News & Updates
The latest news and updates from companies in the WLTH portfolio.
Anthropic blames human error for 512,000-line Claude Code leak; Boris Cherny calls for more automation- Moneycontrol.com
Company to boost automation to avoid future deployment errors Anthropic has attributed the recent leak of its Claude Code internal source to a manual deployment error, with creator Boris Cherny stating that a missed step in the release process led to the exposure of over 512,000 lines of code. According to Cherny, the incident was not the result of a security breach but a breakdown in internal processes. The deployment pipeline included manual steps, and one of these was not completed correctly, leading to the unintended release of around 1,900 files. He emphasised that such incidents should be viewed as systemic failures rather than individual mistakes. No employees were dismissed following the incident, with the company focusing on process improvements instead. What the leaked code revealed Developers who accessed the leaked repository identified references to unreleased models, including codenames such as "Capybara" and "Tengu." There were also mentions of future model versions, including Opus 4.7 and Sonnet 4.8. The codebase contained experimental features, including a Tamagotchi-style assistant that reacts to user input and a background agent system referred to as "KAIROS." Additionally, an internal dashboard tracking user frustration through language signals was identified. Proposed fix: More automation Cherny has proposed increasing automation in the deployment process as a solution. His approach involves reducing reliance on manual steps and using Claude itself to validate deployments. This position aligns with his earlier comments suggesting that coding tasks are increasingly automated and that the role of software engineers may evolve significantly. This marks the second instance of internal exposure at Anthropic in a short period, following the discovery of draft materials related to an upcoming model on a public system. The latest incident has triggered discussions within the developer community around deployment practices, process reliability, and the role of automation in reducing operational risk.
SpaceX seen as make-or-break test for mega IPOs
The global IPO market has needed a win for years and Elon Musk's SpaceX could be the breakthrough. The last company to make a market debut at over a trillion dollar valuation was Saudi Aramco (2223.SE) in 2019. An over "trillion-dollar" valuation, a CEO with a cult-like retail following and exposure to a high-growth industry - SpaceX has the elements the IPO market has sought to end a years-long drought in mega-deals. But whether investors have the appetite for a listing of this size remains uncertain. Besides, the company is so unique that its success could have limited spillover on broader market sentiment, analysts and experts said. "It's either a bellwether or a harbinger," Brian Jacobsen, chief economic strategist at Annex Wealth Management, told Reuters. He added that there is enough enthusiasm around the business to attract investor interest, but it might be so singular, with its celebrity CEO, that it could actually hurt other space stocks rather than lift them by attracting all the attention. Here are some charts that show the market's current status and SpaceX IPO's potential: WORLD'S BIGGEST IPO ON THE HORIZON The rocket startup has confidentially filed for a blockbuster listing, looking to raise $50 billion or more, which could value it at $1.75 trillion, potentially dethroning oil giant Saudi Aramco as the world's largest IPO. "SpaceX will be far and away the largest IPO in history at the sizes being discussed now," said Samuel Kerr, global head of equity capital markets at deals data provider Mergermarket. "It will be a real test for public market capacity at a time of real market turmoil. But if any business can list in this market, its probably SpaceX given the tremendous hype." PIVOTAL TEST SpaceX's listing could serve as a bellwether for the IPO market. A strong reception would indicate that a long-awaited recovery in big-ticket deals is finally underway. Years of volatile markets, driven by rising interest rates, inflation concerns and geopolitical tensions, kept issuers waiting, even as the pipeline got bigger. The industry is hoping that 2026 will finally see a broad resurgence in market debuts. "A successful SpaceX listing could well act as a catalyst for other large-scale IPOs," Kat Liu, vice president at IPO research firm IPOX. "It would demonstrate that public markets have both the depth and appetite to accommodate sizeable, high-valuation offerings, and could help validate current late-stage private market pricing." TRILLION DOLLAR CLUB Several high-profile startups, including SpaceX, ChatGPT-maker OpenAI and TikTok parent ByteDance, have blurred the line between private and public companies, with valuations that rival those of top-tier S&P 500 firms. SpaceX's listing will put it in the league of mega-cap giants such as Microsoft and Apple that draw the lion's share of both retail and institutional investor flows. Elon Musk said in February that SpaceX had acquired his artificial intelligence startup xAI in a record-setting deal. The transaction valued SpaceX at $1 trillion and xAI at $250 billion, Reuters reported, citing a source. "The recent xAI fold-in allows him (Musk) to bundle launch, Starlink, and AI into a single, scarce mega story that can support a richer valuation than the businesses might achieve separately," said Minmo Gahng, assistant professor of finance at Cornell University. SpaceX generated about $8 billion in profit on $15 billion to $16 billion of revenue last year, Reuters reported in January, citing people familiar with the matter. CURRENT STATE OF PLAY An index tracking major listings has underperformed the equities benchmark over the past 12 months. Analysts say a successful SpaceX debut could help reopen the window for large, long-delayed listings, particularly in capital-intensive sectors that have struggled to attract public market investors. Though some have taken a more cautious view of the broader market's prospects. "(SpaceX) could take up so much capacity that other mega issuers might choose to hold off not to test the same window," Mergermarket's Kerr said.
Second Protest As Preet Digs In Amid Chaos
A second protest calling on Wyndham mayor Preet Singh to resign will be held on Monday 6 April at 3pm outside the Wyndham Civic Centre, as pressure intensifies over a deepening leadership crisis. The standoff has now entered its sixth day, with Cr Singh refusing to formally step down despite all ten of his fellow councillors renouncing him and calling for his resignation. On Wednesday, at least 100 people gathered calling on Cr Singh to quit office. Councillors have also written to Local Government Minister Nick Staikos seeking intervention, as community anger continues to build. The State Government has confirmed a municipal monitor will be appointed to Wyndham City Council, with Mr Staikos saying he is "deeply concerned by the ongoing instability in leadership" and that residents deserved a council "entirely focused on them." The intervention is aimed at helping "restore stability in the leadership and ensure good governance." Cr Singh said on 1 April 2026 he would step aside from mayoral duties, but did not clarify whether he would resign. Deputy mayor Jasmine Hill is performing mayoral duties from 2 April while he considers his position. The crisis stems from a character reference Cr Singh provided in April 2024 for a man who was later convicted of child sex offences. The reference formed part of standard sentencing material before the courts, but has since triggered broader political and community debate about judgement, leadership standards and public confidence.
SpaceX IPO: Can Elon Musk justify a $1.75 trillion valuation?
Also Read: Make Gulf News your preferred news source on Google and stay ahead of the curveJustin is a personal finance author and seasoned business journalist with over a decade of experience. He makes it his mission to break down complex financial topics and make them clear, relatable, and relevant -- helping everyday readers navigate today's economy with confidence. Before returning to his Middle Eastern roots, where he was born and raised, Justin worked as a Business Correspondent at Reuters, reporting on equities and economic trends across both the Middle East and Asia-Pacific regions.
Anthropic Restricts OpenClaw on Claude with Added Subscriber Fees
Beginning tomorrow at 12 PM PT, Anthropic's Claude subscriptions will see a significant alteration regarding third-party tools like OpenClaw. Customers should be aware that their existing subscriptions will not include access to these services moving forward. Changes to Claude Subscriptions Users can still access OpenClaw through their Claude account, but a new structure is in place. This will involve purchasing extra usage bundles, which are now being offered at a discounted rate, or employing a Claude API key for usage. Reasons for the Change Anthropic has made these adjustments in response to the growing demand for Claude. The current subscription model was not designed for the extensive usage patterns seen in third-party tools, necessitating this update. As a company, they are committed to managing their capacity while prioritizing their core customers. Subscriber Benefits and Options * Subscribers will receive a one-time credit equivalent to the cost of their monthly plan. * Discounted usage bundles are now available for those who may need additional access. * For customers seeking a full refund, a link will be provided via email. This transition reflects Anthropic's intention to manage growth sustainably while continuing to support their users effectively. The changes aim to ensure that Claude operates efficiently in the long term.
