About four years ago, former Google CEO Eric Schmidt was appointed to the National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence by the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee.
It was powerful perch. Congress tasked the new group with a broad mandate: to advise the US government on how to advance the development of artificial intelligence (AI), machine learning and other technologies to enhance the national security of the United States.
The mandate was simple: Congress directed the new body to advise on how to enhance American competitiveness on AI against its adversaries, build the AI workforce of the future and develop data and ethical procedures.
In short, the commission, which Schmidt soon took charge of as chairman, was tasked with coming up with recommendations for almost every aspect of a vital and emerging industry. The panel did far more under his leadership. It wrote proposed legislation that later became law and steered billions of dollars of taxpayer funds to industry he helped build — and that he was actively investing in while running the group.
If you’re going to be leading a commission that is steering the direction of government AI and making recommendations for how we should promote this sector and scientific exploration in this area, you really shouldn’t also be dipping your hand in the pot and helping yourself to AI investments.
Walter Shaub
Senior Ethics Fellow, Project on Government Oversight
His credentials, however, were impeccable given his deep experience in Silicon Valley, his experience advising the Defense Department, and a vast personal fortune estimated at about $20 billion dollars.
Five months after his appointment, Schmidt made a little-noticed private investment in an initial seed round of financing for a start-up company called Beacon, which uses AI in the company’s supply chain products for shippers who manage freight logistics, according to CNBC’s review of investment data in database Crunchbase.
There is no indication that Schmidt broke any ethics rules or did anything unlawful while chairing the commission. The commission was, by design, an outside advisory group of industry participants, and its other members included other well-known tech executives including Oracle CEO Safra Catz, Amazon Web Services CEO Andy Jassy and Microsoft Chief Scientific Officer Dr. Eric Horvitz, among others.
‘Conflict of interest’
Schmidt’s investment was just the first of a handful of direct investments he would make in AI start-up companies during his tenure as chairman of the AI commission.
“It’s absolutely a conflict of interest,” said Walter Shaub, a senior ethics fellow at the Project on Government Oversight, and the former director of the U.S. office of Government Ethics.
“That’s technically legal for a variety of reasons, but it’s not the right thing to do,” Shaub said.
Venture capital firms financed, in part, by Schmidt and his private family foundation also made dozens of additional investments in AI companies during Schmidt’s tenure, giving Schmidt an economic stake in the industry even as he developed new regulations and encouraged taxpayer financing for it. Altogether, Schmidt and entities connected to him made more than 50 investments in AI companies while he was chairman of the federal commission on AI. Information on his investments isn’t publicly available.
All that activity meant that, at the same time Schmidt was wielding enormous influence over the future of federal AI policy, he was also potentially positioning himself to profit personally from the most promising young AI companies.
Institutional issues
Schmidt’s conflict of interest is not unusual. The investments are an example of a broader issue identified by ethics reformers in Washington, DC: Outside advisory committees that are given significant sway over industries without enough public disclosure of potential conflicts of interest. “The ethics enforcement process in the executive branch is broken, it does not work,” said Craig Holman, a lobbyist on ethics, lobbying and campaign finance for Public Citizen, the consumer advocacy organization. “And so the process itself is partly to blame here.”
The federal government counts a total of 57 active federal advisory commissions, with members offering input on everything from nuclear reactor safeguards to environmental rules and global commodities markets.
For years, reformers have tried to impose tougher ethics rules on Washington’s sprawling network of outside advisory commissions. In 2010, then-President Barack Obama used an executive order to block federally registered lobbyists from serving on federal boards and commissions. But a group of Washington lobbyists fought back with a lawsuit arguing the new rule was unfair to them, and the ban was scaled back.
‘Fifth arm of government’
The nonprofit Project on Government Oversight has called federal advisory committees the “fifth arm of government” and has pushed for changes including additional requirements for posting conflict-of-interest waivers and recusal statements, as well as giving the public more input in nominating committee members. Also in 2010, the House passed a bill that would prohibit the appointment of commission members with conflicts of interest, but the bill died in the Senate.
