Month: November 2025

This article is part of The D.C. Brief, TIME’s politics newsletter. Sign up here to get stories like this sent to your inbox.

As a mob infiltrated the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was walking at a measured speed and talking with just as much purpose, descending level after level into the besieged building as her security detail sorted out the next steps out of there. What was supposed to be a routine ceremony had become one of the darkest days in American history. Despite the chaos unfolding around her, Pelosi never seemed like a leader in retreat. The steely resolve that would become her trademark was clearly visible in footage taken that day by her daughter, filmmaker Alexandra Pelosi.

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

“The proceedings are proceeding?” she asked her aides. “If they stop the proceedings, they will have succeeded in stopping the validation of the President of the United States. If they stop the proceedings, we will have totally failed.” 

Phoning through the top ranks of the government—leaders at the Pentagon and Department of Justice, Vice President Mike Pence, the Virginia Governor’s office—Pelosi marshaled all corners of Washington to get things back under control. “I worry about you being in that Capitol room,” she told Pence, who was trapped on a loading dock, hiding. “Don’t let anybody know where you are.” 

After the sun set and the mob had been purged, Pelosi returned to a Capitol in shambles to help complete the day’s task. Back at the Capitol, she declared: “We always knew that this responsibility would take us into the night and we will stay as long as it takes. Our purpose will be accomplished.” 

It’s that refusal to ever see a situation beyond her control that marked four extraordinary decades as the most powerful woman in U.S. politics. The first and only female to be Speaker of the House, Pelosi dictated the terms of Democratic politics for a generation, recruiting legions of loyalists and ushering in huge policy moves like Barack Obama’s health care overhaul, Joe Biden’s infrastructure investments, and both of Donald Trump’s impeachments. All the while she clocked $1.3 billion in fundraising, according to the tally her aides have kept over the years. Beloved by liberal partisans and loathed by their counterparts, Pelosi was one of the last engineers of an old-school political machine that could count votes better than anyone in a generation.

“I will not be seeking reelection to Congress. With a grateful heart, I look forward to my final year of service as your representative,” the 85-year-old Pelosi said in a video released Thursday announcing that she would retire when her current term ends in early 2027.

It was an exit the Speaker Emerita had signaled in recent weeks, but it was also a decision she alone could make. As she told CNN in an interview that aired earlier this week, she continued to wield power, even if it was softer than she had enjoyed not that long ago. “I have no doubt that if I decided to run, I would win,” Pelosi said. “That isn’t even a question.”

Longtime Insider, First-Time Candidate

Nancy D’Alesandro was born into a longtime Democratic political machine in Baltimore, where her father was a member of the House and future Mayor, her brother also a future Mayor, and her mother her tutor in how to wield power from kitchen tables, front porches, and church halls. Pelosi grew up seeing that all politics is personal and a favor system could go a long way. It would shape her climb to politics, although she would not seek elected office until later in life.

A former Hill intern—she worked alongside future rival Steny Hoyer—she was a natural organizer. She helped land the 1984 Democratic convention for San Francisco, husband Paul Pelosi’s hometown and her adoptive one. She rose through the state party’s ranks, picking up chits she could use for decades. She raised money for Senate Democrats during the 1986 cycle and went to Congress the following year in a special election. She was 47, and her five children were old enough to have a bicoastal parent.

A Lawmaker Who Others Took Seriously

If the boys’ club of Washington expected Pelosi to arrive a nepobaby or dilettante housewife, they were quickly disabused of that. She used her first speech on the House floor to drive directly at the HIV/ AIDS challenges unfolding in San Francisco’s large LGBTQ community. “We must take the leadership of course in the crisis of AIDS,” she said. She worked with George H.W. Bush’s White House to pass the Ryan White Act, which provided resources for those living with HIV/ AIDS. And she landed plum seats on Appropriations and Intelligence committees. 

