• In a media blitz, Elon Musk said Tesla would roll out robotaxis in June using a "prudent" approach.
• Musk aims for rapid Optimus robot production, predicting one million units a year by 2030.
• Investor response remains lukewarm, and Musk has been wrong about his ambitious timelines before.

Elon Musk went on a media blitz to share plans on new robotics benchmarks and reiterate his commitment to Tesla.

The Tesla CEO spoke briefly with Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella at the Microsoft Build conference on Monday, made a remote appearance at Bloomberg's Qatar Economic Forum, and appeared on CNBC twice on Tuesday.

At the Qatar Economic Forum, Musk said he is committed to leading Tesla for at least five more years, and said robotaxis will be rolled out in June as previously planned.

"Yes, no doubt about that at all," Musk said during a video call when asked about his leadership.

Tesla shares remained mostly unchanged after markets closed Tuesday, but they rebounded in May compared to previous months after Musk said he would scale back his involvement with DOGE on April 22. However, Tesla shares are still down in 2025 thus far, following revenue and income declines in Q1.

Representatives for Tesla did not respond to a request for comment from Business Insider.

Here are the main takeaways on robotics from Musk's interviews.

A 'prudent' approach

Musk was asked about Tesla's Full Self-Driving Supervised software running a red light during a test drive by BI reporters and stressed the slow rollout of robotaxis for safety reasons

"I think it's prudent for us to start with a small number, confirm that things are going well, and then scale it up proportionate to how well we see it's doing," Musk told CNBC host David Faber.

Musk said they are now testing robotaxis "driving 24/7 with drivers in the cars" with "essentially no interventions," but he prefers caution because it would be "the first introduction of unsupervised full self-driving."

"We want to deliberately take it slow," Musk added. "We could start with 1,000 or 10,000 on day one, but I don't think that would be prudent. So we will start with probably 10 for a week, then increase it to 20, 30, 40."

Musk said that the goal would be to have 1,000 robotaxis within a few months in Austin, before expanding the operation to other cities like Los Angeles and San Antonio.

Though Musk did not directly address BI's reporting that the FDS made a critical error, he said Tesla's robotaxis will be geo-fenced to select areas of Austin. Alphabet's Waymo also limits its autonomous cars to specific zones.

"It's not going to take intersections unless we are highly confident," Musk told Faber. "Or it will just take a route around that intersection."

The future of Optimus

Musk is expecting to scale up the use of humanoid robots quickly.

"We expect to have thousands of Optimus robots working in Tesla factories by the end of this year, beginning this fall," Musk told Faber on CNBC, "And we expect to scale Optimus up faster than any product, I think, in history, to get to millions of units per year as soon as possible."

"I think we feel confident in getting to one million units per year in less than five years, maybe four years. So by 2030, I feel confident in predicting one million Optimus units per year — it might be 2029," Musk added.

Musk told Faber that Optimus will also be the "biggest product ever" with "insatiable" demand because "everyone" would want one.

"It's going to take a lot of compute resources and it'll take time," said Musk when asked what it would take to train a robot, "I think there's certain threshold breakthroughs that we think we can achieve."

In a short conversation with Microsoft CEO Nadella, Musk also reiterated that all kinds of robotics, including robotaxis and the humanoid robot Optimus, need to be "grounded in reality."

"As you mentioned with the car, it needs to drive safely and correctly. The humanoid robot Optimus needs to perform the task that it's being asked to perform," Musk told Nadella.

The market reacts

Musk's media blitz generated a lukewarm response from investors. Tesla shares rose around 0.5% at market closing on Tuesday compared to the day before, but stocks began to dip in the after-hours.

Musk has teased his plan to bring humanoid robots to market for years. In 2021, a dancing actor in a body suit gave us our first look at Optimus, also known as Tesla Bot. By 2022, a rough prototype was up and walking at the company's Artificial Intelligence Day event.

In October 2024, Business Insider's Hasan Chowdhury reported that Tesla's robotics technology has advanced since its early days. Chowdhury reported that Optimus prototypes at last year's Tesla's robotaxi day played rock-paper-scissors with the audience, poured drinks, and danced, though some attendees thought the bots were controlled by human operators.

