Simply sign up to the Media myFT Digest — delivered directly to your inbox.
Music creation start-up Splice has agreed to acquire the orchestral sound studio Spitfire Audio for about $50mn, as the Goldman Sachs backed company looks to buy up audio samples and technology to build songs using artificial intelligence.
London-based Spitfire Audio owns a deep library of digital orchestral sounds — short recordings of violins, cellos, drums and basses that composers can use to create music. Its palette of sounds, such as a $299 drum kit recorded by composer Hans Zimmer, have been used in Radiohead songs and in the scores for films such as Moonlight.
Splice is a platform that offers audio samples — such as vocal hooks, drum beats and guitar riffs — for anyone, ranging from novices to professional producers, to create music. The group was founded in 2013 and has grown quickly as it benefits from soaring demand for music creation tools. Splice is profitable, reaching annual revenue of more than $100mn and 600,000 paying subscribers, according to people familiar with the matter.
Splice and Spitfire declined to disclose the price of the deal. A person familiar with the matter said it was about $50mn.
The rise of platforms like Splice reflects the changing nature of music production. As software production tools have become more sophisticated, anyone can create music from their bedroom. Splice and Spitfire offer sounds that are often just a few seconds long, in repeated loops that can be layered with other instrumentals or vocals to build out a song.
Hit songs have used samples from the Splice library that can be downloaded for as little as $13. The samples include the guitar riff used in Sabrina Carpenter’s “Espresso” — the guitar loop and drum sounds were created by Vaughn Oliver, a DJ whose samples are popular on Splice. Other hits, such as Doja Cat’s “Say So” and Playboi Carti’s “OPM Babi”, have also used Splice samples.
Splice was valued at nearly $500mn in a 2021 fundraising led by Goldman Sachs and entrepreneur Matt Pincus’s investment group MUSIC.
Spitfire has a library of “super high-end, incredibly luxurious rich sounds, recording with the BBC Symphony Orchestra or Abbey Roads Studio”, said Splice chief executive Kakul Srivastava. She also wanted to acquire the underlying audio technology and talent that Spitfire has built, she said.
Splice has been rolling out AI technology to help musicians build songs, using algorithms to suggest samples based on a genre, mood or even singing into your mobile phone. Pincus says this AI element has led to “explosive” growth for Splice in the past few months, calling it a “land grab” in the still nascent market.
All of the sounds on Splice are initially created by humans. The group has its own in-house artists who record samples, but it also scours the world for cutting-edge trends from different genres, such as funk artists in São Paulo or K-Pop musicians in Seoul. Splice pays these artists a percentage of its subscription revenue.
Srivastava says Splice is looking to do something fundamentally different from the prompt-based AI song generators that have popped up in the past few years and fuelled backlash in the music industry.
“Simplistic tools where you type in a prompt and a song comes out? Most musicians do not want to make music that way,” she said. “But AI will enable [artists] to do things they could not do today. They could use string quartets from Spitfire, but you might want to invent your own instrument. You can start with a particular sound and merge instruments together to get a novel sound that has never been heard before . . . we are still figuring it out.”
The foresight gap is not a failure of technology—it is a challenge of institutional alignment.
Shutterstock
By Ioannis Ioannou, Associate Professor of Strategy and Entrepreneurship at London Business School
In parts of East Africa, AI tools are increasingly able to predict rainfall patterns, crop failure, and soil degradation. Satellite imagery and machine learning models inform planting schedules and flag pest risks early. These tools—developed by agritech startups and increasingly integrated into the procurement strategies of multinational agribusinesses—offer resilience through foresight. But while global firms adjust sourcing and hedge exposure, smallholder farmers—who produce around a third of the world’s food—often lack the means to act on the same insights. Irrigation, credit, and institutional support are scarce. Foresight is not the constraint. Capacity is.
This asymmetry points to a deeper challenge: the growing gap between those who can anticipate disruption and those with the means to respond. Artificial intelligence is reshaping how we assess climate risk, optimise resource use, and navigate supply chain volatility. But it may also widen existing disparities—less by harming low-capacity actors directly than by accelerating the adaptive advantage of those already ahead. As foresight becomes central to sustainability strategy, the question shifts from who can see risk to who can act on it—and who is positioned to do so more effectively than others.
