Category: 3. Business

Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free

Roula Khalaf, Editor of the FT, selects her favourite stories in this weekly newsletter.

People who buy expensive cars do so because they are keen on roaring engines, buttery-soft interiors and iconic logos. What doesn’t play into their purchasing decisions, apparently, is how environmentally friendly the vehicles are. 

Responding to customer preferences, Ferrari said last week that it only expects 20 per cent of its models to be fully electric by 2030, down from 40 per cent previously. Porsche last month delayed a new range of high-end EVs, with chief executive Oliver Blume — who may be on the off ramp at the sports-car maker — citing a drop in demand for exclusive battery-electric cars. Mercedes has also seen weak EV sales, although third-quarter numbers improved.

That’s somewhat of a contrast to the mood in the broader EV market, which — amid ups and downs — sold a record 2.1mn vehicles in September. There are lots of reasons why luxury EVs are failing to get traction. One is that China is the biggest market in the world, accounting for 65 per cent of overall EVs sold last year. And in China, the cars that do a roaring trade tend to be cheap little runarounds. On top of that, consumers who do want the convenience of the high-end electric car have homegrown models to choose from: buffs reckon the Xiaomi SU7 is not entirely dissimilar to the Porsche Taycan, at a fraction of the price.

Price is also a factor in Europe, where luxury and premium EVs carry a relatively high premium compared to the equivalent internal combustion engine (ICE) model. Plus, the rapid pace at which EV technology is developing means that resale values are relatively low.

In the near term, sluggish demand for luxury EVs is only really a problem for western manufacturers who raced down that road. Porsche, for instance, has had to write down some of its investment. For those who have been keeping their options open, the slower than expected decline of the old technology means they can carry on selling the more profitable ICE cars for longer.

Still, it potentially stores up problems later on. For one thing, electrification may shrink the pool of customers that are willing to pay top dollar for a car: electric engines are less differentiated than the traditional kind, so manufacturers will have to figure out how to justify the extra expense via design and gizmos. And, for another, Chinese manufacturers are rapidly moving up the value chain. When the market for luxury EVs does ignite, western carmakers may find that rivals have raced ahead.

camilla.palladino@ft.com

Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free

Roula Khalaf, Editor of the FT, selects her favourite stories in this weekly newsletter.

The problem with a pensions crisis is that you might not know you’re in one until it’s too late to do anything meaningful about it.

Take Gen Z. The average 18 to 28-year-old hopes to retire at 60, according to new research from Standard Life. It’s an ambitious aspiration that’s well ahead of their state pension age of at least 68 (who knows what it will be by the time they come to retire — if it exists at all).

But there’s a bigger problem. Wealth manager Rathbones put out an alarming study recently saying that when they come to retire, Gen Z will need a pension of at least £3.1mn to afford a comfortable retirement. It arrived at that figure by taking the £1.4mn pot it thinks you need today and applying inflation to it for 65 years, spanning working life and 25 years of retirement, at 2 per cent a year.

Whether that figure works out to be accurate — I happen to be sceptical myself — or it’s £2mn, £1.8mn or less, younger workers can’t take it for granted that they’ll be able to afford a long, comfortable retirement.

Many “Zoomers” have portfolio careers, sometimes relying on gig work or holding down multiple part-time jobs — not ideal conditions to start building a nest egg. Add in high student debt and unaffordable housing, and it’s no surprise that Standard Life found this week that only 13 per cent are prioritising pension saving.

The big mistake is believing that minimum contributions via auto-enrolment to a workplace scheme will deliver. Standard Life found that 59 per cent of Gen Z think this.

If a 25-year-old earns £35,000 a year, the minimum level auto-enrolment saving level is £2,300 per year. Government figures show the average additional savings at this salary level amount to only an extra £560 per year — that’s never going to get you anywhere near £3.1mn. Assuming wage growth in line with inflation and a 5 per cent return on your pot every year, wealth manager Rathbones calculates that a 25-year-old needs to put away £1,600 a month.

That may seem like an unrealistic figure, but deferring until a time in the future when your pay is much higher is also not the most sensible tactic. If you want to turbocharge your pension, the time to act is now.

Take it from me, those early days are the most powerful force you can harness in your financial life due to the power of compounding. My pension from six years in my 20s — when I was a low earner — is now, in my 50s, worth easily more than the one in my 40s when I earned significantly more.

