Senator Bernie Sanders has launched one of the most sweeping attempts yet to reshape the economics and governance of artificial intelligence, proposing a massive new tax and public ownership scheme aimed at redirecting AI wealth and power to ordinary Americans.

On June 18, Sanders released legislation calling for the U.S. government to take 50% equity stakes in large AI companies via a one-time tax on their stock, applied to any firm with at least $200 million in annual AI revenue.¹ The shares would be placed in a new U.S. sovereign wealth fund, which Sanders estimates could reach $7 trillion and generate “hundreds of billions of dollars annually in direct payments to Americans and programs such as health care, education and housing.”²

Under the Axios-described framework, the sovereign wealth fund would be overseen by seven commissioners nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate, and would pay out a 5% annual dividend directly to Americans.¹ Sanders has argued that “the benefits cannot simply go to the handful of wealthy corporations. They will be shared by the American people.”²

The proposal goes beyond cash payments, seeking public power over corporate decisions. A new Independent Commission for Democratic AI would hold voting shares and could block company moves that might harm the public, ensuring Americans have “direct influence over corporate decision-making.”² “The public has got to have a significant seat at the table… so that in fact, AI benefits ordinary people, not hurts them,” Sanders told AP News.²

Critics and industry observers point to major practical and political obstacles. The definition of an “AI company” is broad, sweeping in everything from OpenAI and Anthropic to data centers, AI compute providers, and advanced robotics firms, potentially giving the government 50% of giants like Amazon, Nvidia, Microsoft, and SpaceX.¹ Analysts question how integrated tech firms could realistically separate “AI and non-AI businesses,” and whether such a transfer would effectively dilute existing investors—such as 401(k) holders and public pension funds—whose savings the policy is meant to protect.¹

Even some AI leaders who support sharing AI’s benefits have kept their distance. In a meeting with Sanders, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman reportedly remained “far apart” from the senator on how much stake in OpenAI the public should hold.² As debate begins, the plan crystallizes a central question for the AI era: who should own—and control—the technologies poised to transform work and wealth.