OpenAI’s Rapid Rise Threatens Elon Musk, Pushing Him to Commit a Vile Act to Destroy It All

As OpenAI solidifies its position at the pinnacle of artificial intelligence innovation, its transformation from a nonprofit research lab to a for-profit powerhouse has drawn criticism, praise — and now, a suspected covert attack. At the center of this firestorm is none other than Elon Musk, the former ally turned archrival of the company he once helped found.

With OpenAI’s ambitions growing by the day, sources close to the matter suggest Musk may be involved in a shadowy attempt to derail the company's restructuring plan, through a web of lawsuits, legislative interference, and quiet alliances.

OpenAI has publicly raised concerns over a newly formed lobbying group known as the Coalition for AI Nonprofit Integrity (CANI), which supported a California bill that could have dealt a serious blow to OpenAI’s transition into a for-profit structure. While the bill has since been amended under pressure, OpenAI believes the timing and tactics surrounding the initiative mirror those used by Elon Musk in his ongoing legal crusade against the company.

A letter from OpenAI’s attorney, Ann O’Leary — a seasoned political figure and former chief of staff to California Governor Gavin Newsom — accuses Musk of launching a coordinated campaign designed to sabotage the company from behind the scenes for personal gain.

In this letter, obtained by POLITICO, O’Leary asserts, “Elon Musk has engaged in a coordinated campaign via bad-faith tactics, including multiple lawsuits, to disrupt our operations for his own personal benefit.” This blunt accusation marks a significant escalation in the feud between Musk and OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, whose leadership has guided the company through both meteoric growth and mounting controversy.

At the heart of OpenAI’s suspicions is CANI’s apparent alignment with Musk’s talking points in court. Several public statements made by the coalition echo language found in Musk’s federal lawsuit, where he claims OpenAI has violated its founding principles by pursuing profit over public good.

The concern, according to OpenAI, is that CANI may be functioning as an indirect arm of Musk’s broader efforts to halt the company’s evolution into a competitive commercial force.

However, CANI’s spokesperson Becky Warren denies any ties to Musk, telling POLITICO that “the coalition is not funded by Elon Musk.” She describes the organization as grassroots in nature, with financial backing from figures such as Harvard professor Larry Lessig and the family of the late OpenAI engineer and whistleblower, Suchir Balaji.

The Balaji case has added a tragic and controversial dimension to the situation — Musk has publicly questioned whether the engineer’s death, officially ruled a suicide, was in fact a homicide, a view shared by the Balaji family who has called on Musk to help pursue the truth.

Despite Warren’s denial, OpenAI is pushing for transparency, requesting a formal meeting with CANI’s leadership, including president Jeffrey Mark Gardner, and demanding disclosure of the group’s funding sources. So far, CANI’s financial backers have not appeared in tax documents due to the coalition’s recent incorporation.

Nonetheless, the involvement of Joel Aurora, a representative from the powerful lobbying law firm Nielsen Merksamer, signals that the group is no amateur operation.

The California bill at the center of the dispute was originally introduced in February 2025 by Assemblymember Diane Papan. In its initial version, the legislation posed a direct threat to OpenAI’s restructuring plans by placing new restrictions on nonprofit-to-for-profit transitions involving public-interest missions.

OpenAI perceived it as a surgical strike meant to prevent their parent organization from becoming a shareholder in a new for-profit entity. However, following fierce backlash and the surrounding controversy, Papan abruptly amended the bill in March, buying time to “work on it” further.

Yet, even without the original bill in effect, the campaign against OpenAI’s transformation has gained momentum. Musk’s lawsuit is only one piece of a coordinated effort by multiple stakeholders — former OpenAI staffers, AI experts, Nobel laureates, labor unions, and nonprofit watchdogs — to halt what they describe as a betrayal of public trust.

These groups argue that OpenAI, having amassed hundreds of billions in value under the tax protections and moral authority of nonprofit status, has an ethical obligation to continue serving the public rather than enriching investors.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta has opened an investigation into the matter and requested internal documentation from OpenAI. While he has yet to join Musk’s lawsuit, his inquiry alone has added weight to critics' claims and created new uncertainties about OpenAI’s legal pathway forward.

Delaware Attorney General Kathleen Jennings, whose jurisdiction covers OpenAI’s incorporation, has also been contacted by opponents of the restructuring.

Despite the mounting opposition, OpenAI has remained defiant. Company executives insist that the transition to a for-profit structure is essential to secure the massive capital required to develop artificial general intelligence at scale, maintain global competitiveness, and attract top talent.

They argue that the public-benefit clause still governs their charter, even under the new model, and that commercial viability is not incompatible with their founding mission.

Still, the allegations against Elon Musk threaten to overshadow the legal nuances of the case. OpenAI’s claim that Musk is orchestrating a “covert attack” taps into a narrative that has dogged the tech mogul for years: that of a brilliant but unpredictable figure whose personal ambitions sometimes lead him to destructive paths.

Musk has yet to respond publicly to the latest claims, maintaining a characteristic silence as the media frenzy grows.

CANI, for its part, is attempting to distance itself from the growing Musk narrative. Warren has repeatedly emphasized the coalition’s guiding principle: that AI developed under the promise of benefiting humanity must not be exploited for profit.

She claims broad support from within the AI research community, including figures such as Geoffrey Hinton, Yann LeCun, and Stuart Russell — all vocal advocates for ethical AI development.

But in Silicon Valley, where influence often moves through backchannels rather than open forums, allegations like those raised by OpenAI cannot be dismissed lightly. Whether or not Elon Musk is directly involved with CANI, the optics of the situation suggest a deeper power struggle at play — one where ideology, legacy, and billions of dollars in future AI dominance are all on the line.

As the legal, political, and public battles intensify, the story is no longer just about one company’s restructuring plan. It has become a defining episode in the global AI arms race. OpenAI’s defenders see a future shaped by scalable, safe artificial intelligence, while critics warn of unchecked corporate ambition veiled in techno-utopian rhetoric. And somewhere in the shadows of it all, Elon Musk stands accused — perhaps not in court, but certainly in the court of public opinion — of launching a ruthless offensive to crush the very future he once claimed to build.