The top producer at CBS’ “60 Minutes” announced Tuesday he would step down from the newsmagazine because he had lost his journalistic independence.  

“Over the past months, it has … become clear that I would not be allowed to run the show as I have always run it,” Bill Owens said in a memo to staff members, which was obtained by NBC News. “To make independent decisions based on what was right for ‘60 Minutes,’ right for the audience.” 

“So, having defended this show — and what we stand for — from every angle, over time with everything I could, I am stepping aside so the show can move forward,” Owens added.  

Owens’ departure comes during a tumultuous chapter for “60 Minutes.” President Donald Trump has sued CBS for $10 billion over an October interview with then-Vice President Kamala Harris that the president claims was deceptively edited. The network has denied that claim. 

Trump amended the lawsuit earlier this year, upping his damages claim to $20 billion.

“Former President Donald Trump’s repeated claims against ‘60 Minutes’ are false,” CBS News said in a statement in October. “The interview was not doctored” and the show “did not hide any part of Vice President Kamala Harris’s answer to the question at issue.”  

In a separate statement, “60 Minutes” said it gave an excerpt from its interview with Harris to the Sunday morning program “Face the Nation,” which used a longer section of the former Democratic presidential candidate’s answer to a question.

“Same question. Same answer. But a different portion of the response. When we edit any interview, whether a politician, an athlete, or movie star, we strive to be clear, accurate and on point,” the statement said. “The portion of her answer on 60 Minutes was more succinct, which allows time for other subjects in a wide ranging 21-minute-long segment.”  

Trump has repeatedly lambasted the venerable newsmagazine over its reporting on him and his administration.  

In a post on Truth Social on April 13, for example, Trump wrote: “Almost every week, 60 Minutes … mentions the name ‘TRUMP’ in a derogatory and defamatory way, but this Weekend’s ‘BROADCAST’ tops them all.” He appeared to take issue with segments about the war in Ukraine and his interest in acquiring Greenland.  

Trump added that he believed CBS should lose its broadcast license and “pay a big price.” He said he hoped Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr would “impose the maximum fines and punishment.”   

Owens’ exit, first reported by The New York Times, also comes at a pivotal moment for CBS’ parent company, Paramount. Shari Redstone, Paramount’s controlling shareholder, reportedly needs the Trump administration to approve her media conglomerate’s sale to Skydance Media, a production and finance company run by David Ellison, the son of tech mogul Larry Ellison. 

The New York Times reported in late January that Paramount was in settlement talks with Trump. The Times later reported that Owens told staff members he would not apologize for the Harris interview as part of any prospective settlement. NBC News has not independently verified either report. 

In his memo to staff, Owens said “60 Minutes” would “continue to cover the new administration, as we will report on future administrations. We will report from war zones, investigate injustices and educate our audience. In short, ‘60 Minutes’ will do what it has done for 57 years.”  

“Thank you all, remain focused on the moment, our audience deserves it,” Owens said in closing.  

Wendy McMahon, president and CEO of CBS News, notified company employees by email that Owens would be leaving and touted his work at the company.

“Tom and I are committed to 60 Minutes and to ensuring that the mission and the work remain our priority,” McMahon said, referring to CBS News president and executive editor Tom Cibrowski. 

LOS ANGELES — A group of California homeowners is taking on insurance companies that they say illegally coordinated to deny coverage to fire-prone areas, leaving thousands of displaced residents drastically underinsured as they fight for funding to rebuild.

The homeowners, many of whom were affected by the recent wildfires that torched large swaths of Los Angeles, have filed a lawsuit alleging that California insurance companies colluded in a “nefarious conspiracy” to shut out high-risk homeowners from the insurance market.

The complaint, filed Friday in Los Angeles County, accuses dozens of major insurance companies and their subsidiaries of collaborating in a “group boycott” of certain areas to eliminate competition and force homeowners toward the state’s insurer of last resort, a program known as the California FAIR Plan.

The lawsuits name California’s largest home insurers, including State Farm, Farmers, Berkshire Hathaway, Allstate and Liberty Mutual. None of them have provided a comment on the allegations.

The FAIR Plan has its own reserves and is intended to provide basic insurance to residents who cannot find a policy through the private marketplace. While it was created by the governor and the Legislature, and the state’s insurance commissioner has oversight, it is not a public program. The insurance companies named in the lawsuit jointly own and operate the FAIR plan, offering terms that limit their risk and place a higher burden on policyholders.

