Catégorie oBox : BuzzNews

Anthropic AI announced that it would be working alongside the Trump organization to integrate its AI model into government work. The announcement comes after Anthropic disputed the US government earlier in the year regarding the Pentagon’s unmitigated use of the model for defence purposes. Anthropic, which owns Claude, an AI model that is rapidly increasing in popularity, is valued at nearly $400 billion USD.

The launch of Mythos

Anthropic’s launching of its new adapted model, Mythos, is what sparked the meetings between CEO Dario Amodei and White House staff. Mythos is reportedly the most advanced model to make complex cyberattacks both easier and quicker to execute. The banking industries of the US, Canada, and Britain have all scheduled meetings with Anthropic to further understand how the model works and how it can be used to strengthen banks’ defences against cyberattacks. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent joined Chief of Staff Susie Wiles in the meeting with Amodei, Axios reported. Anthropic called the meeting ‘productive’ and announced that it would be working together (with Trump) to “work together on key shared priorities such as cybersecurity, America’s lead in the AI race, and AI safety.”

Anthropic vs US gov

Months ago, long before the release of Mythos, Anthropic was entangled in a battle with the US government and Pete Hegseth. The US government asked all major AI companies to give unfettered access to their models to the Department of War. Hegseth demanded that all restrictions attached to the models be removed so that the US could use the technology to its full potential. Sam Altman, OpenAI’s CEO, signed on the dotted line without hesitation, as did Elon Musk, but Anthropic held out. The consequences were significant. Hegseth threatened that if Anthropic did not remove the restrictions by February 28 (a deadline that came and passed), he would label the company a ‘supply-chain risk’. With that label, no company doing business with the Department of War would be allowed to use Anthropic’s software. The threat tried to effectively end Anthropic’s meteoric growth over the last 18 months.

Hegseth slapped Anthropic with the formal label in March, with Anthropic suing the US government days later because of the label. When ordering federal agencies to stop using Anthropic’s AI tools, U.S. President Donald Trump attacked the company on his Truth Social.

When asked about the meeting with Anthropic on April 17, Trump claimed he had no idea of the details or the result of the meeting. Even with Trump refusing to mention (or potentially forgetting) the meeting entirely, it seems as though Anthropics’ relationship with the Trump regime has begun to thaw. Anthropic co-founder Jack Clark all but confirmed that fact, stating that the supply-chain risk designation is a “narrow dispute”. Clark believes the designation will not affect the company’s ability to showcase their models to the government.

What is Anthropic AI

Anthropic AI was founded in 2021 by a number of ex-OpenAI employees. With a team of just seven, Anthropic built its AI model Claude in just a year, and Claude 1 was released in March 2023. After an initial investment of $1 billion from Google in 2021, Anthropic has built unimaginable wealth in less than five years, latching on and benefitting from the AI boom in 2025. In 2024, Databricks announced that Claude would be integrated into its software, marking a serious achievement for Anthropic. Two years later, Anthropic is valued at nearly three times what Databricks is, a company nearly 10 years its senior. In March, Anthropic became the first American company to be labelled a supply chain risk, opening the door for government overreach into the private sector, but Anthropic is reportedly confident in its ability to have the label stripped.

OpenAI bends the knee to defence pressure.

While Anthropic’s decision to deny the Pentagon complete access to its model has caused issues for the company, it has also brought praise from the public, something Sam Altman has not received. OpenAI, the creator of ChatGPT, faced the same conditions as Anthropic but chose to cave to government pressure. Sam Altman described being ‘rushed’ into the deal on February 28, and penned an explanation on X. Altman claimed that he ‘shouldn’t have rushed’ into signing the DoW’s contract, and that the whole experience was ‘a learning experience’ for the billionaire CEO. According to Altman, he was trying to avoid a ‘much worse outcome,’ and when his attempts to de-escalate discussions failed, he chose to sign a dangerous contract instead of risking financial consequences for his stockholders. Sam Altman is worth nearly $4 billion.

Altman received immediate backlash for folding to government pressure, but defended himself in another statement. Altman claims that ‘unelected officials’ should not decide how technology should be used by the government. Altman also said he doesn’t want OpenAI to decide what to do in the event of an emergency in the US, specifically a nuclear attack. Altman believes that AI experts are unequipped to make decisions about their own software, instead trusting the US government. The US government echoed the same argument against Anthropic, but to no avail. Now, it’s clear that the US government wants to use Anthropic’s models, even with the supply chain risk designation.  

In the first minutes following the incident targeting Donald Trump and members of his administration during the White House Correspondents’ Dinner, questions about the security surrounding the event quickly emerged among journalists and political observers. Those concerns were not limited to outside reactions.

They were also raised by the alleged perpetrator himself, who, in a manifesto reportedly sent to members of his family shortly after the attempted attack, directly blamed what he described as a «Level of Incompetence» surrounding event security.

The document, later published in full by the New York Post, has since become a central piece in understanding both the suspect’s motives and his assessment of how the breach was possible.

