Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., unveiled legislation Thursday that would create a federal sovereign wealth fund with 50 percent ownership stakes in the country's largest artificial intelligence companies, with proceeds distributed as direct payments to Americans.
The bill, titled the Automated Wealth Fund Act, would establish an Independent Commission for Democratic AI consisting of seven members nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate. The commission would manage the fund's holdings and use a 5 percent annual dividend to provide direct payments to U.S. citizens. Sanders estimated the fund could be worth approximately $7 trillion based on current valuations of AI firms, with individual payouts exceeding $1,000 annually.
The legislation targets AI companies generating at least $200 million in annual revenue. Affected firms would also be required to separate their AI and non-AI business operations under the proposed measure.
Sanders argued that AI technology was built upon collective human knowledge and should therefore benefit the public. "AI was not created out of thin air," he said in a statement. "It was not a brilliant idea that just popped into Mark Zuckerberg's head or Elon Musk's imagination. The foundation of AI is based on the collective knowledge of humanity and the creative work of tens of millions of people." He added: "The principle is simple: When a public resource generates wealth, the public should share in that wealth."
Sanders expressed concern about concentrated tech power, stating: "Left unchecked, Artificial Intelligence and robotics threatens the jobs, privacy rights and mental health of every man, woman and child in America. As a society, we can no longer sit back and allow a handful of Big Tech oligarchs to determine the future of this revolutionary technology with no democratic input."
What the Right Is Saying
Conservatives have raised significant concerns about the legislation's implications for property rights and free market principles. Critics argue that requiring companies to sell 50 percent stakes to the government constitutes a form of compelled ownership transfer that undermines private enterprise incentives.
Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, a vocal critic of tech regulation, has previously warned against government seizure of private assets, arguing that such measures would chill innovation and drive AI development overseas to less regulated markets. His office released a statement calling the proposal "a massive government land grab dressed up in populist language."
The Heritage Foundation issued an analysis arguing that Sanders' bill would represent unprecedented federal intervention in the technology sector, potentially violating constitutional protections against taking private property without just compensation.
Business groups have expressed alarm at provisions requiring companies to split AI and non-AI operations. The Chamber of Commerce warned that such structural requirements could reduce efficiency, increase costs for consumers, and make U.S. firms less competitive internationally against companies in China and the European Union, which face different regulatory regimes.
Some Republican economists have also questioned whether government-managed voting shares would effectively give unelected bureaucrats veto power over legitimate business decisions, creating uncertainty that markets typically penalize.
What the Left Is Saying
Progressive Democrats have largely embraced the sovereign wealth fund concept as an innovative approach to addressing wealth inequality and ensuring public participation in AI's economic gains. Sanders' office framed the proposal as a way to democratize access to AI-generated wealth rather than allowing it to concentrate among a small number of technology executives.
The idea of "universal basic capital" has gained traction among some mainstream Democrats over the past year. California Gov. Gavin Newsom, D, signed an executive order in May directing state agencies to evaluate policies addressing AI-related job losses, including concepts where Americans receive direct stakes in companies or infrastructure projects.
Major AI companies have signaled openness to variations of this approach. OpenAI and Anthropic have expressed support for universal basic capital frameworks in public discussions about AI's economic impact.
Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., who has championed technology policy issues, has previously argued that the public should share in gains from technologies built on publicly funded research and collective knowledge. The concept aligns with progressive calls for greater democratic control over emerging technologies seen as fundamental to the future economy.
What the Numbers Show
The proposed fund's $7 trillion valuation is based on current market capitalizations of AI companies meeting the revenue threshold. The 5 percent annual dividend structure Sanders outlined would theoretically generate approximately $350 billion annually for distribution to Americans.
However, independent analysts have noted significant uncertainties in these projections. A Congressional Budget Office preliminary assessment estimated that determining fair value for illiquid stakes and managing a diversified portfolio of technology holdings would require substantial administrative infrastructure with costs not yet quantified.
The $200 million annual revenue threshold would capture major AI firms including OpenAI, Anthropic, Google DeepMind, Meta AI, and emerging competitors. According to industry data from Stanford's Institute for Human-Centered AI, these companies collectively employ approximately 150,000 workers in the United States as of early 2026.
The requirement that affected firms separate their AI and non-AI operations could trigger significant tax implications under existing corporate structure rules. The Joint Committee on Taxation has not yet released an analysis of potential revenue effects from forced business separations.
The Bottom Line
Sanders' legislation represents the most aggressive federal proposal to date for government ownership stakes in private technology companies. While the concept of public participation in AI wealth gains has attracted bipartisan interest, requiring 50 percent ownership transfers goes further than any comparable measure currently under consideration.
The bill faces significant obstacles in both chambers of Congress. Even with Democratic control of the Senate, securing the 60 votes needed to overcome procedural hurdles would require winning support from moderate Republicans who have expressed skepticism about government intervention in private markets.
President Trump confirmed earlier this month that his administration is examining taking stakes in AI companies as part of broader economic policy discussions, potentially creating an opening for negotiation on narrower versions of Sanders' proposal. Any compromise measure would likely involve smaller ownership percentages and less stringent structural separation requirements than the current bill specifies.
Technology industry groups have already announced plans to mobilize against the legislation, arguing it would reduce U.S. competitiveness in a critical emerging technology sector where Chinese firms are aggressively expanding capabilities.