Trump, Sanders and Altman All Agree: The Government Should Own AI

The strangest political alignment in the history of artificial intelligence emerged on Friday, June 5.

A Republican president. A democratic socialist senator. The CEO of the most valuable AI company in the world. All three, from completely different directions, arriving at the same conclusion: the United States government should own a piece of the companies building the most powerful technology of the decade.

This is not a story about politics. It is a story about power — and who controls the economic value of the AI era.

What Trump Said — And What It Actually Means

President Donald Trump said Friday that the federal government may take direct equity stakes in leading AI companies, naming OpenAI, Anthropic and xAI. The remark dragged into public view an idea the administration and OpenAI have reportedly discussed for more than a year — and raised a question with consequences for every taxpayer: should the government own a piece of the companies building the most powerful technology of the decade?

Under the framework being discussed, OpenAI would donate equity to the federal government rather than sell it — a structure designed to avoid any direct cash outlay from taxpayers. Those donated shares would seed what OpenAI has branded a "Public Wealth Fund," a sovereign investment vehicle the company outlined in an April 2026 policy proposal. OpenAI CEO Sam Altman first pitched the concept to the administration in early 2025 and revisited it with senior officials in Washington this week.

Trump drew a direct comparison to what he described as a successful precedent: the US government's prior acquisition of a 10% stake in Intel.

The Intel precedent is revealing. The government stake in Intel was framed as industrial policy — keeping a strategic semiconductor manufacturer operating in the United States. Trump is applying the same logic to AI: these companies are strategic national assets, and the government should have a financial interest in their success.

What Sanders Said — The Left's Version

Senator Bernie Sanders called for the government to take 50% equity stakes in OpenAI, Anthropic and xAI, plus a 50% tax on their stock — effectively partial nationalisation. Sanders told CNBC that he and Altman discussed the concept of a sovereign wealth fund during a meeting on Wednesday.

Sanders and Trump disagree on the percentage. They agree on the principle. AI profits are politically too large to stay entirely private.
That convergence — between the populist right and the democratic left — is the political signal of 2026. When Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump agree on something, it is no longer a fringe position. It is the emerging consensus of American political economy on AI.

What Altman Did — The CEO Who Invented His Own Regulation

Sam Altman pitched the idea of government stakes in major AI firms directly to Trump in early 2025 and has discussed it periodically since — including in recent weeks as a way to distribute AI economic gains more broadly.

This detail is extraordinary. The CEO of OpenAI did not resist government ownership. He proposed it. And he proposed it not under political pressure, but strategically — as a way to tie Washington's financial interests to OpenAI's success, to reduce regulatory risk and to frame government equity as a form of benefit distribution rather than oversight.

OpenAI is valued at more than $850 billion by private investors and is gearing up for an IPO as soon as this year. The donated equity would seed the "Public Wealth Fund" OpenAI outlined in its April 2026 policy proposal.

Donating equity to the government before an IPO is not altruism. It is a regulatory strategy. A government that owns OpenAI shares has a financial interest in OpenAI's success — and a structural disincentive to regulate it in ways that reduce its valuation.

What Anthropic Did — The Company That Said No

Anthropic is not participating in government equity discussions. A person familiar with the matter confirmed that Anthropic is not having conversations with the administration about providing equity to the government.

This exclusion comes after a tense history between Anthropic and the Trump administration — in February 2026, Trump ordered all federal agencies to immediately cease using Anthropic's technology after the company refused to let the Pentagon use its AI systems without certain safety guardrails.

Anthropic's refusal is consistent. It refused Pentagon deployment without safety guardrails. It is refusing government equity discussions. The company that has most consistently argued for AI safety as a non-negotiable principle is also the company that is not at the table when AI ownership is being negotiated.
The political cost of principle: Anthropic is watching OpenAI shape the terms of its government relationship while Anthropic is excluded from the conversation entirely.

What This Means for GAFAM

The government equity discussion is primarily about OpenAI, Anthropic and xAI — companies that are not part of the GAFAM five. But it has direct implications for every GAFAM company.

Microsoft owns a significant stake in OpenAI. If the US government acquires equity in OpenAI — whether through donation or purchase — it becomes a co-shareholder with Microsoft in the world's most valuable AI company.

The regulatory implications of a government that simultaneously owns OpenAI shares and oversees AI policy are significant for every company in the sector.

Google, Meta and Amazon all compete with OpenAI's products and depend on the regulatory environment that Washington sets. A government financially invested in OpenAI's success has an incentive to set that regulatory environment in ways that protect its investment.

The European Perspective