Trump’s comments revive a contentious proposal to transfer shares or dividends from leading AI companies to the public, reigniting debates over fairness and state intervention. Lawmakers and experts now face pressure to design mechanisms that protect innovation while ensuring Americans benefit from AI profits.
Washington, June 22, 2026 – U.S. President Donald Trump said he is considering options to grant citizens a stake in leading artificial intelligence companies, in line with concerns that Americans may not participate in potential profits from the sector.
Policymakers, companies, and activists are weighing several ways to implement this idea, including appointing government representatives to boards of such companies, targeted under- or over-tax revenues for the sector, and swapping public funding for equity stakes.
Any agreement to grant government shares could affect federal revenues. OpenAI and Anthropic have been considering going public this month, with OpenAI expecting a trillion-dollar valuation.
Key AI developers – Anthropic, Google, and OpenAI – have not issued official comments regarding possible government participation in stakes of these companies.
Such Proposals and Tax Exemptions
Senator Bernie Sanders, an independent from Vermont who caucuses with Democrats, proposed using the tax system to seize a share of the wealth generated by AI, demanding that the government receive 50% ownership and the right to representation on the boards of large companies.
The American people should have the ability to stop what is bad and to reap the financial benefits of AI.
– Bernie Sanders
The idea mirrors a proposal by two law professors to impose a tax paid in the form of shares rather than cash, effectively redistributing a stake to the state without direct investment. This concept was explained by Jeremy Bearer-Friend, professor of the George Washington University Law School.
Shares in Exchange for Public Funding
Another model mirrors an arrangement with Intel, where the government managed to obtain a 10% stake in exchange for several billions of dollars in funding to expand manufacturing capacity in the country.
The tech sector requires regular and substantial funding injections to advance AI infrastructure, and over the past year the market has talked about the need for large sums for these needs. State investments could become part of such financing.
Alphabet, the parent company of Google DeepMind, recently announced an increase in the size of its own stock issuance to a level exceeding $84 billion. Analysts warn that such moves could affect competition and incentives in the industry.
Some experts warn that the government should not replicate the Intel scheme, as it could dampen incentives and limit the flexibility of the private sector. And yet some industry representatives believe that government investment could become part of the AI infrastructure financing framework.
The government is entering a space where the focus is no longer on ensuring that the United States has the capacity to protect the public interest, but rather on making sure the investment pays off.
– Neil Chilson
OpenAI discussed with the government guarantees of federal loans for chip-making plants, but did not discuss similar arrangements for data centers, the company’s chief executive stated in previous years, with no concrete steps in this direction.
In April, OpenAI proposed creating a “Public Wealth Fund” to invest in AI companies and distribute profits among citizens. Anthropic said it is considering the concept of a “digital dividend,” i.e., payouts to Americans funded by taxes on the AI sector.
These proposals resemble the Alaska Permanent Fund – a state-owned corporation built on oil that pays annual dividends to residents and supports the budget. Proponents argue that a similar concept could apply to artificial intelligence, given that the data used to train models is often created by citizens.
Public infrastructure in the United States is the domain of citizens. It is not something that a billionaire can simply seize.
– Joseph Blasi
In summary, experts and lawmakers point out that any of these schemes would have serious implications for the budget, innovation, and public trust. Considering such options requires careful risk analysis, transparency, and clear conditions for implementation to balance the interests of citizens, business, and national security.
