70% of the harm, while YouTube was responsible for 30%. That means the total damages owed by Meta is $4.2 million, while YouTube owes $1.8 million.

The plaintiff's lead counsel, the Lanier Law Firm, called the verdict "a referendum" in a statement. "For years, social media companies have profited from targeting children while concealing their addictive and dangerous design features," the statement said.

Spokespeople for Meta and Google both said the companies disagreed with the verdicts and plan to appeal.

"Teen mental health is profoundly complex and cannot be linked to a single app," a Meta spokesperson said. "We will continue to defend ourselves vigorously as every case is different, and we remain confident in our record of protecting teens online."

"This case misunderstands YouTube, which is a responsibly built streaming platform, not a social media site," the Google spokesperson said.

The Los Angeles state court trial has been viewed as a bellwether, offering a key test of how juries may see similar personal injury lawsuits brought by over 2,000 individuals. Meta has said potential damages in certain cases could reach into the "high tens of billions of dollars."

TikTok and Snapchat were also defendants, but settled the lawsuit before the trial began.

Meta executives testified at the trial last month, including CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Head of Instagram Adam Mosseri, drawing large crowds of media and concerned parents, including some involved in other social media addiction lawsuits. YouTube's VP of engineering, Cristos Goodrow, also testified.

The companies have argued that plaintiffs' struggles are due to myriad reasons and can't necessarily be linked to social media.

During Meta's closing argument at the Los Angeles trial, Paul Schmidt, one of the company's attorneys, said the plaintiff needed to prove that if Instagram were taken away from KGM, her "life would be meaningfully different."

"The evidence has shown just the opposite," Schmidt said.

In January, Meta warned investors that its mounting legal battles related to youth safety could "significantly impact" its 2026 financial results. Attorneys for more than 100,000 individual arbitration claimants have "sent mass arbitration demands relating to 'social media addiction'" since late 2024, the company said in a 2026 10-K, specifically noting the case in Los Angeles, as well as a separate case in New Mexico.

The New Mexico case, which occurred at the same time as the Los Angeles trial, addressed different legal and technical issues.

On Tuesday, a jury in New Mexico ordered Meta to pay $375 million after a verdict came down in the state's lawsuit against the company about sexual exploitation.

Meta said it would appeal the case.

• Salesforce is skipping raises for director-level and above employees this year, according to an internal memo.
• The company said it is increasing stock and bonus pools for its "highest performing individuals."
• Employees will find out about their pay during reviews, which start at the end of this month.

Salesforce isn't offering raises this year to employees at the director level and above, according to an internal email viewed by Business Insider.

"We have decided to focus merit increases at the Senior Manager level (grade 8) and below," states the email, sent by the company's human-resources team.

Instead of giving raises, the company said it is increasing stock and bonus pools for its "highest performing individuals" among upper-level employees, calling it part of an "investment in performance and long-term growth."

Employees will learn about their compensation during performance reviews, which begin at the end of March.

Salesforce's decision could reflect a broader shift in how Big Tech is paying senior talent. Instead of increasing base pay, some companies are increasingly tying compensation to stock performance and equity, preserving cash while still incentivizing top leaders. Meta just announced this week that it created a lucrative incentive system for stock for a number of its C-suite executives.

Salesforce stock is down about 37% over the past year. CEO Marc Benioff recently downplayed fears about AI's threat to software-as-a-service companies. Those fears have prompted recent sell-offs of software stocks.

The email stated that 10% more directors and senior directors are getting stock grants, that the average stock grant increased, and that 80% of directors and senior directors who received "highly successful" or "exceptional" performance ratings received a 20% to 40% bigger grant.

The pool for bonuses "is funded at 103%," the email stated. Most eligible directors and senior directors received 100% or more of their bonus, and all of the directors and senior directors who received the top performance ratings got 115% to 140% of their bonuses.

Salesforce laid off some employees around the start of its fiscal year Feb. 1. Those cuts affected fewer than 1,000 employees, according to a person familiar with them. Around that time, the company also hired or promoted six new leaders, replacing five high-profile leaders who had recently announced departures from the company.

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

• Taylor M. LaSane built a career coaching side hustle while working at Google.
• Last year, she accepted a voluntary buyout to focus on her business full-time.
• She shared why she made the leap — and her advice for others weighing major career moves.

Last June, Taylor M. LaSane faced a decision she'd been weighing for years: whether to walk away from her six-figure salary at Google to go all in on the career coaching business she started three years earlier.

Google had just offered voluntary buyouts to some US-based employees, including those in the finance organization where she worked, positioning the program as an option for workers who didn't feel "all in" on the company's direction.

LaSane said her buyout offer included just under six months of severance pay. While the payout would help ease her transition to entrepreneurship, the risk was still significant. She said her income from the business was roughly 10% of what she earned at Google — and she had to weigh the financial implications for her husband and their twin toddlers.

Around this time, LaSane learned about the unexpected death of her uncle at the age of 62. She said he had recently retired and been looking forward to having time to "relax and actually live." His death, coupled with the buyout offer, made her question how long she was willing to wait to pursue her own plans.

"It was a reminder that life is too short to wait for permission," said LaSane, who is 32 and lives in Atlanta.

She ultimately decided to apply for the buyout and, after being accepted, took the offer — with her employment formally ending in October.

Over the past year, I've interviewed more than a dozen workers like LaSane, many of them from Big Tech companies, who chose to quit their jobs without having another role lined up. Some eventually landed at another large company. Others stepped away from the corporate world entirely — joining smaller firms, launching their own ventures, pursuing career pivots, or focusing on personal priorities, such as parenting.

These people have become outliers in an economy where workers are quitting at one of the lowest rates in the past decade — a trend fueled by a hiring slowdown across tech and other sectors that has left many holding tightly to their jobs with few appealing alternatives.

Those who walked away told me they did so for a range of reasons: concerns about job security, changes in workplace culture, entrepreneurial ambitions, or a desire for more meaningful work. The common theme: they were seeking greater long-term control over their careers.

TikTok visibility and motherhood slowed the business

In addition to LaSane's main role at Google, she volunteered as a career coach through an internal program for Google employees. She said she enjoyed the work and led as many as eight 40-minute coaching sessions in a given week.

In 2022, after seven years with Google, her growing interest in coaching — among other factors — began laying the foundation for her eventual exit.

That February, she began making career-focused TikTok videos. Around the same time, she began questioning whether her role was the right fit for her after she worked hard for a promotion, earned it, and still felt an "empty feeling."

"I was taking meetings at 2 o'clock in the morning, my hair was falling out, it was not a great time," she said. "And then I got the promotion, and I felt worse than I did before."

After reassessing her priorities, she took another step toward career coaching. In May 2022, she formally launched SHYNE, a coaching company focused on helping corporate professionals navigate career transitions. Later that year, in October, she earned a certification in leadership and performance coaching from Brown University.

From there, LaSane began taking on clients in her spare time and generating a modest income. But two factors held her back from pursuing the business more aggressively: the time constraints of juggling a full-time job and her growing concerns about the visibility of her growing TikTok presence.

LaSane said a few Google colleagues mentioned seeing her videos, and while she was never discouraged from posting, she worried about the potential career implications of being so visible online. So she decided to scale back her posting.

"I think I was trying to balance having a business on the side, but also managing the internal corporate brand," she said.

In 2023, another development pulled her away from her side business: she became pregnant with twins. In May of that year, LaSane took a break from the business that lasted until around September 2024 — spanning her pregnancy and about 10 months away from work, including eight months of company-provided maternity leave and two months of vacation and medical leave. When she returned to Google in the fall, she also refocused on growing her business.

Going all in on entrepreneurship

LaSane decided to trade TikTok for LinkedIn as her primary platform — and leaned more into group coaching and live events. Then in early 2025, she began questioning more seriously whether her position at Google was still the right fit, as organizational changes — including a growing emphasis on AI — left her increasingly uncertain about her responsibilities and long-term path.

At the same time, she believed in her business's potential — and felt the eight to 20 hours a week she could devote to it outside work and family obligations were limiting its growth. She also weighed her job security at Google, which she felt wasn't guaranteed.

"Big Tech layoffs are happening everywhere, so it wasn't like staying there was necessarily any more stable than leaving," she said.

So when she learned about Google's buyout option and mulled it over, she decided to apply and was approved. After assessing her family's financial situation — which included her husband's income and her business earnings — she accepted the offer.

LaSane said that, on the whole, Google was a "great company to work for," adding that the community she built there is what she'll remember most fondly.

In recent months, LaSane said her business has evolved from a focus on one-on-one coaching into a "career studio" with workshops and group coaching programs. She's not currently taking a personal salary from the business, but said individual events and programs have generated revenue. She said last year's Dream Day event — a live coaching workshop — brought in about $3,000 in revenue.

LaSane said she wants to give herself at least a year to pursue the business full-time before considering a pivot back to the corporate world.

"I thought about the story I wanted to tell my kids," she said. "That she took this kind of risk and was willing to bet on herself in this way — that's the story I want them to know. So I think bailing out too soon wouldn't fit the narrative."

Among her top pieces of advice for people navigating their careers: Chase the purpose and future you want — not the one you think you're supposed to have.

"If you get clear about that, everything else will fall in place," she said. "That's what happened for me."

• If the AI boom ends up a bust, it won't be nearly as brutal as the dot-com crash, Igor Pejic says.
• The "Tech Money" author said Big Tech's self-reliance, varied businesses, and deep pockets help.
• However, he said the rise of index funds means a market slump would have widespread impacts.

If the AI boom collapses, it won't be as catastrophic as the dot-com crash — but the shockwave will be felt far and wide, Igor Pejic says.

The banker and author of a new guide for tech investors titled "Tech Money" told Business Insider this week that Big Tech's unprecedented dominance will limit the magnitude of any market decline.

Pejic underscored the greater "stickiness" of companies like Alphabet and Microsoft compared to the leading companies of the past, such as Exxon Mobil, General Motors, and IBM.

Big Tech companies have remained dominant for decades partly because of their platform models, which give them "almost limitless pricing power" and make them "almost impossible to dislodge," he said.

In other words, they've become powerfully entrenched by attracting so many users, app developers, hardware suppliers, advertisers, and other parties to their ecosystems over time. Now they can easily hike their fees, and new market entrants struggle to capture any market share from them.

Pejic also pointed out that Apple, Meta, and their peers have successfully navigated multiple technological shifts, such as moving from desktop computers to mobile devices and from on-premises IT equipment to cloud hosting.

Big Tech companies also throw off gobs of cash, enabling them to place several big bets at once, and fund their investments instead of relying on costly external financing. Pejic described that as a "moat" against rivals, especially in an AI race characterized by "tremendous infrastructure costs."

Shades of the past

Pejic drew several parallels between the AI boom and the dot-com bubble. The similarities include a game-changing technology, partnerships and financing deals between key players, the buildout of network infrastructure, and "extreme" valuations, he said.

Yet Pejic said an AI crash would "not be as devastating as the dot-com bubble when it burst."

Any market sell-off will be briefer and less severe because today's tech giants have highly profitable core businesses, he said, meaning their stock prices won't collapse completely if their AI bets flop.

They're also less likely to suffer a cash crunch or trigger a financial crisis given their limited reliance on bank funding, and investors have been more discerning about which AI stocks they buy versus rushing to own any business with ".com" in its name, he said.

Pejic did raise some concerns, including the fact that so many companies are spending huge amounts to build the best AI model possible, but the market can probably only support a few of them in the end.

He also flagged the immense amount of investor cash riding on a handful of tech stocks, given the rise of index funds that own indexes such as the S&P 500, which is weighted by market capitalization and thus intensely concentrated in the Magnificent Seven.

"It's very difficult to find a place to hide if this really goes down," Pejic said. "If you're keeping your money in the stock market and AI goes down, it will affect everything."

