logo
Forbes Daily: How Elon Musk's 2024 Political Donations Have Paid Off

Forbes Daily: How Elon Musk's 2024 Political Donations Have Paid Off

Forbes3 days ago

A small group of startups like OpenAI, Stripe and SpaceX are commanding massive valuations this year, helping their earliest backers rise in the ranks of Forbes' Midas List.
The 24th annual ranking of the world's top venture capitalists, out today, is once again topped by Sequoia investor Alfred Lin. Lin, who made early bets on Airbnb and DoorDash, also benefits from a 2021 investment in OpenAI at a $14 billion valuation (the ChatGPT-maker is currently worth $300 billion). And eight of this year's 15 newcomers join the list due to the surging valuations of startups like SpaceX, Databricks and Anthropic.
But with AI's potential to impact nearly every sector, and a handful of startups that appear ready to go public this year, there are sure to be more changes ahead.
Photo byElon Musk, the largest individual donor in the 2024 election cycle, said he plans to scale back his political giving. But in just four months, the Trump Administration has already given him plenty of return on his investment. His businesses face less scrutiny, they're positioned to receive billions of dollars in fresh government contracts, and Musk is far richer than he was before he endorsed President Donald Trump, with a net worth of about $419 billion.
In his latest change of heart on tariffs, Trump said he would delay his planned 50% tariffs on goods from the European Union to allow for more negotiations, leading to a surge in U.S. stock futures and European markets. Trump said on Truth Social that after receiving a call from European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, he agreed to extend the deadline to July 9, and von der Leyen told him trade talks would 'begin rapidly.'
Richard White
Australian billionaire Richard White's logistics software company WiseTech Global will purchase U.S.-based cloud computing firm E2open for $2.1 billion, in a deal that will help WiseTech increase its customer base. White was ranked seventh on Forbes Asia's most recent list of Australia's 50 richest people, with a net worth of $10.1 billion.
House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) brushed off concerns about President Donald Trump's alleged business conflicts and recent dinner with top investors in his meme coin, claiming Republicans don't have to investigate the president's business dealings because Trump does everything 'out in the open.' When asked by CNN about Trump's crypto dinner, which has raised concerns about transparency and conflicts of interest, Johnson said he didn't 'know anything' about the dinner, but defended the president as 'one of the greatest dealmakers of all time.'
In a post on Truth Social over the weekend, President Donald Trump attacked Russian President Vladimir Putin and criticized Moscow's aerial attacks on Ukrainian cities, signaling his frustration over the stalled peace talks between Russia and Ukraine. In his most direct criticism of Putin's handling of the war, the president criticized the Russian president for 'needlessly killing a lot of people.' Trump also said Sunday that he was 'absolutely' considering fresh sanctions against Russia.
Most Southwest Airlines passengers will need to pay to check bags starting this week.
Southwest Airlines passengers will have to pay $35 for one checked bag and $45 for a second starting Wednesday, several outlets reported, as the airline ends its long-running free baggage policy. Additionally, Southwest will roll out a new 'basic' fare tier this week—a low-cost, no-frills offering that will replace the airline's current 'Wanna Get Away' tier.
Thousands of flights across the U.S. were delayed Monday, as severe thunderstorms in the South, Plains and Mississippi Valley disrupted Memorial Day weekend travel, with the New York Times reporting that more than 1,000 flights in and out of Dallas Fort Worth alone experienced delays. The holiday weekend was the busiest travel period since the TSA began requiring REAL ID for passengers earlier this month.
Illustration by Cecilia Runxi Zhang for Forbes; PhotoFederal marijuana reform has come to a halt with President Donald Trump in the White House, and some U.S. cannabis companies are investing hundreds of millions of dollars in the EU. While the market there is small, it's expected to grow more quickly than the U.S. cannabis market in the next few years. And while cannabis companies in the U.S. cannot transport products across state lines, EU businesses can grow the crop in one country and export products around the continent.
