Catégorie oBox : OBOXMA

Elon Musk suffered a major legal defeat on May 18 after a California jury ruled that he waited too long to sue OpenAI and its executives over the company’s transition from a nonprofit research organization into a multibillion-dollar artificial intelligence giant. The unanimous verdict was delivered in federal court in Oakland after less than two hours of deliberation. Jurors concluded that Musk’s claims fell outside California’s statute of limitations, meaning the case was dismissed without the jury ever considering whether OpenAI or its executives had actually violated the company’s founding principles.

The lawsuit represented one of the most high-profile legal battles in the rapidly expanding artificial intelligence industry. Musk accused OpenAI Chief Executive Sam Altman and company president Greg Brockman of betraying the organization’s original nonprofit mission by transforming OpenAI into a profit-driven corporation closely tied to Microsoft. Musk argued that he donated roughly $38 million to OpenAI under the belief that the company would prioritize artificial intelligence safety and research for the benefit of humanity rather than commercial gain. He sought approximately $150 billion in damages along with the removal of Altman and Brockman from leadership positions.

Regarding the OpenAI case, the judge & jury never actually ruled on the merits of the case, just on a calendar technicality.

There is no question to anyone following the case in detail that Altman & Brockman did in fact enrich themselves by stealing a charity. The only question…

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) May 18, 2026

Big win for OpenAI

The ruling represents a major victory for OpenAI as the company continues to position itself for potential public trading, which analysts believe could eventually value the organization at nearly $1 trillion. OpenAI lawyers argued throughout the trial that Musk had long known about discussions surrounding a for-profit structure and that his lawsuit was motivated more by competition than principle. The defence repeatedly pointed to Musk’s own artificial intelligence company, xAI, as evidence that he was attempting to slow down a rival organization rather than protect OpenAI’s original mission. OpenAI’s legal team also argued that Musk himself previously pushed for aggressive expansion and greater control over the company during its early years.

The cliques of Silicon Valley

The courtroom battle exposed years of internal conflict and personal animosity between some of Silicon Valley’s most influential technology figures. Testimony throughout the trial revealed disagreements over money, governance and the future direction of artificial intelligence development. Lawyers representing Musk repeatedly accused Altman of dishonesty and self-enrichment, while OpenAI’s attorneys portrayed Musk as increasingly resentful after losing influence within the organization he helped co-found in 2015. Several former OpenAI employees also testified during the proceedings, with some criticizing Altman’s leadership style and questioning the company’s commitment to transparency and safety as artificial intelligence technology became increasingly commercialized.

Musk officially left OpenAI in 2018 following internal disputes regarding governance and strategy. Since then, the relationship between Musk and Altman has deteriorated significantly as OpenAI became one of the world’s most valuable and influential artificial intelligence companies following the release of ChatGPT. Musk has repeatedly warned that artificial intelligence poses an existential threat to humanity and has accused OpenAI of abandoning its original mission focused on safe and transparent research. OpenAI executives countered during the trial that enormous funding requirements made a traditional nonprofit structure unrealistic, particularly as competition intensified among major artificial intelligence developers globally.

Musk to appeal

Despite the legal defeat, Musk’s lawyers immediately announced plans to appeal the ruling. However, legal analysts suggested an appeal may face serious challenges because the jury’s decision was based primarily on factual questions regarding timing rather than broader legal interpretation. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers reportedly noted after the verdict that overturning a unanimous jury finding on statute-of-limitations grounds would likely be difficult. The ruling also cancelled a previously scheduled hearing that would have considered potential remedies against OpenAI had Musk succeeded in court. OpenAI executives celebrated the verdict privately while preparing to continue the company’s aggressive commercial expansion and fundraising efforts.

The verdict marks another major legal setback for Musk during an increasingly turbulent period for the billionaire entrepreneur. Earlier this year, a separate jury found Musk liable for misleading investors during aspects of his acquisition of Twitter, though he avoided some broader fraud allegations in that case. Meanwhile, Musk continues balancing leadership roles at Tesla, SpaceX, xAI and X while remaining deeply involved in political controversies and global technology competition. The OpenAI case may have ended in defeat for Musk, but the broader debate over AI safety, corporate power, and the future governance of AI development remains far from resolved as the industry continues to expand at an extraordinary pace.