According to that manifesto, identified as being written by suspect Cole Allen, the individual detailed both his reasoning and his observations in the lead-up to the attack. He expressed surprise at what he described as a lack of expected safeguards at an event involving the president. In the text, he wrote «what the hell is the Secret Service doing?» and continued «I expected security cameras at every bend, bugged hotel rooms, armed agents every 10 feet, metal detectors out the wazoo. What I got (who knows, maybe they’re pranking me!) is nothing.» The remarks point to what he perceived as a gap between the anticipated level of federal protection and the reality he encountered.

The suspect then outlined his claims in blunt terms, emphasizing what he viewed as a systemic failure across multiple layers of the event’s organization.

He wrote: «No damn security. Not in transport. Not in the hotel. Not in the event.»

The repetition underscored his argument that vulnerabilities were not isolated to a single location but extended across the entire experience, from travel arrangements to accommodations and the venue itself. These statements have drawn particular attention from analysts examining how such a high-profile gathering could be approached without triggering earlier intervention.

In a longer section of the manifesto, Allen described his experience entering the hotel and interacting with the environment leading up to the event. He wrote «Like, the one thing that I immediately noticed walking into the hotel is the sense of arrogance. I walk in with multiple weapons and not a single person there considers the possibility that I could be a threat.» He continued by criticizing the allocation of security resources, stating «The security at the event is all outside, focused on protestors and current arrivals, because apparently no one thought about what happens if someone checks in the day before.» These observations have fueled further scrutiny of event planning protocols.

The manifesto also included a broader reflection on what the suspect characterized as a failure of institutional awareness and preparedness. He wrote «Like, this level of incompetence is insane, and I very sincerely hope it’s corrected by the time this country gets actually competent leadership again.» In another passage, he added «Like, if I was an Iranian agent, instead of an American citizen, I could have brought a damn Ma Deuce in here and no one would have noticed s–t. Actually insane.»

These statements have intensified debate among security experts about both the credibility of the claims and the broader implications for protecting high-profile political events.

Officials have not publicly validated the suspect’s characterization of the security arrangements, and investigations into the incident remain ongoing. Law enforcement agencies, including the Secret Service, are reviewing the sequence of events and the protocols in place at the time of the attack. Meanwhile, the manifesto’s publication has contributed to a growing public discussion about security standards, risk assessment, and the challenges of safeguarding large-scale gatherings involving political leaders. As authorities continue their inquiry, the claims outlined in the document remain a focal point in efforts to understand how the breach occurred.

In the hours following the violent incident that disrupted the White House Correspondents’ Dinner, where a gunman allegedly sought to target Donald Trump and members of his administration, attention quickly shifted to the president’s public response. While security agencies continued to assess the attack and its implications, Trump moved into a series of media appearances, including a high-profile interview with 60 Minutes. What began as a discussion about the attempted attack and its broader context soon escalated into a tense exchange, as the conversation turned to the alleged manifesto left behind by the shooter.

According to investigators, the suspect had circulated a written document prior to the attack, outlining his motivations and grievances. During the 60 Minutes interview, the host raised specific excerpts from that alleged manifesto, including a line that directly referenced Trump. The host read «I am no longer willing to permit a pedophile, rapist, and traitor to coat my hands with his crimes», prompting an immediate reaction from the president. The decision to introduce the text on air marked a turning point in the interview, shifting it from a discussion of national security into a direct confrontation over the content and its implications.

Trump reacted sharply as the quote was read, interrupting the exchange and signaling his frustration before the question was fully developed. He said «I was waiting for you to read that.» He then escalated his criticism of both the interviewer and the program, adding «I knew you would, because you’re horrible people. Horrible people.» The tone of the interview shifted visibly at that moment, with Trump framing the line of questioning as inappropriate and accusing the program of amplifying what he described as the words of an attacker rather than focusing on the broader context of the incident.

The exchange intensified as the host pressed further, asking «Oh, do you think he was referring to you?» Trump responded directly, acknowledging the reference while rejecting its substance. He said «Yeah, he did write that. I’m not a rapist. I didn’t rape anybody. I’m not a pedophile.» The statement marked one of the most direct responses from the president during the interview, as he addressed the accusations contained in the alleged manifesto in explicit terms while maintaining that the claims were entirely unfounded.

Trump then turned his criticism toward the decision to read the manifesto on air, expressing anger at what he viewed as the platforming of violent rhetoric. He said «You read that crap from some sick person,» before continuing «You should be ashamed of yourself for reading that, because I’m not any of those things.» He further added «You shouldn’t be reading that on ‘60 Minutes.» The president’s remarks underscored his broader argument that the focus should remain on the act of violence itself rather than the language used by the attacker.

The confrontation concluded with Trump directly attacking the credibility of the interviewer and the program, saying «You’re a disgrace.» He also addressed the broader implications of the allegations, stating «I got associated with stuff that has nothing to do with me. I was totally exonerated.» The interview, which was expected to center on the security breach and its aftermath, instead became a focal point of controversy, highlighting the tension between media scrutiny and presidential response in the immediate aftermath of a high-profile violent incident.