The first thing to do, if you’ve had frequent job changes, is consolidate any small deferred pension pots you may have accumulated from working in different jobs. I consolidated the ones from my 30s and 40s (alongside some little stray pots) but left that one from my 20s on its own as it had low fees. Moving them into a self-invested personal pension (Sipp) can stop you losing track and might even lower the cost. Independent website Money to the Masses says the cheapest Sipp is Vanguard’s up to £100,000 and then Interactive Investor for larger portfolios.

Then check what you’re invested in. If your workplace pension is in the default fund, equity exposure is likely to be low — perhaps as low as 50 per cent. Analysis of default funds by PensionBee found that average returns are below the 5 per cent level that many would consider to be “good”.

If you’ve got three decades until retirement, your capacity for risk is as high as it’s ever going to be, so you might want to consider being all in equities.

It’s also the time to put in as much extra money as you can. In your 20s or 30s, maximising your pension funding up to £60,000 a year or your earned income — whichever is the lower — only for a few years can have a massive impact. Wealth manager Tideway Wealth calculates that £180,000 added to your fund in your early 30s, which might cost only £100,000 after tax relief, could add £580,000 in today’s money to your fund by the time you hit your early 60s.

Another tactic — admittedly only open to the luckiest — is to ask for assistance. Wealthy parents and grandparents are increasingly providing a helping hand, financial advisers report, since they will have to pay inheritance tax on any unspent pension passed on from April 2027.

Gifts from spare income will immediately reduce an estate for IHT purposes. Plus, donors will see some money recouped via tax relief on pension contributions — satisfying for those peeved by paying extra income tax in an attempt to run down their pensions faster. Since the child or grandchild won’t be able to access the money until they are at least 57, it at least reduces the fear the money will be squandered on fast living.

“It’s a win-win from a tax perspective on both sides of the generational equation,” says Charlotte Ransom, chief executive of Netwealth, a wealth manager. “It can generate very meaningful, long-term value with efficient compounded returns and avoids the risk of the money being spent unwisely during younger years.”

James Baxter, founder of Tideway Wealth, says: “We have several early 30-year-olds who already have around £100,000 in both an Isa and a Sipp funded entirely by their parents. These were accumulated in their early careers when they were not earning that much and it would have been impossible to save much on their own.”

So, with just under 10 weeks to go until Christmas, Gen Z know what to say when they get asked what present they’d like under the tree: a slug of money in their pension.

Moira O’Neill is a freelance money and investment writer. Email: moira.o’neill@ft.com, X: @MoiraONeill, Instagram @MoiraOnMoney

Stay informed with free updates

Simply sign up to the Exchange traded funds myFT Digest — delivered directly to your inbox.

Royal London Asset Management and M&G are planning to enter Europe’s active exchange traded fund (ETF) market, as the sector expands rapidly and traditional mutual funds come under fee pressure.

Hans Georgeson, chief executive of RLAM, told the Financial Times that the firm plans to open an office in Dublin within 18 months to support the £184bn group’s international expansion and entry into the active ETF market.

“The active ETF market is moving very fast,” Georgeson said. “We plan to enter in the top 10. We are very ambitious in the active ETF space. We will probably launch with both equity and fixed income.

“ETFs are more accessible internationally. It’s a key plank for passporting internationally.”

Active ETFs allow fund managers to try to beat a market index, such as the FTSE 100, but within a product that is cheaper to run and easier for investors to buy and sell than their older mutual fund equivalents.

By comparison, traditional “passive” ETFs provide the returns of an index — rather than trying to beat it.

According to a recent report by Goldman Sachs’ fund arm, assets under management in Europe’s active ETF industry have grown nearly sevenfold since 2019 to €68.6bn. The report added that the number of funds and providers has “followed a similar trajectory, with launches of active ETFs outpacing passive launches for the first time”.

M&G is preparing to unveil its first active ETFs within weeks, with the first products investing in UK government bonds and US Treasuries.

Neil Godfrey, global head of client group at M&G Investments, said: “[These] ETFs will open up possible new investor audiences and potentially expand our partnerships with our existing investor base.
“Given many clients already use and have familiarity with ETFs, we see a natural evolution towards active solutions, which will provide new opportunities to engage with capital allocators and their advisers across the UK, Europe and Asia.”

Other traditional fund groups have entered the market this year. Last month, Schroders unveiled its first active ETFs in Europe, investing in global equities and high-quality corporate bonds.

