A bill from an independent
Last activity — Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
The American A.I. Sovereign Wealth Fund Act imposes an excise tax on systemically important AI companies that have gross receipts exceeding $200 million. This tax requires these companies to remit 50 percent of their outstanding equity interests to a new trust fund. The fund will be managed by the Independent Commission for Democratic AI to promote worker welfare, public safety, and environmental sustainability. Authorized distributions from the fund will provide direct payments to the American people to support a dignified standard of living. Additionally, the bill requires these AI companies to undergo structural separation through the Federal Trade Commission.
Yes· 3 of 29
- Scored +10
Would households on low incomes be better off under this?
Direct payments from the fund are specifically designed to ensure a dignified standard of living.
- Scored +10
Does this put more rules on large technology companies?
Imposes extreme ownership taxes and forced structural separation on systemically important AI companies.
- Scored +10
Does this raise the taxes companies pay?
Imposes a massive excise tax requiring systemically important AI companies to remit 50% of their equity to a public fund.
The opposite· 3 of 7
- Scored -10
Would billionaires be better off under this?
Explicitly targets the wealth of AI billionaires for redistribution to the public.
- Scored -9
Would the very wealthiest people be better off under this?
Directly targets the wealth of 'oligarchs' in the AI sector.
- Scored -8
Would business owners be better off under this?
Applicable AI business owners face 50% equity seizure and forced structural separation.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Direct Payments to Citizens: The bill authorizes appropriations from the Fund to provide direct payments to the American people to ensure a dignified standard of living, including housing, education, and health care (Section 3(b)(1)(2)).
-
Public Wealth Sharing: The legislation is based on the finding that since AI derives value from humanity's collective intelligence, the public should share in the wealth it generates (Section 2(1)-(2)).
-
Promotion of Public Interests: The Independent Commission for Democratic AI is tasked with managing the Fund to promote goals such as worker welfare, public safety, and environmental sustainability (Section 3(b)(2)(B)(i)).
Potential Negative Impacts for People
-
Burdens on AI Businesses: Companies meeting the "applicable AI company" definition must remit 50 percent of their equity interests to the government, which may impact their ownership structure (Section 3(a)(b)(1)).
-
Strict Corporate Restrictions: Applicable AI companies must undergo "structural separation," meaning they cannot conduct any business outside of AI, share officers with other entities, or participate in joint ventures with non-AI companies (Section 4(a)(2)).
-
Reporting Requirements for Businesses: Persons engaged in trade or business who purchase AI services, infrastructure, or robotics above a certain threshold must file returns and furnish statements to the Secretary (Section 3(c)(1)).
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Direct payments from the fund are specifically designed to ensure a dignified standard of living. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — Direct payments provide additional financial support to all citizens. Would children be better off under this? — Includes children in the direct payments to ensure a dignified standard of living. Would people in middle age be better off under this? — Provides direct payments to support standard of living. Would retired people be better off under this? — Universal direct payments support a dignified standard of living in retirement. Would people over 65 be better off under this? — Provides direct payments to support standard of living and health care. Would students be better off under this? — Fund distributions are specifically earmarked for education. Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this? — Provides direct payments for education and housing. Would Black Americans be better off under this? — Universal direct payments disproportionately benefit marginalized communities. Would Asian Americans be better off under this? — Universal direct payments disproportionately benefit marginalized communities. Would Hispanic Americans be better off under this? — Universal direct payments disproportionately benefit marginalized communities. Would Native Americans be better off under this? — Universal direct payments disproportionately benefit marginalized communities. Would white Americans be better off under this? — Universal direct payments benefit all citizens. Would union members be better off under this? — Includes labor representation in the Commission to promote worker welfare. Would billionaires be better off under this? — Explicitly targets the wealth of AI billionaires for redistribution to the public. Would the very wealthiest people be better off under this? — Directly targets the wealth of 'oligarchs' in the AI sector. Would business owners be better off under this? — Applicable AI business owners face 50% equity seizure and forced structural separation. Would people with substantial wealth be better off under this? — Significant impact on wealth for those invested in systemically important AI companies. Would high-income households be better off under this? — High-income individuals owning AI equity will see a 50% reduction in their ownership.
- Education And Technology
- Does this put more rules on large technology companies? — Imposes extreme ownership taxes and forced structural separation on systemically important AI companies. Does this make patent and copyright rules fairer? — The bill is founded on the principle that AI is a public resource and wealth should be shared with those whose data trained it. Does this make college cost less? — Fund distributions include support for education to ensure a dignified standard of living. Does this give people more control over their personal data? — The Commission includes a representative with expertise in privacy and data protection.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this raise the taxes companies pay? — Imposes a massive excise tax requiring systemically important AI companies to remit 50% of their equity to a public fund. Does this raise taxes on the highest earners? — Taxes equity interests of large AI companies, which primarily benefit high-net-worth owners and shareholders. Does this strengthen the rights of workers to organise? — The Fund is managed to promote worker welfare and includes a labor representative on the Commission. Does this give people more protection from unfair business practices? — The Commission is tasked with promoting public safety and fair competition. Is this likely to grow the economy? — Heavy taxes and structural separation requirements may stifle innovation and investment in the AI sector.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Is this likely to lift people out of poverty? — Provides direct payments to the American people to ensure a dignified standard of living. Does this make housing cost less? — Fund distributions are specifically directed toward ensuring a dignified standard of living including housing. Is this likely to reduce homelessness? — Direct funding for housing via the Sovereign Wealth Fund can reduce homelessness.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this give the federal government more power? — Creates a new federal Commission with power to manage equity and mandate structural separation of private companies. Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — Requires public disclosure of Commission votes and governance activities in machine-readable format. Does this leave more decisions to the states? — Increases federal oversight and control over AI industry assets.
- Healthcare
- Does this make health care easier to get in general? — Fund distributions are intended to ensure a dignified standard of living, specifically mentioning health care.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Does this better protect air, water and wildlife? — The Commission is mandated to promote environmental sustainability.
- 6/18/2026
- Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance.
- Introduced in Senate
2 bills Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.