The playbook for modern marketing leaders. Learn how to adapt, realign your goals, and lead teams ready for 2026.

Subscribe to the Masters in Marketing newsletter for twice-weekly insights to keep your reset going.

Download The Playbook

What you need to know

The U.S. enters a new scientific era

The U.S. has triggered a scientific and technological shift of unusual scale, although few have absorbed its implications. The Department of Energy has unveiled the Genesis Mission, a coordinated national program that resembles a Manhattan Project for an era defined by artificial intelligence, fusion energy, advanced materials, and exascale computing.

Genesis is not a single research initiative. It is a national scientific grid that links forty thousand scientists across every U.S. national laboratory, together with the country’s most advanced quantum systems, supercomputers, and nuclear and fusion facilities.

For the first time, the entire federal scientific research ecosystem, including physics, chemistry, materials science, plasma science, climate modeling, biosciences, and weapons laboratories, is being connected to a unified computational engine for discovery.

Industry is being woven into the effort. The named collaborators form a rare concentration of frontier-technology firms: Albemarle, AMD, Amazon Web Services, Anthropic, Applied Materials, Atomic Canyon, AVEVA, Cerebras, Chemspeed, Cisco, Collins Aerospace, ComEd, Cornelis Networks, Critical Materials Recycling, Dell Technologies, Emerald Cloud Lab, EPRI, Esri, FutureHouse, GE Aerospace, Google, HPE, Hugging Face, IBM, ISO New England, Kitware, LILA, Micron, Microsoft, MP Materials, New York Creates, Niron Magnetics, Nokia, NVIDIA, Nusano, OLI Systems, OpenAI for Government, Phoenix Tailings, PMT Critical Metals, Qubit, Quantinuum, RadiaSoft, Ramaco, RTX, Sambanova, Scale AI, Semiconductor Industry Association, Siemens, Synopsys, TdVib, Tennessee Valley Authority, and xLight. Elon Musk’s companies do not appear at this stage.

Taken together, these groups form perhaps the most formidable science-industry coalition ever assembled. If Genesis succeeds, the U.S. will have built the most powerful scientific instrument ever created, a national discovery machine capable of doubling productivity in frontier research, accelerating breakthroughs in energy and materials, and enabling continuous moonshot-level experimentation rather than once-in-a-generation advances.

In practical terms, Genesis offers a route to U.S. energy dominance, shorter innovation cycles, and a renewed industrial base organized around computation. In such a world, compute becomes a strategic commodity, shaping geopolitical leverage, supply-chain resilience, and scientific advantage.

The comparison with the Manhattan Project is important. With this new initiative, the U.S. economy will effectively begin operating in a quasi-wartime industrial posture, without a formal declaration.

This is set to become the largest capital-expenditure cycle in the nation’s history, touching energy, defense, computing, mining, transmission, and industrial automation at the same time.

The implications are far-reaching. Genesis marks the start of a long industrial upswing in which compute, energy, and AI are fused into a single strategic system.

It’s the U.S. vs China, everyone else needs to choose a side

Ukraine accepts revised peace plan, no word from Russia

Ukraine has accepted the latest draft of the U.S.-brokered peace agreement, the most significant movement in negotiations since fighting intensified earlier this year.

The revised proposal includes concessions from Kyiv. Ukraine has agreed to cap the size of its armed forces at 800,000 personnel, a limit framed in Washington as a step toward long-term stabilization but viewed by some in Kyiv as a constraint on security.

At the same time, the amnesty clause for crimes committed during the war, criticized within Ukraine as a mechanism that could shield officials from corruption charges, has been removed from the document.

Progress on paper has coincided with a more complicated political atmosphere. The White House has announced that there will be no meeting between President Donald Trump and President Volodymyr Zelenskyy “in the near future,” a shift that limits Kyiv’s ability to shape terms directly at the highest level.

The domestic U.S. backdrop is equally complex. According to polling by The Vandenberg Coalition, Trump’s voters remain broadly supportive of continued pressure on Russia, even if opinions differ on how far Ukraine should compromise. Seventy-six percent of respondents support imposing additional sanctions on Russia, a figure unchanged since June 2025. Seventy-two percent of Trump voters say the U.S. should help Ukraine and hold Russia accountable for Vladimir Putin’s aggression, and more than half favor selling Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine. Only 16% agree that Ukraine should make territorial concessions, despite recurring debates in Washington about whether such concessions might form part of a settlement.

This leaves the administration navigating a narrow line, attempting to advance a negotiated settlement while maintaining domestic political support and avoiding accusations that Washington is forcing terms on Kyiv.

