Artificial intelligence leaders OpenAI and Anthropic are increasingly orienting their businesses around enterprise customers, a shift that highlights how the generative AI boom is entering a more commercially disciplined phase marked by high costs, tougher competition, and growing pressure to turn adoption into durable revenue.

At the World Economic Forum in Davos, executives from both companies framed enterprise adoption not as a side business but as the backbone of their growth strategies in 2026 and beyond. The emphasis signals a recognition that large organizations, rather than individual users, are better positioned to fund the massive infrastructure required to train and deploy advanced AI systems.

OpenAI Chief Financial Officer Sarah Friar said enterprise customers currently make up about 40% of the company’s business, with that figure expected to approach 50% by year-end. The company disclosed late last year that more than one million businesses globally now use its tools, ranging from customer support automation and software development to data analysis and internal productivity systems.

This enterprise push marks a significant evolution for OpenAI, which began in 2015 as a nonprofit research lab with a mission centered on broad societal benefit. Since the launch of ChatGPT in 2022, the company has become one of the most prominent consumer-facing names in technology, while also transforming into a core supplier of AI capabilities for companies across sectors. Its valuation, now estimated at around $500 billion, has intensified expectations that OpenAI will demonstrate a clear and scalable path to profitability.

Friar said the company’s strategy is focused on narrowing what she described as a capability gap, meaning the difference between what AI models can do in theory and the tangible value enterprises can extract in practice. That has translated into a heavier focus on customized models, enterprise-grade security, compliance features, and deeper integrations with existing business software.

Anthropic has taken a more enterprise-first path. Chief Executive Dario Amodei said roughly 80% of the company’s revenue comes from enterprise clients, with consumer use making up the remainder. He described businesses as a more stable and predictable source of income, particularly for a company that has positioned itself around safety, reliability, and controlled deployment of AI systems.

Founded in 2021 by former OpenAI executives and researchers, Anthropic has grown rapidly, reaching more than 300,000 business customers as of September, up from fewer than 1,000 two years earlier. Its valuation, now estimated at about $350 billion, underscores how quickly investors have rewarded firms that can demonstrate enterprise traction.

The enterprise tilt across both companies is closely tied to the economics of AI. Training large language models requires billions of dollars in investment, driven by soaring demand for specialized chips, data centers, and energy. Consumer subscriptions, while valuable for brand recognition and data, often struggle to cover these costs at scale. Enterprise contracts, by contrast, can run into the millions of dollars annually and are often renewed over multiple years.

There is also a strategic dimension. Enterprises tend to embed AI deeply into their operations, from supply chain management to software engineering, making switching costs higher once systems are deployed. That creates longer-lasting customer relationships and more predictable cash flows, an attractive proposition for companies navigating volatile capital markets.

Competition, however, is intensifying. OpenAI and Anthropic are not only vying with each other but also with technology giants such as Microsoft, Google, and Amazon, which are bundling AI tools into cloud services that many enterprises already use. This has raised the stakes around differentiation, pushing startups to emphasize performance, reliability, and governance rather than novelty alone.

In that environment, enterprise adoption has become a key signal of credibility. Large organizations tend to move cautiously, subjecting AI tools to legal, security, and compliance reviews before deployment. Winning those clients sends a message to the market that a provider’s technology is ready for real-world use at scale.

Taken together, the remarks from Davos point to a broader transition in the AI sector. The focus is shifting from rapid user growth and eye-catching demos to monetization, operational resilience, and long-term value creation. This makes enterprise customers not just an attractive option for OpenAI and Anthropic. They are central to proving that the generative AI revolution can sustain itself financially as it reshapes how businesses operate.

President Donald Trump’s renewed push to acquire Greenland has opened a fresh fault line between Washington and its European allies, exposing strains within NATO and reviving long-standing questions about sovereignty, security, and the use of economic leverage in alliance politics.

While Trump has now ruled out military force, a move that has eased immediate fears of escalation, his remarks underline how far the proposal has already unsettled Europe.

Speaking at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Trump called for “immediate negotiations” with Denmark to discuss the acquisition of Greenland, an autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark. In the same breath, he sought to tamp down alarm by explicitly rejecting the use of military power to pursue the territory.

“I don’t want to use force. I won’t use force,” Trump said, responding to growing concern in Europe that the United States might escalate the dispute beyond diplomacy.

That assurance marked a noticeable shift in tone after days of mounting tension. European officials had reacted sharply to Trump’s earlier rhetoric, particularly his repeated insistence that Greenland is indispensable to U.S. national security and his suggestion that Denmark and NATO are incapable of defending it. Those remarks, coupled with threats of new tariffs against several NATO countries, had raised fears that Washington was prepared to coerce allies over an issue touching directly on territorial integrity.

Markets reflected that anxiety. Stocks fell earlier in the week as investors digested the prospect of a widening transatlantic dispute, only to rebound after Trump ruled out military action. The market response highlighted how seriously the episode is being taken, not just as political theatre but as a potential source of real geopolitical and economic disruption.

Despite the softer language on force, Trump did little to reassure European capitals that the pressure itself had eased. He maintained that Greenland is a strategic necessity for the United States, pointing to the Arctic’s growing importance as melting ice opens new shipping routes and sharpens competition among major powers.

The island’s location gives it strategic value for missile defense, space surveillance, and Arctic operations, areas where the U.S. already maintains a presence through Pituffik Space Base.

Trump framed the issue in stark terms, arguing that only the United States has the capacity to secure Greenland against emerging threats.

“No nation or group of nations is in any position to be able to secure Greenland other than the United States,” he said, a statement that implicitly questioned NATO’s collective defense commitments and struck a nerve among European allies who see Arctic security as a shared responsibility.

The proposal goes beyond defense policy into the core issue of sovereignty for Denmark. Greenland has its own government and a long-running debate over independence, making the idea of a transfer of ownership politically radioactive. Danish officials have repeatedly said the island is not for sale, a position that reflects both constitutional realities and public opinion at home and in Greenland itself.

The broader European reaction has been shaped by concern over precedent. While Trump’s rejection of military force removed the most extreme scenario from the table, his continued use of economic pressure has left allies uneasy. By warning that countries that refuse the proposal will face consequences, Trump reinforced a transactional approach that contrasts sharply with Europe’s emphasis on consensus and rules-based diplomacy.

“So they have a choice,” Trump said in Davos. “You can say yes, and we will be very appreciative. Or you can say no, and we will remember.”

That framing has fed the perception in Europe that the Greenland push is less about partnership than leverage. Several European officials privately describe the move as a stress test for NATO unity, particularly at a time when the alliance is already grappling with the war in Ukraine, defense spending debates, and questions about long-term U.S. commitment.

Historically, U.S. interest in Greenland is not new. Washington explored purchasing the territory after World War II and has maintained a strategic footprint there for decades. What is different now is the public, high-level push for acquisition and the willingness to link it to trade measures and alliance obligations. This has turned what might have remained a quiet strategic discussion into a public diplomatic dispute.

Trump’s decision to rule out military force appears to reflect the resistance he has encountered from Europe. The backlash from allies, combined with market volatility, has shown the costs of allowing the issue to escalate unchecked. By dialing back the most confrontational aspect of his earlier posture, Trump has sought to regain some control over the narrative without abandoning the core objective.

Still, the episode has already left its mark. It has strained trust between Washington and European capitals, raised doubts about how far the United States is willing to go in pursuing strategic assets, and underscored the fragility of alliance politics in an era of renewed great-power competition.

Denmark has given no indication it is willing to entertain the idea, and Greenland’s own leaders are likely to resist any discussion that sidelines their authority. So, it is not clear if Trump is making headway with his pressure. What is clear is that Trump has once again pushed an unconventional idea into the center of global diplomacy, forcing allies to respond.

JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon has escalated warnings over President Donald Trump’s proposal to impose a one-year cap of 10% on credit card interest rates, arguing that the policy could destabilize consumer credit markets and send shockwaves through the wider U.S. economy, far beyond the banking sector.

Speaking at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Dimon described the proposal as “an economic disaster,” stressing that the fallout would be felt most acutely by households, small businesses, and local governments rather than by large financial institutions. JPMorgan, he said, would survive such a move, but only by sharply shrinking its credit card operations.

“In the worst case, you would have to have a drastic reduction of the credit card business,” Dimon said, adding that the bank’s ability to absorb the shock should not be mistaken for evidence that the policy is viable.

At the core of Dimon’s argument is the structure of the U.S. credit card market. Credit cards are unsecured loans, priced according to risk. Interest rates are higher because lenders must account for defaults, fraud, operational costs, and capital requirements. A hard cap of 10%, Dimon warned, would make it uneconomic to lend to large segments of the population, particularly borrowers with lower credit scores.

He estimated that as many as 80% of Americans could lose access to credit cards if such a cap were enforced. While that figure is not independently verified, it reflects a widely held concern among banks that price controls would force them to ration credit rather than extend cheaper credit more broadly.

Dimon’s critique extended beyond banking balance sheets to the mechanics of the consumer economy. Credit cards play a central role in smoothing household cash flow, supporting discretionary spending, and enabling short-term borrowing for emergencies.

If access were abruptly curtailed, he argued, the effects would ripple outward.

“The people crying most won’t be the credit card companies,” Dimon said.

Instead, he pointed to restaurants, retailers, travel companies, and service providers that depend on consumer spending. He also warned of downstream consequences for municipalities, noting that households under financial strain could miss utility payments and other basic obligations.

“People will miss their water payments,” he said.

To illustrate his point, Dimon jokingly suggested that lawmakers test the proposal by forcing banks in Vermont and Massachusetts to comply and then observe the outcome, a remark that drew laughter but underscored his belief that the impact would be immediate and visible.

The comments build on earlier warnings from JPMorgan’s leadership. During the bank’s fourth-quarter earnings call last week, its chief financial officer said price controls on card interest rates could make the business “no longer a good business,” reinforcing the view that lenders would respond by pulling back credit rather than absorbing losses.

More broadly, the debate highlights a recurring tension in U.S. financial policy: the trade-off between affordability and access. Supporters of the rate cap argue that credit card interest rates, which often exceed 20%, are punitive and contribute to household financial stress, especially for lower-income borrowers. Critics counter that caps ignore risk differentiation and could exclude precisely those consumers the policy is meant to help.

Historical precedents lend weight to that concern. Past experiments with interest rate ceilings, both in the U.S. and abroad, have often resulted in credit contraction, growth in informal lending, or tighter eligibility standards. Banks typically respond by reducing limits, raising fees elsewhere, or exiting higher-risk segments altogether.

Dimon was careful to strike a conciliatory tone toward the administration more broadly. Asked about Trump’s geopolitical moves, including on immigration and NATO, he described them as more qualitative issues whose outcomes would depend on implementation and intent. On credit cards, however, he said he felt compelled to speak out because of his deep familiarity with the issue and its real-world consequences.

“Whatever the president and Congress decide, we’ll deal with it,” Dimon said, adding that JPMorgan plans to release more detailed analysis on the likely economic effects of a rate cap.

He also emphasized that he shares the goal of improving affordability for consumers, but views blunt price controls as the wrong instrument.

Dimon’s intervention signals that the fight over credit card rates is shaping up to be a defining test of how far Washington is willing to intervene directly in consumer finance. From the banking industry’s perspective, the risk is not reduced profitability, but a sudden tightening of credit that could reverberate through everyday economic life across the United States.