The Brief

Carmen Peterson's son Ethan is a big fan of Elmo and Mickey Mouse Clubhouse. And although Ethan is nonverbal, he loves to sing along in his own way.

"He's a really fun-loving 8-year-old. He doesn't speak, but he gets his point across," Peterson says.

Ethan has a rare genetic disorder — Syngap1 — which, among other things, causes a kind of seizure that can make him drop to the ground without warning.

"Everything just kind of shorts out for a moment," Peterson says. "And the danger of that — and I've seen this — is him falling on hardwood floors, concrete, off of stairs, like all of these things."

She says he's gotten hurt and she's had to rush him to the emergency room.

Ethan takes a medicine called Epidiolex that prevents these seizures. But last holiday season, a thief stole it off the family's front porch in Charlotte, N.C.

Peterson remembers finding the empty box and then checking her Ring doorbell camera footage. "I see this guy walking off … and I am just livid," she says.

Then, she had to figure out how to get this medicine — worth $1,800 — replaced so her son didn't miss a dose. It turned out to be a challenge.

How many stolen packages?

December is a busy time for package deliveries and for porch pirates who steal them. Sometimes the thieves run off with mail-order medication instead of getting an iPad or a Labubu.

E-commerce took off during the pandemic, and December remains the busiest time of the year for package deliveries, according to the U.S. Postal Service.

Still, it can be tricky to get the whole picture when it comes to package theft.

As easy as it is to buy stuff online, getting it to customers is actually really complicated. That's because so many people and companies interact with a package before it's delivered, according to Ben Stickle, a professor of criminal justice administration at Middle Tennessee University.

"So it's really hard to get, you know, what happens from the point that you click a button to when it gets delivered, all put back together with enough detail to find out when and where these thefts are occurring and then actually do something about it," he says.

Stickle worked on a study with the Postal Service published earlier this year, and says that victims of theft wind up reporting it to different places that don't share information with each other or even necessarily record the missing package as "theft." And sometimes victims don't report it at all.

"There's a lot of packages stolen," he says, explaining that according to security research company SafeWise, it's about 250,000 packages every day. Stickle has worked with SafeWise.

The Postal Service report estimated that at least 58 million packages were stolen in 2024. "So what are the odds that one of those, unbeknownst to the thief, has some type of medication in it?" Nobody really knows for sure, he says.

Ways to lower theft risk

So what can you do? Stickle says scheduling deliveries for when you're home and having a delivery spot that's hidden are good ideas. Even a locker for your porch that doesn't lock is a good deterrent.

"If a thief can see that there's a package, even if it's an envelope on your porch from the roadway, it seems to be far more likely that it's going to be stolen," he says.

According to Express Scripts and Optum Rx, which are two companies that offer mail-order pharmacy services, medication theft is pretty rare.

CVS Caremark, another company that ships prescriptions by mail, said it offers customers package tracking to prevent theft, but didn't answer NPR's question about how common medication theft is.

Pharmacies, including Walgreens, say they offer order tracking and use discreet packaging to help prevent theft. Customers can also opt to require a signature when their medicines are delivered.

Making sure patients don't miss a dose is a top priority, says Stryker Awtry, the director of Loss Prevention and Transformation for Optum Pharmacy, part of Optum Rx.

"Especially during the holiday seasons when deliveries surge, we want to make sure we build in peace of mind for our customers," he says. "So if a theft were to happen, No. 1, contact the pharmacy right away."

He says to also report the theft to your prescribing doctor and local law enforcement.

A lost prescription replaced  

As for Carmen Peterson in North Carolina, when she called her insurer's pharmacy to get Ethan's medicine replaced, the answer was no. But Ethan missing a dose and having a seizure that put him in the emergency room again? Not an option for her.

"It's just like it's one of those things that you just don't have a choice," she says.

If forced to, she would have found the money to buy the medicine herself.

"It was just unfortunate that the … company was so ready and kind of willing to just wash their hands of it because they felt like they had done what they were contracted to do, which is deliver the medication."

That company, Liviniti Pharmacy, said it couldn't comment on the Peterson family's experience because of patient privacy laws.

Unwilling to give up, Peterson reported the theft everywhere and made noise about it — including on her local news stations. That worked. Jazz Pharmaceuticals, the company that makes the drug Ethan needs, saw the stories and replaced it for her within a week.

