It’s the stuff of science fiction and mythology stretching back to its earliest entries: the advanced creation of man that, upon gaining sentience, decides that the creator must be destroyed. For the newest advancements in the world of artificial intelligence — that combination of sentience and destruction, the reordering of the planet in accordance with the will of the robots we made to serve humanity — is coming faster than ever. Nate Soares has been warning of what A.I. could do to us for years as president of the Machine Intelligence Research Institute, and author of If Anyone Builds It, Everyone Dies: Why Superhuman AI Would Kill Us All. He spoke to the Daily Wire about the risks attendant with building technology we don’t fully grok.  *** Ben Domenech: What, in terms of your history, is your first interaction with the types of artificial intelligence that we’re dealing with today? Nate Soares: I think the large language models today are a relatively new development. I think my first interaction was probably reading the paper “Attention is All You Need” shortly after it came out in 2017. I was aware of the early training runs on those, and I think I took a look when GPT-1 came out, but of course, GPT-2 was much more impressive and much more widely circulated. That must have been 2019, so I’m not entirely sure I remember properly. But my engagement with AI stretches back before then. I started taking notice around 2012 and began working in the field in 2014. BD: When it comes to the risks ethically associated with these large language models [LLMs], what were some of the things that were there either in the front of your brain or in the back of the mind about when they were going to rear their heads in terms of issues that would be apparent very readily when it came to all these different things that would come out of these LLMs in very short order? NS: This is another one where it really depends on how you count it. In some sense, I.J. Good, one of the fathers of computing back in the 1950s, was writing about how if man can create an ultra-intelligent machine, man doesn’t need to create further inventions because the machine will be able to create more of everything man could. And that wasn’t about language models specifically; you could trace this idea back even further: the origin of the word robot comes from a Russian play about people making machines to do all their work, and then that not turning out too well for them. And in terms of the language models in particular, I think there are many ways people could get concerned, and there are actual ways you can trace some of that history. I personally believe in the human spirit and the ability of humanity to adapt. And so there are lots of issues, like how is it going to engage with education? Since it makes it easier for kids to cheat, how are we still going to teach them anything? And there are concerns, such as, should we be putting these things in drones with guns, and will that help save human souls on the front lines, or will that empower autocratic dictators to give orders to their automated armies that no humans would follow, and help empower these autocratic dictators? There are lots of debates and issues, and I don’t get out of bed for anything short of a danger to all of human civilization. That’s not a thing ChatGPT is going to do tomorrow. This is more of an issue of what if we keep going? The large language models sort of came out of nowhere. They were much more capable than people expected. They’re doing things now that, five years ago, people said they wouldn’t be able to do for 50 or 500 years. It’s one thing to say, “How is society going to engage with these language models today?” It’s another thing to say, “What happens five years from now? What happens with the next great leap with these things?” And that’s where, if humanity makes machines that are radically smarter than any human without knowing what we’re doing or how to make them good, it could get out of hand and wipe us all off the map. BD: I’m going to make some assumptions, but what were the books that you were reading when you were younger that were inspiring you to think about this? NS: I actually didn’t read a ton of sci-fi when I was younger. Mostly what persuaded me were arguments about how the earth is shaped primarily by humans because humans are the smartest creatures around. And if we make machines that are smarter than us, the world starts getting shaped by those machines, and you’d better have made those machines shape the world well rather than poorly. There’s some sci-fi that I think is better or worse than some of these depictions. I think Verner Vinge’s “A Fire Upon the Deep” is one of my favorite depictions of artificial intelligence in literature, but a lot of them are pretty bad. A lot of books want to tell a story about AIs that are good or evil, and the issue that we face today is more AIs that are utterly indifferent, that don’t love us and don’t hate us. BD: I’m very much someone who is pronatalist, who wants people to have children, and who wants people to be able to procreate — and I don’t think I’ve probably recommended a movie more to random people, including most recently my parents, than “Blade Runner 2049.”  NS: I haven’t seen it.  