In the closely watched lawsuit between the New York Times and OpenAI, an unexpected party has just entered the courtroom: the United States government. According to the Associated Press, the Trump administration filed a legal brief backing OpenAI over how it builds its AI technology using millions of news articles. The move marks what observers call the first time Washington has intervened in any of the copyright cases stacked up against AI companies.
TL;DR: The Trump administration’s Justice Department filed a court brief backing OpenAI against the New York Times, arguing that training LLMs on copyrighted works does not violate copyright law. According to Music Business Worldwide, it appears to be the first time Washington has intervened in any of the copyright cases now stacked up against AI companies, giving the entire generative AI sector a powerful legal ally.
What Did the US Government Actually File in the OpenAI Case?
The Justice Department submitted a formal court document, known as an amicus brief, in the lawsuit brought by The New York Times against OpenAI. Techxplore reports that President Donald Trump’s administration sided with OpenAI in defending the practice of training AI models on copyrighted works, according to a court document filed on a Tuesday. The filing amounts to what POLITICO describes as a direct endorsement of the AI industry’s defense in multiple pending copyright cases.
This is not a full takeover of the case. The government is not a party to the litigation. Instead, it is offering its legal opinion to the judge, arguing that the way OpenAI trains its models should be considered lawful under the fair use doctrine.
That distinction matters. Amicus briefs can influence courts significantly, especially when they come from the federal government. The intervention also signals broader policy. AppleInsider notes the filing effectively claims copyright violations by AI companies are acceptable as long as it means moving fast in AI development — a stance critics have framed as sanctioning “legal theft” of creative work.
Why Does the Justice Department Say AI Training Is Fair Use?
The DOJ’s core argument is straightforward. As summarized by MTS on X, the department says training an LLM on copyrighted works does not violate copyright law, and that treating such training as infringement would harm innovation. The brief frames AI development as a transformative use of existing material rather than a substitute for it.
The government reportedly worries about the competitive stakes. AppleInsider’s coverage emphasizes that Washington is concerned AI companies cannot innovate if they must license every piece of training data. In this view, requiring permission for millions of articles, books, or songs would create a burden no domestic lab could carry — while competitors abroad face no such constraint.
Techopedia confirms the administration explicitly backed OpenAI’s fair use argument, saying material can legally train AI models without licensing from creators. Publishers, musicians, and artists see it differently. Digital Journal notes that copyright has become a major battleground for the generative AI sector, with rights holders lawyering up or cutting deals to get paid for technology built with their content.
How Did the New York Times Respond to the Government’s Brief?
The New York Times did not welcome the intervention. According to the Associated Press, the case centers on how OpenAI built its technology using millions of news articles from the paper, and the Times maintains that this practice violates its rights as a copyright holder. The government’s brief directly undercuts that position.
The timing raises eyebrows too. OpenAI and its rivals have been negotiating licensing deals with publishers for years, and the Times lawsuit has been the sector’s highest-profile test case. A presidential administration stepping in mid-litigation is unusual, and Polish outlet PortalTechnologiczny notes the White House effectively endorsed the view that training AI on protected works can be legal.
Critics of the filing see a conflict of interest. Root-Nation’s analysis frames the move bluntly: the government supports what it calls the AI industry’s right to “steal” creative content. For news organizations, the stakes are existential — if training on their archives requires no payment, the licensing market they hoped to build could evaporate before courts finish weighing in.
Does This Ruling Settle Copyright Law for AI Training?
No — and it is important to be precise about why. An amicus brief is an opinion, not a verdict. The judge in the New York Times v. OpenAI case retains full authority to accept, ignore, or reject the government’s reasoning. Music Business Worldwide emphasizes that this appears to be the first federal intervention in the copyright cases stacked against AI companies, but many more disputes remain unresolved.
