FTC abandons Biden-era effort to block Microsoft's acquisition of Activision Blizzard

FTC abandons Biden-era effort to block Microsoft's acquisition of Activision Blizzard

The Republican-controlled Federal Trade Commission is abandoning a Biden-era effort to blockMicrosoft's purchase of "Call of Duty" video game maker Activision Blizzard. In an order issued Thursday, the FTC said it had determined that "the public interest is best served by dismissing the administrative litigation in this case." It was the second time in one day that the FTC pulled out of litigation begun during the Biden administration. Earlier Thursday, the FTC said it was dismissing alawsuit against PepsiCothat was filed by the Democratic-controlled FTC in January. Microsoft announced a $69 billion acquisition of Activision in January 2022. It's one of the most expensive tech acquisitions in history and was designed to boost sales of Microsoft's Xbox gaming console, which has lagged in sales behind Sony's PlayStation and Nintendo. In December 2022, the Federal Trade Commission – then led by Democratic Chairwoman Lina Khan -- sued to temporarily block the acquisition, saying it would let Microsoft suppress competitors who want access to Xbox and its subscription content. In July 2023, the U.S. District Court in Northern California denied the FTC's request to pause the acquisition, but the FTC appealed. Earlier this month, a federal appeals court also denied the FTC's request. In the meantime, Microsoft completed its purchase of Activision in October 2023 after it won approval from Britain'scompetition watchdog, which had also considered blocking the merger. Brad Smith, Microsoft's vice chairman and president, said Thursday in a statement on X that the decision is a victory forvideo gameplayers and for "common sense in Washington D.C." "We are grateful to the FTC for today's announcement," Smith said. Khan stepped down from the FTC whenPresident Donald Trumptook office in January, and TrumpfiredDemocratic Commissioners Rebecca Slaughter and Alvaro Bedoya in March. Bedoya and Slaughter have sued the Trump administration, saying their removal was illegal. Right now, the FTC is made up of three Republican commissioners, and it's unclear when the two Democrats on the commission will be replaced. A message seeking comment was left with the FTC. In the PepsiCo case, FTC Chairman Andrew Ferguson said the Biden-era FTC rushed to authorize a case just three days before Trump's inauguration. He said Thursday that the case, which alleged that PepsiCo was violating the law by giving unfair price advantages to Walmart, was a "dubious political stunt." But the FTC hasn't stood in the way of some Biden-era policies. Earlier this month, a rule the FTC announced in December requiring ticket sellers, hotels, vacation rental platforms and others to disclose their fees up frontwent into effect.

byDan Dunne

in

May 23, 2025

FTC abandons Biden-era effort to block Microsoft's acquisition of Activision Blizzard

FTC abandons Biden-era effort to block Microsoft's acquisition of Activision Blizzard The Republican-controlled Federal Trade Commission...

