Updated April 27, 2026, with information about the Musk v. Altman trial.
Jury selection begins Monday in the federal trial pitting Elon Musk against Sam Altman, OpenAI and Microsoft over whether OpenAI abandoned the nonprofit mission Musk says he helped fund.
Musk filed suit in 2024, arguing that the company he, Altman and others founded to develop AI for the benefit of humanity evolved into a profit-driven enterprise closely tied to Microsoft. He is seeking more than $134 billion, along with remedies that could reshape OpenAI’s leadership and structure.
The trial starts as co-defendant Microsoft announces a revised OpenAI agreement that keeps it as OpenAI’s primary cloud partner and preserves Microsoft’s OpenAI IP rights through 2032 while making them non-exclusive, which can help in court. Litigation over OpenAI’s governance could complicate any near-term IPO by clouding its structure, valuation and public-benefit claims.
When I first wrote about OpenAI’s restructuring in December, the core issue was whether its new foundation could turn AI wealth into public benefit on a historic scale. That earlier analysis follows below, but the frame has changed. The governance and philanthropy experiment now sits inside a courtroom test of OpenAI’s founding promise and a duel between corporate titans.
OpenAI’s Unusual Nonprofit/For-Profit Structure
It’s rare for a corporate restructuring to alter the landscape of American philanthropy. But OpenAI’s conversion to a for-profit structure in late 2025 created something unprecedented: a nonprofit foundation holding a $130 billion equity stake in one of the world’s most valuable AI companies. The OpenAI Foundation has already committed $25 billion to health initiatives and AI resilience, making it an instant mega-philanthropist.
This change is a major development in U.S. corporate governance and philanthropy, as private foundations increasingly address gaps left by declining government aid. History offers two possible paths. Concentrated wealth can build lasting institutions that expand opportunity, or it can blur the line between public purpose and private influence. OpenAI’s conversion reignites this question on an unprecedented scale.
Late December is a time for reflecting on fulfilled, delayed or changed promises. It also brings increased giving through campaigns, charity events and updates of annual pledges. Against this backdrop of annual giving, OpenAI’s restructuring represented something fundamentally different in size and structure.
How OpenAI’s Conversion Affects Its Nonprofit
OpenAI started as a nonprofit in 2015, but needed private capital to compete in AI development. In 2019, it created a hybrid structure, part nonprofit, part for-profit, that let investors earn returns while keeping the nonprofit in control. This structure limited how much investors could earn and didn’t allow equity ownership.
In late 2025, OpenAI restructured as a for-profit public benefit corporation with one crucial detail: the nonprofit OpenAI Foundation retained a 26% equity stake. As OpenAI’s value rises, so does the foundation’s endowment.
At the time of the conversion in October, the foundation’s stake in the PBC amounted to approximately $130 billion. The foundation announced an initial $25 billion commitment that will focus on two areas: accelerating health breakthroughs through open-sourced, responsibly built health datasets and funding for scientists; and supporting practical technical solutions for AI resilience to maximize benefits while reducing systemic risks. This supplements a $50 million earlier commitment to nonprofits and mission-driven organizations focused on innovation and public good.
The Gilded Age Philanthropy Playbook
At the end of the 19th century, the industrial economy produced titans who turned wealth into civic institutions. The steel magnate Andrew Carnegie argued in his 1889 essay “The Gospel of Wealth” that concentrated wealth carried a moral obligation for the rich to distribute their wealth for the benefit of society. By 1919, Carnegie had donated nearly $350 million, around $6.5 billion today, representing almost 90% of his wealth. He supported libraries, education and peace institutions, leaving a lasting legacy in philanthropy.
The oil tycoon John D. Rockefeller professionalized the model. Created in 1913, the Rockefeller Foundation became a template for expert-led, strategic giving, especially in public health and scientific research. Rockefeller money scaled disease campaigns and modernized medical education when governments and markets were not yet organized to do so.
This era’s philanthropy was characterized by individual donors addressing societal needs at scale. Crucially, they moved beyond ad-hoc charity to create lasting foundations and infrastructure that became models for organized philanthropy.
This first wave of industrial fortunes was controversial even then, and philanthropy raised questions about influence. Large foundations became a parallel capacity to the state.
The 21st-Century Shift
Tech and finance created a second wave of mega-donors who rival or exceed Carnegie and Rockefeller.
The Gates Foundation, with a current endowment of around $70 billion, scaled global health philanthropy into a high-capacity enterprise. Mark Zuckerberg and Priscilla Chan pledged in 2015 to donate 99% of their Facebook shares, worth over $200 billion today, to philanthropy. The Chan Zuckerberg Initiative combines giving and investment with goals such as curing diseases and improving education. Critics claim CZI has recently shifted focus to politics rather than its original mission.
Alongside these donors, an ecosystem emerged: donor-advised funds, philanthropy advisory firms and impact-investing platforms. Some view this nonprofit industrial complex as a web of money and power that perpetuates some of the inequities it aims to address.
MacKenzie Scott has become a notable philanthropist by quickly donating over $19 billion to thousands of nonprofits. Her trust-based, unrestricted gifts emphasize equity and differ from traditional metric-driven philanthropy, setting a new standard in charitable giving.
Donors are reshaping the field with more experimental methods and a focus on root causes rather than symptoms. However, it faces questions about accountability and the influence of private funds in public matters.
Why OpenAI’s Foundation Could Matter Now
OpenAI’s conversion takes place during institutional strain, as Washington grows wary of foreign commitments, development budgets remain tight and global public goods lack funding.
An endowment this large can maintain programs when governments pull back, partner with international organizations during political shifts and fund work that takes decades to pay off. If OpenAI’s valuation continues to climb, the OpenAI Foundation would quickly access tens of billions of dollars in incremental assets, placing it among the wealthiest charitable endowments in the world.
The OpenAI Foundation has the resources to address three critical gaps. First, global aid: funding climate action, global health and development as government support wanes. Second, AI democratization: funding AI education, open-source tools and research access for underserved communities to counter the inequality between big tech and the public. Third, AI accountability: the foundation can join coalitions like the $500 million Humanity AI to support human-centric AI development.
Whether the foundation will pursue these opportunities and whether it can credibly fund organizations that might critique OpenAI itself remains to be seen.
A Golden Age for Philanthropy?
OpenAI’s giving echoes the Gilded Age’s transformational philanthropy, like Carnegie’s libraries or Rockefeller’s medical breakthroughs, testing whether AI wealth can address humanity’s toughest challenges.
The Gilded Age philanthropists built lasting institutions, but they often did it after wealth had already concentrated. OpenAI’s model points to a different possibility: embedding a public benefit claim into the structure while wealth is being created. Whether this marks the beginning of a new golden age of tech philanthropy or simply gilded promises depends on execution.
Year-end is when we renew pledges. OpenAI’s December conversion is, in a way, a pledge written into a balance sheet promising that some portion of AI’s upside will be returned to the public. The next chapter will be about whether that pledge is honored.
Whether OpenAI’s restructuring becomes a new model for AI-era philanthropy may now depend less on its own promises than on the outcome of a court battle. Musk has stated on X that any proceeds from a legal victory would go to charity, and recent filings reportedly seek to direct any damages to OpenAI’s nonprofit arm. The jury and the judge will test whether OpenAI’s public-benefit pledge has legal force or remains a corporate promise.
