What do AI mogul Sam Altman, Democratic firebrand Bernie Sanders, and Donald Trump have in common? All three companies want the public to join the AI boom.
advertisement
advertisement
What they cannot agree on is the amount.
OpenAI’s CEO met with the Vermont senator in his Senate office last week at Altman’s own request to discuss Sanders’ proposal for the public to take a 50% stake in AI companies such as OpenAI, with the proceeds used to create a public wealth fund.
The Associated Press reported that Altman told Sanders he supported general principles but could not support the 50% standard, according to people familiar with the conversation.
This debate is no longer limited to Washington. Just days ago, the European Commission announced proposals in what could be the most far-reaching attempt yet to take back control of the technologies that will shape the continent’s future.
The package would remove Amazon, Microsoft and Google from the most sensitive EU government contracts and triple Europe’s data center capacity within seven years.
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said: “We cannot rely on others for the technology that keeps our hospitals running, our energy networks stable and our services safe.”
Meanwhile, in April the UK launched a £500m (€588m) sovereign AI fund aimed at investing directly in UK AI companies and reducing dependence on foreign technology providers.
Do Trump and Sanders agree?
On Friday, President Trump spoke to reporters aboard Air Force One about a potential partnership that would “allow Americans to benefit from the successes of AI,” and said executives from major AI companies were scheduled to visit the White House this week to discuss the idea.
“There’s something very interesting about this, where it almost becomes a partnership with the American people,” he said. “It would be like making them partners in this revolution. That would be great.”
When reporters pointed out that Sanders, who is often portrayed in U.S. media reports as a self-proclaimed democratic socialist and radical leftist, also proposed taking AI companies public, Trump pointed out the similarities between the two voters.
“As far as economics is concerned, we are not far off,” he said.
This is a surprising claim, given that Sanders is one of the president’s most vocal critics.
President Trump’s words and actions set him apart from most traditional Republicans when it comes to government investment in private business.
The administration last year acquired a 10% stake in chipmaker Intel, with Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick approving an $8.9 billion (8.2 billion euro) investment in Intel common stock.
The administration also considered a government bailout of Spirit Airlines that would have given the U.S. government a 90% stake in the company, but no deal was reached and the airline ultimately closed.
history lessons
This is not the first time that a revolutionary technology has caused this kind of conflict between the people who built it and those tasked with managing it.
When railroads became the first industry to be federally regulated in 1887, it was the result of decades of public anger at “robber barons” who offered sweet deals to big corporations while imposing punitive tolls on farmers and small businesses.
The Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 is now being invoked again as policymakers consider the influence of Big Tech emerging from a similar era of technological disruption.
Europe has its own version of that history. After World War II, as the continent lay in ruins, governments moved quickly to bring critical industries under public control, reasoning that indestructible infrastructure was too important to be left in private hands.
In France, the post-liberation Charles de Gaulle government nationalized gas, electricity, and coal between 1944 and 1946, creating giant national corporations such as the Électricité de France. In the same sweep, the company took control of four major commercial banks and dozens of insurance companies.
Before nationalization, France’s electricity was divided between about 200 private power generation companies, 100 transport companies and 1,150 distribution companies.
The system was so fragmented that in Lyon two companies competed directly, one selling alternating current and the other direct current.
At the heart of the argument for integration under public control was a debate over who should benefit from the technologies that have become essential to modern life.
The logic applied to AI today is strikingly similar.
no agreement yet
The hour-long meeting between Altman and Sanders underscored the growing pressure on the U.S. government to derive some public benefit from the rapidly expanding AI industry, even though Americans remain unconvinced that they are reaping the direct benefits.
Sanders’ press secretary, Jeremy Slevin, made it clear that no agreement had been reached on key points, including the 50% share that would give people decision-making power.
“Unfortunately, Sam Altman didn’t commit to any of them,” Slevin said.
Coming out of the meeting, Altman called the meeting “amazing,” adding that the two sides “obviously don’t see eye to eye on everything.”
According to a 2025 poll by the Harvard Kennedy School Institute of Politics, about 70% of college students believe AI is a threat to their future jobs.
On campus, commencement speakers are booed for talking about technology. Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley, a prominent Republican critic of Big Tech, called for legislation that would halt further data center development “until we agree to pay our own power, build our own power grid, and pay our own water.”
Mr. Altman acknowledged his concerns. “The impact on employment has been less than many in our industry expected,” he said, but added: “We understand that university students are feeling very anxious about their future.”
One of OpenAI’s main competitors, Anthropic, has proposed a mechanism to orchestrate a pause in advanced AI development if the system becomes too powerful.
The Trump administration also signed an executive order establishing a process to review the national security risks posed by advanced AI systems before making them available to the public.
Mr. Sanders noted this change with some satisfaction. “Even they are starting to realize that there are legitimate concerns that need to be addressed,” he said.
