Elon Musk’s Actions Could Impact OpenAI CEO’s Reputation Long-Term
On May 12, 2026, Elizabeth Lopatto reported that Elon Musk might have inflicted significant long-term reputational harm on Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI.
During a trial, Sam Altman, described by some as deceitful, took the stand. Altman expressed that Musk attempted to dismantle OpenAI twice, a charge he faced with a demeanor likened to a bewildered schoolboy. Despite accusations, Altman’s testimony seemed credible, with jury members appearing sympathetic at times.
The trial involved various testimonies where notable figures made audacious claims. However, while many questioned Altman’s trustworthiness, available documents partially corroborated his narrative.
The trial’s background involves post-Dota 2 OpenAI transitions, where Musk desired total control of a proposed for-profit division. Altman opposed this vision, pointing out that OpenAI’s creation aimed to prevent singular control over artificial general intelligence (AGI). Tension grew as Musk’s control ambitions became evident, while Altman recalled Musk’s unsettling suggestion that control might pass to his children upon his death.
Documents revealed Altman expressed concerns over Musk’s control aspirations in 2017, showing his willingness for Musk’s control up to specific developmental milestones. Musk’s attempts to recruit Altman to Tesla were perceived as veiled threats to further his AI interests without OpenAI. Texts also uncovered sentiments against OpenAI’s direction without Musk, with suggestions to recruit its leaders instead.
Though Musk withdrew regular donations, leaving OpenAI financially strained, Altman testified that Musk’s absence relieved organizational tensions. Evidence indicated Altman kept Musk informed during OpenAI’s for-profit setup, with Musk never publicly objecting and being aware of Microsoft investments.
In a confrontation, lawyer Steven Molo highlighted Altman’s alleged dishonesty, citing testimonies and public accusations, but Altman maintained his composure, looking confused by the intense focus on his integrity. Musk’s legal team exhibited inconsistencies, with questionable comparisons made about nonprofit fundraising.
Musk’s objective seemed punitive, reinforcing Altman’s negative image and prompting GOP scrutiny of Altman’s investments following trial references, despite Altman’s effective courtroom presence. While Altman might win his case, Musk’s campaign of vengeance appears far from over.
