Musk-pitched-Zuckerberg-on-his-unsolicited-bid-for-OpenAIs-IP.jpeg

Musk pitched Zuckerberg on his unsolicited bid for OpenAI’s IP, newly unsealed court documents show

by with No Comment Xpandfy

Elon Musk asked Mark Zuckerberg if he would consider joining him in bidding for OpenAI’s intellectual property before the Tesla CEO made an unsolicited offer for the ChatGPT maker in February 2025, according to newly released court documents.

The newly unredacted documents are part of Musk’s ongoing lawsuit against OpenAI and its CEO, Sam Altman.

The documents provide a glimpse into the communication between Musk and the Meta CEO, who have had a roller coaster relationship, including challenges to MMA fights.

In one unsealed exhibit, Zuckerberg texted Musk at 10:04 p.m. PT on February 3, 2025, to say that it seemed like the White House DOGE office, for which Musk was the de facto leader, was “making progress.” He also added that his “teams” would be “on alert to take down content doxxing or threatening” people who work with Musk at DOGE, according to the documents.

“Let me know if there is anything else I can do to help,” Zuckerberg added.

Less than half an hour later, Musk reacted to Zuckerberg’s message with a heart emoji and followed up with a question about OpenAI.

“Are you open to the idea of bidding on the OpenAI IP with me and some others?” Musk said, referring to the common term for intellectual property.

“Want to discuss live?” Zuckerberg responded.

Musk liked Zuckerberg’s message and texted back that he would “call in the morning,” according to the documents.

It’s unclear if the planned call actually took place. A Meta spokesperson told Business Insider that the company has no comment.

Based on a court briefing OpenAI filed on August 21, 2025, Musk “identified” Zuckerberg as a person he communicated with regarding a letter of intent about “potential financing arrangements or investments” in OpenAI.

“Neither Zuckerberg nor Meta signed the LOI,” OpenAI added in the briefing.

OpenAI, Elon Musk, and a senior legal counsel for Tesla did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

On February 10, 2025, a consortium of investors, including xAI, led by Musk, submitted an unsolicited $97.4 billion bid to acquire the then-nonprofit organization that controls OpenAI. The bid, submitted by Musk’s attorney Marc Toberoff, was aimed at blocking OpenAI’s transition into a for-profit entity.

OpenAI CEO Sam Altman promptly responded to the bid on X and said, “no thank you but we will buy twitter for $9.74 billion if you want.”

In August 2024, Musk sued Altman and others on the OpenAI board, alleging that he was deceived into investing and that the founders originally approached him to fund a nonprofit focused on developing AI to benefit humanity, but that it was now focused on generating profit. Musk contributed around $38 million to OpenAI in its initial years but is now seeking up to $134 billion in damages in the most recent version of the lawsuit.

In a separate conversation between Zuckerberg and Musk on December 13, 2024, Zuckerberg told Musk that someone had “leaked” Meta’s letter to the California Attorney General in support of Musk’s lawsuit against OpenAI.

“Wanted to make sure you heard this from me,” Zuckerberg added.

OpenAI officially completed its conversion from a nonprofit to a for-profit company in October 2025, although it still maintains a nonprofit wing.

Musk’s lawsuit against Altman and OpenAI will begin jury selection on April 27 in Oakland, California.




Source link

12-perks-of-being-a-Supreme-Court-justice.jpeg

12 perks of being a Supreme Court justice

by with No Comment Xpandfy

Financial disclosure laws apply to justices, but with some caveats. All federal employees (including judges) have to disclose “income, dividends, most capital gains, significant debts, the purchase or sale of land, and gifts, among other things,” per the Brennan Center.

However, Supreme Court justices aren’t beholden to the code of conduct for other federal judges, the “Judicial Conference’s interpretations of the ethics law.”

In 1991, the justices agreed to follow these lower-court rules, but it was voluntary. Then, in 2023, the Court adopted its own formal Code of Conduct for Justices, but it did not include a mechanism for enforcement.

This means it’s a bit of a legal gray area if they don’t follow the code. On occasion, justices have been called out for being less than forthcoming with gifts and perks they receive.

For example, in 2024, Justice Clarence Thomas faced ethics questions for failing to disclose luxury trips funded by billionaire GOP donor Harlan Crow, including travel on his private jet.

In response, Thomas said he thought he didn’t need to report the trips because he believed they were considered “personal hospitality” as he was friends with Crow. He later said he would comply with newer, stricter guidelines about personal hospitality.

