NEW YORK (AP) — Layoffs have been piling up recently, especially in the tech world. And the words “artificial intelligence” are accompanying more and more notices about the cuts.
That's unnerving workers across sectors, with many fearing what the rapid adoption of AI will mean for their job prospects. Even if AI isn't replacing people directly, some businesses have announced reductions as they redirect money to the technology or tout new ways to streamline operations — raising alarm about what might be left over for payrolls and future openings.
But corporate explanations are often very vague. AI is rarely the sole reason companies cite when taking layoffs, with most still pointing to wider corporate restructuring or macroeconomic headwinds. Some executives have also suggested that, while they’re making cuts to move around resources now, AI and its demand could open up new roles down the road. Still, it’s hard to know if that’s the real driver or just the message a business wants to tell Wall Street.
Regardless, here are some companies that have announced layoffs recently while at least nodding to the role of AI along the way.
On Wednesday, Cisco Systems announced plans to cut under 4,000 jobs, or about 5% of its workforce. The announcement arrived the same day the tech giant unveiled record revenue for its third fiscal quarter, amid soaring demand for its AI tools and infrastructure.
CEO Chunk Robbins told employees in a memo that “the companies that will win in the AI era will be those with focus, urgency, and the discipline to continuously shift investment" — and that meant “making hard decisions.” But he said Cisco would also help employees impacted by the cuts find new opportunities, “whether internal or external.”
Financial services provider Block in February moved to lay off more than 4,000 of its 10,000 plus employees. And the parent of payment platforms like Square and Cash App was vocal about reconfiguring to capitalize on AI.
“The core thesis is simple. Intelligence tools have changed what it means to build and run a company,” CEO Jack Dorsey said in a letter to shareholders at the time. “A significantly smaller team, using the tools we’re building, can do more and do it better."
Not only tech companies have pointed to AI when initiating layoffs. In January, chemicals maker Dow, Inc. announced plans to cut about 4,500 jobs — as part of broader push to “streamline” operations. That included putting more emphasis on AI and automation.
Also in January, Pinterest said it would lay off under 15% of its workforce as the company pivots more of its money to AI. The image-sharing platform said the cuts were part of broader “transformation initiatives” — which included reallocating the company’s resources to AI-focused roles and prioritizing AI-powered products.
Last fall, Lufthansa Group said it would shed 4,000 jobs by 2030 — pointing to the adoption of AI, digitalization and consolidating work among member airlines.
While perhaps not explicitly mentioning or tying the technology to recent layoff announcements, a host of other big names — including Meta, Microsoft and Amazon — are also cutting thousands of jobs while investing billions of dollars toward AI.
Meta, for example, plans to lay off about 8,000 workers, or about 10% of its workforce, starting next week. When announcing the cuts last month, the Facebook owner more broadly cited the need to offset certain investments and broader efficiency.
Still, the move arrives as Meta continues to ramp up spending on AI infrastructure and highly-paid AI expert hires. And earlier this year, CEO Mark Zuckerberg said 2026 will be when, “AI starts to dramatically change the way that we work.”
FILE - Cisco logo is seen at the Mobile World Congress 2023 in Barcelona, Spain, March 2, 2023. (AP Photo/Joan Mateu Parra, File)
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Thursday preserved women’s access to a drug used in the most common method of abortion, rejecting lower-court restrictions while a lawsuit continues.
The court’s order allows women seeking abortions to continue obtaining the drug, mifepristone, at pharmacies or through the mail, without an in-person visit to a doctor. Access is likely to remain uninterrupted at least until into next year as the case plays out, including a potential appeal to the high court.
The justices granted emergency requests from makers of mifepristone, who are appealing a federal appeals court ruling that would require women to see a doctor in person and halt delivery of mifepristone through the mail. The federal Food and Drug Administration, which first approved mifepristone for use in abortion in 2000, stopped requiring in-person visits five years ago.
Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented, with Thomas writing that the two companies, Danco Laboratories and GenBioPro, are not entitled to the court's action to spare them “lost profits from their criminal enterprise.”
