Thousands of visitors attended the opening of the 20-acre campus in Jackson Park on the city’s South Side, where the center features a museum, library, conference facilities, athletic spaces, gardens, playgrounds, walking paths and public art installations.

Barack and Michelle Obama began the inaugural day with a public story-time event for children and families, reading from Maurice Sendak’s 1963 classic “Where the Wild Things Are.” The event was designed to highlight the center’s focus on youth engagement, education and civic participation.

Emily Bittner, vice president of communications at the Obama Presidential Center, said the facility aims to provide a space where young people can “discover their voices, explore new ideas, and develop the skills and confidence to shape the future.”

According to the Obama Foundation, the center is intended to serve as a gathering place for local residents and international visitors while advancing leadership development and community-focused initiatives. The foundation said the opening represented the culmination of years of planning and community engagement efforts.

The eight-story complex, located along the southern shore of Lake Michigan, cost approximately $850 million to build and was financed entirely through private donations raised by the Obama Foundation. The foundation said no public funds were used for construction.

The center will also function as the headquarters of the Obama Foundation, which oversees leadership training programs and youth development initiatives in the United States and abroad.

Ahead of the public opening, the center hosted a private event on Thursday attended by about 3,000 invited guests, including former presidents George W. Bush, Bill Clinton and Joe Biden, as well as current and former elected officials, civic leaders and prominent figures from the entertainment industry.

Among those in attendance were Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker, U.S. Senator Dick Durbin, Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson, former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, former Vice President Kamala Harris and California Governor Gavin Newsom.

President Donald Trump, who has frequently criticized Obama and Biden, was not invited to the opening ceremonies. Trump later shared an artificial intelligence-generated image depicting the center with a large garbage bag on its roof.

The opening celebrations also featured performances and appearances by musicians and entertainers including Bono, The Edge, Stevie Wonder, Bruce Springsteen, Questlove, John Legend, Marc Anthony, Eddie Vedder and Christina Aguilera, alongside several high-profile guests from film, television and media.

Stephen Colbert will host the final episode of The Late Show with Stephen Colbert this week, closing a chapter in American late-night television that critics and industry observers say reshaped political comedy during the Trump era while exposing the growing commercial and political pressures facing broadcast media.

The conclusion of Colbert’s tenure follows CBS’s decision last year to cancel the program after more than three decades on air. The franchise, launched in 1993 with David Letterman as host, later became the highest-rated late-night program under Colbert, who succeeded Letterman in 2015 after gaining national prominence through The Colbert Report.

In recent months, a series of public tributes from entertainers, journalists and political figures transformed the Ed Sullivan Theater in New York into a prolonged farewell event.

Appearances included musical performances by Hugh Jackman and Bette Midler, a poem by John Lithgow and comedic tributes from fellow late-night host Jimmy Fallon.The cancellation drew scrutiny because of its timing.

CBS announced the decision shortly after Colbert criticized a $16 million settlement between Paramount, CBS’s parent company, and U.S. President Donald Trump regarding a dispute involving 60 Minutes.

The settlement came as Paramount sought federal approval for its proposed $8 billion merger with Skydance Media.During his monologue, Colbert described the agreement as a “big fat bribe” and questioned whether public trust in the company could be restored.

CBS publicly maintained that the cancellation was based solely on financial conditions affecting late-night television. Industry analysts, however, noted that the broader environment for politically confrontational programming had become increasingly difficult amid declining advertising revenue, shrinking broadcast audiences and rising political pressure on major media corporations.

Letterman rejected the company’s explanation in comments to the New York Times, saying: “They’re lying weasels.”Media scholars say Colbert’s influence extended beyond satire. Unlike many traditional late-night hosts, he frequently incorporated discussions of grief, faith and personal hardship into interviews and monologues.

David Litt, a former speechwriter for Barack Obama, said Colbert became “an important moral voice” during a period of political and cultural polarization.“He always obviously had a strong point of view,” Litt said, “but he also seemed like there was a fundamental kindness to him, and a generosity.”

