In a recent Oval Office press conference, President Donald Trump signaled that major tech firms in the artificial intelligence field will soon come up with a plan to “return” to the public. The president did not give specifics about either legislation or finances but his language clearly indicated that he was considering the U.S. government buying equity in some of the country’s most valuable AI companies. Trump told reporters that he will meet with the top 12 to 15 executives “very soon” about giving back to the public and if they do that “the public will become very rich.” I believe they will do that, and it will be very popular,” he added.
The president’s remarks are coming at a time when public anxiety about AI is extraordinarily high. A Reuters/Ipsos poll that was conducted days before his assertion shows that half of Americans are now concerned whether they or a family member will be replaced at work by AI. Those are just a few of the reasons why people in a wide variety of professions, including journalists, customer service representatives, software developers, and logisticians, feel a growing sense of anxiety. AI is no longer a subject of debate for people, and instead, they wonder if it will leave them with any job. The president’s vague proposal strikes right into that unease by proposing that the same technology that is threatening livelihoods can provide a new source of public good.
The reason this time is so important is that the businesses are large. OpenAI is said to be aiming at a valuation of up to one trillion dollars, for example. Such an agreement would make an enormous difference in the U.S. economy, and could reduce the nation’s budget deficits or provide funding for social programs without an increase in taxes. OpenAI publicly announced plans to create the “public wealth fund” that will invest in AI companies, and the money raised from the fund will be “distributed directly to citizens” in April. The language is pretty much the same as what the President apparently is seeking, but as of yet, there’s no indication the administration will formally embrace the concept or modify it into something more regulatory in nature.
To date, the companies have been mum on the record. Requesting comment, Anthropic, OpenAI, Google, and Meta did not immediately respond to the president’s comments. A Trump spokesperson also did not immediately respond to inquiries seeking more details about the planned meeting with AI executives. That’s all the more silence speaks for itself. In the past, tech giants have been adamant against government equity stakes, favoring voluntary ethical guidance or a self-regulatory group. However the political currents have changed. The prospect of AI firms having to share financial benefits with the average American could be a surprising success given years of data privacy horror stories and layoffs among giant tech firms, as well as already shaky public confidence in these companies.
The endorsement, one of the more surprising in this line of thinking, has been voiced by Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, a frequent critic of Trump who tried for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2016 and 2020. Sanders has welcomed the notion of a public wealth fund that is linked to AI, which could be one of the few bipartisan political issues out there. With a progressive populist and a populist conservative president striking similar tunes about corporate accountability, it’s a good time to listen. The most recent time there was a similar situation as during COVID-19, the policy was enacted more quickly than anyone could have predicted.
Nevertheless, at this point there are more questions than answers. But what does it mean to “give back” when it comes to materially changing the lives of others? A one-time dividend? Continuous royalty fees based on the profit from AI? Government stakes in all the above value companies that are AI? And how will the system be enforced if no innovation takes place elsewhere? Last week, the president stated his administration would investigate it, but it has not introduced a formal working group or legislation. That meeting he mentioned with 12 to 15 top executives isn’t scheduled yet, nor is it known if they will be there to hear or negotiate.
In economic terms, the arguments for the benefit to the public of AI are not complicated. Many of these companies used publicly available data for their training, including some data created through government-funded research or data that was scraped from public forums. They use public utilities, roads and in some instances federal energy subsidies to fuel their data centers. The people who fund the creation of the digital and physical spaces where AI can flourish deserve a portion of the profits, the argument goes, if that’s where the profits come from. Critics, however, are concerned that government shareholding might result in government interference in the development of the AI, thereby converting what should be a market driven process into a bureaucratic process. The other aspect is the actual valuation: How to value a stake in a company based on algorithms that double every few months?
