Business
A.I. Computing Power Is Splitting the World Into Haves and Have-Nots
Where A.I. Data Centers Are Located
Only 32 nations, mostly in the Northern Hemisphere, have A.I.-specialized data centers.
Last month, Sam Altman, the chief executive of the artificial intelligence company OpenAI, donned a helmet, work boots and a luminescent high-visibility vest to visit the construction site of the company’s new data center project in Texas.
Bigger than New York’s Central Park, the estimated $60 billion project, which has its own natural gas plant, will be one of the most powerful computing hubs ever created when completed as soon as next year.
Around the same time as Mr. Altman’s visit to Texas, Nicolás Wolovick, a computer science professor at the National University of Córdoba in Argentina, was running what counts as one of his country’s most advanced A.I. computing hubs. It was in a converted room at the university, where wires snaked between aging A.I. chips and server computers.
“Everything is becoming more split,” Dr. Wolovick said. “We are losing.”
Artificial intelligence has created a new digital divide, fracturing the world between nations with the computing power for building cutting-edge A.I. systems and those without. The split is influencing geopolitics and global economics, creating new dependencies and prompting a desperate rush to not be excluded from a technology race that could reorder economies, drive scientific discovery and change the way that people live and work.
The biggest beneficiaries by far are the United States, China and the European Union. Those regions host more than half of the world’s most powerful data centers, which are used for developing the most complex A.I. systems, according to data compiled by Oxford University researchers. Only 32 countries, or about 16 percent of nations, have these large facilities filled with microchips and computers, giving them what is known in industry parlance as “compute power.”
The United States and China, which dominate the tech world, have particular influence. American and Chinese companies operate more than 90 percent of the data centers that other companies and institutions use for A.I. work, according to the Oxford data and other research.
In contrast, Africa and South America have almost no A.I. computing hubs, while India has at least five and Japan at least four, according to the Oxford data. More than 150 countries have nothing.
Today’s A.I. data centers dwarf their predecessors, which powered simpler tasks like email and video streaming. Vast, power-hungry and packed with powerful chips, these hubs cost billions to build and require infrastructure that not every country can provide. With ownership concentrated among a few tech giants, the effects of the gap between those with such computing power and those without it are already playing out.
The world’s most used A.I. systems, which power chatbots like OpenAI’s ChatGPT, are more proficient and accurate in English and Chinese, languages spoken in the countries where the compute power is concentrated. Tech giants with access to the top equipment are using A.I. to process data, automate tasks and develop new services. Scientific breakthroughs, including drug discovery and gene editing, rely on powerful computers. A.I.-powered weapons are making their way onto battlefields.
Nations with little or no A.I. compute power are running into limits in scientific work, in the growth of young companies and in talent retention. Some officials have become alarmed by how the need for computing resources has made them beholden to foreign corporations and governments.
“Oil-producing countries have had an oversized influence on international affairs; in an A.I.-powered near future, compute producers could have something similar since they control access to a critical resource,” said Vili Lehdonvirta, an Oxford professor who conducted the research on A.I. data centers with his colleagues Zoe Jay Hawkins and Boxi Wu.
A.I. computing power is so precious that the components in data centers, such as microchips, have become a crucial part of foreign and trade policies for China and the United States, which are jockeying for influence in the Persian Gulf, in Southeast Asia and elsewhere. At the same time, some countries are beginning to pour public funds into A.I. infrastructure, aiming for more control over their technological futures.
The Oxford researchers mapped the world’s A.I. data centers, information that companies and governments often keep secret. To create a representative sample, they went through the customer websites of nine of the world’s biggest cloud-service providers to see what compute power was available and where their hubs were at the end of last year. The companies were the U.S. firms Amazon, Google and Microsoft; China’s Tencent, Alibaba and Huawei; and Europe’s Exoscale, Hetzner and OVHcloud.
