AI companies also need to be “Made in America”! The Trump administration is considering taking a stake in major AI companies and distributing dividends to the public.

The U.S. government is in talks with AI giants such as OpenAI about transferring equity. It is also considering establishing a public wealth fund and distributing dividends to the entire population. Because the proposal involves conflicts of interest and the principles of a free market, it has sparked widespread controversy across political and business circles.

According to NOTUS, the U.S. government is conducting preliminary discussions with major artificial intelligence companies about obtaining part of their equity. The returns may be distributed in the form of dividends to all American households. However, the issue has also triggered extensive debate in both the political and business arenas, as it touches on the AI regulatory landscape and the principles of the free market.

OpenAI champions the public wealth fund; Trump privately signals support

Three insiders said that senior U.S. officials have carried out closed-door consultations with multiple AI companies regarding the issue of “government equity holdings.” OpenAI CEO Sam Altman proposed the idea directly to President Trump as early as early 2025, arguing that, through government equity holdings, the economic benefits brought by AI can be distributed more widely to the general public.

It is also reported that Trump privately agrees with this view, believing that American taxpayers should benefit from AI development. He is expected to restart related discussions with internal senior leadership in the near term.

The core design of the current proposal is that AI companies would “voluntarily” transfer part of their shares to the government, and the returns would be directed to public purposes—such as paying dividends to all American households. In a policy report released by OpenAI in April this year, it also proposed establishing a “public wealth fund,” so that citizens who have not participated in financial markets can share in the gains from AI economic growth as well.

OpenAI and Anthropic differ in approach; legal mechanisms still need clarification

The timing of this debate coincides with OpenAI and Anthropic preparing for their first public offering (IPO) on an unprecedented scale, while also facing widespread public concerns about AI technology. In response, Anthropic has clearly stated that it is currently not in any talks with the government about providing equity.

There are also major legal hurdles. Insiders said that the specific legal mechanism for transferring equity from AI companies to the government is still unclear, and may pose an obstacle. Multiple sources also warned that the negotiations may ultimately not reach an agreement; talks are ongoing and the details have not yet been finalized.

Demands differ on both ends of the political spectrum; Sanders calls for forced acquisition of 50% equity

The issue has drawn attention on both ends of the political spectrum. This week, Senator Bernie Sanders introduced a draft bill arguing that the government should be required to obtain 50% equity in companies such as OpenAI, Anthropic, and xAI. The proposal attempts to bring companies under government control and to include dividend income in a sovereign wealth fund.

Former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon also takes a similar position. He believes that AI companies rushing to seek a settlement is a “sign of desperation,” and insists that the government should obtain 50% of the shares and directly distribute them to American citizens rather than accept “concessions like tips.”

On the conservative side, Cato Institute policy researcher Jennifer Huddleston criticized the idea that the government selects specific companies to invest in, saying it violates the basic principles of private enterprises and a free market. She also expressed concern that this precedent could have a serious impact on the business ecosystem.

The biggest concern is conflicts of interest; government equity holdings may weaken AI regulatory strength

For critics, the main concern lies in the conflict of interest created by the government playing two roles at once: both “shareholder” and “regulator.”

Nat Purser, an AI policy advocate with Public Knowledge, warned that once the government becomes a shareholder, it will create incentives to loosen safety regulations in order to protect investment value—ultimately harming the public interest. In addition, government equity holdings could also increase the likelihood of receiving priority for federal bailouts if AI companies get into trouble, creating a moral hazard.

Furthermore, polling data shows that public anxiety about AI is already quite strong. Some surveys indicate that 55% of Americans believe AI does more harm than good to daily life. This concern has already translated into local resistance to data center construction, hindering the expansion of AI infrastructure.

Trump administration aims to expand investment; the AI equity case may pass

This discussion is not without basis. Since Trump’s second term began, the U.S. government has made direct investments in at least 10 companies, with the deal involving Intel attracting particular attention. The White House claims that this investment has brought substantial returns for American taxpayers, and it hopes more cases like this will emerge in the future.

If equity negotiations involving OpenAI and other AI giants ultimately come to fruition, their scale and impact would far exceed any past case. Not only would it reshape the governance framework of the AI industry, but it could also set a precedent for the government to intervene in private technology companies.

• This article is reproduced with permission from: 《Chain News》
• Original title: 《AI companies also have to be made in America! Can the U.S. government consider taking a stake in AI giants and pay dividends to the public nationwide?》
• Original author: Crumax