Now, she recommends getting important medicines delivered to a P.O. box, a workplace or just going to the pharmacy to pick it up yourself.

Copyright 2025 NPR

A courtroom brawl between two of the tech industry's most powerful leaders, Tesla CEO Elon Musk and OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, is underway in Oakland, California, in a case that could transform one of the world's most important artificial intelligence companies.

"Ladies and gentlemen, we are here today because the defendants in this case stole a charity," Steve Molo, an attorney for Musk, said in his opening statement.

In his lawsuit, Musk has argued that Altman steered the company they cofounded a decade ago, ChatGPT creator OpenAI, away from its original mission as a nonprofit meant to develop advanced AI for the benefit of humanity and free of profit motives.

The case hinges on a decision early on by OpenAI's founders that they needed to create a for-profit entity to tap capital markets for funding on a scale necessary to build advanced AI. When discussions about who would run the for-profit business broke down in 2018, Musk left.

The following year, OpenAI launched a for-profit division, which has since ballooned in value; at the end of March, the company said it was worth $852 billion.

Now, Musk's lawyers are set to argue that Altman and others enriched themselves illegally through that for-profit conversion.

"They enriched themselves, they made themselves more powerful, and they breached the very basic principles on which the charity was founded," Molo said in court.

According to his suit, Musk is seeking a rollback of that change, and wants Altman, OpenAI President Greg Brockman and financial backer Microsoft to "disgorge" tens of billions of dollars in "ill-gotten gains" that have flowed from it.

Musk is also seeking Altman's ouster as a director of OpenAI's nonprofit board, and removal of both Altman and Brockman as officers of the for-profit company.

As part of his opening statement, Molo asked Musk to stand up, which he did — waving to the people in the courtroom.

"Everybody seems to know Mr. Musk and everybody seems to have an opinion about Mr. Musk," Molo said. But he reminded the jury that they took an oath to put their opinions aside, and thanked them for it. "The case isn't about Mr. Musk, it's about the defendants," he said.

He also filled the jury in on Musk's personal and business history; growing up in South Africa, immigrating to Canada and the United States, and giving a brief overview of Musk's companies including SpaceX, Tesla, and Neuralink.

Molo said that since college Musk has been concerned about what could happen when computers become smarter than people, and that over the course of the trial, his attorneys would call experts to testify about some of those risks, including the possibility that an AI could manipulate financial markets or disseminate misinformation, or that there could be a "concentration risk" caused by one powerful corporation or small group of people controlling a superpowerful AI.

"As AI became more advanced, Elon became more worried," Molo said, particularly about the idea that the government was not doing enough to curtail these risks. That led him to develop OpenAI along with Altman, Molo said, as a nonprofit intended to develop safer AI. "It wasn't a vehicle for people to get rich," Molo said. "And they wanted the technology to be open."

Musk poured about $38 million into the nonprofit over the course of about 5 years, Molo said. "Without Elon Musk there would be no OpenAI, pure and simple," he said.

Over time, Molo said, Musk and OpenAI's other leaders began discussing creating a for-profit entity to support the non-profit — he compared it to the way a museum store supports a museum.

Initially, Molo said, Musk would have majority control of the for-profit subsidiary, but eventually that would be diminished over time. But the partners could never come to an agreement, and Musk ended negotiations and later resigned from the OpenAI board.

The crux of his dispute with OpenAI, Molo said, is that OpenAI later did a $10 billion deal with Microsoft. At this point, Molo said, OpenAI "was no longer operating for the good of humanity as a whole. It was for profit operating for the good of the defendants."

OpenAI responds

OpenAI has long contended that Musk was onboard with the conversion to a for-profit company.

In an online statement published before the trial began, OpenAI has said Musk was involved in the discussions about converting part of the company to a nonprofit, and that in 2017, "We and Elon agreed that a for-profit was the next step for OpenAI to advance the mission."

OpenAI has also argued online that its mission has never changed. The for-profit entity is a subsidiary of the nonprofit OpenAI Foundation.

The company has framed the dispute as being more of a struggle over control than over the launch of a for-profit arm: Online, OpenAI has said that Musk wanted control of the for-profit company, but "we couldn't agree to terms on a for-profit with Elon because we felt it was against the mission for any individual to have absolute control over OpenAI."