It was from her post on Intel that she watched the world change on Sept. 11, 2001. As the top Democrat on the panel, she had access to some of the nation’s biggest secrets as George W. Bush’s administration responded with the invasion of Afghanistan and the march toward Iraq. Pelosi backed the committee’s conclusion that the intelligence community never had specific intelligence that could have prevented the 9/11 attacks but balked at supporting Bush’s preparations to invade Iraq. Ultimately, she secured 126 votes against that resolution, besting the 81 Democrats who backed Bush. She would go on to become the longest serving member of House Intelligence in history. 

Madam Speaker

Pelosi continued to rise in her party’s ranks, helping quarterback House Democrats’ successful 2006 campaign. Working with then-Rep. Rahm Emanuel, Pelosi recruited candidates that matched their districts and encouraged them to hone their strategy around winning above anything else. And it worked; Democrats picked up 31 seats and the House majority for the first time since 1995.

In turn, Pelosi made history. As Bush returned to Congress the following year, he said, “Tonight I have a high privilege and distinct honor of my own, as the first President to begin the State of the Union message with these words: Madam Speaker.”

As she would years later against Trump, Pelosi emerged as the Democrats’ most effective opposition leader against the Bush administration. That did not mean she was always spoiling for a fight. She shut down any talk of pulling funding for U.S. forces. Similarly, she cut down any talk of impeaching Bush, instead seeing the partisan move as a surefire way to ensure Republicans would hold the White House in 2008.

In a way, Pelosi’s approach to the opposition leader role gave her more power than if she were simply a contrarian. In the final months of Bush’s term and with an economy on the brink of total meltdown, Pelosi gave her blessing for a Wall Street bailout that was as big as it was unpopular. But Pelosi understood the stakes. It didn’t hurt that Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson got down on one knee begging Pelosi to let the talks proceed. “I didn’t know you were Catholic,” Pelosi said dryly. The measure passed on a bipartisan basis.

A Speaker Who Knew Her Power

It is not an exaggeration to say Pelosi was the most effective Speaker of a generation. Comparisons going back to Tip O’Neill are not overblown, and it’s easy to see why when her record is laid on the table. She welcomed Obama to Washington with the largest majority in 15 years. Working with him, she ushered an economic stimulus bill into law to shore-up the post-2008 economy and muscled through Obamacare despite its deep unpopularity and zero votes from the GOP.

But it came at a cost. In 2010, Democrats lost a net 63 seats, the biggest snapback since 1938. Still, Pelosi held control over her caucus and did not retreat to San Francisco. She was too prolific a fundraiser for the party to push out. Plus, she had a list of favors she still had piled high. As happened so often, lawmakers of all stripes have stories about walking into her office with a mind made up about an upcoming vote only to return to their offices to tell the staff there was another plan. Pelosi controlled her team with a gentle hand—until she needed to show force.

Pivot on Impeachment

While Pelosi watched Trump’s improbable rise and move to the White House, she publicly rejected calls to impeach him. “He’s just not worth it,” she said in 2019. But that changed later that year. Back in the Speaker’s suite after eight years in the minority, she watched as proof emerged of Trump holding up aid for Ukraine unless leaders there agreed to dig up dirt on Joe Biden, a leading contender for the nomination in 2020.

Suddenly, Pelosi was of a different mind, overseeing not one but two impeachment trials before Trump left office on Jan. 20, 2021. The second came in the aftermath of Jan. 6. In both cases, the GOP-led Senate voted to acquit. 

Biden’s Partner—Until a Bad Debate

Biden’s return to Washington came with Pelosi in charge again, and she wasted no time notching big wins on COVID, stimulus, and infrastructure, as well as the nation’s largest investment ever in clean energy. And his semiconductor law jumpstarted the tech sector in a major way that’s still reverberating. At times, Pelosi had a majority as small as four votes and at others had to acquiesce to parochial demands of Democratic Senators in a 50-50 Upper Chamber. 

In 2018, Pelosi recognized the tumult in her caucus and pledged she would cede her role atop the Democratic leadership ladder in four years’ time. She followed through in 2022, settling into an emeritus role and something of a minister without portfolio.

But she had one final flex in store.

