More stories

  • in

    Delaware Law Has Entered the Culture War

    Elon Musk has helped bring an esoteric debate around the Delaware Chancery Court to a national stage. Now Dropbox and Meta are contemplating moving their incorporation away from the state.The clubby insular world of corporate law has entered the culture war.First, Elon Musk started railing against Delaware, which for more than a century has been known as the home of corporate law, after the Delaware Chancery Court chancellor, Kathaleen McCormick, rejected his lofty pay package last year.Eventually he switched where Tesla is incorporated to Texas.Now, Dropbox has announced shareholder approval to move where it is incorporated to outside Delaware, and Meta is considering following suit. Others are also evaluating whether to make the move, DealBook hears.Musk’s ire against the state where nearly 70 percent of Fortune 500 companies are incorporated brought what would usually be an esoteric issue to the national stage and framed it, alongside hot button issues like diversity, equity and inclusion programs, as one further example of overreach.“You can blame McCormick or you can blame Musk — or you can say it’s a combination of the two of them — but it has turned it into a highly ideologically charged political issue, which it never, ever was before,” said Robert Anderson, a professor at the University of Arkansas School of Law.The drama over court rulings could have huge consequences for the economy and politics of Delaware, which counts on corporate franchise revenue for about 30 percent of its budget — and more, if you count secondary impacts like tax payments generated by the legal industry.At issue is a longstanding question in corporate America: How much say should minority shareholders have, especially in a controlled company? One side argues that founders like Mark Zuckerberg are given controlling shares, which give them outsize influence in a company, with the belief that they know what is best for a company. And minority shareholders buy into a company knowing their limitations. The other side argues these controlling shareholders are not perfect.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • in

    U.S.A.I.D. Workers Brace for the Worst

    The thousands of people who work for the U.S. government’s main agency for humanitarian aid and disaster relief have been on the front lines of efforts to fight famine, contain virulent infectious diseases like H.I.V. and Ebola, and rebuild infrastructure in impoverished and war-torn countries.On Friday evening, just hours before the vast majority of them were set to have been suspended with pay or laid off, a court issued a limited, temporary order against the Trump administration’s moves to shut down the agency.The order was a temporary reprieve to approximately 2,700 direct hires of the U.S. Agency for International Development who were on administrative leave or set to be placed on leave by midnight Friday. For the past two weeks, they and the contractors who work for the agency had been in the throes of a collective panic as the Trump administration began to lay off staff and signaled it planned to decimate the agency.But the U.S.A.I.D. work force, and the aid industry that relies in large part on the agency’s funding, is still acutely in limbo. On Saturday, U.S.A.I.D. informed employees affected by the order that employees already on administrative leave would be reinstated until the end Friday, Feb. 14, and that no one else would be suspended with pay during that period, according to a copy of the notice viewed by The New York Times. But those employees could still have to wait for weeks, months, or potentially even longer, for a verdict. The case, which was brought on behalf of unions representing the workers, is expected to go to the Supreme Court, and it is unclear whether the jobs will ever exist again.The Trump administration’s announcement this week that U.S.A.I.D. would dismiss almost all of its contractors and that most Foreign Service officers and other direct hires would be put on indefinite administrative leave set off a panic around the globe, as Americans posted in missions abroad scrambled to dismantle and reassemble their lives.The announcement gave Foreign Service officers just 30 days to depart their posts and return to the United States if they wanted the U.S. government to pay for their relocation, forcing nearly the entire diplomatic staff to plan the sort of swift exit that normally only takes place during coups and wars.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • in