Mumbai cruise staff struggle to return home as West Asia travel chaos continues
After multiple plan changes, flight disruptions, and prolonged delays, Mumbai's cruise professionals have barely managed to return home in time for the Easter weekend. The closure of key airports in West Asia has severely disrupted travel, making it difficult for hospitality staff to reach ships operating in the Caribbean and Europe. A Gorai resident with a decade of experience in the cruise industry said seafarers have not witnessed such uncertainty since the pandemic. "Many cruises have scaled down operations in Europe. Those working on Dubai routes are being sent home within months. Companies have also halted advance joinings" he said. Industry professionals added that with changing airspace dynamics, European deployment on cruises has gradually declined. Frequent flight rescheduling has led to uncertain joining and sign-off dates, forcing crew members to extend their time onboard beyond planned contracts. "Since flights were cancelled, my reliever couldn't reach the ship, and I had to stay an extra month. With a four-year-old daughter and my wife alone at home, it was difficult," said Rakesh Zolar, the seafarer, who is now back in Mumbai and fishing with his brothers until his next contract. Many are still waiting for assignments, delayed due to limited flight availability. "Direct flights are too expensive, so companies avoid them. Now we are either asked to share the cost or wait till the situation stabilises," said Julian Collins, another Gorai-based crew member who returned from Singapore in December. Rossi D'Souza, a Gorai resident, said, "My cousin was to return to Mumbai on March 29, but his reliever couldn't reach the ship. He has now missed Easter with his family. While we worry about his safety, we hope things improve soon."
Elon Musk responds to report of SpaceX targeting over $2 trillion valuation in IPO
SpaceX's IPO valuation target has reportedly soared past $2 trillion, a move Elon Musk has dismissed as 'bs'. The space giant, already the world's most valuable private company, is preparing for what could be history's largest public offering. Confidential filings suggest a June listing, potentially valuing SpaceX significantly higher than many S&P 500 giants. Tesla CEO Elon Musk has responded to a recent report claiming that the tech billionaire-owned space company SpaceX is targeting more than $2 trillion valuation in a potential IPO. Quoting a Bloomberg report, X user Mario Nawfal shared a post writing "SpaceX boosted its IPO target valuation above $2 trillion. Under Elon's bold leadership, the company is now aiming for one of the largest public offerings in history". "This new target reflects the extraordinary progress Elon has driven across rockets, Starlink, and AI, positioning SpaceX as one of the most valuable companies on Earth as it prepares to go public," he wrote further. Elon Musk, CEO of SpaceX replied to the post writing "Don't believe everything you read. Bloomberg publishes bs". SpaceX is the world's most valuable privately held company, based on the valuation implied by its merger deal with xAI. The rocket startup was last valued at about $800 billion in a secondary share sale. A recent Bloomberg report said that SpaceX is gearing "up to pitch potentially the biggest-ever market debut". The publication cited people familiar with the matter. "At more than $2 trillion, SpaceX's valuation would increase by nearly two thirds in a matter of months," the report said. "It will also be bigger than all but five of the companies in the S&P 500 Index - Nvidia Corp., Apple Inc., Alphabet Inc., Microsoft Corp. and Amazon.com Inc. It would be larger by that metric than Meta Platforms Inc. and Musk's own Tesla Inc., the two other members of the so-called Magnificent 7 stocks," it added. SpaceX files confidentiality for IPO The space company has reportedly filed confidentially for an IPO that could take place in June this year. As per the Bloomberg report, Spacex submitted its draft IPO registration to the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) earlier this week. With a June listing, Spacex is likely to be first among the trio of mega-IPOs expected in 2026, including ahead of arch-rivals OpenAI and Anthropic. Reports suggest that SpaceX could seek a valuation in the IPO of more than $1.75 trillion. After its acquisition of xAI in early February, SpaceX was valued at $1.25 trillion. The company is considering a dual-class share structure in the listing that would potentially give insiders such as Musk extra voting power to dominate decision making.
Anthropic Officially Ends Claude Subscriptions for Third-Party Tools Like OpenClaw
Anthropic has officially pulled the plug on third-party AI agent access to the Claude subscription, marking a significant shift in how users can leverage its models outside the company's native ecosystem. According to Anthropic Claude Code exec Boris Cherny, starting today, April 4, at 12 p.m. PT (8 p.m. BST), Claude Pro and Max subscribers can no longer use their existing subscription limits to power third-party automation tools like OpenClaw, a popular open-source AI agent framework widely used for tasks including email management, web browsing, and smart home automation. Enforcement begins with OpenClaw and will be rolled out to all third-party harnesses in the coming weeks. Anthropic's Consumer Terms of Service have technically prohibited unauthorized third-party tool access since at least February 2024, but enforcement was lax for years. Many OpenClaw users exploited an OAuth authentication loophole, the same login method used by Claude Code, to pipe subscription-tier Claude models into their personal agents at a flat monthly rate. Anthropic formally revised its terms in February 2026 to close this gap, explicitly stating that OAuth authentication is now reserved exclusively for Claude Code and Claude.ai. The crackdown was triggered, in part, by the scale of the problem. Anthropic stated in its notification email that third-party harnesses were placing an "outsized strain" on its infrastructure and that capacity must be prioritized for customers using its core products. Steinberger says that he and OpenClaw board member Dave Morin "tried to talk sense into Anthropic, best we managed was delaying this for a week." Users who wish to continue integrating third-party agents with their Claude account now have two options: enable pay-as-you-go "extra usage" billing that is charged separately from their subscription, or authenticate using a standard Claude API key with metered API pricing.digitaltrends To soften the financial blow, Anthropic is offering a one-time credit equal to the user's monthly subscription cost, redeemable by April 17, along with discounts of up to 30% when pre-purchasing bundles of extra usage. Subscribers who prefer not to continue under the new terms will also receive a full subscription refund option. The move has provoked significant pushback from the developer and power-user community. Many users who relied on OpenClaw-plus-Claude workflows report per-interaction costs now ranging from $0.50 to $2.00 per agent task, making autonomous agent use cases economically unviable for hobbyists and solo developers. Critics argue that Anthropic marketed agentic workflows while simultaneously restricting the most affordable path to build them. The policy shift underscores a broader industry tension between AI companies monetizing infrastructure and developer communities seeking open, flat-rate access to frontier models.
