On Thursday, Sam Altman’s OpenAI reportedly entered early talks in Washington over the government obtaining equity stakes, offering the US a 5% share to spread AI wealth, trying to ease political pressure on powerful AI companies.
According to the Financial Times, the proposal is still conceptual, and no deal has been reached. But the idea is already raising a question: what happens when the same government expected to regulate AI also becomes financially tied to its growth?
Government Public Stake in AI Boom
OpenAI’s Altman argues that the public should benefit from the huge wealth granted from AI. Under the reported proposal, OpenAI would give 5% of its equity to an investment vehicle, possibly modeled on the Alaska Permanent Fund, which invests in oil wealth and pays dividends to residents.
The idea of a US government equity stake in companies is not new but applying it to AI would be a major shift, making public ownership attractive and controversial. OpenAI has already supported a similar idea in policy papers.
In April, the company said a public wealth fund could give every citizen a stake in AI-driven economic growth.
The plan would not apply only to OpenAI. Other leading AI companies, including Anthropic, Google, Meta, and xAI, could also be asked to give a similar 5% share. It remains unclear whether those companies would agree to government equity stakes.
Based on OpenAI’s reported $852 billion valuation, a 5% government stake could be worth about $42.6 billion. If OpenAI and Anthropic list on the US stock market at valuations above $1 trillion, as some investors expect, the value could rise further.
Altman has reportedly discussed US government equity stakes with President Donald Trump, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent. He has also spoken with Senator Bernie Sanders, who requested a much stronger plan.
Tech Regulation and Political Pressure
Sanders has proposed a sovereign wealth fund financed by a one-time 50% tax on the stock of the biggest AI companies. Compared with that, OpenAI’s 5% offer may look smaller, but it could still change the relationship between Washington and Silicon Valley.
OpenAI competitor, Anthropic, recently suspended access to its Fable and Mythos models after the government flagged the AI agents as potential national security risks and imposed limitations on foreign access. The Claude-parent later restored customer access after working through safety concerns with officials.
OpenAI has also faced pressure over how it releases powerful models. Reports say its GPT-5.6 model was limited to government-approved partners at the administration’s request. In June, Trump signed a scaled-back executive order asking AI companies to share their strongest models for voluntary government review 30 days before public release.
That environment helps explain why OpenAI may see government obtaining equity stakes as more than a wealth-sharing plan. A public stake could help the company gain political support at a time when AI firms are being questioned over security, privacy, jobs, and competition.
Additionally, Trump had criticized Intel CEO Lip-Bu Tan before the administration took a 10% stake in the company. For AI developers, a US government equity stake in companies could make their growth seem like a national financial interest.
That may help them argue that supporting their expansion is also supporting public wealth.
Public Benefit or Regulatory Capture?
The hardest question is whether the US government obtaining equity stakes is a public-interest plan or a way to make the government financially dependent on Big Tech’s growth. Calling the proposal for a bribe would be a legal claim that has not been proven, but the concern behind the word is real.
A 5% stake would not give the US government majority control over OpenAI or other AI companies, as it would not allow Washington to direct the business like a controlling shareholder.
Instead, government equity stakes could create a conflict of interest. If the government owns part of an AI company, it may benefit when that company grows richer. That could weaken its willingness to impose strict rules on privacy, market power, safety, or labor disruption.
A 5% government equity stake in an AI company may sound like a tool for public benefit, but in practice, it could make regulators less neutral, especially if the state begins to see company growth as part of its own financial return.
That is why critics may see US government equity stakes as a shield for the largest AI firms. Smaller competitors may not have the same access to political negotiations, public funds, or national-interest arguments.
In that sense, the US government obtaining equity stakes may not give the public real control over AI, but could give AI companies a stronger political backstop, and more control over the government.
The final question is who will shape the digital future: elected regulators acting for the public, or companies powerful enough to make the government a partner in their rise through US government equity stakes?
Inside Telecom provides you with an extensive list of content covering all aspects of the tech industry. Keep an eye on our Intelligent Tech sections to stay informed and up-to-date with our daily articles.
