The Headlines - Musk vs. Altman, and a Pivotal Immigration Case at the Supreme Court

Episode Date: April 29, 2026

Plus, why nursing homes are hiring M.M.A. fighters.  Here’s what we’re covering: Supreme Court Considers Trump’s Plan to Revoke Deportation Protections, by Ann E. Marimow F.C.C. Orders a Review of ABC’s Broadcast Licenses, by Jim Rutenberg and John Koblin Trump Administration Secures New Indictment Against Comey, by Devlin Barrett and Tyler Pager OpenAI Trial Starts With Two Very Different Tales of a Company’s Early Years, by Cade Metz and Mike Isaac Japan’s New Care Workers: Bodybuilders, Wrestlers and M.M.A. Fighters, by Javier C. Hernández and Hisako Ueno Tune in every weekday morning, and tell us what you think at: [e-mail]. Subscribe today at nytimes.com/podcasts or on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. You can also subscribe via your favorite podcast app here https://www.nytimes.com/activate-access/audio?source=podcatcher. For more podcasts and narrated articles, download The New York Times app at nytimes.com/app. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

From the New York Times, it's the headlines. I'm Tracy Mumford. Today's Wednesday, April 29th. Here's what we're covering. Today is the last day of arguments this term at the Supreme Court and the justices are set to consider a pair of cases that they fast-tracked to get on the schedule. The cases both center on temporary protected status or TPS, a legal protection that allows migrants from countries facing war or other humanitarian crises to live and work in the U.S. It's been around since 1990. It was a bipartisan effort signed into law by President George H.W. Bush. President Trump, though, has moved to revoke those protections immediately for hundreds of thousands of Haitians and Syrians and to expel them from the country. TPS holders, including students, doctors, and engineers, have pushed back in the courts, saying they could be killed if they're forced to return. The arguments the justices will hear today will focus on how and why the the administration tried to revoke their status. By law, the government must review conditions

in the countries in question before making a decision, among other steps. Lawyers representing the TPS holders say that didn't happen here, and they argue that in the case of the Haitians specifically, the administration acted with racial bias. They've pointed to Trump's false accusations about Haitians eating people's pets and being undesirable because they come from what Trump called a filthy, disgusting country. On the administration's part, it has denied that race is a factor and said the terminations are based

on foreign policy and national security considerations. The justice's ruling will likely also have implications for more than a million other TPS holders from other countries, whose protections the administration is also trying to terminate. The TPS arguments are just one of

several high-stakes cases the court is considering this week. We'll hear argument next in case 24, 1068, Monsanto Company versus Dernel. Yesterday, a case involving the weed killer Roundup was in front of the justices. There have been widespread claims that the product causes cancer. And ultimately, the court's decision could determine whether thousands of lawsuits against the company that makes Roundup can go forward. And on Monday,

What's to prevent the government from using this to find out the identities of everybody at a particular church, a particular political organization. The court grappled with the issue of just how much personal cell phone data police can sweep up in an investigation. Some authorities have been using a technique called geofencing, which lets them gather location data from all cell phone users near a crime scene. That's helped them track down suspects. But critics of the practice argue that it's unconstitutional and puts the privacy of everyday Americans at risk. Decisions from the court on all of these cases, as well as other critical issues like birthright citizenship and the Voting Rights Act, are expected starting in late June. Now, two other updates from Washington.

You know that sometimes you wake up in the morning and the first lady puts out a statement demanding you be fired from your job? We've all been there, right? As the feud between Jimmy Kimmel and the White House has kicked back up recently, federal regulators have ordered an unprecedented. recanted review of ABC's broadcast licenses. Back in the fall, Kimmel was briefly pulled off the air by ABC, his home network, after the Trump administration criticized comments he'd made in the wake of Charlie Kirk's assassination. This past week, Kimmel drew the White House's anger again after he joked that First Lady Melania Trump had the glow of a, quote, expectant widow, just days before an alleged assassination attempt at the White House Correspondence dinner. Now, the federal communications.

