US Government Backs OpenAI for First Time in New York Times Copyright Case

The U.S. Department of Justice filed an official statement in federal court in Manhattan overnight Tuesday into Wednesday, in the copyright dispute between OpenAI, Microsoft, and The New York Times. The government sided unequivocally with the tech companies, arguing that training large language models on copyrighted text falls within the bounds of fair use.

A statement of interest is a formal mechanism under U.S. law that allows the federal government to weigh in on a private lawsuit when it believes the case touches on matters of national significance. This is the first time the Department of Justice has used it in a copyright dispute involving a major media publisher, itself a sign of the Trump administration's escalating involvement in fights over artificial intelligence.

The Government's Argument

In the filing, the government argues that training language models on text is deeply transformative and does not amount to simple copying, but rather the creation of an entirely new product. The administration contends that the benefits of AI development for science, the economy, and national security significantly outweigh any competitive harm suffered by publishers.

The Department of Justice also warned that requiring AI companies to license every text used in training could lead to an oligopoly, in which only the largest tech giants could afford such deals. That argument, previously voiced mainly by AI companies themselves, has now made its way into an official government position.

AI dominance is critical to promote national security, prosperity, and economic mobility for all Americans - Stanley Woodward Jr., U.S. Associate Attorney General

The New York Times Responds

The newspaper responded sharply to the administration's intervention. New York Times spokesperson Graham James said the government is siding with trillion-dollar companies at the expense of the content creators whose work underpins the models those companies train.

The administration's proposal to let companies take that content without permission or compensation would undermine the sustainability of the human-created content that a healthy society depends on - Graham James, New York Times spokesperson

The New York Times sued OpenAI and Microsoft in December 2023, alleging the companies used millions of the paper's articles without permission or compensation to train ChatGPT, and that products built on that model compete directly with journalism, cutting into subscription, licensing, and advertising revenue. In July 2026, the Times also filed a motion for sanctions against OpenAI, accusing the company of concealing its ability to access training data and manipulating records of ChatGPT conversations.

What's at Stake

The ruling in this case could set a precedent for the entire AI industry, not just OpenAI. Google, Anthropic, and Meta are watching the proceedings closely, since similar accusations of unauthorized use of copyrighted content for model training hang over them in other ongoing lawsuits, including those brought by Sony Music Publishing, Warner Chappell, and hundreds of creators and film studios.

If the court sides with OpenAI, AI companies would gain legal confirmation that training on material publicly available online does not require prior consent or licensing fees, lowering the cost of building future models. The opposite outcome would trigger a wave of damage claims and force the entire sector to renegotiate how it sources training data.

Implications for Poland and Europe

For Polish publishers and content creators, the New York ruling matters indirectly but tangibly. The European Union regulates text and data mining differently from U.S. law, allowing rights holders an opt-out mechanism, but global AI companies largely shape their training practices around the American market. A precedent in the NYT v. OpenAI case could therefore indirectly influence how these companies approach licensing negotiations with European, including Polish, publishers and news agencies.

The case also shows that the Trump administration treats U.S. dominance in the AI race as a priority that overrides the interests of the domestic media sector, which may offer a clue to the direction of future federal regulation on training data.