Six of the nonprofits were not involved in the lawsuit between OpenAI and Musk before the tech company brought them into it by issuing the subpoenas, and the remaining nonprofit had filed a supporting brief<\/a> in the case but says it had not engaged with Musk. Three of the subpoenas, issued to the San Francisco Foundation<\/a>, Ek\u014d<\/a> and the Future of Life Institute<\/a>, have not been previously reported.<\/p>\n The nonprofits say the subpoenas seem designed to extract private information about OpenAI\u2019s critics despite most of the organizations having no relation to Musk or the ongoing lawsuit.<\/p>\n Robert Weissman, co-president of Public Citizen, a nonprofit consumer advocacy organization that has been critical of OpenAI\u2019s restructuring plans but is uninvolved in the current lawsuit and has not received a subpoena, told NBC News that OpenAI\u2019s intent in issuing the subpoenas is clear. \u201cThis behavior is highly unusual. It\u2019s 100% intended to intimidate,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n \u201cThis is the kind of tactic you would expect from the most cutthroat for-profit corporation,\u201d Weissman said. \u201cIt\u2019s an attempt to bully nonprofit critics, to chill speech and deter them from speaking out.\u201d<\/p>\n The subpoenas, four of which were reviewed by NBC News, ask for a wide variety of documents and materials, including all information about the organizations\u2019 funders and donations, in addition to all communications regarding Musk, Meta and its founder Mark Zuckerberg. OpenAI had previously expressed suspicions<\/a> about Meta and Zuckerberg\u2019s involvement in Musk\u2019s $97 billion bid to buy OpenAI in February.<\/p>\n The subpoenas also ask for \u201call documents and communications concerning the governance or organizational structure of OpenAI.\u201d <\/p>\n OpenAI said in September<\/a> that its conversion to a more traditional for-profit company would \u201cenable us to raise the capital required to accomplish our mission.\u201d The change is seen as a key step before the company could be publicly listed and would allow investors to hold valuable equity <\/a>in the for-profit instead of just receiving a slice of profits.<\/p>\n Critics of the conversion argue such a change could allow<\/a> OpenAI, now the world\u2019s highest valued startup<\/a>, to pursue profit over its charitable mission.<\/p>\n The controversy around the subpoenas exploded online Friday<\/a>, as employees of several of the nonprofits alleged on social media that the AI titan\u2019s subpoenas are hardball legal tactics that far surpass normal legal action and are often irrelevant to the ongoing Musk lawsuit. The allegations, which included photos of several of the subpoenas, led to several prominent current and former employees of OpenAI publicly criticizing its actions \u2014 highly unusual for the tight-lipped company<\/a>. <\/p>\n \u201cThis doesn\u2019t seem great,\u201d OpenAI\u2019s Joshua Achiam, the company\u2019s head of mission alignment, said in an X post<\/a> Friday afternoon. Achiam did not respond to NBC News\u2019 request for comment.<\/p>\n Achiam reports to CEO Sam Altman and is tasked with ensuring OpenAI\u2019s pursuit of smarter-than-human AI systems benefit all of humanity<\/a>.<\/p>\n \u201cWe have a duty to and a mission for all of humanity,\u201d Achiam wrote Friday. \u201cThere are things that can go wrong with power and sometimes people on the inside have to be willing to point it out loudly.\u201d<\/p>\n The subpoenas and tactics at issue in Friday\u2019s statements stem from a protracted and heated legal battle<\/a> involving Musk. <\/p>\n Musk sued Altman, OpenAI and several co-founders last year accusing them of breaching OpenAI\u2019s contractual duties by embracing a for-profit drive nested within its nonprofit structure, in what Musk alleged<\/a> has been \u201ca textbook tale of altruism versus greed.\u201d <\/p>\n Altman and OpenAI contend that Musk, who was one of OpenAI\u2019s early boosters and provided around $45 million<\/a> to the company in its early years, is now jealous<\/a> of the company\u2019s success and is employing \u201cbad-faith tactics <\/a>to slow down OpenAI and seize control of the leading AI innovations for his personal benefit.\u201d Musk is also the founder and CEO of OpenAI-rival xAI, which is quickly trying to catch up<\/a> to other AI companies\u2019 capabilities.<\/p>\n In response to a request for comment, an OpenAI spokesperson referred NBC News to posts on X from OpenAI\u2019s Chief Strategy Officer Jason Kwon.<\/p>\n On Friday, Kwon wrote<\/a> that after Musk sued OpenAI, several organizations \u201cjoined in and ran campaigns backing his opposition to OpenAI\u2019s restructure. This raised transparency questions about who was funding them and whether there was any coordination.