    Now Is Not the Time to Tune Out

    Don’t get distracted. Don’t get overwhelmed. Don’t get paralyzed and pulled into the chaos that President Trump and his allies are purposely creating with the volume and speed of executive orders; the effort to dismantle the federal government; the performative attacks on immigrants, transgender people and the very concept of diversity itself; the demands that other countries accept Americans as their new overlords; and the dizzying sense that the White House could do or say anything at any moment. All of this is intended to keep the country on its back heel so President Trump can blaze ahead in his drive for maximum executive power, so no one can stop the audacious, ill-conceived and frequently illegal agenda being advanced by his administration. For goodness sake, don’t tune out.The actions of this presidency need to be tracked, and when they cross moral or legal lines, they need to be challenged, boldly and thoughtfully, with the confidence that the nation’s system of checks and balances will prove up to the task. There are reasons for concern on that front, of course. The Republican-led Congress has so far abdicated its role as a coequal branch of government, from allowing its laws and spending directives to be systematically cast aside to fearfully assenting to the president stocking his cabinet with erratic, unqualified loyalists. Much of civil society — from the business community, to higher education, to parts of the corporate media — has been disturbingly quiet, even acquiescent.But there are encouraging signs as well. The courts, the most important check on a president who aims to expand his legally authorized powers and remove any guardrails, so far have held, blocking a number of Mr. Trump’s initiatives. States have also taken action, with several Democratic attorneys general suing over Mr. Trump’s attempts to freeze federal grant funding and end birthright citizenship and vowing to fight Elon Musk’s team’s access to federal payment systems containing personal information. State or local officials are also defending their laws in the face of federal immigration raids and fighting Mr. Trump’s executive order barring gender-affirming medical care for transgender children. And independent-minded journalism organizations have continued excellent reporting on the fire hose of excesses of these early days, bringing essential information to the public.None of this is to say that Mr. Trump shouldn’t have the opportunity to govern. Seventy-seven million Americans cast ballots to put Mr. Trump back in the White House, and the Republican Party, now fully remade in service of the MAGA movement, holds majorities in both houses of Congress. Elections, it is often noted, have consequences. But is this unconstitutional overhaul of the American government — far more sweeping, haphazard and cruel than anything he campaigned on — really what those voters signed up for? To put America’s system of checks and balances, its alliances and its national security at risk? Because, beyond the bluster, that is what Mr. Trump, Mr. Musk and their supporters are doing.Three weeks into the second Trump term, here are a handful of the places where Americans can’t afford to turn away:Elon Musk’s Executive Takeover. The problem is not that Mr. Musk is unelected, it’s that he is breaking the law. Not even a full-time government employee, he is trying to unilaterally shut down or dismantle entire federal agencies and departments, ignoring congressional mandates — this is prohibited by the Constitution. He and his team are behind the announced buyout offers to millions of civil servants — including the entire C.I.A. work force — and have effectively forced out top officials whom he has no power to fire. He is on a mission to rampage through the government’s confidential payment systems with an anarchist’s glee, deciding on his own which aspects of federal spending are legitimate, and substituting his instinctual embrace of conspiracy theories for any effort to understand the government functions he’s undermining.Both the president and Mr. Musk seem to relish that most of their actions are plainly illegal, daring the courts to step in and stop them, on the theory that these laws are flawed to begin with. At the same time, you have the richest man in the world leading this effort, still holding interests in his private companies, which do billions of dollars in business with and are regulated by the federal government. It’s a level of conflict of interest unlike anything we’ve seen in the modern era.The Administration vs. Public Officials (a.k.a. Trump’s Enemies). Along with terminating more than a dozen members of the U.S. Attorneys Office in Washington who’d worked on cases involving the Jan. 6, 2021, riot, the Trump administration began collecting the names of thousands of F.B.I. personnel who helped to investigate crimes associated with the attack on the Capitol. Several top-ranking officials at the agency have already been fired. The move offered an early glimpse at how Mr. Trump and his nominee to run the F.B.I., Kash Patel — who published a literal enemies list of “Executive Branch Deep State” members — might use federal law enforcement against the president’s political opponents. In perhaps the most disturbing warning to those who might think to question or defy him, Mr. Trump stripped several of his former advisers of security protection that was deemed necessary given credible threats by the Iranian government to assassinate them for actions they took under his direct order.The President’s Imperial Bluster and Attacks on Allies. Mr. Trump has spent weeks coyly suggesting the United States is on the verge of illegally seizing territory on three continents, leaving all levels of consternation in his wake. Then there are his long-planned, seemingly legal — even if extremely ill advised — tariffs. All the threats and insults have gained Mr. Trump some short-term concessions, but none are likely to make America’s economy stronger or make America safer in the world. Running roughshod over centuries-old alliances will hurt the targeted countries, but it also could compromise national security, raise the price of goods, disrupt global commerce, benefit adversaries like China and Russia that are eager to fill the void of an increasingly distrusted America.Public Health Imperiled. Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a vocal vaccine skeptic, has not been confirmed as Mr. Trump’s health and human services secretary yet. But the administration is already taking steps to weaken and wreck public and global health protections. On Thursday, The Times reported that the administration plans to reduce the staff of more than 10,000 Americans at the U.S. Agency for International Development to only about 300 people, and cancel nearly 800 awards and contracts the agency administered. The president — much less Mr. Musk — cannot shut down a federal agency without a vote by Congress. To do so is also illegal under the Constitution. More than half of U.S.A.I.D.’s spending in 2023 went to health programs intended to stop the spread of diseases, such as polio, Ebola, tuberculosis, H.I.V./AIDS and malaria or to humanitarian assistance to respond to emergencies and help stabilize war-torn regions. If you care about preventing the next pandemic or the pressures of global migration, U.S.A.I.D. is an investment you should want the United States to make.The President’s Anti-Civil Rights Blitz. Mr. Trump has issued a flurry of executive orders and pronouncements that set back decades of progress on civil rights and often openly defy the Constitution. He has especially targeted transgender Americans and has threatened federal funding for public schools that do not adhere to right-wing ideology about how history and race should be discussed. He has also found nearly daily excuses to rail against diversity, equity and inclusion policies, even blaming D.E.I. for the Jan. 29 air crash in Washington and strongly implying that any air traffic controller who is a woman or not white is inferior and has been given a job for the wrong reasons. And the new attorney general, Pam Bondi, announced on Wednesday that private companies that choose to maintain their own diversity and inclusion policies could be targeted for “criminal investigations.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • in