Donald Trump appeared to use the disruption at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner over the weekend to reinforce his argument against a lawsuit challenging the construction of a new ballroom on the White House grounds. In the hours following the incident, the president pointed to what he described as security shortcomings tied to large gatherings held in existing venues. The episode quickly became central to his messaging, as he framed it as a concrete example of vulnerabilities that, in his view, justify the need for a purpose-built, highly controlled event space located within the secure perimeter of the White House.

The annual White House Correspondents’ Dinner, which brings together journalists, political figures, and invited guests, was violently disrupted when a gunman armed with multiple weapons — including a shotgun, a handgun, and knives — attempted to breach security at the Washington Hilton while the event was underway. According to law enforcement, the suspect charged a checkpoint just outside the ballroom and opened fire, with several shots reported in the immediate vicinity of the venue. Secret Service agents and police responded within seconds, engaging the attacker and preventing him from entering the main ballroom, where President Donald Trump and hundreds of attendees were gathered. One Secret Service agent was struck but protected by a bulletproof vest, and no guests were injured. The chaos forced an immediate evacuation of the room, with attendees taking cover before being escorted out as authorities secured the scene. The dinner was ultimately canceled, and organizers later confirmed it would be rescheduled at a later date, which remains unknown.

In the aftermath, Trump addressed the situation from the White House and later appeared in an interview with 60 Minutes, where he was questioned about the security breach and its broader implications. While those appearances focused on reassurance and the response of federal agencies, attention quickly shifted to his activity on Truth Social. There, the president directly connected the events of the evening to his ongoing push for a new ballroom, presenting the construction project as a security-driven necessity rather than a symbolic or ceremonial addition to the historic complex.

In the opening section of his post, Trump wrote «What happened last night is exactly the reason that our great Military, Secret Service, Law Enforcement and, for different reasons, every President for the last 150 years, have been DEMANDING that a large, safe, and secure Ballroom be built ON THE GROUNDS OF THE WHITE HOUSE. This event would never have happened with the Militarily Top Secret Ballroom currently under construction at the White House. It cannot be built fast enough!». He followed by detailing the features of the planned structure, stating «While beautiful, it has every highest level security feature there is plus, there are no rooms sitting on top for unsecured people to pour in, and is inside the gates of the most secure building in the World, The White House.».

Trump then turned to the legal challenge facing the project, directly criticizing the lawsuit in his message. He wrote «The ridiculous Ballroom lawsuit, brought by a woman walking her dog, who has absolutely No Standing to bring such a suit, must be dropped, immediately. Nothing should be allowed to interfere with with its construction, which is on budget and substantially ahead of schedule!!!». The lawsuit has drawn scrutiny from preservation advocates and legal experts, who argue that any major alteration to the White House grounds must be carefully reviewed, while the administration maintains that the project meets all necessary requirements and remains a priority.

As the Correspondents’ Dinner remains postponed with no confirmed date for its return, the incident has reshaped the conversation around security at high-profile events in Washington. Trump’s remarks have firmly linked the disruption to his broader argument for the ballroom, ensuring that both the attack and the legal battle surrounding the construction remain central to the ongoing political and public discussion.

• For the first time, Joe Jonas has posted a photo with his girlfriend.
• According to photos taken without their knowledge, the couple has been dating for a while now.
• Who is this new love interest?
• Joe Jonas went through a divorce in 2024.
• He is the father of two young daughters.

Singer Joe Jonas seems to have finally shared his first couple photo. On his Instagram page, the star posted a series of photos summarizing recent moments in his life. Among them is a photo with his girlfriend, officially confirming their relationship.

The black-and-white photo appears to have been taken in a photo booth and consists of three vertical images. The focus is mainly on the middle one, where the couple can be seen snuggled up together.

The couple had already been spotted together in recent months, but this is the very first time Jonas has personally posted a photo with his significant other.

Who is she?

Last March, TMZ snapped a photo of the two lovebirds kissing at the Miami airport. A few months before that photo, on January 7, People magazine confirmed their relationship. A source close to them reportedly stated that they had “started getting to know each other at the end of last summer.”

She is indeed model Tatiana Gabriela.

According to her portfolio at Killer Management, Gabriela is originally from Puerto Rico and now lives in New York. After studying film, she turned to modeling, working with brands such as Diane Von Furstenberg, For Love & Lemons, and Dolce Vita.

She also appeared in one of rapper Bad Bunny’s music videos, released in January 2025.

Despite some hints, neither of them has really spoken publicly about their romantic relationship yet.

A High-Profile Divorce for Joe Jonas

It’s worth noting that Joe Jonas went through a divorce in 2024. After a long-term relationship with actress Sophie Turner, the couple decided to end their relationship. After five years of marriage, four of which they spent as a couple, they decided to part ways.

Their union produced two children, Willa and Delphine (ages 4 and 2).

It took a full year to settle the terms of the divorce. Far from always seeing eye to eye, the former lovers locked horns in a legal battle that seemed never-ending. The main point of contention was primarily over shared custody of their two daughters.

A battle that was finally settled in court.