Anthropic says Claude subscriptions will no longer support OpenClaw because it puts an 'outsized strain' on systems
OpenClaw's creator told Business Insider that "it'd be a loss" to cut users off. Anthropic is cutting off support for the popular AI agent platform OpenClaw from Claude subscriptions, as it grapples with soaring demand for its chatbot. Boris Cherny, head of Claude Code, said in an X post on Friday evening that Claude subscriptions will no longer support third-party tools like OpenClaw starting at 12 p.m. PT on Saturday. Users will instead need to pay through discounted "extra usage bundles" tied to their Claude login or use a separate Claude API key through Anthropic's developer platform, Cherny said. The Anthropic executive said the move was driven by the compute demand Anthropic is seeing from users. Claude had surged in popularity in recent weeks, briefly topping the US Apple App Store in March. Last week, Anthropic had to adjust Claude usage limits for subscribers due to the demand. "We've been working hard to meet the increase in demand for Claude, and our subscriptions weren't built for the usage patterns of these third-party tools. Capacity is a resource we manage thoughtfully and we are prioritizing our customers using our products and API," Cherny wrote in the X post. An Anthropic spokesperson told Business Insider in a statement that using Claude subscriptions with third-party tools is against the company's terms of service and that those tools put an "outsized strain on our systems." Peter Steinberger, the creator of OpenClaw, said on X that he and Dave Morin, a board member of the OpenClaw foundation, tried to "talk sense into Anthropic" and that they delayed Anthropic's move for a week. "We told Anthropic that we have many users who only signed up for their sub because of OpenClaw and that it'd be a loss if they cut them off," Steinberger told Business Insider in a text message. "Now they try to bury the news on a Friday night." OpenClaw is a fast-rising AI agent platform that connects to platforms like Claude, enabling users to deploy personal AI assistants. Those assistants can then carry out tasks on other apps and workflows. The popularity of OpenClaw has sparked an AI agent craze. Some users have deployed AI assistants to manage their entire day-to-day workflow. One founder said she built nine AI agents to handle administrative work and personal household logistics. Anthropic is not alone in putting restrictions on third-party tools. Google recently took action against Gemini CLI users who use third-party tools; although the move was not framed as a capacity issue, it was more of a violation of the terms of service. Read the original article on Business Insider
The Pentagon, a Federal Judge, and an AI Company Walk Into a Courtroom: Inside the Anthropic Blacklisting Battle
The Department of Defense is fighting to keep Anthropic off its approved vendor list -- and it's willing to go to court to do it. The Pentagon filed an appeal late this week challenging a federal judge's order that paused the government's effective blacklisting of the artificial intelligence company from defense contracts. The legal clash, which has drawn intense scrutiny from the technology sector and defense procurement circles alike, raises fundamental questions about how the U.S. military will source its AI capabilities at a moment when the technology is becoming central to national security strategy. Here's what happened. A federal judge issued a temporary restraining order blocking the Defense Department from enforcing what amounted to an exclusion of Anthropic -- maker of the Claude family of AI models -- from Pentagon procurement channels. The government's response was swift and aggressive: an appeal aimed at overturning the pause and reasserting the military's authority over its own contracting decisions, as first reported by The Information. The dispute has its roots in the Pentagon's broader effort to manage which AI companies can and cannot participate in defense work. Anthropic, despite being one of the most well-funded and technically advanced AI firms in the world -- backed by billions from Amazon and Google -- found itself on the wrong side of a Defense Department determination. The specifics of why the Pentagon moved to exclude the San Francisco-based company remain partially obscured by the classification and procedural opacity typical of defense procurement, but the consequences are concrete: without access to DoD contracts, Anthropic would be shut out of one of the largest and fastest-growing markets for AI technology. The stakes are enormous. Not just for Anthropic, but for the competitive structure of the entire defense AI market. The Pentagon spends tens of billions annually on technology contracts, and AI is consuming an ever-larger share of that budget. The Biden administration and now the current administration have both pushed to accelerate the integration of artificial intelligence across military operations -- from logistics and intelligence analysis to autonomous systems and cybersecurity. Being locked out of this market doesn't just cost a company revenue. It costs credibility, recruiting power, and strategic positioning. Anthropic's situation is particularly striking because the company has cultivated an image as the "safety-first" AI lab. Founded in 2021 by former OpenAI executives Dario and Daniela Amodei, Anthropic has consistently emphasized responsible development and alignment research. Its flagship Claude models compete directly with OpenAI's GPT series and Google's Gemini. The company raised $2 billion from Google and secured a commitment of up to $4 billion from Amazon, giving it the financial muscle to compete at the frontier of AI development. So why would the Pentagon want to keep such a company at arm's length? The answer likely involves a tangle of procurement regulations, security reviews, and possibly political considerations that are difficult to fully untangle from outside the classified spaces where these decisions are made. Defense contracting is governed by a dense web of rules -- the Federal Acquisition Regulation, or FAR, runs thousands of pages -- and companies can be excluded for reasons ranging from security concerns to past performance issues to foreign ownership questions. Anthropic's significant investment from Amazon and Google, both of which have their own complex relationships with the defense establishment, could be a factor. Or it could be something else entirely. What is clear is that the federal judge who issued the restraining order found enough merit in Anthropic's legal challenge to hit pause. That's not nothing. Federal courts generally give wide deference to the executive branch on matters of national security and procurement. For a judge to intervene, even temporarily, suggests the court saw potential procedural irregularities or due process concerns in how the Pentagon handled Anthropic's case. The Pentagon's appeal signals it disagrees -- forcefully. The Defense Department's legal team is arguing that the judiciary should not second-guess military procurement decisions, particularly those touching on national security. This is a well-worn argument, and courts have historically been sympathetic to it. But the current case arrives at an unusual moment, when the relationship between the federal government and the technology industry is under extraordinary strain. Tech companies are simultaneously being courted for their AI capabilities and scrutinized for their market power, political leanings, and foreign entanglements. The broader context matters. The Pentagon has been trying for years to modernize its approach to technology acquisition, moving beyond the traditional defense primes -- Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Northrop Grumman -- to embrace Silicon Valley startups and commercial tech giants. Programs like the Defense Innovation Unit and initiatives such as the Joint AI Center (now absorbed into the Chief Digital and Artificial Intelligence Office) were designed to bridge the cultural and bureaucratic gap between the military and the tech sector. But that bridge has always been shaky. Google famously pulled out of Project Maven, a Pentagon AI program, in 2018 after employee protests. Microsoft faced similar internal dissent over its HoloLens contract with the Army. Anthropic's blacklisting -- and the legal fight over it -- threatens to send a chilling signal to other AI companies considering defense work. If one of the best-capitalized, most technically sophisticated AI labs in the world can be excluded from Pentagon contracts through opaque processes, smaller companies may think twice before investing the time and money required to pursue government work. And the timing couldn't be more charged. The AI arms race between the United States and China is intensifying. Beijing is pouring resources into military AI applications, and Washington has responded with export controls, investment restrictions, and a push to ensure American AI companies remain at the technological frontier. Excluding a major American AI firm from defense work, whatever the justification, creates tension with the broader strategic imperative to mobilize the full weight of U.S. technological capacity. The legal mechanics of the appeal will play out over the coming weeks. The government will argue for the restoration of its discretion over procurement. Anthropic will counter that the exclusion was arbitrary, procedurally deficient, or both. The appellate court's decision could set a meaningful precedent for how much judicial oversight applies to AI-related defense contracting -- a domain that barely existed a decade ago and now sits at the center of great-power competition. There's also a corporate governance dimension worth watching. Anthropic operates as a public benefit corporation, a structure that gives its leadership more latitude to prioritize safety and societal impact alongside profit. That structure has been a selling point with investors and researchers. But it could also complicate the company's relationship with a Pentagon that prizes reliability, secrecy, and alignment with military objectives above all else. The defense establishment has historically preferred contractors who are, above all, predictable. A company that might decline certain applications on ethical grounds -- as Anthropic's stated principles could theoretically require -- may give procurement officials pause. None of this is happening in a vacuum. OpenAI, Anthropic's chief rival, has been aggressively pursuing government and defense contracts, dropping its previous reluctance about military applications. Palantir, which has long straddled the line between Silicon Valley and the Pentagon, continues to expand its AI-driven defense portfolio. Scale AI, Anduril Industries, and a constellation of smaller firms are all jockeying for position. The exclusion of Anthropic, intentionally or not, reshapes this competitive field -- tilting the playing field toward companies that have cleared whatever hurdles the Pentagon placed in Anthropic's path. The judge's initial restraining order suggests the courts aren't ready to let that reshaping happen without scrutiny. But the appeal means the fight is far from over. For Anthropic, the financial implications are significant but perhaps secondary to the reputational ones. The company doesn't need Pentagon revenue to survive -- its commercial business and massive venture backing ensure that. But being formally excluded from defense work would raise questions among potential enterprise customers, foreign governments considering partnerships, and the talent pool of researchers and engineers the company depends on. In the AI industry, perception and reality are tightly coupled. A blacklisting, even a temporary one, leaves a mark. For the Pentagon, the case is a test of whether its procurement apparatus can keep pace with the speed and complexity of the AI industry. The traditional defense acquisition system was built for buying tanks and aircraft carriers -- multi-year programs with well-defined specifications and established contractors. AI doesn't work that way. Models improve on timescales measured in months. The companies building them are young, fast-moving, and structurally different from legacy defense firms. Trying to fit these square pegs into round procurement holes has been a persistent challenge, and the Anthropic dispute is the latest -- and perhaps most visible -- manifestation of that friction. The appellate court will have to balance competing imperatives: the executive branch's authority over national defense, the judiciary's role in ensuring due process, and the broader national interest in maintaining a competitive and innovative AI sector. It's a lot to ask of a procurement dispute. But that's where we are. Watch this case. Its outcome will shape how the most powerful military in the world acquires the most consequential technology of the era.