The ripple effects could be enormous. Music Business Worldwide points out that the same fair use logic now backed by Washington will shape music industry fights with Anthropic and Suno, where labels and publishers have filed their own lawsuits. A favorable precedent for OpenAI would strengthen every AI defendant citing fair use as a defense.
So the battle continues. Gazeta’s Next service notes the case is widely described as a landmark process that could define the rules for AI training for years to come. Whatever the judge decides, the government has made its preference clear: speed of AI development outweighs the licensing claims of content creators. Courts will now decide whether that view becomes law.
What Does the Filing Mean for Music Lawsuits Against Anthropic and Suno?
The DOJ’s brief is not just about news articles. It amounts to a direct endorsement of the AI industry’s defense in multiple pending copyright cases, according to POLITICO. Music Business Worldwide notes that the same fair-use logic now extends to the music industry’s fight with Anthropic and Suno. That matters enormously.
Music labels have sued Anthropic over its Claude chatbot allegedly reproducing copyrighted lyrics without permission. Suno and Udio face separate lawsuits from major record companies over AI models trained on commercial recordings. The government’s filing argues that training an LLM on copyrighted works does not itself violate copyright law. So the argument transfers.
If courts accept that reasoning, music plaintiffs lose their strongest claim. They would need to focus on outputs instead — proving that models generate substantially similar reproductions of specific songs or lyrics. That is a harder evidentiary bar. It shifts the battleground from ingestion to expression.
Still, the filing is an amicus brief, not a binding ruling. Judges remain free to reject it. But the political signal is unmistakable: the executive branch wants training treated as fair use, whether the plaintiff is a newspaper or a record label.
Why Is This the First Time Washington Has Intervened?
According to Music Business Worldwide, this appears to be the first time Washington has intervened in any of the copyright cases now stacked up against AI companies. That is a striking fact. Dozens of lawsuits have accumulated since 2023, and until now the federal government stayed silent.
The mechanism matters here. The Justice Department filed a statement of interest and an amicus brief in the New York Times v. OpenAI litigation, as reported by TechCrunch and AP. Previous administrations did not file such briefs in the high-profile cases brought by authors, visual artists, or programmers. The industry had to defend fair use on its own.
What changed? The Trump administration has openly embraced the AI sector’s innovation agenda. AppleInsider characterized the filing as the government claiming copyright violations by AI companies are acceptable if it means moving faster on development. The White House also pressured parties toward settlement — the Times and OpenAI had already been pushed into negotiations, with Trump publicly urging a deal, according to Gazeta’s coverage.
So this is both a legal and a political intervention. The timing, arriving before key fair-use rulings, maximizes its influence on other courts.
How Does the Government Frame Innovation Versus Licensing?
The government’s core argument is blunt: forcing AI developers to license every training document would cripple American AI innovation. The DOJ said training an LLM on copyrighted works does not violate copyright law, and that treating it as infringement would harm the development of this technology in the United States.
Techopedia summarizes the position as endorsing OpenAI’s fair-use claim — that material can legally train AI models without licensing creators. AppleInsider frames it more provocatively: the government worries AI companies cannot innovate without what critics call “legal theft.”
The filing reportedly draws parallels to earlier technology transitions, where courts declined to let copyright owners block new tools outright. The implied logic is that licensing negotiations should follow innovation, not precede it. Publishers and labels see the opposite: an industry built on their content, monetized without consent.
| Framing | Government position | Publisher position |
|---|---|---|
| Training data | Fair use, no license needed | Infringement at scale |
| Market harm | Minimal; transformative purpose | Direct substitution of news products |
| Remedy | Focus on infringing outputs | Licensing regime before training |
| Global stakes | US must lead China in AI | Rule of law applies to AI too |
This clash defines the next decade of AI litigation.
What Happens Next in the OpenAI Copyright Litigation?
The immediate question is summary judgment. The Times v. OpenAI case, filed in December 2023, has moved slowly through discovery, and the government’s brief arrives at a decision point for Judge Sidney Stein. Courts weigh amicus filings, but they are advisory only.