“It’s always been this way,” Holman said. “When Congress created the Office of Government Ethics to oversee the executive branch, you know, they didn’t really want a strong ethics cop, they just wanted an advisory commission.” Holman said each federal agency selects its own ethics officer, creating a vast system of more than 4,000 officials. But those officers aren’t under the control of the Office of Government Ethics – there’s “no one person in charge,” he said.
Eric Schmidt during a news conference at the main office of Google Korea in Seoul on November 8, 2011.
Jung Yeon-je | Afp | Getty Images
People close to Schmidt say his investments were disclosed in a private filing to the U.S. government at the time. But the public and the news media had no access to that document, which was considered confidential. The investments were not revealed to the public by Schmidt or the commission. His biography on the commission’s website detailed his experiences at Google, his efforts on climate change and his philanthropy, among other details. But it did not mention his active investments in artificial intelligence.
A spokesperson for Schmidt told CNBC that he followed all rules and procedures in his tenure on the commission: “Eric has given full compliance on everything,” the spokesperson said.
But ethics experts say Schmidt simply should not have made private investments while leading a public policy effort on artificial intelligence.
“If you’re going to be leading a commission that is steering the direction of government AI and making recommendations for how we should promote this sector and scientific exploration in this area, you really shouldn’t also be dipping your hand in the pot and helping yourself to AI investments,” said Shaub of the Project on Government Oversight.
He said there were several ways Schmidt could have minimized this conflict of interest: He could have made the public aware of his AI investments, he could have released his entire financial disclosure report, or he could have made the decision not to invest in AI while he was chair of the AI commission.
Public interest
“It’s extremely important to have experts in the government,” Shaub said. “But it’s, I think, even more important to make sure that you have experts who are putting the public’s interests first.”
The AI commission, which Schmidt chaired until it expired in the fall of 2021, was far from a stereotypical Washington blue-ribbon commission issuing white papers that few people actually read.
Instead, the commission delivered reports which contained actual legislative language for Congress to pass into law to finance and develop the artificial intelligence industry. And much of that recommended language was written into vast defense authorization bills. Sections of legislative language passed, word for word, from the commission into federal law.
The commission’s efforts also sent millions of taxpayer dollars to priorities it identified. In just one case, the fiscal year 2023 National Defense Authorization Act included $75 million “for implementing the National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence recommendations.”
At a commission event in September 2021, Schmidt touted the success of his team’s approach. He said the commission staff “had this interesting idea that not only should we write down what we thought, which we did, but we would have a hundred pages of legislation that they could just pass.” That, Schmidt said, was “an idea that had never occurred to me before but is actually working.”
$200 billion modification
Schmidt said one piece of legislation moving on Capitol Hill was “modified by $200 billion dollars.” That, he said, was “essentially enabled by the work of the staff” of the commission.
At that same event, Schmidt suggested that his staff had wielded similar influence over the classified annexes to national security related bills emanating from Congress. Those documents provide financing and direction to America’s most sensitive intelligence agencies. To protect national security, the details of such annexes are not available to the American public.
“We don’t talk much about our secret work,” Schmidt said at the event. “But there’s an analogous team that worked on the secret stuff that went through the secret process that has had similar impact.”
Asked whether classified language in the annex proposed by the commission was adopted in legislation that passed into law, a person close to Schmidt responded, “due to the classified nature of the NSCAI annex, it is not possible to answer this question publicly. NSCAI provided its analysis and recommendations to Congress, to which members of Congress and their staff reviewed and determined what, if anything, could/should be included in a particular piece of legislation.”
Beyond influencing classified language on Capitol Hill, Schmidt suggested that the key to success in Washington was being able to push the White House to take certain actions. “We said we need leadership from the White House,” Schmidt said at the 2021 event. “If I’ve learned anything from my years of dealing with the government, is the government is not run like a tech company. It’s run top down. So, whether you like it or not, you have to start at the top, you have to get the right words, either they say it, or you write it for them, and you make it happen. Right? And that’s how it really, really works.”
Industry friendly
The commission produced a final report with topline conclusions and recommendations that were friendly to the industry, calling for vastly increased federal spending on AI research and a close working relationship between government and industry.
The final report waived away concerns about too much government intervention in the private sector or too much federal spending.
