Key Takeaways
- • Sam Altman has proposed that OpenAI gift the US government a 5% stake in the company, valued at roughly $42.6 billion at its current valuation of nearly $900 billion, as seed money for a sovereign wealth fund.
- • Altman has proposed that other AI companies, including Google, Microsoft, Anthropic, Nvidia and Meta, match the offer, which would yield total holdings of around $800 billion.
- • The author, Steven Hill, argues the Altman plan as structured is a one-time "wasting trust" that liquidates over 10 years and is insufficient, and proposes a permanent revolving fund instead.
- • Hill estimates a well-designed fund could generate a net gain of $1.4 trillion to $2.5 trillion, which he says could address Social Security's projected $2.5 trillion shortfall.
- • Hill notes 20 US states already operate sovereign wealth funds, with Alaska's at $78 billion and Texas's at $56 billion, and globally over 100 SWFs manage more than $10 trillion.
Summary
In a commentary published in The Fulcrum, policy writer Steven Hill examines whether a sovereign wealth fund (SWF) could help the United States address economic disruption from artificial intelligence. The piece opens with concerns, cited in Pope Leo XIV's encyclical Magnifica humanitas, and from AI experts across the political spectrum, that rapid AI advances could drive rising inequality and mass unemployment. In response, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman has proposed that his company give the US government a 5% stake. At OpenAI's current valuation of nearly $900 billion, Hill calculates that stake at roughly $42.6 billion. Altman has also proposed that other AI firms, including Google, Microsoft, Anthropic, Nvidia and Meta, make similar gifts, which would total around $800 billion. That endowment would seed a sovereign wealth fund.
Hill places the proposal within a broader debate. He notes that politicians including Donald Trump, Bernie Sanders, J.D. Vance and Gavin Newsom have all advanced their own SWF concepts. He cites figures showing more than 100 SWFs across over 60 countries managing over $10 trillion, with Norway's fund, at $2.1 trillion, the largest. He contrasts Norway's self-replenishing model with Saudi Arabia's fund, which he describes as having been used for unaccountable spending, including losses tied to LIV Golf. He also points out that 20 US states already operate SWFs, including Alaska ($78 billion), Texas ($56 billion), New Mexico ($34 billion), Wyoming ($26 billion) and North Dakota ($8.5 billion), most seeded by oil revenues and typically dedicated to education.
Hill's central critique is that the Altman plan is designed as a one-time "wasting trust": the Treasury would receive $800 billion up front and liquidate the fund over 10 years, after which it would be finished. He argues that a 5% stake is therefore insufficient and that the White House should demand more. He instead proposes a permanent revolving "Federal Permanent Revenue Fund," seeded by selling 10-year Treasury notes to the public, which he says could generate three to four trillion dollars annually for uses including closing the projected $2.5 trillion Social Security shortfall, which he says could otherwise cut benefits by 22% by 2032, expanding affordable housing through HUD, and funding unemployment benefits for AI-displaced workers.
Hill supports his case by citing that the US stock market has risen on average about 10% annually since 1928 and has been up roughly three of every four years, and that broad index funds have historically risen over five- to ten-year periods. He argues that the top 10% of Americans own 93% of stock equities, and frames the proposal within Louis Kelso's concept of universal capitalism. The piece is an opinion column; its projections are the author's own and have not been independently verified.
Hill places the proposal within a broader debate. He notes that politicians including Donald Trump, Bernie Sanders, J.D. Vance and Gavin Newsom have all advanced their own SWF concepts. He cites figures showing more than 100 SWFs across over 60 countries managing over $10 trillion, with Norway's fund, at $2.1 trillion, the largest. He contrasts Norway's self-replenishing model with Saudi Arabia's fund, which he describes as having been used for unaccountable spending, including losses tied to LIV Golf. He also points out that 20 US states already operate SWFs, including Alaska ($78 billion), Texas ($56 billion), New Mexico ($34 billion), Wyoming ($26 billion) and North Dakota ($8.5 billion), most seeded by oil revenues and typically dedicated to education.
Hill's central critique is that the Altman plan is designed as a one-time "wasting trust": the Treasury would receive $800 billion up front and liquidate the fund over 10 years, after which it would be finished. He argues that a 5% stake is therefore insufficient and that the White House should demand more. He instead proposes a permanent revolving "Federal Permanent Revenue Fund," seeded by selling 10-year Treasury notes to the public, which he says could generate three to four trillion dollars annually for uses including closing the projected $2.5 trillion Social Security shortfall, which he says could otherwise cut benefits by 22% by 2032, expanding affordable housing through HUD, and funding unemployment benefits for AI-displaced workers.
Hill supports his case by citing that the US stock market has risen on average about 10% annually since 1928 and has been up roughly three of every four years, and that broad index funds have historically risen over five- to ten-year periods. He argues that the top 10% of Americans own 93% of stock equities, and frames the proposal within Louis Kelso's concept of universal capitalism. The piece is an opinion column; its projections are the author's own and have not been independently verified.
Go deeper than the headline
Research every firm in this story, track the ones that matter and get the daily briefing — free for 7 days.