Bernie Sanders proposes $7 trillion AI fund to pay Americans $1,000 annually from tech profits

US senator thinks AI companies should be paying you thousands

If passed, it's estimated that the wealth fund would be worth around $7 trillion, netting everyone in the US $1,000 from an initial 5% annual dividend. One of the many reasons why AI is controversial is that it's trained on information and content that was produced by real people. Despite this, all the profits from AI are only going to the companies that created the models. However, one US senator wants to redirect some of that cash flow back to the public. Bernie Sanders, senator of Vermont, has introduced legislation that aims to give Americans a piece of the AI profits. According to the press release, this legislation would give the public a 50% ownership stake in the largest AI companies in the US. This would be done through a one-time 50% tax on the stock of these companies. It's estimated that the sovereign wealth fund created by this legislation would be worth around $7 trillion. The plan would be to start with a 5% annual dividend from this fund, which would give every American a direct annual payment of $1,000. If the AI companies continue to grow, each individual will get more money. Conversely, if the value of these companies declines, only these companies would face the losses.

Bernie Sanders' New AI Bill Would Pay Americans $1,000 a Year

Bernie Sanders is making the case in Washington that since modern AI systems were built using the intellectual and creative outputs of all of humanity, the revenues they generate should go directly to the people -- not just to a small cohort of tech moguls. On Thursday, Senator Sanders -- an Independent from Vermont -- introduced a bill which, if passed, would create a sovereign wealth fund for the United States' AI industry. The fund would be valued at roughly $7 trillion, a number derived from the current valuation of the country's top AI labs, and would give the American public a 50% public stake in those companies. As a result, taxpayers would receive an annual payment of $1,000 through the fund. That amount "will probably go up as AI becomes more prosperous," Senator Sanders told reporters in a press briefing on Thursday. The fund could also eventually funnel "significant amounts of money ... into social programs, making sure that all Americans have healthcare, education, decent housing, and other basic necessities of life." AI as a public resource Proposed as an amendment to the 1986 Internal Revenue Code, Sanders' bill argues that AI is ultimately a public resource, like precious minerals or oil extracted from publicly owned land, but a tiny number of companies are profiting from this resource as if it were a proprietary, privately owned product. AI "derives its economic value from humanity's collective intelligence, including our books, songs, artwork, journalism, computer code, scientific research, videos, conversations, images, and ideas spanning generations," the bill reads. "A small number of oligarchs have essentially stolen the creative work of hundreds of millions of people ... without permission, acknowledgment, or compensation in order to control the majority of economic value created by artificial intelligence." More than 100 sovereign wealth funds currently operate in 67 countries, including the United States. One example is the Texas Permanent School Fund, established in 1854, which helps fund the state's public school system with revenue from the extraction of natural resources such as oil and gas. Growing bipartisan support Sanders isn't the first person to suggest that giving Americans a direct ownership stake in the wealthiest AI companies might be an effective way to offset the technology's more destabilizing economic impacts. California Governor Gavin Newsom has directed state officials to start researching the practicality of the model, which is known as universal basic capital, or UBC (not to be confused with universal basic income, or UBI). It's even received some support within the AI sector itself. OpenAI and Anthropic have both suggested that some version of this system may be necessary to share the AI industry's gains with the broader public and cushion workers against job losses caused by the technology's adoption. The companies -- which are both expected to finalize their IPOs later this year -- have also recently called for the formation of an international organization to oversee, and if necessary slow down, the development and deployment of powerful new AI models. Elon Musk -- as of this week, the world's first trillionaire -- has suggested that the federal government may need to issue checks to Americans to compensate for AI-driven disruptions to the labor market. Even Donald Trump, who's become known for giving the American AI industry a decidedly generous amount of leeway, is now reportedly weighing the possibility of providing direct payments to Americans through an equity stakes agreement with AI labs like OpenAI. But Sanders' new bill marks the first time this idea has been put forward as potential federal legislation.

Sanders bills AI firms for $7T fund, aims $1,000 citizen payments

Sen. Bernie Sanders has unveiled a proposal that would give Americans a direct financial stake in the country's booming artificial intelligence industry. The Vermont independent introduced legislation Thursday that would create a national sovereign wealth fund tied to major AI companies. Under the proposal, the federal government would hold a 50% ownership stake in qualifying AI firms and distribute annual payments to U.S. citizens. Sanders argues that today's AI systems rely heavily on content, knowledge, and creative works produced by generations of people. Because AI companies benefit from that collective human output, he says the public should share in the industry's financial gains. The legislation, called the American AI Sovereign Wealth Fund Act, comes as lawmakers debate how to regulate AI and address concerns about wealth concentration in the technology sector. Public stake in AI The proposal would apply to AI companies generating more than $200 million in annual revenue. Those firms would become subject to a system that grants the public a significant ownership interest through a federally managed investment fund. Sanders estimates the fund could reach a value of roughly $7 trillion based on current valuations of leading U.S. AI developers. The senator says the structure would allow Americans to benefit directly from one of the fastest-growing industries in the economy. He projects that citizens could initially receive annual payments of around $1,000. Those payouts could increase as the AI sector expands. Speaking to reporters, Sanders said the payments would likely grow if AI companies continue generating larger profits. He also suggested future revenue could help support public priorities such as healthcare, education, and housing. Collective value argument At the center of the proposal is Sanders' belief that AI companies derive value from information created by society as a whole. The legislation argues that AI models train on vast amounts of human-created material, including books, journalism, software code, scientific research, artwork, videos, and other forms of knowledge. Sanders contends that a small group of technology executives now captures most of the economic benefits generated from those resources. Supporters of the measure compare AI to publicly owned natural resources. In that view, companies extracting value from a shared asset should return a portion of that wealth to the public.

