Dispatch From Napa: Speaking to the Heart and Soul of the Beauty Industry
NEW YORK — This week, The Business of Beauty Global Forum 2025 took place in Napa Valley, California. Our speakers and guests came from 17 countries — as far away as Australia, South Korea, Indonesia, South Africa, India and Sweden — to share their personal journeys, their business insights and their plans for navigating a beauty industry in flux.
Across a wide range of topics, expertly curated by executive editor Priya Rao, our Global Forum touched on a variety of subjects that spoke not just to the nuts and bolts of building and sustaining a beauty business, but also to the hearts and souls of everyone who joined us, creating a sense of shared humanity and solidarity amid the Trump Administration's anti-immigrant crackdown taking place not far away in Los Angeles. Lindsay Toczylowski, whose client Andry José Hernández Romero has not been heard from since his deportation to El Salvador in March, forcefully defended the rule of law in a talk at The Business of Beauty Global Forum. (for The Business of Fashion)
In a defiant call to action, Lindsay Toczylowski, president and co-founder of the Immigrant Defenders Law Center, shared the story of Andry José Hernández Romero, a 31-year-old Venezuelan makeup artist who was seeking asylum in the US before he was deported to the notorious CECOT prison in El Salvador. Toczylowski explained why the deportation of undocumented immigrants without due process is a direct attack on democracy.
'The moment that we stop talking about Andry, about his story and others like him is the moment that the Trump administration is successful in completing the disappearance of Andry José Hernández Romero,' she said.
Over the course of the two days we spent together, we also examined the findings of the second edition of The State of Fashion: Beauty report and gauged the untapped potential of AI on the beauty industry during our Knowledge Breakfasts, participated in breathwork classes and group workout sessions led by our friends Manoj Dias and Joe Holder, and exchanged ideas and personal stories over intimate meals under the midnight sky. (L-R) Imran Amed, Founder & CEO, The Business of Fashion and Tracee Ellis Ross, Owner/Founder/Co-CEO, Pattern Beauty speak onstage at "Inside the Industry" during The Business of Beauty Global Forum 2025 presented by The Business of Fashion at Stanly Ranch on June 10, 2025 in Napa, California. (Getty Images for The Business of Fashion)
Our two headliners Hailey Bieber and Tracee Ellis Ross may have been what helped draw the crowds and media attention, but not only did Hailey and Tracee demonstrate the same kind of passion, dedication and obsession of all true founders, they also helped bring deserved awareness and appreciation to scores of other executives, founders and creatives who are making their mark in beauty.
This was especially true for our finalists for The Business of Beauty Global Awards 2025 , supported by L'Oréal Groupe and Sephora. Now in its second year, the Global Awards expanded to recognise six founders across three categories: Creative Execution, Business Innovation and Positive Impact in two tracks: emerging businesses with less than $2 million in annual revenues and breakthrough businesses with up to $10 million in revenue.
In the end, our gongs went to Akt London, Commune, Manasi 7, Ruka, Unifrom and Yse Beauty. We look forward to sharing in-depth profiles of these budding entrepreneurs and their businesses next week on The Business of Beauty. Priya Rao and Hailey Bieber speak during at the "Connection in the Age of Disruption" discussion during The Business of Beauty Global Forum 2025 presented by The Business of Fashion at Stanly Ranch on June 10, 2025 in Napa, California. (Getty Images for The Business of Fashion)
And this week on The BoF Podcast, I'm pleased to share Priya's conversation with Hailey Bieber, her first live conversation since selling her business to E.l.f. in a $1 billion deal last month.
There's no doubt this is just the beginning for The Business of Beauty. I could not be more proud of our entire team. In three short years, they have made this the most meaningful and sought-after event in the global beauty industry. We're already thinking about how to make next year's Global Forum even better.
Have a great weekend,
Imran Amed, Founder and Editor in Chief Below are my top picks from our analysis on fashion, luxury and beauty this week:
1. Garment Workers Are at Risk. Fashion Can't Afford to Look Away. The Trump administration is rapidly stepping up immigration raids in US cities, touching off protests and legal challenges. Even if brands aren't willing to weigh in publicly, they need a plan to support their workforce. (Getty Images)
2. The State of Fashion: Beauty Report — Solving the Growth Puzzle. Beauty's era of effortless growth is giving way to a more complex landscape. Download the second volume of BoF and McKinsey & Company's industry report to learn how to navigate evolving consumer expectations, market deceleration and regional volatility in the years ahead.
