CEO

Mangione would face lighter sentencing if jury accepts he was in a state of ‘extreme emotional disturbance’ during act.

Luigi Mangione, the man suspected of fatally shooting United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson in New York City, will argue a psychiatric defence during his trial.

Judge Gregory Carro said on Wednesday that Mangione’s lawyers informed him that they will assert that their client was in a state of “extreme emotional disturbance” when he allegedly carried out the shooting in December 2024.

New York state allows murder defendants to make the case that they cannot be held fully responsible for their actions because they were in a state of extreme emotional disturbance at the time of the killing.

Thompson’s slaying, which took place outside a hotel in midtown Manhattan, shocked the United States public. Grainy footage of the act quickly spread across social media.

It also drew attention to the widespread anger over sky-high healthcare prices. Police have said that the terms “delay”, “deny”, and “depose” were written on the suspect’s ammunition, a reference to how health insurance companies avoid paying claims.

If the jury concludes that Mangione was emotionally disturbed at the time of the alleged act, it could move to convict him of manslaughter rather than murder. Such a conviction generally results in a lighter sentence.

Relying on a claim of emotional disturbance means that Mangione would effectively admit that he carried out the act, but that he did so under circumstances of impaired judgement. It differs from an insanity plea, which would allow Mangione to serve his sentence in a psychiatric facility rather than a prison.

Mangione, who sat between two of his lawyers dressed in a blue suit, is set to go to state trial on September 8. The 28-year-old has previously pleaded not guilty to state and federal charges in connection to the killing.

His federal trial, which includes stalking charges, is set to begin on October 13. He faces a potential life in prison if convicted in either case.

US District Judge Margaret Garnett, who is overseeing the federal case, threw out murder and weapons charges against Mangione on technical grounds in January. That ruling eliminated the possibility of Mangione facing the death penalty.

The saga of the Constellation class frigate is emblematic of so many chronic issues with the Navy’s way of procuring warships. The vessel that was supposed to make the wrongs of the Littoral Combat Ship debacle right failed spectacularly and the timing couldn’t have been worse. Now Constellation is dead and the Trump administration is building a different frigate from a different yard. While the Navy has said why it is moving on, we wanted the other side of the story. We recently had a conversation with George Moutafis, CEO of Fincantieri Marine Group, to get exactly that.

Before we get to the questions and answers, however, here is the backstory.

The U.S. Navy needed the Constellation class frigate, badly, and the program to construct it seemed built to deliver. Rather than a clean-sheet design, the service chose the proven Franco-Italian FREMM as its parent design, betting that adapting an existing platform would be far faster and cheaper, and overall less risky than starting from scratch.

It wasn’t. Among the issues plaguing the program, constant change orders pushed the design far from its origins. Two years into construction, the first ship was barely 10% complete while its design was still being finalized. Meanwhile, costs and schedules blew well past original projections.

As a result of these issues, the Navy late last year cancelled the program. That left Fincantieri’s Wisconsin yard sidelined while a contract to replace the Constellation class frigate went to rival Ingalls Shipbuilding in Pascagoula.

In the wake of the program’s implosion, the Navy created the Vessel Construction Manager (VCM) system. It uses a hired manager to hold the prime contract and run the show, overseeing shipyard performance, controlling subcontracts, and acting as a buffer between the service and the builder to keep costs and schedules on track.

In a wide-ranging, hour-long exclusive interview, Moutafis – appointed CEO on July 1, 2025 as the wheels were already falling off this project – gave us unique insights into Fincantieri’s version of how Constellation turned into a debacle and what needs to change as a result. He also touched on an array of other topics, which we will address in future installments.

Some of the questions and answers have been edited for clarity.

Q: Why was the Constellation class frigate cancelled from your point of view? What happened that caused the program – which was seen as a must-succeed endeavor, and hugely promising – to get to the point where it was shuttered?

A: It’s for sure a tricky situation. On one hand, the way the Constellation class program was initially laid out and envisioned – potentially a lot of the things that were driving it may have been ahead of its time.

So, while you’re saying you want to attempt to do one thing, but at the same time you’re not evolving the way you execute can lead you to an undesired effect. And I say this because in my eyes, some of those lessons learned out of Constellation are being manifested in the things that the Navy has been rolling out the past few months – a new approach that empowers PAEs [Navy Portfolio Acquisition Executives] to make decisions, to minimize change, to embrace innovation and new technologies. All these elements that we see now being rolled out, I think to a certain degree, connect back to lessons that have been learned out of the Constellation class journey.

