What Is the American A.I. Sovereign Wealth Fund Act — and Could It Put Money in Your Pocket?

On June 1, 2026, Sen. Bernie Sanders said he would soon introduce the American A.I. Sovereign Wealth Fund Act. The bill would partly nationalize the largest U.S. AI companies by imposing a one-time 50% tax, paid in stock rather than cash.

‍

The fund’s returns would go back to Americans through direct payments and federal and state spending on healthcare, education, and housing.

‍

His rationale: AI has been “built on the collective knowledge of humanity,” so the wealth it generates must benefit humanity.

‍

The American A.I. Sovereign Wealth Fund Act

‍

The senator from Vermont proposes a one-time transfer of 50% of equity from AI companies like OpenAI, Anthropic, and xAI to the government. For companies that operate both AI and non-AI businesses, the bill would require them to break up those businesses and give up 50% ownership stake in the AI business.

‍

Sanders believes that since the biggest AI models are built on accumulated knowledge, creativity, conversations, and labor of the American people without their consent or compensation, the profits generated by these companies should also flow to the public.

‍

Revenues generated by the fund will flow to Americans directly through cash payments and will also support public services like healthcare, education, and housing. At current valuations, the sovereign wealth fund would be worth an estimated $7 trillion. The bill proposes starting with a 5% annual dividend, which could provide a direct payment of more than $1,000 to everyone in America.

‍

Through the 50% equity transfer, the U.S. government would also hold voting shares and receive equal board representation at each company. This would give it the power to block decisions deemed harmful to the public. There are still some unanswered questions, though.

‍

Companies like OpenAI have operated at a loss since their inception, and if the financial trajectory doesn’t turn around, it will not generate anything that can flow to the general public.

‍

One might also argue that if AI is truly the distillation of all human knowledge, why should the fund benefit only American citizens?

‍

The bill also doesn’t talk about the environmental impact of AI. Communities are facing an energy crisis and water shortage from the data centers that are coming up in different parts of the country.

‍

We Have Seen Sovereign Wealth Funds Before

‍

This is not the first time the idea has surfaced. Sanders notes that versions of it have come from the AI industry itself.

‍

OpenAI CEO Sam Altman has proposed a public wealth fund tied to AI-driven economic growth. Anthropic has called for national sovereign wealth funds to hold equity stakes in AI companies. Musk has advocated for a “universal high income” to offset AI-related job displacement.

‍

Sanders’ plan differs in both scale and compulsion. OpenAI’s proposal involved taxes on AI profits and voluntary participation, while Sanders is proposing a mandatory transfer of half of each company’s outstanding equity to federal control, paired with governance rights that go well beyond a passive investment.

‍

Sanders also points to Norway’s Sovereign Wealth Fund and Alaska’s Permanent Fund as models. For 50 years, the Alaska Permanent Fund has paid out dividends derived from oil revenues to state residents in the form of a universal basic income.

‍

A Better Version of the American A.I. Sovereign Wealth Fund Act

‍

An opinion piece in The Guardian highlights a counterview. Using Norway’s sovereign wealth fund as an example, it argues that the fund’s substantial stakes in oil companies made it harder for the Norwegian government to push those corporations toward pro-environmental policies.

‍

The article suggests that public ownership of AI companies could create similar incentives: governments might weaken regulations, enable the exploitation of workers and users, suppress competition, and accelerate AI adoption to maximize returns. In these cases, balancing corporate profit and the public interest is difficult.

‍

According to the article, a better alternative is taxation. Senator Elizabeth Warren has proposed an excise tax on data centers’ energy use. Others have proposed an AI token tax, which would have a similar effect.

‍

It also mentions Apertus, a large language model built by Swiss public servants and university researchers, using appropriately licensed training data and existing Swiss public supercomputing infrastructure powered by renewable energy.

‍

While Apertus can’t compete with the latest OpenAI and Anthropic models on performance, it is more transparent and sustainable, and it complies with EU regulations, including copyright requirements. It’s a strong example of how public institutions can apply competitive pressure to encourage corporate actors to behave responsibly.

‍