cuts

The Apprentice has reportedly had to make a change to the format as producers wanted viewers to see more explosive scenes set in the boardroom on the hit BBC series

The Apprentice has reportedly had to make a major change amid BBC budget cuts. Lord Alan Sugar’s hit reality show, which has been on air for more than 20 years, sees its contestants all vying to the next big thing in business trying to get their hands on the grand prize of a £250,000 prize.

In the early years of the show, the winning contestant landed a six-figure job with the magnate himself, and throughout the series, they are treated to luxuries such as spa breaks and helicopter rides if they perform well in various tasks within the competition. However, it’s now thought that these sorts of prizes have been ditched from the format entirely.

Currently on air for its landmark 20th series, it’s thought that producers got rid of the prizes in order to fit more “fiery debates” into the running time. A source said: “The Apprentice is known for laying on lavish gifts for the winning team.”

READ MORE: BBC licence fee set to rise in just a matter of weeks as new cost revealedREAD MORE: The Apprentice’s Lord Sugar fires third candidate who ‘loved being on camera’

Speaking to The Sun, the source added: “Fans love to see them get to celebrate their victory by enjoying themselves. However the producers want the viewers to see more of the fiery boardroom debates this year.”

It comes amid news that the BBC licence fee is set to rise. . From April 1, it will go up to £180 as required by the 2022 Licence Fee Settlement, in line with inflation. The cost of an annual colour TV licence will rise by £5.50, which is the equivalent of 46p per month.

The Mirror has contacted the BBC for comment

Last week, Marcus Donkoh became the third contestant to be axed from the programme this year after failing to impress. The group he was heading up were tasked with creating a book aimed at four top six year olds, and pitched it, along with an audio version, to retailers. Lord Sugar didn’t pull any punches when the team were unable to provide enough product sales. The book, which had missing illustrations, was said to have had “no point” to the story.

Following his elimination, he said: “I feel as though, in the real business world, you have a lot of information – you do have to make quick decisions, but you have a time to think.

“It was really intense in the boardroom, I had to make a decision very quickly on who to bring back. So, changing my mind didn’t help, but I feel as though there were other candidates that performed a lot worse than I did, didn’t do what they were supposed to do, and I feel as though they deserved to get kicked off rather than myself.”

Despite Lord Sugar’s decision, the failed contestant says he wouldn’t change anything. “I think what I did was fine,” he confessed. “I am human. Humans can change their minds, and I feel as though I did get penalised for it, but no, I would not change what I did.”

The first episode saw a double elimination as event manager Georgina Newton was first to go and quickly followed by Nikki Jetha.

Just before the launch of the show’s latest series, Lord Alan explained that the longevity of the programme likely relied on the fact that a new audience are discovering it year on year.

He said: “I think the programme itself brings in a new audience every year, because 20 years ago, I had nine-year-olds watching it who are now 29. And the new generation of 16-year-olds are coming in and loving it. So the audience is growing. The audience is holding up, and that’s why the BBC keeps doing it.”

* The Apprentice continues on Thursday nights on BBC1 and BBC iPlayer.

Like this story? For more of the latest showbiz news and gossip, follow Mirror Celebs on TikTok, Snapchat, Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and Threads.

For Mikayla Tencer, being self-employed already meant juggling higher taxes, irregular income and the constant pressure of finding her own health insurance. This year, it also meant rethinking how often she could afford to see a doctor.

The 29-year-old content creator in San Francisco paid $168 a month last year for a Blue Shield health plan through Covered California. This year — without enhanced federal subsidies that expired at the end of December — that same plan would have cost $299 a month, with higher copays.

“People assume that because I’m young, I can just pick the cheapest plan and not worry about it,” Tencer said. “But I do need regular care, especially for mental health.”

Tencer is among tens of thousands of middle-class Californians facing steep increases in health insurance costs after Congress allowed enhanced federal subsidies for Affordable Care Act plans to expire Dec. 31.

