Trump Administration Backs Tech Giants Over News Publishers in AI Copyright Fight

The Trump administration filed a legal brief siding with OpenAI against the New York Times in a Manhattan federal lawsuit over whether AI companies can legally train their systems on copyrighted news articles without permission or payment.

It’s the first time the federal government has weighed in on any of the dozens of copyright lawsuits filed against AI companies by authors, publishers, music labels, and news outlets. The Times sued OpenAI and Microsoft in 2023, alleging millions of its articles were used without authorization to train ChatGPT and other AI tools.

The Justice Department argues that training AI models on copyrighted material is “extraordinarily” transformative and qualifies as fair use under copyright law. Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward Jr. said the administration “will never let our Nation be at a disadvantage relative to our foreign adversaries based on a plainly incorrect understanding of copyright law.”

Advertisement

“The United States has a strong interest in continuing to develop a robust and competitive artificial intelligence industry that sets the standard for the practice and procedure of AI use globally,” the government’s brief states. The filing warns that “constraining LLM development under a misunderstanding of fair use doctrine would thwart such creative and scientific progress while hindering American prosperity and economic mobility.”

The Times counters that “Microsoft and OpenAI stole from The New York Times to make commercial products that substitute for its journalism, threaten its business, and undermine its industry.” Spokesperson Graham James said “AI companies simply need to pay fairly for the content that makes their products possible, as copyright law requires.”

OpenAI and Microsoft don’t dispute that their models trained on the Times’ content. They argue it’s legally allowed.

The case will turn on whether using copyrighted material to train AI systems — which then generate new text by statistical prediction rather than copying the original — counts as “fair use,” the legal exception that permits unlicensed use of copyrighted work in certain circumstances. Two federal judges who’ve already considered the question issued conflicting rulings last year.

The Times’ lawsuit asks for monetary damages, a court order blocking the companies from training models on its material, and destruction of any models already trained on its work. Over 100 similar copyright lawsuits against AI companies are currently pending, according to Santa Clara Law professor Edward Lee.

CEO Sam Altman proposed giving the federal government a 5% stake in OpenAI this summer. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick separately told G20 officials this week that countries should embrace fair use for AI training while finding a way to “protect artists.”

The Breakdown

• The Justice Department filed a brief supporting OpenAI and Microsoft in their copyright lawsuit against the New York Times, arguing that training AI models on copyrighted articles is legal “fair use” under copyright law.
• This is the first time the federal government has taken a position in any AI copyright case — over 100 similar lawsuits are pending against companies like OpenAI, Anthropic, and Meta.
• The Times sued in 2023, alleging millions of its articles were used without permission to train ChatGPT. The paper wants monetary damages, an order blocking future training on its content, and destruction of models already trained on its work.
• The government argues that restricting AI training would harm U.S. competitiveness against foreign adversaries and that the practice is “extraordinarily transformative” — meaning AI models change their inputs enough to qualify for copyright protection’s fair-use exception.
• The Times and other copyright owners argue AI companies are stealing their work to build commercial products that compete with the original material, and that copyright law requires payment for that use.
• The case will likely hinge on whether courts decide AI training creates something new enough to qualify as fair use. Two judges who’ve ruled on the question so far reached opposite conclusions.

What This Means for You

You didn’t elect anyone at the Justice Department directly, but you did elect the President who appointed them and sets their priorities. This brief tells you what this administration thinks copyright law should protect and what it shouldn’t — specifically, that training AI systems on creative work without paying for it serves a national interest that outweighs the rights of the people who created that work.

If you think government should side with tech companies over creators in disputes like this, or if you think it shouldn’t, that’s information about whether this administration’s approach to regulating the tech industry matches your own view — and whether the person who appoints these officials the next time around should take the same position or a different one.

What to Watch

The government’s brief isn’t binding on the judge, but it carries weight. If the Times wins, AI companies face potential liability for using copyrighted work they didn’t license — though Stanford law professor Mark Lemley notes that “almost everything that anyone has written in the last century is under U.S. copyright,” meaning a loss for the AI companies could force them to train their systems only on material they explicitly own or license, a cost only the largest corporations could bear.

The real question the legal experts quoted in the material aren’t asking: who benefits when the government argues that a trillion-dollar industry’s access to other people’s work without paying for it is a matter of national security? The Times and other publishers say AI tools are being built to replace their journalism — the administration is arguing that’s fine as long as the replacement is statistically generated rather than copied.

Whether you see that as innovation or as the government greenlighting one industry to cannibalize another without compensation is worth deciding before the next person appointing Justice Department officials asks for your vote.