(Zero Hedge)—About one month ago, when the Mag 7 stocks were screaming higher every day without a care in the world, and before the masses had even considered who would fund the trillions in future capex needs once the organic cash flow topped out – something we had just discussed in “AI Is Now A Debt Bubble Too, Quietly Surpassing All Banks To Become The Largest Sector In The Market” in which we explained why attention would very soon turn to AI companies issuing gargantuan amounts of debt (something we first discussed in July, long before anyone was considering this issue) as has now become the case – we decided to move even further beyond the curve and said that not even the debt would be the gating factor for the AI revolution-cum-arms race, but rather access to energy. That’s because at some point – somewhere around the time companies realized they would no longer be able to rely on either equity or debt capital markets – the US government itself, if it wanted to win the AI war with China where the state directly subsidizes local data centers and AI figures, would have to step in and provide the required capital.
Specifically, we said that “The money is not the problem: AI is the new global arms race, and capex will eventually be funded by governments (US and China). If you want to know why gold/silver/bitcoin is soaring, it’s the “debasement” to fund the AI arms race.”
The money is not the problem: AI is the new global arms race, and capex will eventually be funded by governments (US and China). If you want to know why gold/silver/bitcoin is soaring, it’s the “debasement” to fund the AI arms race.
But you can’t print energy https://t.co/qwdD8QbVON
— zerohedge (@zerohedge) October 14, 2025
Even Elon Musk decided to respond to that particular observation.
And since it had become the norm, we thought it would take the market the usual 6-9 months to catch up to what we – and our readers – were already considering, especially since there still was ample “dry powder” capital among the hyperscalers to delay the rather unpleasant conversation of who would fund what once the money was gone, or so we thought.
Because this time it took less than a month.
What happened, as the market learned the hard way this week, is that OpenAI’s CFO Sarah Friar, with all the finesse of a bull in a China data center, slammed the growing market skepticism that AI would cure cancer, slice bread and lead to universal utopia, and said “I don’t think there’s enough exuberance about AI, when I think about the actual practical implications and what it can do for individuals.”
Her comments came in response to a podcast in which her boss Sam Altman participated, and where he was grotesquely – in a Jeff Skilling sort of way – defensive when billionaire Brad Gerstner asked how a company with $13BN in revenue can afford $1.4T in commitments. Altman’s reply? “If you want to sell your shares, I’ll find you a buyer.”
🚨 Brad Gerstner, an OpenAI investor, asks Sam Altman how a company with $13B in revenue can afford $1.4T in commitments. Altman’s reply? “Happy to find a buyer for your shares.” Translation: No answer. Very concerning. 🚩 pic.twitter.com/9jJKGw9QbF
— WallStreetPro (@wallstreetpro) November 2, 2025
Gerstner did not want to sell his shares – at least not yet – but the fact that Altman did not have a clear answer (that would have to come several days later in an Bill Ackman-size tweet), and instead responded by attacking what would be considered a very rational question, while refusing or being unable to give a clear answer.
However, what Friar did say – and what promptly spooked the market on Wednesday – is a mangled explanation of where the $1+ trillion in required funding would come from, saying OpenAI is “looking for an ecosystem of banks [and] private equity” to support its ambitious plans. But what triggered the selling is when she explicitly said that the US government would have to “backstop the guarantee that allows the financing to happen.”
In other words, when all the other sources of funds dried up – clearly a scenario the company is considering judging by her response – the company would have to come to the US taxpayer.
She further explained that “Federal loan guarantees would really drop the cost of the financing,” enabling OpenAI and its investors to borrow more money at lower rates to meet the company’s ambitious targets. Right… because there is nothing like a company with $14BN in revenue, $1 trillion in “valuation” and $1.4 trillion in commitments, than loading up to the gills with government-backstopped debt. See, if only Enron and Lehman could do the same, both would still be around…
Her comments from Wednesday afternoon immediately spooked the market and NVDA shares suffered their biggest weekly drop since April.
And the reason for the drop is precisely the fact that OpenAI was clearly considering what it would do when the money to fund the trillions in spending – first cash from operations, then debt, then equity – and circular deals dried up, the capital that had lifted NVDA to a $5 trillion market cap and OpenAI reportedly worth around $1 trillion ahead of its looming IPO (which will come just as the AI bubble truly peaks).