"We're sad that it's come to this with someone whom we've deeply admired—someone who inspired us to aim higher, then told us we would fail, started a competitor, and then sued us when we started making meaningful progress towards OpenAI's mission without him," the OpenAI statement said.

In 2023, Musk launched his own AI company, xAI, now a subsidiary of his aerospace firm SpaceX.

And in court on Tuesday, OpenAI's lead counsel William Savitt hammered those points in his opening statement. "We're here because Mr. Musk didn't get his way at OpenAI," he said. And "because he's a competitor, he will do anything he can to attack OpenAI."

In 2017, he said, Musk wanted to turn OpenAI into a for-profit with himself at the helm. But, he said, "the other founders refused to turn the keys of artificial intelligence over to one person."

Musk sought to merge OpenAI with Tesla, he continued, but the other founders rejected that, too. "They didn't want to be part of a car company that Musk controlled," Savitt said.

"Most importantly," he continued, "One person having control wasn't consistent with OpenAI's mission."

After Musk left, Savitt said, Musk was furious that OpenAI succeeded without him: "Then he launched his own competitor. Then he launched lawsuits."

Savitt said that during the trial, OpenAI's attorneys will produce evidence to show that the OpenAI nonprofit foundation remains in control of the organization and that it's doing good work.

And they will argue that Musk's true interest in this suit is not OpenAI's nonprofit status. "What he cares about is Elon Musk being at the top," Savitt said.

The trial is expected to last around three weeks.

In addition to Musk, Altman is expected to testify, along with Brockman, Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella, and several key researchers and engineers involved in OpenAI's launch.

Microsoft is a financial supporter of NPR.

Copyright 2026 NPR

On his show Monday night, Kimmel responded to first lady Melania Trump's call for ABC to "take a stand" against him for a joke he made about her ahead of the White House Correspondents' Association Dinner. Two days after Kimmel's original segment aired, authorities subdued a heavily armed man who they say entered the event at the Washington Hilton ballroom in an attempt to target administration officials.

In a segment on Jimmy Kimmel Live! on Thursday, the comedian delivered a mock White House Correspondents' Dinner roast. "Look at Melania, so beautiful. Mrs. Trump, you have a glow like an expectant widow," Kimmel quipped.

In a post on X, the first lady called Kimmel's joke about her "hateful and violent."

On Monday, Kimmel told his audience, it "obviously was a joke about their age difference, and the look of joy we see on her face every time they're together." He said it was a "light roast" and was "not, by any stretch of the definition, a call to assassination. And they know that." Kimmel added that he's been very vocal for many years against gun violence.

Melania Trump didn't see it that way. "His monologue about my family isn't comedy- his words are corrosive and deepens the political sickness within America," she wrote on Twitter on Monday. "People like Kimmel shouldn't have the opportunity to enter our homes each evening to spread hate."

Mrs. Trump urged ABC, the network that airs Kimmel's weeknight show, to take action, asking "how many times will ABC's leadership enable Kimmel's atrocious behavior at the expense of our community?"

First lady Melania Trump attends the White House Correspondents' Dinner on April 25, 2026.

(

Mandel Ngan

/

AFP via Getty Images

)

Hours later, President Trump took to social media to lend support to his wife. Trump wrote that Kimmel's comments went "beyond the pale" and that Jimmy Kimmel should be "immediately fired by Disney and ABC."

In September, Kimmel was taken off the air after a conservative backlash over comments Kimmel made in the aftermath of Turning Point USA co-founder Charlie Kirk's assassination. In his monologue, Kimmel said the "MAGA gang" was trying to score political points from the Kirk killing.

The FCC Chair Brendan Carr responded to the backlash by threatening ABC affiliates. "We can do this the easy way or the hard way," Carr said to podcaster Benny Johnson. "These companies can find ways to change conduct, to take action on Kimmel or, you know, there's going to be additional work for the FCC ahead."

Disney — which owns ABC — decided to suspend Kimmel's show. That decision sparked a furor over free speech and censorship. Kimmel's show returned six days later, and the host said, "it was never my intention to make light of the murder of a young man." Kimmel accepted why some people were upset with his remarks and said they had been "ill-timed,or unclear or maybe both."

Meanwhile, users on X have been responding to Melania Trump's post. Some appear to be supportive. Others point to the president's history of strongly worded, disparaging and racist remarks in posts about women and his political detractors such as Barack Obama.
Copyright 2026 NPR