Those extra subsidies were enacted in 2021 as part of temporary, pandemic-era relief, boosting financial help for people buying coverage on state-run insurance marketplaces such as Covered California. The law also expanded eligibility to people earning more than 400% of the federal poverty level, about $62,600 for a single person and $128,600 for a family of four.

Mikayla Tencer records a TikTok video featuring eyeliners. Her blog showcases Bay Area attractions and local businesses.

(Paul Kuroda/For The Times)

With the expiration of the enhanced subsidies, people above that income threshold no longer receive federal assistance, and many who still qualify are seeing sharply higher premiums and out-of-pocket costs. On top of the loss of the extra federal benefits, the average Covered California premium this year rose by 10.3% because of fast-rising medical costs.

To lower her monthly bill, Tencer switched to the cheapest Covered California option, bringing her premium down to about $161 a month. But the savings came with new costs. Primary care and mental health visits now carry $60 copays, up from $35.

When she showed up for a psychiatric appointment to manage her ADHD and generalized anxiety disorder, she said, she learned her doctor was out of network.

“That visit would have been $35 before,” she said. “Now it’s $180 out of pocket.”

Because of the higher costs, Tencer said she has cut therapy from weekly to biweekly sessions.

“The subsidies made it possible for me to be self-employed in the first place,” Tencer said. “Without them, I’m seriously thinking about applying for full-time jobs, even though the market is terrible.”

For another self-employed Californian, the increase was even more dramatic.

Krista, a 42-year-old photographer and videographer in Santa Cruz County, relies on costly monthly intravenous treatments for a rare blood disorder. She asked that her full name not be used but shared her insurance and medical documents with The Times.

Last year, she paid about $285 a month for a Covered California plan. In late December, she received a notice showing her premium would rise to more than $1,200 a month. The rise was due to her loss of federal subsidies, as well as a 23% increase in the premium charged by Blue Shield.

“It terrified me. I thought, how am I ever going to retire?” she asked. “What’s the point?”

Krista ultimately enrolled in a plan costing about $522 a month, still nearly double what she had been paying, with a $5,000 deductible. She said she cannot downgrade to a cheaper plan because her clinic bills her treatment to insurance at roughly $30,000 a month, according to medical statements.

To cut costs and preserve the ability to save for retirement and eventually afford a place of her own, Krista decided to move into an RV on private land. The decision came the same week she received notices showing a rent increase and a steep jump in her health insurance premiums.

Mikayla Tencer, a marketing influencer, with her elder dog, “Lucky” at Alamo Square Park.

(Paul Kuroda/For The Times)

Krista said she had been planning for more than a year to find a long-term living situation that would enable her to live independently, rather than continue paying more for an apartment.

“Nobody asks to be sick,” Krista said. “No one should have their life ruined because they get diagnosed with a disease or break a leg.”

Jessica Altman, executive director of Covered California, said that about 160,000 Californians lost their subsidies when the enhanced federal assistance expired because their incomes were higher than 400% of the federal poverty level.

Although overall enrollment in Covered California this year has held steady, Altman said, she worries that more people will drop coverage as bills with the higher premiums arrive in the mail.

Those fears are already playing out.

Jayme Wernicke, a 34-year-old receptionist and single mother in Chico who earns about $49,000 a year, said she was transferred from Medi-Cal to a Covered California Anthem Blue Cross plan at the end of 2023. Her premium rose from about $30 a month to $60, then jumped to roughly $230 after the subsidies expired.

“For them to raise my health insurance almost 400% is just insane to me,” Wernicke said.

Her employer, a small family-owned business, does not offer health insurance. Her plan does not include dental or vision care and, she said, barely covers medical costs.

“At a certain point, it just feels completely counterintuitive,” she said. “Either way, I’m losing.”

Wernicke dropped her own coverage and plans to pay for care with cash, calculating that the state tax penalty is less than the cost of premiums. Her daughter remains insured.

Two other Californian residents told The Times that they also decided to go without coverage because they could no longer afford it. They declined to provide their full names, citing concerns about financial and professional consequences.

Under California law, residents without coverage face an annual penalty of at least $900 per adult and $450 per child.