U.S. President Donald Trump announced a new round of sanctions against Cuba on May 18, targeting several senior political and military officials as Washington intensifies pressure on the country’s government. According to Reuters, the sanctions target 11 Cuban officials, including the country’s communications minister, senior military leaders and Cuba’s primary intelligence agency. The measures are part of a broader campaign by the Trump administration aimed at isolating the Cuban government economically and politically. American officials accused Havana of prioritizing Communist ideology and elite wealth while ordinary Cubans continue facing widespread shortages, blackouts and worsening economic conditions.

The new sanctions come amidst one of the worst economic and humanitarian crises Cuba has experienced in decades. Since the beginning of 2026, the Trump administration has aggressively targeted Cuba’s access to foreign oil shipments, particularly fuel imported from Venezuela and Mexico. American officials have threatened sanctions and tariffs against countries or companies continuing to supply petroleum to the island. Those restrictions have dramatically worsened blackouts and fuel shortages across Cuba, leaving large parts of the country without electricity for extended periods. Cuban officials argue the United States has effectively imposed an economic blockade designed to force regime change and destabilize the island’s Communist leadership. Unfortunately, this forced regime change comes at the suffering of Cubans.

Why target Cuba?

According to the U.S. State Department, the sanctions specifically target officials accused of supporting repression, foreign intelligence operations and military cooperation with governments hostile to Washington. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has become one of the leading figures behind the administration’s hardline Cuba policy, repeatedly accusing Havana of enriching military elites while ordinary citizens suffer economic hardship. Earlier this month, the Trump administration also imposed sanctions on GAESA, the powerful military-run conglomerate that reportedly controls a significant portion of Cuba’s economy. Those measures targeted foreign investment and one of the island’s most important sources of hard currency revenue.

The Cuban government strongly condemned the sanctions, describing them as “coercive measures” that violate international law and punish ordinary citizens rather than political leaders. Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodríguez Parrilla argued that the sanctions are intended to create economic suffering in hopes of provoking political unrest. President Miguel Díaz-Canel has repeatedly warned that the United States is pursuing regime change against Cuba while exploiting the country’s economic vulnerability. Cuban officials insist that American sanctions have become the primary driver behind the island’s worsening shortages of food, medicine, fuel and electricity throughout 2026.

Unfortunately, the sanctions also come amid growing international concern about the possibility of military escalation between Washington and Havana. Recent reports alleging that Cuba acquired military drones from Russia and Iran have sharply increased tensions between the two countries. Cuban officials denied the allegations and accused American media outlets of fabricating security threats in order to justify potential military action against the island. Díaz-Canel warned this week that any American intervention would result in what he described as a “bloodbath” with severe consequences for regional stability. The rhetoric marks one of the most dangerous periods in Cuba-United States relations since the Cold War and the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Blackouts in Cuba

Cuba is currently facing one of the worst energy crises in its modern history as widespread blackouts and fuel shortages continue to devastate daily life across the island. Cuban officials admitted that the country has effectively run out of both its diesel and fuel oil reserves, leaving Cuba’s national electrical grid on the brink of collapse. Residents in Havana and several provincial cities have experienced outages lasting more than 20 hours per day. The crisis has caused significant disruption to transportation, healthcare and food distribution systems. Cuban officials have blamed the crisis on American sanctions and reduced foreign oil shipments, specifically from Venezuela and Mexico.

The economic consequences of the crisis are becoming increasingly severe, with small businesses and the tourism sector taking the biggest hits. Hotels and restaurants have been forced to rely on generators and solar panels in order to continue operating during lengthy outages, and some privately owned businesses have reduced their hours or been forced to temporarily close because of electricity shortages. Food security has also become a major issue, especially for families without refrigeration. The lack of refrigeration is also putting people’s health at risk, as many medications require refrigeration. Public transportation systems have also been heavily disrupted by fuel shortages, leading to long delays and overcrowding. The government has urged citizens to conserve electricity wherever possible, though many Cubans argue they already consume very little energy.

Alongside public transportation, other national services have begun struggling. Dozens of schools and universities across Cuba have been forced to suspend classes, and the healthcare industry is almost completely reliant on generators. Water distribution systems have also been affected because many apartment buildings depend on electric pumps to provide running water. The Cuban government has also warned that energy demand in those sectors is expected to increase over the summer.

Despite the growing unrest, Cuban officials insist that the country will eventually stabilize its energy system through new international partnerships and renewable energy investments. The government has explored agreements with Russia and China in hopes of securing emergency fuel shipments and expanding solar infrastructure projects. However, analysts warn that these initiatives could take years to produce meaningful results. For many ordinary Cubans, the immediate concern is simply surviving the daily blackouts and shortages affecting nearly every aspect of life. The current crisis has become one of the clearest signs of Cuba’s worsening economic decline, with many residents fearing that conditions may continue deteriorating throughout the remainder of 2026.

