The “People’s IPO”: Trump’s Radical Plan to Give Every American a Stake in OpenAI

 

 The “People’s IPO”: Trump’s Radical Plan to Give Every American a Stake in OpenAI

**Subtitle:** *From a $850 billion valuation to a $2 trillion sovereign fund — the president wants you to become a shareholder in the AI revolution. Here is how the “Public Wealth Fund” would work, why Sam Altman is cheering, and where Bernie Sanders draws the line.*

**Reading Time:** 9 Minutes | **Category:** Technology & Politics

## Introduction: The Air Force One Bombshell

The scene was classic Trump. Lounging aboard Air Force One, the president teased a policy so audacious, so unexpected, that it immediately dominated every news cycle.

"We're talking to the AI companies," Trump told reporters. "There's something very interesting about it, where it almost becomes a partnership with the American public. It's like you make them partners in this revolution. It would be a beautiful thing. ... It would make 'em rich" .

This was not a vague hypothetical. Behind the scenes, the Trump administration is in active discussions with OpenAI, Anthropic, and SpaceX about a precedent-shattering arrangement: the federal government would take an equity stake in these trillion-dollar AI giants, and the proceeds would flow back to you — the American citizen .

The timing is no accident. OpenAI is restructuring from a non-profit into a for-profit public benefit corporation, preparing for an IPO that could value the company at over $850 billion . Anthropic has filed confidentially for an IPO. SpaceX is set to launch the largest IPO in history on June 12.

Sam Altman, the CEO of OpenAI, has been lobbying the White House for this exact arrangement since early 2025 . His April policy document, "Industrial Policy for the Intelligence Age," called for a "Public Wealth Fund" that would allow "even those who have not invested in financial markets to have a stake in AI-driven economic growth" .

In this deep-dive, we will break down the two competing proposals on the table — the Altman-Trump "voluntary partnership" and Bernie Sanders' "50% stock tax" — explain the legal and logistical hurdles, and debate whether this is visionary policy or the most dangerous case of regulatory capture in American history.

> **The Bottom Line Up Front:** The proposal to give Americans a stake in AI companies is the most radical economic idea since the Alaska Permanent Fund. It turns AI from a threat into a dividend. But the details are still being written, and the fight over who gets what — and how much — is just beginning.

## Part 1: The Altman-Trump Blueprint – How the "Public Wealth Fund" Would Work

To understand the proposal, you have to look at a document OpenAI published in April 2026: a policy blueprint titled **"Industrial Policy for the Intelligence Age"** .

### The Core Mechanism

The plan is elegant in its simplicity.

1.  **Equity Donation:** AI companies (OpenAI, Anthropic, SpaceX) would voluntarily donate a small percentage of their equity — likely between **1% and 5%** — to the US government .

2.  **The Sovereign Fund:** The government would place these shares into a newly created **sovereign wealth fund** — an investment vehicle akin to what Norway uses to manage its oil wealth. Trump signed an executive order in February calling for the establishment of such a fund .

3.  **The Dividend:** The returns from this fund — the dividends and capital gains as the companies grow — would be distributed to American citizens. Some versions of the plan envision direct cash payments, similar to the Alaska Permanent Fund, which sends an annual check to every resident of the state .

"The concept is that even those who have not invested in financial markets can have a stake in AI-driven economic growth, regardless of their starting wealth or access to capital," OpenAI wrote in its proposal .

### Why Sam Altman Is Pushing This

At first glance, giving away equity to the government seems counterintuitive for a CEO. Why would Altman dilute his shareholders?

**The Political Shield:** AI is facing a growing populist backlash. People are scared of losing their jobs to automation. They are worried about the concentration of power. By giving the public a financial stake, Altman hopes to turn potential enemies into investors .

**The Regulatory Fast Lane:** Companies that voluntarily give equity to the government might find regulatory hurdles removed. It is a form of "patriotic insurance" against aggressive antitrust or safety crackdowns.