“They knew that they could force people, by dropping insurance, into that plan which had higher premiums and far lower coverages,” Robert Ruyak, an attorney with Larson LLP, the law firm that brought the complaint, said. “They realized that they could take this device, which is to protect consumers, and turn it into something that protected them.”

Ruyak argues the insurance companies knew they could limit their liability by directing policyholders onto the FAIR Plan, which allows companies to recoup up to half of their losses through premium increases, by agreeing that no company would insure high-risk areas.

“All of these insurance companies participate in the California FAIR Plan. They own it and manage it. It is not a California entity, it is not even a separate entity … the only way this scheme would work is if no one would pick up a dropped policy at any price, on any terms. And that’s what happened.”

Millions of U.S. homeowners have in recent years struggled to buy property insurance as companies have increasingly declined to offer coverage to people who live in high-risk areas, particularly as climate change has supercharged some natural disasters. An NBC News analysis in 2023 found that a quarter of all U.S. homes may be at risk of a climate-induced insurance shock.

California has been among the hardest hit by what some have called an “insurance crisis.” The state’s FAIR Plan, meanwhile, has been the subject of growing scrutiny and frustration from insurance regulators and customers.

The plaintiffs are asking for a jury trial and seeking payment for three times their damages. 

A separate class-action lawsuit filed Friday makes similar allegations.

Starbucks is imposing new limits on what its baristas can wear under their green aprons.

Starting May 12, employees will be required to wear a solid black shirt and khaki, black or blue denim bottoms. Shirts can be short- or long-sleeved and collared or collarless, the company said in a memo released Monday. Starbucks will give each employee two free T-shirts.

Starbucks said the new dress code will make its green aprons stand out and create a sense of familiarity for customers. It comes as the company is trying to reestablish a warmer, more welcoming experience in its store.

“By updating our dress code, we can deliver a more consistent coffeehouse experience that will also bring simpler and clearer guidance to our partners, which means they can focus on what matters most, crafting great beverages and fostering connections with customers,” the company said in a post on its website.

But some workers protested the move. Starbucks Workers United, a labor group that has unionized workers at more than 550 of Starbucks’ 10,000 company-owned U.S. stores, said it told the company last week that it has already negotiated a tentative dress code agreement during bargaining sessions with the company. The union said it opposes any changes to the dress code until bargaining concludes and a labor agreement is reached.

Jasmine Leli, a Starbucks barista and union bargaining delegate, said the company should be focusing on things that improve store operations, like appropriately staffing stores and giving workers a guaranteed number of hours.

“Instead of addressing the most pressing issues baristas have been raising for years, Starbucks is prioritizing a limiting dress code that won’t improve the company’s operation,” Leli said in a statement provided by the union. “They’re forcing baristas to pay for new clothes when we’re struggling as it is on Starbucks wages and without guaranteed hours.”

The new guidance comes nearly a decade after Starbucks loosened its dress code to give employees more opportunity for self-expression. In 2016, the company expanded the color of shirts employees could wear, adding gray, navy, dark denim and brown to the previous guidance of black or white. It also allowed patterned shirts in those colors.

In 2019, the company tweaked the dress code again, allowing one facial piercing as long as it was no larger than a dime. The new dress code still allows one facial piercing.

It might be time for Tesla CEO Elon Musk’s own fork in the road.  

The electric carmaker is set to report quarterly earnings Tuesday afternoon that may say a lot about which direction Musk and the company he has ridden to immense wealth will go next.  

The company will update investors on revenue, profit and other key figures after months of turmoil as Musk continues to dedicate a large portion of his time to the Trump administration’s attempt to radically remake the federal government, far away from his corporate responsibilities at Tesla, SpaceX and his other companies. 

With Tesla’s stock and brand reputation getting pummeled — and with President Donald Trump’s tariff policy threatening to upend the automotive market, Tesla included — many Tesla investors have called on Musk to scale back or end his government work entirely and return his focus to business.  

The Trump administration has sent “fork in the road” emails encouraging federal workers to consider quitting their jobs.  

Even some of Tesla’s loudest proponents, such as Daniel Ives, managing director at Wedbush Securities, have lost patience with how Musk is dividing up his attention.  

