Connect with us

News

Nestlé CEO Mark Schneider to step down

Published

on

Nestlé CEO Mark Schneider to step down

Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free

Nestlé’s chief executive Mark Schneider has stepped down after eight years as head of the world’s largest food company, following a period of underperformance that has hit the company’s share price.

Schneider “has decided to relinquish his roles as CEO and member of the board of directors”, the company said on Thursday.

He will be replaced by Laurent Freixe, Nestlé’s executive vice-president and CEO in Latin America, who will begin in the role in September.

Advertisement

“Laurent is the perfect fit for Nestlé at this time. Under his leadership, Nestlé will further strengthen its position as a dependable, reliable company through consistent and sustainable value creation,” said chair Paul Bulcke.

Nestlé said that Schneider, who was previously chief executive of German healthcare company Fresenius, had helped shape the company’s portfolio by focusing on high-growth categories such as pet food, coffee and nutritional health.

For much of his tenure, the company, whose brands include Nescafé and KitKat, had outperformed many of its rivals in the consumer goods sector like Unilever. However, a string of mishaps and earnings misses disappointed investors and weighed on the share price, which has fallen 14 per cent over the past 12 months.

At the end of last year the company warned of a hit to sales after the integration of an IT system was botched, causing delays to its supply chains for vitamins and supplements. Then, earlier this year, Nestlé was investigated by French regulators for using illegal purification techniques on bottled mineral water.

The share price fell 6 per cent following the recent half-year earnings, after the group cut its sales outlook for the year, and after analysts concluded that its midterm growth forecast had been too ambitious.

Advertisement
Laurent Freixe has been Nestlé’s executive vice-president and CEO in Latin America © REUTERS

“After an increasingly difficult year, it’s not a total surprise to see a CEO change at Nestlé,” said Jefferies analyst David Hayes. When Mark Schneider was appointed, Freixe had also been a contender for the top job, he added.

“At the time, an outsider in Schneider was preferred — to shake things up. Freixe’s appointment today to us feels like a sign that the board wants to rebuild Nestlé culture,” he said.

Bernstein analyst Bruno Monteyne said that, if Schneider had been asked to step down by the board, this would have been a “harsh judgment”.

“Changing the chief executive isn’t going to change the categories they are in and the quality of the brands,” Monteyne said, adding that Schneider had a good record at the company.

Freixe, a Frenchman who joined the group almost four decades ago, has previously run its European and Americas businesses. “There will always be challenges, but we have unparalleled strengths . . . “ Freixe said. “We can strategically position Nestlé to lead and win everywhere we operate.”

Advertisement

Christopher Rossbach, portfolio manager at J Stern, a long-term holder of Nestlé, said he welcomed the appointment of Freixe, and believed he could get the business past its recent challenges. 

“Nestlé’s shares have sold off this year alongside other consumer products companies and are trading at multiyear valuation lows, both because of higher inflation and interest rates and the issues it has faced in its business,” he said. But that picture would improve as wages caught up with inflation, he added. 

News

Apple, Google tell workers on visas to avoid leaving the U.S. amid Trump immigration crackdown

Published

on

Apple, Google tell workers on visas to avoid leaving the U.S. amid Trump immigration crackdown

With reported months-long consulate and embassy delays, Google and Apple say employees on H-1B visas should stay put in the U.S. right now to avoid the risk of getting stranded abroad. The latter tech company’s headquarters campus is seen in Mountain View, Calif.

Justin Sullivan/Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

Apple and Google are warning some U.S-based employees on visas against traveling outside of the country to avoid the risk of getting stuck coming back, as the Trump administration toughens vetting of visa applicants, according to recent internal memos from the tech companies that were reviewed by NPR.

U.S. consulates and embassies have been reporting lengthy, sometimes months-long delays, for visa appointments following new rules from the Department of Homeland Security requiring travelers to undergo a screening of up to five years’ of their social media history — a move criticized by free speech advocates as a privacy invasion.

For Apple and Google, which together employ more than 300,000 employees and rely heavily on highly-skilled foreign workers, the increased vetting and reports of extended delays were enough for the companies to tell some of their staff to stay in the U.S. if they are able to avoid foreign travel.

