Elon Musk clashed with OpenAI's defense counsel during two days of trial testimony in Oakland, then left the country while subject to recall as a witness.
Elon Musk testified for two days in late April 2026 at his trial against OpenAI, telling the court he was "foolish enough to believe" co-founder Sam Altman's promises that the company would pursue humanity's benefit rather than profit [1]. Musk stated he donated $38 million to OpenAI based on those assurances, and he argued the company's subsequent commercial pivot betrayed the charitable mission on which he relied when making those contributions [1]. The testimony was combative throughout, with Musk at times accusing OpenAI's cross-examining attorney, William Savitt, of lying, generating exchanges that drew sustained attention inside the courtroom [1].
The proceedings are before U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers in the Northern District of California, Oakland division [1]. Musk filed suit against OpenAI and Altman alleging the company abandoned its nonprofit charter and founding mission, claims rooted in nonprofit law and charitable trust doctrine. The trial entered its second week with the evidentiary focus shifting toward OpenAI's internal governance and its transition toward a for-profit structure, according to court coverage [1].
Musk's conduct on and around the stand drew scrutiny beyond the substance of his answers. After completing his initial testimony, Musk left the United States to travel to China alongside President Trump, while remaining subject to recall as a witness [1]. The departure raised questions about witness availability and obligations, and it handed OpenAI's legal team material bearing on Musk's credibility and his commitment to the litigation he initiated. Defense counsel Savitt's cross-examination, which Musk met with open hostility, provided the record from which OpenAI's lawyers can construct arguments that the plaintiff's own conduct undermines the integrity of his claims.
The substantive legal question at the center of the case is whether OpenAI's restructuring from a nonprofit to a capped-profit and now a public benefit corporation constitutes a breach of the charitable trust commitments made to early donors, including Musk. That question has broad implications for how AI governance obligations attach to entities that accept charitable contributions under a stated public-benefit mission.
Judge Gonzalez Rogers has not yet issued a ruling. The trial was continuing as of late April, with OpenAI mounting its defense and the possibility that Musk could be called back to the stand remaining open [1]. Closing arguments and a final decision from the bench are anticipated in the coming weeks.