Sen. Bernie Sanders wants Americans to own half the biggest artificial intelligence companies. The independent from Vermont introduced the American AI Sovereign Wealth Fund Act on Thursday. It would slap a one-time 50 percent tax on the stock of leading AI firms such as OpenAI, Anthropic and xAI. The shares would flow into a public fund. That fund would grant the government voting rights and equal board representation.
The idea sounds radical. Yet it builds on months of Sanders sounding alarms about unchecked AI growth. Back in March he teamed with Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to unveil the Artificial Intelligence Data Center Moratorium Act. That measure would freeze construction of new AI data centers until Congress passes comprehensive safeguards. Both efforts reveal a consistent theme. Sanders believes the technology reshaping the economy cannot remain the exclusive domain of a few billionaires.
“The future of AI must not be decided behind closed doors by billionaires seeking to maximize their power and profit,” Sanders said in a statement Thursday, as reported by The Washington Post. “It should be decided by the American people.”
The sovereign wealth fund proposal estimates the initial pot could reach $7 trillion. An independent seven-member commission would oversee it. The president would select members from a list provided by Congress. This body could block corporate moves deemed harmful to citizens. It could also advocate for policies that spread benefits more widely. Companies combining AI operations with other businesses would face forced separation under the plan. Five percent of the fund’s value would flow out each year as dividends. Early projections put that at roughly $1,000 per person annually. The figure would rise if AI delivers on its promised gains.
Sanders first outlined the concept in a New York Times opinion piece. He argued AI systems train on vast stores of human creativity and knowledge yet funnel rewards to a narrow set of owners. “We cannot allow AI just to be used to benefit the very richest people in the world,” he told CNN’s Anderson Cooper, according to the network’s report. The fund, in his view, offers a direct ownership stake that translates into both influence and cash payments.
Critics wasted little time pushing back. Some called the approach a form of nationalization that would scare off investment and slow innovation. Others questioned whether government board seats could effectively steer complex technical decisions. Supporters counter that the public already subsidizes much of the underlying research through universities, defense contracts and open data sets. Why then should gains concentrate so heavily among private shareholders?
The data center moratorium bill from March offers a different lever. It imposes an immediate nationwide halt on new or expanded AI facilities. The pause ends only after lawmakers enact standards addressing system safety, labor impacts, electricity demands and environmental costs. It also bars exports of advanced computing hardware to nations lacking similar protections. More than 100 local communities have already passed their own data center restrictions. At least a dozen states have considered statewide versions.
“AI and robotics are creating the most sweeping technological revolution in the history of humanity,” Sanders said in the March announcement posted on his Senate site. “The scale, scope and speed of that change is unprecedented. Congress is way behind where it should be.” Ocasio-Cortez added pointed examples of current harms. She cited partnerships between immigration authorities and AI firms for surveillance, the spread of deepfake imagery targeting women and children, and rising electric bills in towns hosting massive server farms. “We must choose humanity over profit,” she declared.
Industry voices have at times echoed the call for caution. In 2023 more than 1,000 researchers and executives, including Elon Musk, urged a six-month pause on advanced AI training. Musk later admitted having “a lot of AI nightmares” and said he would slow development if possible. Dario Amodei of Anthropic and Demis Hassabis of Google DeepMind expressed openness to coordinated slowdowns. The Sanders-Ocasio-Cortez bill cites these statements as evidence that even insiders worry about unchecked acceleration.
Energy consumption sits at the heart of the moratorium push. Training and running frontier models requires enormous power. Data centers can strain local grids, drive up rates for residents and consume billions of gallons of water for cooling. Environmental groups have joined community activists in opposing new builds in certain regions. The bill frames these issues as national rather than local. It seeks to prevent a race where jurisdictions compete to host facilities without adequate oversight.
Yet the proposals face steep odds in a divided Congress. The moratorium bill, introduced as S.4214, sits in the Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee with no action recorded so far. The new wealth fund legislation will likely encounter fierce opposition from technology industry lobbyists and free-market lawmakers. President Trump has floated his own ideas about AI and national competitiveness. His administration’s framework emphasizes speeding deployment with targeted rules rather than broad pauses or ownership transfers.
Still, the Sanders initiatives tap into broader unease. Polls show many Americans fear job displacement from AI even as they appreciate its capabilities. Concerns about bias, privacy, deepfakes and autonomous weapons persist. Labor leaders have warned that without intervention the technology could accelerate inequality. Sanders argues the public deserves both a financial share and a voice in governance.
The timing feels deliberate. AI valuations keep climbing. Major firms race toward trillion-dollar market caps. At the same time stories multiply about data center battles in Virginia, the Midwest and elsewhere. Local officials grapple with sudden spikes in electricity demand. Residents notice construction noise, water usage and transformed landscapes. These concrete impacts give the abstract debate about AI ethics a tangible edge.
And the two bills complement each other. The moratorium buys time for deliberation. The wealth fund offers a mechanism to distribute gains once rules exist. Together they attempt to shift AI from a purely private enterprise to something closer to a public utility with democratic accountability. Whether that vision can survive the legislative process remains uncertain. Tech executives will argue that heavy-handed intervention risks ceding leadership to China or other rivals. Progressive advocates counter that leaving decisions solely to profit motives guarantees predictable harms.
Sanders has met with OpenAI CEO Sam Altman and other industry figures. Those conversations appear to have sharpened rather than softened his stance. He acknowledges the technology’s potential but insists its direction cannot rest with a handful of executives. The public built the internet, funded much of the foundational science and supplies the data that powers models. Ownership should reflect that contribution.
Implementation details will matter. How does one value private AI companies for tax purposes? What safeguards prevent political interference in board decisions? How would dividends interact with existing tax systems or social programs? The legislation promises further specifics. An independent commission offers one buffer against partisan capture. Yet defining “harmful” decisions in a fast-moving field invites disputes.
Recent coverage highlights the proposal’s novelty. Bloomberg Government noted Sanders expects to file the bill this week, framing it as giving citizens a direct say in AI governance. NPR interviewed the senator about the fund’s potential to deliver annual payments while regulating development. Reactions on X ranged from enthusiastic support for spreading wealth to sharp criticism labeling it socialist overreach.
One thing seems clear. The conversation about AI governance has moved beyond voluntary commitments from companies. Lawmakers of varying stripes now eye structural changes. Sanders occupies one pole with aggressive public ownership and development pauses. Others favor lighter regulatory frameworks or international agreements. The tension between innovation speed and societal safeguards will shape legislation for years.
His latest moves ensure the debate stays loud. By linking ownership to tangible payments, Sanders makes the abstract notion of public stake feel immediate. A $1,000 annual check from AI profits sounds different from distant promises of future productivity gains. It personalizes the argument. So does the moratorium’s focus on electric bills and local communities. These are issues voters already feel.
Whether either bill advances, they spotlight real questions. Who should control the trajectory of the most powerful technology in a generation? How can societies ensure its benefits reach beyond corporate balance sheets? Sanders offers one set of answers rooted in democratic control and shared ownership. Industry leaders and competing policymakers will offer others. The coming months of hearings, lobbying and public comment will test which approach gains traction.
But the senator from Vermont has staked his position. AI cannot simply become another engine of concentrated wealth. The public must hold a meaningful piece of the action and a seat at the table where decisions happen. That conviction drives both the wealth fund and the data center pause. And it guarantees the discussion will continue long after the initial bill texts reach committee rooms.
WebProNews is an iEntry Publication