Major League Baseball owners made their long-expected salary cap proposal to the players’ association on Thursday, a system the union has vowed never to accept, setting the sides on course for a confrontation that threatens the 2027 season and perhaps beyond.

Baseball owners hadn’t proposed a firm cap since 1994. Their effort prompted a 7 1/2-month strike that forced the cancellation of the World Series for the first time in 90 years.

MLB’s proposal would cap spending in 2027 at $245.3 million, using figures for luxury tax payrolls that include benefits and the pre-arbitration bonus pool, and establish a payroll floor of $171.2 million. The Los Angeles Dodgers, baseball’s biggest spenders, had a $415.2 million payroll on opening day this year — around $170 million over the proposed cap.

Owners said they would discuss a phase-in schedule that would give teams like the Dodgers time to comply with the cap and an escrow system with the union as part of a proposed seven-year deal, that all current contracts would remain guaranteed and there would be no prohibition of guaranteed contracts under the cap system.

MLB said it would centralize local media revenue from the 30 teams equally and give players a 50-50 split as part of a proposal that would eliminate the current revenue-sharing plan among the clubs.

“Our salary cap and floor proposal levels the playing field while sharing baseball revenue with the players 50/50 as we grow the game together,” MLB spokesman Glen Caplin said in a statement. “Further, by sharing media revenue equally as part of our proposal, we can address another top fan concern of local TV blackouts.”

Baseball’s current five-year deal, agreed to in March 2022 after a 99-day lockout, expires Dec. 2. While a lockout next winter is expected, talks are not likely to intensify until late February or early March 2027, when the possibilities of losing regular-season games and revenue near. If regular-season games are lost, negotiations may become a standoff of which side can tolerate the most economic loss.

Based on 2026 opening day figures, eight teams would have to cut payroll to get under the cap. The teams over are the two-time reigning World Series champion Dodgers, New York Mets ($379.2 million), New York Yankees ($339.6 million), Toronto ($319.5 million), Philadelphia ($315.2 million), Boston ($263.7 million), San Diego ($260.1 million) and Atlanta ($247.9 million).

Twelve teams would be required to increase payroll by a total of $617 million based on 2026 numbers: Miami ($81.8 million), Cleveland ($95.7 million), Tampa Bay ($108.2 million), the Chicago White Sox ($108.6 million), St. Louis ($114.4 million), Washington ($119.1 million), Pittsburgh ($122.6 million), Minnesota ($125.6 million), Milwaukee ($130.9 million), the Athletics ($139.2 million), Colorado ($142.2 million) and Cincinnati ($148.8 million).

Owners and the union agreed to a luxury tax in 2003 designed to slow spending, but teams feel it has had little or no impact on the Dodgers and Mets in recent years. The last small-market MLB club to win a World Series was Kansas City in 2015, although Cleveland, Tampa Bay and Milwaukee all lead their divisions as of Thursday, while the Mets and Red Sox are in last place.

MLB said its revenue has grown by 247% since 2003 and player payroll has increased by 149% in that span.

Management gave the union its latest plan during a bargaining session at the commissioner’s office, one day after the union made its economic proposal. Owners say a cap is needed to improve competitive balance and restrain wealthy teams from assembling starrier rosters than their smaller-market brethren.

Players want expanded free agency and salary arbitration rights along with almost doubling the major league minimum, increasing the money high-revenue teams share with the less-wealthy clubs and establishing penalties for teams that drop below payroll floors.

Other U.S. major sports leagues operate under a cap. The NBA had a cap in its initial season in 1946-47, then dropped that and began its modern version in 1984-85. NFL players and owners adopted a cap for the 1994 season, and the NHL did so in 2005-06 after a lockout wiped out the entire 2004-05 season.

The Dodgers shattered MLB’s spending record with a combined $515 million in payroll and luxury tax last year en route to their second straight World Series title. Los Angeles’ total was seven times the $68.7 million payroll of the Marlins, the lowest-spending team, and more than the payrolls of the bottom six clubs combined.

