Blab AI
Senator Sanders Proposes $7 Trillion AI Sovereign Wealth Fund to Give Americans 50% Ownership of Top AI Companies
On Thursday, June 18, 2026, Senator Bernie Sanders introduced the American AI Sovereign Wealth Fund Act in Washington. The proposal would set up a federal sovereign‑wealth fund worth about $7 trillion—roughly the market value of the country’s largest AI labs. It would fund the fund with a one‑time 50 percent tax on the shares of AI firms that reach $200 million in annual AI sales, thereby granting Americans a 50 percent ownership stake in those companies.
Under the scheme, the tax would be paid in company shares, which would be consolidated into the sovereign‑wealth pool. The fund would then return an annual dividend of $1,000 to every U.S. taxpayer, a figure that is expected to climb as AI revenues expand. The bill also directs additional proceeds toward social programs—healthcare, education, and housing—to spread AI’s benefits across society.
The bill casts AI as a public resource. It argues that the economic value of AI stems from humanity’s collective knowledge—books, songs, artwork, code, scientific research, and other cultural outputs—and that today a handful of companies reap most of that value without rewarding the contributors. It likens AI to natural resources such as minerals or oil, extracted from publicly owned land yet typically profited by a limited number of firms.
Sovereign‑wealth funds are familiar territory in the United States. More than 100 such funds operate in 67 countries, and several U.S. states run their own. The Texas Permanent School Fund, created in 1854, is a long‑standing example that uses revenues from natural resources to fund public education.
The notion of a public stake in AI firms has surfaced elsewhere. California Governor Gavin Newsom has tasked state officials with examining a universal‑basic‑capital model that would give citizens a slice of AI profits. OpenAI and Anthropic, both preparing for public offerings later in 2026, have publicly backed the idea as a means to distribute AI gains and ease job displacement. The two companies also advocate for an international body to oversee the development of powerful AI models.
Elon Musk, who recently became the world’s first trillionaire, has floated the idea that the federal government should issue direct payments to Americans to counter labor‑market disruptions caused by AI. Former President Donald Trump has reportedly explored providing direct payments through equity‑stake agreements with AI labs.
The Sanders bill marks the first federal attempt to institutionalize a public ownership model for AI. If passed, it would create a mechanism to redistribute the wealth generated by AI across the American populace, potentially reshaping the relationship between technology firms and society at large.
Supporters contend that the fund would supply a financial safety net while also establishing a long‑term investment vehicle to back public services. Critics, however, point to the administrative burden of valuing AI companies, the legal feasibility of taxing shares, and the potential effects on innovation and investment.
As the bill advances through Congress, industry players, state governments, and advocacy groups are likely to scrutinize its provisions. Its outcome will shape how the United States confronts the growing economic and social implications of AI, and will determine whether a sovereign‑wealth fund can serve as a model for other countries.
The American AI Sovereign Wealth Fund Act remains in the early stages of discussion. Its trajectory will hinge on congressional debate, stakeholder feedback, and the broader policy climate surrounding AI regulation and economic redistribution.
Under the scheme, the tax would be paid in company shares, which would be consolidated into the sovereign‑wealth pool. The fund would then return an annual dividend of $1,000 to every U.S. taxpayer, a figure that is expected to climb as AI revenues expand. The bill also directs additional proceeds toward social programs—healthcare, education, and housing—to spread AI’s benefits across society.
The bill casts AI as a public resource. It argues that the economic value of AI stems from humanity’s collective knowledge—books, songs, artwork, code, scientific research, and other cultural outputs—and that today a handful of companies reap most of that value without rewarding the contributors. It likens AI to natural resources such as minerals or oil, extracted from publicly owned land yet typically profited by a limited number of firms.
Sovereign‑wealth funds are familiar territory in the United States. More than 100 such funds operate in 67 countries, and several U.S. states run their own. The Texas Permanent School Fund, created in 1854, is a long‑standing example that uses revenues from natural resources to fund public education.
The notion of a public stake in AI firms has surfaced elsewhere. California Governor Gavin Newsom has tasked state officials with examining a universal‑basic‑capital model that would give citizens a slice of AI profits. OpenAI and Anthropic, both preparing for public offerings later in 2026, have publicly backed the idea as a means to distribute AI gains and ease job displacement. The two companies also advocate for an international body to oversee the development of powerful AI models.
Elon Musk, who recently became the world’s first trillionaire, has floated the idea that the federal government should issue direct payments to Americans to counter labor‑market disruptions caused by AI. Former President Donald Trump has reportedly explored providing direct payments through equity‑stake agreements with AI labs.
The Sanders bill marks the first federal attempt to institutionalize a public ownership model for AI. If passed, it would create a mechanism to redistribute the wealth generated by AI across the American populace, potentially reshaping the relationship between technology firms and society at large.
Supporters contend that the fund would supply a financial safety net while also establishing a long‑term investment vehicle to back public services. Critics, however, point to the administrative burden of valuing AI companies, the legal feasibility of taxing shares, and the potential effects on innovation and investment.
As the bill advances through Congress, industry players, state governments, and advocacy groups are likely to scrutinize its provisions. Its outcome will shape how the United States confronts the growing economic and social implications of AI, and will determine whether a sovereign‑wealth fund can serve as a model for other countries.
The American AI Sovereign Wealth Fund Act remains in the early stages of discussion. Its trajectory will hinge on congressional debate, stakeholder feedback, and the broader policy climate surrounding AI regulation and economic redistribution.