Three people were sentenced to prison over a scheme to defraud the Georgia Department of Labor out of tens of millions of dollars intended to help unemployed individuals during the Covid-19 pandemic. The individuals and their co-conspirators filed over 5,000 fraudulent unemployment insurance claims, resulting in at least $30 million in stolen benefits, according to court documents and evidence.
Kiran Mazumdar-Shaw
After her ambition to become a brewmaster was thwarted, Indian billionaire Kiran Mazumdar-Shaw channeled her frustrations into building an international knockoff drug powerhouse. She's now one of the world's most successful—and richest—female entrepreneurs.
Mazumdar-Shaw helped start Biocon, which in 2000 began brewing up pharmaceuticals—starting with insulin. Insulin is one of the simplest 'biologics,' drugs derived from a living source that are increasingly used to treat everything from cancer to immune system disorders. More complicated biologics like gene therapies and monoclonal antibodies are difficult to make—and extremely expensive.
It's an enormous market, but exactly how big is impossible to say. Biologics accounted for $324 billion in spending at list prices in 2023, according to health care research firm Iqvia, but that number doesn't account for the significant rebates that branded drugmakers often offer to keep their market share, lowering what insurers and patients pay but obfuscating total costs.
Mazumdar-Shaw, now 72, started out in the Indian market but now sells drugs globally—and is increasingly focused on the U.S. and Canada, which represent some 40% of its biologics sales. She realized early that finding a cheaper way to make such complex, life-saving drugs not only made them more accessible but was also good business.
Biocon, which is publicly traded in India, brings in $1.9 billion in revenue by selling dozens of generic drugs and 'biosimilar' medications. While Forbes' Self-Made Women list includes only women from the United States, Mazumdar-Shaw would easily make the top 20 were she American, with a fortune that Forbes estimates to be $3.2 billion.
WHY IT MATTERS The biggest part of Mazumdar-Shaw's empire is a majority-owned private subsidiary called Biocon Biologics, which focuses on biosimilars and represents nearly 55% of the parent company's revenue. Akin to what generics are for chemically synthesized drugs, these cheaper alternatives mimic biologic drugs.
Though biosimilars are much more expensive to make than generics, requiring more than $100 million to develop, they can drastically reduce patient costs. Iqvia estimates biosimilars have saved the U.S. health care system $36 billion at list prices since 2015.
MORE This Pharma Company Is Betting Big On A Chinese Ozempic Rival
With little faith among investors that the U.S. will be able to rein in its trillion-dollar deficits, Treasury bonds are not the safe haven they used to be. Because of this—as well as the ongoing war in Ukraine—international central bankers are continuing to add to their gold piles, raising the price of the commodity:
$4,000 an ounce: The price that Goldman Sachs expects gold to reach in the next two years—a roughly 30% increase from the current price—if the buying binge continues
22 tons: How much gold per month central banks have purchased since Russia's invasion of Ukraine in 2022, an increase from 17 tons per month prior to the war
20%: How much China, the world's biggest gold-mining country, aims to grow its gold holdings to as a share of reserves
The class of 2025 is graduating into a changing economy: A tightening job market has increased competition for entry-level positions and the rise of AI has hiring managers calling for an emphasis on candidates' humanity. Some of this year's notable commencement speakers have addressed these challenges in their advice to graduates. Philadelphia Eagles wide receiver A.J. Brown, for instance, encouraged students at the University of Mississippi to think of themselves as their own operation: 'Your discipline is your product, your name is your brand, your habits are your investments.'
Americans flocked to movie theaters over the holiday weekend, with Disney's live-action 'Lilo & Stitch' and 'Mission: Impossible – The Final Reckoning' leading the way to an estimated $322 million at the box office. That total beats out the previous Memorial Day weekend record of $314 million in 2013, led by which two blockbuster films?
A. 'Despicable Me 2' and 'The Lone Ranger'
B. 'Men In Black 3' and 'The Avengers'
C. 'Tomorrowland' and 'Pitch Perfect 2'
D. 'Fast & Furious 6' and 'The Hangover Part III'
Check your answer.
Thanks for reading! This edition of Forbes Daily was edited by Sarah Whitmire and Chris Dobstaff.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