Read More

When Policymakers Ignore Economists' Warnings

When Policymakers Ignore Economists' Warnings

Winston Churchill (1874-1965), then Chancellor of the Exchequer in Britain, public speaking in Epping, 1924. Credit - Hulton-Deutsch Collection—Corbis/Getty Images History regularly shows that basing economic policy upon ideology, hunches, and gut instinct, rather than on sound economic analysis, is a recipe for disaster. When policymakers have ignored well-established economic principles and instead tried to upend the status quo without good reason,the results have been catastrophic. That bodes poorly for President Donald Trump's tariff policy, which experts warn willboth raise pricesand lead to aneconomic slowdownas other economies imposereciprocal tariffs on American exports. Given the historical experience it is worrying to hear economists argue that Trump's tariffs have raised the odds ofstagflation—heightened inflation and recession—to a level not seen in the last half century. Whether he backs off from tariffs or doubles down, the damage to domestic and international confidence in the U.S. may have already been inflicted. Policymakers have been falling prey to the lure of ignoring sound economics for centuries. In 1787, right after the ratification of the Constitution, the U.S. government charted the Bank of the United States. The brainchild of Alexander Hamilton, the Bank carried out some of the functions of a modern central bank, such as managing the money supply and undertaking a rudimentary form of macroeconomic policy and bank regulation. Founding fathers Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, who were initially skeptical of the Bank, eventually warmed to the idea as it reached the end of its 20-year charter in 1811. Unfortunately, a divided Congress was unable to pass a renewed charter and, without a charter, the Bank was forced to close. Read More:Why Economists Are Horrified by Trump's Tariff Math Five years—and one major panic—later, Congress passed, and President Madison signed a bill establishing a new Bank of the United States, known to historians as the Second Bank of the United States. The Bank's second incarnation, run by Nicholas Biddle, scion of a prominent Philadelphia family and Princeton valedictorian, was even moresophisticated and effective than the first. Like today's Federal Reserve, the Bank undertook a basic form of countercyclical monetary policy, stimulating the economy when it was slowing and restraining it when it was overheated. This contributed to a period of relative financial stability and robust economic growth during the turbulent early years of the country . When the Second Bank's charter was due to expire in 1836, Congress saw the Bank's merits and, at its request, passed a recharter bill in 1832. Unfortunately for the Bank, the recharter bill ran into opposition from one of President Trump's heroes,President Andrew Jackson. Jackson understood that the Bank had helped promote economic growth, but he opposed the Bank and personally disliked Biddle. Jackson, a frontiersman with limited formal education and a reputation as a dueler and a brawler, had a deep mistrust of those he viewed as entrenched elites—including the educated, refined Biddle—not unlikemany of Trump's followers today. Jackson disregarded sound economic reasoning, common sense, and the entreaties of Bank supporters and vetoed the recharter bill. Congress lacked the votes to override the veto, the Bank's charter lapsed, and it soon disappeared from the scene. The absence of the Bank's restraining hand on the rest of the banking system allowed individual banks to overissue bank notes, whichfueled inflation. This lack of restraint left the U.S. vulnerable to boom-bust financial crises, which plagued the country for the remainder of the century. Policy blunders like the one Jackson made were not limited to the U.S. or to the 19th century. In the 50 years before World War I, many countries adopted the gold standard, under which they fixed the exchange rate between their currency and gold. This meant that they were limited in the amount of money they could print by the stock of gold they held, in theory creating a stable money supply but dramatically limiting the scope of what policymakers could do to help the economy during recessions. Nowhere did the gold standard develop a more distinguished pedigree than in Britain, which established it in the 1700s and maintained it almost continuously until World War I. Most countries suspended the gold standard during the War but returned to it afterward. In Britain, in 1925, Winston Churchill, the Chancellor of the Exchequer (the British equivalent of the Secretary of the Treasury),decidedthat it was time to rejoin the gold standard at the exchange rate that had prevailed before World War I. Economists, however, raised concerns about the prospect. Because of high inflation during the War, returning to gold at the old exchange rate overvalued the British pound, which risked decimating Britain's export industries, forcing employers to impose huge wage cuts, and impoverishing British workers. The argument against the return to gold was made by the most famous economists of the day, Sweden's Gustav Castel and Britain's John Maynard Keynes.Keyneseven made his case in person at a private dinner party hosted by Churchill shortly before the return. Read More:Tariffs Don't Have to Make Economic Sense to Appeal to Trump Voters Yet, Churchill decided to ignore them, not because of any particular economic reasoning or evidence, but because of nostalgia, British pride, and his traditionalist ideology. Many British policymakers believed a return to gold was a return to the 19thcentury heyday of the British Empire. After Churchill announced the move, theEconomistechoed these sentiments, writing that "The war, with its temporary interruption of our mutual affairs, is over. " Great Britain had "the honor to pay" debts in their "accustomed manner." The results were disastrous. The British economy was sluggish compared with those in the U.S. and Europe during the 1920s. GDP in the U.S. and Europe grew by between 40% and 50% during the decade prior to the Great Depression; meanwhile, the British economy grew by less than 20% and wascharacterizedby contemporaries as being in "the doldrums." British workers, faced with wage cuts,launcheda general strike in 1926 that lasted nine days, and Britain's coal miners went out on strike for several months. Keynes' revenge came in the form of a pamphlet entitled:The Economic Consequences of Mr. Churchill. Despite the damage, British officials kept their country on the gold standard until 1931, when they were forced off by a financial crisis. Today, Trump threatens to make a mistake in the mold of Jackson's choice to veto the recharter of the Second Bank of the United States and Churchill's decision to return to the gold standard. Like these earlier decisions, Trump's fixation on tariffs comes mostly from his own prejudices, not from any sound economic theory. Hevenerates late 19th century Americawith its high tariffs, which heclaims helped propel the U.S. to wealth—despite historians dismissing this flawed understanding of the past. He has also arbitrarily decided that he does not want the U.S. to run a trade deficit with any country. Yet,economists have warned that this makes no sense. If the U.S. runs a surplus with one trading partner and an equally sized deficit with another, our overall trade will be in balance. To put it in everyday terms: it is perfectly fine to run a deficit with your grocer, as long as your credit with your employer is large enough to pay your bill. The lesson of the past is that ignoring experts and stubbornly persisting in his new tariff regime will prove catastrophic for the economy. Unlike previous policymakers, Trump still has a chance to avoid doubling down on his blunder. It might be optimistic to expect that Trump will back down on tariffs,although the 90-day pause he enactedon tariffs with China does give him an opening to do so—but he should. As John Maynard Keynes once said: "When I am wrong, I change my mind—what do you do?" Richard S. Grossman is the Andrews professor of economics at Wesleyan University and the author ofWRONG: Nine Economic Policy Disasters and What We Can Learn from Them(Oxford). Write toMade by History atmadebyhistory@time.com.