“This is not a time for abstract criticism of industrial policy or fears of deficit spending to stand in the way of progress,” the commission concluded in its 2021 report. “In 1956, President Dwight Eisenhower, a fiscally conservative Republican, worked with a Democratic Congress to commit $10 billion to build the Interstate Highway System. That is $96 billion in today’s world.”
The commission didn’t go quite that big, though. In the end, it recommended $40 billion in federal spending on AI, and suggested it should be done hand in hand with tech companies.
“The federal government must partner with U.S. companies to preserve American leadership and to support development of diverse AI applications that advance the national interest in the broadest sense,” the commission wrote. “If anything, this report underplays the investments America will need to make.”
The urgency driving all of this, the commission said, is Chinese development of AI technology that rivals the software coming out of American labs: “China’s plans, resources, and progress should concern all Americans.”
China, the commission said, is an AI peer in many areas and a leader in others. “We take seriously China’s ambition to surpass the United States as the world’s AI leader within a decade,” it wrote.
But Schmidt’s critics see another ambition behind the commission’s findings: Steering more federal dollars toward research that can benefit the AI industry.
“If you put a tech billionaire in charge, any framing that you present them, the solution will be, ‘give my investments more money,’ and that’s indeed what we see,” said Jack Poulson, executive director of the nonprofit group Tech Inquiry. Poulson formerly worked as a research scientist at Google, but he resigned in 2018 in protest of what he said was Google bending to the censorship demands of the Chinese government.
Too much power?
To Poulson, Schmidt was simply given too much power over federal AI policy. “I think he had too much influence,” Poulson said. “If we believe in a democracy, we should not have a couple of tech billionaires, or, in his case, one tech billionaire, that is essentially determining US government allocation of hundreds of billions of dollars.”
The federal commission wound down its work on Oct. 1, 2021.
Four days later, on Oct. 5, Schmidt announced a new initiative called the Special Competitive Studies Project. The new entity would continue the work of the congressionally created federal commission, with many of the same goals and much of the same staff. But this would be an independent nonprofit and operate under the financing and control of Schmidt himself, not Congress or the taxpayer. The new project, he said, will “make recommendations to strengthen America’s long-term global competitiveness for a future where artificial intelligence and other emerging technologies reshape our national security, economy, and society.”
The CEO of Schmidt’s latest initiative would be the same person who had served as the executive director of the National Security Commission. More than a dozen staffers from the federal commission followed Schmidt to the new private sector project. Other people from the federal commission came over to Schmidt’s private effort, too: Vice Chair Robert Work, a former deputy secretary of defense, would serve on Schmidt’s board of advisors. Mac Thornberry, the congressman who appointed Schmidt to the federal commission in the first place, was now out of office and would also join Schmidt’s board of advisors.
They set up new office space just down the road from the federal commission’s headquarters in Crystal City, VA, and began to build on their work at the federal commission.
The new Special Competitive Studies Project issued its first report on Sept. 12. The authors wrote, “Our new project is privately funded, but it remains publicly minded and staunchly nonpartisan in believing technology, rivalry, competition and organization remain enduring themes for national focus.”
The report calls for the creation of a new government entity that would be responsible for organizing the government-private sector nexus. That new organization, the report says, could be based on the roles played by the National Economic Council or the National Security Council inside the White House.
It is not clear if the Project will disclose Schmidt’s personal holdings in AI companies. So far, it has not.
Asked if Schmidt’s AI investments will be disclosed by the Project in the future, a person close to Schmidt said, “SCSP is organized as a charitable entity, and has no relationship to any personal investment activities of Dr. Schmidt.” The person also said the project is a not-for-profit research entity that will provide public reports and recommendations. “It openly discloses that it is solely funded by the Eric and Wendy Schmidt Fund for Strategic Innovation.”
In a way, Schmidt’s approach to Washington is the culmination of a decade or more as a power player in Washington. Early on, he professed shock at the degree to which industry influenced policy and legislation in Washington. But since then, his work on AI suggests he has embraced that fact of life in the capital.
Obama donor
Schmidt first came to prominence on the Potomac as an early advisor and donor to the first presidential campaign of Barack Obama. Following the 2008 election, he served on Obama’s presidential transition and as a presidential advisor on science and technology issues. Schmidt had risen to the heights of power and wealth in Silicon Valley, but what he saw in the nation’s capital surprised him.