Two police officers who defended the U.S. Capitol during the January 6 attack filed a federal lawsuit on May 20 seeking to block the Trump administration’s controversial new $1.7 billion “Anti-Weaponization Fund.” Former Capitol Police officer Harry Dunn and Metropolitan Police officer Daniel Hodges argue the fund is unconstitutional and illegally redirects taxpayer money toward individuals claiming they were politically targeted by the federal government. The lawsuit was filed in the Washington, D.C., federal court only days after the Department of Justice formally announced the creation of the fund. Critics argue the initiative could eventually provide financial compensation to pardoned January 6 rioters and other political allies of President Donald Trump.

“By creating the Anti-Weaponization Fund, funding it, and authorizing claim criteria that will allow it to make payments to, among others, Proud Boys and January 6 rioters, Defendants have inflicted concrete and cognizable harms on Plaintiffs Dunn and Hodges”

What is the Anti-Weaponization fund?

The fund was created as part of a settlement agreement between the federal government and Donald Trump over the leak of Trump’s tax returns several years ago. Earlier this year, Trump filed a $10 billion lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service and Treasury Department, accusing the agencies of unlawfully allowing confidential tax information to be leaked to the media. Rather than pursuing the lawsuit further, the Justice Department negotiated a settlement that included the creation of a $1.776 billion compensation fund intended for people who claim they were victims of government “weaponization” or politically motivated investigations. Trump and his family reportedly received no direct financial payout from the agreement itself.

The lawsuit filed by Dunn and Hodges argues the fund creates a direct threat to officers who defended the Capitol during the January 6 riot. Their attorneys claim the government is effectively rewarding individuals who participated in political violence by potentially allowing them to apply for taxpayer-funded compensation. Neither the White House nor Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche has ruled out the possibility that pardoned January 6 defendants could receive payments through the program. The lawsuit argues that the fund sends a dangerous political message while increasing risks toward officers who continue publicly speaking about the Capitol attack and the violence they experienced that day.

The Justice Department announced the creation of the fund on May 18, describing it as a mechanism designed to compensate Americans harmed by politically motivated prosecutions and government misconduct. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche stated that the initiative would create “a systematic process” for reviewing claims from individuals who believe they were unfairly targeted by federal law enforcement or prosecutors. Blanche has argued that the program would apply broadly regardless of political affiliation. However, the administration has released very few details regarding eligibility requirements, payment caps or oversight procedures. A five-member commission appointed by the Justice Department will reportedly determine who qualifies for compensation.

Republicans criticizing the move

The controversy surrounding the fund has quickly spread beyond Democrats, with several Republicans also expressing concern about the program’s legality and optics. Some conservative lawmakers questioned why taxpayer money should be used to compensate individuals involved in politically sensitive legal cases. Others raised concerns regarding transparency as the Justice Department has not publicly disclosed how compensation decisions will be reviewed or monitored. Senate Majority Leader John Thune and Senator Rand Paul were among Republicans who publicly questioned the necessity of the initiative. Critics have increasingly described the fund as a political slush fund designed to reward Trump allies and reinforce claims that previous investigations into Trump were illegitimate.

Despite the backlash, the Trump administration appears determined to move forward with the initiative. Lawyers representing clients claiming political persecution have reportedly already begun preparing applications for potential compensation once eligibility guidelines are finalized. Meanwhile, Dunn and Hodges continue seeking an emergency injunction that would freeze any transfer of money from the Treasury Department to the Justice Department while the case proceeds through federal court. The outcome of the lawsuit may ultimately determine not only the future of the fund itself, but also the limits of executive power during one of the most politically polarized periods in modern American history.

Jan. 6 riot

On January 6, 2021, thousands of supporters of U.S. President Donald Trump stormed the United States Capitol in Washington, D.C. in an attempt to disrupt the certification of Joe Biden’s 2020 presidential election victory. Roughly 2,000 rioters breached police lines and entered the Capitol building, forcing lawmakers into lockdown for several hours. More than 140 police officers were injured during the attack, including officers from the Capitol Police and Metropolitan Police Departments. Federal investigators eventually charged over 1,500 individuals in connection with the riot, making it one of the largest criminal investigations in American history. Donald Trump pardoned more than 1,500 of those rioters after he regained office in 2025

Michael Caputo, a longtime Donald Trump adviser and former Health and Human Services spokesman during Trump’s first administration, has become the first person to officially seek compensation from the Justice Department’s controversial “Anti-Weaponization Fund,” according to CNN. Caputo is requesting $2.7 million from the fund established under Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche following a contentious settlement agreement between Donald Trump and the Department of Justice tied to Trump’s $10 billion lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service. The lawsuit alleged the IRS failed to protect confidential tax information belonging to Trump and the Trump Organization from unauthorized disclosure. In a letter sent to Blanche shortly after the fund was formally announced, Caputo argued that he had personally suffered during what he described as a politically motivated campaign targeting Trump allies during previous investigations tied to the administration.

