Vance supports the U.S. government taking equity stakes in AI giants like OpenAI and Anthropic; Musk opposes this: it's better to just give out money, as future efforts must combat deflation.

US Vice President Vance publicly expressed support during an interview for the federal government to hold shares in large AI companies like OpenAI and Anthropic, modeled after a sovereign wealth fund; if based on a 10% stake in major AI firms, this position could be worth over $500 billion.
(Background: Trump advocates for US investment in AI companies, possibly this week discussing with OpenAI, Anthropic, xAI; Altman proposes a "public wealth fund" idea)
(Additional context: Anthropic completed a $30 billion funding round, breaking the taboo in Silicon Valley)

Table of Contents

Toggle

• Vance: "The President likes this idea"
• Political logic: pre-distribution, not post-subsidy
• What does $500 billion mean?
• Musk suggests direct cash payments

Holding stakes in tech giants by the government was once considered a taboo in US policy. But the Intel precedent opened a gap in 2025, and now the White House is actively shifting focus toward the AI industry.

In a recent episode of "The Diary of a CEO," US Vice President JD Vance explicitly stated that Trump supports holding shares in large AI companies like OpenAI and Anthropic in a manner similar to a sovereign fund.

Vance: "The President likes this idea"

During the interview, the host directly asked about the "US AI Sovereign Wealth Fund Act" proposed by Senator Bernie Sanders. The bill advocates a one-time 50% tax on stocks of the largest AI companies, with proceeds deposited into a sovereign fund, estimated to raise about $7 trillion, providing citizens with $1,000 annual dividends.

Vance's response was straightforward and clear: he likes this idea. He didn't specify if he would support a 50% rate, but he definitely favors this direction.

It's noteworthy that this stance crosses party lines, supporting a policy framework proposed by a senator with the most pronounced socialist tendencies within the Democratic Party, even if he distances himself on tax rate specifics.

Political logic: pre-distribution, not post-subsidy

Vance clearly outlined the White House's concerns during the interview.

His reasoning starts from the Industrial Revolution: that technological upheaval made the wealthy wealthier, while workers stagnated, ultimately leading to political disaster. The White House believes that if OpenAI, Anthropic, and xAI grow into trillion-dollar monopolies through compound growth under the current capital structure, it would be a political ticking time bomb.

The solution isn't to tax and subsidize after AI companies grow large, but to "pre-distribute"—allow the public to hold shares before wealth is created.

This idea has concrete precedents. On August 22, 2025, the Trump administration announced converting Intel's CHIPS Act subsidies into equity: the government acquired a 10% stake in Intel, purchasing 433 million shares at $20.47 each, totaling an $8.9 billion investment. This modern precedent of the US government directly holding corporate shares has now been established.

What does $500 billion mean?

Applying the same logic to the AI industry, the scale is entirely different.

Both OpenAI and Anthropic are valued close to $1 trillion, with IPO applications submitted, and the SpaceX IPO valuation for xAI surpassing $2 trillion. Including Meta AI, Google DeepMind, and AWS infrastructure, conservative estimates put AI-related assets at over $5 trillion.

If the government holds 10%, the book value would reach $500 billion, surpassing the total assets of all US hedge funds combined.

Musk suggests direct cash payments

However, market opposition is equally clear. Musk proposed an alternative on X:

It’s better to just give money directly from the Treasury to the people.

As long as the growth of goods and services exceeds the growth of the money supply (which AI and robotics development will inevitably achieve), there will be no inflation.

In fact, I predict we’ll have to fight desperately against deflation!

His logic is that the increase in goods and services brought by AI and robots will outpace the growth of the money supply, preventing inflation, and the bigger problem in the future will be deflation. The government should directly give money, rather than managing a huge stock portfolio.

Investor Mark Cuban questions this from a capital markets perspective: AI companies still need to raise hundreds of billions of dollars; if the government forcibly takes equity, these companies' capital needs will be hard to meet, potentially slowing AI development.

The core of this debate, beyond whether "the government should hold shares," is a more fundamental question: in a technological revolution that could reshape all industries, how should wealth be distributed, and who decides the mechanism? The Intel case shows the White House is willing to use this tool; the scale of AI companies suggests that once implemented, the consequences will far exceed any semiconductor subsidy program.