Connect with us

Business

Sweetgreen’s CEO on Robots, RFK Jr. and Why Salads Are So Expensive

Published

on

Sweetgreen’s CEO on Robots, RFK Jr. and Why Salads Are So Expensive

When Jonathan Neman was a student at Georgetown in the mid-2000s, he and some friends wanted to start a restaurant. A fast-food restaurant, but it would be healthy. And cool.

The documentary “Super Size Me” had made waves, and “we were going to be rejecting the fast food of the previous generation,” Mr. Neman said.

He and his business partners, Nicolas Jammet and Nathaniel Ru, opened the first Sweetgreen in 2007, on the edge of campus on M Street in Washington. As they expanded, they decided against franchising the brand, keeping control of every new location. Soon it became a buzzy millennial lifestyle brand. It sponsored an annual music festival. It went public in late 2021.

Sweetgreen now has more than 250 restaurants across the United States. The chain is known for its endlessly customizable salads — and for how quickly the cost of all those extra toppings and dressings can add up. (A recent lunch there cost me $16.28.)

The company also runs a growing number of locations that include what it calls the Infinite Kitchen, with salad-slinging robots that assemble bowls faster than human workers.

Advertisement

With great fanfare, Sweetgreen recently put fries on its menu — air-fried in avocado oil, to make customers feel better about adding a side of carbs to a salad. Much of its food is sourced locally, including avocados from California, which will limit the hit the company takes on tariffs, executives have told investors.

And Sweetgreen doesn’t cater just to office workers eating salads at their desks. Mr. Neman, 40, said he had heard that teenagers were “obsessed” with the salads, which wasn’t the case when Sweetgreen started. “The fact that they think that eating healthy is cool is something that we envisioned,” he said at his office in Los Angeles, where the company is now based.

Back in Washington, the Trump administration is also thinking about what goes into food. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the standard-bearer of the “Make America Healthy Again” movement, recently declared that “sugar is poison” and pushed to ban artificial dyes in foods.

Some of those aims resonate with Mr. Neman, whose company worked with the former first lady Michelle Obama’s “Let’s Move” campaign. But he — like many other company leaders — is trying to talk about the company’s priorities (like eliminating seed oils) without being pulled into the polarized politics of the moment.

“We say we’re not red or blue, but we’re green,” he said.

Advertisement

This interview was condensed and edited for clarity.

Sweetgreen is all about healthy ingredients. Now, there is the “Make America Healthy Again” movement and R.F.K. Jr. pushing to ban artificial dyes in food. What are your thoughts on that?

As it relates to “Make America Healthy,” funny story: In 2016, during a festival, we had a campaign that was a joke, a play on “Make America Great Again.” We made “Make America Healthy Again” hats.

Wow.

We are on the team of anyone who wants to help make America healthier. Back in the days of the Obama administration, we partnered very closely with Michelle Obama.

Advertisement

With R.F.K. Jr., I’ll speak to the parts related to our world. I think bringing more transparency to our food system is great. I think some of those dyes are bad. Sweetgreen has never sold soda very intentionally. We’d make a lot more money if we did. A lot of people wish we did. We never have and I don’t think ever will.

We don’t like to get involved in the rest of it. So we’re not trying to insert ourselves politically, either me personally or as a brand.

Have you communicated with the White House about healthy foods?

We haven’t been directly involved at this point. But if there’s a place for us to help, we’re totally up for it.

There have been cuts at the Food and Drug Administration, which oversees food safety. Do you have any concerns around food safety in the U.S. right now?

Advertisement

I think some of the things I’ve seen could be a little bit alarming. Others seem great.

What are the things that concern you?

I’d want to be careful to have certain guardrails around food safety, for example. And to be careful that there are not any adverse impacts to moving too fast. But overall, I think more transparency around the food system, promoting more real food, getting rid of these artificial chemicals that are allowed in our food and removing any conflicts of interest in people that are regulating our food are all good things.

Let’s talk about the robots. Will they help with profitability?

Absolutely. So what we’ve seen is at the store level, the Infinite Kitchen adds at least seven points of margin. So if you look at our store, right now we’re about a 20 percent margin business. An Infinite Kitchen store should be at least seven points better.

Advertisement

So as more robots make more salads, can people expect prices to come down?

We are very conscious of making sure that Sweetgreen can be something for everyone. I think automation does give us a hedge as labor costs continue to go up, to be able to drive more value and offer that to our customer.

How much is too much to pay for a salad?

It really depends what you put in it. When you think about the cost of something, you have to sometimes think about the total cost. There’s the cost to you, but when you eat certain things, what’s the cost to your health? What’s the cost to the environment? People are paying not only for the quality of the taste in the food, but the fact that it’s made by hand, the fact that we pay our farmers and our team members fairly.