Several outcomes are possible:
- Judge Stein accepts the fair-use argument and narrows the case to output-based claims
- The court rejects the government’s reasoning and lets the core infringement claims proceed
- Parties reach a settlement, reportedly pushed by White House pressure
- A ruling is appealed to the Second Circuit, then potentially the Supreme Court
- Other district courts cite or distinguish the filing in parallel cases
- Congress responds with legislation defining AI training exceptions
- Licensing markets expand regardless, as publishers sign content deals preemptively
Notably, the Times and OpenAI had already been engaged in settlement talks, with Trump publicly encouraging a resolution, per Gazeta and AP reporting. A settlement would leave the fair-use question unanswered nationally. That would benefit the industry short-term but keep legal uncertainty alive.
The broader wave of litigation — from authors, programmers, visual artists, and music labels — will continue regardless. Whatever Judge Stein decides, the appellate path is likely. This case was always headed upward.
How Are Publishers and AI Companies Reacting to the Filing?
Publisher reactions have been sharply critical. The News Media Alliance and similar groups argue the government is greenlighting the uncompensated extraction of journalism’s value. The Times itself has consistently framed the lawsuit as protecting independent journalism from a competitor built on its own reporting.
Digital Journal notes that copyright has been a major battleground for the generative AI sector, with publishers, musicians, and artists either lawyering up or cutting deals to get paid. The filing strengthens the hand of those refusing to settle cheaply — and weakens it at the same time, since the DOJ has now publicly opposed their central theory.
AI companies, unsurprisingly, welcomed the intervention. OpenAI and its allies have long argued that training on publicly available data is fair use under existing precedent. Anthropic, Meta, and Google face parallel suits and benefit from the same argument, even though the brief targets the OpenAI case specifically.
Creator communities reacted with alarm. Root-Nation’s coverage captured the sentiment bluntly: the government effectively endorsed AI’s “right to steal.” Expect intensified lobbying on both sides, and expect state-level legislation as a fallback for content industries.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is training an LLM on copyrighted works now legal in the US?
No. The DOJ filing is an amicus brief, not a court ruling, so the legal question remains unresolved. According to Music Business Worldwide, this appears to be the first time Washington has intervened in any of the copyright cases stacked up against AI companies — but only a judge can decide whether training constitutes fair use.
Which other lawsuits could be affected by the government’s brief?
POLITICO reports the filing amounts to a direct endorsement of the AI industry’s defense in multiple pending copyright cases. That includes the music industry’s lawsuits against Anthropic over lyrics and against Suno over recordings, plus suits by authors and programmers against Meta and other developers.
Did the New York Times and OpenAI already reach a deal?
Not conclusively. According to AP and Gazeta reporting, the parties entered settlement talks under public pressure from President Trump, who urged a resolution. Any final deal would follow a case filed in December 2023 over millions of news articles used to train ChatGPT.
What did the Justice Department’s filing actually argue?
The DOJ argued that training an LLM on copyrighted works does not itself violate copyright law, and that treating such training as infringement would harm AI development in the United States. Techopedia notes the brief endorses OpenAI’s position that models can legally train on material without licensing creators.
Summary
- The DOJ’s brief marks the first US government intervention in the wave of AI copyright lawsuits, directly backing OpenAI’s fair-use defense against the New York Times.
- The filing argues that training on copyrighted works is lawful and that mandatory licensing would slow American AI innovation — a position publishers call legalized theft.
- The reasoning extends to music litigation against Anthropic and Suno, where labels would need to pivot from ingestion claims to output claims.
- Settlement talks between the Times and OpenAI, encouraged by Trump, could leave the fair-use question unresolved nationally.
- Judge Stein’s eventual ruling — and likely appeal — will shape how every AI company builds models for years. Read the full filings on the SDNY docket and follow the case as it moves toward judgment.“,