Bernie Sanders is pushing a sweeping proposal that would shift part of the AI industry’s wealth and corporate power toward the public. The plan centers on a sovereign wealth fund that Sanders estimates could be worth $7 trillion, funded by a one-time tax on stock held by the largest AI companies.
The proposal is unlikely to be welcomed by major AI firms. It goes beyond public-benefit ideas discussed by some AI executives and would give Americans both annual payouts and a role in decisions that Sanders argues could affect the public.
How the AI wealth fund would work
Sanders shared a summary of the legislation with AP News. If passed, the law would create a sovereign wealth fund “financed through a one-time 50 percent tax on the stock of the largest AI companies,” AP News reported.
The threshold is tied to AI revenue. Any AI firm with $200 million in annual AI sales would be subject to the tax, and new firms would also become subject to it once they reach that revenue level.
Sanders estimated that the fund could be worth $7 trillion. According to AP News, it could generate “hundreds of billions of dollars annually in direct payments to Americans and programs such as health care, education and housing.”
One of the clearest public-facing pieces of the plan is the dividend. Sanders estimated that each American would likely receive more than $1,000 annually in 5 percent annual dividends.
“The benefits cannot simply go to the handful of wealthy corporations,” Sanders said. “They will be shared by the American people.”
More than payouts
The legislation is not only about sending money to Americans or supporting public programs. Sanders also wants the public to have “direct influence over corporate decision-making.”
That influence would run through a newly created, bipartisan Independent Commission for Democratic AI. The commission would have seven members, nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate.
The Hill reported that the commission would oversee the fund and use voting shares to block company decisions that could harm the public. That feature is central to the proposal because it moves the debate beyond taxation and into corporate governance.
In Sanders’ framing, AI is not only a profitable technology sector. It is an industry whose choices could affect jobs, communities, and the distribution of wealth. His argument is that the public should not merely receive a smaller benefit after companies make their decisions; it should have a meaningful seat in the process.
“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 told AP News.
Why AI companies may resist
Some AI leaders have shown support for public benefits from AI. The source article names OpenAI’s Sam Altman and Anthropic’s Dario Amodei as CEOs who have supported some form of public benefit, but says their ideas are not as bold as Sanders’ proposal.
In a meeting with Sanders, Altman remained “far apart” from the senator on how much stake in OpenAI the American public should have, sources in the room told AP News. Sanders said he intends to campaign on creating the fund, and he described AI firms expecting to transfer significantly less than 50 percent as greedy.
“I think people like Sam Altman and Trump (who) may be sympathetic” to the public’s growing concerns about AI displacing jobs or harming communities and “are saying: ‘OK, 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 percent of our profits back into the government,’” Sanders said in the meeting. “That’s not what we’re talking about. What we’re talking about are two very different things.”
Another likely point of resistance is the structure of AI businesses. The Hill reported that the law would require companies to split their non-AI business from their AI business.
That could matter for companies that have combined AI operations with other businesses. The source article points to Elon Musk’s firm, xAI, which has already merged with X and then SpaceX. It also says the world’s richest man may be plotting a mega-merger between SpaceX and Tesla, according to The New York Times.
The political path looks difficult
The proposal arrives in a political environment that may not favor it. Donald Trump has toyed with the idea of the US government taking a stake in leading AI firms, but the source article says he seems unlikely to support Sanders’ plan.
David Sacks, Trump’s former AI czar, remains influential in his administration and criticized Sanders’ legislation before the details were released. On the All In technology podcast, Sacks called it a “straight up confiscation of property” and said it would set “a terrible precedent,” the Post reported.
Sacks also said he had “sympathy” for where Sanders is “coming from,” but he favored “voluntary ideas for some public ownership of AI companies,” like Trump’s.
The source article notes that the Republican-controlled Congress remains largely pro-AI industry. Without Trump’s buy-in, Sanders’ legislation appears unlikely to pass.
A starting point for the AI wealth debate
Sanders appears to be using the legislation to define a larger debate: who should benefit from AI, and who should have power over the companies building it?
The plan may not settle public questions about AI or reduce anti-AI sentiment. Sanders told AP News that he sees the legislation as a starting point for discussing how Americans should benefit from AI amid rising anti-AI sentiment nationwide.
“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.
Whether or not the bill advances, it gives the AI policy debate a sharper frame. Sanders is not only asking whether AI firms should pay more into public programs. He is asking whether the American public should own a major stake in the industry and have power to challenge decisions that could harm ordinary people.