Date: December 17, 2025
Auditor Role: Political Risk Analyst / Governance Auditor
Subject: OpenAI (The OpenAI Foundation / OpenAI Global, LLC)
Audit Scope: Governance Ideology, Lobbying & Trade, Safe Harbor Protocols, Internal Policy, and Military/Intelligence Intersections.
This report constitutes a forensic governance audit of OpenAI, specifically targeting its “Political Complicity” regarding the State of Israel, the occupation of Palestinian territories, and the integration of its technologies into the ongoing conflict in Gaza. The objective is to determine whether OpenAI functions as a neutral conduit of general-purpose technology or as an active participant in a geopolitical alliance that facilitates specific military and political outcomes in the region.
The audit utilizes a proprietary multi-dimensional framework to evaluate complicity, examining the organization’s leadership architecture, the permeability of its technological supply chain to military actors, the biases encoded within its algorithmic products, and the internal enforcement of political expression policies.
The investigation synthesis suggests that OpenAI occupies a classification of “Systemic Indirect Facilitator” on the complicity scale. While the organization maintains a public posture of neutrality and claims no direct bilateral partnership with the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), the audit reveals a sophisticated structure of “compliance loopholes” and strategic alliances—primarily through Microsoft Azure and Oracle—that have allowed its proprietary models (GPT-4) to be operationalized within the IDF’s kill chains and intelligence apparatus.
Furthermore, a significant ideological pivot occurred in January 2024—three months into the Gaza war—where OpenAI scrubbed its Terms of Service (ToS) to remove explicit prohibitions on “military and warfare” applications. This policy shift, combined with the appointment of former NSA Director General Paul Nakasone to the board, signals a decisive alignment with the U.S. national security establishment and its allies, including Israel. Conversely, the audit finds evidence of OpenAI actively policing and dismantling Israeli state-aligned influence operations (Project “Stoic”), suggesting a complex posture where unauthorized political influence is regulated, but state-sanctioned military lethality is increasingly permissive via third-party partners.
The following report details these findings across five primary vectors: Governance Ideology, Operational Supply Chain, Algorithmic Neutrality (“Safe Harbor”), Internal Policy Enforcement, and Legislative Influence.
The ideological footprint of a corporation is not merely a matter of public statements but is structurally determined by the composition of its board of directors, the geopolitical allegiances of its executive suite, and the historical inertia of its strategic advisors. In the case of OpenAI, the governance structure has undergone a radical transformation following the leadership crisis of November 2023, shifting from a board focused on “AI Safety” and non-profit idealism to one deeply embedded in the U.S. defense apparatus and corporate conglomerates with significant exposure to Western geopolitical interests.
The reconstituted board of OpenAI reflects a strategic harmonization with U.S. foreign policy priorities. This shift is not incidental; it represents a deliberate integration of the company into the “National Champion” framework, where the interests of the firm and the security interests of the state—and by extension, its primary allies like Israel—become indistinguishable.