\u201d The various nonprofits that received subpoenas span a range of causes, but have all been critical of OpenAI.<\/p>\n The San Francisco Foundation (SFF), whose mission is to strengthen communities, build civic leadership and foster philanthropy in the San Francisco area, says it has never received any funding from Musk nor has it participated in the lawsuit with Musk. SFF helped lead a petition<\/a> in January asking California\u2019s attorney general to prevent OpenAI\u2019s attempt to restructure from a nonprofit to a for-profit entity. <\/p>\n Judith Bell, SFF\u2019s chief impact officer, said that SFF has criticized OpenAI because of her organization\u2019s focus on philanthropy. \u201cOpenAI, an organization whose assets have been estimated in the hundreds of billions of dollars, is effectively one of the largest nonprofit entities in history. Its assets were accumulated for the explicit, charitable purpose of benefiting humanity,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n \u201cSFF opposes the diversion of these immense charitable assets for private, corporate profit. We believe the law requires that the full value of these public assets must be permanently dedicated to the public good, independent of any for-profit enterprise, regardless of OpenAI\u2019s corporate structure,\u201d she added.<\/p>\n Sean Eskovitz, a litigator and former assistant United States attorney uninvolved in the Musk case and who has not spoken out for either party before, told NBC News that \u201cthe breadth of these subpoenas strike me as quite aggressive and quite broad.\u201d <\/p>\n OpenAI \u201cwill have to demonstrate that the requests are relevant to an issue in the litigation,\u201d he said. \u201cEven then, there would be concerns given the limited or non-involvement of these third parties in the litigation, the nature of the activities that are being inquired about and the public interest in the advocacy and speech issues here.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cThere would have to be a very close look at the scope of the subpoena in order to ensure that nonparties are not being harassed, that their speech is not being chilled, and that the proponent of the subpoena is not using the subpoena for some ulterior purpose,\u201d Eskovitz said. <\/p>\n Ek\u014d<\/a>, an international nonprofit organization \u201ccommitted to curbing the growing power of corporations,\u201d had initially shared its concerns about OpenAI\u2019s corporate structure with the company in early April before launching a public campaign critical of the organization.<\/p>\n Emma Ruby-Sachs, Ek\u014d\u2019s executive director, had heard that other advocacy organizations were receiving subpoenas over the past few months. \u201cWe knew this was a tactic that OpenAI was using to try and silence opposition,\u201d she told NBC News.<\/p>\n OpenAI responded to the campaign in an email, noting that it had made attempts to meet with Ek\u014d before the launch of the campaign and raising its suspicions that Musk might have been involved in Ek\u014d\u2019s campaign.<\/p>\n In reply, Ek\u014d\u2019s campaign director dismissed OpenAI\u2019s concerns about its funding: \u201cWe are not in any way supported by or funded by Elon Musk and have a history of campaigning against him and his interests.\u201d <\/p>\n Given their email correspondence and OpenAI\u2019s subsequent silence, Ruby-Sachs was taken aback by OpenAI\u2019s subpoena in early September. \u201cWe had written to them and said we\u2019re over 70% funded by small online donations from individuals, and we\u2019ve run multiple campaigns against Elon Musk in the last year,\u201d she said. <\/p>\n Ruby-Sachs mentioned that Ek\u014d even ran a billboard ad in Times Square earlier this year depicting Musk as a king<\/a> and advocating for him to be fired during his stint at DOGE earlier this year. <\/p>\n Like the other nonprofits\u2019 subpoenas, Ek\u014d\u2019s was very wide-ranging, asking for, among other details, \u201cthe identity of all Persons or entities that have contributed any funds to You and\u2026the amount and date of any such contributions.\u201d<\/p>\n Such breadth surprised many commentators. Helen Toner, a former member of OpenAI\u2019s board, skeptical of some of the company\u2019s practices, labeled the approach<\/a> as \u201cdishonesty & intimidation tactics.\u201d <\/p>\n In a post viewed almost 30 million times, Musk reshared<\/a> Toner\u2019s remark, commenting that \u201cOpenAI was built on a lie.\u201d<\/p>\n Musk subpoenaed Toner\u2019s documents<\/a> in a similar lawsuit last year.