Players say a cap would hurt them and enrich owners, and they say they will never agree to one. Without a cap, MLB stars have landed lucrative, guaranteed contracts that outpace what the biggest stars in other U.S. sports leagues make. Juan Soto’s $765 million, 15-year contract with the Mets is believed to be the biggest ever in team sports and is far greater than the largest deals in the NFL (Patrick Mahomes at $450 million over 10 years) and NBA (Jayson Tatum at $314 million over five years).

MLB’s last salary cap proposal in 1994 offered players a 50-50 split of revenue in a system that would have forced teams to maintain payrolls of 84%-110% of the average. Salary arbitration would have been eliminated and the threshold for free agency would have been lowered from six years’ major league service to four — with the provision that a player’s former club could match any offer until he had six years.

MLB’s offer came on June 14 that year, and players struck on Aug. 12. MLB withdrew the cap proposal the following Feb. 6 after pressure by the National Labor Relations Board. The strike ended on March 31 after U.S. District Judge Sonia Sotomayor — now a Supreme Court justice — issued an injunction restoring the work rules of the expired labor contract. Two days later, owners accepted the union’s offer to return to work without an agreement. A deal wasn’t reached until 1997.

MIAMI — A federal judge on Wednesday declined to jail a Florida teenager accused of killing and sexually assaulting his stepsister, allowing him to remain in the custody of a family member while he awaits trial.

Timothy Hudson, 16, has been free since the slaying of Anna Kepner, who died on Nov. 7, 2025, aboard a Carnival cruise ship. At the time he was arrested and charged as a juvenile and allowed to live with an uncle because of his age. But in April a federal grand jury indicted him as an adult, introducing the possibility that he could be jailed as he awaits trial.

“If it were a 20-year-old under the exact circumstances I probably would have detained,” U.S. District Judge Edwin Torres said. “The presumption would be we were just not going to take that chance.”

“This is a different animal,” Torres said.

Torres took into consideration that detaining Hudson in Miami-Dade County — where he was charged — would make it difficult for his family, which lives hundreds of miles away in Hernando County, to visit him.

The judge said he wanted to “know what my options are” about potentially detaining Hudson closer to home before deciding to hold him behind bars.

Alejandra Lopez, a lawyer for the government, argued that Hudson is “a danger to the community” and questioned how authorities can trust “this defendant won’t act again.”

She noted that two minors live in Hudson’s uncle’s home, where he is residing.

“What is needed to prove a danger? A second dead body?” she asked.

Evan Kuhl, a public defender representing Hudson, argued that his client is not a danger to the public or a flight risk because he has abided by the conditions of his release for several months without any incidents.

Lopez shot back that it took months after Kepner’s death for officials to charge Hudson because authorities were gathering evidence.

“How is he going to be a risk of flight if he doesn’t even know if he’s going to be charged?” she asked. “That doesn’t make sense.”

Hudson is only allowed to leave his house with his uncle or aunt and will be electronically monitored by authorities.

The November cruise vacation included the victim’s father, stepmother and two of her children, including Hudson. Kepner’s father and Hudson’s mother married in December 2024.

Kepner’s body was found wrapped in a blanket, bruised and under a bed in her room, concealed by life vests. Her death was ruled a homicide caused by “mechanical asphyxiation,” according to the Miami-Dade medical examiner.

The girl and her stepbrother were sharing a room on the cruise, according to Hudson’s father’s lawyer.

The teenager was arrested while the ship was in international waters en route to Miami. He was hospitalized upon the ship’s docking and has since been in counseling, according to a lawyer for his mother.

On the day Hudson’s indictment was made public, Chris Kepner — Anna Kepner’s father and Hudson’s stepfather — declared that “justice needs to be served.”

Kepner was a high school senior and cheerleader, with hopes of cheerleading for the University of Georgia. She was remembered in her obituary for lacking a filter and being “bubbly, funny, outgoing, and completely herself.” At the time, her family said that “in true Anna fashion, the family would like everyone to know there is no GoFundMe” for her funeral. She was set to graduate from high school this spring.

Hudson’s trial could begin in September, Lopez said Wednesday.