Trump wants the public to have a stake in AI. Here's what that could look like.

OpenAI CEO Sam Altman has floated the idea of tech companies voluntarily giving a portion of their stock to the federal government. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images) President Donald Trump says he's exploring ways to give the public a stake in leading artificial intelligence companies. The plan remains amorphous, but experts say if and how it develops could have massive consequences for the public and industry. Trump is convening meetings with the top 12 to 15 AI companies soon to discuss "giving back something to the public," he said in Oval Office remarks Wednesday. "If we do that, the public will become very rich, the people in our country, because that's the kind of money we're talking about," Trump said. "I think they'll do that, and I think it'll make it very popular." Trump and many AI industry executives have acknowledged that AI is unpopular among the American public unsettled by the technology's impact on society and fearful of the possibility of AI-related job losses. That has sparked a growing torrent of policy proposals from elected officials and AI companies seeking to mollify an AI-skeptical public while -- at least among AI proponents -- not slowing down the technology's development. Supporters of the proposal argue it would allow the public to share in the company's successes and ease the potential blow of economic shifts. Here are a few forms it could take: A tech company plan OpenAI CEO Sam Altman has floated the idea of tech companies voluntarily giving a portion of their stock to the federal government in conversations with Trump and other White House officials. Anthropic released its own proposal Wednesday. They propose expanding existing child investment accounts to adults, prioritizing people who are most likely to face AI "disruption," like young adults entering the workforce and people with jobs most likely to be replaced by AI. People could use any money raised to transition into new jobs. "All of this is rooted in the principle that AI needs to benefit Americans across this country," both in delivering on economic growth and providing a safety net for people who lose their jobs through the transition, said Sarah Heck, head of public policy at Anthropic. Anthropic notes the accounts should be funded in part by equity from AI companies, but it does not say whether the companies would donate the stock, if the government would buy it, or whether policymakers should pass legislation taxing the companies. Alex Bores, a Democratic candidate for a House seat in New York, has drawn national attention from pro- and anti-AI regulation camps for his policy proposals. He has suggested that Americans could receive payouts from a fund that would come from new and increased corporate taxes plus the federal government's ownership of stock in major AI companies if they prove wildly successful. In an interview last month, Bores said he was skeptical about ideas that have been floated by executives at OpenAI, Anthropic and other AI companies suggesting public stock ownership in AI companies or taxes on AI usage. "It's an easy thing to say that maybe relieves regulatory pressure but doesn't require them to change anything," Bores said. "You should watch their actions, not their words." The Bernie Sanders plan A few days before Trump announced he's considering public ownership of AI companies, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) released his own plan. "It seems to me that given the fact that it is the people whose work is ... the foundation of AI, they should have some say in the future of AI," Sanders said of his proposal at a National Press Club event Monday. That would mean 50 percent ownership of the major AI companies, including half of the seats on each company's board, Sanders said. Those board members might be chosen by the president and confirmed by the Senate, he floated. Other details of the pending legislation are still in flux, he added. In his plan, the public would be able to directly control company decisions that aren't in the public interest, he said. If the companies are successful, a sovereign wealth fund could pay out a portion of those proceeds to the public in direct checks and funding for health care, education and child care. Some economists have raised concerns that market interest in AI may be a bubble that could burst if investors abruptly lose confidence in the technology's continued growth, crashing the U.S. market and hurting global GDP. Sanders is proposing a 50 percent one-time tax on AI companies' stock, so taxpayers don't have to pay to buy the shares. Under that scenario, there's little risk to the American taxpayer, said Alex Jacquez, chief of policy and advocacy at the Groundwork Collaborative, a left-leaning think tank. "If it's true that these companies are going to be massive and worth trillions in value, it would be great to get some of that upside," he said of the AI companies. "If it's a bubble and it crashes, the shares you got for free crash and you lose no money." The Intel model It's not the first time Trump has considered taking an equity stake in private companies -- diverging from traditional separation between the U.S. government and private businesses. Chipmaker Intel sold the U.S. government a 10 percent stake in the company last summer for $8.9 billion in grants, most of which had previously been awarded to Intel but not yet paid out. The agreement gave the government a passive share in Intel, which does not include a seat on the company's board. Trump has said that the deal has yielded $30 billion for American taxpayers so far. Intel executives have raised concerns that the link to the U.S. government could create problems for the company, including backlash from foreign governments. The administration has also taken stakes in several mineral companies and other firms, including Lithium Americas and MP Materials. Extending this system to artificial intelligence could stifle innovation at a critical time in the industry's development, said Jennifer Huddleston, a senior fellow in technology policy at the Cato Institute, a right-leaning think tank. "What makes this so dangerous is that this is not only the general problem of the government picking winners and losers," she said, "but picking that at a very early stage in the development where we've seen time and time again with innovation: It's competition that we didn't predict that really becomes potentially life-changing."

