Sources: US officials discussed the US taking stakes in major AI companies after Sam Altman pitched the idea in 2025; Altman met Bernie Sanders on Wednesday
just surprise).@jimstewartson:They're trying to guarantee their own survival by giving Trump motivation to bail them out when they need hundreds of billions of dollars. This is some East India Trading Company shit. The broligarchy is attempting a hostile takeover.Jeff Stein /@jstein_star:SCOOP: US officials have had talks about having government acquire shares in AI giants, sources say Altman has discussed w/ senior officials, including Trump. Did again recently May be *ceding* shares to USG - n
Wall Street Journal
Context & Ripple Effects
The reported discussions follow earlier efforts by Sam Altman and other OpenAI executives to secure very large sums for US AI infrastructure. Related coverage also says the White House and OpenAI have discussed a possible government stake and a proposed public-wealth-fund-like structure.
The story has moved from an initial pitch to reported discussions over how federal equity ownership could be structured, while Trump has said he is weighing proposals and plans to speak with AI-lab executives. That makes the question less about a single company’s financing and more about the terms of public participation in leading AI firms.
First-order effects
US officials and major AI companies would need to define what a federal stake means in practice: ownership, valuation, governance rights, and the scope of any reciprocal commitments.
For Altman and OpenAI, the discussions create a potential new route to align private capital-intensive AI expansion with federal backing, but also expose the company to greater public and political scrutiny.
Second-order effects
Other leading AI labs could face pressure to consider comparable arrangements if government ownership becomes a favored path to support strategically important AI infrastructure.
A federal stake could complicate private fundraising and competitive positioning by introducing questions over whether participating firms receive preferential access, influence, or credibility.
Third-order effects
If pursued broadly, equity ownership would move US AI policy beyond regulation and procurement toward direct state participation in the sector’s upside and governance.
The durability of such a model would depend on whether officials can separate strategic support from day-to-day corporate control; absent clear boundaries, it could intensify concerns about favoritism and market concentration.
The trend: This is a data point in the shift from treating AI primarily as a private technology market to treating leading AI capabilities and infrastructure as strategic national assets.
Wall Street Journal confirming our reporting today, with some new details that gov shares in OpenAi could go to Trump account-type program by @AmrithRamkumar & co [image]
I see the idea of AI socialism is back in the news again today. I'll just reiterate what I've said here many times before: The idea of nationalizing AI - whether “hard” (complete govt ownership) or “soft” (equity stakes) nationalization - should be rejected in all its forms. It
Government equity in the AI companies strikes me as the wrong approach. The government should tax and regulate them, and potentially distribute the taxes as a dividend. But ownership risks giving the gov't control outside of public view and potentially the wrong incentives.
among redistributive solutions, this direct stake concept is uniquely hard to internationalise. USG won't want other countries crowding in, shares are expensive and labs have no incentive to cease them. if this solves redistribution in the US, it pulls up the ladder right after.
if this is how the US tries to solve the inequality and revenue challenge, that's really bad news. if it actually works, it's the ultimate regulatory capture, interweaving the US budget and the AI labs' fate. talk about an incentive for backstops and regulatory concessions!
This is the road to techno-fascism. These companies will use this to prevent competition, harness all our data and make themselves too big to fail. They will become Big Brother.
This means “confiscating” part of the company rather than investing in the company. This is an extraordinarily bad idea that's only been proposed by socialists (Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump).
This is basically the Bernie proposal. Really never expected that electing Trump would push U.S. govt so far toward actual socialism (not even a judgment call — just surprise).
They're trying to guarantee their own survival by giving Trump motivation to bail them out when they need hundreds of billions of dollars. This is some East India Trading Company shit. The broligarchy is attempting a hostile takeover.
SCOOP: US officials have had talks about having government acquire shares in AI giants, sources say Altman has discussed w/ senior officials, including Trump. Did again recently May be *ceding* shares to USG - not a purchase Shares could go 2 dividend https://www.notus.org/...
Guy whose company is floundering pitches idea for government to give them giant bags of money. US officials, who are tech stupid and gullible, consider the idea. [embedded post]