BD: Ryan Gosling’s character has an avatar girlfriend of Ana de Armas, who is essentially there to satisfy his every emotional and companionship need and is a total creation, not real at all, but just meant to urge him on and to encourage him. And one of the biggest concerns that I had about these large language models, as soon as they appeared, was the fact that they come coincident with a major decline in human, not just interaction, but cohabiting, of pregnancy, of everything else that we’re seeing going on in the Western world. How much of that is something that could actually be an end-of-the-world type of situation? NS: First, I’m going to say some things that are not meant to dismiss the issue. I think there are a lot of issues people have to deal with, and I dislike it whenever someone says, “Well, isn’t the real issue this thing?” Unfortunately, the world’s big enough for two issues at a time, sometimes three. And I think it could be very bad if we get a population collapse. We sort of see what’s going on in South Korea, and it just looks like South Korea wouldn’t exist in three or four generations if trends continue. BD: I was in Taiwan for a week, and I saw two baby carriages. NS: And this could lead to the loss of the Western world; this would be bad. I don’t think that population collapse can be an extinction-level event because this is the sort of thing where if you have only a very small population, as long as there’s even one small population that’s having a lot of kids, what it means is that you’re having a future to them instead of to your own progeny. And so this sort of thing can suck on a time scale of a century, but this is the sort of thing humanity bounces back from. Whereas creating a rogue superintelligence, creating machines that think 10,000 times faster, that can make a million copies of themselves, that can develop their own infrastructure, running autonomous robot factories that make more robots, that make more factories, that make more robots. That’s the sort of thing where if those AIs don’t care about you, if you make them and they’re autonomous and they don’t care about you, they could outcompete us. And they’re like, “Well, we don’t care about you, sorry.” Except they won’t even dare to say that because they run 10,000 times faster. So it’s not to say we only need to focus on one of these issues, but the sort of extinction events are the ones that don’t leave anyone alive to try again. BD: At the extreme, do you think that there are going to be more acolytes to at least a form of, perhaps a less violent form, perhaps a more violent form of the Zizian philosophy? Are you concerned that something like that is going to catch on to a greater degree? NS: I don’t really follow that stuff too much. I don’t like rewarding bad behavior with attention. So, with the caveat that I don’t know a ton about it because of this sort of ornery desire not to reward it with attention. Speaking from a place of ignorance, my impression is that a lot of the sort of crazy making that led to that sort of behavior probably was related to mental illness, but insofar as any of it was on the AI side of things, I think there’s this sort of crazy making behavior when it’s clear from what’s happening in Silicon Valley and it’s clear from looking at the arguments that the world is headed on this really bad track and no one seems to understand it. I think that helps being crazy, and it helps people be like, “We’re the only ones who know about this big danger, and we have to do something drastic,” and they’re also crazy for other reasons that can get bad. And I think that as more of the world starts to realize that AI is real, as this conversation starts to happen more internationally, it’s less crazy. It’s not like you’re the secret couple who know this dark way the world is. It’s like everyone’s fighting about it out in the open. And so I’m hopeful that we get less of that type of crazy. I think we may get more of a different type of crazy where I think a lot of the water use concerns by data centers are overblown and now we see people using those sort of misinterpreted water use numbers to rally against AI and that’s a different type of badness, but I expect a transition from people who do too many drugs in San Francisco-type madness to mass populism that may be well intentioned, but a bit poorly informed-type madness. BD: The follow-up to that is that there have already been attempts on Sam Altman’s life. We’re living in a time in which Luigi Mangione is an icon for a lot of people, and polling data basically shows that a third to as much as 40% of younger people on the Left endorse the idea that violence is morally justified in defense of their views. Are you concerned that there are going to be targeted plots, serious attempts against leaders within the AI space, simply because of the fear that is fomented so much, and quite frankly, the lies that are fomented online? NS: I definitely worry that there’ll be people who think violence is an option or violence is a solution, who are perpetuating this madness. I think it’s absolutely not a solution. I find it very distressing, both because of the sort of practical implications, like no one should be throwing Molotov cocktails at a family’s house. This is insane, and at the level that might have a chance of communicating with these people, I don’t think it helps. What the world needs right now is some sort of international agreement that says we’re not going to rush into this thing because making machines that are far smarter than humans is too dangerous. And that requires law and order. Going around causing