Litt cited Colbert’s interview with Joe Biden, in which both men discussed personal loss and grief, as an example of the host’s unusual ability to blend emotional vulnerability with mainstream entertainment television.“That’s a hard kind of conversation to imagine happening on late-night television in general,” Litt said.

“Colbert could pull that off.”Colbert’s public openness about tragedy shaped much of his on-screen identity. When he was 10 years old, his father and two brothers were killed in a plane crash, an experience he later discussed publicly as formative in shaping his worldview and emotional perspective.

Television historian Bill Carter said audiences connected with Colbert because his personality remained visible beneath the political humor.“He is a very human guy, a very deep guy,” Carter said.

“People who watch these late-night shows like seeing the human side of this guy.”Colbert’s departure also reflects broader structural changes affecting the late-night television industry.

Network ratings and advertising revenue have steadily declined as audiences increasingly consume short-form digital clips through online platforms that generate lower profits for traditional broadcasters.The program’s replacement, Comics Unleashed hosted by Byron Allen, represents a lower-cost format centered primarily on stand-up comedy rather than politically driven commentary or celebrity interviews.

Carter described the shift as evidence that networks are retreating from the traditional late-night model built around high-profile hosts functioning as cultural and political commentators.“They are saying to the public: this is something we’re not gonna try to do any more,” he said.

Media analyst Stephen Farnsworth warned that growing political hostility toward major media outlets may further discourage broadcasters from supporting aggressive political satire.“You have growing conservative ownership of key media properties and a growing aggressiveness to use the FCC as a weapon to reduce criticism of the president,” Farnsworth said.

Trump responded to Colbert’s cancellation with a celebratory message on his Truth Social platform, criticizing the host’s ratings and suggesting that other late-night personalities could face similar outcomes.

The pressure on political comedy programs has intensified as entertainment companies navigate both economic instability and regulatory relationships with federal authorities.

Critics of the cancellation argue that these factors create incentives for media companies to avoid content that could provoke political retaliation.Despite the end of The Late Show, industry observers expect Colbert to remain active in entertainment.

He is currently involved in developing a new The Lord of the Rings project for Warner Bros. and has been linked to possible future work in streaming television, podcasts or live performance.During a recent interview filmed at Obama’s presidential center in Chicago, Colbert jokingly asked the former president whether he should consider a presidential campaign. Obama responded that Colbert could “perform significantly better than some folks that we’ve seen,” though he clarified the remark was not a formal endorsement.

Observers say Colbert’s legacy ultimately rests on how he redefined the emotional and political boundaries of late-night television during one of the most polarized periods in modern American history.

“He has a lot of skill,” Carter said. “He can do whatever he feels like doing.”

Musk, a co-founder of OpenAI, is suing the company, Chief Executive Sam Altman, President Greg Brockman and major investor Microsoft, alleging they abandoned OpenAI’s original mission of developing artificial intelligence for the benefit of humanity and instead turned it into a commercial enterprise focused on profit.

“If we make it okay to loot a charity, the entire foundation of charitable giving in America will be destroyed,” Musk told the court on the first day of trial. “That’s my concern.”Musk is seeking $150 billion in damages from OpenAI and Microsoft, with the proceeds directed to OpenAI’s charitable arm. He is also asking the court to require OpenAI to return to nonprofit control and to remove Altman and Brockman from leadership roles, while seeking Altman’s removal from the board.

The lawsuit includes claims of breach of charitable trust and unjust enrichment and could have significant implications for OpenAI’s governance as the company explores a potential initial public offering that Reuters has previously reported could value it near $1 trillion.

OpenAI lawyer Bill Savitt told jurors during opening arguments that Musk had originally supported the idea of turning OpenAI into a for-profit structure and only sued after failing to gain control of the company and later launching his own rival artificial intelligence venture, xAI.Savitt said Musk wanted “the keys to the kingdom” and pursued litigation only after OpenAI rejected his ambitions to lead the company.