The research does not include every data center worldwide, but the trends were unmistakable. U.S. companies operated 87 A.I. computing hubs, which can sometimes include multiple data centers, or almost two-thirds of the global total, compared with 39 operated by Chinese firms and six by Europeans, according to the research. Inside the data centers, most of the chips — the foundational components for making calculations — were from the U.S. chipmaker Nvidia.
“We have a computing divide at the heart of the A.I. revolution,” said Lacina Koné, the director general of Smart Africa, which coordinates digital policy across the continent. He added: “It’s not merely a hardware problem. It’s the sovereignty of our digital future.”
‘Sometimes I Want to Cry’
There has long been a tech gap between rich and developing countries. Over the past decade, cheap smartphones, expanding internet coverage and flourishing app-based businesses led some experts to conclude that the divide was diminishing. Last year, 68 percent of the world’s population used the internet, up from 33 percent in 2012, according to the International Telecommunication Union, a United Nations agency.
With a computer and knowledge of coding, getting a company off the ground became cheaper and easier. That lifted tech industries across the world, be they mobile payments in Africa or ride hailing in Southeast Asia.
But in April, the U.N. warned that the digital gap would widen without action on A.I. Just 100 companies, mostly in the United States and China, were behind 40 percent of global investment in the technology, the U.N. said. The biggest tech companies, it added, were “gaining control over the technology’s future.”
Few Companies Control A.I. Computing
Tiles show total availability zones for A.I. offered by each company, a metric used by researchers as a proxy for A.I. data centers.
The gap stems partly from a component everyone wants: a microchip known as a graphics processing unit, or GPU. The chips require multibillion-dollar factories to produce. Packed into data centers by the thousands and mostly made by Nvidia, GPUs provide the computing power for creating and delivering cutting-edge A.I. models.
Obtaining these pieces of silicon is difficult. As demand has increased, prices for the chips have soared, and everyone wants to be at the front of the line for orders. Adding to the challenges, these chips then need to be corralled into giant data centers that guzzle up dizzying amounts of power and water.
Many wealthy nations have access to the chips in data centers, but other countries are being left behind, according to interviews with more than two dozen tech executives and experts across 20 countries. Renting computing power from faraway data centers is common but can lead to challenges, including high costs, slower connection speeds, compliance with different laws, and vulnerability to the whims of American and Chinese companies.
Qhala, a start-up in Kenya, illustrates the issues. The company, founded by a former Google engineer, is building an A.I. system known as a large language model that is based on African languages. But Qhala has no nearby computing power and rents from data centers outside Africa. Employees cram their work into the morning, when most American programmers are sleeping, so there is less traffic and faster speeds to transfer data across the world.
“Proximity is essential,” said Shikoh Gitau, 44, Qhala’s founder.
“If you don’t have the resources for compute to process the data and to build your A.I. models, then you can’t go anywhere,” said Kate Kallot, a former Nvidia executive and the founder of Amini, another A.I. start-up in Kenya.
In the United States, by contrast, Amazon, Microsoft, Google, Meta and OpenAI have pledged to spend more than $300 billion this year, much of it on A.I. infrastructure. The expenditure approaches Canada’s national budget. Harvard’s Kempner Institute, which focuses on A.I., has more computing power than all African-owned facilities on that continent combined, according to one survey of the world’s largest supercomputers.
Brad Smith, Microsoft’s president, said many countries wanted more computing infrastructure as a form of sovereignty. But closing the gap will be difficult, particularly in Africa, where many places do not have reliable electricity, he said. Microsoft, which is building a data center in Kenya with a company in the United Arab Emirates, G42, chooses data center locations based largely on market need, electricity and skilled labor.
“The A.I. era runs the risk of leaving Africa even further behind,” Mr. Smith said.
Jay Puri, Nvidia’s executive vice president for global business, said the company was also working with various countries to build out their A.I. offerings.
“It is absolutely a challenge,” he said.
Chris Lehane, OpenAI’s vice president of global affairs, said the company had started a program to adapt its products for local needs and languages. A risk of the A.I. divide, he said, is that “the benefits don’t get broadly distributed, they don’t get democratized.”
