Sam Altman Testifies in Elon Musk’s OpenAI Lawsuit: Microsoft Talks, Boardroom ‘Blip,’ and Control Concerns

Altman takes the stand as Musk’s case targets OpenAI’s structure

After two weeks of witness testimony portraying Sam Altman as dishonest, jurors in Elon Musk’s high-profile lawsuit against the OpenAI CEO heard Altman’s account directly. Altman testified Tuesday in a federal courthouse in Oakland, California, in a trial that could shape the future of the organization behind ChatGPT.

Musk’s lawsuit accuses Altman and OpenAI President Greg Brockman of “looting” OpenAI’s charitable mission through a partnership with Microsoft for personal benefit. Altman, Brockman, OpenAI, and Microsoft have denied the allegations.

Over more than three hours of direct and cross-examination by Altman’s attorney William Savitt and Musk’s attorney Steven Molo, Altman traced his path into tech leadership and described internal disputes over governance and control at OpenAI.

Altman confirms he once considered a run for California governor

In sworn testimony, Altman publicly acknowledged for the first time that he had explored a potential campaign for California governor.

Questioned about a September 2017 email referencing his “political goals,” Altman said the phrase likely referred to his interest in state politics. “I was thinking about running for governor at the time, which I believe is what they meant here,” he testified.

Altman did not run. Gavin Newsom went on to win the 2018 gubernatorial election.

The “Blip”: Altman says he weighed leaving for Microsoft

Altman provided a detailed narrative of the short-lived leadership crisis OpenAI dubbed “The Blip”—the period in November 2023 when OpenAI’s board removed him as CEO.

Altman said he was in talks with board members about returning when interim CEO Mina Murati was replaced by Emmett Shear. He described his reaction in stark terms: “I was extremely angry. I felt extremely misled,” he testified.

At the time, Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella had offered Altman a role at Microsoft and extended an invitation to OpenAI employees who wanted to join. Altman told the court he seriously considered leaving OpenAI entirely and starting anew.

“There was something appealing about going to work at Microsoft with Greg on a pure AI research effort,” Altman said, adding that he felt “betrayal” during the “very painful, very public” few days.

Ultimately, Altman said he chose to return to OpenAI after changes to board composition, emphasizing his preference to preserve OpenAI’s nonprofit structure. “I’m sure I could have made a ton of money and had a much easier life at Microsoft, but I cared about the mission and the people,” he testified.

Altman portrays Musk’s push for control as a governance red flag

Musk’s suit argues that OpenAI’s structure—intended to develop safe AI for broad benefit—was bypassed for private advantage. Altman’s testimony framed the control dispute differently, alleging it was Musk who sought tighter command over OpenAI.

Altman said Musk wanted to “fold in” the AI lab into Tesla, while giving insufficient weight to governance concerns. He also testified that Musk discussed the idea of control passing to his children after his death.

“I haven’t thought about it a ton, but, you know, maybe it should just, the control should pass to my children,” Musk said when asked by board members, according to Altman. Altman described the exchange as a “particularly hair-raising moment.”

Cross-examination opens with a sharp attack on Altman’s honesty

Musk’s attorney Steven Molo began cross-examination by challenging Altman on trustworthiness. “Are you completely trustworthy?” Molo asked.

“I believe so,” Altman replied. After Molo pressed him on the phrasing, Altman said, “I’ll just amend my answer to yes,” as the exchange continued for several minutes before moving into OpenAI leadership issues.

Donations, time commitment, and a dispute over who did the work

Altman testified that he, like Musk, contributed financially to OpenAI. Musk contributed about $38 million to OpenAI’s charity before stopping donations, Altman said.

Altman stated he donated $3.75 million to OpenAI “in cash when it started,” and separately provided $17.5 million in cash to an affiliated study on universal income. He also emphasized his personal time investment.

Altman characterized Musk’s role as more limited, saying Musk visited “every week, or other week,” and was reachable by text or email. By contrast, Altman testified that Brockman and Ilya Sutskever worked “almost every waking hour.”

Tesla recruiting and a “chainsaw” approach to managing researchers

Altman testified that by the second half of 2017, amid disagreements about fundraising strategy, Musk stopped his quarterly contributions as Musk began an AI initiative at Tesla.

Altman said Musk left OpenAI’s board in early 2018, in part because he was attempting to recruit OpenAI employees for Tesla. Asked how he felt about those efforts, Altman said: “I was annoyed.”

Altman also criticized Musk’s management style, testifying that it clashed with OpenAI’s research culture. He said Musk made decisions that were “bad for morale,” including instructing executives to rank researchers and then “take a chainsaw through a bunch.” Altman said the episode “demotivated” staff, arguing that a threat-based approach—“show your result or you’re going to be fired”—did not work for OpenAI.

Coinasity's Take

This testimony underscores how governance design, control rights, and strategic partnerships—particularly the OpenAI-Microsoft relationship—can become existential flashpoints for frontier tech organizations. For markets watching AI alongside crypto and decentralized governance debates, the trial highlights a familiar tension: mission-driven structures can face intense strain when capital, leadership, and control incentives collide.