As far as the timeline goes, Musk said in a post on X last July that Tesla would have "genuinely useful humanoid robots in low production for Tesla internal use next year," and larger-scale production enabling sales to other companies by 2026. Now, midway through 2025, large-scale production has not yet been announced, but in the company's Q1 2025 Update letter, Tesla said it is "on track" for its builds of Optimus on its Fremont pilot production line in 2025, "with wider deployment of bots doing useful work across our factories."

Musk has been wrong about timelines before. In 2018, he acknowledged that he tends to be overly optimistic about when his creations will come to market. In some instances, consumers are still waiting for his promises to come to fruition.

In 2019, Musk said Tesla would deploy over one million robotaxis by the end of 2020. While that hasn't yet materialized, the planned debut of its robotaxi service in Austin later this year gets Tesla a small step closer to that goal.

Still, if Tesla's robotics division manages to deliver on all it has promised with Optimus and its other applications, it'd be a major boon for the company — and its investors. Tesla bull and Wedbush Securities analyst Dan Ives has predicted that robotaxis will be a game changer for Tesla, and estimated that it could become a $2 trillion company within the next two years. Ives told CNBC on Tuesday that he believes 90% of Tesla's future value lies in its autonomous vehicle software and robotics division.

• Delta Air Lines and Korean Air have invested $550 million in Canada's WestJet for equity stakes.
• The investment comes at an uncertain time for Canada-US travel due to Trump's policies.
• Delta and WestJet previously explored a joint venture, but it fell through in 2020.

Delta Air Lines and Korean Air will pay a combined $550 million in exchange for stakes in Canada's WestJet, the three companies announced in a joint statement on Friday.

Delta, headquartered in Georgia, will invest $330 million to acquire a 15% stake in the Calgary-based carrier, while Korean Air will commit $220 million to acquire a 10% stake. The partnership will increase connectivity between each airline's existing international routes, which are focused primarily throughout North America, Europe, and Asia.

Walter Cho, Chairman and CEO of Korean Air and Hanjin Group, said in a press release that the partnership will "create long-term value for customers through greater choice and convenience."

Ed Bastian, Delta's CEO, added that the investment "ensures that we remain focused on providing a world-class global network and customer experience for travelers in the United States and Canada."

The venture, which reconceptualized prior partnership plans between WestJet and Delta that fell through in 2020, comes at an uncertain moment for travel between Canada and the US — and, for Americans, international travel in general.

Business Insider previously reported that many Canadians are opting not to travel to the US out of anger over Trump's tariffs on their country and his repeated suggestion to make the US's northern neighbor the 51st state.

Longwoods International, a market research consultancy, found in an April survery of 1,000 Canadian travelers that 36% of respondents said they'd planned to travel to the US in the next 12 months but decided to cancel their plans, while 60% they're less likely to visit the US in the next year due to political reasons.

In March, WestJet Airlines vice chairman Alex Cruz told CNBC that Canadian travelers were opting for Central America over the US, and that "there's clearly been a reaction" toward Trump's tariff policies.

American travelers visiting other countries like Canada have also previously told BI that they have encountered increased hostility, and that negative perceptions toward Trump's policies have carried over to Americans in general.

Delta and WestJet previously explored a joint venture aimed at better coordinating schedules for flight transits, but the initiative was shelved in 2020 after US regulators demanded that WestJet relinquish some takeoff and landing slots at New York's LaGuardia Airport as a condition for approval.

WestJet and Korean Air did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Delta Air Lines referred BI to the original press release announcing the investment.

• President Donald Trump hinted at a potential trade deal with China amid ongoing tariff tensions.
• The trade war has escalated tariffs on China up to 245%, affecting US-China economic relations.
• China and the US are seeking new global trade partners to strengthen their positions.

President Donald Trump said Thursday that he expects an agreement "over the next three to four weeks" that would end the escalating trade war with China.

"I believe we're going to have a deal with China," said Trump during an executive order signing session in the Oval Office alongside Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick. "I think we have plenty of time."

There was no immediate confirmation from Beijing on whether a deal is likely to happen. And Trump dodged questions on whether China's leader, Xi Jinping, made the overture to end the tariffs battle.

This is the first time since Trump increased tariffs on China — up to 245% — that the possibility of a deal has appeared on the horizon.

"It's a game between China and the US in terms of who's going to blink first," Nick Vyas, the founding director of USC Marshall's Randall R. Kendrick Global Supply Chain Institute, told Business Insider before Trump's Thursday remarks. "China feels that they have all the cards to continue to hold out, and President Trump feels that he has power, because we consume more from China than China consumes from us."