Q: What lessons, specifically?

A: Figure out what you want to prioritize, to what extent you want to prioritize schedule, and what’s the best way to say this. When you know when you need something delivered and at what pace, then enable the right level of decision-making. Because otherwise – I don’t want to sound this the wrong way – but perfection sometimes is the enemy of more than good enough.

Going beyond the Constellation class, now the needs are for vessels to be out there for the warfighter as soon as possible. For sure, we will see many cases where it will be considered that a vessel with these capabilities – even though potentially, in some areas, it may not have enough tons of steel on its sides, or whatever – it will be good enough to assist the warfighter as they head into harm’s way.

Those trade-offs are now being placed at the PAE level, allowing Navy leaders at that level to make the right decisions – figuring out whether to continue going down a design spiral versus just moving out with production and enabling us to have the right capabilities on time for the warfighter.

You can see former Navy Secretary John Phelan announce the cancellation of the Constellation class in the following video.

Q: Could the Constellation class have been salvaged? What would have needed to change to get it to a place where it was affordable, on time and efficient?

A: I think the initial and envisioned approach was a healthy one. Had we kept on track with what was, back then, the principles that led to the selection – but also how it was originally set up – we probably would have kept closer to the original design. And thus allowing [us] to be closer to the original schedule. And thus allowing [us] also to build the vessel that was desired, without delays or major changes.

On our end, from day one or day two – let me say that once the Navy decided their shift, we opted to consciously become a true partner and showcase that we are a true partner to the Navy and the nation. We said, ‘Okay, we will adjust, we will move forward.’ And it’s a clear reality that what we have in Wisconsin is an asset for the Navy, especially in a time like this that leaves all of us eager to serve the way you would need us to serve – whether it’s today through serial production of landing ships and/or icebreakers or others. And in the future, should the small surface combatant segment have additional needs, it’s obvious that the infrastructure [in Wisconsin] has been built to ideally serve that type of vessel, so we’re ready to answer the calling.

Q: Why didn’t the Navy just take the base class and do minimal modifications to it? It became what seemed like a totally new ship.

A: That’s a great question, Howard, but I would need to speculate to answer that one, and I wouldn’t want to do that, because you’re right. But at the same time – what’s the saying? Hindsight is 20/20. It’s probably one of those occasions at this point. But it’s a great question. I’d love to be with you when we pose it to the right folks.

Q: But what do you think is the answer to that question, from your point of view?

A: From our point of view – from the get-go, when the award was made, it was made because there was a review of the requirements, a review of the design, and a review of all the elements that led to recognition that the parent design possessed exactly the right features to represent the path forward. So collectively, we had marched on that path. We might find ourselves in a different situation right now, but like I said, it’s one thing asking somebody to change their M.O. and adopt a new approach without fully empowering them or doing something drastic to signal that type of transformation. And it’s another where we said ‘we will try this new approach.’ But there was a lot of follow-through that was needed.

Everybody has developed experiences in certain ways, and everybody – especially when you have folks that have been doing it for decades – has developed their own rules of thumb and approaches to dealing with certain situations. It’s not easy to pivot an entire structure to a new idea or a new approach. So like I said, probably it was the right idea, but a little bit ahead of its time.

Q: What do you think of the lessons that should be learned from the Constellation class’s story?

A: I want to be a glass-half-full type of guy, so that’s why I connected back the things that I’ve been seeing being rolled out by our Navy the last few months as indeed adopting some of those lessons learned. So I’ll go back to the fact that they’ve decided to find new ways to apply the principle that schedule is king. And those new ways include changes that are not just at the leadership level, not just at the level following that, but indeed of restructuring and reorganizing the teams that are there to implement those guidelines – because that’s key in order to be able to change your ways and adopt lessons learned.

So I’m hopeful that this new approach of the PAE setup will be an enabler to adopt the lessons learned: of how to move fast, of how not to mess with a design especially when it’s meeting and exceeding requirements, of how to manage change – not in the rollout of a change, but in the decision-making of whether to adopt change or not. So a lot of those new ideas that they’ve been trying to apply are promising to that effect.

Q: The Navy adopted the new VCM program to oversee construction of the new Landing Ship Medium (LSM) vessels you are working on. This is a direct result of what happened with the Constellation class, right?

A: I would definitely think so, because it indicates the whole idea that the Navy is recognizing – instead of applying the typical layers of full team presence in the shipbuilder’s yard, additional layers of engineering design, etc. – we’re saying, ‘Okay, in a case where we want to go fast, let’s make our decisions ahead of time, select the design, check it quickly ahead of time, and assign it as a production-related design in the hands of that VCM, and allow an industry set of characters between the VCM and the shipbuilder to deliver.’