One, a 29-year-old self-employed publicist in Los Angeles requires medication for epilepsy. Last year, she paid about $535 a month for a silver plan through Covered California. This year, the same plan would have cost $823.

After earning about $55,000 last year, she calculated that paying for care out of pocket would cost far less. Her epilepsy medication costs about $175 every three months without insurance, and her annual doctor visits total roughly $250.

“All of that combined is still far less than paying hundreds of dollars every month,” she said.

Another, April, a 58-year-old small-business owner in San Francisco, canceled her insurance in December after her quoted premium rose to $1,151 a month for a bronze plan and $1,723 for a silver plan, just for herself. Last year, April said she paid $566 for both her and her daughter. This year, her daughter’s premium alone jumped from $155 to $424.

The bronze plan also carried a $3,500 deductible for lab work and specialist visits, meaning she would have had to pay thousands of dollars out of pocket before coverage kicked in, on top of the higher monthly premium.

“The subsidies were absolutely what allowed me to sustain my business,” April said. “They were helping me sustain my financial world and have affordable care.”

She rushed to complete medical tests before dropping coverage and hopes to go a year uninsured.

“The scariest part is not having catastrophic coverage,” she said. “If something happens, it can be millions of dollars.”

Tencer, the content creator in San Francisco, believes that in order to make the nation healthier, affordable healthcare should be universal.

“Our government should be providing it.” she said. “People can’t go to the doctor for routine checkups, they can’t get things checked out early, and they can’t access the resources they need.”

Feb. 5 (Asia Today) — K Bank has lowered its proposed offering price as it makes a third attempt at an initial public offering, betting that a stronger stock market and a deeper discount will help it clear investor demand.

According to the financial investment industry, K Bank is offering 60 million shares with a target fundraising range of 498 billion to 570 billion won (about $373 million to $427 million). The proposed price band of 8,300 to 9,500 won represents a 20.83% cut from the 12,000-won upper limit floated during its failed 2024 IPO attempt.

Lee Jun-hyung, the company’s chief financial officer, said the price was set at about a 20% discount and is “20% to 30% lower than peers such as Kakao Bank and Japan’s Rakuten Bank.”

Market attention is focused on whether K Bank can secure sufficient institutional demand this time. The book-building process, which began Tuesday, runs through Monday. Industry officials noted that participation often concentrates on the final day, making it too early to judge the outcome.

If listed, K Bank plans to accelerate a non-interest income strategy centered on small businesses, platform services and digital assets. At an IPO press conference in Seoul, Chief Executive Officer Choi Woo-hyung said the bank aims to expand its retail base and open ecosystem while broadening its portfolio to include sole proprietors and small and medium-sized companies.

Choi also said the lender is preparing for future stablecoin-related business, citing its ongoing partnership with Upbit and internal development of blockchain technology, including patent filings.

Following a successful listing, K Bank plans to enhance shareholder returns. Choi said the bank is targeting a return on equity above 15% and will consider dividends or treasury share buybacks once it achieves a sustained double-digit ROE.

The IPO is being led by NH Investment & Securities and Samsung Securities, with Shinhan Investment Corporation participating in the underwriting syndicate. The listing is scheduled for March 5.

— 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=20260205010002198

People who fled attacks by the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces in Sudan are enduring tough conditions at a displacement camp in the north where funding cuts are making life harder for its new residents. Al Jazeera’s Hiba Morgan is there.

SACRAMENTO — As massive federal cuts are upending the healthcare system in California, analysts and healthcare professionals are urging state lawmakers to soften the blow by creating new revenue streams and helping residents navigate through the newly-imposed red tape.

“It impacts not only uninsured but also Medicare and commercially insured patients who rely on the same system,” said Dolly Goel, a physician and chief officer for the Santa Clara Valley Healthcare Administration. “People will die.”

Goel was among more than a dozen speakers this week at a state Assembly Health Committee hearing held to collect input on how to address cuts enacted by a Republican-backed tax and spending bill signed last year by President Trump. The committee’s Republican members — Assemblymembers Phillip Chen of Yorba Linda, Natasha Johnson of Lake Elsinore, Joe Patterson of Rockin, and Kate Sanchez of Trabuco Canyon — did not attend.