What’s your back story? Tell me about your parents and growing up in Los Angeles.

Advertisement

My parents immigrated here in 1979. They were Iranian Jews who came during the revolution. And that was a big part of my story growing up because I think about how fragile your life and reality can be.

I’m the oldest of four boys. Being Jewish is a big part of my identity. I’ve always been very connected to Israel and my Jewish faith and big family.

My dad has four siblings. They each have four kids, so 20 cousins. Shabbat every Friday. A lot of us Persian Jews came to Los Angeles during that time.

Entrepreneurship is really a part of the culture. Growing up, I knew very few people who worked for big companies. Everybody was a small-business owner in some way. My dad and his brothers worked together. They started a textile business.

I always knew I wanted to be in business. From a very early age my dad would take me to work with him. One of my earliest memories was that I’d want to put on a suit — because he put on a suit — and go to his factory and walk around.

Advertisement

You had this great network of entrepreneurs during the start-up process. Were you calling your dad?

I had a lot of mentors in the community, including my dad. Always was and still is. I always give my dad a lot of credit because I don’t think he expected me to go to Georgetown and then to, like, start a little salad shack.

What was it like to be an entrepreneur in Washington at that time?

Entrepreneurship has become a lot sexier over the past 20 years. At the time, especially at Georgetown, that wasn’t the culture. The cool thing was going to get a job in government or consulting or banking.

I got accepted to what I thought was my dream job, at Bain & Company, the consulting firm.

Advertisement

I would have had to leave D.C. The restaurant was up and running. I spoke to my partners, like what should I do? Should I stay? Should I go? They’re like, “It’s one restaurant now. Why don’t you go and get these skills and then see what happens?” I went and realized consulting wasn’t really for me, especially after being an entrepreneur.

Finally, it was actually a conversation with someone at Bain. I always remember this conversation because he’s like: “Listen, you have two big opportunities to take huge risks in your life. One is now. The other is after your kids are out of school. You don’t have anything to worry about right now.”

I remembered this phrase: “You can’t fall from the floor.”

Time for the lightning round. Do you have any secret Sweetgreen menu tips?

The big unlock to the secret menu is the mixing of dressings. Putting two together, like spicy cashew with a green goddess. You have this whole different experience.

Advertisement

Do you use A.I.? If so, what was the last question you asked a bot?

I do use A.I. a lot. The last thing I did was not a work thing. It was personal. I have two kids, a 2-year-old and a 4-year-old. I put a picture of them in and asked what they’re going to look like when they grow up. It has blown my mind because I can’t unsee it now.

What other C.E.O. do you admire?

I’d always looked up to Howard Schultz. I think what he did at Starbucks was amazing.

Do you work on a plane, or do you zone out?

Advertisement

I work a lot on the plane. It’s this amazing quiet time where I can do a lot of the work that I can’t do day to day.

How do you sign off your emails?

Usually just “JN.” If it’s a more inspirational message, I’ll write, “Onward.”

Business

Trump orders federal agencies to stop using Anthropic’s AI after clash with Pentagon

Published

on

Trump orders federal agencies to stop using Anthropic’s AI after clash with Pentagon

President Trump on Friday directed federal agencies to stop using technology from San Francisco artificial intelligence company Anthropic, escalating a high-profile clash between the AI startup and the Pentagon over safety.

In a Friday post on the social media site Truth Social, Trump described the company as “radical left” and “woke.”

“We don’t need it, we don’t want it, and will not do business with them again!” Trump said.

The president’s harsh words mark a major escalation in the ongoing battle between some in the Trump administration and several technology companies over the use of artificial intelligence in defense tech.

Anthropic has been sparring with the Pentagon, which had threatened to end its $200-million contract with the company on Friday if it didn’t loosen restrictions on its AI model so it could be used for more military purposes. Anthropic had been asking for more guarantees that its tech wouldn’t be used for surveillance of Americans or autonomous weapons.

Advertisement

The tussle could hobble Anthropic’s business with the government. The Trump administration said the company was added to a sweeping national security blacklist, ordering federal agencies to immediately discontinue use of its products and barring any government contractors from maintaining ties with it.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who met with Anthropic’s Chief Executive Dario Amodei this week, criticized the tech company after Trump’s Truth Social post.

“Anthropic delivered a master class in arrogance and betrayal as well as a textbook case of how not to do business with the United States Government or the Pentagon,” he wrote Friday on social media site X.

Anthropic didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

Anthropic announced a two-year agreement with the Department of Defense in July to “prototype frontier AI capabilities that advance U.S. national security.”