'Confusion, chaos and distrust': Oregon challenges Trump's order restricting vote-by-mail
PORTLAND, Ore. (KOIN) - Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield filed a lawsuit on Friday challenging an executive order from President Trump that limits voting by mail. Attorney General Rayfield joined 22 other attorneys general and one governor in an effort to block Trump's March 31 executive order. The order directs the Department of Homeland Security to create verified voter lists using federal data, including Social Security. Those lists would be transferred to states, including Oregon, to determine who is eligible to vote. Rayfield argues the order weaponizes the United States Postal Service by giving it rule-making power to determine who gets a ballot through the mail and who doesn't. "The United States Postal Service has one job: to deliver the mail. President Trump is trying to give it a second one -- deciding which Americans get a ballot," said Attorney General Rayfield. "That is not the postal service's role, it is not the federal government's role, and it is not constitutional," Rayfield argued in a statement. "Trump has spent years weaponizing federal agencies to prop up his false story that fraud cost him the 2020 election. He votes by mail. Oregonians vote by mail. And Oregon will keep running its own elections." The lawsuit argues that the executive order violates the separation of powers as the U.S. Constitution gives states the authority to conduct elections, not the president. The attorneys general further that the executive order weaponizes the Postal Service by directing it to withhold ballots from voters that are not on a federally-approved list. The attorneys general say the order would require states to upend their existing election procedures for upcoming elections and conduct statewide voter education efforts "at a dangerously quick pace - potentially within weeks of primary elections and mere months before the beginning of mail voting for the 2026 general election." The attorneys general warn that the executive order will "create confusion, chaos and distrust" in state elections while potentially disenfranchising eligible voters. Oregon Governor Tina Kotek issued a press release Friday in support of the lawsuit, saying, "Today, Oregon is moving to block President Trump's unconstitutional voter suppression effort," adding, "His attack on the fundamental right of every American to vote has nothing to do with election integrity and everything to do with silencing people so he can ultimately influence election results." In a statement shared with KOIN 6 News, White House Spokesperson Abigail Jackson defended the order, saying, "Only Democrat politicians and operatives would be upset about lawful efforts to secure American elections and ensure only eligible American citizens are casting ballots. President Trump campaigned on securing our elections and the American people sent him back to the White House to get the job done." As reported by the Associated Press, critics say Trump's executive order would offer little time to go through voter rolls before ballots are sent out this fall for elections. Critics also question whether the administration's voter lists would be reliable. AP notes that mail voting has existed for more than a century and was increasingly popular in Democratic and Republican states until 2020, when Trump hurled baseless claims of mass voter fraud in mail-in voting. These claims come as Trump himself has voted by mail as recently as last month in a Florida special election. Oregon has had mail-in voting since 1998. The state legislative fiscal office says there have been very few cases of fraud, and not enough to sway any elections. The state already uses bar codes and signature verification for mail-in ballots, which is something the president's order also stipulates. The March executive order comes after President Trump signed a similar order last year to overhaul election rules; however, the order was blocked by courts. Since then, the Trump administration has requested voter rolls from several states, including Oregon. Oregon's lawsuit was later dismissed. "Now the administration is trying again, this time using the U.S. Postal Service," the Oregon Attorney General's Office said. Rayfield is joined in the lawsuit by the attorneys general of Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, and the Governor of Pennsylvania.
Anthropic Targets Leak With Copyright Takedowns
Anthropic moved to remove online posts sharing a leaked segment of code for its Claude Code product, issuing copyright takedown notices after the material surfaced on the web. The action, described by people familiar with the matter on Wednesday, reflects a growing clash between AI companies, developers, and publishers over control of proprietary tools and intellectual property. The company's response comes as it faces separate copyright disputes tied to how AI systems are trained and what they output. The episode shows how AI firms are trying to protect trade secrets while also navigating long-running fights over copyrighted material used in model development. "Anthropic sent a copyright takedowns after a segment of the code for Claude Code was leaked online." The leak involved part of the code behind Claude Code, a tool linked to Anthropic's AI assistant that helps with programming tasks. While details of the leaked files were not disclosed, the company issued takedown notices to platforms hosting or linking to the materials. Such notices are commonly filed under the U.S. Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), which allows rights holders to request the removal of infringing content. Rapid takedowns are often used to limit the spread of proprietary information. They also serve as a signal to would-be distributors that posting or re-hosting the material could invite legal risk. "Anthropic has faced its own copyright issues." Like several AI developers, Anthropic has drawn scrutiny from rights holders who argue that training data and AI outputs can infringe on creative works. Music publishers and authors have challenged the use of copyrighted text and lyrics to build large language models. The core dispute centers on whether training on protected works qualifies as fair use, and whether outputs replicate or enable access to copyrighted material. The takedown campaign related to the code leak is separate from those training-data disputes. Still, both issues point to a wider legal thicket around AI development, where software secrecy and content licensing now sit side by side. Leaks of internal code can expose trade secrets, reveal system design choices, and help attackers probe for weaknesses. For an AI coding tool, a leak can also offer clues about model integration, prompting strategies, or safety filters. Companies often argue that even small code fragments can harm competitiveness by revealing methods rivals can copy. Developers who encounter leaked materials face risks too. Hosting or sharing proprietary code can trigger takedowns, account suspensions, or legal claims. Open-source communities are sensitive to these issues and typically discourage the use or redistribution of leaked content. AI providers are under pressure to improve transparency while protecting valuable IP. Security researchers say that responsible disclosure channels are the right path for reporting vulnerabilities. Platform operators, from code repositories to social networks, must also respond quickly to valid notices while maintaining room for fair-use commentary and news reporting. Legal experts note that takedowns do not resolve deeper questions about AI training data or output liability. Those issues are moving through courts and legislatures, with outcomes that could reshape how models are built and licensed. Observers will look for signs that the leak was contained and whether any security changes follow. They will also track updates in copyright cases involving AI training and outputs, which could set new boundaries for how models ingest and produce text, code, or music. Clearer licensing frameworks, more detailed documentation of training sources, and stronger internal access controls may emerge as standard practice. For now, Anthropic's swift takedowns show how AI companies intend to guard their tools. The broader disputes over copyrighted material used in AI remain unsettled. The next phase will hinge on court rulings, licensing deals, and how platforms enforce their rules. The immediate takeaway is simple: leaked code draws fast legal action, and the lines around AI and copyright are still being drawn. Expect tighter security, sharper policies, and continued testing of where fair use ends and infringement begins.
