Trump Admin Sides With OpenAI in NYT Copyright Case: What It Means for Creators

Seed story: "Trump Administration Sides With OpenAI in New York Times Copyright Lawsuit" (wired.com) · search original Written from facts verified across 2 news report(s) — original explainer, not a copy or translation. Sources listed at the end.

The Trump administration has formally sided with OpenAI in the landmark New York Times copyright lawsuit, arguing in a September 2026 court brief that training AI models on copyrighted work is "extraordinarily" transformative and constitutes fair use. This government intervention, which officials claim is necessary to prevent the US from falling behind foreign adversaries, signals a significant shift in legal risk for freelancers and creators whose work may be used in AI training without compensation.

Government Enters the AI Copyright Arena

On September 1, 2026, the Trump administration submitted a brief to the Manhattan federal court, explicitly supporting OpenAI in its ongoing dispute with The New York Times. This move marks a significant intervention in a case that began in 2023, when the newspaper alleged that OpenAI and Microsoft used millions of articles without permission to train their systems. By entering the arena, the government signals a strong preference for the AI industry’s position.

The filing centers on the legal status of the training process. Key arguments include:

Training large language models on copyrighted works is "extraordinarily" transformative.
This activity constitutes fair use under current law.
OpenAI’s models do not significantly compete with The New York Times’ original articles.

US Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward Jr. emphasized that the nation cannot be at a disadvantage relative to foreign adversaries due to an "incorrect understanding" of copyright. While Judge Sidney H. Stein is not legally bound by this letter, the government’s stance sets a powerful tone for how courts might interpret the boundaries of fair use for creators.

The 'Extraordinarily Transformative' Argument

The core of the administration’s legal stance rests on the assertion that training large language models is "extraordinarily" transformative. By converting raw text into a statistical model that generates new, distinct outputs, the government argues this process fundamentally alters the original work’s character and purpose. This distinction is critical for creators, as establishing fair use here could exempt AI developers from licensing fees, directly impacting how writers and publishers negotiate rights and compensation.

The brief further contends that these models do not significantly compete with the original articles, reinforcing the non-infringing nature of the training process. This logic suggests that the AI product serves a different market function than the source material.

Training is viewed as a transformative act that creates new utility.
The resulting models are deemed non-competitive with the original copyrighted works.
This interpretation challenges the traditional requirement for permission when using creative content.

National Security and Economic Rhetoric

The administration’s brief frames the copyright dispute as a geopolitical imperative rather than a legal nuance. Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward Jr. argued that the United States cannot afford to be at a disadvantage relative to foreign adversaries due to what he described as an "incorrect understanding of copyright law." By positioning strict copyright enforcement as a potential strategic liability, the government suggests that regulatory hesitation could cede technological ground to rival nations.

This stance was reinforced by Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, who told G20 officials in North Carolina that countries should actively embrace fair use. His comments signaled a broader policy preference for allowing AI companies to train on creators' work without immediate compensation mandates.

Strategic Framing: Copyright restrictions are portrayed as barriers to national competitiveness.
International Pressure: Lutnick’s G20 remarks aim to align global standards with permissive US training practices.
Competitive Claim: The brief asserts OpenAI’s models do not significantly compete with NYT articles, reinforcing the non-market harm argument.

For creators, this rhetoric implies that future contracts may face less legal protection against unauthorized training, as the state prioritizes economic output over individual rights.

Pushback from the Publishing and Writing Worlds

The administration’s stance has drawn sharp criticism from key figures in the publishing industry. New York Times spokesperson Graham James emphasized that AI companies must pay fairly for content, as copyright law explicitly requires. He argued that the government’s brief fails to account for the economic reality of content creation, where permission and compensation remain fundamental principles.

Mary Rasenberger, CEO of the Author's Guild, echoed these concerns, expressing disappointment with the letter. She described the government's reasoning as "replete with faulty arguments," suggesting that the legal logic used to justify free training data is fundamentally flawed.

Fair Compensation: James insists that copyright law mandates payment for the use of creative works.
Logical Flaws: Rasenberger criticizes the brief for relying on unsound legal interpretations.
Industry Solidarity: Both voices represent a broader demand for creators to retain control over their intellectual property.

These counterarguments highlight a growing tension between technological expansion and established rights. For independent creators, this debate underscores the urgent need for contracts that explicitly address AI usage and ensure equitable payments, rather than relying on ambiguous fair use doctrines.

Implications for Independent Creator Contracts

The administration’s aggressive stance signals a potential shift in how courts view fair use, which could complicate licensing negotiations for independent creators. If training on copyrighted work is deemed "extraordinarily" transformative, companies may argue they are exempt from standard licensing fees. This legal ambiguity could weaken the bargaining power of creators seeking compensation for their content.

For individual writers and artists, this creates a precarious environment where:

Standard licensing agreements may face pushback from AI firms citing government-backed fair use arguments.
Compensation claims could be dismissed if models are viewed as non-competitive with the original work.
Contracts might need to explicitly define "transformative" use to avoid loopholes.

While Judge Sidney H. Stein is not legally bound by the government’s brief, the political pressure suggests a broader trend. Creators should review their contracts to ensure clear rights retention and explicit payment terms, as the legal landscape for AI training data becomes increasingly contested.

Navigating the Shifting Legal Landscape

Practical Steps for Creators

While the government's brief signals a political stance, it does not dictate the legal outcome. Judge Sidney H. Stein is not legally obliged to let the administration's letter influence his decision. Consequently, creators should not assume that fair use protections are automatically expanded or that their rights are diminished by this filing. The court will still evaluate the specific facts of the case against established copyright principles.

To safeguard your work, consider these immediate actions:

Review existing contracts for AI licensing clauses.
Monitor court filings for updates on Judge Stein's rulings.
Consult legal counsel regarding your specific content usage.

Understanding that this brief is merely one voice in a complex legal battle helps maintain perspective. Your rights remain protected by statute, regardless of executive commentary.

FAQ

Why did the Trump administration file a brief in the OpenAI copyright lawsuit?

The administration filed a brief on September 1, 2026, to support OpenAI by arguing that training large language models on copyrighted works is "extraordinarily" transformative and constitutes fair use. Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward Jr. stated that the government believes an incorrect understanding of copyright law could place the nation at a disadvantage relative to foreign adversaries.

What is the core legal argument presented by the US government in this case?

The government asserts that OpenAI's language models do not significantly compete with The New York Times' articles, making the use of the content transformative fair use. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick further emphasized that countries should embrace fair use to allow AI companies to train on creators' work without restriction.

How are the New York Times and author groups reacting to the government's position?

The New York Times maintains that AI companies need to pay fairly for content as copyright law requires, while Mary Rasenberger of the Author's Guild called the government's letter replete with faulty arguments. However, the presiding judge, Sidney H. Stein, is not legally obliged to let the government's letter influence his decision in the case.