Advertisement

“We recommend avoiding international travel at this time as you risk an extended stay outside of the U.S.,” Berry Appleman & Leiden, a law firm that works with Google, wrote to employees.

The law firm Fragomen, which works with Apple, wrote a similar message: “Given the recent updates and the possibility of unpredictable, extended delays when returning to the U.S., we strongly recommend that employees without a valid H-1B visa stamp avoid international travel for now,” the memo read. “If travel cannot be postponed, employees should connect with Apple Immigration and Fragomen in advance to discuss the risks.”

Apple and Google declined to comment on the advisories, which were first reported by Business Insider.

It’s the latest sign of how the Trump administration’s aggressive immigration policies are affecting the foreign-born workforce in the U.S.

Earlier this year, the White House announced that companies will be subjected to a $100,000 fee for all new H-1B visas, a type of visa popular among tech companies eager to hire highly skilled workers from abroad.

Advertisement

H-1Bs typically last three years, and applicants have to return to an embassy or consulate in their home country for a renewal, but reports suggest such a routine trip could lead to people being stranded for months as a result of the Trump administration’s new policies.

On Friday, The Washington Post reported that hundreds of visa holders who traveled to India to renew their H-1Bs had their appointments postponed with the State Department explaining that officials needed more time to ensure that no applicants “pose a threat to U.S. national security or public safety.”

At Google, the Alphabet Workers’ Union has been campaigning for additional protections for workers on H-1B visas. Those workers would be particularly vulnerable in the event Google carried out layoffs, since losing employer sponsorship could jeopardize their legal status, said Google software engineer Parul Koul, who leads the union.

The need to support H-1B holders at Google, she said, has “only become more urgent with all the scrutiny and heightened vetting by the Trump administration around the H1B program, and how the administration is coming for all other types of immigrant workers.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

U.S. launches strikes in Syria targeting Islamic State fighters after American deaths

Published

on

U.S. launches strikes in Syria targeting Islamic State fighters after American deaths

President Donald Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth salute as carry teams move the transfer cases with the remains of Iowa National Guard soldiers Sgt. William Nathaniel Howard, 29, of Marshalltown, Iowa, and Sgt. Edgar Brian Torres-Tovar, 25, of Des Moines, Iowa, and civilian interpreter Ayad Mansoor Sakat, who were killed in an attack in Syria, during a casualty return, Wednesday, Dec. 17, 2025 at Dover Air Force Base, Del.

Julia Demaree Nikhinson/AP


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Julia Demaree Nikhinson/AP

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration launched military strikes Friday in Syria to “eliminate” Islamic State group fighters and weapons sites in retaliation for an ambush attack that killed two U.S. troops and an American civilian interpreter almost a week ago.

A U.S. official described it as “a large-scale” strike that hit 70 targets in areas across central Syria that had IS infrastructure and weapons. Another U.S. official, who also spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive operations, said more strikes should be expected.

“This is not the beginning of a war — it is a declaration of vengeance. The United States of America, under President Trump’s leadership, will never hesitate and never relent to defend our people,” Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said on social media.

Advertisement

The new military operation in Syria comes even as the Trump administration has said it’s looking to focus closer to home in the Western Hemisphere, building up an armada in the Caribbean Sea as it targets alleged drug-smuggling boats and vowing to keep seizing sanctioned oil tankers as part of a pressure campaign on Venezuela’s leader. The U.S. has shifted significant resources away from the Middle East to further those goals: Its most advanced aircraft carrier arrived in South American waters last month from the Mediterranean Sea.

Trump vowed retaliation

President Donald Trump pledged “very serious retaliation” after the shooting in the Syrian desert, for which he blamed IS. Those killed were among hundreds of U.S. troops deployed in eastern Syria as part of a coalition fighting the militant group.

During a speech in North Carolina on Friday evening, the president hailed the operation as a “massive strike” that took out the “ISIS thugs in Syria who were trying to regroup.”

Earlier, in his social media post, he reiterated his backing for Syrian President Ahmad al-Sharaa, who Trump said was “fully in support” of the U.S. effort.

Trump also offered an all-caps threat, warning IS against attacking American personnel again.

Advertisement

“All terrorists who are evil enough to attack Americans are hereby warned — YOU WILL BE HIT HARDER THAN YOU HAVE EVER BEEN HIT BEFORE IF YOU, IN ANY WAY, ATTACK OR THREATEN THE U.S.A.,” the president added.

