The original confusion stemmed from remarks made by CFO Sarah Friar, who said at a Bloomberg event that a federal “backstop” could help unlock investment for future data center expansion. Those comments, widely interpreted as a request for taxpayer guarantees, drew scrutiny given the scale of AI server costs and energy requirements.

So basically, the company’s Chief Financial Officer explicitly stated that if the government took over the risk of loss, the company could get more money from investors who would then have nothing to lose. In other words, she was hoping for a preemptive guarantee of a bailout. Doesn’t seem to me that there was any “confusion” or misunderstanding. OpenAI wants taxpayers to bear the risk of loss, while keeping profits for itself.