Q: What does Fincantieri have to give up in this VCM approach?

A: Thinking on this – Fincantieri, as a global group, likes to be end-to-end with the end customer. Our strategy is to develop the design according to the needs and requirements, move forward all through construction, and even post-construction to provide full support throughout almost the entire lifecycle of a vessel. That’s the Fincantieri model around the globe.

In this case, we’re looking to adjust to the approach that the Navy is looking to apply – and we can view it as a benefit. We can take it on as a build-to-print: be the shipbuilder that respects this design, doesn’t try to mess with it, just works out all the kinks to ensure producibility, and then moves swiftly into quick serial production.

From that perspective, we’re not really giving up something – we’re just placing at the disposal of the nation the assets that are already in place, and looking to produce as many vessels as quickly as possible.

Q: How will this speed up U.S. shipbuilding?

A: How I interpret this strategy is the Navy saying: in programs that work, find an approach that allows them to almost get out of the picture. They recognize schedule is priority number one and a quality vessel is priority number two. In order to enable that ‘build more and build fast’ approach, they’re seeking to place somebody – the VCM – to take on the construction, provide them with a mature, production-ready design with no changes to it, and enable the kind of interaction you’ve seen in commercial shipbuilding. That allows those two parties – the VCM and the shipbuilder – to work fast through daily decision-making in a way that favors schedule without compromising quality.

They’re seeking to equip the VCM with a design that will not be touched – a build-to-print situation – and empower them to make these types of decisions daily, so that at the end of the day they simply deliver a vessel to the Navy, minimizing the Navy’s need or propensity to intervene.

It’s an innovative approach, and it definitely requires all parties to give up habits and practices that have taken hold in the past. As long as parties stick with this new approach, it has a great chance of success. On our end, we’re trying to be disciplined in respecting it and pushing forward.

Our next installment of this interview focuses on how Fincantieri is planning to help build Trump’s Golden Fleet and the challenges ahead.

Contact the author: howard@twz.com

The looming impact of federal Medicaid cuts has reignited a long-simmering, costly battle between California’s medical industry and one of its largest health worker unions.

SEIU-United Healthcare Workers West, with about 120,000 members, has put forward two ballot initiatives to cap the pay of medical executives and require community clinics to spend the bulk of their revenues on patient care.

The California Hospital Assn. has responded with its own ballot proposal that would make it tougher for unions to spend money on political initiatives in the future. It would require approval by a union’s rank-and-file membership for any spending of $1 million or more on statewide measures, or $100,000 or more on local ones.

The competing measures, which have drawn enough verified signatures to qualify for the November ballot, come at a time when the rising cost of healthcare is emerging as a top voter concern.

The Service Employees International Union affiliate has seized upon affordability angst to resurrect a proposal for a cap on healthcare executive compensation, which it has failed to achieve multiple times before. The proposed measure garnered more than 1 million petition signatures.

“This initiative reflects the serious crisis we face and that affordability is a real thing,” said Vikas Saini, president of the Lown Institute, a Massachusetts-based healthcare think tank. “I think it also reflects grassroots anger and a desire to do something.”

Mikey Vaughn, a certified nursing assistant at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, said the hospital often lacks supplies and staffing levels that he and his colleagues need in order to do their jobs effectively and without undue stress, despite its reputation as the go-to place for the rich and famous.

“The executive pay initiative would, I hope, be used to hire staff and to actually provide better resources for our patients,” he said. Vaughn is also a member of SEIU-UHW’s executive board and political committee.

Thomas Priselac, then-president and CEO of Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, made $8.8 million in fiscal year 2024, according to the organization’s most recent available federal tax filing. Kaiser Permanente’s CEO, Gregory Adams, made nearly $13 million in 2024. Warner Thomas, head of Sutter Health, made just under $12 million.

Cedars-Sinai spokesperson Duke Helfand said the hospital would be unable to recruit and retain physicians, nurses, and specialists if the measure passed, dramatically impairing its ability to provide healthcare.

“Such a scenario would be disastrous not only for Cedars-Sinai but for hospitals across Los Angeles and California,” Helfand said.

The union wants to cap compensation at $450,000 a year for senior hospital and medical group executives, as well as other administrative and managerial staff. However, the initiative does not stipulate how dollars diverted from payroll must be spent.