He’s not the only one who’s received perks. In 2024, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson received Beyoncé tickets worth almost $4,000. Jackson reported the tickets in her financial disclosure form.




Source link

Judge-clears-path-for-refunds-on-Trump-tariffs-ruled-unlawful.jpeg

Judge clears path for refunds on Trump tariffs ruled unlawful by the Supreme Court

by with No Comment Xpandfy

  • A Supreme Court ruling recently struck down President Donald Trump’s IEEPA tariffs.
  • A federal judge on Wednesday said companies are entitled to benefit from that ruling.
  • US Customs must recalculate duties on imports, disregarding Trump’s IEEPA tariffs, per court order.

A federal trade judge on Wednesday cleared the path for refunds on President Donald Trump’s tariffs, applied through the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, after the Supreme Court recently struck them down.

In the ruling, Judge Richard K. Eaton of the US Court of International Trade said that US importers who were subject to those tariffs are “entitled to the benefit” of the Supreme Court ruling.

Eaton also ordered the US Customs and Border Protection — the agency responsible for collecting import duties — to “liquidate” import entries without regard to the tariffs Trump imposed through the IEEPA, a national emergency law that gives a president broad authority to regulate economic transactions.

The judge is essentially ordering the government agency to calculate the final bill for certain shipments entering the US as if the IEEPA tariffs never applied. Any accounting on goods that have already been calculated, or “liquidated,” but are not legally final, needs to be redone without the duties, the judge ordered.

Importers generally have 180 days after goods are liquidated before the accounting is legally finalized.

The move is another blow to the Trump administration, which sought to raise government revenue through taxes on imports. Trump applied double-digit tariffs through an executive order on nearly every country in April 2025, calling it “Liberation Day.”

On February 20, the Supreme Court struck down, in a 6-3 ruling, Trump’s IEEPA duties, stating that the national emergency law does not give the president the ability to unilaterally impose tariffs. The ruling made no explicit mention of refunds.

In the Wednesday order, Eaton indicated he will serve as the sole judge overseeing cases involving refunds of IEEPA duties.

The exact dollar figure for refunds remains unclear. The Penn Wharton Budget Model estimates that the tariff reversals could generate up to $175 billion in refunds.

Spokespeople for the White House and CBP did not immediately return a request for comment.




Source link

Ayelet Sheffey

Trump’s attempt to quickly axe a key affordable student-loan repayment plan gets shut down in court

by with No Comment Xpandfy

Student-loan borrowers might not lose a key affordable repayment plan just yet.

On Friday, a court dismissed a proposed settlement announced by the Department of Education and the state of Missouri in December that would have eliminated the SAVE income-driven repayment plan ahead of schedule.

President Donald Trump’s “big beautiful” spending legislation called for phasing out SAVE by 2028. This latest update means that the department has to stick with that timeline, and it cannot eliminate the plan before 2028 without court approval or a lengthy negotiated rulemaking process.

John Ross, Missouri’s district court judge, wrote in his ruling that the settlement was not presented to the court, and that federal law allows courts to “exercise jurisdiction only over cases or controversies,” which he said does not exist in this case because both the Department of Education and Missouri have agreed on the outcome they’re seeking without debate.

“It appears that there is no longer a live case or controversy sufficient to authorize the Court to enter a judgment on the merits,” Ross wrote.

The SAVE plan was created by former President Joe Biden in 2023, and it intended to give borrowers cheaper monthly payments with a shorter timeline to loan forgiveness. The plan has been halted since 2024 due to lawsuits seeking to block it, and while Trump’s “big beautiful” spending legislation included a provision to eliminate SAVE over the next few years, the settlement would have done so much sooner than anticipated.

Ross also wrote in a footnote that it’s “not lost on the Court that millions of borrowers who enrolled in the SAVE plan have patiently awaited clarity while this litigation has proceeded. However, that clarity must come from the Department of Education, and not from this Court, which is no longer empowered to weigh the merits of a case that is now moot.”

Winston Berkman-Breen, legal director at advocacy group Protect Borrowers, said in a statement that the court’s ruling means the department can now move forward with relief under the SAVE plan.

“As of today, not only is there no legal barrier to delivering those rights through the SAVE plan, but the Secretary has a legal obligation to do so,” Berkman-Breen said. “The U.S. Department of Education must immediately identify borrowers who are eligible to have their loans cancelled under SAVE and instruct their student loan servicers to cancel those loans.”

