OpenAI is preparing for a significant shift in its financial relationship with Microsoft, potentially retaining a greater share of its revenue in the coming years. According to The Information, the company projects that by the end of the decade, it will be sharing just 8% of its revenue with commercial partners such as Microsoft, down from the roughly 20% it currently hands over.

The gap between those figures represents more than $50 billion in additional revenue that OpenAI could keep for itself, though the report noted it was unclear whether that estimate was cumulative or annual.

At the heart of the matter are ongoing negotiations between the two companies over the cost of cloud computing resources. OpenAI rents servers from Microsoft’s Azure platform, and the terms of that agreement are under review as the partnership evolves.

On Thursday, both companies disclosed they had signed a non-binding agreement to reshape their relationship, a deal that could pave the way for OpenAI to fully restructure into a for-profit enterprise. Under current arrangements, OpenAI’s nonprofit arm is slated to receive more than $100 billion — approximately 20% of the $500 billion valuation it is targeting in private markets. That makes it one of the most heavily funded nonprofit entities in the world, according to a memo from Bret Taylor, chairman of OpenAI’s nonprofit board.

The new financial model would mark a significant recalibration in one of the most closely watched corporate partnerships in technology. Microsoft has been both OpenAI’s largest investor and its essential infrastructure provider, pouring billions into the startup and integrating its models across its software ecosystem. A reduction in Microsoft’s revenue share would allow OpenAI to capture more of the returns on its own growth while still relying heavily on Microsoft’s cloud services to scale its operations.

Across Silicon Valley, Big Tech firms are rewriting the rules of AI partnerships as generative models become central to business strategies. Google, for example, invested billions in Anthropic while structuring its stake to maintain some degree of competitive distance, offering Anthropic access to Google Cloud without binding it exclusively to Google’s ecosystem. Amazon has taken a different approach, securing a minority stake in Anthropic and tying the deal closely to its AWS infrastructure, effectively using its cloud dominance as leverage to lock in AI growth.

These divergent models underline how partnerships are shaping the future of tech companies in Silicon Valley. Microsoft’s early and deep integration with OpenAI has given it a head start in embedding generative AI into products like Office and Bing. But as OpenAI seeks more independence, the renegotiated terms could reshape Microsoft’s influence over its trajectory. Meanwhile, competitors like Google and Amazon are spreading their bets across multiple AI startups, balancing investment with flexibility.

The broader implication is that the financial underpinnings of AI development are now as competitive as the technology itself. For OpenAI, reducing revenue-sharing obligations could provide breathing room to chart a more autonomous course. For Microsoft, the recalibration underscores the challenges of betting so heavily on a single partner at a time when others are intensifying their push to set the pace of AI advancement.

OpenAI has generated nonstop buzz, secured substantial funding and committed billions to infrastructure, but its next step might be the toughest — paying for its ambitions. Massive deals with Oracle and Broadcom topping $300 billion are shining a spotlight on the AI pioneer’s relatively paltry revenues. The company expects to make $13 billion this year, per The Information, before generating anticipated revenues of $100 billion by 2028, The Wall Street Journal reports, citing an anonymous source. That can’t happen without millions of new paying customers.

China has sharpened its challenge to Washington’s semiconductor restrictions, announcing on Saturday two new investigations into U.S. trade practices: one into alleged discrimination in chip policy, and another into suspected dumping of analog chips, just as both sides prepare for another round of trade talks in Spain.

The Ministry of Commerce said the first probe will examine whether Washington’s policies discriminate against Chinese companies in the trade of chips. The second will scrutinize imports of certain U.S. analog chips, such as those used in hearing aids, Wi-Fi routers, and temperature sensors, to determine whether dumping practices have harmed China’s domestic industry.

According to the ministry, the United States has in recent years imposed a series of restrictions on China’s access to advanced semiconductors, including export controls and trade discrimination inquiries. These “protectionist” practices, it argued, are designed to “curb and suppress China’s development of high-tech industries such as advanced computing chips and artificial intelligence.”

Talks to Start in Madrid

Chinese Vice Premier He Lifeng is set to lead a delegation to Madrid from September 14 to 17 for another round of economic dialogue with Washington. Beijing said discussions will focus on tariffs, the “abuse” of export controls, and the contentious issue of TikTok.

In a statement released Saturday, the ministry questioned Washington’s strategy, saying: “What is the U.S.’s intention in imposing sanctions on Chinese companies at this time? China urges the U.S. to immediately correct its erroneous practices and cease its unwarranted suppression of Chinese companies. China will take necessary measures to resolutely safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of Chinese companies.”

Only a day earlier, the U.S. Commerce Department had added 32 entities to its restricted trade list, 23 of them Chinese. That list included two firms accused of acquiring U.S. chipmaking tools for Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corp (SMIC), China’s leading contract chipmaker.

The Madrid talks will mark the fourth major in-person meeting this year between the two economic powers, part of a fragile trade truce that has seen both sides reduce retaliatory tariffs and restore U.S. access to Chinese rare earth minerals. After meetings in Geneva and London, negotiators in Stockholm agreed in late July to extend a tariff pause by another 90 days. President Donald Trump formally approved the extension on August 12, setting a new deadline of November 10.

TikTok remains a flashpoint. The short-video app, owned by China’s ByteDance, faces a looming U.S. ban unless it moves into American ownership. Trump has extended TikTok’s divestment deadline to September 17. U.S. lawmakers argue the platform could expose American user data to Beijing’s control.

China’s official People’s Daily sought to counter that claim in a weekend editorial, declaring: “The Chinese government attaches great importance to data privacy and security and has never and will never require companies or individuals to collect or provide data located in foreign countries for the Chinese government in violation of local laws.”

The paper warned that Beijing will “take necessary measures to safeguard national interests and the rights of Chinese companies” if Washington proceeds with further restrictions.

The Semiconductor Frontline

The flare-up highlights how semiconductors have become the frontline in a broader struggle for technological dominance. U.S. restrictions aim to choke off China’s access to high-end chips critical for artificial intelligence and advanced computing, while Beijing responds with counter-investigations to challenge the legitimacy of Washington’s rules.

What makes this standoff particularly sharp is its resemblance to earlier disputes with other major economies. Europe has also been pressing Washington over export restrictions, wary that American policies might unfairly tilt supply chains. But China’s move is more aggressive: by invoking “anti-discrimination” rules and dumping probes simultaneously, it signals that Beijing is ready to use WTO-style mechanisms to challenge U.S. dominance in chip infrastructure.

Backstory: Echoes of Past WTO Battles

China’s latest actions fit a familiar pattern in its trade confrontations with Washington. In 2012, Beijing lodged a WTO complaint accusing the U.S. of discriminatory tariffs on Chinese steel pipes and solar panels. That same year, the U.S. filed a counter-complaint alleging that China had unfairly subsidized its rare earth industry. Both cases dragged on for years and underscored how the world’s two largest economies used the WTO’s anti-dumping and anti-discrimination mechanisms to press their case.

Similarly, in 2016, the U.S. imposed duties on Chinese cold-rolled steel, alleging dumping at below-market rates. China retaliated with its own probe into American broiler chicken exports, eventually winning a WTO ruling in its favor. These battles revealed a tit-for-tat dynamic: when Washington targeted Chinese industrial exports, Beijing often countered by focusing on U.S. agriculture or technology products.

Thus, China is effectively reviving this playbook by opening fresh probes into American chips just before the Madrid meetings. The difference this time is scale: unlike steel or poultry, semiconductors are now the backbone of both economies’ technological ambitions. The dispute is no longer about commodity goods but about who controls the building blocks of artificial intelligence, cloud computing, and next-generation defense systems.

The backdrop of earlier WTO disputes shows why Beijing is doubling down. For years, it used WTO rulings to push back against what it saw as U.S. protectionism, with mixed success. But now, with Washington taking steps outside WTO structures—through export controls and entity lists—China is blending WTO-style investigations with political pressure to push back harder.

The United States may face an unprecedented financial reckoning if the Supreme Court overturns President Donald Trump’s sweeping emergency tariffs.

Legal experts who spoke to Business Insider said the government could be liable for refunds totaling between $750 billion and $1 trillion, making it one of the largest potential reversals of federal revenue collection in U.S. history.

Despite the staggering figure, trade lawyers stress that the Supreme Court’s decision should hinge on the Constitution, not fiscal consequences.

Two lower courts have already ruled the tariffs illegal, holding that the administration exceeded its authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). But on Wednesday, the Supreme Court agreed to hear and expedite the case, setting up a showdown that could redefine the scope of presidential power over trade.

Trump’s legal team warned in its petition that unwinding the tariffs could be “ruinous” to the economy if refunds are ordered. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, in a filing to the Court earlier this month, cautioned that “delaying a ruling until June 2026 could result in a scenario in which $750 billion – $1 trillion in tariffs have already been collected, and unwinding them could cause significant disruption.”

Still, William Reinsch, Scholl Chair in International Business at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said the Court is likely to deliver a decision by year’s end.

“My experience with the Supreme Court is that when it comes to an economic issue, they don’t always break along typical ideological lines. The economic stakes here are significant in addition to the foreign policy stakes,” he told Business Insider.

“I don’t think it’ll be unanimous,” he added, “but I wouldn’t rule out the possibility that this is the first big case where they go against the president.”

The Trillion-Dollar Problem

Since February, Trump’s administration has invoked the IEEPA—a 1970s law designed for national emergencies and economic sanctions—to impose wide-ranging tariffs. Aside from a few sector-specific duties, nearly all of the measures, from a cumulative 245% tariff on China (briefly in place) to sweeping April tariffs on more than 75 trading partners, fall under the emergency statute.

Small businesses have led the charge in challenging the tariffs, arguing that the Constitution gives Congress, not the president, the power to set duties. Both the Court of International Trade and a federal appeals court sided with challengers, striking down the tariffs as unconstitutional. Yet, the duties remain in place because lower courts declined to grant an injunction halting their enforcement.

Will Planert, a trade attorney at Morris, Manning & Martin LLP, said some conservative justices may balk at granting such broad economic power to the executive branch.

“In Biden’s attempt to modify the student loan program, for example, those justices have been very skeptical of the idea that Congress can confer very broad economic powers on the president or the federal agencies,” he explained.

Planert also questioned the government’s warning of economic ruin. “I doubt that the government losing the sum of money it did not have just half a year ago would be ‘ruinous.’ Any amount of fiscal disturbance should not be taken into consideration when the decision should rely on the Constitution,” he said.

The Tax Foundation estimates that Trump’s tariffs would raise $2.3 trillion in revenue over the next decade, though at the cost of reducing U.S. GDP by 0.9%—a drag that could worsen once foreign retaliation is factored in.

“If the tariffs are illegal, then they are illegal irrespective of fiscal impact,” Planert stressed. “In that case, the government would have collected a very large amount of money that it’s not entitled to, which would be all the more reason to have it returned.”

Refund Precedent

The U.S. has faced large-scale tariff refunds before, albeit on a far smaller scale. In 1998, the Supreme Court struck down the Harbor Maintenance Tax on exports, forcing the government to refund over $1 billion.

Robert Shapiro, chair of international trade practice at Thompson Coburn LLP, said the logistics this time would be daunting. Normally, companies must file a protest for each customs entry to receive a refund.

“Having customs do the work twice for everything just doesn’t make sense,” he said. “It may eventually be up to the Board of International Trade to decide how to do the refunds.”

And the fallout could ripple beyond importers. Shapiro noted that “since many companies were explicit that they had to raise prices due to tariffs, customers may want their money back, too, if importers are getting theirs.”

The case is shaping up as a constitutional stress test of presidential authority in economic policy.

If the Court rules against the administration, it would force the Treasury to undertake the largest tariff refund program in U.S. history, with consequences for both businesses and consumers. If it sides with Trump, the decision could cement a new precedent: giving future presidents sweeping unilateral powers to reshape global trade under the guise of emergency law.

Either way, the ruling could reverberate across decades of U.S. trade policy, setting a marker for how far executive power can extend into the nation’s economic life.