In a 2010 conversation with the Atlantic’s then Editor-in Chief James Bennet, Schmidt told a conference audience what he had learned in his first years in the nation’s capital. “The average American doesn’t realize how much the laws are written by lobbyists,” Schmidt said. “It’s shocking now, having spent a fair amount of time inside the system, how the system actually works. It is obvious that if the system is organized around incumbencies writing the laws, the incumbencies will benefit from the laws that are written.”
Bennet, pushing back, suggested that Google was already one of the greatest incumbent corporations in America.
“Well, perhaps,” Schmidt replied in 2010. “But we don’t write the laws.”
Circle, the company behind the USDC stablecoin, has filed for an initial public offering with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The S1 lays the groundwork for Circle’s long-anticipated entry into the public markets.
While the filing does not yet disclose the number of shares or a price range, sources told Fortune that Circle plans to move forward with a public filing in late April and is targeting a market debut as early as June.
JPMorgan Chase and Citi are reportedly serving as lead underwriters, and the company is seeking a valuation between $4 billion and $5 billion, according to Fortune.
This marks Circle’s second attempt at going public. A prior SPAC merger with Concord Acquisition Corp collapsed in late 2022 amid regulatory challenges. Since then, Circle has made strategic moves to position itself closer to the heart of global finance — including the announcement last year that it would relocate its headquarters from Boston to One World Trade Center in New York City.
Read more about tech and crypto from CNBC Pro
Circle is best known as the issuer of USDC, the world’s second-largest stablecoin by market capitalization.
Pegged one-to-one to the U.S. dollar and backed by cash and short-term Treasury securities, USDC has roughly $60 billion in circulation.
Circle is best known as the issuer of USDC, the world’s second-largest stablecoin by market capitalization.
Pegged one-to-one to the U.S. dollar and backed by cash and short-term Treasury securities, USDC has roughly $60 billion in circulation. It makes up about 26% of the total market cap for stablecoins, behind Tether‘s 67% dominance. Its market cap has grown 36% this year, however, compared with Tether’s 5% growth.
Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong said on the company’s most recent earnings call that it has a “stretch goal to make USDC the number 1 stablecoin.”
The company’s push into public markets reflects a broader moment for the crypto industry, which is navigating renewed political favor under a more crypto-friendly U.S. administration. The stablecoin sector is ramping up as the industry grows increasingly confident that the crypto market will get its first piece of U.S. legislation passed and implemented this year, focusing on stablecoins.
Stablecoins’ growth could have investment implications for crypto exchanges like Robinhood and Coinbase as they integrate more of them into crypto trading and cross-border transfers. Coinbase also has an agreement with Circle to share 50% of the revenue of its USDC stablecoin.
The stablecoin market has grown about 11% so far this year and about 47% in the past year, and has become a “systemically important” part of the crypto market, according to Bernstein. Historically, digital assets in this sector have been used for trading and as collateral in decentralized finance (DeFi), and crypto investors watch them closely for evidence of demand, liquidity and activity in the market.
More recently, however, rhetoric around stablecoins’ ability to help preserve U.S. dollar dominance – by exporting dollar utility internationally and ensuring demand for U.S. government debt, which backs nearly all dollar-denominated stablecoins – has grown louder.
A successful IPO would make Circle one of the most prominent crypto-native firms to list on a U.S. exchange — an important signal for both investors and regulators as digital assets become more entwined with the traditional financial system.
The Hims app arranged on a smartphone in New York on Feb. 12, 2025.
Gabby Jones | Bloomberg | Getty Images
Hims & Hers Health shares closed up 5% on Tuesday after the company announced patients can access Eli Lilly‘s weight loss medication Zepbound and diabetes drug Mounjaro, as well as the generic injection liraglutide, through its platform.
Zepbound, Mounjaro and liraglutide are part of the class of weight loss medications called GLP-1s, which have exploded in popularity in recent years. Hims & Hers launched a weight loss program in late 2023, but its GLP-1 offerings have evolved as the company has contended with a volatile supply and regulatory environment.