CBS News has reportedly declined to renew its contract with Sharyn Alfonsi, the “60 Minutes” correspondent whose segment about the Trump administration deporting Venezuelan men to a prison in El Salvador was abruptly pulled off the air late last year.

Alfonsi confirmed the expiration of her CBS News deal in an interview with The New York Times published Wednesday. CBS News and Alfonsi did not immediately respond to NBC News’ requests for comment on the matter.

“It sends a chilling message to the entire newsroom,” Alfonsi told the Times. “I think it was a deliberate choice to penalize a journalist for refusing to sanitize accurate reporting.”

“60 Minutes” ultimately aired Alfonsi’s segment in January after a last-minute postponement in late December that the correspondent had claimed was “not an editorial decision” but “a political one.”

The segment featured interviews with men who were deported from the U.S. to the Center for the Confinement of Terrorism, or CECOT, in Tecoluca, El Salvador. The interviewees described torture and physical and sexual abuse at the complex.

In an editorial call Dec. 22, the morning after “Inside CECOT” was pulled from the “60 Minutes” lineup, CBS News Editor-in-Chief Bari Weiss said she had held the story “because it was not ready,” according to a source.

“While the story presented powerful testimony of torture at CECOT, it did not advance the ball — the Times and other outlets have previously done similar work,” Weiss told CBS News staffers, according to that source.

Weiss is a former opinion writer and editor at the Times who launched the website The Free Press in 2021. Paramount Skydance, which owns CBS, acquired The Free Press and hired Weiss as editor-in-chief of CBS News in October.

Alfonsi, who made her “60 Minutes” debut in 2015, continued to appear on the newsmagazine through the end of its 58th season, which concluded May 17.

She is the second “60 Minutes” correspondent to exit the show since Weiss became top editor at CBS News, following Anderson Cooper, who signed off this month after 20 years on the broadcast.

In a farewell message that aired this month, Cooper said in part: “The independence of ‘60 Minutes’ has been critical, and I think the trust it has with viewers is critical to the success of ‘60 Minutes.’”

For years, California Gov. Gavin Newsom has reaped the benefits of Silicon Valley’s AI boom — in the form of tax revenue for his state and political contributions from industry leaders.

Newsom’s interests often aligned with those of tech titans, and he largely protected those interests. In 2024, for example, he vetoed a bill that would have created legal liabilities for artificial intelligence companies in the event of catastrophes involving terrorism, mass casualties or other damage to society. It would also have required the companies to maintain kill switches so that AI processes could be turned off.

Newsom has long talked about the need to find a practical balance between utopian corporate visions of AI’s upsides and dystopian populist nightmares of human subservience to machines.

“Given the stakes — protecting against actual threats without unnecessarily thwarting the promise of this technology to advance the public good — we must get this right,” he said in his veto message.

But as he lays the groundwork for a widely anticipated 2028 presidential bid, Newsom is shifting his weight away from the corporate end of the balance and toward the populist end. The move could have implications not only for the Democratic nomination fight, but also in a general election, as the political left and right have coalesced around concerns about AI driving up costs to consumers and posing threats to liberty, cybersecurity and physical safety.

The issue has bedeviled elected officials in both parties at the federal and state levels.

They are clearly feeling heat from the public over a wide variety of AI-related issues, from potential job losses, the expensive energy demands of data centers and sexual exploitation, to more abstract fears of Americans’ lives being run by a handful of the rich and powerful through the use of advanced machines.

On the other side, tech giants bring in money — and spend lavishly on campaigns — and national security experts warn that unilateral disarmament in the AI arms race is a recipe for disaster.

Last week, President Donald Trump scuttled his own planned executive order on AI regulation at the last minute, citing concerns that it might “get in the way” of the country’s ability to compete with China.

At the same time, Newsom is using his power as California’s chief executive to begin rolling out initiatives to beef up AI controls.

Jason Elliott, a policy-minded political consultant who served as Newsom’s deputy chief of staff, said the governor has had his hands deep in AI policy, whether it’s the frontier-safety law he backed last year — which requires major AI developers to identify and mitigate risks before deploying their products — or the legislation he vetoed the year before.