"Both of these cases are true, and one has to just wait and watch and see which reality will end up shaping up in the end," he added.

China's upper hand? Its system of government

Supply chain and geopolitics experts have told Business Insider that Xi may have more time and leverage than Trump.

"Xi can make life difficult for some American tech companies and for farmers in the Midwest, but the damage to China by the US could be much worse," said Andrew Collier, a senior fellow at the Mossavar-Rahmani Center for Business and Government at the Harvard Kennedy School. "On the flipside, the political pressure on Trump in a democracy is likely to be much higher once people realize how bad the economy and markets are."

"China's authoritarian system is an advantage here," he added.

Vyas said that while Trump's term ends within four years, Xi is the lifetime president of China with a "long horizon."

Xi doesn't have to worry about elections or consumer sentiment, which could make this a "long, drawn-out battle," Vyas added.

Vyas also noted that China has dominance in the EV market and controls 85% of the capacity to process rare earth minerals, which would impact the US's defense capacities and AI ambitions if China completely cuts off that supply.

A history of trade conflict

Trump has a history of raising tariffs on China in attempts to reduce the US trade deficit and bring back manufacturing jobs.

In 2017, his administration began investigating China's trade practices and, in 2018, imposed a 25% tariff on certain Chinese exports, such as electronics and auto parts.

In February this year, Trump targeted China with tariffs twice, resulting in 20% in duties on China by the end of the month. On April 2, Trump again hit China with 34% tariffs. After China responded with tariffs on US exports, he then hiked this figure to 125%, then 145%, and now up to 245% according to a White House document.

China has announced a 125% counter-tariff on US goods by April 11 and halted exports of rare earth elements critical to US defense industries.

Previous efforts to reduce trade deficits with China have yielded limited results. In 2024, the trade deficit was about $295 billion, lower than $375 billion in 2017 but still more than double the total amount of US exports to China in a year.

Both the US and China are courting other countries

With the US taking a harder stance on global trade, Ilaria Mazzocco, senior fellow in Chinese business and economics at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, told BI that China is seeing "a diplomatic opportunity" to launch "a charm offensive."

"Conversations between the EU and China seem to have taken a softer tone," said Mazzocco. "There's hope on Beijing's side that by showing they are a more status quo, stable, reliable trading and global partner, countries are going to feel reassured, and it's going to improve its foreign relations, like with the EU, where there's been a lot of tension."

After meeting with Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez in Beijing last week, Xi embarked on a tour across Southeast Asia to sign deals on infrastructure and trade. Xi's stop in Malaysia led to deals on AI, rail connectivity, and the export of coconuts.

EU leaders are also planning to travel to Beijing for a late July summit with Xi, which Mazzocco says could be a chance for China to acknowledge it has a structural issue of overproduction and make commitments to address it.

However, Mazzocco added, it is unlikely Southeast Asian countries will replace the US with China as a trading partner, because China doesn't have a strong enough internal demand from consumers to absorb imports from overseas.

The US is also in talks with leaders of the EU. At the White House on Thursday, Trump told Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni that a deal between the EU and US would "100%" be reached "at a certain point."

Mazzocco points out that unpredictability of Trump's policies may be harmful for striking a deal, and runs the risk of having US allies quietly pull back the alliance in the long run.

"We seem to understand that part of the goal is to extract concessions from trading partners, and those concessions may be economic or defense related, but the unpredictability is unhelpful." said Mazzocco. "This is really dangerous because it could really undermine business sentiment globally, and could also in the long term incentivize US trading partners to be a little less reliant on the US, diplomatically and on trade."

• President Donald Trump has issued a wave of executive orders targeting high-profile law firms.
• Trump has restricted clearances — ultimately limiting the way they do business — for firms that have clashed with his administration.
• While some firms have agreed to Trump's demands, others have sued the administration.

As Donald Trump has taken aim at Big Law in recent weeks, some law firms have made deals with the president, while others are refusing to throw in the towel.

The president's wide-reaching orders have prompted reviews of each firm's government contracts, canceling security clearances for some employees and, in certain cases, blocking them from entering federal buildings — including courthouses.

Trump has accused the Big Law firms — including Paul Weiss, Perkins Coie, and Covington & Burling, among others — of weaponizing the judicial system. His orders have, in turn, made it harder for the firms to continue conducting business as usual. Several firms have alleged in lawsuits that the executive orders intended to chill free speech and deter clients from doing business with them. Others have agreed to work with the administration to avoid punitive executive actions against them.