**The "Legitimacy" Play:** OpenAI is transitioning from a non-profit to a for-profit Public Benefit Corporation. Critics — including Elon Musk — argue this violates its founding mission. A government-sanctioned "public wealth fund" lends legitimacy to the new structure .

### The Trump Administration's Role

The administration has been in active discussions with OpenAI for over a year . The talks are being led by senior White House officials, and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has reportedly expressed interest in the concept .

"It's like you make them partners in this revolution," Trump said. "It would be a beautiful thing" .

| Stake Percentage | Source | Mechanism | Probability |

| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |

| **1% - 5%** | Industry discussions | Voluntary equity donation | Likely (if deal happens) |

| **50%** | Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) | One-time stock tax | Unlikely (constitutional issues) |

| **10%** | Trump admin (Intel precedent) | Quid pro quo for subsidies | Possible hybrid model |

## Part 2: The Sanders Alternative – The 50% "Stock Tax"

Just as Trump was teasing his "partnership" plan, Senator Bernie Sanders dropped a legislative bomb.

### The AI Sovereign Wealth Fund Act

Sanders' proposal is far more aggressive. He wants to impose a **one-time, 50% tax on the stock of the largest AI companies** — OpenAI, Anthropic, and xAI (now part of SpaceX) — to be paid in shares rather than cash .

- **The Tax Rate:** 50% of the company's value.

- **The Payment Method:** Stock, not dollars.

- **The Governance:** The government would use its voting shares to secure board representation and block decisions "deemed harmful" .

Sanders argues that this is the only way to "guarantee that the trillions of dollars potentially generated by A.I. are used to improve the lives of all of us" .

### The Political Realignment

What is remarkable is that Sanders' idea has found resonance on the right. David Sacks, the investor who recently stepped down as Trump's AI and crypto czar, posted that he can see "why Sanders' idea resonates, including with many on the right" .

However, Sacks warned that it would "actually accelerate the corporate-government fusion we're already sliding toward" .

### The Unlikelihood of Passage

Sanders' bill is widely considered unlikely to pass a Republican-controlled Congress. The legal and constitutional questions are daunting. Can the government seize 50% of a private company's value without triggering a massive legal challenge? The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment suggests not.

But the very fact that Sanders is proposing it has shifted the boundaries of what Washington is willing to discuss. The Overton window has moved. What was once fringe is now mainstream.

**The Creative Angle:** The Sanders and Trump proposals represent two poles of AI governance. Sanders wants the government to take control because he distrusts the corporations. Trump wants the corporations to give a little because he wants them to keep innovating. The final policy will likely fall somewhere in the middle — but the debate itself is a sign of how fast the politics of AI are evolving.

## Part 3: The Critics – "Accelerating Corporate-Government Fusion"

Not everyone is celebrating. The proposal has drawn sharp criticism from across the political spectrum.

### The "Conflict of Interest" Problem

Nat Purser of the advocacy group Public Knowledge issued a stark warning. He cautioned against any setup that makes the government "less inclined to impose or enforce safety regulations because doing so might diminish the value of its own holdings" .

This is the core problem. The government is supposed to be the regulator. But if the government owns a stake in the companies it regulates, its incentive changes. A tough new safety rule might be good for the public — but bad for the stock price. Which way does the Treasury lean?

"The concern is not abstract," Purser noted. "Three days before Trump's profit-sharing comments, he signed an executive order asking AI companies to voluntarily submit frontier models for government testing up to 30 days before public release" . The word "voluntarily" is doing a lot of work.

### The Sacks Warning

David Sacks, who just left the administration, was even more direct. He warned that the plan would "accelerate the corporate-government fusion we're already sliding toward" .

In Sacks' view, the US is already moving toward a system where government and big tech are indistinguishable. An equity stake would be a giant step in that direction.

### The "Bailout" Fear

Former Microsoft employee Dare Obasanjo suggested on social media that "the groundwork is already being laid for a government bailout of OpenAI" .

