The Trump administration has officially thrown its hat into the ring of The New York Times' copyright lawsuit against OpenAI, and - shock of shocks - it's siding with the AI lab. In a statement of interest filed this week, US attorneys argued that training AI models on copyrighted text is fair use, essentially telling the Times to stop being so dramatic about its 'billions of dollars' in damages.

The lawsuit, filed in December 2023, accuses OpenAI and Microsoft of unlawfully using Times articles to train their AI systems. But the administration says the Times is trying to 'narrow fair-use doctrine' in a way that would 'severely hamper the Progress of Science and useful Arts.' Because nothing says progress like a machine regurgitating your prose without paying for it.

The lawyers also noted that LLMs are 'already helping researchers across fields achieve major breakthroughs' and that putting the kibosh on AI training would 'thwart such creative and scientific progress while hindering American prosperity and economic mobility.' Translation: Let the machines read - or the economy might suffer, and we can't have that.

This isn't the administration's first rodeo with AI fair use; it made similar noises in its National AI Legislative Framework. And let's not forget Trump's personal grudge against the Times, which he's currently suing for defamation. Coincidence? We'll let you decide.

The case could set a precedent for other media outlets feeling miffed about AI using their work. The Center for Investigative Reporting, Chicago Tribune, and New York Daily News have all filed suits. Meanwhile, in a 2025 decision, a judge ruled that Anthropic could train on legally purchased books but still had to pay a $1.5 billion settlement for piracy. Mixed signals much?

Of course, while suing and settling, many outlets have also cut licensing deals with OpenAI - including The Associated Press, Axel Springer, and Vox Media. Even the Times itself has licensed content to Amazon for its AI tools. So, you know, everyone's playing both sides.

The administration's statement concludes that imposing 'broad copyright liability' would be 'problematic - and legally incorrect.' Because who needs copyright when you have progress? We're sure the Times is thrilled.