The fact that US taxpayers were basically the source of that money, is a little truth the market wasn’t read to hear just yet…. a truth which we laid out clearly one month ago.
The reaction – both in the market and within the heretofore complacent narrative surrounding the AI bubble – set off fire alarms, and prompted Sam Altman to publish his longest yet post (clocking in at almost 1100 words), in which he meant to “clarify a few thing”, namely that Friar had “misspoken” and that the ChatGPT maker was not seeking a bailout for its infrastructure commitments, and contrary to what his CFO mentioned, he “does not have or want government guarantees.”
Only, he does… but don’t call it a guarantee, or bailout.
You see, Friar’s comment was a carefully planted trial balloon, one meant to not only gauge the market’s reaction to what is obviously coming, but also to plant the seed of expectation that one day, Sam Altman would crawl to the White House, tell Trump that OpenAI is now too big to fail as it would take down not only the market but about 20% of GDP growth (which is roughly what datacenter construction accounts for these days), and demand a bailout, only of course it wouldn’t be called that.
Things got worse when Trump’s tech/AI advisor David Sacks said “There Will Be No Federal Bailout For AI… If One Fails, Others Will Take Its Place” refusing to let what had by now become the biggest and most uncomfortable market narrative (i.e., why does the company at the forefront of the AI revolution need government guarantees, or a bailout), leave the front page. And then it got even worse, when it emerged that Sam Altman was – once again (just ask Elon Musk) – lying, after it was revealed that on Oct 27, OpenAI’s Chief Global Affairs Officer Chris Lehane, had submitted a document in which they advocated for including datacenter spend within the “American manufacturing” umbrella.
As Bloomberg explained, contrary to Sam Altman’s representation that he wants nothing to do with the government, OpenAI had in fact asked the Trump administration to revamp a Chips Act tax credit to help lower the cost of artificial intelligence infrastructure, as the startup was exploring additional ways the US government can support an industrywide data center build-out for AI.
In the letter, Lehane suggests the administration work with Congress to expand a 35% chips-focused tax credit to AI data centers, AI server producers and electrical grid components, such as transformers and the specialized steel used to produce them.
Broadening the tax credit will “lower the effective cost of capital, de-risk early investment and unlock private capital to help alleviate bottlenecks and accelerate the AI build in the US,” Lehane said in the letter.
Caught up on this latest web of circular lies (what is it about OpenAI and circles), which is suddenly existential to the viability of the circle-jerk complexTM Altman had to publish yet another “explainer” today to discuss just how he sees his relationship with the government, now that this very touchy topic was all anyone could talk about… not to mention was hammering NVDA stock which has long been the barometer of sentiment toward the AI bubble.
The government has played a role in critical infrastructure builds. Our public submission (posted on our blog) shares our thinking and suggests ideas for how the US government can support domestic supply chain/manufacturing.
This is very in line with everything we have heard… https://t.co/1kAyLKtK6a
— Sam Altman (@sama) November 7, 2025
In its letter, OpenAI advocated for the government to issue grants, cost-sharing agreements, loans, or loan guarantees to “manufacturers” in the AI industry broadly, without specifying exactly which kinds of companies. It is clear that OpenAI would be one of the beneficiaries since it is at the center of the entire AI circle-jerk complexTM.
Altman said an effort to revitalize the US chip industry “across the entire stack — fabs, turbines, transformers, steel, and much more — will help everyone in our industry, and other industries (including us).”
“To the degree the government wants to do something to help ensure a domestic supply chain, great.” Altman wrote. “But that’s super different than loan guarantees to OpenAI, and we hope that’s clear.”
Yes, it’s “super different”, because what Sam is asking for is subsidies, which is precisely what China is bestowing upon its companies. The only difference is that in China all companies are effectively state owned. Meanwhile OpenAI hopes to one day become Zorg Industries and control everyone, including nation states.
And here we go back to square one – namely what we said a month ago is the emerging AI arms race between the US and China, one which OpenAI quietly hoped to piggy back on and supercharge its returns and equity value. OpenAI said the type of financial support it is asking from the government, would help counter China in instances where it is “distorting the market,” such as copper, aluminum and electrical steel. Direct funding would also help shorten lead times for critical grid components such as transformers.