byDan Dunne

in

May 23, 2025

When Policymakers Ignore Economists' Warnings

When Policymakers Ignore Economists' Warnings Winston Churchill (1874-1965), then Chancellor of the Exchequer in Britain, public speakin...

Read More

Judge Blocks Effort to Bar International Students at Harvard

Judge Blocks Effort to Bar International Students at Harvard

People walk through the campus of Harvard University in Cambridge, Mass., on Tuesday, March 18, 2025. Credit - Michael Casey—Associated Press Afederal judge has ordered a temporary restraining order blocking the Trump Administration from revoking Harvard University's certification to enrol international students. The decision from U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs followed shortly after Harvard announced earlier on Friday that it issuing the Trump Administration. The lawsuit came less than 24 hours after the Department of Homeland Security announced that the Administration had revoked the university's certification to enrol international students. In the lawsuit filed in federal court in Boston on Friday, Harvard argued that the Administration's action violates the First Amendment. "It is the latest act by the government in clear retaliation for Harvard exercising its First Amendment rights to reject the government's demands to control Harvard's governance, curriculum, and the 'ideology' of its faculty and students," the complaint reads. Harvard went on to heavily criticize the Trump Administration, saying that the move to revoke the certification was "carried out abruptly without any of the robust procedures the government has established to prevent just this type of upheaval to thousands of students' lives." It continues to detail the impact this could have on international students, and the education structure as a whole, at Harvard, saying that "countless academic programs, research laboratories, clinics, and courses supported by Harvard's international students have been thrown into disarray." "The government's actions come just days before graduation. Without its international students, Harvard is not Harvard," the lawsuit reads. This latest sequence of events mark a dramatic escalation ofthe Administration's battle with Harvard, as the Trump Administration's action on Thursday threatened to impact a significant portion of the university's student body and a key source of its revenue. Roughly 27% of Harvard's student body—about 6,800 students—come from outside the United States, a number that has grown steadily in the past decade,according to university enrollment data. Many of those students pay full tuition, contributing significantly to the university's nearly $6 billion annual budget. Read more:The Complicated History of Government Influence Over Universities The decision stunned students, faculty, and higher education leaders across the country. In a statement to TIME on Thursday, a Harvard spokesperson described the Trump Administration's move as "unlawful" and wrote that the University is "fully committed" to enrolling international students. "We are fully committed to maintaining Harvard's ability to host our international students and scholars, who hail from more than 140 countries and enrich the University—and this nation—immeasurably," said Harvard spokesperson Jason A. Newton. "We are working quickly to provide guidance and support to members of our community. This retaliatory action threatens serious harm to the Harvard community and our country, and undermines Harvard's academic and research mission." In light of Harvard's lawsuit, here's what you should know about the Trump Administration action that prompted it: The decision to revoke the certification, announced by the Department of Homeland Security in a letter delivered to the university and later shared publicly by Secretary Noem, immediately strips Harvard of its authorization under the Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP). The revocation bars the university from admitting new international students and requires current foreign students to transfer to other institutions or face losing their legal status in the United States. "I am writing to inform you that effective immediately, Harvard University's Student and Exchange Visitor Program certification is revoked," Noem wrote in the letter. In her letter, Noem cited Harvard's failure to comply with requests for records, its use of diversity and inclusion policies, and its handling of pro-Palestinian protests on campus as the motivation for the Trump Administration's action. The Trump Administration has claimed that Harvard refused to turn over documents that Homeland Security says are related to potential "misconduct and other offenses" by foreign students. Noem also accused the university—without offering evidence—of fostering "an unsafe campus environment that is hostile to Jewish students, promotes pro-Hamas sympathies, and employs racist 'diversity, equity, and inclusion' policies," as well as alleged coordination with the Chinese Communist Party. "Consequences must follow to send a clear signal to Harvard and all universities that want to enjoy the privilege of enrolling foreign students, that the Trump administration will enforce the law and root out the evils of anti-Americanism and antisemitism in society and campuses," Noem wrote. The Administration's decision adds to a growing list of federal penalties levied against Harvard, including the loss of billions infederal research fundingand recent threats to strip the university of its tax-exempt status. Earlier this week, the Department of Health and Human Services said it would terminate $60 million in grants to the university. A White House spokesperson told TIME on Thursday that "Harvard has turned their once-great institution into a hot-bed of anti-American, anti-Semitic, pro-terrorist agitators." Read more:What to Know About the Universities That Have Had Their Funding Targeted by the Trump Administration "They have repeatedly failed to take action to address the widespread problems negatively impacting American students and now they must face the consequences of their actions," said White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson. "Enrolling foreign students is a privilege, not a right." The battle between the Administration and Harvard comes as President Donald Trump has increasingly sought to assert control over elite universities, often framing his actions as part of a broader effort to eliminate what it characterizes as ideological bias and campus extremism. Critics, however, say the Administration is punishing academic institutions for political reasons and curbing the free exchange of ideas. The Administration has separately moved to terminate the legal status of international students nationwide, including at Harvard. A federal judge on Thursday blocked it from doing so, ruling that the government can't arrest, incarcerate, or move students elsewhere based on their legal status until another case on the matter is resolved. Write toNik Popli atnik.popli@time.com.

byDan Dunne

in

May 23, 2025

Judge Blocks Effort to Bar International Students at Harvard

Judge Blocks Effort to Bar International Students at Harvard People walk through the campus of Harvard University in Cambridge, Mass., on Tu...

Read More

Victim's body returned to Israel as Jewish Americans reel from museum attack

Victim's body returned to Israel as Jewish Americans reel from museum attack

The body of Yaron Lischinsky, an Israeli embassy employee gunned down in a possible antisemitic attack in Washington D.C. this week, was expected to arrive back in the Jewish state on Friday, officials said. Loved ones of Lischinsky and representatives of the Israeli Foreign Ministry will receive the victim's coffin at an undisclosed airport before it's taken to a burial site, according to a ministry spokesperson Lischinsky, 30, and his colleague and girlfriend Sarah Milgrim, 26, were gunned down Wednesday night outside the Capital Jewish Museum. Elias Rodriguez, a 31-year-old Chicago resident, was arrested at the scene. He allegedly shouted "Free, free Palestine" after opening fire outside the museum on Wednesday night. The suspect told officers on the scene, "I did it for Palestine, I did it for Gaza," according to prosecutors. Jewish leaders in Chicago decried the slayings and pinned blame on burgeoning antisemitism coming from protests against Israel. The Jewish state's military action in Gaza, seeking to root out Hamas in the wake of its Oct. 7, 2023 attack on Israel, has sparked protest against Jerusalem throughout the United States. David Goldenberg, Midwest regional director of the Anti-Defamation League, said that calls for Israel to curtail military action have too often devolved into antisemitism. "Saying 'Free Palestine' is, in itself, not antisemitic," Goldenberg told reporters in Chicago on Friday. "When the (anti-Jewish) chants begin, you as the leader, you lead. You shut it down. You make it clear to people coming to the protest (that) you don't bring a sign that says 'Globalize the Intifada' we're not going to have a sign that celebrates and calls for violence against Jews." FBI agents were going through Rodriguez's apartment in the quiet tree-lined street in the Albany Park neighborhood on Thursday looking for any evidence that could link or explain the suspect's actions and motives. "This horror hits even closer to home," said Chicago Alderman Debra Silverstein. "We have learned that the attacker lives in Chicago and was likely radicalized right here in our city. This is not just a national tragedy, it is a local wake up call." Rodriguez came to the DMV on Tuesday, flying in from O'Hare International Airport in Chicago to Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport in northern Virginia, according to United Airlines records cited in the affidavit. He declared his firearm in his checked baggage and flew with it across state lines, the affidavit said.

byDan Dunne

in

May 23, 2025

Victim's body returned to Israel as Jewish Americans reel from museum attack

Victim's body returned to Israel as Jewish Americans reel from museum attack The body of Yaron Lischinsky, an Israeli embassy employee g...

