An AI Tax Could Be the Great Equalizer America Needs

The idea of making the biggest AI companies co-own their businesses with the public is no longer radical, but its implementation is being hijacked by those who claim a tax is too simplistic. Senator Bernie Sanders’ American AI Sovereign Wealth Fund Act proposes that these companies owe the public half the equity in each company’s AI business, paid in newly issued shares.

This approach has been met with resistance from OpenAI and President Donald Trump, who are offering their own vision of an AI sovereign wealth fund – one that would be voluntarily created through partnership with the government. However, this alternative is not just a matter of semantics; it’s about ensuring the public has a stake in the benefits of innovation.

The public supports this idea, with 69% of Americans favoring an AI equity tax in a recent national poll. Yet, we’re settling for less. The fight over the terms of public co-ownership is underway, with Trump and OpenAI CEO Sam Altman negotiating behind closed doors. But what’s being negotiated away is not just money – it’s our collective future.

A deal between these two could bind OpenAI to the current administration, but would it truly serve the American people? Or would it simply be another instance of the federal government taking ownership of companies through a tax, only to have the rights belong to the administration rather than being directly owed to citizens?

This trend is not new. The Trump Administration has taken equity stakes in over two dozen companies, with terms established through private negotiations and the President or his agencies keeping the rights. For example, Intel and Nippon Steel demonstrate how power can be concentrated in the hands of one person.

OpenAI’s proposed 5% stake, structured like the Alaska Permanent Fund and revocable whenever they choose, is a Trojan horse. It’s meant to clear political obstacles by securing the administration’s financial buy-in. However, what about the public’s best interests? As Sarah Polcz and Jeremy Bearer-Friend argue: “A tax is the best way to secure the public’s standing as a co-owner of AI.”

Sanders’ AI equity tax is not just about generating revenue – it’s about ensuring that if AI ushers in prosperity, it will be shared broadly, transparently, and with public accountability. With this approach, no public funds are used to buy shares, and the bill specifically prohibits public bailouts of covered companies.

The outcome of the midterms will likely determine whether Sanders’ AI equity tax advances – and thus the coming months may decide who owns America’s AI future. In the meantime, we must remain vigilant and demand that our leaders prioritize transparency, accountability, and the public’s stake in innovation.

As the stakes are high, so is the need for us to stand united behind a principle: that the benefits of AI should be shared by all, not just the privileged few. A tax on treason – yes, that’s what it feels like when we’re asked to settle for less than our fair share. It’s time to reject the Trojan horse and demand a tax that truly represents the public’s stake in America’s AI future.