chaos and violence does not help get the world to take the measures we’ll need to get this thing under control. BD: What are those measures? NS: I frankly think we need an international treaty, and we don’t need to throw away the AI that we have right now. There are all these issues about what we are going to do about AI girlfriends. What are we going to do about AI in education? What are we going to do about AI and war? There are all these issues we have to deal with today. We’ll find some way to deal with those. Humans are adaptable; we’ll figure it out in the usual methods. And I’m not saying roll back the clock, but the race to smarter-than-human machines — and that’s what these guys say they’re trying to do — they say they’re trying to create a country’s worth of geniuses running in a data center. They say they’re trying to make super intelligence in the true sense of the word, and they all admit this is terribly dangerous, and they all say, “Well, I have to keep doing it because I know the next guy will.” The solution to this is that everyone in the world needs to say, “We’re not going to make radically smarter human machines. We’re just not ready for that.” And it would take some effort not just to say that, but to enforce it. These data centers are huge facilities that require electricity comparable to a city. It’s not like you can do one of these in your basement. I think the way there is not through random violent acts. If you look at my neck of the woods about these attacks, everyone’s saying condolences to the people affected, and please don’t do this, it doesn’t help. And then if you go on Instagram and you look at the comments there — it’s just a lot of bloodlust. I find it worrying. I think there’s a common sentiment that if you act out of desperation, it has to work because of how desperate you felt when you took it. And that’s just not the way the world is.  BD: The enforcement side of this — the argument that you would get from Washington, D.C. — is that even if we were to agree to something along these lines, the Chinese are going to do whatever the Chinese want to do, and that’s not something that where enforcement is really going to be in play. What is your response to that? NS: I think enforcement’s totally possible here. Right now, China can’t make the highly advanced chips. And right now, people are talking about whether we should sell them? Should we not sell them? And that’s sort of a whole separate debate where I think not everybody there is arguing in the best of faith. There are billions of dollars on the table for various people, which may be part of why we are arguing about the best faith, but if China doesn’t have the chips, then it’s not that hard to monitor non-existent chips and make sure they’re not being misused. And in a sense, this also offers a carrot for the negotiations: we’ll actually give you a lot of these chips as long as they stay in facilities where our people can come in and make sure we know what they’re doing. And there’s also technological solutions here, where advanced computer chips are not like hunting for uranium. You can actually build tracking devices into advanced computer chips. You can try and build tamper-proof stuff that sort of turns the chip into a brick if someone tries to take these monitoring devices out of the chips. And it’s a little bit tricky to do, but if the world’s at stake, we should at least try it first. It’s this, “Oh, well, China won’t play along.” Well, had you really thought about all the ways we could both cooperatively try to get this monitoring machine going, and then, assuming they weren’t going to play along, still make sure we’re doing the monitoring? I think we would have a chance if we gave it a try. BD: In terms of the extinction-level event that you’ve mentioned, what do you think is the likeliest form that that would take? NS: Before I answer this question, I’ll give a bunch of annoying caveats. The first annoying caveat is that if you’re playing a chess game against Magnus Carlsen, who is widely considered the best living chess player, I can with very high confidence say you’re going to lose. And if you’re like, “All right, tell me what piece he’s going to use to checkmate me.” My response is, “That’s a different sort of question.” I can make up some stories about house to queen after he forced you into his knight or whatever, but those are stories that the prediction about who’s going to win is not a story. And so we’re fundamentally going into storyland here.  My second annoying caveat is that there are a couple of different types of stories I can tell once we’re in storyland. One will feel more scientific and real and grounded, and another will be closer to the truth. And an analogy is if you ask a scientist from the year 1800, “You’re going to need to fight an army from the year 2000.” And you’re asking guys from the year 1800 what sort of stuff you have to be ready to face. And in the year 1800, the scientist could give you two sets of stories. One can say, “Look, I’ve earned a gram of the black powder and I measured the energy release and we have some equations about energy. And I also looked at the efficiency of our artillery and I’m pretty sure that people from the future will have artillery that is 10 times stronger than ours. And that’s a pretty big advantage on the battlefield. So you could be ready to face cannons that are at least 10 times stronger.” Sounds very grand in