Published June 5, 2025 10:00am EDT close Don’t be so quick to click that Google calendar invite. It could be a hacker’s trap Cybercriminals are sending fake meeting invitations that seem legitimate. NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles! Americans’ personal data is now spread across more digital platforms than ever. From online shopping habits to fitness tracking logs, personal information ends up in hundreds of company databases. While most people worry about social media leaks or email hacks, a far less visible threat comes from data brokers.I still find it hard to believe that companies like this are allowed to operate with so little legal scrutiny. These firms trade in personal information without our knowledge or consent. What baffles me even more is that they aren’t serious about protecting the one thing that is central to their business model: data. Just last year, we saw news of a massive data breach at a data broker called National Public Data, which exposed 2.7 billion records. And now another data broker, LexisNexis, a major name in the industry, has reported a significant breach that exposed sensitive information from more than 364,000 people. A hacker at work (Kurt "CyberGuy" Knutsson)LexisNexis breach went undetected for months after holiday hackLexisNexis filed a notice with the Maine attorney general revealing that a hacker accessed consumer data through a third-party software development platform. The breach happened on Dec. 25, 2024, but the company only discovered it months later. LexisNexis was alerted on April 1, 2025, by an unnamed individual who claimed to have found sensitive files. It remains unclear whether this person was responsible for the breach or merely came across the exposed data.MASSIVE DATA BREACH EXPOSES 184 MILLION PASSWORDS AND LOGINSA spokesperson for LexisNexis confirmed that the hacker gained access to the company’s GitHub account. This is a platform commonly used by developers to store and collaborate on code. Security guidelines repeatedly warn against storing sensitive information in such repositories; however, mistakes such as exposed access tokens and personal data files continue to occur.The stolen data varies from person to person but includes full names, birthdates, phone numbers, mailing and email addresses, Social Security numbers and driver's license numbers. LexisNexis has not confirmed whether it received any ransom demand or had further contact with the attacker. An individual working on their laptop (Kurt "CyberGuy" Knutsson)Why the LexisNexis hack is a bigger threat than you realizeLexisNexis isn’t a household name for most people, but it plays a major role in how personal data is harvested and used behind the scenes. The company pulls information from a wide range of sources, compiling detailed profiles that help other businesses assess risk and detect fraud. Its clients include banks, insurance companies and government agencies.In 2023, the New York Times reported that several car manufacturers had been sharing driving data with LexisNexis without notifying vehicle owners. That information was then sold to insurance companies, which used it to adjust premiums based on individual driving behavior. The story made one thing clear. LexisNexis has access to a staggering amount of personal detail, even from people who have never willingly engaged with the company.Law enforcement also uses LexisNexis tools to dig up information on suspects. These systems offer access to phone records, home addresses and other historical data. While such tools might assist in investigations, they also highlight a serious issue. When this much sensitive information is concentrated in one place, it becomes a single point of failure. And as the recent breach shows, that failure is no longer hypothetical. A hacker at work (Kurt "CyberGuy" Knutsson)7 expert tips to protect your personal data after a data broker breachKeeping your personal data safe online can feel overwhelming, but a few practical steps can make a big difference in protecting your privacy and reducing your digital footprint. Here are 7 effective ways to take control of your information and keep it out of the wrong hands:1. Remove your data from the internet: The most effective way to take control of your data and avoid data brokers from selling it is to opt for data removal services. While no service promises to remove all your data from the internet, having a removal service is great if you want to constantly monitor and automate the process of removing your information from hundreds of sites continuously over a longer period of time. Check out my top picks for data removal services here.Get a free scan to find out if your personal information is already out on the web.2. Review privacy settings: Take a few minutes to explore the privacy and security settings on the services you use. For example, limit who can see your social media posts, disable unnecessary location-sharing on your phone and consider turning off ad personalization on accounts like Google and Facebook. Most browsers let you block third-party cookies or clear tracking data. The FTC suggests comparing the privacy notices of different sites and apps and choosing ones that let you opt out of sharing when possible.3. Use privacy-friendly tools: Install browser extensions or plugins that block ads and trackers (such as uBlock Origin or Privacy Badger). You might switch to a more private search engine (like DuckDuckGo or Brave) that doesn’t log your queries. Consider using a browser’s "incognito" or private mode when you don’t want your history saved, and regularly clear your cookies and cache. Even small habits, like logging out of accounts when not in use or using a password manager, make you less trackable.GET FOX BUSINESS ON THE GO BY CLICKING HERE4. Beware of phishing links and use strong antivirus software: Scammers may try to get access to your financial details and other important data using phishing links. The best way to safeguard yourself from malicious links is to have antivirus software installed on all your devices. This protection can also alert you to phishing emails and ransomware scams, keeping your personal information and digital assets safe. Get my picks for the best 2025 antivirus protection winners for your Windows, Mac, Android and iOS devices.5. Be cautious with personal data: Think twice before sharing extra details. Don’t fill out online surveys or quizzes that ask for personal or financial information unless you trust the source. Create separate email addresses for sign-ups (so marketing emails don’t go to your main inbox). Only download apps from official stores and check app permissions.6. Opt out of data broker lists: Many data brokers offer ways to opt out or delete your information, though it can be a tedious process. For example, there are sites like Privacy Rights Clearinghouse or the Whitepages opt-out page that list popular brokers and their opt-out procedures. The FTC’s consumer guide, "Your Guide to Protecting Your Privacy Online," includes tips on opting out of targeted ads and removing yourself from people-search databases. Keep in mind you may have to repeat this every few months.7. Be wary of mailbox communications: Bad actors may also try to scam you through snail mail. The data leak gives them access to your address. They may impersonate people or brands you know and use themes that require urgent attention, such as missed deliveries, account suspensions and security alerts.Kurt’s key takeawayFor many, the LexisNexis breach may be the first time they realize just how much of their data is in circulation. Unlike a social media platform or a bank, there is no clear customer relationship with a data broker, and that makes it harder to demand transparency. This incident should prompt serious discussion around what kind of oversight is necessary in industries that operate in the shadows. A more informed public and stronger regulation may be the only things standing between personal data and permanent exposure.CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APPShould companies be allowed to sell your personal information without your consent? Let us know by writing us atCyberguy.com/Contact.For more of my tech tips and security alerts, subscribe to my free CyberGuy Report Newsletter by heading to Cyberguy.com/Newsletter.Ask Kurt a question or let us know what stories you'd like us to cover.Follow Kurt on his social channels:Answers to the most-asked CyberGuy questions:New from Kurt:Copyright 2025 CyberGuy.com. All rights reserved. Kurt "CyberGuy" Knutsson is an award-winning tech journalist who has a deep love of technology, gear and gadgets that make life better with his contributions for Fox News & FOX Business beginning mornings on "FOX & Friends." Got a tech question? Get Kurt’s free CyberGuy Newsletter, share your voice, a story idea or comment at CyberGuy.com.