At the heart of this shift lies what I call the ‘foresight gap’: the widening distance between insight and agency. The issue is not data availability. Many actors—municipalities, farming cooperatives, suppliers—now have access to forecasts, dashboards, and models. The issue is that insight, in the absence of financing, technical tools, or enabling institutions, often leaves actors aware of risk but unable to manage it. The result is uneven resilience, where some accelerate while others struggle to keep pace.
AI could reinforce this pattern. Corporates with advanced modelling reconfigure procurement, redirect investment, and hedge operations. Suppliers in more vulnerable environments shoulder the consequences. Risk moves, but does not diminish. This is a form of selective adaptation: those with resources fortify their position, while others absorb the shock. Over time, this dynamic risks undermining both equity and stability. A transition that reallocates risk without building shared capacity creates fragility at the system level.
Agriculture illustrates this dynamic, but the pattern extends far beyond it. Cities with the means to invest in AI-integrated infrastructure planning are improving energy efficiency and emergency response. Others, particularly in the Global South, operate with outdated systems and limited technical capacity. In insurance, AI is reshaping climate risk pricing, pushing premiums upward or removing coverage in high-risk areas. And in supply chains, predictive analytics allow firms to reroute around disruption, while those at the frontline remain vulnerable.
These shifts introduce a systemic risk that is often underestimated. When only some actors adapt, the costs of disruption cascade across sectors and geographies. Fragility at the margins—among smallholders, subcontractors, or overstretched public agencies—can ripple outward. Consider the 2022 floods in Pakistan: extreme weather forced global retailers to shift orders and reroute logistics, but smaller suppliers faced months of operational paralysis and loss of income. Without adequate capacity to absorb shocks at every level, the system as a whole becomes more brittle. Concentrated resilience cannot ensure collective stability.
This reveals a core tension. AI is often promoted as a force for inclusion, but without governance aligned to that purpose, it risks doing the opposite. The foresight gap is not a glitch. It reflects underlying disparities in capital, capability, and institutional design. Without deliberate attention to how foresight is distributed—and how action is enabled—the gap will grow.
What does a just transition look like under these conditions? The conventional framing has focused on costs, benefits, and protections—especially for workers and communities. These remain important. But in the context of AI, justice must also mean access to adaptive capacity. The transition cannot depend solely on who already has the tools to respond. It must support others to acquire them. That is not only a matter of fairness. It is a condition for managing shared risk in a connected world.
This perspective has direct implications for institutions. First, we need investment in public foresight infrastructure. Predictive tools must be designed and deployed with broad usability in mind. That includes open-access climate models, data collaboratives, and analytics suited to under-resourced settings. National adaptation plans and resilience strategies should be grounded in intelligence that reflects real-world constraints. Crucially, this infrastructure must not remain siloed in ministries or multilateral organisations. It must be made accessible to those on the front lines of disruption—local governments, cooperatives, and civic organisations with the credibility to act and the trust to mobilise.
Second, we need AI-to-action partnerships. Companies using AI to manage their exposure should contribute to the adaptive capabilities of suppliers, contractors, and local communities. This is not a philanthropic gesture. It is a practical approach to reducing risk concentration across the value chain. Some firms are already exploring shared data platforms with suppliers or financing adaptation initiatives as part of broader ESG-linked targets. But these efforts remain isolated. What is needed is a shift in mindset—from risk extraction to risk co-management.
Third, we need to update our understanding of fiduciary responsibility. Boards and investors must ask whether AI-enabled strategies are building system-level resilience or simply reinforcing firm-level protection. Are companies redistributing risk across weaker links, or investing in broader capacity? These are strategic questions, not compliance matters. Fiduciary duty, in this context, should include attention to how foresight tools influence the allocation of risk—and whether they contribute to long-term value creation that is stable, inclusive, and credible.
It’s also worth acknowledging that AI is not only a predictive tool. Generative models and large language systems are increasingly shaping how knowledge is accessed, decisions are supported, and strategies are refined. These technologies may also expand forms of adaptive capacity, especially when designed for public benefit or integrated into frontline decision-making. But the existence of such potential does not negate the foresight gap. It changes its contours. As AI becomes more embedded in corporate strategy and public infrastructure, the question remains: who can use these tools meaningfully—and under what conditions?
The trajectory of AI in sustainability is not predetermined. It will reflect choices about governance, design, and accountability. The foresight gap is not a failure of technology—it is a challenge of institutional alignment.