The so-called “Big, Beautiful Bill” passed by Republicans shifts federal funding away from safety-net programs and toward tax cuts and immigration enforcement. A recent report from the Legislative Analyst’s Office, which advises the state Legislature on budgetary issues, estimated this will reduce funding for healthcare by “tens of billions of dollars” in California and warned about 1.2 million people could lose coverage through Medi-Cal, the state’s version of the federal Medicaid program providing healthcare coverage to low-income Americans.

Congress allowed enhanced Affordable Care Act subsidies to expire, which is dramatically increasing the cost of privately-purchased health insurance. Covered California, the state’s Affordable Care Act health insurance marketplace, estimates hundreds of thousands of Californians will either be stripped of coverage or drop out due to increased cost.

Sandra Hernández, president of the California Health Care Foundation, said the federal legislation creates administrative hurdles, requiring Medicaid beneficiaries to meet new work or income requirements and to undergo the eligibility re-determination process every six months instead of annually.

“We are looking at a scenario where otherwise eligible working parents lose their coverage simply because they aren’t able to navigate a complex verification process in a timely way,” she said.

California should move aggressively to automate verification instead of putting the burden of proof on beneficiaries, Hernández said. She advised legislators to center new healthcare strategies around technology, like artificial intelligence and telehealth services, to improve efficiency and keep costs down.

“While the federal landscape has shifted, California has enormous power to mitigate the damage,” said Hernández. “California has had a long tradition of taking care of its own.”

Hannah Orbach-Mandel, an analyst with the California Budget and Policy Center, said legislators should establish new revenue sources.

“A common sense place to start is by eliminating corporate tax loopholes and ensuring that highly profitable corporations pay their fair share in state taxes,” she said, adding that California loses out on billions annually because of the “water’s edge” tax provision, which allows multinational corporations to exclude the income of their foreign subsidiaries from state taxation.

One proposal to raise money for state healthcare benefits already is raising controversy. Under the Billionaire Tax Act, Californians worth more than $1 billion would pay a one-time 5% tax on their total wealth. The Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West, the union behind the act, said the measure would raise much-needed money for healthcare, education and food assistance programs. It is opposed by Gov. Gavin Newsom, among others.

During last week’s legislative hearing in Sacramento, other speakers stressed the importance of communicating clearly with the public, collaborating with nonprofits and county governments and bracing for an influx of hospital patients.

Those who lose health insurance will skip medications and primary care and subsequently get sicker and end up in the emergency room, explained Goel. She said this will strain hospital staff and lead to longer wait times and delayed care for all patients.

The federal cuts come at a time when California is struggling with its own budgetary woes. The Legislative Analyst’s Office estimates the state will have an $18-billion budget shortfall in the upcoming fiscal year.

At the start of the hearing, Assemblymember Mia Bonta (D-Alameda) criticized the federal government for leaving states in the lurch and prioritizing immigration enforcement over healthcare.

The Republican-led Congress and the president provided a staggering funding increase to Immigration and Customs Enforcement, known as ICE. The agency’s annual budget has ballooned to $85 billion.

“The federal dollars which once supported healthcare for working families are now being funneled into mass deportation operations,” said Bonta, who chairs the committee. “Operations that resulted in tragic murders — this is where our healthcare funding is going.”

Eva Longoria, John Leguizamo and Xochitl Gomez are among the 100-plus Latino actors, artists and creatives who have signed an open letter calling for accountability in Hollywood — citing longtime discrimination in casting and storytelling.

The public statement follows the controversy surrounding Odessa A’zion, who dropped her role as a Latina character in Sean Durkin’s “Deep Cuts,” following online backlash over the actor herself not being Latina.

“Recent casting decisions around the character Zoe Gutierrez in A24’s ‘Deep Cuts’ have exposed a troubling pattern,” the letter states. “We acknowledge and commend Odessa A’zion for listening, reflecting and deciding to exit the project and become an ally. Yet how did this happen?”