“This is a moment of truth for Musk,” Ives told NBC News. “If he picks staying with DOGE and the Trump White House, the future of Tesla could be negatively altered permanently. The brand damage he’s created by being part of the Trump administration has already been a devastating blow to Tesla’s reputation, stock and confidence. … He’s made Tesla into a political symbol, which is one of the worst things that can happen to a consumer brand.” 

DOGE refers to the Department of Government Efficiency, Musk’s team of staffers spread throughout the executive branch helping to order spending cuts. Musk is a “special government employee” who’s expected to leave the Trump administration at some point, but with no set date to depart. 

Musk and Tesla didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment Monday afternoon on whether he is stretched too thin and, if so, what they might do about it.  

Tesla is due to report earnings after the market closes. It also is scheduled to host a conference call with Wall Street analysts, and Musk sometimes joins the calls.  

Several possible paths lie ahead for Musk and Tesla, and it’s not clear which is most likely. Musk could scale back or end his White House job and spend more time at Tesla. Or he could quit as Tesla CEO and keep his focus on politics, putting the company’s future and brand in someone else’s hands.  

The status quo may also endure, with Musk continuing to bet that he has enough attention for everyone.  

Tesla’s stock price has provided a snapshot of the tumultuous run since Musk threw himself into the Trump administration. While its stock price is almost even with where it traded in the days ahead of the election, its shares are down more than 50% from their December peak. Still, Tesla’s total market cap remains just above $700 billion, well above those of its auto industry competitors but below those of major tech companies. 

On Monday, Tesla shares plunged again ahead of the earnings report, falling 5.8%.  

Tuesday will mark Tesla’s first earnings report since the full extent of Musk’s government role and ambitions became clear. Tesla last reported on its financials on Jan. 29, early in Trump’s second term.  

In the past year, Musk has somewhat aggressively started to pivot Tesla into new possible lines of business, including a proposed Cybercab autonomous vehicle and a potential robotic humanoid called Optimus, although the company hasn’t shipped either of those products and some on Wall Street are skeptical that they’ll be successful.  

In a note to clients, Wells Fargo stock researchers said they expected to hear more from Tesla on Tuesday about Cybercab and Optimus, but they called those subjects “razzle dazzle” that “distract from fundamentals.” Wells Fargo has a price target of $130 a share for Tesla, far below the $227.50 close on Monday and near the low end of analyst price targets, according to The Wall Street Journal.  

Tesla has already issued warning signs about its health. It reported April 2 that vehicle deliveries in the first quarter declined 13% from a year earlier, battered by rising competition and fallout from Musk’s involvement in politics.  

Hundreds of protests at Tesla showrooms have also weighed on the company. Under the banner of a “Tesla Takedown,” opponents of Musk and Trump’s government policies have targeted the company to try to gain leverage over Musk, and demonstrators have continued to swarm Tesla locations, especially on weekends.  

Allen Adamson, a co-founder of Metaforce, a marketing and brand consultancy, said that if any other corporation faced a similar image problem, the board of directors might have stepped in to switch out the CEO. But Tesla’s board is famously close to and supportive of Musk.  

Now, Adamson said, Tesla faces risk whichever path it and Musk follow.  

“Musk is the magic that has fueled the stock price,” he said. “If he steps aside [as Tesla CEO], he takes the rocket fuel out of the Tesla stock price, but if he stays, he’s equally damaging the company’s prospects.”  

One unknown factor is how much of the damage to Tesla’s brand is permanent. In other words: If Musk were to leave the White House and return to business, would there be any improvement in the brand’s public esteem?  

Ives said it’s hard to measure the damage Tesla has sustained.  

“It’s taken on a life of its own that he never expected — this has become something bigger and much more of a raging fire than he ever expected around Tesla,” he said. “He sells a consumer brand globally, and the demand destruction … you can’t wear rose-colored glasses about it, and to not see it would be smoke and mirrors.” 

If Musk does turn his attention back to politics, he’d still have an enormous challenge to rebuild the company’s reputation, Adamson said. He said that Musk would need to stop other polarizing behavior, such as posting on X about controversial topics, and that he would have to improve the company’s innovation. Tesla has launched only one new consumer vehicle since 2020, and that product, the Cybertruck, isn’t widely popular. 

“I don’t think he can pull a rabbit out of a hat fast enough to prevent a continued spiral down,” Adamson said.

Tech billionaire Elon Musk said Tuesday that he will begin dedicating more time to Tesla and less to his work with the Trump administration starting next month, providing a relief to Tesla investors fed up with his political work and signaling a possible shift in power at the White House.

