Musk Asked Zuckerberg to Back $97B OpenAI Bid

💡 TL;DR - The 30 Seconds Version

👉 Elon Musk approached Mark Zuckerberg about financing his $97.4 billion bid to acquire OpenAI in February 2025, but Meta declined to participate.

📊 OpenAI is asking a federal judge to compel Meta to hand over documents related to the approach as part of their ongoing harassment lawsuit against Musk.

🏭 Musk co-founded OpenAI in 2015, left in 2018, and sued the company in 2024 over its shift from nonprofit to for-profit structure.

🌍 Meta has been aggressively recruiting OpenAI talent with $100+ million packages while building its own AI capabilities to compete directly.

🚀 The approach reveals how AI competition forces unlikely partnerships between former rivals as only a few firms have the resources for frontier model development.

⚖️ A jury trial is scheduled for spring 2026, with discovery potentially exposing more details about coordination between AI industry players.

A feud meets realpolitik: Elon Musk approached Mark Zuckerberg about helping finance a $97.4 billion bid to take control of OpenAI earlier this year, according to newly disclosed court filings. Meta ultimately didn’t sign on, and OpenAI rejected the offer in February.

What’s actually new

OpenAI is asking a federal judge to compel Meta to hand over any documents tied to the approach, including communications “with Musk or other bidders,” arguing they could illuminate the bid’s motives. Meta says the request is irrelevant and burdensome, and that OpenAI should get what it needs directly from Musk and xAI. The filing cites Musk’s sworn statements acknowledging contact with Zuckerberg about potential financing. That’s the nub.

How we got here

Musk co-founded OpenAI in 2015, left in 2018, and sued in 2024, arguing the lab’s shift to a profit-seeking structure broke early commitments. OpenAI countersued, calling his tactics a “harassment campaign” that included the unsolicited takeover attempt. A federal judge in Oakland has allowed the harassment claims to proceed, with a jury trial set for spring 2026. Expect more disclosures—and more posturing.

Why this approach, and why now

The outreach reflects today’s market: only a handful of firms command the cash, accelerator supply, and research talent required for frontier models. If you can’t control the platform, you try to reshape its governance.... or slow it down. Musk’s gambit did both. It put pressure on OpenAI’s proposed recapitalization and forced Meta, a direct rival in model development, to choose between opportunism and distance. Meta chose distance.

The competitive backdrop

OpenAI asserts in its filing that Meta is spending heavily to expand its own AI efforts and has tried to poach OpenAI staff. That tracks with months of aggressive recruiting across the industry, though the specifics will matter if a court orders discovery. Talent flows now function like M&A by other means. The best researchers are the leverage.

For OpenAI, the episode strengthens its argument that scale demands flexible corporate structures and deep, patient capital. For Musk, it underscores a two-track strategy: litigate OpenAI’s governance while building xAI as the alternative. Either path benefits from slowing a rival’s recapitalization, even if only at the margins.

What to watch in court

First, whether the judge forces Meta to produce anything. If Meta must disclose communications or internal analyses of OpenAI’s restructuring, we’ll learn whether this was a fleeting feeler or a serious syndication push. Second, whether OpenAI’s harassment claims surface new evidence about the bid’s orchestration and objectives. Watch discovery.

The limits of the moment

This is one filing in a long case. It confirms contact and a declined invitation, not a near-deal. Meta’s stance—that any relevant documents should come from Musk—may also stick. And nothing here changes the core risk equation around model development: compute access, supply chains, and regulation will do more to decide winners than courtroom theatrics. Keep perspective.

Why this matters

Big-model competition is forcing improbable alignments, revealing how governance fights double as market-power plays.
Court-ordered discovery could expose how top AI labs assess rivals—and how far they’ll go to control them.

❓ Frequently Asked Questions

Q: Why would Musk approach Zuckerberg when they publicly feuded and challenged each other to a cage fight in 2023?

A: Both companies compete directly with OpenAI for the same top AI researchers and market position. Meta has been aggressively poaching OpenAI talent with $100+ million packages. The "enemy of my enemy" logic likely outweighed personal animosity when facing a common competitive threat.

Q: How did Musk arrive at exactly $97.4 billion for OpenAI's valuation?

A: The article doesn't detail the valuation methodology, but OpenAI was valued at $80 billion in its last funding round. The $97.4 billion likely included a premium to acquire control of both the nonprofit parent organization and the for-profit subsidiary that Microsoft has invested billions into.

Q: What's the difference between OpenAI's current nonprofit structure and the for-profit conversion Musk opposes?

A: OpenAI operates as a nonprofit with a for-profit subsidiary that received Microsoft's investment. The restructuring would make the entire operation for-profit, allowing easier fundraising and eventual public offering but potentially abandoning the original mission of developing AI "for humanity's benefit."

Q: Why is Meta paying $100+ million for individual AI researchers when typical tech salaries are much lower?

A: The talent pool for frontier AI development is extremely limited—perhaps a few hundred researchers globally. These individuals can make or break multi-billion dollar AI programs. Meta recently hired ChatGPT co-creator Shengjia Zhao and others from OpenAI to lead its new Meta Superintelligence Labs division.

Q: What happens next in the Musk vs. OpenAI court case and when will it be resolved?

A: A jury trial is scheduled for spring 2026 in federal court in Oakland. Before then, there will be a discovery phase where documents are exchanged—potentially revealing more details about the bid and communications between the parties. The judge has already allowed OpenAI's harassment claims to proceed.