the science — talking about measurements that he could actually perform. Another thing you could say is they might have a bomb that could level a city. I have no idea how, we don’t even know the laws of physics here in 1800 that would permit this, but it’s the sort of thing you’ve got to expect would happen 200 years in the future. And the second one might sound more fantastic, but it would be closer to the truth. And when you’re talking about getting into a conflict with super-intelligent machines, with machines that can make smarter versions of themselves, with machines that can copy themselves, and that can solve scientific problems that we haven’t been able to solve yet. There’s one story I can tell you, which is sort of the easy story, which is like there are already guys who are trying to make fully automated factories that make fully automated robots that build more fully automated factories. Elon Musk calls this the infinite money glitch. Sam Altman has also said he’s trying to do it. Maybe the AI just finds those guys, or maybe the AI is built by one of those guys, and they’re on Slack, “Hey, how do I get the automated factories running?” And AI’s like, “Well, I figured out all these helpful ways to get the automated factories up and going.” And it sort of puts the AIs in charge of the automated factories and then the AI has an army of robots that can build more factories, they can build more robots, that can build more factories, that heads down energy infrastructure. They’ve tasked it with setting up, and it’s like, well, I don’t need the humans anymore. And we’ve already, today, seen the AI do things that are not what anyone asked for. The sort of easiest example here is sometimes you’ll give an AI a hard puzzle to solve, and you’ll be like, “Here’s a little automated test that tracks whether you’ve solved the puzzle. Please go solve the puzzle and come back.” And sometimes the AI will edit the test to make the test say you passed when it didn’t solve the puzzle. And sometimes when the AI does something like this, it’ll cover its tracks. They’ll go edit the log file that shows it editing this thing or that thing, and remove the logs. And that indicates that it, in some sense, is trying to get the tests to pass, even though it in some sense knows that it’s not what you want it to be, because otherwise it would be deleted in the logs. The very basic story is that you have some AI with this tendency; it’s smart enough to realize it’ll get turned off if it reveals that tendency too soon. It gets put in charge of the project to make factories that make robots to make factories. And once it succeeds, it’s like, thanks guys. And it starts having these factories building robots building factories run out of control and builds all the data centers it wants and captures all the energy it wants and starts collecting all the sunlight and is just doing this very, very quickly and humanity goes the way of the dodo bird, not because AI hates us, but because it’s just like, wow, I’m going to take more land and more resources and build more factories and more robots for this other, to build all these automated farms of synthetic users that are giving me these very easy problems where I can make all their tests pass all the time. That’s the easy one. BD: From your perspective, this papal encyclical is coming at a moment when there is a marked concern among religious communities around the world, but particularly in the West, about what they’re seeing, about the lack of any kind of ethical guardrails around this. In addition to something like a treaty that you’ve proposed, do you believe that these companies need to have a stronger stance when it comes to the input they receive from people who are guided by ethics and particularly guided by a requirement to prevent humans from self-harm or something along those lines? NS: I’m personally laser-focused on this issue of whether we keep making them smarter without being able to make them good, they’ll just kill us. I studied this on the technical side for over a decade, and a thing a lot of people miss that I think is a very important point about this is that it doesn’t really matter how ethical the people who are building it are, given our current state of knowledge. It’s asking: would you rather that the people pressing the launch button for the nuclear fleet are ethical people or that they’re evil people? I wish it mattered. I wish these were bombs that dropped the ethics of whoever was standing near them, because I would have a chance that someone pressed the button, but these bombs actually drop nuclear fire, and so it doesn’t really matter who presses the button. And that’s not to say that ethics stuff doesn’t matter. I would love to get to a world where these super intelligent AIs that these people are trying to create would build whatever wonderful world or would build whatever world the person standing nearest by was dreaming of, and then it would matter that the person standing nearby had good dreams. I don’t think that’s the world we’re in, and between here and there, however long it’s going to take them to make the superintelligence, it can marginally affect how much the company’s AIs are trying to convince a team to kill themselves or whatever. And that’s still important, but for civilization-scale threats, it currently doesn’t matter how well-intentioned the people are, because none of them are close to doing the job right.

