Washington Eyes a Public Stake in the AI Boom as Trump, Sanders Find Rare Common Ground

WASHINGTON — As artificial intelligence rapidly reshapes the American economy, an extraordinary debate is gaining momentum in Washington: Should the American public receive an ownership stake in the companies expected to generate trillions of dollars from the AI revolution?

The idea has brought together an unlikely group of political and technology figures, including President Donald Trump, Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont and OpenAI CEO Sam Altman. Although they differ sharply over how such a system should work, all have explored versions of a structure that could allow Americans to participate financially in the extraordinary wealth being created by artificial intelligence.

Trump publicly embraced the concept in June, telling reporters aboard Air Force One that there could be a partnership in which the American people benefit directly from successful AI companies. Axios reported that Trump was considering a comparatively small public stake, with ideas in the range of roughly 1% to 5% circulating among industry advocates.

The president's interest represents a striking departure from the traditional Republican reluctance toward federal ownership of private companies. But Trump's approach appears rooted less in government control than in economic populism: If AI creates enormous fortunes and disrupts millions of jobs, supporters of the concept argue that ordinary Americans should participate in some of that upside.

Sanders is proposing something dramatically more aggressive.

According to the Associated Press, Sanders introduced legislation that would impose a one-time 50% tax, paid in company stock, on qualifying AI businesses with more than $200 million in annual AI-related revenue. Those shares would be placed into a sovereign wealth fund intended to make the American public a major shareholder in leading AI companies. Sanders has argued the plan could eventually generate direct annual payments for Americans while financing public priorities.

The proposal would amount to one of the most sweeping government interventions into a major American industry in modern history.

Altman has shown openness to the underlying concept of broader public participation but has stopped far short of endorsing Sanders' 50% proposal. Euronews, citing AP reporting, said Altman met with Sanders in Washington and supported the general principle of giving Americans a financial stake in AI's success while declining to back Sanders' proposed ownership level.

The political pressure surrounding AI extends well beyond ownership.

Republican Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri has emerged as one of Capitol Hill's most aggressive critics of unchecked Big Tech expansion. Hawley has argued that technology companies should bear the infrastructure costs associated with massive AI data centers rather than transferring those costs to American families. His bipartisan GRID Act would seek to protect residential customers from electricity-price increases associated with data-center demand and require new facilities to obtain separate power generation.

Hawley has also warned that the central political question surrounding artificial intelligence is whether the technology strengthens American workers and communities or concentrates even more economic power in Silicon Valley. In a June op-ed promoted by his Senate office, Hawley argued that Washington cannot simply leave those decisions to venture capitalists and engineers while workers absorb the consequences of automation, higher energy demand and rapid technological disruption.

Meanwhile, the Trump administration continues pursuing an explicitly pro-American AI strategy focused on maintaining U.S. technological superiority.

A June 2 executive order declared that the United States intends to remain the global leader in artificial intelligence while expanding AI's role in cybersecurity and critical-infrastructure protection. The administration has simultaneously rejected a mandatory federal licensing regime for the development or release of advanced AI models.

Days later, Trump signed a national-security memorandum ordering the government to accelerate the deployment of advanced commercial AI systems throughout the defense and intelligence establishment. The directive calls for faster acquisition of advanced models, expanded secure computing infrastructure and deeper partnerships between federal agencies and private AI companies.

That creates the central tension now facing Washington.

America wants Silicon Valley to innovate faster than China. At the same time, policymakers increasingly recognize that AI could alter employment, energy consumption, national security and the distribution of wealth on a scale rarely seen in modern economic history.

The question is therefore moving beyond whether Washington should regulate artificial intelligence.

Increasingly, the debate is becoming: Who should own the economic future AI creates?

Trump's answer appears to be that private industry should remain the engine of innovation while Americans potentially receive a limited share of the upside. Sanders wants considerably greater public ownership and influence. Technology executives appear willing to discuss public participation while resisting anything resembling government control.

For now, no national public-ownership system has been adopted, and the competing proposals remain politically and structurally far apart. But the fact that a Republican president, a democratic socialist senator and one of Silicon Valley's most influential executives are debating versions of the same fundamental idea shows how dramatically the politics of artificial intelligence have changed.

AI is no longer merely another technology sector.

Washington increasingly views it as strategic infrastructure, a national-security asset and potentially one of the greatest generators of wealth in American history.

And the battle over who receives that wealth may become one of the defining economic fights of the AI era.