    Trump Orders Halt to Aid to South Africa, Claiming Mistreatment of White Landowners

    President Trump on Friday ordered that all foreign assistance to South Africa be halted and said his administration would prioritize the resettling of white, “Afrikaner refugees” into the United States because of what he called actions by the country’s government that “racially disfavored landowners.”In the order, Mr. Trump said that “the United States shall not provide aid or assistance to South Africa” and that American officials should do everything possible to help “Afrikaners in South Africa who are victims of unjust racial discrimination.”It follows Mr. Trump’s accusation on his social media site on Sunday that the South African government was engaged in a “massive Human Rights VIOLATION, at a minimum.” He vowed a full investigation and promised to cut off aid.“South Africa is confiscating land, and treating certain classes of people VERY BADLY,” the president wrote in the post. “It is a bad situation that the Radical Left Media doesn’t want to so much as mention.”The order was stunning in providing official American backing to long-held conspiracy theories about the mistreatment of white South Africans in the post-apartheid era.Mr. Trump has made repeated claims without evidence that echoed those conspiracy theories. In 2018, he ordered his secretary of state to look into “the large scale killing of farmers” — a claim disputed by official figures and the country’s biggest farmers’ group.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • in

    Will a Time Magazine Cover Drive a Wedge Between Trump and Musk?

    The president did not look amused. He was meeting the Japanese prime minister for the first time on Friday when a reporter shouted out to ask if he had a “reaction” to the new cover of Time magazine. The cover, the reporter told Mr. Trump, depicts “Elon Musk sitting behind your Resolute Desk.”“No,” Mr. Trump answered pointedly. He looked down at the floor. The next few seconds stretched like an eternity as a translator related the exchange to the prime minister, Shigeru Ishiba, in Japanese.Just in case any of the sauciness of the moment had been lost in translation, Mr. Trump waited until the interpreter had finished and then cracked: “Is Time magazine still in business? I didn’t even know that.” Everyone around him laughed gamely, if a bit nervously.It is unlikely that Mr. Trump didn’t know whether Time magazine was still in business. His own face had, after all, stared out from its cover only two months ago, when the magazine anointed him its “Person of the Year.” As part of the rollout of that issue, Mr. Trump rang the bell at the New York Stock Exchange in front of a blown-up version of the cover.It is pretty much Trumpology 101 that the president has a long-held fixation with the cover of Time, a durable totem of the 1980s, from which most of his cultural touchstones derive even today. He has always held up its cover as an indication of status, going as far as to mock up fake versions featuring himself.The last time he was president, a Time cover in 2017 featuring his adviser Stephen K. Bannon at the height of his powers — “The Great Manipulator,” it read — was believed to have annoyed Mr. Trump. Mr. Bannon left the White House later that year.No one can say if the magazine still holds as much sway over Mr. Trump as it did then. One thing seems certain, though, and that is that Mr. Musk appeared eager to stay on Mr. Trump’s good side. On Friday morning, a few hours after the new Time cover dropped, Mr. Musk posted on the social media platform he owns to flatter the president, writing, “I love @realDonaldTrump as much as a straight man can love another man.” More

