Bernie Sanders has spent decades arguing that American politics can move much further than the status quo allows. Now the 84-year-old Vermont senator is applying that same view to artificial intelligence, a technology he describes as “the most consequential, transformational technology in the history of humanity.”
In a WIRED interview conducted on Tuesday, June 23, Sanders connected AI regulation to data centers, jobs, privacy, children’s well-being, public ownership and the concentration of wealth. His core point was direct: if AI is built on human knowledge and human work, then the public should have both a voice in its direction and a financial stake in its gains.
A push to slow data center growth
Since 2023, Sanders has advocated firm regulation of the AI industry. In March of this year, Sanders and Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez proposed legislation that would stop data center construction until safeguards are established.
Sanders framed the data center issue as a public interest problem rather than a narrow technology dispute. He said data centers are being built across the country and around the world, and that they are having a negative impact on local environments, electric costs and other concerns.
The proposal is not described as a permanent ban. Sanders’ argument is that development should slow until guidelines and legislation are in place to protect ordinary people. In his telling, the current pace gives too much power to the companies and billionaires driving AI expansion.
That concern is already moving beyond his office. The source article notes that people are fighting data centers at town halls across the country. It also reports that New Jersey representative Frank Pallone, the top Democrat on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, publicly supported an AI data center moratorium after Sanders’ interview.
The sovereign wealth fund idea
In June, Sanders announced the American AI Sovereign Wealth Fund Act. The proposal would tax AI’s richest companies and lead to direct payments to American citizens.
Sanders described the plan as having two main purposes. First, he argued that a small number of billionaires should not be able to determine the future of such a powerful technology. Second, he said the public should share financially in the wealth AI creates.
His ownership proposal is unusually direct. Sanders said the public should own half of these industries, with half of board members serving as representatives of the public. He connected that structure to decisions about technology that could cause massive unemployment, harm the well-being of kids or threaten privacy rights.
In practical terms, Sanders’ vision is not only about collecting money after AI companies profit. It is also about giving the public a seat inside the decision-making structure. The article presents this as part of his larger belief that AI cannot be left only to executives and investors.
When asked which companies would pay into the fund, Sanders said it would apply to any company of $200 million or more. He also said that half of the increase in revenue and wealth created by AI should go to the people.
Why Sanders says the public has a claim
Sanders’ case rests on where AI comes from. He argued that the foundation of AI is human knowledge and human work. Books, poems, scientific work and journalism are all part of the body of material that AI systems draw on.
That point came through clearly when the discussion turned to WIRED’s own work. The interviewer noted that WIRED writers, the company and the publication received zero dollars for that use. Sanders answered with the same phrase: “Zero dollars.”
For Sanders, that is not a side issue. It is central to the economic argument. If public knowledge and individual creative work help make AI valuable, he says the public should benefit from the wealth that follows.
This is also why his AI agenda links compensation, governance and regulation. The fund addresses money. Public board representation addresses power. The data center moratorium addresses the physical and local effects of AI expansion.
Congress and the politics of urgency
Sanders said he has been distressed by the lack of serious congressional action on AI. In the interview, he said that as of that date there had not been one significant piece of legislation dealing with AI.
He did not describe members of Congress as unintelligent. Instead, he argued that fear shapes inaction. In his example, a lawmaker who raises concerns about children’s mental health or jobs could quickly face millions of dollars in 30-second ads.
That view places AI policy inside the broader political economy Sanders often criticizes. The issue is not only whether lawmakers understand the technology. It is whether they are willing to challenge wealthy interests that can influence elections and public debate.
The article also connects this moment to wider political unrest. It notes that a coalition of democratic socialists swept their respective elections in New York as the New York Democratic primary was underway, and that party stalwarts were pushed into an existential tailspin.
The larger stakes
Sanders’ AI argument is not modest. He is calling for a moratorium on data center construction until safeguards exist, a sovereign wealth fund funded by large AI companies, public ownership of half of the industries and direct payments to American citizens.
The thread tying those ideas together is control. Sanders sees AI as too consequential to be shaped only by people he says want to become richer and more powerful. He wants public institutions and ordinary people to have leverage before the technology becomes even more embedded in work, infrastructure and daily life.
Whether that agenda can become law is left unresolved in the source. But the interview makes clear that Sanders believes the absence of AI legislation is itself a political choice. His warning is that waiting leaves the future to the wealthiest people in the industry, while the costs and consequences spread much more widely.