Musk’s comments came on Tesla’s call with investors following the company reporting a sizable drop in first-quarter profit and revenue. The company warned that the political environment along with the Trump administration’s tariff plans were challenges for its business.

‘Starting probably next month, May, my time obligation to DOGE will drop significantly,’ Musk said, referring to his Department of Government Efficiency.

‘I think I’ll continue to spend a day or two per week on government matters for as long as the president would like me to do so, and for as long as it is useful, but starting next month, I’ll be allocating far more of my time to Tesla, now that the major work of establishing the Department of Government Efficiency is done,’ he said.

Musk, the CEO of Tesla, has faced a swell of opposition for his work with President Donald Trump, which has made Tesla a growing target for protests and even vandalism. Musk has acknowledged that his move into politics has hit the company’s stock price.

Tesla — which is increasingly trying to diversify into high-tech products like robots — said profits fell 71% to $409 million, compared with $1.39 billion during the same quarter one year ago.

Shares of Tesla were up about 4% in after-hours trading, though the company has lost 50% of its value from its mid-December peak.

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Musk’s announcement.

Musk reiterated on the call that he intends to pivot Tesla from its established electric car business into two new products: robotaxis and humanoid robots, two ideas that investors have been skeptical about.

Musk said that Tesla was still on track to begin selling robotaxi rides in Austin, Texas, in June, putting Tesla into head-to-head competition with Google spinoff Waymo, which launched robotaxi rides there in March via the Uber app. 

Tesla, in its written earnings report, said that ‘uncertainty in the automotive and energy markets’ associated with ‘rapidly evolving trade policy,’ along with ‘changing political sentiment,’ could have ‘a meaningful impact on demand for our products in the near-term.’

It also said updates to its best-selling Model Y that affected its availability on the market contributed to the shortfall.

‘We remain committed to expanding our business model to include delivering autonomous robots across multiple form factors and use cases — powered by our real-world AI expertise — to our customers and for use in our factories, as we navigate these headwinds,’ it said.

It said it was not prepared to provide guidance for performance the rest of the year — a decision other companies are also making — because of broad trends that include the impact from tariffs. Tesla has boasted that is ‘the most American-made’ car, but it still faces tariff exposure due to imported parts.

It said it would ‘revisit’ guidance for 2025 in three months.

‘It is difficult to measure the impacts of shifting global trade policy on the automotive and energy supply chains, our cost structure and demand for durable goods and related services,’ Tesla said in the outlook section of its report.

Musk, on the conference call, said he pressed Trump to reverse course on his tariff policy but was not successful.

‘I’m one of many advisers to the president. I’m not the president, but I’ve made my opinion clear to the president,’ he said. ‘I’m an advocate of predictable tariff structures.’

Musk has faced pressure from many sides, including from investors who would like him to pay more attention to the company and from his job in the Trump administration, where he has volunteered to slash government programs.

Musk has kept his CEO roles at Tesla and SpaceX even while he has spent much of his time with President Donald Trump and his Department of Government Efficiency, the group charged with reducing federal spending. 

A CNBC All-America Economic survey released earlier Tuesday underscored the depth of the negative sentiment toward Tesla and Musk: 47% of the public had negative views of the company versus 27% positive, and half had negative views of Musk, compared with 36% who saw him positively.

‘Tesla has become a political symbol around the world,’ Daniel Ives, managing director at Wedbush Securities, said in an interview on CNBC after the earnings report was released.

Ives said the political controversy has hurt Tesla not only by reducing demand for vehicles but also because Tesla has become a target for retaliatory tariffs by other nations, such as China.

The earnings report did not explicitly mention the repeated vandalism against Tesla vehicles or the peaceful protests at its showrooms, instead citing the ‘changing political sentiment’ as a headwind for demand.

A key question for Tesla, Musk and the Trump administration has been how long Musk will remain in his White House position. His job as a “special government employee” is time-limited by law to 130 days during any period of 365 consecutive days, which could put his legally mandated endpoint as early as late May. Musk told Fox News this month that he believed “most” of his work would be done by the deadline. 

Boeing could hand over some of its aircraft that were destined for Chinese airlines to other carriers after China stopped taking deliveries of its planes amid a trade war with the United States.

“They have in fact stopped taking delivery of aircraft due to the tariff environment,” Boeing CEO Kelly Ortberg told CNBC’s “Squawk on the Street” on Wednesday.