3. How to Acquire Customers with Instagram Ads in 2025. As paid marketing on Meta gets cheaper and easier to target customers, brands are getting more strategic about the content that attracts consumers at different points in their shopping journey. (BoF Collage)
4. Why Chanel Is Getting Into the Recycling Business. The French luxury giant is launching a new circularity focused venture with investments in waste management and recycling companies, much as it has bought up top-end ateliers in a decades-long push to future-proof its supply chain. (Chanel)
5. Why Lace and Crochet Are Everywhere Right Now. Brands from Magda Butrym to Chloé are appealing to shoppers with delicate handwork that's nostalgic and romantic, providing a contrast to fast fashion and the minimalism of quiet luxury. (BoF Team) This Weekend on The BoF Podcast
When Hailey Bieber launched her beauty and skincare brand Rhode in 2022, it quickly built a loyal customer base and achieved rapid commercial success. By early 2025, Rhode had generated $212 million in annual sales and, in May, was acquired by E.l.f. Beauty in a landmark $1 billion deal.
'Rhode is not just about the product; it's the whole entire world of Rhode. I want people to feel something when they get the products. When they use it, I want them to feel that they are a part of something,' Bieber shared this week at The Business of Beauty Global Forum 2025 in Napa Valley, California. 'I really do see us being a legacy brand. Rhode is going to go down as one of the greats.'
In her first public appearance since the acquisition, Hailey spoke with The Business of Beauty's executive editor Priya Rao about launching her brand, how the deal with E.l.f. transpired, and her vision for the future of Rhode.
To receive this email in your inbox each Saturday, sign up to The Daily Digest newsletter for agenda-setting intelligence, analysis and advice that you won't find anywhere else.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
35 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump threatens to force journalists to reveal who leaked report undermining his narrative on Iran bombing
Donald Trump threatened in an interview Sunday to force journalists who published an initial U.S. intelligence assessment of his administration's strikes on Iran to reveal their sources or face prosecution as his effort to plaster a positive narrative over the aftermath continues. The U.S. president spoke on Sunday Morning Futures with Maria Bartiromo, and insisted once again that U.S. airstrikes targeting three Iranian facilities last weekend completed the task of disabling the Iranian nuclear weapons development program. The strikes, Trump claimed, obliterated the Iranian government's entire (or a majority) of its supply of enriched uranium — he denied claims from Iranian officials that it was moved out of the area before the Fordow site was hit. And the president vowed legal action against Democratic members of Congress and journalists he blamed for publishing parts of a U.S. intelligence assessment of the effects of the three attacks. The administration spent the past week decrying it as one-sided, incomplete, and aimed at producing a narrative critical of the Trump White House. 'You go up and tell the reporter, 'national security, who gave it [to you]?'' Trump told Bartiromo, adding: 'You have to do that. And I suspect we'll be doing things like that.' More to follow...
Fox News
an hour ago
- Fox News
MSNBC host erupts over SCOTUS ruling on Trump's birthright citizenship order
MSNBC host Symone Sanders Townsend unloaded on the Supreme Court's ruling on President Donald Trump's birthright citizenship executive order, calling it "insane" during a discussion on Friday. "I just don't, I can't believe that we are asking the question, 'is the 14th Amendment to the Constitution constitutional?' That is what, it is crazy. And I am sorry, but people need to call, 'this is crazy.' They are asking us… They're asking us not to believe our own eyes and our own ears. They're asking us to go against everything that we know to be true. This is insane," Sanders Townsend said. The Supreme Court delivered a major victory in Trump's effort to block lower courts from issuing universal injunctions that had upended many of his administration's executive orders and actions on Friday. The Justices ruled 6-3 to allow the lower courts to issue injunctions only in limited instances, though the ruling leaves open the question of how the ruling will apply to the birthright citizenship order at the heart of the case. The Supreme Court agreed this year to take up a trio of consolidated cases involving so-called universal injunctions handed down by federal district judges in Maryland, Massachusetts and Washington state. Judges in those districts had blocked Trump's ban on birthright citizenship from taking force nationwide — which the Trump administration argued in their appeal to the Supreme Court was overly broad. "The applications do not raise – and thus we do not address – the question whether the Executive Order violates the Citizenship Clause or Nationality Act," Justice Amy Coney Barrett said, writing for the majority. "The issue before us is one of remedy: whether, under the Judiciary Act of 1789, federal courts have equitable authority to issue universal injunctions." MSNBC host Michael Steele responded, "this is the landscape we find ourselves on now." "I mean, the reality is that they have been very effective. Trump and his minions inside the government have been very effective at setting the stairsteps to the various narratives that they want to get accomplished," he said. Slate's Mark Joseph Stern also criticized the ruling, and insisted that no one could explain how Trump's order would work in practice. "When a child is born in America, the doctor doesn't demand the papers of their parents to ensure that they're a citizen or a green card holder. All they need is a birth certificate showing that they were born here. You, me, most people we know, we are citizens because of our birth. And once the government takes that away, once it introduces this wild, chaotic new system where it depends on your parents, and you get punished if your parents didn't have the right papers, then everyone's citizenship is thrown into disarray, and advocates need to present that very clearly to the Supreme Court because, frankly, this conservative majority is very selective in its empathy," Stern argued.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
