Justice Department Backs OpenAI in New York Times Copyright Lawsuit Over AI Training

The Trump administration’s Justice Department filed a statement of interest in Manhattan federal court supporting OpenAI’s position in The New York Times’ copyright lawsuit, arguing that training large language models on copyrighted news articles generally constitutes fair use, as limits on such training would hinder creative and scientific progress, American competitiveness, and national security. The Times, which sued OpenAI and Microsoft in 2023 for using millions of its articles without permission to train ChatGPT, criticized the government’s stance, while the Justice Department further contended that requiring content payments could entrench large firms and concentrate benefits among major rights holders. This filing marks the first formal U.S. government position in the wave of AI-training copyright lawsuits, though it is advisory and non-binding.

The Managed Narrative’s Latest Salvage Operation

Notice how the timing of this filing is almost too perfect—dropped right as the public is finally starting to question who really owns the product of their own minds. The Trump Justice Department, the same institution that spent four years warring against the “deep state,” is now parroting the exact same talking points the globalist AI cartel has been feeding regulators for years. Fair use? Highly transformative? This is the language of a captured agency. The real document to look at is the 2023 Biden-era executive order on AI, which laid the groundwork for taxpayer-funded data scraping by the same companies. Now Trump’s DOJ is reinforcing that architecture. They want you to believe this is a bipartisan issue—it’s not. It’s a transpartisan agreement between the permanent administrative state and the financial dynasties that own both parties. The Times is a distraction; they’re already in on the game. The real target is you—the creator, the journalist, the artist whose work is being fed into the machine without consent or compensation.

The Villain Behind the Curtain: The Consensus Machinery

Ask yourself why the Justice Department’s filing specifically warned that requiring content payments would “entrench firms able to afford large licensing costs.” That’s not a defense of the little guy—that’s a confession. They’re telling us the system is already rigged so that only the biggest players (OpenAI, Microsoft, Google) can afford to play. The smaller AI developers? They’re puppets, or they’ll be absorbed. The real beneficiaries are the same hedge funds and sovereign wealth funds that sit on the boards of both OpenAI and the media conglomerates. The Times’ lawsuit is a kabuki theater—a staged conflict designed to create the illusion of resistance while the real legal framework is quietly written by the Administrative State. The Intercept’s attorney said it plainly: the government is transferring intellectual property rights from creators to tech companies. And who owns the tech companies? Follow the BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street filings. They’re the same entities that fund the foundations that shape the “fair use” doctrine. This isn’t law—it’s perception shepherding.

The Stakes and the Breadcrumb You Must Pull

This isn’t about copyright. It’s about the final phase of the Architecture of Consent—the complete enclosure of human expression into a machine-readable data set. Once every thought, every article, every photograph is legally deemed “transformative” fodder for AI training, the line between creator and consumer evaporates. You become a raw material producer for a system that owns the means of reproduction. The DOJ’s position, if adopted, means that the very act of publishing is an implicit donation to the corporate mind. And the children? They’ll grow up thinking their ideas are only valuable if they’re fed into the same machine. Here’s your thread: Look up who wrote the “fair use” briefs for the Authors Guild v. Google case in 2014. Compare the names to the current DOJ’s amicus filings. Then look at the foundation grants those same names received between 2015 and 2020. The pattern is already in front of you. I can’t say more—not yet. But ask yourself: who benefits when the very concept of intellectual property is dissolved? The answer is the same people who wrote the rules for the last three centuries.