Advertisement

The company has an AI chatbot called Claude, but it also built a custom AI system for U.S. national security customers.

On Thursday, Amodei signaled the company wouldn’t cave to the Department of Defense’s demands to loosen safety restrictions on its AI models.

The government has emphasized in negotiations that it wants to use Anthropic’s technology only for legal purposes, and the safeguards Anthropic wants are already covered by the law.

Still, Amodei was worried about Washington’s commitment.

“We have never raised objections to particular military operations nor attempted to limit use of our technology in an ad hoc manner,” he said in a blog post. “However, in a narrow set of cases, we believe AI can undermine, rather than defend, democratic values.”

Advertisement

Tech workers have backed Anthropic’s stance.

Unions and worker groups representing 700,000 employees at Amazon, Google and Microsoft said this week in a joint statement that they’re urging their employers to reject these demands as well if they have additional contracts with the Pentagon.

“Our employers are already complicit in providing their technologies to power mass atrocities and war crimes; capitulating to the Pentagon’s intimidation will only further implicate our labor in violence and repression,” the statement said.

Anthropic’s standoff with the U.S. government could benefit its competitors, such as Elon Musk’s xAI or OpenAI.

Sam Altman, chief executive of OpenAI, the company behind ChatGPT and one of Anthropic’s biggest competitors, told CNBC in an interview that he trusts Anthropic.

Advertisement

“I think they really do care about safety, and I’ve been happy that they’ve been supporting our war fighters,” he said. “I’m not sure where this is going to go.”

Anthropic has distinguished itself from its rivals by touting its concern about AI safety.

The company, valued at roughly $380 billion, is legally required to balance making money with advancing the company’s public benefit of “responsible development and maintenance of advanced AI for the long-term benefit of humanity.”

Developers, businesses, government agencies and other organizations use Anthropic’s tools. Its chatbot can generate code, write text and perform other tasks. Anthropic also offers an AI assistant for consumers and makes money from paid subscriptions as well as contracts. Unlike OpenAI, which is testing ads in ChatGPT, Anthropic has pledged not to show ads in its chatbot Claude.

The company has roughly 2,000 employees and has revenue equivalent to about $14 billion a year.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Business

Video: The Web of Companies Owned by Elon Musk

Published

on

Video: The Web of Companies Owned by Elon Musk

new video loaded: The Web of Companies Owned by Elon Musk

In mapping out Elon Musk’s wealth, our investigation found that Mr. Musk is behind more than 90 companies in Texas. Kirsten Grind, a New York Times Investigations reporter, explains what her team found.

By Kirsten Grind, Melanie Bencosme, James Surdam and Sean Havey

February 27, 2026

Continue Reading

Business

Commentary: How Trump helped foreign markets outperform U.S. stocks during his first year in office

Published

on

Commentary: How Trump helped foreign markets outperform U.S. stocks during his first year in office

Trump has crowed about the gains in the U.S. stock market during his term, but in 2025 investors saw more opportunity in the rest of the world.

If you’re a stock market investor you might be feeling pretty good about how your portfolio of U.S. equities fared in the first year of President Trump’s term.

All the major market indices seemed to be firing on all cylinders, with the Standard & Poor’s 500 index gaining 17.9% through the full year.

But if you’re the type of investor who looks for things to regret, pay no attention to the rest of the world’s stock markets. That’s because overseas markets did better than the U.S. market in 2025 — a lot better. The MSCI World ex-USA index — that is, all the stock markets except the U.S. — gained more than 32% last year, nearly double the percentage gains of U.S. markets.

That’s a major departure from recent trends. Since 2013, the MSCI US index had bested the non-U.S. index every year except 2017 and 2022, sometimes by a wide margin — in 2024, for instance, the U.S. index gained 24.6%, while non-U.S. markets gained only 4.7%.

Advertisement

The Trump trade is dead. Long live the anti-Trump trade.

— Katie Martin, Financial Times

Broken down into individual country markets (also by MSCI indices), in 2025 the U.S. ranked 21st out of 23 developed markets, with only New Zealand and Denmark doing worse. Leading the pack were Austria and Spain, with 86% gains, but superior records were turned in by Finland, Ireland and Hong Kong, with gains of 50% or more; and the Netherlands, Norway, Britain and Japan, with gains of 40% or more.

Investment analysts cite several factors to explain this trend. Judging by traditional metrics such as price/earnings multiples, the U.S. markets have been much more expensive than those in the rest of the world. Indeed, they’re historically expensive. The Standard & Poor’s 500 index traded in 2025 at about 23 times expected corporate earnings; the historical average is 18 times earnings.