He noted that risk will only become greater as AI giants such as OpenAI, xAI, and Anthropic go public and join the index, increasing everyday investors' exposure to AI.

Pejic said owning Big Tech stocks was "perhaps the safest way" to profit from AI, given their self-reliance, vast resources, and diversified businesses, which should limit their downside and insulate them from industry shocks such as the emergence of DeepSeek.

For example, he praised Apple's approach of refraining from spending hundreds of billions on microchips and data centers, in favor of seeing how the AI race plays out, and partnering with peers or buying in capabilities to harness the tech.

Apple might not be the "most exciting company," but for investors, owning it is a "clever and quite safe strategy without burning too much cash," he said.

Scott Galloway never claimed to be an activist.

"I'm too lazy, selfish, socially minded," he told Business Insider on a February call about his unlikely leadership of two movements at once, both with Big Tech in the crosshairs. "I saw an opportunity for a new form of economic activism," he said, "but I'm a long way from being a Cesar Chavez or refusing to give up my bus seat."

Later in our call, he analogizes his "Resist and Unsubscribe" initiative — which urges Americans to unsubscribe from Big Tech to protest the Trump Administration's immigration crackdown — to the 1955-1956 Montgomery bus boycotts. At one point, he calls activists "more noble" than himself. Seconds later, he describes not wanting to "get on a call with a bunch of people in Birkenstocks."

I asked his cohost, Kara Swisher, the same question: Is Scott an activist? Not in a traditional sense, she texted me, or he would have formed a coalition. "I got a lot of pings from people who do organizing that this was a dumb way to do it," Swisher wrote. "It wasn't."

If you don't know Galloway's name, you've certainly seen his clips. The executive-turned-professor-turned-podcaster rakes in millions from his center-left media empire, including four podcasts, two newsletters, and six books, the latest about how young men are socially and economically disadvantaged, thanks in part to Big Tech. He's a sort of shock jock for the TikTok age — and his 400,000 followers there love it.

In recent months, his anti-Big Tech efforts have made him an even bigger lightning rod. He's been disinvited from two speaking gigs, he said, because the hosts didn't "want controversy." (He declined to share which gigs: "I'm hoping they invite me next year.") He's also heard from CEOs or chief marketing officers of 20% of the companies he's targeted, he said, who have mostly been kind. He says he's disappointed because he wishes they felt more threatened.

It's a surprising turn for the serial entrepreneur and business school professor. He's a provocateur, a testosterone-injecting multimillionaire who students call a "dick." Is this the man who can move the masses to quit Amazon Prime cold turkey?

Galloway is a businessman at heart. Even his activism is done through the market.

After federal agents killed Renee Good and Alex Pretti in Minneapolis, Galloway launched his Resist and Unsubscribe campaign. The best way to catch President Donald Trump's attention, he reasoned, was the market. Since, he said, corporations were providing the "data, infrastructure, and logistics" to assist with Trump's immigration crackdown, it was time for Americans to vote with their dollars.

He wanted to walk the walk — and that meant cutting his own subscriptions. He quickly found that he'd been paying for some duplicates: four Apple TV Plus accounts, three ChatGPT subscriptions. He had four AT&T contracts, of which "three are for Blackberrys and iPads that have been in landfills for the last decade," he told me.

The Galloway family also found some workarounds. His son found a "probably illegal" way to watch the Premier League without Paramount+. He binge-watched "Heated Rivalry" before dumping HBO Max. The hardest app to give up was Uber, which he said on his podcast was costing him $34,000 a year.

On stock ownership, Galloway is more mixed. He's hesitant to sell his Amazon shares while the stock is down, but he said he did sell down almost all of his Apple shares.

"I'm especially offended, personally, by Tim Cook," he said. Galloway said that Cook paints himself as a "soft, gentle, nice guy" while sucking up to Trump at the "Melania" premiere. ("I'm not a political person on either side," Cook recently told Good Morning America.)

He plans to move his money out of Goldman Sachs and is debating whether to choose a regional US bank or the Royal Bank of Canada.