Scandinavia’s premiere design festival 3 Days of Design began with a quartet of Danish brands—Anker & Co., Kvadrat, Erik Jørgensen, and Montana—11 years ago. In editions since, its hundreds of brands and twice as many events take over Copenhagen, spilling out of the Scandi city’s storefronts, showrooms, museums, and restaurants. This year, most events are open to the public and are set to take place June 18–20.Join NowAD PRO members enjoy exclusive benefits. Get a year of unlimited access for $25 $20 per month.ArrowNew to the event? Or thrilled to return to one of the world’s most inspiring design locations? AD PRO’s got you covered, with all the must-sees and should-do’s at 3 Days of Design 2025, as well as hot tips on where to rest and restore amidst the buzzy fair.What to know about 3 Days of DesignAll events are free, but visitors are encouraged to download the 3DD app and register via a QR ticket system for more seamless access to all the fun. Getting from event to event is also a breeze: Copenhagen is one of the world’s most bike-friendly cities—and it’s quite walkable too. (Check the fair’s Design Walks program for specially coordinated tours.) For further jaunts, the city’s metro system allows for easy transfers between districts—although taking a boat from neighborhood to neighborhood is an even better way to see the sights.Where to eat, drink, and stayThe UNESCO World Capital of Architecture is the living heart of Scandi chic, so you might as well stay at a historic MCM landmark: Arne Jacobsen’s 1956 SAS Royal, said to be the world’s first design hotel and refreshed in 2018 by Space Copenhagen as the Radisson Collection Royal Hotel, Copenhagen. Meanwhile, Swedish architect Gert Wingårdh’s Nobis Hotel is an elegant respite just off of Tivoli Gardens, and the freshly renovated Villa Copenhagen emits quintessential Danish ease within the city’s former Central Post & Telegraph Head Office.For cozier surrounds, check into Hotel Sanders, an antique-layered retreat by Brit firm Lind + Almond. Or for a bit more future-focused, try the houseboat hotel Kaj, floating just minutes from the Opera House.Foodwise, start your day with the city’s beloved bakeri culture. Brave the crowds for an early-morning cardamom bun at the landmark Juno the Bakery and the crisp kouign-amann at Andersen & Milland. Come lunchtime, score a sandwich at Lille, which slices up a revelatory rye bread fit for a picnic Smørrebrød feast on the water, or stop by Selma, where the menu changes with the season. Then top off your evening with a glass or two at natural-wine hot spot Pompette.Design happenings not to missOut and aboutMikkel Karstad, pictured, will be chefing it up in the Kvadrat showroom (Pakhus 48, Klubiensvej 22) throughout 3 Days. Photography courtesy of KvadratOne of Heather Chontos’s new rugs for Layered, which will be showcasing at Copenghagen’s Kismet Café. Photography courtesy of LayeredThe 3 Days of Design 2025 design festival celebrations will begin on June 16, at Frama’s chic Bar Vitrine aperitivo. The following evening Copenhagen-based label Louise Roe will preview new products, including a wall lamp, blown-glass vase, and stone table, at an alfresco cocktail party in its courtyard. On June 18, 3 Days of Design officially kicks off at the Vipp Garage HQ, where the studio will unveil a guesthouse installation and line of limited-edition products, both designed in collaboration with AD100 Studio KO. From there, make like a local and take a quick bicycle ride to Louis Poulsen’s showroom for a special light installation by Danish fashion designer Henrik Vibskov. That evening, Kvadrat and Vitra’s joint launch party at the former’s showroom in Nordhavn will fete new textile launches, including an attractive, high-performance acoustic curtain. Afterwards, stop by Audo House—the private residence, concept shop, restaurant, and garden, all decorated by furniture company Audo—to see it freshly renovated at the hands of local talent Norm Architects. The house is open June 18 through 20—and Audo is hosting an evening soirée there on June 19. Meanwhile, Swedish brand Svenskt Tenn’s 3 Days of Design debut at a private apartment in Christianshavn will also be a must-see, especially for Josef Frank aficionados.