Tencent, Alibaba, Huawei, Google, Amazon, Hetzner and OVHcloud declined to comment.
The gap has led to brain drains. In Argentina, Dr. Wolovick, 51, the computer science professor, cannot offer much compute power. His top students regularly leave for the United States or Europe, where they can get access to GPUs, he said.
“Sometimes I want to cry, but I don’t give up,” he said. “I keep talking to people and saying: ‘I need more GPUs. I need more GPUs.’”
Few Choices
The uneven distribution of A.I. computing power has split the world into two camps: nations that rely on China and those that depend on the United States.
The two countries not only control the most data centers but are set to build more than others by far. And they have wielded their tech advantage to exert influence. The Biden and Trump administrations have used trade restrictions to control which countries can buy powerful A.I. chips, allowing the United States to pick winners. China has used state-backed loans to encourage sales of its companies’ networking equipment and data centers.
The effects are evident in Southeast Asia and the Middle East.
In the 2010s, Chinese companies made inroads into the tech infrastructure of Saudi Arabia and the Emirates, which are key American partners, with official visits and generous financing. The United States sought to use its A.I. lead to push back. In one deal with the Biden administration, an Emirati company promised to keep out Chinese technology in exchange for access to A.I. technology from Nvidia and Microsoft.
In May, President Trump signed additional deals to give Saudi Arabia and the Emirates even more access to American chips.
A similar jostling is taking place in Southeast Asia. Chinese and U.S. companies like Amazon, Alibaba, Nvidia, Google and ByteDance, the owner of TikTok, are building data centers in Singapore and Malaysia to deliver services across Asia.
Globally, the United States has the lead, with American companies building 63 A.I computing hubs outside the country’s borders, compared with 19 by China, according to the Oxford data. All but three of the data centers operated by Chinese firms outside their home country use chips from Nvidia, despite efforts by China to produce competing chips. Chinese firms were able to buy Nvidia chips before U.S. government restrictions.
Companies and countries throughout the world rely mostly on major American and Chinese cloud operators for A.I. facilities.
Where the World Gets Its A.I.
Even U.S.-friendly countries have been left out of the A.I. race by trade limits. Last year, William Ruto, Kenya’s president, visited Washington for a state dinner hosted by President Joseph R. Biden Jr. Several months later, Kenya was omitted from a list of countries that had open access to needed semiconductors.
That has given China an opening, even though experts consider the country’s A.I. chips to be less advanced. In Africa, policymakers are talking with Huawei, which is developing its own A.I. chips, about converting existing data centers to include Chinese-made chips, said Mr. Koné of Smart Africa.
“Africa will strike a deal with whoever can give access to GPUs,” he said.
If You Build It
Alarmed by the concentration of A.I. power, many countries and regions are trying to close the gap. They are providing access to land and cheaper energy, fast-tracking development permits and using public funds and other resources to acquire chips and construct data centers. The goal is to create “sovereign A.I.” available to local businesses and institutions.
In India, the government is subsidizing compute power and the creation of an A.I. model proficient in the country’s languages. In Africa, governments are discussing collaborating on regional compute hubs. Brazil has pledged $4 billion on A.I. projects.
“Instead of waiting for A.I. to come from China, the U.S., South Korea, Japan, why not have our own?” Brazil’s president, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, said last year when he proposed the investment plan.
Even in Europe, there is growing concern that American companies control most of the data centers. In February, the European Union outlined plans to invest 200 billion euros for A.I. projects, including new data centers across the 27-nation bloc.
Mathias Nobauer, the chief executive of Exoscale, a cloud computing provider in Switzerland, said many European businesses want to reduce their reliance on U.S. tech companies. Such a change will take time and “doesn’t happen overnight,” he said.
Still, closing the divide is likely to require help from the United States or China.