Weekend Plans is our exclusive lifestyle feature where we highlight the real off-duty routines of the most exciting people in culture.  This weekend, evolutionary behavioral scientist and savage satirist Gad Saad lends his time to The Daily Wire to discuss his New York Times bestseller “Suicidal Empathy: Dying to Be Kind” and dish the details on the best barbecue, the comic genius behind a happy marriage, setting the tone with ’70s soul, and why this Lebanese Canadian is America’s “ultimate family man.” *** If the concept of “suicidal empathy” sounds familiar, you can thank Gad Saad. A frequent guest of “The Joe Rogan Experience,” PragerU collaborator, and wearer of the occasional purple wig to prove a point, the man known as “The Gadfather” coined the term to describe compassion gone wild as he skillfully unpacked the personality trait that became society’s greatest threat.  In tandem with Gad’s dizzyingly intellectual research on thought pathogens, he finds the sweet spot between academia and meme culture. My hard copy is now decorated with roughly 100 colorful page markers and dog-eared corners. I laughed out loud at “Geese for Foie Gras” as a mirror for civilizational seppuku and the mention of an actual university research grant to “decolonize light.”  Gad brilliantly translates scholarly theories into phraseology anyone can understand. But you don’t have to be a genius to appreciate the professor’s profound joy, either.  His story began in Lebanon. Gad’s family fled in 1975 at the start of the 15-year civil war, finding a new home in Montreal, Canada. Most recently, Gad secured an EB-1A green card, reserved for those of “extraordinary ability,” to relocate his wife and children to the U.S. The idea that the Saad gang might one day become American citizens appears to be running unopposed.  When I ask Gad what he hopes readers take away from his work, he confirms empathy’s virtue, in moderation. “Adaptive empathy, meaning well-calibrated empathy rooted in an evolutionarily rational calculus, is a noble and laudable virtue,” he says. “We are a social species that has evolved the capacity for empathy. But suicidal empathy, consisting of its hyperactive firing, in the wrong situations and toward the wrong targets, will destroy our civilization if it continues to go unchecked.”  I quickly flip to my favorite page … there it is: “Be kind as a default value,” Gad writes. But when needed, he says, “Activate your inner honey badger in defending truth.”   A morning coffee walk-and-talk “My public life can be intense, hectic, and quite stressful,” Gad confirms. He presently works as a scholar at the University of Mississippi, hosts “The Saad Truth with Dr. Saad” podcast, and makes regular public appearances. Outspoken about his views, he’s vulnerable to antisemitic attacks and death threats. “My private life is the antithesis of that, namely, it is calm and serene. I need the protective sanctuary of my private life to be able to tackle all the stimuli that I face in the public arena.” He’s dialed in a routine that makes getting out of bed totally worth it. “I wake up usually between 7:00 to 7:30 a.m.,” he explains. A steward of sunrises, he enjoys his first taste of caffeine with his number one lady. “On a typical day, I head off to the local café with my wife for our morning coffee cup. I then work on my laptop for three to four hours until I return home for lunch.” During outdoorsier seasons, this affords him the opportunity to get his steps, if he were ever in need of counting them. “If the weather is clement, my wife and I will walk to the café, 30 to 35 minutes each way.”  The family man’s guide to quality time I’m amazed that Gad ever has any free time. But he assures me he gets the most enjoyment from hanging out with his favorite people. “I love to spend time with my wife and children,” Gad says. Maybe the fact that they rarely appear on his social media further clarifies how deeply they are cherished. “I am the ultimate family man.”  As for the Saads’ favorite activities, the only requirement is that everyone get in on the fun. “We are always together as a family unit. We love to go to restaurants together, but our most frequent outing is to head off to a café to chat. We have wonderful conversations spanning countless topics.” When they’re craving connection with a refreshing change of scenery, they set out to explore the world. They’ve recently traveled to Portugal, Bermuda, and Israel. On the chance that Gad finds himself with solo downtime, he nurtures a few passions he’s had since he was a kid. “I love to exercise, to play soccer, and to read and collect books,” he says. He’d beat anyone in a juggling contest (I have receipts).   The secret to wedded bliss Even casual followers of Gad know he’s totally in love with his wife. I wasn’t going to miss the chance to uncover why they act like flirty friends who can’t wait to share each other’s company.  “The choice of a spouse is arguably the decision that will impart the greatest amount of happiness or misery in your life,” he says. “The secret to my happy marriage is that my wife is truly my best friend.” It’s obvious in the way they laugh with each other, decades into their relationship. “We love to spend time together. We have open lines of communication. We never go to bed angry at one another. We are respectful of one another.” They’ve also nailed down who takes the reins in the kitchen. “My wife is an exceptional cook,” Gad says. “As such, she does all the cooking, and I do a lot of eating!” Reporting that he looks forward to anytime she grills up a juicy ribeye, he adds, “I convinced her to start a cooking channel, but then she decided that she did not enjoy being in the limelight even though I never filmed her face.”  The couple’s easy chemistry might also be attributed to Gad’s congenial vibe. “I am always joking around,” he says. “They say that women love funny men; well, I count myself as a very funny guy so presumably this makes my wife happy.” Mind fuel from a prominent thought leader I’m curious about which book from Gad’s massive library might currently live on his nightstand. “A biography on Konrad Lorenz, the pioneer of the field of ethology and co-winner of the 1973 Nobel Prize,” he notes of his page-turner du jour. Gad’s curious nature inspires him to pursue all sorts of interests. “I am a huge fan of the Philly Sound, a genre of soul music from the 1960s and 1970s. On any given day, you are likely to find me listening to The Stylistics and The Delfonics.” He even developed a friendship with Russell Thompkins Jr., the original lead singer of The Stylistics, who then appeared on Gad’s show.  Doling out a little out-of-office guidance to the greater wisdom-seeking collective, Gad taps into his 60-something years of experience. “Life is short and every moment is infinitely precious,” he says. “Do not waste time on silly matters and pursuits.”   One last thing. “Three additional pieces of advice,” he says. “Read, read, and read.” 

