Meta has officially begun testing a radical shift in its recruitment process by allowing job applicants to use AI assistants during technical interviews — a move that breaks with Big Tech tradition and signals what may be the next frontier in AI-integrated hiring.

The pilot program, first reported by 404 Media and confirmed by Business Insider, is dubbed “AI-Enabled Interviews.” According to a recent internal post, Meta is developing a new kind of coding interview where candidates can use AI tools as they tackle real-time problems, mimicking the AI-supported environment they would work in as Meta engineers.

“This is more representative of the developer environment that our future employees will work in, and also makes LLM-based cheating less effective,” the post read.

This bold experiment marks a new high in how AI is being woven into hiring, not just behind the scenes, but right in the hands of applicants. While companies across sectors have been integrating AI to automate parts of the recruitment process — including resume screening, candidate matching, and skill assessments — allowing AI during the interview itself is a significant departure from current norms.

Meta appears to be challenging the outdated notion that external assistance during interviews constitutes cheating by letting candidates use AI in real time.  Instead, the company is recognizing AI as a legitimate tool — not unlike a calculator for a math test — that skilled workers are expected to know how to use efficiently.

“We’re obviously focused on using AI to help engineers with their day-to-day work, so it should be no surprise that we’re testing how to provide these tools to applicants during interviews,” a Meta spokesperson said.

Meta’s move comes even as other major players in tech remain cautious, or even hostile, toward AI use during job interviews. Amazon has reportedly instructed internal recruiters to disqualify any candidates caught using AI during the interview process. Anthropic, the AI safety research company behind Claude, initially imposed a similar ban on AI use by applicants, only to reverse its decision amid pushback.

So far, no other major Big Tech firm has embraced AI use during interviews the way Meta now has — and it remains unclear whether they will follow suit.

Raising the Bar for What’s Considered Cheating

Allowing candidates to access AI for interview naturally reopens the debate about what constitutes cheating in the hiring process.  Meta appears to be arguing that if engineers rely on AI tools in their daily work, then it’s only logical to evaluate them in that same context.

Instead of banning AI, the company is working to ensure its interview system tests how well candidates collaborate with AI, judging them on their judgment, input design, and decision-making rather than rote memorization or solving problems in a vacuum.

This shift fits neatly into CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s long-term vision of AI’s role in software development. During a January appearance on The Joe Rogan Experience, Zuckerberg predicted that by 2025, AI tools would be capable of functioning like midlevel engineers, able to write code and assist with complex tasks.

“Probably in 2025, we at Meta, as well as the other companies that are basically working on this, are going to have an AI that can effectively be a sort of midlevel engineer that you have at your company that can write code,” he said.

Internally, Meta has already begun deploying AI to streamline its recruitment operations. According to internal documents, the company is using AI to automate coding skill tests, generate interview prompts, and match candidates to job roles faster. But the latest move — letting AI into the candidate’s hands — marks a turning point.

Although many may see AI use in interviews as a red flag, particularly as concerns grow over fairness, ethics, and transparency in hiring, others consider the approach revolutionary.

However, Meta’s experiment may push the industry to reconsider whether resisting AI in interviews is sustainable — or even productive — in a world where coding, designing, and engineering are increasingly done in partnership with intelligent machines.

Interactive Brokers Group, a major discount brokerage with a market value of approximately $110 billion, is exploring the integration of stablecoins to enable instant, 24/7 funding for brokerage accounts and to support transfers of commonly traded cryptocurrencies. Founder Thomas Peterffy has confirmed that the firm is considering either issuing its own stablecoin or allowing customers to use credible third-party stablecoins, such as those issued by Paxos, with whom they already have a partnership.

No final decision has been made on the implementation, and Peterffy has expressed caution about the fundamental value of cryptocurrencies, noting their volatility and regulatory risks. This move aligns with broader industry trends, as seen with competitors like Robinhood, which recently launched the USDG stablecoin via the Global Dollar Network. The initiative reflects Interactive Brokers’ strategy to enhance client convenience and adapt to the growing adoption of blockchain-based assets, supported by recent U.S. regulatory clarity, such as the GENIUS Act signed in July 2025.

Stablecoins enable instant, round-the-clock account funding, unlike traditional banking systems with delays from ACH transfers or bank hours. This could attract active traders needing rapid liquidity. Stablecoins, being blockchain-based, facilitate cross-border transactions with lower fees and faster settlement compared to wire transfers, appealing to Interactive Brokers’ international client base.

Allowing crypto transfers could position Interactive Brokers as a bridge between traditional finance and decentralized finance (DeFi), potentially attracting younger, crypto-savvy investors. By adopting stablecoins, Interactive Brokers could stay ahead of competitors like Charles Schwab or Fidelity, which have been slower to integrate crypto. It aligns with moves by platforms like Robinhood, which launched the USDG stablecoin in 2025.

Offering crypto funding could reduce client churn to crypto-native platforms like Coinbase or Binance, which already support digital asset transactions. This move signals innovation, reinforcing Interactive Brokers’ reputation as a forward-thinking brokerage amid growing blockchain adoption.

The GENIUS Act (signed July 2025) and other U.S. regulatory advancements provide a clearer framework for stablecoin integration, reducing legal risks. However, compliance with anti-money laundering (AML) and know-your-customer (KYC) regulations will be critical. While stablecoins are less volatile, broader crypto support introduces risks tied to price fluctuations, as noted by Thomas Peterffy. Robust risk management systems will be needed.

Relying on third-party stablecoin issuers like Paxos introduces counterparty risk, requiring careful vetting and oversight. Integrating stablecoin and crypto transfers requires significant investment in blockchain technology, wallet management, and cybersecurity to prevent hacks or fraud. Clients unfamiliar with crypto may need guidance, increasing customer support demands.