“Just because you can name a problem and take a problem very seriously doesn’t mean that every single solution someone proposes is proper,” Elliott said. “I have never seen an issue move as quickly as AI, and it’s not even close. So every elected official’s position naturally should be evolving on AI from week to week and month to month, because the underlying technology itself seems to change every day.”

Newsom is evolving in real time, to the delight of some progressives who believed he was dragging his feet on behalf of corporations and donors.

Last week, Newsom signed an executive order requiring state agencies to work with industry groups, academics and organized labor to develop plans for assessing and offsetting AI’s effects on California workers.

“The whole system has to be reimagined, and we’re not — I don’t think we’re having an accelerated or advanced conversation right now; we’re still discussing who’s going to pay for my increased electricity because of the data center, which is a legit issue,” Newsom said at a May 19 conference convened by the liberal think tank Center for American Progress in Washington. “But it’s not the issue, and … the tech genie is not going to go back in the bottle.”

Newsom also submitted a revised state budget proposal this month that would vastly increase antitrust enforcement dollars, which have been used to go after companies that use algorithms to set prices.

Earlier this month, he hired former Consumer Financial Protection Bureau chief Rohit Chopra, who has warned about potential excesses of AI, to head up a state business and consumer services agency. And, along with other prospective 2028 candidates, according to Axios, Newsom has been cozying up to Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., who is among the loudest critics of AI’s economic implications.

Among the large crop of prospective 2028 hopefuls, there is a broad spectrum of views on AI and its various uses — and some uncertainty about when and how to regulate them. Data centers, which represent just a slice of AI policy, have become a flashpoint for voters and an area of attention for policymakers with White House ambitions.

Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, for example, is tying accelerated permits for data centers to companies’ willingness to pay for power, provide workforce protections and conserve the environment. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., has called for a moratorium on data centers and pressed federal officials on their impact on drinking water.

Like Newsom, Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker, who is also widely considered to be looking at a 2028 bid, is moving to demonstrate a more cautious approach to AI. In February, he proposed a two-year pause on tax incentives for building data centers.

A YouGov/Economist poll this month found that 71% of Americans — 77% of Democrats and 68% of Republicans — say AI development is “moving too fast.”

“It should be clear to anyone paying attention to polling or even just vibes that there is a lot of voter-level concern about AI and costs and who the economy is serving and who the economy isn’t serving,” Dan Geldon, a former top aide to Warren, said. “It makes sense that Newsom and other candidates would open channels with populists and consider their ideas in this environment.”

But revenue from “hyperscalers” — tech companies that build data centers to handle massive amounts of information — is attractive to many state executives in both parties.

“We’re looking at literally hundreds of millions of dollars annually to local government, cities, counties and school districts that the hyperscaler is going to pay in their fee and loop payments,” Mississippi Gov. Tate Reeves, a Republican who has welcomed data center investments from Amazon, xAI and other major players into his state, said in a recent interview.

And yet there are Republican governors who have taken a much more skeptical view of AI and of data centers.

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, a Republican, has pushed unsuccessfully to enact an AI “bill of rights” that would protect data privacy and prevent insurance companies from judging claims based on machine-dictated decisions. Like Reeves, he signed a law requiring hyperscalers to pay utility costs associated with their work.

For 2028 hopefuls in both parties, the opportunities and risks of developing AI policies at machine-learning speed are becoming more clear. For Newsom, there’s been a perceptible shift toward the populist leanings of the progressive wing of his party.

Elliott, his former aide, said it makes sense on a public policy level for the governor to keep up with changes in technology and adjust his response accordingly.

“It’s true that Gov. Newsom has continued to observe the state of the industry, the state of technology, and then update his perspectives as the industry moved forward,” Elliott said. “Republicans are doing the same thing and should be doing the same thing and there are a number of Republicans around the country who are taking the very hands-on approach to regulating artificial intelligence.”

CBS News editor-in-chief Bari Weiss on Thursday replaced Tanya Simon, the executive producer of the network’s flagship newsmagazine “60 Minutes,” with a technology journalist who has never worked in television news.