The logic is compelling. If the government owns a stake, it has a vested interest in the company's survival. If OpenAI faces financial trouble, a bailout becomes more likely. The equity stake is a form of "too big to fail" insurance.

### The Legal Limbo

Even supporters of the idea admit that the legal mechanism is unclear. How does a private company transfer equity to the federal government? No one has written that law yet.

- **OpenAI:** Valued at over $850 billion, restructuring from non-profit to for-profit, preparing for an IPO. It closed a record funding round in March co-led by MGX, backed by Abu Dhabi's sovereign wealth fund .

- **Anthropic:** Has filed confidentially for an IPO .

- **xAI:** Merged into SpaceX, which is about to conduct the largest IPO in history .

Each has a different corporate structure, different investor base, and different fiduciary obligations. A one-size-fits-all equity transfer mechanism does not exist .

| Concern | Source | Likelihood |

| :--- | :--- | :--- |

| **Regulatory capture** | Nat Purser, Public Knowledge | High |

| **Corporate-government fusion** | David Sacks (former AI czar) | Moderate |

| **Government bailout risk** | Dare Obasanjo (former Microsoft) | Low (but rising) |

| **Legal/constitutional challenges** | Legal scholars | High |

| **Market distortion** | Free-market advocates | Moderate |

## Part 4: The Precedent – The Intel Model

One of the most convincing arguments for the plan is that the government has done it before.

### The 9.9% Solution

In 2025, as part of the CHIPS Act implementation, the US government took a **9.9% equity stake** in Intel Corporation . The rationale was national security: Intel is the only major American semiconductor manufacturer. Letting it fail or fall into foreign hands was not an option.

If the logic holds for chips — a foundational technology — why not for AI?

### The "Strategic Asset" Argument

The administration is categorizing AI alongside semiconductors, rare earth minerals, and quantum computing as a **"critical national security asset"** .

- **The Global Competition:** China is heavily subsidizing AI. The US argument is that to compete with state-owned enterprises, the US *must* have a government hand on the wheel.

- **The "Too Big to Fail" Logic:** If OpenAI collapses, the national security implications are severe. Taking an equity stake now is a hedge against a bailout later.

### The Difference

There is one crucial difference between the Intel stake and the AI proposal. The Intel stake came with specific industrial policy objectives tied to subsidies or procurement contracts. An AI equity program would be structurally different: it would aim to redistribute wealth from an entire category of companies to the general public, not to secure supply chains .

| Aspect | Intel Model | Proposed AI Model |

| :--- | :--- | :--- |

| **Rationale** | National security (supply chain) | Wealth distribution + legitimacy |

| **Mechanism** | Quid pro quo for subsidies | Voluntary donation or tax |

| **Stake Size** | 9.9% | 1-5% (voluntary) or 50% (tax) |

| **Beneficiary** | Government budget | Direct citizen dividends |

## Part 5: The Bigger Picture – The Alaska Model for the AI Age

The proposal that most closely resembles Trump's vision is the **Alaska Permanent Fund**.

### The Alaska Precedent

In 1976, Alaska voters established a sovereign wealth fund to manage the state's oil revenue. The fund owns a diversified portfolio of stocks, bonds, and real estate. Every year, it distributes a portion of its earnings to every resident of the state — the famous "Permanent Fund Dividend."

In 2025, that dividend was approximately **$1,600 per person** .

Trump's proposal would effectively create a national version of the Alaska fund, with AI companies as the "oil."

### The "AI New Deal"

OpenAI's Sam Altman has been promoting this concept for years. In 2021, he called for a "Moore's Law for Everything" — a universal basic income funded by taxes on AI-driven productivity gains. The "Public Wealth Fund" is the latest iteration of that vision .

### The Legitimacy Problem

The driving force behind the proposal is political necessity. Artificial intelligence remains broadly unpopular across the US population. Polls show that a majority of Americans are concerned about AI's impact on jobs, privacy, and democracy .