As calls grew last summer for Biden to forgo his re-election bid after a particularly bad debate performance, and Biden was proving typically stubborn, Pelosi took control of the situation in a way few others could. “It’s up to the President to decide if he is going to run,” she said in a carefully worded answer on Morning Joe that resounded around Washington. Biden thought he had already decided to stay in the race. Pelosi had other ideas. And like so many times before, Pelosi had control.

Make sense of what matters in Washington. Sign up for the D.C. Brief newsletter.

Most people might not have heard of the Framingham Heart Study. But the massive public-health research effort, now in its 77th year of conducting in-depth analysis of more than 15,000 people, is the source of many insights we now have into healthier aging. It inspired the first checklist for assessing heart disease risk, and our current understanding of how to reduce cardiovascular disease can be traced directly to its findings.

While the Framingham Heart Study started off solely focused on heart health, following a large subset of the inhabitants of a former mill town on the outskirts of Boston throughout their lives, it is now providing information about the brain, liver, and many other organs.

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

As part of TIME’s series interviewing leaders in the longevity field, we spoke to epidemiologist Dr. Donald Lloyd-Jones, the current head of the study and a professor at Boston University Chobanian & Avedisian School of Medicine, about the study and what it tells us about aging well. 

This interview has been condensed and edited for clarity.

What is the Framingham Heart Study?

It’s the longest-running community-based study in the world. Its origins lie in finding the root causes of cardiovascular diseases, especially heart attacks and strokes. In 1948, the people who designed the study enrolled about a third of the population of the town of Framingham, Massachusetts, which is about 20 miles west of Boston. They really wanted to understand what was causing the emerging epidemic of heart disease after World War II.

It was already the leading cause of death, but it was quite clear that it was on the rise, and it wasn’t well-understood why that was happening. There were some very good hypotheses implying that diet and cigarette smoking might be linked, but it had never really been shown systematically or consistently.

They started to understand that it would be valuable to have families involved in this study—that heart disease is not just a man’s disease, and that there might be some familial component. They hadn’t even discovered DNA yet. This is decades before thinking about genetics.

Read More: How Tracking Your Health Metrics Can Help You Live Longer

They saw all of the participants every two years and did a full physical examination, collected blood, measured height and weight, things like that. They asked, What were they doing? What were their health habits? Really deep data collection for what was available at the time.

By the early 1960s, they had a strong signal that, in fact, blood cholesterol levels were tightly linked to risk for cardiovascular disease. Blood pressure was especially tightly linked to risks for cardiovascular disease and smoking. Pretty quickly thereafter, they could see that body weight was related, that sedentary lifestyle was related, certain aspects of diet were related.

So Framingham is really the study that put what we now consider the traditional risk factors for cardiovascular disease on the map. 

What happened next?

They enrolled another 5,000-plus individuals who were the offspring of the original participants and the spouses of those offspring. So we’re starting to get the genetic linkages, but also the environmental linkages—the shared environment between spouses. It was decades before we understood these things were important, but there were inklings, and they were smart enough to listen to those signals. So the offspring cohorts get examined about every four years, in addition to the first cohort being examined still every two years. That goes on through the 1970s and 80s and 90s.

We start to understand more about not just total cholesterol, but the subcomponents of cholesterol. We start to understand more that it’s actually your systolic blood pressure that’s more dangerous for you than your diastolic blood pressure. Certain types of dietary factors, certain types of physical activity were better.

Fast forward another few decades: in 2002, Framingham enrolled the third generation of related individuals. Along the way, the town of Framingham was actually changing pretty dramatically. Originally, back in 1948, Framingham was a town largely made up of people from European ancestry. It was a mill town, so there was a broad stratification socioeconomically, but it was pretty homogeneous in terms of race and ethnicity—almost exclusively white. But by the 90s and 2000s, there were lots of people of Asian heritage; a lot of Brazilian people settled in Framingham, so it became a much more diverse community.

Read More: Unlocking the Secrets to Living to 100

In total, we’re following six different groups of people, all of whom are related to Framingham in some way. And now there’s the technology to fully sequence someone’s DNA, and understand modifications to that DNA, called epigenetics. We can collect data on what their cells are actually transcribing. We can collect data on proteomics, metabolomics, microbiomics, and there are new technologies to help us look inside the body non-invasively, so we can see disease developing in the cardiovascular system, in the brain and the kidneys.

There has been a huge explosion in the ways we can characterize people. And Framingham has really been a leader all along in understanding the process of aging in every organ system in the body. Yes, we are still the Framingham Heart Study, but we have just as much activity going on in brain health across the life course, and lots of activity looking at bone health, kidney health, lung health, liver health—you name it—because these people are so well studied across their entire life course. 

What kinds of things can people do to reduce the risk of diseases of aging?

The American Heart Association has kind of a nice way to package this all together, called Life’s Essential Eight. It’s a platform in which people can measure their cardiovascular health status today. It’s also linked to really positive health outcomes over time, and it’s influenced by evidence from the Framingham Heart Study. 

The eight components are not going to surprise you, but they’re all actionable. They’re all modifiable, and they’re all things that people can do today to improve their cardiovascular health, which has been shown to reduce their risk for Alzheimer’s disease, all forms of cardiovascular disease, even cancer, arthritis—all the things that we worry about as chronic diseases of aging. If you focus on your cardiovascular health, you’ll have benefits for all these things simultaneously.

Read More: Want to Live Longer? First Find Out How Old You Really Are

So what are the eight components? They are a healthy diet, participating in physical activity, avoiding all forms of nicotine exposure (combustible cigarettes, but also other forms of nicotine exposure, because they’re toxic, too), healthy sleep, healthy weight, healthy blood pressure, healthy blood sugar, and healthy blood lipids.

No surprises, but here is what this is about: How can we optimize your health today, so that we extend not only your lifespan, but your healthspan—meaning not just the years in your life, but the life in your years? 

Can we make the date that you get sick much later—much closer to the time you’re going to die—so that you have more healthy years, not just more years, period? 

We don’t seem to necessarily be doing what the science suggests, as a society. Why is that? 

The truth is, although we’ve known that for 60 years, we’re still terrible at implementing it in public-health policies and in clinical practice. It’s a pretty simple message, but we don’t design our society, our environment, our neighborhoods, or our food supply to optimize those things.

It is possible to take this information and make a change. Great story: In the early 70s, Finland had the highest coronary heart disease death rates in the world, by a fair amount. They took information from Framingham and they said, You know what, let’s design a study where we take a county with particularly high coronary disease death rates and we just make some public-health changes. We’re going to implement smoking policy changes. We’re going to help people quit. We’re going to stop subsidizing meat, and we’re going to start subsidizing fruits and vegetables in our food supply.

Read More: Scientists Say These Daily Routines Can Slow Cognitive Decline

Immediately, the rates of coronary heart disease started to fall, and the strategies were soon applied across the country. By 30 years later, there was an 84% decline in coronary disease death rates, and suddenly Finland has the lowest coronary disease death rates in the world—so going from last to first.

In the U.S., we saw about a 70% decline in death rates from heart disease between 1968 and 2010, because we’ve gotten better clinically, and we’ve done some things with public health. 

Unfortunately, I think while we were making really, really great progress, the obesity epidemic has started to really kick in on the burden of cardiovascular diseases. Because obesity will drive higher blood pressure, higher blood sugar, more adverse cholesterol levels—all sorts of things—that sort of becomes a perfect storm. Since 2011, we’ve now seen leveling off of those improvements in death rates and maybe even some reversal, which is unfortunate. We understand everything we need to know about preventing cardiovascular disease. As we actually implement that, we’ll expand healthy aging. 

What does the future hold for the Framingham Heart Study?

Well, you may have heard that funding for science is a little difficult these days. But my hope would be that we would continue to represent the town of Framingham. I think there could be real value also for enrolling our fourth and our fifth generation.

The more we’ve studied the life course of all these chronic diseases, the more we’ve understood that every time we get a diagnosis, the horse is already partly out of the barn, if not all the way. So we need to get much, much earlier in the life course with prevention.