US supreme court ruling sets stage for more politicized science under RFK Jr
A US supreme court decision affirming the constitutionality of Obamacare sets the stage for more politicized science in the future, health law experts said about the court's decision. The court's majority opinion in Kennedy v Braidwood Management found that an expert panel – the preventive services taskforce – convened under the Affordable Care Act is under the direct oversight of the health secretary. 'This is your classic good news, bad news,' said Lawrence Gostin, a professor of global health law at Georgetown Law. 'In a sane world, with a secretary of health that believes in science and doesn't bring in conspiracy theories and agendas, you would applaud this decision.' With health policy now in the hands of the Trump administration, 'it gives Secretary [Robert F Kennedy Jr] complete power about what to recommend and what not to recommend,' Gostin said. The court issued the opinion only hours after an expert vaccine advisory panel (ACIP) handpicked by Kennedy subverted the scientific consensus by recommending against vaccines containing thimerosal, a preservative overwhelmingly considered safe. Thimerosal has been a subject of misinformation and anti-vaccine advocacy for decades. Much like the expert panel in question in the Braidwood case, the recommendations of the vaccine advisory committee are a key link in the treatment distribution pipeline. Recommendations from both panels are typically affirmed by the leadership of the health department, and then become the basis on which insurers base coverage decisions. In the case of the ACIP, those recommendations typically concern vaccines. In the preventive taskforce context, they include a wide range of treatments – from statins to cancer screenings to HIV prevention. It was widely recognized that Kennedy had the authority to hire and fire people for the vaccine panel – but legal controversy existed about whether health secretaries have the same power over the preventive services taskforce. 'The president and the Senate are accountable 'for both the making of a bad appointment and the rejection of a good one',' wrote Justice Brett Kavanaugh for the six-vote majority. In other words, the court said, if you don't like it, go to the ballot box. MaryBeth Musumeci, an associate professor of health law management at the George Washington University Milken Institute of Public Health, told the Guardian: 'We have that structure in place – and that is a really great structure if the folks in charge are actually deferring to the experts and the science and what the evidence says.' She added: 'To the extent that we are going to make decisions based on bad science – that has really serious public health implications.' The panel at the center of the vaccine decision is the ACIP vaccine panel. Until June, the advisory panel was made up of 17 experts vetted by CDC career scientists. Their recommendations, while not binding, were almost always approved by CDC leadership. Kennedy fired all 17 members unilaterally in June and stocked the panel with eight ideological allies – including vaccine skeptics and medical professionals with little experience in vaccines. One panelist withdrew after a government financial review, and after it was widely publicized that the secretary's claims about the panelist's affiliation with two universities was false. Wayne Turner, a senior attorney for the National Health Law Program, which advocates for the medically underserved, said that he and others were 'certainly breathing a sigh of relief with the court's decision today' because a key provision of Obamacare was found to be constitutional. 'But that sigh of relief is really short-lived,' Turner said. 'We have long anticipated with the appointment of RFK Jr, and certainly with his actions with the ACIP, that we can fully expect the preventive services taskforce to be the next battleground in the ideological war this administration seems to be waging. And the war is against science.' The subject of the Braidwood case provides a salient example. Plaintiffs were suing the government to claim that the taskforce was wrongly appointed. Although their legal argument was thorny, one treatment they specifically cited as wrong was insurance coverage of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), an HIV prevention drug. Although the plaintiffs' claim that the taskforce was unconstitutional was swatted down, it provides activists with a roadmap to get what they want – if they can convince Kennedy to appoint more ideological allies to the taskforce. The preventive services taskforce may have one protective mechanism: a requirement that they be guided by evidence written into Obamacare, the legislation that impaneled them. Gearing up for another fight, Turner said: 'That's going to be an important thing for us to point to in the weeks and months ahead, and years, quite frankly.'
