69% Back AI Sovereign Wealth Fund as Sanders Bill Advances

More than two-thirds of American adults now back a proposal that would force the largest artificial intelligence companies to hand over half their ownership to a publicly managed investment pool. The finding, drawn from a Verasight survey of 1,690 adults conducted in June 2026 and published earlier this month, places an AI sovereign wealth fund squarely in the mainstream of U.S. political opinion.

Support sits at 69%, a level that typically signals actionable political momentum on contested policy questions. Senator Bernie Sanders introduced the American AI Sovereign Wealth Fund Act in June 2026, giving legislative form to the same mechanism: a one-time 50% tax on stock, not profits, levied on AI companies with more than $200 million in annual AI-related receipts. Senator Ed Markey has also placed wealth sharing among the six priorities in his AI Accountability Agenda, indicating that the idea is gaining traction beyond a single sponsor.

How the AI Sovereign Wealth Fund Would Work

The Sanders bill would collect equity rather than cash, transferring ownership shares from companies such as OpenAI and Anthropic to a federal fund. Sanders's office estimates the vehicle would start with roughly $7 trillion in assets, making it one of the largest sovereign wealth funds in the world from day one. A 5% annual dividend on that base could generate direct payments of approximately $1,045 per U.S. resident each year. Proceeds beyond the dividend would flow into healthcare, education, and housing programs.

The proposal borrows structural elements from two established models. Norway's Government Pension Fund Global, built on oil revenue, is worth approximately $2.3 trillion and funds extensive public welfare programs. Alaska's Permanent Fund has paid annual dividends of $1,000 to $2,000 to every state resident since 1980. The Sanders plan combines the equity-ownership approach of the Norwegian model with the direct-distribution mechanism of the Alaskan one, substituting AI equity for natural resource royalties. The key difference is concentration: the Norwegian and Alaskan funds are broadly diversified across global markets, whereas the proposed AI fund would hold concentrated positions in a small number of technology companies.

A less discussed but potentially more consequential feature involves governance. The bill would give the government voting shares in the affected companies, providing public representation on corporate boards. Sanders has described this control element as equally important as the dividend payments. The argument is that public board seats give citizens a direct voice in decisions about how AI systems are developed and deployed, including determinations about safety protocols, deployment timelines, and the treatment of workers displaced by automation.

Why the Public Is Demanding a Stake

The polling data tracks a labor market undergoing rapid structural change. In the first half of 2026, the technology sector was responsible for roughly one out of every three layoffs across the U.S. economy. During that same period, the same companies pushed AI capital expenditure to record highs. That gap between workforce reductions and rising investment has created a political opening for wealth-sharing proposals. The disconnect is hard to miss: companies are spending hundreds of billions on AI infrastructure while cutting the white-collar roles that automation is expected to replace.

Benjamin Leff, CEO of Verasight, has described the public mood as one in which the gains from AI are widely seen as concentrated among shareholders and executives. The survey captures a voter base that increasingly views an AI sovereign wealth fund as a corrective mechanism rather than a radical intervention. The 69% figure includes support from across the political spectrum, suggesting that the appeal of direct dividend payments and public ownership crosses partisan lines. Voters appear to be drawing a direct line between the layoffs in their own communities and the record AI spending announced by the same companies.

Senator Sanders has framed the legislation as a response to a specific failure of distribution. In his telling, the current trajectory allows a small group of technology executives and investors to capture the productivity gains from AI while the broader workforce bears the costs of displacement. The $7 trillion fund redirects those gains to the public that generates the data and the labor that AI systems depend on. The bill text includes language that ties the fund's purpose explicitly to compensating for labor market disruption, making it structurally different from general-purpose sovereign wealth funds that simply maximize financial returns.

Opposition and Open Questions

The proposal faces significant headwinds. Critics have described the 50% stock levy as an unprecedented government intervention that amounts to partial nationalization of a strategic industry. Some analysts have warned that the threat of such a levy could deter venture capital investment in U.S. AI startups, particularly if investors fear the revenue threshold could be lowered over time to capture smaller companies. The threshold of $200 million in AI receipts currently limits the bill's reach to the largest players, but opponents argue that the precedent alone creates uncertainty for earlier-stage firms.

Valuation risk presents another challenge. A $7 trillion fund holding concentrated equity positions in a handful of AI companies would carry a fundamentally different risk profile than the diversified, resource-backed funds operated by Norway and Alaska. If the AI sector underperforms, the fund's asset base and the dividends it can distribute would decline in tandem. Sanders has stated that the companies would absorb valuation losses, not the federal government, but the political risk of shrinking payouts remains a concern that opponents have flagged. A downturn in AI valuations could reduce the annual per-person dividend from $1,045 to a fraction of that amount, potentially undermining the political coalition that supports the fund.

Corporate governance questions are equally unresolved. Giving the government board seats at companies such as OpenAI and Anthropic creates potential conflicts between fiduciary duties to shareholders and the public-interest mandate embedded in the legislation. The affected companies have not publicly endorsed the proposal, and the bill would represent a fundamental restructuring of ownership for some of the most highly valued privately held firms in the United States. How the government would exercise its voting power on issues such as executive compensation, acquisition decisions, and research direction remains unspecified in the current bill text.

What It Means for AI Companies and Investors

For AI firms above the $200 million revenue threshold, the bill presents an immediate structural challenge. A 50% government equity stake would dilute existing shareholders and introduce public-sector board members with voting power over strategic decisions. Companies would need to handle dual obligations to private investors and to a sovereign fund designed to maximize public benefit rather than shareholder returns. This tension is likely to be the central friction point if the legislation advances.

At the same time, the proposal could offer a measure of regulatory certainty. A one-time equity transfer in exchange for a clear long-term framework may reduce pressure for more disruptive measures such as profit caps, federal licensing schemes, or antitrust breakups that have surfaced in other policy discussions. For investors, the calculus depends heavily on whether the fund's public governance mandate depresses valuations or whether the sheer scale of government ownership creates a stabilizing force that attracts long-term capital. Institutional investors who prioritize environmental, social, and governance criteria may view a public ownership structure more favorably than pure financial players.

Why this matters

The AI sovereign wealth fund movement is a fundamental shift in public expectations about how the economic returns of artificial intelligence should be allocated. With 69% support in national polling and active legislative proposals in the Senate, the policy debate has moved past whether the public deserves a stake and into questions of design and implementation. For AI companies, the strategic choice is narrowing: accept a structured ownership transfer with defined governance rules or face increasingly aggressive demands as layoffs, inequality, and automation anxiety continue to drive political pressure.

Photo by César Roldán on Unsplash

Related Articles

• Trump Administration and OpenAI Negotiate Government Equity Stakes in AI
• U.S. Senators Unveil Bipartisan Bill to Counter Chinese AI Exports with $500 Million Fund
• Bipartisan Proposal for Great American AI Act Establishes National Oversight Standards

✔Human Verified

Researched and cross-referenced against primary sources by the Bytevyte editorial team.