The union has dubbed the latest proposal the Health Care Executive Compensation Act of 2026. A coalition of medical industry heavyweights opposing it — hospitals, physicians, and clinics, among others — has rebranded it the Health Care Endangerment Act.

Carmela Coyle, CEO of the hospital association, called the measure a cynical political ploy.

“It’s bad policy and it’s going to have bad consequences across California,” she said.

Glenn Melnick, a healthcare economist at the University of Southern California, said even if the initiative were fully implemented and pay cuts enacted, he doubts it would reduce the cost of healthcare for patients.

SEIU-UHW does not have an estimated total amount the initiative would claw back from pay packages that exceed the limit.

Opponents of the initiative note that it doesn’t just target executive pay; it would affect medical practitioners who are also managers. That could include chief medical officers and chief nursing officers, as well as heads of surgery, emergency rooms, oncology, obstetrics, cardiology and other specialties, they say.

It would be up to each hospital, health system and physician group to report which staff members exceed the cap and by how much.

Ultimately, who is subject to the pay cap “probably will have to be battled out in court,” Coyle said . “That’s why we are throwing everything we can at it.”

The second SEIU-UHW ballot initiative, on community clinics, is already in court. The California Primary Care Assn., which represents clinics, filed a federal lawsuit in April seeking to invalidate it before it reaches the November ballot.

The proposed measure would require federally designated community clinics to spend at least 90% of their revenues on activities directly related to their mission of providing care for low-income populations. If it were to pass, more than 90% of those clinic organizations would be on the hook for penalties totaling $1.7 billion in the first year alone and “would face similarly crippling penalties every year,” according to a report commissioned by the primary care association and conducted by the Berkeley Research Group, an international consulting company.

Louise McCarthy, president and CEO of the Community Clinic Assn. of Los Angeles County, said many pivotal services the clinics provide — such as translation and transportation — would likely not be counted toward the spending requirement.

“They are targeting a group of what they see as employers and we see as the safety net,” she said.

The lawsuit cites the harm to clinics and claims the proposed spending requirement would interfere with federal authority.

Renée Saldaña, a spokesperson for SEIU-UHW, characterized the lawsuit against the initiative as “a really desperate attempt by the clinic industry to try and avoid accountability.”

SEIU-UHW, proud of its political activism, is also behind a controversial billionaire tax proposal that would impose a one-time 5% levy on California residents with fortunes over $1 billion to backfill the funding gap created by federal cuts coming down the pike under Republicans’ One Big Beautiful Bill Act. The law, passed last July and signed by President Trump, is projected to squeeze nearly $1 trillion from the Medicaid health coverage program for low-income people by 2034, including as much as $30 billion annually in California.

The hospital association, the community clinic group and the California Medical Assn., which represents physicians, are neutral on the wealth tax proposal thus far. But Saldaña said all three of the union’s ballot proposals tie into an overarching strategy to counter the widening healthcare disparities caused by the federal law.

“We believe the primary concern of healthcare providers, including executives, should be to serve the community, heal patients, and not be in healthcare just to enrich themselves,” she said on the proposed pay cap.

Over the years, the union has submitted dozens of local and statewide ballot initiatives, including ones to cap the pay of hospital executives, regulate dialysis clinics, and raise the minimum wage of healthcare workers.

The hospital association calculates that SEIU-UHW has spent nearly $125 million on local and statewide initiatives since 2012. But healthcare industry groups have spent far more opposing them. The hospital association data shows that the union spent nearly $36 million on three ballot proposals to regulate the dialysis industry, but dialysis companies poured in $302 million to defeat them, according to state campaign finance records.

The union’s ongoing political efforts “threaten patient access to quality health care,” according to the hospital association’s ballot initiative, which could limit how much unions spend on future ballot measures.

Saldaña hinted at a possible lawsuit should that measure pass, saying “we don’t see the legal viability” of it. The proposal, she said, is an attempt “to silence the front-line healthcare workers.”

Ultimately, a ballot initiative won’t cure the ills that plague healthcare in the United States, said the Lown Institute’s Saini. What’s needed, he said, is “an evaluation and reimagination of healthcare.”

Wolfson writes for KFF Health News, a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF — an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism.

June 1 (UPI) — Florida’s attorney general announced Monday that the state is suing OpenAI and its founder and CEO, Sam Altman, saying the company chose “profits over public safety” in creating a dangerous product in the form of ChatGPT. It is the first state to sue the company over these design and safety concerns.