For Ukraine, the situation is equally delicate. Accepting troop caps and losing the amnesty clause narrows its room for maneuver, while the absence of a direct meeting with President Donald Trump complicates Zelenskyy’s efforts to secure the most favorable terms and avoid being railroaded by direct follow up negotiations between the White House and Kremlin.

Hence, Ukraine has played this well, coming out looking like a reasonable and pragmatic actor.

The big question is whether Russia will accept the deal, which differs substantially from the proposal circulated last week that was allegedly authored by Russian negotiators.

Our bet is that Russia will throw up obstacles.

Russia’s petrochemical exports collapse under new sanctions

Deliveries of Russian petrochemical products to Asian markets collapsed in November after the U.S. imposed sanctions on Rosneft and Lukoil, two of the country’s largest energy firms.

Shipments of naphtha, a key feedstock for plastics, chemicals and refined fuels, fell by 57% to India, 73.3% to China and 79.6% to Taiwan.

For an economy already strained by war spending, capital flight and limited access to global finance, the sudden contraction of exports in one of its most profitable sectors is another heavy blow.

Naphtha is not merely an oil product, it is a critical ingredient in Asia’s petrochemical industries. Russia had shifted its export focus to Asia after losing most of its European market, offering steep discounts to maintain cash flow. The newest sanctions disrupt the entire logistics chain: tankers refuse to load restricted cargo, insurers and shippers withdraw from transactions, and Asian refiners avoid exposure to secondary sanctions.

The slump in exports signals more than a temporary interruption. Petrochemical revenues help finance the federal budget and support hard-currency inflows at a time when the Kremlin is spending heavily on the war effort and domestic subsidies.

As revenue channels close, Moscow must divert more crude into underperforming domestic refining, accept deeper discounts or rely on intermediaries willing to assume sanctions risk for a premium.

Behind the headline figures lies a broader structural problem. Russia’s external position is narrowing quickly, its export portfolio is becoming more fragile and reliant on a shrinking group of buyers, and production constraints linked to equipment shortages and financing difficulties are becoming entrenched.

The economy continues to expand on paper only because it is running hotter, more militarized and more distorted.

Petrochemical exports were among the last pressure valves still functioning. Russia’s economy is in genuine trouble due to U.S. sanctions.

Instability from Sahel to Horn of Africa amid state fragility, Russian interference, & Islamist insurgencies

Sudan peace effort stalls as factions reject U.S. proposal

U.S. envoy Massad Boulos has confirmed that neither the Sudanese Armed Forces nor the Rapid Support Forces has accepted the latest American-proposed draft peace plan intended to halt Sudan’s war, a conflict now entering its twentieth month with no credible ceasefire in sight.

The refusal by both sides suggests that Washington’s attempt to revive diplomacy, after earlier initiatives in Jeddah and Cairo collapsed, confronts the same structural impediment that has thwarted every previous negotiation: neither faction believes it has exhausted its military options.

Diplomats familiar with the document say the U.S. proposal called for an immediate halt to fighting, the withdrawal of heavy weapons from urban districts and the creation of a monitored humanitarian corridor to allow food and medical supplies to reach besieged areas, notably Khartoum, Wad Madani and parts of Darfur.

Neither side accepted the terms. The Sudanese Armed Forces, led by Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, objected to provisions that would curtail their operational freedom around Port Sudan and restrict airstrikes in districts held by the RSF.

The RSF, commanded by Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo (Hemedti), rejected clauses that would compel it to withdraw from lucrative commercial zones in Darfur and relinquish control of checkpoints used to tax local trade.

Both factions appear to believe that accepting the draft would freeze the conflict at a moment when each hopes to improve its leverage on the battlefield.

The impasse leaves Sudan’s civilian population trapped between two entrenched military blocs. The war has already produced one of the world’s worst humanitarian emergencies, with famine warnings spreading across Darfur, Omdurman and parts of Kordofan. Large portions of the country are now administered by fragmented militias or improvised local authorities, while national institutions exist only nominally.

Washington’s task is made harder by a splintered diplomatic landscape. Egypt, the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia and regional organizations maintain separate channels to the warring parties, mostly with conflicting priorities. This divided mediation environment has enabled both factions to play outside actors against one another, delaying concessions and prolonging the conflict.

Boulos’s statement reflects a larger reality: neither Burhan nor Hemedti sees negotiation as advantageous at present. Unless battlefield conditions shift decisively, or regional patrons exert sustained pressure, the likelihood of either faction accepting a U.S.-brokered plan remains low. For now, Sudan’s war continues without a political horizon, and the humanitarian toll rises by the week.

Move fast and break things

EPA loosens rules on chemicals and air quality

The Environmental Protection Agency has opened the way for the use of pesticides that contain PFAS, the class of industrial compounds known as “forever chemicals” because they remain in soil, water and human tissue for decades.