Cassava, a tech company founded by a Zimbabwean billionaire, Strive Masiyiwa, is scheduled to open one of Africa’s most advanced data centers this summer. The plans, three years in the making, culminated in an October meeting in California between Cassava executives and Jensen Huang, Nvidia’s chief executive, to buy hundreds of his company’s chips. Google is also one of Cassava’s investors.
The data center is part of a $500 million effort to build five such facilities across Africa. Even so, Cassava expects it to address only 10 percent to 20 percent of the region’s demand for A.I. At least 3,000 start-ups have expressed interest in using the computing systems.
“I don’t think Africa can afford to outsource this A.I. sovereignty to others,” said Hardy Pemhiwa, Cassava’s chief executive. “We absolutely have to focus on and ensure that we don’t get left behind.”
California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta is asking a judge to unravel Nexstar Media Group’s $6.2-billion acquisition of rival TV station owner Tegna — the latest in a flurry of merger twists.
Nexstar announced late Thursday that it had consummated the Tegna takeover — despite a lawsuit that Bonta and seven other Democratic state attorneys general had filed in federal court the previous day.
The state officials sued to block the union of the station groups, alleging the new colossus would violate antitrust rules and a federal law limiting broadcast station ownership.
The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court in Sacramento.
Hours after that filing, the Federal Communications Commission’s Media Bureau in Washington approved Nexstar’s deal — clearing the way for the nation’s largest TV station group owner to swallow the third-largest station group.
The purchase gives Nexstar, which owns KTLA-TV Channel 5 in Los Angeles, 265 television stations.
On Friday, Bonta and the other attorneys general asked a judge for a temporary restraining order to freeze the takeover until a hearing on the matter.
“Nexstar/Tegna is not a done deal,” Bonta said Friday in a statement. “I will not let these corporate behemoths merge without a fight.”
It was not immediately clear when a judge might rule on the request for a restraining order.
Bonta appeared at a lawmakers’ hearing in Burbank on Friday to explore the impacts of another huge merger: Paramount Skydance’s proposed $111-billion takeover of Warner Bros. Discovery. Bonta’s office has opened an investigation into the Paramount-Warner merger, but Bonta said Friday that no decision has been made on whether he or other attorneys general will seek to block it.
For now, he is focused on derailing the Nexstar-Tegna deal.
“We filed a suit before that deal closed,” Bonta told The Times. “We think our case is extremely strong. There is no way this should be approved.”
At issue is whether the FCC had the power to grant a waiver that would allow Nexstar to control TV stations that reach nearly 80% of U.S. households. In 2003, Congress set the station ownership cap at 39% of the country.
The Department of Justice also gave its blessing to close the deal.
The three FCC commissioners did not vote on the matter — despite pleas from the lone Democrat on the panel who advocated for an open process.
Approval of the merger was rapid after President Trump endorsed the consolidation on Feb. 7.
“We need more competition against THE ENEMY, the Fake News National TV Networks,” Trump wrote in his social media post.
“Letting Good Deals get done like Nexstar – Tegna will help knock out the Fake News because there will be more competition, and at a higher and more sophisticated level,” Trump wrote. “GET THAT DEAL DONE!”
In a statement Thursday, Nexstar founder and chief executive Perry Sook thanked Trump and FCC Chairman Brendan Carr, saying Nexstar was “grateful” they recognized the “dynamic forces shaping the media landscape” and allowed the transaction to move forward.
Multiple strikes
in Tehran
At least 37 energy oil refineries, natural gas fields and other energy sites in nine countries have been damaged since the United States and Israel began bombarding Iran, a New York Times analysis found. Some have been struck by drones. Several have been hit more than once.
As the attacks escalate, both sides increasingly view energy as a potent target — one that is capable of inflicting severe economic pain. Iran depends on oil and natural gas to keep the lights on and its government running, while the United States wants to prevent prices from soaring further and damaging the underpinnings of the global order.
The question is no longer just when Iran’s tight grip on the Strait of Hormuz, a narrow but critical passage on its southern coast, will ease enough for most ships to pass. It is also how long it will take to complete repairs needed to produce and process oil and natural gas in the first place.