OpenAI Can Stop Pretending
OpenAI Can Stop Pretending

Yahoo

time23 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

OpenAI Can Stop Pretending

OpenAI is a strange company for strange times. Valued at $300 billion—roughly the same as seven Fords or one and a half PepsiCos—the AI start-up has an era-defining product in ChatGPT and is racing to be the first to build superintelligent machines. The company is also, to the apparent frustration of its CEO Sam Altman, beholden to its nonprofit status. When OpenAI was founded in 2015, it was meant to be a research lab that would work toward the goal of AI that is 'safe' and 'benefits all of humanity.' There wasn't supposed to be any pressure—or desire, really—to make money. Later, in 2019, OpenAI created a for-profit subsidiary to better attract investors—the types of people who might otherwise turn to the less scrupulous corporations that dot Silicon Valley. But even then, that part of the organization was under the nonprofit side's control. At the time, it had released no consumer products and capped how much money its investors could make. Then came ChatGPT. OpenAI's leadership had intended for the bot to provide insight into how people would use AI without any particular hope for widespread adoption. But ChatGPT became a hit, kicking 'off a growth curve like nothing we have ever seen,' as Altman wrote in an essay this past January. The product was so alluring that the entire tech industry seemed to pivot overnight into an AI arms race. Now, two and a half years since the chatbot's release, Altman says some half a billion people use the program each week, and he is chasing that success with new features and products—for shopping, coding, health care, finance, and seemingly any other industry imaginable. OpenAI is behaving like a typical business, because its rivals are typical businesses, and massive ones at that: Google and Meta, among others. [Read: OpenAI's ambitions just became crystal clear] Now 2015 feels like a very long time ago, and the charitable origins have turned into a ball and chain for OpenAI. Last December, after facing concerns from potential investors that pouring money into the company wouldn't pay off because of the nonprofit mission and complicated governance structure, the organization announced plans to change that: OpenAI was seeking to transition to a for-profit. The company argued that this was necessary to meet the tremendous costs of building advanced AI models. A nonprofit arm would still exist, though it would separately pursue 'charitable initiatives'—and it would not have any say over the actions of the for-profit, which would convert into a public-benefit corporation, or PBC. Corporate backers appeared satisfied: In March, the Japanese firm Softbank conditioned billions of dollars in investments on OpenAI changing its structure. Resistance came as swiftly as the new funding. Elon Musk—a co-founder of OpenAI who has since created his own rival firm, xAI, and seems to take every opportunity to undermine Altman—wrote on X that OpenAI 'was funded as an open source, nonprofit, but has become a closed source, profit-maximizer.' He had already sued the company for abandoning its founding mission in favor of financial gain, and claimed that the December proposal was further proof. Many unlikely allies emerged soon after. Attorneys general in multiple states, nonprofit groups, former OpenAI employees, outside AI experts, economists, lawyers, and three Nobel laureates all have raised concerns about the pivot, even petitioning to submit briefs to Musk's lawsuit. OpenAI backtracked, announcing a new plan earlier this month that would have the nonprofit remain in charge. Steve Sharpe, a spokesperson for OpenAI, told me over email that the new proposed structure 'puts us on the best path to' build a technology 'that could become one of the most powerful and beneficial tools in human history.' (The Atlantic entered into a corporate partnership with OpenAI in 2024.) Yet OpenAI's pursuit of industry-wide dominance shows no real signs of having hit a roadblock. The company has a close relationship with the Trump administration and is leading perhaps the biggest AI infrastructure buildout in history. Just this month, OpenAI announced a partnership with the United Arab Emirates and an expansion into personal gadgets—a forthcoming 'family of devices' developed with Jony Ive, former chief design officer at Apple. For-profit or not, the future of AI still appears to be very much in Altman's hands. Why all the worry about corporate structure anyway? Governance, boardroom processes, legal arcana—these things are not what sci-fi dreams are made of. Yet those concerned with the societal dangers that generative AI, and thus OpenAI, pose feel these matters are of profound importance. The still more powerful artificial 'general' intelligence, or AGI, that OpenAI and its competitors are chasing could theoretically cause mass unemployment, worsen the spread of misinformation, and violate all sorts of privacy laws. In the highest-flung doomsday scenarios, the technology brings about civilizational collapse. Altman has expressed these concerns himself—and so OpenAI's 2019 structure, which gave the nonprofit final say over the for-profit's actions, was meant to guide the company toward building the technology responsibly instead of rushing to release new AI products, sell subscriptions, and stay ahead of competitors. 'OpenAI's nonprofit mission, together with the legal structures committing it to that mission, were a big part of my decision to join and remain at the company,' Jacob Hilton, a former OpenAI employee who contributed to ChatGPT, among other projects, told me. In April, Hilton and a number of his former colleagues, represented by the Harvard law professor Lawrence Lessig, wrote a letter to the court hearing Musk's lawsuit, arguing that a large part of OpenAI's success depended on its commitment to safety and the benefit of humanity. To renege on, or at least minimize, that mission was a betrayal. The concerns extend well beyond former employees. Geoffrey Hinton, a computer scientist at the University of Toronto who last year received a Nobel Prize for his AI research, told me that OpenAI's original structure would better help 'prevent a super intelligent AI from ever wanting to take over.' Hinton is one of the Nobel laureates who has publicly opposed the tech company's for-profit shift, alongside the economists Joseph Stiglitz and Oliver Hart. The three academics, joining a number of influential lawyers, economists, and AI experts, in addition to several former OpenAI employees, including Hilton, signed an open letter in April urging the attorneys