AAA<\/p>\n
Artificial intelligence has the potential to disrupt and transform the way people work and live. Should those it will affect have a stake in the industry that could reshape their lives?<\/a><\/p>\n That\u2019s a live question. Earlier this month, US President Donald Trump said he planned to meet AI executives to discuss precisely that<\/a>. OpenAI and Anthropic have publicly raised the possibility<\/a> of giving shares in their businesses to the government, or Americans as individuals. Democratic Senator Bernie Sanders has advocated a one-off 50 per cent tax<\/a> on AI companies\u2019 market values, with the proceeds to be held within a sovereign wealth fund.<\/p>\n Yet, the question might be premature.<\/p>\n We\u2019re at the earliest phase of AI development and, while there is a lot of talk about how AI and AI-enabled robots will displace human labour and lead to mass unemployment and under-employment, there is, as yet, no clear picture of what an AI future might look like.<\/p>\n Disruptive technologies in the past have generated similar fears but have led to more, not less, employment with upgraded skills.<\/p>\n The idea of giving the government, or the population, financial exposure to the sector creating the disruption has, not surprisingly, been embraced by Trump, whose administration has already taken up, or announced plans to take up, stakes in at least 20 US companies ranging from Intel<\/a> and Westinghouse to rare earths and quantum computing companies.<\/p>\n \u2018If we do that, the public will become very rich, the people in our country, because that\u2019s the kind of money we\u2019re talking about.\u2019<\/p>\n Donald Trump<\/p>\n \u201cIf we do that [take up stakes in AI companies], the public will become very rich, the people in our country, because that\u2019s the kind of money we\u2019re talking about,\u201d he said earlier this month.<\/p>\n \u201cYou make them [the public] a partnership in this revolution,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n Sanders, who has called AI \u201cthe most transformational technology in the history of the world<\/a>,\u201d argues that it has been built on the collective knowledge of generations, much of it collected without compensation through the theft of intellectual property by some of the wealthiest people in the world.<\/p>\n Related Article \u201cWill the future of humanity be determined by a handful of billionaires [he should have said trillionaires] who have promoted and developed AI, with virtually no democratic input, who stand to become even richer and more powerful than they are today?\u201d Sanders asked.<\/p>\n Having been built on the collective knowledge of humanity, the wealth AI generates must benefit humanity, he argues.<\/p>\n Those are legitimate questions although, as the $US800 billion ($1.14 trillion) slump<\/a> in the market value of Elon Musk\u2019s SpaceX from its post-listing peak last week highlights, the paper wealth Sanders wants to socialise and Trump is eyeing avariciously is volatile and fragile.<\/p>\n AI is extraordinarily capital-intensive and the companies pursuing frontier models are generating vast torrents of capital-devouring red ink as they develop their technology and the infrastructure to support it.<\/p>\n If, for any reason, they lost their access to capital \u2013 if there were a sharemarket crash, or they lost access to debt markets before AI companies\u2019 finances reach some level of self-sustaining maturity \u2013 much of the sector would instantly implode.<\/p>\n \u2018Will the future of humanity be determined by a handful of billionaires who have promoted and developed AI, with virtually no democratic input, who stand to become even richer and more powerful than they are today?\u2019<\/p>\n Bernie Sanders<\/p>\n As the Trump administration\u2019s previous investments in strategically important sectors demonstrates, the concept of governments pursuing industry policies isn\u2019t novel, although the track record for such investments is mixed. Indeed, China\u2019s AI and semiconductor sectors that are competing with the US for AI supremacy are being developed with Beijing\u2019s direct financial support, including shareholdings.<\/p>\n If the US was to take up stakes in its AI companies, whether via a sovereign wealth fund or, as some have suggested, via individual AI share accounts for Americans, it would raise a number of problematic issues.<\/p>\n The most obvious is the conflict of interest.<\/p>\n The government, as the Trump administration demonstrated earlier this month when it banned Anthropic from exporting its latest models<\/a> (and caused angst, bordering on panic, around the world), has the power to regulate the sector and, indeed, to destroy individual companies via regulation.<\/p>\n If it were a shareholder in Anthropic, would it have taken an action that could decimate the value of its shareholding? If American individuals held the shares directly, would the political implications of a ban have affected the decision?