Billionaire Elon Musk has countered president Donald Trump's threat to "terminate Elon’s Governmental Subsidies and Contracts," in spectacular fashion: by threatening to cut off the United States' access to outer space."In light of the President’s statement about cancellation of my government contracts, SpaceX will begin decommissioning its Dragon spacecraft immediately," Musk tweeted.But it didn't take him long to blink. A few hours later — and after the publication of this story — Musk reversed course, agreeing to "cool off" and saying that "we won't decommission Dragon."That's not surprising. As executives at SpaceX no doubt desperately tried to explain to him after the dustup, the company would be in terrible danger without all the money it gets from NASA.And if Musk were to make good on his threat, the United States' space program could experience a setback of epic proportions. SpaceX's Dragon spacecraft has quickly become the de facto method for NASA astronauts to travel to the International Space Station.In other words, the threat could prevent American astronauts from visiting the space station — especially considering that the only other American option, Boeing's Starliner, is likely still years away from becoming a viable alternative, if ever.It was a significant escalation in a major falling out between the world's most powerful man and its richest one. The pair have been openly feuding about Trump's so-called "big, beautiful bill," culminating in threats and personal attacks.The collateral damage of the feud could be enormous, particularly for the US space program.Ars Technica's Eric Berger suggested that Trump ripping up Musk's government contracts "would both end the International Space Station and simultaneously provide no way to safely deorbit it.""This just gets better and better," Musk replied in a laughing emoji-laden tweet. "Go ahead, make my day…"The news comes after the Trump administration abruptly pulled its nominee for the NASA administrator role, Jared Isaacman.Isaacman, who was hand-picked by Musk, has been to space twice with the help of SpaceX.The news greatly angered Musk, causing him to go on a crusade against Trump's tax bill.Musk's latest threats to decommission SpaceX's Dragon spacecraft could put the Trump administration and NASA in an extremely unfortunate position. Apart from Boeing's much-maligned Starliner, which has yet to complete a successful crewed mission to the ISS, the only alternative to send astronauts to the space station is Russia's Soyuz spacecraft.While the station's days are already numbered — NASA recently awarded SpaceX a contract to decommission the orbital lab in 2030 — continuing operations could prove extremely difficult without Dragon.But whether Musk will make good on his threat remains to be seen, especially considering the billionaire has a lengthy track record of making empty promises.Apart from vowing to decommission Dragon, Musk also attempted to smear Trump's name by arguing that he's "in the Epstein files.""This is the real reason they have not been made public," he tweeted. "Have a nice day, DJT!"Musk is clearly out for blood, even officially calling for Trump to be impeached and replaced by his vice president JD Vance.Who will emerge victorious is anybody's guess. If there's one certainty, it won't be NASA. The agency is expected to be hit by brutal cuts that could lay waste to dozens of space missions.Share This Article

The wait is almost over – Nintendo’s Switch 2 officially ships starting today, and the gaming community is electrified with anticipation. With its announcement sending shockwaves through the industry, the Switch 2 promises upgraded hardware, enhanced graphics, and a fresh wave of exclusive titles that have fans and newcomers alike counting down the hours. Social media and gaming forums are buzzing with unboxing plans, early impressions from pre-release units, and speculation about which features will define this next generation of hybrid gameplay. As any veteran Switch owner knows, the right accessories can dramatically enhance the gaming experience, and the Switch 2 is no exception. Whether it’s for extended play sessions at home, on-the-go protection, or boosting multiplayer fun, accessories are the unsung heroes that maximize the console’s potential. From ergonomic thumb grips and bumper cases to game-cartridge-holders, a well-equipped setup can make all the difference – and JSAUX seems to have everything sorted. Designer: JSAUX 1. JSAUX Carrying Case for Nintendo Switch 2 No one wants to risk their brand-new Switch 2 rattling around in a flimsy pouch. JSAUX’s Carrying Case ditches the generic for a custom-molded fit, wrapping your console in thick, dual-layer EVA hard-shell that shrugs off drops and shields against everyday scuffs. The plush microfiber lining is a small luxury, keeping your screen pristine even after you inevitably toss the case into a crowded backpack. There’s room for everything you actually need: 15 game card slots, a mesh pocket for cables and earbuds, and enough space for your Switch 2 with its own protective case attached. JSAUX nails the details with a smooth dual zipper, a Velcro strap to keep your console locked in place, and an adjustable stand that turns any table into a mobile gaming station. Whether you’re heading out for a weekend or just want to keep your gear tidy at home, the comfortable handle and detachable shoulder strap make carrying a breeze. It’s protection, organization, and a flex of practicality, without the bulk. Why We Recommend It This is the Switch 2 case for real-world gamers – the ones who actually take their console outside, swap cartridges in weird places, and need gear that isn’t just stylish, but built for chaos. The customizable storage and soft-but-tough protection mean your Switch 2 and accessories survive every bump, drop, or accidental coffee spill. It’s the kind of case that lets you focus on the game, not what’s happening to your hardware. Click Here to Buy Now: $14.39 $21.99 (34% off, use coupon code “JSSWITCH2”). This code can be stacked with existing product deals or discounts. Hurry, deal ends in 48-hours! 