Bernie Sanders unveils AI "tax" plan

Why it matters: This is a supercharged version of what members of President Trump's administration already are discussing -- all of which would be unprecedented -- and a tacit acknowledgment that AI may eventually cause major labor disruptions. Zoom in: The one-time "tax" would apply to any company with annual AI revenue of at least $200 million. * The stakes would go into a new U.S. sovereign wealth fund, overseen by seven commissioners nominated by the president and confirmed by the senate. It then would pay out a 5% annual dividend directly to Americans. * If a company were to increase its share count, including as part of employee compensation, it would be required to cede 50% of that additional equity to the government. * The bill also would require such companies to separate their "AI and non-AI businesses," with the government only taking equity in the former. Yes, but: Even if this could pass legislative and constitutional muster, there are many practical problems: 1. The universe of "AI companies" is massive. * Sanders' bill doesn't only apply to AI token sales, which would scoop up companies like Anthropic and OpenAI. It also applies to data centers, AI compute infrastructure, AI services, and advanced robotics. * That would mean the U.S. government gets 50% of everything from Amazon to Nvidia to Microsoft to SpaceX. Oh, and that would be voting stock. * Do these companies dilute existing investors, such as 401(k) managers and public pension funds? And, if so, isn't that taking from the same average Americans this bill is designed to help? 3. Practical constraints * How does a large, integrated tech company distinguish between its "AI business" and "non-AI business?" It reads a bit like online vs. offline in 1998, which soon became inextricably blurred. 4. SWF strangeness * The bill does not detail how the SWF would provide the annual 5% distribution, given that it's prohibited from selling any of its underlying equities. * It's also worth noting that SWF's usually are developed by countries seeking to invest their surplusses -- not indebted nations like the U.S. The bottom line: You could easily dismiss this as Sanders' latest and greatest effort at mobilizing the grassroots so that someday there could be meaningful wealth redistribution.

'Make AI work for ordinary people': Bernie Sanders wants to pay you $1,000 every year from a government stake in AI companies | Fortune

Sen. Bernie Sanders, possibly just like you, has been thinking a lot about AI. The technology has the possibility of reaching into our everyday lives if it hasn't already, and he wants to make sure Americans get some positive financial impact in addition to any other. "AI and robotics will impact every man, woman, and child in this country," Sanders said on a phone call with Fortune and other reporters on Thursday, pointing to the predictions that the technology will bring about massive job loss, undermine privacy rights, and worsen children's mental health. For weeks, the senator has been teeing up interest in his plan to give Americans 50% ownership in the biggest AI companies. On Thursday, he introduced legislation for the American AI Sovereign Wealth Fund Act and unveiled the details of his plan to get Americans a more direct say in the future of AI. "AI is built on the foundation of human knowledge of the work of millions and millions of people. Every tweet that you send out, every email that you send out, every article that you write, that's part of AI. The American people should be able to stop what's bad and benefit from the financial gains of AI," he said. A sovereign wealth fund is a state-owned investment vehicle that manages national public assets. Several states, including Texas and New Mexico, have had sovereign wealth funds for decades and have used them primarily to fund education. Similarly, 67 countries have sovereign wealth funds, according to the bill, including Norway, China, and the United Arab Emirates. AI companies that make more than $200 million in annual sales would be subject to 50% government ownership. The plan for a sovereign wealth fund comes as Americans grow increasingly disillusioned by AI and Big Tech companies' plans for the future. If passed, the bill would create a seven-person independent commission nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate to represent Americans' interest in AI companies. Sanders estimates that at current valuations, the fund would be worth $7 trillion and plans to pay out yearly $1,000 checks to every American from the expected 5% dividend from the AI companies. "I'm not a luddite. I think that AI can do some very good things," Sanders said. "The goal here is to make AI work for ordinary people, not just for Mr. Musk and other multi-billionaires." Still, there's one big hiccup to Sanders' plan to start cutting checks to every American: many of the most valuable AI companies, like OpenAI and Anthropic, are not profitable. "We will see what happens," Sanders said in response to a question about what happens if these companies continue to post zero profit. "The American people are not going to lose any money, because we are going to be owning half of the stock. We're not buying it. We're getting it." The bill would also force AI companies with non-AI businesses to separate their business, so the public's ownership stake would solely be in the AI business. Growing consensus While Sanders' plan is unlikely to become law, the principle behind it -- that Americans should directly benefit from AI's financial earnings -- is gaining popularity. At OpenAI CEO Sam Altman's request, he and Sanders met for nearly an hour earlier this month, soon after the senator announced his plan. Altman told Sanders he agrees that the public should have equity in AI companies but said that he couldn't support a 50% stake. "It's very hard right now to talk to AI companies, whether it's Altman and OpenAI, or anybody else, because they have a gun at our heads," Sanders told reporters on Thursday. "They have the ability to spend huge amounts of money in campaigns to defeat any candidate who is talking about sensible regulation or actions that will benefit the public." When asked how his conversation with Altman went, Sanders described it as a "good discussion" and called Altman a "good politician," but said AI companies and the everyday Americans' interests are fundamentally not aligned at the moment. "Their goal is to make as much money as they can, not concerned about the impact it has on the American people or people throughout the world," he said. President Donald Trump has similarly proposed that the government take a direct equity stake in AI companies, but the White House has not shared how much ownership they want or how they would use their stake. Semafor reported that Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick also supports a sovereign wealth fund approach, while Treasury Secretary Scott favors using equity in the companies to fund Trump Accounts. Sanders said he has not spoken to the White House about his plan. He said he's spoken to other senators about the bill, but there are no other official co-sponsors, and Sanders did not name specific allies.