«I was the target of the illegal Crossfire Hurricane investigation and our family suffered greatly during that dark era of political weaponization», Caputo wrote in the letter addressed to Blanche. His request immediately placed him at the center of a growing controversy surrounding the compensation fund, which critics have described as a political slush fund designed to reward Trump allies who claim they were harmed by federal investigations. Although Caputo became the first official applicant, it remains unclear when any compensation decisions will actually be made because the five-member review committee required to evaluate requests has not yet been established by Blanche or the Justice Department. Officials have not publicly identified potential committee members, the standards for eligibility or how compensation amounts would ultimately be determined for applicants seeking payments from the fund.

The “Anti-Weaponization Fund” emerged from the broader settlement negotiated between Trump and the Justice Department after the president sued the IRS and Treasury Department earlier this year. Trump’s lawsuit accused the federal government of failing to prevent the leak of his tax returns by former IRS contractor Charles Littlejohn between 2018 and 2020. Under the agreement signed by Blanche, the federal government accepted broad limitations on pursuing future claims involving Trump, his family and affiliated entities. The settlement also created the framework for compensation tied to allegations of government “weaponization.” Watchdog organizations and several Democratic lawmakers strongly criticized the arrangement after reports indicated the total value connected to the program and settlement structure could approach $1.8 billion. Critics argued the agreement blurred the line between legitimate government settlements and political favoritism benefiting Trump allies.

«I was the target of the illegal Crossfire Hurricane investigation and our family suffered greatly during that dark era of political weaponization.»

-Former Health and Human Services spokesman, Michael Caputo

Caputo’s return to national headlines also revived scrutiny surrounding his controversial tenure at the Department of Health and Human Services during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. A longtime Republican political operative and Trump adviser, Caputo served as HHS Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs from April to September 2020 before stepping aside following explosive public comments attacking career government scientists. During an unfiltered Facebook Live broadcast in September 2020, Caputo accused scientists at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention of engaging in sedition and attempting to undermine the Trump administration’s pandemic response from inside the federal government. He alleged that a “resistance unit” existed within the CDC and warned viewers about supposed armed “hit squads,” comments that generated immediate alarm across Washington and intensified tensions between political appointees and federal health experts.

Several conspiracy-driven claims

The Facebook Live appearance became one of the most controversial moments of Caputo’s government service. During the stream, he openly discussed the mental strain he was experiencing and made several conspiracy-driven claims that alarmed public health officials and members of Congress. Shortly afterward, Caputo took a leave of absence from HHS as criticism mounted over his handling of government communications during the pandemic. At the time, health experts and former officials accused him of politicizing public health messaging while undermining scientific credibility during a national emergency. Despite the controversy, Caputo has continued to defend his actions and remained closely aligned with Trump and several figures connected to the president’s political movement. His compensation request now links those earlier political battles directly to the administration’s new “weaponization” narrative promoted by Trump allies.

The debate surrounding the “Anti-Weaponization Fund” is expected to intensify as additional claims potentially emerge from former Trump officials, advisers and allies who believe they were unfairly targeted during previous federal investigations. Legal experts have already raised questions about the transparency and legal standards governing the program, particularly because the review board overseeing compensation requests has not yet been created. Critics argue the structure risks transforming the Justice Department into a mechanism for rewarding political loyalty, while supporters insist the fund represents accountability for alleged abuses committed during prior investigations involving Trump and his associates. Caputo’s filing has therefore become an early test case for how the administration intends to manage one of the most politically controversial compensation programs ever linked to the Department of Justice.

Donald Trump, members of his family and the Trump Organization have received sweeping protections from future IRS investigations under a controversial settlement approved by Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, Trump’s former personal criminal defense attorney who now leads the Justice Department following the dismissal of Pam Bondi. The agreement, finalized less than four months after Trump filed a multibillion-dollar lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service and Treasury Department, immediately triggered accusations of political favoritism from watchdog groups and Democratic lawmakers. Critics argued Blanche was acting more like Trump’s longtime personal lawyer than an independent federal official. The controversy has intensified amid separate criticism surrounding a reported $1.8 billion compensation arrangement connected to the administration’s newly created “Anti-Weaponization Fund.”

