Creating a government fund to own AI stock and benefit all Americans would require many hard choices.
Should the U.S. government require artificial intelligence companies to transfer half of their stock to a sovereign wealth fund – a government-run fund that invests surplus state revenues for long-term savings and economic stability?
About seven in 10 Americans who were asked this question in a June 2026 survey answered that it should. The survey was conducted around the time that Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont introduced related legislation.
His measure is intended to create government oversight over disruptive AI threats, while allowing all Americans to benefit from the value the technology creates.
And, on July 13, about 200 economists and computer scientists, including 16 Nobel Prize winners, also raised their voices about the disruptions posed by AI, warning that “AI may become radically more powerful over the next 10 years.” What AI does to the economy, they continued, “could bring risks, including large-scale job displacement, as well as opportunities such as major gains in living standards.” The letter’s signatories called for AI use that “complements humans and benefits society.”
Signs that Americans are becoming increasingly wary of AI are multiplying. Concerns not only revolve around what AI might do to the job market, but also around the broader economy.
Sovereign wealth funds
I’ve spent nearly 20 years studying sovereign wealth funds. They are typically set up as government entities, staffed by professional investors and tasked with concrete investment goals. Specific laws define how they receive the cash they invest. Similar rules define when cash can be withdrawn and why.
Although sovereign wealth funds serve a wide range of purposes, their most basic function, broadly defined, is to hold and invest government savings to support the current and future needs of citizens.
If the U.S. were to create a sovereign wealth fund to harness AI and buffer the economy and workers from long-term harms that AI could cause, it would hardly be the first country to do so.
Canada, the U.K., South Korea, Saudi Arabia and several other countries have already begun to introduce AI-focused sovereign wealth funds into their long-term government planning. While the idea is certainly appealing and simple, creating a sovereign wealth fund for this purpose is definitely not.
Alaska’s oil revenue surpluses
In the U.S., many states have had sovereign wealth-like funds for many years. These have helped states to manage surplus revenues or invest in specific projects. New Mexico and Wyoming are two examples.
Alaska, perhaps the best known, is a third. Its US$91 billion Permanent Fund has accumulated the state’s oil revenue surpluses since 1976. Today, the Permanent Fund is completely integrated into its state revenue system – meaning that it helps fund Alaska’s budget. The state government uses it to buffer state finances when oil prices drop below levels that allow Alaska to generate surplus earnings.
Since 1982, the fund has made payments – through what it calls dividends – to Alaska residents age 1 year old and older. These individual payments vary year to year, peaking at more than $3,200 per recipient in 2022. It’s set at $1,200 for 2026.
Taking stakes in companies
Although President Donald Trump first floated the concept of a U.S. sovereign wealth fund in February 2025, his administration has made little progress advancing that idea.
The administration has instead been an active investor in several strategic sectors, including defense, energy, semiconductors and critical minerals. The 30 such deals it has struck since January 2025 total $27 billion.
They include the federal government’s investments in U.S. Steel and Intel. These investments were completed independently by various federal agencies. They include buying stock in private companies, which means that the U.S. government benefits if the companies pay dividends to shareholders. The government also benefits if the shares go up in value and the stock is sold for a profit.
In June, Vice President JD Vance indicated that the White House would support extending this strategy to include the government owning stock in AI companies.
Today, the income generated from U.S. government stock holdings is returned to the government, but without any specific use defined upfront.
If income from AI investments were to be treated in the same way, I see no rules or programs currently in place that would specifically direct those funds to offset negative impacts from AI, including those related to employment and income levels.
Could a sovereign wealth fund play that role?
Challenges to investing in AI for the public good
Before establishing any kind of fund intended to offset damage to the economy or to workers that AI may cause, the government would have to answer several tough questions.
- Is it investing in companies or getting their stock through taxes or some other arrangement?
- Who decides which companies it will invest in?
- Where would the money come from to finance these investments?
- How would the government earn income from these investments?
- Investing in any new technology is risky. AI companies are high-growth and cash-hungry, with uncertain prospects. What happens if AI companies are not competitive or profitable and their stock prices go down?
Even if the government began to own shares in AI companies, that would not necessarily mean those companies would be paying for any disruption their products may be causing to the U.S. labor market and economy. That would require policymakers to agree on how these investments should be made, how risks to these returns ought to be managed, and how any income that the government may earn from these investments could be used.
Establishing a sovereign wealth fund to capture wealth created by AI to benefit all Americans could be a start. Making it deliver on the expectations that would accompany its creation would require consensus, discipline and strong governance to do effectively. All of which, I am afraid, are in short supply in today’s Washington.
Patrick J. Schena, Professor of Practice and International Business, Tufts University
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