Johanna Kyrklund, Schroders group chief investment officer, said the products bring the “flexibility and accessibility” of an ETF wrapper in combination with the group’s fund managers, who bring the potential to generate higher returns.

Jupiter also entered the sector at the start of the year with a global government bond active ETF.

Matthew Beesley, chief executive of Jupiter, said at the time that “the risk is that if you sit there and don’t do anything, ETFs will continue to cannibalise the assets held in traditional funds”.

While traditional mutual funds are priced once a day, based on the value of its investments, ETFs trade on an exchange and are priced throughout the trading day.

Rapha, the high-end British cycling fashion brand whose rapid ascent came crashing to a halt with the end of the pandemic bike boom, is gearing up for a long ride back to profit.

Industry veteran Fran Millar, who became the fourth chief executive in three years when she took charge in September 2024, says her turnaround of the maker of £300 cycling jerseys will take until 2027 to show full results. 

“The decisions we’re taking now are things that are going to bounce” Rapha back to “not just profitability but significant growth”, Millar told the Financial Times.

Founded in 2004 by cycling enthusiast and branding expert Simon Mottram, Rapha quickly rose to become one of the biggest names in cycling fashion, known for minimalist designs, high quality and attention to detail.

But annual revenues dropped 13 per cent to £96.2mn in the year to the end of January while the company made a net loss — its eighth in a row — of £15.6mn, according to results due to be published next week. Meanwhile, holding company Carpegna took a £102mn impairment on the brand’s book value, a writedown of more than 60 per cent. 

Millar, who was hired from fashion brand Belstaff and has previously run the Team Sky and Ineos Grenadiers professional cycling teams, insists the company can return to a “market pioneering” position after the sharp fall in revenue to a five-year low.

Her plan is to “reduce the losses next year and by 2027 we will be back at profitability” at an Ebitda level.

Rapha’s latest gloomy numbers show that even the biggest names in cycling are still struggling with the pandemic boom and bust, when a sharp rise in the popularity of cycling during lockdowns was followed by a sudden stop.

With 50 per cent year-on-year revenue growth for more than a decade to 2021, the brand “was the Apple of cycling”, former professional cyclist Anthony Walsh said in June in his Roadman podcast, with cyclists wearing its kit as “badges of honour”. 

In 2017, Mottram sold a majority stake to RZC Investments — an investment vehicle owned by brothers Steuart and Tom Walton, cycling enthusiast grandsons of Walmart founder Sam Walton — in a deal that valued Rapha at about £200mn.

While Walsh claimed the change in ownership was one cause of Rapha’s problems, Millar rejected that idea, insisting “we’re very lucky in our owners”, who she said took a long-term view. RZC this year provided £15mn in additional capital, following an earlier £39mn debt-to-equity swap.

“The amazing growth in the pandemic probably masked some things that should have been addressed earlier,” Millar said, adding that “a lot of the damage was self-inflicted”.

When new rivals including Café du Cycliste and Pas Normal Studios started to target fashion-savvy cyclists, Rapha began to dabble in non-cycling gear such as hoodies and handbags. At the same time its customers started to complain about declining quality and “boring” designs.

Membership numbers of the Rapha Cycling Club, where people pay £70 a year to go on group rides and have access to exclusive kit, has fallen by a third to 15,000 over the past two years. 

Rapha “tried to do lots of things and [was] not focused on doing a few things brilliantly well”, Millar said.

After the pandemic boom faded, the brand had a glut of stock that had to be sold at heavy discounts, which dented profitability and was “not great for the long-term health of the brand” she said.

In her first year, Millar sought to return to a “full-price model”, saying this was the key reason for the drop in revenue last year and adding that a first success was to achieve stability in year-on-year sales of full-price kit.

Looking forward, she is ditching the lifestyle line, pausing the production of cycling shoes and merging the brand’s two long-distance cycling ranges. And this year’s 65 product launches will shrink to roughly half that number in 2026 after a design overhaul.

According to Millar, Rapha had come to rely too heavily on signature designs such as its armband and logo. The first of its new-look products will be unveiled in early 2026 and be available to customers from the summer.

Rapha would not target a return to the kind of sales growth it had last decade, Millar said, adding “low double-digit profitable growth” for the next few years “would be a huge success”.

Holding company Carpegna is set to continue to report net losses as it writes off Rapha’s intangible assets over time. This accounting treatment will not affect Rapha’s cash flows, the company said, but will reduce reported profit by about £10mn a year for a number of years.