Lilly’s weekly injections Zepbound and Mounjaro will cost patients $1,899 a month, according to the Hims & Hers website. The generic liraglutide will cost $299 a month, but it requires a daily injection and can be less effective than other GLP-1 medications.
“As we look ahead, we plan to continue to expand our weight loss offering to deliver an even more holistic, personalized experience,” Dr. Craig Primack, senior vice president of weight loss at Hims & Hers, wrote in a blog post.
A Lilly spokesperson said in a statement that the company has “no affiliation” with Hims & Hers and noted that Zepbound is available at lower costs for people who are insured for the product or for those who buy directly from the company.
In May, Hims & Hers started prescribing compounded semaglutide, the active ingredient in Novo Nordisk‘s GLP-1 weight loss medications Ozempic and Wegovy. The offering was immensely popular and helped generate more than $225 million in revenue for the company in 2024.
But compounded drugs can traditionally only be mass produced when the branded medications treatments are in shortage. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration announced in February that the shortage of semaglutide injections products had been resolved.
That meant Hims & Hers had to largely stop offering the compounded medications, though some consumers may still be able to access personalized doses if it’s clinically applicable.
During the company’s quarterly call with investors in February, Hims & Hers said its weight loss offerings will primarily consist of its oral medications and liraglutide. The company said it expects its weight loss offerings to generate at least $725 million in annual revenue, excluding contributions from compounded semaglutide.
But the company is still lobbying for compounded medications. A pop up on Hims & Hers’ website, which was viewed by CNBC, encourages users to “use your voice” and urge Congress and the FDA to preserve access to compounded treatments.
With Tuesday’s rally, Hims and Hers shares are up about 27% in 2025 after soaring 172% last year.
Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg holds a smartphone as he makes a keynote speech at the Meta Connect annual event at the company’s headquarters in Menlo Park, California, on Sept. 25, 2024.
Manuel Orbegozo | Reuters
Meta’s head of artificial intelligence research announced Tuesday that she will be leaving the company.
Joelle Pineau, the company’s vice president of AI research, announced her departure in a LinkedIn post, saying her last day at the social media company will be May 30.
Her departure comes at a challenging time for Meta. CEO Mark Zuckerberg has made AI a top priority, investing billions of dollars in an effort to become the market leader ahead of rivals like OpenAI and Google.
Zuckerberg has said that it is his goal for Meta to build an AI assistant with more than 1 billion users and artificial general intelligence, which is a term used to describe computers that can think and take actions comparable to humans.
“As the world undergoes significant change, as the race for AI accelerates, and as Meta prepares for its next chapter, it is time to create space for others to pursue the work,” Pineau wrote. “I will be cheering from the sidelines, knowing that you have all the ingredients needed to build the best AI systems in the world, and to responsibly bring them into the lives of billions of people.”
Vice President of AI Research and Head of FAIR at Meta Joelle Pineau attends a technology demonstration at the META research laboratory in Paris on February 7, 2025.
Stephane De Sakutin | AFP | Getty Images
Pineau was one of Meta’s top AI researchers and led the company’s fundamental AI research unit, or FAIR, since 2023. There, she oversaw the company’s cutting-edge computer science-related studies, some of which are eventually incorporated into the company’s core apps.
She joined the company in 2017 to lead Meta’s Montreal AI research lab. Pineau is also a computer science professor at McGill University, where she is a co-director of its reasoning and learning lab.
Some of the projects Pineau helped oversee include Meta’s open-source Llama family of AI models and other technologies like the PyTorch software for AI developers.
Pineau’s departure announcement comes a few weeks ahead of Meta’s LlamaCon AI conference on April 29. There, the company is expected to detail its latest version of Llama. Meta Chief Product Officer Chris Cox, to whom Pineau reported to, said in March that Llama 4 will help power AI agents, the latest craze in generative AI. The company is also expected to announce a standalone app for its Meta AI chatbot, CNBC reported in February.
“We thank Joelle for her leadership of FAIR,” a Meta spokesperson said in a statement. “She’s been an important voice for Open Source and helped push breakthroughs to advance our products and the science behind them.”
Pineau did not reveal her next role but said she “will be taking some time to observe and to reflect, before jumping into a new adventure.”