Nick Bilton, a documentarian and former New York Times technology columnist, will take over for Simon when the show returns for a 59th season in the fall, CBS News leaders announced.

The moves are part of Weiss’ sweeping shake-up of the storied program, created by the legendary producer Don Hewitt.

CBS News has also cut ties with “60 Minutes” correspondent Cecilia Vega, who joined the show in 2023, according to a source familiar with the matter.

Sharyn Alfonsi, another “60 Minutes” correspondent, told the Times this week that CBS News had not renewed her contract. CBS News and Alfonsi did not respond to multiple requests for comment on the status of her deal.

Alfonsi clashed with Weiss late last year over the last-minute postponement of her segment about the Trump administration deporting Venezuelan men to a notorious prison in El Salvador.

Alfonsi said the delay was “not an editorial decision” but a “political one.” Weiss said she held the story “because it was not ready.” It ultimately aired in January.

Weiss — who also had no TV news experience when she was hired last fall — said in a statement that Bilton was “one of the most entrepreneurial journalists of our time and the perfect leader for one of the most entrepreneurial news brands of all time.”

“We have huge ambition for ‘60 Minutes’ to reach new heights through deep, revelatory journalism that breaks news, exposes wrongdoing, widens public understanding and forces accountability from every institution and every center of power,” Weiss added.

In a letter to “60 Minutes” staff Thursday, Bilton introduced himself and said in part: “I’m here to lead this show, not preserve it under glass. That means honoring what works and being honest about what doesn’t. I have a notebook full of ideas.”

“Some are about the show itself. Some are about the next generation of correspondents. Some are about the strange fact that we produce one extraordinary hour for one night a week in a world that consumes content around the clock,” he added.

In a statement shared with NBC News, Simon acknowledged that “leadership has decided it is time for a new chapter.”

“I want to be unequivocally clear about one thing: it has been an immense privilege to lead this broadcast, and I could not be prouder of what we have built, fought for, and delivered together over the last year,” Simon added.

“60 Minutes” has faced intense criticism from President Donald Trump, who sued CBS before the 2024 election over an interview with former Vice President Kamala Harris that he claimed had been deceptively edited. CBS vehemently denied that claim. Paramount eventually settled the suit for $16 million.

Bilton’s reporting has appeared in the Times and Vanity Fair. In recent years, Bilton produced documentaries about business and technology for Netflix and HBO, including a film about disgraced Theranos founder Elizabeth Holmes.

Weiss is a former opinion writer and editor at the Times who launched the website The Free Press in 2021. Paramount Skydance, which owns CBS, acquired The Free Press when it hired her.

She has overseen a wave of big-picture changes at CBS News since she was hired in October, including tapping Tony Dokoupil as anchor of “CBS Evening News.”

The departures of Vega and Alfonsi came after CNN primetime anchor Anderson Cooper announced he was leaving the series following a 20-year run as a correspondent.

In a farewell message this month, Cooper said in part: “The independence of ‘60 Minutes’ has been critical, and I think the trust it has with viewers is critical to the success of ‘60 Minutes.’”

Roughly 36,000 Heartwarming Hugs Bears, a stuffed animal manufactured by Build-A-Bear, are being recalled due to a zipper detaching from the bear’s pouch.

Subscribe to read this story ad-free

Get unlimited access to ad-free articles and exclusive content.

On Thursday, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission announced that the stuffed animals pose a serious risk of injury or death, as the detached zipper can present a choking hazard.

The recall number is 034464. The recall number can be found on the product label located on the back of one of the bear’s legs.

The bear includes a stuffed heart that fits inside a pocket. The heart-shaped insert is filled with 2.5 pounds of ceramic beads and can be used as a heating pad or chilled for cooling comfort.

“The product is graded 3 years+ and carries a cautionary statement advising adult supervision due to the heated/cooled element,” the release stated.

The bear was sold between January 2026 and March 2026 for about $48.

Customers are advised to immediately stop using the Heartwarming Hugs Bear. Consumers who purchased the bear should return it to the nearest Build-A-Bear store or request a shipping label at www.buildabear.com/recalls. Once returned, Build-A-Bear will issue a refund to the original form of payment or provide a gift card.