The president has singled out a string of law firms that he says have wronged him in some capacity, have worked with his political opponents, or have had diversity initiatives that are counter to his anti-DEI efforts.

What's more, Trump instructed Attorney General Pam Bondi to identify firms with "frivolous" cases against the administration so that they could be targeted for further executive action.

Whether they're on the ropes or down for the count, here are the firms Trump is taking on, how they've responded, and where the legal process stands for those who have challenged him in court.

Paul Weiss

On March 14, Trump issued an executive order directed at the prominent New York City-based law firm Paul Weiss, where he railed against the attorney Mark Pomerantz and decried what he said was "unlawful discrimination" from diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives at the firm.

Pomerantz previously left Paul Weiss to aid the Manhattan District Attorney's office as it probed Trump's finances. When Pomerantz resigned as special district attorney in February 2022, he wrote in a departing letter that he believed Trump was "guilty of numerous felony violations."

In the order, Trump sought to revoke security clearances and bar access to government buildings for attorneys of the firm. Such a sweeping directive could also include federal courthouses, a scenario that would be detrimental to the firm's work.

However, Trump just days later rescinded the executive order and announced an agreement with Paul Weiss chairman Brad Karp. Trump said the firm would provide $40 million in pro bono work for causes that the administration supports and end its DEI policies.

Karp received a heap of criticism, with many questioning why Paul Weiss didn't challenge Trump's order. In an email to the firm's attorneys, he said there was a desire from the outset to challenge the directive. In the same email, though, Karp argued that even if Paul Weiss won in court, it would become "persona non grata" with the Trump White House, which could prompt a wave of clients to switch to other firms and subsequently threaten the viability of the firm.

"It was very likely that our firm would not be able to survive a protracted dispute with the administration," Karp wrote in the email.

Perkins Coie

On March 6, Trump targeted the law firm Perkins Coie, issuing an executive order to suspend the security clearances of the firm's attorneys and criticizing its diversity and inclusion policies.

In the order, Trump called out what he said was the firm's "dishonest and dangerous activity."

The president, in his order, highlighted the firm's representation of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton — his rival in the 2016 presidential election — during that year's tumultuous campaign.

However, Perkins Coie struck back, filing a lawsuit against the administration for actions that it said "violates core constitutional rights, including the rights to free speech and due process."

"At the heart of the order is an unlawful attack on the freedom of all Americans to select counsel of their choice without fear of retribution or punishment from the government," Perkins Coie managing director Bill Malley said in a statement in March. "We were compelled to take this action to protect our firm and our clients."

The day after Perkins Coie filed its suit, a federal judge agreed to temporarily block part of the president's executive order.

Perkins Coie, in a statement, said the ruling was "an important first step in ensuring this unconstitutional Executive Order is never enforced."

Covington & Burling LLP

Trump on February 25 signed a memorandum to evaluate federal contracts and direct the suspension of security clearances for some employees at Covington & Burling, a DC-based law firm known for its antitrust work.

The president in the memo said he was suspending the clearances of individuals who advised former special counsel Jack Smith.

Smith brought two federal cases against Trump — one for election interference in the 2020 presidential election and the other for retaining classified documents — but both were dropped after the president won reelection to a second term in November 2024.

In the memo, Trump went after individuals whom he said were "involved in the weaponization of government" and named Peter Koski, a lawyer at Covington representing Smith.

A Covington spokesperson in March said it was representing Smith in an "individual" capacity.

"We recently agreed to represent Jack Smith when it became apparent that he would become a subject of a government investigation," the spokesperson said in a statement. "We look forward to defending Mr. Smith's interests and appreciate the trust he has placed in us to do so."

Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP

Skadden made a deal with Trump, acting before it was singled out in any executive orders. The firm promised to provide $100 million in pro bono legal services "to causes that the President and Skadden both support," Trump announced on March 28.

Skadden also affirmed its commitment to merit-based hiring and employee retention, Trump said. The firm also agreed that it would refrain from engaging in "illegal DEI discrimination," according to a copy of the agreement that Trump shared on Truth Social.

In a statement, Jeremy London, Skadden's executive partner, said the firm "engaged proactively" with the administration to reach the agreement.