<\/p>\n Given Ek\u014d\u2019s public opposition to Musk, Ruby-Sachs dismissed the idea that Ek\u014d could be funded by Musk to take down OpenAI. \u201cThe logical basis is so ridiculous that we have to assume this is just a tactic to scare us and get us to back off,\u201d she said. <\/p>\n Ruby-Sachs said the organization prides itself on taking marching orders directly from its members, unlike a traditional policy or a lobbying group. Ek\u014d determines its priorities in organization-wide votes in which hundreds of thousands of its members participate.<\/p>\n \u201cThis subpoena shows OpenAI is going after people around the world who are legitimately concerned citizens and trying to shut them up,\u201d Ruby-Sachs said. <\/p>\n \u201cOpenAI is another company, just like every other company, trying to use their money and power to pursue profits, even if it screws over the people of California and potentially all of humanity,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n Ek\u014d\u2019s subpoena has not been widely reported before, nor has a similarly broad subpoena targeting the Future of Life Institute<\/a> (FLI). <\/p>\n Whereas Ek\u014d says it has no ties to Musk, FLI received at least $10 million in funding from Musk. FLI last received funding from Musk in 2021. The funding focused on AI technical and policy research, including a grant-making program<\/a> aimed at \u201ckeeping AI robust and beneficial.\u201d <\/p>\n According to an FLI spokesperson, \u201cElon has no input into FLI\u2019s structural activities.\u201d The spokesperson said FLI distributed Musk\u2019s money to leading AI researchers, and a separate tech mogul<\/a> gave FLI its permanent endowment as is made clear in its online funding reports.<\/p>\n FLI received its subpoena at the beginning of October, while FLI President Max Tegmark received an individual subpoena in late August. <\/p>\n \u201cWe assume the subpoena has to do with us generally calling for more oversight and transparency on the development of advanced AI and AI companies in general, which currently have zero regulation or meaningful oversight,\u201d FLI\u2019s spokesperson said.<\/p>\n In a post on X<\/a> addressing OpenAI, Tyler Johnston, who received a subpoena as founder of an AI-transparency advocacy group called The Midas Project, wrote: \u201cWe\u2019ve never spoken with or taken funding from Musk and ilk, which we would have been happy to tell you if you asked a single time. In fact we\u2019ve said he runs xAI so horridly it makes OpenAI \u2018saintly in comparison.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n Johnston\u2019s subpoena was previously reported in the SF Standard<\/a>.<\/p>\n On Monday, Johnston wrote on X<\/a> that the subpoena and ensuing news coverage of his involvement in the lawsuit caused insurance brokers to refuse to cover his small watchdog organization. \u201cIf you wanted to constrain an org\u2019s speech, intimidation would be one strategy, but making them uninsurable is another, and maybe that\u2019s what\u2019s happened to us with this subpoena,\u201d he wrote.<\/p>\n Former OpenAI research scientist Steven Adler told NBC News: \u201cI\u2019m surprised that OpenAI\u2019s Board would consider these actions consistent with its nonprofit legal obligations, or that they\u2019d feel personally comfortable with this conduct.\u201d<\/p>\n Legal Advocates for Safe Science and Technology (LASST) also received a subpoena from OpenAI. Tyler Whitmer, president and CEO of LASST and a lawyer himself, was unsettled by the subpoena\u2019s aggressive tactics, especially given his opposition to Musk.<\/p>\n \u201cI think Musk is a malign influence in the world right now,\u201d Whitmer said. \u201cPart of my mission is to hold Musk\u2019s xAI to account in the same way I hold OpenAI to account. It\u2019s just that OpenAI is supposed to be better than this, while I don\u2019t expect the same from Elon,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n \u201cIt\u2019s really clear that the subpoenas aren\u2019t narrowly tailored to the issues of the litigation and are instead trying to leverage the litigation to get information that OpenAI is not otherwise entitled to. And that\u2019s the best faith version of it,\u201d Whitmer said.<\/p>\n Beyond its restructuring efforts, OpenAI also served subpoenas to at least one organization supporting recent efforts to regulate frontier AI companies. <\/p>\n OpenAI\u2019s Head of Global Affairs Chris Lehane was publicly skeptical<\/a> of California\u2019s SB 53, a newly signed bill<\/a> mandating transparency into leading AI companies\u2019 risk-mitigation practices, before the bill was signed into law. Lehane is now attempting to shape America\u2019s AI politics to OpenAI\u2019s liking, bringing his dogged approach to Silicon Valley<\/a>. Lehane recently helped launch a new $100 million Super PAC designed to fight against strict AI legislation<\/a>.