Wind of change - Better than Random
Better than Random
SubscribeSign in
Wind of change<br>Washington wants a seat at the table
Better than Random<br>Jun 15, 2026
Share
In November 2025, Sarah Friar, the CFO of OpenAI, sat down at a Wall Street Journal Tech Live event and said her company was looking for a federal “backstop” for chip investments. With over $1T in committed infrastructure deals, this comment signaled that OpenAI might eventually want the US government on the hook if things go sideways.<br>Friar was quick to pull it back, but it remained the first time that an AI lab was suggesting the idea of a greater involvement of the US government. Before that, in February 2025, Trump signed Executive Order 14196, directing Treasury and Commerce to establish a US sovereign wealth fund within 90 days. Secretary Bessent and Secretary Lutnick pledged it would be operational within 12 months. More than 16 months later, the fund exists only on paper. Plans were presented but reportedly failed to gain Trump’s approval, and no definitive action has been taken.<br>Nevertheless, a kind of sovereign-investment activity has emerged, with the US government acquiring equity stakes in technology companies. In August 2025, the government reached a deal with Intel to convert $8.9B in CHIPS Act grants, previously allocated but not yet paid, into a 10% equity stake in the company. A passive holding with no board seats or voting rights, justified entirely by national security. The government acquired a stake in Intel through a grant-to-equity swap, a mechanism that required no legislation and no new money. It also turned out to be almost a 6x bagger: The government paid $20.47 per share, Intel now trades around $120, a gain of more than 500%. Not too shabby.
In April 2026, OpenAI published a proposal that included, among many other suggestions for public policy, a “Public Wealth Fund”. The idea is that AI companies would voluntarily donate equity to a government-run fund, which would distribute dividends to American citizens. All the AI billionaires expressed similar ideas. Anthropic had previously proposed national sovereign wealth funds with AI stakes. Elon Musk had said some form of universal income might eventually be necessary to address AI-driven unemployment.<br>OpenAI was trying to reframe the conversation, positioning itself as public benefactor, sharing the gains of the AI revolution with ordinary Americans. Front-running Bernie, basically.<br>On June 1, 2026, Sanders introduced the American AI Sovereign Wealth Fund Act. A compulsory transfer of 50% of shares in the leading AI companies (OpenAI, Anthropic, xAI), to be held in a public fund, with the government receiving full voting rights and board representation, and dividends flowing directly to citizens. The rationale was that AI models have been trained on the collective knowledge of humanity, books and articles and code and images assembled over generations, used without consent or compensation. The wealth produced belongs to the public, not to Silicon Valley. I would argue that it belongs to the public across the globe, and not only to US taxpayers, but that’s ok.<br>Sanders read Sam, Dario, and Elon’s own statements back at them and proposed to act on the implications. “No, not like that”, Sam and the others might have thought. A 1-5% stake, donated voluntarily, at a valuation OpenAI negotiated, with no government board seats and no voting rights is a very different outcome from a 50% compulsory transfer shaped by Sanders’ team.<br>Few days later, aboard Air Force One, Trump confirmed that the White House was in talks with OpenAI about the government receiving donated equity to seed a public wealth fund, and he suggested the same might apply to xAI and Google’s AI operations. While Sanders’ proposal wants to recover what it frames as a theft of collective intellectual property, Trump wants to reward the labs for their “patriotism”.<br>The wind of change towards more involvement of the US government is blowing strong. Both proposals end up with the US government holding equity in the most consequential private technology companies in history.<br>The problem with Sanders’ bill is the Fifth Amendment. Private property cannot be taken for public use without just compensation. A forced 50% equity transfer is expropriation, regardless of the rationale. To comply with the constitution, the government would have to purchase those shares at fair market value. At current valuations, a 50% stake across OpenAI, Anthropic, and xAI would likely cost over $1T. The US is running structural deficits, and financing an acquisition of that scale through additional borrowing would push bond yields up. As written, Sanders’ bill is most likely unconstitutional.<br>Trump’s approach sidesteps the Fifth by making the transfer voluntary. The only incentive for a company to donate equity is to stay in good standing with an administration that rewards allies and penalizes critics. That is a protection...