Musk asks SpaceX IPO banks to buy Grok AI subscriptions, NYT reports
[BENGALURU] Elon Musk is requiring banks and other advisers working on SpaceX's planned initial public offering (IPO) to buy subscriptions to Grok, his artificial intelligence chatbot, The New York Times reported on Friday (Apr 3), citing people familiar with the matter. Some banks have agreed to spend tens of millions of dollars a year on the chatbot and have begun integrating it into their IT systems, the report said. Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America and Citigroup are serving as active bookrunners, or the lead banks managing the deal, Reuters reported earlier this week. Musk and SpaceX did not respond to Reuters' requests for comment. JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, Citigroup and Bank of America declined to comment. Morgan Stanley did not immediately respond to Reuters' queries. The Starbase, Texas-headquartered rocket maker boosted its target IPO valuation above US$2 trillion, according to a Bloomberg report a day earlier, setting the stage for what could become the largest stock market listing on record. The company aims to raise a record US$75 billion, which would dwarf previous mega-IPOs such as Saudi Aramco in 2019 and Alibaba in 2014. REUTERS
'Confusion, chaos and distrust': Oregon challenges Trump's order restricting vote-by-mail
PORTLAND, Ore. (KOIN) - Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield filed a lawsuit on Friday challenging an executive order from President Trump that limits voting by mail. Attorney General Rayfield joined 22 other attorneys general and one governor in an effort to block Trump's March 31 executive order. The order directs the Department of Homeland Security to create verified voter lists using federal data, including Social Security. Those lists would be transferred to states, including Oregon, to determine who is eligible to vote. Rayfield argues the order weaponizes the United States Postal Service by giving it rule-making power to determine who gets a ballot through the mail and who doesn't. "The United States Postal Service has one job: to deliver the mail. President Trump is trying to give it a second one -- deciding which Americans get a ballot," said Attorney General Rayfield. "That is not the postal service's role, it is not the federal government's role, and it is not constitutional," Rayfield argued in a statement. "Trump has spent years weaponizing federal agencies to prop up his false story that fraud cost him the 2020 election. He votes by mail. Oregonians vote by mail. And Oregon will keep running its own elections." The lawsuit argues that the executive order violates the separation of powers as the U.S. Constitution gives states the authority to conduct elections, not the president. The attorneys general further that the executive order weaponizes the Postal Service by directing it to withhold ballots from voters that are not on a federally-approved list. The attorneys general say the order would require states to upend their existing election procedures for upcoming elections and conduct statewide voter education efforts "at a dangerously quick pace - potentially within weeks of primary elections and mere months before the beginning of mail voting for the 2026 general election." The attorneys general warn that the executive order will "create confusion, chaos and distrust" in state elections while potentially disenfranchising eligible voters. Oregon Governor Tina Kotek issued a press release Friday in support of the lawsuit, saying, "Today, Oregon is moving to block President Trump's unconstitutional voter suppression effort," adding, "His attack on the fundamental right of every American to vote has nothing to do with election integrity and everything to do with silencing people so he can ultimately influence election results." In a statement shared with KOIN 6 News, White House Spokesperson Abigail Jackson defended the order, saying, "Only Democrat politicians and operatives would be upset about lawful efforts to secure American elections and ensure only eligible American citizens are casting ballots. President Trump campaigned on securing our elections and the American people sent him back to the White House to get the job done." As reported by the Associated Press, critics say Trump's executive order would offer little time to go through voter rolls before ballots are sent out this fall for elections. Critics also question whether the administration's voter lists would be reliable. AP notes that mail voting has existed for more than a century and was increasingly popular in Democratic and Republican states until 2020, when Trump hurled baseless claims of mass voter fraud in mail-in voting. These claims come as Trump himself has voted by mail as recently as last month in a Florida special election. Oregon has had mail-in voting since 1998. The state legislative fiscal office says there have been very few cases of fraud, and not enough to sway any elections. The state already uses bar codes and signature verification for mail-in ballots, which is something the president's order also stipulates. The March executive order comes after President Trump signed a similar order last year to overhaul election rules; however, the order was blocked by courts. Since then, the Trump administration has requested voter rolls from several states, including Oregon. Oregon's lawsuit was later dismissed. "Now the administration is trying again, this time using the U.S. Postal Service," the Oregon Attorney General's Office said. Rayfield is joined in the lawsuit by the attorneys general of Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin and the Governor of Pennsylvania.
Anthropic cuts off OpenClaw support for Claude subscriptions
Anthropic is cutting off support for the popular AI agent platform OpenClaw from Claude subscriptions, as it grapples with soaring demand for its chatbot. Boris Cherny, head of Claude Code, said in an X post on Friday evening that Claude subscriptions will no longer support third-party tools like OpenClaw starting at 12 p.m. PT on Saturday. Users will instead need to pay through discounted "extra usage bundles" tied to their Claude login or use a separate Claude API key through Anthropic's developer platform, Cherny said. The Anthropic executive said the move was driven by the compute demand Anthropic is seeing from users. Claude had surged in popularity in recent weeks, briefly topping the US Apple App Store in March. Last week, Anthropic had to adjust Claude usage limits for subscribers due to the demand. "We've been working hard to meet the increase in demand for Claude, and our subscriptions weren't built for the usage patterns of these third-party tools. Capacity is a resource we manage thoughtfully and we are prioritizing our customers using our products and API," Cherny wrote in the X post. An Anthropic spokesperson told Business Insider in a statement that using Claude subscriptions with third-party tools is against the company's terms of service and that those tools put an "outsized strain on our systems." Peter Steinberger, the creator of OpenClaw, said on X that he and Dave Morin, a board member of the OpenClaw foundation, tried to "talk sense into Anthropic" and that they delayed Anthropic's move for a week. "We told Anthropic that we have many users who only signed up for their sub because of OpenClaw and that it'd be a loss if they cut them off," Steinberger told Business Insider in a text message. "Now they try to bury the news on a Friday night." OpenClaw is a fast-rising AI agent platform that connects to platforms like Claude, enabling users to deploy personal AI assistants. Those assistants can then carry out tasks on other apps and workflows. The popularity of OpenClaw has sparked an AI agent craze. Some users have deployed AI assistants to manage their entire day-to-day workflow. One founder said she built nine AI agents to handle administrative work and personal household logistics. Anthropic is not alone in putting restrictions on third-party tools. Google recently took action against Gemini CLI users who use third-party tools; although the move was not framed as a capacity issue, it was more of a violation of the terms of service.
