OpenAI has started discussions to give the US government a 5% stake in the company, according to a FT report, with CEO Sam Altman reportedly bringing up the idea as a method to smooth relations with the Trump administration.
Of course, as of now, there is no deal or agreement, and no guarantee that the idea will ever move beyond conversations. Any arrangement would almost certainly require political support and significant legal work before it could become a reality. Yet the fact that OpenAI is even having the conversation tells us a lot about the seriousness with which artificial intelligence is now treated, both in Silicon Valley and Washington.
Many people’s first reaction was understandable. If the government owns a piece of OpenAI, does that mean ordinary Americans get a piece of it too? It’s an enticing idea when AI companies boast eye-popping valuations while promising to reshape the economy. Unfortunately, that’s not exactly a likely outcome, regardless of intentions.
Access to the AI economy
Reports suggest Sam Altman discussed a model modeled after the Alaska Permanent Fund, which invests the state’s oil revenues and distributes annual payments to residents. It’s a strange view of AI as a natural resource rather than a software business. Optimistic fans of AI who insist that it will be economically transformative might see it that way, and if they’re right, perhaps some of that value should eventually return to the public, many of whom helped gradually train the models through their use.
But having the government own shares in OpenAI wouldn’t automatically translate into a check for everyone. The financial benefits would depend on many small details, including whether the profits would actually be distributed and whether they would go to public services or even the national debt through your own bank account.
Although they are just a glimpse of a rumored conversation, the questions are worth taking seriously. AI companies are asking society to embrace changes that could alter workplaces, education, healthcare, and entire industries. It’s not unreasonable for people to wonder whether they should share in the wealth created by these changes.
The power at stake
There’s another reason why these discussions are important, and it could be even more important than the financial aspect. OpenAI is now part of a broader conversation about the national economy and technology leadership. Governments around the world are increasingly viewing advanced AI as strategic infrastructure rather than just another mainstream technology.
This explains why OpenAI might want a closer relationship with Washington. AI companies already rely on government decisions. These connections are likely to become even more important as AI models become larger and more expensive to build.
But governments are supposed to regulate powerful companies fairly and independently. Becoming a shareholder in one of these companies could make the relationship seem unethical, even with the best will in the world. Public trust often depends as much on appearances as on legal structures. Especially since there is even less feeling that OpenAI’s competitors like Google, Anthropic or Meta are following suit.
Government ownership doesn’t automatically mean the public owns any part of OpenAI in any meaningful way, and it certainly doesn’t guarantee that anyone will benefit personally. So even as the proposal begins to become more real, skepticism and a careful eye on any real deal is a healthy approach.
Follow TechRadar on Google News And add us as your favorite source to get our news, reviews and expert opinions in your feeds.
