Altman and Sanders discuss public ownership in AI companies

Bernie Sanders, Sam Altman and Donald Trump rarely sound like allies. Yet all three have started moving toward some version of public ownership or public stake in artificial intelligence, a sign that the debate over AI is shifting from technology to power, profit and who gets left out.

Sanders has pushed the hardest on redistribution. The Vermont senator proposed that the public should take a 50% ownership stake in AI companies such as OpenAI, using those stock holdings to build a public wealth fund that would spread gains from the AI boom. His argument is straightforward: if AI firms are building fortunes on public infrastructure, public policy and a society expected to absorb the shocks of automation, the public should capture some of the return.

Altman, who runs OpenAI, has not embraced Sanders’ 50% threshold. But he has told Sanders that he wants the public to have equity in AI companies and that he wants to work with the senator on the broader idea. That is an unusual point of overlap between a democratic socialist and one of Silicon Valley’s most influential executives, and it underscores how quickly the conversation has moved beyond product launches and model releases.

Trump has also entered the debate, telling reporters that Americans could benefit from AI success and suggesting that leading AI companies may come to the White House to discuss the concept. The president’s interest fits a broader pattern in his second term, as he has already shown a willingness to bring the federal government directly into private firms, including a 10% federal stake in Intel. Before a deal collapsed, he also discussed a possible government takeover of Spirit Airlines.

The convergence does not mean agreement. Sanders is focused on distribution and on building a wealth fund that would spread the profits of AI more broadly. Altman is signaling support for public equity, but not for Sanders’ specific demand that the public own half of the companies. Trump’s approach is more transactional, framing government involvement as a way to ensure Americans benefit from AI and to keep the White House at the center of the negotiation.

What ties the three together is the belief that the market alone may not solve AI’s biggest problems. The issue is no longer just who builds the best models or secures the most chips. It is who controls the infrastructure, who concentrates the power, and whether the public shares in the wealth created by systems that depend on public tolerance for automation’s social costs.