Trump's strange flirtation with AI socialism, explained

Eric Levitz is a senior correspondent at Vox. He covers a wide range of political and policy issues with a special focus on questions that internally divide the American left and right. Before coming to Vox in 2024, he wrote a column on politics and economics for New York Magazine. A new, bipartisan idea is taking Washington by storm: collective ownership of the means of production. Sort of, anyway. Last Friday, President Donald Trump announced that he would soon be meeting with the executives of top AI companies to discuss a financial "partnership." "There are concepts where pieces [of these companies] could be given to the American public, where the American public essentially becomes a partner with the companies," Trump said. "And by doing that, they're going to like it better." By this, the president (seemingly) meant that the US government may take an ownership stake in major AI companies and then distribute the fruits of its investments to the general public, perhaps through universal dividend payments. This proposal did not come to Trump via some undercover, socialist operative embedded deep within the White House -- but rather, from the CEO of OpenAI. As NOTUS reported last week, Altman first pitched Trump on the concept in early 2025 and discussions between the administration and OpenAI have heated up more recently. No deal has been finalized. But talks have centered on an arrangement in which top AI labs voluntarily donate shares to the government -- an approach that might enable Uncle Sam to partially nationalize the AI industry without Congress passing any law. Officially, OpenAI's interest in effectively transferring wealth from its shareholders to Uncle Sam is public-spirited. The company maintains that advances in AI are likely to generate massive profits for top labs, while sowing wrenching disruptions through labor markets. Thus, to ensure that ordinary people "share in the upside" of AI-fueled economic growth, the company has called for the creation of a "Public Wealth Fund," which would invest in "both AI companies and the broader set of firms adopting and deploying AI," and then send a portion of the returns to every American. In other words, it would pay out a universal basic income (another popular idea in Silicon Valley). Yet many suspect OpenAI's motives are more self-interested: By giving the US government a direct stake in its success, the company may be trying to insulate itself from stringent regulation or open competition. Moreover, whatever Altman's intentions, skeptics argue that the government getting into cahoots with individual AI companies is a recipe for cronyism and conflicts of interest. (Disclosure: Vox Media is one of several publishers that have signed partnership agreements with OpenAI. Our reporting remains editorially independent.) These concerns seem well-founded. A narrow partnership between the federal government and select AI companies would plausibly do more to generate corruption than redistribute income. Yet there is a real risk that artificial intelligence will shift massive amounts of income away from workers and towards capital. And a highly diversified, scrupulously managed public wealth fund could help mitigate that hazard. Unfortunately, the Trump administration has evinced little interest in that approach to social ownership (or in scruples more broadly). Companies don't typically cook up schemes for reducing the value of their own shares. And yet, on its face, OpenAI's reported proposal amounts to precisely that: If the company donates equity to the government, it will dilute the value of all its existing stock. This invites the question: What's in it for them? There are multiple plausible answers. OpenAI may be trying to limit its exposure to regulation. In opinion polls, a supermajority of Americans express concern for where AI is taking their society -- and support for more heavily regulating the industry. Turning every American into an OpenAI shareholder could theoretically reduce the company's susceptibility to onerous new rules in a couple of different ways. First, doing so may simply soften the AI industry's image and buy it some goodwill from the American electorate (Trump seemed to reference this when saying that his arrangement would make Americans like AI better). Second, such an arrangement would more closely align the public's interests with those of OpenAI. After all, regulations that reduce the firm's profitability would now also cut government revenue and/or, Americans' dividend payments (such payouts might be small at first, but could become substantial over time, particularly if the government cuts deals with other major AI labs). Voters might be less inclined to protest a noisy data center if they think they're directly profiting from it. Similarly, accepting partial nationalization could boost OpenAI's odds of securing a federal bailout if its revenues do not grow fast enough to cover its debts (a scenario that some analysts consider quite likely). There is a long history of governments shielding state-owned enterprises from market discipline. Thus, the progressive economist Dean Baker fears that an AI wealth fund would "end up being a mechanism to shovel yet more money" at billionaires aligned with the administration. It is also possible that, by donating shares to the government, individual AI firms might buy themselves an advantage over their competitors. For its part, the Trump administration has displayed no shyness about rewarding businesses that curry its favor, and retaliating against those who do not. Indeed, the White House has already tried to sabotage OpenAI's chief rival. In February, Anthropic refused to sign a contract that would have authorized the Pentagon to use its AI for mass surveillance and fully autonomous weapons systems. The Defense Department responded by declaring Anthropic a "supply chain risk" -- a designation that would restrict the capacity of government contractors to do business with the AI company. If a federal judge had not blocked that move, it could have done serious damage to Anthropic's business -- while benefiting both OpenAI and xAI, which is owned by Trump megadonor Elon Musk. If the government took a stake in OpenAI but not Anthropic -- or in all the major AI labs but not in more recent startups -- the Trump administration might have further incentive to intervene on behalf of its favored firms. Separately, the White House could use a public wealth fund to unduly influence AI labs' decision-making. The government's shares could give it the power to vote on companies' internal policies -- or else, seek to deter certain decisions with threats of selling off the firm's stock. These risks are amplified by the reportedly informal and ad-hoc nature of the public wealth fund being contemplated. Without congressionally authorized rules governing the fund's management and investment decisions, the administration could have wide latitude to use its newfound financial power in self-interested ways. "It would be good for OpenAI to have every American underwriting them," Samuel Hammond, Director of Artificial Intelligence Policy at the Foundation for American Innovation, told me. "But in America's political context, we're likely to get a corrupted version of a state enterprise that is used for personal enrichment and the partisan motives of whoever's in