President Donald Trump floated the notion aboard Air Force One. Give pieces of leading artificial intelligence companies to the American public. Make citizens partners in what he called a revolution. The remark landed with force. It aligned him, however awkwardly, with Sen. Bernie Sanders and even OpenAI Chief Executive Sam Altman.
Strange bedfellows. Yet the convergence signals something deeper. Anxiety over AI’s breakneck advance has crossed party lines. Job losses loom. Wealth concentrates among a few. And the technology draws on humanity’s shared knowledge. So why should only a handful of executives and investors reap the gains?
Cross-Ideological Push for Public Ownership
Trump’s comments on June 6, 2026, did not emerge from thin air. Fortune reported that Altman had pitched government ownership concepts to administration officials since early 2025. He revisited the topic recently amid broader AI regulation talks. Trump told reporters the public could become “a partner with the companies.” He promised meetings with 12 or 15 top AI executives to explore ways they might “give something back.”
Sanders moved faster and harder. On June 1 he outlined plans for the American AI Sovereign Wealth Fund Act in a New York Times opinion piece. The bill would impose a one-time 50% tax on the stock of major AI firms. Not on profits. On equity. That stock would fund a sovereign wealth vehicle. The government would gain voting shares and board seats. Revenues would flow to direct payments and public services.
“Artificial intelligence is built on our collective intelligence,” Sanders wrote. “The data and language used by generative AI tools didn’t just pop into Sam Altman’s head or Elon Musk’s imagination.” He cited books, songs, code, research. All public resources, he argued. The wealth must benefit everyone.
Steve Bannon, Trump’s former strategist, pushed even further. He called for forcing companies to surrender 50% equity outright. The overlap stunned observers. Progressives and MAGA voices rarely agree. Here they did. On ownership.
OpenAI itself had laid groundwork. Its April 2026 policy paper, “Industrial Policy for the Intelligence Age,” backed a public wealth fund. Returns “could be distributed directly to citizens, allowing more people to participate directly in the upside of AI-driven growth, regardless of their starting wealth or access to capital,” the document stated. Altman discussed a 5% stake with the Trump team. TechCrunch detailed the July 2 report, drawn from Financial Times sources. The move aimed to secure good relations and blunt political blowback. Other firms might follow. Talks remain early. Congressional approval would likely be needed.
At OpenAI’s reported $852 billion valuation, a 5% slice equals roughly $42.6 billion. Spread across 133 million U.S. households? About $320 each. Not life-changing. But MIT Technology Review noted the fund could grow. Pay dividends over time. Mirror Alaska’s Permanent Fund, which channels oil money to residents. Except AI does not deplete like petroleum. The upside could compound.
Altman has pitched versions of this idea for years. In 2021 he floated taxing big companies 2.5% of market value annually to fund universal payouts. A safety net for AI-driven labor shifts. The current 5% equity offer narrows the target to AI leaders. It also buys favor. Regulators hold enormous power. A government that owns shares might protect its investment.
Critics see risks. David Sacks, Trump’s former AI czar, warned against “corporate-government fusion.” Meta largely dismissed the concept. Its global affairs chief cited strong existing White House ties. Anthropic appeared caught off guard by Trump’s announcement. No equity talks there, sources said.
Implementation hurdles abound. Who controls the fund’s board? Does it vote shares aggressively or stay passive? How do dividends reach households? Pre-IPO stakes carry uncertain value. OpenAI still loses money. Its IPO plans keep slipping. A sovereign fund holding volatile tech equity differs sharply from Alaska’s oil assets.
Yet the political momentum builds. A recent poll showed broad support for sharing AI gains. Concerns over data centers, energy use and job displacement fuel the fire. An April attack on Altman’s home with a Molotov cocktail highlighted raw public anger. Three looming trillion-dollar IPOs—OpenAI, Anthropic, perhaps others—only intensify focus on who captures the wealth.
Sanders’ bill goes compulsory. It targets “systemically important” AI companies. Firms with mixed businesses could spin off non-AI units to limit exposure. The fund would aim for trillions in value. Payments for health care, education, housing. “We don’t need charity, we need ownership,” California Gov. Gavin Newsom said in May, backing universal basic capital concepts.
Trump’s approach stays voluntary. Smaller stakes. No immediate tax. Emphasis on partnership and national dominance in AI. He has mused about an American sovereign wealth fund before. This fits the pattern. But details stay vague. His team weighs precedents like the government’s old 9.9% Intel stake.
And the ideas keep evolving. Recent X discussions highlight Trump’s latest hints of “contributions” from profitable AI firms. Whether tax, fee or equity, pressure mounts. OpenAI’s 5% proposal could set a floor. Sanders’ 50% vision raises the ceiling. Neither has passed. Both reveal the same pressure: AI reshapes labor markets at unprecedented speed. Existing social contracts strain. The question of value capture becomes one of governance.
Scholars proposed similar models years ago. Public pension funds already hold massive corporate equity. Norway’s oil fund exceeds $2 trillion. The principle holds. When a resource belongs to the public, proceeds should too. AI rests on humanity’s accumulated output. Not private invention alone.
Executives at OpenAI and Anthropic have endorsed variants. Elon Musk once tweeted support for universal high income to offset AI unemployment. Alignment exists in theory. Execution will test it. Governance questions persist. Political capture risks rise when the regulator owns shares. Yet inaction cedes the field to concentrated private power.
The debate will not fade. Midterm elections loom. Public sentiment hardens. AI companies file confidential IPO papers. Models grow more capable. Recursive self-improvement talk spreads. The stakes rise with each advance. Americans may yet gain an ownership slice. How large, how mandatory, how managed? Those fights lie ahead. But the idea has taken root. On both sides of the aisle. In the White House and in Congress. The public wants in.
WebProNews is an iEntry Publication