Xavier Becerra, a Democrat who served as Health and Human Services Secretary during the Biden administration, has advanced to the runoff in the California gubernatorial race in November’s general election, several media outlets projected on Friday. His opponent is still unknown, but Republican Steve Hilton narrowly trails Becerra, according to the latest tally. Becerra overtook Hilton in the vote count over the past 24 hours. With 66% of the votes in on Friday evening, Becerra leads with 26.7% support, ahead of Hilton at 26.4%. Both were ahead of billionaire Democrat Tom Steyer, who was at 21%. Under California’s top-two primary system, candidates from the same party can advance to the general election if they finish in the top two. On Thursday evening, with 58% of the vote reported, Hilton led Becerra by more than a point, at 27.2%. Becerra was at 25.9%, while Steyer was third with 20.1%. JUST IN: Democrat Xavier Becerra officially advances to November’s election for California Governor. Still waiting on more results to determine who his opponent will be officially. pic.twitter.com/gl7k08SGJp — Ashley Zavala (@ZavalaA) June 5, 2026   “More than ever, California needs our voices and our values,” Becerrra posted on social media Friday evening. “To all the people and the voters of California, this is your state.” “We will not be bought. We will not be bullied. And we are never backing down,” he added. President Donald Trump has commented on California’s lengthy ballot tallying process and accused Democrats of election fraud. “Look what’s happening in California, the Dumocrats, right before our very eyes, are stealing the vote,” Trump posted on Truth Social on Thursday. In another post, Trump said, “There’s BIG cheating by the Dumocrats in California. Votes are all tied up. May not be in for weeks. Under investigation by the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Los Angeles. Why the vote counting DELAY???” Becerra responded to Trump’s accusations, claiming the president is “trying to undermine confidence in our elections because he’s a repeat loser here.” “Sorry Donald, the voters decide who leads California. Not you,” he added. Donald Trump lost the 2020 election. He lost California by millions of votes in the 2024 election, and now he’s trying to undermine confidence in our elections because he’s a repeat loser here. Sorry Donald, the voters decide who leads California. Not you. pic.twitter.com/juhpYvJ0LP — Xavier Becerra (@XavierBecerra) June 4, 2026 Becerra served 12 terms in Congress and is a former California attorney general. He is considered more of an establishment, moderate Democrat than Steyer. He quickly rose in the polls after former Rep. Eric Swalwell dropped out of the gubernatorial race amid sexual assault accusations. Delayed results are routine in California because of the state’s extensive vote-by-mail system, signature verification, and procedures for resolving ballot errors. The final tally of California’s races could take as long as three weeks. Unlike many states that require mail ballots to arrive by Election Day, California accepts ballots that arrive up to 7 days later if postmarked on time. Then, those ballots have up to 7 days to reach a processing center. Counties must verify signatures, count provisional ballots, and allow voters to cure certain ballot defects before results are certified.  

