Most Americans want to force AI companies to share their profits with the public, poll finds
A new survey of nearly 1,700 U.S. adults shows 69% support taking half the stock of major AI firms and placing it into a public fund. The backdrop: rising tech layoffs and swelling corporate profits.
Key points
- A June 2026 survey of 1,690 U.S. Adults by research firm Verasight found that 69% support requiring AI companies to transfer half their stock to a public wealth fund.
- Senator Bernie Sanders introduced the American AI Sovereign Wealth Fund Act in June 2026, proposing a 50% public ownership stake in the largest U.S. AI companies.
- Goldman Sachs estimated last month that over 9% of the U.S. Workforce, roughly 15 million people, could lose their jobs across a decade-long AI transition.
- Windfall Trust notes sovereign wealth funds face a hard tension between earning the best financial returns for citizens and keeping AI development on home soil.
Nearly seven in ten Americans want the government to claim a share of Big Tech's AI gains. That's the headline finding from a June 2026 Verasight survey of 1,690 adults, published earlier this month and first reported by CNBC Tech.
The proposal put to respondents: forcing AI companies to hand half their stock to a sovereign wealth fund, a government-owned pool that invests on the public's behalf, similar to the funds Norway and Singapore use to save oil revenues for citizens.
Benjamin Leff, chief executive of Verasight, put it plainly. "In the eyes of the public, AI Sovereign funds are seen as a tool to distribute the gains from the AI industry back to broader society," he said.
The poll lands at a charged moment. Tech companies are spending heavily on AI while cutting staff, and workers have noticed the mismatch. Our story on 26 former Meta workers suing over AI-driven layoffs, published 14 July 2026, captures exactly how that frustration is turning legal.
Goldman Sachs economist Joseph Briggs put a number to the risk last month: around 15 million U.S. Workers could be displaced over a ten-year AI transition, accounting for more than 9% of the labour force. Briggs considers those losses temporary, expecting AI to generate new roles over time. That's a hopeful position, but it doesn't help someone whose job disappears next year.
Will a law actually make this happen?
Not yet. Sanders' bill, introduced in June 2026, hasn't passed, and legislation of this scale faces a long, uncertain road through Congress. He argued it would ensure "the economic benefits generated by AI are used to improve the lives of all of us, not simply to make the richest people in the world even richer."
Windfall Trust flags a genuine complication even if such a fund came into existence. A fund built to maximise citizen returns might find its best investment is a foreign AI firm, not a domestic one. That puts financial duty and national strategy in direct conflict.
For ordinary workers the picture right now is modest: this is a public mood, not a policy. But 69% is a striking number, and it signals that patience with productivity gains flowing mainly to shareholders is wearing thin. What I'd watch is whether any Senate colleague picks up Sanders' bill, because without co-sponsors it stays a press release.