AI is often assessed by its ability to predict, automate, or optimise. But in the context of sustainability, a different question matters more: does it support a transition that builds resilience across the system? Concentrated foresight without distributed capacity creates brittleness. Resilience must extend beyond the firm, the sector, or the region.
Those shaping AI’s role in the transition—corporate leaders, investors, regulators—are defining more than tools. They are shaping trajectories. The key issue is no longer whether AI can enhance foresight. That question has been settled. The real question is whether we align that foresight with the capacity to act—broadly, deliberately, and with urgency.
That is where leadership will be measured. Not by who saw risk first, but by who ensured others were ready when it arrived.
Ioannis Ioannou is an associate professor of strategy and entrepreneurship at London Business School. His research focuses on corporate sustainability and the strategic integration of ESG issues by companies and capital markets.
Tesla and SpaceX founder Elon Musk has predicted that robots will soon surpass even the best human surgeons — a claim that many doctors have challenged.“Robots will surpass good human surgeons within a few years, and the best human surgeons within ~5 years,” Musk said, replying to a post by Mario Nawfal on X (formerly Twitter). Musk added, “@Neuralink had to use a robot for brain-computer electrode insertion, as it was impossible for a human to achieve the required speed and precision.” Mario Nawfal had shared a report from RTTNews, highlighting that Medtronic tested its Hugo robotic system in 137 real surgeries — involving procedures on prostates, kidneys, and bladders — with highly positive outcomes.
According to the report: “Complication rates were extremely low: 3.7% for prostate surgeries, 1.9% for kidney surgeries, and 17.9% for bladder surgeries — all outperforming historical safety goals. Hugo achieved a 98.5% success rate, far exceeding the target of 85%. Only two surgeries had to be converted back to traditional procedures — one due to a robot malfunction and another because of a complicated patient case.”
Live Events
While the report emphasized that robots are not replacing surgeons immediately, it noted that future surgeries may increasingly involve robotic assistance.
Medical Community Pushes Back
However, many doctors were quick to refute Musk’s prediction.”This is false,” wrote one user on X who identified himself as an American neurosurgeon.
“As a neurosurgeon, I promise you that no ‘robot’ surgeon can EVER autonomously perform brain and spine surgery — or likely any surgeries — effectively, appropriately, or safely. There are too many variables requiring critical thinking. Robots also lack the compassion and ethical judgment of a human surgeon who cares for patients beyond algorithmic compliance,” he stated.
Another surgeon weighed in: “It’s not that simple. For standardized, well-documented procedures, robots will soon outperform surgeons in speed, accuracy, and efficiency. But the human body is not a machine, and unexpected complications arise constantly. Solving these problems requires creativity — a skill robots are far from mastering.”
A different user pointed out a broader contradiction in Musk’s vision: “How does it make sense to push for population growth while also planning to replace everyone’s jobs with robots? What work will all these people you want actually do?”
In a recent post on X, tech mogul Elon Musk made a bold claim: robots will surpass skilled human surgeons within a few years, and the best human surgeons will be outpaced by robotic precision in around five years. Musk emphasized the potential of advanced robotics in surgery, referencing Neuralink‘s use of a robot for brain-computer electrode insertion. According to Musk, the procedure required a level of speed and accuracy that was beyond human capabilities.
However, Musk’s statement has sparked a wave of skepticism among social media users, many of whom are questioning the feasibility of such a prediction. One user challenged the logic behind Musk’s vision, asking, “How does it make sense to you to, on the one hand, push for a higher population, and on the other, plan to replace everyone’s jobs with robots? What are all these people going to do for work?”
— sciencebamf (@sciencebamf)
Others doubted Musk’s assertion that robots could replace human surgeons entirely, with one user noting that current surgical robots are still advanced tools controlled by human surgeons, rather than autonomous machines. “Your comment makes it sound like current surgical robots can work autonomously, and that tweet is supporting that idea. It isn’t,” the user wrote. “Current fully autonomous robot surgeons = 0. So we’ve got to go from zero to ‘surpassing the best human surgeons’? No way. Eventually, you’ll be right, but this is just AI hype.”
