News

Altman Denies Musk's Claim that OpenAI Betrayed its Nonprofit Mission

• By John K. Waters
• 05/12/2026

In a federal courtroom in Oakland, OpenAI Chief Executive Sam Altman rejected Elon Musk’s central allegation that he and other OpenAI leaders betrayed the artificial intelligence company’s founding nonprofit mission, portraying the dispute instead as the result of Musk’s failed effort to control the organization he helped create.

Altman’s testimony marked one of the most closely watched moments in a trial that has turned a long-running feud between two of Silicon Valley’s most prominent figures into a public examination of OpenAI’s governance, its shift toward a capped-profit structure, and the personal tensions that shaped its early years. Musk, a co-founder and early funder of OpenAI, claims he was induced to contribute to a nonprofit devoted to developing artificial intelligence for the public good, only to see it become a company closely tied to Microsoft and positioned for enormous commercial value.

Testifying on Tuesday, Altman denied Musk’s claim that he and OpenAI President Greg Brockman had tried to “steal a charity,” saying the accusation did not match his understanding of what had occurred. Altman told the court that OpenAI’s growth was intended to strengthen, not undermine, the nonprofit that remains at the top of its structure.

The exchange went to the core of Musk’s case. Musk alleges that OpenAI’s leaders broke faith with the company’s original promise to build artificial intelligence for the benefit of humanity, rather than for private gain. OpenAI has denied the allegations and argued that Musk was aware of discussions about for-profit structures, wanted control of OpenAI himself, and later turned against the organization after leaving.

Altman’s testimony was also an effort to recast Musk’s role in the company’s history. According to accounts of the proceedings, Altman said Musk’s demands for control of OpenAI made him uncomfortable. The Financial Times reported that Altman described Musk’s demands as “hair-raising,” including requests for majority equity and proposals to place OpenAI under Tesla or otherwise grant Musk dominant authority.

The trial has exposed a contradiction at the center of the dispute. Musk says OpenAI strayed from its nonprofit purpose, while OpenAI says Musk himself sought the kind of control that would have concentrated power in one person. That tension has been reinforced by testimony from OpenAI Chairman Bret Taylor, who said OpenAI received a formal takeover offer in February 2025 from a group led by Musk’s xAI. Taylor said he found the offer surprising because it appeared to come from a for-profit investor group seeking to acquire the nonprofit, while Musk was challenging OpenAI for abandoning its original mission.

The case has also brought renewed attention to OpenAI’s turbulent leadership crisis in November 2023, when Altman was briefly removed as chief executive by the company’s board and then reinstated after employee revolt and investor pressure. Former OpenAI chief scientist Ilya Sutskever testified on Monday that he had spent about a year gathering evidence for the board that Altman had shown what he described as a “consistent pattern of lying.”

Sutskever’s testimony cut in both directions. It provided evidence on Musk’s side that senior insiders had once questioned Altman’s candor and leadership. But Sutskever also testified that Musk had not negotiated special promises tied to his donations and that a for-profit path had become the consensus approach for raising the capital OpenAI believed it needed to build advanced AI systems.

For jurors, the case may turn less on broad claims about the future of artificial intelligence than on a narrower set of questions: what Musk was promised, what he understood about OpenAI’s plans, and whether Altman, Brockman, or others misled him when the company was young and short of funds.

Musk helped found OpenAI in 2015 with Altman, Brockman, Sutskever, and others. The organization began as a nonprofit research lab, but later created a capped-profit subsidiary to attract the capital and talent it said were needed to compete with better-funded technology companies. Microsoft became OpenAI’s most important commercial partner, providing cloud infrastructure and capital as OpenAI’s products, including ChatGPT, turned the company into one of the most valuable private technology companies in the world.

Musk left OpenAI years before ChatGPT’s release and later founded xAI, a rival AI company. In court, his lawyers have argued that OpenAI’s later commercial turn enriched Altman, Brockman, Microsoft, and other investors at the expense of the original nonprofit mission. OpenAI’s lawyers have countered that Musk is trying to use the courts to claw back influence over a company he abandoned before it became successful.

The testimony has not produced a simple portrait of either side. Musk has been depicted as an early backer who warned about the risks of powerful AI but also pushed for sweeping authority over OpenAI. Altman has defended OpenAI’s structure and mission but has faced testimony from former colleagues who questioned his management style during the 2023 crisis.

The stakes extend beyond the reputations of Musk and Altman. The case could affect OpenAI’s ability to continue operating under its current governance model, which places a nonprofit parent over a for-profit business. It could also influence public and investor confidence in the company at a time when OpenAI, Microsoft, Anthropic, xAI, Google, and others are spending heavily on computing infrastructure, talent, and model development.

The court is nearing the end of testimony. Reuters, as reported by Channel NewsAsia, said testimony could conclude this week, with jurors potentially beginning deliberations on liability by May 18. U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers will decide any remedies if the jury finds liability.

By taking the stand, Altman gave jurors a direct answer to Musk’s narrative. He denied that OpenAI’s leaders stole or diverted a charity, argued that the organization’s commercial structure was meant to support its mission, and portrayed Musk as a co-founder who wanted control, lost the internal contest, and later returned as a competitor and litigant.

For Musk, the trial is a chance to argue that OpenAI broke a founding promise. For Altman, it is a chance to persuade the jury that the promise was not to avoid commercial structures at all costs, but to build AI in a way that could survive the financial demands of the race it helped create.