U.S. policymakers and industry observers are examining several distinct mechanisms that could give the public an ownership stake in leading artificial intelligence companies after President Trump said he was exploring ways for Americans to share in the sector's expected profits. The options under discussion fall into three broad categories - taxes paid in stock, equity taken in exchange for government funding, and direct payments to citizens - each with different legal, fiscal and market implications.
Overview
The proposals aim to address concerns that individual Americans may not participate in the financial gains generated by major AI developers. Proponents say the public has helped create the data and infrastructure that support AI, and thus should capture some of the economic value produced. Critics warn that certain interventions could alter corporate incentives or complicate the government's role in the private sector.
Taxes paid in stock
One approach would use the tax system to transfer equity from large AI firms to the government rather than collecting cash. U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders has suggested that major companies should provide a 50% ownership stake and board representation to the government. Separately, two law professors have advocated for a tax that would be settled in shares rather than cash, effectively conveying equity to the government without the need for an upfront public investment.
"The American people should be able to stop what’s bad and benefit from the financial gains of AI," Sanders said in support of his proposal.
Legal scholars who developed the stock-tax concept note that the mechanism would not necessarily deliver a controlling stake to the federal government. Jeremy Bearer-Friend, a professor at George Washington University Law School, said the tax-payable-in-stock model would not confer control.
Equity tied to government funding
Another model would mirror a precedent in which the federal government took an ownership stake in return for large-scale funding aimed at boosting domestic manufacturing capacity. In that arrangement, the government accepted a 10% stake after providing billions of dollars to expand production. Proponents of applying a similar structure to AI argue that the sector's infrastructure needs - including chip fabs and data centers - require substantial capital that private markets alone may not supply.
Alphabet, the parent company of Google DeepMind, recently announced it would increase certain equity offerings to $84.75 billion, underscoring the scale of capital moving through major tech firms. Some companies have held discussions with the government about federal support for hardware projects: OpenAI, for example, has discussed federal loan guarantees for chip manufacturing facilities but has not pursued comparable arrangements for data centers, according to a statement from CEO Sam Altman in November.
Free-market analysts caution that tying government equity to funding could shift the government's focus from protecting public interests to ensuring investment returns. Neil Chilson, who leads AI policy at the Abundance Institute, warned that such a position could distort incentives: "It puts the government in the space where it’s no longer focused on ensuring the U.S. has the capacity it needs to protect the public interest and is more focused on ensuring that its investment pays off," he said.
Payments to Americans - public wealth funds and digital dividends
A third route would channel revenues from AI toward payments made directly to U.S. residents. OpenAI proposed establishing a "public wealth fund" that would invest in AI companies and distribute returns to citizens. Anthropic has said it is examining a so-called "digital dividend," funded by taxes on the AI industry and directed to Americans.
Proponents liken the idea to the Alaska Permanent Fund, which was seeded with oil revenues and distributes annual dividends to state residents while also contributing to Alaska's budget. Supporters argue that, because AI systems depend heavily on data and public infrastructure, a mechanism to preserve and distribute value to citizens would be appropriate. Joseph Blasi, who teaches corporate governance at Rutgers University, framed public infrastructure as a shared resource: "The public infrastructure in the United States is a citizen domain," he said. "It’s not something that a billionaire here or there or a trillionaire here or there can just grab."
Market and fiscal considerations
Any pact that grants the government equity stakes or a continuing revenue stream could reshape federal receipts and change how companies are governed. OpenAI and Anthropic both confidentially filed for U.S. initial public offerings this month, with OpenAI targeting a valuation of up to $1 trillion. Leading AI developers Anthropic, Google and OpenAI did not respond to requests for comment about the government taking stakes in the sector.
Policymakers, academics and industry participants continue to debate the trade-offs between capturing public value and preserving incentives for private investment in AI infrastructure. The options under consideration reflect different priorities: securing immediate fiscal returns, steering corporate conduct through governance rights, or creating ongoing income streams for the public through dividends or funds.
Implications
The proposals under discussion affect multiple sectors, including technology companies that develop AI, financial markets that would price government equity and bonds, and federal budgeting that could incorporate new revenue sources. The specific design choices - tax-in-kind, equity-for-funding, or dividend schemes - will determine how revenues flow and how corporate incentives evolve.