Advertisement

Investment managers also have become nervous about the concentration of market gains within the U.S. technology sector, especially in companies associated with artificial intelligence R&D. Fears that AI is an investment bubble that could take down the S&P’s highest fliers have investors looking elsewhere for returns.

But one factor recurs in almost all the market analyses tracking relative performance by U.S. and non-U.S. markets: Donald Trump.

Investors started 2025 with optimism about Trump’s influence on trading opportunities, given his apparent commitment to deregulation and his braggadocio about America’s dominant position in the world and his determination to preserve, even increase it.

That hasn’t been the case for months.

”The Trump trade is dead. Long live the anti-Trump trade,” Katie Martin of the Financial Times wrote this week. “Wherever you look in financial markets, you see signs that global investors are going out of their way to avoid Donald Trump’s America.”

Advertisement

Two Trump policy initiatives are commonly cited by wary investment experts. One, of course, is Trump’s on-and-off tariffs, which have left investors with little ability to assess international trade flows. The Supreme Court’s invalidation of most Trump tariffs and the bellicosity of his response, which included the immediate imposition of new 10% tariffs across the board and the threat to increase them to 15%, have done nothing to settle investors’ nerves.

Then there’s Trump’s driving down the value of the dollar through his agitation for lower interest rates, among other policies. For overseas investors, a weaker dollar makes U.S. assets more expensive relative to the outside world.

It would be one thing if trade flows and the dollar’s value reflected economic conditions that investors could themselves parse in creating a picture of investment opportunities. That’s not the case just now. “The current uncertainty is entirely man-made (largely by one orange-hued man in particular) but could well continue at least until the US mid-term elections in November,” Sam Burns of Mill Street Research wrote on Dec. 29.

Trump hasn’t been shy about trumpeting U.S. stock market gains as emblems of his policy wisdom. “The stock market has set 53 all-time record highs since the election,” he said in his State of the Union address Tuesday. “Think of that, one year, boosting pensions, 401(k)s and retirement accounts for the millions and the millions of Americans.”

Trump asserted: “Since I took office, the typical 401(k) balance is up by at least $30,000. That’s a lot of money. … Because the stock market has done so well, setting all those records, your 401(k)s are way up.”

Advertisement

Trump’s figure doesn’t conform to findings by retirement professionals such as the 401(k) overseers at Bank of America. They reported that the average account balance grew by only about $13,000 in 2025. I asked the White House for the source of Trump’s claim, but haven’t heard back.

Interpreting stock market returns as snapshots of the economy is a mug’s game. Despite that, at her recent appearance before a House committee, Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi tried to deflect questions about her handling of the Jeffrey Epstein records by crowing about it.

“The Dow is over 50,000 right now, she declared. “Americans’ 401(k)s and retirement savings are booming. That’s what we should be talking about.”

I predicted that the administration would use the Dow industrial average’s break above 50,000 to assert that “the overall economy is firing on all cylinders, thanks to his policies.” The Dow reached that mark on Feb. 6. But Feb. 11, the day of Bondi’s testimony, was the last day the index closed above 50,000. On Thursday, it closed at 49,499.50, or about 1.4% below its Feb. 10 peak close of 50,188.14.

To use a metric suggested by economist Justin Wolfers of the University of Michigan, if you invested $48,488 in the Dow on the day Trump took office last year, when the Dow closed at 48,448 points, you would have had $50,000 on Feb. 6. That’s a gain of about 3.2%. But if you had invested the same amount in the global stock market not including the U.S. (based on the MSCI World ex-USA index), on that same day you would have had nearly $60,000. That’s a gain of nearly 24%.

Advertisement

Broader market indices tell essentially the same story. From Jan. 17, 2025, the last day before Trump’s inauguration, through Thursday’s close, the MSCI US stock index gained a cumulative 16.3%. But the world index minus the U.S. gained nearly 42%.

The gulf between U.S. and non-U.S. performance has continued into the current year. The S&P 500 has gained about 0.74% this year through Wednesday, while the MSCI World ex-USA index has gained about 8.9%. That’s “the best start for a calendar year for global stocks relative to the S&P 500 going back to at least 1996,” Morningstar reports.

It wouldn’t be unusual for the discrepancy between the U.S. and global markets to shrink or even reverse itself over the course of this year.

That’s what happened in 2017, when overseas markets as tracked by MSCI beat the U.S. by more than three percentage points, and 2022, when global markets lost money but U.S. markets underperformed the rest of the world by more than five percentage points.

Economic conditions change, and often the stock markets march to their own drummers. The one thing less likely to change is that Trump is set to remain president until Jan. 20, 2029. Make your investment bets accordingly.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending