The Rip Current with Jacob Ward

Trump brought a dozen of America's most powerful CEOs to Beijing this week — Jensen Huang, Tim Cook, Elon Musk, and others — to meet with Xi Jinping. The optics were big. The results were not. And the whole experience was presumably a nightmare for Trump's emotional-support CEOs.

Here's why: these companies aren't trying to expand into China. They're trying to hold onto what they already have — and in most cases, they're losing it anyway. Tim Cook has built Apple's entire supply chain around China. Nvidia has gone from 95% AI chip market share in China to nearly zero. Musk is trying to sell Teslas in a country that views Starlink as a military threat.

The world that made Silicon Valley possible — the open-market, borderless-money era that began when China joined the WTO in 2001 — is over. And no amount of diplomatic face time with Xi Jinping, or plane rides with Trump, is going to bring it back.

Members get early access to this and all my analysis. For written reports, including all the source documents, consider becoming a subscriber at https://theripcurrent.com.

I watched Sam Altman testify Tuesday, May 12th, in the Musk v. OpenAI trial in Oakland — his first and possibly only day on the stand. Within two minutes of cross-examination, Musk's attorney Stephen Molo was asking him point-blank whether he tells lies to advance his business interests. Altman's answers were careful to the point of being revealing: "I believe I'm a truthful person." Not: I am a truthful person. I believe I am.

Read the testimony of OpenAI cofounders who described a "pattern of lying" from Altman here.
The testimony produced a portrait of Altman that is hard to square with any single narrative. He described finding out Shivon Zilis — an OpenAI board member he'd kept around partly to smooth relations with Musk — had children with Musk only a year after the fact, and not learning Musk was the father until even later. Yet he kept Zilis as a board member.
He recalled a 2018 meeting at a Tesla facility about OpenAI's corporate future that ended with Musk just showing everyone memes on his phone. He explained his return after being fired in 2023 as running "into a burning building" — while under oath, and while not mentioning the simultaneous Microsoft job negotiations or the conditions he extracted for coming back, including removing most of the board.
The legal question, as Altman himself correctly stated near the end of cross, is narrow: did he breach a charitable trust, and was he unjustly enriched? The jury's verdict is advisory — Judge Yvette Gonzalez Rogers makes the call. And watching her tell billionaires what to do, and watching them say "yes, your honor," turned out to be the most clarifying thing about the whole proceeding.

Ilya Sutskever — the AI researcher who helped build OpenAI and is widely credited with turning the transformer model into ChatGPT — took the stand on Monday and confirmed under oath that he spent a year assembling a 52-page dossier on Sam Altman’s conduct, concluding that Altman “exhibits a consistent pattern of lying, undermining his execs, and pitting his execs against one another.”
That testimony follows sworn statements from former CTO Mira Murati, former board member Helen Toner, and former board member Tasha McCauley — all describing the same pattern. Altman is expected to take the stand today with all of that hanging over him.
But here’s the thing: none of that may actually matter for the outcome of this case. I break down what the jury is actually being asked to decide, why Musk’s legal hill is steeper than it looks, and what Sutskever’s extraordinary testimony reveals about the people building the most consequential technology in the world.

I spent two days inside the federal courthouse in Oakland, California, watching Elon Musk get examined and cross-examined in his lawsuit against Sam Altman and OpenAI. The case turns on a founding betrayal — Musk put in $38 million on the understanding that OpenAI would stay a nonprofit, and discovery documents suggest the conversion to for-profit was already being planned while he was still writing checks.
But this trial is about more than one lawsuit. Congress investigated AI and passed no regulations. The FTC looked at AI market concentration and retreated. The California AG signed off on OpenAI's nonprofit conversion without a fight. The fastest-growing company in corporate history is now having its fate decided by nine jurors drawn from Oakland's voter rolls — and that jury may be the only formal accountability mechanism the AI industry has ever faced.
In this video: what it was like to be in the room, what the Brockman diary entries actually show, what Musk's attorneys are really arguing, and why this trial matters far beyond the $38 million at stake.
For written reports, including all the source documents, consider becoming a subscriber at https://theripcurrent.com.

Jury selection began today in Oakland in Musk v. Altman — the trial that could determine the future of OpenAI, one of the most powerful companies ever built. But the most important story isn't the legal arguments. It's the private record: the emails, texts, and diary entries that the founders of the AI industry wrote when they thought no one was reading.

In this video I walk through every significant document that has come out of discovery — Greg Brockman's private diary (with the line "then it was a lie"), Elon Musk's email calling Jeff Bezos "a bit of a tool," Sam Altman texting Musk "you're my hero" while preparing to fight him in court, Shivon Zilis asking Musk whether she should "keep info flowing" from inside OpenAI's board, and Mark Zuckerberg privately offering to suppress criticism of DOGE and proposing a joint bid on OpenAI's assets.

Every quote is sourced to the public court record. Links to primary documents are in the written piece at TheRipCurrent.com.

For written reports, including all the source documents, consider becoming a subscriber at https://theripcurrent.com.