SpaceX, Amazon, and Google want data centers in orbit -- four engineering barriers stand in the way - Silicon Canals
Editor's note: Daniel Voss is a health science journalist and former neuroscience researcher. This article represents a departure from his usual coverage area, exploring the intersection of emerging space technology and the broader infrastructure challenges shaping the future of computation. The race to build data centers in orbit isn't really about computing in space. It's about who controls the next era of computing on Earth. SpaceX has filed an application with the US Federal Communications Commission to launch a constellation of orbital data centers. Google is reportedly planning a test constellation of data-crunching satellites. Amazon, already dominant in cloud infrastructure and increasingly active in launch services, is positioning itself for the same frontier. The premise is seductive: unlimited solar power, free thermal dissipation into the vacuum of space, and no strain on terrestrial energy grids already buckling under AI workloads. But the deeper logic is strategic -- the companies capable of solving four fundamental engineering barriers will lock in an advantage that no terrestrial competitor, and no nation without its own launch capability, can easily overcome. As Silicon Canals has reported, the US and China already control 90% of AI data centre capacity. Moving compute to orbit wouldn't just extend that dominance -- it would harden it into something approaching permanence, raising the barrier to entry for every nation without its own rockets. The engineering challenges are real, but so is the power consolidation they enable. Whoever solves these problems first doesn't just build a better data center; they reshape the geopolitics of computation itself. Space is cold, but cooling electronics there is harder than on Earth. In constantly illuminated sun-synchronous orbits, equipment temperatures can remain extremely high -- too hot for safe long-term electronics operation. Without convection or flowing water, heat must be radiated away through specialised systems. Industry experts note that thermal management and cooling in space is generally a huge problem. The European Space Agency has been developing mechanically pumped fluid loop systems for satellite heat rejection, but scaling these to data-center size remains unproven. Beyond the magnetosphere's protection, cosmic radiation degrades semiconductor performance and introduces errors. Aircraft crews already face a higher risk of developing cancer from radiation exposure at cruising altitude; orbital hardware faces far greater bombardment. Recently, Nvidia touted new hardware designed for orbital AI compute, and startup companies have launched satellites fitted with advanced GPUs. But experts at Carnegie Mellon University note that redundancy requirements are severe: systems need not only to meet current needs but also require redundancy, extra parts, and reconfigurability to continue working when components fail. Proposals for massive satellite constellations run headlong into physics. As of early 2026, there are roughly 15,000 active satellites in orbit -- more than triple the number five years ago -- with SpaceX's Starlink constellation alone accounting for over 7,000 of them. Approved filings with the ITU and FCC would add tens of thousands more: Amazon's Project Kuiper plans 3,236 satellites, and SpaceX has approval for up to 12,000 Starlink units with applications pending for 30,000 beyond that. Researchers have estimated that low Earth orbit can safely support somewhere between 60,000 and 100,000 active satellites across all orbital shells, given the minimum spacing needed for collision avoidance -- a ceiling that begins to look uncomfortably close when data-center constellations are added to the manifest. Starlink satellites already perform extensive collision avoidance manoeuvres. Low Earth orbit is already quite crowded. This congestion problem contains its own concentrating logic: extremely large constellations may not be feasible unless controlled by a single entity capable of coordinating thousands of orbital manoeuvres in real time -- which means, in practice, SpaceX or a company very much like it. A 2024 feasibility study led by Thales Alenia Space concluded that gigawatt-scale orbital data centers could exist before 2050, though requiring solar arrays far larger than the International Space Station's. Industry estimates suggest the cost-competitiveness crossover may occur within the next couple of decades. Each of these four barriers -- thermal management, radiation hardening, orbital congestion, and raw economics -- is a genuine engineering challenge. But none of them are abstract. They are filters, and they favour incumbency. The companies most aggressively promoting orbital compute -- SpaceX, Amazon, Google -- are also the dominant players in launch services, cloud infrastructure, and AI training. Every barrier that persists is a moat that deepens their advantage. If orbital data centers become viable, the question won't simply be whether the engineering works. It will be whether the rest of the world can afford to participate -- or whether computation itself becomes a resource controlled from orbit by a handful of firms with the rockets to get there.
Anthropic Is Having A Moment In The Private Markets; Spacex Could Spoil The Party
BERITAJA is a International-focused news website dedicated to reporting current events and trending stories from across the country. We publish news coverage on local and national issues, politics, business, technology, and community developments. Content is curated and edited to ensure clarity and relevance for our readers. Glen Anderson has been brokering trades successful backstage institution shares since 2010, backmost erstwhile the number of organization investors focused connected the late-stage backstage marketplace could beryllium counted connected 2 hands. Today, he says, location are thousands. As president of the finance slope Rainmaker Securities, which focuses solely connected backstage securities markets and facilitates transactions successful about 1,000 stocks, Anderson has a front-row spot to 1 of the about nail-bitingly ample moments successful the history of the secondary market. And correct now, he suggests, the communicative has 3 main characters: Anthropic, OpenAI, and SpaceX. The upshot: the storyline is much analyzable than the headlines suggest. Anderson's publication connected Anthropic is accordant pinch what Bloomberg reported earlier this week: request for the company's shares has go almost insatiable. Bloomberg quoted Ken Smythe, laminitis and CEO of Next Round Capital, saying that buyers had indicated to his outfit that they had $2 cardinal of rate fresh to deploy into Anthropic, moreover arsenic about $600 cardinal successful OpenAI shares that investors are trying to waste haven't recovered takers. Anderson sees thing akin astatine Rainmaker. "The hardest banal to root successful our marketplace is Anthropic," he told TechCrunch yesterday day from his Miami home. "There's conscionable nary sellers." Part of what turbocharged that demand, Anderson argues, was Anthropic's very nationalist standoff pinch the Department of Defense -- a move of events that initially seemed for illustration bad news for the institution but has coiled up becoming a gift. "The app sewage much popular, group rallied about the institution arsenic benignant of a hero, taking connected large government," he said. "I deliberation it amplified the communicative and made it moreover much differentiated from OpenAI." That favoritism is becoming progressively meaningful to investors navigating a marketplace where, for years, the prevailing logic was to stake connected everyone. Anderson notes that galore organization investors still want vulnerability to some Anthropic and OpenAI. "The jury's still out," he said, connected which AI exemplary will yet triumph - but the momentum, astatine slightest successful the secondary market, has shifted. That doesn't mean OpenAI has fallen disconnected a cliff. Anderson pushes backmost somewhat connected a binary reference of the situation. "I wouldn't opportunity it's a one-or-the-other conversation," he said. But the excitement isn't there. "It's not about arsenic vibrant a marketplace arsenic Anthropic correct now," he acknowledged. On valuation, Anderson broadly confirmed Bloomberg's reporting that OpenAI shares connected the secondary marketplace are trading arsenic if the institution were weighted astatine $765 cardinal -- an appreciable discount to the company's newest $852 cardinal primary-round valuation. He cautioned that he was moving from memory, but said the Bloomberg fig was "in the correct range." OpenAI itself has tried to asseverate much power complete secondary trading. "People should beryllium highly cautious of immoderate patient that purports to person entree