<\/p>\n Unless the government held shares of equal value in all AI companies and AI aspirants, which is impossible, would it be tempted to use its regulatory powers and or\/taxpayer funds to favour those in which it has an interest over those in which it doesn\u2019t? Would those companies seek favourable treatment from the government?<\/p>\n Would a level of government ownership create moral hazard<\/a> \u2013 the companies would know that they are too close to government to be allowed to fail \u2013 and breed risk-aversion?<\/p>\n Would it undermine the competitive intensity and innovation that has made the US the leader in AI?<\/p>\n Related Article Would it impact the ability of AI companies to incentivise and reward talent, or hurt their ability to attract private capital in future, or change the cost of that capital compared to companies without a government stake? How would existing shareholders feel about the value of their holdings being diluted?<\/p>\n And would \u2013 as Open AI appears to have suggested \u2013 the shareholding be gifted to the government, or would it be paid for?<\/p>\n If paid for, the government would have a politically motivated interest in preserving and increasing its value. Meta\u2019s Mark Zuckerberg has said he would rather risk misspending hundreds of billions<\/a> of dollars on AI than missing out on the AI opportunity. Could an elected government contemplate that, even if a failure to do so meant missing the opportunity?<\/p>\n Governments will be confronted with having to respond to the fallout from AI on their communities, whether it\u2019s in jobs and social disruption, or energy costs or the threat that superintelligent AI might develop a mind of its own.<\/p>\n There\u2019s a potential collision between the public interest and that of the government as a shareholder.<\/p>\n Unrestrained, profit-driven AI development might be good for shareholders and the billionaires (and the one trillionaire) driving it, but it could be very destructive to national security and the public interest.<\/p>\n What role could or should governments play in the governance of AI companies if they become stakeholders in the sector, rather than just its arm\u2019s-length regulator?<\/p>\n Should they have board representation and share responsibility for decisions taken? Is there a risk of a political lens being brought to bear on companies\u2019 decisions? Would an active role in governance deter investors, particularly foreign investors, from a sector that has an insatiable appetite for capital?<\/p>\n Related Article There are more questions than answers once the prospect of a government gaining direct stakes in companies it regulates becomes realistic and the lines between the regulator and those regulated threatens to become blurred.<\/p>\n That indicates, however, that a decision to take up equity in AI companies, whether offered voluntarily or simply expropriated with or without market-based consideration, isn\u2019t straightforward. It needs to be deeply thought through before a government jumps into the messy process of picking and investing in the perceived AI winners.<\/p>\n Whether the Trump administration is capable of working its way through the complexities of the questions posed is doubtful.<\/p>\n If Trump is offered what could be very valuable slices of trillion-dollar companies, he will almost inevitably jump at the opportunity.<\/p>\n He is, as his entire career in business and politics and his recent misadventures in the Middle East show, highly transactional and opportunistic rather than strategic and policy-minded.<\/p>\n The prospect of seizing billions, perhaps trillions, of dollars of value \u2013 possibly for nothing \u2013 would be irresistible.<\/p>\n The Business Briefing newsletter delivers major stories, exclusive coverage and expert opinion. Sign up to get it every weekday morning<\/a>.<\/p>\n Save<\/p>\n You have reached your maximum number of saved items.<\/p>\n![\"Donald](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/a3e693b3d919d09238d789748df83a5545bb241f.jpeg\")
Donald Trump has suggested that the US government should have a stake in AI companies. Getty Images<\/p>\n![\"Donald](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/1781753596_219_5a449ff9d77223194cbf43a1d8af0e0202076de4.jpeg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n![\"Meta](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/c1950ca10c675af4c94e465c5c0851d383f2c2e2.jpeg\")
Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg has said he would rather risk misspending hundreds of billions of dollars on AI than missing out on the AI opportunity. Could a government do the same?Bloomberg<\/p>\n![\"Warsh](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/1781239334_960_7a5d57ac691ee69f3445133fee29b6f6068f608a.jpeg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n![\"Data](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/63197eee9e95ebbe1b5ebd8db0123fc76e99bef1.jpeg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n