“The longer this war goes on, the more likely it is that the two sides are going to play their strongest energy-leverage cards,” said Clayton Seigle, an energy expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington research group. “The attacks on facilities are not easily reversible.”
To count the number of attacks and disruptions at energy facilities in the region, The New York Times reviewed statements from government, state-run and private energy companies. The Times also reviewed lists compiled by ClearView Energy Partners and the Institute for the Study of War, two research firms, and subsequently verified their findings.
Through Friday, The Times had found a total of 45 attacks, though there is no official accounting and more may have occurred. Strikes occur seemingly every day.
The importance of energy in the war became even clearer after Israel struck facilities tied to Iran’s South Pars gas field on Wednesday. Iran responded by lashing out across the Gulf. At least 10 sites were damaged this week, The Times found, including an energy hub in Qatar, as well as oil refineries in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Israel.
The various attacks sent oil and natural gas prices soaring as traders worried that much of the Gulf’s energy could remain effectively landlocked for a while, possibly months. Brent crude, the international oil benchmark, briefly topped $119 a barrel on Thursday morning before retreating. Oil fetched less than $73 a barrel before the war started on Feb. 28, a price that reflected the possibility of a war.
“It’s been the cumulative effect that’s really driven this crisis,” said Raad Alkadiri, a Washington-based political risk analyst who specializes in energy and the Middle East.
While oil has been front and center, analysts are especially concerned about the damage to the world’s largest natural-gas export terminal, called Ras Laffan, on Qatar’s coast.
The sprawling facility, which is operated by the state-owned QatarEnergy company, cools natural gas into liquid that can be loaded onto tankers and shipped. But Qatar said on the third day of the war that it had stopped producing liquefied natural gas, citing military attacks.
This week’s strikes caused further damage, compromising 17 percent of the country’s L.N.G. export capacity, QatarEnergy said on Thursday, adding that repairing the damage could take up to five years.
There is no easy replacement for that fuel, which is used to generate electricity and heat homes. And there is little spare L.N.G. capacity in other countries.
Other points of vulnerability include the oil export terminals where the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia are rerouting oil to avoid the Strait of Hormuz. One of those areas, in the Emirates, was targeted as recently as this week. A refinery near the other, in Saudi Arabia, was also hit by a drone.
“It could become a lot worse if the craziness continues to prevail,” said Charif Souki, a former chief executive of Houston-based Cheniere Energy, a large L.N.G. company. “But there are so many people who have a vested interest in not letting it get too far out of hand.”
Indeed, countries around the world have agreed to release oil from emergency stores to stem rising prices. The U.S. military is also attacking Iranian vessels and drones to try to clear the Strait of Hormuz, and the Trump administration said it would lift sanctions on Iranian oil to nudge prices down.
In many cases, it is hard to know how severe the damage has been to a facility.
As Kevin Book, managing director of ClearView Energy Partners put it, “The last thing they probably want to do is tell Iran, ‘You missed me, try again.’”
Even when companies have been more forthcoming, their disclosures have sometimes only raised more questions.
Mr. Souki said he was surprised to hear that QatarEnergy expected it would take up to five years to repair its L.N.G. facilities. “I think he’s hedging his bets at the moment,” Mr. Souki said, referring to QatarEnergy’s chief executive. “You can always give good news later.”
Artificial intelligence powerhouse Anthropic’s battle with the Pentagon has sparked some soul-searching in Silicon Valley that could reshape the tech sector’s complicated relationship with war and the White House.
Anthropic is the San Francisco-based startup behind the chatbot Claude and some of the most powerful AI on the market. In its negotiations with the military, it has demanded guardrails on how its technology is used.
The military said it refused to be beholden to a corporation and pushed back, labeling Anthropic a threat akin to an enemy foreign power and blocking it from some government contracts.
Tech leaders have quietly backed Anthropic, saying that AI isn’t ready for some weapons and that strong-arming companies is counterproductive and antidemocratic. President Trump called Anthropic a bunch of “left-wing nut jobs.”