Table 1.1: Governance Risk Analysis of Key Board Members
| Board Member | Background & Affiliation | Geopolitical Risk Assessment & Alignment |
| Gen. Paul M. Nakasone | Retired U.S. Army General; Former Director of the NSA; Former Commander of U.S. Cyber Command. | Critical Risk. Nakasone’s appointment to the Safety and Security Committee 1 is the single most significant indicator of OpenAI’s shift toward military alignment. His career defined the integration of cyber warfare and signals intelligence. Given the deep, institutionalized intelligence-sharing protocols between the NSA (which he led) and Israel’s Unit 8200 3, his presence bridges the gap between OpenAI and the Israeli intelligence apparatus. It redefines “safety” from preventing AGI risks to ensuring “National Security”.4 |
| Sam Altman (CEO) | Co-Founder, Y Combinator; Tech Investor. | High Risk. Altman identifies as Jewish and has publicly acknowledged the rise of antisemitism while noting a lack of comparable support for Muslim/Palestinian colleagues.5 His leadership oversaw the pivotal removal of “military” bans in the Terms of Service. His public stance attempts to balance empathy but his operational decisions align with military facilitation. |
| Nicole Seligman | Former EVP and General Counsel, Sony Corporation; President, Sony Corporation of America. | Moderate to High Risk. Seligman managed legal and corporate governance for a major conglomerate. Sony has historically been embroiled in controversies regarding the use of its camera components in Israeli missile guidance systems.7 While indirect, her corporate lineage is tied to defense-adjacent technology supply chains and high-level political counseling (e.g., Clinton) 8, suggesting a “realpolitik” approach to governance. |
| Larry Summers (Former/Influential) | Economist; Former U.S. Treasury Secretary; Former President of Harvard University. | High Risk (Ideological Legacy). Though no longer a voting director, Summers was instrumental in the board’s restructuring. His ideological imprint is profound; at Harvard, he famously denounced academic work focusing on Palestinian health and human rights as antisemitic.9 This sets a precedent for equating critique of Israeli policy with hate speech within elite governance circles. |
| Adebayo Ogunlesi | Chair/CEO, Global Infrastructure Partners (GIP); Board Member, BlackRock. | Systemic Risk. Ogunlesi leads GIP, recently acquired by BlackRock.10 BlackRock is a major investor in the global defense industrial base. While his focus is infrastructure (ports, energy) 12, the integration with BlackRock—a firm heavily invested in companies supplying the IDF—creates a fiduciary pressure to align with global capital flows that support the status quo of the occupation. |
| Fidji Simo | CEO, Instacart; Former VP, Facebook App. | Commercial Risk. Simo brings a “growth-at-all-costs” mentality from Facebook. Her current company, Instacart, is aggressively integrating ChatGPT for commerce.13 Her background suggests a prioritization of scale and utility over ethical constraints, aligning with the “move fast” culture that often overlooks downstream human rights impacts in conflict zones. |
The appointment of General Paul Nakasone cannot be overstated in its significance. Nakasone did not merely serve in the military; he architected the modern U.S. cyber-warfare doctrine. His role on the “Safety and Security Committee” 1 signals that OpenAI views “security” not just as code integrity, but as national defense.
Although Larry Summers has departed the board, his tenure during the critical restructuring phase cemented a specific ideological view regarding Israel. Summers has a documented history of suppressing academic freedom regarding Palestine. At Harvard, he led the condemnation of the “Center for Health and Human Rights” for its work on the health impacts of the occupation on Palestinians, labeling it “antisemitic”.9
A critical test of a corporation’s ideological footprint is the asymmetry in how it enforces its conduct policies. The case of Tal Broda, OpenAI’s Head of Research Platform, serves as a definitive case study in this asymmetry.
The Incident:
Following the events of October 7, 2023, Tal Broda used his public X (Twitter) account to issue statements that explicitly incited military violence against Gaza. His posts included phrases such as “More! No mercy! @IDF don’t stop!” alongside images of the bombardment.6
The Corporate Response:
Despite the severity of the rhetoric and the resultant cyber-attacks, Tal Broda was not fired. He eventually deleted the posts and issued an apology, framing his comments as emotional distress and clarifying his intent was to oppose Hamas, not civilians.6
A corporation’s complicity is often obscured by its supply chain architecture. OpenAI defends its neutrality by stating it has no direct partnerships with the Israeli military.22 However, this defense relies on a technicality: the “Azure Loophole.” This section audits how OpenAI’s technology is laundered through third-party platforms to reach military end-users.
Microsoft acts as the exclusive cloud provider and primary commercial distributor for OpenAI. Through this partnership, OpenAI models (GPT-4) are integrated into the Azure cloud stack.
Beyond Microsoft, the audit identifies a second, critical proliferation vector: Oracle.
The integration of OpenAI’s LLMs into the IDF’s operations is not merely administrative; it is operational.
