The Trump administration filed a statement of interest supporting OpenAI in The New York Times’ copyright lawsuit, arguing that treating AI training on copyrighted text as infringement misunderstands copyright’s purpose and would hinder innovation, economic growth, and the constitutional goal of promoting science and the useful arts.
Short answer: The Trump administration filed a statement of interest supporting OpenAI in The New York Times’ copyright lawsuit, arguing that treating AI training on copyrighted text as infringement misunderstands copyright’s purpose and would hinder innovation, economic growth, and the constitutional goal of promoting science and the useful arts.
The Trump administration jumped into the fray between The New York Times and OpenAI, filing a statement of interest that backs the AI firm. The Times, which sued back in December 2023, alleges OpenAI illegally scraped its articles to train LLMs and is demanding billions in damages from OpenAI and its partner Microsoft.
In its brief, the administration argues that labeling AI training on copyrighted text as infringement misses the point of copyright altogether. Government lawyers warn that such a view would clash with the Constitution’s aim to promote science and the useful arts. They stress that LLMs are already sparking breakthroughs in countless research areas, and curbing their growth would hurt American prosperity and economic mobility.
This filing mirrors a wider policy stance the administration has taken on AI training. Officials have long held that feeding copyrighted material to machines should count as fair use, a stance spelled out in the National AI Legislative Framework. They also point out that statements of interest have become a go-to tool for pushing their agenda in private lawsuits, calling the tactic incredibly successful.
Beyond this specific case, the administration’s move underscores a rising tension between news publishers and AI developers. The Times’ lawsuit could become a benchmark for other outlets unhappy about their content being used to train models. Similar fights have popped up lately, with suits filed by the Center for Investigative Reporting, the Chicago Tribune and the New York Daily News.
A 2025 ruling showed how courts are wrestling with these questions. A judge decided Anthropic could legally train its models on books bought lawfully, but cautioned the company might still be liable for piracy. That decision eventually paved the way for a $1.5 billion settlement with a group of authors.
Meanwhile, many publishers have chosen licensing over litigation. The Associated Press, Axel Springer and Vox Media have all cut deals with OpenAI to let their material feed model training. The New York Times, for its part, struck a separate arrangement with Amazon in 2025, allowing its news articles and recipes to show up in the tech giant’s generative AI tools.
The administration’s brief also nods to the president’s personal history with the Times, noting Trump is currently pursuing a defamation suit against the paper. That backdrop adds a political hue to the government’s backing of OpenAI, although the legal arguments stay focused on innovation and economic growth.
For AI developers and companies, the case highlights why it’s crucial to watch how fair-use doctrines are interpreted in model training. A ruling that narrows fair use could push more firms to seek licenses or risk costly litigation, while a broader reading might lower legal barriers but stir worries about compensating content creators.
If you build or use AI tools, it’s worth reviewing your data-sourcing habits, keeping an eye on upcoming court rulings, and staying tuned to licensing options that may become more common as the legal landscape shifts. The outcome of this suit could shape the balance between protecting intellectual property and nurturing the next wave of AI-driven innovation.
The Trump administration filed a statement of interest that backs OpenAI, arguing that labeling AI training on copyrighted text as infringement misunderstands copyright’s purpose and would hinder innovation and economic growth.
The administration contends that feeding copyrighted material to machines should be considered fair use, a position outlined in the National AI Legislative Framework, and warns that treating such use as infringement would conflict with the Constitution’s goal to promote science and the useful arts.
Many publishers have opted for licensing deals instead of litigation; the Associated Press, Axel Springer and Vox Media have agreements with OpenAI, while The New York Times reached a separate arrangement with Amazon in 2025 to allow its articles and recipes in Amazon’s generative AI tools.
In 2025 a judge ruled that Anthropic could legally train its models on books bought lawfully, but cautioned the company might still be liable for piracy; that decision later helped lead to a $1.5 billion settlement with a group of authors.
Source: The Verge
OpenAI faces thirty new lawsuits filed in a California federal court on September 2, 2026, alleging it enabled the Tumbler Ridge shooter by flagging his ChatGPT chats about weapons yet failing to alert Canadian authorities and only deactivating his account, allowing him to regain access.
On September 1, 2026, OpenAI announced that healthcare organizations can now connect their electronic health record systems and other data sources directly to ChatGPT, enabling clinicians to query patient records and public health data via Epic integration and a Healthcare Public Data plugin.
On September 1, 2026, Google DeepMind introduced an agentic video-understanding feature for Gemini models that reduces token usage by up to 88%, cuts operating costs by up to 66%, and improves output quality by up to 7% across Gemini 3.7 Flash, 3.6 Flash and 3.5 versions.
NO COMMENTS YET
Comments are open. Have a thought or a question? Share it below.