“All your stock shares are belong to us . . . “ Bernie Sanders plans to have the US government seize control of AI companies worth $1.XT

Photo above – future US senator Bernie Sanders, protesting racial segregation at 23. I prefer to remember him as the 1963 version, not the Octogenarian socialist who wants to nationalize our tech companies today.

Wow . . . have the government seize control of AI companies? (See link below). What could possibly go wrong? Bernie Sanders doesn’t seem concerned.

I’m not sure what the end game is here, Mr. Sanders. To make the companies unattractive to investors, and trigger a stock price crash? To slow up development of AI with Senate hearings and new regulations written by the “US department of AI?” To ensure spy capabilities are built into government controlled AI? Or is this a get rich quick scheme? Open AI and Anthropic – a collective stock market valuation of $1.2 trillion – doubled in value over the prior 12 months. Is seizing these companies intended to provide immediate cash for the federal government?

Nationalization is exactly what you’d expect a socialist to dream up. Instead of inventing and nurturing something from the start, simply nationalize it – or at least 50% of it, like Senatir Sanders proposes. We’ve seen this before, in 3rd world countries. Energy, transportation, agriculture. It never ends well. In fact it ends with friends and cronies of government bigshots appointed to run the newly nationalized enterprises, and driving them into bankruptcy due to incompetence.

This is why Russia has no car manufacturing. Why Venezuela’s oil exports declined by almost 50% in 2025 alone.

Let me be clear – I do NOT hate Bernie Sanders. But he IS 84 frickin’ years old, and hasn’t had a good idea since he began serving in congress 35 years ago. His best work came in 1963: opposing segregation and JFK's newly launched war in Vietnam.

I doubt if Sander’s proposal to nationalize AI firms has a snowball’s chance of hell of passage in the Senate. Or being ratified in the house. Or being signed into law by any president, Democrat or Republican.

This does NOT mean that I think AI’s best days are ahead. Analysts are in broad agreement that tech stock shares are “priced to perfection”, and that the mania for overbuilding data centers poses a huge risk of losses, and failure among some of these competitors. I don’t want the government on THAT roller coaster ride either.

In fact, I don’t want the US government to nationalize ANYTHING. Not legacy Detroit automakers. Not sugarcane like Cuba. Not oil and gas like Russia. Not outmoded canals, or mines, or steel mills. Just leave them the eff alone, and let them succeed or fail based on management competency and consumer preferences. Government control means guaranteed incompetency.

I’m just sayin’ . . .

Bernie Sanders bill would seize 50% of top AI firms' stock

Top | New | Old

SatanBurger · 36-40, F

Interestingly, the idea of an AI wealth fund isn't uniquely socialist. Even OpenAI's Sam Altman and leadership at Anthropic have previously floated the idea of a public wealth fund tied to AI growth to offset mass job displacement, though they certainly didn't envision a mandatory 50% seizure of their own boards. That's the only difference.

Few things to clear up, Sanders is indeed proposing that the government take a 50% equity stake in the nation's largest AI firms but u spin a few details.

It is accurate that Sanders announced a plan to levy a one-time 50% tax paid entirely in company stock (not cash) on dominant AI firms like OpenAI, Anthropic, and xAI.

Generally critics and market analysts agree that taxing 50% of a company's equity could severely damage investor confidence, trigger massive valuation drops, and stifle venture capital funding for US tech and that it doesn't have a chance in passing

But...

The bill explicitly states the government would take stock, not liquid cash. The end game isn't to provide immediate spending money for the current federal budget. Instead, the shares would sit in a sovereign wealth fund (similar to Alaska’s Permanent Fund or Norway’s oil fund) to pay out dividends to citizens and fund long-term public services.

Also, AI companies are already working on surveillance so Sanders barely matters but Sanders is a genuine person whose stated goal is economic and ethical restructuring, not surveillance. The bill seeks board seats to give the public a vote on issues like job displacement and ethical guardrails.

Bernie's logic centers entirely on data copyright and the "public commons."

He argues that large language models didn't invent their technology out of thin air, they were trained on generations of human knowledge—books, art, journalism, and code.... often scraped from the internet without compensation:

"When a public resource generates wealth, the public should share in that wealth. AI is being built on a public resource far more valuable than oil: the accumulated knowledge, creativity and labor of mankind." — Bernie Sanders, June 2026

Plus AI companies make trillions each year so it's not that bad.

LeopoldBloom · M

I agree, this is a bad idea, especially considering that the entire economy is being propped up by the AI bubble. Also, it's not like this will actually happen. But didn't Trump already have the government take over 10% of Intel and propose nationalizing Spirit Airlines before they folded? How is that substantially different? Donald Trump, Marxist.

BohoBabe · M

This would give us more control over AI, which is good.

SatanBurger · 36-40, F

@BohoBabe Even the ai companies floated the idea before Bernie but they didn't envision someone proposing to take 50% of stock, they didn't see that for sure. But it should be noted that even OpenAi wanted a fund because they said themselves that they need to cover mass job displacement as things process. So Sanders isn't even the one that thought of it though the 50% thing is his idea

Gibbon · 70-79, M

I hate what AI is doing but this is BS. What amazes me more, especially by the replies here that have me blocked, is how many of our younger citizens are falling for the socialism bull crap.

ItsMeMorgue · 46-50, F

...hasn’t had a good idea since he began serving in congress 35 years ago...

So you're not in favor of taxing the rich more than the rest of us, the way they did in the 1950s? That was one of the best times financially in this country's history. There were no billionaires, and the richest Americans were paying 80% income tax so the rest of us could raise a family of four on a single income.

Nationalization is exactly what you’d expect a socialist to dream up.

Because how else can we expect everyone to own it?

View 1 more replies »

ItsMeMorgue · 46-50, F

@BohoBabe In the short term, yes. Or maybe I've got it confused with communism myself. I know one or the other of them eventually is supposed to result in no government, but it's never worked that way because of corrupt humans.

BohoBabe · M

@ItsMeMorgue Communism is stateless and classless. Socialism is more about expanding democracy to include the workplace. So there is still a government, but it's more democratic.

I don't believe a society without government is possible. If we destroyed the government, we'd end up being ruled over by local warlords, so that would be the new government. That's why I prefer Socialism.

ItsMeMorgue · 46-50, F

@BohoBabe Okay. Thank you. I don't know why I was mixing them up. Especially since I also prefer socialism. Communism sounds great on paper, but it would never work in the real world.

Add a comment...