“What he cares about is Elon Musk being on top,” Savitt said. “We are here because Mr Musk didn’t get his way.”OpenAI’s legal team argued that its decision in March 2019 to establish a for-profit entity was necessary to secure the computing resources and talent needed to compete with rivals such as Google’s DeepMind artificial intelligence division.

Musk’s lawyer Steven Molo rejected that argument, saying OpenAI’s leadership shifted focus once major investors, including Microsoft, entered the picture.“It wasn’t a vehicle for people to get rich,” Molo said.Before jurors entered the courtroom, U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers warned Musk over his social media activity after OpenAI lawyers raised concerns about his posts on X, where he referred to Altman as “Scam Altman” and accused him of stealing a charity.

Rogers said she was reluctant to impose a gag order but urged Musk to avoid using social media to influence matters outside the courtroom.Musk agreed to reduce his online commentary, as did Altman. Both are expected to testify, along with Microsoft Chief Executive Satya Nadella.

The trial is expected to provide a rare public examination of OpenAI’s evolution from a nonprofit founded in 2015 in Brockman’s apartment into one of the world’s most valuable artificial intelligence companies, currently estimated to be worth more than $850 billion.

Musk testified that his concerns about artificial intelligence safety were central to OpenAI’s founding and intensified after discussions with former U.S. President Barack Obama and with Larry Page, whom he said did not take the risks of advanced AI seriously enough.“We had to have a counterpoint against Google,” Musk said.

OpenAI disputed that characterization, with Savitt telling jurors that Musk had dismissed employees focused on AI safety and that such concerns were not his primary motivation.

Musk has said he contributed about $38 million to OpenAI before leaving its board, later objecting to its restructuring and Microsoft’s multibillion-dollar investment.

Microsoft lawyer Russell Cohen said the company had acted properly throughout its partnership with OpenAI and described it as “a responsible partner every step of the way.”

During oral arguments, several conservative justices signaled openness to the government’s request to revive the practice known as “metering,” which caps the number of migrants allowed to apply for asylum at official border crossings.

The U.S. Department of Justice argued the measure is a necessary tool to manage surges in migration and has been used under multiple administrations.

Critics, including immigration advocates, said the policy previously triggered a humanitarian crisis by forcing asylum seekers to wait in Mexico, often in makeshift camps, before being allowed to present claims.

The practice is not currently in force, and Trump has separately ordered a broader suspension of asylum processing during his second term.

The case centers on interpretation of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which guarantees that individuals who “arrive” in the United States may apply for asylum if they fear persecution. Government lawyers contend the provision applies only once migrants are physically inside U.S. territory, not when they are turned away at the border.

Attorneys representing migrants argued the law has long been understood to include individuals presenting themselves at ports of entry, and that restricting access violates statutory protections.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh questioned whether current interpretations create incentives for illegal entry over lawful arrival, while Chief Justice John Roberts pressed both sides on where legal eligibility for asylum begins.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson raised procedural concerns, noting the absence of an active policy and questioning whether the court was evaluating hypothetical scenarios rather than a live dispute.

Metering was first introduced during the administration of Barack Obama and later expanded nationwide under Trump. The policy ended in 2020 amid pandemic-related restrictions and was formally rescinded by Joe Biden in 2021.

That same year, a federal district court ruled the practice unlawful, finding it violated both constitutional protections and federal asylum law. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld the decision, though internal divisions among judges highlighted ongoing legal uncertainty.

The case is one of several major immigration disputes before the court this term, including challenges related to birthright citizenship and the administration’s efforts to roll back protections for migrants fleeing conflict and instability.U.S. law allows individuals granted asylum to remain in the country, work legally, reunite with immediate family members, and eventually seek permanent residency and citizenship.