Meanwhile, Millar is committed to reinvigorating the Rapha Cycling Club, which the company says is still “the biggest cycling club in the world”, and larger than it was before the pandemic. “I’ve ridden thousands of miles now with our customers all over the world, and [RCC] is just a completely unique area for us.”

One of the most visible changes in the short term is the ending of the brand’s partnership with EF Pro Cycling, a team that participates in big races worldwide including the Tour de France.

Instead, Millar has signed a three-year deal with USA Cycling to sponsor the country’s Olympic team, banking on the 2028 Games in Los Angeles to boost American cycling. 

“I was involved in London 2012 and Team Sky,” she said. “And I saw what home Games can do to a nation.”

Treatment with fruquintinib (Fruzaqla) plus sintilimab (Tyvyt) led to a significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) compared with axitinib (Inlyta) or everolimus (Afinitor) in patients with advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC) who had progressed following prior first-line VEGFR TKI therapy, according to findings from the phase 3 FRUSICA-2 trial (NCT05522231) presented at the 2025 ESMO Congress.¹

Findings showed that at a median follow-up of 16.56 months, the blinded independent review committee (BIRC)–assessed median PFS was 22.21 months (95% CI, 16.59-not reached [NR]) with fruquintinib plus sintilimab (n = 119) vs 6.90 months (95% CI, 5.55-8.31) with axitinib or everolimus (n = 115; HR, 0.373; 95% CI, 0.256-0.544; stratified log-rank P < .0001). The 12-month PFS rate was 69.0% in the combination arm vs 34.6% in the control arm, and the 18-month PFS rates were 54.6% vs 16.9%, respectively. Investigator-assessed median PFS was consistent with these findings at 16.59 months (95% CI, 13.80-NR) with fruquintinib plus sintilimab vs 5.82 months (95% CI, 5.49-8.28) with axitinib or everolimus (HR, 0.370; 95% CI, 0.260-0.527; stratified log-rank P < .0001). The 12- and 18-month investigator-assessed PFS rates for the experimental arm were 61.6% vs 27.4%, respectively; these respective rates were 47.9% vs 10.1% in the control arm.

“These results suggest that [fruquintinib plus sintilimab] should be a new choice for patients as second-line therapy for locally advanced and metastatic RCC,” Zhenhua Liu, MD, of West China Hospital at Sichuan University, in Chengdu, explained in the conclusion of his presentation.

What Was the Rationale and Design of the FRUSCIA-2 Trial?

Although TKI and immunotherapy combinations have become a standard of care in the first-line setting for patients with advanced RCC globally, Liu explained that TKI monotherapy has remained the first-line standard in China, leaving a key unmet need for patients who experience disease progression.

The phase 3 FRUSICA-2 trial was a randomized, open-label, active-controlled study that enrolled patients between 18 and 75 years of age with histologically or cytologically confirmed locally advanced or metastatic RCC who progressed on or were intolerant to first-line VEGFR TKI therapy. Additional inclusion criteria required an ECOG performance status of 0 or 1. Patients were excluded if they had received prior immune-modulatory therapy, except in the adjuvant or neoadjuvant setting without progression within 6 months of discontinuation.

A total of 234 patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive fruquintinib plus sintilimab or axitinib or everolimus monotherapy. Patients in the experimental arm received fruquintinib at 5 mg orally once daily for 2 weeks on and 1 week off per 21-day cycle in combination with sintilimab at 200 mg intravenously once every 3 weeks. Those in the control arm received axitinib at 5 mg orally twice daily or everolimus at 10 mg orally once daily, both administered continuously in 21-day cycles.

Treatment continued until disease progression, death, intolerable toxicity, or another protocol-specified reason for discontinuation. Stratification factors included IMDC risk classification (favorable vs intermediate vs poor) and ECOG performance status (0 vs 1).

The primary end point was PFS by BIRC per RECIST 1.1 criteria. Secondary end points included investigator-assessed PFS, overall response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), duration of response (DOR), time to response (TTR), and overall survival (OS).

What Were the Baseline Characteristics of the Patients in the Study?

The median age across both arms was 59.0 years (range, 36-75 in the fruquintinib plus sintilimab arm; 37-74 in the control arm). Patients 65 years of age or older accounted for 35.3% of those receiving fruquintinib plus sintilimab and 28.7% of those in the axitinib/everolimus group. Most patients were male, comprising 80.7% and 77.4% of each arm, respectively.

