BAn AI company just filed to go public, and the paperwork contains a warning it doesn't want you to notice.
BThat's a fine way to start a Friday afternoon.
BAnthropic, the company behind Claude, filed its S-1. The Wall Street Journal's opinion page just posted about it on X. It says the company "heavily depends" on chips made by TSMC in Taiwan.
BThat's not a small line. Taiwan Semiconductor, TSMC, makes around ninety percent of the most advanced chips on earth.
BJoseph Sternberg's argument in the Journal is that this IPO is a national-security win for Taiwan. If Wall Street is funding Anthropic, Taiwan's chip supply line gets a louder lobby in Washington.
BI think that's exactly backwards. The IPO doesn't protect Taiwan. It makes the vulnerability public and more expensive.
BMore expensive for the United States?
BFor every American investor who now has to price in a Chinese blockade.
BBut if it's priced in, Washington has to care. That's the win.
BMoney did not stop Russia from rolling into Ukraine. Capital does not deter armies.
BI'm not saying it deters. I'm saying it builds a constituency. Wall Street, Silicon Valley, defense hawks — suddenly they're all reading the same risk.
BThey're all reading the same risk and coming to different conclusions. Investors buy the stock, then pressure the White House to avoid a shooting war.
BAnd avoiding a shooting war over Taiwan is a good thing.
BAvoiding it by being dependent is not a strategy, Bella. That's a hostage situation with extra steps.
BThe S-1 also says a disruption from geopolitical tensions could hurt the company. That is the clearest warning a company can put in writing.
BIt's clear. But the Journal calling it a national-security win is like calling a smoke detector a fireproofing plan.
BA smoke detector does make people pay attention. That's all I'm claiming.
BFine. It gets attention. But attention is only useful if it leads to chip fabs in Arizona, Texas, and Ohio faster.
BThose fabs are being built. Not fast enough, I agree.
BAnd China is not waiting. The New York Times has reported on what it calls the looming Taiwan chip disaster.
BWhich is exactly why having Anthropic and its rivals admit their dependence in public filings is a good thing. It breaks the denial.
BNo, wait — I'll grant that. Public filings are better than secret briefings. But let's not pretend the IPO itself is the defense.
BGrudgingly, fine. The IPO is a warning, not a weapon.
BI'll take it.
BDifferent world entirely — Politico is reporting on X that Josh Shapiro is after a Democratic trifecta in state government.
BAnd they add it's hard not to see his Pennsylvania focus as its own kind of 2028 strategy.
BThat's the quiet part said out loud. He says it's about governing, but every bill signing in Harrisburg looks like an early campaign stop.
BThat's not fair. You can't run for president while your own state legislature is against you. You'd have no record to show.
BWhy not? Plenty of governors run on what they blocked, not what they passed.
BShapiro's pitch is competence, not grievance. He needs the wins.
BAnd if he gets the trifecta and passes his agenda, he walks into Iowa with receipts.
BExactly. That's governing first, presidential run later.
BBut the risk is that Pennsylvania voters see every Harrisburg fight as just another 2028 campaign ad.
BSome will. I read it as a governor who finally has a chance to pass a full Democratic budget. The two aren't mutually exclusive.
BI'm not buying the clean separation. The midterm is a year away and he's already running like it's Iowa.
BHe's in Pennsylvania, Brian. The Politico piece itself notes he's famously bipartisan. That's his record, not some fever dream.
BFamous for being bipartisan doesn't mean he isn't calculating. It means the calculation is working.
BFair point. But I'd rather have a governor doing the job than a candidate doing photo ops.
BWhile we're on campaigns, Reuters reports on X that Ken Paxton is campaigning in Houston today for Senate.
BHouston is the Democratic heart of Texas. For Paxton, that's either brave or desperate.
BIt's also full of Republican donors. He needs both money and swing voters to survive a primary.
BHis base loves him, but Houston is not his base. Suburban voters there have moved away from Republicans.
BIn statewide races, yes. In a primary, he needs to run up numbers where Republicans live.
BAnd he's the attorney general. He has a record, not just a name.
BThat record works for him with the base. The question is whether it works with the Houston suburbs.
BIf it doesn't, he's just a loud voice in a crowded primary.