Version 2

Two separate proposals would give the federal government a financial stake in major AI companies. Senator Bernie Sanders formally introduced the American AI Sovereign Wealth Fund Act, which would impose a one-time 50% stock tax on AI companies with $200 million or more in annual AI sales, generating an estimated $7 trillion fund that pays each American over $1,000 annually in dividends.[1][2][3] Separately, Trump himself publicly stated the US may take equity stakes in AI companies[7], and the administration was scheduled to meet directly with AI firms on government profit-sharing.[8] The two mechanisms differ: Sanders' approach is compulsory by statute; the Trump approach is voluntary and negotiated.

That the same core idea — government financial ownership of AI — has arrived simultaneously from a progressive senator and a Republican president suggests it is moving from fringe advocacy into active policy territory. The specific mechanism chosen (compulsory tax vs. negotiated stake) carries substantially different implications for corporate control, innovation incentives, and public accountability.

Two distinct but structurally similar proposals now put the federal government in a position to claim a financial stake in the AI industry. From the left, Senator Bernie Sanders introduced the American AI Sovereign Wealth Fund Act, which would impose a one-time 50% tax on the stock of any AI company with $200 million or more in annual AI sales.[1][2][3] Sanders frames this as public recapture of value from an industry built on publicly funded research and data.[4] The fund is estimated at $7 trillion total, with each American receiving more than $1,000 per year in dividends plus funding directed to healthcare, education, and housing. The Washington Post covered the bill as a mainstream policy proposal, and a Guardian op-ed by Nathan Sanders and Bruce Schneier endorsed the general direction while arguing a different implementation would be better.[5][6]

From the right, Trump himself publicly stated the US may take equity stakes in AI companies,[7] moving the issue from internal administration discussions to a presidential statement. Politico reported that Trump was scheduled to meet directly with AI companies on government profit-sharing.[8] CNBC and the WSJ had earlier reported that talks with OpenAI were substantive, with some AI companies reportedly caught off guard by the equity talk.[9][10][11] OpenAI appears the most engaged with the government equity track; Microsoft and Meta have shown little interest.[12] Tech stocks gained when Trump's equity interest became public, suggesting markets read a negotiated stake as favorable to companies rather than threatening.[13]

The two tracks differ in mechanism and political logic. Sanders' approach is compulsory: a tax levied against existing shareholders, transferring equity to a public fund by law. The Trump administration's approach appears negotiated: equity acquired in exchange for something the government can provide — regulatory accommodation, federal contracts, or Stargate-adjacent infrastructure support. Within the administration, Treasury Secretary Bessent prefers channeling AI equity into individual Trump Accounts, while Commerce Secretary Lutnick favors a centrally managed sovereign wealth fund.[12] No mechanism has been settled on either track.

At the G7, Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei and DeepMind CEO Demis Hassabis separately advocated for a U.S.-led international coalition to govern AI rules, chip access, model access, and safety standards — a governance framing distinct from either equity proposal.[12] OpenAI has also separately proposed its own framework including taxes on AI profits and expanded public safety nets, suggesting the company is attempting to shape, rather than resist, the policy direction.[14]