Bloomberg warns Trump's AI ownership plan risks cronyism as government stake debate intensifies

Trump's AI Ownership Plan Proposes Unprecedented Government Stakes

President Donald Trump is exploring a controversial proposal that would give the federal government ownership stakes in major AI companies, marking a significant shift in how Washington engages with the technology sector. Since taking office 18 months ago, the Trump administration has already announced investments worth $26.7 billion in equity across 30 companies, transforming Uncle Sam into an active shareholder 1

1

. Now, Trump's AI ownership plan goes further, with Sam Altman of OpenAI reportedly proposing that his company donate 5 percent of its shares to a public wealth fund, encouraging other AI companies to follow suit 1

1

.

At OpenAI's latest private valuation of $852 billion, a 5 percent stake would be worth $42.6 billion. If the government took similar positions in the top dozen tech companies involved in artificial intelligence—including Nvidia, Alphabet, and Microsoft—the public wealth fund would hold shares worth well over $1 trillion 1

1

. "It almost becomes a partnership with the American public," Donald Trump said about the concept. "The American people can benefit from the success of A.I. ... It would be a beautiful thing. And it would make them rich" 1

1

.

Bloomberg Warns of Cronyism and Corruption Risks

Billionaire Michael Bloomberg has emerged as a vocal critic of government ownership in AI companies, warning that the proposal would corrupt market competition and regulatory oversight. In a Bloomberg Opinion column, he argued that the plan would turn Washington from an industry regulator into an investor with profit incentives, leading to widespread cronyism and corruption 2

2

. "Somewhere, Karl Marx is smiling," Bloomberg wrote of the centrally planned economy on offer, while the propaganda possibilities would "make George Orwell blush" .

The former New York City mayor contends that Americans already benefit from AI companies through applications in fraud detection, medical research, bookkeeping, and other services 3

3

. He argues that if AI companies aren't contributing enough to the public, Washington should reform the tax code rather than take equity positions. "When the government becomes a shareholder in a private-sector entity, the positive effects of market competition can break down," Bloomberg wrote. "Politics trump profits, favoritism and cronyism take root, innovation suffers, competitiveness erodes, and regulation is corrupted" 3

3

.

Intel Investment Raises Red Flags About Market Distortion

Concerns about government stake arrangements distorting market competition aren't theoretical. The Trump administration's largest equity bet so far—an $8.9 billion investment in Intel—illustrates the risks 1

1

. Around the time of that investment, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick reportedly began pressuring tech leaders including Jensen Huang of Nvidia, Elon Musk of SpaceX, and Tim Cook of Apple to award contracts to Intel 1

1

. All three now do business with Intel, raising questions about whether market competition or political pressure drove those decisions.

While national security justifications exist for supporting domestic semiconductor manufacturing given dangerous reliance on Taiwan-based plants, no such rationale applies to OpenAI and other AI companies, most of which are already American 1

1

. Critics warn that if some AI companies donate stock to the wealth fund and others don't, the government may bias corporate customers in their choice of AI governance partners rather than letting them select based on merit 1

1

.

Wealth Distribution Claims Face Scrutiny

Proponents argue the public wealth fund would address AI-driven job displacement by distributing returns directly to citizens, allowing more people to participate in AI-driven growth regardless of starting wealth or access to capital 1

1

. However, even under bullish projections where AI company shares rise 20 percent annually—beating the S&P 500's 11.5 percent return over the past two decades—an initial $1.5 trillion endowment would grow to $9.3 trillion in ten years, yielding less than $30,000 per U.S. citizen 1

1

.

Bloomberg argues that consumers and businesses already capture AI benefits through improved productivity, faster economic growth, and greater innovation, which should generate increased tax revenue for essential services including education, job training, and stronger safety nets for those affected by AI-driven job displacement 3

3

. The billionaire warns that government ownership would create a "smoke-filled backroom" where success depends on political connections and lobbying budgets rather than merit 2

2

.

Free Speech and Surveillance Concerns Emerge

Beyond economic considerations, critics raise alarm about AI companies functioning as speech platforms under government ownership. Bloomberg warns that "the likelihood that politics will start to infect AI output—information, data and knowledge itself" is alarmingly high 3

3

. Free speech activists are ringing alarm bells about potential censorship or surveillance when Washington holds equity positions in companies that shape how millions access and process information 3

3

.

The debate reflects broader tensions as the initial bargain behind America's AI boom—private investors taking risks, companies distributing benefits through public markets later, and government regulating afterward—shows signs of collapse 2

2

. As costs soar, Chinese competitors gain ground, and Washington increasingly views AI as a national security asset, pressure builds for new arrangements. Through the 2028 fiscal year, the administration plans to pump about $14 billion more into government-subsidized "Trump Accounts" for children 1

1

. Whether government stakes in AI companies follow remains to be seen, but the proposal has sparked intense debate about innovation, market competition, and the proper role of government in shaping America's technological future.