Read More

Exclusive-Musk’s DOGE expanding his Grok AI in U.S. government, raising conflict concerns

Exclusive-Musk's DOGE expanding his Grok AI in U.S. government, raising conflict concerns

By Marisa Taylor, Alexandra Ulmer (Reuters) -Billionaire Elon Musk's DOGE team is expanding use of his artificial intelligence chatbot Grok in the U.S. federal government to analyze data, said three people familiar with the matter, potentially violating conflict-of-interest laws and putting at risk sensitive information on millions of Americans. Such use of Grok could reinforce concerns among privacy advocates and others that Musk's Department of Government Efficiency team appears to be casting aside long-established protections over the handling of sensitive data as President Donald Trump shakes up the U.S. bureaucracy. One of the three people familiar with the matter, who has knowledge of DOGE's activities, said Musk's team was using a customized version of the Grok chatbot. The apparent aim was for DOGE to sift through data more efficiently, this person said. "They ask questions, get it to prepare reports, give data analysis." The second and third person said DOGE staff also told Department of Homeland Security officials to use it even though Grok had not been approved within the department. Reuters could not determine the specific data that had been fed into the generative AI tool or how the custom system was set up. Grok was developed by xAI, a tech operation that Musk launched in 2023 on his social media platform, X. If the data was sensitive or confidential government information, the arrangement could violate security and privacy laws, said five specialists in technology and government ethics. It could also give theTeslaand SpaceX CEO access to valuable nonpublic federal contracting data at agencies he privately does business with or be used to help train Grok, a process in which AI models analyze troves of data, the experts said. Musk could also gain an unfair competitive advantage over other AI service providers from use of Grok in the federal government, they added. Musk, the White House and xAI did not respond to requests for comment. A Homeland Security spokesperson denied DOGE had pressed DHS staff to use Grok. "DOGE hasn't pushed any employees to use any particular tools or products," said the spokesperson, who did not respond to further questions. "DOGE is here to find and fight waste, fraud and abuse." Musk's xAI, an industry newcomer compared to rivals OpenAI and Anthropic, says on its website that it may monitor Grok users for "specific business purposes." "AI's knowledge should be all-encompassing and as far-reaching as possible," the website says. As part of Musk's stated push to eliminate government waste and inefficiency, the billionaire and his DOGE team have accessed heavily safeguarded federal databases that store personal information on millions of Americans. Experts said that data is typically off limits to all but a handful of officials because of the risk that it could be sold, lost, leaked, violate the privacy of Americans or expose the country to security threats. Typically, data sharing within the federal government requires agency authorization and the involvement of government specialists to ensure compliance with privacy, confidentiality and other laws. Analyzing sensitive federal data with Grok would mark an important shift in the work of DOGE, a team of software engineers and others connected to Musk. They have overseen the firing of thousands of federal workers, seized control of sensitive data systems and sought to dismantle agencies in the name of combating alleged waste, fraud and abuse. "Given the scale of data that DOGE has amassed and given the numerous concerns of porting that data into software like Grok, this to me is about as serious a privacy threat as you get," said Albert Fox Cahn, executive director of the Surveillance Technology Oversight Project, a nonprofit that advocates for privacy. His concerns include the risk that government data will leak back to xAI, a private company, and a lack of clarity over who has access to this custom version of Grok. DOGE's access to federal information could give Grok and xAI an edge over other potential AI contractors looking to provide government services, said Cary Coglianese, an expert on federal regulations and ethics at the University of Pennsylvania. "The company has a financial interest in insisting that their product be used by federal employees," he said. "APPEARANCE OF SELF-DEALING" In addition to using Grok for its own analysis of government data, DOGE staff told DHS officials over the last two months to use Grok even though it had not been approved for use at the sprawling agency, said the second and third person. DHS oversees border security, immigration enforcement, cybersecurity and other sensitive national security functions. If federal employees are officially given access to Grok for such use, the federal government has to pay Musk's organization for access, the people said. "They were pushing it to be used