Earlier this week, the Wrap revealed that the “I Love L.A.” and “Marty Supreme” breakout star was cast as Zoe Gutierrez in the A24 film adaptation of Holly Brickley’s music-filled coming-of-age novel. The character’s identity plays an important role in the book, as she is written as a half-Mexican and half-Jewish lesbian.

Though the 25-year-old announced Wednesday night that she had dropped the role — admitting through her Instagram stories that she had not yet read the book, nor learned of all the character’s traits — the incident has unearthed questions about Latino representation in Hollywood.

“This isn’t about Odessa,” said Xochitl Gomez to The Times on Friday. “It’s about the executives, the producers and the whole system at the top. They thought it was OK to not even audition Latinas for the role in the first place. Latinas were pitched, including me, but we were told that there was an actress with an exclusive offer. This role never showed up on the casting grid because it was already gone.”

Xochitl Gomez attends “REBBECA” LA Premiere on November 30, 2025 in Los Angeles, California. (Photo by JC Olivera/Getty Images for State of the Art)

(JC Olivera / Getty Images for State of the Art)

According to UCLA’s 2025 Hollywood Diversity Report, Latinos were cast in only 1% of the leading roles in the top 104 English-language films released theatrically in 2024, despite constituting roughly 20% of the total U.S. population.

In TV, representation is just as stark. Latinos are cast in only 6% of all roles across the top U.S. broadcast series, as per a recent study by ¡Pa’lante! — a Latino representation initiative from the USC Norman Lear Center — which also found that 1 in 4 Latino characters are depicted as career criminals.

“The absence of Latina audition opportunities, and the choice to replace a clearly Latina character with a non-Latina actress, signals a broader, ongoing erasure of our community from the stories that define our culture,” the letter continues. “This is not about any one actor or project. It is about a system that repeatedly overlooks qualified Latino talent even as our identities, histories, and experiences fuel the most enduring stories.”

The signatories request that Latino actors be hired for a diverse range of roles, including non-stereotypical leads. There is also a demand for more Latino executives to be involved in green-lighting projects and the inclusion of Latino consultants, writers and producers from the earliest stages of development. Finally, there is a call on Hollywood to create mentorship, scholarships and opportunities that expand access on all levels of the ecosystem.

This plea by marginalized creatives is not the first pushback — nor likely the last — against a stagnant Hollywood machine.

As early as the 1920s, the portrayal of Latinos was so negative that the Mexican government, and even Woodrow Wilson reportedly told Hollywood producers to “please be a little kinder to the Mexicans.”

In 1999, the National Hispanic Media Coalition (NHMC) and the National Assn. for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) called for the boycott of broadcast networks’ 26 new fall series because they did not feature a non-white lead, sparking dialogue over the diversity of Hollywood at the time.

Comedian Chris Rock blasted the industry in a 2014 essay for its omission of Mexicans in Los Angeles, where nearly half of the population is Latino: “You’re in L.A., you’ve got to try not to hire Mexicans.”

Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-Texas) — who in recent years has nominated several Latino-focused films to the Library of Congress National Film Registry — also penned a 2020 column in Variety, underscoring the dearth representation of Latinos in entertainment and the consequences of omission. “Prejudice has existed in the United States for generations, but the image of our community created by film and television has done little to counter bigoted views, and too often has amplified them.”

Another letter published in October 2020 with over 270 showrunners, creators, television and film writers signatures — including Lin-Manuel Miranda and “One Day at a Time” co-creator Gloria Calderón Kellett — called for systemic change in the industry. “We are tired,” they wrote.

The pushback continued in 2022, when actor Leguizamo penned an open letter in The Times about the history of Latino representation and the co-option of Latino stories — including that of Mexican revolutionary Emiliano Zapata, who was portrayed by a brownface Marlon Brando in the 1952 film “Viva Zapata!,” and Al Pacino, who played the fictional Cuban character Tony Montana in the 1983 film “Scarface.”

Wrote Leguizamo, “There’s a fix for this: Cast more Latinos!”

Read the full open letter below.