to OpenAI equity, including done an SPV," an OpenAI spokesperson told Bloomberg, noting the institution had established authorized channels done banks, pinch nary fees, to antagonistic what it described arsenic a high-fee agent model. Perhaps tellingly -- astatine slightest for now -- banks including Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs person begun offering OpenAI shares to their high-net-worth clients without charging transportation fees, according to Bloomberg. Goldman, meanwhile, is charging its customary transportation - often 15% to 20% of profits - for clients seeking Anthropic exposure. What nary of this accounts for is SpaceX, which stands isolated amid shifting sentiment about these different powerful brands. Anderson describes it arsenic 1 of the only names successful Rainmaker's beingness that ne'er knowledgeable the punishing correction that deed overmuch of the backstage marketplace betwixt 2022 and 2024, a play erstwhile galore backstage companies' shares fell 60% to 70% from their peaks (after their valuations were tally up conscionable arsenic fast). The rocket and outer behemoth has "been beautiful overmuch consistently up and to the right," Anderson said. Anderson, who, naturally, has an economical liking successful flattering the institution and its earlier backers, credits SpaceX's guidance pinch disciplined pricing and not squeezing each past dollar retired of each backing information aliases tender offer. "A batch of companies will autumn for the enticement to maximize the value of their banal successful each round," he said. "The problem is that that doesn't time off immoderate room for error." SpaceX, by contrast, played it conservatively, by "not getting excessively greedy," and the payoff for earlier investors has been enormous. "You could ideate if personification sewage successful in 2015 what benignant of summation they're sitting connected correct now," said Anderson. To put a finer constituent connected that comment: SpaceX was weighted astatine about $12 cardinal successful 2015, erstwhile Google and Fidelity jointly invested $1 cardinal successful the company. Someone who sewage successful astatine that value is now sitting connected a summation of much than 100x, pinch the institution weighted astatine much than $1 trillion up of its planned IPO. That IPO is now imminent, seemingly. SpaceX revenge confidentially this week for an first nationalist offering, mounting the shape for what could beryllium 1 of the largest marketplace debuts successful history, pinch Elon Musk reportedly aiming to raise betwixt $50 cardinal and $75 billion, perchance successful June. Only Saudi Aramco's 2019 debut, which weighted the power elephantine astatine $1.7 trillion, has travel close. Unsurprisingly, the rumored filing has already changed the dynamics of the secondary marketplace for SpaceX shares, according to Anderson. "Today, I saw a flood of SpaceX investors coming to maine saying, 'Can you springiness maine SpaceX?'" he noted. "It's been a very progressive bargain side." But proviso is drying up. The person a institution gets to an IPO, the little inducement existing shareholders person to waste because they could spot the liquidity arena connected the horizon. That's wherever things get a small dicier for OpenAI and Anthropic. Both companies are reportedly exploring nationalist offerings of their ain and person signaled they could move this year. But SpaceX, by filing first, is about to trial the market's appetite successful a awesome way, and Anderson suggested that whoever follows will beryllium astatine a disadvantage. "SpaceX is going to soak up a batch of liquidity," he said flatly. "There's only truthful overmuch money retired location allocated to IPOs." The first mover gets to the trough first; those who travel look some much scrutiny and, potentially, little capital. It's a move that plays retired successful each alleged vertical and from which the AI companies aren't wholly immune, contempt the attraction being showered connected them correct now. Time your IPO excessively early and you're the 1 testing marketplace receptivity. Wait for personification other to spell first, and you whitethorn find the biggest checks person already been written. You could perceive much of our question and reply pinch Anderson successful the upcoming section of the StrictlyVC Download podcast, which drops each Tuesday. In the meantime, cheque retired caller episodes, including those pinch Whoop CEO Will Ahmed and investor Bill Gurley.
'Confusion, chaos and distrust': Oregon challenges Trump's order restricting vote-by-mail
PORTLAND, Ore. (KOIN) - Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield filed a lawsuit on Friday challenging an executive order from President Trump that limits voting by mail. Attorney General Rayfield joined 22 other attorneys general and one governor in an effort to block Trump's March 31 executive order. The order directs the Department of Homeland Security to create verified voter lists using federal data, including Social Security. Those lists would be transferred to states, including Oregon, to determine who is eligible to vote. Rayfield argues the order weaponizes the United States Postal Service by giving it rule-making power to determine who gets a ballot through the mail and who doesn't. "The United States Postal Service has one job: to deliver the mail. President Trump is trying to give it a second one -- deciding which Americans get a ballot," said Attorney General Rayfield. "That is not the postal service's role, it is not the federal government's role, and it is not constitutional," Rayfield argued in a statement. "Trump has spent years weaponizing federal agencies to prop up his false story that fraud cost him the 2020 election. He votes by mail. Oregonians vote by mail. And Oregon will keep running its own elections." The lawsuit argues that the executive order violates the separation of powers as the U.S. Constitution gives states the authority to conduct elections, not the president. The attorneys general further that the executive order weaponizes the Postal Service by directing it to withhold ballots from voters that are not on a federally-approved list. The attorneys general say the order would require states to upend their existing election procedures for upcoming elections and conduct statewide voter education efforts "at a dangerously quick pace - potentially within weeks of primary elections and mere months before the beginning of mail voting for the 2026 general election." The attorneys general warn that the executive order will "create confusion, chaos and distrust" in state elections while potentially disenfranchising eligible voters. Oregon Governor Tina Kotek issued a press release Friday in support of the lawsuit, saying, "Today, Oregon is moving to block President Trump's unconstitutional voter suppression effort," adding, "His attack on the fundamental right of every American to vote has nothing to do with election integrity and everything to do with silencing people so he can ultimately influence election results." In a statement shared with KOIN 6 News, White House Spokesperson Abigail Jackson defended the order, saying, "Only Democrat politicians and operatives would be upset about lawful efforts to secure American elections and ensure only eligible American citizens are casting ballots. President Trump campaigned on securing our elections and the American people sent him back to the White House to get the job done." As reported by the Associated Press, critics say Trump's executive order would offer little time to go through voter rolls before ballots are sent out this fall for elections. Critics also question whether the administration's voter lists would be reliable. AP notes that mail voting has existed for more than a century and was increasingly popular in Democratic and Republican states until 2020, when Trump hurled baseless claims of mass voter fraud in mail-in voting. These claims come as Trump himself has voted by mail as recently as last month in a Florida special election. Oregon has had mail-in voting since 1998. The state legislative fiscal office says there have been very few cases of fraud, and not enough to sway any elections. The state already uses bar codes and signature verification for mail-in ballots, which is something the president's order also stipulates. The March executive order comes after President Trump signed a similar order last year to overhaul election rules; however, the order was blocked by courts. Since then, the Trump administration has requested voter rolls from several states, including Oregon. Oregon's lawsuit was later dismissed. "Now the administration is trying again, this time using the U.S. Postal Service," the Oregon Attorney General's Office said. Rayfield is joined in the lawsuit by the attorneys general of Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, and the Governor of Pennsylvania.