There have been no reported injuries, although one consumer in the United Kingdom reported the zipper detaching.

For information on the recall visit Build-A-Bear online at www.buildabear.com/recalls according to the release.

Thermos is recalling 8.2 million containers after consumers suffered laceration injuries — and in some cases reported permanent vision loss — when stoppers forcefully ejected from the products and struck them in the face.

Subscribe to read this story ad-free

Get unlimited access to ad-free articles and exclusive content.

The recall covers approximately 5.8 million Stainless King Food Jars and 2.3 million Sportsman Food & Beverage Bottles. According to a recall notice posted by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission on April 30, consumers should stop using the affected products immediately.

The affected models include Thermos Sportsman Food & Beverage Bottles: all units, model SK3010; Food Jars and Food & Beverage Bottles: all units, models SK3000 (16-ounce), SK3020 (24-ounce), and SK3010 (40-ounce); and Thermos Stainless King Food Jars manufactured before July 2023: models SK3000 and SK3020.

The model number can be found at the bottom of the item.

The hazard stems from a design flaw in the stopper — the component that retains heat and prevents leakage. If perishable food or beverages are stored for an extended period, pressure can build up and cause the stopper to forcefully eject when the container is opened. Unlike safer designs, the stopper on the recalled models lacks a pressure-relief valve.

Thermos said it has received 27 reports of consumers being struck by an ejected stopper, including injuries requiring medical attention. Three consumers reported suffering permanent vision loss after being struck in the eye.

The recalled products were sold between March 2008 and July 2024 at Walmart, Target, and Amazon, as well as on Thermos.com. They were available in a variety of colors and bear the Thermos trademark on the side.

Owners of SK3000 and SK3020 Food Jars should dispose of the stopper and submit a photo of the disposal to Thermos. Owners of SK3010 bottles should return the product using a prepaid shipping label provided by the company. For details on returns and replacements, visit the Thermos recall page at Thermos.com.

AUSTIN, Texas — The Onion’s plan to take over the Infowars platforms that Alex Jones built into a bullhorn of conspiracy theories and turn them into parody sites was in limbo again Thursday, after a Texas court paused a proposed deal involving the satirical news outlet.

Subscribe to read this story ad-free

Get unlimited access to ad-free articles and exclusive content.

Austin-based Infowars is facing liquidation because of the more than $1 billion in defamation lawsuit judgments Jones owes relatives of victims of the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting for calling the Connecticut massacre a hoax. The proposed licensing deal would give The Onion temporary authority to use Infowars’ trademarks, copyrights and intellectual property while a state receiver in Texas works toward liquidation.

A state judge in Austin had scheduled a hearing Thursday on whether to approve The Onion deal with the receiver. But the proceeding fizzled into a status conference because the Texas Third Court of Appeals late Wednesday approved an emergency motion by Jones’ lawyers that temporarily blocked the transfer of any Infowars assets. The judge set another hearing for May 28.

Lawyers for the Sandy Hook families had asked the Texas Supreme Court to overturn the appeals court ruling, but the high court did not issue a decision before Thursday’s hearing.

“This newly insane, unprecedented legal stalling does nothing but delay our deal with the receiver to take control of InfoWars,” Ben Collins, The Onion’s CEO, said in a social media post ahead of the hearing. “We now expect new traps in Alex Jones’ amoral war to deny paying the Sandy Hook families, but we’re freshly surprised by the U.S. legal system’s appetite to put up with it.”

The Onion already has been selling Infowars merchandise on its own website, including T-shirts and tote bags with an Infowars logo that replaces the “o” with its trademark onion image. It wants to turn the Infowars platforms into comedy sites that would include spoofing Jones, conspiracy theories and right-wing talking points, while giving revenue to the Sandy Hook victims’ relatives.

Jones declared victory in videos posted on his social media sites after the appellate court ruling. He called The Onion’s plan illegal, citing pending appeals and his continuing personal bankruptcy case.

“I said days ago there’s no way the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Texas doesn’t overturn this — you know they’re all Democrats — because it’s so outrageous what you’ve done,” Jones said.