Industry leaders believe that transforming ordinary Americans into financial beneficiaries of AI's commercial success could fundamentally alter public perception of the technology .

"By doing that, they're gonna like it better," Trump said. "We're leading China. We're leading everybody in the world with AI, and we want to keep it that way" .

### What Comes Next

Trump said the meeting with AI companies will happen "next week" . No formal agenda has been announced. The planning remains at the discussion stage, with no companies confirmed and no legal framework in place.

The broader context is a country that has spent 18 months unable to agree on basic AI safety rules, let alone ownership structures. The EU has its AI Act. The US has a stalled executive order, a voluntary testing regime, and now two competing proposals to give the public a cut of the profits.

Whether any of it results in Americans actually receiving dividends from AI companies — or whether the conversation simply makes the companies look generous while changing nothing — will depend on details that nobody has written yet .

## Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

**Q: Is the government actually buying AI companies?**

A: No. The plan is for the government to **receive voluntary equity stakes** (shares) in the companies — likely as a donation, not a purchase. The companies would be giving away a small percentage of their value to the public .

**Q: Would I get a check?**

A: That is the goal. The returns from the government's shares would be funneled into a sovereign wealth fund, and the profits could be distributed as a direct dividend payment to all American households .

**Q: How much equity are we talking about?**

A: Industry discussions have centered on stakes ranging from **1% to 5%** . Bernie Sanders wants 50% . The Trump administration has not specified a number.

**Q: Is this legal?**

A: The administration is using the precedent of the Intel equity stake to argue its legality . However, a 50% "stock tax" would almost certainly face constitutional challenges.

**Q: Does this include Elon Musk's companies (SpaceX/xAI)?**

A: Yes. Trump has explicitly included SpaceX (which now owns xAI) in the discussions . However, given Musk's tense relationship with the administration, the negotiations would be complicated.

**Q: Is OpenAI on board?**

A: Yes. Sam Altman has been the most active advocate of the concept, raising it directly with Trump in early 2025 and returning to the idea in recent weeks .

**Q: When will we know if this is happening?**

A: Trump said he would meet with AI companies "next week" . However, the legal and logistical details could take months — or years — to resolve.

## Conclusion: The People's AI

We started this article with a number: $850 billion. That is OpenAI's valuation.

We end with a different number: **1% to 5%**. That is the stake that could be coming to you.

The "Public Wealth Fund" is the most radical economic idea since the Alaska Permanent Fund. It turns the AI revolution from a threat into a dividend. It transforms ordinary citizens from potential victims of automation into financial stakeholders in the technology that is reshaping the world.

Whether it happens depends on Sam Altman's willingness to share, Donald Trump's political calculus, and a legal system that has never considered a question quite like this.

But the fact that it is being discussed at the highest levels of government is a sign of how much the world has changed. AI is no longer just a technology. It is a political issue. And the question of who gets to own the future is now on the table.

**For the Citizen:**

The proposal is real. The discussions are happening. If you want a say in whether the government takes a stake in AI companies, let your representatives know. The decision is not just about money. It is about power.

**For the Investor:**

The uncertainty is real. If the government takes a 5% stake, your shares are diluted. If Sanders gets his 50%, the valuation math changes entirely. Watch the news from Washington closely.

**For the Skeptic:**

This is either visionary policy or the most dangerous case of regulatory capture in American history. The only way to know which is to follow the details — and to hold both the administration and the companies accountable.

**The Bottom Line:**

Donald Trump wants to make you a partner in the AI revolution. Sam Altman wants to give you a piece of his company. Bernie Sanders wants to take it for you.

The battle for the future of AI ownership has begun. And the stakes are higher than any of us can imagine.

---

**#Trump #OpenAI #AI #PublicWealthFund #SovereignWealthFund #SamAltman #BernieSanders #TechPolicy**

---

*Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only. Policy proposals are subject to change and legislative approval.*