“You can’t just steal a charity.” That was Elon Musk, speaking from the witness stand in federal court in Oakland on May 02, 2026 — day two of his high-stakes trial against OpenAI CEO Sam Altman. Over the course of three days, Musk painted a picture of betrayal: a nonprofit mission gutted, a public trust discarded, and billions funneled into a for-profit shell.
Key Takeaways
- Elon Musk testified for three full days in the Musk v. Altman trial, marking a rare courtroom appearance for the world’s richest person.
- He claimed OpenAI abandoned its original open-source, nonprofit mission in favor of a closed, profit-driven model aligned with Microsoft.
- Musk says he contributed $100 million of his own money to OpenAI’s founding, expecting a public-benefit structure.
- The lawsuit alleges OpenAI violated its founding agreement by prioritizing shareholder value over open AI development.
- Testimony revealed internal emails showing Sam Altman discussing “dissolving the nonprofit” as early as 2023.
The Charity That Wasn’t
When Musk helped launch OpenAI in 2015, he didn’t just write a check. He helped build the foundational argument: that artificial intelligence was too important to be left in the hands of a single for-profit entity. The solution? A nonprofit with a charter focused on safety, transparency, and broad access.
“We were explicit,” Musk said from the stand. “No equity structure. No venture capital. A board that couldn’t be captured. This wasn’t a side project. It was a counterweight.”
But by 2019, OpenAI introduced a capped-profit arm. By 2023, it had effectively ceded control to Microsoft, which poured $13 billion into the company. Musk claims that arrangement eviscerated the original charter. “You don’t create a nonprofit to then hand it over to the world’s largest software monopoly,” he said. “That’s not evolution. That’s surrender.”
The courtroom, a wood-paneled sixth-floor chamber in the Phillip Burton Federal Building, felt tense during these exchanges. Lawyers for OpenAI objected repeatedly when Musk referenced private discussions. But Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers allowed most of it in, citing relevance to intent.
The Nonprofit’s Origins
The story of OpenAI’s founding is complex. Musk, along with Reid Hoffman and Greg Brockman, were among the earliest investors. They drew on the model of the non-profit organization, the Open Source Initiative. The goal was to create an ecosystem that prioritized transparency, collaboration, and open-source development.
But in the years following, the company faced numerous challenges, including funding constraints and scaling issues. As OpenAI grew, its mission began to shift. The nonprofit structure, initially designed to provide a safeguard against for-profit interests, started to feel limiting. In 2019, OpenAI introduced a capped-profit arm, which allowed it to raise more capital while maintaining a connection to its original mission.
This move was seen by some as a pragmatic decision, allowing OpenAI to expand its resources and capabilities. However, Musk and others claim it marked a turning point, where the company began to prioritize shareholder value over its public-benefit mission.
What Musk Actually Gave
One of the trial’s central disputes is the nature of Musk’s early involvement. OpenAI’s defense argues he was never a formal co-founder, just an early donor and advisor. Musk disagrees — and his testimony included detailed accounts of strategy meetings, hiring decisions, and architectural debates.
“I wasn’t just writing checks,” he said. “I was in the room when we decided not to release GPT-2 publicly. I argued for stronger alignment constraints on GPT-3. I pushed for open-sourcing the base models.”
The $100 Million Question
Musk claims he provided $100 million in direct funding. That figure wasn’t disputed by OpenAI’s legal team — but they argue it wasn’t a donation to the nonprofit, rather, a mix of personal contributions and Tesla resources used during early R&D.
What matters legally isn’t just the money, but the understanding behind it. Musk insists there was a verbal and written agreement — emails shown in court reference a “public trust” model — that OpenAI would remain neutral, open, and unowned by any single entity.
“If this was just another startup play, I wouldn’t have bothered,” Musk said. “I have plenty of for-profit companies. I didn’t need another one. I needed this one not to be for-profit.”
Altman’s Pivot, Documented
The most damaging evidence so far isn’t Musk’s testimony — it’s internal OpenAI correspondence. One email chain, dated March 14, 2023, shows Sam Altman writing to board members: “The nonprofit structure is slowing us down. We should explore dissolving it or converting fully to a traditional cap table.”
In another message, to Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella, Altman wrote: “Our alignment with Microsoft gives us the runway to outpace Google and Meta. But we need freedom to operate.”
These messages undercut OpenAI’s long-standing public stance — that it remains committed to its “mission-first” model. Critics have long suspected the nonprofit was a fig leaf. Now, those suspicions are playing out in open court.
- OpenAI’s 2025 revenue: $8.2 billion (primarily from API licensing)
- Microsoft holds exclusive licensing rights to OpenAI’s models
- OpenAI’s top 20 executives hold equity valued at over $4.1 billion
- Only 3 of OpenAI’s 12 major model releases since 2022 have been open-sourced
- The nonprofit board currently has no voting control over the for-profit arm
The Stakes for AI’s Future
This isn’t just about money or ego. It’s about who controls the foundational models of the next decade. If OpenAI’s shift to a closed, Microsoft-aligned entity holds, it sets a precedent: that the most powerful AI tools will be developed behind proprietary walls, accountable to shareholders, not the public.
“We were supposed to be the alternative,” Musk said. “Now we’re just another cog in the machine.”
That sentiment resonates beyond the courtroom. Developers who built tools on early OpenAI promises of openness now face restricted APIs, rate limits, and opaque moderation policies. Startups that bet on OpenAI as a neutral platform are reconsidering.
And the irony isn’t lost on anyone: Musk, whose own AI venture xAI promotes closed models like Grok, is now the defender of open AI. But his argument isn’t about his current projects — it’s about broken commitments.
Competition and Context
As the OpenAI trial unfolds, the AI landscape is evolving rapidly. Companies like Google, Meta, and Microsoft are investing heavily in AI research and development. The emergence of new players like xAI and others is also changing the dynamics.
Meanwhile, policymakers are starting to take notice. Regulators are grappling with the implications of AI on society, from job displacement to biases in decision-making. The stakes are high, and the competition for influence is intense.
OpenAI’s trial is a microcosm of these larger debates. It raises fundamental questions about the role of private companies in shaping the future of AI and the public’s access to these technologies.
The Bigger Picture
This trial is not just about OpenAI or Elon Musk. It’s about the broader implications of AI on society and the economy. As AI becomes increasingly ubiquitous, the need for transparency, accountability, and open development grows.
The OpenAI case highlights the tension between the interests of shareholders and the public good. It raises questions about the role of non-profit organizations in AI research and development and the implications of for-profit entities dominating the field.
Ultimately, the outcome of this trial will have far-reaching consequences for the future of AI and the role of private companies in shaping its development.
Why It Matters Now
As AI continues to advance, the stakes are high. The public’s access to AI technologies, the accountability of private companies, and the transparency of AI development are all at risk.
The OpenAI trial is a wake-up call for developers, policymakers, and the public. It highlights the need for a more nuanced understanding of the implications of AI and the importance of prioritizing the public good in AI research and development.
The trial continues next week, with Sam Altman expected to take the stand. If he does, he’ll face questions not just from lawyers, but from an industry watching closely. Can OpenAI still claim to be mission-driven? Or has it become what Musk warned against — a for-profit powerhouse cloaked in the language of public good?
And if the nonprofit was never really in control, what does that say about the trust we place in Silicon Valley’s promises?
Sources: CNBC Tech, original report