After Thursday’s hearing, Mark Bankston, a lawyer for some of the Sandy Hook victims’ relatives, accused Jones of delaying the liquidation of Infowars numerous times with court filings.

“As far as the world is concerned, Infowars is dead. Everybody knows that,” he said. “He’s trying to keep the bloated corpse of a media organization alive. It’s all a joke. Everybody knows where this is going.”

It’s not the first time The Onion has hit a legal setback in plans to take over Infowars.

In November 2024, the Chicago-based satirical outlet was named the winner of a bankruptcy court auction of the assets of Infowars’ parent company, Free Speech Systems, aimed at helping pay some of the defamation judgments. But a federal judge overturned the auction results, citing problems with process and The Onion’s bid.

Jones said on his show this week that he has a new studio nearing completion. He already has set up a new phone app and websites, including one that sells the dietary supplements, clothing and other merchandise he hawks on his shows. And his personal X account, where he posts videos of his shows and has 4.5 million followers, is not affected by any of the court cases.

On Thursday night, Jones toasted to his crew and viewers during a livestream on X as a clock ticked down to when he said his final moments in the building would hit.

“We’re not here anymore because they’re turning the power off at midnight,” he said.

Market watchers looking for clarity about the direction of Big Tech and the AI investment boom didn’t get much Wednesday afternoon amid a barrage of key earning reports.

Subscribe to read this story ad-free

Get unlimited access to ad-free articles and exclusive content.

Instead, four leading tech companies reported quarterly results that beat Wall Street’s official forecasts but nevertheless fell short of the sky-high expectations investors have set for companies leading the AI revolution.

Investors were most enthusiastic about the results of Google parent Alphabet, whose shares climbed as much as 6% in after-hours trading. The company reported earnings and revenue that beat analysts’ expectations and raised its estimate of how much it would spend on AI infrastructure.

Earnings for Facebook parent Meta were greeted with less fervor. Its shares fell more than 5% after it said it expected revenue growth to stay flat in the second quarter.

Amazon’s and Microsoft’s results and forecasts were more mixed. Investors ultimately sent both lower by about 3%.

The major U.S. stock indexes are sitting near all-time highs despite war with Iran, rising oil prices and dismal consumer sentiment readings.

But overall business investment and consumer spending levels remain resilient — and companies on the S&P 500, the index considered the best proxy for overall stock market performance, are reporting the highest average net profit margins in more than 15 years, according to the analytics group FactSet.

That performance is being led by tech companies known as “The Magnificent 7” — Apple, Microsoft, Alphabet, Amazon, Meta, Nvidia and Tesla, which dictate about one-third of the S&P 500’s average performance.

Tech’s leadership has created a double-edged sword for the market writ large: When times are good in tech, the market tends to rise. When tech’s performance is rockier, the market can sink.

“Stocks are again trading at record highs, reflecting strong investor confidence, but the S&P 500’s heavy concentration in the Mag 7 technology leaders elevates downside risk should earnings fall short, as valuations leave little margin for error,” Chris Brigati, chief investment officer at SWBC, a Texas-based financial group with more than $1 billion in assets under management, said in a note to clients this week.

Investors remain focused on the companies’ projections for future spending levels on the technology and infrastructure underlying their AI programs — and how they square with revenue, Brigati said.

“Each company faces its own dynamics, but delivering tangible results from elevated [capital expenditures] remains the critical test,” he said.

Until the end of March, Mag 7 companies’ performance had been caught in the downdraft that hit the broader market as the war with Iran took hold. Many had already spent much of the second half of 2025 treading water as concerns about the timeline for earnings from AI investments, plus seemingly circular financing arrangements, took hold.

But sometime in early April, investors began to realize that the most important names had been trading at discounts relative to projected earnings, according to Ed Yardeni, an economist and president of Yardeni Research, a widely respected market consultancy.

“I think the perception that there might be an exit ramp for Trump with the war with Iran and ceasefire got investors looking at markets again, and what they suddenly realized is the overall market, and specifically the Mag 7, were a lot cheaper,” Yardeni told NBC News.