"We firmly believe that this outcome is in the best interests of our clients, our people, and our Firm," London said.

Speaking from the White House, Trump referred to the deal as "essentially a settlement."

Within the firm, some associates and employees expressed frustration about the deal, calling it the beginning of the end for Skadden.

In the weeks leading up to the agreement, Skadden associate Rachel Cohen publicly resigned and circulated an open letter among associates at top firms calling out their employers for what she has described as inaction in the face of the administration's attacks.

After the deal was announced, another employee, Brenna Frey, also resigned publicly in an announcement on LinkedIn.

Elias Law Group

The chair of Elias Law Group took a different approach after it was targeted by the administration.

Trump named the Elias Law Group in his "frivolous" lawsuits memo, formally titled "Preventing Abuses of the Legal System and the Federal Court."

It claimed that the law firm was "deeply involved in the creation of a false 'dossier' by a foreign national designed to provide a fraudulent basis for Federal law enforcement to investigate a Presidential candidate in order to alter the outcome of the Presidential election."

The memo went on to say that the firm "intentionally sought to conceal the role of his client — failed Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton — in the dossier."

Marc Elias, the Democratic election lawyer who founded and chairs the group, released a statement swinging back at Trump, whose actions target "every attorney and law firm who dares to challenge his assault on the rule of law," he said.

"President Trump's goal is clear," Elias said in the statement. "He wants lawyers and law firms to capitulate and cower until there is no one left to oppose his Administration in court."

Adding that American democracy is in a state of "peril," Elias said his law firm would not cower.

"Elias Law Group will not be deterred from fighting for democracy in court," he said. "There will be no negotiation with this White House about the clients we represent or the lawsuits we bring on their behalf."

Jenner & Block

Trump signed an order naming Jenner & Block on March 25 that revoked security clearances from the firm's attorneys and ordered a review of the firm's contracts with the federal government.

Trump's order singled out Andrew Weissmann, a former Jenner attorney who Trump accused of building his career around "weaponized government and abuse of power." Weissmann was a lead prosecutor in Robert Mueller's Special Counsel's Office, which investigated Trump's 2016 presidential campaign and its ties to Russia.

Jenner issued a statement calling the order an "unconstitutional executive order that has already been declared unlawful by a federal court."

"We remain focused on serving and safeguarding our clients' interests with the dedication, integrity, and expertise that has defined our firm for more than one hundred years and will pursue all appropriate remedies," the statement from Jenner said.

Jenner also fought back with a lawsuit. The firm is represented by Cooley LLP, a liberal-leaning firm that has hired lawyers from Democratic administrations.

On March 28, Judge John D. Bates of the US District Court for the District of Columbia issued a temporary restraining order that keeps the Trump administration from taking action against Jenner. On April 1, Bates extended this order until a final judgement has been made. Both the Justice Department and Jenner consented to the extension.

Following the ruling, Jenner said in a statement that the order holds "no legal weight."

"We will continue to do what we have always done, our job as lawyers and fearless advocates for our clients," the firm said.

WilmerHale

The Trump administration has also targeted WilmerHale, which employed Mueller and other lawyers who worked with the Justice Department to investigate ties between Russia and Trump's 2016 campaign.

On March 27, Trump signed an executive order that suspended security clearances for WilmerHale employees and limited their access to federal buildings. The order also revoked WilmerHale's government contracts for engaging in "partisan representations to achieve political ends" and "efforts to discriminate on the basis of race."

In contrast with other firms that have inked deals with the president, WilmerHale filed a lawsuit.

The firm hired Paul Clement, the conservative legal superstar of the firm Clement & Murphy, to fight back against the Trump administration.

"This lawsuit is absolutely critical to vindicating the First Amendment, our adversarial system of justice, and the rule of law," Clement told Business Insider in a statement.

On the afternoon of March 28, Judge Richard J. Leon of the US District Court for the District of Columbia approved a motion for a temporary restraining order to halt executive actions against WilmerHale.

"There is no doubt this retaliatory action chills speech and legal advocacy, or that it qualifies as a constitutional harm," Leon wrote.

A spokesperson for WilmerHale called the executive order unconstitutional and praised the court's "swift action."

Milbank

On April 2, Trump announced on Truth Social that he had struck a preemptive deal with Milbank without targeting the firm for executive action.