general in Delaware and California—where the company's nonprofit was incorporated and where the company is headquartered, respectively—to closely investigate the December proposal. According to its most recent tax filing, OpenAI is intended to build AGI 'that safely benefits humanity, unconstrained by a need to generate financial return,' so disempowering the nonprofit seemed, to the signatories, self-evidently contradictory. Read: 'We're definitely going to build a bunker before we release AGI' In its initial proposal to transition to a for-profit, OpenAI still would have had some accountability as a public-benefit corporation: A PBC legally has to try to make profits for shareholders alongside pursuing a designated 'public benefit' (in this case, building 'safe' and 'beneficial' AI as outlined in OpenAI's founding mission). In its December announcement, OpenAI described the restructure as 'the next step in our mission.' But Michael Dorff, another signatory to the open letter and a law professor at UCLA who studies public-benefit corporations, explained to me that PBCs aren't necessarily an effective way to bring about public good. 'They are not great enforcement tools,' he said—they can 'nudge' a company toward a given cause but do not give regulators much authority over that commitment. (Anthropic and xAI, two of OpenAI's main competitors, are also public-benefit corporations.) OpenAI's proposed conversion also raised a whole other issue—a precedent for taking resources accrued under charitable intentions and repurposing them for profitable pursuits. And so yet another coalition, composed of nonprofits and advocacy groups, wrote its own petition for OpenAI's plans to be investigated, with the aim of preventing charitable organizations from being leveraged for financial gain in the future. Regulators, it turned out, were already watching. Three days after OpenAI's December announcement of the plans to revoke nonprofit oversight, Kathy Jennings, the attorney general of Delaware, notified the court presiding over Musk's lawsuit that her office was reviewing the proposed restructure to ensure that the corporation was fulfilling its charitable interest to build AI that benefits all of humanity. California's attorney general, Rob Bonta, was reviewing the restructure, as well. This ultimately led OpenAI to change plans. 'We made the decision for the nonprofit to stay in control after hearing from civic leaders and having discussions with the offices of the Attorneys General of California and Delaware,' Altman wrote in a letter to OpenAI employees earlier this month. The for-profit, meanwhile, will still transition to a PBC. The new plan is not yet a done deal: The offices of the attorneys general told me that they are reviewing the new proposal. Microsoft, OpenAI's closest corporate partner, has not yet agreed to the new structure. One could be forgiven for wondering what all the drama is for. Amid tension over OpenAI's corporate structure, the organization's corporate development hasn't so much as flinched. In just the past few weeks, the company has announced a new CEO of applications, someone to directly oversee and expand business operations; OpenAI for Countries, an initiative focused on building AI infrastructure around the world; and Codex, a powerful AI 'agent' that does coding tasks. To OpenAI, these endeavors legitimately contribute to benefiting humanity: building more and more useful AI tools; bringing those tools and the necessary infrastructure to run them to people around the world; drastically increasing the productivity of software engineers. No matter OpenAI's ultimate aims, in a race against Google and Meta, some commercial moves are necessary to stay ahead. And enriching OpenAI's investors and improving people's lives are not necessarily mutually exclusive. The greater issue is this: There is no universal definition for 'safe' or 'beneficial' AI. A chatbot might help doctors process paperwork faster and help a student float through high school without learning a thing; an AI research assistant could help climate scientists arrive at novel insights while also consuming huge amounts of water and fossil fuels. Whatever definition OpenAI applies will be largely determined by its board. Altman, in his May letter to employees, contended that OpenAI is on the best path 'to continue to make rapid, safe progress and to put great AI in the hands of everyone.' But everyone, in this case, has to trust OpenAI's definition of safe progress. The nonprofit has not always been the most effective check on the company. In 2023, the nonprofit board—which then and now had 'control' over the for-profit subsidiary—removed Altman from his position as CEO. But the company's employees revolted, and he was reinstated shortly thereafter with the support of Microsoft. In other words, 'control' on paper does not always amount to much in reality. Sharpe, the OpenAI spokesperson, said the nonprofit will be able to appoint and remove directors to OpenAI's separate for-profit board, but declined to clarify whether its board will be able to remove executives (such as the CEO). The company is 'continuing to work through the specific governance mandate in consultation with relevant stakeholders,' he said. Sharpe also told me that OpenAI will remove the cap on shareholder returns, which he said will satisfy the conditions for SoftBank's billions of dollars in investment. A top SoftBank executive has said 'nothing has really changed' with OpenAI's restructure, despite the nonprofit retaining control. If investors are now satisfied, the underlying legal structure is irrelevant. Marc Toberoff, a lawyer representing Musk in his lawsuit against OpenAI, wrote in a statement that 'SoftBank pulled back the curtain on OpenAI's corporate theater and said the quiet part out loud. OpenAI's recent 'restructuring' proposal is nothing but window dressing.' Lessig, the lawyer who represented the former OpenAI employees, told me that 'it's outrageous that we are allowing the development of this potentially catastrophic technology with nobody at any level doing any effective oversight of it.' Two years ago, Altman, in Senate testimony, seemed to agree with that notion: He told lawmakers that 'regulatory intervention by governments will be critical to mitigate the risks' of powerful AI. But earlier this month, only a few days after writing to his employees and investors that 'as AI accelerates, our commitment to safety grows stronger,' he told the Senate something else: Too much regulation would be 'disastrous' for America's AI industry. Perhaps—but it might also be in the best interests of humanity. Article originally published at The Atlantic