How this showdown plays out will affect not only Anthropic’s booming business but also the way tech titans and other corporations work with an administration known for lashing out at resisters, said Alan Rozenshtein, an associate professor at the University of Minnesota Law School.
“On the one hand, it could cause the government’s other Silicon Valley suppliers to be more compliant, lest they be treated like Anthropic has been,” he said. “On the other hand, it could lead more companies to avoid doing business with the government at all to avoid the risk of something like this happening to them.”
As some tech trailblazers in recent years have become more comfortable with developing weapons, Southern California has emerged as a hub for defense tech startups. With a long history in defense, it has the factories, engineers and aerospace expertise to turn venture funding and military demand into weapons, satellites and other advanced systems.
The fallout from Anthropic’s showdown with the Trump administration will help determine the local winners and losers in the sector in the coming years.
While many of the key players in tech have been reluctant to join the brawl in a high-profile manner, the positions on different sides are laid out in a court case that Anthropic has pursued to get off the Pentagon’s blacklist.
Anthropic filed the lawsuit in the U.S. District Court in the Northern District of California and a petition for review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on March 9. The company is asking the court to overturn its designation as a “supply chain risk” and block the Trump administration from enforcing the government’s ban on its technology.
“The consequences of this case are enormous,” Anthropic’s lawsuit said. “The federal government retaliated against a leading frontier AI developer for adhering to its protected viewpoint on a subject of great public significance — AI safety and the limitations of its own AI models — in violation of the Constitution and laws of the United States.”
Some of Anthropic’s biggest concerns are that its technology could be used for government surveillance or autonomous weapons. It has been asking for assurances in the wording of its contracts that its AI would not be used for these purposes. While the government said it would not use the tech for those purposes, it was unable to provide Anthropic with the assurance it wanted.
Tech industry groups, Microsoft and workers from Google and OpenAI have backed Anthropic in its legal fight against the Trump administration, adding their own views to its case.
On Tuesday, lawyers for the U.S. government said in a court filing that the Defense Department started to wonder whether Anthropic could be trusted.
“Anthropic could attempt to disable its technology or preemptively alter the behavior of its model either before or during ongoing warfighting operations, if Anthropic — in its discretion — feels that its corporate ‘red lines’ are being crossed,” the government said in the filing.
The Department of Defense and Anthropic declined to comment.
The tech industry has a long, complicated history of working with the military. In the 1960s, the Department of Defense developed the internet’s predecessor, ARPAnet, to help keep military and government computers secure.
For much of this century, the big tech companies, as well as their investors, have often tried to avoid developing or promoting things that helped spy on people or kill them. Google, once known for its motto “Don’t Be Evil,” didn’t renew a controversial Pentagon contract, Project Maven, in 2018 after thousands of workers protested over concerns that AI would be used to analyze drone surveillance footage.
That has changed in recent years as there has been more money to be made in tech fixes for military problems.
Benjamin Lawrence, a senior lead analyst at CB Insights, said that advancements in AI and major events, such as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022, helped fuel a surge in venture capital investment in defense tech.
“It caused a huge shift with a lot of traditional investors looking at defense tech in a more positive light because you have a sovereign democratic nation that was invaded,” he said.
The world’s most powerful tech companies have been partnering with defense tech startups and securing government contracts.
Google has been offering AI tools to civilians and military personnel for unclassified work. The Department of Defense also awarded a $200-million contract to Google Public Sector, a division that works with government agencies and education institutions, to accelerate AI and cloud capabilities.
The industry’s allegiance with the White House and its military ambitions was strengthened with the arrival of the second Trump administration. Many of the top executives of the tech world have been supporting and advising Trump.
The recent strong-arming of one of the thought leaders of the AI revolution, however, has given many pause. Some of the resistance echoes the earlier era when the tech industry was suspicious of how governments would use its innovations.
