Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI, took the witness stand on May 12, 2026 in the lawsuit filed by Elon Musk. Musk alleges that OpenAI's conversion from a non-profit to a for-profit structure violated the organization's founding mission. Altman rejected that framing and disclosed in court details of internal disputes with Musk from nearly a decade ago — including Musk's idea of passing control of OpenAI to his own children.
Key takeaways
- Altman testified May 12, 2026 — his first appearance, as a defense witness for OpenAI
- Musk's core allegation: OpenAI "stole a charity" by converting to a for-profit structure
- Altman disclosed: Musk considered passing control of OpenAI to his children after his death
- OpenAI's non-profit foundation now has assets of approximately $200B — one of the world's largest endowments
- Musk left OpenAI's board and launched competing AI initiatives: xAI and a Tesla AI unit
Background: from mission to billions
OpenAI was founded in 2015 as a non-profit with a mission to develop AI "safely and for the benefit of humanity." Elon Musk was a co-founder and one of its primary donors. In 2019, OpenAI created a "capped profit" subsidiary to allow external investment — including $1B from Microsoft. Musk left the board in 2018, officially citing potential conflicts of interest with Tesla AI, though courtroom testimony has cast new light on that departure. In 2025, OpenAI underwent a further conversion to a Delaware Public Benefit Corporation — a first step toward a fuller for-profit model. In 2024, Musk filed suit arguing that the structural change violated the organization's original commitments and placed control over AGI in private commercial hands.
Altman's testimony: Musk's children and research culture
Altman testified that he found the "stolen charity" allegation difficult to even process mentally. "We created one of the largest charities in the world. This foundation is doing incredible work and will do much more," he said after several seconds of silence.
The pivotal moment of the trial was Altman's account of a 2017 conversation he described as "particularly hair-raising." The discussion concerned what would happen to OpenAI if Musk — who was at the time negotiating to take control of a hypothetical for-profit entity — were to die. Altman testified that Musk said "maybe OpenAI should pass to my children." This testimony reinforces the defense's core argument: Altman and the other co-founders rejected Musk's control model precisely because concentrating power over advanced AI in a single person's hands contradicted the organization's mission.
Altman also described the damaging effects of Musk's management style on OpenAI. Musk allegedly demotivated key researchers and ordered the creation of employee rankings with mass cuts — a method familiar from Tesla and SpaceX, but according to Altman, destructive to a research lab culture. "I don't think Mr. Musk understood how to run a good research lab," the CEO testified.
Legal arguments and the foundation's status
Musk's lawyers argued that OpenAI's commercial engagement signals an abandonment of its AI safety mission. As evidence, they cited the personal diary entries of OpenAI President Greg Brockman, which appeared to show founders weighing profit against mission. Brockman testified earlier in the trial that the entries reflected private deliberation, not corporate decisions.
OpenAI board chair Bret Taylor testified that the non-profit foundation now holds assets of approximately $200 billion and only recently hired full-time staff — because converting OpenAI equity to cash was not technically feasible until the 2025 restructuring. Taylor emphasized that the foundation was not empty but structurally dormant.
Why this matters
Musk v. OpenAI is more than a corporate dispute between former partners. Its outcome could shape how courts interpret the obligations of non-profit organizations that create commercial subsidiaries — a precedent relevant across the technology sector, where such hybrid structures are common. More fundamentally, the case raises the question of who has the right to control organizations working on AGI. Altman and OpenAI's defense argue that control by a non-profit foundation or independent board is the safety-aligned model; Musk contends that corporate commercialization undermines that control. For investors in OpenAI — Microsoft, Thrive Capital, SoftBank — the court's ruling could determine the durability of the structure on which they bet billions. The case proceeds as OpenAI has reached a valuation of approximately $300 billion and continues its commercial expansion.
What's next?
- Trial is ongoing — Altman is the key defense witness, testimony covers events from 2017 to 2025
- Court ruling could invalidate or affirm the corporate structure adopted in OpenAI's 2025 restructuring