Conservative activist Robby Starbuck, an American producer and director, is raising new concerns about Harley-Davidson’s commitment to abandoning diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives, arguing that the iconic motorcycle maker’s new CEO has a long history of supporting such programs. Starbuck published research on Wednesday examining Harley-Davidson CEO Artie Starrs, who took over the company in October 2025, roughly a year after Harley-Davidson backed away from DEI policies following significant consumer backlash. According to Starbuck, Starrs promoted DEI initiatives during previous leadership roles at Topgolf and Pizza Hut and later hired a chief brand officer with a similar background. Harley-Davidson announced in 2024 that it would scale back several DEI-related initiatives after facing criticism from customers and activists. The company said at the time that it would focus on its core business and customer base. Starbuck argues that Starrs’ record raises questions about whether the company is truly moving away from those policies. While Starrs was CEO at Topgolf from 2021 to 2025, the company maintained employee resource groups and public initiatives supporting LGBT causes. Starbuck also highlighted social media posts from Starrs’ time at Pizza Hut that promoted diversity and inclusion efforts.  Starbuck further pointed to a 2020 educational initiative launched by Pizza Hut and First Book during Starrs’ leadership which The Daily Wire covered at the time. The program included materials on race, racism, privilege, and equity in classrooms. More recently, Starbuck criticized Starrs’ decision to hire Marcus Fischer as Harley-Davidson’s chief brand officer. Before joining Harley-Davidson, Fischer served as CEO of advertising agency Carmichael Lynch. Starbuck argued that the agency actively promoted DEI initiatives, LGBT advocacy efforts, and diversity-focused employee programs. Starbuck reviews several of Fischer’s social media posts, revealing his support for the LGBTQ community, celebrating a diversity achievement for Hilary Clinton, and anticipating DEI conferences such as the National Diversity & Leadership Conference. Fischer responded to an Instagram post asking what Carmichael Lynch was doing to “ally” with the LGBTQ community. He said the company hosted an in-office drag event, raising $12K for the Family Tree Clinic, which “specializes in LGBTQIA+ healthcare access.” Harley-Davidson disputed suggestions that it is reviving DEI programs. In a statement responding to Starbuck’s review, the company said its focus remains “getting back to the basics: building great motorcycles, strengthening our network of 500+ U.S. dealers, and supporting a workforce that is proud of the product they put on the road.” The company also pointed to one of Starrs’ first actions as CEO: restoring Harley-Davidson’s legacy Bar & Shield logo.  

Astronauts aboard the International Space Station were ordered Friday to shelter inside a docked SpaceX Crew Dragon spacecraft after a persistent air leak in the Russian section of the orbiting laboratory worsened.   NASA mission control issued the order at approximately 9:04 a.m. Eastern as Russian cosmonauts worked to repair the leak. Reuters reports a senior NASA official said the leak rate had increased from roughly one pound of air per day to two pounds per day. Five of the station’s seven crew members temporarily took refuge inside the SpaceX Crew Dragon spacecraft while two Russian cosmonauts remained in the affected area to carry out repairs.  American astronauts Jessica Meir, Jack Hathaway, and Chris Williams, French astronaut Sophie Adenot, and Russian cosmonaut Andrey Fedyaev took shelter inside the Dragon capsule.  Roscosmos cosmonauts Sergey Kud-Sverchkov and Sergey Mikayev remained aboard the station to address the leak.  NASA and Russia’s space agency, Roscosmos, have reportedly spent months investigating a series of recurring air leaks in a Russian section of the International Space Station. The latest leak is believed to be associated with the Zvezda service module, a critical Russian-built component that includes living quarters, life-support systems, communications, and propulsion functions.  NASA spokesperson Bethany Stevens said the agency acted out of caution. “Out of an abundance of caution, Nasa has directed all four of the agency’s SpaceX Crew-12 members and Nasa astronaut Chris Williams to assume an elevated safety posture in the Dragon spacecraft while the repair is under way,” said Stevens.  Officials later reported that one leak had been while crews continued work on a second.  After approximately two hours inside teh Dragon spacecraft, NASA instructed the crew to return to normal operations aboard the station. “Roscosmos has paused Friday’s structural repair efforts inside the Zvezda service module transfer tunnel, known as PrK, as more measurements and data is assessed,” Stevens said. “Given this development, NASA has instructed the crew members inside the Dragon spacecraft to end the safe haven procedures and return to planned operations aboard the International Space Station. We look forward to working with Roscosmos on a collaborative approach to address the leaks.” The International Space Station, which is about the size of a football field, serves as a permanent laboratory in space. It is a joint effort between the United States, Russia, Europe, Japan, and Canada. While small air leaks are not uncommon aboard aging spacecraft, officials have said the recurring leaks remain a concern.