Sam Altman spent Tuesday on a federal witness stand in California, getting grilled about whether he’s been straight with regulators, board members, and the public about his stake in OpenAI and his control over the company. According to TechCrunch AI, Elon Musk’s lead attorney Steve Molo used the cross-examination to paint Altman as someone whose word can’t be trusted, a question that sits at the heart of Musk’s lawsuit trying to block OpenAI’s for-profit conversion. What stands out here is the specific moment Molo zeroed in on: Altman’s 2023 Senate testimony where he told Senator John Kennedy he had “no equity in OpenAI” and was “paid enough for health insurance.”
The Equity Question That Won’t Go Away
Molo pressed Altman on why he didn’t tell Congress about his economic exposure to OpenAI through a Y Combinator fund where he holds an LP position. Altman’s response, per TechCrunch AI: “I didn’t mention it in that testimony, but, again, I think it is well understood what it means to be a passive owner of many venture funds.”
Molo’s comeback was sharp. “You thought Senator Kennedy was a very sophisticated investor when he asked you that question?”
This matters because Altman volunteered the “no equity” line when he could have just sidestepped. He’s a guy who built his name on early-stage investing. He knew exactly what his Y Combinator position meant.
The Witness List Against Him
Molo walked the jury through a parade of people who’ve accused Altman of lying or misleading them under oath:
- Former OpenAI board members Helen Toner and Tasha McCauley
- Elon Musk
- OpenAI co-founder Ilya Sutskever
McCauley described “a toxic culture of lying” in her testimony. A recent New Yorker piece raising concerns about his honesty also got airtime. The November 2023 “blip” when the board briefly fired Altman for not being candid with them keeps coming back as Exhibit A.
Altman pushed back. “I do have doubts that was the full reason” for his firing, he said. When pressed on the board’s stated reason, he deflected: “They asked me to come back the next morning.”
Why This Trial Matters for AI Governance
The credibility questions aren’t just about Altman personally. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers and the jury are weighing whether OpenAI’s non-profit board can actually control the for-profit arm, which is the legal core of Musk’s case.
Witnesses backing OpenAI made the structural argument. Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella called the 2023 firing “amateur city.” Current board chair Bret Taylor said Altman has been “forthright with me.” AI safety board member Dr. Zico Kolter said no one has interfered with his work since 2024.
But Taylor admitted something significant: the board rehired Altman in 2023 because his exit would have ended OpenAI as a functioning company, with employees ready to walk out behind him. That’s not exactly a vote of confidence in board independence.
What to Watch Next
Asked Tuesday if he’d ever fire himself as CEO, Altman said no plans. Asked if he could be trusted, he answered: “I believe I am an honest and trustworthy businessperson.”
The ruling here could reshape how the most influential AI company in the world is governed. If the court finds the non-profit board can’t meaningfully discipline its CEO, OpenAI’s for-profit conversion gets harder to defend as consistent with its original mission. For everyone building on OpenAI’s models or competing with them, the governance question isn’t academic anymore.
Full coverage of the testimony is at TechCrunch AI.