News Analysis
Guide
Is AI Making Your Organization More Productive or More Dependent?
Key Takeaways
- President Trump and Senator Sanders have both proposed giving the public a financial stake in AI’s economic growth.
- Sanders’ bill would require the largest AI companies to contribute 50% of their equity to a public wealth fund.
- Any plan would face major challenges in defining which businesses quality as AI companies and how contributions are calculated.
If AI companies are going to make millions of dollars out of the collected knowledge of humankind, it’s only fair that humankind should get a share.
That’s the theory behind several US government efforts to use a share of the companies, or their revenues, to help people, such as people who have lost their jobs due to AI.
“I understand the instinct,” said Jared Navarre, CEO of Onnix Global Inc. and chair of a number of nonprofits. “If AI becomes the infrastructure for the entire economy, with public data and public labor markets that have helped make the value possible, the public interest question is legitimate. If we design it badly, we’re not going to democratize AI.”
Trump Floats Public Ownership Stakes in AI Companies
“There's so much money and it's so big that there are concepts where pieces could be given to the American public where the American public essentially becomes a partner with the… companies.”
- President Donald Trump
President Donald Trump is reportedly working with several unnamed AI executives on a partnership between their companies and the federal government.
“There's a concept out there,” President Donald Trump told news reporters on June 9. “There's so much money and it's so big that there are concepts where pieces could be given to the American public where the American public essentially becomes a partner with the company — with the companies.
“There's something very interesting about it where it almost becomes a partnership with the American public and we'll look into that. And we're talking about it where the American people can benefit from the success of AI. And by doing that, they're going to like it better because we're leading China, we're leading everybody in the world with AI and we want to keep it that way. It's probably the biggest industry, maybe, that we've ever seen.”
Reportedly, such a partnership would include the federal government taking an equity stake in AI companies. The Administration made a similar $8.9 billion arrangement with Intel in August 2025 and a $2 billion arrangement with nine quantum companies in May 2026. Trump did not provide details on the AI proposal, but he issued an executive order proposing a sovereign wealth fund — though it wasn’t specific to AI — on February 3, 2026.
Trump did not specify with which AI companies he was negotiating. “All of them,” he said. “And probably all the big ones, yes. All of them. They're all coming to the White House probably next week.”
It is not clear whether the meeting the President referred to took place, though reportedly several AI companies visited the White House in mid-June regarding Administration limitations on AI models.
Sanders Proposes 50% AI Equity Tax
On June 18, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) proposed the American AI Sovereign Wealth Fund Act. It would require the largest AI companies, as well as new ones when they became large enough, to pay a one-time tax of 50% of their equity to the American AI Sovereign Wealth Fund, which would pay out a dividend of 5% per year to the American people.
While she hasn’t proposed specific legislation, on May 27, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) issued an opinion piece with several suggestions about how to tax AI, such as raising taxes on corporations, closing loopholes and taxing AI and AI companies themselves.
Sanders’ and Warren’s offices did not respond to inquiries.
Trump said it wasn’t surprising to see him and Sanders on the same page on this issue. “As far as economics is concerned, we have certain things that aren't that far apart,” he told reporters. “People are surprised, but many of you — if you'll take a look — many of the people that voted for Bernie Sanders when he was no longer there to vote for, they went to me. I picked up a lot of his — a tremendous amount of his voters.”
The concept of a sovereign wealth fund isn’t new. Many countries, including the US, have them. One of the largest and most well-known is the Alaska Permanent Fund Corp., funded by oil revenues. In 2025, eligible Alaskans each received $1,000.
But most sovereign wealth funds, including Alaska’s, are different from a fund based on AI companies, because they’re based on tangible, extractive resources rather than intellectual property. “AI isn’t a tangible asset,” said Navarre, who is also Alaskan. “It’s not oil.”
AI Tax Proposals Face a Definition Problem
Part of the challenge for any of the proposals, however, would be defining an “AI company,” as well as what size would qualify as “big enough.” “If we build any sort of fund on a sloppy or gray definition of what an AI company is, we’re in treacherous waters,” said Navarre.
For example, Navarre said he’s spoken with several C-level executives who are concerned about that definition and how it might affect their own AI plans. “There is now hesitation on ‘If I’m going to make an investment on AI, and then some of this policy and taxes comes down the pike, how hard will I get hit myself?’ If they think they can replace 20% of their staff with AI, are they going to be caught in the crosshairs and taxed?”
Navarre also pointed out that most AI companies aren’t yet showing a profit, and if company size or taxable amount were based on profit, that could be problematic. “There’s real money spent and invested, but it’s too soon to say that we’ve got data showing that it’s going to be the oil industry,” he said. “But if you can save X percentage of your profits by rearranging assets or playing tax games and shelters, that’s part of having high-level tax accountants.”
Critics Warn Against Government Ownership of AI
Whether it’s equity stakes or a sovereign wealth fund, not everyone agrees with the concept.
David Sacks, former White House AI and crypto czar, and now co-chair of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST), called it a “stupidity tax” that AI companies had brought on themselves by describing massive job losses that AI could bring.
While I’m no fan of socialism or arbitrary confiscations of wealth, I can see why Bernie Sanders’ proposal (for the government to take a 50% stake in AI companies) resonates, including with many on the right.
— David Sacks (@DavidSacks) June 5, 2026
The CEOs of the leading AI labs have told us repeatedly that they will… https://t.co/CqWYYhkDhC
Sacks also warned that getting the government involved with AI companies could have repercussions.
“America won’t win the AI race if we beat China but end up with a [Chinese Communist Party]-style social credit system in the US — and that is the danger as the government becomes more deeply involved in AI development and assumes direct ownership and control,” he wrote.
Depending on the extent to which AI companies themselves buy into the proposals, such as CEO Sam Altman’s reported offer of a 5% equity stake in OpenAI, such a step could be considered a “taking,” or a seizure of private property for which the government should offer compensation. “It definitely would be a taking if they just outright seize the stake, or 50% of stock as Sanders advocates,” said Ilya Somin, law professor at George Mason University and B. Kenneth Simon Chair in Constitutional Studies at the Cato Institute.
Another possibility, according to Somin, is AI companies offering an equity stake in return for favored treatment from the government — “If you give us a stake, we’ll let you export microchips to China.” It could be an example of quid pro quo, he explained.
“At root, all such equity stakes arrangements represent variants of ‘state corporatism’ or quasi-nationalization of industry,” said Adam Thierer, senior fellow at the R Street Institute, a Washington, DC-based market-oriented think tank. “It's really just a question of degree.”
Editor's Note: The future of AI raises concerns that extend far beyond the job market.
- AI Has a Marketing Problem: Nobody Wants the Data Center Nearby — Local communities are pushing back against data center construction, sometimes in violent ways.
- AI’s Water Problem Is Getting Hard to Ignore — Data centers need vast amounts of water for cooling, potentially taking away fresh water resources from the people who need them.
- Who Will Pay for AI’s Power Buildout? — AI data centers require more power than current infrastructure can supply. Will the public ultimately pay for big tech’s expansion?