Sovereign wealth fund tax on AI companies unveiled by Sanders
Source: Roll Call
Posted June 18, 2026 at 5:25pm
Newly released text offers details on legislation from progressive Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., for the federal government to take a 50 percent share in leading artificial intelligence companies.
The text of the as-yet unnumbered bill, released Thursday, would put a one-time tax on AI companies with more than $200 million in annual sales, to be paid in stocks. The resulting sovereign wealth fund would then be used to pay dividends to taxpayers and to fund social priorities like education, health care and housing.
The bill, titled the “American A.I. Sovereign Wealth Fund Act,” is unlikely to become law under Republican control of Congress, but the idea of creating a system for the public to benefit from AI profits has supporters within the industry and on both sides of the political spectrum.
Speaking to reporters on Thursday, Sanders said that by establishing public control over voting shares in AI firms, the bill would give “the American people the ability to prevent AI developments which will negatively impact their lives.”. Under the legislation, the fund would be overseen by a seven-member board appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. “The decisions they make will be accountable to the public, which we do not have right now,” Sanders said, adding that board members could work to stop decisions that could lead to widespread job loss.
Read more: https://rollcall.com/2026/06/18/sovereign-wealth-fund-tax-on-ai-companies-unveiled-by-sanders/
Link to Sen. Sanders PRESS RELEASE - NEWS: Sanders Introduces Legislation to Create $7 Trillion AI Sovereign Wealth Fund
Link to bill SUMMARY (PDF) - https://www.sanders.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/AmericanAISovereignWealthFundActSummary.pdf
Link to bill TEXT (PDF) - https://www.sanders.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/AmericanAIWealthFundTextv618.pdf
= new reply since forum marked as read
... as I just said previously: I fully support strict regulation, worker protections, and holding "Big Tech" accountable. However, as a mainstream Democrat, I view this proposal as a clear overreach. I'll bet that we have some reasonable elected officials who can think of a less extreme way to gradually accomplish similar goals in ways that are more likely to receive bipartisan support that will actually pass. It's clear that this latest proposal is dead on arrival. It's more of a political stunt to generate conversation than any serious attempt. And while it has accomplished the (presumed) goal of generating conversation and debate, it's also quite divisive and just helps to highlight the hostilities that exist. And in that regard, I wonder if the "conversation" on a bill that's going nowhere is worth the price of creating further distrust and using it as a cudgel against the Democratic party and those of us who think that this proposal is just a bridge too far.
If indeed this is a performative "stunt" in order to put the Republicans in a bad light or get them "on the record"... then it's something that is essentially preaching-to-the-choir of involved voters who were already inclined to vote for the Democrats.
But in the end, it's unlikely to get enough Democratic support to go anywhere. So, in the process of calling-out and alienating informed voters from the Republican viewpoints, it would also create friction and among voters and the moderate Democrats in swing states. By removing or harming the support of those voters, it makes swing-state Democrats easier targets for the GOP.
The "everything everywhere right now all at once over the top" type of proposals will continue to fail for obvious reasons. And the risks associated with this type of thing do not outweigh whatever benefit he thinks there may be. It's a discussion starter, but it's not serious.