The agency has approved two new pesticides that meet the PFAS definition, meaning they can be applied to crops such as romaine lettuce, broccoli and potatoes. The decision forms part of a broader effort to relax oversight of PFAS after years of attempts to tighten regulation under previous administrations.

Although data on the long-term effects of these specific pesticide formulations is limited, exposure to PFAS more generally has been linked by researchers to cancers, birth defects, reduced immune function and a range of metabolic disorders.

At the same time, the EPA is withdrawing from a separate rule designed to strengthen limits on fine-particle air pollution. The agency will no longer defend the Biden-era standards in court, a move that signals an intention to loosen thresholds for allowable soot emissions.

Fine-particle pollution, known as PM2.5, penetrates deep into the lungs and bloodstream and is associated with heart disease, stroke, asthma and premature death. Federal scientists have repeatedly concluded that tighter PM2.5 limits could save thousands of lives each year, particularly in urban and industrial regions.

Taken together, the two decisions point to a wider regulatory shift. Critics argue that reducing safeguards on both chemical exposure and airborne particulates will increase cumulative health risks, especially for communities already exposed to heavy industrial pollution.

Supporters inside the administration frame the changes as part of a broader effort to impose fewer constraints on agriculture, energy production and manufacturing.

FDA retreats from talc-testing rule

The Food and Drug Administration has withdrawn a Biden-era proposal that would have required cosmetic manufacturers to adopt standardized, federally approved testing methods for detecting asbestos in talc-based products.

The rule formed part of the Modernization of Cosmetics Regulation Act of 2022, the first significant overhaul of U.S. cosmetics oversight in decades, and was intended to address long-criticized gaps in how companies test for carcinogenic contamination in powders, makeup and personal-care items.

Under the discarded proposal, firms producing talc-containing cosmetics would have been obliged to use consistent, scientifically validated methods to detect even trace amounts of asbestos, a known carcinogen linked to ovarian cancer and mesothelioma.

Consumer advocates and toxicologists have long argued that the absence of a uniform testing standard allows manufacturers to rely on methods that are less sensitive or less rigorous, increasing the likelihood that contamination escapes detection.

In its announcement, the FDA argued that implementing the rule as written could produce “spillover effects” beyond the cosmetics sector.

Because talc is also used as an inactive ingredient in some drug formulations, mandatory testing protocols might have required changes to laboratory procedures, certification processes and manufacturing standards in the pharmaceutical industry.

According to the agency, those broader effects would conflict with the administration’s Make America Healthy Again policy framework, which seeks to reduce regulatory burdens on domestic producers of medical goods and dietary supplements.

Public-health organizations and scientific bodies say the withdrawal weakens one of the central safety provisions of the 2022 law and leaves consumers exposed to avoidable risks.

They note that asbestos contamination typically stems from talc mined near asbestos-bearing rock, and that without precise, standardized testing, even low levels of contamination can enter consumer products. Industry representatives counter that the FDA’s decision avoids imposing costly testing requirements that could disrupt supply chains in both cosmetics and pharmaceuticals.

For now, the FDA says it will revisit how to address asbestos risks in talc-containing cosmetics under an approach that does not prompt unintended consequences for other sectors.

Under threat worldwide

EU chat control returns through quieter channels

The European Union’s “chat control” proposal, which sought to oblige platforms such as WhatsApp, Signal, and iMessage to scan private messages for illegal content, appeared to collapse last month after a bloc of member states rejected it on grounds of privacy, encryption, proportionality, and technical feasibility.

Despite that setback, the initiative has not disappeared. It has instead moved into quieter forums where the same ambitions are being advanced through different methods.

The European Commission, supported by governments including France and Spain, is examining ways to promote the “voluntary” adoption of scanning tools by messaging services, a tactic that critics describe as a backdoor to normalizing mass surveillance without securing Parliament’s approval.

Internal drafts circulating in Council working groups also suggest attempts to recast parts of the measure so that scanning would occur through “risk-based” assessments or “detection orders” rather than blanket requirements, preserving much of the original intent while avoiding politically sensitive language about encryption.

Concerns are not limited to civil-liberties groups. The Dutch General Intelligence and Security Service, the AIVD, has advised against the proposal because of what it describes as very high risks to digital resilience.

The debate has shifted into technical committees, digital-safety rulemaking, and Europol consultations, well away from public scrutiny.

This reflects a wider pattern in EU policymaking: when a contentious proposal falters in open debate, its components often reappear through technical standards, parallel legislation, or regulatory pressure.

In this instance, the institutional appetite for broader digital-policing powers and access to encrypted communications remains strong, so revised forms of the proposal continue to surface even after its initial version was rejected.

Center of Gravity sign up link: https://www.namea-group.com/the-daily-brief