  • in

    Deep Cuts to Medical Research Funds Could Hobble University Budgets

    The National Institutes of Health announced a new policy Friday to cap a type of funding that supports medical research at universities, a decision that most likely will leave many with a large budget gap. The policy targets $9 billion in so-called indirect funds that the N.I.H. sends along with direct funds to support research into basic science and treatments for diseases ranging from cancer to Alzheimer’s to diabetes.Currently, some universities get 50 percent or more of the amount of a grant in indirect funds, meaning a $1 million research award would come with $500,000 to maintain facilities and equipment and pay support staff. The new policy would cap those indirect funds at 15 percent.“I think it’s going to destroy research universities in the short term, and I don’t know after that,” said Dr. David A. Baltrus, a University of Arizona associate professor whose lab is developing antibiotics for crops. “They rely on the money. They budget for the money. The universities were making decisions expecting the money to be there.”Dr. Baltrus said that his research is focused on efforts such as keeping E. coli bacteria out of crops like sprouts and lettuce. He said the policy change would force his university to make cuts to support staff and overhead.The Trump administration has been sharply critical of what it derides as “woke” policies and cultures at universities, which have been bracing for a hit to their budgets. Project 2025, a set of conservative policy proposals, called for capping these related research funds, saying they were sometimes used to fund diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives. Cutting such costs would “reduce federal taxpayer subsidization of leftist agendas,” Project 2025’s authors said.An N.I.H. social media post said the change could save the federal government as much as $4 billion and sharply cut payments to Harvard, Yale and Johns Hopkins Universities, which have overhead rates above 60 percent of their grant sums.Senator Patty Murray, a Democrat of Washington, said in a statement late Friday that the move could “dismantle the biomedical research system, stifle the development of new cures for disease, and rip treatments away from patients in need.”She said the change could shut down some clinical trials at institutions in her state, such as the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center and University of Washington.The N.I.H. spent about $35 billion in 2023 on about 50,000 competitive grants to about 300,000 researchers at 2,500 universities, medical schools and other research institutions nationwide, according to the new policy. Of that, about $26 billion directly funded research and $9 billion covered indirect costs. The policy is set to take effect Monday. More

  • in

    When It Comes to Investing, Is A.I. Worth the Hype?

    After the arrival of a less costly A.I. model from China, U.S. markets and academics are wrestling with the ultimate economic value of the technology.A.I. chatbots are fun, sometimes even useful and, until recently, endowed with the uncanny ability to mesmerize investors and fuel the U.S. stock market.But the excellent performance of a new, relatively cheap artificial intelligence engine from a Chinese start-up, DeepSeek, has perturbed the market and complicated the A.I. story.Investors are re-evaluating prominent companies swept up in A.I. fever, including Nvidia, Meta, Alphabet, Microsoft, Amazon, Tesla and the private start-up OpenAI. The notion that full-blown superhuman intelligence is imminent has spurred the-sky-is-the-limit valuations, as well as concerns about the political and social risks posed by advanced intelligence.One immediate question: Is the main approach to developing A.I. in the United States — pouring billions of dollars into chips and infrastructure — worth the expenditure for all companies if similar results can be achieved far more cheaply? DeepSeek’s lower-cost innovations add urgency to bigger, longstanding financial questions: How much are artificial intelligence companies really worth, and what will the broader economic value of A.I. ultimately be?Daren Acemoglu, a winner of the 2024 Nobel in economic science, gave me some answers. “There is a lot of hype in the industry,” he told me in a telephone conversation. Yes, he said, A.I. companies have made some “impressive achievements,” but he added that many financial and economic calculations were being based on mere “projections into the future that are sometimes exaggerated.”Professor Acemoglu, an M.I.T. economist with an interest in the impact of technical innovations on global economics, is skeptical about the more fervent A.I. claims. He ranks A.I. as a significant advance, perhaps with a macroeconomic effect akin to the telephone, which was no small thing.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • in