<\/p>\n Encode, a nonprofit whose general counsel, Nathan Calvin, was recently subpoenaed by OpenAI, was a sponsor of the SB 53 legislation and also filed an amicus brief<\/a> in Musk\u2019s lawsuit against OpenAI. <\/p>\n In Friday\u2019s first volley, Calvin wrote<\/a>: \u201cWhy did OpenAI subpoena me? Encode has criticized OpenAI\u2019s restructuring and worked on AI regulations, including SB 53.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cI believe OpenAI used the pretext of their lawsuit against Elon Musk to intimidate their critics and imply that Elon is behind all of them.\u201d<\/p>\n In response, OpenAI\u2019s Kwon wrote<\/a>: \u201cWhen a third party inserts themselves into active litigation, they are subject to standard legal processes. We issued a subpoena to ensure transparency around their involvement and funding. This is a routine step in litigation, not a separate legal action against Nathan or Encode.\u201d<\/p>\n Ray Seilie, a litigator at Kinsella Holley Iser Kump Steinsapir in Los Angeles, told NBC News that the subpoenas could have been much more demanding if they were really meant as an intimidation tactic.<\/p>\n Regarding Calvin and Encode, Seilie said: \u201cIf OpenAI had wanted to intimidate or harass him, they could have served him with a deposition subpoena, which would have required Calvin to sit down for a full day of questioning under oath by OpenAI\u2019s lawyers in addition to providing documents.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cThe fact that OpenAI only asked for documents suggests that they were sincerely looking for connections between Musk and Encode, even if they turned out to be wrong about their suspicion.\u201d<\/p>\n Former OpenAI employee, whistleblower<\/a> and prominent AI policy researcher Daniel Kokotajlo said the pressure for critics to be silent can often be crushing, even in the absence of depositions or subpoenas. \u201cI was super scared last year when I spoke up about OpenAI\u2019s secret nondisparagement clause<\/a>, even though objectively speaking I was in the right.\u201dThe clause forbade former employees from saying anything negative about the company or face losing their vested equity. OpenAI rescinded the policy<\/a> shortly after Kokotajlo came forward.<\/p>\n \u201cWhen it\u2019s actually happening to you in real life, the psychological pressure to just stay quiet is pretty darn strong and most people cave to it,\u201d Kokotajlo told NBC News. \u201cThat\u2019s why intimidation tactics work.\u201d<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"OpenAI says it was founded with the goal of benefiting humanity. But several nonprofit organizations that say the…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":161388,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[45],"tags":[182,181,507,74],"class_list":{"0":"post-227314","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-artificial-intelligence","8":"tag-ai","9":"tag-artificial-intelligence","10":"tag-artificialintelligence","11":"tag-technology"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/227314","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=227314"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/227314\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/161388"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=227314"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=227314"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=227314"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}![\"A](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/230813-elon-musk-mark-zuckberg-jm-1540-934557.jpg\")
Elon Musk; Mark Zuckerberg.AP; Getty Images<\/p>\n![\"Jason](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/251015-jason-kwon-vl-135p-e62e91.jpg\")
Jason Kwon, chief strategy officer of OpenAI, during a news conference in Seoul, South Korea, on Sept. 10.SeongJoon Cho \/ Bloomberg via Getty Images file<\/p>\n![\"Judith](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/251015-judith-bell-vl-1242p-8a05be.jpg\")
Judith Bell, San Francisco Foundation\u2019s chief impact officer.Courtesy Judith Bell<\/p>\n![\"Emma](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/251015-Emma-Ruby-Sachs-vl-1251p-227993.jpg\")
Emma Ruby-Sachs, Ek\u014d\u2019s executive director.Courtesy Emma-Ruby-Sachs<\/p>\n![\"Chris](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/251015-chris-lehane-vl-142p-8e0700.jpg\")
Chris Lehane, head of policy at Open AI Inc., at the AI Action Summit, in Paris, on Feb. 10.Nathan Laine \/ Bloomberg via Getty Images file<\/p>\n