A Department of Education spokesperson told Business Insider that the department is evaluating the court’s decision.

The department said in December that, should the settlement be approved, it would not enroll any new borrowers in the SAVE plan, it would deny pending applications, and move the 7 million enrolled borrowers to other repayment plans. Those borrowers would have a limited time to prepare to make their payments.

Have a story to share? Contact this reporter at asheffey@businessinsider.com.




Source link

Kelsey Vlamis's face on gray background.

Small-business owner has paid $12,000 in tariff fees and says Supreme Court ruling leaves uncertainty

by with No Comment Xpandfy

This as-told-to essay is based on a conversation with Marc Bowker, owner of Alter Ego Comics, a comic book shop in Lima, Ohio, after the Supreme Court overturned some of President Donald Trump’s tariffs. This story has been edited for length a clarity.

My first reaction to the Supreme Court decision was, “This is awesome and long overdue.” The second was, “Okay, what’s next?”

Then I saw the president say there would now be a new 10% global tariff and that the Supreme Court justices who ruled against him are unpatriotic and unloyal. So it feels like this is going to drag on forever and ever until he gets his way. It’s like death by a thousand paper cuts.

I think there are more questions remaining than answers. I appreciate the Supreme Court siding with Americans and American businesses, but it feels like it’s going to be a tug-of-war that may go on throughout this entire administration.

This administration has created a level of uncertainty in the small business landscape that I haven’t seen in 23 years of owning my store.

In addition to being a small-business owner in America, I’m a consumer in America, so I’m paying more for everything that my family consumes, from food to physical products. It’s a one-two punch for us.

I’ve already paid thousands, and there’s still uncertainty

I’ve kept a spreadsheet of every shipment that had a tariff charge, and as of today, we’ve paid over $12,000 since Trump started all of this.

We’ve had to pass on a percentage of that to our customers, and as a result, we’ve seen a slowdown in orders. Some are taking a wait-and-see mentality, or they just don’t want to pay the extra fee.

Comics themselves — a lot of which are printed in Canada — have not been impacted by tariffs. But for me and for other comic book stores, action figures, board games, and comic book supplies, like storage items, are being impacted. Action figures account for about 65% of my shop’s revenue, and they are made in China.

A lot of these orders are made far in advance, too. We were being charged tariffs on items ordered in 2023 and 2024. There’s stuff I need to order next week that ships in June of 2027. Is the tariff going to be 6%? Is it going to be zero? Is it going to be 100%? I have no idea.


Marc Bowker and his family in front of his store, Alter Ego Comics.

Marc Bowker and his family in front of his store.

Marc Bowker



It’s unclear if small businesses will get refunds or what will happen next

As for the tariff costs small businesses have already paid, are we getting that back? Probably not. Are the corporations that paid the bulk of the tariffs going to be reimbursed? Where does that come from? I feel like this is just going to cause more paperwork, more red tape, more headaches. I don’t know what the next step is.

If I could wave a magic wand, yes, there would be some reimbursement of the fees that all American businesses have had to pay. If I had to settle for something, it would be that, effective today, there are no more of these Trump tariffs.

It’s hard to be excited about the Supreme Court ruling when, within hours, the White House says it’s going to push back with more tariffs.

The administration is throwing so much at us every day that we can’t make any progress. It’s hard to see what the future will look like.

I would hate to see this stretch on the next three years of the administration. It’s going to take all this extra time that could be spent running our businesses and serving our customers, just trying to stop the government from getting its hands in our pockets.

It really feels like our elected officials are not listening to us. Historically, the Republican Party has been promoted as the party of business in the United States. If they truly were, they would be listening to constituents who are saying these tariffs are hurting our businesses.




Source link

Kelsey Vlamis's face on gray background.

Democrats demand Trump issue $1,700 tariff refunds to Americans after Supreme Court ruling

by with No Comment Xpandfy

President Donald Trump previously promised Americans tariff dividend checks, but if Democrats have their way, he could be issuing refunds instead.

After a Supreme Court ruling on Friday struck down Trump’s tariffs levied under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, Democratic lawmakers were quick to demand that the president repay Americans through tariff refunds.

“Donald Trump should return that money immediately. He has an obligation,” California Gov. Gavin Newsom said on Friday. “$1,751 per family that were taxed by Donald Trump. He took hundreds of billions of dollars from working folks, from the ag community, from small businesses for this vanity play, this illegal action, and he finally was held to account. The rule of law won out.”

Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker sent a letter to Trump calling for refunds to families in his state.

“Your tariff taxes wreaked havoc on farmers, enrage our allies, and sent grocery store prices through the roof,” Pritzker said in the letter. “On behalf of the people of Illinois, I demand a refund of $1,700 for every family in Illinois.”

The governor also sent an invoice billing that amount for more than 5.1 million Illinois families, totaling more than $8.6 billion. The invoice said it was “PAST DUE – DELINQUENT.”

When reached for comment, White House spokesman Kush Desai responded in part by saying if Pritzker “really cared about delivering economic relief for Illinois, he’d start with his own state government instead of chasing another stupid headline.”

The offices of Newsom and Pritzker did not respond to requests for comment.

Both Newsom and Pritzker are considered potential candidates for the presidential election in 2028, and they’ve both been highly critical of Trump.

The governors appeared to be basing their requests for refunds of that amount on a report released this month by Democrats on the Joint Economic Committee in Congress. The report found American families paid an average of $1,745 in tariff costs between February 2025 and January 2026, for a total of over $231 billion paid by consumers.

Other studies, including from Harvard Business School and The Budget Lab at Yale, have found that tariff costs are largely paid by American businesses and consumers.

The Supreme Court on Friday ruled that tariffs issued under the IEEPA, a national security act, had exceeded the president’s authority. Trump denounced the decision and said he would pursue additional tariffs through other avenues.

In November, Trump touted the money being collected from tariffs and floated the idea of sending $2,000 tariff dividend checks to middle and low-income Americans, though issuing such checks would likely have required an act of Congress. In January, Trump gave mixed messages about his plans for tariff rebate checks.

Now, with the IEEPA tariffs struck down, it’s likely some American businesses will try to receive refunds for the tariff costs they paid.

Despite Democrats’ stance on the issue, there’s a lot of uncertainty about whether or how refunds would happen.

The Supreme Court ruling did not touch on issuing tariff refunds.

When Trump was asked Friday if the government would now have to issue refunds, he said, “I guess it has to get litigated for the next two years.”

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said Friday it was “unlikely” Americans would receive tariff refunds.

“I got a feeling the American people won’t see it,” Bessent said, adding, “My sense is that could be dragged out for weeks, months, years.”




Source link

Supreme-Court-strikes-down-swath-of-Trumps-tariffs-—-but.jpeg

Supreme Court strikes down swath of Trump’s tariffs — but he has other options

by with No Comment Xpandfy

The Supreme court struck down a chunk of President Donald Trump’s sweeping tariff policy on Friday, finding a new limit to the expansive presidential powers he has sought.

The 6-3 decision centered on the tariffs Trump justified under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, a national security law that allows the president to regulate economic activity during emergencies.

Those IEEPA-justified tariffs have been one of Trump’s most powerful weapons in his efforts to renegotiate trade agreements around the globe. They include Trump’s so-called “Liberation Day” tariffs, announced in April, which are at least 10% on nearly every country in the world.

The Trump administration’s use of the law went too far, wrote Chief Justice John Roberts in the majority opinion. Trump would need a distinct law from Congress “to justify his extraordinary assertion of the power to impose tariffs,” he wrote.

“What common sense suggests, congressional practice confirms,” he wrote. “When Congress has delegated its tariff powers, it has done so in explicit terms, and subject to strict limits.”

The Supreme Court’s decision comes as the United States trade deficit is shrinking, largely due to the Trump administration’s tariffs, which are taxes on imported goods. It shrank to $29.4 billion in October, the lowest figure since 2009, according to recently published Commerce Department data.

Two groups of businesses filed lawsuits challenging Trump’s authority to impose tariffs through IEEPA. The Supreme Court combined their cases and put it on the fast track, holding oral arguments at the beginning of its November term.

IEEPA, a Carter-era law, gives presidents the power to “regulate” importation in times of emergency. The Trump administration claimed that it included the ability to impose tariffs — a position no other president has taken.

Lawyers representing the businesses argued that Congress has been clear about taxation and tariff powers in other laws, and would have been clear if IEEPA were meant to confer those powers to the president.

During oral arguments, most judges expressed skepticism about the Trump administration’s arguments. Justice Neil Gorsuch, whom Trump appointed to the bench in his first term, said taxes were “part of the spark of the American Revolution” and should get careful treatment.

“The power to reach into the pockets of the American people is just different,” Gorsuch said. “And it’s been different since the founding.”