across the department," said one of the people. Reuters could not independently establish if and how much the federal government would have been charged to use Grok. Reporters also couldn't determine if DHS workers followed the directive by DOGE staff to use Grok or ignored the request. DHS, under the previous Biden administration, created policies last year allowing its staff to use specific AI platforms, including OpenAI's ChatGPT, the Claude chatbot developed by Anthropic and another AI tool developed by Grammarly. DHS also created an internal DHS chatbot. The aim was to make DHS among the first federal agencies to embrace the technology and use generative AI, which can write research reports and carry out other complex tasks in response to prompts. Under the policy, staff could use the commercial bots for non-sensitive, non-confidential data, while DHS's internal bot could be fed more sensitive data, records posted on DHS's website show. In May, DHS officials abruptly shut down employee access to all commercial AI tools – including ChatGPT – after workers were suspected of improperly using them with sensitive data, said the second and third sources. Instead, staff can still use the internal DHS AI tool. Reuters could not determine whether this prevented DOGE from promoting Grok at DHS. DHS did not respond to questions about the matter. Musk, the world's richest person, told investors last month that he would reduce his time with DOGE to a day or two a week starting in May. As a special government employee, he can only serve for 130 days. It's unclear when that term ends. If he reduces his hours to part time, he could extend his term beyond May. He has said, however, that his DOGE team will continue with their work as he winds down his role at the White House. If Musk was directly involved in decisions to use Grok, it could violate a criminal conflict-of-interest statute which bars officials -- including special government employees -- from participating in matters that could benefit them financially, said Richard Painter, ethics counsel to former Republican President George W. Bush and a University of Minnesota professor. "This gives the appearance that DOGE is pressuring agencies to use software to enrich Musk and xAI, and not to the benefit of the American people," said Painter. The statute is rarely prosecuted but can result in fines or jail time. If DOGE staffers were pushing Grok's use without Musk's involvement, for instance to ingratiate themselves with the billionaire, that would be ethically problematic but not a violation of the conflict-of-interest statute, said Painter. "We can't prosecute it, but it would be the job of the White House to prevent it. It gives the appearance of self-dealing." The push to use Grok coincides with a larger DOGE effort led by two staffers on Musk's team, Kyle Schutt and Edward Coristine, to use AI in the federal bureaucracy, said two other people familiar with DOGE's operations. Coristine, a 19-year-old who has used the online moniker "Big Balls," is one of DOGE's highest-profile members. Schutt and Coristine did not respond to requests for comment. DOGE staffers have attempted to gain access to DHS employee emails in recent months and ordered staff to train AI to identify communications suggesting an employee is not "loyal" to Trump's political agenda, the two sources said. Reuters could not establish whether Grok was used for such surveillance. In the last few weeks, a group of roughly a dozen workers at a Department of Defense agency were told by a supervisor that an algorithmic tool was monitoring some of their computer activity, according to two additional people briefed on the conversations. Reuters also reviewed two separate text message exchanges by people who were directly involved in the conversations. The sources asked that the specific agency not be named out of concern over potential retribution. They were not aware of what tool was being used. Using AI to identify the personal political beliefs of employees could violate civil service laws aimed at shielding career civil servants from political interference, said Coglianese, the expert on federal regulations and ethics at the University of Pennsylvania. In a statement to Reuters, the Department of Defense said the department's DOGE team had not been involved in any network monitoring nor had DOGE been "directed" to use any AI tools, including Grok. "It's important to note that all government computers are inherently subject to monitoring as part of the standard user agreement," said Kingsley Wilson, a Pentagon spokesperson. The department did not respond to follow-up questions about whether any new monitoring systems had been deployed recently. (Additional reporting by Jeffrey Dastin and Alexandra Alper. Editing by Jason Szep)

byDan Dunne

in

May 23, 2025

Exclusive-Musk’s DOGE expanding his Grok AI in U.S. government, raising conflict concerns

Exclusive-Musk's DOGE expanding his Grok AI in U.S. government, raising conflict concerns By Marisa Taylor, Alexandra Ulmer (Reuters) -B...

Read More