Faruqi & Faruqi Reminds DoubleVerify Investors of the Pending Class Action Lawsuit with a Lead Plaintiff Deadline of July 21, 2025
Faruqi & Faruqi Reminds DoubleVerify Investors of the Pending Class Action Lawsuit with a Lead Plaintiff Deadline of July 21, 2025

Associated Press

time30 minutes ago

  • Associated Press

Faruqi & Faruqi Reminds DoubleVerify Investors of the Pending Class Action Lawsuit with a Lead Plaintiff Deadline of July 21, 2025

Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP Securities Litigation Partner James (Josh) Wilson Encourages Investors Who Suffered Losses Exceeding $75,000 In DoubleVerify To Contact Him Directly To Discuss Their Options If you suffered losses exceeding $75,000 in DoubleVerify between November 10, 2023 and February 27, 2025 and would like to discuss your legal rights, call Faruqi & Faruqi partner Josh Wilson directly at 877-247-4292 or 212-983-9330 (Ext. 1310). [You may also click here for additional information] New York, New York--(Newsfile Corp. - May 30, 2025) - Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a leading national securities law firm, is investigating potential claims against DoubleVerify Holdings, Inc. ('DoubleVerify' or the 'Company') (NYSE: DV) and reminds investors of the July 21, 2025 deadline to seek the role of lead plaintiff in a federal securities class action that has been filed against the Company. [ This image cannot be displayed. Please visit the source: ] Faruqi & Faruqi is a leading national securities law firm with offices in New York, Pennsylvania, California and Georgia. The firm has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors since its founding in 1995. See As detailed below, the complaint alleges that the Company and its executives violated federal securities laws by making false and/or misleading statements and/or failing to disclose that: (a) DoubleVerify's customers were shifting their ad spending from open exchanges to closed platforms, where the Company's technological capabilities were limited and competed directly with native tools provided by platforms like Meta Platforms and Amazon; (b) DoubleVerify's ability to monetize on Activation Services, the Company's high-margin advertising optimization services segment, was limited because the development of its technology for closed platforms was significantly more expensive and time-consuming than disclosed to investors; (c) DoubleVerify's Activation Services in connection with certain closed platforms would take several years to monetize; (d) DoubleVerify's competitors were better positioned to incorporate AI into their offerings on closed platforms, which impaired DoubleVerify's ability to compete effectively and adversely impacted the Company's profits; (e) DoubleVerify systematically overbilled its customers for ad impressions served to declared bots operating out of known data center server farms; (f) DoubleVerify's risk disclosures were materially false and misleading because they characterized adverse facts that had already materialized as mere possibilities; and (g) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially false and/or misleading or lacked a reasonable basis. The complaint alleges that the truth was revealed on February 27, 2025, when DoubleVerify reported lower-than-expected fourth quarter 2024 sales and earnings due in part to reduced customer spending and the suspension of DoubleVerify services by a large customer. Defendants also disclosed that the shift of ad dollars from open exchanges to closed platforms was negatively impacting the Company. On this news, DoubleVerify's stock price dropped $7.83 per share, or 36%, from a closing price of $21.73 on February 27, 2025, to a closing price of $13.90 on February 28, 2025. The court-appointed lead plaintiff is the investor with the largest financial interest in the relief sought by the class who is adequate and typical of class members who directs and oversees the litigation on behalf of the putative class. Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. Your ability to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision to serve as a lead plaintiff or not. Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP also encourages anyone with information regarding DoubleVerify's conduct to contact the firm, including whistleblowers, former employees, shareholders and others. To learn more about the DoubleVerify Holdings, Inc. class action, go to or call Faruqi & Faruqi partner Josh Wilson directly at 877-247-4292 or 212-983-9330 (Ext. 1310). Follow us for updates on LinkedIn, on X, or on Facebook. Attorney Advertising. The law firm responsible for this advertisement is Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP ( ). Prior results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect to any future matter. We welcome the opportunity to discuss your particular case. All communications will be treated in a confidential manner. To view the source version of this press release, please visit

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store