— jselanikio (@jselanikio)
Adding to the debate, a surgeon with experience in robot-assisted surgeries weighed in, saying, “Misleading!! Robots are not actually doing the surgery; the surgeon is doing it with the console using the robot as a sophisticated tool. The surgeon makes every move, and the robot extends and refines that move. They are great tools, but not surgeons! I’ve done over 2,400 robot-assisted surgeries for complex GI diseases. I cannot let a robot make intricate decisions—every patient is different!”
Live Events
— DrSAdusumilli (@DrSAdusumilli)
Neuralink, Elon Musk’s brain implant company, was valued at $5 billion in 2023, according to Reuters, based on privately executed stock trades. The startup had earlier raised $280 million in a funding round led by Peter Thiel’s Founders Fund.The company is currently testing its implant designed to assist individuals with spinal cord injuries. The device has enabled its first patient to play video games, browse the internet, post on social media, and move a cursor on a laptop using only their brain.In 2023, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) initially rejected Neuralink’s request to begin clinical trials, citing safety concerns, as reported by Reuters. However, the agency later approved the company to proceed with the trials, which are currently underway.
Musk has ambitious plans for Neuralink, envisioning its chip helping both healthy individuals and those with disabilities. He believes the device could be used for quick surgical insertions at local facilities to treat conditions such as obesity, autism, depression, and schizophrenia. Musk has also speculated about future applications, such as web-surfing and telepathy.
Synchron Inc., a competitor to Neuralink, is also working on an implant designed to help people with motor impairments type on a computer.
Elon Musk, CEO of the embattled electric vehicle maker Tesla, signaled earlier this week that he planned to step back from politics and focus on the struggling brand.
But a prominent and loyal Tesla cheerleader speculated that the automaker’s image could be “stained forever” both in the United States and abroad, according to CNN, sparking worries that damage to the brand could discourage consumers from making the switch to environmentally friendly EVs.
What’s happening?
During an earnings call on Tuesday, Musk assured investors that his “time allocation” to the controversial Department of Government Efficiency would “drop significantly” starting in May, per CNN.
Musk’s decision to scale back his time with DOGE followed a devastating first quarter for Tesla, along with the largest drop in quarterly sales in the brand’s history. In Q1, Tesla sustained a staggering 71% decline in sales over the same period last year, TechCrunch reported.
Dan Ives of Wedbush Securities is known for his tendency to remain bullish on Tesla stock. But in a note to clients on Wednesday, Ives adopted uncharacteristically bearish views on the automaker’s fortunes.
According to CNN, Ives predicted that Musk’s promised return would be insufficient as a means to offset the “brand damage [he] caused … over the past few months.” Ives pointed to Musk’s involvement in American politics as the primary cause of Tesla’s sales woes, and posited that “some of the damage will be stained forever in Europe and the U.S.”
Analyst Gordon Johnson of GLJ Research was far less optimistic, telling CNN that the “damage that [Musk has] done is 100% irreversible.”
Why are Tesla’s waning fortunes concerning?
While Tesla’s EV market share is down from 80% in 2019, the automaker still cornered a little over 45% of the market as of February, per Edmunds.
Tesla’s steep decline in popularity is global, and the brand’s outsized presence and abrupt fall from grace — coupled with uncertainty introduced by fluctuating tariff policies — prompted concerns that the company’s troubles could negatively impact the broader EV market.
However, Reuters recently reported that global EV sales were up 29% year-over-year in March, hinting that EV demand hasn’t yet shown any signs of cooling.
TCD Picks » Quince Spotlight
💡These best-sellers from Quince deliver affordable, sustainable luxury for all
What can EV drivers do?
In spite of Tesla’s volatile brand image, demand for EVs continues to grow — and on the upside, prices for used Teslas appear to be at an all-time low.
An overall bustling market has given rise to platforms like Recurrent, which connects buyers and sellers looking to get in or out of an EV.
Outside the U.S., Chinese EV maker BYD has seen booming sales in the wake of Tesla’s ongoing decline, particularly in the Australian market.
American consumers interested in making the switch to an EV have more choices than ever before, with major brands like Hyundai and Kia’s electrified models steadily cutting into Tesla’s still-dominant market share.
Join our free newsletter for good news and useful tips, and don’t miss this cool list of easy ways to help yourself while helping the planet.
