ChatGPT maker OpenAI is in “early discussions” with the Trump administration about giving the government a 5% ownership stake in the company, the Financial Times reported Thursday, citing two anonymous sources with knowledge of the matter.
CEO Sam Altman’s proposal reportedly calls for OpenAI to allocate 5% of its capital to an American private equity fund, a type of government-regulated investment. With OpenAI’s current valuation of $852 billion, 5% of that would come from buying $42 billion from the US government.
Under Altman’s plan, other AI giants like Google, Meta and Anthropic could do the same, but it’s unclear if they would be interested. OpenAI did not respond to a request for comment.
There is no guarantee that the government will make such an agreement. But if the plan moves forward, it will give OpenAI a much-coveted financial and reputational boost amid growing criticism of AI.
The move could also allow OpenAI to ease political and regulatory pressure as the company faces tighter government oversight and constraints on model releases as it prepares to go public. The AI company, and competitor of Anthropic, is slowly taking steps towards an initial public offering, allowing anyone to buy shares.
While Altman may be trying to mend his relationship with Washington and keep the company’s IPO plans on track, the deal could also illegally boost the value of AI companies in the eyes of Wall Street — or put taxpayers on the hook for a bailout if the AI boom turns into a bust.
What is a public wealth fund?
An AI sovereign wealth fund can give the government “skin in the game,” so to speak, and return some of the “highs” of the AI boom to the government, which, according to OpenAI, can be shared with all of us.
For example, take the Alaska Permanent Fund. The state government of Alaska takes up to 25% of the money it earns from the oil and mineral industries (for example, drilling rights and leases) and invests it in the stock market. Then, every year, the state cuts a check for full-time Alaskans from the fund’s investment income.
Last month, Senator Bernie Sanders proposed a public wealth fund in a new law that would make the US take a 50% share, writing in The New York Times: “Since AI is built on the collective knowledge of humanity, the wealth generated should benefit humanity.”
Right now, AI companies haven’t turned a profit — they spend more on data center infrastructure and computing than they do on subscriptions. The point is that if AI becomes profitable in the future, the financial success should be shared with everyone, not just tech CEOs.
AI’s public wealth fund, OpenAI said in an April policy paper, that returns could be “distributed directly to citizens” and managed to ensure that AI does not exacerbate economic inequality.
What is the calculus of the AI industry?
The push for a government stake could endear Altman and company to administration officials, who have been seeking more control over the AI industry in recent months. Citing national security concerns, President Trump recently ordered a new government review process for new AI models at the border before they are released.
Some critics read the move as an attempt to shore up the government before the AI industry goes south, effectively creating a sort of bailout.
Watch this: Prepare to Live with Two Siris (Without Paying)
If approved, the government’s stake in OpenAI “significantly changes the investor base” for the IPO, said Indranil Bandyopadhyay, principal analyst at Forrester. “Some institutional investors will see this as a sign of risk-taking; others will price it as an overreach.”
Shares of around 5% would also be expensive and require congressional approval, making a deal unlikely. Ed Zitron, author of the newsletter Where’s Your Ed At and the Better Offline podcast, told CNET that, while US families are facing record living costs, the $42 billion price tag would make that move “incredibly unpopular.”
“OpenAI is desperate and has been rejecting private equity fund ideas and government investment for over a year,” Zitron said. “This is another sign that the company does not know what to do without begging people for money.”
