Public Ownership of AI? US Officials Eye Stake in Tech Revolution
Public ownership of AI US officials – Amid growing concerns over the concentration of power in the hands of tech giants, a surprising coalition of figures from different political spectrums is emerging. Sam Altman, the CEO of OpenAI, has found himself in alignment with Bernie Sanders, a leading voice of the Democratic Party, and Donald Trump, the former president, on the idea of giving the public a meaningful role in the artificial intelligence sector. This shared vision suggests a broader movement toward ensuring that the benefits of the AI boom are not solely reserved for private entities but are distributed more equitably among the public.
The Debate Over Public Control
Last week, Altman met with Senator Bernie Sanders at his Senate office, an encounter initiated by the CEO himself. The discussion centered on Sanders’ proposal to grant the public a 50% ownership stake in AI companies like OpenAI. According to reports from the Associated Press, Altman acknowledged the general appeal of public involvement but hesitated at the 50% threshold, citing concerns about the feasibility of such a model. This exchange highlights the tension between idealism and pragmatism in shaping the future of AI governance.
Meanwhile, the European Commission has introduced its own plan to assert greater control over the technologies shaping the continent’s development. The proposed framework aims to restrict the most sensitive government contracts in the EU to companies like Amazon, Microsoft, and Google, while also significantly boosting the region’s data centre capacity over the next seven years. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen emphasized the importance of self-reliance, stating,
“We cannot afford to depend on others for the technologies that keep our hospitals running, our energy grids stable and our services secure.”
This stance reflects a broader strategy to secure Europe’s technological independence in an increasingly globalized digital landscape.
A Growing Movement Across the Atlantic
Further across the channel, the United Kingdom has taken a direct approach with the launch of its Sovereign AI Fund, a £500 million initiative announced in April. The fund is designed to invest in domestic AI firms, reducing reliance on foreign technology providers. This move underscores the UK’s commitment to fostering innovation within its borders while positioning itself as a key player in the global AI race.
Back in the United States, Trump’s recent comments on AI have added a new layer to the conversation. During a press briefing aboard Air Force One, the former president outlined a vision where the American public would share in the success of AI advancements. He suggested that executives from leading AI companies would visit the White House to explore this idea. “There’s something very interesting about it, where it almost becomes a partnership with the American public,” Trump remarked. “It’s like you make them partners in this revolution. It would be a beautiful thing.”
Interestingly, Trump highlighted the alignment between Sanders and himself, noting that their voter bases share overlapping interests. When reporters pointed out that Sanders, often labeled as a radical leftist in media coverage, had also proposed public ownership of AI firms, Trump emphasized the economic similarities. “As far as economics is concerned,” he said, “we have certain things that aren’t that far apart.” This claim is notable given that Sanders has been one of Trump’s most vocal critics in recent years.
Historical Precedents in Tech Governance
The push for public ownership of AI echoes historical patterns in technology regulation. Decades ago, the rise of railroad monopolies sparked public outrage, leading to the first federal regulations in 1887. The era of “robber barons” saw companies charge exorbitant rates to farmers and small businesses while offering favorable terms to larger corporations. This prompted a reevaluation of who should control the infrastructure of the time, resulting in significant government intervention.
Similarly, the current debate over AI governance is drawing parallels to past moments of technological upheaval. The Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, which aimed to curb monopolistic practices, is now being invoked as policymakers consider the dominance of Big Tech. The question of who benefits from these innovations—whether it’s the public or a select few—has resurfaced with renewed urgency. Europe, too, has its own historical context for this shift. After World War II, governments across the continent rapidly nationalized critical industries, arguing that infrastructure vital to societal stability should not be left in private hands.
In France, for instance, the post-war government under Charles de Gaulle took control of gas, electricity, and coal between 1944 and 1946. This led to the creation of state-owned giants like Électricité de France. The process also extended to the banking and insurance sectors, consolidating power under public oversight. Prior to nationalization, the French electricity industry was fragmented, with around 200 private generation companies, 100 transport firms, and 1,150 distribution operators. In cities like Lyon, this fragmentation led to direct competition between companies, with one offering alternating current and another direct current. The rationale for consolidation was clear: to ensure that the public, not private interests, reaped the rewards of essential technologies.
Today, the logic being applied to AI is strikingly similar. The debate revolves around who should control the tools that are reshaping economies and societies. As Altman and Sanders’ meeting demonstrates, even within the tech sector, there is a growing recognition that public participation is not just a possibility but a necessity. The question now is whether this trend will gain momentum or remain a niche idea in the evolving landscape of technology policy.
Trump’s administration has already taken steps toward integrating government and private enterprise. Last year, the administration acquired a 10% stake in Intel, with Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick confirming an $8.9 billion investment in the company’s common stock. This move marked a departure from traditional Republican approaches, which have historically favored minimal government interference. The administration also explored a potential bailout for Spirit Airlines, which could have given the US government a 90% stake in the carrier. Though the deal was never finalized, it illustrates the administration’s willingness to take bold measures in critical sectors.
These actions signal a shift in how leaders are approaching the governance of transformative technologies. The idea of public ownership, once a radical notion, is now being considered by figures from both ends of the political spectrum. Whether this represents a new era of collaboration or a strategic move to align different interests remains to be seen. What is certain, however, is that the conversation about AI’s role in society is no longer confined to Washington, but is gaining traction across the globe as nations seek to shape the tech revolution on their own terms.