The tech industry finds itself in a tricky spot after Anthropic’s clashes with the Pentagon. In late February, the public feud escalated after Trump assailed Anthropic and ordered government agencies to stop using its technology. His administration labeled Anthropic a “supply chain risk,” prompting the company to sue.
Trump’s actions could jeopardize hundreds of millions of dollars in contracts it has with private parties, according to Anthropic’s lawsuit. Federal agencies have started to cancel contracts.
Last week, tech industry groups such as TechNet, whose members include Anthropic, Meta, OpenAI, Nvidia, Google and other major companies, said in an amicus brief that blacklisting an American company “engenders uncertainty throughout the broader industry.”
“Treating an American technology company as a foreign adversary, rather than an asset, has a chilling effect on U.S. innovation and further emboldens China’s efforts to export its own government-backed AI technology,” the brief said.
Microsoft has also backed Anthropic, urging the court to temporarily block Trump from blacklisting the AI company. Labeling Anthropic as a supply chain risk means that Microsoft and other government suppliers will have to use “significant resources” to determine how excluding Anthropic would affect their contracts.
The U.S. government said in its filing that its concerns with Anthropic focus on its conduct and are unrelated to its speech. But Anthropic and the tech industry say the move would hurt their businesses.
In addition to Trump’s harsh criticism of the company, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth accused Anthropic of delivering a “master class in arrogance and betrayal.”
Anduril’s founder, Palmer Luckey, backed the Pentagon’s position, stating that it should be elected officials, not corporate executives, making military decisions. Anthropic countered, stating in a blog post it “understands that the Department of War, not private companies, makes military decisions.”
As this battle plays out, some experts say Anthropic would probably have an upper hand in court.
In its lawsuit, Anthropic said the Trump administration violated a law for labeling a company a supply chain risk, noting it doesn’t have ties to a U.S. “adversary,” such as China or Iran.
Anthropic also said the Trump administration retaliated against the company for its speech and other protected activities, violating the 1st Amendment.
“They’re just lashing out,” said Rozenshtein of the University of Minnesota Law School. “I think that’s a lot of what this is.”
South Carolina vs Southern University predictions, picks, odds for NCAA Tournament First Round
Washington vs. South Dakota State – First round NCAA tournament extended highlights
NC State advances past Tennessee, 76-61
No. 23 Texas A&M Drops Home SEC Opener To No. 7 Georgia
Utah Fought Hard, Fell Short Against Anaheim | Utah Mammoth
Florida High School Football Rankings: Top 25 teams – Oct. 21
How old is Bo Nix? What to know about Oregon quarterback ahead of 2024 NFL Draft
Cleary's 21 help Le Moyne down Central Connecticut State 69-64 in OT
99th annual Pony Swim held in Virginia
Indiana Members Credit Union announced as new anchor tenant at Bottleworks District
Read the Ruling in The Times’s Lawsuit Against the Pentagon
NYC Mayor Mamdani’s wife glorified terrorists in online posts, criticized US military: report
Curro Rodríguez: from bankruptcy to global water empire
Jury finds Elon Musk misled investors during Twitter purchase
Pritzker pushes prosecutions of Trump officials as part of Dem ‘Project 2029’ agenda
-
Detroit, MI2 days agoDrummer Brian Pastoria, longtime Detroit music advocate, dies at 68
-
Oklahoma7 days agoFamily rallies around Oklahoma father after head-on crash
-
Nebraska1 week agoWildfire forces immediate evacuation order for Farnam residents
-
Georgia5 days agoHow ICE plans for a detention warehouse pushed a Georgia town to fight back | CNN Politics
-
Massachusetts1 week agoMassachusetts community colleges to launch apprenticeship degree programs – The Boston Globe
-
Alaska6 days agoPolice looking for man considered ‘armed and dangerous’
-
Colorado1 week ago‘It’s Not a Penalty’: Bednar Rips Officials For MacKinnon Ejection | Colorado Hockey Now
-
Southwest1 week agoTalarico reportedly knew Colbert interview wouldn’t air on TV before he left to film it