Two weeks ago, a three-judge panel from the federal appeals court in Washington lifted a freeze on firing employees at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, with some conditions. The judges, ruling on a Friday night, said that workers could be fired if agency leaders determined, after a careful assessment, that they were not needed to carry out the bureau’s legally required responsibilities.
Within hours, Trump administration officials — working closely with Elon Musk’s associates at the Department of Government Efficiency — scurried to fire nearly all the agency’s employees. By the following Thursday afternoon, bureau leaders sent termination notices to nearly 1,500 employees, retaining barely 200 people, and ordered that the fired workers’ access to agency systems be shut down the next day.
A judge has again stopped the cuts for now. But the details of what happened at the agency, which oversees banks and lenders and enforces consumer protection laws, will be vital to determining if the firings can proceed. Hundreds of pages of newly released agency records, supplemented by narrative accounts filed in court by more than 20 agency employees, were submitted ahead of a hearing this week before Judge Amy Berman Jackson of the Federal District Court in Washington.
Judge Jackson halted the planned firings less than a day after the notices went out, saying that they went far beyond what the appeals court had allowed. Starting Tuesday, she will hold a two-day hearing to take witness testimony and decide whether to extend her order blocking the firings.
The consumer bureau has been on life support since February, when Trump officials arrived at the agency and began dismantling it. A series of federal court rulings prohibited the agency’s destruction. Congress created the agency in 2011 to add safeguards around mortgages and other consumer financial products, and only Congress has the power to abolish it.
Mark Paoletta, the agency’s chief legal officer and the mastermind behind the termination plan, defended the firings, saying in a legal filing that they would “right-size” an agency filled with “vast waste.” Russell Vought, the White House budget office director who also serves as the bureau’s acting director, has called the bureau a “woke and weaponized” agency.
But firing so many workers at once, with no transition period, would destroy the bureau’s ability to operate, employees warned their bosses in emails, chat messages and verbal conversations, according to court records. Within days, critical technical systems would fail, enforcement lawyers would miss court deadlines and agency data that federal courts had ordered be preserved would be lost, they said.
“I don’t think we can keep operating even for 60 days without keeping many of these folks,” Christopher Chilbert, the bureau’s chief information officer, wrote in an email the day the terminations were announced.
Adam Martinez, the agency’s chief operating office, responded: “Understood and I do not disagree. We will really need to spend the next week figuring out a path forward.”
Judge Jackson has asked for the testimony of Gavin Kliger, a 25-year-old associate of Mr. Musk’s who carried out the terminations.
Mr. Kliger, a former Twitter summer intern who had no experience in government work before this year, joined the Office of Personnel Management in January as a senior adviser. He has carried out assignments for Mr. Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, in at least nine agencies, including the Internal Revenue Service, where he is said to have been recently ousted from.
Emails sent in the hours after the appeals court ruled that staff cuts could move forward show Mr. Musk’s officials scrambling to fire people as quickly as possible — at times moving so fast they appeared to forget which agency they were focused on.
Jeremy Lewin, a 28-year-old lawyer who leads DOGE’s State Department foreign aid actions, sent an email on Saturday from his U.S. Agency for International Development email address laying the groundwork for the reduction in force, the government’s version of a layoff. In a nod to specific language in the appellate court’s order, Mr. Lewin wrote, “Director Vought’s team and I will conduct an individualized assessment to, consistent with the DC Circuit’s stay, ensure that only nonstatutory positions are affected.”
Mr. Paoletta said in court filings that he worked with two other lawyers to conduct a unit-by-unit evaluation of the consumer bureau and determined that the bureau could function without 90 percent of its current staff.
“An approximately 200-person agency allows the bureau to fulfill its statutory duties and better aligns with the new leadership’s priorities and management philosophy,” he said.
But emails and other agency records show that up until nearly the moment the termination notices were sent, bureau officials were still debating the numbers. On the Tuesday before the notices went out, some workers trying to prepare materials believed 485 workers would remain.
Trump officials wanted those slated for termination to be cut off from the agency’s systems less than 24 hours after receiving their layoff notice. One human resources worker involved in the planning asked a manager how people who were traveling and unable to check their email before losing access would be notified of their firing.
“Many people have asked that question. No one making decisions really cares,” the manager responded. “It makes me sad.”
In legal declarations totaling more than 100 pages, department heads — who said they were not consulted by the Trump officials before the firings — and other workers depicted the terminations as reckless and riddled with errors.