2. JSAUX 3-Pack Tempered Glass Screen Protector for Nintendo Switch 2 You know the moment you peel the plastic off a brand-new console? That pristine look deserves to last. JSAUX’s Tempered Glass Screen Protector for Switch 2 nails that first-day shine with edge-to-edge coverage, engineered specifically for Nintendo’s 2025 flagship. The guide frame makes installation foolproof – seriously, it’s almost impossible to misalign or trap bubbles, even if you’re all thumbs and shaky from launch-day excitement. Once on, the 99% transparency keeps every pixel crisp and colors vibrant, so Breath of the Wild 2 or Mario Kart pop just like on day one. Built from dual-tempered 9H glass, it shrugs off scratches, rogue keys, and the random chaos of backpack travel. The 0.3mm thickness is as subtle as it gets – no loss of touch accuracy, no weird drag. And thanks to a nano-oleophobic coating, smudges wipe away quickly, so you’re never gaming through a fingerprint haze. Whether you’re marathon grinding or passing the Switch to a pizza-fingered friend, this protector is ready for real-world gaming. Why We Recommend It Forget triple-checking your bag for sharp objects – this JSAUX screen protector means your Switch 2 just isn’t precious anymore, it’s practical. Installation is stress-free, the display stays flawless, and your frantic touchscreen mashing never feels laggy. For anyone tired of treating their console like fine china, this is the protection that lets you just play. Click Here to Buy Now: $5.59 $9.99 (44% off, use coupon code “JSSWITCH2”). This code can be stacked with existing product deals or discounts. Hurry, deal ends in 48 hours! 3. JSAUX Protective Case Compatible with Nintendo Switch 2 Skip the bulky bricks—this JSAUX Protective Carry Case is precision-engineered for the Switch 2 and the Switch 2 only. You get a snug, movement-free fit that feels purpose-built because it is, and it won’t work with any extra shells or cases. The hard PC exterior shrugs off scratches, dust, and splashes, holding up under café tables and cross-country flights alike. Inside, soft silicone strips keep your Switch 2 floating safely, while the clever raised sections mean your joysticks never take the brunt of an accidental bump. Traveling light? The detachable wrist strap is a small convenience that makes a big difference, and the slim profile means this case slides into any backpack or shoulder bag without hogging space. Built-in game card slots are a thoughtful touch – no more loose cartridges rattling around or getting lost in the depths of your bag. It’s the kind of accessory that makes daily Switch 2 use seamless, keeping your console clean, protected, and always ready to play. Why We Recommend It No-nonsense protection, zero wasted space. This case is for people who toss their Switch 2 into a bag and actually live life. The fit is tight, the shell is tough, and the joystick protection is smarter than most cases twice the price. Game card slots mean your library travels with you, not in a Ziploc. It’s the everyday armor you don’t have to think about, but you’ll notice the moment you need it. Click Here to Buy Now: $13.59 $25.99 (47% off, use coupon code “JSSWITCH2”). This code can be stacked with existing product deals or discounts. Hurry, deal ends in 48-hours! 4. JSAUX Thumb Grips for Nintendo Switch 2 If you’ve ever wished for a thumbstick upgrade on the Switch 2, these JSAUX Thumb Grips are as close as it gets to pro-level control, without needing a soldering iron or a warranty-voiding moment. Designed specifically for the Nintendo Switch 2, they snap on with a reassuring snugness and stay put through frantic boss fights or marathon Splatoon sessions. Three sizes (1, 2, and 3) are included in the kit, so you can fine-tune each stick for your hand size and play style – no more settling for “one size fits all” discomfort. Function isn’t sacrificed for comfort, either. The soft-touch finish and sculpted ergonomic shape actually take the edge off finger fatigue, so you can grind through RPGs or rack up wins in fighters without your thumb locking up. Each cap height serves a purpose: short for fast, twitchy moves in action games, tall for accuracy and steady aim in shooters, original size to simply boost grip. Mix and match to build your own hybrid layout. Why We Recommend It Who knew a 10-second upgrade could totally shift your game? These JSAUX Thumb Grips for Switch 2 let you dial in comfort and precision, whether you’re craving snap reflexes in Smash or pixel-perfect aim in Splatoon. No slipping, no awkward fit, no thumb fatigue after hours – just that satisfying soft grip and a custom feel that actually matches your play style. For anyone tired of stock sticks, this is the tweak you’ll wish you’d made sooner. Click Here to Buy Now: $6.39 $12.99 (50% off, use coupon code “JSSWITCH2”). This code can be stacked with existing product deals or discounts. Hurry, deal ends in 48-hours! 5. JSAUX Dockable Case for Nintendo Switch 2 The JSAUX Protective Case for Nintendo Switch 2 is engineered for gamers who want real protection without sacrificing style or convenience. Its split design means you can effortlessly detach the JoyCons without wrestling with stubborn plastic, and the ultra-thin 1mm PC back shell slides right into the official dock – no need to remove the case every time you charge or play on the big screen. The U-shaped cutout perfectly frames the Switch 2’s built-in kickstand, so you can go from handheld to tabletop mode in seconds, without ever fumbling or forcing a fit. Hybrid construction is the secret sauce here. The JoyCon covers fuse a transparent, scratch-resistant PC front with a soft-touch TPU back, letting the Switch 2’s design shine while adding grip and comfort for marathon sessions. Every port and button stays fully accessible thanks to precise cutouts, and popping the covers on or off is a breeze. No more risking cracked clips or flaky plastic – just smooth, reliable protection dialed in for everyday use. Why We Recommend It Forget clunky cases that ruin the Switch’s sleek vibe or force you to undock every time you want to play on your TV. JSAUX nails the essentials: dock-friendly fit, proper grip, zero interference with the kickstand, and a clear finish that doesn’t hide your console’s good looks. It’s protection that respects the Switch 2’s design – no bulk, no hassle, just smart, seamless defense you barely notice until you need it. Click Here to Buy Now: $12.99 $19.99 (35% off, use coupon code “JSSWITCH2”). This code can be stacked with existing product deals or discounts. Hurry, deal ends in 48-hours!The post Don’t Unbox Your Nintendo Switch 2 Without These Gaming Accessories first appeared on Yanko Design.

