Dismissing 69% of Americans as stupid misses the real issue. The result reflects job insecurity, distrust of powerful technology companies, and a survey question framed around public benefit. When highly profitable AI firms cut staff while investing billions in automation, many people view public ownership as compensation for the economic risk they now carry.
Still, the proposed cure carries costs that the headline hides. Senator Bernie Sanders' American AI Sovereign Wealth Fund Act would impose a one-time 50% equity tax on large AI companies, place the shares in a federal fund, and distribute 5% of its value each year. The plan could create a vast public asset pool, but it could also trigger dilution, capital flight, forced separations, political disputes, and concentrated risk.
The 69% Figure Needs Context
Verasight surveyed 1,690 U.S. adults in June 2026. The version that did not name Sanders produced 69% support: 21% strong support and 48% partial support. Opposition reached 32%, split between 20% partial opposition and 12% strong opposition; rounding explains the extra point.
The survey covered adults, not workers alone. Several headlines describe respondents as U.S. employees, which overstates the sample. Support fell to 64% when the prompt identified Sanders, showing that sponsorship changed the result by five percentage points.
| Poll element | Result | Proper reading |
|---|---|---|
| Sample | 1,690 U.S. adults | National snapshot, not a worker-only poll |
| Support without Sanders' name | 69% | Broad initial approval |
| Strong support | 21% | Most supporters chose the softer option |
| Partial support | 48% | Approval may weaken when costs appear |
| Opposition | 32% | A large minority rejected the plan |
| Support with Sanders named | 64% | Sponsorship reduced approval by 5 points |
What the AI Wealth Fund Bill Would Do
The bill targets companies with at least €175 million in annual AI-related gross receipts, using the European Central Bank's July 14, 2026 reference rate. Covered activities include AI services, computing infrastructure, data centers, and advanced robotics. The tax would arrive 90 days after enactment or after a company crosses the threshold.
Specifically, the bill would:
- Transfer 50% of qualifying companies' equity into the American AI Sovereign Wealth Fund.
- Force mixed AI and non-AI groups to separate those operations within 90 days.
- Give voting power to a seven-member federal commission, with no party holding over four seats.
- Direct 5% of market value each year toward payments and public programs.
- Require purchasers above €21.9 million in AI activity to report transactions.
- Apply anti-inversion rules to firms that move offshore while retaining U.S. control.
The commission would cover labor, fund management, AI safety, privacy, and public safety. Its goals could conflict when members choose among returns, jobs, safety limits, and national competitiveness.
The Fund Math Looks Powerful
Sanders estimates an opening value near €6.14 trillion. A 5% annual draw would release about €307 billion, supporting the claim of an initial payment above €877 per resident before administrative costs or other public spending.
| Bill metric | Euro value | Main issue |
|---|---|---|
| Estimated opening fund | €6.14 trillion | Heavy concentration in one sector |
| Annual distribution rate | 5% | Weak markets could pressure capital |
| Approximate annual draw | €307 billion | Spending would depend on volatile valuations |
| Claimed payment per resident | More than €877 | Eligibility and other uses affect payouts |
| Company qualification level | €175 million revenue | Sharp threshold encourages avoidance |
The arithmetic sells the proposal. The portfolio design does not. A fund holding huge stakes in AI firms would suffer correlated losses when chip demand, model pricing, energy costs, regulation, or investor sentiment turns against the sector.
Layoffs Explain the Political Shift
Looking at the data, U.S. technology companies announced 139,156 job cuts during the first half of 2026, up 83% from the same period in 2025. Technology accounted for nearly one-third of all announced cuts. Companies cited AI in 101,743 job-cut announcements, about 23% of the national total.
Goldman Sachs economist Joseph Briggs estimates that AI could displace roughly 15 million workers, over 9% of the labor force, during a ten-year transition. He also expects many losses to prove temporary as new roles appear. Voters hear the first number more clearly because rent, debt, and health insurance run on monthly schedules.
Consequently, the public sees an AI public wealth fund as compensation for risk. Companies gain productivity, shareholders gain margins, and displaced workers absorb the immediate shock. That sequence makes shared ownership easy to sell despite severe side effects.
The Case for Public Ownership
Supporters make a serious argument. Public research, procurement, education systems, infrastructure, and human-created data helped AI firms reach commercial scale. Taxpayers also fund retraining and unemployment support when automation shifts costs away from employers. Equity gives citizens direct exposure to gains in company value, while voting shares could press firms on safety and worker protections.
In addition, OpenAI has proposed a public wealth fund seeded through cooperation between policymakers and AI companies. Anthropic has discussed national funds with AI stakes as one response to labor disruption. Public participation therefore extends past Sanders' proposal.
The Case Against a 50% Stock Tax
The rate creates the central problem. A 50% claim changes control, cuts investor claims, and places federal appointees inside corporate decisions. Pension funds, employees, founders, and shareholders would absorb part of the loss.
The bill also creates a severe threshold cliff. A company below €175 million in AI receipts keeps its equity structure. A company that crosses the line faces a transfer equal to half its ownership. Founders would delay sales, split entities, reclassify revenue, license intellectual property abroad, or stop expansion.
Structural separation adds another obstacle. Large technology groups weave AI through cloud services, advertising, chips, software, logistics, and internal tools. Separating those operations in 90 days would require disputed allocations of patents, staff, servers, contracts, debt, and revenue.
From an expert perspective, the bill would invite constitutional and tax litigation. Congress holds broad taxing power, but a targeted 50% levy paid in equity would test boundaries among taxation, property transfer, due process, and public control. Courts would decide the result.
Norway and Alaska Do Not Prove This Model
Supporters often cite Norway and Alaska, but those funds began with public-resource revenue. They did not force selected private companies to surrender half their stock. Their portfolios also spread risk across many assets.
| Model | Funding source | Portfolio | Public benefit | Key difference |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sanders AI fund | Mandatory 50% equity tax | Concentrated AI stakes | 5% annual draw | Federal voting control |
| Norway GPFG | Petroleum revenue | Broad global holdings | Supports public finances | Gradual funding and wide diversification |
| Alaska Permanent Fund | Oil royalties | Diversified assets | Dividend plus state support | Public-resource income built principal |
| OpenAI concept | Cooperative seeding | Long-term diversified assets | Citizen participation | No 50% mandate specified |
Norway's fund held about €1.92 trillion at the end of 2025, with 71.3% in equities and 26.5% in fixed income. Alaska's fund reached about €80 billion in May 2026. Their results support disciplined public investing, not automatic approval of every sovereign-fund proposal.