Ortberg said that a few 737 Max planes that were in China set to be delivered to carriers there have been flown back to the U.S.

He said some jets that were intended for Chinese customers, as well as aircraft the company was planning to build for China later this year, could go to other customers.

“There’s plenty of customers out there looking for the Max aircraft,” Ortberg said. “We’re not going to wait too long. I’m not going to let this derail the recovery of our company.”

The CEO’s comments came after Boeing reported a narrower-than-expected loss for the first quarter and cash burn that came in better than analysts feared as airplane deliveries surged in the three months ended March 31.

President Donald Trump earlier this month issued sweeping tariffs on imports to the U.S. While he paused some of the highest rates, the trade war with China has only ramped up.

Trump said Tuesday that he’s open to taking a less confrontational approach to trade talks with China, calling the current 145% tariff on Chinese imports “very high.”

“It won’t be that high. … No, it won’t be anywhere near that high. It’ll come down substantially. But it won’t be zero,” Trump said.

Berry unicorn startup Fruitist has surpassed $400 million in annual sales, thanks to the success of its long-lasting jumbo blueberries.

The company, which was founded in 2012, announced on Tuesday that it is changing its name from Agrovision to Fruitist. It previously only used the name for branding its consumer products, which also include raspberries, blackberries and blueberries.

As sales of its berries grow, Fruitist has raised more than $600 million in venture capital, according to Pitchbook data. Notable backers include the family office of Bridgewater Associates founder Ray Dalio.

Fruitist is reportedly considering going public as soon as this year, even as global trade conflicts hit stocks and raise fears about a global economic slowdown.

The company has tried to set itself apart in a crowded space in part by positioning its berries as “snackable.” The snacking category has been one of the fastest growing in the food industry in recent years.

While many consumers still enjoy potato chips and pretzels, many big food companies have expanded their portfolios in recent years to include healthier options. The adoption of GLP-1 drugs and the “Make America Healthy Again” agenda pushed by Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. have made healthier snacking options even more attractive to both consumers and investors.

Today, Fruitist’s berries can be found in more than 12,500 North American retailers, including Costco, Walmart and Whole Foods. Sales of its jumbo blueberries alone have tripled in the last 12 months, fueling the company’s growth.

Co-founder and CEO Steve Magami told CNBC that Fruitist was created to solve the problem of “berry roulette.” That’s what he calls the uneven quality of grocery store berries, which he blames on the business model of legacy produce players.

“You have a bunch of small growers that send their product to a packer, and the packer sends the product to a distributor or an importer, and then that player is either selling to the retailers or they are sending the product to another distributor to then sell to retailers,” Magami said. “You have this disjointed value chain that stifles quality.”

To sell more berries of higher consistent quality, the company grows its fruit in microclimates, with its own farms in Oregon, Morocco, Egypt and Mexico. It also uses machine learning models to predict the best time to pick the fruit. Fruitist invested heavily in infrastructure, like on-site cold storage to keep the berries fresh before they ship.

The company’s vertically integrated supply chain means that its berries should last longer than the competition.

“I’ve intentionally let them sit in my refrigerator for three weeks, and they’re still great after three weeks,” Magami said.

Larger berries, like the company’s non-genetically modified jumbo blueberries that are two to three times the size of a regular blueberry, also have a longer shelf life.

Looking ahead, Fruitist is planning to expand into cherries. The company is growing them now on its Chilean farms and plans to start shipping them next season, which means they could land in grocery stores by early 2026.

Magami said the company has invested more than $600 million to farm berries year-round and build a global footprint that spans North America, Europe, the Middle East and Asia.

To date, Fruitist has spent little of the funding it has raised on marketing, although that’s set to change. In February, Major League Soccer team D.C. United announced a multiyear deal with the company, including an exclusive sleeve patch partnership.

One push for public recognition could come in the form of an initial public offering.

In January, Bloomberg reported that the company was weighing going public as soon as June. Magami declined to comment on the report to CNBC.

If Fruitist decides to go public, it will enter a public market that has yielded mixed results for new stocks in recent years.

Produce giant Dole returned to the public markets in 2021. Shares of the company have risen 14% over the last year, outpacing the S&P 500′s gains of 2% over the same period. Dole, which reported annual revenue of $8.5 billion last year, has a market value of $1.3 billion.