Dear Casting Directors, Creative Executives, Writers, Producers, and Hollywood Leaders,

We write to you with urgency, because storytelling is humanity’s compass and Hollywood wields all the power. The stories you choose to tell, and how you tell them, shape public perception, cultural understanding, and who gets to see themselves reflected on screen. In these challenging moments that power comes with real responsibility.

Recent casting decisions around the character Zoe Gutierrez in A 24’s Deep Cuts have exposed a troubling pattern. We acknowledge and commend Odessa A’zion for listening, reflecting and deciding to exit the project and become an ally. Yet how did this happen? The absence of Latina audition opportunities, and the choice to replace a clearly Latina character with a non-Latina actress, signals a broader, ongoing erasure of our community from the stories that define our culture. This is not about any one actor or project. It is about a system that repeatedly overlooks qualified Latino talent even as our identities, histories, and experiences fuel the most enduring stories.

Latino communities are already underrepresented and misrepresented in ways that distort reality and harm real people. Casting decisions carry real weight: they influence who is seen as worthy of authentic storytelling and who gets to tell those stories with care, nuance, and authority.

We are calling for accountability, intentionality, and equity in casting and storytelling. Authentic representation means more than casting a performer who looks like the character; it means involving the communities being portrayed not just in front of the camera, but in the decisions that shape these stories from their inception. Our stories deserve to be shaped with the input, guidance, and leadership of Latino creators, consultants, writers, and performers at every stage.

We implore you to join us in concrete action:

• Audition and hire more Latino actors for a diverse range of roles, including non-stereotypical leads
• Hire Latino executives in your greenlighting rooms
• Include Latino voices as consultants, writers, and producers from the earliest stages of development
• Create and support pipelines: mentoring, scholarships, and opportunities that expand access all levels of the ecosystem

The world is watching.

Aaron Dominguez

Aitch Alberto

Alex Lora

Alma Martinez

Amanda Diaz

Ana Navarro Cardenas

Andrea Chignoli

Angel Manuel Soto

Angelique Cabral

Anna Terrazas

Annie Gonzalez

Antonio Negret

Becky G

Benjamin Odell

Brandon Guzman

Brandon Perea

Bricia Lopez

Camila Baquero

Carla Gutierrez

Carla Hool

Carlo Siliotto

Carlos Eric Lopez

Carlos Gutierrez

Carlos Lopez Estrada

Chrissie Fit

Christian Serratos

Cierra Ramirez

Cristina Rodlo

Cyria Fiallo

Daniella Pineda

Danny Ramirez

David Castenada

Desi Perkins

Diego Boneta

Edgar Ramirez

Edher Campos

Eiza Gonzalez

Elisa Capai

Elsa Collins

Emilie Lesclaux

Ennio Torresan

Enrique Melendez

Eva Longoria

Fabrizio Guido

Felipe Vargas

Fernando Garcia

Flavia Amon

Flavia De Sousa

Francia Raisa

Gabriela Maire

Gina Rodriguez

Gloria Calderon Kellett

Gregory Diaz IV

Ilda Santiago

Isabella Gomez

Isabela Merced

Isabella Ferria

Isis Mussenden

Ismael Cruz Cordova

Ivette Rodriguez

Jacob Scipio

Javier Munoz

Jazmin Aguilar

Jesse Garcia

Jessica Alba

Jesus Pimental-Melo

Jillian Mercado

John Leguizamo

Jose Velazquez

Juan Pa Zurita

Julio Macias

Justina Machado

Karrie Martin Lachney

Kate Del Castillo

Klaudia Reynicke

Kylie Cantrall

Leo Gonzalez

Lisette Olivera

Lorenza Munoz

Luca Castellani

Lucila Moctezuma

Lucy Barreto

Lynette Coll

Maia Reficco

Marcel Ruiz

Maria Legarda

Mariana Oliva

Mariem Perez Riera

Marvin Lemus

Mauro Mueller

Mayan Lopez

Melissa Barrera

Melissa Fumero

Melissa Martinez

Michael Cimino

Michael Pena

Miguel Mora

Mishel Prada

Monica Villarreal

Natalia Boneta

Natalie Chaidez

Natalie Morales

Nava Mau

Naz Perez

Nezza (Vanessa Hernandez)