The Supreme Court’s ruling does not affect the tariffs that Trump has imposed using other laws, and Trump still has the power to issue additional tariffs using those laws.

But his administration has favored IEEPA because of its perceived flexibility. The other laws that allow presidents to impose tariffs without explicit Congressional approval have limits — including built-in expiration dates and caps on the amount taxed. They also make it more difficult to target particular countries, rather than certain industries.

This is a breaking story. Please check back for updates.




Source link

Court-documents-just-revealed-how-Taylor-Swift-really-talks-to.jpeg

Court documents just revealed how Taylor Swift really talks to her friends

by with No Comment Xpandfy

Picture this: You’ve just received a text from Taylor Swift.

It’s easy to imagine her missives resembling her famously personal song lyrics. Something honest and vulnerable, like, “I just wanted you to know that this is me trying,” or tender, like, “I don’t wanna miss you like this. Come back, be here,” or even sassy, like, “Good thing I like my friends canceled.”

Well, thanks to a slew of newly unsealed court documents, we now have evidence that’s not far from the truth.

“I think I’m just exhausted in every avenue of my life,” Swift seemingly wrote to her friend Blake Lively in December 2024. “You don’t need to apologize. Just come back please.” Earlier that year, Swift apparently praised her longtime friend’s tenacity: “No one. Should ever. Get into a war of wills with you.”

Several text messages between Swift and Lively were recently made public amid Lively’s legal battle with Justin Baldoni, her director and costar on the hit 2024 movie “It Ends with Us.” These particular texts presumably became relevant to the lawsuit because Baldoni’s name was mentioned (or alluded to, as when Lively wrote to Swift about “this doofus director of my movie”). In some cases, they speak to Lively’s state of mind while the two actors were filming “It Ends With Us,” and amid the breakdown of Lively and Baldoni’s working relationship.

Despite these nuggets of insight, however, some of the most interesting details of Lively’s conversations with Swift are the ones that offer a unique glimpse into Swift’s writerly craft.

Swift is already renowned for her lyricism. The same week these texts were unsealed, she became the youngest woman ever to be inducted into the Songwriters Hall of Fame — in her very first year of eligibility, no less. But these texts reveal a less polished, less reputation-conscious version of Swift’s communication style.


Blake Lively and Taylor Swift hold hands while walking in New York City

Blake Lively and Taylor Swift seen together in New York City in 2023.

Gotham/GC Images



According to these court documents, Lively texted Swift on December 4, 2024, shortly before the end of the Eras Tour, to temperature-check their friendship. Lively and Swift have been close friends for years (Swift is the godmother to Lively’s children), but the actor felt that something in their dynamic had shifted.

“Hey, just checking in,” Lively wrote to Swift. “I have no reason to ask, but I donno, l’ve been feeling like I should… is everything OK?”

Lively went on to say she felt like a “bad friend lately,” that she didn’t want to come across as “needy and awkward,” but her gut (and her husband, Ryan Reynolds) told her to reach out anyway. “I always want the opportunity to be a better friend if there’s something I unintentionally did,” she wrote.

If you’ve ever gone through a rough patch with a loved one, then this brand of ambient, unsettled anxiety will surely feel familiar. It’s really hard to communicate complex emotions, especially when an important relationship is at stake, and the conversation isn’t face-to-face.

Luckily, written communication of complex emotions is exactly Swift’s forte.

“I feel really bad saying anything about this because your texts have been so nice in their intent but your last few… it’s felt like I was reading a mass corporate email sent to 200 employees,” Swift replied in part. “You said the word ‘we’ like 18 times. And it feels awful to be in any way critical of any way you process what you’ve been going through but I just kinda miss my funny, dark, normal-speaking friend who talks to me as herself, not like. A plural unit.”

She added: “I know you feel attacked from all sides for ridiculous reasons so you’re feeling like you have to overly explain things or be overly nice or whatever but. It’s me! That’s just caused a little distance.”

Swift’s response is exactly what I’d hope to receive from a friend in that position: open-hearted and generous, yet firm and forthright. She doesn’t treat Lively with kid gloves, nor does she pile on. Instead, she validates her friend’s anxiety, clarifies her own perspective, and reinforces their bond.

Over the past two decades, Swift has built an empire by making fans feel like her friends, writing songs that sound like heart-to-hearts. It’s oddly comforting to know that Swift writes to her actual friends with the same attention to detail.




Source link