“The rise of OpenAI is attributable to a web of deceit and the exploitation of users (including Floridians), leveraging their data and safety to boost OpenAI’s market value at unacceptable costs,” the complaint filed by Attorney General James Uthmeier said, NBC News reported.

The lawsuit claims that OpenAI violated Florida’s rules on deceptive business practices and knew that its chatbot could be dangerous to children and others through actions such as providing “harmful information such as tips on eating disorders, self-harm and mass murder,” The New York Times reported. It says OpenAI presents “a great danger of addiction, cognitive decline, suicide, violence and related harms.”

The civil suit is separate from Florida’s ongoing criminal investigation into OpenAI, which Uthmeier openedin April. It includes multiple counts of deceptive and unfair trade practices, negligence, violations of product liability laws, fraudulent misrepresentation and causing a public nuisance.

OpenAI representatives have not yet commented on this lawsuit. Representatives have said in response to past claims that the company designs its systems with safety in mind and that there are “safeguards in placeto help people, especially teens, when conversations turn sensitive.”

“We continue improving ChatGPT’s training to recognize and respond to signs of mental and emotional distress, de-escalate conversations and guide people toward real-world support,” the company said in a prior statement.

The lawsuits also mentions OpenAI’s connections to a mass shooting at Florida State University and killings at the University of South Florida. In both cases, suspects asked ChatGPT for information connected to the attacks.

June 2 (Asia Today) — Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang visited the SK hynix booth at Computex 2026 in Taipei on Tuesday, meeting SK Group Chairman Chey Tae-won for a second straight day as the companies deepen their artificial intelligence partnership.

Huang, who met privately with Chey on Monday, examined SK hynix’s major memory products and wrote “Please Make More” on an HBM4E wafer displayed at the booth.

Chey also signaled that SK plans to expand production. He said the group aims to double wafer production capacity within five years as demand for memory chips is expected to surge.

Huang toured the booth with Chey and SK hynix executives. He signed the HBM4E wafer with the message “Please Make More” and wrote “LOVE SOCAMM” on a 192GB SOCAMM product.

SK hynix currently supplies Nvidia with its latest high-bandwidth memory, including sixth-generation HBM4, as well as high-performance low-power LPDDR5X memory. Huang said in his GTC Taipei keynote Monday that Nvidia will begin full-scale production of its next-generation AI accelerator, Vera Rubin, in the second half of this year.

As AI demand increases and memory supply shortages deepen, Chey said SK is moving quickly to expand production.

“The memory bottleneck is expected to continue until 2030,” Chey told reporters at the SK hynix booth. “We are pushing forward at full speed to expand production capacity.”

“Building new memory fabs requires enormous investment and takes at least three years,” he said. “Despite these challenges, we plan to double wafer production capacity over the next five years.”

It was the first time SK Group publicly presented a specific goal of doubling its overall production capacity within five years. SK hynix is making large-scale investments to strengthen production capacity, including projects at its M15X and P&T7 facilities in Cheongju, the Yongin semiconductor cluster and an advanced packaging plant in the United States.

— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

Original Korean report: https://www.asiatoday.co.kr/kn/view.php?key=20260602010000823

April 27 (UPI) — The chief executive officer of United Airlines confirmed Monday that he pitched a potential merger to American Airlines, but was turned down.

United CEO Scott Kirby said in a statement Monday that American Airlines rejected his proposal.

“I approached American about exploring a combination because I thought we could do something incredible for customers together,” Kirby wrote in the statement.

Kirby wrote that he was seeking “a willing partner that shared my big, bold vision.”

He said the plan was aimed at increasing coverage for customers, creating a globally competitive airline and growing the U.S. economy.

“I was hoping to pitch that story to American, but they declined to engage and instead responded by publicly closing the door,” he wrote. “And without a willing partner, something this big simply can’t get done.”

American Airlines CEO Robert Isom said last week that a merger with United would be anticompetitive and bad for customers.

Kirby had reportedly approached the Trump administration with his idea earlier this year, but President Donald Trump told CNBC last week that he would be against such a merger.

LIV Golf appears to be dying on the vine but doesn’t want to say so.

Amid several reports that the Saudi-backed Public Investment Fund will cease its abundant funding of LIV Golf after the 2026 season, officials with the four-year-old PGA Tour competitor chose to focus on the fact that the show will go on — at least through August.

During a broadcast interview from the LIV tournament in Mexico City, LIV Chief Executive Scott O’Neil would not say if the league has a funding commitment from the Public Investment Fund, or PIF, beyond this year.

