Daniel Mercer
On Friday, President Donald Trump revealed his consideration of a partnership with major AI companies, potentially involving government equity similar to his previous arrangement with Intel. He plans to meet with these industry leaders as early as next week to discuss the specifics of this initiative.
This development poses challenges for David Sacks, who articulated his concerns in a lengthy tweet criticizing Bernie Sanders’ proposal. Sanders advocates for legislation that would enable the government to acquire a 50% ownership stake in AI firms. Interestingly, Sacks’ criticisms could also be directed at Trump, as the two proposals share notable similarities based on the limited information currently available.
Trump expresses interest in the government taking equity in major AI firms like OpenAI or Anthropic: “There’s something very interesting about it, where it almost becomes a partnership with the American public. The American people can benefit from the success of… pic.twitter.com/Wcy5RbbJ78
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) June 5, 2026
NOTUS reported that OpenAI’s Sam Altman has been in discussions with Trump regarding a potential government investment in the AI company. This notion aligns with perspectives held by some on the left, which Sacks focused on in his critique rather than addressing Trump directly.
“While I’m no supporter of socialism or arbitrary wealth confiscation, I understand why Bernie Sanders’ proposal (for the government to take a 50% stake in AI companies) resonates, even among many conservatives,” Sacks stated at the beginning of his tweet on Thursday.
Sacks, who previously held the position of Trump’s crypto and AI advisor, argued that AI companies have contributed to unnecessary fear surrounding the implications of this emerging technology. He acknowledged the concerns of everyday individuals, particularly conservatives, but maintained that government investment in AI firms is not the appropriate response.
“Dario [Amodei] and Sam [Altman] have started to retract their claims regarding massive job losses, but the damage to public trust is already done, and now the consequences are becoming apparent. I could almost view the Sanders proposal as a tax on ignorance,” Sacks expressed.
While I’m no fan of socialism or arbitrary confiscations of wealth, I can see why Bernie Sanders’ proposal (for the government to take a 50% stake in AI companies) resonates, including with many on the right.
The CEOs of the leading AI labs have told us repeatedly that they will… https://t.co/CqWYYhkDhC
— David Sacks (@DavidSacks) June 5, 2026
On Friday, the White House announced its intention for Trump to accelerate the adoption of AI models within the U.S. government, particularly in the context of national security. the administration clarified it would not engage in practices that raise concerns, explicitly stating there would be no “unauthorized or unlawful surveillance activities.”
This assurance carries little weight, considering the permissive nature of FISA court renewals, which make various forms of surveillance on Americans permissible, especially under the Trump administration’s interpretation of legality. Clearly, they recognize the heightened anxiety surrounding these issues.
Earlier this year, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth clashed with Anthropic over its refusal to remove safeguards that would permit Claude to be utilized for fully autonomous weaponry and domestic surveillance. This situation is concerning, indicating that the U.S. military is interested in deploying AI for both autonomous weapons and surveillance purposes.
Interestingly, Hegseth appears to be facing setbacks in his efforts against Anthropic, as recent reports from Reuters indicate that the tension between the government and the AI firm is “showing signs of easing.” If Trump decides to invest in AI—potentially viewing it as a method to distribute stimulus checks ahead of the midterm elections—it would imply that the Pentagon cannot afford to maintain hostilities with Anthropic. This shift could position AI companies as essential partners for the government.
The future remains uncertain regarding whether Trump will proceed with investments in AI firms, and if he does, it’s unclear which companies might resist. It appears that Hegseth and Sacks are both contending with larger forces: Trump’s unpredictable allegiances and his ambition to exert control over various sectors while providing financial incentives to his supporters.
Ethan Carter