Commission says it's reviewing all of ABC's broadcast licenses, not because of the joke, but as part of what it says is an investigation into the network's DEI policies. The move all but guarantees a drawn-out legal battle that will lock ABC in an expensive running war with the federal government. And... Well, they're back. This time about a picture of seashells on a North Carolina beach a year ago. James Comey, the former director of the FBI and frequent critic of President Trump, has been indicted again. Trump has been openly calling for the Justice Department to prosecute people he sees as his political enemies, like Comey. In the fall, DOJ lawyers brought their first case against him, though a judge dismissed it.

In the new indictment, they're claiming that a picture Comey posted online was a threat on the president's life. It showed shells arranged to say 86-47. 86 being slang to get rid of something, and 47 being a reference to Trump, the 47th president. The indictment claims a reasonable person would interpret the message, quote, as a serious expression of intent to do harm. In a video released yesterday, Comey vowed to fight the charges. I'm still innocent. I'm still not afraid. And I still believe in the independent federal judiciary.

So let's go. Back in 2015, Sam Altman sent an email to Elon Musk. He pitched an idea, a Silicon Valley research lab that would build powerful AI systems as part of what he called some sort of nonprofit. Soon that nonprofit was founded, largely with donations from Musk. It was called OpenAI and would go on to lead the tech industry into a new era of artificial intelligence. But over the course of the next decade, that relationship fractured. Musk quit OpenAI and he and Altman went from being collaborators to competitors. Now, their simmering feud has come to a head with Musk suing Altman in a blockbuster trial that kicked off this week.

People in Silicon Valley are expecting high drama. But the implications of this trial are much larger than that. Cade Metz has been reporting for the Times from the California courthouse where Musk's testimony will continue this morning, and where Altman is also expected to take the stand. Cade says Musk is claiming that. that Altman took his money, deceived him, and abandoned OpenAI's original humanitarian mission, instead building the company into a roughly $700 billion tech juggernaut. In opening arguments yesterday, OpenAI's lawyers said Musk's arguments are basically all just,

quote, sour grapes. If Elon Musk wins his case, it could shift the balance of power in the AI race. must seeks tens of billions of dollars in damages, but he also wants to cripple open AI. He wants to remove Sam Altman from the OpenAI Board of Directors, and he wants to unravel the company that oversees ChatGPT and so many other AI technologies. And in the end, that benefits the company's many rivals, including XAI, the artificial intelligence company run.

by Elon Musk. And finally, in Japan, there is a problem. Like in many countries, they're short on nursing home staff to take care of their aging population. But there's also a potential solution that involves, hear me out here, bodybuilders. I visited a few centers in Japan, and it was a really heartwarming scene. There were these young bodybuilders, and they were in their tank tops showing off their muscles. to this crowd of elderly patients. And they really brought a lot of joy and excitement to the centers.

You know, the residents were smiling. They were, like, punching their muscles and doing exercises with them. Javier Hernandez is the Times Tokyo Bureau Chief. He says a number of Japanese companies are specifically trying to recruit not just bodybuilders, but also MMA fighters and sumo wrestlers to work in senior care facilities. They're offering them in some cases, housing. plus gym memberships and even protein supplements. It's a bit unconventional, but it actually makes sense.

A lot of these athletes are looking for work. They have shorter careers. Once they get older, they don't have the opportunity to win contests or enter any kind of event. So they're struggling often for jobs and find low-paying work. But in the care industry, there's actually a huge demand for this kind of skill set. they are physically strong, they have stamina, they can work with people, and so these jobs in many ways make sense for elite athletes. Javier says the recruiting push is also about helping to change perceptions around who is a caregiver. The field is often dominated by women and Japan is no exception to that.

One staffer who has helped recruit men who are MMA athletes said, quote, there's a lot of testosterone in the room, but when it comes to taking care of the elderly, the fighters are very tender and very caring. Those are the headlines. Today on the Daily, the controversial fight over taxing billionaires in California. You can listen to that in the New York Times app or wherever you get your podcasts. I'm Tracy Mumford. We'll be back tomorrow.