what’s at stake
The idea of the federal government exacting a public benefit from big artificial intelligence companies has support from an unusual duo: Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and President Donald Trump.
The progressive senator is working on legislation that would hand the public a direct ownership stake in AI companies by charging them a one-time 50% tax paid in stock, to sit in a sovereign wealth fund. Trump has signaled interest in a similar concept — after taking equity stakes in multiple other security-adjacent companies — when he mused about tech companies at the center of the AI buildout “giving back something to the public.”
The proposal has found some fans, like Sen. Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii, but it faces plenty of skepticism on Capitol Hill for a variety of reasons.
In this article:
who’s making the case
Sen. Mike Rounds, R-S.D., said taking a stake in one company risks losing out on another, more successful one:
“What I don’t want to do is get stuck with one company or two companies that we’ve got a vested interest in ,and then find out that there’s a better company out there that would have a better product, but we’re tied in equity-wise with one company. So I don’t necessarily care for the idea.”
Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., said he doesn’t support “big government owning Big Tech,” but that he’d be open to Sanders’ broader idea of a sovereign wealth fund:
“I’m not a huge fan of government ownership where you have big government owning Big Tech. To me, those are the two worst actors in America, or pretty close, I don’t really want to put them together. What I’d love to do is break up those big companies, introduce more competition, and give everyday working people more control of their data, their own lives. Now, a sovereign wealth fund, on the other hand, that’s a different idea. That I’m a little bit warmer to.”
Sen. Angus King, I-Maine, argued doing so would create a “built-in conflict of interest” for the government when it weighs new regulations:
“I don’t think that’s the place of the US government to be involved in private companies. For example, do you pass a regulation that might impinge on the profitability of a company that you own a stake in? It sort of creates a built-in conflict of interest. I just don’t think it’s part of the job of the federal government to own pieces of US companies.”
Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., was open to — but skeptical of — the idea because it could sully the bidding process for government contracts:
“I would be open to the discussion. Here is the issue. … The [Defense Department] has done a deal or two in this space and it makes many other companies feel like, ‘well, wow, in the bidding process, we’ll never win that, because they’ll always put their thumb on the scale for the one where they have the stake.’ So how do you square something like that with the virtues of the bidding where people ought to be able to compete and if they are the best product, win the competition?
“On the DOD side, could there be some upside value? Sure, there could be. But you also end up with other competitors who are saying, ‘We are competitively disadvantaged by that.’ So fairness is important.”
Notable
- NOTUS was first to report that Trump administration officials talked to AI companies about the federal government possibly acquiring shares in them.