Neysa Bove

Nicolas Celis

Nicole Betancur

Orlando Pineda

Patricia Cardosa

Patricia Riggen

Patty Rodriguez

Paulina Garcia

Petra Costa

Rafael Agustin

Rafael Cebrian

Ramon Rodriguez

Rene G. Boscio

Robin De Jesus

Rodrigo Teixeira

Rudy Mancuso

Ruy Garcia

Sierra Ornellas

Stephanie Beatriz

Tonatiuh Elizarrarz

Tony Revolori

Victoria Alonso

Xochitl Gomez

Xolo Mariduena

Yareli Arizmendri

Wednesday’s cuts are the second mass layoffs in three months at the e-commerce giant.

Amazon is slashing 16,000 jobs in a second wave of layoffs at the e-commerce giant in three months, as the company restructures and leans on artificial intelligence.

Wednesday’s cuts follow the 14,000 redundancies that the Seattle, Washington–based company made in October. The layoffs are expected to affect employees working in Prime Video, Amazon Web Services, and the company’s human resources department, according to the Reuters news agency, which first reported the cuts.

Amazon confirmed to Al Jazeera that all the cuts to the company will affect corporate-level employees.

In a memo to the employees, shared with Al Jazeera, Amazon said workers in the United States impacted by the cuts will have a 90-day window to find a new role in the company.

“Teammates who are unable to find a new role at Amazon or who choose not to look for one, we’ll provide transition support including severance pay, outplacement services, health insurance benefits [as applicable], and more,” Beth Galetti, senior vice president of People Experience and Technology at Amazon, said in the note provided to Al Jazeera.

The announced reductions come amid a broader restructuring effort at the company. Earlier this week, Amazon announced it would close its brick-and-mortar Amazon Go and Amazon Fresh grocery stores, accounting for more than 70 locations across the US.

Some of those physical stores will be converted into Whole Foods Market locations. Amazon acquired the Austin, Texas–based grocery chain in 2017, and it has since grown by 40 percent.

The cuts come alongside increased investment in AI. In June, CEO Andy Jassy touted investment in generative AI and floated the possibility of redundancies.

“We expect that this will reduce our total corporate workforce as we get efficiency gains from using AI extensively across the company,” Jassy said in a blog post at the time.

According to the AFL-CIO CEO PayWatch tracker, Jassy made 43 times more than the median employee at the company.

Amazon’s stock tumbled in midday trading and was down 0.7 percent. Overall, however, the stock is up 7 percent year to date.

Wave of cuts

Amazon is the latest company in a wave of redundancies hitting the tech sector at the start of the year. Earlier this week, Pinterest announced it would cut 780 jobs as the social media company reallocated resources amid increased investment in AI. Last week, Autodesk said it would cut about 1,000 jobs, also tied to AI.

Layoffs.fyi, a website that tracks redundancies in the tech sector, shows that more than 123,000 tech workers lost their jobs in 2025 as companies, including Salesforce and Duolingo, doubled down on AI investments.

But it is not just the tech sector facing redundancies. On Tuesday, UPS also announced job cuts. The shipping giant said it would eliminate 30,000 jobs and close 24 facilities as it reduces deliveries with Amazon.

UPS stock was down more than 1.2 percent in midday trading.

Many in Hollywood fear Warner Bros. Discovery’s sale will trigger steep job losses — at a time when the industry already has been ravaged by dramatic downsizing and the flight of productions from Los Angeles.

David Ellison‘s Paramount Skydance is seeking to allay some of those concerns by detailing its plans to save $6 billion, including job cuts, should Paramount succeed in its bid to buy the larger Warner Bros. Discovery.

Leaders of the combined company would search for savings by focusing on “duplicative operations across all aspects of the business — specifically back office, finance, corporate, legal, technology, infrastructure and real estate,” Paramount said in documents filed with the Securities & Exchange Commission.