charge." Although Trump's (reported) version of a public wealth fund seems to invite more risks than benefits, this would not necessarily be true of all such funds. As a general concept, combating AI-induced inequality by increasing public ownership of corporations has much to recommend it. Artificial intelligence could greatly increase investors' share of national income at workers' expense: If companies replace much of their high-skill workforce with AI, their shareholders could reap the benefits, even as white-collar laborers lose their jobs and bargaining power. And if the technology truly takes off, generating an explosively productive economy run by software and robots instead of people, the AI giants could end up harvesting profits of mind-bending scale. At the very least, this is what a lot of investors are seemingly betting on. Despite myriad economic headwinds, stock prices are hovering near record highs, due largely to the sky-high valuations of AI stocks. Meanwhile, Anthropic and OpenAI's impending initial public offerings are expected to be among the biggest in history, and Musk could soon become a trillionaire. The government could seek to share this wealth through traditional tax and transfer policies: If investors and tech firms are raking in cash, Congress can raise rates on capital gains, inheritances, and corporate income, then use the proceeds to fund more generous social programs or cash benefits for ordinary Americans. Conventional taxes are surely part of the solution. As an approach to redistributing business income, however, a public (or "social") wealth fund has some advantages over corporate taxes. The corporate income tax applies only to the profits a company reports, which firms have considerable latitude and incentive to minimize. Large enterprises spend vast sums of money each year on finding innovative ways to defer or relocate their profits, so as to reduce their liabilities. The government then must dedicate its own resources to auditing these practices. This system not only enables corporations to weasel out of their obligations but also generates tremendous waste: All the skilled labor and entrepreneurial energy currently devoted to tax avoidance could otherwise be deployed towards creating actual value for consumers. A public wealth fund circumvents these problems. Suppose that, instead of taxing corporate profits at 25 percent, the government required each firm to hand over newly issued shares equal to 25 percent of its total stock. From then on, whenever the company paid a dividend or bought back shares, the government would automatically collect a quarter of the payout. With this approach, a business's profits have nowhere to hide: A company can shift its earnings to a subsidiary in Dublin or a mailbox in Singapore. Regardless, if that corporation wants to reward its shareholders, Uncle Sam will get his cut. And even if the company hoards its cash, when its operations get more profitable, its stock will rise -- and the government's portfolio will gain value. Separately, a public wealth fund could have political advantages over traditional tax-and-transfer programs. Once voters get accustomed to the idea that they collectively own a share of their society's financial wealth, dividends paid out of those assets may be seen more as an entitlement than a handout. The Alaska Permanent Fund is a case in point. In the 1970s, Alaska used royalties on its oil resources to seed a financial fund owned by all its residents in common. This year, it will pay out $1,200 to each Alaskan. Critically, despite Alaska's conservative bent -- and Americans' general skepticism toward unconditional cash welfare -- the permanent fund is overwhelmingly popular among Alaskans, and no serious effort has been made to restrict eligibility for dividends. "There's this notion that we all own this," Matt Bruenig, founder of the People's Policy Project and a leading advocate for social wealth funds, said. "So, there's this attitude of: Maybe I disapprove of you or speculate that you're going to blow your dividend on a snow machine or whatever. But it's not my business. It's your money." It's possible that this consensus reflects the particular origins of Alaska's fund: The idea that everyone has some entitlement to their state's oil reserves -- which no human being brought into existence -- may be more intuitive than the notion that we all deserve a share of corporate profits writ large. Yet American companies' value derives in large part from inherited technologies, knowledge, and institutions that no living person created -- as well as public goods that all US workers and taxpayers help to sustain. And artificial intelligence may make the social origins of private profits more readily apparent: As Bernie Sanders recently noted, when AI generates useful code, images, or writing, it does so by synthesizing vast corpuses of data that humanity collectively produced. To be sure, a broad social wealth fund would present some of the same risks as the rumored Trump-Altman proposal. Although a fund that invested in all corporations would be less likely to fuel government favoritism towards select firms or industries, such a policy would still align the government's interests with those of corporate shareholders: Any new regulation that reduced the corporate sector's profitability -- whether by increasing its labor costs, environmental responsibilities, or some other mechanism -- would simultaneously reduce the government's revenue and potentially, voters' dividend payments. Some on the left oppose social wealth funds on these grounds. And yet, the government already has a stake in corporate profitability: When firms earn less profit, they pay less in taxes. A public wealth fund might make this reality more apparent. But the alignment of interest between the state and corporate shareholders is inherent in capitalism. And democratic governments have nonetheless constrained businesses' profits in myriad ways, for better and worse. This said, a public wealth fund would undoubtedly risk centralizing economic power and thus, abetting corruption: The government could theoretically leverage its status as a mega-shareholder to micro-manage the internal operations of private businesses. A world in which the Trump administration and its allies exercised influence over every corporate news outlet -- rather than just some -- would be less than favorable for democratic freedom. This threat is also manageable in principle. One approach would be to simply have the public wealth fund hold exclusively nonvoting shares, which would limit the government's role in corporate decisionmaking. Another would be to establish transparent, technocratic, and bipartisan rules for how the public wealth fund will exercise its voice in corporate affairs, as Norway has already done for its own fund. Of course, many things are possible in principle but not in today's United States. A rule-bound, universal social wealth fund might help ordinary Americans share in the fruits of AI-fueled economic growth. A voluntary partnership between the Trump administration and select AI firms, by contrast, seems more likely to help the president's favorite companies limit their investors' downside risks. If so, Trump's wealth fund would be less of a bold reform for unprecedented times than a new spin on an age-old tradition: Socialism for the rich, capitalism for the poor.