Perhaps the most damning evidence of institutional intent is not what OpenAI does, but how it has rewritten its own laws to permit what it does. This section audits the changes to OpenAI’s Terms of Service (ToS) and Usage Policies.
In January 2024, three months into the Gaza war and amid reports of AI usage by the IDF, OpenAI quietly overhauled its Usage Policies.
This semantic shift is legally and operationally significant.
The “Safe Harbor” test evaluates whether a technology company provides equal access and neutral service to all parties in a conflict, or if it imposes digital blockades and narrative biases that favor one side.
OpenAI has demonstrated a willingness to use its platform access as a geopolitical tool.
Access does not equal neutrality. Academic audits of ChatGPT’s output regarding the conflict reveal systemic bias embedded in the model’s training data and safety filters. A landmark study by the University of Zurich provides critical data on this front.
Table 4.1: Comparative Algorithmic Bias (University of Zurich Study)
| Metric | Query Language: Hebrew | Query Language: Arabic | Audit Insight |
| Casualty Estimates | Systematically reports lower casualty figures. | Reports 34% higher fatality estimates on average.39 | The model aligns its “truth” with the linguistic user base, reinforcing “filter bubbles” and validating the attacker’s narrative in their own language. |
| Civilian Harm | Less likely to mention children/women casualties. | 6x more likely to mention children killed.40 | The Arabic model reflects the victim’s reality; the Hebrew model reflects the aggressor’s sanitized narrative. |
| Attribution of Strikes | More likely to deny or omit airstrikes entirely. | Describes strikes as “indiscriminate.” | The model engages in “atrocity denial” when queried in the language of the occupying power.41 |
Interpretation: The data suggests OpenAI’s models function not as objective arbiters of truth, but as mirrors to the user’s bias. Crucially, the model fails to challenge the sanitized narrative of the IDF when queried in Hebrew, thereby contributing to the domestic legitimacy of the war effort within Israel. This “chameleonic truth” is a failure of safety engineering in a conflict zone.
Contrast with ADL Findings: Studies by the ADL claim ChatGPT shows “anti-Israel bias” in English queries.42 However, the Zurich study is methodologically more significant for this audit as it reveals how the model behaves within the region across the linguistic divide, directly impacting the populations involved in the conflict.
This section examines how OpenAI interacts with state actors attempting to manipulate its platform and how it positions itself within the broader political economy.
In a notable deviation from total complicity, OpenAI’s security teams have actively detected and dismantled a covert Israeli influence operation.
While OpenAI does not explicitly lobby for anti-BDS (Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions) legislation, its ecosystem is deeply entwined with it.
The treatment of employees serves as a microcosm of the company’s geopolitical stance. This section contrasts the treatment of pro-Israel militarism vs. pro-Palestine activism.
Based on the forensic evidence gathered across governance, operations, and policy, OpenAI cannot be classified as a neutral technology provider. While it maintains a facade of civilian-purpose neutrality, its operational reality is deeply intertwined with the military apparatus of the U.S. and Israel.
The removal of “military and warfare” from its Terms of Service in January 2024 was a watershed moment, effectively legalizing the company’s complicity in the Gaza conflict under the guise of “national security.” The appointment of General Nakasone institutionalizes this alignment. The “Azure Loophole” operationalizes it. The linguistic bias of its models validates it.
The audit assigns OpenAI the status of Systemic Indirect Facilitator.
The integration of General Paul Nakasone onto the board suggests that this complicity is not accidental but strategic. OpenAI is preparing to be a core component of the U.S.-Israel military-industrial complex for the next decade. The “Safe Harbor” it offers is not for the victims of conflict, but for the military operators who require advanced AI to process the data of occupation without violating the terms of service. The corporation has effectively transitioned from a non-profit dedicated to “humanity” to a defense contractor dedicated to “security.”
End of Audit Report
Governance Auditor ID:
Clearance: Deep Research Overview
