Blab Tech
Senator Sanders Proposes One-Time 50% Share Tax on AI Giants to Fund Annual U.S. Dividend
On June 18, 2026, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders unveiled a bold proposal that would tax the nation’s biggest artificial‑intelligence firms in shares to build a sovereign‑wealth fund capable of paying every American an annual check. The American AI Sovereign Wealth Fund Act calls for a one‑time 50 % share tax on qualifying companies, a move that could grow the fund to roughly $7 trillion and deliver about $1,000 to each U.S. resident each year.
The bill zeroes in on the leaders of the generative‑AI boom. OpenAI, Anthropic, and xAI are among the companies that would be subject to the levy, and the list would expand to include data‑center operators, AI‑infrastructure providers, and firms involved in AI token sales. A company would enter the tax list once it reaches $200 million in annual sales, a threshold that the proposal sets to capture only the most significant players.
Sanders said the tax would prevent a "handful of wealthy corporations" from monopolizing the benefits of AI. He explained that the proceeds would be managed by a seven‑member independent panel, confirmed by the Senate, which would sit on the boards of the participating companies and oversee the fund’s assets. The panel would also decide how large the annual dividend would be.
The idea has attracted both praise and criticism. Former Trump tech adviser David Sacks called the proposal "confiscation," though he noted he would consider voluntary models. Trump himself has floated the notion of the government taking stakes in top AI companies, a point echoed in a Fortune article. OpenAI and Anthropic have each suggested their own versions of public ownership, while other tech giants have voiced opposition.
Public sentiment on AI regulation appears divided. A recent poll cited in the Money piece shows that many Americans feel uneasy about the rapid advance of AI and doubt that either government or industry can adequately police it. A Boston Globe columnist has also criticized Sanders’ plan as containing a "big contradiction."
The proposal’s feasibility remains uncertain. The bill would need to pass a Republican‑heavy Congress, and its tax mechanism would represent a significant departure from existing U.S. corporate tax policy. Nonetheless, the plan aligns with a broader debate about how to distribute the wealth generated by AI. Analysts have pointed out that the fund could provide a form of universal basic income, while critics warn that the tax could stifle innovation.
As of now, the bill has been introduced in the Senate and has received a preliminary endorsement from the Senate’s independent panel. No formal vote has taken place, and the proposal remains a legislative proposal rather than enacted law. The next steps will involve committee hearings, potential amendments, and a floor vote in both chambers.
In summary, Senator Sanders’ AI sovereign‑wealth fund proposal seeks to tax major AI firms in shares to create a fund that would pay a $1,000 annual dividend to every U.S. citizen. The plan has sparked debate among policymakers, industry leaders, and the public, and its future will depend on congressional action and broader political support.
The bill zeroes in on the leaders of the generative‑AI boom. OpenAI, Anthropic, and xAI are among the companies that would be subject to the levy, and the list would expand to include data‑center operators, AI‑infrastructure providers, and firms involved in AI token sales. A company would enter the tax list once it reaches $200 million in annual sales, a threshold that the proposal sets to capture only the most significant players.
Sanders said the tax would prevent a "handful of wealthy corporations" from monopolizing the benefits of AI. He explained that the proceeds would be managed by a seven‑member independent panel, confirmed by the Senate, which would sit on the boards of the participating companies and oversee the fund’s assets. The panel would also decide how large the annual dividend would be.
The idea has attracted both praise and criticism. Former Trump tech adviser David Sacks called the proposal "confiscation," though he noted he would consider voluntary models. Trump himself has floated the notion of the government taking stakes in top AI companies, a point echoed in a Fortune article. OpenAI and Anthropic have each suggested their own versions of public ownership, while other tech giants have voiced opposition.
Public sentiment on AI regulation appears divided. A recent poll cited in the Money piece shows that many Americans feel uneasy about the rapid advance of AI and doubt that either government or industry can adequately police it. A Boston Globe columnist has also criticized Sanders’ plan as containing a "big contradiction."
The proposal’s feasibility remains uncertain. The bill would need to pass a Republican‑heavy Congress, and its tax mechanism would represent a significant departure from existing U.S. corporate tax policy. Nonetheless, the plan aligns with a broader debate about how to distribute the wealth generated by AI. Analysts have pointed out that the fund could provide a form of universal basic income, while critics warn that the tax could stifle innovation.
As of now, the bill has been introduced in the Senate and has received a preliminary endorsement from the Senate’s independent panel. No formal vote has taken place, and the proposal remains a legislative proposal rather than enacted law. The next steps will involve committee hearings, potential amendments, and a floor vote in both chambers.
In summary, Senator Sanders’ AI sovereign‑wealth fund proposal seeks to tax major AI firms in shares to create a fund that would pay a $1,000 annual dividend to every U.S. citizen. The plan has sparked debate among policymakers, industry leaders, and the public, and its future will depend on congressional action and broader political support.