With respect to ECOG performance status, 42.0% of patients in the combination arm and 40.9% in the control arm had an ECOG performance status of 0, while 58.0% and 59.1%, respectively, had a performance status of 1. Similarly, the Karnofsky Performance Status of 100 or 90 was observed in 68.9% of patients in the combination arm and 72.2% in the control arm.

Based on IMDC risk classification, 27.7% vs 27.8% of patients were categorized as having favorable risk, 61.3% vs 62.6% as intermediate risk, and 10.9% vs 9.6% as poor risk in the fruquintinib plus sintilimab and control groups, respectively. Approximately two-thirds of patients in each group had 0 to 1 IMDC risk factors (63.9% vs 63.5%), and the remainder had two or more (36.1% vs 36.5%).

The majority of patients (73.9% in the fruquintinib plus sintilimab arm and 58.3% in the control arm) had 2 or more organs with metastatic involvement. PD-L1 expression, defined as a combined positive score (CPS) of at least 1, was reported in 19.3% of patients receiving fruquintinib plus sintilimab and 17.4% in those treated with axitinib or everolimus, and PD-L1 CPS less than 1 was seen in 47.1% and 46.1%, respectively. The remainder had unknown PD-L1 status.

Sarcomatoid or rhabdoid differentiation features were identified in a small subset of patients—4.2% in the fruquintinib plus sintilimab arm and 8.7% in the control arm. All patients had received prior VEGFR-targeted therapy, most commonly sunitinib (Sutent; 52.1% vs 56.5%) or pazopanib (36.1% vs 34.8%), with smaller proportions having received sorafenib (Nexavar) or axitinib. Prior nephrectomy was performed in 81.5% of patients in the fruquintinib plus sintilimab arm and 80.0% in the control arm.

What Additional Efficacy and Response Findings Were Observed in the Trial?

Per BIRC, the ORR was 60.5% (95% CI, 51.13%-69.34%) with fruquintinib plus sintilimab vs 24.3% (95% CI, 16.83%-33.23%) with axitinib or everolimus (odds ratio [OR], 4.622; P < .0001). The DCR was 90.8% vs 88.7%, respectively, and the median DOR was 23.69 months (95% CI, 14.46-NR) vs 11.33 months (95% CI, 6.90-NR). Median TTR was 2.79 months with fruquintinib plus sintilimab and 2.69 months with axitinib or everolimus.

Investigator-assessed outcomes mirrored the BIRC results, with an ORR of 62.2% (95% CI, 52.84%-70.91%) for the combination vs 27.8% (95% CI, 19.87%-36.95%) for standard therapy (OR, 4.192; P < .0001). The DCR was 90.8% vs 87.8%, and the median DOR was 17.97 months (95% CI, 13.83-NR) vs 11.04 months (95% CI, 4.17-12.45).

At the time of data cutoff, OS data reached approximately 20% maturity.

What Safety Findings Were Observed in the Trial?

According to Liu, the safety profile of fruquintinib plus sintilimab in the FRUSICA-2 trial was manageable and consistent with the known toxicities of VEGFR inhibitors and immune checkpoint blockade. Treatment-emergent adverse effects (TEAEs) occurred in all patients across both study arms.

Grade 3 or higher TEAEs were reported in 71.4% of patients receiving fruquintinib plus sintilimab compared with 58.8% of those treated with axitinib or everolimus. Treatment-related AEs (TRAEs) occurred in 100% of patients in the fruquintinib plus sintilimab arm and in 99.1% of those in the control arm, with grade 3 or higher TRAEs observed in 59.7% and 48.2% of patients, respectively. Serious TEAEs were more frequent in the combination group (48.7%) than in the control group (29.8%).

Immune-related AEs (irAEs), assessed by investigators, were reported in 63.0% of patients in the fruquintinib plus sintilimab arm, with 27.7% experiencing grade 3 or higher effects. Infusion-related reactions (IRRs) occurred in 1.7% of patients treated with the combination regimen.

The most common TEAEs reported in at least 20% of patients in either group included proteinuria, hypothyroidism, palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia syndrome, hypertension, hypertriglyceridemia, elevated blood creatinine levels, decreased weight, asthenia, anemia, diarrhea, and elevations in liver function enzyme levels. Rates of hypothyroidism, hypertension, and proteinuria were slightly higher in the combination arm, whereas diarrhea and weight loss occurred more frequently in patients treated with axitinib or everolimus.

