Bernie Sanders’ AI Power Grab Sparks Firestorm

Bernie Sanders in glasses. — BERNIE UNDER FIRE

Most American workers now say if artificial intelligence is going to erase their jobs, it should also help pay their bills.

Story Snapshot

New polling shows a strong majority of U.S. workers support an AI wealth fund that holds public stock in major AI firms.
Senator Bernie Sanders’ American AI Sovereign Wealth Fund Act would seize 50% of large AI companies’ equity in a one-time tax payable in stock.
The plan aims to build a roughly $7 trillion fund and pay every American about $1,000 a year from AI gains.
Critics warn the bill is radical, legally fragile, and a threat to U.S. tech leadership, while workers see it as insurance against AI layoffs.

Workers face AI layoffs and look for a safety net

American workers are watching layoffs spread through technology, media, finance, and even white-collar office work. Automation and artificial intelligence tools are cutting job openings while boosting profits.

That mix drives a simple question on factory floors and Zoom calls alike: if software is taking the work, who gets the money? Recent survey data showing strong support for an AI wealth fund tells us many workers now believe the public, not just shareholders, should share in AI gains.

Sanders leans on a stark warning. A report from the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee estimates AI could replace nearly 100 million American jobs over the next decade.

That number sounds extreme, but it captures a growing fear: AI does not just threaten low-skill work. It reaches customer service, design, legal research, and even software coding.

When workers who feel replaceable hear about trillion-dollar valuations in Silicon Valley, they want more than vague talk of retraining and “new opportunities.” They want a direct stake.

What Sanders’ AI sovereign wealth fund would actually do

The American AI Sovereign Wealth Fund Act is built around a one-time tax equal to 50% of a qualifying AI company’s equity. That tax is payable in stock, not cash. Any company with at least $200 million per year in AI-related sales would be forced to hand over half its shares to a new public fund.

The bill broadly defines AI business: data centers designed for AI, computing infrastructure, AI services, and advanced robotics activity all count. Once a firm crosses that revenue line, it joins the fund’s portfolio, whether it likes it or not.

Majority of U.S. workers support an AI wealth fund as tech layoffs surge, survey finds https://t.co/dIKWDnHuGf

— CNBC (@CNBC) July 12, 2026

Those shares would sit in a Treasury trust called the American AI Sovereign Wealth Fund. Management would fall to a new Independent Commission for Democratic AI, a seven-member body nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Commissioners must pursue worker welfare, public safety, fair competition, environmental care, and financial stability.

That sounds like a wish list, but in practice it means the fund would vote its shares to block company decisions that harm the public and support those that benefit the public. In short, Washington would gain veto power inside boardrooms of the largest AI firms.

Breaking up business lines and paying out dividends

The bill also orders structural separation. Large firms that mix AI and non-AI lines would have to split those businesses into distinct companies, each with its own board and balance sheet.

The goal is clear: the public owns only the AI part. Sanders wants to prevent firms from hiding AI profits inside complex conglomerates or diluting public control with unrelated divisions. The bill sets tight rules on shared officers, credit lines, and equity ties between the AI and non-AI entities.

Sanders’ team estimates the resulting sovereign wealth fund could reach about $7 trillion at current AI valuations. The plan then requires a 5% annual dividend from the fund’s value.

That money would first go into direct cash payments, which Sanders says could top $1,000 per person each year. Over time, he wants those dividends to also fund health care, education, housing, and environmental programs.

The bill forbids using the fund to bail out AI companies, aiming to shield taxpayers if the sector crashes. Losses would hit company owners, not the federal government.

Math gaps, missing text, and conservative concerns

The headline numbers sound generous, but the math has loose ends. A 5% dividend on a $7 trillion fund yields $350 billion per year. Paying $1,000 to about 335 million people requires roughly $335 billion.

That leaves billions each year unaccounted for in public messaging, with no clear written formula for how much goes to checks versus other programs. The full legislative text, with the detailed valuation rules and enforcement steps, is not yet widely available beyond summary documents.

Several red flags stand out. First, forcing private and even foreign-linked companies to surrender half their equity looks, in practice, close to nationalization, even if the legal language calls it a “tax.” That kind of move runs counter to American traditions of limited government and secure property rights.

Second, the bill lacks a clear plan for private companies with complex share structures and leaves courts to sort out constitutional disputes later. That is not how you build a stable business climate.

Pattern of big ideas that rarely become law

This proposal fits a long pattern. When a new industry starts to look like a gold mine, leaders float ideas for public stakes and sovereign wealth funds. Oil sparked Alaska’s Permanent Fund in the 1970s. Later waves of talk around digital platforms and energy never made it through Congress.

The Trump administration even ordered work on a national sovereign wealth fund, but details never solidified into law. Sanders’ AI plan leans farther left than those proposals, and it faces a Republican-controlled Congress deeply skeptical of wealth redistribution.

Big technology firms and their allies already warn this act would be a “death sentence” for American tech leadership, driving AI development overseas and handing rivals a gift.

Many voters will also question whether Washington should ever hold voting power inside private companies. Yet the worker anger behind the polling numbers is real.

If AI turns more middle-class jobs into cost savings, pressure for some kind of public share will keep rising. Whether Sanders’ bill passes or not, this fight marks the opening round of a much larger struggle over who owns the future of AI in America.