5 June, 2025 In this series, Clare Dowdy speaks with design studios that are 30+ years old, to find out some of the secrets behind their longevity. Michael Johnson set up his London-based brand consultancy Johnson Banks in 1992. From Duolingo to Pink Floyd, Cancer Research UK to the Royal Astronomical Society, the studio works with “people who want to do big things.” He sat down with Clare Dowdy to discuss what he’s learned over the past 33 years. Michael Johnson How did Johnson Banks come about? My 20s were very turbulent: eight jobs in eight years, a lot of different countries, different cities, learning on the job. My last job – at Smith & Milton – was relatively settled, I was kind of running a corporate design department. I had a client there, Tom Banks. After I left, he also left his role at Legal & General with the projects I had been working on, and we used that as a basis for the company. That was 1992, the back end of a recession. For a couple of years, everything was fine. Then we started having “creative differences.” And the pressures of running a tiny design company are substantial. So we parted ways in 1995, but I kept the name. Johnson Banks’ symbol for the V&A’s William Morris show At that time, we weren’t really in the branding world. For a decade, we were very distracted by getting on the graphic design map, trying to win D&AD awards, doing lovely stamp projects. And then we started to get some cultural projects: the V&A and the British Council. I started to think, OK, now we’re beginning to show what we can do. When and why did you start thinking seriously about your strategy offering? When we started to get into the branding arena, I knew we were underpowered in terms of the strategic thinking. I may have thought that I could do it, but it takes a bit to persuade clients when you’re 35, with hair almost down to your knees. If you’re up against important-looking people who can field a few grey hairs, you’re going to lose that pitch. So we partnered with strategic companies like management consultancy Circus, and followed that model for much of the 2000s. That led to the Shelter rebrand, and a few other quite big branding projects followed. Johnson Banks’ visual identity for Shelter Eventually we realised that we could do the strategy ourselves. I had sometimes been a little frustrated by the work that my strategic partners – naming no names – were doing. It sounds a bit mean, but sometimes I would get this 90-page PowerPoint document from them, and I’d put it on my designers’ desks, and their faces would go blank. I think that 20 years ago, there was still a bit of the idea that you’ve paid £100,000, so here’s your huge document. We slowly realised that if we were in control of the process, and were involved all the way through, then that jump out of the verbal brand to the visual brand could be much better managed. How did you rethink your strategy offer? The penny dropped in the mid-2000s when we worked with Save The Children. At the time, and I don’t think they’d mind me saying this, Save The Children were a bit of a basket case. They were associated with WI fairs and cake baking, and they had a royal as their patron – they were nothing like what they are now. I realised we needed to work out what they stood for before we did any design. I did this huge chart, and stuck it on a wall at the client’s office. And I said, it strikes me that there are strategic choices that you have got to make as a comms team about where you want to take the Save the Children brand. Johnson Banks’ poster for Save the Children That was an incredibly productive meeting, and also it helped us realise that before we got anywhere near the design, we needed to sort this out. I know that sounds like really basic stuff now. I didn’t trust my instinct for a decade or so, but in that Save the Children meeting, a light bulb went on for me. Once you’d worked out how to do strategy in-house why didn’t you scale up? A lot of companies would have done that. That’s how companies grow, and can end up quite quickly at 60 people. We have nearly always been around six to eight people. Because I could bridge that gap between the verbal and the visual, it meant we didn’t need to add people. And I’ve discovered over the last 25 years, that with a really good account director, Katherine Heaton, and me, and a design team, there is a heck of a lot that we can do. So we stayed small and partnered with filmmakers, animators, cultural specialists. Post-pandemic, a lot of people have adopted that hub and spoke model – we did it 20 years ago. Probably twice a year we’ll lose a pitch because of our scale. But conversely, with some clients you can sell in the fact that they’ll always deal with Michael Johnson. They’re not going to be handed down the chain, because there is no chain. Johnson Banks’ logos for Jodrell Bank Alongside this direct contact with you, what’s your main selling point? It seems to be that we think pretty hard about stuff. We almost never jump into design. A lot of thought goes into what we do, sometimes way too much. Sometimes our projects are incredibly difficult, gargantuan, intertwined and really hard to unpick. That’s a slightly poisoned chalice, because then people go, gosh, well, if they could unpick that, then they could unpick our Gordian knot. For example, we’re working on a major London university brand at the moment that has over 60,000 staff and students, 11 faculties, and hundreds of centres and institutes and departments, and we’re trying to navigate a way through. How did you work out what you wanted to specialise in? Sometimes you can get sucked into something that you just don’t want to be doing. By the end of the 1990s, Johnson Banks had got a reputation for doing annual reports. Part of me quite liked doing them because there was an interplay between words and pictures. And we were getting senior level access to clients, which makes you feel a bit better, because you’re having an interface with chief executives. But then I was thinking, hang on, we’re in danger of getting stuck here, because of course, they’re cyclical. And the death of the annual report – and the death of print – was coming over the horizon, with the internet. Johnson Banks’ Annual Report for Polygram (1995) Since then, my interests have changed. I do not have any interest any more in doing awful blue chips or terrible fintechs. I want to apply all the comms and the branding that I’ve learned to people who could really use it – not-for-profit, culture, education, philanthropy. You know, doing good. How did you build up this not-for-profit work? You lean into the referrals you’ll inevitably get within silos where you want to be referred. I learned this from Mary Lewis of Lewis Moberly. We were pretty close in the 1990s and she always said that referral business is the best business. Over 85% of our clients are not-for-profit – most design companies have a 20-80 split between non-profits and commercial clients. I never liked that ratio, what you might cruelly call ‘the Robin Hood principle’ – we are going to steal from our luxury car account and give to the charity. We did do a bit of that for a while. We did an airline in 2009/10 at the same time we were doing charities. I would justify that with the Robin Hood principle, but I just felt more and more uncomfortable with that. Johnson Banks’ campaign visuals for Cancer Research UK As our percentages went up and up in not-for-profit, eventually I said, look, we should just tell people this is who we are, and this is what we do. It was obvious anyway, so let’s be explicit about it. A few people said we were crazy, that we’d never get any work. But the reverse has been the case. We’re on our sixth environmental project. If you say this is what we want to do, and this is what we will do for you, then I think, funnily enough, clients find that very helpful. How did you build up to bigger projects? Let’s take education. We’ve done three or four really interesting campaigns for universities