Establishing a government fund to hold equity in artificial intelligence companies and distribute the benefits across the American public would demand difficult policy decisions at every turn.

A June 2026 survey found that roughly seven in ten Americans support requiring AI companies to transfer half of their stock to a sovereign wealth fund — a government-run investment vehicle that deploys surplus state revenues for long-term savings and economic stability. The poll coincided with the introduction of related legislation by Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, which calls for creating a $7 trillion AI sovereign wealth fund — an amount roughly four times larger than Norway's Government Pension Fund Global, the world's biggest sovereign wealth fund at approximately $1.7 trillion. The bill aims to create government oversight of disruptive AI threats while ensuring all Americans share in the value the technology generates.

On July 13, approximately 200 economists and computer scientists, including 16 Nobel Prize winners, issued an open letter cautioning that "AI may become radically more powerful over the next 10 years." Its economic impact, they wrote, "could bring risks, including large-scale job displacement, as well as opportunities such as major gains in living standards." The signatories urged AI development that "complements humans and benefits society."

Public concern about AI is intensifying, spanning both the labor market and the broader economy.

How Sovereign Wealth Funds Work

Sovereign wealth funds are typically established as government entities staffed by professional investors with defined investment mandates. Legislation governs how they receive the capital they invest and the conditions under which funds may be withdrawn.

While these funds serve diverse purposes, their fundamental role is to hold and invest government savings to support current and future citizen needs. If the United States were to create one specifically to harness AI and cushion workers from its potential harms, it would not be alone. Canada has launched a $360 million tech growth fund to bolster its domestic AI industry, the United Kingdom has committed $675 million to a sovereign AI fund, South Korea, Saudi Arabia, and several other nations have already begun incorporating AI-focused sovereign wealth vehicles into their long-term planning. These international efforts remain far smaller in scale than what Sanders has proposed.

Lessons from Alaska's Permanent Fund

Many U.S. states have operated sovereign wealth-like mechanisms for years, including New Mexico and Wyoming, using them to manage surplus revenues or finance specific initiatives.

Alaska offers the most prominent example. Its $91 billion Permanent Fund has accumulated the state's oil revenue surpluses since 1976 and is now fully integrated into Alaska's revenue system, helping fund the state budget and providing a financial buffer when oil prices decline below surplus-generating levels. The fund's underlying logic — treating a concentrated natural resource as a shared public asset — is the same principle Sanders and other proponents now seek to apply to AI.

Since 1982, the fund has distributed annual dividends to Alaska residents aged one year and older. Payments fluctuate annually, peaking at more than $3,200 per recipient in 2022. The dividend is set at $1,200 for 2026.

The Federal Government's Growing Equity Portfolio

Although President Donald Trump first proposed a U.S. sovereign wealth fund in February 2025, the administration has made limited progress on that specific concept. Instead, the federal government has become an active equity investor across strategic sectors including defense, energy, semiconductors, and critical minerals — a notable departure from decades of U.S. policy that generally avoided direct government stakes in private enterprise. According to the Council on Foreign Relations, the administration has completed 30 such deals since January 2025, totaling $27 billion.

These include federal investments in U.S. Steel and Intel, executed independently by various federal agencies. The government acquires stock in private companies, benefiting from dividend payments and potential capital gains when shares appreciate.

In June, Vice President JD Vance indicated that the White House would support extending this strategy to include government ownership of AI company stock. That signaled a rare area of overlap between the administration's industrial policy and the populist economic vision advanced by Sanders.

Currently, income generated from U.S. government equity holdings returns to the Treasury without any predefined allocation. No existing rules or programs would specifically channel revenue from AI investments toward offsetting the technology's negative effects on employment and income.

Key Questions for an AI-Focused Fund

Before creating a fund to compensate for economic disruption caused by AI, policymakers would need to resolve several difficult questions:

• Would the government acquire equity through direct investment, taxation, or another mechanism?
• Who selects the companies for investment?
• What revenue source would finance the investments?
• How would the government generate returns?
• How would the fund's governance be insulated from political pressure?

Investing in any emerging technology carries risk. AI companies tend to be high-growth and capital-intensive, with uncertain prospects. If they fail to remain competitive or profitable, share prices could decline.

Moreover, government ownership of AI company stock would not automatically ensure that those companies bear responsibility for labor market disruption their products cause. Policymakers would need to agree on investment strategy, risk management, and the specific application of any government returns.

Establishing a sovereign wealth fund to capture AI-generated wealth for all Americans could represent a meaningful starting point. Delivering on the expectations accompanying its creation, however, would demand consensus, fiscal discipline, and robust governance — attributes that remain scarce in Washington today.

Patrick J. Schena is Professor of Practice and International Business at Tufts University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license.