After two weeks of testimony from witnesses characterizing him unfavorably, Sam Altman finally testified in person in the Musk v. Altman trial on May 12, 2026. When his lawyer William Savitt asked how it felt to be accused of stealing a charity, Altman responded with measured composure: "We created, through a ton of hard work, this extremely large charity, and I agree you can't steal it. Mr. Musk did try to kill it, I guess. Twice."
Altman's demeanor on the stand appeared to resonate with the jury. He presented himself as a man bewildered by the accusations, speaking in what observers described as "nice kid from St. Louis" mode. He seemed nervous at the start of direct testimony but warmed quickly, and by most accounts delivered credible testimony that seemed to garner jury sympathy.
The critical distinction between Altman's testimony and that of other principals emerges in the evidentiary record. Elon Musk testified under oath that he does not lose his temper, then proceeded to lose his temper during cross-examination. Shivon Zilis, mother of Musk's children, testified she didn't know Musk was starting xAI—a claim seemingly contradicted by her own text messages. Greg Brockman testified that his focus was the mission, despite questions about his motivations. By contrast, Altman's version of events is supported by contemporaneous documents.
The core dispute hinges on control. After OpenAI's Dota 2 win, discussions for a for-profit arm began in earnest. Altman testified that Musk "felt very strongly that if we were going to form a for-profit he needed to have total control over it initially. He only trusted himself to make non-obvious decisions that were going to turn out to be correct."
Altman was uncomfortable with this demand, he testified, not merely because Musk hadn't been as involved as other founders, but because OpenAI's founding principle was explicitly to prevent any one person from controlling AGI. Drawing on his experience at Y Combinator, Altman cited examples of how control fights emerge when things go well—referencing Musk's own struggle to retain control at SpaceX, rather than invoking the more famous example of Mark Zuckerberg at Meta.
When Altman asked Musk about succession planning for OpenAI, Musk's answer proved revealing. "I haven't thought about it a ton," Musk said, "but maybe control should pass to my children."
A 2017 email from Altman to Zilis surfaced during trial, in which Altman wrote: "I am worried about control. I don't think any one person should have control of the world's first AGI—in fact the whole reason we started OpenAI was so that wouldn't happen." He added that he was open to "creative structures" to accommodate Musk, suggesting willingness to grant him control up to specific development milestones.
Altman's testimony on the stand essentially restated this position: "My belief is he wanted to have long term control and that he would've had that had we agreed to the structure he wanted." Later video testimony from Sam Teller's deposition reinforced this reading: Musk no longer invests in anything he doesn't control—a pattern consistent with his documented resistance to being ousted from his own companies, as happened at PayPal.
Yet despite credible testimony and documentary support, Altman faces a longer-term reputational headwind. The New Yorker published over 17,000 words examining Altman's pattern of dishonesty. Musk, for his part, has spent the trial publicly challenging Altman's character on a broader stage. Winning sympathy in the jury box may not be enough to overcome damage already inflicted in the court of public opinion.