and now we’re in the position where we can do university rebrands, and have won a top 10 global university. But it has taken 15 years of education work to get to that point. I may not have thought that it would take quite so long to persuade people that we could do their identity. But education is a very conservative sector, and moves slowly, like museums and galleries. If you’re small, you can afford for a sector to move slowly, whereas bigger agencies need a pipeline. I’ve watched dozens of companies get to this critical point where they’ve grown and grown and then they’ve just fallen off the cliff because they’ve been feeding the monster. To help with that, agencies often add a new business person. No-one ever talks about this, but a new business person costs around £50,000. The rule of thumb, in my world at least, is that you have to take that salary and triple it with turnover to pay that salary. So you need £150,000 worth of projects to pay for the new business person before you’ve made a penny. So to make a profit, the new business person has to bring in over £200,000 of work. And if this person can do it, which is not guaranteed, then the company has to scale. It’s so easy to get caught on a treadmill. What else has helped you stay in business so long? We’ve always led with the thought behind the idea, not the way it looked. Because I was always much more interested in the idea behind something, I think that has helped us not get sucked into the visual, to use the type face du jour, the colour that everyone else is using. And it’s understandable, because graphic designers want to do stuff that their peers really like. But paradoxically the trick, in my opinion, is to try and zag away from the trends. Create a new trend yourself. Johnson Banks’ globe symbol for the COP 26 climate conference Design disciplines in this article Industries in this article Brands in this article What to read next Neville Brody on clients, education, and his unexpected OBE Graphic Design 30 Jan, 2025

It’s easy to look at President Donald Trump’s second term and conclude that the less power and reach the federal government has, the better. After all, a smaller government might provide Trump or someone like him with fewer opportunities to disrupt people’s lives, leaving America less vulnerable to the whims of an aspiring autocrat. Weaker law-enforcement agencies could lack the capacity to enforce draconian policies. The president would have less say in how universities like Columbia conduct their business if they weren’t so dependent on federal funding. And he would have fewer resources to fundamentally change the American way of life.Trump’s presidency has the potential to reshape an age-old debate between the left and the right: Is it better to have a big government or a small one? The left, which has long advocated for bigger government as a solution to society’s problems, might be inclined to think that in the age of Trump, a strong government may be too risky. Say the United States had a single-payer universal health care system, for example. As my colleague Kelsey Piper pointed out, the government would have a lot of power to decide what sorts of medical treatments should and shouldn’t be covered, and certain forms of care that the right doesn’t support — like abortion or transgender health — would likely get cut when they’re in power. That’s certainly a valid concern. But the dangers Trump poses do not ultimately make the case for a small or weak government because the principal problem with the Trump presidency is not that he or the federal government has too much power. It’s that there’s not enough oversight.Reducing the power of the government wouldn’t necessarily protect us. In fact, “making government smaller” is one of the ways that Trump might be consolidating power.First things first: What is “big government”?When Americans are polled about how they feel about “big government” programs — policies like universal health care, Social Security, welfare for the poor — the majority of people tend to support them. Nearly two-thirds of Americans believe the government should be responsible for ensuring everyone has health coverage. But when you ask Americans whether they support “big government” in the abstract, a solid majority say they view it as a threat.That might sound like a story of contradictions. But it also makes sense because “big government” can have many different meanings. It can be a police state that surveils its citizens, an expansive regulatory state that establishes and enforces rules for the private sector, a social welfare state that directly provides a decent standard of living for everyone, or some combination of the three. In the United States, the debate over “big government” can also include arguments about federalism, or how much power the federal government should have over states. All these distinctions complicate the debate over the size of government: Because while someone might support a robust welfare system, they might simultaneously be opposed to being governed by a surveillance state or having the federal government involved in state and local affairs.As much as Americans like to fantasize about small government, the reality is that the wealthiest economies in the world have all been a product of big government, and the United States is no exception. That form of government includes providing a baseline social safety net, funding basic services, and regulating commerce. It also includes a government that has the capacity to enforce its rules and regulations.A robust state that caters to the needs of its people, that is able to respond quickly in times of crisis, is essential. Take the Covid-19 pandemic. The US government, under both the Trump and Biden administrations, was able to inject trillions of dollars into the economy to avert a sustained economic downturn. As a result, people were able to withstand the economic shocks, and poverty actually declined. Stripping the state of the basic powers it needs to improve the lives of its citizens will only make it less effective and erode people’s faith in it as a central institution, making people less likely to participate in the democratic process, comply with government policies, or even accept election outcomes.A constrained government does not mean a small governmentBut what happens when the people in power have no respect for democracy? The argument for a weaker and smaller government often suggests that a smaller government would be more constrained in the harm it can cause, while big government is more unrestrained. In this case, the argument is that if the US had a smaller government, then Trump could not effectively use the power of the state — by, say, deploying federal law enforcement agencies or withholding federal funds — to deport thousands of immigrants, bully universities, and assault fundamental rights like the freedom of speech. But advocating for bigger government does not mean you believe in handing the state unlimited power to do as it pleases. Ultimately, the most important way to constrain government has less to do with its size and scope and more to do with its checks and balances. In fact, one of the biggest checks on Trump’s power so far has been the structure of the US government, not its size. Trump’s most dangerous examples of overreach — his attempts to conduct mass deportations, eliminate birthright citizenship, and revoke student visas and green cards based on political views — have been an example of how proper oversight has the potential to limit government overreach. To be sure, Trump’s policies have already upended people’s lives, chilled speech, and undermined the principle of due process. But while Trump has pushed through some of his agenda, he hasn’t been able to deliver at the scale he promised. But that’s not because the federal government lacks the capacity to do those things. It’s because we have three equal branches of government, and the judicial branch, for all of its shortcomings in the Trump