O’Neil responded to a question about golfer Sergio Garcia saying this week that LIV Golf Chairman Yasir Al-Rumayyan “told us at the beginning of the year that he is behind us, that they have a project of many years.”

“It’s just not the way the world works,” O’Neil said. “We have commitments to have this … the reality is you’re funded through the season and then you work like crazy as a business to create a business and a business plan to keep us going.

“But that’s not different from any other private equity-funded business in the history of mankind.”

The interview was pulled from the internet shortly after it was posted.

PIF announced a new five-year strategy Wednesday that will reduce international investments from 30% to 18-20% of the portfolio and place greater emphasis on Saudi domestic initiatives to promote sports. LIV Golf does not fit into that category and was not mentioned.

“PIF will continue to support Saudi Vision 2030 objectives by delivering competitive domestic ecosystems,” Al-Rumayyan said in the announcement. “The 2026-2030 strategy is a natural next step in PIF’s growth journey.”

PIF approved more than $250 million in additional funding for LIV Golf this year, hiking the total investment to more than $5.3 billion since the league was launched four years ago. Documented losses are more than $1 billion from 2022 to 2024, according to Forbes.

LIV Golf executives were rushed from various corners of the planet to a meeting this week in New York where the future of the operation was discussed in private and decisions were made.

A few flew in from Mexico City, where this week’s tournament began Thursday at the Club de Golf Chapultepec. It is one of the highest-altitude golf courses in North America, and LIV golfers took deep breaths before answering press questions about reports that the organization was on the verge of collapse.

“For me, it didn’t make sense to think about it or waste time thinking about,” superstar golfer Jon Rahm said after shooting a first-round 65. “Since everything happened so suddenly and so quickly, I wasn’t very worried about it because normally, before the rumors start, we already know something — there’s always someone within the league who knows something.”

Communication at the tournament was spotty. A power outage at the course Tuesday caused interviews to be canceled, and streaming of the first round Thursday was down for about two hours because of what were described as technical difficulties.

Yet nothing could stop the speculation and growing unease about the future of LIV Golf. Money continues to hemorrhage, as does the roster of big-name golfers.

LIV Golf purses each week are $30 million — 50% more than PGA Tour purses. Enormous signing bonuses were doled out to secure the services of superstar golfers Phil Mickelson, Dustin Johnson, Cameron Smith, Bryson DeChambeau and Rahm. All received bonuses of at least $100 million to defect from the PGA Tour, and Rahm, a relative latecomer to LIV Golf, received a reported $300- to $500-million bonus.

Yet original LIV Golf members Brooks Koepka and Patrick Reed recently returned to the PGA Tour. Others are bound to follow.

Former PGA standout Greg Norman was the LIV Golf chief executive until resigning in August, citing exhaustion. His comments upon exiting might have foreshadowed the current difficulties.

“I knew there were going to be a lot of headwinds,” he told the Australian Golf Digest. “I didn’t anticipate the magnitude of those headwinds because … as time went by, those headwinds were created by misperceptions.”

Norman was replaced by O’Neil, whose internal message to the LIV staff Wednesday attempted to quiet concerns about PIF pulling the plug. He urged the golfers to focus on the season that is already underway.

“We are heading into the heart of our 2026 schedule with the full energy of an organization that is bigger, louder and more influential than ever before,” O’Neil wrote in the message obtained by Sports Illustrated. “The life of a startup movement is often defined by these moments of pressure. We signed up for this because we believe in disrupting the status quo.

“We have faced headwinds since the jump, and we’ve answered every time with resilience and grace. Now we answer by doing what we do best: putting on the most compelling show in sports.”

One of those headwinds is that “a compelling show” can be a relative term. LIV Golf has been popular in golf-starved locales such as Australia and South Africa, but TV ratings are low everywhere and interest in events held in the United States is tepid.

PIF — worth an estimated $1.15 trillion — launched LIV Golf as part of a strategy to transform Saudi Arabia into a global sports hub, using its vast oil revenue to drive economic diversification, create jobs and boost tourism. Initiatives include massive investments in soccer, tennis and esports in addition to golf.

The PGA Tour countered by increasing prize money and creating a series of limited-field “signature events” for top players. Rory McIlroy and Tiger Woods are among the sport’s top stars to steadfastly remain loyal to the PGA Tour, with Woods turning down an offer from LIV Golf of $800 million in 2022.

Mexico City is the sixth stop in the LIV Golf 14-tournament season that concludes in August. The Individual Championship finale is scheduled for Indianapolis from Aug 20–23.