In recent days, the market has lost some momentum amid signals that President Donald Trump is planning for a more prolonged conflict. A Wall Street Journal report that ChatGPT maker OpenAI may be on track to miss key revenue and user targets has also slowed tech’s recent momentum. OpenAI investments in — and from — other major tech companies have left it deeply intertwined in the AI boom, and some investors fear any weakness could ripple through parts of the AI ecosystem.

OpenAI called the Journal report “clickbait.”

The actual severity of any shortcomings at OpenAI and how far any weaknesses could spread remain open questions, Yardeni said. For now, cautious investor optimism remains the prevailing sentiment and will most likely continue to power markets higher.

“Concerns about some of the uncertainties, like if these companies are spending too much or if they’ll ever get a proper rate of return, that seems to have gone by the wayside,” he said.

President Donald Trump will be briefed Thursday on options for the way ahead in the Strait of Hormuz and on the ground in Iran, according to a U.S. official familiar with the planning.

Subscribe to read this story ad-free

Get unlimited access to ad-free articles and exclusive content.

Adm. Brad Cooper, the commander of U.S. Central Command, will brief Trump and his senior national security team at the White House, the official said, and update them on the continued U.S. blockade of Iran’s ports.

The update came after energy prices soared to their highest point in years with little sign of a deal to end the war.

Iran’s new supreme leader vowed in a message earlier Thursday that the Islamic Republic would protect its “nuclear and missile capabilities” as national assets.

The defiant written statement, read on state television, was the latest signal that Tehran was not about to capitulate in the standoff wreaking havoc on the global economy.

The price of the international benchmark for oil, Brent crude, rose to more than $126 a barrel at one point overnight — the highest since 2022, when Russia launched its invasion of Ukraine — before falling back to around $114 a barrel early Thursday.

Gas prices in the United States rose to an average of $4.30 a gallon Thursday, also the highest level in nearly four years.

The spike came following an Axios report that the U.S. military was set to brief President Donald Trump on plans for potential military action to help break the deadlock in talks to end the war and reopen the key trade route.

One plan prepared by U.S. Central Command includes a wave of “short and powerful” strikes intended to force Iran back to the negotiating table, Axios reported.

A senior Revolutionary Guard commander vowed swift retaliation if the U.S. does renew its assault.

“With prolonged and wide-ranging painful strikes, we will, by the grace of God, respond to the enemy’s operations even if they are rapid and short,” Seyed Majid Mousavi said on social media Thursday.

“We have seen the fate of your fragile bases in the region; we will also see your warships,” he said.

It comes after Trump warned that Iran had “better get smart soon” as he weighed possible military options to reopen the strait, through which some 20% of the world’s oil passes.

Traffic in the waterway has been at an effective standstill since Iran attacked shipping after the U.S. and Israel launched their joint military assault in late February, rattling the global economy.

Washington launched its own blockade of Iranian ports in response, and Trump told Axios on Wednesday that it would stay in place until Iran agreed to a nuclear deal.

That seemingly rules out a new Iranian proposal to end the war and reopen the strait without resolving the impasse over the Islamic Republic’s nuclear program. Trump said he saw the blockade as “somewhat more effective than the bombing.”

Trump told reporters at the White House on Thursday that the blockade is working well.

“The power of the blockade is incredible. They’re not getting any money from oil, and hopefully it can be worked out very soon,” he said.

Trump added, “Iran is dying to make a deal.”

Trump and other top administration officials met with a group of energy industry executives earlier this week to discuss key issues, including Washington’s possible next steps in continuing the blockade “for months if needed,” a White House official told NBC News.

Members of Trump’s national security team presented him with multiple options this week for how to handle the bottleneck, a U.S. official and a person familiar with the meeting told NBC News. The options discussed included whether the U.S. military presence in the strait should change — either increase or decrease — and whether the military should become more aggressive in conducting operations there, the U.S. official said.

The prospect of prolonged disruption in the strait has sent energy prices soaring despite the ceasefire. “Our world is facing a major economic and energy challenge,” International Energy Agency head Fatih Birol told a conference in Paris.