Anthropic is having a moment in the private markets; SpaceX could spoil the party | TechCrunch
Glen Anderson has been brokering trades in private company shares since 2010, back when the number of institutional investors focused on the late-stage private market could be counted on two hands. Today, he says, there are thousands. As president of the investment bank Rainmaker Securities, which focuses solely on private securities markets and facilitates transactions in roughly 1,000 stocks, Anderson has a front-row seat to one of the most nail-bitingly large moments in the history of the secondary market. And right now, he suggests, the narrative has three main characters: Anthropic, OpenAI, and SpaceX. The upshot: the storyline is more complicated than the headlines suggest. Anderson's read on Anthropic is consistent with what Bloomberg reported earlier this week: demand for the company's shares has become almost insatiable. Bloomberg quoted Ken Smythe, founder and CEO of Next Round Capital, saying that buyers had indicated to his outfit that they had $2 billion of cash ready to deploy into Anthropic, even as roughly $600 million in OpenAI shares that investors are trying to sell haven't found takers. Anderson sees something similar at Rainmaker. "The hardest stock to source in our marketplace is Anthropic," he told TechCrunch yesterday afternoon from his Miami home. "There's just no sellers." Part of what turbocharged that demand, Anderson argues, was Anthropic's very public standoff with the Department of Defense -- a turn of events that initially seemed like bad news for the company but has wound up becoming a gift. "The app got more popular, people rallied around the company as kind of a hero, taking on big government," he said. "I think it amplified the story and made it even more differentiated from OpenAI." That distinction is becoming increasingly meaningful to investors navigating a market where, for years, the prevailing logic was to bet on everyone. Anderson notes that many institutional investors still want exposure to both Anthropic and OpenAI. "The jury's still out," he said, on which AI model will ultimately win - but the momentum, at least in the secondary market, has shifted. That doesn't mean OpenAI has fallen off a cliff. Anderson pushes back slightly on a binary reading of the situation. "I wouldn't say it's a one-or-the-other conversation," he said. But the excitement isn't there. "It's not nearly as vibrant a market as Anthropic right now," he acknowledged. On valuation, Anderson broadly confirmed Bloomberg's reporting that OpenAI shares on the secondary market are trading as if the company were valued at $765 billion -- an appreciable discount to the company's newest $852 billion primary-round valuation. He cautioned that he was working from memory, but said the Bloomberg figure was "in the right range." OpenAI itself has tried to assert more control over secondary trading. "People should be extremely cautious of any firm that purports to have access to OpenAI equity, including through an SPV," an OpenAI spokesperson told Bloomberg, noting the company had established authorized channels through banks, with no fees, to counter what it described as a high-fee broker model. Perhaps tellingly -- at least for now -- banks including Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs have begun offering OpenAI shares to their high-net-worth clients without charging carry fees, according to Bloomberg. Goldman, meanwhile, is charging its customary carry - often 15% to 20% of profits - for clients seeking Anthropic exposure. What none of this accounts for is SpaceX, which stands apart amid shifting sentiment around these other powerful brands. Anderson describes it as one of the only names in Rainmaker's universe that never experienced the punishing correction that hit much of the private market between 2022 and 2024, a period when many private companies' shares fell 60% to 70% from their peaks (after their valuations were run up just as fast). The rocket and satellite behemoth has "been pretty much consistently up and to the right," Anderson said. Anderson, who, naturally, has an economic interest in flattering the company and its earlier backers, credits SpaceX's management with disciplined pricing and not squeezing every last dollar out of each funding round or tender offer. "A lot of companies will fall for the temptation to maximize the price of their stock in every round," he said. "The problem is that that doesn't leave any room for error." SpaceX, by contrast, played it conservatively, by "not getting too greedy," and the payoff for earlier investors has been enormous. "You can imagine if someone got in in 2015 what kind of gain they're sitting on right now," said Anderson. To put a finer point on that comment: SpaceX was valued at roughly $12 billion in 2015, when Google and Fidelity jointly invested $1 billion in the company. Someone who got in at that price is now sitting on a gain of more than 100x, with the company valued at more than $1 trillion ahead of its planned IPO. That IPO is now imminent, seemingly. SpaceX filed confidentially this week for an initial public offering, setting the stage for what could be one of the largest market debuts in history, with Elon Musk reportedly aiming to raise between $50 billion and $75 billion, possibly in June. Only Saudi Aramco's 2019 debut, which valued the energy giant at $1.7 trillion, has come close. Unsurprisingly, the rumored filing has already changed the dynamics of the secondary market for SpaceX shares, according to Anderson. "Today, I saw a flood of SpaceX investors coming to me saying, 'Can you give me SpaceX?'" he noted. "It's been a very active buy side." But supply is drying up. The closer a company gets to an IPO, the less incentive existing shareholders have to sell because they can see the liquidity event on the horizon. That's where things get a little dicier for OpenAI and Anthropic. Both companies are reportedly exploring public offerings of their own and have signaled they could move this year. But SpaceX, by filing first, is about to test the market's appetite in a major way, and Anderson suggested that whoever follows will be at a disadvantage. "SpaceX is going to soak up a lot of liquidity," he said flatly. "There's only so much money out there allocated to IPOs." The first mover gets to the trough first; those who follow face both more scrutiny and, potentially, less capital. It's a dynamic that plays out in every so-called vertical and from which the AI companies aren't completely immune, despite the attention being showered on them right now. Time your IPO too early and you're the one testing market receptivity. Wait for someone else to go first, and you may find the biggest checks have already been written.
'Confusion, chaos and distrust': Oregon challenges Trump's order restricting vote-by-mail
PORTLAND, Ore. (KOIN) - Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield filed a lawsuit on Friday challenging an executive order from President Trump that limits voting by mail. Attorney General Rayfield joined 22 other attorneys general and one governor in an effort to block Trump's March 31 executive order. The order directs the Department of Homeland Security to create verified voter lists using federal data, including Social Security. Those lists would be transferred to states, including Oregon, to determine who is eligible to vote. Rayfield argues the order weaponizes the United States Postal Service by giving it rule-making power to determine who gets a ballot through the mail and who doesn't. "The United States Postal Service has one job: to deliver the mail. President Trump is trying to give it a second one -- deciding which Americans get a ballot," said Rayfield. "That is not the postal service's role, it is not the federal government's role, and it is not constitutional," Rayfield argued in a statement. "Trump has spent years weaponizing federal agencies to prop up his false story that fraud cost him the 2020 election. He votes by mail. Oregonians vote by mail. And Oregon will keep running its own elections." The lawsuit argues that the executive order violates the separation of powers as the U.S. Constitution gives states the authority to conduct elections, not the president. The attorneys general further that the executive order weaponizes the Postal Service by directing it to withhold ballots from voters that are not on a federally-approved list. The attorneys general say the order would require states to upend their existing election procedures for upcoming elections and conduct statewide voter education efforts "at a dangerously quick pace - potentially within weeks of primary elections and mere months before the beginning of mail voting for the 2026 general election." The attorneys general warn that the executive order will "create confusion, chaos and distrust" in state elections while potentially disenfranchising eligible voters. Oregon Gov. Tina Kotek (D) issued a press release Friday in support of the lawsuit, saying, "Today, Oregon is moving to block President Trump's unconstitutional voter suppression effort," adding, "His attack on the fundamental right of every American to vote has nothing to do with election integrity and everything to do with silencing people so he can ultimately influence election results." In a statement shared with KOIN 6 News, White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson defended the order, saying, "Only Democrat politicians and operatives would be upset about lawful efforts to secure American elections and ensure only eligible American citizens are casting ballots. President Trump campaigned on securing our elections and the American people sent him back to the White House to get the job done." As reported by The Associated Press, critics say Trump's executive order would offer little time to go through voter rolls before ballots are sent out this fall for elections. Critics also question whether the administration's voter lists would be reliable. AP notes that mail voting has existed for more than a century and was increasingly popular in Democratic and Republican states until 2020, when Trump hurled baseless claims of mass voter fraud in mail-in voting. These claims come as Trump himself has voted by mail as recently as last month in a Florida special election. Oregon has had mail-in voting since 1998. The state legislative fiscal office says there have been very few cases of fraud, and not enough to sway any elections. The state already uses bar codes and signature verification for mail-in ballots, which is something the president's order also stipulates. The March executive order comes after Trump signed a similar order last year to overhaul election rules; however, the order was blocked by courts. Since then, the Trump administration has requested voter rolls from several states, including Oregon. Oregon's lawsuit was later dismissed. "Now the administration is trying again, this time using the U.S. Postal Service," the Oregon attorney general's office said. Rayfield is joined in the lawsuit by the attorneys general of Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, and the governor of Pennsylvania.