Anti-abortion groups, frustrated with President Donald Trump’s administration, are pushing the FDA to move faster with a review that they hope will result in restrictions on mifepristone, including blocking its prescribing via telehealth platforms. The Republican administration says the work takes time.
Earlier this week, FDA Commissioner Marty Makary resigned after months of criticism from Trump’s political allies, including abortion opponents.
Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America and similarly aligned groups had called on Trump to fire Makary over the slow pace of the mifepristone review.
The court is dealing with its latest abortion controversy four years after its conservative majority overturned Roe v. Wade and allowed more than a dozen states to effectively ban abortion outright.
The case before the court stems from a lawsuit Louisiana filed to roll back the Food and Drug Administration’s rules on how mifepristone can be prescribed. The state claims that the policy undermines the ban there, and it questions the safety of the drug, which has repeatedly been deemed safe and effective by FDA scientists.
Alito, who wrote the opinion overturning Roe, agreed that the state's efforts have been thwarted by medical providers and private organizations that mail the pills to women in Louisiana, despite the abortion ban. Danco and GenBioPro “are obviously aware of what is going on yet nevertheless supply the drug and reap profits from its felonious use in Louisiana,” he wrote.
Thomas said those who mail the pills are in violation of the Comstock Act, a 19th-century law that has long gone unenforced and bans mailing any “article, instrument, substance, drug, medicine, or thing which is advertised or described in a manner calculated to lead another to use or apply it for producing abortion.”
Lower courts concluded that Louisiana is likely to prevail, and a three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that mail access and telehealth visits should be suspended while the case plays out.
The drug is most often used for abortion in combination with another drug, misoprostol. Medication abortions accounted for nearly two-thirds of all abortions in the U.S. in 2023, the last year for which statistics are available.
Telehealth prescribers were prepared to switch to sending abortion patients a regimen that uses only misoprostol.
While Thursday’s ruling keeps the status quo in place for now, abortion-rights advocates warn that the case isn’t settled forever.
“We are relieved that access to mifepristone remains protected for now, but this should never have been on the table in the first place,” Serra Sippel, executive director of The Brigid Alliance, which helps coordinate and fund travel and other logistics to assist women traveling for abortion, said in a statement. “Patients and providers should not be forced to wait on court rulings to know whether people can access critical health care.”
The decision is “extremely disappointing” but not a defeat, said Gavin Oxley, a spokesperson for the anti-abortion advocacy group Americans United for Life. “The Supreme Court still has the opportunity to hear the case in full and bring justice to Louisiana,” he said.
The current dispute is similar to one that reached the court three years ago, when the justices blocked a 5th Circuit ruling in a suit filed by anti-abortion doctors and kept mifepristone widely available, over dissents from Alito and Thomas.
Then, in 2024, the high court unanimously dismissed the doctors’ suit, reasoning they did not have the legal right, or standing, to sue.
In the current dispute, mainstream medical groups, the pharmaceutical industry and Democratic members of Congress have weighed in cautioning the court against limiting access to the drug. Pharmaceutical companies said a ruling for abortion opponents would upend the drug approval process.
Debate over the safety of mifepristone has churned for more than 25 years. The FDA has eased a number of restrictions initially placed on the drug, including who can prescribe it, how it is dispensed and what kinds of safety complications must be reported.
Despite those determinations, anti-abortion groups have filed a series of petitions and lawsuits against the agency, generally alleging that it violated federal law by overlooking safety issues with the pill.
Trump’s administration has been unusually quiet at the Supreme Court. It declined to file a written brief recommending what the court should do, even though federal regulations are at issue.
The case puts the administration in a difficult place. Trump has relied on the political support of anti-abortion groups but has also seen ballot question and poll results that show Americans generally support abortion rights.
Both sides took the administration’s silence as an implicit endorsement of the appellate ruling.
Associated Press writer Ali Swenson contributed to this report from New York. Mulvihill reported from Haddonfield, N.J.
Follow the AP’s coverage of the U.S. Supreme Court at https://apnews.com/hub/us-supreme-court.
FILE - Boxes of the drug mifepristone sit on a shelf at the West Alabama Women's Center in Tuscaloosa, Ala., March 16, 2022. (AP Photo/Allen G. Breed, File)