era, is still doing its most basic job to keep the executive branch in check. Reforms should include more oversight, not shrinking governmentThe biggest lesson from Trump’s first term was that America’s system of checks and balances — rules and regulations, norms, and the separate branches of government — wasn’t strong enough. As it turned out, a lot of potential oversight mechanisms did not have enough teeth to meaningfully restrain the president from abusing his power. Trump incited an assault on the US Capitol in an effort to overturn the 2020 election, and Congress ultimately failed in its duty to convict him for his actions. Twice, impeachment was shown to be a useless tool to keep a president in check.But again that’s a problem of oversight, not of the size and power of government. Still, oversight mechanisms need to be baked into big government programs to insulate them from petty politics or volatile changes from one administration to the next. Take the example of the hypothetical single-payer universal health care system. Laws dictating which treatments should be covered should be designed to ensure that changes to them aren’t dictated by the president alone, but through some degree of consensus that involves regulatory boards, Congress, and the courts. Ultimately, social programs should have mechanisms that allow for change so that laws don’t become outdated, as they do now. And while it’s impossible to guarantee that those changes will always be good, the current system of employer-sponsored health insurance is hardly a stable alternative.By contrast, shrinking government in the way that Republicans often talk about only makes people more vulnerable. Bigger governments — and more bureaucracy — can also insulate public institutions from the whims of an erratic president. For instance, Trump has tried to shutter the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), a regulatory agency that gets in the way of his and his allies’ business. This assault allows Trump to serve his own interests by pleasing his donors.In other words, Trump is currently trying to make government smaller — by shrinking or eliminating agencies that get in his way — to consolidate power. “Despite Donald Trump’s rhetoric about the size or inefficiency of government, what he has done is eradicate agencies that directly served people,” said Julie Margetta Morgan, president of the Century Foundation who served as an associate director at the CFPB. “He may use the language of ‘government inefficiency’ to accomplish his goals, but I think what we’re seeing is that the goals are in fact to open up more lanes for big businesses to run roughshod over the American people.” The problem for small-government advocates is that the alternative to big government is not just small government. It’s also big business because fewer services, rules, and regulations open up the door to privatization and monopolization. And while the government, however big, has to answer to the public, businesses are far less accountable. One example of how business can replace government programs is the Republicans’ effort to overhaul student loan programs in the latest reconciliation bill the House passed, which includes eliminating subsidized loans and limiting the amount of aid students receive. The idea is that if students can’t get enough federal loans to cover the cost of school, they’ll turn to private lenders instead. “It’s not only cutting Pell Grants and the affordability of student loan programs in order to fund tax cuts to the wealthy, but it’s also creating a gap where [private lenders] are all too happy to come in,” Margetta Morgan said. “This is the small government alternative: It’s cutting back on programs that provided direct services for people — that made their lives better and more affordable — and replacing it with companies that will use that gap as an opportunity for extraction and, in some cases, for predatory services.”Even with flawed oversight, a bigger and more powerful government is still preferable because it can address people’s most basic needs, whereas small government and the privatization of public services often lead to worse outcomes.So while small government might sound like a nice alternative when would-be tyrants rise to power, the alternative to big government would only be more corrosive to democracy, consolidating power in the hands of even fewer people (and businesses). And ultimately, there’s one big way for Trump to succeed at destroying democracy, and that’s not by expanding government but by eliminating the parts of government that get in his way.See More:

Missing the big picture US science is being wrecked, and its leadership is fighting the last war Facing an extreme budget, the National Academies hosted an event that ignored it. John Timmer – Jun 4, 2025 6:00 pm | 16 Credit: JHVE Photo Credit: JHVE Photo Story text Size Small Standard Large Width * Standard Wide Links Standard Orange * Subscribers only   Learn more WASHINGTON, DC—The general outline of the Trump administration's proposed 2026 budget was released a few weeks back, and it included massive cuts for most agencies, including every one that funds scientific research. Late last week, those agencies began releasing details of what the cuts would mean for the actual projects and people they support. And the results are as bad as the initial budget had suggested: one-of-a-kind scientific experiment facilities and hardware retired, massive cuts in supported scientists, and entire areas of research halted. And this comes in an environment where previously funded grants are being terminated, funding is being held up for ideological screening, and universities have been subject to arbitrary funding freezes. Collectively, things are heading for damage to US science that will take decades to recover from. It's a radical break from the trajectory science had been on. That's the environment that the US's National Academies of Science found itself in yesterday while hosting the State of the Science event in Washington, DC. It was an obvious opportunity for the nation's leading scientific organization to warn the nation of the consequences of the path that the current administration has been traveling. Instead, the event largely ignored the present to worry about a future that may never exist. The proposed cuts The top-line budget numbers proposed earlier indicated things would be bad: nearly 40 percent taken off the National Institutes of Health's budget, the National Science Foundation down by over half. But now, many of the details of what those cuts mean are becoming apparent. NASA's budget includes sharp cuts for planetary science, which would be cut in half and then stay flat for the rest of the decade, with the Mars Sample Return mission canceled. All other science budgets, including Earth Science and Astrophysics, take similar hits; one astronomer posted a graphic showing how many present and future missions that would mean. Active missions that have returned unprecedented data, like Juno and New Horizons, would go, as would two Mars orbiters. As described by Science magazine's news team, "The plans would also kill off nearly every major science mission the agency has not yet begun to build." A chart prepared by astronomer Laura Lopez showing just how many astrophysics missions will be cancelled. Credit: Laura Lopez The National Science Foundation, which funds much of the US's fundamental research, is also set for brutal cuts. Biology, engineering, and education will all be slashed by over 70 percent; computer science, math and physical science, and social and behavioral science will all see cuts of over 60 percent. International programs will take an 80 percent cut. The funding rate of grant proposals is expected to drop from 26 percent to just 7 percent, meaning the vast majority of grants submitted to the NSF will be a waste of time. The number of people involved in NSF-funded activities will drop from over 300,000 to just 90,000. Almost every program to