The attack was conducted using F-15 Eagle jets, A-10 Thunderbolt ground attack aircraft and AH-64 Apache helicopters, the U.S. officials said. F-16 fighter jets from Jordan and HIMARS rocket artillery also were used, one official added.

U.S. Central Command, which oversees the region, said in a social media post that American jets, helicopters and artillery employed more than 100 precision munitions on Syrian targets.

How Syria has responded

The attack was a major test for the warming ties between the United States and Syria since the ouster of autocratic leader Bashar Assad a year ago. Trump has stressed that Syria was fighting alongside U.S. troops and said al-Sharaa was “extremely angry and disturbed by this attack,” which came as the U.S. military is expanding its cooperation with Syrian security forces.

Syria’s foreign ministry in a statement on X following the launch of U.S. strikes said that last week’s attack “underscores the urgent necessity of strengthening international cooperation to combat terrorism in all its forms” and that Syria is committed “to fighting ISIS and ensuring that it has no safe havens on Syrian territory and will continue to intensify military operations against it wherever it poses a threat.”

Advertisement

Syrian state television reported that the U.S. strikes hit targets in rural areas of Deir ez-Zor and Raqqa provinces and in the Jabal al-Amour area near the historic city of Palmyra. It said they targeted “weapons storage sites and headquarters used by ISIS as launching points for its operations in the region.”

IS has not said it carried out the attack on the U.S. service members, but the group has claimed responsibility for two attacks on Syrian security forces since, one of which killed four Syrian soldiers in Idlib province. The group in its statements described al-Sharaa’s government and army as “apostates.” While al-Sharaa once led a group affiliated with al-Qaida, he has had a long-running enmity with IS.

The Americans who were killed

Trump this week met privately with the families of the slain Americans at Dover Air Force Base in Delaware before he joined top military officials and other dignitaries on the tarmac for the dignified transfer, a solemn and largely silent ritual honoring U.S. service members killed in action.

The guardsmen killed in Syria last Saturday were Sgt. Edgar Brian Torres-Tovar, 25, of Des Moines, and Sgt. William Nathaniel Howard, 29, of Marshalltown. Ayad Mansoor Sakat, of Macomb, Michigan, a U.S. civilian working as an interpreter, also was killed.

The shooting near Palmyra also wounded three other U.S. troops as well as members of Syria’s security forces, and the gunman was killed. The assailant had joined Syria’s internal security forces as a base security guard two months ago and recently was reassigned because of suspicions that he might be affiliated with IS, Interior Ministry spokesperson Nour al-Din al-Baba has said.

Advertisement

The man stormed a meeting between U.S. and Syrian security officials who were having lunch together and opened fire after clashing with Syrian guards.

Continue Reading

News

Trump’s push to end transgender care for young people opposed by pediatricians

Published

on

Trump’s push to end transgender care for young people opposed by pediatricians

A display at the Gender Health Program of Children’s Minnesota hospital. Under a proposed rule announced Thursday, a hospital will lose all its Medicaid and Medicare funding if it continues to provide gender-affirming care for trans people under age 18.

Selena Simmons-Duffin/NPR


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Selena Simmons-Duffin/NPR

Dr. Kade Goepferd watched the Trump administration’s moves on Thursday to ban gender-affirming care for transgender youth with “a mix of sadness and frustration.”

Goepferd, who is the founder of Children’s Minnesota Gender Health Program, says that for the medical community, nothing has changed about the evidence supporting gender-affirming care that could justify the government’s actions.

“There’s a massive propaganda and disinformation campaign that is selectively targeting this small population of already vulnerable kids and their families,” Goepferd says.

Advertisement

“Men are men”

Federal health officials said many times at Thursday’s announcement that their actions were driven by science and evidence, not politics or ideology. They frequently praised a report published by the Department of Health and Human Services in November. It concluded that clinicians who provide medical care to help youth transition have failed their patients and emphasized the benefits of psychotherapy as an alternative.

At times, health officials cast doubt on the idea that a person could be transgender at all.

“Men are men. Men can never become women. Women are women. Women can never become men,” said Acting CDC Director Jim O’Neill. He added that “the blurring of the lines between sexes” represented a “hatred for nature as God designed it.”

Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said doctors and medical groups had “peddled the lie” that these treatments could be good for children, and that those youth were “conditioned to believe that sex can be changed.”

Doctor groups disagree

The American Academy of Pediatrics, the medical group that represents 67,000 pediatricians across the country, pushed back forcefully on those characterizations.

Advertisement

“These policies and proposals misconstrue the current medical consensus and fail to reflect the realities of pediatric care and the needs of children and families,” said AAP President Dr. Susan J. Kressly in a statement. “These rules help no one, do nothing to address health care costs, and unfairly stigmatize a population of young people.”

AAP’s official position on this medical care is that it is safe and effective for the young people who need it. That view is shared by the American Medical Association, the Endocrine Society, among other medical organizations.

In a statement Thursday, the American Psychological Association wrote: “APA is deeply concerned about recent federal actions that not only challenge the scientific understanding of gender identity but also potentially jeopardize the human rights, psychological health, and well-being of transgender and nonbinary individuals.”

The most significant proposal released by HHS would withhold all Medicare and Medicaid funding from hospitals — a big portion of their budgets — if they provided gender-affirming care to those under age 18.

The Children’s Hospital Association said that rule — if finalized — would set a dangerous precedent. “Today’s proposed conditions make it possible for all kinds of specialized health care treatments to be withheld based on government-mandated rules,” wrote CEO Matthew Cook. “Millions of families could lose access to the care they need.”

Advertisement

After a 60-day comment period, the rules could be finalized and then take effect.

Attorneys general in New York and California have said they will fight these rules and protect the rights of trans people to get care in their states. The ACLU has vowed to sue, and more legal challenges are expected.

“I don’t want to be lost”

According to a CDC survey, about 3% of teenagers aged 13-17 identify as transgender, approximately 700,000 people. A poll from health research organization KFF found that less than a third of transgender people took medication related to their identity and 16% had had surgery.

For young people, medical options most commonly include puberty blockers and hormones. Surgery is very rare for minors. “This is health care that evolves over time, is individualized, tailored to a patient’s needs, often after years of relationship with a trusted health care team,” says Goepferd.

NPR spoke to a transgender 15-year old in California this week about the moves Trump administration officials were making to restrict care. “They think what I’m feeling is a phase and that my family should just wait it out and that it’s better I’m unhappy and never receive care,” he says. NPR agreed not to name him because of fears for his safety.

Advertisement

He says it can be difficult for those who are not transgender to understand that experience, but that, as far as he can tell, these health officials “are not interested in understanding trans people.”

He describes the long and deliberate process he made with his parents and doctors before he began taking testosterone. “The decision to not start gender-affirming care is often just as permanent as a decision to start it,” he says. “Not starting [hormone therapy], for some people, it feels like ruining our body, because there are certain changes we can never have.”

Now, after six months on testosterone, he feels like he’s on the right path, and is worried about the prospect of losing access to his medication if HHS’s efforts to shut down care nationally succeed. “It feels like someone’s throwing me into the bush just off the path I’m on, and that’s kind of terrifying,” he says. “I don’t want to be lost. I want to keep going where I’m going.”

“Deep moral distress”

More than half of states already ban gender-affirming care for young people after a frenzy of laws passed since 2021 in Republican-led states. This week, Republicans in the House led efforts to pass two federal bills that would restrict access to care, including one that could put doctors who provide the care in prison for up to ten years. It’s unclear if the bills will be voted on in the Senate.

Although nothing has officially changed in states where the care is still legal, these efforts to enact national restrictions have doctors and health systems in those states bracing for the possibility that their clinics will have to close down.

Advertisement
Dr. Kade Goepferd is standing in an exam room at Children's Minnesota hospital.

Dr. Kade Goepferd takes care of transgender and gender diverse young people at Children’s Minnesota hospital.
hide caption

toggle caption

“There’s a deep moral distress when you know that there is care that you can provide to young people that will measurably improve their health and the quality of their life, and you’re being restricted from doing that,” Goepferd of Children’s Minnesota says. “And there’s a moral distress in feeling like — as a hospital or a health care system — you have to restrict care that you’re providing to one population to remain financially viable to provide health care for other kids.”

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending