Claude is BANNED!

Claude got banned. Something happened this week that nobody in the AI world saw coming. Not like this, not this fast, and not this dramatic. Donald Trump just banned an AI company from every single federal agency in the United States government.

Not a foreign company, not a Chinese company, not some shady operation run out of a basement somewhere. He banned Anthropic, the company behind Claude, one of the most powerful AI tools on the planet right now. A company worth 380 billion, a company that just raised $30 billion in a single funding round two weeks ago. A company of eight of the 10 largest corporations in America is paying customers.

One truth social post, February the 27th, 2026, and it was over. As stated, this is the quote, I am directing every federal agency in the United States government to immediately cease all use of Anthropic's technology. We don't need it, we don't want it, we'll not do business with them again. That is a direct quote from the president of the United States about an AI company.

And if you are watching this thinking this is just some inside the belt way political story that doesn't affect you, I want you to stay with me because what happened this week is going to reshape how AI companies operate in America. It's going to change how AI gets used in the military and it could change what happens to one of the most valuable companies in the world right at the moment they're about to go public. Let me take you through and talk you through exactly what happened step-by-step. No spin, just a story.

First of all, let me tell you who Anthropic is because a lot of people watching this might not know the company by name even if they've heard of Claude. Anthropic was founded in 2021. Dario Amodi is the CEO, his sister, Daniela Amodi is the president. They both came from OpenAI which is the company that makes ChatGPT.

Dario was one of the most senior people there. He and a group of colleagues left and started Anthropic with a specific focus on AI safety. Their main product is Claude, an AI system. Think of it like ChatGPT but made by a different company with a different set of priorities baked into how it works.

Anthropic has grown at a speed that is almost hard to believe. In January of 2025, the annualized revenue was 1 billion. By February of 2026, just one year later, that number was $14 billion. That is 14 times growth in 12 months.

Eight of the Fortune 10, meaning eight of the 10 biggest companies in America by revenue are now Claude customers. Over 500 companies spend more than $1 million a year on Claude. The number of businesses spending over $100,000 a year on Claude grew seven times in a single year. Two weeks before all of this blew up on February the 12th, 2026, Anthropic announced a $30 billion funding round.

The valuation hit $380 billion. That put them in the same conversation as SpaceX and OpenAI. It's one of the most valuable private companies on earth. They were getting ready to go public on the stock market later this year.

The IPO of the decade. And that was the plan. And then came the Pentagon. Here's how this started and this part matters.

So stay with me. Back in July of 2025, the U.S. Department of Defense signed contracts with several AI companies and Anthropic was one of them. The contract was worth up to 200 million.

Claude was going to be used inside military and intelligence systems. And not just in general systems, Claude became the only AI model cleared for use in classified settings. Top secret, compartmented intelligence. Most sensitive systems the U.S.

government operates. That's how trusted Claude was. There is a company called Palantir. Alex Karp runs it.

Palantir is the technical middleman between AI companies like Anthropic and the actual government and military systems where those tools get deployed. Anthropic builds Claude. Palantir integrates Claude into classified networks and military platforms. The government uses it from there.

Now, early 2026, the U.S. military conducts a raid in Venezuela. The result is the capture of President Nicolas Maduro and the deaths of 83 people. Reports leaked that Claude was involved in that operation somehow through the classified systems.

We do not know the exact role. We do not know exactly how it was used, but the report said Claude was in there operating inside a lethal military mission. Some Anthropic employees found out they met with Palantir executives and asked questions. How was Claude used?

What exactly happened? Those questions made their way up the chain to the Pentagon. And the Pentagon interpreted the outreach as Anthropic trying to exert control over military operations. And that's where the standoff began.

On Tuesday, February 24th, 2026, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth delivered an ultimatum. He gave Anthropic until 5.01 p.m. Eastern time of Friday, February 27th, to agree to let the military use Claude for, in their words, all lawful purposes. No restrictions, full access, or face consequences.

The consequences Hegseth listed were serious. The Pentagon threatened to designate Anthropic as a supply chain risk to national security. That's a label that is normally used for companies tied to foreign adversaries, countries like China and Russia, companies that the U.S. government considers a threat to national security infrastructure.

It's not a label that has ever been applied to an American AI company before. If that designation landed, any company that does business with the Pentagon would be required to cut ties with Anthropic. Defense contractors, military suppliers, any business that holds a government contract or wants one. All of them would have to prove they have zero connections in their work with the military.

And Anthropic gets about 80% of its revenue from enterprise customers, big companies. Many of them, big companies, either have government contracts or want them. That supply chain risk label, if it's stuck, could cause a massive portion of Anthropic's customer base to walk away. The Pentagon also raised the possibility of invoking the Defense Production Act, a law from 1950 that gives the president significant emergency authority to direct domestic industries.

In other words, they were suggesting they could potentially compel Anthropic to hand over an unrestricted version of Claude on national security grounds. Those were serious threats, and Anthropic had until Friday afternoon to respond. So what did Anthropic actually want? What were they asking for?

Two things, just two things. Number one, they did not want Claude used for mass surveillance of American citizens. Number two, they did not want Claude used as the final decision maker in lethal military operations without a human being in the loop. Anthropic Dario Amodi put out a statement on Thursday, February 26th, the day before the deadline.

He said, and I'm paraphrasing here, that Anthropic understands the Department of War makes military decisions, not private companies. He said Anthropic had never objected to specific military operations, and had never tried to limit use of their technology in an ad hoc way. He said that domestic mass surveillance is incompatible with democratic values, and he said that today's AI systems are simply not reliable enough to power fully autonomous weapons safely. And he said those were the two lines Anthropic would not cross.

The Pentagon's chief technology officer, Emil Michael, responded publicly on social media. He called Amodi a liar. He said Amodi had a God complex. He said the government already had offered to put in writing that they would follow existing federal laws that restrict surveillance of Americans.

He said the Pentagon had good concessions. And he said that Anthropic's position was not about safety, it was about control. Anthropic came back and said the contract language they received from the Pentagon made virtually no progress on the surveillance question. They said the new language was paired with, quote, legalese that would allow those safeguards to be disregarded at will.

So the two sides were genuinely far apart on whether the offer even moved the needle. One side said we made concessions. The other side said the concessions weren't real. Thursday night, Daryl Amodi put out a long statement.

He said the threats from the Defense Department would not change Anthropic's position. He said their strong preference to keep serving the military was there, but he would not remove the two safeguards. And at that point, the deadline was less than 24 hours away. Now, let me bring in someone whose opinion is worth paying attention to here, because this story has a lot of voices, and a lot of those voices have a stake in the outcome.

There is one voice that stands out as unusually credible. Lieutenant General Jack Shanahan, retired. He was Founding Director of the Pentagon's Joint Artificial Intelligence Center, and before that, he led Project Maven. Project Maven was the Department of Defense's first major AI initiative, launched in 2017.

It used Google's AI to analyze drone surveillance footage to improve targeting. That project became anonymously controversial. 4,000 Google employees signed an internal letter to Sundar Pichai, demanding Google pull out of it. Multiple employees resigned.

Others refused to work, and Google did not renew the contract less than a year in. And then Google published a public statement saying they would not build AI for weapons. So Jack Shanahan raised that project. He ran that project.

He was on the receiving end of that backlash. He has seen this movie before. He posted publicly during the standoff. He said he was in the middle of Project Maven and Google, and that he's more sympathetic to Anthropic's position than he was to Google's position back in 2018.

And said Anthropic is not trying to play cute here. His key distinction was this. Google in 2018 simply refused to work with the military at all. Anthropic is not refusing, it's just that Claude was already deployed across government systems, including classified ones.

Anthropic was not walking away from the military. They were asking for two specific limits. Shanahan found that meaningfully different and more defensible. He also noted that AI systems are simply not ready for prime time in national security settings when it comes to fully autonomous decisions.

They hallucinate, they make errors. In a war environment where people's lives are on the line, those errors can carry a completely different weight than they do in a business setting. Meanwhile, opening eye, CEO Sam Altman was on CNBC Friday morning. He said that for all his differences with Anthropic, he mostly trusts them as a company.

And he said that something turned out to be very significant. He told CNBC. that his company was also negotiating a deal with the Pentagon, and that deal would include exclusions for domestic surveillance and autonomous weapons, the same two red lines as Anthropic. He sent an internal note to OpenAI's staff Thursday night, which the Wall Street Journal reported on, and he told his team that OpenAI was seeking a Pentagon deal that would exclude use for surveillance in the U.S.

or to power autonomous weapons without human approval. Then just hours after Trump's ban on Anthropic was announced Friday afternoon, Sam Altman posted on social media that OpenAI had reached an agreement with the Department of Defense to deploy its models on classified networks. He said the deal included explicit prohibitions on domestic mass surveillance and autonomous weapons without human oversight. He said the Department of War agrees with these principles and asked the Pentagon to offer the same terms to all AI companies.

So the company that made the deal included the same restrictions that Anthropic was banned for requesting. Also worth noting, more than 300 Google and OpenAI employees signed an open letter during the standoff saying we will not be divided. They were saying the Pentagon was negotiating with multiple companies and trying to get each one to agree separately to what Anthropic had refused. The letter was a statement that those employees did not want their companies to undercut Anthropic's position.

More than 100 Google employees separately sent a letter to Google management asking them to hold the same red lines as Anthropic. And Elon Musk's company, XAI, had already signed and agreed to the Pentagon's terms allowing unrestricted lawful use. XAI is a direct competitor to both Anthropic and OpenAI in the AI space. Now let's talk about Palantir for a moment because their role here is unusual.

Palantir is worth understanding. It is a company that actually integrates AI tools like Claude into the classified government and military networks where they get used. Think of Palantir as a plumber. Anthropic installs the water.

Palantir lays the pipes, the carrier, where the government needs it. Once Claude is inside Palantir's classified platforms, Anthropic has very limited visibility into exactly how their technology is being used day to day. They have to trust that Palantir and the end user, the Pentagon, are respecting the boundaries that Anthropic sets. And after the Venezuela raid, they felt that is what broke down.

CEO Alex Karp has been notably quiet during this entire dispute. He has not commented publicly. He's not getting between his client, the Pentagon, and the AI company his platform depends on. Palantir holds a $200 million relationship with the Defense Department.

That is a relationship worth protecting. The decision to ban Anthropic also creates a real problem for Palantir because Claude was integrated into some of Palantir's defense work. Palantir now needs to find a replacement. That transition will have costs and complications.

Jensen Huang, CEO of NVIDIA, told reporters that if the situation does not get resolved, it is not the end of the world because there are other AI companies the Pentagon can work with. But he said he hoped the two sides could come to an agreement. On Friday afternoon, 30 minutes before the 5.01pm deadline, before that deadline even arrived, Trump posted on Truth Social. He ordered every federal agency to immediately cease all of Anthropic's technology, all use of Anthropic's technology.

He gave certain agencies, including the Pentagon, six months to phase out their use of Anthropic's products. He warned that if Anthropic did not cooperate during the phase-out period, he would use the full power of the presidency to make them comply with major civil and criminal consequences. Defense Secretary Pete Hexeff posted on social media that he was directing the Department of War to designate Anthropic as a supply chain risk to national security. He said, effective immediately, no contractor, supplier, or partner that does business with the U.S.

military may conduct any commercial activity with Anthropic. And he said Anthropic would be allowed to continue providing services for no more than six months to allow for a transition to, in his words, a better and more patriotic service provider. Anthropic's legal team pushed back on the scope of Hexeff's designation, arguing he does not have the legal authority to ban military contractors from doing business with Anthropic across the board, since the supply chain risk designation would only apply to contractors who work with the Pentagon specifically, not all their commercial activity. That legal question has not been resolved.

Now, let me give you the numbers, because this is where the story gets really interesting from a business standpoint. Anthropic just raised $30 billion, their valuation is $180 billion, their annualized revenue is $1 billion, the Pentagon contract they stand to lose is worth up to $200 million. 100 million sounds like a big number, but as a percentage of $14 billion in annual revenue, it's less than 2%, less than 2 cents out of every dollar Anthropic makes. So the contract itself is not the threat to Anthropic's survival.

The threat is the supply chain risk designation. And here's why. Anthropic gets about 80% of its revenue from enterprise companies, big companies that use Claude to run parts of their business. Now, imagine you are one of those big companies, you have a Pentagon contract, or you want one one day.

You will hear that the defense department has designated your AI provider as a supply chain risk to national security. That is the same label they put on certain Chinese manufacturers that the government considers potential threats. The same label. What do you do?

Even if your lawyers tell you the designation only applies to Pentagon specified work, do you want to take the risk? Do you want to be the company that keeps using software from an entity the US government just called a national security risk? For a lot of enterprise customers, the answer is going to be no, and they are going to switch AI providers quietly and quickly. Alan Rosenstein, a law professor at the University of Minnesota, put it clearly to CNN.

He said, The government knows Anthropic's technology is actually good. The goal is to use every source of leverage possible. The supply chain risk label is a very powerful source of leverage. He said, The government wants to keep using the technology.

It's using every tool available to force a change in terms. The IPO question is also critical here. Anthropic was planning to go public on the stock market later this year. A successful IPO was going to value this company at hundreds of billions of dollars.

Major institutional investors were preparing. Now, those same investors are looking at a company that has been called a national security risk by the president and the defense secretary of the United States. That is not a good headline for a company about to go public. It adds risk.

It could delay or complicate the timeline significantly. Dario Amodi addressed this directly. He noted that Anthropic's valuation and revenue have continued to grow throughout the standoff. He used that fact to argue that the commercial market trusts Anthropic's approach.

That the enterprise customers understand what Anthropic is doing and have not run. At least, not yet. Now, let's talk about what happens to the military's AI operations. Claude was the only AI model deployed in the military's classified systems.

As of this ban, that changes. The six-month phase-out period gives the Pentagon time to find replacements. Hegsef mentioned that ex-AI's Grok system is, in his words, on board with being used in a classified setting. But here is what a Pentagon official acknowledged to CNN.

Grok is not viewed as being as advanced as Claude. So in the short term, the military may be operating with less capable AI tools than it had before. That is a real trade-off. And it's one that people inside and outside the military are paying attention to.

General Jack Shanahan's point is relevant here again. He said AI systems are not ready for primetime in high-stakes national security settings when it comes to fully autonomous operations. These systems still hallucinate. They still make mistakes that do not make sense.

Even the smartest models do unexpected things. The concern is what makes those mistakes look like and what do they look like in a war zone versus in a business office. The consequences are categorically different. Let me bring in the congressional angle because this was not just the executive branch acting alone.

Multi-members of Congress spoke out publicly on Friday as events unfolded. Senators Ed Markey and Chris Van Hollen, both Democrats, wrote to Hegsef saying that the Pentagon's threats represent a chilling abuse of government power. Representative George Whitesides wrote that threatening to force changes to safety policies on an accelerated timeline could push the department toward broader AI deployment without sufficient safety guardrails. Senator Mark Warner, the ranking member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said the president's directive to halt use of a leading American AI company could have major consequences for national security and American competitiveness in AI.

He noted that pulling an American AI leader at a time when the administration itself is called the AI race with China, equivalent to the space race during the Cold War, seems counterproductive. That last point is one of the most striking elements of this entire story when you look at it purely from a strategic standpoint. The US government has repeatedly said that winning the AI race against China is one of the most important national security priorities of this decade. And in the same week, it banned one of the most advanced American AI companies from all federal government use and designated it a supply chain risk.

Greg Allen, a defense analyst who spoke to Bloomberg, framed it this way. He said talking and taking a domestic AI champion at a time when the White House is calling the AI race with China, equivalent to the Cold War space race, and lighting it on fire over this issue is a significant strategic question worth examining. Now, let me zoom out because there's a bigger picture here that matters for everyone watching. What this dispute is actually about at its core is a question that has never been answered before.

Who gets to decide how AI is used once a company sells it to someone? When Anthropic sold access to Claude to the Pentagon, were they selling a tool with certain rules attached or were they selling a tool in case they didn't have access to it? given up or saying how it gets used. Anthropic says it first, the Pentagon says it second, and that disagreement is not unique to Anthropic and the US military.

It's a question that every AI company and every major customer of AI is going to face. It's a contract question, it is a legal question, it's a policy question, and nobody has a clean answer yet. The open AI deal that Sam Altman announced Friday night is going to be watched very closely for exactly this reason because Altman said the Department of War agrees with their same red lines on surveillance and autonomous weapons. And he asked the Pentagon to offer those same terms to all AI companies, meaning open AI is publicly inviting standard, a framework, where the government and AI companies have an agreed set of limits that apply across the board.

Whether that happens is a very open question. Right now, I want to take a quick second to tell you about the AI Profit Boarding. This is my private community for people who want to stay ahead of AI developments like this one. Not just read about them after the fact, but understand them, use them, and build with them.

We track developments like the anthropic situation, we break down what AI companies are actually building, we look at what that means for businesses, for jobs, for money, and we share tools and systems that real people are using right now to get ahead. If you want to be part of that conversation, the link's in the comments description, or just go to theiprofitboarding.com. Come join us, I'll get back to the story. Let me also tell you about what this means for Palantir's future specifically, because Palantir is in an interesting position.

Palantir built integrations between Claude and classified military systems. That work has to be rebuilt or redirected now. Alex Karp said nothing about this publicly. Palantir is too much at stake with the Department of Defense to insert itself into the argument.

But the operational reality is that someone has to do the technical work of switching out Claude for a different AI system inside those classified networks. And that's not simple, it's not fast, that could take months of engineering work, and the six-month phase-out period is a timeline the government has given to get it done. The question no one has answered publicly is what happens to the ongoing military operations that have Claude integrated into their workflows right now? Anthropic said they will cooperate with a smooth transition and try to avoid disruption to ongoing military planning and operations.

And they made that commitment even after being banned. That's worth noting. Now, let's just talk about what all this means for the broader AI industry, because this week was not just about Anthropic. Every AI company that works with the government is watching this.

Every enterprise customer of AI who also has government contracts is watching this too. The lesson that some will take from this week is that having limits baked into your AI product creates a legal and political risk when you work with the government. That if you build a product with rules about what it will and won't do, and those rules conflict with what a government agency wants, you can end up in a situation like this. The lesson that others will take is the opposite.

That the government will eventually accept reasonable limits that are not just for the government, but will ultimately accept reasonable limits. That OpenAI's deal, which included the same two red lines as Anthropic, proves that you can hold those limits and still work with the Pentagon. That Anthropic's position is defensible and will ultimately be vindicated. Which of those two lessons takes hold across the AI industry will shape how AI tools are built and solved for the next decade.

Let's talk numbers one more time, because I want to make sure you understand the full financial picture. Anthropic just raised $30 billion. They have roughly $64 billion raised in total since 2021. Amazon has invested $8 billion in Anthropic.

Google has invested $2 billion. Microsoft and NVIDIA both made investments as part of the most recent round. These are some of the largest technology companies in the world, and they have enormous amounts of money tied up into Anthropic's success. Now, those investors are watching a situation where the US government has banned their portfolio company from all federal use and called it a national security risk.

Those investors are not going to be happy, but they're also not panicking, at least not publicly, because the fundamentals of Anthropic's business outside of government are still strong. Revenue is still growing. Enterprise customers are still using Claude. Claude Code, Anthropic's AI coding tool is actually annualized revenue of $2.5 billion and is growing fast all the time.

Real risk, and analysts have been very clear about this, is contagion. Whether the government designation causes enterprise customers with government ties to quietly start pulling away, or whether the IPO gets delayed or repriced, or whether the supply chain risk label creates legal complications that are hard to untangle. Those are all unknowns right now. Let me now give you a very clear picture of the timeline.

The whole thing happened in less than a week. Tuesday, February 24th, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth delivers the ultimatum. Give us unrestricted access to Claude by Friday or face consequences. Wednesday night, February the 25th, the Pentagon delivers what it calls last and final offers to Anthropic.

The offer asks for access for all lawful purposes. Thursday, February the 26th, Dario Amodi rejects the Pentagon's demands. He says the new contract language made virtually no progress on the key issues and says the threats will not change Anthropic's position. Thursday night, Pentagon Undersecretary Emile Michael calls Amodi a liar on social media with a gulp complex.

Sam Altman sends an internal note to OpenAI staff saying his company is negotiating a deal with the Pentagon that includes the same two red lines as Anthropic. Friday morning, February the 27th, Sam Altman tells CNBC companies need to work with the military but with legal protections red lines in place. Multiple senators and Congress members write public letters calling for de-escalation. Reports emerge that the Pentagon went to Boeing and Lockheed Martin to assess their exposure to Anthropic, laying groundwork for the supply chain risk designation.

Friday afternoon, 30 minutes before the 5.01 p.m. deadline, Trump posts on True Social, every federal agency ordered to immediately cease use of Anthropic, six-month phase-out for agencies like the Pentagon. Minutes later, Pete Hegseth designates Anthropic a supply chain risk to national security on social media. Any company doing business with the military is barred from commercial activity with Anthropic, effective immediately.

Friday night, Sam Altman posts that OpenAI has reached a deal with the Department of Defense. The deal includes restrictions on domestic surveillance and autonomous weapons. He invites the Pentagon to offer the same terms to all companies. That entire sequence, Tuesday to Friday, four days.

Now, here's something worth watching closely in the days and the weeks ahead. Anthropic's lawyers have said Hegseth does not have the legal authority to ban military contractors from doing business with Anthropic across all their commercial activities. The supply chain risk designation, they argue, applies specifically to Pentagon work, not to every business relationship those contractors have with Anthropic more broadly. If that legal argument holds up, the practical impact of the designation is narrower than it first appeared.

Companies that have both Pentagon contracts and Anthropic subscriptions could potentially keep both, as long as they keep them separate. Whether that is practical in reality is a different question. Whether the Pentagon accepts their interpretation is a different question too. Alan Rosenstein's point is worth repeating here.

He told CNN the government knows the technology is good. What the government really wants is to keep using Anthropic's technology. The designation is leverage, and whether both sides ultimately find a path back to a deal using a different legal framework or contract structure is still an open question. Now, let me talk about what happens to Anthropic from here.

Three possible paths, right? So path number one, Anthropic holds the line. They do not change their usage policy. They cooperate with the six-month phase-out.

They fight the supply chain risk designation in court. They continue serving their enterprise customers and argue that the fundamentals of the business remain strong. They eventually go public on a timeline that's delayed by months, but not derailed. The legal battle over the designation scope gets resolved in a way that limits the blast radius.

Path number two, Anthropic and the government find a new framework. Opening Eye's deal becomes a template. The Pentagon comes back to Anthropic and offers the same terms they gave Opening Eye. Anthropic accepts, because the terms now include the protections they were asking for.

The ban gets reversed. And this is actually what Sam Ullman seemed to be inviting when he publicly asked the Pentagon to offer all AI companies the same terms as Opening Eye's deal. Path number three, the supply chain risk designation sticks in its broadest interpretation. Enterprise customers with government ties start leaving.

The IPO gets delayed significantly. Anthropic's growth slows. The company still survives because it has $64 billion raised, a massive investor base, including Amazon and Google, and a product that eight of the Fortune 10 pay for. But the trajectory changes and the plan changes.

Right now, nobody knows which of these three paths this goes down. And that is what makes this story worth watching every single day. Now, let me close with what all this means for you, because whoever you are, this story touches the world. If you use AI tools in your business, you need to pay attention because what is happening between AI companies and governments is interesting, right?

Because the rules around how AI can be used, what limits get built in, and who controls those decisions are being written right now. This week is one of the first big chapters in that history. If you work in tech, government, contracting, in defense, or in any enterprise that uses AI, the Anthropic situation is a preview of conversations that are coming to your industry. The question of what your AI provider will and will not do and who decides is going to come up.

You want to understand the landscape. If you invest or follow markets, Anthropic is planning an IPO this year. This week's events will affect how that IPO is priced The companies investing in Anthropic, including Amazon and Google, are watching this. The investors who are planning to buy into the IPO are also watching this.

If you are just someone who uses Claude or ChatGPT or any AI tool, this week is a reminder that the decisions being made right now about how these tools work, what they will and will not do, and who gets to decide those things are some of the most consequential decisions happening in the world. world of technology today. One company said no to the military. The president of the United States responded in four days and the AI industry is going to be navigating the consequences of that sequence for a long time.

This isn't a story that ends this week, this story is just starting. The six-month phase-out period runs until late August 2026, the legal fight over the supply chain designation scope is beginning, the OpenAI deal is now the reference point for every other AI company working with the Pentagon, Anthropx IPO timeline is now uncertain, and the broader question of who controls the rules on how AI gets used by governments has no clean answer yet. I'm gonna be keep tracking every development on this, it's gonna be quite interesting to see how it goes. If you want to stay on top of this story and everything else happening in AI right now, drop a comment below.

Let me know what questions you have, what part of the story do you want me to go deeper on, and you know, tell me and I'll make that video. And if you're not already subscribed, now is a really good time because the story is moving fast and you don't want to miss out on what comes next, alright. So thanks so much for watching, if you haven't already, check out the AI Profit Boardroom, this is my AI automation community, helps you save time, scale, and grow with AI automation. Appreciate you watching, I'll see you on the next one.

Feel free to join me inside the AIProfitBoardroom.com