DOJ Backs OpenAI in Copyright Fight With New York Times

The Justice Department has taken sides in the high-stakes copyright battle between OpenAI and major media organizations, filing a statement of interest that supports the AI company's right to train its models on copyrighted material without permission or payment.

The filing, submitted late on September 1, 2026, positions the Trump administration squarely behind OpenAI in its consolidated copyright infringement case. The plaintiffs include The New York Times, papers in Florida and Arkansas, The Intercept, and prominent authors including George R.R. Martin, John Grisham, Michael Connelly, and Sarah Silverman.

The government's argument

Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward and Assistant AG Brett Shumate argued that the United States has "a strong interest" in ensuring that training large language models on copyrighted texts qualifies as fair use under copyright law. The 20-page statement of interest contends that the benefits of more powerful American-based AI "far outweigh any competitive harm."

The DOJ framed the issue as a matter of national security, stating that "effective integration of AI will be critical for U.S. national security capabilities." The filing warned that copyright rules making it "significantly more difficult to develop a robust AI industry in the United States" would "threaten national security and give a competitive advantage to foreign adversaries."

According to Deadline, which first reported the story, the Justice Department's legal arguments "apply similarly to all parties in this litigation and the related cases, including book authors and publishers."

Publishers push back

The New York Times responded forcefully to the government's position. "The Administration is siding with a handful of trillion-dollar AI companies at the expense of the countless American creators whose work they stole," Times spokesman Graham James said.

James argued that both AI companies and creators can thrive if AI firms "simply need to pay fairly for the content that makes their products possible, as copyright law requires." He warned that allowing companies to take content without permission or compensation "would undermine the sustainability of the human-created content that a healthy society depends on, and which AI needs to function."

The Times has been pursuing its copyright case for nearly three years and has previously fought off OpenAI's attempts to dismiss the lawsuit.

Why it matters

This DOJ filing represents the clearest signal yet of how the federal government intends to balance AI development against intellectual property rights. The outcome will determine whether AI companies must negotiate licenses and pay for training data—potentially adding billions in costs—or can continue scraping published works under fair use doctrine. For media companies already struggling with digital disruption, the case could establish whether their archives represent valuable licensing assets or freely available training fodder. The national security framing also suggests the administration views unfettered access to training data as a strategic imperative in AI competition with China and other nations.

What's next

Judge Sidney H. Stein has ordered the New York Times to show cause by September 11, 2026, why the case should not be stayed pending resolution of summary judgment motions in other cases within the multi-district litigation. OpenAI filed for an IPO with the Securities and Exchange Commission in June 2026, despite billions in expenditures with no reported profits.

The details were first reported by Deadline.