broaden participation in science will be eliminated. As for specifics, they're equally grim. The fleet of research ships will essentially become someone else's problem: "The FY 2026 Budget Request will enable partial support of some ships." We've been able to better pin down the nature and location of gravitational wave events as detectors in Japan and Italy joined the original two LIGO detectors; the NSF will reverse that progress by shutting one of the LIGOs. The NSF's contributions to detectors at the Large Hadron Collider will be cut by over half, and one of the two very large telescopes it was helping fund will be cancelled (say goodbye to the Thirty Meter Telescope). "Access to the telescopes at Kitt Peak and Cerro Tololo will be phased out," and the NSF will transfer the facilities to other organizations. The Department of Health and Human Services has been less detailed about the specific cuts its divisions will see, largely focusing on the overall numbers, which are down considerably. The NIH, which is facing a cut of over 40 percent, will be reorganized, with its 19 institutes pared down to just eight. This will result in some odd pairings, such as the dental and eye institutes ending up in the same place; genomics and biomedical imaging will likewise end up under the same roof. Other groups like the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration will also face major cuts. Issues go well beyond the core science agencies, as well. In the Department of Energy, funding for wind, solar, and renewable grid integration has been zeroed out, essentially ending all programs in this area. Hydrogen and fuel cells face a similar fate. Collectively, these had gotten over $600 billion dollars in 2024's budget. Other areas of science at the DOE, such as high-energy physics, fusion, and biology, receive relatively minor cuts that are largely in line with the ones faced by administration priorities like fossil and nuclear energy. Will this happen? It goes without saying that this would amount to an abandonment of US scientific leadership at a time when most estimates of China's research spending show it approaching US-like levels of support. Not only would it eliminate many key facilities, instruments, and institutions that have helped make the US a scientific powerhouse, but it would also block the development of newer and additional ones. The harms are so widespread that even topics that the administration claims are priorities would see severe cuts. And the damage is likely to last for generations, as support is cut at every stage of the educational pipeline that prepares people for STEM careers. This includes careers in high-tech industries, which may require relocation overseas due to a combination of staffing concerns and heightened immigration controls. That said, we've been here before in the first Trump administration, when budgets were proposed with potentially catastrophic implications for US science. But Congress limited the damage and maintained reasonably consistent budgets for most agencies. Can we expect that to happen again? So far, the signs are not especially promising. The House has largely adopted the Trump administration's budget priorities, despite the fact that the budget they pass turns its back on decades of supposed concerns about deficit spending. While the Senate has yet to take up the budget, it has also been very pliant during the second Trump administration, approving grossly unqualified cabinet picks such as Robert F. Kennedy Jr. All of which would seem to call for the leadership of US science organizations to press the case for the importance of science funding to the US, and highlight the damage that these cuts would cause. But, if yesterday's National Academies event is anything to judge by, the leadership is not especially interested. Altered states As the nation's premier science organization, and one that performs lots of analyses for the government, the National Academies would seem to be in a position to have its concerns taken seriously by members of Congress. And, given that the present and future of science in the US is being set by policy choices, a meeting entitled the State of the Science would seem like the obvious place to address those concerns. If so, it was not obvious to Marcia McNutt, the president of the NAS, who gave the presentation. She made some oblique references to current problems, saying, that “We are embarking on a radical new experiment in what conditions promote science leadership, with the US being the treatment group, and China as the control," and acknowledged that "uncertainties over the science budgets for next year, coupled with cancellations of billions of dollars of already hard-won research grants, is causing an exodus of researchers." But her primary focus was on the trends that have been operative in science funding and policy leading up to but excluding the second Trump administration. McNutt suggested this was needed to look beyond the next four years. However, that ignores the obvious fact that US science will be fundamentally different if the Trump administration can follow through on its plans and policies; the trends that have been present for the last two decades will be irrelevant. She was also remarkably selective about her avoidance of discussing Trump administration priorities. After noting that faculty surveys have suggested they spend roughly 40 percent of their time handling regulatory requirements, she twice mentioned that the administration's anti-regulatory stance could be a net positive here (once calling it "an opportunity to help"). Yet she neglected to note that many of the abandoned regulations represent a retreat from science-driven policy. McNutt also acknowledged the problem of science losing the bipartisan support it has enjoyed, as trust in scientists among US conservatives has been on a downward trend. But she suggested it was scientists' responsibility to fix the problem, even though it's largely the product of one party deciding it can gain partisan advantage by raising doubts about scientific findings in fields like climate change and vaccine safety. The panel discussion that came after largely followed McNutt's lead in avoiding any mention of the current threats to science. The lone exception was Heather Wilson, president of the University of Texas at El Paso and a former Republican member of the House of Representatives and Secretary of the Air Force during the first Trump administration. Wilson took direct aim at Trump's cuts to funding for underrepresented groups, arguing, "Talent is evenly distributed, but opportunity is not." After arguing that "the moral authority of science depends on the pursuit of truth," she highlighted the cancellation of grants that had been used to study diseases that are more prevalent in some ethnic groups, saying "that's not woke science—that's genetics." Wilson was clearly the exception, however, as the rest of the panel largely avoided direct mention of either the damage already done to US science funding or the impending catastrophe on the horizon. We've asked the National Academies' leadership a number of questions about how it perceives its role at a time when US science is clearly under threat. As of this article's publication, however, we have not received a response. At yesterday's event, however, only one person showed a clear sense of what they thought that role should be—Wilson again, whose strongest words were directed at the National Academies themselves, which she said should "do what you've done since Lincoln was president," and stand up for the truth. John Timmer Senior Science Editor John Timmer Senior Science Editor John is Ars Technica's science editor. He has a Bachelor of Arts in Biochemistry from Columbia University, and a Ph.D. in Molecular and Cell Biology from the University of California, Berkeley. When physically separated from his keyboard, he tends to seek out a bicycle, or a scenic location for communing with his hiking boots. 16 Comments