Musk put on defensive over his financial commitment to OpenAI
Elon Musk faced pointed questioning on the witness stand as OpenAI’s attorney pressed him about whether he scaled back his early financial support for the organization he helped found. On his second day of testimony in a closely watched trial over his claim that OpenAI abandoned its original nonprofit mission, Musk grew visibly frustrated as the exchange turned to dollars, control, and competing loyalties.
Clashes over “simple” questions
Musk sparred repeatedly with OpenAI’s lawyer, William Savitt, over the framing of questions that Savitt described as straightforward yes-or-no. Musk pushed back, calling them “unfair,” “misleading,” and designed to “trick” him. The tension peaked when Savitt asked whether Musk had contributed anything close to the $1 billion that had once been publicly discussed at OpenAI’s launch. After US District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers directed him to answer, Musk said, “In strict monetary terms, I contributed $38 million.”
Musk also argued that his non-monetary contributions—reputation, ideas, and early momentum—were fundamental to OpenAI’s existence, saying, “Without me, it would not exist.”
The lawsuit and the stakes
In a lawsuit filed in 2024, Musk alleges that OpenAI’s leaders—Sam Altman and Greg Brockman—steered the organization away from its altruistic roots to pursue profit, aided by significant outside funding. OpenAI and Altman characterize the suit as harassment and say Musk’s real aim is to hamstring a competitor to his own AI venture, xAI, formed in 2023.
The trial’s outcome could be pivotal for OpenAI. Musk seeks up to $134 billion in damages, the removal of Altman and Brockman from leadership, and an unwinding of OpenAI’s conversion to a for-profit structure.
How much support—and what kind?
Savitt pressed Musk on the specifics of his early contributions. Musk acknowledged making quarterly donations and covering rent for an OpenAI office before, he said, losing confidence in the organization’s leadership around 2017. He contended that public statements about a potential $1 billion contribution reflected an ambition that later collided with misgivings about the group’s direction.
Control, structure, and a rift
Testimony highlighted 2017 discussions among OpenAI’s founders about creating a for-profit subsidiary to fund research and compete with deep-pocketed rivals. Proposals at the time contemplated granting Musk a majority stake and significant board influence—four of twelve board seats for Musk, with Altman, Brockman, and Ilya Sutskever each holding one. Musk told jurors that this majority would have diluted as other investors joined.
According to Musk, the “final straw” came when co-founders expressed reservations about that plan, which ultimately never materialized. He said he believed they were maneuvering toward a for-profit structure that maximized their own ownership. Jurors were shown a 2017 email thread in which Musk argued to “change course” to meet business demands. The exchange included a lighter moment where Musk referenced offering free Teslas to Sutskever and others, before clarifying in court that he pays full price for his own cars.
Safety, mission, and the nonprofit-to-profit shift
Musk testified that he originally supported OpenAI’s nonprofit status to ensure AI safety and to counterbalance the dominance of large tech companies. Under questioning, he acknowledged that for-profit incentives can introduce “some safety risk” to AI development—adding that the same risk applies to his own venture, xAI. He emphasized that he is not inherently opposed to for-profit AI companies, but objects to converting a nonprofit into a for-profit, calling it “having your cake and eating it too.”
Competing loyalties and recruiting
Savitt probed Musk’s roles at Tesla and Neuralink during his OpenAI board tenure, suggesting he tried to lure OpenAI researchers to his other companies. The courtroom saw references to Musk’s help in recruiting scientist Andrej Karpathy to Tesla and an email stating he had “no problem if you pitch people at OpenAI to work at Neuralink.” Musk responded that people should be free to work where they choose.
Long-running legal adversaries
The questioning reunited familiar courtroom opponents. Savitt previously represented Twitter in litigation that pressured Musk to close his purchase of the social media company after he attempted to walk away from the deal. Musk completed the acquisition before trial.
What comes next
Beyond the interpersonal rifts and governance debates, the trial centers on whether OpenAI’s evolution from nonprofit ideals to commercial reality violated commitments made in its early days. Musk has since left OpenAI’s board (in 2018) and launched xAI, which was later acquired by SpaceX as the rocket maker weighs an initial public offering. OpenAI itself has been preparing for an IPO amid soaring valuation estimates.
The proceedings continue to probe how much Musk gave, what he expected in control and mission adherence, and whether OpenAI’s leadership crossed lines in transforming the organization’s structure. For now, one figure stands out from a day of tense exchanges: $38 million—Musk’s own accounting of his monetary support—set against a much larger promise that never fully materialized.