However, market turmoil caused by the White House’s trade wars have led a number of companies, like Klarna and StubHub, to delay their plans to go public. But investors are interested in consumer companies with strong growth; shares of Chinese tea chain Chagee climbed 15% in the company’s public market debut on Thursday.

Trade tensions present other challenges for a global produce company. President Donald Trump has temporarily lowered new tariff rates on imports from most countries to just 10% until early July, but it’s unclear what could happen after that deadline. India, where Fruitist owns nearly 50 acres to grow blueberries, is facing a 26% duty, for example.

Still, Magami said the company is anticipating “minimal impact” from the duties, noting that it has been investing in U.S. production for years.

“We’re optimistic about how this will play out,” he said. “We don’t import to compete with the domestic supply, we import to actually provide 52 weeks.”

Luckily for Fruitist, the tariff rates are set to rise when domestic berries are in season.

CORRECTION (April 23, 2025, 9:08 a.m. ET): An earlier version of this article misstated Dole’s revenue last year. It was $8.5 billion, not $2.2 billion.

Five years removed from the onset of the Covid pandemic, Google is demanding that some remote employees return to the office if they want to keep their jobs and avoid being part of broader cost cuts at the company.

Several units within Google have told remote staffers that their roles may be at risk if they don’t start showing up at the closest office for a hybrid work schedule, according to internal documents viewed by CNBC. Some of those employees were previously approved for remote work.

As the pandemic slips further into the rearview mirror, more companies are tightening their restrictions on remote work, forcing some staffers who moved to distant locations to reconsider their priorities if they want to maintain their employment. The change in tone is particularly acute in the tech industry, which jumped so aggressively into flexible work arrangements in 2020 that San Francisco’s commercial real estate market is still struggling to recover.

Google began offering some U.S. full-time employees voluntary buyouts at the beginning of 2025, and some remote staffers were told that would be their only option if they didn’t return to the nearest office at least three days a week.

The latest threats land at a time when Google and many of its tech peers are looking to slash costs while simultaneously pouring money into artificial intelligence, which requires hefty expenditures on infrastructure and technical talent. Since conducting widespread layoffs in early 2023, Google has undertaken targeted cuts across various teams, emphasizing the importance of increased AI investments.

As of the end of last year, Google had about 183,000 employees, down from roughly 190,000 two years earlier.

Google co-founder Sergey Brin told AI workers in February that they should be in the office every weekday, with 60 hours a week being “the sweet spot of productivity,” according to a memo viewed by CNBC. Brin said the company has to “turbocharge” efforts to keep up with AI competition, which “has accelerated immensely.”

Courtenay Mencini, a Google spokesperson, said the decisions around remote worker return demands are based on individual teams and not a companywide policy.

“As we’ve said before, in-person collaboration is an important part of how we innovate and solve complex problems,” Mencini said in a statement to CNBC. “To support this, some teams have asked remote employees that live near an office to return to in-person work three days a week.”

According to one recent notice, employees in Google Technical Services were told that they’re required to switch to a hybrid office schedule or take a voluntary exit package. Remote employees in the unit are being offered a one-time paid relocation expense to move within 50 miles of an office.

Remote employees in human resources, or what Google calls People Operations, who live within 50 miles of an office, are required to be in person on a hybrid basis by mid-April or their role will be eliminated, according to an internal memo. Staffers in that unit who are approved for remote work and live more than 50 miles away from an office can keep their current arrangements, but will have to go hybrid if they want new roles at the company.

Google previously offered a voluntary exit program to U.S.-based full-time employees in People Operations, starting in March, according to a memo sent by HR chief Fiona Cicconi in February.

That came after the company said in January that it would be offering voluntary exit packages to full-time employees in the U.S. in the Platforms and Devices group, which includes Android, Chrome and products like Fitbit and Nest. The unit has made cuts to nearly two-dozen teams as of this month. While internal correspondence indicated that remote work was a factor in the layoffs, Mencini said it was not a main consideration for the changes.

A year ago, Google combined its Android unit with its hardware group under the leadership of Rick Osterloh, a senior vice president. Osterloh said in January that the voluntary exit plan may be a fit for employees who struggle with the hybrid work schedule.

Mencini told CNBC that, since the groups merged, the team has “focused on becoming more nimble and operating more effectively and this included making some job reductions in addition to the voluntary exit program.” She added that the unit continues to hire in the U.S. and globally.