If you're worried that you can't fully unsubscribe, he gets it.

"I don't have entire moral clarity around this," Galloway said. "I still have an iPhone, and I'm not giving it up."

As February came to a close, Galloway felt contented. Resist and Unsubscribe had hit 23 million views on social media and 2 million unique site visits, he said. An estimate on his website shows how much market capitalization the movement would wipe out if 5% of visitors canceled two subscriptions. As of this story's publication date, it calculated just over $281 million in losses.

When Galloway first started talking about the plight facing America's young men five years ago, it produced a "gag reflex," he said. People compared him to manosphere influencer Andrew Tate and accused him of misogyny.

Galloway has said that young men are more economically and socially disadvantaged than young women. He points to the stats. Young men account for only 42% of students at four-year universities, and 63% of young men are single. "If you go into a morgue and there are five people who died by suicide, four are men," he said.

His book, "Notes on Being a Man," published in November, is a how-to guide for the disenfranchised young man in your life. Of course, young people are reading for pleasure less and less. His most encouraging feedback comes from mothers, Galloway said.

The book has also received plenty of criticism. In her review in The New Yorker, Jessica Winter writes that Galloway thinks "men should still rank above women in the social hierarchy, but just not as much as before."

Galloway seemed taken aback. "I think that's a total misinterpretation of what I've written about," he said. Those on the left — which he groups The New Yorker into — seemed to think that young men don't have problems, he said. "They are the problem."

"We have decided, in the social hierarchy, young men are less deserving of empathy than women," Galloway said.

Galloway also faced misogyny accusations from women online after calling himself a "'50s dad" who wasn't sure if there should be mandatory paternity leave. He said that dads are a "waste of time" in the first few months of a child's life, and that their only jobs are to keep babies from drowning and "make sure moms don't lose it." In The New York Times, Jessica Grose called it "loud and wrong."

On this subject, Galloway was more remorseful. "The comments on paternity leave were meant to be funny," he said. "They weren't. It was stupid, and so far I've paid a fairly significant reputational price."

He was less sympathetic to the Times, which he said "made a cartoon out of my comments so that they could play guardians of gotcha."

Stirring up controversy has long been part of Galloway's brand. Why not double down?

"I try to be provocative, I try to be funny, I try to say what I'm thinking," he told me. "Against paternity leave? No, that's absolutely not the message I want to communicate."

It's easy to think that Galloway hates Big Tech to the bone.

Tech is the target of both of his movements. He accuses the industry of helping to push young men down; in his book, he analogizes Tim Cook and Mark Zuckerberg to heroin dealers standing outside a middle school. Then, for Resist and Unsubscribe, he asks you to stop paying these companies entirely.

Indeed, on our call, Galloway spared no barbs for the tech CEOs. "I don't think there's any way feasible that he could be described as a good person," he said of Zuckerberg.

But the tech industry is full of his friends, his former coworkers, and the people who made him rich. Galloway is an entrepreneur, after all; he made (some of) his millions on the sale of the business intelligence firm, L2. He wrote a book about Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Google, which he called a "love letter."

Of the executives targeted by Resist and Unsubscribe, Galloway said that half are acquaintances, a quarter are "friendly" with him, and one or two are friends. "I find that they're, on the whole, good people," he said of tech executives.

That's what makes his shift to organizing so surprising. He's not raging against an industry from the outside; he could well be part of the in-crowd if he wanted to. He was a successful business executive with a vengeful spirit, then a snarky podcaster — and now a man trying to save the world.

Galloway said that humans are "net gainers" from Big Tech — but that we're also net gainers from pesticides and fossil fuels. What's Big Tech's emission? "Rage," he said.

Pesticides and fossil fuels are regulated by the government. For tech, we often rely on a benevolent CEO, Galloway said. He's not sure they exist anymore.

"If we're waiting on the better angels of Mark Zuckerberg to show up, don't hold your breath," he said.

• Bushra Amiwala quit her job at Google last year to run for Congress full-time.
• She applied for a leave of absence, but said the request was not approved.
• She explains what pushed her to take the leap — and her advice for young professionals.