Read More: Your Brain Reveals a Lot About Your Age

I’ll leave you something hopeful. In another community-based study—a kind of descendant of the Framingham Heart Study—when they looked at how long people lived without cardiovascular disease, they found that lifestyle wins. Even people with high-risk genes, if they have a good lifestyle, they on average live 12 years longer than people with good genes but poor lifestyle habits. What’s more, they live 19 years longer on average without cardiovascular disease.

They not only extended their lifespan; they extended their healthspan substantially.

Genetics are not destiny. We can actually bend that curve, and people can do better if they can pursue these healthy lifestyle options. So much of this is actually in our control. But we need help: We need help from our food supply. We need help from good public-health policies so we are not exposed to indoor air that is contaminated by cigarette smoke. We need safe streets to go out and do physical activity. We need to actually be able to afford to buy fruits and vegetables.

A lot of this is policy that sets the stage. But there’s a lot in our control as well.

This article is part of TIME Longevity, an editorial platform dedicated to exploring how and why people are living longer and what this means for individuals, institutions, and the future of society. For other articles on this topic, click here.

• Some startups have found Amazon’s AI chips lag behind Nvidia’s GPUs in performance.
• AWS Trainium chips aim to offer a cost-effective alternative to Nvidia GPUs.
• Amazon’s AI chip market share is low, with Nvidia dominating at over 78%.

Amazon is counting on in-house AI chips to fuel its next phase of profitable growth. A recent internal document shows the cloud giant is still playing catch-up to Nvidia‘s dominant GPUs.

AI startup Cohere found that Amazon’s Trainium 1 and 2 chips were “underperforming” Nvidia’s H100 GPUs, according to an internal “confidential” Amazon document from July, obtained by Business Insider. Cohere reported that access to Trainium 2 was “extremely limited” and plagued by frequent service disruptions, the document also noted.

The “performance challenges” with Cohere were still under investigation by Amazon and its chip group Annapurna Labs, but progress on these issues was “limited,” the official document stated.

Stability AI, a well-known startup that generates AI images, had similar concerns. It concluded that Amazon’s Trainium 2 chips underperformed Nvidia’s H100 GPUs on latency, making them “less competitive” in terms of speed and cost, the document also warned.

An essential ingredient

Amazon’s homegrown Trainium chips are an essential part of the company’s effort to compete in the AI-cloud race. The early success of Amazon Web Services, especially its profitability, was based on designing its own data-center chips, rather than paying Intel for these pricy components. In the new generative-AI era, Amazon is trying to avoid paying for expensive Nvidia GPUs, while still providing cloud customers with powerful AI services.

If some AWS customers don’t want Trainium, and insist that AWS run their AI cloud workloads using Nvidia gear, that could undermine Amazon’s future cloud profits because it will be stuck paying more for GPUs.

The customer complaints highlighted internally by Amazon reveal the steep challenge it faces in matching Nvidia’s performance and getting profitable AI workloads running on AWS. This also underscores AWS’s ongoing challenges among startup customers, a segment that has long been its core market.

Feedback and Trainium 3

An Amazon spokesperson said the company is “grateful” for customer feedback that helps make its chips “even better and more widely used.”

The Cohere case is “not current,” the spokesperson added, while noting that Trainium and its other in-house AI chip, Inferentia, “have achieved great results” with customers including Ricoh, Datadog, and Metagenomi.

“We’re very pleased with the growth and adoption we’re seeing for Trianuim 2, which at this stage is primarily used by a small number of very large customers like Anthropic,” this spokesperson wrote in an email to Business Insider.

AWS claims its in-house AI chips offer 30% to 40% better price performance than the current generation of GPUs. The company has incredible chip-design talent and is working on new generations of these crucial components.

“We expect to accommodate more customers starting with Trainium 3, previewing later this year,” the spokesperson said. “We’ll accomplish that as we always do by listening to our customers and remaining vocally self-critical with each other as we continue innovating to give more customers access to chips with the best possible price and performance.”