Handling high transaction volumes on blockchain networks could strain systems if not properly scaled. Mainstream brokerages adopting stablecoins could normalize digital assets, driving broader market acceptance and potentially stabilizing crypto prices. Crypto-funded accounts could increase trading volume on Interactive Brokers’ platform, boosting revenue from commissions and margin interest.

Widespread crypto integration might amplify market swings if investors rapidly move funds between crypto and traditional assets. Conservative clients may view crypto integration skeptically, citing volatility, security risks, and regulatory uncertainty. They may prefer Interactive Brokers to maintain a focus on traditional assets like stocks and bonds. Interactive Brokers risks alienating one group while appealing to the other. A balanced approach (e.g., optional crypto features) could mitigate this.

Regulators and risk-averse clients may demand stringent oversight, fearing stablecoins could enable illicit activities or destabilize financial systems. Some crypto users may resist KYC/AML requirements or prefer decentralized stablecoins over centralized ones like Paxos-issued tokens, creating friction with Interactive Brokers’ compliance-driven approach.

Leadership, like Thomas Peterffy, expresses caution about crypto’s value, reflecting a divide between embracing innovation and maintaining financial stability. This could lead to a conservative rollout, focusing on stablecoins rather than volatile assets like Bitcoin. A cautious approach may slow adoption compared to crypto-native platforms, but it could protect Interactive Brokers’ reputation for reliability among traditional clients.

Interactive Brokers’ potential adoption of stablecoins and crypto could transform its platform by enhancing funding speed, global access, and market relevance, but it faces challenges in regulatory compliance, infrastructure costs, and bridging the divide between traditional and crypto-focused clients. The firm’s cautious approach, likely focusing on stablecoins like Paxos’ offerings, aims to balance innovation with stability, but it must carefully manage client expectations and operational risks to succeed in this evolving financial landscape.

The U.S. and EU reached a trade deal on July setting a 15% tariff on most EU goods entering the U.S., down from a threatened 30%, with the EU committing to $750 billion in U.S. energy purchases and $600 billion in investments. This agreement, announced by President Donald Trump and EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, averted a potential trade war, bringing market stability. U.S. equity futures rose, with Nasdaq futures up 0.52% and S&P 500 futures up 0.4%.

In pre-market trading, defense stocks like Kratos Defense (+2.7%) and Lockheed Martin (+1.3%) gained due to EU military equipment purchase commitments, while LNG companies like Cheniere Energy (+4%) and Venture Global (+5.5%) surged on energy deal optimism. However, some analysts note the deal’s “unbalanced” nature may favor the U.S., potentially impacting EU economies, with lingering uncertainties in sectors like pharmaceuticals. Markets remain cautious amid upcoming economic data and Federal Reserve decisions.

The deal reduces tariffs on EU goods to 15%, down from a threatened 30%, stabilizing trade flows and benefiting U.S. consumers with lower prices on European imports like cars, luxury goods, and machinery. The EU’s $750 billion commitment to U.S. energy (primarily LNG) and $600 billion in investments, including military equipment, directly supports U.S. industries. Sectors tied to exports (e.g., agriculture, tech) benefit from reduced uncertainty, though gains may be tempered by upcoming Federal Reserve rate decisions and inflation data.

The deal strengthens U.S. influence over EU markets, particularly in energy, where the EU’s shift from Russian gas to U.S. LNG locks in long-term demand. This enhances U.S. strategic positioning but risks over-reliance on energy exports if global prices fluctuate. Lowered tariffs preserve EU access to the U.S. market, critical for exporters like Germany’s automotive sector (e.g., Volkswagen, BMW).

However, the 15% tariff still raises costs compared to pre-2025 levels, potentially squeezing profit margins for EU firms. The $1.35 trillion in energy and investment commitments strains EU budgets, particularly for smaller economies. The EU’s pivot to U.S. LNG reduces reliance on Russian energy but increases exposure to U.S. pricing and supply chain risks. This could raise energy costs for European consumers and industries, exacerbating inflation in countries like Italy and Spain.

European equities face mixed signals. While the deal avoids a worst-case scenario, the “unbalanced” terms favoring the U.S. could weaken EU competitiveness in sectors like pharmaceuticals, where U.S. firms may gain market share. European markets may lag U.S. counterparts until clarity emerges on implementation.

The deal is perceived as U.S.-centric, with Trump’s negotiation tactics securing significant EU commitments while offering relatively modest tariff reductions. This imbalance may strain U.S.-EU relations long-term, as EU leaders face domestic backlash over perceived capitulation. U.S. energy, defense, and agriculture sectors are clear winners, while EU manufacturers and consumers face higher costs.

Within the EU, wealthier nations like Germany may absorb tariff impacts better than southern or eastern member states, deepening intra-EU economic divides. The deal may pressure other trading partners (e.g., China, UK) to renegotiate terms with the U.S., potentially escalating global tariff tensions. Emerging markets reliant on EU trade could face secondary impacts from reduced European spending power.

Implementation details, such as tariff exemptions and timelines for EU investments, remain unclear, creating risks of disputes. The Federal Reserve’s next moves and EU economic data (e.g., Eurozone PMI) could overshadow trade deal optimism, affecting market trajectories. Political fallout in the EU, especially ahead of national elections, may lead to pushback against the deal, risking renegotiations.

In summary, the U.S. gains economically and geopolitically, with markets reflecting short-term optimism, while the EU secures market access at the cost of significant concessions, highlighting a divide that could reshape transatlantic trade dynamics.