The terms of the deal, according to the president's announcement, include the firm's agreement to end any DEI-based hiring practices, and to perform at least $100 million worth of pro bono legal work to advance causes supported by the Trump administration, such as "assisting veterans" and "combatting antisemitism."

In addition, Milbank's pro bono committee will ensure the firm takes on cases representing "the full political spectrum, including Conservative ideals," and commits that it "will not deny representation to clients" based on the personal political views of individual lawyers, per Trump's announcement.

"Milbank LLP approached President Donald J. Trump and his Administration, stating their resolve to help end the Weaponization of the Justice System and the Legal Profession," reads a statement from the White House included in Trump's post. "The President continues to build an unrivaled network of Lawyers, who will put a stop to Partisan Lawfare in America, and restore Liberty and Justice FOR ALL."

Milbank's chairman, Scott Edelman, said in a statement posted by Trump that, after a "constructive dialogue," the firm was "pleased we were so quickly able to find common ground" with the administration.

When reached by Business Insider, a spokesperson for the firm provided a letter sent by Edelman to Milbank's staff in which he said the agreement "is very much in Milbank's interest."

"The Administration's expressed concerns about big law firms, and in some cases its entry of Executive Orders against particular firms, have created uncertainty for law firms like ours," Edelman's letter to staff reads. "With this agreement, we believe we have gone a long way to putting these issues behind us. But we have done so in a way that allows us to continue to focus on the Firm's values and missions, including with respect to pro bono and our hope to foster an inclusive, non-discriminatory community where all of our members have an equal opportunity to succeed."

Edelman added: "Having now reached an agreement with the Administration, we can continue to do what we do best — focus on providing the best possible advice, counseling and service to our clients."

Susman Godfrey

On April 9, Trump signed an executive memorandum targeting Susman Godfrey, a specialized litigation firm.

In a fact sheet, the White House accused Susman of spearheading "efforts to weaponize the American legal system and degrade the quality of American elections."

Trump's order sought to immediately suspend any Susman security clearances held by the firm's employees, "pending a review of whether such clearances are consistent with the national interest." The federal government said it would also terminate any contracts with the firm.

The firm's hiring practices will also be reviewed "to ensure compliance with civil rights laws against racial bias."

On April 11, Susman filed a complaint against the Trump administration, arguing that Trump's executive order was in violation of the Constitution.

"Unless the Judiciary acts with resolve—now—to repudiate this blatantly unconstitutional Executive Order and the others like it, a dangerous and perhaps irreversible precedent will be set," the complaint reads.

"If President Trump's Executive Orders are allowed to stand, future presidents will face no constraint when they seek to retaliate against a different set of perceived foes. What for two centuries has been beyond the pale will become the new normal," it adds.

Willkie Farr & Gallagher

Willkie Farr & Gallagher, which employs Doug Emhoff, husband of former Vice President Kamala Harris, struck a deal with the administration, pledging at least $100 million in pro bono legal work for conservative causes, Trump said in an April 1 social media post.

"Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP proactively reached out to President Trump and his Administration, offering their decisive commitment to ending the Weaponization of the Justice System and the Legal Profession," the White House said, according to Trump's post on Truth Social.

The firm's ties to Trump go to the 1990s when it represented the then real estate developer in a bankruptcy case.

In 2023, Willkie brought Tim Heaphy as partner. Heaphy was the former chief investigative counsel for the congressional committee that investigated the January 6, 2021, attacks on the Capitol.

The firm also represents X, Elon Musk's social media platform.

Trump said that Willkie Farr & Gallagher also committed to "Merit-Based Hiring, Promotion, and Retention," which touches on the Trump's efforts to dismantle DEI initiatives.

A representative for Willkie Farr & Gallagher did not respond to a request for comment.

Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft

Trump said in a Truth Social post April 11 that the administration had come to an agreement with Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft, saying the law firm agreed to provide $100 million in pro bono legal services.

The services would go toward causes supported by Trump and the law firm, including assisting veterans and law enforcement, combatting antisemitism, and "ensuring fairness in our justice system."

The statement said the firm also agreed to "not engage in illegal DEI discrimination and preferences" or to deny legal representation "because of the personal political views of individual lawyers."

"The substance of our agreement is consistent with the principles that have guided Cadwalader for over 230 years: We always put our client's interests first; We believe that Justice should be available to everyone; and We are committed to attracting, retaining and nurturing the very best talent from all backgrounds," Patrick Quinn, managing partner at Cadwalader, said in a statement shared by Trump.