The one person Mr. Paoletta left in the Office of Servicemember Affairs, a legally required unit that aids military workers, had already accepted the government’s deferred resignation offer and would be retiring in September. He had turned in his work equipment and lost access to agency systems, workers said — meaning the office would be unstaffed if the firings proceeded.
The head of another legally required department said that he and all of his workers had received termination notices, despite Mr. Paoletta’s testimony that one worker had been retained.
“If there is such a person, that person has not reached out to me or, to my knowledge, to anyone else in my office to understand how we fulfill our statutory mandate,” the department head said.
WASHINGTON (AP) — Elon Musk spent years building cachet as a business titan and tech visionary, brushing aside critics and skeptics to become the richest person on the planet.
Just 33 percent of U.S. adults have a favorable view of Musk, the chain-saw-wielding, late-night-posting, campaign-hat-wearing public face of President Donald Trump’s efforts to downsize and overhaul the federal government. That share is down from 41 percent in December.
“It was a shame that he crashed and burned his reputation,” said Ernest Pereira, 27, a Democrat who works as a lab technician in North Carolina. “He bought into his own hype.”
The poll found that about two-thirds of adults believe Musk has held too much influence over the federal government during the past few months — although that influence may be coming to an end. The billionaire entrepreneur is expected to leave his administration job in the coming weeks.
Musk is noticeably less popular than the overall effort to pare back the government workforce, which Trump has described as bloated and corrupt. About half of U.S. adults believe the Republican president has gone too far on reducing the size of the federal workforce, while roughly 3 in 10 think he is on target and 14 percent want him to go even further.
Retiree Susan Wolf, 75, of Pennsylvania, believes the federal government is too big but Musk has “made a mess of everything.”
“I don’t trust him,” she said. “I don’t think he knows what he’s doing.”
Wolf, who is not registered with a political party, said Musk’s private sector success does not translate to Washington.
“He thinks you run a government like you run a business. And you don’t do that,” she said. “One is for the benefit of the people, and the other is for the benefit of the corporation.”
Much of the downsizing has been done through so-called the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, which was Musk’s brainchild during last year’s campaign. Thousands of federal employees have been fired or pushed to quit, contracts have been canceled and entire agencies have been brought to a standstill.
Musk has succeeded in providing a dose of shock therapy to the federal government, but he has fallen short of other goals. After talking about cutting spending by $1 trillion, he has set a much lower target of $150 billion. Even reaching that amount could prove challenging, and DOGE has regularly overstated its progress.
He is expected to start dedicating more time to Tesla, his electric automaker that has suffered plummeting revenue while he was working for Trump. Musk told investors on a recent conference call that “now that the major work of establishing the Department of Government Efficiency is done,” he expects to spend just “a day or two per week on government matters.”
Musk, in his work for the administration, has continued a political evolution toward the right. Although the South African-born entrepreneur was never easy to categorize ideologically, he championed the fight against climate change and often supported Democratic candidates.
Now he criticizes “the woke mind virus” and warns of the collapse of Western civilization from the threats of illegal migration and excess government spending.
Musk’s increasingly conservative politics are reflected in the polling. Only about 2 in 10 independents and about 1 in 10 Democrats view Musk favorably, compared with about 7 in 10 Republicans.
In addition, while about 7 in 10 independents and about 9 in 10 Democrats believe Musk has too much influence, only about 4 in 10 Republicans feel that way.
Mark Collins, 67, a warehouse manager from Michigan who has leaned Republican in recent years, said Musk “runs a nice, tight ship” at his companies, “and the government definitely needs tightening up.”
“He’s cleaning up all the trash,” he said. “I love what he’s doing.”
Republicans are much less likely than Democrats to be worried about being affected by recent cuts to federal government agencies, services or grants. Just 11 percent said they are “extremely” or “very” concerned that they or someone they know will be affected, while about two-thirds of Democrats and 44 percent of independents have those fears.
The AP-NORC poll of 1,260 adults was conducted April 17-21, using a sample drawn from NORC’s probability-based AmeriSpeak Panel, which is designed to be representative of the U.S. population. The margin of sampling error for adults overall is plus or minus 3.9 percentage points.
Insightful, trustworthy journalism, for everyone.
Your tax-deductible donation ensures our vital reporting continues to thrive. Support PBS News Hour now.