The lawsuit at the center of the dispute was filed on January 29 in federal court in Miami by Donald Trump, Donald Trump Jr., Eric Trump and the Trump Organization. The plaintiffs accused the IRS and Treasury Department of failing to safeguard confidential tax records leaked by former IRS contractor Charles Littlejohn between 2018 and 2020. The complaint sought $10 billion in damages and alleged the government allowed politically motivated targeting of the Trump family through unlawful disclosures of private financial information. On May 18, Trump abruptly moved to dismiss the case after a settlement agreement was reached with the Justice Department under Blanche’s authority. The rapid resolution of such a massive lawsuit surprised many legal observers because negotiations concluded in less than four months after the original filing.

«The way my father and our family were targeted by the IRS was a disgrace. This case should have been settled years ago, but the previous administration was too busy leaking our private data.»

-Eric Trump on social media

At the center of the controversy is the wording contained in a Department of Justice order personally signed by Blanche on May 19. The document declared that «The United States RELEASES, WAIVES, ACQUITS, and FOREVER DISCHARGES each of the Plaintiffs from, and is hereby FOREVER BARRED and PRECLUDED from prosecuting or pursuing, any and all claims, counterclaims, causes of action, appeals, or requests for any relief, including injunctive relief, monetary relief, damages, examinations or similar or related reviews, appeals, debt relief, costs, attorney’s fees, expenses, and/or interest». The order extended those protections not only to Trump himself but also to affiliated family members, trusts, subsidiaries and related business entities connected to the Trump Organization. Legal analysts immediately questioned whether the language effectively blocks future tax examinations, audits and investigative actions involving Trump-related entities.

Blanche defended the settlement publicly after criticism intensified across Washington. In a statement released following the agreement, the Acting Attorney General said, «The Department determined that settling this matter was in the best interest of the taxpayers to avoid a potentially massive judgment against the government and to move past the weaponization of the previous era». Supporters of the administration argued the federal government faced significant legal exposure because of the unauthorized leaks committed by Littlejohn, who was criminally prosecuted and sentenced to prison. The Justice Department also announced the creation of the “Anti-Weaponization Fund,” established under the settlement agreement as part of what officials described as a broader effort to address politically motivated government abuses. Critics, however, argued the settlement created extraordinary protections unavailable to ordinary taxpayers.

«The Department determined that settling this matter was in the best interest of the taxpayers to avoid a potentially massive judgment against the government and to move past the weaponization of the previous era».

-Acting Attorney General, Todd Blanche

Eric Trump also publicly celebrated the agreement through a social media post attacking the previous administration’s handling of the tax leak scandal. «The way my father and our family were targeted by the IRS was a disgrace. This case should have been settled years ago, but the previous administration was too busy leaking our private data», Eric Trump wrote online shortly after the settlement became public. Republican allies of Trump echoed those claims and argued the IRS controversy represented an example of politically motivated investigations targeting conservatives. Democratic lawmakers responded by accusing Blanche of undermining public confidence in the Justice Department. Several senators demanded internal records explaining how the agreement was negotiated and whether career DOJ officials objected to language that appeared to grant exceptionally broad immunity protections to Trump-related entities.

«The United States RELEASES, WAIVES, ACQUITS, and FOREVER DISCHARGES each of the Plaintiffs from, and is hereby FOREVER BARRED and PRECLUDED from prosecuting or pursuing, any and all claims, counterclaims, causes of action, appeals, or requests for any relief, including injunctive relief, monetary relief, damages, examinations or similar or related reviews, appeals, debt relief, costs, attorney’s fees, expenses, and/or interest».

-A Department of Justice document signed by Acting Attorney General, Todd Blanche

Blanche’s involvement has become particularly controversial because of his close history with Trump before entering government. Prior to becoming Acting Attorney General, Blanche served as Trump’s personal attorney in multiple criminal proceedings, including federal election-related cases and the New York hush money prosecution. Ethics experts and watchdog organizations argued that his transition from Trump’s defense lawyer to the nation’s highest-ranking law enforcement official created serious concerns when negotiating a settlement directly benefiting Trump, his family and his businesses. The broad language used in the DOJ order has continued to fuel criticism because it appears to shield not only current disputes but also matters that «could be pending» before federal agencies. As congressional investigations into the agreement begin to take shape, the settlement has rapidly become one of the most politically explosive legal controversies facing the administration.