Last summer, Bushra Amiwala faced a career-defining choice: stay at Google or quit to run for Congress.

In May, Democratic Rep. Jan Schakowsky, who represents Illinois 9th District, announced she would not seek reelection. With the seat open, Amiwala said she began weighing a run, speaking with more than 100 district residents in and around Skokie, where she lives.

As she weighed the decision, Amiwala, 28, said she applied for a six-month unpaid leave of absence from Google. When her request was denied, she said she was left with two options.

"Do I run for this seat and quit my job, or do I stay at Google and never try?" she said. In June, Amiwala announced her candidacy, and on August 30, she resigned from Google to run her campaign full-time.

Over the past year, I've interviewed more than a dozen people — many from Big Tech companies — who quit their jobs without having another role lined up. They've become outliers in an economy where people are quitting at near-decade lows — a trend fueled by a hiring slowdown across tech and other sectors that has left many holding tightly to their jobs.

After leaving their jobs, some took relatively safe paths, eventually joining other companies in similar roles. Others made riskier bets, launching startups or pursuing entirely new careers. Amiwala took a different kind of leap: leaving Google to run for Congress, part of a small but growing wave of younger Americans entering politics.

"The idea of solving problems for people to make their lives easier has always inspired me," Amiwala said.

She asked herself 2 questions before quitting Google

This isn't Amiwala's first time running for office. In 2018, she lost a bid for Cook County commissioner. But a year later, while enrolled at DePaul University, she ran for the Skokie Board of Education and won. At 21, she became one of the first members of Gen Z elected to public office in the US. She balanced this part-time role with a sales associate job at Google based in Chicago, which she started after graduating in 2020.

The financial implications of leaving Google were a "huge consideration" for Amiwala. She said one reason she didn't pursue public service full-time sooner was that she wanted to provide financial support for her immigrant parents — and saw tech as a more stable path.

Despite these concerns, Amiwala said two questions helped her get comfortable with leaving Google. The first was, "Are you all talk and no action?"

"I was always talking about how I'd love to be able to make an impact in Congress," she said. "So it's like, are you all talk? Are you actually going to do it?"

The second question was whether, five or 10 years from now, she would regret the decision.

"For me, it was a no-brainer," she said. "I knew I'd regret not doing it, and that matrix of decision-making made it really easy for me."

Since resigning, she said she's taken some comfort from the savings and equity she'd accumulated over the years. She decided not to pay herself a salary from her campaign funds but has occasionally received small speaking stipends, which have helped cover some expenses. To cut costs, she said she's "deflated" her lifestyle, cutting back on dinners with friends and personal training appointments.

"I think there was a lot of lifestyle inflation that happens when working at a tech role that just isn't as necessary," she said.

Advice for young professionals — and aspiring politicians

Fifteen Democrats, including Amiwala, and four Republicans are running for the congressional seat in the March 17 primary. Recent polling points to three leading Democratic candidates: Evanston Mayor Daniel Biss, Internet content creator Kat Abughazaleh, and Illinois state Sen. Laura Fine.

Amiwala said she's focused on her campaign and hasn't yet thought seriously about what would come next if she loses the election. But she's navigated challenges before in her career.

The summer after her junior year at DePaul, where she studied management information systems, she interned at a large consulting firm — but did not receive a return offer. That fall, during her senior year, she applied for a role at Google without a referral and, after a few interviews, received an offer.

Amiwala's advice for young professionals: It's unrealistic to expect your career to fulfill the financial, emotional, and spiritual aspects of your life that matter most. So you might have to look outside your job for these things.

For anyone considering leaving their jobs to run for office, she recommends speaking with community leaders who can provide insight into the issues constituents care about. She said that running for office isn't the only way to get involved politically, but that if you're considering it, it could be a sign you're well-suited for it.

"It's a very specific type of person who thinks about running for office," she said. "The average person does not think like that. So if that is something that interests you and you feel uniquely equipped to do it successfully, you absolutely should."