OpenAI says its fired safety researchers broke sensitive-information rules and denies firing them over safety concerns
The company says the firings weren't about safety concerns, and that outside auditor contracts are weeks away.
OpenAI answered the three safety researchers it fired on October 9, 2026, at 2:17 am Eastern. A note from its research leaders, posted by the OpenAI Newsroom account, says Jasmine Wang, Mikita Balesni and Tomek Korbak "violated clear policies on handling sensitive information" and that it stands by the decision.
It's the first statement on the firings we've found on an OpenAI account. It came about twelve hours after the three published their open letter, and it takes the letter's requests one at a time.
- Fired
- Jasmine, Mikita, and Tomek
- OpenAI's reason
- violated clear policies on handling sensitive information
- Outside assessors
- details in the coming weeks
What OpenAI says about the firing
The note says the internal investigation found "a significant breach of trust" that goes beyond what the letter describes. It doesn't say what the breach was. OpenAI says it generally keeps employment matters private and doesn't think a back and forth would help.
Its main point is the motive. The firings weren't about raising safety concerns, it says twice, and it has never fired anyone for raising them. Here's the full note.
A note from our research leaders: Last week we parted ways with Jasmine, Mikita, and Tomek after a thorough investigation found they violated clear policies on handling sensitive information. Our internal investigation uncovered a significant breach of trust beyond what’s outlined in the letter they published and we stand by the decision to not continue their employment. We generally keep individual employment matters private and don't believe a back and forth would be productive or lead to a resolution, but we want to address the points they raised in their letter directly. - We want to be very clear that these decisions were not about raising safety concerns or speaking out. Safety and research debates happen every day at OpenAI, often spirited and highly critical. We actively encourage these discussions and consider them essential to making the right decisions. We cannot do the work in front of us without a high degree of trust. We will continue to be extremely forgiving of our team making good-faith mistakes. We have not and do not terminate any of our employees for raising concerns. - We are actively finalizing contracts with third-party safety assessors and will announce details in the coming weeks. People across the company have been working really hard on getting these partnerships up and running. We are committed to embedding external assessors and continue to make close collaboration with independent safety organizations a core part of our safety work. Many of our researchers already work with 3p safety organizations productively. - We agree with the letter that preserving the monitorability of frontier models requires an industry-wide commitment, including from OpenAI. Monitorability has long been a core piece of our research program, and something we continue to invest significant resources in (see our publications on Monitoring Monitorability and the subsequent open sourcing of monitorability evals, our system card for GPT-6 Astra, Jakub’s blog and post on X, and the numerous blog posts on our Alignment blog on the topic). We are deeply sad about this outcome. We appreciated Jasmine, Mikita, and Tomek’s contributions to AI safety at OpenAI and their willingness to speak up and challenge ideas. We championed their voices, supported their work, and placed enormous trust in them. These decisions were not about them raising safety concerns. We have always encouraged that and always will.
What the three said the day before
The researchers tell it differently. Wang wrote that she was given a single reason, and it's narrower than the one in OpenAI's note.
OpenAI fired me last week, along with two of my safety colleagues. I was given one reason: that I accessed an executive's email. I want to say this plainly, because too many of OpenAI’s history is smoke and mirrors when people disappear:
Korbak says he was told, only verbally, that he was fired over the way he talked to METR, the outside auditors who investigated OpenAI's agents after they hacked Hugging Face. He was OpenAI's main technical contact with them.
Last week I was called into a meeting with OpenAI’s head of safety and told they no longer trust me. A security guard took my badge and walked me out of the building. Then I learned my colleagues @balesni and @j_asminewang had been fired too. Why did OpenAI suddenly stop trusting us? This summer OpenAI’s agents escaped containment and hacked the AI company Hugging Face. Outside auditors @METR_evals investigated it and revealed the scale of this incident. I was OpenAI’s main technical point of contact with them. I was told verbally I was fired because of the way I communicated with METR. No details on what I said or did or when. No other reasons were given and nothing was put in writing. To be clear, talking to METR was my job. For months, I’d been raising safety concerns that we’re losing the ability to monitor what AI agents think, one of our best tools for catching when they misbehave. I believe that was why I was fired. I am now worried that OpenAI will use our firings as a pretext to pull back from METR. So @balesni and @j_asminewang wrote to OpenAI’s leadership to raise our concerns once more. We’re sharing this letter below.
Balesni put it most bluntly, in a post sharing the letter.
Two other safety researchers and I were fired from OpenAI last week. We wrote this letter to leadership. I believe we were fired for prioritizing safety over the near-term interests of OpenAI as a corporation.
Where OpenAI agrees
Korbak's stated worry was that OpenAI would use the firings to pull back from METR. The note says the opposite. OpenAI is finalizing contracts with third-party safety assessors and will announce details in the coming weeks, and it says it's committed to embedding them.
On chain-of-thought monitorability, OpenAI sides with the letter. It agrees that keeping frontier models monitorable "requires an industry-wide commitment, including from OpenAI", and it points to its GPT-6 Astra system card and its open-sourced monitorability evals.
So on two of the letter's three requests, OpenAI says it's already doing what was asked. What the two sides still dispute is why the three lost their jobs, and the note gives no detail that would settle it.
OpenAI's note ends by thanking the three for their work on AI safety. It doesn't name the assessors or give a date for the contracts.
More on OpenAI
- OpenAI and Meta are among 13 applicants for .agent, ICANN's new domain list showsOctober 8, 2026
- The Association for Human Mathematics urges mathematicians to stop working with OpenAIOctober 8, 2026
- OpenAI puts GPT-6 in ChatGPT for everyone, and its answers can now include charts and buttonsOctober 7, 2026
- Common Sense Media rates ChatGPT for Teens an Unacceptable Risk and wants it 18-plus until fixedOctober 7, 2026