    Sam Altman on Microsoft, Trump and Musk

    The OpenAI C.E.O. spoke with Andrew Ross Sorkin at the DealBook Summit.Since kicking off the artificial intelligence boom with the launch of ChatGPT in 2022, OpenAI has amassed more than 300 million weekly users and a $157 billion valuation. Its C.E.O., Sam Altman, addressed whether that staggering pace of growth can continue at the DealBook Summit last week.Altman pushed back on assertions that progress in A.I. is becoming slower and more expensive; on reports that the company’s relationship with its biggest investor, Microsoft, is fraying; and on concerns that Elon Musk, who founded an A.I. company last year, may use his relationship with President-elect Donald Trump to hurt competitors.Altman said that artificial general intelligence, the point at which artificial intelligence can do almost anything that a human brain can do, will arrive “sooner than most people in the world think.” Here are five highlights from the conversation.On Elon MuskMusk, who co-founded OpenAI, has become one of its major antagonists. He has sued the company, accusing it of departing from its founding mission as a nonprofit, and started a competing startup called xAI. On Friday, OpenAI said Musk had wanted to turn OpenAI into a for-profit company in 2017 and walked away when he didn’t get majority equity. Altman called the change in the relationship “tremendously sad.” He continued:I grew up with Elon as like a mega hero. I thought what Elon was doing was absolutely incredible for the world, and I’m still, of course, I mean, I have different feelings about him now, but I’m still glad he exists. I mean that genuinely. Not just because I think his companies are awesome, which I do think, but because I think at a time when most of the world was not thinking very ambitiously, he pushed a lot of people, me included, to think much more ambitiously. And grateful is the wrong kind of word. But I’m like thankful.You know, we started OpenAI together, and then at some point he totally lost faith in OpenAI and decided to go his own way. And that’s fine, too. But I think of Elon as a builder and someone who — a known thing about Elon is that he really cares about being ‘the guy.’ But I think of him as someone who, if he’s not, that just competes in the market and in the technology, and whatever else. And doesn’t resort to lawfare. And, you know, whatever the stated complaint is, what I believe is he’s a competitor and we’re doing well. And that’s sad to see.Altman said of Musk’s close relationship with Trump:I may turn out to be wrong, but I believe pretty strongly that Elon will do the right thing and that it would be profoundly un-American to use political power to the degree that Elon has it to hurt your competitors and advantage your own businesses. And I don’t think people would tolerate that. I don’t think Elon would do it.On OpenAI’s relationship with MicrosoftMicrosoft, OpenAI’s largest investor, has put more than $13 billion into the company and has an exclusive license to its raw technologies. Altman once called the relationship “the best bromance in tech,” but The Times and others have reported that the partnership has become strained as OpenAI seeks more and cheaper access to computing power and Microsoft has made moves to diversify its access to A.I. technology. OpenAI expects to lose $5 billion this year because of the steep costs of developing A.I.At the DealBook Summit, Altman said of the relationship with Microsoft, “I don’t think we’re disentangling. I will not pretend that there are no misalignments or challenges.” He added:We need lots of compute, more than we projected. And that has just been an unusual thing in the history of business, to scale that quickly. And there’s been tension on that.Some of OpenAI’s own products compete with those of partners that depend on its technologies. On whether that presents a conflict of interest, Altman said:We have a big platform business. We have a big first party business. Many other companies manage both of those things. And we have things that we’re really good at. Microsoft has things they’re really good at. Again, there’s not no tension, but on the whole, our incentives are pretty aligned.On whether making progress in A.I. development was becoming more expensive and slower, as some experts have suggested, he doubled down on a message he’d previously posted on social media: “There is no wall.” Andrew asked the same question of Sundar Pichai, the Google C.E.O., which we’ll recap in tomorrow’s newsletter.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More