Version 9

Two proposals would give the federal government a financial claim on the AI industry. Senator Bernie Sanders introduced the American AI Sovereign Wealth Fund Act, imposing a one-time 50% stock tax on AI companies with $200 million or more in annual AI sales, estimated to generate a $7 trillion fund paying each American over $1,000 annually.[1][2][3] From the executive branch, Trump formally stated the US may take equity stakes in AI companies,[7] with JD Vance reportedly characterizing the goal as ownership of every major AI company in America.[9] The administration has already executed on this model — it took a 10% equity stake in Intel in August 2025.[15] Reuters analyzed three distinct legal mechanisms the administration could use to acquire AI stakes,[14] and companies are responding unevenly: OpenAI is engaged, while Meta has explicitly kept its distance.[13]

The Intel equity stake shows the administration has moved from signaling to execution on government ownership of strategic technology companies. Reuters identifying three plausible legal mechanisms suggests the policy has moved beyond posturing into legal planning — the question is no longer whether a vehicle exists, but which one it chooses and whether companies like Meta that have declined to engage will have any say.

Two distinct proposals 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. Critics including Reason.com described the bill as a 'socialist scheme' that goes beyond what proponents advertise, while Nathan Sanders and Bruce Schneier in The Guardian endorsed the direction but argued for a different implementation.[5][6]

From the executive branch, Trump publicly stated the US may take equity stakes in AI companies by mid-June 2026, with tech stocks advancing on the news.[7][8] JD Vance reportedly characterized the White House plan as taking ownership of every major AI company in America — broader than prior framing of selective, negotiated equity positions.[9] The administration met directly with AI companies on government profit-sharing,[10] though some companies were reportedly caught off guard by the equity talk.[11] Companies are responding unevenly: OpenAI appears the most engaged and has separately proposed a framework including taxes on AI profits, public wealth funds, and expanded safety nets.[12] Meta has explicitly kept its distance from the ownership idea.[13] Reuters analyzed three legal mechanisms by which the administration could execute an equity acquisition in AI firms, suggesting the policy has moved beyond posturing into legal planning.[14]

The administration's track record on equity stakes in strategic companies extends beyond AI. In August 2025 it took a 10% government equity stake in Intel,[15][16] framed as part of a broader industrial strategy[17] but described by critics as 'reverse privatization.'[16] The administration has also pursued equity stakes in mineral companies including MP Materials[18] and Lithium Americas.[19] This pattern suggests the AI equity track is part of a broader government ownership strategy rather than an isolated proposal.

Internally, the Trump administration remains divided on the vehicle for any AI equity stake. Treasury Secretary Bessent prefers channeling stakes into individual Trump Accounts; Commerce Secretary Lutnick favors a centrally managed sovereign wealth fund.[20] Neither mechanism has been settled, and the choice determines who controls the assets and how they are governed. At the G7, Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei and DeepMind CEO Demis Hassabis pushed for a U.S.-led international coalition to govern AI rules, chip access, and safety standards — a governance framing distinct from either equity proposal.[20]