AP Exclusive: Bernie Sanders Unveils Plan to Give the Public Direct Ownership of AI Companies

WASHINGTON (AP) -- As artificial intelligence companies reshape the economy and race toward trillion-dollar valuations, Sen. Bernie Sanders is proposing a sweeping transfer of wealth and power from the industry to the American public. The legislation, shown first to The Associated Press, would create a sovereign wealth fund overseen by an independent commission and financed through a one-time 50% tax on the stock of the largest AI companies. Sanders estimates that the tax would create a nearly $7 trillion fund that would generate hundreds of billions of dollars annually in direct payments to Americans and programs such as health care, education and housing. "The benefits cannot simply go to the handful of wealthy corporations. They will be shared by the American people," the independent Vermont senator said in an interview Wednesday. The idea of giving the public a stake in AI has recently drawn interest from figures as ideologically diverse as President Donald Trump and OpenAI CEO Sam Altman. But Sanders' proposal goes much further, calling for public ownership of half of the largest AI companies and direct influence over corporate decision-making. "The public has got to have a significant seat at the table to make sure that terrible things do not happen to ordinary people, and that in fact, AI benefits ordinary people, not hurts them," Sanders said. How the fund would work Sanders has previously proposed the sovereign wealth fund, but the bill summary obtained by the AP is the first legislative attempt to make it a reality. The 50% tax would apply to AI companies that reach $200 million in annual AI sales. Any new AI company that reaches that benchmark would also be subject to the tax. It would create a sovereign wealth fund -- similar to those used by countries around the world and some U.S. states -- that Sanders estimates would be worth around $7 trillion. Unlike a traditional tax, the proposal would require companies to transfer stock rather than cash, effectively making the American public a major shareholder in the country's largest AI firms. A seven-person independent commission -- nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate -- would manage the fund and use its voting shares "to block decisions that hurt the American people and to push for policies that help them," the bill summary says. Sanders proposes that a 5% annual dividend from the fund would provide direct payments of more than $1,000 to every American. If companies grow, the gains would be used for public goods such as education, housing and health care. Sanders argues taxpayers would not bear the losses if AI company valuations decline. "We're not going to lose any money, even if there is a bust in the bubble," Sanders said. The commission would be directed to "to block decisions that hurt the American people and to push for policies that help them," according to the summary. Sanders emphasized that the proposal is just a start. "We think this is the best that we could do at the moment, and it's certainly a major, major, major step forward from giving unilateral and total power to a handful of multi-billionaires," Sanders said. The idea has supporters in the White House and Silicon Valley Sanders is not alone in pushing for a public stake in the companies that develop AI. Trump, who recently signed an order to have new AI models voluntarily vetted by the government, has also mused about the government owning a stake in the companies that develop AI, saying "there's something very interesting about it, where it almost becomes a partnership with the American public." OpenAI -- led by Altman -- in April proposed to "create a public wealth fund that provides every citizen -- including those not invested in financial markets -- with a stake in AI-driven economic growth." Anthropic, one of OpenAI's top competitors and recently valued at $965 billion, has been open to similar ideas, with CEO Dario Amodei writing recently that "universal basic income could be financed through taxes on relevant companies." Trump on Wednesday attended a session focused on AI at the G7 summit in France with top industry leaders, including Altman and Amodei. Still, Sanders' push is much more aggressive than any of these. In Sanders' meeting with Altman, they remained far apart on how large of a stake the public would get, according to those in the room. "I think people like Sam Altman and Trump (who) may be sympathetic to this are saying: 'Okay, look, we're making zillions of dollars so we're going to be nice guys and maybe we'll buy off the public. We will give 5% of our profits back into the government,'" said Sanders. "That's not what we're talking about. What we're talking about are two very different things." Taking the fight to voters Sanders' "Fighting Oligarchy" tour drew massive crowds across the country last year as he appeared with high-profile lawmakers such as Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y. Asked whether he plans to make AI ownership and wealth inequality part of that message on the campaign trail, Sanders responded, "Absolutely." It's a message other candidates are using ahead of the midterms as they tap into voters' angst about the technology. Michigan Democratic Senate candidate Mallory McMorrow unveiled a plan to "protect workers in the age of AI," while New York Democratic House candidate Alex Bores has also made AI regulation a campaign issue. Data center projects across the country have drawn opposition from residents concerned about electricity demand, water consumption and environmental impacts. Some states once eager to attract the facilities, including Ohio and Virginia, have moved to reconsider tax incentives. On college campuses, commencement speakers have been interrupted by boos when discussing artificial intelligence. About 70% of college students see AI as a threat to their job prospects, according to a 2025 poll by the Institute of Politics at the Harvard Kennedy School. "Workers will be thrown out of their jobs while billionaires, multi-billionaires become even richer," Sanders said. "The American people are aware of that and don't want to see it happen."