Paramount is locked in an uphill battle to buy the storied studio behind Batman, Harry Potter, Scooby-Doo and “The Big Bang Theory.” The firm’s proposed $108.4-billion deal would include swallowing HBO, HBO Max, CNN, TBS, Food Network and other Warner cable channels.

Warner’s board prefers Netflix’s proposed $82.7-billion deal, and has repeatedly rebuffed the Ellison family’s proposals. That prompted Paramount to turn hostile last month and make its case directly to Warner investors on its website and in regulatory filings.

Shareholders may ultimately decide the winner.

Paramount previously disclosed that it would target $6 billion in synergies. And it has stressed the proposed merger would make Hollywood stronger — not weaker. The firm, however, recently acknowledged that it would shave about 10% from program spending should it succeed in combining Paramount and Warner Bros.

Paramount said the cuts would come from areas other than film and television studio operations.

A film enthusiast and longtime producer, David Ellison has long expressed a desire to grow the combined Paramount Pictures and Warner Bros. slate to more than 30 movies a year. His goal is to keep Paramount Pictures and Warner Bros. stand-alone studios.

This year, Warner Bros. plans to release 17 films. Paramount has said it wants to nearly double its output to 15 movies, which would bring the two-studio total to 32.

“We are very focused on maintaining the creative engines of the combined company,” Paramount said in its marketing materials for investors, which were submitted to the SEC on Monday.

“Our priority is to build a vibrant, healthy business and industry — one that supports Hollywood and creative, benefits consumers, encourages competition, and strengthens the overall job market,” Paramount said.

If the deal goes through, Paramount said that it would become Hollywood’s biggest spender — shelling out about $30 billion a year on programming.

In comparison, Walt Disney Co. has said it plans to spend $24 billion in the current fiscal year.

Paramount also added a dig at Warner management, saying: “We expect to make smarter decisions about licensing across linear networks and streaming.”

Some analysts have wondered whether Paramount would sell one of its most valuable assets — the historic Melrose Avenue movie lot — to raise money to pay down debt that a Warner acquisition would bring.

Paramount is the only major studio to be physically located in Hollywood and its studio lot is one of the company’s crown jewels. That’s where “Sunset Boulevard,” several “Star Trek” movies and parts of “Chinatown” were filmed.

A Paramount spokesperson declined to comment.

Sources close to the company said Paramount would scrutinize the numerous real estate leases in an effort to bring together far-flung teams into a more centralized space.

For example, CBS has much of its administrative offices on Gower in Hollywood, blocks away from the Paramount lot. And HBO maintains its operations in Culver City — miles from Warner’s Burbank lot.

Paramount pushed its deadline to Feb. 20 for Warner investors to tender their shares at $30 a piece.

The tender offer was set to expire last week, but Paramount extended the window after failing to solicit sufficient interest among Warner shareholders.

Some analysts believe Paramount may have to raise its bid to closer to $34 a share to turn heads. Paramount last raised its bid Dec. 4 — hours before the auction closed and Netflix was declared the winner.

Paramount also has filed proxy materials to ask Warner shareholders to reject the Netflix deal at an upcoming stockholder meeting.

Earlier this month, Netflix amended its bid, converting its $27.75-a-share offer to all-cash to defuse some of Paramount’s arguments that it had a stronger bid.

Should Paramount win Warner Bros., it would need to line up $94.65 billion in debt and equity.

Billionaire Larry Ellison has pledged to backstop $40.4 billion for the equity required. Paramount’s proposed financing relies on $24 billion from royal families in Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Abu Dhabi.

The deal would saddle Paramount with more than $60 billion of debt — which Warner board members have argued may be untenable.

“The extraordinary amount of debt financing as well as other terms of the PSKY offer heighten the risk of failure to close,” Warner board members said in a filing earlier this month.

Paramount would also have to absorb Warner’s debt load, which currently tops $30 billion.

Netflix is seeking to buy the Warner Bros. television and movie studios, HBO and HBO Max. It is not interested in Warner’s cable channels, including CNN. Warner wants to spin off its basic cable channels to facilitate the Netflix deal.

Analysts say both deals could face regulatory hurdles.