Last week, Amazon CEO Andy Jassy said during the company’s earnings call that Trainium 2 chips are “fully subscribed” and are now a “multibillion-dollar” business. Spokespeople for Cohere and Stability AI didn’t respond to requests for comment.

Long-standing complaints

Other AWS customers have also complained about Amazon’s AI chips.

According to the July document, a startup called Typhoon found Nvidia’s older A100 GPUs to be as much as three times more cost-efficient than AWS’s Inferentia 2 chips for certain workloads.

Similarly, a research group called AI Singapore determined that AWS’s G6 servers, equipped with Nvidia GPUs, offered better cost performance than Inferentia 2 across multiple use cases. (Inferentia chips are used for running AI models, a process known as inference, while Trainium chips focus on training models).

Last year, Amazon cloud clients also cited “challenges adopting” its custom AI chips, creating “friction points” and contributing to low usage, Business Insider previously reported.

These struggles are reflected in market share. Nvidia dominates AI chips with more than 78% of the market. That’s followed by Google and AMD, each with just over 4%, according to research firm Omdia. AWS’s chips ranked sixth, with 2% of the market.

No Trainium for OpenAI

A new $38 billion partnership between AWS and OpenAI illustrates Amazon’s challenges here. The deal involves AI cloud servers that only contain Nvidia GPUs, with no mention of Trainium processors.

The lack of Trainium in the OpenAI deal “could be viewed as disappointing,” Mizuho analysts wrote after the deal was announced this week.

Perhaps even more damning, these analysts wrote that it was “logical” for OpenAI to start with Nvidia GPUs.

Nvidia’s chips not only deliver superior performance but also come with a widely adopted platform, CUDA, that many developers already know and use. That familiarity is especially valuable when teams are building large, high-risk AI projects, where reliability and existing expertise can make a crucial difference.

In the July document, Amazon employees noted that technical limitations and other comparative issues between its custom AI chips and Nvidia’s GPUs have become “critical blockers” for customers thinking about switching to AWS chips.

Bank of America analysts were cautious about Tranium’s progress last month. In a note published in late October, they warned that investors have been “skeptical” about Trainium’s capabilities, and it was “unclear” whether strong demand will materialize “outside of Anthropic.”

Anthropic and Project Rainier

Trainium’s most high-profile customer is Anthropic, the AI startup behind the powerful Claude models. AWS recently rolled out Project Rainier, a giant data center project that includes a cluster of half a million Trainium chips that will be exclusively used to train Anthropic’s next-generation AI model. Anthropic is expected to deploy more than 1 million Trainium 2 chips by the end of the year.

Anthropic is one of the world’s leading AI labs, regularly challenging OpenAI with state of the art models. If Anthropic can make Trainium chips work, that would be a huge boost to Amazon’s efforts here. But the jury is still out on this.

Some investors were caught off guard last month by Anthropic’s move to broaden its partnership with Google, which provides its own in-house AI chips known as TPUs. Amazon’s stock slipped following this news, although Anthropic emphasized that it will continue using Trainium.

Anthropic has also publicly acknowledged the complexity of using multiple chip architectures, detailing related outages in a September blog post.

Amazon’s spokesperson told Business Insider that Anthropic is continuing to expand its use of Trainium chips and emphasized the company’s commitment to offering customers a range of hardware options across its cloud services.

During an earnings call with analysts last week, Jassy underscored AWS’s focus on offering “multiple chip options.” The goal is not to replace Nvidia, but to give customers more choice, a strategy AWS follows in other parts of cloud computing, he said.

“In the history of AWS, it’s never just one player that over a long period of time has the entire market segment and then it can satisfy everybody’s needs on every dimension,” Jassy said.

Amazon shares surged the next trading day, after it reported AWS revenue grew 20% to $33 billion last quarter, the fastest pace of growth since 2022. That’s still slower growth than rivals such as Microsoft and Google Cloud, on a percentage basis.

Have a tip? Contact this reporter via email at ekim@businessinsider.com or Signal, Telegram, or WhatsApp at 650-942-3061. Use a personal email address, a nonwork WiFi network, and a nonwork device; here’s our guide to sharing information securely.