Bernie Sanders Unveils Bill Targeting AI Billions, Plans To Create $7 Trillion Sovereign Wealth Fund That

On Thursday, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) introduced legislation that would require major artificial intelligence companies to contribute a large portion of their stock to a government-run investment fund. Sanders Proposes AI Sovereign Wealth Fund Under the proposed American AI Sovereign Wealth Fund Act, leading AI companies would pay a one-time tax equal to 50% of their stock into a federally managed sovereign wealth fund. Sanders' office estimates the fund could eventually grow to roughly $7 trillion. The Vermont senator said the legislation is designed to ensure that the economic gains generated by AI are shared broadly rather than concentrated among a handful of technology companies and wealthy investors. "The future of AI must not be decided behind closed doors by billionaires seeking to maximize their power and profit. It should be decided by the American people," Sanders said in a post on X. How Americans Could Receive $1,000 Annual Payments According to a summary of the proposal, investment returns generated by the fund would be distributed to the public. Sanders' office estimates that a 5% annual dividend could provide approximately $1,000 per year to every American. The fund would be overseen by an independent seven-member commission whose members would be nominated through a congressional process and confirmed by the Senate. The proposal would also bring new AI companies into the fund once they reach a specified size threshold, such as $200 million in annual revenue. AI Industry And Trump Administration Interest The legislation comes as discussions about public ownership of AI-generated wealth gain traction across the political spectrum. The Donald Trump administration is reportedly considering the possibility of the U.S. government taking stakes in leading AI companies, though the administration has not released a detailed proposal. OpenAI CEO Sam Altman also reportedly met with Sanders to discuss the concept. According to Benzinga Edge Stock Rankings, Nvidia ranks in the 98th percentile for growth, supported by strong price performance in medium-and long-term time frames but negative in the short term. Disclaimer: This content was partially produced with the help of AI tools and was reviewed and published by Benzinga editors. Photo Courtesy: Rich Koele on Shutterstock.com Market News and Data brought to you by Benzinga APIs To add Benzinga News as your preferred source on Google, click here.