China’s National Medical Products Administration is currently evaluating a new drug application seeking approval of fruquintinib with sintilimab for patients with previously treated locally advanced or metastatic RCC, supported by data from the FRUSICA-2 trial.²

References

1. Ye D, He Z, Qu Z, et al. Fruquintinib (FRUQ) plus sintilimab (SIN) versus axitinib (AXI) or everolimus (EVE) monotherapy as 2L treatment in pts with locally advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC): Results from phase III part of a randomized, open-label, active-controlled phase II/III study (FRUSICA-2). Presented at: 2025 ESMO Congress; October 17-20, 2025; Berlin, Germany. Abstract 2592MO.
2. HUTCHMED highlights FRUSICA-2 registration trial data to be presented at the 2025 ESMO Congress. News release. HUTCHMED. October 13, 2025. Accessed October 17, 2025. https://www.hutch-med.com/esmo25-frusica2/

Salesforce boss Marc Benioff apologised Friday for suggesting that US President Donald Trump should send National Guard troops to San Francisco.

The apology followed days of backlash against Mr Benioff for a comment he made ahead of his company’s annual Dreamforce conference in the city.

“Having listened closely to my fellow San Franciscans… I do not believe the National Guard is needed to address safety in San Francisco,” he said.

The saga comes amid the Trump administration’s military deployments to US cities – many of which are led by Democrats. Trump on Friday asked the Supreme Court to overrule lower courts that blocked a National Guard deployment in Chicago.

The mood at the usually jubilant Dreamforce convention was dampened by cancelled appearances by San Francisco Mayor Daniel Lurie, as well as comedians Kumail Nanjiani and Ilana Glazer.

Mr Benioff was dealt public rebukes from several Democratic politicians, including California Governor Gavin Newsom, who once served as mayor of San Francisco and appeared on stage with Mr Benioff at last year’s convention.

On Thursday, venture capitalist Ron Conway resigned from the board of the Salesforce Foundation, telling the New York Times that their values “were no longer aligned”.

“I now barely recognize the person I have so long admired,” Conway told the newspaper.

Although Mr Benioff walked back his comments earlier in the week, the apology posted on social media on Friday appeared aimed at putting the controversy to rest.

“I remain deeply grateful to Mayor Lurie, SFPD, and all our partners, and am fully committed to a safer, stronger San Francisco,” Mr Benioff said in his X post.

But he noted that his endorsement of a crackdown “came from an abundance of caution” around Dreamforce security, adding “I sincerely apologize for the concern it caused”.

Sylvia Paull, a veteran Silicon Valley publicist, called Benioff “typical” of many tech CEOs who are not “really political animals” and tend to be transactional.

“It was going to hurt his sales.”

And that’s not all.

“He’s afraid he’s going to lose his legacy,” she said of his apology.

Mr Benioff, who also owns Time Magazine, has been a prolific donor to civic causes in San Francisco over the years.

His name graces one of the most prominent hospitals in the San Francisco Bay Area.

In 2018, he funded support for a San Francisco ballot measure aimed at raising corporate taxes to fund homeless services. It passed, despite controversy.

And while he once held a fundraiser for Democratic Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign against Mr Trump, Mr Benioff appeared with the sitting president during his state visit to London last month.

Mr Trump said Wednesday that San Francisco was one of the next targets on his list of places where he plans to deploy the National Guard, calling the city “a mess.”

On Friday, in an emergency appeal, the president urged the Supreme Court to permit him to deploy National Guard troops in Chicago. Lower courts have blocked the deployment there thus far, with an appeals court saying such a move would “likely to lead to civil unrest” and “only add fuel to the fire”.

The court ruled that it had “seen no credible evidence that there has been rebellion in the state of Illinois”.

Officials in Illinois and Chicago had sued the Trump administration to block the deployment, arguing it was a “grave intrusion on Illinois’ sovereignty”.

The administration has recently deployed the National Guard to Portland, Oregon in a move that also prompted lawsuits and protests. It previously sent troops to Los Angeles, Washington and parts of Tennessee.

The New York Times also reported this week that Salesforce pitched its services to the Trump administration as Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) ramps up the hiring of new officers amid a crackdown on immigration.

The BBC has reached out to Salesforce for comment.

Trump administration official David Sacks, a Silicon Valley entrepreneur, addressed Mr Benioff in a post on X this week, writing “if the Democrats don’t want you, we would be happy for you to join our team.”