A proposal from Sen. Bernie Sanders would transfer half the ownership of major artificial intelligence companies to a public wealth fund, setting up a far-reaching debate over who should benefit from one of the most transformative technologies in modern history.
On Monday, Sanders announced plans to introduce the American AI Sovereign Wealth Fund Act, legislation designed to give the American public a direct ownership stake in some of the country’s largest AI firms. The proposal comes as artificial intelligence companies attract unprecedented investment and as economists, labor advocates, corporate executives, and policymakers increasingly warn that the technology could fundamentally reshape employment and wealth distribution across the United States.
Unlike proposals that focus primarily on regulating AI development or taxing profits generated by the technology, Sanders’ plan seeks to address ownership itself. The legislation would create a federally managed sovereign wealth fund through what Sanders described as a one-time transfer of equity from leading AI companies.
Writing in The New York Times, Sanders said the measure would establish the fund by imposing a one-time 50 percent tax on the stock of OpenAI, Anthropic, and other major AI firms. According to Sanders, the sovereign wealth fund would both “give the public a direct role in determining the future of this technology” and “guarantee that the trillions of dollars potentially generated by AI are used to improve the lives of all of us—not simply to make the richest people in the world even richer.”
The proposal arrives amid growing concern that the economic benefits of artificial intelligence could become concentrated among a small number of investors, executives, and technology companies while workers face displacement from automation.
Sanders has spent years warning about the potential economic consequences of AI adoption. Last year, his office released a report cautioning that artificial intelligence could eliminate nearly 100 million American jobs over the coming decade. The report argued that major corporations are already presenting AI-driven workforce reductions as a benefit to investors.
“Corporations are already using AI to cut jobs. Amazon, Walmart, UnitedHealth Group, JPMorgan Chase, and other companies are openly telling investors that AI will allow them to slash payrolls—even as they post tens of billions in profits and reward CEOs with pay packages of $25 million, $35 million or more,” the report stated.
At the center of Sanders’ proposal is an argument about the origins of artificial intelligence itself. He contends that AI systems derive their capabilities from vast collections of human-created material, including writing, journalism, research, software, artwork, and other forms of intellectual and creative labor produced by millions of people.
In his op-ed, Sanders wrote, “But the principle is simple: When a public resource generates wealth, the public should share in that wealth. AI is being built on a public resource far more valuable than oil: the accumulated knowledge, creativity, and labor of mankind.”
The senator further argued that decisions surrounding AI development should not be left solely to corporate leaders and investors. “The future of AI and the fate of humanity must not be decided behind closed doors in Silicon Valley. It must not be dictated by billionaires seeking to maximize their power and profit. It must be decided by workers, parents, teachers, artists, scientists, communities and the American people. It’s our future. We must decide it.”
Under the framework Sanders outlined, the government would become a major shareholder in leading AI companies through the sovereign wealth fund. Reporting on the proposal indicated that the fund would acquire half the stock of the largest AI firms through a mandated equity transfer rather than a conventional profits tax. The government would hold voting shares and receive board representation, giving the public a formal role in corporate governance and future decision-making.
Revenue generated through the fund would eventually flow back to Americans. Sanders indicated that direct payments could be made to the public, while future proceeds could potentially support broader investments in healthcare, education, housing, and other public priorities.
The proposal draws inspiration from existing sovereign wealth fund models. Sanders pointed to Norway’s sovereign wealth fund and Alaska’s Permanent Fund Dividend as examples of systems that distribute benefits generated from publicly owned resources. He also noted that the concept of an American sovereign wealth fund is not entirely new, observing that “even President [Donald] Trump, in an executive order, has proposed establishing an American sovereign wealth fund.”
Sanders emphasized that the idea itself has support from some figures within the AI industry. OpenAI CEO Sam Altman has previously advocated for public wealth-sharing mechanisms connected to AI-driven economic growth. Anthropic has discussed national sovereign wealth funds holding equity stakes in AI companies. Elon Musk has promoted the concept of a “universal high income” as a potential response to widespread automation.
“The senator emphasized that ‘this is not an original idea,’ noting that scholars and even leading AI companies have proposed some version of a public wealth fund to broadly distribute AI-related gains.”
Still, Sanders’ proposal goes significantly further than most previous discussions by requiring a transfer of ownership rather than relying solely on future taxation or voluntary contributions.
The announcement also comes amid broader efforts by progressive lawmakers to address the economic consequences of artificial intelligence. In recent days, Sen. Elizabeth Warren and Rep. Greg Casar separately called for new taxes on AI-related profits to help fund programs designed to protect workers and communities from large-scale economic disruption.
Writing in Time, Warren argued, “Taxing AI is one way we make sure the winnings from AI benefit all Americans, rather than channeling them only to the wealthy few.” She added, “If millions of people lose their jobs to AI, we’ll need the funds to deliver universal healthcare so those workers are not bankrupted by a visit to the doctor.”
While Sanders’ proposal has generated attention for its scale and ambition, significant questions remain unanswered.
Among them is the issue of which companies would ultimately be covered by the legislation. While OpenAI, Anthropic, and xAI appear to be primary targets, many of the world’s largest AI operations are embedded within broader technology corporations such as Microsoft, Google, and Amazon. Sanders acknowledged the complexity of that issue in his op-ed.
“I recognize that for the government to have a major stake in a company, particularly one for which AI is only part of its business, is complicated,” Sanders wrote. “More details—including the specific spending priorities and the mechanics of implementation—will be included in the legislation I unveil in the coming weeks.”
Questions also remain about profitability. Some leading AI firms continue to operate at significant losses while investing heavily in infrastructure and model development. The long-term success of a sovereign wealth fund built around AI equity would depend largely on whether those companies ultimately generate the enormous profits that many investors anticipate.
Environmental concerns represent another unresolved area. Expanding AI infrastructure requires substantial energy consumption, water usage, and data center construction. While Sanders argues that public ownership could create greater accountability, the proposal as outlined does not yet include specific mechanisms addressing those environmental costs.
For now, the American AI Sovereign Wealth Fund Act remains a framework awaiting legislative details. Yet the proposal has already elevated a question that is likely to become increasingly central as artificial intelligence transforms the economy: who should own the wealth generated by a technology built from the accumulated work of society itself?
As AI companies race toward potential public offerings and valuations worth hundreds of billions of dollars, Sanders’ proposal offers one of the most ambitious attempts yet to shift the debate from how artificial intelligence should be regulated to who should ultimately benefit from its success.
“The future of AI and the fate of humanity must not be decided behind closed doors in Silicon Valley. It must not be dictated by billionaires seeking to maximize their power and profit. It must be decided by workers, parents, teachers, artists, scientists, communities and the American people. It’s our future. We must decide it.”
COMMENTS