In a separate September white paper on infrastructure policy, OpenAI actually came much closer to admitting it does in fact want explicit government guarantees, in that it supports loan guarantees to allow AI companies to “confidently purchase US-made chips at scale.” The move would shore up demand for US semiconductor facilities while reducing costs for AI companies purchasing chips, the white paper said.
Which it not to say OpenAI hasn’t done its homework: the US has a prototype for loans and loan guarantees for strategic industries, as it offered these incentives to the semiconductor industry as part of the Chips Act. As of the end of January this year, only $5.5 billion of up to $75 billion were awarded, per a Commerce Department report.
OpenAI’s requested tax credit aligns with the Trump administration’s consistent messaging about winning the AI race and its high-level determination to remake the Chips Act of 2022. Earlier this year, it converted a Chips Act grant in Intel Corp. into an equity stake, marking a significant departure from the original plan.
But here’s the thing: sure, go ahead and demand – sorry, politely ask for – government guarantees, backstops, or bailouts – whatever you want to call it – but be prepared to compensate the government by handing over a sizable chunk of equity so that everyone can participate in the upside, and not just be stuck with the soaring electricity and water bills which are needed to fund the explosion of data centers across the nation.
It happened with Intel, which gave up a major equity check to US taxpayers in return for US government support, it happened to rare earth minerals company MP Materials, and all other companies the US has directly invested in as part of Trump’s new industrial policy. To be sure, all those companies which the Chinese government is directly subsidizing, none of them are truly private enterprises! This may come as a shock to Sam, but China is a communist nation, which explains the far greater generosity to engage in collective investment on behalf of the state.
Which is why, in our response to Sam, we said “It’s not a loan guarantee. It’s just the government – ie taxpayers – onboarding the risk for your expansion and growth of your equity value.”
Which then became a question: “What do taxpayers get in return: Intel gave them an equity stake. Will OpenAI do the same? Or is it just higher electricity prices”
It’s not a loan guarantee. It’s just the government – ie taxpayers – onboarding the risk for your expansion and growth of your equity value
What do taxpayers get in return: Intel gave them an equity stake. Will OpenAI do the same? Or is it just higher electricity prices https://t.co/uFaGpxEgdM
— zerohedge (@zerohedge) November 7, 2025
Sam Altman already stole incalculable value by working at an Elon Musk-funded non-profit for years – with all the inherent benefits of such an organization as opposed to a traditional Corporation – before uprooting its corporate structure and transforming it into a traditional corporation, one in which he plans to have the biggest chunk of ownership. And now he is doing it again, only this time he hopes to benefit from taxpayer generosity by pretending it is all for the greater American good without handing over even one share to Uncle Sam.
Don’t let him.
Safeguarding Your American Dream: Discover the Power of America First Healthcare
In today’s economy, healthcare costs remain one of the biggest threats to financial stability and family security. Americans work hard to build a better life, yet rising medical expenses can quickly erode savings, force tough trade-offs, and even push families toward debt or bankruptcy. Medical bills continue to rank as the leading cause of personal bankruptcy in the United States, with millions facing underinsurance or unexpected out-of-pocket burdens that no one plans for. Many turn to government-run marketplace plans under the Affordable Care Act, hoping for relief, only to discover that what appears affordable on paper often delivers higher long-term costs, limited real protection, and coverage that may not align with personal values or family needs.
America First Healthcare stands out as a private insurance agency dedicated to helping conservatives and families secure better coverage and better rates through customized, values-aligned options. By conducting free insurance reviews, the agency uncovers hidden gaps in existing policies and connects clients with private alternatives that emphasize personal responsibility, small-government principles, and genuine affordability—often delivering up to 20% savings while providing stronger protection for the American Dream.
The allure of marketplace plans is easy to understand: open enrollment periods, premium tax credits for many households, and the promise of “comprehensive” benefits mandated by law. Yet recent data reveals a different reality, especially after the expiration of enhanced premium subsidies at the end of 2025. Enrollment for 2026 dropped by more than one million people compared to the prior year, with many shifting to lower-tier bronze plans to keep monthly premiums manageable.
These plans feature significantly higher deductibles—averaging around $7,500 nationally—and greater cost-sharing requirements. Families who once paid modest amounts after subsidies now face average premium increases of $65 or more per month, even as they accept plans that leave them responsible for thousands in upfront costs before meaningful coverage kicks in.
High deductibles create a dangerous barrier to care. Studies show that people in such plans are less likely to seek timely treatment for chronic conditions, attend preventive screenings, or fill necessary prescriptions. A seemingly minor illness or injury can balloon into major expenses when patients delay care until problems worsen. For a family of four, a single hospitalization, cancer diagnosis, or unexpected surgery can easily exceed the deductible, triggering coinsurance and out-of-pocket maximums that still leave substantial bills. One recent analysis noted that some proposed changes could push family deductibles toward $31,000 in future years, further exposing households to financial risk.
Beyond the numbers, marketplace plans often carry structural limitations. Coverage for certain critical services may include waiting periods or narrower networks that restrict access to preferred doctors and specialists. Preventive care is required to be covered without cost-sharing, but everything else—lab work, imaging, specialist visits, or ongoing treatment—typically waits until the deductible is met. This reactive model contrasts sharply with the proactive, holistic approach many families prefer, especially those focused on wellness, early intervention, and maintaining health to enjoy life rather than merely reacting to illness.
Values alignment represents another growing concern. Government-influenced plans operate within a framework shaped by federal mandates and political priorities that may not reflect conservative principles of limited government, personal freedom, and ethical stewardship. Families who want to direct their healthcare dollars toward providers and benefits that honor traditional values sometimes find marketplace options feel misaligned, forcing a compromise between affordability and conviction.
Private alternatives, by contrast, offer year-round flexibility without the restrictions of open enrollment windows. Independent agents can shop across a wider range of carriers to design plans tailored to specific family needs—whether that means lower deductibles for frequent medical users, broader provider networks, or add-ons that support wellness and preventive services from day one. Clients frequently report more stable premiums that do not automatically escalate each year, along with genuine cost savings once the full picture of deductibles, copays, and coverage depth is considered.
Take the experience of real families who made the switch. Amanda C. shared that her new plan felt “way better” than what she had through the marketplace. Johnny Y. noted his previous coverage kept increasing annually until he found a more stable private option. Sofia S. expressed delight with her plan and began recommending it to others. These stories echo a common theme: when families move beyond one-size-fits-all government marketplaces, they often discover customized protection that better safeguards both health and finances.
Founder Jordan Sarmiento’s own journey underscores the stakes. In 2021, a six-day hospitalization generated a $95,000 bill. Under a well-structured private “Conservative Care Coverage” plan, his out-of-pocket responsibility would have been just $500. That stark difference illustrates how thoughtful planning and private options can prevent a medical event from becoming a financial catastrophe.
Practical steps exist for anyone questioning their current coverage. Start with a no-obligation review of your existing policy to identify gaps—high deductibles, limited critical-care benefits, or escalating premiums. Compare total projected costs (premiums plus potential out-of-pocket expenses) rather than monthly premiums alone. Consider family health history, anticipated needs, and lifestyle priorities. Private agencies can present side-by-side options that include stronger wellness incentives, broader access, and plans built on shared values of self-reliance and freedom.
In an era when healthcare inflation continues to outpace general cost-of-living increases, relying solely on marketplace solutions carries growing risk. Families who proactively explore private alternatives frequently achieve meaningful savings while gaining peace of mind that their coverage truly works when needed most.
America First Healthcare makes this exploration straightforward through its free review process. Families and individuals receive personalized guidance to close coverage holes, reduce unnecessary expenses, and secure plans that align with conservative principles—protecting wallets, health, and the American Dream without government overreach. Many who complete a review discover they can enjoy better benefits for less, often saving up to 20% while gaining the customization and stability that marketplace plans struggle to deliver.
Ultimately, protecting your family’s future requires looking beyond the marketing of “affordable” government options. By understanding the long-term costs hidden in high deductibles, shifting coverage tiers, and values mismatches, Americans can make empowered choices. Private, values-driven insurance offers a smarter path—one that rewards diligence, supports wellness, and delivers real security. For those ready to move beyond the limitations of traditional marketplace plans, a simple review can reveal options designed to serve families, not bureaucracies. The American Dream thrives when individuals and families retain control over their healthcare decisions, and thoughtful private coverage plays a vital role in making that possible.