Elon Musk’s absence from a federal courtroom became part of the final pitch to jurors Thursday, as lawyers delivered closing arguments in his trial against OpenAI leaders Sam Altman and Greg Brockman.
Musk’s lead attorney, Steven Molo, apologized to the jury for the Tesla and SpaceX CEO not being present. Musk was reported to be in China as part of President Donald Trump’s delegation while the case was entering its final stage.
“This is something he is passionate about,” Molo told jurors, seeking to assure them that Musk remained engaged with the trial despite being away from court.
What the Trial Is About
The case centers on Musk’s claims that Altman, Brockman and OpenAI departed from the organization’s original nonprofit mission and enriched themselves through its later restructuring. Musk, who helped launch OpenAI, has argued that the company’s evolution violated commitments tied to its early purpose.
OpenAI and its executives have disputed Musk’s account. Their lawyers have argued that the evidence does not support his claim that binding promises required OpenAI to remain structured in the way Musk describes.
The trial has been closely watched because it touches both Silicon Valley power struggles and the governance of advanced artificial intelligence companies. It also comes as OpenAI’s business relationships, including its ties with Microsoft, remain under heavy public and industry scrutiny.
Musk’s Travel Draws Attention
Musk testified earlier in the trial. Before closing arguments, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers had placed him on “recall status,” meaning he was expected to be available to return if further testimony was needed on short notice.
A court spokesperson said they did not know whether Musk had obtained permission to travel. CNBC reported that Musk’s attorneys did not respond to questions about whether the trip had been cleared with the judge or discussed with Musk in connection with his court obligations.
The timing gave OpenAI’s side an opening during closing arguments. William Savitt, representing OpenAI, contrasted Musk’s absence with Altman and Brockman’s presence in the Oakland courtroom, arguing that his clients had shown up for the final stage of the case.
That argument was advocacy, not a factual finding by the court. Still, the absence became one more point of friction in a trial already shaped by competing stories about OpenAI’s founding, its mission and Musk’s role in its early years.
OpenAI’s Lawyers Push Back
During their closing presentation, OpenAI’s lawyers walked jurors through documents and testimony they said undercut Musk’s version of events. They argued that Musk had previously explored a for-profit direction for OpenAI under conditions that would have given him control or tied the company more closely to Tesla, though those assertions remain part of the defense’s courtroom argument rather than an independent finding.
Attorney Sarah Eddy also challenged Musk’s claim that his early donations carried specific conditions. She told jurors the evidence did not back that position, including testimony from people connected to Musk and OpenAI. That characterization, too, reflects OpenAI’s closing argument rather than a court ruling.
The jury must now weigh the competing accounts presented during the trial. The case could influence how courts view early promises, donor expectations and governance changes at companies built around public-interest missions but later tied to major commercial opportunities.