Cadwalader did not respond to a request for comment.

Kirkland & Ellis

Trump also announced on April 11 the administration had come to an agreement with an additional four law firms, including Kirkland & Ellis. The president said in a Truth Social post the firms agreed to provide a total of $500 million in pro bono legal services to go toward the same types of causes, with each firm contributing $125 million.

The firms also agreed to engage outside counsel to oversee their hiring practices and ensure they comply with antidiscrimination laws.

Trump said as a result of the agreement, he would end an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission investigation into the law firms over their DEI practices, which was initially announced on March 17.

In a joint statement shared by Trump, the senior executives at the four law firms said: "We have resolved this matter while upholding long-held principles important to each of our Firms: Equal Employment Opportunity; providing pro bono assistance to a wide range of underserved populations, and ensuring fairness in the Justice System; and representing a broad spectrum of clients on various matters."

In a firm-wide internal memo obtained by BI, the Kirkland & Ellis executive committee said the agreement "resolves the EEOC's investigation, including its broad request for information about our people and our clients, which we no longer will be required to provide, and we will not be the target of an executive order."

"We made the decision to pursue this solution because at our very core our mission is to protect and support our people and our clients, and this agreement does both," the memo said.

A&O Shearman

A&O Shearman was among the law firms with which Trump said on April 11 that his administration had reached an agreement. The firm agreed to provide $125 million in pro bono legal services to causes supported by the administration. It also agreed to engage outside counsel to oversee its hiring practices, and the EEOC investigation into the firms has stopped.

A&O Shearman did not respond to a request for comment.

Simpson Thacher & Bartlett

Simpson Thacher & Bartlett also reached an agreement with the White House to provide $125 million in pro bono legal services to causes supported by the firm and Trump, as well as engage outside counsel to ensure its hiring practices comply with antidiscrimination laws.

As a result of the agreement, the EEOC investigation into the firm's hiring practices was stopped.

Simpson Thacher & Bartlett did not respond to a request for comment.

Latham & Watkins

Latham & Watkins was also among the four firms that reached an agreement with Trump, according to the April 11 announcement. The firm agreed to provide $125 million in pro bono legal services as well as engage outside counsel to oversee its hiring. As a result, the Trump administration ended the EEOC investigation into the firm.

Latham & Watkins did not respond to a request for comment.

• President Donald Trump addressed the rise of DeepSeek, a Chinese AI app, on Monday night.
• He said the ability to train AI cheaply, which DeepSeek said it has done, is a good thing.
• Experts told BI that DeepSeek challenges the idea of US tech dominance, but that may be positive for AI.

President Donald Trump said the Chinese AI startup DeepSeek's ability to train AI more cheaply is a "positive" development and should be a "wake-up call" for tech industries.

Trump's comments followed DeepSeek's ascension to the top of Apple's free downloads chart, which sent shockwaves through the US tech market on Monday morning.

"So you won't be spending as much, and you'll get the same result hopefully," Trump said Monday evening in a House Republican members conference meeting. "The release of DeepSeek, AI from a Chinese company, should be a wake-up call for our industries that we need to be laser-focused on competing to win."

China has been heavily investing in its tech sector, with state-backed initiatives to boost domestic chip production and AI capabilities, aiming to reduce reliance on US technology.

Meanwhile, the US has expanded the existing export controls on advanced semiconductor technology to China, adding dozens more types of chips and 140 entities to the restriction list.

Last Tuesday, Trump announced the launch of the Stargate Project, a joint artificial intelligence venture with OpenAI, Oracle, SoftBank, and investment firm MGX. The initiative plans to invest up to $500 billion in AI infrastructure across the United States by 2029, with the first data center already under construction in Texas.

Last week, Trump called the project a "monumental undertaking" in a press conference with Larry Ellison and Sam Altman, and touted that it will create 100,000 jobs.

Experts told Business Insider that DeepSeek challenges the idea of US tech dominance, but that may be positive for the future of AI.

Chris Tang, a UCLA professor and global supply chain scholar, called this moment a "trigger" that may motivate OpenAI or Gemini to open up their source code to allow more people to participate in AI development.

"It's still very much early in the game," said Zongyuan Zoe Liu, senior fellow for China studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, "but it certainly serves as a good reminder for American policymakers that technology restriction may not work."

Gadjo Sevilla, a senior tech analyst for AI and tech briefings with BI's sister site EMARKETER, wrote that there is potential for "a race to the bottom for AI pricing and adoption in the coming months," which "runs counter to US Big Tech initiatives where we have Microsoft ($80 billion) and Meta (65 billion) looking to spend on hardware, data centers, and sustainable energy for AI."

"China is not going to slow down. They will do as much as they can with what they can," said Brian Colello, an equity strategist for Morningstar. "It's just such a fast-changing space. Nobody has a clear, sustainable lead, so there will be more breakthroughs and they could come from anywhere. It could come from the US, it could come from China."

• President Donald Trump visited California on Friday to discuss the Los Angeles fires.
• During a roundtable with California officials, Trump promised to help fund relief efforts.
• The meeting came after weeks of Trump threatening to withhold federal funds for recovery.

President Donald Trump traveled to California on Friday afternoon to meet with local leaders, pledging to provide federal disaster relief for people affected by the deadly wildfires ravaging the region.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom greeted Trump cordially on the runway at the Los Angeles International Airport despite tense exchanges between the pair in recent weeks. The governor and president embraced briefly before addressing reporters for short remarks.

"We're going to need your support. We're going to need your help," Newsom said as he stood next to Trump. "You were there for us during COVID, I don't forget that, and I have all the expectations that we'll be able to work together to get this speedy recovery."

"We are going to get it fixed, and we're going to get it permanently fixed," Trump responded, "We're looking to get something completed and the way you get it completed is to work together. They are going to need a lot of federal help."

During a subsequent roundtable with California officials, Trump promised to help fund relief efforts but did not specify how much federal aid would be provided to the state. He also said he would issue an executive order to route more water from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta to Southern California and Central Valley for "beneficial use," echoing a statement in an earlier memo directed to the Secretary of Commerce and Secretary of the Interior.

Trump's visit to the state came after the recently inaugurated president repeatedly criticized California's water policies and threatened to withhold federal aid to help Los Angeles recover from the Palisades and Eaton fires, which killed 28 people. AccuWeather estimates the economic damage from the wildfires totals more than $250 billion, making it one of the costliest wildfire disasters in modern US history.

Newsom and Trump have had tense relations since the president's first term. They clashed over California's declaration as a "sanctuary state" for immigrants in 2017 and the state's right to set its own vehicle emission standards. Trump canceled nearly $1 billion in federal grants for California's high-speed rail in 2019. Newsom also characterized Trump as a threat to American democracy throughout much of last year's presidential campaign, while Trump frequently refers to the governor as "Newscum."

Ahead of the meeting, the Los Angeles Times reported that Newsom had been excluded from a list of participants released by the White House who would attend the briefing.

Over the past week, Trump also repeatedly accused Newsom of having water "pouring into the Pacific Ocean" and of creating "an inferno," including during a press conference on Tuesday where he announced massive funding for an AI initiative.

"I don't think we should give California anything until they let the water flow down," Trump said in an interview with Fox's Sean Hannity on Wednesday, referring to a perceived lack of water being diverted from Northern California to the more drought-prone south.

Newsom's spokesperson, Izzy Gardon, told Business Insider the Governor is "committed to advocating for the needs of Californians in partnership with the federal administration."

Representatives for Trump did not immediately respond to requests for comment from Business Insider.

Los Angeles obtains water from various sources, mostly imported from outside the county. Aside from 660,000 acre-feet of local groundwater every year, a large amount of water comes from the city's 112-year-old aqueduct that runs from the Owens Valley east of the Sierra Nevadas. The city also imports water from the Metropolitan Water District, which relays water from the Colorado River.

"Presidents and their administrations do have the power to stop or delay disaster funds, although they rarely do," wrote Karrigan Börk, professor at the California Environmental Law and Policy Center at UC Davis, in a blog post, citing when the first Trump administration delayed $20 billion in disaster aid to Puerto Rico after Hurricane Maria in 2017.

Börk also warned that interference from the president would fundamentally change authority over water rights from the state to the federal government, which would risk opposition from many western states, and that water flowing into the ocean is needed to keep salinity down so that water can remain fresh for human use.

It remains unclear how much federal funding California will receive for Los Angeles. Trump said at an earlier stop in North Carolina on Friday that he might issue an executive order to "fundamentally reform and overhaul FEMA" or "recommend that FEMA go away."