Senate Bill Would Require AI Firms to Yield Half Ownership to Public | PYMNTS.com

At current valuations, the sovereign wealth fund created by the "American A.I. Sovereign Wealth Fund Act" would be worth an estimated $7 trillion, Sanders said in a Thursday (June 18) press release. The one-time tax would apply to companies that record $200 million in annual AI sales. AI companies are defined as those involved in AI data centers, AI computing infrastructure, AI services and advanced robotics, according to a summary of the bill released by Sanders. Companies that operate both AI and non-AI businesses would be required to separate those businesses so that the public receives a stake only in the AI one. As new AI companies reach the sales threshold, the one-time tax would apply to them too, per the summary. The sovereign wealth fund created by the bill would be run by a commission made up of seven bipartisan commissioners nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate, based on candidates provided by Congress. The fund would pay out an annual dividend of 5% of its value to be used for direct payments to the American people and other measures, according to the summary. "The foundation of AI is based on the collective knowledge of humanity and the creative work of tens of millions of people," Sanders said in the release. "The American people must have the ability to slow it down and make sure that AI benefits humanity, not just the richest people on the planet. That's precisely what this legislation does." Y Combinator President and CEO Garry Tan shared a Sanders announcement of the bill in a post on X and said: "This is a war on building startups in America." In another post, Tan said: "Asset seizure is evil." President Donald Trump signed an executive order last February that called for the creation of a sovereign wealth fund and ordered government officials to develop a plan that includes funding mechanisms. The White House said in a fact sheet that the United States holds assets that can be invested through a sovereign wealth fund. It was reported at the time that 20 U.S. states have sovereign wealth funds, as do China, Norway and Saudi Arabia.

Anthropic's New Policy Framework Sits Well with Trump's Plan of Expanded Ownership of AI Companies

Barely a week after President Trump discussed an idea of the government taking a stake in the AI pie to expand ownership, Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei has pretty much echoed the sentiments by releasing a policy framework that would allow Americans to acquire a financial stake in the gains that this industry could potentially make in the future. The paper, which was released a couple of days back argues for the establishment a capital account for newborn Americans which could be funded by equity in AI companies. This is quite similar to the idea behind the Trump Account program. The detailed policy document starts from the assumption that AI capabilities, growing at the same frenetic pace, could soon substitute human labour. "AI could generate economic growth on a scale the modern world hasn't seen. The central challenge isn't how to stimulate growth; it is making sure the gains are widely shared," the document says. Based on this primary assumption, the document goes on to suggest that it was the responsibility (it is unclear whether Anthropic is taking it upon itself or using it to drive thought leadership) to prepare for such growth and respond to it by supporting people financially. There is dignity in work. We should help people find work wherever we can, and society should keep searching for ways to remain at full employment, the document notes altruistically. One of the early steps that the policy framework suggests is a government unit focused on tracking AI's impact. "Visibility is necessary but not sufficient. Governments also need a small, dedicated unit to track how AI is moving through the economy sector by sector, stress-test the institutions that will have to absorb the shock, and flag the early signals that should trigger a policy response," Anthropic says. Down the line, the document also makes a case for governments across the world to watch a broader set of signals alongside unemployment data. It suggests creating data around labour force participation, under-employment, actual wages and of course the labour's share of the national income of a country. And then it gets into actual brass-tacks, where it gets dangerously similar to what President Trump had articulated last week. It calls for giving every citizen a direct financial stake in the AI-led economic growth. "The federal government has already taken a step in this direction with new capital accounts seeded at birth. We believe these accounts should be made permanent and expanded towards universal coverage, with initial priority given to the cohorts most exposed to near-term AI disruption," the note says. The eligibility expansion should go beyond children to young adults entering the workforce and to incumbent workers in occupations most exposed to displacement. There should be a flexible withdrawal for workforce transitions whereby people can draw on funds for retraining, relocation, credentialing and even transition expenses. However, the most important suggestion relates to equity funding, where it says policymakers should expand the mechanisms by which these accounts can be funded, including with equity in AI companies, so that beneficiaries share directly in nearer-term gains from AI-driven growth. When it comes to tax rates on labour exceeding those on capital at some point in this journey, the policy framework does a somersault. To counter this, the document suggests increased capital gains, broad-based consumption taxes and sector-specific levies on AI use, and digital dividends funded by taxes. This is where the story takes an anti-Trump segway. Of course, this isn't the first time we are witnessing such a proposal as OpenAI already released something similar in April calling for a public wealth fund financed with diversified and long-term assets. Most of these efforts came to the fore as concerns around AI's role in increasing US unemployment and causing political disruption spread. That some of these ideas generate bipartisan support could be why these companies are getting their act together now. Remember, Senator Bernie Sanders had published an op-ed recently seeking a sovereign wealth fund backed by 50% of AI company stock! As discussed earlier, the policy framework shared by Anthropic claims that governments aren't the only target audience. Companies like the Claude-maker have to "shape the transition by how they deploy AI, and where possible they should choose the path that gives workers and the economy room to adapt." That altruistic message again! AI can be used to produce the same output with fewer people, or to accomplish more with the same number of people: building new products, serving markets that were previously out of reach, and raising the capability of less-experienced workers, the document points out noting that companies can take concrete steps to safeguard people. And finally, the document also notes that while this particular policy framework is meant to be used by the United States, the broad principles underpinning the framework can be taken up globally. "Preparing institutions ahead of disruption, sharing AI's gains broadly, and modernising the systems workers depend on will be necessary anywhere AI touches," Anthropic says. The one thing that this document refuses to even acknowledge is the real fear among some that the whole AI entrepreneurship is a bubble that could burst and cause untold misery to the United States. But then, how can a document made by one of the companies blowing air into the balloon actually think of pricking it?